Working as an Advocacy Project Peace Fellow with IANSA on the Disarming Domestic Violence campaign this summer has opened my eyes to the horrible realities of domestic violence. However, no matter how many months I spend researching the topic, I know I will never truly understand what it is like to be a victim, or survivor, of domestic abuse.
Understandably, it has been difficult for me to find abuse victims willing to share their stories; some are too ashamed while others do not want to relive the terrible memories they have worked so hard to forget.
One individual wanting to tell her story, though, is Donna Carrick. Donna posted a comment on one of my entries about her abusive father with the hopes that it would illustrate the increased fear and danger brought on by the presence of firearms.
I got in touch with Donna and asked if she would be willing to share more of her story with me. Kindly, in order to help promote awareness of this important issue, she agreed.
The following narrative was written by Donna. In her own words, she describes the abuse she witnessed and experienced firsthand as a child and into her first marriage.
My name is Donna Carrick. I’m forty-nine, married, and we have three children. Our home is peaceful. My husband and I are both writers with day-jobs. Most would describe me as out-going and confident.
On the subject of Domestic Violence, in particular with regards to how a violent situation can be made worse by the presence of firearms, I have first-hand knowledge. My father was a Military man. He was also a collector of hunting rifles and subscriber to many gun-related magazines. Canadian-born, he was an avid outdoorsman.
In later years we were able to honour him as a parent. He had many good qualities – loyalty, intelligence, and a sharp sense of humour. He was aware of his personal failings, which made him forgivable to his family.
However, when I was young he was abusive and violent. He often threatened to shoot my mother and even myself and my sisters. I don’t know how my ninety-five pound mother survived those years of physical abuse. My older sister did not survive – I lost her to suicide when she was only nineteen.
My father was physically, verbally, psychologically and sexually abusive to my mother, my older sister, and myself. My younger sister denies having experienced any abuse, but adds she has no memories prior to the age of twelve, which is hard for me to imagine. I have very distinct and sharp memories.
My father would strangle my mother. We girls would lie in our beds and hear her cries for help, too afraid to move. She was an unfailing wife and mother, didn’t drink, didn’t swear, and was raised to be a lady. He would beat her, would put inanimate objects inside her, would call her names, and worst of all, would threaten to take down one of his guns and kill us all. I consider it to be a “long-shot” we were not all shot.
IANSA
I have a sense of humour, enjoy my life, writing, family and my work and friends. All of that is forgotten, though, as I remember those years. I am again a child, afraid and frustrated, unable to take any action, dreaming only of escape.
No one can understand this despair unless they have lived through it. When I tell these stories, the reactions I encounter are 1 of 2 kinds:
1-How can you say these things about your family? (As if I am disloyal. But when my father was dying of cancer, it was I who visited him every day. I fed him, cleaned him, took him to his medical appointments, and never uttered an unkind or unloving word to him. “Keeping the silence” only perpetuates the abuse by enabling the abusers.)
2-Why didn’t your mother leave him? She left him when I was six, only to discover she had no family support. Her relatives felt she had “made her own bed”. My father’s employer, the Military, pressured her to return to him. She left him once again when I was fifteen, after being beaten so badly that several ribs were broken and her face was not recognisable. She was unable to get out of bed for three weeks. That time he actually did quit drinking and sought help for his problems. After three months we went back, and he never hit my mother again. Just when I was sure things were better, he was again sexually abusive. I left home shortly after that.
Guns were a terrifying presence in our house. We all understood we would most likely die by shooting. I’ve heard others say that this scenario is like “living in the eye of a hurricane”, in that you never know when the next bout of violence will erupt. On the contrary, we could usually predict the onset of violence. There would be a false bravado, a tone of camaraderie, a heightened sense of humour in my father’s speech that was certain to end badly.
During one of his moments of sobriety and remorse, my father allowed my mother to lock away vital parts of each firearm. I know little about hunting rifles, but I believe it was the “clips” that he removed. It was probably this insistence on my mother’s part that saved our lives.
When I finally escaped from my childhood I became another statistic. I married my first husband, a drug and alcohol abuser with an even worse temperament than my father had. During that brief marriage he strangled me twice, beat me several times, threatened and belittled me constantly, refused to work and demanded my pay checks, was constantly paranoid and jealous and accused me of having affairs.
One night, when we were entertaining people for dinner at our apartment, he took a large kitchen knife and threatened to kill one of our guests, then chased me down the street till I took refuge in a local restaurant. The owner found a blanket to wrap around me and called the police. I was seventeen at the time.
One day I went to put the clean towels away in the linen closet and found an illegal handgun hidden there. I knew it was time to get out. When I left, he would not let go. I lost several good jobs because of his stalking. He called incessantly and would show up. One of my bosses had to call security. It was the embarrassment that made me most depressed. On at least two occasions, he got on the bus I was on, and the bus driver had to force him off.
My oldest sister committed suicide when she was only nineteen. When you spend your childhood having your life threatened by a parent with a gun, you doubt your right to live. Her death was a defining moment for me.
Obviously there will always be men like my father who are violent, with or without access to firearms. However, when we take an already difficult domestic situation and add the element of firearms, the situation becomes worse. A bullet is more “certain to kill” than most other weapons.
I am not a victim of domestic abuse, but a Survivor. I understand this story could easily have ended quite differently for me.
I still experience the most horrible nightmares. My husband and children tease me about them – they don’t understand why I sometimes wake up screaming for help.
Tags: Disarming Domestic Violence Campaign, domestic violence, Donna Carrick, gun control, IANSA
Matt, I would suggest if you’re simply seeking clarification, to seek that clarification in a tone that is not accusatory. It gives the wrong impression.
Qballs, If the pro gun individuals that I engaged in dialouge with wish to let me share their names, they can get in touch with me. They were very kind in sharing their respectful opinions with me, and answering questions that I had. I am not going to disrespect them by sharing their information.
Elizabeth:
Granted, I can be a bit of a smartass at times, but I didn’t accuse her of making it up.
I said the discrepancy COULD LEAD a skeptical person to think she did.
There is a difference. A subtle on perhaps, but a difference.
Matt, I apologize for making the wrong assumption. As you can tell, I’ve had to take a very defensive stance as of late both in reading comments and in my replies, but it is unfair for me to do that in every instance.
Ms. Mandelman,
For the record, this is the THIRD time I send you this, yet you see it fit to CENSOR it out of existence. So much for all your claims to openness and welcoming debate.
I have remained civil every time I have written you. I do not have to like your position, but I do have to respect it. However, it is your methods, information, sources and motives that I put to the question.
Is it lack of respect not to take everything you say for cash money? Is it lack of respect to question you? Is it lack of respect to form my own analysis of your blog entries and their sources?
If it is, then my guess is that the circles of academia are indeed sinking pretty damned low.
So, you have spoken with members of the firearms community. Great. However, where are your blog entries about those interviews? Where are the concrete and irrefutable proofs that you have done so?
Also, I have EVERY right to question ANYTHING that seems odd to me. If I didn’t, what would that make me other than an accepting drone who takes anything that comes from his so-called betters? Someone who’ll take everything he hears for cash money without double-checking the veracity of the information? The severe discrepancies between your blog and Mrs. Carrick’s is only one example of what I question.
Just as I and Matt said, Mrs. Carrick’s blog does not give the impression of someone who is afraid of a stalking abusive ex. She gives out far too much information about herself, her family and her location to be seriously afraid of someone tracking her down. Ms. Mandelman, no one who is truly afraid would EVER allow for that kind of information to be put up on the web. Or for IDENTIFYING INFORMATION about the abusive ex she fears to be posted ANYWHERE.
Therefore, I can see one of 3 possibilities here.
1) Mrs Carrick is extremely bad at keeping herself safe from an abusive ex;
2) she has nothing to fear from that abusive ex because that segment is completely made up; or,
3) you posted that without her consent.
Paranoia? Ms Mandelman, wake up. Total civilian disarmament is the goal of every single pro-gun control group out there, let it be Project Ploughshare, IANSA, the Coalition for Gun Control, you name it. I know it, you know it so don’t bother trying to deny it. Do you know what you call a country where only criminals, the police and the military have guns? You call it a police state. Even if there are elections in place, it’s a de-facto dictatorship because the PEOPLE lack the effective means to stand up to a government that goes against their wishes.
Remember the Iraqi elections where Saddam Hussain was re-elected by an overwhelming margin? Here’s what you might not know. The other candidates were vetoed by Saddam himself. Those that were allowed to run, that is. Others were forced out of the running. And the day of the elections, REPUBLICAN GUARD troops were ensuring that votes would go to Saddam. Why did it go through? Because the PEOPLE knew that standing up to Saddam Hussain was a good way to get a visit by the jackbooted thugs under the command of his sons, and to just… disappear. I’ll let you guess what would happen after those people were taken from their homes in the middle of the night.
That is yet one more of the precedents that have come up many a time on your blog about the “success” of gun control and the state’s monopoly on use of force.
You call that paranoia? I call it being a student of history. It is said that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking such things wouldn’t happen in North America. In Louisiana, following Katrina, the National Guard, law enforcement agencies and even Blackwater (now Xe LLC) contractors were forcibly DISARMING the population, illegally, summarily and without just cause. People were being forcibly removed from their homes where they were well-supplied, out of the flooded areas and secure. They were displaced “for their own safety” and forced to relocate in the “shelters” that were more like Somali and Rwandan refugee camps, complete with crime, disease and armed thugs making the law, than what you’d expect in a developed country. Don’t believe me? There are a number of articles and books about the subject, including a rather lager segment of Jeremy Scahill’s book “Blackwater: the rise of the world’s most powerful private army”.
Also, before I sign off, don’t pretend you know me, Ms. Mandelman. Compassion, I have. Respect, I have. However, I find it hard to feel compassion for a woman with contradictory accounts of her marital life.
Just as I find it extremely hard to give respect to someone who offers none or doesn’t do anything to deserve any from me, such as yourself.
As usual, in order to shed as much light on the issue as possible, this will be sent to multiple recipients in case you do not see it fit to post this.
P.S: Canada is MY country. It’s MY home. Not yours. You say we have no rights to question you or your sources, I say you have no right to come to OUR home and tell US how WE should live.
P.Dusablon-For the record, it is actually the FOURTH time, in a matter of what, two hours? I accepted it the first time you submitted it. I guess you must have missed that. I’d be happy to post all of the various times you submitted it, if you need any proof. I’d like to remind everyone that I do have other things to do during my day besides sitting at my computer waiting for comments. If I don’t accept your comment within five minutes, don’t try resubmitting your comment repeatedly, as it just takes me longer to get through them all.
Ms. Mandelman,
It might have been an honest mistake on my part, my apologies.
However, I do not see you trying to address the points I raised in that particular comment, such as:
- Historical uses of gun control and their consequences (ie: Nazi Germany, Balkans, Rwanda, Stalinist Russia, post-Katrina New Orleans, Saddam Hussein’s 2002 election with 100% of the votes, etc);
- Veracity of the claims regarding Mrs. Carrick’s marital life;
- Failure to provide hard evidence to disprove the facts raised by members of the firearms community;
- Failure to put statistics in context;
- Explain how you can claim you are not out to insult gun owners, soldiers and men in general when you liken us to murderers, wife-beaters, gang members, rapists and war criminals;
- Why do you constantly ignore the use of weapons other than guns quoting that “guns are more lethal”;
- Constantly ignoring the MALE victims of domestic abuse, insinuating that it is not a human rights issue when they are the victims.
And those are only the ones I can easily list.
Should you start answering the points that myself and other bloggers consistently raise, it would go a long way towards earning the respect you demand we accord you for no reason other than your status as a fellow associated with IANSA and your post-graduate studies.
And as usual, it will be sent to various recipients in order to maximize the amount of light shed on this issue.
As I was sitting here reading through all of the comments on this article, I had an epiphany: The Nanny State – a government that is characterized as being excessive in its desire to protect, govern or control particular aspects of society. It is generally accepted that Canada is well on its way to becoming one, but it would seem, Elizabeth, that so is your blog. I hope you don’t consider this an attack in any way, it’s honestly not meant as one. It’s just an observation.
For instance there is 1) the line that you removed from Ms Carrick’s story about her previous marriages for fear of how it would be received, 2) your refusal to post your interviews with pro-gun people because you’re concerned with the response they might get, and 3) that line to soulchaser about how you elected not to post one of his comments to “save him the embarrassment”. And these examples are just from this one blog entry.
Like a Nanny State, all three of these scenarios are perfect examples of how a desire to protect people who don’t want or need that protection can have disastrous results.
1) If that one sentence hadn’t been removed from Ms Carrick’s story, she would not have been subjected to suspicion or questions about her abusive ex-husband. There would have been no discrepancy between her blog and yours. It was her story to tell and she chose to include that in her story. You chose to remove it.
2) By opting to “protect” the pro-gun people you have interviewed, rather than post their side of the story, you are simply increasing the suspicion directed towards you. If any of these pro-gun people happen to be members at CGN or have read your blog, they know exactly what they are letting themselves in for. If these people decided for themselves that they would rather not have the interview posted, that’s perfectly fine. But if, as you say, you’re withholding the interviews out of a desire to shelter these people, you’re only hurting yourself.
3) And in choosing not to post soulchaser’s comment, you’ve not only insulted him (by trying to “save him the embarrassment” you’ve implied that you’re smarter than him and that you know better what’s right or wrong) you’ve also added to the censorship claims. He’s a grown man who is very capable of deciding what he does or does not want to say on the internet. If what he says happens to be embarrassing – so be it. It’s his right to make an idiot of himself.
If a person is willing to put their opinion out there, whether it be in an interview, a video or a blog, then they should also be willing to be challenged on that opinion. They made their choice and they can deal with the consequences. It’s not your job to protect them from themselves.
My wife owns a pistol, i am not in anyway ‘terrified’ by this. If she was an abusive drunk i would leave her, not her guns. A friend of mine was brutally raped and murdered by a man with a knife, if she had a gun she would be here today. I beleive we shouldn’t ban guns, we should arm more women…
So… should we also ban the following from society?: Fists, cars, kitchen knives, baseball bats, bows, crossbows, pellet guns, razors, leather belts, 2×4’s with nails sticking out of them, glass bottles (because they can be broken and used to stab housewives/kids/pets/neighbors), metal bars, crow-bars, screwdrivers, construction/demolition hammers, large scissors, bricks, ropes, etc, etc, etc, etc… where’s the end? After all, the world is FULL of dangerous objects! What makes the GUN so special?
IF someone’s determined to HURT another person, there are literally a thousand and one ways to do it, starting with the God-given fists on the end of our arms and the feet on end of our legs. Why is it that some people (*cough*) still can’t understand that it’s not the gun that threatens or hurts, but the assh*le pointing it? Would it be somewhat better if he threatened his wife with, for example, a meat cleaver?
Please, do yourself a favor… start focusing on correcting society’s behavior and not on banning inanimate objects – because you just won’t see the end of it, ever. Saying that a house gun’s ultimate goal is to threaten members of the family living there is like saying that a sports car’s ultimate goal is to run over school children at 100 mph. Sure, there are pricks that would do it – but don’t extend that kind of sick behavior to the rest of the drivers!
All in all, you’re a very narrow-minded and discriminating individual. I’m in the process of finishing a bachelor’s degree in management, law and public policy myself and I must add that, from my experience, there should be a little more to be expected out of an educated person like yourself… way more than you have proven so far. Please start questioning yourself a little more before you reach any hasty conclusions and post them as factual evidence.
P.Dusablon, Unfortunately I don’t think the pro gun community will ever respect me, based solely on my opinion. And, I already have the respect of those who can see past the words ‘gun control’ and recognize that I have good intentions and am an intelligent person.
The comment period for this entry is now closed.
[...] …One day I went to put the clean towels away in the linen closet and found an illegal handgun hidden there. I knew it was time to get out… more [...]