Smokescreen
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.
Thus it amuses me greatly when self-identified gun control advocates try to use the very social problems that they ignore as ammo for their cause. After all, if what they really cared about was domestic violence, suicide, or gang warfare they’d be running campaigns focused on those topics and their root causes. I, for one, do not believe that it is reasonable, or even rational, to claim that you are addressing a problem that has existed for millennia – domestic violence – by controlling an object which has been in common use for only a few centuries. Few – except those with an ulterior motive – would dispute that male-on-female domestic violence has its roots in biology. Men are, by their biological makeup, physically stronger than women. Abusive, sociopathic individuals will exploit any power which is given to them – that much is obvious. The IANSA “Disarming Domestic Violence” campaign is thus a misnomer, since the most basic and most common weapon of domestic violence – hands – cannot be taken away and is endowed to the abuser by nature. There is no registry that can track this and no warrant that can confiscate it. Domestic violence most often happens in a moment of rage with whatever weapons of convenience are ready to hand – otherwise innocuous objects which would be pointless to regulate. The only solution is to separate the abuser from the abused.
There are two ways we can do this. The first is obvious – send the abuser to jail. This is ideal, but it is not as simple as it seems. In order for this to happen, the victim must come forward immediately so that the abuse can be documented and investigated. They must be willing to testify against their former partner. Now looking in from the outside, we may ask, “So what? How hard can it really be for a victim of domestic violence to simply pick up and leave? There is no reason to stay in an abusive relationship.”
Such questions ignore the reality of the situation. In order to get the wheels of criminal justice turning against the abuser, the most important person is the victim, but they often need society’s help to be strong, determined and pro-active at a time when what was likely the most important person in their life has turned against them. They need to have somewhere to go at a moment’s notice in order to flee abuse. Not everyone has a nearby friend or relative to turn to, so walk-in shelters for victims of domestic abuse are critical. Even after the first few nights, there is still much to be done. The victim may have been relying on their partner for financial support and will need access to employment, training and support services to help them rebuild their life.
Furthermore, a criminal trial can take two years or more from arrest to conviction. During that time the abuser will likely be out on bail and may seek revenge. The police do not have the resources to give 24-hour protection to those who have been threatened with violence. Interestingly the politicians and police officials who tell the public that they must rely on the police for protection often have extensive security details with concealed weapons. Yet ordinary citizens can’t afford the bodyguards and are denied permits to carry the weapons. In order for victims of domestic abuse to feel safe enough to testify openly against someone who has hurt them in the past and likely threatens to do so, they must have access to such tools as are necessary to defend against an attack. The gold standard of personal defensive weapons is a concealed handgun. It is a tool which can be wielded by anyone, comes in a package which can be easily concealed and carried everywhere, and is effective against the vast majority of human attackers. Pieces of paper like bail conditions or restraining orders are hardly comforting when you are being threatened. They are, at best, modest deterrents, and at worst something for the Crown to add to the list of charges after you have already been brutally attacked or killed.
Ideally we want the abusers in jail. But that isn’t always possible. In many cases of spousal abuse, there are no visible scars and no evidence except “he said, she said”. In that case, the abused spouse can end the relationship but there is little that the police can do. Since in this case the criminal justice cannot facilitate separation of the offender from the victim, it is even more important that the victim be able to possess the tools necessary to repel an attack.
In light of everything I’ve just written, I am appalled that people like Elizabeth Mandelman will use stories like that of Donna Carrick to support the cause of gun control. To quote Ms. Carrick herself:
Why didn’t your mother leave him? She left him when I was six, only to discover she had no family support. Her relatives felt she had “made her own bed”. My father’s employer, the Military, pressured her to return to him. She left him once again when I was fifteen, after being beaten so badly that several ribs were broken and her face was not recognisable. She was unable to get out of bed for three weeks. That time he actually did quit drinking and sought help for his problems. After three months we went back, and he never hit my mother again. Just when I was sure things were better, he was again sexually abusive. I left home shortly after that.
One of the major reasons why Ms. Carrick’s mother had to endure this abuse over and over again was that there was no one to support her after she left her abusive husband. Yet Mandelman is on the record saying that the $2,000,000,000 spent on the long-gun registry which has produced no benefits whatsoever would not have been better spent on women’s shelters. She said (source):
Spending money on ‘patching women up’ is not the solution to ending domestic violence, according to Cowan. While providing funding for shelters and other resources to help women who have been domestically abused is a necessity, developing and passing legislative policies (such as the Firearms Act) to prevent abuse from ever taking place works to eliminate that necessity.
The fact that gun control is a higher priority for Mandelman than funding for shelters and other resources to help abused women people shows exactly how much consideration she has for victims of domestic violence. They are important to her only to the extent that they help further her gun control agenda. As for the many acts of physical and sexual abuse in the home which have no connection to firearms, those victims can go get stuffed as far as Mandelman is concerned. She says it herself – the programs that would have let Donna Carrick’s mother escape her wretched life are less important than the registry which could have done nothing to help her.
Your charade isn’t working, Elizabeth.
Recent Comments