The Measure of Ms. Mandelman

 In the last few weeks an American grad student spending the summer in Canada has been making postings on the website of the Advocacy Project, she has been making repeated comments about Gun Control here in Canada, and about how wonderful our system is. She has also decided to slag the Honourable Garry Breitkreuz for failing to grant her request for an interview. Apparently he had his assistant ‘deflect’ her request to talk to him on firearms issues in Canada with a generic response forms and a link to an essay that outlines his views. She seems to believe that he does not want an open discussion on firearms, and points out that the easiest way to find common ground on issues is through dialogue.

 Well as one commenter pointed out, pot, meet kettle. For individuals who may be new to our little discussion this American advocate for Canadian gun control has been regularly moderating comments on her blog. And by moderating, I don’t mean cleaning up foul language, clearing out spam, or removing lines that contain personal attacks, I mean outright deleting a multitude of posts that state facts and well reasoned arguments against her position and claims. So much so that she felt the need to make a posting about how she is not censoring debate. Well Ms. Mandelman, you are. She claims that she is deleting posts that contain personal attacks or questions her academic integrity.

 First off, let’s start with Mr. Breitkreuz. You imply he is not a fan of debate because he did not accept your request for an interview. The reason he did not accept your request was simple, you are a foreign student writing blog postings about an issue he has spent many years of his life studying and fighting for. He has introduced bills, he has done interviews, he has written essays, he has fought tooth and nail for firearms rights in this country, and has done so before you ever even went to college. He has utilized facts and statistics as part of this fight as well, something you have not done. And your request was made by email. A foreign student with a relatively unimportant blog sending an email request to a member of parliament during a time of economic concern, with a minority parliament. He has far more important matters to deal with, and more than likely receives dozens if not hundreds of requests for statements and interviews on a daily basis. Why are you so important? These are facts that should be obvious to everyone. Take me for instance, if I were to send an email to Wendy Cukier, head of the Coalition for Gun Control, for an interview, do you think she would accept? I doubt it, heck, I doubt I would even receive an email reply. Because we are writers of minor blogs that are at best a bleep on the political radar of the nation, when we have a viewership with significant numbers, when our words can inspire hundreds if not thousands to write, email, call, or take other forms of political action than perhaps we will be on the same playing field as these individuals, who move in the highest levels of government, and whose time is limited and taken up by more important matters than one of millions of people sitting at a computer. Now that we have taken an honest look at that issue, let’s take a look at who is truly afraid of debate.

 You claim vulgar personal attacks against you on CanadianGunNutz, but you have not provided a single sample. You have claimed that your academic integrity has been questioned, but isn’t questioning someone on repeating the same falsehoods over and over, after having multiple individuals point out that your claims are not only factually wrong, but physically impossible, a legitimate part of debate? Isn’t pointing out that you have attributed claims about a particular subject to someone, yet your evidence of such claims clearly shows otherwise, a legitimate part of debate? Or perhaps we simply have differing viewpoints on free debate and discussion. You know, I’m starting to think there is a place here in Canada for you afterall, with our friendly local censor commissars at the Human Rights Commissions. They specialize in helping marginalized communities too, and seem to share similar views on debate, and if your actions on your blog’s comments are any indication, free speech, with you.

 So let’s look at some ACTUAL examples of who is being dishonest here. There are multiple blogs that have posted responses to Ms. Mandelman’s claims, and some of these blogs now contain comments that were deleted off of hers, these blogs can be found on the blogroll to the side, and since there are multiples postings in each which sufficiently shred any argument she has made, the links needed to point in their directions would take too much time to post up. Simply browse through, you will find quite a bit of eye opening information. Instead, I will post up a few samples of comments that were either posted and later deleted, or never made her cut in the first place.

 We’ll start with me, in one of her most recent postings she interviewed a Detective with the Peel Regional Police Services about gun control. She posted a video, and in her writing stated that “Detective Hawes views the registry as a very useful safety tool for both officers and victims.” False, at least in her video. He never stated that, he stated that gun control in general as opposed to a lack of regulation is beneficial, in fact, here are his exact words in response to her question of whether he believes gun control helps to prevent domestic violence, “Well certainly, as opposed to unregulated ownership and proliferation of a handgun certainly, it has to have some positive impact”, and then proceeds to go into how LICENSING an individual can aid in removing firearms from a domestic abuse situation. I largely agree with the good Detective, many firearms enthusiasts do. I pointed out that he never stated the registry was a useful tool. She responded by telling me to not just watch the video, but read her posting. I had already done so, and in a response, pointed out that I had, and that she was either making false statements on his behalf, or there was more than just the video she put up, and if so, where was the rest of the video (since its safe to assume the whole thing, as opposed to those 90 seconds, was recorded). She refused to post it. Perhaps she took my reply as questioning her ‘academic integrity’.

 Now lets move onto another couple of examples, sadly most of the comments are lost forever, as most people did not think to take screenshots or to repeat their comments in other venues. After all, this is an individual who wants to help victims of violence, and seems willing to debate the topic of gun control, why would she refuse to post up comments that point out falsehoods and innacuracies in her claims, that seek to further the cause of truth and open debate? Well, apparently she’s all too comfortable with doing just that. I will post up a few comments she has deleted so you can see for yourself:

http://gallery.me.com/happypappy#100065/ZZ3E215165&bgcolor=black Comment awaiting moderation,

http://gallery.me.com/happypappy#100065/ZZ3E215165&bgcolor=black comments made later, as the earlier comment was not posted up. This was during an attempted discussion regarding Ms. Mandelman’s confusion regarding licensing and Registration, either deliberate or accidental (I’m now leaning towards deliberate in case you were wondering).

Here’s another comment that never made it past her ‘moderation’,

What has happened and continues to happen in the 3rd world is not indicative of what is going on in Canada. Using the 3rd world as a comparison point is wrong on so many levels.

From the start of time both women and men have paid heavily during times of conflict/war. The weapon makes no difference fists, spears, swords or firearms.
Everything I have read about rape indicates it is about power and control. In very rare cases a person with a sadomasochistic personality would be interested in creating pain. Either way I fail to see the tie in from the 3rd world to Canada civilian laws and regulations. Last time I checked soldiers from the first world are rarely accused of such actions so then I have to ask is it culture or a firearm that drives the problem.

You would have me believe that a firearm not the culture of these immigrants is the problem. I was born a free man and I embrace liberty of not only myself, but people who find refuge in my country. I find that very hard to accept that my freedom should be eroded because of people who have come to my country. I do not know of these cases specifically but I would have had to ask if it was my interview where the offenders licensed to own firearms and where they registered.

The cycle of violence is much harder to break in immigrant families for many reasons language and culture. I would suggest money wasted on firearms laws could help with this.

I am so surprised that people who live in poverty experience more violent crime. How does the Firearms Act in Canada address this issue other then taking critical funds away from a real issue such as poverty.

Congratulations the person you interviewed confused licensing and registration. I am surprised by this as your expert seems to be an authority on these types of issues or is she a journalist/filmmaker and not an expert of anything in relation to the firearms act .

“I never understand the attitudes – especially of Americans with their Second Amendment rights – who believe binding gun laws and international treaties will somehow impinge on their rights.”

The simple answer from an Canadian perspective is many Americans view the founding document of there country as important. Seeing as how the Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. It is the foundation and source of the legal authority underlying the existence of the United States of America and to ignore it and replace it with other peoples laws is contrary to how and why the United States of America came to be and a insult to the founding fathers and all those patriots that sacrificed to be free men.

I will go back to one of your 3rd world examples maybe if the people of Somalia had a culture that promoted life, liberty and freedom of everyone not just members of there tribe, cast or religion or had a similar document that its people trusted and believed in that would also have the rule of law.

Finally I will ask you the same question you continue to refuse to answer.

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.

Here’s a nice posting on another blog that list a bunch of comments that she also ‘moderated’, the last one I particularly like, since it basically just lists facts pointing out that her claims are false, and how the failed gun registry has become a shopping list for criminals looking to steal firearms (AKA, having the exact opposite effect it was intended to have), http://tyrantman.wordpress.com/2009/07/26/setting-the-record-straight/

 There’s more, but I have no desire to have people continually scroll down to see more of the same thing. You get the point. Elizabeth Mandelman claims to not be censoring her blog, when she clearly is, targeting posts that call out her false statements and outright lies, or point out statistics in contravention to her claims.

EDIT: She ‘moderated’ my comment in response to her attempt at defending her censorship. Here is the comment that refused to allowed:

Elizabeth, registration does not mean screening of applicants for a firearms license, that is LICENSING, not registration. Once they have a license, then registration simply tracks which firearms they own, nothing more, nothing less, it doesn’t involve inventory checks, it doesn’t involve any sort of regular verification that you possess those firearms. And these firearms are most definately not smuggled off into warzones around the world, firearms used in those conflicts come from the former Soviet Union, China, India, their current and former satellite states and allies, leftovers from long gone wars, or built in underground weapons shops.

As for your censorship, well, I made response here: http://seyek858.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/the-measure-of-ms-mandelman/

 Now I do not want anyone to get the wrong impression here. I have nothing personal against Ms. Mandelman, I just take issue with many claims she is making, and her dedication to pushing a failed and expensive agenda of failed firearms control initiatives, specifically the failed gun registry. I also take issue with her claims regarding censorship. Overall, I’m actually disapointed. Here I thought we had a bright young woman, dedicated to helping others, who was willing to take an honest look at firearms laws and violence against woman, and instead we found another fanatic pursuing a fundamentally flawed political agenda of wasting billions of dollars on harassing millions of responsible law abiding citizens, and trying to control and prohibit inanimate objects while taking desperately needed funding away from real programs of violence prevention and victims’ support.

EDIT: I would like to add that Ms. Mandelman has every right to censor the comments on her blog, I just find it hypocritical that she would infer a duly elected Member of Parliament is afraid of debate because his aide responded to her request for an interview by pointing her to an essay outlining his befliefs and pointing her in the direction of others who could help her. Also, her claims of wanting debate, while it seems more like she doesn’t want to respond to facts and statistics that disproves her claims, or are to tough for her to answer to.

Top Ten Myths of the Long Gun Registry

 I just read this at the coalition for gun control blog, and felt it needed to be shared;

http://coalitionforguncontrol.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/top-ten-myths-of-the-long-gun-registry/

 This post should be mandatory reading for every member of parliament, as it clearly addresses the most common lies repeated about the failed gun registry scheme.

Firearms cause domestic violence! Wait…what?!

http://advocacynet.org/wordpress-mu/emandelman/2009/07/23/an-interview-with-documentary-filmmaker-shelley-saywell/

 Another article by Elizabeth Mandelman, an American social studies graduate student specializing in human rights who has raised the ire of the Canadian firearms community with some of her recent assertions about how the failed gun registry magically prevents people from inflicting harm upon others. In fairness, her views can be attributed to being fed mis-information by anti-gun fanatics here in Canada, and a lack of understanding of our laws. In this particular post, she interviews a documentary filmmaker by the name of Shelley Saywell, and asks if abusive individuals committing domestic violence are empowered by possessing a gun, and are more abusive as a result. In fairness to Ms. Mandelman, she doesn’t explicitly state that is her belief, though I get the sense it is. Saywell’s response however clearly indicates she feels that possessing firearms leads to violence and anger.

 Saywell relates a couple of instances of a firearm being utilized in a domestic violence situation, with the primary example being that of a cabbie who had repeatedly threatened his wife and daughters, shot out car tires and windows, and eventually murdered his daughters. She states that “He might still have killed them without the gun, but the link of its possession to his violence and anger can’t be overlooked.” Really? He might still have killed them? No kidding, someone so messed up, so filled with violence and anger that he takes the lives of his own daughters MAY have still murdered them if he didn’t have a gun?

 Well that should be fairly obvious to just about anyone. Afterall, a firearm is an inanimate object, it is not a mind control device, it can not induce someone to commit an action they themselves would not be willing to commit. That cabbie in question murdered his daughters because he was a messed up, twisted, child murderer. The firearm was simply a tool that he happened to use to carry out his act. What about all the people who would have commited the murder without a firearm? Do they not commit domestic violence because no firearm is present? Of course not, in fact, the majority of domestic violence is not committed with a firearm.

 Anti-gun fanatics seem to have a belief that a firearm drives individuals to commit horrendous deeds. They either honestly believe, or at least would try to convince you, that having a glock sitting on the desk next to you will drive to find your loved one, beat them down, shove said glock in their face, and pull the trigger. That really is one of the dumbest concepts I’ve ever heard.

 People commit crimes, people inflict harm on others, people make the decision to take a life. If you wish to fight against domestic violence, then you fight against domestic violence! You find ways to address the addiction and mental health issues that are often a significant factory in such situations, you create awareness and support programs that inform people that domestic violence is never acceptable, and that if your significant other is hurting you, you go to your friends, or family, or the police. Set up shelters and counselling that help victims get back on their feet. There is a multitude of ways to prevent domestic violence, and address it once it occurs. However, so long as organizations such as the Advocacy Project try to divert attention, and desperately needed money and resources (billion dollars and counting for the failed gun registry) away from programs and initiatives that actually address the issues at hand, we won’t be making much progress.

 So please Elizabeth, and Shelley, drop your anti-gun agendas, educate yourselves, and advocate for all the victims of domestic abuse, not just women whose abuser happens to have a gun in addition to their anger issues.

Registration does NOT equal Licensing

 I was browsing a certain forum and came across a link to a group called the advocacy project. I haven’t spent too much time going through it, but I believe its primary focus is on domestic violence. EDIT: Miss Mandelman was kind of enough to post a comment (seen below) clarifying the Advocacy Project’s mission, in her words, “The Advocacy Project’s mission is to produce social change by helping marginalized communities claim their rights.”  That’s what I get for not doing a final proofread and fact checking before making posts. Based on the blogs I’ve read, its specifically focus on firearms and domestic violence. The post on that page that got me writing this article in particular is entitled Registration vs. Licensing in which the author, Elizabeth Mandelman, states that both registration and licensing are interrelated, and even explicitly states that registration protects women and children, among other dubious claims about the failed gun registry.

 Seems everytime I see or hear about the failed gun registry I hear the same people spouting off about how it prevents crime, protects people, etc. These statements are at best the result of being horribly misinformed, or lacking any understanding of what the billion dollar plus disaster actually does. At worst, it’s a blatant lie being told to people to get their support. For the usual suspects like Mayor Miller of Toronto, Dalton McGuinty, and Wendy Cukier, and the regular letter to the editor writers in the Toronto Star and other publications, its a blatant lie. For Elizabeth Mandelman, who made the blog post I linked to above, I presume its simply not understanding.

 First, you need to understand what they claim. They claim that the registration of firearms in Canada prevents firearms from ending up in the hands of criminals, and by extension, reducing violence. Another favoured line is that registration reduces domestic violence. Honestly, they will stand before a video camera and with a straight face state that the government knowing that person A owns firearm B will, through the power of dreams and magic, prevent person A from harming person C. How a few lines of code in a badly managed database program and a piece of paper is supposed to prevent one human being from inflicting harm upon another is beyond me. To some however, it makes perfect sense. That, or their lieing. Now, do you really believe that the individuals I listed in the last paragraph, you know, people like the Premier of Ontario, are really that stupid?

 No, they are not.

 The failed gun registry does one thing and one thing only, provides a list of what firearms have been registered. Note that I said registered, not what’s in country. While only about 7 million firearms are registered, some estimates place the actual number at double that or more. Why? Well there are plenty of people, generally older, or in rural areas, who have family hunting rifles or shotguns, or war relics that they never registered. This is because they don’t know the laws, or don’t care, or simply feel it couldn’t possibly apply to grandad’s old Lee Enfield in the attic. That is quite literally the only function of the registry, to record what guns are in the country, and who the owner is. It means that when I buy a rifle, I hand the clerk my license, they contact the Canadian Firearms Center and state that the Savage Mk.1 with serial number such and such is being sold to me. The CFC transfers registration from the store to me. That’s it. It doesn’t mean I can or can’t buy a gun, it doesn’t do a background check, all it does is state that rifle, of this make, of this model, with this serial number, and this classification (non-restricted, restricted, or prohibited) is now registered to me. It simply means that in the eyes of the Canadian Firarms Center that rifle is now mine.

 Somehow, there are individuals and organizations in this country that will have you believe that this process will somehow stop a gangbanger from shooting a gangbanger. Or a drug addicted wife beater from beating his wife. I’m pretty confident that you, the reader, are not an idiot, and know that a piece of paper stating a particular piece of wood and metal belongs to a certain individual can not in any way, shape, or form, prevent a person commiting harm against another person..

 So what purpose does the failed registry serve then? Well, it’s apparently supposed to help police when they have to approach a vehicle, or enter someones home. Everything I’ve heard and read from front line police officers states that they don’t use it. Why wouldn’t they use it? Simple, for one, the registry is horribly innacurate, this is a well documented fact that has been true for years. Heck, there’s a soldering gun thats been registered. Second, how often do the police go into your home? Not often I imagine, that’s because you’re a law abiding citizen, like all the millions of men and women with firearms licenses. They don’t do things that would prompt the police to have to enter their home. Granted, there are some individuals with licenses who commit crimes, but at a vastly smaller rate than average people. As we all know, you have bad apples in every group, but the registry in no way prevents these individuals from committing crimes. Lastly, theres the fact that anytime a police officer enters any sort of situation, they are aware, alert, and prepared for any possibility. It doesn’t matter if they’re entering an old woman’s home, they will be prepared for the possibility that said old woman has some long standing grudge and a little purse gun hidden away. Police are well trained, and if any officer relied on the registry for information, they’d be inviting a death sentence for themselves as criminals, by nature of being criminals, and thus NOT following the law do not register their firearms, nor possess firearm licenses.

 So we’ve established that for what are actually fairly obvious reasons when you think about, police don’t have much use for the registry. There’s another police use of the registry that gets stated. To seize firearms from individuals if they are being a threat to themselves or other, have their licenses revoked or suspended, etc. They say that the registry provides a list of firearms the individual possesses so they know how many their should be to take away. Except for the fact that it doesn’t really work that way. You see,  its all to easy for someone with ill intent to say they lost a gun, let someone borrow it, had it stolen, or they could simply get their hands on a gun illegaly. If they have criminal intent, then chances are they know criminals, and illegally obtaining a firearm should be easy as pie at that point. When police seize firearms, they use a thing called a search warrant, this way, they can seize all the items that need to be removed, legal or illegaly, registered or unregistered, etc etc. Without a registry, the police will just easily go into said person’s house, do the exact same thing they’re doing, and leave with the exact same items. The dismantling of the registry won’t affect this. The only scenario I can plausibly think of where using the registry to seize firearms might work is someone who may be suicidal. But then the person simply ties a noose around their neck and hangs themselves, since these people advocating for the registry apparently feel a billion plus dollars is better spent on recording which firearms are imported rather than, say, programs to help individuals and their family and friends who are suffering from mental health issues, and need actual support and help, NOT some self serving politico on their soapbox telling them how everything will be sunshine and rainbows, with unicorns frolicking in the fields if we simply keep wasting resources on the failed registry rather than actually address the issues.

 So how are we supposed to keep people from obtaining firearms that shouldn’t have them? Well, realistically, there will ALWAYS be firearms in criminals’ hands, that is simply the a fact of life with humanity, there will always be people seeking to inflict harm upon others. And we already have a system in place to prevent people on unsound mental health or violent criminal histories from being able to legally acquire and possess firearms. It’s called licensing, it is completely different than the registry, and actually fulfils the tasks that people like Liz claim the registry fills. To obtain a license you need to attend a safety course, pass a safety examination consisting of a written and practical component, then submit an application to the Canadian Firearms Center for a license. The CFC will then forward your information to relevant agencies, and a check will be done on your mental health and criminal histories if you have any. If you are determined to be a safe, responsible, law-abiding citizen then congratulations, you get a license. Happy and safe shooting to you. If you are a gangbanger with repeated charges and parole violations, you get rejected. Furthermore, with the computerized systems in the hands of our law enforcement agencies nowadays, everyday you are basically run against the police database, so if you commit a crime, get a license suspension, etc, they will instantly know, and the process for securing your firearms (if deemed necessary) will be underway. The failed gun registry has no impact on any of this.

 So if the failed registry is actually useless, and a waste of well over a billion dollars at this point, you’re probably asking why so many people support it. Well, for average people, its because they don’t understand. They don’t realize that the registry does not actually have any useful purpose, because they have listened  to those with an anti-gun agenda repeatedly spewing out the same lies and misinformation over and over and over again. For said people with agendas, they simply have a very strong hatred of firearms for some reason and seek to have them removed from society, or are pushing a political agenda to buy votes, deflect attention, etc. It’s easy for people like Miller to stand at a podium and decry the evil of guns, and parade around the families of victims of gang crime. Much easier than say, standing at the podium and answering questions as to why the unionized waste management system in Toronto costs more than 60% greater than the average for Canadian municipalities. The most insidious purpose for supporting the registry however, is confiscation. This, along with inconveniencing firearm owners and businesses, is the primary purpose of the registry. To provide a database for certain members of our political establishment that they can use in the future to seize guns, possibly most, if not all of them, in the country. Don’t believe me? It’s already happened, several models of firearms such as two different shotguns that have option of function in semi-automatic or pump-action depending on what kind of ammo you want to use, were prohibited, and police dispatched to the homes of owners where they were seized and destroyed, without any form of compensation for the property the government decided to prohibit overnight. Furthermore, if/when a certain political party decides to go ahead to ban semi-automatics (you know, those evil semi-automatic sport and hunting rifles, or semi-auto shotguns used for bird hunting) the registry will provide a convenient list of all the ones registered that the police can go and then seize. This is despite claims at the time the registry was created, and claims since, that confiscation has nothing to do with the registry.

 So now you understand, registration has one function, recording specific firearm information, and who owns it, it has absolutely zero control over who can or can’t possess a firearm, and it is physically impossible for registration to prevent a crime. The task of deciding who can or can’t possess a firearm, is a function of licensing, and despite a number of issues with our licensing system, its overall pretty good and strongly supported for the firearms community. There does indeed need to be controls over who can acquire and possess firearms, but registration has nothing to do with that.

An introduction

 Welcome to Firearms in Canada  – Facts and Fiction, the purpose of this blog is to present a summary of firearms in Canada and the issues surrounding them for every day people to be able to read and understand. It will contain a summary of laws governing firearms ownership and usage, problems with the laws, and ways to improve them. I will be striving to debunk myths that are often repeated in the media by anti-gun fanatics and politicians trying to buy votes or deflect attention from other issues. It will also serve as a venue for commenting on and reporting news stories concerning firearms.