From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Wed Apr 8 10:13:11 1998 Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 09:56:51 -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 #338 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Content-Length: 26541 X-Lines: 612 Status: RO Cdn-Firearms Digest Wednesday, April 8 1998 Volume 02 : Number 338 In this issue: The Reform Long Shot... [none] Re: Deleted Postings Our image War chest CCPC promotes disarming brinks guards Re: Evil SWAT/ERT Teams [1/2] Re: Early Registration Re: The Reform Long Shot ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 06:23:05 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: The Reform Long Shot... David A Tomlinson said: > Er... Had you noticed that most of the voters who switched to Reform were > firearms owners, fed up with the Conservative Party's welshing on gun > control law promises to us? No Dave, as a matter of fact I hadn't, much as you dream this is what happened. I voted Reform and most people out here I know voted Reform. But my Mom wasn't a gun owner and she voted Reform. My girlfriend wasn't a gun owner and she voted Reform. My neighbors on both sides of me voted Reform, and they were so disturbed that they lived next to a gun owner that they approached the complex manager - so they hardly voted Reform because of gun control issues. What in the world gives you the idea that everybody who likes the concept of Reform or votes for Reform as the least objectionable choice is a gun owner? Any rational person in this country will give you one reason why the Conservatives became almost extinct - Lyin' Brian. > Right. Reform became the official Opposition, and the Conservatives became > the fifth-largest (smallest!) Party in the House of Commons. They sure did. And the Conservatives started on their way back. Meanwhile, how many seats did Reform get in the East? And didn't they just lose a Western seat to a shake 'n bake Liberal here in BC? None of that gives me any confidence in betting the farm on a Reform government being there to save us. > The Liberals own Ontario -- right now. Reform cam in second -- in almost > every riding in that province. And the Liberals own one more seat in BC as of this week that once belonged to Reform. They came in second in Ontario? Who cares? How many seats do you get in the House for coming in second? > Look at the total numbers of MPs from > outside Ontario -- "The Rest Of Canada" -- Reform has more MPs than the > Liberals. Who cares? No party has ever cared who owns "The Rest Of Canada" as long as they knew they could keep Ontario and/or Quebec or a variation on that theme. How many seats do you think Reform can take in Quebec? Now how about the Liberals? You going to bet that Charest flops over there rather than rallying the Liberals? > Are the Conservatives going to rise from the ash heap where Kim Campbell > left them? Unlikely. They went from being the smallest party in the House > - -- to being the smallest party in the House. For heaven's sake -- THE NDP > BEAT THEM! And they went from two seats to how many? What makes you so sure that Conservatives are not going to continue to come back to their party? When they drift back, what are the chances they'll be drifting back from Reform seats you need to turf C-68 > Additionally, they have just lost their Leader -- and have no major figure > in sight. Frankly, I think Elsie Wayne is a better and more charismatic leader than Manning ever will be. Debra Gray for party leader! > No, I am just pragmatic. I KNOW what another Liberal government will do to > the firearms community -- whether WE support the Liberal Party or not. So > do you. The point is, you're betting the farm on a dark horse winning an election and then having the numbers to carry a controversial vote. It doesn't matter who the party is. > So WHY do you want to support Liberals instead of gaining more Reform MPs? Get off the pot Dave; you're a poor spin doctor. You find in even ONE of my posts where I have suggested that firearms owners should vote for Liberals. In fact, I've said by all means support Reform. I've mentioned several times that I vote for Reform as the least gruesome of the choices available to me. So don't give me that "you want to support Liberals" silliness. My problem, for about the hundredth time now, is that you intend to bet everyone's guns on your long shot political party coming through for us. And to me, what political party that is is immaterial. Pursue this by all means. But don't ignore other ways where people can actively attack C-68. > I don't. I do know that there are enough firearms community members (40 per > cent of all Canadian households contain at least one recreational firearm) > to swing any election where the bulk of us decide to do it. Yes. "where the bulk of us decide to do it". You want to bet that's going to happen? Where's the support for this belief? Five million gun owners - and how many belong to the NFA? What percentage of NFA members joined riding associations? What CAN happen and what is LIKELY to happen is often two entirely different things. > Quebec is an interesting situation. If Quebec elects Liberals, it is a > factor -- but if it elects Bloc Quebecois MPs, it is not. BQ MPs are not > counted to see who will form the government. You bet it's a factor - and how many seats is Reform going to take in Quebec? And if you end up with a minority government, you will indeed be counting BQ MP's to see who will form the government - and they sure won't be supporting Manning. >> 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 determined to lose that you push government propaganda? Dave, you aren't half the spin doctor that Wendy Cukier is, so don't bother trying. Pointing out that some gun owners are Liberals and reelected Liberals even after C-68 was brought forward isn't propaganda. It's fact. Do you intend to tell me there are no rural Liberal MP's in any of the prairie provinces or in Ontario? How about the Maritimes? Is this fact or propaganda? What makes you so determined to lose that you turn a blind eye to fact and label anything uncomfortable "propaganda". > Right. Now give me a proposal with a BETTER chance of working. The one I wrote you about three years ago, that you wouldn't even acknowledge at that time. The same one you've been ignoring here for the last few weeks even though NFA members have asked you to comment. The one you're pretending doesn't exist. The one the vast number of people who are going to register anyway can use, and be absolutely legal while doing so. And it won't cost the NFA hardly a penny besides some type on a few bulletins. It doesn't even have to be "better" Dave, it's something else we can be doing while you chase around with Reform. It doesn't detract from your efforts in the least, and if it makes the government look crappy, then Manning looks all the better. And if what I've proposed isn't good enough, then we should damn well keep right on looking for something better. Because in the end, when you gamble, the odds are always with the house. The bottom line is that the political gamble isn't enough and shouldn't be the overwhelming effort. > FOCUS: If you don't sit in on the game, you CAN't win. FOCUS: Make sure you make them play YOUR game, not the House game where the odds are on their side. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 09:21:08 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assist. 1" Subject: [none] Subject: RCMP supports gun law? Letter April 8, 1998 The Editor The Star Phoenix Note: 1 page sent by fax to: (306) 664-8208 Re: RCMP supports gun law? Letter to Editor – April 7, 1998 RCMP Assistant Commissioner, Cleve Cooper’s letter to the editor ("RCMP supports gun law," April 7, 1998) clarified little and left many questions unanswered. Why was it left to newspapers like The Star Phoenix to make public the RCMP’s own analysis of the number of firearms involved in violent crime? The misleading statistics produced by the federal Justice Department were introduced in six affidavits filed in the Alberta Court of Appeal by the federal government and their supporters. Yet they failed to introduce the RCMP’s own analysis of firearms/violent crime statistics. Why? The RCMP still won’t swear in court that the Dept. of Justice firearm statistics are "accurate." Why? Manitoba Attorney General Vic Toews said, "This is an example of the police being used as political tools….This will breed disrespect for the law." Why does officer Cooper say the RCMP "fully support the new firearms legislation" when their own data shows firearms are involved in such a small number of violent crimes? The RCMP Commissioner’s letter states, "The RCMP investigated 88,162 actual violent crimes in 1993, where only 73 of these offences, or 0.08%, involved the use of firearms." How much further will firearms crime drop because of the gun control measures in Bill C-68, the Firearms Act? How much more would violent crime drop if the government redirected the hundreds of millions being wasted on gun registration to do something cost-effective like putting more police on the street? Finally, Assistant Commissioner Cooper implies that he’s speaking on behalf of the whole force when in fact their own internal surveys showed that 91% of RCMP officers in Saskatchewan and 95% in Alberta don’t support Bill C-68. The RCMP is now misleading the public and participating in their own brand of cover-up. Has Justice Minister Anne McLellan told the RCMP brass to get back in line? Where do Canadians go for the truth in the federal government? Sincerely, Garry Breitkreuz, MP Yorkton-Melville. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 09:21:10 -0600 From: Jason Subject: Re: Deleted Postings A.warner said: > > > With all respect to Rick Lowe. Don't read your postings any more, just delete them. Perhaps its just a case of 'once too often'. > Same here. Julian ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 09:21:32 -0600 From: "Ken Kellar" Subject: Our image A couple of thoughts on our image as recreational shooters: As I read more letters from those who support Bill C-68 it becomes more clear a large part of our objective as responsible recreational shooters is counteracting the negative stereo types being put out by media and gun control advocates. As reasonable and responsible individuals we have to come out as firearms owners. The pro gun control lobby is happy to have us seen by the general public as a bunch of unstable red necked slack jaw locals. There is an old saying that perception becomes reality. If you say the world is flat often enough people soon believe it. One way to counteract the negative stereo type is to be open about our status as a recreational shooter. People already know us as friends, parents, neighbors, coworkers. They already see us as reasonable ethical basically good people. They should also know us as recreational shooters. People who have accepted the negative stereo type will have that belief challenged when they realize that the there neighbors and friends are shooters and that these people are just normal everyday folks. It our duty to be open about our status as shooters. It can only help our cause to be seen for who we are: reasonable people with reasonable concerns. We have to make it clear that we share an interest in safe communities. Shooters know and support the importance of safe handling and storage. We support education on these issues. Those of us who are hunters are also conservationists. Any regular hunter understands that for there to be animals to harvest in future there must be a stable healthy heard today. We generally support practices that make sense, education, safe storage etc. We have to explain the elements of the new legislation that don't work but also offer alternatives everyone can feel good about. Seek the win win scenario. We must start by being open with friend and neighbors about our status as recreational shooters. These people already view us as having integrity. When they also see we are the recreation shooters they will be more likely to try and understand our concerns, and listen to third option win win proposals. If we win the support of our friend and neighbours the government will have to listen. Regards Ken Kellar ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 09:21:38 -0600 From: Dan MacInnis Subject: War chest Exactly what we need..A War chest. Hence my concern over membership. Membership gives us the "MONEY" we will and do need. Everything costs money. To get membership up, we need to be at every gun and outdoors show with brochures, applications, a computerized system for followup, exactly like the people in Sales do. Sales. That's the name of the game. Hardware shows, the people who frequent hardware shows are generally outdoors people. I am sure we have lot's of thinkers out there who can suggest even more. We must also be prepared, can't look like fools in the booths, everything shipshape to accept money on the spot, with receipts. We could use a form on laptops, even 286 laptops are good for this purpose. Or drag a desktop along. High tech???? Sure, it will take time and a bit of money, but without our combined effort, all may be lost. We also need central co-ordination, at least to local level plus data must be forwared to the NFA quickly, but we have computers to do the work for us, all we need are determined bodies. Anyone interested in following up??? I have a bit of experience in Trade shows. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 09:21:42 -0600 From: dhammond@cadvision.com (Dave Hammond) Subject: CCPC promotes disarming brinks guards After a spate of armored car robberies (one of which resulted in an exchange of gunfire between guards and armed bad guys in an empty mall) a local hand-wringing left wing radio talk host did a segment on this rash of armed crime. His guest was Barry Davidson of the Canadian crime prevention center. The recommendation from Mr Davidason was to disarm security guards to avoid the shoot-outs! He sighted the guard's lack of police level arms training as being the impetus for the poor judgement (and hit ratio) that leads to the armored car shoot outs. There was plenty of newspeak rhetoric about "public safety" and " it is not worth a life to protect property". Mr. Davidson also explained that the disarming of armored car guards was mostly "symbolic" and this armed intervention by armored car guards was setting a bad example for civilians who his organization is trying to condition in the mind set of offering no resistance to armed criminals. The old "only cops should use deadly force" saw came through loud and clear. I suppose his theory is that once people who transport large quantities of cash are disarmed the criminals will start using non deadly force in their robberies. The incident where a local casino owner was shot delivering the days receipts to the bank by himself would appear to dispel that myth. Perhaps those armed criminals hadn't bought into the "cash isn't worth killing for" theory yet. Lost in this little hoplophobic love-in was the fact that the guards were facing armed criminals who would have gladly shot a guard (or civilian) to make the robbery go a little smoother. Perhaps if the guards had killed one or two of these armed thugs they would not see Brinks cars as such an easy target. It would appear that now professional security officers are under attack for resisting armed criminals. I wonder what the insurance companies that insure the cash shipments have to say about this fuzzy little leap of logic? Any armed, professional security guards who wish to respond to this type of reverse Pavlovian conditioning can contact the CCPC at: DH (RFOA) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 09:56:28 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: Re: Evil SWAT/ERT Teams [1/2] >Finally, ERT is not involved in policing, patrolling in a proactive manner. >It is involved strictly in enforcement in a specific event; they are not the >same thing. Some cities such as Calgary have special ERT teams who do nothing >else - an error, in my opinion - but the overwhelming number of ERT teams are >composed of members who simply are part of a team and regularly undergo >additional training and practice to upgrade skills and retain teamwork. Unfortunately, the SWAT team has too little to do. Therefore, it is INEVITABLY put to work on "normal" police duties. It CANNOT be left to laze around the police station day after day. >There have indeed been situations where ERT has been inappropriately utilized >and have acted inappropriately under the circumstances because of it. These >incidences should be vigorously dealt with by the public. But also put the >blame where appropriate. When the information an ERT team gets is that the >subject they are to take down is almost certainly armed, probably possesses >automatic weapons, is a right wing extremist (whatever that vague description >describes), etc, they are going to react appropriately. That means decisively >and no mucking around. So when you go after the police after an inappropriate >use of force such as this, make sure you hang the right guy. And how many such cases do we have in an average Canadian city in a year? None. The SWAT team is a MILITARY unit, not a POLICE unit. It is designed and intended to use FORCE as the INITIAL option, not as a last resort. SWAT teams often trains WITH the Army. There is insufficient appropriate work for a SWAT team in virtually every Canadian city that has one. The "bean counters" tell the Chief, "Use it or lose it." So he uses it -- inappropriately. The high prestige of SWAT teams and their members leads directly into imitation of their "use of force" mentality by other police, use of their equipment by other police, and BLACK uniforms for all police. I live in Edmonton, AB -- and the Edmonton Police Service is switching to all-black uniforms for ALL police officers. VERY bad psychology. The SWAT team drives wedges between the police and the citizens. It is not cost-effective, because there is far too little appropriate work for it to justify its heavy cost. Dave Tomlinson, NFA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 09:56:46 -0600 From: Jim Davies Subject: Re: Early Registration On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > Subject: Re: early registration > > I am not convinced that early registration is a good idea. Since the > motivation behind C-68 is largely political, having the system actually > functioning is secondary. > > I doubt whether an early rush to register will cause many headaches > for the government. I may be corrected, but I am not aware that C-68 sets > any time limits for the issuance of registration papers. In the fullness of > time, they will no doubt register them all; in the meanwhile, they will be > happily counting the incoming postcards. C-68 and registration is a program, just another program instituted by the federal government. To expect it to perform "outside the box" is wishful thinking and most unlikely. The box in this case, is the normally accepted thoroughness, speed and effectiveness of any other government policy or program. Any system that is divorced from feedback on its performance is abysmally inefficient, and all Canadians can agree that the federal governments track record is very poor, whether it is "managing" fish stocks or "Indian schools" or gun registration. Therefor, showing up the system as useless, incompetent, slow, inefficient and counter-productive is not much of a challenge, and not likely to make it stand out from all the other federal government programs. Cost, of course, has some hope of actually hurting the liberals. If the registration system is choked and completely dysfunctional, either because of our efforts or just the usual incompetency, who will know, or care? As stated, it is a politically motivated symbol, not a system that must actually function, like Revenue Canada. > > I can imagine the spin that will be applied: > > "Canadian Gun Owners Support Registration!" > "The success of gun registration has exceeded all expectations! The > CFC has been deluged with registration applications from gun owners eager to > convert their dangerous weapons into safe firearms. It is expected that at > the present rate, 150% of legal Canadian firearms will be registered within > the year." > "In response to the great success of this endeavour, the CFC is > planning to expand its staff to better serve gun owners and ensure the > safety of all Canadians." > (Maybe I should copyright this, just in case?) :-) > A good idea. I am sure that your wording is close to what the spin-doctors will use... - -------------- > > > 2. With a Reform government, we have a chance for good law. > > Chance. I hate gambling. As do many Canadians. Better the known than the unknown. Something may happen. Father voted Conservative, etc. etc., I don't trust politicians any more than anyone else who follows current affairs, but Reform is the best bet for us, and any Canadian that is interested in political renewal in our country. Give them their chance, then judge them at the ballot box. This will allow the ConLibs to renew themselves in opposition. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 09:56:49 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: Re: The Reform Long Shot >Reform's failure to get a single seat east of Manitoba is proof that they >are only a regional party. And since then they have done little to change >the Eastern voters' opinion of them as a bunch of rednecks. Hardly! Reform ran SECOND in MOST Ontario ridings -- indicating that it will only take a MINOR shift to elect Reform candidates in ONTARIO. The Conservatives ran FAR behind Reform (in number of Ontario votes) in the last federal election. The maritimes continue to be a negligible force (too few MPs to strongly affect the MP count after an election), and Quebec continues to elect Bloc Quebecois MPs who DO NOT COUNT when determining which Party will form the next federal government. It is unwise TO listen to the siren voice of media pundits who are HOSTILE to the rise of Reform. They have been consitently prophesying the "end" of the Reform phenomenon before each federal election -- but after each federation, they have been proved WRONG. You get what you WORK for. >Personally, I think the best hope is constitutional challenges and court >cases. It is time to start funding a huge war chest. And that is PRECISELY how the NFA has delayed impementation of C-68 -- from 01 Jan 96 to 01 Jan 97 to 01 Jan 98 to 01 Oct 98. We -- and the supporting firearms community -- persuaded provincial and territorial governments to mount the hyper-expensive constitutional challenge. The NFA is continuing its programs of re-interpreting the laws through individual court cases, re-interpretation by study, and re-interpretation by educating the firearms into USING alternative interpretations -- such as the "registering 'frame or receiver' ONLY" program. However -- court cases are NOT the final answer. They are battlefield skirmishing, and can win minor positions. THEY CANNOT WIN THE WAR, because THEY DO NOT CHANGE THE LAW as it is written in the law books. What, then, is VICTORY? Victory is REPLACING all of today's defective legislation, AND the defective Bill C-68, with COMPREHENSIVE and AMENDMENT-RESISTANT firearms-community-friendly laws. The NFA is pressing for enactment of the "Practical Firearms Control System" -- which meets those criteria. And no, we CANNOT get simple repeal of all firearms control laws -- that is too big a step, and far too easy to "correct" the next time we have a hostile federal government. Face reality -- is is EASY to replace NOTHING with bad law. It is FAR more difficult to replace a GOOD and POPULAR firearms control system that is COST-EFFECTIVE with bad law. But -- enacting the "Practical Firearms Control System" can ONLY be done by electing a federal government that WILL enact good law. The Liberals will NEVER enact such law. They are committed to our destruction, and headed down the same path that the British and Australian governments are taking -- toward total confiscation of ALL privately-owned firearms. Realize this: Every time a bad government successfully confiscates all the "evil" firearms, the NEXT most "powerful" firearm BECOMES the next "evil" firearm to be c onfiscated. The British have already eliminated all privately-owned handguns, and the Austarlians have eliminated all privately-owned pump action shotguns, semi-auto shotguns, pump-action rifles and semi-auto rifles. The British and Australian governments are PAYING for the firearms they take - -- but the Liberals REFUSE to pay for the firearms that they have stolen from us, and for the firearms that they WILL steal from us in the future. And they WILL take everything the British and Australians have lost. Many people complain bitterly that they do not trust Reform to enact good legislation, or to remove both current law and C-68. I have little patience with such people -- they are merely HELPING the Liberals to STAY IN POWER. Certainly, there is some risk in trusting the Reform Party to behave correctly when it forms the next federal government. There is no risk at all that the Liberal Party will behave correctly if IT forms the next federal government. We KNOW that it is implacably hostile to the interests of the firearms community, that it is dedicated to "confiscation without compensation," and that it will do its best to castrate the firearms community as a political power before the next federal election -- by confiscation without compensation, regulation to the point of driving people out of our community, and constant harrassment of the firearms community. Dave Tomlinson, NFA FOCUS: When he HAD a choice, he refused to make it. Now he has no choice. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #338 **********************************