Mass shootings, and non mass shootings, must stop.

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Mass shootings, and non mass shootings, must stop.

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 137 total)
  • Author
  • #2181325

    Problem is that republicans refuse to tighten gun laws. They say it wont work, anyway)and that might be true. So, what to do?

    Lets introduce what i’ll call the “147 model”. Effective immediately, it must be federally mandated that following a murderous shooting, the murderer be subjected to immense torture. Make the concentration camps look like a picnic. Every day for decades on end. You’re quite welcome.


    The shooter is usually dead by end of shooting spree



    Better the shooter is dead at the beginning of an intended shooting spree, having killed him/herself,

    Take all guns away in the USA unless the possessor is a member of the National Guard, law enforcement or corrections (our well organized militia, satisfying the 2nd Amendment).


    To participant: your proposal is sick, and I am not sure about you.



    I fully agree with you. I was just commenting on participant’s idea of torture for shooter which doesn’t work well for people who are already dead.
    Personally I think 2nd Ammenment should be abolished. It’s totally outdated.


    Enforced forfeitures of all property for premeditated murder. If a gun owner is negligent (e.g. in keeping their mentally ill hid from taking the gun), they should be subject to strict civil liability for all damages. Serious punishments for violent crimes would be effective if a little bit crueler and more public (nothing medieval such as crucifixion or drawing and quartering, but perhaps public hangings shown on the internet). Kids who play video games don’t fully understand that in the real world, dying is painful and you don’t get another life.

    National wide concealed carry for law abiding citizens, strong “strand your ground laws”, and immunity for those who take down the criminal.


    Ct, so you want to take away people’s ability to defend themselves? Yeah, that’ll end well.

    anonymous Jew

    CTlawyer et al,
    While the mass shootings get all the attention in the media, far more people are murdered in ” routine ” violence. Chicago alone had 797 murders in 2021, 695 in 2022 and 141 year to date.
    Baltimore had 337, 332, and 74 respectively. Gun laws stop only law abiding citizens from possessing guns. Gang members, muggers and assorted law breakers don’t care about or apply for gun permits.


    That won’t stop the Chicago and los Angeles gun crimes where there are already tight measures.


    In this thread: religious Jews don’t understand civic responsibility, punishment proportionality, or government scepticism.

    Hint: when the government goes bad, your gun is all you have.

    1. A gun store that sells a weapon that is later used in a crime is subject to a mandatory closure and full investigation
    2. Ban all guns that hold more than five shots.
    3. Ban all calibers greater than .22
    4. Each individual gun a person buys requires that they show a reason why they need this gun and it must be approved by an impartial anonymous political committee. Turning in an old gun for an upgrade is taken into account.
    5. Limit the production and sale of guns based on the size of the local population. Gun stores in a zip code cannot carry more than X weapons where X is the population size in that zip multiplied by a factor of no more than 2
    6. In some areas of Japan, people leave plastic bottles filled with water outside their house. When asked, most people will just shrug and say “This is what you’re supposed to do”. When pressed, some people will talk about how water bottles scare off cats (but won’t be able to explain why they want to scare off cats, if it actually works to scare off cats, or if there are even any cats in the area to scare off). But everyone does it, so it’s ingrained in the culture so everyone else does it.

      That’s what guns are to some states in the USA. Everyone has guns. Few people can give a good, coherent reason why they need so many guns. Self protection? Hunting? Sport shooting? It’s fun? But since it’s such a massive part of the culture, logic has ceased to be a factor in this question a very long time ago. Everyone needs guns because everyone has guns. It’s as simple as that. And as long as these people are fighting tooth and nail to ensure that an archaic outdated law remains on the books, criminals and mentally disturbed people have easy access to weapons (legal and illegal) that allow them to commit harm on a much larger scale.


    CTLawyer I have not logged in here for years but now I must. Anyone who has read the fedaralist papers or has any knowledge of the political beliefs and development of the time period knows that the founders of America did not and would not consider a state organization like a national guard to be a well regulated militia. Secondly, your purposeful misreading of the Constitution is a disgusting butchery of the English language. It takes an upside down inside out person to misunderstand the words “shall not be infringed” in the way you take it, Tokugawa.


    To add to what I said in my previous post: many criminals who commit gun-related crimes aren’t yet technically felons at the time they legally purchased a gun. So to with the mentally ill. It can take months, or even years, for a mental diagnosis (if one happens at all) during the whole time the individual is perfectly capable of purchasing a murder stick.


    doom777: if the government goes bad your guns cant help you.

    The second amendment needs to be abolished. At bare minimum, if someone wants a gun he or she needs to take a course, pass an in-person test, have a background check and get insurance. Like getting a drivers license. There also needs to be strict vicarious liability for gun owners like we have for car owners. This is the bare minimum we need.


    As I have pointed out before all these comments are pretty foolish but it doesnt take into account numerous realities
    If tomorrow the second amendment is abolished, what percentage of people will comply and what will be the consequences for non compliance
    Certainly we can assume there are millions of unregulated weapons. But what about the registered ones. Do you assume everyone will just hand in there 400 million or so weapons?
    Or as history has shown, will they be more likely to ignore the govt, and all you have accomplished is making millions of citizens into criminals
    what is my proof?
    the NYS safe act that required registration of “assault weapons” and according to Forbes was disregarded by 95% of owners
    That was just registration. can you imagine confiscation?
    civil war is a more likely scenario than compliance


    you gave some good reasons, Hunting, self protection, sport shooting its fun (all of the above)
    so why are those reasons not “coherent”?


    As far as I can tell, chazal never banned weapons even though it would be used to kill
    why must the individual give up his rights ?
    if you say for the greater good (which has theoretical logic) then lets take it a step further
    hashkafically, can we actually control the number of people that die annually? Does taking away guns save someone from premature death?
    what about cars? 46,000+ deaths a year. Lets go back to horse and buggy.
    Rav Shimshon Pincus said if he had a sanhedrin he would have banned cars (ironically he was killed in a car accident)
    I am not a baki in shas but chagiga 4b addresses this, the only way to die prematurely (acc to that gemarah) is if you are engaging in risky behavior. So from what I can tell you can label driving risky behavior and ban it.
    But being shot isn’t a risky behavior on your part. So if someone is meant to die he will die in a mugging or getting hit by a bus, what is the difference?



    would you accept that argument in any other realm?

    Eg making abortion illegal would just make criminals out of all the people who will continue to get abortions therefore they shouldn’t be banned? as history has shown, will they be more likely to ignore the govt, and all you have accomplished is making millions of citizens into criminals


    1) Some guns are a necessity for some areas of the country.
    2) And a frivolity for certain neighborhoods.
    3) Certain guns have no use outside of a combat zone.
    The abolishment or containment of guns should center around the third sentence.
    But what use is good sense when it comes to talking policy for our diverse melting pot of a free-thinking media-parroting partisan/independent gentleman’s shouting match?

    Commas were edited out as a form of evidence. -1776


    Yes, taking away guns would be very difficult, potentially leading to a civil war, if we do it all at once. Which is why it needs to start slowly and immediately. We need strong efforts to get rid of “gun culture” in Red states and neutering the NRA. Soon, with more than a bit of effort, we can move towards the complete abolishment of the 2nd amendment.


    @mentsch1 “Fun” isn’t a good reason for stockpiling dangerous weapons. Sports shooting falls under the category of “fun”. I fail to see how a single low caliber low capacity gun isn’t enough to fulfill the requirements for hunting and self protection. None of these are coherent responses to why gun nuts stockpile dozens of dangerous weapons whose only purpose is to kill many people as quickly as possible.

    And yes, other things kill people. Take cars for example. Perhaps you’re right, we should treat guns like cars. Ridiculously expensive to the point where the average family can only afford one or two. Require a long period of training and a license to use that can be revoked at any time due to misuse. Regular inspections and clear identification of ownership. The understanding that, although they are fun, society still needs good ways to go about without them and should be designed so that people don’t need need cars (busses and trains are fine too).

    Hashkafically, there are sources that say that a person can die before his time if he were killed. Guns kill people.


    2nd amendment is a last-resort safety measure against tyranny, we should keep it while mitigating side effects, like making sure that people who buy them are sane, trained, and do not resell it outside of legal channels.

    Do we need such a ridiculous safety measure? What is a chance that US can end up as a dictatorship Chinese style? Many democracies in history ended or had dictatorship periods – Romans, Germans …

    Having such a safety measure is even stabilizing in normal conditions, as the country can be more tolerant towards differing opinions knowing that dictatorship is not likely.


    Your arguments actually are the reason it will never happen
    First everyone here with their heads in the clouds are ignoring the fact that the second amendment is only becoming more entrenched in law
    Second the reason why the NRA continues to be popular and is allowed to fight tooth and nail on every “infringement “ is Bc every nra member is convinced the left is coming for their guns, and therefore they dig in their heels.
    If the left compromised a little bit. I firmly believe you’ll see compromise on the other side.
    If the left agreed to not fight the second amendment and try stupid illogical laws like so-called assault rifle bans, I think we would see the right, willing to compromise on mental health checks and waiting periods etc


    Most of this discussion is fanciful imagination and wishful thinking on the part of idealists who either aren’t familiar with the realities of the topic or are just trolling.
    For any meaningful change on this front there must be a paradigm shift in our culture, and I do not know what might induce such a shift or what such a shift might look like.
    But as it stands right now, the way I see it is that either everyone must be well-armed and proficient or everyone must be disarmed to end this incessant violence.
    At this point, there is a political deadlock on the topic (probably nominally a good thing, because of the masses were to be armed but not proficient that would probably make the situation worse.)


    Ignoring the obvious lack of logic in the comparison (might as well have said “since everyone murders anyway , do you support….”)
    But as I have said many times I only support jail for violent offenders
    But there is more than one form of governmental tyranny
    I’m less worried about dictatorships and more worried about millions of law abiding citizens being persecuted for something that is currently legal


    Any hunter would consider your proposal unethical
    You do not hunt with a .22 Bc it will probably wound and cause suffering
    Also the limited studies that I’ve been able to find in the past don’t have a huge difference between fatalities between 22 caliber and 9 mm.

    My problem is, is that the conversation from the lefts POV tends to ignore the biggest problems. The open borders, and the flow of illegal weapons. Being soft on crime and allowing violent offenders free reign.
    If the left is coming after our weapons, maybe they should make us feel secure first, so that we don’t need them.


    This Democrat NRA narrative is trash. None of these shooters are members of the NRA.


    @mentsch1 So you agree that we need to get rid of guns in the USA, you are merely pointing out that it would be a long and difficult process, yes? Great. Now lets get that process started by out loud declaring how gun culture is stupid and dangerous and we have to work on eliminating it.


    “Take all guns away in the USA unless the possessor is a member of the National Guard, law enforcement or corrections (our well organized militia, satisfying the 2nd Amendment)”

    Typical rich boomer democrat answer. Every old Russian Jew I know would laugh at your detachment from reality. Why is it those with privilege feel like it’s imperative the unwashed masses shouldn’t have privileges or rights?


    and mods
    how come i am labeled as participant?! you would think after 12+ years we would be on a first name basis


    If only we could wave a magic wand, but alas some of us live in the real world
    And some of us have mentioned some real world initiatives but alas the left always prefers emotional band aids that look good in front of the press


    “(might as well have said “since everyone murders anyway , do you support….””

    Yes I agree that would be a fine comparison. though I used a better one .
    Would you accept that argument for abortion.
    A year ago it was legal. States made laws making it illegal. why isnt this something that worries you? Or is it?

    you said you are ” more worried about millions of law abiding citizens being persecuted for something that is currently legal”

    You mentioned to Yserbius

    “First everyone here with their heads in the clouds are ignoring the fact that the second amendment is only becoming more entrenched in law”

    The oppsoite is true./ IVe pointed out over and over how the reinterpretation of the second amendment as applying to ordinary citizens is relatively new.
    Granted at this point it is more of a historical argument and not practically too significant since the court gets to decide , though a new court can undo Heller and revert to the original interrepations. The Left should approach guns the way the right did abortion.
    (Though probably wouldn’t be quite as successful I dont think anti-gun camp is quite as fired up as the anti-abortion camp)


    you will notice i stayed away from historical and theoretical arguments
    But my statement is fact, each new supreme court ruling further entrenches it, whether or not you agree with the arguments or “reinterpretation” is irrelevant to the discussion
    and abortion is at a disadvantage in that there is no amendment guaranteeing it
    but none of this interests me
    all that interests me is how the govt can possibly go about removing guns without creating a massive violation of the civil rights of gun owners (and without causing a civil war)

    and as i already said, i would not support jail for abortion
    as for passing the legislation that created the illegality in the first place (rolling back roe vs wade) I am of two minds. The religious answer is obvious (and not at all comparable to guns, bc gun ownership is not immoral). As for my practical answer i would have left it on the books. Partly bc of the noted problem of people ignoring it and partly bc of other reasons.


    Years ago when I married and came from California to Georgia and the Appalachian Mountains I was introduced to the gun culture. Typical homes like ours would have at least 10-15 guns in a few corners of the house. I have seen statistics that state there are more guns in America than people. There is no way anyone or any laws are going to collect all of these guns. Now I live in the town of Beitar, Israel. At least two of my sons have been close to being killed by Arabs that throw rocks. They also use knives and cars to ram us. Maybe we should pass laws to take up away knives? cars?? and rocks??? Kids in
    America feast on violence, massive amounts of injuries in their sports every year, the average kid will see 50,000 murders by the time he is 20, 60, million abortions. The Amish, the Orthodox Jews & the Homeschoolers (over a million in America no) know the answers. Teach & shield the children from the ground up! it works…I now have almost 80 descendants sheltered and taught Torah principles from the ground up…none are violent, none carry guns, or rocks. Our future is when the inside of man changes and his violent weapons will be changed into plowing instruments!


    “But my statement is fact, each new supreme court ruling further entrenches it,”

    absolutely. It is a fact Ive said many times. no argument at all
    but the same way courts can entrench it, courts can dislodge it.

    “As for my practical answer i would have left it on the books.”
    thanks for the reply
    Kudos on the consistency

    “I live in the town of Beitar, Israel.”
    guns are very regulated in Israel. If we enacted their regulation Id be fine with that.

    “America feast on violence,”
    this isnt the answer. Europeans have the same violence Japanese movies have more They simply don’t have the same number of mass shootings as we do. This theory doesnt hold water


    @mensch1 I don’t disagree that it would be difficult. I just want to clarify that we are on the same page: much of American culture is bad and dangerous. Gun culture is one aspect of it. We should recognize and publicize how dangerous it is.


    I’m not sure you would count me in on your side of the discussion. After all to quote my wife “I have way too many guns” so I am probably more like the mountain men of krigers former life in that respect.
    “Gun culture” is growing in the frum world. One of the popular gun ranges in Lakewood is now Jewish owned.
    But I am not sure how to define “gun culture” partly bc I’m not sure why it makes people more nervous when someone has 10 guns as opposed to 1. I am no more likely to become violent Bc I have more than 1 gun. So the logic escapes me.


    @mentsch1 If you read my first comment on this thread, I gave a list of laws that in my amateur opinion I would like to see as the law of the land for guns. It’s logical, would save countless lives, and the only opposition to it I’ve seen so far is “But then you would take my guns!!”. Yes, yes we would. That’s the point.


    @mentsch1 If someone thinks you have too many guns, you have way too many guns. “Gun culture” is like any other hobby, collecting, talking about, using, trading, buying, selling, etc. and in general being very “into” a particular thing. The only problem is over here is that this “thing” encourages the mass production and sale of deadly weapons that allow criminals to commit murders on a much higher rate than they would otherwise do.

    Am I nervous that the nice well-adjusted guy down the block from me owns more guns than fingers? No. But I am nervous that because of that guy (and many others like him) people who are less than well-adjusted can just as easily acquire these weapons.

    The idea that owning multiple dangerous weapons (when at most one or two would suffice) is somehow a human right has to die. Period.


    I own 4 different types of guns. All for different uses. If I’m not going to kill anyone what difference does it make if I own 1 or 4 guns so I have the best option available to defend myself if needed?


    I don’t believe were that far apart
    I happen to be pro gun control. I happen to believe that, at least in America the presence of a gun in the house is more likely to cause a problem then solve one. Certainly carrying a gun all day long is more likely to lead to an act of rage than to end up protecting somebody. In my 50+ years of walking in the street I can’t think of one instance that carrying a gun would’ve helped me.
    Now the other side of the story is of course, every now and then it might be necessary. And perhaps if somebody has a job in a dangerous area or a synagogue needs to be protected , or you live in the middle of the mountains, then maybe it does make sense. I personally advise people against purchasing guns. But being a maven if they are going to do it, I certainly guide them through the process.
    And as I’ve said, I think there’s room for compromise. But the compromise will not happen if the left insists on being soft on crime and if the left will not put it into writing that they won’t go for complete confiscation.


    @Kuvult The fact that you (presumably a mentally stable and non-violent person) can get a hold of four guns without problem means that someone less mentally stable and more violent can also get a hold of four guns. Therein lies the problem. Should we take dangerous weapons away from innocent people just because others will use them to commit crimes? YES YES A THOUSAND TIMES YES I DON’T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHY THAT’S EVEN A QUESTION OF COURSE WE SHOULD!


    @Kuvult I am also unclear what you need four guns to defend yourself. You have a single .22 pistol that can shoot five times without reloading. Either the person your defending yourself against backs off when faced with a gun, or they don’t and are shot. Unless you live out in the sticks with a lot of wild animals?


    A few facts are missing here.

    A .22, which in this context is referring to .22LR(not the kind of 22 an AR uses) has very little stopping power. It has lethal power, and one who takes a bullet to the right place will die later on, especially if not treated, but it does not have the the immediate ability to stop an intruder/assailant n his tracks before he’s ready to shoot at you, chas veshalom.

    A.22 with hollow points or so called RIP bullets(radically invasive projectile) would maybe work, but i don’t know if they even make it for .22lr

    A 9mm has far more stopping power, and for this reason it is the preferred weapon of police, because the goal is to neutralize danger, not to necessarily kill. A shotgun has considerably more stopping power, but is impractical to use in a home because of parts of the shot penetrating walls and potentially hitting other people.

    The downside to a larger caliber is recoil and lack of precision if a person is not highly trained.

    Another point that is not being addressed is that criminals will have guns regardless of gun policy. It isn’t like in Europe where they were able to get rid of most guns; American has literally more guns in circulation than people. You can bemoan that reality – and i don’t necessarily agree or disagree with that – but once it is that reality, stronger laws on law abiding citizens is a knee jerk reaction to violence, over 90% of which is committed by illegally possessed weapons.

    A new gun feature coming out might make a big difference. Many manufacturers are looking into biometrically locked guns, where only the registered owner will be able to operate it, based on fingerprint. This would prevent teens from accessing their parents’ legal guns, etc…

    The gun lobbyists won’t want to ban non-biometric licked guns, but just as the far left used to be crazy about the 1st amendment,and champion the rights of nazis to march in skokie, the gun crowd needs to not be fanatical about the 2nd amendment and accept somr sort of oversight.

    It also doesn’t help that anti gun activists usually have zero knowledge of guns. Take a rifle and show it to people, and they’ll think it’s a hunting gun. Slap a magazine feed to the bottom and it’s an “assault weapon” and “military grade,” when literally everything else about it is identical.

    CT…the supreme court knows the constitution and ruled that the 2nd amendment guarantees a right for citizens to own guns, perhaps “because” of the need for militia, but not limited TO a militia. Once something is allowed, it doesn’t matter what it’s used for. כיון דאישתרי אישתרי

    Ideally people shouldn’t have guns at all. But once the criminals have them, it puts people in danger to disarm or severely limit people’s ability to defend themselves.


    @AvirahDeArah .22 .9mm shmumty shmoo, who cares? Yes, people who are anti-gun generally have less knowledge of guns. Just like frum people have less knowledge of what bands are playing at Coachella. Guns are extremely dangerous. The 2nd Amendment has allowed gun nuts and gun companies to ride roughshod over the USA and put literally over a billion guns readily accessible to any meshuggenah some legally some illegally.

    My point is that no one average person needs so many guns and so many bullets. You want self protection? Even with a .22QFB (or whatever it’s called) will cause an intruder to back off. If the intruder is armed, you carrying a gun won’t make any difference, except cause the bad guy to be more likely to open fire.


    Yserb, the difference in calibers is very significant. A person who wants to own a gun for self defense is severely outgunned and outmatched if he is limited to .22lr. it will not protect him the way a 9mm would.

    So when gun law advocates want to ban higher calibers, that is creating danger for many people.


    So I just fumbled my way into another thread on mashiach
    Not being aware of the rambam on moshiach I reached an improper conclusion
    But now that I’ve read it, and it’s a problem. Bc the rambam speaks about klal Yisroel going to war
    How can we possibly do that armed with .22’s ?!?!
    Do you realize you are literally standing in the way of moshiach?!?!
    Admittedly a possibility: when the time comes he will break open the armories for us. Or perhaps we will get magic weapons, but I still think the rambam wasn’t pro gun control


    @AvirahDeArah @mentsch1 You both miss my point. It’s not about the calibers, it’s about the need. There is absolutely no need for the USA to have five times more guns per-capita than any other major country. And the fact that there are so many guns, means that they are readily accessible to anyone wanted to commit a criminal act. So there is far more violence (yes, even excluding suicides) and violent deaths than any other civilized country! What we need to do is get rid of the guns. I don’t care what that would take.

    And if you’re willing to go to war over that (which, let’s be honest, is the dumbest reason to go to war since “I like that mountain over there”), then I guess we’ll just have to see how a stockpile of Mossbergs, AR-15s, Glocks, and M2s in the hands of a bunch of disorganized survivalists will hold out against a single drone strike.

    Oh, and @mentsch1? We need guns because of Moshiach? That’s a really bad take. Like, exceedingly bad. I’m just going to ignore it because I have more respect for you than that.


    A 22 usually does not have enough stopping power to end the threat. I don’t like a lot of recoil so I have a full size 9mm loaded with +P Hollow points in the standard 17rd mag. I grab my gun & a mag & I have 35rds (17+17+1 in the chamber) with only 1 reload. I hope I would never need that many rounds but since I’m a law abiding citizen why shouldn’t I be allowed to have what makes me feel more secure?


    Yserb, you’re talking in circles about two different things. I agree that there shouldn’t be so many guns, and that the culture which bred that reality is violent and against our values. So i would agree with, perhaps, placing caps on how many guns manufacturers can make, how many gun shops can be active in a locale, or other such measures.

    But the criminals aren’t getting their guns from shops. They’re getting them illegally, and the decrease of guns in circulation will take decades, or more, to make a dent in the amount of working firearms in the country, legal and illegal

    But one thing you suggested, limiting magazine sizes, calibers, etc… Does nothing to limit how many guns are in the country. All it does is hamper self defense for people who have guns for completely innocuous reasons.

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 137 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.