Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 07:41:01 -0600 Message-Id: <200001041341.HAA17550@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca> X-Authentication-Warning: broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca: majordomo set sender to owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca using -f 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 V3 #244 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Errors-To: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Cdn-Firearms Digest Tuesday, January 4 2000 Volume 03 : Number 244 In this issue: Your editorial in Pointblank, Nov., 1999 British Shotgun Owners Targetted for Tighter Controls CBC National Magazine 22 Dec. 1999 Re: new anti commercial funded by feds AR15 in 7.62 x 39 More on Toronto shooting. Toronto Sun Letter of the Day 2 January Fw: NEWS - USA SW says its not for sale [Fwd: shocking editorial from a vancouver daily] Bill C-68 Shift Magazine How activism and ignorance can look the same ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 07:50:03 -0600 From: "Alan Harper" Subject: Your editorial in Pointblank, Nov., 1999 > Dear Mr. MacKay, > In your editorial in the NFA Pointblank magazine of Nov 1999, you state "the > PC Party has stated unequivocally, that the root causes of firearm related > violence do not lie with the law abiding, firearms owner." > > You then go on to tell us that your party, "passed its own firearms > legislation in 1991, considered one of the most stringent in the world". > Then, you describe several features of your law, bill C-17, all of which are > aimed at the law abiding, firearms owner. I guess you forgot that "the PC > Party has stated unequivocally, that the root causes of firearm related > violence do not lie with the law abiding, firearms owner." > > I will tell you, sir, that I actively supported your party until 1991. Your > party was my party, the only party that supported gun owners. You blew it > in 1991, sir. You screwed your strongest supporters. Now that you are in > the political wilderness, you say, "the PC Party will continue to work on > behalf of all law-abiding gun owners". > > You didn't work on our behalf in 1991. You know the old saying, "once > bitten, twice shy". Or, how about, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me > twice, shame on me." > > I and most other firearms owners are understandably skeptical of your sudden > interest in our welfare. The stab wound in my back from your previous term > in power has not healed and I don't trust you or any other Conservatives. I > don't buy your crocodile tears for us and I won't be supporting you or your > party any more. In fact, I will tell you what I did during the last > election, when I lived in Scarboro. I lived on Eglinton Ave, an area of > high rise apartments. I went from building to building and gathered up all > the Conservative literature and put it in the trash can. > > You could actually win me back to your cause, but you'll have to do much > better than the contradictory double-talk that appeared in Pointblank. > Trust and respect is not something that can be forged in great leaps. It > can only be built in small increments. It can, however, be destroyed in > great leaps, like you did in 1991. I'm 52 now. I don't figure I'll > witness, in my lifetime, enough small increments of trust built between you > and your former supporters. > > Yours truly, > Robert Alan Harper > rharper@cgocable.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 07:51:22 -0600 From: "Scott Carpenter" Subject: British Shotgun Owners Targetted for Tighter Controls > The British are facing even tighter gun controls... http://www.libertyfreepress.com/current/curnews.html#story1 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 07:53:17 -0600 From: MJ Subject: CBC National Magazine 22 Dec. 1999 > This went to CBC news, I will share their reply, if any. > > RE: CBC National Magazine 22 Dec. 1999 > CBC's Washington DC reporter [A.M.T.] was way off base regarding firearms > in the US. Her selective choice of statistics to fit her preconceived > anti-gun > agenda ignores the facts. > > While the media saturates Americans with news of homicides, gun deaths > dropped 2l% from 1993 to 1997, the lowest level in more than 30 years. > Firearm related injuries fell 4l% according to figures provided by the Centers > for Disease Control and Prevention. 2000 looks to be a year in which attacks > on the right to own guns will increase, led by the White House. The claim is > that guns and crime are synonymous, but serious crime in the U.S. > continued its free fall during the first six months of 1999. Murder was > down 13%, compared with the same period in 1998. Property crimes and > burglary dropped 14%. Overall, violent crime was down 8% in the first > months of 1999. > > The continued cry for the registration and increased control of guns, > despite an estimated 20,000 laws currently on the books, ignores a 1996 > study by the University of Chicago Law School that analyzed crime data > from every U.S. county over l5 years and found that violent crime fell > after states made it legal to carry concealed weapons. Those that did, > reduced their murder rates by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by > 7%, and robberies by 3%, A 1997 Justice Department study found that as > many as 1.5 million people use a gun in self-defense every year. It is > estimated this saves society up to $38.9 billion annually. > > While the killings in Columbine High School were a major story, deadly > violence in U.S. schools has decreased in recent years and, despite > continued news of isolated school incidents, 1998-99 may prove to be one > of the safest school years this decade. Data from the Department of > Justice and National School Safety Center supports the fact that schools > remain among the safest places for children. Chances were approximately > one in a million that a youngster would die violently at school. > > Do you think it's possible that CBC might just start reporting the truth about > firearms in the US or Canada? Not likely, as long as they have to lick the > Liberal government hand that feeds them. > > Mike in the Yukon > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 07:54:42 -0600 From: Boris Gimbarzevsky Subject: Re: new anti commercial funded by feds > $6 for an AK-47!!. I'll take 100. I'm happy to do my bit to get these > AK-47's out of the hands of irresponsible gun owners. While it's a big > financial sacrafice, in this case I'm prepared to make the sacrafice of > cash to save some lives in Africa and preserve freedom in Kanada. > Boris Gimbarzevsky ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 07:55:48 -0600 From: "Calvin Martin, QC" Subject: AR15 in 7.62 x 39 > Does anyone have a Colt AR15 in 7.62 x 39 that they are willing to part with. > > Please reply privately. > > Calvin Martin, QC > sgcfire@netrover.com > Sharon Gun Club > http://www.netrover.com/~sgcfire/sgcnr.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 07:39:13 -0600 From: Dan MacInnis Subject: More on Toronto shooting. The black man whom was shot was using a replica firearm, shot by a police sharpshooter as he held a Physician hostage. The demand has increased to ban replica guns as well as operational. I see a domino effect, first Toronto, with 2 to 3 million people banning firearms, then it spreads. To date we have no lobbying at the municipal level (to the best of my knowledge at least). Toronto will have to apply to the province, then, the province to Ottawa I think. They feel legislation exists for the process. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 07:39:11 -0600 From: "Mark L Horstead" Subject: Toronto Sun Letter of the Day 2 January >From the 2 January Toronto Sun letters section http://www.canoe.ca/TorontoSun/editorial.html: LETTER OF THE DAY How to cut violent crime THE CARTOON on the Letters page of the Dec. 26 Sunday Sun was 100% wrong. Shooting is one of the safest sports in Canada. That is why I can buy $2 million worth of public liability insurance for $4.50. In following the thread of the Dec. 26 letters by Bert Van Ingen and Frank Simek, I would like to disagree with your comment that their thinking was wrong. In October, 1997, after a shooter had killed two students at a high school in Pearl, Miss., assistant principal Joel Myrick captured the shooter and held him at gunpoint until the police arrived. An April, 1998 school-related shooting in Edinboro, Pa., which left a teacher dead, was stopped by nearby restaurant owner James Strand, who pointed a shotgun at the shooter as he was reloading his gun. The police did not arrive until 11 minutes later. Most news coverage of these incidents ignored the role of guns in the hands of citizens, ending the bloodshed. In the month following the Mississippi shooting, only 19 of the 687 stories on the incident mentioned Myrick. Some of those said only that he had "disarmed the shooter." In a later story on CBS, Dan Rather noted only that "Myrick eventually subdued the young gunman." Similarly, only 35 of the 596 stories on the Pennsylvania crime mentioned Strand, with the New York Daily News explaining that he had "persuaded (the shooter) to surrender" and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution claiming he had "chased (the shooter) down and held him until police came." After Florida passed a law allowing approved citizens to carry concealed handguns in 1987, its murder rate fell 20% while the national rate rose 14% (Florida went from 36% above the average to 4% below), and handgun-related homicides fell 29%. The Florida result is not an anomaly: violent crime rates are 81% higher in states without laws requiring the issuing of concealed handgun permits on request than those with, and murder rates are 127% higher. Your having the last word does not change the facts. Messrs. Van Ingen and Simek are right. Dr. Jules Sobrian President, Responsible Firearms Owners of Ontario Omemee (We're not talking about sport shooting here, or even the draconian controls on long guns instituted by the federal government. We're talking about handguns and automatic weapons and the way some people would turn Canada into an armed camp like the United States. With all due respect, doctor, your argument is bull) Letters to the editor can be sent to: editor@sunpub.com. Mark L Horstead If it saves just one person from voting lieberal or federal progressive conservative, it's worth it. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 07:30:51 -0600 From: "Mike Hargreaves" Subject: Fw: NEWS - USA SW says its not for sale For your Information. - -----Original Message----- From: SSAA To: ssaa-news@adelaide.on.net Date: Monday, January 03, 2000 5:14 PM Subject: NEWS - USA SW says its not for sale >Handgun maker Smith & Wesson says it not for sale > > >SPRINGFIELD, Mass., Jan 3 (Reuters) - U.S. handgun maker Smith & Wesson >on Monday denied a British newspaper report that it is being put up for >sale by its parent company, the British conglomerate Tomkins Plc. > >``I am told that the people at Tomkins were very surprised at the story >because we are not for sale,'' Ken Jorgensen, a spokesman for Smith & >Wesson, told Reuters. > >The Financial Mail on Sunday newspaper reported that Tomkins had decided >to sell Springfield, Mass.-based Smith & Wesson, one of the oldest and >best-known small arms makers in the world, and that a sale might realize >more than $160 million. > >Tomkins, whose other businesses include a car parts manufacturer and a >bread maker, had no comment on the report. > >Jorgensen said Tomkins may eventually decide to sell the gun maker but >that no talks are in the works. ``Everything is for sale at a price, so >to say that we would never, ever be sold would certainly not be a very >smart statement,'' he said. ``But it is not something that is in the >works.'' > >He added, ``What may have happened (with the newspaper report) is that >Tomkins has been refocusing the company in a couple of specific areas -- >building materials and automotive industry. And I kind of wonder if >someone didn't put two and two together and get six, thinking that Smith >& Wesson isn't either of those, and therefore they must be for sale.'' ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 07:30:56 -0600 From: jim davies Subject: [Fwd: shocking editorial from a vancouver daily] > I never thought I would see the day that a major southam > newspaper would publish an editorial about > the gun registry that was long on information and short on > do-good rhetoric...but they did, and here is a > sample... Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca > > > [headline] The gun registry is an expensive waste > > > > Ottawa has unwittingly spawned a strong gun lobby with > > legislation that will cost taxpayers up to $1 billion over the > > next decade. For all of that, it will have little effect on violent > > crime. > > > > Ottawa's gun registry is a blunt and ineffective tool to control the use of > > guns, reduce criminal activity and help secure our safety... > > > > Although a registry will not help reduce gun violence, the Liberals in > > Ottawa seem determined to establish it to appease the urban voters from > > whom they get their largest block of support... > > > > Meanwhile, it seems reasonable to assume that only law-abiding citizens > > will register their guns and not the criminals at whom the law was aimed. > > After all, criminals' guns of choice are handguns, which have had to be > > registered since 1934, and automatic weapons, which are banned in > > Canada. > > > > What seems to have been forgotten in this debate is that more than 90 per > > cent of the violent crimes committed in Canada do not involve firearms and > > that nearly 80 per cent of firearm-related deaths were suicides. Add to that > > the fact that firearms accounted for only around one per cent of all > > accidental deaths. > > > > The registry has already cost Canadian taxpayers $220 million in start-up > > and operating costs. This huge cost overrun of $75 million has not > > expedited the process. In fact, the application process is painfully slow and > > has a 50-per-cent error rate. The bulk of the guns, however, have not > > been registered... > > > > Meanwhile, police have been diverted from their patrols to do paperwork > > for the registry at a time when Ottawa has been cutting money available for > > policing. The result has been a shortage of police officers in some areas. > > > > Keeping our cities and rural areas safe means not only stopping criminals > > from acquiring weapons, but also on ensuring that criminals do not have the > > opportunity to break the law... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 07:30:48 -0600 From: "Jules Sobrian" Subject: Bill C-68 Dear Mr. Mcguinty, In your address to the Premier of Ontario as quoted in Hansard of Dec 6, 1999, you made the following statement, "In March 1996, Randy Iles went into an Ontario gun shop and bought a gun. At the time he was in a relationship with Arlene May. There were outstanding warrants for his arrests and he was in possession of an invalid firearms acquisition certificate. Later that day, this man murdered Arlene May before turning the gun on himself. If the federal gun law, the one that is before the courts today had been in place, Randy Iles would have been prohibited from making the purchase of that gun that he used that day to kill Arlene May." Since Randy Iles had an invalid Firearms Acquisition Certificate, he was already prohibited from buying a gun at that time. He was not prevented from doing so because the gun shop sold him a gun on the black market, something he could have done on the street, at a bar, or a variety of other illegal places. Under the present legislation, Bill C-68, that hasn't changed. Randy Iles would still be able to buy a gun illegally on the black market. The reason that Randy Iles and others like him get away with their illegal activity is because we do not have the police resources to plug these loopholes in our society. Bill C-68 further promotes this form of illegal activity in three ways: - - The $25 transfer fee encourages people to circumvent the system and invites a black market trade in firearms. - - Hundreds of police officers are taken away from police work to do useless paper shuffling under C-68 - - The excess of $300 million dollars spent so far to hire hacks in Miramichi and Ottawa as well as the additional $60 million per year to run this bureaucracy would be better spent to hire more police officers to remove illegal guns from the hands of real criminals and reduce the black market traffic in firearms. Please explain in detail how Bill C-68 would have made a difference. Yours very truly, Jules Sobrian, MD., Pres. Responsible Firearm Owners of Ontario. cc. Canadian Firearms Digest ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 07:30:59 -0600 From: margus@interlog.com (Margus Jukkum) Subject: Shift Magazine There has been a lot of talk recently in this forum on the influence of video games on youth violence. The December issue of Shift (www.shift.com) - - one of those hip hop Generation X digital culture glossy slick magazines - - has a rather interesting article authored by Clive Thompson entitled "Good Clean Fun?" Basically Thompson is a twentysomething writer who has spent, by his own admission, two decades avidly playing video games, including the most wickedly violent arcade shooters that some blame for warping the minds of youth. He goes down to Mississippi to meet Dave Grossman, an army lietenant and psychologist, author of the 1995 seminal psychological study of killing entitled "On Killing". This past fall Grossman authored a book that raised a lot of controversy called "Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill." In his new book Grossman details how teenage killers like 14 year old Michael Carneal, who in 1997 opened fire on a Kentucky high school prayer meeting killing 3 and paralyzing 1, trained for hours on point and shoot video games. Grossman dosn't get caught up in condemning video games for provoking the violence but rather saw right away that the games are rather similar to what law enforcement agencies and the military use as training tools in teaching soldiers and cops to shoot and kill. He states that "Kids learn these skills in much the same way as astronauts on Apollo 11 learned how to fly to the moon without ever leaving the ground." The proof according to Grossman is in the profusion of recent teenage shootings where kids of limited experience with weapons have displayed surprisingly adept tactical manoevers and shooting skills. Thompson the video game junky tests Grossman's theory at a range in Mississippi. Before Thompson goes to the range he drops into a video arcade in Pearl, Mississippi to warm up. In the arcade he meets a military recruiter out recruiting. Together they enjoy a game of "Machinegunners." According to the recruiter the video game guns have a built in recoil similar to a real M-16. When Thompson meets Grossman on the range and they start shooting on PPC silhouettes, Thompson, never having handled a real gun in his life is able to group his shots all in the centre chest area in the 9 and 10 ring. This unsettles Thompson because he clearly thinks video games don't contribute to teen violence and dosn't quite want to buy into Grossman's theory that video games are murder simulators and we should restrict access to them like we do alcohol, drugs, and pornography. All in all an interesting read and an original take on an issue that's going to percolate into the new millenium. It's certainly got me interested enough to start cruising the arcades on Yonge St and see what's out there. Another night out with the guys from the gun club! Margus Jukkum, Toronto, Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 07:40:57 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: How activism and ignorance can look the same PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Citizen DATE: 1999.12.28 EDITION: FINAL SECTION: News PNAME : The Editorial Page PAGE: A18 COLUMN: Andrew Coyne BYLINE: Andrew Coyne SOURCE: The Ottawa Citizen DATELINE: TORONTO How activism and ignorance can look the same TORONTO - As a supporter of judge-made law, I am naturally sympathetic to Gerry Breitkreuz's complaints. The Reform MP is steamed because, once again, his private member's bill entrenching the right to own property in federal law has been blocked by the Liberal majority in the Commons. It's the third time he has tried, so you can understand his frustration. At least, I can. But what, I wonder, do Breitkreuz's fellow Reformers make of his proposed legislation? It's all very well for the bill to state that ``every person has the right to the enjoyment of that person's property,'' and the right not to be deprived of that property without ``a fair hearing'' and ``fair compensation.'' But the bill goes further. ``Any law of Canada,'' it proclaims, ``that is inconsistent with (this) is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.'' Moreover, ``a person whose rights ... have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the courts consider appropriate.'' Legislation that binds future Parliaments? Unelected courts setting aside laws passed by democratic legislators? Individual rights placed above the public good? Where have we heard all of this before? Yes, that's right: the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- the root of all evil, in Reform liturgy. If that seems to capture the incoherence of today's conservative orthodoxy on the Constitution -- the charter should be abolished, and it should be amended to include property rights -- it is no less a mark of its hypocrisy. The truth is that conservatives are not nearly so exercised about ``the sovereignty of Parliament'' and ``judicial activism'' when it comes to their own pet causes. It's only when the courts act in defence of, say, gay rights or pornography, that conservatives suddenly declare themselves in favour of unlimited legislative authority: what used to be called ``the tyranny of the majority'' when conservatives were in the minority. With the naming of the Supreme Court as Canada's ``newsmaker of the year'' by Time magazine, it's perhaps a good time to remind ourselves of some important logical distinctions, which Charterphobes and judge-bashers so often elide. First, we should distinguish between the odd bad ruling, or even a whole string of them, and any definite tendency to ``judicial activism.'' To defend the court's legitimacy as the body to which the Constitution assigns the task of interpreting, not only the charter, but the rest of the Constitution as well, is not to defend every decision the court makes. But to say that the court's thinking is often deficient is a very different charge than the specific offence of judicial activism -- that is, of ignoring or distorting the intent of legislation to suit the judges' own ideological leanings. Indeed, the court's recent rulings are more alarming for the apparent absence of any principled foundation whatever. For every case in which it slips the traces of the written law -- the secession reference comes to mind - -- there are at least as many where it shows undue deference to the legislatures. Judges make mistakes. So, in case you haven't noticed, do legislatures. Second, we should distinguish between judicial activism and judicial review. The first is a perversion of the Constitution; the second is required by it. To say that judges should not question acts of Parliament, when it is Parliament itself (together with the several provincial legislatures) that has insisted they must, is to ask judges to ignore the will of Parliament: a strange idea, for parliamentary sovereigntists. Judges are unaccountable? Fine: Make judicial appointments subject to parliamentary scrutiny. And third, we should distinguish between the particular failings of the charter -- such as the absence of protection for property rights -- and the general principle of enshrining certain rights in law. When the charter was first debated, conservatives lamented that centuries of judicial interpretation, in the form of the common law, might be set aside by a piece of legislation. Now they complain that legislation can be set aside by judicial interpretation. They're certainly entitled to their opinion. But they should really pick one. Andrew Coyne is a Citizen columnist. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #244 **********************************