I arrived in Canada as a fellow with the Advocacy Project under the false hope that people who disagree with me would at least listen to what I have to say, respecting who I am as a person. Boy was I wrong.
I was invited by a member of CanadianGunNutz.com to participate on the pro-gun website in a discussion thread regarding gun control. The member invited me through the following statement: “If you are interested in having a discussion over why my colleagues and I think the Canadian system of gun control compromises public safety, please, come visit us on our website. One of your posters already posted the link. I’ll even start a thread for you in our political discussion forum (In the “Firearms Politics” section).”
So, I registered with the website; after all, I had been invited to. I found thread discussions dedicated to each one of my entries, and one entitled ‘Elizabeth Mandelman-An Open Invitation to Discuss Gun Control’. Unfortunately, many of the threads that should focus on the issue of gun control instead attack me personally, and are quite vulgar. I wasn’t surprised, as I have been receiving the same type of comments on my entries. As a result, I decided not to participate in the discussion.
Rather than debating my opinion of gun control and its effectiveness in preventing domestic violence, I have become the major focus of attack. This is unacceptable, and undermines the real discussion that should be taking place. As a practice, I have been deleting comments that attack me or my academic integrity, and I will continue to do so. In addition, I have removed the comments of individuals who have been particularly offensive and disrespectful of my personal character, and will no longer post comments that they submit. Call this censorship if you like, but healthy debate should focus on the issue at hand and not the person advocating for or against it.
Tags: censorship, IANSA
I agree with your decision to get rid of the gunk clogging up your blog. According to Merriam Webster, a blog is “short for Web log : a Web site that contains an online personal journal with reflections, comments, and often hyperlinks provided by the writer”. Some bloggers do not allow random rantings from people with opposing views. You are open enough to allow people to post comments in regards to the articles you have published and I applaud that. I am glad you get rid of the utterly offensive remarks as I do not want or need the unnecessary negativity.
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.
Ms.Mandelman, while it is unfortunate that you have not had what you consider to be a positive experience with gun owners thus far in Canada, you need to realize a couple of things.
First of all, gun owners in Canada have been under attack by Liberal politicians for a number of years and have seen nothing but continuous attacks on them, their sport/hobby and yes their character.
Secondly, the current iteration of gun control in Canada presupposes the guilt of firearms owners in all manner of crimes. paper and real. If charged under the Firearms Act, gun owners are considered guilty until they can prove their innocence to the Crown’s satisfaction. What other aspect of Canadian law places such a reverse onus on the accused? I can’t think of any. Murder someone and you are presumed innocent until the Crown can prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt…but have the neighbour complain that you have a gun and the police will be there in a heartbeat with automatic weapons drawn while you are legally compelled to help them find something, anything to incriminate yourself as they tear your house apart. And yes, this does happen. Like mistreated dogs, people will only be pushed so far before they begin to snap back.
Since attacks such as these from within are tough enough to deal with, attacks from outside are viewed as particularly unwanted. Furthermore, it is particularly galling for people who have to continually look over their shoulders to ensure that every “t” is crossed” and “i” dotted lest they be criminally charged for some paper oversight, to be told by someone who hasn’t lived this for the past 15 years, and who is from another country, that the regime is not onerous, and as simple as filling out a couple of forms.
I can assure you that it is not as simple as filling out a couple of forms and living happily ever after. By way of example, I personally recently received a letter from the “local constabulary”, and was immediately filled with dread. The only regular contact I have with law enforcement is with regard to firearms…was something amiss? Did I forget to fill in a form? Did something expire and I forgot about it? All of these things and other variations of paper infractions carry criminal sanctions for the gun owner here in Canada. Forget to renew your driver’s license? Not nearly such a big deal, even though motor vehicles kill many more people than do firearms in Canada. You may receive a fine if you let it go long enough, but nobody is going to issue a warrant for your arrest, seize your vehicle(s), conduct an invasive and destructive search of your residence and issue you a lifelong driving prohibition. As for my example, it was a minor and completely unrelated matter…however, my blood pressure was, shall we say, at rather unhealthy levels over that letter. As the saying goes, you cannot judge until you have walked a mile in the other person’s shoes.
Next, as people who have a vested interest in gun control in Canada, the respondents to your blog have indicated that they would like to discuss things with you, many times…including in face to face venues such as The University of Western Ontario. At first, it was because they found that you were confusing the two or deliberately stating that registration and licensing are one and the same. Even though you insist they are the same or inseparable, I can assure you that in practice they are not. If you wish to argue that point feel free to do so, but before doing that, reread the last sentence of the previous paragraph. It is your insistence that your point of view is the right one despite the actual life experience of those that have lived with the ramifications of the Firearms Act that has elicited angry responses…that and your tendency to not post many replies whether they were well thought out and respectful to you or not. That is what has led to the accusations of censorship.
Finally, many have taken your statements and actions as an unwillingness to post differences of opinion to obstinately defend the Firearms Act, a piece of legislation that has complicated their lives to no end while failing to have undermined the criminal misuse of firearms.
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.
Hello Elizabeth-
While some may not play well with others (as is the normal way with life) others don’t. Sorry to hear of your bad experiences. However, when people hear lies about something they hold close in terms of my country’s heritage, they do get a bit snappy. Please ignore them – they don’t represent the majority of firearms owners. My offer is still open, come out and shoot some paper! It’s loads of fun, honest!
Kent
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.
Melissa,
You are very right about the lack of debate around the actual issue of gun control, and I know I too have gotten sucked into bickering rather than focusing on the issue at hand. I think those passionate about something often lose sight of what they’re fighting for and instead resort to childlike behavior, fighting eachother instead of the issue. The real issue, in my opinion, is how to reconcile legislation the government finds necessary to ensure public safety, with the gun culture that exists in Canada. There are many law-abiding citizens who want to own guns simply for sportsmanship purposes, and I understand that extra paperwork and fees may be viewed as receiving the short end of the stick, as rational law-abiding citizens constitute the majority of licensed gun owners in Canada. Thus, I think the debate needs to focus on whether (global) public safety and the protection of vulnurable communities can be as effective with less or different gun control measures in place. The discussion needs to focus on what sort of policy is going to keep the most people safe without taking away the rights of others. In my opinion, Canada’s gun control policy does nothing to take away the rights of firearms owners, and it’s proven to keep the public safe. Could there be some improvements made to it? Of course, but those improvements (again in my opinion) have mostly to do with the gathering of empirical data.
The comment period for this entry is now closed.