I spent the
day in New York, and much of that time was in the airport, where the
televisions seemed to be locked into all-Newtown, all the time. Interviews with
counselors, coverage regarding the funerals, interviews with people who knew
the murderer, and, of course, the discussion about gun control.
Worried
about the right to bear arms? Rabbinic law is certainly in the habit of
suspending individual rights for the perceived greater good, and certainly
where that good involves saving lives.
Certain that this won't prevent a determined murderer? That's true – but rabbinic law regularly prohibits certain activities as a fence to prevent violation of biblical law, even though willful sinners will flout the rabbinic and biblical law.
Example: The
sages prohibited raising certain species of animals in Israel, because those
were known to invade others' property. (Bava Kama 79b) Certainly, that limited
personal freedom. And certainly, that wouldn't stop criminals from grazing
their animals on others' land. But the step was made, and it mattered.
If you
believe in the idea of creating imperfect protective legislation rather than do
nothing, then gun control is an obvious choice.
Added thought:
Think that guns are needed for protection/deterrent? Suicide bombers have proven that people who are not sane, or who are not operating by normal standards, don't need deterrents. And as Newtown, Virginia Tech, Aurora and so on show, our possession of guns isn't doing a good job of either protecting or deterring.
I've lived in Canada for 3+ years now. There have been men who have picked up guns and shot randomly in public places - but far, far fewer than in the US over the same period, way out of proportion with the population differential.
Added thought:
Think that guns are needed for protection/deterrent? Suicide bombers have proven that people who are not sane, or who are not operating by normal standards, don't need deterrents. And as Newtown, Virginia Tech, Aurora and so on show, our possession of guns isn't doing a good job of either protecting or deterring.
I've lived in Canada for 3+ years now. There have been men who have picked up guns and shot randomly in public places - but far, far fewer than in the US over the same period, way out of proportion with the population differential.
To add to your point, the mother of the shooter in the recent shooting was described by the Wall Street Journal on 12/17 as a gun enthusiast.
ReplyDeletewhat needs banning is defenseless,unarmed victims.
ReplyDeletethe killers will always find a way to get armed
I second zz. An armed/trained guard or staff member at that school could have made a real difference.
ReplyDeleteba-
ReplyDeleteTrue, although I think more is yet to come regarding his mother.
zz, Bob-
Nonsense. Someone who comes in as loaded as this guy was would shoot the guard and continue right on in.
Rabbeinu, I think you are mistaken to call the idea 'nonsense'. In both of the recent shooting sprees (mall in Oregon and Newtown) the shooters backed off when confronted with opposition. That may be only correlative and not causative - we can't know. But the correlation is there in many such instances. I was personally peripherally involved as a gun-toting citizen in Israel in stopping a terrorist shooting on King George St. some 30 years ago. There were several responders; only one was 'official'. The professional opinions I have read on related issues all point to one indisputable fact - fast response reduces casualties. The police take a few minutes to arrive. A guard or armed citizen on scene may respond much much faster. All this has to be taken into account while pondering correct and judicious policy.
DeleteIt is true that this may stop certain attacks - but with the inaccuracy of responders, which includes trained police, I wouldn't want to put my money there.
DeleteTo me, the fact that this would prevent certain attacks is enough to justify it.
There is a question about whether the shooter in Portland stopped because he saw another person with a gun. People want to believe it to be so but we don't know for certain that this is why he stopped so it is not fair to claim this is why he killed himself.
DeleteThere were people at Columbine with guns. Trained or not there is no proof that would stop someone who didn't care what happened.
Thanks, Jack. But do Californians get a vote in this?
DeleteFrum people vote enthusiastically for candidates who oppose gun control. This is one aspect (of the many aspects) of the frum embrace of right-wing politics that I don't understand.
ReplyDelete"zz, Bob-
ReplyDeleteNonsense. Someone who comes in as loaded as this guy was would shoot the guard and continue right on in."
This guy could fire only one weapon at a time, as could an armed guard.
Yes - but this guy has the advantage of setting up and surprise, and there is no doubt that he was better armed than any security guard with a pistol.
DeleteI have to say, as a non-American, this is a total non-brainer (as you would say). The US is the only Western country with such significant opposition to gun control, and it's also the one with the biggest gun crime problem. It's not seen as a key left vs. right divide. Conservatives may argue over the exact extent of the regulation but the principle is accepted, just as no one challenges the government's right to ban hard drugs, regulate water quality or pass traffic laws for the public good.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree; I think there is a big left vs. right divide on gun control.
DeleteThe US is also the only country that does lots of admirable things. I don't think the US needs to be preached to about morality by other Western countries.
DeleteNachum-
DeleteIt's not about morality or admirable things. No one here is calling the US or its citizens (of which I am one) immoral, or not admirable. It's a matter of pursuing sensible behaviour, and accepting truth from wherever it comes.
Unfortunately, the talking heads and the folks in their personal echo chambers often miss that point, and therefore tune out reasonable counsel.
I agree with you, Rabbi, and sadly I see no potential for actual progress here, now or ever. Gun advocates will say, and have actually said, that these poor children's deaths were caused by gun control and they would have been safer if all the teachers etc. had been armed. Heck, let's give the kids guns too, because as we all know, the more bullets that are flying the safer we are. And the far left will say that no private citizen should be allowed to own any firearm, ever. And everyone will, as we always do, retreat into their own side's echo chambers and preach to their respective choirs, and we'll get nowhere. And sooner rather than later some other shiny object will come along to distract the press and the public and we'll forget all about this until the next time. And there will be a next time. America is, alas, reliable that way.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure that considering massacres is the right criterion for determining a rabbi's proper response. There are more Americans killed yearly in firearms accidents (about 750) than shooting sprees (about 100), and far more suicides (about 17,000) and assaults other than mass shootings (about 12000.) Whether your favored solutions is banning guns or some types of them, or arming teachers' aides, if you focus on the very rare massacres and ignore the suicides and more ordinary assaults you can easily do more harm than good. A small percentage change (either positive or negative) to either of those categories will easily overwhelm whatever effect you have on the massacres. it is the effect of any proposed legislation on suicides and non-mass shootings that should determine a proper response.
ReplyDeleteMike S-
DeleteI believe that the response - to the suicides and killings as well as the massacres - must be multi-pronged in order to be effective. But the approach I hear of deliberately ignoring a key component because "it won't solve everything" angers me - and, as I noted in my post, it flies in the face of the rabbinic approach to legislation.
I didn't mean to suggest that any proposed legislation must completely solve everything, nor to comment on any specific proposal. My point was that to properly evaluate any proposal to deal with gun deaths, one has to consider the effects on the largest types of gun deaths which are suicide and non-mass assaults. Even if a proposal can completely eliminate the problem of mass-shootings, if said proposal causes a 1% rise in either of those two categories it has made the problem of gun violence worse, not better, in the sense of more deaths. It is important not to let the horror and publicity of mass shootings obscure the fact that the overwhelming majority of gun deaths in the US are suicides or individual assaults.
DeleteAs to how any particular proposal might effect those, I wouldn't know without real studies, but I'd assume anything that makes guns more common would increase suicides. Things that have more people armed may either increase or decrease individual assaults as there are effects going both ways, for example simple fights escalating into gun battles would increase the death toll, criminals might be less likely to shoot people if there victims were more likely to be armed, but you would also have more armed criminals. Weighing those effects requires study, not off-hand opinions.
Mike-
DeleteYou might take a look at the statistics here, at University of Utah's Health Sciences Library. Let me know what you think. The numbers are shocking.
Yes the numbers are horrific, though not shocking, since they have been well reported for years. I cited them above. And I agree with you that the Torah obligates us to do what we can. But frankly, the horrific massacres you mentioned are the least of the problem. As bad as it was the 28 deaths (including the shooter) Friday were the same number killed by guns in an average 8 hours in the US. I am just saying that the measure of a proper policy is the effect on the suicides and ordinary assaults that constitute 97% of the gun deaths rather than by the mass shootings that constitute less than half a percent of the gun deaths.
DeleteThere's one element missing from your whole analysis: American constitutional law is that personal ownership of firearms must remain legal- indeed, it's described as a right. You can debate details and even look to amend the Constitution (not you personally, not being an American), but you can't make an argument that any law can be passed regardless of whether or not it's, well, legal. There are lots of things that would fit under your definitions (restrictions of speech, for starters) that you wouldn't want.
ReplyDeleteNachum-
DeleteI'll thank you for not revoking my citizenship; I am a law-abiding, tax-paying, flag-waving citizen of the United States of America.
But to speak to what you were trying to suggest: The question of whether or not the Second Amendment protects ownership of all sorts of firearms has long been debated, and will likely be debated far into the future. But it's irrelevant - the point of my argument, and others like it, is that every society must be aware that it needs to evolve to fit new circumstances. As Menachem Begin said in 1951, no form of society is perfect for all times; societies must change, and change their laws (and even forms of government, per Begin) to suit new times.
Regarding restrictions on speech, etc: As I said in my post - Even though we cannot solve every problem and avoid every hazard, we are morally responsible to do everything in our power to reduce the problems and hazards. We do it in halachah; why not apply it in general?