Elizabeth Mandelman says:
Brad,
Add the number of domestic abuse deaths prevented and the number of perpetrators prohibited from acquiring firearms to the number of prevented suicides (or the use of firearms by people mentally unstable to own one), prevented accidents, and prevented criminal activities in this and other countries together, and it’s pretty easy to justify the Firearms Act (and, as has been pointed out again and again, it did not cost $2billion dollars).You are correct in stating that you haven’t been using an emotional plea, and neither have I. There are fellows in other countries such as Uganda, Argentina, Nepal and Serbia, working on the same issue that I am. However, in those countries, there are no harmonized laws. Take a look at the statistics on domestic abuse and the use of firearms in those places, and maybe you’ll understand better why sometimes regulation is a good thing. I’m here looking at the Firearms Act as good practice, determing what elements are useful and what changes could be made to make the legislation even better. So by me being here, I am working to help other places in the world that you say are in need of people like me, with convictions.
Please tell me I’m wrong. Please tell me that Ms Mandelman didn’t just try to compare domestic violence in Canada to domestic violence in 2nd & 3rd world countries.
The above comment was taken from Elizabeth Mandelman’s blog. She’s working with IANSA on their Disarm Domestic Violence campaign. The campaign was recently launched in several countries around the world: Argentina, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, DR Congo, El Salvador, Haiti, Liberia, Macedonia, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Togo, Uganda, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
I’m not going to raise the question of what Canada could possibly have in common with the other 27 countries on that list. I am going to ask if Ms Mandelman actually believes the segment that I highlighted. Because it sounds to me like she is implying (if not outright saying) that the primary reason that our firearms use and domestic violence rates are lower in Canada, is because of our laws.
So the extreme poverty in most of those countries has nothing to do with it? The staggering lack of education is irrelevant? Not just the history, but the culture of violence that is so prevalent in many of those countries isn’t important to the issue of domestic violence? And the fact that the majority of the countries on that list are traditionally patriarchal societies in which women have few inherent rights – that doesn’t factor in at all?
You see, I’ve been to several of the countries on that list. I’ve seen first hand how their societies work. I can say with absolute 100% conviction that restricting access to firearms will do NOTHING to reduce domestic violence in any of them. Sure, it may reduce firearm use, but the crime rates and levels of violence will remain the same.
The rate of domestic violence has been declining in Canada for decades. Any claims that a law which was introduced in 1995 has had any measurable effect on the numbers are completely false and not supported by the available data. In fact a weapon is used only 7% of the time in cases of domestic violence – that’s all types of weapons, not just firearms.
Spousal Homicide Rate
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2008000-eng.pdf
Firearm-Related Crime
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/85-002-x2008002-eng.pdf
“The rates of overall fi rearm-related violent crime have been stable since 2003. Most violent offences, including homicide, attempted murder, robbery, forcible confinement and assault follow a similar pattern. Longer-term data, available for homicide and robbery, show that the rates of these two offences gradually declined throughout the past three decades with recent levels well below those reported in the 1970s. While the incidence of firearm-related violent crime is relatively low, those that are committed with a firearm most often involve a handgun.“
The section I’ve highlighted in bold shows, once again, that firearm-related crime has been falling since the 1970’s. So how could anyone claim that a piece of legislation introduced in 1995 has had anything whatsoever to do with it?
Handguns have been registered in Canada since 1934. Yet, as the section I’ve underlined states, they’re still the most used type of firearm in violent crimes. So what exactly has registration accomplished again?
There are many, many factors involved in the issue of domestic violence, especially in the third world. Claiming that tighter gun laws reduce domestic violence is not only statistically false, it’s also a betrayal of the victims whom the makers of these laws are supposedly trying to protect.
62% of statistics are made up on the spot
The title of this entry may be a bit facetious, but there is an element of truth to it. The written word is often taken as absolute gospel. That’s because most people, understandably, can’t be bothered to verify the facts themselves. It’s for this reason that I cite my references and sources whenever I quote anything, be it a statistic or a comment. And when it comes to statistics, I try to use neutral sources, like Statistics Canada, wherever possible. This way I get the true numbers before the spin has been added.
I was just re-reading Elizabeth Mandelman’s “An Interview with Wendy Cukier” and I found myself dumbfounded by the first sentence:
Something about that number, 85%, just didn’t ring true to me, so I did some digging. Lo and behold, it’s a complete fabrication. The numbers for 2007, according to this document, state:
Total Homicides 594
Female Victims 162
Females killed by spouse 51
(legal and common law, past and current)
Killed by boyfriend/girlfriend/intimate 16
(past and current)
The last number isn’t broken down into male and female victims, so for my purposes, I’m going to assume a worst-case scenario and say that all of the victims were female. That gives us a grand total of 67 women who were killed by their current or previous spouse or partner (51+16=67). So with 162 women killed in total for the year 2007 that works out to 41% of female homicide victims being murdered by their partners. Not 85% as was so sensationally claimed in Ms Mandelman’s blog.
Is that still a horrendous figure? Absolutely. But at least it’s the real figure and not a fabricated number designed to illicit an emotional response from the reader.
According to the RCMP, there are about 2 million licensed firearms owners in Canada. Most estimates place the actual number of firearms owners at around 5 million people. That accounts for roughly 15% of the population of Canada.
Call me crazy here, but if you’re heading a campaign to bring in new laws that will have an immediate and direct impact on 15% of the population, is it not too much to ask that you tell the truth?
Leave a comment
Posted in firearms
Tagged advocacy, anti-gun, arrogance, blog, campaign, canada, censorship, comment, democracy, elizabeth mandelman, female, femicide, firearm registry, firearms, gospel, gun control, gun lobby, guns, homicide, iansa, numbers, politics, pro-gun, project, rcmp, spouse, statistics, truth, victim, violence