Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:45:42 -0600 Message-Id: <200001151445.IAA32242@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 #252 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 Saturday, January 15 2000 Volume 03 : Number 252 In this issue: IT IS TIME TO TAKE IT TO THE POLITICIANS Liberals spent 8 times more on gun registry than on cancer COMMUNIQUE-14_janvier_2000 Letter to the editor (Star Phoenix, Jan. 11, 2000) AOL and firearms Reporting mentally unstable patients Refused FAC's CILA Letter to the Fredericton Daily Gleaner Editor ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 10:01:38 -0600 From: "george w. s. adair" Subject: IT IS TIME TO TAKE IT TO THE POLITICIANS > I have been reading the mailings that have shown up on this digest with > increasing interest.While I have been disappointed at times with the name > calling and the inferred back stabbing I would like to acknowledge the work > that has gone into the digest so far.I know that I am not a regular > submitter to this digest but I have always read it.There are probably > several of us out there who only submit one or maybe two items a year. > Now down to what I feel is the time for the next step. We all should now > begin to bombard our members of parliament in both provincial and federal > politics with our feelings on this subject. My suggestion is to send an > e-mail to at least one MP each and every time we read the current digest. > Please, though don't just state how much we dislike the firearms registry > because then I feel they will write us off. State your objections but most > of all tell them you and all of us as well will not vote for any MP or any > party that allows or intends to take away any more of our freedoms for > their misguided assumption that only they know what is right and proper for > the Canadian population, better known as us the 7 to 8 million voters and > taxpayers that will be affected by this ill conceived law. These are the > two sites I have found that have the e-mail addresses of all the MP's of > both Governments > http://www.gov.mb.ca/leg-asmb/dir/mla.html > http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/senmemb/house/MemberList > I started the ball by sending this to Mr. Pat Martin my MP and will send > one every time I am on. > Mr. Martin; I and the rest of the 7 million members of the firearms owning > voting and tax paying public have decided to place you and all your fellow > MP's on notice. > The Canadian Firearms Act( still commonly referred to as Bill C-68)is > seriously flawed in that it does not address the true problem with violent > crime in Canada. The majority of firearms owners are not the crazed people > so often depicted in the advertisements that show up from time to time on > the news and T.V. but are people like myself who enjoy the challenges of > hunting( I have gone home with an empty tag far more then with a full tag > in 26 years) This bill will cost the Canadian taxpayer Billions of dollars > and will do nothing to stop the tragic deaths that happen when any person > decides to take another person's life. A better approach to this would have > been to enforce the laws that were already in place and make mandatory > minimum sentences with no plea bargains or chances of parole part of any > criminal act where violence has been threatened or occurred. > We will no longer talk quietly among ourselves but will let all our > politicians in all our provincial and federal governments know that we will > not vote for any of those politicians that unilaterally support any > legislation that does little or nothing to improve the lives of all Canadians. > Sorry for the length. Good luck to us all > > Thank you all for making me aware of my civic duty as a citizen of this > country. > George W. S. Adair > Just because a dog licks your hand doesn't mean he won't bite you if you > touch his bowl! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:16:36 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Liberals spent 8 times more on gun registry than on cancer > NEWS RELEASE > > January 14, 2000 > For Immediate Release > > LIVES LOST BY UNDERFUNDING CANCER RESEARCH AMOUNTS TO CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE > "In 1998/99, the Liberals spent 8 times more on their gun registration > scheme than on cancer research." > > Yorkton - Today, Garry Breitkreuz, MP for Yorkton-Melville and Official > Opposition Firearms Critic, circulated a chart with Statistics Canada's most > recent mortality statistics (e-mail, call or write for a copy - see numbers > below). The chart provides a unique comparison between the number of deaths > and the frequency of occurrence for selected causes of death for the year > 1997. For example, 59,775 Canadians died of cancer in 1997. That's one > cancer death every nine (9) minutes or 163 cancer deaths per day. Compare > this to 192 firearm homicides or one death every 2 days. "Reading the > chart, logic would dictate that government spending should be highest in > those areas that are causing the most deaths," said Breitkreuz. "Sadly, > that's not the case. The 'What is Killing Canadians' chart reveals that the > government's obsession with gun registration is terribly misguided." > > Breitkreuz used a research paper prepared for him by the Library of > Parliament to illustrate his point (e-mail, call or write for a copy - see > numbers below). "Approximately, 60,000 victims die of cancer annually yet > in 1998/99 the federal government invested a paltry $16,187,921 for cancer > research. Fewer than 200 people a year die in firearms homicides yet in > 1998/99 the government wasted $130,807,025 to implement their controversial > gun registry. Does that make any sense to anyone, let alone cancer patients > and their families?" asked Breitkreuz. > > "It will become more shocking when the Liberals finally wake up to the fact > that registering guns wouldn't have stopped even one of the 151 murders > committed with firearms in 1998. Cancer research saves the lives of many - > gun registration doesn't save any. It's negligence of the highest order > when pursuing political whims takes priority over spending on lifesaving > public health programs. It's criminal that the government wastes hundreds > of millions on a useless gun registry when the money could have been saving > hundreds, maybe thousands, of lives by investing it in cancer research." > > "The Prime Minister and his Cabinet are responsible for making the tough > decisions about spending your hard-earned tax dollars where they will do the > most good. The Liberals are desperately trying to convince Canadians that > the more than $300 million spent so far on their politically-motivated gun > registry plus spending $60 million a year for at least the next ten years, > will save the most lives. Thanks to this new information, Canadians now > know better than that," concluded Breitkreuz. > > > Note: "What is Killing Canadians" chart was prepared and distributed by > the Canadian Institute for > Legislative Action > > For more information, please call: > Yorkton Office: (306) 782-3309 > Ottawa Office: (613) 992-4394 > e-mail: breitg0@parl.gc.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:19:38 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: COMMUNIQUE-14_janvier_2000 > > COMMUNIQUÉ > > 14 janvier 2000 > Pour diffusion immédiate > > LES PERTES DE VIES DÉCOULANT DE L'INSUFFISANCE DU FINANCEMENT DE LA > RECHERCHE SUR LE CANCER SONT DUES NI PLUS NI MOINS À DE LA NÉGLIGENCE > CRIMINELLE > «En 1998-1999, les Libéraux ont consacré huit fois plus d'argent à leur > programme d'enregistrement des armes à feu qu'à la recherche sur le cancer.» > > Yorkton - Le député de Yorkton-Melville et critique de l'opposition > officielle en matière d'armes à feu, M. Garry Breitkreuz, a mis en > circulation un diagramme (ci-joint) avec les plus récentes statistiques > produites par Statistique Canada concernant la mortalité. On y compare de > façon particulière le nombre de décès survenus et la fréquence de certaines > causes de mortalité en 1997. Par exemple, 59 775 Canadiens sont décédés du > cancer cette année-là, soit une personne à toutes les neuf minutes (ou 163 > par jour), comparativement à un total pour l'année de 192 décès par armes à > feu (homicides), ou un décès aux deux jours. «Si l'on examine le diagramme, > logiquement, le gouvernement devrait dépenser davantage là où il survient le > plus de décès», de dire M. Breitkreuz, «mais malheureusement, tel n'est pas > le cas. Ce diagramme (What is Killing Canadians) révèle que l'obsession du > gouvernement en faveur de l'enregistrement des armes à feu est très > malavisée». > > M. Breitkreuz s'est servi d'un document de recherche (ci-joint) préparé pour > lui par la Bibliothèque du Parlement pour faire la preuve de ce qu'il > avançait. «Environ 60 000 personnes meurent chaque année du cancer. > Pourtant, en 1998-1999, le gouvernement fédéral n'a investi qu'une maigre > somme de 16 187 921 $ dans la recherche sur le cancer. Cette année-là, les > homicides par armes à feu ont entraîné le décès de moins de 200 personnes, > ce qui ne l'a pas empêché de gaspiller 130 807 025 $ dans son projet > controversé d'enregistrement des armes à feu. Cela est-il sensé, à fortiori > pour les personnes atteintes de cancer et leurs familles?» s'est demandé M. > Breitkreuz. > > «La situation ne fera qu'empirer jusqu'à ce que les libéraux finissent par > comprendre que l'enregistrement des armes à feu n'aurait pu empêcher aucun > des 151 meurtres commis en 1998. La recherche sur le cancer permet de sauver > beaucoup de vies, l'enregistrement des armes, aucune. On peut qualifier de > négligence grave le fait d'accorder la priorité à des caprices politiques > plutôt qu'à des programmes de santé publics mis en place pour sauver des > vies. Le gouvernement commet un crime en gaspillant des centaines de > millions de dollars dans un programme inutile d'enregistrement des armes, > alors qu'il pourrait consacrer ces sommes à la recherche sur le cancer et > assurer la survie de centaines, voire de milliers de personnes.» > > «Le premier ministre et son cabinet doivent prendre des décisions difficiles > sur la répartition la plus efficace des vos impôts. Le libéraux tentent > désespérément de convaincre les Canadiens qu'il sera possible d'épargner > davantage de vies avec les 300 millions de dollars qui ont été dépensés > jusqu'ici, ainsi qu'avec les 60 millions de dollars qui seront investis > annuellement pendant au moins dix années encore, dans le cadre de leur > programme d'enregistrement des armes à feu qui vise des objectifs purement > politiques. Mais, ces nouveaux éléments d'information permettent aux > Canadiens d'être mieux renseignés», devait conclure M. Breitkreuz. > > -30- > > Nota : Le diagramme «What is killing Canadians» a été produit et distribué > par le Canadian Institute for Legislative Action > > Pour obtenir de plus amples renseignements : > Bureau de Yorkton : (306) 782-3309 > Bureau d'Ottawa : (613) 992-4394 > Courriel : breitg0@parl.gc.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:28:33 -0600 From: Alfred Hovdestad Subject: Letter to the editor (Star Phoenix, Jan. 11, 2000) > RE: Gun Registry Not Hurting RCMP > > Louis Cormier's article on Bill C-68 is another attempt by the Canadian > Firearms Centre (CFC) to deceive the public into believing that the > registration of firearms is both cost-effective and a benefit to > society. > > Louis claims that the firearms registry is saving police departments $30 > million dollars annually. The question "At what cost?" has to be asked. > Garry Breitkreuz (M.P. Yorkton-Melville) has documented that the > firearms registry has cost over $300 million dollars since it started in > 1995, a far cry from the $85 million over five years as promised by > Allan Rock. > > The Liberal government refuses to release the actual budget for the CFC. > In a recent Access to Information request, Garry asked for the proposed > budget for the firearms centre. The document that he received had all > of the dollar amounts blanked out. > > Louis claims that the firearms registry will provide police officers > with ``useful information'' in their day-to-day work. However, he > cannot guarantee that the firearms registry will tell police officers > what firearms they will encounter at a residence, only what they > ``could'' come across. > > Louis goes on to claim that the firearms registry has blocked 216 sales > of firearms (out of 35,000 sales). However, the registration of > firearms had nothing to do with it, these sales were blocked by the > licensing of the individuals. Registration of the firearm takes place > after the sale is approved. > > Louis ends his article with the claim that ``this is just a beginning.'' > I have to wonder, "The beginning of what?" > > Alfred Hovdestad > Saskatoon > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:32:59 -0600 From: "Andrew Amelia (Maj12)" Subject: AOL and firearms > Here's the reply I got from AOL when I complained about their stance on firearms > and their refusal to host firearm related sites. > > ----------original message---------- > From: aamelia@stclairc.on.ca > To: searchfeed@aol.com > > I find it disgusting and abhorable that you do not allow firearms sites on aol. > Do you ban car > sites because thousands are killed by drunk drivers every year?!? I will never > deal with aol > and will tell all my friends and family to boycott aol. > REPLY: > > Dear aamelia, > > I am writing to you on behalf of America Online Instant Messenger Service in > response to your recent Email. > Thank you for taking the time to write with your concerns about search results on the America > Online (AOL) feature, AOL Search. > > I want to personally apologize for your frustration and for any inconvenience you are feeling with this feature. > > Your opinion makes a difference. Contained in the information below are > instructions about how > you can contribute directly to AOL Search. > > Your satisfaction with the service is my number one priority. > > AOL Search looks for three main things: > > Categories > Sites on AOL > Sites on the Web > > For the first two of these, AOL searches for matches in its database and then > ranks the results > in order of most relevant to least relevant. > > AOL Search uses a unique relevancy ranking that delivers the most relevant > results. The first > 10 results returned to you would most closely match the subject you are > searching. > > There are almost 1 million Web sites categorized within AOL Search. If what you > are looking for > is missed in the organized catalog of 1 million Web sites, the search engine > will automatically > search the complete text of AOL and the rest of the Internet for you. > > AOL is proud to use the Open Directory Project (DMOZ) as its backbone. The Open > Directory > Project has over 800,000 web sites, collected and organized by more than 14,000 > expert editors > worldwide, with more than 3,000 new sites added daily. > > I want to personally invite you to bring your experience and input to the Open > Directory > Project. > > As the web grows, automated search engines and directories with small editorial > staffs will be > unable to cope with the volume of sites. The Open Directory Project's goal is to > produce the > most comprehensive directory of the web, by relying on a huge team of volunteer > editors. > > You can make a difference; signing up is easy! > > Just go to the Open Directory Project's Web site below and click on the Become > an Editor link: > > http://www.dmoz.org > > AOL Search is the one place where you can simultaneously search all of AOL and > the rest of the > Internet. AOL Search uses the same independently maintained directory of > information as the > following search engines: All the Web, AltaVista, DejaNews, Dogpile, EuroFerret, > EuroSeek, > Excite, Google, GoTo, HotBot, Infind, Infoseek, Lycos, MetaCrawler, Netscape, > Northern Light, > WebCrawler, and Yahoo. > > Again, I want to personally apologize for your frustration with AOL Search. > Thank you for using America Online Instant Messenger Service. > > Chris S > > Customer Care Consultant > America Online, Inc. > -- > Drew Amelia(Maj12) > 3rd Year Computer Science > St. Clair College of Applied Arts & Technology > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:35:06 -0600 From: "bobwall" Subject: Reporting mentally unstable patients > > > The coroner's inquest into the OC Transpo shooting in Ottawa last year > > > started this week. This CBC TV program posed the question : "How can > > > mentally ill people be stopped from having firearms?". All people > > > interviewed basically said that laws should be introduced to > > > force doctors to contact police if their patient is mentally > unstable > > My concern with the issue of Doctors reporting patients who are > mentally ill, is that there is too fine a line between knowing what a > person will do and guessing what a person could do. I forsee that many > people suffering from depression would cease to seek medical care, if > they knew that they could potentially lose their firearms based on a > doctor's "guess"...even though most people would probably be more > responsible with the safety and care of a firearm under medical > treatment, then the ones who forgo treatment. I know if I were in that > position and actually owned firearms, then I would probably not seek > medical care. > As well, who's to stop Doctors who are against firearms in general, > to report every patient, just to get rid of their firearms? There are > still many Doctors who work the front lines in Emerg. rooms that are > misinformed about gun control due to the fact they are only seeing the > bloody result of firearms related incidents, and not looking at the > social and political impact of Bill C-68 and how it is actually aiding > in the availability of blackmarket firearms sales, which in turn will > probably up the crime level. > > Kate Johnson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:43:21 -0600 From: "Bert van Ingen" Subject: Refused FAC's > An aquaintance of mine was turned down for the new FAC. On my advice he > applied for the first time on Nov 31 1998. On the grounds of previous > "impaired driving convictions" he was denied the ability to obtain an > FAC and consequently told of the upcoming "prohibition order" and > consequent "confiscation" once the Court denial was upheld. He is an > ordinary working stiff, keen hunter and fisherman with no political > affiliation and not particularly endowed with surplus money, and very > hesitant about lawyers. He was quite upset and joined the NFA and phoned > 1-888-GUN-LOSS. When the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police "Goons" > themselves "offered" to forward his 30 day appeal ( and the victim has > no choice), things didn't look good. The billable hours and grounds > "Your Honour we are are suggesting you deny the defendent the right to > own a gun because we at Regional Police have already decided he has been > denied the right to own a gun" are staggering. He won but it cost him a > pile of money. The Crown was infinitely less versed in the new laws than > was his counsel. Somewhere in that pile of FAC applications at > Mirimachi my buddy is still a free man (the thoroughly intimidated > Canadian version). In the meantime there was the usual flurry of intense > and private activity to ensure that any possible attempt at gov't > confiscation was merely an academic exercise. This whole exercise was > "complete bull" and took up 10's of thousands of dollars of gov't > time (and non-taxpaying defendent's time) for no benefit other than "C68 > cover your ass". I am embarrassed to admit to paying taxes to support > all this. Bert van Ingen ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:45:40 -0600 From: Al Dorans Subject: CILA Letter to the Fredericton Daily Gleaner Editor > CILA / ICAL > Defending Canada's Heritage > --------------------------------------------- > Letter to the Fredericton Daily Gleaner Editor > > "Canadians deserve to know the truth" > > Re. "Firearms program already paying dividends" (Jan. 11), when was the > last time Canadians received truthful information from the Canadian > Firearms Center? The CFC guaranteed that the gun registry would cost $85 > million over 5 years and would be scrapped at $150 million. Even when its > own department admitted to spending $316 million, the CFC continued to > deceive the public that costs were $120 million. It neglected to mention > 172 pages of additional hidden costs invoked under cabinet secrecy. To > minimize political damage, the CFC claimed 2 million gun owners in Canada > when government surveys proved 7 million. To understate costs, it claimed > 7 million firearms when there were 21 million. The CFC failed to mention > 2 national gun registries, particularly the separate Quebec registry paid > for by the rest of Canada. > > To justify its own existence, the CFC spun the illusion that the gun > registration system is working. Balderdash! It is a colossal mess, > riddled with holes and out of control. The Internet reveals daily that the > Registry is rife with mismanagement, confusion, harassment, red tape, > cover-ups, incompetence, errors, incessant delays and excessive waste. The > government's user group predicted a 50% error rate in the data bank, making > it useless to police. In fact, Canada's 1600 pages of complex gun laws are > so poorly written that bureaucrats are advising gun owners to break the law > through official misdirection. A secret RCMP report predicted 10% > compliance with gun registration. If guns are registered, criminals will > know specifically where to steal them and where to break into unprotected > homes. > > Canadians have been absolutely duped by Bill C-68's inflated statistics, > flawed surveys, politicized polls and fraudulent research. The governments > of 6 provinces and 3 territories, representing 58-70% of Canadians, are > absolutely opposed to C-68 and have taken their case to the Supreme Court > to see it scrapped. Instead of wasting $3.5 billion over-regulating > responsible firearms owners for no gain in reduced crime or saved lives, > that money should be redirected to saving 60,000 lives every year. > > Statistically, the safest people in society are responsible firearms > owners. They can obtain $5 million in liability insurance for only $3. > The CFC foolishly targets honest folks while criminals laugh all the way to > the banks. Commenting on the calibre of information emanating from the CFC > through Communications Director Jean Valin, reporter Lorne Gunter stated > "I don't believe a word of what this man says." > > > Professor Al Dorans > Director of Operations, Ottawa Office > > Canadian Institute for Legislative Action / Institut Canadien pour l'Action > Législative > > National Office: > P.O.Box 44030, 600 Grandview St. S. Oshawa, ON. L1H 8P4 > Ph: (905) 571-2150 Fax: (905) 436-7721 e-mail: teebee@sprint.ca > > Ottawa Office: > 27 Cedar Grove Crt. Nepean, ON. K2G 0M4 > Ph: (613) 828-8805 Fax: (613) 828-6967 e-mail: aldorans@magma.ca > > Home: http://www.cila.org > > A proud member of the > World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities / Forum du Monde sur le > Futur d'Activités des Sports des Armes à Feu ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #252 **********************************