Over the weeks that I have been in Canada, I have had a few inquiries as to why the Disarming Domestic Violence campaign, the first international campaign at protecting women from gun violence in the home, focuses solely on women.  

The answer is simple, gun violence is gendered.  Although men make up the majority of those who use small arms and die from them, their use has an incredible impact on women’s lives.  For instance, women often become the sole caregiver in families where a husband or father has been killed or disabled by gun violence. 

Additionally, and attributable to the notion of masculinity, men are more violent than women.  In many cultures, small arms use is linked to manhood, and violence is a means through which men gain power.  For more information on this perspective, visit this link to read the IANSA publication, “Men, masculinity and guns: can we break the link?”

DV Logo

Furthermore, the types of violence women experience differ from men.   As Anthony Doob points out in Violence against Women: New Canadian Perspectives:

     -Female homicide victims are much more likely to have been killed by their spouses than are male homicide victims.

     -Women, overall, are more likely to be victims of violent victimizations than are men, particularly if they are separated or divorced.

     -Women in marital relationships are considerably more likely to be victims of violence perpetrated by their partners than are men in  such relationships.  

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. One in three Canadian women killed by their husbands is shot, 88% of them with legally owned rifles and shotguns, the firearms of choice in domestic violence and suicide.

For these reasons, the Disarming Domestic Violence campaign focuses on women, aiming to develop an international network of advocates for women’s rights, who are committed to producing social change and curbing armed domestic violence. 

By doing this, the campaign hopes to help countries enact legislation to take guns out of the hands of actual or potential abusers and in countries where laws already exist, to monitor its enforcement and highlight lessons learned for future policy development and sharing with other countries.

Violence affects women differently than it does men and as such, needs to be addressed differently.

Dr. Barbara Kane has been a psychiatrist in Prince George, British Columbia for nineteen years.  She is one of only eight mental health professionals in town, which is home to 75,000 residents.  In an earlier entry, I featured a letter by Dr. Kane that was published in the Guelph Mercury newspaper.  This week, she was kind enough to sit down with me to share her views on Canada’s Firearms Act and the registry requirements contained within it. 

Dr. Kane became interested in firearms legislation prior to the passage and implementation of Canada’s Firearms Act, when she experienced firsthand just how difficult it was to remove firearms from the hands of individuals either dangerous to themselves or to others. 

During our interview, Dr. Kane stated that often times in the field of mental health, situations escalate swiftly, and quick actions are necessary in order to control the circumstances.  Thus, in a 1993 article published by the Canadian Medical Association Journal, Kane made the argument that physicians should have more of a voice in whether or not their patients are stable enough to own firearms. 

Dr. Kane made this argument because she found that prior to the registry, when she contacted law enforcement officials with concerns about the safety of one of her patients (or that of their friends and family as a result of the patient), they were unsure of what actions to take and had no way of telling whether the person of concern owned any firearms.

Since the implementation of the registry, however, when a concerned physician contacts law enforcement, they can easily determine whether an unstable individual has a firearm registered to them, and can act quickly to take it away, if necessary.  In Dr. Kane’s opinion, the registry has been very useful in aiding mental health professionals and the police in removing firearms from the hands of dangerous individuals.    

Of course critics of the registry will point out that it only contains records of legally registered firearms and not those that may have been obtained illegally.  This is true; however, working to save as many lives as possible is better than working to save none at all. 

In addition, the registry is important in helping law enforcement trace the origins of firearms that may have been acquired illegally, according to Dr. Kane.  During our interview, she spoke of a patient who shot himself using an illegally acquired firearm.  After shooting himself, the patient decided he did not want to die, but was unable to be saved.  This incident occurred before the registry was in place.  As a result, the gun could not be traced.  With the registry, law enforcement would have been more easily able to trace the origins of the firearm.  Without it, however, and lacking information from the victim, they were unable to determine from whom he had acquired it.  With the registry, more accountability exists.

Dr. Kane does think that more frequent screenings should be required of firearms users.  This is because mental illness can surface at many different stages of life, and Dr. Kane believes that someone perfectly stable at the time they receive their firearms license may not be mentally stable three, four, or five years later.  With more frequent screenings, the registry would not have to be utilized as often in order to remove firearms from the possession of dangerous individuals, as the licensing process would work to do it instead. 

 My interview with Dr. Kane provided me with a new perspective on the importance of the registry contained in Canada’s Firearms Act.  Not only has it worked to harmonize gun control and domestic violence laws in the country, but it has also helped mental health professionals, working in conjunction with law enforcement, to save lives and prevent tragedy.    

Unfortunately, stories of the registry successfully saving lives never make headline news, and therefore the gun lobby continues to claim that it is a waste.  I wonder if they would continue to call it useless if it were to save the life of one of their children, spouses, or friends.  I think I can pretty well imagine the answer to my own question, as I have been told many times that saving one life is just not worth the money that the Canadian government has invested. 

On June 30^th, I wrote an email to Garry Breitkreuz, who has to date been the most vocal Member of Parliament to oppose the long-gun registry provision contained in Canada’s Firearms Act.  Mr. Breitkreuz has repeatedly introduced legislation to scrap the registry, and I wanted to hear from him directly and also share his opinion on my blog.

Large Portrait Photo

Garry Breitkreuz, Member of Parliament

I understand that to some I am just a grad student working with the Advocacy Project ‘to change the world’, but I thought Breitkreuz might recognize the importance of healthy debate and take a few minutes out of his busy schedule to talk with me, or at least to return my email.  What was I thinking?  I never heard back.

On July 14^th, I followed up.  This time I included a link to my blog, so that he would see that many of his supporters have been leaving comments in support of him, and against the registry.  Of course this time, his office replied.  It was a polite reply, albeit generic.  Not once in the email I received was it mentioned that I had requested a brief interview.

Instead, to help me in my “quest to determine the legitimacy of the firearms registry,” one of Mr. Breitkreuz’s assistants invited me to read an essay that clearly states his position.  I am already aware of his position.  During the two weeks I patiently waited for a reply, I had already read the article, more than once.  I wanted to talk to him.

I was also kindly directed towards Mr. Breitkreuz’s website, in order to take a historical peek at his involvement in firearms issues.  In addition, I was provided the link to a publication that contains comments from frontline police officers on their feelings towards the registry.  I have already seen these things. 

I can take a hint.  I know what a response like this means.  His assistant did his job well by successfully deflecting my request for an interview.  Having to talk to someone who disagrees with him would have been an inconvenience for Mr. Breitkreuz.; pointing me towards websites and suggesting others that I may want to contact was a much easier route to take.

I must say that I am disappointed in the response I received, as I think that individuals who strongly disagree with one another are more easily able to find common ground when face to face (or in this case, phone to phone) dialogue takes place.  Additionally, Mr. Breitkreuz spent an impressive number of years teaching before entering politics, which led me to believe that he might understand the importance of engaging students. 

I sent the same request and follow-up email to Member of Parliament Candice Hoeppner.  Ms. Hoeppner has essentially taken over the fight for Mr.  Breitkreuz through her introduction this session of a bill that would eliminate the registry. Maybe I shouldn’t be so hard on Mr. Breitkreuz.  At least his office responded to my request, something Hoeppner’s office has yet to do.

I have many people that are opposed to the registry, included in Canada’s Firearms Act, telling me that I’m incorrect in the assertions I’ve made about it.  I keep being told that I’m confusing my facts.  In reality, those telling me I’m confused may want to reassess their own comprehension of the Firearms Act, and specifically the correlation between the licensing system and the registry.

I’ve studied the Canadian Firearms Act in depth, and understand that screening is done when an individual applies for a license to acquire a firearm.  I also understand that an individual has to register each new firearm they acquire. 

When someone with a license registers their newly acquired firearm, it’s entered into the registry database, making it easier for police to track.  The police use the registry before responding to calls in order to determine how many firearms, if any, are in the home they’re responding to.  This offers police officers on the frontline an added layer of protection. 

In addition, as it is the law to register newly acquired firearms, if concerns arise through the screening process or as a result of individuals like Dr. Kane reporting their worries to the police, an investigation may be triggered, registration may be denied, and firearms may be confiscated. 

By eliminating the long-gun registry, the registry system would be incomplete, and thus, ineffective.  In addition, the added layer of protection provided to police officers would disappear, as would the protection provided to women and children. 

I have not confused the two; the registry and licensing systems are interrelated.

The following letter was published on July 3, 2009, in the Guelph Mercury newspaper.  The letter was written in response to another published submission speaking out against Canada’s Firearms Act and asserting that the registry does not prevent crime.  It was written by Dr. Barbara Kane, a psychiatrist based in Prince George, British Columbia, who has worked in the field for many years.

The letter does an excellent job of describing why the registry is useful and should be maintained.  Rather than adding more commentary, I’m going to let it speak for itself.

Canada’s gun registry has proven very useful

GuelphMercury.com – Opinions – Canada’s gun registry has proven very useful.

Dr. Barbara Kane
Dear Editor – I am writing in response to a recent letter stating that the gun registry had not solved or prevented a single crime.

As a psychiatrist in a rural area where guns are prevalent, I have invoked the gun registry at times where it is necessary, to either get someone’s guns removed or prevent them from getting guns because of mental illness. I am sure this has prevented tragedies but, unfortunately, none of those events make headlines.

I practised psychiatry in Prince George, B.C., before the gun registry was available, and it was difficult then to have guns removed.

There have been some 22,000 licences denied to date, and a recent Ottawa Citizen article reported that the number of firearms surrendered and confiscated since Nov. 1 is 8,281 — 74 per cent of which were nonrestricted shotguns and rifles. The same article reports that the reason for these confiscations is usually that the individual has threatened or used violence.

So, are we really comfortable with allowing these people to arm themselves by removing the mechanism which allows authorities to locate and remove firearms, the long-gun registry?

It is impossible to truly measure the prevention of suicides, accidents and crimes. However, we can measure rates of all these over time. We know the incidence of gun deaths and injuries are at their lowest levels in more than 30 years. Since 1995, the rate of homicide with rifles and shotguns has dropped by 50 per cent, and gun-related murders of women have fallen by two-thirds.

The gun registry is an inconvenience for hunters, farmers and other gun owners, but it helps people like me and the police prevent tragedies.

Since gun owners are only required to register their firearms once per gun, it is a minor inconvenience that is having a major impact on gun crime, suicides and accidents, perhaps more than any other intervention we have. The registry needs to be preserved.

“I am fearful the world will be able to see what happened by looking at me.”  This was part of a victim-impact statement read in court by a county attorney on behalf of her client earlier this week in Hennepin County, located Minnesota.  This quote was part of an article published in my local newspaper describing the court appearance of a man who attacked his girlfriend, and I think it does a good job of illustrating just how severe the psychological consequences of domestic abuse can be.

Many individuals, in response to my last entry, called Pat weak and passive.  In fact, most of the comments I received blame Pat for the abuse she endured and attack her character as well as her strength and will.  I find this very disheartening, but unfortunately not surprising, as these are exactly the type of names I expected Pat to be called by individuals who care more about their own personal freedoms and rights than the safety of their neighbors or friends.

DV Logo

Escaping an abusive partner is far more complex than simply making the decision to leave and leaving. To begin with, as illustrated above, many women are embarrassed to admit that they are the victim of an abusive relationship, in part due to the kind of comments left on my last entry. Victims of domestic abuse are viewed as weak by those who refuse to recognize the extreme mental hardships endured by those who suffer. The stereotypes placed on victims by individuals unable to grasp the severity of domestic abuse often times prevent many victims from seeking the help they need.

In addition, the greatest risk of danger to an individual being domestically abused is at and directly following the point of initial separation. Many women who try leaving an abusive relationship are stalked by their partners, and more often than not they have their lives threatened; perpetrators are unable to cope with losing control of their victims. I think it’s pretty easy to understand why this fact alone makes it so frightening for an abuse victim to leave.

There are other obstacles that prevent victims from leaving, one of which is the lack of financial independence. Women who are domestically abused often times are not allowed control of their own money, and in some cases are not even allowed to work outside of the home. This is a tactic many perpetrators use to keep their spouses from leaving. As a result, many women feel financially helpless, and stay in an abusive relationship based on financial dependence.

Another reason women stay in abusive relationships is because they are afraid to lose custody of their children. Although the court system has come a long way in regards to domestic violence and custody battles, perpetrators usually threaten to either fight for child custody in court and win (ensuring that they will create stories to make the victim look ‘crazy’), or they threaten to take the children with no court approval so that the victim will never see them again.

These are just a few of the many, many reasons victims of domestic abuse find it hard to leave a violent relationship. I could dedicate the rest of my blog entries to the psychological consequences of domestic abuse, but I think I’ve made my point.

I have had some people write me with unfortunate stories of crimes of which they have been the victims of, mostly involving muggings using a firearm. Clearly living through such an experience results in a dramatic psychological impact and induces fear. Imagine living with that same kind of fear each and every day of your life.

Before concluding this entry, I find it necessary to address the accusation made by many that I’ve made the story about Pat up. Fabricating a story of domestic abuse and being told that there are no double-decker bus tours in Montreal is outlandish; I am spending my summer in Canada to try and help prevent domestic violence, not to make up stories about it.

I was lucky enough to spend this past weekend in Montreal, which is just as amazing as people describe it to be. As I had never been before, I decided to do the touristy thing and take a guided tour of the city. On the double-decker bus that I paid much too much money to ride, I sat next to a woman named Pat. Having a daughter my age, Pat took it upon herself to make me her sidekick for the two hour long sightseeing extravaganza.

Montreal

Pat is a school teacher, full of energy and spunk. After she spent time telling me about where she’s from and describing the awesome new pair of shoes she had found the day before, it was my turn. I told her why I was in Canada for the summer and about my fellowship. During my explanation, Pat’s demeanor changed, and she grew silent. For a moment, I thought she was going to start lecturing me about how innocent citizens shouldn’t be held responsible by the government to help ensure the safety of others, or that she was going to ask me why she should have to waste two of her dollars per year to keep the registry up and running in order to help protect and save the lives of others.

Instead, she quietly said “People don’t get it. Unless it’s happened to you, you just don’t get it.” Obviously I had struck a chord with Pat, and not wanting to pry, I just nodded my head in agreement. After another moment of silence, Pat explained that many years ago she was the victim of domestic abuse, and that she had had a gun pointed at her head numerous times. I could tell she didn’t want to talk about it, so I didn’t ask any questions. She did add, however, that a law like the one Canada currently has in place would have helped to prevent her situation from ever having happened.

I’ve been called a lot of names over the past few weeks, which made me stop to wonder, what would those opposed to the registry call Pat? Would they tell her that she’s too stupid to be reasoned with, like I am? Would they call her a feminist and tell her that saving her life isn’t worth their two dollars? Or, would they explain to her that what matters most to them is their right to own a gun, thus making the hassle of filling out extra paperwork, and paying a couple of extra dollars per year in taxes to run the registry, simply too big of an impediment upon their personal freedoms to consider its benefits?

If you have read any of my recent blogs, you understand just how controversial Canada’s Firearms Act is, specifically the provision requiring that all unrestricted firearms be registered.  This is why, when I sat down with Barb MacQuarrie, Community Director of the Centre for Research and Education on Violence against Women & Children at the University of Western Ontario, I asked her to address those criticisms that are heard most often from opponents of the registry. 

At the Centre, Ms. MacQuarrie promotes collaboration between community-based professionals, advocates, and the academic world, pursuing research questions that help to better understand and prevent abuse against women and children.  She is an advocate for survivors of violence through her work at the Centre, as well as through her management of Ontario’s provincial Neighbours, Friends and Families public education campaign, which she helped to establish. Ms. MacQuarrie has spent many years in the field, working with individuals directly affected by violence, and alongside those whose mission it is to end and prevent it.  As a result, she gives a voice to victims, with the intention of determining how best to prevent and respond to violence against women and children.   

I had a chance to sit down with Maribel Gonzales, my counterpart at Project Ploughshares, to ask her about her work in small arms and peacebuilding.  In the interview, Maribel talks about the correlation between small arms and domestic violence and explains how Canada’s Firearms Act has effectively harmonized gun control and domestic violence laws in the country.  In addition, she talks about attempts to eliminate the registration of unrestricted rifles and shotguns, which would dismantle these harmonized laws.

Last week I wrote an entry entitled “The Conservative Attempt to Eliminate the Gun Registry.” In that entry, I asserted that the mandatory registration of non-restricted firearms under Canada’s Firearms Act should not be eliminated, as it has helped to protect the lives of many women throughout Canada.  Since writing that entry, I have received over fifty comments, and have posted many that are respectful and polite.  However, while engaging in debate with those whose opinion varies from mine is healthy, helpful, and appreciated, I made the decision to delete comments that are disrespectful and derogatory to me or to those who have written in defense of the registry.  Calling someone an idiot, Hitler, uneducated, childish, or a liberal self-righteous fascist is not the type of dialogue I like to engage in, and because of this I refuse to post such comments, no matter how many times the same individual submits a comment.

While domestic homicides occur with weapons besides firearms, such as knives or fists, guns are more deadly, and increase the risk of death by twelve times.  The risk of physical harm, threats, and intimidation to women and children increases when a gun is present in the home.  In Canada, one in three women killed by their husbands is shot, making it hard to imagine what that statistic would be without the registry in place.

The registry was passed into law in 1995, and contains measures targeted at keeping guns from those who are at risk to commit domestic violence.  These measures include screening risk factors for suicide and domestic violence, background checks, and notifying current and previous spouses of an individual’s intent to acquire a firearms license.

Between 1997 and 2006, Canada has seen the rate of firearm-related spousal homicide decrease by nearly fifty percent, according to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.  In addition, according to the same source, since 2008 police have seized 8,261 guns from owners who were either violent or had threatened violence; seventy-four percent of these guns were non-restricted firearms.

In Canada, everyone has the fundamental right to own a gun.  At the same time, the government has the fundamental responsibility of keeping its citizens safe.  Recognizing that the protective benefits outweighed the costs, the Canadian government implemented the registry, and its constitutionality was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2000.  Thus, while law-abiding gun owners may frown upon it as a burden and a waste of money, the Supreme Court, Parliament, and most importantly, women who have escaped death as a result of the registry, view it as a necessity and, in many instances, a lifesaver.  It has been close to fifteen years since its implementation; if the registry were as ineffective as those opposed to it claim it to be, enough support in Parliament would have by now been garnered to scrap the measure.