Categories
#gamergate a woman is always to blame advocacy of violence antifeminism grandiosity men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny oppressed men sarkeesian! sympathy for murderers taking pleasure in women's pain terrorism threats video games

Anita Sarkeesian Cancels Talk at Utah State After Receiving Threat of Another "Montreal Massacre." [UPDATED with more info from Sarkeesian]

sarkscreenshot

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:

 

Screenshot posted by the Standard Examiner
Screenshot posted by the Standard Examiner

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

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

288 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
blahlistic (@blahlistic)

And I just killed the last quarter-inch of my rum bottle. Go drunk, you’re home.

Nova
Nova
7 years ago

BecauseScience: Some that open carry go WAY too far with it, simply because they can, dagnabbit. This kind of crap annoys me to no end, because… really, what purpose is there to go to Walmart with an assault rifle slung across your back, except to be a complete nuisance.

However, I open carry a handgun designed for concealed carry and most people don’t even notice that I have it. I certainly don’t go around advertising it and all anyone can really see is the grip sticking out of my waistband. But, I carry it with me everywhere I go, whether it’s a store, restaurant, salon, etc. It’s pretty common where I live to have several armed people anywhere you go.

thebewilderness
thebewilderness
7 years ago

If you watch the videos of trained police officers firing wildly into a crowd when they were aiming at the shooter you will get an idea of what adrenalin does to your ability to shoot straight and you will also get an idea of how bad an idea it is to encourage people to shoot the shooter. Which is precisely what these changes to law are about. Vigilantes.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

A simple ban of handguns at the event would just move the shooter to kill elsewhere.

It would prevent them from being able to shut down this event and others like it by threatening to shoot up the place, though, which makes it worth doing in itself.

Nequam
Nequam
7 years ago

So in other words, terrorism works.

I think a lot of us learned that back in 2001.

deniseeliza
deniseeliza
7 years ago

A simple ban of handguns at the event would just move the shooter to kill elsewhere. If the shooter wants to kill people, he (I’m assuming that the would be shooter is male, given the circumstances,) would simply target women elsewhere.

An imperfect solution is not immediately worthless. Depriving a potential spree shooter of a crowd of people to shoot into is a GOOD THING. Even if he does go and shoot people elsewhere, there will be fewer targets, and more places for the targets to go. It will also be easier for law enforcement to isolate the shooter.

Eliot Rodgers wanted to get inside a sorority house and kill everyone there. He was denied. Yes, he killed a lot of people, and that is a fucking tragedy, but that doesn’t mean that the sorority was wrong to lock their doors, or that it didn’t save lives.

I don’t know that there is a way to prevent this kind of thing from happening.

I read this really incredible article recently about mass shooters, and the FBI Threat Assessment unit, which basically takes reports on people who may be considering doing something like a mass shooting, and then attempts to intervene before anything bad happens. As I recall, the goal isn’t to arrest them or commit them, but to provide support to people who feel their only option is to go out in a blaze of glory.

So there are things that can be done for people who really are planning on doing a mass shooting.

More likely, these specific threats are from blowhards who get their kicks by causing women to be afraid. I doubt anyone really intended to kill people at this speech. (By the way: that does not mean anyone was wrong to treat the threats as credible and cancel the event. The stakes are too high.) And we can ABSOLUTELY do something to prevent that. The police can find them and prosecute the shit out of them, so that others realize that it’s not just fun and games anymore. They can prosecute the shit out of these specific threateners, and prosecute the shit out of threateners on Twitter. People will get the message. These people are cowardly shitheads who think they’re invincible because they figured out how to use an anonymizing proxy. The police really ought to prove them wrong.

weirwoodtreehugger
7 years ago

I remember a lot of people thought they could have been the good guy with a gun that stopped the Aurora movie theater massacre. Absurd. Holmes through a smoke bomb into a crowded theater. How could a bystander shoot the perpetrator and only the perpetrator in a dark, smoky, crowded theater? More people would have died.

Robert
Robert
7 years ago

One of the aspects of being armed in public (the good guy with a gun stopping the bad guy with a gun) that always disturbs me is this: the bad guy knows exactly when and where he* is going to pull out his gun and start shooting. If you have a gun in a holster, safety engaged, watching the ventriloquist on stage or whatever, you have milliseconds in which to respond. Unless you’re walking around like Repairman Jack, on a hair trigger, you will most likely not be able to respond in a timely manner.

Nova’s scenario – waiting behind a locked door, knowing someone is wandering about like a lion seeking who he may devour, ready to respond but not react – makes far more sense than bringing your Glock to the Piggly Wiggly.

*Let’s face it – how often is a mass shooter a she?

mildlymagnificent
7 years ago

I think this is one of these issues where no matter how long a Brit/European has lived here this is never going to make sense to us.

Yup. Australia was fairly run of the mill about guns right up until the Port Arthur massacre. Now no one except gun club members, farmers and law enforcement are allowed to have guns, and they’re very tightly controlled.

The USAnians obsession with guns looks downright peculiar from here.

vaiyt
7 years ago

I remember a lot of people thought they could have been the good guy with a gun that stopped the Aurora movie theater massacre.

The Giffords shooting did have a good guy with a gun trying to stop the bad guy with a gun – and he ended up shooting the wrong person. Oops.

the bad guy knows exactly when and where he* is going to pull out his gun and start shooting. If you have a gun in a holster, safety engaged, watching the ventriloquist on stage or whatever, you have milliseconds in which to respond. Unless you’re walking around like Repairman Jack, on a hair trigger, you will most likely not be able to respond in a timely manner.

The misconception comes with starting the hypotheticals with mass shootings; the shooter shoots some people but others have time to react. If the shooter has a specific target, after the shots are fired there isn’t much bystanders can do.

As I like to say: Colt made men equal, but the more murderous among us are more equal than the rest.

Tracy
Tracy
7 years ago

The USAnians obsession with guns looks downright peculiar from here.

Canadian here, and it looks the same to most of us too. Cannot imagine why I’d ever wear a gun to Starbucks, or why anyone would.

Other than that I have nothing to say, because I’m so angry about all of this I’m incapable of anything other than frothranting. I don’t get this, I don’t get it at all. I really hope this person gets found out and faces legal consequences.

becausescience
becausescience
7 years ago

The Giffords shooting did have a good guy with a gun trying to stop the bad guy with a gun – and he ended up shooting the wrong person. Oops.

Not quite, actually. There was an armed guy who was in a nearby store when the shooting started and he ran to the scene, but decided it would be a bad idea to draw his gun, because he didn’t want to be mistaken for the shooter. The shooter ended up being subdued by unarmed civilians at the scene when his gun jammed.

vaiyt
7 years ago

The people rushing Breivik didn’t have the same luck and were gunned down.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

Just in case this hasn’t been coming across clearly, part of the issue I have with this discussion is that a society in which everyone is armed to the teeth in anticipation of possibly being attacked by another armed person and this is considered normal is so far from ideal that I’m not sure why it isn’t obvious to everyone how undesirable a society that is/would be to live in.

Michael Lindsay
7 years ago

I don’t know if having everyone armed wouldn’t just make matters worse. As a previous poster mentioned mass killers do what they do on the assumption they are on a suicide mission. If some wannabe hero pulled out a gun, got into a gunfight with the mass murderer and accidentally killed more people by firing wildly at them and missing him but not everyone I can’t see that as a positive, not even if the wanna be hero’s sixth bullet hit it’s target.

And in a crowded auditorium that could totally happen!

Nova
Nova
7 years ago

Cassandra: 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.

As DeniseEliza mentioned, maybe less lives would be lost, maybe it would be easier for potential victims to get away. But, maybe not, depending on the location. Maybe law enforcement wouldn’t be able to respond as quicklu, because they’re occupied with the event, that more lives are lost. There are just too many variables.

I do agree that threats need to be taken a hell of a lot more seriously than they are. With all of the threats that have been made throughout gamergate, has even a single arrest been made? Has it even made the news, outside of industry blogs?

Robert: In reality, the vast majority of the gun carrying public would be a huge liability in any kind of crisis or combat situation. Even though I have some training and experience, I would do my best to put myself in a reactive position, backed into a shady spot, and defend it. I would not try to be a hero and go after the shooter. Too much margin for error in a situation that allows for none. This Hollywood notion of nailing the big scary bad guy is best left in Hollywood, because its not even close to reality amd never will be.

Nova
Nova
7 years ago

Tracy: I’ve taken my gun into Starbucks because I carry it everywhere, unless firearms are specifically not permitted, like work.  It’s not like I make sure to stop by the house to get it, so I’m sure to be armed when I know I’m going to get a coffee. I’m always armed. And I’m always armed for a reason that makes sense to me.

Catalpa
Catalpa
7 years ago

Another Canuck over here, boggling at the gun laws in the USA. There have been innumerable mass shootings due to the high availability of guns, and I have heard of not one that was stopped by ‘a good guy with a gun’ who was not a law enforcement officer. I’ll grant you that there may indeed be a handful of cases where this happened, but I would bet that the ratio of stopped shooting sprees to the amount of shooting sprees facilitated by the accessibility of firearms is staggeringly low. It should be clear to all and sundry that arming people with MORE weapons seems to be counter-productive to stopping gun violence, shouldn’t it? I don’t understand the logic of making it easy to carry around a gun.

And then of course, there’s the blatant racism to consider. A black man with a b-b gun in a toy section in Walmart is shot in the back, Michael Brown and Trayon Martin are shot while completely unarmed, etc, etc, etc. You’re only allowed to openly carry a firearm if you’re white, whatever the rules on the books say.

Funny how the vast majority of spree killers are white males, hmm? It’s almost as if they’re raised in a system where they’re encouraged to nurture violent tendencies and told that the rest of the world is made to cater to them, and that if they have a problem it’s everyone else’s fault.

Any other demographic would be noted and freaked out about if they were responsible for this shit, but white men are the default human. They aren’t some kind of homogenized demographic that can be widely painted with the same brush! There is a wide variety of temperments and personality traits in (white male) humans, unlike women or blacks or muslims, which are all monolithic demographics composed mainly of scheming villains, the bad apples are not representative of any sort of underlying issues. Not at all.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

@ Nova

I don’t know why you’re ignoring the context in which this discussion is taking place, which is that a public event was cancelled purely because there was no way to stop someone who made explicit threats from taking guns into it, but you should really stop doing that. If concealed carry is something that’s important to you, I guess that’s why you want to talk about it, but please stop and think about whether or not this is the time and the place to talk about how useless you think attempting to limit the places where people can take guns to is.

@ Thread in general

Just thought I’d post this comment about the Montreal Massacre from Dworkin, because it’s pretty damn relevant to what’s going on here in a macro sense.

I think that one of the most important commitments that anyone can make to life or to feminism is to make sure that you deserve your death if you die at the hands of a misogynist, that you have done everything that he in his mind accuses you of, that every act of treason he is killing you for is one you have committed. Like many women, I have a long history of violence against me, and I say, to my increasing shame, that everyone who has hurt me is still walking around. They’re fine. Nothing has happened to them. And when I look at my own life, I think about the difference between being beaten because I didn’t clean the refrigerator and having my life threatened because I am fighting the pornographers. There is a better and a worse, and it is better to encounter anything when you have made a choice that puts you where you want to be, fighting for your own freedom and fighting for the freedom of the women around you. Feminists should remember that while we often don’t take ourselves very seriously, the men around us often do. I think that the way we can honor these women who were executed, for crimes that they may or may not have committed—which is to say, for political crimes—is to commit every crime for which they were executed, crimes against male supremacy, crimes against the right to rape, crimes against the male ownership of women, crimes against the male monopoly of public space and public discourse. We have to stop men from hurting women in everyday life, in ordinary life, in the home, in the bed, in the street, and in the engineering school. We have to take public power away from men whether they like it or not and no matter what they do. If we have to fight back with arms, then we have to fight back with arms. One way or another we have to disarm men. We have to be the women who stand between men and the women they want to hurt. We have to end the impunity of men, which is what they have, for hurting women in all the ways they systematically do hurt us.

The feminist is the woman who is there not because she is his woman, but because she is the sister of the woman he is being a weapon against. Feminism exists so that no woman ever has to face her oppressor in a vacuum, alone. It exists to break down the privacy in which men rape, beat, and kill women. What I am saying is that every one of us has the responsibility to be the woman [that prick] wanted to murder. We need to live with that honor, that courage. We need to put fear aside. We need to endure. We need to create. We need to resist, and we need to stop dedicating the other 364 days of the year to forgetting everything we know. We need to remember every day, not only on December 6. We need to consecrate our lives to what we know and to our resistance to the male power used against us.

This, to me, is the most important part.

The feminist is the woman who is there not because she is his woman, but because she is the sister of the woman he is being a weapon against. Feminism exists so that no woman ever has to face her oppressor in a vacuum, alone. It exists to break down the privacy in which men rape, beat, and kill women.

mildlymagnificent
7 years ago

The feminist is the woman who is there not because she is his woman, but because she is the sister of the woman he is being a weapon against. Feminism exists so that no woman ever has to face her oppressor in a vacuum, alone. It exists to break down the privacy in which men rape, beat, and kill women.

QFT

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
7 years ago

@Nova

I wonder if your opinion would be different if it were a bunch of black people holding a civil rights rally, and some white people threatened to shoot it up. Because, you know, that was a thing that happened during the 60s on a regular basis, and some black leaders and bystanders were actually killed as a result. Is it your position that those black organizers should have just sat down and shut up? That it would have been preferable if the KKK had silenced them with threats, because even the tiniest, most remote possibility that someone might be killed (even the shooters!) makes it no longer worth the risk?

vaiyt
7 years ago

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.

Apparently, concealed carry is more sacred than either life OR speech to you.

maistrechat
7 years ago

I would do my best to put myself in a reactive position, backed into a shady spot, and defend it.

I don’t know, my ALICE training explicitly said don’t do this. The sherriff said when they did their active shooter training the people who tried to defend a spot ended up getting “killed” every single time while people who ran around everywhere survived.

I will say this:

Open carry is an act of aggression, no matter what the gun owner’s intentions. It’s an implicit threat to every single person you encounter.

Fibinachi
7 years ago

The problem is that a state law makes it impossible for anyone to impose a restriction on gun access to an area (“Public spaces”), which makes anyone who threatens to bring a gun and shoot someone at an event a person you can only deter by watching them intently while they’re at your event and then, the moment they make a movement to open fire, tackle them to the ground because if you intercept them at any point before that, or demand they don’t bring weapons, you are violating a state law and (if you’re a police officer) opening yourself to a federal charge of enforcement overreach, while if you’re a civilian, you have no say in the application of those laws because state legislature has decided to mandate the decision for you.

That is a problem. That is not a good situation. That is a bad situation. That is a problematic end result.

If your only recourse when threatened is to meekly shut everything down, go somewhere else, never speak up again and never attempt any kind of action that can minimize the threats you receive, well, then, erh, congratulations, I guess we’ve all proven terrorism still works.

Seriously. I cannot even into the argument that a university cannot mandate a “No guns” policy at their public lectures, especially so when the people who are going to be holding those lectures have several times been threatened with gun-related violence.
It just seems like such a basic thing to me. We ban smoking in public areas to avoid second hand smoke, because your decision to smoke shouldn’t infringe on my decision not to smoke, and vice versa. Fucking likewise, your decision to gun should not infringe on my (I think reasonable) decision not to be gunned.

Alex
7 years ago

Canadian here. I like living in this country knowing that however scary a situation might be, my chances of being held at gun point are pretty damn low. Also like knowing that – even in spite of what Marc LePine did – if Anita wanted to give a talk here, she probably wouldn’t have had to cancel.

vaiyt
7 years ago

Bulletproof screens for everyone.

Unimaginative
7 years ago

If you have a gun in a holster, safety engaged, watching the ventriloquist on stage or whatever, you have milliseconds in which to respond.

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.

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

Open carry is an act of aggression, no matter what the gun owner’s intentions. It’s an implicit threat to every single person you encounter.

Yep. There’s an old guy across the street from me who open carries. I’m scared to death of him.

weirwoodtreehugger
7 years ago

I don’t know how to allow events to be held unimpeded, while managing public safety, when threats like this are made.

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.

I’ve taken my gun into Starbucks because I carry it everywhere, unless firearms are specifically not permitted, like work. It’s not like I make sure to stop by the house to get it, so I’m sure to be armed when I know I’m going to get a coffee. I’m always armed. And I’m always armed for a reason that makes sense to me.

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.

Unimaginative
7 years ago

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.

weirwoodtreehugger
7 years ago

I’d forgotten that. Thanks, Unimaginative.

Nova
Nova
7 years ago

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.

marinerachel
marinerachel
7 years ago

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.

pecunium
7 years ago

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.

pecunium
7 years ago

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.

pecunium
7 years ago

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.

pecunium
7 years ago

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.

CJ
CJ
7 years ago

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.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

Nova, I’m sympathetic to the reasons why you in particular feel safer while carrying a gun, but this?

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.

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).

Kim
Kim
7 years ago

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.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

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).

pallygirl
pallygirl
7 years ago

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.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

That was my basic objection too. If it’s not about you, don’t make it about you.

Nova
Nova
7 years ago

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.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

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.

kittehserf - MOD
7 years ago

Nova: consider this a message from the moderators. This thread is not the place to be pushing gun carry issues. Knock it off.

vaiyt
7 years ago

A vast majority of those carrying a gun have no intention of hurting anybody, unless they’re in imminent danger.

Everyone has a different definition of “imminent danger”.

Nova
Nova
7 years ago

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.

strivingally
7 years ago

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.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

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.