Las Vegas Sun

April 19, 2015

Currently: 81° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Letter to the editor:

Oppose violence to women

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

It is timely that the Violence Against Women Act was reintroduced into Congress the same week that Nevada Assembly Speaker-elect Marilyn Kirkpatrick was reportedly threatened. According to the Violence Policy Center, Nevada has the dubious honor of ranking first in the nation for the past three years in the rate of women killed by men.

Most women are not killed in relation to another felony crime, and firearms are the most common weapon used by men to murder women. Hostile gun displays are even more common. It is unconscionable that women and girls continue to be threatened, harmed and killed by men with guns. Aside from loss of life and the pain and suffering of victims and their families, violent threats and intimidation seek to silence women’s voices in the home and in the public sphere.

Nevada women serving their communities in public office deserve to have their voices heard, not be threatened by disgruntled, armed men. In support of Kirkpatrick, women in Nevada — and the men who love them — should send a loud message to their representatives to support the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 11 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. What does the VAMA actually do to decrease violence against women? Nobody who is intent on assaulting or killing a woman cares a whit whether there is a "law" in force or not. I support the Act, but to me, it is a "feel good" piece of legislation that will do little to prevent what it is intended to.

  2. OOps, I meant VAWA. Freudian slip?

  3. I too would like to know what the VAW act does to reduce violent acts against women. We should all be against any violent act against older, middle-aged, younger, female and male.

  4. Last week the Pentagon also suspended the ban on women soldiers serving along side men in combat infantry and artillery positions.


  5. Ms. Ireland,

    I hereby declare that I, all of my friends, all of my acquaintances, and most everyone else in the civilized world is opposed to "violence to women."

    I trust this is the outcome you desire.

    Now, please go do something else with your life.


  6. "All pigs are equal; however, some pigs are more equal than others." Every time something happens, someone wants a "special" law created to "remedy" the situation. So we wind up with "special" classes such as enhanced penalties for "hate" crimes, crimes against the "elderly," "handicapped" parking spaces, etc. If it's a crime, it's a crime, and the penalty should be equal no matter the victim. If we are all "equal," why create differences? You can't have it both ways. Oh, yeah, I forgot. We now live in "progressive" America.

  7. How about making this Violence Against Women and Children Act.

    I wonder how many of those females committing acts of violence against men were defending themselves or their children?

    With all the talk about the 2nd Amendment related to the right to have guns, it just might bring more women into the realm of gun ownership, in order to protect themselves and their children.

    Could the two be linked?

    If there is no special "Act" to protect women and children from violence, I would like to see more work on providing safe havens for them to go to for help in separating from the violence they experience.

    If violence is increasing against men by women, there needs to be safe havens for them to go to for help as well.

  8. The Violence Againist Women Act (VAWA) is a great law. That won passage in 1994 and it's reauthorization in 2000 and 2005.This law has helped women who suffered in silence from dating violence,stalking and domestic abuse,along with other crimes against them.

    Now we need a law that guarantee's women equal pay for equal work who do the same job as a man.If Hillary Clinton would have been elected as President in 2008 instead of Barack Obama she would have received the same pay as the President now gets. So what's wrong with this picture,judge for yourself.

  9. "It is unconscionable that women and girls continue to be threatened, harmed and killed by men with guns."

    Really? Does anyone disagree with this? I, for one, find "It is unconscionable that women and girls, as well as MEN AND BOYS continue to be threatened, harmed and killed by men AND WOMEN with guns. KNIVES, FISTS---ANY WEAPON FOR THAT MATTER.

    Apparently the Amanda doesn't care about how many men die in this country, but thinks that current laws somehow allow women to be slaughtered daily on our streets.

    Apparently Amanda has no clue.

  10. My problem with the Violence Against Women Act is that the title alone makes it immune to criticism. There are provisions in the Reauthorization Act that some people find troubling but anyone who opposes or has questions about the bill is portrayed as having a narrow and intolerant ideology.

    It seems that once you start explaining, you've lost the battle. We should not be saddled with a law that, because of its title alone, is impervious to harm.

  11. Brooke Logan,

    I could not have said it better nor more efficiently. Kudos.