>
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:
>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.
>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.)
>@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.
>@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.
>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?
>@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."
>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.
>@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.
>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.
>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.
>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.
>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.
>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.
>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?
>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.
>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.
>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.
>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.
>@ 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
>@ 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
>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
>Richard, what fucking difference does it make if she's a feminist? Does that make shooting her ok?
>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
>"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.
>"How many more Sodinis do we have to have?" booboonationHow many more Amy Bishops do we need to have?