NEWS
Local
Mind, Body & Soul
Sports
Archives
OPINION
Editorials
Letters
Columnists
Message Boards
A&E
The Gay Agenda
Calendar
Movies
Books
LIVING
Horoscopes
Comics
Classifieds
Obituaries
Salt Lake METRO
Subscribe
Advertise
Contact Us
|
 |
Viva La Radicals
Editor,
You put your finger on something I have felt for a while. Thank God we now have lots of homo institutions that are (more or less) accepted and even respected by the larger community. The decline of individual self-appointed spokespersons and the rise of the gay institution to represent the community has been the big story of the last ten years. We are better off for it.
On the other hand, why do we need to ALL be quiet and respectful, full of deference and duly concerned with our image in the larger community? Wouldn’t it be great if there were a balancing group or two in our community that was unafraid to confront the powers that be? A group whose first inclination at hatred was to throw a noisy, ugly demonstration instead of a new legislative proposal?
While Equality Utah and the Center have brought respect and continuity to the community, let’s hope these organizations never forget they stand on holy ground prepared for them by courageous Utah activists who ripped down closet doors—often at great personal sacrifice—while others in the community suggested persuasion would eventually cause the doors to quietly crumble. Had the activists not been there, I fear we would still be waiting for the closet doors to fall.
Viva la radicals! Where do we sign up?
Jim Dabakis
Salt Lake City
GOP Must Include, Defend Gays
Editor,
The great conservative icon Ronald Reagan understood that gay people deserve to be treated with basic fairness and common decency. In 1978, Calif. State Sen. John Briggs proposed a statewide ballot initiative to prevent gay and lesbian people from teaching in public schools. His vicious campaign to “defend your children from homosexual teachers” seemed headed for victory until [then California Governor] Reagan announced his opposition and helped defeat the initiative. From this pivotal campaign, Log Cabin Republicans were born. Log Cabin is the nation’s largest organization of Republicans who support fairness, freedom, and equality for gay and lesbian Americans.
The misleading rhetoric used in California 27 years ago is eerily reminiscent to the voices of some leaders in today’s Republican Party.
In the United States, some Republicans have consistently fought against basic fairness for gays and lesbians. They are trying to make sure gay and lesbian families are denied health care benefits and other basic protections. Although voters last year approved several constitutional amendments to ban civil marriage equality, most Americans didn’t intend for their votes to marginalize gay and lesbian families.
In the 19th century, the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, built our party on a foundation of equality. In the 20th century, President Ronald Reagan strengthened that foundation with a hopeful vision of freedom for all people, and liberated hundreds of millions of people—including gay people—across the globe. Now at the dawn of the 21st century, GOP leaders must either embrace those values and create a stronger and more inclusive Republican Party or choose the politics of division and fear.
Matthew Veritas Tsien
Florida Log Cabin Republicans
South Florida
Guns and Rape
Editor,
I’m confused. If Burt Angel believes that “statistics can prove nearly anything” (“Stats Can Prove Anything You Wish,” Letters, QSaltLake, Sept. 15), I wonder whether he considered my statistics about the self-defense use of firearms as valid as his rebuttal statistics, or that both sets were equally flawed. I’ll presume he meant the former.
Angel’s statement that “[W]omen were [in 1998] 101 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun” than to use firearms in self defense was first published by the Washington-based gun-control lobby Violence Policy Center when its staff analyzed some evidence published in the 1998 FBI Supplementary Homicide Report. Their analysis included the violent attacks of 1,221 women victims, 1,209 of whom didn’t use firearms and were killed by their attackers. The other 12 possessed and used firearms when they were attacked, and survived. Simple, but not a valid comparison; at least not for the reasons he appears to believe.
Angel’s statement fails to include the contextual part of the VPC analysis that was first published by the Washington-based gun-control lobby Police Foundation and shows that 6.6 percent of women (80 of the 1,221 victims) owned firearms in 1996. This context is paramount in understanding the validity of the extraordinary suggestion that self-defense use of firearms is “101 times” more deadly than no such use. Since the analysis sought to determine the efficacy of such use, it’s false to include the 1,209 of the 1,221 attacks where the victims didn’t use firearms when they were attacked. So let’s examine the remaining 12 attacks where the victims did possess and use firearms when they were attacked:
• All 12 victims possessed and used firearms for self-defense when they were attacked.
• All 12 victims survived their attacks.
• All 12 victims’ attackers were killed.
As cited earlier, 80 of the victims probably owned firearms. The exact number of these victims with concealed-firearm permits is difficult to know, but if the 2.5 percent of Utahns with CFPs is an accurate average (it’s probably higher), we can estimate that two of these victims had CFPs. Probably fewer still actually possessed their firearms when they were attacked.
But wait—something else occurred. Angel and the VPC claim that “only” 12 victims possessed and used firearms for self-defense when they were attacked, and subsequently survived their attacks, when only two would be expected. The idea that people who are attacked violently are more likely to survive with firearms than without them seems to be confirmed and validated by the very people who spill a glass and call it half-full.
Furthermore, Angel states correctly that 2.4 percent of Utah rapists possess firearms at the time of their attacks. This also confirms and validates the idea that potential rape victims who possess and use firearms when their attackers don’t are at an advantage not only to survive, but to prevent the attack from continuing past the point where the rapist knows he or she is outgunned.
Angel’s fear that victims might possess “a gun that can be turned against them” is silly. I wonder if Angel would agree to a test of this myth: I’ll aim my firearm at him and he can try to take it away from me.
And finally, Angel states that 86.2 percent of rape victims are legally too young to own or possess firearms, making their self-defense use something he “fails to see [regarding] Utah’s rape problem.” I have an inkling that some of the other 13.2 percent disagree with him.
David Nelson
Salt Lake City
QSaltLake welcomes letters from its readers. Please email letters@slmetro.com or mail your letter to: Editor, QSaltLake, 352 S. Denver St. Ste 350, Salt Lake City, UT 84111. We reserve to right to edit for length or libel. |
|
|
