Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 07:44:48 -0600 Message-Id: <200001201344.HAA03016@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 #258 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 Thursday, January 20 2000 Volume 03 : Number 258 In this issue: Gun Control Issues beating up the taxpayer Fwd: [chat] RE: Project Al Reporting is misleading [none] Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #257 Sec: Unclas RE: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #257 [Fwd: Project Al] Confiscating guns ineffectual ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 07:39:15 -0600 From: Peter Cronhelm Subject: Gun Control Issues > - -----Original Message----- > From: Gary Gould [mailto:glgould@interlog.com] > Sent: January 17, 2000 6:03 PM > To: breitg0@parl.gc.ca > Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca > > Yes, we should spend more on cancer search. But we must control access > to, and register, guns. Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Why? You make this statement as if it were a universal truth. Make a decent argument as to WHY we must register guns using provable FACTS and maybe we could be pursauded to listen. > 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. And I want you to finance > the cost of research to develope a mechanically keyed bolt which would > be unique to each gun. Law abiding gun owners are not the problem, we are not committing crimes and killing people so WHY on earth should we pay a cent to assuage the unreasonable, politically correct fears of those who know nothing of firearms and firearms safety issues? Make the criminals pay as they are the ones causing all the problems. I don't care if you are ignorant of the facts and thus afraid of my guns and I won't pay huge dollars to support a useless registry and licencing sceme drawn up in some fetid liberal swamp of a brain to court public opinion without actually tackling the root causes of our social problems. > The keyed bolt would be kept locked at armouries > and outfitters where you could pick them up for the few days when you > actually hunt. Farm families, and those living outside cities and, more > than, say, 15 km. from a police station, would be allowed to keep one > gun and its keyed bolt on their premises, but it still must be > registered. This of course will completely solve the non-existant firearms problems of Canada as ALL criminals will immediately register or turn in their illegally held firearms and all smugglers will declare their gun shipments at the border. The genie is out of the botle now and it has been out for a few hundred years so it will be mighty difficult to stuff his lardbutt ass back into that itsy bitsy bottle. Lets take off the rose coloured glasses shall we and take a look at the real world? Best wishes will not solve any problems, only realistic and pragmatic plans will make our country a better place to live. It is unrealistic to expect to be able to ban guns and live in a peaceful utopia where everyone is nice. > 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? Suicides account for more than 3/4's of the firearms related deaths in Canada. Many scientific studies have shown that the suicide rate is not affected or even linked to the firearms ownership rate. For example the suicide rate in Japan is much higher than in Canada yet private firearms ownership is almost unheard of in Japan. Switzerland has a lower suicide rate than Canada yet a much higher firearms ownership rate than we do. So one might ask what is the point of spending BILLIONS of tax dollars on an ill considered scheme which will have NO net effect on the rate of suicides? This sort of money put into our medical system would surely save thousands of lives and be well spent instead of wasted in the black hole of gun control. > 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. REALLY? And you have what evience to support this? Or is this one of those unsupported "facts" which "Everybody knows?" Legitimate gun owners are considered SO safe that we can purchase $5 million insurance for less than $5 to cover ALL our shooting activities. How much do you pay for your car insurance? Insurance companies don't care about political correctness, they only care about profit and they are not losing money by offering so much insurance for such a low rate. Only the federal government thinks firearms owners are dangerous. > 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. > > Gary Gould > Mississuaga It must be nice to feel so SUPERIOR to the rest of us red-neck hacks from your Ontario Liberal enclave. Peter Cronhelm PS Appologies to all the Ontarians who do not think like our friend Gary. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 07:39:40 -0600 From: Jim Davies Subject: beating up the taxpayer On Wed, 19 Jan 2000, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > > 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. > This ignores the fundamental wishes of the lieberals: They love criminals, its the taxpayer they want to beat up and control. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 07:40:48 -0600 From: "Tom Zinck" Subject: Fwd: [chat] RE: Project Al Reporting is misleading This is a minor victory, but it shows that you CAN make a difference when you stand up for what you beleive in !! - -Tom >To: gdennis@globaltv.ca >CC: progers@globaltv.ca, milczare@globaltv.com, hickey@globaltv.com >Subject: [chat] RE: Project Al Reporting is misleading >Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 21:07:16 EST > >Mr. Dennis : > >On behalf of the Recreational Firearms Community of Canada, I would >like to thank-you for making this correction on your WWW >page. > >It is important that the public realize that %99.99 of firearm >owners are responsible, law-abiding and trustworthy people. > >Could you please inform me when the on-air correction will be broadcast? > >Once again thanks for correcting the inaccuracies in your reporting. > >If you would ever like subject-matter experts on gun control in Canada feel >free to contact the National Firearms Association at : (780) 439-1394. >> >cheers, > >Tom Zinck >>From: Greg Dennis >>To: 'Tom Zinck' >>Subject: RE: Project Al Reporting is misleading >>Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:59:37 -0500 >> >>Yep, excellent point. we made the change online. Thanks. >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Tom Zinck [mailto:tom_zinck2@hotmail.com] >>Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 12:30 PM >>To: progers@globaltv.ca; globalnews.tor@globaltv.com; >>Subject: Project Al Reporting is misleading >> >> >>Dear Sir : >> >>I watched your Jan 18, 2000, 11 pm news article on "Project Al". >>Throughout this program it is consistently mentioned that the police >>are >> looking for firearms, not just the illegal ones. I consider >>this >>irresponsible reporting. Not ONCE was it mentioned by your >>staff that the police were looking for only illegal firearms. >> >>You must remember that there may be people living in that neighborhood >>that are part of the 7 million people in Canada that >> legally own >>firearms. >> >>Here is a quote from your WWW page : >> >>http://toronto.globaltv.com/ont/news/stories/news-20000119-041311.html >> >>"Police are putting up posters in schools. They are asking >>residents to turn in people who have guns and say cash rewards could be >>available. " >> >>To be accurate this should say "illegal" guns or something else to >>distinguish between people who legally and safely enjoy the shooting >>sports and criminals who own firearms. >> >>You may be opening up yourself for lawsuits if a law-abiding owner of >>firearms gets raided because of an anonymous tip prompted by your >>inaccurate program. >> >>I suggest that you immediately correct this error on TV, as well as in >>your online news service. >> >>I will also be requesting that the CRTC review your reporting on this >>story. >> >>Regards, >> >>Tom Zinck ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 07:41:20 -0600 From: Libbie3540@aol.com Subject: [none] Hi: We recently (Dec) purchased a long gun in Bellingham wash, and had it delivered to the border, where we paid PST, and duty on it and took it home from there. we had a valid FAC and had no problems, and yes the store in Bellingham ran a check as they had forms etc. there. they would not let us take the gun from the store but offered a service to the border for $20.00 US. the whole experience was very painless and quick. Libbie ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 07:42:52 -0600 From: "dwbaker" Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #257 Valid period for ATT in Alberta I also received an ATT valid until 30 November,2000,after requesting one for 3years. The answer I received for this was that all ranges had untill Nov 30 ,2000 to be recertified and since they don't know which ones will be approved after this date yet,they would not give a longer valid period on an ATT. I was assured that after Nov 30 the renewals would be for a three year period if you showed a membership valid for 3 years. Dave - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cdn-Firearms Digest" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 6:01 PM Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #257 > > Cdn-Firearms Digest Wednesday, January 19 2000 Volume 03 : Number 257 > > > > In this issue: > [none] > Re: NFA RED WARNING - not anymore > Volley of shots was fired from automatic weapons > Gun ownership down, gun crime up > GUN LOVERS URGED TO BECOME POLITICAL > Is There a Connection between Shootings and Antidepressants? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:55:59 -0600 > From: lundgark@telusplanet.net > Subject: [none] > > At 07:25 PM 18/01/2000 -0600, you wrote: > >For those of you that want to renew your permit to transport restricted > >weapons and grandfathered prohibited weapons, you have to fill out an > >application form and send it to your Provincial Firearms Officer. > >This year it seems you can apply to have the permit valid for 3 years. > >The form is available for download in Adobe Acrobat format from the > >Federal Firearms Web Page. The following address takes you right to the > >forms download page. > > > >http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/forms_assistance/Forms/forms_avail_en.html > > Yes, you can apply for a three year permit. In Alberta it won't be > issued. > > Also some permits being issued in Alberta do not seem to cover > registered > restricted rifles, > nor do they cover borrowed restricted firearms. > Nor do the permits seem to be consistant in their wording and what is > allowed... > > The kind folks at the CFC informed me how to fill out my application for > an > ATT and assured me there was no reason not to issue a three year ATT. > The ATT issued to me expires as of November 30/2000 even though I > applied > for the three year maximum and my F.A.C. is valid for that period of > time. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:57:41 -0600 > From: Andy Krywonizka > Subject: Re: NFA RED WARNING - not anymore > > Dave Tomlinson did knowingly scribble: > > >DANGER. Telling the verifier ANYTHING makes YOU subject to 5 years in > >prison, because under FA s. 106 and 109, it is an offence if a person > >"knowingly makes a statement, orally or in writing, that is false or > >misleading" in the process of applying for a registration certificate. > > Dave, recently I received a letter to verify the Browning 9mm I > purchased > had the same specs as what was listed on the sheet, that being barrel > length, caliber, serial number, etc. Sending this back, signed and > dated, > would then get me my registration certificate. At the bottom of the > sheet > was the warning: > > "It is an offence to knowingly make a false or misleading statement, > either > orally or in writing..." > > They've caught on. > > Andy K. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: 2000.01.19 > From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" > Subject: Volley of shots was fired from automatic weapons > > gunfire during an ambush Sunday. His employee, Niv Erez, was killed on > the > spot. > Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca > Precedence: normal > Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca > > Jewel thieves 'had their guns out'; Assailants crashed through ceiling > in > ambush, police say > > The gunmen who killed a jewelry store worker and seriously wounded the > owner > both fired their weapons after confronting the men inside the store, > police > sources say. .................................snip (moderator).......................... > starting point is to check for and treat hypothyroidism. After doing so, > most individuals find that the "fog" they've been living in seems to > clear > away. They also find that they have more energy and less fatigue. > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 07:43:25 -0600 From: SHEPPARD Greg Subject: Sec: Unclas RE: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #257 > 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." > A bit of experience from one who has been through it.... Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Registration IS Confiscation. Nothing more. Nothing less. Even before Port Arthur, shooters in Western Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia who, being the law-abiding citizens that Recreational Firearms Owners have always been, registered their firearms in good faith 'for the good of society' ALL had certain firearms which became _evil_ - AFTER registration. Many still haven't seen any compensation - IF any was offered in the first place. And the armed crime rate? Up, and still going up! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 07:44:11 -0600 From: mike grinnell Subject: [Fwd: Project Al] Hello, thanks for your note. We've heard from many people today who felt we should have prefaced the word "guns" with "illegal", "restricted", or "unregistered". Point taken. But in the context of the story, we made it very clear what kind of guns we were talking about. One officer was interviewed saying "If we can take a gun away our job." AS you heard in the story, after many shots were fired in the neighborhood, only two people called police to report it. The story is that police want to know about ALL the guns in north Etobicoke--it is a unique area with a serious problem. If you think feel police are wrong to ask people to tell them about neighbours who have guns, don't blame us. Take it up with the police. Thanks again for your note, we appreciate your feedback. Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Best Regards, Paul Rogers News Director - -----Original Message----- From: mike grinnell [mailto:mike.grinnell@sympatico.ca] Sent: January 19, 2000 4:36 PM To: globalnews.tor@globaltv.com Subject: Project Al Dear Sirs - I believe your station owes a huge apology to the several million law-abiding firearms owners in Canada for the impressions you gave in your coverage of Project Al. M. Grinnell, Haliburton, Ontario. ------------------------------ Date: 2000.01.20 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Confiscating guns ineffectual Confiscating guns ineffectual: British example proves that reducing firearms does not cut crime Through the summer of 1997, the owners of large-calibre handguns in Britain were forced to surrender their guns to the government. During February of 1998, owners of small-calibre handguns were compelled to do the same. The day before this ``hand-in'' concluded, junior Home Office Minister Alan Michael preened that Britain was now free of civilian handguns. ``I believe (the hand-in) has put a firm brake on the development of a dangerous gun culture in the U.K.'' Of course, it had done nothing of the sort. The truly dangerous gun culture in the U.K. -- the criminal gun culture -- wasn't affected a whit. Michael primped that ``a total ban reduces (the) risk ... (of) legally held handguns falling into the wrong hands.'' While perhaps true in some completely theoretical, other-worldly sense, this is entirely irrelevant. What matters to public safety is that no drug dealer, no mob enforcer, not even a single armed robber was denied a gun by the hand-in. The confiscation may have prevented criminals from stealing the tools of their trade, but it hardly made it impossible for them to acquire guns. Last Sunday, The Times of London revealed just how available guns are to criminals. ``Up to 3 million illegal guns are in circulation in Britain,'' The Times reported, which has led to a startling rise ``in drive-by shootings and gangland-style executions,'' as well as more mundane gun crimes such as corner store hold-ups and muggings. In the first year after the surrender of civilian handguns, armed crime in Britain rose 10 per cent. It went up, not down. And just as important, its composition is changing. Where as in the early 1990s, one-third of gun murders in Britain were committed with handguns, now nearly two-thirds are. (There has been a similar change in Canada, too. Handguns were used until recently in about one-third of murders, but are now used in nearly 60 per cent.) A buy-back of firearms in Australia the same year had the same effect as Britain's hand-in: Gun crimes soared in the 12 months that followed, including in categories of crime that had been declining for two decades. The most drastic gun control possible -- outright confiscation -- could not reduce crime or improve public safety, as its advocates had promised, because, as gun owners had predicted, criminals refused to participate in it. Indeed, the controls might even have emboldened criminals to commit more crimes. Why not? If they could count on their victims being unarmed, the risk inherent in their ``work'' went down while the potential rewards went up. Has any of this deterred Britain's anti-gun politicians or special interest groups? Of course not. There was never any logic in their arguments, just a black mix of snobbery, ignorance, emotion, fear and irrationality. So they certainly are not going to be deflected by a few inconvenient facts -- or a few thousand. Britain's anti-gun activists are now claiming the confiscation was never about reducing crime. In The Times piece on Sunday, unnamed Home Office officials insisted the hand-in was always only about making Britain's homes safer and keeping stolen handguns from making their way onto the streets. Despite reams of newsprint full of earlier assurances from them that the hand-in would significantly reduce murder, assault, robbery and so on, the anti-gunners in and outside the British government, like some minor functionaries in Orwell's Ministry of Truth, have wiped clean their memories of any such statements. The same is happening in Canada. As the cost of a national registry of all firearms has cycloned out of sight, and as registration has fallen further and further behind, the Liberal government has talked less and less about reducing crime, more and more about creating ``a culture of safety.'' If total confiscation of firearms cannot cut crime, what possible use will a registry be? Even the one ``fact'' the Liberals cling to as proof of their registry's worth turns out to be, shall we say, less than the full picture. For months now, the Liberals have boasted that their registry has in one year refused more firearms licences than the pre-registry licensing system did in previous five years. It's simply not so. Robert Paddon of the B.C. Wildlife Federation recently scoured the five RCMP annual firearms reports for the period involved, and found 2,326 licences had been refused then versus the 578 the Liberals claim to have rejected in 1999. Moreover, not only had more licences been rejected, they had been rejected at a rate almost three times higher than under the current registry; eight out of every 1,000 versus just three out of 1,000 under the new registry. If, as the Liberals insist, licence rejections make Canada safer, then their registry is making the country less safe, not more. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #258 **********************************