God created the first human being alone in order to teach us that whosoever kills a single soul is considered as though he has destroyed an entire world. By the same token, anyone who preserves a single human soul, it is as if that person sustained a whole world— BT Sanhedrin 37b; JT Sanhedrin 4:12, 22b
By Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel
CHULA VISTA, California –The tragic death of the twenty children and six adults in quiet Newtown, Connecticut, demands that we rethink our policy regarding gun control. Yes, President Obama is correct on this score, we cannot go back to the old polices that have not served our country well.
A new multi-faceted approach has a better chance of reducing the number of incidents that have occurred over the last decade. It is doubtful we will be able to eliminate all such attacks, but we can make it more difficult. Unfortunately, even if we protect the schools, there are always parks, movie theaters, and shopping malls that we may never be able to guard adequately.
Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, or an Independent—something sensible ought to be done. Back in 2008, Candidate Barrack Obama pledged to make the “expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.” I believe this is a commendable goal—and he may have an opportunity given the heinousness of this terrible attack to do something meaningful to change the attitude and infatuation our country has for assault weapons. However, a President cannot enact legislation by fiat—it must come from Congress.
Some Democrats (Sen. Dianne Feinstein, CA) and Republicans (Rep. Mark Kirk, IL) have come up with proposals to renew the 1994 ban on assault weapons, but no bill has yet has received the support necessary to be voted on the floor. The Bill, H.R. 6257, the Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008, had four co-sponsors, all Republicans: Michael N. Castle of Delaware, Mike Ferguson of New Jersey, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, and Christopher Shays of Connecticut. The Bill never got out of committee and died at the end of the 110th Congress. Sen. Feinstein promises to bring up a new incarnation of this bill in the near future.
This is certainly a meaningful step in the right direction.
However, more is necessary. There was a time when anyone could bring a concealed weapon on an airline, but after numerous hijackings—the airlines smartened up and placed metal detectors, and subsequently policeman to help maintain order in the skies. I think it would be a great idea for schools to have a policeman present to help protect the students. Granted, many schools may not be able to hire a full time policeman. Some communities are urging the local police to patrol the schools better.
There has got to be a better solution.
One bill that appeared before Congress proposed that the House of Representatives “reduce” the time allowed for criminal background checks. The Senate asked for a three-business day waiting period. The amended bill in the House proposed a 24 hour waiting period. The reason: gun shows are very popular during the weekends. They argue that there would be no time to conduct a background check on people wishing to purchase arms.
Sometimes (actually, oftentimes) I think our politicians are living in Chelm, a place in Jewish history reserved for fools who think they are wise. If somebody wishes to purchase firearms at a convention, why don’t the new purchasers take the test one week before the gun show? What is wrong with this picture? Anyone wishing to purchase a gun should go through a waiting process—to protect society.
Over the last decade and a half, more and more states are starting to require psychological testing as a condition of hiring any full time police officer. Given the immense stress of the job, this decision makes perfect sense. In fact, schools across the country now require psychological testing for its faculty members. Even Wal-Mart requires psychological testing for its workers—perhaps because they sell firearms at their stores.
Even assuming someone passes the psychological testing and proficiency, this test would have to be taken again every x amount of years, similar to a driver’s license renewal. If the individual looking to purchase a firearm—of any variety—has a history of psychosis, or violent encounters with the law, such a person should be excluded from purchasing fire arms. I am inclined to think even if someone in the home has a violent record, or is mentally ill—no weapon should be purchased by a responsible parent. From what I read and heard in the news, Adam Lanza’s mother purchased these weapons.
In fact, if every state required psychological testing, we might be able to cut down the number of accidental shootings, or even willful shootings that seem to occur every year in our great nation.
A family may not be willing to admit that their son may have deep-rooted psychological problems requiring professional help. In addition, I think the question of machine guns, semi-automatic weapons, assault-rifles, and similar type weapons should be banned except for the military or police. Private individuals do not need to act like Rambo or Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry, whenever a vagrant breaks into their home. [1]
In Judaism, safety is a religious concern. The Bible requires that a roof be properly gated, in order to prevent people from falling off of it (Deut. 22:8). One precept in particular is especially important, “You shall not curse the deaf; you shall not put a stumbling block before the blind, but you will fear your God; I am YHWH ” (Lev. 19:14).
This verse includes two types of prohibitions: (1) placing a stumbling block in front of the blind for sport or entertainment, (2) taking advantage of someone’s ignorance–especially for pecuniary gain. The verse stresses that a God fearing person will not take advantage of anyone for any reason. By doing nothing, we are putting more stumbling blocks before the mentally deranged and their greedy enablers.
By the expression, “God fearing,” this is the biblical way of describing a moral person who acts with a reverence toward life. God-fearing also indicates that Creator and Judge of the world will hold all such offenders accountable for disrespecting human life. Authentic piety is best reflected by acts of compassion and consideration–especially toward individuals who suffer from a serious disability–whether physical, emotional, intellectual, and psychological. [2]
It is also instructive that Maimonides asserts that enabling someone to commit a crime, (e.g., the individual who offers a bribe, or offers to pay interest on a loan) violates the above biblical dictum.[3]
Whatever the case may be, the onus of responsibility cannot be placed on someone who is mentally-impaired or schizophrenic, or someone suffering from psychotic-break with reality.
I would argue that we apply the same standards that exist for other professionals in our country also be applied to anyone wishing to own a gun. The time has come for the gun-lobby to start leading the campaign to protect the country from individuals who endanger public welfare. Ultimately, such a responsible move will not diminish the constitutional rights of owning a gun–but such sensible legislation will enable all of us to breathe easier.
- Register anyone wishing to purchase body armor; anyone wishing to purchase such protective clothing ought to raise a red flag.
- Guns should not be sold to anyone who has no license. Failure to comply ought to be considered a felony.
- Enormous quantities of ammunition bought and owned above a certain capacity deemed necessary for home defense should be registered as well.
- One blogger suggested an interesting idea—that we use advance technology to require fingerprint locks on guns would infinitely enhance the ability to restrict illegal access.
I think Republicans, Democrats, local citizens ought to have creative discussions on other ideas to help prevent future shootings.
Doing nothing to change the status quo is not an option.
===========
Notes:
[1] Notwithstanding the biblical verse, “If a thief is caught in the act of housebreaking and beaten to death, there is no bloodguilt involved” (Exod. 22;1), rabbinical tradition recognized early on that if a son attacked and killed his father when he broke in, he would be guilty of manslaughter. By the same token if it was clear the thief had no weapon on his person, killing him would constitute an act of murder on the part of the homeowner.
[2] One could further argue that this proscription has a variety of other business applications restricting sellers from selling inferior or defective merchandise (e.g., Lemon laws), not to mention products that are harmful such as cigarettes, liquor, drugs, poorly constructed toys, properties, in addition to selling dangerous weapons to individuals who are too irresponsible to properly use them.
[3] Maimonides, MT Sanhedrin 23:2; cf. Hoshen Mishpat 9:1. See BT Avoda Zara 6a-b; BT Bava Metzia 75b; BT Kiddushin 32a for other examples of how the Sages understood this important ethical biblical proscription.