George says:

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.

Jim S says:

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.

Turfman Jones says:

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.

P. Dusablon says:

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.

John Evers says:

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.

Dalton says:

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.

Brad from Alberta says:

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.

m0nkyman says:

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).

Turfman Jones says:

“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.

Eupraxsopher says:

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.

Eupraxsopher says:

@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?

Greg Popik says:

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.

Turfman Jones says:

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.

Ray Smith says:

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

Matt says:

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.

P. Dusablon says:

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.

Michael from BC says:

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.

P. Dusablon says:

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.

Matt says:

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?

go away says:

GO AWAY, DISPARAIS…

SR says:

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?

Soulchaser says:

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.

Soulchaser says:

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.

Marcel B. says:

“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.

Marcel B. says:

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?

Marcel B. says:

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.

Donna Carrick says:

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.

dave says:

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?

CF_sapper says:

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.

Brad from Alberta says:

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.

Paul says:

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

Jayde says:

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.

Michael from BC says:

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.

Karen says:

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.

Paul says:

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

Matt says:

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.

Dave says:

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.

Matt says:

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.

Kent says:

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.

Kent says:

“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!

Soulchaser says:

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.

DB says:

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.

GoodLord says:

“”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.

Dalton says:

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.

Paul says:

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?

Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret) says:

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.

Ryan says:

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

Ryan says:

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.

Edward says:

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…

Turfman Jones says:

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.

Rafael Gomez says:

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.

Simon says:

“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

Rafael Gomez says:

“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.

ben says:

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.

harblthecat says:

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

In weed we trust says:

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

Chris R. says:

“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….

Mark says:

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.

Edward says:

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.

Brad from Alberta says:

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.

Stephen K. says:

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.

Paul Friesen says:

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.

Pittsky says:

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

P. Dusablon says:

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.

P. Dusablon says:

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.

P. Dusablon says:

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.

techjay says:

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.

Winston Smith says:

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…

Tucker says:

Femicide?

Is the anti firearms establishment in Canada now making up fake crimes to go along with your made up statistics?

In all my years of studying law, I don’t remmber a case involving “femicide.”

EESASTORM says:

Well Elizabeth, if there was any question as to your “REAL” intent here this one has cleared up any question.
Some people have indicated that your real purpose has been Gun Control and not reduction of violence against women.
I was somewhat split on that concept. I thought that perhaps you were just miss informed.
Now with Interviewing Wendy while at the same time dismissing any and all offers from the Pro gun side…………That is just unconcionable. I mean how can you honestly say that you are open to debate after this?
Most of us have been nothing but be honest and forthright towards you.
We deserve better and you know it.

EESASTORM says:

Elizabeth can you not see the hypocracy in what you say?

If you have a vested interest in firearms you should meet with BOTH sides not just those who wan to get rid of them all.

You will not meet with me.

You will not meet with any of the others who have come forward.
Yet you will meet with Wendy.
Did you try to get a hold of Tony or Larry from CILA/CSSA?

I happen to be a CSSA RD (as I am certain you have figured out by now) I have been interviewed by the likes of CTV (they were not afraid).

If you are serious about learning and open debate you should be open to talkng to someone from our side.
That is only logical is it not?

Brad from Alberta says:

You have posted up the need for our legislation to prevent violence againsty women by the use of firearms. Quite frankly, the number of women killed in domestic violence situations is so statistically insignificant to be grossly unable to justify the cost our Registry based on those numbers. Especially when other risk factors, like substance abuse, poverty, unemployment, etc. don’t get nearly the same attention, especially in regards to money and tasty media sound-bites.

Kudos to countries who will enact needed legislation to prevent folks from harming themselves with trans fat, smoking, etc. The costs are borune by all of society in lost productivity as well as health care usage. Individual rights and freedoms have no place when the needs of society are concerned.

I was not the one who is attempting to use an emotional plea in lieu of hard facts to justify a terrible stain on Canada that is the Gun Registry. You have brought up this isuue in nearly all of your blog topics. If you truly care about the safety of women and the need to end domestic violence, how about hot zones of danger, like Iran, Pakistan, India. They really need someone of your convictions and passion there.

Dalton says:

Elizabeth,

To date, I’m sure you’ve been hearing a lot about what law-abiding firearm owners are against, including arbitrary and sweeping demonization, bloated bureaucracy, and a frightening tendency of anti-firearm groups to deny them the presumption of innocence.

However, it is also important to understand just for what law-abiding firearm owners actually stand.

To this end, please allow me to elucidate that the preservation of rights and freedoms, efficient and effective usage of finite public resources and funds, personal accountability and a justice-centric legal system are notions for which law-abiding firearms owners not only stand, but also cherish.

I’m not sure if you have been following this tragic story, but this week (of July 29, 2009) a Canadian jury convicted 17-year-old Melissa Todorovic for first-degree murder of 14-year-old Stefanie Rengel. The case in question was replete with a very many chilling details: the Crown (prosection) told the jury during the trial that Todorovic was murderously jealous of Stefanie – a girl she had never actually met, and that together with her boyfriend she orchestrated the luring Stefanie out of her East York home, to her death. On that fateful day, 14-year-old Stefanie Rengel was stabbed six times, then left to die on a snow-covered sidewalk, steps away from her home. The Toronto judge sentenced Melissa Todorovic as an adult, meaning that she will serve a sentence of 25 years, and will not be up for parole until after she has served at least seven years of her sentence.

Allow me to make some very plain and telling points.

Firstly, young Stefanie’s tragic death was by knife, not by firearm – not that the choice of actual implement should matter a whit. A knife, like a firearm, baseball bat or wantonly misused automobile is only a means that enables a criminal to carry out the illegal – and less academically stated, evil – end & intent in their heart and mind. (This is a point I have previously posted on your site, in a comment to your piece “An Interview with Documentary Filmmaker Shelley Saywell”- http://advocacynet.org/wordpress-mu/emandelman/2009/07/23/an-interview-with-documentary-filmmaker-shelley-saywell/). In the judge’s own words, ‘Todorovic has a “frightening” character flaw’, and the type of murder implement used in this case is as wholly irrelevant as it was substitutable. The same would hold true if a firearm had been used; recalling what I had said in the initial paragraph of this comment, law-abiding firearm owners both stand for and cherish personal accountability, not the damnation of inanimate objects.

Secondly, while the physical stabbing was performed by Todorovic’s boyfriend, the murder was premeditated and set in motion by Todorovic herself, about whom the judge said in his pronouncements that, “the puppetmaster is not less blameworthy than the puppet.” I’ll leave it to you to draw your own conclusions with regard to that statement, but suffice it to say that the Canadian justice system recognizes that violence is not something restricted to the y-chromosome; this 17-year-old convicted female had a criminally culpable hand in the direct destruction of three lives, among them her own. Recalling what I had said in the initial paragraph of this comment, law-abiding firearm owners both stand for and cherish a justice-centric legal system, as oppose to one pandering to the popular conceptions of select circles.

Thirdly, something is very wrong indeed when a person – male or female, regardless of age, and competent to stand trial – convicted in this case is eligible for parole in just seven years, and faces a maximum sentence of just twenty-five years (the typical maximum sentence in Canada). Rather than pour money into lobbying the further regulation and restriction of law-abiding firearms owners, funds could better be used to advocate for a more justice-centric legal system in Canada (one that allows truer life sentences, as well as consecutive – not concurrent – sentencing, for example). Entities like The Coalition for Gun Control – presided over by Wendy Cukier – whom you recently interviewed, have not only been responsible for the diversion of (hours upon hours of attention and) funds from such legal-reform efforts, but have also had issues (to put it mildly) complying with the Canada Revenue Agency, our national tax body. Recalling what I had said in the initial paragraph of this comment, law-abiding firearm owners both stand for and cherish the efficient and effective usage of finite public resources and funds. Sadly, this seems to be the very antithesis for which organizations that seek to malign them stand.

As Justice Ian Nordheimer stated, “Death is permanent and there’s no second chances…. there’s a price to pay. It’s not a video game where you press restart and it’s over.” It is critical that all Canadians – indeed, all law-abiding individuals the world over – focus our efforts and finite resources on the pursuit and achievement of meaningful change. In the real-world, where there are no restart-buttons to be pressed, it is imperative that we choose wisely when allotting our focus.

DaveC says:

Liz, if you gave a crap about women you’d be rallying feminists and publicizing the case of Ahmed al-Hussein.

Why don’t you.. use Gamil’s real name… say anything against so-called honor killings… speak out against gang violence… and those who’ve been rendered defenseless by Windy’s evil legislation?

Since you’re attacking law-abiding Kanuckistan firearms owners instead, we know your professed concerns for women’s safety are total BS.

TheOverseer says:

I’m sorry that you feel insulted. How do you think these law abiding people feel when they are so vehemently demonized in your rants of half-truths and misquotations of Canadian law?

You are the one who said you want to discuss the issue, yet YOU are the one who deletes our comments on your blog. You cannot refute our facts, so you lie
Our logic is correct, yours is irrational, emotional rhetoric.

You would lose this debate. There is a reason Wendy cukier will not debate any members of the pro-gun movement in public. We have the truth on our side.

P. Dusablon says:

Ms. Mandelman,

We as gun owners have been listening to the sort of rhetoric your fellowship promulgates for a long time.

You are not the first one to preach the misguided notion that more gun control would lead to less crime and less atrocities. In fact, regulations and prohibitions have only served to make matters worse.

And gun control, has been deemed “successful” in places that will go down in history as the locations of serious breach of individuals’ human rights. Such places include Nazi Germany (which was claimed to be the leader of all civilized nations by the implementation of total gun registration), China, Stalinist Russia, Rwanda (where, in fact, most of the massacres were performed with machetes as per Lieutenant-General (ret’d) Romeo Dallaire in his book Shake Hands with the Devil), Darfur, the Balkans and Mexico.

These places all have one thing in common: when gun control was fully implemented, mass-murders, rapes, ethnic cleansing and genocide took place. Either by roving bands of a warlord’s militiamen, criminal elements or the governments.

Also, your obvious care for the rights of some “marginalized” groups is commendable, but also misguided. How are the guns owned by Canadian law-abiding citizens tied to the black/grey market arms used in places such as Somalia? Somali warlords have never been armed by Canadians after all.

As for the attacks to your academic integrity, they are a response to your refusal to post a large number of comments and your subsequent refusal to refute the points brought forward in those same comments.

You have to admit that when you make claims of “welcoming debate and open discussion”, the severe moderation and outright deletion of comments does not help you make your case.

Also, so far as I can tell, you are the one who started the name-calling. You have called soldiers of all nations rapists who were empowered by their weapons to commit atrocities. You have tarred every single law-abiding gun owner as a closet wife abuser. You are the one who opened this door. And I am sure you can understand why people like myself, who are gun owners AND Canadian soldiers, do not take kindly to being compared to gang members, war criminals, armed thugs in some warlord’s private army and wife-beaters.

You have tarred everyone using guns with the same brush.

I have already sought to confront you about your behaviour and your views and you have not seen it fit to post my comments and openly refute my arguments. As such, I do not expect you to post this at all.

In short, respect begets respect. It is a two-way street. You grant us respect, we will grant you some.

However, I find myself compelled to let you know that there will be other sources to whom this comment will be sent. If only to ensure that it is not lost should you decide that it is not suitable for the open discussion and debate you claim to hold.

Melissa S. says:

Elizabeth,

I have read the last several blogs and the replies to the blog and am certainly struck with how there is less and less debate among people whose opinions differ and more and more accusations, hardening of lines of discussion, and so forth. I have seen this over gun control (and abortion, to name another issue) in this country as well. What do YOU see as the legitimate places where reasonable people can differ around this issue? Can you get above the trees and describe for us the forest — what are the real issues here around which debate, argument, and discussion can take place? It does seem to me that you may be getting a bit mired into a rhetorical battle over gun control that no one, including you, will advance beyond its present, rather ugly, state.

Ed Alexander says:

Of all the Chretien-era Liberal “achievements”, this one is quite frankly the most odious. Criminals trade drugs for firearms, period. Police officers expect to find illegal firearms on criminals. The Registry arguement is propped up by feminst groups who receive money, IE: Cukier and company. If the Registry goes, so does their gravy train. The sooner the better. Elizabeth, you can pay your own way to the IANSA meetings.

George says:

Ms. Mandelman, we are all aware of the SCC’s decision in this regard. However, it does not follow that their decision was necessarily the correct one. Of course it was correct if one insisted on having a registry in place that operates the way the ineffective Canadian one does. However, Sheila Fraser, our auditor general has yet to find any proof that the registry has done anything it’s proponents claim it has. In her view, it was essentially $2B spent with few tangible results.

Also, do you really believe that the registry is THE way in which police remove firearms from violent/unstable individuals? That they would remove those that appear on the government’s list and leave it at that? I don’t think even you are naive enough to believe that is the way they operate. They would of course obtain a search warrant and tear his residence, vehicle, workshop, workspace, outhouse, doghouse, henhouse and any other property apart looking for guns…registry or no registry.

Norton says:

Mandelman, I’ve learned from reading your posts and comments that it is a waste of time to discuss the subject of firearms with you. Your articles are deliberately misleading on purpose.
You fit perfectly with the anti-gun lobby, misinformation and false statistics.

Bruce says:

You are missing something wrt the Supreme Court of Canada ruling – they said that registration “cannot be severed” from licensing, not that it MUST NOT. This can be interpreted to mean that the SCC did not have the authority to sever the law, not that this must never happen. You are also not taking into account the “supremacy of Parliament”, and the fact that one session of Parliament cannot tie the hands of future sessions. Parliament could tomorrow pass a law that eliminated the registration requirements, or the whole Firearms Act, if it wanted to, and the SCC couldn’t do a thing. This is because the making of law is the sole purview of Parliament, not the SCC.

George says:

Ms. Mandelman… you are correct in your assessment of law making being the purview of Parliament. However, you are incorrect in stating that if the Firearms Act were not working as intended, then Parliament would have struck it down by now. As has been communicated to you previously, partisan politics and political agendas often prevent things from happening, or even from not happening.

The current government is effectively barred from repealing the Firearms Act or even just doing away with the Registry by virtue of their being in a minority situation with respect to Parliament. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc would never strike down the Firearms Act or the Registry because of the vast amounts of political capital they have invested in it.

These three parties have made gun control major building blocks in their platforms…it would be unthinkable for them, especially the Liberals, to actually undo something that valuable to them, even if the policy or platform proved disastrously wrong or ineffective and horribly expensive. Such are partisan politics in Canada.

Dalton says:

Elizabeth, I found the choice of phrasing rather troublesome when you inquired, “Do you think that the access these soldiers have to firearms empowers them to commit such crimes?”

Consider, for a moment, the distinction between the words “empower” and “enable”; the inclination towards the oppression of the weak is clearly something rooted in the psyche of a criminal or depraved mind. Viewed as such, it is almost inevitable that any time an opportunity – resulting from a power imbalance – to attack and molest the weak presents itself, these inclinations will indeed manifest themselves as acts of oppression that include torture and rape.

Considering that power imbalances can result from something as basic as an aggressor being physically taller or stronger than her/his victim, I would strongly caution against viewing any implement – including a firearm, in this context – as anything other than an “enabler”. As it is the unmitigated force mustered by the aggressor that enables the oppression to transpire, it is rather hollow to attribute or apportion blame to any inanimate implement – or physical strength, for that matter – that would serve as an enabler.

However, it behooves us to consider the notion of “empowerment” for a moment. Not unlike the above-mentioned inclination toward oppression, empowerment too is a matter that is very much tied to mindset. To be sure, it would be that selfsame notion of empowerment that would enable a victim (in the context of a war-torn country, or anywhere in the word, for that matter) to truly believe it is/was not her fault she was targeted to be raped. Moreover, it would most certainly have to be that notion of empowerment credited, were that same woman to herself obtain and utilize a firearm as a means of warding-off rape and molestation.

Were that to be the scenario, the firearm would again be no more than an enabler, albeit one that enables and permits preservation of life. Simply put, it would have been the woman’s own empowered state-of-mind that resulted in her seeking a means to enable defense of her person and life.