CDZ Israel proves the NRA's arguments

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Picaro, Feb 18, 2018.

  1. Picaro
    Offline

    Picaro Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    Messages:
    9,671
    Thanks Received:
    1,287
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,356
    Some left wing myths about Israel's gun control laws, and how they make use of tactics similar to the 'militia' concept stated in the 2nd A.


    Israel proves the NRA's arguments

    In reality, Israel's gun policy is living proof of the arguments the American gun lobby has been making for years.

    ...

    In the past, proponents of limiting civilian access to firearms have extolled Israel as having the proper approach to limiting mass shootings, pointing to the numerous legal hoops Israelis must jump through in order to be granted a gun license.

    ...


    Erdan explained that "civilians well trained in the use of weapons provide reinforcement in the struggle against terrorism", while Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat called for every resident to carry a gun, and was even photographed traveling the city carrying a Glock 23.

    In addition, the overwhelming majority of terror attacks in Israel are stopped by armed civilians, not law enforcement. For example, the terrorists in the 2016 Sarona market attack were stopped by armed passersby. A pistol-carrying tour guide put an end to the 2017 ramming attack in Arnona that left four soldiers dead.

    In Israeli eyes, guns are a valuable deterrent against terrorism. In fact, terrorists have told the Shin Bet internal security service that they often target haredi Jews due to the high likelihood that they are unarmed.


    As some here know already, I have no problems with a state regulating firearms, and I'm also opposed to concealed carry, as well as allowing full auto weapons for sale to the public, and I also don't believe for a second the 2nd A overrides states' rights to regulate firearms as they see fit to via due process in their own legislatures. These aren't contradictions, they're personal opinions versus law, and I don't think my opinions trump law, whether I like the law or not, so spare me the usual sniveling over that stuff here.

    That also means states can do what the Israelis do, and then some if they so choose to as well, including allowing private citizens to carry full auto weapons, though I would let the state issue them and control who gets them. In any case, arming citizens not only works, it works very well, and 'gun free zones' are one of the stupidest ideas ever dreamed up.

    Our territory is far too large, and our cities are far too spread out to lie about the realities of police response times, and it is only common sense that much of the responsibility has to be shouldered by civilian volunteers.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2018
  2. Toronado3800
    Offline

    Toronado3800 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,620
    Thanks Received:
    363
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +685
    Picaro, I like your topic and the information provided.

    I'm gonna say there are frequently two or more ways to accomplish most tasks so while we don't necessarily agree on some finer points, your opinion is not invalid nor necessarily incorrect.

    To take maybe a different point, I think the 2nd does limit what states can do, good or bad. It is pretty vague however and probably as interpreted correctly allows me to own guns. Missouri should not be allowed to remove that right w/o a Constitutional Amendment.

    Conceal carry, meh...I'm not motivated one way or another. If you can own a gun you should be able to move it about.

    Civilian response to thwarting terrorism....interesting especially if you take the mass shootings as terrorist incidents. I'm not totally thrilled with this image of the Wild West I get thinking about that but its not like vigilantes are out there killing a ton of people they did not intend to.

    I will say Israel is a different place, waiting to be pushed back into the sea in the most dangerous part of the planet. The point is valid though.

    How about for the time being:

    -we tax firearms and the money "must" go to making schools safer. Better controlled entry ways. A resource officer at every school, some bullet proof glass and remote doors, that type of thing.

    -we set the NRA on a task to profile these mass shooters and a plan for keeping guns from their hinds. I feel there are links.

    -we smooth out the private sale laws and make them like new gun purchases in every state.

    Lets see where that gets us.
     
  3. Picaro
    Offline

    Picaro Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    Messages:
    9,671
    Thanks Received:
    1,287
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,356
    Actually I made an error in my OP: I'm opposed to open carry, and I support concealed carry. I had concealed carry on the brain as I typed, and didn't catch it. Open carry doesn't make any sense to me as a deterrent, for one, and it opens up the probability that some metnal case could just hang around a mall and mug some idiot parading around with his fashion statement trying to look Kewl n stuff, some crazy can just come up behind him and pop a cap in the back of the moron's head and use his weapon to kill people with at random. With concealed carry, nobody is going to know who has what, and that makes a lot more sense.

    And, why should guns be taxed extra to pay for bad policies and the utter failure of the left wing culture wars? Tax Democrats, pot, porn, gangster rap music, add fines to the reparations paid by miscreant convicted of violent crimes, etc. That will raise far more money. All higher taxes do is hit those with low incomes, who are also more likely to live in neighborhoods where honest people need guns the most for self-defense and home defense. As a Liberal I would pass laws to reduce the prices for those in the lower income demographics, not increase the costs.

    RE many different tactics being available, one is to copy what some our local city govts. do; when their police depts. grow, rather than spend money on new buildings, they merely move the staff and patrol personnel to city owned properties in their patrol regions, and it turns out that all of the school buildings have empty space that can be used to house police sub-stations. Imagine that ... 24 hour police presence at most schools. as far as I know, not a single school housing a police dept. sub-station has had students killed by shooters.
     
  4. Toronado3800
    Offline

    Toronado3800 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,620
    Thanks Received:
    363
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +685
    No us vs them talk, lets keep it civil.

    Open carry seems odd to me. I'm not REALLY against it, it just seems odd to see a fellow walking around the supermarket with a gun flopping around.

    Far as the taxes go, I figure if "my" school has to build secured entry rooms to keep shooters out we can't exactly tax the shooters themselves so we can tax guns.

    That's a good idea about housing police substations at schools also btw.

    Picaro, I think unlike our elected officials if we can keep the name calling.

    So moving forward:

    -Police substations at schools

    -taxes on gun sales & pot to pay for security improvements to schools.

    -can we move bumpstocks to the same category as automatic rifles?

    -Lets put the NRA in charge of creating shooter profiling.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

israel make nra case