”Post mortem examinations by the Edmonton Medical Examiner have determined that all four deceased died as a result of gunshot injuries. It has been determined that three of the deceased sustained multiple firearm related injuries while the fourth succumbed from what appears to be a single, fatal, self-inflicted injury. Investigators remain confident that the person responsible for all four deaths is among the four deceased. In consultation with the Medical Examiner this is now being classified as a triple murder-suicide.” (RCMP “K” Division Media and Communications Services news release, July 29th, 2009)
On July 26th, Slave Lake police received a call suggesting that a homicide had taken place on a property located in rural Alberta. Upon responding to the call, the RCMP Emergency Response Team entered the property and found four deceased persons.
The RCMP, through their investigation and with help from the Serious Crimes Unit, concluded that Ian Jeffrey Paget, 58, shot dead his estranged wife, his daughter, and his nine year old granddaughter. After shooting his family members to death, he turned the gun on himself, committing suicide.
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.
Firearms are designed to kill, and are able to eliminate many people instantly. According to Statistic Canada’s most recent data, between 1961 and 2003, firearms were the weapon of choice in the majority of homicide-suicides in Canada.
A firearm in the home increases the risk of death at the hands of a violent perpetrator; Ian Jeffrey Paget was able to eliminate his entire family, including himself, in a matter of seconds.
DV Logo
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.
According to a report released by the Alberta “K” RCMP Division in January (the same division to investigate the Paget homicide-suicide), fifty-three homicides were investigated by their Serious Crimes Unit in 2008. Of these fifty-three homicides, fourteen (or twenty-six percent) were the result of domestic violence and six involved intimate partner relationships. Additionally, fifteen of the fifty-three homicides were committed with a firearm, accounting for over a quarter of the total.
In 2006 (a report was not submitted for 2007), twelve of thirty-six homicides (thirty-three percent) resulted from domestic violence, and firearms contributed to twelve (thirty-three percent) of the total number of homicides. In 2005, thirty-one of the forty-nine homicides (sixty-three percent) investigated were attributed to domestic violence, and eleven of the forty-nine homicides were a result of firearms (twenty-two percent).
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.
Tags: Disarming Domestic Violence, domestic violence, gun control, IANSA
Elizabeth,
You advocate gun control – but offer no suggestions on any sort of reasonable measures of gun control, save complete disarmament.
It is tragic when someone commits an act of violence against someone else or themselves, regardless of the tool of choice.
How then as a society do we prevent such acts of violence?
Hypothetically, if all firearms both legitimately and illegitimately owned were to be completely purged from society, what then? Someone who has it in their mind to harm another person has any number of tools at their disposal to do so.
How about cars? A car used with malicious intent could kill dozens of people much easier than any gun could. How about home made explosives? There is no shortage of recipes available online describing how to build pipebombs, petrol bombs, and Molotov cocktails out of items readily available at the average hardware store. How about knives? In any household, you’ll find dozens of readily available knives that could very easily be used to stab someone to death.
Logic dictates that by taking one of the tools by which someone may do harm to someone else, you still have not addressed the root problem – the person prepared to do harm.
Rather than focusing on ineffective gun control measures that have been proven NOT to work (i.e. complete abolition of private firearms ownership – as was the case in Great Britain) – why not focus on effective crime control and violence prevention measures that DO work such as harsh sentences for violent assault or abuse or social programs that empower victims of abusive households to leave the situations their in?
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.
So let me get this straight. Your more dead if some one gets shot with a gun than…. say… stabbed with a knife. I think I must go and ask for the money I paid to go to school because I was always told that dead is dead. You cant be more dead.
From your stats that you provide it seem that the remaining 67% (2006) and the remaining 78% (2005) dose not count because they weren’t killed by guns.
Think about this for a second, what if the victims where allowed to be armed and they defended themselves with a gun. It seem like you and Wendy are all for violence against woman???
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 truly sad.
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. The other individuals murdered using tools besides firearms do count, obviosly, and for you to accuse me of thinking or stating anything otherwise is childish.
Let’s say the victims did have a gun somewhere in the home. Do you think that Ian Jeffrey Paget, in being fair, would have allowed someone to run and get it quickly from wherever it was stored, to try and defend themselves? 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.
“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!
Ms Mandelman,
I have to say, you are in absolutely no position to call anybody on being close-minded when your censorship of the comments to this blog has been fully exposed. Not to mention your persistent pro-gun control stance, your refusal to meet with members of the firearms community while you will consistently meet with members of the gun control lobby.
Not to mention that not once have I seen you say a damned thing about the human rights of the male victims of domestic abuse.
Also, your focus on firearms being used in crimes has become practically legendary. Not to mention your clever use of statistics that you are not putting into context. First, what is the proportion of murder-suicides amongst all homicides? Second, how many of those 6 domestic homicides (out of 53 homicides) committed by an intimate partner were committed by a man and how many by a woman? Who were the other 8 domestic homicides committed against? Of the 14 domestic homicides, how many involved a firearm?
There is one question I’ve posed to you many a time and which you’ve failed to answer every single time I asked it. What good is your precious registry when it comes to dealing with thoroughly illegal guns? You know, those that were smuggled into the country and never lawfully owned and therefore registered? No amount of gun control will protect ANYONE from those guns, make no mistake.
I am looking forward to you answering all of my above questions, although I feel I should tell you that I am not holding my breath.
Oh, and before I sign off, I have one more statistic to throw at you. The average number of homicides per year in Canada is +/- 600. On the other hand, the average number of deaths due to medical errors (yes, by doctors and nurses) is roughly 25 000. Tell me, Ms Mandelman, where is your outrage at this imbalance? Perhaps there should be tighter doctor and nurse control, don’t you think?
And once more, in the interest of shedding as much light on this issue as possible, this will be sent to multiple recipients.
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.
Wow, Elizabeth, get a grip you’re losing it. You actually stated a firearm is a tool.
A deadly tool to be sure, but a tool nonetheless. In the hands of someone unschooled in it’s use, deadly! In the hands of someone bent on death, destruction and mayhem, deadly! So is a machete in the hands of a Tutsi or Hutu or Somali warlord. To say that a firearm is more deadly than any other weapon is, well, nuts. A weapon is a weapon and dead is dead.
I am 60 yrs old and have been around firearms since they were taller than me. Starting my life on a farm in rural Kentucky I was putting food on the table by the time I was 8. I have been in possesion of or owned firearms for appox. 91.68% of my life. I have never killed anyone nor threatened to. I have never beat my wife nor ever lifted a hand against any woman. Such a thought is repugnant to me.
No matter that your beliefs about firearms are 180 degrees opposite of mine, no matter that your liberal attitude is completely foriegn to me, know this. I would give my life to protect you and your family in a time of need. Count on it.
And you know what Liz? I don’t think there is a Canadian Gunnutz who has posted replies that wouldn’t do the same thing. Think about it Liz, the people that you deride, you censor, you castigate, you malign and slander are actually willing to protect you and yours.
We appreciate your gratitude.
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.
> Additionally, fifteen of the fifty-three homicides were committed with a firearm, accounting for over a quarter of the total.
In other news, Elizabeth Mandelman couldn’t care less about just under 75% of homicides, as they do not lend themselves to easy exploitation to further her political agenda.
“”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.
Sorry, meant to ask in my last post. How many degrees of dead are there?
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.
Elizabeth, do you personally know Ian Paget? I know for sure that you don’t. Do you realize that I live very close to this tragedy? Do you know for a fact what he would do?
Your entire blog has been about personal feelings, supposition and innuendo. There are no real facts you possess that prove that gun control via our Registry has done one positive thing statistically, or saved even one life. Our registry has been here for 13 years, our licensing has been here for 31 years for long guns and 75 years for handguns. Our official government statistics department can’t draw a correlation, our Auditor General could not draw any correlation, and they have thousands of people and billions of dollars at their disposal, as well as access to information you will never have. So, how can you magically draw a correlation?
If our controls were effective, how come this tragedy occurred? This tragedy occurred because of Ian Paget, period, end of story.
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?
One more thing: Were Ian Jeffrey Paget’s guns registered? Good thing we have that registry, eh? Oh wait…
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.
Dear elizabeth I have a question for you
lets say that the victim of this crime was your avrage size woman and the the killer was your avrage size man. now the man has about 30-50 lbs more if he wanted to he could have killed them with his bare hands. yet is it wrong for me avrage size male to have free use of my hands? no? yet for hundreds of years the most dangose weapon was the human body.
having gun in the house dosnt make it any more dangouse for my famialy in fact they feel safer knowing that if something goes wrong and say someone like the muder dose try to hurt my family I can defend them.
Now would i go on a killing spree and shoot everyone in my path of course not.
your argument and very other anti gun personal out there continue to miss the big picture guns can’t shoot themselfs if there is someone behind them with the intent to use them wether for good(soldier,cop, hunter, someone proctecting his/her family) or for evil(crimanals, mentally unbalance people, warlords, dictators) it is the person using it that should take the blame not the TOOL that they used.
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
Edward, The RCMP has not released information on whether Paget’s firearms were registered, or even what type he used. Perhaps if the government hadn’t passed THREE amnesties extending the time period gun owners have to register and get proper licensure, this wouldn’t have happened. Because of the amnesties, the screening process isn’t working as effectively as it should be. Paget had been having financial difficulties for years. He was almost half a million dollars in debt. That sort of debt takes time to build up. Proper screening could have prevented this, but that would have been an infringement upon his rights, wouldn’t it?
Paul, To answer you questions on whether the money spent on the Firearms Act was worth it, yes. By the way, I’m not sure why pro gun advocates keep trying to suggest that the money was spent on the registry, as the majority of it was spent on licensing and screening.
Ryan, I’m sorry, but I completely disagree with you, as I think most people would. In pre-school and elementary school children should be learning things like reading, writing, and math, not how to be scared and paranoid of their surroundings, or how to properly hold a gun.
CF_Sapper, A gun in the home where domestic violence takes place makes the situation more dangerous. Also, I should point out that in Canada, 77% of people living with gun owners agree that gun control is essential.
GoodLord, I’ve never said that domestic violence as a whole isn’t a big issue. It is. It’s an extremely huge issue. However, I’m here working on a specific aspect of domestic abuse: the use of firearms. That doesn’t mean I don’t understand the vastness of the issue, and for you to accuse me of not caring or knowing shows how unopen you are to the opinion of others. I have talked with abuse victims, yes. And, FYI, the safety of others comes before anything else in the Bill of Rights. Guns, being dangerous weapons, are regulated for that very reason. Why am I here instead of in the US? Because the Firearms Act is being looked at as good practice by other nations in designing similar legislation. That’s why I’m here.
Turfman, Why so angry all of a sudden. You were one of the nice ones! A firearm can be used as a tool of intimidation and threat; it can be a very dangerous tool indeed. I never said that you beat your wife or that you should not be able to own a gun. You put words in my mouth, Turfman, simply because my opinion is different from yours. 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.
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.
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.
Ben, You’ve got me all wrong. I have no political agenda, unless fighting for the human rights of marginalized communities counts. Please, enlighten me if I’m missing something.
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, 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.”
wanna bet I just looked up home made explosive on google for shits and giggles anyone with the intent to kill a lagre amount of people in a few seconds could do so with simple things found around the house and any idiot can mix the right stuff together to make it go boom.
“CF_Sapper, A gun in the home where domestic violence takes place makes the situation more dangerous. Also, I should point out that in Canada, 77% of people living with gun owners agree that gun control is essential.”
“A gun in the home where domestic violence takes place” uh yeah no kidding because there is domestic violence to begin with funny how that works eh.
“You can kill A LOT more people in a lot LESS time with a firearm than you can with any other weapon.”
you just agred with everything we have been trying to tell you and you still cant see it. its the person behind the weapon not the weapon itsself.
by the way I do belive that gun control is essental.
like where the safty is and where a safe dirction is.
“Ryan, I’m sorry, but I completely disagree with you, as I think most people would. In pre-school and elementary school children should be learning things like reading, writing, and math, not how to be scared and paranoid of their surroundings, or how to properly hold a gun.”
whats wrong with taking one recess away every week and replace it with a firearms saftey cousre?
hell I would have loved that as a kid
“not how to be scared and paranoid of their surroundings”
Funny seems to me thats exaclty whats happening to them now. so many kids have been turned in to spinless nitwits because theres no one telling them to stand up for themselfs. its all come talk to this person come talk to that person.so how about this once a week give the class martial arts lessons? now before you go saying that that would lead to more violance how would teaching them to fight for themselfs so that in a situation where they need to defend themselfs they could do something about it?
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.
Ms Mandelman,
I have to say, you are in absolutely no position to call anybody on being close-minded when your censorship of the comments to this blog has been fully exposed. Not to mention your persistent pro-gun control stance, your refusal to meet with members of the firearms community while you will consistently meet with members of the gun control lobby.
Not to mention that not once have I seen you say a damned thing about the human rights of the male victims of domestic abuse.
Also, your focus on firearms being used in crimes has become practically legendary. Not to mention your clever use of statistics that you are not putting into context. First, what is the proportion of murder-suicides amongst all homicides? Second, how many of those 6 domestic homicides (out of 53 homicides) committed by an intimate partner were committed by a man and how many by a woman? Who were the other 8 domestic homicides committed against? Of the 14 domestic homicides, how many involved a firearm?
There is one question I’ve posed to you many a time and which you’ve failed to answer every single time I asked it. What good is your precious registry when it comes to dealing with thoroughly illegal guns? You know, those that were smuggled into the country and never lawfully owned and therefore registered? No amount of gun control will protect ANYONE from those guns, make no mistake.
I am looking forward to you answering all of my above questions, although I feel I should tell you that I am not holding my breath.
Oh, and before I sign off, I have one more statistic to throw at you. The average number of homicides per year in Canada is +/- 600. On the other hand, the average number of deaths due to medical errors (yes, by doctors and nurses) is roughly 25 000. Tell me, Ms Mandelman, where is your outrage at this imbalance? Perhaps there should be tighter doctor and nurse control, don’t you think?
And once more, in the interest of shedding as much light on this issue as possible, this will be sent to multiple recipients.
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.
Edward, Believe it or not, I do have other things to do during my day than sit and wait for the multiple comments you post to each of my entries. I make sure to read the comments of people who don’t comment on a regular basis, so that their opinion is also heard. Patience, Edward, patience.
P. Dusablon, How many times do I have to explain to you before you let it sink in that
A. If I find a comment offensive and choose not to post it, it is my perogative. You and a few of your gun nut buddies are the only people accusing me of censorship, so I’m not too worried about it.
B. I have talked extensively with a few members of the pro gun community. Do you follow me around all day, tracking my moves, because if not, I would stop accusing me of things you clearly know nothing about.
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.
D. If you’re so paranoid to think that I’m making a ‘clever use of statistics’ I don’t know why you even take the time to read my entries.
E. The Firearms Act isn’t foolproof, and nobody is pretending it is. I’m not. Never have.
F. There are a lot of injustices in this world. Medical errors shouldn’t occur at such a high rate. I’m not here working on medical errors, and the fact that you think any number of homicides are less important to focus on because fewer occur is sad.
Dalton, I’ve never said abuse against men doesn’t exist, and never said that it’s not an awful thing. I also never stated that abuse through other forms doesn’t exist, nor that they shouldn’t be taken seriously. I don’t understand why I have to keep explaining this to people. By the way, you failed to mention that the women involved were his wife and two mistresses. I just thought I’d point that out to those who don’t know the whole story.
Soulchaser, I’m not here focusing on all violent crimes, I’m here focusing on domestic abuse. Look at the number of firearms used in instances of domestic violence, those statistics are telling. Additionally, you need to add to that figure the number of times firearms are used to threaten and intimidate a victim. Just because a victim isn’t shot with a firearm doesn’t mean that they aren’t fearful for their lives as a result of one being present in the home.
Brad, How does the fact that you live closer to where this tragedy took place make you anymore qualified to comment on it than I? That makes very little sense. If the statistics and facts that I presented in my blog aren’t good enough for you, although they come directly from the Alberta RCMP, then you clearly have very little trust in the truth.
“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
Do you know that Canada isn’t the same culture from East to West? What passes as acceptable civics in Ontario is not the same as Alberta?
You have no stats from the Alberta RCMP that pass as truth when the stats are incomplete, selective and seemingly contradict national stats.
When it comes to items of safety, like safe storage as mandated by law, it is considered ridiculous here, in point of fact, even deadly. How is it viewed in the halls of academia in Ontario?
A fact is only a fact when it is suppoorted by evidence. All your facts are refuted by published statistics. Period. End of story.
Your single issue crusade can only occur at the expense of others, creating more marginalized folks.
“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.
Elizabeth:
Thank you for responding.
You mentioned that I need to add to the statistics I mentiond the number of times a firearm is not fired in an incident, but used to threaten or as intimidation. Yet you failed to provide a link to those statistics. If you could do so it would be appreciated.
Also, in your original post you said: “In 2006 (a report was not submitted for 2007), twelve of thirty-six homicides (thirty-three percent) resulted from domestic violence, and firearms contributed to twelve (thirty-three percent) of the total number of homicides. In 2005, thirty-one of the forty-nine homicides (sixty-three percent) investigated were attributed to domestic violence, and eleven of the forty-nine homicides were a result of firearms (twenty-two percent).”
Do you have a break-down of how many of the victims were women and how many of the victims were men? Seeing as how your main focus is violence against women, by not telling the reader how many victims were men, you, I feel by design, are attempting to influence the readers opinion that all the victims of these cases were women.
I wonder if the case of a London, Ontario police officer’s murder-suicide is included in those statistics. A male and female officer were involved in a love affair. the FEMALE officer used her service pistol to kill the male officer, then herself. See the story here:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/06/08/officers-london.html
Also, in a response to a comment, you said that a gun can kill faster than any other weapon. Are you aware of what happened on June 8th 2008 in Japan? In the city of Akihabara an individual used his car as a weapon, then went on a stabbing rampage. In a matter of seconds, the individual responsible had killed 7 and seriously injured 11 more. As you will read in the story, this happened on the anniversary of another mass stabbing tha left 8 children dead in Osaka City in 2001. Here is the story:
http://zichi.blogspot.com/2008/06/another-mass-stabbing-japan.html
My point Elizabeth is that a PERSON bent on injuring or killing another person will do so with whatever “tool” is at his/her disposal, and can do so as “efficiently” (probably not the right word to use here) as using a firearm.
Take care.
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.
Ms. Mandelman, as a law abiding citizen that is a gun owner, target shooter and hunter, I have always resented the fact that policies on gun control in this great country of ours (it really is the greatest on Earth) always seems to target the segment of the population that is least likely to commit a violent crime in the first place. Why? Is it because it makes great press when our Politicians anounce stricter gun control immediately after a tragic event. Personally I’m disgusted that Politicians would even think about using tragedies to make political gains. Maybe that’s not the case and David and Dalton are just so out of touch with reality that they actually believe more gun control can prevent these tragedies. History is on our side though because handguns have been registered since the 1930′s and somehow unregistered, illegally possessed handguns are still being used to commit crimes. How can that be happening when it is the law that they be registered and the owners have a licence to possess them? Once again the laws target the wrong people.
Everytime I see a news bit, or read an article about a tragedy such as the one you mention in Alberta, I can’t help but wonder if 2 Billion dollars spent on Women’s shelters and ad campaigns to get the message out that people(women as well as men) have options and don’t have to stay in a bad relationship, or can raise their concerns if they fear for their safety wouldn’t be money better spent than a registry of firearms owned by those least likely to use them in a violent crime. I would bet my suggested alternative would have a much better chance of saving lives. If that idea isn’t acceptable then how about 2 Billion spent on more officers and technology to prevent the smuggling of illegal firearms and drugs into our country. I strongly believe the two (drugs and guns) are joined at the hip and have a chicken or egg relationship.
One ridiculous reason that I’ve heard for keeping the gun registry is for employment. Both of my alternative suggestions would create employment too.
In summary I just want to say that I would like to see effective measures taken to reduce these needless deaths rather than ones that look good on the news or in print.
Frank, Thank you for your respectful and well-thought out comment.
Qballs-I just don’t think that asking someone to fill out paperwork and get a license to own a firearm is asking too much. I understand that guns are used for sportsmanship purposes. In Minnesota, the majority of people I know hunt. I have a co-worker who lives away from the city in a rural area, and they use firearms for things like pest control. I have nothing against owning a firearm; however, in my opinion, you’ve got to be held accountable for owning something that can be very dangerous if used improperly. I also think that the government has a responsibility to make sure that people they are granting licenses too are stable enough to own guns. Additionally, the government has a responsibility to hinder the illicit trade of small arms; many illegal guns start out legal. Having proper records of the firearms that are in Canada is very important for this reason.
Do I think that it’s necessary to carry a gun in your bag or under the seat of your car when you’re running errands? No. Absolutely not. The United States and Canada, moreorless, are very peaceful places, and law enforcement does a good job of protecting people who need protection. When I walk by myself at night do I keep my cellphone in my hand as a precaution? Of course. Do I think to myself “Gosh, I would be so much safer if only I had a gun?” No way. In fact, I think the opposite.
Ben, What’s your point? Is that something you think I don’t know? I would, however, like to remind you of an organization called the NRA. I know, pro gun advocates in Canada claim they have no organized movement. I wonder, then, why there are NRA moderators on CanadianGunNutz.com. I also wonder why the NRA provides funding to pro gun candidates and advocates in Canada. You’re fooling no one when you say there is no organized movement.
Rafael, Statistics vary from report to report. If you’re going to state that a 10% difference in the number of women being abused makes a difference, then it’s clear you don’t understand the severity of the problem.
Also, again, I’m here working on a specific issue and again, that issue is the use of firearms in abuse against women. I never said abuse against men isn’t as awful. I know that there are some gunnutters who have taken it upon themselves to count the number of comments that have been posted on my blog (I would think there are more entertaining things to do than that, but, to each their own); perhaps someone could take some time to count the number of times I have specifically stated that domestic abuse against males in no less important than against females. While they’re at it, perhaps they could also count the number of times that I’ve said that I’m not against law-abiding citizens owning guns. Maybe with some empirical data on those statements, the pro gun community will believe me.
Brad, My stats aren’t incomplete. In fact, I summarized all of the data that I was given. Also, the fact that the culture of Ontario varies from East to West does not make Paget shooting three family members and himself okay.