Ms. Mandelman can’t debate the issue of firearms ownership successfully so that is why she and her antis avoid a fair and open national debate on the long gun registry. They do not want the worldwide failure of bans to be publicised in a national forum. They unfortunately prove the old maxim, when the truth fails lie!

Elizabeth Mandelman :Whereas I find it my duty as a human being to help those in need, aka Somalians who have been forced into refugee camps because of civil war where illegal guns are one of the weapons being used to terroize people, the pro gun lobby cares more about the strain and hardship filling out a registration form, that could prevent another gun from ending up in the hands of a criminal (through theft, for example)on the street, has on their lives. I do get the difference, and the difference is that I care about people, not just my rights.

Good morning Elizabeth, seeing as you deleted every single one of my posts on your blog I thought I’d try to respond here.

You state “civil war where illegal guns……”. Well, naturally during a civil war one side of the conflict is bound to have so-called illegal weapons. I suppose it depends on whose side you are on. Do you know what type of weapons these are? I don’t think so. They are AK47s, quad 50s, twin and single mount 20mm cannon, RPGs, grenades, mortars and all of the rest of the heavy weapons of modern warfare. Do you know where they come from? Certainly not from hunters and sport shooters here in Canada, those weapons are prohibited. I would hazard a guess they are made available through international arms dealers.

You have refused on numerous occasions to answer these basic questions. How does registering a shotgun or rifle in Canada offer any help at all to Somali refugees? How does registering our long guns prevent a criminal from obtaining any weapon they want? How does registering our long guns keep illegal firearms off the streets? You can’t answer them because you have no viable explanations.

Time and time again you confuse registration with licensing. Because you refuse to note the difference I suspect that it isn’t so much confusion as it is a deliberate attempt to purposely mislead the public and your own supporters. This is a typical fear mongering tactic used by the antis here in Canada. I will not bother explaining it to you again as I am quite sure that you are aware of the difference but it does not fit your agenda.

In conclusion, by continuing to delete the posts in your blog of those who voice a strong difference of opinion, you show that open dialogue is not part of your message.

This is what’s known as a strawman.
We do not oppose registering our guns because it is inconvenient.
We oppose registering them because the failed long gun registry has been a) expensive, and b) completely useless and ineffectual. The failed long gun registry has not impacted the criminal usage of firearms in Canada one iota. The trends for violent crime in Canada did not shift with the passage of Bill C-68, the registry has yet to solve any sort of gun crime. The money spent on the failed long gun registry money would have been FAR more effective at improving the lot of Canadians, particularly women, had it been spent on programs that provided direct assistance to victims of crime, such as battered women’s shelters and other victims services. Someone who actually DID care about “those in need” would recognize that simple truth.

Elizabeth Mandelman :
Whereas I find it my duty as a human being to help those in need, aka Somalians who have been forced into refugee camps because of civil war where illegal guns are one of the weapons being used to terroize people, the pro gun lobby cares more about the strain and hardship filling out a registration form, that could prevent another gun from ending up in the hands of a criminal (through theft, for example)on the street, has on their lives. I do get the difference, and the difference is that I care about people, not just my rights.

Elizabeth’s response is typical of the gun-control lobby. When faced with an article that picks apart her flawed logic the best she can do is call her opponent part of the “pro gun” lobby and scurry back to her own blog.

I would love to know exactly how many shotguns, .22 caliber rifles, hunting rifles, etc. – registered or not – from Canada are being used in conflicts in Africa.

It might come as a shock… but most militias in Africa prefer fully-automatic AK-47s to hunting rifles, target rifles, or pistols.

Incidentally Elizabeth, if you were actually interested in helping people in Somalia you’d volunteer with any of the dozens of NGOs with boots on the ground. Instead, like most pseudo-intellectuals you’ll pontificate from a cushy office in North America about what the rest of us should be doing.

PS. Here’s a list that should get you started:

http://www.somaliangoconsortium.org/memberlist.php

The reason why you seem disingenuous is that you make broad sweeping claims that are based purely on emotion and not substance. For example, you never explain HOW the Canadian Firearms Registry will prevent “another gun ending up in the hands of a criminal”. You state it as fact and then accuse me of lacking compassion.

You now admit that you do seek to infringe upon our rights (you seem to flip-flop on this from day to day, you might want to decide what your position really is). Rights, once lost or limited, are not easily regained. Thus there a huge burden of proof required on the part of those who desire to limit rights to justify their propositions (in Canadian law, this is four-part Oakes test). “If it just saves one life” is NOT a successful argument for limitation of rights. By that logic a police state would be ideal. The fact is that you and the anti-gun lobby have consistently failed to demonstrate any causal relationship between gun control and reductions in violence. You simply trot out the same tired old statistics (reductions in deaths since introduction the Firearms Act, etc.) ad nauseum and try to attribute a 30-year-old trend to 11-year-old legislation. It’s disingeneous and I can spot it from a mile away. Since you insist on ignoring the fact that the 75-year-old handgun registry completely failed to produce any noticeable improvements in public safety (which you would undoubtedly be screaming from the mountaintops if they existed) just like it’s younger brother, I am forced to conclude that pubilc safety is not your objective.

Also, I am not part of any “pro-gun lobby”. I’m just an average Canadian who wants to dispel the misinformation being spread by transnational lobbyists like yourself. Feel free to refute any of my arguments instead of simply appealing to emotion. I would think that a graduate student in public policy would realize the perils of forming policy as a knee-jerk reaction to anomalous events, but apparently logic comes second to your agenda.

Frankly, I commend her for posting many of the comments past moderation. But I can’t reasonably conscience cutting and pasting of others’ posts, or these arbitrary cutoffs in the debate.