From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V8 #830 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 Wednesday, December 28 2005 Volume 08 : Number 830 In this issue: Back Fire Fw: Gun Control Saves Lives - National Post, December 27, 2005. Re: Million gun march Re: [EDITORIAL] Gun control save lives Editorial in National Post Hanguns and owners Oh that the wheels may be falling off the Red wagon My proposed letter to the National Post Re: Fw: Gun Control Saves Lives - National Post, December 27, Fw: Gun Control Saves Lives - National Post, December 27, Re: Top court: guns not a right - considering Commonwealth ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 20:30:08 -0600 (CST) From: "Todd Birch" Subject: Back Fire According to the media, Martoon's proposed hand gun ban has triggered a 40 % increase in sales in some areas, notably Alberta, which has already announced it will not participate in such a ban. This guy is proving how tired both he and his party really are. I'll bet even Wendy is PO'd with him over this. How did the CPC get insiders to influence Liberal policy making decisions? About the only place he'll get support for this latest brain fart is Toronto the Good; until they find out they'll also be footing the bill alone. Thanks Paul, this is the best Xmas gift you could have given me. TB ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 20:30:42 -0600 (CST) From: "Jim S." Subject: Fw: Gun Control Saves Lives - National Post, December 27, 2005. Letter - sent to Jeff White, National Post. Jim Szpajcher St. Paul, AB - ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim S. To: jwhite@nationalpost.com Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 7:23 PM Subject: Gun Control Saves Lives - National Post, December 27, 2005. Jeff - I read your editorial with interest, as I am one of those gun owners that you so cheerfully trample all over. I won't stoop to quarrel with your statistics - the ones that you quote so confidently, have little bearing in my world. I won't bother to trot out statistics showing that when private citizens own firearms, society is safer, because you would dismiss them just as breezily as I dismiss yours. You note that the majority of Canadians support gun control, but the sad truth is that most Canadians cannot tell you five basic points about the current gun laws. This proves once again that government by polls is no government at all. As Forrest Gump noted: "Stupid is as Stupid does". Having lived in a big American city, roughly the size of Toronto, I learned that the only way that average citizens could defend themselves was by carrying handguns. Before I lived there, I was also sure of the same arguments that you trot out with such self assurance. It was only after many months of watching the news, listening to gunfire weekly in our neighbourhood, and listening to the media reports of how citizens had defended themselves that I came to see firearms in a different light. It was an epiphany, of sorts, to learn that good guys carried guns too. I certainly don't expect you to accept my point of view.I will tell you that a solid look at the mess of the firearms registry will show how hopelessly it is fouled up. And with millions of gun owners still outside the registry, and with 13 million guns still unregistered, there is little reason to expect that new legislation will work to stop the violence in Toronto. One book that you may find instructive is Joseph Tainter's classic "The Collapse of Complex Societies". In it he comes to a conclusion about societies which also translates well to Canada. Basically, he posits that: Humans solve problems (create efficiency) by increasing the level of complexity in a given system. As the system becomes more complex, however, (in response to perceived "need"), the degree of efficiency reaches a peak, then decreases. When the system reaches a level of complexity that is unsustainable (complexity requires money and/or energy), then the system abruptly defaults to a lower level of complexity. Roughly translated, the Canadian Government is working to disarm the citizens of Canada in response to a perceived need to control crime - specifically "gun" crime. As one American comedian questioned in a skit: "Why is it, after a shooting, that they always want to take away the guns from everybody who didn't do it?" The answer, of course, is that those who are used to creating legislation which prohibits activities or possession of various items, don't know how else to deal with the real issues. When the Government takes my registered guns, (and they've already started, with letters informing my wife and I of the requirement to dispose of legally purchased handguns which the Liberals declared "Prohibited" in Bill C-68), I'll buy unregistered ones. The millions of gun owners already outside the system will be joined by millions of their brothers and sisters who tried to follow the law. With such influential writers as yourself working to marginalize legitimate gun owners, it appears that the writing is on the wall for legal gun ownership in Canada. The country will be poorer for it. Australia and the United Kingdom are already witnessing the effects of gun bans. With legal handgun sales skyrocketing since Paul Martin announced the coming ban, I can only guess at the level of illegal handgun sales, but I trust business is brisk. While I know that your point of view is common, especially in the big city environment of Urban Canda, I also know I am not alone in my convictions. The difference is this: However much you desire to return to the low crime era of bygone years, I know that the system is not working, and no amount of prohibition and control of legal firearms will address that issue. Those who want a gun will always get a gun. Jim Szpajcher St. Paul, AB http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=8d533643- 51db-427c-8cfe-009344fa8dee Gun control save lives Jeff White National Post Tuesday, December 27, 2005 © National Post 2005 jwhite@nationalpost.com Jeff White is a National Post editor who has written on criminal justice issues since 1999. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 20:49:41 -0600 (CST) From: "Trigger Mortis" Subject: Re: Million gun march Nice to hear from you, Hugh. I was at FedUp 1 & 2. I'll be there for 3. Alan Harper alan__harper@cogeco.ca SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM ************************* ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 21:38:53 -0600 (CST) From: 10x <10x@telus.net> Subject: Re: [EDITORIAL] Gun control save lives At 07:43 PM 12/27/05 -0600, you wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > >> Confirmation of this hypothesis would be pretty important, given that 80% >> of Canadian gun deaths are classed as suicide -- and are often >accompanied >> by murders that no prison sentence can deter. So take note that Canadian >> suicide expert Antoon Leenaars, working with U.S. and Hungarian >colleagues, >> has indeed confirmed it. They found in 2003 that Canada's landmark 1977 >> gun-control law significantly reduced total suicide rates, both when >> compared with a projection of the previous upward trend and, in an >> independent analysis, when six social factors were controlled for. >> >> Separately, Leenaars and U.S. psychologist David Lester have found that >the >> 1977 law also cut into total homicide rates, even after controlling for >the >> six social influences. And in 2004, Stephen Bridges of the University of >> West Florida published evidence that Canada's 1991 and 1995 gun-control >> laws, passed in the wake of Marc Lepine's 1989 Montreal massacre and >> suicide, have had a further impact on both homicide and suicide. > >Anyone heard of this "Antoon Leenaars" guy, or either of his "studies"? >Has anyone taken a look at his work to determine how biased it is? I don't >recall ever hearing about him before now. I think that if his work were >any good, the gun grabbers would have been shouting it from the rooftops >long before now. I have read Mr. Leenaars conclusions. Mr. Leenaars reports a correlation between the drop in firearms suicides and the firearms act. Mr. Leenaars fails to mention that the overal suicide rate started dropping long before the firearms act took effect, and there is evidence that although firearms suicide rates have dropped, there seems to be substitution of method so that the rate overall was not effected. Mr. Leenaars has correlation but can not link cause. It appears that the firearms act has resulted in a change in suicide method but no real changes in overal suicide rate. It has been shown that the will to commit suicide is independent of the means available. Nor are firearms the most common method that potentual suicides use. In fact there is NOT ONE STUDY that estimates how many suicides are commited with means other than firearms, even though a firearm was available. No one has ever blamed the availablity of rope for the suicide a person that hung themselves. Linking firearms to suicide is a non starter. Method is not cause. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:34:47 -0600 (CST) From: "Todd Birch" Subject: Editorial in National Post To: , Jeff White I read your editorial about how "gun control" saves lives on the Canadian Firearms Digest. For a start, quoting meaningless statistics proves nothing. That game can go on indefinitely. What is proven, is that so far, alleged "gun control" programs, registration, licensing, prohibitions, etc., have done nothing to prevent criminal misuse of firearms of any kind in any country that has such programs. In fact, violent gun crime has increased drastically in those jurisdictions. If the system really worked, we wouldn't have the tragedies we continue to suffer. Despite invasive questions and thorough background checks, some people who ought not to have access to firearms are getting them. Failing that, there is a flourishing black market in guns. Those who are denied or have their licenses revoked are not tracked, just those of us who have not broken the law. The shooter at L'Ecole Polytechnique (Marc Lepine) was really named Gamil Gharbi, the son of an Algerian immigrant misogynist. Had Gharbi not been able to get his gun legally, it would have been no great trick for him to buy one on the street; even easier today, by all indicators. If I follow your flawed reasoning, suicide and homicides will cease if we ban all guns. This is unrealistic, to say the least.. That would be akin to outlawing murder and war expecting peace to reign. Murder is a crime, but not one serious enough to warrant execution in this country. Countries reserve the right to practice murder on a grand scale calling it "war". If you are going to counter with the old saw "If it saves even one life...."; think of how many lives would be saved if we had meaningful deterrents in this country and had applied the $2 billion wasted on the Firearms Registry to more policing and social programs. Our Politically Correct media will not allow reporters to mention the ethnicity or colour of criminal shooters. At the risk of sounding like a xenophobic racist, I'll bet you could research the statistics to show that our open door, multi-cultural, pluralistic immigration policies might have something to do with Toronto's problem. Sincerely D.T. Birch Quesnel, BC ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:35:13 -0600 (CST) From: Lee Jasper Subject: Hanguns and owners From the Ottawa Sun article: > There are more than 500,000 legally registered handguns in this country. > Most are owned by police, security guards, collectors and licensed > target shooters. O.K. Who's got the numbers at their fingertips. How many handgun owners (as per the CFAC) and how many registered handguns (as per the RWRS) are there in Canada? Can someone also confirm the correct numbers of ATT holders? Did I not read recently that there were about 30,000 (blessed by their ever loving CFOs) such persons across Canada? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:35:37 -0600 (CST) From: Lee Jasper Subject: Oh that the wheels may be falling off the Red wagon It was reported literally everywhere: > Liberal exec resigns amid blog controversy Liberal exec resigns amid > blog controversy > > A high-ranking official within the Liberal Party of Canada resigned > today after he made disparaging comments on his blog about NDP Leader > Jack Layton and his wife, NDP candidate Olivia Chow. > > Mike Klander, executive vice-president of the federal Liberal party's > Ontario wing, stepped down after photographs of Chow, the NDP > candidate for the Toronto riding of Trinity-Spadina, and a chow chow > dog were posted on his blog dated Dec. 9 under the heading > ``Separated at Birth." Signs that the oft criticized 'Liberal' media may not be so forgiving after all. Pity on Klander. I seriously believe he's a closet gun owner because during the takeover of S/W Ont. fed Lib riding assoc.'s in '95 (seems like only yesterday) Mike (as a lower level official) was quite frank in acknowledging what 'dirty tricks' could be played and what was off limits and would be sure to end the 'game' by placing too deviant riding assoc.'s into receivership. He declared that the exec positions had been won by democratic means and the old boys/girls would half to tolerate and accept the 'new order' until they had an opportunity to win back the exec positions a year down the road. His handling of a very embarrassing situation (for the Party brass) which resulted largely from MPs being largely out of touch with their Ridings gained him the Ont. V-Pship. I note many news articles state: > Klander was a volunteer and did not play an official role for the > Liberals during this campaign, Heckbert said, adding he's apologized > to Chow. FYI, even though he was a V-P for the Lib Party of Can (Ont). he would be 'volunteering' his time on the national campaign. It's sort of like an MPs Ottawa and constituency staff, while there's an election campaign underway, , , the business of gov't goes on and they continue representing all the citizens of their riding. If they work on their MP's campaign, it had better be after hours or on their holiday time - unless they have taken an unpaid leave of absence.. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:36:09 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: My proposed letter to the National Post Here's what I have drafted so far; I have toned it down CONSIDERABLY from what I had originally typed up. I am still concerned about one of the paragraphs, which I will point out. I'd like your comments as to its suitability. - ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Mills To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 1:23 AM Subject: Guns save lives Jeff White's anti-gun diatribe aside, the fact remains that guns save lives, and are a net benefit to society. Drs. Mauser and Buckner's 1997 study showed that Canadians used guns to protect themselves, their property, and others from predators, both two and four legged kinds, up to 80,000 times each year. For every life lost to guns, 40 are saved. Cops carry guns for the very reason that they protect their lives. US States that pass "Shall Issue" concealed carry laws see a decrease in confrontational crimes of an average of 24%. If any one of the staff or students at the Ecole Polytechnique had been allowed to do so, Gamil Gharbi could quite possibly have been stopped long before he actually shot anyone. Contrary to White's beliefs, "regular guys" don't just up and murder people. Statistics Canada shows that two thirds of all killers and one half of all their victims had a previous criminal history - 70% for a violent crime. Two hundred and thirty two homicides occurred during the commission of another crime, the majority of which were other violent offences. Among cases where it was known whether alcohol or drugs were a factor, police reported that the majority of accused (73%) and victims (55%) had consumed an intoxicant at the time of the homicide. White's claims that the Firearms Registry is working because it has revoked or refused 16,000 gun licences; what he doesn't tell you is that once having been refused, the Justice Department washes its hands of these people - it doesn't follow up on them, or track them in any way, or see to it that they don't acquire firearms from illegal sources. There's no telling how many out of the 16,000 subsequently did just that, and then carried out their nefarious plans. And it's not just men who kill with guns, either. Ruth Anne Willis drove all the way from Crapaud, P.E.I., stole her father's handgun from his home in Milton, and shot her ex-husband 8 times at his home in Dundas, Ontario. We can anecdote each other to death, but such cases are the exception, not the rule. As White himself points out, there are 11 million guns in Canada; there were only 172 homicides where firearms were used in 2004. That is an absolutely minusucle fraction of all the legally owned guns in law abiding hands. Most guns used in homicides were not even registered, or legally owned! Between 1997 and 2004, among those homicides where detailed firearm information was known, 84% were not registered and four out of every five (79%) of accused persons did not possess a valid firearms license. - ------------------------------------------ The following is the paragraph I still have some concerns about - this guy is such a pogue, I don't quite trust myself not to "cross the line"... - ------------------------------------------ White has shown himself to be a misandrist - he hates his own gender. He's one of those liberal, urban, elites who has been infected by the new "white man's burden", only when it comes to gender instead of race. Not content to scourge just himself, he blames all men for all the violence perpetrated throughout the ages. He seems bound and determined to blame rational, reasonable and responsible law abiding people for the irrational, unreasonable and irresponsible criminal acts of others. Sorry, that's not the way it works. Not in a supposedly "free and democratic society", anyway. When it comes right down to it, I have the sovereign right to self defence. I have the sovereign right to property. I have the sovereign right to keep and bear arms, for my own defence, and for the defence of that property. Why should we sit idly by when the likes of White, Rathjen and Cukier seek to strip us of our rights? Why should we treat them with any respect, when they consistantly lie, misdirect and mislead in order to satisfy their evil agenda? These people have delcared themselves to be the enemies of my rights, and my freedom. We don't need gun control, we need liberal control. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:37:28 -0600 (CST) From: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Majordomo User) Subject: Re: Fw: Gun Control Saves Lives - National Post, December 27, 2005. From: Jason Hayes Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 20:30 -0600, Jim S. wrote: > Having lived in a big American city, roughly the size of Toronto, I learned > that the only way that average citizens could defend themselves was by > carrying handguns. Before I lived there, I was also sure of the same > arguments that you trot out with such self assurance. It was only after > many months of watching the news, listening to gunfire weekly in our > neighbourhood, and listening to the media reports of how citizens had > defended themselves that I came to see firearms in a different light. It > was an epiphany, of sorts, to learn that good guys carried guns too. Jim and others, Not picking a fight here, but what area of what city did you live in? I have been in the fourth largest city in the U.S. for over six months and I have only had one instance where I felt even feel a passing need to "defend" myself from anyone. Also, I have not heard a single gun shot since I moved to Phoenix. That said, I will most assuredly be getting my CCW early in the new year. However, I will be doing so as a matter of exercising my constitutional right to keep and bear arms and as a means of being prepared, NOT because I feel threatened when I walk out of my house. In contrast, while working in downtown Calgary, I picked up my pace and fervently wished for some form of protection every time I had to dodge the drunks, junkies, crack whores, panhandlers, and prostitutes that infested the park across from city hall in Calgary. It seemed that that crew would manage to shoot, stab or overdose someone every few weeks. As far as news of murders go, I watch and listen to the news religiously (several hours each day) and I have seen more reporting on murders in Toronto than I have on murders in Phoenix. >From what I have seen, I would be very reluctant to move from the relative calm of the Phoenix area to the constant firefights, gang banging, and brazen murders on the streets of TO. More to the point, I think you would have to be crazy to live in Toronto without a flak jacket and armed guard. It is clearly too dangerous for civilized people to live in places like Toronto and London (UK). All the criminals are armed and given free reign by the government and courts to loot, pillage and murder. While the honest, law abiding citizens are restrained, repressed, and hiding in their homes. Nothing like a little hyperbole going in the other direction, is there? Hyperbole or not, you folks can keep Toronto and its murders. I'll stick with Phoenix and my (soon to be) CCW. 8o) Later Jason ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:04:56 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: Fw: Gun Control Saves Lives - National Post, December 27, - ----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: Fw: Gun Control Saves Lives - National Post, December 27, From: Jason Hayes > Hyperbole or not, you folks can keep Toronto and its murders. I'll stick > with Phoenix and my (soon to be) CCW. 8o) Yeah, yeah, rub it in you rat bastard! :-} It's better to have a gun and not need one, than to need one and not have it! Yours under Tyranny in Lieberal Occupied Kanuckistan, Bruce Hamilton Ontario Piss Off A Liberal - Buy A Handgun! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:23:39 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Lowe Subject: Re: Top court: guns not a right - considering Commonwealth history, Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Joe Gingrich wrote: > I sent you Blackstone a mental giant and you return with mental midgets. You'll understand if I equate your expertise in constitutional law and authorities with that of my barber who fancies himself somewhat of a veterinary expert and claims that chewing tobacco will cure anything that ails a dog or a horse? Let's start by recognizing that Blackstone repeated that the right to arms was "as allowed by law" - meaning laws passed by parliaments. Mental giant or not, Blackstone recognized the preeminence of parliament and that no parliament could bind another. Blackstone's particular importance is he was the first person to do a complete examination of English law - which in his time was a formless, unstructured mess with little if any references. He presented it in a style that gave it substance and order similar to that of Roman law and that of the continent - the Brits had a pretty pathetic system at the time in comparison. A great part of its' value is that he laid out the entirity of English law in a manner that a local judge with rudimentary education could understand and use as a reference while plying his trade. The value was consistency in the law - not an individual clarity of vision which surpassed everyone else of his time and since. He is by no means the be all and end all of historical English law philosphers: Coke, Hale, Bentham, and Dicey come immediately to mind. Blackstone's work had a great effect on the teaching of law in particular and the practice of law in general, but he was also criticized by his contemporaries and others since then for his simplistic belief that English law could not be improved and his shallow analysis of the reasons why particular laws and acts came into being in the first place. Incidentally, Blackstone turned to scholastic pursuits, teaching, and writing after he went broke trying to make it as a lawyer and failed dismally at trial when he showed a distinct lack of ability to win over judges to his side of a legal argument. How often on this list have we heard sneering comments about "academics" and that "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach..." The scholar of English constitutional law and Blackstone that you are, I of course know that you are aware of all of this - I just thought it bore repeating to bring everybody else up to date as well. As to the inference that every British Empire/Commonwealth high court judge who hasn't declared that a right to bear arms unfettered by parliament exists (meaning: hundreds and hundreds of them) must be a moron... Well, aside from the fact that Blackstone himself didn't say this, I guess it means all the backyard vets who claim that chew will cure whatever ails a dog or horse must be right and all the vets out there who think otherwise must be idiots at the feet of these "mental giants". Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I suspect that if Blackstone had plainly written that subjects can only bear arms where licensed by law, instead of touting him you would be rejecting him as a mental midget. In any case, if the best plan we can come up with is that Blackstone is the final authority on our constitutional law and he clearly said there is an unfettered right to bear arms, then I think the end result of this issue is pretty well already decided and we're just going through the motions. This is a loser's approach akin to "the Titanic that is C-68 will sink itself". If that's what Canadian firearms owners want to stake the future on, then fine - but nobody should sound particularly surprised or confused when we lose in the end. 350 some odd years of consistent higher court decisions should give you a hint of what they will be in the future. And isn't insanity defined by trying the same thing over and over again and expecting to get a different result with each successive trial? ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V8 #830 ********************************** 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@cogeco.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.