Cdn-Firearms Digest Wednesday, July 2 2008 Volume 11 : Number 635 In this issue: Re: "Why?" Editorial: The danger of living with guns What's wrong with C-21? Re: Read between the lines I_did_what_is_expected_of_any_soldier_or_civilian. Re: "Why?" {COLUMN] THE BRADY CAMPAIGN TO DEFINE 'SENSIBLE GUN LAWS' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 16:33:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: "Why?" - --- On Wed, 7/2/08, Todd Birch wrote: > The American nation was founded by bloody revolution against > the Crown. They > won their nationhood through battle and hardship. We did > not. Yes, I know that, but that does not explain *why* the Revolutionary Ideals took such a firm hold amongst the general populace - long before any actual fighting started! Yours in LIBERTY! Bruce "It is not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself." - From The Declaration of Arbroath, 1320. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:17:47 -0600 From: Dennis & Hazel Young Subject: Editorial: The danger of living with guns THE SUDBURY STAR - JULY 2, 2008 The danger of living with guns (Editorial, comment on this story) http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1096771 The numbers are so compelling, but do we pay attention? They involve guns, murders and suicides and they show us that we are far safer not to be within reach of a firearm, though almost one third of us live in a household with one. Are we stubborn, because it is our right to own a gun? Or do we just not pay attention to the dormant death their presence represents? Research released in the U. S. last week showed that suicides accounted for 55 per cent of that country's 31,000 firearm-related deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which national crime statistics are available. It was eyebrow- raising stuff, yet the numbers are not new. Suicides involving firearms have accounted for more deaths than homicides (40 per cent) in the U. S. for many years. The gist of the numbers released last week is that if you have a gun in the house, the chances of it being used to hurt someone in that house far outweigh any perceived necessity of gun ownership. One supposes it is people's right to die by gunfire -- and wow, what a right that is. A few more numbers from that U. S. research: Of those who attempt suicide with guns, 90 per cent were successful, versus two per cent for drug overdoses; homes in which a suicide took place were three to five times more likely to have a gun present than households in which there were no suicides. The numbers go on and on. They are different in Canada, but the pattern is familiar when guns are concerned. The Canada Safety Council says nearly 80 per cent of all firearms deaths in Canada are suicides. Other statistics show the homicide rate in the U. S. is roughly 3.5 times that of Canada, mainly due to the higher rate of gun violence in the U. S. About 70 per cent of the murders in the U. S. are committed using a gun, compared to about 30 per cent in Canada. Most users of illegal guns in Canada are in their teens or early 20s (gun-use among this demographic is rising, particularly with the use of handguns in cities). Statistics Canada reports there were 190 homicides committed with a gun in 2006 in Canada, 33 fewer than the previous year. In 2005 in the United States, there were about 12,000 deaths by gunfire. About half the population in the U. S. lives in a household that has a gun, while about 27 per cent of Canadian households have a gun, but many of those in Canada are shotguns and rifles, with their owners living in rural areas. The rate of gun violence with long guns is much lower than that of handguns. And while these numbers paint a persuasive picture -- one that inescapably shows that living with a gun is dangerous -- the Supreme Court in the U. S. struck down a handgun ban enacted in the District of Columbia in 1976. A dissenting judge's submission worried about the high suicide rate in the U. S. involving guns, but that wasn't enough to deny Washington residents their right to bear arms. Canadians, fortunately, do not have the same hunger for guns -- handguns are legal only through a special permit -- though the political debate over the ineptly run long-gun registry showed there is still a small but significant gun culture in Canada. The statistics are inescapable: if you choose to have a gun in your home, look around at those living in your household -- if that gun is used, if a shot is fired from its barrel, are you willing to accept the undeniably defined risk to their lives to exercise that right? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 19:35:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Ian Jefferson Subject: What's wrong with C-21? Hi folks, I'm still gathering understanding. What is wrong with Bill C21? Superficially it looks like progress in a good direction. For those of you interested a summary is available here. I'd like to see the full text though. http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=c21&source=library_prb&Parl=39&Ses=1 This was from google "Canada Bill C-21" search. If you respond please consider links or references to earlier discussion topics on this list by subject line. Thx IJ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 19:28:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Ian Jefferson Subject: Re: Read between the lines > > > > You are uncompromising > > There we have it. Give until you cannot give anymore and we will be on top > of the world. Thank for the advice but I have seen where it gets us for the > last 30 years. > > Al > For those of you who find Al to be unreasonable I leave you with the following tidit of wisdom. It's an IGJ policy statement or part of my value system what have you. "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - -George Bernard Shaw ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:34:15 -0600 From: Joe Gingrich Subject: I_did_what_is_expected_of_any_soldier_or_civilian. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4254225.ece Bulldozer driver Hossam Dwayyat shot at wheel after deadly rempage through Jerusalem From The Times July 3, 2008 A Palestinian construction worker in a digger went on a rampage in central Jerusalem yesterday, killing at least three people and injuring 45. Hossam Dwayyat, a 31-year-old Arab resident of east Jerusalem, wrought havoc on one of the city's main thoroughfares, driving into oncoming traffic and leaving a trail of mangled vehicles in his wake. He was caught on film as onlookers saw him take the digger from his construction site and crash through cars queueing on Jaffa Street. He overturned one bus and struck another before being shot dead by security officers. "I saw him coming towards me and I froze," said Chava Shimoni, a 24-year-old student who was making her way to lunch. "I could see his eyes and he looked so focused. A man shoved me out of the way - it was a miracle that I survived." Ms Shimoni was one of dozens of people who rushed to the victims of the attack, helping screaming passengers out of the overturned bus and passing water bottles to those in shock. All three of those killed were women. Their bodies were covered in plastic sheets as they lay trapped in the debris of their vehicles. One was reported to have saved her baby girl's life by throwing her out of the window seconds before the bulldozer hit. Dwayyat, who had a criminal record, was working legally on a building site near the central bus station when he turned his digger into oncoming traffic on Jaffa Street. He wrecked half a dozen cars and hit a bus before aiming his vehicle at another bus full of commuters. He used the digger's massive scoop to overturn the bus and rammed its side. A number of armed men, including police officers, off-duty soldiers and civilians, momentarily stopped him by opening fire. At least three then jumped on to the digger as Dwayyat slumped over the steering wheel, apparently incapacitated. But he came to and the bulldozer lurched forward before Moshe Plesser, an off-duty soldier who had climbed to the side of the vehicle, shot him at close range. "He yelled 'Allahu akhbar!' and hit the gas," Mr Plesser said. "I did what is expected of any soldier or civilian." Eli Mizrahi, an officer in a special anti-terrorist unit, then fired several more shots. "I ran up the stairs [of the vehicle] and, when he was still driving like crazy and trying to harm civilians, I fired at him twice more and, that's it, he was liquidated," Mr Mizrahi said. Dwayyat's body could be seen lying outside the door of the digger with blood at his feet. Three Palestinian militant groups - the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, the Galilee Freedom Battalion and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - claimed responsibility for the attack, although Israeli police said initial evidence suggested that Dwayyat was a "terrorist acting on his own". Hamas, which has a fragile ceasefire with Israel, did not take responsibility, but praised the attack as a "natural reaction" to Israeli aggression. It is the first major attack on Jerusalem since March, when Alaa Abu Dhein, a 25-year-old resident of east Jerusalem, attacked the Mercaz Harav seminary. Police said that the attacks could mark a trend in Arab residents from the city's east using their ID cards and freedom of travel to carry out attacks in Jewish neighbourhoods. An Israeli Foreign Ministry official said that recent peace moves could be damaged. "We are trying to convince the people that we need a ceasefire with Hamas in Gaza, and that we need to strengthen Fatah in the West Bank . . . Each attack furthers the public perception that no peace can be established with the Arabs," he said. David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, called the attack horrific. "Our first thought is for the victims and the relatives of the victims," he said. "Our second thought is obviously for the process of building a Middle East peace that's enduring." Dwayyat's family, including his wife and two children, were questioned by police. Tayseer Dwayyat, his father, said: "My son never spoke of plans to carry out such an attack. If he had I would have tried to prevent it." Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, has begun efforts to raze Dwayyat's home and stop social security benefits to his family. The Israeli parliament also passed a first reading of a Bill to revoke the citizenship of anyone convicted of terrorist activity ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 11:08:18 -0700 From: "Todd Birch" Subject: Re: "Why?" The American nation was founded by bloody revolution against the Crown. They won their nationhood through battle and hardship. We did not. Ours was a 'peaceful' national beginning, if you discount the Anglo-French wars, the tiffs along the border with the US, the 1837 Rebellion, Red River and Riel Rebellions. Here in BC, the movers and shakers in our founding history were invariably Americans (business entrepeneurs, cattlemen, steam boat captains, mining engineers, etc.), with the Brits making up the ruling establishment and aristocracy after the demise of the more democratic early beginnings of the HBC fur trade. The stability of the rule of British law allowed for a more peaceful settlement and development of the Colony, unlike the unruly 'Wild West' of the American experience. The non-British immigrant population was smart enough to recognize and profit from this and didn't rock the boat. TB ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 16:43:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: {COLUMN] THE BRADY CAMPAIGN TO DEFINE 'SENSIBLE GUN LAWS' http://www.newswithviews.com/Nemerov/howard3.htm THE BRADY CAMPAIGN TO DEFINE 'SENSIBLE GUN LAWS' By Howard Nemerov July 2, 2008 NewsWithViews.com Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that a resident of Washington D.C. has a Constitutional right to own a firearm for self-defense in the home.[1] Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, declared: “Our fight to enact sensible gun laws will be undiminished by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case.”[2] But what exactly qualifies as “sensible,” according to Helmke? We must travel back to the year 2001 to answer this question. For many years, the Brady Campaign released an annual “report card,” grading each state on its level of “sensible” gun laws. States with higher grades (e.g. “A”) were obviously more “sensible,” according to Brady; states rated “F” were apparently considered “non-sensible.”[3] The first interesting detail in the 2001 version of this report card is that Washington, D.C. is missing. This is also true for Brady’s 2002-2004 reports.[4] This is a curious omission because the Brady Campaign is on record as supporting the D.C. ban on functioning firearms––Helmke said “we [Brady Campaign] disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling”[5]––and it seems reasonable that their report card would be an excellent opportunity to highlight D.C.’s success, since surely a total firearms ban rates an “A.” Also in 2001, the North Carolina State Center for Health Statistics, as part of their Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), asked respondents from all over the country the following question: “Are any firearms now kept in or around your home? Include those kept in a garage, outdoor storage area, car, truck, or other motor vehicle.”[6] Results from this survey were collated with Brady’s 2001 grades. After sorting by gun ownership levels, states were divided roughly into quartiles: under 30% gun ownership rates (12 states); 30-40% (14 states); 40-50% (15 states); and over 50% ownership rates (10 states). There is a clear correlation between low levels of gun ownership and higher Brady grades: Only the first quartile of states, incidentally with the lowest levels of gun ownership (average 16.5%), were rated well by Brady, averaging a grade of B+. Quartiles 2-4 had average grades of D+, D+, and D-, respectively. This indicates that Brady’s definition of “sensible” gun laws equates with laws which restrict or prohibit gun ownership. Unfortunately for Brady, there is another correlation which demands attention. Each year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation releases their annual Uniform Crime Report, reporting on major violent and property crimes committed around the country. Included in their crime tabulations is a Table 4, which compares the current year’s crime rates to the previous year’s. This enables the FBI to report on updated data for the previous year’s, reflecting corrections and late entries from participating law enforcement agencies from across the country. As a result, Table 4 in the 2002 Uniform Crime Report has more accurate crime data for the year 2001.[7] Brady’s favored group––with the B+ average grade––had a average violent crime rate of 610.0 in 2001. Violent crime levels dropped sharply in quartiles 2-4: 424.5, 410.7, and 319.6, respectively.[8] Brady makes much of the relationship between guns and crime, particularly firearms deaths. Helmke states: Our weak or non-existent gun laws contribute to the thousands of senseless gun deaths and injuries in this country that occur each year.[9] However, Brady’s B+ group had an average homicide rate of 7.6. As gun ownership levels increased, murder rates decreased: 4.9 for quartiles 2 and 3, and 4.2 for quartile 4 (the states with over 50% gun ownership rates). Not only do Brady’s “best” states have low levels of gun ownership, but they averaged relatively high levels of violent crime and murder. More interesting is that in 2001, 10 of 12 states in the B+ quartile were not Right-to-Carry (RTC), while all 10 states in quartile 4 were RTC. In practical terms, Brady’s criteria for “sensible gun laws” translates into less civilian gun ownership and an inability for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves against violent criminals, flying in the face of the Supreme Court ruling that concluded: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.[10] What’s sensible about higher violent crime rates? Endnotes: 1 - See District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, No 07-290, Supreme Court of the United States, Syllabus. 2 - Statement Of Brady President Paul Helmke On Supreme Court Second Amendment Ruling, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, June 26, 2008. 3 - See The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 2001 Report Card, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, January 22, 2002. 4 - See The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 2002 Report Card, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, January 2, 2003. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 2003 Report Card, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, January 9, 2004. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 2004 Report Card, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, January 12, 2005. 5 - Statement Of Brady President Paul Helmke On Supreme Court Second Amendment Ruling. 6 - North Carolina State Center for Health Statistics, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, BRFSS Survey Results 2001 for Nationwide: Firearms. For further discussion of this survey, see Is Philadelphia’s Violence Due to Firearms Availability? 7 - Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States, 2002, Table 4 - Index of Crime by Region, Geographic Division, and State, 2001-2002, pages 68-77. 8 - Discussion of correlations between Brady grades and crime rates based upon Excel workbook compiled from Brady Report Card, BRFSS Survey Results 2001, and FBI Uniform Crime Report. Email request for workbook. 9 - Statement Of Brady President Paul Helmke On Supreme Court Second Amendment Ruling. 10 - District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, page 1. © 2008 Howard Nemerov - All Rights Reserved Howard Nemerov is a “recovering” gun control supporter. He began to research the issue of gun control on his own, and what he found transformed his perspective. Now he writes to help gun owners become better emissaries when talking about gun rights, and to help undecided people understand the underlying principles of the right to self-defense. Howard is a contributor for the Texas State Rifle Association’s “TSRA Sportsman” and appears frequently on NRA News as an Analyst At Large, talking about gun control and its threat to our way of life and liberty. His new book is “Four Hundred Years of Gun Control: Why Isn’t It Working?” Where the emphasis has been on rhetoric and legislation, this book includes extensive data analysis from neutral and even pro-gun-control sources to determine if the rhetoric is true, and if the laws have worked...after Four Hundred Years. E-Mail: hnemerov@netvista.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This article is full of embedded links and reference URL's for sources and mentioned publications and articles, far too many to be included here. For further information please refer to the articles source URL mentioned above and here; http://www.newswithviews.com/Nemerov/howard3.htm - -CFD Moderator-DRGJ ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V11 #635 *********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:drg.jordan@sasktel.net List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca FAQ list: http://www.canfirearms/Skeeter/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://www.canfirearms.ca CFDigest Archives: http://www.canfirearms.ca/archives To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next four lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".)