Thursday, September 27, 2007

Jonathan Marks opposes Gun carry laws?

JM has some interesting complaints about Gill's support for Virginian's right to keep and bear arms:

Actually, there were in decades gone by a number of gun attacks on schools in Israel by terrorists. An attack on a school in Ma'alot, Israel in 1973 killed several dozen students.

Uh, John, this isn't Israel, and Virginians are not terrorists.

It would be one thing to permit cab drivers to carry guns. But surely a cabdriver does not feel safer if he knows that his passenger has a gun. What does Faisal Gill's father think about:
Passengers taking their guns into cabs?
Drunk passengers taking guns into cabs?
Drunk, abusive passengers taking guns into cabs?
Drunk, abusive passengers who hate Pakistanis taking guns into cabs?

Is Jonathan planning on carrying a gun into a cab with Faisal? Other than that, it is a strange view that thinks that the cab driver should have a gun, but not anybody who wants to use a cab.

He also quoted another blogger who said:

Faisal Gill says he wants to go to Richmond and "fight." ....
Hmmmm. Fighting. Guns. See a scary pattern here? I'm not getting warm fuzzies, are you?

Yes, because if someone wants to fight for our district, we certainly can't let them own a gun.

If only Paul Nichols would pick up this anti-gun rhetoric, the election would be a walk. I'm glad at least one candidate is willing to fight for the right of Virginians to carry weapons. Even if they want to ride in a cab.

UPDATE: Oh, and btw, the blogger he quotes runs this site:

In which she includes as a "must-see" blog Yes, that's our friendly pro-illegal-immigrant Bull Run Unitarian Universalists. Which as a church I will not attack, but as a political action group I will criticize for their positions.

I guess it's not surprising she was against guns, but I didn't picture JM as a gun-grabber. After all, Greg L. gives him ad space, and has spoken well of him, and I can't imagine Greg giving the time of day to someone who thinks we shouldn't be allowed to carry guns.


Jonathan Mark said...

The issue raised at the debate was the right to bear arms in schools. Faisal said he supported it.

The write to bear arms outside of schools was not discussed at the debate that I can recall, and I didn't write or even think about it.

The reference to the cabdriver was an extension of the remarks that the woman I was quoting said. She said that a cab driver, such as Faisal Gill's father was, might get killed by a person with a gun.

I said that Faisal Gill's father might not want certain problematic passengers to have guns.

Now that you mention it, I don't think that intoxicated persons should carry guns, whether they get in a cab or not.

You cannot drive while intoxicated, and you shouldn't hunt or carry weapons while intoxicated either.

James Young said...

In a choice between those who choose their religion based upon their political preferences, and those who make their political choices based upon their religious convictions, I prefer the latter.

Unitarians obviously follow the former philosophy. I keep clicking on their "What We Believe" link, but the page never seems to load.

Charles said...

JM, I quoted what you said. She didn't write it, you did. If you didn't agree with it, you should have said you were writing something you disagreed with.

You didn't just mention "problematic passengers", you said "passengers".

As to your comment as to what was discussed, drunk people with guns weren't discussed either, but you commented on it.

We don't deny people cars because drunk people drive them. By raising the question of passengers, allong with drunk and abusive passengers, you SOUND like you are calling for people not to be able to carry guns.

The person you were quoting seems genuinely against people carrying guns.

BTW, if you have an adult with a concealed carry permit, and they go to an event that meets in a school auditorium, it is SAFER if that person carries his gun into the auditorium than if the gun is left in the car.

Just as your wallet is safer if you carry it into the meeting then if you leave it in the car.

Properly locked and hidden in a locked car, it might not be THAT much more in danger of being stolen.

On the other hand, since the purpose of concealed and open carry is to have a gun with you if needed, the person with the gun in the auditorium is safer than the person with the gun in the car.

Because if a person likes Cho decides HE wants to bring a gun into the auditorium and shoot people, they won't be detered by a law making it illegal for them to have a gun in the school.

As to the question of whether teachers would rather have guns in school, the fact is sometimes teachers DO take guns to schools illegally, or try to get permission to do so.

In general, if you asked me if I'd rather have a gun in a room or not, I'd say not -- IF nobody else has any capability of exerting lethal force in that room.

Otherwise, I'd feel safer if a person with a gun was there to protect us.

Oddly, most people agree with me. That's why they feel safer if there is a policeman with a gun in the room, why some people suggest the fix for the Tech shooting is armed security guards.

Of course, they think that because the person has "security guard" by their name they are going to only use the gun for good. But the fact is that people with permits for guns aren't the ones we find committing gun crimes.

Jonathan Mark said...

People should keep their rifles. In many cases they should keep their handguns too. They should get background checks anytime they buy a gun from anyone.

No AK-47s, Uzis and M-16s. Ban 'em. No grenades, grenade launchers, anti-ship weapons, tanks, etc. for private citizens. No machine guns.

There should be a reasonable limit on the number of handguns which a non-dealer can buy or sell in a year. Maybe a couple a year.

The age for concealed carry should be 18. 18 year olds carry weapons in the army and sometimes in police forces.

Any situation at which we would not want an 18 year old with a concealed carry permit to be present also ought to be banned to everyone with a concealed carry permit.

We surely don't want 18 year old concealed carry high school students taking their guns to school. Therefore concealed carry should be banned from high schools.

Charles said...

John, why do you think 18-year-olds should be allowed concealed carry, but then think they shouldn't be allowed to carry the gun into a school?

Is an 18-year-old with a concealed carry permit more likely to commit a crime at school with a gun, than they would at a party, a hangout, the mall, or a movie theater?

It seems if you don't trust the 18-year-old to behave in school, you shouldn't trust them to behave anywhere, and therefore you shouldn't give them a concealed carry permit.

If you DO trust them, school's probably a safer place, less likely to provoke anything, than less-controlled places outside of the school.

The only reason a school might be a little more dangerous is that, under current rules, a student KNOWS that if they decide to use a gun, nobody can shoot him back.

During Columbine, laws against guns in schools didn't stop the attack, but one trained 18-year-old carrying a concealed weapon might have.

Jonathan Mark said...

My point is that if the Second Amendment guarantees the right to concealed carry, then it guarantees it for 18 year olds as well.

If 18 year olds had concealed carry, then I would regard it as absurd for the 18-year-olds to take their guns to school.

Therefore, all concealed carry should be banned in schools, in order to prevent 18 year olds from carrying weapons to school.

18-year-olds get into fights at schools. There was even a knifing in my suburban, predominantly Jewish public high school in Newton, MA 36 years ago. Some bad kids from another school did it, however.

There are a lot of hot-tempered kids out there.