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 #38 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 Tuesday, September 10 2002 Volume 05 : Number 038 In this issue: USA: Gun Control as Class Warfare USA: More Women Are Carrying Pistols For Self-Defense Feisty femmes AHEIA new england journal of medicne Re: new england journal of medicne Re: AHEIA Re: Collenette: 'They have a different attitude . . . about the role Man killed in drive-by shooting ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:53:27 -0600 (CST) From: The Jordans Subject: USA: Gun Control as Class Warfare Gun control as class warfare Totse - by Rosemary Fury A left-anarchist critique of gun control, which points out how guns benefit women, especially in domestic abuse situations. A rare defense of gun ownership from the left. (09/08/02) http://www.free-market.net/rd/17650813.html = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Gun Control as Class Warfare by Rosemary Fury Opponents of gun control are in big trouble. They will lose the battle against gun control unless they drastically change their tactics. There are two fundamental reasons for this impending defeat. First, the liberal/conservative split over gun control is likely to give way to a class consensus in favor of restrictions on weapon ownership. Second, gun control opponents have failed to enlist the support of those people most injured by such legislation. For decades, the debate over gun control has been divided along standard political lines of left vs. right. Advocates of gun control have surprisingly gained the support of the liberal political base with a conservative-sounding argument: i.e., restrictions on handguns will reduce violent crime, thus aiding the cause of "law and order." Their opponents have appealed largely to a conservative audience with God-and-Country rhetoric about our "Constitutional Rights." The popular conception of the issue is one of a political struggle. As we shall see, such a conception is dangerously flawed. Gun control got its start in this country as a racist measure to disarm Blacks after the Civil WarÑto prevent them from taking revenge on their former owners. Restrictions on weapon ownership are still racist today. Blacks and minorities suffer at the hands of both racist groups and redneck cops. The Black Panthers formed in the 1960s specifically to counter police brutality in Oakland County, California. Studies show that minorities are disproportionately the victims of authority, whether it's Mexicans drowned in Texas, Cubans and Haitians beaten up in Miami, Blacks gunned down in Detroit, or Orientals abused in Seattle. When courts turn a blind eye at brutal police departments, denying gun ownership to minorities is tantamount to denying them self- defense. It is also true that Blacks and other minorities constitute a large percentage of America's poor, and it is the \poor\ who stand to lose the most from gun control. Rich people can afford to live outside dangerous urban areas and maintain well-armed, high-paid suburban police departments to protect their lives and property. But for the poor person without the means to flee the ghetto, handguns are the cheapest, most effective form of self-defense available. A couple hundred dollars (or less) is a small price to pay for the security of one's family and possessions. Gun control advocates argue that handgun ownership damages the ability of inner-city police forces to protect their residents. But to the ghetto-dweller, as we have seen, the police look more like enemies than defenders. Urban police departments are not paid to protect poor people. They're paid to protect local merchants and their property, and they're paid (unofficially) to protect various organized crime operations. Understaffed and unresponsive, the police can't possibly provide adequate service to all their citizens. Under gun control, big-city residents would not only be unable to defend themselves against organized criminals, but would also be incapable of helping to defend their friends and neighbors. Gun control advocates loudly call for disarming average Americans, but do they want to disarm the police? Certainly not! Their law-and-order rhetoric is just thinly disguised support for Big Brother. In fact, they look forward to a society where the government has total control over the population. Under such conditions, no one could step outside official bounds without special permission. Gun control would give the police a free hand in abusing people, while the ruling class could compel the masses to conform to their wishes. While gun control opponents are quick to proclaim the importance of an armed populace to our national defense, they overlook the importance of gun ownership as a deterrent to oppression by \our own\ government. High taxes, restrictions on travel, government surveillance, business regulations, etc., are making domestic slaves of all of us. All that stands between our present narrow freedoms and total bureaucratic control is the determination of Americans to resist repression. Traditional ways of controlling government (elections, political pressure, etc.) have become increasingly ineffective. Gun ownership helps draw a bottom line beyond which authorities tread at their own risk. Some people have a lower tolerance for repression than others. Tax resistors, Black Panthers, environmental activists, and others have already hit their bottom line, and have used the force of arms to repel the invading state. While they have suffered for their defiance, they still send an important warning signal to the bureaucrats, thus making life a little safer for the rest of us. Without gun ownership, there would be no ultimate check on the tax collectors, conscriptors, and regulators that populate our federal government. A common argument leveled by advocates of gun control is that handguns are most often used in domestic disputes, where family quarrels end with gunshots. There is no disputing the statistics. However, the conclusions drawn from them are highly vulnerable. Proponents of gun control assume the desirability of limiting gun usage in domestic disputes. Do we really want to do that? "If it saves lives, then it's worth it," the line goes. But are these lives worth saving? Women have been the victims of domestic abuse for centuries. Because of our relatively weaker physical stature, we have been virtually enslaved by men (women are still considered property in many of the world's cultures). Handguns are the great equalizer. More and more cases have come to the courts where women have "murdered" their abusive husbands. Gun control advocates deplore this, but why shouldn't we defend ourselves against such abuse? Why should the lives of violent bullies be spared? So that they can continue to destroy the lives of the defenseless? Gun control would make it easier for wife-beating and child abuse to continue unchecked. I would rather see such brutes dead than see women and children with no alternative to submission. Gun ownership is vital right. Handguns are an essential form of self-defense for the lower class of society that doesn't have the personal armies and suburban fortresses of the upper class. Private gun ownership serves as a powerful check on police and other pigs who terrorize minorities, on the expansionist desires of foreign governments as well as the encroachments of our own state, and on the ability of men to systematically abuse and exploit women and children. Gun ownership gives people the real option of resisting an authority that becomes too oppressive to bear. As such, it is a valuable tool for ensuring personal freedom. In short, gun control is class legislation. It is an attempt by the elite rulers of society to disarm the weaker class and make them submissive to their will. In the near future, leading liberals and conservatives will likely set aside their minor political differences for the benefit of their combined class interest, and enact legislation restricting the ownership of weapons of self-defense. They will succeed in this, too, unless opponents of gun control expand their base of support to include the traditionally liberal constituency of the underclass: the poor, minorities, and women. These groups have the most to lose from gun control, and the most to gain from the right to unrestricted gun ownership. Rosemary Fury is an editor of The Spark (P. O. Box 528, Port Townsend, WA 98368), a newsletter of contemporary anarchist thought. It's about time gun rights activists looked toward anarchist and libertarian ideas -- they alone seem to have a complete picture of what's going on with the conservative (Bush, Dukemejian) and liberal (Metzenbaum, Kennedy) alliance to disarm all non-statists. To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed. The site layout, page layout, and all original artwork on this site are Copyright © 2002 totse.com. http://www.totse.com/en/politics/right_to_keep_and_bear_arms/furygun.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:55:56 -0600 (CST) From: The Jordans Subject: USA: More Women Are Carrying Pistols For Self-Defense 9/10/2002 September 2002 - Newsletter - Page 2 www.legallyarmed.com "The Internet Site For Legally Armed Citizens" Homeland Security Is Being Legally Armed More Women Are Carrying Pistols For Self-Defense During the 1990's, states started to enact Right To Carry Laws. Now, 32 states have laws allowing citizens to carry weapons. Men still hold the highest number of permits or licenses but, women have increased their percentage dramatically. What has changed the most over the years regarding women, is that they are know more knowledgeable regarding what type of handgun they want to buy and carry. More Sophisticated Buyers Guns & Ammo in Memphis, Tennessee, is one of the leading firearm retailers in the state. Bill Langham is the store manager. He addressed some of the changes he has seen regarding women buying handguns over the years. "I have been in the firearms business over fifteen years. In the past, almost all the women who came into to a gun store were not alone. Their husband, father, or male friend came along with them to help guide their decision regarding what handgun to purchase. Even now with first time women buyers this still occurs." "What I have seen that is different is that after the woman has been licensed to carry a gun for a few years, they have discovered that the first gun they bought with the assistance of the male friend, may not be practical for her. She now wants something that is easier to operate and less bulky to carry." Women Are Learning About What They Want In A Pistol "When they come back to purchase another gun they are doing it on their own, and they have done their homework about what they want to buy. I believe that the Internet has been instrumental in helping women do research on handguns and what is available in the market." Kangham went on; "The woman who is looking to purchase a handgun who has been licensed to carry a gun, is a more sophisticated buyer than what we saw in the past. We can attribute a lot of the new lighter or smaller guns will sell to women buyers" Women Are Calling Gun Stores Checking On The Arrival Of New Handguns Jerry Hassler and his sons Brain and Mike, own the Franklin Gun Store in Franklin, Tennessee. They have also noticed some changes in the buying habits of women. "Smaller guns in .32 and 9mm are both popular handguns with women. We get more calls from women than we did in the past as to when some of the newer handguns will be arriving like the Kahr PM-9." "Women want to carry their handguns with them. Once they get their permit, they are probably carrying guns more often than the average male permit holder. A lot of the smaller guns we sell like the Beretta Tomcat, are sold to women." Handgun Manufactures Are Catering To Women Buyers Back in the early 1990's, the normal carry gun was a S&W .38 caliber handgun. Now that same size handgun is a lighter pistol that can fire a .357 round. Handgun manufactures placed a lot of study into making lighter handguns like the Titanium pistols on the market today. As Jerry Hassler said, "Every day we get more calls for handgun permit training. A lot of these calls are from women. I think this interest in getting a permit to carry a handgun, might be the same for the rest of the country. More women are carrying handguns, and the manufactures are catering to these women by making lighter pistols that are easier to carry." © 1999-2002 E-Mail Legallyarmed 06/13/2002 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:56:58 -0600 (CST) From: The Jordans Subject: Feisty femmes Feisty femmes Razberry Journalist Donna Laframboise, critic of all things politically correct, has assembled a collection of stories from feisty femmes as an antidote to the woman-as-victim notion. There is a link to her Great Guys site. http://www.free-market.net/rd/8180228.html http://www.razberry.com/raz/feisty/femmes.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:44:16 -0600 (CST) From: whornby@telusplanet.net Subject: AHEIA Ian unfortunately it won't matter where you get your forms from, shortly, all CFSC and CFRSC in Alberta must go through AHEIA. on top of that if you still want to be able to teach the courses you will now have to be a member of AHEIA. of course the feds did all of this without bothering to consultant those of us who teach the course. one thing to note, that the $15 includes a book as the feds want everyone who writes the exam to have a book, or so i was told by AHEIA. i do understand that there is a grace period in place for those of us who had books etc in stock. walter hornby ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:54:11 -0600 (CST) From: whornby@telusplanet.net Subject: new england journal of medicne i could be wrong but i don't think it was the new england journal of medicine that wrote that pice of bogus scietific crap. does anyoen have the actural person who wrote it and when it was soundly reburke?? Walter Perhaps Canadians know about a 1993 study in The New England Journal of Medicine that found that a in the home almost triples the likelihood that someone will be killed in that house. And that more often than not the robber emerges alive ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:05:10 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: new england journal of medicne whornby@telusplanet.net wrote: > > i could be wrong but i don't think it was the new england journal of medicine > that wrote that pice of bogus scietific crap. does anyoen have the actural > person who wrote it and when it was soundly reburke?? > > Walter > > Perhaps Canadians know about a 1993 > study in The New England Journal of Medicine that found that a in the > home almost triples the likelihood that someone will be killed in that > house. And that more often than not the robber emerges alive The NEJM did publish this study, and many others; this is because they are as virulently anti-gun as is the Mop and Pail. There have been many studies done on the anti-gun bias of medical journals and the media. This is based on Kellerman's origianl "43 times" study, which still makes the press even after it has been soundly refuted as being tremendously flawed. Here is some info on the various iterations of the Kellerman study: http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/fables.htm#FABLE I: FABLE I: A gun in the home makes the home less safe. Firearms are used far more often to stop crimes than to commit them. In spite of this, anti-firearm activists insist that the very act of keeping a firearm in the home puts family members at risk, often claiming that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member than an intruder. The 43:1 claim is derived from a study of firearm-related deaths in homes in King County (Seattle), Washington.(1) Although Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay originally warned that their study was of a single non-representative county, and noted that they failed to consider protective uses of firearms that did not result in criminals being killed, anti-firearm groups and activists use the "43 times" claim without explaining the limitations of the study, or how the ratio was derived. To produce the misleading ratio from the study, the only defensive or protective uses of firearms that were counted were those in which criminals were killed by would-be crime victims. This is the most serious of the study's flaws, since fatal shootings of criminals occur in only a fraction of 1% of protective firearm uses nationwide. Survey research by award-winning criminologist Gary Kleck, of Florida State University, has shown that firearms are used for protection against criminals as many as 2.5 million times annually.2 This is three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with firearms annually.(3) It should come as no surprise that Kleck's findings are reflexively dismissed by anti-firearm activist groups, but a leading anti-gun criminologist was honest enough to acknowledge their validity. "I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country," wrote the late Marvin E. Wolfgang. "I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. . . . What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. . . . I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology."(4) While the 43:1 claim is commonly used to suggest that murders and accidents are likely to occur with guns kept at home, suicides accounted for 37 of every 43 firearm-related deaths in the King County study. Nationwide, 54% of firearm-related deaths are suicides.5 Gun control advocates would have the public believe that armed citizens often accidentally kill family members, mistaking them for criminals. But such incidents constitute less than 2% of fatal firearms accidents, or about one for every 90,000 defensive gun uses.(6) In spite of the demonstrated flaws in his research, Kellermann has continued to promote the idea that a gun is inherently dangerous to own. In 1993, he and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.(7) This study, too, was seriously flawed. Kellermann studied only homes where homicides had taken place - ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done - and used a control group unrepresentative of American households. By looking only at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. After reviewing their work, Prof. Kleck noted that Kellermann's methodology could prove that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted that: "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Northwestern University Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, writing "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion."(8) 1. Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay, "Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, 1986, pp. 1557-1560. 2. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, (Fall 1995), p. 164. 3. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1997), p. 160. and see FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States: 1997, Tables 4, 20, 21, and 22. 4. Marvin E. Wolfgang, "Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, (Fall 1995), pp. 188-192. 5. National Center for Health Statistics, "Deaths From 282 Selected Causes," 1996. 6. Gary Kleck, "Keeping, Carrying, and Shooting Guns for Self-Protection," Essays on Firearms and Violence, by Don B. Kates, Jr. and Gary Kleck (San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1995), p. 208. 7. Kellermann, et al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, 1993, p. 467. 8. Daniel D.Polsby, "The False Promise of Gun Control," The Atlantic Monthly, March 1994. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:07:00 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: AHEIA whornby@telusplanet.net wrote: > > Ian > > unfortunately it won't matter where you get your forms from, shortly, all CFSC > and CFRSC in Alberta must go through AHEIA. on top of that if you still want > to be able to teach the courses you will now have to be a member of AHEIA. of > course the feds did all of this without bothering to consultant those of us who > teach the course. one thing to note, that the $15 includes a book as the feds > want everyone who writes the exam to have a book, or so i was told by AHEIA. > > i do understand that there is a grace period in place for those of us who had > books etc in stock. > > walter hornby For those of us not in the know, what is the AHEIA? This should be a warning to *any* gun group that gets into bed with the Feds - once you do, they *own* your ass. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:16:35 -0600 (CST) From: "Mike" Subject: Re: Collenette: 'They have a different attitude . . . about the role > Perhaps the transport minister should read the Canadian Aeronautical > Regulations - he is responsible for them after all. > > Pilots have the powers of peace officers on their aircraft. They have to > have them, as there's no other authority on an aircraft at 35,000 feet > over the ocean. > > I'll have to find the specific regulation. > > Mark It's obvious that he is unfamiliar with the Air Regs, or he would realize that the regs require that pilots flying in sparsely settled areas must carry a firearm on board as part of the survival equipment. So whether he realizes it or not, Canadian pilots are already armed, and to the best of my knowledge there has never been an "incident" with a pilot misusing a firearm. The qualifications for aircraft pilot in Canada are far more stringent than the qualifications for cabinet minister. To become a pilot one must pass a rigorous exam and a test of compentency. I doubt if he could meet the standards, yet he thinks he can tell us what to do, yeah right. Mike ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 20:02:42 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Man killed in drive-by shooting http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1026145013249 Sep. 9, 07:57 EDT Man killed in drive-by shooting Jim Wilkes Toronto Star Staff Reporter A man was killed after a drive-by shooting in north-end Etobicoke last night. The man was gunned down as he stood with friends along Finch Ave. W., just east of Islington Ave., about 9 p.m. He was dead on arrival at St. Mike's hospital. Toronto police Detective Graham Hanlon said the victim's friends scattered when the shots rang out. "Although there were a large number of people in the area at the time that the shooting took place, none of the witnesses to the shooting have come forward," he said. Police sealed off a large area around a housing complex on Ardwick Blvd., where residents peered from their windows of their townhouses. Police also closed Finch Ave. to traffic shortly before midnights after bits of metal were found on the pavement. Forensic officers were trying to determine whether the items were shell casings or lead from bullets. Hanlon said the name of the victim would be withheld until relatives are notified. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #38 ********************************* 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.