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.

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.

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.

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.