Gun control and Jewish values

We've said it before here: one of the strangest features of American Jewish politics is its embarrassment about self-interest. I don't exactly mean its liberalism. Any religious minority in a liberal democracy finds itself exceptionally in tune with the need for safeguarding religious and other civil freedoms.

What I do mean is the frequent inability to say the obvious, steer clear of political correctness, and think about the things Kavanna wrote about a few days ago here about the right of self-defense. Although there are nuances in how far people can go and avoid taking the law into their hands, it's not a hard-to-understand principle. But ever since the breakdown of liberalism in the 1960s, gun control (banning guns, actually) has become another one of those quixotic causes that liberals have taken up as a vehicle for self-flagellation. It's not as if there's strong evidence that it works: law-abiding people obey gun control laws, and criminals don't. Countries with gun control laws do not have consistently lower rates of violent crime. But such rational considerations obstruct our view of the motives of gun control advocates: it's about guilt and becoming helpless in order to assuage that guilt. It sometimes results in pretty astounding rationalizing, such as quoting the Ten Commandments (which forbid murder, not self-defense) in debates over the issue. Judaism is not about turning the other check, BTW: that's a different religion.

There are many self-identified liberal causes (like gay marriage) that stand or fall on their own merits. The problem with American Jewish politics is taking over those causes and trying to make "Jewish values" out of them. What results is sometimes misguided and often distorted. Although it's based on obligations, not rights, Jewish law has always recognized a right of self-defense. (See this lucid discussion, which uses the classical exegesis of the 11th century commentator Rashi. He carefully distinguishes self-defense from both murder and judicial punishment and limits the use of deadly force to deadly situations.) Although I don't own a firearm myself, it's perfectly understandable to me why people without reliable police protection would want to be able to protect themselves. In the US, that includes people living in rural areas, but also residents of inner cities. It doesn't mean everyone has to own a gun or even know how to use one. The days of a citizen militia are long past.

The real source of the distorted thinking is the hundreds of years of diaspora Jewish vulnerability and belief in the "good czar." Actually, a lot of modern Jewish politics can be understood this way. Only under oppressive and discriminatory rule by Christians and Muslims were Jews gradually disarmed and reduced to helplessness. We all know how that ended.

It's best to look at the situation in Israel, where personal firearms are not unusual. The Israeli approach - gun ownership common, but highly regulated - is probably the closest thing to real "Jewish values" on this question. Of course, there's a larger context: guns don't kill people; people kill people. And that is why there is so much in Jewish tradition about keeping the negative side of human nature in check. Someone might decide to use force against someone else, and that someone else might need to defend himself. But violence foreseen and prevented is better than violence acted out - the "Jewish way" in the fullest sense.

Reflections in blue steel: The DC gun ban and the LA riots

(Kavanna reporting) The U.S. Supreme Court is currently pondering the fate of Washington D.C.'s gun ban in District of Columbia v. Heller. The Court heard oral argument on March 18, 2008, and is expected to decide the case by the end of June.

The case addresses the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This post is not meant as an in-depth analysis of the issues raised by this run-on sentence (e.g., individual vs. collective rights), or of the District's interpretation of it. That said, I understand the need for strict control over gun access, but those who call for a complete ban go too far. For instance, they usually assume the following events could never happen in America:

- A civil insurrection, in which
- Violent rioters approach residential neighborhoods, and
- Police fail to respond to calls for help as 911 switchboards are jammed

Yet that is exactly what happed during the LA riots.

During the mayhem sparked by the Rodney King verdict, I lived just below the Southern border of Beverly Hills in the Pico-Robertson area. The day the riots started, my employer instructed us to go home. I drove to the nearby Ralph's supermarket near Brentwood to pick up supplies in case I had to hunker down in my apartment. By the time I got to Ralph's, the water was gone from the shelves. An eerie silence filled the air, as the upper middle-class Westside crowd queued in the longest supermarket lines I've ever seen. Nobody said a word.

Driving home took an hour and a half, compared to the usual 20 minutes. Even so, traffic was orderly, with no gridlocking at intersections. Imagine Londoners serving tea in Tube tunnels during the Blitz.

I would fall asleep at night fully dressed in my living room, watching news reports of the fires and violence moving Westward from its origins in South Central LA. The next day, from the roof of my apartment building I viewed several huge plumes of charcoal gray smoke rising from different angles to the East. I saw a tiny speck of a helicopter dwarfed by one black cloud. I could smell burning chemicals (from furniture and other inventory). I later learned that a shopping center went up in flames at the corner of Pico and LaCienega - just a few minute walk away. No more haircuts there for me.

A friend saw a pedestrian shot in the leg and another beaten with a baseball bat near the Jewish Federation headquarters in the mid-Wilshire district. During the riots, the police were overwhelmed. 911 didn't work. Civil order was collapsing.

Before I left work that first day of the riots, my colleague Paul offered to lend me a 9mm Taurus pistol. During a few practice trigger pulls (with the chamber empty), the slide jerked back, almost catching my thumb-forefinger webbing. I had not been trained with semi-automatics. I declined Paul's offer. However, after the riots, I bought a Smith & Wesson .357 magnum revolver. I was not going to be caught short again.

Based on my experience, I now see gun ownership not only as a right, but practically a responsibility, especially for those in urban areas with families to protect.