In the final days before the vote on C-391 to kill the long-gun registry, here’s a little something for gun control advocates to ponder.
In the final days before the vote on C-391 to kill the long-gun registry, here’s a little something for gun control advocates to ponder.
The Gun Control Lobby is working hard to convince the public and our MPs that gun control is a gendered issue, in particular, a women’s issue. They’re right, but not in the way they would have us believe.
Their angle is that abusive men use firearms to intimidate, threaten and harm women. While this is true in some cases, it still doesn’t make sense to focus on the gun rather than on the person who is wielding it. Take away the gun and the abuser will use a knife. Take away the knife and the abuser will use their fists. The key is to stop the abuse, not to regulate objects that an abuser may or may not use.
This is where the long gun registry becomes a women’s issue. By taking away money from programs that could actually help victims of abuse, gun control activists are ensuring that the abuse will continue.
Estimates vary regarding how much money will be saved by scrapping the long gun registry – most are in the neighbourhood of $3-11 million per year. However, those estimates don’t take into consideration the hidden costs of the registry. Things like law enforcement, court fees, and endless mountains of paperwork to name but a few.
Looking at law enforcement alone, let’s do a quick run through the numbers. Taking the RCMP numbers at face value, the registry is accessed 3.4 million times per year. Assuming each “hit” takes five minutes that works out to 283,333 police hours per year. At an average work year of 2000 hours per officer that means that 141 police officers do nothing but registry checks each year.
If that wasn’t bad enough, how about we take it a step further? Let’s take an average salary of $70,000 per year, plus an additional $30,000 in benefits, giving us an approximate value of $100,000 per officer per year (not taking operating expenses into account). That’s a total of $14.1 million per year spent, or 141 officers off the streets, without solving or preventing a single crime.
Even with my very low estimates, if you add those numbers up we could save $17-25 million in tax dollars per year!!!!!
Now, let’s go back to the issue of abuse: there are approximately 10,700 beds in 569 women’s shelters, nationwide. Those beds accommodate well over 100,000 abused women and children each year. The money saved from scrapping the registry could fund an additional 550-830 new shelter beds across the country. [Source: Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile, 2009]
The money doesn’t have to go towards shelters though. Imagine what $17-25 million could do in public awareness or education campaigns to teach young women how to avoid abusive relationships, or what their options are if they are in one. Imagine what $17-25 million could do for mental health programs that help treat and prevent abusive behaviour.
Over the last fifteen years, hundred of millions of dollars have been funneled into the firearms registry. According to the Auditor General’s Reports in 2002 and 2006, large sums of that money are still unaccounted for. What have our tax dollars purchased? The registry didn’t stop the Dawson College shooting. It did nothing to save Jane Creba. Nor did it prevent the murder of four RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe, Alberta. There has been no impact on the spousal homicide rates either. Those have been falling steadily since the 1970s – long before the registry was ever considered.
Organizations like the Coalition for Gun Control (CGC) thrive on women as victims. In fact, they need victims to support their cause. They manipulate victimized women and their grieving families, convincing them that they or their loved ones would have been safe if not for the presence of those “evil” guns. They know there are no facts to support their claims, so they parade these unfortunate people in front of the media in a blatant attempt to influence public opinion with emotion instead.
With the help of many of the organizations that make up the Gun Control Lobby, we have been trained to expect women to be abused. We have been urged to believe that there is no way to foresee this abuse, prevent it or stop it, even though there are several identifiable risk factors. The Gun Control Lobby ignores sources like the Department of Justice or Statistics Canada, who point out that substance abuse, particularly alcohol, makes a person six times more likely to abuse their partner. They neglect to mention that common law couples are four times more likely to experience abuse than legally married couples. Instead, they loudly insist that the mere presence of a gun in the home leads to intimidation and abuse. Where are the facts backing up those claims?
For the last fifteen years, despite a complete lack of any data to support their statements, the CGC and their Gun Control Lobby cohorts have been trying to convince us that guns are the problem. Their inability to look past the object to the person who is wielding it, has caused immeasurable harm to the women they are supposedly trying to help. Fifteen years and billions of dollars could have made a huge difference in the lives of abused women across this country. If that money had gone towards even one of the issues mentioned above, countless women and children could have been helped. It’s time to stop throwing good money after bad, and direct our resources to where they are really needed.
WOMEN AND GUN CONTROL – PART 2
WOMEN AND GUN CONTROL – PART 3
I could critique the usual fear-mongering and misuse of statistics in their report, or postulate on why a labour union was involved in its creation. However, I think a more useful approach is to focus on feminism as a whole.
In their earliest forms, feminism and women’s liberation were noble movements. They sought to give women equality, legal autonomy, self-determination, and freedom of choice in a broad range of topics from reproduction to employment. However, in more recent years, the agenda of feminist activists seems to have less to do with giving disadvantaged women a hand up and more to do with giving them a handout.
Activists wail and beat their drums, blaming everything from men to weapons to government for the plight of subjugated women everywhere. They ignore the fact that portraying women as helpless victims of society undermines the entire concept of feminism. They also ignore the fact that men and women are different. While striving for total equality is noble, it’s also a pipe dream. Men and women are not equal and they never will be. There are very definite physical, emotional and mental differences between the sexes. Some roles in our society are better suited to women, others to men, and no amount of government initiatives will ever alter that fact.
Should women have the opportunity to tackle any societal role that they choose? Absolutely. However, so should men. While there are still traditionally male-dominated areas where it’s difficult, if not impossible, for a woman to break through, the same holds true for men.
This brings up another concept that modern feminist activists refuse to acknowledge: that men suffer too. In their world, violence or discrimination against a woman is a human rights abuse, but violence or discrimination against a man is not just normal, it’s acceptable. The divisive tactics used by feminist activists show that they have another agenda that has nothing to do with bettering the lives of women. If they were truly interested in bettering our society, they would be looking at ways to improve the quality of life for everyone, not just women.
Taking a slightly different tack, in the Star article I mentioned above, wage parity (or lack thereof) in Canadian society is brought up. I’m not going to touch on the fact that the professor quoted in the article is focussing only on wages as an indicator of quality of life. Instead I’m going to point out how feminist activists, as usual, fail to take into consideration 3 very key issues that cause such a discrepancy in earnings: choice, childbearing and communication.
Many women simply choose not to go into higher paying (and traditionally male-dominated) fields. The reasons are many and varied: it may be a career that is better suited to men, women just aren’t interested, or if they are in the field they’re unwilling to do what’s necessary to earn their place. You see, equal opportunity isn’t something that can come from government handouts or special committees. Like men, women need to push through obstacles on their own and prove that they are capable of doing the job.
I’ve worked in a male-centric field my entire adult-life and I’ve encountered many seemingly “backward” or “sexist” attitudes along the way. I know my male readers are going to love this, but men really are like children 😀 They will regularly push the boundaries to see what they can get away with. Women planning to work in a mostly male environment need to learn how to thrive in that environment. There are many tricks and tools that are far more effective than crying “harassment” and seeking disciplinary action. Gaining acceptance isn’t about running to management to complain that your male co-workers aren’t playing nice and trying to demand their respect simply because of your gender. It’s about earning their respect based on merit.
Connected to Choice is the second item I mentioned: Childbearing. In 60% of two-earner families, one partner works full-time while the other either doesn’t work, or works part-time. In 91% of those families, the man is the primary breadwinner. [Source: Statistics Canada, Family Work Patterns] It’s pretty simple. Women who have children work less, which means they have less work experience than their male co-workers, which means they will earn less.
I can already hear people complaining that women are being “punished” for having children. Quite the contrary, it’s actually very equal. Like their male co-workers, they’re being paid based on their recent relevant work experience, rather than being given a handout simply for being female.
My last point is communication. Many a book has been written outlining the differences in communication styles between men and women. In general, men tend to be more direct and ask for what they want. Women tend to use a more subtle approach.
Over the years I’ve seen the following scenario happen time and again, not so much in unionized employment, but definitely in the private sector: Joe and Jane start working in the same job at the same company at the same time earning the same wage. Five years later, they’re both in the same job, but Joe is now earning more than Jane. Another 5 years down the road, Jane is still in the same job, earning only slightly more than when she started, while Joe has been promoted and received a raise…twice!
The modern feminist would have us believe that this is a perfect example of inequality in the workplace. On the contrary, it’s a perfect example of a skill that women need to be taught in order to be successful in the workplace. Why is Joe doing so much better in the company than Jane? Because he asked. Women will toil away at a job for years, expecting their boss to notice their hard work and offer them a raise or promotion. Men will simply go to their boss and ask for it.
Much progress has been made in the quest for women’s rights over the last 200 years. Laws have been made and repealed; cultural norms have been challenged and changed. Government legislation has gone about as far as it can go. It’s now up to women to pick up the flag and run with it themselves.
Instead of undermining their own efforts by portraying women as victims, feminists need to start taking a more positive and proactive approach. Rather than wasting their time and energy lobbying for sympathy and handouts, they should be teaching women the skills they need to succeed.
I read with interest the story of Alison Shaw in today’s issue of The Star. After joking in an email that her marital problems could be solved with a gun, Ms Shaw was arrested, jailed overnight, forced out of her home, and ordered to stay away from her three children.
The cries of “overreaction” regarding this case can be heard for miles. I say: it’s about bloody time. If more women had to experience the judicial atrocities that men have been subjected to for decades, then maybe…just maybe…our horribly gender-biased family courts would finally be overhauled.
In today’s world of divorce and blended families, fathers have been reduced to ATM Status in the lives of their children. They are villified and portrayed as unfit parents, and even as abusers and sex offenders “waiting to happen”. They have no recourse against ex-wives who actively attempt to alienate them from their children (known as Malicious Mother Syndrome). They often have to deal with slander and false accusations, which, even if disproved, will usually follow them for years. While they have the option of civil court as recourse to the latter two issues, they are often emotionally and financially bankrupted by the divorce and child support proceedings, making a civil suit virtually impossible to pursue.
Going back to Ms Shaw’s case: while it is refreshing to see the shoe on the other foot for once, she still got off lightly. She was released on bail and has since been granted 50/50 access to her children. Had it been a man who had joked about shooting his wife, bail would have been set significantly higher. As for 50/50 access to the children – don’t make me laugh. He would be lucky to see them at all, let alone have any shared access rights.
Men’s rights groups have been screaming about the inequalities and bias in our family courts for years without success. Why does it take a woman being subjected to the same laws for the courts to finally realize that something needs to change?
The militant feminist groups who preach “equality”, (but who are truly seeking “superiority”) have, unfortunately, succeeded in shaping our family court laws. They have succeeded in emasculating men, and, as a result, society as a whole. The venom and hatred these groups direct towards honest men under the guise of “equality” and “human rights” is disgusting. The actions of these groups, and of women who think nothing of manipulating the courts in order to destroy their ex-husbands, make me ashamed to share their gender.
I hope to see many, many more stories like Ms Shaw’s in the future. Because the more women who are “victimized” by these laws, the sooner they will change. I don’t know about you, but I have no desire to live in a world where men are nothing more than sperm donors and bank accounts.