Over the weeks that I have been in Canada, I have had a few inquiries as to why the Disarming Domestic Violence campaign, the first international campaign at protecting women from gun violence in the home, focuses solely on women.
The answer is simple, gun violence is gendered. Although men make up the majority of those who use small arms and die from them, their use has an incredible impact on women’s lives. For instance, women often become the sole caregiver in families where a husband or father has been killed or disabled by gun violence.
Additionally, and attributable to the notion of masculinity, men are more violent than women. In many cultures, small arms use is linked to manhood, and violence is a means through which men gain power. For more information on this perspective, visit this link to read the IANSA publication, “Men, masculinity and guns: can we break the link?”
DV Logo
Furthermore, the types of violence women experience differ from men. As Anthony Doob points out in Violence against Women: New Canadian Perspectives:
-Female homicide victims are much more likely to have been killed by their spouses than are male homicide victims.
-Women, overall, are more likely to be victims of violent victimizations than are men, particularly if they are separated or divorced.
-Women in marital relationships are considerably more likely to be victims of violence perpetrated by their partners than are men in such relationships.
In Canada, the rate of spousal homicide against females has been between 3 and 5 times higher than the rate for males during the 30 year period from 1977 to 2006. One in three Canadian women killed by their husbands is shot, 88% of them with legally owned rifles and shotguns, the firearms of choice in domestic violence and suicide.
For these reasons, the Disarming Domestic Violence campaign focuses on women, aiming to develop an international network of advocates for women’s rights, who are committed to producing social change and curbing armed domestic violence.
By doing this, the campaign hopes to help countries enact legislation to take guns out of the hands of actual or potential abusers and in countries where laws already exist, to monitor its enforcement and highlight lessons learned for future policy development and sharing with other countries.
Violence affects women differently than it does men and as such, needs to be addressed differently.
Tags: Disarming Domestic Violence Campaign, domestic violence, gun control, IANSA
In Canada, the rate of spousal homicide against females has been between 3 and 5 times higher than the rate for males during the 30 year period from 1977 to 2006. One in three Canadian women killed by their husbands is shot, 88% of them with legally owned rifles and shotguns, the firearms of choice in domestic violence and suicide.
In this atricle, you made the above statement, could you please provide your source for this information.
Jim
According to Statistics Canada, the female spousal homicide rate from stabbing is almost equal to that of firearms…29% compared to 31%. Therefore one could just as easily say that virtually 1 in 3 women killed by their partners is stabbed…yet there is no push to ban knives and pointy sticks. Statistics Canada goes further to indicate that drugs and alcohol were major contributing factors in 60% of these cases. Drugs are already illegal…alcohol…? Furthermore, something like 60% of these cases already involved a history of violence and criminality compounded by the drug and alcohol abuse.
The rate of spousal homicide has been in decline in Canada for at least 30 years. Of course that means that the big population bubble, baby boomers, are also 30 years older. Since there is a preponderance of 15-24yr olds in the spousal homicide data, it would only be expected that the trend should continue to show decline as that demographic becomes a smaller proportion of the population.
That 15-24 demographic is also the one most likely to be involved in criminality compounded by drug and alcohol abuse. And as shown by Statistics Canada, that demographic is also more likely to be in a common law relationship, which is as they show the, the spousal arrangement in which women are more likely to be victimized. Couple all of the above with the knowledge that 1 in 5 perpetrators of spousal violence have mental health issues, and we get a more complete picture.
So, that means we generally have mentally disturbed younger males with a history of violence, criminal records, a history of alcohol and drug abuse in commonlaw relationships who use a firearm to kill their spouse in a third of such killings attributable to them….What about the third killed by knives? The third killed by other means? People like you, Ms. Mandelman tend to ignore these other two thirds in pursuit of your ideological purity.
By the way, my source for this information is Statistics Canada:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2005000-eng.pdf
I notice you either cite your organization’s own papers to support it’s/your position, or, do not cite at all…perhaps you should refrain from the former and cite more independent sources…just a thought that might reduce some of the anger and incredulity your perceive to be sometimes directed your way.
Jim S,
My source for this information is the Stats Canada report of Family Violence in Canada, which can be found here: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2008000-eng.pdf
The first sentence of that paragraph is a direct quote from page 39.
Good link Elizabeth.
Chart 4.3 however on the very next page clearly shows that overall rates of spousal homicide involving rifles and shotguns was already in decline prior to the implementation of the registry and have simply been continuing in a downward trend since 1974.
Keeping this in mind it’s hard to accept a conclusion that the registry has contributed in any fashion to the overall decline of spousal homicide using firearms.
“enact legislation to take guns out of the hands of actual or potential abusers and in countries where laws already exist, to monitor its enforcement and highlight lessons learned for future policy development and sharing with other countries.”
You have no idea how closely aligned this statement is with the stance of most firearms owners and the organizations that support them namely the CSSA and NFA in Canada. The problem is with the lessons learned aspect. As some aspects of the system in Canada are complete and total failures.
The second problem is the real goal of IANSA is the complete removal of firearms from civilian hands. At the end of the day Domestic Violence is being used as a pawn in the name of Gun Control. If every gun on the planet disappeared today the rates of Domestic Violence would be exactly the same and the same number of people would die.
I will ask you this question again as you have yet to answer it.
What is more a more valuable and productive way to spend 80 Million dollars. Breaking the cycle of violence and supporting people in crisis while directly attacking the issues of violence both in homes and streets? Or The registration of inanimate objects?
The answer will really define if you really interested in Domestic Violence or are pushing a Gun Control agenda.
I look forward to your response.
Thanks,
Paul
The comment period for this entry is now closed.