April 21, 2023 5:22 pm at 5:22 pm #2182808
I also agree with strict background checks, continuous renewals of licenses, requires training, and requiring guns to be biometrically locked.. If they could develop a scanner which can read blood alcohol levels, I’d support that too.
But permitting self defense in the most effective way, i don’t see.April 22, 2023 10:12 pm at 10:12 pm #2182833
Just heard an advertorial on a liberal radio about a company finally making fingerprint reader on the gun. This should solve a lot of problems.April 22, 2023 10:13 pm at 10:13 pm #2182834
There is already alcohol scanner for the cars. I think it takes a court order. I wonder whether responsible people should install such in their own car, just in case.April 23, 2023 5:38 pm at 5:38 pm #2183095
@AviraDeArah So because it would take decades to work, we should just throw in the towel? To be honest, the whole idea of needing a gun for self-defense is like 95% NRA propaganda. (a quick perusing of the magazine rack in Rite-Aid would convince me that I am going to die within the year if I don’t have a four foot long gun that can shoot massive bullets at an outlandish rate) There are very very few cases where someone’s life was saved because they were carrying a gun (excluding security guards and police). And many many more cases of negligent gun owners leaving loaded handguns where their kids can find them and accidentally kill someone. Or where a robbery leaves the homeowner dead, because the crook started shooting when he saw a weapon. Or where a gun is stolen and used in a crime. At the end of the day, the prevalance and availability of guns in the USA kills far more people than it saves.
And at the end of the day, let’s face it. Even if you would buy into all of this no one needs more than one gun for home self defense. And there’s no need to have more than five bullets in it.
Take away the guns currently out there.
Limit their sale.
Limit their manufacture.
Limit who can own them and how many they can own.April 23, 2023 8:13 pm at 8:13 pm #2183199
Yserb, i didn’t say to throw in the towel. I meant that you can’t drain all of the guns from law abiding citizens while criminals will continue to have them. Limiting future manufacture makes sense, and down the line, you can start limiting sales, while keeping the ratio between legal guns and the availability of illegal weapons equal.
You don’t want a situation where criminals run amok terrorizing an unarmed civilian population. The reason why rural areas have less crime is because people are armed.
And it’s not NRA propaganda: many, many invasions are prevented by gun ownership. And the possibility that the home owner is armed is a powerful deterrent. The amount of break ins in Texas, is not the same as new York City, and there’s a good reason for that.
I do agree that it’s rare that there’s a hero who stops a murderer because he was the good guy with a gun. But that’s because not all that many people carry guns; if more did, it would happen more often.
Not that i think everyone should do that; just explaining the numbers.
And again, you’re falling back on the “big scary gun” talking point. I suggest learning a bit about firearms first. I did, because i found the gun rights debate interesting. A 9mm Glock pistol is every bit as deadly as a rifle. Just one is longer and scarier looking.April 23, 2023 11:46 pm at 11:46 pm #2183244
@AviraDeArah, so then you would be OK with new laws restricting guns to, let’s say, one gun per household and a maximum of five rounds? Because all this talk and you still haven’t explained why anyone would need more if we’re talking home defense.April 24, 2023 7:32 am at 7:32 am #2183257
Yserb, i personally don’t see a need for more than one gun per person, because I don’t believe in hunting. But Americans do, and a firearm for self defense isn’t ideal for hunting, according to those who engage in the barbaric activity – and goyim are allowed to do so under the 7 mitzvos, so it’s not something we have to fight against.
One can ask why a person would need more than one set of kitchen knives, too; i don’t know if it’s a fair law in practice. I don’t know of a correlation study between the amount of guns owned by an individual and the propensity for violence.
I agree with lowering the amount of guns overall, and theoretically limiting the amount one can own will do that to an extent, but not a large enough extent that would justify the precedent of the government limiting people’s ownership of legal items…we don’t have such a law anywhere else, and it can be a slippery slope.
Now if it can be shown that ownership of many weapons increases the chances of violence, then maybe i can support it. But a lot of the motivation seems to be because “big scary gun” goes together with “big scary arsenal” and “big scary magazine”
I don’t think those things make much of a difference.
A mass shooter really could do the same amount of damage with a glock and a few magazines, as he would do with an ar-15.
Actually, i think rifles are safer than small guns, because they can’t be concealed; theres a reason why laws regarding long guns are far more lax than handguns…while used in mass shootings for some reason that probably only psychopaths understand, thats about the only time they end up hurting people; handguns account for over 90% of all gun violence, because they’re concealable and portable.
but i think that regulation should come from the top down; limits on shops and manufacturing, but in terms of what a consumer can own…it seems like an overreach.April 24, 2023 7:35 am at 7:35 am #2183277novak7Participant
Ordinary citizens should not have weapons. I’m in favor of only police officers, security guards, etc. having them.April 24, 2023 1:16 pm at 1:16 pm #2183360
@AviraDeArah A slippery slope towards what? Not being Somalia? Then let’s go skiing!April 24, 2023 1:17 pm at 1:17 pm #2183417
And as a side note, I found on Statista.com a breakdown of burglary rates per-state per-capita, and a second chart of percentage of gun ownership per-state. New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Arkansas all have 50% gun ownerships (meaning, about every other person owns at least one gun) and the worst rates of burglary and break-ins. New Jersey and New York have only 8% gun ownership (some of the lowest in the US) and are also both in the bottom ten of burglary rates.
This doesn’t prove that gun ownership prevents break ins (the idea being that a criminal will be less likely to break into a house if he knows that people generally own guns) but it certainly adds a nail or two to the coffin of that theory.April 24, 2023 2:01 pm at 2:01 pm #2183540
yserb, i was wrong about Texas; they have high gun ownership and a massive amount of burglaries, the most in the nation.
But Texas, despite loose laws, only has a 35% gun ownership rate
Other states which have a high number of gun ownership of over 50%, Including vermont, Maine, Alaska, have fewer burglaries.
So it’s not clear; you can find some states with more guns and more burglaries, others with fewer burglaries.
But the states with the highest percentage of gun ownership do seem to not have more burglaries than the average.April 24, 2023 2:01 pm at 2:01 pm #2183545
By “slippery slope,” i am referring to the government being able to dictate how much of something you can own, based upon its determination of how much of that you “need ”
It’s a communist-esque idea, and while it may be intended initially for safety, it creates a dangerous precedent. They might say that you don’t need more than 2 cars, 1 house, 1 vacation house…20 changes of clothing… Enough food for a week …
We don’t have any other commodity that is regulated by such an idea, as far as i know.April 24, 2023 5:06 pm at 5:06 pm #2183665
@AviraDeArah The government already regulates how much of anything you can have in many instances. Generally when the thing is something potentially very dangerous, you need special licenses and approval for each one you want to buy. That is something I would like to see applied to gun ownership. Just like you can’t build a slaughterhouse on private property without a host of licenses and regulations for each slaughterhouse you build. So too with guns.April 25, 2023 1:56 pm at 1:56 pm #2183960ParticipantParticipant
For self defense purposes–citizen and law enforcement alike–why is a stun gun (aka Taser) not sufficient?April 25, 2023 2:48 pm at 2:48 pm #2183978
Yserb, that’s zoning issues, I’m talking about commodities. Items that one can buy legally. We don’t have laws which mandate how much of a given item you can own.
The only thing i can maybe see comparable is that some locales have limits on pet ownership.April 25, 2023 7:51 pm at 7:51 pm #2183999
@AviraDeArah Yeah, that’s a huge stretch. It’s not a slippery slope to mandating limits on consumer ownership. It’s laws limiting dangerous objects which already exist. You’re just restating the “What if the government goes bad?” argument that gun owners love to push.April 25, 2023 10:24 pm at 10:24 pm #2184104
Yserb, what other dangerous items are limited in quantity? Knives, lighters, matches, bows and arrows, electric appliances, flammable gases, propane, legal fireworks… All can be dangerous. But US law doesn’t impose any bans on them.
And my example of pets isn’t very good, because in that case, it’s due to animal cruelty lawsApril 25, 2023 11:22 pm at 11:22 pm #2184130
Yserb > It’s not a slippery slope to mandating limits on consumer ownership .. You’re just restating the “What if the government goes bad?”
It just happens that gun ownership in the population might prevent a dictatorship, while owning lighters and fireworks are less useful.
Just look at current Europe – many countries convinced themselves that there is no international danger and if they buy gas from former bullies everything will be alright… Very knowledgeable people made a mistake … Easy to imagine a similar thing happening inside the country…. electing a bad-meaning President and Congress at the same time and Supreme Court going along, possibly intimidated. Why not to value a mass of gun owners as last resort? It might be argued l’hathila that there are better and safer mechanisms (are there?_) but b’dieved – as history of this country was based on local communities protecting themselves – it is a useful thing to have.April 26, 2023 12:29 am at 12:29 am #2184138ZetruthParticipant
Always ask questions: what if you ring someone’s bell by mistake and get shot, it was useful, is it what you are going to say? This violence is inside people who are getting on the edge. Go away troll!!April 26, 2023 9:05 am at 9:05 am #2184181
BAN ALL GUN[-free zone]S!
That’s the only way. Any who thinks banning all guns is a solution isn’t really interested in solving the problem, they just want to make themselves feel good by being on the “right side” of the argument.April 26, 2023 12:01 pm at 12:01 pm #2184341
@Always-Ask-Questions I question your logic whether that would lead to a slippery slope. The US has the most unrestricted gun laws of any major country in the world and yet you don’t see Australia or Spain telling people they can’t own three microwaves.
@Meno Anyone who thinks that the current American Culture (TM) of the “right” to own as many guns as can be purchased is a normal, logical, not dangerous, in line with the Torah, thing, is not thinking clearly.April 26, 2023 12:11 pm at 12:11 pm #2184352
Yserbius, you may be right, but the reality is that you will never change the culture of the entire country. A huge portion of the country is pro-gun, and the number of guns in circulation is staggering (and talking about gun-control only causes that number to increase).
A simple, practical solution is to get rid of gun-free zones. Most mass shootings would be stopped within seconds (if not prevented altogether) if law-abiding citizens were carrying guns.
I’m not talking about gang violence. That’s a different issue altogetherApril 26, 2023 1:52 pm at 1:52 pm #2184405
Meno’s point on purchasing surges based on political affiliation of those in office is true. I know many non owners who bought for the first time after a democrat came into office or after a mass shooting. They were afraid their options would be limited so they ran to get something.
Interestingly enough. In discussion of the insanity of the illogic to many of our laws; NYC “forced” me to purchase a gun. I applied for a license due to the turmoil of a few years ago. By the time I got my license the turmoil had died down so I didn’t feel compelled. But NYC revokes your license if you don’t purchase one immediately. Go figure.
As I have said. There is room for compromise but there needs to an acceptance of reality.April 26, 2023 1:52 pm at 1:52 pm #2184409
I take issue with you calling hunting “barbaric”
As a sport maybe. I have a problem with someone killing a grizzly just to stuff it.
But the vast majority of hunters use their kills for food etc so why is that any more barbaric than your local butcher?
35% of American gun owners hunt. Many more with bows. They aren’t barbaric. They are just living life as it was done when men were men.April 26, 2023 2:06 pm at 2:06 pm #2184415
Mentsch, how many hunters eat what they kill? Very, very few. I do agree that hunting for food is perfectly moral.April 26, 2023 3:04 pm at 3:04 pm #2184437
@Meno That’s what I keep getting back to. We can’t change the whole culture of a country (really it isn’t the whole country, it’s certain rural areas in Red States) overnight. But we have to start somewhere. Regarding “gun-free-zones”, we have seen time and time again, that armed civilians do little to stop mass shootings. And the more guns there are available, the more likely a mass shooting will occur. But let’s ride with that for a second: You need a gun because American culture is so messed up that there are armed criminals around every corner. OK, I can see the logic. However, what you do not need is high-caliber high-capacity firearms. You need a small revolver. So why don’t we start by banning anything that isn’t small?April 26, 2023 4:17 pm at 4:17 pm #2184456
“we have seen time and time again, that armed civilians do little to stop mass shootings”
Have we? How many mass shootings failed to be stopped by armed citizens?
“So why don’t we start by banning anything that isn’t small?”
Because it’s impossible, and also it would violate the second amendmentApril 26, 2023 4:51 pm at 4:51 pm #2184483
@Meno L’azazel with the 2nd amendment. It’s killing far more people than it saves. We have to start somewhere! Throughout this thread several gun nuts have tried to rationalize why everyone needs a minimum of six big loud guns in their house for self defense. But none have yet to give an explanation as to why something small with a few bullets wouldn’t be enough.April 26, 2023 4:56 pm at 4:56 pm #2184488
Nu nu, that’s why I gave my other answer. It would be impossible. The number of guns in circulation is so high, and is constantly increasing. Banning guns only potentially removes them from the hands of law-abiding citizens, it doesn’t make them disappear. It’s a losing battle.April 26, 2023 5:05 pm at 5:05 pm #2184490
I’ve been mulling your points lately and doing some reading
The U.K. took the opposite approach at least in terms of length of guns
Guns under 12 inches are banned (leading to some very interesting looking long revolvers)
Though admittedly they don’t allow any magazine fed gun above .22April 26, 2023 5:11 pm at 5:11 pm #2184492
Acc to google 95%
But I know plenty in the Monticello area and they all do
I know one guy that was homeschooled till 10. He told me that when he finally went to public school he realized that unlike in his home, most people don’t actually eat venison for breakfastApril 26, 2023 7:36 pm at 7:36 pm #2184581
@Meno I don’t think it’s impossible, just very difficult and it would take a long time. One thing that needs to happen is restrictions on the sale and manufacture of firearms. If there are less guns available in stores, people will own less guns and there will be less guns in circulation and there will be less gun crimes. Right now the approach (which has been heavily based on scripts written by the NRA) for most gun-nuts is “Well, US culture is so messed up, we can’t ban guns because then we won’t be able to defend ourselves from the guns that criminals have because we didn’t ban guns”. Which is all types of messed up.
I mean, the frum velt has been fighting tooth and nail against the inevitable encroachment of toeva stuff into every day life. Should we just give up on it because it’s impossible to change at this point?April 26, 2023 10:26 pm at 10:26 pm #2184594
Yserbius, in the last century Weimar Germany overrun by thugs; several Eastern European countries occupied by Soviet tanks; others having local dictators for decades. Several countries now border Russia and have part of population that might join occupiers. In all of these cases, having well-armed and trained population would be an asset in support of democracy.
Again, we might not support such a system were we represented in the Continental Congress by a couple of Chachamim. But as far as the system exists, let’s use it, and mitigate problems, rather than fight something that has a healthy tzad. So, if you propose changes that lead to more safety without threatening the pro-gun population, you have a chance of progress; otherwise you are just working overtime to support Dem party contribution pitch. This is silly.April 26, 2023 10:34 pm at 10:34 pm #2184614
Mentsch – i stand corrected; i didn’t know that it was the norm to eat or otherwise use the animals that they kill. I found out that it’s actually illegal in most states to kill for the fun of it without using the animals.April 26, 2023 11:56 pm at 11:56 pm #2184640
@Always_Ask_Questions You and the others keep circling back to the “What if the country turns against us?!”. I’ll repeat what I’ve said before: a bunch of hunters holding guns are no match for the combined might of an organized military with modern equipment. So the argument holds no water since allowing people access to weapons does absolutely bupkis in terms of arming them against evil governments.
I have no issue threatening the pro-gun population anymore than I have issues threatening the pro-LGBTQIAS2SX11MNE population. I am proposing that we encourage small measures that are baby steps along the path to getting rid of the dangerous gun culture that plagues the Goldeneh Medinah. And I am proposing that the oilom should stop standing in the way of such measures with silly arguments like because it “supports the Dem party contribution pitch”.
This is mamesh pikuach nefesh. And we aren’t fixing the issue today, but it is imperative that everyone take a stand to at least start acknowledging that there is an issue and that it can be fixed.April 27, 2023 7:51 am at 7:51 am #2184686
Where do you see that the frum velt has been fighting tooth and nail against toeva, abortion etc?
I have seen incredible little activism on the part of the frum velt in regards to moral issues.
In fact many Rabbunim have had zero issues voting for democrats that have abominable moral stances (and it’s not about the money, I’ve had this discussion with chashuv rabbanim who have given cheshbonos)
The only Rav of note that I can think of that has yelled about these things is Rav MillerApril 27, 2023 10:06 am at 10:06 am #2184735
@mentsch1 I was just responding to the other poster who was worried about actions that would “threatening the pro-gun population” with a comparison to a different part of anti-Torah American culture. Baruch Hashem, at least there’s a huge growing movement to fight the pro-gun culture of the US. We should support it and not stand in its way.April 27, 2023 12:13 pm at 12:13 pm #2184806LostsparkParticipant
You can buy all mine at full price and turn them in yourself, until you do this you’re all talk.April 27, 2023 12:38 pm at 12:38 pm #2184817
“I don’t think it’s impossible, just very difficult and it would take a long time”
It would require so much legislation that would be met with so much resistance. While all that legislation is being worked out, the manufacture and sale of firearms would go through the roof, just exacerbating the problem. Then let’s say they actually do manage to put bans in place, imagine the logistical nightmare of getting people to give up hundreds of millions of guns. Imagine how many people won’t go down without a fight. The country will tear itself apart.
Of course all this is assuming you can repeal the second amendment, because otherwise none of this even gets off the ground.
It’s virtually impossible, and it would take forever. Keep fighting for it if it makes you feel better, but it’s a bad idea and it will never happen.April 27, 2023 2:40 pm at 2:40 pm #2184911Amil ZolaParticipant
Re subsistence hunting: I live in an area where it is quite common. The majority of subsistence hunters I know support gun registration and expanded background checks. As a gun owner I have no problem with registering my weapons.April 27, 2023 2:40 pm at 2:40 pm #2184910
@Meno We at least agree on one thing, that American culture is messed up that pushes everyone to own guns which allows too much gun crime to happen. Seems to me our only disagreement is whether more legislation would help or it’s a lost cause and we should just accept gang wars, school shootings, and armed muggings as a fact that will never go away.April 27, 2023 2:48 pm at 2:48 pm #2184917
“it’s a lost cause and we should just accept gang wars, school shootings, and armed muggings as a fact that will never go away.”
That’s not quite what I said. I said the “banning guns” solution is a bad solution. Sometimes a bad solution is worse than no solution at all.
I think school shootings can be largely prevented by having armed civilians in schools.
I don’t know the solution to gang wars, but I can’t imagine taking away their guns will suddenly make them all friends.April 27, 2023 3:33 pm at 3:33 pm #2184923
Mentsch, rav belsky told me explicitly that it is assur to vote for a candidate who will support toevos, etc..
And when both candidates support it, he told me not to vote.April 27, 2023 3:41 pm at 3:41 pm #2184936
In my states (ny and nj) you can’t buy a gun unless it is registered
Every purchase goes through a ffl and is registered
I’m fine with background checks and limited purchases. From what I can tell the biggest source of illegal guns comes from mass purchases in the south. It’s fair to limit everyone to a single purchase every 30(NJ) to 90(NY) days.
I also think the NRA’s position of all or nothing is harmful. There are those who have served on the NRA board who agree and would seek compromise. I hope they succeed.
But let me ask you this?
How do you think people in your neighborhood would respond if they attempted a U.K. style gun confiscation?April 27, 2023 5:56 pm at 5:56 pm #2184970
He was a minority in this. Most rabbunim take other considerations into account. For example, There are cases where democrats have helped in situations of pikuach nefesh and these rabbanum, due to hakaros hatov, will then lend their support to these candidates.April 27, 2023 8:54 pm at 8:54 pm #2184995
YS > allowing people access to weapons does absolutely bupkis in terms of arming them against evil governments.
This is not true. Occupying armies have hard time dealing with population with weapons. To quote Chofetz Chaim out of context, he writes (in 1920s Poland, neighboring USSR) asking everyone to organize some learning in his town: when a country sees that they are weaker than a potential aggressor, they call on everyone to take a gun … Not a direct comparison, but look at Afghanistan with fighting culture that helped them keeping outsiders out. Having guns in every window will absolutely make keeping control over a modern city difficult.April 27, 2023 10:16 pm at 10:16 pm #2185009
I am not saying that we all need to join NRA. Just that this is not the most disturbing part of American culture. Again, if you have ways to minimize problems in a ways of peshara, I am also for that. But if you just start supporting one-sided measures then you won’t achieve anything and make enemies from people who might be friendly towards us otherwise.April 28, 2023 5:46 am at 5:46 am #2185034
Mentsch, when the toeva marriages issue was an issue, i heard the same from basically every gadol who spoke about it. Rav aharon shechter, rav hilel david…i can’t remember all of the names i heard back then.
i know of some chasidishe rebbes who endorse democrats in general, but their rabbonim who were considered gedolei yisroel, such as rav yechezkel roth, etc..have made no such pronouncements when the candidates support such things.
The reason is simple; how are we allowed to do something which will further chilul Hashem and promote violations of the Torah? Goyim must keep the 7 mitzvos, and these laws contravene them.
I’ve never heard a rational heter for voting for such a person. It’s not about chanifa, or praising the politicians… you’re allowed to do that to further our causes; you can honor reshoim for legitimate purposes. But you can’t do actions which will cause spiritual calamities to happen, and voting does that.April 28, 2023 5:59 pm at 5:59 pm #2185189
@Always_Ask_Questions Once again, you are pushing the “What if the government turns against me?” argument in another suit, “What if we’re invaded?”. It’s silly. For one, the logic requires the the US military is completely subdued by a foreign invader, yet held off by rednecks with rifles. One reason the US lost so bad in Afghanistan was their unwillingness to kill civilians (which they failed miserably at). I doubt an occupying force here would have the same hold ups. Another reason it’s a silly argument, is that it’s so extremely unlikely it’s barely even worth thinking about. The very real dangers that so many guns poses to Americans today far outweighs any potential benefit they may have in a very hypothetical situation.April 28, 2023 7:59 pm at 7:59 pm #2185215
Yserbius, I am not a navi, I do not know what is more dangerous – Chinese occupation or US government joining Chinese federation. We are talking here long-term stability. Many empires were stable for hundreds of years – until they failed. This is a one way street – failure leads to catastrophic results. And, given globalization, endangers the whole world.
And, again, you did not respond – I am not advocating for such a system in ideal. l’hathila, I am just saying there is sense in the system and cost of fighting is high. There are many other things to fight for. Reduce taxes; increase NATO spending; get school vouchers; get libs out of education; produce ammunition for Ukraine; etc. Choose your battles.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.