Yesterday, an Israeli man indiscriminately killed four people at a local bank before shooting himself, shocking a nation not used to such lone gunman incidents.
One day later, government officials responded by enacting tighter gun control measures:
One day after a Be’er Sheva man shot dead four people in a local bank before turning his gun on himself, the Public Security Ministry on Sunday announced new rules to limit the number of guns in circulation. School security guards will have to turn in their weapons, which guarding firms will reissue at the start of the new school year. Licensed gun owners will have to store their weapon in a safe at home. Security companies must obtain special exemptions from being required to store a weapon when its bearer is off duty, only one gun license will be issued to any single individual and anyone applying to renew a gun license must show why they need a weapon.
In addition, a panel will be appointed to consider administering mental and physical examinations to license applicants.
While Israel doesn’t have to contend with the Second Amendment, and doesn’t suffer from such a hyperbolic gun culture as ours, it is a country full of armed soldiers. A country with citizens who carry guns for real and conjured security reasons. A country with leaders who continuously place their fingers on the trigger, particularly when targeting Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
In short, this is a militaristic society. A society that understands conflict. A society that understands what it means to grip the barrel of a rifle and take aim.
However, despite this – or perhaps because of it – it is also a society that has generally treated gun ownership quite delicately. It is a country that, despite its own security concerns, stands in complete opposition to the U.S. when it comes to gun control.
Permit requirements are strict and tend to be rather narrow, unless you are a Jewish settler or work in a proven, high-risk profession. Which is why gun ownership rates in Israel are among the lowest in the Western world, and is one thirteenth that of the U.S. (In a country of over 7,000,000 residents, there are currently about 160,000 legal gun permits.)
Why? Put simply: Israel chooses to leave security to its professionals. And not to a gun-wielding citizenry.
Which is why after a lone-gunman shooting, such as the one which happened yesterday, Israel’s response was not an NRA style call to “Arm the victims!” Rather, it was a call to get more guns off the streets.
It’s a call America would do well to heed.
Follow me on Twitter @David_EHG
Author’s Note:
Those who know my writing understand my critical take on the occupation, the settlement enterprise, and the unequal treatment Palestinians receive in many arenas. This inequality obviously extends itself to gun ownership in Israel – Jewish settlers are granted firearm permits precisely because they live amidst Palestinians.
However, I’m intentionally not making this aspect a focus of this piece, as my primary purpose is to contrast Israel’s response to a mass shooting with our own – not to engage in a meta-analysis of the conflict.
This article should be titled: ‘Dear America: This is how you use emotional logic and a knee-jerk reaction to take citizens’ freedoms away’
Learning a lesson from such reactions is valuable,but the author forget to make a valid comparison between the American society and an Israeli society,as there is quit a difference when it comes to the public and its relation with guns. Americans, have a love affair with guns since the founding of this country. It was used for personal protection against Native Indians, and the elemenation of them,so as to be able to take the land ,and each other, as it used to be called, The Wild West mentality. Israelis, in the other hand, had access to arms for the use against a Zionist made enemy, the Palestinians. And that is were they have pointed their guns ever since without any consequences, nor punishment except in a very rear occasion. So, as long as you can practice on a target and get life frustration out of you, why point it at any other target that you might have to pay the price, if it was another Jewish life? As you said, this case is an exception and not the norme. The US gov. Did not react in such a manner for over 250 years, because now ,it might has a different program in mind for controlling the public, as the guns might not be pointed at American Indians any more, but at some Americans who don’t care about the rest of us Americans.
Franco – the title as given is correct; your differing title is out of bounds. The right to bear arms must never – NEVER! – include the ability – just the ABILITY, used or not – to gunshoot innocents at will.
Ralph, I beg to differ. The problem with articles like this is that they, once again, put the accountability on an object that has no free will. Last time I checked, one of the many factors that are taken into considerration in a court of law is intent. A firearm has no intent – only the person behind a firearm (or baseball bat, or hammer, or car, etc.) has intent, but we don’t seem to be focusing on that.
We cannot continue to lock our civil liberties away because some people (who make up a VERY small percentage of the population, I might add) have ill intent towards their fellow citizens if we intend to still be a free people. If someone truly wishes to inflict harm, they will find a way to make it happen. Therefore, we should, instead, focus our efforts on identifying and rehabilitating those who have malice in their hearts and minds, and only then, once accomplished, can we say we are truly safe.
In the case of the USA the precedent of the Repeal of Prohibition shud be followed: Devolve the regulation of Arms to the States and Territories. Let THEM determine what Arms laws are appro
priate in each. Let their sub-jurisdictions further regulate Arms by ordinance if it’s the Public Will
via referendum…Read the following very carefully:
——————————————————————————————————————————–
New Amendment [II-A?]
Section 1.
Amendment II to the US Constitution is hereby repealed: While a LAWFUL and well-regulated
Defense Establishment is a necessity to the security of OUR free Nation, the PERSONAL right of
WE People to LAWFULLY keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. Neither Congress, nor the
States and Territories, shall enact any laws thich deny LAW-ABIDING Citizens and Legal Resi-
dents the possession of LAWFUL Arms for defense of their domiciles, and other purposes allow-
ed by the States and Territories, such as protection of life and property, hunting, marksmanship,
Arms-safety, and Arms-collecting. Also, neither Congress, nor the States and Territories, shall
conclude or ratify any treaty, convention, or agreement which VIOLATES the provisions of this
Amendment…
Section 2.
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or US Possession for delivery or use
therein of ANY ARMS, their PARTS, or AMMUNITION THEREFOR, in violation of the LAWS
THEREOF, is hereby prohibited…
Section 3,
[The current, applicable, US Constitution Amendment Ratification Rules]…
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Those States with Amendment II ‘language’ in their Constitutions or Basic Statutes shud rewrite
these to agree/comply with this ‘New Amendment’…We shud adopt most of Canada’s Arms Laws
uniformly in ALL US States and Territories–as if these were 56 ‘Canadas’…This will resolve most
issues of Arms possession, acquisition, records and disposition/destruction…
Aaron Allen Lafayette IN USA.
Of all the rights protected under the U.S. Constitution none can be limited in scope until they become a threat and imminent danger to public safety. All with the exception of the 2nd amendment. Furthuremore the interpretation is left to the Courts, with the exception of the second amendment. Therefore does the 2nd amendment even protect private ownership of weapons of mass destruction? Are not assault rifles, or any other weapon that allows one person to kill hundreds a weapon of mass destruction? How long must we walk down this valley of tears?