Arming Shluchim: Why Not

An article several days ago was published on COLlive.com advocating for Shluchim to arm themselves with firearms. The article intimated that perhaps the tragedy that took place in Mumbai in 2008 where Rabbi Gabi and Rivky Holtzberg hy”d were murdered may have been averted. The author points to recent threats discovered in Azerbaijan and to the fact that the previous Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Schneerson, carried a revolver.

When it comes to firearms, due to their lethality it is of utmost importance to take everything into great consideration. Having a firearm has advantages and disadvantages. To justify having one, the former must heavily outweigh the latter. I’ll begin with disadvantages.

First up, is safety. Sadly, many children each year have killed themselves as a result of accidental discharge because they gained access to their parents firearm/s. Utmost diligence is required to ensure such accidents will not happen. One must install a gun safe, and keep the firearm on them or in the safe at all times.

Second is, proficiency. A firearm is useless unless you know how to use it. “Knowing how to use it” does not mean knowing how to pull the trigger. It means knowing how to acquire, shoot and hit a target quite quickly. It means knowing what to do when the gun jams and how to disassemble it for cleaning purposes. Last but not least, it means constant practice. Just like a jogger who doesn’t jog for a few weeks, becomes less fit, so to with shooting proficiency. This is why law-enforcement agencies train regularly.

Third is, “sense of security”. Feeling secure when your are not is probably the worst out of the above. A firearm tends to give its owner a sense of security. As I will explain, in the face of the threats the author addressed in his/her article, the firearm does not produce real security. Thus, in this situation, The Shliach would have a false sense of security.

The advantage, is quite simply the ability to defend yourself, and, if it is public knowledge you carry a gun, deterrence. However, these advantages do not apply in the face of a Mumbai style threat.

The Mumbai terrorist were definitely not deterred by the Indian police force armed with pistols and rifles or the Mumbai Anti-Terrorist Squad. More than ten police officers, and anti-terror squad members were killed by the terrorists. Obviously they were dealing with trained terrorists, who were armed with assault rifles. So against a terrorist threat C”V, a trained police officer, let alone a “semi-trained” person doesn’t have much of a chance (especially if the terrorist wears a bullet-proof vest as most pistol rounds cannot penetrate bullet-proof vests. Which means the only take-down would be a head-shot, which requires a high degree of proficiency). In Azerbaijan, it was reported one of the terrorists was planning on using a sniper-rifle C”V. That makes a personal sidearm completely obsolete.

Solution:

(Just to be clear, this is with regard to Mumbai style terrorist. Against “smaller” threats or muggings, perhaps a personal a sidearm is the solution). The solution is preventative action in the form of intelligence for instance hiring the services of “STRATFOR”. Stratfor is a private intelligence organization contracted by corporations and the like who have assets in non-safe regions of the world where kidnappings are extremely frequent etc. The idea would be that they would keep an ear out for any would-be terrorist activity. Every (sophisticated) terrorist attack takes immense planning, which leads to intelligence communities picking up on it. All information would be classified by threat level, and if it reached a severe enough level C”V, they would alert the Shliach and local law-enforcement, or if need be a trained professional could be hired until the threat passes. Of course, such a thing is not cheap. However, not every region would need this. It would be for places where there is increased danger. Regardless, there is no price on life, and Merkos would just have to foot the bill.

With regard to the fact that the previous Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Schneerson, carried a revolver, it cannot be a public Hoiro’oh (directive). There is a story with the Rebbe Rashab, the previous Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Schneerson’s father. A businessman who happened to be carrying a revolver once met the Rebbe Rashab in his cabin on a train. The Rebbe Rashab told him to get rid of it as it is “Klei Eisov”. This is not a contradiction to the fact that the previous Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Schneerson, carried a revolver because neither story is a public directive and it all depends on the context.

In conclusion, We need to use our heads. If carrying a firearm saves lives, then carry one. However, as I have illustrated, Shluchim carrying guns will just create C”V a hazard for their family and cause them to slip into a false sense of security, as it does not work against a Mumbai styled attack.

The Rebbe should watch over his Shluchim and protect them among Klal Yisroel and may we be Zocheh to the coming of Moshiach immediately rendering this conversation useless.