Vegas Massacre: 59 Good Reasons to Outlaw Automatic Weapons

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Controversial Topics Vegas Massacre: 59 Good Reasons to Outlaw Automatic Weapons

  • This topic contains 167 replies, has 33 voices, and was last updated by  laskern 1 week ago.
Viewing 50 posts - 101 through 150 (of 200 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1381443

    DovidBT
    Participant

    “I think objectively unambiguously offensive speech should be outlawed.”

    Is it possible to define “objectively unambiguously offensive speech”?

    #1381462

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Joseph
    “I think objectively unambiguously offensive speech ”

    against anybody?
    Do you include “objectively unambiguously offensive speech” directed against Mulsims, LGBT

    #1381485

    Joseph
    Participant

    At least a subset of objectively unambiguously offensive speech can be an agreed definition by all.

    #1381616

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    Objectively unambiguously offensive speech that is agreed by all is already banned. Laws against obscenity and false advertising are not considered to be in violation of the First Amendment.

    #1381642

    Health
    Participant

    NE -“they would have not been able to stop the speeding car as it mowed down the first four victims”

    Maybe not; but the rest of the victims would be saved!
    Stop with your liberal or libertarian ideas.
    Even a cop with an automatic weapon, stationed on the bridge, could have stopped the Terrorist!
    Do you care about human life or just your particular philosophies?!?

    #1381699

    NeutiquamErro
    Participant

    Health: I’m saddened to say I didn’t expect better. None of the victims would have been saved, the car was going very fast, and the policeman who was killed was caught by surprise. Were guns legal in the UK, the killer would have likely obtained a gun, meaning many more people would have been killed. And liberal and libertarian are completely divergent ideologies, especially in modern usage. Anybody who agrees that government has the right to regulate public behaviour, for example, with regard to owning offensive weapons like missiles or requiring licenses to drive cars, should be able to see the obviousness of the positives of gun control. Purely through the power of common sense.

    And I’ve yet to hear a coherent point made from the opposing side of this debate in this discussion. So I’ll leave it at that.

    #1382486

    Health
    Participant

    NE- “None of the victims would have been saved, the car was going very fast, and the policeman who was killed was caught by surprise. Purely through the power of common sense.”

    Talking about common sense – What didn’t you understand about my post?
    If there was a cop with an automatic weapon (that means a weapon that shoots fast), after the first four victims, the Constable would have shot him Dead, through the window of the car.
    This would have stopped the Terror!
    The sickness that you spout is the Scourge of the Western World!

    #1382549

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    Are you German? Here in the United States, we don’t capitalize common Nouns.

    #1382601

    NeutiquamErro
    Participant

    And if the attacker had a gun, many more people would have died.

    And my earlier point about coherent replies still stands. I’ve yet to hear one.

    #1382679

    Health
    Participant

    NE -“And if the attacker had a gun, many more people would have died”

    Says who? You?
    Stop living in your make believe dream world!
    Many terrorists have gotten guns.
    It’s probably easier for them to do a vehicle attack.
    This doesn’t mean that they can’t be stopped.
    They could have had a cop on the Westminster bridge.

    #1382690

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    Health, guns are literally designed to kill.

    #1382855

    NeutiquamErro
    Participant

    So we’ve now reached the point of the ‘debate’ where someone is telling me I’m living in a ‘make believe dream world’ for thinking that a terrorist who killed 5, 4 with a car and 1 with a knife, would have been more dangerous had he had a gun. Have a good day.

    #1383047

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    All liberal fantasists live in a make believe dream world.

    #1383067

    mentsch1
    Participant

    Ubiq and Joseph
    Sorry I took the week off, I know you have been waiting for an answer with bated breath.

    “also you have yet to explain (Ive asked this 3 times) why why you limit the bashert part to gun victims and not owners. PArticularly when you consider As Joseph says the Torah says Hayadayim yedei Eisav, leave the guns to Eisav, and if your time is up no gun in the owrld can save you.
    why the double standard?”

    Actually, I have repeatedly drawn a distinction between personal behavior and death in the broader sense because the gemarrah does so repeatedly. I am willing to bet you haven’t looked at my sources (mishlei and chaggiga) As I have probably now said 5 times personal fortune can change when engaged in risky behavior. The gemarrah in chagiga deals with a question from a tanna to the malach hamuves on how it was possible for the MH to “reap” the wrong soul (he had made a mistake and had taken the wrong mary magdelan). The MH replied that she was engaged in risky behavior at the time. Yet he still owed her the missing years and the gemarrah discusses how he awarded the missing years to a talmid chachum and they split the scar torah.
    As for using Joseph’s point and you using it as a question
    I’m sorry but Joseph’s point was completely mitigated by my response (and you will note how neither he nor you bothered to answer me)
    The sword may be kli eisav
    so why did Hashem tell us to go up armed from mitrayim (rashi on “chamushim”)?
    and why did he tell us to fight for our land instead of handing it to us on a silver platter?

    #1383090

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Hi mencth
    IVe missed you how was your Yom TOv

    “Actually, I have repeatedly drawn a distinction between personal behavior and death in the broader sense ”

    Here is my question again:

    John Smith is one of the victims of the next inevitable mass shooting (if current trends continue) he will will be shot by a person with schizophrenia who has a warrant out for is arrest due to past violent crime. This person is on his way to buy a gun at a gun show in a state which doesn’t require background checks. John so desperately wants to live so today he is lobbying his congressman to close the “gun show loophole”

    why isnt this personal behavior to protect himself, any less than Jane Doe buying a gun to protect herself from the much less likely event of an intruder

    #1383746

    2scents
    Participant

    While everyone is using the publicized mass shootings as an argument (regardless of which side of the argument they stand), what about the simple muggings?

    Putting aside the argument of having regular people arming up and what public policy should be, what about the individual? is it reasonable for you or me, a regular civilian to carry a weapon?

    It might not have prevented some of the publicized shootings, but wouldn’t it make the individual somewhat protected against any violence that might come their way?

    #1383604

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    Jane Doe doesn’t need a gun to protect herself from an intruder, but she does need plastic knuckles or pepper spray to protect from assault.

    #1383107

    mentsch1
    Participant

    MW13 and (NE)
    It is clear that the founding fathers wanted the second amendment to counter an authoritative govt. As I have pointed out they started a war to achieve political aims. I also pointed out that this argument (countering an authoritative govt) is a legal argument and not a jewish value. Starting a war with Britian was morally wrong, despite what the fathers claimed, they were a benign govt. to us.
    Just as obviously the fathers couldn’t predict tanks etc. (I wonder what their position on civilian owned cannons was? probably they were ok with it)
    That said, to paraphrase Dilbert, I’m fine with every civilian owning a gun, bazooka etc. as long as I have all the ammunition. Because frankly I don’t trust the rest of you guys
    I am perfectly fine with gun control. If we must own guns I think they should be regulated with mandated training etc. (as I have said before to prevent negligence). I don’t agree with the underlying hashkafa of the fathers intent with the second amendment and neither do I agree with the first. Both are Hashkafically wrong.
    Now we get to implementation (which NE forbade me to discuss)
    The implementation is, and will be a continue to be , a disaster
    I pointed to 5% compliance with the “assault weapon ban” in NYS after sandy hook, the result being the creation of tens of thousands of instant felons in NYS. Multiply that across the US and we are talking about a crises. Is it worth it to take existing law abiding citizens and throw them into jail to try and cheat death? As I have said I don’t believe that hashkafically you can make that argument. ( I happen to be liberal about the criminal justice system, I believe it to be largely immoral)
    In addition the entire “assault rifle ban” is foolishness and only fools the uninformed. It only bans cosmetic features of semi automatic weapons. Leaving the ability to simply reshape the stock and make that same weapon legal. So again, are these laws worth it? sending our citizens to jail for political points with the uninformed public? I think not.

    #1383982

    Health
    Participant

    NE -“So we’ve now reached the point of the ‘debate’ where someone is telling me I’m living in a ‘make believe dream world’ for thinking that a terrorist who killed 5, 4 with a car and 1 with a knife, would have been more dangerous had he had a gun.”

    You so can’t comprehend my simple point!
    I couldn’t care less if UK allows citizens guns.
    My point was – Why wasn’t an armed cop standing on the Bridge? They should be there all the time!
    Your obssesion with guns is not letting you think at all.

    #1383983

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “It is clear that the founding fathers wanted the second amendment to counter an authoritative govt.”

    It isnt clear at all.
    And more importantly it isnt effective. Unless you are advocating to arm citizenry with Tanks etc..

    Furthermore, The country is 241 years old. which armed uprising do you support? Who gets to decide? Say we decide we dont want to pay taxes. do you support our draweing up arms agaisnt the governemnt? what about those who oppose alleged systmeic racism. Do you support their right to rise up in arms against the government? WACO? bundy Coumpound? the south? Which armed rebbeliion do you beleive the founding fathers would support.
    More importantly as mentioned they all failed. Because they arent armed enough to stand up to the Federla govt.
    so this idea that we need guns to “counter an authoritative govt. ” falls apart quickly

    #1383994

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    The founding fathers revolted because they didn’t like taxes.

    #1384000

    2scents
    Participant

    While pepper spray might work sometimes, a weapon would probably be better in some situations.

    #1384135

    mentsch1
    Participant

    RebYidd
    The jokes on us then

    #1384112

    mentsch1
    Participant

    Ubiq
    BH very nice
    got to go on the usual diet now
    how was yours?

    To answer your question
    Because John Smith is about to meet an inevitable end at the proper time whether by bullet or aneurysm or falling Chinese space station
    His death is not in his hands. Mr schizo is just Gods pawn.
    One question not dealt with by your side of the fence is, did the overall amount of deaths go down in england post gun control? now obviously there is no way to measure how many people G-d wants dead in year 5778. But that is the question. I agree that removing all guns may “feel good” , make people feel more secure. But that doesn’t mean they should, because death comes for all
    I know many people who are extremely health conscious who still end up with cancer etc, how come their histadlus didn’t help? You are arguing that gun control is personal hishtadlus, I am arguing thats way outside the definition of personal
    And lets think of the story I used. Mary deserved to die in one way because she put herself at risk, on the other hand she didn’t lose out at all and even gained. Even our idea of premature death is skewed.

    All this said, because you were nice I am going to give you some points.
    You aren’t wrong, because all that I have been arguing is actually a machlokes. There is an opinion that a bad person can do something “against G-ds will”. what that means, I don’t know. Frankly it goes against the current (mainly chassidic?) philosophy that even a leaf dropping off a tree is under Hashem’s Hashgocho. But there is a source. BN when I have some time and will get it for you.

    #1384259

    mentsch1
    Participant

    Ubiq
    I made it clear that I don’t support any uprisings, and that I don’t believe uprisings are moral in general. Because you don’t have a right to cause death.
    That said, the founding fathers created the system, yet you use modern examples. I believe 100% that the founding fathers would approve an uprising against the govt. now. As rebyidd pointed out, they didn’t like taxes. they also wanted their slaves which we find abhorrent. They would take one look at our system (from their perspective) and find it way more restrictive to their ideas of personal liberty then Britain was, and they would be the first to break away. They created the system. Do I agree with it? no. But it’s there.
    which brings us back to square one
    where I pointed out that I think many pro-gun advocates would negotiate if anti-gun advocates would concede at the very least to be honest about what they are trying to accomplish.
    Because we know that what they want is a repeal of the second amendment. And even though post Heller I cant see that happening, silly laws restricting cosmetic features on guns are seen by the pro gun lobby as more than silly , rather as hostile to a logical discussion

    #1384705

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    mentch1
    “Because John Smith is about to meet an inevitable end at the proper time …”

    I dont understand, he is an individual. why is that different than Jane smith who wants to protect herself from an intruder?

    “I know many people who are extremely health conscious who still end up with cancer etc, how come their histadlus didn’t help?”

    Wait so they souldnt do hishtadlus?

    “You are arguing that gun control is personal hishtadlus,”
    not realy. Im arguing either apply hishtadlus or dont. To only use it as an argument to bolster your claims is dishonest.

    “That said, the founding fathers created the system …Do I agree with it? no. But it’s there.,”
    IF you think it is wrong, it can be repealed. Its silly to argue that you think its a bad idea, but oh well we are stuck with it so everybody has to oppose gun control now. So do you support repeal?

    ” very least to be honest about what they are trying to accomplish.”
    Less death. whether that reuires conifscating all guns or arming everybody. The status quo cannot continue. and arguing after every mass shooting that we cant even discuss it is unacceptable and I believe the NRA is complicit in the deaths of any victim whose lfe can be saved by sensible control that they oppose.

    #1384731

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    If self defense weapons are not protected under the second amendment, why are guns?

    #1384737

    Chortkov
    Participant

    Mentch:

    You’ve been dancing around this issue the whole thread. You are playing with a double standard.

    Do you hold that believing in Hashem’s Hashgachah invalidates any hishtadlus to stop danger? You obviously don’t, as you agreed before.

    If you agree that you cannot put yourself in danger, and you agree that you must do hishtalus to avoid danger, then you must do everything you can to minimize danger in the country.

    [Therefore, belief that widespread gun ownership enlarges the risk to lives will lead to an obligation to promote control.]

    Is there any part of this post you don’t agree to?

    #1384752

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “The founding fathers revolted because they didn’t like taxes”

    Yes and then a few years later they put down the whiskey rebellion

    #1384965

    mentsch1
    Participant

    Yekke
    I didn’t dance around anything. I have been drawing a distinction between personal hishtadlus and public policy.
    Let me ask you this
    During the Cuban missile crisis when we were close to nuclear war , do you think it was hishtadlus to protest nuclear war and if not why not?
    My answer, is the same as Rav reismans. “Nuclear war is outside our hishtadlus all I can control is whether or not I am a good person”.
    We have a very limited amount of control on the world. We have to do some personal hishtadlus in parnasa and health because we are commanded to and because we aren’t allowed to rely on miracles. But this is only because Hashem commanded this. Attempting to expand outside of this zone smacks of “koach v’atzum yudi “

    #1384987

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “During the Cuban missile crisis when we were close to nuclear war , do you think it was hishtadlus to protest nuclear war and if not why not?”

    What? OF course.

    Question for you:
    During the Holocaust when European Jewry was close to anhilation , do you think it was hishtadlus to protest and march in Washington? and if not why not?
    (I cant beleive I am unsure as to what your answer will be)

    and even accepting what you attribute To Rabbi Resiman, who decides where that line is drawn. voting for President doesnt affect yo upersonally it is obviously more related to public policy so I take it you oppose voting.

    Those who lobbyed against (or for) the IRan deal were wrong as well. This position makes no sense

    #1385065

    Chortkov
    Participant

    I don’t know the statistics of how effective protests are, but arguing that it would be effective, why isn’t that your hishtadlus? Does the fact that it needs more than one person to do it take away from the chiyuv hishtadlus?

    #1385426

    mw13
    Participant
    #1386664

    Health
    Participant

    mw13 -“Make that 59 + 3”

    You’re getting delusional!
    Do you really think that gun control would have stopped this incident from happening?
    This guy was a criminal, but all of a sudden he’d start respecting our laws?!?
    I’ll tell you what would have stopped him – Real crime & punishment.
    Do you remember – Turn him loose – Bruce?!?

    #1386678

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    Don’t be silly. Criminals can use suicide to escape from almost any punishment you try to use on them.

    #1387202

    Health
    Participant

    Yidd23 -“Criminals can use suicide to escape from almost any punishment you try to use on them.”

    The Death Penalty works also!
    Most States have done away with it, or severely limited it.

    #1387237

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    Health, in that case, the death penalty is not a deterrent.

    #1387407

    Health
    Participant

    Yidd23 -“Health, in that case, the death penalty is not a deterrent”

    Neither is your case – most guys are Not suicidal!

    #1387577

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    It only takes one guy to commit a mass shooting, not most.

    #1611695

    NeutiquamErro
    Participant

    Thought I’d offer my belated two cents, a year on. I hope some of the orignal participants in this discussion can respond.

    Mentsch1: I cannot see any hashkafic basis for this deterministic view that sensible safety measures are unnecessary since one is anyway destined to die at that time. By this reckoning, putting oneself in any manner of dangerous situations would be completely fine.

    On the wider issue of gun ownership – I completely agree that the USA is almost certainly beyond the point of no return when it comes to private gun ownership. Guns are pretty easy to hide, don’t expire, and are pretty much everywhere. There’s no feasible way of changing that. But my question is whether people think that’s largely a positive thing, and that people should be allowed to own weapons due to ideological or practical reasons, or an unfortunate reality?

    As a Brit, from a country where guns are rare and gun deaths even rarer, I fail to see why anyone would actively desire a situation like it currently is in the US.

    #1611698

    NeutiquamErro
    Participant

    Health:

    It’s true that the USA probably wouldn’t be able to deal with all the guns if they so wished. But it seems obvious to me that a country like the UK, with very low gun ownership, is much better off in that regard than the US. The fact is, very few people get killed by guns in the UK, mass shootings simply don’t happen, and our terrorist attacks, when they do happen, kill much fewer people. That seems to me like a good thing.

    Of course, the last time you responded to me, you said that a police officer on the bridge with an automatic weapon would have saved lives at the Westminster terror attack. I can’t imagine how this would work, how an officer firing through crowds of people at a speeding car would have led to less deaths, but there you are. So I’m intrigued at how a case could be made that guns make a country safer or better in any way.

    #1611751

    mentsch1
    Participant

    Post #1 (in case it gets long so you know the order )
    Erro et all
    First I’m going to apologize. In all likelihood this will be my only post. I’m sure everyone has missed me but a RH resolution of mine was to only use the internet for business, and BH this is the first time I’ve looked at Yeshiva world since RH.
    But to answer your question in long form and drawing from other related discussions.
    You’re comparison from normal life to dangerous situation is not a comparison. We have more hishtadlus for dangerous situations as I’ve pointed out numerous times starting with the gemarrah in chagiga involving the malach hamuves and Mary Magdalena . When you purposely place yourself in a dangerous situation you lose shmira also know as Hashem shomer psaim.

    #1611755

    mentsch1
    Participant

    Post 2
    The idea of “dangerous” is not a personal choice but a halachic one. I call it “ halachic risk assessment “ BF RH I argued on a post about hitchhiking. Many argued against it bc of “ danger”. Over YT I started misilas Yeshorim and found (perek 9 I believe) that the author has a chapter dedicated to mussar for individuals that shirk doing a mitzvah bc of a perceived threat and says that you only have an excuse if there is a clear and present danger, defined as a lion on the road ( a pasuk in mishlei) ie it’s seen and there and likely to happen TO YOU if you follow through. In other words (though he doesn’t quite phrase it this way) a greater then 50% chance of it happening to you.

    #1611760

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Sorry, I’m not buying it. If you didn’t avoid any risks lower than 50%, you’d be dead.

    #1611764

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Do you lock your doors at night? Because there’s probably a much lower than 50% chance anything would happen to you on any given night if you left them unlocked.

    #1611767

    mentsch1
    Participant

    Post 3
    This halachic risk assessment is popular now in shiurim on vaccination. Though I believe in them it’s not so clear cut that the person not vaccinating is violating something.There are shitos that define unacceptable risk (risk that causes you to lose shmira, and thus you are doing an avera) these shitos define unacceptable risk as between 10-51%. I have a copy of the teshuva defining risk as 51% but don’t remember the author off hand.
    Needless to say the risk of getting shot in Shul or on the street is way below that.

    #1611769

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Do you look before crossing the street? The risk of getting hit by a car is often less than 50%, or even 10%, depending on the street and the time of day.

    #1611773

    mentsch1
    Participant

    #4 and final
    That said as I’ve said bf it’s a machlokes. From what I can tell most hold my deterministic view. Personally I think Rav Moshe did from the famous story of him not putting on a seatbelt until asked “to do a yid a favor” ( though I don’t pretend to understand the mind of a gadol). Last week I was listening to Rav Reisman yarchei kallah speeches on sefer Daniel. In the second speech he touches on this idea, whether a person can alter fate. If you are meant to get a bloody nose and Hashem places a person with a temper in front of you. If he fails his test and hits you, that’s one way to get the bloody nose. If he passes his test (great for him) but you still fall and get your bloody nose.
    However, there is a shita (he quoted the alshich) that someone can cause you harm that you were not destined for.
    According to ( what I believe) is the majority opinion, if these Jews in Pittsburgh were meant to die that day it could have come from a maniac with a gun or a faulty gas connection. In England a place with minimal gun death , death still happens from knives to cancer.
    But the alshich agrees with you (from what I can tell)

    #1611772

    🍫Syag Lchochma
    Participant

    DY – i think youre doing that thing again where you pull something out of context and jump on it without the big picture. You may be right that the risk of getting hit by a car is less than 50% sometimes, but the risk will be 50 or more if you don’t look ever. You can’t pull a statistic on an isolated case in specific set up (ie a small street at 3 am) and say that it yransfers to a recurring or chronic behavior. Not locking my car door once may not be a 50% risk for theft, but not locking my car door is probably way over 50%

    #1611776

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Allowing the public to own these weapons is not an isolated incident, Syag.

Viewing 50 posts - 101 through 150 (of 200 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


Trending