Wednesday, October 15, 2014

So much for the Second Amendment protects the First's Freedoms.

Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist known for her critical look at how women are portrayed in popular media cancelled a talk at Utah State University, citing Utah gun laws, after an email threatening a campus shooting was sent to the school.

The e-mail threatened "the deadliest school shooting in American history" if Anita Sarkeesian was allowed to speak at the school. The email is purported to have been written by a student with access to a semiautomatic rifle, several pistols and pipe bombs.

"I'm giving you a chance to stop it," the message reads, demanding that Sarkeesian's presentation be canceled.

The writer of the threatening email called Sarkeesian "everything wrong with the feminist woman" and blames feminism for the emasculation of Western men. The message also referred  to Marc Lepine, the gunman behind a deadly attack against women at a Canadian university in 1989, as a hero and promised a similar shooting at USU, specifically referencing Sarkeesian, attendees at the presentation, and students and staff at the women's center.

Sarkeesian asked school officials whether firearms would be allowed in the auditorium where she was scheduled to speak. USU officials replied that, in accordance with Utah law, anyone with a valid concealed carry permit would be able to enter with a gun, according to a statement released by the university.

Sarkeesian said she requested pat-downs or metal detectors for those coming to the presentation but was denied based on Utah's firearms laws.

Of course, the lawful gun owners would be protecting a crazy.

Or else become yet another mass shooter thanks to crappy US gun laws.

Or as one person commented on Facebook:
But only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun! So clearly what was necessary was for pro-Sarkaasian partisans to also show up armed, and then we could have a multi-way shoot-out in a crowded auditorium. Freedom!
To be honest, guns don't guarantee freedom--they never have. What guarantees freedom are people who are willing to speak out, especially if what they say is unpopular.

Those who kill only create martyrs.

See also:


  1. So she was ok with appearing in a venue allowing firearms before this anonymous threat?

    1. The laws you gun loons stand behind is dangerous. A threat is received but because of loose gun laws the place can't even check for guns after a threat is received. Instead of promoting safety I'm sure you would suggest, just give her a gun.

    2. Don't want to get into the whole gamergate thing (frankly I don't give a crap one way or the other on it), but I've seen too many interviews where Sarkeesian complains about how fearful she is about death threats she's gotten, and the comments she shows as examples are more tame than things some of the Anti-gunners here have said to some of us over the years. On the whole, the impression I've gotten is that she has very thin skin and is easily frightened/offended.

      I would also guess that she didn't know about firearms being allowed until this threat caused her to demand metal detectors, etc. A lot of liberals who are my age (like Anita) just assume you can't have guns or even pocket knives in any place they plan to be, and they have a panicked reaction if they realize that there isn't already a law about it.

      Also, in light of my comment above about the insulting comments Sarkeesian brings out to show how awful her commenters are, this threat is completely different from those, and if it was made as reported, certainly track the person down and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

    3. "A threat is received but because of loose gun laws the place can't even check for guns after a threat is received. Instead of promoting safety I'm sure you would suggest, just give her a gun."

      Anon, the police don't get to violate state law because someone is scared. I don't recall anyone saying it in the articles, but I haven't heard anything mentioned about the police not being able to ask to see the person's carry permit. I cant speak to being able to carry rifles, but I think I'm on safe ground betting that carry permits don't apply to pipe bombs.
      As I mentioned below, the police had a security plan in place to prevent trouble.

    4. " the police had a security plan in place to prevent trouble."

      But, doesn't that violate one of the main pro-gun arguments for owning and carrying guns? The police don't "prevent trouble," the arrest people after they cause trouble.

      The speaker received a threat and cancelled the talk - makes perfect sense to me.

    5. I won't criticize her decision to cancel, but I wonder if she'll ever speak at any venue that doesn't require all attendees to go through metal detectors, pat-downs, etc. If not, how could she know that someone hasn't smuggled a pistol in with which to kill her and/or others?

      In other words, simply banning concealed carry in the venue, without such security measures, is hardly an obstacle to someone with bad intentions (and indeed, provides him or her with a "soft target").

    6. "Sarkeesian said she requested pat-downs or metal detectors for those coming to the presentation but was denied based on Utah's firearms laws."

      This says Utah gun laws don't allow for metal detectors, or pat downs. That's a stupid law. What do police do when there is a real threat?

    7. "The speaker received a threat and cancelled the talk - makes perfect sense to me."

      Absolutely correct.

      These gun loons who are blasting her decision are the same fools who claim their rights are being violated because of background checks, magazine capacity, gun safes, etc., etc.....yet they protest her right to decide where she will speak.

    8. " What do police do when there is a real threat?"

      Lets look at what measures they were going to take at the canceled event,

      "According to university spokesman Tim Vitale, the university formulated a security plan when they knew Sarkeesian was coming, prior to her arrival. “We were going to not allow bags in at all,” Vitale said. Once the threat was sent, “We added officers, both uniform and undercover, and we were going to empty the room and sweep the room [for bombs].”

      So, they had a plan to make the event as safe as possible. And I imagine that those carrying would have their permit checked. Keep in mind that the articles Laci posted also speak of there being threats at her other speaking engagements, yet she chose to not cancel. In fact, at another event where there was a bomb threat prior to the event, they took less stringent measures than the Utah Police were planning, yet she chose to appear at the event.

      "GDC organizers did not inform attendees of the threat but told me this week that "additional security staff were brought in to conduct random bag checks as attendees entered the Awards. The Awards occurred without incident."

      And of course, some responsibility can be set at Sarkeesian's feet. After all, I don't recall the carry laws in Utah changing recently, so she obviously neglected to plan well by making the commitment to speak at a venue open to permit holders. She could have easily gotten around this by scheduling the event at a venue that isn't public property, where she would be on firm legal footing in her wish to ban legal carry.

    9. Of course she made the decision to speak there BEFORE the threat came in, but you go ahead and make her "responsible." That's great, she gets a threat, and you claim she is responsible. Would you say she called in the threat herself?

    10. ss, how can you say some responsibility for this is hers? She probably had mixed feelings about making this talk from the beginning knowing that Utah is a big gun state. Then the threat came and she was persuaded that, lacking some extraordinary measures which the police declined to do, it would be too risky.

    11. Mike, as has been noted before, these threats apparently aren't unusual.

      “I have had threats at other events, and each time that happens I take it very seriously and usually the location I’m speaking at takes it very seriously,” she said. “So, this was the first time I had ever declined to do an event.”

      "However, Sarkeesian said Utah State University’s response was minimal and maintains the school didn’t even tell her about the threat, Tweeting that she found out about the threat from social media after arriving in Utah."

      The precautions don't seem minimal to me(listed above) Again, its her choice, but she chose the venue.

    12. They didn't even tell her about the threat and she had to find out about it on social media. That alone is enough to lose confidence in the local authorities. I wouldn't trust them after that, or their definition of how dangerous the threat was.

  2. Nice baseless Venn Diagram Pooch. All this incident proves is that she gave in to pressure from one asshole who was threatening a terrorist attack and should be tracked down and prosecuted appropriately.

  3. Why are you making this about gun rights? Shouldn't that Venn diagram show the overlap between gamers and misogynists?

  4. "Following a disturbing email received late Monday evening, Utah State University police and administrators have been working throughout the day to assess any level of risk to students or to a speaker scheduled to visit. USU police, in conjunction with several teams of state and federal law enforcement experts, determined that there was no threat to students, staff or the speaker, so no alert was issued.
    The safety of our students and visitors is always the university’s first priority. At no time was there any imminent threat. The investigation is continuing.
    The speaker, Anita Sarkeesian, canceled the presentation. She was concerned about the fact that state law prevented the university from keeping people with a legal concealed firearm permit from entering the event. University police were prepared and had a plan in place to provide extra security measures at the presentation."

    "At no time was there any imminent threat."

    So in other words, it was a fake threat, the police were on top of it, and were prepared to address the potential security issues. Since no one knows who wrote the email, there isn't even any assurance that its a man, or if it was sent by someone in the US.
    Though Sarkeesian did get some free press from it.

    1. It wasn't a fake threat, but the police took it less seriously than Ms. Sarkeesian. I guess it's totally out of line for the person being threatened to decide how threatened they feel? You gun loons love to come down on women.