The terror attack in San Bernardino, California, on Wednesday killed at least 14 and wounded 17. As Syed Rizwan Farook and his accomplices attempted to evade police, Marvel writer Dan Slott thought it would be the ideal moment to mock Christians who turn to God in times of tragedy. For good measure he told jokes to foreign citizens at America’s expense.

Dan Slott California shooting

Here is a closer look at the re-tweet.

Daily News California shooting

Ask yourself what kind of sick person would use requests for prayers during a terror attack and cops’ pursuit of the suspects  to take political pot-shots? What kind of man would retweet satirical “God” Twitter accounts as terror victims riddled with bullet holes were bleeding out?

Objective observers know Mr. Slott was playing politics during a terror attack because his earlier tweets indeed asked for “thoughts and prayers.”

Dan Slott San Bernardino

Dan Slott can tweet “thoughts and prayers” for terror victims, but if someone he politically disagrees with does the same thing — again, as people are dying — they are Christian “cowards” issuing “empty platitudes.”

Dan Slott bashes America

To add insult to injury, The Amazing Spider-Man scribe decided to honor the recently-deceased and injured by telling jokes at America’s expense.

“Non-Americans, you’re all looking at us and shaking your head in disbelief, aren’t you?” he wrote. No one thought to ask him which “non-Americans” he was addressing.

  • Perhaps Dan was talking to Saudi Arabian Spider-Man fans (the nation Farook travelled to shortly before his massacre), but only the men because women aren’t allowed to leave the home without related escorts. And not Saudi Arabian Christians, because they officially don’t exist — it isn’t allowed.
  • Perhaps Dan was talking to French Spider-Man fans, but not those who died in its recent terror attack perpetrated by the Islamic State group, because dead people can’t enjoy Peter Parker’s adventures.
  • Perhaps Dan was talking to Syrian Spider-Man fans, but not in ISIS-controlled areas because reading Marvel (i.e., infidel) Comics would literally be grounds for chopping one’s head off.
  • Perhaps Dan was talking about Qatar, where San Bernardino terror suspect Bin Ardogan was from.

Puruse Mr. Slott’s twitter feed from Wednesday, Dec. 2, 2015, and you will see many tweets about gun control. What you will not see after it was announced that Syed Rizwan Farook was responsible for a day of terror is anything about radical Islam.

In Dan Slott’s world, a correlation between access to guns and gun-crime is worthy of loud denunciations of the NRA and Republican politicians who pray during terror attacks — but a correlation between Islam and Islamic terrorism is an opportunity to listen to crickets.

Congratulations Dan Slott: You’re the type of guy who uses an unfolding tragedy as an opportunity to mock men praying to God.  One day you’ll get to stand before your Creator and explain yourself. Until then, I will pray for you.

Exit Question: How pathetic is it that Nick Spencer equates a recluse who lived in a shack all by himself somewhere in Colorado — a man estranged from his friends and family and described by them as “weird” and “unpredictable” — to countless radical Islamic terror networks with tens-of-millions of sympathizers around the globe?

Nick Spencer shooting tweet

Advertisements

About the Author Douglas Ernst

I'm a former Army guy who believes success comes through hard work, honesty, optimism, and perseverance. I believe seeing yourself as a victim creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe in God. I'm a USC Trojan with an MA in Political Science from American University.

29 comments

    1. Somewhere out there a man was choking on his own blood. Rand Paul asked Americans to pray for that man’s soul, and Dan Slott’s response was to mock Rand Paul.

      Think about that, Dan. I know you’re reading this. Turn that over in your head, look at yourself in the mirror and then think a little more. Splash some water on your face, rub your eyes, and then just contemplate your actions as you stare at your own reflection.

  1. The Federalist wrote up on this too (though not specifically Slott).

    I swear the Left’s logic is a farce. Ok, you believe those crazy right-wingers are dangerous and psycho and all that because of their guns and bibles etc etc etc. BUT you then mock them for “prayers and thoughts” which, in your view, does nothing.

    That’s like watching someone talk constantly about how dangerous bears are, and then turn around and complain about bears hibernating.

    Now, now follow along people: if you think someone’s dangerous, they why not ENCOURAGE them to keep doing NOTHING? Let me boil it down for lefties: If they’re praying, they’re not shooting.

    But no, at some point you start wondering if they really do want to be mauled by a bear.

    1. Thanks for sharing the link.

      I guess what is so sad and bizarre to me is that we’ve reached the point where praying during a tragedy is now fair game for political attacks. How low does the bar go? How do these people look themselves in the mirror each morning?

      It’s going to be incredibly strange seeing the left’s reaction when terrorists start using IEDs on American soil. Do we ban cell phones since they can be used as detonators? Do we ban the bomb-making materials that can be bought in your local grocery store?

      It is much easier to talk about guns than our own cultural implosion. It is much easier to make weird statements about prayer than to accurately define the enemies of western civilization. We focus on the symptoms and not the disease. There are dark days ahead, which is why prayer is needed now more than ever.

  2. Did Slott ask non-French if they were shaking their heads in disbelief at the Paris massacre?

    Personally, if I’m shaking my head in disbelief at anything, it’s at Obama’s still making speeches claiming that mass shootings never happen anywhere except in the US. He even said it in a speech in Paris, three weeks after the ISIS attack.

    Muslim terrorists attack a cartoon-drawing contest in Texas. Armed good guys stop them. No one gets killed except the attackers. The media blame the intended victims for provoking the attack.

    A nut goes on a shooting spree at a Planned Parenthood clinic. Before the smoke even clears, the media are chanting the “white male Christian” mantra.

    Muslims murder unarmed victims, in a designated gun-free zone, in a blue state with strict gun control laws. The politicians call for more anti-gun laws, more gun-free zones, and for admitting more Muslim immigrants. The media claim that the motives are “unclear,” and that we shouldn’t rush to judgment. At the same time, though, they also claim that the Inland Regional Center was “just blocks away” from a Planned Parenthood clinic. (The actual distance to the nearest PP clinic was more than a mile.)

    Tamera Keel may have said it best on her View From the Porch blog: the media are trying to cut off the legs of Islamic jihad to make it fit the Procrustean bed of the anti-gun agenda.

  3. Know what I think?

    After Obama forgot there was a terror attack in Paris…because those things only happen in America…or he was so excited to have more ammo for his anti-gun fight at the expense of a few lives…

    After too much of the public decided the best way to remember the victims of the Paris terror attacks was to call their fellow Americans racists, bigots and terrorists over security concerns about refugees from a wartorn country…

    After a social media war that points out with all seriousness that you are more likely to die at the hands of a Christian than a Muslim because of some poor study by hack professors in NC…

    After seeing the near rabid initial excitement from the left when this recent incident first took place, with reports of men in fatigues and shots fired in just the right place ignited the imaginations of zealots all over the country…instead of shock and sadness…

    After seeing Headlines like the Daily News cover, where the deaths of innocent people are used attack and score points with no shame or compassion, as if they had finally won an argument in their own imaginations….

    And knowing…KNOWING…that when guys like Dan Slott and Nick Spencer…and various other people…see the news reports…that they are thinking…”I hope its a white guy..I hope its a Christian…god I hope so…”

    …and much of what they are saying about prayer (in almost every left wing outlet) is probably due to not getting what they want…not getting to proclaim their moral superiority over the flyovers and lesser creatures of the world because the shooter isn’t white, isn’t christian…because if they were…the prayers and thoughts would flow from them unbidden.

    After all that…I now know…we no longer face a group of people that are confused, stupid and disagreeable…they are an enemy at my back and my children will have to face a world they have created.

    How I wish it were not so.

    1. “And knowing — KNOWING — that when guys like Dan Slott and Nick Spencer and various other people see the news reports, that they are thinking, ‘I hope its a white guy…I hope its a Christian…god I hope so.'”

      It really is difficult to come to a different conclusion based on their tweets, isn’t it?

      Objective Americans know there are no Christian movements to a.) perpetrate violence against law-abiding citizens in the name of Christ, but that b.) there are countless Islamic terror organizations that very much desire to have as many people as possible living under Sharia Law. Heck, entire nation-states are run or sympathetic to Islamic extremists (e.g., Iran, Pakistan).

      Objective Americans know that some uni-bomber-ish character who finally snaps in Colorado after living without family and friends for years is nothing like members of the Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, al Qaeda, the Islamic State group, Boko Haram, etc.

      Sadly, writers like Messrs. Spencer and Slott long ago lost the ability to step outside themselves and view the world through a more objective lens.

      “After all that…I now know we no longer face a group of people that are confused, stupid and disagreeable. They are an enemy at my back and my children will have to face a world they have created.”

      The weird thing is, the same guy who mocks your prayer during a terrorist attack will read that line and dish out faux outrage that you would dare call him an enemy. You are rhetorically poked and prodded, punched and kicked at every available opportunity, and then when you finally express righteous indignation you are the one who is extreme. In truth, all you ever wanted was to be left alone to live your life in peace and quiet. Classic.

  4. Another day, another example of Slott demonstrating what a hateful fool he is. Nice to know he’s consistent, at least.

    I can see why Slott and Spencer are so eager to deflect during times like this. After all, they supported Obama and bought the “I made the world a safer place” narrative. I mean, wouldn’t you be completely embarrassed if a guy you repeatedly insisted was “the smartest man in the room” not only failed in every conceivable way (be it the economy, foreign policy, or healthcare), but offered up such moments as “ISIS is the JV team,” “I’m gonna go on vacation after learning a hostage was beheaded,” “ISIS is contained,” “I’m more angry at the GOP than ISIS,” “climate change is a greater threat than terrorism,” and “the current plan is working”? Of course you would; I know I would. Look, I’m certain that pinheads like Slott and Spencer believe all the garbage Obama spouts, but I’d wager they at least recognize that a majority of Americans are not pleased with Obama’s handling of ISIS or his rhetoric.

    As to Spencer’s larger comment, I seem to recall hearing Obama demand not too long ago that we politicize mass shootings. The Left sure wanted us to do that in regards to the Planned Parenthood shooting, but they also didn’t want us to talk about certain Obama policies after what happened in Paris. Gee, what a coincidence. What are the odds the Left will not want to politicize what happened in California if it turns out to be terrorism-related? About as good as Slott and Spencer saying something idiotic the next time they tweet.

    1. “Another day, another example of Slott demonstrating what a hateful fool he is. Nice to know he’s consistent, at least.”

      Think of just how spiritually lost a man must be to turn “Please keep them in your thoughts and prayers” into something that demands a political attack. I honestly want to know how much lower these guys can get. This sort of nastiness is proof that there is basically nothing I can do to make them treat me with respect. There is no olive branch I can extend when they are attacking guys like us for prayer.

      I can see why Slott and Spencer are so eager to deflect during times like this. After all, they supported Obama and bought the “I made the world a safer place” narrative.

      This is actually a point I have been making with friends in private conversations since the 2012 presidential election. People who voted for the president put so much stock into him that to abandon him would mean acknowledging just how wrong they were.

      Instead of saying, “Wow…I voted for the guy who called ISIS a ‘JV’ team…and then said they were ‘contained’ right before the Paris terror attack. Maybe conservatives have a few good points when it comes to dealing with these guys,” they lash out.

      A radical Islamic terrorist attacks a complex in California that treats people with autism, and suddenly guys like Dan Slott are mocking Christians and going after 2nd Amendment advocates (Never mind the fact that the couple responsible had an “IED factory” inside their home, had a stockpile of pipe bombs, etc.)

      It will be fascinating to see what this level of hate mutates into next.

    2. The Obama Zombies have invested so heavily in him, it’s too late to back out now.

      In Mark Twain’s “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” the con men, the King and the Duke, are exposed as frauds, but their victims don’t want to do anything about it, because they don’t want to admit that they were duped.

  5. I sometimes wonder, is Slott actually speaking his mind, or is he acting out some kind of internet persona. Regardless, while he does have the right to say what he wants, he, like all of us, is also responsible not to abuse that right.

    Also, how is it a good idea to go out of your way to antagonize your potential future customers? Since Marvel need us customers, but we don’t need them, you’d think that Marvel would be asking their employees: “Don’t upset anyone. We want to stay in their good graces to maximize our chances of staying in the black.”

    1. Sometimes people ask me why I blog on writers and actors and musicians. It’s because, like it or not, young people look up to them. Since none of us can be experts on everything, we often turn to those we respect and use their opinions as intellectual calk when there is a gap in our own knowledge.

      When someone like Dan Slott spouts off on gun control or Christians any number of issues, there are many young people who, out of inflated respect for his work as a writer, allow their judgment to get clouded when he gets political. If they’re too busy or too lazy to do their own legwork on an issue, they may just give the respected writer or artist the benefit of the doubt and adopt his position.

      Once that intellectual glue hardens, people are resistant to removing it — even if they know deep down that it’s inferior to the materials of “truth” and “accuracy.” If I can reach someone while they’re still open to considering opposing points of view, then I have done my job.

  6. This is still almost a bit too fresh, and a bit too close to home (I’m in LA), to properly process, but here goes..

    I ended up liking the same Daily News cover photo on FB, before even seeing this blog post. Why? Because I find the commentary to be spot on–for once, in addition to thoughts and prayers, how about some real action on the part of elected officials?

    Of course gun bans wouldn’t have prevented this bloody rampage, nor the CA concealed carry ban. But better screening and tougher regulation (keeping the sale of these arms to registered, regulated buyers, and cutting the NRA and their lobbies out of the political process) COULD help keep such weapons from getting into the hands of murderers as easily as they do. Not completely. We initiated unprecedented screenings of flyers at airports–gun buyers should face tougher scrutiny. It’s an unfortunate reality of this age, where the next kill spree could be done by an Islamic extremist OR the white co-worker you’ve known for 5 years.

    None of the answers here are simple. I also hate being on the same page as Slott on this, who’s often a posturing fool. But we can’t presume things are going to get better at this point by doing nothing.

    1. I ended up liking the same Daily News cover photo on FB, before even seeing this blog post. Why? Because I find the commentary to be spot on–for once, in addition to thoughts and prayers, how about some real action on the part of elected officials?

      California has some of the strictest gun-laws in the entire country. Ditto for Chicago. Ditto for Maryland. Ditto for Washington, D.C. (I lived in D.C. and the maze of red tape required to get a weapon is ridiculous). The officials were sending out prayers during the terror attack — not as a solution to gun violence, but as the kind thing to do while people are currently in pain.

      Why does Chicago have violence more befitting of a third-world war zone? Does it have anything to do with lax gun laws? Heck no. It has to deal with a cultural implosion. Banning common household items “could” have stopped Farook from making IEDs in his garage, but we don’t do that because America has, at least for a short while, resisted the inclination to become a police state.

      Deporting all Muslims “could” stop Islamic terrorism in the U.S., but again, the question then becomes, “How do you like your police state, Mr. American?”

      But we can’t presume things are going to get better at this point by doing nothing.

      Who has advocated doing “nothing”? Like I said, California has incredibly tough gun laws. California Gov. Jerry Brown just passed more in October. But, like I said, passing mountains of legislation will not make a dent in violence if you only treat the symptom and not the disease.

      Do you honestly think Farook — a guy who meticulously planned his terror attack — would have been denied the body count he wanted?

      I was telling my wife last night how I would gone about the attack if I were him last night — and I would not have been caught. My hypothetical plan requires zero guns and (even better for me), I would live to fight another day.

      But here’s the catch — I value human life. So the question is not about creating laws, but about cultivating citizens who value human life. That is much more difficult, which is why many of us choose instead to blame gun-rights activists.

      Side note: What is a lobby but a group of people who organize together and advocate for a cause on their behalf? Why would you try to deny gun owners with the NRA their First Amendment right for redress of grievances? Do you see the road you’re going down? It’s a dark one.

      There are countless anti-gun groups funded by billionaires like Michael Bloomberg. You don’t see me asking anyone to curtail Bloomberg’s right to petition government. In fact, Bloomberg — a New Yorker — sunk millions of dollars into a campaign for stricter gun laws in Colorado. That pisses me off, but guess what — he failed. With all of his money, he failed. Why? Because there are counterweights out there and because there are still millions of people who understand that the Second Amendment was “number 2” on the list for very important reasons.

      Tyrannical governments love to strip citizens of the weapons they would use to defend themselves. Just ask the North Koreans if you can get yourself into one of its gulags. Or Cuba, if you can get into one of its political prisons.

      Anyway, thanks for presenting an alternative point of view. I appreciate it.

    2. It’s hilarious to watch people complain about the NRA when they end up spending less than like… everyone.

      Top spender? Nope. It’s #50.
      Top firm? Nope.
      Top issue? It’s #65.

      It’s not that big or rich of an organization. It’s just focused with passionate backers and (more importantly) it has more than the opposition. The NRA plays the game, and it just makes sure to play the game better than anyone else.

    3. Thank you for posting that, Nate. I think it’s important for people to see.

      Most people do not understand what lobbying even is. They just hear politicians blame “lobbyists” for a problem when, in reality, lobbyists perform a very important function. Politicians cannot be experts on everything (even if they pretend like they are), and so when they are drafting legislation on any issue they must consult experts.

      The problem is not lobbyists — the problem is that the federal government controls so many aspects of everyday life that it creates a fertile environment for corruption to thrive.

      There is nothing wrong with lobbying Congress, provided the lobbying in question is transparent. People have a right to know who their elected officials are meeting with and how much an organization is spending on its efforts to sway public opinion.

      I’m not sure how Bloomberg and his groups spending millions of dollars across the country to demonize law-abiding gun owners okay, but the NRA lobbying Congress on behalf of said gun-owners is a problem.

      Cheesedique has Bloomberg lobbying on his behalf. Congrats. I don’t agree with Bloomberg, but I’m glad he gives a voice to Cheesdique and Dan Slott. Likewise, the NRA speaks for me on gun rights. I like the First Amendment. I like the Second Amendment. I suggest we keep them both.

  7. Even the first amendment has limits, when it endangers someone else.

    Heard a news story on the way in to work–that suspects on the FBI’s terrorist watch list aren’t prevented from purchasing firearms in this country. Anyone else see anything wrong with that?

    So is the NRA really the beacon of defending liberty or are they just lining their own pockets like any other industry, but also aiding and abetting murder of citizens and police?

    1. Even the first amendment has limits, when it endangers someone else.

      The litmus test for that is essentially calling for violence against innocents, which is something that NRA does not do. Right now your argument boils down you not liking the fact that the NRA is allowed to lobby Congress, just as every single group that opposes the NRA is allowed to do.

      Heard a news story on the way in to work–that suspects on the FBI’s terrorist watch list aren’t prevented from purchasing firearms in this country. Anyone else see anything wrong with that?

      The 14th Amendment still exists. If someone is on a watch list, they still have not committed any crime. That policy idea is something straight out of Minority Report. So the NSA spies on millions of innocent Americans for “meta-data” (i.e., any electronic communications it wants), but now we’re supposed to allow the federal government to strip Constitutionally-protected rights on the mere suspicion that someone may commit a crime in the future?

      I’m honestly asking, here: At what point do you worry about the sheer amount of power the federal government has, Cheesedique? At what point do you admit that you are living in an Orwellian police state?

      Also, you do know that 3-D printers can create guns, right? It’s rather easy, and getting easier all the time. Are you going to start banning 3-D printers? Again, I honestly would like to know. I’m not being sarcastic.

      Here is what Senator Diane Feinstein (your Senator, no less) believes about NSA spying (via the New York Times):

      Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it. That is one reason we have long argued that the Patriot Act, enacted in the heat of fear after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by members of Congress who mostly had not even read it, was reckless in its assignment of unnecessary and overbroad surveillance powers. …

      The defense of this practice offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, who as chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is supposed to be preventing this sort of overreaching, was absurd. She said on Thursday that the authorities need this information in case someone might become a terrorist in the future.”

      That is incredibly scary.

      It boggles my mind that the same people who say the cops are mostly racists and the government is filled with corruption are adamant that cops and the federal government should have a monopoly on weapons.

      The same people who worry about racial profiling by the federal government shrug their shoulders at its unlimited access to our digital information — and want to give it Pre-Crime authority as seen in dystopian science-fiction novels.

    2. Doug,

      If the citizenry has so much to fear from their government, should they not also have access to tanks, explosives and RPG’s? Are someone’s constitutional rights being violated by not also having access to such weaponry? Where is the line drawn?

      If even one person’s life can be saved by enacting legislation, is it or is it not worth doing? One less victim? Potentially hundreds?

    3. If the citizenry has so much to fear from their government, should they not also have access to tanks, explosives and RPG’s?

      Thanks for the question. At a minimum, the citizenry should be able to have weapons sufficient enough to deter its government from ever becoming overtly tyrannical (e.g., the confiscation of private property, arrests and imprisonment without due process, etc.)

      The Declaration of Independence, signed July 4, 1776, states:

      “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

      If you honestly do not think future generations of U.S. citizens will ever face the day when they may need to abolish the government and “provide new Guards for future security,” then you are in denial as it pertains to human nature and ignorant of history. I hope that is not the case.

      If even one person’s life can be saved by enacting legislation, is it or is it not worth doing?

      Awin, this is a Straw Man argument. It is not serious at all. Using your logic, deporting all Muslims in the United States and banning entry of Muslims into the U.S. would be “worth” it because it would save “at least one life” from future Islamic radical terror attacks.

      Likewise, using your logic, we should also outlaw abortion, ban cars, and forbid anyone from owning a swimming pool.

  8. I was about to point out the same facts. “If it saves just one life, it’s worth it” sounds good, but it’s impractical.

    Deporting all Muslims and barring Muslim immigration would have prevented the San Bernardino shooting. Would it be worth it? It would have saved more than one life.

    More children drown in swimming pools than get killed or injured in shootings. would a ban on private swimming pools be worth it?

    And swimming pools have only recreational value. With guns, there is the harm done with them balanced against the lives saved with them. The Clinton administration commissioned a study to prove that you are statistically more likely to accidentally shoot a family member than an intruder. Instead, they found the opposite: guns are used in self-defense more than one million times a year. Since the survey did not produce the desired data, it was swept under the rug.

    When the Terror Watch List was implemented under Bush, liberals denounced it. The New York Times pointed out that it contained uncorroborated information and unsubstantiated allegations. Also, that the FBI did not remove names after the suspects were investigated and exonerated.

    The Atlantic and the ACLU complained about the lack of objective standards. Criteria for inclusion were arbitrary, and secret. And a Justice department review found that 35% of names on the list were there “without justification.”

    Then Obama got elected. And he could use the list (and its arbitrary criteria) to further The Agenda. Liberals learned to stop worrying and love the list.

    New York Times op-ed: Gun Rights for Terrorists.

    Atlantic: “Even people on the Terror Watch List are able to legally purchase a firearm.”

    The Democrats pretend that the List is aimed at ISIS and Al Qaeda. And if you oppose their bill to prohibit people on the list from buying guns, then you must be helping to arm terrorists. But the Dems consider a dispute over grazing fees (in which no one was killed or injured) to be terrorism. And they classified the Ft. Hood hospital rampage as “workplace violence.”

    With the administration’s dhimmitude and political correctness, how many real terrorists are likely to be on the list? Since 2011, Obama has, in effect, barred the FBI and DHS from spying on mosques or Muslim organizations. Because, as Obama and Hillary and Kerry continue to insist, terrorism has “nothing whatsoever” to do with Islam. (It was climate change that caused the Paris massacre. And the NRA instructed the killers in Mali to spare hostages who could quote the Koran, and to execute those who couldn’t.) Meanwhile, BTW, the IRS is targeting Jewish charities.

    The list is not needed to keep terrorists from buying weapons. The authorities could simply arrest and prosecute terrorists. If they are in maximum security prisons (or, better yet, executed) then they obviously can’t buy guns. Even if they got out on parole, they would still be convicted felons, legally barred from owning firearms in all 50 states.

    But, with Obama’s “hands off” policy toward Muslims, it is virtually impossible to prosecute and convict 90% of real terrorists.

    1. You guys are throwing out some false equivalencies here as well.

      Nobody can pack up a swimming pool, to use it to induce the most mass casualties as possible. But if you want to look at the accident vs. assault argument, just using cars as an example:

      – laws requiring the use of seat belts have drastically reduced auto fatalities over the years, as have laws on drinking and driving. Should we never have regulated the use of cars in that regard?

      Also, you would keep terror suspects on a no-fly list (a bit like predicting or trying to curtail pre-crime in that regard), but leave them with basically unfettered access to guns. How does that make sense?

      It was obvious to me even back when a gunman used assault weapons to chop up a classroom full of KIDS that people still weren’t ready to take gun legislation seriously in this country. But unfortunately after a lot more of these incidents, hopefully it will get treated and identified as the public health problem that it really is.

      Doug, I still don’t mind coming to your blog for a differing viewpoint, and even throwing some of my own thoughts into the mix that may be contrary–to paraphrase what you said in an older post, it’s our shared dislike for Dan Slott’s writing that transcends ideologies!

    2. Also, you would keep terror suspects on a no-fly list (a bit like predicting or trying to curtail pre-crime in that regard), but leave them with basically unfettered access to guns. How does that make sense?

      You never asked my opinion on no-fly lists. 😉

      Regardless, most people on no-fly lists are foreign nationals — and foreign nationals coming from, say, Saudi Arabia, are not afforded the rights and privileges of Americans. The U.S. is under no obligation to open the doors to a radical Islamic cleric with ties to known terrorists.

      With that said, flying is not a right. It is a privilege. The Second Amendment is a Constitutionally-protected right.

      My personal belief is that an American citizen who is not charged with any crime should be allowed to fly to any other state in the Union. If the U.S. wants to have a watch list that includes Americans, I see nothing wrong with restricting air-travel to certain countries (e.g., Iran, Pakistan).

      With that said, I’m still wondering what you think we should do with 3-D printers. California can pass all the gun legislation it wants, but I guarantee you that if I wanted my own “ghost gun” that I can have one by the end of the week.

      There are mountains of regulations in place already for buying a gun. At some point in time these states will only create an incentive for more individuals to make untraceable weapons with modern technology. The reality that strict gun-control legislation creates will be the exact opposite of politicians’ stated intentions.

      If you look at most of the mass shootings that happen in the U.S., there seems to be a very high correlation with people suffering from serious mental problems. That is the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.

      It’s funny that you bring up Dan Slott. According to Dan, I’m some sort of jerk who is incapable of having a civil discussion (even though he’s never commented here). It seems to me that our discussion is rather cordial, even if we have differences of opinion on this issue.

    3. “It’s funny that you bring up Dan Slott. According to Dan, I’m some sort of jerk who is incapable of having a civil discussion (even though he’s never commented here). It seems to me that our discussion is rather cordial, even if we have differences of opinion on this issue.”
      The reason is that Dan cannot have a civil discussion, that would take facts and some form of knowledge. Dan resorts to name calling and lies because he cannot support his own views.

    4. This story is a little older, but I thought it might fit in with this thread. These stories don’t tend to get national media attention.

      The Chicago Tribune reported in April:

      Authorities say no charges will be filed against an Uber driver who shot and wounded a gunman who opened fire on a crowd of people in Logan Square over the weekend.

      The driver had a concealed-carry permit and acted in the defense of himself and others, Assistant State’s Attorney Barry Quinn said in court Sunday.

      A group of people had been walking in front of the driver around 11:50 p.m. Friday in the 2900 block of North Milwaukee Avenue when Everardo Custodio, 22, began firing into the crowd, Quinn said.

      The driver pulled out a handgun and fired six shots at Custodio, hitting him several times, according to court records. Responding officers found Custodio lying on the ground, bleeding, Quinn said. No other injuries were reported.

      How much do you want to bet that Custodio’s death is counted in statistics used by gun-control advocates — even though he was killed as he attempted to carry out a mass shooting. The statistics will make him look like some innocent guy who lost his life to gun violence, when in reality it was a hero who stopped him from hurting many others.

  9. Yeah, 3-D printing weapons would probably be the next thing. That takes a bit more savvy on the part of the user–or they would just get it that way via black market.

    I certainly do think we make our arguments cordially, that’s why I like reading and posting here. Just read an article about why pro-gun and anti-gun people will often talk past each other:

    http://www.vox.com/2015/12/4/9845146/mass-shootings-gun-control

    Also read a short article about some gun stats tweeted via Neil deGrasse Tyson:

    http://www.upworthy.com/instead-of-arguing-about-guns-on-twitter-neil-degrasse-tyson-just-laid-out-the-numbers?g=2&c=ufb2

    1. This VOX article is interesting because it mentions a hypothetical gun owner’s concern over the collapse of civil society, but never really addresses the fact that said gun owner’s concerns are incredibly well-founded. An over-abundance of guns and rifles have been around for a long time, so a rise in the number of mass shootings has nothing to do with the availability of guns. American culture has changed, and in many ways not for the better.

      The Founding Fathers included the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution as a bulwark against a tyrannical government. I see no reason to weaken the 2nd Amendment because suicidal Americans sometimes try to take out a slew of innocent people as their last act on earth.

      As it pertains to Neil DeGrasse Tyson, why is he treated like an authority on everything outside his area of expertise? Anyone can throw out random statistics with zero context or links as to where those numbers came from.

      I guess Mr Tyson doesn’t read the Washington Post (not a conservative newspaper). Headline: “We’ve had a massive decline in gun violence in the United States. Here’s why.”

      “Premeditated mass shootings in public places are happening more often, some researchers say, plunging towns and cities into grief and riveting the attention of a horrified nation. In general, though, fewer Americans are dying as a result of gun violence — a shift that began about two decades ago.

      In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 — a total of 11,208 firearm homicides. The number of victims of crimes involving guns that did not result in death (such as robberies) declined even more precipitously, from 725 per 100,000 people in 1993 to 175 in 2013.”

      We can actually discuss something like this provided by the Washington Post. We can’t really do that with Mr. Tyson’s tweets, which are nothing more than an invitation for people who already agree with him to pat him on the back and tell him once again how super-awesome-smart he is compared to those rubes with guns.

      What would those numbers the Post cited look like if we factored out all the cities like Chicago, where idiot gang-bangers kill themselves on a daily basis? It would appear that the vast majority of legal gun owners are responsible people who only want their guns for defensive purposes. It doesn’t take an astrophysicist to figure that out. Sorry, Neil.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s