ARMED WORSHIPPER SAVED POWAY SYNAGOGUE —
Quick Action, Sidearm, Fighting Back, Saved Lives

Discriminating against legally armed congregants is borderline criminal, dangerous
Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein had asked the member to attend armed.

As the world waits for the murderous dust to settle, and we learn what truly happened at the Poway synagogue, it appears armed citizens and a desire to fight back once again stopped a savage slaughter. JPFO renews its advice to churches and synagogues everywhere: Recognize your holy life-and-death responsibility. Adopt formal self-defense plans. Plans that properly include arms are better plans.

"It's foolish to continue to deny we have violent sociopaths and anti-Semites in our midst, intent on murdering Jews and other religious believers. Why now? Don't let that impede pragmatic life-saving responses," said author Alan Korwin, a consultant to JPFO. No law of any kind will disarm them all, or soon, and lethal weapons continue to exist even if guns evaporate -- which is utopian fantasy. A Rabbi or shul adopting a "no-guns" policy deceives itself, ignorantly putting its congregation at risk, and violates Torah (Dave Kopel, "The Torah and Self-Defense" Penn State Law Review, Vol. 109:1, p.42: "Under the Torah, using force to protect innocents was not only a right, but a positive moral duty.")

Rabbi Arthur Lavinsky of Phoenix commented, "If the shooting at the Poway synagogue has taught us anything, it is that if at all possible there should be one or more people with firearms at religious services who have the skill and the confidence to use them if necessary. Many contend that the shooter's weapon jammed due to a miracle, which may well be true. But our tradition teaches us we must never rely on miracles. We know full well that criminals will always be able to acquire guns. Therefore, it is essential that law abiding citizens have access to firearms to protect themselves, their loved ones and their communities."

Banning congregants from discreet sidearm possession is a denial of civil rights and discriminatory. Refusal to provide congregation-wide but optional assault-awareness training is negligent and foolhardy. Providing resources for temple members who already own firearms -- that you don't know about -- who could benefit from classes and practice, is a Mitzvah. Introductory programs for curious Jews is a better approach than providing ignorance, which too many synagogues cling to. Which category are you in? Join JPFO to learn more and help spread the flow of information.

#####