34 Responses to “Final Reflections”

1. George says:

   August 17, 2009 at 6:17 am

   Ms. Mandelman,

   Throughout the summer, you have insisted (both in explicit and implicit terms) that you know the Firearms Act inside and out and have implied on numerous occasions that you know more about it than many of those who have replied to your blog. And yet, with this most recent entry, you have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of firearms legislation in Canada. To wit:

   “According to the pro-gun community, I was in Canada trying to take away their rights. The gunnutz community repeatedly accused me of attacking their personal freedoms, namely their freedom to carry firearms with them at all times, no matter where they are or what they are doing. If they want to carry their gun with them to run errands or even just to buy a pack of a smokes, this should be their prerogative, is what they argued.”

   While you are correct in stating that people believed you to be an attacker on what little personal liberty they have left in Canada with respect to firearms, you are quite wrong in most other respects.

   Gun ownership in Canada is a privilege granted by bureaucratic fiat. There is no freedom to carry firearms on or about the person at all times. And to be sure, absolutely no-one is able to have a firearm with them to run errands or walk into the 7-11 to buy smokes…unless of course you happen to be an agent of the state.

   Objective analysis of data from Statistics Canada coupled with the Auditor General’s comments indicate that there is really little evidence that the Firearms Act and the long gun registry have had any impact on criminal activity at all including domestic violence…the key word here is “objective”. As many have tried to impress upon you, there is a long term trend of declining violence of all types that precedes the Firearms Act by decades. Yet, you repeatedly chose to ignore this. Looking at a subject through an “a posteriori” lens for any evidence that could support a desired outcome is not intellectually honest.
2. George says:

   August 17, 2009 at 6:31 am

   Ms. Mandelman…

   There was one additional point I wished to make but omitted in the preceding reply…

   In order to understand why the Firearms Act still exists, you will have to undertake a deeper understanding of partisan politics in Canada. If the Conservative Party were able to, the Firearms Act would be changed dramatically, and for the better…if not struck down in it’s entirety. That it still exists is testimony to the gamesmanship of the leaders of our other political parties.

   The Liberals have invested much political capital as the anti-gun cheerleaders for large urban communities plagued by gang and drug violence. The NDP have also thrown themselves into this corner. The Bloc Quebecois? Unless there was some serious monetary or political gain to further their separatist cause, they see no need to change the status quo. But, make no mistake, if they thought for an instant that there was something of benefit to be gained for their separatist agenda, they would be screaming loudly for the abolition of the Firearms Act.

   So, a deeper understanding of Canadian politics would allow one to see that the Firearms Act continues to exist because of nature of Canadian politics, and therefore more by default, than any questionable “benefits” “recognized” by Parliament. Again, viewing subjects through an “a posteriori” lens is not conducive to object reality.
3. From Advocacynet: Elizabeth Mandelman talks about the treatment she received from the pro-gun community « The Coalition for Gun Control/Pour le Controle des Armes says:

   August 17, 2009 at 9:20 am

   [...] Not only did the pro-gun community constantly try attacking the legitimacy of my work and research, but they also attacked me personally; I have never experienced such degrading language or inappropriate behavior by people who claim to be adults… more [...]
4. Jim S says:

   August 17, 2009 at 11:51 am

   Well, good ridance to you Lizzy. If you fel lthat you received a hostile reaction from the Gun Community here in Canada, I’m sorry you feel that way. Now, if you want to pull your Anti Gun shtick in America, let’s see the reception you’ll get from the NRA, to mention only one group.

   Your stand on Domestic Violence is commendable, but going after the Gun community was the wrong way to go Lizzy. You should have gone after the INDIVIDUALS commiting the violence, not the TOOLS used in the violence.
5. Marcel B. says:

   August 17, 2009 at 12:20 pm

   Ms. Mandelman,

   During your entire blogfest while in OUR country, Canada, I do not recall a single accurate statistic or fact stated by you. Not ONE.

   You also stated numerous times you wanted healthy debate but you never accepted a single offer from the pro side. In fact you often censored commentary you deemed detrimental to your cause.

   Be aware that your tirade in Canada has not succeeded in furthering your anti-gun agenda one iota.
   Also be aware that the long-gun registry will be dismantled. It has not been useful in solving ONE SINGLE CRIME for a cost of 2 BILLION dollars. It has been a monumental waste of taxpayers money that could have been put to good use catching real criminals or actually HELPING the people of Canada. In health care for example.

   Be aware that after the elimination of the long-gun registry lawful gun owners will still be licenced, that criminals will NOT.

   Finally, there is a woman who does some work I would like you to look up. Her name is Erin Solaro.

   Prepare to open your eyes.

   Sincerely,
   Marcel B.
6. Turfman Jones says:

   August 17, 2009 at 12:46 pm

   Elizabeth,

   I would have to say that your relections weren’t fianl ones. They were more aptly “bitter” ones. I beleive that your long drive home was fraught with a deep seated seething anger. Anger at the treatment you received from an audience you did not expect.

   You said that the pro gun community attacked rather than engaged in debate. You were the one that stifled debate Liz. You deleted many, many, many well reasoned and thought out responses to counter your arguments.

   You deleted especially those replies that exposed your bogus stats, misrepresentations, falsehoods and outright lies.

   You are continuing to do so with this latest round of vitriolic generalizations of gunnutz in particular and men in general.

   Remember this Liz. When you walk into a persons house and crap on their living room carpet, just like a dog you’ll be thrown outside along with the crap.
7. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

   August 17, 2009 at 12:50 pm

   Turfman, I waited almost a week to post that blog. I thought that if I let it sit I wouldn’t feel so offended by the comments made to me during my time in Canada and wouldn’t need to post it as it was written. Then, I opened up my email to a comment which said “You’re a facist cunt. I hope you get raped by knife point.” So you know what, Turfman, I changed my mind and posted it. The world needs to see how hateful and offensive much of the pro-gun community is. I have NEVER experienced such treatment or seen grown people act like such children, and I hope never to again.
8. P. Dusablon says:

   August 17, 2009 at 1:26 pm

   Ms. Mandelman,

   I will never condone some of the comments you have (allegedly) received. I admit, some of those crossed the line and do not serve us in the firearms community well at all.

   However, YOU came to OUR home. YOU attacked US. YOU insulted US. YOU came here to tell US how WE should run OUR lives and OUR country. And you expect us to just take it lying down? That is not our way, Ms. Mandelman. We are attacked, we fight back. We are insulted, we want reparation. You want to interfere with our lives, we will resist.

   I too find your efforts to fight domestic violence laudable. However, I believe you have been going about this the wrong way. You decided to go after inanimate objects and advocated making life much more difficult, and stamping down on the civil rights, of their lawful owners. Why were you not speaking out against society and the culture of entitlement? The decline of family values? The failures of our legal system?

   Not to mention that not ONCE you spoke of domestic violence against men, or even violence against men in general. It seemed to me that the only victims who meant anything to you were female.

   Not to mention that you repeatedly refused to answer valid points raised by a number of people. Why didn’t you? Why did you not prove to us your claims of academic integrity by answering those? Why did you not even attempt to prove us wrong? Could it be because you knew we were right, or because none of the data you could find was able to discount our own claims?

   I will not lie to you, Ms. Mandelman, I am not sorry at all to see you go. However, I hope that you have learned a few valuable lessons this summer, one of them being that you do not have the monopoly on the ability to do research and another that Canadians do not just lie down and take it when they feel they are being wronged.
9. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

   August 17, 2009 at 1:30 pm

   P.Dusablon-I wouldn’t lump all Canadians into the same category when describing the way the pro-gun community chooses to fight their fight. I’ve worked and been involved in politics for a pretty long time and never in all my time working on controversial issues have I come across the rudeness and pure disrespect I did when dealing with the pro-gun community. The treatment of the pro-gun community towards others makes me sad for humanity.
10. John Evers says:

    August 17, 2009 at 1:30 pm

    Liz…..

    If ( your deity of choice forbid) you were ever attacked at Knife point.

    Which would you rather have.

    A gun

    A knife

    A cell phone.

    If you say anything other than a Gun you are either nuts or a liar.

    A gun is the ONLY tool that can level the playing field for a petite young lady such as yourself or for ANY other human be regardless of their sex, age or stature.
    That is the ONLY thing that matters in this whole discourse.
11. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 17, 2009 at 1:33 pm

    An article from The Star
    Antonia Zerbisias
    August 12, 2009
    `There’s not enough outrage,” lamented one women’s rights activist at a candlelight vigil for the three women cut down last Tuesday night in a Pittsburgh-area aerobics class.

    As the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette noted, only 75 people showed up to mourn Heidi Overmier, 46, Elizabeth Gannon, 49, and Jody Billingsley, 38, massacred by a man, who didn’t know them, simply because they were women.

    That’s unusual as the vast majority of femicide victims are killed by their intimate partners or male relatives.

    But, as Toronto author Brian Vallee points out in his 2007 book The War on Women, nobody counts the dead, nobody connects the dots, nobody calls out the problem.

    “Compare the raw numbers,” he writes of the period 2000-06. “In the same seven-year period when 4,588 U.S. soldiers and police officers were killed by hostiles or by accident, more than 8,000 women – nearly twice as many – were shot, stabbed, strangled, or beaten to death by the intimate males in their lives. In Canada, compared to the 101 Canadian soldiers and police officers killed, more than 500 women – nearly five times as many – met the same fate.”

    There’s not enough outrage.

    As we all know now, George Sodini, 48 – whose racist and misogynist online diary reads like a terrorist manifesto – couldn’t get a date, couldn’t get sex, couldn’t lure any women to his modest side-split furnished with, as he points out in a spooky video, “Couch and chair; they match. The women will really be impressed.”

    Well, they weren’t.

    And so Sodini’s “exit plan” was to go down in history in a blaze of gunfire, taking as many women with him as he could.

    Just like Marc Lépine, who hated “the feminists” so much he slaughtered 14 women at Montreal’s École Polytechnique in 1989, just like Charles Carl Roberts who executed Amish school girls three years ago, and, arguably, even like Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho, a reported stalker of female students who took up-the-skirt photos, yet another violent act of misogyny takes place.

    No, no, we say. They were just loners, losers, crazies with guns.

    There’s not enough outrage.

    That only feminist bloggers and a very few mainstream pundits called last week’s fitness club massacre the hate crime it was should jolt us out of our sexist complacency.

    “We profess to being shocked at one or another of these outlandish crimes, but the shock wears off quickly in an environment in which the rape, murder and humiliation of females is not only a staple of the news, but an important cornerstone of the nation’s entertainment,” The New York Times’s Bob Herbert noted on Friday.

    “The mainstream culture is filled with the most gruesome forms of misogyny, and pornography is now a multi-billion-dollar industry – much of it controlled by mainstream U.S. corporations.”

    When I blogged about the massacre last week, my “men’s rights activist” regulars – whose comments did not get past the goderators – expressed little or no sympathy.

    Instead, they complained that “feminists” demand special treatment for female victims of crime.

    Two blog readers even pointed to the recent Wisconsin episode of the philandering husband – who has since been charged with child and sexual abuse – whose penis was glued to his abdomen by a trio of vengeful women as somehow having equivalence to the Pittsburgh massacre.

    Cruise the men’s rights forums and you’ll be shocked by the sickening posts calling for the legal and sexual subservience of women and praising Sodini as a “hero” and “for being a symbol for the consequences of denying men sex … But something like this has to happen, perhaps hundreds of times over again, before feminists get the message.”

    There’s not enough outrage.

    Antonia Zerbisias is a Living section columnist. azerbisias@thestar.ca. She blogs at thestar.blogs.com.
12. Dalton says:

    August 17, 2009 at 2:48 pm

    Elizabeth, it is with mixed feelings that I learned of the conclusion to your appearance on the Canadian “scene”. While we’ve never met, I feel that I’ve learned a great deal – both about and from you – courtesy of your postings. That having been said, and in that spirit of shared communication and education, I’d like to leave you with the following thoughts.

    The first is actually a set of referential responses: to your discussion with documentary filmmaker Shelley Saywell, I would like to reference the town of Bangadi as furtherance to my (as-yet-to-be-responded-to) comment vis-à-vis your interview and related commentary, while to IANSA in general I would very much like to cite a very special citizen of your country, one Erin Solaro (of whom my familiarity stemmed directly due to your postings).

    A second thought would be towards your “tying it all together” piece; while not as well composed or polished as my previous (and again as-yet-to-be-responded-to) comments to your site here, please permit my insights regarding the matter to be voiced? You see, your piece very much reminded me of the old aphorism “capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth, while socialism is the equal distribution of poverty”. It seems that the written work of that post (and others akin to it, it being a summary/concluding-style submission) was very much purporting for the equal distribution of helplessness; i.e. for both men and women, and for populaces of 1st and 3rd-world countries alike.

    The difficulty that arises from maintaining such a mentality/tendencies – in this matter as well as those to which it really is akin – say, economic and political (socialism) realms, is that – try as one might to avoid/work against it – there will always be one group wealthier/more powerful than another. The same holds true with armed individuals; universal disarmament – while a very lofty goal – is a myth for the world in which we live (just like “pure communism” is the stuff of which myths are made) – and a deadly one, at that: people unilaterally forgo their firearms (as well as their enshrined values of the right to self-defence and freedom from oppression) at their own risk/peril.

    The benefit to identifying a “disarmament-motif” for what it really is – a natural and interrelated outgrowth both from and amidst a larger host of essentiality socialist-academic worldviews – is that those that encounter it from hereon in will be able to confidently assess initiatives such as IANSA in light of their well-established ideological origins. The retort is as simple as it is succinct; those who would disagree with your points of view are neither misogynists nor misanthropes; they are merely individuals who rank the freedom and right to protect themselves “from” others with a primacy over the hope and ambition of universal agreement “with” others. For it is truly only with the real existence of the former that we as humans can ever hope to achieve the latter; it is a necessary precondition, and one that belies the cult of the infallibility of the human condition.

    A third and closing thought pertains rather directly to your visiting our remarkable country. As it has always been the mark of a scholar and a gentleman to critique another’s words – rather than their person, I find myself rather compelled to mention how similar I have found your experiences to that of one your fellow citizens, one Michael Moore. While I by no means intend to categorically define/refer to you as being cut of the same cloth as that aforementioned individual, certain select comparisons may indeed be made. While the term “interloper” is very much a “loaded” one, one cannot help but wonder if it is an equally fitting one for one who ventures into another’s country with a very significant amount of pre-conceived (and, I daresay stereotypical) notions about that land, and who then proceeds to do very much to (a) transmit his/her version (vision?) of reality built on those notions to (i) American audiences “back home” and (ii) potential audiences in Canada itself, and (b) take personal insult when confronted with native opinions and viewpoints that differ from the visitor’s own. It at once comes across as high-handed, paternalistic, belittling and close-minded, not to mention slightly offensive; while some might very well refer to this as a reason (though certainly not an excuse) for feelings of hostility and “dismissive-ness” that an aforementioned interloper may encounter, I for my part do digress. (Though I’d very much like to have the pleasure of your responding to at least one of my comments.)

    Elizabeth, you have favoured us with your brave forays into Canada’s physical, political and ideological landscapes. What I should like to think you might have (albeit inadvertently) discovered is that while – perhaps unlike in the United States – large, (at times) publicly funded lobbyist groups and public personalities in Canada dwell firmly amidst the disarmament camp, there does indeed exist a core of intelligent and passionate private citizenry in Canada that both understands and foresees (as well as recalls) the folly and horrific pitfalls inherent to the placing (and at times coercion of others toward) the theoretically obtainable benefit of a collective socialist harmony, at the very real cost of personal security, individual beliefs and freedoms not to be imperiled.
13. P. Dusablon says:

    August 17, 2009 at 3:56 pm

    Ms. Mandelman,

    Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, despite what you call were your intentions not to do just that, you have actually insulted a large number of Canadians and that they have taken offence to it?

    Say, like all men, all soldiers and all gun owners?

    Speaking just for myself, you have insulted me. You have offended me. Maybe you didn’t intend to but you did it. You have likened my profession to the thugs in the employ of warlords in Somalia. You have all but called me out as a potential wife-beater simply because I am male. You have made your belief clear that the simple fact I own guns will turn me into a violent man.

    I have been civil with you, and at times, I will admit, it was extremely challenging to remain that way.

    You have taken offence to my referring to documented historical uses of gun control. You have taken offence to my questioning your credibility and academic integrity when you refused to back up your claims or seek to disprove mine. You have taken offence to my analysis of your positions when you clearly stated that domestic violence against women was a serious human rights abuse but said no such thing about the men who are victims of any kind of violence, domestic or otherwise.

    But since when is it offence to an academic to be questioned? Since when is it so wrong to put someone’s positions and information to the question? Since when is it offensive to not take what someone says for cash money, especially when they will not try to refute any counter-argument?

    I have taken offence to being called a murderer, a rapist, a wife-beater and an all-around criminal scumbag. You have taken offence to people questioning you about your work. I detect a small difference here.
14. Brad from Alberta says:

    August 17, 2009 at 8:23 pm

    Elizabeth, which “pro-gun community” treated you badly? It may have been an individual, or even more than 1 person, but it was not a whole community.

    Did the anti-gun community treat us badly in Canada? No, maybe it was only you. Do you speak for the entire anti-gun community? Do you purport to?

    Then why would you think a couple of cranks speak for the rest of us?

    You have read our forums, but never participated. We have read your blog, and participated only to the extent you saw fit, or which you could somehow spin-doctor to your benefit. You never once met with or talked with anyone in the pro-gun community, if you had, we would know all about it. You said one thing (free and open dialogue), but censored what didn’t fit your cause or refuted your preposterous claims.

    If you think that someone who sees behaviour like this shouldn’t question academic integrity, you’re dreaming. Sorry to be blunt, that’s the way the world really works, not the way you think it should.

    Canadians have been more than nice and honest with you in your blog, as well as generally respectful. I suggest you try this on your native soil and see the reaction you’ll get. I promise you it won’t be as pleasant for you as your Canadian experience, and I think you know that.
15. Marcel B. says:

    August 17, 2009 at 8:41 pm

    Elizabeth,

    By posting what you have to try to “prove” your point you have once again shown your pure agenda, your pure bias.

    Your opinion is no longer considered when objectivity has been thrown out your window.

    There is a possibility you might be unstable and should find out for the good of the peoples of the world.

    Sincerely,
    Marcel B.
16. m0nkyman says:

    August 17, 2009 at 10:12 pm

    It’s true. You can find rednecks on Canada’s largest firearms discussion board. Shocking. And you have to be kidding if you are acting surprised that you were able to bait some of them into doing or saying something dumb. Give 50,000 members of any organization a target of ire, and some of them will do stupid things and say stupid things.

    The vast majority of the members of Canadiangunnutz support the statement at the top of the home page:
    CGN will not tolerate any activities or speeches, that make our members, which could be of any “race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability” feel unwelcomed in our online community. We embrace all Canadians that believe in ownership and legal usage of firearms.

    Personally, I think it should include ‘gender identity’ and ’sexual orientation’, but what can you do.

    In your final statement, you claim that the Firearms Act was passed for good reason. It wasn’t. It was passed for bad political reasons, and was opposed by the entire NDP caucus with a single exception (Svend Robinson). The Firearms Act is deeply flawed in a number of ways that anyone not blinded by a hatred of firearms would find deeply disturbing from a civil rights point of view. When you start reading all of the search provisions, including provisions requiring citizens to aid the authorities in incriminating themselves or face further criminal charges, most Americans would be gobsmacked, as it would be struck down as unconstitutional six ways from Sunday there. Even here in Canada, the government has yet to charge anyone using the Firearms Act provisions, preferring the Criminal Code stuff so that it doesn’t get challenged.

    Is there a correlation between firearms ownership and domestic violence? Yes. Is it related to the correlation of poverty and domestic violence? Yes. If one starts to investigate the correlation of poverty and rural gun ownership, things become a lot clearer as to why that correlation exists. There is more domestic violence amongst the poor, and there are more poor people in the rural areas, and the rural areas have more guns.

    If we spent more time fighting for social justice, we wouldn’t have to spend as much time worrying about guns. Acts of violence tend to be a symptom of underlying problems in society. We need to address racism, sexism and poverty. Those are the issues. Not gun ownership. Indeed, it’s been my experience that most of the opposition to gun ownership tends to come with certain race or class prejudices, depending on the mental image of the gun owner as a young black man, or a poor rural guy (redneck).
17. Citizen of canada says:

    August 18, 2009 at 12:24 am

    Dear Ms Mandelman, I’m glad you came to Canada and hope you will come again. Your work is valuable to all who care about public and domestic safety.

    I’m not surprised at the rudeness and mistreatment you experienced from some of my compatriots. The anti-gun-control community in Canada is rabid in its hatred of the modest and sensible controls we have here and of all who support them. It cares little for the victims of gun violence or those who are injured or killed in gun accidents. Its dishonesty is demonstrated in demands for ‘proof’ that any measure to control guns be demonstrated effective in advance. It constantly claims that controls have no beneficial results and implies that more people are killed or injured as a result of controls than would be the case without them.

    Sadly we have far too many M.P.s who for the sake of a few votes are willing to pander to the insane demands of the anti-gun-control people. I fear that if the Conservative Party ever gets a majority in the Commons, our gun control laws will be repealed or rendered ineffective by one means or another.

    Sincerely,

    Citizen of Canada
18. Turfman Jones says:

    August 18, 2009 at 1:01 am

    “I have NEVER experienced such treatment or seen grown people act like such children, and I hope never to again.”

    You continually use these offensive examples to malign the entire pro gun community. For heaven’s sake why? The people saying those types of things and calling you obscene names are not indicative of the people that have replied honestly, respectfully, with passion and thoughtfulness. None of us condone that type of behaviour. Not in our personal lives nor, for the most part, on the forum. Why are you marginalizing an entire sector of society because of callous remarks made by idiots?

    Elizabeth, if you ever decide to be a politician and end up in DC, be prepared to see a whole lot of grown ups acting like children.
19. Paul says:

    August 18, 2009 at 6:41 am

    “Over the summer, the pro-gun community in Canada incessantly argued that gun violence in their country is so low that legislation to decrease and prevent it is not warranted. This assertion, clearly, is easily challenged simply by listening to or watching the news.”

    Statistically speaking this year is no different then last year. The media does not do a good job of showing the positive they tend to focus on the negative.

    “The correlation between gun control and domestic violence cannot be ignored, nor can the correlation between gun control and crime more generally.”

    Statistically speaking firearms play very little role in domestic violence. You have focused on an inanimate object which accounts for very little of domestic violence incidents.

    More guns actually equal less crime actually. Open and Concealed carry laws have decreased violent crime rates in US more then any other Federal, State or Municipal law.

    Did you not learn anything at all this summer?

    “Domestic violence is a gendered issue, and unfortunately is always likely to be. As a result, the use of firearms in domestic violence is also a gendered issue; this is why IANSA launched the Disarming Domestic Violence campaign this summer.”

    No its not it is a family issue. It is also a very complex issue. People like you focus on inanimate objects and divert funding from breaking the cycle of violence and programs that actually work.

    “It is not perfect. Nobody is pretending it is. There were cost overruns in its implementation, and some existing loopholes need to be closed. That being said, its imperfections are very small, and eliminating any portion of the Firearms Act would result in a decline of public safety and increased accessibility of firearms to perpetrators of domestic violence and other dangerous individuals.”

    Very small … Very small … Are you for real. Was suppose to cost 2 Million it actually costs us so far 2 Billion or more and it’s not complete yet. It costs 82 Million to run each year.

    I think we could do a lot more with 82 Million a year with other public safety programs that actually work.

    “According to the pro-gun community, I was in Canada trying to take away their rights. The gunnutz community repeatedly accused me of attacking their personal freedoms, namely their freedom to carry firearms with them at all times, no matter where they are or what they are doing. If they want to carry their gun with them to run errands or even just to buy a pack of a smokes, this should be their prerogative, is what they argued.”

    I thought you read and understood and studied the firearms act. It is illegal as a civilian to open or concealed carry in Canada. As a matter of fact I need a ATT to take any of my restricted firearms to the range.

    “They told me I should be ashamed of myself based on my ‘sickening’ attempt of emotional appeal when linking gun control and domestic violence. Newsflash, Gunnutz: Domestic violence is emotional. It is horrifying and it is unfair. Pretending the issue does not exist does nothing to help make it go away.”

    No we check out emotion at the door and view the issue factually. Pretending firearms are the issue and not the people involved does nothing to address the real issues.

    “What was most laughable about the treatment I received was the fact that the entire time the pro-gun community was trying to discredit my work, they were also trying to get me removed from the country. Paranoia and fear runs rampant among the gunnutz, and as such they try to ‘stomp out’ (their words, not mine) any opinion that differs from their own.”

    Is it paranoia when CIDA and DFAIT provide funding to organizations both directly and indirectly involved in your placement here? Both of those government departments are for foreign service work and neither are suppose to do anything domestically.

    CIDA and DFAIT funds organization involved in UN Small Arms Trade. It’s funny that our federal government has passed into law the UN resolution for markings on small arms it’s not effective yet, but could be in not removed.

    You call us paranoid.

    “While their constant attacks were frustrating this summer, their tactics of aggression and bullying did not work on me, and have not worked on Parliament. The Firearms Act was passed into law for good reason, and Parliament continues to recognize its benefits by upholding the legislation in its entirety.”

    Really …

    Why doesn’t our AG think so?

    Finally…

    I found your whole agenda of hiding and using victims as a shield to propagate the IANSA agenda offensive.
    I found your presence in my country offensive when all the other fellows are in 3rd world countries.
    I found it offensive bordering on criminal you are directly trying to influence a minority government in a foreign country around a topic that could topple that minority government.
    I found it offensive you have questioned my patriotism/trust of my government you know nothing about me or my history and if you did you would understand just how offensive your question was.
    Finally I find it offensive that in one sentence you can talk about life being unfair and abuse victims having to use second hand items then in the next sentence support the firearms registry knowing full well that the system has cost between 1 Billion and 2 Billion to date and costs over 80 million a year to run.
    PS This has been blogged.
20. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 18, 2009 at 7:17 am

    Turfman, I work in politics, as I’ve mentioned before. I have never seen politicians and/or lobbyists act in the same manner the pro-gun community in Canada does. Ever.
21. P. Dusablon says:

    August 18, 2009 at 7:42 am

    Ms. Mandelman,

    Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, despite what you call were your intentions not to do just that, you have actually insulted a large number of Canadians and that they have taken offence to it?

    Say, like all men, all soldiers and all gun owners?

    Speaking just for myself, you have insulted me. You have offended me. Maybe you didn’t intend to but you did it. You have likened my profession to the thugs in the employ of warlords in Somalia. You have all but called me out as a potential wife-beater simply because I am male. You have made your belief clear that the simple fact I own guns will turn me into a violent man.

    I have been civil with you, and at times, I will admit, it was extremely challenging to remain that way.

    You have taken offence to my referring to documented historical uses of gun control. You have taken offence to my questioning your credibility and academic integrity when you refused to back up your claims or seek to disprove mine. You have taken offence to my analysis of your positions when you clearly stated that domestic violence against women was a serious human rights abuse but said no such thing about the men who are victims of any kind of violence, domestic or otherwise.

    But since when is it offence to an academic to be questioned? Since when is it so wrong to put someone’s positions and information to the question? Since when is it offensive to not take what someone says for cash money, especially when they will not try to refute any counter-argument?

    I have taken offence to being called a murderer, a rapist, a wife-beater and an all-around criminal scumbag. You have taken offence to people questioning you about your work. I detect a small difference here.
22. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 18, 2009 at 8:04 am

    Brad from Alberta,
    There were a few very nice individuals from the pro-gun community who took the time to talk to me and who were very respectful. Overall, however, the reaction I got was very rude and childish. All anyone has to do is visit the forums on CanadianGunNutz.com to recognize this. If you want to keep ignoring the fact that I did interview people from the pro-gun community, so be it. Healthy debate involves respect, and the majority of people who commented on my blog refused to recognize my opinion and comments as valid, as your constant refusal to accept that I’ve spoken with people from CanadianGunNutz.com illustrates.
23. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 18, 2009 at 8:05 am

    P.Dusablon, You take offense to being called a murderer, rapist, wife-beater and scumbag only because you refuse to open your eyes and recognize that I called you none of those things.
24. Eupraxsopher says:

    August 18, 2009 at 10:20 am

    Elizabeth,

    Frankly, you need to toughen up if you want to be effective in a debate. Yes there will be cranks. As with every community, most firearms owners are not cranks. Like any population, there are more good people than bad people. Think this was hard? Try moderating a guitar forum.

    Also, sometimes you should expect snyde, arrogant, condescending, and even rude tones in an intellectual forum. The more evidence you ignore, the more derisive the tone. Example:

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

    You wasted a summer controlling debate like it was a propaganda tool, instead of allowing everything but the swearing and personal insults.

    You interviewed people from the firearms community and did nothing to present the other side of the argument or even rebut it. In the end, you resort to asking people to ‘watch the news’ – seriously?

    I’m also disappointed that you what could have been took a summer’s worth of serious objective dialog, with hard work and hard evidence presented to you, and summed it up in a giant ad-hominem.

    Do you have any hard evidence to defend your stance, or are cheap shots and sour feelings your only defense? Instead of taking the high road and thanking the people who made you defend your position to confirm the truth, you lumped yourself in with the cranks on both sides of the debate.

    Remember that offense is often taken by people who haven’t got anything left to argue. Good luck to you.
25. Eupraxsopher says:

    August 18, 2009 at 10:30 am

    “Healthy debate involves respect, and the majority of people who commented on my blog refused to recognize my opinion and comments as valid,…”

    Having a position in a debate does not automatically accord respect for that position. Making a comment doesn’t automatically convey validity to that comment.

    Respect for a position or a comment comes with proof of that position. You could say that the world is 6000 years old, but you might get a snide comment about sniffing the glue that the Sumerians were learning to use around that time. You might even get laughed at. Can you handle it? So far you haven’t shown as much.

    Statements made with no proof are akin to snake oil salespeople: Best ignored most of the time, unless the town is giving their money to the salesperson.
26. Eupraxsopher says:

    August 18, 2009 at 10:49 am

    @Citizen of Canada:

    “Its dishonesty is demonstrated in demands for ‘proof’ that any measure to control guns be demonstrated effective in advance. It constantly claims that controls have no beneficial results and implies that more people are killed or injured as a result of controls than would be the case without them.”

    You don’t think laws that restrict liberty on a broad scale while spending billions of our dollars should require proof?

    There are reams of data already existent on gun control. The experiment has been performed dozens of times. People here have presented the evidence over and over and you obviously ignore it.

    Good job attempting to bolster your argument by calling groups of people names. Got a leg to stand on?
27. Eupraxsopher says:

    August 18, 2009 at 10:57 am

    One last one Elizabeth (sorry to keep you so busy):

    If you had allowed a comment or two that personally attacked or threatened you, I’m sure that you would have seen the firearms community ‘go to town’ on that poster in your defense, right here on IANSA. They’re very good people on the whole.
28. Greg Popik says:

    August 18, 2009 at 12:03 pm

    Elizabeth,

    Canadiangunnutz is an open, public forum, and all are free to join there.

    As Canada’s most popular recreational, political and trade forum for gun owners it is true that we have attracted the ramblings of more than the occasional wing nut with an extremist agenda.

    But to be fair with CGN’s administration and members, the tenure of radicals there tends to be very…

    Short.

    We don’t need billionaire funding and a Global network to accomplish a balance of freedom, propriety and intellectual honesty that seems to have escaped your venture.

    I would strongly ENCOURAGE your audience to join and meet us in discussion there. Comments are not indiscriminately censored there by a privileged few, but rather countered by a community. Best of all, participants will be able to catch up with the vast majority of the comments you chose to edit, marginalize or censor out completely.

    What fun.

    It is a courteousy that we will happily extend to your readership that we must agree has not been accorded on your sight.

    Dissatisfied with that? Join up. Despite your antagonist comments dangerously bordered on misandry, you can have your say there too. But do not expect to play the victim card when you get called on your inappropriate behavior.

    The great thing about the Internet is that your comments never seem to disappear.
29. Paul says:

    August 18, 2009 at 7:57 pm

    Citizen of Canada Wrote

    “The anti-gun-control community in Canada is rabid in its hatred of the modest and sensible controls we have here and of all who support them. It cares little for the victims of gun violence or those who are injured or killed in gun accidents. Its dishonesty is demonstrated in demands for ‘proof’ that any measure to control guns be demonstrated effective in advance. It constantly claims that controls have no beneficial results and implies that more people are killed or injured as a result of controls than would be the case without them.”

    Actually you are incorrect gun owners for the most part do support sensible controls and laws. Gun Control in Canada is not sensible, effective nor modest gun control laws.

    We care greatly for victims of gun violence, but we know the current rules placed upon civilian gun owners simply target the wrong people. And our government has wasted BILLIONS on the illusion of public safety.

    Yes, we demand ‘proof’ and ‘reason’ especially when a topic is as politically charged as this one is. You have no idea what is truly at stake here a freedom, liberty and property right.

    I suggest you read up a little on this topic before making comments such as yours.

    Citizen of Canada Wrote

    “Sadly we have far too many M.P.s who for the sake of a few votes are willing to pander to the insane demands of the anti-gun-control people. I fear that if the Conservative Party ever gets a majority in the Commons, our gun control laws will be repealed or rendered ineffective by one means or another.”

    You have no idea what the word ‘pander’ actually means if you believe for a second gun owners have been pandered to in Canada. We have been smashed in the teeth with a hammer for the last 20 years in the name of public safety and yet there has been no measurable gain to public safety.

    All the gun control laws in Canada are aimed at honest law abiding citizens as they are the only ones that will respect the laws to begin with.

    The current laws are ineffective. Gun Control is not Crime Control and it never will be.

    PS this has been blogged.
30. Turfman Jones says:

    August 19, 2009 at 12:29 am

    I promise, this will be my last post as I am too old to continue arguing with a young idealist such as yourself.

    You stated the following on your way to Waterloo:

    “The first few days of my fellowship with Project Ploughshares have been a whirlwind of meeting new people, reading up on gun control legislation in Canada, and exploring my new surroundings. The Ploughshares office is located in an old Seagram’s distillery and needless to say, it’s amazing. The building used to be a museum, and much of the distillery is still intact.”

    “reading up on gun control legislation in Canada” struck me right away. That statement told me that you knew very little or nothing at all on the subject.

    You came to Canada at the wrong time to discuss gun control. Personally, I’ve been fighting this for 30 years as have many others. The last 14 years have been miserable. The last straw came with a nationwide call for a handgun ban by the Liberal party of Canada and Mayor Miller of Toronto in the fall of 2005.

    For the last 4 years we have been fighting to keep what we legally own and we won’t give up without a fight.

    Gun control in Canada is a very, very touchy subject. We gun owners don’t have the luxury of an organization like the NRA. They have 3,000,000 members. Our largest org has 40,000 members. So, we use the best TOOL we have in hand. Not our guns, our pens.

    Put things into perspective from our point of view Liz.

    BTW, in 1967 I worked as a summer student at the distillery in Waterloo. My dad was a VP with Seagrams in TO and got me the internship. I had just turned 18 that summer and had a wonderful time there. Also worked on the experimental farm and lost my virginity to a 26 yr secretary in a store room off the main accounting floor.

    A summer I’ll never forget.
31. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 19, 2009 at 8:40 am

    Turfman,
    I don’t understand how you find it in any way appropriate to bring discussion of your sexual history into discussion when commenting on my entry. It just goes to show what I’ve been dealing with all summer.
32. Ray Smith says:

    August 20, 2009 at 11:51 am

    Ms. Mendelman

    I have carefully went thru your website and many other anti firearms sites as well. I find your statistics to be extremely in-complete and when actually checked into to only represent a distorted picture of the situation.

    All the websites that proport to be represnting a ture and unbiased picture of firearms contol in Canada in fact are poorly researched and contain nothing more than emotional arguments that have no basis in fact.

    The one so called study referencing the 2 billion dollar boondoogle is full of mis-reprentation.

    How can a study done in 2002 state that the dollar figure upto 2006 was only 1 billion dollars? Quess they have a crystal ball and can see with 100% clarity 4 years out.

    If you want the true cost to the registry look deeper you’ll soon see at present its well over 2 billion and nearing 3 billion. You’ll need to look hard but most of this is backedup in the Auditor Generals reports.

    If you’re really as educated as you site indicates you’re gulity of very shoddy reseach
33. Greg Popik says:

    August 20, 2009 at 12:03 pm

    You’re dealing with people.

    You’ll have to learn to negotiate if you lean to a respectable career in politics.

    When enough people have their say you often need to deal gracefully with bizarre comments that have nothing to do with the central issue. It is just part of participating congenially in a democracy.

    But capitalizing on strange comments to discredit the ideals of millions of people in North America is disingenuous, and probably even ultimately damaging to your own cause.

    It is equally as nonsensical as discrediting PETA’s ideals wholesale on the basis of the radical actions of a few weirdos.

    It is a question on the mind of many why you communicate a deep need to discredit the pro gun view instead of entreating a genuine debate?

    I keep hearing your references to the powerful gun lobby, but that doesn’t reflect the real story. Maybe that is an artifact of your familiarity with the US gun lobby, and an erroneous assumption that the Canadian gun lobby is even remotely similar.

    The real story is that Canadian lobbies are strapped for cash, and often cannot get the gun owning public to pay a mere $50 for a yearly membership, let alone sizable donations from Billionaires with sweeping political agendas.

    When presented with the choice of buying another box of bullets or supporting an lobby organization that protects their rights, many if not most choose the bullets.

    Would you continue to call that powerful? I call that notion delusional. I am sure that Tony Bernardo of the CSSA reads comments here.

    I would happily accept his rebuke of my comments, but am pretty sure that I am unlikely to see that position taken by an powerfully unpaid volunteer.

    Instead, lets identify real lobbying power. What criteria would we set? Perhaps an organization with enough power to, say, control an news organization.

    I won’t spoil the surprise with my comments. Let the audience decide. That’s democracy, no? THAT is honesty. THAT is our position.

    Here is the MSNBC version:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI

    And now here is CNN’s report:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OCJn9XEfhU

    Too bad the carefully edited MSNBC piece never shows Chris’ hands and face while talking about the racist reactions to a black man in the white house.

    Then again, how else could they discredit a movement without having to develop their own defensible position?

    Powerful gun lobby? No. We can clearly see that it is a powerful anti-gun lobby. And yet another attempt from the left to discredit gun rights activists by carefully manipulated slander.

    As always ensuring that posts do not mysteriously disappear, this has been blogged.
34. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 20, 2009 at 12:13 pm

    The comment period for this entry is closed.

Leave a Reply

16 Responses to “Tying it All Together”

1. George says:

   August 11, 2009 at 5:58 am

   Ms. Mandelman, you continue to insist that the long gun registry here in Canada works to prevent violence. However, you also continue to avoid commenting or responding to the information I received first hand from the RCMP. To recap: the RCMP believe that the long gun registry does nothing to either prevent or solve criminality…which includes violence against women. I am still waiting for some sort of response or debate from you on this subject in place of the silence. However, by default, the silence does actually speak volumes with regard to the credibility of your stated position.
2. Matt says:

   August 11, 2009 at 7:50 am

   Elizabeth:

   One question:

   In this submission you state: “Advocacy for the development by governments of public policies and legislation to take guns out of the hands of potential and actual abusers will contribute to stopping violence against women.”

   What is your definition of “potential abuser”?

   Does simply being a male with firearms equate to being a “potential abuser”?

   IF that is what you were getting at in your statement and granted I may be reading too much into it, (but that is the impression I got) then you have just defamed and slandered myself and a couple million other firearms owners in Canada.

   Again, you and I had a few battles in one of your other posts where you accused me of making accusations against Donna Carrick for something when I was just seeking clarification, which you apologized for (thank you by the way) thats all I am doing here. Seeking clarification as to what you meant using the term “potential abusers”

   Have a good day.
3. Michel says:

   August 11, 2009 at 10:32 am

   This might sound a little silly… but if violent and aggressive behaviors are the problems…

   Wouldn’t we be better off working on programs that deals with violent and aggressive individuals, instead of pushing for programs that control the sale of this or that object?

   Ignoring the root of the problem will not make it go away.
4. P. Dusablon says:

   August 11, 2009 at 1:05 pm

   Ms. Mandelman,

   Before I address this entry, I need to address the issue of respect. I for one do not disrespect you because of your opinion. Even if I’m not required by any stretch of the imagination to agree with it, let alone like it, I am required to respect it. The reasons I have a hard time respecting you is because you have not earned my respect yet. Despite being shown proof to the contrary you act as though you are always right; you claim welcoming open discussion and debate yet you censor a number of the comments sent to you and refuse to meet face to face with members of the firearms community; you do not answer points and questions that are raised in comments to you. Not to mention that you claim you are not out to insult men, or gun owners, or soldiers yet many, not just me, find that your writings do just that. Simply apologizing for that would start a process of us respecting you.

   Now, for the issue at hand.

   I have read that entire entry. Repeatedly. And now I’m left to wonder how you expect us to believe that you are not claiming that violence against women is somehow worse than violence against men. Oh, I can see an attempt to make this neutral by stating that “Overall, more men die more often as a result of firearms than women”, but you are quick to go right to domestic violence killing more women than men.

   Ms. Mandelman, how many more men die from being shot, overall, than women in domestic violence? Or is somehow the life of a domestically abused woman so much more valuable than any man’s?

   And while you claim you do not stand for complete disarmament, how else am I supposed to read “Advocacy for the development by governments of public policies and legislation to take guns out of the hands of potential and actual abusers will contribute to stopping violence against women.”?

   Maybe you’ll accuse me of “selective interpretation” yet again, but the way you have been writing so far, you’ve been saying that the only source of domestic violence is men. Ergo, all men are potential abusers. Ergo, you’re saying that preventing all men from getting guns will stop domestic abuse. Ergo, your goal is removing all guns from their male owners.

   Maybe it’s me being dense, as you’ve accused me of being, but that’s the analysis I’m deriving from all your blog entries. Oh, and by the way, my job in the military involves a great deal of analysis so don’t go thinking that I have no background in the matter.

   Ms Mandelman, I never called you stupid. What I’ve said you were was naive and misguided. What will happen in this case is that your beloved registry will be used to go after legitimate gun owners, those who have lawfully acquired and registered their guns. Why? Because we’re easy to find. Because we CAN be found.

   However, while your goal to end violence is commendable, what you are advocating will do absolutely NOTHING to remove the illegal guns from the hands of criminals, and they are the ones who are far more likely to misuse guns in any way, including domestic violence. Why? Because an overwhelming majority of those guns have been smuggled in and so far as the registry goes, they do not exist in this country. As such, they are not tied to a name or an address that can be conveniently looked up for seizure.

   Also, I will once again repeat myself in terms of documented instances where gun control was deemed “successful”:
   - Nazi Germany, 1930’s;
   - Stalinist Russia;
   - The Balkans, 1980’s and 90’s; and
   - Rwandan, 1993-4.

   You are a smart woman, you tell me what disarmament led to in those instances.

   And once more, in the interest of shedding as much light on the issue, this comment will be sent to multiple recipients in case you see it fit to contradict your claims of welcoming discussion and debate and not publish it.
5. Eupraxsopher says:

   August 11, 2009 at 1:32 pm

   Through all this, it’s becoming obvious that you choose advocacy over objectivity. You disallowed a very polite post from me asking this very thing.

   Elizabeth, if you are to be effective you must choose the objective truth over what you want to be the truth. Intellectual honesty must trump ideology and emotional commitment to keep you out of professional trouble.

   My foremost concern: As a scientist, I’m less than impressed with the way you’ve moderated comments. You’ve made an attempt to show the other side of the picture but only insofar as you thought you could prove you weren’t wrong. You haven’t conceded any ground even when proven wrong on specific points.

   You’ve attempted to paint your opposition with broad strokes to give you the leverage to dismiss them without specifically addressing their claims. You’ve censored inoffensive posts including ones I have put up.

   Count on being debunked every time you put feeling and ideology ahead of objectivity and intellectual honesty. If you want to be respected, then be honest. Of course, an advocacy sight would be the wrong place to espouse a balanced viewpoint, wouldn’t it?

   Everyone wants a better, safer world. But you need to also be mindful of the damage that collectivist ideologies have done in prior decades.

   Notwithstanding, it was a good effort and I’m encouraged by the dialog you did have with some of those who disagreed with evidence. Perhaps this will have a moderating effect as you grow into your career with the understanding that problems are often sophisticated and require sophisticated answers. I would only ask that you be skeptical of all claims and weigh them with evidence.

   Good luck out there.
6. Michael from BC says:

   August 11, 2009 at 4:39 pm

   Gun control has been proven over and over again to do nothing for violence levels, just like prohibition of alcohol. People who do illegal things like beat their wives will get guns nomatter how many restrictions you put on them, because they dont follow the law.
7. John Evers says:

   August 11, 2009 at 7:39 pm

   So am I to assume that you have nuked every single reply to this “presentation”.

   That is rather shocking isnt it?

   I mean…your conclusions are very wrong indeed. Do you not expect people to point out the errors you have come to?

   I had expected better……..
8. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

   August 12, 2009 at 6:48 am

   John, Because I sometimes have other things to do with my life besides sitting and waiting for comments, it takes a little time for me to get to them sometimes. As I’ve said before, the gunnutz community just needs to be patient.
9. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

   August 12, 2009 at 7:04 am

   P.Dusablon, Taking away guns from targeted groups of people within a population is different from disarming a society completely. I take great offense to you using those examples, where large parts of certain populations were singled out and killed. In addition, statistically, women are shot more often by their spouses by men. Lastly, calling someone misguided and naive is just as offensive as calling someone stupid. Just because my opinion varies from your own does not mean I am naive, misguided, or stupid; it means that you think you’re opinion is the right one, and the only one.
10. P. Dusablon says:

    August 12, 2009 at 8:23 am

    Ms. Mandelman,

    The examples I have made were of populations at large.

    In Rwanda, nearly a MILLION Tutsis were MASSACRED by the Hutus. And it was done largely with MACHETES and SHARPENED FARM IMPLEMENTS. Why? Because there was a TOTAL CIVILIAN DISARMAMENT.

    In Stalinist Russia, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS were DISAPPEARED by the government, because THEY HAD NO WAY TO FIGHT BACK because of a GENERAL CIVILIAN DISARMAMENT.

    In Nazi Germany, the government claimed that they were the MOST ENLIGHTENED NATION IN THE MODERN WORLD because they had instituted TOTAL GUN CONTROL and EVERYONE except the military, the SA and the SS had to give up their guns. There WAS a sizeable Jewish population in Germany… up to that point.

    In the BALKANS, only the MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY OUTFITS had guns. Look up the mass graves, filled with all men and boys from a number of villages.

    Are my examples are documented and proven true historical events. Ms Mandelman, who do you think you are to question history?

    However, what you are saying is that the only kind of domestic abuse you give half a damn about is abuse against women and that you’d do ANYTHING to prevent it. In effect, you’re saying that ONLY men commit domestic abuse, and that to prevent that you’d see them all disarmed.

    Tell me, how is that “taking guns away from targeted groups” instead of disarming an entire population?

    My position is backed with facts and history. Yours is backed with emotion, cherry-picked statistics that are given out of context and a very selective target population.

    And still, you’ve failed to address most of the points I have raised with you. You demand respect, then perhaps you SHOULD try to EARN some by answering the points I am bringing forward.

    And once more, in the interest of shedding as much light on the issue, this comment will be sent to multiple recipients in case you see it fit to contradict your claims of welcoming discussion and debate and not publish it.
11. Tracer Tong says:

    August 12, 2009 at 12:35 pm

    I think we should take guns away from women only.
12. Matt says:

    August 13, 2009 at 9:11 am

    WHy do you only want to save women? Are you a sexist? Many many men are the victims of domestic abuse from their wives. Shouldn’t these men be offered protection too?
13. Chris R. says:

    August 17, 2009 at 9:46 am

    “Not only did the pro-gun community constantly try attacking the legitimacy of my work and research, but they also attacked me personally; I have never experienced such degrading language or inappropriate behavior by people who claim to be adults.

    What was most laughable about the treatment I received was the fact that the entire time the pro-gun community was trying to discredit my work; they were also trying to get me removed from the country. Paranoia and fear runs rampant among the gunnutz, and as such they try to ‘stomp out’ (their words, not mine) any opinion that differs from their own.”

    Newsflash Liz, the most important part of good research is scrutiny. If you feel your work should not be tested or criticized, don’t publish it anywhere (even on a blog), because it’s no good.

    As for the personal attacks, there were some members of the CGN community who made inappropriate comments, but a vast majority was civil, blunt… but civil. Saying that the entire CGN community is childish, paranoid, and fearful is doing the exact same thing you accused us of doing to you.

    Just keep these things in the back of your head before you post anything, ad realize that when you speak of gun control, you are infringing on peoples rights (the right to property).
14. go away says:

    August 17, 2009 at 5:07 pm

    GO AWAY, DISPARAIS…
15. CGN says:

    August 18, 2009 at 12:01 pm

    “Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”
    -Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States

    Miss. Mandelman, I hope you consider this notion.

    Further rather then enter to petty argument over a difference of opinion I suggest another favored quote

    “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
    -Voltaire

    All I ask is that when you speak, you speak with an open mind. Some CGNers are a bit abrasive but their message is unified.
16. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 20, 2009 at 12:18 pm

    The comment period for this entry is now closed.

Leave a Reply

63 Responses to “Guns Were a Terrifying Presence in Our Home”

1. Kent says:

   August 7, 2009 at 9:15 am

   A sad story to be sure, yet no one did die from the guns. So, what’s the point? And yet again, had she not returned the first time (No support is utter bunk – As I said, I personally witnessed one lady friend go thru leaving an abusive spouse – She was amazed at the support received) none of the resulting idiocy would have happened.
2. SR says:

   August 7, 2009 at 10:34 am

   Although the story is tragic, it is not about a gun, or threats that a gun made. It just happens that instead of focusing on the real problem, the abusive, father, you are focusing on a gun, which played NO part in the above drama. Was any gun actually USED? No, it was just another instrument of psychological control. He could just as easily told them he was going to chop them up with a sword or stab them with a spear, and either alternative would have had the same effect.

   The real question is if a gun wasn’t in the house would the outcome been any different? I sincerely doubt it.

   Removing guns from all homes is just a panacea that will unjustly persecute tens of millions of innocent firearm owners and their family members, simply to justify your personal fears. All that effort in the hope of “saving” a dozen or so victims? If an abuser is willing to use a gun to harm a spouse, they are equally willing to use whatever else is at hand.

   In the end, you spend huge amounts of time and effort policing millions of people who do not need “government supervision” and will NEVER be a problem, but in doing so, you still have done NOTHING to change the plight of the victims, except divert the very recourses they actually need.

   Why not go after the abusers themselves?
3. Soulchaser says:

   August 7, 2009 at 10:45 am

   Ah yes. Emotion.

   The anti gun persons fall back position when their manipulation of statistics and “facts” fall apart.

   First off, taking the “clip” away does nothing to stop a PERSON from operating a firearm. It can still function by manually inserting a round into the chamber. IF her father wanted to kill them with the firearm, taking away the “clip” would not haved stopped him.

   Secondly, I have read the story. Obviously both her father and first husband were drunk, cowardly scumbags. The first husband clearly threatend her and others with a knife. The story makes mention she found an ILLEGAL handgun while putting towels away, which ultimately lead to her leaving him. The key word here Elizabeth is ILLEGAL. How would gun control or the handgun registry, which has been in existance since 1934 stopped what MIGHT have happened from happening. The answer of course is gun control and the registry would have done NOTHING.
4. Soulchaser says:

   August 7, 2009 at 10:59 am

   Elizabeth

   In several of your comments on previous blog entries you claim you have never said that you are in favour of total civilian disarming. However the IANSA logo with this story would suggest otherwise.
5. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

   August 7, 2009 at 12:05 pm

   Soulchaser-Sometimes it’s okay to believe someone who doesn’t share the same opinion as you. Go ahead…believe me when I tell you I don’t care if you’re law-abiding and own a gun…c’mon, you can do it!
6. Soulchaser says:

   August 7, 2009 at 12:34 pm

   You know Elizabeth, given that you are the peace fellow for North America and an American, I really have to wonder why you chose to come to Canada to spew your garbage.

   Maybe it’s because our “pro gun lobby” isn’t as powerful or organized as the NRA is down in the USA, and you figured you would be able to spread your lies, misinfomation and hatred for male firearms owners unchallenged.

   Obviously you were wrong.

   You are absolutely right. It is OK to believe someone who shares a different opinion . Now look in a mirror and tell YOURSELF that.
7. Rafael Gomez says:

   August 7, 2009 at 12:39 pm

   While I certainly do feel for Donna and her family I think it’s also important to note that policy shouldn’t be based on isolated examples.

   Obviously her situation is tragic – more so as her sister felt she had to take her own life to end the abuse she was suffering.

   Clearly her father should not only not have owned guns, he should have been in prison for repeated cases of physical and sexual assault.

   Beyond that, it’s fairly safe to assume that had firearms not been present her father would have been equally abusive, although perhaps he would threaten to “beat” or “stab” instead of “shoot” everyone in the house.

   Again, I can’t help but feel you’re overlooking the perpetrator and instead focussing on an object.

   In the case of Donna’s first husband – who chose a knife – we can clearly see that an abuser will use whatever is accessible.

   Both Donna’s first husband, in owning an illegal handgun, and Donna’s father, in having access to military firearms, had weapons accessible outside of the control of legislative firearms regimes.

   I would like to know what legislative changes you would suggest that might disarm people like Donna’s father and first husband?
8. Marcel B. says:

   August 7, 2009 at 12:39 pm

   “One day I went to put the clean towels away in the linen closet and found an illegal handgun hidden there. I knew it was time to get out.”

   ILLEGAL handgun.

   So the tragic story of one victims life is justification to make me a criminal if my firearms licence expires one minute after midnight?

   Again, your agenda is VERY clear, complete disarmament of all peoples.
9. Jayde says:

   August 7, 2009 at 12:49 pm

   SR has saved me the trouble of writing a lengthy response. I agree with him 100%.

   I’ve had fully automatic rifles pointed at me, I’ve been threatened with a machete, and I’ve been threatened with fists. I can assure you that the fists and machete invoked exactly the same fear response in me as the rifles. In fact, knowing of the incredible atrocities that have been committed with a machete (far worse than any that have ever been committed with a gun), I think I was more afraid of the blade!

   I’m not in any way trying to minimalize the terror that Ms Carrick felt or downplay the severity of her experiences. But it’s not the threat of being shot that’s so horrifying. It’s the threat of violence. Period. It makes no difference what form that threat takes or what tool is used to make it.
10. Marcel B. says:

    August 7, 2009 at 12:50 pm

    Elizabeth,

    That story sounds very coached if not exaggerated.

    How did she know the handgun was illegal? How did she know her husband didn’t go through all the requirements to buy it?

    Oh, I “found an illegal handgun” isn’t proof it is illegal. It may well have been, but how would she KNOW?
11. Donna Carrick says:

    August 7, 2009 at 12:58 pm

    reply to Soulchaser, who says: “Obviously both her father and first husband were drunk, cowardly scumbags.”

    I don’t make these judgments. My emotions are genuine although I’ve learned to keep them in check, and to refrain from name-calling. There are many causes of domestic abuse, most dating back to the abuser’s own childhood. My feelings for these important people in my life have long ago been reconciled.

    On the other hand, in reading some of the comments posted on this site, it does seem that emotions do run high. Advocates of “right to bear arms” should try to reign in their emotions — the thought of ranting people carrying guns is frightening to most people in society.

    It appears that “emotion” is ok when making a case for “right to own”, but not when speaking out against guns in the home.

    One can only speak the truth as one understands it, and let others understand their own truths.
12. Marcel B. says:

    August 7, 2009 at 1:02 pm

    An ex spouse of 15 1/2 years attacked me with a pair of barber scissors, a hatchet three times, and sewing scissors. I was never hit until the last time when the scissors drew blood in the palm of my left hand.
    I left with my eight year old son. In court I was granted joint guardianship and joint custody (Which I asked the BC Supreme Court Judge to rule in the best interest of my son).

    Spousal abuse? You bet. I left because I was in grave danger, I could literally smell death coming.
13. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 7, 2009 at 1:15 pm

    Soulchaser and Kent (and other posters taking the same stance):

    It took me a long time to decide whether I should allow comments on this post. I’ve had it ready for over a week. I can only imagine the number of harassing emails and comments I would receive accusing me of censorship had I decided not to accept comments, though, so I did.

    However, I need to make one thing clear, and this should be taken into consideration by anyone else who decides to comment on this entry: you have absolutely no right to belittle an individual brave enough to share her story. Donna’s abuse is not her fault, although it’s obvious you are trying to make it seem that way. Trying to disguise your disrespect with words like ‘tragic’ and ’sad’ do not fool me, will not fool Donna, and only work to illustrate your lack of understanding of, and compassion for, victims and survivors of domestic violence.

    Trying to discredit experts is one thing, but trying to discredit and accuse coaching of someone who had courage enough to tell her story is utterly unfair. Just for once, have some compassion.
14. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 7, 2009 at 1:19 pm

    Marcel, You do realize that it would have furthered my argument for the Firearms Act more if the gun were not illegal, right? Really, it’s not necessary to argue with EVERYTHING I say. In making a guess, I would say you’ve tried to submit at least twenty or so comments in the last day alone. Somtimes you should pick your battles, and make sure your argument is valid, before trying to ’stomp all over me’ as you gunnutz like to say.
15. Dave says:

    August 7, 2009 at 1:25 pm

    Hi Elizabeth,

    First of all, I would like to say that I feel really sorry for Donna, her mom and her sister due to all of the abuse that they have endured at the hands of her father and husband. Those men were clearly very disturbed and abusive individuals and they give males a bad reputation.

    But what I fail to see is how their abuse has any connection to the men owning firearms. I think you and I would both agree that abused women need better support networks and resources to seek for help. Will banning guns save battered women? I doubt it.

    Why didn’t Donna’s mother go to the police and file charges against her father? Why didn’t Donna go to the police when her husband chased her down the street with a large kitchen knife? He should have been charged with attempted murder.

    Guns are nearly irrelevant in this story. No one was threatened with a gun and no one was even shot.
16. Donna Carrick says:

    August 7, 2009 at 1:38 pm

    Reply to Marcel B — My story is my story. Never coached, with no agenda hidden or otherwise. My opinions are my own, not borrowed from anyone.

    I make it a practice not to presume to judge the stories that other people present. We all have our own truths.

    As to how I knew the handgun was illegal, I was there and knew the person. You were not and you did not. As one other reader pointed out, the fact that it was an illegal weapon does not support the gun control case. Nevertheless, it is the truth, and I won’t bend the truth for anyone.

    Marcel, on behalf of abuse survivors everywhere, I must apologise if our stories don’t seem real to you. I don’t want to be sarcastic here — I realise that to many people these stories seem unreal. That’s too bad I guess. We have to tell the stories anyway. I don’t know what method of telling would make it more real to you, but I have to be true to myself, not to your perception.
17. Soulchaser says:

    August 7, 2009 at 2:21 pm

    Elizabeth

    Kindly point out where in my posts on this blog entry I “belittled” the victim in this story.

    You linked the need for gun control to help to stop these situations from continuing. My post was directly related to this lady’s finding her husbands ILLEGAL handgun, and the fact taking firearms away from legal owners, and the firearms registry did not and would not have done anything to protect this, or any other victim of domestic violence.

    However my second comment questioning why you chose to focus on Canada even though you are American is still awaiting a response.
18. dave says:

    August 7, 2009 at 2:42 pm

    I think your work on domestic violence is commendable and I thank you but I have a couple questions. Why the focus on guns? they do not now or never have played a large role in the domestic violence issue in canada. Its not the weapon of choice and its used in less than 1/3 of domestic violence murders so why the fuss over something so far down the list? what was it again…….something like the sixth on the list of risk factors? what are you wasting your time on something that is already over controlled in this country?
19. Rafael Gomez says:

    August 7, 2009 at 2:50 pm

    “However, I need to make one thing clear, and this should be taken into consideration by anyone else who decides to comment on this entry: you have absolutely no right to belittle an individual brave enough to share her story. Donna’s abuse is not her fault, although it’s obvious you are trying to make it seem that way. Trying to disguise your disrespect with words like ‘tragic’ and ’sad’ do not fool me, will not fool Donna, and only work to illustrate your lack of understanding of, and compassion for, victims and survivors of domestic violence.”

    I’m sorry Elizabeth but I have to take exception with your comment quoted above as it seems to be, in part, directed at me.

    Donna’s past abuse is tragic. Obviously it’s not her fault. And it’s a failing on society’s part that there were not better programs in place for her mother to be able to escape her abusive spouse.

    Donna also illustrates the circle of abuse that children who grow up in abusive homes often fall into.

    I don’t believe I’ve said anything disrespectful, and I find it offensive that you lump all “gun owners” as being so.

    There is nothing disrespectful with disagreeing with someone’s conclusions. Whether they’re yours or Donna’s. Stifling debate with claims of “insensitivity” hardly seems productive.

    I think Donna’s case isn’t an example of why we need more “gun control”, I think Donna’s case is, instead, a clear illustration of why we need more spending on programs to help women that are victims of domestic violence.

    In Donna’s case her mother tried to leave – only to find she had no familial support, and no where else to turn.

    I suggest that Donna’s sister might still be alive, and both her and her mother would have suffered much less abuse, if there was somewhere for them to go.

    I find myself sounding like a broken record. Why is it that you choose to ignore the perpetrator and instead focus on an object used in 0.1% of cases?
20. CF_sapper says:

    August 7, 2009 at 3:19 pm

    to Donna Carrick

    I am trully sorry for the expirence that you your mom and your late sister had to suffer that the hands of you father. He was a discrace to men and the military.

    I do understand a little of what you went threw my dad use to beat me till I was strong enought to fight back.

    to elizabeth

    From what ive read of other readers posts NO ONE is belittleing Ms.Carricks expriences it terrible horiffic that anyone could act like that, but the problume is once again the indidual that has used the tools avalable to cause harm and not the tool alone.

    To disarm lawabiding citizans is crazy you are opening them to people that dont care about laws, or other people and will aquire illigal firearms JUST TO DO HARM to LAWABIDING citizans.

    If you trully want to help abuse in the house hold instead of posting on a website about the atrocity of gun owners, how about u try and help those that are in this situation to get out. donate some money to local abuse centers write to the local reprsentive to get more funding for said centers. there is ALOT you can do that would be more benifical then trying to twist a tragic even such as Ms.Carrick’s into your propaganda against gun’s and there legal owners.
21. Donna Carrick says:

    August 7, 2009 at 4:11 pm

    Thank you, Ms. Mandelman for letting me tell this story, and also thanks to eveyone who read it, regardless of their beliefs.

    I don’t feel particularly brave for telling it. In fact, originally I did not intend to read or reply to any comments, because I try to avoid conflict, having experienced enough of it already.

    Then I realised that since it was time to tell this story, I would also have to be prepared to stand by it. That means asserting to readers that it is true.

    I would also like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that all stories have many sides. It is very easy to label my father a coward, but like many servicement in this country, he served us bravely for 27 years. He was not a typical bully in that he was not a coward, and would be serving this country still if he could. He had many faults, and he would be the first to say so. Cowardice was not among them.

    As for anyone who called my mother “stupid”, I can’t reply to that. Anyone who has lived through this kind of trauma knows too well the mixture of fear, love and depression that goes into every daily decision. Some are able to break away. Others are not. My mother was a fine lady, and anyone who knew her would tell you that. She was not stupid, and not a coward. She was a rock.

    There are so many shades of grey between the “black” and “white” in this world. I try to take what was good from both of my parents — kindness and fairness from my mother, intelligence and a sense of humour from my father. I try my very best not to judge. I don’t always succeed. But I am always honest.
22. Brad from Alberta says:

    August 7, 2009 at 4:27 pm

    Elizabeth, everyone here has compassion for Donna Carrick. It is you who are using her tragedy to forward your agenda which has absolutely nothing to do with her experiences whatsoever. You are trying to invoke an emotional appeal that is not even supported by her own interview, to demonioze an inanimate object in lieu of personal responsibility and accountability, namely her father and husband. And you would like to make sure that all others pay the price guilty or not.

    For once, you should have some compassion and understanding. Shame on you.

    And thank you for censoring my comments that refute your position. So much for no censorship. And I’m still waiting for answers to my questions that are at the heart of your entire crusade.
23. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 7, 2009 at 4:58 pm

    Dave, As Cindy Cowan, Executive Director of the Interim Place, told me in an interview a couple of weeks ago, you can’t erase the years of oppression and cultural norms that exist, allowing things like this to happen. Providing more money to social services is something that would provide more beds for battered women to sleep in, yes, but it wouldn’t work to fix the problem. As Cindy Cowan stated, it would only ‘bandage up a few more women’. Because one cannot erase the past, it’s necessary to look to different policy measures that will help to lessen the damage that history has done.

    And, I mean no disrespect (you obviously meant none to me in your comment), but if you read Donna’s story and are unable to gauge the relavancy of guns, there is something very wrong with that. Donna’s father had a gun in the home, and used it to threaten and subjugate her mother. It also worked to instill fear into Donna and her sisters.
24. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 7, 2009 at 5:07 pm

    Soulchaser,
    A. Accusing me of appealing to emotion. (At least now I know, though, that you have feelings)
    B. Calling her first husband and her father scumbags.
    C. Pointing out that removing clips from guns don’t do anything. What’s the point, Soulchaser? Are you trying to tell her thta her fears were unfounded? I can’t think of another message you would have been trying to get across.
    A+B+C=Belittlement
25. Farzin says:

    August 7, 2009 at 5:15 pm

    Elizabeth,

    You’re doing a great job on your blog. Just keep fighting the fight and don’t let naysayers put a doubt in your mind that what you are doing is noble and just. I struggle with this issue as well.

    I wanted to thank Donna for her bravery. It is not easy for someone to discuss these issues and she is a powerful person for doing so.

    In my personal opinion, guns are not only a method to an end but a tool of psychological empowerment, especially in domestic violence. A gun has more sway than a knife. The only way to protect against a gun is with another gun and it is much easier to defend yourself against a knife attack.

    I am for the complete disarmament of small arms in both Canada and the United States. Correct me if I’m wrong, but much of the illegal arms that enter the black market are robbed from legal shops.

    It is not worth your time to respond to all of the posts, but this blog is a great medium for dialogue on the subject. Keep up the good work!

    -Farzin
26. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 7, 2009 at 5:21 pm

    Rafael, That comment was not directed towards you. You may not agree with me (or even Donna’s opinions in this case), but as of yet you’ve been quite nice and respectful, honoring the fact that everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just think that it’s important to remember in this situation that we’re talking about a real person here. I think Donna’s story will help illustrate, among other things, the psychological consequences of abuse, and the fact that firearms do cause greater fear. No, it was never used, but that does not mean it did not cause severe fear and intimidation. I think that Donna is very brave in telling her story, and I also think that the reason more victims/survivors do not tell their stories is because they get reactions like she’s received to this entry. Because I’ve falsely been accused of censorship, I wanted to make clear what sort of comments I find inappropriate in respect to this entry.

    I did not coach Donna to tell me anything (as someone else has suggested). Donna came across my blog, entered a comment, and I asked her to expand. I did not tell Donna she should pretend her father owning a gun made her more frightened. I did not edit Donna’s story. I asked her to write what she felt comfortable talking about, and that’s exactly what she did. Criticizing me is one thing, but I will not stand for others criticising someone brave enough to share her story, in order to shed some light on a very serious issue.
27. Brad from Alberta says:

    August 7, 2009 at 5:35 pm

    Elizabeth, I see that guns were present in that home. So were Donna’s fathers hands to strangle he mother. Both were tools. The man using the tools is the problem. Your misdirection of blame or resources compounds the problem, it does not help it. Double shame on you.

    My assessment of the relevance of guns in that home is 100% correct, I doubt anyone posting here or any reasonable person will dispute that. What is wrong here is your use of this as an excuse to disarm decent, law-abidng folks under thin veil of spousal safety. Not only do you disrespect a large portion of the Canadian population, but your use of the tragedies of others to push your agenda disrespects them. Everyone has tragedies in their lives, none are to be discounted. None are more special than anyone elses.

    Equality for all, or equality for none.
28. Paul says:

    August 7, 2009 at 6:08 pm

    I believe in personal responsibility for ones actions. I hate the word accident because of its overuse in our society and often used incorrectly.
    A tragic story and I really do feel for the victims. Again the focus is on object not the abuser and not the cycle of violence. Guns are simply inanimate objects and as long as people focus on the objects of abusers the root of the problem cannot and will not be addressed. And vital funds will be diverted and wasted.

    From a were early age I looked forward to Sundays. My mom tells me my brother and I started shooting at 5. In the winter Sundays was hockey game day and in the summer it was range time with my mom, dad and brother. My parents where awesome we did not have much money, but my brother and I never wanted for anything. Some of my earliest memories of my parents are at the range.

    My mom knows that I am a firearms owner and I have been for a very long time. My Mom is also a firearms owner and still goes to the range even thought my dad has since passed. She keeps reminding me that it will soon be time to teach my children as my father taught me. So that our family traditions can be passed down and kept alive.

    My daughters have never been to the range both are still too young. My oldest is getting very close though where she can learn firearms safety. She is very curious and I will soon have to sit down with her and go over ACT’s and PROVE. For her next birthday I have even picked out a nice .22 bolt action rifle and her range trips will start. Nothing in my safe will be a mystery to her and under supervision after her birthday she will be allowed to handle anything in the safe. And like me when she turns 18 and has her licenses she will be given the combination. Just like my dad did for me given she is a trustworthy person.

    My wife has an interest in firearms, but has yet to ever fire one. She is fully licensed and has gone to the range and watched me shoot. She is fully capable to PROVE a firearm safe and has many times. I have left the offer open over the years and she will try when she is ready, but that is her choice and I respect that.

    I mentioned my dad had passed but here is his story of how the government failed him. He was scheduled for a MRI the closest date was 9 months the day before his appointment he got a call that he had been bumped and got a new date 3 months after that as he was not a high priority/risk. My dad was diagnosed with cancer. The kicker is early diagnoses of this type of cancer would have been very treatable and he would have had a high chance of full recovery. The year he waited for a simple MRI could have very well killed him. Every dollar that goes into the registry is money sucked away from real issues with tangible results. The reality is simple every dollar spent on health care has a direct tangible correlation to lives saved.

    Thanks,

    Paul
29. Rafael Gomez says:

    August 7, 2009 at 7:25 pm

    Elizabeth,

    While it may be true firearms are a contributing factor to the fear felt by victims of domestic violence it’s hardly logical to conclude that removing firearms is the solution. Firearms are used in a miniscule fraction of situations.

    Donna’s experience is clearly genuine, and it’s foolish to question its authenticity, but – as I said before – we can’t base policy on the exceptions. And based on Statistics Canada’s report it is the exception.

    Frankly, I also disagree with your suggestion that more money to social services for more beds is nothing more than a “bandaid”.

    I think the women who could take advantage of those extra spaces would certainly welcome the chance to leave their abusive relationships.

    If there’s something we should learn from Donna’s story it’s that we need to make it easier for victims to get help.
30. Jayde says:

    August 7, 2009 at 7:31 pm

    Sorry for the hijack Elizabeth, but I just couldn’t let those points pass unaddressed.

    -Farzin-
    In regards to your comment “The only way to protect against a gun is with another gun and it is much easier to defend yourself against a knife attack.”
    With a statement like that, I’d wager you’ve never taken any self-defense classes. People regularly walk away from gunfights completely uninjured. People NEVER walk away from a knife fight unharmed. This webpage summarizes it quite well, if you’re interested in learning more. The group is called Arming Women Against Rape and Endangerment (AWARE) http://www.aware.org/arttruelaw/knifeattack.shtml

    And about this one “but much of the illegal arms that enter the black market are robbed from legal shops” While the statement is vague, the fact that you said “arms” leads me to believe you’re talking about the international trafficking of weapons on the black market. The leading suppliers of these weapons are the governments of USA, UK, France, China and Russia. For example, when the United States leaves a war zone, they typically leave their weapons behind – it’s cheaper to buy new guns than to ship them home. If you were referring to the domestic black market, the issue is far more complicated than I can cover in this comment.

    If you’re going to continue to be an advocate for something like total small arms disarmament, which will have an immediate and direct impact on the lives of well over 100 million people in the US and Canada, please take the time to fully educate yourself on the issue first.
31. Dave says:

    August 7, 2009 at 8:04 pm

    I have a question for Donna. Please give this some thought and post your honest response. Donna, let’s imagine that your father and ex-husband did not own any firearms legally or illegally. Would you have felt any safer in your home, knowing that if they really wanted to kill you, they could have used something else like a kitchen knife of their fists? Or would it really have made no difference if guns were in home or not? It just seems to me that guns are being made out to be the ‘bad-guy’ when it’s really your father and ex-husband who are to blame for the abuse that you suffered.
32. Michael from BC says:

    August 7, 2009 at 10:53 pm

    Without guns in the home, he would have still abused (probably would have said stab instead of shoot), without him in the home the guns are harmless. People are the problem, not guns.
33. Matt says:

    August 8, 2009 at 12:41 am

    Elizabeth

    In this story, Donna mentions an abusive ex-husband who had a worse temperment than her father.

    Yet, on her personal blog at http://blogdc.donnacarrick.com when talking about her history with domestic violence she only mentions her father. In fact, in an earlier blog posting where she is discussing gun control she posted the following:

    “I am not anti-American. My ex-husband, a gentle man, was born in Louisiana. Despite his non-violent nature he believed, as do many Americans, that an armed population is a free population, and that only by remaining armed can a population expect to remain free.”

    Why no mention of the abusive ex husband on her personal blog? It may lead a sceptical person to ask if she used some of her writing skills to create one for your blog.
34. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 8, 2009 at 7:57 am

    Matt, If you had read the narrative with open eyes rather then skepticism from the start, you wouldn’t be making such an offensive accusation. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that he stalked her for years, and she’s had to make sure he’s unable to find her, whether that’s in person or on the web. Or maybe it’s because talking about the abuse of her father was difficult enough for Donna. Whatever the reason, you have no right.
35. Brad from Alberta says:

    August 8, 2009 at 8:49 am

    Elizabeth, Matt has every right to question, just like you have every right to post up a story. This a tennet of free and open dialogue.

    I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but the Canadian culture and American culture are quite different. Yes, sure, we speak the same language, have the same TV shows, but little else is similar. I’m curious how a story based on the 1960’s and 1970’s in he U.S., with their societal values, relates at all to the Canada of today?

    Now, if Donna’s story is 100% true, that is fine. If it is not, and is a product of some elements of truth with fiction sprinkled in, that is fine. If you are presenting the latter as truth, then that is abhorant and you should be ashamed of yourself.

    I’m still waiting for you to provide those stats on threats.
36. Karen says:

    August 8, 2009 at 10:17 am

    Actually Elizabeth, Matt DOES have the right to question the facts of Ms. Carricks story. We have freedom of speech in Canada, just like you do in your native USA. And as you have pointed out in an earlier entry here, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

    You didn’t answer the question.

    On her blog, her ex-husband is described as gentle and non-violent.

    On your blog, he is described as a drug and alcohol abuser, more violent than her father.

    So by your assertion, it was too difficult to talk about on her blog about 10 days ago, but not too difficult to talk about her ex-husband on your blog in an attempt to bolster your opinions.
37. soulchaser says:

    August 8, 2009 at 10:38 am

    Elizabeth:

    From Ms. Carrick’s blog:

    “In my humble opinion, an advanced and civilised society has no place for guns, other than in the military and for use by our police. Obviously there will always be men like my father who are violent, with or without access to firearms. However, studies show that heightened control and registration of guns coincides directly with a reduction in the number of deaths related to domestic violence. I am for anything that keeps women and children MORE SAFE, so they can finally grow past their fear to live happy and productive lives.”

    You presented Ms. Carrick as someone who simply wanted to tell her story about her experiances being the victim of domestic abuse. But from the above passage, she clearly has the very same anti firearms agenda that you do: taking firearms away from everyone but the police and military. She even hits all the same talking points people like you and Wendy Cukier hit: The “studies” that show gun control and the regstering of firearms reduces domestic violence (even though she clearly states her father would have been just as abusive with or without firearms), it’s worth it if it save one life, ect.

    I think we can both agree that Ms. Carricks story is one that should be told. Just tell the truth. She is not only a victim who wanted to tell her story as you portrayed her, she is also a supporter of a complete ban of civilian firearms ownership.

    I await your response that claims, yet again, I am belittleing Ms. Carrick.
38. Paul says:

    August 8, 2009 at 12:24 pm

    Elizabeth,

    I hate to go off topic with this response and I understand if you do not post it, but I fell I must respond to Farzin and Donna.

    Farzin,

    I was born a free and I will die a freeman. I will never give up my liberty or freedom for the sake of security.

    I believe in freedom and choice above all else. Honest law abiding citizens should not be controlled or told what to do by the state. I don’t have to like, understand or even embrace another persons lifestyle or religion, but I have to embrace there rights to not be interfered with because to me there are no degrees of freedom. You are either free or you are not.

    I am glad to see that you would take my freedom, liberty and property rights away from me. And make sure a significant portion of my countries and families history and heritage cannot continue. Yet you work in Iran looking to bring freedom and choice which you would take away from me in a heartbeat how very ironic don’t you think.

    “In my personal opinion, guns are not only a method to an end but a tool of psychological empowerment”

    Interesting in my house growing up almost all the fresh meat we ate in the spring, fall and summer came via a gun or bow. I must note that we did not hunt for sport we hunted for survival. My family was not a farming family but our farmer neighbors always gave permission for us to hunt there lands and never complained when we helped them with pest control.

    “Correct me if I’m wrong, but much of the illegal arms that enter the black market are robbed from legal shops.”

    Your statement is very vague and also very incorrect. I have always believed that before one cannot have an educated opinion about a topic one should at least research and understand the topic.

    Donna,

    I have no doubts about your story being true or not. This type of story is all too common especially given the time when it happened in my opinion, but that does not change my views on the topic. I blame people not objects and as long as the focus is on objects valuable resources will be diverted away from the root problem and mechanisms that really do help.

    I don’t blame alcohol for drunk drivers. Just like I do not blame firearms for what a human does with one.

    I will not insult you or your family as it serves no good purpose. I sincerely hope that you have broken the cycle of violence and that you have all the support you need. I wish you the best on wherever your journeys may take you.

    Thanks,

    Paul
39. P. Dusablon says:

    August 8, 2009 at 3:52 pm

    Ms. Mandelman,

    I too have the same question as Matt referring to the narrative.

    And we have the right to question the information you are feeding us, just as you have the right to dispute our position. You see, it is not because we are not fellows associated with IANSA or working on our Masters that we are idiots.

    Please, give us some credit for independent thought once in a while.

    Inconsistencies get our attention. We’re actually pretty good at finding them. And right now, I am finding myself wondering about that particular discrepancy between Mrs. Carrick’s blog and your own.

    Ms. Mandelman, so far you have done very little to make yourself very credible, at least with us. You have refused to meet with members of the firearms community yet you meet with members of the gun control lobby. You censor a number of comments. You misquote stats and do not put them in context. You do not answer points and questions raised in comments.

    Also, you would think that someone with an abusive ex-husband who stalked her for years (of which we know of on YOUR blog instead of in Mrs. Carrick’s) would be smart enough NOT to put her name to a blog. In the military, we call this operational security, or OPSEC.

    And good OPSEC is to NOT advertise yourself in any way. Blogs, Facebook, MySpace, etc, are just ways to create an electronic footprint that can easily be tracked. With a minimum of ingenuity, anyone can easily track someone else down once they find such a footprint.

    Someone who has run from an abusive ex-husband would probably know better than have that story anywhere, and tied to her name in an environment that yields itself so well to information gathering as the internet.

    As such, with the combination of factors I have here listed, I am let to wonder as to the validity of the claims regarding Mrs. Carrick’s first husband.

    But then again, you and I, we see things very differently. You will probably state I have no right to question your or Mrs. Carrick. You will probably call me blind and close-minded for not seeing things your way, or that I see things only the way I want them to be seen.

    However, Ms Mandelman, you are in no position to chastise anyone about selective understanding of information either.

    As usual, in case you do not see it fit to post this comment, it will be sent to multiple recipients in order to ensure as much light as possible can be shed on this issue.
40. Matt says:

    August 8, 2009 at 6:10 pm

    Really Elizabeth, ENOUGH with your theatrics and “outrage.”

    So you think my “accusation” is offensive? First off, it was not an “accusation” but a question about a rather glaring discrepancy between the two versions of the same story.

    What I find offensive is that you, as an American, think you have the right to come to my country and tell me or anyone else what we do or do not have the right to comment on.

    Now to your point about Ms. Carrick still being scared about being stalked either in person or on the web, by her abusive ex-husband. I’m afraid you’ll have to come up with a better reason than that to explain away the glaring discrepancy. Because if that was indeed the reason,the question then becomes WHY ON EARTH WOULD SHE:

    a) Open her own personal blog on the internet using her real name;
    b) Use that blog to tell everyone about herself;
    c) Post pictures of herself, her husband and children on that blog;
    d) Let everyone know not only what city she lives in, but also the area where she has a rural residence;
    e) Come to your blog and post details about what this person who stalked her did to her.

    These really don’t sound like the actions of someone who is afraid of an abusive ex-husband/stalker finding her.
41. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 9, 2009 at 5:29 am

    Karen, The ex-husband she describes as gentle and non-violent is her second. Her first husband, whom she was involved with at the age of seventeen (as described in her ‘questionable’ story), was abusive. Donna included the fact that she had been married two times prior to her current marriage, but it’s the one sentence I deleted, as I can only imagine what the pro-gun community would say to her about that. After seeing people on gunnutz talk about the recent shooting in Pittsburgh and say “I wonder what some woman did to him to make him shoot a bunch,” I was weary of the reaction she’d get. The pro gun community is one of the most paranoid bunch of people I’ve ever encountered in my life, and obviously the reason you find it necessary to bring guns to places like the grocery store or restaurants.
42. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 9, 2009 at 5:34 am

    Brad, I think you and the pro gun community are the ones that should be ashamed of yourselves. You egg eachother on by suggesting that others besides yourselves actually think accusing someone of making up a tragic story is reasonable and appropriate. It’s actually helping my cause by illustrating just how paranoid the lot of you are. Spending my summer harrassed by the pro gun community has already changed my opinion that most adovcacy groups are rational and polite, but these comments have flat out made me sad for you and inability to accept anything but your opinions.
43. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 9, 2009 at 5:36 am

    Matt, Refer to the comment I left in response to Karen’s comment. And yes, Matt, your accusation is offensive, not to mention another unfortunate and unfair attempt to discredit a credible person.
44. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 9, 2009 at 5:45 am

    P. Dusablon-Let’s set the record straight. The pro gun community is the one who has been claiming this whole summer that I’m an idiot, not the other way around. If I need to point readers to CanadianGunNutz.com, I will. In addition, I have already made clear on multiple occassions that I have spoken with members of the pro gun community, respectful ones, unlike yourself. Constantly making a claim that’s blatantly false is going to get you nowhere, just like claiming that the registry cost two-billion dollars has gotten you nowhere; again, they’re both blatantly false, and people know you’re lying. You do have no right to question Donna’s story, but then again, like I’ve said to other people, it just helps my cause by illustrating your paranoia and lack of respect and compassion.
45. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 9, 2009 at 5:53 am

    Soulchaser, You apparently think that you’ve solved some great mystery by stating that Donna is for gun control. Obviously she is, otherwise she wouldn’t have commented on my blog in the first place. She wanted to tell her story to share with others the increased fear and danger induced by firearms, which again, clearly was not a secret. I already explained to you why calling Donna’s family members scumbags, etc, acts to belittle her. You clearly don’t want to take the time to understand why your words are offensive, so I’ll save my breath.
46. Dave says:

    August 9, 2009 at 6:32 am

    Hi Elizabeth. You refer to the pro-gun community as a bunch of paranoid people, but I think that we are being prepared (not paranoid). Do you remember the Luby’s shooting in Texas in 1991? Susan Gratia Hupp could have stopped the maniac, but she wasn’t allowed to carry her gun with her under Texas law. She watched her mother and father (along with many others) get killed by the gunman, and couldn’t do anything about it. I think you should do a blog about her. There is nothing wrong about being prepared. Violent situations do happen.
47. qballs says:

    August 9, 2009 at 7:57 am

    Who are these gun rights people you claim to have met with??? Why not put an interview with them in your blog in the interest of “fairness”??
48. Matt says:

    August 9, 2009 at 8:20 am

    Hold on a second Elizabeth

    You consider asking a question about apparent discrepancies between to postings of the same story an “unfair attempt to discredit a creditable person?”

    I call it an attempt to seek clarification. I call it an attempt to seek the truth.

    Am I to assume that you always accept what is put in front of you without question?. Unfortunately for you, I and many others here have not lost the ability to think for ourselves.
49. soulchaser says:

    August 9, 2009 at 8:36 am

    Elizabeth:

    From the beginning, all you had to say is Donna Carrick is a survivor of domestic abuse AND a supporter of civilian disarmament. It’s called the truth. But you chose not to. You chose to present the story as coming from a random person who just wanted to share her story. And you know what, that’s fine. Just be prepared to asnwer questions as to why you omit details.

    You said: “You apparently think that you’ve solved some great mystery by stating that Donna is for gun control. Obviously she is, otherwise she wouldn’t have commented on my blog in the first place.”

    I thought you said she came to your blog to share her story about being a victim of domestic abuse, not support your agenda for total civilian disarmament?

    You seem to become very angry when anyone asks a legitimate question. You should really see someone about that. I don’t think you would pass the screening process for a firearms licence in Canada with a temper like that.

    And, again with the belittlement accusation. I can’t help but notice you failed to put up my post defending myself against you A+B+C diatibe. Obviously I must have done a pretty good job of proving you wrong.

    And again for the record, I didn’t call her “family members” scumbags. I called Ms. Carricks ABUSERS scumbags. One of whom happened to be her father.

    As always, peace and love to you.
50. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 9, 2009 at 9:10 am

    Soulchaser, If you can’t put two and two together, than that’s an issue you’ll have to work out yourself. Donna commented on my blog, obviously knowing what I’m here working on. Then she wrote her story, and I posted it. If that didn’t make it clear to you that she’s in favor of gun control, well then…

    Everyone is entitled to there opinion, and to open and respectful debate. That is not what has happened here. That is not what the pro gun community chooses to engage in. Trying to “stomp all over” those who disagree with and wear them down emotionally by calling names and attacking personal characteristics is not intellectual. “Stomp all over” are the words of gunnnutz.com, not my own. Try as you may to make someone backdown just for having an opinion. It obviously doesn’t work, as Wendy Cukier has been an advocate of gun control for many years, and you haven’t been able to “stomp” her out yet, have you?

    Donna’s family members were her abusers and thus, you’re calling her family members scumbags. I chose not to post your last comment to save you some embarrassment. I kind of wish I hadn’t.

Leave a Reply

61 Responses to “Guns Are More Deadly”

1. harblthecat says:

   August 6, 2009 at 12:20 pm

   Elizabeth,

   You advocate gun control – but offer no suggestions on any sort of reasonable measures of gun control, save complete disarmament.

   It is tragic when someone commits an act of violence against someone else or themselves, regardless of the tool of choice.

   How then as a society do we prevent such acts of violence?

   Hypothetically, if all firearms both legitimately and illegitimately owned were to be completely purged from society, what then? Someone who has it in their mind to harm another person has any number of tools at their disposal to do so.

   How about cars? A car used with malicious intent could kill dozens of people much easier than any gun could. How about home made explosives? There is no shortage of recipes available online describing how to build pipebombs, petrol bombs, and Molotov cocktails out of items readily available at the average hardware store. How about knives? In any household, you’ll find dozens of readily available knives that could very easily be used to stab someone to death.

   Logic dictates that by taking one of the tools by which someone may do harm to someone else, you still have not addressed the root problem – the person prepared to do harm.

   Rather than focusing on ineffective gun control measures that have been proven NOT to work (i.e. complete abolition of private firearms ownership – as was the case in Great Britain) – why not focus on effective crime control and violence prevention measures that DO work such as harsh sentences for violent assault or abuse or social programs that empower victims of abusive households to leave the situations their in?
2. Kent says:

   August 6, 2009 at 12:33 pm

   Hello Again-

   Please use logic Elizabeth.

   In the case you site, do you not think there was most likely years of abuse that led up to the shooting? Could the victims not have made a move to protect themselves- leave & report? Just because some are stupid & don’t leave does not make it OK to use them as your poster children.

   Besides, a car or a baseball bad would really be just as quick at dispatching a human if that’s one’s objective.

   I mean really, this is such a sad case & to use it to further your agenda is really wretched.
3. Wynne says:

   August 6, 2009 at 12:38 pm

   So let me get this straight. Your more dead if some one gets shot with a gun than…. say… stabbed with a knife. I think I must go and ask for the money I paid to go to school because I was always told that dead is dead. You cant be more dead.

   From your stats that you provide it seem that the remaining 67% (2006) and the remaining 78% (2005) dose not count because they weren’t killed by guns.

   Think about this for a second, what if the victims where allowed to be armed and they defended themselves with a gun. It seem like you and Wendy are all for violence against woman???
4. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

   August 6, 2009 at 12:45 pm

   Kent, So what you’re telling me then is that it was the victims fault that they died? A nine year old girl brought this on herself, did she? That’s truly sad.
5. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

   August 6, 2009 at 12:56 pm

   Wynne, The fact that that’s what you would take out of what I said goes to show that you’re just not open to what I have to say. The other individuals murdered using tools besides firearms do count, obviosly, and for you to accuse me of thinking or stating anything otherwise is childish.

   Let’s say the victims did have a gun somewhere in the home. Do you think that Ian Jeffrey Paget, in being fair, would have allowed someone to run and get it quickly from wherever it was stored, to try and defend themselves? Or, do you think it should have been sitting out on a coffee or kitchen table, just in case? That doesn’t seem very safe to me, with a nine year old child in the home.
6. Kent says:

   August 6, 2009 at 1:38 pm

   “Kent, So what you’re telling me then is that it was the victims fault that they died? A nine year old girl brought this on herself, did she? That’s sick.”

   First off, I don’t believe that you’d honestly think a 9 year old capable of that kind of logic or thought processes. The parents are supposed to do that. Obviously the father was in a distressed situation. But the mother (who I assume should have more life experience & be thinking for the child) – Yes. It is in a way her fault. I’ve seen a friend leave her husband for that sort of thing. And no, they didn’t have any guns. But had they, all she had to do was contact the CFC and that issue would have been taken care of. Anyhow, she left, got the help she needed & is now living a good life free from her former abuser. Why some can’t get themselves out of a potentially harmful situation I don’t know. While it’s a terrible thing that happened, it’s likely something that could have been prevented YEARS ago before it got escalated to that point. That’s where this topic should be facing, not with the clean-up associated with what had likely festered & grown for years.

   As my parents always taught me, If you don’t feel comfortable in a situation, leave! I really can’t see that not working for everyone else when it’s kept me with a clear conscience & criminal record!
7. P. Dusablon says:

   August 6, 2009 at 1:55 pm

   Ms Mandelman,

   I have to say, you are in absolutely no position to call anybody on being close-minded when your censorship of the comments to this blog has been fully exposed. Not to mention your persistent pro-gun control stance, your refusal to meet with members of the firearms community while you will consistently meet with members of the gun control lobby.

   Not to mention that not once have I seen you say a damned thing about the human rights of the male victims of domestic abuse.

   Also, your focus on firearms being used in crimes has become practically legendary. Not to mention your clever use of statistics that you are not putting into context. First, what is the proportion of murder-suicides amongst all homicides? Second, how many of those 6 domestic homicides (out of 53 homicides) committed by an intimate partner were committed by a man and how many by a woman? Who were the other 8 domestic homicides committed against? Of the 14 domestic homicides, how many involved a firearm?

   There is one question I’ve posed to you many a time and which you’ve failed to answer every single time I asked it. What good is your precious registry when it comes to dealing with thoroughly illegal guns? You know, those that were smuggled into the country and never lawfully owned and therefore registered? No amount of gun control will protect ANYONE from those guns, make no mistake.

   I am looking forward to you answering all of my above questions, although I feel I should tell you that I am not holding my breath.

   Oh, and before I sign off, I have one more statistic to throw at you. The average number of homicides per year in Canada is +/- 600. On the other hand, the average number of deaths due to medical errors (yes, by doctors and nurses) is roughly 25 000. Tell me, Ms Mandelman, where is your outrage at this imbalance? Perhaps there should be tighter doctor and nurse control, don’t you think?

   And once more, in the interest of shedding as much light on this issue as possible, this will be sent to multiple recipients.
8. Soulchaser says:

   August 6, 2009 at 1:59 pm

   Elizabeth:

   Are you aware of the 2006 Stastics Canada report on violent crime in Canada?

   It showed that there were over 5,500 violent crimes involving firearms. Sounds like alot right? That is why the anti gun establishment in Canada continue to quote this one line of the report. BUT when you keep reading you find out that firearms were actually used in ONLY 2.4% of all violent crime.

   Blunt objects were used in 3% and knives were used in 6.2% of all violent victimizations. What that means Elizabeth, is that in Canada, firearms are actually used in the FEWEST number of violent crimes.
9. Turfman Jones says:

   August 6, 2009 at 2:01 pm

   Wow, Elizabeth, get a grip you’re losing it. You actually stated a firearm is a tool.

   A deadly tool to be sure, but a tool nonetheless. In the hands of someone unschooled in it’s use, deadly! In the hands of someone bent on death, destruction and mayhem, deadly! So is a machete in the hands of a Tutsi or Hutu or Somali warlord. To say that a firearm is more deadly than any other weapon is, well, nuts. A weapon is a weapon and dead is dead.

   I am 60 yrs old and have been around firearms since they were taller than me. Starting my life on a farm in rural Kentucky I was putting food on the table by the time I was 8. I have been in possesion of or owned firearms for appox. 91.68% of my life. I have never killed anyone nor threatened to. I have never beat my wife nor ever lifted a hand against any woman. Such a thought is repugnant to me.

   No matter that your beliefs about firearms are 180 degrees opposite of mine, no matter that your liberal attitude is completely foriegn to me, know this. I would give my life to protect you and your family in a time of need. Count on it.

   And you know what Liz? I don’t think there is a Canadian Gunnutz who has posted replies that wouldn’t do the same thing. Think about it Liz, the people that you deride, you censor, you castigate, you malign and slander are actually willing to protect you and yours.

   We appreciate your gratitude.
10. DB says:

    August 6, 2009 at 2:13 pm

    Hello,

    Taking Murder/Suicide as a case for gun control is perhaps your worst choice. Not because it does not happen, the story you have listed is certain proof that it does.

    But rather the second portion of that suicide, most certainly a firearm was the quickest way to kill his family.

    But assuming he and all the others who used firearms were determined to commit suicide and take their family with them, they would simply used another method assuming a firearm was not present.

    There are numerous cases of families being killed in their sleep with bats, knives and by lighting the house on fire. It tends to invalidate your argument, simply because of the suicide component.

    A person determined to commit suicide will do so, you simply can not stop them. If they are determined to take others with them they will also find a way. A close look at the stats will show this to be true.

    I think the issue of a women having a firearm to protect herself is also overstated in this case, as a woman with the strength of will to recognize the need for protection would be less likely to remain in an abuse relationship.

    For protection after leaving most certainly, but that is not allowed in Canada, you can not purchase a firearm for the reason of self defense. Assuming you could, the assumption is you would carry it on your person ready to go. No one expects you to have it on the kitchen table loaded and ready to go, both to protect a child from accidents and it is simply too far away if the need to use it is there.
11. Ben says:

    August 6, 2009 at 2:31 pm

    > Additionally, fifteen of the fifty-three homicides were committed with a firearm, accounting for over a quarter of the total.

    In other news, Elizabeth Mandelman couldn’t care less about just under 75% of homicides, as they do not lend themselves to easy exploitation to further her political agenda.
12. GoodLord says:

    August 6, 2009 at 2:39 pm

    “”Or, do you think it should have been sitting out on a coffee or kitchen table, just in case? That doesn’t seem very safe to me, with a nine year old child in the home.”"

    Oh god beware we teach the young how to handle tools!!! What a horrendous thing to do as a parent… to teach the young about safe handling of tools and why we have them and what we use them for. God, we sure don’t want that to happen. Let’s leave it to TV and school and the internet and individuals like you to educate them.
    Are you that close to a stroke when there is a knife on the table too? All I need to do is pick it up, raise my arm and then lower it in a stabbing motion. So simple, no need to unlock anything or load anything, no safety, no registry… so easy to handle, so deadly but hey, guns are more dangerous… or so you say.

    Your argumentation becomes more and more laughable really. It’s sad at the same time. People have supplied you with facts, statistics and actually (unlike you) backed it up with the correct links to their sources. Yet you are still repeating the same mantra “Guns are bad”, “If it wasn’t for guns, there would be no violence against women”. And if people call you out on it you claim they aren’t open minded enough. Let me quote you in case you forgot what you just typed: “Wynne, The fact that that’s what you would take out of what I said goes to show that you’re just not open to what I have to say”

    Aaah yes, we are the ones who are not open minded enough, huh?! Laughable.
    Considering the censorship on this blog, preferably individuals that have hammered you into the ground with facts and sources. That delete button sure is convenient isn’t it?

    Let me ask you, Liz, if you are so interested in stopping domestic violence…. then why is every sob story you post on here related to guns? Are you incapable of finding the stories about women being beaten to death? Stabbed? Strangled? Run over? Set on fire? Drowned?
    Are you also not capable of finding stories of LEO’s who died cos they went to answer a call and checked the registry and found nothing and ended up shot dead?
    The stories about gun violence with illegal untraceable guns?
    I mean you are online already, might as well use google. Or is your take on it “If I ignore it long enough it will go away by itself”?

    Oh that’s right, you are not interested in helping women. If you were you’d be out there, in a shelter, offering your help for those who were abused. You would be writing to our politicians asking them why repeat offenders are out on the street, why restraining orders don’t seem to work, why the justice system thinks it’s ok to let criminals go so they can ‘turn their life around’, why women and children have no place to hide, why men are being laughed at when reporting abuse, why they wanna control and regulate tools instead of dealing with the operators of such tools etc.
    Instead you sit on the internet and you travel the world and you try to meddle into another country’s affairs. Boy, you must be proud of yourself.

    You cannot prevent violence, it’s silly to think so. You’d have to take the human out of the human. All you can do is help the victims and severely punish the criminals who think it’s ok to break the law. But maybe that would just be too much effort for you and your buddies. People are complicated, stubborn… well, human.

    I’m a female in my mid-twenties. I see guns as a tool, like the kitchen knife on the counter, like the hammer on the workbench. A gun is a tool because it has no life of it’s own. I find it sad and pathetic that you are unable and/ or unwilling to see that.

    It (the tool) needs an operator. And that is the problem. The only problem.

    The operator.

    Of anything.

    Period.

    PS: I wanted to ask you Liz, when you were visiting the women’s shelter claiming that it is the gun owner’s fault that they have to wear clothing that is decades old cos we just don’t wanna give up our hobby and register our guns (it’s not a hobby btw Liz, it’s my right to self defense and my right to defend others if they are being threatened… it is a duty for every citizen… read up on the bill of rights)… well, did you actually talk to any abused women? Did you hear first hand what happened to them? I would love to hear about it. And if you make a story, I might have to go to one shelter nearby and ask some women myself… and then we can compare notes and see if guns are really the main problem. Or if it’s actually the abusive individual that is at fault.

    PPS: I’m also curious why you aren’t voicing these opinions to your fellow americans?! Is the US of A in such a perfect condition? Is there no domestic violence in the US that needs to be taken care of? No gun violence?
    Enlighten me.
13. Turfman Jones says:

    August 6, 2009 at 2:47 pm

    Sorry, meant to ask in my last post. How many degrees of dead are there?
14. Dalton says:

    August 6, 2009 at 2:56 pm

    Dear Elizabeth,

    I’m writing both in response to your most recent post, and to share with you a very saddening story indeed.

    Very recently in the United States, a woman was lured to a motel under the pretence that she’d be meeting a man for an extramarital affair. Once in the room, however, she was humiliated and assaulted by no less than four men – one of whom was her husband – who’d discovered that she’d been having sexual affairs with each of them. While bound and blindfolded, the woman was slapped in the face, threatened with a gun, and – most disturbingly – was subjected to the placement of Krazy Glue in her labial area.

    Of course, if you’re familiar with the court documents filed in Calumet County, you’re quite aware that it was actually a group of four women who premeditated and carried out the acts mentioned above, against a man they’d all been involved with. Now facing charges that range from false imprisonment to fourth-degree sexual assault, both the nature and attitudes surrounding the act are telling.

    First and foremost, we can see that the act was a premeditated – not spontaneous – one. Second, while physical abuse (ranging from blows to the head to the gluing of the man’s member to his belly) did take place, the most prominent acts in this abuse seemed to be those of humiliation and theft; courts documents indicated the women favoured derisive comments, the application of Krazy Glue to a male member, forcible confinement, and allegedly stripping the man of his wallet and cellphone – not to mention his clothes – to acts more physical in nature. Oh, and as to the man’s also having been threatened with a firearm? Upon being questioned, one of the women told investigators that while she didn’t have a gun at the time (though we have only her word to “go on”, for that, as none was found at the scene…), she “might” have told the victim, “Do you know how much I want to shoot you?” With that comment, we can safely add “psychological torment” and “death threats” to the women’s above repertoire of abuse techniques.

    It is readily apparent that men and women do not commit abuse in the same fashion (i.e. physical abuse versus mental, emotional and financial abuse); in fact, once the man had gotten free from the bed by chewing through one of his bindings, the women in question rushed off, fearful that he could get loose and hurt them – though they had the presence of mind to commit the theft of his vehicle as well.

    Nor do women necessarily favour the same abuse-related implements as men; as mentioned above (were we to take the accused’s word as trustworthy), there was no firearm present. This raises another important question, one relating to your cited statistics suggesting that as many as 25% instances of homicide resulting from domestic violence were attributable to firearms. Again, appreciating that women do not necessarily favour the same abuse-related implements as men – perhaps they prefer knives, for example – there remains a frightening 75% of homicides that could have been committed by knives (and the people, of whatever gender, who favour them).

    However, looked at another way, an even more frightening possibility presents itself, if firearms are indeed the most lethal and potently death-dealing implements around, as your previous comments have suggested. This means that the potential extrapolation to non-homicidal instances relating to non-firearm implements (and their wielders, potentially of the female gender) could be very high indeed. This is especially true if we take into account that woundings are neither as widely reported nor as popularly sensationalized as instances of wounding/death by firearm.

    But I digress. To me, one of the most important notion that the Calumet County assault speaks to is the curious (though thoroughly saddening, all the same) idea that spousal abuse is one of the only forms of abuse gauged entirely from the Aristotelian “male” view. Irony of all ironies, it is primarily the “traditionally male” perceptions of abuse (i.e. physical acts of violence, etc.) that are cited in reference to instances of abuse (mental/emotional/reputational/financial damage & psychological anguish are not cited to any degree of symmetry). And before anyone responds, “toughen-up, nancy-boy”, and “sticks and stones will break bones, but words will never hurt me”, one must realize that those words will have just proven the point I was trying to make. The more one says a male victim should “man-up”, the more one is making a de facto appeal to the Aristotelian “male” view.

    Before closing, I’d like to address one “related” topic: that false accusations of spousal-abuse/rape/pedophilia are as much, if not exponentially more, devastating than firearms. I say this because they (a) have incredibly destructive capacity [they can (i) repeatedly ruin (ii) one or more persons in (iii) a vast variety of ways], (b) are far too readily “available” for deployment (i.e. precious little consequence exists against false accusations, and everyone on earth is equipped with either a mouth for speaking the accusations, hands for writing the accusations, or both), and (c) unlike firearms, once said accusations are “brandished”, there is precious little defence available to innocent victims against false accusations of spousal-abuse/rape/pedophilia. Intriguingly enough, we’ve already identified the primary wielders of words and non-physical abuses in the paragraphs above.
15. Brad from Alberta says:

    August 6, 2009 at 3:09 pm

    Elizabeth, do you personally know Ian Paget? I know for sure that you don’t. Do you realize that I live very close to this tragedy? Do you know for a fact what he would do?

    Your entire blog has been about personal feelings, supposition and innuendo. There are no real facts you possess that prove that gun control via our Registry has done one positive thing statistically, or saved even one life. Our registry has been here for 13 years, our licensing has been here for 31 years for long guns and 75 years for handguns. Our official government statistics department can’t draw a correlation, our Auditor General could not draw any correlation, and they have thousands of people and billions of dollars at their disposal, as well as access to information you will never have. So, how can you magically draw a correlation?

    If our controls were effective, how come this tragedy occurred? This tragedy occurred because of Ian Paget, period, end of story.
16. Paul says:

    August 6, 2009 at 5:36 pm

    I am sorry but you are incorrect and your approach is flawed to its very core. You blame items I blame people. As long as you blame and object getting to the root cause of the problem is impossible. Even removing the item will not change the problem all it will do is change the item used. A firearm is an inanimate object and is no more dangerous then any common household object or weapon. The human who controls the object can be deadly the item itself is just a tool.

    In Kingston this summer 4 women were drowned in a car. It has come to light that this was an “honor” killing. I guess we should then blame the car or maybe the water or maybe Kingston because of its lack of waterway licensing and registration.

    I mean it could not be cultural or humans with bad wiring. The money spend on the Firearms Act (Registry) could not have been better used to attack the real problem here and that is humans not objects.

    http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090722/mtl_shafi_090722/20090722/?hub=MontrealHome

    “This tragic story highlights one of the arguments I have made repeatedly during
    my time as a Peace Fellow with the Advocacy Project: guns are more lethal than
    any other type of weapon.”

    Guns are not lethal humans are.

    “A firearm in the home increases the risk of death at the hands of a violent
    perpetrator“

    Source please. Otherwise it’s just another myth that has the kind of optics that people like your propagate.

    “Statistics Canada found that three-quarters of all homicide-suicides in Canada
    between 1961 and 2003 involved family members, and over half of these cases were
    committed by male spouses or ex-spouses; ninety-seven percent of the victims
    were female.”

    I see so you use the stats going back to 1961 when it suits you. But when you try to support the registry only what has happened over the last 10 years is important the trends before that do not matter. “These statistics illustrate the need for gun control not only to reduce and prevent domestic violence, but violence in general. Many weapons are used to domestically abuse and assault people, but none are more lethal than firearms.”

    These stats are meaningless without a source to the data.

    There are no varying degrees of dead. Dead is dead beating to death with a fist slashed to death with a steak knife or shot with a gun are all the same.

    Honestly Elizabeth do you really believe that the 1 to 2 Billion spent already on the Firearms Registry is worth it? Do you really also believe the over 80 Million spent each year just to run it is the most effective way to combat domestic violence?

    Elizabeth Please Make Up Your Mind …

    “Kent, So what you’re telling me then is that it was the victims fault that they died? A nine year old girl brought this on herself, did she? That’s sick.”

    “I need to address the claim made by pro gun advocates that I, and advocates like me, have been trying to win battles through emotional appeal. I disagree with this statemen”

    The nine year old’s parents and anyone that helped to hide the abuse made all the decisions that ultimately ended up in her death not a gun.

    FYI this has been blogged so censor it if you must just like the last set of comments. I guess you really are into open debate and understanding both sides. I guess they teach this at HHH as part of public policy to hide delete censor those ideas that challenge us. Is your argument so weak that it cannot stand up to challenge?
17. Edward says:

    August 6, 2009 at 6:13 pm

    One more thing: Were Ian Jeffrey Paget’s guns registered? Good thing we have that registry, eh? Oh wait…
18. Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret) says:

    August 6, 2009 at 6:26 pm

    WHY THE GUN IS CIVILIZATION

    Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

    In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

    When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

    There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

    Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

    When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
19. CF_sapper says:

    August 6, 2009 at 6:30 pm

    Dear elizabeth I have a question for you

    lets say that the victim of this crime was your avrage size woman and the the killer was your avrage size man. now the man has about 30-50 lbs more if he wanted to he could have killed them with his bare hands. yet is it wrong for me avrage size male to have free use of my hands? no? yet for hundreds of years the most dangose weapon was the human body.

    having gun in the house dosnt make it any more dangouse for my famialy in fact they feel safer knowing that if something goes wrong and say someone like the muder dose try to hurt my family I can defend them.

    Now would i go on a killing spree and shoot everyone in my path of course not.

    your argument and very other anti gun personal out there continue to miss the big picture guns can’t shoot themselfs if there is someone behind them with the intent to use them wether for good(soldier,cop, hunter, someone proctecting his/her family) or for evil(crimanals, mentally unbalance people, warlords, dictators) it is the person using it that should take the blame not the TOOL that they used.
20. Ryan says:

    August 6, 2009 at 7:55 pm

    Dear Elizabeth,

    I would like to reply to your comment about the open firearm being unsafe with a 9 year old.

    The way today’s society is, no an open firearm with a 9 year old is not safe. But with a little common sense parenting, then that 9 year old could be perfectly capable of respecting and properly handling a firearm. People being told to keep firearms away from children is the same as stating that “ignorance is bliss”, which it very well may be… Until that ignorant child somehow comes into contact with a firearm and has no skills to properly handle it, then ignorance is unfortunate.

    Really, if firearm safety was taught to children starting in pre-shool/elementary school (as an outcome for teachers), then many, many horrible instances like this could end up completely different. But again “ignorance is bliss”, so the ignorant have no skills to survive.

    Just think Elizabeth, how many young lives could be protected/saved if you spent less effort reporting these tragic instances involving firearms to our already knowing community and committed yourself to introducing firearm safety to children. Guns will not ever disappear, no matter what controls are put into effect, as long as somebody has a hollow stick, gun powder and a projectile. So rather than endangering lives by trying to create tougher control, why not save lives by educating? I am sure that many within the Canadian Gun Nutz community would be more than willing to help out.

    Look up “nutnfancy” on You Tube, I’m sure you’ve at least heard of/from him. Watch his video “Dangerous Things” when next you have some time to spare. He mentions a lot about skill sets, his video really helps get my point across I think.

    Thank you for taking time to at least skim over what I have typed. My best wishes to you and your family,
    Ryan
21. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 6, 2009 at 8:21 pm

    Edward, The RCMP has not released information on whether Paget’s firearms were registered, or even what type he used. Perhaps if the government hadn’t passed THREE amnesties extending the time period gun owners have to register and get proper licensure, this wouldn’t have happened. Because of the amnesties, the screening process isn’t working as effectively as it should be. Paget had been having financial difficulties for years. He was almost half a million dollars in debt. That sort of debt takes time to build up. Proper screening could have prevented this, but that would have been an infringement upon his rights, wouldn’t it?
22. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 6, 2009 at 8:23 pm

    Paul, To answer you questions on whether the money spent on the Firearms Act was worth it, yes. By the way, I’m not sure why pro gun advocates keep trying to suggest that the money was spent on the registry, as the majority of it was spent on licensing and screening.
23. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 6, 2009 at 8:27 pm

    Ryan, I’m sorry, but I completely disagree with you, as I think most people would. In pre-school and elementary school children should be learning things like reading, writing, and math, not how to be scared and paranoid of their surroundings, or how to properly hold a gun.
24. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 6, 2009 at 8:29 pm

    CF_Sapper, A gun in the home where domestic violence takes place makes the situation more dangerous. Also, I should point out that in Canada, 77% of people living with gun owners agree that gun control is essential.
25. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 6, 2009 at 8:42 pm

    GoodLord, I’ve never said that domestic violence as a whole isn’t a big issue. It is. It’s an extremely huge issue. However, I’m here working on a specific aspect of domestic abuse: the use of firearms. That doesn’t mean I don’t understand the vastness of the issue, and for you to accuse me of not caring or knowing shows how unopen you are to the opinion of others. I have talked with abuse victims, yes. And, FYI, the safety of others comes before anything else in the Bill of Rights. Guns, being dangerous weapons, are regulated for that very reason. Why am I here instead of in the US? Because the Firearms Act is being looked at as good practice by other nations in designing similar legislation. That’s why I’m here.
26. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 6, 2009 at 8:50 pm

    Turfman, Why so angry all of a sudden. You were one of the nice ones! A firearm can be used as a tool of intimidation and threat; it can be a very dangerous tool indeed. I never said that you beat your wife or that you should not be able to own a gun. You put words in my mouth, Turfman, simply because my opinion is different from yours. I appreciate the fact that you would save my life. I do question, however, if the gunnutz poster who calls me ‘twat’ on a daily basis or the one who says “I’m too dumb to try out for the special olympics” would say the same.
27. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 6, 2009 at 8:53 pm

    Turfman, You can kill A LOT more people in a lot LESS time with a firearm than you can with any other weapon. I don’t see how that’s even questionable.
28. Ryan says:

    August 6, 2009 at 8:55 pm

    Oh, no question, reading, writing, math and many other academic skills are important. But at least once a year schools should invest some time into teaching children firearm safety. My physical education teacher is always preaching to us how to safely use baseball bats and hockey sticks to minimalize injury, so why not do the same with something “more deadly”?

    Being safe with/around firearms has nothing to do with being scared or paranoid. People are not afraid of something until they learn to be afraid of it. Many wild animals are not afraid of crossing highways infront of moving vehicles because they have not learned to be afraid of doing so. If children were taught to respect firearms rather than fear them then they would not feel the slightest bit of fear, but rather a feeling of respect, just like children respect moving vehicles once they understand them.

    Also, firearm safety has much more to it than “how to properly hold a gun”. Take a firearm safety course, or even visit a gun owner and ask to handle a firearm. You will notice that under proper instruction, how you hold it is less important than proper muzzle control, trigger control, making sure that the firearm’s chamber is clear, et cetera. How to properly operate the object does not come until after one can be trusted to be safe with it.

    Doesn’t matter if this is posted upon your blog. I realize that it takes a lot of your personal time to read many, many replies and so with your reply to my original comment I felt that you may have misunderstood what I was saying due to a probable hurry to quickly read through each comment, and I just wanted to help make it more clear.
29. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 6, 2009 at 8:56 pm

    Ben, You’ve got me all wrong. I have no political agenda, unless fighting for the human rights of marginalized communities counts. Please, enlighten me if I’m missing something.
30. Edward says:

    August 6, 2009 at 9:14 pm

    Way to pick and choose what I had posted! I notice you decided not to bother allowing the post where I asked whether it was reasonable to conclude that Ian Jeffrey Paget would have refrained from killing his family if a gun hadn’t been available? Why is that?

    I think we already know the answer…
31. CF_sapper says:

    August 6, 2009 at 9:43 pm

    “Turfman, You can kill A LOT more people in a lot LESS time with a firearm than you can with any other weapon. I don’t see how that’s even questionable.”

    wanna bet I just looked up home made explosive on google for shits and giggles anyone with the intent to kill a lagre amount of people in a few seconds could do so with simple things found around the house and any idiot can mix the right stuff together to make it go boom.

    “CF_Sapper, A gun in the home where domestic violence takes place makes the situation more dangerous. Also, I should point out that in Canada, 77% of people living with gun owners agree that gun control is essential.”

    “A gun in the home where domestic violence takes place” uh yeah no kidding because there is domestic violence to begin with funny how that works eh.

    “You can kill A LOT more people in a lot LESS time with a firearm than you can with any other weapon.”

    you just agred with everything we have been trying to tell you and you still cant see it. its the person behind the weapon not the weapon itsself.

    by the way I do belive that gun control is essental.

    like where the safty is and where a safe dirction is.

    “Ryan, I’m sorry, but I completely disagree with you, as I think most people would. In pre-school and elementary school children should be learning things like reading, writing, and math, not how to be scared and paranoid of their surroundings, or how to properly hold a gun.”

    whats wrong with taking one recess away every week and replace it with a firearms saftey cousre?

    hell I would have loved that as a kid

    “not how to be scared and paranoid of their surroundings”

    Funny seems to me thats exaclty whats happening to them now. so many kids have been turned in to spinless nitwits because theres no one telling them to stand up for themselfs. its all come talk to this person come talk to that person.so how about this once a week give the class martial arts lessons? now before you go saying that that would lead to more violance how would teaching them to fight for themselfs so that in a situation where they need to defend themselfs they could do something about it?
32. Turfman Jones says:

    August 7, 2009 at 12:37 am

    Liz, you have accredited me with a WTF? I have no idea what you are referring to in your post

    Turfman, You can kill A LOT more people in a lot LESS time with a firearm than you can with any other weapon. I don’t see how that’s even questionable.

    Earth to Liz. even if you mistakenly referred to me in that post, what leads you to believe that a bomb is less destructive than a single human being can be?

    I’m not angry Liz, arguing with you is way better than arguing with the liberal hacks that come knocking at my door come election time.

    Yes, I am one of the nice guys. There are a whole bunch of us and we own guns. I am sorry that your stay in Canada has degraded to name calling and accusations. However, you have not fully grasped the plight of Canadian gun owners.

    We are under attack constantly for no other reason than the liberal media tells eveyone they should crucify the law abiding while coddling the miscreants. Is it fair? No way.

    If I could teach you in a short half hour about Canadian politics, starting with L.B. Pearson to Trudeau I would. Life is too short so I won’t. Suffice to say, Trudeau, the man everyone said was Canada’s savior almost destroyed this country. That is when the notion of “gun control” gained a little perspective. It’s all moot anyway. Gone are the days when I could sit on my front porch and clean my Winchester.

    I wish you all the best Liz, but I will fight you and Cukier with all that I have until I die. My tools? Intellect and reason.
33. P. Dusablon says:

    August 7, 2009 at 2:55 am

    Ms Mandelman,

    I have to say, you are in absolutely no position to call anybody on being close-minded when your censorship of the comments to this blog has been fully exposed. Not to mention your persistent pro-gun control stance, your refusal to meet with members of the firearms community while you will consistently meet with members of the gun control lobby.

    Not to mention that not once have I seen you say a damned thing about the human rights of the male victims of domestic abuse.

    Also, your focus on firearms being used in crimes has become practically legendary. Not to mention your clever use of statistics that you are not putting into context. First, what is the proportion of murder-suicides amongst all homicides? Second, how many of those 6 domestic homicides (out of 53 homicides) committed by an intimate partner were committed by a man and how many by a woman? Who were the other 8 domestic homicides committed against? Of the 14 domestic homicides, how many involved a firearm?

    There is one question I’ve posed to you many a time and which you’ve failed to answer every single time I asked it. What good is your precious registry when it comes to dealing with thoroughly illegal guns? You know, those that were smuggled into the country and never lawfully owned and therefore registered? No amount of gun control will protect ANYONE from those guns, make no mistake.

    I am looking forward to you answering all of my above questions, although I feel I should tell you that I am not holding my breath.

    Oh, and before I sign off, I have one more statistic to throw at you. The average number of homicides per year in Canada is +/- 600. On the other hand, the average number of deaths due to medical errors (yes, by doctors and nurses) is roughly 25 000. Tell me, Ms Mandelman, where is your outrage at this imbalance? Perhaps there should be tighter doctor and nurse control, don’t you think?

    And once more, in the interest of shedding as much light on this issue as possible, this will be sent to multiple recipients.
34. Rafael Gomez says:

    August 7, 2009 at 4:53 am

    Actually, Ms. Mandelman, guns are fairly ineffective in untrained hands. The easiest way to kill a lot more people is with improvised explosive devices – as have been used in Israel, Afghanistan, and Iraq – and with fire. Some of the worst mass-killings have been the result of one or more individuals using explosives or propellants to blow up and burn their victims.

    In fact, the worst U.S. school massacre occurred in Bath Township, Michigan, where former school board member Andrew Kehoe set off three bombs then blew himself up in his car, killing the school superintendent. 45 people were killed and 58 injured as a result.

    You also seem to ignore the 75% of victims that were not killed with a firearm. I think they deserve as much consideration as the 25% or so of individuals killed with guns.

    Furthermore, it seems you’ve overlooked the obvious fact that – as in 75% of cases – the absence of a firearm doesn’t mean people don’t get killed. While there’s no way of knowing how many of the 25% of individuals killed with firearms would still be alive today in the absence of guns its certainly naive to think that removing a gun from a violent household would prevent a murder.

    As other’s have mentioned, we need to focus on the root causes of violence – especially domestic violence – and provide victims with effective means of escaping dangerous situations. By focussing on things, rather than people, you miss the mark in this regard.
35. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 7, 2009 at 5:42 am

    Edward, Believe it or not, I do have other things to do during my day than sit and wait for the multiple comments you post to each of my entries. I make sure to read the comments of people who don’t comment on a regular basis, so that their opinion is also heard. Patience, Edward, patience.
36. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 7, 2009 at 5:51 am

    P. Dusablon, How many times do I have to explain to you before you let it sink in that
    A. If I find a comment offensive and choose not to post it, it is my perogative. You and a few of your gun nut buddies are the only people accusing me of censorship, so I’m not too worried about it.
    B. I have talked extensively with a few members of the pro gun community. Do you follow me around all day, tracking my moves, because if not, I would stop accusing me of things you clearly know nothing about.
    C. I am here in Canada working on a specific issue….the issue of firearms use in domestic violence. Women are the victims of abuse 90% of the time. Let’s look at the bigger picture here, P. Dusablon, I’m not excluding anyone, I’m focusing on the majority of people who are abused: women.
    D. If you’re so paranoid to think that I’m making a ‘clever use of statistics’ I don’t know why you even take the time to read my entries.
    E. The Firearms Act isn’t foolproof, and nobody is pretending it is. I’m not. Never have.
    F. There are a lot of injustices in this world. Medical errors shouldn’t occur at such a high rate. I’m not here working on medical errors, and the fact that you think any number of homicides are less important to focus on because fewer occur is sad.
37. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 7, 2009 at 5:57 am

    Dalton, I’ve never said abuse against men doesn’t exist, and never said that it’s not an awful thing. I also never stated that abuse through other forms doesn’t exist, nor that they shouldn’t be taken seriously. I don’t understand why I have to keep explaining this to people. By the way, you failed to mention that the women involved were his wife and two mistresses. I just thought I’d point that out to those who don’t know the whole story.
38. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 7, 2009 at 6:01 am

    Soulchaser, I’m not here focusing on all violent crimes, I’m here focusing on domestic abuse. Look at the number of firearms used in instances of domestic violence, those statistics are telling. Additionally, you need to add to that figure the number of times firearms are used to threaten and intimidate a victim. Just because a victim isn’t shot with a firearm doesn’t mean that they aren’t fearful for their lives as a result of one being present in the home.
39. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 7, 2009 at 6:05 am

    Brad, How does the fact that you live closer to where this tragedy took place make you anymore qualified to comment on it than I? That makes very little sense. If the statistics and facts that I presented in my blog aren’t good enough for you, although they come directly from the Alberta RCMP, then you clearly have very little trust in the truth.
40. Simon says:

    August 7, 2009 at 6:07 am

    “I appreciate the fact that you would save my life. I do question, however, if the gunnutz poster who calls me ‘twat’ on a daily basis or the one who says “I’m too dumb to try out for the special olympics” would say the same.”

    Elizabeth, the Canadian firearm community is one that values action far beyond words. Disliking a person is different from wanting them dead, and as far as we’re all concerned, NOT doing something to stop a murderer (enabling it to happen) is just one step down from being a murderer.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis
41. Brad from Alberta says:

    August 7, 2009 at 6:17 am

    Do you know that Canada isn’t the same culture from East to West? What passes as acceptable civics in Ontario is not the same as Alberta?

    You have no stats from the Alberta RCMP that pass as truth when the stats are incomplete, selective and seemingly contradict national stats.

    When it comes to items of safety, like safe storage as mandated by law, it is considered ridiculous here, in point of fact, even deadly. How is it viewed in the halls of academia in Ontario?

    A fact is only a fact when it is suppoorted by evidence. All your facts are refuted by published statistics. Period. End of story.

    Your single issue crusade can only occur at the expense of others, creating more marginalized folks.
42. Rafael Gomez says:

    August 7, 2009 at 6:22 am

    “C. I am here in Canada working on a specific issue….the issue of firearms use in domestic violence. Women are the victims of abuse 90% of the time. Let’s look at the bigger picture here, P. Dusablon, I’m not excluding anyone, I’m focusing on the majority of people who are abused: women.”

    I’m sorry Elizabeth, but you’re wrong here as well. Canadian statistics suggest that 80% victims of domestic violence are women. While, clearly, any number is unacceptable, you should endeavor to be accurate.

    I find it a little disingenuous to suggest that you’re not “excluding anyone” when you clearly don’t even mention the 20% of victims that are male.

    The latest statistics clearly show that while males make up a much smaller percentage of victims overall they are more likely to be the victims of serious assault – stabbings, etc. by a margin of 10%.

    I do agree with you that domestic violence is unacceptable. However, I find it just as unacceptable when the victim is male instead of female. In fact, that the victim is male or female, a child, adult, or senior should not temper our disapproval.

    Frankly, I don’t see how focusing on gun control helps victims of abuse – women particularly – escape the abusive relationships they’re trapped in. Maybe you can enlighten me, because I just don’t see it.
43. soulchaser says:

    August 7, 2009 at 6:52 am

    Elizabeth:

    Thank you for responding.

    You mentioned that I need to add to the statistics I mentiond the number of times a firearm is not fired in an incident, but used to threaten or as intimidation. Yet you failed to provide a link to those statistics. If you could do so it would be appreciated.

    Also, in your original post you said: “In 2006 (a report was not submitted for 2007), twelve of thirty-six homicides (thirty-three percent) resulted from domestic violence, and firearms contributed to twelve (thirty-three percent) of the total number of homicides. In 2005, thirty-one of the forty-nine homicides (sixty-three percent) investigated were attributed to domestic violence, and eleven of the forty-nine homicides were a result of firearms (twenty-two percent).”

    Do you have a break-down of how many of the victims were women and how many of the victims were men? Seeing as how your main focus is violence against women, by not telling the reader how many victims were men, you, I feel by design, are attempting to influence the readers opinion that all the victims of these cases were women.

    I wonder if the case of a London, Ontario police officer’s murder-suicide is included in those statistics. A male and female officer were involved in a love affair. the FEMALE officer used her service pistol to kill the male officer, then herself. See the story here:

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/06/08/officers-london.html

    Also, in a response to a comment, you said that a gun can kill faster than any other weapon. Are you aware of what happened on June 8th 2008 in Japan? In the city of Akihabara an individual used his car as a weapon, then went on a stabbing rampage. In a matter of seconds, the individual responsible had killed 7 and seriously injured 11 more. As you will read in the story, this happened on the anniversary of another mass stabbing tha left 8 children dead in Osaka City in 2001. Here is the story:

    http://zichi.blogspot.com/2008/06/another-mass-stabbing-japan.html

    My point Elizabeth is that a PERSON bent on injuring or killing another person will do so with whatever “tool” is at his/her disposal, and can do so as “efficiently” (probably not the right word to use here) as using a firearm.

    Take care.
44. ben says:

    August 7, 2009 at 7:35 am

    a simple fact is that WE the gun right activist , the root mouvment with no money, no real organisation and a basic human right (self-defence) will oppose you and your views at every step.
45. Frank says:

    August 7, 2009 at 8:05 am

    Ms. Mandelman, as a law abiding citizen that is a gun owner, target shooter and hunter, I have always resented the fact that policies on gun control in this great country of ours (it really is the greatest on Earth) always seems to target the segment of the population that is least likely to commit a violent crime in the first place. Why? Is it because it makes great press when our Politicians anounce stricter gun control immediately after a tragic event. Personally I’m disgusted that Politicians would even think about using tragedies to make political gains. Maybe that’s not the case and David and Dalton are just so out of touch with reality that they actually believe more gun control can prevent these tragedies. History is on our side though because handguns have been registered since the 1930’s and somehow unregistered, illegally possessed handguns are still being used to commit crimes. How can that be happening when it is the law that they be registered and the owners have a licence to possess them? Once again the laws target the wrong people.
    Everytime I see a news bit, or read an article about a tragedy such as the one you mention in Alberta, I can’t help but wonder if 2 Billion dollars spent on Women’s shelters and ad campaigns to get the message out that people(women as well as men) have options and don’t have to stay in a bad relationship, or can raise their concerns if they fear for their safety wouldn’t be money better spent than a registry of firearms owned by those least likely to use them in a violent crime. I would bet my suggested alternative would have a much better chance of saving lives. If that idea isn’t acceptable then how about 2 Billion spent on more officers and technology to prevent the smuggling of illegal firearms and drugs into our country. I strongly believe the two (drugs and guns) are joined at the hip and have a chicken or egg relationship.
    One ridiculous reason that I’ve heard for keeping the gun registry is for employment. Both of my alternative suggestions would create employment too.
    In summary I just want to say that I would like to see effective measures taken to reduce these needless deaths rather than ones that look good on the news or in print.
46. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 7, 2009 at 8:07 am

    Frank, Thank you for your respectful and well-thought out comment.
47. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 7, 2009 at 8:19 am

    Qballs-I just don’t think that asking someone to fill out paperwork and get a license to own a firearm is asking too much. I understand that guns are used for sportsmanship purposes. In Minnesota, the majority of people I know hunt. I have a co-worker who lives away from the city in a rural area, and they use firearms for things like pest control. I have nothing against owning a firearm; however, in my opinion, you’ve got to be held accountable for owning something that can be very dangerous if used improperly. I also think that the government has a responsibility to make sure that people they are granting licenses too are stable enough to own guns. Additionally, the government has a responsibility to hinder the illicit trade of small arms; many illegal guns start out legal. Having proper records of the firearms that are in Canada is very important for this reason.

    Do I think that it’s necessary to carry a gun in your bag or under the seat of your car when you’re running errands? No. Absolutely not. The United States and Canada, moreorless, are very peaceful places, and law enforcement does a good job of protecting people who need protection. When I walk by myself at night do I keep my cellphone in my hand as a precaution? Of course. Do I think to myself “Gosh, I would be so much safer if only I had a gun?” No way. In fact, I think the opposite.
48. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 7, 2009 at 8:22 am

    Ben, What’s your point? Is that something you think I don’t know? I would, however, like to remind you of an organization called the NRA. I know, pro gun advocates in Canada claim they have no organized movement. I wonder, then, why there are NRA moderators on CanadianGunNutz.com. I also wonder why the NRA provides funding to pro gun candidates and advocates in Canada. You’re fooling no one when you say there is no organized movement.
49. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 7, 2009 at 8:29 am

    Rafael, Statistics vary from report to report. If you’re going to state that a 10% difference in the number of women being abused makes a difference, then it’s clear you don’t understand the severity of the problem.
    Also, again, I’m here working on a specific issue and again, that issue is the use of firearms in abuse against women. I never said abuse against men isn’t as awful. I know that there are some gunnutters who have taken it upon themselves to count the number of comments that have been posted on my blog (I would think there are more entertaining things to do than that, but, to each their own); perhaps someone could take some time to count the number of times I have specifically stated that domestic abuse against males in no less important than against females. While they’re at it, perhaps they could also count the number of times that I’ve said that I’m not against law-abiding citizens owning guns. Maybe with some empirical data on those statements, the pro gun community will believe me.
50. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 7, 2009 at 8:36 am

    Brad, My stats aren’t incomplete. In fact, I summarized all of the data that I was given. Also, the fact that the culture of Ontario varies from East to West does not make Paget shooting three family members and himself okay.

Leave a Reply

36 Responses to “An Interview with Dr. Alok Mukherjee, Chair, Toronto Police Services Board”

1. Matt says:

   August 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm

   Ms. Mandelman:

   The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police support for the firearms registry has nothing to do with public safety, and everything to do with the CACP protecting several lucrative sources of funding for their corrupt group. For example:

   The CACP receives funding from Power Corp, a very powerful group in Quebec with a long history of Liberal Party of Canada support. The CACP supports the Liberal long gun registry, they continue to receive funding.

   The CACP also receives funding from the CGI Group, a computer/technology company, also out of Quebec. It just so happens that the CGI Group is the compant that supplies the registry with the computer systems and software to maintain it.

   This interview with Dr. Mukherjee contains alot of his OPINIONS, alot of he FEELS, and he THINKS, with little FACT to back it up. He feels only police should have handguns. He does realize police have their firearms stolen as well right? Just today, August 3rd, there is an article in the Toronto Star talking about an OPP officer having his service pistol and a bunch of police equipment stolen. Two or three months ago, yet another OPP officer had a semi automatic rifle, four 30 round magazines (which are prohibited devices to civilian firearms owners) and well as a quantity of ammunition stolen out of his cruiser while it was parked in front of his house……for THREE DAYS.

   He claims that handguns have no sporting purpose. What is his definition of “sporting purpose”? Maybe he should call th Pan Am games and tell them thier handgun shooting events aren’t “sporting.” Tell all the people who use handguns to shoot events with IPSC or IDPA or Cowboy Action Shooting they have no “sporting purpose.” We ARE NOT ALLOWED to use them for hunting, because the Liberals specifically put it into the Firearms Act, simply to protect the anti gun establisment in Canada’s tired old “they serve no purpose” argument as justification to continue to demand they be banned.
2. harblthecat says:

   August 3, 2009 at 3:06 pm

   While Dr. Alok Mukherjee has expressed some very good points at the end of his interview, specifically pertaining for the need for better discussion and better debate on the subject of gun control.

   Obviously, I am disagreement about the relevance of the gun registry. I believe Dr. Mukherjee’s experience is all theoretical and based upon information provided to him by his own sources. Again, the credibility of some of the sources he cites in my mind is questionable at best (mentioning either the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or even Toronto, in my mind and the mind of firearms owners across the country is enough to make us feel any information he cites as being discredited).

   This dwells deep into an all encompassing notion of political and social philosophy. That being that within society, there are those who feel comfortable believing Government should have all encompassing power over it’s citizens and there are those who feel terrified of that same principle.

   Within both bodies of people, there are those who can be trusted to hold the better interest of themselves and those in their community, and there are those who will violate the that interest for whatever selfish reasons they may have.

   The current system of Canadian Gun Control is a paramount example of Government having an encompassing power over it’s citizens, and worse, specifically targets the people within society who are not dangerous, under the guise of trying to maintain safety from those who are.

   Again, how can the Gun Registry be effective when it is full of errors and incomplete? An Auditor General’s report in 2006 found there were unacceptably high error rates in the data contained in the Registry. It is estimated that 50-60% of all legally procured firearms in this country are registered.

   How can the current system of classification of firearms be considered effective when it is ambiguous and unenforceable? As you mentioned, often times manufacturers produce firearms that are still within the letter of the law, but completely against the intended spirit of it. (You were incorrect on this one, all firearms still must be registered, regardless of their classification).

   What recourse do the millions of Canadians who own firearms have, if bans and confiscation advocated by Dr. Mukherjee come into affect?

   You mention the “protection of marginalized communities,” but the reality is that the gun owners in Canada has become a marginalized community and there is no one protecting us.

   Libertarians believe that no one has the right to deny the life, freedom, or happiness of anyone else, except as reasonable means of self defense. This principle has to apply to Government, just as much as it does to individuals. Therefore, creating a system designed to manipulate and control one group of people (such as the Canadian system of gun control does over gun owners) is just as unacceptable as individuals using violence, aggression, or coercion to manipulate and control other individuals (as is universally the case in situations where abuse or violent crime is present).

   Thanks Elizabeth,

   HTC
3. Graham says:

   August 3, 2009 at 3:08 pm

   Elizabeth:

   Why are people like yourself and Wendy Cukier, who claim to be interested in women’s rights and protecting women from domestic violence, against giving women all the tools necessary to protect themselves from falling victim to the acts of violence?

   Take the concealed carry of handguns. If an attacker thought there was the possibility of a woman carrying a concealed handgun, don’t you think the attacker would think twice before going after her? In the first year after Michigan passed their concealed carry law, rapes fell 7%.

   The fact is, in order for you to continue to receive money and feel relevant, you NEED women to continue to be victims.
4. In weed we trust says:

   August 3, 2009 at 3:09 pm

   So Mukherjee asserted that civilians should be banned from acquiring handgun, and that only police officers should have access to them?

   the police in favor of a “police state” go figure

   name one bout of road rage where a gun was pulled in Ontario?, i f you find one i something tells me the person had it illegally in the first place
5. Chris R. says:

   August 3, 2009 at 3:31 pm

   “Additionally, the current loophole that allows manufacturers to slightly alter a firearm and market it to the public as a new model not needing to be registered (because the list included in the legislation it out of date and contained no measure to regularly update it) needs to be corrected.”

   All modern firearms must be registered, so the above sentence is very misleading and totally false. Based on mistakes like this, it should not be surprising that dialogues of yours receive criticism. Also, if someone’s criticism of your work is undeserved or is based on bad information, don’t not post the dialogue, show why the criticism is unjustified.
6. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

   August 3, 2009 at 3:32 pm

   Graham, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, this is a self-funded fellowship. I’m not receiving ANY money, from anyone.

   Additionally, as I’ve also said before, denying the fact that women are victimized and that I “NEED women to continue to be victims” to feel relevant just continues to illustrate the way in which pro gun advocates (and I’d add to that father’s rights groups) marganilize the subject. It’s sad, really.
7. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

   August 3, 2009 at 3:42 pm

   Chris, No new firearms have been added to the restricted or prohibited list for over a decade. This is indeed a loophole, and it’s being exploited by many firearms retailers. Many new firearms have been designed that are being sold in Canada that meet the criteria to be on the prohibited or restricted lists. Here’s an example of a website advertisement from Wolverine Supplies is Manitoba:
   The final class is the Prohibited (With out grandfathering) this
   would include (but not limited to) firearms from all the Prohibited
   Grandfathered classes that were not registered into the system prior
   to their respective cut off dates. Do not try and register one of
   these firearms (Even during an amnesty) you will lose it! If you
   have something interesting in this area contact me and I will explain
   your options, Yes you do have more options than simply surrending
   her, but don’t delay.
   There are many errors and misunderstandings concerning the
   classification of different firearms. The following are just a few
   examples. Lots of people think all Fifty cal rifles are prohibited.
   WRONG!!!! Some are, and some are not. The Mini 14 is still not
   restricted, folding stocks are legal, so are factory shotguns with 14
   inch barrels. An MP5 SMG would have to be either a FA or CA. The
   factory semi auto version, the HK 94 would be in the 12.5 class. This is
   very straighforward and easy to understand. However when you look
   at the FN FAL family you have firearms that could be in either FA, CA
   or the 12.5 class, and some FN FAL whose correct classification can
   not be determined. These last ones are accepted at face value in
   whatever class they are currently registered in.
   Here at Wolverine Supplies we deal in all classes of firearms. We
   supply both private citizens and Government Agencies, literally from
   coast to coast. Whilst we do not support all the current facets of our
   firearm control system, we will follow the law. Due to my long
   extensive involvement in the Canadian Firearms Industry I have a
   better than average understanding of our system, if you have any
   concerns regarding any intended purchase, please phone or e-mail me.
   John Hipwell
   President
   Wolverine Supplies
8. Chris R. says:

   August 3, 2009 at 5:29 pm

   “Chris, No new firearms have been added to the restricted or prohibited list for over a decade.”

   Now hold on, you wrote that the firearms didn’t need to be registered, which is incorrect. You mentioned nothing about prohibition orders, and what you said in your reply is completely different than what I replied to. Also, how is not adding to the prohibited list a loophole?

   “I’ve made clear in many of my posts, and comments, that I’m not opposed to people owning firearms safely and legally for sportsmanship purposes. I’m pretty sure there are even a few gun nutz who would be willing to back me up on that one. You may want to take a look back at my entries and comments.”

   I’ll back you up on this one, but I think that hand guns are sporting arms, along with the AR-15 and many other firearms that are currently restricted….
9. Paul says:

   August 3, 2009 at 6:13 pm

   Elizabeth,

   You should read up on the CACP and where they get funding before trusting anything they say in relation to the registry.

   Give who the good Dr was hired by his views are inline with the agenda the people who appointed him.

   “Lastly, although there has been no consensus on this, as it is more of a ‘big city’ issue, the Board believes that handguns should be banned. They are often used in instances of gang violence, and are not used for sporting purposes. As a result, Dr. Mukherjee asserted that civilians should be banned from acquiring handgun, and that only police officers should have access to them. “

   Hunting with handguns is a sporting activity, but that has been legislated away. The Olympics have handgun events that are sport. Many people all over Canada participate in IPSC, IDPA, 3 Gun and on and on those are sporting events.

   I guess the logic here is that if handguns are illegal criminals will respect the law. Criminals will not respect the rule of law. The only people that will be punished are law-abiding owners.

   “Coming from a human rights background, Dr. Mukherjee understands the importance of equality. He recognizes that there are many gun owners in Canada that use their firearms for sporting purposes, and do so safely.”

   But yet he would take my property and sport away. Interesting he would erase my rights because criminals also use firearms.

   “However, gun control measures established by the government must take into account the objectives of public safety, the protection of marginalized communities (such as those who are domestically abused), and the reduction of crime, before catering to the opponents of gun control.”

   Yes, because we have been so catered too. Unless by catered you mean smashed in the teeth by a hammer.
10. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 4, 2009 at 5:39 am

    Chris, Go back and read my original entry. I wrote that there are new firearms being designed that haven’t been added to the prohibited or restricted list, and if I didn’t use those words explicitly, it was implied. Retailers are able to market these firearms as ones which can be purchsed and not registered, because the lists have not been updated. My original post clearly states this, and the example I provided backs it up.
11. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 4, 2009 at 5:43 am

    P. Dusablon-You’ve clearly chosen to read my statements how you see fit, rather than putting them into perspective and that’s become very clear over the course of my time here. Because of that, there is no point in me wasting my breath.
12. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 4, 2009 at 5:47 am

    Jayde, The interview I had with Dr. Mukherjee lasted an hour and he did provide facts. In fact, in the beginning of the video clip he offered statistics of the use of firearms in instances of sexual assault.

    I have looked into Professor Mauser’s history. Do an engine search on his name. If he at one time was for gun control, he definitely isn’t anymore, and that becomes clear through a simple search. I’ve taken the time to talk to many people in the pro gun community, a couple of whom told me they too used to support gun contol. I’ve done a sufficient job of soliciting the opinion of both sides of the argument, regardless of being told otherwise.
13. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 4, 2009 at 8:43 am

    Edward, Your owning guns may not place others in danger, but how is the Canadian government to know that unless you go through the proper procedures to determine whether you’re fit to own a firearm. Additionally, oftentimes mental illness creeps up on an individual, which is why there are periodic screening measures in place. The registry also helps with this. If an individual has a psychotic breakdown and officers become involved, the register helps them prepare for the situation. Therefore, it is the business of the government to know what you’re in possession of, in case of such an episode. Lastly, you fail to mention that in England the crime rate in involving firearms has gone down since the legislation’s implementation.
14. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 4, 2009 at 8:50 am

    P. Dunaldson, Your persepctive is quite different in that you’re twisting my words to mean things that they don’t. It’s very unfair. I have never likened law-abiding firearms owners to criminals or gang members, nor have I portrayed all soldiers to state-sanctioned murderers or all firearms owners owners to rapists in waiting. Open your eyes. You’re not the victim. The women being abused and threatened with firearms are. What gives me the right to advocate for removing firearms from the hands of perpetrators? As a human being, I am afforded that right. As human beings, we have the responsibility to help keep our communities and our world safe. You just care too much about “you” and about playing a victim whose rights are being violated to realize that.
15. Mark says:

    August 4, 2009 at 8:55 am

    Elizabeth: You need to the check the LAW. The statement: “Additionally, the current loophole that allows manufacturers to slightly alter a firearm and market it to the public as a new model not needing to be registered (because the list included in the legislation it out of date and contained no measure to regularly update it) needs to be corrected”, IS WRONG. By law ALL firearms in Canada must be registed.
16. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 4, 2009 at 9:00 am

    Mark, Thanks for the suggestion, but I have checked the law. Apparently though, the law, Dr. Mukherjee, and the law enforcement officials I’ve checked with are just flat out wrong. Not surprising, since apparently I’m wrong about everything, along with all of the individuals I’m interviewed during my time here, no matter what their credentials.
17. Edward says:

    August 4, 2009 at 10:28 am

    “but how is the Canadian government to know that unless you go through the proper procedures to determine whether you’re fit to own a firearm.”

    First, who says they need to know?
    Second, we already go through a measure that determines fitness. That is what the PAL licensing program accomplishes. The registry on the other hand contributes nothing as far as determining fitness is concerned.
    Thirdly it is not up to me to prove that I am fit, the onus is on the powers that be to determine that I am not. This is the ONLY circumstance where a restriction of freedom ought to be permissible in a free society.

    “Additionally, oftentimes mental illness creeps up on an individual, which is why there are periodic screening measures in place. The registry also helps with this.”

    No, the registry does not help with this. At all. The reality that a database containing names and serial numbers does not speak to the mental health of certain individuals, ought to be self-evident.
    Also, even if the registry were a useful tool in screening for mental illness, mental illness is an exception, not a rule. Therefore in addition to being useless in terms of screening for mental illness, arguing that it is justification for preserving the registry is a logical fallacy.
18. Mark says:

    August 4, 2009 at 10:58 am

    Re: current loophole that allows manufacturers to slightly alter a firearm and market it to the public as a new model not needing to be registered

    Elizabeth; re your comment : “Apparently though, the law, Dr. Mukherjee, and the law enforcement officials I’ve checked with are just flat out wrong. Not surprising, since apparently I’m wrong about everything, along with all of the individuals I’m interviewed during my time here, no matter what their credentials.”

    I realize your above comments are sarcastic and that you would much rather believe a gun control “expert” with questionable credentials than someone who actually works with firearms, but please do yourself a favor and check out the RCMP’s CFC web site at : http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/faq/index-eng.htm#a2.

    According to this RCMP/CFC web page: “Both the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act contain offences and penalties for illegal possession or misuse of a firearm. For example, a first-time offender who has failed to register a non-restricted rifle or shotgun may be charged under the Firearms Act or under the Criminal Code. A person who has failed to register a restricted or prohibited firearm or who has used a firearm to commit a crime would be charged under the Criminal Code.”

    Remember there are 3 classes of firearms in Canada, ( prohibited, restricted & non-restricted firearms) and according to the above paragraph, you can be charged under the Criminal code for not registering any of the above class of firearm.

    Cheers Mark

    Ps I think Dr Mukherjee maybe confused with the American “Assault weapon” law which defined an assault weapon based on some cosmetic features rather than function. As a result of this bill many of the American small arms manufactures removed or changed some of these banned cosmetic features in order to avoid being banned.
19. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 4, 2009 at 10:59 am

    Edward, In keeping society safe, government does need to know whether you’re fit to own a firearm. It’s part of their responsibility in keeping society safe.

    The registry is helpful not in determing whether someone with a mental illness is fit to own a firearm (I clearly know this is done through licensing), but in helping police officers prepare the proper response in instances where individuals having psychotic episodes may be involved. I have a relative with a mental illness. I have seen them have psychotic episodes. Would I want the police to know before responding to a call my relative might be involved in whether they have a firearm registered to their name? YES. 100% YES. I never said that the registry speaks to the mental health of an invidual. What I said it is helpful in a situation like the one I just spoke of.

    And, you mention the powers that be. The ‘powers that be’ is the government.

    Lastly, unfortunately, mental illness is not an exception. Many people suffer from many different types of mental illness. Does this mean that anybody with a mental illness should not be allowed access to a gun for sportsmanship purposes? No, not at all, but it’s important to recognize that the screening process and registry are there for a reason, and it’s not to take away your rights, but to keep society safe.
20. Edward says:

    August 4, 2009 at 11:29 am

    I have a question: Setting aside the issue of the registry for a moment, where do you stand on the question of using a firearm for self-defense, registered or not? Would you use a firearm for self defense? If you wouldn’t, would you still allow that others have the right to do so?

    BTW you still haven’t established the efficacy of gun control in terms of reducing violence. Statistics don’t support that assertion.

    As to the example of your mentally ill relative, there are plenty of other items that that one could hurt themselves or others with. Should we therefore register these as well? Would it not be more effective for the police to assume that they may use ANYTHING that they might put their hands on in such a fashion if it became necessary for them to intervene? In fact you will find that police officers who value their own safety do just that, registry or no.
21. qballs says:

    August 4, 2009 at 3:25 pm

    There sure is a lot of “IF’s”, and “in case” excuses in the above – Our licencing and storage requirements already takes care of these supposed scenarios.

    We also have to remember – murder, assault, the use of force against another person is already illegal, no matter which weapon or tool you use…
    Those that choose to step over that boundary will not care about a little piece of paper saying this gun is registered.

    The registry has been and will continue to be a colossal waste of money. Why can’t we take the money spent on it and hire more police, better social programs, etc…..

    You will never get criminals to comply with licencing or registration, and with the reports of the inaccuracies of the current registry, why throw good money after bad??

    I do get concerned about the inaccuracies reported here and by Wendy Cukier, David Miller, etc. Why is fear such a part of the strategy??
    Why is there so many questions about the CACP and their views on the registry, tasers, etc. that do not seem to get properly answered??
    I agree with the comments someone had put on your last interview about the women’s shelters – put some of the registry money towards a hand up for those women.
    I guess I do not understand why the focus on guns themselves.
22. Brad from Alberta says:

    August 4, 2009 at 4:16 pm

    The questions on mental illness on the PAL application are intrusive. The goverment does not need to know if I have a mental illness, they do not need to know if I’ve lost my job, thought about suicide or been divorced, seperated or have any ex-girlfriends (or boyfirends if I was so disposed). Plain and simple.

    But the best part about it all, they could not possibly know if I answered any of those questions truthfully. There is no mental illness registry, no lost job database (unless I claim EI), there is no suicidal tendancies list, nor any ended relationship registry.

    So, now, you tell me, Elizabeth, how many untruthful answers are out there? How many are truthful? Is there anyone to know the difference, or be able to verify the true from the untrue? I’ll save you the trouble of wasting time on Google, there isn’t anyone or any resource to do this.

    So, tell me again how the license system in Canada prevents someone unfit from having a gun, other than someone making a public safety concern call (which has been done long before the Registry came along)? Two billion dollars well spent, they don’t even know if all that costly info is correct at all, not even a clue.

    Any claim that our license and registration system helps anyone just evaporated. Any further attempt to justify it is a plain, old lie, and you know it.
23. Bruce says:

    August 4, 2009 at 4:17 pm

    Why should the law-abiding have to prove their law-abiding-ness to the State? All so-called “gun control laws” do is to shift the burden of responsibility from those who commit criminal acts onto the backs of those who don’t. This is “reverse onus”, “prior restraint”, “guilty until proven innocent”, not to mention unfair and unjust.

    *This* is why we are so dead-set against your version of “gun contorl” – because it does nothing to target the actual problem – actual criminals who actually misuse guns to actually commit crimes!
24. Stephen K. says:

    August 4, 2009 at 5:09 pm

    Elizabeth,

    Perhaps you should focus on violence and gun control within you own country. The “loose” gun laws and the higher rate of crime in America are often cited in Canada as an example for the need of tighter firearms laws here. Additionally, perhaps tighter gun control within your own country would lead to less firearms being smuggled illegally into Canada, thus keeping unregistered firearms out of the hands of Canadian criminals. I would also note that many firearms sold in Canada are manufactured within the United States. Perhaps campaigning to regulate, reduce or end the manufacturing of firearms withing you own country would be an effective weapon against violence. While you are at it, perhaps you can fight the glorification of criminal activity and gun violence that is common within your country in the pop music industry. In fact, I support you in effecting change within your own country, just not mine.

    Steve.
25. Paul says:

    August 4, 2009 at 5:14 pm

    Elizabeth

    “Lastly, you fail to mention that in England the crime rate in involving firearms has gone down since the legislation’s implementation.”

    Of course it has for the last 4 years because that’s way the government wants it. They changed the way the information is reported. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3222063/Gun-crime-60pc-higher-than-official-figures.html)

    If the ban is working why does the government need to put its thumb on the scale? It’s pathetic and a shame of public safety just like what has and is happening in this country.

    Thanks,

    Paul
26. Paul Friesen says:

    August 4, 2009 at 5:28 pm

    Why are gun registry opponents so unprepared to listen to the police, whose lives are at stake when they respond to a call?

    Even in its current form, the registry has been very useful in getting guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.

    Think what we could do if the registry were properly enforced. If responsible gun owners register their guns, any other guns out there should be liable to seizure.

    Right now, of course the registry is incomplete because of the lack of will to stand up to the registry opponents. That makes it much less effective than it ought to be.

    We need a way to allow firearms to be used by people who need them for legitimate purposes, but get them out of the hands of people who develop mental illness or become violent for other reasons. The registry is an important piece of that puzzle.
27. Jarlath says:

    August 4, 2009 at 7:16 pm

    You continually state that the registry is a valuable tool for police in the case of individuals who develop mental illness. Yet I question this in general. When the Police run a name, they find out if he (assume for your arguments that it is a man) has/has a firearms license. That license tells the police what types of firearms the man can legally possess. Non-Restricted, Restricted and several classes of Prohibited fireaems. Tell me now how the registry makes any difference when the police ALREADY know that the person can own firearms. Maybe the police should assume that if the individual has a PAL that allows for restricted firearms, that he most likely has a handgun? Heaven forbid that you somehow cannot fathom that police cannot make such a leap of logic. So if he can legally own handguns, does it matter if he has 1, 2, 3, 10, 20? He has possible access to handguns. Period. End. discussion. Usefulness of registry? Zero.

    The problem is that what if that same individual has never had a PAL? Do you believe that the police will assume that if the mentally ill individual does not come up a a legal firearms owner that they should approach the situation as though there are no firearms present? I would hope not. Again, usefulness of registry equals zero.

    Your reasoning that registration allows for “a full inventory” of what said mentally ill individual possesses is pitiful as every single time there has been a legal firearms owner who has been charged has had their homes searched for everything gun related. Go look up Ernest McKenzie, a gun smith who had several hundred firearms confiscated because of something that his roommate did. Three years later and tens of thosands of dollars of legal fees and he was acquitted of all 4 charges, yet his method of employment was destroyed for three years, he is still missing several thousand dollars of missing firearms which the police say they never had in their possession. An innocent man, whose life was destroyed because of this vaunted program supposedly to help keep Canadians safe. This person and many other Canadians who were law abiding have had to face tens of thousands in legal fees, negative media, and years of legal battles to prove their innocence. Yet Criminals who do not get a licence or register their guns get free lawyers, and 2 for 1 credit for time served and a “Prohibition on possessing weapons”.
    Yes lets support a registration which does ZERO to actually protect Canadians from those who would commit violence on others. How about a registry of those NOT allowed to own firearms. It would be alot simpler and cheaper to maintain and far more easier to enforce.
28. Pittsky says:

    August 4, 2009 at 8:17 pm

    Elizabeth said:

    Additionally, oftentimes mental illness creeps up on an individual, which is why there are periodic screening measures in place. The registry also helps with this.

    ===========================

    Elizabeth, could you please explain to me how the registry helps with this?

    I look forward to your response.

    Jeff
29. From Advocacynet, August 3, 2009, An Interview with Dr. Alok Mukherjee, Chair, Toronto Police Services Board « The Coalition for Gun Control/Pour le Controle des Armes says:

    August 5, 2009 at 6:09 am

    [...] Posted by cgccanada on August 5, 2009 Dr. Alok Mukherjee is the current Chair of Toronto’s Police Services Board. He joined the board in 2004, having been appointed by the City Council, and was elected by his colleagues as Chair in 2005.  Prior to his service with the Board, Dr. Mukherjee served as Acting Chief Commissioner and Vice Chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and was also a member of the Ontario Civilian Coalition on Police Services. Additionally, he was an instructor of South Asian studies at York University. The Toronto Police Services Board has many responsibilities, including determining the objectives and priorities of their municipalities police services in conjunction with the Chief of Police, establishing policies for the effective management of their police services, and establishing guidelines for the administration of the public complaints system.  Despite his very busy schedule, Dr. Mukherjee spent time with me talking about the usefulness of the Firearms Act not only in combating domestic violence, but also other problems such as gang violence.  According to Dr. Mukherjee, because police officers are the individuals that actually utilize the measures included in the Firearms Act, they are best equipped and most able to comment on its effectiveness. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Association of Police Boards, and the Canadian Police Association all publicly support the Firearms Act. Dr. Mukherjee feels that this should carry more weight with policymakers and the public than it currently does. Dr. Mukherjee thinks that there is a direct parallel between gun control, crime, and quality of life. With gun control measures in place, fewer domestic disputes turn deadly, and fewer mentally ill individuals gain access to firearms and use them during psychotic episodes.  In addition, a reduction in gang violence results (which is a significant problem in Toronto), and even rare situations, like guns being pulled during bouts of road rage, decrease. In other words, gun control correlates with safety, and when individuals and communities are safer, there is an increase in quality of life.  In fact, although the Police Services Board supports the Firearms Act, they think that it should go even further to protect society. Among the changes the Board believes need to be made to the Firearms Act are stricter enforcement measures at the borders, and clearer marking of stolen firearms. By marking seized firearms that may lack serial numbers, the government and police would have a clearer idea of the total number of guns in Canada. Additionally, the current loophole that allows manufacturers to slightly alter a firearm and market it to the public as a new model not needing to be registered (because the list included in the legislation it out of date and contained no measure to regularly update it) needs to be corrected… more [...]
30. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 5, 2009 at 6:20 am

    Brad, Clearly you think the government is good for some things, like collecting EI if you lose your job. It’s funny how you think the government should support you if you lose your job, but that they have no right to help other citizens by keeping them safe through the Firearms Act. I see how it is.
31. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 5, 2009 at 6:23 am

    Stephen, People keep telling me that I should go back to my own country. Do you think that the other fellows working with AP who are working in places like the Congo and Namimbia should also keep their noses out of the business of those governments, where corruption and violence run rampant? Or is it just me, because domestic violence with firearms and things like gang violence aren’t important to gun owners here in Canada?
32. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 5, 2009 at 6:25 am

    Pittsky, If you’re going to quote something I said, quote everything, not just what you feel like you need to, to make a point. Go back and read what I wrote in it’s entirety, and you’ll have your answer.
33. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 5, 2009 at 6:27 am

    Paul (tandy), Is there any government that you trust, anywhere? It sure seems like there’s not. Perhaps if you put a little more faith into the fact that the Canadian government isn’t out to get you and your fellow gun owners (because it’s not, I promise you), but to help protect you, you’d understand the importance of the Firearms Act.
34. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 5, 2009 at 6:31 am

    Jarlath, Nobody ever said the registry is foolproof, as what sort of registration system is? Any police office who uses it understands that an illegal firearm may be at the home, but that doesn’t eliminate its usefulness. The registry helps police officers prepare the proper response. In addition, I stated that the licensing process and registry work well together to help prevent individuals who shouldn’t have firearms from acquiring them and yes, that includes mentally ill individuals.
35. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 5, 2009 at 6:33 am

    Edward, There are plenty of other tools that someone in a state of distress can use, you’re correct. However, what you fail to point out that with a firearm, someone in distress can do A LOT of harm, to A LOT of people, in a very short period of time. A gun can kill multiple people in seconds, something like a knife or another weapon, cannot.
36. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 5, 2009 at 11:21 am

    The comment period for this entry is now closed.

Leave a Reply

16 Responses to “An Interview with Cindy Cowan, Interim Place”

1. Paul says:

   August 1, 2009 at 8:27 am

   Elizabeth,

   “Thus, investing money into the implementation of policies like the Firearms Act is vitally important in aiding victims of abuse, and combating a serious women’s rights issue”

   Certain aspects of the Firearms Act are very effect other aspects of it are very ineffective both in terms of cost and value added to public safety. This is a serious issue as the wastage in Firearms Act could provide funding to aid public safety not just the illusion of public safety.

   “When they do take the step to begin a new life, they must often do so with someone else’s used sheets and outgrown clothes. How is this fair? How is it, I wonder, that there are individuals that consider their privilege of owning a firearm more worthy than the right to safety and protection, afforded to all Canadian citizens by their government?”

   Life is often not fair, but it is what it is. It’s not fair that some people go hungry in one of the richest countries in the world. It’s not fair that some people die in the prime of there lives and others waste it on drugs. It’s not fair that children lose limbs in farm accidents. And on and on …

   We all make choices some bad some good. At the end of the day I do not blame victims for being victims, but I also believe we are personally responsible for our decisions no matter the motivation.

   I have committed no crime in my life. Firearms have been a part of Canada’s heritage since its inception. I was born a free man with free will and I do not view property rights as a “privilege”, but a right. I do not view my freedom as anymore important then anyone else’s, but I refuse to have my freedom limited due to the actions of others and the poor choices made by those individuals.

   It’s funny in a serious way that people that promote the IANSA agenda would take away the most effective way for women to be able to effectively protect themselves.

   Thanks,

   Paul
2. P. Dusablon says:

   August 1, 2009 at 10:03 am

   Ms. Mandelman,

   Once more your core premise is utterly flawed. Firearms do not cause domestic violence. Abusive partners, of either gender, cause domestic violence.

   Make no mistake, women are just as guilty as men of initiating spousal abuse. In fact, according to “REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY” by Martin S. Fiebert of the Department of Psychology at the California State University in Long Beach, women are slightly more likely to initiate spousal abuse than men and almost twice as likely to reach for weapons.

   However, it would seem that the only domestic violence that matters to you is the kind that is directed against women. And judging by this blog entry, you seem to believe that domestic abuse against men is not a violation of THEIR human rights either. Are you openly claiming that it is all right for a woman to abuse her male partner then?

   What does THAT do to foster the illusory equality between men and women?

   And by the way, I say illusory because men and women will never be truly equal. Granted, women are generally more flexible, have superior stamina, greater pain threshold and greater creativity than men. Men, on the other hand, are generally larger, heavier, stronger, with far superior upper body strength and a more aggressive and competitive nature. So far, the feminist groups have been attempting to force men to lose all of their strengths to be ‘more equal’ to women. But where are those who claim women have to give up THEIR strengths to be ‘more equal’ to men?

   Your stance so far has showed a heavy bias against men and especially male gun owners. Still, despite your claims to the contrary, you are painting all gun owners, who are only men, to be violent beasts barely held in check and who need more laws to prevent them from lashing out against women.

   Were it not for the attitude of the courts and particularly of the Human Rights Commission, you would be facing severe charges of discrimination and profiling based on gender, along with libel and slander. However, in Canada it would seem that sexism can only be directed at women and never the other way around.

   Also, would you care to explain to me how spending money on a body of legislation such as the Firearms Act going to prevent further domestic violence, since guns can only be removed from a home for just cause?

   And once more, in the interest of shedding as much light on the issue as possible, this will be sent to multiple sources in case you see it fit not to publish this comment.
3. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

   August 1, 2009 at 10:19 am

   P. Duablon, I am clearly NOT painting all male gun owners as ‘violent beasts’ and any rational person who chooses to actually put things into perspective would recognize this. I understand that there male victims of abuse, but that is not what I’m in Canada working on. In addition, I can’t change reality, and in reality, women are the victims of abuse in more than 90% of abuse incidents and also, the number of men who own firearms outnumber women by a VERY large margain. The facts result in the truth, not bias. Sexism is not something to be taken lightly, and your accusations completely cross a line. The answer to your question on how the Firearms Act prevents domestic abuse has already been stated in many of my entries. There is a screening process included in obtaining a license. Many have already pointed out to me that collecting such ‘private’ data should be against the law. However, this ‘private’ data has helped to prevent perpetrators with a history of abuse from obtaining a license. In addition, the registry is used to determine whether an individual in a domestic dispute situation has a firearm, thus allowing the police to remove it from the home if necessary. Also, the safe storage element prevents ‘heat of the moment’ decisions. Lastly, the hotline that allows individuals to voice their concerns about a spouse or someone they know helps also to take guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals.
4. P. Dusablon says:

   August 1, 2009 at 10:46 am

   Ms. Mandelman,

   Do you know what happens to a man who goes to the police to complain about being abused by his wife? He gets laughed at. And even if the cops respond to a “domestic disturbance” call where it is the man who is being abused, the man is the one leaving the premises in handcuffs. Do you not think that this sort of attitude and response would lead men to not say a damned word about being abused? Do you not think that it might skew the stats at the end of the day? I might not be an academic but I can recognize factors that can affect statistics.

   As for crossing a line, Ms. Mandelman, you opened that door very early on by yourself. You make it sound as though women are incapable of causing harm and can only be victims. You make it sound as though all gun owners were nothing but criminals waiting to happen. You made it sound as though soldiers were nothing but state-sanctioned murderers and rapists. Oh, I am putting things into perspective: that of the sort of man who is at the receiving end of your agenda.

   The Firearms Act does NOTHING to prevent domestic violence. Yes, it does screen would-be gun owners. Yes, there are criminal and background checks involved. That means that those with a history of crime or violence will be denied a license. But that does NOT remove them from the home. That does NOT protect their partner from abuse by other means. It only prevents the abuser from legally buying a gun.

   Note, I said “legally”. That is because there is a rather healthy black market in Canadian cities for firearms. And to buy a gun from some gang member in a dark alley, all you need is a wad of cash. No licenses, no registration, no background checks. Which means that when the abuser goes home with that gun and the cops show up after the next call of domestic disturbance, the supposedly all-knowing registry will tell the cops that there are no guns in that home. Tell me, how can they remove something the don’t even know exists? Before or after the abuser uses that gun that’s not supposed to be there on them?

   Also, you have failed to tell me how removing guns from a home would prevent further abuse from happening? What, is someone who is dead-set on harming his or her partner will not do so now that they don’t have guns available? Whatever happened to knives? Hammers? Baseballs bats? Bare hands? How does the Firearms Act protect anyone against those?

   And once more, in the interest of shedding as much light on the issue as possible, this will be sent to multiple sources in case you see it fit not to publish this comment.
5. Mikhail says:

   August 1, 2009 at 11:14 am

   If one tenth of the effort that was spend trying to demonize guns, make them hard, and eventually illegal, to own was spent on teaching these women confidence and self defense (INCLUDING responsible gun ownership), I would if this would have helped more people than all the shelters put together.

   I have posed this question to you before, and have yet to receive a specific answer from you. Let’s look at the case of the Ryerson student who was murdered by her clinging boyfriend. It was in the news recently as he received a “tough” sentence of prison with no parole for at least 18 years. Of course her sentence was a bit more “tough” right? She

   But that’s another issue. Regards, he slashed her to death. No gun was involved. He had a restraining order against him. Would she have been better off carrying a gun? I hardly think she could have been worse off.

   Please address this, Ms. Mandelman
6. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

   August 1, 2009 at 11:41 am

   P.D.-The figures are not skewed so much as to make any difference in the fact that women are by a VERY large margin more often the victims of domestic abuse then men. Show me something otherwise. In addition, there are just as many women who do not report situations of abuse, based on the same feeling of embarrassment and lack of understanding. I can guarantee that if every single person abused by a spouse reported the incident to the police, the percentages would not change significantly.

   Again, if you think that by what I’m doing, I’m demonizing men, you’re sorrily mistaken. Men are affected by firearms, but in different ways. I NEVER said they weren’t, and would appreciate it if people would stop putting words in my mouth. Talk about libel and slander.

   Lastly, you just disproved your own point. Saying that the Firearms Act does NOTHING, and then reitering the fact that there is a screening process that prevents dangerous individuals from obtaining firearms goes to show that it’s indeed doing what it’s meant to. I might mention that firearms are the most lethal form of tool that exists, and therefore women are more likely to die when this instrument is used as compared to the others you mentioned. The survival rate is much higher if a firearm isn’t invovled.
7. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

   August 1, 2009 at 11:46 am

   Mikhail, Many, if not all, police agencies are very actively involved with the community to provide educational services regarding domestic violence. Go to any municipal police force website, and you’ll see this. There is a HUGE effort spent on educating the public (beginning during the teenage years) in Canada to help make people aware of what constitutes abuse, and what to do to end it.

   Often times, when victims of abuse obtain a firearm for their own self-protection, it is taken and used against them. So, do I think that a firearm would have kept her safer? No, I don’t, and I think the fact that the NRA abandoned the campaign of targeting women proves that fact.
8. P. Dusablon says:

   August 1, 2009 at 12:13 pm

   Ms. Mandelman,

   I have cited a source, namely “REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY” by Martin S. Fiebert of the Department of Psychology at the California State University in Long Beach. You can find it at http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

   In fact, according to most statistics found in that paper, it would seem that most victims of domestic violence would be male. Isn’t that strange?

   You will find that your figure of “90% of victims are women” stats are nowhere near the mark. In fact, I would really like you to cite your source on this ludicrous number.

   You also missed my point with regards to the Firearms Act. The screening process denies applicants with a history of crime or violence from acquiring a license, and incidentally to legally acquire a gun, that is true.

   But how does it curb violent tendencies? A law doesn’t change a person’s nature. A person does that.

   How does it prevent abuse from being perpetrated by any other means? All it does is denying the legal purchase of firearms from abusers with a history of crime and violence. It does absolutely NOTHING to prevent an abuser from getting a firearm on the black market, stealing one or smuggling one in from another country. And as I said, those would NOT be registered and when the police show up at the next disturbance call, your precious registry will not tell them that there is no gun in there, potentially costing them their lives. Just as it did for Sgt Daniel Tessier of the Laval Police Department back in 2007 when raiding Basil Parasiris’ place, where the registry stated there would be no guns in there.

   Nor does it prevent an abusive partner from murdering his or her spouse with a knife or a hammer.

   As I said in comments to another entry of yours, I am a soldier. I use guns for a living. I have a very keen understanding of their lethality. However, there are no degrees of dead. Whether quietly passing in your sleep, getting blown up by an IED in Afghanistan, shot, stabbed, beaten to death or strangled, dead is dead. One is not less dead because one’s throat was cut than if one weas shot.

   But even fully knowing the lethality of guns, have you looked at the death figures for car crashes? Far more people have been killed in vehicular collisions than by guns. Where is your outrage, then, at the deadly nature of cars? They kill women too and at a far greater rate than firearms in domestic disputes.

   And once more, in the interest of shedding as much light on the issue as possible, this will be sent to multiple sources in case you see it fit not to publish this comment.
9. Mikhail says:

   August 1, 2009 at 1:16 pm

   Ms. Mandelman, one can debate whether a woman with a gun is safer against a stalking male than one without a gun. There are no hard data – just opinions and anecdotes. I am certain there are women have defended themselves successfully, and others who have not.

   The problem is that the anti-gun groups are denying people the choice of trying to defend themselves. There is no time in human history prior to the 20th century where that would have been considered a good thing. Freedom to choose is being taken away from responsible citizens in the name of a subjective greater good and anectodes and personal opinions.

   History has shown us that liberty in any of its forms (freedom of speech, association, religion, property rights) is a good thing, and history is replete with examples where restriction of freedoms ended up going quite badly. You probably know that Nazi Germany banned guns for any citizens except SS members, and of course communist Russia also restricted ownership.

   I am not arguing for unrestricted access to guns, but for an end to the demonization of guns and of gun owners, and societal recognition that a gun in steady hands is no more a threat to society than a car, or a swimming pool, or a butcher knife.
10. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 1, 2009 at 2:29 pm

    Sorry, P.D., but unfortunately citing one source (and a bibliography at that, with one sentence summaries of articles that you haven’t read), does not result in credible statements on your part. And I would like to add that car crashes, while incredibly unfortunate (and I am not downplaying their magnitude) are NOT even close to coming under the same umbrella as domestic violence. I have nowhere stated that other forms of death are any less unfortunate or that they should not be studied, but domestic abuse is very serious and complex human rights issue, and unless someone advocates for its prevention and demise, it will only continue.
11. mikhail says:

    August 1, 2009 at 2:37 pm

    Ms. Mandelman – I did not assert that there is evidence that women are safer with guns than without. I said that some women may be safer, and others may not, but doubted that there was any hard data one way or the other, and hence removing the right for any one woman to make her own choice about defending herself was unjustified and a serious infringement of her liberty.

    Certainly if I knew someone was threatening my life and had good reason to think that there was a realistic chance of the threat being real, I would want a gun to defend myself. How can anyone deny me that choice? What’s my other choice? Leave the country? Go into Hiding? Barricade the doors and never leave my home? Wait for the police to come just in time to draw yellow chalk lines around my body?

    If threatened, no doubt some would not choose the gun, but they can choose. And of the women who do not exercise that choice, how many fail to do so because of a lifetime of indoctrination against guns? Are they not adults with a right to make such choices?

    Separately, the point I was making with the Nazi gun restriction item is that the removal of liberties, gun ownership among them, is an extremely serious step with a very bad historical track record. Generally, such restrictions are part of a control of the citizenry that very often (I would argue always) ends up badly.

    There can be no arguing that liberty of Canadians to own and use guns has been drastically curtailed in the past decades. My mayor in Toronto has made it impossible for me to use my guns without making a 1-2 hour drive in any direction. His incompetence will be gone soon, for many reasons, along with his irrational hatred of guns, but my liberty to enjoy my entirely safe hobby witout burning a half tank of gas and being separated from my family for nearly a whole day will probably never return.

    You claim you do not seek to demonize gun and gun owners, but it seems to me that bringing a cavalcade of individuals with specific interests and agenda that all seem to lead the reader to see how bad guns is part of the demonization process.

    Since you do not seek to demonize guns, perhaps you could to an interview with this gentleman, a shooting instructor, featured in the National Post today, who would put a slightly different perspective on gun ownership. The shooting instructor in this article fled from a brutal communist dictatorship to Canada, by the way. He knows about state oppression.

    http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=1851185

    And, yes, we probably do have some common ground in this debate, not least of which is the fact that we are still exchanging opinion in a civil fashion. Respect.
12. techjay says:

    August 1, 2009 at 2:59 pm

    E. Mandelman said:
    “Mikhail, Why would you even state that women are safer when they have guns to defend themselves, then, when you yourself just asserted that there is no hard data? Obviously I’ve just proven my point. ”

    No you have not proven your point. You’ve only shown that you have an opinion that women are not safer from victimization when they are trained and have ready access to a firearm.

    All we can do is argue opinions on this if there is no “hard data”. And that was Mikhail’s point.

    To say that the gun will be taken away and used against it’s owner is nothing more than an opinion based on a hypothetical situation. The fact is, you are advocating removing the CHOICE of women to use firearms to defend themselves, and in my opinion that is disgusting and hypocritical of you, a self-appointed advocate of women’s rights. I fail to see the logic in taking away the only means to level the playing field in the man vs. woman scenario. Please, be advised that you DO NOT speak for my wife, or daughter.

    As for your statement that you are not arguing for civiliam disarmament, you are either untruthful or ignorant of history. Registration has historically been shown as nothing more than a rung in the ladder to civilian disarmament–we ARE talking about the legitamacy of Canada’s Firearm Registry, aren’t we?! This is where the comparison to Nazi Germany holds water. The same goes for any country that works to disarm those who obey the law. It’s a catch-22, Elizabeth. You can make all the feel-good laws you want, criminals will simply ignore them, while the terrible burden is shouldered by the law-abiding. So, when you argue in favour of Canada’s Registry, you argue in favour of the architechture of civilian disarmament.

    I can only guess that you have no concept of how bad the scenario of a disarmed law-abiding citizenry is, or the horrific seeds of democide that propagate in that soil.

    The irony is, the pro-gun people, like myself want the same things as you do; The end of abuse, safety and security of human beings, human rights. However, the difference is, your agenda is about legislated attempts at limitation of human rights, ours is recognition and enforcement of human rights. I’ll ask rhetorically, of course, which has more place in a democracy?

    Your anti-freedom (veiled in the guise of anti-gun) agenda is truly baffling. How do you sleep at night knowing that the all the freedoms you enjoy, including your freedom of speech have been afforded to you through the barrel of a gun?

    This response will be published elsewhere in case you see fit to not publish it here.
13. P. Dusablon says:

    August 1, 2009 at 3:37 pm

    Ms. Mandelman, you song keeps changing.

    And you’ve yet to tell me of YOUR sources. So far, I have provided you with one of mine, put together by someone with a whole lot more time in academia than myself. And that makes it a whole lot more credible than you who so far have refused to cite your sources when so requested. And until you give me, and everyone else, some concrete evidence, you do realize that all the information you throw at us will be deemed suspect, at best.

    I need to ask you, how is one type of death any worse than another? Dead is dead. Whether it’s a domestic homicide or a car crash or a robbery gone wrong or even old age, the victim is no longer displaying vital signs, brain activity is shut down and family and friends are grieving.

    And why is abuse against women so much worse than abuse against men? You’ve still not answered that question. Men are also victims of domestic violence. But in Canada, unlike women, the cops don’t show up to rescue a man from his abusive partner as they would a woman reporting the very same. The cops will laugh at the man instead of coming in to effect an arrest and have the man branded a wife-beater for the rest of his days even if the accusation is unfounded. How is that right? How is it not a serious and complex human rights issue when it comes to a MAN being victimized?

    But when it comes to you, it would appear that when the time comes to exercise human rights, males need not apply.

    Another question I have for you is why do you link firearm ownership directly to spousal abuse? Other than making it sound like the presence of a gun will turn a good man into a brutal abuser, it also makes you sound as though women were not abused before guns became prevalent.

    And that is also a fallacy. Women have been abused since the dawn of time, even since long before the Chinese invented gunpowder in the ninth century. So it’s not a new phenomenon. Just like the women who get abused in Africa. more often than not, their aggressors have nothing but machetes, sharpened farm tools or traditional bladed weapons such as spears. No guns.

    Therefore, your linking of guns to human rights abuse is flawed.

    And here is something with reference to the Firearms Act and the storage regulations you are such a fan of. If an abusive partner can’t get to a gun in “the heat of the moment”, then it means that the victim can’t get to a gun quickly either in order to protect him/herself. Tell me, how is a 100 pound woman supposed to fight off an angry, violent 200 pound man unarmed? A hint: unless that woman is sitting on years of hand to hand combat training and an amazing level of physical conditioning and fitness, it’s not going to happen. So, really, to quote a good friend of mine: a woman rooting for more gun control is like a chicken rooting for Colonel Sanders.

    As for eradicating domestic violence, I’m sorry to burst your bubble but it’s just not going to happen, ever. Most people are good and would never yell at their spouse/significant other/partner. But there will always be an extremely small minority of violent and abusive human beings; these will harm their spouse/significant other/partner in a variety of ways; these are the ones who are dangerous and the ones that make the news. Not the overwhelming majority that have happy and non-violent conjugal lives.

    So far, you’ve avoided most of my questions, most of my points. You demand respect, yet you do not even have the courtesy of answering the questions posed to you by those who comment here. I can see two reasons: you see yourself as better than we are and do not need to abase yourself to answering us, or you have nothing to refute our arguments. Which is it?

    And once more, in the interest of shedding as much light on the issue as possible, this will be sent to multiple sources in case you see it fit not to publish this comment.
14. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 1, 2009 at 4:36 pm

    P.D.-I’ve provided sources on more than one occassion. If you haven’t been reading my entries close enough, I suggest you go back through them.

    And again, you’re putting words in my mouth. Where did I ever state that owning a gun turns someone into a an individual that abuses their spouse? Nowhere. Someone who is abusive, however, and has access to a firearm, is likely to use it, which puts the victim at a higher level of risk. In addition, where did I ever state that domestic abuse committed against a women is worse than that committed against a man? Nowhere. Statistically, however, women are most often the victims. And where firearms are involved, men are most often the owners. Trying to twist my words only works to your disadvantage, as your credibility is lessened each time you do.

    The abuse of women is a human rights issue, no matter what the chosen weapon. Guns are used as tools of intimidation and threat and therefore, become part of the human rights issue.

    Also, if you re-read my last comment, you’ll see that I agree with you that one type of death is just as tragic as another. However, comparing car crashes and the death of a women through domestic abuse simply attempts to marganilize the issue of domestic violence of women and it’s magnitude. It’s one of the oldest tricks in the book, and goes to show how gender-based the topic actually is. Won’t work with me, sorry.
15. Guns in The News: Monday August 3, 2009 « The Coalition for Gun Control/Pour le Controle des Armes says:

    August 4, 2009 at 7:04 am

    [...] A few days ago, I spent time talking with Cindy Cowan, the Executive Director of a shelter for abused women called the Interim Place. The Interim Place has been in operation for twenty-seven years, providing shelter, support, counseling and advocacy for abused women and their children; they are committed to a philosophy of feminism, anti-racism and anti-oppression. Cindy has been working with victims of domestic violence for over twenty years, and has been with the Interim Place for three. When I asked her if she thought the money put towards implementation of Canada’s Firearms Act would have been better spent on social services for abused women, as many opposed to the Act have argued, her answer was no. Spending money on ‘patching women up’ is not the solution to ending domestic violence, according to Cowan. While providing funding for shelters and other resources to help women who have been domestically abused is a necessity, developing and passing legislative policies (such as the Firearms Act) to prevent abuse from ever taking place works to eliminate that necessity. Violence against women is a very serious gender-based human rights violation, and obstructs equality between men and women. Thus, investing money into the implementation of policies like the Firearms Act is vitally important in aiding victims of abuse, and combating a serious women’s rights issue… more [...]
16. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

    August 6, 2009 at 5:46 am

    The comment period for this entry is now closed.

Leave a Reply

26 Responses to “An Interview with Wendy Cukier, Coalition for Gun Control”

1. P. Dusablon says:

   July 28, 2009 at 10:47 am

   Ms. Mandelman,

   The registration of handguns started in 1934. It is long guns that have been registered since 1998.

   As such, the 1998 Firearms Act has had absolutely no effect on the illegal trafic of handguns in Canada.

   And even then, it is only a ridiculously small number of guns from law-abiding owners that are involved in crimes. In fact, an overwhelming majority of the firearms used by gang members and other criminals have never been in the sytem, never been legally owned in Canada and therefore never been registered.

   And even if they had been registered, a common criminal behaviour is to file off serial numbers. And without a serial number to rely on, the registry has absolutely no way of identifying a gun as to whether it was smuggled in or stolen or misused by it’s owner.

   As such, the registration of fireams does absolutely nothing to curb crime.

   Also, I personally find that it does little to make you credible when you are willing to meet with influential members of the gun control lobby and yet refuse to meet with members of the firearms community.

   Indeed, with all your claims of openness, one would expect that you would be more than welcoming to speak to both sides of the issue.

   And once more, in the interest of shedding as much light on the issue as possible, this will be sent to multiple sources in case you see it fit not to publish this comment.
2. Elizabeth Mandelman says:

   July 28, 2009 at 10:51 am

   P. Dusablon, The pro gun advocates have spent more time attacking me personally than the issue at hand. As such, there is a reason I have turned down particular invites.
   Your claim that the 1998 Firearms Act has no effect on illegal traffic of firearms is like saying zero law-abiding gun owners abuse their spouses and therefore should not have to register their firearms. They’re both fallacious.
3. MaryT says:

   July 28, 2009 at 11:07 am

   Using Mark Lepine as a poster child for gun control has always puzzled me.

   My understanding of this tragic event is that the main factor in the Polytechnique murders was the misogyny he learned from his Muslim father.

   His birth name was Gamil Gharbi, and there is no shortage of information about

   “Gamil’s father had contempt for women and believed that they were only intended to serve men.[4] He was verbally and physically abusive towards his wife and children,[5] once striking his son so hard on the face that the marks were visible one week late”.

   Would outlawing of guns really have solved the issue? Or, as some gun rights people argued, would a civilian with a gun on campus drastically reduced the damage?
4. Winston Smith says:

   July 28, 2009 at 11:57 am

   I agree that outlawing guns may not have prevented this man from taking violent action again those students. However, I also believe that blaming the entire act on his religion and the actions of his father is also absurd. Many people are raised in unfortunate circumstances but most do not decide to go buy a gun legally and shoot fourteen women. It must also be noted that outlawing guns is not the same as having a proper way to screen those who are purchasing guns in order to ensure mental stability of the purchaser. It is clear that this guy was mentally instable and a process of checks and balances could have prevented such a horrendous act.

   Just a thought…
5. Shane says:

   July 28,