First off, one principle of Judaism is that of Tikkun Olam, or healing the world. Jews are supposed to be an example of good in the world. That's what being chosen is about. It is to be an example of how to be Godly and show the light into the world.
What does that have to do with firearms anyway? Some Jews, such as JPFO, use appeals to history and the Judaic tradition. These pleas to oppose gun control are far from convincing. To argue that Jews must respond to gun violence with a paranoid impulse to grab guns in self defense is a dangerous perspective. This is using darkness to fight the darkness in the world
The bigger picture does not support opposition to firearms regulation, especially if that will lead to the prevention of harm. Life is sacred in Judaism. Preservation or a human life can even justify violating mitzot with only three exceptions: avoda zarah [idol worship], shfichas damim [murder], and giluy arayus [illicit relations]!
In Judaism, safety is a religious concern, especially if protecting human life is involved. The Bible requires that a roof be properly gated, in order to prevent people from falling off of it (Deuteronomy 22:8). This commandment is understood by the Talmud as a general directive to remove any safety hazard (Bava Kamma 15b; Shulchan Aruch CM 427:8). Contemporary rabbinic authorities include in this commandment an employer's responsibility to ensure occupational safety (Piskei Uziel 47) and an injunction against reckless driving (Minchat Yitzchak 8:148). Someone who refuses to remove a safety hazard can be punished by excommunication (YD 334:7). In general, safety regulations are treated with far greater stringency than any other section of halacha (YD 116:7). Clearly, any Jewish view of gun control places high value on safety.
In the Talmud there are specific regulations that resemble gun control. There is a law against owning a dangerous dog (Bava Kamma 79a). One who owns a dangerous dog must keep it tied in metal chains at all times (CM 409:3). Even if the dog is defanged or trained not to harm people, it must be chained because it may frighten strangers, and as a result may cause stress related injuries such as miscarriage and heart attacks (Shabbat 63b). One of the more pious Rabbis, Rabbi Pinchas Ben Yair, was so stringent about this law that he refused to own mules, because they can occasionally cause injury (Hullin 7b; Terumat Hadeshen 2:105).
There were instances when allowances were made to these rules. In border communities, where there is a threat of marauders, owners of dangerous dogs may unchain them at night for protection. Some say that any dangerous city is similar to a border community (CM 409:3).These sources demonstrate that halacha would require any gun to be carefully locked at all times, with allowances made in cases where the gun is actively being used for security. Those who are more stringent would avoid guns completely. (It should also be noted that many authorities prohibit hunting for sport; Rama OH 316:2, Darchei Teshuva YD 117:44)
There is a second halacha that is relevant to this issue. The Talmud prohibits someone from selling offensive weapons to idol worshippers and suspected criminals (Avodah Zarah 15b; YD 151:5-6). The rule against selling to idol worshippers is based on an assumption that the idol worshippers will use them against Jews; however, if the Jews are allied with the idol worshippers, it is permitted to sell them arms. It is likewise prohibited to sell such weapons to anyone suspected of reselling them to criminals. This halacha requires that the buyers of firearms be carefully screened, and resembles in many ways laws requiring a national registry of gun and rifle owners.
Although halacha is extremely concerned about safety, it does not prohibit the ownership of guns. However, recognizing that a gun is a dangerous object, halacha (like many current gun control laws) requires that owners and vendors of guns take all possible precautions to prevent their guns from causing any harm.
Jewish tradition compels us to uphold the sanctity of life. An instrumentality like a firearm is not more valuable than a human life. The ownership of firearms must be responsible. These instrumentalities must be regulated in a manner which respects life. Anyone who argues otherwise is going against Talmudic tradition.
Farago picked up on this one over on The Truth About Guns. It's funny how those guys have no trouble using holy scripture to justify guns but try to use it to justify gun control and they freak.
ReplyDeleteThis is nothing new--it's an old post from my blog.
ReplyDeleteOf course, two Jews--three opinions!
Actually it appears as though it was written by Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz. Are you Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz?
ReplyDeleteIf b.zakrajsek had read Rabbi Steinmetz's piece he would notice there are differences between his and mine.
ReplyDeleteWhile I use words similar to those of Rabbi Steinmetz's opinions on Halacha, they came from another source--the course I took on gun control and the Talmud.
As I said, I don't think the Torah and Talmud are under copyright. Halacha is Halacha.
If anything, the fact that a Rabbi uses this argument gives it more authority than just some putz writing.
Got a problem with that, take it up with Hashem.
I read it (right here http://www.jlaw.com/Commentary/guncontrol.html), in fact, I read it very closely and yes, I saw the differences. However, the key is the similarities. I'll give you the quotes from the Torah and the Talmud, but when you are not quoting those and your words are exactly what he wrote even including the parentheses I call plagiarism. There is also the fact that ignoring the cosmetic differences the outline of the posts are exactly the same.
ReplyDelete(Misc Opening
Safety is a religious concern
-Deuteronomy
-Bava Kamma 15b
-Piskei Uziel
-All other ref. in same order
Specific Regs that resemble gun control
There is a second halacha that is relevant to this issue)
Please, just admit you plagiarized the work. Either you did from him or you both did from the course you took. You know it and so does everyone else who looks at both posts.
b.zakrajsek, Can you refute that this is an accurate interpretation of Halacha? I would appreciate your doing that rather than fixating on plagiarism.
ReplyDeleteI took the course on Gun Control and the Talmud from Rabbi Mordechai Becher.
There is a problem with plagiarism, especially when dealing with arguments from authority. In previous centuries authors and artists were encouraged to "copy the masters as closely as possible" and avoid "unnecessary invention. This is especially true when it comes to arguments in religion and law.
One needs to cite authority in this type of argument.
If we borrow someone else's words and don't pass them off as our own, are we okay then? For example, if I memorize and recite the Hamlet's Solilquy or the Declaration of Independence, is that plagiarism? No. The world knows the content is not mine. The audience understands from the context that I didn't write the text.
I admit that this is not original with me and that I got it from Rabbi Becher. We can argue whether Rabbi Becher got it from Rabbi Steinmetz, or whether both of them learned it from another Rabbi.
Ultimately, when one is making a scriptural argument, it is the scriptural authority that must be cited, and they are cited. These arguments come from Rabbinical authority and I admit that. The question is which rabbi or rabbis?
Plagiarism is not a crime. It is disapproved upon morality and ethics.
But I am not sure who would be the person who this was ultimately taken from since it is a line of reasoning that is mentioned by at least two rabbis: Becher and Steinmetz.
Weapons, due to their inherant dangerousness, and their possession are a reproach to mankind: not anything desirable. We are commanded to avoid all danger to our lives. There is no question that a gun is fundamentally a dangerous object, designed to kill.
In short, unless you can refute the halacha, I suggest that you quit using the fakakt issue of "plagiarism".
b.zakrajsek can you provide any authority that refutes this interpretation of Halacha.
bz, when blogging there is always a tightrope to walk between how much attribution is required, and how much gets in the way.
ReplyDeleteLaci did not claim he wrote any material that he quoted, that it was original to himself. Should he arguably have been more clear as to his source? Maybe, maybe not.
I think it is an excellent comment to ask for someone to clarify an attribution if there is any question. I think you went too far in calling it plagiarism, as there is no apparent attempt to claim improper credit.
I've had that happen to me here, even though I provided the link and clear attribution to the original site, for an obit, which requested that the obit information be circulated - implicit consent. Then when I used instead a newspaper article for the same information, with full attribution including a link to the original, and the consent and approval of the author on behalf of the newspaper as an agent and employee, the jerk continued to insist that what I was posting was theft of intellectual property.
So,on the premise that you can never please everyone, no matter how meticulous you try to be with attribution, at some point you take the position that you will please yourself, and do as much or as little as appears to be necessary, without getting in the way of the content.
I speak with Laci, off-blog, from time to time, on this and other topics. From that larger context than one post here, I am very confident that this was NOT an attempt to misrepresent content as his own where it was not. He has always in my experience, on and off-blog, been very honest and clear about sources. I would respectfully argue he has explained any omission, clarified the attribution, and most importantly - NOT plagiarized.
There IS a genuine argument in what Laci has written here, both his words, and the words of Jewish legal scholars. I join with Laci in asking you if you have a good oppositional argument. I am looking forward to something from you that is informed and interesting since you seem familiar with sources like this one.
Plagiarism is not a matter of legalities, it’s a matter of ethics. The act of Plagiarism in itself is NOT illegal (despite what your teacher told you)…copyright infringement is.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, the Halacha is not copyrighted.
And I willingly admit that it derived from a Rabbi. What is up for question is which Rabbi wrote it?
But say I quote Talmud, Shabbat 63a:
One must not go out [on Shabbat] with a sword, nor with a bow, nor with a triangular shield, nor with a round one, nor with a spear; if he does so he is liable for a sin-offering. R. Eliezer says they are ornaments to him [and thus permitted to be worn on Shabbat], but the sages say they are nothing but a stigma, for it is written [Isaiah 2:4]: "They shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning-knives; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
IS that Plagiarism?
How familiar are you with these texts are you, b.zakrajsek?
As I said, forget plagiarism.
Can you refute the halacha?
No I cannot refute that interpretation of the Halacha as my knowledge of the Jewish faith is rather low. I frequent http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/ and saw a link to this post there. Also talked about was the fact that it appeared as though you had gathered quite a bit of the material word for word from another source and had not cited that source. I found that to disagree with my sensibilities so I wandered over to make the commments I did.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate that you have admitted to syphoning off the arguments in your post and hope that you would cite your sources next time (as the original author cited the various religious texts he used). I don't think your arguments about Hamlet and the Declaration of Independence are applicable since those are easily recognizable and a post from a Rabbi's blog probably isn't (but I might be wrong about that).
I do not feel the need to refute any arguments that your religious texts make (although the fact that the author provides them while discussing the gun/dog is a little amusing) against the owning of firearms as, while I respect your beliefs, I do not subscribe to them and therefore do not feel the need to live by them. I do understand that your post was inspired by an individual on Mikeb's blog posting about second amendment rights being supported by religion and understand the need to attempt to refute a position you disagree with.
If I had attributed Becher, you would have still said it was Steinmetz.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, it is taken that it comes from authority when you make this type of argument.
I did not feel a need to cite anyone, but I could have mentioned Rabbi Becher's course.
As I said, Plagiarism isn't a crime: it is based upon moral and ethical judgements. But in this case, one is citing authority--the ultimate cite is to scripture.
And those were given.
Dog,
ReplyDeleteI understand posting online can be tricky, what to attribute and what not to, but if you haven't, take a gander at the top of the post. It says "repost from my blog". That along with the fact that he changed the beginning and added a little at the end but almost every thing in the middle was word for word, parenthetical for parenthetical, tells me it was plagiarism. Just my opinion.
Laci,
Your Belcher/Steinmetz argument is not true, not in the least. I didn't even know about the second one so it's pretty ridiculous. Also, not once did I ever mention legality. As far as any excuse or reasoning you try to give regarding the plagiarism, I really don't care. I said what I felt I needed to say, you admitted it was not yours, and the sun set on a beautiful world.
I do have a question though. Since the dog/gun reference gives an exception to the rule (threat of marauders), why can a person not carry a gun as a person can unchain dangerous dogs for the night? Also, why would the, as the text states, more stringent avoid guns completely since even obeying the law allows for people to own properly secure guns/dogs?
bz, it is not that blog attribution is tricky; it is that there is no standard for what is and is not formally acceptable. Laci introduced me to the concept and practice of the commonplace book, and made some excellent observations, as well as introducing me to observations of others, about why blogging more resembles that than say a newspaper, or academic papers, or other forms which consistently require much more stringent attribution.
ReplyDeleteMore than that, in this context, the existence of this post of Laci's, on his own personal blog, came up in conversation, along with how he came to be knowledgable on this topic. He cross posted this here specifically AT MY REQUEST, because while I could go read it on his blog, his archive frankly is not easily accessed as I would like, and I thought the content would interest other readers here. So, I know his intent in what he wrote, his sources, etc. more thoroughly than other people do - and I am partially responsible for it being posted here, and for unintentionally involving him in this controversy and criticism.
On the basis of what we discussed that prompted my request for that to be posted, I can quite confidently assure you that NO, he did not plagiarize, he has always been very clear on his sources, and YES, in the context of using the attribution standards of commonplace books, he attributed adequately.
That he quite willingly clarified the sources - plural - further supports that he was not plargiarizing.
Commonplace books are accumulated references of other people kept in one place for the purpose of being a handy reference to writings one values.
Here is a reference to commonplace books, to explain them more fully, with an explanatory excerpt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonplace_book
"Some modern writers see blogs as an analogy to commonplace books.[7]"
"Such books were essentially scrapbooks filled with items of every kind: medical recipes, quotes, letters, poems, tables of weights and measures, proverbs, prayers, legal formulas. Commonplaces were used by readers, writers, students, and humanists as an aid for remembering useful concepts or facts they had learned. Each commonplace book was unique to its creator's particular interests."
Laci has also written, ages ago on his own blog, about blogging and his agreement that it is a form of 'commonplacing' or an update of keeping a commonplace book.
Commonplacing does not require stringent attribution, rather the intent of the person in copying is clearly for their own purpose and enjoyment, and sometimes sharing with others, but that sharing is secondary.
So, the other blog was WRONG about this being plagiarism, and respectfully - so are you.
Since the dog/gun reference gives an exception to the rule (threat of marauders), why can a person not carry a gun as a person can unchain dangerous dogs for the night? Also, why would the, as the text states, more stringent avoid guns completely since even obeying the law allows for people to own properly secure guns/dogs?
ReplyDeleteDogs, unlike firearms, have brains. They are easier to control and would not accidentally hurt a family member. Still, they could harm an innocent bystander.
Of course, where one can allow the dog to run freely is in areas where there are marauders and at night time when the people who would be out would have bad intent. Still, there is the possibility that such a dog could harm an innocent person.
Ultimately, one needs be responsible with things that may be dangerous, not prevented from having them.
I disagree with your comment about dogs being easier to control because they have brains. That is exactly why they are harder to control because, while most times they will do as they are trained, they will still, at times, do what they want. My firearms have never done anything I did not want them too while when I had dogs they would at times piddle on the carpet and occasionally tear up various things.
ReplyDeleteBZ, dogs are easier to control, if you know how. I train other people's dogs who have behavioral problems. It is usually not the dog that is the problem, but rather something the person is doing wrong. The dogs are the easy part.
ReplyDeleteUnlike firearms, dogs have judgment, they can work with you and with other dogs cooperatively, they think, and they can take the initiative to act in an emergency without a human 'trigger'.
It is like you say, dogs are capable of acting without a human trigger. My mother has had two situations where dogs, once working with other dogs (a feral pack), and once where it was just one, have put her life in danger, and had there not been a firearm close by for protection the outcome could have been a bad one. The reason for that brief aside is that dogs are animals with an animals instincts and the most well trained dog has the capability of ignoring that training under the right circumstances. My firearms however, are incapable of acting under their own volition.
ReplyDeleteYes, but people do make fatal mistakes with firearms.
ReplyDeleteAnd dogs kill people.
ReplyDeleteNot as many as guns.
ReplyDeleteNews organizations reported 23 fatal dog attacks in the United States in 2008
Compare that to 31,224 people died from firearms and 66,768 people survived gun injuries in the US.
I think there's a big difference between the two.
Besides, firearms are weapons and designed to kill and injure when used properly--you wouldn't care less about them if they did not have that potential.
Not true, the whole me not caring about them. You do seem to enjoy assuming what I am thinking. First the whole Becher/Steinmetz thing and now this.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, to me, going to the range and shooting is one of the most relaxing activities. For me, owning firearms has very little to do with killing and injuring and a lot to do with challenging myself at the same time as I am relaxing. It is a wondrous thing.
This is long, but worth the read.
ReplyDeleteHe has never studied Talmud. You can tell.
To begin with, the tractates and passages he actually quotes completely
undermine his argument.
Avodah Zorah and Babba Kamma? Really? Way off.
First, the section he quotes (wrong citation as well) deals with
the concept of "Not putting a stumbling block in front of a blind
person.'
The concept applied here is that you don't promote idol-worshipers to
worship idols by supplying them the means to do so.
The transactions in question deal with selling items to a person who
you know will use the item in the service of idol-worship.
"Don't sell an animal you know will be sacrificed to idols."
And the closest he gets to gun control would derive from:
"Don't sell a knife to a person if you know he intends to use it to
slaughter an animal sacrifice to an idol."
Not even close.
Weapons for self-Defense, plinking, or just cuz I love guns is not the
topic being discussed.
The references would not even apply to relationships with Christians,
or even Muslims, or most countries today other, maybe, than G-d-less
Communist countries.
Now if they were Canaanites, Hittites, Emorites, Perizzites or
Jubusites ...
The term "Avodah Zorah" refers to pagans and idol-worshipers and others
who do not observe the Noahide laws.
The first Noahide law prohibits idol-worship.
Christians are not considered either pagans or idol-worshipers, but are
in the category of "Shituf" - groups who worship the one G-d, but are
not Jewish.
(One could argue that the term Gentile does not even apply to
Christians.)
He also actually cites to a single Rabbi's opinion, which was deemed
incorrect and is NOT THE HOLDING.
Transactions between Jews and Christians are not restricted. And,
certainly not between Christians themselves.
America is a Christian nation.
Jewish Law, as opposed to Shariah law, is subject to the concept of
"Dina d'malchusa dina".
This means American Law would preempt Jewish Law except in very extreme
cases.
The Second Amendment does not conflict with ANY Jewish Law - in fact
the opposite is true. It fortifies Jewish law.
No gun or even knife control.
Malicious sophistry under the cover of fictitious Rabbinic authority.
The dog bit is pure analogical idiocy - and not relevant in the leashed
(sorry).
He "has conclusion" and purports to produce "authoritative
argument". He distorts and outright lies.
Jewish Law addresses weapons and self-defense, even conquest, with no
hint of regulation of "Kley Neshek" (weapons).
The only restriction I can think of is that weapons, unless
specifically designated, are considered man's attire and it could be
considered cross-dressing.
Observant Jewish women generally don't wear pants for the same reason. Unless they are
pants designed for women.
In the IDF, since they are uniforms and weapons issued specifically to
the women, that argument would also fail.
And, the argument collapses completely if they are Pink Guns!
Go to the next message control+alt+pageup Close message escape
© 2011 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved
Standard VersionTerms of ServicePrivacy PolicyAbout Our AdsContext Sensitive Shortcuts
Laci The Dog said...
ReplyDeleteYes, but people do make fatal mistakes with firearms.
As well as cars, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles, walking. With home appliances, work tools, farm equipment, even mowing lawns. And airplanes, busses, cabs, trains. And with drugs, prescribed, over the counter and illegal. It hapens with stairs, ladders, elevators. In sports, either participating or spectating. Training or taking care of any animal, wild or domesticated. And by the bad guy with malice in his heart, not with whats in his hands.
And I would bet that every one that has died by mistake never crossed their mind that when they woke up that morning that they would be dead a few hours later. That "could never happen to me" pacifist attitude will get you in the end. If you dont actively think about what your doing, where your at and be proactive with your life at every moment, you could be next from just the small example above.
Nobody is immune from death. Just do your part to live longer and tell about in a ripe old age.
I'm not Jewish, but isn't the Talmud the same as the Christian Old Testament, the first 4 or 5 Books of it? Or is that the Torah?
ReplyDeleteIn any case, don't most reasonable people understand that much of what's written there has little or no application in today's society?
That's what I think anyway.
mikeb302000 said...
ReplyDelete"I'm not Jewish, but isn't the Talmud the same as the Christian Old Testament, the first 4 or 5 Books of it? Or is that the Torah?
In any case, don't most reasonable people understand that much of what's written there has little or no application in today's society?
That's what I think anyway."
Being not of any peticular religon, I do vist various churches.
The take I get from religon is guidance that is timeless, a map or instruction if you will on how one should live their life, honestly and fruitfully. That instruction is exactly what todays society is sorely lacking. Without these instructions society will slowly sink into a lawless mass of self distruction.
Morals, we dont need no stinking morals, I will take and do what I want and to who I want. Nobody cares anyway. Say what I want, whi cares if it a lie or not, just as long as I get what I want, screw everyone else!
Yeah, thats where we are going as a society. What has been written still applies today. Technology has changed. The very fabric of society? Not so much.
The Tanakh is the same as the old testiment. The Talmud is the Tanakh with commentary.
ReplyDeleteI doubt HecklerAndKosher has read or studied the Talmud either since there is a lot of debate on how the Talmud can be interpreted.
But given what I know about Judaism and who I learned it from: I would say that the opinion I used was a pretty learned one.
I amy not have studied the Talmud, but Rabbis Becher and Steintz did.
H&K (I see what you did there),
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your knowledge and refuting the points as I was unable to. Much appreciated.
HecklerAndKosher are you saying that
ReplyDeleteTalmud, Shabbat 63a:
One must not go out [on Shabbat] with a sword, nor with a bow, nor with a triangular shield, nor with a round one, nor with a spear; if he does so he is liable for a sin-offering. R. Eliezer says they are ornaments to him [and thus permitted to be worn on Shabbat], but the sages say they are nothing but a stigma, for it is written [Isaiah 2:4]: "They shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning-knives; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
Doesn't imply that weapons and their possession are a reproach to mankind and not anything desirable?
This opinion about the Talmud would be an ethical guidance and show what the Talmudic feelings about weapons ownership would be, not as a legal opinion that would be law.
That means your comment about the concept of "Dina d'malchusa dina" is superfluous. This only shows Talmudic attitude toward arms.
You also miss that the dog analogy is just that--an analogy to dangerous items. It's used by quite a few Talmudic scholars.
Are you saying that Rabbis Steinmitz, Becher, and others who make these arguments are fictitious?
Some refutation.
Go to the next message control+alt+pageup Close message escape
ReplyDelete© 2011 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved
Standard VersionTerms of ServicePrivacy PolicyAbout Our AdsContext Sensitive Shortcuts
Wow talk about cut and paste.
At least I copied from the class genius.
H&K wrote
ReplyDelete"America is a Christian nation."
NO, we are not, never have been; we are a secular nation in which there are people of many religions."
The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were authored by Deists, not Christians, and their non-religion specific documents had the suport of those who were Christian in NOT creating a religious government and NOT supporting ANY specific religion whatsoever. Someof the most prominent and influential thinkers that were the basis for these documents were not Christian either, but rather Deists, agnostics and atheists; so you can't fairly claim Christians as the inspiration for those documents either.
Further, if you are claiming that any religion that is a majority determins the religion of a country....you might want to reconsider that. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, as evidenced by this Pew Research Center study:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1872/muslim-population-projections-worldwide-fast-growth
"In the United States, for example, the population projections show the number of Muslims more than doubling over the next two decades, rising from 2.6 million in 2010 to 6.2 million in 2030, in large part because of immigration and higher-than-average fertility among Muslims. The Muslim share of the U.S. population (adults and children) is projected to grow from 0.8% in 2010 to 1.7% in 2030, making Muslims roughly as numerous as Jews or Episcopalians are in the United States today. Although several European countries will have substantially higher percentages of Muslims, the United States is projected to have a larger number of Muslims by 2030 than any European country other than Russia and France. (See the Americas section of the full report for more details.)"
The Founding Fathers were more concerned about not having a dominance battle between one Christian denomination over any others, or Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists either.
They wanted to remove religion, and religious preference, ANY religious preference, from the future growth and development of this nation, including any requirement to believe in a religion or even in God.
So, before you assert anything about this being a nation of a specific religion, keep that it mind. And keep in mind that if you wish to assert a majority religion over any other --- there is always the potential for that majority to change to a different religion, and in that context Islam IS the fastest growing religion (despite the attempts of our right wing nuts to deny Muslims THEIR right to practice their religion freely and without harrassment).
Be very careful not to cite the sloppy revisionist history of someone like that jackass Barton to support your arguments. Be sure to verify your sources, because you can bet I will, of anything you present here.
BA wrote:
ReplyDelete"Anyway, to me, going to the range and shooting is one of the most relaxing activities. For me, owning firearms has very little to do with killing and injuring and a lot to do with challenging myself at the same time as I am relaxing. It is a wondrous thing."
I agree that some shooting at the range is relaxing, even cathartic. But I would respectfully argue that there are substantive differences between say a tennis racket, ping pong paddle, or basketball from the primary purpose and use designed into a firearm, even though there is a very legitimate use for recreational purposes.
H&K, please cite your sources in disagreement with Rabbis Steinmetz and Becher, or alternatively provide your own bona fides as an expert to refute what is written here? Because if you expect us to believe that the two Rabbis, both recognized experts, are so very wrong, then we need to know why we should believe you rather than them.
Please include what college courses you have taught on the subject, where and when.