Cdn-Firearms Digest Saturday, March 1 2008 Volume 11 : Number 249 In this issue: Who can you trust Re: Fees for firearm licence renewal until May 2009 Re: Lifted from the RFOCBC website Re; Michael Bryant in Caledonia Re: Bull, no question Re: New crime bill is now law after two years New York Times Editorial: Gun Crazy "Paper: More Statistics, Less Persuasion: A Cultural Theory of..." Killer cop must do full time: Supreme Court Re: New crime bill is now law after two years 12(6) Question Police approve assault rifles to replace shotguns ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:24:48 -0500 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Who can you trust Al asked: > If according to Garry, "This study makes it obvious that we need all > governments to focus on the real problem of violent crime and especially > target those criminals that use any type of weapon in the commission of > an offence. > > And if according to Garry "That's why the federal government introduced > Bill C-2, our Tackling Violent Crime Act" > > Then why the hell did he support the anti gun measures in C-2? He did vote > for the Bill did he not? Probably because the last CPC MP who voted against a gov't Bill was kicked out of the party - for voting as per his conscience and as instructed by his constituents. > Vote Conservative? You have got to be kidding. The deck keeps on being reshuffled and divvied; who knows what's in the final cards. I suspect more votes for the "local man or woman" and to heck with any Party. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:52:36 -0600 From: 10x <10x@telus.net> Subject: Re: Fees for firearm licence renewal until May 2009 At 05:47 AM 2/28/2008 -0700, you wrote: > >PAL & POL Renewals and upgrades are still free under the CPC government. How >long that will last under a Dion led government is anyone's guess How long the renewal and issuing of PAL and Renewals of POLs will be available, or the cost to get a PAL or renew POL, under the Liberal government is also anyone's guess ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:05:28 -0600 From: 10x <10x@telus.net> Subject: Re: Lifted from the RFOCBC website At 02:48 PM 2/29/2008 -0500, you wrote: >Wouldn't it be novel and progressive if all firearm org's polled their >members about what direction they'd like taken with major issues. One >does get a tad tired of getting all their PR stuff touting all the great >things they're doing. The most common complaint I hear is that gun org's >are pursuing things for which (as our former Solicitor General Bob >Runciman would say) many gun owners have little 'appetite'. Sadly there are some "national" Firearms owners groups that appear to support the firearms owners licensing system, sections 91 and 92 of the criminal code, and section 117 of the firearms act. In fact some of these groups seem to be not forcing the C.F.O.s to comply with the legislation... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:17:47 -0600 From: "gwsadair" Subject: Re; Michael Bryant in Caledonia What a moron. If I heard him say ahhh one more time I was going to puke. This guy knows nothing, but thinks he does. My Grandfather had a saying that sums it up and came from a famous person. Better to keep your mouth shut and be perceived a fool then to open it and remove all doubt. His comment" we all just have to have mutual respect for each other and just get along" removed all doubt. What a moron. George Adair No one ever said our freedoms would come cheap. Some we must be prepared to fight for, some we must be prepared to die for. Take freedom for granted once and it will be gone forever. 1776 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 02:37:17 -0400 From: "Al Muir" Subject: Re: Bull, no question > Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:21:44 -0500 > From: "D R Goodbrand" > Subject: Re: Bull, no question > > "Al Muir" said....... >> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:50:13 -0400 >> From: "Al Muir" >> Subject: Bull, no question >> >> Vote Conservative? You have got to be kidding. >> >> Al > > > I don't know whether to laugh or what Al. This is a joke ? Right ? Yes they are a joke. > > IDK where you live Al but let's assume it's Quebec so we can include the > Bloc in your choices > > Of the Federal Parties likely to run candidates in the next general > election > please let us all know which of the following do you suggest is a better > choice for gun owners. I'd love to know and I'm sure I'm not alone > > Bloc Quebecois > Green Party > NDP > Liberal Party of Canada > Conservative Party of Canada > none of the above > > Which one will you be supporting Al ? None of the above ?. Certainly NOT > voting is an option. Bingo on the last two, none of the above or not at all. At present the best option for the about 3 million of us that do not have a license is another minority stalemate. For the most part the law is not being inforced. If the CON-servatives pass C-24 it will be. Without a majority they cannot get it passed. In any event why would I vote for a bunch that plans to jail me for not having a license. Because the other ones have the same plan? Al ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 02:41:18 -0400 From: "Al Muir" Subject: Re: New crime bill is now law after two years > Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:15:37 -0700 > From: Dennis & Hazel Young > Subject: New crime bill is now law , after 2 years> > WINNIPEG FREE PRESS - 2008.02.29 - PAGE: A8 By Mia Rabson > New crime bill is now law, after 2 years > http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/story/4134407p-4726737c.html The CON-servatives passed an anti-gun bill after two years. Is this where we gun owners are supposed to jump for joy? Al ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 09:15:42 -0700 From: Dennis & Hazel Young Subject: New York Times Editorial: Gun Crazy The New York Times 2008.03.01 - PAGE: 16 Gun Crazy http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/opinion/01sat1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin The Valentine's Day massacre at Northern Illinois University, like the killings at places such as Columbine High School and Virginia Tech, has evoked expressions of horror and sympathy and familiar questions about the killer's motives and mental health. Atrocities like these make Americans feel angry and perhaps helpless. Our political leaders are not helpless. They could match public shock with prompt, concerted and effective action to make mass shootings a less frequent fact of American life. But neither party's leaders have shown any sign of stepping up their responsibilities. The latest campus carnage barely caused a ripple in presidential politics, where conventional wisdom dictates against actively advocating more stringent gun control laws. No single measure or combination of measures can ensure that deranged individuals are prevented in every instance from shooting up a crowded classroom or shopping mall. But neither the absence of a perfect solution nor opposition from the powerful gun lobby is an excuse to do nothing -- not when some 30 people are killed with guns every day in America. The rampage at the Northern Illinois campus was at least the sixth multiple murder in this country in just the first two weeks of February. In a rare outbreak of reason on the subject of guns at the end of last year, Congress approved a measure worked out with the National Rifle Association to provide financial incentives for states and localities to share pertinent mental health records with the national database used to screen prospective gun buyers. But there are other practical steps the nation can take that would make it more difficult for dangerous people to obtain deadly firepower. A short, smart public safety agenda would include: Requiring background checks for every gun purchase. That means closing the egregious loophole that permits unlicensed dealers to sell firearms at gun shows without conducting any background check. Limiting purchases to one gun a month in order to defeat traffickers who use straw purchasers to buy weapons in bulk and then resell them on the street. Once again banning the sale of military-style assault weapons and high- capacity ammunition magazines like those used by the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University killers. These magazines would have been outlawed under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, but President Bush and the Republican Congress recklessly let it expire in 2004 to please the gun lobby. Along with health care, trade agreements and the war in Iraq, proposals to reduce the scourge of guns warrant open discussion and debate during the remaining months of the presidential campaign. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama favor stronger gun control, though it may be hard to tell from their campaign Web sites or speeches, which generally avoid the issue. To his credit, John McCain, the likely Republican nominee, starred in television ads supporting state ballot initiatives in Oregon and Colorado to close the gun show loophole. Lately, though, he signed onto a Congressional brief urging the Supreme Court to use a case it is hearing this month to set a legal standard that could foreclose other needed gun restrictions that pose no real threat to the right to bear arms. The Democrats should not be afraid to challenge Mr. McCain -- or gun zealots' wacky idea that the solution to campus mayhem is to arm teachers and students. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 09:39:36 -0700 From: Dennis & Hazel Young Subject: "Paper: More Statistics, Less Persuasion: A Cultural Theory of..." Subject: "Paper: More Statistics, Less Persuasion: A Cultural Theory of Gun Risk Perceptions" Vancouver Sun 2008.03.01 - PAGE: C5 By Peter McKnight When science runs into an ideological wall; The Canadian government has been taken to task for its lack of support for, or knowledge of, scientific research http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=081b7471-a92d-4baa-888e-6e6f483ccd8c While it's usually a badge of distinction to have your work cited in a top-flight academic journal, the federal government wasn't exactly in a celebratory mood after two recent journal editorials discussed the feds' attitude toward science. That's because the journals had little good to say about the government's lack of support for, or knowledge of, scientific research. As far as lack of support is concerned, Nature magazine cited the government's recent decision to eliminate its science adviser position, its muzzling of Environment Canada scientists, and its putative failure to adequately fund research as evidence of "the government's manifest disregard for science." And as for a lack of knowledge, scientists at the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS took Health Minister Tony Clement to task in The Lancet Infectious Diseases for Clement's apparent inability to distinguish between peer-reviewed medical literature and an opinion piece appearing on the website of a lobby group. The Lancet Infectious Diseases article followed an earlier editorial published last year in the online journal Open Medicine. That editorial, written by University of Toronto medical professor Stephen Hwang and endorsed by more than 130 scientists, argued that the government's approach to Vancouver's supervised injection site reveals "that scientific evidence is about to be trumped by ideology." These are damning charges. And there is no question that the government has been less than supportive of any scientific evidence that conflicts with its ideology. This is a serious problem, since preferring to see the world as you think it ought to be (ideology) instead of the way it is (the scientific evidence) can be fatal, not just for governments, but for everyone. Yet there is substantial evidence that ideology influences our assessment of scientific evidence, particularly when one's views are ideologically entrenched. In one experiment, social psychologist Charles Lord divided students into two groups -- one made up those who were the most ardent supporters of capital punishment, and the other of the most ardent opponents of the death penalty. Lord then gave half of the students in each group a set of studies showing that the death penalty acted as a deterrent, and the other half in each group received studies showing that capital punishment had no deterrent effect. Now, were the students acting rationally, we would expect those who received evidence contrary to their views to soften their positions somewhat. But the opposite happened -- both the supporters and opponents of capital punishment strengthened their views upon receiving contrary evidence. In effect, the students explained away the contrary evidence -- and justified their original positions -- by criticizing the methods of those studies that failed to support their ideologies. More recently, Donald Braman and Dan Kahan of Yale University, in a paper titled More Statistics, Less Persuasion: A Cultural Theory of Gun Risk Perceptions, found that people's positions on gun control are determined by their cultural worldviews. Much as in the death penalty study, the researchers concluded that "individuals can be expected to credit or dismiss empirical evidence on 'gun control risks' depending on whether it coheres or conflicts with their cultural values." These are troubling findings because they suggest people behave in a manner exactly the opposite of that prescribed by science, which dictates that we test and modify our theories on the basis of the evidence, rather than interpreting the evidence in light of our theories. But given that this is how many people -- and many governments -- behave, and given the importance of allowing scientific evidence to inform government policy, it's essential that we find ways of developing a rapprochement between researchers and policy-makers. Fortunately, there is a wealth of literature on what is called "research transfer" or "knowledge utilization." Much of this literature has been written by Canadians, including many in the employ of the federal government. In one important paper titled Connecting Research and Policy, Canadian Health Services Research Foundation CEO Jonathan Lomas notes that many factors influence government decision-making, including interests (how one would like the world to work), ideologies (how one thinks the world ought to work) and beliefs (how one thinks the world actually does work.) Of these three, Lomas argues that beliefs are the only factor likely to be changed as a result of information, and even then, information comprises much more than just scientific research, as it also includes "anecdotes, experience and even propaganda." Further, beliefs typically take a long time -- often years -- to change, and then only after "repeated exposure from competing sources of information." Given this reality, how can we make governments more responsive to scientific research? Perhaps most importantly, Lomas notes both researchers and policy-makers must have a better understanding of each others' domains. In particular, both scientists and decision-makers tend to view the others' field as a product rather than a process. Government policy-makers, for example, typically see science as a "retail store" that provides them with just the product they need when they want it. A good example of this view came from Tony Clement when he begrudgingly extended the supervised injection site's lease on life, saying that he needed more "facts" about the site's effect on lowering drug use and fighting addiction. While science can provide such information, Clement's words reveal that he sees science as a retail store rather than as an activity, a process. The problem with this approach is that it virtually guarantees that researchers and policy-makers will come into contact with each other only at the moment a decision is made, and researchers will present their findings only after the policy agenda "has been framed within a particular context . . . and often after the limits have been set around feasible options." And as the government's approach to the supervised injection site -- and the study of students and the death penalty -- make clear, it's highly unlikely scientific research will change the beliefs of policy-makers at such a late stage in the process, particularly when the government holds ideologically entrenched views. If, on the other hand, policy-makers view science as a process, and maintain regular contact with scientists, they can influence the "conceptualization and conduct of a study" and are also more likely to allow the study's results to inform policy. Similarly, if scientists view policy-making as a process, and maintain regular contact with policy-makers, they stand a much better chance of influencing the policy agenda and framing the issues, which again increases the chances that their results will inform policy. For these reasons, the Canadian government has placed considerable emphasis on research transfer, and has developed many linkages between researchers and policy-makers. This close relationship might explain why many bureaucrats within the government have been influenced by the research on the supervised injection site. The problem, of course, is that government policy is ultimately set by the cabinet ministers and the prime minister, who continue to view science as a retail store. And until that changes, the government will continue to make the pages of academic journals, for all the wrong reasons. pmcknight@png.canwest.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 09:41:48 -0700 From: Dennis & Hazel Young Subject: Killer cop must do full time: Supreme Court The Edmonton Sun 2008.03.01 - PAGE: 26 By KEVIN MARTIN, SUN MEDIA Killer cop must do full time: Supreme Court http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Alberta/2008/03/01/4886206-sun.html Former Alberta Mountie Mike Ferguson wasn't entitled to a sentence below the mandatory minimum for fatally shooting a suspect in an RCMP cell, Canada's top court said yesterday. The Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, said the judge who presided over Ferguson's jury trial erred when he made findings which allowed him to grant the ex-cop a constitutional exemption. Justice Ged Hawco ruled Ferguson shot Darren Varley once in self-defence then followed with an instantaneous and instinctive second shot based on his police training. Hawco said since Ferguson's killing of Varley was simply a quick reaction, a four-year minimum prison sentence would amount to cruel and unusual punishment. But the Supreme Court judges, in a ruling written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, said Hawco's findings weren't supported by the evidence. "The instantaneous and instinctive explanation for the second and fatal shot does not sit comfortably with uncontradicted evidence relating to the circumstances of the shooting," McLachlin said. "The finding that Constable Ferguson's second shot was not a matter of anger or judgment, but simply a matter of training, is a vital component of the trial judge's conclusion that Constable Ferguson was at the very low end of the spectrum of moral blameworthiness," she said. "When the erroneous findings of the trial judge are set aside, no basis remains for concluding that the four-year mandatory minimum sentence prescribed by Parliament constitutes cruel and unusual punishment." The top court went on to say that constitutional exemptions are not appropriate remedies, and represent an improper judicial "intrusion into the legislative sphere." Ferguson's lawyer, Noel O'Brien, said the ruling could have an adverse impact on policing in Canada. "The Supreme Court of Canada didn't mention the effect on these police officers who are on the line and are required to carry firearms," O'Brien said. Ferguson, who was convicted of manslaughter, shot Varley during an Oct. 3, 1999, struggle inside a Pincher Creek RCMP cell. Connie Varley, the dead man's sister-in-law, said she was happy with the ruling but it took far too long. "It's bittersweet," she told Sun Media. Ferguson is on parole from the four-year term imposed by the Alberta Court of Appeal. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 11:02:37 -0600 From: Edward Hudson Subject: Re: New crime bill is now law after two years On 2008 Mar 01, at 12:37 AM, Al Muir wrote: > At present the > best option for the about 3 million of us that do not have a license is > another minority stalemate. For the most part the law is not being > inforced. > If the CON-servatives pass C-24 it will be. Without a majority they > cannot > get it passed. In any event why would I vote for a bunch that plans to > jail > me for not having a license? On 2008 Mar 01, at 12:41 AM, Al Muir wrote: > > The CON-servatives passed an anti-gun bill after two years. > Is this where we gun owners are supposed to jump for joy? On 2008 Feb 27, at 7:45 PM, Al Muir wrote: > > Licensing to possess a firearm is the core of our existing Firearms > Act. It > is a criminal offence to possess any firearm without a licence. > ... Return to the original (1977) Firearms Acquisition Certificate ... Thanks, Al, for continuing to remind us that our "new" Conservative government has done nothing to assist firearms owners in protecting our Right of 'Armes for their Defense'. And special thanks for continuing to remind us that licensing is what is going to kill us. Sincerely, Eduardo ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:20:39 -0700 From: John Gilje Subject: 12(6) Question Has anyone that has lost their hearings tried to replace the barrel? the CFC expert from Ottawa said on the stand that we could weld on 1/8" to our 4" barrels and they would then reclassified as restricted. And that we could do ourselves. Have heard the CFO's are not allowing this. Please advise me if anyone has dealing with them over this. Looks like, if this is the case , back to court all over again. Thanks, John ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:24:46 -0700 From: Dennis & Hazel Young Subject: Police approve assault rifles to replace shotguns Calgary Herald 2008.03.01 - PAGE: B4 By Gwendolyn Richards Police approve assault rifles to replace shotguns http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/city/story.html?id=c5d74d39-bccf-4d7a-be8c-e50e42a60fbb More Calgary Police Service officers will be toting assault rifles by the fall after officials approved a plan to replace shotguns with the new firearms. The carbine assault rifles -- basic versions of the weapons already used by the Calgary police tactical team -- will be distributed to 12 to 15 officers in each of the eight districts across the city. The move is in response to the changing environment officers now find themselves in, particularly as they deal more frequently with armoured individuals and vehicles, said Calgary police spokesman Kevin Brookwell. The carbines are far better weapons for ballistics, accuracy and protection, he said. The head of the Calgary Police Association welcomed the decision, saying shotguns need to be used at a much closer range. "Realistically, a shotgun is not practical for engagements," John Dooks said. "The carbine will allow for a more tactical and safer response for the protection of both the public, the police officer and, in many cases, the offender." These weapons will allow officers more of an opportunity to de-escalate situations, Dooks said. The service had been looking more closely at using basic carbine assault rifles for use on the streets since Chief Rick Hanson took over in October, said Brookwell. The vast majority of major police agencies have moved over to carbines in recent years, Brookwell said. While shotguns are a general issue weapon -- meaning any officer can sign them out -- the carbines will be assigned to individual officers because they have to be set up for a particular user and maintained by that user. The 120 carbines have been ordered and are expected to arrive in the summer. At that point, officers will receive training in their use. "We anticipate the carbines will be out in the street by early to late fall," Brookwell said. The team that recommended the switch to the new firearms will be examining the merit of keeping the shotguns in a limited capacity or phasing them out over a period of time. grichards@theherald.canwest.com ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V11 #249 *********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:d.jordan@sasktel.net 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.