« Home | What's wrong with the death of Wolverine » | David Goyer dumbs down comics discussions » | Geoff Johns keeps touting Lex Luthor as a hero » | Will Bluewater's biography of Edward Snowden tell ... » | Birds of Prey is being cancelled » | The 90s never ended » | Tom Brevoort downplays the atrocities of the Sanda... » | Two lethargic tweets by Gail Simone » | Why does Yahoo Sports think DC isn't well funded? » | Long Beach Press-Telegram thinks mainstreaming of ... » 

Sunday, May 25, 2014 

Dan Slott's gun control advocacy resurfaces

Following the horror that took place near a sorority building in California, Slott's brought up his gun control platform once again. Here are the tweets he posted:

Has he paid any attention to the reports telling that the police ignored the warnings of the parents and wouldn't do anything about him? And that the gun store managers apparently neglected their duties too? Does he think the shooter shouldn't be mentioned because he doesn't think that's where the blame should be placed? He proceeds to deny he's flippant about writing the Silver Surfer despite his powers, and even brings up a screenshot of an earlier post I wrote:

But he is. It makes little difference whether the Surfer kills or not; that power cosmic is still very formidable stuff, and could be lethal on the most mortal of beings. And in his 1st solo volume, he fought an alien invader in the 2nd issue.

Well how come he doesn't suggest any remedies for violence, like better educational curriculum in schools? And sending potential maniacs to see a shrink? And working to get better people chosen for law enforcement who actually care about life and not about money?

Wait a minute, I thought he said he was against guns! A shotgun is just as much a gun as a pistol and an assault rifle. How is that any different?

Yawn. Shotguns use scattershot fragments that can hit in a circle-like impact, and could easily hit the head even if not aimed there, ditto the feet. And they can be just as lethal as machine guns.

Is this the real reason he doesn't want news outlets to give the culprit attention? Yet I didn't see him ask them to give respectable coverage for the victims, the ones who really should be remembered.

So when nuclear rockets are launched, only that counts as something committed by a human, not when hand-held weapons are used? Yet this is someone whom I've never seen condemn Iran for their continuing nuclear development.

Is he also anti-jihad, like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are? After all, Slott's been cheerleading the Muslim Ms. Marvel series at all costs.

Does he really think criminals would buy smart guns? He needs to wake up.

I thought it was meant to defend citizens' right to self-defense against the monster who committed the crime. Apparently, that doesn't matter to him.

But they're still operated by people, filth of the earth who should just be cremated without getting a gravesite, and I'm sure a lot of crime victims would agree about that.

In that case, how come he doesn't slam the moviemakers and other fruitcakes who spend all their time making films about gun and knife wielders? In fact, has it ever occurred to him that a lot of Hollywood is comprised today of leftists like himself who produce all that junk?

Sigh. They most certainly do, if it makes their crime sprees easier. He probably hasn't read about the nightmares faced by French store owner Marie-Neige Sardin, who was victim of rape and other assaults at least 31 times, thanks to an abominable justice system in France. You can be quite sure any criminal aware of that is quite delighted by gun control that makes it hard to use a firearm for self-defense without being on the receiving end of prosecution unlike the savages who committed the crimes. Slott's reply is incredibly naive as it's insulting. And he can't seem to stop himself from commenting on the issues, no matter how much he says he'd like to cease. He'd better make more of an effort to steer clear of these subjects, because he's just no good at opining on them, any more than he's capable of writing comics.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Slott's logic is about what one would expect, based on his writing.

Not to mention that he doesn't seem to know what an "assault rifle" is. Hint: Automatic rifles are already functionally illegal.

This comment has been removed by the author.

It's already illegal for criminals and psychotics to own firearms of any kind. When anti-gun activists talk about banning guns, or banning certain types of guns (e.g., "assault rifles"), they mean prohibiting sane, honest, peaceable citizens from owning them. Unfortunately, peaceable, sane citizens are not the ones who commit violent crimes.

Almost every mass shooting in the past fifty years took place in a so-called "gun-free" zone. And every one of them ended when the perpetrator encountered armed resistance.

"The easy availability of guns" is a decoy and a scapegoat. It distracts attention from the leftist policies that are the real causes of violent crime: a revolving door legal system that turns dangerous criminals loose as fast as the police can arrest them, an inadequate mental health system, a welfare system that makes people expect something for nothing, and an education system that builds up "self esteem" and an exaggerated sense of entitlement, instead of teaching responsibility and consideration for the rights of others.

Dan Slott is a moron. You cannot blame guns for what happened.. I know plenty of gun owners who are non-violent and wouldn't harm anyone. Disarming the public is the first step toward a dictatorship.

And he linked to your post? Yeesh, the dude is so insecure about himself that he actively trolls the internet looking for arguments to start. And the fawning sycophants he has for fawns eat up his every word. First he obsessed over what Doug Ernst wrote about him and now this. He needs to grow the f*** up and get help. Seriously.

That's something that bugs me about modern fandom. Social media sites like Twitter and Facebook have allowed these writers to build a sort of personality cult around themselves, and the brainless fanboys and fangirls worship them like gods. There's no separation between fandom and creators anymore.

Gun control is a myth and doesn't work. The people they want to keep the guns out of the hands of don't usually buy the legal ones anyway and a waiting period isn't going to stop them. While there is a need for some regulation people don't need fully automatic guns to go for hunting.

Gunner Jacky

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is about the right to own weapons for self-defense against criminals. It is also about the people having weapons in case a revolution against the government became necessary.

You don't need an AR-15 for deer hunting, but you might need one for defense against a gang of home invasion robbers. And, during the Rodney King riots, grocers in Los Angeles were forced to use so-called "high capacity assault weapons" to defend themselves against rioters.

Similarly, you don't need a "high capacity" automatic pistol for shooting paper targets, but you need one if you are jumped by ten or twelve teenage punks playing the "knockout game."

The distinction between "legitimate sporting firearms" and "military assault weapons" is just a divide-and-conquer tactic by anti-gun activists.

The so-called "smart gun" is prohibitively expensive, and, worse, it is unreliable. It has a 10% malfunction rate. (By way of comparison, the US Army adopted the Beretta 9mm pistol in the mid-1980's. The testing process required that the weapon fire 1000 shots without a single failure to fire.) Would you drive a car if its brakes failed to work 10% of the time?

Also, the smart gun requires you to type in a PIN before it will work. Have you ever used an ATM or debit card? Have you ever had to press the "clear" or "cancel" key because you typed the wrong key, or accidentally typed the same key twice? Now imagine trying to do that while being attacked by a violent criminal. And trying to type in the gun's PIN with one hand while trying to dial 911 on the phone with your other hand. (And trying to fend off your assailant with what? Your third hand?)

And the only smart gun on the market now is a .22 caliber. That's better than nothing, but most people want something more powerful for self-defense. Offhand, I can't name a single army or police department that uses a smaller caliber handgun than 9mm (.35).

"Smart guns" are impractical for self-defense, but they might be suitable for criminals. Muggers and carjackers don't need "high capacity," stopping power, or 100% reliability in a weapon, since they are attacking unarmed victims.

Notice Slott likes to say "I believe" that is the problem. He Slott as he often does never uses the facts. I am sorry but "I believe" is not a fact. Smart guns are not the answer at this time maybe when they are improved.

As a person stated "The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is about the right to own weapons for self-defense against criminals. It is also about the people having weapons in case a revolution against the government became necessary. "

It is hard to have a revolt when you are vastly outgunned. Slott uses cheap comments and rude attacks to hide the truth that he does not have any facts.
I am sorry Slott but the world does not revolve on your slanted beliefs.

Dan Slott

I can use the caps lock key too!
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the RIGHT of the people to KEEP & BEAR ARMS shall NOT BE INFRINGED.

I like how Slott tires to impose his views on what regulated means yet he ignores the right to bear arms.

Sorry Slott as usual your misdirection and manipulation of the truth makes you look foolish.

Dan Slott tweet "His new problem: "Does Slott really think criminals would buy smart guns? He needs to wake up." No. I said they'd cause less gun deaths."

Yet again where is the proof? How many will die when the smart gun does not work?

Sorry Slott maybe you need to wake up not the person you were responding to in your tweet.

Another Slott quote:
"And for those who missed it: I'm not against the 2nd Amendment. My main problem is w/ assault rifles, large clips, & gun show loop holes."
I am sorry Slott I do not think you are for the 2nd amendment you clearly do not understand it and you want to bend it to fit what you want. The 2nd Amendment does not have anything against clip size or gun type. One would argue it was vague on purpose to keep up with the times to be able to defend ourselves from our very government.

It's now illicit for criminals and psychotics to claim guns of any sort. At the point when against gun activists discuss banning guns, or banning certain sorts of guns (e.g., "assault rifles"), they mean forbidding rational, genuine, tranquil nationals from owning them. Shockingly, quiet, rational nationals are not the ones who carry out violent crimes.

Just about every mass shooting in the previous fifty years occurred in a purported "gun-free" zone. What's more every one of them finished when the culprit experienced outfitted safety.

"The simple accessibility of guns" is a bait and a substitute. It diverts consideration from the radical arrangements that are the true reason for violent crime: a rotating entryway lawful framework that turns unsafe criminals detached as quick as the police can capture them, an insufficient mental well being framework, a welfare framework that makes individuals expect something to no end, and an instruction framework that develops "self regard" and an exaggerated feeling of qualification, as opposed to showing obligation and thought for the privileges of others.
Alarm system Monitoring

David, your logical post is the very reason that Dan Slott will never post a response here or at any forum that he cannot dictate or have your posts removed or even remove his own posts to cover his losing battle. He has tried in the past under “anonymous” while being a hypocrite and saying that you have to use your real name in order to have any merit. David you use logic and common sense which are two things that tend to elude Dan Slott. Notice the Slott tactics of twisting facts and misleading or even ignoring whole arguments in order to hide the truth. Then when he is really getting a beating he resorts to his trade mark caps lock key and snide childish remarks while trying to state why he is superior in intellect. After his intellectual beating continues further the whole discussion will disappear or the posts that proved him wrong will vanish. During the whole time Slott will brag on twitter about how great he is and how you are crazy yet he will never have the guts to have a logical conversation with you.

Another Slott misfire is that he said the common factor in shootings is a gun, wow genius. Correlation does not mean causation that is a fact and once again shows Slott’s ignorance.
How about his twisted view of the facts about accidental shootings, how about all of the other accidents? How about all of the other items used as weapons?

Another Dan Slott logic hole:
When the second amendment was made did they not include the weapons of the time...Yes they did and it did not have limitations. They did not say only the government could have the best weapons. The logic of the left does not hold up. It seems that the left wants to consistently rewrite history.

Another twist of Slott
"It's not about changing an amendment. It's about understanding it was NEVER intended as the freedom 2 stockpile personal arsenals"

I am sorry but how does he know what it intended...he does not he knows what he wants it to mean.
Sorry Day you do not understand what it intended and if it had intended a limit it would have stated that fact.

Another twist of Slott
"It's not about changing an amendment. It's about understanding it was NEVER intended as the freedom 2 stockpile personal arsenals"

I am sorry but how does he know what it intended...he does not he knows what he wants it to mean.
Sorry Day you do not understand what it intended and if it had intended a limit it would have stated that fact.

Talk about a new Slott spin!

"Criminals always find a way to get guns."
From where?
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms says that most guns used in crimes eventually trace back to legitimate dealers.
If we wean ourselves off of our gun culture, we will also reduce the number of guns that will later go on to be used in crimes."

Tracing something back to where it is sold does not mean it was the problem. So it is target's fault for every stabbng? It is McDondalds fault for a person being fat?
We need to rid ourselves from ignorance and selective tolerance but that would remove Dan Slott.

Post a Comment

About me

  • I'm Avi Green
  • From Jerusalem, Israel
  • I was born in Pennsylvania in 1974, and moved to Israel in 1983. I also enjoyed reading a lot of comics when I was young, the first being Fantastic Four. I maintain a strong belief in the public's right to knowledge and accuracy in facts. I like to think of myself as a conservative-style version of Clark Kent. I don't expect to be perfect at the job, but I do my best.
My profile



  • avigreen2002@yahoo.com
  • Fansites I Created

  • Hawkfan
  • The Greatest Thing on Earth!
  • The Outer Observatory
  • Earth's Mightiest Heroines
  • The Co-Stars Primer
  • Realtime Website Traffic

    Comic book websites (open menu)

    Comic book weblogs (open menu)

    Writers and Artists (open menu)

    Video commentators (open menu)

    Miscellanous links (open menu)

  • W3 Counter stats
  • Bio Link page
  • blog directory Bloggeries Blog Directory View My Stats Blog Directory & Search engine eXTReMe Tracker Locations of visitors to this page  
    Flag Counter

    This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

    make money online blogger templates

Older Posts Newer Posts

The Four Color Media Monitor is powered by Blogspot and Gecko & Fly.
No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.
Join the Google Adsense program and learn how to make money online.