Liam O'brian- Best Investigative Feature - Nouse

M6

www.ey.com/uk/careers

10/03/09 10/03/09

M7

www.ey.com/uk/careers

Pick on someone your own caliber Liam O’Brien talks to members of Pink Pistols, an American LGBT group that aims to get gays armed e normally associate the gay community with liberalist pacifism. Most LGBT groups, like the organisation we have here at the University of York, seem concerned with promoting discussion about gay issues and furthering integration with the wider populace. In America, however, a defiantly separatist movement has sprung up, with the calling card of promoting gun ownership in order to fend off attacks from potential ‘bashers’. Pink Pistols is an organisation founded in the Spring of 2000. The bold quotation taking pride of place on its website Pinkpistols.org is "Thirtyone states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible." This is the Pink Pistols mission statement: keep the gay community safe by pulling out a gun when threatened and propagating the group relentlessly. There are fifty-eight regional Pink Pistols chapters in the United States, as well as international variants in Guateng Province, South Africa, and Vancouver, Canada. The ten chapterfounders I spoke to had on average 40 listed members, though the central organisation keeps no official record and has no jurisdiction over regional Pink Pistols organisations. A cautious estimate of the total membership would be 1,500. 1,500 members who, from the interviews I conducted, appear both well-versed in Pink Pistols’ provocative slogans, (“Armed gays don’t get bashed”, “Speak the language understood by all intruders: 00 Buck”), and eager to promote their cause through media outlets. Phillip Steel of the Colorado chapter was intrigued as to

W

how my article would be received in the UK, and confessed: “I would love to help head up a pro-gun movement in the UK.” This prevailing attitude means that Pink Pistols has the potential to rapidly expand the reach of its membership. Such expansion has obvious dangers: a lack of regulation leaves the potential for members with extremist views to hijack a chapter, and the willingness of all members to talk to the media means that there is a risk of the central message - which, despite promoting a gun zeal that the majority of UK citizens would consider extreme, is glossed in political correctness on the central website - being confused or manipulated. Certainly, the gulf between the responses I recieved from representatives of the central body and regional members was often massive. The “acceptable face” of the organisation, International Media Spokesperson and founder of the Delaware Valley chapter Gwendolyn Patton, is a 46 year-old lesbian who has been a member since April 2001. Through the organization, Patton has “made contacts and friends all over the world, and I am richer for it.” When I inquire as to the diversity of the membership in the Delaware chapter, Patton is keen to portray a positive image: “Practically every social group I can think of [is represented], with a wide range of ages, wage-brackets, ethnic groups, and orientations. Even the largest single group, gay men, is ethnically, religiously, and financially diverse. About 10% of our members are in fact heterosexual. We had one young member, a 15-year-old girl, who identified as lesbian, whose father brought her to the group so she could be taught to shoot under his supervision.” The idea of a pro-gun organisation being family-friendly is a difficult one to swallow, and there has been resistance from other, more traditional LGBT groups who consider Pink Pistols to be extremist. Patton says that

“Bashers followed a gay man from a bar he had left, carrying pipes. He turned and drew his gun. They yelled in fright.” the situation in her area has improved, however: “We've overcome some local social obstacles, in that we aren't being completely ostracized anymore by the local LGBT Center. We get along quite well with them nowadays.” The political affiliation of Pink Pistols’ members is not governed by the central organisation, and no Party has a majoritised hold on the membership due to the easily perceptible contradiction between a Democrat Party that advocates gay rights and the Republicans who are far more keen on pro-gun policy. Gwen is a “registered Libertarian, but I don't vote a straight ticket. I vote for whom I think will do the best job. The organisation itself has

no political party it specifically aligns with, or is tied to.” There is a similar reluctance to affiliation with the National Rifle Association (NRA): “The NRA is an organization with whom the Pink Pistols has occasionally done some fine work.” However, a number of those I contacted were deeply unhappy with the NRA, with one female respondent claiming that the NRA was “male dominated and homophobic”. The question begs whether Pink Pistols’ pro-gun mantra is borne of social necessity. Members were keen to affirm that carrying a gun was absolutely necessary in their hometown, and many could relate to personal experience. A lesbian interviewee claimed to have been “shot at several times”. Patton recounts the tale of a man from her own chapter: “Bashers followed a gay man from a bar he had left, carrying pipes. When he got to his car, they yelled "Hey, faggot!". He turned, saw them with pipes in their hands, and drew his gun. They yelled in fright, dropped the pipes, and ran

away.” Regardless of individual cases in which a firearm has proved an effective means of defence, the prioritisation of firearms as a means to deter attackers surely negates the promotion of nonlethal means of defence within the organisation. Patton is keen to dispel the negative connotations associated with the use of firearms: “The number of persons killed with firearms is approximately one fifth the number estimated to be saved annually by their defensive use. If those defensive events instead become victimisations, the crime rate will only be that much higher, possibly leading to a far greater death toll from the crimes that would otherwise have been thwarted. We recommend non-lethal defensive tools when defending against non-lethal force. Of course, lethal force is ALWAYS the absolute last resort.” When I spoke to Phillip Steel of the Colorado chapter, however, his views and attitude were in complete contradiction to the mild opinions and gentle manner of spokesperson Patton:

“I do not promote non-lethal weapons. Let’s face it, I am a small guy. I am peaceful and not prone to fight. However, if attacked, I cannot have the illusion that I have the ability or luxury of inflicting a measured amount of harm to another. If I believe that I can do this, then I will not survive the attack. The possibility of serious injury or death is always a possibility during any attack. It is insane to believe otherwise. I was once attacked by dog in Wyoming. I shot it with my .357 revolver. I had no time to consider a less lethal response. There is no difference between a human attack and that of an animal. A human attacker is a predator. He is no different than an animal and will think and react the same. Consider rape. A rapist, by definition, is an animal.” When I ask whether Steel has ever experienced a ‘human attack’, he replies, “I personally have used a firearm to fend off an attacker. I was forced to draw my revolver but did not need to shoot. He had the sense to flee when he saw my revolver. I do not

Clockwise from top left: Pink Pistols promotional poster, representatives at Boston gay rights march, a Pink Pistols member at a shooting gallery, Gwendolyn Patton, recruitment drive

think a spray can of mace would have the same effect.” Steel is a Republican, whose chapter was created just two years ago. He has found that Pink Pistols’ views can be unpopular, and that recruitment can be hard. “Most gay people are very much averse to firearms and the right to bear arms. It can be a tough sell. They see guns as redneck culture. I have marketed Pink Pistols primarily to the gay community but have found that only lesbians are interested. I would love to see some hot boys shooting but this has not been the reality. The lesbians want a great deal of structure and are very much into the highly supervised shooting ranges. The guys are more into shooting at propane tanks and such in the mountains.” Steel doesn’t echo the careful sentiments expostulated by Patton, even dismissing Pink Pistols’ attempts at creating a politically-corrected glossary of terms for gun usage as ‘unimportant’. The membership in his chapter is hardly a model of diversity: “I have no heterosexual members. I have yet to see a participant who was black or Latino. This has nothing to do with the attitudes of Pink Pistols or its members, but the lack of interest in firearms among various racial or ethnic communities.” It is inevitable that such a specialist organisation should attract a membership of a certain profile, but groups that fly the LGBT flag need to ensure that their apporach does not further marginalise a community that is could already legitimately be labelled as a minority. Steel’s presentation of his argument can only serve to detract from any central, valid aim. He continues to wax lyrical with unbridled patriotism: “In our country, the right to bear arms is a sacred right. Gun control is the same as attempting to control or limit freedom of speech, religion, etc. Gun ownership in the US in general is fantastically responsible. We find that those who abuse guns and commit crime are those

who were never exposed to our culture of gun ownership in the first place. Gun ownership fosters responsible citizenship.” The freewheeling idea of producing a gun from your pocket whenever threatened however, hardly seems like responsible citizenship. But perhaps a British citizen isn’t best placed to judge. Steel goes on: “The world will never understand America. Our nation is not the Land. It is not the People, nor the Government. Our nation is the Idea. It is an idea of unfettered Freedom. Every Citizen is absolutely sovereign from any government body whatsoever. Stalin killed 20 million during his purges. They did not have the right to own guns. During World War II the Japanese actually considered invading us. The only reason they did not was that they knew every American owned a gun and they had no chance against our own citizens. When you hear about the number of people killed by guns in our country, you should realize that we are the most free country on earth, but also the most propagandized as well. Our liberal leftist media tends to paint a grim picture that is not factually correct.” The notion of criticising an organisation composed of a highly select membership united only by common sexuality and interest seems a little unfair. Pink Pistols has encouraged lifelong friendships through its national and regional network. The monthly socials at shooting galleries which form the greater part of the interaction between members are harmless. Nevertheless, Pink Pistols needs to be judged as an ‘organisation’, and as such it has several failings. Jurisdiction over regional chapters is extremely lenient. Patton admits that the expulsion of a member has only occured “twice in the entire history of the organization.” The central message of Pink Pistols - somewhat extreme even within its selfdefined parameters - does not create a moral code for its membership to abide by, and this is dangerous. M