Utah State University has just announced that Anita Sarkeesian has canceled a talk she was scheduled to give at the school tomorrow after receiving a threat of a “Montreal Massacre-style attack” by someone promising ““the deadliest school shooting in American history” if the cultural critic was allowed to speak.
Here’s the official announcement:
Anita Sarkeesian has canceled her scheduled speech for tomorrow following a discussion with Utah State University police regarding an email threat that was sent to Utah State University. During the discussion, Sarkeesian asked if weapons will be permitted at the speaking venue. Sarkeesian was informed that, in accordance with the State of Utah law regarding the carrying of firearms, if a person has a valid concealed firearm permit and is carrying a weapon, they are permitted to have it at the venue.
Emphasis added. That’s right: the school received threats from someone promising to shoot people at a public event, but because of Utah’s gun laws, authorities would not be able to prohibit audience members from BRINGING GUNS to the talk.
Before learning that this was the case, Sarkeesian — after consulting with authorities — had planned to go ahead with the talk. As a spokesman for the school told the Standard Examiner, a northern Utah newspaper:
“They determined the threat seems to be consistent with ones (Sarkeesian) has received at other places around the nation. … The threat we received is not out of the norm for (this woman).”
The email threat came from someone who claimed that “feminists have ruined my life and I will have my revenge, for my sake and the sake of all the others they’ve wronged.”
The email, sent to several campus officials and posted online by the Standard Examiner, warned:
If you do not cancel [Sarkeesian’s] talk, a Montreal Massacre style attack will be carried out against the attendees, as well as students and staff at the nearby women’s center. I have at my disposal a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols, and a collection of pipe bombs. This will be the deadliest school shooting in American history and I’m giving you a chance to stop it.
The email writer claimed that even if authorities manage to stop him from an attack at the event,
There are plenty of feminists on campus who won;t be able to defend themselves. One way or another, I’m going to make sure they die. …
Anita Sarkeesian is everything wrong with the feminist woman, and she is going to die screaming like the craven little whore that she is if you let her come to USU. I will write my manifesto in her spilled blood, and you will all bear witness to what feminist lies and poison have done to the men of America.
All this because she made some videos discussing sexism in fucking video games.
Here’s a screenshot of the full email, from the Standard Examiner site:
I’m speechless. What the fuck is wrong with these people?
NOTE: This is a NO TROLLS, NO MRAS, NO GAMERGATERS, NO VICTIM BLAMER thread. I will delete comments and ban people who do not respect the rules.
UPDATE: Sarkeesian has provied more details on Twitter; there were multiple threats, including one that specifically referred to GamerGate
Forced to cancel my talk at USU after receiving death threats because police wouldn't take steps to prevent concealed firearms at the event.
— Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) October 15, 2014
Requested pat downs or metal detectors after mass shooting threat but because of Utah's open carry laws police wouldn’t do firearm searches.
— Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) October 15, 2014
Multiple specific threats made stating intent to kill me & feminists at USU. For the record one threat did claim affiliation with #gamergate
— Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) October 15, 2014
At this point supporting #gamergate is implicitly supporting the harassment of women in the gaming industry.
— Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) October 15, 2014
I’m safe. I will continue my work. I will continue speaking out. The whole game industry must stand up against the harassment of women.
— Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) October 15, 2014
Bulletproof screens for everyone.
THIS. Even when you’re armed and actively body guarding, the chances that you’ll have the TIME to react to a shooter are infinitesimally small.
During the Ronald Reagan assassination attempt, all the shooting was over with before the secret service agents event pulled their weapons out, and their whole purpose for being there, armed and ready, was to stop any potential threats to the president. The laws of physics must be obeyed. Humans can’t move faster than the speed of light. By the time you see the threat, and all your neurons fire appropriately, and you pull your gun to return fire, it’s too late.
Adding more people into the mix who are open carrying just muddies the waters. If you walk into a mall carrying an assault rifle, how does anyone know whether you’re just exercising your second amendment rights or you’re planning to kill everyone in Pet Smart because your kitten broke your heart? We can’t know until you start shooting, and then it’s too late.
Either everyone needs to not go around armed, so that the people who are can be clearly identified as a threat, or everyone needs to not go out in public.
And add me to the list of people who want this incident called terrorism. Threatening to kill people if you don’t get your way is not activism, it’s terrorism.
Yep. There’s an old guy across the street from me who open carries. I’m scared to death of him.
Not allowing guns on campus at all, let alone the event, would be a start. Closing the gun show loopholes so that there’s a waiting period for all gun purchases. Most importantly, banning guns with magazines that hold more than say, 6-10 bullets so that any mass shooter has to stop to reload really quickly. We’re not going to stop every gun crime, but we can reduce them through the common sense regulations they have in every other industrialized nation. If having unimpeded access to guns was a good thing that kept us safe, the US wouldn’t have a much higher gun crime rate than other countries.
What are those reasons? What conceivable reason is there to carry a gun to Starbucks, the grocery store, the park, Chipotle etc. Seriously. Random/mass shootings are scary, but the chances you’re going to be killed in one or be able to stop it if you are caught in one, are extremely low. Guns don’t make you safer. In fact people with guns are more likely to be killed by one, whether it’s by accident, homicide or suicide than people in gun free homes.
http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home
So tell me again, why is the right to carry a gun everywhere more important than the right not to get shot? It defies logic.
The second amendment isn’t even there because the founding fathers wanted everyone to carry a gun around at all times in a constant state of paranoia. It wasn’t because gun ownership is a sacred right. It’s there as a compromise. Some of them wanted a standing army in peacetime. Some of them did not. A well regulated militia (the portion of the 2nd amendment the gun fellators love to conveniently ignore) ensured that men would be trained and have weapons if and when assembling an army is necessary without there needing to be a standing army during peacetime. The 2nd amendment is actually irrelevant. We have a standing army and guns are no longer the only or even main war weapon.
There’s a lot of great stuff in the constitution but it’s important to remember that it was written by fallible human beings who each had their own opinions and frequently had to compromise to get the thing written. It’s not a sacred text handed down by deities.
Nova escaped from a very abusive relationship, and abusive ex has shown signs of stalking. I’m not going to argue against her reasons for feeling safer when armed. I don’t necessarily agree that feeling safer means *is* safer, but I’m not in her situation.
I don’t agree that everyone in the general public ought to be able to wander, armed for bear, through the malls and coffee shops of north america. Through the forests and mountains of north america, while actively hunting for bear, sure. Not in urban, public areas, though.
I’d forgotten that. Thanks, Unimaginative.
I don’t carry a firearm to be the hero if, by some incredible twist of fate, I’m in a public place when someone decides to go on a killing spree. That’s ridiculous. I carry a gun because I have an extremely violent, unstable ex boyfriend who has made credible threats about hunting me down and either killing or kidnapping me. I have a restraining order, but really, what’s that going to do if he shows up? I carry a gun because I live in a bad neighborhood, where robberies and muggings aren’t uncommon and there’s a drug dealer two doors down from me. I work nights, often coming home with several hundred dollars in cash. I go to visit my family and it’s a common thing to see a coyotes, javelina or cougars just strolling down the street, looking for dinner. This is why I have a gun, a dog, a very loud car alarm, lo jack and good insurance. I get that the majority opinion is that guns are evil, bad, terrible things. So is getting mugged. So is watching your mom get mauled because she’s so arthritic that she can’t get to safety when a rabid coyote shows up. So is getting beaten to death because “If I cant have you, I’d rather see you dead.”
I’m not opposed to restrictions on firearms is certain public places. I hand mine over to management at work every day, because firearms are not allowed in bars and nightclubs. Having drunk people with guns in a crowded space…. not the best idea. I lock it up before I go into government buildings or take my friend to pick up her daughter from school. What I’m saying is that banning guns from this particular event is not enough. Banning them from campus is not enough in this particular situation. I’m all for a gun ban at the event and I’d have no problem either locking mine up beforehand or surrendering it before going in. I just dont think it’s going to do a thing to prevent this person from killing people if he doesn’t get what he wants. If this person seriously wants to kill women, completely outlawing guns isn’t going to stop it.
I’m sorry to say it, but terrorism works because nobodys doing a damn thing to track people making threats and prosecute them. Twitter, Reddit… full of threats of violence. Nobody’s been found. We can find and prosecute 12 year olds for illegally downloading music, but we can’t find the person who made such a disturbing threat that Sarkeesian was forced from her home. That’s the problem. I won’t even think of shooting anybody unless they’re immediately threatening my life and I cannot escape or otherwise avoid imminent death. 99.9% gun owners won’t. The people who are making these threats will. They want to. Perhaps it’s more effective to focus on removing them from the general population or getting them the help that they obviously need than to complain that a 110 pound woman, who has an ex who’s already tried to kill her, feels safer with a gun.
No one’s focussing on you. They’re focussing on the availability and prevalence of guns in conjunction with the prevalence of awful people who want to use them to threaten and harm people.
This SO isn’t the place for this discussion though.
Could I get a link to the specific neogaf post? I’m working on a piece about GG (and it’s disturbing parallels to violent movements) and would like a specific pointer, as it’s typical of some “militia movement” rhetoric.
maistrechat: This is almost too much for me to handle. I was unfortunately already aware of the Utah situation, as a Facebook acquaintance has been fairly zealous in arguing that “no gun” signs at businesses aren’t legally enforceable and encouraging people to carry there.
Your friend is wrong. I, as a business owner, have the right to (within some really specific limits, relating to protected classes and unlawful discrimination based on race, gender, etc) refuse service to anyone.
I can, therefore (within those very narrow limits) then demand that person leave my premises, or be arrested for tresspass.
Not in Utah. In Utah even private businesses can’t prevent you from carrying.
To the best of my knowledge this isn’t the case (i.e. their has been no court ruling). I can’t see the courts deciding things that way; because that would mean any person who was ejected from a venue (say a theater) for being disruptive, would only have to go back to the car, strap heat and then have to be allowed in.
Given the number of people in Utah who think telling LGBT people they can’t come in… it would be bitterly amusing to see some engaging in open carry to force their presence.
CJ: I’m not a violent man. I don’t like violence for any reason. Still, I can’t help but think that if Utah gun laws allow the carrying of concealed weapons on college campuses isn’t there a distinct possibility that this jackass would pull out his gun only to have a bunch of people pull out theirs and turn him into something resembling hamburger? You’d expect him to realize that too, but we’re clearly not looking at a towering intellect here.
As a person with a more than passing experience in this area… that’s not the way it works.
If only one person is shooting then you know what’s going on (i.e. someone is engaged in hostile action; perhaps an attempt at mass-murder). The moment a second person starts shooting you have no idea what’s going on.
Assume, for a moment, that you are the third person to pull a gun… which one of the other two should you shoot? Did you see the first person start shooting? Do you know the second person isn’t also part of some plot to up the body count.
Now person number four starts shooting… and then the cops show up.
When you add that most people don’t spend the time training, and most of those that do never engage in the complicated thought problems to sort out when/where/how to evaluate that sort of thing… much less practice shooting under pressure; in a situation where there are lots of potential victims they don’t want to shoot.
It’s one of the reasons cops/soldiers wear uniforms. It’s also one of the reasons militaries all carry the same rifle (I can tell you if someone is shooting any number of different weapons, based on the sound: knowing who was shooting was a life and death issue, not just for me, but for the guys I was supporting/being supported by).
In a situation as you describe more guns makes things worse.
So, with all that training, I don’t carry. I don’t carry because (try as I might) I can’t see a condition where my ability to usefully affect the outcome is materially improved by having a firearm. In part this is because, all in all, the risk of my being in such a situation is slim, and barring that ability to be omniscient I probably couldn’t do anything even if I were.
About the only time I think about it is when I am with people I know (and trust) who carry. That’s more a self-defense thing: in that context I worry they will be reacting. I also want the moral weight that comes of being armed, in that circumstance, to say, “:Let’s hole up and take a look at this first.”
This is, pretty much, always the best (outside a battlefield setting) course of action in a situation where one is not being actively attacked.
Nova: But, at what cost? If the shooter cant get weapons into the event, so he goes into another public space to kill people, lives are still lost. And every life, even the lives of assmaggots that would do something like this, is sacred. I don’t know how to allow events to be held unimpeded, while managing public safety, when threats like this are made.
There has already been a cost; The event was stopped, because he demanded it. Terrorism worked. It worked because the laws on the books in Utah make it easy for terrorism aimed at public events on public property to be carried out.
That needs to be changed.
If a public place can’t restrict access to people with firearms, even when those firearms aren’t essential to the actions taking place in response to a direct threat to use firearms to disrupt events then the social order has been destroyed.
Because anyone who want’s to disrupt events in public spaces has only to pick up the phone/send an e-mail.
Which conveys the idea to the targets of that hate that they won’t be protected. That the risk is too great. That they are, in fact, a hated minority whom the law won’t protect.
Terrorism has been made into a tool of legal resort.
Oh yes, I should clarify that I’m not saying the situation I described was probable or (heaven forbid) ideal. Ideally, people would… you know, NOT carry lethal weapons around a school or even feel like doing so makes sense… because it shouldn’t by any stretch of the imagination. But for some reason the university says that behavior is perfectly fine with them (which is suspect to me). So that scenario occurred to me, unlikely as it is.
What I’m getting at is that particular absurdity in that the letter mentions people being defenseless in a place where the university administration has stated they very well may not be. One might expect that would be something a homicidal gunman looking to kill lots of people would consider. But as people have pointed out I made the mistake of looking at things like a rational person who values life… which is mutually exclusive with the sort of person who’d carry out such threats. Thinking about it, I doubt this maniac would even care about such things since he’s so full of himself he probably thinks it would still go like the twisted fantasy he’s no doubt got in his head.
So… yeah; excellent points folks. It’s nice to see some real discourse online instead of the mud-slinging (wait, that’s not mud!) you see in most places. That people are able to at least do that makes this slightly less depressing.
Nova, I’m sympathetic to the reasons why you in particular feel safer while carrying a gun, but this?
You don’t actually have any way of knowing what 99% of gun owners might or might not do, or what their motivations for having guns are. I believe you when you say that you, specifically, have no desire to hurt anyone, but to claim that almost nobody who’s walking around with a gun does, or would? I’m afraid that the statistics on gun violence don’t support that statement (and also, unless you have psychic powers, there’s just no way for you to know what all those people, most of whom you don’t know, might be thinking).
Weird, I read that as the exact opposite. I read that as 99.9% of gun owners won’t do what Nova does. As in, Nova knows she can be trusted but that most gun owners can’t. That might be my naive Australia experience of gun owners working. Still ambiguous phrasing is ambiguous.
That probably isn’t right either – I’d assume that more than 1% of gun owners have guns because of hunting or whatever other non-killing-people-who-piss-them-off reasons in a country as fond of guns as this one. I just don’t think it’s possible to say that (whatever percentage) of them have no intention of hurting anyone with any confidence, because that’s just not something you can know if you don’t know them personally (and maybe not even then, in some cases).
Anyone who carries a firearm, outside of hunting/sport venues, has made the decision they are okay with shooting another person [for reasons].
Other people don’t know what those [reasons] are, nor are the [reasons] open for debate. For most of the time the [reasons] aren’t tested. Nor is there any guarantee that the use will be limited to [reasons] and not hurt/maim/kill innocent people who were never included in [reasons]. There is also no guarantee that the situation covered by [reasons] will go according to expectation.
I am uncomfortable with a thread about Sarkeesian having to cancel an event due to firearm death threats being hijacked by arguments about why some people have [reasons] to carry:
it’s not relevant to this thread.
That was my basic objection too. If it’s not about you, don’t make it about you.
Let me rephrase. A vast majority of those carrying a gun have no intention of hurting anybody, unless they’re in imminent danger. Happy? The fact that, while it’s quite obvious the intention of that comment, it’s being picked apart and twisted scares me that this is starting to resemble the monster.
My statement is a definite difference from statements that anybody openly carrying a gun is an imminent threat and that carrying a gun is, in and of itself, an aggressive act. Nobody here can know that, now can they? Nobody can broad brush the entire population who chooses to carry a firearm yet… there it is. As loud as the outcry is about baseless steriotyping based on other factors, it doesn’t seem be a problem here, does it?
The discussion of concealed and open carry was brought up long before I entered this thread. Obviously I have a viewpoint that is contrary and some aren’t interested in hearing, but that sometimes happens in discussion. The question was asked why anybody would carry a gun to Starbucks. I answered the question and, all of the sudden, my viewpoint is now irrelavent. Gun laws and carrying guns IS the discussion.
I find it quite interesting that my right to have a gun is being examined, but my dog has gone unmentioned. My dog is more dangerous than my gun, and both are significantly less dangerous than the average Golden Retriever. Something to think about. But, cute doggies and all.
This discussion is about me. It’s about you. It’s about everyone, both as a group and as individuals. We’re discussing gun laws, which potentially affect everybody, both as a group and as individuals. My right to carry and protect myself balanced against your right to be shielded from gun related violence and protect yourself. Anita Sarkeesian’s ability to hold a conference and not get killed balanced against my ability to walk from my parking lot to my house and not get killed. And that requires a solid look at group and individual situations pertinent to the situation. This is not a black and white issue and never will be.
Oh, so you are just here to promote carrying guns as being a reasonable thing in general. Gloves off, then.
If guns were banned from a specific talk in order that the talk could actually happen that wouldn’t necessarily impact your ability to carry a gun while walking through your parking lot. That’s a red herring, and introducing it into this specific conversation is insensitive at best. You’re making a bad faith argument, and you should stop.
Nova: consider this a message from the moderators. This thread is not the place to be pushing gun carry issues. Knock it off.
Everyone has a different definition of “imminent danger”.
Honestly, I’m joining the rest that have taken their leave of this blog. Being insulted, villified and now modded for not agreeing with a party line… too much for me.
Nova: I think KS is simply saying this particular thread isn’t the place for that debate. It’d be like arguing for the value of self-defense classes in the War Machine thread – fair enough discussion topic, but not the time or the place.
And I think that goes for the people arguing the counterpoint as well.
Being disagreed with is not the same thing as being vilified, but if you’re going to willfully misinterpret things and make bad-faith argument then feel free to show yourself out.