December 22, 2010 11:22 pm at 11:22 pm #723561
If we make this halacha, you are going to be displeased when some posters start speculating on the whether the gonif is yiddish, and whether there is an issur of retzicha anyway.December 23, 2010 12:10 am at 12:10 am #723562twistedParticipant
TryingMyBest: please see the Rashi in Veyechi mem ches yud beis: Becharbi u’v’kashti.
AinOd: “dragged away like sheep” There are many places in the tefilah, in Tehilim, in the Neviim, that we are metaphorically referred to as sheep. Some folks just take it too seriously.
Aside from the saftey/security issue, you see there is also a hashkafa issue, and all sources will show panim l’kan u’panim l’kan.
During my time in NY I kept two unregistered longs, small to help rid the neighborhood of a feral pest issue (in a way outer borough) and one to nail an intruder to the wall and beyond, if needed. I did not bring them to EY, and here in the city, there is very low risk of hot home invasion, and in the streets, BH, there are enough packing fire. If am ever zoche to retire to the rural areas, I would go back to my old ways. My kids were educated as to what firearms are for and what they can do, due diligence and safety were never a problem. I’m with Rav K Hy’d on this, in a reasoned way.December 23, 2010 12:57 am at 12:57 am #723563ronrsrMember
many illegal weapons were once legal weapons that were separated from their legal owners.December 23, 2010 2:31 am at 2:31 am #723564
You don’t need a gun to protect yourself in America. Any house could basically be made break-in proof, if you put in the time, money and effort. Carrying mace can stop a crime outside of your home. If you’re mugged by an armed robber, even if you own a gun, you can’t stop such a crime without putting your life in danger.December 23, 2010 3:15 am at 3:15 am #723565
I’m sure it is true that there have been legal guns stolen and are now possessed by criminals.
There are also arab terrorists in Israel that have guns that were stolen from Israeli soldiers. Would anyone therefore suggest that Israeli soldiers should not have guns? I don’t think so.
The fact is that it is not hard to get an illegal gun. Criminals do NOT have any problem getting them, and they certainly don’t have a problem carrying them once they get them. Do you know why? It’s because they are criminals. They do not care about the law. Only law-abiding citizens who want guns for self defense have a problem getting them and an almost impossible task to be allowed to carry them.
Something is seriously wrong with this picture.December 23, 2010 4:16 am at 4:16 am #723566
to respond to blueprints and popa:
I don’t understand why we are continuing without considering the halachic issues. We are looking like the situation described at the end of Sefer Shoftim, with everying doing as they wanted as there was no King. Our King is HaShem and His Law is the Torah. And it contains explicit instructions on what we can do to protect our lives and property — none of which have been discussed in over a hundred comments.December 23, 2010 4:52 am at 4:52 am #723567Midwest2Participant
havesomeseichel – Do you really think that the average college student is going to carry a gun to class? Or the average high school teacher carry a gun to school? How many normal people outside of the Southwest are going to carry a gun on the street as a matter of habit? Even if it’s legal?
Most people who use guns own long guns – rifles or shotguns – and use them for hunting or target practice. These aren’t the kind of weapons you carry to the mall, or leave loaded in your nightstand. There are a few people making a lot of noise about being able to carry handguns. Don’t confuse them with the majority of gun owners who don’t have fantasies of being Clint Eastwood.December 23, 2010 7:36 am at 7:36 am #723568
Midwest2- I know several myself (and I don’t think I know too many or too many from the same mindset- some are of different political persuasions and from different religious backgrounds) whom would ponder owning/carrying one and lament the laws. And they are all not from the Southwest either… I think you meant “southeast”- Georgian residents are more likely to carry than your average Californian.
And it is not a few- On the JPFO website alone, there have been 2,182,965 visitors in about a decade (as of my posting)… yes, that is not the same as other websites- this is to a targeted audience. The website is Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, not Xian ect so it does turn off some people (but they do not restrict membership ect and clearly state that it is not just for Jews).
The majority of gun owners are peaceful people who just want to protect themselves and their loved ones.
Blueprint- I, for one, do not question my sanity. If you do, then it puts some of your comments into perspective.December 23, 2010 7:53 am at 7:53 am #723569
Maybe I am just following Dina D’malchusa. Alabama is a “Make My Day” state.December 23, 2010 8:28 am at 8:28 am #723570
And for all your Chicagoans out there;
In Illinois you can use deadly force against an intruder if you think he is going to commit a felony inside the house. Like say, burglary, or dealing drugs.
Really the states are generally very liberal about allowing you to shoot intruders. Just ask a lawyer before you buy a gun what you are allowed to do.December 23, 2010 3:49 pm at 3:49 pm #723572
Popa – Being liberal about gun laws and also liberal about lawsuits is a contradiction. Even cops nowadays holster their gun and take out their taser. Do you think that the cities/govs. spent all this money on tasers just to save perp lives? Or perhaps they lost a lot of money in gun lawsuits? If you have a choice between a lethal weapon or non-lethal, go for the non-lethal. Unless you have a lot of money for a lawsuit. There are lawsuits after cops tase someone, but it’s much less than gun ones. A lot of places you can own a taser and where you can’t -mace is quite effective. I like the idea of people being able to own guns to protect themselves, like it says in our Constitution, but it’s not reality in the USA (United Sue everybody in America)!December 23, 2010 4:03 pm at 4:03 pm #723573
In our wonderful people’s Republic of New York City, both mace AND tasers (and stun guns) are illegal.December 23, 2010 4:53 pm at 4:53 pm #723574
NOOOO DON’T LEAVE ME IN THE COFFEE ROOM WITH THESE MONKEYS TAKE HAVESOMESEICHEL INSTEAD NOOOOO!!!December 23, 2010 5:32 pm at 5:32 pm #723575
AinOhdMilvado: Self-defense sprays are legal, but with restrictions. Copied off one web site:
“New York State Article/Law on Pepper Spray-
Read the full text of the New York State Penal Law
Sale of “self-defense spray device”
* No sale to minors under 18.
* No sale to anyone with felony convictions or assaults.
* Sale only through an authorized dealer, pharmacy or gun dealer.
* Sale after you complete a form with your name, address, birth date and signature.”
If you have more questions, I would advise going into Manhattan to the Spy Shop (Or calling.). They sell pepper spray there. I wouldn’t go to your local pharmacy, even ones that sell, they probably don’t know too much of the law. You can ask a criminal lawyer you know, but be careful, some will charge their fee just for a shmuz, even though you’re a friend. Ask beforehand, if you can just ask him a quick question for free.December 23, 2010 6:30 pm at 6:30 pm #723577
From what I’ve seen on websites I use, they will not send these sprays to addresses in New York.
As of about the last 2 or more years, they will not even ship ammunition to New York EVEN IF you send them a copy of your permit.December 23, 2010 6:56 pm at 6:56 pm #723578Midwest2Participant
Cops worrying about lawsuits? They’d better. Around the corner from where friends of mine live in BP a mentally ill young man was shot down in the street by several officers. He was carrying a claw hammer and screaming insults. He took one step towards the officers (plural) and they shot him dead in front of his neighbors (and their children). The logical choice in this situation would have been a taser. Or the officers could simply have backed off and waited until the squad specially trained for dealing with such situations had a chance to arrive. After all, a claw hammer isn’t a gun. Believe it or not, the investigation cleared the officers.
NYC seems to have problems along these lines. If officers know that they will have to answer to someone outside their in-group it will keep down the frequency of such incidents.December 23, 2010 7:23 pm at 7:23 pm #723579
what’s BP stand for?December 23, 2010 7:24 pm at 7:24 pm #723580
I assume you aren’t talking about the company with the oil spillDecember 23, 2010 7:53 pm at 7:53 pm #723581
“Maybe I am just following Dina D’malchusa.”
While the extent of Dina Malchutcha Dina is debated among poskim, none argue that it overrides explicit Torah commandments. See below.
“the states are generally very liberal about allowing you to shoot intruders”
But is HaShem so liberal? I haven’t studied this extensively, but according to some opinions you must give the intruder a warning, and the permission to kill the intruder only applies if it is not possible to stop him with a non-lethal wound (or, possibly, escape). I’ve seen that attributed to the Remah.December 23, 2010 8:12 pm at 8:12 pm #723582always hereParticipant
BP = Boro(ugh) Park, BrooklynDecember 23, 2010 8:14 pm at 8:14 pm #723583JoseMember
Apparently you have forgotten the din of haboh bamachteres.
Im zorcha, is if you specifically know that that bo bamachteres will not hurt you.
Most cases were a gun would be helpful would be a case of bo bamachteres, or somone who is actively being a rodef or someone who would be chayiv misa for geneiva.December 23, 2010 8:47 pm at 8:47 pm #723584
I do not claim to be an expert on all the various day’os in halacha on this issue. I do know it is generally accepted (even in secular law) that if someone breaks INto your home (and the law about someone OUTSIDE, but on your property, DOES vary from locale to locale) – but INSIDE, it is considered a reasonable assumption by the homeowner that his life is at risk, and it is therefore reasonable to respond with lethal force.
Obviously, no normal homeowner (and I’d like to think that I am one) would shoot, if they saw, for example, an unarmed 14 year old kid had broken in.
Generally though, that is NOT the case. Most intruders are very dangerous individuals, usually armed, and often are druggies needing money, or things they can take and get money for, to buy drugs.
Having to shoot someone, even a dangerous someone that did break into one’s home, is NOT something any normal person WANTS to do.
Some commenters above, mentioned that the pro-gun people here are “Dirty-Harry” wanna-be’s. Although I can only speak with certainty about myself, I’m quite sure that I can safely say about the vast majority of legal gun owners as well, that it will be a very sad, tragic, and traumatic day if I should ever have to shoot an intruder, BUT – the safety of my family MUST and DOES come before the life of anyone who would do us harm.December 23, 2010 9:45 pm at 9:45 pm #723585Trying my bestMember
Halachicly you are allowed to kill an intruder in your house immediately — just for breaking in. You can automatically assume he will kill you first if possible. The only exception under halacha is if the intruder is your parent — in which case you can assume he will not kill you first even if he can, so you cannot kill your parent just for having broken into your home.December 23, 2010 10:47 pm at 10:47 pm #723586
see my post at the bottom of page 1December 24, 2010 1:14 am at 1:14 am #723587
“From what I’ve seen on websites I use, they will not send these sprays to addresses in New York.”
That actually is part of the law, you must buy these things in person. I posted this above – “Sale only through an authorized dealer, pharmacy or gun dealer.”
Also, you must fill out some form at the time of purchase.December 24, 2010 1:25 am at 1:25 am #723588
Midwest2 – “After all, a claw hammer isn’t a gun. Believe it or not, the investigation cleared the officers.”
Doesn’t surprise me at all, cops always defend each other. If the family wants to sue, they probably have a good chance of getting some compensation. BTW, tasers are only issued to supervisors in NYC, not to patrol cops. Also, they don’t have to wait for any special team, if at that moment they feel someone is posing a life-threat to either themselves or others. But I think all cops can or do carry pepper spray -why didn’t they try to stop the guy with the hammer with the spray?December 24, 2010 3:12 am at 3:12 am #723589
You can ask a criminal lawyer you know, but be careful, some will charge their fee just for a shmuz, even though you’re a friend. Ask beforehand, if you can just ask him a quick question for free.
“Shmuz?” Actually, that’s a consultation.December 24, 2010 3:45 pm at 3:45 pm #723590
Homeowner -“”Shmuz?” Actually, that’s a consultation.”
For you lawyers, you’re right. For the rest of society, most people don’t think they will be charged for a having a friendly shmuz in a store. The way you think is exactly why I had to put in a warning for the rest of us.December 24, 2010 3:53 pm at 3:53 pm #723591
Thanks for the “heads-up” on how lawyers operate.
You know at the beginning of this past week, it was so cold that I actually saw a lawyer walking outside with his hands in HIS OWN pockets!!!
(DON’T GET EXCITED GUYS – JUST KIDDING!)December 24, 2010 5:20 pm at 5:20 pm #723592
Health, I don’t give advice while shopping nor does any attorney I know. The reason is quite simple–the attorney-client privilege is lost if the conversation is not private. Nevertheless, your so-called “friendly conversation” requires my professional advice and I am liable for malpractice even if I do it for free.
A true friendly conversation does not involved one party giving the other free work.
“A lawyer’s time is his stock in trade.” –Lincoln.
AinOhdMilvado, if heaven forbid, you find yourself arrested, call an accountant.December 24, 2010 7:23 pm at 7:23 pm #723593
Golly Gee whiz homeowner! It was just a joke!December 25, 2010 12:11 am at 12:11 am #723594
Blueprint- If you are that afraid of having a decent debate, I suggest you step away from your computer and lock yourself in a closet for the next decade.
I am all up for a decent debate, as long as both sides come prepared to deal in facts, not maisos that tend to expand as they get told on… (I caught a 1/2 pound fish… it was 3 feet long and weighed 100 pounds! we ate if for the next month!)December 25, 2010 12:13 am at 12:13 am #723595
Back to the topic at hand. In NYC, the great liberal and crazy city, you may not own a taser or mace! Soon they will outlaw baseball bats….December 25, 2010 7:42 pm at 7:42 pm #723596
I’d like to quote AINOHDMILVADO: “golly gee whiz havesomeseichel! it was just a joke!”December 26, 2010 7:23 pm at 7:23 pm #723597
Homeowner- “Health, I don’t give advice while shopping nor does any attorney I know.”
Maybe you don’t, but I heard a story of some frum lawyer who sent a bill to someone who asked him a question at a store. So my advice is applicable to us in the non-legal field. We don’t expect to pay for advice that we ask for in a non-professional arena.December 26, 2010 7:28 pm at 7:28 pm #723598
havesomeseichel -You are incorrect. Pepper spray is allowed. Read my posts above. Try to read other posts besides “blueprints”.December 27, 2010 8:08 am at 8:08 am #723599
Health- I did read all the posts in this thread. I just may not comment on all of them and may not comment as quickly as others (I am quite busy…). By the way, pepper spray and mace are not the same thing. Mace is outlawed. You were speaking about pepper spray.
Mace- is a tear gas (and a brand name.) Mace contains either CS (2-chlorobenzalmalononitril, also called o-Chlorobenzylidene Malononitrile) or CN (Alphachloroacetaphenone.)
Pepper spray- is a spray containing oleoresin capsicum, an extract of pepper, as the active ingredient.
Mace is an irritant.
Pepper spray is an INFLAMMATORY agent.
Mace is thought to hurt more than pepper spray.
If I am wrong about this, please let me know. I enjoy learning new things…December 27, 2010 8:15 am at 8:15 am #723600
Oh, in CA it is illegal to carry more than 2.5 oz of pepper spray- how does the govt expect you to be able to protect yourself? What if there are two attackers- I personally have not used pepper spray before and therefore, if I happen to have some on my person, I might not have the best aim. You can’t just practice with pepper spray- can you? Its not like with a .45 which you can take to the range and see how accurate you are.
Does anyone know if pepper spray is a good defense mechanism? What about if it is slightly windy outside- is it hard to be accurate? how far do you have to be from the attacker? Do they have to be right next to me/about to grab me from behind?
Since Health says they are legal, I want to know my legal options to protect myself. Does anyone know the legal specifics? Like states, requirements ect- I had read about that CA law once… is there anything like that for any other state?December 28, 2010 2:12 am at 2:12 am #723601
havesomeseichel- You are correct, but the reason I posted the way I did was because people think it’s one in the same. Even companies confuse you. There is a company called “Mace” and guess what -they make/sell pepper spray. But technically you are correct. The laws are so diverse with regards to defending yourself -this isn’t the place to go into such a discussion. A lot of states/cities will limit the amount of chemical defense spray you’re allowed to carry. There is even a foam irritant (which eyeglasses offer no protection against). Before purchasing such a product, find out the laws in your town. The spray can be practiced with- outside. I personally hardly ever practiced, it’s not really necessary. It works like the directions printed says. If it says stream and ten feet -that’s what it does. A stream is like shooting a water pistol. You get the idea.December 28, 2010 7:54 am at 7:54 am #723602
Health- sorry for misunderstanding your post. I had thought you were confused as well after reading your post. Thank you for your explanation.December 28, 2010 4:11 pm at 4:11 pm #723603
Just as a point of interest, to show the different ways of thinking in different (even close-by) areas of the country…
Here in crazy NYC it is almost impossible to get a carry permit (i.e. a permit that allows carrying a handgun on your person out in the street) unless you can prove over a period of time that you carry LARGE amounts of cash or jewelry on a daily basis. This must be carefully verified.
A friend of mine moved from here to Pennsylvania, and wanted to get a carry permit there. He went to his local police station for a required interview to get the permit. The police officer asked him “Why do you want a carry permit?” He thought for a moment about what would be the “right” answer to give the cop. He simply told the truth and said “For self-defense.”
The cop said “That sounds like a good reason to ME!” and approved the permit.
There’s a big sign by the side of the highway at the border with PA that says “Welcome to Pennsylvania, America Starts Here!”
It’s very true!!!December 28, 2010 4:49 pm at 4:49 pm #723604Trying my bestMember
AOM: One local precinct officer can make a final decision to approve a carry permit in NYC?December 28, 2010 4:50 pm at 4:50 pm #723605
Just some advice to anyone carrying a gun: Always wear a bulletproof vest if you plan on using the gun. 1. The criminal you’re shooting at, might shoot back. 2. A cop responding to the scene or happens to be at the scene, might not know why you’re shooting and shoot at you.December 28, 2010 5:23 pm at 5:23 pm #723606
Trying my best…
This happened in PENNSYLVANIA, – NOT NYC.
No one is “planning on using the gun”. A normal law-abiding citizen would only use the gun if someone is threatening his life ALREADY.
I think perhaps you should wear a bullet proof vest DAVKA because you do NOT carry a gun, and have no defense at all if someone pulls a gun on you.
BTW… A person who has a carry permit KNOWS that if, chas v’shalom he had to use his gun to defend himself, and police arrived on the scene, the first thing to do is put his gun on the ground and hands in the air – until the matzav is clarified as to who is the “good guy” and who is the “bad guy”. After that, the gun is generally taken by police until an investigation confirms it was a “good shoot”, i.e justified shooting, and then the gun is returned to the owner.December 28, 2010 5:35 pm at 5:35 pm #723607
AinOhdMilvado -You might have a point there. Since only perps can carry, maybe everybody should go with vests, helmets and goggles. Our country is becoming the Wild,Wild,West due to the liberal criminal laws of our country!December 28, 2010 6:45 pm at 6:45 pm #723608
NOW you have hit the nail on the head.
The problem is “the liberal criminal laws” and the liberal judges who (don’t) enforce them.
Criminals involved in gun violence are given way too light of a sentence, IF they are sentenced at all (and not gotten off completely by some ACLU lawyer).
We do not need more gun laws.
We DO need the criminal laws we have TO BE ENFORCED.December 28, 2010 10:00 pm at 10:00 pm #723609
Criminals involved in gun violence are given way too light of a sentence, IF they are sentenced at all (and not gotten off completely by some ACLU lawyer).
1. When was the last time you saw an ACLU lawyer defending a criminal case?
2. Are you opposed to the right to counsel?December 28, 2010 10:19 pm at 10:19 pm #723610
“We DO need the criminal laws we have TO BE ENFORCED. “
No argument there in principle, but the US law enforcement and judicial system are actually very draconian. Within the past year we have seen Shalom Rubashkin sentenced to 27 years in prison and Martin Grossman executed. And Jonathan Pollard remains in prison, unable ever to appeal his life sentence BECAUSE THERE AREN’T ANY LIBERAL JUDGES at least at the federal level: If a convicted felon misses a deadline for an appeal, our Lock ‘Em Up and Throw Away The Key Judges with whom Republicans have packed the judiciary don’t care about justice, they care only about process. And it is attitudes like yours that are keeping the situation the way it is.December 28, 2010 10:25 pm at 10:25 pm #723611
To all: I’ve said this before.
If you REALLY want to carry a concealed handgun, move to Vermont. No permit is needed. Just don’t take it into a government building or school, and don’t take it out of state.
And enjoy the fact that Vermont has a Democratic Congressman, a Democratic and a Socialist US Senator, a Democratic Governor (as of this coming January), and overwhelming Democratic majorities on both houses of its legislature. 🙂December 29, 2010 1:26 am at 1:26 am #723612
Homeowner- If the alleged criminal is a minority, the ACLU will get involved. If there is any liberal-agenda possibly attained through the case- the ACLU may take the case.
Too many real criminals out there are let off for silly reasons or technicalities. I am not opposed to counsel, but a) if you do the crime, do the time and b) stop making up reasons why someone should not serve time… they had a broken home, tormented childhood ect. At the time of the crime, they knew what they were doing and the consequences for their actions- ie: no insanity defense should be accepted.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.