GEN1423 The biblical account of the revenge taken by Simon and Levi against the people of Shechem, in retaliation for the dishonor suffered by their sister Dinah, illustrates the potential danger of a rash act. Jacob felt responsible for the security of his clan. He reacted with a sharp rebuke [this verse]. Simon and Levi stood accused of endangerment. People may be endangered by packs of wild dogs that roam the streets of the cities. It is the responsibility of the authorities to remove this hazard from inhabited areas. Prior to their settling in the Promised Land, the ancient Israelites were given the following assurance by God: “I will give peace in the land … and I will cause evil beasts to cease [their attacks] in the land” Leviticus 26:6.   According to Rabbi Judah (2nd cent.), God did not promise to change the nature of wild beasts to make them docile. To make the streets secure the wild beats would have to be physical removed (Sifre, Lev. 26:6).   The ethical obligation to correct dangerous conditions was enacted into biblical law. A person who digs a pit on property accessible to the public must cover it to prevent possible injuries Exodus 21:33-34. Flat-roofed homes must have parapets to protect visitors from falling off Deuteronomy 22:8. This law was broadly interpreted by the rabbis to include all dangerous conditions which pose a danger to innocent people. Hence the prohibition of harboring dangerous dogs in a home or of placing a broker ladder against the wall of one’s home Ketubot 41b.   Containers of medicine normally carry a warning label which reads: “Keep out of reach of children.” Consideration for the protection of children dictates reasonable preventive measures. However, it does not indicate a ban on medicine, which properly belongs in the home. What about poison, for which there is no common practical need? Does the occasional use of poison for exterminating purposes justify the risk which its presence entails? Josephus (1st cent.) was unequivocal in his objection. “Let no Israelite keep any poison that may cause death, or any other harm” (Antiq., bk. 4, 8:34). Poison may be used under proper safeguards to exterminate rodents. Whatever is left should be disposed of in a manner which will create no danger to man and animals alike. Does the same ethical prohibition apply to the possession of guns in a private home? Rampant crime has produced a growing demand for guns for reasons of self-defense. There are instances where guns have proved useful in driving off criminals. Unfortunately, there are may more instances of guns falling into the hands of minors which tragic results. In urban areas, where police protection is available, the possession of a gun is risk which should not lightly be assumed.   A rabbinic decree (2nd cent.) prohibited the sale of offensive weapons to individuals who are suspected of harboring a criminal intent Avodah Zarah 16b.  In modern societies licensing procedures have been instituted to keep guns out of the hands of criminal elements. Such procedures have proved woefully inadequate. There is a need tor stricter gun-control laws. Ethical considerations make such legislation imperative. BLOCH 106-7