From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca  Tue Apr 15 06:44:52 1997
From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest)
To: cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #807
Content-Length: 24231
X-Lines: 576
Status: RO


Cdn-Firearms Digest      Tuesday, April 15 1997      Volume 01 : Number 807



In this issue:
	PLEASE watch the amount of included text...
	Re: 2nd Ref. problems
	Allan Rock letter (2 of 2)
	Allan Rock Letter (1 of 2)
	Regulations
	Re: Registration of Firearms for Non-Residents
	wilderness handguns
	Libertarian Party Gun Control Policy
	Saskatchewan Government's position on Unsafe Storage Charges

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 15:49:03 -0600 (CST)
From: "Skeeter Abell-Smith" <ab133@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca>
Subject: PLEASE watch the amount of included text...

Fellow subscribers,

The digest is starting to look a little "messy".  Please watch the
amount of included text when you send a reply to
cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca

It's also "disappointing" to read several paragraphs that I just read
in the last two days, only to read a single sentence follow-up.  Please
try to condense as much as possible.

Skeeter

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 16:58:53 -0600
From: rmcreat@istar.ca (BC NFA)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ref. problems

>>Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 15:03:24 -0600
>>From: "Taylor Barratt" <tbarratt@radis.com>
>>Subject: 2nd Reference Problems
>>
>>       I'm currently trying to apply for the FAC. I did a challange and
>>>passed
>>and seem to be having a hard time finding a 2nd reference that meets the
>>laws requirements. I know several upstanding citizens however it seems they
>>all have to be active in their qualifing job. The bank manager I've had for
>>several years I don't know personally, the commisioned officers I know are
>>all retired, etc..etc..I travel constantly and have been self employed for
>>over 14 years so finding someone I've known for 3 years and am still
>>working with is impossible.
>>.
>Hi Terry!  Regarding a good 2nd, reference for your F.A.C. application try
>going to your local auto mechanic where you get your car fixed.  They
>qualify as one having an "Interprovincial Licence."  One of the qualified
>references that are listed near the bottom of the form.  Also if that
>doesn't work for you, try your insurance agent.  They too, are in possession
>of an interprovincial licence.  Your Doctor is another!
>
>Hope these help!
>Ken
>>
>>       I'm hoping some of you have suggestions as to who I could use as a
>>reference. I think I've exhausted most of the possibilities outlined in the
>>Safety Course book. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Terry

Here in BC, I've been used as a qualified reference because I have a
Provincial Retail Firearms license,
therefore you might try the Firearms Dealer you frequent.

Good Luck,
Michelle Traver
NFA-BC

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 20:34:53 -0600
From: Ron McCutcheon <mccutcrg@user.rose.com>
Subject: Allan Rock letter (2 of 2)

The following is a letter from Allan Rock, dated March 17, 1997 with
relevant comments added <indicated by <   >.  Enjoy.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
(cont.)

	[The following is borrowed from the c.t.g FAQL at:
	http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/FAQ/ctg.html ]
<From the book Waking Up Alive by Richard A. Heckler 1994:
"Although there are no official statistics on attempted (ie
non-fatal actions) suicide, it is generally estimated that there are
at least 8 to 20 attempts for each death by suicide." While roughly
30% of suicides involve a firearm, the "success" rate approaches 100%
when a firearm is involved.  If, on the other hand, the other 70% of
suicides actually have 8 to 20 attempts for every death, then only 2
to 5% of suicide attempts involve a firearm.  This is especially
interesting when you consider that 1 in four Canadian homes has an
average of 3 firearms.  It would be far more prudent and save far more
lives to expend our resources trying to help the 20 to 50 thousand
persons attempting suicide every year than on trying to control a
method employed in a small minority of suicide attempts>

Suicide is certainly not the only issue.  In 1995, there wre a total 
of 176 firearms homicides.  45%  of those that wre solved involved 
handguns.  

<Which are already registered except that about 80% of the handguns involved
in crimes are unregistered, smuggled or stolen.  Registration doesn't stop
criminal misuse of handguns.  How is it going to stop criminal misuse of
other firearms?

The same year,  rifle and shotgun homicides accounted for 41%, sawed off
rifle/shotguns were involved in 10% and full automatics were used to kill 4%
of the victims.  55% of all female firearms homicide victims were killed by
a spouse.  

A recent study was released by the Centre for Disease Control in the United
States.  It examined the causes of death among children aged from birth to
14 years of age in 26 developed countries.  The study was designed to
compare patterns of violent death in the United States with those in other
industrialized countries, including Canada.  Over 1,100 of the 2,872 deaths
in the 26 countries involved firearms.  Of all the firearms-related deaths,
55% were reported as homicides and 20% as suicides.  The rate in the United
States was 12 times the rate for all other countries combined.  Canada had
the fifth highest rage, behind the United States, Finland, Northern Ireland
and Israel.

<Wait a minute Al.  You are playing with numbers. First you state that "80%
of all firearms deaths were suicides".  Now you're saying that only 20% are
suicides.> 

A suggestion that gun control in Canada will save only 4 lives is ridiculous.  

<I agree.  That was a my best case estimate and is probably far too high.
By reducing the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves against
violent criminals, the most likely scenario is that gun control will kill
far more people than it saves.>

An evaluation study of the 1977 Firearms Control Program in Canada concluded
that the legislation has contributed to reducing the homicide rate in Canada
by as <much as??> 20% or 55 lives per year over the last two decades.  I
have enclosed a copy of this report, for your information.  

< Thanks for sending me the report.  Unfortunately for you, I actually read
it, which is obviously more than you did.  I quote from Page 63 " The IRIMA
tests on the time series (homicides, suicides and fatal accidents) show
inconsistent patterns with regard to the relationship between the 1977
legislation and changing patterns of death rates.  We shifted the date of
this intervention across three years to assess the anticipatory and lagged
effects from the legislation but found no consistent patterns linking the
legislation to changes in firearms deaths."  For those who are no smarter
than Allan Rock, the above translates to "The 1977 legislation had NO
detectable effect on suicides, homicides or accidental deaths involving
firearms.>

The arguments that you have made are simply not credible.  I would suggest
that you take the time to inform yourself on issues relating to firearms
deaths.  


<Al, I would say that those words apply much more to you than they do to me>

We are concerned about saving lives, and safety is a major part of our
entire program.

<That is true for gun owners. It certainly is NOT true for Allan Rock.  YOur
own study PROVES that gun control does NOT save lives.  Despite this, you
propose to spend $2 billion more tax dollars on something that has already
proven to be a failure. Those dollars, spend it more productive ways, could
save a lot of lives. If Bill C-68 proceeds, many innocent people will die
because of it.>


It is not the only issue which needs to be addressed,
<That's for sure! Changes to the Young Offenders Act, and capital punishment
for those convicted of first degree murder might actually accomplish some of
your public safety objectives>

but it is a clear and pressing social issue. 

<Only in the minds of a few misguided Liberals like Allan Rock. Results of a
recent Angus Reid poll: When asked "What should the Government do to fight
crime?", less than 1%    responded by saying "more gun control". Whan asked
"Do you agree that law abiding sportsmen, recreational shooters and
collectors should not lose their guns because the the actions of relatively
few criminals?" 82% said yes.  A September 1991 nationwide Gallup poll found
that 88% of Canadians favour severe
penalties for crimes involving firearms, while only 8% were in favour of
increasing restrictions over existing firearms owners.  Sixty-eight per
cent felt that passing more severe laws over legitimate gun users will
have very little influence on criminals.  The January 1996 and 1995 issues
of Macleans revealed that only 5% of Canadians would pass stricter firearm
laws to reduce crime rates>
 
The measures we have taken are reasonable, carefully directed and
appropriate under the circumstances.  

<Only in your mind, Allan, Only in YOUR mind>

Thank you for taking time to write to me and share your views.  I hope that
I have addressed some of your concerns.

<Thanks for nothing.  You have addressed absolutely none of my concerns and
simply confirmed my worst fears.>  



Yours very truly

Allan Rock


Ron McCutcheon P. Eng
mccutcrg@mail.rose.com

Good gun control is a keen eye and a steady hand.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 20:37:53 -0600
From: Ron McCutcheon <mccutcrg@user.rose.com>
Subject: Allan Rock Letter (1 of 2)

The following is a letter from Allan Rock, dated March 17, 1997 with
relevant comments added <indicated by <   >.  Enjoy.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. McCutcheon

Thank you for your letter and enclosed newspaper clipping concerning
the new firearms regulations.  I regret that I was unable to reply
earlier.  You raised two points in your letter.  First, you suggested
that we do not have effective ways to identify firearms in Canada.  We
have conducted a thorough analysis of the options available to us for
identifying firearms within the registration system and have found
several options.  We also expect that specific firearms will be
checked to ensure integrity of the data.  The idenfitication of these
options involved firearms experts.  I am satisfied that the final
choice for a method to identify firearms will be effective in
achieving the benefits we described.

<Two questions.  1.  I have in my posession a 12 guage double barrel
shotgun with absolutely no serial number or any other identification
on it.  How will you identify it?  2.  How much will it cost. With the
existing handgun registration system, it costs over $90 to reregister
a handgun which already has all the relevant data recorded.  Even if a
method of somehow putting a permanent marking on this gun can be
devised, that and checking "specific firearms will be checked to
ensure integrity of the data" is going to cost one Hell of a lot more
than $90 per gun.>


Registration will be useful to law enforcement in several ways.  These
include informing the police in advance of their arrival, if firearms
are in a residence; helping police to remove firearms from a residence
if the activities of the owner are no longer responsible' helping to
enforce court prohibition orders if the activities of firearms owners
(who are the subject of court orders) are brought into question; and
assisting in criminal investigations by helping to trace firearms.  

<  Even if the registration system indicates no guns, there always the
possibility of an unregistered firearm.  Even though we have handgun
registration, 80% of the hanguns used by criminals are unregistered.
Police are trained to assume firearms are present and registration
won't change that.  No benefit there.  One way or the other, the rest
of what you talk about falls under the general description of
CONFISCATION - which is REALLY what registration is all about.>

The best estimates fo firearms ownership indicate that there are
aproximately 7 million guns in Canada owned by about 3 million owners.
Aproximately 26% of Canadian households contain guns and the average
owner owns less than 3.  About 1.2 million of these 7 million guns are
restricted firearms already registered with the RCMP.  The figure
cited in your leter does not correspond to the best scientific
estimates that we can get about the number of guns in Canada.

<Data from three dependent sources PROVES that is a TOTAL LOAD OF
C***! First: According to the United Nations, Canada ranks third 
among the developed western coutries (behind the US and Norway) in 
civilian ownership of firearms.  A 1992 survey sponsored by the UN 
reported that 26% of Canadians, over 7,000,000 people own firearms.  
Assuming the average firearms owner has (as you admit) about 3 
firearms, that makes 21 million firearms, not 7 million.

Second:  Past government surveys showed there were at least 15,000,000
legal firearms back in the 1970s.  The government's own estimate in
Dec. 1976, published as part of its gun control campaign, was
6,000,000 owners with 18,000,000 firearms.  During hearings on the
Campbell bill, officials from the office of the Minister of Justice
testified that the long-term average net annual importation of
firearms into Canada (imports minus exports) was 190,000 per year. 
Therefore, adding 190,000 per year to the 18,000,000 of 1976, we get a
total of 21,610,000 by Dec 1993.  Subtract 610,000 plus one firearm
for every firearm manufactured in Canada during those 17 years as an
allowance for firearms destroyed, dismantled or worn out--and you are
back at 21,000,000 firearms with 7,000,000 owners. 

Third: There were 1,221,179 registered restricted firearms in the RCMP
FRAS records in Dec 1993. The unrestricted firearm to "restricted"
firearm ratio is at least 20:1.  Conservatively, that means 24,423,580
unrestricted plus 1,221,179 restricted.  Allowing for errors in the
RCMP's registration system, we strike off 221,179 registered firearms
as non-existent, which reduces the total to 21,000,000 firearms with
7,000,000 owners.  Elimiate the 1 million guns already registered and
you have 20 million guns to register.  At $90 each, this comes very
CLOSE to the $2 billion I quoted.  e know the real figures.  YOU know
the real figures. We know that you know and we know that you are lying
through your teeth to try to keep the figures on the cost of firearms
registration down.  Sorry Al, it won't work.>

In the newspaper article which you enclosed, my comments about the
costs to gun owners were quoted.  I will not repeat those comments but
I do invite you to examine what I have already said on the issue.  Two
billion dollars does not bear any relation whatever to any of the
figures which were discussed by the responsible political or
governmental officials during this debate.  

You also suggested that gun control in Canada will save 4 lives a
year.  I leave it to you to decide the relevance of 4 individuals and
the tragedy that would impose for the individuals, their families and
for society as a whole.  

< First, 4 is a maximum potential number.  I would be surprised if
that can actually be achieved.  More likely it will be none. Second,
how many lives could be saved if the $2 billion you plan to spend on
gun control were diverted to medical care, highway safety or some
other USEFUL purpose?>

The plain truth, however, is that we lose many more lives to firearms
than 4 a year.

<Sure, but the question is, how many of those will registration save?>

In 1994, 1,199 deaths in Canada involved firearms.  Over the past
decade, over 80% of all firearms deaths were suicides. From 1990 to
1992, the average firearms suicide rate was 3.8 per 100,000 in Canada
compared to 7.3 per 100,000 in the United States.  
	[The "firearm suicide rate" is irrelevant when Canada's total
	suicide rate is _higher_ than the US rate! -- Skeeter]
A disproportionate
number of firarms suicides were young men aged 20-24 and elderly men
in excess of 80 years old.  The research does not suggest that when a
firearm suicide is prevented, another method is chosen.  

<That is also a load of C***!  
	[The following is borrowed from the c.t.g FAQL at:
	http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/FAQ/ctg.html ]
While suicides account for the
overwhelming majority of all gun-related deaths in Canada (80% in
1987), over two-thirds of all suicides are committed by methods other
than firearms.  For "gun control" to prevent suicides, potential
suicides would have to be very fleeting impulses that would pass
before a person could get a key, put it into a lock, open the lock,
load the firearm, and fire it.  Since roughly as many people hang,
suffocate or strangle themselves, the argument is absurd.

Many suicides are contemplated for weeks or months and there are many
methods that are just as "impulsive" and just as deadly, such as
jumping off buildings, in front of cars, trucks, subway trains,
smashing up cars, etc.

    There are two main types of suicides: the ones who want to die and
    the ones who "cry out for help".  The former uses methods that
    offer little in the way of a "second chance" (firearms, jumping
    off buildings) and the latter group uses methods that take a long
    time (pills).  Most suicides follow months or years of depression
    or illness, unlocking a gun takes at most a couple of minutes.

(continued)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 22:56:40 -0600
From: kdesolla@cyberus.ca (Keith P. de Solla)
Subject: Regulations

CFC staff:

Thank you for so quickly mailing me the 'fact sheets'.

I'm happy to see that each sheet indicates none of the regulations are in
force at the present time.


I am not happy about the regulations proposed in them.  Ignoring the 
distasteful nature of most of them, the fact sheet for gun collectors has
something particularly idiotic in nature.

This sheet describes collecting as a legitimate reason for owning restricted
or grandfathered prohibited firearms.  It then says this reason must be
justified every 5 years.  This is ridiculous; but it gets worse, and I quote:

	"People who cease to collect handguns and who do not use them
	for target shooting or for other legitimate purposes will have
	to transfer, export or deactivate their firearms."

How can you 'cease to collect handguns' but still have them for another
purpose that is not legitimate?  The only way you can 'cease to collect
handguns' is to get rid of them.  If I have a handgun collection in 2001,
it is still a collection 5 years later. The quoted statement is meaningless and
so must exist because:

1. It was an error in the drafting
2. It exists only as a means to harass collectors
3. It was written by an idiot

Please explain this obvious error.

regards,
Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng


cc. cdn-firearms 

Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng  -  NFA Field Officer
kdesolla@cyberus.ca
http://www.cyberus.ca/~kdesolla/eohc.htm

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 22:56:41 -0600
From: "David A. Tomlinson" <nfadat@telusplanet.net>
Subject: Re: Registration of Firearms for Non-Residents

>Do you know what the differences will be in the registration process for
>bringing firearms into Canada for hunting when C-68 comes into effect
>versus the current paperwork and registration? now required by a
>non-resident.  I have a number of outfitters asking me this question.
>Is the current information collected when one declares a firearm at the
>border different from that which will be necessary if this ridiculous
>bill comes into effect?   Is this information now shared with
>authorities in the United States and other countries?
>Thanks for any help on this.
>Keep up the great work!

 I cannot answer those questions.  The process is partly outlined in 
C-68, but the provisions are subject to regulations made by Order in
Council, and those cannot be known until after C-68 comes into 
force.  All regulations made by Order in Council before C-68 comes 
into force are automatically voided by the bringing into force of C-68,
although I suspect that the Canadian Firearms Centre has not noticed
the part of C-68 that has that effect yet.

Yes, RCMP information is shared with the BATF in the US.

Dave Tomlinson, NFA

FOCUS:  Defeat your local Liberal and elect your local Reformer in federal
Election 97 -- or kiss your guns goodbye.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 22:56:45 -0600
From: kdesolla@cyberus.ca (Keith P. de Solla)
Subject: wilderness handguns

CFC staff:


I am hunter, and would like to carry a handgun for back-up/protection while
I am hunting bear.

What paperwork do I need?   How do I go about this?

regards, 
Keith

p.s. I'm posting this to the cdn-firearms mailing list, as I'm sure there are
other hunters interested in your response.

Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng  -  NFA Field Officer
kdesolla@cyberus.ca
http://www.cyberus.ca/~kdesolla/eohc.htm

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 06:33:22 -0600
From: Cdnguns@2-100-1.rational.vaxxine.com (Cdnguns)
Subject: Libertarian Party Gun Control Policy

The Libertarian Party of Canada's Gun Control policy is at
http://www.libertarian.ca

The policy has been placed on the website for input from Canadian
gun owners.


The Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
A Principled Approach to Liberty

... A Gun is inanimate, therefore it CAN NOT cause crime. Only PEOPLE do!
- ---
- --
| Fidonet:  Cdnguns 350:2/100.1
| Internet: Cdnguns@2-100-1.rational.vaxxine.com

>>>[Gated by the ClasLibNet Gateway, The Network of Liberty]<<<

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 06:33:22 -0600
From: "Larry J. Going" <going@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Saskatchewan Government's position on Unsafe Storage Charges

To:  Mr. Lorne Scott, MLA Indian Head-Wolsely

Dear Mr. Scott:

In your speech given April 5 in Saskatoon at the "Sportsmen Against Bill
C-68 Fund Raising Dinner", I am told you made the following comments:

"The provincial government is against the registration provisions of
Bill C-68; however, the provincial government supports the safe storage
provisions of Bill C-68".

Assuming these quotations have the Saskatchewan Governments' intent
correct, if not the actual wording, then I ask for answers to the
following questions:

1.  Do you believe Mr. Bob Mullen of Regina should have been found
guilty of unsafe storage of a firearm because he didn't have trigger
locks on 8 long guns displayed on his living room wall?  The firearms
were unloaded.

2.  Do you believe Mr. Bruce Croal of Regina should have been found
guilty of unsafe storage of a firearm for having a loaded shotgun in his
bedroom closet?  

3.  Do you believe as Allan Rock does that firearms must not be used for
defence of human life?

4.  Do you believe Mr. Wayne McLaren  of Balcarres should be found
guilty of unsafe storage of a firearm for having an unloaded .22 rifle
on the floor in his locked truck? He had covered the rifle with a
blanket, but the RCMP claim they could see part of the scope of the
rifle.

5.  Do you believe Mr. Merlen Fordice of Maple Creek should be found
guilty of unsafe storage of a firearm for having a rifle in his locked
truck, even though he had removed the bolt of the rifle and taken it
with him?

6.  Do you realize this charge of unsafe storage carries with it a
minimum sentence of 2 years in prison?  

7.  Do you realize these people would probably lose their firearms
without compensation, and likely be banned from owning firearms for up
to 10 years?

In these first two cases the court decided these people were not guilty,
and I have no doubt the court will exonerate the last two.

What is your opinion, Mr. Scott?  

If you do not believe these people should be charged, as do firearms
owners in Saskatchewan, then why is this government allowing this
persecution to continue?  Don't answer me by saying the government can't
dictate policy to its police officers.  I don't believe you, and neither
do the people of Saskatchewan.

Yours truly,

  Larry J. Going
  Sask. Pres.,  NFA
  Phone: 306-694-4168
    Fax: 306-691-0271

------------------------------

End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #807
**********************************