5 Shot Dead at Suburban Chicago Store (Normal, Lincoln: condo, homes, public schools)

[aragx6]

NYRules's quote ("I wouldn't go there alone if I were a woman. Not that a man is going to stop a bullet, but I'm sure if there were some big dudes in that store at the time of the shootings, the gunman would have thought twice about doing this horrible act.") is very indicative of the way women are seen in this country, as objects that must be protected. The fact that everyone automatically assumes that if a man had been there this wouldn't have happened kind of bothers me. Crimes are perpetrated against both women and men on a regular basis, and when the media makes conjectures that in no way appear to be based on reality, they perpetuate such ideas.

[Drover]

Do you mean to tell me that you actually think criminals assess the risks of perpetrating crimes against men and women without any distinction between the two? I'm sorry, but that strikes me as incredibly naive and silly. That takes "equality for women" ethic to a ridiculous extreme.

Do you really think six men would have been just as likely to tolerate being tied up by this creep as six women?

[aragx6]

NyRules says the guy would have thought twice about this if it had been men, but I disagree. There have been men involved in many of the shootings across the country.

Guns are the great equalizer. What could six unarmed men have done that six unarmed women couldn't? To think that men can magically stop people from killing people is what's really naive.

[Drover]

What could men have done? Men are far more likely to fight back, that's what -- especially in numbers. Maybe it would have gotten them killed anyway. Or maybe the gunmen would have fled and found a more vulnerable target some other day. The simple fact is the risks of being crime victims are different for men versus women. Most people consider it common sense to acknowledge that difference in risks rather than to regard it as sexist and patronizing.

[aragx6]

You say men are far more likely to fight back, but why is this? Do you really attribute it wholly to their size? You think women are born knowing they should let some psycho tie them up? I do not.

I believe it has a lot more to do with the differences in how men and women are raised. Men are taught to fight back; women are not, and this is exactly the problem. If women were taught to use their own strength, were urged as young boys are to engage in physical activities such as sports and karate and were shown that in these life-or-death situations they can make a difference, then perhaps the outcome would have been drastically different.

Instead women are raised by parents and by media (because let's face it children are in part raised by the media) who instill in them the huge differences between men and women and who are raised intimately aware of the dangers that men pose to them on a daily basis. Women are taught to live in fear of men, and that is what i have a problem with.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by aragx6

You say men are far more likely to fight back, but why is this? Do you really attribute it wholly to their size?

Yes, size has a whole lot to do with it. Men are substantially stronger than women. Period. That's just a pure and simple biological fact. There's also a huge difference between teaching women to live in fear of men and teaching women to take certain extra precautions to protect themselves. I can't figure out why that's so hard to understand. It's not a terribly fine distinction.

[aragx6]

Substantially? you wish. Instead women are not encouraged to learn to fight because it's "unwomanly." And again as I said before it doesn't matter who's stronger when somebody has a freaking gun.

And by "extra precautions" you mean what NYRules suggested? Never going to mall by oneself?

As long as women live in fear they will continue to be victims. I should hope you would raise your daughters to not fear going to the grocery store by themselves.

Unless of course there will be a big strong man there to protect them from the whackjobs. Instead I'll keep myself safe by using due precaution, being prepared by being fit and trained (and carrying mace) and not living in constant fear of a man and at the same time in dire need of a man.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by aragx6

Substantially? you wish. Instead women are not encouraged to learn to fight because it's "unwomanly." And again as I said before it doesn't matter who's stronger when somebody has a freaking gun.

Yes, it still does matter when somebody has a freaking gun. Some people will still fight back. Men are a lot more likely to do so than women, because even when a gun is involved, size still matters. You'd be surprised how difficult it is to shoot someone even at very close range when there's a lot of movement, action, confusion and adrenaline coursing through your system. It takes a lot of training and conditioning to work the "adrenaline" factor in particular out of the equation.

[Avengerfire]

I think the main problem with what happened in Tinley has to do with the fact that there were no cameras and silent emergency alarms to contact local authorities or at least mall security.

[condorito]

This crime has truly angered me! I do not understand what would possibly motivate a scumbag, low-life to walk into a store on a Saturday morning, murder 5 people, over what?! A few hundred dollars?! What a piece of a garbage of a human being!! I mean, do people wake up early on a Saturday morning already thinking about robbing someone?! I hope this scumbag gets caught and dies in jail! I don't care how PC the media tries to be, here is a description of this animal! Gosh, I am so angry!!!

"The suspect was described as a black man with thick braided hair and a receding hairline, Sgt. T.J. Grady said Monday at a news conference. One braid was adorned with four light green beads and was hanging over the right side of his face at cheek level"