“The Utah gun law that canceled a USU speech is an embarrassment,” deseretnews.com declares. Backstory: feminist videogame reviewer Anita Sarkeesian gets a death threat before a planned speech at Utah State University. USU checks it out and deems it incredible.
Unsatisfied, Sarkeesian demands a no-guns policy at the venue, including pat-downs and a metal detector. USU says “You must be joking son, where did you get those shoes?” State law says we can’t do that “gun-free zone” thing. Ms. Sarkeesian cancels the gig. All of which is grist for deseretnews.com’s anti-gun mill.
“It’s time Utah law stood up for safety,” the editorial opines, “not the empowerment of bullies.” Wait. What? Wasn’t the person issuing the death threat the bully? Isn’t the Utah law designed to protect people against bullies (a.k.a., criminals)? This is so typical.
The gun control crowd have a singular ability to get things exactly backwards. They see guns as the problem. So they believe anything that restricts access to guns is a good thing, not a bad thing (regardless of their claim that they support the Second Amendment). In fact, bad people are the problem. Anything that restricts access to guns, diminishing or eliminating a good person’s ability to use a gun to protect themselves against a bad person, is a bad thing, not a good thing.
You don’t need a flow chart to understand this. Nor do you need to add ancillary arguments to “prove” the statement’s veracity (e.g., you can’t stop bad people from getting guns). It’s common sense! A term the antis use and abuse with Orwellian enthusiasm. Just to be clear, merriam-webster.com defines common sense as “the ability to think and behave in a reasonable way and to make good decisions.” Can we substitute “rational” for “reasonable”? To the antis, even the most irrational leaps of logic seem entirely reasonable. Like this . . .
NEW FACES OF COURAGE PROFILE: Just days after Kimberly Brusk’s ex-husband was arrested for violently assaulting her in front of her young daughter, he ambushed her as she entered her own home. Read Kimberly’s powerful story here: http://bit.ly/1poCabM
“When I flipped light switch I found my ex-husband standing in the doorway with a shotgun pointed at me. He said, I told you not to leave me, don’t move!’ I ran out the door as a shotgun blasted behind me.”
October is Domestic Violence Awareness month. Every month, 48 women are shot to death by current or former intimate partners, yet loopholes in our laws still allow too many abusers and stalkers to access guns. In honor of Kimberly and all survivors of domestic gun violence, please LIKE, SHARE and PLEDGE to vote for candidates who will #ProtectAllWomen:http://every.tw/1lwuzod
The Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America’s Facebook posting above typifies the antis’ ass-backwards definition of “common sense.” It assumes that readers will clock the abuser’s shotgun blast and conclude that society needs new laws to stop psycho-burgers from getting access to guns. MDA’s anti-gun agitprop producers can’t imagine that readers with genuine common sense might think, hmmm, how could a law prevent an abuser from getting access to a shotgun? Those guys are nuts. He should have been locked-up.
Checking out Ms. Brusk’s “Faces of Courage” testimonial, a rational person might also wonder why that poor woman didn’t tool-up and shoot the bastard. Ms. Brusk’s account of her abusive relationship leaves no doubt that she had the motive, means and opportunity to shoot Mr. Brusk on at least one occasion, when he posed an imminent threat of death or bodily harm. Well, maybe not the means. I’m guessing Ms. Brusk didn’t had a gun.
But she could have had a gun. Unless the “physically, sexually, emotionally and financially” abused mother happened to live in a part of the United States like, say, New Jersey; where the chances of an abused woman getting a concealed carry permit are somewhere between slim and none (and Slim just left town). A state whose gun control regime has been celebrated by Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. An organization that never met a gun control law they didn’t like. Not one. Ever.
Again, the common sense takeaway from Ms. Brusk’s “courage profile”: if someone’s trying to kill you, you best be killing them first. If you think someone’s going to try to kill you, arm yourself with something more than a law, no matter how many loopholes it may close. [Note to Ms. Brusk: Revealing your desire to disarm and your recent move to Atlanta ahead of your husband’s parole puts you at great risk of violent retaliation. Luckily, you’ve moved to the MDA’s worst nightmare: the “guns everywhere” Peach Tree State..]
In the nearasdammit five years I’ve been writing for TTAG I haven’t come across a single rational argument for gun control. By the same token, I can’t come up with a rational argument for controlling Americans’ First Amendment right to free speech – which enables MDA’s nonsense to spread through the ranks of the anti-gun press and the legions of willingly defenceless women. Common sense says the best way to control gun control is to appeal to voters’ common sense. Yes?
A lot of people are thinking Sarkessian is twitter threatening herself, or at least counting on them, no it’d be real interesting if this could be traced back to her. But pat downs and metal detectors? Do we bring our papers comrade? She’s an opportunist who saw a way to get famous for a whole lot of nothing
but all those people in Utah are licensed to carry around WEAPONS! (just look at the murder rate in Utah! especially the murder rate of CCW holders. she has a reason to be.. oh wait. )
You see, when they get threatened is a full blown emergency, and proof that everyone who disagrees is an imbalanced sexist psycho. But when the SJWs threaten the people that disagree with them, well that’s just trolls, and is no reflection on their position. I always propaganda and media manipulation with these types. There is no difference between new feminism and anti-gun – they are all Authoritarian Social Justice Warriors, and will use the State to bludgeon you into submission at the drop of a hat. They cannot be allowed access to any power because they are insane.
A worthwhile read for insight into what drives rabid gun controllers.
Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines the Anti-Gun Mentality
by Sarah Thompson, M.D.
http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm
It’s the power that makes them insane. “Power corrupts,” remember, and “absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
The only person who legitimately has power over you is you… and the corruption is reduced or eliminated to the extent that you remain responsible for the exercise of it. When power over people is divorced from any accountability or responsibility… we have the current political mess and police state.
The woman here obviously wants power with zero responsibility. Why does anyone listen to such people?
No one would have heard of this ding bat if she didn’t cry wolf about threats.
The only ‘common sense’ gun control was making murder illegal and preventing violent felons from keeping firearms (of course now the term felony is an abused joke when fishing in the wrong area gets your second amendment rights taken away).
Making murder illegal doesn’t stop murder; it only provides for a legal consequence for murder. It is certainly appropriate use of law.
Making felon possession of firearms doesn’t stop felons from possessing firearms, nor does it stop felons from committing further crimes, with or without firearms. The only way to accomplish either is to keep violent felons from both firearms and the means and opportunity to commit crimes..
The guns aren’t the problem or the solution. Keeping violent felons away from society is. If violent felons were given sufficiently long sentences (up to and including life in prison without parole), they wouldn’t be able to commit more crimes. Laws against violent felons possessing firearms would also be moot. Non-violent felons would have a reasonable opportunity to have their rights restored.
Problem solved!
Plenty of murders are prevented every single day because murder is illegal. The illegality and associated consequences taken together constitute the price for committing murder. I’ll agree that some people certainly are willing to pay that price, which is why we still have some murders committed.
However, a great many other people are unwilling to pay that price, despite every eagerness and ability to commit murder. So there are murders that go uncommitted, thanks to it being illegal.
It’s a false dichotomy to argue that would-be killers will kill regardless of the law, because in fact not all will. There is an array of pairings of prices and criminal offenses, consider it a demand schedule, and various would-be killers opt in or opt out based on the price tag.
True, those prices are imprecise, largely because they’re composites of estimates of multiple variables (probabilities of the murder being discovered, of you being suspected, tried, convicted, severity of sentence, swiftness of the process, etc.) being estimated by individuals with varying degrees of information and reasoning ability. Still. They are prices and incentives do matter.
The real question is how best to raise the price, above the criminal penalties, for those still willing to pay them. Many in here have answered that implicit question for themselves, and so they carry, but it’s still important to acknowledge that question so we’re clear on how we arrived at this state.
But the price should be paid only by those who commit malum in se offenses.
We’ve got to repeal malum prohibitum laws that punish citizens for behavior that harms no one.
I can conceal carry as long as I remain in my car when I pick up my child from public school.
If I were to step out and stand next to my car, that would be a felony!
Plenty of murders are prevented every single day because murder is illegal. The illegality and associated consequences taken together constitute the price for committing murder. I’ll agree that some people certainly are willing to pay that price, which is why we still have some murders committed.
However, a great many other people are unwilling to pay that price, despite every eagerness and ability to commit murder. So there are murders that go uncommitted, thanks to it being illegal.
I disagree. While that reasoning may be true for other offenses, It is not true for murder, which is perhaps the pinnacle of morality for humans. The unjustified taking of another human life is universally recognized as wrong – except for the sociopaths and psychopaths who commit most murders.
Given that the majority of murders in this country are gang/drug related, do you really believe that the perpetrators of those murders care at all for the legal consequences society has placed on their actions?
Generally speaking, I believe that legal consequences act as a deterrent for malum prohibitum offenses, but not for malum in se offenses – the most egregious of which is murder.
I don’t know if most murderers stop to “count the cost,” though I’d think many other criminal types would. Not sure how one would research that, but it is an interesting question… along with the controversy over the deterrent value of the death penalty.
Personally, I think that the ideal outcome of a violent attack is the grave injury or death of the aggressor at the hands of the intended victim or his/her guardian. Since all but the most psychotic people inclined to aggression are no more eager to suffer pain or death than the rest of us, I would think that the number of people willing to engage in aggressive behavior might be diminished considerably if they believe their intended victim might be able to harm them instead.
Seems to be working that way in places where increasing numbers of people carry guns… or might be.
If the Deseret News doesn’t see the big embarrassment here is a university expending significant resources to put on a presentation by a “video-game reviewer” as a major educational event, then the Deseret News isn’t worth fooling with.
“a “video-game reviewer”
I think its spelled Social Justice Warrior 🙂
Yup. She isn’t even a real gamer.
Anita is to feminists what Jesse Jackson is to black people.
She is a headlines chaser who makes money off controversy. She also likes to raise money on kickstarter then not deliver on what she promised.
No respect.
“Anita is to feminists what Jesse Jackson is to black people.”
I don’t like that simile. Had you said “Anita is to women what Jesse Jackson is to black people”, I would buy it. But you just compared feminists to black people. Black is a race, not an ideology. Feminists are…well I would say but my comment would be moderated.
Feminism as an ideology is authoritarianism in disguise.
Like with many Leftist movements, the average follower doesn’t understand how radical and extreme the leadership’s true agenda is.
So many average people who want women to be treated fairly and equally can’t understand why anyone would object to feminism.
In their mind, opposition to feminism = you hate women.
It’s like objecting to PETA. Ah! You hate animals.
Unfortunately, many people don’t dig deeper into the ideologies that are behind the public platitudes and taglines.
I have been tweeting on #WomenAgainstFeminism, #Gunsense & #GamerGate (Anita S issue) for several months (Gamergate just in the past couple of weeks)
You’d be amazed how many people don’t see the links between Feminism, Gun Control (2A infringement) and Censorship (1A infringement)
Enter me. That’s my job.
Thanks, Mina, for helping people to connect the dots!
Whatever their stripe, Statists are all about control, control, control.
“We, who know better than everybody else, will decide how other people should live their lives.”
@Michael
I am not comparing feminists and black people. I am comparing Anita to Jesse Jackson.
Specifically, Jesse Jackson does not speak for all black people but pretends he does. Anita does not speak for all feminists but pretends she does.
See the connection?
Then you don’t understand how similes work. A is to B as C is to D. A and C are compared and B and D are compared. There are four components to the analogy, not just the two. If you used “feminists” in a good light then there is no derogatory implication of “Blacks”. My point is “feminist” is not a good thing so you should have used “women” as it is neutral just as black is neutral.
Or you could have qualified certain black people and made the analogy truer by saying:
“Anita is to feminists as Jessie Jackson is to racists”. But I get your point.
I am not black but if I were, I would take exception to your statement. I yield to Dirk for an official response.
The threat was to shoot her with a rifle not a handgun so there really was no concealed carry threat to her, if indeed the threat was real.
“If the Deseret News doesn’t see the big embarrassment here is a university expending significant resources to put on a presentation by an internet troll as a major educational event, then the Deseret News isn’t worth fooling with.”
FTFY
So this “damsel is distress” wanted the men of the Utah police to save her……..
But…but…but…she has created a three-part video series criticizing the “damsel in distress” trope in gaming.
Ah! I understand:
Encouraging courageous, self-reliant female role models in gaming: good!
Being an example of a courageous, self-reliant female in the real world: bad!
Nailed it!
Exactly! She still feels like an empowered woman because she wants to be pampered by the state, instead of a man. Somehow she feels liberated by trying to deprive people of their rights under Utah law. Interesting.
What ever happened to being the change you wish to see in the world?
Or maybe she is and she envisions a world of self-indulgent, publicity-seeking hacks? Doesn’t sound like much of a change, after all, come to think of it.
Socialism, communism, critical theory, deconstructionism, feminism, leftism, blah, blah, blah all have the same binary trope woven into their world view:
* women don’t need men
* women need The State
However, it avoids addressing real issues that women face.
For example, if so-called feminism really cared about women and assault, they’d promote the notion that a women should be well armed at all times.
Imagine if every woman in the country was a concealed carrier!
Rape, assaults, murder, purse snatching, etc. would plummet.
But, alas, there’s a big problem with promoting firearms ownership among women.
It sends the wrong message: that women don’t need The State.
burn
Better 100 innocent people suffer than 1 guilty person go free…or at least that’s their rationale.
Except for when it comes to locking up that guilty person or maybe perhaps doling out a punishment fitting of the crime they committed. Then you will see all these “Social Justice” advocates wringing their hands and crying about cruel and unusual punishment.
And blame “the system” the caused the guilty party to turn to crime.
It’s professional ball busting at it’s finest. From now on, anything this woman comes across that could make a man even remotely happy will be burned in efagy and sacrificed to kickstarter.
I imagine the threats will continue to magically manifest themselves when she begins to lose the media support shitstorm and slinks back into obscurity. Legitimate threats aside, which in the day and age of twitter become pretty difficult to establish credibility or not imo, It blows my mind how this is not a renewed call to action for women to empower themselves through self defense.
My dad used to say “If youre going to act like an asshole, dont be surprised when people treat you like one.”
Your father is/was a wise man.
Interesting thing about the Deseret News: It’s owned by the LDS Church. Not exactly a bastion of progressive thought.
That is interesting, because most LDS people you talk to are avid gun owners. Salt Lake City has some very left leaning parts though, hence this opinion piece.
“The Utah gun law that canceled a USU speech is an embarrassment. . . . ”
Wait, what? The gun law canceled the speech? I though that the Democrat twit (sic) canceled her own speech.
Yep. Because the university refused to put their audience members at risk to suit her irrational fears.
Well, they’re words on paper, after all. Guns are inanimate objects that do all sorts of things of their own volition, and as we all know, the pen is mightier than the sword.
We’re lucky that canceling a speech is all that the law decided to do.
Yeah, from over here, the whole thing (CC on campus, the lady canceling the speech) only looks like so much win.
And this is a side note, but I really have to laugh about how the Progressives have spent 50-some years trying to tear down any and all restraint on sexuality, only to find out that they don’t like how men act when their sexuality is unrestrained. Hmm, do you think there might have been a reason for all that “repression” of yore? Nah, let’s just burn it all down, I’m sure we’ll get along fine without it.
There was no “Lady” involved in the matter.
I’d bet that her cancelling her speech/tirade left us all a bit smarter.
I hear Monica Lewinsky is available…and willing.
Ms. Sarkeesian is a self-important twit, thinking her importance overrides state law.
Lot of twits out there, if I can’t avoid them, try to ignore them. Oh wait, exactly the reaction to her dictates.
I sense a revival of the MDA “Game Over” trope.
http://momsdemandaction.org/in-the-news/game-over-video-game-industry-urged-to-stop-promoting-guns-and-gun-manufacturers/
If you think someone’s going to try to kill you, arm yourself with something more than a law.
Words of wisdom indeed.
Far better to arm up than rely on The State protecting you with a restraining order (a piece of paper which is the adult equivalent of a “time out”).
Even if every gun on the planet magically disappeared tomorrow, abusers would still end up killing using whatever means handy: hands, fists, bats, rope, knives, etc.
No, sir.
The best way for a woman to protect herself is to take up arms.
In the Anita Sarkeesian case there was no bully except her because there was no death threat. She has a history of (making up) exaggerating threats to her person. Which is why Utah officials found her claims less than credible.
This whole scenario is just the dumbest thing to even acknowledge happened. It’s like just mentioning that this occurred makes it more than it is already.
Larry Correia does a great job with this article http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/10/21/fisking-the-deseret-news-anti-ccw-article/
Interesting how the news media gets deeply upset at anything that threatens the free speech rights of a leftist, but they have no problem with leftist college students who shut down speeches by conservatives such as Condoleeza Rice. Violent protests on college campuses by Hamas supporters are OK when they shut down any speech by a supporter of Israel, but the media sure gets their knickers in a bunch over any interference with the speech of the leftists.
And I have a question I wish someone would ask the Bloomberg Mommies and our various prominent anti-gun politicians: “Please name ONE Federal gun law that you consider to be UNREASONABLE. Just one.”
“The Utah gun law that canceled a USU speech …”
Gun laws don’t cancel speeches, people do.
I do my best to avoid this women, since I have no interest in her overpriced products or vapid observations, but she’s popping up everywhere I go. It’s getting a tad annoying.
Why is she holding a picture of her shaved armpit??
but… safety!
“Isn’t the Utah law designed to protect people against bullies (a.k.a., criminals)?”
That question should read:
Isn’t the Utah law designed to protect people against bullies (a.k.a., criminals and gun grabber police and politicians)?
Even if that threat was legitimate (and if it was, I hope the individual who sent it gets proseciuted to the fullist extent of the law,) Anita shows that in the end, she has no pride in what she does. Or a spine for that matter. Can talk all kinds of smack in front of a camera, can intentionally provoke fights with 4chan, can’t back any of it up in the real world.
Why do I get the feeling that Anita was behind the death threat to set up this whole situation?
OK, I’ve been pondering this since the story first broke. And I’m still confused about a few things.
– Why did Anita Sarkeesian cancel, even though there would be police presence at her talk?
– How is she even qualified to speak on the subject of feminism? At a university?
– How does one make a living as a “video game reviewer,” anyway?
It just doesn’t make any sense to me any way you slice it.I think the whole thing may be a set-up, from start to finish.
To answer your questions
1) she is basically extremely liberal so she is against concealed carry in general. She was not actually worried (she has had others in the past and continued on with the event as planned) she just needed it as an excuse not to do the event, while looking like a “valid reason” (and possibly as a way to get out of a contract).
2) She is a woman that’s all the qualification she needs (or has). She just needs to be creative and come up with ways on how every thing is sexist, and willing to mislead and strait up lie to people to get them to believe her no mater how stupid it is when you rationally think about it.
3) Same way people make a living reviewing any other product, either through advertisement revenue or working for a publication that pays you. However in her case she is not a “video game reviewer”, in her own words she’s a “Feminist Pop Culture Critic”. There is even a video out there where she says she does not even like video games before she started targeting them. She makes her living by being paid by people who want to believe that they are some how victims to an evil society, and want to hear that they are in fact some how victims in a plausible educated sounding way (at least as long as one is not thinking to critically about what is actually being said.)
She is an absolute moron in all sorts of ways. She is not a feminist in the sense of equal rights for woman, which is perfectly okay, she is a misguided feminists that seems to want extra rights for woman and finds things like men being gentlemanly and doing things like holding a door for a woman sexist.
I have never been able to stand her.
Why are we still talking about this women?
Two things:
First, if an elected official received the threat my bet is that there would have been scanners and pat downs at the doors. Am I wrong?
Second, if some nut started shooting in a theater, I would like to think I would not be alone in punching him full of holes. The proper response to unpopular speech, among others, is more speech and should not include homicide.
Good citizens should respect the First as well as the Second Amendment. I think it would be a public relations coup for a crazed shooter to be shot by pro-gunners to protect an anti-gunners life. Nothing like a real life example to make converts to the cause.
It would prove that there is a difference between decisions made in a game and decisions made in real life.
Even if a politician were threatened, they wouldn’t be able to do scanners and pat downs to keep out concealed carry permit holders.
As a Utah public institution, we follow state law. The Utah law provides that people who legally possess a concealed firearm permit are allowed to carry a firearm on public property, like the USU campus.
Utah State Pres. and Provost to Speaker Anita Sarkeesian: Wattsa Matta U?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/10/robert-farago/utah-pres-and-provost-to-anita-sarkeesian-wattsa-matta-u/
Thanks John.
So they think patdowns and metal detectors will stop a guy with guns and bombs?
Aaaaaand they thinks this makes sense? How?