Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:54:10 -0600 Message-Id: <200001200054.SAA06120@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 #257 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 Wednesday, January 19 2000 Volume 03 : Number 257 In this issue: Your thoughts on registration reversing the tides FW: Canada - Cost of Firearm Registry V Cancer Research Supreme Court Firearms Reference Missing the Point Clinton wants $280M for gun control fwd: Update on Ruger and gunshows Coalition Letter contained wrong figures ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 19:28:24 -0600 From: "Barry Glasgow" Subject: Your thoughts on registration Gary Gould of Missisauga stated in a letter to Reform MP Breitkreuz; "Yes, we should spend more on cancer search. But we must control access to, and register, guns." Given the harsh realities of federal finances, you obviously can't have both - so choices must be made. How many people do you know have had cancer ? How many have been shot ? Does it make sense to spend so much money on something that is so statistically insignificant at the expense of something that strikes into the heart of most every family ? This does not even consider the fact that the vast majority of gunshot deaths are by choice whereas cancer is not. How does registration of guns stop suicides ? It doesn't. In places with low gun ownership and high suicide (Japan) equally effective methods are substituted. I totally reject your claim that people who commit homicide are normal people who lose it. This is an emotional arguement brought out by gun prohibitionists - not only based on zero fact but contrary to Statistics Canada data clearly showing this to be a fabrication. Up to 80% of murderers have prior criminal records - the vast majority for previous violent offenses. All of these by definition are in possesion of firearms contrary to licensing requirements that have existed for over 20 years. You state; "My only objection is that every cent of the cost of the registration program is not burdened directly to the gun owners. Most of the gun fanciers that I know have all sorts of money to spend on too many expensive guns and ammo, even though they actually use these weapons only for a few days or hours per year. I want you in the "firearms community" to bear all of the costs." This is quite arrogant of you. Who are you to decide that I should pay for your misguided and ineffective scheme ? Besides, the government promised that the so-called solution would not inconvenience owners. This is, of course, another lie since I'm being forced to pay a $25 tax on every trade or gift I might make regarding firearms - even for an old .22 that might only be worth $35. If you spent the hours I have on the phone trying to jump through these bureaucratic hoops, you wouldn't be so cavalier about it. And what of the RCMP verifier who spent over 2 hours of his day verifying my new firearm that had already been checked by the RCMP some 25 years ago ? You then go on to suggest that bolts should be kept in armouries - - an administrative nightmare for already stressed police resources. You admonish Breitkreuz with the following; "I notice that you avoided the subject of suicide by firearms. You evidently believe that a suicidal person should be able to obtain an FAQ, no questions asked, and then stop off at Canadian Tire to purchase the most efficient and effective tool ever devised for killing. Perhaps you don't care about them. But some of them take spouses, ex-spouses, ex-lovers, objects of infatuation, neighours, kids, bosses and co-workers, teachers, students, faculty members, people in line at McDonalds, or public figures with them. And you wouldn't want to impeed their access to those weapons would you? This is typically dishonest of those who reject valid arguements against this particular hare-brained gun control scheme. Not once has Breitkreuz or anyone else suggested that unbalanced people have unfettered access to firearms. This is what happens when you argue too much from emotion rather than fact. You lose track of the fact that we agree with a proper licensing system and that the registration part is the expensive and useless part of the scheme. The only people who cling to such wasteful schemes are those such as yourself who distrust their friends, neighbours and, most likely, even themselves and who have an intense desire to see that only agents of the state and criminals have firearms - all the while deceitfully tip-toeing around the "prohibition" issue with self-proclaimed compromises such as registration, armouries and any other sort bureaucratic nonsense that they hope will discourage good people from owning firearms. You state; "The "firearms community" contends that criminals are the problem, not firearms. But most of the homicides and suicides by firearms are not committed by criminals, but by ordinary people who, for one reason or another, lose it, and have, or can obtain, a gun." This is a lie. Show me where this factoid comes from. You also claim; "Why is it that Preston Manning wants a referendum on capital punishment, but not one on gun control and registration? We both know why. A large majority of Canadians, police associations - rank & file and chiefs, even urban dwelling westerners, support registration." This is also a lie. You believe too much of what your lieing Liberal manipulators tell you. During the 1997 federal election the Canadian Police Association's slogan was "Register Criminals Before Guns" meaning the government should place a higher priority on a DNA data bank than on a firearm registry. Sadly, the DNA data bank legislation has still not been passed. Here are the facts about police opposition to the Firearms Act (Bill C-68): Police Opposed to Bill C-68 * 91% of serving RCMP officers in Saskatchewan opposed; * 85% of serving RCMP officers in Alberta opposed; * 76% of the members of the Saskatchewan Police Federation opposed; * 100% of the 19 Chiefs of Police in the Province of Saskatchewan opposed; * 99% of the members of the Saskatoon City Police Association opposed; * Near unanimous opposition from 51 delegates representing 4,600 OPP officers at a meeting of the Ontario Provincial Police Association; * The Attorney's General of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Yukon opposed; * The Commissioner of the RCMP refused to allow a scientific survey of serving RCMP officers in British Columbia to determine their views on Bill C-68; and * The Canadian Police Association still refuses to conduct a survey of their own members. As for so-called majority opinion of Canadians, followup polls on the issue show that Canadians are misinformed on this. Many believe that before the current regulations, anyone could just walk in and get a gun. They have also had the true costs hidden from them. You conclude; " Reform's clinging to this immature and scary fascination with deadly weapons, and your recalcitrant and expensive reaction to the registration program is one of the reasons why you will never expand your base beyond the west. If you survive at all, it will be only as a rump party. And you deserve it." Your clinging to this immature and scary fear of deadly weapons is the single biggest reason why Canada is stuck with the most absurd and expensive answer to gun crime the world has seen to date. You should be ashamed - and politicizing the arguement only reveals that you are not serious about real solutions. Barry Glasgow Woodlawn, Ont. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 19:27:00 -0600 From: Grant Cowell Subject: reversing the tides you kow it just occured to me, why don't we play the politicans at thier own game? appeal to them to have a public controlled office. what i mean is, take the gun control laws out of the hands of people who are going to abuse them, and give them to people who know what they are doing, Honest responible gun owners. Grant Cowell Alberta ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 19:28:50 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: FW: Canada - Cost of Firearm Registry V Cancer Research - -----Original Message----- From: Peter Cunningham [mailto:lingus@iaa.com.au] Sent: January 17, 2000 6:09 PM To: breitg0@parl.gc.ca Subject: Canada - Cost of Firearm Registry V Cancer Research Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca G'day from Papua New Guinea I am very much involved in the battle to reach people regarding how they are being deliberately manipulated. The firearm issue is but one. I suggest that to make the point - Breitkreuz should mention these gems, extracted from the figures - for they bring into proportion the buggery which is being perpetrated and shuld make people question - at least, those with a brain or part thereof!! PC notes: 192 firearm homicide deaths. Rego wouldn't have stopped 151. Therefore 41 deaths are from other than criminal. Therefore, allocating $130,807,025 to 41 = $3,190,415 Allocating $190,707,071,204 [190.7 BILLION] to Cancer research would be the equivalent. See Excel file in 'shooting' 'Canada' 'General' AND The costs of running the registry is expected to be $60 million annually. That represents $1,004 to each cancer death, and $1,463,415 to each 'preventable' firearm related death. Peter Cunningham lingus@iaa.com.au ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 19:29:37 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Supreme Court Firearms Reference Attached is the list of interveners at the Supreme Court. Alberta and Canada will each have 1 hour to argue and the other parties will have roughly 15 minutes. List of Parties at Supreme Court Against the Legislation 1. Alberta [Appellant] 2. Ontario 3. Manitoba 4. Saskatchewan 5. NWT 6. Yukon 7. New Brunswick 8. Nova Scotia 9. The Shooting Federation of Canada 10. Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations 11. Coalition of Responsible Firearms Owners and Sportsmen (CORFOS) - Responsible Firearms Owners of Alberta - National Firearms Association - Alberta Civil Society Association - Alberta Fish and Game Association - Alberta Arms and Cartridge Collectors Association - Responsible Firearms Owners Coalition of British Columbia - The Sporting Clubs of Niagara - Responsible Firearms Owners of Ontario 12. Law-Abiding Unregistered Firearms Association (LUFA) For the Legislation 13. Canada [Respondent] 14. The Coalition for Gun Control, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the City of Toronto, the City of Montreal, and the City of Winnipeg [Note: Winnipeg is a new addition to this group] 15. The Alberta Council of Women's Shelters 16. L'Association Pour la Santé Publique du Québec Inc. 17. CAVEAT, the Fondation des victimes de 6 décembre contre la violence, Canadian Association for Adolescent Health / Association Canadienne pour la Santé des Adolescents, and the Canadian Pediatric Society ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 19:31:12 -0600 From: Marc Sauve Subject: Missing the Point > My only objection is that every cent of the cost of the registration program is not burdened directly to the gun owners My woes are caused by *your* hysteria. Why should I have to pay for any of it? If you feel that it is vital to you getting a good night's sleep that you know that my rights and freedoms are trampled into the dirt, you should gladly pay for all of it. > I want you in the "firearms community" to bear all of the costs. And I want you to finance > the cost of research to develope a mechanically keyed bolt which would be unique to each gun. Again, you want it.... cough up. Send me my free bolts and I'll use them however I expect you to pay the gunsmith's fees for adjusting the head space, re-lapping the locking lugs, matching the existing finish and reworking the bolts to restore previous custom modifications. Oh - and send one for my auto loading shotgun, my .54 calibre muzzle loader, my .177 pellet gun and for my revolver. You have only managed to demonstrate your profound ignorance on the subject. You fear that which you know nothing about; that is common. Knowledge will set you free. Inform yourself. > I notice that you avoided the subject of suicide by firearms. You evidently believe that a suicidal person > should be able to obtain an FAQ, no questions asked, and then stop off at Canadian Tire to purchase > the most efficient and effective tool ever devised for killing. Firstly, that's an FAC. I believe even suicidal people should have access to Frequently Asked Questions... they might be about depression and what to do to get help. You are naive at best if you think confiscating guns will prevent suicide. A very dear friend of mine and owner of a .38 calibre hand gun committed suicide last May using - a HIBACHI. Ever heard of rope, gasoline, razor blades, sleeping pills, rat poison, broken glass, automobiles, trains, bridges, tall buildings, carbon monoxide, electricity etc...???? You can't stop someone who has decided to end it all. > Perhaps you don't care about them. But some of them take spouses, ex-spouses,ex-lovers, objects of > infatuation, neighours, kids, bosses and co-workers, teachers, students, faculty members, people in line at > McDonalds, or public figures with them. And you wouldn't want to impeed their access to those weapons would > you? More homicides are committed with knives or blunt objects than firearms especially in the context of domestic violence. As to killing others, perhaps guns save lives - imagine if Marc Lepine hadn't had a rifle - What could he have done with 5 gallons of gas and a bic lighter? Or 5 pounds of black powder and an old propane tank full of nails (it costs $20.00/lb and you don't need an FAC)? He could have placed a source of carbon monoxide or chlorine gas into the ventilation... you get the drift. You can't prevent insanity. > But most of the homicides and suicides by firearms are not committed by criminals, but by ordinary people > who, for one reason or another, lose it, and have, or can obtain, a gun. If you commit homicide, you are a criminal not an ordinary person. I have firearms, I have been plenty angry but, in my worst rage, I have NEVER considered using weapons of any kind. > Reform's clinging to this immature and scary fascination with deadly weapons, and your recalcitrant and > expensive reaction to the registration program is one of the reasons why you will never expand your > base beyond the west Hello from North Eastern Ontario. We're here.... Wanna see my Reform Membership Card? It would behoove you to gain more knowledge on the issues before pontificating. You might save yourself from coming off as you did - completely ignorant, hysterical, opinionated and willing to impose views that you have no right to hold on others. See you at the polls... Marc Sauve ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 19:31:37 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Clinton wants $280M for gun control Clinton wants $280M for gun control By Laurence McQuillan, USA TODAY - January 18, 2000 - Updated 08:56 AM ET WASHINGTON - Trying to counter critics who accuse the administration of lax enforcement of gun control laws, President Clinton Tuesday will propose a $280 million funding increase to pay for what his aides call the largest firearms enforcement initiative in U.S. history. Clinton also will announce new Justice Department figures showing a 25% increase in federal firearms prosecutions, from 4,391 in 1998 to 5,500 last year. White House officials acknowledged that the announcements were designed to quell gun control opponents, including National Rifle Association leaders, who complain that prosecution of federal gun control laws has declined 43% under Clinton. ''We're glad that the president finally agreed with the National Rifle Association that enforcing federal firearms laws is a good idea,'' said James Baker, the group's chief Washington lobbyist, ''but we'll monitor what he actually does closely.'' In a speech in South Boston, Clinton will call for $53 million to hire 500 new agents for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The agents would be assigned to crack down on illegal gun traffickers who supply weapons to violent criminals. When Clinton presents Congress his fiscal 2001 budget plan next month, it will include: * $150 million earmarked to hire 100 federal prosecutors to deal with firearms cases and 1,000 state and local prosecutors who would be assigned to prosecute gun violators. * $30 million to create a National Integrated Ballistics Information Network clearinghouse. The move would merge the findings of ballistics testing now conducted by the FBI and ATF. * A $10 million matching fund created to support local campaigns warning of the dangers of gun violence and promoting gun safety. Clinton earlier announced a plan to earmark $10 million for research into the development of ''smart guns'' that could only be fired by their owners or authorized persons. White House officials said Clinton intends to renew his efforts this year to get Congress to pass laws that would require background checks at gun shows, mandate child safety locks for handguns and ban violent youths from owning guns. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 19:32:17 -0600 From: "Rod Regier" Subject: fwd: Update on Ruger and gunshows I just got off the phone with a rep from Rugers legal department, and was given the following info. 1) Ruger has had no change in official policy, the bullshit about eliminating sales at gun shows started with a letter sent from a distributor of Ruger products, to its customers. 2) They were taken by surprise by the stories, and with a lot of staff at the shot show in Vegas, havent yet formulated a response/reply to the press stories, or what to do with the dealer that sent out the letter. 3) Also to note, I called them at 5:00 Monday, and they returned my call at 9:00 Tuesday, the next business day. A pretty good attempt to contact their dealers, I think. So, until I hear differently, This seems to be a divide and conquer strategy by the National Press, and not an attempt by Ruger to stop gun show sales. And when I spoke to them, and the mention that their staff was at the shot show, this thought clicked: Take the biggest manufacturer of guns in the country, run a story that pisses off a lot of their customers,1) on a Friday, 2) when they are unable to formulate a reply, and what do you have? A heck of a lot of people crying dont buy Ruger, (I've seen them here on Rec.guns), without any real information. It sounds like the gun grabbers have hit upon a good strategy, if we cant take them, make the gun nuts refuse to buy them. As far as I can see, it has already worked with Colt... DWF - -- Rod Regier mailto:rsr@hfx.andara.com (902) 453-4733 Halifax, N.S., Canada Lat: 44.6415, Long: -63.6174 Opinions expressed are mine alone. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:53:55 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Coalition Letter contained wrong figures PUBLICATION: The Regina Leader-Post DATE: 2000.01.18 SECTION: View Points PAGE: A6 COLUMN: Letters Letter contained wrong figures About three weeks ago I received a piece of unsolicited mail from the Coalition for Gun Control in Toronto. I imagine hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of households in Canada also received these. The front of the envelope says, "Ten years ago 14 young women were massacred by a man with a gun." This we all remember with sorrow. Following this statement, however, in those same bold letters was: "Since then, 14,000 Canadians have died of gunshots." Doing some quick math, I deduced that this works out to 1,400 a year or almost four people a day killed by gunshots. As this seemed to me quite shock- ing, I decided to do some checking. A phone call to Statistics Canada produced the following. As they did not yet have the data for 1999, I asked for figures from 1989 to 1998. In the 10 years, there were 6,390 homicides in Canada. This included stabbings, bludgeonings, poisonings, and, of course, gunshots. Checking further, I was told that of the 6,390 homicides, only 2,055 were gunshot related. Assuming Statistics Canada is correct, and that is all we have to go by, 2,055 Canadians were killed by gunshot instead of the 14,000 claimed by the Coalition for Gun Control. Granted, there would be gun-related deaths by suicide or accident. I couldn't get information on this, but there is no possible way that the discrepancy in numbers would be filled by these incidents. Based on this information, I think it's scandalous that this group can foist such blatant falsehoods on what they hope is a gullible public, and I don't think they should go unchallenged. Having said all this, I have to admit that I really wasn't completely surprised. The issue of gun control and especially gun registration has been promoted by former justice minister Allan Rock and present Justice Minister Anne McLellan and their cronies and misguided supporters by feeding us false information on costs and results ever since Day One when the dreamers decided to disarm all law-abiding citizens and leave guns in the hands of criminals, policemen and soldiers. Has anyone ever thought of how much housing could be built for the $300 million spent so far on a useless and faulty gun registration program? Don't the lives of the poor and homeless on Toronto's streets count for anything? Along with the mailing I received, was a survey form and a solicitation for donations. The survey was in itself sprinkled with identical falsehoods and I won't bother returning it, as I am sure the organization will destroy all unfavourable ones and claim some fantastic responses on the ones that agree with them. As for a donation, I don't care to support any organization that spreads false propaganda, as this one obviously does, with impunity. I hope the tone of this letter doesn't make me seem a callous and uncaring individual as far as gun-related deaths are concerned. Hunters and legitimate gun owners are as concerned as anyone else about unnecessary violent deaths. They are in favour of reasonable and sensible gun control such as has been in effect in this country for years, and if they felt gun registration would be effective at all, they would be in favour of it also. They feel, however, the money spent on what has proven to be a bureaucratic nightmare could be put into more police resources to combat crime and in the long run save more lives than the latest government initiatives. Toby Tokaruk Canora ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #257 **********************************