Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Square root – soda is only dangerous if taken to extremes. Same as alcohol. Same as all things. Soda is not inherently dangerous. It should be enjoyed in moderation as with everything. Eating steak is not bad for you. Eating 10 steaks for breakfast, 10 for lunch, and 10 for dinner will probably result in a heart attack at some point. Everything in moderation. Donuts are not healthy. A single donut will not kill you. Eating nothing but donuts will probably make you fat and then a heart attack. Enjoy life has to offer but in moderation.
I’m going to stop reading this thread bec I’m worried it is going to start entering sinas chinam and logon hora territory.
With that said –
Moshiach has not yet come. Why not? Our avodas H-Shem is insufficient. Probably mostly bec sinas chinam. Who cares who Moshiach is? That’s irrelevant. There’s not a single person here who the answer to that question is meaningful.
So…
Perfect your avodas H-Shem! Don’t worry about the other persons! He davens different from you? Not your business. He wears a shtreimel? Not your business. Your business? Serve G-d!
As it is said – most people spend a lot of time worrying about their own gashmius and their neighbors Ruchnius. That’s backwards. Worry more about your own ruchnius and have more concern about your neighbors gashmius.
Telling other frum yidden that they have the same beliefs as goyim is not bringing Moshiach.
I’m BT and as a kid you guys all looked the same to me!
Now that I’m older I have to ask myself why don’t we have moshiach? Is it bec this group doesn’t daven like the other group and HKBH says we should all daven like them? Or bec this group learns differently from that group and HKBH wants us to learn like the other group?
Do both groups believe in one borei haolam? Yes. Do both keep Shabbos? Yes. Kosher? Yes. Etc.
Why don’t we have moshiach? Sinas chinam. And 80-90 percent of yidden have no connection to yiddishkeit. I see occasionally people fight about this stuff that almost looks like Israel on October 6. People arguing and arguing when our father wants us to love each other. Personally, whenever I see Chabad they seem to love all Jews everywhere all the time regardless of their observance or how they observe. They seem to be the embodiment of Ahavas chinam.
It’s not like one group is saying you can eat non kosher or not keep Shabbos. You are talking about two groups that agree on 99 percent of everything and some people in one group think their rebbe was or is moshiach. How does that affect your avodas H-Shem? Is this argument really what your father who is in heaven and who holds back king moshiach wants? Or does he want us to perfect our avodah and love Jews?
Just a quick and small thought from an ignorant yid who loves H-Shem and longs to make mitzvos.
Good morning!
First of all I’m sorry to hear you are suffering in your struggle.
I am BT so some things are easier for me and some things harder. Obviously we all know this in our heads but sometimes we forget in our hearts. H-Shem loves each of us more than we can possibly know. He knows the challenges we face. Every single one of us makes mistakes and H-Shem loves us so much before the mistake and just as much after the mistake. You are loved more than you possibly can know and He knows the temptation and struggle he makes in you and understands all of your mistakes and my mistakes and everyone’s mistakes.The recommendation to speak with a chabad rabbi/Rebbetzin is probably bec they deal with people with questions routinely. I mean they go out in the community and people who are struggling or thinking that they are the only ones with such and touch problems come to them. They are generally very sympathetic and understanding. Your community might be the same but some are more and some or less. I find that chabad is universally, thoughtful, understanding, and loving and nonjudgmental. If you have a good relationship with your parents, they would probably be the first ones to speak with but it’s possible they might not have so much experience also in which case and experienced Rabbi or Rebbetzin might be better. Personally, I found that Chabad has just been really easy to talk to.
Personally, living in the Los Angeles valley, I’ve had at least two and possibly three or four shots/sports jackets that were Shatnez. I think all but one or two could be corrected (eg collar lining removed) but the suit didn’t look as nice after. One was inherently Shatnez and I had it checked when it was too late to return so I gave it away to a gentile.
I have been reading this website for a while and only rarely comment. I am middle aged, raised traditional, and gradually became fully observant. It seems to
me from reading the comments that the vast majority if not all the commenters here are ffb and raised in a very narrow and religious upbringing. Not saying that’s bad but that’s definitely a small minority of the jewish population. The first temple was destroyed because of the three cardinal sins and rebuilt shortly thereafter. The second temple was destroyed despite great Torah learning bec of sinas chinam. The second temple won’t be rebuilt except through ahavas chinam. The reality is that the vast majority of Judaism is estranged from the religion. Torah learning is great but is insufficient to rebuild the temple. Ahavas chinam is necessary. So the question we should be asking is of course we need to learn Torah and make mitzvos. But without reaching out to the vast majority of Jews who know nothing about it … it’s almost like what’s the point? I mean of course do mitzvos. But what does it take to being in our estranged brothers and sisters? Whatever we need to do to bring them in we need to do. That’s why chabad is so fantastic. In contrast to many here they don’t try
To alienate our not-yet-observant brothers and sisters. They are working to expose them often for the first time to the beauty of Judaism and so bring them nearer to HKBH.Jackk- see figure two. The Rand paper says the ban caused decrease in homicide rates but if you look at the data – figure two – you see that the homicide rate continuously decreased from 1980 to 2010 with the exception of the spike. It looks like it is about 1996 or 1997. Otherwise it is a long progressive downward trend in curve. The rate of decrease appears know more after the ban as compared to before.
Jackk- the murder rate in Australia was decreasing before the mean and continued decreasing exactly the same right after the ban. I don’t believe anyone believes that a change to be changing the murder rate. I just continued the same trajectory it had before.
Jackk – oh my point was that many if not most Democrats want to ban us from having rifles in from full capacity magazines. My next point was that rifles are responsible for relatively few murders in this country. Firearm murders largely are caused by handgun not rifles. In fact as I showed more people are murdered by knives by far than by rifles, so the Democrats goal of banning rifles and Hook about to be magazine will result in very little increase in murder. If they were more people are murdered by knives by far than by rifles, so the Democrats goal of banning rifles and book about to be magazine, will result in very little increase in murder. If they were serious about taking away firearms because of murder, logically they would want to take away handguns. That was my point. Now in their hearts, almost for sure, they do want to ban all firearms. Hillary Clinton called for in Australia, like policy where the government sees nearly all guns from the population. She is one politician that said it explicitly. Others have also said they want policy like Australia where the government took nearly all Firearms from all citizens.
FYI here is many us senators calling for banning rifles. Joe Biden also called for banning them. As well as full capacity magazines. Also red flag laws that means if someone is accused of being problematic or threatening, they do not receive due process but rather the court can see is their weapons. So if a disgruntled ex girlfriend or employee or ex spouse is angry with you, they can complain to the police and the police will seize your weapons. No due process is what red flag laws mean.
https://www.pbs. org/newshour/amp/politics/what-action-should-be-taken-on-guns-we-asked-every-senator
https://www.whitehouse. gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/03/14/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-actions-to-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our-communities-safer/
Jackk – as I mentioned rifles are used in a relatively small number of murders. I showed the statistics. By far and away handguns are the guns of choice. So, if you say that, seizing firearms from law, abiding citizens will decrease the murder rate you are really talking about taking away handguns not rifles. Knives are responsible for more murder than rifles. So if knives are responsible for more merger than rifles. So if you really want to address murder, logically it would make sense to make knives illegal. Of course, only law-abiding citizens not criminals would obey those laws. So you would have just removed the ability of guys to defend themselves, leaving weapons only in the hands of criminals. That doesn’t really make sense to me. If you said the police were going to seize the weapons of every criminal, and after they were all disarmed then we could talk about disarming the law-abiding citizens I would say well let’s at least start with disarming the criminals. But it doesn’t make any sense to disarm the law abiding citizens, and leave all the weapons in the hands of the criminals, which is what any law would do.
Lostspark – it has been made abundantly clear to anyone with eyes that the government is not there to protect you from harm. We had riots and civil unrest for two or three years now. It is self evident that the police are not there to protect you from attacks. at this point only someone willfully blind, who intentionally closes, his eyes believes that the police will be there to protect you from attacks. We are, each of us, responsible for our own self-defense, and for the safety of our families. Any law, restricting firearms will be honored only by law, abiding citizens, and not by criminals, of course. if you agree that individuals are responsible for his own defense, and that laws regarding Firearms will only be obeyed by law-abiding citizens, and not criminals the obvious next thought is that you should take whatever actions necessary to be able to provide the best defense for you and your family. In the year 2023 that means Firearms. of course we all have emunah and bitachon but – G-d gave us saichel and sense. We are permitted to use doctors and expected do use the natural order of things in our daily lives. We are expected to live with emunah and bitachon but still exploit how G-d designed the natural order of things. That means when it comes to safety we must use common sense. We are not permitted to stick our fingers in the electrical socket. We are not permitted to make a fire in the middle of our house, where the fire could burn down the house. Similarly, we are responsible for our safety and the safety of our family. I don’t know how many people live in Brooklyn and Manhattan, but come on. If the last three years have taught us anything, it’s that the police are not there to protect you, and the government doesn’t care if a Jewish community is attacked. I don’t understand why someone knowing this would not take reasonable precautions to keep his family safe.
Ctlawyer – I don’t know enough about the first two cases you cited, but I am not aware of any serious person who believes Roe versus Wade was decided correctly. They just kind of made stuff up. As far as I recall, there was never a citation of the constitution that supported roe versus wade. The current court did the right thing which was, if such and such power is not granted by the constitution, it goes to the states. Roe versus Wade was always an abomination. In aggressive court, seizing power, it did not have. The constitution is supposed to give Ltd enumerated powers to the federal government. Everything else belongs to the states. That power is now where it belongs. Liberal states get to have unlimited abortion. Conservative states get to put restrictions on it. If you don’t like what your state is doing, you can convince your neighbors to elect representatives to vote differently. Or you can move. This never should have been of any federal interest.
With that said, the number of times the Supreme Court has overruled itself on any major decision is tiny. Unless the court makes a radical mistake as it did with Roe v Wade it should instead maintain precedence and so hopefully the current understanding of the bill of rights alluding to individual not group rights will stand for a long time.
Jackk- are you serious about there being no evidence politicians want to take away guns? Hilary said in a speech she wants gun confiscation. Beto said he’s coming for our rifles. Biden said he wants to ban them too. You can’t possibly be serious. If you watch the news for an hour or read a single newspaper, it is filled with left-wing politicians talking about banning guns. You really genuinely can’t be serious, right? Or are you not allowed to read newspapers, or watch television news? Most Democratic politicians who have made a statement about guns has said they want to ban rifles and full capacity magazines. I mean I don’t know how to discuss this any further. It is like it is noon and I say the sun is out and you say no it is dark outside. this really is not a controversial topic. Democrats generally want to ban citizens from having guns. Conservatives generally want people to take responsibility for their own safety with the best tools possible. That means guns.
2sxents –
ABSOLUTELY carry without training is frankly irresponsible. If you do not have solid fundamentals and solid practical/tactical training you should not be carrying.
2- regarding pediatric trauma. The study I am aware of that study. This was a terrible study. When they talked about trauma, they talked about people under 20 years old. The vast vast majority of gunshot victims were something like 17 to 19 year olds are on the streets. Not children going to school in the wrong place and the wrong time. More like people in bad areas like Chicago. Not children. More like 17 to 19 year olds where really they are more like adults. I’ve not yet seen a study talking about legitimate children. Say 13 and under.
CTLawyer – in fact in 1785 they DID have semi-automatic weapons. They were however very expensive and were not profitable to make which is why people didn’t have them. The technology existed. I think the Supreme Court also has been clear that regardless of what you or I think, the Bill of Rights is a statement of personal rights, and specifically (regardless of what you or I think) the second amendment has been repeatedly confirmed by the SC to be an individual right, not a group right. Finally all the laws that people pass are relevant ONLY for law abiding citizens. Ridiculous magazine limitations affect only you and me – not criminals. Criminals will have rifles. And full capacity magazines. The question is not will the law remove them from criminals hands. They are ALREADY prohibited from possession (felons are prohibited). So regardless of what laws are passed, criminals will have these weapons. The only question is – if there is a bang on your door in the night and a home invasion – do you want to defend your family or do you want your only option to be prayer and hope they don’t mean you harm. G-d gave us saichel. We are obligated to go to doctors even though healing comes from Him. We are obligated to work even though parnassa comes from Him. We are obligated to become familiar with self-defense even though protection comes from Him.
Personally I think you are making a mistake and I think you should get the skills necessary for self defense. But that is your decision not mine and I appreciate that in this country we are free to disagree.
Jackk – most recent numbers are 2019
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls2019 – latest data available –
Total murder 13,927
Total firearms 10,258
Total handguns 6,368
Total rifle 364
Total knives 1,476
Total blunt object/ clubs 397
Total hands/feet 600Outlawing knives should reduce the number of murders more than rifles. If we outlawed hands and feet that would reduce murder more than outlawing rifles. Rifles are scary looking but are not a major factor in murder. Not you, but this is the reason it is a target for much of the country that thinks emotionally rather than logically.
jackk –
We don’t know each other but on this you are simply wrong. Liberals and democrats are absolutely against private ownership of guns. You may not read or watch the news but this is absolutely incontrovertible. I don’t know if your level of observance precludes reading the secular news and watching the news but there probably is no statement less controversial than that. Perhaps that liberals and democrats generally advocate for abortion and conservatives against. But there aren’t many issues as black and white as gun ownership. Once side wants it abolished (in general) and the other advocates for greater (responsible) ownership.As regards a “certain type of gun,” presumably you are alluding to rifles. The statistics of gun deaths in America however is as follows: The vast majority – between 2/3 and 3/4 of gun deaths in this country is suicide. I think no one thinks that removing guns from law-abiding citizens will meaningfully alter the suicide rate so the majority of gun deaths would be unchanged. The next greatest category is known criminals (gangs, drug dealers, etc). Then a much much smaller number is people who are not known gang members and criminals shooting someone. By far, handguns are the weapons used in the vast majority of gun deaths. By far. In fact if I remember correctly (FBI statistics on murder), I believe knives are used more often than rifles in murder and yet no one in this country is talking about knife control. In Britain however where it is difficult to obtain guns, their murder rate is also high and from knives so they actually ARE talking about knife control. IIRC, I believe the number of people killed from rifles in this country is similar to those killed by hands and feet.
Don’t forget 1948, 1967 and 1973. If you are worried about gog and Magog those times were much more worrisome.
Always ask questions-murder is something that will always be reported. I live in California. A lot of people do not report graffiti, assault, and thievery, because they do not believe the police will arrest the perpetrators and do not believe the prosecutor will prosecute. I guess we have to go with the best numbers that we can but I think much of the population is disillusion about the willingness of leftist prosecutors to go after crime and often do not report. I think this is occurring all over California. Not sure about New York.
Jack – for the most part in America, at least liberals, do not believe individuals should be allowed to own weapons. Not all. But for the most part. I imagine liberals in traditional gun rights states such as say Texas may be different, but for the most part, this is the case. Most American Jews sadly are not Torah observant. That part of their lives must be filled by something and often it is liberalism. So the majority, those who are not observant, for the most part do not believe in gun rights. They believe it is the responsibility of the government to address our safety. It’s kind of funny that at the same time they generally believe the police are racist and are out to murder Black people and should be disarmed. For the most part, it is conservatives who believe in active self protection, and who support gun rights. Most total observant Jews are conservative, and so are more likely to own a firearm as compared to our liberal brethren.
It’s not only Jews. Im pretty well versed in firearms. The government in medium to large cities in USA have abdicated their responsibility to enforce the law. Crime is through the roof. Violent crime is not reliably prosecuted. EVERYONE in medium to large cities is realizing the government is not protecting them and that they themselves are responsible for their safety and their families security. And it’s true. No one is coming to save you if you are the victim of a crime.
The funny thing is liberals want guns too and all of a sudden they don’t want them to be restricted to them – just to everyone else.
Isn’t that like the chassidishe story about the two rabbis locked in prison. The guards kept the toilet bucket in the cell so they couldn’t daven. The one was so depressed. The other began to dance for joy. The one was depressed because he could not pray. The other realized that just like there is a commitment to pray there’s a commitment not to pray in such a situation, and he is able to fulfill the ratzon H-Shem in a different way, a way he didn’t expect. His job is not to daven. (Or eat in a sukkah etc) His job is to do the eibishters will so he was joyful. When the guard saw how excited he was he removed the toilet Pail and they could daven.
Hi. Yserb – see responses below.
Even accounting for suicides, violent deaths by deadly weapon in the USA are on par with countries like Somalia. Places France, Finland, Australia, and other countries with heavy gun control, have a percentage of a percentage of violent deaths that the US has.
Criminals in the US have easy access to black market guns because there are so many gun in the US. So allowing unlimited guns for law abiding citizens just puts more guns in the hands of black marketers and criminalsFirst, if you remove suicide and remove gang on gang violence, there is not very much gun violence here. Any gun violence is bad, but the former two categories illuminate a very great proportion of gun deaths in this country. Obviously, there will be more gun deaths here as compared to England or Australia, as they have no meaningful gun possession. That is not the important metric. The important metric is moderate. in this country, we see crazies murder people with guns, but in England it is knives to the extent that they are talking about outlying knives and asking people. Do they really need to have so many knives? People are people. And people murder. The overall murder rate is what is most important, not the narrower gun murder rate. In fact, London and New York have similar murder rates. London, in fact surpassed New York recently, even though there is no significant number of guns there.
I’ve spoken with people who are into dangerous weapons. They come in all shapes and sizes. By and large one common thread is their inability to explain why people need more than one pistol with limited rounds and limited caliber for self-
I have to say, I am extremely skeptical of that. I doubt you include police officers and similar in that. I have taken many training courses from police officers and soldiers. The likelihood that you will keep your cool in such a situation and accurately return fire is small. When there is a police involved shooting the majority of rounds miss the intended target and go somewhere else. And that is train police. If you have three people on a home invasion and you are as accurate as the police, you probably need at least 30 rounds. The reality is firearms and magazines. Last a very long time. The bad guys have them. No one is talking about taking them away from the bad guys. The laws that you and other people are talking about will have no effect on bad guys. Any new law will only affect law abiding citizens.
On a city-by-city basis statistics show no significant difference in break ins for cities that have a lot of guns per-capita than cities that don’t. So the idea that more guns means your family is better protected because criminals are too scared to break in, doesn’t have the data to back it up.
Unfortunately, there are no good statistics. What I mean by that is organizations that are funded to study. The subject are undoubtedly leftist. It would be like asking about the science of abortion. You would first need to know is the study funded by Planned Parenthood or from the Catholic Church. If it is funded by the first, you would expect a certain outcome regardless of the truth, and if it were funded by the latter a different outcome, regardless of truth. The media and academic centers want to disarm United States citizens. There’s no valid reason to trust their data. With that said, there are certainly many defensive gun uses. I think everyone agrees that it is very rare in a defensive can use that a gun will be fired. Usually once the criminal sees that the intended victim as a gun, the attack stops. If I am attacked, I would certainly feel more comfortable being trained, and having firearms rather than all of the advantage on the side of the criminal. I don’t understand why people want to disarm, law-abiding citizens and leave them vulnerable to criminals.
It is an issue of pikuach nefesh because (as I have been repeating time and time and time again) the more legal guns there are, the easier it is for a criminal to get their hands on one. So yes, limiting legal guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is an issue of pikuach nefesh because that would mean less criminals with guns
The argument that we need guns to defend ourselves against the evil US of A holds no water. If the government decides to turn against its people, we’re done for one way or another. Guns aren’t going to turn the tide on an army fighting on their native soil. Just look at the Bundy ranch and what happened when a banda meshugoyim went against the FBI. If you want to look at it from a statistical standpoint, make a cost-benefits-analysis. The current reality of gun culture continuing to take lives is a much higher cost than the small possible benefit that guns will save lives in a very hypothetical apocalyptic future.Everyone wants to decrease gun violence. Everyone wants to decrease murder. There’s literally no one who speaks publicly who disagrees with that. The question is which is the smarter decision. Let’s say we have around 300 million guns in this country. They are all over. You cannot go back in time and change the past. You can only decide based on reality. Being a smart guy, what would be your prediction as to the consequence if they the government outlaws guns? Few people will turn them in. Just look at the New York State requirement for rifle registration. Nobody complied. Let’s say that you do pass such a law, and every law abiding citizen complies with it. No, not a single law abiding citizen has a gun. How does that change the matter? Obviously it does not. None of the criminals will have turned in their guns. You’ve just disarmed all of the law abiding citizens . I think it would be much more likely that they would be a dramatic increase in crime because the criminals no there will be no consequences to raping and murdering innocent people.
The authorities in California and New York have already decided largely not to prosecute crime. The obvious consequence of that is out there for everyone to see. Look at Portland. Look at Seattle. Crime skyrocketed. Don’t tell all the criminals that none of the citizens are able to defend themselves anymore.
Everyone agrees pikuach nefesh is important. It’s just that the solutions proposed by the leftists seems to me to exacerbate the situation. I think if you’re solutions were enacted, you would find many more people attacked and murdered. Not less.
Yserb
1- pikuach nefesh? All the Jews being attacked in New York are better off not being able to defend themselves? All the victims of criminals are better off not being able to defend themselves. There’s not a single law, that you mention that would actually take the guns away from criminals. You have only been talking about actions that will remove Guns from law abiding citizens. Pikuach nefesh I think would be putting the criminals away behind bars. But that is not something that you mentioned. They are certainly not giving up their guns. So you are talking about leaving guns in the hands of criminals and leaving law, abiding citizens, unable to defend themselves. If you want to argue. Pikuach nefesh I would argue get more guns and training in the hands of law-abiding citizens, not less.
2- guns in the hands of citizens are meaningless compared to a government that has fighter jets? Are you aware of what happened recently in Afghanistan. The mightiest Army in the history of the world was just kicked out of Afghanistan by a bunch of goat herder‘s. They did the same thing to the Russians half a generation ago. How about Vietnam? It is called guerrilla warfare. Do you really see a future where the Air Force sends a bunch of fire attack jets and launches missiles against citizens? Do you really see a situation where that order is given? Do you really see a situation where fighter jet pilots will be that order? Don’t forget, they are all probably conservatives. Do you see a situation where it gets on the news that our army is launching howitzers and missiles and similar into peoples homes? And the army obeys the orders? I don’t see that happening. And if it did with 300 million Firearms in the country and let’s say it most no more than 1 million combat soldiers do you really see any way that the United States army wins against let’s say 100 million trained and armed citizens? Inconceivable to me. People in Manhattan and New Jersey. I’m sure it would be eager to surrender to the government but citizens that value, liberty and freedom and who have extensive training would not be so easy. And how many of the combat soldiers value liberty over Tierney and would resist orders? How many from say Florida and Alabama and Arkansas would actively sabotage the army?
I don’t see a possibility that the government would give orders to bomb peoples homes. I don’t see a possibility that those orders, if given would be obeyed, and I don’t see a possibility that the half of the country that believes in liberty would not actively fight against such an evil government. and I think the majority of combat soldiers in the Armed Forces would be conservative and Wood resist those orders and actively sabotage.
Strong recommendation for everyone on this chat. Get in contact with people in the community, spend time with them, and learn about firearms and hunting in self-defense. More or less all of the arguments against firearms show clear unfamiliarity with them in unfamiliarity with the Firearms community. Avira – everyone I know who hunts eats their meat. I don’t know a single person who hunts and does not make use of the meat. Hunters are the most pro environment people I know because maintaining a healthy environment is necessary to be able to continue to hunt. Every one I know, is a thoughtful steward of the environment and of the animals. they are very strict in how to hunt and want to shoot and very strict for what is humane and what is not humane. If you are not certain of a good quick kill, you do not pull the trigger. If there is a concern that the shot is not clear and the animal will run and suffer you do not take the shot. So much on this chat shows that people have thought about the process but really know nothing about firearms or the gun community or the hunting community. If one is going to have an opinion about it, I think it would behoove everyone to spend time with people who actually use Firearms. Again as previously contact Gunsite in Paulden Arizona. Take a trip and learn about Firearms. Strongly recommended.
Novak. –
In terms of background checks, those are for you and me. Law, abiding citizens. Criminals do not buy their guns from the gun shop. They are largely procured either from stealing them or black market. So background checks do not affect criminals. Only law abiding citizens.
Same with your point of only police officers should have guns. There are let’s say 300 million guns in the United States of America. If you pass a law for everyone to turn them in, let’s say everyone does. It is to say the law abiding citizens have not turned in all their guns. Now the only people with guns are criminals. The criminals now know that, no one can defend himself against them because all the guns were turned in by law, abiding citizens. Police officers in our big cities have said, explicitly the police will not be there to save you from a violent encounter. In Los Angeles and Detroit, the chiefs of police have both said this. and only someone willfully blinding his eyes to the truth does not acknowledge all the antisemitic crime in New York. Only someone willfully blind sees that the police are not stopping violent crime against jews, or anyone else. If you ask a police officer, or an honest chief of police, they will tell you you are your own first responder. You are responsible for your safety. The police are not coming to save you. You better figure out the best way to defend yourself and your family because no one is coming to help. The reality is the best way to provide for your own security is a firearm.
Yserb
To be fair, you really cannot compare statistics on a state by state basis. Crime is really not a state by state problem. It is a city by city problem. The crime level in Compton California compared to Beverly Hills compared to Mammoth Lakes are radically different. They are simply not comparable. You need to compare city by city. there are also a lot of confounding factors. I would expect crime rates are very high where people put bars on their windows. Does that mean people should not put bars on their windows to decrease the crime rate? Of course not. One is confusing correlation with causation. The bars on the windows are not causing the high crime. It is because of high crime people choose to put bars on their windows.
Yserb
I strongly strongly recommend you speak with people from the gun community. You will find that a lot of your points just represent a simple misunderstanding. Police training in firearms is actually quite limited. Police accuracy and shooting is quite poor. If there is a home invasion. You are going to need a lot more than five rounds because you will be freaking out. If there is a home invasion with three or four invaders, you will definitely want to have more fire power. Magazines last nearly forever. The bad guys will have magazines capable of carrying lots of rounds. You should at least have the same. In terms of guns that require electronic identification to function there is no one serious about guns who considers that to be safe in any way. If there is a home invasion, what is the chance that it works? What if the battery is dead? have you ever tried to open your iPhone with your thumb when you’re sweating or when your thumb is otherwise wet? It doesn’t work. No one serious about self-defense would use a tool where he has no idea if it will be functional should the situation arise.
I strongly recommend taking at least a handgun training course from a good instructor. If you have the means, I strongly recommend you go to Gunsite in Paulden Arizona. You will have a completely different idea of your responsibility to protect your family and the tools necessary to be able to provide this critical need for your family.
In summary gun violence in this country is mostly suicide that is miss characterized. Nearly all the rest of the gun violence is from gangs and drug dealers and similar known criminals in bad areas. I would suggest that before the police disarm law, abiding citizens, they disarm the criminals first. Realistically, there is a solution. The solution is That there is a relatively small number of people who are responsible for the majority of violence. The police know who they are. The DAs can prosecute them. Violent crime is largely a phenomenon of democratic run blue cities as mentioned before. The police know who the perpetrators are. If they arrested the non-criminals, and the DAs prosecuted them, and put them in jail , the problem with largely disappear. The problem is we know this is the correct solution but the people responsible or not willing to prosecute the criminals. For those who want to take away the firearms of law-abiding citizens I think a good analogy would be that there is a small number of reckless, drivers or drunk drivers who cause accidents. we should make cars illegal and prevent anyone from driving a car because of a small number of bad drivers. Considering the number of guns in America, probably around 300 million, if guns caused violence, we would expect to see conveyance on a catastrophic level. And yet something like 99.999% of gun owners have never been involved in gun violence. The solution is to arrest, prosecute and jail. Bad guys, not take away the right of self-defense from law abiding citizens.
Next by definition, only law abiding citizens, obey laws. As I mentioned, the vast majority of gun deaths is suicide. Of the remaining, the vast majority is bad guys, including felons, who cannot legally purchase firearms. Statistics show this category of criminals, which comprises nearly all of the remaining gun deaths in our country, obtain their guns from Black market and from stealing them. You can pass any law that you like. It will not affect them by definition. They do not undergo background checks because they will fail. They steal their guns and they buy them on the black market. So what good is your background check? what good is your law that requires someone at home to lock up their guns? Those laws are meaningless to people who do not obey laws. You will only restrict law abiding citizens from having the ability to defend themselves.
Next they talk about banning A.R. 15‘s. There’s nothing special about an A.R. 15. It is the same as any rifle. So when you say A.R. 15 you really mean rifle. Rifles are responsible for a very very small minority of gun deaths and overall a tiny number of deaths annually. bending rifles will not have a meaningful change in gun deaths. If I remember correctly, Hammar’s cause more deaths than rifles, so if one is really worried about the number of rifle deaths, you should ban hammers first.
I am a shooter. Before we can have a reasonable discussion we need to agree on the facts. The facts are in America. There is something like 40 to 60,000 gun related deaths. Of those between 2/3 and 3/4 are suicide. Can violence in America is really a suicide problem much more than a homicide problem. Of the remainder of the deaths. The vast majority are known criminals, and gang violence Such as drug dealers shooting each other and similar. The number of non-criminals murdering innocent people is a very small portion of those numbers. So the first issue is when we are talking about violence in this country. We are really talking about suicide. Eight minority of gun deaths is gang violence, or non-criminals in known bad areas. Think Compton, southside of Chicago, and similar. If you were to take these urban areas out of the equation, places that everyone knows is dangerous, gun violence is actually very rare. Because the media is largely leftist they are anti-gun, and so publicize every mass shooting to try to advocate for gun control. in terms of mass shootings per capita we are not the leader. I think Norway is the leader and another surprising country or two. But because our media hates guns so much, they present this as a meaningful frequent occurrence. The reality is actual gun violence is largely limited to a small number of bad cities. Again think East St. Louis, Compton, southside of Chicago, and similar. If you do not live in those areas , it is extraordinarily unlikely you’ll ever experience gun violence.
For work, I work as a physician. There is no downside to donating. They sedate you. They stick a big needle in your pelvic bone and draw out the stem cells that way. I’ve never had it done personally unfortunately as what an amazing mitzvah that would be. But other than being sore for a bit, there should be no downside at all.
Midwest 2 – “Would you let your ten-year-old drive your car on the expressway? ”
HI again. No. Nor would I let a ten year old alone with a gun. I would let my ten year old drive on my lap in the neighborhood which I remember doing with my dad and which I’ve done with my kids. I don’t think anyone is advocating for a ten year old to go out shooting alone. Under adult supervision is another story. I spent time in Atlanta and there is a strong hunting culture in America. Overall I think it is a nice family tradition (though not for Jews of course).
Don’t forget we are talking about a constitutional right, in contrast to driving. A right to defend oneself by the best means possible, which for little Jewish people like us probably means a firearm. I am a little guy with little ability to defend myself against big guys. I don’t know kung fu and am not a knife fight expert. So if there is a chance my house might be invaded or over run, a firearm is the most effective way for me to defend myself and my family.
It’s probably getting to be Shabbos by you so have a good Shabbos!
Hi, Midwest. re: “Where does anyone get the whacky idea that requiring background checks, age limits, etc. is going to lead to the “government seizing all guns?”
The “common sense” restrictions of course would not have prevented any of the sensational shootings we see in the media the last few years. All the recommendations made here would not have prevented the previous shootings and will not prevent future shootings. They are for theater and of course are not meant for criminals. They are meant for the law abiding citizens who do not shoot people. And so the problem is not addressed.
The only way to prevent shootings would be to remove guns from the hands of citizens. A reasonable guess regarding the number of guns in the United States is somewhere in the large ballpark of 300 million. Most guns do not deteriorate to the extent they no longer are reliably functional. So in a country of 300 million guns, 99.999999 percent of which are used lawfully, an infinitessimally small percentage used illegally, how do we prevent guns from being used illegally? Only by seizure, unless I’m missing something. Most people will not comply. Thus the only way I see America removing guns from its citizens is house to house seizure. It will not be too many houses before one citizen will refuse.
Do you see another way government removes guns from its citizens? I don’t. My imagination may not be great enough though.
DaasYochid, all the recommendations people are making would not have affected any of the shootings the last few years. All new laws only affect law-abiding citizens. The shootings the last few years either have been performed by people who obtained their guns illegally, by people with no recorded history of mental illness, or – in the case of Parkland – by a person who was unstable but authorities did not follow up on it. All the recommendations made will only affect people like my mother – tiny Jewish women unable to defend themselves otherwise and so carry handguns. Not a single recommendation made would have affected any of the shootings we see over the years. This is all theater. It all sounds good superficially but would do nothing to address the issue.
Everyone keeps proposing we “do something,” but no one has explained how what they suggest would have stopped any bloodshed. The laws only affect law-abiding citizens and do nothing to affect those who would break the law.
As another commenter said – what we really need to do is to pass a law that you can only kill one person a day. Once the shooter killed on person, we need to tell him he’s used up his allotment and has to wait till tomorrow. I have an even better idea – we should make it illegal to murder someone. That way no one will be murdered. Again, we have to recognize that these laws only affect law-abiding citizens and will not alter the behavior of murderers or their ability to obtain firearms. There are few citizens who can obtain firearms in Europe. And yet somehow the Muslims seem to be able to commit mass murder in the grocery stores, newspapers, and theaters with firearms. Or with a truck. Or car. These laws are, frankly, silly. They are passed to make people feel good but affect nothing.
Hi. I’m actually surprised by the number of apparent shooters on a religious website. It seems to me that the people who are the most pro-gun are people who shoot and the people who are the most anti- are the people who just don’t have much experience with guns but address them in a more theoretic way. The question everyone must act before acting in any capacity about anything is – how will this action address the issue? Will it help or will it prevent the problem we are trying to address. We also need to recognize that any law change affects only law abiding citizens, not criminals. So all laws passed regarding this emotional subject will affect good guys, not bad guys. It is unlikely any proposed law will affect the shooters in recent history. So we must be honest and accept that this is all theater, designed to make us feel good and not designed to stop shootings.
If you are serious about stopping gun shootings, from FBI statistics, relatively few deaths come from rifles. Most come from handguns. So if you are serious about gun deaths you are talking about government seizure of all guns, not “assault rifles.” Of all deaths from guns, the vast majority, almost 3/4, are suicides. So we are not talking about those. The vast majority of the remainder are gang-on-gang or similar (criminal on criminal) shootings. So in terms of real, horrible, scary gun deaths, this is a tiny minority of the recorded gun deaths. If you are serious about stopping gun deaths, and as relatively few are of the sensational deaths in the recent news, we should look at what really causes death in America. Cars. Knives. Televisions (falling on people – actual FBI statistics). Hands. Feet. We should consider outlawing those too.
Regarding the following statements:
1. No more sales of assault-style weapons.
People have already addressed that assault weapons are fiction. The definition is rifles that have two or more features. Features include adjustable stock and pistol grip. Everyone knowledgeable in firearms agrees this does not alter lethality of the weapon and these features are purely cosmetic. So this does not address any current issue.
2. No more sales of high-capacity magazines
Magazine, like guns, are nearly forever. They don’t disintegrate. There are probably somewhere around 300 million guns in the country. Without the military or police doing house-to-house searches and home invasions they are not going away. Second, it takes under two seconds to switch out a magazine and place a new one. Restricting magazines therefore will only affect good guys, not bad guys. It will affect only those who obey the law, not someone with murder in his heart. And even if magically all the standard size magazines (not high capacity – standard size) went away, it still does not change that it takes under two seconds to change magazines and that will not alter how many people die.
3. No gun sales to anyone under 21
In CA at least, the law is you must be over 18 to purchase rifles and over 21 to purchase handguns. I think most of the recent shooters either have been over 21 or obtained their weapons illegally and so this really would not affect much. In addition, if you are over 18, have a job, are independent, etc., how can the government justify restricting your constitutional rights? Can you restrict free speech until you are 21? Unreasonable search and seizure?
They also called on lawmakers to pass legislation to make background checks universal on all public or private gun sales,
Would not have affected any recent shooter.
the creation of a national database of people banned from buying guns,
There are lots and lots of people who are just regular people on the national no-fly list. Prominent journalists. Ted Kennedy (when he was alive). It is easy to get on the list without reason and nearly impossible to get off. If this list is anything like the no fly list, there will be many people who lose their constitutional rights because of an incompetent government. And again, people knew the Parkland shooter was unstable but no one followed up on it. This would not have affected any of the recent shootings.
sale of guns to those under 21,
See above.
and a ban on assault-style weapons,
Just silly and from people who don’t understand firearms. See above. An unserious response.
high capacity magazines
See above. Not something a serious or logical person would consider.
and bump stocks .
“Bump stocks” is a technique to obtain rapid fire. There is no special stock necessary. Recently a company or companies came up with a special stock to make this easier. It is simply a way of holding a rifle to allow it to bump against you and use the reaction force to bounce the gun against the trigger. Again, for someone who knows about firearms, this is a silly argument. Bump stock is a technique, not a device. You can’t outlaw a technique.
Also don’t forget that the ADL is now just another left-wing organization, headed by former Obama administration.
I’m a Californian and my taxes are supposed to go up under this. With that said, CTLawyer, don’t you think it is unfair that state taxes are deductible from federal taxes? That is, if you live in a state that chooses high taxes, why should a state that chooses lower taxes have to subsidize your government’s profligate spending? If one state chooses to be more prudent or more conservative with its finances, why should they have to subsidize a spendthrift state like my own?
Next, over 2/3 of people claim the general deduction and do not itemize. For them their taxes will go down. For the wealthy – particularly in high tax states and despite what many liberals say – their taxes will go up.
I think ALL our taxes should go down. I think our governments’ expenditures are about 1/3 waste, 1/3 corruption, and 1/3 efficient use of taxpayer dollars. We do not have a revenue problem. Government revenues go up year after year. We have a spending problem. EVERYONE’S taxes should be lower. And our government should learn to provide essential services and waste less money.
Also regarding johnnie walker – blended scotches are
Mostly made from grain alcohol with aged Scotch whisky only a smaller portion. Johnnie walker green is a blended malt meaning it is made All from Scotch. Their others are ended whisky which means mostly grain alcohol. The grain alcohol is not aged in former wine barrels so I suspect blended would have less problems.Hi everyone.
Actually American Whisky (e.g. bourbon) is unfortunately potentially problematic.
Many of the American distilleries were founded by and are owned by Jews. I read a fascinating article. When they came over to this country they found that many industries were closed to them. So they opened distilleries. Many of the very Southern, non-Jewish sounding distilleries are actually owned by Jews but the names of the distilleries and whiskies sound southern and non-Jewish for marketing (of course!). It turns out many are family owned and do not sell for Pesach. So many American whiskies that should be kosher are in fact not permitted. Sad but true!
KeithInteresting. Thank you.
When I’m on a plane I go to the back and ask a flight attendant if I can take a few minutes to pray and please let me know if it’s a bad time I’ll do it elsewhere. They’ve always been very kind and eager to help. I believe you can daven Shemona Esrei seated if necessary. I had to look up if I could do it as a passenger in a car and found sources it is OK if necessary. I wear yarmulke and tzitzis out only on weekends, not for work. I go to the gun range, probably the only Jew there, always with yarmulke on and tzitzis out and everyone is very nice to me. I think most Americans are respectful toward people observing their religion, as long as we are not obnoxious about it.
(I am BT and not well educated so take it with a grain of salt.)Shlomo Hadad walks into his favorite bar in downtown Tel-Aviv only to find a horse serving drinks. The horse asks, “What are you staring at? Haven’t you ever seen a horse tending bar before?”
“It’s not that,” Shlomo responds. “I just never thought Itzik would sell the place.”
Reb yid What do you mean?
The following is from the posts here. I write my response below.
“The little I know, your Western society attitude in not in accordance with the Torah. A transgressor is not as much of a child of HKBH. We are his law enforcement officers, just in this country we can’t do it.
…
Little I know, remember Pinchas ben Elozar ben Aharon Ha’Kohen?
…
Yet Halacha l’maaisa today is that we now here in America are deputized to be a Pinchos in our times. Check the local copy of your Shulchan Aruch. The very same S”A that tells us that, today, we are to (physically if necessary) punish wayward Yidden who violate בין אדם למקום.
…
I don’t accept the premise of this statement. I think it is incumbent on parents to try and maintain a positive relationship with their child. At the same time, as managers of the home, the parents have a right to set rules and expectations for what happens under their roof. Having different beliefs does not make it ok for a child to defy rules or severely disrupt the home.“This is a kosher kitchen. Please do not bring that food in here.”
“This home is Shabbos observant. We expect everyone here to put cell phones away. It can be used later tonight after havdala.”
…
We all agree that hashem is our ultimate father.
When a petson does an avaira publicly or in Private , does hashem throw him to the dogs? Does hashem throw him out of the shul he once davenef in? Who are you to decide as a father to disown your son for being a ball avaira.
You as a father are a human just like your son . You too slip here and there in yiddishkiet .perhaps its only in private so no one sees you . But hashem sees you
Does he throw you to the dogs? Does he strike you dead? Are you better anf smarter then hashem who watches all you do behind closr doors? Think very hard before throwing your child out of your house. Just remember. What goes around comes around. Hashem works is very wonderous Ways”
——————
——————
–
—————–
Wow. I am BT. You guys have all had a million more hours than me in this stuff. I recognize my ignorance. My understanding is Moshiach has not yet come, and our Temple is still in ruins, NOT because someone ate treif or turned on a light on Shabbos but because of Sinas Chinam. And that Ahavas Chinam is necessary to bring him and build the Temple. My understanding is that, in the absence (because of our many sins) of Moshiach and a Temple and the Sanhedrin, there is no qualified authority to make any punishment as Pinchas visited upon Zimri, and that Pinchas’ action was lauded as it was appropriate only for him and only in that exact situation and that exact time and not to be generalized to anyone else (as long as we have no Moshiach and no Temple and certainly in the absence of a Sanhedrin).It is interesting those who are critical of Chabad – I am not Chabad but am Chabad-sympathetic – for how much they grow. Chabad seems centered on doing the ratzon of H-shem, recognizing that every mitzvah is a million diamonds, and that ahavas is central.
Are we not to emulate H-shem? In the 13 middos, Ahavas has to do with all of them. In how we are to emulate H-shem, my understanding is that ahavas or chesed is almost always the right answer, and you better be sure before you decide gevurah is the right answer because you may be or are likely wrong, and even if you are right you have to be very very careful with it, like it’s chemotherapy, which it is.
From a secular perspective, you can convince someone to act a certain way if they think you are looking out for them – if they think you love them. If you are just critical, it is very difficult to get someone to do what you want. If your goal is to bring someone OTD back on the derech, it won’t work without love. It just won’t. It doesn’t mean you give up Shabbos and kashrus. It means love them. If your goal is to punish or to feel good about yourself, that’s entirely different but you need to be honest that you are not really trying to bring someone back to H-shem.
For me, I find that when I unleash strictness, it quickly turns into anger or cruelty. For me, it is very dangerous and I do not have good control of it. When it comes to kindness, I think there is much less danger – in most cases – of using kindness too much. Of course “if you are kind when you should be cruel you will end up cruel when you should be kind.” But for me at least, in my life, in general, choosing kindness is most often the right thing and strictness is most often the wrong decision.
My understanding is life is a mirror. How we treat others is how HKBH treats us. If I recall correctly, Baal Shemtov said we get to choose our own punishment. We see another act how we acted and how we judge him is how we are judged. If we want to be judged with chesed after 120, we have to have judged others with chesed. If we treat others only with gevurah, our heavenly din will be through gevurah. I am certainly not righteous enough to be judged that way. I have done way too many aveiros and too few mitzvos, and even the mitzvos I do I’m not sure are worth anything. So I try my best to judge others through and act with chesed and fall all the time.
My two cents…
KeithI’m a BT and every day realize how ignorant I am. So take it with a grain of salt. I am pretty certain you know more about everything yiddishkeit than I do.
It seems to me we need to bring Moshiach. He has not yet come not because someone ate treif or watched TV on Shabbos. Or davened or studied without enough kavanah. It seems to me the Temple was destroyed by us because of sinas chinam and so without ahavas chinam we cannot bring Moshiach. So for me personally, an ignorant Yid who yearns to do H-shem’s will and looks forward to Moshiach coming every day, I try to make as much chesed as I can . “Your gashmius is my ruchnius.” I try to daven with kavanah and try to study daily, but I am pretty sure that H-shem doesn’t think that is where I will make my name. I’m pretty sure my path at least is through Ahavas Chesed. This is coming from someone who is trying to learn, but who recognizes he (me) is ignorant, but striving to become better.What do you think? What is your plan to bring Moshiach?