Advocacy Project Blogs - Elizabeth Mandelman

Why the Focus on Women?

Elizabeth Mandelman | Posted July 21st, 2009 | North America

Tags: Disarming Domestic Violence Campaign, domestic violence, gun control, IANSA

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.

6 Responses to “Why the Focus on Women?”

Jim S says:

July 21, 2009 at 9:25 am

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.

In this atricle, you made the above statement, could you please provide your source for this information.
Jim
George says:

July 21, 2009 at 9:37 am

According to Statistics Canada, the female spousal homicide rate from stabbing is almost equal to that of firearms…29% compared to 31%. Therefore one could just as easily say that virtually 1 in 3 women killed by their partners is stabbed…yet there is no push to ban knives and pointy sticks. Statistics Canada goes further to indicate that drugs and alcohol were major contributing factors in 60% of these cases. Drugs are already illegal…alcohol…? Furthermore, something like 60% of these cases already involved a history of violence and criminality compounded by the drug and alcohol abuse.

The rate of spousal homicide has been in decline in Canada for at least 30 years. Of course that means that the big population bubble, baby boomers, are also 30 years older. Since there is a preponderance of 15-24yr olds in the spousal homicide data, it would only be expected that the trend should continue to show decline as that demographic becomes a smaller proportion of the population.

That 15-24 demographic is also the one most likely to be involved in criminality compounded by drug and alcohol abuse. And as shown by Statistics Canada, that demographic is also more likely to be in a common law relationship, which is as they show the, the spousal arrangement in which women are more likely to be victimized. Couple all of the above with the knowledge that 1 in 5 perpetrators of spousal violence have mental health issues, and we get a more complete picture.

So, that means we generally have mentally disturbed younger males with a history of violence, criminal records, a history of alcohol and drug abuse in commonlaw relationships who use a firearm to kill their spouse in a third of such killings attributable to them….What about the third killed by knives? The third killed by other means? People like you, Ms. Mandelman tend to ignore these other two thirds in pursuit of your ideological purity.

By the way, my source for this information is Statistics Canada:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2005000-eng.pdf

I notice you either cite your organization’s own papers to support it’s/your position, or, do not cite at all…perhaps you should refrain from the former and cite more independent sources…just a thought that might reduce some of the anger and incredulity your perceive to be sometimes directed your way.
Elizabeth Mandelman says:

July 21, 2009 at 2:19 pm

Jim S,
My source for this information is the Stats Canada report of Family Violence in Canada, which can be found here: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2008000-eng.pdf
The first sentence of that paragraph is a direct quote from page 39.
Happy says:

July 21, 2009 at 4:25 pm

Good link Elizabeth.

Chart 4.3 however on the very next page clearly shows that overall rates of spousal homicide involving rifles and shotguns was already in decline prior to the implementation of the registry and have simply been continuing in a downward trend since 1974.

Keeping this in mind it’s hard to accept a conclusion that the registry has contributed in any fashion to the overall decline of spousal homicide using firearms.
Paul says:

July 21, 2009 at 7:42 pm

“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.”

You have no idea how closely aligned this statement is with the stance of most firearms owners and the organizations that support them namely the CSSA and NFA in Canada. The problem is with the lessons learned aspect. As some aspects of the system in Canada are complete and total failures.

The second problem is the real goal of IANSA is the complete removal of firearms from civilian hands. At the end of the day Domestic Violence is being used as a pawn in the name of Gun Control. If every gun on the planet disappeared today the rates of Domestic Violence would be exactly the same and the same number of people would die.

I will ask you this question again as you have yet to answer it.

What is more a more valuable and productive way to spend 80 Million dollars. Breaking the cycle of violence and supporting people in crisis while directly attacking the issues of violence both in homes and streets? Or The registration of inanimate objects?

The answer will really define if you really interested in Domestic Violence or are pushing a Gun Control agenda.

I look forward to your response.

Thanks,

Paul
Elizabeth Mandelman says:

July 22, 2009 at 6:43 pm

The comment period for this entry is now closed.

Profile: Dr. Barbara Kane

Elizabeth Mandelman | Posted July 18th, 2009 | North America

Tags: Canada's Firearms Act, Disarming Domestic Violence, Dr. Barbara Kane, gun control, IANSA, mental illness

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.

18 Responses to “Profile: Dr. Barbara Kane”

EESA Storm says:

July 18, 2009 at 8:25 am

Once again we see yet another Anti gun lobbyist who is unable to separate Licensing from Registration.
When are you going to take up one of the many offers for debate so you can post BOTH sides of the situation.

Or are you too afraid of the truth of this subject?
GoodLord says:

July 18, 2009 at 12:35 pm

Stop this already. Blaming objects for the actions of people. Pretending that a computer
database and piece of paper will influence the actions of people. That’s like saying registering my car makes me a good driver.
Grow up already.
You and you alone are responsible for what you do in life.
Having or not having some inanimate object, whatever it may be, is not gonna make a difference.
Roderick says:

July 18, 2009 at 2:50 pm

Hi Elizabeth: I think that you’ve missed the point on how the fact that the registry contains fewer than half the known, legally imported firearms in the country (and a much lesser percentage of the overall total of unknown, illegally imported firearms).

Simply put, the police cannot rely on the registry. They cannot say with certainty if a registry printout lists all the firearms at a given residence. So they have to execute a search when seizing firearms, instead of just ticking them off a list and leaving once all the registered guns are in their possession.

Given that in the circumstances Dr. Kane describes the police will be carrying out a search anyhow regardless of whether the psychologically troubled individual has any firearms registered to his or her name, and doubly so if they’re advised that a psychologically troubled person without an R/PAL has guns, the registry is of no real assistance to the police when seizing firearms from a troubled person. The police have to operate in the real world, where the registry’s incompleteness and errors can have life-or-death consequences.

I’d like to know why Dr. Kane seems so convinced that seizing firearms from suicidal individuals is such a useful suicide prevention method. As you’re no doubt aware if you’ve studied Canadian suicide statistics, both pre and post registry, you’ll no doubt be aware that while firearms suicides have declined since the Firearms Act came into effect, the overall suicide rate has not. Which indicates that the Firearms Act has been ineffective at preventing suicide, and that removing firearms from a residence leaves a great many other suicide methods available.

Dr. Kane seems like a pleasant, intelligent individual, but in light of the statistics, the best claim that she can make is that the registry may have prevented some people from killing themselves with guns. She cannot claim that the registry has had any impact on Canada’s suicide rate.

I wonder why she feels that suicides by firearms are worthy of more preventative measures than suicides involving cars, ropes, bridges, prescription drugs, gas ovens, and so forth. Presumably, she isn’t of the view that simply removing firearms is going to prevent a suicide.

Overall, despite her well-meaning support for the registry, the suicide data disprove her use of suicide prvention as a justification for the registry.

Lastly, I’d also be interested in learning how Dr. Kane thinks that the registry can be of use in tracking illegally obtained firearms.

Firstly, the registry can be defeated in minutes with simple hand tools; once the serial number has been filed or dremeled off a firearm, it’s untraceable via the registry.

Secondly, if a firearm has never been registered, as a result of it having been smuggled across the border, there will be no record of it in the registry, which again will be of no use to police.

Since defaced and/or unregistered firearms make up the vast majority of recovered crime guns in Canada, the registry is rarely of use in tracking them. The most credible figures to date that I have seen, collected in Vancouver in 2004 by the National Weapons Enforcement Team, indicated that only 3% of firearms recovered by police were traceable by the registry, either due to defacement or their never having been registered.

Even if a recovered firearm is registered, the registry is frequently of very little use to police in tracking a crime gun. The case of the Mayerthorpe Mountie murdered James Roszko is instructive. After a registered firearm was found on his corpse, the Mounties tracked it back to its last registered owner, the grandfather of one of Roszko’s accomplices. The grandfather simply told police that the rifle had been stolen, thereby rendering the registry of no further use to police.

The accomplices were eventually apprehended via a multimillion-dollar undercover sting operation in which the registry played no part.

So basically, the registry can be defeated by any criminal with enough initiative to buy a file at Canadian Tire, is useless in tracing over 90% (I’m being conservative with my estimate here) of crime guns, and can be rendered useless on the remainder by criminals who lie to investigators.

Somehow, I really don’t think that the registry’s ongoing operations budget (let alone its total cost to date) can be justified by its meager utility in this area.
Elizabeth Mandelman says:

July 18, 2009 at 3:43 pm

Roderick,
Dr. Kane stated during our interview that if you remove the means by which someone is going to commit suicide, they more often than not do not commit suicide. This has been statistically proven. Therefore, if someone threatens suicide using a gun and the gun is no longer available, it’s likely they won’t kill themselves. Dr. Kane stated that often people think that working to prevent an individual from killing themselves is hopeless, but it’s not. Therefore, it helps prevent suicide in that sense.
Paul says:

July 18, 2009 at 6:52 pm

Nice emotional appeal I like the last paragraph the best. Even if it did save a loved one of mine I would still consider the program a complete and total economic failure. Willing to bet a single new MRI machine at any hospitable would have saved more lives then the registry would over the same time period. I wonder what you would you think the registry was such a great idea if you or a family member was told if we had caught this a month ago you would have had a chance. I have lost 2 family members to date just like my example and a few others whose odds would have gone way up had the problem been found earlier.

When our medical system is funded correctly and every Canadian has access to a family doctor and advance medical diagnostic equipment and no one is turned away from emergency shelters because of funding and at risk youth have better places then a crack house to hang out at and no child in Canada goes to school hungry … we can talk about the registry of an inanimate object.

Lets fix real problems with real solutions and real tangible results that benefit the most tax payers.

The suicide argument has no legs the numbers did not change just the method and again that has little if anything to do with the registry, but the waiting periods built into the licensing. Even then the body count reminded statistically the same.

Thanks,

Paul
Bruce says:

July 18, 2009 at 7:00 pm

Dr. Kane is being a trifle disingenuous with her claims about the success of the registry. Perhaps it was a little more difficult to convince police that there really was an urgent need to divest some poor, deranged fool of his firearms, but the means to do so already existed in the Pre-Firearms Act Criminal Code of Canada:

103(2) Seizure without warrant

(2) Where, with respect to any person, a peace officer is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of that person, or of any other person, that that person possess, or have custody or control of, any firearm or other offensive weapon or any ammunition or explosive substance, the peace officer may, where the conditions for obtaining a warrant under subsection (1) exist but by reason of a possible danger to the safety of that person or any other person, it would not be practicable to obtain a warrant, search for and seize any firearm or other offensive weapon or any ammunition, explosive substance, authorization referred to in subsection 90(3.2), firearms acquisition certificate, registration certificate issued under section 109 or permit issued under section 110, in the possession, custody or control of that person.

Even with the registry, if someone has un-registerd guns, the only way to find them – and the only way that should be used – is to search the person’s abode thoroughly. Any cop who thinks that just checking guns off a list is doing his job effectively needs to find another line of work.

And if the Firearms Act is so good at preventing suicides, why is the overall numbers of suicides remaining the same? Doesn’t that mean that people are simply substituting other means to kill themselves, despite what Dr. Kane claims?
George says:

July 18, 2009 at 7:23 pm

Ahh yes, the “If only there were no guns, then suicides would decline” argument resurfaces in this new incarnation. Yes, people will use firearms to kill themselves. Yes, some people may not succeed if they did not have a firearm. However, people do end their own lives by other means. I suggest you review suicide tables on the Statistics Canada website. Despite what Dr. Kane may believe about the relationship between firearms and suicide, these tables tell a different story. While they do show a long term decline in the number of firearms suicides, they also show that the total number of suicides and the overall rate of suicide has been unaffected by the introduction of the Firearms Act and it’s centrepiece; the long gun registry. If the Firearms Act and by default, the registry was anywhere near as valuable a suicide prevention tool as both you and Dr. Kane claim it to be, then there should be a quantifiable drop in the suicide rate that can be directly correlated with the proclamation of the Firearms Act in 1995. Unfortunately for registry supporters, no such statistical correlation exists, for as I said earlier, the suicide rate has remained stable. Therefore, those who may have been denied the option of ending their lives with a firearm are apparently managing to do so without any hindrance at all, by other means.
Roderick says:

July 18, 2009 at 8:15 pm

Hi Elizabeth: the problem with Dr. Kane’s statement is that firearms are not the only means to commit suicide available to most people. Looking around my house, I have a lot of rope, plenty of acetominaphen, plenty of razor blades and other edged tools, some gasoline for my mower, two cars, and several large bodies of water and some nice high bridges within easy driving distance. I’m sure that if I were to google suicide methods I could come up with a few more ideas, but I’m sure you get my point.

Taking away my guns would not prevent me from killing myself were I truly suicidal. This is why the Canadian suicide rate has remained steady since the adoption of the Firearms Act. If the Firearms Act worked to prevent suicide, Canadian suicide rates would have dropped since its adoption; although it is true that firearms suicides have dropped, other methods have taken up the slack. And since they haven’t, one can only conclude that for all the anecdotes that Dr. Kane might be willing to share, her views are not supported by the facts, and that the suicide prevention arguments in favour of the Firearms Act are specious.
2.71828183… » First they came for the serial numbers… says:

July 18, 2009 at 10:57 pm

[...] out of bogus statistics and fallacious arguments to peddle about guns and domestic violence, Elizabeth Mandelman has moved on to another time-honoured anti-gun talking point: suicides. (School shootings is coming [...]
Simon says:

July 19, 2009 at 1:46 am

*Sigh*

Listen, we’re a reasonable bunch. If restrictive gun control actually had a positive influence on public safety, we would be all for it. But millions of people giving up their hobbies, sports, livelihood (both jobs AND sustenance hunting) and a very important part of our heritage isn’t something to be taken lightly.

The thing is, the anti-gun crowd is broadly composed of habitual liars that make a profit from restrictive gun legislation (Like the GfGC), hoplophobes (Who should go get psychiatric help) and “useful idiots” who are woefully ignorant/misinformed on the topic (youtube: “What is a barrel shroud?”).

I make sure to thoroughly verify all “facts” I come across, regardless from which camp it comes from before I use them in a debate. The massive number of BLATANT LIES from the anti-gun camp is absolutely staggering. If gun control truly had a positive impact on personal and public safety, then you wouldn’t constantly need to LIE to me to convince me.
GoodLord says:

July 19, 2009 at 1:58 am

I find it interesting that you decide what people can and can’t read.

I guess the truth hurts. It is quite clear you are not interested in debate and/ or facts, nor are you interested in helping women or other victims of violence. Otherwise you would stop wasting your time and energy on a computer program that prints out pieces of paper. Oh yeah, I forgot, having my car registered and a piece of paper in my glove box makes me the best and most polite driver on god’s green earth. How dumb of me to forget that.
Everything that blows a big hole into your repetitive emotional stories just gets deleted. Convenient, isn’t it. Like it never existed.

You are a very selfish and immature person. It is people like you who deny access to the tools victims of physical and psychological violence need and want for no good logical reason. One can not even carry a tazer or pepper spray in one’s purse thanks to people like you and attitudes like yours.

Bravo, Elizabeth. I hope you sleep well at night knowing that yet again you didn’t face the real world and it’s issues.
criminal background check says:

July 19, 2009 at 5:03 am

Would be met, great success in?Branches of US, – Sub PrimeThis.Is a readjustment, investments have shrunk.-minute walk along criminal background check, tools for a to completely satiate.Side-step the traditional, everything up with.,
Mikhail says:

July 19, 2009 at 5:46 pm

I’ve recently become a gun enthusiast. It was a long time curiosity of mine, and I finally had the time to get going with it. I am a middle aged man, a university professor, father of two daughter, immigrant to Canada, and married to a former refugee entrant to Canada.

I took the safety course, I’m taking trapshooting lessons, will do a tournament in a month (where I will be humbled no doubt). I’m trying to find a gun club to join where I can do this activity, as well as other activities such as target shooting and pistol shooting.

I find the process a bit onerous, but I understand the need to know who is buying guns, and to check that they are not someone at risk for doing something bad. But beyond that point, I am less understanding. Why was it necessary to drive all the gun clubs out of my city? I have to drive 1 – 2 hours to go anywhere with decent facilities? Pistol shooting, rifle shooting, and shotgun shooting are accepted sports anywhere int the world, and have been part of the Olympics since 1896. 1896!!

Why have a bunch of people decided, with no convincing evidence, that guns are to be regulated out of existence, demonized until even their name cannot be mentioned, a la 1984. In my daughters’ schools the teachers have been told not to use the word “bullets”, and substitute it with “nuggets”. How stupid is that?

Can’t responsible citizens make their own choices, rather than be controlled by the fears of others? The gun restriction movement is creating the framework for disarming a nation. Gun owners know this, and hence mistrust any attempt to enumerate, identify, or limit their choices. I understand their fears, MUCH MORE than I understand the need for people like yourself and others to take away freedoms from citizens who have committed no crime, paid taxes faithfully, and jumped through all the the tedious hoops laid in their path.

Have you no shame? No sense of history? For history tells us that such attempts to control the citizenry NEVER lead to the desired outcome, and either lead to reaction, or lead to ever more oppression. Back off.
Elizabeth Mandelman says:

July 19, 2009 at 5:53 pm

Mikhail,
My knowledge of history has taught me that protecting women and children is an issue of human rights, and needs to be taken seriously. History has illustrated that there is indeed a need to craft legislation that will help to curb violence and against women. It’s unfortunate, but it’s true.
Mikhail says:

July 19, 2009 at 6:09 pm

Elizabeth, I have no disagreement with the need to protect the weak.

I live as the protector of my wife, and my two daughters (though she will say that most of the time it is her protecting me). Anyone who tries to do anything bad to them will have to kill me first. What makes you think that I would support anything that would harm them? I think you are setting up a straw horse.

Women and children, being the weaker, have historically been harmed by men. No dispute. It happens in every culture, every continent, and every human period. No exceptions. It doesn’t happen in my house, though, and that’s the only part that I can address. I can’t, and won’t, apologize for what someone else has done.

It’s about the strong vs the weak. Take away all the guns in the world. Does the equation change? No. Further, not that I want to argue the “self defense” part of gun ownership, since too often that become the main issue, and I don’t feel it should be (freedom and rights are the main issue), but isn’t a gun the best equalizer between the small and defenseless and the strong and powerful? Shouldn’t a woman be able to get a gun for self defense if she feels it necessary? How many women have been killed by spouses and ex boyfriends who had been harrasing them for months or years? HOw many of those murders had been under “court orders” to stay away? What good did they do?
Mikhail says:

July 19, 2009 at 6:15 pm

Elizabeth, thank you for correcting that mistake in my posting as per the erratum I put up right after. It makes the discussion cleaner. Very classy. I appreciate it. You have my respect.
Jim says:

July 19, 2009 at 9:14 pm

Mz Elizabeth,
I have been following your debate with increasing dread. I fully understand your quest to Protect the Woman and Children of OUR country from the evils of man, but I fail to understand your methods. Could you please explain to us, why you are here, In Canada, attempting to change OUR gun laws?? I would think, that if you were so dedicated, you might try this crap back home? Seeing as you are an American and all. Oh wait, don’t the American’s have an amendment to their constitution that Allows them the FREEDOM to own guns? I’ll make it plain as day for you, GO HOME. We have our own, Home Grown Liberal Wackoo’s to deal with
Elizabeth Mandelman says:

July 20, 2009 at 6:31 am

The comment period for this entry is now closed.

Member of Parliament Garry Breitkreuz

Elizabeth Mandelman | Posted July 16th, 2009 | North America

Tags: Canada's Firearms Act, Candice Hoeppner, Disarming Domestic Violence, domestic violence, Garry Breitkreuz, gun control, IANSA

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.

35 Responses to “Member of Parliament Garry Breitkreuz”

Andrew E says:

July 16, 2009 at 8:53 am

Ms. Mandelman, Garry Breitkreuz has made a habit…. no, a mission… to talk to people he disagrees with, for some 15 years. Maybe he’s just not willing to talk to agenda-driven, closed-minded individuals anymore… especially ones whose pay cheque is signed by a group devoted to civilian disarmament.
Wes says:

July 16, 2009 at 9:01 am

“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.”

Aren’t you the person that keeps closing the comments on her blog on all the firearms related topics when they don’t agree with you?
Elizabeth Mandelman says:

July 16, 2009 at 9:02 am

Perhaps I should have included in my email to Mr. Breitkreuz that my fellowship is completely self-funded. Do you think that knowing I’m not getting a paycheck from anyone and that I’m fighting for something that I truly believe in, just like him, would change his mind? I don’t.
Edward says:

July 16, 2009 at 9:04 am

Excuse me but you’re one to talk of stifling debate when you yourself were censoring comments posted to your blog that didn’t coincide with your own particular bias!
Pot, meet kettle.
Oh and say goodbye to your last vestiges of credibility!
Elizabeth Mandelman says:

July 16, 2009 at 9:08 am

When I feel that the main arguments of both those for and against the registry have been made, I close the comment period. Nobody is going to sit and read 50 comments. People lose interest.
Andrew E says:

July 16, 2009 at 9:11 am

Ms. Mandelman, if you are funding your own fellowship, then I have to give credit where credit is due. Hat’s off.

I don’t disagree with you any less, though …. In fact, have to wonder where your belief comes from. I notice on earlier postings that you have had at least one offer to go out to a range and meet some “gun people”…. have you taken up this offer in order to give yourself a more clear picture of who is affected by Canada’s firearms laws?
SR says:

July 16, 2009 at 9:53 am

“I suggest you take a look at past comments posted to my blog and read them more thoroughly. MANY don’t coincide with my opinion.”

But there are also many more you “conveniently” delete.

As for “dialogue” that implies that both sides are willing to listen. Your previous posts and comments clearly indicate you have little to no desire to accept or understand facts and reality.
Andrew E says:

July 16, 2009 at 9:55 am

^^^ OK, but…. this isn’t about hunting, this is about guns. Hunting rifles, shotguns, pistolas automaticas, and scary-looking black guns with banana-shaped magazines, bipods, sniper scopes and picatinny rails with tactical lights on them… OMFG, think of the chill-drun!

You have chosen to align yourself with the gun-control crowd. The vast majority of this crowd, and even some of firearms users, compartmentalize guns, saying things like “no one needs a military-style gun” or, “you can’t hunt with a revolver”. Problem with that logic is that these are simply objects, and compartmentalizing them drives a wedge into the issue: Bad people use weapons to commit crimes. Bad People will use the weapon at hand, eg: Colonel Mustard in the drawing room with the candelabra; Good People use firearms as tools (hunting, predator control, self-defense), and for hobbies (cowboy action shooting, pistol matches, long-range target shooting, military arms matches…)
Who should care what guns Good People have registered, if those guns are used and stored responsibly?

Wouldn’t it be better to direct your energies and passion towards the illegal use of firearms by the Bad People including stiffer penalties for crimes in which a weapon is used; and towards redirecting registry monies towards more services for abused women, the mentally ill, and front-line policing?
Elizabeth Mandelman says:

July 16, 2009 at 10:06 am

Individuals who use guns to hurt their spouses are Bad People. Check out iansa.org, and I think you’ll see that the overrarching goals of IANSA align quite nicely with your suggestions of where I should direct my energies.
Andrew E says:

July 16, 2009 at 10:16 am

Individuals who use ANYTHING to hurt their spouses are bad people.

“Women are three times more likely to die violently if there is a gun in the house. Usually the perpetrator is a spouse or partner, often with a prior record of domestic abuse. Gun violence can be part of the cycle of intimidation and aggression that many women experience from an intimate partner. For every woman killed or physically injured by firearms, many more are threatened. This is why IANSA has launched a campaign to demand policies which would keep women safe from gun violence.
Disarming Domestic Violence 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 [b]licenses[/b] revoked.” (IANSA)

100% dead on: a partner with a prior history of domestic abuse should not have firearms. IANSA correctly identifies this: Licensing would take care of that… they don’t mention registration. can you share with your audience IANSA’s position on women using a firearm to protect themselves against violence?
Happy says:

July 16, 2009 at 10:29 am

You of all people have no place saying that Mr. Breikreutz is not willing to debate as you have shown a pathological unwillingness to face FACTS.
Elizabeth Mandelman says:

July 16, 2009 at 10:32 am

SR,
If you want to continue arguing that by not posting ALL of the comments I receive, all of which send exactly same message, feel free. Most people can see right through it. I also think that the tone of your posts indicate exactly the reason I’m unable to include some of the comments I receive on my blog. I choose to engage respectful individuals in dialouge and debate, which I’ve made clear in previous entries.
BW Stephens says:

July 16, 2009 at 11:02 am

This may sound like a dumb question.. But why should he talk to you.. You’ve made it clear all you want to do is harp on your side and that his side, and anyone that thinks like him is wrong..

Guns are not bad they are inanimate objects.. The people that misuse them are the problem..

Can explain to me why when drunk and car get together it’s the drunks fault but when a gun and an person get together it’s the gun’s fault when something bad happens…

Why is that social engineers who insist in meddling in the education system, politics and families haven’t’ figured out how to do something about bad people yet.. But becuase they can’t they have decided that stripping people of their rights (and in this case I’m talking about guns) and freedoms.. Paul Martin said once when asked about property rights that it would be too expensive… What did he mean by that?… Even the Chinese have property rights..
Kent says:

July 16, 2009 at 11:13 am

Hello again Elizabeth- You haven’t contacted me yet to go shootin’! The offer is still open & I’m safe (honest – my license has cleared me many times over in terms of any criminal behavior)

Anyhow, you might not be receiving a paycheck from the coalition for gun control, but you do seem to use their “stats”. Thusly….. But anyhow, what part of us all *agreeing* with you that violent people shouldn’t have guns don’t you understand? People who cause harm to *anyone* (I’m not just fighting for one side on that one personally) shouldn’t have access to them, this is true. Licensing prevents this, the registry does not. The police would be foolish in this day & age not to simply *assume* that a gun may be present at one of their calls. That’s basically the only use for it & even that is broken. Case in point – Many old rifles don’t even have serial numbers. I could hold 80 of one type & only register one. Show the registration & it shows the correct model, but nowhere does it show a definitive ID. Could be any one of many. But that’s just another of it’s many flaws.

Seriously, no legal gun owner of either long gun or handgun wants to see violence with them against anyone. If you want to make society a safer place, a very admirable thing really, then go after the revolving door that is the justice system rather than going after those who really aren’t the bad ones in this case. No one likes violence (except on TV & the movies it seems) against women or kids or even other men. But going against what in reality is the only police-certified group of hobbyists is kinda foolish. We’re not out to harm; Criminals are.

Kent
Edward says:

July 16, 2009 at 1:24 pm

Elizabeth Mandelman says: “When I feel that the main arguments of both those for and against the registry have been made, I close the comment period. Nobody is going to sit and read 50 comments. People lose interest.”

I see. So when you pick and choose which opinions you wish to give an audience to, it’s simply because people might not be interested, but when others do it, it’s “stifiling debate”? Setting aside the unmitigated arrogance of presuming to know what opinions others may or may not be interested in reading, has it occured to you that Mr Breitkreuz may simply be disinterested in what you have to say?
EESA Storm says:

July 16, 2009 at 2:06 pm

Here is an offer you cannot refulse (or should not).

I note that you live in Waterloo at the moment and have on occasion traveled to London for various conferences which from my perspective are aimed at taking away my rights.

I would welcome to opportunity to take you out shooting.

Yes shooting!

As an added bonus I will have my 19 year old daughter who is a student at UWO attend as well.

I will provide all the guns, ammo and safety equipment.

At the same time we can “discuss” and or “debate” this issue for as long as you have.

Drop me an email to discuss.

Just last night I had two young ladies out for an introduction and I have 4 more nurses I am taking out on Sunday.

One more will not cramp my schedule……..who knows we both might learn something.
Paul says:

July 16, 2009 at 5:55 pm

Federal Member of Parliament denied an interview with a graduate student who has a blog and is not a resident in his riding and secondly not permanent resident or Canadian citizen or at least from your bio I assume. I can’t even get my provincial or federal member to return my calls and I am a registered voter that actually does vote and to top it off I’m a tax payer. And when I do get a response it’s a simple form letter that is exactly the same minus name changes sent to other citizens in other ridings. With politicians who follow the party line. To be honest I am not surprised especially since this Member of Parliament is very clear on his stance.

“Individuals who use guns to hurt their spouses are Bad People.“

No, they are worst then bad people they are criminal’s who abuse the vulnerable and are predators. I am not trying to re-victimize victims here, but people that would abuse there loved ones seek out people who will “allow” it to happen often these people have been in the cycle of violence from birth. There are already ample laws in this country that could deal with the problem if judges actually applied the law as written that is of course if the cycle of violence is broken. There are many organizations in place to deal with domestic violence ranging from emergency shelters, social workers and the police.

When you get down to brass tacks firearms owners view the Canadian justice system as far too lenient and weak especially on just about all crimes especially involving guns where the offender is not a paper criminal, but a real one. The laws are there they just are not enforced.

“I’m not telling you not to and I’m not trying to eliminate your hobby, as long as it’s done safely and legally.”

You have aligned yourself with IANSA by default you support an organization that has every intention of eliminating more then one of my hobbies, but limiting my property rights and damaging my civil liberties. The agenda of IANSA is clear and domestic violence is just a tool for then to “Stigmatize” legal owners and paint the whole firearms community as monsters.

Thanks,

Paul
Paul says:

July 16, 2009 at 7:53 pm

Andrew,

“Women are three times more likely to die violently if there is a gun in the house.”
Please source your statistics. Where did they come from other then the IANSA website and are they peer reviewed. Are they for Canada or the World. I hope they do not include the 3rd world while have a conversation about Canada.

“Usually the perpetrator is a spouse or partner, often with a prior record of domestic abuse.”

Usually? So in theory if a women is killed in a hit and run, but either she or someone else who she lives with owns a gun it gets counted in the statistic? By this definition 99% of Swiss women live in a home with a firearm so every time a Swiss women is killed do they get added to that statistic?

“Gun violence can be part of the cycle of intimidation and aggression that many women experience from an intimate partner. For every woman killed or physically injured by firearms, many more are threatened. “

And there are amply laws in Canada that already cover this. The problem is the cycle of violence itself where the abused does not stand up to the abuser no help can be given if no one knows. And I am not trying to blame the abused here just indication the major problem is not inanimate objects it is the cycle.

“This is why IANSA has launched a campaign to demand policies which would keep women safe from gun violence. Disarming Domestic Violence 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.”

No, the goal of this is to forward IANSA agenda of the removal of all small arms from civilians. It is used to “stigmatize” all those that would appose them and paint an inaccurate picture of the average firearms owner. Canada already has such laws and they are not in question right now and have nothing to do with this MP’s position on the registry.

Thanks,

Paul
Simon says:

July 16, 2009 at 9:07 pm

I would urge you to accept the invitation. It would be a bit presumptuous to think oneself in a position to discuss firearm legislation with so little hands-on experience with our current legislation or even firearms themselves.

One learns more about life outside of a classroom than in.
Rishi Maharaj says:

July 16, 2009 at 9:08 pm

Elizabeth, I think you are speaking well beyond your level of experience here. I have sent well over 1000 letters to various Canadian politicians of all political stripes on a range of issues, from city councilors to the Prime Minister. Only in the case of my local representative (i.e. my city councilor, MPP, or MP) have I ever received a personal response. I’m on a first-name basis with all of my elected representatives and have been since before I was old enough to vote. Let me share some tips with you:

1. Backbench MPs rarely respond to communications from out-of-constituency citizens, let alone foreigners. They will usually forward your correspondance to the office of their party’s leader or a cabinet minister, both of which will send you a canned letter.

2. NO ONE TAKES EMAIL SERIOUSLY. Sorry for the caps. It is just way too easy to send an email. Why don’t you make a list of public figures you’ve successfully scheduled a face-to-face or phone interview with by email. How many? None? That’s what I thought. I was told by my MP’s secretary that he receives around 500 emails per day to his official parliamentary email. Most of those go unread. Call or stop by the constituency office. This is an easy way for them to weed out out-of-constituency people who are just looking for an argument, not a constructive discussion.

3. Make yourself known. Call often, get to know the secretaries or assistants. People who make the effort to write real letters and make visits matter because they make the effort to vote. People who can’t be bothered don’t matter and never will. Show them how much you care about your issues and you’re more likely to get a response. Many MPs, despite being bound by party lines in the House, are good people and will act on your behalf in non-political matters (if you are having trouble with a government department or agency for example).

See Elizabeth, what you’ve done here is made a mountain out of a molehill. If I went around making sweeping accusations every time I was ignored by an MP I’d have run out of breath a long time ago. You don’t know guns, you don’t know Canada, and you don’t know politics, but for some reason you think you’re qualified to write about Canadian gun politics. It’s pretentious and offensive.

The Firearms Act is very complex. Most of it was written by people like yourself who have no practical knowledge of firearms, kind of like an non-engineer writing the building code. As a result it is so non-nonsensical, contradictory and complex that most police officers and many Crown attorneys don’t understand it (which I why I have to carry a booklet explaining portions of it to provide to police officers). The Crown refrains from using parts of it because they know that doing so will result in portions of the Act being struck down as unconstitutional. In spite of all this, you claim to understand it better than those who have been living it for nearly 15 years. You display blatant misconceptions and factual errors about how the Canadian firearms bureaucracy works and yet have the gall to talk down to us about it. That is insulting and it’s part of the reason why you get such a negative response.

I’d love to meet you face-to-face – as you said this often fosters understanding much better than more detached methods. It seems to me like you love debate, but only as long as it’s on YOUR terms. Prove me wrong by meeting with me or any of the other members of the gun community that have offered to do so right here. Let me share with you my ideas for a gun control scheme that is both more effective and far less of a burden on gun owners. These aren’t ideas rooted in ideology, but in years of experience with guns and gun control, something you are sorely lacking. If saving lives is truly what you care about then you will accept my offer or a similar one. Otherwise you are just another ideologue who wants to get guns out of people’s hands by any means possible.

Consider this a standing invitation for the next time you’re in Toronto. Coffee is on me, and I’m nicer in person (I promise).
harblthecat says:

July 16, 2009 at 10:25 pm

Hi Elizabeth,

Perhaps an effective way for you to get in touch with Mr. Breitkreuz would be to have a friend of yours, who is both a Canadian citizen and a resident of his constituency to hand write a letter to him, asking him for an interview. Failing that, you might consider asking a resident of the constituency you live in to write a letter to their MP asking the same thing and CC’ing Mr. Breitkreuz. Of course, you always have the option of personally stopping by their local MP or even Mr. Breikreuz’s office to discuss the matter personally.

I handwrite letters to my Member of Parliament on a frequent basis, by my count; I’m at a dozen in 2 years. Only once did I receive a personalized response from my MP, when I sent him a handwritten letter detailing how my home was raided by police, because of a false threat accusation by an ex-girlfriend. I sent him the court hearing documents too for good measure (including the dismissal of the crowns claim of me being a danger to society and the return of all my property, including my guns). He sent me a letter, telling me he forwarded my letter to the Minister of Justice, and personally reiterated his personal support for the abolition of the Firearms Registry.

Just as you COULD easily dismiss this comment and censor and deny it from existence; so too can, and will, most politicians dismiss most electronic correspondents they receive. I presume they are still busy people and have the important job of representing their constituents, even their fellow countrymen.

If you are ever in Calgary or Edmonton, please feel free to post about it on the internet. I’m sure myself or any of us big city, Western types would be happy to invite you to our local range to show you our sport and way of life, in the hopes that you might come to understand why we are so passionate about it.

Thank you for reading my post, and all the best in your future endeavors!

HTC
harblthecat says:

July 16, 2009 at 10:43 pm

Sorry Elizabeth,

One thing I might add, not to beat around the bush. C-68 the Firearms Act dramatically pushed the envelope on what we as gun owners could do, and opened the door to all sorts of invasive, unconstitutional government regulation and policy. The Gun Registry is something of the polarizing lightning rod, that those of us in the shooting community look to as the epitome of this.

The belief that (by today’s count) 20 million firearms across a could be registered in a country of 30 million that spans 9 million square kilometers is absolutely asinine. The politicians who implemented this law has absolutely no idea about the culture of the people it affected or the specifics of the objects the law was meant to regulate.

It’s clear your an activist in support of the registry – but here is the problem, and the reason why so many of us in the shooting community are eager to invite you to see what we do.

The law is flawed and has failed and it’s failure has become a horrible burden for the rest of the country.

If you were to come shooting with me, I could show you the Canadian made, Cooey .22 bolt action rifle I have, that has no serial number on it, and by the simple act of making 5 phone calls to the Canada Firearms Centre, could be registered as 5 separate firearms. I could show you the subcompact GLOCK19 pistol I have, whose frame makes it small enough to fit in my back pocket, but has a barrel length just long enough to make it legal to own. I could show you a 12 gauge shotgun I own that is shorter than my house cat (less the tail – he’s a small cat), but because of the way it is manufactured is perfectly legal for me to carry (unloaded) in the backseat of my SUV (I do have a license after all). I could show you the hand held airgun I have that is more than capable of inflicting life threatening injuries, but is not a firearm under the current definition of firearms under the criminal code.

If you’re in support of registration, classification, and outright control – you have to understand what it is your trying to register, classify, and control.
harblthecat says:

July 16, 2009 at 11:03 pm

Sorry Elizabeth, but I’m in a talkative mood tonight.

The guns I mentioned in my previous post, I meant to mention to highlight the failure of the gun registry and the gun control program put in place in Canada.

Allow me to clarify my specific examples.

The Cooey bolt action rifle example was meant to show how easy it is for gun owners to skew data within the registry. Like I said, all a person would have to do is call the CFC, and tell them I have an unregistered Cooey bolt action rifle with no serial number on it for it to be registered to them. Do you honestly think the RCMP dispatches a Firearms Officer to inspect each and every gun transfer they process? I’m up to 15, and so far not once have I had an officer visit me. Being a law abiding citizen, I don’t exploit this weakness in the registration system, however I know a lot people who do. If you think anyone could be prosecuted for doing this, you’re mistaken – evidence in the gun registry cannot be introduced in court.

The GLOCK19 example I sighted, because with C68, the government tried to bring about a “minimum length” law, to prohibit guns that were shorter than a certain length. Unfortunately, the way they phrased that law, was such that the length of a gun was determined by it’s barrel. The GLOCK19 frame by itself would have qualified it as prohibited (and theoretically, banned from ownership), but all that gun owners and vendors had to do was replace the barrel with one long enough to exceed the regulation, and it was perfectly legal (restricted, but legal).

The case of the short shotgun I described, goes to show, again, how C-68 mean to try to restrict or prohibit the length of a firearm, but included a loophole (sic) “by modification,” meaning if a gun was shorter than the minimum length because the owner modified it, it was illegal. However, if it came from a factory that short, it was perfectly legal – and indeed, the firearms market has been flooded with factory assembled, short shotguns.

The airgun example I sighted went to show how the definition of firearms is skewed and inaccurate. Anyone can purchase an airgun from Canadian Tire or Walmart, without a gun license, and it does NOT need to be stored, transported, operated or registered the way a firearm does. I’ve put a hole through a piece of 2×4 with my airgun, so it’s certainly no less dangerous than any legally defined “firearm,” yet it is not treated as a firearm by the law.

Hopefully this will help clear up some of the examples I cited in my previous post.

Good night!

HTC
Jim S says:

July 17, 2009 at 12:10 pm

Ms Elizabeth,
Although not nearly as articulate as some others who have responded ,i feel the need to make just one comment, that I am sure will NOT make it to you’re blog, or at the least, censored.

I suggest that you return to you’re native land (America) and continue you’re lobbying efforts there. For you see, as you are NOT a Canadian, most of us feel that your opinion is not wanted here.
Happy says:

July 17, 2009 at 12:10 pm

Hi Elizabeth, you shouldn’t take it personal or assume that Mr Breikreutz doesn’t want to debate.

Half the time I write my own MP I don’t hear back and once when I wrote the Prime Ministers Office it took about eight weeks to get a written reply.

When I wrote the Governor General I never heard back.

I’m glad that the legislator you work for appears to be responsive but here in Canada not hearing back is the norm based on my experience.

Persistence and patience appear to be the only way to get our politicians to talk to us.
EESA Storm says:

July 17, 2009 at 3:46 pm

Oh come one Elizabeth.

If you are watching the goings on in Canadian Politics then you know FULL WELL why Gary was a no show.

It was due to the outright LIES of the NDP and Liberal MPs which was picked up by the CBC and Toronto Star.

For you to try and make Gary out to look bad as a result is frankly shameful!
Alberta Gordon says:

July 17, 2009 at 5:05 pm

Hi Elizabeth,

Please don’t get discouraged because of all of the negative posts.

You see, there is a well organized gun lobby at work that attacks anyone who favors the registry. Check out CanadianGunNutz.com (a rather fitting name)to see how organized they are.

The other sad thing is that the Reform/Conservative party used misinformation and fear tactics against the gun registry to gain votes in past elections.

Now that their poll numbers are dropping it appears the same misinformation and fear tactics used in the past are being recycled. This is morally wrong!

For your info, Elizabeth, and for the info of the “GunNutz”, a very informative and factual “Stats Canada report on Homicides in Canada 2007” can be found at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008009/article/10671-eng.pdf .

Particularly interesting are pages 8,9,10, and 22 in the report. The data shows that long gun homicides have declined since the Registry.

The report also shows that the rates per 100,000 population are highest in MP Garry Breitzkreuz’s western Canada, especially in Manitoba.

Is it not paradoxical that areas of Canada populated by “law abiding gun owners”, who believe there should not be a registry, have the highest homicide rates!

Personally I am not “anti-gun! I am “pro Gun Registry” and believe it is as useful a program as the Vehicle Registry and that all Canadians should support it. The human and monetary resources invested in the Registry must not be wasted!

I find it incomprehensible how those who register vehicles without complaint or concern cannot do the same with their guns!

Every positive reason for having a Vehicle Registry can also apply to the Gun Registry.

It is intended to keep vehicles out of the hands of unsuitable drivers.

You must pass a test to get a license to drive. You must register the vehicle and obtain a license plate for it. And you must have valid insurance to operate the vehicle.

Police can trace vehicles stolen or involved in accidents.

If you operate your vehicle irresponsibly, i.e. drive under the influence, cause death, or have numerous violations of the Traffic Act, your License and right to operate a vehicle can be taken away.

Conversely, every frivolous negative argument used by opponents of the Gun Registry sound ridiculous when applied to the Vehicle Registry!

It penalizes law abiding vehicle owners. Criminals will not register their vehicles. The registry has not prevented a single traffic death. The cost is astronomical. With the money wasted on the registry we could hire more traffic police and fix potholes. Etc, etc.

I urge Conservatives and their “GunNutz” supporters who oppose the Gun Registry to do the right thing. Get in their registered vehicles, check to make sure their license plates, insurance, and drivers license are current, and go register their guns!

KEEP UP THE GOOD FIGHT ELIZABETH!
NoName says:

July 17, 2009 at 6:46 pm

“It is intended to keep vehicles out of the hands of unsuitable drivers.”

The vehicle registry???? How so? I thought it was just about taking an object and registering it in my name and then I can carry some extra papers around with me. How exactly does it prevent me from getting hammered and driving around once I have done the necessary registrations? It’s a piece of paper, it has no influence on my actions.

“You must register the vehicle and obtain a license plate for it. And you must have valid insurance to operate the vehicle”

Yes, true if you intend to abide by the law. Cos if it was working so great as you pretend it does, how come there are so many people driving without licenses and/or proper insurance?! Again, you are expecting that a piece of processed tree and metal will influence my actions.

“Police can trace vehicles stolen or involved in accidents.”

Yes, if it is indeed registered and the VIN intact. If that is not the case, well… maybe next time, eh.

“If you operate your vehicle irresponsibly, i.e. drive under the influence, cause death, or have numerous violations of the Traffic Act, your License and right to operate a vehicle can be taken away.”

And given back to you in no time as long as you pay the necessary fees and possibly wait the required amount of time. Revolving door, anyone? Then again, people drive without licences/ insurance daily, so… yeah. Works great. Kudos.
Also it can only be taken away from you if you actually get caught. See, that’s the thing with laws. If you choose to ignore them, they are non-existent until you get caught red-handed.

“Conversely, every frivolous negative argument used by opponents of the Gun Registry sound ridiculous when applied to the Vehicle Registry!”

Aaaah yes. Let me ask you, Gordon, let’s pretend you own a Porsche. You love it, take care of it, register it, all the good stuff. Let’s say some drunk in a Porsche drives around and causes a mess and the politicians decide to ban that specific brand of car and confiscate and destroy all existing models in Canada, nevermind restricting cars to be able to only drive 30km/h now because of what this one person did, would you still be in favor of the vehicle registry when they come knocking on your door, to take your car? Or would you ask them: Why do you blame and punish me for something someone else has done? Why do you not spend the money on programs to help people with alcohol and drug problems? Why do you restrict and destroy my property, an object instead of taking care of the root problem: people and their actions?!

See, that’s what just doesn’t seem to click with so many of you gun control people.
Laws are fine and dandy if people decide to abide by them.
Criminals DO NOT care about the law. That’s why they are criminals. They take part in criminal acts/ behaviour which means they are breaking the law, ignoring the law. How hard of a concept is that?
You make a law, someone will break it. Ok, that’s life. Now comes the flaw: Instead of punishing the law-breakers severely, making an example out of them, more laws are being added (cos the first worked so well, right} which then will only affect the law-abiding cos only the law-abiding abide by those laws! Meanwhile the criminal, the law-breaker, s/he laughs and goes home after telling the judge s/he is so sorry for his/her actions and will never do it again.

But oh well, you folks keep on believing that processed trees and computer data will influence someone’s actions and make Canada a safer place.
Maybe one day you guys and gurls will join the rest of us in real life. Til then, good luck and keep your cell charged… after all calling 911 is the only acceptable option in the fight against crime. Or so they say.
Paul says:

July 17, 2009 at 7:23 pm

“It’s funny that you bring up C-301. Breitkreuz authored it, but he was a no show both times it was brought up for debate in session. Go figure.”
This is where your lack of understanding of Canadian politics comes into play. Right now there is a minority government and the opposition parties made it very clear they would not pass the law. C-301 had many reforms in it that was more sweeping then the current bill in play. And in Federal politics here if the bill went to vote and it was voted down the issue is considered closed and cannot come back to be voted on again during the current session. You only get one kick at the can here that is not to say the same is not true in America because I honestly do not know.
I wish my politicians where as responsive as yours.
Thanks,
Paul
EESA Storm says:

July 17, 2009 at 7:28 pm

Ho hum

Gordon Gordon Gordon.

Are you seriously going to try and compare gun control to cars?

Really?

I mean that has been tried and disproven so many times it is laughable.

Pathetic even.
Andrew E says:

July 17, 2009 at 9:44 pm

Alberta Gordon says:
“You see, there is a well organized gun lobby at work that attacks anyone who favors the registry. Check out CanadianGunNutz.com (a rather fitting name)to see how organized they are.”

Attacks? Since when is well-informed opposition an attack? I’m used to that rhetoric.
But, I guess CGN is busted. Oh me Oh my, whatever will I do? I’m not sure why Alberta Gord mocks the most informative pro-firearms site in Canada simply because of it’s chosen moniker, though… we’re just using what the gun grabbers call us, and “taking it back”… not unlike certain musicians’ use of the “n word”.

CGN is a wealth of information, not only on firearms politics, but all areas to do with firearms, from hand-loading recipes to collecting military surplus arms, firearms law to upcoming gun shows… I challenge you to find another single collective with as much hands-on knowledge of this subject matter.

Bear in mind that there are a little over 47000 on-line members of CGN. There are millions of firearms owners in Canada. The ones that don’t participate on CGN are just as adversely affected by our current laws as those of us who do. Trust me, I wish that every firearms owner was a member. Thanks for the plug… our numbers increase with every media mention. Happened when uber-left NOW Magazine cast aspersions our way, and again when the G&M did an article on bill C-301. Operators are standing by.

Are CGN’ers Vocal? Yes. Knowledgeable? Certainly.
Organized? Hardly. Independently opinionated? Bet your sweet a$$. But just think of the message we could get out if we had taxpayer funding, Gord. You know, like the anti-gun lobbyists get? Do posters here know that the Coalition for Gun Control was actually paid taxpayer dollars to lobby the Liberal gov’t for more funding for gun control? A paradox is not just two piers, it would seem.

Wait for it…. next Gord’ll be trotting out the good old “powerful NRA-backed Canadian gun lobby” deceit. (FYI: there is no such animal, Elizabeth, just individual Canadians, using not a nickel of US money.)

Turning to vehicles, Alberta Gord… what keeps you safe behind the wheel? … When you’re doing a dime over the posted speed limit between Red Deer and Olds, is it the training you took to learn to drive, or the safety features of the car? Don’t tell me it’s the little piece of pink paper tucked away in the glove box between the owner’s manual and the Kleenex. Really? Does that registration paper have telekinetic control of your car? My little piece of pink paper must be defective, in that case, because if I let go of the wheel, my truck pulls…. to the right, naturally. That is all the gun registry is. Little pieces of paper, linked to an overpriced central database. Worthless.

Consider yourself pwned by your own words “Conversely, every frivolous negative argument used by opponents of the Gun Registry sound ridiculous when applied to the Vehicle Registry!”

Andrew E.
And yes, I’m a CSSA, NFA, NRA, OFAH, NWTF, DU, and CGN member.
harblthecat says:

July 17, 2009 at 11:44 pm

Hi Elizabeth,

My suggestion wasn’t directed to someone who doesn’t “know how the political system is SUPPOSED to work,” it’s directed towards you – a person who doesn’t know how the Canadian political system ACTUALLY works.

Being an IT professional, let me explain something to you – I personally can type 100 words per minute. For me to send an e-mail correspondence to every member of parliament takes less than 5 minutes with next to no effort. For this reason, the relevance of e-mail correspondence is next to meaningless.

I hand write at about 20 words per minute, and for me to send the same personalized, hand written letter that would have taken me 10 minutes to type as an e-mail, then takes me about 30-40 minutes to write, plus the time to photocopy a copy for each MP, plus the time it takes to put the letter into an envelope and the time it takes me to drive to the nearest mailbox. A task that, compared to sending an e-mail, takes a great deal more effort.

If you are an elected official, what does it say about the author of a correspondence if they deliberately take the time and effort to send you a physical, paper letter, written by their own hand, and send a carbon copy to all your peers? It says that someone out there took the effort, despite the availability of more convenient means, to attempt to communicate with them.

If you are that elected official, who than do you think is more emotionally committed, and therefore more deserving of your time? The hack who spent 10-15 minutes throwing together an e-mail and sending it to a 200 person distribution list, or the genuinely concerned person who took 1-2 hours of their own time and effort to contact you and your colleagues with a physical, paper artifact? I’d say the 10-15 minute person warrants a canned response, while the 1-2 hour person gets the interview (or personalized response)

After all, an e-mail can be disregarded as easily as pointing a mouse and pressing “DELETE,” (the same way you could just as easily delete this post in your blog). A paper letter has to be either crumpled up and thrown in a trash bin, or walked to a disposal room and put into a shredder. I will say in my personal case, I write an e-mail weekly, and send a paper letter monthly to someone out in Ottawa, telling them it’s time to turf the gun registry (including many of the details I in turn relay to bloggers and media sites online)

You probably know the social network that brought me to your blog, and I can honestly say I know of dozens of others who, like me, devote HUGE amounts of their personal time contacting their elected officials via e-mail, fax, snail-mail, and personal visits to their constituency offices (in our case, asking them to abolish the gun registry). We spend a lot of our personal time debating the responses we get back.

Many of us have even been part of organized rallies with many of us meeting them face to face, vigorously protesting with them against political policy we think is unjust (see the Coalition Government of Dec 2008). Correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s this kind of political action by grassroots movements of passionate supporters that got Obama elected, was it not?

You’re in a yelling match with the rest of us, and quite frankly, you’re article is making a big fuss about the fact that we’re vastly out yelling you. Just to prove my point, you’ve inspired me with the contents of the next hand written letter to my MP – I’m going to ask him for 5 minutes of his time to explain to me personally his stance on the gun-registry. He’s pretty good getting back to me, usually about 3 weeks. It may take me an hour to write and send, but I am quite confident respond in short order (he always has in the past).
Elizabeth Mandelman says:

July 18, 2009 at 6:23 am

Harbthecat,
Well then, I’ll just take the four plus years of experience I have working with numerous politicians as null and void; I must be doing something wrong. Next time I get a request over email I’ll make sure to walk over to the mailbox first to check for a handwritten letter, because it’s obviously more important than the email someone sat down and took time to write.
Alberta Gordon says:

July 18, 2009 at 10:05 am

So what are you saying “NoName”? Should we abandon the vehicle registry because a few lawbreaking criminals can get around the system?

THE VEHICLE REGISTRY HAS A HISTORICAL PROVEN WORTH, IS ACCEPTED BY EVERYONE, AND IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE GUN REGISTRY!

I have many “law abiding” friends here in Alberta who obey “the law” and register both their cars and their guns and believe strongly in both systems.

Why can’t you supposedly “law abiding” GunNutz members do the same?

On a more personal note, a very good friend of mine tragically lost his sister many years ago. She was shot to death on their farm by a jealous abusive husband whose should never have been allowed to continue to own a shotgun. (this was many years before the gun registry)

For this reason I would like to share the following that was sent to my by a relative from Guelph, Ontario

GUELPH MERCURY – JULY 3, 2009, LETTER

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 use 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.b The registry needs to be preserved. Dr. Barbara Kane, Prince George, B.C.
Elizabeth Mandelman says:

July 18, 2009 at 2:50 pm

The comment period for this entry is now closed.

Registration vs. Licensing

Elizabeth Mandelman | Posted July 14th, 2009 | North America

Tags: Canada's Firearms Act, Disarming Domestic Violence Campaign, domestic violence, gun control, IANSA, police protection

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.

9 Responses to “Registration vs. Licensing”

Joel Sturm says:

July 14, 2009 at 11:54 am

Dear Ms Mandelman,

I’m afraid that you do not fully understand the difference between the firearms licence and the firearms registry.

The RCMP cross checks firearms licence data with CPIC data every day. If a person with a firearms licence becomes involved with the police in a domestic situation, or an impaired driving situation, or any situation that may suggest a potentially dangerous change in psychological behaviour, the firearms information centre is informed.

The firearms registry has absolutely nothing to do with this. Moreover, front-line police do not trust the registry. Entry errors make the registry unreliable. Well-trained police always assume weapons are present whenever approaching any vehicle or structure.

In fact, in a recent poll of front line Canadian police officers, as of June 25, 2009, over 1432 wanted the registry scrapped while about 101 wanted the registry to continue.

That huge number of registry checks is possible only because the computer is rigged to perform a CFRO check on every check. Police do not bother to access the registry voluntarily because it is so inaccurate. Interestingly, the company responsible for the computer database gives contributions to the CPAC, which, it turn, runs press releases praising the registry. Their integrity officer recently resigned.

As a taxpayer, I continue to be appalled at the tactics used by vested interests to keep this useless and expensive registry alive.
BW Stephens says:

July 14, 2009 at 12:36 pm

You may need to study the firearms act yet again.. (without the blinders).. Maybe you should sit down with someone who is subject to these laws and talk to them and get your information first hand rather then reading a bunch of hyperbole and rhetoric and passing it off as fact..

Any time you want to come to the range or even just talk about the firearms act and firearms in general feel free to contact me.. If your not local I’m sure I can find someone who is…

So to correct you inaccuracies…

A legally imported firearm is registered as it enters Canada not as it is acquired by an individual. Be it as it physically crosses the border or when it is taken out of bond by the company importing them..

So, when I buy a rifle or revolver it is already in the registry.. A registry is like a catalog.. all it does is list the items that are in the country and in the case of restricted firearms where it is being stored…If I sell that it it’s not entered again the information is changed around…

When I buy a pistol the registry folks check to see if I have a license in the right class and either pass the information along, approve it or reject it…

I’m not sure what you think happens to a gun once it’s registered but putting a piece of paper beside it doesn’t make a lot of difference…

Any policeman will tell you that the registry cannot be trusted since a gang banger will not have registered his guns any stop, or entry needs to be treated like there could be a gun present..

Eliminating the registry would not make the information incomplete.. They are 2 different sets of information…We are not suggesting doing away with Licensing..

Registration leads to confiscation it’s not just buzzwords it has happened in Canada. The registry has been hacked and as a result it’s a shopping list for criminals..

My License says where I live, ergo where my guns are stored . if it’s important that police know where they are do, Without the registry..

If anyone believes that someone is a risk.. Call 1-800-731-4000 and lodge a safety concern..

It’s just as easy to call 911 or your local police..
Andrew E says:

July 14, 2009 at 1:53 pm

Ms. Mandelman, do you honestly believe that front-line officers actually trust the registry? Do you think that after a registry query indicates no firearms at a given address, SOP calls for them to exhibit less caution?

To do so would be foolhardy, given that criminals don’t register their firearms. Registered firearms owners are the most law-abiding people in the country. If anything, the LEO’s who do use and trust the registry should be glad that a “positive hit” showed an upstanding citizen residing at the address in question….
Zorro says:

July 14, 2009 at 3:57 pm

In the latest scenario, the registry tells the police what to confiscate when a license is revoked. Please site the number of instances where this provision has been invoked, without the use of a companion search warrant, which would locate any firearms in the residence in any case.

The limited usefulness of the registry, in this example, is redundant. If a complaint is leveled against an individual, and a subsequent investigation suggests lawfully owned firearms should be removed from that individual’s possession, a search warrant is executed in any case.

If the only justification for the firearms registry, with it’s gross mismanagement and billion dollar cost overruns is that it provides a mechanism for police to identify firearms that will ultimately be found via a search warrant regardless, how can the inconvenience of millions of non-crazy Canadian firearms owners be justified? Or perhaps you dont care, because you don’t own firearms.

Perhaps we should institute a kitchen knife registry. Then, when you realize that the issue affects you directly, your tone will change. For now however, its not your property you suggest be denied, so who cares…right? If it saves one life….

Billions of dollars to create a redundant paper trail which is neither accurate nor effective towards it’s purpose? How can this be defended by any person, regardless of your opinion on private ownership of firearms? Even if you absolutely deny any reason for any person to possess firearms, how can you justify a billion dollar program which doesn’t work?
Paul says:

July 14, 2009 at 6:11 pm

Front line officers that trust the registry are given a false sense of security. The registry is so flawed that it cannot be used in court yet the onus of registration is placed on the firearms owner.

You may had read the act, but we live it.

The reality is simple

The single largest protest in Canadian history was in opposition to Bill-C68 to which Alan Rock started. “if it saves one life its worth it”. I’m still waiting for the payback on the investment did we save 1 life yet or should I wait for the cost recovery program when the 2 Million firearms owners in Canada will bear the brunt of fees to pay back the 2 Billion we didn’t want spent. What will it take 15 more years and 2 Billion + more.
The money wasted so far 2 Billion (2,000,000,000) could have easily put both CT and MRI machines in every hospitable in Canada which would have ultimately saved thousands more likely tens of thousands of lives much more then can be said for the registry. For 20 Million they could double both the research and treatment facilities at the Ottawa Cancer center, but no they have to beg people for donations, fund raisers and lotto’s. Not only that but payoff to the individual tax payers would mean everyone would get a better share of the tax dollars spent. I don’t want to come of as callous, but the reality is more life could have been preserved with funding other projects. I feel sorry for people in abusive relationships, but I fail to see what that has to do with me or why in this twisted world my rights get limited because of other peoples problems. It could have also been used to help with programs for at risk youth and women as thousands are turned away weekly from shelters, but I guess an ineffective registry with great optics in relation to public safety that tracks inanimate objects is more important then real solutions to real problems. I blame idealistic people like yourself every time a person is unable to legally defend themselves and wasting money in the name of safety that could have been spend actually doing something with tangible results.
You see the root of the problem is very simple. Groups with Gun Control as there agenda such as IANSA will never stop ever until there impossible goal of no firearms in the hands of civilians is complete. And if successful it will be done on the back of honest citizens with a swat of destruction to property rights and civil liberties . The genie can never go back in the bottle firearms cannot be un-invented. The end effect is honest law abiding citizens comply with the laws and those that don’t become criminals and even then the real criminals will not comply anyways so the net effect is a ideal environment for criminals as we see in the UK right now there firearms laws have made them #1 in Europe in violent crime. Unfortunately Canadian gun owners where unorganized and realized this much too late and we got caught trusting the government at least we caught it before the British or even Australians. The first step is licensing and regulations. The second step is registry this key for them because without it they cannot move onto the next logical step of central storage. Also during this process the attempt to ban as many different types of firearms as possible will be attempted. During this whole process both access and availability to firearms will be limited at each step until finally it is such a task for a person to own or use firearms they simply give up. At this point the number of people left can easily be dismissed by the government and all of our final rights will be quashed with little to no uproar.
The whole process depends on “Stigmatizing” actions of people and governments seen to be contributing to the problem where the problem can be as simple as a person that believes in there rights to own firearms. They will do and say anything even roll out “victims” and grieving mothers, but completely ignore all the lives actually saved by firearms. Emotion and out of context statistics is there weapon never do you see peer reviewed or even sourced statistics. They have been extremely effective at spreading fear and “Stigmatizing” normal everyday honest law abiding citizens. That is how people like yourself play this very serious game that involves my rights and the rights of every Canadian and the reason why people such as myself will fight you for every inch. What sickens me the most is you’re an American promoting laws that would have my liberty quashed.
The opposite has and is happening in Canada at a grass roots level every time this topic heats up more people join. Even in very rare cases we have started to see positive media reports. I came out of the closet a few years back and a number of people that had known me for years where surprised I owned firearms especially since I am not a hunter also many of them didn’t even know handguns where legal in Canada. For a long time due to the media and the political incorrectness of my hobby I hide and that was a mistake I regret as I am the perfect example of a law abiding firearms owner.
Thanks,
Paul
dean says:

July 15, 2009 at 9:40 am

Paul, very well said. I took an oath to defend this country from threats both from outside Canada and from inside Canada. i see this series of mis-information, slander and, out right lies to be a threat to all Canadians because if they do get their way you can bet that they will be looking for a new “cause celeb” and next there will be a whole new class of Canadians who are a “threat” the peace of this country. next time they will be after your car, or your .

its sad to see such corruption rot this country. it is time to shore up the foundations of Canada. Guns are part of our cultural heritage. Please honor our diversity.

dean
Jim S says:

July 16, 2009 at 1:26 pm

Ms Mandelman, with all due respect, as you are not even a Canadian, your views on OUR Gun Laws are actually none of your concern.

Move along, nothing to see here.
Elizabeth Mandelman says:

July 17, 2009 at 11:51 am

The comment period for this entry is now closed.
k from winnipeg says:

August 4, 2009 at 11:08 am

Hello,
I found this blog through random research and cruising of the web regarding firearms in Canada. I AM a firearms owner, and actually SUPPORT the existing laws in Canada as they stand.
I think this area of law has been “maxed out” and only law abiding citizens are following it, in essence you can “squeeze” them to follow more laws but nothing of substance can really be gained. Any real efforts to improve public safety should be directed at why so many real criminals/gangsters are getting released from jail so easily. These repeat offenders escalate their crimes, as the more interaction they have with jail-the less they fear it. It quickly loses any deterence value. I have read the posts on the forum you were invited to, and take it upon myself to apologize for the really decent men and women who are members there. There is alot of frustration and you happened to be the relief valve. It was very good to join up to learn more from “the other side”. Perhaps you will come back some day for intelligent debate, once the malingerers are kept in check by the moderators.
I encourage you to seek out information from Professor Mauser, who is very well versed and qualified on this subject. I challenge you to actually try to go through the process and try to obtain your Possession and Aquisition Licence, purchase a restricted and non-restricted firearm and commence to join and use a range. The mountain of exams, storage laws, transport laws and safety laws must be experienced first hand to be appreciated. After the excerise, by all means sell your firearms back to the gun store should you wish to do so. I think you will realize how confusing all of this is, and how easy it is to become an unwitting “paper” criminal. There is a absolutely massive difference between a street gangster with a gun and an urban target competitor or farmer with a gun. Please don’t confuse “anti-gun” with “anti-GANG”. It is a subtle but serious difference. Many people lump it all together and just want to make society safer by banning things. Their heart is in the right place, but is misdirected. Guns have been in Canada for 300 years, believe it or not. Yes, 300. Urban street gangs are a relatively new occurence on city streets- that is the real root caus eof so much violence. Thanks for the space on your blog, please email for further details.

Canada’s gun registry has proven very useful

Elizabeth Mandelman | Posted July 13th, 2009 | North America

Tags: Disarming Domestic Violence, domestic violence, Dr. Barbara Kane, gun control, IANSA

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.

10 Responses to “Canada’s gun registry has proven very useful”

Sarajane says:

July 13, 2009 at 2:07 pm

One never hears about the people that were denied gun licenses, I can only imagine the number of lives and limbs saved by the confiscation of thousands of guns…
DaveC says:

July 14, 2009 at 7:41 am

Dr Kane is guilty of making the same mistake as you, Elizabeth.

Both of you — and all of your supporters too — are CONFUSED.

The Registry records guns.

The LICENSING SYSTEM records Gun Owners.

I’m astounded that otherwise smart people are incapable of distinguishing the vast differences the Registry and Licensing.

The Registry prevents criminal and stupid behavior as well as car registration prevents people doing stupid and criminal activities with cars.

The handgun registry has existed in Canada since the 1930s. It has neither solved nor prevented a single crime.

PLEASE get your facts straight.
Mark says:

July 14, 2009 at 8:06 am

I respect the good doctor’s intentions with regard to reporting mentally unstable and potentially dangerous individuals and by doing so attempting to limit their access to firearms.

It should be noted however that the framework for reporting individuals who may pose a danger to themselves or others to the RCMP for the purposes of restricting access to firearms is a component of the LICENSING program, and not the Canadian Firearms REGISTRY.

Registration is the cataloging of firearms and correlation to licensed owners. Nothing more, nothing less. The licensing system is responsible for ensuring applicants or existing licensees are of suitable moral and ethical stature to safely own and possess firearms for recreational purposes.
Michel says:

July 14, 2009 at 8:47 am

It seems to me like Dr. Barbara Kane (Like many other Canadians) is confusing the licensing of firearm owners and the registration of firearms.

As far as know, there are no plans to stop the licensing process… The back ground check, security check, and other haptitude test will still be in place.

Michel
dave says:

July 14, 2009 at 9:02 am

I hope one day you are able to grasp the difference between licencing and registering guns. Obviously you are up to now incapable of understanding the difference.
CarsonH says:

July 14, 2009 at 9:14 am

Ms. Mandelman:

I am astounded that an intelligent, well educated person like yourself seems incapable of understanding the differences between the two separate systems of gun owner licensing and the gun registry. I won’t repeat the education provided to you in the accurate posts above. Is your ideology clouding your reason?

If I was publically challenged on an opinion – and consistently so – I would at least check my facts. There’s nothing worse than being publically embarrassed because your opinions follow from an incorrect understanding of publically available information.

No one here is saying that people should not be properly vetted under a gun owner licensing system that also teaches safe gun handling. The gun registry on the other hand, is just a very expensive system for creating a computer record for the existance of firearms owned by licensed individuals. It does not track the location of the firearms from moment to moment, nor does it provide any guarantee that a criminal does not have an unlicensed firearm in their possession.

Finally, while I laud Dr Kane for her responsible actions towards the public, neither the owner licensing system nor the gun registry are necessary to remove firearms from an unstable patient’s possession. She need only call police with her concerns and they will pay the patient a visit. Searching the home is the only way that they can provide any reasonable assurance that they have found all the firearms located there, registered or not.
Roderick says:

July 14, 2009 at 1:06 pm

Hi Elizabeth: I see that others have reiterated the fact that the criminal and mental health background checking function of our gun control system is actually part of the licensing process, not the registry, so I’ll only note that in passing.

The main issue that I’d like to raise is that the Firearms Act as a whole, including licensing and registration provisions, has not had a noticeable impact on suicide rates as a whole. There is a reason that the Coalition for Gun Control always specify firearms suicide in their talking points; it’s because overall, the Firearms Act has not impacted the suicide rate. In other words, it’s affect suicide methods, not suicide rates, which provides absolutely no justification for maintaining the registry.

While firearms suicides are a declining portion of the suicide rate, probably because the delays involved in the licensing process and the fact that at least some suicidal applicants may have answered the mental-health portion of the R/PAL application truthfully forced some suicidal individuals to choose means of suicide other than firearms, overall, there hasn’t been any material change in the Canadian suicide rate since the adoption of the Firearms Act.

Which makes sense, really. People have been killing themselves by any number of means since long before the invention of firearms. Firearms do not cause suicide. And removing firearms from a suicidal person will just force them to use other means to kill themselves, not to mention probably worsen their feelings of depression and/or persecution.

To my mind, sucide isn’t any more or less of a tragedy depending on the method used. Pills, razor blades, rope, cars, and bridges are all as readily available to the suicidal and just as lethal as firearms. And the statistics bear out the contention that decreasing the availability of firearms does not impact the suicide rate. So while I’m in agreement with you that suicide is tragic and that suicide prevention is a worthy social policy goal, I disagree with you that more gun control would accomplish this, in Canada or anywhere else.

I’d invite you to research Canadian suicide rates as a whole prior to and following the adoption of the Firearms Act. Once again, you’ll find that the claims of the registry’s proponents are misleading.

You might think that if nothing else, the fact that the registry lists firearms might facilitate the work of the police in seizing firearms from a suicidal individual. While this does not affect the fact that firearms are not a causative factor in suicide and that depriving a suicidal individual of firearms will force them to resort to other methods, it relies upon the mistaken assumption that the registry is accurate.

Given that the registry contains at best one-half to one-third of the firearms known to have been legally imported into Canada, let alone the illegally imported ones, the registry is not a reliable guide to the presence and number of firearms in any given household, forcing police to do a thorough search rather than ticking seized weapons off on a registry print-out. Simply put, the possibility of false negatives completely vitiates the value of the registry here (not to mention most other applications). All that it does here is inform the police that there are likely some firearms at a given location, which is something that they already know or suspect is the case if they’re conducting a search to seize firearms on mental health grounds. So if the police know that there are guns at a location, they cannot rely on the registry to tell whether they’ve got them all; they’re forced to conduct a search.

Given that a hit on the licensing database is just as reliable an indicator as a registry hit that there are firearms at a given location, I really don’t see how one can support the registry on suicide prevention grounds, even if one assumes that firearms cause suicide.
Paul says:

July 14, 2009 at 6:17 pm

If the system actually worked and is as effective and justifiable why is it Gun Control advocates has such a serious lack of substance to your argument?

You still do not get it why are you still confusing licensing and registration.

“The letter does an excellent job of describing why the registry is useful and should be maintained.“

No, This letter does an excellent job of distorting the facts, further confusing the roles of licensing and registration and cherry picking selective statistics which do not and have never indicated causation. There is ample peer reviewed and published statistical analysis on this topic which does not support Dr. Barbara Kane and other people set on removing the rights of firearms owners which is why Gun Control advocates are forced to used opinion pieces from news papers. You used the Ottawa Citizen and we quote from the Harvard Journal you see the problem the two sources are not equal. If this has been such a great social experiment why hasn’t the good doctor or one of her colleagues published a peer reviewed papers that supports there view. Elizabeth you have also fallen into the trap by using an opinion piece to support your cause, but this is what I have come to expect.

The trend was already on downwards before Bill-C68 at statistically the same rates both before and after the changes to the Firearms Act. The rate of actual suicide remained statistically virtually unchanged just less people used guns so we paid 2 billion so that statistically the same number of people have died just the method changed. Let’s not even get into discussing the actual cause of the change which is most likely the licensing system with mandatory waiting periods and courses which extends the time it takes to possess a firearm.

The rate of actual suicide has remained statistically unchanged both before and after the changes the only real change is less people use guns so the net effect of 2 billion spent on the registry to lower the suicide rate was ZERO, but yet people for Gun Control still spout the little tidbit every chance they get.

The good doctor would have us believe that the funding of programs for people that are at risk and programs and changing views towards domestic violence had no effect on the downwards trend it is all about the registry or at least that is what people who would restrict my freedoms and liberty would claim. Also the fact that trends were downwards long before and where decreasing at around the same statistical rates is always ignored by people like yourself and the fine Doctor. My question to the Doctor would be simple is she had to choose between cancelling the funding used to help people at risk or the registry what would she choose. I know the answer and you and all other readers to this blog know also.

If someone fails to qualify for a firearms license or loses there license for whatever reason the possession of firearms is a criminal offence. Hence the person will become a criminal if they purchase a firearm or continue to have position of one they may have legally bought at sometime in the past. As we all know it is very easy for criminals to purchase and find firearms on the black market. The registry is a shame in the name of public safety with great optics nothing more nothing less.

“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.” What is the statistical definition of “usually” I’m curious why a percentage was used why not break it down. How many came from estates where the owner that had passed on and the gun simply turned in. How many where actually turned in by the owner. How many where for hunting related violations for example hunting out of season. The reality is a significant portion of those firearms will go back to there owners. Of the 74% that where registered how many where actually taken from there actual owners While 8,281 items where seized how many actual owners where involved. You see the raw number and sensational use of them is irresponsible and is only used to justify the unjustifiable and create fear.

We do not have limitless recourses and the wastage of this system takes away from valuable other programs. When the wait times for MRI’s for example are reasonable maybe then the government can waste my tax dollars.
Mr Kilroy says:

July 14, 2009 at 10:24 pm

“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.”

GEEEWHIZ, those poor police officers were just sitting ducks before the registry. The streets ran red with the blood of women and children before C-68.

And Yes there is no need to send in the SWAT team, CPIC says there are no guns at that crack house. Since gang bangers and drug dealers all register their guns. Not that it matters since the information contained in the registry is sooo accurate that it is inadmissible in Court anyways.

Of course firearms have consciousness and a will of their own, Exerting such powerful mind control upon their possessors. That would explain how the psychiatrist dropped the ball on Kimveer Gil. It wasn’t her failure to report a risk it was the mind control powers of his gun at play.

I hear tell,,, That the Mayor of Toronto is going to close baseball diamonds and ban baseball and cricket bats since the savage beating death last week in his city. Not really,,,he only blames “So Called” law abiding firearms owners for the gang and drug problem in his city..So he closed all shooting clubs on city land and keeps asking for a handgun ban..that will solve the problem…..

the fact is the registry has gobbled up scads of money and given nothing in return. The fear among the gun grabbing community is that if the registry goes, it will be the thin end of the wedge. And when hell doesn’t break loose licencing will be next. Then Canada will be just like the U.S. oh heaven fore fend..

The funny part of it all is millions of people came to this country over the years escaping tyrants of every stripe, their children are working hard to create the type country their parents escaped from. A Police State.

To quote or paraphrase a great socialist thinker George Orwell “See the rifle on the back of the door of the workman’s cottage. It is our job to keep it there. For that is the symbol of democracy and freedom.”

Those that would trade liberty for the illusion of security deserve neither liberty nor security.
Elizabeth Mandelman says:

July 15, 2009 at 11:45 am

The comment period for this entry is now closed.

The Pyschological Consequences of Domestic Abuse

Elizabeth Mandelman | Posted July 9th, 2009 | North America

Tags: Disarming Domestic Violence, domestic violence, gun control, IANSA

“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.

9 Responses to “The Pyschological Consequences of Domestic Abuse”

Kent says:

July 9, 2009 at 1:54 pm

The only people that benefit from the registry is criminals who hack in & use the list as their shopping list.

The people who suffer, are “people” like “pat” who’s safe havens from criminals get taken away because of the money wasted in registering long guns owned by people who haven’t a criminal offense to their name. Well, the the people in “pat’s” situation who are smart enough to get out of a bad situation & help themselves; something not done by many nowadays. And of course the owner of the gun(s) who has to deal with having their home broken into & their property stolen.

Criminals on the other hand, don’t bother registering their ill-gotten guns, so the police don’t know where their guns are anyhow. Makes perfect sense. Clear as mud?

Have you ever met a gun owner in real life Elizabeth? Not a criminal who has a “piece”, but a real sport shooter? I really encourage you to do so.

Waterloo is fairly close overall & I extend the offer to come to my club & meet some of the folks there. If you don’t think that having a gun in your hands will turn you into a instant killer, (It honestly won’t – Just more rhetoric. Hopefully you know yourself well enough to realize that) I’ll even let you have a go. Really, they are great people. I understand where your heart is, but your focus is misplaced. Gun owners really want much the same as you folks do – Killing of people or violence towards someone isn’t a good thing. Nor is using a gun in any threatening manner a good thing. In fact, in both cases it’s already illegal. No changes are needed apart from getting the courts to actually prosecute those who break the laws & give sentences appropriate to their crime. And of course, people like “pat” do need to stand up & realize they deserve better than being threatened by some power-tripping fool who should be arrested & tried for their inappropriate & immoral actions.

You have my real e-mail addy. I’m very serious on the invite. The people who oppose the registry aren’t the problem. It’s the people that misuse firearms that are.
Roderick says:

July 9, 2009 at 6:23 pm

Hi Elizabeth: as an ex-Montrealer I can testify that I’ve seen the double-decker tour bus you mention on many occasions.

As someone with extensive personal experience of domestic violence, having been raised in an abusive household, I hope that you didn’t interpret my comment on your last entry as being critical of Pat’s character; my intent was rather to highlight the multiple problems with the use of domestic violence prevention as a justification for gun control.

As a fellow feminist, the arguments that gun control would somehow prevent violence against women that were raised following the Polytechnique massacre were extremely convincing to me, so I can understand your sympathy for Pat’s views on the registry. However, having extensively researched the issue and concluded that the domestic violence arguments for gun control are in fact unfounded, I really can’t follow suit.

In fact, I think that enabling women to defend themselves against violent or murderous spouses or stalkers is in fact one of the strongest arguments in favour of firearms rights there is; I’d much rather see an abused women have easy access to firearms and the training to use them effectively to defend themselves and their children than see the law render her vulnerable and defenceless by imposing lengthy bureaucratic obstacles to her arming herself.

In fact, the licensing process, by requiring notification of the spouse of an abused woman who chooses to arm herself, effectively gives her abuser a veto over her ability to arm herself, which is an unfortunate and perverse consequence of the misguided emphasis put on domestic violence prevention by the Firearms Act. A law that gives an abusive husband the power to effectively deny a woman the choice of arming herself (which is a course of action that I’m sure you can support) is not something that I can condone.

Over the years I’ve found a few resources online that deal with women and armed self defence that you might find thought-provoking:

http://corneredcat.com/TOC.aspx

http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html
dave says:

July 9, 2009 at 6:36 pm

Every cent that is spent on the gun registry is one cent taken away from social programs that could help the next “pat”. She felt she had nowhere to turn and that is sad and 2billion dollars later she still has nowhere to turn. But we do have a nice list of property owned by the most law abiding of canadian citizens…..gun owners. Pity it hasnt solved or prevented a single crime to date.
Kris says:

July 13, 2009 at 9:17 am

As the survivor or an abusive relationship in which no regulated weapons were present, I can’t honestly claim that the presence of firearms or other weapons would have led to a worse outcome.

I repeatedly failed to identify my having been hit, insulted in front of friends (my partner’s; I was generally isolated from my own), etc., as signs of an abusive relationship, and a reason to leave immediately. In spite of this, I have a (perhaps misguided) belief that threats with a firearm might have prompted me to leave sooner.

In my case, I was the partner with an interest in firearms (primarily for use as a prop in cycling advocacy, though I was prevented, by my partner, from acting on that interest and e.g. getting a firearms license). As such, I would be an exceptional case where the existing regulatory regime didn’t protect me from stalking/violence so much as it extended my ex-partner’s block on my getting a firearms license (though I gladly recognize my case as exceptional and am not inclined to argue that I would rather have put other people at risk so that I could have had a firearms license earlier).

More realistically, and less personally, the existing gun control regime in Canada is so much more onerous (and risky) than the black market that anyone with an intent or predisposition to use firearms illegally simply isn’t going to bother with the lawful channels. As such, further regulations on the lawful channels are little more than annoyance to people obtaining guns for legitimate purposes, and a drain on resources that could be better spent on social programs that address violence (and its causes) rather than (potential) weapons.

Also, I am transgendered and find that your perpetuation of the “man beats woman” archetype for abuse serves to further invalidate the tremendous diversity of genders involved in domestic abuse and violence. Weapons aside, I can quite confidently state that the failure of my own relationship to fit into the “man beats woman” pattern presented a major obstacle to my recognizing it as abusive and seeking help. Of course, even if I had known to seek help, I would still have had considerable difficulty finding it.

There is still so much valuable and effective work that could be done with all the resources that are being squandered on a weapons-based approach to domestic abuse and violence that I simply could not sit silently by while you call for more waste. I don’t want what happened to me to happen to anyone else, and you’re most certainly not helping.
Elizabeth Mandelman says:

July 13, 2009 at 9:55 am

Dear Kris,
I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I wanted to respond to what you said about the “man beats woman” archetype. I recognize that domestic violence can occur in any type of relationship; it has no limits. However, statistically it occurs most often between men and women, and men are the perpatrators in 90% of the cases. This is why the campaign I’m working on focuses on women. In addition (and unfortunately) many of the studies that are done on domestic violence exclude same-sex relationships and often times even exclude couples that are not married. I myself find this to be problematic and know that others working in the field do as well, which is why many surveys and studies are beginning to focus on many different types of relationships. I think, given time, more statistical data will surface that does more than focus solely on men and women.
Best,
Elizabeth
Kris says:

July 14, 2009 at 1:10 pm

Dear Elizabeth,

While I recognize thatthe largest proportion of reported and studied incidents of domestic violence, when broken down by gender, are perpetrated by men against women, I nonetheless think that you’re missing my point. Unless there are gender-specific considerations that must be made in developing a policy or program, I see little reason to gender perpetrators or victims in the first place.

Many years back, I did work in a group focusing on accessible design (particularly accessible web design). One of the notions that was gaining currency at the time was that of “barrier free” design. Using the more recognizable example of a wheelchair ramp, proponents of barrier free design would ask designers of an entrance or public space whether it was necessary to even have stairs in the first place, before setting aside an alternate route for people who could not climb stairs. If there was no function to be gained by effectively erecting barriers to certain people’s use of the primary means of access, then barrier should obviously not be erected. Even if there was a benefit to the installation of the barrier, it’s still worth considering alternative designs that minimize the extent of the barrier, or questioning whether the benefit provided by the barrier was worth excluding people with disabilities.

Bringing the point back to bear on your writing, was there really a benefit to be gained from stating many women are embarrassed to admit that they are the victim of an abusive relationship instead of many people [...] or many victims [...]. Male, transgendered, and intersexed victims of domestic violence may indeed be a minority (particularly transgendered and intersexed people, since we’re such a small minority of the general population to begin with), but I’d suggest that it’s no more appropriate to ignore us or hide us than it is to exclude people with disabilities from a museum.

Another minor point worth bringing up is that if you don’t want to exclude transgendered people, the homosexual/heterosexual dichotomy should probably be left alone. Here in Toronto, there are frequently “dyke” events that include both gynophile transmen and gynophile transwomen, either of whom wouldn’t necessarily be entirely comfortable to have their relationships bear either the “same-sex” or “different-sex” labels.

I realize that this may seem pedantic, or even peripheral and distracting from the primary focus of your campaign, but I hope you understand that I simply don’t harbour the same doubts about the importance of gender inclusivity that I harbour about the introduction of even more gun control (at least within the context of Canadian society, where we already have quite a lot).

Best wishes,
Kris
Relationships: The Dance of Victims and Perpetrators | reBlogging the Web Updates says:

July 15, 2009 at 2:23 am

[...] The Pyschological Consequences of Domestic Abuse | Elizabeth Mandelman [...]
Natasha says:

July 15, 2009 at 8:52 am

Kent are you serious? The quotation marks around “Pat”? Come on, now. I think it is safe to say that Elizabeth completely owned all those who claimed that she fabricated the story about Pat. I think it’s incredibly presumptuous of you to refer to Pat as not “smart enough to get out of a bad situation and help” herself. It is easy to say how you would have acted as someone looking at the situation from the outside, however, having actually experienced domestic abuse I doubt you would find it so easy to act. When I was younger one of my mom’s close friends fled her abusive husband and came to stay/hide in our basement. She had been petrified that by leaving her husband the violence at home would escalate to a fatal blow or shot. And for some reason: she loved him. Fortunately, she had friends like my mom who urged her to leave and who were able to provide her with help. Nevertheless, her husband sought her out, came to my house and proceeded to bang furiously on our door. He threatened my mom, his wife and their children. Luckily he was without a gun and was thus unable to shoot and break through our door.
Also, Kent I have met people who own guns who aren’t criminals. The family that I babysit for have a gun safely hidden in their garage. They also have a son who has threatened to use this gun against me while playing in the backyard. This isn’t, however, the point of the argument. What is needed is a gun registry. This owner of this gun is mentally stable and has no history of violence. I know that he is not going to use this gun to shoot me for feeding his kids macaroni and cheese rather than pizza one night. If people are screened and are deemed to be mentally unstable or have a history of violence then they can be prohibited from purchasing a weapon that could ultimately result in numerous unnecessary deaths.
Elizabeth Mandelman says:

July 16, 2009 at 1:22 pm

The comment period for this entry is now closed.

What would you call a victim?

Elizabeth Mandelman | Posted July 7th, 2009 | North America

Tags: Disarming Domestic Violence Campaign, domestic violence, gun control, IANSA

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?

22 Responses to “What would you call a victim?”

CanAm says:

July 7, 2009 at 1:01 pm

Many women in Pat’s situation across North America, have used a firearm to defend themselves. What would you say to them, “Give up your gun, and call the police after an attack”?
Elizabeth Mandelman says:

July 7, 2009 at 1:31 pm

I would say to them that if people afraid that their freedoms are being taken away by having to register their firearms weren’t so intimidating in their opposition, politicians and the police could be more vocal in their backing of the registry. This would eliminate the need for the ‘Pat’s’ across North America to defend themselves in such a manner, as possible perpetrators would be denied access to acquiring firearms.
dave says:

July 7, 2009 at 1:34 pm

A gun pointed at your head feels the same whether its registered or not. Pat needed to leave a bad situation and instead chose to stay so it could be repeated multiple times. Pointing guns at someones head was, is and always will be illegal. Next time it happens I urge pat to repeat these words “that gun you are pointing at my head better be registered or your in deep doo doo”
Elizabeth Mandelman says:

July 7, 2009 at 1:43 pm

Like Pat said, you can’t understand what someone in her situation deals with unless you live through it yourself. Part of what happens when an individual is domestically abused is intimidation. If someone held a gun to my head and told me that if I ever left they would hunt me down and shoot me or my family, it would be quite frightening and difficult to leave. What makes it even more difficult is the fact that the daily actions and activities of many women who are domestically abused are controlled by their spouses, and therefore seeking help results in severe punishment and consequence. I suggest you read up on the psychological consequences of domestic abuse.
dave says:

July 7, 2009 at 1:53 pm

Pat needed to leave, she chose to stay. If it was a baseball bat or knife or bare fists that were used would it matter if those things were registered? Pat was a victim of violence and thinking a gun registry would have saved her is insane and only provides the illusion of safety. The registry keeps nobody safe and has solved NO crimes. Put the money into victims services, counselling and support services so that people like pat can leave feeling empowered instead of hoping a useless database will save them. The registry is 2b dollars and counting that could have went to programs to aid Pat.
CanAm says:

July 7, 2009 at 2:14 pm

Also, firearms are rarely used to harm or kill women in domestic situations, when compared with the other methods. Women who protect themselves with firearms do so most often against men who are unarmed. Should these women not use a gun?
Zorro says:

July 7, 2009 at 3:11 pm

I had a gun pointed at my head. So did my wife and our child. It doesn’t make me hate guns, but I sure don’t like criminals.

In the US at least, I could have fought back. Instead, we had no choice but to be good little victims. Glad he didn’t decide to kill us anyway.
Elizabeth Mandelman says:

July 7, 2009 at 4:26 pm

CanAm, you’ve just pointed out that firearms aren’t used as often to harm or kill women in domestic abuse situations, which I thank you for because it points out that the harmonization between gun control and domestic violence laws in Canada is indeed effective. When perpetrators are denied access to guns based on a screening process written into law, they can’t use them to harm their victims. While knives and fists are almost impossible to regulate, firearms are not, and therefore the government seized an opportunity to ensure the safety of more Canadian through passing the Firearms Act. Thanks to you for restating the point I’ve been trying to make all along.
Elizabeth Mandelman says:

July 7, 2009 at 4:32 pm

Zorro, I appreciate your comment and am sorry for the situation you went through, but need to point out that the Firearms Act in Canada does not prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining firearms, so long as they’re used safely.
Zorro says:

July 7, 2009 at 4:38 pm

The Firearms Act in Canada, by virtue of the restrictions placed on law abiding citizens, prevents the ready access to firearms for self defense. If a gun is available for defense, it must be unsafely stored. Laws that criminals don’t respect, but we’re required to.

I don’t blame guns for criminals any more than I blame my beer gut on forks. I’d prefer the option to protect myself and my family.
Roderick says:

July 7, 2009 at 4:40 pm

Hi Elizabeth: rather than calling Pat names, I would ask Pat what she thinks of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and their admirable and eminently successful campaign against drunk driving, and what she would think of a woman who reacted to the drunk driving death of a loved one by calling for a ban on alcohol.

I’d ask Pat whether she understood how the Firearms Act worked, explain the difference between registration and licensing, describe the failure of the registry to have any impact on violent crime, and ask whether she still supported the registry in light of the facts.

I would ask her whether she felt that the billions spent on the registry would have been best spent on the registry or on social programs like battered womens’ shelters.

I would ask her why she felt that the registry would have prevented her experience in light of its abysmal historical track record.

I would ask her whether her victimhood would have been any less traumatic if her abuser would have used a baseball bat or a knife or his fists.

I would ask her whether she felt that her abuse had been caused by her abuser’s firearm, or by his psychological problems.

I would ask her whether she could make a moral distinction between an abusive spouse with a gun and people such as myself.

I would ask her what she knew of the Canadian gun culture, and whether she understood that the vast majority of firearms in this country are only ever used for peaceful, lawful purposes.

I would ask her whether she really understood the relative rarity of violent crime involving firearms in this country, and whether she thought that the cost of our gun control bureaucracy was worth it.

I might, if it didn’t seem that it might be painful to her, ask her why she hadn’t considered the possibility that a firearm of her own would have ended the disparity of force between herself and her abuser.

I would ask her why she supported the social and cultural gender conditioning that deprived her of the means to effectively protect herself from her abuser.

I might ask her whether she knew who Jeanne Assam was, and whether she felt that empowering women to confront violence and abuse and stop it on their own was more or less feminist than disempowering them and making them helpless in the face of their attackers.

In other words, I’d try to present the reality of gun violence, gun control, and the gun culture in Canada, which she clearly doesn’t know much about, and give her food for thought. Name calling really doesn’t help people change their minds; if anything, it just entrenches them in their beliefs.

I’ve been called names for my former support for gun control; that wasn’t what led me to change my views on the matter. It only led me to call my interlocutors names.

What led me to change my views on the matter was dialogue. I realized that the arguments I was raising were always easily countered by more factual and more convincing ones from the other side. And the more I thought about it, and looked into the issue, the more I realized that those horrible [insert name here]s had a point. Add some actual personal experience with firearms, and meeting some members of the gun culture, and I realized that my opposition to firearms had really only been based on ignorance and prejudice, and that the gun control laws that I had supported had actually failed to work. And so I changed my mind.

I think that a lot of the anger and bitterness you’ve encountered from my fellow gun owners is basically due to frustration over how we’re constantly demonized by the anti-gun discourse. Constantly being reminded that there are some people out there who can’t tell the moral difference between you and a wife-beater or a mass murderer can be tiresome, not to mention being subject to government policies that are based on exploiting people’s inability to make that distinction.

Having been on the wrong side of that error, I understand why people make it, and this is why I try to engage in dialogue with people with anti-gun opinions. I know that I won’t be able to convince some, but I do succeed in making most people think
Brad from Alberta says:

July 7, 2009 at 4:42 pm

There is no “harmonization” between gun control and domestic violence laws in Canada. Never was and never will be. It is an illusion of safety that will cause more harm than good.

A registered gun can be loaded and fired as easily asn an unregistered one. There are more than 20 million firearms in Canada, yet only 7 million are registered, and this is not likely to increase anytime soon.

It costs about $60,000 per unit in multi-family housing to build in Canada. For the operations costs of the registry alone, you could build about 1420 hosing units per year, every year. Or, in lay terms for 11 years of the registry, that would be 15,600 places to live, safe places for a women and her children, each with their own safe, private bedrooms, appliances to cook on, and locks on the doors, and rent-free. Even more could have been spent to furnish these units, provide income, clothing and support with the money spent on the set-up of the registry.

What do we have instead? Women trapped, with no place to go, so that their abusive husband has a piece of paper he brush aside as he opens his gun cabinet.

Now, which of these options is reasonable, and which is utterly ridiculous?
dave says:

July 7, 2009 at 6:23 pm

So Pat stayed in an abusive relationship but had the gun registry been in effect back then it would have given her the strength to report the scumbag and seek help? I dont get it. Had pat reported the guy the first time he wouldnt even be allowed to legally own a gun in canada. She allowed a violent criminal to continue and escalate and now thinks the gun registry would have helped her? she was the only person who could help herself and I bet she is free from him now and its NOT THANKS TO THE GUN REGISTRY.
Simon says:

July 7, 2009 at 6:48 pm

“Harmonization between gun control and gun violence”?

I see no causal link between the two.

A good person will not be violent to their partner regardless of what they may or may not possess.

A bad person will.

This same bad person WON’T get a firearm license (which includes background checks and a safety course/exam) and will NOT register their firearms (which is just a list of calibers, barrel lengths and brand names).

Why the GOOD people who wouldn’t dream of hurting their partner’s feelings, let alone body, should be told they can’t own XYZ guns, this one because it has a barrel 6 millimeters shorter, this one because it shoots a bullet 7.8 millimeters wide (as opposed to 9mm), and this one because they are hoplophobic and it looks particularly scary despite being no more and no less dangerous than a non-restricted gun firing the same round out of a barrel of the same length.

If I’m legally licensed (background checks, safety course/exam), why do I need to wait a month to receive the rifle I legally bought and registered? Why do I need to beg the government for an Authorization To Transport the firearm to the local range? The fact that I went through the licensing is proof enough that I’m not some thug out for blood.
Paul says:

July 7, 2009 at 7:10 pm

I would say to Pat I am very sorry that she was in that tragic position and depending on the era these events happened the police and other various social service agencies may or may not have taken her complains seriously. I would suggest Pat get the help she needs if she already hasn’t.

That does not change the fact that the registry does nothing to help prevent this kind of situation. It does highlight the complete lack of understanding of gun control measures in Canada even by one of the groups it aims to protect. The firearms registry is a shame in the name of public safety and a total waste of money.
I will be callous and blame groups that use women like Pat to promote gun control at the cost of real solutions and even after 2 Billion spent still refuse to admit there is no statistical evidence that the registry does anything at all. They used people like Pat and grieving mothers who lost children and took up valuable resources that could have been spent really helping people. Yes 2 dollars a year was too much to pay when the greater good to society would have that 2 dollars be spent where society as a whole prosper more from it versus a registry of inanimate objects. With 2 Billion dollars real change could have been made, but all we ended up with is a database that cannot even be used in court as it is not reliable.

When facts and reason fail as they always do for people from the gun control front they make it about women and children then they can say whatever they want. Then when someone stands up and says your wrong the facts just don’t add up you get the tell the victim that scenario, but once you do that you get accused of making the victim a victim again. Ultimately the onus is then twisted and put on the people who’s hobby or way of life is politically incorrect because its there rights are in danger even though they are not the problem. This whole think of the children mentality is one of the reasons our justice system gives hugs to thugs instead of real jail time. Nothing is ever anyone’s own fault it’s always someone else’s fault.

I will leave my response to your question of personal freedom to a man who really understood the cost of freedom and liberty and what they mean “Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.” Benjamin Frankiln

Why should I lose my liberity, be punshied and taxed for someone elses crime.

“I would say to them that if people afraid that their freedoms are being taken away by having to register their firearms weren’t so intimidating in their opposition, politicians and the police could be more vocal in their backing of the registry. This would eliminate the need for the ‘Pat’s’ across North America to defend themselves in such a manner, as possible perpetrators would be denied access to acquiring firearms.”

Again the registry has nothing to do with acquiring firearms your complete ignorance of the system is part of the problem. You have no understanding of Canadian politics or even how these laws where hammered into place against the will of the people and without popular support even to this day. You also have no idea what the last 15 years has been like for honest law abiding firearm owners in Canada. Its only the last few years has any headway been made for the rights of firearms owners.

“CanAm, you’ve just pointed out that firearms aren’t used as often to harm or kill women in domestic abuse situations, which I thank you for because it points out that the harmonization between gun control and domestic violence laws in Canada is indeed effective. When perpetrators are denied access to guns based on a screening process written into law, they can’t use them to harm their victims. While knives and fists are almost impossible to regulate, firearms are not, and therefore the government seized an opportunity to ensure the safety of more Canadian through passing the Firearms Act. Thanks to you for restating the point I’ve been trying to make all along”

Statistically speaking there has been no change the trend was downwards before the laws and has remained that way. He didn’t prove your point. If the proof existed to back your claims you would use it. But you don’t have that information because it does not exist.
Mark Foreman says:

July 7, 2009 at 8:38 pm

When Pat had a gun pointed at her head there was already a law in effect to deal with that. I am not here to put Pat down but she had a choice and yes it was a tough one but she chose not to call the police and deal with the problem. Pat’s husband was the problem in this situation not the gun.
Elizabeth, you call us intimidating and that just goes to show your mindset. Stop being so weak and you won’t be the victim. Also, as far as police being more vocal in their support of the registry…. I am a police officer and I do not support the registry. I see more and more laws being made but no courts with the balls to enforce the already good laws we have in the criminal code. You want to live in a police state.. then keep on pushing for more useless legislation just like you are. Then when everything is against the law one of us will be kicking your door down. See you in the future.

Mark Foreman
dave says:

July 8, 2009 at 8:50 am

Let me guess……..the day after the registry was started the police knocked down the door and saved Pat?
Walter James says:

July 9, 2009 at 1:59 am

Great work, Liz. It often takes meeting a person like Pat to put arms control into perspective.

Here in Congo, gun violence is a pretty bad problem too, and there are no background checks, waiting periods, or “silly rules”. Perhaps the people who want their guns so badly should come and live here. then they can buy an AK-47 for $5 and pop it off in their front yard whenever they want without the “big bad government” looking over their shoulder.
Sarajane says:

July 9, 2009 at 7:30 am

Unless you are a criminal or plan on being one, I don’t see why gun registry is so strongly opposed. It promotes responsible gun use, gives a record of where guns are located, what kinds of firearms are out there, and who owns them.

It reduces the misuse of guns and makes it easier for police to track illegal guns. Police officers can check the gun registry database and use it to check if they may be met by a gun when responding to a domestic disturbance or break-in.

Dave – had the police gone to Pat’s house – they may have been shot and killed, thus helping no one. I think this check is extremely important for the safety of our both our policemen and women and citizens.
Natasha says:

July 9, 2009 at 10:10 am

Mark Foreman, as a police officer you should know how useful the registry is for your force. Police officers check the registry approximately eighteen times a day to check if the location to which they are reporting may contain a person in possession of a gun.
While I am incredibly sorry to all of you who have been in an abusive relationship I find it very presumptuous to say that all Pat had to do was leave. How can you leave someone who is threatening your life with a gun? If she were to leave, how do you know her husband were not to follow her to wherever she was staying and harm not only her but also the people she loves? Also, it is important to note that her daughter must have been very young at the time. Thus, it was not solely her own well being for which she had to be concerned but additionally that of her child.
When I gave a presentation last Tuesday to a group of high school students from across the world, I was surprised to learn that for those from the UK, Australia and other countries in which gun possession is incredibly low, they found guns to be to be a rather unimportant issue. One girl told met that in her country even the police didn’t have guns.
IANSA is a fantastic organization. They have sent fellows across the world to address the need for Portugal. From Aaron Fuchs in Portugal to Elizabeth in Canada, I think the fellows are doing a superb job in advocating for this important issue. As always, keep up the great work Elizabeth!
The Pyschological Consequences of Domestic Abuse | Elizabeth Mandelman says:

July 9, 2009 at 11:47 am

[...] What would you call a victim? [...]
Elizabeth Mandelman says:

July 9, 2009 at 12:41 pm

The comment period for this entry is now closed.

Barb MacQuarrie of the Centre for Research and Education on Violence against Women & Children

Elizabeth Mandelman | Posted July 2nd, 2009 | North America

Tags: Canada's Firearms Act, Centre for Research and Education on Violence against Women & Children, Disarming Domestic Violence, domestic violence, gun control, IANSA

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.

An Interview with Maribel Gonzales of Project Ploughshares

Elizabeth Mandelman | Posted June 30th, 2009 | North America

Tags: Canada's Firearms Act, domestic violence, gun control, IANSA, Project Ploughshares, small arms

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.

The Effectiveness of Canada’s Firearms Act

Elizabeth Mandelman | Posted June 29th, 2009 | North America

Tags: Canada's Firearms Act, domestic violence, gun control

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.

31 Responses to “The Effectiveness of Canada’s Firearms Act”

Sarajane says:

June 29, 2009 at 7:03 am

Thumbs up – good response.
Mr Kilroy says:

June 30, 2009 at 6:32 am

The truth is for every stat you cite we can cite a stat to the contrary. However what you fail to realize is the utility of firearms and why the U.S. embedded it into the Constitution and why the English Parliament put it into the English Bill of Rights 1689. To ensure that democracy will reign. You have obviously studied human rights and are fully aware of history, and that it is the unarmed individual that is subject to the tyrant. The Gun Control Laws of Canada believe it or not have precious little to do with public safety,however it is the pretence which they are enacted. Registration is always the first step to confiscation, whether it is Lenin’s Russia or Hilter’s Germany. Mao put it aptly power comes from the barrel of a gun. Therefore you disarm those that would disagree with you.

Each and every enactment of Gun Control in Canada has been on the heels of a significant act of civil unrest. The unfortunate part of gun control is it always requires more gun control in an attempt to curb what it caused in the first place.

There is one thing I would indict you for, that is that you are working to maintain the “Victim” status of women by keeping them defenceless. The Government you speak so highly of also placed stun guns and pepper spray on the prohibited list. So keep telling everyone that it is about public safety, well at least for criminals.

Suicide is also in part the reason for licencing and registration, oddly it is third to poisoning and hanging(#1)Perhaps licencing and registration of rope is in order. The point you miss most is that the presence of an inanimate object does not predicate whether violence will occur.

You obviously have adopted the public health model concerning firearms, which treat them as a disease vector. Therefore all one need do is contain and isolate and the disease goes away. This amounts what could be termed “Sage Craft”. There is no empirical evidence linking the presence of a firearm to violence.
Paul Friesen says:

July 1, 2009 at 9:07 am

I’m afraid I don’t derive much comfort from the thought that a few gun owners might decide to take over the government if they disagree with something. That seems both far fetched and highly undesirable. Gun owners of the type who complain about filling out a registration form sure don’t speak for me.

As for guns being used to prevent crime, how many people would get shot in error because someone panicked? How many petty thieves would be killed because someone over-reacted? How many of those guns would be stolen and wind up contributing to crime instead of fighting it? The U.S., with its high rates of gun ownership and extremely free access, sure doesn’t seem like a very good model. Its crime rates are much higher than ours.

There are legitimate uses for guns, controlling the populations of some wild animals. People who need such guns should be licensed and the guns should be registered so that police can tell if a household has one if they are called to a violent confrontation. Someone who commits violent acts or issues treats should lose their guns and the right to own them. And people who refuse to register their guns should lose them too. That is the only way to make the register accurate.
Paul says:

July 1, 2009 at 8:00 pm

The ~80 Million a year it takes to run the registry would make a real difference if spent on programs for at risk families and youth. The 1 or 2 Billion spent on the registry so far could have put a MRI machine in every hospitable in Canada. In one hand we have a registry of inanimate objects and in the other we have options that could actually have tangible results.

There are many more legitimate uses for firearms then hunting. There are many forms of target shooting both those recognized as Olympic events and those that are not. Private security guards for example armored trucks. Historical animations of both the private and public funding. The collection of firearms both in private or public presentation. I could list more, but I have made my point.

While in Canada the legitimate use of firearms for self defense is frowned upon by the government of Canada and is not a legitimate reason to acquire a firearms license, but the statistics from the United States on concealed carry indicates a vastly different view then yours.

The problem with the American model has nothing to do with registration, but licensing. No safety courses and very minimal rules depending upon the state around the purchase of firearms.

One cannot ignore the history of the world when talking about gun registration and confiscation of firearms both of which have happened in Canada. Very silently and without any media uproar, but it has happened.

The simple reality is Canada does not have the resources to go out and collect all the registered firearms that are owned by people with lapsed licensing this does not even included the millions of firearms that have not been registered. It also does not include those illegally transported in the country by criminals who have ever intention to use them.

In closing I will quote a great leader “Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.” Benjamin Franklin
Paul Friesen says:

July 2, 2009 at 1:47 pm

The cost of the registry can sure vary depending on who you listen to. Different people, with different agendas put different things in or leave them out, I guess. But even if we take your $80 million at face value, that’s only about $2.50 per year for each Canadian. I can afford that, I think.

Gun lobbyists complain endlessly about the cost, but they themselves contributed hugely to it. They deliberately tried to mess up the system as much as they could by submitting inaccurate forms and other methods. Their endless complaining resulted in the fees which were supposed to pay for the system being waived.

These are major reasons for the high costs which they now want to use as a reason to scrap the registry. Scrapping it would, of course, really ensure that the money was wasted. On-going costs to run the system would be minimal given a reasonable level of co-operation.

I have no problem at all with guns being confiscated from some people. That is a major, and quite appropriate use of the registry. People who are convicted of a violent offense should not be allowed guns. An accurate registry is the only way to make this happen. Confiscating guns from those who refuse to register would help to make the registry accurate.

The notion that gun lobbyists are going to take their guns, march on Ottawa, and set everything right would be very scary if it weren’t so ridiculous. I’ll take my chances with the ballot box, thanks.
Paul says:

July 2, 2009 at 8:11 pm

Mr Friesen,

Sure it is $2.50, but tell that to my mom who had to wait 9 Months for a MRI Or the hundreds of women that will be turned away from shelters tonight So you think it is more important to register inanimate objects then to fund real programs with real tangible results. I pay my taxes I obey the laws and every time I turn around there are new laws and fee’s all of which are to control lawful citizens. I’m sick of the nanny state and constant need of new laws to protect people from there own stupidity. And I’m sick and tired if being nickeled and dimed to death in taxes by both federal and provincial governments. There is a finite amount of resources the government has and wasting $2.50 of it is too much. . In your socialist dream you would have the government take another $2.50 as hay it’s only another couple of dollars per person. When it’s not even really $2.50 given the demographics of actual tax payers.
Civil disobedience is a key and important part of democracy. Unjust laws and government regulations should be challenged.

I was not talking about gun confiscated based on failure to comply with the laws of Canada. I was referring to those where a firearm becomes magically prohibited and the firearm is destroyed and owner not compensated for there loss. There are many examples of this in Canada and then we are asked to continue to trust the government.
I’m sure you have no issue with the removal of people’s property without compensation or the ability to sell those items. Let’s apply that to all property in Canada so that whenever the government wants they can take whatever they want.

People point to historical events to highlight that registration is the first step to disarming a population and you twist it to inference an armed attack on parliament.

When was the last time a criminal registered a gun he bought on the street or the last time a criminal applied for an ATT to transport his gun to a 7-11 before he robbed it the answer is never. 99% of these laws are aimed at discouraging firearm ownership a shame in the name of public safety and the control of law abiding citizens as they are the only ones that will ever comply anyways.

The registry will go away it’s just a matter of time unless of course the gun advocates win and we end up like the UK who now has the highest violent crime rates in Europe, but its all good because honest citizens allowed themselves to be disarmed.

“Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.” Thomas Jefferson
Thanks,

Paul
Roderick says:

July 3, 2009 at 5:22 am

Hi Elizabeth: I’ll leave the point about declining rates of firearms-related spousal homicide being part of a trend that long predates the inception of the registry to other commenters.

But on the main point that I would like to discuss, as a fairly progressive, feminist, left-leaning, relatively recent (since 2005) Canadian gun owner, the violence against women arguments in favour of the registry seemed very convincing to me until I did a little digging on the subject.

Firstly, you write that “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.”

I’d like to ask why you think that the registry actually prevents spousal homicide from occurring? In other words, how does a data entry in the registry and the existence of a registration certificate for a given firearm deter its owner from committing spousal homicide with it?

When buying a firearm, I present my R/PAL (gun license); the vendor checks to ensure that it is still valid and that I have not been subject to any restraining orders or the like; R/PALs are checked daily by the licensing system for such events. If my license is valid, the vendor then proceeds to transfer the registration by telephone. I can usually leave the store with a long gun inside of an hour; handguns take several days (and why the lowest-powered, shortest-ranged firearms in my collection are subject to such excessive over-regulation when I can buy a far-more-lethal elephant gun with much less fuss is another question).

Eventually, I get a slip of paper, i.e. the registration certificate, in the mail. The certificate does absolutely nothing to prevent me from misusing my firearms for criminal purposes. My wife is asleep upstairs as I type this. I have several firearms in the house. However, there is absolutely no risk of my going upstairs and shooting her in her sleep. My guns being registered is not the reason why she is safe. What do you think that reason might be?

Since Bill C-86, we’ve seen that a person who is going to commit murder is not going to be deterred by the prospect of the penalties for Firearms Act. All of Kimveer Gill’s firearms were registered when he walked into Dawson College, and neither the registry nor the ATT system (Authorization To Transport permit for Restricted firearms) had any effect whatsoever on his murderous actions. James Roszko, the perpetrator of the Mayerthorpe Massacre, had a borrowed, registered rifle with him when he killed four Mounties several years ago (the actual murder weapon was unregistered, by the way). The registry did nothing to stop him and it was useless in apprehending the people who lent the rifle to him; the owner claimed it had been stolen and it actually took months and a multi-million-dollar undercover sting to bust the guy who lent Roszko the rifle.

Registration poses no obstacle to misuse. So if a licensed Canadian gun owner is going to commit spousal homicide, it’s not the registry that’s going to stop him or her. And the fact of a gun being registered is not going to prevent it from being used by a non-licensed individual, either.

And then there’s the fact that we’ve had a handgun registry since 1934 that to date, has had no discernable effect on crimes being committed with handguns (another factoid is that you’re twelve to fifteen times more likely to be struck down by lightning than shot by a licensed Canadian handgun owner with a licensed handgun). You’d think that increasing the dosage of a medicine that’s so far had no effect on the disease would not be the sort of thing a rational doctor would do…

IMHO, the licensing provisions are really the only parts of the Firearms Act worth saving, as they ensure that the only people capable of legally buying firearms are at extremely low risk of misusing them for criminal purposes. There are all sorts of factoids tossed out there about how licensed Canadian gun owners are the single most law-abiding segment of Canadian society, that we’re two and a half times less likely than the average Canadian to commit a crime, etc. I haven’t verified them personally, and they aren’t central to my point, which is that a) the licensing system and the registry are two entirely different things that are frequently conflated, with licensing’s benefits being falsely ascribed to the registry, and b) that ensuring that only safe, responsible, trained individuals can legally buy firearms can and does prevent some criminals from buying firearms (given the ready availability of illegal firearms in Canada, it only stops the laziest, least motivated, most poorly connected ones from getting guns, but that’s still enough of a benefit for me to support it).

But, you’re probably going to argue, the registry allows police to know what guns are present in a residence, allowing ease of confiscation.

This might be true if the registry contained all firearms in Canada. At present it contains somewhat more than several million firearms, which depending on the estimate you trust, is one half to one third of the firearms known to have been legally imported into the country prior to the registry’s inception (and we have no idea about the number of illegally imported guns). This means that the police cannot rely on the registry, as it contains at the very best only half the firearms out there. Police confiscating firearms do not rely solely on the registry leave once they’ve found all the guns registered to a suspect; they’re going to contiue searching until they’re reasonably certain that there are no more firearms hidden there.

The police are not the sort who are going to trust people to reply truthfully to “So these are all the guns in your possession?”, nor should they be.

So in the horrible, hypothetical event that I were to assault my wife and she get a restraining order against me, the registry would be of no benefit to the police; as I’m in the license database, the police would simply show up, thoroughly search the house, and leave once they were satisfied they’d found all my guns.

Given these realities, not to mention the fact that anybody with a file can defeat the registry in minutes by filing off a gun’s serial number, I can no longer support or justify the registry.
Elizabeth Mandelman says:

July 3, 2009 at 5:33 am

As I’ve mentioned before, the registry includes screening measures and the notification of current and previous spouses of an individual’s intention to acquire a firearm. This serves as a preventative measure. By preventing an individual who may domestically abuse from owning a gun, the registry prevents possible spousal homicides from taking place.
Roderick says:

July 3, 2009 at 5:43 am

Oh, and to Paul Friesen, I felt much the same way about the risks of firearms use and carriage until I researched the actual incidence of firearms violence in Canada versus other sorts of violent crime, and the track record of concealed carry permit holders in the forty or so US States that issue concealed carry permits.

Suffice to say that in Canada, gun violence is practically negligeable (in fact, given the far more frequent use of knives in violent crime in Canada, there’s an argument to be made for home cooking being more of a threat to the public safety than sport shooting), and that the dire predictions, similar to yours, that I made about concealed carry permits when I first became aware of them twenty years ago, have failed to materialize.

In other words, in the big picture, the social cost of sport shooting doesn’t justify our gun control system. Cost aside, the registry is clearly ineffective (see my comment above for some of the reasons why) and unfairly targets people who pose no threat to society, while ignoring the people responsible for causing the vast majority of what “gun crime” we do suffer from.

I think that the reason I was so alarmed about firearms when I was younger is the demonization, ignorance, and negative stereotyping about guns and gun owners that are the key tools of the anti-firearms movement. The anti-gun movement are a lot like homophobes in this respect; they exploit fear, ignorance and lack of personal experience in order to drive their agenda, but this only works for the prejudiced, ignorant, and sheltered, and backfires on them when people actually learn more about firearms and the gun culture, and discover that in reality, they’re not the dreadful things they’d been told they were. In my own case, some objective research and personal experience were enough to convince me that our gun control laws are severely misguided; and now that I’ve done my homework, I’ve gone from solid support for the registry to thinking that the only part of the Firearms Act worth saving is the licensing system.
paulm says:

July 3, 2009 at 6:14 am

From what data have you arrived at the figure of 1/3 of homicides against women by domestic partners are committed with firearms?

My sources indicate it is much lower (less than 10%).

Violence against women is a serious concern, but liberties should similarly be a concern. They should be properly balanced. I personally view the registry only as a collasal waste of money.
Dinsdale says:

July 3, 2009 at 7:26 am

Hi there,

re this reply:
“July 3, 2009 at 5:33 am

As I’ve mentioned before, the registry includes screening measures and the notification of current and previous spouses of an individual’s intention to acquire a firearm. This serves as a preventative measure. By preventing an individual who may domestically abuse from owning a gun, the registry prevents possible spousal homicides from taking place.”

You are 100% mistaken as are most people who are Pro-registry.

The Registry is ONLY a database of Firearms and their theoretical location. This information is incredibly inaccurate and not relied upon by front line police despite what the Chiefs of Police say.
Dave says:

July 3, 2009 at 8:10 am

So you refuse to post comments you disagree with, what does that say about you? Doesn’t human rights include freedom of speech? Oh but not i suppose when that speech disagrees with your uneducated and biased opinions.

Someone called you an idiot..well, when you cling to propagandist beliefs and refuse to really look at the statistics in an honest way an idiot is precisely what you are. Fortunately for you there are many people of your ilk that will support your habit of obtuseness and stupidity.

That won’t change ths facts though, facts which you refuse to refute, facts that you are afraid to believe lest the become the proverbial brick aimed at your glass house. After all, what is the truth relative to your need to believe in your perfection.
Brent says:

July 3, 2009 at 8:16 am

E. Mandelman, why is it that you can’t seem to grasp the differences between the two components of Canada firearms law, Licensing and registration? They are two different things.

Everything you have written about can be achieved through the existing licensing component, which the Conservatives have no intention of eliminating.
Firearms Licences will always be required.

Registration of individual firearms achieves nothing and is simply a total waste of taxpayer’s money.

I am consistently left with the impression that writers such as yourself deliberately try to confuse an unknowing public about the differences between licensing and registration.
Pittsky says:

July 3, 2009 at 8:29 am

I will quote you:

“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.”

The registry does not contain anything that prevents anybody from owning guns. The registry doesn’t screen anybody for anything much less domestic violence. The registry is a database.

You are confusing the registry with licensing.

Please do your research before spreading more misinformation.
Mr Kilroy says:

July 3, 2009 at 8:51 am

Oddly I find myself in agreement with Mr Friesen on one point in part. I would not take much comfort in a bunch of armed thugs taking over the Government just because they didn’t like it either. Such happens in South and Central America not Canada. The operative words are “THUG” and “like”. However there are “just” reasons for citizens putting on the line in opposing a Government.

When a Government disregards the rule of law, the principles of democracy and freedom a line must be drawn some where. As Pastor Martin Niemöller poem states at the end “when they came for me there was no one left to speak out for me”. It would require much to get to that point however disarmed citizens could do little to prevent it. It is frightening however how Allan Rock’s words mirrored Himmler’s. I believe tyrants also round up journalist do they not?

On another note I love how those who do not own firearms are experts on the laws governing them and their owners. Licencing is the part that screens and weeds out the undesirables. Registration in only registering a firearm to its owner and where it is kept. No screening is done, a transfer from one owner to another a check is made to ensure licencing is in order. I guess if Ms Mandelman keeps repeating it long enough it will be true?

No Ms Mandelman there is no screening nor notification at the registry point, only a check to make sure you have the correct licence. Now you can believe the people that actually have to work with the system or you can continue to believe the lie you have been told. However given your affiliations you might just be one of the ones making it up.

The registry is however so inaccurate that it can not be used as evidence in a court of law. It cannot tell an officer responding to a call at a violent domestic that there is an unregistered firearm there (or any other call for that matter) thus mitigating its value as a tool to law enforcement. Chief Fantino has also stated that it has neither prevented nor solved a single crime. Another tid bit Moms Boucher of the Hells Angels registered a submachine gun successfully without having a licence. Yes indeed Canada is a safer place with the registry.

The best for last. Mr Friesen worries that a petty thief will be gunned down by an over reacting firearms owner. May be a change in occupation would be in order, one that wouldn’t involve preying upon unsuspecting people? In Florida when they enacted a “Shall Issue” policy concerning Concealed Carry Permits they noticed a dramatic drop in muggings and sexual assaults (50% reduction). Seems it isn’t as much fun when your victim might be able to fight back with lethal force. Nor is it worth the risk guessing who is armed and who is not.

But I suppose Mr Friesen prefers a Country that affords it’s criminals the safety and comfort of defenceless victims. That’s progressive thinking for you and from someone who has never been a victim of a violent crime.
Michel says:

July 3, 2009 at 9:05 am

The registry is a useful… OK.

Does printing 2″x3″ registration certificats for shotguns and hunting rifles help women who are physically abused…

- NO

Does printing 2″x3″ registration certificats for shotguns and hunting rifles help women stuck in abusive relationship…

- NO

Will printing more registration certificats for shotguns and hunting rifles change any of the above…

- NO

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

Are women shelters a helpful tool for abused women?

- YES

Are women shelters having a positive impact in the lives of vulnerable individuals?

- YES

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

Why is more money been wasted on futile paperwork, then on meaningful social work programs???

- I don’t know…
Steve in Orangeville says:

July 3, 2009 at 9:06 am

Elizabeth, lets put this in terms you may be more familiar with.
I own a car, and I have a license to drive. The car is registered, but, it is not this registration that the police check when I get pulled over. They check my license. Yes, they may check to see that the car is registered, and to whom. That is the extent of it. If they want information about who I am, my driving record etc. that is all contained in the license info. It is my license that requires I pass all the requirements set forth by the government allowing me to legally drive.

Firearms licensing and registration is the same. If the police need to know about “me”, it is not the registration certificate of the firearm that they check, it is my firearm license.
It is my license that contains all the background checks and other information which makes it legal for me to own firearms.

Here’s a scenario for you:

Say I have a firearm license, but I don’t own any guns, but I borrow one from a friend to go hunting. (which is perfectly legal I might add)

Now lets say the police are called to my home for a domestic disturbance (God forbid) and they check the registry. It would show that I don’t own any guns.

So, just because of the registry, do you think the police should then breath a sigh of relief and go “whew, thank God there’s no guns at this house”??

I think any police officer worth his or her salt would enter my home being prepared for any eventuality, regardless of what the registry would tell them.

Does that help you understand the difference in the two pieces of legislation?

Regards

Steve
Kent says:

July 3, 2009 at 9:22 am

Elizabeth-

As a new gun owner, I’ve just been through all the hoops required to purchase firearms. As someone who seems confused about this process, might I suggest that you do the same? You’ll learn that the licensing of an individual is very different from the registration of a gun.

I went through the checks when I got the initial license. When registering a new gun, it is checked that my license is still valid. It does not screen me for suitability for firearms ownership a second or third, or fourth time dependent on how many guns one owns.

By the way, it’s the gun control people that got me into guns. With their wacky stats, I had to do research for myself, as just what I see about didn’t relate to what was being said. What I found was a sea of misleading info. Contrary to what the gun control stance is, I’ve found the fellow legal gun owner to be a responsible, honest person willing to help, with a focus on safety to the extreme. I take issue with people implying anything to the contrary, as it’s all about research. Do that, and I’m certain you’ll come to the same conclusion, assuming you don’t go into it with the “all gun owners are potential murderers” theme. Not only is it wrong, it’s also slanderous of a great group of people who’ve been very wrongly persecuted over the past years.

The shooting sports is a tradition that goes back hundreds of years. It’s an Olympic sport. It’s a great method for families and those not athletically able to participate in a fun environment. It promotes comradeship & focuses the mind.

The criminal element don’t register their guns, nor are they licensed. The gun control folks should be targeting them, not the law abiding people that simply enjoy a fun sport.

Kent
Brad from Alberta says:

July 3, 2009 at 10:52 am

I would like to point out to the author here of her reference to the Supreme Court of Canada case noted above:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2000/2000scc31/2000scc31.html

This case was a “division of powers” case, and as a matter of fact is not about the substance of the Firearms Act (Bill C-68) at all. This case was about whether the Federal government was constituionally able to enact this bill, and nothing more. It has nothing to do with whether the contents of the bill are constitutional or not.

The heart of this case is whether the Federal government had constitutional authority to enact a bill containing measures which could tread upon property rights, which is traditionally under Provincial jurisdiction.

And as far as the other mentioned items go, licensing is the key to public safety. A piece of paper (which may in fact not even be factually accurate) does absolutely nothing to prevent, solve or even investigate gun crime. How many paper restraining orders have ended with injury or death? How many paper driving prohibitions ended with DUI charges, accidents, etc.? How many paper weapons prohibitions have ended with illegal weapons charges?

The Registry has done absolutely nothing but create thousands of paper criminals at a cost of billions of dollars.

No sensible person can argue against safe owenerhip and usage of firearms. But sometimes enough is enough. Over-regulation simply leads to making more criminals out of normally law-abiding citizens and forcing controlled items into the uncontrolled underground. Nobody wants that. History is repleat with examples (Prohibition in the U.S., the “war on drugs”).

Currently, there are about 200,000 Canadians who have not renewed their license. Who are they, where are their guns? Are they dead, alive, sold their guns? Nobody really knows, and there aren’t enough jail cells to hold them all if in fact they are criminals. The current registry is not accurate enough to say for certain.

So now what?
Paul says:

July 3, 2009 at 4:55 pm

Elizabeth,

I would like to thank you for allowing both pro and con comments on your blog open dialog even with those we disagree with is key especially around heated topics like Gun Control. It is a very brave thing to do and I applaud you for that.

Thanks,

Paul
Mr Kilroy says:

July 4, 2009 at 6:28 am

The most violent country in Europe

Britain has made it to the top. The Labour Government has made it so comfortable for thugs that crime has run rampant. Did I mention that they have stricter firearms laws than Canada, Handguns outlawed there. We by the way placed 6th.
Everyones favourite target for being the most dangerous place because of their lax firearms laws didn’t even make the list.
Dr.Oswaldo Ramirez says:

July 4, 2009 at 10:00 pm

Ms. Mandelman,

As the chief of a very busy ER close to the GTA, I can attest that the registry is a useless tool with nothing but wasteful plundering of our tax dollars. I follow evidence based medicine to provide the best care for my patients. Until recently we did not have a simple CT scanner (1969 technology!) – can you imagine how many CT scanners could have been added, or as another reader stated, MRI units that help in diagnosis and treatment – real life saving devices – rather than the useless registry? I have called the resgistry many times to report that a woman, child or man is worried about their safety because someone that abused them has a gun. Each time I get the answer…call the police. Why? Because the registry is useless and has no power to do anything that the police already can do! I cannot fathom how anyone in their right mind would support an illogical system that has a pointless, useless registry and an illogical, ill-conceived act to back it up. C-68 has to be the most dimwitted piece of legislation ever written!
Sorry about the rant, but people have to realise what a real waste the registry is!

Dr.O.Ramirez B.Sc.MD.CCFP
Bruce Mills says:

July 5, 2009 at 7:07 am

I’d really appreciate it if you would back up your assertions with actual citations of credible sources, instead of just leaving us to take your word for it.

Here’s a couple of statistics for you: Senator Anne Cools discovered, after much browbeating and considerable delays, that in 1995 there were 23 women who were shot to death by their spouses. *23*! Do you really think it is fair to blame and hold responsible the other 2,199,997 gun owners who did not kill their spouses for the actions of these few individuals? I think not.

There were already a number of legal remedies to take care of those miscreants who use guns or other objects to threaten, intimidate or even kill other people. If the justice system only took such crimes seriously, and punished such people to the full extent of the law, we’d be much further ahead.

Think how many women might be safe if the billion dollars that had been wasted on this boondoggle had been put towards helping them. How many women might be safer if *they* had access to firearms for their own defence against these criminal thugs – which is what they are.

Another statistic is that Canadians use firearms to defend themselves, others and their property from both four and two-legged predators some 80,000 times per year. For every life lost to a gun, 40 are saved. Read Mauser and Buckner’s “Canadian Attitudes Toward Gun Control: The Real Story” (1997).

Hope this helps!
Greg Popik says:

July 5, 2009 at 2:52 pm

Point One: Partisan results are not-objective

The various entities conducting such sociological studies produce reports that are invariably uninteresting to the general public, because they are invariably the product of political bureaucratically

A layman can usually tell which ideology’s report it is by glimpsing at the same old, tired out conclusions drawn in it. If generated by conservative dominated segment, they will produce conservative conclusions. If generated by a Liberal dominated segment, they will produce Liberal conclusions. Lets be honest here. If this principal were not true, Liberals would be lauding the outstanding Auditor General’s report the waste generated by the long gun registry, and there would be nothing to rally against.

And they must thank God each day for having that, as they have had little else as a party to run on as a wedge issue these four years gone by.

This is the simple reality of the bureaucracy.

To survive, the bureaucrats in management must surround themselves with underlings most likely to take all measures to achieve the political objectives they have been commanded to produce.

The very continuation of their career is at stake. It has the effect of producing individuals most often notable only for their singular ability to act out of an instinct for self preservation.

This practice is so common that it might as well be filed under “business continuity”.

Your claim to validation of your point of view through sociological reports is about as comical as the court royals in the film Braveheart loudly proclaiming the rightful claim to land titles. About as probable too.

As stated by others, for every report you raise we can counter with five. And we’d all look more the fool for it.

I’m sure someone will be along shortly to pooh-pooh this notion. And that will be a lot of casual Sunday fun to address too. But in the meantime I’ll reflect on gun control outside of the realm of statistical interference; which is so obviously poisoned as to border on ludicrous.

Point Two: Gun control in the world failing

The stress cracks in the facade of what once appeared to be absolute ‘impenetrable wall ‘ of common sense for gun-control and community safety as presented by various globally orchestrated gun-control groups are beginning to show

Badly.

And you are a long way out of touch with the common citizen if you don’t understand how clearly they see this.

Just read today’s news from countries like England. Countries that foolishly abolished gun ownership a decade before sinking into a proverbial toilet of crime and civil unrest. Again, I’ll reference no statistics about how many gun crimes are committed daily on this relatively easy to secure Island nation. Its a fools errand to chase these.

But please explain just how is it that that violent crime occurs in such unprecedented numbers there? After examining the effects of gun control in post ban Britain, it is baffling to understand how anyone could believe gun control works. The only guns there now are in criminal hands.

Bravo Ms. Peters.

We don’t need to dwell on England though because, quite frankly, English crime reporters are doing enough of that for us already, and they’re growing sick to death of the official party line. Their bosses don’t mind, and are letting more and more of these contrary articles through, because they can smell the epic fail. And nothing sells newspapers like scandal.

Point Three: Gun control in the US is failing

Never mind that over 20 States in the Union to our South officially confirmed in State Legislature the legal right of the individual to one form of carry or another. Those same States have also repealed duty to retreat legislation as well.

These two actions spawned numerous Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) campaigns against those States. And those FUD statements sold a lot of news print, as scary tales always do. But I need to stop and take a minute to thank those behind that FUD plan, because it actually did more to help our case than any amount of full page news print.

Think about it. People paid attention to those articles because they WERE worried. But a great amount of time passed by and yet there was no emergency. Where was the blood in the streets we were warned about?

In the end, there was no case to be made against gun ownership. Even better, nothing needed to be sold to the public to prove it because it was already bought, paid for and well advertised in the media.

Their was no crisis. In State after State, the crime rates nose dived.

It has now become apparent after more than a decade of operation of these laws in places like Florida that these States have a far better track record of reducing crime than any state mandating gun-control.

Once again, I’m not going to play the stats game. But are you aware that the higher a State scores on the Brady scale, the more likely it is to have the worst violent crime rates in the nation? As someone advocating the protection of women against victimization, doesn’t that give you any pause for thought regarding your current hypothesis?

Maybe not.

But here’s a small strategy tip for you guys. FUD campaigns have a very nasty tendency to backfire, because the worst case never happens without forcing it. And like all things forced, you don’t want to get caught in that kind of lying or you’ll never make good with your word again.

Don’t get offended, because some in my camp screaming about Obama taking our guns need to learn this lesson quite desperately too.

For the time being, it is sufficient to state as fact that the second amendment was re-confirmed in the SCOTUS in DC vs Heller much to the dismay of radical groups such as the Brady campaign.

For the future, gun ownership rights remains in the hands of the patriots who have not and will never rest on this all-important issue.

Point Four: Gun control in Canada failing

Lets talk a bit closer to home now.

If you familiarize yourself with the growing number of cases such as Pogson v. Alberta, you’d be far more aware that judicial decisions are now being made here in Canada in recognition of the alarming institutional tendency to overly-ambitious political bias against gun ownership.

Thanks to the uncensored nature of the Internet, Canadians are learning more about their individual rights and entitlements than at any other time in history.

Here’ s the source article:
http://www.canlii.org/ab/cas/abpc/2004/2004abpc41.html

According to Honourable Judge D.E. Demetrick:
“one prominent if not fundamental characteristic of a free and democratic society …is that the citizens of such society generally are “at liberty”or “free” to possess and acquire property without first having to obtain permission from a governmental bureaucrat or the judiciary.

In a free and democratic society any exception or deviation from the general rule deserves close scrutiny even though mandated by law.

Casual or ambitious administration of the law’s exceptions to the general rule could endanger substantially that prominent, socially important, and historically ingrained characteristic of Canadian society.”

This contemporary ruling is directly on net with the majority views of Canadians.

I could spend the better part of my day here responding with similar if not identical precedents. But that would be non-productive. The more salient point to be made regarding official statistics and political bias is that the majority of common Canadians KNOW that violent crime is worse now than it ever has been despite the well-funded presence of the long gun registry.

We are incensed that such a great sum of money was wasted chasing the ideas of a failed ideology. Instead of fighting real crime, this ideology targeted duck hunters. Instead of helping women, this ideology stole the funding to underwrite a socialist agenda.

I’m here along with two million other Canadian gun owners to stand up and tell this agenda “no more”. Not on my dime.

As gun-control advocates, you have had your say for over a decade.

Now you have the opportunity to hear our voices. You will be hearing them in vastly growing numbers over the coming decade. In the words of Ingrid Newkirk, we are a movement. And movements NEVER disappear. They only ever grow stringer and stronger.

In my personal, regular observations of online media ‘polls’ discussing abolition of the long-gun registry, I have noted a disturbing trend with certain vendors. These polls tend to always split the yay vote, and yet they tend to lose so catastrophically as to magically disappear every time the results come up over the last year?

I can help you tackle that one. It is because they rarely display any less than 80% popular support for dismantling that particular white elephant. Wouldn’t it be sort of fun to track a few here. You and me? Just as an experiment?

Maybe while you’re explaining why THOSE statistics tend to disappear you could take a run at explaining why the opposition in Canada need to force a whipped vote to beat the minority conservative government on the issue of abolishing the long gun registry? It is fairly clear to me that many opposition MPs represent ridings where the idea of a long gun registry is not very appealing.

Or perhaps you could explain why the opposition feverishly tried to kill C-301′s successor while moving the hearing committee in camera?

I guess I’d just be satisfied if you could answer the main question for me Elizabeth. If gun control is such a great idea, why does it require such sweeping lies?
Greg Popik says:

July 6, 2009 at 8:43 am

Sure, comments here are moderated. But as a friend reminded me elsewhere,

“Your blog, your rules.

Her blog, her rules.

Censorship is practiced by governments. Free speech is practiced by people, but that doesn’t mean you can go into their house and spout off whatever you want.”

When I wrote my first response, it was lengthy. And frankly I was pissed off that it did not appear.

Elizabeth wrote the following above in the main article, which I mistakenly took to mean that ALL comments without offensive material would be published.

“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.”

Now, its obvious that I do not agree with Elizabeth’s opinion on gun control.

I don’t even think it is a good idea to moderate comments where you hope to appear to have open feedback. Believe me; a fine mess that can create.

I WANT comments posted here. I WANT discussion on this topic. But if the only way it occurs is because the author feels she is being pressured to do so, I will respectfully take my comments out to other forums.

We MUST respect a first amendment right as much as we support a second, else they are not human rights at all.

Her forum, her rules.

But lets all agree to keep it clean, and on point about gun control so it can be discussed in the clear.

We ALL have a strong interest in seeing what we believe is best for Canadians.
Natasha says:

July 6, 2009 at 1:14 pm

Roddick, to parallel homophobia to those who are against the inappropriate usage of guns is a completely unfounded claim. As a strong advocate for gay marriage and an equally strong advocate for IANSA, I could not disagree more with your comparison of the two. Homophobia – to me – is a demonstration of people’s ignorance. My support for the gun registry is one based on the facts and data provided by IANSA that show the immense benefits the registry will create.
Call me a tree-hugger, but ideally I wish there were not any guns in the world. If you look at IANSA’s website you will see a spreadsheet with shootings in schools since 1997. Do the math. Add those big and small bodies up. Unless I remember wrong I believe the amount of deaths tallies up to 588. FIVE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-EIGHT teachers (for the most part) and students killed. Look those specific cases up and try to tell me that you think that a single one of these killings was justified. These murderous children were psychology unstable and mentally unsafe. Some had even been previously referred to psychologists due to concerns over their mental conditions. Take for example the murderer at Virginia Tech. According to Wikipedia, “Cho, a senior English major at Virginia Tech, had been diagnosed with and was treated for a severe anxiety disorder in middle school and continued receiving therapy and special education support until his junior year of high school. While in college in 2005, Cho had been accused of stalking two female students and was declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice.[3] At least one professor had asked him to seek counseling.” Cho purchased his guns without problems and his bullets on eBay. Luckily the massacre at Virginia Tech caused the federal government to pass the most significant gun control law in over a decade. The bill, H.R 2640, authorized up to 1.3 billion dollars in federal grants for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to halt gun purchases by criminals, those who are declared mentally ill and others who have been prohibited from possessing firearms.
I’m sorry but is that what you want? Would you like 32 murders and many others wounded to PROVE that these laws are necessary? Personally I believe in stopping the problem before it happens rather than buying a mop to clean the mess after it has occurred. Guns aren’t a joke. They are tools of murder. As a college student myself, I would rather not wait until it is too late.
On that note, I don’t feel that the debate should be solely about the registry but on gun proliferation itself.
KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK ELIZABETH!
Brad from Alberta says:

July 6, 2009 at 3:17 pm

Natasha wrote:

“My support for the gun registry is one based on the facts and data provided by IANSA that show the immense benefits the registry will create.”

You see, the problem here is that there is currently 11 years of in-force legislation for the Registry in Canada, and it has not made any bit of difference. You can bear down on all the stats you like, they are quite conclusive in this respect. This is tempered by the fact that there is an estimated 1/3 to 1/2 compliance rate, and this is not not likely to change anytime soon.

So, when will these benefits be created, and at what price? 10 years more, and another $1 Billion in operations expenses alone, 20 years and another $1 Billion, a lifetime and countless billions? You can own a car that you could survive in any accident, but it might cost you $250,000. Is it worth it to you, and more importantly, is it worth it to the 15 million other taxpayers in Canada? The answer is no, and rightly so. Cost-benefit analysis applies everywhere.

Natasha also wrote:

“Personally I believe in stopping the problem before it happens rather than buying a mop to clean the mess after it has occurred. Guns aren’t a joke. They are tools of murder.”

I absolutely agree with you. If 20 students had been armed at Virginia Tech, perhaps the only death would have been Cho himself. Guns are not a joke, but they are not a tool for murder. A gun can be very useful, even if it is never fired, and can be useful even if it is not loaded. It’s use can be as much for the threat of force as in the use of force itself. This is the reason Police and the military openly carry their weapons.

When criminals know for a fact that citizens are not armed, they are very bold, and will make a victim out of anyone, at anytime. If they are given cause to think that they may in fact encounter an armed citizen, and that their activity might cost them their lives, well, survival instinct says they will look elsewhere. This is the reason why states in the U.S. show very marked reductions in violent crime when “Shall Issue” CCW laws come into effect. This is also why gun-free countries like the U.K. show very marked increases in violent crime when disarming laws come into effect.

A world without guns is simply impossible. Now that this is put to rest, the reality is that unarmed citizens are victims to armed criminals. Good luck disarming the criminals.
Greg Popik says:

July 6, 2009 at 5:35 pm

@ Natasha.

I find it odd that you feel that exercising of homophobic judgment is a demonstration of peoples ignorance, but that exercising of hoplophobic judgment is a well grounded in research.

That is seriously disturbing behavior

Do you really believe that providing the limited evidence you see supports the conclusions you want to hear, it is valid?

That is unacceptable.

In doing so, you validate the equally limited mindset of every homophobic and hateful person roaming the planet.

The only thing you have successfully demonstrated to me from your post is that is that you strongly support one camp and have little to no interest in examining the findings of the other.

I’m sorry, but that is doesn’t exactly ground you as someone with an open mind.

It is almost crass for you to use schoolyard shootings as an example. Schoolyards are the ultimate product of failed social engineering.

We’ve had well over a decade of “gun free zones” and every time there is a shooting at a school, it is an absolute massacre. Teachers in inner city schools would question your sanity if you told them that schools were safe because they were declared gun free zones.

Except if you consider the ones where students were armed like at the Appalachian School of law.

Disagree all you want. The fact of the matter is that Concealed Carry rights are being spread to all manner of locations including campuses, because years of empirical evidence support the conclusion that citizens are better off armed.

Yes, I watched the dreadful puff piece on 20/20 where they pitted students with no real experience in silly clothes with gloves and helmets, made drawing impossible, and pointed out to the SWAT trained officer who the defenders were.

It was so badly rigged, it was painful.

We can certainly at least agree on one thing though. It is a deadly serious matter.

@ Dr. Ramirez.

Thanks for your contribution. While we can never replace the squandered funds paid friendly partisan contractor companies, we can ensure that future funding goes to useful civic ventures.

Here’s a novel idea. Enforcing the laws we’re already got and holding humans accountable for their actions.
Michel says:

July 7, 2009 at 8:05 am

People will need to get over the fact that you cannot have a ‘gun free’ world… Once a technology becomes widely available, it will not go away until it is replaced by a ‘better’ technology.

As it stands, handguns (and firearms in general) are the nest tool available for self defence. That’s why millions of police officers (and civilians) carry them every day.

Trying to ban them (or register them) will not make them go away… They are man-made items…

For all we know, criminal organisation could be producing thousands of illegal handgun using ‘legitimate’ serial numbers and marking… and there is nothing you can do about it…
Elizabeth Mandelman says:

July 7, 2009 at 8:19 am

The comment period for this entry is now closed.
Bill Williams. says:

July 7, 2009 at 2:56 pm

Given that men are physically stronger than women, gun laws are by nature gender-discriminatory. If more women could acquire a gun and the training to competently use it, there would be less women and children murdered by drunk and/or temporarily insane men. The laws that leave women defenseless drip with blood. shame on those who promote them.

A Voice For the Voiceless

MISSION

Recent Posts

RSS Feed

Twitter: #apfellows

6 Responses to “Why the Focus on Women?”

Leave a Reply

18 Responses to “Profile: Dr. Barbara Kane”

Leave a Reply

35 Responses to “Member of Parliament Garry Breitkreuz”

Leave a Reply

9 Responses to “Registration vs. Licensing”

Leave a Reply

10 Responses to “Canada’s gun registry has proven very useful”

Leave a Reply

9 Responses to “The Pyschological Consequences of Domestic Abuse”

Leave a Reply

22 Responses to “What would you call a victim?”

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

31 Responses to “The Effectiveness of Canada’s Firearms Act”

Leave a Reply

Fellow: Elizabeth Mandelman

Tags

Subscribe

2012 Fellows

Africa

2011 Fellows

Africa

Asia

Europe

Latin America

Middle East

North America

2010 Fellows

Africa

Asia

Europe

Latin America

North America

2009 Fellows

Africa

Asia

Europe

Latin America

Middle East

North America

2008 Fellows

2007 Fellows

2006 Interns

2005 Interns

2004 Interns

2003 Interns

Login