From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Tue Apr 7 06:25:55 1998 Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 06:13:46 -0600 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 V2 #332 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Content-Length: 24370 X-Lines: 517 Status: RO Cdn-Firearms Digest Tuesday, April 7 1998 Volume 02 : Number 332 In this issue: Our Poll Re: NFA at gun shows Re: Poll Len On Politics Re: Gun robbers posed as police Deer Decoys The Reform Long Shot...[1/2] The Reform Long Shot...[2/2] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 05:57:57 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: Our Poll Roy said: > points. One of them jumped off the page at me...a poll! There must be a > subscriber(s) to this list that have the knowledge or experience to > draft a legitimate poll. If we could come up with one that presented > C-68 in all it's bureaucratic and legal glory, and then polled people > from coast to coast I think we might be pleasantly surprised. The only > caveat is that it must be concise, unambiguous, and meet the standards > recognized by rigorous and honest pollsters. I think this is a great idea with a lot of problems. First, polls cost a lot of money, at least compared to what you expect they would. To get the numbers, cross section, etc that you would require to meet the standards you mention would probably cost well over 30-40k. Despite all the firearms owners we have in this country, could we raise that kind of money for a poll. I wish I could say "easily", but I believe the real answer is "no". Second, no matter how scrupulously honest it is done, it is going to get attacked like crazy by Wendy and her minions. That does not mean spin doctoring makes it worthless, but the question then becomes how much will it actually be worth when everything is all said and done? I have no idea. I do know that a lot of people will blankly accept the easy accusation that it is just a rigged deal set up by the "gun lobby". In the end, will you get enough bang for your buck? I'm not knowledgeable enough about the publicity biz to say one way or another, but I would doubt you would get your money's worth in effectiveness in the end. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 05:57:59 -0600 From: kdesolla@cyberus.ca (Keith P. de Solla) Subject: Re: NFA at gun shows > > Well, to answer my own query about "is the NFA going to be present at the >Belleville Ont. gun show", I can report, since it was yesterday, that No, the >NFA was not present. Not even any fliers on the flier table. The only >presence >I saw was my jacket with the NFA crest on it. > I don't suppose they will be represented at the Madoc one on the 19th either. > > > Dave dwarner@sympatico.ca > Does your area have an NFA representative? Do you know who he/she is? Any reason why you couldn't represent the NFA, or at least hand out fliers? - -keith Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng - NFA Field Officer kdesolla@cyberus.ca http://www.cyberus.ca/~kdesolla/eohc.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 05:58:02 -0600 From: "H. Roy Stephens" Subject: Re: Poll [Moderator: Great idea. Gary Mauser and I would love to do it. Now, we need $50,000. HTB] Ok, I'll bite, why the 50 G's? If subscribers to this list can participate as pollsters, where is the cost? R:-) [Moderator: The cost comes in scientific sample selection, hiring and training interviewers across the country, setting up a management structure, quality control, questionnaire construction (seven drafts, all pre-tested, before the final version is ready to go seems about the norm), data entry, analysis, publication, etc. All of these have to be done to extremely precise scientific standards for the poll to have validity. A poll done by gun owners on a volunteer basis would be a bear to manage, would still cost a lot, and would be immediately dismissed by the press as being biased (whether it was or not). A professional polling organization has many of the structures in place, but you have to pay for their use. The more questions you ask and the more people you interview, the more time it takes, and the more it costs. Before anybody runs off and says "lets do a poll" why not read the last one we did. You can go to my web site and read "The Real Story" and see just what is involved in doing a scientific poll. Hundreds of copies were printed and distributed by the Mackenzie Institute and there was -no- reaction from the press or politicians. Ask yourself if you have ever heard of this poll, then consider whether the public relations value of a poll is sufficiently great to spend the money on it rather than on some other effort. It may be, but even a scientific poll which came to clear conclusions would only be part of a lobbying effort. As someone who spent many years teaching students how to do polls, and doing them myself, I would love to do another one with Gary Mauser but the people who usually pay for polls about firearms (the Justice Department) are unlikely to fund us, and would not want to publicize the results unless they supported their position. HTB] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 06:13:05 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: Len On Politics Len McLaughlin said: > As for the polls and correct me if I'm wrong, but will not Reform vote > the will of their constituents? That's supposedly the way it goes. One Reform MP did vote for C-68, in Calgary I believe, because that's how his particular constituency felt. And I respect him for doing that. And herein lies the rub. Hard core firearms enthusiasts may be single issue voters. But are all firearms owners? No. So scratch a certain number of firearms owners from ever supporting Reform just because of C-68 right off the bat. They'll stick with anybody but Reform. Quebec holds a huge number of seats - how many Quebecers are going to vote Reform in the next election? Enough to let Preston form the next government? Now suppose Reform does take seats in downtown Toronto and elsewhere because people are choked at the three traditional parties. And suppose that Reform manages to gain enough seats in the next election to be in a position to toss C-68 - ignoring the fact that they just lost a Reform seat in a byelection in the West to another Liberal, and so are down another seat. So... are people in traditionally anti gun places like Metro Toronto going to tell their Reform MP to vote to toss C-68? Or instead to vote to represent their still held anti gun sentiments? What do you think? Want to bet your guns on it? Why should they vote to toss it - so far, they've been given no reason to doubt the promise that C-68 wouldn't affect them. The government has given them little reason to doubt and we certainly haven't. Let's supposing Reform manages enough seats to form the next government. Are they going to have a sufficiently large majority that they will have enough seats to still pass a bill banning C-68 despite Reform members from anti gun ridings voting to oppose this action? Want to bet your guns they will? Will they even bring such a bill banning C-68 forward if they risk losing such a major vote and thus have to call another general election? Want to risk your guns on it? A strategy centered around depending on Reform to ride in and save us is one wild roll of the dice. And I for one really hate gambling. > How do they determine that will? By polls! The way I see it, if the polls > don't support us, we can't count on Reform. So it all comes back to the > polls. A good observation on your part. What is the pro and anti gun control sentiment in all the ridings - ignore who holds the seat now, because Reform MP's will vote the ridings' sentiments. > thing. So I expect to see about 90% faithfully registering their guns, > trusting that confiscation is really not in the works. Yep. And so far, with the only hope being a roll of the dice that Preston will ride up and save us. Just like he promised us. Just like the Stornaway Bingo Hall he promised us. So call me cynical and I'll answer... > Sorry Dave, I stand by my original thoughts. You are used to dealing with > and talking with true gun enthusiasts but they are a small % of the 30% > that owns guns. Its common for people in groups with common objectives to > get caught up on their own hype. Its not good or bad, its just a fact. Right yet again. Let's assume every single NFA member will act in unison, reacting to Dave's strategies as one unified force, and fight to the bitter end. How many NFA members are there? And what percentage of the firearms community do they make up? There's your most wildly optimistic figure of how many absolute gun enthusiasts there are, willing to skirt the fine edge of the law or actually cross over by not registering. Here's an idea: offer the rest of them a perfectly legal strategy that allows them to ATTACK the firearms legislation, not just react or defend against it. What a concept... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 06:13:16 -0600 From: "H. Roy Stephens" Subject: Re: Gun robbers posed as police Ahhh, is this the thin edge of the wedge of a universal firearms shopping list....ooops I mean universal firearms registry? R;-) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 06:13:21 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: Deer Decoys The posting on the difficulty in getting convictions on poachers shooting up deer decoys confuses me, at least as far as BC goes. CO's here, when they show up with the Undercover Deer, generally stick it on private property where a "no shooting" sign is nearby. I think they probably do it this way because they get more than a few calls complaining about shooting at night from private landowners out in the sticks who live there and hear it. So our hero rolls up in the dark and fires a few shots at the Undercover Deer in the headlights. I never charged anybody with this, but it seems to me you've got him coming or going. First off, you charge him with discharging a firearm after dark. Illegal here. Hard to beat that one. You charge him with hunting wildlife by use of a light. You charge him with hunting after dark. You charge him for hunting on private property. He says he wasn't hunting but instead was shooting up what he knew to be a model deer? No problem; that sounds like a case of wilful damage of property not belonging to him, and that's a Criminal Code offense. If he wants to admit to a Criminal Code offense rather than a Wildlife Act offense, that's fine by me. I suspect you'd get a favourable plea bargain pretty quickly. I've got no time for poachers; they're a bigger threat to us than the Bear Watch treehuggers. Okay... bear huggers. I wish they would... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 06:13:30 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: The Reform Long Shot...[1/2] David A Tomlinson said: > >Barring the very unlikely event that Manning becomes the next Prime Minister > >AND keeps his word on party discipline and gun control (not all Reform MP's > Why "very unlikely"? Reform has gained significantly in each of the last > three federal elections. The Liberals are tottering on the brink of Why unlikely??? Okay, let's discuss the Reform faint hope clause that you want us to concentrate on Dave. Let's talk about those elections. How many Reformers were elected in that first election? Any really significant number? Basically just made the entrance on the Federal scene, correct? Election #2 - yep, big gains. But because of the appeal of Reform and a unified stand by gun owners - or a massive hate on for Lyin' Brian? Election #3. What percentage of increase in Reform seats? But wait! The Conservatives - supposedly killed off by Reform - are back. What was THEIR percentage of increase in seats compared to Reform? Which party is REALLY coming on in this last election? So Reform owns the West. Who cares when you own either of Ontario or Quebec, or one and a few seats scattered elsewhere, or a little of both? Reform has to win before 2003 to save us from C-68; think the Bloc is going to disappear before then? Think Reform is going to take Quebec by storm? Think the Conservatives are going to die off again? The Liberals are tottering? Lou Sekora, a political hack and instant Liberal if there ever was one, just kicked Reform butt in Western Canada, taking a vacated Reform seat back into the Liberal fold. Just who is tottering here anyway, Dave. Add to all of this the problems of Reform seats included in their total that would be in pro gun control ridings even if they did win enough to form the government, the fact that not all gun owners are going to be single issue voters supporting Reform, etc. I mentioned all that in a previous post, so won't go over it again. > but to save THEM. Any rise in interest rates will be the kiss of death for > the Liberals, and one is LIKELY before the next election. The failure to not get rid of the GST was supposed to be one of their kisses of death last time. Sheila Copps still holds office. Gun owners were going to rise en mass to support Reform over C-68 in a Liberal kiss of death. Anybody recall bumper stickers saying "Remember C-68 when you vote"? Didn't happen. You sure are willing to bet the farm on some really long odds. That, quite frankly, scares the hell out of me if it doesn't scare anybody else. Because if the Reform party doesn't win, or if it does win but doesn't have enough supportive ridings to carry a "dump C-68" vote, then we are screwed. > Why "very unlikely"? There is NOTHING Manning could do that would more > certainly LOCK IN support for his Party from our huge firearms community -- Well, he could promise us he'd turn the Prime Minister's residence into a Bingo Hall... Oops, we've already heard that one! Probably couldn't fool us with that one twice, right? Dave, what makes you so sure the firearms community are all single issue voters? And before you answer that, how many NFA members are there right now? What makes you so sure that a large contingent of firearms owners and voters aren't Quebeckers who DON'T like Reform's approach to the sovereignity issue and so won't support Reform? What makes you so sure a large number of firearms owners aren't already Liberals who just supported the Liberal party yet again, even after seeing C-68 brought in? What makes you so sure a significant number of Reform seats in those forming a majority wouldn't be in pro gun control ridings which WOULDN'T allow their Reform MP a vote to cashier C-68? I think those are all very real probabilities, not possibilities, yet you're blowing them all off like they don't even exist. This is such a long shot to hang our hopes on that it's crazy. First Reform has to take the election - you want us to bet our guns on that. Not only that, we're betting our guns that they win so many seats that there won't be enough seats in pro gun control ridings to cause them to lose a vote over C-68 and have parliament dissolved. Talk about a long shot or what. > and, wthout our support, his Party has NO chance of forming a national > government -- or being re-elected if it does form one. An assumption that all firearms owners vote Reform rather than Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, etc. An assumption that Reform would bring a bill to kill C-68 into the house and be able to pass it with Reform MP's from pro gun control ridings forming part of their majority. And when, as part of the election campaign, he says that one of his first tasks will be to can C-68, what chance does he have of getting seats in pro gun control ridings. Look at public opinion polls regarding gun control. They may be misinformed, but what really matters is that the public to date supports this crap. Do you think a Reform government would ever bring a bill killing C-68 forward if they knew enough Reform MP's would vote against it in accordance with their ridings' wishes and thus they'd have to go to a new election? A new election because they wanted to toss gun control - that's how it would be seen. I say they'll hang on to power and take their chances of winning the next election by appeasing enough gun owners with other stuff to hang on to their votes and keeping enough votes elsewhere with other, more universal, populist politics. I'm going to remind you yet again that Manning fed us a bunch of BS promises about what he'd do with Stornaway. Then we got a bunch of BS regarding why he moved in. And there was the BS about how Reformers would be "different" in the house. What makes him suddenly so trustworthy? Of course I would vote for him before any of the other political hacks, but gamble my guns on a guy who's already BS'd me with previous political promises? Not bloody likely. [continued in part 2 of 2] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 06:13:44 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: The Reform Long Shot...[2/2] > Once the "Practical Firearms Control System" is enacted and in force, its > simplicity, practicality and usefulness will be apparent even to those > outside the firearms community. The firearms control system will -- for the Ah yes, they will appreciate it because we wrote it. And because we wrote it, it is simple, practical, and useful. Who says so? Why, we do - just ask us! Sounds remarkably like how the Liberals sell C-68, doesn't it? Just throw in a few "consultations with all stakeholders", and you've got C-68 all over again. I might also note that the public has uniformly failed to date to appreciate the fundamental flaws of our current legislation, gun control in general, the fundamental injustice of C-68, or the pointing out of the most basic facts. What event is going to occur to magically cause the scales to fall from their eyes in this particular instance? The fact that Preston is PM? And of course, there's the little matter of getting to the "Once the Practical Firearms Control System is in force"... all based on the assumption that Preston a) wins the election, b) has a sufficient majority of anti C-68 MP's to carry it, and c) keeps his word - something he hasn't done to date. > first time in Canadian history -- make SENSE, and be COST-EFFECTIVE. Sounds like many, many speeches we've all heard from politicians of various stripes over the past 20 years or so concerning a variety of government programs. Buzzwords the public has heard a thousand times, even if they may be true this time. In fact, I think Allan Rock used words remarkably similar to yours above when talking about C-68, if memory serves me correctly. Two very different visions - but why are Canadians going to believe and support this particular one? Just because we, a minority, say so? > The financial contribution -- eliminating many, many millions of dollars > wasted in favor of a few dollars much more wisely spent -- will help Manning > to balance his budgets. Assuming he can get into power, survive the political implications of bringing this bill forward, isn't as inept as he's proved himself to be so far, etc. Manning is a bad symbol for firearms owners, shooting himself in the foot as often as he does. > The structural reorganization will free up scarce and costly police > resources for POLICE duties, something devoutly desired by a majority of > voters. That would be very popular. They haven't voted that way yet Dave. And the number of police tied up with firearms legislation at this moment that would be freed up with your scheme is a drop in the bucket over Canada as a whole. After C-68 is fully in power, sure there'd be a great saving - but if that is the case then Reform isn't in power, right? > FOCUS: Viewing the future with tunnel vision aimed in a single direction is > not sensible. Right. And that includes hanging our future on Reform coming into power, having enough anti C-68 ridings to pull it off, and keeping their promise. That's tunnel vision. > The future is braided from many strands -- but it is not necesary to control > ALL of the strands to make a future that we like. And mountain climbers don't trust ropes with only one strand to break their fall so that they still have a future. That's precisely what you're doing, and we're in freefall. If Reform loses, then we've got nothing. We can keep winning safe storage cases, but C-68 will be there and those regulations and OIC's will chop us to pieces in no time. I know it's politically incorrect here to disagree with you Dave, and I get a small amount of private hate mail from your personal fan club when I do it - no fault or doing of yours, I know. I give you full marks for your ongoing effort and dedication fighting for firearms owners in this country, and nobody should ever forget that. I certainly never will, win or lose in the end. But your narrow minded long shot pinned to the fortunes of Reform needs a Devil's Advocate, so I guess I'm it. There's an awful lot of unanswered concerns here and assumptions that Preston is going to take the election. Nobody's covered off the "what if's", least of all you. Support and push for Reform? Sure, of course, why not? For many of us, better than voting for Liberals or anyone else anyway, even if the gun issue didn't exist. But how about another plan, one that attacks the beaurocracy while we have the chance? It doesn't interfere with your hopes for Preston in the slightest, and if has the power to toss C-68, he also has the power to toss the existing registry. A registry that will exist whether we act otherwise or not, the only question will be the number in that registry. You've heard what I've proposed here re early registration and then swamping the beaurocracy. Some of your "dancing on the head of a pin" that you've advocated is a similar thing on a much smaller scale. This plan isn't new to you either - I wrote to you in great detail about it, twice, a few years ago. So it hasn't taken you by surprise now. You didn't comment on it back then, and you haven't directly addressed it now, even though a number of people have asked you to. I think this will work. A lot of other people think it will too - including people familiar with government beaurocracy because they work within it. It offers people who will obey the law sooner or later anyway not only a way of staying within the law, but a way to attack the beaurocracy that's been driving them mad over the years while doing so. It has absolutely no effect on your hopes and dreams for Preston. In fact, if anything, the chaos it causes and quick feedback on the noneffectiveness of C-68 will give him ammunition he will need if he's ever in a position to use it. It will be easier to can a bill wasting billions of dollars than it will be to kill a bill wasting millions of dollars. I hope you're not suffering from "not invented here" syndrome. People have asked you for direction regarding this several times on this list It is time to crap or get off the pot. If there are real problems with this action - not fears - then spell them out and say why this won't work or why it will hurt Preston's ability to turf C-68. I haven't seen anything yet that says this can't work or do anything but help Reform by pissing off the public with the cost of C-68 and graphically illustrating that it will not save them from crime. I'm not telling you anything you don't know when I tell you that you wield tremendous power and influence in the firearms community. With that comes a lot of responsibility, maybe more than is fair on somebody who has volunteered so much and worked so hard. But still, the responsibility is there. Don't abuse it. I busted my ass working on this, gave it to you once before long ago, and covered every single base I could think of by myself. I've done my part the very best I can. Good or not, the reality is, even if it is absolutely perfect (which I've never said it is), nobody can sell this or any other idea, no matter how good, without your support. So now we're waiting for some simple, straightforward answers. With respect - really Rick Lowe ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #332 **********************************