Scientia est potentia

In an entry discussing an interview with Alok Mukherjee, Elizabeth Mandelman wrote this:

Additionally, the current loophole that allows manufacturers to slightly alter a firearm and market it to the public as a new model not needing to be registered (because the list included in the legislation it out of date and contained no measure to regularly update it) needs to be corrected.

This is categorically false. Coming from the Chair of the Police Services Board, someone who has access to numerous experts on firearms laws in Canada and ought to know better, it is a lie. It is a glaring error to anyone which is familiar with Canadian gun laws. All firearms in Canada must be registered.

Rather than admit this error, Mandelman scurried to defend it. Here I will document her sorry attempt to make sense of a blatantly false statement.

Chris R.:

“Additionally, the current loophole that allows manufacturers to slightly alter a firearm and market it to the public as a new model not needing to be registered (because the list included in the legislation it out of date and contained no measure to regularly update it) needs to be corrected.”

All modern firearms must be registered, so the above sentence is very misleading and totally false. Based on mistakes like this, it should not be surprising that dialogues of yours receive criticism. Also, if someone’s criticism of your work is undeserved or is based on bad information, don’t not post the dialogue, show why the criticism is unjustified.

Mandelman:

Chris, No new firearms have been added to the restricted or prohibited list for over a decade. This is indeed a loophole, and it’s being exploited by many firearms retailers. Many new firearms have been designed that are being sold in Canada that meet the criteria to be on the prohibited or restricted lists. Here’s an example of a website advertisement from Wolverine Supplies is Manitoba:
The final class is the Prohibited (With out grandfathering) this
would include (but not limited to) firearms from all the Prohibited
Grandfathered classes that were not registered into the system prior
to their respective cut off dates. Do not try and register one of
these firearms (Even during an amnesty) you will lose it! If you
have something interesting in this area contact me and I will explain
your options, Yes you do have more options than simply surrending
her, but don’t delay.
There are many errors and misunderstandings concerning the
classification of different firearms. The following are just a few
examples. Lots of people think all Fifty cal rifles are prohibited.
WRONG!!!! Some are, and some are not. The Mini 14 is still not
restricted, folding stocks are legal, so are factory shotguns with 14
inch barrels. An MP5 SMG would have to be either a FA or CA. The
factory semi auto version, the HK 94 would be in the 12.5 class. This is
very straighforward and easy to understand. However when you look
at the FN FAL family you have firearms that could be in either FA, CA
or the 12.5 class, and some FN FAL whose correct classification can
not be determined. These last ones are accepted at face value in
whatever class they are currently registered in.
Here at Wolverine Supplies we deal in all classes of firearms. We
supply both private citizens and Government Agencies, literally from
coast to coast. Whilst we do not support all the current facets of our
firearm control system, we will follow the law. Due to my long
extensive involvement in the Canadian Firearms Industry I have a
better than average understanding of our system, if you have any
concerns regarding any intended purchase, please phone or e-mail me.
John Hipwell
President
Wolverine Supplies

Mandelman says, “No new firearms have been added to the restricted or prohibited list in over a decade.” That is a lie. Hundreds of firearms have been classified as restricted or prohibited since the introduction of the Firearms Act based on the criteria set out therein. The criteria are set out in s. 84 of the Criminal Code of Canada:

“prohibited firearm” means

(a) a handgun that

(i) has a barrel equal to or less than 105 mm in length, or

(ii) is designed or adapted to discharge a 25 or 32 calibre cartridge,

but does not include any such handgun that is prescribed, where the handgun is for use in international sporting competitions governed by the rules of the International Shooting Union,

(b) a firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun, whether by sawing, cutting or any other alteration, and that, as so adapted,

(i) is less than 660 mm in length, or

(ii) is 660 mm or greater in length and has a barrel less than 457 mm in length,

(c) an automatic firearm, whether or not it has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger, or

(d) any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm;

“restricted firearm” means

(a) a handgun that is not a prohibited firearm,

(b) a firearm that

(i) is not a prohibited firearm,

(ii) has a barrel less than 470 mm in length, and

(iii) is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner,

(c) a firearm that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise, or

(d) a firearm of any other kind that is prescribed to be a restricted firearm;

Based on these criteria, many firearms have been added to the Firearms Registration Table (FRT) database as prohibited or restricted. The letter that Mandelman quotes from Mr. Hipwell of Wolverine Supplies (a very nice guy, by the way, who sold me one of these post-1995 restricted firearms that Mandelman claims does not exist) is utterly irrelevant and displays her complete ignorance of Canadian law. He is describing how owners of non-grandfathered prohibited firearms who are unable to register their guns because they missed the cut-off date may be able to transfer the firearms to himself – a dealer with the correct license – so that the firearms can be registered. Ironically Mandelman is so out of touch that in an effort to show how guns can be not registered, she quotes an example of someone explaining how to register unregistered firearms!

Chris R. replies:

“Chris, No new firearms have been added to the restricted or prohibited list for over a decade.”

Now hold on, you wrote that the firearms didn’t need to be registered, which is incorrect. You mentioned nothing about prohibition orders, and what you said in your reply is completely different than what I replied to. Also, how is not adding to the prohibited list a loophole?

“I’ve made clear in many of my posts, and comments, that I’m not opposed to people owning firearms safely and legally for sportsmanship purposes. I’m pretty sure there are even a few gun nutz who would be willing to back me up on that one. You may want to take a look back at my entries and comments.”

I’ll back you up on this one, but I think that hand guns are sporting arms, along with the AR-15 and many other firearms that are currently restricted….

Chris figures that Mandelman may be talking about the fact that no new firearms have been restricted by name (not based on any criteria), as described in paragraph (d) of both definitions quoted above. If this is the case, it is not a loophole. These firearms were originally restricted or prohibited by name simply because they didn’t fit the criteria already established. No new firearms can meet the criteria for being prohibited or restricted by name because there are no criteria. If there were, they would have used those criteria instead of the name! Furthermore, the regulations refer to “all firearms of the design commonly known as…”, so all variants of a firearm proscribed to be a prohibited or restricted firearm are also in that class. I still don’t see the loophole.

Mandelman, who has no experience navigating the murky waters of Canadian gun laws, is now completely out of her depth as she shows with her next comment:

Chris, Go back and read my original entry. I wrote that there are new firearms being designed that haven’t been added to the prohibited or restricted list, and if I didn’t use those words explicitly, it was implied. Retailers are able to market these firearms as ones which can be purchsed [sic] and not registered, because the lists have not been updated. My original post clearly states this, and the example I provided backs it up.

Okay, so there are new guns being made that aren’t restricted or prohibited. So what? That’s because they don’t meet the criteria. That is not a loophole. The portion is bold is a lie. All firearms in Canada must be registered. The example she provided does not back anything up, in fact it is an example of how prohibited firearms can be registered, not go unregistered. Another lie.

Commenter Mark knows the truth:

Elizabeth: You need to the check the LAW. The statement: “Additionally, the current loophole that allows manufacturers to slightly alter a firearm and market it to the public as a new model not needing to be registered (because the list included in the legislation it out of date and contained no measure to regularly update it) needs to be corrected”, IS WRONG. By law ALL firearms in Canada must be registed.

To which Elizabeth, having been thoroughly proved wrong, respondly cheekily:

Mark, Thanks for the suggestion, but I have checked the law. Apparently though, the law, Dr. Mukherjee, and the law enforcement officials I’ve checked with are just flat out wrong. Not surprising, since apparently I’m wrong about everything, along with all of the individuals I’m interviewed during my time here, no matter what their credentials.

Ironically it is only in her sarcasm that she is actually correct.

Here I have demonstrated that Mandelman is factually incorrect – yet she refuses to admit it. No doubt she considers what I doing right now to be “harassment”. If she can provide a single example (make and model, of course) of this: “… the current loophole that allows manufacturers to slightly alter a firearm and market it to the public as a new model not needing to be registered…”, I will donate $100 to the charity of her choice (caveat: must be a registered charity in Canada).

The ball in your court now, Elizabeth. You shut down comments on that entry but I’m not letting this lie go unchallenged.

Dear Ms. Mandelman:

Throughout your brief tenure in Canada, you have chosen to accomplish your stated ideological goals of civilian disarmament through a combination of outright lies, misrepresentation and selective use of statistics, and fallacious appeals to authority. When selectively quoting statistics failed you, you turned to interviewing fellow gun control advocates under the bizarre impression than your unsupported opinion is more valuble when someone else says it.  You have regulated debate on your blog with an iron fist, deciding arbitrarily which comments are appropriate for posting. You have routinely deleted entire civil discussions with commenters after the fact, for no reason other than the realization you were losing the debate.

Anyone who wishes to talk politics should expect disagreement, and anyone who uses your methods should expect to be called on their deceitful tactics. When you or your colleagues make assertions that are patently false, that should and will be pointed out.

Many of the comments you have received are heated, but few are insulting. The existance of a handful of insulting comments in not a reason to discount the vast majority which are civil. Some commenters have unearthed small mountains of statistics, none of which you have countered or discredited in any way. One commenter summed up your failures nicely:

Ms. Mandelman,

It might have been an honest mistake on my part, my apologies.

However, I do not see you trying to address the points I raised in that particular comment, such as:

- Historical uses of gun control and their consequences (ie: Nazi Germany, Balkans, Rwanda, Stalinist Russia, post-Katrina New Orleans, Saddam Hussein’s 2002 election with 100% of the votes, etc);
- Veracity of the claims regarding Mrs. Carrick’s marital life;
- Failure to provide hard evidence to disprove the facts raised by members of the firearms community;
- Failure to put statistics in context;
- Explain how you can claim you are not out to insult gun owners, soldiers and men in general when you liken us to murderers, wife-beaters, gang members, rapists and war criminals;
- Why do you constantly ignore the use of weapons other than guns quoting that “guns are more lethal”;
- Constantly ignoring the MALE victims of domestic abuse, insinuating that it is not a human rights issue when they are the victims.

And those are only the ones I can easily list.

Should you start answering the points that myself and other bloggers consistently raise, it would go a long way towards earning the respect you demand we accord you for no reason other than your status as a fellow associated with IANSA and your post-graduate studies.

And as usual, it will be sent to various recipients in order to maximize the amount of light shed on this issue.

Instead you respond to comments which raise legitimate, factual points with replies like this:

Everyone is entitled to there [sic] opinion, and to open and respectful debate. That is not what has happened here. That is not what the pro gun community chooses to engage in. Trying to “stomp all over” those who disagree with and wear them down emotionally by calling names and attacking personal characteristics is not intellectual. “Stomp all over” are the words of gunnnutz.com, not my own. Try as you may to make someone backdown just for having an opinion. It obviously doesn’t work, as Wendy Cukier has been an advocate of gun control for many years, and you haven’t been able to “stomp” her out yet, have you?

The signal-to-noise ratio here is rather poor. The fact is that you have nothing to say. All you can do is make vague references to “open discussion and debate” (something you have not permitted on your blog). To you this means that only your opinion and the opinions of those that agree with you are presented. You accuse the “pro gun community” of “harassing” you. If perpetually providing a logical and well-supported counterpoint to your opinion is harassment, then I suppose we are harassing you – with the truth.

I challenge you to provide examples of this so-called harassment, complete with names and IP addresses. Let me remind you of the definition of harassment, from the Criminal Code of Canada:

Engaging in the conduct referred to below that causes the other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them:

(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;

(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;

(c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or

(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.

You have tried to paint a picture of gun owners as violent and crude people, for example by stating that you would not post your email dialogue with a member of CanadianGunNutz.com for fear that he would be harassed (as you supposedly are). Unknown to you, he was posting the entire dialogue on CGN with absolutely no harassment.

It is you who avoid open discussion, because you have no arguments to present. You state, without basis, that you will not meet any members of the firearms community because you fear for your own safety. In this regard the onus is on you – the one who always talks about open discussion and debate – to explain why you refuse to say anything outside of the well-controlled cocoon of your own blog.

I look forward to your response.

Regards,

Rishi Maharaj

One of the things that has always struck me about anti-gun activists is how they self-identify. When you call yourself a gun control activist or participate in organizations with rather self-explanatory names (like the Coalition for Gun Control or the International Action Network on Small Arms), you tell everyone that you’ve already made your mind up on what the problem is. You are saying that you are dead set on campaigning against inanimate objects rather than the social, cultural, political and economic problems that cause violence. Read more…