From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V16 #219 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Errors-To: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Precedence: normal owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Cdn-Firearms Digest Tuesday, April 8 2014 Volume 16 : Number 219 In this issue: RE: THE SURVIVOR: Why are you killing us? We used to be ... SUN NEWS NETWORK - The 30-year April Fools' joke Olympic Shooting News (Everywhere but Canada. Pity.) Fort Hood shooting renews Capitol Hill debate over guns, ... Re: [Fwd: FW: Hillary's Exam] Re: FBI, crime, guns, and a long, cool... Digest V16 #218 Situation on CFB's [Fwd: Women and Guns, Women and Freedom] No evidence that greater expenditure on policing has made ... "The Blue Line or the Bottom Line of Police Services in ... Small Arms Survey: Biased Reporting, Anti-Freedom Goals ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 06:12:56 -0700 From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: RE: THE SURVIVOR: Why are you killing us? We used to be ... ...friends "MBYO, Rwanda - Jeanette Mukabyagaju was 15 and living with her parents and six older siblings in Gitarama, 50 km from Kigali, when the genocide started in April 1994. She recalls the night Hutu extremists first came to her home and the slaughter that followed." All because a Canadian, Romeo Dalliere, was a coward. He was as responsible for the genocide as those he chose not to stop. Anyone who trusts the UN to protect them is a fool, and likely a dead fool. Could it be because most of the murderers and victims were black? Is that why Dalliere didn't give a damn? Or the UN? No. The UN stepped aside in Yugoslavia, too. If you can't depend upon yourself, your family, tribe and friends, you have no one to depend upon. Whenever you need a gun to save lives you can bet that in most countries that gun will be illegal. 45clive ------------------------------ Date: Mon, April 7, 2014 9:15 am From: "Dennis Young" Subject: SUN NEWS NETWORK - The 30-year April Fools' joke by Lorne Gunter SUN NEWS NETWORK - The 30-year April Fools' joke By Lorne Gunter - 7:47 am, April 7th, 2014 http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/04/20140407-074704.html This past Tuesday - April Fools' Day - was the 30th anniversary of the Canada Health Act, the Trudeau-era law that outlawed those few vestiges of private health care that remained in 1984. The consequences were predictable. After going to the doctor or hospital became "free," use of the health care system exploded; so did the cost to taxpayers. Patients overloaded the system, which lengthened waiting lists. Patient care declined. Most provinces compounded the problem by passing laws forbidding citizens from buying private insurance for procedures covered by their public health plans. Politicians weren't able to jack up taxes enough to maintain prompt access to care, but they were also too timid politically to permit private options. So their solution was to lash everyone to the same mast of a floundering ship. No one was allowed to escape the government health Titanic unless they were prepared to pay the full cost out of their own pockets using after-tax dollars. In honour of this inauspicious anniversary, Dr. Brian Day, former president of the Canadian Medical Association, wrote that "governments allow us to spend on gambling, smoking and drinking, but not on our health;" a bizarre but true result of Canadians' devotion to the notion that universal health care is the best and fairest. Many experts expected this monopoly to end after the Supreme Court's 2005 ruling in the Chaoulli case. In that decision, the justices decided that the Canada Health Act had created a "virtual monopoly" for bureaucrat-run health care and hospitals. "On the evidence," the majority found, the government monopoly "results in delays in treatment that adversely affect the citizen's security of the person." Thus, public health care monopolies were unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court based its ruling solely on the Quebec Charter of Rights, not its Canadian counterpart. So ever since, the Chaoulli decision has technically only applied in Quebec. Yet nearly every expert expected that similar health monopolies in the other nine provinces would be struck down as soon as someone launched a challenge elsewhere in the country. Not so, at least not in Alberta. On the day before the Canada Health Act's 30th birthday, Mr. Justice Paul Jeffrey ruled that just because the Supreme Court had found a virtual health monopoly unconstitutional in Quebec, that didn't mean almost identical monopolies were also unconstitutional elsewhere. That is simply bizarre reasoning. The Alberta case, brought by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), involves Alberta dentist Darcy Allen. Allen suffered from such severe lower-back pain that he could not tie his own shoes or play with his own young daughter. While waiting years for treatment in Alberta's government health system, he had to give up his dental practice, too. Eventually, Allen became so fed up with delays in the public system he paid $77,000 of his own money for surgery in Montana. Justice Jeffrey decided that if Allen and the JCCF wanted to overturn Alberta's monopoly, they would have to repeat all the same arguments about harm and rights infringement that Chaoulli's lawyers had made in the Quebec. It wasn't good enough for the JCCF to argue that because the same sorts of facts existed in the Allen case, the Supreme Court would have found Alberta's government monopoly as unconstitutional as Quebec's. Huh!? READ THE REST: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/04/20140407-074704.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, April 7, 2014 9:49 am From: "Dennis Young" Subject: Olympic Shooting News (Everywhere but Canada. Pity.) Heena Sidhu becomes world number 1 in women's 10m Air Pistol category - April 6, 2014 http://www.sportskeeda.com/shooting/heena-sidhu-world-number-1-10m-air-pistol-women/ Olympic Gold Quest (OGQ) is reporting that India's 10 m Air Pistol shooter, Heena Sidhu, has now become the number 1 ranked shooter in her category, as per the latest International Shooting Sport Federation (ISSF) rankings. It is a landmark achievement for Heena who has been on a spectacular run of form since last year being very consistent in being amongst the medals at each of the major ISSF events. In November 2013, at the World Cup Final in Munich, Heena shot a world record score to clinch the gold and carried her rich vein of form into 2014 by winning gold again at the Asian Championships in Kuwait and a silver at the Pistol World Cup in Fort Benning, USA. Having finished 12th in the event at the 2012 London Olympics, Heena is keen to make amends, and is looking at a good run at the 2016 Olympics in Rio. "I am really happy to be the World no. 1. I have worked really hard all these years to make this happen. I must thank my husband Ronak who has been my strength and support and my coach Anatoly. The Government has supported me thru the NSDF funding and NRAI has been very supportive as well. I'm also very grateful to Olympic Gold Quest for their very professional approach to my entire training program. My aim is an Olympic medal and there are still many miles to go", said Heena. Heena is backed by OGQ, and it's CEO, Viren Rasquinha had this to say on the shooter's most recent achievement - "OGQ is very proud to support Heena and we will do everything possible to help her win an Olympic gold medal. Being world no. 1 is a tremendous achievement and she is an inspiration to all sportspersons in India." ------------------------------------- Summit target shooter after Olympic dream By ANGIE MAYES amayes@c-dh.net Updated April 2, 2014 - 11:44pm See more at: http://columbiadailyherald.com/sports/local/summit-target-shooter-after-olympic-dream#sthash.0oudWeDr.dpuf --------------------------------------- Marshall graduate earns gold at World Cup shooting event BY JERRY BRIGGS : APRIL 3, 2014 : Updated: April 3, 2014 11:11am http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/other-sports/article/Marshall-graduate-earns-gold-at-World-Cup-5373509.php --------------------------------------- Rajput finishes fifth in Shooting World Cup NEW DELHI - Updated: March 31, 2014 22:59 IST http://www.thehindu.com/sport/other-sports/rajput-finishes-fifth-in-shooting-world-cup/article5855920.ece -------------------------------------- Miami defense lawyer hopes to make Olympics as skeet shooter While juggling his job in court, Assistant Public Defender Antonio Valiente hopes to make the Olympics shooting skeet for Paraguay. BY DAVID OVALLE - DOVALLE@MIAMIHERALD.COM Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/04/06/4042812/miami-defense-lawyer-hopes-to.html#storylink=cpy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 10:18:45 -0600 From: "Joe Gingrich" Subject: Fort Hood shooting renews Capitol Hill debate over guns, ... ...defense spending (U.S.) ”Military leadership said after the shootings this week that it stands by its policy of not allowing people to carry their personal weapons on bases.” What is Harper’s policy regarding permission of people to carry their personal weapons on military bases within Canada? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/06/ft-hood-shooting-renews-capito l-hill-debate-over-guns-defense-spending/?intcmp=latestnews Fort Hood shooting renews Capitol Hill debate over guns, defense spending Published April 06, 2014 FoxNews.com The recent fatal shootings at Fort Hood has sparked new Capitol Hill debate about gun control and the defense budget, with Democrats and Republicans suggesting a possible increase in federal spending to make U.S. military bases safer. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told “Fox News Sunday” he would consider rolling back the sharp cuts through sequestration and would consider increasing the federal budget. “No blank checks, but sure,” said Kaine, who expressed concern about the “nexus of mental health and gun laws.” Congress last year considered tightening federal gun laws, including mental health checks for potential buyers, but passed no significant legislation. Rep. Mike McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, pointed out Sunday the defense budget President Obama proposed last month would downsize the Army to pre-WWII troop numbers. However, he told Fox News that Congress should “review and analyze” base policies to better secure them -- following the shootings Wednesday at the Fort Hood military base in Texas where an emotionally anguished Spc. Ivan Lopez purportedly used his own handgun to fatally shoot three people and wound 16 others before killing himself. The incident follows the Sept. 2013 attack at the Washington Navy Yard in which defense contractor Aaron Alexis, a former Navy reservist, entered the facility and fatally shot 12 people and injured three others before he was shot and killed by police. In 2009, Army Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire inside Fort Hood, killing 13 and injuring more than 30 others. Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, was sentenced to death in August 2013 for the rampage, which was the deadliest in history inside a U.S. military base. McCaul suggested leaders on bases -- officers and senior enlisted personnel -- be allowed to carry guns. “They defend us overseas, yet they’re defenseless at bases,” he told Fox News. “When these things happen … it doesn’t take very long to kill a lot of people.” Military leadership said after the shootings this week that it stands by its policy of not allowing people to carry their personal weapons on bases. Kane also called for tighter perimeter security at bases. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, April 7, 2014 10:19 am From: decline@pteradon.tera-byte.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: FW: Hillary's Exam] There have been several "Bill C-68s" including the original 1995 gun abomination. The particular "C-68" we talk of, is the Liberal's 1995 fraudulently passed Firearms Act that turned seven million productive and honest tax paying Canadians into instant criminals. It is now called "Statutes of Canada 1995 - Chapter 39" which is the "Firearms Act" today. That is the ghastly law that our current Prime Minister promised to repeal. That is where the licensing and attacks on law abiding gun owners emanates. Without that law, the High River gun smash and grab could not have occurred, further victimizing the victims of the flood. The damage caused by this "law" is astronomical. Many current politicians don't know what we mean when we call it "C-68" today so when writing to them it makes sense to refer to the direct law by its current name. Specifically Section 91 and 92 of the Criminal Code makes ALL gun owners, licensed or not, into "criminals." Those are the sections of the criminal code that desperately need to be removed. NOW. Not some nebulous time in the future. You can even be jailed and ruined for mistakes made by the Firearms Center and they are myriad. YOU are responsible for THEIR mistakes, for victimless "paper crimes." How obsence is that? Jailing or bankrupting dad because he inherited grandpa's old duck gun or target pistol is senseless and does nothing to enhance "public safety." Nor does criminalizing all hunters, sports shooters, and collectors make any sense whatsoever. It never was about safety. It was always about confiscation without compensation. We cannot afford to lose the votes of 7 million honest firearms owners who have not and never will be any problem. Don Klein Secretary Valley Rifle Club (Inc 1972) Member CSSA Member NFA Member Conservative Party of Canada Member RCMP Rural Crime Watch BCC members, judiciary, legal, MPs, honest media, and other concerned parties. > l believe a lot of politicians may have the same problem > whether they know it or not! > > What the new and improved name you mentioned for C-68 ? > > Dave ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 10:34:04 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: Re: FBI, crime, guns, and a long, cool... Digest V16 #218 On 2014-04-07, at 6:57 AM, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 10:56:32 -0400 > From: Kindanyume > Subject: Re: FBI, crime, guns and a long, cool... > > busted link it appears.. have you tried using bit.ly for urls instead so > that MD does not break em? > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Larry James Fillo wrote: > >> The FBI, crime, guns and a long, cool woman in a >> black dress. >> >> Those were the days :) >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?vl0xpkk0yaQ > try this link the one above dropped a1 for some reason https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l0xpkk0yaQ If this link doesn't work try entering The Hollies-Long, Cool Woman (in a black dress) this version has lyrics displayed which is helpful. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 11:27:24 -0700 From: Todd Birch Subject: Situation on CFB's While we're busy wagging our heads in shock and disbelief about the candy-ass policy requiring US soldiers to run and hide from a gunman on their own turf, what would happen on any Canadian military establishment in the event of a similar happening? Who is armed and able to respond? Who has access to firearms on a 'quick response' basis? While I was stationed at the 'Diefenbunker' in Nanaimo, BC, I used to parachute with the fly boys at Comox. The Air Police at the gate wore empty holsters! When doing gate duty at the Signal Corps School in Kingston, Ontario, we never even had that. I doubt that the situation has improved since. I've been stationed where we had skeet ranges and as single soldiers, we were allowed to keep our skeet guns in barracks. In Churchill, Manitoba, so many of us in the Signals Detachment had guns that we shared a common locker to store them. With all the ducks and geese on the shoreline of Hudson Bay, it was to be expected. I owned a Browning DA skeet gun, a .357 Colt Python, a Browning 9mm and a S&W .22 revolver. One of my pals owned one of the first Ruger Super Blackhawks to come into the country. We did lots of shooing out on the tundra. I don't recall a single incident of violence involving the use of a firearm. I do recall that the Provost Corps were armed when on patrol. But while we're wondering about the situation on US military bases, how does it differ from the Canadian "gun free zone" killing grounds like L'Ecole Polytechnique and Dawson College? It's only a matter of time before some other nut bar decides to make his mark in the history books by going on a shooting spree in some other location filled with unarmed victims. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, April 7, 2014 2:12 pm From: decline@pteradon.tera-byte.com Subject: [Fwd: Women and Guns, Women and Freedom] Thanks Joe. Articles such as this do more for freedom and rights than most could imagine. As it states, more and more women are realizing that guns are not dangerous and as we have known for centuries, are a safe and key tool for both protection, predator control, hunting, and often simply for enjoyment. The shooting sports are infinitely less dangerous than driving for instance. The truth is that incidents of accidents or misuse are so actuarially rare, that one can obtain FIVE MILLION in liability insurance for the miniscule sum of $10.00 PER YEAR. NO OTHER activity can claim such a safety record. Compare that to your vehicle liability in the hundreds or even thousands of dollars per year. But besides the skill and enjoyment derived from the shooting sports, at least in the USA, women (and men) now have the right to protect themselves. Rape and criminal assaults are down dramatically in states (that is now most of them) where oppressive governments have finally begun to uphold their basic 2nd Amendment right to keep and BEAR arms. That equates to a far safer society and the statistics prove it beyond a shadow of doubt. And obviously, misuse of that right is so rare as to be insignificant. After all, those who line up to obtain education and licenses are by definition law abiding and therefore the safest people in the world. As it is everywhere, criminals are the problem, not normal productive and law abiding firearms owners. Simply do an internet search for John Lott and/or Gary Mauser on guns to see the irrefutable proof yourselves. Don ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Women and Guns, Women and Freedom From: "Joe Gingrich" Date: Mon, April 7, 2014 12:57 am To: "Canadian Digest" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://jpfo.org/articles-assd04/women-and-guns-women-and-freedom.htm Women and Guns, Women and Freedom By Claire Wolfe, April 6th 2014 I am a woman of a certain age. When I look back on my first gun purchase, I shake my head. I was maybe 21 at the time -- and scared. Several teenage girls and young women had been stabbed to death within miles of my home. Knowing nothing, I went into a gun shop and asked for a handgun for self protection. The owner pulled a shiny, tiny .25 out of a case and said that was the best gun for a woman. I bought the gun -- and bought his claim about women and firearms. Which I now realize was laughable. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, April 7, 2014 2:24 pm From: "Dennis Young" Subject: No evidence that greater expenditure on policing has made ... ...the country safer Police are pricing themselves out of business There is no evidence that greater expenditure on policing has made the country safer or improved the quality of service. By: Christian Leuprecht, Associate Professor, Royal Military College of Canada - Published on Sun Apr 06 2014 http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/04/06/police_are_pricing_themselves_out_of_business.html?utm_content=bufferd4103&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer Have you ever opened your property tax bill and wondered what is driving the bulk of the rate increase? A prime culprit is the wage bill for first responders, notably police and fire services. It, in turn, is driven by an arbitration system that habitually awards first responders with salary increases around or in excess of 3 per cent annually - right through the recent recession, while much of the province's public sector saw its salaries frozen. As a result of arbitration, the number of Toronto firefighters on Ontario's recently released "Sunshine List" grew to 2,587 employees in 2013. That's more than 80 per cent of the service's 3,100 employees, some of whom work as few as seven days a month. In Toronto and Ottawa, arbitration has resulted in almost 40 per cent of the police services' workforce making the list. To put this in perspective: Torontonians spend the equivalent of about two cancelled gas plants on their police service every year. Even some of those who benefit from the system find their compensation excessive. A system in which the salary awards for a few employees are wholly unrelated to efficiency, effectiveness or productivity, yet trigger property tax increases that persistently outstrip the rate of economic growth, is unsustainable. Stable call volume notwithstanding, between 2002 and 2012 provincial expenditures on security grew almost twice as fast as GDP. Yet, there is no evidence that greater expenditure has either made the country any safer or improved the quality of service. In fact, the correlation between complement of officers and crime on the one hand and quality of service on the other hand has long been shown to be spurious. Not only that, but shorter response times do not measurably increase community safety, there are many more dangerous jobs than policing (garbage collector and hydro worker among them) and pay for those jobs seems unrelated to workplace stress and responsibilities. Police associations capitalize on a popular culture that associates police with law enforcement. Yet, the bulk of calls for service have nothing to do with crime. At a base salary approaching $100,000 a year (before accumulated overtime), that is an exceedingly expensive service model. Salaries comprise almost 90 per cent of most police budgets. What kinds of work do we expect highly trained, well-compensated, experienced uniformed officers to perform? The scope of policing has expanded by orders of magnitude in recent decades, in large part because governments and the public have either explicitly or inadvertently securitarized an ever-expanding array of activities, many of which are really social or medical ills. Order is integral to freedom. But in a liberal democracy that is premised on limited state intervention, we should be debating "what kind" of policing instead of "how much." Alternative service delivery in other jurisdictions has a proven track record of performing many of the same tasks as well or better at lower cost. For example, some jurisdictions have civilians conducting burglary investigations, prisoner escort, lifting fingerprints, collecting DNA evidence, court security, administrative functions such as finance and human resources, transcription of interviews, professional development and training, and background checks. The justice system, for instance, is riddled with inefficiencies that needlessly impose undue costs on police. And calls for police need to be redirected to contain call volume and allow police to spend more time on problem-focused and community-oriented policing. We should also be rewarding achievement instead of seniority; cross-training police, fire and Emergency Medical Services; reforming the leadership and institutional culture (or brace for a crisis); spending less time reactively "fighting crime" and more time on proactive intervention, mitigation and prevention; and having police colleges spend more time on developing critical thinking and analytical skills so as to counter a paramilitary institutional culture. Ultimately, this is a matter of democratic debate: many jurisdictions seem perfectly well prepared to pay a premium of up to 100 per cent to retain their own police service and have it perform discretionary activities. This seems especially true for rural and smaller municipalities, even though their residents tend to be less affluent and they do not have the property-tax base to afford this luxury. Politicians must be prepared to ask hard questions and change the legislative constraints to generate greater efficiencies in policing while, at the same time, affording municipalities and counties the latitude necessary to carry out policing functions by different means. Christian Leuprecht is associate professor of political science at the Royal Military College of Canada and cross-appointed to Queen's University. He is the author of a new paper published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute titled "The Blue Line or the Bottom Line of Policing in Canada? Arresting runaway growth in costs." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 14:51:24 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: "The Blue Line or the Bottom Line of Police Services in ... ...Canada? Arresting runaway growth in costs"- Christian Leuprecht The Macdonald-Laurier Institute has a most interesting report by Prof. Christian Leuprecht of the Royal Military College. The largest budget item for urban municipal governments is policing, A growth in costs over the last twenty years raising a question. could there be cost efficiencies in the delivery of some of the services currently done by professionally trained police officers? http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/MLI_CostofPolicing_Final.pdf ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 23:02:16 -0600 From: "Joe Gingrich" Subject: Small Arms Survey: Biased Reporting, Anti-Freedom Goals http://jpfo.org/articles-assd04/small-arms-survey.htm Small Arms Survey: Biased Reporting, Anti-Freedom Goals By Nicki Kenyon, April 7th 2014 JPFO writer contributor, 2014. What is the Small Arms Survey? It claims it is an independent, impartial source of information on small arms and armed violence. According to its website one of its objectives is to "act as a resource for governments, policy-makers, researchers, and activists in terms of information and research on small arms and armed violence issues." The research project is located at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, Switzerland and is supposed to be an objective source of information for governments, but a closer look at its mission reveals a distinct anti-gun agenda that threatens to endanger our rights. The proliferation of small arms and light weapons represents a grave threat to human security. The unchecked spread of these weapons has exacerbated inter- and intra-state conflicts, contributed to human rights violations, undermined political and economic development, destabilized communities, and devastated the lives of millions of people. The future success of efforts to deal with small arms and light weapons depends in large part on the development of accurate information concerning the global flow of these weapons and on reliable analyses of the causes and consequences of their proliferation. How could anyone possibly mistake the political goal behind this plainly-stated background on the project's site? 1) Gun availability is a "grave threat" to human security 2) Lack of gun control has caused human misery, destabilized economies, resulted in human rights violations and violence. 3) Future efforts to control guns cannot be successful without "accurate information" and "reliable analysis." There's your translation of the Survey's seemingly "benevolent" mission, which turns out to be malignant, freedom-sapping tripe. The Small Arms Survey aims to provide said information and analysis... in order to promote gun control. AGAIN... in order to promote gun control. The code is not complicated. A brief look at the project's mission reveals its true goal. "Efforts to deal with small arms and light weapons" cannot possibly mean anything other than "gun control." Worse yet, the project shows its decided lack of impartiality by immediately naming the availability of firearms as a "grave threat," instead of acknowledging that the purchase and ownership of the tool in and of itself cannot represent a threat, let alone a "grave" one. So just how "impartial" is the Small Arms Survey research? John Lott has recently published an article that reveals stark flaws in the Survey's methodology - methodology that governments use to disarm their people and make them vulnerable to armed predators. Much of the debate is focused on gun ownership rate data for 109 countries from the Small Arms Survey. There are real problems with this survey. For example, the rates of gun ownership for Switzerland (supposedly 47 guns per 100 people) and Israel (7 per 100 people) are ridiculously low. This survey excludes all the military weapons kept in Swiss homes in 2007 because they were technically owned by the government. At that time, all able bodied males between the age of 18 and 42 would keep their military weapons in their homes. After age 42, they could apply for permission to continue to keep their military weapons. Israeli guns are also excluded for the same reason. The vast majority of guns in Israel are technically owned by the government, but if people have possession of guns in their homes for decades, the issue should be that public possession, not who technically owned the guns. The Small Arms Survey claims that the United States has by far the highest level of gun ownership, with 88.8 guns per 100 people. Both Israel and Switzerland probably have much higher gun ownership rates, but including them the way the Small Arms Survey does biases the results to The US gun ownership is so high compared to other countries that it drives any regression results. There are also other problems with the survey. For example, a much better measure of gun ownership would be the percentage of the population owning guns, and not the number of guns per 100 people as used by the Small Arms Survey. Presumably the issue is whether people have access to guns, not the number of guns greater than one that an individual has access to. Dr. Lott explains in detail how the Small Arms Survey's data deceives the reader by eliminating nations with gun ownership that is obviously higher than the United States. Why? If we had to wager an educated guess, it would be because including nations such as Switzerland and Israel, as well as Mexico, with its tragically high homicide rates, would show results contrary to those the Small Arms Survey wants to demonstrate. Of course, this data alone will not prove the point that more guns actually lead to fewer homicides. It is simply a statistical cross section, and does not take into consideration other factors that may lead to a higher homicide rate, how the presence of firearms changes over time, who owns firearms, how controls were implemented and the resulting effects of said controls. The Small Arms Survey does not examine these factors. It merely shows gun ownership - in the most disingenuous way it can - and makes the claim that proliferation of firearms is the cause of human misery worldwide. If you are not convinced of the Small Arms Survey's bias against guns, maybe the fact that it is funded in part by various United Nations agencies, programmes and institutes will convince you. You are only as objective as the political goals of those who fund you, and the U.N. has time and time again proven itself to be anything but pro-gun or pro-freedom.(http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03/15/paid-to-play-anti-gun-group-teams-with-un-to-prep-african-countries-for-arms/) A wise man once said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." The Small Arms Survey is using the latter to further tyrannical disarmament goals worldwide, while falsely claiming impartiality, even as it plainly admits its mission is to give governments the tools they need to control the availability of firearms. And U.S. politicians will use the Survey's data as justification for citizen disarmament. For the "common good," of course. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Yours in Freedom, The Liberty Crew at JPFO Protecting you by creating solutions to destroy "gun control" P.O. Box 270143 | Hartford, WI 53027 Phone (262) 673-9745 | Fax (262) 673-9746 | jpfo@jpfo.org ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V16 #219 *********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca Moderator email: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca 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".)