Received: by dot.crosswinds.net (mbox republican) (with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Fri Nov 5 14:33:51 1999) X-From_: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Thu Nov 4 22:00:54 1999 Return-Path: Received: from broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (majordomo@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca [198.169.128.1]) by dot.crosswinds.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA79354 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 21:58:34 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA04590; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:25:30 -0600 Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:25:30 -0600 Message-Id: <199911042325.RAA04590@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca> X-Authentication-Warning: broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca: majordomo set sender to owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca using -f From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #192 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Errors-To: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Cdn-Firearms Digest Thursday, November 4 1999 Volume 03 : Number 192 In this issue: Re: firearms "facts" Anti-gun law groups bring message to meetings Austin vs Ottawa $35 MILLION MORE FOR FIREARMS CONTROL PROGRAM What's on Your FIP File? Re: my recent E-mail to your office United Alternative Firearm Policy Re spousal abuse ad and Crimestoppers Re: renewal of carry permits Deadlines "Pushed" AGAIN! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 07:12:29 -0600 From: "Jason Hayes" Subject: Re: firearms "facts" As a provincially funded organization, one would expect a high level of professional integrity to be present in the ACICR. However, your "Firearm FACTS" page smacks of emotionalism, poor judgment, improper scientific method, and a partisan view toward firearms and their owners. I am sure that you have received many comments on this web presentation over the past few months so I will use your own "facts" as a guide to keep my response short. "fact #1" Firearm related deaths account for nearly 10% of all injury deaths in Alberta over the past 5 years.1 Written from a different perspective, firearms had nothing to do (or were not involved) with over 90% of all injury deaths in Alberta over the past 5 years. Perhaps your time, and my tax dollars would be better spent looking at more pressing concerns. Such as automobile, bicycle, skate board, inline skating, and other sports injuries. "fact #2" In 1997, 401 suicides were completed in Alberta. Nearly 20% of these involved the use of a firearm. 2 Suicides occur with or without the presence of firearms. The >320 completed suicides which did not involve firearms attest to this fact. A look into the factors which encouraged these people to commit suicide would be a more appropriate use of your time ( I do not see your web page noting a Carbon Monoxide or Hanging FACTS section. Your own web page notes that these are higher on the list of chosen methods of committing suicide.) "fact #3" Nationally, Alberta ranks first among the provinces in the percentage of homes with guns (39%).3 And your point is...? This sentence states nothing. Your attempt to create a causal link between firearms ownership and injury fails here as it is not supported with any scientific data. If anything, a link would be more credibly made that this many firearms in the hands of the population proves Albertans are very safe. "fact #4" Alberta has one of the highest death rates in the country (6.2/100,000 population). That national rate is 4.6/100,000 population. 4 I would suggest that all people eventually die so would the death rate not be higher than this? If this is accurate, what does it have to do with firearms? And why does this bit of statistical data belong on a "firearms FACTS" sheet? "fact #5" A home with a gun is 5 times more likely to be the scene of a suicide and 3 times more likely to be the scene of a murder than a home without a gun 5 Kellerman has been universally discounted by his peers as using flawed (bordering on fraudulent) data collection techniques. Your use of his data discredits your own organization similarly. Perhaps you should look to other researchers such as Lott, Kleck, or Mauser. "fact #6" In 1997 in Alberta more young people died as a result of an encounter with a firearm than died due to leukemia 2 So what? More people died as a result of drowning and sports injuries than died as a result of an encounter with a firearm. More people died as a result of their doctors "medical misadventure" than as a result of an encounter with a firearm. Emotionalism does not make for good statistics or science. "fact #7" 95% of all deaths in Alberta in 1997 involving firearms were intentional. 1 Again, so what? > 80% of suicidal individuals "intend" to hang or suffocate themselves. Why are you not presenting similar pages on rope and automobile exhaust? Once again, emotionalism and good intentions do not pass as science. "fact #8" Among 26 industrialized countries, Canada ranked 5th in rate of firearm related deaths among children aged less than 15 years. 6 What does this prove? Perhaps Canada has a gang problem and "children" are involved in drug deals and other illegal activities. "fact #9" The rate of children killed with guns in Alberta is almost twice the national average and it is in fact comparable to the combined rates of Israel and Northern Ireland. 7 This analogy cannot be credibly made. Firearms ownership in Israel is almost universal. This is not the case in Alberta. One could easily say that the easy access Israeli children have to firearms proves education is an effective tool to prevent accidents. Perhaps you should be advocating education programs in our public schools to decrease firearms accidents. Furthermore, firearms ownership is systemically restricted in the British Isles. Northern Ireland's firearms related deaths for children are present despite draconian restrictions on firearms ownership. "fact #3" In Alberta in 1996, more than 3 people are hospitalized each month with unintentional firearm related injuries. 8 Again, so what? How many people are hospitalized for abrasions suffered while riding a bike or inline skating and why do you not have an "inline skating FACTS" page? You wouldn't be trying to present incomplete data in an attempt to color Albertans views of firearms ownership would you? As a provincially funded organization, your office should be dedicated to providing Albertans with the highest level of accurate scientific data, uncolored by personal biases. Your firearms FACTS sheet fails this most simple of tests miserably. Sincerely Jason Hayes B.Sc., Tech Graduate Studies Student, U of Calgary Faculty of Environmental Design (Environmental Science) Personal : jthayes@home.com, hayes_jt@yahoo.com http://www.members.home.net/jthayes - - Environmental / Forestry Consulting - - PC Upgrades and Repairs - - Independent Shaklee Distributor Business : hayesholdings@home.com http://www.members.home.net/hayesholdings **************************************************************************** ***************************************************************** "...when you ask 'What can one do?' - the answer is 'SPEAK' (provided you know what you are saying)....Speak on any scale open to you, large or small....Do not pass up a chance to express your views on important issues." Ayn Rand **************************************************************************** ***************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:00:53 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Anti-gun law groups bring message to meetings PUBLICATION: The Saskatoon StarPhoenix DATE: 99.11.04 SECTION: Local and Regional PAGE: A10 BYLINE: Berger, Kevin Anti-gun law groups bring message to meetings Two groups that believe Canada's gun law is a glaring infringement on their constitutional rights are holding meetings in Saskatoon and Biggar. The first group, the Law-Abiding Unregistered Firearms Association (LUFA), already held a meeting in Rosetown on Tuesday night and will hold another meeting at the Union Centre tonight. Candidates in the Rosetown federal byelection will attend to answer questions about gun control and other issues. Bruce Hutton, president and founder of LUFA, will also be there to promote his organization's stance on gun control. LUFA was founded in November 1998, to protest a law that Hutton says allows the government to search and seize property without a warrant, and waste more than $1 billion on "an unneeded bureaucracy." "There is no democracy in this country," he said. Hutton said LUFA is Canada's first organization devoted to non-violent civil disobedience, adding its members will protest Bill C-68 by refusing to register their firearms by Jan. 1, 2003, the required date. Jean Valin, director of public affairs for the Canadian Firearms Centre, said Hutton is wrongfully presenting a false scenario where "anyone who has one firearm could have their door broken down," adding an officer may only search without a warrant under very strict circumstances. The second group, the Alliance for the Right to Hunt, will meet Sunday evening at the town hall in Biggar. Several MLAs and MPs will be on hand to answer questions and open the floor to debate. Larry Fillo, a spokesperson for the alliance, says the group is not an actual organization but is instead a few dedicated individuals trying to inform the public about what they see as the federal government's partnership with animal rights activists to abolish hunting "There is no provincial government that would do to the rural community what the federal government has done," said Fillo, adding hunting is a necessary part of the rural lifestyle and must be used to control predators. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:00:59 -0600 From: dons@cadabradesign.com (Don Shesnicky) Subject: Austin vs Ottawa Interesting fact out of the latest issue of the Ottawa Business Journal, a little free newspaper put out weekly in Ottawa that deals with business news. They compare Ottawa and Austin TX because both are about the same population (1 million) and both are becoming high tech oriented. The interesting fact is in the chart where they compare the two cities in a number of areas one of which is violent crime rates per 100,000. Before I actually glanced at the numbers I thought - maybe equal, maybe Austin slightly higher. Actual numbers - 521 for Austin and 911 for Ottawa. Don ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:14:54 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: $35 MILLION MORE FOR FIREARMS CONTROL PROGRAM Today the Government tabled in the House of Commons the first Supplementary Estimates for fiscal year 1999-2000. Justice Department - Page 100 Firearms Control Program - Increase Authority - Vote 1 = $35,000,000 Note #1: The government is still refusing to release this year's budget for the Canadian Firearms Centre. Note #2: The government has used "Cabinet secrecy" to withhold 172 pages of budget documents. Note #3: The Minister has stated that the Firearms Control Program would only cost $50-60 million to operate. Treasury Board of Canada News Release - November 4, 1999 Supplementary Estimates (A), 1999-2000 http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/news99/1104_e.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:14:58 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: What's on Your FIP File? Complete a Personal Information Request Form and send it to: R.G. Lesser, Supt. Departmental Privacy and Access to Information Co-ordinator Royal Canadian Mounted Police 1200 Vanier Parkway Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R2 Enquiries Phone: (613) 993-5162 Personal Information Request Forms are available at: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/gos-sog/infosource/Info_6/Request-Frms_e.html Personal Information Request Form * Word 6.0 (214 KB) Word 6.0 self-extracting zip file (35 KB) * WordPerfect 6.1 (124 KB) WordPerfect 6.1 self-extracting zip file (57 KB) * Adobe Acrobat (17 KB) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:15:02 -0600 From: "John Perocchio" Subject: Re: my recent E-mail to your office This copy includes the previously mentioned e-mail below. Subject: My recent E-mail to your office requesting you look into the offensive spousal abuse ad targeting Ontario's Firearms Community. Dear Premier & others, I recently brought to your attention an ad currently dealing with spousal abuse that is doing the rounds of Ontario's TV and radio stations. As mentioned previously, this ad is discriminatory towards Ontario's Firearms Community and therefore unacceptable. Since writing you I have learned that the wording in this ad directly maligning Ontario's Firearms Community was placed there at the insistence of Ontario's Chief Provincial Firearms Officer. Rather than go on at length, I'm sending you a copy of an e-mail written in response to this matter and addressing the CPFO's misinformed figures of spousal abuse cases in Ontario involving firearms. Once more I would ask that you order a stop to this abysmally worded ad and further request you investigate the misinformation that caused this ad in the first place. Sincerely, John L. Perocchio E-mail from Mr. Barry Holland to Cathy Pendrith (Y105 FM) re: CPFO = Statistics: Dear Cathy Pendrith I am retired policeman and currently employed in protecting people from criminal violence. Issues relating to violence statistics are always interesting to me as they relate to my work. Much of my work involves providing armed protection to women from stalkers and violent male domestic partners. Please take 2 minutes and read my question.=20 I received a copy (of) the following letter, apparently written by you, and would like you to ask yourself a question. Q and A below. You wrote Hello Mr. Perocchio. Regarding the "firearms" line in the Crimestoppers ad, I discovered that it was added to the commercial at the request of the Chief Firearms Officer of Ontario. I contacted him to bring your concern to his attention. He told me that his office "Fully supports the legal use of firearms", it's those who use them illegally his office has a problem with. I was actually under the impression that very few domestic abuse incidents involved firearms. I was told that I was mistaken. In fact, over 3,000 of the over 18 thousand spousal assaults in Ontario last year involved firearms. That being said it definitely was not the intent of the Chief Firearms Office to vilify law abiding gun owners. Q. If these numbers provided to you by the Chief Firearms Office are correct then why would the RCMP release figures in 1993 that they investigated 88,162 violent crimes only 73 involved firearms? A. The definition of INVOLVED. The RCMP meaning of involved generally means that the firearm was a factor in the crime. The Department of Justice and others who like to whip up fear of owners of firearms use INVOLVED as all the firearms found at the scene of a crime whether they were still properly stored or not when the police seized them. Sincerely Barry Holland Under questioning by Garry Breitkreuz, MP for Yorkton-Melville,RCMP Commissioner Murray and Deputy Commissioner Zaccardelli stood steadfastly behind the accuracy of their firearm statistics at a Justice Committee meeting yesterday afternoon. In a letter sent to the Department of Justice last July, the RCMP Commissioner stated in 1993 they investigated 88,162 actual violent crimes where only 73 of these offences, or 0.08%, involved the use of firearms. On March 31st, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice commenting on the RCMP=E2=80=99s statistics said in the House of Commons, "This is simply not possible." When Breitkreuz asked why the Justice Department claims that the number of firearms "involved in crime" was nine times higher than the RCMP figure, Deputy Commissioner Zaccardelli responded, "The Justice Department used a more liberal interpretation of the word involved." The Deputy Commissioner explained that the RCMP analysis included only those violent offences where firearms were directly involved or used in the commission of the offence. Despite their defense of the Department of Justice methodology, the RCMP Commissioners refused to answer Breitkreuz question about whether or not they were now prepared to swear to an affidavit in court that the Justice Department presentation of RCMP firearms data was "accurate." "Unfortunately, only the Justice Department liberal interpretation of the number of firearms involved in crime has been made public, used in Parliament to defend Bill C-68, and used in court by the federal government. Until now the RCMPs more accurate analysis has remained a secret," disclosed Breitkreuz. "Millions of Canadians want to know why." "Whose firearms statistics are the public, the police and Parliament supposed to believe?" asked Breitkreuz. "The RCMP=E2=80=99s or the Justice Departments?" The Saskatchewan MP proposed a simple solution, "First, the Justice Minister must clarify why her Parliamentary Secretary is accusing the Commissioner of the RCMP of producing false and misleading firearms statistics. And second, the RCMP must swear an affidavit in the Alberta Court of Appeal attesting to the number of violent offences where firearms were involved." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:15:07 -0600 From: "Jim Hinter" Subject: United Alternative Firearm Policy The Policy development process of the United Alternative allows for any group of interested Canadians to help develop policy. We have created a discussion to discuss this policy development. To join this list: Post message: UAfirearmspolicy@onelist.com Subscribe: UAfirearmspolicy-subscribe@onelist.com Unsubscribe: UAfirearmspolicy-unsubscribe@onelist.com List owner: UAfirearmspolicy-owner@onelist.com The deadline for submissions to the United Alternative Policy Committee is drawing near. If you would like more reading on the issue visit www.unitedalt.org Jim Hinter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:25:19 -0600 From: "Jason Hayes" Subject: Re spousal abuse ad and Crimestoppers >Hello Mr. Perocchio. > >Woody forwarded your e-mail to me because I'm the Creative Director >at the station. I'm familiar with the ad you're referring to. It >was sent to us by >Crimestoppers, who tell me that the line "whether firearms are >involved or not" was added to the commercial because people seem to >have no problem calling police if a firearm is involved, but will >ignore abuse if there is no weapon. This type of unthinking behavior seems to be a pattern with the people at Crimestoppers. A few years ago, a Crimestoppers ad in Vancouver was created to address the shooting of one of the pro-abortion doctors in the city. The ad noted that spent shells from "7.62 x 39 AK-47" rounds had been found by the police in the location that the shooter was thought to have hidden themselves. I called crimestoppers to determine how they knew that the rounds were fired from an AK. Their reply was that the police ballistics lab had "studied" the rounds and could tell (from the brass) that the shooter had been using an AK. When I tried to point out that this was simply untrue and it sounded like they had added the "AK-47" bit to make the commercial more sensational, the person on the telephone became somewhat irritated. He informed me that a good ballistics lab could so figure this out and that he was more inclined to believe the police than me. Crimestoppers appears to be somewhat utilitarian in its use of facts and the truth. If their end goal of catching the bad guys can be achieved by bending or adding to the truth, it seems they are able to justify it. Later Jason Hayes B.Sc., Tech Graduate Studies Student, U of Calgary Faculty of Environmental Design (Environmental Science) Personal : jthayes@home.com, hayes_jt@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:25:27 -0600 From: Dave Tomlinson Subject: Re: renewal of carry permits >Dave: It seems to me that I read your comment at one point in time that >if you currently have a carry permit (1999) that a shooter should apply >for a renewal NOT for a new permit. >Can you refresh my memory.... I dont want to lose what I have..... a >cross Canada permit with access to all border crossings. Because most of the 1998 Permits to Carry were "extended", we have a peculiar legal situation. They could not, of course, be valid in 1999 unless they were converted from "Permit To Carry (PTC)" documents into "Authorization To Transport (ATT)" documents -- so that is what happened to them, to keep them valid. Now you need your year 2000 ATT. They are trying to tell you that they "cannot issue" an ATT with the terms and conditions that were on the 1999 ATT ("extended" 1998 PTC) you had last year. Sorry, government employees, it is too late for that argument. You DID issue the 1999 ATTs, they DID have those terms and conditions on them, and you are therefore stuck -- by the rules of administrative law -- when someone demands a RENEWAL with the same terms and conditions. If you refuse to issue, there is a right of appeal to a court of law. If the government is successful in saying that the ATT cannot be issued with those terms and conditions, it has also just ruled that the issuing authorities -- by "extending" the 1998 PTCs and converting them into ATTs -- issued documents that they were not authorized to issue. The appellant should therefore request a court order that the person or persons responsible for issuance of his illegal 1998 ATT be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for firearms control violations. Their action is an indictable offence under CC s. 126, and those bureaucrats should be charged and convicted of that offence. If WE have to obey this law, SO DO THEY. 1. On the application, add the information that this is an application for a RENEWAL, and is not an "ab initio" application for an ATT. Initial that change. 2. State on the application that this is a DEMAND, made under CC s. 337, for a RENEWAL of the 1998-99 PTC/ATT (photocopy enclosed) WITH THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS that were on the 1998 ATT. David A Tomlinson National President, National Firearms Association Ph: (780)439-1394 Fax: (780)439-4091 natpres@nfa.ca Box 1779, EDMONTON AB, T5J 2P1 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:25:22 -0600 From: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Deadlines "Pushed" AGAIN! Canada Gazette 30 October 1999 Vol. 133 no. 44 The regulations on Gun Shows have been deferred until 01 January 2003. The "amnesty" period for "prohibited handguns, prohibited handgun barrels and unregistered restricted firearms" has been extended for a further 13 months until 01 January 2001. Jim Hinter Co-ordinator National Firearms Association ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #192 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:parry@ionline.net List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca FAQ list: http://www.magma.ca/~asd/cfd-faq1.html and http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/homepage.html FTP Site: ftp://teapot.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/ Digest Back-issues: by FTP (cd pub/cdn-firearms/Digests), or visit the Cdn-Firearms web site (above), or put the next command in a message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca get cdn-firearms-digest v03.n122 end (122 is the digest issue number and 03 is the volume) To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next five lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-alert unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".) If you find this service valuable, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the freenet we use: Saskatoon Free-Net Assoc., 1702 20th St. West, Saskatoon SK S7M OZ9 Phone: (306) 382-7070 modem lines: (306) 956-3700 and (306) 956-3701 Home page: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/ National Firearms Association (N.F.A.) Box 4384, Station C Calgary AB T2T 5N2 ph.: (403) 640-1110 fax: (403) 640-1144 mailto:nfainfo@nfa.ca Web site: http://www.nfa.ca/ DONATIONS GRATEFULLY ACCEPTED! Automatic, monthly donations may be made to the N.F.A. by sending postdated cheques, or your Visa/MasterCard number and expiry date, to the Membership address above, along with the amount you would like to donate: $5, $10, or another amount. Automatic donations may be cancelled at any time. N.F.A. memberships: families: $40; seniors: $25; individuals: $30; businesses: $50. Included are regular issues of the N.F.A. newsletter Point Blank, as well as magazines like "Canadian Sportsman". Add just $4.75 per person for $5,000,000 insurance! Clubs: get associate memberships for just $3 per member ($40 minimum) and members will be still eligible for $5,000,000 liability insurance for just $4.75 each! These e-mail digests are free to everyone, and are made possible by the efforts of countless volunteers. Permission is granted to copy and distribute this digest as long as it not altered.