From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V10 #300 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, March 5 2007 Volume 10 : Number 300 In this issue: Re: BRITAIN: Victorian gun crime - the shocking story Re: I only asked a simple question Chretien nemesis takes a run at Quebec Liberals Seal hunt film snares activists Re: Dion's Terror Flip Flop Re: 1977 or 1979, 1992 or 1994 FAC? Military Victory Ottawa Police, judge Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V10 #298 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 10:17:28 -0600 From: Edward Hudson Subject: Re: BRITAIN: Victorian gun crime - the shocking story On 2007 Mar 05, at 10:05 AM, News@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca wrote: > > http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/graham_stewart/=20 > article14 > 64478.ece From The Times March 03, 2007 Victorian gun crime - the shocking story Graham Stewart Illegally held guns are flooding Britain=92s inner cities and a spate of = =20 fatal shootings in London has highlighted gun culture=92s allure to =20 disaffected youth. This comes despite the best efforts of the law and =20= its enforcers to restrict the supply of guns. Yet, any man, woman or =20 street urchin could own a gun in Victorian Britain =97 at least until =20= 1870 when a licence fee was charged if they wanted to carry the weapon =20= outside their home. And, surprisingly, there was very little gun crime. The right to own firearms was enshrined in the 1689 Bill of Rights (the =20= Americans had to get their ideas from somewhere) and as late as 1900 =20 the Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, was happy to declare how much he =20 would =93laud the day when there was a rifle in every cottage in =20 England=94. There were a quarter of a million registered firearms in private hands =20= before the First World War and the true figure was almost certainly far =20= higher. In those years the average number of crimes involving firearms =20= in London was 45. In 2006 it was 3,350. True, in 1903 a Pistols Act restricted small handgun ownership to those =20= who were not =93drunken or insane=94. This did not prove = overrestrictive. =20 When in 1909 unarmed police gave chase to a couple of gun-toting =20 Latvian anarchist desperados in Tottenham, there was no shortage of =20 passers-by who lent their pistols to the coppers. Proper restriction was not introduced until after the First World War. =20= The Firearms Act 1920 decreed that gun ownership required a certificate =20= that the local chief of police could withhold from anyone he deemed =20 =93unfitted to be trusted with a firearm=94. However, the accompanying =20= guidelines made clear =93a good reason for having a revolver=94 included = =20 =93if a person lives in a solitary house, where protection against =20 thieves and burglars is essential=94. The legislation had less to do with armed robbery and more to do with =20= the Lloyd George Government=92s fear that a combination of disaffected =20= soldiers returning from the Western Front, the 1917 Bolshevik =20 Revolution in Russia and the surge in trade union membership might be =20= harbingers of trouble. It was thus better if firearms were monopolised =20= by the State and the more responsible classes. During the 1930s, the law was amended to raise the age in which =20 firearms could be acquired from 14 to 17. Both before and after the =20 Second World War, gun crime remained remarkably low. London recorded =20 only 14 instances in 1951, by which time the guidelines had been =20 changed to discourage owning firearms as an antiburglar deterrent. In recent years, life in Britain=92s cities has got far more dangerous. =20= Since there are not more guns around, perhaps the real problem is =20 cultural? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 12:20:02 -0500 (EST) From: Akimoya Subject: Re: I only asked a simple question - --- Lee Jasper wrote: > Trying to pin down Ed's '1977' FAC: > > Bruce interjected: > > >but I also know what I, and Ed, and Joe, and Al, > and other noteworthy stalwarts have been saying for > the past decade: "SCRAP C-68!" > > > >This should be a no-brainer by now. I find your > interjection of this semantic jerrymandering at this > juncture to be both dilatory and counter-productive. > > > > >Is there more to this than meets the eye? > > > I've been at the 'game' far longer than you, > especially if you count my > opposition to C-51 and C-17. Which is what I already said... > I just asked Ed a simple question. When you respond > for Ed, that is > counter-productive. I don't think so. > Are you in regular communication with your MP? Your > Riding Assoc.? Yes. > The > big CPC Conference is just a quick drive down the > QEW from you. Are you paying the $1,000 for me? Great, thanks! > Ed has indicated he'll respond; let's all give him > that opportunity. Sounds good to me. Yours in LIBERTY! Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 12:35:54 -0500 (EST) From: Akimoya Subject: Chretien nemesis takes a run at Quebec Liberals Notice how "sanitized" the Gazette has made this act of assault by Chretien? Clennet took no active part in this whatsoever. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=e99e1006-bb3b-43cc-b11f-98126318aae6 Chretien nemesis takes a run at Quebec Liberals Gatineau activist Clennett switches from street politics to Quebec solidaire NELSON WYATT, CP Published: Monday, March 05, 2007 Social activist Bill Clennett, who once tussled with Jean Chretien, is now trying to wrestle votes away from Premier Jean Charest. A fighter for housing and welfare reform for more than 20 years, Clennett is switching from "street politics" to mainstream politics to run for little-known Quebec solidaire in Hull in the March 26 provincial election. Clennett grabbed the national spotlight on Feb. 15, 1996, when then-Prime Minister Chretien grabbed him. Clennett was protesting against proposed changes to unemployment insurance when the two men bumped into each other after Chretien addressed the first Flag Day rally. Chretien grabbed Clennett by the neck and roughly shoved him out of the way as he proceeded to his limousine, giving birth to what became known as the Shawinigan Handshake. The bespectacled Clennett acknowledges the tussle, which grabbed front pages and topped newscasts at the time, got him attention but says he was already well known in his community after 10 years of activism. "Is that incident a good thing or a bad thing?" he mused in a recent telephone interview from his Gatineau home during a break in campaigning. "I'm not sure. I'd like to think that people would be concerned not just about the messenger but about the message, too. "But I realize that it's probably both, in realistic terms." Quebec solidaire is a fledgling social-action and pro-sovereignty coalition. The left-wing party isn't seen as a serious threat to the governing Liberals, who currently hold the Hull riding, just across the Ottawa River from Ottawa. However, it has nipped at the Parti Quebecois, attracting voters dissatisfied with the PQ's level of commitment to social democratic ideals. Clennett knows victory for him is a long shot. "I have no pretense to say that we're going to form the next government," he said. He's not giving up, either. He chose Quebec solidaire because the mainstream parties were "giving in to a submissive form of politics where we have to respond to economic pressures and cut into our social infrastructure and social programs." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 12:43:19 -0500 (EST) From: Akimoya Subject: Seal hunt film snares activists http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=f646ccd2-192d-42b5-a930-890cfef85905 Seal hunt film snares activists MIKE DE SOUZA, CanWest News Service Published: Monday, March 05, 2007 Animal-rights activists are outraged they were caught on tape ignoring a dying seal for more than an hour in a documentary on Canada's commercial seal hunt, Quebec filmmaker Raoul Jomphe said. The anti-seal-hunt activists were filming a promotional segment for a fundraising campaign when the incident occurred, he said. Jomphe said Rebecca Aldworth, the Canadian director of wildlife issues for the Humane Society of the United States, called him to complain after she discovered he had captured the incident on film. "She was really mad at me," Jomphe said. That made him question her tactics as he put together his documentary, which examines the annual spring hunt in Atlantic Canada. "I find it to be hypocritical," Jomphe said, after a special screening of the movie - Phoques, le film (Seals, the Movie) - last week at the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. In the documentary - which is scheduled to air this month on the CBC's French-language all-news network, RDI, and Atlantic Radio-Canada stations - the animal rights activists pulled the dying seal out of the water as it tried to escape, and continued filming their promotional video. It is not known for sure how the seal came to be wounded. "If I had been on the ice with my family and kids, I would have told them to turn around and I would have killed the seal myself, because it was disturbing for me to see that," Jomphe said. Aldworth insisted she didn't want the animal to suffer. "I asked somebody to pull the seal out, because at that point I was thinking there might be a chance of getting the seal back to land," Aldworth said in the documentary. "If this seal could still crawl an hour later, could still swim, maybe there was a chance we could bring the seal back to the Atlantic Veterinary College and save the seal." Jomphe's documentary compares techniques used by the hunters to instantly kill their prey with graphic images of animals killed in slaughterhouses. It also focuses on resources and advertising revenues of animal-protection groups in their ongoing campaigns. "I knew that we had to look at the other side of the (coin) to see what was happening," Jomphe said. While he doesn't eat meat, and considers himself to be an environmentalist, Jomphe says he always had doubts about animal-protection activists who, for decades, described the seal hunt as a cruel, barbaric ritual. Federal officials have long maintained the hunt is well-monitored and sustainable, with a seal population of nearly 6 million. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 12:57:38 -0500 (EST) From: Akimoya Subject: Re: Dion's Terror Flip Flop - --- Joe Gingrich wrote: > Public support for the ATA goes beyond politics for > most people in Canada > with the notable exception of Stéphane Dion. > > Supporters of the provisions include: > > a.. the Air India Victims Families Association; > b.. family members of Canadians killed in the 9/11 > terrorist attack; > c.. former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister John > Manley; > d.. former Liberal Justice Ministers Anne McLellan > and Irwin Cotler; > e.. former Liberal Leadership candidate Bob Rae; > and > f.. B.C. Liberal Solicitor General John Les. > Last week the Liberal-dominated Senate also issued a > report recommending the > renewal of all provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act. > > Dion's sudden flip flop exposes him as a weak leader > whose inability to set > priorities is weakening law enforcement's ability to > protect Canadians from > the growing threat of terrorism. This press release reads like a blueprint from the Coalition for Gun Control: - "weakening" gun control laws - helps police - protect Canadians from "gun crime" - groups support it One man's propaganda is another man's truth... Yours in LIBERTY! Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:09:43 -0500 (EST) From: Akimoya Subject: Re: 1977 or 1979, 1992 or 1994 FAC? - --- Edward Hudson wrote: > Convinced that he needed to kill all witnesses of > the deaths of Laurin > and LeVesque, Blass and gang partner Fernand Beaudet > returned to the > bar on January 21, 1975. They locked ten men and > three women inside a > bar locker, killing the thirteen persons. This is the first I've heard of this! Where's the outrage from Wendy? Where's the memorials? Flags should fly at half staff across the country on this day! Yours in LIBERTY! Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 10:24:46 -0800 From: "Todd Birch" Subject: Military Victory In order to "win militarily', the stated objective (mission statement) of the war must be achieved. In democratic countries, the military is led by civilian political powers; in the end, making the overall objective political, rather than military. This also leaves the door open for the possibility of achieving one without accomplishing the other. In the case of WW2, it was to to obtain 'unconditional surrender' from Germany and Japan. Mission accomplished, both politically and militarily. Post WW2, the mission of the UN in Korea was to prevent a Communist takeover of South Korea. That resulted in a military/political stalemate that exists to this day, with North and South Korea in a state of readiness for war along a defended border, and North Korea more of a threat than ever before. Post WW2, the Communist Viet Minh had a mission to achieve self-determination and shed the yoke of French Colonialism. Mission accomplished; militarily and politically. It doesn't matter whether it was a 'political' or 'military' failure on the part of the French, the Viets won. The next part of the mission was to unite the country and depose the puppet government backed by the US. Mission accomplished; militarily and politically. The mission of the US was to prevent the Communist take over of South Vietnam and prevent the spread of communism to the rest of SE Asia. They failed in the first part and communism did not overtake the rest of SE Asia, Pol Pot (Cambodia)nothwithstanding. The mission in Iraq (and please, for those 'in the know', elaborate on this) was to depose Saddam Hussein and eliminate his 'weapons of mass destruction' (WMD). The first part of the objective was achieved and no WMDs were found. In all the subsequent fighting and bombings, I confess to forgetting what the mission was beyond that. In Afghanistan, There also has to be a stated military/political objective in order for that to be achieved, and again, I confess to losing sight of it in the ongoing battles and bombings. There are undoubtedly 'political' as well as 'military' objectives in both countries, and the two are perhaps inseparable. It may well be that the 'political' will prevent the 'military' from being achieved, as has happened many times before in history; particularly in this part of the world. This in no way detracts from the valour and sacrifice of the troops on the ground, as was the case in Korea, Viet Nam, Yugo and a plethora of other conflicts before and since. Soldiers go and serve; fight and die, because that's what soldiers do. I think we are all in agreement with that. While some of you say you are tiring of this thread and are having difficulty linking it to the political reality of Canadian gun owners, it is still a topic of interest as many Canadian families are affected and we are all paying for it; one way or the other. It can be discussed without inflammatory, emotional rhetoric by mature adults. TB ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 10:51:39 -0800 (PST) From: Barry Glasgow Subject: Ottawa Police, judge [permission to print the following, in whole or in part, is granted] I was astonished to see how both a judge and a police expert could justify reducing the sentence of a man accused of firing a shotgun at someone in a car in downtown Ottawa. Justice Colin McKinnon ruled that shooting someone with a sawed-off 12-gauge from 15 feet away doesn't necessarily mean you want to kill them, after a police "firearms expert" testified that a sawed-off shotgun had an effective kill range of less than 10 feet. What utter nonsense! A U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) article on shotgun wounds by Dr. J.M. Wilson for a conference on trauma treatment states that "shotguns are responsible for a greater percentage of deaths than are any other type of firearm" and that "when a 12-gauge shotgun blast loaded with No. 6 shot is observed clinically, at 6 feet the wound inflicted is essentially a central blast, whereas at 24 feet the pattern is that the bulk of pellets has begun to spread out concentrically (although they are still contained within a 6-inch circle)." This is supported by other evidence easily found on the Internet which generally supports the conclusion that shotguns patterns widen at about 1 inch per yard (1 inch per foot for sawed-off shotguns) yet are still very lethal at ranges up to 50 or 60 feet. And at the extremely short distances involved in this case, the fact that the shotgun had its barrel cut down makes absolutely no difference since the pellet charge hasn't really started to open up much. AShotguns, regardless of barrel length, are the most lethal of firearms at close range - so lethal, in fact, that African hunters use them for following up on wounded lions. I don't know where the so-called Ottawa Police got his misinformation but it is especially puzzling considering that, if anything, police tend to overstate the power of firearms used in crime. This case, along with Judge McKinnon's previous ruling allowing the Cumberland killers to walk, provides an alarming insight into how our system excuses those who commit gun violence. Barry Glasgow Notes: for above - http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1238294 Angelfire.com: There is some theorizing that muzzle velocity (and therefore energy and penetration) is higher due to reduced friction from shorter duration of barrel contact. ballistics-experts.com: The Ford Escort in Figure 2 was shot from a range of 6 yards using a sawn off shotgun (12" barrel) loaded with #6 shot. Note that a good proportion of the pellets (about 1/3) are in a 6" circle in the center of the pattern - but the remaining 200+ pellets are spread over a wider area. Many people believe that shotgun spread is one inch per yard - - in reality a shotgun with no choke (and / or passing through an obstacle) will have an extreme spread in the region of one inch per foot of range. Excerpts from Blackwater USA [Blackwater USA is the most comprehensive professional military, law enforcement, security, peacekeeping, and stability operations company in the world] http://www.blackwaterusa.com/btw2004/articles/1122epp.html The 12ga Buckshot generally consist of a cartridge containing 8 to 9 .33 Caliber pellets. Each pellet in general is under 60 grains and is round lead ball with no jacket. Most of these rounds leave the gun with a muzzle velocity of approximately 1600 Fps. The industry standard for the spread pattern of a 12ga shotgun is 1" per yard. So taking this into account the shot pattern at 15yds would be 15", 20yds would be 20" and so on. The average width of a human torso squared toward the shooter is 18"; this target area drops down to 12" if the target turns at an angle. This patterning formula has been proven time and time again using standard police shotguns. With this data we can assume that the maximum effective range on a man size target with the 12ga buckshot is 18yds. This is seven yards shorter than our officers qualify with their handguns. If the target turns the maximum effective range drops down to 12 yds. It is also common for officers to be aware of the pattern or spread on a shotgun and they will often sacrifice accuracy out of belief that some of the shot will hit the target. Without question the buckshot is a lethal round. Our greatest concern during terminal ballistics is not what the pellets do on target, its what happens to all the pellets that don't hit the target. We have proven that outside of 12 to 18 yards we will be faced with rounds down range that are unaccounted for. For example at 30 yards we could potentially have 5 33-caliber bullets off target at one and a half times the speed our handgun rounds travel. We would never accept someone shooting 5 rounds from their handgun toward the general direction of a threat however; we are setting up this scenario when we place buckshot in the shotgun. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 07:57:05 -0700 From: Bill Farion Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V10 #298 Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: Hi; Check this out! *Fisheries bill: subverting the law for partisan reasons * By: Ralph Surette The Chronicle Herald.ca http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/562385.html IF FISHERIES were taken seriously in Ottawa, here’s something that would be on top of the TV news right now: an uprising against a proposed new Fisheries Act (Bill C-45) that would, by all appearances, give the minister of fisheries and his bureaucrats arbitrary powers over fishing; subvert national standards for fish habitat protection; and undercut the security of fishermen’s licences and fish allocations – that could be farmed out to friends of government, big corporations, or anyone the minister chooses. Privatization, politicization and concentration of power at the centre – the increasingly clear trademarks of the Harper government – are being introduced to fisheries. Protests have been pouring in from most significant fisheries, sports fishing, and environmental organizations across the country. The three opposition parties are opposed and, interestingly, the Conservatives are feeling heat from within. B.C. Tory John Cummins, a former fisherman, was kicked off the Commons fisheries committee by Prime Minister Stephen Harper for opposing the new law. And even in the Tories’ Alberta heartland, there’s pressure on MPs from those worried about preserving waterways in the face of the oil boom. The objections centre on a number of points, but primarily these. C-45 gives the Department of Fisheries and Oceans the power to enter into fishery management agreements (MFAs) with provinces or "other organizations" of the minister’s choosing. In particular, habitat protection can be downloaded to provinces, thus destroying national standards for habitat protection, and weakening that protection at the same time since most provinces can be counted upon to favour development over environment. There are also what critics see as loopholes to allow mining and other interests to befoul waterways. MFAs also allow DFO to hand out quotas to favoured groups – even those without licences. Even to the local Tory association, as the wags are saying. Since these MFAs can be pretty well secret – something else left to "ministerial discretion" – a fisherman could be arrested for fishing illegally while not even knowing that his quota had been given to someone else. DFO also gives itself the right to force fishermen, as a condition of the licence, to fund research projects or anything else ministerial discretion deems useful. The law also makes licences non-transferable. There are deeper issues. The law implicitly ends the fishery as a "common property resource" – a legal principle going back to Magna Carta. However, and contradictorally, it also prohibits licences from becoming "property" with certain rights attached. Bureaucratic – and perhaps political – considerations, rather than legal principle, will be the foundation of this new order, with all the potential for abuse therein. There may also be Charter of Rights problems – in that bureaucrats, in secret and without oversight, may make or change regulations that could send fishermen to jail. The Constitution gives that right only to cabinet. Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn protests mightily that C-45 is based on broad, even unprecedented, consultations – yet hardly anyone who is anyone in fishing or the environment can remember being consulted. And he insists that the objections to C-45 are nonsensical – regulations will be introduced to cover all the perceived shortfalls. What he’s saying is "trust me." And the answer is: no, not for a minute. This bill is too consistent with the manipulations of the Harper government generally. Even to the point that what looks like good ideas at first glance in the bill are soiled by the political context. One of these is the measure to create fisheries tribunals. Prosecuting poaching and other minor fishery infractions is slow and awkward in the courts. Expediting these cases through administrative procedures – with the accused having the right to appeal to the courts – seemed like a good idea. However, with the Harper Tories packing the regular courts with their soulmates, would these tribunals be the same – with secret hearings letting friends of government off the hook? Furthermore, there’s been the problematic refusal to join in on the trawler ban in international waters, the appointment of one of Hearn’s Newfoundland political friends as "fishery ambassador" – whatever that is – and projected budget cuts for science, conservation and protection in DFO over the next three years. With all opposition parties opposed, C-45 looks like it’s going nowhere. But with this kind of work afoot, it’s another reason for sober pause as the Harper government rises in the polls and seems within striking distance of majority government. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V10 #300 *********************************** 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 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.