The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) seeks to make people safer from gun violence by securing stronger regulation on guns in society and better controls on arms exports.
Project Ploughshares works to identify, develop, and advance approaches that build peace and prevent war, and promote the peaceful resolution of political conflict.
Both IANSA and Project Ploughshares are promoting the implementation of The United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (PoA).
Unfortunately, the PoA mentions gender only once, to address the negative impact of small arms on women, children, and the elderly (UN 2001, I.6). This lack of attention is problematic because it means that the PoA fails to address the unique ways in which women are affected by firearms.
Ken Epps, a Program Associate with Ploughshares and someone who has been involved in the Open Ended Working Group on the Arms Trade Treaty, has stated that “[in] the case of small arms and light weapons, the solutions to the problem will not work without gender analysis.”
Overall, more men die more often as a result of firearms than women, but one type of gun violence that affects women on a larger scale then men is domestic violence, especially that involving the use of a firearm. Women are more likely than men to be killed by their spouses. In Canada, the rate of spousal homicide against females has been between 3 and 5 times higher than the rate for males during the 30-year period from 1977 to 2006.
To highlight this issue, IANSA and some of its partners have come together to launch the Disarming Domestic Violence campaign. As I have described in past entries, the Disarming Domestic Violence campaign is the first international campaign to protect women from gun violence in the home. The main goal is to ensure that anyone with a history of domestic abuse is denied access to a firearm, or have their licenses revoked.
This summer, Advocacy Project Peace Fellows are working with IANSA and their partner organizations around the world on the campaign. I am the only fellow working in a country that already has harmonized gun control and domestic violence laws in place; Canada’s Firearms Act has licensing and registration provisions that work together to prevent and lessen the occurrence of domestic violence.
During my time as an AP fellow, I have been working to illustrate the benefits and effectiveness of this legislation as well as the need for tighter gun control in other countries. Canada’s Firearms Act is internationally recognized as good practice and has been commended for recognizing that guns and gun control are gendered issues.
Through the continued work of IANSA, Project Ploughshares and the Advocacy Project, awareness of the negative impacts of the proliferation of small arms and specifically their use in domestic violence, will be increased. Advocacy for the development by governments of public policies and legislation to take guns out of the hands of potential and actual abusers will contribute to stopping violence against women.
Ms. Mandelman, you continue to insist that the long gun registry here in Canada works to prevent violence. However, you also continue to avoid commenting or responding to the information I received first hand from the RCMP. To recap: the RCMP believe that the long gun registry does nothing to either prevent or solve criminality…which includes violence against women. I am still waiting for some sort of response or debate from you on this subject in place of the silence. However, by default, the silence does actually speak volumes with regard to the credibility of your stated position.
Elizabeth:
One question:
In this submission you state: “Advocacy for the development by governments of public policies and legislation to take guns out of the hands of potential and actual abusers will contribute to stopping violence against women.”
What is your definition of “potential abuser”?
Does simply being a male with firearms equate to being a “potential abuser”?
IF that is what you were getting at in your statement and granted I may be reading too much into it, (but that is the impression I got) then you have just defamed and slandered myself and a couple million other firearms owners in Canada.
Again, you and I had a few battles in one of your other posts where you accused me of making accusations against Donna Carrick for something when I was just seeking clarification, which you apologized for (thank you by the way) thats all I am doing here. Seeking clarification as to what you meant using the term “potential abusers”
Have a good day.
This might sound a little silly… but if violent and aggressive behaviors are the problems…
Wouldn’t we be better off working on programs that deals with violent and aggressive individuals, instead of pushing for programs that control the sale of this or that object?
Ignoring the root of the problem will not make it go away.
Ms. Mandelman,
Before I address this entry, I need to address the issue of respect. I for one do not disrespect you because of your opinion. Even if I’m not required by any stretch of the imagination to agree with it, let alone like it, I am required to respect it. The reasons I have a hard time respecting you is because you have not earned my respect yet. Despite being shown proof to the contrary you act as though you are always right; you claim welcoming open discussion and debate yet you censor a number of the comments sent to you and refuse to meet face to face with members of the firearms community; you do not answer points and questions that are raised in comments to you. Not to mention that you claim you are not out to insult men, or gun owners, or soldiers yet many, not just me, find that your writings do just that. Simply apologizing for that would start a process of us respecting you.
Now, for the issue at hand.
I have read that entire entry. Repeatedly. And now I’m left to wonder how you expect us to believe that you are not claiming that violence against women is somehow worse than violence against men. Oh, I can see an attempt to make this neutral by stating that “Overall, more men die more often as a result of firearms than women”, but you are quick to go right to domestic violence killing more women than men.
Ms. Mandelman, how many more men die from being shot, overall, than women in domestic violence? Or is somehow the life of a domestically abused woman so much more valuable than any man’s?
And while you claim you do not stand for complete disarmament, how else am I supposed to read “Advocacy for the development by governments of public policies and legislation to take guns out of the hands of potential and actual abusers will contribute to stopping violence against women.”?
Maybe you’ll accuse me of “selective interpretation” yet again, but the way you have been writing so far, you’ve been saying that the only source of domestic violence is men. Ergo, all men are potential abusers. Ergo, you’re saying that preventing all men from getting guns will stop domestic abuse. Ergo, your goal is removing all guns from their male owners.
Maybe it’s me being dense, as you’ve accused me of being, but that’s the analysis I’m deriving from all your blog entries. Oh, and by the way, my job in the military involves a great deal of analysis so don’t go thinking that I have no background in the matter.
Ms Mandelman, I never called you stupid. What I’ve said you were was naive and misguided. What will happen in this case is that your beloved registry will be used to go after legitimate gun owners, those who have lawfully acquired and registered their guns. Why? Because we’re easy to find. Because we CAN be found.
However, while your goal to end violence is commendable, what you are advocating will do absolutely NOTHING to remove the illegal guns from the hands of criminals, and they are the ones who are far more likely to misuse guns in any way, including domestic violence. Why? Because an overwhelming majority of those guns have been smuggled in and so far as the registry goes, they do not exist in this country. As such, they are not tied to a name or an address that can be conveniently looked up for seizure.
Also, I will once again repeat myself in terms of documented instances where gun control was deemed “successful”:
- Nazi Germany, 1930′s;
- Stalinist Russia;
- The Balkans, 1980′s and 90′s; and
- Rwandan, 1993-4.
You are a smart woman, you tell me what disarmament led to in those instances.
And once more, in the interest of shedding as much light on the issue, this comment will be sent to multiple recipients in case you see it fit to contradict your claims of welcoming discussion and debate and not publish it.
Through all this, it’s becoming obvious that you choose advocacy over objectivity. You disallowed a very polite post from me asking this very thing.
Elizabeth, if you are to be effective you must choose the objective truth over what you want to be the truth. Intellectual honesty must trump ideology and emotional commitment to keep you out of professional trouble.
My foremost concern: As a scientist, I’m less than impressed with the way you’ve moderated comments. You’ve made an attempt to show the other side of the picture but only insofar as you thought you could prove you weren’t wrong. You haven’t conceded any ground even when proven wrong on specific points.
You’ve attempted to paint your opposition with broad strokes to give you the leverage to dismiss them without specifically addressing their claims. You’ve censored inoffensive posts including ones I have put up.
Count on being debunked every time you put feeling and ideology ahead of objectivity and intellectual honesty. If you want to be respected, then be honest. Of course, an advocacy sight would be the wrong place to espouse a balanced viewpoint, wouldn’t it?
Everyone wants a better, safer world. But you need to also be mindful of the damage that collectivist ideologies have done in prior decades.
Notwithstanding, it was a good effort and I’m encouraged by the dialog you did have with some of those who disagreed with evidence. Perhaps this will have a moderating effect as you grow into your career with the understanding that problems are often sophisticated and require sophisticated answers. I would only ask that you be skeptical of all claims and weigh them with evidence.
Good luck out there.
Gun control has been proven over and over again to do nothing for violence levels, just like prohibition of alcohol. People who do illegal things like beat their wives will get guns nomatter how many restrictions you put on them, because they dont follow the law.
So am I to assume that you have nuked every single reply to this “presentation”.
That is rather shocking isnt it?
I mean…your conclusions are very wrong indeed. Do you not expect people to point out the errors you have come to?
I had expected better……..
John, Because I sometimes have other things to do with my life besides sitting and waiting for comments, it takes a little time for me to get to them sometimes. As I’ve said before, the gunnutz community just needs to be patient.
P.Dusablon, Taking away guns from targeted groups of people within a population is different from disarming a society completely. I take great offense to you using those examples, where large parts of certain populations were singled out and killed. In addition, statistically, women are shot more often by their spouses by men. Lastly, calling someone misguided and naive is just as offensive as calling someone stupid. Just because my opinion varies from your own does not mean I am naive, misguided, or stupid; it means that you think you’re opinion is the right one, and the only one.
Ms. Mandelman,
The examples I have made were of populations at large.
In Rwanda, nearly a MILLION Tutsis were MASSACRED by the Hutus. And it was done largely with MACHETES and SHARPENED FARM IMPLEMENTS. Why? Because there was a TOTAL CIVILIAN DISARMAMENT.
In Stalinist Russia, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS were DISAPPEARED by the government, because THEY HAD NO WAY TO FIGHT BACK because of a GENERAL CIVILIAN DISARMAMENT.
In Nazi Germany, the government claimed that they were the MOST ENLIGHTENED NATION IN THE MODERN WORLD because they had instituted TOTAL GUN CONTROL and EVERYONE except the military, the SA and the SS had to give up their guns. There WAS a sizeable Jewish population in Germany… up to that point.
In the BALKANS, only the MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY OUTFITS had guns. Look up the mass graves, filled with all men and boys from a number of villages.
Are my examples are documented and proven true historical events. Ms Mandelman, who do you think you are to question history?
However, what you are saying is that the only kind of domestic abuse you give half a damn about is abuse against women and that you’d do ANYTHING to prevent it. In effect, you’re saying that ONLY men commit domestic abuse, and that to prevent that you’d see them all disarmed.
Tell me, how is that “taking guns away from targeted groups” instead of disarming an entire population?
My position is backed with facts and history. Yours is backed with emotion, cherry-picked statistics that are given out of context and a very selective target population.
And still, you’ve failed to address most of the points I have raised with you. You demand respect, then perhaps you SHOULD try to EARN some by answering the points I am bringing forward.
And once more, in the interest of shedding as much light on the issue, this comment will be sent to multiple recipients in case you see it fit to contradict your claims of welcoming discussion and debate and not publish it.
I think we should take guns away from women only.
WHy do you only want to save women? Are you a sexist? Many many men are the victims of domestic abuse from their wives. Shouldn’t these men be offered protection too?
“Not only did the pro-gun community constantly try attacking the legitimacy of my work and research, but they also attacked me personally; I have never experienced such degrading language or inappropriate behavior by people who claim to be adults.
What was most laughable about the treatment I received was the fact that the entire time the pro-gun community was trying to discredit my work; they were also trying to get me removed from the country. Paranoia and fear runs rampant among the gunnutz, and as such they try to ‘stomp out’ (their words, not mine) any opinion that differs from their own.”
Newsflash Liz, the most important part of good research is scrutiny. If you feel your work should not be tested or criticized, don’t publish it anywhere (even on a blog), because it’s no good.
As for the personal attacks, there were some members of the CGN community who made inappropriate comments, but a vast majority was civil, blunt… but civil. Saying that the entire CGN community is childish, paranoid, and fearful is doing the exact same thing you accused us of doing to you.
Just keep these things in the back of your head before you post anything, ad realize that when you speak of gun control, you are infringing on peoples rights (the right to property).
GO AWAY, DISPARAIS…
“Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”
-Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States
Miss. Mandelman, I hope you consider this notion.
Further rather then enter to petty argument over a difference of opinion I suggest another favored quote
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
-Voltaire
All I ask is that when you speak, you speak with an open mind. Some CGNers are a bit abrasive but their message is unified.
The comment period for this entry is now closed.