As the debate surrounding gun violence intensifies, we present you the following essay, written in the wake of the Virginia Tech Massacre of 2007:
The terrible events of last week at Virginia Tech invite profound soul-searching as to what went wrong and how to prevent similar events from happening again.
We are all devastated by the horror and senselessness of it all. As a rabbi who engages in pastoral work, I--like most of my colleagues--know that the wounds will persist in families and friends and teachers for many years to come; in fact, for lifetimes.
One of the things we have seen is an intensifying of the gun control debate by well-meaning citizens on both sides of the issue. Frankly this creates a debate within ourselves as well. Many of us appreciate and are torn between both approaches to this vexing issue.
As Jews, our teachings tell us that preserving human life is the greatest human calling, and murder the most depraved attack on man and G‑d there can be.
The question is: What does Jewish tradition and law tell us about the best way to preserve human life?
I think if we honestly look at matters we can see that, on one hand,
The murderer could not have killed anywhere near the number killed had he had a weapon other than a firearm. He was outnumbered by his victims 20, 30 and 40 to 1. Only a semiautomatic weapon gave him the ability to kill so many without hindrance.
If there were stricter background checks and other encumbrances in place, he may have been prevented from acquiring a handgun legally.
If no one but the police and military had weapons, it would be very difficult to acquire a gun, even illegally (as is the case in Japan and the UK).
On the other hand,
If weapons had been permitted on the VT campus, a student or professor may have stopped the killer before so many were killed. As it was, only a person breaking the law had a weapon available to him--the murderer.
The murderer "flew beneath the radar." It is possible that no system of flagging suspicious individuals could have helped in this case, or would help in similar cases in the future.
It is rarer by far, but determined criminals even in Japan and the UK can get illegal guns. Just the other day the mayor of Nagasaki in Japan was killed by a firearm wielded by a gang member. And with 200 million guns in this country, it may not be possible to remove every one from circulation--even if as society we wanted to. Hence maybe law-abiding citizens should have the ability to defend themselves.
Even if only the police and military have weapons –what if a policeman goes on a rampage against unarmed and defenseless citizens? Indeed, in 1982 South Korean policeman Woo Bum-Kon killed 57 people, then himself, in rural South Korea using a high-powered rifle and grenades.
There is a claim that in the United States, many people save themselves from criminal attack by the use or the threat of the use of a firearm. Judaic law would seem to direct us to ask: Can this claim be substantiated or refuted? And if substantiated, we must ask: Which approach in the aggregate saves more lives?
These are all arguments wielded by reasonable, good and caring people –who exist in large numbers on both sides of the societal divide this issue creates in our nation.
So where does Judaism stand on the issue?
I believe the issue can be argued on both sides from a Judaic point of view.
I. On one hand:
1) Talmud, Shabbat 63a:
One must not go out [on Shabbat] with a sword, nor with a bow, nor with a triangular shield, nor with a round one, nor with a spear; if he does so he is liable for a sin-offering. R. Eliezer says they are ornaments to him [and thus permitted to be worn on Shabbat], but the sages say they are nothing but a stigma, for it is written [Isaiah 2:4]: "They shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning-knives; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
Weapons and their possession are a reproach to mankind –and not anything desirable.
2) Talmud, Bava Kama 46a:
R. Nathan says: From where is it derived that one should not breed a bad dog in his house, or keep an impaired ladder in his house? From the text [Deuteronomy 24:8], "You shall bring not blood upon your house."
I.e., it is forbidden to have anything likely to cause damage about one's domicile.
Rabbi Shlomo Luria ("Maharshal") points out that many authorities forbid raising a dangerous dog even if it is kept chained. This would indicate that a dangerous object--such as a gun--is forbidden, even if it is supposedly safeguarded. However he points out elsewhere in the tractate (fol 83) that in a "dangerous area" one may keep a bad tempered dog that one chains by day and allows to patrol one's property by night.
In conclusion, we are commanded to avoid all danger to our lives. There is no question that a gun is fundamentally a dangerous object, designed to kill.
II. On the other hand...
In Exodus 22:1 we read:
If, while breaking in, the thief is discovered, and he is struck and dies, [it is as if] he has no blood.
Rashi, the greatest commentator on the Tanach (the original, Jewish name for the 24 books of the Bible) who gathers together millennia of interpretation, comments:
"He has no blood. [This signifies that] this is not [considered] murder. It is as though he [the thief] is [considered] dead from the start. Here the Torah teaches you: If someone comes to kill you, kill him first. And this one [the thief] has come to kill you, because he knows that a person will not hold himself back and remain silent when he sees people taking his money. Therefore, he [the thief] has come with the acknowledgement that if the owner of the property were to stand up against him, he [thief] would kill him [the owner]. - [From Talmud Sanhedrin. 72a]".
Here we clearly see the rule, "If someone comes to kill you, kill him first." If we are told by the Almighty to defend ourselves, clearly we may possess the wherewithal to do so. In today's world there is no better tool--if G‑d forbid it comes to this--than a firearm. Only with a firearm is the proverbial little old lady living alone a match for the hulking thug. A baseball bat won't give her much of a chance. And law enforcement officials rarely have a chance to intervene to save a victim at the moment of the crime.
We indeed yearn for the time of the Final Redemption when "They shall beat their swords into plowshares" but it is a very poor idea to do this unilaterally before that point in history!
We believe the teachings of the Torah--including the obligation we have to ourselves to guard our own lives--to be eternal; but the technology to carry them out should be the best available in our era.
This obligation is codified in Jewish law as part of a range of obligations centered on preserving our health and well being, as well as the obligation to defend ourselves or a third party against aggression.
Under Jewish Law there is an obligation for a private citizen to assist another in trouble: "You shall not stand by [the shedding of] your fellow's blood. I am the Lord (Leviticus 19:16)" and as Rashi comments, quoting the legal texts of the Talmud:
"You shall not stand by [the shedding of] your fellow's blood. [I.e., do not stand by,] watching your fellow's death, when you are able to save him; for example, if he is drowning in the river or if a wild beast or robbers come upon him. — [Torath Kohanim 19:41; Talmud, Sanhedrin 73a]"
We cannot exempt ourselves of this obligation – even though in this country we have a wonderful and dedicated corps of law enforcement officers and other emergency personnel. We should respect them and support them in every way possible, as they have devoted their lives to the rescue of their fellows –but our obligation to our fellow remains: if we see someone in trouble we cannot absolve ourselves of our obligation by the fact that "professionals" exist somewhere.
One can therefore make the argument that it would be wrong to deprive citizens of the "tools" most suited to this task, e.g. firearms. Our Sages have a saying "A broken wall calls out to the thief [to come in]." If the law dictates that a citizen may not be armed –the criminals will arm themselves and be unafraid of opposition –as those who abide by the law will be defenseless.
Yet it must be noted that Jewish law forbids the sale of arms to people who are suspect of criminal intentions. We read in the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 15b):
And it has further been taught: One should not sell them either weapons or accessories of weapons, nor should one grind any weapon for them, not may one sell them either stocks or neck-chains or ropes, or iron chains — neither to idolaters nor Cutheans.
The Talmud extends this prohibition to Jewish criminals as well, clearly demonstrating the responsibility to enforce background checks on prospective arms owners.
What of the dangers inherent in improperly stored and handled firearms? We are taught,
"When you build a new house, you shall make a guard rail for your roof, so that you shall not cause blood [to be spilled] in your house, that the one who falls should fall from it [the roof]" (Deuteronomy 22:8)
The Rabbis derive from this that we must create "fences" in all dangerous situations to prevent "blood spilled" in your house. However the Torah did not forbid flat roofs –it mandates fences. We need to be responsible with things that may be dangerous, not prevented from having them.
One more quote: There is a fascinating commentary by Nachmanides (13th Century) on Genesis 4:20-24. The verses read:
Now Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have cattle.
And his brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all who grasp a lyre and a flute.
And Zillah she too bore Tubal Cain, who sharpened all tools that cut copper and iron, and Tubal Cain's sister was Na'amah.
Now Lemech said to his wives, "Adah and Zillah, hearken to my voice; wives of Lemech, incline your ears to my words; for have I slain a man by wounding (him)? A child by bruising (him)?
If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, then for Lemech it shall be seventy-seven fold."
What is going on over here? What is this marital spat between Lemech and his two wives all about?
Nachmanides explains: Lemech was very wise and taught one son herding, the other music, and the third metallurgy. His wives remonstrated with him that the introduction of ironworking would enable the production of weapons and bring murder to the world. Lemech responds to them: "Have I killed a man, as great-grandpa Cain has done seven generations ago? It is not the sword that kills, but the bad choice by a man. Without a sword, too, a man could kill another by wounding and battering as did Cain..."
Swords do kill – but only if they have evil intent behind them
So who was right in this debate – Lemech or his wives?
Nachmanides leaves the question unanswered.
In conclusion I leave to you, my dear reader, to judge, based on these sources, where Judaism stands on gun control.
That being said, after all of the above to the extent that these arguments might advocate granting permission to private citizens to own guns, certainly Jewish law and ethics would ask, and demand the following:
As per the above–qouted ruling that on the border one may keep an agressive dog, but not in more settled areas, we should accept the demographic diversity of a huge country and understand that citizens of New York City and those residing in the Southwestern cattle country might have very different needs in these regards, based on the ubiquity or lack thereof of law enforcement personnel. Thus, many of these questions should properly and ethically be devolved to as local a level as possible.
It is my prayer, which I am certain all our readers share, that we never again see parents bury children snatched from them in the very beginnings of their adult lives and that we shall very soon enter that era in which we shall no longer need to think of defense against violence as it is written: "And a wolf shall live with a lamb….They shall neither harm nor destroy on all My holy mount, for the land shall be full of knowledge of the Lord as water covers the sea" (Isaiah 11:6-9).
ogunquit, me
rijewishkids.com
Interesting comment. Apparently the DHS and the DoD have taken the fist steps in more openly identifying members of many religious and religious related groups that are not "liberal" or mainstream they perceive as having members that potentially might become threats. Typical that the mass media ie CNN, NBC, etc has not featured this news on their front pages. I'm an American Jewish gun owner and I find many American Jews (secular and religious) naive and arrogant to keep trusting in government and society for their continued personal security and religious liberties. Things are changing. More time needs to be spent preparing for possible real-world events and social/political changes, and less time elsewhere.
This controversial Army briefing, titled “Extremism and Extremist Organizations,” was given to an army reserve unit in Pennsylvania.
A slide titled “Religious Extremism” listed organizations and movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaida, Hamas, the Nation of Islam, the Ku Klux Klan and Christian Identity as examples.
However, the first group on the list is “evangelical Christianity.” Catholicism and ultra-orthodox Judaism are also on the list of religious extremist organizations.
So give up your guns, and march to the camps, my foolish Jewish brothers!
USA
We have more than 20,000 existing gun laws in this country now. Those laws have been unsuccessful at stopping criminals and the criminally insane from obtaining weapons and committing heinous crimes. Why should individuals have the right to be armed? Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
We already have background checks. They only apply to legal purchases. Criminals do not purchase guns legally. What is so hard to understand about that? And limits to magazine size only limit an individual's ability for self defense. Besides, reloading takes but a couple of seconds.
The larger question: Is it appropriate to deny constitutional rights to more than 300 million citizens because of the acts of a handful of deranged mass murderers? My answer is NO!
Jackson
This has a familiar ring to it, yes?
Oregon
DC
Albany
The cop had a security holster that prevented them from taking the gun out, but had they known about that they could have brought a leather cutter to remove the entire holster from his body and cut it off the gun in privacy.
It is hard enough for cops to deal with armed felons they arrest, without having to worry about people their not even aware of trying to assassinate them. One way or another, cops will make sure criminals have _some_ other means of getting illegal guns.
So, no, we will NOT keep guns from criminals -- except by keeping criminals locked up. If they're not locked up, we'd darn well better be prepared to deal with armed violent criminals ourselves.
Memphis, TN
chabadneworleans.com
How about nails? Or maybe ball bearings?
All of these could be potentially more deadly then a single gun as we saw this week in Boston.
At what does a society stop and accept the citizenship should be the trusted group and not those voted into office.
When a weapon is not unique to the criminal then the advantage that the criminal has with it is nullified.
Who is going to decide what the checks take into account and at what point does that snowball stop getting bigger?
Jen once went to see a therapist because she felt depressed, well she is on the banned list now.
Mike's son is depressed, well he could have access to Mikes guns they need to be seized.
Once the government is trusted to make the decisions as to who has access and who does not, the government will do what is in ITS best interest not the citizens. The interest of the government is to be needed and to expand, have citizens depend on IT for security. Foolish!
Lockeford, CA
chabadnorthernnevada.com
It is nice to see that this practical interpretation of our rich Jewish Law takes a realistic view of our obligation to defend ourselves. Given our history, this obligation is a very important thing.
NJ
1) "When guns are outlawed only the outlaws will have them."
2) "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"
3) "If someone wants to kill someone, he doesn't necessarilly need a gun."
Question: If the Torah justifies self defense; how can "Jewish Liberals" call themselves Jewish; do they have their own interpretation of our master book ?
Medford, NJ
Citizens can choose to be sheep, wolves, or sheep dogs. If anyone doubts what I wrote all you need to do is study history and not be naïve to believe you can develop a nanny-security utopian society here in America. Unfortunately, most of the gun regulations being pushed in modern society by politicians are designed to control law abiding citizens and will make society more dangerous for good people.
I see no evidence that Nancy Lanza showed a lack of responsibility or concern for public safety. She was the first one murdered -- certainly she would not have lacked concern for herself. Rather, she failed to recognize the depth of evil that was within her child, but how many parents are willing to do that? Or, perhaps she did recognize the problem but society put too many roadblocks in her way to have her son institutionalized in a timely manner.
If society is going to be reluctant to lock up the insane, what about the responsibility of teachers and principals to be prepared to protect their children from attacks by the criminally insane? What about society's failure to allow (much less encourage) this sort of responsibility?
Memphis, Tennessee
chabadneworleans.com
There is halachic support for self-defense. But there is no halachic support for gun ownership as practiced in America today.
Many American gun owners, like Nancy Lanza, believe they have no responsibility to any value larger than themselves. They show a blatent disregard for public safety. They have no sense of balance.
In Judaism, you first consider your responsibilities to G-d and to your fellow humans. Only then do you consider your rights.
Because our laws support irresponsible gun owners like Nancy Lanza, 20 innocent children are dead and will never go home to their families. We must stand firmly against her behavior and regulate a standard of responsible gun owernship for all.
Boston
Utah
I agree that if a burglar tries to surrender before he gets shot, then one should allow him to surrender. Make him lay on his stomach with his hands behind his back in sight and his head turned away, and try hold the gun on him from behind cover until the police arrive. But if he disobeys, he's lost his chance. A police trainer advises not to challenge a burglar in the first place (in lieu of shooting him on sight), unless you can do so from behind cover.
Memphis, TN
chabadneworleans.com
English Common law recognizes a similar thing. Self Defense does not apply when the person is no longer a threat, such as by retreating or surrendering. We can not execute someone.
I seem to remember reading a famous Jewish commentator viewing it this way.
Baltimore
If you try to capture a burglar, know that he might have a concealed handgun with which to kill you the moment your attention is diverted. If wish to take that risk to capture him alive, that's your choice.
But if instead you choose to just let him get away, know that you too will bear sin and guilt for the people whose homes he rapes after he is through with yours.
Memphis, TN
chabadneworleans.com
I question if I would ever use one of my hunting rifles on a human and pray YVH, will spare me the choice. I mourn for the animals I have killed. I do not agree that the exodus 22 account speaks of a decision to intentionally kill a thief with forethought as an act of punishment or revenge, and how many men kept an ox in the house? Read the passage, we are talking about animals owned.
2 (1) If a thief be caught breaking in, and be struck down so that he die, there shall be no guilt of bloodshed for him.
3 (2) If the shemesh be risen upon him, there shall be guilt of bloodshed ( summarized ), --The guilt for blood that spilled out of the thief, belongs to the thief and the thief shall make amends.
USA - would rather live in Israel
When the 2nd Amendment was drafted, we were at odds with Native Americans. Had they been equally armed, we would not be living here. To keep and bear arms for personal defense was a given. The "security of a free state" was the reason we have the right to keep and bear arms.
"Infringed" is understood when a fence is off the property line, but with gun ownership, tyrants are threatened and infringement is used for their security, not ours.
Violence is something we pay to watch but we are appalled when the shooter is in the theater. Teach your children not to be violent. We are not to be like the world.
Durango
kentucky
Cocoa Beach, FL
jewishbrevard.com
History.....which is Torah
Nothing changes under the Sun and many liked living in Egypt choosing not to leave. Apparently, many people on planet Earth still like living under Dictators, Socialists..... Pharaohs. Until they don't!
Having a pocket full of World Currency changes nothing.....but opinions.
Moscow, Cuba, China
A major difference between a dog and the weapon is the dog's unique ability to kill a person without human assistance. Even its owner.
A weapon is not known to be dangerous until in the actual hand of a person. Therefore we can say that a breed of dog that is known to be aggressive has the status of 'muad'. (for those not knowing this concept, let's just say expected to cause damage) A weapon is definitely never considered muad. It's the holder we will have to classify.
And that is the ultimate Halachic argument against gun control.
Los Angeles
Memphis, TN/USA
chabadneworleans.com
Cincinnati, Ohio
chabadba.com
Ms. Resnick, both are terrible pictures
Cape Canaveral
New Jersey
This article only addresses the narrow question of whether or not it is right for government to limit access to firearms. For a broader discussion of the preponderance of violence in today's society, I recommend The Book or the Blade.
It is not a claim that gun ownership among law abiding American citizens save lives it is a proof. Current gun estimates are that there are from 290-320 million guns in private hands. Those guns can never be confiscated and most will still be able to shoot 200 years from now.
Some random thoughts:
1) America does have a culture of violence among a sizable percentage of the population. It is more prevalent among certain groups than others. Guns in the ownership of law abiding citizens are a deterrent and are used to stop criminals at least 1.5 million times a year.
2) There is no “gun show loophole”. All guns sales to and from retail dealers and consumers go through the FBI check system. Some states allow private citizens to sell their guns to other private citizens (not dealers) at gun shows and in private (at homes or wherever) bypassing the criminal background check.
3) All gun sales new and used between private parties need to go through the FBI criminal background check system. Mentally insane people need to be placed into a national no-gun-buy database. No, that does not include most or all gun owners as the gun grabbers would like.
4) Semi-automatics with high capacity magazines do, in theory, make it easier for a murderer to shoot larger numbers of innocent defenseless people. I wrote in theory since they have a tendency to jam more frequently and especially if the shooter does not know the weapon.
5) All gun owners need to safely secure their guns when not home. If living with a mentally disturbed person the safe or security system needs to be secured when not in use. Perhaps certain types of guns should not be in the home if a mentally disturbed person lives there. The shootings at the Oregon mall and in Connecticut were committed because the actual gun owners failed to secure their weapons.
6) More than half of annual gun deaths are because of suicides. Taking guns away will not stop a suicidal person. Gun-free Japan has a very high and sadly successful suicide rate.
7) Most gun homicides are between thugs and do not involve innocent people. Law abiding citizens should never have their right to self-defense taken away to save the lives of criminals aka animals intent on killing each other.
8) Many of the claims by gun grabbers are that x-number of children are killed annually by guns. Some of those studies include up to the age 25 for their definition of what is a child. We get pummeled with lots of misinformation by the phobic gun grabbers.
9) Gun violence has actually increased, since banning most guns, in essentially gun-free Britain and Australia. Non-gun violence in both countries has increased in both countries.
10) American Jews need to be respectful of America’s gun heritage, culture, and support for private citizen ownership of guns. There is often a Jewish American mostly uninformed and knee-jerk reaction in support of more gun control. America is not Israel and most Americans do not want to live in a security state they will never trust. The pro-gun community is aware of urban American Jewish support for gun control to include calls by some Jews to ban all private gun ownership and consider such support an attack on their freedoms.
Tiburon,Ca.
There about 70,000,000 firearm owners who collectively have around 300,000,000 firearms. Annually about 7,500 people are killed by another in acts of violence with fortunately most of them being in the thug culture. Another 7,500 people are killed by accidents and suicide.
Up to 2,000,000 times yearly, firearms are used to protect people from aggressive violence.
More are killed annually by either 2nd hand tobacco smoke and by drunk drivers. Where is the cry to outlaw those weapons?
Among all the world's peoples, Jews should value firearms and self-defense preparation more than any people. Despite all their academic studies, modern American Jews sometimes seem to lack common sense.
Governments cannot be relied upon for anything or haven't people noticed?
Portland
Pomona, NY
A round that exits is just wasting it energy.
A round that does not exit, transfers all of its energy to the target.
Most bullets fired from handguns expand very little unless bone is hit at fairly close range.
Remember rounds of at least .40 are wide enough going in. Placement is what counts.
Park Ridge, IL
Solzhenitsyn wrote about the dread era of the 30s and 40s, when Stalin's KGB swooped down on innocent civilians and carted them off in Black Marias to the Gulag. He estimated that about a quarter of Leningrad's intelligentsia was taken away. Things were so bad that a university professor deliberately committed a petty theft so he would be sentenced to a year in the local jail. When he got out of jail, the professor found that all the others in his department at the university had been sent to the Gulag.
What Solzhenitsyn said was that the intellectual Leningradniks should not have gone quietly into the Black Marias. He said they should have waited with axes and other weapons, and split a few KGB heads open. They should have made it tougher for the KGB. Those in other areas who fought back wound up not being taken to the Gulag.
Far Rockaway , NY
The current thinking among police is to use an expanding bullet in one of those calibers that goes in small, expands, but usually does not exit.
Memphis, TN
chabadneworleans.com
Pomona, NY
Jews IN FRONT OF loaded guns
or
Jews IN BACK OF loaded guns
Which picture do you like better?
The world doesn't agree, which is why the Europeans hate Israel and the Israeli Army so much. Jews to them are supposed to die like bleating sheep.
Far Rockaway, NY
Far Rockaway, NY
You know what both of those dictators had in common? They took away personal gun rights. Obviously the problem is not one of our right to defend ourselves from evil intents, but dealing with those intent on doing evil.
Puyallup, wa
chabadpiercecounty.com
For Instance, Canada, England, and Austrailia; All have uncontrolled violence since the bad guys know they can operate with impugnity. This is to say that whatever rights they have now are gone and will take a long time to regain by a government that recognizes the mistakes of the prior inept governments. There undoubtedly will be bloodshed before it evens out. There has to be. The bad guys must be made to understand its over!!!! If they want to play, they are going to pay.
Pomona, NY
park ridge, il
No, nor have I heard of random attacks on shooting ranges. But the American left seems to care zero about that. They can look tough on crime without annoying their supporters by blaming guns instead of criminals.
2003 was the most recent year posted:
Total firearm deaths 30,136
Suicide 16,907
Homicides 11,920
Legal Intervention 347
Undetermined 232
Unintentional 730
I had thought accidents higher & suicides lower. OK, so now Homicides are under 12,000.
Liberty and the freedom from the potential tyranny of governments (Imperial, Fascist, Socialist, or Theocratic) has been so rare in history. Each day, in America, the political jaws of control are slowly closing down & down. Most people are too busy or blinded by smoke & mirror tactics to notice or care.
The more America loses its Judeo-Christian heritage, the more the future becomes one of an ethically-corrupt and politically-correct Balkanized financially-bankrupt nation that won't be able to get along. In 30 years, there will be 100 million more Americans often lacking fresh water.
Learn self-defense & keep your powder dry.
San Francisco, CA
There are 303 Million Americans. Unbiased scholarly research shows that about 2.5 Million times yearly; innocent Americans will hold-off or defend themselves with a firearm from a criminal attack. Yearly, about 13-17K are murdered in homicides (another 10-12K die in accidents). Do the math.
Americans gun ownership keeps many criminals from acting. Disarming will lead to many more murders. Criminals & Storm Troopers don’t care about being humane.
Gun Free Zones are a magnet for violence. Ever hear about an armed police station being attacked?
San Francisco, CA
I couldn't agree more with Aaron of San Francisco. But, as a non-Jew I would include the need for self-defense and reliance for all law-abiding people.
Augusta, GA/USA
Pomona, NY
Unarmed, what are your chances of defending your family from a home intrusion? Books don’t work well in defense & you can’t rely upon the police or divine help to materialize. When arms are banned, crime increases. When good citizens arm, crime decreases.
We are a nation of 300,000,000 people in a society that is increasingly losing its unity & ethical values. A huge tragedy will be to allow thugs, gangs, & a growing government disregard for the Bill of Rights, to have absolute unchecked power over Americans.
An adverse societal disaster can easily unleash the lower animal nature in many people. A civilized democracy is only one-political generation away from tyranny. Remember Hitler?
Good people should never have to live fear of criminals or a government. Criminals and politicians should fear the people.
San Francisco, CA
I think the movie "Hotel Rawanda" proves his point well.
USA
Do to my past lack of a Jewish education, I can't comment on the article's quotes of Jewish teachings.
I am a firm supporter of the RKBA Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Overall, I found the article to lack objectivity and insight.
Some thoughts to consider:
* During the 20th Century, at least 170 Million civilians (perhaps 350 Million?) were murdered by goverments due to war, genocides, massacres, starvations, & other police-state actions.
* Every society sooner or later comes down. From local crime to riots to natural disasters to plagues to nuclear terrorism; nations & goverments can't be relied ton to protect people. America won't last forever; its demographics & values are changing now.
* Goverments and societies can go bad, very bad & quickly. Consider your history.
* Criminals & thugs love gun-control as it's easier & less-dangerous to rape, rob, & murder.
San Francisco, CA
NY, USA
-- 1 Shmuel 13:19
Is there something more that can be said than that? This pattern has been around for a while now.
fort walton beach, fl
fort walton beach, fl
Pomona, NY
west hartford, CT
The quote from Bava Kama may be discussing safety hazards more than tools of self defense. A "bad tempered dog" can get out on its own. A weak ladder can lure someone into believing it is safe, then break and drop them. I could derive that one should not leave an unattended gun where children or thieves can get to it.
" it is forbidden to have anything likely to cause damage " Does that restrict someone from owning a chainsaw to cut firewood? Drive a car? I doubt it. Why a gun? A gun is a tool like the others.
I agree that we should avoid danger to our lives. But, in many places, not owning a weapon is more dangerous than owning one.
Does anyone here think that someone willing to do murder will all of a sudden be intimidated by a new gun control law? Mexico has strict gun control laws. How is that going?
I'm saving up to buy a Henry "Big Boy" .45 for hunting and home defence. You don't have to shoot fataly in every case of self defence. In the woods a good rifle is a nesescary survival tool.
I once read a story about some WWII vets. from Japan and the US that got together and dicussed war stategy. An american asked a Jap. why they never invaded our west coast. The reply was that they were afraid of the armed populace rising up to defeat them. In this case an armed populace's reputation diverted a major battle ultamately saving many lives.
USA
In any case, someone mentioned the connection between weapons policy and violence in society. Anyone interested should read www.garymauser.net/pdf/KatesMauserHJPP.pdf ("Would the Banning of Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide") from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. It's a real eye-opener.
I agree; let's stop living in the past -- the feudal past -- when only special people (the king's knights) were authorized to bear arms.
Memphis, TN
chabadneworleans.com
I'm done with this debate. It's obvious that everyone here is terrified of life outside the citizenry of our own shtetle. If you live in fear and treat all outsiders as potential murderes, how do you expect to be treated?
Forget it, though. I'm done with this debate. It's sad that there isn't a single person here who can see beyond these paranoid fears. It's really sad. I expect my fellow Jews to be open-minded and to have a range of perspectives on gun control, and all I see is the same thing: closed-minded fear, living in the past. Wake up.
Altadena, CA
chabadpasadena.com
Pomona, NY
My point was that 30,000 people die each year in the US due to firearm homicide. If we actually ban those firearms, and if we actually collect them like a responsible country, then we can save many of those 30,000 deaths. You'll not that the ban actually keeps the guns from the bad guys' hands, too. Important omission in some of the analyses above.
Anyway, I also stated that a ban wouldn't happen for another 30 years or so as the ownership rate of guns continues to decrease. Think about it. 30,000 people each year, cut down to a thousand or two.
What's that quote about saving one life is equivalent to saving the entire world?
Altadena, CA
chabadpasadena.com
Something i've learned about fights is that no fight is fair. How would those hippies in altadema defend themselves in my neighborhood, when my neighbors boast of possessing contraband assault weapons?
Pomona, NY
The Torah links arms with freedom. Freed from bondage we went up from Egypt armed. Philistine oppression in Sampson's day banned blacksmiths lest we make swords. Foreign protectors saved us from many threats, but the most joyous holidays (Chanukah and Purim) celebrate days when we could defend ourselves.
It is an easing of the pain of golus that the U.S. allows Jews to defend themselves, and a Chillul Hashem that a Jew would ask the government to restore this oppression.
Memphis, TN
chabadneworleans.com
Please cite your source. Otherwise, you might as well say that home invasions in the UK have significantly dropped, which is just as likely.
"There are over 100 million firearmens in the USA. It would not be possible to keep criminals from getting them."
And there weren't millions of firearms in the UK? 43 deaths per year in the UK via firearm homicide vs 30,000 in the US. Think about it. That's 1,000 times the carnage of Virginia tech or 3 tiems the carnage of Virginia Tech happening EVERY DAY across this country.
"While your belief system favors you to be willing victim, don't impose that on others."
Ridiculous statement.
"Lastly, the greatest amount of firearm violence in the USA happens in areas with the stricktest gun control laws."
Of course it does. Did you ever notice that the laws came AFTER the violence in those areas?
Altadena, CA
chabadpasadena.com
Poulsbo, WA
In the UK, home invasions greatly increase to this day since the law abiding populace has been disarmed.
There are over 100 million firearmens in the USA It would not be possible to keep criminals from getting them. While your belief system favors you both to be willing victims, don't impose that on others.
Many British Police officers are now discretely armed.
Lastly, the greatest amount of firearm violence in the USA happens in areas with the stricktest gun control laws.
usa
Ghandi's philosophy of passive resistance requires one to resist a robber without harming him even though he will kill you for resisting. However, Ghandi told his son that if one will not do this, it is better to resist violently than to cooperate with violent aggressors. IMO, most people claiming to be pacifists are twisting Ghandi's philosophy to justify cowardice.
Furthermore, far from exercising Ghandi's philosophy, someone who promotes gun control is using the threat of aggressive violence (via the state) to force others to submit to violent criminals. That makes gun control advocate a partner in violent aggression -- no less than a man who grasps a woman's arms as another rapes her (for the sake of preventing the woman from violently scratching at the rapist's eyes!).
Memphis, TN
chabadneworleans.com
Explosive devices, incendiary devices, all have the potential to wreak havoc and destruction in large quantities. As we know from the case of the Oklahoma city bombing in the US, and nuumerous terrorist acts abroad, it is all to easy to create and successfully unleash these weapons.
Redmond, WA
chabadbellevue.org
They are there should the need ever arise, G-d forbid, to defend ourselves against those whose goal IS to cause harm.
29 palms, ca
lubavitchnh.com
Altadena, CA
chabadpasadena.com
Additionally, the gun ownership rate in this country has dropped from approximately 55% to 35% in the last 30 years. As we continue to urbanize, it will continue to decrease.
Folks, we live in the information age. The US government is not going to suddenly turn anti-semitic and recreate Nazi Germany. You are in no danger of the government doing this.
With all of that being said, we're very far from the point where the populace is going to ban guns. The only realistic solution is to go with much stronger gun conrol laws. Someday in the future (30 years), we can talk about banning guns.
Altadena, CA
chabadpasadena.com
Phoenix, AZ
Remember the Warsaw ghetto revolt. Those Brave Heroes held off the germans with stolen pistols and molotov coctails. Just imagine if all Jews were armed, the war would have been short; very short.
Baltimore, MD
Modesto, Ca
New Haven, Ct.
Singapore
1) "When guns are outlawed only the outlaws will have them."
2) "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"
3) "If someone wants to kill someone, he doesn't necessarilly need a gun."
Question: If the Torah justifies self defense; how can Liberals call themselves Jewish ?
NJ
We Jews must understand that we have to stop making it easy to be victims. Violent crime has substanually decreased in the 40 states where concealed carry via permit is allowed. The killer knew that Virginia Tech banned those who had the permits from possessing their pistols on campus. The unarmed people were lambs to the slaughter.
USA
It is important to remember that, no matter how well intentioned the ban on weapons, guns are easy to make. A simple machine shop can crank them out. And there are thousands of machine shops around.
Just as prohibition only kept honest people from drinking, banning firearms, or any other technology, for that matter, will only keep honest people from having them.
Finally, humans use tools. What folly it is to think that if only there were no guns, violence would cease. One only has to remember the events in Oklahoma City, New York City, and Iran to .be reminded that those bent on destruction and mayhem can easily succeed - with huge numbers of casualties. Unless each one of us is capable of helping stop them - through means both peaceful, and, unfortunately, not peaceful, the violent acts will continue, as they have since Cain and Abel.
mesa, az
This is why armed citizen patrols take place on Shabbat in villages and communal farms throughout the Land of Israel
West Hartford, CT
In Cho's case, the appropriate steps were taken, but he "fell through the cracks". Cho was clearly "a sick, twisted monster no one really knew". He went to different stores and websites to buy his weapons and ammunition so no one would suspect anything.
Hopefully, BOTH our Federal and Jewish Religious Governments learned lessons from the horrible ordeal at Virginia Tech and will ravamp and gun laws that need to be addressed.
Providence, RI
World Net Daily reported....
2004
One year after gun-owners were forced to hand in 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government over 500 million dollars, the
results are in...
* Homicide up 3.2%
* Assaults up 8.6%
* armed-robberies up 44%
* In one state, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%
* Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms ( this changed
dramatically in the past 12 months, in correlation with the gun ban)
* Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms (changed
dramatically in the past 12 months, in correlation with the the gun ban)
* There has been a dramatic increase in
breakins-and-assaults-of- the-elderly
milwaukee, wi
The biggest mistake people make when evaluating the effectiveness of gun control is only looking at the negative uses of guns while ignoring the overwhelming amount of times guns are used for good defensive purposes.
According to a Clinton Justice Department study conducted by Dr. Gary Kleck of FSU, guns in the U.S., are used approximately one million times a year for defensive purposes. Those positive uses outweigh the tragic negative uses the media sensationalizes....
milwaukee, wi
Is it also halachically correct to spill blood during Shabbos, say, in defense of your family and/or your guests during Shabbos?
Of course, you remember when Muslim extremists attacked Israel during Yom Kippur '73.
Am I correct in presuming that G-d did not hold Israel amiss for retaliating in kind, spilling blood, because it was in defense of the lives of their otherwise lawful citizens?
In that case, would I also be correct in presuming that for an individual Jew during Shabbos it is also allowable before G-d, even in the space of their own home?
New Haven , Ct.
Flint, Michigan
The tradgedy in Virginia couldnt of been avoided unless someone saw the intent of the disturbed individual. It should be more difficult to attain a firearm but theres almost nothing we can do in stopping a sick individual but finding the sickness before its too late.
We should ask for Moshiach now and one of the ways of doing that is by treating every individual as a part of G-d
Of course as we know, VT had prohibited conceal and carry on campus. If they had not, the level of uncertainty for the perp would have increased infinitely. Since they did, the perp was all but assured there would be no resistance.
Also, B&E's are rampant in England and other countries were criminals are ASSURED only Criminals are armed.
In Switzerland & Israel to different extent, everyone MUST own a gun. Of course their populace is highly educated.
Disarming ALL lawabidding citizens always proceeds massacres. Just ask the NAZIs. One machine gun totting man can easily control 100 disarmed.
Now living in the South, in the "gun culture", I have a different perspective in that I have the right and obligation to defend myself, family and innocent others. I think a gun in a responsible hand is like a fire extinguisher, you never want to need it but you are glad to have it there.
Roanoke, VA
California