avi123 wrote:But coming from Israel, we had in the past several massacres of pupils in schools. The action that we took was for parents to practice shooting and take turns guarding the entrance to the school. The schools were surrounded by hi fences. There was a phone by the gate to contact the principle about any visitor. Also, several of the teachers carried hand guns. Why not the same here?
I think it is a myth among Americans that Israeli civilians are armed, and that the presence of armed civilians deters the kind of violence we see here. This is used as evidence that more widespread concealed carry here might reduce the number or at least the severity of the kind of violence that occurred Friday in Connecticut. In fact, few Israeli civilians outside the occupied territories have guns. Gun ownership is not a right but a privilege contingent on careful testing and training, many applicants are rejected, and the kinds of guns allowed are closely restricted. Therefore Israel is not an example of the success of the policy some propose, and to the best of my knowledge, there is no example. It would be a massive experiment with a terrific downside if it were to result in more accidents, murders, and suicides.
I will cite two sources on Israel. If someone has better information, I would be interested. The first is an article from JTA last summer entitled
"Despite Militarized Society, Israel Has Strict Gun Laws." I won't quote it start to finish, but anyone can read the whole thing. This is what I found most interesting:
First-time visitors to Israel might be taken aback to see groups of armed teenagers walking through a city plaza on a weeknight, or surprised to walk into a public bathroom and see an M-16 laying across the sinks as a soldier washes his face.
But guns are ubiquitous in Israel, where most 18-year-olds are drafted into the army after high school.
However, once those soldiers finish their service two or three years later, they are subject to civilian gun control regulations that are much stricter than American laws.
In fact, it’s pretty much impossible for civilians who live in Israel to acquire an arsenal of weaponry of the sort used by the alleged shooter in last week’s massacre in Aurora, Colo. ... In Israel, assault rifles are banned except for special circumstances, such as communal self-defense in areas deemed to be a security risk. And while political violence in Israel is all too common and gun violence is a growing problem, random shootings of strangers – like the Aurora massacre -- are virtually unheard-of here.
Unlike in the United States, where the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution’s Second Amendment, Israel’s department of public security considers gun ownership a privilege, not a right. Gun owners in Israel are limited to owning one pistol, and must undergo extensive mental and physical tests before they can receive a weapon, and gun owners are limited to 50 rounds of ammunition per year.
Not all Israelis, however, may own guns. In order to own a pistol, an Israeli must for two years have been either a captain in the army or a former lieutenant colonel. Israelis with an equivalent rank in other security organizations may also own a pistol.
In addition, residents of West Bank settlements, and those who work there, may own pistols for self-defense.
Other groups of Israelis, such as professional hunters and sharpshooters, or people transporting dangerous goods, may also own firearms. And Israelis may keep unloaded guns they inherited or received as a gift. ... For soldiers who take their weapons home on weekends and off-nights, the rule is they must be on their person at all times or under double-locks if left at home.
An American blogger named Ezra Klein wrote Friday that guns are widely available in Israel, and when someone who knew better because she had just researched and published on the subject, he retracted and interviewed her. Janet Rosenbaum's actual article is behind a paywall, but in
her interview she says:
Ezra Klein: Israel and Switzerland are often mentioned as countries that prove that high rates of gun ownership don’t necessarily lead to high rates of gun crime. In fact, I wrote that on Friday. But you say your research shows that’s not true.
Janet Rosenbaum: First of all, because they don’t have high levels of gun ownership. The gun ownership in Israel and Switzerland has decreased.
For instance, in Israel, they’re very limited in who is able to own a gun. There are only a few tens of thousands of legal guns in Israel, and the only people allowed to own them legally live in the settlements, do business in the settlements, or are in professions at risk of violence.
Both countries require you to have a reason to have a gun. There isn’t this idea that you have a right to a gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid.
The second thing is that there’s this widespread misunderstanding that Israel and Switzerland promote gun ownership. They don’t. Ten years ago, when Israel had the outbreak of violence, there was an expansion of gun ownership, but only to people above a certain rank in the military. There was no sense that having ordinary citizens [carry guns] would make anything safer.
There is more to that one too, including that Israel rejects 40 percent of its applications for a gun and requires that all civilian guns have an identifying mark for tracing.
The theory that more widespread ownership and carrying of arms would reduce innocent deaths is being tested by state legislatures across the U.S. that are reversing laws against carrying guns in schools and churches, so maybe we will have evidence in a few years of the success or failure the the more guns approach. But I sincerely do not believe that there is any good example out there in the rest of the world to prove the case. The countries in which guns are ubiquitous are the Afghanistans and the Congos of the world, where innocent death is the most common.
