One Utah state representative thinks Sarkeesian “overreacted” to the vivid detailed death threats she got before her scheduled talk at Utah State university.
“It’s totally up to her; if she’s fearful, that’s her prerogative,” said Rep. Curtis Oda, R-Clearfield, in response to Anita Sarkeesian’s decision to bow out of her address. But Oda added, “I think she’s overreacting.”
The state representative, who is pro-gun rights off and on campus, called gun permit holders—who can legally carry—“a group that is probably the most law-abiding out there.”
Even if that’s true, it’s not relevant. Here’s why. The issue isn’t what the average Utah gun permit holder is likely to do. The issue is what someone who makes a frothing-with-hatred threat to shoot a feminist speaker and women to death might do. Someone who makes that kind of threat could be serious. If so, what would that someone do? Get a gun permit, and carry a gun. The fact that all the other gun permit holders are law-abiding – if it is a fact – is neither here nor there.
This.
Sayz the man who works in a building where guns are not permitted, iirc.
In the words of Charlie Pierce: Christ, what an asshole.
As much as I’d love to visit Zion, I think I may have to boycott UT for a long time to come.
Forget the Heckler’s Veto. What happened in Utah sounds more like a Heckler & Koch Veto.
If I can mangle someone else’s analogy: I have in my hand a big bowl of M&Ms (no brown ones, though). One of them contains a remote detonator that will trigger some explosives to blow up you and maybe a dozen or so people around you. I have a metal detector I can use to detect these types of M&M, but it’s a bit of a burden to operate and besides many people tell me they don’t mind the remote detonator M&Ms. They’re rare, after all, and did I mention operating the metal detector is a chore? Because it is.
Anyway: would you take a handful of M&Ms, or force me to use my metal detector? Taking one M&M isn’t an option, by the way. Handful or metal detector, no other choice.
I am stunned that authorities did not take that threat more seriously. It was a detailed threat, that cited both an intent and a means to commit the crime. This was not someone sending a “I will fucking kill you, feminist b*&T#” tweet. This was a detailed terroristic threat, and seemed very believable to me.
I seriously don’t get it how it was NOT treated seriously.
Yep, it appears that for certain Representatives, the Constitution begins and ends at the Second Amendment as far as what needs defending in any and all cases. The rest is only worth defending in cases where it applies to the Representatives themselves. For people who do a job ostensibly to help the everyday person, politicians like Oda sure are selfish!
@JeffS #5:
It was not taken seriously because it was a threat delivered toward women– specifically, feminists, who everybody knows had it coming what with being so shrill and all, if they didn’t want to be death threatened they’d pipe down for once– and because Sarkeesian gets these sorts of threats all the time but no one has killed her thus far, so of course it was all just bluster, boys will be boys you know. It’s totally her choice to be afraid of mass murder because mass murder never happens.
*spits*
But but but Sarkeesian’s terrorist would have gotten off one, maybe two shots at most before the good guys would have pulled out their guns and shot him without hitting anybody else in that crowded auditorium.
Because that’s how good guy bullets work.
I am so mad I feel crosseyed. On one side a person of unimaginable courage (well, unimaginable for me. I’ve never had to deal with years of death and torture threats.) On the other, some guy with just enough knowledge of people’s lizard brains to get them to vote for him and who works in a no-guns building. This jerk calls her “afraid” because she doesn’t want to be a magnet for mass murder because idiots like him have left the door wide open for mass murder.
I just have this inarticulate gargle of rage. Justice would mean that his mind had to live in her world for maybe five minutes. It’d destroy him, but the way I feel right now, that’s the point.
Let me get this straight – a guy who thinks the most appropriate way to insure personal safety is to carry a loaded firearm everywhere he goes thinks it is overreacting to cancel a public appearance that has been specifically threatened with use of guns and explosives?
Logic: how does that work?
A man just threatened to kill a shitload of people with guns and pipe bombs, oh stop overreacting!
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
This is definitely true, but there’s also fact that they wouldn’t even do pat downs or use metal detectors… So even if they didn’t have a permit, they could easily sneak a gun in.
onamission5
So, on that logic, the President’s security detail should just relax. As I understand it, he’s had more death threats than any other president has ever had. Seeing as no one has yet succeeded, it seems the USA is wasting dollars, time and effort in protecting him from now on. Obviously, all those threats were Just bluster and any further threat to him or to people attending the same events as him will be similarly harmless.
Or maybe not.
/s
The misogynists are getting upset because they are loosing. What is getting them upset is that they have paid $40 for a game and now they are banned because some girl ratted them out to the company after they harassed her. Some of these people pay big money buying up game licenses on steam ten at a time knowing they get banned.
The gun nuts are getting upset for the same reason. If this was #ebola the same Utah rep would be doing the panty twist dance calling for the national guard. Because for him its all about saving his precious rich white ass. So send kids in to Syria to go fight ISIS in case they come over here, panic over ebola and of course make sure absolutely nothing threatens his ‘right’ to protect himself with an exploding penis.
Guns are a much bigger threat to the US than ebola so lets panic about the threat that is killing 30,000 americans a year. The number of gun deaths in countries with gun control is insignificant in comparison. In the UK its less than a hundred.
If someone threatened to drive a truckbomb into the venue. Would Utah forbid traffic barriers?