Guns

Stop Saying Women Are More Likely Than Men to Be Murdered at Work

Very few people are victims of workplace homicide-and the ones who are are mostly men.

|

Construction worker
MTA / Flickr

Math is hard. But it needn't be as hard as writers at ThinkProgress, The New York Times, and even The Washington Post's Wonkblog are making it.

Following the on-air murders of two reporters in Virginia yesterday, ThinkProgress economic policy editor Bryce Covert published a post under the headline "Getting Murdered At Work Is Incredibly Common In The U.S." In it, she wrote:

Women are far more susceptible to being murdered at work than men. While women have a lower workplace fatality rate — there were 302 fatal workplace injuries involving female workers in 2013 — 22 percent of them involved a homicide, making it the leading cause of death. For men, just 8 percent related to a homicide.

Astounded by this seemingly newsworthy observation, New York Times technology reporter Farhad Manjoo tweeted out a screen shot from Covert's post annotated with "Workplace homicide is pretty common. It's the leading cause of death for women at work."

As many, many people have since pointed out, these claims almost seem engineered to cause maximal hysteria by leaving readers with an utterly incorrect impression of the facts.

In 2013, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace fatalities was 3.2 per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers. Just 397 of those were homicides—meaning about 0.00029 percent of the workforce were murdered while on the job. Does that sound like an incidence rate that could accurately be described as "incredibly common"? Methinks not, personally.

To give you a sense of perspective, in 2013 the rate of death from heart disease was 170 per 100,000, from unintentional injuries it was 39 per 100,000, and from suicide it was 12 per 100,000. Homicide was not among the 10 leading causes of death in the U.S., let alone workplace-specific homicide.

Nor were women more likely than men to be murdered on the job, though you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise based on the recent coverage. To stick with numbers from 2013, per The Washington Post, 341 men and 67 women were victims of workplace homicide. In other words, men made up 83.5 percent of all workplace murders that year—an overwhelming majority.

That piece by WaPo's Dan Keating was more accurate, if still somewhat misleading. As he put it:

Out of nearly 4,600 workplace deaths in 2013, 9 percent were caused by homicides…It's a pattern that disproportionately affects women. After car accidents, homicide is the most likely way for women to die at work, representing 21 percent of workplace deaths. 

I could nitpick his claim that the problem "disproportionately affects women," given that they made up less than 17 percent of all workplace homicides. But it's true that of those women who died at work that year, a significant portion of them—about one in five—were murder victims.

The problem is that the raw number of women who die at work in a year is extraordinarily small. In fact, there were more men murdered at work in 2013 (341) than there were women who died at work of any cause at all (321).

As Joel Best, a professor at the University of Delaware and the author of the bestseller Damned Lies and Statistics, puts it, Keating's claim isn't false, but "it isn't terribly interesting," either. "Obviously men have many more workplace fatalities, because generally they do more dangerous work," he says. Women "almost have no opportunities to walk off a beam."

He points out that reporters and activists have been making this mistake for decades. 

"What happens is you get a dramatic crime like a TV crew being shot on camera, and then you say to yourself, 'What is this an example of?'" he explains. "Apparently, we've decided it's an example of workplace homicide. Then you start running around trying to find statistics" to back that up.

The problem is, this was "a really atypical type of workplace homicide," most of which involve robberies of cab drivers, liquor stores, jewelry shops, and the like. "It's a really bad idea to use this as an example of a larger phenomenon," he adds.

NEXT: Has Japan "Aged Out of Its Economic Miracle"?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.

    1. Statistics are like bikinis: what they reveal is enticing, but what they conceal is vital.

      1. This should be accompanied by a picture of Lobster Girl, right?

      2. I am so totally gonna use this….

  2. Stop mansplaining away the narrative!

    1. “what about teh menz?” Har de har har!

  3. 1 in 5 women will be murdered at work in their lifetimes.

    1. The other 4 will be raped.

  4. Just like the wage-gap myth, being intellectually honest doesn’t matter. It’s all about the narrative

    Seriously, how great is your narrative if you have to manufacture lies to support it

    1. I have said many times on these here threads; If you have to lie to make your case you don’t have a case worth making.

  5. Women “almost have no opportunities to walk off a beam.”

    Probably because all the beams are above the glass ceiling.

    1. HIYO!

    2. But what about gymnasts?!? Think of McKayla Maroney! I know I do.

      1. I think Gymkata covered everything we need regarding “gymnasts”

        1. Listen to the sound of the axe.

  6. Math may be hard, but the basic fucking arithmetic needed to demonstrate why these claims are utter bullshit really isn’t.

    1. Well the original arithmetic was done by a woman, and we all know how much trouble women have math.

      /crickets

      1. SUBTRACTION IS ADDITION

      2. But isn’t multiplication their job?

        /barefoot and pregnant

      3. I always hearing about how much better is girls at language than are boys, who are supposably better at maths. However, in all the folks I known, the f-males all really sucked at language. None of them had any reading comprehension to speak of, few could write coherently, and those that could do so couldn’t think coherently so it didn’t really mean anything. They do talk all the time, but it’s all fucking nonsense. Meanwhile, menfolk do seem to be generally a bit better at maths, though when it comes to real powerful mathheads, it’s been split about even between the sexes, amongst the folks I’ve known. And I’ve known an awful lot of people really fucking good at maths. On the other side, I’ve known almost nobody particularly excellent at language.

        1. Jesus, that post is terrible. Was that intentional?

        2. Is Limpee British? They’re the only ones I’ve heard refer to math in the plural “maths”

    2. Arithmetic is a tool of oppression by the Patriarchy!

  7. When inconvenient hatefacts don’t support the narrative of Patriarchal Oppression, statistical sleight of hand must be employed for The Cause.

  8. This job

    [dons Fist’s sunglasses]

    is literally KILLING me.

    1. I think you’re

      * sunglasses *

      Finally getting the HANG of this.

  9. Women “almost have no opportunities to walk off a beam.”

    #equality

    1. Elevator shafts, on the other hand…

  10. It really irks some people that men are the victims of murder and other violent crimes a lot more than women. It irks them even more that any argument that says men are more likely to be the cause of such crimes so that’s why it happens to them more often, can equally be applied to blacks. It’s gotten to the point I’ve seen people just refuse to respond to comments pointing it out.

  11. One hundred percent of women are automatic victims. Of what, you ask? Of the topic du jour.

    1. Ban topics!!

      1. Ban existence. Prosecute Creation itself for bringing all that is into being.

        /Milliom Mom March.

    2. “More Men Killed at Work. Women and Minorities Hardest Hit.”

  12. There were more men murdered at work in 2013 (341) than there were women who died at work of any cause at all (321).

    Good

    /Jezebel

    1. We must cleanse the Earth of the all-knowing, all-seeing, ever-oppressive penis. Away with you, penis! AWAY WITH YOU!

      /Ultrafeminist eugenicist.

        1. But aren’t both the penis AND the gun bad?

          /Kirk destroys computer

  13. Why is the sex of a particular homicide victim notable? Are women’s lives of greater value than men’s? Who gives a shit? Murder’s murder.

    Statistically speaking, nine of ten reporters will manufacture stories upon the bases of spurious, disingenuous bullshit during their careers.

    1. Are women’s lives of greater value than men’s?

      Actually, they are since women are more essential to procreation and child rearing than men. It’s one of the reasons they’re rescued first in a disaster. And I have to admit that the news of a woman I don’t know being killed is more tragic than a man being killed. It’s not rational or fair to react this way, but it’s how most of us feel.

      1. And I have to admit that the news of a woman I don’t know being killed is more tragic than a man being killed. It’s not rational or fair to react this way, but it’s how most of us feel.

        That was certainly my reaction.

        1. So much for the current feminist narrative that modern men hate women, huh? No, we just hate specific women (such as shrieking, radical ‘feminists’), but not women in general.

          1. I’m curious why men do this. Is it evolutionary? I have always felt the murder of a woman was worse than the murder of man, even though logically I believe the punishment should be the same, ceteris paribus.

            1. Pretty much, folks are more likely to get the door for a pregnant woman than a guy in a wheelchair.

            2. I think it’s evolutionary. One many can impregnate multiple women at a time, but women can only produce (typically) one baby at a time, and are vulnerable while they are doing it.

            3. I’m sure it’s part evolutionary and part cultural. Most devout Muslims, on the other hand, would consider a man’s life to be infinitely more valuable than a woman’s. I kinda hate to admit this, but if I were on a sinking ship and there was only one seat on the lifeboat and the only remaining passengers were me and Amanda Marcotte, I would demand she take it. Not because I like her (I despise her ideas plus she looks a lot like my ex), but because I couldn’t live with the knowledge that I allowed a woman to die so that I could live.

              1. Don’t worry, if I was there with you I would shove her off the side of the ship so the more worthy life could be saved.

                /Female Privilege

              2. In that scenario, even if the other person were Andrew Marcotte, I would probably still give up my seat. The survivor’s guilty would be overwhelming.

            4. Men have many many more sperm than women have ova. Does that make the loss of a man less or more important? Discuss….

      2. Intrinsic paternalism at work right there buddy.

        /Matt Damon

      3. This.

        Sometimes referred to as the fundamental premise. Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap.

        1. Although it doesn’t matter how many women you assign to the task, it still takes them nine months to produce a child. Not very efficient…

        2. There is a lot more work involved in getting the sperm to do their jobs than the lazy eggs. Do you not value labor?

      4. You aren’t fooling me Antilles. I know a back door argument for polygamy when I see one.

        1. Hey, I’m pretty open about my support for polygamy. I have more love than one woman can handle and deserve to be happy! Plus, I’m no fan of the ‘back door’ and have expressed as much in previous posts.

      5. They make up more than fifty per cent of the fucking population. How many cocksucking women do you need, that their lives should be more precious than decent, godfearing menfolk?

      6. The world isn’t exactly short on individuals with reproductive potential. On the other hand, the chances of a randomly selected male eventually making a major contribution to improve humanity is, though very small, still much greater than that of a randomly selected female (still waiting for the female Norman Borlaug).

    2. Statistically speaking, nine of ten reporters will manufacture stories upon the bases of spurious, disingenuous bullshit during their careers.

      I honestly feel like the worse person ever that my immediate thought on reading that sentence was, “Like that Vester Flanagan guy who went the extra mile to manufacture that murder-suicide story…”

  14. The cameraman that was killed yesterday was literally a cameraman.

    1. C’mon, we all know the pretty, blonde white woman is what really matters here.

  15. Stop Saying Women Are More Likely Than Men to Be Murdered at Work

    “Women are more likely than men to be murdered at work.”

    *stares at Stephanie*

    /HuffpoWaPoFeministingPo

  16. You know, you could teach an hour-long seminar on intellectual dishonesty, with just that Keating quote:

    Out of nearly 4,600 workplace deaths in 2013, 9 percent were caused by homicides…It’s a pattern that disproportionately affects women. After car accidents, homicide is the most likely way for women to die at work, representing 21 percent of workplace deaths.

  17. Bryce? Bryce Covert sounds like a pseudonym made up specifically for this particular piece of propaganda.

    1. Well, you know who else called themselves Bryce…

  18. Latest Gawker derp:

    America Has Lost The War Against Guns

    Yesterday morning’s murder of Alison Parker and Adam Ward is considered a spectacular display of gun violence because journalists became news, and so opinions will also be proffered about whether the amendment to the Constitution that explicitly states (go read it) that people who are in militias can own guns also means that people who are not in militias can own guns, and if so, whether and which citizens should own guns. Most of these opinions will be the incorrect opinion.

    1. snip

      If a hypothetical Good Gunman were in the area, this hypothetical Good Gunman would have either been killed by Vester Lee Flanagan, or killed Flanagan too late to keep him from killing Parker and Ward, or accidentally killed Parker or Ward or Gardner in the act of trying to save them. Alternately, if Flanagan attacked the trio with a sword, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a pipe, or his hands, at least one of them would likely have escaped with their lives. Very possibly all three.

      snip snip

      The greatest tragedy of them all, then, is that the fight for gun control in this country is utterly, completely lost, and in a cruel irony, the safest thing one can do is leave, or else perhaps buy a gun.

      1. the safest thing one can do is leave

        YES! Please do this thanks buh bye!

      2. Alternately, if Flanagan attacked the trio with a sword, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a pipe, or his hands, at least one of them would likely have escaped with their lives. Very possibly all three.

        Funny. My unprovable counterfactual shows that all three people would still have died.

        1. OHHHHH! Yeahhhh, too bad – they rolled a one….all three died.

          /Dungeon Master

          1. Ur doin it worng.

            1. Yeah, I dunno –

        2. And if he attacked with an aerosol can and a lighter, he could have killed more people and caused property damage. If he attacked with whatever common household items it was the assholes used in Boston, he could have killed even more.

          See how easy this game is?

          1. Or hell, if he attacked with a car he could have killed a hundred folks easy before the cops even got there.

        3. “Alternately, if Flanagan attacked the trio with a sword, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a pipe, or his hands, at least one of them would likely have escaped with their lives. Very possibly all three.”

          I come from a family of swordsmen, knifethrowers, and marksmen. Stickfighting was a popular pastime at gatherings. Excepting a certain few species of firearms, I would say that for any sort of infighting attacks, especially with the element of surprise, the edged weapon (provided it’s not something totally inappropriate to the physical constraints of the killing floor) would do much more slaughter more efficiently and rapidly with much less chance of an intended target escaping. The only advantage of the gun is that it allows weak and piddly folk such as women a fighting chance against beer-maddened, baton-twirling he-men.

          1. Th’other advantage of firearms is sniping, but that’s an entirely different thing.

        4. Funny, how you’d bet a small fortune that three people would more likely survive being attacked with a baseball bat than a gun.

      3. Alternately, if Flanagan attacked the trio with a sword, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a pipe, or his hands, at least one of them would likely have escaped with their lives. Very possibly all three.

        I thought one of them escaped with her life in the gun scenario anyway.

        1. +1 factcheck

      4. If a hypothetical Good Gunman were in the area, this hypothetical Good Gunman would have either been killed by Vester Lee Flanagan, or killed Flanagan too late to keep him from killing Parker and Ward, or accidentally killed Parker or Ward or Gardner in the act of trying to save them. Alternately, if Flanagan attacked the trio with a sword, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a pipe, or his hands, at least one of them would likely have escaped with their lives. Very possibly all three.

        This guy knows EXACTLY how things play out.

        1. Yeah, with foresight like that, why didn’t this guy just show up and prevent the murders himself?

      5. Alternately, if Flanagan attacked the trio with a sword, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a pipe, or his hands, at least one of them would likely have escaped with their lives. Very possibly all three.

        I recently rewatched both volumes of Kill Bill, so I’ma call bullshit on that.

        1. I would be willing to test this hypothesis by attacking Greg Howard and two other Gawker writers with a their choice of weapon and seeing if any survive or get away.

          Just grant me immunity a badge before hand.

        2. Considering the three of them never looked at him until he fired…of course they can survive hypothetically replacing the gun with a sword!

      6. Alternately, if Flanaganattacked the trio with a sword, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a pipe, or his hands, at least one of them would likely have escaped with their lives. Very possibly all three. at least one of the victims had been packing, Flanagan may not have attacked at all.

        See, I can make speculative counterfactual claims, too.

      7. the safest thing one can do is leave, or else perhaps buy a gun

        He’s not helping his argument.

      8. It is the same shit every time. The same lies. the same failed logic. They keep making the same failed arguments over and over and over and the result every time is the same. They just can’t learn, thank God. We should thank them for making the arguments that they do.

        There is no scenario regarding gun laws where the outcome would have been different. Had an armed police officer been standing next to the reporter the result would have been the same. Had the gun been illegal the outcome would have been the same.

        1. Gun Control is just like Global Warming. It doesn’t matter that there is literally no solution. What matters is that you be on the correct side and demand action. Any action, even if it doesn’t work and costs a ton of money and lost liberty. Failure to support such lofty (but utterly ineffective) goals makes you are literally the worst person in the world.

        2. 1. Assume gun control
          2. Assume gun control causes guns to vanish
          3. Assume violent people have no other ideas for how to do violence
          4. Declare solution to gun violence
          5. Namecall anyone a killer who disagrees through the sheer volume of logic

          Bless their poor little souls for trying to think, but they still sound retarded.

          1. But it feeeeeeelzzz right, so it is, right?

          2. Also, assume that a world where people can’t kill each other at will when necessary, unless they are carrying out the will the sovereign, is a better world. That seems at the bottom of a lot of this thinking, and it just doesn’t make any sense.

      9. this goes to my comment on another thread about the three women murdered by a knife the same day. little to no media play for them.

        1. They’re coming for the knives next, bitch…

      10. Well it’s kinda true, if we were able to magically uninvent/vaporize all firearms the world would be arguably (generally) safer… since that’s not possible buy a gun! As for leaving unless he’s leaving the planet I think he’s going to have issues escaping guns.

        1. You mean go back to before guns, when swords and spears clashed with longbows?

          They didn’t call that the “Dark Ages” because it was a safe place to live.

      11. But what if he attacked with a pointed stick??

    2. Most of these opinions will be the incorrect opinion.

      Beautiful.

      1. thats how liberals take all other arguments off the table, you are wrong before you start so don’t speak and hence no disscusion is needed.

    3. Top comment, I think?

      Ban all guns. Make them illegal to posses. Getting caught with one is an automatic jail sentence. This nonsense has gone on for too long. This amendment was authored by people who were okay with slavery. It does not, and should not, translate to 2015 America

      1. Hmm, let’s see…has a ban boner, Framers owned slaves, talked like fags…yeah, that’s definitely a finalist!

      2. This amendment was authored by people who were okay with slavery.

        This sort of reasoning suggests that the rest of the first ten Amendments would have to go, too.

        Sorry, Gawker Commenter, but being thick is no excuse for insane proposals.

        1. I wonder what percentage of the Gawker community cares about the other amendments anyway? I mean, given the agitation against unrestricted speech, I wouldn’t be surprised if they had no problem with repealing the BoR.

          1. They clearly have little concern with due process…

            1. Or property rights, or states’ rights…

              1. Or religious liberty.

                To my knowledge, there is not an official proggy position on the quartering of soldiers during times of peace (though, if I had to venture a guess, I suspect where they would fall)

                1. Probably do it the same ways kings of France did: you don’t like the policy, we’re going to quarter troops in your town.

                2. So long as it’s the new chick brigade, they are good with that one too…

          2. A “If You Could Write the New Bill of Rights What Would You Put in It?” thread over there would be epic.

            1. Free stuffs for TEH VICTIMIZED!!

              No speech for KKKerperashunz!!!11!!!!1!! Moneys isn’t speeech!!!

              Speeach that hurts teh FEELZ isnt protected!!!11!!11

              TAXES FOR RICH!!!!11!!!!1!!! MINIMUM WAGE OF $50!!11!!1!!

              /progderp

            2. Amendment 1. Government is authorized to do anything and everything necessary to guarantee everyone as much life and happiness as possible, including unlimited health care spending, unlimited education spending, 1 bedroom per person housing, food rationing equal to federal dietary standards, any and/or all items or consumables may be regulated and/or banned, etc. All conflicting articles or amendments to the constitution are hear by repealed.

              It would be pretty simple in the end.

            3. Fuck man, I’d put the right of tyrannicide at number 1.

        2. This sort of reasoning suggests that the rest of the first ten Amendments would have to go, too.

          Might as well rewrite the Constitution while we’re at it. Imagine the possibilities!

          1. I once heard Obama lament that our Constitution was fundamentally flawed because it was all about limiting the power of government rather than outlining all the things the government should be doing for/to the citizens. Yeah, that was kinda the point and you’d think a ‘Constitutional scholar’ would know that. And yet people elected him anyway–twice.

            1. The man literally hates everything that America is about – and this too was obvious from the first.

              1. this too was obvious from the first.

                Indeed. But there was an unspoken promise that if whites voted for Obama then all would be forgiven and we could move past all this racial nonsense. Boy, were we duped…

                1. What? You mean we aren’t living in post-racial America?

                  1. we aren’t living in post-racial America?

                    All I know is that over the past eight years I’ve been called a racist more times than I ever had before we had a Black president.

                  2. You mean we aren’t living in post-racial America?

                    I am. I just wish more people were.

                    1. Amen to that. Can we pleeeeeze move on now?

              2. “The man literally hates everything that America is about – and this too was obvious from the first.”

                Everyone that had anything to do with rearing him indoctrinated him with that shit from birth. He is the ultimate useful idiot.

            2. Sounds like he has a problem with democracy.

            3. He studies the words of the Constitution like a doctor studies staph, herpes, and hookworms. With an eye towards wiping them out.

          2. “Might as well rewrite the Constitution while we’re at it. Imagine the possibilities!”

            Tony once got frustrated and blurted out that he would like to see all industry nationalized and Barry made emperor for life.

            Progressives really are the worst kinds of people.

      3. It does not, and should not, translate to 2015 America

        But apparently, draconian strict-liability felonies do, according to that dumbfuck

    4. These people exhibit such a pernicious psychological infirmity, such an overwhelmingly broken moral landscape, that their stupidity is a final strike to their credibility as men. They are historically ignorant to total retardation, and they insist with the impotent fury and intensity of a brown dwarf that the existence of a specific type of inanimate object is to blame for complex, infinitely variant, and invariably unpredictable events of a human nature — murder, rape, robbery, and other crimes.

      They’re all dangerous, idiotic, clueless, slave-driving degenerates. I’m so fucking sick and tired of their horseshit.

      1. Look at the broken dystopia that the UK has become. On an hourly basis shit happens that should only happen in an insane asylum.

        Never forget the purpose of demoralization. To brainwash people so that no matter how much information they have they cannot draw a sensible conclusion. They cannot solve problems. Therefore they cannot defend themselves, their families, or their country. It is a psychological jackboot on their necks.

        The soviets are the ones who perfected this with the goal of eventually taking control of the west. The problem is that their method was wildly effective, but their system was shit and they didn’t survive long enough to take advantage of it.

        1. “The problem is that their method was wildly effective, but their system was shit ”

          Methinks these two may be related. I.e. once you succeed in demoralizing your population, what then?

          1. Good point. ‘Yippee! We’ve successfully turned all our people into unthinking sheep. Now, let’s go conquer the world.” “What, with those people? Are you kidding?”

            1. Haha….exactly. You reap what you sow, dudes….

          2. That’s why socialist governments fall apart about the third generation. Once you raise a cohort of people incapable of running their own life, you end up with people who are incapable of running a government.

      2. “They are historically ignorant to total retardation, and they insist with the impotent fury and intensity of a brown dwarf that the existence of a specific type of inanimate object is to blame for complex, infinitely variant, and invariably unpredictable events of a human nature — murder, rape, robbery, and other crimes.”

        Also, they ignore the single most important factor in determining these acts of transgression–the transgressor at some point making the choice to transgress. That’s the keystone in the chain leading up to any action, and it’s something under no one’s control but the person making the choice, and which can not be constrained by means of any contingencies external to the nut job’s lizard brain.

        They never see anything as the result of people making choices. It’s always some abstracted societal phantom thing that is to blame for anything anyone does, instilled into some material fetish, such as the gun, whenever possible.

    5. America Has Lost The War Against Guns

      if only there were something to even the odds.

    6. Huh. I thought we had won the war against gun-grabbers. Not quite, i guess.

      1. They will never quit. They are programmed to behave in certain very narrow parameters. It is all they can do.

        1. As long as they continue on their run of failing spectacularly, I can deal.

    7. Weird, we lost the war against drugs too and we outlawed those fuckers.

    8. America Has Lost The War Against Guns

      Good. Does that mean we can drop the issue of gun control now and move on to something more important?

  19. In other words, men made up 83.5 percent of all workplace murders that year?an overwhelming majority.

    So not only do women earn less than their male counterparts, they don’t even get killed at the same rate? This is outrageous.

    1. What this country needs is an EDA.

  20. An American is murdered with a gun every sixteen minutes! or something. Gunz rrr bad.
    I saw that one in the NYT (Nocera, I think) this morning.
    For those who want it to be true, it sounds completely reasonable.

    1. “An American is murdered with a gun every sixteen minutes! or something. Gunz rrr bad.”

      Let’s see… risks of death =

      Firearms Discharge (which includes suicides!) = 1:6,699

      Pedacyclist “Incident” = 1:4,535

      #BikeDeathsMatter

      1. Clearly, we need reasonable restrictions on bicycles. Let’s start by banning assault bicycles.

        1. Can we start with the baby cabooses first? Please?

        2. I think banning automobiles would be more effective.

        3. Nobody needs more than 10 gears.

    2. Yeah and they used to tell us that every time you suck on a sack of gold paint you’d lose twenty million brain cells a second. And look how that turned out.

  21. So, when these women get murdered at work, they bleed from their eyes or their…whatever….

    And I assume some of them are nice people.

    /Trump Voice

  22. the greatest tragedy of them all, then, is that the fight for gun control in this country is utterly, completely lost, and in a cruel irony, the safest thing one can do is leave

    There are flights leaving for Australia every day. I hear it’s a gun grabber’s paradise.

    1. Flights leaving from LAX several times a day…..I would be happy to contribute if they will keep them.

      1. Or better yet, they could go to Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea. No guns AND free, world-class healthcare? Why aren’t progs rushing to these places in droves?

    2. Why fly? They can walk to Mexico. That country’s gun control is so strict there’s only one gun store, and it’s run by the army.

  23. I have but one hope – that feminists can be allies in a fight to destroy the slavery known as the Selective Service System.

    I’ll admit that I sometimes wonder if they would instead choose to expand it to include women, all in the name of “equality”

    1. I’ll admit that I sometimes wonder if they would instead choose to expand it to include women, all in the name of “equality”

      There is an ongoing lawsuit to this end.

      1. That’s an example of where freedom and equality are at odds.

      2. Rhonda Rousy could probably destroy all of ISIS all by herself and with nothing but her bare hands because grrlpwr!

    2. Progressive feminists tend to be authoritarian to an absolute. Conscription is probably consistent with their values.

      1. Fuck. Women as a blooming rule tend to be authoritarian to their utmost. If they didn’t fetishise power and domination, why the dickens would they ever pursue an attachment to a man?

  24. If a hypothetical Good Gunman were in the area, this hypothetical Good Gunman would have either been killed by Vester Lee Flanagan, or killed Flanagan too late to keep him from killing Parker and Ward, or accidentally killed Parker or Ward or Gardner in the act of trying to save them.

    So, in this scenario, the “good gunman” is an off duty cop?

    1. Chief of Police.

    2. or accidentally killed Parker or Ward or Gardner in the act of trying to save them

      So when has this ever happened?

      1. That is something I’m curious about as well. Are there any instances of an armed good samaritan accidentally maiming or killing someone who was being attacked? Since nothing is new under the sun, there have to be a few.

        Of course, we would then need to compare those to instances where the armed good samaritan saves the would-be victim…

        1. Just because it’s never happened doesn’t mean it can’t happen. And with the right set of laws we can make sure it never will happen!

        2. An armed good samaritan accidentally murdering a bystander? The fact that I can’t recall any news stories to that effect off the top of my head is a pretty good indicator that these incidents are extremely rare, because we know that the media would make a shitstorm over it for MONTHS if it ever did happen.

          I’d say what might be more common is an armed citizen witnessing a spree killing and NOT shooting because they’re afraid of hitting bystanders in the area. They know that if they kill someone by accident, they’d be doing hard time… Unlike cops.

      2. “So when has this ever happened?”

        Um . . . every movie or TV show where some guy had a concealed weapon where a crime was happening?

        Don’t you know anything?

  25. Stephanie Slade wrote:

    The problem is that the raw number of women who die at work in a year is extraordinarily small.

    This is what libertarians actually believe.

    (no Poe-mo)

    1. I see what you did there.

  26. The recent (Aug 27) WaPo wonkblog article title is: Murder is the second most likely way for women to die at work. The statistics support this title so I see why you left it out rather than give your readers all the information.

    The article you specifically address “Getting Murdered At Work Is Incredibly Common In The U.S.” This title should tell you there is only 1 comparable piece of information you’d need to see if it’s common in the US (which implies ‘vs other countries’) and that’s to compare it to other countries.

    Solid data from other countries on workplace violence is difficult to come by (from my quick google search) but knowing the U.S. has by far the highest rate of homicides by firearm gives us a pretty good idea that this article is accurate as well.

    You’re adding irreverent information (total men deaths, heart disease, etc) that have nothing to do with it. Also, you’re argument that 400 murders aren’t enough to be worried about doesn’t mean the original articles weren’t correct with their numbers either.

    It appears you are looking to argue gun control; but without solid counter points you’re simply changing the intent of the initial pieces. It would be better to acknowledge the other side as having a point and then countering it rather than trying to twist things so you can spout off some right wing talking points.

    1. B+ I admire your use of complete sentences.

    2. The article you specifically address “Getting Murdered At Work Is Incredibly Common In The U.S.” This title should tell you there is only 1 comparable piece of information you’d need to see if it’s common in the US (which implies ‘vs other countries’) and that’s to compare it to other countries.

      This is so wrong it knocked the wind out of me.

    3. “”341 men and 67 women were victims of workplace homicide. In other words, men made up 83.5 percent of all workplace murders that year?an overwhelming majority.””

      To suggest that “homicide is the second most likely way for women to die at work” while failing to note that *very very few women die at work” compared to men is classic misrepresentation

      “””Getting Murdered At Work Is Incredibly Common In The U.S.”

      No, comparison to other countries does not indicate how “common” something is.

      How “common” something is should be measured as how likely it is to occur.

      Getting murdered in the workplace is roughly between “being hit by lightening” and “death by bee sting”

      That is not generally considered “common”, and suggesting it is is misrepresentation.

      The need to rely on misrepresentation reflects weak arguments. If you need to garble data so badly to try and make a point, it means your point sucks.

      Try again.

    4. B- Deducted points for misspelled name in handle.

    5. So “incredibly common” sometimes means “extremely rare”? Gotcha.

      1. Look, if people in Britain, for whatever reason, die from being mauled by lawnmowers 15 times a year, whereas in America we only die from being mauled by lawnmowers 4 times a year, that means getting mauled by lawnmowers is incredibly common in Britain.

        1. “Mauled by Lawnmowers”

          I like that. Makes it sound like the lawnmowers are going rogue and attacking people.

          1. They’re becoming self aware.

            1. Destroy the lawnmowers now before they kill all of us!!!!

            2. MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE!!!!

        2. Yeahr and there’s Mala?i or wherever where getting struck to death by bolts of lightning is one of the commonest sorts of accidental death, so unless your explicit purpose is to compare the incidence of something in one country with rates in other countries, it’s absurd to base one’s categories of frequency on a global rather than endemic standard. What a moron!

      2. But possibly slightly less rare than in other countries!

    6. “Irreverent” information? What kind of cheeky snark would do that? 😉

      I think you meant “irrelevant”.

    7. “Solid data from other countries on workplace violence is difficult to come by (from my quick google search)’

      I GOOGLED AND FOUND NOTHING, THEREFORE THIS IDIOTIC WONKBLOG POST IS TRUE

      1. it’s fucking astonishing how many people believe that all datums in existence ever recorded are indexed in “google” and can be turned up with the simplest search terms, leading them to conclude that if they don’t get any hits, the information simply doesn’t exist (and possibly by extension some real thing the information refers to).

        All the time folks are saying to me, “Why you bother with all them clunky old books. Don’t you know, everything is on the internet now?” Bloody hell, seems like every other book I search for on the internet (by numerous means more sexhaustive than google) is not available in English or, if English were not the original language, in the original language. I had to settle for some volumes of Dum?zil in Spanish translation, and only half of Eliade’s work can be got at all, and what one can find is available only in Portuguese translation of the French translation. The only satisfactory (for my purposes) Norwegian dic I have been able to find is a Norwegian–Russian dictionary (in conjunction with the online Bokm?lsordboka/Nynorskordboka at Universitetet i Oslo, it serves well enough). So fuck google. And fuck China also.

    8. The article you specifically address “Getting Murdered At Work Is Incredibly Common In The U.S.” This title should tell you there is only 1 comparable piece of information you’d need to see if it’s common in the US (which implies ‘vs other countries’) and that’s to compare it to other countries.

      Solid data from other countries on workplace violence is difficult to come by (from my quick google search) but knowing the U.S. has by far the highest rate of homicides by firearm gives us a pretty good idea that this article is accurate as well.

      Why are you defending an article titled “Getting Murdered At Work Is Incredibly Common In The U.S.” that didn’t even provide you with “1 comparable piece of information you’d need to see if it’s common in the US ” ?

    9. Getting attacked by sharks is also infinitely more common in the the US than in Mongolia; that still doesn’t make it “incredibly common”.

      And the reason why murder is the second most likely way for women to die at work is because women refuse to take the shitty, dangerous jobs that men take; if they did take those shitty dangerous jobs in equal numbers, murder would be way down on the list of causes of death for women at work.

    10. Solid data from other countries on workplace violence is difficult to come by (from my quick Google search) but knowing the U.S. has by far the highest rate of homicides by firearm gives us a pretty good idea that this article is accurate as well.

      “Murder at work” does not equal “homicides by firearm.” The U.S. intentional homicide rate (4.7/100k) is well below the international average (6.9/100k). But selecting for “gun deaths” is a common way to misstate violence statistics.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
      (Sorry, the squirrels don’t like the link.)

      I’d like to see data on how many of those 400 women murdered at work were in “gun-free” businesses that wouldn’t let them carry to protect themselves. I’d guess that a TV News crew would be prohibited from having a gun while on the job.

  27. Women in the workplace… can’t live with ’em, can’t kill ’em.

    1. Bryce disagrees – VIOLENTLY

      1. Fortunately Bryce murdered a male along with a female in order to keep things equal.

  28. He points out that reporters and activists have been making this mistake for decades.

    Yes. It’s been a “mistake.” Right.

  29. People with the best arguments always misrepresent statistics

  30. Thank you! Homicide is not a common outcome of women’s participation in the workplace. It’s abuse of statistics that seems to be what is most common these days.

    I still recall an article in the BC newspaper The Province from the 2008 recession, lamenting the increasing proportion of workplace deaths that were women. This was portrayed as a massive problem that needed attention, even though the rate of female death at work had not changed at all.

    Their increased proportion was due to men thrown out of work in the resource and heavy industry sector. So essentially, because so many loggers, miners and construction workers were laid off, there were fewer men having trees or ceiling beams falling on them than previously. The ratio of men to women dying on the job went from 19:1 to 17:1 not because female deaths went up, but because male deaths went down.

    Cue the outcry: if men aren’t dying on the job at at least 19 times the rate of women, this is somehow a women’s problem…

    1. See also DDT

    2. The all time greatest example of this was when Hillary Clinton said women are the main victims of war because their husbands and sons might die which would make women grieve.

      Men are so privileged they aren’t even the primary victims in their own deaths.

      1. Well, how can you be a victim if you can’t whine about it after? Didn’t think of that, did you?

  31. Lies are good if they serve a good purpose.

    1. You have been reading Lakoff, haven’t you?

      1. (makes framing gesture with hand as though i am film director)

        That sounds like a Right-Wing talking point to me.

  32. These statistics look meaningfully different if one includes murdered prostitutes as females murdered “at work.” I personally would do so, because I consider prostitution work. Presumably the Bureau of Labor Statistics disagrees, but FWIW…
    .
    https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Violence_against_prostitutes

    In 2004 the homicide rate for female sex workers in the United States was estimated to be 204 per 100,000, although this figure mixes illegal work with legal work.[2] This figure is considerably higher than that for the next riskiest occupations in the United States during a similar period (4 per 100,000 for female liquor store workers and 29 per 100,000 for male taxicab drivers).

    1. If you bring in illegal work then you are also going to have to include male drug dealers, which will even those numbers right back out.

      1. This is why you refresh…

        1. Mwahahahaha, beat you by thirteen minutes 😀

    2. Those women are killed because of their occupation being in a black market. Therefore the illegality of prostitution is resulting in deaths, not work itself.

    3. You can play this game with male-skewed black market professions as well; if you threw drug dealers and producers in the mix, what would that do to that stats?

    4. how about the rate for men prostitutes?

  33. I think we all know why the leading cause of death for women are car accidents.

    1. Male privilege. Men don’t have to worry about doing their makeup, while they text while driving.

    2. Yet women pay substantially less for auto insurance than guys do. But for some reason this isn’t considered sexist–unlike the different rates for health insurance that existed before the ACA.

      1. Women are more prone towards small fender benders and minor collisions resulting from poor depth perception relative to men (men’s greater depth perception and visual reasoning being an artifact of their evolutionary role as hunters).

        Men are more likely to be engaged in more serious wrecks and hence pay higher premiums. The trend does reverse as the groups age.

        1. But why stop at separating drivers by gender? Why not break them down further by race, religion, and sexual orientation? I’d assume an older, white, middle-class guy like me would pay less than a low-income minority in the inner city. Of course that would never fly. And it’s interesting that women paying more for health insurance (because they go more often and require more expensive procedures) is a crime while the fact men paying far more in auto insurance is just dandy. However, in a perfect world insurance companies should be able to set rates however they wish without government influence. Sure, I’d still pay more for auto insurance but my health insurance would drop because I’d no longer be forced to subsidize the health insurance of women I don’t even know.

          1. No argument from me here. I’ll simply note that the root word for actuary is the same as for actual.

        2. Women are more prone towards small fender benders and minor collisions resulting from poor depth perception relative to men (men’s greater depth perception and visual reasoning being an artifact of their evolutionary role as hunters).

          Can you blame them? When men continually tell them that it is 9″ long when it actually is barely 5″, women obviously have to be confused about estimating distances.

    3. Day before yesterday while driving towards an intersection I noticed a very large dual wheeled pickup round the corner and head towards me. There was a very small asian woman driving. she was straining to see over the dash. Everyone in the car must have seen it at the same time because simultaneously my wife, myself, and my wife’s friend said “Oh shit!”

      1. RACIST.

        1. Ahem, the word you’re looking for is “LACIST”.

      2. So, what happened? Did you all die?

  34. Just like yesterdays murders every report featured someone who new the female reporter I never saw a single report from friends or relatives of the man. I will admit though after 1 pm I had to turn off the news since it was non-stop insanity as if this was the worst crime in history.

    1. To be fair, I think this crime hit newscasters particularly hard given the occupation of the victims.

  35. “disproportionately affects women” is actually true. What he omits is that it is disproportionately LOW.

  36. After car accidents, homicide is the most likely way for women to die at work, representing 21 percent of workplace deaths.

    Hardly surprising, since women otherwise stay away from dangerous occupations and leave those to men.

    Will feminists address this? Along with programming, will women also enter construction, powerline installation, mining, roofing, and recycling? Or will they continue to leave the shitty and dangerous jobs to men?

    1. Excuse me, Martha, I know you are our secretary, but there is a live wire on 5th avenue that needs taming and we are over are quota of male deaths this year so would you mind looking into that for us after your lunch break? Um, thanks.

      1. Sounds good to me!

  37. Thing nobody is talking about is how many of those women were asking for it?

  38. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  39. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.onlinejobs100.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.