While it’s her “final thought/reflections”? I would be inclined to opine that her thoughts fall in line with those who perpetrated “final solutions”.
Mzzzzzzz. Mandelman? Here are responses that you may or may not put up. Preserved here in the event you follow true to form and censor.
I will never condone some of the comments you have (allegedly) received. I admit, some of those crossed the line and do not serve us in the firearms community well at all.
However, YOU came to OUR home. YOU attacked US. YOU insulted US. YOU came here to tell US how WE should run OUR lives and OUR country. And you expect us to just take it lying down? That is not our way, Ms. Mandelman. We are attacked, we fight back. We are insulted, we want reparation. You want to interfere with our lives, we will resist.
I too find your efforts to fight domestic violence laudable. However, I believe you have been going about this the wrong way. You decided to go after inanimate objects and advocated making life much more difficult, and stamping down on the civil rights, of their lawful owners. Why were you not speaking out against society and the culture of entitlement? The decline of family values? The failures of our legal system?
Not to mention that not ONCE you spoke of domestic violence against men, or even violence against men in general. It seemed to me that the only victims who meant anything to you were female.
Not to mention that you repeatedly refused to answer valid points raised by a number of people. Why didn’t you? Why did you not prove to us your claims of academic integrity by answering those? Why did you not even attempt to prove us wrong? Could it be because you knew we were right, or because none of the data you could find was able to discount our own claims?
I will not lie to you, Ms. Mandelman, I am not sorry at all to see you go. However, I hope that you have learned a few valuable lessons this summer, one of them being that you do not have the monopoly on the ability to do research and another that Canadians do not just lie down and take it when they feel they are being wronged. …”
Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, despite what you call were your intentions not to do just that, you have actually insulted a large number of Canadians and that they have taken offence to it?
Say, like all men, all soldiers and all gun owners?
Speaking just for myself, you have insulted me. You have offended me. Maybe you didn’t intend to but you did it. You have likened my profession to the thugs in the employ of warlords in Somalia. You have all but called me out as a potential wife-beater simply because I am male. You have made your belief clear that the simple fact I own guns will turn me into a violent man.
I have been civil with you, and at times, I will admit, it was extremely challenging to remain that way.
You have taken offence to my referring to documented historical uses of gun control. You have taken offence to my questioning your credibility and academic integrity when you refused to back up your claims or seek to disprove mine. You have taken offence to my analysis of your positions when you clearly stated that domestic violence against women was a serious human rights abuse but said no such thing about the men who are victims of any kind of violence, domestic or otherwise.
But since when is it offence to an academic to be questioned? Since when is it so wrong to put someone’s positions and information to the question? Since when is it offensive to not take what someone says for cash money, especially when they will not try to refute any counter-argument?
I have taken offence to being called a murderer, a rapist, a wife-beater and an all-around criminal scumbag. You have taken offence to people questioning you about your work. I detect a small difference here. …”
“…Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 17, 2009 at 12:46 pm
I would have to say that your relections weren’t final ones. They were more aptly “bitter” ones. I beleive that your long drive home was fraught with a deep seated seething anger. Anger at the treatment you received from an audience you did not expect.
You said that the pro gun community attacked rather than engaged in debate. You were the one that stifled debate Liz. You deleted many, many, many well reasoned and thought out responses to counter your arguments.
You deleted especially those replies that exposed your bogus stats, misrepresentations, falsehoods and outright lies.
You are continuing to do so with this latest round of vitriolic generalizations of gunnutz in particular and men in general.
Remember this Liz. When you walk into a persons house and crap on their living room carpet, just like a dog you’ll be thrown outside along with the crap. …”
During your entire blogfest while in OUR country, Canada, I do not recall a single accurate statistic or fact stated by you. Not ONE.
You also stated numerous times you wanted healthy debate but you never accepted a single offer from the pro side. In fact you often censored commentary you deemed detrimental to your cause.
Be aware that your tirade in Canada has not succeeded in furthering your anti-gun agenda one iota.
Also be aware that the long-gun registry will be dismantled. It has not been useful in solving ONE SINGLE CRIME for a cost of 2 BILLION dollars. It has been a monumental waste of taxpayers money that could have been put to good use catching real criminals or actually HELPING the people of Canada. In health care for example.
Be aware that after the elimination of the long-gun registry lawful gun owners will still be licenced, that criminals will NOT.
Finally, there is a woman who does some work I would like you to look up. Her name is Erin Solaro.
Prepare to open your eyes. …”
Elizabeth, it is with mixed feelings that I learned of the conclusion to your appearance on the Canadian “scene”. While we’ve never met, I feel that I’ve learned a great deal – both about and from you – courtesy of your postings. That having been said, and in that spirit of shared communication and education, I’d like to leave you with the following thoughts.
The first is actually a set of referential responses: to your discussion with documentary filmmaker Shelley Saywell, I would like to reference the town of Bangadi as furtherance to my (as-yet-to-be-responded-to) comment vis-à-vis your interview and related commentary, while to IANSA in general I would very much like to cite a very special citizen of your country, one Erin Solaro (of whom my familiarity stemmed directly due to your postings).
A second thought would be towards your “tying it all together” piece; while not as well composed or polished as my previous (and again as-yet-to-be-responded-to) comments to your site here, please permit my insights regarding the matter to be voiced? You see, your piece very much reminded me of the old aphorism “capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth, while socialism is the equal distribution of poverty”. It seems that the written work of that post (and others akin to it, it being a summary/concluding-style submission) was very much purporting for the equal distribution of helplessness; i.e. for both men and women, and for populaces of 1st and 3rd-world countries alike.
The difficulty that arises from maintaining such a mentality/tendencies – in this matter as well as those to which it really is akin – say, economic and political (socialism) realms, is that – try as one might to avoid/work against it – there will always be one group wealthier/more powerful than another. The same holds true with armed individuals; universal disarmament – while a very lofty goal – is a myth for the world in which we live (just like “pure communism” is the stuff of which myths are made) – and a deadly one, at that: people unilaterally forgo their firearms (as well as their enshrined values of the right to self-defence and freedom from oppression) at their own risk/peril.
The benefit to identifying a “disarmament-motif” for what it really is – a natural and interrelated outgrowth both from and amidst a larger host of essentiality socialist-academic worldviews – is that those that encounter it from hereon in will be able to confidently assess initiatives such as IANSA in light of their well-established ideological origins. The retort is as simple as it is succinct; those who would disagree with your points of view are neither misogynists nor misanthropes; they are merely individuals who rank the freedom and right to protect themselves “from” others with a primacy over the hope and ambition of universal agreement “with” others. For it is truly only with the real existence of the former that we as humans can ever hope to achieve the latter; it is a necessary precondition, and one that belies the cult of the infallibility of the human condition.
A third and closing thought pertains rather directly to your visiting our remarkable country. As it has always been the mark of a scholar and a gentleman to critique another’s words – rather than their person, I find myself rather compelled to mention how similar I have found your experiences to that of one your fellow citizens, one Michael Moore. While I by no means intend to categorically define/refer to you as being cut of the same cloth as that aforementioned individual, certain select comparisons may indeed be made. While the term “interloper” is very much a “loaded” one, one cannot help but wonder if it is an equally fitting one for one who ventures into another’s country with a very significant amount of pre-conceived (and, I daresay stereotypical) notions about that land, and who then proceeds to do very much to (a) transmit his/her version (vision?) of reality built on those notions to (i) American audiences “back home” and (ii) potential audiences in Canada itself, and (b) take personal insult when confronted with native opinions and viewpoints that differ from the visitor’s own. It at once comes across as high-handed, paternalistic, belittling and close-minded, not to mention slightly offensive; while some might very well refer to this as a reason (though certainly not an excuse) for feelings of hostility and “dismissive-ness” that an aforementioned interloper may encounter, I for my part do digress. (Though I’d very much like to have the pleasure of your responding to at least one of my comments.)
Elizabeth, you have favoured us with your brave forays into Canada’s physical, political and ideological landscapes. What I should like to think you might have (albeit inadvertently) discovered is that while – perhaps unlike in the United States – large, (at times) publicly funded lobbyist groups and public personalities in Canada dwell firmly amidst the disarmament camp, there does indeed exist a core of intelligent and passionate private citizenry in Canada that both understands and foresees (as well as recalls) the folly and horrific pitfalls inherent to the placing (and at times coercion of others toward) the theoretically obtainable benefit of a collective socialist harmony, at the very real cost of personal security, individual beliefs and freedoms not to be imperiled. …”
Note: The following comment had been overlooked by me. I’m including it here, now, for it’s use.
” …Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 11, 2009 at 5:58 am
Ms. Mandelman, you continue to insist that the long gun registry here in Canada works to prevent violence. However, you also continue to avoid commenting or responding to the information I received first hand from the RCMP. To recap: the RCMP believe that the long gun registry does nothing to either prevent or solve criminality…which includes violence against women. I am still waiting for some sort of response or debate from you on this subject in place of the silence. However, by default, the silence does actually speak volumes with regard to the credibility of your stated position. …”
The examples I have made were of populations at large.
In Rwanda, nearly a MILLION Tutsis were MASSACRED by the Hutus. And it was done largely with MACHETES and SHARPENED FARM IMPLEMENTS. Why? Because there was a TOTAL CIVILIAN DISARMAMENT.
In Stalinist Russia, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS were DISAPPEARED by the government, because THEY HAD NO WAY TO FIGHT BACK because of a GENERAL CIVILIAN DISARMAMENT.
In Nazi Germany, the government claimed that they were the MOST ENLIGHTENED NATION IN THE MODERN WORLD because they had instituted TOTAL GUN CONTROL and EVERYONE except the military, the SA and the SS had to give up their guns. There WAS a sizeable Jewish population in Germany… up to that point.
In the BALKANS, only the MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY OUTFITS had guns. Look up the mass graves, filled with all men and boys from a number of villages.
Are my examples are documented and proven true historical events. Ms Mandelman, who do you think you are to question history?
However, what you are saying is that the only kind of domestic abuse you give half a damn about is abuse against women and that you’d do ANYTHING to prevent it. In effect, you’re saying that ONLY men commit domestic abuse, and that to prevent that you’d see them all disarmed.
Tell me, how is that “taking guns away from targeted groups” instead of disarming an entire population?
My position is backed with facts and history. Yours is backed with emotion, cherry-picked statistics that are given out of context and a very selective target population.
And still, you’ve failed to address most of the points I have raised with you. You demand respect, then perhaps you SHOULD try to EARN some by answering the points I am bringing forward.
And once more, in the interest of shedding as much light on the issue, this comment will be sent to multiple recipients in case you see it fit to contradict your claims of welcoming discussion and debate and not publish it. …”
“…Elizabeth, which “pro-gun community” treated you badly? It may have been an individual, or even more than 1 person, but it was not a whole community.
Did the anti-gun community treat us badly in Canada? No, maybe it was only you. Do you speak for the entire anti-gun community? Do you purport to?
Then why would you think a couple of cranks speak for the rest of us?
You have read our forums, but never participated. We have read your blog, and participated only to the extent you saw fit, or which you could somehow spin-doctor to your benefit. You never once met with or talked with anyone in the pro-gun community, if you had, we would know all about it. You said one thing (free and open dialogue), but censored what didn’t fit your cause or refuted your preposterous claims.
If you think that someone who sees behaviour like this shouldn’t question academic integrity, you’re dreaming. Sorry to be blunt, that’s the way the world really works, not the way you think it should.
Canadians have been more than nice and honest with you in your blog, as well as generally respectful. I suggest you try this on your native soil and see the reaction you’ll get. I promise you it won’t be as pleasant for you as your Canadian experience, and I think you know that. …”
By posting what you have to try to “prove” your point you have once again shown your pure agenda, your pure bias.
Your opinion is no longer considered when objectivity has been thrown out your window.
There is a possibility you might be unstable and should find out for the good of the peoples of the world. …”
This space reserved for other contributions
A brief check shows that submitted comments as reproduced as above have not all made it through the censor’s knife…