Categories
reactionary bullshit Uncategorized violence against men/women

>Congresswoman shot, six others killed: The predictable outcome of violent rhetoric

>

Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was shot in the head at a public appearance today. Six others were killed in the attack; one a judge, one a 9-year-old girl. Giffords is reportedly recovering after surgery to treat her wounds. The suspect is in custody; he’s apparently a conspiracy nut.

As a number of observers have already pointed out, this kind of violence is the predictable outcome of the sort of violent rhetoric we’ve been hearing for years from Republicans, Tea Partiers and others on the right. And of course there have been numerous instances of right-wing activists bringing guns to public events. As the Daily Beast notes:

At a town hall at another Safeway store in Arizona in August, Giffords called the police when an angry opponent of the legislation dropped a gun on the floor during the event. After the bill passed, Giffords was one of several Democratic members to have their office windows vandalized.

Giffords was also included on Sarah Palin’s “target map,” released in March of last year, which featured gun crosshairs superimposed over her target’s districts on a United States map. The graphic was removed from Palin’s website today. Giffords’ Republican opponent, Jesse Kelly, held a campaign event in which he invited supporters to shoot a machine gun. “Get on target for victory,” an ad for the event read.

Blogger Echidne of the snakes observes:

The Republican right has been using explicitly violent language for more than a year, encouraging people with guns to insert themselves into politics, in the case of Sharon Angle, explicitly advocating the use of guns when politics doesn’t produce the results they want. There is nothing ambiguous about it, this is the open advocacy for assassination. This isn’t a tragedy, there is nothing mysterious or unintentional about it. This will not be the last. Sarah Palin was the Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Sharon Angle was a Republican candidate for the Senate, many, official Republican candidates clearly advocated the use of guns in politics during the campaign. The killing has started, the time to let them off the hook for the results of their policy just ended, people are already dying.

I think Echidne is overstating the intention of those talking about guns. But at the same time I think any politician who claims to be “surprised” that someone with a gun took their talk about guns seriously is being disingenuous at best.

But we shouldn’t just talk about the Republicans and Tea Partiers. While they may be the ones who are primarily to blame for introducing violence into mainstream political discourse,  those fringe-dwelling conspiracy-mongers who talk in similar terms, and fill their readers’ and listeners’ head with apocalyptic nonsense, may have been the primary influence in this particular case.

This is one of the reasons that I’m troubled by the violent anti-women rhetoric I sometimes see in the mansophere. For some people, it’s merely rhetoric. But the fact is that some people take this sort of rhetoric all too seriously — as those who use this rhetoric know or should know. All those who’ve engaged in it have blood on their hands.

EDITED TO ADD: Below, a graphic (now taken down) from Sarah Palin’s web site:

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

86 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
booboonation
10 years ago

>YEP I just did a video on this and tied it into MRAs and their bullshit that women are just as violent as men. NO and liberals are not "just as violent" as these nut jobs that follow Palin and Beck and Limbaugh. Where is the massacre done by a feminist with a manifesto? I have another screen shot that says, to HELP US prescribe a solution." This is what was on her website that she took down. http://twitpic.com/3o7pgoSo if Liberals had some website with crosshairs up on targets, and Limbaugh made a huge big deal about it, the MRA analogy would be complete. Their claims women are just as dangerous are flat out lies. I have someone after me that wrote a rap song about killing feminists, ok? The guy harasses me and my family and does that thing this blog covered about publishing people's names. Nobody will listen to me.

richard
10 years ago

>Was she a feminist or did she actually like men?I glanced at her record, she was pro illegal and anti gun rights it seems. Which is kind of ironic as a gun might have saved her. I haven't been able to find out anything about her men's rights stance or lack thereof. Anyone got any info on that?Rnadom Brother

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>richard, she was a moderate. I have no idea if she thought of herself as a feminist (though I will note that feminists generally do like men). She was shot down by someone who was apparently a conspiracy nut. There is no direct connection to men's rights that I know of, and I didn't suggest that there was. My point is that violent rhetoric has consequences. When I see violent rhetoric, on MRM sites or elsewhere, it troubles me.

booboonation
10 years ago

>"Did she actually like men?"o.0Yeah, this ain't a feminist thing, unless you count Sara Palin as a feminist, like she does. I suppose there's a connection there and of course I'm kidding.

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>I know Gabby so shut the hell up Richard. She is a bright, kind and good person who did not deserve what happened to her. Same for the other people this day. I thought I lost a friend for a long time today and people like you need to shut up.

John Taylor
10 years ago

>"Which is kind of ironic as a gun might have saved her."Yes, I'm sure a gun would have been real useful for defending against some dude sneaking up and shooting her point blank in the head. If only she'd been armed, amirite?Having a gun isn't an automatic protection from being victimized.

Yohan
10 years ago

>booboonation said… ….. into MRAs and their bullshit that women are just as violent as men. What a nonsense talk by a frustrated feminist.This killing has nothing to do with MRAs worldwide. For sure, almost ALL MRAs between Germany and India never heard the name 'Gifford' in their entire life. Most of them do not even know, where Arizona is located.It seems there are also male victims in this recent American amok shooting by this crazy guy. Why not mention them too? But for feminists only female victims count…This WildWest shooting in Arizona has everything to do however with the daily life-style of some violent American people, who frequently solve their problems with a gun. About peaceful women in Arizona, better read first:http://hiphopwired.com/2010/01/18/mom-tries-to-trade-child-for-gun/Arizona Mom Tries To Trade Child For Gun

Yohan
10 years ago

>John Taylor: Having a gun isn't an automatic protection from being victimized. It is not, of course, but to own your gun and be ready to use it is reducing your risk to be shot in many places in this world.Certain areas in some cities in USA and in several Latin American countries are known for their gun-culture.To be there – especially as a politician -without a gun ready to fire is not recommended.Arizona, bordering Mexico, is not known to be the most peaceful place in USA.

booboonation
10 years ago

>Yohan, Men are dangerous and men that hate women are a danger to women. Like the right wing fringe that gets incited by their talking head rhetoric. Not only to men commit horrendous violence against women, but then the rest of you come along and lie about it, spin, minimize, gaslight, cover it up, and lie again about the nature and the imbalance all the while listening to more inciting rhetoric. If the right tries to claim that liberals are just as violent, or "half the problem" the way MRAs do, they are lying just the way you do. This is an excellent analogies for MRAs and other over-lapping groups. I don't care what you call me. I have appropriate anger and awareness about an issue that has not hit mainstream radar, yet. How many more Sodinis do we have to have?

booboonation
10 years ago

>*Men are dangerousYes, I said that. And before someone demands I say some men. OK, but overall and comparatively speaking this is true and these issues are not theoretical to me. Some of you can arm chair this and be all nicey nicey but I know DV first hand, and I know being stalked as a feminist first hand, so I take it seriously and my speech will reflect that. These are serious issues, women's lives are worth just as much as anyone's.

magdelyn
10 years ago

>Expect more violence, not less. As our economy continues to bifurcate between the educated, people of means, and those large swaths of the American demographic fucked over by their government (bought and paid for by corporations), lied to by the corporate media, the victims of the mancession, ex military, and all of those men who are so easily left out of the hostile educatoinal system, they don't just stand around doing nothing. The "man leaning against the wall" with no stake in society, has in the past brought down societies.

witman
10 years ago

>@Booboonation"Men are dangerous"Yes, and women make sandwiches while the adults are talking.WTF kind of ass-backward feminist rhetoric shit is that? Men are the only thing standing between you and 6 billion people who want to take your shit, tear you to pieces and throw you in the trash.That's a broad brush you're wielding there sister! You might want to cozy up to a real good man with a gun before the world economy gets worse. You might regret not having a disposable protector on your side when the SHTF!

witman
10 years ago

>I'd say that statistically speaking women are MUCH more dangerous than men. They also kill more babies and children! God Damned psychopaths!

Yohan
10 years ago

>booboonation said… booboonation said… Yohan, Men are dangerous and men that hate women are a danger to women. …Not only to men commit horrendous violence against women, And again you ignore the male victims of this crazy shooting…Violence is not only from men to women, and I gave you the link about a mother selling her child for a gun…And this shooting has nothing to do with MRAs worldwide.Most MRAs outside of the USA, me included, do not even know her name.As US-politician, regardless your gender, you need to keep your gun ready. Plenty of crazy people around.To blame the MRAs, because the victim is a FEMALE politician, is plainly stupid.

Yohan
10 years ago

>witman said… I'd say that statistically speaking women are MUCH more dangerous than men. Well, THIS case has NOTHING to do neither with the gender of the victim, or with women hating men, or women dangerous to men, nor with MRAs, etc. – but with being an politician.Life for a politician is sometimes dangerous, not only in the US, and these people and their families need indeed protection like body-guards, bullet-proof cars, security houses etc… What has this to do with the FEMALE gender, except in the narrow mindset of a feminist?And as I said before, it seems, there are also male victims in this incident, but totally ignored.

Christine WE
10 years ago

>@witman,"I'd say that statistically speaking women are MUCH more dangerous than men. They also kill more babies and children! God Damned psychopaths!"Not so. Here is the truth:Of all children under age 5 murdered from 1976-2005 — 31% were killed by fathers 29% were killed by mothers 23% were killed by male acquaintances 7% were killed by other relatives 3% were killed by strangers Of those children killed by someone other than their parent, 81% were killed by males. Note: Parents includes stepparents. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/children.cfm

John Dias
10 years ago

>@Christine WE:"Note: Parents includes stepparents."If a male step parent kills a child, that is partly the mother's fault. Don't lambaste biological fathers because of the reckless decisions of mothers to invite a male thug into the children's lives and abuse them. Most murders of children are perpetrated by mothers and their abusive boyfriends; only a small minority are perpetrated by the actual biological fathers. Put the blame for the violence where it belongs, which is with the perpetrators.

witman
10 years ago

>Let's narrow it down a little. Since women are more liberated we see a different trend to the more violent of the sexes. Let's narrow it down a little:http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm08/table3_15.htmable 3-15 Victims by Perpetrator Relationship, 2008Child Maltreatment 2008Perpetrator Victims Number PercentPARENT Mother 271,595 38.3Mother and Other 42,437 6.0Father 128,262 18.1Father and Other 6,280 0.9Mother and Father 126,982 17.9NONPARENT Daycare Staff 3,392 0.5Foster Parent (Female Relative) 308 0.0Foster Parent (Male Relative) 65 0.0Foster Parent (Nonrelative) 1,075 0.2Foster Parent (Unknown Relationship) 406 0.1Friend or Neighbor 2,501 0.4Legal Guardian (Female) 835 0.1Legal Guardian (Male) 225 0.0More than One Nonparental Perpetrator 7,816 1.1Other Professional 825 0.1Partner of Parent (Female) 1,943 0.3Partner of Parent (Male) 15,808 2.2Relative (Female) 12,216 1.7Relative (Male) 21,272 3.0Staff Group Home 1,458 0.2Unknown or Missing 63,758 9.0Total 709,459 Percent 100.0

witman
10 years ago

>Looks like mothers are killing their kids at more than a two to one ration of fathers as of 2008! Those dangerous psychopaths and "These are serious issues, children's lives are worth just as much as anyone's."

Yohan
10 years ago

>Christine WE said… @witman,Not so. Here is the truth:…..Of all children under age 5 murdered from 1976-2005 — 31% were killed by fathers 29% were killed by mothers This shows that mothers are almost as dangerous as fathers to their children…And I was always thinking women are not violent towards children.Unfortunately there is no victim-breakup into boys and girls. I guess for good reason.witman: PARENT Mother 271,595 38.3Mother and Other 42,437 6.0Father 128,262 18.1Father and Other 6,280 0.9 Yes, yes, feminists like to calculate in percentages.It's about time to give more children to their fathers instead to their mothers, but this might cut off a regular financial source of income (alimony, child-support) for women. Too bad… how misogynistic from me even to mention this…

Christine WE
10 years ago

>@witman,"Looks like mothers are killing their kids at more than a two to one ration of fathers as of 2008!" The numbers you're presenting are not murder numbers, they are maltreatment numbers. The murder numbers I presented earlier are the average for nearly 30 years and 2008 isn't likely to look much different than that – 62% men vs. 29% women (where the perpetrator is known).@John Dias,The information I presented was perfectly appropriate given that it was in response to a post in which male vs. female murderers was the topic.

witman
10 years ago

>So it looks like humans are pretty much the same. You take somebody smaller and weaker, and sure enough, somebody they love is most likely to kill them.Booboonation would have us believe that her rapper, thug stalker just picked her out of a crowd, started rapping about violence against her and then started stalking her. Sorry, I have to call bullshit on that one. http://shrink4men.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/how-abusive-women-brainwash-you/

Christine WE
10 years ago

>@yohan,The numbers witman presented are not murder statistics.

witman
10 years ago

>Booboonation comes off as a classic B cluster personality.

witman
10 years ago

>You are correct Christine, BRB.

Yohan
10 years ago

>Witman: children's lives are worth just as much as anyone's." It's not about children, it's only about innocent girls, who must be rescued from their fathers and brothers under any circumstances, because all males are pedophiles and rapists…Even boys 4 year old were already reported for sexual harassment of women.Witman, you really have no idea, how dangerous males really are.

chocomintlipwax
10 years ago

>I'm noticing a trend here …MRA posts something inflammatoryWoman refutes it with stats/facts/quotesMRA claims woman's stats are not accurate orMRA claims that woman is talking about things are not the topicorMRA says something about Lorena Bobbit (changes the subject to how women are just evil)Booboonation, I would definitely agree that men are more dangerous than women. I've never suffered DV, but I've been stalked by a guy I barely knew and had a few incidents with strange men. As an exchange student, nearly every female in my program had been flashed or stalked or followed or groped by a random stranger. Women were always the victims and the perpetrators were always men. I've never felt threatened by another woman in my life. It's telling that when you read stats about female on male violence, it's almost always related to a relationship. (Didn't Lorena cut off her hub's little bobbit because he was cheating on her?) Whereas men will be aggressive toward women they don't even know. Comparing these stats is apples and oranges. Just look at stats of serial killers. (Of course, now some MRA is going to say women aren't smart enough to be serial killers or their hormones make them unable to be serial killers or blah blah blah.)

John Dias
10 years ago

>@ChristineWE:"The information I presented was perfectly appropriate given that it was in response to a post in which male vs. female murderers was the topic."First of all, this post of David's was not about male vs. female murderers as you claim. It was about reckless rhetoric that ostensibly may lead a violent person to commit a violent act.Secondly, it seems to me that you are blaming men for actions of murderers, which is blatant misandrist bigotry. If the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of men are non-murderers and the same proportion of fathers are protective of their children — even violently protective — then what does their maleness have to do with the maleness of child-murdering thugs? What relation — what connection at all — is there?You're a sexist, anti-male bigot. I say it openly and plainly, because you are a bigot.

Christine WE
10 years ago

>@John Dias,My response was clearly a direct response to a post by witman on exactly the topic he raised. You must have missed the "@witman". And the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of BOTH genders are not murderers, everyone knows that.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>John, WTF Christine meant "comment," not "post." She was responding to a COMMENT by witman which said:"I'd say that statistically speaking women are MUCH more dangerous than men. They also kill more babies and children! It was witman who brought up the issue of gender and murder, not her. The rest of your comment is really pretty out of line. There is nothing bigoted about her correcting witman's claims.This whole discussion here is utterly surreal. A politician is shot. A judge and 5 others are killed. I make a post about how it this is the sad but predictable result of violent rhetoric. Then … Yohan posts a link to a bizarre and irrelevant news story about an evil woman. Witman starts talking about women killing kids. You jump in and blame mothers for murders committed by other people. Then you declare Christine a bigot basically for participating in the same gender and murder discussion you've been participating in as well. As I said, this is utterly surreal. And I haven't even touched on the rest of Yohan's bizarre postings. Six people killed, and this is what the discussion degenerates into?

John Dias
10 years ago

>@David Futrelle:1. Christine used the word "post," not "comment."2. Christine used the word "topic," a word which is more plausibly linked to a post rather than a comment.3. Christine's line of reasoning in addressing witman was to try to demonstrate that men are more generally dangerous than women. The word danger implies that there's a good chance that harm and violence exist because of the source of the danger; in this case, Christine implies that men — by being men — are more dangerous.4. You sanctimony against my comment against Christine is what is out of line. I've seen you on several occasions make an issue out of the fact that various statements that you've found around the Internet — statements which you consider to be misogyny — were not challenged on that basis and thus you imply that the other people in the respective threads who failed to make such a challenge against the offending commenter were therefore complicit. And yet you let the misandrist comments of booboonation go unchallenged; you leave that task to the non-misandrists here while you remain silent. In the course of challenging the misandrist — whose bigotry you failed to counter even on your own blog, where you have ban authority over comments — the discussion inevitably shifts to that purpose. You now decry its direction, but as I just pointed out your own inaction makes you the one who is chiefly responsible.4. ChristineWE defends a point that was made by the misandrist, namely that men are more dangerous than women, making her complicit not just because she didn't challenge Booboonation but also because she openly agreed with the premise of Booboonation's comment. I was right to challenge ChristineWE. Not only was my interpretation of her wording reasonable, but also my gut instinct about her bigotry was right on the money. I therefore stand by the thrust of my comments about her, and I reserve even more passionate condemnation against Booboonation, whose misandry you couldn't be bothered to challenge even now as I write this. By your own standard, which requires speaking out against bigotry, you are in league with both of these two.And now you say that the direction of this threat is "surreal?" Because misandrist statements went unchallenged by this blog's author — who has the stature — and also the leverage — to make such a challenge effectively, this inaction of yours is what has led to this "mess."

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>It does not surprise me David. This is not a gender based shooting. This was probably a political assassination attempt by a very disturbed young man. I say probably because right now we do not know and two of the people there were possible targets (Judge Roll was under US Marshall protection after he ruled a lawsuit over a shooting involving illegal immigrants to go forward and Gabby has been dealing with extreme violence/threats since the election of President Obama.) The rhetoric preceding this event should never have happened and we should remember to be kinder in our exchanges online and off because we never know when it is going to cause harm-however inadvertent.

John Dias
10 years ago

>@David:I just posted a comment that seems to have been either lost or caught in the spam filter, and my comment addressed the points that you just made at 1:04 AM. In case my comment is gone, I'll create it again below.

John Dias
10 years ago

>1. Booboonation started off with the misandrist comments2. MRAs alone challenged her misandry3. ChristineWE defended one of the misandrist points that was made by Booboonation, namely that men are more dangerous than women.4. An MRA challenges ChristineWE.5. ChristineWE attempts to defend her misandrist assertion that men are more dangerous than women, citing murder statistics.6. I challenge ChristineWE on the validity of her misuse of the statistics that she cited.7. ChristineWE defends her misandrist interpretation of the data that she cited. She also uses the word "post" to refer to a non-post, and she also uses the very post-specific word "topic" to refer to a comment. I think that my interpretation of her words is pretty reasonable.8. You complain about the direction of this discussion, calling it surreal, and saying that it devolved into a tit-for-tat over which sex was more dangerous. But you yourself have on several occasions, in various comments and posts, implied that people are to some degree culpable and complicit when they hear a bigoted comment and fail to challenge it. YOUR VERY FIRST COMMENTER led off with misandry that you failed to challenge, you the one with the stature as the author of this blog, you the one with the ability to ban comments. You left the job of challenging bigoted comments to MRAs — and now you sit back in your typical passive aggressive posture and tsk-tsk it all, placing blame for the direction of this disaster of a thread on MRAs. Amazing.The original blog post was about reckless rhetoric. I think, David, that at least insofar as this thread is concerned you have proven that you will stand by and tolerate it when others start rhetorical fires, then blame the rhetorical firemen for trying to fight the flames.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>John, your posts are out of the spam filter now. Sso you and/or witman and Yohan are supposed to be the "rhetorical firefighters" here?I think it's ridiculous to pretend that Christine's comment was anything other than a response to witman's comment — especially since she mentioned his name in the post and quoted his words. I think some of booboo's comments were poorly worded, and not particularly germane to the issue of the shooting today, but there is really no question that men, on average, are more violent/dangerous than women, on average. It's not misandrist to say that. Men as a class, commit many times as many violent crimes than women, as a class. (They're also more likely to be victims of violent crimes, rape excluded.) To say that is not the same as saying "all men are evil" or "all men are killers." In fact booboo and Christine have both made clear that they weren't saying that.

John Dias
10 years ago

>I disagree with your premise, David. It is bigoted to look at men as a class, and to associate danger with men as a class. That is misandry and right now I challenge you on it. Moreover, you have downplayed the seriousness of the misandry of two other commenters on this board, making you an apologist for their bigotry. I call you out right now. There is no excuse. According to your own platitudes, if you want to have the moral authority to challenge bigotry from one direction, then you have to challenge it from all directions including from your own supporters. Otherwise you're knee deep in it.

Yohan
10 years ago

>David: And I haven't even touched on the rest of Yohan's bizarre postings. Six people killed, and this is what the discussion degenerates into? I don't know why it is bizarre to say, that this is a killing which might happen to every politician, regardless the gender. It has nothing to do with MRAs worldwide.The reply I got was that men only are dangerous, and so I offered a link from the same area – Arizona – to show that women are dangerous too.I also said, it is strange why reports are only about this female politician, and I ask why male victims who died during the same shooting are entirely ignored in this thread.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>John, you're out of your damn mind. Pointing out that statistically speaking men are more likely to commit violent crime than women, which is what I was talking about when I talked about men as a class, is not misandry. It is a simple statement of fact. That does not mean that you are violent because you are a man, or that I am violent because I am a man. It does not mean that the average man is a violent criminal. This entire discussion is ridiculous. If you really want to argue with misandrists, you're going to have to find them elsewhere.

Yohan
10 years ago

>David: ….witman and Yohan are supposed to be the "rhetorical firefighters" here? Well, it is just ridiculous to blame ALL MRAs somewhere between Germany and India for this shooting. Most MRAs worldwide as I said already, have no idea, who is Mrs. Giffords and don't even now where is Arizona located. -Responsible for this shooting is the American gun-culture. David. do you really seriously think, any US-politician is safe in USA, solely because she is a female?

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>Yohan, I agree that the shooting has nothing directly to do with MRAs. The reason the congresswoman has gotten most of the attention is because she was a politician, and because she was the target of what was an attempted political assassination. It's not a gender thing. When Reagan was shot, we heard a lot more about him than we did the others wounded in that assassination attempt.In the section of the wikipedia bio of Reagan that deals with the assassination attempt, for example, there is no mention of the others at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_reagan#Assassination_attemptThe media here has actually paid a good deal of attention to the male judge who was killed in the shooting today. He also got a lot of threats from extremists. But it's pretty clear he was not the target because he wasn't scheduled to be at the event; he just showed up. The main point of my post was that violent rhetoric has consequences. I sometimes see violent rhetoric on MRM/MGTOW website and it troubles me.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>Yohan: "David. do you really seriously think, any US-politician is safe in USA, solely because she is a female?"What are you talking about? The US is not the wild west. Do you think politicians here get shot at every day of the week? Assassinations and attempted assassinations are in fact rare here, and it is appalling, and a very big deal, when they occur, regardless of the gender of the victims. In this case, though, there has been a lot of violent rhetoric coming from the right wing, and a lot of people, myself included, have worried that this sort of talk would lead to political violence.

Yohan
10 years ago

>David: Yohan, I agree that the shooting has nothing directly to do with MRAs……The main point of my post was that violent rhetoric has consequences. I sometimes see violent rhetoric on MRM/MGTOW website and it troubles me. Sometimes? Yes, sometimes…I try my best since many years to correct such men, listening and talking to them. However, such a violent behavior by badly cheated men you rarely find anywhere else, it's mainly in USA, where disturbing remarks by feminists towards ALL men are especially hateful and insulting.What are you talking about? The US is not the wild west.. Maybe for you, because you are living there and have never been anywhere else in this world.Should you ever visit Tokyo or Singapore you will notice the difference.Within USA, about security, it's not the same everywhere.Honolulu is not New Orleans, just one example.There are plenty of major US-cities which do have dangerous areas, where I would never go out alone and never without carrying a gun, even not by day. Arizona, Tucson, near to the Mexican border is not a safe city. If you are a politician, male or female does not matter, better bring your gun and a few body-guards with you.http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/az/tucson/crime/For Tucson, we found that the violent crime rate is one of the highest in the nation, across communities of all sizes (both large and small). Violent offenses tracked included forcible rape, murder and non-negligent manslaughter, armed robbery, and aggravated assault, including assault with a deadly weapon……Regardless of whether Tucson does well or poorly compared to all other cities and towns in the US of all sizes, compared to places with a similar population, it fares badly. Few other communities of this size have a crime rate as high as Tucson.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>Yohan, the shootings did not happen because the congresswoman walked into a bad neighborhood, nor would it have been prevented if she had been carrying a gun. It was an attempted political assassination by an unbalanced, delusional man who seems to have absorbed a lot of conspiracy theory. You really do have some odd ideas about the US. We don't all walk around armed here.

richard
10 years ago

>@ ElizabethElizabeth said: "I know Gabby so shut the hell up Richard. She is a bright, kind and good person who did not deserve what happened to her. Same for the other people this day. I thought I lost a friend for a long time today and people like you need to shut up."So, was she a feminist or not?Random Brother

richard
10 years ago

>@ John TaylorJohn Taylor said: "Yes, I'm sure a gun would have been real useful for defending against some dude sneaking up and shooting her point blank in the head. If only she'd been armed, amirite?Having a gun isn't an automatic protection from being victimized. "Well, John, seing that the results of her going through this ordeal unarmed means getting shot in the head, maybe next time she'll consider the armed route.Random Brother

richard
10 years ago

>It's not looking too good on the feminist front. Aside from being anti gun and pro illegal, she also went to an all girl school, Scripps College. They have a copy of the speech she gave there in 2009 and every other sentence is "We women" this and "we women" that. The usual feminist clap trap. She was also in favor of Obama's health care, which may have led to someone smashing her office windows.It doesn't seem like she was a friend of men.Random Brother

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>Richard, what fucking difference does it make if she's a feminist? Does that make shooting her ok?

Yohan
10 years ago

>David Futrelle said… Yohan, …..nor would it have been prevented if she had been carrying a gun. …..You really do have some odd ideas about the US. We don't all walk around armed here. I am not so sure about that. Top Security is a major concern in US-foreign politics everywhere, worldwide. And I said your own gun AND body-guards.Well-trained bodyguards are usually doing a good job. The problem is more the client, who feels uncomfortable and is not always co-operative. – Bodyguard means near your own body… Not everybody's taste, but very effective. I know best because I did such a dangerous job next to Near/Middle East VIPs with body guards. I do not have odd ideas about the USA. There is a BIG difference where you are in the USA.If you are a nobody (like David) and sitting in an office tower in Chicago or if you are a politician and walking around in a shopping mall near the Mexican border, this is not the same.Security in USA is not only about North and South, but also about East and West.. Miami or Detroit during night is not the same as Honolulu, Hawaii.New Orleans during Kathrina…http://buckaroos.homestead.com/drunkguns.htmlhttp://www.happyrobot.net/photo/pat_neworleans.asp?id=1804

wytchfinde555
10 years ago

>"Having a gun isn't an automatic protection from being victimized."—John T.No shit? Really? No matter how prepared you think you are, deadly violence can happen. But having something to work with is better than nothing.For example, I took a series of sessions with Escrima/Arnis, and did some knife defense training. Unarmed versus a knife in a real situation is a scary prospect if an assailant is going to use it against you to maim or kill. No matter how fast and aware you are, there is still a chance of being cut or stabbed (and for a quick note here, the best defense against a knife if you don't have a weapon of your own is to run if you can get away). . . but preparation, and having something up your own sleeve is better than nothing. Far better.

wytchfinde555
10 years ago

>"How many more Sodinis do we have to have?" booboonationHow many more Amy Bishops do we need to have?