February 20, 2018 11:04 am at 11:04 am #1472703
Meno -“I’m pretty sure I read that the shooter entered the school through a back entrance. What good is an armed guard if there are other ways to get in?”
My previous posts compared that schools should be like courts. In every court building, no matter how many entrances there are, e/o must go through security! That means metal detectors & armed guards.February 20, 2018 11:32 am at 11:32 am #1472734
“The topic of these posts I presumed was about schools shootings. But my statements are correct!”
It is about mass shootings in general (Las vegas wasnt a school)
You said: “is-there-any-way-to-prevent-mass-shootings…And the answer …is NO!”
To which I said: “Mass shootings are not a part of life in other countries as they are here. There has to be a way to be more like them in this regard”
to which you said “We don’t need to be like Europe with their liberalism to the Nth degree!”
So I just want to make sure I understand you correctly
“youre saying We have to accept that mass shootings are just a way of life in the US, and are worth it to avoid being “like Europe with their liberalism””
Is this your position?
EditedFebruary 20, 2018 12:44 pm at 12:44 pm #1472790
Health, the Mabul was worse, and we don’t need to be like that generation. That makes terrorism okay!February 20, 2018 2:01 pm at 2:01 pm #1472842
Gun control laws are an exercise in futility. Anyone can print one on the Internet. School staff must be given peace officer status and law enforcement agencies must follow up tips. The FBI was tipped about Cruz several times. He showed all the warning signs from childhood. Why was nothing done?February 20, 2018 2:02 pm at 2:02 pm #1472875The little I knowParticipant
I heard someone propose the following idea. Democrats like to pass laws that are illogical, but that the words sound right. Try this one. The states with Democrat controlled legislatures should pass a law that all shootings in schools must be done one at a time, no mass shootings. This new law should catch on quickly. Then the armed guards that might be near a school should not be able to eliminate the shooter, just warn them that they reached their maximum for the day, and needed to postpone the rest of the intended murders for another day.
There you go. Another tragedy, another law. Solved.
Yes, it is Adar.February 20, 2018 3:37 pm at 3:37 pm #1472924anon1m0usParticipant
I don’t understand how there could be any school shootings?!?! In 1996 we made schools Gun Free Zones and this law should have stopped any guns being carried in a school area.
it is sad that criminals and demented people do not follow the laws!
The only other option is to have armed peace officers or teachers that would be able to respond to such threats.February 20, 2018 6:14 pm at 6:14 pm #1473274
Anyone can print a gun, but printed guns are not quite the same as the ones used in mass shootings.February 20, 2018 6:16 pm at 6:16 pm #1473273
Ubiq – “So I just want to make sure I understand you correctly
“youre saying We have to accept that mass shootings are just a way of life in the US, and are worth it to avoid being “like Europe with their liberalism””
“Is this your position?”
My position is – if there is another way to stop mass shootings besides gun control – I’d be for it.
I’d like to know why are the libs constantly screaming “Gun Control”, when there is a school shooting?!?
How come they aren’t protecting schools, like they do with Courts???February 20, 2018 7:34 pm at 7:34 pm #1473287
thank you for clarifying
“How come they aren’t protecting schools, like they do with Courts???”
Because our children should be safe in schools, they shouldn’t have to live under armed protection. Of course if there is no alternative, then there is no alternative and safety comes first even if it means armed soldiers/guards in streets , malls, parks etc. But it is impossible to believe that there is no other solution, when throughout the civilized world there is no need for schools to be protected that way.February 20, 2018 7:34 pm at 7:34 pm #1473291lesschumrasParticipant
Heath, why dio people need access to automatic assault rifles? Do the deer shoot back? I voted for Trump and consider myself to be politically conservative, but this is not a liberal vs conservative issue. Hunters do not need assault rifles of any kind, they should be illegal to own or sell.February 20, 2018 9:16 pm at 9:16 pm #1473320
“My position is – if there is another way to stop mass shootings besides gun control – I’d be for it.”
So even if gun control were absolutely known to stop mass shootings, you wouldn’t support it? If you love guns more than you care about people, that’s a problem in itself.February 21, 2018 12:34 am at 12:34 am #1473395
Don’t the jewish schools in Europe have armed guards despite the restrictive gun laws?February 21, 2018 12:34 am at 12:34 am #1473394
Please explain to me how the second amendment is read to imply that the founding fathers wanted to protect the right to hunt
And since you obviously didn’t read all the other posts, please explain how banning the handle of a gun will make us safer.
Every “assault rifle” can be made legal by reshaping the handle
Don’t believe me? Google NY legal rak 47.
It’s an ak47 without the handle. Completely legal in NY even after the restrictive assault rifle ban
Do you feel safer?February 21, 2018 8:27 am at 8:27 am #1473400
by Rabbi Steven Pruzansky
The American gun debate has been a dialogue of the deaf for decades and no end is in sight. That is for the simple reason that the two sides each reflect incompatible and irreconcilable views on the matter. To simplify a bit, when one side feels that society would be safer with more guns and the other side feels society would be safer with fewer or no guns, there is not much middle ground that can bridge the differences. One side blames the gun for the crime (as if guns fire themselves) and the other side blames the perpetrator for the crime (as if he could kill people if he didn’t have a gun). And so horrendous tragedies such as last week’s school massacre in Florida will continue to occur, rachmana litzlan.
Each side retreats to its arguments whenever a horrendous school shooting occurs. One side blames the easy access to guns as so obvious that it brooks no discussion. The other side blames the failure to diagnose and treat mental illness or at least intervene and curb the anger and delusions of the disaffected. There are so many layers to the problem that it becomes difficult even to discuss them or analyze them dispassionately. No one is in favor of providing weapons to the mentally ill; by the same token, we pride ourselves in not stigmatizing mental illness, so how can their rights be restricted? And by whom shall they be restricted? Add to this the collapse of the American family since the moral breakdown of the 1960’s – the plethora of fatherless children, the aimlessness of many youth, the broken homes and the lack of any moral guidance from authority figures (schools, churches, etc.) and one big problem looms. And add to that the modern drug of “fame” – the yearning to be noticed, to matter, to be significant in the eyes of society – as if that has any enduring value. There are too many losers who act in anti-social ways to get attention; a small percentage of them will turn violent.
It has reached a point where the arguments no longer address the issue at hand and the proposals made by the politicians satisfy a core constituency but would not solve the problem at all. Trying to prevent a school shooting by tightening the terrorist watch list is a non sequitur. Blaming the NRA and their campaign contributions for the presence of gun violence ignores the reality of the Second Amendment and presupposes that politicians would be amenable to restricting gun ownership if only they had the will. But such is false; most politicians – and most Americans – support gun ownership because they believe in the right of self-defense, itself a cardinal Torah principle: “He who comes to slay you, rise up and slay him first” (Masechet Yoma 85b). There is no virtue to allowing yourself to be killed by a criminal.
Defending the Constitution is seemingly as American as apple pie but its sundry clauses – especially in the Bill of Rights – always vex one group or another and is often under assault by government. Just in the last few years, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” of religion clause was assaulted by a variety of Obama administration measures, particularly regarding the provision of health care; many perceive the Trump’s administration’s hostility and verbal assaults on the media as infringing on freedom of the press; and all of us are subjected, and not always legally, to intrusive surveillance, searches and occasionally seizures with little redress, despite the Fourth Amendment. The Seventh Amendment’s right to a trial by jury sounds great but has not always served the cause of truth and justice.
For better or worse, guns are ingrained in American culture and it is foolhardy to think that the confiscation of 300,000,000 firearms (count ‘em) is feasible even if it were sensible. Some people, naturally horrified by school shootings and the deaths of innocent children, can rail against the prevalence of guns in society but usually will be unaware of the positive roles guns play in the society. The NRA magazine features a monthly column entitled “The Armed Citizen,” in which there are at least a dozen accounts drawn from local media of citizens who saved their own lives (and those of others) by employing a firearm against a hostile entity – intruder, burglar, assailant, rapist, etc. I sense that these accounts weigh more heavily on people’s minds that even the random shootings that, gun control advocates think, should shock people out of their lethargy. Obviously there is a hunting culture in America that uses weapons with much firepower, but since hunting doesn’t speak to me at all (Jews are not hunters) I downplay its role in this debate. Safety first.
If almost everyone is in agreement that someone like the Florida school shooter should not have been able to purchase a weapon, then why can’t laws be crafted that make it more difficult for such malefactors to be denied access and easier for the good citizens to acquire and carry firearms?
It also needs to be noted that, I suspect, most homicides in America are committed with illegal weapons, not ones that are legally purchased. Illegal weapons are easily attainable, even though the average citizen would never seek to acquire an illegal weapon. As such, gun control that is too restrictive leaves weapons primarily in the hands of the criminals and outside the reach of the innocent. That doesn’t seem fair. Nor does it make any sense to argue – as politicians do all the time – that this or that law would have made a difference. Last I checked, there are laws against homicide and yet, somehow, those laws don’t deter homicidal maniacs from killing people. It is not the law as much as it is the person and the person’s capacity and willingness to obey the law.
The most recent miscreant fell through the cracks and had all the indicia of trouble. Given up for adoption, adopted parents dead, expelled from school for violence, drifting, aimless, no future and no hope – a ticking time bomb ready to explode. In his own demented way, he was crying out for help. Someone who posts on the internet using his real name that “I want to grow up to be a professional school shooter” is begging to be noticed and stopped. That no follow up was done – that he was not found – is outrageous incompetence for which someone should be called to account. A cynic might speculate that had he said “I want to grow up to be a professional school shooter and I have evidence that Trump colluded with Russia before the election” the FBI would have found him within an hour. And the ongoing problem is that had he been found, there are no laws and there is no protocol that could have confined, stopped or deterred him.
There is no one law that will be a panacea, especially in the face of the great dysfunction of the American family. And it is not as simple as saying “we should not allow weapons in the hands of the mentally ill;” is a battered woman suffering from depression under the care of a psychiatrist and threatened by a violent ex-husband “mentally ill” and therefore not permitted to buy a gun to use to defend herself? And there are gradations of mental illness as well, from mild to severe.
What is needed in the long term is a cultural change – a moral renaissance reflected in the “bourgeois values” touted by Professor Amy Wax in an article whose thesis is so self-evident that in today’s climate was considered controversial and offensive – but even in the short term measures are necessary and mostly at hand. Schools are currently soft targets, accessible to one and all, student and psychopath alike. That has to change, and providing armed guards during school hours and searches, screening and profiling for all who enter the school building should be obvious. Such is done in Israel, as is the discreet arming of some teachers who rotate carrying concealed weapons on their persons. That secures the target, reasonably if not perfectly, and greatly enhances the chances of failure of the attacker to achieve his nefarious aims as to deter even the attempt.
As the school shooters have almost all been young males – from their teens to their 20’s – it is clear that males who have been expelled from school for violence, are under the care of a mental health professional, or have exhibited cruel and unusual behavior should be placed on a watch list that denies them access to legal weapons unless they are permitted to do so by a judge upon the testimony of doctors, parents, guardians and the like. Again, this is reasonable but not perfect. So is this: adults who store weapons in their homes and do not secure them sufficiently to prevent their use by murderers should be held criminally liable with a mandatory minimum prison sentence. Ah, isn’t this blaming the victim? Well, sometimes the victim deserves some of the blame. It is not sufficient to say “I trusted him,” “I didn’t know he had a duplicate key,” “I tried to turn him into a responsible adult,” etc. If it happens on your watch, you are liable. That should get the attention of law-abiding gun owners.
It is not fair to punish hundreds of millions of law-abiding citizens because of the despicable acts of a handful of people. Nor should we renounce constitutional rights that have safeguarded American liberties and provided an effective means of self-defense. Nor should we wash our hands and say that nothing can be done because there is no perfect solution. There is no perfect solution – the psychopaths can also acquire illegal weapons, psychologists will claim that putting their patients on a watch list would violate confidentiality and encourage reticence, the fantasy of a gun-free society will always animate some – but a sane society takes elementary measures to keep weapons out of the hands of the disaffected, a sane government focuses its efforts on defending its citizens, especially its children, and rational politicians – interested in more than retaining their seats and its access to the lucre of modern politics – know how to address complex issues with substance, sensitivity and efficacy.February 21, 2018 9:03 am at 9:03 am #1473493
Seems like Rabbi Pruzansky has been reading my posts on Yeshiva World
But I take issue with the criminal responsibility for someone else getting there hands on a weapon
1)I cant think of a halachic argument to be made for sending someone to jail for someone elses crime
2) where there is a will there is a way. I figured out the combination to my fathers gun safe early on. It wasnt his fault it was my persistanceFebruary 21, 2018 9:26 am at 9:26 am #1473504NOYBParticipant
you will be happy to know that automatic assault rifles have been almost impossible to obtain since the 1930s, and none have been used in the recent mass shootings!February 21, 2018 9:26 am at 9:26 am #1473501
“2) where there is a will there is a way. I figured out the combination to my fathers gun safe early on. It wasnt his fault it was my persistance”
and that is your argument in favor of private gun ownership?February 21, 2018 9:26 am at 9:26 am #1473502
“Don’t the jewish schools in Europe have armed guards despite the restrictive gun laws?”
( I though I replied earlier I’ll repost)
Yes, I Frnace there are armed gaurds (though Iassume you agree this is unfortunate correct me if Im wrong)
As you probably know the gaurds arent there to prevent a kid from killing17 of his schoolmates. It is for an entirely different reason.
Im not sure why so many find this simple point confusing. nobody is arguing that gun control measures would solve all problems. Just as it is nonsensical to argue (although one poster sort of did) that we shouldn’t lock cockpits after 9/11 since it wouldn’t have prevented Oklahoma city, it is equally nonsensical to argue that we shouldnt enact stricter gun control measures since it wouldn’t prevent terrorism or all murder.February 21, 2018 9:26 am at 9:26 am #1473500
Long post I didnt read the whole thing
Lost me with this line ” the other side blames the perpetrator for the crime (as if he could kill people if he didn’t have a gun)”
but it is a foolish and dishonest statement . No side argues that there would be no murders without guns.
I prefer not to read long screeds from foolish and dishonest people.
And besides, so do you favor the sale of C-4. Its not like the explosives can kill people, and if you dont sell it its not like the guy trying to buy some cant kill in other ways
A further sign of dishonesty is this “Such is done in Israel, as …” Many gun control advocates (not all) would accept strict gun control like Israel has. The NRA though opposes such common sense measures like universal background checks
If there is any specific point you’d want addressed I’d be happy to respond.February 21, 2018 10:03 am at 10:03 am #1473516
I’m pretty sure my statement about schools in europe (and it’s more then france) was made in response to the comment “we shouldn’t have to protect schools”
Clearly you want to draw some distinction between terrorism and school shootings.
Is your point: terrorism we cant stop bc there are homicidal crazy people but school shootings you can stop if you take the guns? Why arent school shootings a form of terrorism (that we all seem to realize can’t be stopped)?
At no point did i defend the NRA (i’m not a fan and dropped my membership years ago when they faught armor penetrating bullets) At every point in this discussion I promoted logic. Logic dictates some gun control., as I have said numerous times.February 21, 2018 10:04 am at 10:04 am #1473520
I just went back over your posts to see what your position is
Cars are heavily regulated
If we treated guns the way we treat cars that would be fantastic.
– You need a license to own/operate one. Need to renew license every so often
– All guns must be registrerd and Re-registered every few years
– safety inspection they need to be equiped with safety features (safety lock?)
– maybe we can start requiring mandatory gun insurance
– If physician thinks you are unsafe s/he can report to DMV and possibly have license revoked
If you read my posts you would see I am in favor of mandatory safety training etc. Higher age requirements. Federal background checks
so how do we disagree?February 21, 2018 11:42 am at 11:42 am #1473667
Ubiq – “But it is impossible to believe that there is no other solution, when throughout the civilized world there is no need for schools to be protected that way”
Stop dreaming that the US can be some sort of utopia!
There is no country in the world as big as the US & as safe!
Even the small countries in Europe, with all their Gun Control, have a bigger problem with Terrorism than the US.February 21, 2018 11:45 am at 11:45 am #1473564
“I’m pretty sure my statement about schools in europe (and it’s more then france) was made in response to the comment “we shouldn’t have to protect schools””
Right. We shouldnt HAVE to. dont you agree? Unfortunatly if there is no chioice than we have to but that is sad.
I’ll back up I’m not sure where I lost you
Health said (I’m paraphrasing) we just have to accept mass shootings as a way of life in the US and have armed gaurds outside schools
I said . IF no alternative then yes we need to protect children, but given that this is a US issue, it is hard to imagine there is no alternaivie as armed gaurds ioutside schools is bedieved.
This is where you come in,. you said “Don’t the jewish schools in Europe have armed guards despite the restrictive gun laws?”
to which I explained , they arent protecting from Mass shootings they are there for another reason.
You ask “Clearly you want to draw some distinction between terrorism and school shootings.
becasue they are different. they have different causes, motives, means, (though sadly the outcomes are similar) . Just like you dont lump medical errors and car accidents together.
Moreover even if you DO lump them together they still are doing better. Including terrorosim, Frnace STILL has had less mass shootings. And a majhority of schools dont require armed gaurds. Yes a few Jewish ones do, but that is far better than the reccomendation made by health.\
Further still, it is hard to imagine how exapnding say the No-fly -list to becoem a no-gun-list will further terrorism in the US
Finally you ask
“Why arent school shootings a form of terrorism (that we all seem to realize can’t be stopped)?”
Because it is a uniquely American problem. I agree that the exact reasons why are hard to pin down, but it is hard to argue that the fact that it is so easy to get a gun, and that we have the highest civiallian arsenal have soemthing to do with it
As I mentioned in my first post see the Onion’s headline “‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens”
If you agree with that statment, you are falling for a joke.
“If you read my posts you would see I am in favor of mandatory safety training etc. Higher age requirements. Federal background checks
so how do we disagree?”
Maybe we don’t! so join me in wriiting our congressman, lets march on Washington. vote for Democratic pro-life candidatesFebruary 21, 2018 12:17 pm at 12:17 pm #1473668
Yidd23 -“So even if gun control were absolutely known to stop mass shootings, you wouldn’t support it? If you love guns more than you care about people, that’s a problem in itself.”
Don’t put words into my mouth! Why don’t you move to Europe, it’s a lot Safer there, because of their Gun Control?!?February 21, 2018 12:35 pm at 12:35 pm #1473694
Because it is a uniquely American problem. I agree that the exact reasons why are hard to pin down, but it is hard to argue that the fact that it is so easy to get a gun, and that we have the highest civiallian arsenal have soemthing to do with it
The first half of your statement is hard to dispute
Sure I have some die hard second amendment fans that feel rights are absolute. But there is middle ground here. Frankly the govt has dropped the ball on background checks. I predict public opinion will succeed in some common sense solutions like background checks
You still haven’t given us your plan for the second half
1)the 300M guns cant disappear without confiscation. And then you run into the issues Ive already mentioned (non compliance and massive resistance resulting in millions of new felons, perhaps even violence)
2) All the assault rifle laws are clearly political and have nothing to do with the actual problem. I feel I have proven that from basic logic.
so what is your plan?
As I said after vegas. Because the ignorant left reacts emotionally and believes there is a panacea , the right reacts as if the govt is coming to confiscate their weapons
If the left acknowledges the right to bear arms and stops with silly reactionary laws the right will be more willing to compromise.February 21, 2018 12:36 pm at 12:36 pm #1473700
I wouldn’t move to Europe, but not because of safety, but because I don’t speak the languages and can’t stand the accents.February 21, 2018 12:57 pm at 12:57 pm #1473708
Mentsch, someone who gives a cheresh/shotteh/katan the means to cause damage is liable for the damage caused (SA CM 396:6).
I am not Rabbi Pruzansky’s spokesman. If you disagree with something he wrote you can contact him or post a comment on his blog. However, I will defend him anyway as I reposted.
1. He was not stating his opinion but how he interprets that of the anti-gun control side.
2. You are in need of a remedial reading course. “as is done in Israel” refers to “providing armed guards during school hours and searches, screening and profiling for all who enter the school building “.
3. If it is too long for you to read every word so skim.February 21, 2018 2:13 pm at 2:13 pm #1473736
“Even the small countries in Europe, with all their Gun Control, have a bigger problem with Terrorism than the US”
Yes and they have a lower infant mortality, but what does that have to do with anything?
At any rate though since you insist on mixing in terrorism, you think expanding the no-fly-list to be a no-gun-list would INCREASE terrorism?
“Sure I have some die hard second amendment fans that feel rights are absolute.”
Sadly though with groups like the NRA targeting specific elections over this one issue saner voices are ignored.
Take backgroubnd checks whihc you seem to favor. It has near universal support even among gun owners. In 1999 after columbine Wayne Lappiere said “We think it’s reasonable to provide mandatory instant background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere, for anyone”
Yet their more recent position is “The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system”
Yes there are some silly points from the LEft that the right likes harping on like misuse of the term “assault rifles” or confusing automatic wit h semi-automatic, though I fai lto understand why that should lesson support for wha tmost on the right think is good policy.
“1)the 300M guns cant disappear without confiscation. And then you run into the issues Ive already mentioned (non compliance and massive resistance resulting in millions of new felons, perhaps even violence)”
I dont know, though that is a terrible argument to keep the status quo. Maybe a buyback program like in Australia? Maybe limit to 1 or 2 guns per person like in Israel.?
Though I have to say the threat of “violence” doesnt really make me happy about leaving guns in these peoples hands. If a person can say I’m a nice guy but if you come for my gun I’m shooting you (and you are the second person on this thread who said this) makes me less supportive of “gun rights” not moreFebruary 21, 2018 2:21 pm at 2:21 pm #1473743
“I am not Rabbi Pruzansky’s spokesman.”
Are you sure?
““as is done in Israel” refers to “providing armed guards during school hours and searches, screening and profiling for all who enter the school building “.”
Yes I got that. And thats why I said the comment was dishonest. If we copied Israel’s approach to gun control that would be great. It is dishonest to cite Israel as a model Quote “As is done in Israel..” in a discussion over gun control but regarding a side issue and ignore their approach to the issue at hand, namely gun control
That is my point and is what I said.
“If it is too long for you to read every word so skim.”
I did, and understood the gist of it, though you still falsely accused me of not readign it correctly . you are hard to win withFebruary 21, 2018 5:08 pm at 5:08 pm #1473898
Yidd23 -“I wouldn’t move to Europe, but not because of safety, but because I don’t speak the languages and can’t stand the accents.”
Stop being Dishonest!
How can you claim “not because of safety”, when you could learn the language of that country?!?
Once you learn the language & it becomes your primary language, you will have the same accents that you can’t stand NOW!February 21, 2018 5:08 pm at 5:08 pm #1473894
Ubiq -“Yes and they have a lower infant mortality, but what does that have to do with anything?”
You obviously didn’t read my whole post! It was a continuation.
Here it is again:
“There is no country in the world as big as the US & as safe!
Even the small countries in Europe, with all their Gun Control, have a bigger problem with Terrorism than the US.”February 21, 2018 5:32 pm at 5:32 pm #1473928
I don’t know what post you are referring to but I never came close to implying that I would shoot someone or be part of some mass uprising.
I fail to see how limiting guns would help anything, after all, it just takes one.
Apparently we will need to agree to disagree.
It is clear that non compliance will be an issue with any govt confiscation. It is clear that any govt that will turn millions into felons is a tyrannical govt. It is clear halachically that the right to defend yourself is a right. It is clear historically that govt’s that confiscated guns often did so as a precuser to repression. From tanach (twice its mentioned that the plishtim forbade weapons in order to repress) to the Warsaw ghetto. It is clear that the second amendment allows gun ownership. It is clear that mass shootings are a fairly recent scourge and therefore unlikely directly linked to gun ownership. It is clear that the vast majority of gun owners who are law abiding citizens never commit felonies with their weapons
What isn’t clear is that limiting guns would help one iota
Bari v’shema bari udifFebruary 21, 2018 9:29 pm at 9:29 pm #1473975
I’m sorry I didnt mean that you implied that you would take up arms. I war referring to this “the 300M guns cant disappear without confiscation. …massive resistance resulting in …, perhaps even violence” Another poster said a similar thing. Say a democratically elected Govt repeals the second amendment and guns are confiscated. I would expect law abiding citizens to comply, and arguing that many wouldnt makes me worry about giving them guns in the first place.
Obviously that is essentially an impossibility, but say all guns have to be registered. Say the supreme court, says wel the second amendment calls for the right to be “well regulated” which we interpret to mean a registry of all guns (note not ordinarily regulated, it must be well regulated). I also suspect some of the “very nice guys” identified in by another poster will resort to violence.
in short, arguing that good guys should be allowed to keep guns otherwise they will get violent just isnt a convincing argument.
“It is clear historically that govt’s that confiscated guns often did so as a precuser to repression.”
Oy Australian repression is notorious.
“It is clear that the second amendment allows gun ownership.”
that isnt clear, and until recently it was not understood that way.
“It is clear that mass shootings are a fairly recent scourge and therefore unlikely directly linked to gun ownership”
Can it be because of the ease at purchasing weapons that are far deadlier and fire a rapid pace compared to the past. Yes I know we can google weapons that existed 200 years ago that were equally deadly but those were the exception rather than the rule.
” to the Warsaw ghetto”
Ive asked this before, which armed uprising in US history do you support? the whiskey rebellion? the confederacy? The Branch Davidians?
What about me Tax day is coming I hope to fight off the tyranical IRS from taking my hard earned money. IS this my right? How exactly does this work who decides when the govt is “tyrannical” ?
Furthermore if we have to fight the govt we need tanks jets and missiles. do I have a right to own those? Particularly as the second amendment clearly protects my right to bear “arms” not just guns and all of the above are “arms”February 21, 2018 9:30 pm at 9:30 pm #1473979
“You obviously didn’t read my whole post!”
I did and have no idea what you are talking about.
Your posts are hard to follow and jump from topic to topic making any chain of logic (if there is one) difficult to follow. I’m tired of always having t o help things out and get things on track for you.
You make it even harder by not addressing direct questions.
We are talking about shootings and that it is “impossible to believe that there is no other solution,” I dont see how “yes but they have terrorism” (im paraphrasing) has anything to do with anythingFebruary 21, 2018 9:30 pm at 9:30 pm #1473986
“I fail to see how limiting guns would help anything, after all, it just takes one”
Then you arent looking honestly. More gun ownership = more homicide this is obvious and conclusively proven on the state level and national level.
Now you can argue that they are relatively few, and that you need guns in case the government becomes tyrannical or something and therefore it is a small price to pay. in short the benefits outweigh the risks.
Obviously more car ownership = more vehicular death. Though in that case we all agree the benefits outweigh the risk. But To argue that “limiting gun ownership” “wouldn’t help anything” is absurdFebruary 22, 2018 7:29 am at 7:29 am #1474040
I don’t know, maybe it was said before…. I think the answer is so obvious…
Let EVERYONE affected sue the manufacturer millions… each and every one… sue them… sue them. It’s the only language they know. Hit them hard.. drive them out of business. Hold them accountable for every crime committed through their deadly creations. And sue their pant off!!!
Any sane (truthful) person, willing to recognize the truth knows that the problem lies in the proliferation and readily accessibility of these deadly weapons. It takes just an ounce of brain mush. And those with the power in Washington are missing even that. Or are so terribly biased to put our lives secondary. FOR SHAME!!!!
I am so badly shaken after seeing some of those videos….. who cannot cry?!?February 22, 2018 7:30 am at 7:30 am #1474082
1. Yes, I am sure. I have not even had a first interview.
2. How does it follow that if one approach is a model for the US all are? If we eat meat as do dogs does that mean that we should bark? Should the US make Shabbat and Jewish holidays national days of rest?
3. You not only do not read correctly you do not write correctly (“readign”).February 22, 2018 7:31 am at 7:31 am #1474086Jersey JewParticipant
99% of you mamesh have NO idea what you are talking about. You are blabbering over to us what you heard on NPR or some other looney left radio station. I wont accuse you of having a tv to watch CNN, msNBC etc.
You want to stop these? SIMPLE! Get rid of this leftist mishigas called a gun free zone. A gun free zone to someone who wants to inflict as much carnage as possible is NOT a deterrent. IT IS A BIG FAT INVITATION! Its an invitation because he knows NO ONE has weapons to use against him! So he goes in with a lot less fear. If people were allowed to carry concealed weapons, with a gun license obviously, at the first sign of trouble the trained gun owners will eliminate the issue. Why wait the 5-10 min for the police to show up because in that time so many more could be dead or injured.
We heard the other day that one of the survivors had a plan to throw a fire extinguisher at the gunman. PULLLLEASE! A bullet vs a fire extinguisher?! REALLY? Let’s sum that confrontation over right now… ONE MORE DEAD KID.
Now for the other stuff…
AR-rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold. They are today’s modern sporting rifle. The AR in “AR-15” rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. “AR” does NOT stand for “assault rifle” or “automatic rifle.”
You need to understand the difference between an automatic and semi automatic weapon and the difference is VERY simple,
An automatic weapon means there is more than 1 bullet per pull on the trigger. The classic example of this would be a machine gun where one pull on the trigger releases many bullets. ALL AUTOMATIC WEAPONS ARE ILLEGAL IN THE USA!
A semi-automatic weapon means there is ONLY 1 bullet per pull on the trigger. Most guns are this type and these are mostly legal .
Of the illegal semi automatic weapons, most were deemed illegal because they look scarier than the others. In many cases, there was NO rhyme or reason why some were made illegal.
Remember, the only thing that could stop someone with a gun, is someone else with a gun!February 22, 2018 8:39 am at 8:39 am #1474130
1. So don’t just copy and paste an entire piece
2. “How does it follow” It doesnt. but it is misleading to say we “should be liek ISrael…” In regard to gun control (which is what the post is about) then do a bait and switch and discussing other aspects like Israeli society. It would be like saying mammals need to eat more meat just like dogs who bark. That is a far more apt analogy.
3. You got me there. My typing is atrocious and full of typos (often terrible autocorrects too like my post which said “armed cards”) In my zeal to share my wisdom I often don’t proofread, and I am sorry about that. Please let me know what point you have difficulty with and I am more than happy to explain iin a way that will not cause you trouble.
for example I wrote “though you still falsely accused me of not readign it correctly” Now obviously as you correctly point out “readign” isn’t a word. now in context it should be clear I meant “reading” since I was replying to your “If it is too long for you to read every…” and the letters are quite close to reading just the last 2 are flipped.
Again, I am genuinely sorry if that in any way confused you.February 22, 2018 8:40 am at 8:40 am #1474131
“You want to stop these? SIMPLE!”
It IS simple, look at Europe.
I love your repeating what has strangely become a favorite Sean Hannity talking point. Who in this thread said AR stands for Assault rifle?
“An automatic weapon means there is more than 1 bullet per pull on the trigger.”
another favorite talking point. who in this thread said otherwise.
Though so we are clear, you are opposed to bump stocks since they allow “more than 1 bullet per pull on the trigger.” (without actually modifying the weapon)
” there was NO rhyme or reason why some were made illegal.”
another favorite talking point. Though you did provide a reason “because they look scarier” That might not be a good reason, but it is without doubt a reason.
“Remember, the only thing that could stop someone with a gun, is someone else with a gun!”
Sean, you can repeat that over and over, it isnt true. Look at AustraliaFebruary 22, 2018 8:40 am at 8:40 am #1474132
“Let EVERYONE affected sue..”
The problem is they can’t. In 2005 congress passed the PLCAA which generally protects gun manufacturers from being sued for death that occurs via their productsFebruary 22, 2018 12:12 pm at 12:12 pm #1474248
Another indication of the snug aloofness and brainlessness in Washington. Someone ought to challenge it. Someone with courage…
Brains vs PowerFebruary 22, 2018 12:16 pm at 12:16 pm #1474244
Ubiq -“Your posts are hard to follow and jump from topic to topic making any chain of logic (if there is one) difficult to follow. I’m tired of always having t o help things out and get things on track for you.”
Funny NOT one other poster has trouble following my posts!
“You make it even harder by not addressing direct questions.
We are talking about shootings and that it is “impossible to believe that there is no other solution,” I dont see how “yes but they have terrorism” (im paraphrasing) has anything to do with anything”
OK. Again for those that didn’t get it the first time!
To protect against School Shootings – make them like courts, with armed guards & metal detectors.
I agree with Trump about making gun ownership more regulated.February 22, 2018 3:39 pm at 3:39 pm #1474516
1. You make another highly illogical statement. Are only spokespeople allowed to copy and paste entire pieces?
2. The topic of the thread is “Is there any way to prevent mass shootings????” not gun control per se. Rabbi Pruzansky made a suggestion to be like Israel in one way but did not take a position on other aspects of Israeli law.
3. You are setting up a straw man. I did not contend that I did not understand you. Just as I understood what you meant by “liek” I understood what you meant by “readign”. I merely observed that your writing ability is the equal of your reading ability (as well as your analytical ability).
4. As for not taking the time to proofread, Chazal admonish us to be moderate in judgement. In other words, do not rush.February 22, 2018 4:26 pm at 4:26 pm #1475165
1. No. dont get caught up on the term “spokesman” you copied a long piece that wasnt super logical nor honest. when I pointed out an example of this in the first paragraph. you hid behind ” “I am not Rabbi Pruzansky’s spokesman.” Ok You diont want to speak for him. so dont. Hopefully you can see how copying his >1500 word screed made it seem like you did.
2. thats fair I was wrong to label that point dishonest. Though I still stand by my point, namely we would be better off if we followed Israel’s approach to gun control.
3. so why are you hocking ah cheinek. If you understood what I said, why get caught up on a typo?
4. I never said I’m right. I’ll try to work on it.
“I agree with Trump about making gun ownership more regulated.”
Ah so we agree!February 22, 2018 4:48 pm at 4:48 pm #1475173apushatayidParticipant
There is an interesting Op-Ed today on Arutz Sheva titled “Israel proves the NRAs arguments”. Is a good read.February 22, 2018 4:48 pm at 4:48 pm #1475176
” Pruzansky made a suggestion to be like Israel in one way but did not take a position on other aspects of Israeli law”
THAT is exactly what I was criticizing. why not take a position on the subject at hand? He is writing a piece on gun control in general (he isnt replying to the OP. And even if he was armed gaurds wouldnt reduce ” Mass shootings” they would reduce School shootings, Without question a worthy goal.)
He writes “To simplify a bit, when one side feels that society would be safer with more guns and the other side feels society would be safer with fewer or no guns,” Again, look at Israel, do they have more or less civilian guns than the US? is it easier or harder to get a gun than in the US. ?
I’m not sure why you think there is a problem with reading comprehension. I explained this point already .February 22, 2018 5:25 pm at 5:25 pm #1475223
Ubiq – “Health – “I agree with Trump about making gun ownership more regulated.”
Ah so we agree!”
I’m not so sure. I’ve been under the impression, all these years, that you believe in gun control like all liberals!February 22, 2018 5:52 pm at 5:52 pm #1475244
Instead of handing out assault, warfare arms to the mentally disturbed, and forcing our teachers to become army and SWAT personnel, how about taking away those toys from the loonies and let the teachers continue to do the job they were hired for?
Makes sense?!? (Well, I guess that’s why no one’s gonna do it – read above)February 22, 2018 8:38 pm at 8:38 pm #1475308
“that you believe in gun control like all liberals!”
Dont look in the mirror, but so do you.
and I quote: “I agree with Trump about making gun ownership more regulated”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.