I was lucky enough to spend this past weekend in Montreal, which is just as amazing as people describe it to be. As I had never been before, I decided to do the touristy thing and take a guided tour of the city. On the double-decker bus that I paid much too much money to ride, I sat next to a woman named Pat. Having a daughter my age, Pat took it upon herself to make me her sidekick for the two hour long sightseeing extravaganza.
Montreal
Pat is a school teacher, full of energy and spunk. After she spent time telling me about where she’s from and describing the awesome new pair of shoes she had found the day before, it was my turn. I told her why I was in Canada for the summer and about my fellowship. During my explanation, Pat’s demeanor changed, and she grew silent. For a moment, I thought she was going to start lecturing me about how innocent citizens shouldn’t be held responsible by the government to help ensure the safety of others, or that she was going to ask me why she should have to waste two of her dollars per year to keep the registry up and running in order to help protect and save the lives of others.
Instead, she quietly said “People don’t get it. Unless it’s happened to you, you just don’t get it.” Obviously I had struck a chord with Pat, and not wanting to pry, I just nodded my head in agreement. After another moment of silence, Pat explained that many years ago she was the victim of domestic abuse, and that she had had a gun pointed at her head numerous times. I could tell she didn’t want to talk about it, so I didn’t ask any questions. She did add, however, that a law like the one Canada currently has in place would have helped to prevent her situation from ever having happened.
I’ve been called a lot of names over the past few weeks, which made me stop to wonder, what would those opposed to the registry call Pat? Would they tell her that she’s too stupid to be reasoned with, like I am? Would they call her a feminist and tell her that saving her life isn’t worth their two dollars? Or, would they explain to her that what matters most to them is their right to own a gun, thus making the hassle of filling out extra paperwork, and paying a couple of extra dollars per year in taxes to run the registry, simply too big of an impediment upon their personal freedoms to consider its benefits?
Tags: Disarming Domestic Violence Campaign, domestic violence, gun control, IANSA
Many women in Pat’s situation across North America, have used a firearm to defend themselves. What would you say to them, “Give up your gun, and call the police after an attack”?
I would say to them that if people afraid that their freedoms are being taken away by having to register their firearms weren’t so intimidating in their opposition, politicians and the police could be more vocal in their backing of the registry. This would eliminate the need for the ‘Pat’s’ across North America to defend themselves in such a manner, as possible perpetrators would be denied access to acquiring firearms.
A gun pointed at your head feels the same whether its registered or not. Pat needed to leave a bad situation and instead chose to stay so it could be repeated multiple times. Pointing guns at someones head was, is and always will be illegal. Next time it happens I urge pat to repeat these words “that gun you are pointing at my head better be registered or your in deep doo doo”
Like Pat said, you can’t understand what someone in her situation deals with unless you live through it yourself. Part of what happens when an individual is domestically abused is intimidation. If someone held a gun to my head and told me that if I ever left they would hunt me down and shoot me or my family, it would be quite frightening and difficult to leave. What makes it even more difficult is the fact that the daily actions and activities of many women who are domestically abused are controlled by their spouses, and therefore seeking help results in severe punishment and consequence. I suggest you read up on the psychological consequences of domestic abuse.
Pat needed to leave, she chose to stay. If it was a baseball bat or knife or bare fists that were used would it matter if those things were registered? Pat was a victim of violence and thinking a gun registry would have saved her is insane and only provides the illusion of safety. The registry keeps nobody safe and has solved NO crimes. Put the money into victims services, counselling and support services so that people like pat can leave feeling empowered instead of hoping a useless database will save them. The registry is 2b dollars and counting that could have went to programs to aid Pat.
Also, firearms are rarely used to harm or kill women in domestic situations, when compared with the other methods. Women who protect themselves with firearms do so most often against men who are unarmed. Should these women not use a gun?
I had a gun pointed at my head. So did my wife and our child. It doesn’t make me hate guns, but I sure don’t like criminals.
In the US at least, I could have fought back. Instead, we had no choice but to be good little victims. Glad he didn’t decide to kill us anyway.
CanAm, you’ve just pointed out that firearms aren’t used as often to harm or kill women in domestic abuse situations, which I thank you for because it points out that the harmonization between gun control and domestic violence laws in Canada is indeed effective. When perpetrators are denied access to guns based on a screening process written into law, they can’t use them to harm their victims. While knives and fists are almost impossible to regulate, firearms are not, and therefore the government seized an opportunity to ensure the safety of more Canadian through passing the Firearms Act. Thanks to you for restating the point I’ve been trying to make all along.
Zorro, I appreciate your comment and am sorry for the situation you went through, but need to point out that the Firearms Act in Canada does not prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining firearms, so long as they’re used safely.
The Firearms Act in Canada, by virtue of the restrictions placed on law abiding citizens, prevents the ready access to firearms for self defense. If a gun is available for defense, it must be unsafely stored. Laws that criminals don’t respect, but we’re required to.
I don’t blame guns for criminals any more than I blame my beer gut on forks. I’d prefer the option to protect myself and my family.
Hi Elizabeth: rather than calling Pat names, I would ask Pat what she thinks of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and their admirable and eminently successful campaign against drunk driving, and what she would think of a woman who reacted to the drunk driving death of a loved one by calling for a ban on alcohol.
I’d ask Pat whether she understood how the Firearms Act worked, explain the difference between registration and licensing, describe the failure of the registry to have any impact on violent crime, and ask whether she still supported the registry in light of the facts.
I would ask her whether she felt that the billions spent on the registry would have been best spent on the registry or on social programs like battered womens’ shelters.
I would ask her why she felt that the registry would have prevented her experience in light of its abysmal historical track record.
I would ask her whether her victimhood would have been any less traumatic if her abuser would have used a baseball bat or a knife or his fists.
I would ask her whether she felt that her abuse had been caused by her abuser’s firearm, or by his psychological problems.
I would ask her whether she could make a moral distinction between an abusive spouse with a gun and people such as myself.
I would ask her what she knew of the Canadian gun culture, and whether she understood that the vast majority of firearms in this country are only ever used for peaceful, lawful purposes.
I would ask her whether she really understood the relative rarity of violent crime involving firearms in this country, and whether she thought that the cost of our gun control bureaucracy was worth it.
I might, if it didn’t seem that it might be painful to her, ask her why she hadn’t considered the possibility that a firearm of her own would have ended the disparity of force between herself and her abuser.
I would ask her why she supported the social and cultural gender conditioning that deprived her of the means to effectively protect herself from her abuser.
I might ask her whether she knew who Jeanne Assam was, and whether she felt that empowering women to confront violence and abuse and stop it on their own was more or less feminist than disempowering them and making them helpless in the face of their attackers.
In other words, I’d try to present the reality of gun violence, gun control, and the gun culture in Canada, which she clearly doesn’t know much about, and give her food for thought. Name calling really doesn’t help people change their minds; if anything, it just entrenches them in their beliefs.
I’ve been called names for my former support for gun control; that wasn’t what led me to change my views on the matter. It only led me to call my interlocutors names.
What led me to change my views on the matter was dialogue. I realized that the arguments I was raising were always easily countered by more factual and more convincing ones from the other side. And the more I thought about it, and looked into the issue, the more I realized that those horrible [insert name here]s had a point. Add some actual personal experience with firearms, and meeting some members of the gun culture, and I realized that my opposition to firearms had really only been based on ignorance and prejudice, and that the gun control laws that I had supported had actually failed to work. And so I changed my mind.
I think that a lot of the anger and bitterness you’ve encountered from my fellow gun owners is basically due to frustration over how we’re constantly demonized by the anti-gun discourse. Constantly being reminded that there are some people out there who can’t tell the moral difference between you and a wife-beater or a mass murderer can be tiresome, not to mention being subject to government policies that are based on exploiting people’s inability to make that distinction.
Having been on the wrong side of that error, I understand why people make it, and this is why I try to engage in dialogue with people with anti-gun opinions. I know that I won’t be able to convince some, but I do succeed in making most people think
There is no “harmonization” between gun control and domestic violence laws in Canada. Never was and never will be. It is an illusion of safety that will cause more harm than good.
A registered gun can be loaded and fired as easily asn an unregistered one. There are more than 20 million firearms in Canada, yet only 7 million are registered, and this is not likely to increase anytime soon.
It costs about $60,000 per unit in multi-family housing to build in Canada. For the operations costs of the registry alone, you could build about 1420 hosing units per year, every year. Or, in lay terms for 11 years of the registry, that would be 15,600 places to live, safe places for a women and her children, each with their own safe, private bedrooms, appliances to cook on, and locks on the doors, and rent-free. Even more could have been spent to furnish these units, provide income, clothing and support with the money spent on the set-up of the registry.
What do we have instead? Women trapped, with no place to go, so that their abusive husband has a piece of paper he brush aside as he opens his gun cabinet.
Now, which of these options is reasonable, and which is utterly ridiculous?
So Pat stayed in an abusive relationship but had the gun registry been in effect back then it would have given her the strength to report the scumbag and seek help? I dont get it. Had pat reported the guy the first time he wouldnt even be allowed to legally own a gun in canada. She allowed a violent criminal to continue and escalate and now thinks the gun registry would have helped her? she was the only person who could help herself and I bet she is free from him now and its NOT THANKS TO THE GUN REGISTRY.
“Harmonization between gun control and gun violence”?
I see no causal link between the two.
A good person will not be violent to their partner regardless of what they may or may not possess.
A bad person will.
This same bad person WON’T get a firearm license (which includes background checks and a safety course/exam) and will NOT register their firearms (which is just a list of calibers, barrel lengths and brand names).
Why the GOOD people who wouldn’t dream of hurting their partner’s feelings, let alone body, should be told they can’t own XYZ guns, this one because it has a barrel 6 millimeters shorter, this one because it shoots a bullet 7.8 millimeters wide (as opposed to 9mm), and this one because they are hoplophobic and it looks particularly scary despite being no more and no less dangerous than a non-restricted gun firing the same round out of a barrel of the same length.
If I’m legally licensed (background checks, safety course/exam), why do I need to wait a month to receive the rifle I legally bought and registered? Why do I need to beg the government for an Authorization To Transport the firearm to the local range? The fact that I went through the licensing is proof enough that I’m not some thug out for blood.
I would say to Pat I am very sorry that she was in that tragic position and depending on the era these events happened the police and other various social service agencies may or may not have taken her complains seriously. I would suggest Pat get the help she needs if she already hasn’t.
That does not change the fact that the registry does nothing to help prevent this kind of situation. It does highlight the complete lack of understanding of gun control measures in Canada even by one of the groups it aims to protect. The firearms registry is a shame in the name of public safety and a total waste of money.
I will be callous and blame groups that use women like Pat to promote gun control at the cost of real solutions and even after 2 Billion spent still refuse to admit there is no statistical evidence that the registry does anything at all. They used people like Pat and grieving mothers who lost children and took up valuable resources that could have been spent really helping people. Yes 2 dollars a year was too much to pay when the greater good to society would have that 2 dollars be spent where society as a whole prosper more from it versus a registry of inanimate objects. With 2 Billion dollars real change could have been made, but all we ended up with is a database that cannot even be used in court as it is not reliable.
When facts and reason fail as they always do for people from the gun control front they make it about women and children then they can say whatever they want. Then when someone stands up and says your wrong the facts just don’t add up you get the tell the victim that scenario, but once you do that you get accused of making the victim a victim again. Ultimately the onus is then twisted and put on the people who’s hobby or way of life is politically incorrect because its there rights are in danger even though they are not the problem. This whole think of the children mentality is one of the reasons our justice system gives hugs to thugs instead of real jail time. Nothing is ever anyone’s own fault it’s always someone else’s fault.
I will leave my response to your question of personal freedom to a man who really understood the cost of freedom and liberty and what they mean “Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.” Benjamin Frankiln
Why should I lose my liberity, be punshied and taxed for someone elses crime.
“I would say to them that if people afraid that their freedoms are being taken away by having to register their firearms weren’t so intimidating in their opposition, politicians and the police could be more vocal in their backing of the registry. This would eliminate the need for the ‘Pat’s’ across North America to defend themselves in such a manner, as possible perpetrators would be denied access to acquiring firearms.”
Again the registry has nothing to do with acquiring firearms your complete ignorance of the system is part of the problem. You have no understanding of Canadian politics or even how these laws where hammered into place against the will of the people and without popular support even to this day. You also have no idea what the last 15 years has been like for honest law abiding firearm owners in Canada. Its only the last few years has any headway been made for the rights of firearms owners.
“CanAm, you’ve just pointed out that firearms aren’t used as often to harm or kill women in domestic abuse situations, which I thank you for because it points out that the harmonization between gun control and domestic violence laws in Canada is indeed effective. When perpetrators are denied access to guns based on a screening process written into law, they can’t use them to harm their victims. While knives and fists are almost impossible to regulate, firearms are not, and therefore the government seized an opportunity to ensure the safety of more Canadian through passing the Firearms Act. Thanks to you for restating the point I’ve been trying to make all along”
Statistically speaking there has been no change the trend was downwards before the laws and has remained that way. He didn’t prove your point. If the proof existed to back your claims you would use it. But you don’t have that information because it does not exist.
When Pat had a gun pointed at her head there was already a law in effect to deal with that. I am not here to put Pat down but she had a choice and yes it was a tough one but she chose not to call the police and deal with the problem. Pat’s husband was the problem in this situation not the gun.
Elizabeth, you call us intimidating and that just goes to show your mindset. Stop being so weak and you won’t be the victim. Also, as far as police being more vocal in their support of the registry…. I am a police officer and I do not support the registry. I see more and more laws being made but no courts with the balls to enforce the already good laws we have in the criminal code. You want to live in a police state.. then keep on pushing for more useless legislation just like you are. Then when everything is against the law one of us will be kicking your door down. See you in the future.
Mark Foreman
Let me guess……..the day after the registry was started the police knocked down the door and saved Pat?
Great work, Liz. It often takes meeting a person like Pat to put arms control into perspective.
Here in Congo, gun violence is a pretty bad problem too, and there are no background checks, waiting periods, or “silly rules”. Perhaps the people who want their guns so badly should come and live here. then they can buy an AK-47 for $5 and pop it off in their front yard whenever they want without the “big bad government” looking over their shoulder.
Unless you are a criminal or plan on being one, I don’t see why gun registry is so strongly opposed. It promotes responsible gun use, gives a record of where guns are located, what kinds of firearms are out there, and who owns them.
It reduces the misuse of guns and makes it easier for police to track illegal guns. Police officers can check the gun registry database and use it to check if they may be met by a gun when responding to a domestic disturbance or break-in.
Dave – had the police gone to Pat’s house – they may have been shot and killed, thus helping no one. I think this check is extremely important for the safety of our both our policemen and women and citizens.
Mark Foreman, as a police officer you should know how useful the registry is for your force. Police officers check the registry approximately eighteen times a day to check if the location to which they are reporting may contain a person in possession of a gun.
While I am incredibly sorry to all of you who have been in an abusive relationship I find it very presumptuous to say that all Pat had to do was leave. How can you leave someone who is threatening your life with a gun? If she were to leave, how do you know her husband were not to follow her to wherever she was staying and harm not only her but also the people she loves? Also, it is important to note that her daughter must have been very young at the time. Thus, it was not solely her own well being for which she had to be concerned but additionally that of her child.
When I gave a presentation last Tuesday to a group of high school students from across the world, I was surprised to learn that for those from the UK, Australia and other countries in which gun possession is incredibly low, they found guns to be to be a rather unimportant issue. One girl told met that in her country even the police didn’t have guns.
IANSA is a fantastic organization. They have sent fellows across the world to address the need for Portugal. From Aaron Fuchs in Portugal to Elizabeth in Canada, I think the fellows are doing a superb job in advocating for this important issue. As always, keep up the great work Elizabeth!
[...] What would you call a victim? [...]
The comment period for this entry is now closed.