From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V16 #262 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 Friday, May 9 2014 Volume 16 : Number 262 In this issue: [none] Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V16 #258 Black Bear killing: correction Estate Questions Re: Black Bear killing: correction Re: SUN NEWS: It's time to stand up for men's rights Re: Estate Questions Re: "Oilsands worker killed by black bear" Re: The Spectator's view: Gun amnesty program makes good sense Re: Re: regarding: Re: [Fwd: After Numerous Attempts, Dr. ... Re: 'Words of Wisdom' Digest V16 #253 Re: "Oilsands worker killed by black bear" Re: Estate Questions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, May 8, 2014 2:31 pm From: "Len Miller" Subject: [none] Doctors kill more people than guns: urban legend or fact? (update 1) Thursday, November 30, 2006 by: Ben Kage Tags: gun control, incompetent doctor errors, medical mistakes A popular message circulating the internet claims that "guns don't kill people, doctors do," based on statistics that theoretically show that doctors are responsible for more accidental deaths every year than firearms ##. Independent research by NaturalNews staff shows that this claim is based on a logical fallacy of comparing apples and oranges, but according to the hard statistics, doctors do indeed kill more people than guns. The message, which sometimes says that doctors kill more people than guns and traffic accidents combined, has been circulating the internet for years. Like many urban legends that cross the internet, it has a lot of "facts" for its readers, but it is unlike most urban legends in that it quotes a source: "Statistics provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services." The message was even recounted in an article by Nathan Tabor. The letter claims that: -- There are 700,000 physicians in the United States. -- There are 120,000 accidental deaths in the United States caused by physicians every year, and the accidental death percentage per physician is 0.171. -- There are 80 million gun owners in the United States. EIGHTY MILLION !! -- There are 1,500 accidental deaths from guns every year, regardless of age group, and the accidental death percentage per gun owner is 0.0000188. -- Actually, this is where the apples and orange comparison rates . . Intent vs criminal A loaded and cocked gun kills nobody . . It must be picked up, pointed, and the trigger pulled, a fact avoided by those doctors who position themselves against gun ownership. And they certainly do !! Position themselves . . This means, the letter points out, that doctors are 9,000 times more deadly than gun owners. Which is why Harper kept the licencing provision and ignores the greater danger ? Tabor's reason for pointing out these statistics seems to be the endorsement of second amendment rights, but the stats have turned the heads of many people, regardless of their stance on gun control. The claim has been reprinted across the internet on sites such as Rense.com, and other sites that warn of the dangers of modern medicine. NaturalNews staff members were unable to find DHHS figures that either supported or debunked the urban legend's claims. Such figures are hard to compare anyway, as the internet anti-chain-letter site BreakTheChain.org points out with responses gathered from the public: -- Most people see doctors when their health is already poor, so that has to be considered a factor in any doctor-related deaths, accidental or otherwise. -- Some people will never interact with a gun in their lifetime, but very few people will never see a doctor. This means that doctors could be more lethal simply due to a greater chance of public exposure to them. As you can see, the doubts raised by these factors mean the statistics cannot be fairly compared, however NaturalNews's stance is that conventional medicine is still one of the top 30% causes of death in the United States. Specifically, information obtained by Death by Medicine shows that an estimated 106,000 people die from adverse drug effects -- from properly prescribed drugs -- every year, and approximately 98,000 die annually from some sort of error by medical staff. Compare this to statistics from the Department of Justice and the U.S. Centers for Disease control for the year 2004, which show an estimated 16,137people were victims of homicide (not just firearm murders) in the United States. ( not every homicide is gun related ) Most people can agree that doctors and guns can both be lethal. But comparing doctor deaths with gun deaths seems odd. For one thing, the intention is different. Doctors are usually trying to save patients, not kill them. Violent criminals who might use guns in committing a crime, however, often do have the intention of causing physical harm. Doctors may be dangerous through their ignorance or incompetence, but they are not actually out to kill anyone. Neither is the untended firearm _ _ [Ed. Note: ## What about doctors who are armed? Gunpoint medicine is the use of firearms to force patients to undergo procedures like chemotherapy. I've covered it in the Abraham Cherrix articles. If we allow people with guns to enforce the dangerous practices of conventional ( allopathic) medicine, then we have the worst of both worlds: ignorant doctors backed by guns.] Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/021206_gun_control_doctor_errors.html#ixzz319lDWVZs ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 12:58:54 -0400 From: Kindanyume Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V16 #258 Nicely said Rocky.. as always! >:) On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Rocky7 wrote: > > Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 09:35:32 -0600 > > From: cfdmod@bogend.ca > > Subject: [Fwd: Re: Harper recklessly smearing Canada's top judge] > > > > Joe, your constant barrage of anti-Harper drivel is really becoming > quite > > sickening. I liked you much better when you wrote of matters related > to > > firearms. Now, this forum has become to you little more than a soapbox > > from which you use the subject of firearms -- to attack Harper. > > > > Enough already. > > > Hear, hear! > > It's like listening to the flip side of a CBC robots and just as > irritating. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 11:09:00 -0700 From: j davies Subject: Black Bear killing: correction > The woman died of her injuries on scene and Harrison > says the investigation is only beginning. He says, "RCMP, as is generally > the case, was first on the site; the bear has since been put down." An error in this paragraph has been corrected below: > The woman died of her injuries on scene and Harrison > says the investigation is only beginning. He says, "RCMP, as is generally > the case, was late on the site; the bear has since been put down." When seconds count, police are minutes or hours away. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 12:27:36 -0600 From: "Howard R. Hamilton" Subject: Estate Questions I have a friend who's husband passed away a little over a year ago. Both she and her husband have had RPAL's, but he also had 12(6). The CFC has sent a renewal form for his RPAL, (due in mid August) and not for hers yet (due in early September). She is also the executor of his will. What needs to be done, other than her renewal of her RPAL to not have the police banging her door down and demanding all of his guns. (She also owns some long guns). BUZ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 14:52:19 -0400 From: Kindanyume Subject: Re: Black Bear killing: correction Now the q of choice is had she or others working there asked for an ATC? Also why has the employer NOT done that and armed the employees in that area? On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:09 PM, j davies wrote: > > The woman died of her injuries on scene and Harrison > > says the investigation is only beginning. He says, "RCMP, as is generally > > the case, was first on the site; the bear has since been put down." > > An error in this paragraph has been corrected below: > > > The woman died of her injuries on scene and Harrison > > says the investigation is only beginning. He says, "RCMP, as is > generally > > the case, was late on the site; the bear has since been put down." > > When seconds count, police are minutes or hours away. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 14:56:16 -0400 From: Kindanyume Subject: Re: SUN NEWS: It's time to stand up for men's rights this is nothing new.. I went through that in the late 80's / early 90's and it was not fun to say the least On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Dennis Young wrote: > by Michael Coren > > It's time to stand up for men's rights > BY MICHAEL COREN, QMI AGENCY - UPDATED: THURSDAY, MAY 08, 2014 08:04 PM CDT > http://www.winnipegsun.com/2014/05/08/its-time-to-stand-up-for-mens-rights > > Earlier this year, Queen's University student and feminist activist > Danielle > d'Entremont was punched multiple times in the face by a stranger. Danielle > has linked the attack to her opposition to an event hosted on campus by > men's rights group Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE). The group has > just offered a $1,000 reward to bring Danielle's attacker to justice. > Frankly, I have no idea if the repulsive physical attack was politically > motivated or not and neither does the victim nor CAFE. The greater point, > however, is that groups like CAFE are tired of contemporary feminism > marginalizing and libelling men. Are they correct? I didn't think so until > a > few years ago I was asked to write a men's column for another daily > newspaper. What I encountered was evidence of a campaign to discredit men > and a legal and sociological campaign to remove their rights as husbands > and > partners and, in particular, fathers. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 14:00:01 -0500 From: "Julie A. McNeice" Subject: Re: Estate Questions They are still her property, but she has to store them at someone's house who has a (12-6). That person has to have to get an ATT to pick them up. Julie McNeice Sent from iPhone > On May 9, 2014, at 1:27 PM, "Howard R. Hamilton" wrote: > > I have a friend who's husband passed away a little over a year ago. > Both she and her husband have had RPAL's, but he also had 12(6). The > CFC has sent a renewal form for his RPAL, (due in mid August) and > not for hers yet (due in early September). She is also the executor > of his will. > > What needs to be done, other than her renewal of her RPAL to not have > the police banging her door down and demanding all of his guns. (She > also owns some long guns). > > BUZ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 14:06:20 -0500 From: "Julie A. McNeice" Subject: Re: "Oilsands worker killed by black bear" Surveyors and (some) other employees in the NWT have permits and safety/ survival training to carry firearms for protection from bears; 'course that's I'm the wilds, right? And hubby, being a Surveyor says some surveyors in Alberta do too, but usually companies like Suncor don't permit them on their sites. Julie McNeice Sent from iPhone > On May 9, 2014, at 8:20 AM, Kindanyume wrote: > > > "Barrie Harrison with Alberta Occupational Health and Safety said the > woman was attacked by a mature male black bear which has since been put > down by RCMP." > > Oh yay!! The rcmp in the "nick of time" as always to do paperwork after > the fact while denying those involved the ability to defend themselves > effectively. > > /facepalm > > >> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:20 AM, Larry James Fillo wrote : >> >> If the worker was not issued proper safety equipment, >> being both bear spray and a suitable firearm. Arguably, >> the company failed to meet a reasonable standard >> of care, regarding the safety of it's employees? >> >> (I predict the firearms laws played a hand in this >> tragedy, one of a much longer list, beginning with >> the 1991 C-17 and again with C-68(1995). >> >> Sacrificing human lives to wild animals is one of the >> greater, moral outrages emanating from Canada's >> firearms "control" system. >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Oilsands worker killed by black bear >> >> Oilsands worker in northern Alberta killed in encounter with bear >> Reported by The Canadian Press >> Posted May 7, 2014 8:00pm >> >> FORT MCMURRAY, Alta. - A female worker has been killed by a black bear >> on the job at one of Canada's major oilsands companies in northeastern >> Alberta. >> >> "This is an absolutely tragic event," Sneh Seetal, spokeswoman for >> Suncor, said Wednesday. > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 15:09:28 -0400 From: Kindanyume Subject: Re: The Spectator's view: Gun amnesty program makes good sense /facepalm @ Lee Prokaska's writeup thumbs up for the 1st posted comment on the site though! On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Dennis Young wrote: > The Spectator's view: Gun amnesty program makes good sense > > http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4505023-the-spectator-s-view-gun-amnesty-program-makes-good-sense/ > > Good on the Hamilton Police Service for extending its gun amnesty program. > This local program, which began in early April, will continue until May 16. > By this past Monday, police had collected 285 firearms, including 203 long > arms (rifles, shotguns and pellet guns) and 82 handguns (pistols and pellet > guns). As well, more than 13,000 rounds of ammunition have been collected > by > police. The program is simple. Call 905-818-9656. Police will arrange a > time to pick up guns and/or ammo. No questions asked. No charges laid. And > another gun is taken out of our community. The most recent local amnesty > program was in 2006, when more than 1,200 firearms and tens of thousands of > rounds of ammunition were turned over to Hamilton police. Police stress the > current amnesty program is timed to coincide with spring cleaning and is > not > a response to any spike in gun crimes in the city. Regardless, 99 firearms > have been reported stolen in Hamilton in the past two years. Chances are > those pieces weren't stolen for recreational target practice or by serious > gun collectors. If this amnesty program reduces the risk of gun theft and > - > as a result - the risk of a crime involving a gun, that's good for all of > us. > > Lee Prokaska ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 15:13:00 -0400 From: Kindanyume Subject: Re: Re: regarding: Re: [Fwd: After Numerous Attempts, Dr. ... Indeed... thankfully a friend's dad's (A very long time and active supporter of the NFA and very much Pro-Gun) prohib's were not lost to this lunacy last yr since his one son was also grandfathered in. On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:00 AM, Barry Snow wrote: > ...Ben ... > > > Bruce, > Do you have a number? There were quite a few SBSC 's registered between 93 > and 95 that all are gone. Any idea how many grandfathered owners have died > in the last 19 years? The list of 12 (6) owners gets shorter each day. > Barry > > Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 10:41:09 -0700 (PDT) > From: Bruce Mills > Subject: Re: regarding: Re: [Fwd: After Numerous Attempts, Dr. Ben ... > > I want to add to Jeff's query: if 525,000 SBH have actually been > confiscated by the FedGov, please provide proof - if you can't then > stop using this bogus number. 525,000 SBH *have* been slated for > eventual confiscation upon the death of those who own one, who doesn't > have anyone on the "proscribed list" in 12(7) who wants them. > > "We" must be scrupulously honest in what we say, because the antis will > get ahold of it and run with it, just like they did with the bogus > Hitler quote, which I've been telling people for decades not to use, as > it could not be proven to be true. > > Yours in TYRANNY! > 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: Fri, 9 May 2014 15:49:51 -0400 From: Kindanyume Subject: Re: 'Words of Wisdom' Digest V16 #253 No offense but if that was a short version I think the long version would be dwarfing an encyclopedia. On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Larry James Fillo wrote: > I've been too busy to reply sooner to this comment. > > I, too, will try to be brief and to the point. > > Are most of the judiciary prejudiced against the civilian > possession and use of firearms? > > Yes, largely due to cultural factors, being from middle-class > and urban backgrounds for the past two decades or so. > > And also, by being misinformed by the news media. > > A serious legal challenge has to take that into account. > > Many innocent people are acquitted by judiciary who > are prejudiced against them. > > It requires the admissibility of relevant evidence and > widespread public exposure of that and the trial process. > > Access to the Oakes Test, is required. > > (Section 1 of the Charter "subject to such restrictions as can > reasonably justified in a free and democratic society") > > Remember, the difference between a Right and a Privilege > is that when regulating or infringing on a Right, the government > is obligated to justify doing that, show there is a connection > of their method and that the means doing so infringes on that > Right to the minimal amount that will result in the intended > outcome. > > The government is not obligated to justify violating or regulating > a privilege. > > A major reason for being hooped going into the case was that > the provincial gov't's challenge to C-68 was not done to a > professional standard of care. (e.i.the worst was the Sask. gov't. > used a private law firm, that firm could have been sued for that). > > There was no citizen's rights lobby holding the gov't. feet to the > fire since the mid-90s. So, the bureaucrats and politicians > side-stepped. > > Presently, the only way I've been able to figure out how to get that > has been via a provincial constitutional amendment for The Right > to Hunt. This would entail having at least one provincial government > throwing it's resources on side. > > Though the provincial governments could have brought forward > the relevant evidence to court should they have chosen to do > so and take the case seriously. They have a different status and > level of resources even in a reference ruling. > > Well, I discovered the Oakes Test and it's role by reading > and confirmed the other by spending some hours discussing > the issue with an esteemed Prof. of Constitutional Law. > > Trying to get judicial respect for a pre-Charter Common-Law > approach was no more than a "Hail Mary pass", under your > circumstances. > > No one, including me, expects you to, untutored, understand > how Constitutional Law works and yes, there is a politics of > it but it's not a party politics. > > Your argument that because the judiciary receive a paycheque > from public funds they are beholden to the government of the > day is false and naive. > > That check and safeguard does exist and has for a long time. > > Two Constitutional Profs in Saskatchewan even went to court as > council on that issue some years ago, when the provincial government > tried to alter the judiciary pay scales. > > Again, to argue that the gun laws violate a right to self-defence would > require a real live case that hinged on that for an individual and/or at > the > very least one or more provincial governments to side with the plaintiff > on such a case and come to court will all the evidence and make it > publicly known at the same time. > > I don't disagree that there is a continuity from Common-Law history > for the Right to possess arms. However, attempting to go to court for > what was in effect a reference ruling, before a judiciary naive of both > history and of how people outside their rarefied circles live, had very > little > chance being taken seriously at any court level in today's post Charter > > jurisprudence and culture, without serious resources behind it. > > Ontario is a province where the prejudice against civilian firearms > ownership is very high, especially compared to prairie provinces. > The chance of getting fair treatment was much less there at the > lower court level. Politically speaking, that was a weak tactic. > > The original arrest by the OPP involved them neglecting to look > after Katie, who was then 12. That they got away with that is > an outrage and without the ability to nail them to the wall for that, > convinced them they could get away with stealing your house, too. > > Having tactics and strategy to deal with prejudiced judiciary is > the difference between a "Hail Mary pass" and a case strong > enough to discredit bad legislation. To do that publicly well enough > that for a judge(s) to ignore it would "bring the administration of > justice" into disrepute. > > Yes, you put your passion and everything you had into the challenge. > > No one holds you to the standard of care, duty of care that they do > Constitutional law experts. Your earliest advice about how to go about > the challenge was simply not the best legal advice. > > As for the gratuitous insults, you are forgiven. > > On 2014-05-03, at 10:37 PM, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > > > > > Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 07:35:37 -0600 > > From: "Bruce Montague" > > Subject: Words of Wisdom? - by Larry James Fillo > > > > Larry James Fillo wrote: > >> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 00:15:37 -0600 > >> > >> The Judicial branch, once appointed, is independent of the government > of > >> the day by structure and > >> precedent. > >> > >> It chooses or rejects which cases it will hear or not and cares not a > >> wit what the government > >> of the day would like. > >> > >> The Montague case was not well grounded in Constitutional law to > begin > >> with, > > > > Larry; I can hardly believe that someone would make 3 such comments in > a row > > that show such a lack of understanding. I hope that you are simply > naive and > > don't understand how our political/legal system really works. Although > our > > courts are supposed to be independent once appointed, their track > record > > shows the opposite. One needs only look to where they get their > paychecks > > from to understand how that bias works! - - And don't ask for silly > examples > > of court bias because if you haven't recognized them by now you never > will. > > > > Your second point above is just as wrong for similar reasons. Judges > are > > groomed for many years to ensure they "fit the mold" before they are > ever > > appointed. Virtually every judge, once appointed, has the "correct" > mindset > > to ensure that the "proper cases" and "proper verdicts" get meted out. > How > > do you think we ever lost our "right to own firearms" without a > > constitutional reform? (Sec 2 Art. 7 of our original constitution > states > > that "The subjects . . . may have arms for their defence...") - - > oops; that > > was an example of court bias right there. :-) > > > > Your third point about my case was so absurd that I couldn't ignore > this > > blatant insult on both myself and the thousands who supported our > case. You > > seem to have an obvious bias to make such a false claim on something > so > > serious! - - Or maybe you never actually heard or read about our week > long > > argument in court dealing only with the constitutional issues of > firearms > > ownership in Canada. We even ignored many other constitutional > arguments > > such as my treatment in jail and the lack of a search warrent to > ensure we > > had the time to adequately argue the main point of firearms ownership. > HOW > > DARE YOU THROW AN UNSUBTANTIATED INSULT LIKE THAT OUT THERE!!! > > > > I don't know what you hope to accomplish, but if you want firearms > ownership > > re-affirmed in this country you are definitely on the wrong path. You > seem > > to have a very naive picture of how our sytems works - OR- you have > the same > > biases that our justice sytem has. Which side do you work for? > > > > > > Yours in Liberty, > > > > Bruce. > > > > p.s. I tried to keep this short and to the point. I avoided getting > into too > > many examples and arguments because I believe most on this digest have > a > > pretty good idea of what I'm talking about especially with how our > justice > > system is so biased. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 15:57:13 -0400 From: Kindanyume Subject: Re: "Oilsands worker killed by black bear" Nice... any evidence that Suncor does not allow it? On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Julie A. McNeice wrote: > Surveyors and (some) other employees in the NWT have permits and safety/ > survival training to carry firearms for protection from bears; 'course > that's I'm the wilds, right? And hubby, being a Surveyor says some > surveyors in Alberta do too, but usually companies like Suncor don't > permit them on their sites. > > Julie McNeice Sent from iPhone ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 16:01:19 -0400 From: Kindanyume Subject: Re: Estate Questions Sorry Julie but you are very much incorrect on this one: As executor she "inherits" the same license in essence as the now deceased person held even if she had no license in the first place. Including some aspects that are above and beyond what was legal for the deceased owner to do. Please read this link. It is a very good writeup about this and will help dispel some of the myths such as what you posted on this subject. https://nfa.ca/resource-items/inheritance-and-todays-laws On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Julie A. McNeice wrote: > They are still her property, but she has to store them at someone's > house who has a (12-6). That person has to have to get an ATT to pick > them up. > > Julie McNeice Sent from iPhone > > > On May 9, 2014, at 1:27 PM, "Howard R. Hamilton" wrote: > > > > I have a friend who's husband passed away a little over a year ago. > > Both she and her husband have had RPAL's, but he also had 12(6). The > > CFC has sent a renewal form for his RPAL, (due in mid August) and > > not for hers yet (due in early September). She is also the executor > > of his will. > > > > What needs to be done, other than her renewal of her RPAL to not have > > the police banging her door down and demanding all of his guns. (She > > also owns some long guns). > > > > BUZ ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V16 #262 *********************************** 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".)