Cdn-Firearms Digest Thursday, July 3 2008 Volume 11 : Number 637 In this issue: The Tax Poem *NFR* Re: Participation in the CFAC Re: What's wrong with C-21? Re: Participation in the CFAC Re: "USA Study...half of all gun deaths are suicides" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:32:23 -0300 From: jim hill Subject: The Tax Poem *NFR* The Tax Poem At first I thought this was funny...then I realized the awful truth of it. Be sure to read all the way to the end! Tax his land, Tax his bed, Tax the table At which he's fed. Tax his tractor, Tax his mule, Teach him taxes Are the rule. Tax his work, Tax his pay, He works for peanuts Anyway! Tax his cow, Tax his goat, Tax his pants, Tax his coat. Tax his ties, Tax his shirt, Tax his work, Tax his dirt. Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink, Tax him if he Tries to think. Tax his cigars, Tax his beers, If he cries Tax his tears. Tax his car, Tax his gas, Find other ways To tax his ass. Tax all he has Then let him know That you won't be done Till he has no dough. When he screams and hollers; Then tax him some more, Tax him till He's good and sore. Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave, Tax the sod in Which he's laid. Put these words Upon his tomb, 'Taxes drove me to my doom...' When he's gone, Do not relax, Its time to apply The inheritance tax. Accounts Receivable Tax Airline surcharge tax Airline Fuel Tax Airport Maintenance Tax Building Permit Tax Cigarette Tax Corporate Income Tax Death Tax Dog License Tax Drivng Permit Tax Excise Taxes Federal Income Tax Federal Unemployment (UI) Fishing License Tax Food License Tax Gasoline Tax ( too much per litre) Gross Receipts Tax Health Tax Hunting License Tax Hydro Tax Inheritance Tax Interest Tax Liquor Tax Luxury Taxes Marriage License Tax Medicare Tax Mortgage Tax Personal Income Tax Property Poverty Tax Prescription Drug Tax Property Tax Provincial Income Tax Real Estate Tax Recreational Vehicle Tax Retail Sales Tax Service Charge Tax School Tax Telephone Federal Tax Telephone Federal, Provincial and Local Surcharge Taxes Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax Vehicle License Registration Tax Vehicle Sales Tax Water Tax Watercraft Registration Tax Well Permit Tax Workers Compensation Tax STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was one of the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had a large middleclass, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids. What in the hell happened? Can you spell 'politicians?' And I still have to 'press 1' for English!?!?!?!? I hope this goes around CANADA at least 100 times!!!!! YOU can help it get there!!!! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 18:26:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: Participation in the CFAC - --- On Wed, 7/2/08, Rob Sciuk wrote: > From: Rob Sciuk > Subject: Re: Participation in the CFAC > To: "Canadian Firearms Digest" > Received: Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 12:07 AM > Bruce Mills wrote: > > Combine this with the mantra: > > > > "Gun ownership is the universal, inalienable, and > sovereign right of > > every human being" > > > > which has been demonstrated time and again. This is > our "Big Truth", to > > counter the anti's "Big Lies" > > Good points, Bruce. Somehow it might be good to > incorporate the Safety, > Responsibility and Respect principles ... Not only do we > demand the right > to our own safety, we shall not infringe upon the safety of > others .... > (and we don't). > > Hmmm ... might I suggest re-wording this along the lines of > Charter > section 7 (safety of person) as an inalienable right, and > firearm > ownership is its corollary ... This is how we might launch > a court > challenge, and it would be good to get Canadians thinking > the right way > ... > > The right to safety of person is enshrined within the > Charter of > Rights and Freedoms, so why have they witheld from us the > means of > ensuring our own safety? > > Or similar ... This could certainly use some work ... I've given this a bit more thought, and wish to postulate a "multi-level" approach. First and foremost, we need to hit people over the head with The Truth. This can be the initial "hook", if you will: "Gun ownership is an inherent human right!" or even pare this down some more, "Gun ownership is a human right!". We all know how much the lefties love "human rights"... Once we have their attention, then we can tease them with some "intermediate" information; I see this as being just slightly more complex than the first level: "We derive this right from the right to own property (guns are property), and the right to defend our lives, those of our loved-ones, and our property from attack - even from that of the State." (this can be reworded and tweaked to whatever extent needed, and tailored to your audience) This should resonate with anyone except your most died in the wool commie, who doesn't believe in private property ownership anyway. The third level can be much more detailed and explicit than the first two; this can include your "Safety, Responsibility, and Respect" as part of the "mission statement". We can go just about anywhere from here. But I think it is imperative that we have the strongest possible message at the first level - people are busy, and you only have so much time to get their attention. What do you (all) think? Yours in LIBERTY! Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 05:55:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Ian Jefferson Subject: Re: What's wrong with C-21? Hmm Current bill is C-24. Same deal looks like. Interesting little problem we have here. IJ - -- -- On Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Vladyslav Strashko wrote: > When I read the original Bill, all it did is surgically removed the paper > known as registration certificate creating just paperless registration > system instead... > > -- -- > > Ian Jefferson wrote: > 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. EDIT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 08:08:09 -0400 From: "mred" Subject: Re: Participation in the CFAC - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Mills" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:26 PM Subject: Re: Participation in the CFAC > --- On Wed, 7/2/08, Rob Sciuk wrote: > >> From: Rob Sciuk >> Subject: Re: Participation in the CFAC >> To: "Canadian Firearms Digest" >> Received: Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 12:07 AM >> Bruce Mills wrote: >> > Combine this with the mantra: >> > >> > "Gun ownership is the universal, inalienable, and >> sovereign right of >> > every human being" >> > >> > which has been demonstrated time and again. This is >> our "Big Truth", to >> > counter the anti's "Big Lies" >> >> Good points, Bruce. Somehow it might be good to >> incorporate the Safety, >> Responsibility and Respect principles ... Not only do we >> demand the right >> to our own safety, we shall not infringe upon the safety of >> others .... >> (and we don't). >> >> Hmmm ... might I suggest re-wording this along the lines of >> Charter >> section 7 (safety of person) as an inalienable right, and >> firearm >> ownership is its corollary ... This is how we might launch >> a court >> challenge, and it would be good to get Canadians thinking >> the right way >> ... >> >> The right to safety of person is enshrined within the >> Charter of >> Rights and Freedoms, so why have they witheld from us the >> means of >> ensuring our own safety? >> > > "We derive this right from the right to own property (guns are property), > and the right to defend our lives, those of our loved-ones, and our > property from attack - even from that of the State." Correction please~! There is no right to own property in Kanada or the US,(of any kind) If you wish to actually OWN property move to China. ed/on ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:16:02 -0500 From: 10x <10x@telus.net> Subject: Re: "USA Study...half of all gun deaths are suicides" You wrote: > >Subject: "USA Study produces the surprising fact that half of all gun >deaths are suicides" > >Canadian Press >DATE: 2008.06.30 >PUBLICATION: cpw >WORD COUNT: 469 > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Study produces the surprising fact that half of all gun deaths are suicides > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >ATLANTA - The Supreme Court's landmark ruling on gun ownership last week >focused on citizens' ability to defend themselves from intruders in their >homes. > >However, research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the >weapons on themselves. > >Suicides accounted for 55 per cent of the U.S.'s nearly 31,000 firearm >deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available >from the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. > >There was nothing unique about that year - gun-related suicides have >outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years. > >In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 per cent of gun deaths. > >Accidents accounted for three per cent. The remaining two per cent >included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases >that involve undetermined intent. > >Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are >present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or >homicide is much greater. Some public health researchers have raised that opinion. The reseach supporting this opinion has been shown to be extremely biased against gun owners. The research also has some major methodology flaws as well. If one does a literature search on firearsm in the home one will discover that 1) the statement is unsupported opinion or 2) the statement is a reference to another study. If one follows the cite trail the statement was originally made in 1988 by A. Kellermann in the New England Journal of Medicine and that is the ONLY research that was done to indicate danger of firearms in the home due ot homicide. Mr. Kellermann's methodology and data set have major flaws. >Studies have also shown that homes in which a suicide occurred were three >to five times more likely to have a gun present than households that did >not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors. Once again bogus research. Firearms do not cause folks to be suicidal - not any more than rope, garages and automobiles, or sleeping pills. >In a 5-4 decision, the high court on Thursday struck down a handgun ban >enacted in the District of Columbia in 1976 and rejected requirements that >firearms have trigger locks or be kept disassembled. This has nothing to do with suicide - why include it? >The ruling left intact the district's licensing restrictions for gun owners. > >One public-health study found that suicide and homicide rates in the >district dropped after the ban was adopted. What study was that???? >The district has allowed shotguns and rifles to be kept in homes if they >are registered, kept unloaded and taken apart or equipped with trigger >locks. > >The American Public Health Association, the American Association of >Suicidology and two other groups filed a legal brief supporting the >district's ban. They are entitled to do this but the supporting information they present should be confirmed when weighing their recommendations. >The brief challenged arguments that if a gun is not available, suicidal >people will just kill themselves using other means. A signficant ammount of research indicates that once an individual decides to commit suicide, an available method is then chosen. FIrearms are NOT the cause of suicides, simply a method. Confusing method with cause is highly misleading and unethical - especially for folks who preport themselves to be "experts". If one looks at the number of firearms available in Canada, area by area and compares the number of firearms/100,000 to the number of suicides per/100,000 one will discover there is no correlatin. >More than 90 per cent of suicide attempts using guns are successful, while >the success rate for jumping from high places was 34 per cent. Folks who commit suicide usuually believe their choice of method will be effective. Those folks who jump and fail to die probably didnt' realize they would live through it. >The success rate for drug overdose was two per cent, the brief said, >citing studies. Drug overdose has been considered a "cry for help". Not to mention that a signficant number of drug overdoses end up with some sort of brain damage. >``Other methods are not as lethal,'' said Jon Vernick, co-director of the >Johns Hopkins Centre for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore. Every suicide that results in a death is lethal. Every attempt that does not result in a death is not lethal. Just what is this guy saying? >The high court's majority opinion made no mention of suicide. But in a >dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer used the word 14 times in >voicing concern about the impact of striking down the handgun ban. > >``If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for >self-defence, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit >suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence,'' Breyer wrote. Mr. Breyer is most certainly right. However there is this basic right that citizens of the U.S.A. have. THe presumption of innocense. If Mr. Breyer wants to attribute suicidal and violent tendencies to gun owners and has that opinion of U.S. citizens in general maybe he shouldn't be on the Supreme court as he is biased. >Researchers in other fields have raised questions about the public-health >findings on guns. > >Gary Kleck, a researcher at Florida State University's College of >Criminology and Criminal Justice, estimates there are more than a million >incidents each year in which firearms are used to prevent an actual or >threatened criminal attack. > >Public-health experts have said the telephone survey methodology Kleck >used likely resulted in an overestimate. One group of biased folks using dubious findings from faulted research pointing fingers at folks that they don't agree with. Pot, kettle, black. >However, both sides agree there has been a significant decline in the last >decade in public-health research into gun violence. The decline has been a trend that started in 1977. Contrast this to an increasing number of firearms available in the U.S. since 1977. >The CDC traditionally was a primary funder of research on guns and >gun-related injuries, allocating more than $2.1 million a year to such >projects in the mid-1990s. There has been a review of these gun studies by the C.D.C. and the conculsions indicated that the studies and their results could not be considered as reliable. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V11 #637 *********************************** 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".)