Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

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—a development I personally wish would have taken place when I was a student in elementary school and high school!  Even Walmart requires psychological testing for its workers—perhaps because they sell firearms at their stores.

Now, it seems to me that the recent Arizona shooting might have been avoided had the state required psychological testing for anyone wishing to own a gun. 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.

One cannot expect a family to recognize or, for that matter, even 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 when a vagrant is breaking 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 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]

In light of the Arizona shooting—or for that matter, any other well-known shootings that we have seen in recent history, the Columbine or Virgina Tech incidents—the onus of responsibility cannot be placed on someone who is mentally-impaired or schizophrenic, or someone who is having a psychotic-break with reality.

It is not realistic to expect psychotics like Jared Lee Loughner to behave like normal citizens and I expect the judge will send him to a special hospital for the criminally insane. If I were the defense attorney, I would put the gun lobby and government on trial–and I believe any attorney who uses this tact will most likely win his case. The responsibility lies with the local courts and governments to make it as difficult as possible in determining who can and ought to own a gun, vis-à-vis, while determining the types of individuals who should never own a gun of any kind. The duty to protect citizens is the government’s responsibility.

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 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.

When I return to my office after I return from my trip in San Francisco, I will elaborate on these points in finer detail.

===========

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.