Some more examples of writers talking about the San Bernardino jihad
Here's some more examples of whatever writers I could find talking about the San Bernardino tragedy. Let's start with Kurt Busiek:
The above is not very accurate. According to this data from the Pew Research Center, gun violence has actually been declining since the 1960s, thanks mostly to the police, whom Busiek hasn't bothered to thank here for their efforts to curb crime. Methinks he should do better research on the exact situation, and ask whether the mainstream press is trying to sensationalize gun violence, which is decidedly a problem. Now, here's Gail Simone:
On the surface, that would seem like a valid argument. But if the Democrats voted against such a bill, and Simone wouldn't complain, then her whole beef falls flat. According to this info on Outside the Beltway, the no-fly list is riddled with inaccuracies, and if what the Democrats proposed was actually meant to hinder innocent people's ability to get guns for self-defense, then it would only be a botch that makes things worse without ensuring that potentially violent maniacs by contrast didn't. She also wrote:
She doesn't mention this had what to do with Planned Parenthood, which is hardly what I'd call women's health benefits. How come she doesn't mention this? And she says the GOP doesn't mention the other issue? Oh, while we're at it, she also said:
I don't get how some creators can talk about diversity and then refuse to emphasize casts with Danish, Romanian, Corsican, Ghanian, Burmese and Georgian backgrounds, and even sometimes become quite dismissive and/or negative to the idea. She goes on to attack the NRA:
Is she implying there's nothing wrong with communism? Guess she doesn't think there's anything wrong with Scientology either, eh? If the pizza restaurant's degenerated into a leftarded mess, then I honestly can't blame the NRA for wanting to refrain from association.
It sucks to see creators be so tunnelvisioned. I faintly recall she was quite negative to the people using Chuck Dixon's message boards. The same guy whose book idea, Birds of Prey, she took up writing for a time, and never seemed to defend even after he was pretty much blacklisted by DC, which makes her an ingrate.
But not a liberal movement? Her failure to acknowledge liberals can make mistakes is a pure dismay. Does she also think the NRA is to blame for the bomb factory the terrorists built in their garage? (H/T: Michelle Malkin/Doug Powers.) Next we have Nick Spencer, mouthing off with poorly informed rhetoric as usual:
Until now, I had no idea just how repellent his world view could be. It doesn't take much to figure out he's talking about regular Americans...and calling them terrorists. Including his fellow liberals. One more reason why no sane person need buy his books.
There are people in the UK trying to reverse that. I'm sure there's people in other parts of Europe trying to do the same for the sake of self-defense. Now, let's turn to Mark Waid, who posted at least one:
Why do the Democrats see nothing wrong with allowing "migrants" to enter the USA no matter how poor a background check turns out to be? Then, here's one by Gerry Conway:
Oh, really? According to this NPR article, there are blacks out there who own guns, and many who support carrying them for self-defense. And according to Bustle, there's been a rise in lady's gun ownership over the past decade. Conway's making himself look ridiculous, siding with an article that takes the now cliched blame-the-white-men-for-everything routine.
Dan Jurgens, however, did far better than any of the above:
On this, he's correct. They may have damaged evidence, which is a criminal offense in itself. Somebody else told him the press reporters should be charged, to which he replied:
Press reporters who damage the authorities' ability to investigate a crime on that scale, to say nothing of morale, should be prosecuted. Jurgens has certainly offered better arguments than any of the other writers listed.
Half the mass shootings in US history have happened since the assault weapons ban expired.— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) December 5, 2015The assault weapons ban expired in 2005. Half the mass shootings in the US. In the last ten years.— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) December 5, 2015When I said half the mass shootings in US history happened since 2005? I was wrong. That was true almost 3 years ago. It’s a bunch more now.— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) December 5, 2015The above is not very accurate. According to this data from the Pew Research Center, gun violence has actually been declining since the 1960s, thanks mostly to the police, whom Busiek hasn't bothered to thank here for their efforts to curb crime. Methinks he should do better research on the exact situation, and ask whether the mainstream press is trying to sensationalize gun violence, which is decidedly a problem. Now, here's Gail Simone:
Weird. Yesterday, a TON of Republicans voted to block a bill aimed at blocking people on the terrorist watch list from getting guns...BUT...— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) December 4, 2015...that's not the weird thing. Some of these people crow on their social network feeds over every small achievement, and yet...— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) December 4, 2015...almost NONE of them (except Ted Cruz, so far) have even MENTIONED this vote.— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) December 4, 2015If it was such a great idea, why don't they mention it to their constituents? Some of them post if they leave a big tip at a diner!— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) December 4, 2015You'd think they'd be shouting from the rooftops, but no, almost to a man, they don't mention it a single time.— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) December 4, 2015On the surface, that would seem like a valid argument. But if the Democrats voted against such a bill, and Simone wouldn't complain, then her whole beef falls flat. According to this info on Outside the Beltway, the no-fly list is riddled with inaccuracies, and if what the Democrats proposed was actually meant to hinder innocent people's ability to get guns for self-defense, then it would only be a botch that makes things worse without ensuring that potentially violent maniacs by contrast didn't. She also wrote:
They voted to defund women's health and were DELIGHTED to tell their followers. What backlash? @Sully_Writes— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) December 4, 2015Forget the vote for a moment. Don't you find it creepy and telling that except one person, they all deliberately avoided mentioning it?— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) December 4, 2015She doesn't mention this had what to do with Planned Parenthood, which is hardly what I'd call women's health benefits. How come she doesn't mention this? And she says the GOP doesn't mention the other issue? Oh, while we're at it, she also said:
I don't get how a comics creator can talk about diversity all the time and still create books with non-diverse casts. Isn't that...gross?— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) December 4, 2015I don't get how some creators can talk about diversity and then refuse to emphasize casts with Danish, Romanian, Corsican, Ghanian, Burmese and Georgian backgrounds, and even sometimes become quite dismissive and/or negative to the idea. She goes on to attack the NRA:
The NRA wants to boycott Chuck E. Cheese. You can't make this shit up.— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) December 5, 2015I don't blame them, who wants to stand with that commie rodent gun-stealing pizza mascot bastard?— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) December 5, 2015Is she implying there's nothing wrong with communism? Guess she doesn't think there's anything wrong with Scientology either, eh? If the pizza restaurant's degenerated into a leftarded mess, then I honestly can't blame the NRA for wanting to refrain from association.
It must suck to be a responsible gun owner and have these creeps representing you. Urgh. Chuck E. Cheese, holy shit.— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) December 5, 2015It sucks to see creators be so tunnelvisioned. I faintly recall she was quite negative to the people using Chuck Dixon's message boards. The same guy whose book idea, Birds of Prey, she took up writing for a time, and never seemed to defend even after he was pretty much blacklisted by DC, which makes her an ingrate.
You can like guns, be for gun ownership, and still think the NRA is corrupt and out of control.— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) December 6, 2015But not a liberal movement? Her failure to acknowledge liberals can make mistakes is a pure dismay. Does she also think the NRA is to blame for the bomb factory the terrorists built in their garage? (H/T: Michelle Malkin/Doug Powers.) Next we have Nick Spencer, mouthing off with poorly informed rhetoric as usual:
"We hate terrorists so much we're offering them 20 percent off all firearms this holiday season!"— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) December 4, 2015Protect yourself from terrorists by buying the same gun we sold the terrorist right before you got here— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) December 4, 2015Until now, I had no idea just how repellent his world view could be. It doesn't take much to figure out he's talking about regular Americans...and calling them terrorists. Including his fellow liberals. One more reason why no sane person need buy his books.
Conservatives pointing out assault weapon bans won't change much are right. That's why I support getting rid of nearly all guns, like UK did— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) December 5, 2015No countries that have gotten rid of guns seem to have strong right wing movements to bring them back. Odd.— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) December 5, 2015There are people in the UK trying to reverse that. I'm sure there's people in other parts of Europe trying to do the same for the sake of self-defense. Now, let's turn to Mark Waid, who posted at least one:
Why does NRA allow guns for terrorists? - CNN https://t.co/GUxEy2GaEN— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) December 3, 2015Why do the Democrats see nothing wrong with allowing "migrants" to enter the USA no matter how poor a background check turns out to be? Then, here's one by Gerry Conway:
"Who owns guns in America? White men, mostly." #despair https://t.co/GAquX9TZCN
— Gerry Conway (@gerryconway) December 4, 2015Oh, really? According to this NPR article, there are blacks out there who own guns, and many who support carrying them for self-defense. And according to Bustle, there's been a rise in lady's gun ownership over the past decade. Conway's making himself look ridiculous, siding with an article that takes the now cliched blame-the-white-men-for-everything routine.
Dan Jurgens, however, did far better than any of the above:
Every reporter for @MSNBC, @CNN and other organizations that went in that apartment should be out of work before the day ends.
— Dan Jurgens (@thedanjurgens) December 4, 2015On this, he's correct. They may have damaged evidence, which is a criminal offense in itself. Somebody else told him the press reporters should be charged, to which he replied:
Right on. https://t.co/RvnPDUcK3E
— Dan Jurgens (@thedanjurgens) December 4, 2015Press reporters who damage the authorities' ability to investigate a crime on that scale, to say nothing of morale, should be prosecuted. Jurgens has certainly offered better arguments than any of the other writers listed.
Labels: islam and jihad, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, politics, terrorism, violence
This comment has been removed by the author.
Posted by
Kevin Michael Rowe |
3:08 PM
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on your definition of a mass shooting. Four or more victims killed? Four or more shot (including minor wounds)? And do you count robberies, domestic violence, and gang warfare? Or do you only count what most people think of when you say "mass shooting," that is, some nutjob shooting random victims in a school, or some maniac yelling "Allah Akbar" while shooting patients in a hospital?
When Vox basically admits that they, and USA Today, and Mother Jones, have all been cooking the bookkeeping, it's impossible to make any sense out of the juggled statistics.
So, when T-Bone shoots rival gang-bangers Ray-Ray, JoJo, and Ice Dawg in a drive-by during a turf war, and one of them manages to shoot back and wound him, it's a mass shooting. And all four are convicted felons, so it's already illegal for them to own guns.
And the next time someone says that "no mass shooting has ever been stopped by a good guy with a gun," remember the incidents at New Life Church, and Pearl (Mississippi), and Darby (Pennsylvania), and Garland, Texas. Those incidents did not become "mass shootings" because armed good guys stopped the killers before the death toll reached four. In Garland, no one was killed except the terrorists.
But then, those terrorists in Garland and San Bernardino will probably be counted (as was the Boston Marathon bomber who was killed in a gunfight with police) in statistics as "victims of gun violence."
Posted by
Anonymous |
4:33 PM
When Bush was president, liberals denounced the Patriot Act, the Terrorist Watch List, and the No-Fly List. The New York Times complained that people could be listed based on hearsay and unsupported allegations, and that names remained on the list even after the suspects had been investigated and exonerated. The Atlantic and the ACLU complained about the lack of objective criteria for inclusion.
Then Obama got elected, and leftists learned to Stop Worrying and Love the List. The lack of objective standards meant that the administration could list anyone (Tea Party, NRA, Fox News), or exclude anyone (ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, CAIR) that it arbitrarily chose.
Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were never on the No-Fly List, or any other terror watch list. So Obama's proposal to bar people on the list from buying guns would not have prevented the tragedy in San Bernardino.
Trump's proposal (bar Muslims from entering or re-entering the US) would have.
Posted by
Anonymous |
4:54 PM
There was also Abdulrahman Ali, who raped a woman in a North Dakota gas station. He was a Muslim immigrant, although, afaik, there was no evidence linking him to any terrorist organizations. Therefore, there was no reason (except ethnic profiling) that he would be on the No-Fly List. And, even if he were, and if suspects on the list were barred from buying guns, it still would not have done any good, because he didn't use a gun.
So, as with the San Bernardino case, Obama's proposal would not have prevented this crime. More careful vetting of immigrants might have. And Trump's proposal definitely would have.
Posted by
Anonymous |
6:21 PM