From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #10 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Errors-To: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Cdn-Firearms Digest Saturday, August 31 2002 Volume 05 : Number 010 In this issue: (no subject) 'No wrongdoing' Who Wants To Be The Boss? My Letter to the CBC re. Bruce Cockburn Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #9 Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #9 Calgary police death prompts changes to firearms safety policy Province well-armed: study Animal-cruelty bill bad for farmers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 14:04:29 -0400 From: Bruce Mills Subject: (no subject) From: Rick Lowe Subject: Re: .22 pistol "Mac McBride" > I have acquired Walther P38, and I want to my significant other to try > pistol shooting. I would like to start her with a .22 pistol and then move > up to the 9MM. > > I live on the Sunshine Coast in BC and do not have easy access to Vancouver > and the gun shows. > > Can anyone suggest a source for a reasonably priced .22 pistol? There are lots of High Standard pistols out there that regularly come up for sale. Most are extremely accurate and very reasonably priced. Then of course you have the generic Rugers. My nod would go to the High Standard, but in either case you should find the pricing very attractive. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:11:33 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: 'No wrongdoing' http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/weston.html August 31, 2002 'No wrongdoing' By GREG WESTON -- Sun Media OTTAWA -- Breaking a long silence, a Quebec advertising executive at the centre of the RCMP investigation into suspect federal sponsorship contracts admitted to me last week that three controversial reports produced by his agency weren't worth anything close to the $1.6 million taxpayers shelled out. In an exclusive interview, Jean Brault, president of the Montreal ad agency Groupaction Marketing Inc., said the federal government "never paid a half-million for a report. "I wouldn't pay $500,000 for a report. No report justifies that amount of money." Instead, he said, the feds really paid "maybe $5,000" for each of the reports. The rest of the $1.6 million total bill was to provide the government with "ongoing counselling" related to federal advertising and event sponsorships in Quebec. The dubious Groupaction reports helped plunge Jean Chretien's government into scandal earlier this year when it was revealed two of the documents were almost identical, and the third was missing altogether from federal files. Under attack, the Liberal government called in federal Auditor General Sheila Fraser to conduct an independent review. Fraser said federal contracting officials "broke every rule in the book" and took the unusual step of calling in the Mounties. With the RCMP probe in its third month, Brault now says everyone somehow got the story wrong - the media, the auditor general, government officials, politicians. "The (contract) mandates were never to produce three reports. It was to provide ongoing counselling and strategic advice on various issues." All of this counselling and advising, according to Brault, is reflected in his company's phone bills for "several hundred" long-distance calls to federal officials, several of whom also happen to be under investigation. Must have been long conversations. Based on a standard consultant's fee of $150/hour, running up a consulting bill just shy of $1.6 million would have entailed several of Groupaction's brightest blabbers staying on the phone to Ottawa all day, every day, for something like three years. There's also another small wrinkle in Brault's statement - the actual contracts make no mention of ongoing counselling of federal officials. The first $500,000 contract, in 1997, was essentially a blueprint for a program to boost federal visibility in Quebec through ads and event sponsorships. When federal officials could find no corresponding report in their files earlier this year, Groupaction came up with a 134-page document that included 90 pages of the government's own information about events it was already sponsoring. Brault concedes that wasn't an original report at all. "We finally were able to produce what we feel is quite a good reproduction of what could have been the report. But we had to dig through the (computer) hard disks to find the information." The second contract required that Groupaction "prepare an analysis of opportunities in relation with the government of Canada's visibility program ... and undertake qualitative research on important targets in the field of communications." No mention of ongoing counselling there, either. The third contract, sounding a lot like the second, required Groupaction to again "prepare an analysis of various opportunities related to the government of Canada's visibility program." Again, no call for consultants to be on the phone to Ottawa with advice for years on end. Brault admits even Groupaction couldn't find a copy of that report - "there was nothing left in our file." While Groupaction got the lion's share of the $40 million in annual federal sponsorship deals, Brault denies there is any link to his company's generosity towards the federal Liberals. Apparently, the $68,000 Groupaction and an affiliate donated to the federal Liberal party in one year is no big deal - only about four fundraiser golf games. "If you go to a golf tournament, and it's $15,000 for a foursome, it (the money) goes pretty fast." On his relationship to Alfonso Gagliano, the former Liberal public works minister under whose watch all the sponsorship shenanigans took place - not to mention ridiculously rich golf fundraisers - Brault says he's barely met the man. "I'm a good guy and I've been seriously hurt by this," Brault says, noting his annual company payroll has shrunk by almost $7 million since the sponsorship fiasco hit the fan. As he awaits the arrival of the RCMP investigators, Brault says he's confident the saga will eventually end with proof "there was no wrongdoing on my part, that they were trying to get me." The plot thickens. Stay tuned. Greg Weston is Sun Media's national political columnist, his columns appear Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@sunpub.com. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:14:41 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Lowe Subject: Who Wants To Be The Boss? "James L. Shepherd" wrote: > I am FED UP with organizations that cannot or more properly stated, will not, > get together and form a united front to fight the government's gun laws. Welcome to the club. > Who the hell cares who runs the show? Just get the job done. Now there's the rub. Those who have seized power within the NFA can't or won't do the job - they're too busy looking after their personal interests and ambitions. And they won't leave - or allow an election where they can be forced out - so somebody (ANYBODY) else can step in and do the job. People probably wouldn't mind Hinter's illegal salary and SUV, that most of their money gets spent on a cheesy magazine, and that Tomlinson is unelected and his spending unaccountable - IF THEY GOT THE JOB DONE. But they don't. And they won't leave. And they won't allow an election or anything else that would replace them. They've expelled those who are authorized to oversee them. And ignored most of the court orders that arose out of this. And here we are today. If you have a suggestion on how to correct that, I'm listening (along with thousands of others). Otherwise (and unfortunately), you're just pointing out what we all know and what is obvious. In the meantime, all that is left is keeping the issue to the forefront. Because as bad as that is, letting it disappear from view so members can have a warm fuzzy feeling that things are happening while they get screwed is much, much worse. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:25:03 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: My Letter to the CBC Just submitted, probably in the round file by now. - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE:Tourists shocked as grizzly shot in Yukon Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 14:21:13 -0400 From: Bruce Mills To: letters@cbc.ca How is this news, other than the shocked reaction of some liberal south Ontario urbanite? This is nothing but more of the anti-gun and anti-hunting propaganda that we've come to expect from the CBC. I'm sure she'd be singing a different tune if she had been up close and personal with the cuddly grizzly bear; she'd be thanking her lucky stars there were hunters around - after she changed her drawers, of course. A report on a genuine defensive gun use - now, THAT would be news. Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:37:14 -0600 (CST) From: DaveBartlett@FirearmsTraining.ca Subject: re. Bruce Cockburn An excerpt from "Great Big Love" by Bruce Cockburn: I ride and I shoot and I play guitar And I like my life just fine If you try to take one of these things from me Then you're no friend of mine Got a woman I love and she loves me And we live on a piece of land I never know quite how to measure these things But I guess I'm a happy man Dave Bartlett email: DaveBartlett@FirearmsTraining.ca http://www.FirearmsTraining.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 13:13:05 -0600 (CST) From: kim barbeau Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #9 > > > > Bruce Cockburn? > > > > > > You have got to be kidding. A Liberal leftie through and through. > > > > I have heard a story (unsubstantiated) that Bruce Cockburn is in favor of > > private > > gun ownership because he has been in many countries where private firearms > > ownership is not allowed. Remember that he has done a lot of charity work in > > third world countries run by dictators > > Kim > Bruce wrote: > Well, I did a Yahoo/Google search on Bruce and firearms, and all that seemed to > come up was the fact that he owns some for "recreational purposes", and he does > seem to support self defense. I can't seem to find his position on private gun > ownership. > > However, he *is* a liberal leftie, and opposes land mines, and has done charity > work for Oxfam, which is anti-gun. They support IANSA and the United Nations > Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons: > (snip) John wrote: > Many may not know this, but Bruce was an active IPSC shooter some years ago. > I have seen some of his guns at Don Irvine's gunshop and a photo of Bruce > with pistol on hip amongst many IPSC shooters. I don't know his status > anymore whether he's active or not and how Liberal he really is. > > John > Maybe there needs to be a distinction made between small "L" liberals and the anti-gun people. I consider myself to be a liberal minded person ( and I don't mean the liberal party) . I believe there should be social safety nets, universal health care etc. It has always seemed to me that in the most "liberal" philosophy everyone should be allowed to do anything they wanted as long as it didn't harm others. This should extend to ownership and use of firearms as well as sexual orientation and freedom of religion etc. what do you think? ( remember small "L" liberal not the party) Kim ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 13:41:45 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #9 kim barbeau wrote: > Maybe there needs to be a distinction made between small "L" liberals and the > anti-gun people. I consider myself to be a liberal minded person ( and I don't > mean the liberal party) . I believe there should be social safety nets, > universal health care etc. It has always seemed to me that in the most > "liberal" philosophy everyone should be allowed to do anything they wanted as > long as it didn't harm others. This should extend to ownership and use of > firearms as well as sexual orientation and freedom of religion etc. > what do you think? ( remember small "L" liberal not the party) > Kim Well, you asked. "Universal health care" has, at its base, "coercion" as its foundation. Doctors are put on the State payroll, and all subjects (I mean, citizens) are "clients", whether they wish to be or not. Doctors have to "negotiate" their pay with the State, instead of setting their own prices. Some clients are forced to wait, or go elsewhere, for care which they would otherwise be able to pay, and receive, in a timely manner in a free market economy. "Universal" health care is by no means "universal" - if it were, they would be taking *all* your money just to pay for it, and nothing else. The State has control over which drugs they will "allow" people to have (for non-medical reasons), and which ones they will "cover" (if any). "Universal health care" also serves to remove the responsibility for your own health from the individual, and transfers it to the State. "The State will take care of you, the State will provide" is nothing but collectivist claptrap. The State has no interest in you except as a walking piggy bank and has no intention of "taking care" of you, or anyone but themselves. How many of the "ruling elite" have you read about in the past couple of years who have "jumped the line" and received preferential medical treatment? That is their entire attitude. Now, before you start calling me a heartless and compassionless neo-con, let me say that I do think that there should be *some* facilities for the care of those who are unable to do so for themselves, and who have no one else to take care of them. But nowhere is it written down that you have a guarantee to good health, or should be allowed to force someone else to provide you with medical treatment. This only allows the State to stick its mucky fingers into every other facet of our lives on the grounds of "public health" - seatbelt and helmet laws come to mind. Force people to do things they don't want to do because it might help to lower the overall cost of medical treatment. The same thing holds true for the "epidemiology" model for gun control, and that guns are a "public health issue", and that it costs so many billions of dollars to treat gunshot wounds, etc, etc, etc. It is all just a means for the State to gain as much control over *your* life as they possibly can. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 16:21:17 -0600 (CST) From: The Jordans Subject: Calgary police death prompts changes to firearms safety policy Calgary police death prompts changes to firearms safety policy CAROL HARRINGTON - Canadian Press Tuesday, August 27, 2002 CALGARY (CP) - The Calgary Police Service made numerous changes to its firearms safety policy after a police officer was shot and killed by a colleague during a training exercise, a fatality inquiry heard Tuesday. The new policy states that all police officers must have their guns checked three times during training exercises to ensure the weapons aren't loaded. They must also insert bullet blockers into gun barrels, said Sgt. Tony Manning, head of the Calgary police tactical units. "We incorporated every possible safety practice that we could think of," Manning told provincial court Judge Terence Semenuk. "It's to ensure that all weapons are proven unloaded and that there are no live weapons in the area." Const. Darren Beatty, 29, died last October after being shot in the back by his best friend and fellow tactical team member during a simulated hostage-taking at a northwest police training center. After reviewing the case, Alberta's special prosecutions branch decided last January that there no criminal charges would result from the death. Dr. Lloyd Denmark, Alberta's deputy chief medical examiner, testified that Beatty died from a single bullet that went into the officer's shoulder blade, travelled up to his neck vertebrae into his head and hit a main artery. Beatty likely choked on his own blood after the artery was shattered, Denmark said. Manning testified that when the shooting occurred, the officer who shot the fatal bullet was supposed to have completely unloaded his gun before entering the training room. "He was responsible for his weapon," Manning told court. "We expect and demand that they know the condition of their weapon at all time," he told court. "So we put the onus on the individual and never in my time have we seen this fail before." The firearm involved was a Glock semi-automatic pistol. Beatty was a paramedic for four years before joining the police force, which he served for five years. Calgary police have two tactical teams with several officers responding to high-risk situations, including bomb threats, hostage taking and cocaine warrants. This year, Calgary's tactical unit has responded to 280 calls. Sgt. Brian Willis, who is responsible for Calgary police training, told court at the time of Beatty's death, police didn't use "simunission" bullets - soap compressed into plastic casings - because they simply didn't have such guns at the time. He said police expect to use "simunission" bullets next January. Beatty's death has also prompted Calgary police to assign a full-time safety officer to each tactical team, Manning said. All officers in firearms training now must use the buddy system so that the gun owner and a fellow officer checks that the gun is not loaded. The assigned safety officer must do a third check, Manning said. Until now, tactical unit members didn't use bullet blockers - a long plastic piece placed into the barrel of the weapon so that a bullet can't be inserted. "We found them to be ineffective," Manning said, explaining that in low-light conditions officers can't see if a gun has a bullet blocker. Willis told court lockers were installed in training facilities in June so that officers can lock their guns and ammunition before entering training rooms. Also as a result of Beatty's death, a new committee of several senior officers has been working on a new safety manual for firearms training. The inquiry is expected to wrap up Wednesday. © Copyright 2002 The Canadian Press http://www.canada.com/search/site/story.asp?id=B2A3ADE1-274B-4C13-A2A3-282A4E9A8597 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 16:23:30 -0600 (CST) From: The Jordans Subject: Province well-armed: study Province well-armed: study Sask. has second-highest ratio of guns to residents in Canada Angela Hall - The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) Thursday, August 22, 2002 REGINA -- Saskatchewan has the second-highest regional ratio of firearms to residents, trailing only Northern Canada, according to a new study. The province has two firearms for every five residents, compared to the Yukon Territories area, which has enough guns for every person. The ratio in Atlantic Canada is one for every three people, while Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec fit the national average of one firearm for every four residents. Those are the statistics from a survey done last fall by GPC Research and released this week by the Canadian Firearms Centre. "There's very few farms that you go to that have less than two firearms," said Greg Illerbrun, the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation's firearms chair, who added that he thinks ratios would be considerably higher in Canada's rural areas. "Firearms are a way of life, part of the traditions of rural Canada." The total number of firearms in Canada is pegged at 7.92 million, up from the previous estimate of seven million, said firearms centre spokesperson David Austin. He said the survey basically confirms what they were saying before. However, some continue to dispute the accuracy of such estimates. Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance MP for Yorkton-Melville, said he stands by his research suggesting there are upwards of 16 million firearms in the country. "The number 7.9 million is still extremely inaccurate," said Breitkreuz, a vocal opponent of the law requiring licensed firearm owners to register firearms by the end of the year. "I think what they try to do here is make it look like the whole registration system is a success and so if they come in with a low estimate it shows most people are complying with it and they are getting more firearms into the system." Austin said more than two-thirds of the 1.8 million licensed firearm owners have registered firearms. Predictions there are 16 million firearms or more in Canada are part of the misinformation that is circulating, he said. "That would mean every other Canadian -- man, woman and child -- had a gun. Those are some of the outrageous numbers that are out there." Estimates were based on a survey of more than 3,000 of Canada's estimated 2.3 million firearm owners. "This has got to be the most comprehensive study," Austin said. Respondents were asked how concerned they were about protecting the privacy of personal information that needs to be verified in the registration process. Forty-seven per cent of Saskatchewan respondents indicated they were concerned. Confidence increased when people were told privacy rules protect the information provided, said Austin. "Whether it's a contractor or it's a public servant dealing with your information, they have to abide by the same privacy rules." But Illerbrun said one of his biggest concerns is still about the security of the information. "There's been other issues in the news just recently where privacy information has been leaked out," he said, referring to provincial employees at SGI and SaskPower being disciplined for improperly disclosing information. According to the study's findings, the top three per cent of firearm owners hold 15 per cent of all firearms and the remaining firearm-owning population holds an average of 2.7 firearms each. © Copyright 2002 The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) http://www.canada.com/search/site/story.asp?id=F79E2FF5-08EE-4F61-9339-58C1878E741F ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 16:25:39 -0600 (CST) From: The Jordans Subject: Animal-cruelty bill bad for farmers Animal-cruelty bill bad for farmers The Daily News To the editor: First the Chretien Liberals brought us Bill C-68, which has the potential to make criminals out of legitimate firearms owners. Every person who uses rifles for hunting is affected by Bill C-68. Now, this same group of Liberals, through Bill C-15B, could possibly make criminals out of those who run legitimate cattle, pork, chicken or other types of farms where animals are raised and slaughtered to feed us. All of us are against cruelty to animals — our pets. But under the guise of protecting animals from extreme cruelty, this government has put the legitimate rights of beef and similar farm owners to earn a living in jeopardy. We are all outraged by cruelty to animals we consider as pets. We are shocked and horrified when we hear of someone dragging a dog behind a car or cats senselessly tortured. It was the original purpose of Bill C-15B to increase the penalties for such outrageous behaviour. But, as usual when it comes to dealing with rural issues, the Liberals got it wrong. Bill C-15B is before the Senate's legal and constitutional affairs committee for review. I have received submissions from across Canada that detail the potential effects of this bill. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Dairy Farmers of Canada have stated that the bill, as written, could have the effect of making standard animal husbandry, management and slaughter activities illegal. They are concerned that this legislation will be used by animal-rights activists in test cases as they pursue their agenda, which would restrict or abolish animal production practices. For example, the CFA is concerned that the clause which would punish those who "fail to provide adequate care" could be used to prosecute farmers in drought-stricken conditions who may not be able to adequately water and feed their livestock. This is a bill the Senate must deal with carefully, or it might produce unintended results. I will do what I can to push for amendments that will protect livestock owners and farmers from possible prosecution for just trying to earn a living. Senator Donald H. Oliver Halifax © Copyright 2002 The Daily News Last updated: 8/31/2002 6:37:29 AM http://www.canada.com/search/site/story.asp?id=CFD439F0-EC5C-4B17-8FE6-CF5AB0E684E1 ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #10 ********************************* Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:acardin33@shaw.ca List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca FAQ list: http://www.magma.ca/~asd/cfd-faq1.html and http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/homepage.html FTP Site: ftp://teapot.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/ CFDigest Archives: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/~ab133/ or put the next command in an e-mail message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca get cdn-firearms-digest v04.n192 end (192 is the digest issue number and 04 is the volume) To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next five lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-alert unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".) If you find this service valuable, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the freenet we use: Saskatoon Free-Net Assoc., 1702 20th St. West, Saskatoon SK S7M OZ9 Phone: (306) 382-7070 modem lines: (306) 956-3700 and (306) 956-3701 Home page: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/ These e-mail digests are free to everyone, and are made possible by the efforts of countless volunteers. Permission is granted to copy and distribute this digest as long as it not altered in any way.