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 #783 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 Monday, February 17 2003 Volume 05 : Number 783 In this issue: Column: If we just pretend things don't exist . . . 10th home invasion of year terrifies man MP SAYS WEAK LAWS WILL LEAD TO GUN DEATHS Boy fatally shot by nine-year-old Column: A firearms registry won't stop criminals from terrorizing people, Re: VALENTINE'S DAY Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #770 [Fwd: What a mess we have made] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:19:29 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Column: If we just pretend things don't exist . . . PUBLICATION: The Moncton Times and Transcript DATE: 2003.02.17 SECTION: Opinion/Editorial PAGE: D5 COLUMN: Norbert Cunningham (Odds & Ends) BYLINE: NORBERT CUNNINGHAM Odds and Ends - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If we just pretend things don't exist . . . - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [SNIP] Gun for it! Apologies to pacifists, but I can't help but comment on the idiocy reflected in a news story in this newspaper last Wednesday. It told of how an eastern Ontario school removed the word "gun" from spelling tests after parents of a Grade 1 student complained. The mother, who said she was "shocked" to see the word on a spelling list, considers herself a pacifist and said "I realize people hunt in this area, but I still don't think that warrants the teaching of this word to my daughter or any other child." Uhm. . . O.K. now, how brainless is that? The school isn't promoting guns, it's teaching kids the word exists and how to spell it. And have I got a question for this mother! If her daughter is to grow up and be a pacifist too, which is a fine thing, how is she going to know what to oppose if she doesn't even know the word, let alone how to spell it? We'll have a movement for thingamajig or doohickey control in 15 years! The logic, or lack of it, is rather like suggesting kids will never ever take drugs if only the whole world stops using the word. And ever since I saw that really graphic film with the gruesome and frightening depictions of what smoking does to one's body, I've vowed to never go see another movie again. Political correctness sure gets silly, eh? [SNIP] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:20:52 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: 10th home invasion of year terrifies man PUBLICATION: The Hamilton Spectator DATE: 2003.02.17 SECTION: News PAGE: A09 SOURCE: The Hamilton Spectator BYLINE: John Burman - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10th home invasion of year terrifies man - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Four intruders bound and robbed a Violet Drive man early Friday after storming his 16th-floor apartment just before 2 a.m. Police said the four men -- one of them armed with a sawed-off shotgun -- stayed in the apartment about half an hour before they left and the man was able to call police. Police spokesman Sergeant Maggie McKittrick said the man was not seriously injured but was "traumatized" by his experience. This home-invasion robbery -- the 10th in Hamilton this year -- could be connected to a similar robbery at a Gertrude Street home on Feb. 5 because suspect descriptions are very similar, McKittrick said. The incident occurred in the same Violet Drive apartment building where police spotted a van and suspects from the Gertrude Street home invasion. In that robbery, four men burst into the home around 8:45 p.m. on Feb. 5 and demanded cash from two women and one man. One woman was assaulted. The man tried to jump from a second-storey window and sprained his ankle. One of the victims called 911 and the robbers fled. The victims described a van and provided a partial licence plate number. About 10 minutes later, an officer spotted the van at an apartment building on Violet Drive and saw three men nearby. He chased them, nabbing one. Police found a loaded handgun in a stairwell. A second gun was found by a 12-year-old boy the next morning and turned in to police. Project Impact, the special task force set up to investigate home invasion robberies, will be looking into both cases. Police say most home-invasion victims are targeted by people they know or associate with, often in the drug trade. McKittrick said, however, that police have found nothing to indicate the latest incident was drug-related. jburman@thespec.com or 905-526-2469. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:22:09 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: MP SAYS WEAK LAWS WILL LEAD TO GUN DEATHS PUBLICATION: The Calgary Sun DATE: 2003.02.17 EDITION: Final SECTION: News PAGE: 4 BYLINE: MELISSA RIDGEN, CALGARY SUN - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MP SAYS WEAK LAWS WILL LEAD TO GUN DEATHS - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Deadly gunplay in Calgary will worsen and eventually claim innocent lives because the country's Criminal Code isn't tough enough to deter such behaviour, says a Canadian Alliance MP. Liberal Ottawa lawmakers are too lax on organized crime and the drug trade, said MP Art Hanger, adding that's why gun battles are becoming more common in major centres. "These people need to fear the law of the land more than they fear their own kind and until that happens you're going to see more (gun violence)," Hanger said from Ottawa yesterday after learning of the latest shootings in Calgary. "Those who use a firearm during the commission of a crime should be hammered twice as hard as anyone else, and that's not happening." While the Liberals tout their gun registry as a step towards curbing gun violence, Hanger doubts it has compelled any criminals to register the weapons they use on shooting sprees. "Ottawa needs to wake up and make real changes before we start seeing innocent people being killed in our city," the former cop said. "Until police and our courts are given more resources, the situation is going to get worse in places like Calgary and spread elsewhere." Calgary Police Service Insp. Rene Bailly is also concerned by the recent shootings, but he's not convinced gun violence is rising in Calgary. "I don't believe it's happening any more than in the past. What I see is that there's an increase in the reporting of such crimes," Bailly said. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:22:44 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Boy fatally shot by nine-year-old PUBLICATION: The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) DATE: 2003.02.15 EDITION: Final SECTION: Third Page PAGE: A3 BYLINE: Shannon Boklaschuk SOURCE: The StarPhoenix - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Boy fatally shot by nine-year-old - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A 13-year-old boy is dead, after he was fatally shot by a nine-year-old boy on the Shoal Lake First Nation Friday afternoon. Just before 2 p.m., police were called to a house on the Shoal Lake First Nation, where four youths were playing. "I don't know whether they were alone or whether they were in a room, but there's no indication that there was immediate parental supervision or adults around," RCMP spokesperson Cpl. Brian Jones said in an interview Friday evening. At some point, the 13-year-old was shot and killed with a long-barrelled shot gun or rifle at the hands of the nine-year-old, Jones said. The boys were not related. An initial investigation by the Carrot River RCMP indicated that the incident was the result of an accidental discharge. "There are certainly no charges against the poor fellow that pulled the trigger, the nine-year-old, but as part of the investigation they'll take a look at the storage of a weapon and firearm and that type of thing," Jones said. "At that point in time, they'll make a decision as to whether or not it's in the public interest to proceed with prosecution. "But no court case is going to bring back the 13-year-old boy, unfortunately." When asked where the child obtained the gun, Jones said: "I'm assuming it was in the home." Jones did not know the ages of the other two boys at the residence. He did not know whether the child was dead when policed arrived. The investigation into the incident will continue. "The investigation will have to determine what series of events transpired to lead to the tragedy," Jones said. Last month, a quiet neighbourhood west of Toronto was in mourning after a seven-year-old girl shot her six-year-old brother to death with a semi-automatic handgun the pair found while playing at home. The Shoal Lake First Nation is located about 90 kilometres northeast of Carrot River. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:24:04 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Column: A firearms registry won't stop criminals from terrorizing people, PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Citizen DATE: 2003.02.17 EDITION: Final SECTION: News PAGE: A15 / Argument&O;/td> BYLINE: Neil Seeman SOURCE: Citizen Special DATELINE: TORONTO ILLUSTRATION: Photo: Vancouver Police Department / Greater penalties forgun crimes target offenders, not law-abiding gun owners. !@IMAGES=Photo: Vancouver Police Department / Greater penalties for gun crimes target offenders, not law-abiding gun owners. [33651-9344.jpg]; - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Armed and dangerous: A firearms registry won't stop criminals from terrorizing people, but a minimum sentence of 10 years for crimes committed using a gun will. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TORONTO - Absent in the public debate over how to reduce gun-related crimes is a serious consideration of the most sensible remedy: stiffer penalties. When the Ontario attorney general recently endorsed a Criminal Code amendment that would create a 10-year mandatory minimum for armed robbery, armed assault and other crimes committed using a firearm, former Ontario Superior Court judge David Humphrey bristled, saying the proposal would accomplish nothing. "I'm very much against minimum penalties put forward by politicians for political reasons, as well as to address a social concern," he said. (Odd that. Don't all laws, by definition, address a social concern?) Prominent criminal defence lawyer Paul Calarco dismissed David Young's idea as "ridiculous" political posturing. But when one examines other jurisdictions that have experimented with stricter sentences for gun crimes, such peremptory criticisms melt away. In a number of cities in the United States -- Detroit, Tampa, Jacksonville, Miami, Pittsburg, Philadelphia -- the number of homicides dropped significantly after the introduction of higher mandatory sentencing laws. As a general proposition, greater penalties for heinous acts deter more crimes than do lesser penalties (all else being equal). After the passage of stronger sentences in California's Proposition 8 in 1982, there was a decrease in crimes covered by the amendment, but not for other crimes. Proposition 8 raised sentences by up to five years for criminals with previous convictions such as homicide, rape, robbery and residential burglary. But it did not cover similar crimes such as larceny, auto theft and assault without a firearm. In the two years before the law passed, all of the crimes it covered were climbing -- as were most of the similar crimes that it didn't address. In the years just after the law passed, all covered crimes plummeted, down 14 per cent on average, versus a three-per-cent drop for the uncovered ones. By 1985, covered crimes were down by as much as 20 per cent, compared with an average 4.6-per-cent increase in similar, uncovered crimes. In Richmond, Virginia, a 1997 initiative ("Project Exile") that set a five-year mandatory minimum for gun crimes helped reduce homicides in that city by more than 50 per cent -- from 140 at its inception to 69 in 2001. A recent Brookings Institution study has questioned whether this measure was the exclusive reason for the drop in homicides, but it seems reasonable that taking violent thugs off the street for long periods of time helped chop crime rates. Yet former Ontario judge David Humphrey has argued -- rightly -- that sterner penalties for gun crimes won't stop hoodlums from buying firearms. "We live next to a cesspool of guns in the U.S. and, inevitably, they are going to come here," he told reporters earlier this year. "So what is the point of sending a lot of people to jail (in an effort) to prevent a thug from going out and getting a gun in one hour, which he can do?" he asked. That our society is awash in guns only underscores the weakness of regulatory schemes -- such as a gun registry. Since there are so many illegal guns already in circulation, simply raising the costs of acquiring weapons -- by inspiring crooks to invest more creativity in thwarting regulations -- will not stop such criminals from arming themselves. It therefore makes sense to prosecute harshly those criminals who wield guns. This approach should demand a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison for anyone caught using a gun during the commission of a crime. No exceptions, not even for first-time offenders. Anything less would make a mockery of the law and might, as is already the case, tempt prosecutors to drop or plea-bargain away the gun charge and focus on the underlying charge of drug possession or robbery in order to ease the courtroom backlog. So obsessed, in fact, are Crown attorneys and criminal defence lawyers with reducing this courtroom backlog that they often fail to see the larger picture. The gun registry's $1 billion cost could have paid for enough new court space, computers and judges' salaries to wipe out the mess of criminal trial delays in Ontario's courts -- which Roy McMurtry, the province's chief justice, recently described as the worst in the English-speaking world. And yet, many lawyers balk at the prospect of mandatory 10-year sentences for gun crimes for fear of even greater backlogs. Here's their argument: An accused will opt for more trials and more complex, constitutional arguments if he's worried about getting hauled off to prison for a decade. But this concern seems especially misplaced among lawyers -- whose overriding concern should not be to hustle their clients into pleading guilty. Focusing on tougher punitive measures for gun crimes is good policy because it serves the cause of justice; it targets violent criminal offenders, not law-abiding gun owners. A mandatory minimum of 10 years would be especially effective since it communicates to would-be criminals that gun-related offences will evoke firm and consistent punishment. Neil Seeman is a lawyer and the senior policy analyst in The Fraser Institute's Toronto office. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:24:49 -0600 (CST) From: "Trigger Mortis" Subject: Re: VALENTINE'S DAY > > I wish everyone a happy Valentine's day. Being a romantic, I bought > > my wife a case of shells for that 12 gauge the CFC doesn't know she > > owns. > >You should have bought her a bottle of Hoppe's No. 9. ;-) ======= I took my girlfriend to the gun show in St. Catherines on Friday evening. Nothing's too good for my baby. Alan Harper alan__harper@cogeco.ca SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM ************************* ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:25:44 -0600 (CST) From: "Jim Thacker" Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #770 Letter sent to Ontario Education Minister Education Minister Elizabeth Witmer Dear Ms Witmer The recent fiasco created by a school principal at Lombardy Elementary school is a sign of a much more deep seated problem. One parent having unusual beliefs is certainly not unusual, it is the principals response that was so disconcerting. Far to often, in today's environment, we are quick to attempt to please a few, at the likely expense of many (who do not complain). Believing that if you keep your child away from words, pictures and talk of guns, you will protect him/her from harm and a violent world is, in my view, not only wrong, but has the opposite effect. I was having a conversation with a few professors at an MBA gathering recently. I was suggesting that gun registration was expensive and of no value in protecting society from the violence in today's cities. One professor suggested that having guns around is, at the very least, dangerous for the children exposed to them. I was about to respond when the wife of an MBA student, who was listening, said "You are all wrong about that." She went on to say that she was originally from Georgia, and had lived on a farm. She indicated that there were guns everywhere, at the front door (for varmints) in the barn, and the bedrooms. At a very early age she had learned about guns and that they could do harm if not handled safely. Teaching the safe handling of firearms was a must in the whole community, and although guns were everywhere, she did not know one friend who had been injured by a gun. They were all brought up with a healthy respect for any firearm, and taught to handle it safely. I certainly agree with her comments and would add that most injuries and deaths of children occurs when they find one under the mattress or hidden somewhere and want to play guns like they see on TV. Or, because they are curious they just want to handle it. They have never seen a real one before. Because they have no real respect for the dangers of the firearm, they treat it like a toy, and the results are sometimes tragic. Providing children with training on the safe use of firearms goes a long way toward preventing this. I was brought up with firearms and my father spent a great deal of time drumming safety into my head. I have never, ever pointed a firearm at anyone for any reason; it might be loaded That stuck with me and many times in my earlier years as an adult I would push someone's rifle barrel away when a hunting partner (who obviously did not get that type of training) would inadvertently swing the barrel toward someone. Since those days, the safety training mandated by the government has helped in that regard. Requiring firearm safety training for those who will use a firearm makes perfect sense. This, of course is leading somewhere. I think you could do more for child safety by providing them with the knowledge and respect for firearms, rather than pretending they do not exist, or not considering it the school systems responsibility. Education is a broad term, and the school system does have a responsibility to educate our children in all aspects, including their safety. This is not a precedent, as you well know there is driver education, family planning, aids education, the later two often being done even though some parents think it is not appropriate. The same can be said for firearm safety. Assuming that the only people that need firearm safety training are those who purposefully take up a firearms sport misses the point of the safety training. Knowing how to handle one however you come across it. Just because the parents do not have a firearm in the home does not mean they will not come across one. Although suggesting you examine a provincial initiative for firearm safety may seem radical, it should not be. In fact you could start small by reviewing the Upper Canada District School Board program of .22 rifle marksmanship/safety skills at the Smith Falls District Collegiate Institute. This was, before being cancelled, very popular. In fact, female teenagers from these classes gained international recognition as a world class scoring team that marked targets for rifle competitions at the Connaught Rifle Ranges in Ottawa. Safety in this situation is a bi-product of children having fun. What a pedagogy. This program was cancelled some time back as a result of parent complaints. Again it is not clear how many complained, but there were, and still are, a great many parents keenly interested to see it running again. You could be responsible for providing children with an exciting sport and more importantly a safety culture that could be responsible for saving their or one of their friends lives in the future. Sincerely James W Thacker Professor Odette School of Business University of Windsor Windsor Ontario N9C 3P4 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:29:00 -0600 (CST) From: "E. John Wilson" Subject: [Fwd: What a mess we have made] I just received this in the mail today, thought that it aptly shows the negative effects of Political Correctness gone mad... John In light of the many perversions and jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke, it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking. Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (regarding the attacks on Sept. 11). Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?" In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school ... the Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbour as yourself. And we said OK. Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK. Then someone said teachers and principals better not discipline our children when they misbehave. The school administrators said no faculty member in this school better touch a student when he or she misbehaves because we don't want any bad publicity, and we surely don't want to be sued (there's a big difference between disciplining, touching, beating, smacking, humiliating, kicking, etc.). And we said OK. Then someone said, let's let our daughters have abortions if they want, and they won't even have to tell their parents. And we said OK. Then some wise school board member said, since boys will be boys and they're going to do it anyway, let's give our sons all the condoms they want so they can have all the fun they desire, and we won't have to tell their parents they got them at school. And we said OK. Then some of our top elected officials said it doesn't matter what we do in private as long as we do our jobs. Agreeing with them, we said it doesn't matter to me what anyone, including the President, does in private as long as I have a job and the economy is good. Then someone said let's print magazines with pictures of nude women and call it wholesome, down-to-earth appreciation for the beauty of the female body. And we said OK. And then someone else took that appreciation a step further and published pictures of nude children and then further again by making them available on the Internet. And we said OK, they're entitled to free speech. Then the entertainment industry said, let's make TV shows and movies that promote profanity, violence, and illicit sex. Let's record music that encourages rape, drugs, murder, suicide, and satanic themes. And we said it's just entertainment, it has no adverse effect, nobody takes it seriously anyway, so go right ahead. Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW." Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace. Are you laughing? Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they WILL think of you for sending it. Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #783 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:akimoya@sprint.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., P.O. Box 1342, Saskatoon SK S7K 3N9 Phone: (306) 382-7070 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.