In Canada, 85% of female homicide victims are murdered by their partners and in Ontario, possession or access to firearms is the fifth leading risk factor for femicide. These reasons are just two among many that led Wendy Cukier to work for stronger gun control in Canada.
For those of you who do not know who Wendy Cukier is, you must not be from Canada. Ms. Cukier, in addition to being a Professor at Ryerson University in Toronto, is a co-founder and the current President of the Coalition for Gun Control (CGC).
The Coalition for Gun Control is an alliance of more than 300 major policing, public safety and violence prevention organizations including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Canadian Public Health Association, and YWCA of Canada. It is also a founding member of IANSA.
The Coalition was founded in the wake of the Montreal Massacre. In 1989, a twenty-five year old named Marc Lépine entered a classroom at the École Polytechnique in Montreal, armed with a legally obtained semi-automatic rifle.
Lépine moved all of the women to one side of the classroom and shot them, declaring that he hated women and that he was ‘fighting feminism’. He then roamed the corridors, entered another classroom and the cafeteria, specifically targeted women, and shot them. In total, fourteen women were killed and ten were injured.
The mission of the Coalition is to reduce gun violence, injury, and crime. As the organization’s President, Cukier has for years been one of Canada’s leading voices on the necessity of gun control. Working together with the police, health care agencies, women’s groups, and victims, CGC and Cukier have helped to lead the efforts to defend Canada’s Firearms Act.
coalition for gun control
When Ms. Cukier took time to sit down with me last week for an interview, one question I posed relates to the interrelatedness of licensing and the registry. I explained that many opponents of the registry claim it to be unnecessary, and asked how she would explain that the two are indeed interconnected.
In response, Ms. Cukier asserted that as Canada’s Supreme Court concluded in their 2000 opinion regarding the Act’s constitutionality, it would be impossible to ensure that licensed individuals do not give their guns to others not holding a license without the registry. The registration of firearms helps to enforce the licensing provisions of the Act.
To explain this, Ms. Cukier provided the example that if an individual has a license and purchases firearms without a registration requirement, there is no way to hold them accountable for those firearms or to prevent them from lending or giving them to an unlicensed person. In other words, registration results in accountability.
In addition, if a prohibition order is placed on someone and their firearms license is taken away, without the registry, the police have no way to know what firearms they should be seizing.
Lastly, Ms. Cukier explained that if guns are stolen after being improperly stored, owners are unlikely to report the theft as required by law. If guns are registered, in effect attaching the name of the gun owners to the firearm, owners are more likely to behave responsibly. Registration is an essential component in preventing the diversion of legal guns to illegal markets.
Clearly, the licensing and registry provisions included in the Firearms Act are interrelated, and licensing on its own cannot do what licensing and the registry can together. As Canada’s Supreme Court pointed out in their 2000 opinion on the constitutionality of the Act, the registry helps police officers to take preventative measures, and also aides in holding people who have misused firearms or sold them illegally responsible for their actions.
In closing, I would like to point out that since December 1st, 1998 (when the Firearms Act was first implemented) the notification line, which allows concerned spouses or individuals to report their objections about the acquisition of a firearm by someone they know, has received over 22,000 calls.
Additionally, and in part due to Canada’s Firearms Act, there has been a 67% decrease of female homicides by firearms; while the rate of female homicides without firearms has only decreased by 10%. Canada’s gun control law has been identified as a best practice globally in the reduction of armed violence against women.
Tags: Canada's Firearms Act, Coalition for Gun Control, Disarming Domestic Violence Campaign, domestic violence, gun control, IANSA, Montreal Massacre, Wendy Cukier
Ms. Mandelman,
The registration of handguns started in 1934. It is long guns that have been registered since 1998.
As such, the 1998 Firearms Act has had absolutely no effect on the illegal trafic of handguns in Canada.
And even then, it is only a ridiculously small number of guns from law-abiding owners that are involved in crimes. In fact, an overwhelming majority of the firearms used by gang members and other criminals have never been in the sytem, never been legally owned in Canada and therefore never been registered.
And even if they had been registered, a common criminal behaviour is to file off serial numbers. And without a serial number to rely on, the registry has absolutely no way of identifying a gun as to whether it was smuggled in or stolen or misused by it’s owner.
As such, the registration of fireams does absolutely nothing to curb crime.
Also, I personally find that it does little to make you credible when you are willing to meet with influential members of the gun control lobby and yet refuse to meet with members of the firearms community.
Indeed, with all your claims of openness, one would expect that you would be more than welcoming to speak to both sides of the issue.
And once more, in the interest of shedding as much light on the issue as possible, this will be sent to multiple sources in case you see it fit not to publish this comment.
P. Dusablon, The pro gun advocates have spent more time attacking me personally than the issue at hand. As such, there is a reason I have turned down particular invites.
Your claim that the 1998 Firearms Act has no effect on illegal traffic of firearms is like saying zero law-abiding gun owners abuse their spouses and therefore should not have to register their firearms. They’re both fallacious.
Using Mark Lepine as a poster child for gun control has always puzzled me.
My understanding of this tragic event is that the main factor in the Polytechnique murders was the misogyny he learned from his Muslim father.
His birth name was Gamil Gharbi, and there is no shortage of information about
“Gamil’s father had contempt for women and believed that they were only intended to serve men.[4] He was verbally and physically abusive towards his wife and children,[5] once striking his son so hard on the face that the marks were visible one week late”.
Would outlawing of guns really have solved the issue? Or, as some gun rights people argued, would a civilian with a gun on campus drastically reduced the damage?
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…
You should quote your primary sources when citing statistics. I am interested in where you are getting your information from. In particular, I am curious about your first sentence–what other risk factors were examined? If there are only 5 risk examined, firearms being the fifth leading one is not very informative. What are the more important risk factors? How strong was the correlation and what types of data did you use to establish a causal link between firearm ownership and spousal homicide that qualified it as being considered a “risk factor”?
Here is one interesting report I found on the subject.
“Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile 2008″ (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2008000-eng.pdf)
Page 14: “Similar to violent crimes in general, incidents of spousal violence typically do not involve the use of a weapon. When injuries were sustained as a result of spousal violence, they were most often the result of physical force (45%) rather than a weapon (7%) (Table 1.10). When a weapon was used against a current or former spouse, weapons other than firearms were typically involved.”
Page 24: “Methods of violence causing the most serious injury to the victim of in spousal violence incidents, reported to a subset of police services, 2006″
Against female:
Total victims of spousal violence: 32,028
Total with weapons: 1562 (4.9%)
Total with firearms: 34 (0.1%)
As far as I am aware, there have been no large, world-wide studies conducted that have been able to verify the “more firearms = more violence” hypothesis. The Clinton administration conducted one (National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, 2004) and the Center for Disease Control conducted one (First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws, 2003), but neither were able to produce empirical evidence to support the “firearms = violence” theory.
In Canada, the overall homicide rate has increased 46% since 1961-67 when fully automatic, military-style rifles were legal. In general, it seems to me other factors (such as socioeconomics conditions and population age demographics) better explain the rates of violent crime than the availability of any specific type of weapon. Yes, you can often reduce “gun violence” or “gun deaths” by making them harder to acquire, but that is only relevant if you are specifically afraid of being victimized by a specific type of weapon. The larger picture of crime and violence is not dependent on the specific tool used.
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.”
Tucker,
The term “femicide” has been used for many years, and in fact dates back to the 19th century. It’s defined as the killing of women. It’s widely used by government agencies, scholars focused on gender issues, and the medical field. So, to answer your question, no “the anti firearms establishment in Canada” is not “making up fake crimes” to go along with “made up statistics.” Perhaps if those who disagree with my opinion spent a bit more time doing research rather than instantly labeling me a liar, they would know that I don’t make up words, nor do I make up statistics to get my point across.
Shane,
My sources include Domestic Violence Death Review Committee publications and research done by Jacquelyn Campbell of John Hopkins University. After re-checking old reports and comparing them to the newers ones, I have realized the DVDRC has added more risk factors to their list and made it much more extensive. Whereas it used to rank 5th out of 12 factors, it is is now 12th out of 37. The percentage has gone down by about 10% since the DVDRC started releasing reports, just a few years after the Act was implemented. To me, this works to illustrate that the law is working.
Ms. Mandelman,
I was under the impression that you also received some very respectful invitations to go to a range and to meet gun owners in a public venue. Yet, you declined those invitations, citing fearing for your safety and fearing bullying as reasons. But honestly, how can you expect getting a true feel for the gun owners of this country if you will not meet them face to face? This blog is a highly impersonal form of communication, to say the very least. In no way can it replace meeting in person. I mean, really, how can you expect us to believe that you are truly open to discussion when you refuse to meet with gun owners at all and reserve your time for law enforcement agents and proponents of gun control? I will say it again, it does very little to increase our trust in your claims of openness.
As for my mention of sending my comments to multiple recipients, it is no threat. It is, in fact, in effect a way to foster open discussion and debate.
Also, I never said that gun owners never used their guns to abuse their spouse, let it be a husband abusing his wife or vice-versa. Just as there are dishonest gun owners who will willingly and knowingly break the law. However, they are such a small fraction of the licensed gun owners that they are hardly representative of the gun-owning population, let alone that of the general public.
And still, you have not responded to my point about the guns that are smuggled into the country or with filed-off serial numbers. How is the registry helpful in any way against them when they have never been registered in the first place or when the one identifying mark has been made illegible?
As you might have guessed, this is also being sent to a wider audience for dissemination.
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.
I’m wondering how many risk factors which rank higher than firearms have been afforded the billions of dollars that have been spent on our current Registry? I’m willing to bet not 1 of them.
I need to reiterate that the figure that Sheila Fraser came up with is a estimate based on known expenditures, the government of the day actively misled her and hid true spending, which is noted in her report. In other words, more was actually spent.
But to be perfectly honest, the noble goal of saving 30 women per year is commendable, but there has to be a limit, a cost-benefit analysis when dealing with people’s rights and freedoms.
Do you know how many women per year die as a direct result of stroke caused by smoking in concert with oral contarceptives? How many women die becasue of preventable heart disease brought on by bad diet, smoking, or alcohol? I promise you it is orders of magnitude more than even the worst year of firearms-related deaths, I think that is a no-brainer. Each one of these cases is 100% preventable, and legislation restricting the freedom of women to chose to smoke, drink, eat greasy food or taking the pill could have been effective in preventing all those needless deaths.
Does this not sound reasonable? It should. You would propose that restricting the rights and freedoms of millions of gun owners to save 30 lives is worth billions of dollars, what’s a little more legislation to restrict the freedoms of women to chose in order to save their lives? I’m not being facetious here, but there has to be a limit to how much legislation may be imposed to save a statistically insignificant number of deaths. To put this in perspective, we would need to spend $200 Billion just to stop deaths from automobiles each year, or more than our GDP. That would be ridiculous now, wouldn’t it?
If my argument does not sound reasonable, then the argument in favour of our Registry can not be reasonable either.
EESASTORM-I’m not sure how many remarks I’ve gotten so far that discuss trying to meet with Ms. Cukier in regards to issues that deal with firearms. Thus, I think you should be able to understand where I’m coming from when I say that ANYONE with a vested interest in an issue that involves firearms has an interest in meeting with Ms. Cukier. Why would that be any different for me?
Brad-
A. I’m talking about risk factors related to the homicide of females by their spouses, not risk factors of women dying by other means.
B. I’m not sure where you came up with “the goal of 30 women per year.”
C. In most places, legislation exists that regulates smoking and drinking and in some countries, trans fat is even banned.
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?
EESA Storm,
You have no idea who I have and have not met with, so I would ask that you not make the type of presumption that you are. I was, in fact, going to post part of an extensive dialogue that I have had with a pro-gun advocate(s), but after some thought decided against it. I did not want the individual(s) to receive the same type of treatment I have been. And, considering I’ve been accused of copyright infringement in regards to the video clips I put on my entries, it made it hard for me to believe that I wouldn’t have been accused of making the dialogue up. Lastly, I did not know you were a CSSA RD, as for me to take interest in someone and take them seriously, they need to first be respectful of me as a person and my opinion.
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.
I’m sorry Elizabeth, I erred. The number of spuses killed with firearms is only about 0.5/million spouses according to these guys (I think they know what they are talking about):
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2008000-eng.pdf
That would mean there would need to be 60 million spouses in Canada, which there is not, not even 1/4 of that. So really, we are talking about less than 10 women per year. But if it saves even 1 life, $2 billion is worth it (as well as the loss of Canadian culture, personal rights and freedoms). Too bad the rest of the entire planet doesn’t think this way, all it would take is trillions times trillions of dollars and we could solve all of the world’s ills. Too bad things don’t actually work that way.
Brad,
Add the number of domestic abuse deaths prevented and the number of perpetrators prohibited from acquiring firearms to the number of prevented suicides (or the use of firearms by people mentally unstable to own one), prevented accidents, and prevented criminal activities in this and other countries together, and it’s pretty easy to justify the Firearms Act (and, as has been pointed out again and again, it did not cost $2billion dollars).
You are correct in stating that you haven’t been using an emotional plea, and neither have I. There are fellows in other countries such as Uganda, Argentina, Nepal and Serbia, working on the same issue that I am. However, in those countries, there are no harmonized laws. Take a look at the statistics on domestic abuse and the use of firearms in those places, and maybe you’ll understand better why sometimes regulation is a good thing. I’m here looking at the Firearms Act as good practice, determing what elements are useful and what changes could be made to make the legislation even better. So by me being here, I am working to help other places in the world that you say are in need of people like me, with convictions.
Hi Elizabeth,
Between the three of us (Wendy Cukier, yourself, and I), I am quite confident none of us can reasonably speak on the subject of statistics (I believe you and her are both Poli Sci majors, and I am a Software Engineer – I’m not sure, but I don’t think any of us are professional statisticians).
I can say for sure, however that Ms. Cukier’s attempt at using statistics to mislead the general public is genuinely disturbing.
In her interview, Ms. Cukier uses a lot of “ifs” to fear monger and come up with hypothetical situations that may happen. She goes on to misuse an incomplete and out of context set of statistics to justify why the current system of gun control should be in place to keep those “ifs” from happening. Any pragmatic person can apply this type of logic and misrepresentation to justify any number of “noble” laws or regulations – how do you think the Holocaust happened?
As you and I have discussed through our private correspondence the issue of gun control, or rather, the control of gun related violence, is a complex issue dealing with many of sensitive social, economic, and political issues.
Ms. Cukier is hardly in a position to offer an unbiased perspective on gun control in Canada. Her “Coalition” started out as a charity but had it’s charitable society status revoked after it was determined it was an elaborate tax evasion scheme. Her opinions on the subject are based primarily on an incorrect perception of the general firearms community. Her chief supporter, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, is a for-profit political lobby (in the same way the NRA is in the States), who receives huge sums of donations from CGI, the software company that built and supports the gun registry.
Elizabeth, again, I invite you to dig deeper into the matter of gun control in Canada as opposed to formulating a perspective based solely upon what’s on the surface.
There is an inherent danger in taking the opinion of a zealous organization whose credibility is questionable at best. The Canadian Government did that, and well over $3 Billion dollars and 15 years later, illegal handguns are still readily procurable by urban gangs, random, indiscriminate shootings still make national headlines, and domestic violence (with or without firearms) is still an unacceptable plague to our society.
If the CFGC has it’s way, Canada would end up like the United Kingdom, where firearms ownership is banned, but violent crime is through the roof and tyrannical government control and surveillance over every aspect of life is common place.
As a Canadian firearms owner, I can’t emphasize enough that I support gun control to the extent that such measures are reasonable, make sense, and enhances public safety. When gun control is none of these things (as it is in Canada) it serves to be a tremendous waste of a finite resources, which thereby reduce public safety and must be opposed, reformed, and replaced.
Thanks for reading, Elizabeth, have a great evening!
[...] In response, Ms. Cukier asserted that as Canada’s Supreme Court concluded in their 2000 opinion regarding the Act’s constitutionality, it would be impossible to ensure that licensed individuals do not give their guns to others not holding a license without the registry. The registration of firearms helps to enforce the licensing provisions of the Act. To explain this, Ms. Cukier provided the example that if an individual has a license and purchases firearms without a registration requirement, there is no way to hold them accountable for those firearms or to prevent them from lending or giving them to an unlicensed person. In other words, registration results in accountability…more [...]
Hi Elizabeth: regardless of what one thinks of Professor Cukier’s motivations, the fact remains that the policies she advocates have been in place and in operation for nearly a decade now.
If she had been right, they would be working. There should be some sort of actual, discernable effect in violent crime rates that could be attributed to the Firearms Act.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. Professor Cukier’s views have simply failed to map to reality, let alone prevent violent crime, at horrendous cost. The fact that Dawson College shooter Kimveer Gill’s firearms were all registered is just one demonstration of how abjectly unrealistic Professor Cukier’s views and policies are.
Her experiment has failed to produce the results we were promised. Simply put, her track record gives her about as much credibility on firearms matters as those of temperance advocates on alcohol policy post-Prohibition.
We’ve tried her ideas; they’ve failed to deliver. It’s time we stopped wasting tax dollars and law enforcement resources on them and moved towards more realistic firearms policies that will make Canada safer.
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.
Brad-It’s unfortunate that you don’t find the lives of others worth spending a couple of extra tax dollars on per year. There is something very deeply disconcerting about that.
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.
Dave,
I’m in Canada to work on a specific issue, that of gun control and domestic violence. All types of gendered-violence against women are unacceptable, and need to be addressed; focusing in on a specific issue is sometimes more effective, as the problem of gender-based violence is very large. I interviewed Shelley Saywell and hoped that people would take the time to look at the films she’s done. Two of them relate directly to what you’ve mentioned, honor killings and gang violence and how that violence impacts girls. You may want to go back and take a look at the link I provided in that interview, and read that interview again. In addition, take a look at what I’m working on, as like I said, I’m here working on a specific issue: http://www.iansa-women.org/disarm_dv
Focusing on a global problem that happens to focus on one aspect of that problem does not equate in me being full of BS, it equates in you needing to put things into perspective. Once you do that, you’ll recognize that I’m not here ‘attacking’ gun owners, I’m here to help keep women safe from perpetrators of domestic violence.
The comment period for this entry is now closed.