Fisking the Deseret News’ anti-CCW article

So my local paper ran a really dumb anti-CCW editorial. It was so riddled with nonsense, distortions, and falsehoods that it was just begging for a fisking. As usual, the original is in italics and my comments are in bold.

In our opinion: Utah gun law that canceled USU speech is an embarrassment

The only embarrassment here is the dreck that passes for writing at the Deseret News now.

The inability of Utah State University to impose reasonable protections for a speaker who had received death threats is more than just an embarrassment to the state. It is alarming.

No. It isn’t, and we’ll get to why later. This is typical breathless editorial speak, used by the willfully manipulative to sway the useful idiots. When you start breaking down the actual facts it is neither alarming nor embarrassing. It is Utah following the rule of law as opposed to the freak out cause of the day.

It should not, however, be surprising, especially to anyone who remembers the struggles a decade ago over Utah’s loose concealed permit carrier law.

I remember the “struggles” rather well. In fact I’m one of the people that testified against the University of Utah’s highly paid lobbyist in front of the Justice Committee at the State Legislature.  Like this editorial, all he could do was appeal to raw emotion and wishful thinking.

It’s time to revisit that law and allow schools the freedom to protect the public.

Let’s see… Historically, what has protected the public better? Law abiding types carrying firearms for personal defense, or No Guns Allowed signs?  Think hard.

Rather than repeat myself, here is an essay where I broke down in great detail why Utah allowing concealed weapon permit holders to carry firearms inside of schools makes sense. I wrote it after Sandy Hook, and it has become one of the most widely read essays on the topic of gun control there is.

Basically, whenever they start talking about “protecting the public” their ideas usually do the exact opposite.

It’s time Utah law stood up for safety, not the empowerment of bullies.

I’m curious about the definition of “bullies” here. A loaded term. You couldn’t possibly mean the public speaker who demanded a state change its policies to suit her ill-informed opinions on safety, and when she didn’t get her way—even though a suitable work around was readily, legally, available—instead asked for a boycott of the entire state until they gave in to her whims?

A decade ago, the University of Utah decided to continue enforcing a 25-year-old campus ban on firearms despite a new law that made concealed weapons fair game at schools.

A state institution having to obey state law? Crazy.

That resulted in a lawsuit that ended in 2006 when the Utah Supreme Court ruled the university had no authority to impose a policy contrary to state law.

Yep. It was a very sad day when the U discovered that despite wasting tons of tax payer and tuition money on a case that basically consisted of screaming Academic Freedom over and over again, our state constitution still applied to them.

The university — the only institution of higher learning in Utah willing to carry the fight — next tried to lobby and work with lawmakers to craft a compromise.

Their “compromise” was just their same old illegal ban in a fancy new wrapper. We exposed it for what it was and defeated it.

What they ended up with was a 2007 law that allows any student living in a dormitory to specify that he or she does not wish to room with a concealed weapon permit holder — nothing more.

Yep. Because before that their suggestions included things like declaring whatever building they wanted off limits at any time (which quickly turned into All of Them).  They had a long wish list of restrictions to make CCW so incredibly cumbersome and difficult to legally comply with that it would have been a de facto ban.

This wasn’t just about students either. It also affected everyone that worked for the university as well. Professors, employees, clerks, didn’t matter. They were out of luck.

Churches, it should be noted, also expressed concern over the law and, unlike schools, were allowed to publicly declare their own no-guns policies.

The finer points of law elude the Deseret News. Our CCW law treats different types of property in different manners. Churches are private property. A private university would be private property. The University of Utah is owned by the state and paid for with tax payer funds.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which owns this newspaper, subsequently registered its no-gun position.

As a Mormon and a professional writer, it offends me that my church owns a newspaper that sucks this badly.

The church issued a statement asking us not to carry guns at church, but then left it up to the discretion of the local bishops. In the decade since the only time my CCW has ever been of concern to any of my bishops was when one wanted to know if I was prepared to shoot a bear (long story, but yes, obviously).

The issue, both then and now, is not about the wisdom of allowing people who have passed special courses to legally carry a concealed weapon. This makes sense under the Second Amendment to the Constitution, although it should not apply under all circumstances and it is a myth to believe the issuance of such a permit is a guarantee against crime.

Wow. There’s a lot of BS in that paragraph. He pays lip service to the Second Amendment, then immediately says to infringe the one that says it shouldn’t be infringed. Also, nobody believes that a permit is a guarantee against crime. That’s a straw man. Trust me, I taught the Utah CCW course to thousands, and nobody thinks of their handgun as a cross that wards off vampires.

No, the issue is common sense.

Common sense suggests that it is a lot harder to commit mass murder when your targets can shoot back.

Anita Sarkeesian was scheduled to speak about how women are portrayed in popular media, and especially in video games.

I’ve never gotten into GamerGate here on the blog, but basically Anita Sarkeesian is a professional victim, Social Justice Warrior, who thinks you are enjoying yourself wrong, and if you disagree you are a racist, homophobic, misogynist.

If you are a regular blog reader who followed Sad Puppies at all, same thing, same crusaders, same song, different industry.

Late Monday, someone sent an email to about a dozen USU offices threatening a deadly massacre if she were allowed to speak. It threatened “the deadliest school shooting in American history.”

As somebody who has gotten lots of death threats, anybody who sends a death threat is scum. They are vermin.

However, they are also a fact of life on the internet, and if you have enough of an audience and take a stand for anything, you will receive threats against your life. That big gun control blog post I linked above? That one had a million readers in the first month and got me on Huckabee. I had several “caring liberals” threaten to murder my entire family over that one.

Any moron with an internet connection can send a threat. The last thing you want to do is publicize these things. The people sending the threats are losers seeking attention. By publishing their threats far and wide and cancelling events, you’ve given them power.

School officials and law enforcement said they determined the threat was not credible, but that really didn’t matter.

Hold on… The TRUTH didn’t matter?

It wasn’t just the USU police, but the FBI that specialize in internet crimes that said this threat was bunk. Hell, I’m not exactly a cybercrimes expert, but I read it and scoffed. It was written like it came from somebody whose knowledge of weapons and violence came from reading the newspaper (hint, actual gun experts don’t talk about their “semi-automatic” weapons).

Not to mention they tracked it back to originating in Brazil, so he’d have to fly to another continent, catch another flight to Utah, and last time I looked the TSA frowns on pipe bombs in your carry-on luggage. So logistically after he comes to another hemisphere, he could try to illegally procure weapons as a non-resident or procure bomb materials on unfamiliar territory, without attracting attention, all while planning an attack on new ground in a very short period of time, and then pull it off in a place where the audience can shoot him.

Since I’m guessing this guy isn’t Frank Castle, I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over it.  

Under Utah law, Utah State University had no choice but to let people with permits carry guns into the hall, and they had no mechanism for determining who had such a permit and who was, in fact, carrying a weapon.

Wow… No. Does anybody fact check anything in these things? There are several mistakes here.

First off, USU did have a choice because there is a provision in the law for a normally open to the public establishment to temporarily become a Secure Facility. The legislature worked this out with the US Secret Service prior to presidential and vice presidential visits. The facility may be secured, and CCW prohibited, provided that admission is controlled, and lockers are provided for any guests who are carrying firearms so that they can safely store their weapons. Then they control the entrance and exits. That usually means guards and metal detectors.

USU chose not to go this route because the FBI said the threat was bunk.

Next error, there is no mechanism for determining who had a permit? Uh… It is a little laminated red card with your picture on it you carry in your wallet like a driver’s license or any other state issued ID. If you want to make sure a permit is legit, you can call the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification and they can tell you if a permit is valid or not in a couple of seconds. Gun dealers do this every time they sell a gun in Utah to a permit holder when the buyer fills out a 4473 form for the BATF. Hell, the database is online! Police can access it whenever they want.

And another problem, he says there is no mechanism for determining who is in fact carrying a weapon… Think about that critically for a moment.  There is no way to know if the hypothetical mass murderer is carrying a weapon either, because he sure as hell isn’t going to tell you, and he’s certainly not going to decide to call it a day and not go commit the couple hundred felonies he had planned because of your No Guns Allowed sign.

News flash, the people who get permits aren’t the ones you need to worry about.

Sarkeesian, who said she has spoken in the face of death threats elsewhere, canceled her speech, citing concern over that law.

And then Sarkeesian called for all of her followers to boycott the state of Utah.

So give into the demands of a professional victim, or continue to protect our children from mass murder… tough call.

Common sense would dictate that a university could prohibit weapons and set up metal detectors at an event that has been targeted with death threats.

USU actually had the option of doing just that and creating a legal Secure Facility, but they chose to listen to the FBI, save their money, and not hassle their students and faculty instead. Go Aggies.

If an armed officer were present, this would be a much more effective counter to any attack than the crossfire of multiple weapons carriers.

Oh bull crap. So in the last decade of us allowing guns in schools, do you have any examples of these terrible Wild West style crossfire shootouts between multiple permit holders in Utah? Heck, expand it beyond Utah. Of the millions and millions of permit holders out there, do you have any examples of these hypothetical mistaken identity crossfires?


Not that any of this would actually matter, because come on… why the hell would somebody smart, capable, and wise enough to take the necessary steps to carry a gun to provide for their own safety want to listen to a professional victim feminist whine about gamers for an hour? I’ve got a gut feeling that hall would be the closest thing to a gun free zone on campus that day regardless.

As far as armed officers being present, I would suspect that the USU police would have an officer present at any large speaking engagement, especially one with any sort of potential for conflict of any sort.

But common sense has been brushed aside.

You keep using the term, but last time I checked “wishful thinking” and “emotionally laden nonsense” weren’t synonyms with “common sense”. If you say something stupid and then call it common sense, that doesn’t make it sensible. It is still stupid. Sort of like “social justice” or “economic fairness”.  

For whatever reason, the gaming community has attracted an element that threatens to kill feminists.

And Social Justice Warriors have attracted an element that threaten to kill conservative authors. Cry me a river.

Such threats should not be taken lightly,

I’m doing a book signing at the U of U bookstore on Halloween day. Since these are Larry Correia fans, I’m assuming there will be so many concealed weapons there that it will be like the opposite of a gun free zone, and probably the safest place on campus.  🙂

nor should arguments that a room full of people with concealed weapons is a deterrent to a deranged criminal be given credence.

A room full of people with concealed weapons isn’t a deterrent to committing violent crime? Maybe if your bad guy is on a kamikaze mission.  And hate to break it to you, but if that’s what you’re up against, he isn’t going to give a crap about your cops or metal detectors either. For anybody else not trying to commit suicide, getting shot a couple dozen times by bystanders is usually a pretty strong deterrent. That’s why mass shooters keep attacking gun free zones instead of shooting ranges or police stations. I go into great detail on that point in the above link, so basically let me say that paragraph is one of the most willfully ignorant piles of dreck I’ve ever had the displeasure of fisking.

Utah lawmakers need to change this silly and potentially dangerous law.

That’s the beauty of having fifty states. If you don’t like this one, feel free to pack your stuff and go to one of the other ones more to your liking. Utah actually loves our kids, so we don’t feel like making it easier for psychopaths to kill large numbers of them to placate your angst.



Book plug! The Raven, the Elf, and Rachel
Booger Hook off the Bang Switch MHI shirts

276 thoughts on “Fisking the Deseret News’ anti-CCW article”

    1. Selling books makes Larry more money and that keeps him writing. As a fan who likes to read what he writes, I’m not going to argue with anyone’s reason for buying one of his books.

      That much boing said, you might want to buy one because it’s freaking awesome as well. Or at least read it if you do buy one. They’re worth your time for sure. Then you can tell all your friends how much ass they kick and they can buy some too!

    1. Please, no! Think of the children! 🙂

      Seriously, shooting bare can be dangerous. My sister was shooting a USPSA club match with her 1911 one night and had a .45 case go down the front of her blouse. I was rolling on the floor, everybody else was looking at her like she was crazy (I saw what happened, they didn’t), as she was jerking on the front of her blouse trying to dislodge the case while running between stages. It left burn marks…

      1. In that case, the clothing probably increased the contact time between hot brass and skin, though I would guess that a clothes with a tighter neck would be better than bare.

      2. I’ve had one go down the back of my ACU blouse. It’s a hazard under any circumstances, just more so with certain cuts. I would think that bare would at least get it off your skin faster.

      3. I’ve had shells bounce off of the lane barrier at the range and drop in my shirt pocket more than a few times. Once I got a scorched nipple and that wasn’t any fun at all. 🙁

      4. I often head to the range wearing an aloha shirt. If brass does find it’s way in, it just keeps on going. I seem to have more issue with the neighboring lanes brass bouncing of my head. I think that is an appeasement issue within the Peoples Republic of California for allowing us to shoot at all. I deal with this type of thinking in this article on a daily basis.

  1. The fisking (as usual) was far superior to the source material.

    But, man, that was some remarkably thin gruel they were spooning out.

    1. Agreed. I get the feeling that the quality of the opposition has fallen off a bit in the last thirty years or so. At least thirty, more than that I’ve less clear memory of and must rely on historical texts.

  2. Why is it that people who major in literary analysis and criticism and deconstruction like the original editorialist are completely incapable of any such thing?

    They should demand refunds on their tuition because it ain’t workin’.

    1. Surprisingly enough it is still possible to get a degree in literature and still be rational. I got one not too long ago from the University Larry will be signing at on Halloween.

      I’m pretty sure all of my teachers were liberal, but they were those rare birds that actually respect different opinions and ideas.

      Heck, my mentor was an avowed atheist (lower-case a mind you) yet we could still have long discussions about religion, disagreeing the whole time, and still have a pleasant conversation. Granted, he was also the professor who taught classes on sci-fi books and recommended video games to me.

      In Utah at least our demographics result in our liberals either being more moderate than most or a lot more left-wing, It doesn’t hurt that the national level Dems rarely do anything here, they consider us a lost cause.

      1. I got a lit degree too, not so much because it’s useful but more because it allowed me to take entire courses on things like Tolkien or sci-fi. I did get very annoyed at the way that literary criticism digs beyond the subtle meaning of works, digging entirely through the work into something that isn’t the work at all. In college, I learned two major things about literary criticism:
        1. If you’re good, you can take any work at all and interpret it through any lens at all (feminism, Marxism, Christianity, whatever) and come up with some sort of essay about it.
        2. After a certain (fairly early) point, literary criticism says far less about the literary work than it does about the person doing the critiquing.
        (I just thought of a third: if a work really does have as many layers of meaning as literary critics pretend, it’s probably a big pile of utter nonsense.)

        I wrote a short play in college that I intended as a sort of allegory about Christianity and the need for God. But I didn’t tell anyone what it was about until after the last performance. It was really interesting seeing the different interpretations people had for it. And the liberal students/teacher’s reaction to my explanation of the play they’d just put on.

      2. ”In Utah at least our demographics result in our liberals either being more moderate than most or a lot more left-wing, It doesn’t hurt that the national level Dems rarely do anything here, they consider us a lost cause.”

        The Liberal mindset is one of greed, envy, and hate. When there’s relatively little there for them to envy, they tend to ignore you (fortunately). They tend to build their hives in cities. The infestation spreads from there.

        Here in the South, we live in some of the most beautiful country in the world, in my humble opinion (though I might just be biased). The town I was born in was voted something like fourth or fifth best location for a conservative. Other than the natural beauty, there’s little wealth to attract the grasshoppers.

        Of course, with tractor pulls, NASCAR, staunch Southern values (and Southern courtesy), lots of churches with folks of both devout and quiet faith, bluegrass and country music, and utter lack of race consciousness, it might be that our brand of cultural “bug spray” is working…

  3. Yeah. That was awesome. The funny thing is, despite being a hard-core gamer I had been trying very hard not to get involved in gamergate, for my own health mostly, but also because I wasn’t sure it could actually accomplish anything.

    What has got me to start posting stuff about it and arguing for it wasn’t (directly) the pro-gg people, but all the vile crap put forth by the anti crowd.

    I mean, look at the interviews Magnatron did – same questions to a pro and anti-gger, picked for their prominent status in each group.

    Calm, reasoned discourse from one, hyperbolic hypocritical bile from the other. I’ll let you guess which was which.

    You know what, I have all of your books already, most in paperback and ebook, but I’m sure I can find someone to give a signed copy of MHI to. See you on Halloween. I’m sure I’ll feel quite safe.

    1. Being a gamer girl myself, I’ve also been avoiding the whole gg thing. I’ve been a gamer since I was a little kid and I can honestly say I’ve never felt left out as a girl gamer. Of course, I’ve never couched my entire life in terms of my private parts (especially as a kid), so it never occurred to me to be offended that it was Mario and Luigi instead of Mario and Maria. Even now I just can’t find it in me to be offended that there aren’t tons of games with female leads.

      And, to be honest, it seems to me in what little gg crap I have seen the only women who are shrieking about misogyny in gaming culture aren’t even gamers themselves; it’s just another SJW cause they can jump on as feminists to keep the professional victim train rolling.

      1. Its fun watching the anti-gg crowd trying so hard to ‘not notice’ the Not Your Shield group. (For those who haven’t seen it – Not Your Shield is the twitter # used for the women and minorities in gaming who are sick of the crap and sick of the people using them as a way to deflect criticism by claiming its all just misogyny or racism)

        Just look at who each side has as their most prominent voices. GG has Adam Baldwin, Milo Yiannopoulos, (who isn’t a gamer and has been critical of the group in the past) and the ever pleasant and reasonable Christina Hoff Sommers, host of the “Factual Feminist” video series. Yeah. A hardcore 60s liberal feminist and one of the most conservative guys in Hollywood. (Though they’re trying to paint Sommers as a neocon because, while stridently feminist, she disagrees vocally with the current third wave feminists as being anti-men rather than actually feminist)

        They have the ‘journalists’ that show their ethics by openly mocking and bullying their target audience, saying things like GG proves that nerds _need_ to be bullied into their place and that Adam Baldwin performs lewd acts on goats.

        Oh, and John Scalzi. They have him too.

      2. Yeah, it’s never fun having somebody who represents everything you despise claim they are representing you. I’m not a fan of being anybody’s prop. Especially when I’m being used by people who would line me up against a wall and shoot me if it was legal and they didn’t need me for their latest cause du jour.

        Though I do agree, it’s hilarious watching people willfully ignore entire groups because they aren’t playing along with the narrative. Even better is when those people claim to be oh-so-concerned about you and then turn into the most racist/misogynist bastards ever when you won’t get down on your knees and thank them for deigning to fight the BS battle for you.

        And really, if John Scalzi is the best they’ve got… hahahahahahahaha!

      3. What I find most amusing about the current gaming contretemps is that it wasn’t all that long ago that some of the very same people talking about rampant sexism/racism in gaming culture were using the idea of male gamers playing using female characters/avatars is because they were “experimenting with alternate gender rolls” (back in the “end default binary gender” thing).

        I’ll be honest, I use female characters/avatars for the same reason my home computer’s desktop consists of “cheesecake” pictures (not porn or even nudity–after all my 10 year old daughter uses that computer): If I’m going to spend as much time as I do staring at my computer, it’s going to be pleasant to look at.

      4. I just had an interesting thought. Now gamers are *actually* a really diverse group – politically, economically, socially. That said the group I think of when you ask for a demographic that has a really high percentage of gamers is the military.

        I wonder if the SJW types that make up the majority of the game journalists realize this? They already hate the military so going from there to hating their actual friggin audience because there are a lot of military guys and gals in it isn’t far fetched. It even fits with their cries of racism, accusations they make against the military all the time despite it being about the stupidest one they make. Gamers as a whole get a lot more exposure to other groups and peoples due to the nature of online interactions, but its not in person, while the military has you round the clock among every type of person and background imaginable.

      5. Personally I do play about as many female characters as male, but for me its an even more basic reason – I’m sill only an S list author on Larry’s scale, so one of the things I do with games is use them as opportunities to try and get in the head of as many different types of characters as possible. Other times when the deciding question of male/female for a particular game is “which makes for the more interesting story.”

        And then there are games like Star Wars the Old Republic or Mass Effect where I just play through it both ways to see how it influences things.

      6. I only play one online game myself, MechwarriorOnline. The two prominent female MWO gamers I’m aware of (basically the No Guts, No Galaxy! circle), pretty much have cult followings. I’m sure there are other female players, but hostility seems to be the last response towards them.

  4. Somehow I knew you’d get around to saying something about that POS passing as an informed opinion piece. Bravo! If only you could respond to the idiots in the comments (I got through maybe 10 before I had to find something else to read; something about being exposed to rampant stupidity makes me want to ram my head into the corner of a desk to stop the pain).

    In any case, I shall be at your booksigning with my copy of MHN. And thanks for your roll in making the U obey the law. Gives me warm fuzzies to know I’ll be surrounded by people literally bristling with semi-automatic self protection tools. Could you even imagine what would happen if the idiot that robbed the U store were to show up that day? I think I’d react a lot like Tony Shaloub in Galaxy Quest when he transported the rock monster into the room with the bad guys (“It’s the little things in life you treasure”).

      1. I think I only managed it because there was one in the middle that was not anti-gun and it gave me hope there would be other sane commenters. After a few more I had to give up to avoid losing IQ points.

  5. Over at the Kratskellar, the Lt. Col. was talking about gun free zones today. You might find it interesting.

    As for this editorial, it illustrates why you need to check original sources. The paper flat out lied.

  6. 1. The village idiot at the Deseret News needs to look up the meaning of common sense. It does not mean what she thinks it means.
    2. Gamergate – If video games that met all of the social justice warrior demands would actually sell, the game companies would sell them. I do have to say that some of the game companies replies to requests from female fans often leave a LOT to be desired. It really is not asking to much to have a female avatar option for a game.But, I like to use Marvel vs. DC for an example in this. DC – You want a movie with a female superhero? We don’t think a a Wonder Woman movie would sell. Marvel – You want a movie with a female superhero? Sure, we think Black Widow would be good. Let’s see what other characters would be good. Oh, in the meantime, we will make a TV show with Peggy Carter as the lead.

    1. Are you willing to pay more for a game that contains female avatars? OK with it taking a few months longer, or trading off, say 4 multiplayer maps? I suspect if you surveyed the folks who play the games the answer would be a resounding no on all questions.

      The art and animations are the primary development cost for a modern shooter, doubling the number of avatar animations needed is a non-trivial cost.

      1. as a gamer…I’m going to say something that will probably piss you off and say that sounds a lot like a cop out. if it were that much more expensive, Why are a couple of the most popular games out there based female or multiple female leads. Tomb Raider comes to mind for longest running off the top of my head.

      2. In games where they make multiple male avatars, it can’t possibly more expensive to simply make one female. Where there is only one avatar, sure, it makes sense to just make it one gender, whichever they choose.

        Disclaimer: I don’t actually play FPS games, and for the games that I do play, such as SWTOR, I usually play male avatars because, as a woman, I enjoy looking at/listening to attractive men. (Of my max level SWTOR characters, only 1 out of 5 is a woman.) Personally, I think of my avatars as individual characters, not representations of myself.

        Actually, I also play Zelda games. Been a big fan since I was a kid. I love Link, but I really, really want to see a Zelda game where the player character is Zelda/Shiek, and the goal is to rescue Link (or possibly have Link as your sidekick/partner in saving the kingdom). I would play the crap out of that game.

      3. Even most first person shooters offer avatars of both genders where appropriate. Having said that, also keep in mind that in most cases its very difficult to tell the avatars apart due to the gear and/or body armor that they’re wearing (aside from the voice), and the player never actually sees their own avatar outside of the occasional in-game mirror.

      4. I’d put it another way. I’m less willing to pay money at all for a game that doesn’t put effort into having a variety of models/animations, without bringing gender into it at all.

        Take the new Sims 4. I’ve paid a lot of money over the years for Sims 1-3, even though I mostly use the Sims games as a change of pace between RPGs and the other kinds of games I play.

        I will not be buying the Sims 4. Why? Several reasons, but one of them is the fact that they cut corners on animation by making teens/young adults/adults/elders all have the exact same animations and the exact same height. That’s lazy and obnoxious, especially given their asking price.

        I looked at a copy a friend had, and was rather disturbed by the fact that is actually quite trivial to make a character that is impossible to distinguish the teen appearance from adult. (Basically change the shoulders and have a bust that is b or smaller)

        So… for FPS you may be right, but for RPGs or stuff like the Sims, not having it will sink the game.

      5. I totally agree, Jared. Maybe I just wish that MMOs were more like RPGs, because variety in character design is very important to me in those games (and one reason I prefer SWTOR to WoW), and if anything, I wish they’d focus on it more.

    2. “DC – You want a movie with a female superhero? We don’t think a a Wonder Woman movie would sell. Marvel – You want a movie with a female superhero? Sure, we think Black Widow would be good.”

      To be fair, that’s partly because Black Widow is just a far more interesting character than Wonder Woman.

      With respect to the hardcore WW fans out there, as a casual comics fan who only knows what’s leaked into general pop culture (and that’s pretty much the representative demographic production decisions are based on, even now), Wonder Woman just doesn’t, to me, seem to have that resonant a background or personality, not compared to Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, Wolverine or the Avengers. Off the top of my head, I can’t name any of her “supporting cast” or “rogues’ gallery” except the rather bland and forgettable Steve Trevor as a never-quite-boyfriend, who had to be a bland and forgettable never-quite-boyfriend so as to guarantee she would never be overshadowed, and the war god Ares as a villain who is almost always painted in a by-now-rather-outdated chauvinist cast in order to make WW’s feminism look good — which is not to say that’s not a point worth making, only that it has already been made over and over again. And giving Wonder Woman the kind of internal conflict, painful sacrifice or self-doubt that enriches Clark Kent’s or Bruce Wayne’s emotional depth as characters would be very hard to pull off without the very people most demanding of a WW movie reacting in outrage at “weakening” the character, I think. WW’s problem is that she as a character was created first and foremost as a conscious feminist icon, and humanizing her to the degree a successful movie needs without weakening her is a very tricky balance that I don’t see many writers pulling off.

      Black Widow, by contrast, comes with her character conflict built in. Here is somebody who is not invulnerable, who knows what it is to be afraid and lonely, who grew up as a human among humans, whose relationship problems come not from who she is but what she’s done, and who is trying desperately to make amends against both her own instincts and the seriousness of her actual deeds. And, of course, she has the advantage of being played by Scarlett Johansson, who is an excellent actress over and above her eye-candy quotient. Gal Gadot may surprise me, but I confess to a certain “show me” reaction there.

      Now as I noted this criticism of WW is based on a lack of exposure due to shallower media penetration, so I am more than willing to learn from people who know the character better. But if I’m representative in this — and I think I am — then DC’s hesitancy may have more business sense behind it than we realize.

      1. Well, even if that ordinary human boyfriend is kept, just having somebody who is some sort of near goddess falling in love with a mortal man, and both trying to deal with her obviously dominant position compared to him – if we assume the guy is not a submissive but a very traditional manly man type – and the problems that could bring into the relationship would make for possibly interesting internal conflicts.

      2. My engagement with Wonder Woman was Lynda Carter, so I couldn’t possibly speak to the comics. My take on why no Wonder Woman movie was because of the people who most believed that we had to have one didn’t want one because it would be awesome, but because we were obligated to have one. So agree with you there. Some time ago I ran across someone tearing into Jos Whedon’s WW script treatment because Steve Trevor had to teach Diana how to be human… or something. My response:

        ” In other words, Diana isn’t feminist… she’s sexist.(…)…what people pushing for a Wonder Woman movie want is a ode to feminism… and that wouldn’t be right. For all that Wonder Woman could be used to frame an exploration of gender roles and preconceptions, it doesn’t work to do that flipping of perception unless the thing that Diana learns is that men are every bit as real as women are real.”

      3. If you want to see a good conflict for WW, pick up Kingdom Come. It’s worth reading just for the spectacular art, and it also showcases how to give the “boring, invincible” characters believable personal challenges and motivations.

        It shouldn’t take too much to port a similar background to other media. The trouble is that not many folks other than people who consciously identify as feminists are actually interested in developing the character, so she ends up with that being the sole, constant issue being pushed.

      4. Interestingly… there’s an animated Wonder Woman movie where Steve Trevor makes the point to Wonder Woman that she needs to treat men like humans, too. (Neither of them are paragons of tolerance in that one and both learn and grow… shocking, I know. It’s not great film but it was fun.)

  7. I have to say, not being familiar with Utah law, I’d kind of stayed out of Anita’s decision to bail from speaking at U of U. Glad you did this, just so I know that Anita just wanted to grandstand a bit more. Really, that’s all that this was about.

    Speaker gets death threats. It’s looked into by law enforcement. Both the school and law enforcement determined it wasn’t a credible threat, so then the speaker backs out of the engagement because the universe won’t bow down to her.

    As for mass shooting at police stations, the only one I know of was fictional, and while it was ugly for the police, that was because the attacker was a freaking terminator.

    Those are kind of a game changer.

  8. Enjoyable response.

    I don’t understand the emotional reaction of some to guns in schools or universities. I expect this kind of drivel from anti gun people. At least, they are consistent. Where it surprises me is among people that should know better. I follow a libertarian leaning parenting blog. It is mostly followed by people that prize logic and they frequently ridicule things like “stranger danger” and other media driven, fear campaigns. The subject of allowing CPL holders to have guns in schools came out and people went nuts.

    They were convinced that bystanders would be killed in shootouts or that teachers and staff would indiscriminately shoot at their students. Many threatened to home school their kids, rather then let them be in an environment where people were allowed to carry handguns. Logic didn’t matter. When asked to provide examples of kids being killed by CPL holders or teachers, the only example anyone could come up with was the teacher with the ND in the bathroom that injured no kids.

      1. Kind of like a picture I saw a few years ago. Two guys, armed to the teeth, standing outside of a building with a “Gun Free Zone”, and the caption said something like “Well, damn.”

      1. Well, the smelter was from Terminator 2. The moral of THAT one was that the only thing that can stop a bad terminator with a gun is a good terminator with a gun.

    1. To be fair, the Deseret News has been forced to moderate their forums due to anti-mormon trolls who enjoy posting a lot of filth and dreck. Give them the benefit of a doubt when you see deleted/censored posts on their forums.

  9. Only heard of Gamergate recently. I don’t follow gaming news and articles. Someone shared an article about her not doing her speech because of safety concerns, yadda yadda.

    My response was,

    “Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill ’em right back! Wife or no, you are no one’s property to be tossed aside. You got the right same as anyone to live and try to kill people.” – Malcolm Reynolds, Firefly

    Much like the fictional character Mr. Reynolds, I am a feminist.

  10. The sooner the Deseret News facilities burn to the ground, the better off Utah will be.

    Anyone know how to generate a severe electrical storm over a limited area?

    1. This is quite obviously a credible death threat, which clearly gives the Deseret News every right to have your house searched and have any weapons, flammable materials, or electrical equipment confiscated, as well as shutting down power to all buildings within several blocks around their facilities.

  11. Oh, how I’ve missed the fisking. I’ve actually been hoping someone would say/write something stupid enough to get your ire up. These brighten up my day so much, because they prove that while there might be a lot of idiots living in terrifying nightmare realms of gun massacres of innocent children and feminazis out there, there are also people who live in the real world where reasonable precautions and a little practical thinking make the whole world a little saner and a little safer.

  12. These are always entertaining to read. Thanks for the reminder that not everyone in the world is an emotionally reactive idiot.

  13. I would probably be more sympathetic to this woman getting death threats if I knew who she was to be getting them.

    As it is, she seems to be a bit of a drama queen.

    1. Very much so. She makes feminist whine videos about video games. Sometimes she has a point, sometimes she doesn’t, and other times it’s obvious she has no clue what she’s talking about.

      I made the mistake of pointing out some of the factual errors in her videos back before #gamergate. Got called a misogynist, homophobe, etc. and got the death threats by her gang of white knights. Like Larry said, that’s what happens when you get into online arguments. I just deleted the threats and moved on.

      I did, however, just get called a terrorist by an acquaintance for not supporting #gamergate, but saying they did have some valid points. Apparently condemning threats on all sides, and agreeing with some substantive points means you’re Satan and orchestrating a campaign of terror or something.

      1. Sometimes she has a point, sometimes she doesn’t, and other times it’s obvious she has no clue what she’s talking about.

        And sometimes, she simply makes shit up. Watch her piece on Hitman, that she uses as a picture-perfect example about how game dev and gamers are encouraged to punish women for expressing their sexuality.

        In a game of 20-odd levels, ONE has s trip club involved. Very little of the level is in the club, and of the two routes yu can take past a certain point, only one leads past the dancers.

        As a general mechanic, you are PENALIZED for attacking non-related innocents (you can actually see her score go down when they are attacked in the video). Yes, that includes the dancers.

        I’ve looked and cannot find an instance of a walkthrough attacking the girls, for the LULZ or any other stupid reason. Only in hers ( I suspect she went out of her way to set that up) Even of they do exist, they are not common or popular.

      2. dgarsys, oh, I as being overly generous. The thing that got me the death threats was criticizing the “woman in the fridge” rant she went off on. She included Lords of Shadow as a game that glorifies the revenge quest; but /spoilers/ seeing as it destroys Belmont and makes him into Dracula, effectively the prime evil on earth, her point is kinda undermined by including it.

        1. but /spoilers/ seeing as it destroys Belmont and makes him into Dracula,

          Reminds me of some of the “feminist” ranting about The Avengers, specifically that Loki said some bad things to Black Widow that were viewed as sexist (I believe the term “mewling quim” was involved). Apparently they forgot that Loki was the bad guy. He’s supposed to do “bad things” and this part was simply to show 1) that Loki really is bad and 2) how utterly awesome Black Widow is (given how that scene ended).

          1. Remember, it’s fine to try and enslave all of humanity. It’s quite another thing to say non-PC approved things.

            The latter makes you true evil. The first? That just makes you a progressive. 😀

  14. Larry Corriea: “I’m doing a book signing at the U of U bookstore on Halloween day. Since these are Larry Correia fans, I’m assuming there will be so many concealed weapons there that it will be like the opposite of a gun free zone, and probably the safest place on campus. 🙂 ”

    Larry I propose an experiment. Like that restaurant that was in the news recently offering discounts to concealed carry holders in their restaurant, I say, anyone that shows up and shows you their CCW you offer to let them buy a MHI patch on the spot. They wouldn’t have to carry in evidence or show their gun (no need to spook the horses either by flashing). I ‘d be willing to say you get a good 30%.

    1. I went to Larry’s book signing in Minneapolis on July 3rd. I was definitely carrying and I doubt I was the only one. I would have loved to buy an MHI patch or a challenge coin!

  15. This is what we should be doing with GamerGate, SFF and tech: radical feminists are constantly pushing for anti-harassment policies at conventions; it is one of the things they never shut up about.

    Recently John Scalzi proudly blogged about a sign at the New York Comic Con. That sign read in part:

    “We have a ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY for harassment of any kind… in relation to, but not limited to: Race * Color… * Gender * Gender Identity.”

    In fact, social justice warriors harass humans based on being white, men and heterosexuals 24/7 in the tech, SF and video-gaming communties rather than addressing issues. This is the real issue with Anita Sarkeesian. If she addressed her issues in human terms, she wouldn’t be getting such pushback. It’s as if Jews were blamed for movie violence rather than talking about it as a human failing. The social justice warriors say straight white men are the problem and so who do they expect to push back when that is who they target – gays? Non-whites? Jews?

    The harassment and profiling is racist: whites are said to be motivated by racial bigotry but never non-whites, no matter what. The harassment and profiling is sexist: men are motivated by misogyny but women never motivated by misandry. The harassment and profiling is genderphobic: heterosexuals are motivated by homophobia but gay folks never by heterophobia.

    There in fact is no zero tolerance policy and there should be at comic and SF conventions, webzines and gamer magazines. Too often the problems social justice warriors describe are written off as one of simply being white, a man or heterosexual. On Twitter, magazines, convention panels and blogs the comments about men, whites and heterosexuals are off-the-charts offensive while using a vulgar slang term or the word “lady,” or even writing a novel about Thailand is considered enrollment in a man-hating KKK. No one is dumb enough to swallow that double standard but if you don’t you’re a misogynist homophobic racist.

    Get on Twitter and ask the social justice warrirors for a hate speech/harassment policy about racial and sexual profiling, why they violate their own policies and why they support the worst racists among them. For all the bleating about women being harassed online, the premeditated institutional sanctioning of the harassment of men and whites from members of the Science Fiction Writers of America, WisCon, World Con and gamer magazines is overwhelming. Time to start asking some hard questions about the principles behind law and fair play and who the real KKK in all this is.

    When you have 100 racist and sexist quotes from tech, SFF and gamer writers for every one the other way, which side is the KKK side becomes obvious. There is simply no reason for gamer articles to continually mention the word “white” or “men” as if that in and of itself explains everything anymore than “Arab” explains terrorism, “women” stupidity” or “black” crime, a thing you’ll notice the social justice warriors never EVER do. That kind of profiling is strictly reserved for straight white men and that right there tells you who and what the social justice warriors are really feeding on. They are not interested in diversity or problem-solving but in cashing in on or promoting their own bigotry.

    And standing tall behind all this is the insane cult of radical feminism which openly and publicly maintains the moral and spiritual inferiority of men, whites and heterosexuals. Such a view is the default doctrine of the Science Fiction Writers of America to name just one institution.

  16. Anita Sarkeesian is infamous for having one post sock puppets make death threats against her, vanish mysteriously, and then she starts fund-raising to “combat” these death threats.

    Any claim of a death-threat by Anita should be roundly ignored.

    1. My money is on this being another sock puppet, just bounced through a Brazilian ip.

      And when they get caught and called out as the liars they are, they’ll scream that somebody was thinking it, just because it was faked doesn’t mean it’s not real, or some other broken twisted tumblr logic.

    2. Anita has obviously never heard either of “the boy who cried wolf,” or of copycats. This is a dangerous strategy on her part, for those reasons.

  17. Anita Sarkeesian has cried wolf a few times already. If these were credible threats, then report them to the police, not on your Twitter feed. Oh, what’s that you say?

    I thought so. They weren’t credible death threats, just sympathy bait. Are you going to send this fisk to the paper? It’d be great to see if they print it. After all, you’re a somewhat well-known local SME.

  18. You keep using the term, but last time I checked “wishful thinking” and “emotionally laden nonsense” weren’t synonyms with “common sense”.

    The inevitable “Inigo Montoya Moment” (or moments, usualy moments. Lots of them) of any leftist rant.

    Of course, they just want some “sensible” (there’s one” “common sense” (there’s another) restrictions on “irresponsible” (and one more) use of guns, right? No one actually wants to take our guns, right?

  19. Um…While I love the fisk, Larry, isn’t this something like shooting gnats with a cannon? If your goal is to make big holes in things it works well, but this gnat is way below your level.

      1. I’m not sure how the ownership of the Deseret News works out, but I’m pretty sure that the LDS Church doesn’t directly manage it.

      2. Well, you have to remember that the Church doesn’t practice _terribly_ strict message control, outside of the core doctrines(For God so loved the world that He sent His Only Begotten Son, that whosoever etc. everlasting life; that the falling away did happen and was complete; that Joseph Smith was called to restore the Living Gospel; etc. and so on). So for every “You’ve seen the play, now read the book” we also have someone getting butthurt about the Gentiles laughing at our temple garments.

  20. “All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” – Southern Poverty Law Center.

    “I’d dig up the pulp version of #gamergate but the very thought fills me with ennui. Basically cretinous fanboys have never liked women.” – SFF historian Jess Nevins

    “…it’s not b/c I dislike white dudes, it’s because White Dudes rarely examine their privilege, which is the underlying issue” – WisCon organizer and panelist K. Tempest Bradford.

    “the tech industry is built on cultural appropriation, privilege, abuse, whiteness, maleness” – “The people who run the tech industry are abusive, sexist, racist, cowardly white men. And they need to be removed from power.” – self-appointed tech guru Shanley Kane

    “… we consider buffaloes especially stupid as animals go. The perfect analogy for white men” – Benjanun Sriduangkaew, 2014 John W. Campbell Award nominee for Best New Writer

    “As the cultural relevance of angry white men on the internet withers away and ends, their last words – muttered angrily at an empty room – will surely be ‘Gamer … gate’”. – Jessica Valenti at The Guardian

  21. It’s worth noting that the threat writer threatened another ‘Montreal Massacre’.

    The only people who refer to the Ecole Polytechnique shooting 20-ish years ago that way are hard-core SJW’s. Most people simply have never heard of it, and the majority of those who have (Canadians), simply recall it as the Ecole Polytechnique shooting.

    BTW, contrary to most of the writing about it, it was an Islamic Terror attack most similar to Ft. Hood. And by similar I mean right down to the authorities insisting the radical Islamic shooter had no religious or terrorist intentions despite clearly worded writings.

  22. “If you are a regular blog reader who followed Sad Puppies at all, same thing, same crusaders, same song, different industry.”

    And, probably for the first time, an industry whose consumers are just as tech savvy, aggressive, and stubborn as they are. What we are watching is likely the first time these activists have met their match and are going to lose, and that reason alone is why everyone should be paying attention to GamerGate.

    I know Mercedes, Intel, and Adobe have all withdrawn ad space from that hellhole Gawker so far…

  23. Reblogged this on The Worlds of Tarien Cole and commented:
    Why is it that nine out of ten times I see an appeal to ‘common sense,’ it is neither ‘common’ nor ‘sensible’?

    Common sense is not what your ideology says you should believe. That is Groupthink. Do yourself a favor, and think for yourself. You’ll arrive at wisdom–which is quite uncommon–far more often.

  24. I know a lot of hay has been made over the “death threats” – and in all fairness, Ken Burnside over at a posting on Erics blog brought up that he’s seen some pretty vile crap end up in lady developer mailboxes.

    That said – a lot of old-school lady developers (I refuse to call them women or girls, they’re classier than that) will also come right out and tell you that if anything, the tech community bent over backwards to let them in.

    Also – as you pointed out, the level of “death threat” they’re getting is the norm for immature jackasses of any political stripe on the internet. It’s hardly the first time Anita or Zoe puffed a molehill into Olympus Mons, with a good probability that at least one so called set of threats was made up whole cloth (brand new twitter account of a supposed guy with 10+ twilight-obsessed postings in something like five minutes, found and screens hotted in her browser 20s after the latest one while amazingly enough, she’s not in her twitter account).

    Not unexpected for people who can raise being asked for coffee clumsily to a traumatic event, and use the fact you CAN (but aren’t required to) kill a girl as proof of sexism while ignoring all the dead male bodies. It certainly hasn’t risen to the level of getting actually SWATted.

    God forbid you point out that for under $1000, one can be fully set up to do programming development work in any of four main platforms (mac, Windows, Linux, and Web with a free AWS account), and that if they want more games, they should learn to code and lead the way rather than insist everyone else play by their rules.

  25. After lurking for a few months, I have to say that I love your blog. I’ve been passing around a few of the classics (gun control and “president lady parts” in particular) and going through your archives. Always good for a laugh.

    Anyways, my question is: which book should I get first? I kinda feel like Grimnoir Chronicles, but I was wondering if you guys have a better recommendation

  26. “A state institution having to obey state law? Crazy. ”

    Their are always exceptions. You wouldn’t let folks bring guns into a courtroom and it’s certainly more of a public institution than a school. Then there’s the fact that a specific threat has been levied in this situation. That should be enough to warrant a no-gun policy for an event.

    My biggest problem with the “Law-abiding types” argument is that everyone’s a law-abiding type until they’re not. Humans aren’t historically stable in that regard. A person who’s peaceful one day may be violent the next. How much more damage does that person do with a gun?

    Even if others are carrying only for defense, it’s just as likely that they’re shot first as opposed to successfully killing their attacker. In a school situation especially. Imagine someone coming in with guns drawn and firing at will. It doesn’t matter how armed their targets are when there’s no chance to draw.

    Honestly, Larry, try to think critically. Avoid your own gun-loving fantasy scenarios and look at the facts. There are certainly cases where guns have saved lives. But there’s plenty of others where they’ve done squat.

    You have this vision of all the good guys being armed. But we aren’t really able to discern who’s a good guy and bad guy. And the line can occasionally blur. A big increase in armed citizens is a social experiment where the consequences could be disatrous and deadly.

    1. Oh look, a troll.

      In Texas, CHL holders are allowed to carry in the Capitol building. They actually have a line that they can go through to bypass the normal line. All you have to have is your CHL. So yes, they can carry their weapon into the Capitol building.

      “My biggest problem with the “Law-abiding types” argument is that everyone’s a law-abiding type until they’re not. Humans aren’t historically stable in that regard. A person who’s peaceful one day may be violent the next. How much more damage does that person do with a gun?”

      I don’t know if Larry is going to address your post, but this is the usual bullshit that the Anti-2nd Amendment crowd tries.

      Someone normal may go crazy and start killing people! Ban guns!

      It’s called projection cupcake.

      “You have this vision of all the good guys being armed. But we aren’t really able to discern who’s a good guy and bad guy. And the line can occasionally blur. A big increase in armed citizens is a social experiment where the consequences could be disatrous and deadly.”

      Hmm, so all those states where CHL and open carry already exist have massive shoot outs in the streets? Are the streets running red with blood? In Utah, are the school walls splattered with the blood of teachers and children? This is just another weak argument from the Anti-2nd Amendment book.

      “Even if others are carrying only for defense, it’s just as likely that they’re shot first as opposed to successfully killing their attacker. In a school situation especially. Imagine someone coming in with guns drawn and firing at will. It doesn’t matter how armed their targets are when there’s no chance to draw.”

      Take a look at mass shootings and shootings that could have been mass shootings. What stops the shooter? A person with a gun.

      These same tired arguments always get brought out and are promptly shot down with actual facts, instead of the feelings that you have.

      Also, I would recommend that you seek psychiatric help for your projection in your second full paragraph. The only reason that Antis like you can’t understand why people can be responsible when carrying firearms, is because you cannot be responsible when carrying a firearm.

        1. Wow. A cursory glance at that link shows they don’t know as much about guns as they think they do. “Semi-automatic handguns” and revolvers are separate lines on the table.

          Taking their numbers at face value (to be fair to them they at least say they’ve taken out gang violence, but on the other hand they’re counting the shooter among the victims) that’s still less than 2 times a year in a nation of 300 million+ people that committed this heinous crime with legally bought guns. How many incidences are there a year where people are killed because of legally bought booze? Or cars?

          As for the “everyone is a law-abiding type until they’re not” bit, this isn’t Minority Report. You can’t punish people for things they haven’t done yet. Guns are dangerous, yeah, but so are any multitude of other things we routinely have access to. Life is dangerous. The fact is that guns are used defensively far more often than they are used in crimes, or in accidental injuries or deaths.

          If you don’t like guns fine, don’t own one.

          Nothing we can do will make life safe. Anyone saying differently is lying or pushing for more power or control over others. Often both. People have been killing each other since the rock and stick days, and nothing is going to change that as long as humans are human. Frankly I wish more people (especially women) carried concealed. Make the criminals out there think twice about pulling crap in case they end up with an acute case of lead poisoning instead of some poor lady’s purse.

      1. yeah – the part where you think everybody is one small bad day away from going nuts “Falling Down” style…. that may qualify. Population and crime statistics don’t bear that out.

        As to the “legally obtained” weapons – no, they weren’t.

        Murdering someone to get to their guns is illegal.

        Falsifying the documentation, or buying weapons when you’re not eligible due to existing police issues or mental issues, is illegal.

        And honestly – while I’m perfectly aware that pyros tend to have different triggers than shooters – if guns weren’t available, there are far, FAR more deadly things you could do with some basic chemicals, or gasoline. The columbine killers, if I recall, had also made bombs which, fortunately, failed to go off.

        And mother jones? Really? While I’m willing to concede the graph MAY have a point, I’d be suspicious about how they picked the data. They are about as reliably ideologically doctrinaire as it’s possible to get.

        1. “Falling Down” style

          Even in that movie the writers and director knew they couldn’t make “ordinary guy who snapped” plausible and had to give him a back story of ongoing mental problems.

          The “ordinary guy who just loses it and snaps” is almost entirely a myth. I won’t say it can’t happen, but it’s so rare that I’m far more worried about being struck by lightning.

          1. A history of mental problems? Gee – that sounds familiar. I wonder what most of the active shooters in the last five or ten years have had in common?

      2. It may be true that most people who ‘snap’ have had mental issues in the past. But there’s plenty of undiagnosed mental conditions in the world. And if they’re undiagnosed they aren’t caught in background checks. Even if they are diagnosed it’s no guarantee. Seung Hui Cho obtained a legal gun and he was clearly disturbed.

        This whole “cars are dangerous too” argument is baloney. Cars are dangerous, horseback riding is dangerous. But guns are designed to kill people (and animals). The comparison doesn’t work.

        1. It may be true that most people who ‘snap’ have had mental issues in the past. But there’s plenty of undiagnosed mental conditions in the world. And if they’re undiagnosed they aren’t caught in background checks. Even if they are diagnosed it’s no guarantee. Seung Hui Cho obtained a legal gun and he was clearly disturbed.

          The answer there is to improve the mental health diagnosis and treatment systems in the US. Instead, you want to restrict the rights of every other person in the country.

          One way deals with the actual issue. The other, at best, deals with a particular means by which someone who “snaps” might use to cause harm. And even in the “snap” cases, you’d be hard pressed to find someone who’s just going about his business and then, without warning, draws a gun and starts shooting. Spree killers? Every single case I’ve ever seen, it’s someone who planned things ahead of time. Restricting people from carrying guns does nothing to stop that. If somebody’s planning to murder a bunch of people do you really think they’re going to think “You know, I really want to kill a bunch of people. Too bad I’m not allowed to carry a gun.” If they want to kill a lot of people and use a gun to do it then they’re. going. to. carry. a. gun. anyway. Somebody spots their illegally carried gun? Doesn’t mean they’re stopped. Just means they start the party that much earlier.

          And I suppose this is where you’ll start in about making guns harder to get or even banning them entirely. (Or are you still one of those who claims “no one wants to take your guns” while still being able to see that you can’t make both those argument?) Look up the Happy Land fire. Look up the largest school massacre in US history (not committed by government–got to put that conditional in there). No firearms use.

          Do you have any idea how easy it is to make a single shot “zip gun” that’s small enough that you can carry dozens in a fanny pack, and far more in any of a number of satchels. You don’t reload. You grab a handfull. Pow. Pow. Pow. Pow. Pow. Then grab another handful and repeat.

          Dealing with the actual mental health issues might actually help. Dealing with the tools? Useless.

          This whole “cars are dangerous too” argument is baloney. Cars are dangerous, horseback riding is dangerous. But guns are designed to kill people (and animals). The comparison doesn’t work.

          And yet these “not designed to kill” things nevertheless do kill in vast numbers. Do you really think that a dead person cares whether what was used to kill them was “designed to kill” or not?

          Tell you what. Go to your county or city morgue. When somebody comes to claim the body of their child killed by a hit and run driver, or in an “accident” with a drunk driver, tell the grieving parents that “at least they weren’t shot.” I’m sure they’ll feel so much better, right?

          Because until that’s a viable argument to make, the whole “xxx isn’t designed to kill” is crap. (Excuse my language, Larry.)

        2. Again with the “critical thinking”

          1. Then your issue is with mental health reporting law.
          2. Advocating pre-crime. Unconstitutional.
          3. Background checks are useless feel good garbage that do little or nothing to prevent actual crime. This useless feel good garbage was foisted upon us by people like you demanding that we “do something” and as usual the “something” just inconveniences the law abiding.
          4. Seung Hui Cho would have encountered an immediate violent response, except he attacked a gun free zone. Again, see the previous link where I went over this in great detail.
          5. It is ironic that you are making this same tired argument the day that somebody went on a shooting spree in a Canadian gun free zone, and was only stopped once confronted by an armed individual.
          6. Guns are a tool. Their design is to launch a projectile at high velocity. The fact that hundreds of millions of guns have been used without killing people demonstrate that these tools have more uses than killing.
          7. But part of their purpose is killing, which makes them the best possible tool for responding against violent criminals in the act of committing violent crime.
          8. Regardless of what laws you pass, criminals by definition don’t give a fuck about your law, so will procure the tools necessary to accomplish their goals. So you can either inconvenience the law abiding, or allow the law abiding the means to defend themselves.

          You named yourself after Vox Day, but I’ve debated Vox Day. He at least brings his A Game, with actual facts and points. You suck at this.

      3. Even if they are diagnosed it’s no guarantee. Seung Hui Cho obtained a legal gun and he was clearly disturbed.

        And he had been mentally adjudicated as such. He lied on his paperwork, making the purchase illegal. But nice try.

        This whole “cars are dangerous too” argument is baloney.

        You mean like everything else you’ve said so far?

        1. Oh Pox,

          Are you really that determined to prove that reading comprehension is not your thing?

          It may be true that most people who ‘snap’ have had mental issues in the past.

          So far so good….. (but that never lasts)

          But there’s plenty of undiagnosed mental conditions in the world.

          And they keep making more up every year – and in some places, simply opposing the government can get you put it an insane asylum….

          And if they’re undiagnosed they aren’t caught in background checks.

          See the above point by the writer in black. Yes – we need our mental health system to better identify people who’re actually dangerous, as opposed to the “if you can’t get help at charter” types…

          Even if they are diagnosed it’s no guarantee. Seung Hui Cho obtained a legal gun and he was clearly disturbed.

          See Sandy Hook and Arizona – in both cases the state had been contacted, and for various reasons refused to act.

          As to Va tech – the sad part is not so much that it’s been pointed out in reply to your comment that SHC lied and thus did not “legally” (booga booga!!) obtain his weapons – but that you wrote it after I already stated that the weapons supposedly ‘legally’ (booga booga!!) obtained were in fact not. Murdering someone to get their gun is illegal. Lying on the forms after being deemed legally unfit is illegal.

          This whole “cars are dangerous too” argument is baloney. Cars are dangerous, horseback riding is dangerous. But guns are designed to kill people (and animals). The comparison doesn’t work.

          Oh puhleeese….

          You have exactly one point. Guns are indeed designed to maximize deadly force in a small convenient package that – among other things – allows old grannies to be on a more equal footing with a gang of young thugs with bats.

          But in terms of lethality?

          There are many, many lethal weapons. Frankly, with a little planning, I could do far more damage with an SUV, or a few gallons of perfectly legal gasoline, or some common kitchen chemicals. Or a pressure cooker, some shrapnel, and some basic chemistry.

          It really depends on exactly HOW you want to make your mark.

          But let’s not pretend that guns are the most lethal thing a psychotic could use to kill lots of people. The point isn’t “is it dangerous to do?” (horseback riding) but “is it readily available and can it be made dangerous to other people”

          See 9/11, and some box cutters, which were used to hijack some airliners with absolutely no guns on board.

          How many people died?

          1. Right, and as was pointed out above, leaving out 9/11, the largest mass murder in this country was carried out with a gallon or so of gas and a lighter. (And the largest school killing was in Germany, which has very strict gun laws.)

    2. Oh boy oh by oh boy – I’m always glad to see such genius at work.

      First – reading comprehension.

      Then there’s the fact that a specific threat has been levied in this situation. That should be enough to warrant a no-gun policy for an event.

      Did you miss the part about the state law that Larry brought up – that would have allowed the school to make the site a secure zone?

      Leaving aside the validity of the threat, given where it came from, the school very well COULD have instituted such a policy, anchose not to

      BAD facts, BAD, Unsat BAD!

      My biggest problem with the “Law-abiding types” argument is that everyone’s a law-abiding type until they’re not.

      Yup – so let’s create a department of pre crime, assume everyone’s guilty, and strip away their rights to defend themselves as they see fit (alternatively, let them be armed, and if they commit a murder, here’s a concept, they go to jail….)

      I mean, all those places that experienced a rise in CCW permits have turned into massive free-fire zones, right?


      Oh, wait, crime dropped.

      I’m not sure if projection is involved, but historically, unless pushed to extremes, people actually ARE pretty stable. Most criminals are repeat offenders, and commit crimes vastly out of proportion to their percentage of the population. Most of the rest, beyond speeding tickets, aren’t.

      The following paragraph boils down to “OK, sometimes they may be able to do some good, but maybe they won’t, so why bother being prepared…”

      Hey, maybe TWO tires will blow out on my car (yes, I’ve had that happen), so why bother carrying a spare at all?

      You have this vision of all the good guys being armed. But we aren’t really able to discern who’s a good guy and bad guy.

      Actually, yes, we can. This has been borne out by the people responding to active shooters while armed only shooting the bad guy.

      And the line can occasionally blur. A big increase in armed citizens is a social experiment where the consequences could be disatrous and deadly.

      Hmmm… places where legal firearms have been effectively banned have gotten more and more violent (though a large part of that has to do with other politically related issues) and places where firearm carry has been expanded in the last couple decades have seen a faster than usual drop in crime rates.

      Given that the baseline this country started at was most people were armed, and that could and did go up to private ownership of military artillery and warships, I don’t consider continuing to allow concealed carry by law abiding citizens to be much of a “social experiment”

    3. I’m going to reply to two different posts in this one, so please try and keep up.

      “A state institution having to obey state law? Crazy. ”

      Their are always exceptions. You wouldn’t let folks bring guns into a courtroom and it’s certainly more of a public institution than a school.

      If state law said that courtrooms had to permit folks to let their guns in, then you bet your ass most of us would expect them to comply with the law. A courtroom? Really, that’s your response? State law in Utah permits carry on campuses. If a courtroom was required to do the same, then what grounds would they have? Zero.

      Then there’s the fact that a specific threat has been levied in this situation. That should be enough to warrant a no-gun policy for an event.

      A threat that both law enforcement and the school deemed to not be credible. Did you miss Larry addressing that?

      My biggest problem with the “Law-abiding types” argument is that everyone’s a law-abiding type until they’re not. Humans aren’t historically stable in that regard. A person who’s peaceful one day may be violent the next. How much more damage does that person do with a gun?

      So, everyone’s a law abiding type until they’re not, so…what? We treat people like they’re criminals despite them having done nothing wrong? Ever hear of “due process”?

      Even if others are carrying only for defense, it’s just as likely that they’re shot first as opposed to successfully killing their attacker. In a school situation especially. Imagine someone coming in with guns drawn and firing at will. It doesn’t matter how armed their targets are when there’s no chance to draw.

      If the weapons are concealed (the first “c” in “ccw” stands for concealed after all), just how are these bad guys going to know who to shoot first? Plus, part of the argument of an armed populace isn’t one good guy with a gun, but a dozen or more. One would-be mass shooter against that many armed citizens? Yeah. He’s going to have a bad time.

      Honestly, Larry, try to think critically. Avoid your own gun-loving fantasy scenarios and look at the facts. There are certainly cases where guns have saved lives. But there’s plenty of others where they’ve done squat.

      If “they’ve done squat”, then what’s the problem again?

      I mean, there have been house fires that burned up homes despite the presence of a fire extinguisher. Are you also against fire extinguishers in the home?

      You have this vision of all the good guys being armed. But we aren’t really able to discern who’s a good guy and bad guy. And the line can occasionally blur. A big increase in armed citizens is a social experiment where the consequences could be disatrous and deadly.

      Yeah, because signs telling people that guns aren’t allowed have done wonders to protect people. NO disastrous or deadly consequences there.

      Now, for the next comment:

      Projection? Interesting theory. Except for all the mass shootings that used, at least in part, legally obtained guns. Or the fact that less gun-related deaths are reported in states with stricter gun laws.

      And, generally, while gun-related deaths might be down in those states, violent crime as a whole is up. Bad guys have a hard time getting guns? So do the smaller, weaker victims who could actually need a gun to defend themselves. Criminals know this, and know they can act with more impunity than in states with looser gun control laws.

      Honestly, you know jack about guns, about people, and about crime statistics in general. You might want to go back to Mother Jones or ThinkProgress until you can bring a better argument.

      1. “You might want to go back to Mother Jones or ThinkProgress until you can bring a better argument”

        Isn’t that a bit like telling him to get back into the pool until he dries off?

        1. Well, it’s not like he’s going to find a better argument over at one of the gun forums. Mostly because there isn’t one.

          I really just want him to go away. I don’t mind debate, but any time someone pulls the “think critically” then promptly puts their head in the sand regarding what they just saw, it tells me that they don’t have the capability to really debate the subject.

    4. Did you really just post a link to a Mother Jones article as an unbiased source? And tell our armed ancestors that they were part of a possibly deadly social experiment? And imply that Illinois, California and New York have low crime rates?

      I think we have a winner! 😛

    5. Hey, Larry, is Clamps back?

      You wouldn’t let folks bring guns into a courtroom and it’s certainly more of a public institution than a school.

      Does Utah state law forbid courtrooms from prohibiting guns to people licensed to carry? If not, then this is a red herring and, therefore, a logical fallacy.

      My biggest problem with the “Law-abiding types” argument is that everyone’s a law-abiding type until they’re not.

      By the same logic no one’s a pedophile until they are. Should we, then, require people to have licenses and show “good cause” for an internet connection lest they use it to peddle child porn?

      But, really, the whole “they might just snap” is bogus. Notice something all these spree killers had in common? A history of mental problems, usually involving violence.

      If you deal with the problems when they’re small, they don’t grow to be big. (Related Note: the reason that Mother Jones was able to claim that armed citizens never stopped a mass shooting is because if armed citizens are present and in a position to act they get stopped before it becomes a mass shooting. And even that required very careful cherry picking of the data.)

      Even if others are carrying only for defense, it’s just as likely that they’re shot first as opposed to successfully killing their attacker.

      People keep saying this. First off, if people are carrying concealed, how are they going to know who to “shoot first.” And if they’re not (I know Larry is not an advocate of open carry–I happen to disagree with him. Perhaps someday we can discuss the subject when we happen to be at the same venue) well, open carry has been legal and practiced in a lot of places, and for a long time in some of them. Can you name three times where someone came in a place to commit a crime and decided to shoot the armed citizens first? Three times where it’s happened.

      If you can’t find three times in the history of, well, ever, then is it really something on which to base an argument?

      The simple truth is that these spree killers pick “gun free zones” to attack for a reason. They’re not looking to take out the armed citizens first. They’re not looking to face armed citizens at all. They want as many helpless targets as they can get.

      And you’d give those targets to them.

      You have this vision of all the good guys being armed. But we aren’t really able to discern who’s a good guy and bad guy.

      I believe, and I think Larry does too (not to put words in your mouth, Larry, but I suspect I’m right here) that most people are the “good guys”. That the “good guys” vastly outnumber the bad guys. And when the good guys–armed–vastly outnumber the bad guys, you get scenes like the following:

      Now that scene is fiction, from a movie, but the same kind of scenario has played out in real life more than once.

      The simple truth is that people claim all sorts of doom–fender benders turning into gunfights, bar fights turning into shootouts, blood running in the streets–at the suggestion of allowing people to be armed for their own defense. Every time law is proposed to increase who can carry and where they can carry, those same dire predictions are trotted out.

      And every time, every…damn…time, they are wrong.

      At this point the plausible deniability of being able to say that you really think that’s the way things will play out “this time” isn’t so plausible any more.

      1. Now that scene is fiction, from a movie, but the same kind of scenario has played out in real life more than once.

        There’s a reason that you don’t hear about gun stores being robbed on a semi-regular basis.

        1. models himself on him POORLY

          there – fixed that… 😉

          Vox may be abrasive, blunt, and even arrogant, but usually has his facts in a row even if the conclusions and weights aren’t always what we would give them. You have to THINK to debate Vox when you disagree, and it is wise to do so only if you very careful parse what was said to make sure you understood it..

          Vox also writes some pretty nifty stories – Wardog’s Coin and Opera Vita were both great.

          This Pox guy – not so much.

    6. My biggest problem with the “Law-abiding types” argument is that everyone’s a law-abiding type until they’re not.

      Ah, the cry of the statist.

      Honestly, Larry, try to think critically.

      Look in a mirror.

    7. Looking through the comments this morning it seems like my fans have already done a really good job mud stomping your post, so I don’t need to waste much time, which is good, since nearly every line is bullshit.

      As for the mistakes, falsehoods, and distortions in your post.
      1. In Utah law a courthouse is a Secure Facility. It meets all the requirements I already listed in the previous post.
      2. I went through why the specific threat is meaningless, because if all it takes to deny rights is a specific threat, then get ready for a whole lot of specific threats.
      3. Pre-crime. Unconstitutional.
      4. Statistically most humans are very stable. The armed ones take care of those few who become unstable. The disarmed ones become victims.
      5. See my previous exhaustive essay. History has demonstrated that someone intent on doing harm will do harm, and laws which disarm simply make it easier for those willing to break the law.
      6. Shot first? Nope. Not statistically likely, as can be demonstrated by thousands of actual defensive shootings.
      7. Just as likely shot as shooting their attacker? Absolutely totally false.
      8. Hypothetical No Win scenario. Statistically unlikely, extremely rare, and you’re fucked either way. OMG! What if you’re attacked by Dracula riding a Godzilla, what good will your CCW do then!?!
      9. Think critically? Bitch please.
      10. Gun loving fantasies? Look at the facts? Let’s see… I’m extremely well trained, practiced, skilled, and highly educated on the subject. I spent years going over the tactics and decisions made during actual events. I’ve been through extensive force on force training, and have worked with some of the most experienced instructors in the world. You are an anonymous clown, so pathetic and ashamed that your screen name is a weak play on the name of a controversial blogger. You are a wishful thinking parasite who posted some foolishness.
      11. There are cases where guns have saved lives and where they’ve done squat. Yep. Broken down in depth in the previous link, and the actual real life difference, even if you use the worst data set provided by the people who loathe guns, legal defensive guns win by a huge margin.
      12. I have no such vision. It is a voluntary choice.
      13. CCW permit holders actually have a better record at mistaken identity shootings than police officers, for the simple fact that statistically the permit holder is usually at the scene when the events begin to unfold, as opposed to the officer who has to respond after the fact and make a judgement call during chaotic events.
      14. Yes, many things can occasionally happen. Most life on Earth is occasionally wiped out by a giant meteorite. I like to plan for things that happen more regularly.
      15. A big increase in armed citizens is a social experiment which has been taking place successfully for a generation now. There are millions of permit holders in the US. Your sides’ dire predictions have not come to pass. Guns in schools have been an experiment in Utah for a decade. Your sides’ dire predictions have not come to pass.

      There’s some critical thinking for you, and it required me to waste ten whole minutes on an ass clown. That’s an example of Brandolini’s Law.

      1. No fair using facts and logic…need a sad puppies style tactic to upend these unspeakable (insert ugly cisnormative white privledge dog whistle noun of choice)

      2. No-win scenario?

        I specialize in winning “no-win scenarios”. I’ll stake Dracula’s ass, and chain Godzilla up in the backyard after I put him through guard dog training.

        What a libtard loser. He should go back to his hot chocolate and footsie pajama bottoms.

      3. “12. I have no such vision. It is a voluntary choice.”

        I do. The voluntarily disarmed should be required to get a permit to not carry, pay double tax, and be barred from voting, IMO.

    8. Go look at CBC Canada, right now. Sometimes its not some guy who “snaps” you know. Sometimes its your nation’s enemies doing war on you.

      Canada is being attacked by terrorists, right now. This very minute. Unless they got the guy since I turned off the TV to type this.

    9. There are certainly cases where guns have saved lives. But there’s plenty of others where they’ve done squat.
      IOW, net positive for carrying?

      1. There are certainly cases where seat belts, fire extinguishers, brakes, helmets, surgery, storm shelters, sprinkler systems, armed guards, ear plugs, steel toed boots, the police, flotation devices, chemotherapy, radar, looking both ways before crossing the street, safety glasses, and guns have saved lives. But there’s plenty of others where they’ve done squat.

        Indeed. Because critical thinking. 🙂

    10. My biggest problem with the “Law-abiding types” argument is that everyone’s a law-abiding type until they’re not. Humans aren’t historically stable in that regard. A person who’s peaceful one day may be violent the next. How much more damage does that person do with a gun?

      If he’s not deterred by the illegality of shooting people, how much more deterred is he by the illegality of carrying a firearm? Seriously, Pox, do you really believe that there are that many people who think “I’d like to shoot people, but it’s illegal for me to carry a gun, so I can’t?” How is this to be enforced? Constant random searches of the persons and vehicles of otherwise innocent-looking citizens?

      Even if others are carrying only for defense, it’s just as likely that they’re shot first as opposed to successfully killing their attacker. In a school situation especially. Imagine someone coming in with guns drawn and firing at will. It doesn’t matter how armed their targets are when there’s no chance to draw.

      How does this work exactly?

      Honestly, Pox, try to think critically. Crazed Killer is trying to shoot a whole bunch of people. He has numerous potential targets. He doesn’t know that Concealed Carrier has a pistol until CC draws his weapon.

      Concealed Carrier, on the other hand, is only trying to shoot Crazed Killer. He’s not distracted by any other targets. It may not even be until he opens fire that CK even knows that CC is a threat.

      But suppose that you’re right, and CK simply guns CC down. How exactly has the situation been made worse? CK already wants to kill as many people as possible — is he now “angrier” because someone pulled a weapon on him?

      There’s also the absurdity of your “coming in with guns drawn and firing at will” line. If CK is dumb enough to try to spray fire from multiple weapons at the same time, then this is a good thing — most of his shots will be going harmlessly into the ceiling and walls. One can’t shoot accurately with two guns at the same time, unless one is very well trained at a trick which is more for carnivals than serious combat.

  27. I got into it about this thing on… I think it was Crooks and Liars… and the oh so reasonable concern was that a CCW permit holder would attend the talk, hear something that made him mad, and lose his temper and rationality and haul off and start shooting… with NO intention before hand to do so.

    I, too, suggested that the chances of someone going to hear Anita talk who was even slightly likely to disagree with her even mildly was about zip. I wasn’t nearly as entertaining as Larry, though, when I said it.

    I also pissed them off by making all my gun-totting pronouns feminine… as in “do you really think that someone would lose *her* temper, pull out *her* weapon, and start blasting?”

    They didn’t like that at all.

      1. I like that too!

        Of course, that (someone getting angry randomly and getting violent) could happen any time, anywhere and it’s about equally unlikely.

  28. Not sure if it was mentioned above, but the real issue for her wasn’t that Utah wouldn’t change their laws, but that Utah wouldn’t frisk the students who wanted to attend. That is right. She demanded full on pat downs for anyone who wished to enter and listen to her droning on and on about the evils of men.

    To add to this mind you, this was the Taggart center conference room. The room only has one entrance and can only hold maybe 100. She was more likely to catch a cold than have any risk to her life. To be blunt, many of us question if she set this up herself to get attention after Wu took it away from her.

    The part i love the most about the article though is how it jumps from CCW law, to hating gamers, to how Utah sucks. I swear that someone at the DN just handed Sarkeesian a keyboard and let her write that load.

  29. My response might have only been two words. No, not THOSE two words.

    nor should arguments that a room full of people with concealed weapons is a deterrent to a deranged criminal be given credence.

    “Why not?”

  30. Wonder if she would be just as freaked about legally carried guns if she was addressing a room full of law enforcement officers?

    After all, the current SJW hue and cry is about the “trigger happy”, racist nature of the police. Would she then demand they disarm before attending?

  31. For those of you interested in the inevitable outcome of liberal gun policy, please turn your eyes to CBC News as there is an active shooter running around on Parliament Hill in Ottawa.

    That’s Canada, for you low-information social justice warrior types.

    The shooter, who is surely Amish or at least Presbyterian, began his day of fun by shooting one of the guards at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, about a 30 second run from the Parliament Buildings. There may or may not be more than one shooter, just to add to the enjoyment.

    This is the equivalent of shooting a Marine outside the US Capitol building, putting it in American terms.

    Canada, as you may or may not know, is one gigantic Gun Free Zone thanks to Social Justice Warriors and their program to disarm the masses since 1968. No CCW permits, no pistols allowed to be sold without super-duper special pistol training and two permits, no rifles allowed to be sold without super-duper training and one, different permit.

    I’d ask the various Members of Parliament how they think the gun free zone thing is working for them, but unfortunately they are all hiding under their desks right now and can’t be reached for comment.

    1. I have no doubt that our opposition parties will blame this on gun laws rather than Islamic extremism. None.

      1. Agreed. I take consolation in the fact that they were all in there today, in pants-pissing terror, while the police dealt with the results of their policies these last 40 years. From news reports there was a very great deal of lead in the air for a few seconds right outside the caucus room doors.

        Not very often the people who caused the problem get to stare down the barrel, but they did today in Ottawa.

        On the positive side, the soldier who got shot is apparently still alive. Hang in there buddy.

  32. Update on the soldier’s condition, SUN TV news reports he has died. They also report he was with the Argyle and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada, based in Hamilton Ontario. My old unit.

    Small world. Looks like I have a funeral to go to.

  33. SJW, professional victim or crusader, or whatever Ms Sarkeesian is doesn’t change the fact that the people who issued death threats to her are scum, and the ones who issued rape threats are misogynistic scum.

    1. True. I doubt anybody here would contest the labels. And quite a few here would step up to defend her from such.

      Doesn’t mitigate the silliness.

    2. This, of course, assumes that they are legit. If they are false flags, the people involved are also scum, just of a different stripe.

    3. Have we really gotten to the point we have to make pronouncements water is wet? Are you contrasting this to all the people who believe death threats are fun and good and rape threats too? Take it up with the people who actually do such things and don’t allow them to be smeared onto millions of people who don’t, and that includes this word that mysteriously has no opposite: “misogyny.” Unless one is a fool, maintaining there is no opposite is… “misandry.”

      I’ve had it up to here listening to morons in the SFF and gaming community get on Twitter and say “Rape is wrong!” Really? At what late date in their lives did they figure that one out?

      1. “Really? At what late date in their lives did they figure that one out?”

        When you figure that out maybe you’ll be able to tell me why the military is still laboring under the assumption that every single troop apparently doesn’t understand rape is wrong. Because I can’t for the life of me think of any other reason that it makes sense for me to have to sit through a two-part (meaning several hours) briefing and discussion every year telling me what I already know: rape is bad, m’kay?

      2. What about the theory water is wet? Were you immersed in a lake to make that point? What about lava? I’ve heard rumors it is hot – very hot. I was warned to never drink it. It is not wet like water.

  34. I’ll admit, before these shenanigans kicked off, I had never heard of this bird, but someone on another blog brought up a really good point. Apparently one of her pet peeves in video games is the “damsel in distress” trope. And yet her first reaction when she is allegedly threatened is to run to the police while at the same time denying anyone else in the theoretical danger zone the remotest chance of self sufficiency.

      1. “Damsel in distress” is a trope for a reason.

        Consider one of the “Damsel in distress” cases that the GHH’s get their glitter filled panties in a bunch over: “Slave” Leia. Leia failed in her task and was enslaved and humiliated, they say. But they never look beyond that.

        Yet consider. If she had “succeeded” that would have left Chewbacca and Lando in Jabba’s clutches. Oh, Lando’s cover was yet unbroken and he should be able to exfil, but Chewbacca? We can only imagine what tortures Jabba would have inflicted on him in the event Leia had escaped with Han.

        None of that makes any sense, even in the strange “logic” of science fantasy like Star Wars. But consider, her “failed” attempt got Han out of the carbonite. Chewbacca was present and in a position to assist in the escape. And Leia? Leia was precisely positioned to kill Jabba when it all went down. Someone, knowning Jabba’s proclivities, might have been able to guess what he would do on capturing Leia and planned that very outcome. Or not guess, Luke had training in foreseeing the future in his studies with Yoda. While uncertain “always in motion is the future”, it could easily have given him the clue that he needed an attractive woman to perform the “failed” rescue of Han (or not failed, but instead all part of a considered plan), and Leia would simply have volunteered. Or perhaps her own, nascent and still untutored, connection to the force told her that this is where she needed to be. Perhaps, indeed, the plan was her own.

        “Damsel in distress”? Done far less have those character in action/adventures labeled “hero.”


      2. Another ‘damsel in distress’ the SJWs pitched a fit over was mentioned upthread — Black Widow. I mean, the very idea of her being threatened by The Hulk was bad enough to them, but being visibly shaken by it? Totally unacceptable. The fact that that made her taking deep breath and heading back into the chaos to rescue her partner all the more epically badass flew right over their heads.

        1. Let’s take a look at the other Avengers at that moment in the movie.

          Hmmm….A super soldier, a god, a guy in super high tech armor, and a fairly normal yet bad ass assassin.

          The normal yet bad ass assassin goes toe to toe with one of the most powerful beings in the Marvel universe, one that gets stronger as he gets madder, one that clubbed a Norse god like he was a baby seal, and they’re upset that she was shaken? Geez…I’d have pissed my pants being up close and personal with a rage beast who wanted to use my innards as a color sample to test on the walls of the helicarrier.

          Did they miss all the big, strong, manly men who just got the hell out of the way? Just more proof that the SJW crowd will never be happy, so personally, I figure why bother?

      3. Trying to use logic in what radical feminists say will only lead you in circles. They have only one rule: men are wrong and women are right. They talk as if they are expressing an actual idea but all roads always lead to the same place and you can never win. They are generally people with mental health issues, charlatans, or hopelessly naive people who’ve never left the internet cave.

      4. Whaaaaaaaa….. someone faced down the Incredible Hulk and was shaken by an encounter with that green bundle of rage?!


  35. From the little I’ve perused of this f**ktardery, the people who claim to feel terrorized, bullied and threatened are the same folks who refuse to take responsibility for their own safety. That’s always someone else’s job or problem.

    People who are armed and/or trained for, and mentally prepared and accepting of, self-defense, seem to find the threats much less credible.

    Not definitive, but it certainly seems to be a trend to me.

  36. Posted this in the Keller the day before larry mentioned the Sarkeesian twat.

    “So I was contemplating gun free zones…

    and the natural right of self defense, and it occurred to me that international law has something relevant to say about GFZs. A blockade, to be binding, must be effective. It seems to me that a GFZ, to be binding, given the inherent right of self defense, must or at least ought be effective, too. By that I mean that any institution that controls a portion of the Earth’s surface, or of a structure thereon, can certainly declare itself a GFZ, but that unless they actually enforce it so that innocent persons are not disadvantaged vis a vis criminals and loons, it ought have no legal status whatsoever. Example, Virginia Tech. It’s a gun free zone by decree for students and people who work there, but not for me or anyone else walking through. They could declare it a gun free zone for everyone, but since it is not surrounded by a fence, with guarded gates and metal detectors, it is not effective hence ought not be binding on _anyone_. It ought be legislated that such a declaration is precatory bullshit, and no one need pay it the slightest attention. Conversely, at the local court house, before you get to the innards you will pass through deputies, armed, and a metal detector. It is not, therefore, precatory bullshit, and I can enter it with confidence that I am not disadvantaged compared to criminals and loons. It is effective, hence can be binding.”

    My former law partner, Matt, wrote up a statute for this, that doesn’t quite go where I was thinking, but it worth thinking about:

    “”Duty to Provide Security in Gun Free Establishments; Immunity from Civil Liability.”

    A. A property owner whose premises are open to the public who bars the legal possession of firearms on his premises owes a duty to his patrons to take reasonable precautions to protect the life and safety of members of the public on his property against criminal activity.

    B. A property owner who:

    1. Employs licensed armed security at all times firearms are prohibited at the rate of one licensed armed guard per 4000 square feet of business premises open to the public; or

    2. Controls access to his premises by means of licensed armed guards at each public entrance to his premises screening members of the public for possession of a firearm;

    May bar possession of firearms by members of the public and shall be immune from any civil action resulting from or relating to the illegal use of a firearm on his premises.

    C. A property owner whose premises are open to the public who does not take reasonable precautions to protect the life and safety of members of the public on his premises against criminal activity on his premises may not bar the lawful possession of a firearm on his premises.

    D. A property owner whose premises are open to the public who permits the lawful possession of firearms on his premises shall have no duty to protect the life and safety of members of the public on his premises against criminal activity, and no civil suit alleging such a duty shall be maintained.” (I’m a bit concerned that this para changes the common law rules about parking lot lighting and such).”

    And then someone pointed me to this and it occurred to me that:

    “And just had one of those minor BFOs; The thing Larry wrote about, the cancellation of a talk at USU by one Anita Sarkeesian, alleged to be something or other in the game community but really not much of anything beyind feminazi poseur, IIRC – cancelling her because she had allegedly received “death threats” (probably written, if at all, by a friend at her own behest) and the school refused to make it a gun free zone (as, apparently, they lack legal authority to do anyway).

    Now twist that a little and think about it some. I think that’s a case of the left arguing or prepping the argument for half, at least, of what I am claiming, that there is a difference between a gun free zone, as a matter of precatory bullshit, and a gun free zone that is effective, as something actually enforced. No, they didn’t quite get to that, but that’s where the direction points, because if the school had said, okay, we’ll call it a gun free zone, and she had still cancelled, they’d surely agree that the mere declaration was not enough.”

    I think there’s a useful case there.

  37. No, because I want it to be true of everything. “Call anything you want a gun free zone, federal, sate, local or private, but unless it is enforced enough to be effective, such that it locally takes over from the natural right of self defense, assuming the full burden of that defense, it is legally nugatory, at _every_ level, for _every_ entity.”

    1. Hi Tom, isn’t this what the court in CO decided in the Aurora theater case? From the press coverage, it sounded like the court decided that by denying the patrons the means to defend themselves, the theater assumed ALL of the responsibility and necessity of doing so, and incurred liability when they failed. I was waiting for the lawsuit floodgates to open, but then I’ve heard nothing more.

      I’ve noted that my YMCA bans legal guns but does nothing to check for illegal guns, and completely fails to provide any armed security for the children in its daycare. How is it possible that they avoid any liability for any harm that comes from a shooter, but can be held liable if someone is otherwise hurt while using their facilities? They have taken NO steps to mitigate the risk of a shooter, and by banning CCWs, have arguably increased the potential damage from any shooter.

      Thanks for your thoughts on this, and love your books.


      1. It’s the diff between civil and criminal liability, Nick. Right now, generally speaking, there is criminal liability for being caught carrying in a GFZ, and no civil liability for the entity in control of the property if something happens to you because you were not carrying. Worst of all worlds, IMNSHO. Matt’s approach was to make it a civil liability, by adding a duty to protect. I would rather remove the criminal liability by making it a duty to ensure the GFZ IS a GFZ, or not treating is as a GFZ. There’s room for both approaches, I think.

      2. No, the court ruling wasn’t that. It was that the civil complaint alleged sufficient “facts” (not yet proven ) that the theater should have known of the risk and taken steps. At this early stage, that means little.

      3. @SPQR. It actually does mean something. That the theater lost that motion means that an important line of defense, one they probably asssumed was a slam dunk, is somewhere between iffy and lost to them. That makes, at a bare minimum, the settlement value of the case go up.

      4. Tom, oh you are quite correct there. I meant that the court didn’t adopt the idea that the “no firearms” policy itself created liability for the theater.

      5. Thanks Tom, that helps clarify it. I’d remove the criminalization of CC too, but if I can’t get that, I want the civil burden to be so heavy and costly that they abandon the ban.


      6. Problem is that civil liability won’t work with a government entity; it will just pass the cost to taxpayers in a way a business can’t quite and still compete. For the government, you need to make it impossible to enforce without actually enforcing it AND providing for people to secure themselves outside of the government property.

    2. But then you’d have the quibble about whether a school is a “property owner whose premises are open to the public”.

      1. Not really. At least I don’t think so. “I didn’t mention “propert open to the public,” after all. The boilerplate of any entity whatsoever _should_ cover it.

  38. Any idea why this post disappeared from the main site? It is the book recommendation for Mrs. Wright’s new book, then the Book Bomb for “The Chaplain’s War”.

  39. And remember, that death threat came from a country that bans private ownership of firearms.

    Yet when I lived there I knew of lots of people killed by them. From police and citizens.

  40. The funny thing about concealed weapon carriers is that some of us are better trained with a firearm than many of the police. As an example: I was a certified peace officer at one point in the state of Utah before I went active duty in the Army just prior to 9/11. In the army I served for 10 years as an airborne infantry soldier. I have probably had more range time than all of Logan PD and USU PD together, and that doesn’t count real combat time spent through multiple tours in Iraq.

    As stated in the blog anybody willing to enter someplace where weapons are present is pretty suicidal in reality. Oh and by the way I am retired from the united states army now and I attend USU. The funniest scene on campus that day were a bunch of former soldiers (all CCW permit holders) sitting outside the TSC smoking while armed and shooting the shit with police to pass the time. Note the police knew we were armed and weren’t worried in the slightest by it.

    1. The USU cops were really cool back when I was there. I carried, and this was before the AG’s clarification, and I worked on campus. I’d shot with a couple of the cops, and they knew me from working security at the bookstore during rush week. They knew I carried and thought it was great.

  41. Daddy Warpig here, reporting from neck deep in #GamerGate.

    Anita Sarkeesian has been cyberstalked, including death threats, by a demented games journalist. GG has shut his accounts down repeatedly, but he returns. He is from…


    I find it shocking that death threats against Sarkeesian come from the same country as an individual known for copious death threats against Sarkeesian.

    I find it curious she instead (and without proof) attributed these Brazilian death threats to all gamers involved in an ongoing consumer revolt against biased journalism.

    Telling the truth doesn’t bring mad Patreon money, I guess.

    @daddy_warpig on Twitter if you want to chat about GG or anything else.

    1. Heh, I RT’ed ONE thing that was more about SJW tactics and instantly had some both fave and RT it simply because of the GamerGate tag on it. Makes me wonder what OTHER bots have been deployed and to what ends….

    2. Gender feminists and their backers are as quick to multiply one bad person into multiples, (i.e. one bad straight, white, male equals 300 million homophobic, racist, misogynists) as they are to NEVER do the same negative profiling to gay people, women or non-whites.

      Sarkeesian sees misogyny everywhere and misandry nowhere because equality. They don’t want to diversify that aspect of being human or make it inclusive, just the good stuff, kinda like how the Ku Klux Klan operates.

    3. Life After the Death of #GamerGate

      The reign of the SJW, as foreshadowed by the adventures of the Evil League of Evil.

      Kick Ass Geek Cast
      Monday, Oct. 27 7-7:30pm Eastern

      Tune in!

      (This is the show the gracious Sarah Hoyt would have been on, had not a crucial piece of equipment broke, forcing me to push on alone. All four members of the ELoE will be highlighted, as well as their struggles against the SJW.)

      1. It only appears on live events. This show starts in 25 hours, so it’s counting down to that.

        After the show is over, you can use the same link to listen to a recording.

      2. Won’t be complete until there are 13 members.

        “Banded together from remote galaxies are thirteen of the most sinister villains of all time . . . “

      3. According to John C. Wright’s blog, there are currently 12 ELoE members, with one pending (assuming he can carry out the requisite murder). I am given to understand that the four members of the ELoE I referred to are the only ones in this particular blob of space-time.

        In better news, despite the equipment breakdown, the show went well, and the Evil Brain in a Jar even took time out to listen and send me some courteous feedback. Which didn’t suck. 🙂

        The show is available above. If you have time, you might give it a listen.

        It’s all about how the current situation vis a vis SF/F, Baen, and the SFWA prefigures what will happen to video games, should #GamerGate fail. It’s a good episode (occasional buffering glitches aside), one of my best.


      4. Nothing will happen in gaming, really. Just like SFF, people will ignore the core community that despises them and spend their money on the equivalent of Harry Potter, Twilight and Hunger Games. I don’t think anyone will adapt Ancillary Justice into a best-selling game where your avatar could be one of 18 kabillion sexes anytime soon. If gaming and SFF wanted to be transgender-centric they already would be.

      5. DWP, based on voting records for the official Evil League of Evil theme song vote (punch line: “My thoughts will not cater to dic- or cuntator…”) I count eleven. it is possible, i suppose that B’rer Wright carries the proxy for his wife, though she’s not really evil enough.

      6. I’ve two lists, and I think one may be part of the membership of the Evil League of Evil.

        Mr. John Wright
        Mrs. John Wright
        Dave Freer
        Amanda Green
        Sarah Hoyt
        Kate Paulk
        Larry Correia
        Tom Kratman
        Vox Day

        Dave Drake
        Lois Bujold
        Wen Spencer
        Eric Flint
        Misty Lackey
        Sharon Lee
        Steve Miller
        Liz Moon
        Chuck Gannon

        The labels fell off, and I’m not sure from the stories which is the Evil League of Evil, and which might be the one where I wrote all those horrible things about the Democratic Party. Perhaps that label is from a third file?

      7. According to John C. Wright, the members are:

        Vox Day, Supreme Dark Lord
        Larry Correia, International Lord of Hate
        Sarah Hoyt, Beautiful but Evil Space Princess
        John C. Wright, The Evil Brain in a Jar


        Bad Horse
        Dead Bowie
        Fake Thomas Jefferson
        Fury Leika
        Professor Normal
        Snake Bite

        And, if he commits an act of murder, then the Evil League of Evil will also admit Dr. Horrible.

        Which is 11, with 1 pending. (4 active in this sphere of existence.)

        Also, for those interested, my radio show tonight is:

        “Hey Conservatives! Time To Get In The Game!”

        Some harsh truths for Libertarians and Conservatives about their position in society, and how #GamerGate can be an ally, or at least a model for action.

        7pm Eastern:

      8. Yeah, but that was clearly in jest, a reference to one of those Whedon properties, apparently because Wright is some sort of geek. I read that post earlier while looking for whatever official roster he might have.

        He also mentions a number of others that wish to enroll in a different post.

        Other activity indicates that it includes many more real members than Beale, Correia, Hoyt, and Wright.

        I didn’t find a true full roster.

        My understanding is that around the time of formation notorious misogynist K. Paulk, who thinks women belong barefoot, and pregnant in the kitchen, and certainly is against women getting scientific training, or doing manual work, won a place for the feminist glittery unmentionable post.

        I’m uncertain about the credentials of other members of MGC. Beyond those I mentioned, I think Pete Grant and Ceder Sanderson might be aligned, but I’m unsure if they are formal members.

        Kratman apparently earned a membership with his longstanding argumentative and confrontational tendencies.

        1. Well, I made it a point to put stuff in my novel as part of a resume for induction in the Evil League of Evil. (Character tells another character to stop being a pussy…written right after Scalzi went ape shit over the word)

          I can NOT be alone on that. 🙂

          1. In my Baen Fantasy story, I had the evil Wizard quote parts of “Imagine”, and he was working to turn the entire world over to the Demonic Bureaucracy to bring peace to mankind (but with himself at the top, of course).

            I’m working on novelizing the story.

          2. That was it, with the Wizard’s slave, the succubus, and the Barbarian who almost destroys the world by saving it. It’s gonna expand into a hero’s journey.

      9. Warpig,

        I don’t twitter. I’m interested in political ramifications of GamerGate, but most of the activity seems to be happening in areas I don’t focus on, and I’m tied up with other things, and in anticipation over the upcoming election.

        Plus, I can’t boycott as my gaming spending is very low.

        Have you tried contacting Moe Lane?

        I do not see it as a losing fight. I find the extent to which ties can be established between the corrupt gaming media and mainstream media a more compelling case for involvement.

        I would not be trying to follow you as a source if I were uninterested.

        As for today’s cast, I think your concern about yesterday’s cast might be sound. Also, my emailing speed is slower than one might think.


        I’d thought of you specifically, but couldn’t remember the name of ‘the guy in the red shirt’. If you’ve done as much to enrage the opponents as some of those I’ve listed, I haven’t been looking at the right places.

        My apologies if I’ve offended you or anyone else whose name I’ve omitted.

        Dr. Mauser,

        I knew my methodology had weaknesses at the time. Mea culpa, if there is culpa.


        Yeah, I figure three categories. The outspoken ELoE authors, the authors who intend to be outspoken or quiet ELoE authors, and those authors who agree with the ELoE about the priority of story, but who will not join ELoE.

        I’d guess that the first two might be at least fifty, many unknown to me.

        Wait, if you are concerned that I’ve not discussed enough your efforts, I was tired and felt them well established.

      10. @bob: Moe is… uninterested. I did get some positive feedback today, so not all Conservatives were irked by my (deliberately) inflammatory comments. And the news that there were many Cons involved who didn’t publicize their ties was heartening. I’d put your comments in the same category.

        (John C. Wright emailed me about the show as well, and was very positive. Which startled and gladdened me.)

        One thing I couldn’t talk about in the show was Milgamers. On deployment, soldiers read novels (like out inestimable host’s), play RGP’s (Shadowrun being a favorite, I’m led to believe), and play video games.

        Soldiers would take an SJW-controlled gaming industry poorly, I believe. So they’re getting a shoutout today, including some I regularly tweet with. (Who have a standing offer for a drink, should they ever come to my neck of the woods. But just 1, because I can’t afford to cover the full bar tab for a healthy soldier.)

        Tonight’s show, 7pm Eastern:

  42. And of course Jim Hines decides to get into the act as well – though wisely not directly trying to attack Larry

    Like Heinlein’s maxim about voting for those who don’t have time to investigate the issues (find a fool, vote the opposite) Jim once again serves as a bad example.

    DISCLAIMER: I read his three goblin books. The first was funny. The same schtick iterated a few more times was much less so. Especially once it became clear he had an axe to grind with humans, men, and civilization in general.

    1. Wow. He manages to dismiss the entirety of #NotYourShield as sockpuppets simply because some of it originated in 4chan, without evidence, never mind that we’ve seen plenty of real life pictures of the women and minorities involved with signs proclaiming they’re not your shield. Many of the international ones even held up their passports.

      I really enjoyed the first couple of his Princess Novels. (Think Charlie’s Angels, but with Snow White, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty, with Cinderella’s mom-in-law as Charlie) They actually were good despite the creeping anti-maleness of them, as well as PCness that got worse in later books. Then he betrayed the characters in the ending of the last one and that was it, I’m not reading anything else from him.

      Well, that and censoring me personally in one of his blog posts attacking Larry, and then lying and saying that he hadn’t blocked any comments. (That and hastily closing it down entirely when an actual victim called him on his crap)

    2. Hines may as well write “lorem ipsum” in any post about “social justice.” I can predict where he’ll fall on an issue 100% of the time without reading him. All I have to know is which side is white, male and heterosexual. That’s the same odds as you get with the Ku Klux Klan.

  43. Over at Scalzi’s echo chamber called “Yes, Sir,” he deleted this innocuous comment:

    Otherwise it was the usual cows go “Moooo” and sheep go “Baaaah.”

    Scalzi has repeatedly shown he doesn’t have the brains, judgment or common sense god gave to ants. That mean any comment he makes about pretty much anything will be as random as a monkey’s grunts because “white male GOPers.”

    What a muffin.

    1. I don’t know how you can call that comment innocuous. It’s wall-to-wall logic and facts. You might as well have aimed a klieg-strength sunlamp at a vampire convention.

      1. Being routinely outsold by SF novels from 30 to 50 years ago is going to cause an itch. If a movie star today isn’t even as popular as Cary Grant I’m not sure why someone would continue to put their work out there. Maybe Tor is a tax write off built around massive financial losses. The parent conglomerate is German. Germans are very clever people and may be sticking it to us for WW II with low-rent SF to suck dry our wills and imaginations.

        “No more spaceships for you Amerikaner schweinhunds!!! Only der vereseals und zombie pinks mit da schteampunks and der goggle google glasses!!!”

      2. Hey, I like steampunk. The good stuff, anyway. Who doesn’t like airships and steam-powered tanks?
        Gets you thinking about different ways to pull stuff off. Good for outflanking people.

      3. If they made a steampunky Wild, Wild West TV show today it’d probably be a big hit if done right. The problem is they can’t do that. They’d pie-chart the cast to avoid criticism and Dodge City would look like Times Square and the PC would rip it to shreds for colonialism, racism and genocide anyway. By the time they checkmarked each box and cleaned and ironed it for PC the fun would be sucked dry and nothing left.

        I’m surprised anything gets on TV nowadays what with the Spanish Inquisition in play. This isn’t working out well. Producers should be standing up and telling these people to shove off. Instead they just impeached the president of the Professional Golfers Association for calling someone a “Lil girl.” Meanwhile you can write racist/sexist articles about “angry white men” and “dudebros” up the yin yang to great acclaim.

        We’re getting hit on all sides and everyone wants to be not offended. The public arena is looking more and more like a gender studies dream come true all the time. The people who claim to be anti-racist act like the Ku Klux Klan and the people attacked as racists are the least racist of all. It’s an upside-down nuthouse where people are saying “I hate David Duke” and then giving a guy just like him an award cuz he hates the right stuff.

        1. If they made a steampunky Wild, Wild West TV show today it’d probably be a big hit if done right. The problem is they can’t do that. They’d pie-chart the cast to avoid criticism and Dodge City would look like Times Square and the PC would rip it to shreds for colonialism, racism and genocide anyway.

          It would simply be a TV version of that Will Smith abomination.

  44. If, in her view, one “death threat” equates to every male gamer = Bad, I have to wonder how her view on Islamic terrorism equates to Islam?

    1. I’d be a little leery of making that particular kind of hypocrisy comparison, because it can easily be reversed and used against you. (“Oh, you think a few terrorists condemns all of Islam, how do your feel about #GamerGate?”) so be prepared for it.

    1. Social justice warriors commonly distill millions of men into one single person – whoever is the worst of them. When you do that to black people it’s called racial bigotry. In la-la land that’s not smearing but justice and observation. Sarkeesian is a typical PC bigot. For people so interested in the concept of justice, they can’t seem to figure out the difference between people who murder and make threats and those who don’t. Just put all men to the rack; they are all accessories after the fact.

    2. Dear dog… it’s not a coincidence that it’s men and boys because our brains are different. This isn’t nurture, it’s nature. Men get the best and the worst. Both.

      What I find toxic, and what most certainly contributes to bad outcomes for those poor young men who end up with the short-straw, is that our culture further vilifies their existence, their feelings, and tries to “fix” them.

    3. How about “It’s no coincidence men build gothic cathedrals, pyramids, invent, design, engineer and service forklifts, aircraft, amazing cars, use cement, fractal geometry, put men on the moon, police crime, created our Constitution, fight wars, and pretty much everything connected to every aspect of any room you’re in at any time on a technological, civilizational and social level. So, yeah… we pretty much do everything.”

      We don’t get credit for that… just the dirt cherry-picked by “toxic” feminists who are all out splitting atoms, turning the Sahara into a hothouse jungle and digging massive canals and then not bragging about it on the youtube I invented.

      Somehow this he-she lingo don’t work out very well when it’s bent back on feminists.

    4. Seems to me it would be extremely just, and funny as Hell, to drop her and all the rest of the feminazis and herstorians someplace surrounded by barbarian males, with no civilized males of their own to protect them. They then can shriek, “But we’ve _always_ fought” as they get dragged off to, “What’s mah bid fo’ this fahn parcel o’ feminine fuck flesh?”

      1. You don’t need to write SF about that. You can read about ISIS and Boko Haram and their harems and slave blocks on the news. Plus all of Mauritania.

        “We outlawed slavery last week!! Well… most of it. There’s still some parts we’re ironing out about buying as opposed to selling and then there’s owning. Anyway, come to beautiful Mauritania. And bring your credit card.”

    5. Hah! These ditzy Jezebels would howl like wereseals if they had to actually live in the mythical non-binary East of noble non-whites they’re always mumbling about. binary-girl openly whines on the internet about having to hear English, in England of all places. So move. In the middle east ISIS would literally put her in a slave pen and not be able to figure out what to do with her other than maybe clean fish and bake non-pork pot pies.

      These are people who weep about homophobia in a country that has a billion gay events each year and wax nostalgic for “vibrant” havens of lesbianism like Iraq, the Sudan and Egypt. For all their blathering about a white supremacy they’ll stay put, for the simple reason they’re insane liars able to function only because of the meds my ever-aggressively curious masculinity invented.

      If left to their own devices our darling feminists would have their Twitter corrode and turn into weeds in about a week. Let Ann Leckie gripe about cis-beasts wanting to punch her and “We Have Never Done Jack Shit”-girl Kameron Hurley boast and count coup about all the cis-donkeys who want to drag her behind a Dodge pick-up truck because straight white men are hate incarnate. It’s my army corps that protect their freedom of speech, not their sign-holding and daffy yapping on Twitter like fish-wives.

  45. So when are you gonna do a post on gamergate, Larry? I’ve been lurking here for like a month hoping you would put one out. Your buddy John Scalzi is already balls deep in it. How can you resist the opportunity to piss off a whole new group of SJW’s?

    1. Lack of time. I got my alpha readers edits back from my last novel and I’m trying to get it out the door to my real editor by the end of the month. I took the time to do the gun one because CCW is kinda my area of expertise. My opinion of GamerGate in short is pretty much what I said above, the SJWs think that you are having fun wrong, and therefore must be totally destroyed, and if you disagree it can only be because you are racist, sexist, and homophobic. Oh yeah, and debating with them is simply a large version of the Internet Arguing Checklist: Dismiss, because if out of millions of people you’ve got one asshole on your side, then nothing you say counts.

      1. Offa Anna’s tweet, I ended up going around with an idiot who was going off on the latest school shooting (his feed also includes a “F*ck the Second Amendment” tweet, as well as a Rousseau quote justifying giving up your rights.). I wanted to bring him to your attention, but I guess I burned him out too fast with facts because he hasn’t replied. (Haven’t checked yet to see if he’s blocked me.)

      2. Rousseau, eh? Not exactly a feminist, him.

        From Emile:

        “Always justify the burdens you impose upon girls but impose them anyway. . . . They must be thwarted from an early age. . . . They must be exercised to constraint, so that it costs them nothing to stifle all their fantasies to submit them to the will of others.”

      3. Seen on Twitter today: “You might want to avoid @/monsterhunter45 (Larry Correia). He’s a GamerGate supporter”

        Avoid? That’s a recommendation! 🙂

        1. I’m like to ask them what their problem with journalistic ethics actually is.

          Of course, then they rail about what #GamerGate is “really” about…because they know our hearts and minds better than we do.

          1. Wasn’t there a study done that showed that conservatives were far more likely to understand what lefties were thinking than the other way around? My Google-Fu is failing me tonight.

      4. Damien and company are now declaring GamerGate “dead”. You know, the same way they declared gamers “dead”, sparking this whole mess to begin with.

      5. Both Walter and Sarkeesian sell the con game they are feminists who only want equal rights. In fact each supports supremacist gender feminism which, unlike our egalitarian laws, doesn’t care about violence in America, but only violence against women. It also believes men are inferior and despises heterosexuals. Imagine if our Constitution was geared to giving priority to the murders of women and then tell me again Sarkeesian is an egalitarian feminist.

  46. The predictable thing about Scalzi, Sarkeesian and their sack of gender feminists who won’t look at Heinlein and Frazetta cuz sexism is they are the same people who make fun of Fredric Wertham and his crusade against comics and Tipper Gore and her crusade against music lyrics.

    But in fact the cult of gender feminists want to institute a Comics Code Authority in video gaming and SFF, one they will ignore for themselves, just as they ignore their own convention policies about harassing people based on their race and sex by lighting up straight white men on the internet 24/7 and ignoring when their own people wish us death by fire.

    Somehow that’s different then straight white men wanting to drag them behind pick-ups or punch them in the face in Leckian restaurants, though there are quotes from the former and none from the latter from within the SFF community.

    That’s because hypocrisy, double standards and what amounts to lying is baked right into the fem brigade’s political correctness. Almost everything the PC say is a lie. That’s because they don’t even know what the truth is themselves. “Lone wolf” gunmen depends on your race and religion, not on whether you’re actually a lone wolf.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *