Avi K

Gun Wars
by Rabbi Steven Pruzansky
The American gun debate has been a dialogue of the deaf for decades and no end is in sight. That is for the simple reason that the two sides each reflect incompatible and irreconcilable views on the matter. To simplify a bit, when one side feels that society would be safer with more guns and the other side feels society would be safer with fewer or no guns, there is not much middle ground that can bridge the differences. One side blames the gun for the crime (as if guns fire themselves) and the other side blames the perpetrator for the crime (as if he could kill people if he didn’t have a gun). And so horrendous tragedies such as last week’s school massacre in Florida will continue to occur, rachmana litzlan.

Each side retreats to its arguments whenever a horrendous school shooting occurs. One side blames the easy access to guns as so obvious that it brooks no discussion. The other side blames the failure to diagnose and treat mental illness or at least intervene and curb the anger and delusions of the disaffected. There are so many layers to the problem that it becomes difficult even to discuss them or analyze them dispassionately. No one is in favor of providing weapons to the mentally ill; by the same token, we pride ourselves in not stigmatizing mental illness, so how can their rights be restricted? And by whom shall they be restricted? Add to this the collapse of the American family since the moral breakdown of the 1960’s – the plethora of fatherless children, the aimlessness of many youth, the broken homes and the lack of any moral guidance from authority figures (schools, churches, etc.) and one big problem looms. And add to that the modern drug of “fame” – the yearning to be noticed, to matter, to be significant in the eyes of society – as if that has any enduring value. There are too many losers who act in anti-social ways to get attention; a small percentage of them will turn violent.

It has reached a point where the arguments no longer address the issue at hand and the proposals made by the politicians satisfy a core constituency but would not solve the problem at all. Trying to prevent a school shooting by tightening the terrorist watch list is a non sequitur. Blaming the NRA and their campaign contributions for the presence of gun violence ignores the reality of the Second Amendment and presupposes that politicians would be amenable to restricting gun ownership if only they had the will. But such is false; most politicians – and most Americans – support gun ownership because they believe in the right of self-defense, itself a cardinal Torah principle: “He who comes to slay you, rise up and slay him first” (Masechet Yoma 85b). There is no virtue to allowing yourself to be killed by a criminal.

Defending the Constitution is seemingly as American as apple pie but its sundry clauses – especially in the Bill of Rights – always vex one group or another and is often under assault by government. Just in the last few years, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” of religion clause was assaulted by a variety of Obama administration measures, particularly regarding the provision of health care; many perceive the Trump’s administration’s hostility and verbal assaults on the media as infringing on freedom of the press; and all of us are subjected, and not always legally, to intrusive surveillance, searches and occasionally seizures with little redress, despite the Fourth Amendment. The Seventh Amendment’s right to a trial by jury sounds great but has not always served the cause of truth and justice.

For better or worse, guns are ingrained in American culture and it is foolhardy to think that the confiscation of 300,000,000 firearms (count ‘em) is feasible even if it were sensible. Some people, naturally horrified by school shootings and the deaths of innocent children, can rail against the prevalence of guns in society but usually will be unaware of the positive roles guns play in the society. The NRA magazine features a monthly column entitled “The Armed Citizen,” in which there are at least a dozen accounts drawn from local media of citizens who saved their own lives (and those of others) by employing a firearm against a hostile entity – intruder, burglar, assailant, rapist, etc. I sense that these accounts weigh more heavily on people’s minds that even the random shootings that, gun control advocates think, should shock people out of their lethargy. Obviously there is a hunting culture in America that uses weapons with much firepower, but since hunting doesn’t speak to me at all (Jews are not hunters) I downplay its role in this debate. Safety first.

If almost everyone is in agreement that someone like the Florida school shooter should not have been able to purchase a weapon, then why can’t laws be crafted that make it more difficult for such malefactors to be denied access and easier for the good citizens to acquire and carry firearms?

It also needs to be noted that, I suspect, most homicides in America are committed with illegal weapons, not ones that are legally purchased. Illegal weapons are easily attainable, even though the average citizen would never seek to acquire an illegal weapon. As such, gun control that is too restrictive leaves weapons primarily in the hands of the criminals and outside the reach of the innocent. That doesn’t seem fair. Nor does it make any sense to argue – as politicians do all the time – that this or that law would have made a difference. Last I checked, there are laws against homicide and yet, somehow, those laws don’t deter homicidal maniacs from killing people. It is not the law as much as it is the person and the person’s capacity and willingness to obey the law.

The most recent miscreant fell through the cracks and had all the indicia of trouble. Given up for adoption, adopted parents dead, expelled from school for violence, drifting, aimless, no future and no hope – a ticking time bomb ready to explode. In his own demented way, he was crying out for help. Someone who posts on the internet using his real name that “I want to grow up to be a professional school shooter” is begging to be noticed and stopped. That no follow up was done – that he was not found – is outrageous incompetence for which someone should be called to account. A cynic might speculate that had he said “I want to grow up to be a professional school shooter and I have evidence that Trump colluded with Russia before the election” the FBI would have found him within an hour. And the ongoing problem is that had he been found, there are no laws and there is no protocol that could have confined, stopped or deterred him.

There is no one law that will be a panacea, especially in the face of the great dysfunction of the American family. And it is not as simple as saying “we should not allow weapons in the hands of the mentally ill;” is a battered woman suffering from depression under the care of a psychiatrist and threatened by a violent ex-husband “mentally ill” and therefore not permitted to buy a gun to use to defend herself? And there are gradations of mental illness as well, from mild to severe.

What is needed in the long term is a cultural change – a moral renaissance reflected in the “bourgeois values” touted by Professor Amy Wax in an article whose thesis is so self-evident that in today’s climate was considered controversial and offensive – but even in the short term measures are necessary and mostly at hand. Schools are currently soft targets, accessible to one and all, student and psychopath alike. That has to change, and providing armed guards during school hours and searches, screening and profiling for all who enter the school building should be obvious. Such is done in Israel, as is the discreet arming of some teachers who rotate carrying concealed weapons on their persons. That secures the target, reasonably if not perfectly, and greatly enhances the chances of failure of the attacker to achieve his nefarious aims as to deter even the attempt.

As the school shooters have almost all been young males – from their teens to their 20’s – it is clear that males who have been expelled from school for violence, are under the care of a mental health professional, or have exhibited cruel and unusual behavior should be placed on a watch list that denies them access to legal weapons unless they are permitted to do so by a judge upon the testimony of doctors, parents, guardians and the like. Again, this is reasonable but not perfect. So is this: adults who store weapons in their homes and do not secure them sufficiently to prevent their use by murderers should be held criminally liable with a mandatory minimum prison sentence. Ah, isn’t this blaming the victim? Well, sometimes the victim deserves some of the blame. It is not sufficient to say “I trusted him,” “I didn’t know he had a duplicate key,” “I tried to turn him into a responsible adult,” etc. If it happens on your watch, you are liable. That should get the attention of law-abiding gun owners.

It is not fair to punish hundreds of millions of law-abiding citizens because of the despicable acts of a handful of people. Nor should we renounce constitutional rights that have safeguarded American liberties and provided an effective means of self-defense. Nor should we wash our hands and say that nothing can be done because there is no perfect solution. There is no perfect solution – the psychopaths can also acquire illegal weapons, psychologists will claim that putting their patients on a watch list would violate confidentiality and encourage reticence, the fantasy of a gun-free society will always animate some – but a sane society takes elementary measures to keep weapons out of the hands of the disaffected, a sane government focuses its efforts on defending its citizens, especially its children, and rational politicians – interested in more than retaining their seats and its access to the lucre of modern politics – know how to address complex issues with substance, sensitivity and efficacy.

DY, even $20K per year per child is beyond the reach of middle-class families. Yeshivish families tend to have lower incomes so they qualify for various scholarship programs. The point about MO schools having to beef up their secular studies programs is also well-taken. When I went to a specialized NYC HS there were a number of frum kids in my graduating class. They were there for the superior academic program. BTW, up until 60-70 years ago it was very rare for even kids from very frum families to go to a day school. They went to public school and, in the case of the boys, an evening bet midrash program. This was before the SCOTUS decisions that banned religion so they were bombarded by Xtian cultural pressure.
Of course, there is another solution -and I know families that have done this. Make aliya.

DY, If tuition is $40K per year (as it is in some schools and parents have a few children from where is the money going to come? Giving up on a roof and food? I think that it is very instructive that at least one of the survivors has a sibling in the Chabad pre-school. She ran to there because she knew that her mother would be there picking up her sibling.

ZD, why not EY as the gates were wide open? However, if they did not listen to Rav Kook and the Imrei Emmet or, lehavdil, Jabotinsky, they would not listen to you. In fact, if you told them that you were from the future they would put you away.

Maybe if day school tuition was not so high it would be less.

I was already there as well as a few others in previous gilgulim. However, Rav Kook says on “ad shelo notzarti” that this one started exactly when it was needed.

Curiosity, do you believe that Hashem gives parnassa? If so why do you work or seek some other form of income. In fact, it is not universally agreed that a person cannot be killed before his time. See Or haChaim haKadosh on Bereisheet 37:21. See also Mishlei 13:23.

DY, I don’t believe that Rav Moshe said that. He certainly knew that in Israel it is permitted and fairly common. He also certainly knew that some people need them for self-defense.

Very well put ZG. The Gra says that the Erev Rav can even be talmidei chachamim and that in the time just before Mashiach the sin of the spies will infect those who hold on to the Torah. Rav Teichtal also said this in Em haBanim Semeicha. However, their numbers are steadily shrinking. The younger generation of Chareidim want to be part of the state. In fact, if Ayelet Shaked gets her way we will also have a female Chareidi judge – Chavi Toker, whose father-in-law Naftali Toker zatzal was the rosh yeshiva of the Chevron Yeshiva, and is a senior attorney in the Jerusalem DA’s office.

ZD, you are over on a takknat kadmonim not to be motzi shem ra on the dead. You have to go to Begin’s grave and ask forgiveness. Begin was a traditional Jew. When he was wanted by the British he successfully assumed the identity of a rabbi. When he visited the US after becoming PM he consulted with Rav Soloveichik, Rav Moshe and the Lubavitcher Rebbe. As a young man in Brisk he even went o the separate-swimming pool frequented by the yeshiva men. After his wife died the Chevra Kadish was hesitant to bury her among tzddikot. He told them that she kept taharat hamishpacha and they went ahead with the burial.

DY,

1. Israel also has gun laws but they are much saner. First of all, those who live in certain areas can get licenses after passing firing range, background and psychological tests (the last must be redone every few years). Reserve IDF officers have an automatic right to a license. They are very common and have stopped terrorist attacks at the get-go.

2. The Arabs have their own factories. The Jews also had them during the Mandatory period. Carrying an illegal gun was a capital offense (and there were a few hangings) but that did not stop them as they were ready to die for their cause.

SHOCK: FBI Was Tipped Off In January But Did NOTHING; FL Gov Calls On FBI Director To Resign

Please do not feed the troll. May Hashem grant him a refuah sheleimah.

1. The Kaf haChaim only refers to an idolator (akum) not a non-idolatrous non-Jew (aino Yehudi). Rav Mutzafi says that it is permitted although it is middat chassidut not to.

2. There is no prohibition of having a non-Jewish friend. In fact, Rebbe was friendly with Antoninus and Shmuel was friendly with Avlet. He even drank cooked wine with him (A”Z 30a).

Nisht, I checked and you are right. I left out a letter. Is this the only nit you two picked or are there more?

Several shuls were destroyed by this serious aveira (Mishna Berura 124:27). Even learning quietly is prohibited (ibid s”k 17). The Tosafot Yom Tov blamed the Khmelnytsky massacres on this and wrote a “misheberach” for “מי ששומר את פיו ולשונו לא לדר בזמן התפילה”. It is also prohibited to talk during keriat haTorah (SA 146:1) and the Haftarah (ibid seif 3).

It depends on the books. Some are antithetical to Jewish values and some parallel them. Do you have a rav whom you can ask?

BTW, not only are women photoshopped. There is a famous picture of Rav Elchonon smoking a cigarette. The cigarette was taken out. It reminds me of the removal of people who were out of favor from Soviet pictures.

Akuperma, on the contrary. Israel has a basic law (“basic laws” form a quasi-constituional framework) that gives Jewish law standing (and many judges, even those who are not so observant, use it in their opinions), the Ministry of Justice has a Jewish Law division headed by a Dep. AG that coments on proposed laws, the Knesset has an advisor on Jewish law (I happen to know him personally) and individual MKs have rabbanim as advisors.

Haimy, who says that you lose all your reward? It only says that that is the lowest level. Hopefully it will lead to wilingnesas the person will get used to giving. However, the highest level is to give someone a productive job. Getting something for nothing is called “bread of shame”. While rabbanim and their talmidim should be supported not everyone can take the name. Many are just lolling about while officially registered because of social pressure. Some fall into the “shabab Charedi” (street kids who commit low-level crimes) because they have no outlet for their energies. The best thing all around would be for them to serve in the IDF and then get jobs. This also goes for those who are learning at some level but will not be rabbanim and r”mim. They can put their analytical skills to good use in military intelligence and then go into high-tech (this industry is crying for skilled workers such thatt here is talk of bringing in foreign workers from India). This would also allow the State to give more to those who are really deserving.

Joseph, universities also have to produce. The rule for professors is “publish or perish”. For students there are exams and those who do not make the grade are out.

MTAB,
1. You are counting the Eastern European men who learned after work but not the Israelis who do. That is fake statistics.
2. Just before the war there was massive involuntary unemployment among Jews because of economic boycotts. This canot be compared to unemployment by choice.
4. The State also subsidizes yeshivot, kollelim and learning programs for retirees directly. Not to mention State Religious and Chinuch Atzmai school, religious councils, neighborhood, town and city rabbis.

Joseph, I asked a retired shul rabbi and he said that it does not sound right (from the point of view of Jewish ethics) and would not be a party to it. Atthe very least it is naval b’reshut haTorah. Moreover, it could be a double-edged sword as the survivor might not be eligible for survivor’s benefits.

So far as NYS not recognizing common-law marriage, that does not necessarily bind the Feds. For example, they are prosecuting people in states that legalized marijuana for violating Federal laws. Here are relevant quotes from an actual case (SSR 76-27):

“The claimant and a woman whom he holds out to the community to be his wife, reside in a State which does not recognize common-law marriages. The Social Security Administration determined that a husband-wife relationship existed according to section 1614(d)(2) of the Social Security Act. The claimant contended that since the State of his residence does not recognize a marriage relationship, the Federal Government should be precluded from recognizing one. Held, a husband-wife relationship as defined in section 1614(d)(2) of the Social Security Act, as amended, does exist whether or not such relationship is recognized by the State in which they reside. Because of this relationship, the claimant is subject to the income and resource deeming provisions of section 1614(f)(1) of the Social Security Act.
The general issue is whether the claimant is a ‘husband’ under section 1614(d)(2) of the Social Security Act, as amended, and if so, is the claimant affected by the deeming provisions of section 1614(f)(1) of the Social Security Act, as amended. The specific issues to be decided are: Whether the claimant and a woman who are holding themselves out as man and wife to the community in which they reside, are husband and wife under the Social Security Act; and what effect would a State’s nonrecognition of a common-law marriage have in the final determination as to whether they are husband and wife?

The claimant, an obviously disabled individual, appeared at the hearing with a woman whom he identified as his wife, Eve. Claimant admitted at the hearing that he considered Eve to be his wife and that they had lived together holding themselves out to the community as man and wife since 1971. He indicated that there had never been a formal marriage ceremony binding them but that they looked upon one another as husband and wife. Eve also indicated in her testimony at the hearing that the claimant’s testimony was substantially correct. Both indicated that the child now living with them was the natural son of the claimant and Eve.

Section 1614(d)(2) of the Social Security Act provides that:

‘In determining whether two individuals are husband and wife for purposes of this title, appropriate State Law shall be applied; except that . . . if a man and woman are found to be holding themselves out to the community in which they reside as husband and wife, they shall be so considered for purposes of this title notwithstanding any other provision of this section.’
Section 416.1005(a) of Regulations No. 16 reads in part as follows:

‘Two individuals may be considered to be husband and wife for the purpose of determining that one is the spouse of the other under title XVI of the Act if at the time the application for payments is made or at any later date:
(1) The individuals are living together in the same household, and holding themselves out to the community in which they reside as husband and wife. . .’
Section 416.1003(b) and (c) of Regulations No. 16 in this regard reads as follows:

‘For purposes of this subpart, the term “household” means one or more individuals living as a family unit in a single place of abode . . . A man and woman are ‘holding themselves out as husband and wife’ if they represent themselves as husband and wife (or as married to each other) to relatives, friends, neighbors, or tradespeople with whom they do business.'”.

1.4142135623730950488…, you are being irrational. Only big talmidei chachamim can do the Goral haGra and get an answer. By definition they do not participate in the CR.

Chabadshluch,
1. We don’t here of such things today? You never heard of the Amityville Horror?
2. There are stories of “tzaddikim” giving all their money to some needy person and leaving their own families high and dry.

Random, here is Rambam’s statement at the end of Chelek 1 Chapter 7 according to the translation of Smuel ibn Tibbon:

“ויחי אדם שלושים ומאת שנה ויולד בדמותו כצלמו” (בראשית ה, ג), וכבר קדם לך (בפרק א) עניין צלם ודמות מה הוא. וכל מי שקדמו לו מן הבנים לא הגיע עליהם הצורה האנושית באמת, אשר היא צלם ודמותו הנאמר עליה בצלם אלוהים ובדמותו. אמנם שת כאשר למדהו והבינהו, ונמצא שלם השלימות האנושי, אמר בו “ויולד בדמותו כצלמו” (שם).

וכבר ידעת כי כל מי שלא הגיע לו זאת הצורה אשר ביארנו עניינה, הוא אינו איש אבל בהמה על צורת איש ותבניתו, אבל יש לו יכולת על מיני ההיזק וחלוש הדעות, מה שאין כן לשאר בעלי חיים, כי השכל והמחשבה שהיו מוכנים לו להגעת השלמות אשר לא הגיע, ישתמש בהם במיני התחבולות המביאות לרע, והוליד הנזקים כאילו הוא דבר ידמה לאדם או יזיקהו. וכן היו בני אדם הקודמים לשת. ואמרו במדרש: “כל אותן ק”ל שנה שהיה אדם נזוף בהם היה מוליד רוחות”, ר”ל שדים, וכאשר רצהו השם, הוליד בדמותו כצלמו.
והוא אמרו: “ויחי אדם שלושים ומאת שנה ויולד בדמותו כצלמו” (שם).

You can see for yourself at
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=11580&st=%d7%a6%d7%9c%d7%9d&pgnum=47

In fact, in American cities there are many stories of such people taking over apartments. This has prompted the Manhattan District. Attorney’s office to institute a Narcotics Eviction Program.

I heard that some of the BST stories were written by maskilim in order to make fun of him.