- This topic has 71 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
The topic of gun control came up once again, due to the recent school shooting in Texas.
As the Frum community migrated to the political right, beginning from the Bush era, many of us have picked up all whole package deal, although it most likely began with morality issues, and eventually Israel.
However, it is probably a better idea to have your own opinions on each topic, rather than leaving it up to your subscription.
I don’t think our community has a real dog in the fight. We aren’t the gun types, anyhow. If anything, we just don’t like seeing more government prohibitions.
That said, I think things should go in both directions. There’s no reason people should object to background checks, but I believe that is already in place. Maybe gun manufacturers should be required to make the barrels even more pronounced, in that a bullet should be able to be traced to its licenced owner without having to get hold of the gun first.
On the flip side, I do believe it is very irresponsible to have a large unarmed premises of children. Every (large) school or camp, or perhaps any large gathering place, should be required, or at least encouraged, to have armed personnel. This doesn’t necessitate hiring new guards. It means getting a gun and taking a few simple courses on how to use it. Teachers spend much more time than that on teacher reaclimation day or whatever they call them.
One thing to keep in mind is, unless you make the gun laws extremely prohibitive, you’ll only effect those whom you aren’t targeting. The guys who shouldn’t be getting it will find ways to have it, as long as it remains possible.
Repeal the Second Amendment.
P.S. Excellent OP.
There are tight gun laws in LA NYC and Chicago. Doesn’t stop the gangs. FBI sits on their laurels when they get a tip. Mental health isn’t addressed.
“There’s no reason people should object to background checks, but I believe that is already in place.”
They are not.
and while this is something that nearly 90% of the country agrees is a good idea including the vast majority of gun owners, the NRA opposes it.The last time this was discussed I commented
” but right now today 8/15/2019 the following states : AL, AK, AZ, AR FL, GA,, ID, IN, IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MO MT ME NH NC ND OH OK PA SC SD TN TX UT VA WV WI WY Do NOT require background checks for all gun sales (aka the “gun show loophole”)”I don’t think much has changed in the past 2 and half years since I wrote that
ubi > require background checks for all gun sales (aka the “gun show loophole”)”
I am also not an expert, but I smell a rat in your presentation. So, these states DO have background checks except the gun shows? Did the latest murderer buy his gun at the gun show? Are gun shows a significant source of guns used in crime?
The gun lobby has worked hard over the years of mass shootings to promote AR15 type weapons as the perfect big game hunting rifle. They aren’t gonna walk that back in the near future.
I agree wholeheartedly with OP. We should pass strict gun control laws AND every school must have an armed guard. Gun laws will not have an immediate impact but will help in the long run. Guards are needed NOW.
What kind of big game are they hunting with such a weapon? It shouldn’t take that many shots to down a bear or a deer and if they unload a magazine into the animal the meat would be full of bullet fragments not very appetizing .
> What kind of big game are they hunting with such a weapon?
how is this question relevant to the right to form a militia?
You can’t trust democrats to pass sensible gun laws. they’ll just embolden the criminals and hurt the innocent middle class even more. That’s the truth. Should there be sensible gun laws? Yes. But Dems don’t go about any issue the right way.
AAQ
“So, these states DO have background checks except the gun shows?”
I believe license firearm dealers are federally mandated to perform background checks, this applies in all states“Did the latest murderer buy his gun at the gun show? ”
No“Are gun shows a significant source of guns used in crime?”
Yes. Though exact data is hard to vcme by as no records are kept (whcih is exactly the problem)
Bu several reports indicate that this is a source of guns used in crime see aTF report from 2000 Following the Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws against Firearms Traffickers. found that 30% of guns used in crimes were bought through gun shows. his was the second most common source of guns used by criminals (first place were those bought through a strawman which accounted for ~ 40%)not sure what that rat is that you smelled.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
It takes more than ‘a few simple courses’ to learn how to handle an active shooter situation. I’ve been shooting guns since I was about 8 and for many years had a valid carry permit. I have literally thousands of hours of range time and hundreds of hours on interactive ranges. This equals thousands of dollars in range time, weaponry and ammo. Not to mention the cost of qualified instructors. I’m not trained to kill but I was trained to shoot with accuracy. Do I think I could disable an active shooter amidst the confusion of such a setting… No way. That kind of skill comes from someone who was taught how to shoot to kill. I have a dear friend who was a sniper in one of our gulf wars. He admits he was trained to kill, shooting was just part of it.
AAQ for many years bolt action rifles were the game (deer etc) hunters weapon of choice. Colt was responsible for marketing the AR (type) as a hunting weapon calling it ‘the sporter’.
The problem is that this Texas shooter did not have any prior violations. Assault weapons should not be allowed.
Reb Eliezer,
What is an “Assault Weapon” and if you name a few features how are you going to stop people from building legal ones without those features? And if you keep banning more features how are you going to not ban guns that should be legal? i.e. a standard hunting rifle.Kuvult, ‘a standard hunting rifle’ was once a bolt action rifle. One had to reload a cartridge/bullet each for each firing. There were no clips or magazines. It was Colt Arms that sold the current AR version to America as a hunting rifle. I live in an area where I know several nonJewish subsistence hunters, all are old school hunters and are using bolt action weapons for hunting.
You can’t trust democrats who gave millions in weapons to the Taliban to pass sensible gun laws. The answer is that it isn’t only guns that’s the issue. They get ideas from Hollywood a democrat propaganda arm and video games.
Amil,
So you want to ban the M1 Garand used in WWII?Kuvult, you may attempt to change the topic, but I’m not gonna take the bait. Factually M1 Garands are already regulated and .22’s are available for qualified target shooters. I don’t think I”ve said anything about banning a weapon. I was addressing the reality of mastering weapons used to kill and the cost of training.
ubi, you seemed to imply that all these states are not doing reasonable background checks as relevant to the recent event. It looked like an attempt of genivas daas. If it was not, I apologize.
A couple of notes:
1. Re M1 Garand. I own one. purchasing an M1 is no different from purchasing any other legal rifle. fill out the 6673, pass the NICS check, pay and walk out. Just be prepared to pay over $2000
2. The military definition of an assault rifle is a gas operated rifle that accepts removable magazines firing an intermediate power cartridge and capable of both semi and full automatic fire. Since rifles capable of full auto fire are already regulated by federal law, an “assault rifle” is basically anything the state or local governing agency says it is. Usually they define such as a semi-automatic rifle capable of using detachable magazines havin a separate hand grip and a muzzle devise such as a flash hider or threaded barrel and, oh yeah, a bayonet lug. Note that a Universal Carbine, which is a civilian version of the famous M1 carbine used in WWII and Korea, even though it is semi-automatic and does accept detachable magazines, is not so classified because it lacks a separate hand grip or muzzle devices.
3. Semi-automatic rifles have been used for hunting in the U.S. since Remington introduced the modal 8 in 1911.@ray-kaufman That’s nice I don’t care.
Big guns should be illegal. Period. There is literally no valid use to your average person for a weapon that can shoot more than six .22 bullets without reloading. I’m not the greatest fan of small guns either and I look forward to a day where security guards can carry nothing more than tasers because the fear of a bad guy with a gun is so extremely unlikely.
“ubi, you seemed to imply that all these states are not doing reasonable background checks as relevant to the recent event.”
Unclear how you made that inference.
I was replying to a specific comment
I quoted it to avoid confusion
This is the line
““There’s no reason people should object to background checks, but I believe that is already in place.””Gun control laws should not be limited to what would have prevented the last big news story.
Say when (not if ) the next shooter steasls the healdines occurs and he is 22. does that mean any call to raise age to buy guns to 21 is moot, since it wouldn’t have stopped THAT shooter?
Obviously not, if an idea would help/makes sense it should be implemented . perioduniversal background checks are a good idea (in my opinion and most Americans including most gun owners) the fact that it wouldn’t have stopped THIS shooter is immaterial.
Halevai’s suggestion in the OP “Maybe gun manufacturers should be required to make the barrels even more pronounced, in that a bullet should be able to be traced to its licenced owner without having to get hold of the gun first.” Would not have prevented this shooting either.
Yserbius
So your plan is to ban all calibers above .22
But how do we get to that point?
What are you doing with the 300 million guns already out there?
Because if you think Americans are just going to hand in all their guns you are living in an alternate reality
And if you give the govt the ability to confiscate/arrest those who do not comply then you are committing the greatest civil liberties infringement as you take millions of law abiding citizens and turn them into felonsAnother issue with the various posters, you are all city boys
Every rancher needs to protect against coyotes
And a .22 just won’t do it
People living on the border have undesirables walking through their property and need protection
What about the woman this weekend that stopped an active shooter?
What about that church shooting a few years ago
Seriously. What is the plan?And OP
Two out of the three ranges I frequent are Jewish owned so I am not sure that we are “not invested”
One in Lakewood and one in Union NJI’m not expecting the gun nuts in the US to just get rid of their big weapons tomorrow. And I’m not expecting everyone to suddenly be against toevah marriage, public pritzus, or a million other things. But we can at least speak up about it and how we want the world to be. Who knows? Maybe it can make a change.
If someone needs a gun for personal protection from wildlife, perhaps we can set up a system where they can petition a judge for it. If gun laws are as strict as they should be, people wouldn’t need guns to protect themselves from other people with guns.
mentach1: Do the Jews who owns it fully keep Shabbos and Kashrus or are they Mechallel Shabbos and treif eaters?
Yserbius
Again there is a big difference between wishing for a utopian world and the reality that we live in
You seem to be the wishful kind of person
I’m more realistic. Seven years ago when New York State banned assault rifles they created a registration for existing ones. Estimates that I’ve seen say that 95% of New Yorkers ignored the ban. Which means that the state turned tens of thousands of legal gun owners into felons.
That was for registration. Do you really think that American mentality is going to allow confiscation without a Civil War? Without draconian government methods? Without armed resistance and deaths?
Is it really ethical to turn legal gun owners into felons for the sake of “doing something “?Ujm
The one in Lakewood has a posted heter iska allowing to stay open on shabbos
The one in union has mezuzos on every door.
So both are shomer shabbos
A good percentage of the people shooting in Lakewood are Jewish
Fathers bring their bais Yakov girls all the time
On pesach one of my relatives in Lakewood told me that the only thing all there kids could agree on as a chol hamoed trip, was a trip to the rangehaleivi
The greatest surge in NYC Jewish applications for a license has happened in the last few years. Dec 2019 was the Jersey city shooting the third attack on a Jewish institution in less than 6 months.
Then came BLM and the riots and curfews. Does anyone really think cameras or even the police force was a deterrent? In times of unrest the police force is not there for the individual. We have all seen that within the last few years. Look at the looting of stores that still happens on a daily basis.
Just bc the goyish culture has become so messed up that they can do this to each other, do we want to give up our right of defense for the sake of feeling that we are doing something?
I am not saying everyone should have a gun. I am saying that the Jewish need of defense outweighs what essentially boils down to feel good proposals. Proposals that stand no chance of working without draconian government intervention.
איזהו החכם הרואה את הנולד
Perhaps if the founding fathers knew how screwed up we would get they would have ditched the second amendment. Or perhaps they would have just given up on the revolution idea and stayed vassals of a more mature British society.Menncth
I don’t understand soem of your points
“Is it really ethical to turn legal gun owners into felons for the sake of “doing something “?”
I can’t think of any other time this argument would be made. don’t criminalize abortion it would turn legal abortion providers into criminals don’t raise taxes it would cause those paying less into felons. Don;t lower the speed limit it would casue more people to break the law.
If you don’t think gun control would help. Fine majke that point. but to argue that it would create more felons; so what?
“”Do you really think that American mentality is going to allow confiscation without a Civil War? Without draconian government methods? Without armed resistance and deaths?”
This is even more puzzling. So all these gun owners are violent unhinged people ready to kill people to protect their “way of life” That is MORE of a reason to take their guns quickly; not less. e can’t wait. Who knows what would set them off today it is gun registartion tomorrow it is someone taking heir parking space
(as an aside no one in this thread called for confiscating all guns, I may have missed a comment here and there but definitely not many)
Remember why we have the second amendment. to prevent a second holocaust.
Ubi
First let’s distinguish between criminal acts like abortion and civil like speeding.
I do not believe we should be putting people who get abortions into jail. I never believed that drug users belonged in jail. I personally believe that jail should be for those who are a danger to society.
existing precedence shows where these laws are going. Example. After the NYS safe act the government brought a case against a man Who had 8 bullets in his clip/gun rather than the legalized seven. Our government wanted to send him to jail. Existing gun owners are not hardened criminals that we should be seeking to send thousands of them to jail.
As I said as of right now tens of thousands of New York assault rifle owners are officially felons because they refuse to comply with the law. The government has the balance what it’s trying to accomplish with reality. And if they see that the edicts are not being listened to they need to take that into account
Our chachumim never made a halacha if they saw the masses refused to complyUbi
As for your comment about being unhinged. No I don’t think that they are unhinged. But that doesn’t mean that they will comply.
How many of our people complied with government edicts concerning Covid?
Existing evidence shows that the majority of people will not comply. Which leaves the government either to enforce it with unconstitutional draconian measures that will lead to shoot outs in some cases perhaps even more. But even if they choose not to enforce it they have still turned millions of gun owners who will not comply into felons. You might say so what? I call that greatest abuse of civil rights in our history.
The government needs to think before it acts.
And the same applies to abortion. We can outlaw it. We can hold providers responsible. But to start filling our jails with women would be a huge governmental overreach.
I believe this point is valid regardless of whether or not confiscation makes sense. Because in essence at this moment none of these owners are criminals. You are criminalizing them based upon something that they might do in the future.Mentch
“I personally believe that jail should be for those who are a danger to society.”
agreed But that’s where this gets a bit circular .
IF (note the caps) eliminating 8 cartrigge magazines would make us safer then if someone refuses to follow the law he is contributing to endangering society
“Existing gun owners are not hardened criminals that we should be seeking to send thousands of them to jail.”
Agreed. So have them trade in their 8 bullet magazines for 7 i’d be open to a buyback program for this. Make it easy to follow the law
Now again; as to whether that particular legislation makes us safer is a fair discussion. But that is the discussion .
I don’t buy the argument ” sure it makes us safer but some people won’t listen don’t make them felons” (paraphrasing that isn’t a verbatim quote)
But I hear what you are saying thanks for the Chazal tzu shtell,
Tuna
I’m not sure your analysis is correct. some had Weapons in Warsaw it didnt “prevent the holocaust” there were other armed rebellions as well. Fro that matter, as you may know entire armed countries fell to the Germans .
The second amendment is being misinterpreted. When there was a western culture through each person protecting themselves, they required a militia but now the police are required to protect us. If they don’t do it, there is something wrong with them and they must be retrained how to behave in case of an active shooter who violates the laws.
“No I don’t think that they are unhinged.”
I didn’t think so either; but the idea that they will start shooting if ; in an effort to curb violence, we enact some measure of gun control does imply that they are unhinged .
“How many of our people complied with government edicts concerning Covid?”
If you told me that a store owner opened fire on a someone who came to fine him for having to many people in his store; yes that is unhinged.
I donlt understand why You seem to have a different standard to abortion.
You seem to be saying
Guns – people won’t listen so dont make rules since the government won;t be able to enforce it
Abortion – “We can outlaw it. We can hold providers responsible. ” – but no jailIn both cases IF there is a need for regulation; enact the legislation restrict abortions/guns for the betterment of society and if some people don;t follow we will deal with that.
I understand (though disagree) with not enacting legislation that can’t be fully enforced (“Our chachumim never made a halacha if they saw the masses refused to comply”) obviously abortion restrictions are unlikely to be fully enforced, and would also require draconian overreach (following suspected abortion clinics? Searching and seizing medical records) . why do you seem open to those restrictions (as long as no jail time) but not guns
על חרבך תחיה living by the sword was given to Eisov but for us is הקל קול יעקב, we are required to daven that no one should get hurt.
Reb eliezer
Yet tanach is full of battlesWe stop the one who wants to kill and as a last resort הבא להרגך השכם להרגו, kill them before killing you.
If no assault weapons exist, it should not lead to it otherwise one can protect oneself.Ubi
“why do you seem open to those restrictions (as long as no jail time) but not guns“
The obvious answer is one is against halacha and the moral fabric of society and the other isn’t
But again, taking out the discussion about whether it benefits society etc. you really do not understand the mindset of the average gun owner.
Buyback programs might remove a small percentage. Threats might remove a larger percentage. But the vast majority will not comply. I said vast majority not small minority like you seem to think. The research is on my side along with the anecdotal evidence of knowing many people not in compliance with the restrictive post sandy hook NYS safe law.Reb eliezer
I’m not sure what you are trying to say. Halachically there is no issue with owning a gun nor with defending your life with one. The idea that you can make all the guns in the US disappear and we are suddenly all safe is an obvious pipe dream.
In addition you will notice I didn’t argue any specific gun control proposal. Mostly bc as has been pointed out they are mostly foolish to those of us who know guns.
Example :assault rifles. The term is a cosmetic one that doesn’t address the lethality of the weapon. There are numerous weapons of the same caliber that don’t fall under the label and are just as lethal.
In fact all you have to do to turn an assault rifle into a legal semi auto rifle is to cut off the part of the pistol grip that protrudes past the trigger housing.
And many similar type bypasses are available at every gun store in restrictive states.“you really do not understand the mindset of the average gun owner.”
I thought I did. I assumed they were peaceful people who obey laws., and if as a society we would be better off going a different way, they might vote against it but they would respect the law.
I am surprised to learn that this isn’t the case, and that they are secretly pretty close to unleashing their weapons’ on their fellow citizens. Which seems to me (if true) to be MORE of a reason to actually confiscate guns
you keep repeating that people won’t comply. Thats fine. I dont see that as a reason not to enact laws. Thats our point of disagreement. Thank you for taking the tiem to explain
One last question:
Can you think of any other law that would benefit society (like you, taking out the discussion about whether it benefits society) but shouldn’t be or hasn’t been enacted becasue people won’t listen?I’s a curious argument and other than Chazal , I can’t think of anything like that *
“The obvious answer is one is against halacha and the moral fabric of society and the other isn’t”
Yes! that’s why guns need more restrictions than abortion (I joke)* I have heard that argument made with abortion (making it illegal would not decrese abortions so why bother) but 1) I don’t find it convincing at all, 2) I have never ever heard it from someone “pro-life” 3) The argument there is that it will not reduce abortions and increase unsafe abortions
ubiq > but shouldn’t be or hasn’t been enacted becasue people won’t listen?
this is actually a Gemora’s approach to gezeros: only those that will be listened to in the next year become permanent. Of course, in American system, voters can to elect those who will overturn unpopular laws.
> על חרבך תחיה living by the sword was given to Eisov
RebE, nobody forces us to carry, but we are discussing laws for a country of mostly bnei Esav and Knaan, so why can’t they solve problems their way? we should help them do it in a better way, but I don’t think we should force (sic!) our solutions on them.
Owning something very dangerous is problematic in halacha. That includes biting dogs, and other mazikim. Gun owners all too often are shot by their own weapons; kids get to them, etc.
A good argument can be made to forbid gun ownership. Permitting it also has a strong basis.
Either way it’s not the way of klal yisroel.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.