Conference back40::soapbox

    "Gun owners will have to begin registering on a a new national computer
    system in 1996, with a phase-in will last until 2003.  To encourage
    early compliance, fees will be waived initially or will be less than
    $10, the minister told reporters.
    
    To balance the new regulatory measures, tougher sentencing rules for
    gun crimes will also be introduced.
    
    Mr. Rock [Justice Minister] said Canada, a country born not of a
    revolution but of political consensus, should not become a U.S.-style
    society where many people own guns for self-defence.
    
    'That is simply not the way we wish to live,' Mr. Rock said.
    
    The registration system will be the main target of critics, who will
    scrutinize its efficiency and cost."
    
    etc, etc

    
    Rod,
    
    The last line of your note contains the word `democracy', which is in
    fact the basis for this legislation...it's happening because the bulk
    of Canadians want it to.  I realize that most Albertans are opposed to
    this legislation, but hey, whadda ya gonna do?
    

    
    
     re .4
    
    At last count, the majority of Canadians do not want the removal of
    guns from Canadians.  They wanted action on crime, and sufficient
    punishment to deter people from commiting it.  What they got was a very
    narrow minded view from a few lobby groups in Ottawa.  And not wanting
    to be politically incorrect to the rest of the world in that they
    scream loudly at human rights issues in other countries, but ignore the
    mindless slaughter of engineering students in Quebec.  I admit the
    tragedy in Quebec was appaling, but the event became the focal point
    for all violence.  This legislation assumes everyone is guilty, and
    therefore requires mandatory supervision and control, because the
    Canadian people are to dumb and violent to do it themselves.  No one
    can convince me that this is good...
    
    
    
    Rod  

    Why waste so much time and energy on registration, lets just ban the
    stupid things completely.  
    
    Maybe when the people here in the U.S. see how few gun deaths are
    recorded in Canada, they will follow suit.
    
    Maybe we will all get raises next year and an extra weeks vacation too.
      

    
    Convince you that it's good?  Rod, I wouldn't even *try*.
    
    When it becomes more difficult to buy and/or own a gun than a car,
    then maybe you'll have a *real* problem.
    

    Isn't DereK on a course this week?
    You'll have to wait until after 16:00
    

Re: <<< Note 130.12 by TROOA::COLLINS "Comfortably numb..." >>>
    
>>    When it becomes more difficult to buy and/or own a gun than a car,
>>    then maybe you'll have a *real* problem.

It already is.  Even in the US.

                         Roak

    Looking at the title of this topic, I keep thinking of the proberb,
    "Forewarned is forearmed."  
    
    Whether or not the proposed Canadian legislation has any implications
    for Americans, I get the impression that the latter have been pretty
    actively fore-"arming" themsleves for some time.
    
    -Stephen

    proVerb

    leab him alone.
    
    

    
    <----   This troubles me....
    
            This will soon trouble me... ---->
    
    

    
    glenn is like th????.??

    
    my note.
    
    derek str??T

    
    .16, Roak:
    
    This is simply not true in Canada, and I doubt it's true in the U.S.
    either.  In terms of both cost and procedure, it is more difficult
    to buy and own a car than a rifle.  However, in Canada handguns *are*
    relatively difficult to obtain legally.
    

Re: <<< Note 130.31 by TROOA::COLLINS "Comfortably numb..." >>>

>>    This is simply not true in Canada, and I doubt it's true in the U.S.
>>    either.  In terms of both cost and procedure, it is more difficult
>>    to buy and own a car than a rifle.  However, in Canada handguns *are*
>>    relatively difficult to obtain legally.

Though I don't know exactly what the Canadian requirements for buying a car are,
I bet they're fairly close to the US requirements.

Saying "This is simply not true" doesn't make it so.  Please tell me what's
required to purchase a car, and let's see if it's easier to buy a car from a
car dealer than a firearm from a firearm dealer.

Since we are crossing borders here, we'll have to give each other a little
slack...

                                  Roak

Re: <<< Note 130.34 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "G��� �t�R �r�z�" >>>

>>    This is hard work. {whew}

I imagine it is.  It's much harder than doing a "Next Unseen" over the noise
you're injecting.  I don't know why you're bothering.

                            Roak

    .33, Roak,

    Some of the costs below are estimates based upon news stories and
    such; I own neither a car (can't afford it/don't need it) nor a rifle.
    Perhaps Glenn or Rod can provide more accurate figures, but I think
    they're in the right ballpark.  The procedural steps should be correct.
    Car stuff varies from province to province, gun stuff is federal.

    Car				Rifle
    ===				=====

    Driver's Ed Course		Firearms Safety course
    $150 - $250			$100 - $150

    Written test		Written test
    $10 (?)			$75

    Practical test		No practical test
    $20 (?)

    License			Firearms Aquisition Certificate
    $50	(?)/3 yrs		$50/3 yrs

    Buy car			Buy rifle
    $500 - $50,000		$100 - $2000 

    Insurance			No insurance required
    $500 - $3000/yr

    Register each vehicle	No registration
    $30 (?)

    Plate renewal
    $90/yr
    

    Looks good..but you missed one important point.
    
    	The gvmt. and population expect you to handle the rifle in a safe 
    manner...yet the general population handles the two ton automobile like
    it's just a big old plush push toy that wouldn't hurt a fly.  If
    drivers had to really adhere to the rules the way law abiding gun owners 
    do, we would never record another traffic fatality.  We also would not
    be able to drive anywhere.  My basic point is...why blame the
    innocent...I have never done anything to deserve the treatment the
    Government is now affording gun owners.
    
    
    Rod

    Actually, I think it's a great idea to disarm the Canadians.  Then we
    won't have to be worried about their militia invading us.

    
    Mike,
    
    The only part of the U.S. we want to invade is Florida, and we do that
    every winter. :^)
    
    Rod,
    
    Unfortunately, we have had at least two (maybe more) murders committed 
    in Toronto this year with guns stolen from legitimate owners.  And, um,
    wasn't Marc Lepine in legal possession of the weapon he used?  Now,
    fact is that legally owned weapons are not much of a problem here in
    Canada.  But every firearm used was, at one point, legally owned. I
    don't think it's asking too much to register them, and I don't buy into
    all that confiscation stuff.  They are, here in Canada, essentially
    recreational items, and given their potential, should at least be
    traceable in the event of misuse.
    
    You are being punished no more than car or motorcycle owners.
    

    
     Re .42
    
     > and I don't buy into all that confiscation stuff.
    
       Hasn't that already happened recently with previously registered
       high-powered rifles ?
    
       If history is any indicator (and it always is), registration 
       of firearms eventually leads to confiscation (but only from those 
       law-abiding citizens who dutifully submit the information to the 
       "authorities").
    
       RG

    
    
    
    .39 Question, Those 'steps to get a rifle' is that Canada?
    
        Be that when I bought my rifles, I got them in Mass.
    	It was $5 F.I.D. Card 'good for life' and the money for the rifle.
        No test, quiz, or finger prints. My understanding that Mass. is
    	the Liberal center of the universe. I didn't find it that hard.
    
        Now the pistol permit, that was a pain. As The chief of police made
    	his own policy (as they can by any whim they choose in Mass.)
    	and made me wait till I was 21. Then I had to get photo/finger
        printed. (Like a criminal but without the numbers at my chest and
        no side shots.) :) That's liberal Mass, for you. Very diffecult.
    	
    
    	I've since sold my weapons. Shooting is an expensive hobby, you
    	can practicly see the dimes, quarters, and silver dollars going down
    	the range instead of slugs with every shot. A semi-automatic only
    	speeds up the hemoraging of money. I miss that pistol though.
    
        Does Canada's constitution say anything about gun ownership?
    

    
    .44,
    
    Yes, those are the Canadian hoops for rifle ownership.  Handguns are
    considerably more difficult, as are collectors weapons (both fall into
    the class of `Restricted Weapons').  And no, Canada's constitution says
    nothing about firearms.
    

    |Does Canada's constitution say anything about gun ownership?

    No, it doesn't. I believe this is one of the underlying differences
    between the two countries.

    Glenn

I forwarded .0 to a friend, and he sent me the following reply. Comments?

> No, the analogy does not hold.  The 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments to the
> constitution prevent local and federal government from confiscating a
> citizen's property without due process.  Canadian citizens have no such
> constitutional protection, only statutory (i.e., regulatory) protection.

My take on this is that the Bill of Rights doesn't seem to stop law 
enforcement agencies from confiscating (without due process) your house,
vehicles, cash, etc., if it can be excused as part of the (holy) War On Drugs.
Maybe its illegal, but the burden is on YOU to prove it.

To quote (again) Sen. Roos (as provided by TIS::HAMBURGER), "To hell with the
constitution".

    POLAR::RICHARDSON
    
     I trust this will be worth the wait.
    
     From the Minister of Justice.
    
    	96% of Canadians support stiffer penalties for crimes using firearms
    
    	90% of Canadians support registration of ***ALL*** firearms
    
    	67% of Canadians support a ban on civilian ownership of handguns
    
    	75% of Canadians support restricted access to ammunition
    
    	70% of Canadians support tighter gun control laws
    
     To who ever said it was right, we did not get what we wanted,
    
    			we got ***LESS***.
    
    
    							Derek.

    re .41
    
    It's not out militia you have to fear...it's our
    beauracracy...guaranteed to bring you to your knees, begging for
    mercy...or maybe we can help solve any language issues you may be
    having...or we can close down your fishing...or we can sell off your
    aerospace expertise...
    
    	I,m sure that we have a beauracrat up here that can finish you off
    in short order...send us your best trained military minds...try to hit
    us with your latest weaponry...You'll be stopped cold at the border,
    and your Commanders will die of old age filling out the necessary
    import paperwork...I beleive you can order the necessary forms from
    Ottawa...ref. department of revenue...
    
    form id#   CAN-94.196-IMP/DEC/ATT/FLE-14003006Q1A 'Proposal for Import-
    	       Invasion Force Equipment Import Excise and Taxation
    	       Requirements-Proof of Ownership/Country of Manufacture/V.I.N
    	       ID numbers/Armament position and dispersion/Length of
    	       stay/Amount of Cash on Hand(list of forwarde moneys with
    	       dates)/VISA or AMEX card numbers/Address Where you can be
    	       reached- all must have been previously submitted under Duty and
    	       Excise form 'Suspicion of Importation of goods for the Purpose 
    	       of Government, People and/or Resource assimilation'. 
    	       Failure to complete the necessary documentation will result
    	       in forfeiture of right to invade, and misrepresentation may
    	       have personal and financial implications as established in edict
    	       #9416A-11004000.126A 'Failed Invasion Status for
    	       Non-Regulated Foreign Forces'
    
    
    		So Watch your STEP!
    
    
    
    	Rod (were talkin' major paper work here)   

    re .42
    
    As Homer would say 'DohP!'...You've gone a hit me again...I also own a
    motorcycle...I'm gonna end up with a hernia carrying all the
    necessary documents needed to leave the house.
              
        Rod

    
    RE: .48
    
    Well... if those figures are accurate, then you deserve what you
    get....

    re .44
    
    Under the new legistlation, hand guns will be extremely if not
    impossible to get..in addition they will be gradfathering off the
    presently legal registered handgun owners...the hand gun will be
    removed permanently when the owner no longer requires it...as a result
    the option of selling the gun is gone (even to a legal recipient). 
    Kind of makes antique gun collecting worthless now doesn't it!
    
    Rod

    one wonders when the government of canada will be issuing permits to
    allow one to pee.

    
    Andy, we'll take our chances...but thanks for the concern!
    
    Rod, you forgot to tell them about `Project Brador', our emergency
    backup plan for invading forces that make it past the paperwork.
    

    
    Gene, we've got a great big, sparsely populated country here, 
    and we pee anywhere we damn well please.  :^)
    

    re .48
    
    The percentages say one thing...I can unequivcolly(or whatever) state 
    that neither myself or anyone I know(even remotely) have ever been 
    polled, asked or considered before this legislation was placed in motion.  
    The percentages may not lie...I question where, when and how the polling
    was done.  I beleive (correct me if I'm wrong) that they was only a
    snowball chance in hell of Bob Rae being elected as Premiere of
    Ontario...an yet (could the polls have been wrong...could they have
    polled only a few of there closest allies...This would be a real
    SHOCKER-Polling outfits not giving true representation...Oh my...that
    would mean someone requesting the poll was manipulating the responses
    in order to meet their own agenda...Oh my, that's dishonest!)

    
    .54
    
    
    ...Project Brador?!
                                   
    I'd like to volunteer to work on this project.

    re .53
    
    ......................You mean you don't have a permit to Pee!
    
    
    ...............................WOW!
    
    
    
    
    Rod
    

    re .54
    
    
    		Didn't need to mention 'Project Brador'...as getting past
    the import rules....'will never happen my friend'...it's the only thing
    we have made so far that works well above expectations!
    
    
    Rod

    
    Okay, Rod...we'll take our own poll here!
    
    The results so far:
    
    For				Against
    ===				=======
    John Collins		Rod Malone
    Derek Street
    
    Glenn, Chris, Steve, Doug...I know you're out there...make your 
    opinions known!
    
    jc
    

    
    .56:
    
    Have you filled out the appropriate paperwork?
    

    Have you filled the little cup?
    
    -b

    
    Do I look like the sort that fills a little cup?

    Personally I have no problem with registration of firearms, & applaud
    stricter penalties for crimes committed with guns.  This legislation
    seems reasonable to me, though I am skeptical that it will have any
    significant impact on violent crime.
    
    I am interested in the story told in .0, of $9000.00 rifles confiscated
    without compensation after they were registered.  Rod, would you mind
    providing more detail on this?
    
    -Stephen

    
    The results so far:
    
    For				Against
    ===				=======
    John Collins		Rod Malone
    Derek Street
    Stephen Burridge
    
    And Rod...I, too, would like to hear more about the target rifles.
    We here in the east didn't here anything about this.
    
    jc
    

    
    RE: .64
    
    Why is this legislation "reasonable" to you if you feel it will not
    have any significant impact on violent crime??
    

    Since stats show that there are less violent crimes per capita in
    Canada than the U.S. involving firearms, I'll stick with the for side.
    The thought of buying a gun has never entered my mind. And if you like
    hunting, I don't believe the added grief will be that bad.

    But I must stress that comparing Canada to the U.S. on this issue is
    like comparing pomegranates to passion fruit.
    
    Glenn

    SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI
    
    >>Well... if those figures are accurate, then you deserve what you
    >>get....
    
    
     The way you say it, it sounds like what we will get is a bad thing.
    Care to explain why "what we will get" is such a bad thing ? 
    
    						Derek.

    re .66:
    
    If an efficient registration system can be implemented, as the Dept. of
    Justice apparently believes, it will enable the cops to trace weapons
    used in crimes.  Professional criminals will still be able to get
    unregistered weapons, I suppose, therby committing another crime...
    
    Personally I abhor violent crime.  Crime committed using firearms
    should be punished severely.
    
    Hunters, marksmen, hobbyists, etc. who actively pursue their avocation
    should have no problems, other than a little extra paperwork.
    
    -Stephen

    
    The results so far:
    
    For				Against
    ===				=======
    John Collins		Rod Malone
    Derek Street
    Stephen Burridge
    Glenn Richardson
    
    Still waiting to hear from Chris B., Doug B., and any 
    other Canajun 'boxers, even read-onlys.
    

    HAAG::HAAG
    
    >>one wonders when the government of Canada will be issuing permits to
    >>allow one to pee.
    
     Fortunatly we already have a ban on assault-pee. People can't hold
    more than 2 liters of pee without a special permit to carry (and a
    special bladder). This has reduced the number of pee related homicides by
    70% since implemented. This has in no way impared the right of every
    Canadian to write their name on the snow though, since this is
    considered recreational peeing, and is protected under the Charter of
    Rights.
    
    							Derek.

    Derek, should you have leaked that information to Gene that way?

    Glenn

    
    RE: .68
    
    Can you say "totalitarianism"?
    
    Sure you can!! Try it!! After awhile, it rolls of the tongue so easily
    that you can't even recognize it for what it is....
    

    You don't know what you're talking about in the context of Canada.

    
    Explain please why a government... any government cannot have power go
    to it's figurative head?
    
      

re: Note 130.47 by DECWET::LOWE
    
>I forwarded .0 to a friend, and he sent me the following reply. Comments?

>> No, the analogy does not hold.  The 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments to the
>> constitution prevent local and federal government from confiscating a
>> citizen's property without due process.  Canadian citizens have no such
>> constitutional protection, only statutory (i.e., regulatory) protection.

>My take on this is that the Bill of Rights doesn't seem to stop law 
>enforcement agencies from confiscating (without due process) your house,
>vehicles, cash, etc., if it can be excused as part of the (holy) War On Drugs.
>Maybe its illegal, but the burden is on YOU to prove it.

I can (and everyone else in the USA)  prevent anyone from seizing my
assets (house/cars, at least).  You will never get "due process".  You have 
given no reason for consideration of deserving that (by not using lawful 
money, and signing away your rights, among other things).  Furthermore, I 
highly dislike the 14th amendment, and try and stay as far away from it as 
possible, because if you do like to be "protected" by it, you certainly can 
expect to have "problems" in the future.

>To quote (again) Sen. Roos (as provided by TIS::HAMBURGER), "To hell with the
>constitution".
It has, technically been suspended.  I don't know if our government is 
operating the way it is because it IS suspended, or if they are truely
ignorant of that fact.
         

    Oops, I messed up again.
    
    I can't "prevent" someone from stealing my stuff.  I can make it
    "highly uneconomical" for them to want to, thereby usually preventing
    them from following through with the crime.

    .76
    
    Darnit Mike, and we were having so much fun discussing the
    Constitution, as if it were still in effect.  Fact is for you guys and
    gals (or whatever you're called), 'tis true.  We've been under
    emergency "law" since before WWII.  Thanks a heap Rooseveldt.
    
    Re: Canadian guns laws, etc.  Remember that Canada was a crown colony
    until very recently (since I have been an adult).  After what WE did, I
    doubt that the Crown was really lenient about allowing their colonials
    to possess firearms.  Their history is very different from ours.

    
    Andy, our system of government has such inertia built into it that
    radical shifts are almost out of the question.  Canada is a far more
    politically stable country than places like Italy, Germany, Isreal,
    anywhere in Africa, etc.  But...in the unlikely event that Canadian
    democracy is usurped...I'm sure we can count on 'murica, France, 
    Great Britain and others to step in and restore order, just as they
    did in Kuwait (ie: it would be in their own interest to do so).  And, 
    of course, we'd be happy to return the favour if *your* government is 
    usurped.
    
    In the meantime...Canadians prefer to focus their efforts on *real*
    problems like street crime, rather than fictional problems of the sort
    survivalists tend to concoct.
    

    
    RE: .79
    
    "In the meantime..."
    
    
     I'm sure that's what a lot of Germans said in the 30's.....
    

    
    Ok, I'll bite (no comments pls).  
    
    The survey results a while back should be, as should all polls, put in
    the context of the moment.  There were several (fortunately rare,) well
    publicized crimes committed with the help of Johnny firearm.  Any poll
    taken after the lurid media coverage would express the obvious - that
    is, deter the criminals somehow and try to prevent it some other way
    too.  Remember not too long ago the big hubbub about the environment? 
    People would gladly pay extra for cleaner environments, politicians
    suddenly became 'green', laws were passed/promised, polluters quivered
    in their boots, that sort of thing.  Thus while 90% does indeed
    represnet the will of the people, I'm sure two weeks prior to the
    events a much lower figure would have resulted.  
    
    Despite the above, I do believe the overall will of the people on
    average over time (!) does support gun control.  Canadians only have to
    look south to see the extreme results of loosening them.  Therefore put
    me on the 'for' side of the ledger.  
    
    However, I do not think that rifles need  to be registered since they
    are generally not used in day-to-day crimes (robbery, assault) and are
    much more difficult to conceal.  I support outright banning military
    assault weapons as no hunter *needs* that power, and I question their
    collectability.   
    
    Would my life be better if guns were banned completely and outright? 
    probably, as long as the law and military had them.  Is it that bad a
    thing for people to take a few minutes of their life to register
    something potentially lethal and not a necessity of life? no.  Is it
    wrong to take something legally acquired without compensation? yes adn
    that should be corrected. 
    
    There, once again, my work here is done.
    
    Doug B

    Oh yes, Canada is teetering on the verge of become a totally fascist
    state. Boy Krawiecki, it's pretty ignorant to compare Canada with what
    was happening in pre-WWII Germany, completely ignorant.

    Glenn

    
    
    Ignorant??? Why so??
    
    Are you going to tell me the mentality of the driving forces is not the
    same?
    
     Let me understand my "ignorance" for a second here.... 
    
    Since the opinion is that all this gun-control will not solve the crime
    issue, and that's foremost in the minds of Canadians (crime-control),
    what is the driving force behind registering all those nasty rifles,
    pistols and collectors pieces???
    
      What will gun control accomplish????
    
    
     Please dispel my ignorance Glenn... please....
    

    If we had a leader who was bent on world conquest I'd agree that the
    mentality is the same. Look at the difference between Canada and
    Germany today? They still have a big problem with racism, compared to
    them, we do not. This was one of the reasons that Canada was voted by
    the United Nations as the #1 best country in the world to live in 2 out
    of the last 3 years.

    Your viewing the whole thing with your American eyes. Therein lies the
    ignorance. If you know where all the legal firearms are and then one is
    used to commit a crime, will this not be an advantage? Trying to
    implement such a law would not work in the U.S. because it has been a
    right for so long. Canadians on the whole don't view this as such a big
    issue. Why would we suspect that our government was trying to disarm
    the public, so it could control us more? This is ludicrous and paranoid
    thinking. We do not fear our government, but I understand your fear of
    yours. We're different than you, and we have good beer.

    Glenn

    
    
    First off... I never said your government was "teetering" on
    anything...
    
      Any good government can turn bad.... ANY!!!
    
    
    Blind faith can be just as bad as paranoia....
    

Note 130.79 by TROOA::COLLINS
    
    >In the meantime...Canadians prefer to focus their efforts on *real*
    >problems like street crime, rather than fictional problems of the sort
    >survivalists tend to concoct.
    
    if you are referring to the united states i have but one thing to add.
    we enjoy a great many personnal freedoms you've never experienced. we
    don't believe we have to sacrifice those freedoms to address societal
    problems. abolishment of personal freedoms to adress societal problems
    is the prefferd way by socialistic governments. its also the path of
    least resistance. its also the WRONG way. remember what mike smith, a
    long ago boxer, had in his PN for a long time. its very true and
    relevant here. it said:
    
      "the easy way is always mined"

Note 130.81  by TROOA::BROOKS 
    
    >Despite the above, I do believe the overall will of the people on
    >average over time (!) does support gun control.  Canadians only have to
    >look south to see the extreme results of loosening them.  Therefore put
    >me on the 'for' side of the ledger.  
    
    you REALLY do have a mess. your belief is that if guns were made as
    available as they are in the US, canadians would go on a
    massive crime/murder spree. your crime statastical assumptions are
    wrong. however, your statements paint a frightening society held
    together by the strong arm of government. scary.
    
    >much more difficult to conceal.  I support outright banning military
    >assault weapons as no hunter *needs* that power, and I question their
    >collectability.   
    
    assuming you define "military assault weapons" as those recently banned
    by the US, your knowledge of the topic is nearly non-existent. no
    matter how you define "power" there remains literally thousands of
    types of rifles that are more powerfull than those banned. the ones
    banned were banned because of their looks. nothing more. tell me, which
    is more powerful or dangerous. the recently banned AR-15 or a perfectly
    legal remington rifle that shoots .223 caliber with 55 gr. rounds?
    
    > Is it that bad a
    >thing for people to take a few minutes of their life to register
    ?something potentially lethal and not a necessity of life? no.  Is it
   
    its a very bad thing here because its illegal.
    
    

Note 130.84 by POLAR::RICHARDSON 
    
    >If we had a leader who was bent on world conquest I'd agree that the
    >mentality is the same. Look at the difference between Canada and
    
    you can be sure i will be keeping my guns locked and loaded. canada is
    merely one election or appointment away from the equivalent of pre-war
    nazi germany? and your proud of that?
    
    >Germany today? They still have a big problem with racism, compared to
    >them, we do not. This was one of the reasons that Canada was voted by
    >the United Nations as the #1 best country in the world to live in 2 out
    >of the last 3 years.

    using the UN's efforts to bolster your position is a really an
    embarassing lack of initiative on your part. on top of being totally
    incompetant on just about everything, the VAST majority of those
    working for the UN have NEVER even stepped on canadian soil. and you
    accept their assessment on livability? what a joke.

    
    Constant comparisons to pre-war Germany.  But truth be known, the more
    accurate comparison would be Great Britain, where gun control has *not*
    meant the end of democracy.
    
    And frankly, given the current siezure laws that exist in the U.S., 
    I hardly think we need to be lectured about totalitarianism. Man, you
    'murican boxers spend so much of your time in here complaining about how
    out-of-control your government agencies are.  How many federal police
    forces do you have (BATF, FBI, DEA, Treasury {Secret} Service, CIA,
    NSA)?  We have one (two if you count CSIS).
    
    The theories behind your current pro-2nd positions may be perfectly
    valid down there, but they simply don't apply up here.  First: up here, 
    firearms are almost *never* used to prevent crimes, and our crime
    rates are still lower than yours.  Second: we have no 2nd Amendment,
    around which (it seems, IMHO) 50% of the debate in here is focussed.  And
    third: the idea of being invaded, or losing control of our government,
    is so far fetched that, to put it in perspective: the United States is
    the biggest threat our country's autonomy faces, and that threat is 
    largely economic. 
    
    Doom and gloom all you want, but we just don't see it that way. 
    
    Sorry...  :^(
    
    jc
    

    all this "regulation" in canada begs one question for those that
    believe its right for us in the US. that is:
    
     "what is to be gained if the rights and liberties that the law permits
      the the law-abiding are dictated or determined by the choices and 
      behavior of the lawless?"
    
    i am curious of the anti's response. seriously.

    Gene, you're applying American viewpoints to the Canadian experience.
    What do you know of the UN's assessment of countries? Just because the
    U.S. doesn't rate in the top 10 you say it's merely a joke? Sour
    grapes. You obviously don't know a damn thing about our country, which
    is sadly typical of America. 

    We have a province which wants to separate from the rest of Canada. If 
    they can win a referendum, they will separate and it will be done without 
    bloodshed. We also abolished slavery long before America did, also without 
    bloodshed. American history is painted with blood, it's part of your 
    heritage, not part of ours. We're different and yes, we have very
    little influence in the world but we do have respect. A Canadian
    Passport is worth it's weight in gold pressed latinum. My god, there are 
    more people living in California than in our country, yet we chip in 
    almost 10% on the UN peace keeping force. Not bad for a little country 
    that is geographically larger than yours yet only a tenth your size.

    You have your country, we have ours, it's different here. I recognize
    that trying to implement gun control in America won't work, but we've
    had it for years and it works for us and we want to make sure that it
    remains that way. Your country has a lot to be proud of and so does
    ours. I'm proud to be a Canadian and I'm glad we're different. You
    should be glad too, enjoy the difference, we aren't going to hurt
    anybody least of all our best friends to the south.

    And what's with all of this CRAP about Nazi Germany? Cripes! Dab the
    foam off of your collective chins, and take some librium.
    
    Glenn

 >            <<< Note 130.78 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog" >>>
    
 >   Re: Canadian guns laws, etc.  Remember that Canada was a crown colony
 >   until very recently (since I have been an adult).  After what WE did, I
 >   doubt that the Crown was really lenient about allowing their colonials
 >   to possess firearms.  Their history is very different from ours.
    
    Actually, Canadian militiamen helped British regulars repel American 
    invasion in the War of 1812; there were armed rebellions in Upper and
    Lower Canada in 1837; and there are currently millions of unregistered
    firearms in the country.  
    
    It is true, the process of our attaining "independence" from the British 
    was a long one; I believe appeals from the Supreme Court of Canada to the 
    Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London were abolished only in 
    the 1940s.  But the Brits were never particularly concerned, to my 
    knowledge, with keeping the populace disarmed. 
    
    -Stephen  

    

    
    Note 130.90

    >"what is to be gained if the rights and liberties that the law permits
    >the the law-abiding are dictated or determined by the choices and 
    >behavior of the lawless?"
    
    Well, Gene, unfortunately this issue applies across the board, not
    just to guns.  It seems there will always be some ashbowl who abuses
    their freedom, and some legislation invariably comes along in the
    wake.  But the answer is...each society decides, more or less by
    consensus, what actions they consider to be unacceptable.  For
    instance, I've seen some people impressed with how tough Singapore
    is on crime.  But chewing gum is a banned substance there.  That
    society made a decision, and if they're willing to part with gum, for
    whatever reason...well, then...they have to live with that.  I take it
    that marijhuana (sp?) and hashish are still illegal substances down
    there.  Do you agree with this?  Was it worth suspending a personal
    liberty for?  Some countries don't think so.  I don't think so.
    
    Ultimately, every society makes value judgements on the cost versus
    benefit, and when they find the costs outweigh the benefits, then
    new legislation usually follows.  Happens south of the 49th, as well, 
    as you know.
    
    For most Canadians, this legislation holds no pain.
    
    ..and while I'm thinking about it (and with apologies to the mods for
    having taken a poll in the 'box), the results so far:
    
    For				Against
    ===				=======
    John Collins		Rod Malone
    Derek Street
    Stephen Burridge
    Glenn Richardson
    Doug Brooks
    
    ...and Chris B. is missing in action, so it looks like 5 out of 6
    Canajuns support the new legislation, Rod.  And you were even surveyed
    this time, too!  :^)
    
    jc
    

            
    >Gene, you're applying American viewpoints to the Canadian experience.
    >What do you know of the UN's assessment of countries? Just because the
    >U.S. doesn't rate in the top 10 you say it's merely a joke? Sour
    >grapes. You obviously don't know a damn thing about our country, which
    >is sadly typical of America. 

i have no idea where the UN ranks the USA. nor do i care. the USA is so large 
and diverse that you can't simply draw up a number and say its either a good 
or not good place to live. same with canada. if you want to sell the goodness 
of canada do it with something a bit more meaningful. you assess my knowledge 
of your country based on a couple of statements about a single issue. 
i thought you knew better than that. i've lived the vast majority of my life
within spittin distance of canada and have actively pursued a lifelong hobby
of interest in history - poliitical and military. 
    
    >We have a province which wants to separate from the rest of Canada. If 
    >they can win a referendum, they will separate and it will be done without 
    >bloodshed. 
    
so what? the USA has had an orderly, bloodless transition of power at the top 
since its founding. no other country on the planet can match that over the 
last two hundred plus years. so don't go lecturing us about civility.

>    We also abolished slavery long before America did, also without 
 
no. you simply traded for a new kind of slavery that your politicals are
legislating with your compliance.

>   bloodshed. American history is painted with blood, it's part of your 
 
how pompous and arrogant! your history is full of savagery and butchery.

>    And what's with all of this CRAP about Nazi Germany? Cripes! Dab the
>    foam off of your collective chins, and take some librium.
    
your the one that stated canadian society would mirror that of nazi germany 
in the 30's if you had a ruler hell bent for conquest. i merely pointed out
that that puts you one appointment or election away from that kind of
environment.

   
    >>"what is to be gained if the rights and liberties that the law permits
    >>the the law-abiding are dictated or determined by the choices and 
    >>behavior of the lawless?"
    >
    >Well, Gene, unfortunately this issue applies across the board, not
    >just to guns.  It seems there will always be some ashbowl who abuses
    >their freedom, and some legislation invariably comes along in the
    >wake.  But the answer is...each society decides, more or less by
    
so you believe punishing the law abiding masses is justified in attempts
to thwart the vast minority of lawless?

>    whatever reason...well, then...they have to live with that.  I take it
>    that marijhuana (sp?) and hashish are still illegal substances down

not in some places.

>    there.  Do you agree with this?  Was it worth suspending a personal
>    liberty for?  Some countries don't think so.  I don't think so.
 
neither do i.
   
>    Ultimately, every society makes value judgements on the cost versus
>    benefit, and when they find the costs outweigh the benefits, then
>    new legislation usually follows.  Happens south of the 49th, as well, 
>    as you know.
    
that's right. we in the USA made out value judgements loud and clear on 11/8.
we voted in a big way to retain individual and personal freedom over government
mandated "goodness". what people outside the USA don't seem to understand is
that americans (most of us) have a deep sense of individual freedom. most of
us are decendents of people who came here and made this country great in
pursuit of individual freedoms. we have freely fought and died in many places
around the world to retain those freedoms for ourselves and help others in
that pursuit. so we get a little testy when other peoples and our own elected
officials start treading on those freedoms. we've noticed over the centuries
that when other country's peoples give up their freedoms, or have them taken
away, we usually end up putting our lives on the line to help them become 
free men again. its a cold fact of history.  

|so what? the USA has had an orderly, bloodless transition of power at the top 
|since its founding. no other country on the planet can match that over the 
|last two hundred plus years. so don't go lecturing us about civility.

    In light of your civil war history, could you please outline the logic
    underlying that conclusion please?

|how pompous and arrogant! your history is full of savagery and butchery.

    A lot of our history is French and English. Canada was not born out of
    a revolution and since 1867 the savagery and butchery to which you
    refer doesn't hold a match to the first century of American history,
    not even Canadian pre-history compares. I was not attempting to be
    pompous and arrogant, just making a comparison. Our history is way less
    violent than yours, if you can't see that then I wonder what history
    books you're reading. The U.S. was born out of war, went to war against
    itself and then went to war with all who opposed it's expansion,
    including what is now Canada. Mexico took a beating and so did American
    first nations. I am not evaluating these conflicts, just merely stating
    that they existed.

|your the one that stated canadian society would mirror that of nazi germany 
|in the 30's if you had a ruler hell bent for conquest. i merely pointed out
|that that puts you one appointment or election away from that kind of
|environment.

    If this is what you saw in my statements, then I misled you
    unintentionally. We are not one appointment or election away from a
    mirrored Nazi state in any way shape or form.

|>    We also abolished slavery long before America did, also without 
| 
|no. you simply traded for a new kind of slavery that your politicals are
|legislating with your compliance.

    Boy, you sure can dance, ho ho, swept that under the carpet you did.
    Well, we'll have to poll people of African origin in this country and
    see which they would prefer, restrictions on firearms or slavery.

    Glenn

Note 130.96 by POLAR::RICHARDSON
    
    >|so what? the USA has had an orderly, bloodless transition of power at the top 
>|since its founding. no other country on the planet can match that over the 
>|last two hundred plus years. so don't go lecturing us about civility.
>
>    In light of your civil war history, could you please outline the logic
>    underlying that conclusion please?

    and you ridiculed me for alledgedly not knowing canadian history. the
    office of the president of the united states has changed "ownership"
    some 40+ times in our history. it has been a peaceful transition each
    and every time.
    
>|how pompous and arrogant! your history is full of savagery and butchery.
>
>    A lot of our history is French and English. Canada was not born out of
>    a revolution and since 1867 the savagery and butchery to which you
    
    how convienent that you choose to ignore your country's history prior
    to your definition of its origin. yet you then apply the opposite
    standards for the US. using your formula, why should american's give
    a damn what happened in geographies before statehood? no. canada's
    history is just as bloodied as any others. 
    
>|no. you simply traded for a new kind of slavery that your politicals are
>|legislating with your compliance.
>
>    Boy, you sure can dance, ho ho, swept that under the carpet you did.
    
    dance around what. i merely pointed out what you said. the issue of
    slavery is irrelevent to the discussion. and for your information, the
    american civil war was NOT about slavery as far as the southerners were
    concerned. the north considered it a fight to free the slaves. the
    south considered it a fight about their rights as citizens. BIG
    difference.
    
    >Well, we'll have to poll people of African origin in this country and
    >see which they would prefer, restrictions on firearms or slavery.

    canada is more WASP than MN is. you have no concept of ethnic and
    cultural integration. with the exception, perhaps, of your exploitation
    of your artic natives.

    ... and furthermore, don't give me this crap about dealing with
    french/english differences. those peoples have fought each other for
    centuries and simply migrated their bigotries to canada for you to deal
    with. which you're not doing very well BTW. 

                    <<< Note 130.69 by CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE >>>

    
>    If an efficient registration system can be implemented, as the Dept. of
>    Justice apparently believes, it will enable the cops to trace weapons
>    used in crimes. 

	How many unsolved crimes involving a recovered firearm are
	there in Canada in any given year?

> Professional criminals will still be able to get
>    unregistered weapons, I suppose, therby committing another crime...
 
	That's why they call them criminals. They commit crimes.

>    Personally I abhor violent crime. 

	Most of us do.

> Crime committed using firearms
>    should be punished severely.
 
	Crimes that use other weapons should not be punished as severely?
	An armed robber using a gun should spend more time in jail than
	one who uses a knife? There's something wrong with that theory.

>    Hunters, marksmen, hobbyists, etc. who actively pursue their avocation
>    should have no problems, other than a little extra paperwork.
 
	IPSC shooters in Canada have already been impacted with the 10
	round magazine limit. US shooters are about to experience this
	as well. Canada was passed over as a potential site for the
	World Championships, now it is unlikely that the US will ever
	host the World Shoot. 

	Now you are talking about banning handguns altogether. That will
	affect Candadian competitors a bit more than "a little extra
	paperwork". It will kill their sport entirely.

Jim

           <<< Note 130.89 by TROOA::COLLINS "Comfortably numb..." >>>

    
>    Constant comparisons to pre-war Germany.  But truth be known, the more
>    accurate comparison would be Great Britain, where gun control has *not*
>    meant the end of democracy.
 
	Neither has it menat the end of gun crimes. In fact, gun crime
	in the UK has been doubling (admittedly from a very low base
	number) every year for the last 5 years. And this with ever 
	more restrictive gun legislation.


>    The theories behind your current pro-2nd positions may be perfectly
>    valid down there, but they simply don't apply up here.  First: up here, 
>    firearms are almost *never* used to prevent crimes, 

	Why do your police carry them then?

Jim

    Gene, what of American pre-history? Any less bloody than ours? 

    600,000+ casualties in your civil war and you merely state that the
    presidency has change 40+ times without incident? Well, you have a
    right to look at the bright side, and I agree, not to many countries
    could boast about such a thing.

    This is getting off topic. I just tried to outline the differences
    between Canada and the U.S. but you essential claim the only difference
    is that we're some sort of placating wimps. Well, your entitled to
    your opinion, I don't share it.

    Glenn

    Here' a good cross post from the Canada notesfile:
    
                         -< True North Strong & Free >-
================================================================================
Note 198.20          Canada as 51st U.S. state - Aye or Nay?            20 of 68
KAOM25::RUSHTON "Inspired lunacy"                   112 lines  28-JUN-1989 10:00
                       -< Right from the horse's mouth! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	Since the base note has stirred up quite a bit of interest and
verbiage on this subject, I thought that I might as well pick up a copy of the
'offending' magazine.  It's the July 3, 1989 edition of Maclean's and the
entire copy is devoted to 'a portrait of two nations'.  Also, to try and
answer an earlier query about the actual questions posed in the poll, I've
pulled the following from the magazine:

*******************************************************************************
	1000 Canadians and 1000 Americans were polled, the results are accurate
to within 3.3 percentage points 19 times out of 20.

	"Would you strongly favor, favor, oppose or strongly oppose Canada
	 becoming the 51st state of the United States with full congressional
	 representation and rights of American citizenship?"

					Canada           United States

		Strongly oppose          54%                  10%
		Oppose			 31%		      22%
		Favor			 12%		      54%
		Strongly favor		  2%                  12%
		No opinion		  1%                   3%
*******************************************************************************

	Here are some additional statistics that may be of interest:


		(To Canadians)Which one of these words, in your view best
		describes the ideal Canadian?

			Tolerant 38%
			Independant-minded 27%
			Peaceful 26%
			Aggressive 3%
			Clean 3%
			Sexy 1%
			No opinion 1%

	The same question was posed to Americans to describe the ideal
American with the following results:

			Independant-minded 52%
			Tolerant 21%
			Aggressive 12%
			Peaceful 12%
			Clean 3%
			Sexy 1%
			No opinion 1%

	To outsiders, the distinctions between Canadians and Americans often
appear so subtle as to be almost meaningless.  But the following comparisons
show that while there are numerous similarities between the two countries,
there are also some startling differences:

		       The Justice System

	Crime Rates
					Canada            United States
	(per 100,000 population)
	
	Homicide                          2.5                   8.3
	Violent sexual crime     	  5.3		       37.4
	Burglary		      1,245.1		    1,329.6
	Robbery				 87.9		      212.7
	Motor vehicle theft	        399.7		      529.4

			******************************
	Law enforcement
					Canada            United States

	Number of police per	          2		         2.1
	100,000 population

	% of police assaulted            11		        16.8

	Police officers killed            3			73
	in line of duty in 1987

	Drug arrests in 1987		169		       385
	(per 100,000 population)

			*********************************

	Firearms
					Canada		  United States

	Homicides by firearms		  31.2                  59.1
	(as % of total homicides)

	Homicides by handgun		   8.9		        43.7
	(as % of total homicides)

	Homicides by rifle		   9.7			 4.3
	(as % of total homicides)

	Homicides by shotgun		   7.2			 6.1
	(as % of total homicides)

	Estimated number of guns	no estimate		200 million
	in the country					(incl. 60 million
							 handguns)

	Number of registered		923,125		    no registration
	restricted weapons

 *****************************************************************************
	Well, furry creatures, here are a few more to warm the cockles:

	"Do you own a handgun?"
		Canada             United States
	Yes       3%			24%
	No	 97%			75%


	"Would you send your children to the other country to attend 
	 university?"
		Canada		   United States
	Yes	  41%		        58%
	No	  58%			39%



	Comments about Canada from well-known Americans:

	"I don't even know what street Canada is on."  - Al Capone

	"Take Canada, and wipe out her commerce."  - President Ulysses S. Grant

	"...that great Republic of Canada."  - repeated twice by President
					       Dwight Eisenhower

	**********************************************************

	"Would you like to live in the other country?"
		Canadians		Americans	
	Yes	  27%			     42%
	No	  73%			     56%
	No opinion			      2%

	***********************************************************
	Quotes from Allan Fotheringham:
		"Americans think medicare is a socialist menace.  Canadians
		 think the lack of an American medicare system is barbaric."

		"Canadians think that American beer is lemonade.  Americans
		 think that our drinking laws came from Ulan Bator.  Both are
		 right."

		"Americans think that professional hockey is a vulgar form
		 of roller derby, demeaned by violence.  Canadians point out
		 that a dozen or so American high school football players die
		 in action each year whereas in the history of the National
		 Hockey League only one man, Bill Masterton, has ever been
		 killed."

    Note 130.95, HAAG
    
>so you believe punishing the law abiding masses is justified in attempts
>to thwart the vast minority of lawless?

    Actually, Gene, we don't think that anyone is being `punished' by
    this legislation.  We just don't want guns to be easily accessible.
    Anybody who *really* needs or wants a rifle will still be able to
    get one, as long as they have no criminal record.  Handguns will
    be almost impossible to get, of course, but they ain't easy now, 
    either.  And, perusing the American stats, I notice that handguns
    *are* the murder weapon of choice, accounting for more that half
    of your murders in 1992.
    
>what people outside the USA don't seem to understand is
>that americans (most of us) have a deep sense of individual freedom. 

    We understand that, Gene.  Now tell me, how does that relate to
    the article I have quoted below, which shows that the U.S. rate
    of incarceration is more than four times the Canadian rate.

>most of us are decendents of people who came here and made this country 
>great in pursuit of individual freedoms. 

    As are we.

>we have freely fought and died in many places around the world to retain 
>those freedoms for ourselves and help others in that pursuit.

    As have we, in WW1, WW2, Korea, Cyprus, and the more than 40 countries
    worldwide where Canada has sent peacekeeping troops and/or police
    officers.

>...when other country's peoples give up their freedoms, or have them taken
>away, we usually end up putting our lives on the line to help them become 
>free men again. its a cold fact of history.

    See above.  And also note that the fact Canada and the U.S. have had
    comparatively little difficulty defending their autonomy is as much
    due to logistal considerations as anything else.

    Now then, how does a country so chock-full of freedom end up with
    one of the highest incarceration rates in the world?

	Sept. 14, 1994:
	WASHINGTON (Reuter) - Russia has the world's highest rate of
	imprisonment, but the United States has the most people behind 
	bars, a new study reports.

	With 1.3 million inmates, the U.S. has 519 people incarcerated
	for every 100,000 citizens, second only to Russia, which has 558 
	inmates per 100,000 for a total of 829,000 people in prisons,
	according to The Sentencing Project's figures. 
	
	South Africa had the third-highest incarceration rate among the 
	52 countries surveyed, with 368 inmates per 100,000, and more than 
	114,000 prisoners. Canada ranked 17th, with a rate of 116 per
	100,000. 

	The project, which pushes for for prison reform and alternative
	sentencing, said the U.S. incarceration rate had increased 22%
	in the past five years, with no appreciable reduction in crime.

    
    Note 130.97, HAAG

    >canada is more WASP than MN is. you have no concept of ethnic and
    >cultural integration.
    
    Gene, I promise to give you a guided tour of Toronto on your next
    visit.  It has been described as "the most multi-cultural city in
    the world."  Bring your walking shoes.
    
    Would you like to start in Chinatown, Indiatown, Little Italy,
    the Greek neighbourhood, the Portugese areas, the Vietnamese or
    Korean districts, the WASP-haven of Rosedale, the Jewish distict, the
    Somali ghettos, or the places where the Jamaicans hang out?  :^)
    
    jc
    

    
    Note 130.100, PERCIVAL
 
	>...gun crime
	>in the UK has been doubling (admittedly from a very low base
	>number) every year for the last 5 years. And this with ever 
	>more restrictive gun legislation.
    
    Jim, our offences involving firearms are also increasing.  A small
    number involve guns stolen here in Canada.  Very few involve guns
    legitimately owned.  MOST involve guns smuggled up from the U.S.,
    and this we see to be a failure to control guns.  You see, the saying
    goes "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."  But EVERY
    gun ever used in a crime was either legally owned, or it was stolen
    from its legal owner, or the legal owner sold it or gave it away.
    The point is...the gun *started* out it's life in the legal stream.
    
    What registration aims to address is to make it as difficult as possible
    for a gun to pass from the legal stream into the illegal stream. It 
    *shouldn't* be possible for a Canadian to buy guns in the U.S., but
    it is, due to the fact that there are no controls on how many guns
    an American buys or what he does with them after he's bought them.
    
    Now...that's how you run your country.  Fine.  But we want to run ours
    a little differently, and this legislation is the result of that
    desire.  In 1991, we had 3 homicides per 100,000 people.  Your rate
    was 9.4.  Our robbery rate was 123 per 100,000, yours was 272.  This,
    in spite of the fact that we have almost no access to handguns for self-
    defence, we have no death penalty, and we have a gov't you would
    consider dangerously liberal.


	>Why do your police carry them [guns] then?
    
    Sorry, Jim.  I was referring to civilian ownership.  I see no need to
    limit police or military firearms.  And, fact is, some of our police
    *don't* carry guns.
    
    jc

    
    Note 130.99, Jim
 
	>IPSC shooters in Canada have already been impacted with the 10
	>round magazine limit.
    
    I can think of no reason why recreational or competition shooting
    would *require* a magazine of more than 5 rounds, much less 10,
    although I admit this is not a sport I follow.  Is the shoot time-
    critical or something?  Is there some reason it *has* to be 
    time-critical?
    
    On the other hand, Marc Lepine provided Canadians with a graphic
    example of why magazine capacity *should* be limited.  14 dead
    women don't equal *any* number of Olympic gold medals.
    
	>Now you are talking about banning handguns altogether. That will
	>affect Candadian competitors a bit more than "a little extra
	>paperwork". It will kill their sport entirely.

    I'm not sure, but there may be provisions in the legislation for
    competition shooters.  And since the handguns they use are specifically
    designed for range shooting, I'd have no problem with an exemption for
    target pistols.
    
    jc

    re: .105
    
    Do you also have a 'drug' problem in Canada?  Be prepared to now have a
    'gun' problem:-(
    
    Bob

    
    .107, Bob
    
    Drug problem?  Well, I guess that depends on your definition.  Crack
    use has risen dramatically.  In 1991, we had 212 drug-related offences
    per 100,000 people, more than half of which involved cannabis.  I have
    no corresponding American stats...how do we compare?
    
    As I said to Jim, we *do* have a gun problem, and it has `Made In
    America' stamped on it.  I know you don't care, but thems the faks.
    In Canada, simple weapons offences (not including homicides) have risen
    from 25 per 100,000 in 1971 to 74 per 100,000 in 1991.  I don't have
    the breakdown on weapons types, but our local police force has been
    pretty public with their stats on the increasing use of firearms, as
    well as the source of those guns.  I'd have to poke around a bit to get
    those stats; I don't have them handy at the moment.
    
    jc
    

re: .108

>    Drug problem?  Well, I guess that depends on your definition.  Crack

Perhaps I should explain a little better.  There wasn't any 'drug' problem
in the U.S.  until the govt. decided there was one.  From your stats, there
doesn't seem to be a 'gun' problem in Canada, but the govt. has decided there
is one, so you can be sure that there will be one, shortly.

>    As I said to Jim, we *do* have a gun problem, and it has `Made In
>    America' stamped on it.  I know you don't care, but thems the faks.

I'm not sure I understand this.  Could you please explain what you mean.

Bob

    
    .109, Bob
    
    Re: drugs.  I know where you're going with that, and I tend to agree.
    Like a lot of you, I think the gov't wastes far too much time and money
    in the War On Drugs.  As for our gun problem...last year Canada Customs
    siezed about 130 guns from Canadians returning to Canada from the U.S.
    This is obviously only the tip of the iceberg.  The majority of illegal
    guns in Canada were purchased from Americans who bought them only to
    resell them to Canadians.  I realize there is nothing you Americans
    intend to (or want to) do about these `strawman' purchases, but we'd 
    rather you keep the guns to yourselves.
    
    Oh, and...our gov't didn't decide we had a gun problem...the people
    did, and asked our gov't to act on it.
    
    jc
     

    no gun = slavery, we're about to become the second comming of Nazi
    Germany, Canada's history is as blood soaked as the States.... This is
    getting good !!! ( not very factual, but what the hey, it makes good copy)
    
     For a little comic relief.....
    
     A guy in Ottawa had his Mustang convertable stolen recently. He
    reported it to the police, but there was little hope. As it turns out,
    he saw it on the road, and followed it. When they parked the car, he
    planted his right behind it, and told his wife to call 911 at a nearby
    house. Well as you might expect the criminals were armed, and
    brandished their weapon at him......
    
    
     He brushed aside the ICE SCRAPER and started to mix it up with the
    crooks. They took off in a different stolen car only to be apprehended
    by the police a little while later.
    
    							Derek.

re: .110

>    resell them to Canadians.  I realize there is nothing you Americans
>    intend to (or want to) do about these `strawman' purchases, but we'd 
>    rather you keep the guns to yourselves.

Strawman purchases are illegal in the U.S.  If there were proof of this, I'm
sure the BATF would be interested in hearing about them.

Bob 

    Note 130.112, Bob

>Strawman purchases are illegal in the U.S.  If there were proof of this, I'm
>sure the BATF would be interested in hearing about them.
    
    I'm glad to hear this, because I wasn't under that impression. 
    However, in the absence of purchase/ownership limits and registration,
    it's very hard to prevent them.  Assuming that you have a mechanism
    to trace weapons back to their last legal owner, it still means that
    the guns end up being used in Canadian crimes before any enforcement
    caomes into play.  And then what?  What is the American penalty for
    someone who sold a handgun to a Canadian, who in turn killed another
    Canadian with it?  If I came to visit you, and you liked me so much
    that you gave me a handgun as a gift to remember you by, do you have
    to keep records of that, or notify BATF?
    

re: .113

I don't know the answers to your questions.  Perhaps someone else can answer
them.

Bob

          <<< Note 130.105 by TROOA::COLLINS "Comfortably numb..." >>>

>    Jim, our offences involving firearms are also increasing. 

	AS is the case in virtually every jurisdiction that tries "gun
	control" instead of "crime control".

>Very few involve guns
>    legitimately owned.

	In the US only about 16% of the guns used in crimes were obtained
	through legitimate channels.

>  MOST involve guns smuggled up from the U.S.,
>    and this we see to be a failure to control guns. 

	I'm assuming it is illegal to smuggle guns across the border. But
	I fail to understand how passing another law to prevent the breaking
	of a law already on the books is going to help.

> You see, the saying
>    goes "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."  But EVERY
>    gun ever used in a crime was either legally owned, or it was stolen
>    from its legal owner, or the legal owner sold it or gave it away.
>    The point is...the gun *started* out it's life in the legal stream.
 
	This contradicts what you just wrote. You said MOST (i would be
	interested in the actual Stats) of the guns are illegally smuggled
	in from the US. This would mean that MOST of the guns used in
	crimes were NEVER legal in Canada.

>    What registration aims to address is to make it as difficult as possible
>    for a gun to pass from the legal stream into the illegal stream.

	But you said that very few make their way to the illegal market
	this way.

> It 
>    *shouldn't* be possible for a Canadian to buy guns in the U.S., but
>    it is, due to the fact that there are no controls on how many guns
>    an American buys or what he does with them after he's bought them.
 
	It is not possible for a Canadian to purchase a firearm in the
	US unless he/she is a legal resident alien. And note, there are
	controls on the number of handguns that a US citizen can purchase.
	Any number greater that 3 in any given month is reported to the
	BATF.

>    Sorry, Jim.  I was referring to civilian ownership.  I see no need to
>    limit police or military firearms.  And, fact is, some of our police
>    *don't* carry guns.
 
	That does not answer my question. Why do your police carry firearms?

Jim

          <<< Note 130.113 by TROOA::COLLINS "Comfortably numb..." >>>

>    I'm glad to hear this, because I wasn't under that impression. 
>    However, in the absence of purchase/ownership limits and registration,
>    it's very hard to prevent them.  Assuming that you have a mechanism
>    to trace weapons back to their last legal owner, it still means that
>    the guns end up being used in Canadian crimes before any enforcement
>    caomes into play.  And then what?  What is the American penalty for
>    someone who sold a handgun to a Canadian, who in turn killed another
>    Canadian with it?  If I came to visit you, and you liked me so much
>    that you gave me a handgun as a gift to remember you by, do you have
>    to keep records of that, or notify BATF?
    
    YES: Even with a mechanism to trace guns back to the original owner, 
    there will be guns that will be used in Canada before any enforcement 
    comes into play.

    There are people in the US who will sell guns to unauthorized individuals
    and then report the collection of guns as stolen.  Difficult to prove 
    otherwise, unless there are repeat crimes or an informer.

    Consider the person who buys boxes of guns in, say, Brazil, and ships 
    them to Canada.  What then?  Firearms are quite easy to make.  Revolvers
    and semi-automatic pistols have few moving parts, and many, if not not 
    most, of these precision parts are in the safety systems.  As a result, 
    fine-quality firearms are manufactured by many countries.  Probably 
    dozens more have few, if any, import/export laws covering firearms.
    Therefore, if someone wants to smuggle untraceable guns into Canada, they
    don't have to start in the United States.

    The world is full of guns.

    It's been a long time since I looked at the statistics, but I'd be 
    willing to bet that the percentages of crimes solved and the percentage
    of successful prosecutions is much higher in Canada than in the United 
    States.  That is the best deterrent against crime.  Robert Audrey, the
    biologist, said in the _Territorial_Imperative_ that wars are started 
    because one side thinks that they can win.  I don't think that there are 
    that many criminals who will commit crimes knowing they can't get away 
    with it.  As long as Canadians continue to support good police work, I 
    don't think that they'll have our crime problems -- with or without new 
    gun control laws.

          <<< Note 130.106 by TROOA::COLLINS "Comfortably numb..." >>>

>    I can think of no reason why recreational or competition shooting
>    would *require* a magazine of more than 5 rounds, much less 10,
>    although I admit this is not a sport I follow.  Is the shoot time-
>    critical or something?  Is there some reason it *has* to be 
>    time-critical?
 
	Scoring is accuracy divided by speed. This is an International 
	sport with 43 countries currently in the Confederation. 

	Is ther esome reason why ther is a time limit on the periods
	in a hockey game?

>    I'm not sure, but there may be provisions in the legislation for
>    competition shooters.

	Canadian IPSC shooter were promised a "competitive exemption" from
	the magazine ban when it was first proposed. Guess what? The government
	reneged on that promise (look at my suprise).

>  And since the handguns they use are specifically
>    designed for range shooting, I'd have no problem with an exemption for
>    target pistols.
 
	You may wnat to watch an IPSC match. The guns used by a large portion
	of the comepetitors are fairly standard combat handguns. The upper
	levels of competition utilize highly customized handguns, but the
	basic principle of delivering accurate hits on a silhouette target
	quickly remains the same.

Jim

    re: Note 130.114 by ROWLET::AINSLEY
    
    It varies state by state, and then toss in the feds requirements.
    
    I can give someone a gun that I own.  No paperwork.  Supposedly it should
    be another state resident or whatever.  
    I can not lawfully obtain a firearm with the intention of
    giving/selling it to someone else.
    
    Then there is the issue of personal reponsibility.  I don't want to be
    responsible for giving someone something they will then misuse.  So I 
    need to make sure I know who I'm dealing with.   IMO: This is why we
    have over 20000 laws dealing with this issue.
    
    I may get "creative" with lots of things, but not this issue.  Getting
    bagged on this deal is a felony.  Not good.

    
    blacksmiths make duplicates of all the most popular gun makes
    in Peshawar.
    
    they aren't the finest quality, but they get the job done. they
    use bar stock, a forge, and hand tools. dunno how the rifling
    gets done though..

          <<< Note 130.110 by TROOA::COLLINS "Comfortably numb..." >>>

>I realize there is nothing you Americans
>    intend to (or want to) do about these `strawman' purchases, but we'd 
>    rather you keep the guns to yourselves.
 
	"Strawman" purchases are in violation of Federal law today. Punishable
	by a jail term of 10 years, a $10,000 (US, not that funny colored
	stuff you call dollars ;-) ) or both.


Jim

          <<< Note 130.113 by TROOA::COLLINS "Comfortably numb..." >>>

>What is the American penalty for
>    someone who sold a handgun to a Canadian, who in turn killed another
>    Canadian with it? 

	You seem to be asking the wrong question. The question should be
	"What is the CANADIAN penalty for smuggling and/or murder?"

	Passing another law to address current laws that are being
	broken, BY CANADIANS, is an excersize in futility.

Jim

          <<< Note 130.113 by TROOA::COLLINS "Comfortably numb..." >>>

>Assuming that you have a mechanism
>    to trace weapons back to their last legal owner,

	That mechanism does exist. Any firearm can be traced to the selling
	dealer in less than 24 hours. The dealer can provide details as to 
	who he sold the gun to. Private sales are generally not recorded,
	although some states do have requirements in the regard.

> it still means that
>    the guns end up being used in Canadian crimes before any enforcement
>    caomes into play.

	I'm still confused. If the guns that you are worried about are
	illegally obtained by Canadians, how will registering LEGALLY
	obtained firearms help your situation?

Jim

    Note 130.115, Jim

        >Jim, our offences involving firearms are also increasing. 
	>>AS is the case in virtually every jurisdiction that tries "gun
	>>control" instead of "crime control"

    Crime control (stiffer penalties) is also part of the package.  We want
    it, and we will get it.  But many of us think that it's too late to
    wait until someone is dead before the machinery kicks in.

	>>In the US only about 16% of the guns used in crimes were obtained
	>>through legitimate channels.

    Somewhere, sometime, every gun was legally owned, and there was apparently
    no mechanism to prevent it from passing into illegal hands.

	>>I'm assuming it is illegal to smuggle guns across the border. But
	>>I fail to understand how passing another law to prevent the breaking
	>>of a law already on the books is going to help.

    This legislation isn't meant to address smuggling...I don't know HOW
    we even could, short of closing what is reputedly the longest undefended
    border in the world.  But it will help to cut down on offences committed
    with guns that are stolen from collectors and gun stores here in Canada.

 	>>This contradicts what you just wrote. You said MOST (i would be
	>>interested in the actual Stats) of the guns are illegally smuggled
	>>in from the US. This would mean that MOST of the guns used in
	>>crimes were NEVER legal in Canada.

    Yes, most.  I'll try to get the stats for you this week.  But we have had
    at least two people killed here in Toronto this year with handguns that
    were stolen from their legal owners.  We also had an incident a few years
    ago where Marc Lepine, in legal possession of a combat rifle with a large
    capacity magazine, killed 14 women, wounded several others, and then
    killed himself, all in a matter of minutes.  We want to make that kind of
    crime as difficult as possible to commit.  Tell me, how would "crime
    control" have saved the lives of those 14 women?  Lepine was dead before
    the cops arrived. 
 
    As far as the Canada/U.S. thing, the statement was simply an illustration
    of the fact that the differentiation between legal and illegal guns is
    a red herring, since ALL guns started out being legally owned.  The harder
    it is to get a gun legally, the less likely that gun will end up in the
    illegal stream.  A reduction in one *should* lead to a reduction in the
    other, and in Canada it *would* if it wasn't so easy to just drive across
    the border and pick one up.  I'm glad to hear you have stiff penalties
    for `strawman' purchases, and I hope our police forces are working with
    yours to identify the offenders, but unfortunately they are still going
    to happen as long as there is money to be made.  Yes, guns can be
    gotten from other countries, but the U.S. is by far the easiest.

	>>It is not possible for a Canadian to purchase a firearm in the
	>>US unless he/she is a legal resident alien. And note, there are
	>>controls on the number of handguns that a US citizen can purchase.
	>>Any number greater that 3 in any given month is reported to the
	>>BATF.

    It is not possible for a Canadian to *legally* purchase a firearm down
    there.  Still doesn't stop them, though.  And tell me, do you consider
    3 per month to be overly restrictive?  That means that anyone could
    purchase 36 handguns a year without arousing suspicion.  And what if they
    shop at different gun stores?  How does `Billy-Bob's Handgunnery' know 
    that you just bought 3 guns at `Pistols-R-Us'?  As you said, 3 or less does
    not need to be reported.

	>>Why do your police carry firearms?

    Because the nature of their work makes them FAR more likely to encounter
    an armed individual.  You are fond of quoting stats that show how often
    ordinary citizens defend themselves with firearms.  Well, in Canada that
    almost never happens, and our crime rates are still lower.  Also, we 
    operate under the theory that guns (and crime in general) are best handled
    by trained professionals.

    Jim, nobody's kidding themselves here.  We don't expect this legislation
    to turn crime into sunshine.  But we don't believe that the American model
    works that well, and we plan to try something different.  The problem one
    has defending gun control is that it's hard to show that it works: you
    NEVER know how many lives it has saved.  The only way to demonstrate it is
    to compare two roughly similar systems...one with control and one without.
    That's Canada and the U.S., and so far, the U.S. has clearly demonstrated
    higher crime rates, in spite of the availability of handguns for self-
    defence, and in spite of the existence of the death penalty.

    jc

               <<< PEAR::DKB100:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-

Note 130.105 by TROOA::COLLINS 
    
>    it is, due to the fact that there are no controls on how many guns
>    an American buys or what he does with them after he's bought them.
 
    you've blown a lot of smoke telling everyone how ignorant americans are
    about canadian desires, wants, and rules. then you make a statement
    like this. i submit your perceptions of americans and our dealings with
    crimes, guns, and laws is horribly swayed by a lack of knowledge. there
    are over 20,000 laws in the US that deal with the purchase, storage,
    and transfer of firearms. here in MN i can certainly buy 5 handguns
    (after a 30 day waiting period for background checks with the feds and
    local police) with one purchase. but i better not. i just happen to
    know that the MN state feds monitor purchases of handguns and will take
    "action" if someone LEGALLY buys more than they think they should. i
    don't know what that action actually is since a person doing so
    would not actually be breaking the law. but i am not about to try and
    find out.
    
    you've been listening to the press to much. they almost always make it
    sound like any american can just walk into any store and buy any gun
    they want anytime. that's a long way from truth.
    
    people that take the anti gun ownership position like to spout stats
    about crime rates with and without guns. i always ask them the same
    thing (careful here, this is a rope).
    
    do you and your officials expect the removal of private ownership of
    certain firearms to lower the number of crimes committed with firearms?
    or the rate of crimes committed with firearms? ban all the guns you
    want. and when crime still keeps climbing what are you going to do
    then? 

          <<< Note 130.123 by TROOA::COLLINS "Comfortably numb..." >>>


>    Crime control (stiffer penalties) is also part of the package.  We want
>    it, and we will get it. 

	Stiffer penalties for murder, armed robbery, etc., regardless of
	weapon used, along with swift and sure punishment should help to
	deter criminal activity. 

> But many of us think that it's too late to
>    wait until someone is dead before the machinery kicks in.

	This may be a fundamental difference between our two legal systems.
	In the US we genarally wait for a law to be broken before our
	system is brought into play. 

	Now, if you believe that a gun law is going to prevent a criminal
	from performing an ALREADY illegal act, you have fallen into
	accepting an absurdity.

	Imagine a murderer deciding that he will not kill because he
	doesn't want to take the chance that he will be convicted of
	a GUN violation. Unless, of course the penalty for the gun
	vioaltion is EQUAL to the one for murder.


>    Somewhere, sometime, every gun was legally owned, and there was apparently
>    no mechanism to prevent it from passing into illegal hands.

	And registration will not provide that mechanism either. All it
	will accomplish is the registration of LEGALLY owned firearms.
	As with the US, I assume that your law-abiding citizens are
	NOT the problem.

>    This legislation isn't meant to address smuggling...I don't know HOW
>    we even could, short of closing what is reputedly the longest undefended
>    border in the world.

	But you have made the claim that "MOST" of your gun crime involves
	guns illegally smuggled in from the US. Why are you not clamoring 	
	for THIS problem to be addressed?

>  But it will help to cut down on offences committed
>    with guns that are stolen from collectors and gun stores here in Canada.

	How? The guns are registered by the collector or the store. They
	get stolen (already a crime I presume). They are used in a crime. 
	What reduction have you achieved? All you have done is ADD another
	crime (possesion of an unregistered firearm) to your stats.

>But we have had
>    at least two people killed here in Toronto this year with handguns that
>    were stolen from their legal owners.

	So the legal owners would register them. The murderers would not.
	Do you believe that registration would have saved those two lives?

>  We also had an incident a few years
>    ago where Marc Lepine, in legal possession of a combat rifle with a large
>    capacity magazine, killed 14 women, wounded several others, and then
>    killed himself, all in a matter of minutes.  We want to make that kind of
>    crime as difficult as possible to commit.  Tell me, how would "crime
>    control" have saved the lives of those 14 women?  Lepine was dead before
>    the cops arrived. 
 
	No amount of legislation will control madmen. We have had our share
	of these incidents as well. But the worst mass murderers in the US
	have not used firearms. In fact the worst single mass killing in
	the US involved 5 gallons of gasoline and a match. Over 80 people
	died.

>since ALL guns started out being legally owned.  The harder
>    it is to get a gun legally, the less likely that gun will end up in the
>    illegal stream.  A reduction in one *should* lead to a reduction in the
>    other, 

	How difficult is it to buy cocaine in Canada? In the US there has
	been a "War on Drugs" for decades. We've spent billions of dollars
	on it. And the price of cocaine is lower now than when we started.

	Not very encouraging if you want to believe that making a item or
	substance illegal will make it more difficult for criminals to
	obtain.

>    It is not possible for a Canadian to *legally* purchase a firearm down
>    there.  

	So your answer to Canadians breaking the law, is to pass another
	law? But I'll bet you REALLY REALLY mean it THIS time, right?

>And tell me, do you consider
>    3 per month to be overly restrictive?

	I consider any restriction to be excessive. There is no purpose to
	such a restriction if the intent is legal. If the intent is illegal,
	then we already have laws to deal with the crime. You don't just 
	pile on law after law in the hopes that one of them may work.


>You are fond of quoting stats that show how often
>    ordinary citizens defend themselves with firearms.  Well, in Canada that
>    almost never happens, and our crime rates are still lower.

	When gun ownership is so low, this wouldn't suprise me. How often
	do the police defend themselves with firearms?

>  Also, we 
>    operate under the theory that guns (and crime in general) are best handled
>    by trained professionals.

	How many crimes do your police actually PREVENT. I'm not talking about
	how many they solve AFTER the crime has been committed. I'm asking 
	how many they actually STOP, either before they are committed or
	while they are in progress.


>The problem one
>    has defending gun control is that it's hard to show that it works: you
>    NEVER know how many lives it has saved. 

	We used to have our pro-control folks tell us the same thing. They've
	quieted down somewhat since we now have the other side of the equation.
	Those jurisdictions that have RELAXED their gun control laws have
	actually seen a REDUCTION in violent crimes. The question about
	gun control is no longer how many lives does it save, the question
	is how many lives does it COST.

> The only way to demonstrate it is
>    to compare two roughly similar systems...one with control and one without.

	No, actually there is a better way. Compare a system that already
	HAS strict gun control. Total registration, near impossibility to
	own a handgun, all of those restrictions that you want to implement.
	Then look at their gun crime rates and ask yourself if that is the
	result you want. I refer you to the UK crime statistics.

>    That's Canada and the U.S., and so far, the U.S. has clearly demonstrated
>    higher crime rates, in spite of the availability of handguns for self-
>    defence, and in spite of the existence of the death penalty.

	Our is undoubtedly a violent society. But availibility of guns
	has nothing to do with it. If you don't believe me, check out
	the crime stats for the US vs. Canada BEFORE you started 
	restricting gun ownership. Our were higher than yours back then too.


Jim

    
    Note 130.124, Haag:
 
    >you've blown a lot of smoke telling everyone how ignorant americans are
    >about canadian desires, wants, and rules.

    Gene, you have confused me with Glenn.  I accept your apology. :^)
    
    >you've been listening to the press to much. they almost always make it
    >sound like any american can just walk into any store and buy any gun
    >they want anytime. that's a long way from truth.

    Well, I promised Jim I'd find the stats this week, if I could, on how
    many of our crimes are committed with American guns, so I'll have to
    make you the same promise.  In fact, I already phoned the Toronto
    Police today, and their attitude was: "who wants to know?"  I believe
    Statistics Canada will provide the straight dope. I'll get back to you.
    
    >do you and your officials expect the removal of private ownership of
    >certain firearms to lower the number of crimes committed with firearms?
    >or the rate of crimes committed with firearms? 

    We're hopin'.

    >ban all the guns you want. and when crime still keeps climbing 
    >what are you going to do then? 

    We'll try something else. But it won't be wide-open gun ownership. Look,
    Gene, your country's murder rate is three times ours (and half of those
    were committed with handguns), your robbery rate is twice as high, your
    incarceration rate is FOUR times ours. You're not gonna convince me that
    your system works better.  Different, maybe, but not better.

    jc

    
    Note 130.125

	>This may be a fundamental difference between our two legal systems.
	>In the US we genarally wait for a law to be broken before our
	>system is brought into play.
    
    Too late for the 14 victims of Lepine, I'm afraid.  So instead we look
    at the whole picture and decide if the recreational benefits of fire-
    arms are worth the risk.  We have decided that they aren't. 

	>Now, if you believe that a gun law is going to prevent a criminal
	>from performing an ALREADY illegal act, you have fallen into
	>accepting an absurdity.
	>Imagine a murderer deciding that he will not kill because he
	>doesn't want to take the chance that he will be convicted of
	>a GUN violation. Unless, of course the penalty for the gun
	>vioaltion is EQUAL to the one for murder.
    
    This is not, at ANY time, what I have said, Jim, and I hope you don't
    think I'm that stupid.  What I *do* believe is that keeping guns away
    from criminals will make it more difficult (but not impossible) to ply
    their trade.

	>All [registration]
	>will accomplish is the registration of LEGALLY owned firearms.
	>As with the US, I assume that your law-abiding citizens are
	>NOT the problem.
    
    Well, unless you buy into the confiscation argument, then registration
    can't really be considered problematic, either.  At least, no more than
    the registration of motor vehicles.  But part of the legislation also
    aims to take handguns from the possession of people who: A) don't need
    them, and B) might lose them to theft, as has happened.

	>But you have made the claim that "MOST" of your gun crime involves
	>guns illegally smuggled in from the US. Why are you not clamoring 	
	>for THIS problem to be addressed?
    
    God, Jim, how on earth COULD we stop this?  Man, you complain about
    registration.  How about having a full auto and body search every
    time you cross the border?  Maybe one day it will come to that, but
    I wouldn't support it, and most Canadians AND Americans wouldn't, either.

	>How? The guns are registered by the collector or the store. They
	>get stolen (already a crime I presume). They are used in a crime. 
	>What reduction have you achieved?

    By reducing the number available to be `lost' or stolen.
    
	>So the legal owners would register them. The murderers would not.
	>Do you believe that registration would have saved those two lives?
    
    No, but the removal of the handguns involved from private circulation
    would have.

	>No amount of legislation will control madmen.
    
    Of course.  So an ounce of prevention may be worth a pound of cure.
    
        >We have had our share
	>of these incidents as well. But the worst mass murderers in the US
	>have not used firearms. In fact the worst single mass killing in
	>the US involved 5 gallons of gasoline and a match. Over 80 people
	>died.
    
    We have also had mass murders committed without firearms, but so far
    no-one has proposed a practical way to ban rope (strangulation) or,
    from your example, gasoline.  I don't have all the answers, Jim. But
    face it...you'd rather (if barehanded) take your chances against a
    perp armed with a bat, knife, or rope, than one with a firearm, right?
    

	>How difficult is it to buy cocaine in Canada? In the US there has
	>been a "War on Drugs" for decades. We've spent billions of dollars
	>on it. And the price of cocaine is lower now than when we started.
	>Not very encouraging if you want to believe that making a item or
	>substance illegal will make it more difficult for criminals to
	>obtain.
    
    No, but we can (hopefully) cut back on the opportunistic crimes.

	>I consider any restriction to be excessive. There is no purpose to
	>such a restriction if the intent is legal. If the intent is illegal,
	>then we already have laws to deal with the crime. You don't just 
	>pile on law after law in the hopes that one of them may work.
    
    Well, Jim, I'm sorry, but I just don't see how 36 new guns a year could
    be required by anyone.  They're not disposable.  I'd be suspicious of
    any individual who bought more than two a year for personal use.  I've
    managed for thirty years without a single one.

	>How often do the police defend themselves with firearms?
    
    Not sure.  Maybe around a dozen times a year here in Toronto, if you 
    mean actually firing shots.

	>How many crimes do your police actually PREVENT. I'm not talking about
	>how many they solve AFTER the crime has been committed. I'm asking 
	>how many they actually STOP, either before they are committed or
	>while they are in progress.
    
    I don't know.  How is it relevant?  Are you saying that the logic
    should apply to police weapons as well?  If so, I do not agree.

	>We used to have our pro-control folks tell us the same thing. They've
	>quieted down somewhat since we now have the other side of the equation.
	>Those jurisdictions that have RELAXED their gun control laws have
	>actually seen a REDUCTION in violent crimes.
	>Compare a system that already
	>HAS strict gun control. Total registration, near impossibility to
	>own a handgun, all of those restrictions that you want to implement.
	>Then look at their gun crime rates and ask yourself if that is the
	>result you want. I refer you to the UK crime statistics.

    Well, Jim, Canadian stats tell a different story, but I will try to
    find some Brit stats to compare with ours and yours. If you have some
    handy, please post them.

    jc
    

          <<< Note 130.126 by TROOA::COLLINS "Comfortably numb..." >>>

>In fact, I already phoned the Toronto
>    Police today, and their attitude was: "who wants to know?"  

	That certainly is an interesting response. You might want to
	ask yourself why your government seems reluctant to give
	out such numbers.

	Maybe firearms are not the only thing they don't trust you with.


>    We'll try something else. But it won't be wide-open gun ownership. Look,
>    Gene, your country's murder rate is three times ours (and half of those
>    were committed with handguns), your robbery rate is twice as high, your
>    incarceration rate is FOUR times ours. You're not gonna convince me that
>    your system works better.  Different, maybe, but not better.

	Our system certainly is not "better". But if we adopted yours
	we would have 2 million more victims of crime annually. Not
	a result that I would hope for.

Jim

re Mr. Percival's .99:

   >	How many unsolved crimes involving a recovered firearm are
   >	there in Canada in any given year?

I have no idea.  The police seem to feel that this would make their job easier;
as far as I know they aren't claiming that there are a large number of unsolved
cases that they could have cracked if only a registered firearm were involved. 
 
   >	Crimes that use other weapons should not be punished as severely?
   >	An armed robber using a gun should spend more time in jail than
   >	one who uses a knife? There's something wrong with that theory.

I disagree.  A gun is inherently much more dangerous than a knife.  A thug who
enters a store with a loaded gun can do much more harm than the same thug
with a knife.  People tempted to commit a crime need to know that if they take
a gun along they will be committing a more serious crime, and will be more 
severely punished.  

   >	Now you are talking about banning handguns altogether. That will
   >	affect Candadian competitors a bit more than "a little extra
   >	paperwork". It will kill their sport entirely.

I am not in fact talking about banning handguns altogether; the proposed
legislation contains no such provision.    
 
I believe that we do need to be vigilant against the growth of American-style 
gun violence here, and that this proposed law might be a reasonable measure 
toward that end.   

re .117:
 
   >	You may wnat to watch an IPSC match. The guns used by a large portion
   >	of the comepetitors are fairly standard combat handguns. The upper
   >	levels of competition utilize highly customized handguns, but the
   >	basic principle of delivering accurate hits on a silhouette target
   >	quickly remains the same.

What does this "silhouette target" look like?

-Stephen

    Speaking of homocide rates, I remember reading an article that showed
    that the rate in Canada peaked in 1974 and has declined ever since. 
    
    Glenn

    
    Note 130.128

	>That certainly is an interesting response. You might want to
	>ask yourself why your government seems reluctant to give
	>out such numbers.
	>Maybe firearms are not the only thing they don't trust you with.

    I thought about this, and decided that I had just encountered a
    typically inept bureaucrat.  Gimme a week, then I'll start to 
    worry.  ;^)
    
	>Our system certainly is not "better". But if we adopted yours
	>we would have 2 million more victims of crime annually. Not
	>a result that I would hope for.
    
    I'm aware that you guys could never adopt our system now, Jim. Too
    many guns in circulation. Which is why I don't participate in Topic 21.
    
    jc
    

          <<< Note 130.127 by TROOA::COLLINS "Comfortably numb..." >>>

>    Too late for the 14 victims of Lepine, I'm afraid.  So instead we look
>    at the whole picture and decide if the recreational benefits of fire-
>    arms are worth the risk.  We have decided that they aren't. 

	So every time a madman misuses an object, your automatic response
	will be to restrict or ban that object?

	Maybe I was wrong. For all its faults I DO like our system better.

>    This is not, at ANY time, what I have said, Jim, and I hope you don't
>    think I'm that stupid.  What I *do* believe is that keeping guns away
>    from criminals will make it more difficult (but not impossible) to ply
>    their trade.

	How does registration make it more difficult for criminals to get
	guns?

>    Well, unless you buy into the confiscation argument, then registration
>    can't really be considered problematic, either.  

	I have a different view about laws. In my opinion laws that increase
	the police power of the State should have a purpose. It should be
	required that this purpose increase the health, safety or welfare
	of the citizens affected by the law. And before passage, the 
	government should have to show that there is a reasonable probability
	that the law will accoplish that purpose.

	Gun control laws meet none of the criteria.

>    God, Jim, how on earth COULD we stop this?  Man, you complain about
>    registration.  How about having a full auto and body search every
>    time you cross the border?  Maybe one day it will come to that, but
>    I wouldn't support it, and most Canadians AND Americans wouldn't, either.

	Why not? After all, if most of the guns are coming from the US
	illegally AND you wnat to reduce the crimes committed with these
	guns, then just such a plan would seem logical. If "most" Cacandians
	wnat tough restrictions on guns, then why would they balk at
	such searches?

>	>How? The guns are registered by the collector or the store. They
>	>get stolen (already a crime I presume). They are used in a crime. 
>	>What reduction have you achieved?

>    By reducing the number available to be `lost' or stolen.
 
	So there IS more than "just registration" then? There IS an
	agenda to discourage gun ownership. Why not be upfront about
	it. Why not ban guns altogether then?

>    No, but the removal of the handguns involved from private circulation
>    would have.

	So how will you get the handguns that are already in circulation?
	You DID tell us that Canadians need not fear confiscation, didn't
	you?

>    We have also had mass murders committed without firearms, but so far
>    no-one has proposed a practical way to ban rope (strangulation) or,
>    from your example, gasoline.  I don't have all the answers, Jim. But
>    face it...you'd rather (if barehanded) take your chances against a
>    perp armed with a bat, knife, or rope, than one with a firearm, right?
 
	The difference is that I expect a criminal to be armed in some way.
	And I am prepared to meet THAT scenario. If he's stupid enough to
	bring a knife to a gunfight, that's his bad luck.


>    No, but we can (hopefully) cut back on the opportunistic crimes.

	How many of your crimes fit this description? In the US 80%
	of all violent crimes are committed by less than 10% of the
	criminals. Going after this small number of criminals would
	have a FAR greater affect than banning some inanimate object.


>    Well, Jim, I'm sorry, but I just don't see how 36 new guns a year could
>    be required by anyone.  They're not disposable.  I'd be suspicious of
>    any individual who bought more than two a year for personal use.  I've
>    managed for thirty years without a single one.

	I only have 6 at the moment. I have friends that have hundreds.
	None of mine, nor none of theirs have ever been involved in
	a crime. Quantity doesn't matter, I only have two hands.

>    I don't know.  How is it relevant?  Are you saying that the logic
>    should apply to police weapons as well?  If so, I do not agree.

	No, not actually. But you do raise an interesting point. As long
	as the cops have guns there will be a supply for the criminals
	to steal. Also note that in the US over 50% of the cops shot in
	the line of duty are shot with there own guns. It would save
	a bunch of cops if they DIDN'T carry firearms.

	But the actual point I was trying to make is when you say you
	want to "leave it to the professionals". What you have, as do
	we, are "professional" report takers. They collect evidence
	AFTER the crime has been committed, then they arrest, prosecute
	and hopefully convict the criminals. They do NOT protect you,
	they merely punish those that victimize you.

>    Well, Jim, Canadian stats tell a different story, but I will try to
>    find some Brit stats to compare with ours and yours. If you have some
>    handy, please post them.

	I'll have to dig it up. The one number that stuck in my mind
	I've already posted. Gun crime is doubling in the UK every
	year. This with ever more restrictive laws. Do you really
	wnat gun crime in Canada to be twice what it is now?

Jim

    
    Note 130.129

    >What does this "silhouette target" look like?
    
    A STOP sign?  :^)
    

                   <<< Note 130.129 by CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE >>>

>   >	How many unsolved crimes involving a recovered firearm are
>   >	there in Canada in any given year?

>I have no idea.  The police seem to feel that this would make their job easier;
>as far as I know they aren't claiming that there are a large number of unsolved
>cases that they could have cracked if only a registered firearm were involved. 
 
	It's certainly a question I would ask before I would want a bunch
	of MY tax money spent on a new Federal beauracracy.

>I disagree.  A gun is inherently much more dangerous than a knife.

	Not really. Those who have known both (I am NOT one of them thank
	God) tell me they would rather be shot than cut.

>I am not in fact talking about banning handguns altogether; the proposed
>legislation contains no such provision.    
 
	What provision will there be for handgun ownership?

>I believe that we do need to be vigilant against the growth of American-style 
>gun violence here, and that this proposed law might be a reasonable measure 
>toward that end.   

	Keep passing more laws, you'll get there. The UK is finding this 
	out now.

>What does this "silhouette target" look like?

	It's "humanoid", something like this:


			----
			|  |
		      --    --
	              |      |
                      |      |
                      |      |
		      \      /
		       ------

	About 2 feet wide, 3 and a half tall.

Jim

re: .127

There's an awful lot of "I hope" , "we hope", etc in that reply.  Sounds like
just a bunch of wishful thinking with no thought given as to whether the
proposed actions will actually do any good or will actually make the situation
worse.

Bob

>    <<< Note 130.134 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>
    
>	It's certainly a question I would ask before I would want a bunch
>	of MY tax money spent on a new Federal beauracracy.
    
    I'm hoping this can be implemented without too much expense.  I will be
    interested in how they plan to do it.
    
>	Not really. Those who have known both (I am NOT one of them thank
>	God) tell me they would rather be shot than cut.
    
    I don't know how to use either as a weapon, but it is my impression
    that a gun is capable of wounding and/or killing multiple times, from a
    distance of some yards.  An expert knife-thrower with a bandolier of
    daggers could probably achieve a similar result, but most thugs of the
    type who plug a store clerk, or start firing in a bank, probably
    wouldn't have the requisite skill.
    
>	What provision will there be for handgun ownership?
    
    I believe they're already restricted.  I think people who use them in
    competition, etc. will have to prove every 5 years that they are still
    actively practising their hobby.  I'll check on this next time I see a
    newspaper story on the issue (or perhaps somebody better informed will
    enter the info.)
    

Note 130.126 by TROOA::COLLINS
    
    >>you've blown a lot of smoke telling everyone how ignorant americans are
    >>about canadian desires, wants, and rules.
    >
    >Gene, you have confused me with Glenn.  I accept your apology. :^)
    
    oh. i see. well you all sound alike to me. :-)
    
    >>do you and your officials expect the removal of private ownership of
    >>certain firearms to lower the number of crimes committed with firearms?
    >>or the rate of crimes committed with firearms? 
    >
    >We're hopin'.

    let me get this straight. you really don't have any facts to base these
    new laws on. you're just hoping something gets better. i've seen some
    big time consultants work that way. they define the successful
    measurement criteria so vague that no one will ever be able to
    determine if its successful or not. if i were you i would demand some
    accountability from those who drafted the legislation and hold them to
    it. even the gun-haters must surely want their tax money spent wisely.
    you will very likely spend LOTS of money on gun registration and end up
    with no decrease in crime, or murder, or whatever it is you are trying
    to affect.  is that what you're saying? you've no accountability here.
    
    >>We'll try something else. But it won't be wide-open gun ownership. Look,
    
    no. it won't. its our experience as well that once you give governmment
    control over some aspect of your life you never get that control back.
    never.
    
    >Gene, your country's murder rate is three times ours (and half of those
    >were committed with handguns), your robbery rate is twice as high, your
    >incarceration rate is FOUR times ours. You're not gonna convince me that
    >your system works better.  Different, maybe, but not better.

    the US has a vast array of problems that collectively contribute to
    high crime rates. many of those problems don't exist in canada. so
    comparisons of raw numbers and rates between the two are meaningless.
    what is relevent is the year to year rates for a given country using
    the same measurement criteria. in that respect the murder rate in the
    US is dropping. yes DROPPING. and dropping significantly among all
    age/race groups except 16-24 males. particularly black males of that
    age. and the vast majority of those killed are already forbidden from
    owning guns because of past offenses or age limitations. those laws
    don't stop them from continued killings. why should i believe that if
    we take all the handguns away from the honest citizens those thugs will
    majically be good?

    Watch it guys, or I'll pull out my turkey baster and do some serious
    damage!

    Glenn

    gees glenn. sound kinky. maybe even fun. can i bring wimmins?

    As long as they bring a few cormorants.

                   <<< Note 130.136 by CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE >>>

>    I'm hoping this can be implemented without too much expense.  I will be
>    interested in how they plan to do it.
 
	You don't KNOW what it's going to cost? Seems like that might
	be a piece of information that you would want.

>    I don't know how to use either as a weapon, but it is my impression
>    that a gun is capable of wounding and/or killing multiple times, from a
>    distance of some yards.  An expert knife-thrower with a bandolier of
>    daggers could probably achieve a similar result, but most thugs of the
>    type who plug a store clerk, or start firing in a bank, probably
>    wouldn't have the requisite skill.
 
	How many mutiple shootings do you have during the commission
	of a crime? 

>    I believe they're already restricted.  I think people who use them in
>    competition, etc. will have to prove every 5 years that they are still
>    actively practising their hobby.

	What happens if they are not?

Jim

    Whew, it's getting hard to keep up here, what with my poor typing
    skills.  Never knew you 'muricans cared about us so much!  :^)
    
    .135, Bob:
    
    Yes, lots of `hope'.  But I don't see how we can possibly make 
    things any worse, so we'll give it a try.
    
    .137, Gene:
    
    Glenn's a crazy madman, don't listen to him! :^) Also, see my comment
    below about the Reform Party, our political parachute if this becomes
    problematic.
    
    .132, Jim:

	>So every time a madman misuses an object, your automatic response
	>will be to restrict or ban that object?

    Not every time. But some objects are more dangerous than others. And
    you know this, otherwise there wouldn't be any debate down there.
    The 2nd would make debate pointless.

	>How does registration make it more difficult for criminals to get
	>guns?

    By making legal owners more clearly accountable for the final
    disposition of their guns, and YES, by discouraging casual ownership.

	>...before passage, the 
	>government should have to show that there is a reasonable
        >probability that the law will accoplish that purpose.

    Thing is, though, that this legislation is a response to public
    demands.  Canadians *want* this, and most of them don't feel the
    government needs to justify anything except the length of time this
    legislation has take to come about in the first place.

	>If "most" Cacandians wnat tough restrictions on guns, then
        >why would they balk at such searches?

    Because most people won't be negatively affected by the new gun laws,
    but they *would* be affected by border searches. Canadians do value
    *some* freedoms, you know. It's not quite the totalitarian state you 
    seem to think.

 	>So there IS more than "just registration" then? There IS an
	>agenda to discourage gun ownership. Why not be upfront about
	>it. Why not ban guns altogether then?

    Me?  You're askin' me?  Yes, I do believe we should discourage
    casual ownership.  People who genuinely *need* a gun for something
    should be allowed, with restrictions.  People who just want it to
    shoot at a target...well...I just don't get it.  Whatever floats
    your boat, I guess.

	>So how will you get the handguns that are already in circulation?
	>You DID tell us that Canadians need not fear confiscation, didn't
	>you?

    Handguns will pass from being `resticted' to being `prohibited'
    weapons.  Few tears will be shed.  The rifles will remain in private
    hands, and no goon squad will be by to take them.  I don't know what
    provisions have been made for the handguns already in circulation.
    Apparently, the current owners will be able to hang on to them, but
    will have to give them up upon death rather than pass them down.

	>The difference is that I expect a criminal to be armed in some way.
	>And I am prepared to meet THAT scenario. If he's stupid enough to
	>bring a knife to a gunfight, that's his bad luck.

    Our difference is that we're less likely to be met by a criminal, 
    period. And, if we are, he's less likely to have a handgun on him.
    AND we have less of the passion crimes and the shooting accidents.

	>How many of your crimes fit this description? In the US 80%
	>of all violent crimes are committed by less than 10% of the
	>criminals. Going after this small number of criminals would
	>have a FAR greater affect than banning some inanimate object.

    I agree. As I said, tougher sentencing is part of the package. But not
    the only part. We'd like to, if we can, make the crimes more difficult
    to commit in the first place, so that we don't have to incarcerate more
    people.

	>No, not actually. But you do raise an interesting point. As long
	>as the cops have guns there will be a supply for the criminals
	>to steal. Also note that in the US over 50% of the cops shot in
	>the line of duty are shot with there own guns. It would save
	>a bunch of cops if they DIDN'T carry firearms.

    Well, in Toronto, the cops have done more shooting than getting shot,
    but we did have one officer shot (not killed) with his own revolver
    last year.  In fact, the cops are pushing for heavier firepower
    (.40 Glocks to replace the .38 Specials) on rather spurious arguments.
    But they *do* respond to gun calls, and they have shot some genuine
    bad guys in amongst the innocents, and they have been shot at, so
    all-in-all, it's probably best that they be armed.  In Newfoundland
    the cops have only *just* started carrying guns, and this is expected
    to be temporary.

    As far as cops having their guns stolen...that did happen here in
    Toronto a few years back.  Some guy just walked right in the back door
    of the RCMP office and walked out with half-a-dozen service revolvers.
    All were eventually recovered, if I recall correctly.

	>But the actual point I was trying to make is when you say you
	>want to "leave it to the professionals". What you have, as do
	>we, are "professional" report takers. They collect evidence
	>AFTER the crime has been committed, then they arrest, prosecute
	>and hopefully convict the criminals. They do NOT protect you,
	>they merely punish those that victimize you.

    Still no reason they shouldn't be armed, although I'll grant you
    they use their pens and computers much more than their guns and tonfa
    sticks.

	>Gun crime is doubling in the UK every
	>year. This with ever more restrictive laws. Do you really
	>wnat gun crime in Canada to be twice what it is now?

    No.  We're not convinced that control will lead to chaos, but if that
    can be logically demonstrated in the future, then people will probably
    change their minds and their voting habits.  Remember, anytime we 
    decide we want looser gun laws, all we have to do is vote for the
    Reform Party.  They are rural-based and quite livid about the new
    legislation.

    jc

          <<< Note 130.142 by TROOA::COLLINS "Comfortably numb..." >>>

>    Yes, lots of `hope'.  But I don't see how we can possibly make 
>    things any worse, so we'll give it a try.
 
	Given the available data from the UK experiment, you could
	soon see a doubling of your gun crime rate. You consider this
	"good"?

   
>    Not every time. But some objects are more dangerous than others.

	How so? A gun is not dangerous. The person HOLDING it might
	be, but the gun itself is just a machine.

>	>How does registration make it more difficult for criminals to get
>	>guns?

>    By making legal owners more clearly accountable for the final
>    disposition of their guns, and YES, by discouraging casual ownership.

	How do you make someone "clearly accountable" for the illegal
	act of another? If someone steals a registered gun, what 
	penalty do you propose for the victim of the theft?

>    Thing is, though, that this legislation is a response to public
>    demands.  Canadians *want* this, and most of them don't feel the
>    government needs to justify anything except the length of time this
>    legislation has take to come about in the first place.

	And you are welcome to it. My purpose here is to point out the
	folly of the attempt.

	In fact, for me it will be a "good" thing. When such draconian
	laws do nothing but make your problem with gun crime worse,
	I won't need to use the UK as a counter-example against gun
	control. I'll have a mush better example, closer to home.

>	>If "most" Cacandians wnat tough restrictions on guns, then
>        >why would they balk at such searches?

>    Because most people won't be negatively affected by the new gun laws,
>    but they *would* be affected by border searches. Canadians do value
>    *some* freedoms, you know. It's not quite the totalitarian state you 
>    seem to think.

	It would seem that they value their OWN freedoms. Kinda fast and
	loose with the OTHER guy's freedoms though.

	Sort of "as long as I'm not affected, who cares what happens to
	that "ugly" minority". I have a problem with people that think
	this way. That kind of attitude has caused much misery through
	the years.

>    Me?  You're askin' me?  Yes, I do believe we should discourage
>    casual ownership.  People who genuinely *need* a gun for something
>    should be allowed, with restrictions.  People who just want it to
>    shoot at a target...well...I just don't get it.  Whatever floats
>    your boat, I guess.

	So you are prepared to set the precedent that the government
	has the right to determine what you can own merely on the basis
	of what they determine you need? I hope you never see the end
	result of such determinations.


>I don't know what
>    provisions have been made for the handguns already in circulation.
>    Apparently, the current owners will be able to hang on to them, but
>    will have to give them up upon death rather than pass them down.

	So there are no property rights in Canada?

>    Our difference is that we're less likely to be met by a criminal, 
>    period. And, if we are, he's less likely to have a handgun on him.
>    AND we have less of the passion crimes and the shooting accidents.

	So then why do you need all this new legislation?

>    I agree. As I said, tougher sentencing is part of the package. But not
>    the only part. We'd like to, if we can, make the crimes more difficult
>    to commit in the first place, so that we don't have to incarcerate more
>    people.

	Registration won't accomplisgh this, just ask anyone who has
	tried it.

Jim

    >POLAR::RICHARDSON "G��� �t�R �r�z�"                    1 line  
    >5-DEC-1994 17:02
    >    As long as they bring a few cormorants.
    
    birds?  why bring birds?

    It's a linseed oil thing.

    Oh, keeps the trigger smooth?

    <<< Note 130.143 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>


>	How so? A gun is not dangerous. The person HOLDING it might
>	be, but the gun itself is just a machine.

I'm not anti-gun, but this is one of those commonly used, but idiotic 
arguments that make me think twice about supporting that "right."

You don't have fatal accidents with fishing poles. You don't have kids 
accidentally killing themselves with their dad's Remington Selectric razor. 
Guns ARE dangerous. They have power that other "objects" just don't have. 
And some people find that power intoxicating. If you own a slew of guns and 
you don't admit that, you're full of shiites. Or you're so mentally 
unstable you should probably have your guns confiscated.

Would banning guns be worth the threat to our rights on more important 
fronts? I doubt it, so I oppose it. But the more I hear this "guns are 
harmless, it's the people who are dangerous" crap, the less I'm inclined to 
stay opposed.

Tom

    > I'm not anti-gun, but this is one of those commonly used, but idiotic
    > arguments that make me think twice about supporting that "right."
                          
    That's funny.  None my stuff has gotten up and gone on a rampage.
    It's been sitting here in my office for months and it ain't done
    nothing yet.
    
    Cut through the emotion.  A gun is a tool.  It can be misused by
    irresponsible people.  Same thing with an auto.  It is not inherently
    a bad thing, but when one gets all likkered up and then uses it, it
    is different.          
                                                                   

    Guns are not dangerous people are. I could not agree more, that is why
    the average person should not have a gun.
    
      STEPMOTHER KILLS CHILD SHE THOUGHT WAS A THIEF
    
     JACKSON, Mississippi - A toddler enthralled by Christmas
     tree lights tripped an anti-crime motion detector in his livingroom
     and was shot to death by his stepmother, who had mistaken the three
     year old for a burglar, the police said. The childs death was ruled
     an accident, and no charges were planned.
    
    
     I have to laugh at the claims that our crime rate will double, the
    government will control the people, blah blah blah....
    
     We can see RIGHT NOW what free access to guns (plus some other
    un-Canadian social policy decisions) has done, and is doing to America.
    Save your gloom and doom for people who think like you do.
    
     In an unrelated story:
    
    	LIGHTS GO OUT IN LITTLE ROCK
    	LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas - The Arkansas state Supreme Court has
    	ordered Jennings Osborne to dim his multi-million-light annual
    	Christmas display that used to attract huge crowds to hi
    	neighbourhood. Osborne was ordered on Monday to cut the
    	extravagance of his display to a level that won't draw such crowds.
    	Osborn's neighbours took to court after he responded to their pleas
    	for moderation by doubling the size of last years display.
    
     I trust the irony of being able to shoot your kid with no
    repercussions, but being taken to the state Supreme Court over
    Christmas lights is not lost on non-Americans. Sadly, I think the
    "guns-are-good" crowd won't see it.
    
    							Derek.

>    Guns are not dangerous people are. I could not agree more, that is why
>    the average person should not have a gun.
 
Define "average" person.  Are you adverage?  Do you want to let your
government define you?  
   
>      STEPMOTHER KILLS CHILD SHE THOUGHT WAS A THIEF
 
Most unfortunant.  This mother violated one of the rules of common
sense.  Identifying your target before perforating it.  Sadly, out
of 250,000,000 people in this nation, this lady screwed up and you heard
about it.
   
  >   I trust the irony of being able to shoot your kid with no
  >  repercussions, but being taken to the state Supreme Court over
  >  Christmas lights is not lost on non-Americans. Sadly, I think the
  >  "guns-are-good" crowd won't see it.
   
Emotional, propaganda bullshyte.

    
    
    Derek, perhaps you had better go back and read what happened in Florida
    when LTC was enacted.  Crime did go down.  The gun grabbers will use
    these incidents (the mother shooting the child) as emotional blackmail
    for their cause.  If you hear this story and don't want to ban guns,
    you must be an animal.  I and every other gun owner out there feels
    very bad when an incident like this occurs.  It will not make us change
    our minds because we have seen the proof that gun ownership does in
    fact provide protection and avert crime many more times than it causes
    crime.
    
    
    Mike  

   <<< Note 130.148 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

>    That's funny.  None my stuff has gotten up and gone on a rampage.
>    It's been sitting here in my office for months and it ain't done
>    nothing yet.
    
>    Cut through the emotion.  A gun is a tool.  It can be misused by
>    irresponsible people.  Same thing with an auto.  It is not inherently
>    a bad thing, but when one gets all likkered up and then uses it, it
>    is different.          

Jeezuz, Mike, gimme a break. I didn't say it's inherently bad (although a 
case could be made), and I sure as hell didn't say guns shoot by 
themselves. But they ARE dangerous. You auto analogy is good. Do you have a 
problem licensing automobile use? Maybe you're so libertarian, you do. But 
I can tell you, I don't want to depend on my neighbor's sense of 
responsibility giving his/her keys to the car to their kid. Do you? 
Yet the NRA and many other gun advocates decry any regulation and licensing
of guns. Where's the logic in that? Oh yeah, I forgot, the tyranny 
threat...

                      <<< Note 130.147 by USMVS::DAVIS >>>

>I'm not anti-gun, but this is one of those commonly used, but idiotic 
>arguments that make me think twice about supporting that "right."

	Hardly an "idiotic" argument.

>You don't have fatal accidents with fishing poles. You don't have kids 
>accidentally killing themselves with their dad's Remington Selectric razor. 
>Guns ARE dangerous. They have power that other "objects" just don't have. 
>And some people find that power intoxicating. If you own a slew of guns and 
>you don't admit that, you're full of shiites. Or you're so mentally 
>unstable you should probably have your guns confiscated.

	Fatal accidents involving firearms are SEVENTEENTH on the list.
	By YOUR definition there are SIXTEEN objects that are MORE DANGEROUS 
	than firearms, including automobiles, swimming pools, household 
	cleaning products, etc. If saving lives is the purpose of all this 
	hue and cry, then there should be a 5 day waiting perdiod and strict 
	licensing regulations for a bottle of bleach.

	Recognizing that firearms are nothing more than machines will
	SAVE lives. Taking personal responsibility for safety is FAR
	more important than simply taking the attitude that "the gun
	did it".

>Would banning guns be worth the threat to our rights on more important 
>fronts? I doubt it, so I oppose it. But the more I hear this "guns are 
>harmless, it's the people who are dangerous" crap, the less I'm inclined to 
>stay opposed.

	Guns are machines, tools. They can be used and they can be mis-used.
	But in and of themselves they are simple inanimate objects.

Jim

    GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER
    
     A word of advice. Don't ever use Florida as an example to a Canadian
    in a gun control topic. It was not that long ago that the CAA was
    advising people to stay away due to the violence, and you could get
    local plates for your cars so you did'nt stand out as a tourist (yeah I
    know, we should all be "paking" to protect ourselves). What you refer to
    as a "reduced" crime rate would be unacceptable in Canada. We have been
    able to have less crime, and no "mom shoots tot" stories. The best of both
    worlds if you ask me.
    
    A Canadian does not want to feel that they need to own a gun to be safe,
    much less carry one around with them. As it stands, we are safer, and
    don't carry guns. I fail to see how the American model (less safe and
    more guns) proves guns are of benifit.
    
    You cannot understand this ? OK, put this one down as a difference between
    Canadians and Americans.
    
    							Derek.
    

                     <<< Note 130.149 by KAOFS::D_STREET >>>

>     I have to laugh at the claims that our crime rate will double, 

	The claim is that your GUN CRIME RATE will double, just as it
	has in the UK.

>     We can see RIGHT NOW what free access to guns (plus some other
>    un-Canadian social policy decisions) has done, and is doing to America.

	You can not show causality between access to firearms and the 
	crime rate in the US. As has been pointed out, those areas that
	eased access to firearms have actually seen a reduction in violent
	crime. Statistical example. Florida eased restrictions on purchase
	and ownership of handguns. They also provided for civilian concealed
	carry of handguns. In the 5 years that this law has been in effect,
	the murder rate in florida has DROPPED 21%, while the average for
	the rest of the country has INCREASED 12%.

	No "blood in the streets", no "Dodge City" shootouts. Just a drop
	in the number of people murdered. FEWER dead. I don't know how
	Canadians view such a trend, but I consider it a "good" thing.

Jim

re: .152

>Jeezuz, Mike, gimme a break. I didn't say it's inherently bad (although a 
>case could be made), and I sure as hell didn't say guns shoot by 
>themselves. But they ARE dangerous. You auto analogy is good. Do you have a 
>problem licensing automobile use? Maybe you're so libertarian, you do. But 
>I can tell you, I don't want to depend on my neighbor's sense of 
>responsibility giving his/her keys to the car to their kid. Do you? 
>Yet the NRA and many other gun advocates decry any regulation and licensing
>of guns. Where's the logic in that? Oh yeah, I forgot, the tyranny 
>threat...

Your automobile licensing analogy is invalid.  I may purchase ANY automobile I
can afford,(or convince a bank I can afford) without any license or 
registration.  I can also drive, or anyone of my choosing, ANY automobile ON MY
PROPERTY without any license or registration.  This unregistered/licensed
automobile is no more dangerous than any other automobile.

Bob

re: Note 130.152 by USMVS::DAVIS
    
Guns become dangerous if misused by irresponsible people.  We are supposedly
reponsible enough to be trusted.  We don't get punished by society until we 
show we are not responsible and can't be trusted.  Therefore, theoretically, 
you don't act irresponsibly.  (ah ha, but our system is busted and there
is no penalty for being irresponsible.  That is up for debate as well.)

>Do you have a 
>problem licensing automobile use? Maybe you're so libertarian, you do. But 
Rathole:  I'm not "libertarian".  I believe individuals don't need to
surrender a right and ask for priviledge.  Our supreme Court feels this
way too.

>I can tell you, I don't want to depend on my neighbor's sense of 
>responsibility giving his/her keys to the car to their kid. Do you? 

If my boy gets at my keys and goes joyriding, or if he gets his hands on
my firearms and gets hurt, I'll have some problems.  The moral of the story
is not to ban cars/guns.  It's to act responsibly.  Letting my kid get at
my cars is not smart.  You are arguing from an irrational position.
Modify the behavior, don't start banning items.

                     <<< Note 130.154 by KAOFS::D_STREET >>>

>     A word of advice. Don't ever use Florida as an example to a Canadian
>    in a gun control topic. It was not that long ago that the CAA was
>    advising people to stay away due to the violence, and you could get
>    local plates for your cars so you did'nt stand out as a tourist 

	Think about it for a moment. Why were tourists targeted? 

	There are about 210,000 carry licenses issued under the new law.
	This means that roughly 2% of the citizens are carrying concealed.
	The criminals don't want to take a 2 in 100 chance that their
	intended victim may be able to fight back, so they target a
	population that is KNOWN to be unarmed.

	Why do you think the rental companies wanted to switch to
	unspecialized plates? So the criminals could not identify
	the out-of-staters easily.

>I fail to see how the American model (less safe and
>    more guns) proves guns are of benifit.
 
	In Florida and Idaho, and Washington (state) and Tennesee and
	22 OTHER states the statistics all show reductions AFTER such
	laws were passed. 

	Now, I have no problem if Canada doesn't want to follow these
	examples. After all, as many have pointed out the problem is
	far less than in the US. But it is becoming clear, that in the
	US, guns in the hands of the law-abiding ARE beneficial.

Jim

    > Think about it for a moment. Why were tourists targeted?
    
    Ho ho, think about this... what was that useless trash doing out
    on the streets in the first place?  Shouldn't it have been in jail?
    
    ... and we're arguing about guns.

    
    
    
    Thanks for the advice, but just cause your government put a warning on
    the tube, don't expect me to buy into it.  Perhaps Americans just value
    their freedom more than our northern neighbors.  We don't need big
    brother to solve all our woes for us.
    
    
    Mike

    <<< Note 130.153 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Fatal accidents involving firearms are SEVENTEENTH on the list.
>	By YOUR definition there are SIXTEEN objects that are MORE DANGEROUS 

More specious argument. Those other household items cause death primarily 
among infants, using the product for a purpose utterly different from what 
it was designed for. Nobody accidentally kill SOMEONE ELSE with bleach. And 
automobiles are indeed dangerous - and their use regulated. 

>	But in and of themselves they are simple inanimate objects.

Yeah, right. Like a picture. And you buy and shoot them because of their 
aesthetic beauty. Or because they help to keep your kitchen clean.

Tom

    <<< Note 130.155 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	You can not show causality between access to firearms and the 
>	crime rate in the US. As has been pointed out, those areas that
>	eased access to firearms have actually seen a reduction in violent
>	crime. Statistical example. Florida eased restrictions on purchase
>	and ownership of handguns. They also provided for civilian concealed
>	carry of handguns. In the 5 years that this law has been in effect,
>	the murder rate in florida has DROPPED 21%, while the average for
>	the rest of the country has INCREASED 12%.

Sorry, Jim, you're contradicting yourself. Your first premise is may be 
true - you cannot prove causality between access to guns and crime rate. 
Then you go on to show causality in the case of Florida. Which statement it 
true? The first. Yeah, Florida has had a drop, as have other states 
loosening restrictions -- *as have many other states with no change in law.*
Causal link remains unproven, one way or the other.

Tom

   Re: Note 130.161 by USMVS::DAVIS
   

�More specious argument. Those other household items cause death primarily 
�among infants, using the product for a purpose utterly different from what 
�it was designed for. Nobody accidentally kill SOMEONE ELSE with bleach. And 

   What results in the chilren's deaths is the irresponsible behavior of
   the parents:
   
   	1) leaving bleach in a locatation where child has ready access
   	   to it, and
   
   	2) not instructing the child that bleach is a no-no (oh my, I'm
           sorry. I used the word 'no' with a child.  I must never use
   	   negative words with my developing youngster. [end of
   	   cynicism]).
   
   
   �automobiles are indeed dangerous - and their use regulated. 
   
   They are only regulated on publicly owned property.  Farm equipment
   is not licensed, nor is an operator's license required to operate it.

    .161
    
    > Yeah, right. Like a picture. And you buy and shoot them because of their
    > aesthetic beauty.
    
    actually, in my case, that's why i shoot.  i derive great pleasure in
    the aesthetics of the firearms themselves, and i derive more pleasure
    in the straightforward way they do what they're supposed to do.  i do
    not expect ever to have to shoot a person with my two .22 rifles.  on
    the other hand, you come messin around my place at two in the morning
    and you might make the acquaintance of one or two small bits of lead.

                      <<< Note 130.161 by USMVS::DAVIS >>>

>Those other household items cause death primarily 
>among infants,

	So it's OK to kill kids?

> using the product for a purpose utterly different from what 
>it was designed for. Nobody accidentally kill SOMEONE ELSE with bleach.

	This is the specious argument. We have been discussing DANGER.
	You defined DANGER as relating to accidents. I merely gave you
	facts relating to items that are MORE dangerous, by your definition.

	Let's take a different approach.

	The BATF estimates that there are 210,000,000 firearms in the hands
	of 75,000,000 private citizens.

	There are roughly 1200 accidental deaths involving firearms annually
	in the US.

	This gives us an accidental death rate per gun of 0.00057%.
	Or 0.0016% per gun owner.

	Doesn't sound all that dangerous to me.

> And 
>automobiles are indeed dangerous - and their use regulated. 

	The per car rate of accidental death is on the order of 0.02%,
	roughly 35 TIMES that of firearms. Yes cars are dangerous, a
	LOT more dangerous than guns.

Jim

    and what's more, cars rarely cause fatalities without being misused. 
    driving drunk, painting fingernails, reading maps, turning around to
    holler at the kids, these are examples of misuse by operators.
    
    the simple fact is that the most dangerous gun owners are the ones who
    do not treat the objects in question with the respect such powerful
    machines deserve.  which is EXACTLY the most dangerous class of
    automobile operators.  or bleach users.  or baseball-bat users.

    <<< Note 130.165 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	The per car rate of accidental death is on the order of 0.02%,
>	roughly 35 TIMES that of firearms. Yes cars are dangerous, a
>	LOT more dangerous than guns.

I wonder how the equation would come out if we added time of use to it? I 
wonder what the accidental death rates are of automobiles while used on 
the owner's personal property?

                      <<< Note 130.167 by USMVS::DAVIS >>>

>I wonder how the equation would come out if we added time of use to it?

	Irrelevant to your "guns are dangerous arument". If you bring
	"use" into the equation you are admitting that PEOPLE are
	the issue, not the item.

Jim

    <- ?

    .169
    
    jim is merely pointing out the fallacy of the "guns are dangerous"
    argument.  i have NEVER seen a gun climb out of a holster by itself, or
    get up and step down out of a gun cabinet, and sidle up to someone and
    shoot that person.  it is only when handled by HUMANS that guns shoot,
    which means that it is HUMANS that are dangerous, not guns.

    I wasn't quick enough... I was poking at the previous note, i.e. what
    the heck does proximity to home and (or) time of use have to do with
    anything... Sorry about the lack of note #...

              <<< Note 130.170 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

I don't know, one of us is trying to out meowski the other. I think it's 
you, but...

So you insist guns aren't dangerous - it's people who are dangerous. In a 
relative sense, guns are no more dangerous than...say...a bottle of bleech. 

Ok, suppose you could leave your three year old in a room with either a 
loaded revolver or a bottle of bleech, which would you choose? Remeber now, 
the bottle of bleech has a child-proof cap which is required by law.

    Dick, I promise never to dump refuse on your property during pre-dawn
    hours.

    Glenn

Today's Globe and Mail contains excerpts from speeches in House of Commons Nov.
30, when Minister of Justice Allan Rock announced intention to introduce
legislation.

Rock:

"[As for private ownership of firearms, we] start from the principle that only
those firearms that we agree as a country are appropriate for legitimate
purposes shoould be available for private ownership. Hunting rifles and
shotguns of course are in that category.  But there are also several types of
military and paramilitary firearms that are designed to imitate weapons used by
the army and the police and are intended not for hunting or farming but for
combat.

I am able to tell the House today that we will prohibit, effective Jan. 1,
1995, 21 types of such paramilitary firearms comprising more than 200
individual models. When the laws we propose are in place we will also ban,
among others, the Ruger mini-14 used in the murders [of 14 female engineering
students] at l'Ecole Polytechnique [in Montreal in 1989.]  We will also ban the
furhter sale of most handguns because we have determined that they have no
legitimate sporting purpose.  Almost 60% of the handguns currently registered
to Canadians fall within that category, some 553,000 handguns.

With respect to the handguns that remain, we will strengthen the controls over
the access and use and we will require owners to prove each 5 years that they
continue to qualify or they will lose the privilege of possession and use.  We
will also ban the import, the manufacture and the sale of replica firearms."

etc, etc. - arguments for registration, mainly.

Quotations from speeches by Pierrette Venne of the Bloc Quebecois, essentially
giving the Minister hell for not going far enough, and Jack Ramsay of the
Reform Party, who agrees with with stricter criminal penalties and smuggling
crackdown (though skeptical about latter) but opposes other measures, follow. 

 

    handguns have no legitimate sporting purpose.  ri-i-ight.
    
    combat-style shooting is a sport.
    
    carrying a handgun as a misericorde for a game animal you may have
    failed to kill with your long arm is a sporting purpose - especially
    given that it's easier to unlimber and use a handgun should such an
    animal be stunned and suddenly come to violent life at an inopportune
    moment.
    
    but of course the canadian minister of oppression has his own ideas
    about mommy knows best.

    
    
    RE: .170  I actually saw that happen once, Dick.  It was either a
    cartoon or an acid flashback, I cannot recall which.
    
    
    signed,
    
    
    Jim Ignetowski

    <<< Note 130.141 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>
    
>>    I'm hoping this can be implemented without too much expense.  I will be
>>    interested in how they plan to do it.
 
>	You don't KNOW what it's going to cost? Seems like that might
>	be a piece of information that you would want.
    
    Yes, as I said in the sentence you were replying to, I am interested in
    this.
    
>	How many mutiple shootings do you have during the commission
>	of a crime? 
    
    When I pointed out that a gun is capable of being used multiple times,
    from a distance, unlike a knife, I was not claiming that we have a
    large number of multiple shootings.  (I don't know what the statistics
    are.)  I was attempting to describe why a gun is a more dangerous
    weapon than a knife.  If you are not prepared to admit that this is the
    case, I am not interested in producing more arguments to persuade you
    of the obvious.
    
>>    I believe they're already restricted.  I think people who use them in
>>    competition, etc. will have to prove every 5 years that they are still
>>    actively practising their hobby.

>	What happens if they are not?
    
    Excerpts from the Minister's speech I posted a little earlier are as
    close as I can come to answering this at the moment.
    
    -Stephen

    .172
    
    > Ok, suppose you could leave your three year old in a room with either a
    > loaded revolver or a bottle of bleech, which would you choose?
    
    it's bleAch.
    
    but it's really no difference.  i trained my children before they were
    three years old about touching things like firearms and bottles of
    poisonous substances.  just like my stereo, they didn't mess with that
    either despite the fact that it was a toddler-level set of shelves.
    
    but then when my kids were little i treated them as if they had brains. 
    ymmv.

    >>handguns have no legitimate sporting purpose.  
    
    political rhetoric. anyone with a brain can tell you about quite a
    number of sporting events that utilize handguns. not to mention as a 
    backup when hunting dangerous big game.

                      <<< Note 130.172 by USMVS::DAVIS >>>

>Ok, suppose you could leave your three year old in a room with either a 
>loaded revolver or a bottle of bleech, which would you choose? Remeber now, 
>the bottle of bleech has a child-proof cap which is required by law.

	Either would be irresponsible.

Jim

                   <<< Note 130.177 by CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE >>>

>    When I pointed out that a gun is capable of being used multiple times,
>    from a distance, unlike a knife, I was not claiming that we have a
>    large number of multiple shootings.  (I don't know what the statistics
>    are.)

	But the point of the new legislation is supposedly to solve
	a "problem". Yet you remain extremely uneducated as to what
	that problem might be. How do you come to support a position
	that you seem so ignorant about?

>    Excerpts from the Minister's speech I posted a little earlier are as
>    close as I can come to answering this at the moment.
 
	THe Minister's speech does not address the question. He merely
	states that the firearms would be "banned". In the case of IPSC
	shooters, these handguns can have a cost of close to $4,000. Do
	you believe that the Canadian government is prepared to reimburse
	handgun owners for their "banned" guns?

Jim

    I have stated that I support the thrust of the proposed legislation,
    and given my reasons.  You choose to call me ignorant, based on my lack 
    of acquaintance with certain statistics on crime.  I am not interested in 
    arguing with you on these terms.
    
    On your other point, the excerpt from the Minister's speech I posted
    also stated that handgun owners who failed to qualify would "lose the
    privilege of possession and use."  As I said earlier, this is all I
    know on the subject. 
    
    -Stephen  

    .182
    
    classic out.  "i don't have the facts, so i'll just quit arguing."

    GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER
    
    >>Perhaps Americans just value their freedom more than our northern
    >>neighbors.
    
     We were in both World Wars before you, we have been involved in every
    peacekeeping action since we invented the concept. (not this bogus
    "peacemaking" that goes on these days) I think our record on freedom
    is just fine thank you.
    
    We do not consider guns a matter of personal freedom, but rather an issue
    that affects the whole society. We are really Vulcans you know. "The needs
    of the many outweighs the needs of the few". 
    
    >>We don't need big brother to solve all our woes for us.
    
     Well you will pardon me if I don't want to escalate our crime rate,
    reduce our healthcare coverage, and drop our social safety nets to
    the level of yours so that we can get out from under the heel of big
    brother. The US does not have a monopoly on freedom, and just because
    we don't allow any idiot (not that all gun owners are idiots mind you)
    to have a gun does not mean we place no value on freedom. If you get
    the chance, ask in Holland what price Canadians are willing to pay for
    freedom.
    
    								Derek.

    Would that more Boxers would do the same.
    
    Seriously, I'm not interested in getting into the endless discussion of
    all aspects of gun control, from "guns aren't dangerous" to Gary
    Kleck's research to the F.B.I.'s uniform crime statistics.  I've stated
    my opinion, and provided some info on what the Canadian government
    plans to do.  I am not an advocate for gun control, just a citizen
    interested in continued peace, order, and good government.
    
    -Stephen

    
    Different strokes, Derek.  Our country was founded on certain
    principles and ideals which are contained in the Constitution. 
    When we relinquish some of our rights, which ones are next to 
    follow and all in the name of "for our own good".  You buy into it,
    fine.  I do not.  Nothing against you folks, but don't try and shove 
    your ideals down our throats.
    
    
    Mike

    GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER
    
    >>Nothing against you folks, but don't try and shove your ideals down our
    >>throats.
    
     I feel the same way.
    
    							Derek.

                   <<< Note 130.182 by CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE >>>

>    I have stated that I support the thrust of the proposed legislation,

	And that is your right.

>    and given my reasons. 

	But every time I probe a bit about those reasons, your answer is
	"I don't know".

> You choose to call me ignorant, based on my lack 
>    of acquaintance with certain statistics on crime.  I am not interested in 
>    arguing with you on these terms.
 
	Like many others, you mistake "ignorant" as some sort of insult.
	It is not. It merely means that you ARE uneducated about certain
	things. In this case, you are uneducated concerning the supposed
	"reasons" why Canada requires stricter controls on firearms, and
	specifically what problems the legislation is trying to address.

>    also stated that handgun owners who failed to qualify would "lose the
>    privilege of possession and use."  As I said earlier, this is all I
>    know on the subject. 
 
	So it IS possible that the government might confiscate these firearms
	without comepnsating the current owners?

Jim

    The specific statistical questions you asked were (1) how many unsloved
    crimes involving a recovered firearm ther were in Canada in a given
    year and (2) how many multiple shootings in the course of a crime there
    are.  The second, as I stated was beside the point at issue, which was 
    that a gun is a more dangerous weapon than a knife.  The first
    addressed the issue of how registration of firearms would help the
    police.  Here is some more from Rock on that point:
    
    "Registration will encourage compliance with safe storage requirements. 
    It will allow police responding to emergency calls to know the firearms
    that are present befroe they arrive.  It will allow the police to seize
    all firearms owned by someone who is the subject of a prohibition order
    in the criminal court.
    
    I ask that the House not underestimate the importance of that last
    point, of enforcing prohibition orders in the context of domestic
    violence. The House must bear in mind that on average one woman every 6
    days is shot to death in this country, almost always in the home,
    almost always by someone she knows.  Almost all of the firearms used
    for this purpose are legally owned. Almost all of them are rifles and
    shotguns..."
    

Note 130.182 by CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE
    
    >I have stated that I support the thrust of the proposed legislation,
    >and given my reasons.  You choose to call me ignorant, based on my lack 
    >of acquaintance with certain statistics on crime.  I am not interested in 
    >arguing with you on these terms.
    
    this is your weak point. none of you canadians have articulated any
    knowledge of this bills' cost or expected results. strike one. indeed, 
    you state to support not even understanding the alledged problems it is 
    to address. strike two. yet you profess that perhaps the US could use
    something like that. strike three.
    
    that's not to say americans don't do similarly foolish things. millions
    voted for our current president KNOWING many of his limitations that
    are now coming home to roost.

                      <<< Note 130.162 by USMVS::DAVIS >>>

>Sorry, Jim, you're contradicting yourself. Your first premise is may be 
>true - you cannot prove causality between access to guns and crime rate.

	Not even close. I made no attempot to show causality, even though
	EVERY instance of relaxed gun control has had the same result.

Jim

                   <<< Note 130.189 by CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE >>>

>    The specific statistical questions you asked were (1) how many unsloved
>    crimes involving a recovered firearm ther were in Canada in a given
>    year

	This question was in reponse to one of your earlier arguments that
	registtration would help solve crimes. When pressed, you admitted 
	that you didn't know just how many such crimes, if any, occured.

> and (2) how many multiple shootings in the course of a crime there
>    are.  The second, as I stated was beside the point at issue, which was 
>    that a gun is a more dangerous weapon than a knife. 

	But the issue is supposedly solving a "problem". You offered the
	scenario of mutiple shootings in an armed robbery. I asked you
	how many such crimes, if any, occured. You didn't know that one
	either.

> The first
>    addressed the issue of how registration of firearms would help the
>    police.  Here is some more from Rock on that point:
    
>    "Registration will encourage compliance with safe storage requirements. 
>    It will allow police responding to emergency calls to know the firearms
>    that are present befroe they arrive.  It will allow the police to seize
>    all firearms owned by someone who is the subject of a prohibition order
>    in the criminal court.
 
	So confiscation IS one of the goals of this proposal.

>    I ask that the House not underestimate the importance of that last
>    point, of enforcing prohibition orders in the context of domestic
>    violence. The House must bear in mind that on average one woman every 6
>    days is shot to death in this country, almost always in the home,
>    almost always by someone she knows.  Almost all of the firearms used
>    for this purpose are legally owned. Almost all of them are rifles and
>    shotguns..."
 
	But they will only register long guns, handguns are to be banned
	even though they are used in only a fraction of these cases.

	Makes sense to me.

Jim   

              <<< Note 130.178 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>    but then when my kids were little i treated them as if they had brains. 
>    ymmv.

What an unbelievable piece of arrogant crap those two sentences add up to.
Jeez.

    <<< Note 130.180 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Either would be irresponsible.

That's one way to handle a hypothetical. Ignore its premise. Let me change 
it, to avoid such easy outs:

Which would you feel more comfortable leaving with a three-year-old alone 
with: A tiny town play house or a .38 revolver? Remember, we're just 
talking about inanimate objects here. No inherent danger.

    .193
    
    arrogant crap only if it were untrue.  however, it is not.
    
    my wife and i made a point of explaining things to our kids when they
    were very young, not simply assuming that they'd obey because daddy or
    mommy said so.
    
    i've watched virtually all of the parents around me bringing up their
    kids as if the kids were too stupid to understand why you don't drink
    bleach, or why you don't play with daddy's pistol, or why you don't
    shout your bloody head off in church and everywhere else you can think
    of when you want to get your way.  and i've seen the results.

    <<< Note 130.192 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>
    
>> and (2) how many multiple shootings in the course of a crime there
>>    are.  The second, as I stated was beside the point at issue, which was 
>>    that a gun is a more dangerous weapon than a knife. 

>	But the issue is supposedly solving a "problem". You offered the
>	scenario of mutiple shootings in an armed robbery. I asked you
>	how many such crimes, if any, occured. You didn't know that one
>	either.
    
    Since you insist on distorting this, I guess I'll have to correct you. 
    You said it seemd unjust to punish someone who uses a gun in an armed
    robbery more severely than someone who uses a knife.  I said it was
    justified because guns are more dangerous weapons than knives, and
    their use should be deterred.  You said this was not so, as someone you
    knew who had been wounded by both said so.  I said that guns were more
    dangerous than knives because they could wound or kill multiple times
    at a distance.  IT was at this point that you produced your demand for
    statistics on the incidence of mulitple shootings in the course of
    robberies.  
    
    If you want to argue that use of guns in crime should not incur more
    severe penalties, based on statistical evidence that there are not a lot
    of multiple shootings in the course of robberies, feel free to research
    the issue.  I think it would be a non sequitur.
    
>	But they will only register long guns, handguns are to be banned
>	even though they are used in only a fraction of these cases.

>	Makes sense to me.
    
    Handguns are already registered.  This argument was made in support of
    registration of firearms.
        
	-Stephen

    Which would you rather leave your three-year old around...a loaded
    revolver or an unsheathed hunting knife?
    
    This is just as silly as the earlier analogy.  Guns are "potentially"
    dangerous, as are knives, bleach, automobiles, baseball bats, etc., if
    they are misused.
     
    There are many things I would not leave with a 3 year old, but that
    does not mean that they are dangerous to ME, as long as I handle them
    properly.  
    
    (of course, the revolover should have a safety that would inhibit
    accidents at least for a short period of time)
    
    
    -steve  

    I do not fear being held at bleach point.

    (of course, the revolover should have a safety that would inhibit
    accidents at least for a short period of time)
    
    Nit: most revolvers don't have a safety.
    
    A three year that could hold and fire a double-action mechanism is
    probably as rare as one who could get the child-proof cap off of
    a bottle of bleach.
    
    -b

    How long does it typically take to re-load a bottle of bleach?

    It's easier if you just carry a spare magazine for it, or perhaps a
    backup bottle. The magnums of bleach are particularly powerful.

    What a load of scrap! Guns aren't dangerous??
    
    Guns, they shoot bullets. These bullets hit objects (if you're any good). 
    These objects are destroyed/maim/killed/cease to exist.
    If the object was living, then THE BULLET from THE GUN was A DANGER to
    THE OBJECT.   End of discussion.
    
    
    The fact that the guns have to be fired by a person is not the issue. 
    Every damn thing in this world is inheritantly control by people.
    People are the constant..good or evil it's a wash no matter what you
    speak of. 
    
    Guns in the hands of JOE_AVERAGE serves ME or my family no purpose.
    A gun in my hands serves society no purpose.
    I don't feel safe because you or a neighbour has one. Actually it
    would make me quite nervous. 
    
    I own a compound bow...I do not hunt. It's for sport shooting..
    [hands off the keyboard GLENN]..I don't shoot sports.
    
    I don't pretend it's not a dangerous tool.  But if it, by increased 
    use, was deemed a danger to society, I would have no problems
    forgoing that sport and giving up the TOOL.
    And who should deem that it's dangeous..the gov't fine by me.
    I helped elect them to make such decisions of society on my behalf.
    
    I also chose to live in a society that empowers me to HELP
    vote in the gov't of my likening.
    I don't mind losing rights of access to some property.
    Knowing that they [the gov't] can decide in my favour I ACCEPT the
    fact the they might decide not my favour.  That's part of living in a
    democracy.
    
    However keep in mind that most arguements pro-guns are valid for
    pro-dynamite. So while you don't want to lose access to your firearms,
    I don't want some lawyer argueing that we shoud all have access to
    dynamite,  stating it's the people that are dangerous not the dynamite.
    
    richard
    
    
    
    
      
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Wow. I think cluelessness has found a poster child.

>    And who should deem that it's dangeous..the gov't fine by me.
>    I helped elect them to make such decisions of society on my behalf.

I'm speechless.

    
    
    And if the government deems you should wipe your butt with sandpaper
    instead of Scottissue???

 What grit, sir?

    
    110's fine.... :)
    

    What a bloody pain in the a**.

Note 130.193 by USMVS::DAVIS 
    
>>    but then when my kids were little i treated them as if they had brains. 
>>    ymmv.
>
>What an unbelievable piece of arrogant crap those two sentences add up to.
>Jeez.

    
    no its not. if you think about it. try this. its a discussion i had
    recently with one of my neighbors "tom":
    
    me: tom, do you plan to teach your daughter (age 6) about sex at the 
        appropriated time?
    
    tom: you bet. its critical that be honest and straight forward about
        issues and responsibilities around sex.
    
    me: that's good tom. its also very important because when your daughter
        encounters a situation in which she will have to make important
        decisions you won't be there. you've got to give her a proper set
        values and facts about sex before that time comes or she won't be
        able to make the correct decisions.
    
    tom: yeah. that's for sure.
    
    me:  you going to educate your daughter about drugs as well?
    
    tom: absolutely. kids must know the hazards about drugs very early on.
    
    me: i agree. and again, you won't be there when your daughter will be 
        forced to make very important decisions about drugs and drug usage.
        what about guns, tom. you going to educate you daughter about guns.
    
    tom: are you KIDING? kids see enough gun violence on tv every night.
        i'm not going to expose them to any more of it.  in fact my wife
        and i are going to start regulating what xxxxxx watches. 

    me: regulating your daugthers tee vee viewing habits won't be enough.
    
    tom: what do you mean?
    
    i walked away. people like tom are so enraged by false perceptions they
    can't even see the obvious.

           <<< Note 130.198 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "G��� �t�R �r�z�" >>>

>    I do not fear being held at bleach point.

HAHAHAHA! 

God, I feel like george today. I KNOW I can't win this argument, but I 
can't stop. No, more accurately, I feel like all the other boxers 
contending with george's insisting on accused status. There is simply no 
way that all objects are created equal in terms of danger. I could give a 
spit if you guys own 100 guns, but it drives me crazy to watch you throw 
reason out the window to sustain a nonsensical NRA argument. You don't even 
need it. Let it go.

Guns are more dangerous than bottle of bleach. (Thanks binder) And some 
guns are more dangerous than others. Who is more dangerous in a crowd: a 
wacked out postal worker with a knive or the same dude with a .44 magnum? 
How bout the same guy with an assault weapon with a 40-round clip (or 
however many rounds one of those can hold). Same guy. The only variable is 
the weapon. Get real. There's a difference.

    No, the only variable is if I, or someone like me, is around to put a
    hole in his cranium while the rest of the anti-gunners are running for
    cover...
    
    -b

    There is no difference...
    
    Dead is dead.... 5 pedestrians killed by an out of control auto are
    just as dead as 5 by-standers killed by an assault-type-looking gun...
    

    I might be troubled by a bleach wielding postal worker.

>        <<< Note 130.211 by MPGS::MARKEY "My big stick is a Beretta" >>>

>    No, the only variable is if I, or someone like me, is around to put a
>    hole in his cranium while the rest of the anti-gunners are running for
>    cover...
    
    with a bottle of bleach or a knife?
    
    -Stephen
    

    
    
    >with a bottle of bleach or a knife?
    
    Might be forced to do either... if your government has its way....
    

    
    My boss has the audacity to expect some work out of me today, so I
    can't play with you guys.  Also, I relatively certain I'm coming down
    with the flu, so anything I post will be rightly dismissed as feverish
    ranting  :^).  However, Gene and Jim, I have managed to get hold of
    some some of the stats I promised, which I intend to peruse tonight.
    
    Hope you guys don't miss me while I'm gone! (what're the odds...)
    
    Prolly be back on Thursday or so.
    
    And Mike...no Canadians here are trying to force this down American
    throats, otherwise we'd be talking about this in topic 21.
    
    jc
    
    P.S. Just think of the money our military forces could save by
         replacing their guns with bleach, knives, or baseball bats.
    

Note 130.202 by KAOT01::R_HARPER
    
    i get it now. someone brained this thing with a ball peen hammer and
    its run a muck.
        
    
    
      
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

           <<< Note 130.209 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

>>>    but then when my kids were little i treated them as if they had brains. 
>>>    ymmv.
>>
>>What an unbelievable piece of arrogant crap those two sentences add up to.
>>Jeez.

    
>    no its not. if you think about it. try this. its a discussion i had
>    recently with one of my neighbors "tom":

You missed the point, Gene. Or maybe I misunderstood Binder. Of course, if 
you're going to have guns around, you better train your kids - the earlier 
the better. And some folks are dumb enough not to.

What POed me was his inference that I don't treat my kids as if they have 
brains, then to add further insult, following it with "your mileage may 
vary", which to my sensitive limio-lib type says that my kids may not be as 
smart as his. Since he's the self-appointed keeper of the 'box language 
usage, I have to assume he knows what he's writing and intends me to take 
the interpretation I have. And if that's so, then it is indeed "an 
unbelievable piece of arrogant crap."

             <<< Note 130.212 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "grep this!" >>>

Well, you got me. No duracell bunny here. But the next time you jump all 
over george, you'll see your note pop up in the P&K.

    .219
    
    you misinterpreted.  i said i treated my kids as if they had brains. 
    the ymmv meant precisely that you may not have chosen that method of
    raising your children, no more and no less.  as i indicated later, most
    of the parents i know didn't choose it.  and most of them - including
    my brother and his wife - are regretting it now.

    
    RE: .220
    
    Why the P&K note?
    
    I was making the "dead is dead" comparison vis two inanimate objects
    directed by animate objects...
    

              <<< Note 130.221 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

Ah. nevermind...

    .223
    
    you mean we're communicating?
    
    shock horror!
    
    :-)

    re: .202
    
    [I'm sure someone has fully...uhm..responded (yeah, that's the woid) to
    this outburst, but I wish to add my viewpoint, too....late as it may
    be.  8^) ]
    
>    What a load of scrap! Guns aren't dangerous??
    
    Guns are *potentially* dangerous...just like many other items.
        
>    Guns, they shoot bullets. 
    
    Some do...some shoot many lead pellets in a wide pattern, too.  8^)
    
>    These bullets hit objects (if you're any good). 
    
    That's the general idea.
    
>    These objects are destroyed/maim/killed/cease to exist.
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    You are thinking of PHASERS...Star Trek variety.  I alway love when
    Kirk shoots something and it just vanishes...it's way cool.
    
>    If the object was living, then THE BULLET from THE GUN was A DANGER to
>    THE OBJECT.   End of discussion.
 
    ...and your point is?  
    
    What is a firearm made for?  Target shooting, military operations,
    self-defense, hunting, ect.  If you know how to handle a firearm
    properly (and if you buy one, you should learn how to do this, else you
    are being irresponsible), then the gun should not be a danger to you. 
    If you have children, teach them to leave it alone.  Also, keep it
    where they cannot get at it.
    
    A firearm would be pretty worthless if it didn't accomplish all the
    above (sans the "cease to exist" part  8^) ).  It is designed to be a
    powerful ally, and yes, it CAN be used for evil purposes.  The problem
    is, we can't uninvent firearms.  They are here to stay.  Government
    regulation of firearms only disarms the law abiding and makes them
    easier targets for the predators.     
    
>    The fact that the guns have to be fired by a person is not the issue.
    
    Yes, it is.  The crime problem is a people issue, not a gun issue.  If
    no one committed crimes with firearms, then there would be no call for
    gun control, right?  Which means that if there were no criminals who
    used firearms, guns would not be a threat to anyone, right?  So the
    answer for the gun-grabbers is to limit the freedoms of the law-abiding
    in equal proportion to the illegal activity of the criminals.  You in
    effect base your freedoms on what criminals do.  This is not
    acceptable.
     
>    Every damn thing in this world is inheritantly control by people.
>    People are the constant..good or evil it's a wash no matter what you
>    speak of. 
 
    True.  But your rights as an individual should not be dependant on the
    criminal element.  Better to arm all the people and let the criminals
    pay the price for victimizing the law-abiding.
      
>    Guns in the hands of JOE_AVERAGE serves ME or my family no purpose.
>    A gun in my hands serves society no purpose.
>    I don't feel safe because you or a neighbour has one. Actually it
>    would make me quite nervous. 
 
    Then you have a phobia against firearms, or seriously mistrust your
    fellow man. 
       
>    I own a compound bow...I do not hunt. It's for sport shooting..
>    [hands off the keyboard GLENN]..I don't shoot sports.
 
    What is the difference between this and a firearm (besides the system
    used to propel the impact device)?
       
>    I don't pretend it's not a dangerous tool.  But if it, by increased 
>    use, was deemed a danger to society, I would have no problems
>    forgoing that sport and giving up the TOOL.
    
    If you use your bow properly and are not a homicidal maniac out to
    shoot people with it (or threaten people with it), why should you give
    up your property?  Just because someone in "authority" says bows are
    bad? 
    
>    And who should deem that it's dangeous..the gov't fine by me.
>    I helped elect them to make such decisions of society on my behalf.
 
    You are far too trusting...but that's your choice.
       
>    I also chose to live in a society that empowers me to HELP
>    vote in the gov't of my likening.
>    I don't mind losing rights of access to some property.
>    Knowing that they [the gov't] can decide in my favour I ACCEPT the
>    fact the they might decide not my favour.  That's part of living in a
>    democracy.
 
    Are you Canadian or American?  If American, you are not living in a
    democracy, you live in a republic...big difference.  Congress operates
    democratically, but that's a different story.
    
    If Canadian, no problem.  You are welcome to give up all your rights,
    if you like.  I prefer to keep mine, tyvm.
       
>    However keep in mind that most arguements pro-guns are valid for
>    pro-dynamite.
    
    How so?
     
>    So while you don't want to lose access to your firearms,
>    I don't want some lawyer argueing that we shoud all have access to
>    dynamite,  
    
    You needn't worry about that.  We can't seem to stop the current push
    for universal disarmament, much less ask for new rights.
    
>    stating it's the people that are dangerous not the dynamite.
 
    If I owned dynamite and knew proper handling and use of it, I would be
    no danger to you or anyone else (of course, a house fire might get
    particularly nasty if said dynamite was "fused").
    
    My firearms would be no danger to anyone unless someone broke into my
    house and threatened my life.  Even then, certain circumstances may ensure 
    their own survival.  To call me dangerous simply because I am armed
    would be a silly, closed-minded thing to do, unless you put specific
    qualifiers on that statement (like being put in a life-threatening
    situation).  
    
    
    -steve

Note 130.219 by USMVS::DAVIS                                         23 lines   6-DEC-1994 16:29

>What POed me was his inference that I don't treat my kids as if they have 
>brains, then to add further insult, following it with "your mileage may 
>vary", which to my sensitive limio-lib type says that my kids may not be as 
>smart as his. Since he's the self-appointed keeper of the 'box language 
>usage, I have to assume he knows what he's writing and intends me to take 
>the interpretation I have. And if that's so, then it is indeed "an 
>unbelievable piece of arrogant crap."
    
    i see. so what you would like to see is blinder stop being a pompous
    ass today. that's cool. ;-)

    Dancing around this volatile issue, I'll offer my two cents:  I am all
    for the legal ownership of CERTAIN firearms (including handguns). But,
    I also strongly believe that anyone who purchases said firearm should
    have to complete a firearm use and safety course (or provide proof of
    prior completion). And, I'm not talking about a two hour course,
    either. It should be complete, with some supervised range time thrown
    in. I also support a waiting period for purchasing a firearm. Anyone
    who can't wait five days has no business with a gun IMO.
    
    
    Marty
    

    >I also support a waiting period for purchasing a firearm. Anyone
    >who can't wait five days has no business with a gun IMO.
    
    Suppose you're a woman who had a relationship with a violent man,
    you moved to get away from him, and out of the blue he calls you
    and says he knows where you are now and he's coming to get you...
    it happens all the time... is law enforcement able to protect
    you? Probably not. So, you decide to buy a gun.
    
    But then, uh oh, you're gonna have to call that ex-boyfriend
    back and tell him that he has to wait five days before he can
    try to kill you... right?
    
    -b

     
    i think that only the romulan disrupters cause things to cease to
    exist.

                      <<< Note 130.194 by USMVS::DAVIS >>>

>Which would you feel more comfortable leaving with a three-year-old alone 
>with: A tiny town play house or a .38 revolver? Remember, we're just 
>talking about inanimate objects here. No inherent danger.

	Tiny enough that he could put it in his mouth and choke to death?

	Or an unloaded .38?

	I'd pick the .38.

	There are machines, that if mishandled, can cause harm. One could
	ask "Would you rather leave a 3 year old in a room with a running
	lawn mower or a [pick an item]". But that doesn't tell us that
	the MACHINE is "dangerous". It tells us that the MISUSE of that
	machine is dangerous.

Jim

                   <<< Note 130.196 by CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE >>>

>    Since you insist on distorting this, I guess I'll have to correct you. 

	If you insist, but of course I will avail myself of the opportunity
	to correct your correction. ;-)

>    You said it seemd unjust to punish someone who uses a gun in an armed
>    robbery more severely than someone who uses a knife. 
	
	True.

> I said it was
>    justified because guns are more dangerous weapons than knives, and
>    their use should be deterred.  You said this was not so, as someone you
>    knew who had been wounded by both said so.

	True.

>  I said that guns were more
>    dangerous than knives because they could wound or kill multiple times
>    at a distance.  IT was at this point that you produced your demand for
>    statistics on the incidence of mulitple shootings in the course of
>    robberies.  
 
	Quite true. And here lies the problem in our communication.
	You claim that the gun has a POTENTIAL for causing greater
	damage. I asked you to show whether or not that POTENTIAL
	was real.

	You see, I think that people should be punished for what they
	ACTUALLY do. You seem to want to punish them for the POTENTIAL
	harm they MIGHT cause. If this is truly your position, I would
	suggest that you turn yourself in to the local RCMP office
	immediately, because you, like every other human being, has
	the POTENTIAL for causing great harm.

   
>    Handguns are already registered.  This argument was made in support of
>    registration of firearms.

	And has that registration lead to a reduction in crimes committed
	with handguns? No. But there is this NEW promise from the Minister
	that registering all firearms will help reduce crime. And you are
	BUYING this???????

	And since the handguns are all registered they can now be confiscated
 	from those that don't "need" them. But Canadian gun owners are being 
	told that they need not fear that registration leads to confiscation, 
	right?

	How incredibly naive you Canadians must be!


Jim

    .202 You are scary. Are you willing to give up every other freedom the
    government determines is "good for you"? Your note could bring Sarah
    Brady to the point of orgasm. Could get you a big thank-you note from
    Hillary if you send her a copy. 

        <<< Note 130.228 by MPGS::MARKEY "My big stick is a Beretta" >>>

>    Suppose you're a woman who had a relationship with a violent man,
>    you moved to get away from him, and out of the blue he calls you
>    and says he knows where you are now and he's coming to get you...
>    it happens all the time... is law enforcement able to protect
>    you? Probably not. So, you decide to buy a gun.
    
If she has time and freedom to go to the gun shop to buy a revolver, she 
can do that, and then hide out at a friend's house for five days. Or ask 
haag to sleep with her.

The NRA and other gun absolutists would do their cause a lot of good if 
they showed some flexibility. It's all or nothing, which can look pretty 
fanatical to outsiders. Guns and fanaticism is an unsettling marriage to 
most people.

Tom

    <<< Note 130.230 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

Soapbox royalty: George II (or is it III? or the XCIII??)

                      <<< Note 130.233 by USMVS::DAVIS >>>

>The NRA and other gun absolutists would do their cause a lot of good if 
>they showed some flexibility. It's all or nothing, which can look pretty 
>fanatical to outsiders. 

	Well it depends on what you mean by "flexixbility". Throughout
	most of the NRA's history it has been very "flexible". NRA staff
	actually helped to write most of the Federal gun laws, starting
	with the National Firearms ACt of 1934. The Association "compromised"
	at every turn (compromise for the pro-controllers meant they would
	take less, not give something up). And the membership finally
	realized that this course of appeasment was only delaying the
	day when their guns would become contraband. So we voted for a 
	change. It took 3 elections but we now have a BoD that is taking
	a "No Compromise" stand.

	Gun control doesn't work. That's a plain and simple truth. Agreeing
	to new gun control laws, given this unassailable fact, goes against
	logic. In fact it harms society. Because until our "representitives"
	finally come to the understanding that they REALLY have to deal with
	the root causes of crime we will never make any progress in this 
	area.

	The local paper quoted a Clinton conversation with one of the
	Democrats that actually won re-election as saying "The gun ban
	cost us 21 seats in the House". Maybe the American people are
	tired of being "flexible" as well.

Jim

    
    why should she have to hide out for five days or hire haag
    to sleep with her? 
    
    you're awfully glib about visiting these inconveniences onto
    innocent citizens when its the criminals who should be inconvenienced,
    by knowing that perhaps they could be shot if they victimize their 
    fellow citizens.
    
    anyhow, it seems to me that what the control advocates really don't
    like is the actual gun, the hardware itself, and the idea that an
    individual and not the state or the elite have absolute power to
    project force. liberals hate this idea, being in favor of a cozy 
    and comfortable world where the normal laws of consequences of actions
    and natural selection are suspended by some benevolent power.
    
    

    SEAPIG::PERCIVAL
    
     Why don't you take your NRA, National Firearms Act, and hatred for
    Bill Clinton to the American Gun control topic.
    
     You can also place your "gun control does not work" attitude there as
    well. In case you had'nt noticed, Canadians (which is what this topic is
    about) are firm in the belief that more guns are a bad idea, so
    controlling them is a good idea.
    
    							Derek.

    .237
    
    > Canadians...are firm in the belief that more guns are a bad idea, so
    > controlling them is a good idea.
    
    when (not if) you learn that you were mistaken, we promise not to say
    we told you so.  at least not too many times.

    CALDEC::RAH
    
     In Canada you are not allowed to shoot people. (as in if that guy who
    shot the Japanese student lived here he be in DEEP SNEAKERS) I know it is
    hard to fathom, but them's the facts. Maybe it stems from the fact that we
    have no death penalty. If society as a whole cannot choose to end someones
    life, one person cannot act as prosecutor, judge, jury, appeals court,
    and executioner.
    
    
    							Derek.

How the hell deep can the sneakers be if you don't have a death penalty???

    SMURF::BINDER
    
     Considering the state of gun related crime in both countries, we
    feel your input to be worthless.
    
    							Derek.

re: .239

>    have no death penalty. If society as a whole cannot choose to end someones
>    life, one person cannot act as prosecutor, judge, jury, appeals court,
>    and executioner.

Ummm.  Isn't that what the criminals do?

    ROWLET::AINSLEY
    
     Maybe that's why they are considered criminals.
    
    				Derek.

    
    canadians choose to deny themselves rights endowed by the creator
    to defend themselves. 
    
    that is their affair. we choose the freedom and the risk.
    

    .241
    
    > Considering the state of gun related crime in both countries, we
    > feel your input to be worthless.
    
    as has been explained, areas of the usa that have liberalized gun laws
    are experiencing marked DECREASES in gun crimes, while areas that have
    not done so are experiencing marked INCREASES.  britain, which is now
    enacting progressively more restrictive laws, is experiencing an annual
    DOUBLING in gun crime.  tell me, what is so difficult for canadians to
    understand about the conclusion that a sane person must draw from these
    documented facts?

          <<< Note 130.236 by CALDEC::RAH "the truth is out there." >>>

>    you're awfully glib about visiting these inconveniences onto

I thought GLIB was the language of the 'box.

>    anyhow, it seems to me that what the control advocates really don't
>    like is the actual gun, the hardware itself, and the idea that an
>    individual and not the state or the elite have absolute power to
>    project force. liberals hate this idea, being in favor of a cozy 
>    and comfortable world where the normal laws of consequences of actions
>    and natural selection are suspended by some benevolent power.

Well, I can't speak for other control advocates, but that doesn't describe 
me. But then, I don't fit the model of hysterical gun advocates of secretly 
if not openly wanting to ban the GD things. I think a few limitations are 
sufficient. I'm not exactly in favor of "natural selection" either, though. 
I kind of favor a more civilized approach, using rules of law.

Anyway, maybe I could turn your theory on its head and say that gun 
advocates really just love the actual gun, the hardware itself, and that 
all this rationale about the 2nd amendment and lowering crime by arming the 
populace is really just a bunch of hooey raised in panic just to protect a 
type of possession they're particularly fond of.    
    

    
    Re .241
    
     >We feel your input to be worthless.
    
      Derek, you presume to speak for all Canadians by your use of the word
    "we". I know some Canadians who are *not* happy about the Big Brother 
     attitude of this latest move by the government have they have said
     that they wish that Canada had a 2nd Amendment. 
    
     RG  

    SMURF::BINDER
    
     One also wonders why Americans can't see that with less guns we have
    less violent crime. I managed to refrain from calling you insane, I
    suppose it it is too much to expect in return.
    
     Ask any rational person which violent crime rate they would prefer
    yours or ours. 
    
    							Derek.
    
    

    DNEAST::GOULD_RYAN
    
     Refer to the statistics on popular support for gun control before you
    assume the unnamed people you refer to represent anybody but a fringe
    in Canada. I used the word "WE" in the proper context.
    
    							Derek.

    .248
    
    derek,
    
    what is canada's population?  what is the population of the usa?  have
    you ever seen the results of studies that show overcrowding to be a
    major cause of crime?  guns do not cause crime.  they facilitate it,
    but in a country as sparsely populated as canada, you will not have our
    crime rate even if every citizen packs a sidearm.

re: .239: "in Canada you are not allowed to shoot people" ...

Is there such a thing in Canada as "justifiable" (self-defense related) 
homicide?
Suppose an armed perp is in your house at night and you drop him with a legal
(registered?) weapon. What happens? What if your weapon is one of the millions
of undocumented guns in the country?

(I'm talking about a situation where you and/or you family is clearly in
danger here)

    SMURF::BINDER
    
     Care to compare Toronto's violent crime rate to a same sized American
    city ? I don't have those stats, but I have seen that Rochester NY,
    which is the same size as Ottawa has 5 (five) times the violent crime.
    Your theory is not borne out by the facts.
    
    
    							Derek.

    So, compare a city like Toronto to a city of similar size in the states
    and see what the differences are. I think such a study would be a good
    exercise.

    Glenn

    DECWET::LOWE
    
     To be honest, I don't remember ever seeing such a case, so I don't
    know what would happen. I do know that if your reason for requesting a
    gun permit is self defense you will not get the permit. I'm sure there
    is a grey area, but not a very large one.
    
    							Derek.

    POLAR::RICHARDSON
    
     Go for it. I gave the situation for the city I live in, and got it
    from the local news. Maybe someone in TO has a similar comparison.
    
    							Derek.

    .252
    
    derek, no such study would be meaningful.  to make a study meaningful,
    you would have to establish all other aspects of the cities' situations
    to be equal in order to rule out other possible causes of any
    discrepancies found.  i mean such factors as unemployment, ethnic mix,
    gender mix, level of education, city services, culture, and on and on. 
    this is called a controlled experiment, and it is simply not possible. 
    
    so any comparison of canadian crime rates with crime rates in the usa
    is an apples-and-oranges comparison.  what you must look at is rates in
    'murican cities, and that is only meaningful in the sense of trends - a
    static comparison of any two cities is invalid.  trends show, as we've
    said several times, that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens
    produce a trend toward less gun crime.

                     <<< Note 130.248 by KAOFS::D_STREET >>>

>     One also wonders why Americans can't see that with less guns we have
>    less violent crime. I managed to refrain from calling you insane, I
>    suppose it it is too much to expect in return.
    
>     Ask any rational person which violent crime rate they would prefer
>    yours or ours. 
 
	This would imply that the only difference between the two countries
	are their gun laws. This simplistic approach to a very complex
	process shows either a lack of thought or the lack of the
	capability to think.

Jim

    SMURF::BINDER
    
    I could swear you were proposing that population density was a factor
    that explained the American experience. You may decide that comparisons
    between the American experience and the Canadian one are invalid, but
    most of us up here feel we can learn from your experience. What I see
    is that you feel you cannot learn from our experience.
    
    If our national experiences are so different, why can't some Americans
    accept the fact that something that works well for us, could be
    impractical in the States ? (and the other way around)
    
    
    							Derek.

              <<< Note 130.256 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>    derek, no such study would be meaningful.  to make a study meaningful,
>    you would have to establish all other aspects of the cities' situations
>    to be equal in order to rule out other possible causes of any
>    discrepancies found.  i mean such factors as unemployment, ethnic mix,
>    gender mix, level of education, city services, culture, and on and on. 
>    this is called a controlled experiment, and it is simply not possible. 
 
	Such a study was attempted at one time using Seattle and Vancouver.

	On the surface the crime rate in Seattle was much higher. When looked
	at more closely on ethnic and socio-economic levels, it turned out
	that if you looked at only those Seattle demograpic groups that are
	also represented in Vancouver, the crime rates were virtually
	identical.

Jim

    SEAPIG::PERCIVAL
    
     You want to bring in race relations ? Social safety nets ? Literacy
    levels ? Hey you want to turn this into a bash the crap out of the US to
    defend our gun control ?
    
     I do not. Start with the fact that we have less violent crime, and
    work from there. The part of the equasion we are discussing is guns.
    
    							Derek.

    SEAPIG::PERCIVAL
    
     We have name for people who try to justify things based on race. I'm
    sure you do too.
    
    							Derek.

    equaTion

                     <<< Note 130.260 by KAOFS::D_STREET >>>

>     You want to bring in race relations ? Social safety nets ? Literacy
>    levels ? Hey you want to turn this into a bash the crap out of the US to
>    defend our gun control ?
 
	If those are the TRUE factors that relate to crime, then that
	is EXACTLY what we should be discussing.  Given all the evidence
	it would take a complete idiot to believe that gun control reduces
	crime.

Jim

    
    	Re : Fewer guns would mean less crime.
    
    	Probably true;however, Gun control laws WILL NOT mean fewer guns.
    ed

                     <<< Note 130.261 by KAOFS::D_STREET >>>

>     We have name for people who try to justify things based on race. I'm
>    sure you do too.
 
	We have a name for people who refuse to face the truth because
	there is a racial aspect to the data. I'm not sure that you
	do.

Jim

    .264
    
    > Re : Fewer guns would mean less crime.
    
    >Probably true...
    
    why is it, then, that an increase in the number of guns in the hands of
    law-abiding citizens in florida and several other states correlates to
    a reduction in crime?

    
    
    re .266
    
    	That is not the statment I answered. More guns in law-abiding hands
    WILL reduce crime. The question is whether gun control laws is the
    answer to effect less crime. 
    
    ed

    Could it not also correlate to the increase in the number of PC's in
    the hands of the law abiding citizens?

    Glenn

    
    
    Is this a racist statement?
    
    More blacks live in Newark, N.J. than in East Podunk, Iowa...
    
    
    Discuss...
    

    .268
    
    > PC's in
    > the hands of the law abiding citizens
    
    being law-abiding is prolly not pc.

    SEAPIG::PERCIVAL
    
    Given all the evidence (Canada less crime, States more crime) one would
    think you would look at our system and try to figure out why. But in
    the typical America-centric fashion you do not. And you imply I'm an
    idiot (along with the vast majority of Canadians).
    
     I should really continue to be insulted by you so that I can put forth
    Canada's side of the story, but I have more self esteem than that. If you
    wish to continue to be rude to people, you will have to find someone else.
    
    
    							Derek.

    the synsytyve canadian has spoken.  we are duly chastised.

                     <<< Note 130.271 by KAOFS::D_STREET >>>

>    Given all the evidence (Canada less crime, States more crime) one would
>    think you would look at our system and try to figure out why. 

	Very similar to the point that I made about looking to the root
	causes of crime. Of course when I made that suggestion you implied
	I was a racist. 

	But I guess that in Canada that is not considered an insult, eh?

>But in
>    the typical America-centric fashion you do not. And you imply I'm an
>    idiot (along with the vast majority of Canadians).
 
	Well why don't you take a dispassionate look at the evidence.

	You have regitered handguns for how long? How much has crime
	dropped since you started registering them? Now you want to
	longarms. How much do you think THIS move will reduce crime?

	Then you tell all the owners of rifles and shotguns that they
	need not fear confiscation. ANd in the same legislation you 
	provide for the confiscation of the handguns that were registered
	earlier. If anyone is buying all the crap that the Minister is
	spouting then they TRULY desrve the appelation "idiot".

   
Jim

    
     Re .249
    
    > Refer to the statistics on popular support for gun control before you
    > assume the unnamed people you refer to represent anybody but a fringe
    > in Canada.
    
    I read the stats.......and what are the details of the survey ? Who
    asked the question and was the sample representative of the entire 
    population ? 
    
    The assertion that fewer guns leads to less crime is a vast
    oversimplification, as has been pointed out previously. Correlation
    is *not* the final determinant of causation. This is a perfect 
    example.
    
    RG

    >why should she have to hide out for five days or hire haag
    >to sleep with her? 
    
    what does she look like and how much liquid monies does she have?

Note 130.271 by KAOFS::D_STREET 
    
    > I should really continue to be insulted by you so that I can put forth
    >Canada's side of the story, but I have more self esteem than that. If you
    >wish to continue to be rude to people, you will have to find someone else.
    
    this is often the position taken by 'boxamatuers when they have lost
    confidence in their position. you can all now get together and sing a
    hardy rendition of O Canada.

    HAAG::HAAG
    
     Or rational people who feel they need not be insulted to discuss an
    issue. Only an idiot would assume I feel less confident about my
    position. :*)
    
    							Derek.
    

              <<< Note 130.245 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>    as has been explained, areas of the usa that have liberalized gun laws
>    are experiencing marked DECREASES in gun crimes, while areas that have
>    not done so are experiencing marked INCREASES.  britain, which is now

Careful, Richard. A LOT of areas have experience marked decreases in 
violent crime, including many with considerable regulation. DC and Boston 
are two, I believe (I may be wrong - and if I am, I'm sure I'll hear about 
it!)

Tom

              <<< Note 130.250 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>    major cause of crime?  guns do not cause crime.  they facilitate it,

Thanks, I couldn't have said it better myself. 

Indeed. Indeed. And *that* is the fundamental premise behind gun control. 
A gun makes it *easier* to mistake someone for an intruder and 
accidentally  kill him/her. A gun makes it *easier* to kill and get away. A 
gun makes it *easier* to hold up a bank or a store. A military assault rifle 
makes it *easier* to kill a lot of people if you've flipped out and want to 
take down as many as possible on your way to hell. If it didn't make it 
*easier* to defend your home, why bother getting a gun for that purpose? 

Whether restrictions on gun ownership actually does anything to reduce 
violent crime is the *real* substance of the debate. Many in here offer 
persuaive evidence to the contrary. Others, including most metropolitan 
police forces, whose job it is to control crime, want restrictions and I'm 
sure have statistics they can call upon to bolster their case.

The point is, to insist that gun ownership is an untouchable right that 
warrants no regulation whatsoever (and that anyone who suggests 
otherwise is a villain out to destroy your LIBERTY), and then to use the 
insane argument that guns are no more dangerous than a bottle of bleAch, 
only promotes an image of extremism. 

As a marketing professional (now *there* is an oxymoron in Digital), I'm 
trying to tell you, you're not doing yourself any favors. You may have 
helped win some political battles of late, but its not because you're winning 
over people to unregulated firearms, it's because you represent a lot of 
politcal activism and money in a mostly politically apathetic society. If you 
make gun rights a big issue in the new Republican agenda and use the 
arguments you put in here, you're going to get your arses kicked in future 
ballots. Mark my words.

    
    
    Don't forget to add that guns make it *easier* to defend oneself
    against predatory animals...
    

    >Indeed. Indeed. And *that* is the fundamental premise behind gun control. 
    >A gun makes it *easier* to mistake someone for an intruder and 
    >accidentally  kill him/her. A gun makes it *easier* to kill and get away. A 
    >gun makes it *easier* to hold up a bank or a store. A military assault rifle 
    >makes it *easier* to kill a lot of people if you've flipped out and want to 
    >take down as many as possible on your way to hell. If it didn't make it 
    >*easier* to defend your home, why bother getting a gun for that purpose? 

    Wrong. The fundamental premise behind gun control is that legal
    restrictions on guns keep them out of the hands of the "bad guys".
    This premise fails under scrutiny... what is so difficult to
    grasp?
    
    >Whether restrictions on gun ownership actually does anything to reduce 
    >violent crime is the *real* substance of the debate. Many in here offer 
    >persuaive evidence to the contrary. Others, including most metropolitan 
    >police forces, whose job it is to control crime, want restrictions and I'm 
    >sure have statistics they can call upon to bolster their case.

    In truth, the rank and file police officers generally oppose gun
    control. It is the "police management" that support it for a
    variety of reasons that really have nothing to do with public
    safety. Many law enforcement officials are actively involved in
    the preservation of gun rights, including Massad Ayoob.
    
    >The point is, to insist that gun ownership is an untouchable right that 
    >warrants no regulation whatsoever (and that anyone who suggests 
    >otherwise is a villain out to destroy your LIBERTY), and then to use the 
    >insane argument that guns are no more dangerous than a bottle of bleAch, 
    >only promotes an image of extremism. 

    To insist that the right to free speech, or freedom of religion,
    is an untouchable right and warrants no regluation whatsoever...
    Yes, it is an untouchable right. That is not fanaticism. It is
    simple fact. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
    not be infringed. Again, what is so difficult to grasp?
    
    >As a marketing professional (now *there* is an oxymoron in Digital), I'm 
    >trying to tell you, you're not doing yourself any favors. You may have 
    >helped win some political battles of late, but its not because you're winning 
    >over people to unregulated firearms, it's because you represent a lot of 
    >politcal activism and money in a mostly politically apathetic society. If you 
    >make gun rights a big issue in the new Republican agenda and use the 
    >arguments you put in here, you're going to get your arses kicked in future 
    >ballots. Mark my words.
    
    We're not interested in political spin. Plain and simple, we want the
    elected officials of this land to act according to the Constitution,
    and we'll raise bloody hell when they don't...
    
    -b
    
    

 <<< Note 130.280 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>
                        -< As long as it's easier.... >-

    
    
>    Don't forget to add that guns make it *easier* to defend oneself
>    against predatory animals...

I did.    

    .279
    
    >> major cause of crime?  guns do not cause crime.  they facilitate it,
    
    > Thanks, I couldn't have said it better myself.
    >
    > A gun makes it *easier* to mistake ...
    
    a gun also makes it easier to deter or prevent a crime, to the tune of
    about two million occurrences annually in the usa.  accidental deaths
    from all privately owned firearms aren't a patch on this huge number,
    and in fact TOTAL deaths from privately owned firearms, even including
    criminals' victims, don't approach the number of lives potentially
    saved.  which means that the "if it saves one life" argument falls
    apart completely.  it's actually a pretty weighty argument in FAVOR of
    gun ownership.

        <<< Note 130.281 by MPGS::MARKEY "My big stick is a Beretta" >>>

>    Wrong. The fundamental premise behind gun control is that legal
>    restrictions on guns keep them out of the hands of the "bad guys".
>    This premise fails under scrutiny... what is so difficult to
>    grasp?

No, I'm not wrong. What you describe is one objective, and probably the 
least likely to succeed. The 5-day waiting period isn't design to stop 
impetuous inclinations toward armed robery. It's supposed to make crimes of 
passion less likely. It may not work either, but that's the idea. 
    
>    In truth, the rank and file police officers generally oppose gun
>    control. It is the "police management" that support it for a
>    variety of reasons that really have nothing to do with public
>    safety. Many law enforcement officials are actively involved in
>    the preservation of gun rights, including Massad Ayoob.

Do you have data to back that up. I don't doubt you, by the way, just 
wonder.
    
>    To insist that the right to free speech, or freedom of religion,
>    is an untouchable right and warrants no regluation whatsoever...
>    Yes, it is an untouchable right. That is not fanaticism. It is
>    simple fact. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
>    not be infringed. Again, what is so difficult to grasp?

Sorry, I don't buy the all-rights-are-created-equal argument. Neither do 
"Prolife" gun advocates.
    
>    We're not interested in political spin. Plain and simple, we want the
>    elected officials of this land to act according to the Constitution,
>    and we'll raise bloody hell when they don't...

I'm not talking spin. Go ahead, do it your way. Be sure to encourage lots 
of debate in congress on it and be sure that your Republican reps use your 
favorite arguments about the harmlessness of guns. And we'll see....    
    

              <<< Note 130.283 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>    a gun also makes it easier to deter or prevent a crime, to the tune of
>    about two million occurrences annually in the usa.  accidental deaths
>    from all privately owned firearms aren't a patch on this huge number,
>    and in fact TOTAL deaths from privately owned firearms, even including
>    criminals' victims, don't approach the number of lives potentially
>    saved.  which means that the "if it saves one life" argument falls
>    apart completely.  it's actually a pretty weighty argument in FAVOR of
>    gun ownership.

I'm not arguing with that. I'd like to see the source of the 2 million per 
year prevention statistic. Sounds a bit odd to me.

>                      <<< Note 130.284 by USMVS::DAVIS >>>
>>    To insist that the right to free speech, or freedom of religion,
>>    is an untouchable right and warrants no regluation whatsoever...
>>    Yes, it is an untouchable right. That is not fanaticism. It is
>>    simple fact. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
>>    not be infringed. Again, what is so difficult to grasp?
>
>Sorry, I don't buy the all-rights-are-created-equal argument. Neither do 
>"Prolife" gun advocates.

Ok then, do you buy this? : All persons have a right to live.

    To support binders position in .283
    
    I constantly think of that 911 call, wherein a women is hysterical.
    "HE'S BREAKING IN.... HE'S AT MY DOOR!!!  HE'S HERE!!! HE'S HERE!!!!
    HE'S IN MY ROOM!!! I HAVE THE POLICE ON THE PHONE.....WHY WHY?"  
    <Click- dialtone>.
    
    The fact that this is happening in the first place is inexcusable.
    I find it sad for whatever reason this lady didn't have the tool
    to make the taped conversation end differently.
    
    HE'S HERE!!!! HE'S HERE!!!!!!! CLICK.....***KABOOM***
    I and my child are safe.  Please send help.
    
     

    I'm way out of time synch here, but I'm getting a bit tired of Jim
    Davis.
    
    Jim, you claim not to be anti-gun.  I guess that makes me pro-clinton.
    
    Regarding auto accident, I personally know two people who have died in
    auto accidents on their own private property, and I nearly did when a
    truck fell off its jacks while I was changing a tire.  Where I grew up,
    basically all of the kids over age 10 owned guns, myself included, and
    I personally know nobody who has been injured by a firearm.  Cars,
    planes, trains, boats, knives, machinery, and even a toilet have claimed
    aquaintances of mine, but nobody had died by gun.  Oh, yeah, a guy I
    knew drowned in an oil drum.

    re: Note 130.285 by USMVS::DAVIS
    
    Screw 2,000,000 times/year/stats/massad ayoob/conspiracys....
    
    Put your wife in that situation with the 911 phone conversation
    I mentioned.  Would you start singing a different tune after hearing 
    her being raped/murdered, along with your children, while they were
    defenseless?  (I got a phone- buddy, I'm talking to the fuzz, and you
    better watch_yer_step_jack.)
    
    You debate guns, where *crime* itself is the problem.  Take away
    guns, make them magically disappear.  People will still beat the
    piss outta each other for one reason or another.  They've been doing this
    forever.  It's not going to stop, even if magically taking away
    politically incorrect firearms.  Pissing and moaning about firearms is
    exactly what people of power wish you to do (since _they_ can't fix
    this issue either.  Actually, they could, but this is the most
    convinient/expediant "solution".  Ban 'em.)

    ban oil drums!

    .202
    
    R_Harper - what's wrong with dynamite?  Last time I was in Canada it
    was legal...

    .285
    
    > I'd like to see the source of the 2 million per
    > year prevention statistic. Sounds a bit odd to me.
    
    i'm sure jim percival or amos hamburger can give you the exact figures. 
    these numbers are drawn from the fbi's uniform crime reports.  what i'd
    like to add is that these are only the ones that get reported.  some
    (probably significant) number of gun-deterred attempts at crime don't
    get reported because the law-abiding citizens who made them happen just
    don't bother reporting them because it's likely that the police, who
    are too busy to be bothered with situations in which citizens weren't
    hurt, won't do anything anyway.

    .210 - Jim Davis
    
>    God, I feel like george today.
    
    You ARE like George today...

    OK, I'm caught up, time for the last half of my two cents.
    
    A) Most important, Jim Davis is anti gun.  Once you get over the fact
    that he lied about his position, the rest of his stuff is
    understandable.
    
    To address the actual topic, Canadians have two hundred years of being
    not independent.  This gives them a great advantage over the US as far
    as getting used to having personal freedoms restricted.  I understand
    their position, and I have no problem at all with the Canadian
    government banning guns there.  If the Canucks don't like it, they get
    to fix it, just like we do down here.
    
    A comment about being in the war before the US, please don't pull that
    on us.  ENGLAND, ergo Canada, was in the european wars before the US. 
    Were you independent then, as you are now, I suspect you would have
    tarried a bit longer before committing Canadian blood to the English
    cause.
    
    DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!  Duh.  Yes.  Guns are dangerous.  So are ball
    peen hammers.  Saying which is MORE dangerous is like asking "would you
    rather die from ingesting bleach or being shot?"  I'd personally rather
    avoid either.  However, guns are not more dangerous, in fact are LESS
    dangerous statistically than many other items, which is the point.  
    
    Regarding gun control laws, where gun control is most restrictive,
    crime is highest.  In Kennesaw Georgia, gun ownership is required. 
    They have nearly zero violent crime, although adjoining communities
    have "normal" crime rates.  The ONLY difference are the guns in the
    hands of citizens.
    
    Regarding Canadians demographic makeup.  I've been to Toronto. 
    Montreal.  Calgary.  Edmonton.  Buch of other places.  I've also been
    to the South Bronx, South Philly, Miami, Atlanta, LA, Phoenix...and all
    I can say is that Canada does not have a CLUE about racial tensions. 
    Toronto is a disneyland, and Canadians should be proud of it, but
    please don't pretend that it displays a "solution" to the problem of
    racial integration.  It never had a problem to begin with, relatively
    speaking.  Closest you come is French/English.
    
    I grew up in the north country.  Crime is a problem, but it is not the
    same problem we have in the lower 48.  Racial tension, overcrowding,
    economy, drug trade, summugling and other things contribute to a severe
    crime problem.  Most of these contributing factors do not exist in
    Canada, or do not co-exist.  They did not exist in Alaska either. 
    However, with the influx of workers for the pipeline, strain on
    existing resources, disparity of wages, bigotry (mostly Texans vs.
    Alaskans), drugs and money, suddenly the crime rate in Fairbanks
    skyrocketed.  At one point, I believe we were experiencing about five
    murders per week in a town with a base population of 35,000.  Most of
    the crime, but not all, has gone with the boom.  Remaining are mainly
    problems with drugs.
    
    IMHO, being a criminal takes a certain type of person - I don't think
    that your typical liquor store robber or gang member would be
    considered a self starting hard worker.  I think a certain amount of
    laziness figures into it - why work for something you can steal?  On
    the other hand, harsh environments - and Canada has a harsher
    environment than most of the US - tend to weed out that kind of
    individual.  Most US citizens would be flabergasted if their car didn't
    start on the first turnover - forget plugging the sucker in and warming
    it up.
    
    I do not mean to disparage the Canadian criminal - I am sure they are
    just as despicable as ours.  I just happen to think there aren't as
    many of them, and that this is a factor in the crime rate.
    
    Whatever...I must move along.
    
    Ta.
    	Mike

  Note 130.143, Jim

 	>Given the available data from the UK experiment, you could
	>soon see a doubling of your gun crime rate. You consider this
	>"good"?

  Well, I still haven't seen that data, but no, a doubling gun crime rate
  would not be good.  Since you 'muricans reject any comparison of the
  U.S. and Canadian crime rates as being apples-and-oranges, I may just
  do the same thing with the British stats. :^)  Remember, their
  unemployment rate is much higher than ours, and after years of Tory
  rule, I'm surprised they haven't all killed each other.

	>A gun is not dangerous. The person HOLDING it might
	>be, but the gun itself is just a machine.

  This particular point has been beaten to death in my absence, and nothing
  I can say will sway you on this.  I simply see it differently.  If a gun
  were no more dangerous than a knife or a bat, than armies wouldn't need
  guns.  You wouldn't either, for that matter.  You'd be equally able to
  defend yourself and your home with a knife or a bat.  But here in Canada,
  where serial/mass killers are rare enough that we don't simply dismiss
  them as being part of the scenery, an act like Marc Lepine's could simply
  not have happened without the availability of the weapon he used, of which
  he was the LEGAL OWNER, and which has no sporting purpose.

	>How do you make someone "clearly accountable" for the illegal
	>act of another? If someone steals a registered gun, what 
	>penalty do you propose for the victim of the theft?

  Some of the reasons were listed in Allan Rock's speech, which was posted
  more than 100 notes back.  It also *ensures* that the owners report the 
  theft, if they are tempted not to.  And, the owner *will* be punished for
  unsafe storage if the gun was not in a locked cabinet when it was stolen,
  thus making owners more unlikely to leave weapons in nighttable drawers,
  or to display their collections on the wall (as one person I know has
  done), from where they can be more easily stolen.

	>My purpose here is to point out the folly of the attempt.
	>In fact, for me it will be a "good" thing. When such draconian
	>laws do nothing but make your problem with gun crime worse,
	>I won't need to use the UK as a counter-example against gun
	>control. I'll have a mush better example, closer to home.

  Folly it may be, but since you self-defence argument doesn't apply up
  here, it can't make things any worse.

	>It would seem that they value their OWN freedoms. Kinda fast and
	>loose with the OTHER guy's freedoms though.
	>Sort of "as long as I'm not affected, who cares what happens to
	>that "ugly" minority".

  Well, that sort of thing *happens* in a democracy, now, doesn't it, Jim.
  Like in Colorado, with Amendment 2 (?) and in California with Proposition
  187. And the guy in Arkansas who just got forced to take his Christmas
  lights down. :^)  As I've said before, a SOCIETY as a whole decides what
  is best for it, and acts accordingly, and changes it's mind later, too, if
  it so desires.  But your point is taken, since I tend to be the first one
  in any conversation to stand up for the minority viewpoint.

	>So you are prepared to set the precedent that the government
	>has the right to determine what you can own merely on the basis
	>of what they determine you need? I hope you never see the end
	>result of such determinations.

  When Allan Rock finally tabled this bill, after YEARS of PUBLIC pressure,
  he was hammered by the two major opposition parties.  The Bloc Quebecois
  whined because they din't feel that the bill was strong enough, and the
  Reform Party assailed it on much the same grounds as you and Gene and Dick
  and Amos and Mike and...

	>So there are no property rights in Canada?

  No, we are not allowed to stockpile explosives in our basements, we are
  not allowed to own anti-tank weapons, we are not allowed to own switch-
  blades.  C'mon, Jim.  There are property rights in Canada, but like a lot
  (but not all) of our rights up here, they are not absolute. Some things
  you just can't demonstrate a need for, and if that thing coincidentally
  has problematic associations, then it's a good bet you'll lose it, if
  you ever were allowed it in the first place.  If we change our minds
  about this, then the legislation can *easily* be repealed.

  Now then, I promised you stats regarding the source of weapons used in
  crimes.  The stuff I got from StatCan and the Metro Toronto Police
  yesterday does not, unfortunately, break the crimes down in that way.

  I would like to believe, however, that such stats exist, since they would
  be required justification for the legislation, as you have rightly
  pointed out.  Allan Rock talks like he knows this stuff, so I'm assuming
  that the Ministry of Justice has the stuff, and I'll have to call or
  write to get the stuff.  When he spoke in Edmonton recently he quoted a
  number of stats, many of which focused on domestic disputes that end in
  death from a legally owned firearm.  He also said that a gunshot wound
  is fatal three times more often than a knife wound.  Again, I will have
  to see the stats his Ministry has gathered on this.  

  Hey, Glenn (or whatever your name is now), you're closer to Ottawa than
  me. Why don't you contact the Ministry of Justice and get back to us! :^)

  jc

    
    Note 130.294, Mike:
    
    >A comment about being in the war before the US, please don't pull that
    >on us.  ENGLAND, ergo Canada, was in the european wars before the US. 
    >Were you independent then, as you are now, I suspect you would have
    >tarried a bit longer before committing Canadian blood to the English
    >cause.
    
    Umm, I don't want to get into a pissing match over who did what first,
    and why, but this is *pure* speculation on your part, Mike, and not
    borne out by the evidence of peacekeeping missions to over 40 countries
    worldwide.  We've BOTH done our share, I'd say.
    
    >Regarding Canadians demographic makeup.  I've been to Toronto. 
    >Montreal.  Calgary.  Edmonton.  Buch of other places.  I've also been
    >to the South Bronx, South Philly, Miami, Atlanta, LA, Phoenix...and all
    >I can say is that Canada does not have a CLUE about racial tensions.
    
    We had a race riot on Yonge Street in 1992.  Not exactly a normal
    occurrence, but we *have* had our share of racial tensions, especially
    within the past 2-3 years as more and more Jamaicans, Somalians, 
    Vietnamese and Chinese have made Toronto their new home.  Maybe it
    doesn't compare with L.A., but we're not clueless about it, either.
     
    jc
        

    
    CALGARY (CP) - Confiscating Canadians legitimate firearms would be
    political suicide, Justice Minister Allan Rock says. "I've come to
    the conclusion that no party that formed the government of Canada
    could possibly introduce such a policy of confiscation." he told
    lawyers at a luncheon Monday.
    
    Rock has begun selling his gun-control package, which includes calls
    for a mandatory national firearms registry, a ban on most handguns
    unless they belong to collectors or target shooters, and tougher
    penalties for crimes committed with a gun.
    
    He must persuade gun owners that firearms used for hunting or for
    farming and ranching will never be banned - something about which the
    gun lobby has issued dire warnings.  The proposals are likely to be a
    tough sell in Alberta, where nearly 40% of households have guns, 
    compared to the national average of 24%.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    FYI:
    
    - the proposal calls for a minimum 4-year jail term for use of a
      firearm in a serious crime other than homicide.
    
    - many Western MPs in the Liberal caucus are not happy with this bill,
      and may force changes to it before supporting it.
    

    <<< Note 130.295 by TROOA::COLLINS "You reflect off my sunglasses..." >>>


>  Well, I still haven't seen that data, but no, a doubling gun crime rate
>  would not be good.  Since you 'muricans reject any comparison of the
>  U.S. and Canadian crime rates as being apples-and-oranges, I may just
>  do the same thing with the British stats. :^)  

	I just use it because you do share a cultural heritage AND
	they have the laws that you are looking to implement. I could
	have mentioned the Washington D.C. handgun ban and long gun
	registration and the 5 fold incresae in their murder rate. Or
	the Oak Grove IL ban and the 3 fold increase in household
	burglaries, or..... Well you get the idea.

	But for a straightup comparison. What was the crime rate
	involving handguns prior to strict registration in Canada
	and what is it now?

>If a gun
>  were no more dangerous than a knife or a bat, than armies wouldn't need
>  guns.  You wouldn't either, for that matter.  You'd be equally able to
>  defend yourself and your home with a knife or a bat.  

	Only if you confuse the terms "dangerous" and "efficient". Guns
	are efficient, not dangerous.

>But here in Canada,
>  where serial/mass killers are rare enough that we don't simply dismiss
>  them as being part of the scenery, an act like Marc Lepine's could simply
>  not have happened without the availability of the weapon he used, of which
>  he was the LEGAL OWNER, and which has no sporting purpose.

	A couple of points. It is impossible to argue against the statement
	"If there were no guns, there would be gun crime". It's like saying
	"If people didn't live together there would be no domestic violence".

	Now, the issue that he was the legal owner AND that he snapped is
	really specious. You can not pass laws that will protect you from
	madmen. ANd passing laws that affect ALL of your citizens because
	a very few of them MAY go mad is certainly a legislative overkill.

>It also *ensures* that the owners report the 
>  theft, if they are tempted not to.  

	Why would a law abiding gun owner not report a theft? Again I have
	to ask, how many such instances occur in Canada each year?

>And, the owner *will* be punished for
>  unsafe storage if the gun was not in a locked cabinet when it was stolen,

	Are owners of stolen cars held accountable in the smae manner?

>  Folly it may be, but since you self-defence argument doesn't apply up
>  here, it can't make things any worse.

	Well it can, but if you wnat to fuel a new black market trade
	I suppose it's your business.

>  Well, that sort of thing *happens* in a democracy, now, doesn't it,

	Yes it does. That's why I'm glad that I don't live in one.

>  Like in Colorado, with Amendment 2 (?) and in California with Proposition
>  187.

	Both stopped by the courts. One of the advantages of living in
	a Constitutional Repiblic.

> And the guy in Arkansas who just got forced to take his Christmas
>  lights down.

	He still has recourse via the Federal Appelate Courts.

>  As I've said before, a SOCIETY as a whole decides what
>  is best for it, and acts accordingly,

	This is a dangerous way of thinking. Tyranny of the majority
	is an ugly thing.

>But your point is taken, since I tend to be the first one
>  in any conversation to stand up for the minority viewpoint.

	Then apply those same principles to this issue.

>There are property rights in Canada, but like a lot
>  (but not all) of our rights up here, they are not absolute. Some things
>  you just can't demonstrate a need for, and if that thing coincidentally
>  has problematic associations, then it's a good bet you'll lose it, if
>  you ever were allowed it in the first place. 

	Yet you seem to accept that the legal owner of a legal item can
	lose it, without compensation, if the government decides that
	he doesn't "need" it. Sorry, that just goes against every principle
	I believe in.

> If we change our minds
>  about this, then the legislation can *easily* be repealed.

	I have never seen a government willingly give back a right
	that they have taken away.

Jim

    <<< Note 130.297 by TROOA::COLLINS "You reflect off my sunglasses..." >>>

    
	Sounds like your politicians are no better than ours. He's talking
	out of both sides of his mouth. "No confiscation", except for
	those ALREADY registered handguns that don't meet government
	approval, of course.

Jim

    I can't wait to see how they define 'legitimate':-(
    
    Bob

    ... and I can't wait to see how many Canadians suddenly turn into
        bulls eye shooters!

re Mr. Percival's .231 (long ago)

>	You see, I think that people should be punished for what they
>	ACTUALLY do. You seem to want to punish them for the POTENTIAL
>	harm they MIGHT cause. If this is truly your position, I would
>	suggest that you turn yourself in to the local RCMP office
>	immediately, because you, like every other human being, has
>	the POTENTIAL for causing great harm.

	How does imposing more severe penalties on criminals who use firearms
	in committing a crime amount to "punish[ing] them fro the POTENTIAL
	harm they MIGHT cause?" 
  

>	And has that registration lead to a reduction in crimes committed
>	with handguns? No. But there is this NEW promise from the Minister
>	that registering all firearms will help reduce crime. And you are
>	BUYING this???????

	Rock has made a number of specific arguments on this (see earlier
	postings), many of which I find credible, yes.

>	How incredibly naive you Canadians must be!

	One is tempted to reply "How incredibly paranoid and cynical you
	Americans must be!" But I am willing to accept that in your society
	guns are needed by people for self-defence against criminals and the 
	tyrannical tendencies of your government.  
	
	Some of us don't want to live that way. 

	-Stephen

    re .91
    
    You must live in a different Canada than I do....You make the statement
    that Quebec will separate without bloodshed....I'm not so sure!...There
    are a lot of issues which have not been addressed in the event that
    Quebec does separate.  In particular...what about the indiginous people
    in the Country...I have heard that the Native population in Quebec are
    not particularily excited about separating...it also seems to me Quebec
    is no the PQ's property to take away...Bloodshed is always a
    possibility when you deal with Religion, Language or Politics...it
    seems to me we got 2 outa 3 here..I don't think I would go betting the
    farm on a bloodless separation.
    
    
    Rod

<---- Nonsense.

There won't be any bloodshed because Alberta does not border on Quebec.

    
    it will when the Quebec war machine gets into high gear.

Oh no. They're not digging up the ceptic tanks again?!?

             <<< Note 130.288 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog" >>>

>    I'm way out of time synch here, but I'm getting a bit tired of Jim
>    Davis.

I think you have me confused with a second-rate, but extremely popular, 
comic strip author. I'm pretty tired of Jim Davis, too.
    
>    Jim, you claim not to be anti-gun.  I guess that makes me pro-clinton.

I never would 've guess you to be a Clinton man!
    
>    Regarding auto accident, I personally know two people who have died in
>    auto accidents on their own private property, and I nearly did when a
>    truck fell off its jacks while I was changing a tire.  Where I grew up,
>    basically all of the kids over age 10 owned guns, myself included, and
>    I personally know nobody who has been injured by a firearm.  Cars,
>    planes, trains, boats, knives, machinery, and even a toilet have claimed
>    aquaintances of mine, but nobody had died by gun.  Oh, yeah, a guy I
>    knew drowned in an oil drum.

Jeezus, Jim, you lead a strange life! And you have some unbelievably 
accident-prone friends!

Tom Davis

    .225
    Why potentially dangerous? Why not alledge potentially dangerous
    geez..
    
    .205 Krawiecki ...Sandpaper.
    Is that relevant to any previous discussion? I take it you don't want
    your sandpaper regulated. Well I'm sure if your check there is some
    regulation to ensure you get a quality paper.  
    
    
    .218 Haag...hammer.
    I don't understand the reference. 
    
    .225 Leech ... yep these notes do fly by.
    So your agruement is you don't want gun control because it's the people
    that needs controlling.
    And when your gov't figured how, without it being a 
    regulation that won't offend or subjugate you let me know. 
    
    In the meantime, I'll accept the fine-tuning of society that my gov't
    has chosen to persue.                                     
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
     
    
    
    
    
    

              <<< Note 130.292 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

    
>    i'm sure jim percival or amos hamburger can give you the exact figures. 
>    these numbers are drawn from the fbi's uniform crime reports.  what i'd
>    like to add is that these are only the ones that get reported.  some
>    (probably significant) number of gun-deterred attempts at crime don't
>    get reported because the law-abiding citizens who made them happen just
>    don't bother reporting them because it's likely that the police, who

Dick, I don't doubt guns can deter crime, but that number sounds awfully 
suspicious to me. Think about it. 1 in every 100 people on average stop a 
crime in process by pulling out a gun - EVERY YEAR! Now, I realize that a 
clerk in a 7-11 on South Halsted and 172nd street might discourage a 
robery 10 times in a year, but still...

>>>  from Dec 4, note 130

     For                         Against
    ===                         =======
    John Collins                Rod Malone
    Derek Street
    Stephen Burridge
    Glenn Richardson
    Doug Brooks
    
    ...and Chris B. is missing in action, so it looks like 5 out of 6
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  

	No I am not!  I am just so far behind in reading notes that today is 
	the first time this topic has shown up in my "next unread".  I
	would never ignore a request from you John... give me time to
	catch up and I'll post something.  For now, I'm a "for" but don't
	have time to put in a ful reply.  Only about 4000 more notes to
	waddle through until I'm up to date - I hate getting so far behind
	because you miss all the daily references to other topics.  :*(

	Chris (who has not gone AWOL)
  

             <<< Note 130.294 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog" >>>

    A) Most important, Jim Davis is anti gun.  Once you get over the fact
    that he lied about his position, the rest of his stuff is
    understandable.

Again, I'm not sure what Garfield's creator's stand is on guns. But if 
you're talking about me, you're full of shiites, no matter how charming and 
gracious your delivery.
    
I used to own a .22 rifle, but sold it 25 years ago so I could by skis. I 
used to hunt a fair amount in college. My brother is a hunter. A lot of 
friends of mine are hunters. Some of them have guns strictly for self 
defense. No problem.

I don't keep a handgun in my home because, in my mind, the dangers on 
the outside don't warrent it. Besides, as many here can attest, I'm pretty 
slow witted. I don't trust my instincts or ability to think with 
split-second speed, so if a "situation" arose, I'm afraid I'd be as likely 
to hurt myself or an innocent as I would a potential perp. In other words, 
I'm probably one of those law-abiding citizens who shouldn't keep a gun 
around. I feel pretty comfortable with a bottle of bleach, however.

I also recognize that there are a lot of folks who are more than capable to 
handle firearms with skill in virtually any situation. I say more power to 
them.

What I have a problem with is people like you insulting my intelligence by 
suggesting that guns are "just machines", no more dangerous than any other 
inanimate objects. Nobody can really believe that. Not unless they're 
brainwashed.

No, the George here isn't me, it's you and other in here who stick 
relentlessly to a technicality and ignore truth.

>    Regarding gun control laws, where gun control is most restrictive,
>    crime is highest.  In Kennesaw Georgia, gun ownership is required. 
>    They have nearly zero violent crime, although adjoining communities
>    have "normal" crime rates.  The ONLY difference are the guns in the
>    hands of citizens.

As Sir Richard Binder would point out (if he wasn't on your side of the 
debate), you "example" lacks controls. Obviously, to make guns MANDETORY 
(doesn't that bother your devout constitutionalism, by the way?) this is 
one P.O'ed community. B&E-minded folks would be out of their mind to hit on 
this town, when there are other easier pickin's nearby. Before you say "you 
see!" let me add that if ALL the communities had such a law, do you think 
ALL would have zero violent crime? 

I think you're right, arming everyone would reduce violent crime. What I'm
afraid is that while it would reduce the probability that a gun would be
used in the commission of a crime, it would increase the probability, as
more people with my handicap own guns, that a gun will kill someone by
accident. And I personally feel that the latter is more likely to affect me
than the former. 

Tom (that's t-o-m)

PS: The last I checked, the 'box was open to all, no matter what point of 
view. So if you're sick of me, tough nubbies. Learn to live with it.

>                      <<< Note 130.309 by USMVS::DAVIS >>>

>Dick, I don't doubt guns can deter crime, but that number sounds awfully 
>suspicious to me. Think about it.

From "A Nation of Cowards" by Jeffrey R. Snyder
 
"A Nation of Cowards" was published in the Fall, '93 issue of The
Public Interest, a quarterly journal of opinion published by National
Affairs, Inc.

   "Other evidence also suggests that armed citizens are very
responsible in using guns to defend themselves.  Florida State
University criminologist Gary Kleck, using surveys and other data, has
determined that armed citizens defend their lives or property with
firearms against criminals approximately 1 million times a year.  In 98
percent of these instances, the citizen merely brandishes the weapon or
fires a warning shot.  Only in 2 percent of the cases do citizens
actually shoot their assailants.  In defending themselves with their
firearms, armed citizens kill 2,000 to 3,000 criminals each year, three
times the number killed by the police.  A nationwide study by Kates,
the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that only 2 percent
of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified
as a criminal.  The "error rate" for the police, however, was 11
percent, over five times as high."

    <----- Wow! It's a good thing you guys do have a lot of guns!

    
    
    RE: .312 Jim ;'),
    
    
    But there are a lot of tools that are inherantly dangerous.  Should we
    licence circular saws?  Chain saws?  Kitchen cutlery?

    We just had a drive-by circular sawing last week.

    
    
    
    Point made, but it was not the fault of the saw.....

    I see.

           <<< Note 130.318 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "G��� �t�R �r�z�" >>>

>    I see.

What you saw was a circular argument.

    
    
    
    Actually it was more of an oval....

                   <<< Note 130.302 by CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE >>>

>	How does imposing more severe penalties on criminals who use firearms
>	in committing a crime amount to "punish[ing] them fro the POTENTIAL
>	harm they MIGHT cause?" 
 
	You stated that firearms crimes should be punished more severely
	because guns were CAPABLE of causing greater harm. You did NOT
	specify that the criminal must actually CAUSE that greater harm,
	only that he have the POTENTIAL. Get it?

>	Rock has made a number of specific arguments on this (see earlier
>	postings), many of which I find credible, yes.

	He has made claims about what the handgun ban will accomplish. The
	City Council in D.C. made similar claims. But that does not answer
	my question. After all (legal) handguns were registered, did the
	crime rate involving handguns decrease or increase?

	At lesaat one earlier posting from north of the border stated that
	the rate HAD gone up.

>>	How incredibly naive you Canadians must be!

>	One is tempted to reply "How incredibly paranoid and cynical you
>	Americans must be!"

	The comment about Canadian naivete concerned the fact that you 
	are buying into the Minister's arguments. Even after is is made
	quite plain that he is lying through his teeth.

Jim

  Note 130.298, Jim

	>But for a straightup comparison. What was the crime rate
	>involving handguns prior to strict registration in Canada
	>and what is it now?

  Robbery involving a firearm has fluctuated between 22 and 38 incidents
  per 100,000 people since 1977, showing more or less a flat line on the
  chart (as opposed to doubling every two years :^).  I don't have the 
  stats for other crimes involving firearms.

	>Only if you confuse the terms "dangerous" and "efficient". Guns
	>are efficient, not dangerous.

  You say tom-AY-to, I say tom-AH-to.

	>...the issue that he was the legal owner AND that he snapped is
	>really specious. You can not pass laws that will protect you from
	>madmen.

  You can pass a law that make it more difficult for madmen to take out
  14 individuals in a matter of minutes.  Maybe not impossible, but hey,
  when crime continues unabated in the absence of firearms, then maybe
  your `crime control' message will get through to the masses. Of course,
  crime control would not have prevented that incident, but this has been 
  discussed previously.

	>Why would a law abiding gun owner not report a theft? Again I 
	>have to ask, how many such instances occur in Canada each year?

  To avoid charges of unsafe storage?  As for the occurences, I'll have to
  look into that further.

	>Are owners of stolen cars held accountable in the smae manner?

  If they fail to report the theft, yes.

	>Well it can, but if you wnat to fuel a new black market trade
	>I suppose it's your business.

  Actually, I believe the `business' will be headed your way.  Please
  keep a sharp eye out for them.

	>This is a dangerous way of thinking. Tyranny of the majority
	>is an ugly thing.

  In *all* cases, Jim?  Should special interest minority groups have 
  their way in *all* cases, using the `tyranny of the majority' argument?
  How about groups like NAMBLA, who, you will remember, are advocating
  the legalization of *consensual* sex with minors.  How about white
  supremacists (who, I'm assuming, are a minority in your country as well
  as ours), should they be allowed to incorporate `white-only' cities or
  exclude blacks from their places of business?  How about the minority
  of people in the U.S. who would like to see the 2nd amendment repealed?
  Should they be trampled by the `tyrannical majority'?

	>Yet you seem to accept that the legal owner of a legal item can
	>lose it, without compensation, if the government decides that
	>he doesn't "need" it. Sorry, that just goes against every principle
	>I believe in.

  I have pointed out time and again that the government is *responding* to
  public pressure, and in a way that threatens to split the party along
  urban/rural lines.  The *government* did not decide this, the people did.
  Tell me, when a city or town in the U.S. makes it mandatory for all its
  residents to carry firearms, is that an infringment of their rights?
  Who pays for the weapons, the holsters, the ammunition, and the safety
  training? 

	>I have never seen a government willingly give back a right
	>that they have taken away.

  You have said yourself that there are examples where the easing of
  gun controls has led to a reduction in crime.  Sounds to me like some-
  thing was given back that had previously been taken away.

  jc

There is little or no sense arguing this issue with the Canadians, they have 
for many years been told to die at the whim of the crown or instead of
defending themselves. They have no concept that they have a right to their own 
lives and therefore to have the right to defend that life.
they will of course come back with "we can defend ourselves, just not with a  
gun." Which argument means that only the young and physically fit males
who are attacked by unarmed aggressors may defend themselves. The elderly, the
in-firm and (generally) weaker-female must allow him/herself to be 
stabbed/beaten/shot/killed because the gov't says "CRIMINALS ARE MORE 
IMPORTANT TO US THAN OUR CITIZENS".

Dick and Jim while you are doing an admirable job you are arguing what has
become some sort of religious mantra to Canadians. They have been socialized 
for so long that freedom is unknown.

Amos

    Amos, as usual, hits the nail square on the head. Good job.
    
    -b

    
    Note 130.250
    
    >what is canada's population?  what is the population of the usa?  have
    >you ever seen the results of studies that show overcrowding to be a
    >major cause of crime?  guns do not cause crime.  they facilitate it,
    >but in a country as sparsely populated as canada, you will not have our
    >crime rate even if every citizen packs a sidearm.
    
    An interesting aside here, Dick, that you may already be aware of:
    
    			Canada	 USA	  UK
    			======	======	======
    Population
    per sq. mile	  7	  70	 613
    
    Urban Population	 77%	 76%	 90%
    
    

    indeed amos put it right. we had a saying back at a different company
    when management decided to run off on some tangent without listening to
    reason. it went like this:
    
      "DO NOT jump in front of dinasaurs stampeding towards the tar pit.
       you will only get trampled for your trouble. 
       after they are hip deep in tar they will be much easier to deal
       with. you also have the option of NOT dealing with them at that
       point."

    Yes, his own head, which explains the hamburger.

    
    .323:
    
    I would reply to that, but I am fobidden to do so by my overlords. I 
    must now go take my daily dose of mind-surpressing medication.
    
    jc
    

      <<< Note 130.323 by TIS::HAMBURGER "let's finish the job in '96" >>>
                  -< I can't be bothered with suicidal folks >-

>There is little or no sense arguing this issue with the Canadians, they have 
>for many years been told to die at the whim of the crown or instead of
>defending themselves. They have no concept that they have a right to their own 

In another string, Clinton has been catching holy hell for NOT willingly 
dying at the whim of our "crown." What's your point?

>stabbed/beaten/shot/killed because the gov't says "CRIMINALS ARE MORE 
>IMPORTANT TO US THAN OUR CITIZENS".

Yeah, that's what they're saying.

>Dick and Jim while you are doing an admirable job you are arguing what has
>become some sort of religious mantra to Canadians. They have been socialized 
>for so long that freedom is unknown.

We have a lot of silly notions in this country. One of them is that the 
slightest bit of socialization is the death of freedom. Just about every 
other industrialized nation in the world would beg to differ. Since freedom 
equals rightiousness to many people, this can be construed as the height of 
arrogance.

                      <<< Note 130.312 by USMVS::DAVIS >>>

>What I have a problem with is people like you insulting my intelligence by 
>suggesting that guns are "just machines", no more dangerous than any other 
>inanimate objects. Nobody can really believe that. Not unless they're 
>brainwashed.

Tom,	Let me tell you a little story you may not have heard before
	(the rest of you can just groan and bear it).

	8 or 9 years ago my daughter and I were watching 60 minutes.
	One of the stories was about a elderly husband and wife that
	had decided to commit suicide togetether. One problem, the
	wife did not have the hand strength to operate the .38 revolver
	they owned. So the husband cocked the hammer, held it to his
	wife's forehead and pulled the trigger while she held her hand
	over his. Unfortunately, his hand strength wasn't very good either
	and the recoil knocked the gun out of his hand and it slid under
	a couch. The husband was arressted for murder.

	Mike (I never met a gun that I liked) Wallace solemnly intoned,
	"The gun that killed Mrs. Fabeetz", while holding the revolver up
	for the camera. Christina looked up at me and offfered "I thought
	her husband killed her". Not bad for a 6 year old. I thought about 
	it and decided to try and experiment. I fetched one of my revolvers,
	loaded it and set it on the coffee table. We watched the rest of the 
	show. At the end of the hour, Crhistina asked me a question, "You
	dead yet?". "No" I answered, "You?". "Nope.", was her reply. I 
	unloaded the gun and put it away.

	Now you may want to believe that Christina is "brainwashed". I prefer
	to believe that you don't have the common sense that God gave a 
	6 year old.

Jim

    <<< Note 130.322 by TROOA::COLLINS "You reflect off my sunglasses..." >>>


>  Robbery involving a firearm has fluctuated between 22 and 38 incidents
>  per 100,000 people since 1977, showing more or less a flat line on the
>  chart (as opposed to doubling every two years :^).  I don't have the 
>  stats for other crimes involving firearms.

	So it would seem that registration accomplished nothing, yet
	you still favor even more registration. ???

>  To avoid charges of unsafe storage?  As for the occurences, I'll have to
>  look into that further.

	I don't know about Canadians, but I have all of my guns listed
	on a rider to my homeowner's insurance. In order to collect
	I have to report the theft.

>	>Are owners of stolen cars held accountable in the smae manner?

>  If they fail to report the theft, yes.

	THere is a LAW in Canada that requires the "safe storage" of
	an automobile?? Amazing!

>	>This is a dangerous way of thinking. Tyranny of the majority
>	>is an ugly thing.

>  In *all* cases, Jim?

	Of course not. Why do pro-controllers eventually need to adopt
	arguments of the extreme?

	But in cases involving basic human rights? A resounding YES.

>	>Yet you seem to accept that the legal owner of a legal item can
>	>lose it, without compensation, if the government decides that
>	>he doesn't "need" it. Sorry, that just goes against every principle
>	>I believe in.

>  I have pointed out time and again that the government is *responding* to
>  public pressure,

	Tyranny of the majority, right?

>  Tell me, when a city or town in the U.S. makes it mandatory for all its
>  residents to carry firearms, is that an infringment of their rights?

	Yes it is. And I do NOT support such laws. Neither does the
	NRA.

>  You have said yourself that there are examples where the easing of
>  gun controls has led to a reduction in crime.  Sounds to me like some-
>  thing was given back that had previously been taken away.

	Correct. We have over 20,000 "gun laws" in this country. None of
	them has helped to reduce crime. People ARE starting to wake up
	to that fact.

Jim

    
    Note 130.331

	>So it would seem that registration accomplished nothing, yet
	>you still favor even more registration.
    
    It also did not lead to the annual doubling of gun crime as you
    so direly predicted.

	>I don't know about Canadians, but I have all of my guns listed
	>on a rider to my homeowner's insurance. In order to collect
	>I have to report the theft.
    
    Yes, but if you faced charges because the gun stolen was in your
    nighttable drawer, loaded, instead of locked away, unloaded, then
    you might be tempted to swallow the loss.

	>THere is a LAW in Canada that requires the "safe storage" of
	>an automobile?? Amazing!
    
    This is not what I said, Jim.  If you fail to report your vehicle
    stolen, it is an offence, and if that vehicle is subsequently
    discovered by the cops, you may be charged.

	>Of course not. Why do pro-controllers eventually need to 
    	>adopt arguments of the extreme?
    
    One might argue that you Britain example is extreme, since it doesn't
    appear to apply to Canada.  One might argue that Amos' post a few notes 
    back was an argument of the extreme.  One might argue that the constant 
    comparisons of Canada to Nazi Germany at the beginning of this string 
    were arguments of the extreme. One might argue that the NAMBLA example
    is a timely illustration rather than an argument of the extreme.

	>But in cases involving basic human rights? A resounding YES.
    
    Gun ownership is not a basic human right.  How can a `basic human
    right' not even have existed a few hundred years ago?

	>Tyranny of the majority, right?
    
    You mean, like when people say "Clinton will pay for ignoring the
    will of the people."?  Face it Jim...there are things you believe in
    concert with the majority, and things you believe in concert with the
    minority, and you will continue to believe them regardless of whether 
    you are in synch with the majority or the minority.

>  You have said yourself that there are examples where the easing of
>  gun controls has led to a reduction in crime.  Sounds to me like some-
>  thing was given back that had previously been taken away.

	>Correct. We have over 20,000 "gun laws" in this country. None of
	>them has helped to reduce crime. People ARE starting to wake up
	>to that fact.
    
    Whoops, you glossed that one over, Jim. You said that once the right is
    lost, it's almost impossible to get back. But then you quoted examples
    where the right *was* given back.  Your position on that point may not
    be as solid as you believe.
    
    jc

  Note 130.313

>From "A Nation of Cowards" by Jeffrey R. Snyder
>"A Nation of Cowards" was published in the Fall, '93 issue of The
>Public Interest, a quarterly journal of opinion published by National
>Affairs, Inc.

>"Other evidence also suggests that armed citizens are very
>responsible in using guns to defend themselves.  Florida State
>University criminologist Gary Kleck, using surveys and other data, has
>determined that armed citizens defend their lives or property with
>firearms against criminals approximately 1 million times a year.  

  Since pro-control advocates usually point to homicide stats, and anti-
  control advocates pull out this in return, it should be noted that for
  the comparison to be valid, this 1 mil/year stat for prevented *crimes*
  has to be compared to *all* crimes committed with firearms.  It is by
  no means a given that everyone of those 1 mil/year would have resulted
  in death or injury.  The crime prevented may have been nothing more than
  the loss of a watch or ring. 

  I would imagine that if you took firearm crimes that involved death
  or injury, and calculated the percentage they represent of all gun crimes,
  then that would give you a good indication of the percentage of this
  1 mil/year that would have actually resulted in death or injury.

>In defending themselves with their firearms, armed citizens kill 2,000 to 
>3,000 criminals each year, three times the number killed by the police.  

  This seems rather vague.  Seems to be a wide margin of error there. Was
  it 2000?  Was it 3000?  Who can tell?

>A nationwide study by Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, 
>found that only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person 
>mistakenly identified as a criminal.  The "error rate" for the police, 
>however, was 11 percent, over five times as high."

  The rate may be suspect due to the rather wide margin in the `criminals
  killed' statistics, but if true, this is very interesting. It may indicate
  that the police are not as well trained as they ought to be.  And, I 
  accept that it may also indicate that the average gun owner is not the
  loose cannon the media has depicted.

  And, of course, these stats are completely meaningless in the Canajun
  Gun Control topic.  This should be in topic 21.  :^)

  jc
  

    <<< Note 130.332 by TROOA::COLLINS "You reflect off my sunglasses..." >>>

    
>    It also did not lead to the annual doubling of gun crime as you
>    so direly predicted.

	You have not implemented the UK system, yet.

>    This is not what I said, Jim. 

	It IS what I asked. 

> If you fail to report your vehicle
>    stolen, it is an offence, and if that vehicle is subsequently
>    discovered by the cops, you may be charged.

	With what? 

>    Gun ownership is not a basic human right.  How can a `basic human
>    right' not even have existed a few hundred years ago?

	On this we most certainly disagree.

>    Whoops, you glossed that one over, Jim. You said that once the right is
>    lost, it's almost impossible to get back. But then you quoted examples
>    where the right *was* given back.  Your position on that point may not
>    be as solid as you believe.
 
	Look up the definition of "almost" then get back to us.

Jim

    
    Note 130.330
    
	>Now you may want to believe that Christina is "brainwashed". I 
    	>prefer to believe that you don't have the common sense that God 
    	>gave a 6 year old.

    *I* prefer to believe that when a debater resorts to ad hominem 
    statements, that person is running out of steam.  Jim, is it possible
    to disagree with you and not be an idiot?  :^)

    
    Note 130.334

	>You have not implemented the UK system, yet.
    
    Matters not, since you reject the validity of cross-border comparisons.
    Gun crime appears to have remained at a steady rate in Canada under
    gun control.  In the absence of, it may have gone up.  We will never
    know.  But steady is fine, if we can't have a drop.

>> If you fail to report your vehicle
>>    stolen, it is an offence, and if that vehicle is subsequently
>>    discovered by the cops, you may be charged.

	>With what?
    
    Failing to report, I believe.  I will look up the exact charge when I
    get home tonight, if it's that important to you.

>>    Gun ownership is not a basic human right.  How can a `basic human
>>    right' not even have existed a few hundred years ago?

	>On this we most certainly disagree.
    
    Agreed.

	>Look up the definition of "almost" then get back to us.
    
    Meow.  Guess what, I know what it means, and as it applies to this 
    debate, it means that I don't believe this legislation to be 
    irreversible.  I believe it to be *quite easily* reversible, if
    Canadians so decide.

    jc

    <<< Note 130.333 by TROOA::COLLINS "You reflect off my sunglasses..." >>>


>  Since pro-control advocates usually point to homicide stats, and anti-
>  control advocates pull out this in return, it should be noted that for
>  the comparison to be valid, this 1 mil/year stat for prevented *crimes*
>  has to be compared to *all* crimes committed with firearms. 

	About 650,000 total crime committed involving a firearm
	annually.

>  I would imagine that if you took firearm crimes that involved death

	About 38,000

>  or injury,

	About 200,000.

>  then that would give you a good indication of the percentage of this
>  1 mil/year that would have actually resulted in death

	About 58,000

> or injury.

	About 460,000	

>  The rate may be suspect due to the rather wide margin in the `criminals
>  killed' statistics, but if true, this is very interesting. It may indicate
>  that the police are not as well trained as they ought to be.  And, I 
>  accept that it may also indicate that the average gun owner is not the
>  loose cannon the media has depicted.

	FIrearms training for police IS, in general, woefully inadequate.

	But think about it for a moment. THe gun-owner defending himself
	usually has no doubt as to who his attacker is. Cops rolling
	up on a crime scene do not have this luxury. They have to sort
	out who is who, then decide to shoot/not shoot, all in what can
	be a matter of seconds.

Jim

    <<< Note 130.335 by TROOA::COLLINS "You reflect off my sunglasses..." >>>

    
>    *I* prefer to believe that when a debater resorts to ad hominem 
>    statements, 

	You mean statements like "brainwashed"? Or from an earlier
	(and as yet unanswered question) "racist"?

>Jim, is it possible
>    to disagree with you and not be an idiot?  :^)

	Well, I suppose it's possible. Highly unlikely though. ;-)

Jim

    
    Note 130.338

	>You mean statements like "brainwashed"?
    
    Well, I don't know who called you brainwashed, but I'd consider you 
    anything but.  It won't surprise you to know that in my research I've
    actually come up with some stuff that supports *your* position.  I
    won't post it though...you gotta work for it.  ;^)
    
    	>Or from an earlier (and as yet unanswered question) "racist"?
    
    Ahh, Derek.  Well, he's a crazy madman too.  Just like Glenn and
    Rod.  I'm the only sane one here.  Trust me on this.

	>Well, I suppose it's possible. Highly unlikely though. ;-)
    
    :^)

    <<< Note 130.339 by TROOA::COLLINS "You reflect off my sunglasses..." >>>

    
>It won't surprise you to know that in my research I've
>    actually come up with some stuff that supports *your* position.  I
>    won't post it though...you gotta work for it.  ;^)
 
	I don't really need it, your countrymen do though. 

>.    Ahh, Derek.  Well, he's a crazy madman too.  Just like Glenn and
>   Rod.  I'm the only sane one here.  Trust me on this.

	I figured you were all daft. Something to do with your winters
	I suspect. ;-)

Jim

    <<< Note 130.321 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>
    
>>	How does imposing more severe penalties on criminals who use firearms
>>	in committing a crime amount to "punish[ing] them fro the POTENTIAL
>>	harm they MIGHT cause?" 
 
>	You stated that firearms crimes should be punished more severely
>	because guns were CAPABLE of causing greater harm. You did NOT
>	specify that the criminal must actually CAUSE that greater harm,
>	only that he have the POTENTIAL. Get it?

    The penalty would be imposed only after the criminal is convicted, in a
    court of law, of the criminal offence in question.  Get it?  
    
    The point of this provision, obviously, is to deter the use of firearms
    in crimes. 
    
>	The comment about Canadian naivete concerned the fact that you 
>	are buying into the Minister's arguments. Even after is is made
>	quite plain that he is lying through his teeth.
    
    You may think you have made it plain that the Minister is "lying
    through his teeth."  Sorry, I'm not quite naive enough to believe you
    on this one.
    
    -Stephen

                   <<< Note 130.341 by CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE >>>

>>	You stated that firearms crimes should be punished more severely
>>	because guns were CAPABLE of causing greater harm. You did NOT
>>	specify that the criminal must actually CAUSE that greater harm,
>>	only that he have the POTENTIAL. Get it?

>    The penalty would be imposed only after the criminal is convicted, in a
>    court of law, of the criminal offence in question.  Get it?  
 
	Explaining the process does not explain WHY. You have not yet
	made a case for why someone shoud be penalized for the POTENTIAL
	harm they can do, as opposed to the REAL harm that they do.

>    You may think you have made it plain that the Minister is "lying
>    through his teeth."  Sorry, I'm not quite naive enough to believe you
>    on this one.
 
	One only need read HIS words. I have pointed out the "inconsistencies"
	already.

Jim

    <<< Note 130.330 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

                      <<< Note 130.312 by USMVS::DAVIS >>>

Cute story. I'm sure your daughter is charming and bright. And if you want 
to use philisophical arguments with all the depth a 6-year old can muster, 
you're welcome to.

No one (even the hysterical media) claims that guns kill on their own. It 
takes people. Guns just help people kill with more efficiency. They were 
designed for killing. Inventors didn't come up with the concept of a 
firearm because they saw a place in their glass case that needed filling. 
They didn't come up with it because they were bored with golf and wanted 
another kind of target game.

Your lovely daughter caught Wallace in a minor misspeak, in worse case. I'm
sure if the the assisted suicide had been done with poison, and Mike had
said "this is the poison that killed Mrs X" you wouldn't have been so
outraged. 

Like I've said ad nauseum, keep your guns. Protect your family with them, 
if that's what you feel you need to do. I have no problem with that. JUst, 
please, be careful.

    
    
>Like I've said ad nauseum, keep your guns. Protect your family with them, 
>if that's what you feel you need to do. I have no problem with that. JUst, 
>please, be careful.
    
    	Now if only everyone would allow us the same courtesy, life would
    be just grand.
    
    
    jim

>    <<< Note 130.332 by TROOA::COLLINS "You reflect off my sunglasses..." >>>

    
    
>    Gun ownership is not a basic human right.  How can a `basic human
>    right' not even have existed a few hundred years ago?

The right to bear arms for self defense has existed since man first walked.
GUNS have only existed a few hundred years(you got one fact right)
but there were discussions by Greek philosophers about the right to self 
defense.

The next reply will be an essay on the moral right of self defense
I believe many of the premises in it are held by many Americans
If you don't understand the philosophy you will continue to allow your 
"overlords" to run every facet of your life.

Amos

This was written by a better man than I, Wess Rodgers, my friend.
-----------------------------------------------------------------


The right to keep and bear appropriate arms is critical to the 
maintenance of life.  If one is to live in an environment that 
contains predators, one must be able to defend one's self.  This
begs a question, though:  is it right for one to live?  Is it
morally right for one person to live while another dies?  A 
person might say, "I see that you must be armed if you are to 
live, but I deny that it is right for you to live at the expense 
of another."  This point must be analyzed if we are to completely 
defend our premise that it is RIGHT for us to be armed.

Rather than start with some non-fundamental assertion and reduce
it to primaries for analysis, I will begin with the primaries, 
and let the reader see how the structure is built.

              DO HUMAN BEINGS HAVE A MORAL RIGHT TO
                 SELF DEFENSE WITH DEADLY FORCE?


The question reduces, in broad terms to, "What is the right thing
for Humans to do?"  In order to say what is right for ANY spe-
cies,  we have to know something about the species.  What is 
right for a dog may not be right for a Human.  The difference 
springs from the differences between the species.  So, what are 
the critical features of the Human creature that bear on this 
subject?  While there are many different ideas of what defines 
Man, it is certain that his unique means of living must figure 
prominently in the definition.  (This is "MAN" in the classical 
metaphysical sense, and includes all races and both sexes, as 
opposed to "men" which refers to individual males of the 
species.)


I.  METAPHYSICAL PREMISES

Man lives.   He lives as an individual entity, each specimen 
within a unique body.  Man is born tabula rasa - a blank slate - 
without knowledge or ideas, and is totally helpless at birth.  
Man does not have instincts that enable him to live.  (Some make 
a case for the instinct TO live, but even if such truly exists, 
it does not tell Man HOW to live.  Instinct is defined as a pat-
tern of behavior that is inherent - that is, not learned - in ALL 
specimens of a species, and that cannot be altered or inhibited 
by the individuals without outside influence.)

Man lives by taking things from the world around him and turning
them to his purposes.  This is true of food, clothing, shelter,
medicine, and everything else necessary for Human existence.
Nothing that man needs for living is ready made in nature, an-
nouncing itself to him, "Come and dine on me."

How does the Human animal know what to do with the things he 
finds in nature?  He uses his mind.  Without the mind, Man can 
not live.  He can not pick fruit, or gather seeds, or lift logs 
to find fat grubs.  He can not plow, or plant crops, or trap 
animals without his mind.  Every specimen has a mind, and uses it 
to maintain life.  Note that even though random individuals may 
live without their minds - the insane or retarded - they still 
rely on the minds of others.  Even in the case of thugs who steal 
from others, the source of their livelihoods is the minds of 
their victims.  If their providers were to stop thinking, the 
flow of charity or loot would soon stop and the infirm and the 
dishonest would perish.


II. ETHICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF METAPHYSICS

So the question remains, "Is life morally good?"  The answer is
that without life, there is no question of good or bad;  all 
questions are pointless, especially those of morality.  Man has 
but a single fundamental choice: to live or not.  All choices 
spring from this one.  Nothing can be more fundamental for a 
living entity than the choice to live or die.  Life, which alone 
makes good possible, must be considered morally good.  Death, 
which makes good impossible, must be considered morally bad.

If one would measure the length of a stick, one would use a stan-
dard of measure: a ruler.  If one would measure the morality of 
an action, one would use a standard of measure: life.  Only life, 
the fundamental choice of Man, can serve as an ultimate standard 
of moral value.  Thus life - and not just the biological func-
tions that keep his body going, but Man's life as Man - is not 
merely good; it is the standard of good.  In any moral question, 
Man must ask, "Does this preserve my standard of moral value?"


III.  THE ETHICAL QUESTION

Does this mean that ANY Human's life is the standard of moral
value?  If it does we are still faced with the quandary of 
whether any individual may hurt or kill another.

Now a part of the definition of the Human being is that because 
each specimen has independent sense organs and mind, each can
form values and preferences that are totally unique.  This is 
part of the nature of Man, and is thus one aspect of Man's life 
as Man.  To live as Man, then, each of us must be allowed to form 
these preferences and values.  All of these differences are de-
cided in the mind - in the sovereign mind of each individual.  
Anything that interferes with this capacity to decide and act 
interferes with Man's ability to live as Man.  Thus, anything 
that hampers Man's ability to decide what he wants, or his abil-
ity to act on that decision, is morally bad.  It acts to destroy 
the standard of moral value.

Let's look at a few examples.

Is it bad to persuade, by reason, a person to do one thing rather
than something else?  Persuasion applies to the free function of
a rational mind, Man's very means of living.  What works within 
it allows Man to live as Man, and maintains the standard of moral 
value.  (Fraud will be dealt with separately.)

Is it bad to force, by physical coercion, a person to do one
thing rather than something else?  Force overrides the decisions
made by the mind.  It interferes with the ability to act on
those decisions.  It makes Man live as some creature other than 
Man.  It destroys Man's life as Man.  Force is evil because it 
acts against the standard of moral value.

Is it bad to take someone's property by force?  Remember that Man 
lives by turning material from nature to his purposes.  This, by 
tautology, requires material goods.  Denying people control over 
their material possessions is identical to denying them control 
over their bodies; either corrodes Man's life as Man.

The standard of moral value applies equally to all specimens of 
H. Sapiens.  It is a contradiction to say that one person might 
abrogate another's means of living.  There can be no such thing 
as a MORAL right to IMMORALITY.  What is the difference, then, 
between a person who attacks another and the person who uses 
force in self defense?

The answer lies in the INITIATION of force.  The first person to 
resort to force is in the wrong.  The initiation of force is the 
fundamental evil in all Human relations, for it destroys the 
means of living and the standard of moral value.  Whatever stops 
the initiation of force is morally good.  The use of force to end 
an anti-life attack is good.  The person who initiates the use of 
force holds his own life forfeit.  He says, "I reject the princi-
ple of Human life as a standard of value," and therefore denies 
his own right to life.

Thus defensive force is moral because it protects the standard of 
moral value - Man's life qua Man - without which all questions of 
good or bad are moot.  The taking of life in defense of life is 
morally good BECAUSE life is good, not IN SPITE of that, as some 
claim.  The only way one could deny the morality of defensive 
force - even deadly defensive force - is to deny the value of 
life, itself.


IV. PACIFISM

Some people claim that life is life; it makes no difference what 
sort of person lives it.  All Human life is equally precious.  

Note the reference to HUMAN life.

The people who hold such views (at least, all of them I have ever 
talked to or read of) claim life is precious because of Man's 
capacity for love, art, honor, courage, etc..  Taking this as 
true for a moment, consider what a violent person does.  If a man 
uses force to deprive others of their liberty or property he has, 
in fact, attacked the very things that give life value.  If he 
attacks several people, he does even more damage.  However, if 
the first person he attacks stops him cold the further destruc-
tion of values is prevented.  The person who is REALLY concerned 
with saving the "finer graces" of Human life, then, ought to be 
the strongest advocate of defensive force.

If, as pacifists claim, all lives are equally good, then there is 
no moral difference between the killer and his victim.  All life 
is equally dispensable.  The careless waste of life is equal to 
the steadfast conservation of it.  One can kill or not, and be 
equally moral.  Murder becomes the moral equivalent of saving a 
life.  Idi Amin becomes the moral equivalent of Thomas Jefferson.

Pacifism does not hold all life equally precious; it holds all 
life equally trivial.

If anything is of value, it must be of value to SOMEONE, and FOR 
SOME REASON.  To say that all Human life is precious begs a ques-
tion:  "Precious to whom and for what reason?"  The answer is 
that Human life is precious TO all who know it is the standard of 
moral value, BECAUSE IT IS the standard of moral value.

I would never deny for a moment the value and desirability of 
such attributes as love, creativity, or courage.  The fact is, 
though, that they are precious because Human life is the standard 
of value of preciousness.  It is only the recognition of this 
that allows me to truly value - AND DEFEND - these attributes.


A BRIEF REMINDER:  As has been illuminated elsewhere, the moment 
for defensive force ends the instant an attack ceases.  Defensive 
force is moral only in stopping attacking force.  The question of 
what sort of attack justifies deadly force will also be dealt 
with on its own.  Before we could consider these two points, 
though, we had to see if the use of deadly force is EVER moral, 
under ANY circumstances.

    
    
    aren't canadian criminals much kinder/gentler in comparison with us
    ones? 

>    <<< Note 130.332 by TROOA::COLLINS "You reflect off my sunglasses..." >>>

>    Gun ownership is not a basic human right.  How can a `basic human
>    right' not even have existed a few hundred years ago?

I offer you more from "A Nation of Cowards":

           "Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility
       is it to protect it? If you believe that it is the police's,
       not only are you wrong since the courts universally rule that
       they have no legal obligation to do so -- but you face some
       difficult moral quandaries.  How can you rightfully ask another
       human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will
       assume no responsibility yourself? Because that is his job and
       we pay him to do it?  Because your life is of incalculable
       value, but his is only worth the $30,000 salary we pay him? If
       you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to
       use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call
       upon another to do so for you?
 
           "Do you believe that you are forbidden to protect yourself
       because the police are better qualified to protect you, because
       they know what they are doing but you're a rank amateur? Put
       aside that this is equivalent to believing that only concert
       pianists may play the piano and only professional athletes may
       play sports.  What exactly are these special qualities
       possessed only by the police and beyond the rest of us mere
       mortals?
 
           "One who values his life and takes seriously his
       responsibilities to his family and community will possess and
       cultivate the means of fighting back, and will retaliate when
       threatened with death or grievous injury to himself or a loved
       one.  He will never be content to rely solely on others for his
       safety or to think he has done all that is possible by being
       aware of his surroundings and taking measures of avoidance.
       Let's not mince words: He will be armed, will be trained in the
       use of his weapon, and will defend himself when faced with
       lethal violence.
 
           "Fortunately, there is a weapon for preserving life and
       liberty that can be wielded effectively by almost anyone -- the
       handgun.  Small and light enough to be carried habitually,
       lethal, but unlike the knife or sword, not demanding great
       skill or strength, it truly is the "great equalizer." Requiring
       only hand-eye coordination and a modicum of ability to remain
       cool under pressure, it can be used effectively by the old and
       the weak against the young and the strong, by the one against
       the many.
 
           "The handgun is the only weapon that would give a lone
       female jogger a chance of prevailing against a gang of thugs
       intent on rape, a teacher a chance of protecting children at
       recess from a madman intent on massacring them, a family of
       tourists waiting at a mid-town subway station the means to
       protect themselves from a gang of teens armed with razors and
       knives."

Perhaps gun ownership is not a basic human right, but self-defense certainly
is.

    re .304
    
    	Hey we don't need to be bordered, all we need is landing rights and
    some re-fueling facilities in T.O. ...just stand aside n' let us gun
    totin' beer drinkin' Alberta rednecks look after this...
    
    Rod

    .323
    
    	When you specify Canadians, keep in mind that us Albertans tend to
    be a lot les mambi pambi...My guess on the registration issue is that
    Manitoba an east will flock like sheep to whatever the goverment tells
    them they must do...I suspect that Saskatchewan and Alberta (Northern
    Terrritories and Yukon will silently opt out...in other words just
    ignore the registration...this will have the effect of instantly
    converting presently law abiding citiizens into felons.  In reality
    this will be no worse than speeding, possesion, etc.  As for BC..who
    knows!...
    
    
    Rod

    
    Note 130.345

    >(you got one fact right)
    
    Amos, please point out my incorrect `facts' 
    (as opposed to opinions) if you can.
    
    Please defend your .323 as being factually correct.

    jc

    
    
    	well jc, if you knock of the semantic argument, I think Amos'
    opinions hold alot more water than yours......
    
    
    jim

    .329 etc.
    
    I've stated this in other notes when such issues have arisen.
    
    In Canada (as I cannot rightly comment on other countries,
    
    
    We have this sort of glazed eyed approach to social netting..
    
    	...the sort of wouln't it be lovely if we.....
    
    
    In short Canada has reached a stage in development where an individual/
    minority/special interest etc... have nurtured an environment where:
    
    	OUR RIGHTS ARE TRAMPLING ALL OVER OUR FREEDOMS!
    
    It has gotten to the point where you cannot discuss/render for
    thought/research/ponder/solicit/quander anything that might be remotely 
    construed by whatever twisted hypothesis as politically
    incorrect/socially implicated/reality based/or straightforward.
    
    Rod 

    Hmmm...that kida sounds like America, too.

    
    Note 130.352, Jim S.
    
    >well jc, if you knock of the semantic argument, I think Amos'
    >opinions hold alot more water than yours......
    
    If you are referring to to his complete nonsense post in .323, then
    I disagree.  If you are referring to his belief to to the right of
    self defence, then our opinions are not in conflict...I believe that
    everyone has the right of self-defence, and have never said otherwise.
    We differ only on the long-term and societal benefits of the tools
    and methods.
    
    If you are referring to his statement that I got `one fact right',
    well, I have posted several facts lately, and I believe all of them
    to be correct, but if Amos or yourself have evidence to the contrary,
    I'd be happy to see it.
    

>    <<< Note 130.342 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>
    
>	Explaining the process does not explain WHY. You have not yet
>	made a case for why someone shoud be penalized for the POTENTIAL
>	harm they can do, as opposed to the REAL harm that they do.
    
    In .341 I said the point, as I see it, is to deter the use of firearms
    in crime.  Do you disagree with this goal?
    
    Philosophically speaking, I can think off the top of my head of 3 or 4
    considerations to take into account when trying to determine the
    appropriate sentence for a crime:  deterrence, punishment, protection
    of society from the criminal, the possibility of rehabilitation. 
    Interpretation of these and the weight given each depends on the values
    of the society, among other things.  
    
    You evidently have a problem with the seriousness with which Canadians
    view the use of firearms in crime.  
    
    -Stephen

                   <<< Note 130.356 by CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE >>>

>    In .341 I said the point, as I see it, is to deter the use of firearms
>    in crime.  Do you disagree with this goal?
 
	From the perspective of the victim, I doubt that he or she
	much cares. Your purpose, sans the hoplophobia, should be to
	deter crime, regardless of method used.

>    You evidently have a problem with the seriousness with which Canadians
>    view the use of firearms in crime.  
 
	Oh, I do believe that Canadians take it seriously. I just fail to
	see the logic in it. It is a purely emotional response, not a 
	rational one.

Jim

    .307...Beg your pardon, sincerely.  I didn't mean to mistake your name,
    	   Tom...

             <<< Note 130.358 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog" >>>

>    .307...Beg your pardon, sincerely.  I didn't mean to mistake your name,
>    	   Tom...

Not to worry. I've been called FAR worse...

>    <<< Note 130.357 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>
    
>>    In .341 I said the point, as I see it, is to deter the use of firearms
>>    in crime.  Do you disagree with this goal?
 
>	From the perspective of the victim, I doubt that he or she
>	much cares. Your purpose, sans the hoplophobia, should be to
>	deter crime, regardless of method used.
    
 	I take it this means "yes."
    
>	Oh, I do believe that Canadians take it seriously. I just fail to
>	see the logic in it. It is a purely emotional response, not a 
>	rational one.
    
    	To paraphrase an earlier note, is it possible to disagree with you
        without being "irrational"?
    
    -Stephen

    <<< Note 130.357 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	From the perspective of the victim, I doubt that he or she
>	much cares. Your purpose, sans the hoplophobia, should be to
>	deter crime, regardless of method used.

I think your logic is a little flawed, too. And from your own 
emotional/cause reasons. Assuming gun contol laws would reduce 
gun-involve crime -- and that is a BIG if, to be sure -- it likely would reduce 
death and injury, for the very reason that guns are more efficient weapons 
of power than anything else.

You're the one who told me the story about his daughter, didn't you? Well I 
have a story for you. 

While I was living in boston studying music, I used 
to take the Green Line subway to work in Brookline. On the way home one 
afternoon, after I got off at the Mass Avenue station, I saw a kid walking 
suspiciously behind a woman. I watched him carefully as I followed them
into the tunnel that goes under Mass Ave (I was going that way anyway), 
some 30 paces behind. When I saw him reach into her purse, I yelled out 
"HEY!" The woman turned, saw what was happening, and ran. The guy stopped 
and waited for me. When I approached him he pulled out a knife, saying 
something about minding my own f-ing business. I was bigger than he was, 
and I didn't look very intimidated I guess, so he apparently decided he 
didn't want to take his chances, because he just swore at me again, turned, 
and ran out of the tunnel.

Care to speculate how this would've turned out if he had a gun? I can tell 
you I'm sure as spit glad he didn't. I'm glad I didn't either. But there, 
too, I'm sure, you and I differ. 

Tom

    ...a couple later...
    
    Tom, I actually said that guns were dangerous.  Also dangerous are
    hammers, cars, saws, knives - I believe Christmas trees and their
    adornments are responsible for many deaths.
    
    I'm amazed that nobody questioned my aquaintance who died by toilet. 
    However, a two year old down the street drowned in one, so I'll save
    you the trouble.
    
    I still don't know anybody who has died by gun, although I did remember
    one person who was wounded by one, unholstering a pistol while in a
    car.  I've never been a fan of pulling guns out of holsters by the
    trigger.  Anyway, I didn't know this person, except that he was my
    sisters boyfriend.  I guess that's close enough to be called an
    aquaintance (a friend of a sibling?).
    
    The question is NOT whether guns are dangerous, but whether gun "laws"
    have any effect.
    
    Also, my note clearly stated that the Canadians are responsible for
    their own government, and their own laws.  Also that we had remarkably
    different histories.
    
    Also, Tom, I had a guy once tell me "I don't mind if YOU have a gun, I
    just want to make sure that my idiot neighbor doesn't get in a fight
    with his wife, go buy a gun, shoot at her, miss, and hit me!  THAT's
    why we need gun control laws!"
    
    Which, unfortunately, seems to be indicative of the rationale behind
    most gun laws.
    
    As for you, if you determine that a firearm is not right for you, I
    applaud your responsibility - most people don't know themselves as
    well.  This is the point - responsibility.  Somebody always has
    responsibility.  We have driver training, spend billions on ads, make
    laws, have licenses, tests, and all kinds of stuff, and idiots still
    get drunk and kill people with cars.  And no matter how many laws there
    are, idiots will still keep on pulling pistols out of the holster by
    the trigger, holding up stores, and doing despicable deeds with
    firearms.
    
    If I thought it would help, or if I thought for an instant that leaders
    of the gun-control movement had the good of society on their mind, I
    might be a lot less vehement in my opposition to these laws.  But the
    fact is, these laws (in the US, anyway) serve only to limit MY ability
    to protect my family, and do absolutely nothing to increase my security
    in return.  
    
    In addition, I believe the intent of the laws is to disempower the
    citizens of this country. Otherwise, the ban would be on handguns
    first, and assault weapons last, based on their frequency of use in
    crimes.
    
    Later,
    	   Mike

    
    re .361
    
    one less slimer on the streets?

>Care to speculate how this would've turned out if he had a gun? 
	
	He would've waved it at you and then run away, same as he did with the
knife. If he wanted you dead, he would've cut you on the spot, no matter how big
you are. You don't have to be big to kill....


jim

                   <<< Note 130.360 by CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE >>>

>    	To paraphrase an earlier note, is it possible to disagree with you
>        without being "irrational"?
 
	Give me a rational reponse and we'll see. So far all you have
	told us is that you wnat to deter gun crime. That is not a 
	rational response. You should wnat to reduce crime, the
	implements should not matter.

Jim

             <<< Note 130.362 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog" >>>

>    responsibility.  We have driver training, spend billions on ads, make
>    laws, have licenses, tests, and all kinds of stuff, and idiots still
>    get drunk and kill people with cars.  And no matter how many laws there

Tis true. But do you think it would be worse if we had no licensing for 
drivers?

>    In addition, I believe the intent of the laws is to disempower the
>    citizens of this country. Otherwise, the ban would be on handguns
>    first, and assault weapons last, based on their frequency of use in
>    crimes.

No, I don't think that's the intent of the law at all. There's a couple of 
reasons, IMO: First, it could be part of that emotional bit so often 
referred to in here; if guns scare you, than really wicked looking and 
acting guns scare the bejeezus out of you. More important, most of us see 
wackos lurking in post offices around the country as a far more likely 
threat to our life and liberty than tyranny from Washington. You may not 
agree with that, but that's the way we see it. And since we don't see US 
troops massing on the horizon like in a Karasowa movie, ready to attack us, 
we can't for the life of us see what possible purpose an "assault" weapon
has in civilian hands, unless it's at a gun club.

Tom 

       <<< Note 130.364 by SUBPAC::SADIN "generic, PC personal name." >>>




>>Care to speculate how this would've turned out if he had a gun? 
	
>	He would've waved it at you and then run away, same as he did with the
>knife. If he wanted you dead, he would've cut you on the spot, no matter how big
>you are. You don't have to be big to kill....

Exactly.

>    <<< Note 130.365 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>                   <<< Note 130.360 by CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE >>>

>>    	To paraphrase an earlier note, is it possible to disagree with you
>>        without being "irrational"?
 
>	Give me a rational reponse and we'll see. So far all you have
>	told us is that you wnat to deter gun crime. That is not a 
>	rational response. You should wnat to reduce crime, the
>	implements should not matter.

    
    	i.e., "no."
    
    
    -Stephen
  
    

                   <<< Note 130.368 by CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE >>>

>    	i.e., "no."
 
	Not at all. You do have the option of providing a better reason
	than "I want to". Or you can choose to stand on this as your
	argument. But please don't ask us to accept "I want to" as a 
	rational argument. It's not.

Jim

>    <<< Note 130.369 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>
    
>	Not at all. You do have the option of providing a better reason
>	than "I want to". Or you can choose to stand on this as your
>	argument. But please don't ask us to accept "I want to" as a 
>	rational argument. It's not.
    
    Please provide a reference to any note where I said anything like "I
    want to."  
    
    You won't be able to, of course, because, though you place it between 
    quotation marks, I have said nothing remotely like it.
    
    -Stephen

                   <<< Note 130.370 by CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE >>>

>    Please provide a reference to any note where I said anything like "I
>    want to."  
 
	ANYTHING like??

	How about this from your .356?

	"I said the point, as I see it, is to deter the use of firearms
    in crime."

   	However you cut it, this translates to "I want to". There is not
	rationale or logic offered. Merely the bald wish to reduce firearms
	crime.

Jim

    
    All those in favor of gun-control, please step forward and accept this
    wager:
    
    Go out and nail a big sign into the yard in front of your house that
    says:
    
    "WE ARE PROUD TO HAVE A GUN-FREE RESIDENCE."
    
    ;^)
    

    <- I like that!
    
       Chip

  Earlier in this topic Jim Percival and I discussed the smuggling of guns
  from the U.S. into Canada.  At that time, I was not able to get ahold of any
  stats related to the issue.  The article below appeared this past weekend in 
  The Toronto Star, and is relevant to that issue.  It would appear that 
  `stiff' U.S. laws regarding strawman purchases have a low deterrent factor.
  In fairness, though, there appear to be enforcment problems on *both* sides
  of the border.  The new Canadian legislation aims to address that by moving
  the offence of firearms smuggling from the Customs Act to the Criminal Code,
  and by increasing the penalties, as noted in the article.

  Quoted without permission, I have edited this article to save space and to 
  exclude some of the more breathless prose, concentrating on the facts of 
  the cases.  I have made some comments inside square brackets [].

  jc

==============================================================================

The Toronto Star            January 21, 1995
"Guns Across The Border", by William Marsden

- Brossard, Que., November 10, 1992: Using a 9mm Ultratech equipped with a 12"
  silencer, 2 men shoot 4 people in a drug-related robbery.

  [NOTE: This gun is described later in the article as being an `Intratech';
  gunnuts will no doubt know which name is correct.]

- Toronto, Ont., September 13, 1993: 3 thieves rob a downtown jewellery whole-
  saler with a 9mm Sigarms, escaping with $90,000 in merchandise.

- Vancouver, B.C., October 15, 1993: 5 men steal $500,000 worth of jewellery
  from a Birks store.  They are armed with a 9mm Cobray Mach 11, a .25-calibre 
  Sundance and a 9mm Glock.

  [NOTE: I'm not sure, but I believe that `Mach 11' may be the wrong model
  name; perhaps more correctly referred to as M-11 or MAC-11.]

In all three cases, the guns involved came from Wayne D. Reed, of Burlington,
Vermont.

Wayne D. Reed, 49, lives with his wife and four children in a housing
development in north Burlinton.  Reed is one of a growing number of Americans
who are using lax U.S. gun laws to obtain weapons and sell them illegally and
at high profits for export to Canada.  Since 1991, according to his own
estimates, he has sold about 900 firearms, mostly high-powered pistols, to
Mohawks who smuggled them over the border into Quebec and resold them to
criminals in Canada.

The same routes developed for cigarette and booze smuggling - river crossings
at Akwesasne on the St Lawrence River and Walpole Island on the St. Clair River
are now being used for guns.  "It used to be that when we seized cigarettes we
also found some alcohol.  Now we seize alcohol and there are guns that we
find," said Inspector Jean Brisebois, head of the RCMP customs squad in
Montreal.  Just last month, Brisebois formed an 8-man unit to investigate gun-
running from Europe and the U.S. into Quebec.

[No, cigarettes and booze are not illegal in Canada, they're just cheaper
down south, hence the smuggling.]

In Quebec, Reed's guns have been bought by drug dealers connected to reputed
Mafia boss Vito Rizzuto, west-end gang members, Hell's Angels and other bikers,
an Armenian-Canadian jewel robbery ring, and Jamaican-Canadian gangs, as well
as small-time crooks and jail-breakers.  

In February, Justice Minister Allan Rock will introduce an even stricter gun
law in Parliament which will outlaw the import and sale of almost all handguns
as well as all military-style rifles, and impose a minimum sentence of one
year against violators.  The minister is also proposing a sentence of up to
10 years in prison for people caught smuggling firearms.  Under current laws,
gun smuggling is a violation of the Customs Act subject to a $500 fine per
weapon seized.  

[This change in smuggling laws is obviously long overdue.]

For Reed and his associates, procuring and smuggling guns is about as easy as
buying groceries for home delivery.  With a U.S. federal dealer's licence, 
Reed can legally buy and sell any firearm except machine guns.  He waits for 
the orders to pile up so he can get a cut rate from the wholesaler by buying 
in quantity.  Criminals place their orders through various Mohawk gun dealers
who in turn place the orders with Reed or dealers like him.  The Mohawks fill
out U.S federal firearms transaction forms (referred to as `yellow sheets') 
with false names taken from Vermont phone books.  The weapons are then smuggled
into Canada through a border point manned by a paid-off Canada Customs guard.
The Mohawks have "a border guard at a small crossing who would phone them when
he was on," Reed said in an interview.  "For $500, he allowed them to bring
anything they wanted across.  There are guns going across today."  

[I don't doubt this part at all; IMHO, Canada Customs is rotten to the core.]

The result of Reed's trade is clear from tracing just 93 of his weapons.  An
investigation involving the help of police in Vancouver, Toronto and Quebec,
and through the records of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
(BATF) has found that guns sold by Reed were used to commit at least 5 murders,
11 robberies, 2 assaults, 9 attempted murders, 12 narcotics violations, two
suicides, two extortion attempts, and two death threats.  Another 41 of the
93 guns were seized while investigating crimes unrelated to guns.  6 guns were
found discarded in streets, bars and police squad cars.

BATF agents in Vermont estimate 800 of Reed's guns are still out on Canadian
streets.  And Reed is only one operator in the gun-running networks.  Over the
last two years, police in Ontario and the BATF have cracked 4 smuggling groups
that brought more than 490 guns into the country.  Last year, the BATF opened
investigations of 7 networks smuggling firearms into Quebec.  The bureau's
information came from the Suret� du Qu�bec's new Project Canon, a squad formed
last February to trace weapons seized by Quebec police forces.  The Ontario
Provincial Police have formed a similar squad called the Provincial Weapons
Enforcement Unit.

But no matter how many squads are formed and how much money is spent, they are
still up against relative untouchables in the U.S. - like Wayne D. Reed, who
for a decent buck will gladly bend [break, actually] U.S. laws and quietly 
funnel guns to Canadians.  

Reed has never worked in nor owned a gun shop.  Nor has he ever had an office.
He doesn't need them.  His licence, for which he paid $90 on Dec. 18, 1991, is
all he needs.  It allows him to buy and sell guns in Vermont to Vermonters.
But if he wants to sell his guns to Canadians, no one will know the difference
unless Canadian police complain. 

When two Mohawks from Kahnawake he called Snow and Gar approached him in late
1991 to buy guns to smuggle to Canada, he seized the opportunity.  He had
dabbled in the trade over the previous summer by illegally selling several
high-powered handguns to a Kahnawake Mohawk who Reed said he knew only as Andy.
Andy introduced him to Snow and several heavily armed associates at a meeting
in a remote corner of a farmer's field outside Altona, N.Y., on land Mohawks
claim is their territory.  It was at that meeting that Snow and his associates
persuaded Reed to sell firearms full-time.

Reed said he sold guns "for the love of my family.  Let's put it this way, I
was able to pay my bills and my kids didn't say, `Gee, Dad, why can't I have
this?'"  Reed sold - and one Mohawk source said he continues to sell - the kind
of high-powered pistols and rifles that under Canada's laws are difficult to
obtain legally unless the buyer is a collector or uses the guns for target
shooting.  

Despite the hundreds of guns he has sold illegally, Reed has only one firearms
conviction.  He pleaded guilty in 1993 to selling a high-powered pistol to a
person he knew was not a Vermonter.  He got 3 years probation.  He said he 
voluntarily surrendered his licence and no longer sells guns, but the BATF 
licensing department in Georgia said Reed still has a dealer's permit.

Court, police, and BATF records in Montreal and the U.S. show that the 9mm
Intratech used in the quadruple slaying in Brossard was purchased on Feb. 5,
1992, by Reed from RSR Wholesale Guns Inc. in Rochester, N.Y.  RSR sent the
gun to Reed by UPS as part of a larger shipment.  Reed sold the gun to James
Eugene (Gar) Cross, 35, who took it to New York and then smuggled it into 
Canada.  In the Vancouver case, two guns are known to have come through Reed:
a .25-calibre Sundance and a 9mm Glock.  A third gun, a Cobray Mach 11, had
its serial numbers drilled out and the BATF suspects it came through Reed.

The Sundance was one of 40 which RSR Wholesale Guns shipped to Reed on Aug. 3,
1992.  They were all smuggled into Canada, Reed admitted in an interview.  The
9mm Glock was shipped to Reed on April 12, 1992.  Onerahtase Phillips, 23, of
Kahnawake, picked up the gun from Reed on Dec. 9, 1992, and signed a purchase
order in the name of Harvey Klein of Burlington, Vermont.

Reed sold his guns for about a 100% markup and the Mohawks resold them for the
same profit margin.  The cheaper handguns cost Reed as little as $50 U.S., and
the more expensive guns such as the 9mm Taurus pistol cost up to $600 U.S.
Selling 900 guns a year could easily bring in $200,000 U.S.  Reed's clients
also ordered machine guns and plastic explosives, but Reed said he refused to
take those orders.

Reed relied on his Mohawk clients to drill out the serial numbers on all the
guns they purchased so the weapons couldn't be traced back to him, but they
sometimes resold the guns in Canada with the numbers intact or only one digit
erased - which is why Reed was eventually charged in 1993.  Last month, in
a search of a Toronto apartment occupied by a small-time named Michael Malabre,
police found a 9mm Glock supplied by Reed.  The serial number had been drilled
off, but the gun was still in its box, which had the serial number on it.

A second Mohawk gun-running network, this one out of the Akwesasne reserve,
which straddles the New York, Ontario and Quebec borders, specialized in
automatic weapons.  Clyde Cree, 23, Kenneth Cree, 17, Jason Ingle, 19, and
Allan Peters, 22, purchased more than 200 Cobray Mach 11s from Rodney Carney,
owner of Carney's Shooters Supply in Massena, N.Y.  The BATF arrested the Cree
brothers, Ingle, Peters and Carney last spring.  The Cree brothers, Ingle and
Carney pleaded guilty to gun-related charges and are awaiting sentencing.  
Peters is a fugitive living in Akwesasne.

Eric Walker, 31, a prison guard in Connecticut, ran guns to Jamaican gangs in
Toronto and Montreal until he was arrested in November 1993 and convicted last
year.  Montreal police found six of Walker's firearms in Montreal in 1993 and
1994; four of the people arrested in these gun seizures were teenagers (one
had two guns) and the fifth was 20 years old.  

In Detroit, Larry Braxton, owner of Larry's Lethal Weapons, illegally sold 
more than 300 handguns in Toronto in 1993 until he was arrested by the BATF 
and later convicted.  One of his guns was used in the murder-robbery of a 
Toronto convenience store owner in 1993.

Kevin McLaren and Kenneth Powell, also working out of Detroit, ran more than
300 guns into Toronto.  The BATF arrested both men in 1993.  McLaren got 18
months in jail while Powell got 24 months.

All of these arrests were the result of BATF's tracing of weapons seized in
Ontario.

    My sister works for Justice Minister Allan Rock. Just thought you'd
    like to know that. 8^)

    
    
    	Ok, Reed's a criminal who committed a crime. He should be punished alot
    more than just a 3yr probation (wrist slapping IMHO). Fact is, there
    will always be a Reed type out there, willing to take risks no matter
    what. You outlaw the FFL's and then you'll have criminal organizations
    making big cash selling illegally imported firearms (Russian Makarov
    9mm pistols, Star (spanish) pistols, Norinco firearms, etc). The bad
    guys will ALWAYS have guns.
    
    	Point is, let's start enforcing existing laws instead of
    perpetuating a bad situation by throwing new laws at it. 
    
    
    jim

  Quoted without permission from today's Toronto Star.
  "Gun Sentences Rarely Used",  by David Vienneau

  OTTAWA - The provinces have failed to prosecute a law that provides auto-
  matic one-year jail sentences for anyone convicted of using a gun while
  committing a crime, a new study reveals.  Almost two-thirds of all charges
  laid under Section 85 of the Criminal Code are stayed, dropped, or plea-
  bargained away by the crown, says the December, 1994 document.  A copy was
  obtained by The Star.

  "This high proportion was observed despite explicit policy in several
  provinces (including Ontario) requiring crown prosecuters to vigorously
  prosecute these cases where appropriate," the study says.

  The minimum penalty for anyone convicted a second time under the law is
  three years imprisonment, but the report says there is no evidence to show
  anyone has ever been charged a second time.

  The study was finalized only days after Justice Minister Allan Rock unveiled
  Ottawa's plans for a tough new gun control package. One of the centrepieces
  of the reforms was a commitment to amend Section 85 to increase the minimum
  penalty for a first offence to four years in prison.

  Rock wanted to convey to legitimate gun owners, who had criticized the
  government for not being tough enough on criminals, that Ottawa was serious
  about addressing their concerns.  But the provinces are responsible for
  prosecuting Criminal Code offences and the study found that 62% of Section
  85 charges are abandoned.

  Approximately 50% involved individuals accused of committing armed robbery,
  the study says.  A total of 632 such charges were laid nationwide in 1991,
  just over a third of them in Ontario.  The average sentence for anyone
  convicted under the law was 16 months in jail.

    
    
    	sounds like Bartley-Fox here in Massachusetts. I only know of one
    case where a person actually served time for it....
    
    
    

    .I only know of one case where a person actually served time for it....
    
     Must have been the only thing they could hang on him.

    
    re: 130.179
    
    	
    	apparently the gent had a rifle in the back of his car and was
    bringing it to a gun dealer to sell it. He had an FID, but had
    forgotten it at home. Got pulled over for speeding, cop busted him for
    not having his FID card on his person and her served one year in jail.
    He was the first person busted under Bartley-Fox, and I believe he is
    the only person....
    
    

    
    <------
    
    Yep!! Nothing like getting those dastardly criminals off the streets!!!
    

           <<< Note 130.378 by SUBPAC::SADIN "caught in the 'net" >>>

    
>    	sounds like Bartley-Fox here in Massachusetts. I only know of one
>    case where a person actually served time for it....
 

	Actually, if they are prosecutinh 30% they are doing 3 times
	better than the PRM (only 10% ever go to trial).

Jim   
    
    

[EDITOR'S NOTE: THIS IS A DOCUMENT ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE IN OTTAWA, CANADA, DESCRIBING THE PROPOSED NEW CANADIAN
FIREARMS REGULATIONS.  THESE REGULATIONS WILL BE DISCUSSED IN
PARLIAMENT IN FEBRUARY 1995.  
     THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN ELECTRONICALLY SCANNED AND THEN
EDITED TO REFLECT THE LAYOUT OF THE ORIGINAL.]
=================================================================

                         || w ||   Department of Justice
                                   Canada

                                   Ministere de la Justice
                                   Canada






                         The Government's
                              Action Plan
                              on Firearms Control










         
                              Canada
=================================================================





                              The Government's
                                   Action Plan
                                   on Firearms Control
         









=================================================================

















Published by authority of the Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada
Government of Canada

by

Communications and Consultation
Department of Justice Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
KlA 0H8

(613) 957-4222

JUS-669E




Graphic Design: Jacques Charette et Associes Ltee

c Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada 1994
Printed in Canada
=================================================================

                         TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
INTRODUCTION ................................................ 1
 
I    BANNED FIREARMS AND FURTHER CONTROLS ................... 2
 
     Introduction ........................................... 2
 
     Prohibition of Certain Handguns ........................ 2
 
     Other Handgun Controls ................................. 3
 
     Controls on Military and Para-military Firearms .......  4
 
     Controls on Weapons other than Firearms ................ 5
 

II   CRIMINAL PENALTIES & PROHIBITION MEASURES .............. 6
 
     Introduction ........................................... 6
 
     Use of Firearms to Commit Offences (S.85 and others) ... 6
 
     Trafficking Offences ................................... 7
 
     Unauthorized/Unregistered Possession ................... 8
 
     Other Offences, Proceeds of Crime....................... 8
 
     PROHIBITION MEASURES .................. ................ 9
 
          Introduction ...................................... 9
          Military Personnel ................................ 9
          Young Offenders ................................... 9
          Stalking and Drug Offences ....................... 10
          "Proactive" Orders ............................... 10
          Partial Prohibition for Sustenance................ 10
 
                         i
=================================================================

III  BORDER CONTROLS ...................................  11

     Introduction ...... ...............................  11

     Import/Export and Registration ....................  11

     Offences and Penalties ............................  12

 
IV   REGISTRATION ......................................  13

     Introduction ......................................  13

     Entering the System - the Screening of Applicants .  13

     The Advantages of Universal Registration...........  14

     Transitional and Implementation Provisions.........  15

     Identification of Firearms and Owners..............  15

     Screening and Access Requirements .................  16

     Controls on Ammunition.............................  17

     Responsibility for System Operation................  17

     Police and Military Firearms ......................  17

     Local Advisory Council ............................  18
 
                         ii
=================================================================

INTRODUCTION
 
     The purpose of this document is to describe the legislative
intentions of the Government of Canada in relation to firearms
control in this country. It reflects decisions that have been
made by Cabinet. It is being tabled in the House of Commons
because the actual legislation is still in preparation, and will
not be introduced until it is ready in February.
 
     There is a long history in Canada of regulating the safe use
and ownership of firearms. As early as 1877, justices of the
peace were allowed to jail people in possession of a handgun
without reasonable cause. Criminal Code controls have existed
since 1892 when the first nation-wide permit system for the
carrying of small arms was created. The registration of handguns
began in 1932. The law was amended in 1969, 1976-77 and 1991 and
reflects three fundamental policies: the deterrence of the
misuse of firearms, general controls on persons given access to
firearms and controls placed on specific types of firearms.
 
     The decisions announced in this document have built on that
history to achieve a comprehensive package of reforms. Through
this package, the Government will be banning many firearms,
cracking down on the criminal misuse of firearms, targeting
firearms smuggling and improving public safety by promoting the
safe use and ownership of firearms. Essential to these measures
is a new national firearms registration system that will provide
the foundation for effective border controls, enhanced criminal
investigations and police work, and the enforcement of safety
standards for firearms owners.
 
     The Government intends to give legal force to this program
by introducing legislation in February to amend the Criminal
Code, Customs Act, Customs Tariff, Export and Import Permits
Act, National Defence Act, Young Offenders Act, and related
statutes and regulations.

     Specifically, the government will proceed with:

o    amendments and programs for controlling the import, export
and domestic transit of firearms;
 
o    amendments to the offence and sentencing provisions of the
Criminal Code relating to the misuse of firearms, including
mandatory minimum sentence provisions;
 
o    the prohibition of specified firearms and expansion of the
authority to prohibit by Order in Council;
 
o    amendments to the Criminal Code and other statutes requiring
the registration and tracking of all firearms and their owners;

=================================================================

                         - 2 -

o    other necessary or consequential amendments to the Criminal
Code and other statutes to simplify and clarify the legislation,
and to improve cost-effectiveness at the federal, provincial and
municipal levels.


I    BANNED FIREARMS AND FURTHER CONTROLS
 
Introduction
 
     Firearms that are particularly dangerous and/or have no
legitimate uses will be prohibited under the proposed changes.
Handguns are of special concern because they are small and easy
to conceal. They are also subject to regular theft and are the
preferred weapon for offences such as armed robbery. Those
identified for prohibition are compact, low-calibre weapons,
easily concealed and often cheaply-made, and are not considered
suitable for organized target-shooting. Numbers affected are
about 58% of the handguns presently owned in Canada. Existing
owners will be allowed to keep (but not transfer) handguns,
provided that they meet the same statutory criteria as other
owners. Assault pistols will be prohibited completely.
 
     Just over 1.2 million restricted weapons are presently in
the hands of Canadians, about 1.15 million of them handguns. Nine
hundred and fifty thousand handguns are registered to about
560,000 private individuals. Registration is limited to specific
reasons, and most handguns are registered either for
target-shooting (48%), or for gun collections (21%). However,
only about 55,000 Canadians have carry permits to take a handgun
to a shooting club for use, which suggests that a large number
of handguns remain in the possession of Canadians who no longer
use them for the purpose for which they were acquired and
registered. Many owners have not fired their handguns within the
previous year, and many of these have not done so within the
previous five years. Handguns may only be registered for
personal protection in the most extreme circumstances and
numbers actually registered for that purpose are very small.


Prohibition of certain handguns
 
     Several handguns based on submachinegun designs are being
immediately prohibited by being added to the existing Prohibited
Weapons List by Order in Council. Owners of these
"assault pistols" are being given until January 1, 1995 to turn
them in to the police, deactivate or otherwise dispose of them.
Most assault pistols were prohibited in 1992 because they are
particularly dangerous, but several new models have since been
identified. There are not many of these firearms in Canada.

=================================================================

                         - 3 -
 
     Small, compact, low-calibre handguns that are easily
concealed and often cheaply-made, and are not considered to be
suitable for organized target-shooting--sometimes described as
"pocket pistols" or "Saturday-night specials"--will be
prohibited by an amendment that will expand the statutory
definition of "prohibited weapon" to include them. These include
all .25 and .32 calibre handguns, as well as all handguns with a
barrel length of 105mm (4.14") or less.
 
     Such handguns are produced primarily for use as weapons, and
lack the accuracy needed for competitive target shooting. Many
are produced with barrels exactly 4" long, so the minimum length
has been set slightly over that figure to include them. This
category of handgun is substantial. Fifty-eight per cent of all
handguns currently registered in Canada fall into the categories
now banned (553,000 of 1.15 million). This includes about 40,500
.25 calibre guns, about 173,500 .32 calibre guns, and about
339,500 guns with barrels 105mm or shorter. Those who have these
firearms registered when this measure is passed into law will be
allowed to retain them for the remainder of their lives, subject
to the controls described below, but not to transfer them.


Other Handgun Controls
 
     Handguns, like all restricted weapons, can only be
registered for specific purposes (eg: employment, collecting or
target-shooting) but, under the present system, remain registered
even if no longer needed for those purposes. The new law will
require registrants to re-establish their reason for having their
weapons every five years, failing which they will have to
transfer or dispose of them. Since unregistered or unauthorized
possession is an offence, the amendments will also provide for
the advance notification of registrants prior to expiry, and
afford a "grace period" for the disposal of restricted firearms.
 
     Gun collecting is difficult to define and regulate. This is
an issue of concern because gun collecting is the only basis
permitted by law for possessing many non-sporting/military
firearms, and because the difficulty in distinguishing between
legitimate collectors and others leaves the category open to
abuse. At present, collector status is determined by a local
firearms registrar, who must indicate on each application
whether the applicant is a genuine collector. To place further
controls and national standardization on this practice, the
determination of whether an applicant was a "genuine gun
collector" within the definition will be made by a new (federal)
Registrar of Firearms. He or she will act on advice and
information provided by the local firearms officer to whom the
application was made and according to uniform national
standards. In addition, collections will be inspected at least
once every five years, and will be subject to additional
regulations.
 
     A firearm safety course is currently required for all
Firearms Acquisition Certificate applicants. The proposed
changes would add a separate course 

=================================================================

                         - 4 -

program for applicants for handguns and other restricted
firearms. This would reflect the additional safety concerns and
legal obligations for restricted weapons. It would also allow
some reduction in the content of the existing courses.
 
     Shooting clubs require provincial approval before their
members can register restricted weapons for target-shooting on
their premises. The proposed changes will establish regulatory
requirements for the setting up and operation of shooting clubs
and the activities which can be carried on there. These will
include requirements for membership, record-keeping, national
certification or affiliation, safety standards for constructing
and operating firing-ranges, and similar matters. Obtaining
provincial approval will require compliance with the
regulations, and approval will be revoked where standards are
not maintained. A handgun owner seeking renewal of registration
for target shooting purposes will need to demonstrate active
membership in an approved club. The new law will require the
keeping of records that will make it possible to establish that
fact.

     Currently, a restricted weapon may be registered by any
person 18 years of age or older on the basis that it is a
"relic", which is defined by regulation as a "souvenir" or
"keepsake". These provisions, often used in the past to register
war-trophies, will be repealed, along with the corresponding
regulations. This is consistent with the overall direction of
these measures which is to limit carefully the reasons for
having a handgun in private possession. Those who have
restricted weapons registered as relics will be allowed to keep
them until the end of their lives, but no transfers or further
registrations will be permitted.

 
Controls on military and para-military firearms
 
     Most military or paramilitary rifles and shotguns were
prohibited or restricted by Order in Council in 1992. Other
versions may be either non-restricted or restricted by the
statute itself, depending on technical characteristics (e.g.
barrel length). About 50-60,000 rifles and shotguns are already
registered as restricted weapons.
 
     Currently, weapons cannot be prohibited by Order in Council
if they are "commonly used" for hunting or sporting purposes. In
recent years, there has been a major growth in shooting
competitions using military and paramilitary firearms which has
meant that it has become increasingly difficult to use the
present law in the way that was intended. Therefore, the law
will be amended to permit the Governor in Council to prohibit
weapons if it is of the opinion that they are "not reasonable"
for use in hunting or for sporting purposes. 

=================================================================

                         - 5 -

     Once this authority is in place, additional weapons will be
prohibited, including the Ruger "Mini-14" firearm -- used in the
1989 Ecole Polytechnique murders -- and the Colt AR-15 -- the
"civilian" version of the U.S. Army M-16 assault rifle. Those who
own these weapons will be able to keep them for life, but will
not be allowed to transfer them.
 
     A number of currently restricted weapons are being declared
prohibited effective January 1, 1995 through Order in Council.
These include: all variants of the Kalashnikov (AK-47, AK-74)
assault rifle not already prohibited as automatic weapons, the
FN-FAL and its variants, as well as a number of other
paramilitary and military firearms. Once again, those who own
such firearms at present will be able to keep them until they
die, but not to transfer them.
 
     A number of firearms that are not used for any sporting
purposes will be prohibited effective January 1, 1995, with no
right to keep them. These include variants of the Intratec
"Tec-9" assault pistol not already prohibited, the Franchi
"Spas-15" combat shotgun, the Benelli "M-1", "M-3", "B-4" and
"B-4B" combat shotguns, any variants or modified versions of
those firearms as well as several others.
 
     The provision which authorizes Attorneys General to
designate competitions for which large capacity magazines may be
used and to certify individuals who may be permitted to possess
these magazines for such purposes will be repealed.
 

Controls on weapons other than firearms
 
     The misuse of replica or imitation firearms will be
addressed by including them within the present Criminal Code
(s.85) offence and minimum sentencing provision, and through a
ban on manufacture, import and sale.
 
     Crossbows will be dealt with by subjecting them to the same
screening controls as firearms, and bringing them within the
provisions for court prohibition orders. Compact or single-hand
crossbows, which have no legitimate recreational applications or
historical importance, will be prohibited by Order in Council
effective January 1, 1995.
 
     Airguns are already "firearms" for the purposes of offence
provisions, but only require licenses if above a minimum muzzle
velocity (500 ft, or 152.4m per second). Concerns about injuries
and property damage have been raised, but some airguns are used
for legitimate shooting activities. Over the coming months, the
government will consult public health groups, firearms groups and
other interested parties to identify effective and appropriate
methods of reducing the health and safety risk associated with
airguns. 
=================================================================

                         - 6 -
 
     Flexibility to control access to other weapons, such as
capsicum "tear gas' sprays, will be created by splitting the
existing category of "restricted weapon" into "restricted weapon"
and "restricted firearm". The first class would contain only non-
firearms, for which a permit would be required, while the second,
dealing with firearms, would be subject to the full registration
requirements.
 

II   CRIMINAL PENALTIES & PROHIBITION MEASURES
 
Introduction
 
     Criminal misuse of firearms will be addressed through a
number of measures, including the creation of new, hard-hitting
offences and penalties. Longer minimum sentences are proposed
for use of firearms in the commission of specified serious
offences. New offences and stiff penalties relating to
trafficking and illegal possession are also proposed, as are
expansions to the powers of the courts to prohibit persons from
possessing firearms.
 

Use of firearms to commit offences (Criminal Code s.85 and
others)
 
     The Criminal Code will be amended to enhance the deterrence
of crimes committed with firearms and other offensive weapons;
expand the term "firearm" in s. 85 of the Crimit1al Code to
include imitation firearms; and apply a longer unified mandatory
minimum sentence where violent offences are committed using a
firearm.
 
     Section 85 of the Criminal Code provides for a minimum one
year sentence for using a firearm to commit an indictable
offence.  This sentence is to be served consecutively to the
sentence for the underlying offence. Although it was intended as
a strong deterrent measure to discourage the use of firearms in
crime, there is evidence that s. 85 is not achieving its
purpose. Recent research by the Justice Department suggests the
following:
 
o    In up to 2/3 of the cases where s. 85 charges are laid,
convictions do not result since the charges are either dismissed,
stayed or withdrawn by the prosecutor. Reasons include
evidentiary or other problems and plea negotiation.
 
o    It is difficult to prove that the weapon used was a real
"firearm" (a requirement under s. 85) unless it is discharged or
the accused is caught in the act and it is seized.
 
o    The most common underlying offence was armed robbery (62% of
cases). 
=================================================================

                         - 7 -
 
o    Sentences tend to be at the minimum end of the 1-14 year
range, averaging about 16.4 months, which is in addition to the
punishment imposed for the underlying offence.
 
o    Some judges apply the "totality principle", reducing the
sentence for the underlying offence because of the s.85 term.
 
     Rather than increasing the length of the term to be served
under s. 85, the new law will propose a different approach.
Section 85 will be retained as a general provision, and (as
mentioned) expanded to include the use of an imitation firearm.
New sections will be added, providing that when a person is
alleged to have committed certain serious offences with a
firearm, mandatory minimum sentences of four years in prison
will be imposed -- in addition to a mandatory lifetime
prohibition from possessing a restricted weapon, This will apply
to the following 10 violent offences committed with a firearm:
 
o    attempted murder (s.239),
o    manslaughter (s.236),
o    criminal negligence causing death (s.220),
o    robbery (s.344),
o    kidnapping (s.279),
o    hostage-taking (s.279.1),
o    sexual assault with a weapon (s.272),
o    aggravated sexual assault (s.273),
o    extortion (s.346),
o    discharge firearm with intent to cause harm etc.(s.244).

     In addition to these changes to the law, more will be done
to encourage police, prosecutors and the courts to use these
provisions effectively. Provincial Attorneys General have already
been asked to urge prosecutors to use s.85 effectively and many
have developed prosecutorial guidelines to this effect.

 
Trafficking offences (firearms and ammunition) and punishments
 
     Offences relating to illegal transfers of firearms will be
reinforced and condensed into new offences to support the
proposed firearm registration system. The range of offences
includes large-scale criminal trafficking, possession for the
purposes of trafficking and relatively minor situations where a
firearm is transferred without the proper acquisition or
registration documents. For this reason, there will be no
minimum punishment applied to summary prosecution cases; the
normal maximum penalties of 6 months or a $2,000 fine will
apply. A minimum punishment of one year will apply where the
offence is prosecuted on indictment.  Where the person receiving
the firearm does not obtain the necessary permits, a five year
maximum punishment would apply with no specified minimum. 

=================================================================

                         - 8 -
 
     On a first indictable conviction for any of these offences,
a court could, at its discretion, prohibit the offender from
possessing any firearms for up to 10 years. On a subsequent
indictable conviction, a mandatory prohibition order would be
imposed prohibiting the offender from owning a restricted firearm
for life and any other firearm for 10 years.
 
     Additional offences of possessing stolen or smuggled
firearms will be created and made punishable by a mandatory
minimum term of imprisonment of one year, when proceeded with by
indictment.
 
     An offence of transferring ammunition to any person under
 18, except the holder of a minors' permit, will be moved from
the Explosives Regulations, and the transfer or acquisition of
ammunition where the purchaser does not have proof of
registration under the new system will become a Criminal Code
offence. The use of other identification prescribed by
regulation will also be allowed until the registration system is
fully implemented.

 
Unauthorized/unregistered possession of firearms
 
     To deter illegal possession of firearms, restricted or
prohibited weapons, several new offences will be created. One of
these will be applicable in cases where the accused is in
possession of any firearm not authorized by a permit or
certificate, or where the accused is authorized, but the firearm
has not been registered. This offence will apply in cases where
the breach of the possession or registration requirements was,
or might have been, inadvertent. It will be punishable on
summary conviction by a maximum $2,000 fine and six months in
jail, or on indictment by up to five years' imprisonment.
 
     A second, more serious offence will apply in the same
factual circumstances, but where the accused knew that he or she
did not have the necessary registration or authorization, and
intentionally evaded these requirements. Where knowledge or
intent was proven, the new offence will also require a minimum
one year sentence on the second conviction.
 
     Finally, anyone who, without the necessary permits, carries
a restricted or prohibited firearm when it is loaded, or when
there is ammunition readily accessible, commits an offence
punishable by a one year mandatory minimum prison term, if
prosecuted on indictment.

 
Other offences, "proceeds of crime" provisions
 
     Other specific offences proposed include failing to report
losses or thefts of firearms, and making false or misleading
reports in that regard. Smuggling, 
=================================================================

                         - 9 -
 
trafficking and related conspiracy offences will also be added to
the list of "enterprise crime offences" in Part X11.2 of the
Criminal Code, making possible the confiscation of property, such
as vehicles, as "proceeds and instruments of crime".
 

PROHIBITION MEASURES
 
Introduction
 
     Section 100 of the Criminal Code requires the courts to
impose a minimum 10 year prohibition on the possession of
firearms for those convicted of a serious offence involving the
use, the threat or an attempt of violence or a s.85 offence of
using a firearm to commit an indictable offence. Courts are also
required to consider prohibitions up to 10 years for less
serious violent offences and other firearms offences, and may
prohibit even if no offence has been committed where an
application is made by police and a danger to safety exists. The
1991 amendments doubled the lengths of prohibition orders and
provided limited discretion not to make mandatory orders in
exceptional cases. The new provisions will impose a mandatory
lifetime prohibition against possession of a restricted firearm
when an individual is convicted of a listed, serious, violent
offence and will include the authority to impose prohibition
orders in other circumstances. 

Military Personnel
 
     Prohibition orders apply to Criminal Code convictions, but
do not extend to the National Defence Act, which uses Criminal
Code offences but has its own punishment provisions. The
National Defence Act and the Criminal Code would be amended to
create discretionary powers for Courts Martial to prohibit
offenders. In addition, military courts would have the option of
prohibiting the accused except in the course of duties as a
member of the Canadian Forces, in order to avoid the automatic
discharge of every member who is prohibited. The Criminal Code
amendment would deem military prohibitions to be Criminal Code
prohibitions, so that civilian authorities could enforce the
orders and continue them even if the subject leaves the Canadian
Forces before the order expires.
 

Young Offenders
 
     Prohibition orders are available to youth courts, but are
discretionary instead of mandatory. The proposal would amend the
Young Offenders Act to subject young offenders to the same
firearms prohibitions as adults for a given offence. The general
policy of the Young Offenders Act is to mitigate the punishment
of young offenders for reasons of diminished capacity and
prospects for rehabilitation. These policy objectives are not
affected by lack of access to a firearm. Other changes would
allow access to records or other information protected by the
Young 
=================================================================

                         - 10 -

Offenders Act where an offender later seeks to obtain a firearm,
or where the Crown is seeking to seize firearms or deny access
to them. 

"Stalking" and drug offences
 
     The 1993 "stalking" (criminal harassment) offence provides
specific powers to prohibit persons released on bail from
possessing a firearm, but those convicted are subject only to
discretionary prohibition under s.100(2). The 1991 amendments
extended prohibitions to drug smuggling and trafficking offences,
but on a discretionary basis only. The expansion of
narcotics-related prohibition orders was a Liberal Party "Red
Book" campaign commitment. The proposed changes would extend
mandatory prohibitions to those convicted or released on bail
for all of these offences, except where the court finds that
access to a firearm would not endanger the safety of any person
(including the subject him/herself), and provides reasons why
prohibition was not imposed.
 

"Proactive" orders, co-habitants or associates.
 
     Proactive prohibition orders may now be made where there is
a danger to any person, but no offence has been committed. Under
this proposal, the grounds for firearm seizures and prohibitions
will beexpanded to include danger arising from the reasonable
likelihood that a prohibited person who resides or associates
with the subject will have access to a firearm. The order will
be limited to the length of the order made against the associate
or co-resident, and a person subject to such an order could seek
relief where the conditions under which it was made no longer
applied. This would make it possible to prohibit, if necessary,
an entire household from having firearms where any single
resident was dangerous and prohibited from possessing a firearm.
 

Partial prohibition for "sustenance" firearm users

      Prohibition orders can create exceptional hardship for a
person who requires a firearm for sustenance. Limited discretion
not to prohibit in such cases was added to the statute in the
1991 amendments, but the change gave the courts only an "all or
nothing" power to prohibit completely, or make no order at all.
The proposed amendment would create an additional option of
partial prohibitions to allow limited access for use in hunting
or trapping. Courts could make an order fit the specific
circumstances of the accused where the accused would face
exceptional hardships otherwise and public safety is not
endangered. This change will allow courts to take account of
traditional aboriginal lifestyles. 
=================================================================

                         - 11 -
 
III  BORDER CONTROLS
 
Introduction
 
     Canada's relatively strict legislation and the easier
availability of firearms in the United States raise concerns
about smuggling, and past Parliamentary committees and the
Auditor General of Canada have both recommended legislative and
administrative controls. Thus, tighter border controls and
inspection procedures are proposed, the costs of which will be
recovered from firearms importers and exporters. Modern
data-processing and telecommunications technology will be used
to reduce administrative costs. The measures include the
tracking of firearms under a national registration system, new offence
provisions, and the forfeiture of vehicles used in smuggling,
shipments containing contraband, and proceeds of smuggling and
illegal trafficking. A number of measures have already been taken
by Canada Customs under existing powers to increase surveillance
and seize illegal imports.
 

Import/export and the proposed registration system
 
     Existing import-export controls are based on the premise
that firearms are a commodity, and subject to the same trade
controls (e.g. taxes and duties) as other commodities. The
proposed changes include a fundamental re-orientation of this
approach, by recognizing that firearm imports also have
important consequences in terms of public safety and
crime-control. For every firearm that enters or leaves Canada,
the person responsible will be required to have either an
import/export permit for commercial use, or a Customs
declaration for personal use, so that the movement of all
firearms crossing the border can be tracked. The issuance
procedure for commercial permits will ensure that crime-control,
trade and foreign-policy interests are all considered.
 
     The permits and declarations will form the first stage in
the registration of imported firearms, allowing Canada to
accurately monitor the types and quantities of weapons which
flow through the country. Import declarations and permits will
only be issued to individuals and companies who have the
necessary permits to possess the firearms while they are in
Canada. The costs and scrutiny involved will discourage the use
of Canada as a "touch-down" point for those using multiple
transfers to mask the source of illegal shipments or to avoid
foreign end-user controls.
 
     Commercial and personal imports or exports will be treated
differently. For personal use firearms, the owner will obtain a
Customs declaration form at the border, from any Canada Customs
facility in Canada or abroad or from tourist businesses and/or
hunting outfitters. The completed form will identify the owner
and the firearm, and will be used to record the entry or exit of
the firearm when it occurs. 
=================================================================

                         - 12 -
 
     Where a non-Canadian brings the gun into Canada, the
declaration, once stamped by Customs at the border, will also
serve as a temporary permit to possess the firearm for up to 60
days.  Additional permits will still be required for restricted
weapons.
 
     Commercial and other imports or exports will require a
permit, available only to applicants who already have the
appropriate Canadian business permit for the type(s) of firearm
involved. No export permit will be issued unless the applicant
has a permit to import the firearms into the recipient country.
Shipments into Canada will be inspected to ensure that the
registry information is accurate, and firearms will be tracked
until they leave Canada or are registered to a private owner.
 
     The import inspection and registration process will be
operated by Canada Customs officials who will ensure that
accurate information is entered into the registration system as
firearms enter or leave Canada. In the commercial context, they
will also conduct inspections of firearms to control and deter
careless or dishonest labelling or packing of shipments. The
costs involved will be recovered from the importer or exporter
involved, and automated pre-clearance options will allow
importers to minimize costs where possible without compromising
the integrity of the information. To further reduce costs and
improve the quality of inspections, commercial shipments will be
required to enter Canada at a limited number of inspection
points where trained inspectors will be available.
 
     The Export and Import Permits Act authorizes Orders in
Council barring strategic exports where the export would raise
security concerns for Canada, but not where the concerns relate
to the public safety of another country. The proposed amendment
will create a new delegated authority to include these
situations. Where a foreign government asks, and the export
would create public safety problems abroad, firearm exports from
Canada could be quickly stopped by Order in Council. The orders
would be made on a joint submission from the Attorney General of
Canada and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
 

Offences and penalties
 
     The existing Criminal Code offence provisions in relation to
smuggling and other border offences will be revised and combined.
An import-export permit for commercial use, or a Customs
declaration for personal use, will be required for all
transactions, and any import or export without these documents
will be an offence under the new provisions. The offence will
carry a mandatory minimum of one year imprisonment, if
prosecuted on indictment, and the same prohibition orders as
apply to trafficking offences will also apply here. Possessing a
smuggled or stolen firearm will also become a new offence,
punishable by a minimum one-year term, where prosecuted on
indictment. 
=================================================================

                         - 13 -
 
     The power to seize and forfeit conveyances or other
instruments used for smuggling (e.g. vehicles, shipments) will be
expanded to include trafficking. This will provide a major
compliance incentive for the proposed registration system, as it

will apply to conveyances used to transport unregistered
firearms, and will be phased in as the system is implemented.
Existing powers and increased fines and penalties will be used
to ensure that importers accurately describe shipments and
maintain high levels of security for weapons passing through
Canada or before delivery to retailers or customers.

 

IV   REGISTRATION
 
Introduction
 
     Essential to all of the elements of this Firearms Control
Policy is an effective system for registering and tracking all
firearms in Canada. Such a system already exists for 1.2 million
restricted weapons, but the technology used is outmoded and
inefficient, creating unnecessary difficulties for firearms
owners and police. The proposed system will identify and track
all firearms through retail and private transfers, imports and
exports. It will also be designed to overcome problems in the
existing system and reduce red tape and time delays. Fees will
be set by regulation, and adjusted as necessary to achieve
cost-recovery, and all fee regulations will be subject to
Parliamentary (committee) review under subsection 116(2) of the
Criminal Code. The proposed changes will also delegate power to
make regulations governing the operation of the system.
 

Entering the system - the screening of applicants
 
     The proposed amendments will change the present system,
which licenses the acquisition of all firearms and registers
only restricted weapons, to one that registers and tracks all
firearms as they are imported, exported, sold at retail and
transferred from one owner to another. The existing screening
procedure for Firearms Acquisition Certificate applicants was
enhanced in 1991, and will not be significantly changed,
although some further enhancements and technical improvements
are proposed. Instead, the system will be included as the
screening component for the proposed registration system in
respect of applicants seeking acquisition rights. Those who
already have firearms will be screened as they enter the new
system, but under an expedited process to reduce costs and
encourage compliance. In these cases, the use of only a basic
police check is sufficient, as these individuals already have
firearms, and in many cases, will have been previously screened
as Firearms Acquisition Certificate applicants. Firearms
Acquisition Certificate owners will switch to an FPC when their
FAC is renewed.
=================================================================

                        - 14 -

Applicants will be screened according to the following
categories:
 
o    _first-time applicants_ who currently do not own firearms
but who wish to acquire them will be required to meet the full
(enhanced) screening process, including the required safety
course or test;
 
o    _first-time applicants who have firearms or a Firearms
Acquisition Certificate_ will only require a basic police record
check, but police would have discretion to investigate further,
if needed, and owners would be fully screened in future if they
wish to acquire more firearms;
 
o    _applicants who have passed the Canadian Firearm Safety
Course_ will not have to re-take it.
 
     The development and implementation of a Canada-wide
registration system for all firearms is a major project that will
involve the initial registration or re-registration of about 6-7
million existing firearms to their approximately 3 million
owners. Once initial implementation is complete, the system will
handle up to 500,000 transactions (import/export, acquisition,
transfer, disposal, etc.) per year, as well as queries for
information from police agencies. 


The advantages of universal registration
 
     Registration will bring a greater degree of overall firearms
control, and with it a number of direct benefits: 

o    deter and control theft, diversion and smuggling of
firearms;
 
o    ensure individual and business compliance with transfer and
safe storage requirements; 

o    assistance in police investigations;
 
o    enable police in domestic violence situations to better
prepare themselves where they know a firearm is present in the
home;
 
o    enable police to enforce court prohibition orders by
ensuring that all firearms owned by the individuals have been
turned in;
 
o    license access to ammunition (further deterring illegal
acquisition and smuggling);
 
o    monitor firearm traffic through Canada, assisting
international small-arms controls; and 
=================================================================
                         - 15 -
 
o    gather accurate statistical information about firearm
numbers and ownership patterns.


 Transitional and implementation provisions
 
     The development of the necessary programs will begin as soon
as possible, and will be done jointly by the Department of
Justice and the RCMP, in close co-operation with provincial
officials and local police agencies, who will operate much of
the new system. The system will be co-ordinated with other
changes presently being made to the Canadian Police Information
Computer (CPIC) system. Implementation of the national firearms
registration system will be carried out in two overlapping
phases: 
 
o    phase one, the registration of owners, beginning shortly
     after Royal Assent, and
 
o    phase two, the registration of firearms, beginning two years
     after the start of phase one.
 
     To encourage existing firearm owners to come forward and
register their guns, a number of compliance incentives are
proposed. These will include a total or partial waiver of fees,
where applications are made early, an expedited screening process
where the applicant already has firearms or a Firearms
Acquisition Certificate, and recognition of the existing
Canadian Firearm Safety Course. Offences dealing with
unregistered transfers and possession, ammunition and other
matters will also take effect in stages, where necessary, during
the implementation period.


Identification of firearms and owners
 
     Firearms will be identified by make, model, serial number
and other identifiers when they enter Canada, are manufactured
here, or if already in the possession of a gun owner, when they
are first registered on the system. A firearms identification
number will be assigned and used to track the firearm within the
system. This may be attached to the firearm or alternatively,
for commercial purposes, to the shipment container in a
machine-readable form. This latter option will improve accuracy
and reduce the cost of tracking commercial imports and
transfers, especially where quantities of firearms are
transferred at once.

     Owners will be identified on the system, and linked to the
types of firearm (if non-restricted firearms) or individual
firearms (if restricted firearms) which could lawfully be
possessed. For non-restricted firearms, businesses will be able
to enter sales onto the system automatically, and verify that
the purchaser was entitled to acquire and possess the firearm.
For restricted firearms the purchaser's eligibility 

=================================================================

                         - 16 -
 
would still have to be determined by the Registrar of Firearms,
but the information and issuance, refusal or registration would
be transmitted electronically, thereby reducing processing
delays. Police agencies would be able to easily obtain
information about firearms and owners, and to trace found or
recovered firearms.

 
Screening and Access requirements:
 
     The new program is not intended to re-invent the screening
system, which was extensively changed by the 1991 amendments, but
several enhancements of the system are proposed. As indicated
above, the enhanced Firearms Acquisition Certificate screening
process will become the screening component for first time
firearms possessors entering the Canadian Firearms Registration
System.
 
     Provincial officials, regulatory bodies and professional
organizations will be consulted on a proposal to allow
health-care practitioners to disclose patient information where
there is a belief that allowing the patient access to a firearm
would endanger safety (including that of the patient
him/herself). Such information could be used to refuse
certificates or permits, or to prohibit the patient from having
firearms.
 
     The Canadian Firearm Safety Course, developed and
implemented between 1991-94, will be extended to applicants for
"minors' permits", which allow those between 12-18 to acquire or
possess specific firearms for use in recreational applications.
Minors' permits are also available for sustenance. The
amendments will allow access to information protected by the
Young Offenders Act, where it concerns a person who has applied
for a firearm-related certificate or permit.
 
     The safety courses required to qualify for firearms
acquisition will be subject to new criteria set in federal
regulations to ensure national consistency. The authority to
approve the courses will be extended to the Attorney General of
Canada, in addition to the Attorneys General of the provinces.
 
     The creation of a separate safety course for handguns and
other restricted weapons will also permit the reduction of course
content for other guns. The Attorney General of Canada will have
the authority to approve courses on a province-by-province basis,
allowing for some flexibility, particularly to incorporate
additional materials where requested by the Yukon and Northwest
Territories (e.g. wilderness survival information, aboriginal
languages).
 
     The administration of the full screening program is often
quite different in remote and aboriginal communities and major
urban centres. The legislation and existing provisions will allow
as much flexibility as possible to meet differing needs. The
Criminal Code already permits the appointment of local residents
(who need not be police officers) as firearm officers, and
further resources will be committed to 

=================================================================

                         - 17 -
 
assisting these communities in developing and administering the
program in aboriginal languages and accessible formats.

 
Controls on Ammunition
 
     Three major changes are proposed to control access to
ammunition and ammunition components. As noted above, existing
offences of transferring ammunition to a minor who does not have
a permit for a firearm will be shifted from the Explosives
Regulations to the Criminal Code, to emphasize their
significance and permit ready enforcement by provincial and
local police. The age limit will be brought into line with the
1993 increase of the age for Firearms Acquisition Certificate
applicants from 16 to 18. As part of the proposed registration
system, a registration or possession document will be required
in order to purchase ammunition. Until the system is fully
implemented, however, not every legitimate firearm owner will
have these documents, and during the implementation period,
existing documents (Firearms Acquisition Certificate,
registration certificates, minors permits etc.) will still be
used, and regulations will be amended to include other forms of
common identification. The authority to regulate the "storage,
display, handling and transportation" of firearms under the
Criminal Code will also be extended to ammunition, and the
regulations will be expanded to set the same standards for
storing ammunition as now apply to firearms.
 

Responsibility for system operation
 
     Central functions of the existing system are managed by the
RCMP, with local and regional matters dealt with by police
agencies and the chief provincial firearms officers. The
proposed changes are intended to preserve effective federal
co-ordination of the system, while improving efficiency and
according the provinces more influence in the setting of
national policy. The authority to prescribe statutory
instruments such as certificates and permits will be transferred
from the RCMP Commissioner to the Attorney General. An
individual will be appointed as Registrar of Firearms, to take
full-time responsibility for managing the registration system.
The Registrar will be appointed by the Commissioner of the RCMP.

 
Police and military firearms
 
     Canadian Forces firearms and firearms possessed by visiting
foreign forces are already tracked by the Department of National
Defence and will be excluded from the system. These include
regular service weapons, those in authorized military museums,
and those in the hands of foreign military personnel seconded to
the Canadian Forces or in Canada under the Visiting Forces Act.
Police service firearms will also be tracked, but by a separate
system maintained by the RCMP. This requirement, now optional,
will become mandatory.  Firearms temporarily in police hands
(e.g. evidence firearms, seizures, surrendered guns etc.) will
be 
=================================================================

                         - 18 -

entered onto the registration system, to ensure that system
searches are able to trace them. Those who possess firearms on
behalf of the Department of National Defence or the police (e.g.
suppliers, repair contractors) will be tracked by either the
Department of National Defence or police system and opted out of
the main registry. 

Local advisory council
 
     The administration of the legislation raises particular
concerns in remote northern and aboriginal communities, where
municipal or band council members may be more aware of community
circumstances than the firearms officer, who is often a police
officer from outside the community. An effort will be made to
increase the use of local officials as firearm officers, who need
not be police officers under the statute. Where this is not
practicable, however, this proposed change would allow the
Attorney General of Canada to appoint a local advisory council
to function as a liaison between the firearms officer and the
community.
 
     In addition, aboriginal communities will be consulted on all
aspects of the program's implementation, to ensure that their
aboriginal and treaty rights are respected. 


[END OF DOCUMENT]
--
This information is presented as a service to the Internet community
by the NRA/ILA.  Many files are available via anonymous ftp from
ftp.nra.org, via WWW at http://www.nra.org, via gopher at gopher.nra.org,
and via WAIS at wais.nra.org

Be sure to subscribe to the NRA mailing lists.  Send the word help
as the body of a message to [email protected]

Information can also be obtained by connecting to the NRA-ILA GUN-TALK
BBS at (703) 934-2121.

[THIS IS A CANADIAN GOVERNMENT PAMPHLET ISSUED TO ANSWER COMMON
QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR PROPOSED FIREARMS REGISTRATION SYSTEM.]

============================================================

     Canadian
     Firearms
     Registration
     System

     Questions
     and Answers



     February 1995


============================================================

          Questions and Answers on the 
            Registration of Firearms


Q1.  How will registration of all firearms work?

The registration system will be similar to drivers' licences
and car ownership permits.  Registration will take place in
two stages.  In the first stage, planned for January 1, 1996,
firearms owners will have five years in which to obtain a
Firearms Licence, which will be similar to a driver's licence
in that it will show that a person is entitled to have or
acquire certain firearms.  This will identify the firearms
owner but not the number or types of firearms owned.

The second stage, planned for January 1, 1998, will require
firearms owners, within the 5 years that follow, to register
the make, model, and serial number of all their firearms.  The
firearms owner will receive a Registration Certificate for
each firearm owned.  This Certificate will be similar to a car
ownership permit.

============================================================

The system will be computerized, simple and effective, saving
firearms owners time and money.


Q2.  Once I have my Firearms Licence, do I have to renew it?

Yes, every five years.  A renewal form will be mailed to you
every five years just prior to your birthday.  It will cost
approximately $60 to renew, for an average of $12 per year. 
Renewal will ensure that information in the registration
system is kept up to date.

Q3.  Once I have registered my firearm, do I have to register
     it again?

No.  The Registration Certificate is good for the life of the
firearm unless the firearm is sold or transferred.  When a
firearm is sold or transferred, the firearm must be registered
to the new owner.  A nominal charge of approximately $10 will
be made for the registering the transfer.  This is similar to
a car registration system.

============================================================

Q4.  How much will it cost me to register my firearms?

It is expected that in the first year there will be either no
charge or a nominal cost in the range of $10 for firearms
owners to obtain each of a Firearms Licence (starting in 1996)
and a Registration Certificate (starting in 1998).  There will
be an incentive to register early (on the respective starting
dates) with costs increasing on a sliding scale over the 5-
year registration period.

Q5.  I own many firearms.  Do I have to pay to register each
     firearm or will there be a volume discount?

Yes, there will be volume discounts.  For example, the cost
for registering up to ten firearms will be the same as for
one.

============================================================

Q6.  What if I have a FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate)? 
     Do I still need to get a Firearms Licence and
     Registration Certificate?

An FAC will be good until its 5-year expiry date.  During this
period, no Firearms Licence is required.  When the FAC is
expiring and you still possess firearms you must then obtain
a Firearms Licence sometime before the expiry date of the FAC.

Q7.  Where do I register?

Registration applications for the Firearms Licence and
Registration Certificate will be available at post offices and
other public places conveniently located in the community. 
Those who own firearms, and who wish to keep them, will be
able to obtain their firearms Licence and a Registration
Certificate by mailing in the applications.  The renewal
licence and certificate will be sent directly to the
applicant.

============================================================

Q8.  Will I need to register my ammunition?

No.

Q9.  How does the registration system affect the purchase of
     ammunition?

There will be no requirement to register ammunition.  Nor will
there be any limit on the amount of ammunition you can buy. 
However, you will be required to produce identification, and
when the new system is in place, there will be a requirement
to present your Firearms Licence when buying ammunition.

Q10. Do I need to take the firearms course again?

Those who now own firearms, do not intend to acquire any more,
and are simply applying to obtain a Firearms Licence or
Registration Certificate need not take any course to do so.

Those who wish to acquire a firearm, and who have already
completed the Canadian Firearms Safety Course, or any course
or test approved by

============================================================

the Attorney General of a province between January 1, 1993 and
January 1, 1995, will not have to take another course.

As is the case at present, if you wish to acquire a firearm
and have not taken such a course, you will have to take the
Canadian Firearms Safety Course.

Q11. Some people say that it is going to cost anywhere from
     $500 million to $4.5 billion for the government to set up
     the registration system.  Is this true?

No.  To set up the system will cost approximately $85 million,
spread over seven years, which will be recovered over time
from the fees referred to above.

Q12. If I am an aboriginal person, do I still have to
     register?

Yes.  The firearms registration system will apply equally to
all persons, but it will be implemented in a way that is
sensible and sensitive to the aboriginal way of life.  For
example, measures are being taken to involve native people in
implementing the program.

Q13. How will registration provide any deterrent to criminal
     activity?  Criminals will not register their firearms.

It is true that street criminals do not register their
firearms.  The police report that criminals get their firearms
on the "underground market", which is fed by smuggled and
stolen firearms.  Registration will help eliminate those two
sources of supply and will help track the point at which the
firearms enter the "illegal market".

Police will be able to use registration information in
criminal investigations and in planning the strategy to
respond to domestic violence calls.

By registering all firearms entering the country, firearms
will be tracked from import to the hands of the registered
owner.  Registration will also encourage compliance with safe
storage laws already on the books, thus reducing the 

============================================================


theft of firearms from homes.  The result will be fewer
firearms on the underground market, and it will be more
difficult for criminals to acquire illegal firearms.

Q14. Registration has been tried and abandoned in other
     countries like New Zealand.  Why are you trying it here?

The system tried in New Zealand pre-dated modern computer
systems and involved hand-written documents.  The system we
will introduce will be based on state-of-the-art technology.

Q15. You have said registration would be user-friendly.  How
     are you making it easier for me?

The system will be user-friendly and easy.  Firearm owners
will have ample time to obtain both their Firearms Licence and
Registration Certificate.  Most owners will be able to mail in
the required forms after picking them up at a post office or
other public place.  The Firearms

============================================================

Licence and Registration Certificate will be similar in
appearance to a bank or credit card.

Q16. What will be the impact of the new firearms legislation
     on visitors from the USA or abroad who may wish to come
     to Canada to hunt or compete in shooting competitions?

Individuals visiting Canada to hunt or take part in shooting
competitions will require a temporary Firearms Licence and a
Registration Certificate to bring a firearm into the country. 
A Customs Firearms Declaration will act as a 60-day licence
and certificate and will be validated at the border.

These declarations will be readily available to visitors
through Canadian Tourism Offices abroad and at outfitters,
shooting clubs and hunting organizations.

There will be opportunities for non-residents to apply in
advance to speed up the process at the border.

============================================================

In the case of sporting clubs, as has always been the case,
the requirements can be met before crossing the border,
through Canadian clubs and associations.  An authorization to
transport will be issued at the same time.

[END OF DOCUMENT]
--
This information is presented as a service to the Internet community
by the NRA/ILA.  Many files are available via anonymous ftp from
ftp.nra.org, via WWW at http://www.nra.org, via gopher at gopher.nra.org,
and via WAIS at wais.nra.org

Be sure to subscribe to the NRA mailing lists.  Send the word help
as the body of a message to [email protected]

Information can also be obtained by connecting to the NRA-ILA GUN-TALK
BBS at (703) 934-2121.

[THIS IS A SERIES OF SLIDES PRESENTED IN LATE 1994 BY THE CANADIAN
GOVERNMENT TO INTRODUCE THEIR NEW FIREARMS RESTRICTIONS]

============================================================


THE GOVERNMENT'S 
ACTION PLAN ON 
FIREARMS CONTROL

Department of Justice -- Canada
November 30, 1994


============================================================

PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR VARIOUS
FIREARMS CONTROL MEASURES IS
CONSISTENTLY HIGH (Cont'd)

1)   96% of Canadians surveyed support increased penalities
for using a firearm in a crime*

2)   90% of Canadians surveyed favour registration of all
firearms, including 85% of those surveyed in the west*

3)   67% of Canadians surveyed support a ban on the civilian
ownership of handguns*

4)   75% of Canadians surveyed favour restricted access to
ammunition*

*    Environics Poll (October 1994)

[ACCOMPANYING GRAPH SHOWS PERCENTAGES MENTIONED IN ABOVE
PARAGRAPHS]

============================================================

ON AVERAGE, 1400 CANADIANS ARE KILLED EVERY YEAR IN HOMICIDES,
SUICIDES AND ACCIDENTS INVOLVING FIREARMS

27 deaths by firearms each week:

     21 are suicides
     4 are homicides; at least one of these is a woman;
     almost always killed in her home by someone she knows
     2 include firearms accidents and unknown situations

[SKETCH OF CITY BUILDINGS]
     Large Canadian Cities
     (mostly armed robberies)

[SILHOUETTE OF FARM BUILDINGS]
     Homicide Rate 50% higher 
     in rural areas

============================================================

FIREARMS OWNERSHIP  

o    3 Million Firearms Owners

o    7 Million Firearms
          1.2 Million are registered as restricted weapons

o    1993:     3,800 firearms reported lost or stolen

o    1974-1993:     65,000 cumulative reported missing, lost
                    or stolen and have never been recovered

o    An unknown number of firearms enter the country illegally
     each year and are unregistered

============================================================

CANADIANS WANT

o    Action to stop the influx of illegal firearms from
     outside Canada

o    A Criminal Justice system that condemns the criminal use
     of firearms

o    Bans on military type assault weapons

o    Tighter controls on acquisition of firearms in general
     and handguns in particular, and reassurance that firearms
     are securely stored, especially in the home

o    A country where people don't feel they need to arm
     themselves for protection

============================================================

PLAN IS ORGANIZED AROUND 
THREE THEMES

(1)  Strengthen control on borders and firearms 

(2)  Measures to deal with the criminal use of firearms

(3)  Enhanced controls on legal ownership


============================================================

THEME 1: CONTROL OF BORDERS AND FIREARMS

o    1988-93: $1.8 billion of firearms, amunition and gun
     parts were imported

o    300-375,000 non-military type firearms imported annually
     and 60,000 exported annually

o    Hundreds of thousands of firearms are transshipped
     through Canada every year--this activity up 300% in the
     past six years--inadequate controls / possibility of
     leakage

============================================================

THEME 1: CONTROL OF BORDERS AND FIREARMS
(Cont'd)

o    Significant initiatives undertaken by Justice, Customs,
     Solicitor General and Foreign affairs to develop
     solutions

o    Much has been done in recent months by Minister of
     Revenue to tighten administrative and program practices

o    Under the Anti-Smuggling Initiative (ASI) examination
     rates have been increased

o    Enhanced procedures have resulted in thousands more
     checks occurring at borders and firearms seizures
     increased since implementation

============================================================

THEME 1: CONTROL OF BORDERS AND FIREARMS
(Cont'd)

Recent steps by Minister of Revenue:

o    Greater document inspection

o    Greater inspection of shipments

o    Review of warehouse security

o    Improved systems to track shipments

o    Improved intelligence to combat organized crime

o    Police forces are working cooperatively on tracing
     illegal firearms

============================================================

THEME 1: CONTROL OF BORDERS AND FIREARMS
(Cont'd)

Our plan:

1.   All commercial shipments of firearms will require an
     approved permit and wil be recorded on entering and
     leaving Canada

2.   All individual firearms wil be registered as they enter
     or leave Canada

3.   Clarify roles and responsibilities of police and Customs
     officials

4.   In transit shipments of firearms will be controlled and
     the movement of prohibited weapons and ammunition will be
     prohibited

============================================================

THEME 1: CONTROL OF BORDERS AND FIREARMS
(Cont'd)

5.   Wider range of offences and penalities to deal with
     trafficking and smuggling, and stiff minimum sentences

6.   Registration system to track legal firearms which will
     enable the identification of illegal firearms

7.   Fees levied to recover costs of inspections and
     registering firearms

============================================================

THEME 2: CRIMINAL USE OF FIREARMS  

o    Public demands stronger measures to deal with criminal
     use of firearms

o    Environics Poll (Oct. 94) -- 96% of respondents support
     increased penalities for the use of a firearm in the
     commission of a crime.  The levels of support
     consistently high across the country, and across various
     socio-demographic groups

o    Proposing tough and extensive new measures

============================================================

THEME 2: CRIMINAL USE OF FIREARMS
(Cont'd)

Use of firearm to commit offenses (Section 85):

o    Not easy to use this section as now stands, and many
     cases do not result in conviction

o    Will expand the scope to include imitation firearm

o    _Severe mandatory minimum sentences of four years_ for
     specific offences committed with a firearm (but parole
     still applies)

          -- _10 Key Offences:_ Attempted murder,
     manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death, robbery,
     kidnapping, hostage-taking, sexual assault with a weapon,
     aggravated sexual assalt, extortion, discharge firearm
     with intent to cause harm

          -- Lifetime prohibition from possessing a restricted
     weapon upon for conviction for these offenses

============================================================

THEME 2: CRIMINAL USE OF FIREARMS
(Cont'd)

Mandatory minimum of one year (on indictment) for the
following new offenses:

o    Possession of loaded handgun (or unloaded with ammunition
     in reach)

o    Possession of stolen or smuggled firearms

o    Trafficking / Possession of unregistered firearm for
     purpose of trafficking


============================================================

THEME 2: CRIMINAL USE OF FIREARMS
(Cont'd)

Other specific offences proposed include:

o    Failing to report losses or thefts

o    Smuggling, trafficking and related conspiracy offenses to
     be added to enterprise crime offenses, maing possible the
     confiscation of proceeds as "proceeds of crime"

Will develop training and communications packages for police,
prosecuters, and courts to use these and other new provisions
more effectively

============================================================

THEME 2: CRIMINAL USE OF FIREARMS
(Cont'd)

Prohibition Orders:

o    Prohibition orders will now be permitted for Court
     Martial under the _National Defense Act_

o    _Young Offenders Act_ will subject young offenders to the
     same prohibitions as adults for a given offense

o    Allow access to records or other information protected by
     the _Young Offenders Act_ where an offender later seeks
     to obtain a firearm

o    Propose to extend mandatory prohibitions to those
     convicted or released on bail for stalking or drug
     trafficking offenses

============================================================

THEME 3: CONTROLS ON LEGAL OWNERSHIP

o    Registration System -- Supports all three themes

o    Ammunition Controls

o    Increased Handgun Controls

o    Military and Paramilitary Firearms


============================================================

NATIONAL FIREARMS REGISTRATION SYSTEM

Why Register?

o    Tracking firearms used in crime -- you cannot tell the
     illegal ones if you do not know the legal ones

o    Enhance the ability of the police to protect themselves
     in answering domestic calls, enforcing prohibition orders

o    We register many things for administrative purposes, so
     why not register firearms when they affect the public
     health of the nation

o    Promote compliance with safe storage

============================================================

NATIONAL FIREARMS REGISTRATION SYSTEM
(Cont'd)

_Affects all Firearm Owners:_

     o    Persons who own, possess and use any kind of
          firearms


_Affects all Firearms except those of the Canadian Armed
Forces:_

     o    Prohibited, restricted and non-restricted

============================================================

NATIONAL FIREARMS REGISTRATION SYSTEM
(Cont'd)

_How Registration Will Work:_

Simple, quick, cost-effective and user-friendly!

Impact of first change on public in 1996 with start of FPC,
guns in 1998 with start of the FRC

o    Gradual transition to new system over 7 years

o    At start-up, mail-in registration for people and guns

o    Machine readable plastic cards to promote accuracy

o    Elimination of multiple forms now required

o    Direct computer access by police agencies


============================================================

NATIONAL FIREARMS REGISTRATION SYSTEM
(Cont'd)

_How Registration Will Work:_ (Cont'd)

o    Every firearm will be issued an attachable "FIN" (Firearm
     Identification Number) identifier when the firearm is
     imported or when the firearm is manufactured in Canada

o    Facilitates commercial tracking to point of retail

o    Facilitates efficient and cost effective transfers
     between individuals

o    Every firearm will be recorded at point of entry if
     imported or at point of manufacture if manufactured in
     Canada

============================================================

NATIONAL FIREARMS REGISTRATION SYSTEM
(Cont'd)

[CHART DIVIDED INTO TWO HORIZONTAL SECTIONS, WITH ARROWS
LEADING FROM LEFT SECTION TO RIGHT SECTION]

[LEFT SECTION] Current

FAC ------------------->[LEADING TO EACH FPC]


[RIGHT SECTION] Starting in 1996 

-->FPC1:  Minor--No Acquisition Rights

-->FPC2:  Possessor, Long Gun--No Acquisition Rights

-->FPC3:  Possessor, Long Gun--Acquisition Rights

-->FPC4:  Possessor, Restricted Weapons--No Acquisition Rights

-->FPC5:  Possessor, Restricted Weapons--Acquisition Rights


============================================================


NATIONAL FIREARMS REGISTRATION SYSTEM
(Cont'd)

[FLOWCHART WITH ACCOMPANYING TEXT, DIVIDED INTO TWO HORIZONTAL
SECTIONS]

[LEFT SECTION] Firearms Possessors Registry

[BALLOON 1]
Provinces and Territories will build on the FAC system to run
the FPC system
     /\
     |
     |
     \/
[BALLOON 2]
FPC number will link the person, all permits and the firearms
     /\
     |
     |
     \/
[RIGHT SECTION] Firearms Registry
[BALLOON 3]
_New Firearms Registry_
To be operated by RCMP, will not duplicate information held by
provinces and territories

============================================================

FIREARMS POSSESSION CERTIFICATE

[PHOTO OF CERTIFICATE CARD, RESEMBLES A DRIVER'S LICENSE WITH
PICTURE]

EVERY FIREARM OWNER WILL BE ISSUED A FIREARMS POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE (FPC)

o    The Magnetic Swipe Portion will carry: name and date of
birth of holder, other identifying information

o    The Two Dimensional (2D) Bar Code will carry the
following Information:  Name and date of birth of the holder,
firearm Possession Certificate Number, Class of "FPC"


============================================================

FIREARM REGISTRATION CARD

[PHOTO OF REGISTRATION CARD, RESEMBLES A DRIVER'S LICENSE
WITHOUT PICTURE]

o    The two-dimensional (2D) Bar Code will carry the
following information: FRC number, Country of origin, class,
type, make, model, serial number, modification, other
identifiers of the firearm, the issued Firearms Identification
Number (FIN), FPC number of the owner to whom this card was
issued

o    The FRC will be made of plastic and similar to common
credit card

============================================================

NATIONAL FIREARMS REGISTRATION SYSTEM
(Cont'd)

The transfer of a firearm from one person/agency to another
person/agency can be done:

o    By on-line direct entry to the Firearms Registraton
System via the CPIC Network if the transaction is performed at
a police agency...or

o    At approved and particiated firearms retail outlets via
comercial business networks

============================================================

AMMUNITION CONTROLS

o    Will be introducing controls into the _Criminal Code_

o    Must be age 18 and identification will be required -
     ultimately tie into FPC

o    New offences to control illegal sale or possession

============================================================

INCREASED HANDGUN CONTROLS

Canadians concerned about personal handgun possession (950,000
owned by 560,000 people):

o    Recent Environics Poll (Oct. 94) -- 67% strongly or
somewhat support preventing civilian ownership of handguns

o    Handguns now account for almost one-half of firearm
homicides

o    Don't want Canadians arming for self-protection

o    Handguns not allowed for hunting in Canada

============================================================

INCREASED HANDGUN CONTROLS
(Cont'd)

_Key Approaches:_

o    Will continue to allow Canadians to possess handguns for
     certain legitimate purposes--i.e., target shooting and
     collecting

o    Measures to reduce number of handguns in circulation that
     are not suitable for these legitimate purposes

_Results:_

o    Over time, significantly fewer handguns

o    Remaining handguns will be in safer hands

============================================================

INCREASED HANDGUN CONTROLS
(Cont'd)

_Plan:_

(1)  Amend _Criminal Code_ to ban further import, sale, or
manufacture of:

o    .25 and .32calibre handguns, AND

o    all other calibres with barrel lengths of 105mm and under
     (just over 4 inches)

These are calibres and barrel lengths that are designed and
marketed primarily for self-defence:

o    small, cheap, very easily concealed

o    Ban will not affect legitimate target shooting or
     collecting interests

o    Will grandfather owners for life but no transfers or
     sales

o    Will come into effect when legislation is passed

============================================================

INCREASED HANDGUN CONTROLS
(Cont'd)

_Results:_                    _No. on Register_

All .25 Calibre                40,800
All .32 Calibre               174,825

Barrel lengths of 105mm and under:

.22 Calibre                    85,702
.30 Calibre                     1,075
.38 Calibre                   135,576
Other Calibres                117,261
     Grand Total              555,239


============================================================

INCREASED HANDGUN CONTROLS
(Cont'd)

(2)  Certain assault pistols will be outrightly prohibited. 
Should not be grandfathered, compensation will be paid.  Few
in number, under 75 in registry.


============================================================

INCREASED HANDGUN CONTROLS
(Cont'd)

(3)  Collectors:

o    Close "relic" category--existing registration will be
     grandfathered

o    Compulsory periodic inspections--cost-recovery fee

o    Increased storage requirement for large collections

o    If more than certain number of transactions per year,
     more costly transaction fee


============================================================

INCREASED HANDGUN CONTROLS
(Cont'd)

Special application form to help enforce _Criminal Code_
requirements for collectors:

o    Collection must have historical, technical or scientific
     characteristics

o    Collector must have knowledge of those

o    Consent to reasonable periodic inspections

o    Record keeping

o    Secure storage

Create breach of regulations penalty

============================================================

INCREASED HANDGUN CONTROLS
(Cont'd)

(4)  Will tighten controls on shooting clubs--Now 1,040 gun
clubs approved by AGs across Canada.  Must be approved by AG
but there are no national standards.

o    Will develop national accrediation standards for gun
clubs and put these into regulations, in collaboration with
firearms sporting groups

o    Expand AG powers to include revocation and inspection
powers

o    Links to permit process
     --   Permit to carry with proof of club membership and
          participation
     --   Verified annually--e.g., reporting requirement by 
          clubs

============================================================

INCREASED HANDGUN CONTROLS
(Cont'd)

(5)  Will introduce Canadian handgun training requirements for
persons wishing to acquire handguns or employees who handle
handguns

o    A handgun safety training course including range practice
     will be developed in co-operation with firearms groups

(6)  Registration process will require that reasons for every
handgun registered be re-validated every 5 years when FPC is
renewed

============================================================

INCREASED HANDGUN CONTROLS
(Cont'd)

(7)  Cost-recovery fee structure starting 1996

(8)  Preemptive review process (Permit to Import) prior to
entry to Canada will clarify status of guns before
availability on market

============================================================

MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY FIREARMS

o    Designed for military, police, or other enforcement
agency

o    High lethality

o    Fully-automatic (1978) and converted fully-automatic
(1992) already prohibited and owners grandfathered

o    Over 200 other types were prohibited or restricted in
1992

============================================================

MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY FIREARMS
(Cont'd)

Military/Paramilitary Firearms Possessed by Individuals in
Canada:

Now Prohiited and Grandfathered:

o    Fully Automatics                        2,761
o    Converted Fully-Automatics              4,763
o    Firearms Under Prohibited Weapons
     Order #12--e.g., Uzi, Steyr-Aug         1,580

Now Restricted:

o    AK-47 and variants                      4,091
o    Colt AR-15 and variants                 5,798
o    FN-FAL and variants                     6,000
o    Other Restricted Weapons                3,081
     TOTAL                                   28,074


============================================================

MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY FIREARMS
(Cont'd)

_Plan:_

(1)  Use Order In council power to prohibit 21 types
previously restricted

o    These are direct copies or generic copies, in semi-
     automatic version, of military firearms

o    Of interest primarily to military collectors

o    Not commonly used for hunting and target shooting

o    Grandfather existing owners but no transfer or sales

============================================================

MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY FIREARMS
(Cont'd)

_Rifles and Carbines:_

1. AK-47 and variants                                  4091
2. Armalite AR-180                                      199
3. Auto-Ordinance M27A1/M1927A-3                        975
4. Beretta AR-70                                         15
5. Bushmaster Assault Rifle                              23
6. Cetme Sporter                                          1
7. Commando Arms Carbine                                 71
8. Daewoo K-1, K-2, MAX-1, MAX-2, AR-100, AR-110C       318
9. Demro Tac-1M Carbine                                  23
10. Eagle "Apache" Carbine                               11
11. FN-FAL and variants and 
12. FNC-11, 22, 33                                     6000
13. Galil                                               571
14. Gonez High-Tech Carbine (now called Claridge High-Tech)
                                                          0
15. Heckler and Koch HK-91                              808
16. J&R Eng M-68/PJK-M-LF                                 1
17. Leader Mark 5 Auto Rifle                              8
18. SIG AMT, PE-57                                       16
19. SIG SG-550/SG-551                                    31
20. Springfield Armoury--BM-59                            4
21. Springfield SAR-48                                    8


MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY FIREARMS
(Cont'd)

(2)  Some paramilitary or military firearms cannot be
prohibited now because of statutory limitations on Order in
council power..."not _commonly_ used for hunting or sporting
purposes"

o    Will act on those firearms once the Bill is passed e.g.
Colt AR-15, Ruger Mini-14

(3)  Will outrightly prohibit as of Jan. 1, 1995, a series of
assault pistols and military  rifles and combat shotguns--no
grandfathering for these weapons but will compensate.  Numbers
are small

(4)  Introduce a preemptive review process in future--no gun
may be admitted to Canadian market unless aproved first as
appropriate (permit process)


============================================================

FIREARMS TO BE PROHIBITED AND COMPENSATION PAID

_Assault Pistols:_

1.  OA-93                                               0
2. "Patriot" semi-automatic Pistol                      0
3. XM 231 B                                             0
4. AA Arms Model AP-9                                  28
5. Kimel Industries AP-9 and variants                   0
6. Grendel P-31                                         1
7. Claridge Hi-Tec Model S and variants                 4
8. Stery SPP Assault Pistol                             2
9. Maadi "Griffin" Pistol                               0

_Combat Shotguns:_

1. Franchi SPAS-15                                      8
2. Benelli M1 Super 90 and variants                     4
3. Bernadelli B4 Shotgun and variants                   0

_Rifles and Carbines:_

1. Maadi "Griffin" Rifle and Carbine                    0
2. AA Arms Model AR-9 Rifle and Carbine                 0
3. Clairidge Hi-Tec C and variants                      3
4. Kimel Industries AR-9 Rifle and Carbine              0
5. Grendal R-31 Auto Carbine                            0

=============================================================

CROSSBOWS

Not recognized by Federation of Canadian Archers: no target
shooting

Hunting:
_Allowed in:_
o    Quebec
o    Ontario
o    Manitoba
o    British Columbia
o    Northwest Territories

_Not Allowed in:_
o    Nova Scotia
o    New Brunswick
o    Prince Edward Island
o    Newfoundland
o    Saskatchewan
o    Alberta
o    Yukon

============================================================

CROSSBOWS
(Cont'd)

o    Estmated Annual Sales: 2,500-3,000 per year over past 20
     years, but market growing

o    Ontario has most crossbow hunters--about 30,000 active
     crossbow hunters

============================================================

CROSSBOWS
(Cont'd)

o    Of concern to police groups and provincial

o    Isolated incidents reported on use in crime

o    Characteristics of crossbow and legitimate sporting uses
     must be basis for analysis


============================================================

CROSSBOWS
(Cont'd)

_Plan:_

(1)  Deem to be firearm for some purposes

     o    Screening and FAC prohibitions
     o    Prohibitions

(2)  Prohibit by Order in council crossbows with stocks of
400mm or less (e.g. pistol grip or compact crossbows)

============================================================

OTHER IMPORTANT INITIATIVES

_Replicas:_

o    Ban import, manufacture and sale of replica firearms

_Minors Permits:_

o    All minors to obtain permit to possess firearms without
     being under direct, immediate arms length supervision

o    All minors should take safety training

o    Supervision conditions can be set


[END OF DOCUMENT]
--
This information is presented as a service to the Internet community
by the NRA/ILA.  Many files are available via anonymous ftp from
ftp.nra.org, via WWW at http://www.nra.org, via gopher at gopher.nra.org,
and via WAIS at wais.nra.org

Be sure to subscribe to the NRA mailing lists.  Send the word help
as the body of a message to [email protected]

Information can also be obtained by connecting to the NRA-ILA GUN-TALK
BBS at (703) 934-2121.

---------- Forwarded message ----------

   Subj: Gun Confiscation in Canada

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          A Quiet Friday Evening in the Country!

    I am feeling a bit down today and not very kindly toward Kim
Campbell, Alan Rock, Jean Chretien and all other well-meaning but naive
souls who are in support of the useless, senselessly severe gun laws
and police state tactics that are being rammed down the throats of
responsible citizens who have never committed a crime in their lives
and never will unless pushed a little too far by the prejudicial,
discriminatory democratic? process in this great free?? land of ours.
(How's that for an opening mouthful?)

    Last Friday afternoon (February 10/95) about two minutes after my
daughter, Audra (age 17) arrived home from school (around 4:50 PM) an
RCMP officer showed up at our place with a search warrant, displayed
his badge and told Audra he was there to search (if necessary) and
seize my Franchi shotgun (which they claim became a prohibited weapon
effective Jan 1/95 by Order In Council #11 enacted on Nov 29, 1994).

    We had been half expecting them to come for over a month, but of
course didn't know when or if it would really happen.  Audra
immediately phoned me at work and I told her to open the vault and give
the officer the receiver (frame) of the gun which is all I am required
by law to surrender. The officer was not happy with just the receiver
and was even less pleased when Audra on my instructions over the phone
told him that was the only part of the gun he was entitled to have by
law and to please take it and leave. He told Audra that he was entitled
to search for and seize all parts belonging to that gun (even though no
part except the receiver is either marked with any identification
number, or restricted or registered in any police record.)  (The legal
definition of a firearm is the lower receiver which has the serial
number stamped on it.)

     The officer then proceeded to tell Audra that his search warrant
gave him complete control of all our property, house, barn, vehicles
and everything else; that he had the power and authority to put Audra
out of the house and off the property (in about -10 deg.C
temperatures), bring in a search team and tear the house and anything
else that they pleased, to pieces until they found the other parts to
the gun which they suspected were still there on the property.  At that
point, the officer took the phone from Audra, and asked me if I was
going to give him the other parts to the gun; I told him that he
already had all he was entitled to by law, and to please get off my
property. He then said he was proceeding to call in his backup team to
take the house apart and he hung up the phone.

     I phoned my lawyer, explained what was happening and specifically
asked him if I was required by law to give up any part of the gun
except the receiver, his answer, "No, you are not, but it sounds like
the police officers honestly believe they have the right to search and
find the other parts".

     I said "Then you had better come and mediate this because I'm not
budging a hair beyond what the law requires except on your advice and I
have no intention of letting them tear my house apart either."  To make
a long story short, when my wife, Louise and I arrived home, there were
three RCMP vehicles there but they hadn't done any serious searching
except to order Audra to open up anything that looked like a gun
cabinet.

    My lawyer arrived, talked to the police, talked to their lawyer on
the phone for ten minutes, advised me that even though by law, I was
not required to give up the rest of the gun parts, that the police and
their lawyer believed it was their right to search for them and seize
them and tear down our house as required to accomplish that. So he
recommended that I give them the parts to avoid further immediate
damages on either side.

    Since I had previously decided to follow the lawyer's advice if he
came to mediate, I stalled a bit longer; then went outside and came
back in a few minutes with the parts.  The officers were relieved.
(With a large unfinished house full of all kinds of construction
"junk", a barn full of hay and 300 acres of land under 2' of snow to
search through, plus the fact they didn't really know what they were
looking for and had no way of positively identifying it if they did
find it, they could have torn the house to the ground with very little
chance of ever finding what they were looking for, and they knew it.)

    The real important questions in my mind are:  How much of our stuff
would they have rooted around through believing that it was their job?
And, in a so-called free country why should any group of people,
majority or otherwise, have the right to enact laws that allow the
police to go to the home of someone who never has, and never will
commit any crime (unless provoked beyond all reason), lean heavily on a
17 year old daughter who is an extremely responsible kid and a top
notch student, and threaten to tear the house apart to steal legally
acquired and responsibly owned and used private property.

   Why didn't I just hand over the complete gun up front and avoid the
hastle ?  Because I'm fed up, I'm stubborn, I'm not a criminal and I
refuse to be treated like one, I don't appreciate being robbed of a
valuable top quality collector's item which I enjoy, and more people
have to stand up and point out that what is currently happening with
gun laws here in Canada is wrong and will not make one bit of
difference in the crime rate except to cause it to increase.

   Taking away every last legally owned gun in Canada will make no
significant difference in the level of public safety.  Current laws
require all handguns in Canada to be registered.  Chretien says he will
greatly improve public safety by banning all handguns. However, there
is one slight unmentionned hitch in his safety plan - for every person
in Canada killed by a legally registered handgun, over 770 are killed
by motor vehicles.  Why then are we so intent on persecuting the honest
people who enjoy owning and target shooting with their handguns ? The
main reasons are ignorance, prejudice and discrimination against a
minority group of law abiding citizens.

   Anyway, my next step is either to forget the whole affair and accept
the fact that Canada has already become a police state and can seize
any piece of property it wants from any individual at any time; or, to
resist.  I have decided to resist along with a lot of others. We need
vocal support from all those who might be starting to think that maybe
the police should not have the right to force their way into an honest
person's house and traumatize a 17 year old girl for no other reason
than to steal private property.

   I am trying to see a positive side in all of this. The only one I
can think of so far is that Audra has personally experienced a small
sample of what invariably happens to innocent, responsible people when
any law, (enacted by majority approval or otherwise) is allowed to
override individual human rights for the sake of the intangible and
legally undefinable goal of "public safety".

   Audra is not a faint-hearted kid but she was extremely uncomfortable
with the "legal?" and intimidating police tactics she was subjected to
before Louise and I arrived home. After the police had left (they were
there for about two hours) Audra said that she has always felt many
times safer home alone with or without a gun than she did with the
police there telling her they had the right to put her outside in the
cold and tear the house down unless she gave them the rest of my gun
parts, when she had absolutely no idea where I had put them.

   I suppose another positive aspect is that it did create a little
unusual excitement for us on a February Friday evening in the country;
and Audra says that when we do go to court to challenge the legality of
OIC #11, and try to get our gun back, she definitely wants a chance to
testify!

PS - On Sunday one of our neighbours phoned Louise and said that she
     didn't want to be nosy but there was talk around the neighborhood
     that there had been three police vehicles at our place for quite a
     while last Friday evening. She wanted to know if we had had a
     burglarly and if everything was okay. Louise said "No it was not a
     burglarly, it was armed robbery and no everything is not okay! We
     lost a gun worth over $1000. It's the first robbery we have ever
     had at our place; but, by far the most alarming and serious thing
     that's wrong is that this time it's the police that are the
     robbers".


  Darrell McKnight
  RR#4 Carlisle Road,
  Fredericton, NB
  Canada, E3B4X5

  EMAIL: [email protected]

**************************************************************************

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail1.digital.com by us4rmc.pko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA24437; Fri, 31 Mar 95 21:22:13 -050
% Received: from earth.execpc.com by mail1.digital.com; (5.65 EXP 2/22/95 for V3.2/1.0/WV) id AA15448; Fri, 31 Mar 1995 18:14:00 -080
% Received: (from daemon@localhost) by earth.execpc.com (8.6.11/8.6.11) id TAA07417 for fwiw-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 1995 19:30:30 -0600
% Received: from earth (earth [204.29.202.50]) by earth.execpc.com (8.6.11/8.6.11) with SMTP id TAA07389 for <[email protected]>; Fri, 31 Mar 1995 19:30:22 -0600
% Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 19:30:21 -0600 (CST)
% From: James Fish <[email protected]>
% X-Sender: jfish@earth
% To: [email protected]
% Subject: [FWIW] A Knock At Your Door...Couldn't Happen Here?  But Getting Closer!
% Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950331192153.1199E-100000@earth>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
% Sender: [email protected]
% Precedence: bulk
% Reply-To: [email protected]

    re -.1
    
     >> Why didn't I just hand over the gun....
    
     Because I wanted to impress everyone with how the RCMP can take a
    banned weapon away without having to kill a couple of dozen innocent
    people ? :*)
    
    							Derek.

     This is why we are opposed to registration. A simple act of parliament
    (congress in our case) can make you the proud owner of contraband, and
    they have the right to destroy your possessions if they feel like to
    root out that bad contraband. Of course, Canada's not too big into
    freedom anyway- what have they allowed you to watch lately. There are a
    lot of people up there who 1984 as a manifesto.

    ridiculous.
    
    We have condom commercials and you don't.

    And we have 1/3 the homicide rate.

    Doug

    
    ...and we don't have the BATF and DEA.
    

    >...and we don't have the BATF and DEA.

    And if we have anything to say about it, we won't have them
    much longer...

    -b

    You'll just have different acronyms.

          <<< Note 130.393 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Fan Club Baloney" >>>

	A serious question.

	What do you actually think of the idea that your government can
	take personal property without compensation to the owner?


Jim

    I can't say I feel great about it. I agree there should be
    compensation in the example mentioned and others like it. I have a
    feeling that because this person cooperated he would have recourse for
    compensation if he looked into it.

    But, was it not the same in your country during prohibition? All of a
    sudden, alcohol was illegal, confiscated by federal agents and
    destroyed. Was there any compensation involved? What about legit
    bars and saloons? Did your government provide compensation for them?

    Can't any government justify any intrusion at any time? I believe it is
    unavoidable. Like Mark put it though, we like not being a free people.
    Um, just so happens though, my passport does not list any countries I
    can't go to.

    The true north, strong and free.

    I can go to the store tonight and buy a Cuban Cigar if I want.

          <<< Note 130.395 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Fan Club Baloney" >>>

>    But, was it not the same in your country during prohibition? All of a
>    sudden, alcohol was illegal, confiscated by federal agents and
>    destroyed. Was there any compensation involved? What about legit
>    bars and saloons? Did your government provide compensation for them?

	Not quite the same. One could consume the booze prior to the law
	going into effect, essentially "benefiting" from it. In this
	case, the gun is just gone, likely to be destroyed.

	We could also note that it took an Amendment to our Constitution
	to make Prohibition possible AND that we did finally come to our
	senses and repeal the Amendment.

>    Can't any government justify any intrusion at any time? 

	True, any government can justify such intrusions. Many have. But
	I doubt that you would appreciate being lumped in with the ones that
	come quickly to mind.

>I believe it is
>    unavoidable.

	It may be unavoidable, but it SHOULD be fought.

Jim

| <<< Note 130.391 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>


| ...and we don't have the BATF and DEA.


	Joan, are you saying that these 2 groups make up the other 2/3 of our
homicide numbers??? :-)

    
    .394, Jim:
    
    I can't speak to the specifics in the case quoted a few notes back,
    but I suspect that the gentleman would have received compensation if
    he had not forced the RCMP to come to him.  As he stated, he had been
    expecting a visit from them, so he must have known that his gun had
    been banned.
    
    The currently proposed legislation allows for the payment of compensation
    for firearms turned in.  If you refuse to turn them in, you have violated
    the law, and will probably not receive the compensation.
    

    
    Note 130.392, Brian:

    >And if we have anything to say about it, we won't have them
    >much longer...

    I'll believe that when I see it (and I suspect you feel much the
    same way).
    

    I may not be able to purchase certain firearms, but I _can_ go to Cuba,
    Libya or Iraq, if I want.
    
    I guess it's a question of what intrusions you're willing to accept.

    <-------Did you get your visa for Spain yet
    
    :*)
    
    
    joan

    I'm afraid of what the net result would be.

    >I may not be able to purchase certain firearms, but I _can_ go to Cuba,
    >Libya or Iraq, if I want.
    
     Gee, what great compensation. I'll take the freedom to own the guns
    _I_ choose over the ability to go to such places ANY DAY. Cuba is
    falling apart at the seams and Cubans are trying to come here. So go to
    Cuba if it floats your boat. Same with such high demand destinations as
    Iraq and Libya. Please. Go. Given a choice between the freedom to do
    something I'd never want to do anyway and the freedom to do something I
    feel strongly about, only two guesses as to which one I value more.
    Your kilometerage may vary. ;-)
    
     So, ever wonder what's going on in those closed courtrooms? You don't
    even know whose rights are getting trashed, the victim's, the
    defendant's, co-conspirator's?

    Not to worry...that was actually Boutros Boutros talking!!

    WAHOO::LEVESQUE
    
     You sneer at our ability to travel, we sneer at your ability to buy
    life threatening impliments.
    
     Each to their own.
    
    							Derek.

    Travel can be a life threatening implement.  Ever been on an ATR72 out
    of O'Hare, with Firestone 500's, going to Libya, ?  

    
    Note 130.404
    
    >So, ever wonder what's going on in those closed courtrooms? You don't
    >even know whose rights are getting trashed, the victim's, the
    >defendant's, co-conspirator's?
    
    Uhhhh...which closed courtrooms are you referring to, Doctah?
    

     What's the big case going on now about a husband and wife team that
    abused girls sexually before killing them? There's some sort of strange
    arrangement going on behind closed doors that allows the wife to
    basically get away with it if she testifies against her husband or some
    such. If this happened in the US the details would be lots clearer
    because in such matters, the wheelings and dealings of the prosecutor are
    a matter of public record.

    
    .409:
    
    Karla Homolka/Paul Bernardo.  The court wasn't closed...all kinds of
    people were there.
    
    The press has been prevented from reporting the details of the Homolka
    case until after the Bernardo trial starts, reason being that there
    would be ZERO chance of him getting a fair trial, and his lawyer would
    squeeze that lemon for every drop.
    
    Do you have another, better example?
    

    
    Fair trials?  Youall have fair trials?  Luxury!

    It's a media ban to ensure a fair trail for Paul Bernardo, not a closed 
    courtroom.

    Canada does not want a media circus around this case. All the facts are
    on record and when the Paul Bernardo case goes to trial, the ban will
    be lifted.

    This whole thing has been a hot debate here.

    Glenn

Re: The Homolka trial

Any relation to Oscar Homolka?

    Now that is a lesson us southerners should take to heart.  We have
    months more of objective O.J. reporting and let's not forget the Susan
    Smith trial hot on the heal of the Simpson trial.  It'll be a Wapner
    summer for sure.  
    
    Brian
    
    

 Followed by the trial of John Salvi..

    WAHOO::LEVESQUE
    
    >>If this happened in the US the details would be lots clearer
    
    
     OJ North ? No thanks. This is a sickening crime. The little I have
    heard is so repulsive it does not bear repeating. I will be content to
    know that the trial was conducted fairly, and that they got the right
    guy. I have no interest in the seedy details of these girls unfortunate
    deaths.
    
     Voyeurism is not a virtue.
    
    							Derek.

      <<< Note 130.410 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>

>   Do you have another, better example?

Well, I for one think that the Homolka/Bernardo case is an interesting example
of government abuse.  One of the reasons why the lack of press coverage is a 
benefit to the Canadian government is that the deal they gave the wife was 
very, very good for her.  Once the details were fully disclosed, many people 
were upset by this deal.  By suppressing press coverage until after the trial,
the government could hold up the husband's conviction to deflect criticism.

More examples?

    1.  I was reading the other day about the Canadian obscenity laws.  The
        author of the article ("Insight on the News" from a couple of weeks 
        back) indicated that for the most part, these laws are seldom used.
        However, there was a strange case in which the law was used to 
        suppress details of a minor sex scandal involving a prominent 
        government official.

    2.  I read a commentary in the local newspaper a few months ago by a 
        professional writer who mailed copies of his book, a collection of 
        commentaries, to his publisher in Canada.  Canadian customs siezed 
        it so that they could read the book.  They wrote him that they were 
        reading it first to see if it contained "seditious" material.

    3.  And what about the War Measures Act incident of 1972?  How many 
        people were arrested by the government and held without trial?

    STAR::OKELLEY
    
     War measures ?? We were in the grip of terrorists. (or so we thought)
    Politically motivated bombings, kidnapings, and murders. Our government
    stomped on them, but managed to kill less people than yours did in Waco.
    
    And you have the nerve to imply OUR govenment is out of control ?? 
    
    							Derek.
    
    
    							

    Derek, a tit for tat on whose government is worse is fruitless.  Ours
    most likely is.  I do not see how the Canadian gov't can be considered
    in control either.  True, you most likely have fewer citizens pushing
    up the daisies from government protection of the public at large but I 
    would not characterize either goivernment being in control.  Where is 
    that note where one of the boxpersons was rousted and bullied at the 
    border for attempting to smuggle assault overheads....... :-).  
    
    
    Brian

                     <<< Note 130.418 by KAOFS::D_STREET >>>
          -< How many Government officals did the Davidians kidnap ? >-

>    And you have the nerve to imply OUR govenment is out of control ?? 

I didn't say your government was out of control.  I simply pointed out that
these special laws can be used -- and abused -- to protect the government.

Yes, I believe that the Clinton Administration, particularly in the Justice
Department under Reichfuhrer Reno, is out of control.  In the November 1994
elections, the "fine alignment" tool was applied.

    Um Derek, who got killed because of the war measures act in Quebec?
    
    Pierre Laporte was the only one killed during the 1970 October crisis,
    no?

    Note 130.417, Kevin:

>Well, I for one think that the Homolka/Bernardo case is an interesting example
>of government abuse.  One of the reasons why the lack of press coverage is a 
>benefit to the Canadian government...

    Sorry, but the gov't had nothing to do with it.  The trial judge 
    imposed the TEMPORARY ban, and politicians refused to meddle in
    the ongoing trial, which is exactly as it should be.  You want
    elected officials influencing criminal trials?  I don't.

        >However, there was a strange case in which the law was used to 
        >suppress details of a minor sex scandal involving a prominent 
        >government official.

    Uhhh...could you cite a few more details, please?

        >Canadian customs siezed 
        >it so that they could read the book.  They wrote him that they were 
        >reading it first to see if it contained "seditious" material.

    Canada Customs is a corrupt agency, but probably no more so than
    US Customs or the BATF or the DEA.  If you're trying to convince me that
    Canadians are living in a police state relative to the US, you need a 
    better example than that.

       >And what about the War Measures Act incident of 1972?  How many 
       >people were arrested by the government and held without trial?

    Less than 100, if I recall correctly, and not for very long.  Now then,
    what about the Vietnam-era draft?  How many US citizens had their civil
    rights suspended so that they could be forced to serve and die overseas?

    jc

      <<< Note 130.399 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>

    
>    The currently proposed legislation allows for the payment of compensation
>    for firearms turned in.  If you refuse to turn them in, you have violated
>    the law, and will probably not receive the compensation.
 
	Do you have the details on the compensation? Is it "fair market
	value"? Or some arbitrary dollar limit?

Jim
   

      <<< Note 130.422 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>

>    Sorry, but the gov't had nothing to do with it.  The trial judge 
>    imposed the TEMPORARY ban, and politicians refused to meddle in
>    the ongoing trial, which is exactly as it should be.  You want
>    elected officials influencing criminal trials?  I don't.

The ban is a benefit to the prosecution, who made the sweetheart deal.
Did they have opportunity to help suggest the ban or at least fail to oppose
the ban?  Of course they did.


> >However, there was a strange case in which the law was used to 
> >suppress details of a minor sex scandal involving a prominent 
> >government official.
>
>    Uhhh...could you cite a few more details, please?

Not from memory, sorry.  I'll see if I can dig up the article.


>    Canada Customs is a corrupt agency, but probably no more so than
>    US Customs or the BATF or the DEA.  If you're trying to convince me that
>    Canadians are living in a police state relative to the US, you need a 
>    better example than that.

A law which allows the government to restrict information simply because it
may be damaging to the government's image is, in my opinion, a dangerous
concept.  Am I trying to to convince you that you live in a police state?
No.  Someone asked for examples.  Those were the ones that came to mind.


>    Less than 100, if I recall correctly, and not for very long.  Now then,
>    what about the Vietnam-era draft?  How many US citizens had their civil
>    rights suspended so that they could be forced to serve and die overseas?

Then the 1972 example would appear to be a good one.

The draft is a poor example.  Being subject to the draft has been challenged 
in the courts and has been upheld as constitutional.  As I recall, being 
subject to the draft is a requirement of citizenship.

Better examples:

    1.  Illegal arrests of anti-war demonstrators during the Vietnam War.
        Several hundred arrests ordered by the Nixon Administration's Justice 
        Department were ruled unconstitutional.  People then successfully 
        sued the government for the loss of their civil rights.

    2.  The Macarthy Era.

    3.  Abuses by the Clinton Administration.


Here's the bottom line: All of us must be on guard to protect our civil 
liberties.  Governments everywhere seem to be very creative in cooking up
excuses to take away our rights to benefit society as a whole.  The trouble
is, more often than not, these changes appear to benefit the governments that
propose these changes.

    POLAR::RICHARDSON
    
    >>Um Derek, who got killed because of the war measures act in Quebec?
    
    
     As far as I know, nobody. That would qualify as less than the number
    of people killed at Waco would it not ?
    
    							Derek

    Yes, 0 is less than at Waco.

    TROOA::COLLINS
    
    >>You want elected officials influencing criminal trials? 
    
     Don't judges get elected in the US, or is that just some of the
    judges ?
    
    
    						Derek.

All federal judges are appointed.  Some state and local judges are elected.
It varies from state to state.

    
    .423, Jim:
    
    Sorry, I have no dollar figures handy.  In all likelihood, it will be
    less than the owners want.
    

    Note 130.424, Kevin:

>The ban is a benefit to the prosecution, who made the sweetheart deal.
>Did they have opportunity to help suggest the ban or at least fail to oppose
>the ban?  Of course they did.

    Both defense AND prosecution opposed the ban.  The judge disagreed.

>A law which allows the government to restrict information simply because it
>may be damaging to the government's image is, in my opinion, a dangerous
>concept.

    Agreed, but you have yet to demonstrate that that has happened here in
    Canada.  At least, to any greater extent than it happens down there.

>The draft is a poor example.  Being subject to the draft has been challenged 
>in the courts and has been upheld as constitutional.

    No, I don't think it is a poor example.  So it's constitutional.  In
    Canada, many of the things you 'muricans rail at ARE constitutional, 
    including the confiscation of banned firearms.

    Look, rathole started because the Doctah insinuated we had closed
    courtrooms, and I asked him for specific examples.  If you want to take
    this down other roads, fine,  If not, fine.  But don't for a minute
    believe that we in Canada are suffering government oppression to any
    greater degree than you are.  It just ain't so.
    
    jc
    

      <<< Note 130.430 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>

>    Both defense AND prosecution opposed the ban.  The judge disagreed.

If the prosecution truly opposed the ban, then that is a poor example.
I am somewhat skeptical, as the ban is quite convenient.


> >A law which allows the government to restrict information simply because it
> >may be damaging to the government's image is, in my opinion, a dangerous
> >concept.
>
>    Agreed, but you have yet to demonstrate that that has happened here in
>    Canada.  At least, to any greater extent than it happens down there.

I do not recall that US Customs, or any other US Agency, has the authority 
to control "seditious" material.  Conspiracy to overthrow the Government by 
force is a serious offense, but simply writing articles does not prove 
conspiracy.  It requires conspiracy to commit specific acts and a relationship 
with the other conspirators.


> >The draft is a poor example.  Being subject to the draft has been challenged 
> >in the courts and has been upheld as constitutional.
>
>    No, I don't think it is a poor example.  So it's constitutional.  In
>    Canada, many of the things you 'muricans rail at ARE constitutional, 
>    including the confiscation of banned firearms.

RE: The draft

Not just consitutional, but a requirement of citizenship.  As long as the 
values of conscientious objectors are respected and the lottery used to 
determine who is to serve, I don't see anything ethically wrong with a draft.

RE: Confiscation

Many, if not all, of the firarms in question were legally acquired at the 
time of purchase.  They are property.  I look at the sentence above, and what
I see is that in Canada, it is legal for the government to confiscate property.
It means that when you purchase something, you don't really own it.  You have
a better claim to it than anyone else, but you can only keep it as long as 
the government lets you.  In the United States, property can be confiscated, 
but the citizen is entitled to a trial in which the government must prove its
overriding need for the property in question (almost always land) and must 
prove that it is paying fair market value.

Date:        Mon, 03 Apr 95 20:43:07 MDT
From: "Anthony F. Herbst" <GQ01%[email protected]>
To: listserver on firearms and politics issu
             <[email protected]>
Subject: Canada Study -- Crime Control is notGun Control


A report was recently passed on to me:  "Gun Control is not Crime
Control" by Professor Gary Mauser of Canada's Simon Fraser University,
published by the Fraser Forum, 1995.  Copies can be obtained from them
at 626 Bute Street, Vancouver, BC V6E 3M1, Telephone (604) 688-0221,
Fax (604) 688-8539.  No price is mentioned in the front cover.  Date
of publication is March, 1995.
   The report provides interesting and current figures for Canada in
comparison to the U.S.  As the title indicates, the study does not
favor gun control.


Tony

Anthony F. Herbst.  (Internet: GQ01%[email protected])
                    (Bitnet: GQ01@UTEP)


% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail1.digital.com by us4rmc.pko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA20290; Tue, 4 Apr 95 04:50:54 -040
% Received: from nova.unix.portal.com by mail1.digital.com; (5.65 EXP 2/22/95 for V3.2/1.0/WV) id AA16449; Tue, 4 Apr 1995 01:40:28 -070
% Received: from jobe.shell.portal.com (jobe.shell.portal.com [156.151.3.4]) by nova.unix.portal.com (8.6.11/8.6.5) with ESMTP id BAA26203; Tue, 4 Apr 1995 01:36:27 -0700
% Received: (chan@localhost) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.11/8.6.5) id BAA12183 for firearms-alert-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 1995 01:35:02 -0700
% Received: (chan@localhost) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.11/8.6.5) id BAA12160 for firearms-alert; Tue, 4 Apr 1995 01:34:54 -0700
% Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 01:34:54 -0700
% From: Jeff Chan <[email protected]>
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% To: [email protected]
% Subject: RESEARCH: Canada: Gun Control not Crime Control shows Mauser
% Sender: [email protected]
% Precedence: bulk
% Reply-To: Jeff Chan <[email protected]>
% Followup-To: [email protected]

      <<< Note 130.429 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>

>    Sorry, I have no dollar figures handy.  In all likelihood, it will be
>    less than the owners want.
 
	I don't think "want" should be part of the equation. Reimbursement
	for what they paid would only be fair.

Jim   

    
    
    	re: Canada having 1/3 the homocide rate of the U.S.
    
    	And why don't you go do some REAL research and look up just how low
    your homocide rate was BEFORE all this gun-control garbage. I'll bet it
    was even lower, just like England's was lower BEFORE the draconian
    gun-control laws. Come back when you have a real argument.
    
    
    jim

    I am tired of Americans trying to convince me that gun control will lead
    to more crime. Not to put to fine a point on it, but, who would look to
    America for a solution to violent crime. Certainly not a country with
    less violent crime. (Canada)
    
    Around 80% of Canadians have no use, and think no one else should have a
    use for hand guns. I know this must really gall the NRA, but it is *OUR*
    choice. Why can't the NRAers keep their nose in their own business ?
    
     I'll tell you why, our less violent society flies in the face of
    bumper sticker logic that says "An armed society is a polite society"
    
    
    								Derek.

    
    Note 130.431, Kevin:

>I do not recall that US Customs, or any other US Agency, has the authority 
>to control "seditious" material.

    Wrong.  Two words: Crime Bill.  Also, you'd be surprised what powers
    Customs has.  They get to stop materials at the border that are
    perfectly legal if produced domestically.

>...what
>I see is that in Canada, it is legal for the government to confiscate property.
    
>In the United States, property can be confiscated, 
>but the citizen is entitled to a trial in which the government must prove its
>overriding need for the property in question (almost always land) and must 
>prove that it is paying fair market value.
    
    The same legal remedies exist in Canada for the confiscation of legal
    property.  If the item is not legal, then you will lose it.  Are there
    *no* banned items in the US?
    
    Tell me, are you happy with the current seizure laws you have?  Seems to 
    me your gov't agencies have pretty wide latitude concerning what they can
    grab.  There was a story in the 'box a few months ago about narcotics 
    agents being permitted to keep a share of the assets seized.
 

                     <<< Note 130.435 by KAOFS::D_STREET >>>
            -< Give it a rest please, the numbers are against you. >-

>    Around 80% of Canadians have no use, and think no one else should have a
>    use for hand guns. I know this must really gall the NRA, but it is *OUR*
>    choice. Why can't the NRAers keep their nose in their own business ?
>    
>     I'll tell you why, our less violent society flies in the face of
>    bumper sticker logic that says "An armed society is a polite society"

I, for one, am not interested in changing Canadian law, but I am very 
interested in what happens in Canada, because the experiences in Canada often 
appear in reports by people in the United States to promote gun control here.
These people just don't understand that our society is much more violent.  
Even if you ignore all the crimes committed with firearms in the US, you still 
have more violent crime per-capita than Canada or just about anywhere.

    
    >Around 80% of Canadians have no use, and think no one else should have a
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  ***********************************
    >use for hand guns. I know this must really gall the NRA, but it is *OUR*
     ***                                                      |||||||||||||||
    >choice. Why can't the NRAers keep their nose in their own business ?
     ||||||
    
    
    ^^^ this is fine.
    
    *** this is not fine
    
    ||| how is it a choice when the above mentioned 80% want to control
        what the other 20% do?
    

    
    Note 130.437, Kevin:

>Even if you ignore all the crimes committed with firearms in the US, you still 
>have more violent crime per-capita than Canada or just about anywhere.
    
    Oddly enough, one of the freedoms we Canadians cherish is our lower
    crime rate.  Call us wacky.  :^)
    

Derek is a perfect example of what happens after too many years of socialist
schooling. He doesn't even realize what individual rights are and has been
so well taught that he'll argue against them even when they are pointed out to 
him.

WHEN ANYBODY USES FORCE TO TAKE YOUR PROPERTY THAT IS THEFT!

The gov't of Canada is stealing that person's property. The property was legal 
to own ntil some socialist decided to protect you from yourself.

    

    
    I wonder what our neighbors to the north will do with all those guns
    being smuggled across their/our borders?
    
      I understand it's being touted as a real "concern" by law enforcement
    officials up yonder

     Prolly use 'em when they smoke their assault cigarettes.

    Canada's homicide rate peaked in 1974 and has been going down ever
    since.

      <<< Note 130.436 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>

> >I do not recall that US Customs, or any other US Agency, has the authority 
> >to control "seditious" material.
>
>    Wrong.  Two words: Crime Bill.  Also, you'd be surprised what powers
>    Customs has.  They get to stop materials at the border that are
>    perfectly legal if produced domestically.

Yes, the Crime Bill expands the conspiracy laws.
No, free speech is still free speech.  The conspiracy still has to point to 
specific acts to be committed or information that makes it possible for people
to commit crimes.  The most troublesome part of the Crime Bill is the part 
that requires people to report a conspiracy that they "know" is taking place.
The consitutionality of that will be settled if this clause is ever used.

Customs has the power to search items entering the country.  They stop all
kinds of things and search ships without a warrant.  Fine with me.  Those 
doing business in international trade agree to follow certain rules.  So what?
Let them look for contraband or untaxed goods.  I object to censorship.


>    The same legal remedies exist in Canada for the confiscation of legal
>    property.  If the item is not legal, then you will lose it.  Are there
>    *no* banned items in the US?

That's the issue.  When is the property in question not legal.  In the United
States there are those who want to ban handguns.  One of the tricky problems 
they can't quite get around is how do you confiscate something that someone
already owns?  They can't.  Of course, many of the radicals want to do it 
anyway -- legal or not.

    
>    Tell me, are you happy with the current seizure laws you have?  Seems to 
>    me your gov't agencies have pretty wide latitude concerning what they can
>    grab.  There was a story in the 'box a few months ago about narcotics 
>    agents being permitted to keep a share of the assets seized.
 
Those seizures deal with property acquired through illegal activities.
Also note that there are legal channels (i.e. a hearing) that the citizen can 
use to get it back until trial if the government cannot produce just cause.

Am I personally happy with this?  No, because I'm not in favor of the "War 
on Drugs", but that's another topic.

I believe that these issues are very different:
    1.  At the time that the firearm was purchased by the Canadian, the 
        person was not engaging in any illegal activity.
    2.  At the time of purchase, the person buying the firearm had the 
        expectation of using it for as long as they liked or sell it at 
        fair market value.  Now the rules have changed.

Suppose you paid big bucks for a high-performance car.  Maybe it's the same
car as the one your neighbor has, but has a bigger engine.  Now suppose the
government comes along and says that they are going to confiscate these cars or 
force you to make the changes in the engine.

   "You don't really need that."
   "You can't operate that safely."
   "We have decided in the best interest of society as a whole ... "

And they don't have a "grandfather clause" to protect you.
You can be out big bucks, and other people with almost the same equipment 
are left alone.  I know I won't like it.

Note 130.440

Amos is a perfect example of what happens after too many years of nationialist
propoganda.  He doesn't even realize what individual rights are and has been
so well taught that he'll argue against them even when they are pointed out to 
him.

WHEN ANYBODY FORCES YOU TO SERVE THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST YOUR WILL THAT 
IS SLAVERY!

The gov't of the US is stealing that person's life and liberty.  The right of
self-determination was absolute until some government decided otherwise.

    

<--------- ???

    
    .441:
    
    If you'd keep your guns to yourself, there wouldn't be any concern on
    our part.  See 130.374.
    

      <<< Note 130.439 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>

> >Even if you ignore all the crimes committed with firearms in the US, you still 
> >have more violent crime per-capita than Canada or just about anywhere.
    
>    Oddly enough, one of the freedoms we Canadians cherish is our lower
>    crime rate.  Call us wacky.  :^)

    I'm sure that you can walk the streets of Peking at night, too.
    I still won't want to live there.

      <<< Note 130.447 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>

>    If you'd keep your guns to yourself, there wouldn't be any concern on
>    our part.  See 130.374.

    Except for the guns made in China, the former Soviet Union, Hungary, 
    Israel, Brazil, Germany, . . . 

    Canada is a great place to live, yes it is.

    
    RE: .447
    
    But... but... but...
    
     They're your citizens for the most part doing this???
    
    
     Oh what shall we do????
    

    
    .451:
    
    This legislation will toughen penalties for smuggling.  What are you
    doing on YOUR side of the border?  Did you READ .374?
    

    
    .448:
    
    Canada == China ?
    
    You're reaching here, Kevin.   Stop by for a visit sometime.
    

>      <<< Note 130.445 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>
>                     -< Typical Amos sound-bite noting... >-


>WHEN ANYBODY FORCES YOU TO SERVE THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST YOUR WILL THAT 
>IS SLAVERY!

Just because your wussy gov't has relied on the U.S. for protection for
all these years you forget quickly about the draft up there during WWI & II.
alot of good men (canadians) died to protect England and the North American
continent. unfortunately it seems that the gene-pool is now too weak up there
to understand just-cause and freedom. Freedom isn't free, nor is it 
particularly safe but it beats the pants off of systems such as much of the 
world has now.

This is a note about gun-control so try to stick to the topic or do you
prefer the Canadian style of discussion exemplified by Ren & Stimpy
(A truly enlightening Canadian export)? Chaotic conversations!

Amos    

    
    .449:
    
    Yes, those are cause for concern...but it seems likely that the US
    is the easiest place to obtain illegal firearms.  Crossing the border
    with guns in the car is a lot easier than arranging air or sea transit
    for such items.
    

>        <<< Note 130.446 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

><--------- ???

It's OK Jack, he confuses easily, can't discuss any subject without getting 
off on Vietnam and the draft and showing his ignorance of history. :-}

Amos

>      <<< Note 130.455 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>

    
>    .449:
    
>    Yes, those are cause for concern...but it seems likely that the US
>    is the easiest place to obtain illegal firearms.  Crossing the border
>    with guns in the car is a lot easier than arranging air or sea transit
>    for such items.
 
Did you forget the St. Lawrence Seaway?

The U.S. Coast Guard seizes shiploads of Marijuana, one load was 28 tons 
a couple of years ago. a few hundred pounds of guns is nothing.
The unprotected shoreline of NB and NS is already a favorite landing spot for 
tons of dope. A car is easy and quick to search, 3k miles of inlets and coves 
is not.   


Amos

OH! RE: .-1
How many truckloads of cigarettes did _YOUR_ indians smuggle in?
NNTTM

    
    Froths a bit.  Hmmmm.  Amos, if you had posted one single note to this
    topic that didn't contain value-loaded language like `wussy',
    `socialist', `poor schooling system' and such it might be easier to
    take you seriously.  But everything you write sounds like beligerent
    words of an individual who feels threatened.
    
    Do you feel threatened by Canadian Gun Control (speaking of sticking to
    the topic)?  Are you afraid that it might actually work, and then give
    Ms. Brady a good example to point to?
    
    If you want to tone your notes down a notch (see Jim or Kevin's entries
    for good examples) than I'd be happy to entertain discussion on the
    TOPIC.
    
    Otherwise, it's just more sound-bite noting.
    

    
    .458
    
    Native North American Indians don't consider themselves to be Canadians
    OR Americans, Amos.  But then, you knew that.
    

    TIS::HAMBURGER
    
     As you are not Canadian, I will forgive you. For future reference,
    calling someone a socialist in Canada is not the same as it is in the
    States. We never had a McCarthy (SP) era, so we have no ingrained fear
    of any political/economic system. We pick and choose the parts that we
    find the most appealing.
    
    As far as the government taking things. Canadians have a sense of
    community rights that Americans don't have. A good example is our
    Hate law. We try to prevent the dissemination of literature that is
    intended to promote hate. KKK stuff would be an example. Most Americans
    (I think) would say that is an infringment on the right of free speech.
    We don't think holocaust denial is a free speech issue, it is about
    hate, and society is protected over the right of the individual to say
    what they want.
    
     We are very different than Americans, even though we have so much in
    common. Socialist tendencies come to mind. So the next time someone throws
    a "Canadian Gun Fact" at you, just say: "They are Socialists so it does
    not count" and be done with it. 
    
    If you try to map American values and experience onto the Canadian
    experience, you will never win the discussion.
    
    
    							Derek.

    
    .456:
    
    "ignorance of history"?   Which bit of history do you judge me to be
    ignorant of, Amos?  It was you, actually, that first suggested the
    Vietnam thing to me, in your first line of .323.
    
    What have I said so far that has been incorrect?
    

    TIS::HAMBURGER
    
    Freedom <> free access to guns. A hard concept to grasp south of the
    49th.
    
    							Derek.

    .463
    
    freedom == the ability to defend oneself with sufficient force
    
    If you're facing an illegally obtained gun, it's gonna be really hard
    to defend yourself with, say, a bouquet of posies.  This seems to be a
    hard concept for people living north of the 49th to grasp.

    
    No, Dick, not hard to grasp at all.  But we are less likely than your-
    selves to find ourselves facing that gun, and we wish to keep it that way.
    
    

    The U.S. needs colder weather, much colder. Then they'll understand.
    8^)

                     <<< Note 130.463 by KAOFS::D_STREET >>>

>    Freedom <> free access to guns. A hard concept to grasp south of the
>    49th.
 
	A reasonably solid argument can be made that freedom REQUIRES
	free access to guns. Assuming that the government has guns,
	of course. This concept IS the sole purpose of our 2nd Amendment.

Jim

    We worry about drive by leg trappings.
    
    {whomp} {kerchunck!}

    Note 130.444, Kevin:

>No, free speech is still free speech.

    Where exactly are we going with this, Kevin?  What incidents have you
    pointed to, other than one Customs example, where Canadian free speech
    is being trammelled?  As I have stated in the past, Canada Customs is
    a corrupt and out-of-control agency.  If you think that I have been 
    defending them then I have not been making myself clear.

    Let me restate...the actions of Canada Customs have little to do with
    the gov't, or even reality.  They regularly harrass shipments of
    literature that is legal to produce here but tricky to import.  I do
    no support this and they are currently mired in legal challenges,
    which I believe they will lose.  Censorship is not the issue, since
    (as I said) the literature is legal to produce here.

    Hell...Canada Customs is living in the stone age if they think they
    are on the right track.  Consider what you and I are doing right now.
    What are they gonna do about THIS sort of thing?

    If it is the intention of ANY individual here to use Canada Customs
    as an example of how little Canadians cherish their freedoms, consider
    the existance and actions of the BATF, DEA, FBI, CIA, NSA *and* US
    Customs as being examples of how little Americans cherish their freedoms.
    Somewhere along the way this turned into a `my freedom is better/bigger
    than your freedom' contest, and it's got to be getting boring for most
    by now.  Let's just say that for every example on one side of the border,
    there is an equally valid example on the other side. 

>I believe that these issues are very different:
>    1.  At the time that the firearm was purchased by the Canadian, the 
>        person was not engaging in any illegal activity.
>    2.  At the time of purchase, the person buying the firearm had the 
>        expectation of using it for as long as they liked or sell it at 
>        fair market value.  Now the rules have changed.

    I'm not going to pretend this is an easy issue.  A lot of public debate
    has surrounded this `seizure' thing, and rightfully so.  You and Jim
    are correct to point out that the unfortunate individual caught in this
    situation is losing out.

    I guess the best way I can put it is that in Canada, property rights are
    secondary to the right to life.  In the US there have been many highly
    publicized cases of trespassers being shot, and the property owners being
    aquitted.  That doesn't happen here.  Here, you've got to have a really
    good reason to use lethal force, or you're gonna find yourself in a heap
    of trouble...and I agree with that, because we SHOULD be sending out the
    message that lethal force is not to be used in a casual fashion.

    Similarly, Canadians in general feel that the right to life of the 
    individuals who get killed by firearms supercedes the property rights
    of the gun owners.  At this point I imagine many of you 'muricans are
    spitting out your morning coffee. :^)  But we have had many people killed
    in this country with stolen weapons, and part of the aim of this
    legislation is to try to reduce the number of firearms waiting around to
    be stolen.

    Documents posted by Jim Sadin earlier in this topic appear to indicate
    that there are less than 100 of these newly banned weapons in Canada that
    will have to be turned in, and compenstaion WILL be paid if the weapons
    are willingly turned in.  As I told Jim P., I don't know what dollar
    value will be paid for the weapons, but I suspect it won't be quite as much
    as they are worth to the owner.

    jc

    
    .434, Jim S.:
    
    From `Canadian Crime Statistics 1992'
    Canadian Centre For Justice Statistics
    
    Page 25:
    
    "Homicides account for a small proportion of all violent crimes.  In
    1992, 0.2% of all reported violent incidents were homicides.  Homicide
    includes first and second degree murder, manslaughter and infanticide.
    In 1992, the number of of homicides decreased to 732, from 753 in 1991.
    Although there have been year-to-year fluctuations, the homicide rate
    has remained relatively stable in recent years.  The 1992 rate of 2.67
    per 100,000 was actually 14% lower than the peak rate of 3.09 in 1975.
    Over the past decade, the average ratio of homicide rates between the
    U.S. and Canada was three to one."
    
    [As a footnote...the gun legislation currently in place was introduced
    in 1977 (if I recall correctly), and amended by Kim Campbell in '91.]
                                   

      <<< Note 130.453 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>

    
>    Canada == China ?
>    
>    You're reaching here, Kevin.   Stop by for a visit sometime.

    Not quite, both countries offer the "freedom" from gun crime that you 
    referenced in you previous replies.  Both are paying a price in personal
    freedom.

    Due to personal and professional commitments I do visit Canada 
    periodically.  It has changed a good deal in the last 10-15 years.

      <<< Note 130.455 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>

    RE: .455 (Manufacture and possible importation of firearms by other 
    countries):

>    Yes, those are cause for concern...but it seems likely that the US
>    is the easiest place to obtain illegal firearms.  Crossing the border
>    with guns in the car is a lot easier than arranging air or sea transit
>    for such items.
 
    Sounds like a problem for the much-maligned Canadian Custom's service ;^)

    What is "easier" is not relevant.  There are lots of firearms made 
    every year throughout the world.  As long as there is a blackmarket for 
    firearms in Canada, there will be illegal trade in firearms, even if the 
    US ceases production and importation.

      <<< Note 130.459 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>

    RE .459:
    
>   Do you feel threatened by Canadian Gun Control (speaking of sticking to
>   the topic)?  Are you afraid that it might actually work, and then give
>   Ms. Brady a good example to point to?

Hardly.  It is illogical to assume that a ban on certain firearms will curb
violent crime.  Briefly:

    1.  It cannot be done, because the ban will not affect the illegal 
        manufacture, importation, and sale of weapons.
    2.  The ban will affect only certain firearms, not the ones that can 
        be the most lethal (such as shotguns, which are not designed to 
        stop or wound but are designed to kill).
    3.  The ban will not reduce the crimes of violence that are committed 
        without firearms and may, in fact, create an atomosphere in which 
        such crimes increase (physically challenged people or small people
        will be easy targets; violent offenders with knives, blunt objects,
        or partners will be able to commit violent crimes with impunity).
    4.  The ban will take away law-enforcement resources from the 
        investigation and prevention of violent crime and put it into the
        control of peaceable citizens.

I will continue to monitor the situation in Canada, confident that I can
use it as another example of bad policy.

The best way, in my opinion, is to make the illegal use of firearms such a 
huge liability that the criminals simply choose not to use them.  This is 
the critical aspect of the law in Great Britain.  When a crime is committed 
with a firearm, the authorities go all out to catch the offenders, and when
they do, the criminals often testify against each other to avoid the stiff 
penalities imposed on those who illegally own or use firearms in a crime.

The United States has similar laws.  There are tough mandatory sentences on
felons who own firearms -- any firearm, and there are tough mandatory 
sentences on those who use firearms in a crime.  In 80% of the cases in which 
a suspect is arrested for a violent crime, these (Federal) charges are never 
filed.  Many of us are fighting to get these charges filed.

However, this involves punishing people for illegal acts and not prior 
restraint.

                     <<< Note 130.461 by KAOFS::D_STREET >>>
                -< And yes, I do vote NDP more often than not. >-

>     As you are not Canadian, I will forgive you. For future reference,
>    calling someone a socialist in Canada is not the same as it is in the
>    States. We never had a McCarthy (SP) era, so we have no ingrained fear
>    of any political/economic system. We pick and choose the parts that we
>    find the most appealing.

For the record, I, for one, dislike Socialism but not out of fear.  This is
not the right forum, but I oppose Socialism because:

    1.  As an economic system, it just doesn't work well.  Governments cannot 
        make the necessary adjustments quickly enough to keep up with 
        developments in the private sector.  At best, they can create massive 
        amounts of mediocre goods and services, much of which is out-of-date.
    2.  I believe that there is an abundance of anecdotal evidence to 
        suggest that because of the inefficiencies on Government-controlled
        enterprises, the more money a country puts into government, the
        lower growth in the standard of living in that country over time.
    3.  Recent history from Sweden to the former Soviet Union suggets that 
        many people throughout the world believe that Socialism is dead.
    4.  It is demeaning to the individual.  When an individual gives up 
        individual rights in favor of "collective rights", they lower the
        value of the individual.  Personal freedom is the most valuable 
        thing that I have.  It is worth more to me than life itself.  If it
        is taken away, my value as an individual is diminished.  (If you 
        could have anything, what would it be?  Some people want money; 
        some people want to live on an island and write books.  Aren't all 
        of these dreams just a quest for more freedom?  To have more choice?)
    5.  Since the society as a whole is of such great importance in a 
        Socialist state, there appear to be insufficient safeguards for the 
        rights of the minority, particularly of that minority has an unpopular
        view.
    6.  It is the nature of governments to acquire power.  When the People
        give up their rights to the State, it is easier for the State to 
        excercise more and more control over the People.


>    As far as the government taking things. Canadians have a sense of
>    community rights that Americans don't have. A good example is our
>    Hate law. We try to prevent the dissemination of literature that is
>    intended to promote hate. KKK stuff would be an example. Most Americans
>    (I think) would say that is an infringment on the right of free speech.
>    We don't think holocaust denial is a free speech issue, it is about
>    hate, and society is protected over the right of the individual to say
>    what they want.

RE: Community rights

If property rights are diminished, then the rewards of hard work are also
diminished.  This, in turn, diminishes the value of hard work.

RE: Hate Law 

Then you have censorship is the truist sense of the word.

You say that "society is protected"?  Why?  Are the people in your society 
incapable of protecting themselves?  Speech codes and political correctness, 
in my opinion, appear to be based on the believe that each individual who
is exposed to these unpopular views is incapable of dealing with it.
It appears to be an attempt to treat citizens as though they were children.

      <<< Note 130.469 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>

>    Let me restate...the actions of Canada Customs have little to do with
>    the gov't, or even reality.  They regularly harrass shipments of
>    literature that is legal to produce here but tricky to import.  I do
>    no support this and they are currently mired in legal challenges,
>    which I believe they will lose.  Censorship is not the issue, since
>    (as I said) the literature is legal to produce here.

Canada Customs is part of the government and certainly a reality.
Isn't importation of seditious material against the law (still)?
Censorship is alive and well in Canada.  I remembered you obsenity laws,
but I forgot about the hate law until this string reminded me.


>    Hell...Canada Customs is living in the stone age if they think they
>    are on the right track.  Consider what you and I are doing right now.
>    What are they gonna do about THIS sort of thing?

I imagine that they will try to control telecommunications.  Lunatics in 
this country want to do the same, but the Constitution and the tradition 
of free speech keep getting in the way.


>    If it is the intention of ANY individual here to use Canada Customs
>    as an example of how little Canadians cherish their freedoms, consider
>    the existance and actions of the BATF, DEA, FBI, CIA, NSA *and* US
>    Customs as being examples of how little Americans cherish their freedoms.

My intention was to talk about Candian law -- not necessarily the Canadian 
Customs Service.  My intent was to show examples to illustrate how individual
rights in Canada are being eroded.  By virtue of your earlier statements 
concerning the "trade-offs" of individual rights versus the protection of 
society, I believe that this string has been a success.

RE: BATF, DEA, FBI, et. al.

Some of these agencies have made mistakes (e.g. DEA agents going to the 
wrong house).  Mistakes happen.  I support the work of all these agencies,
including the BATF, WHERE THEY LEGALLY WORK TO ENFORCE THE LAW.  Government
agencies have, in the past, committed unconstitutional acts.  We have 
learned from these mistakes and have tried to correct them.  Yes, we have
a problem today: we have an Administration that simply chooses to ignore 
Constitutional Law.  We have already taken steps to correct this problem,
as well.

The situation in Canada, in my view, is different.  You have several laws
and legal traditions that weaken individual rights and make it easier for
the government to manipulate or control the public.


>    Somewhere along the way this turned into a `my freedom is better/bigger
>    than your freedom' contest, and it's got to be getting boring for most
>    by now.  Let's just say that for every example on one side of the border,
>    there is an equally valid example on the other side. 

Again, that was not my intent at all.
I appreciate the information.  I hope it wasn't boring.
I have heard similar views expressed by others in Canada.


RE: Right to life over property rights

As I stated earlier, I don't think that this will help to reduce the risks
of violent crime.  And that is the problem.  It's not "violent gun crime".
It's "violent crime".  If your home is invaded by a 250-pound muscular 
ex-convict wired on cocaine with a crowbar in his hand, you'd better hope
he's in a good mood.

Secondly, you are creating a legal tradition in which property rights are 
being diluted.  Today its guns, tomorrow its land or cars or PCs or whatever.
Gunowners are a minority.  You cannot take away the rights of a minority 
without creating the possiblity of doing so again and again.  And you cannot
take away the rights of a minority without making everyone just a little bit
afraid.

Thirdly, I believe that your views on self defense law are somewhat 
oversimplified.  In the United States, in general, a person has the right to 
defend themselves if they are threatened with imminent and unavoidable danger 
of grave bodily harm to oneself or an innocent third party.  The "unavoidable"
part implies that a citizen must flee if all can safely do so.  In most 
states, the citizen is not required to flee in their own home.  They have 
greater latitude there than in any other situation.

My understanding of Canadian law -- based on the news accounts I've heard --
is that you are in big trouble any time you use deadly force, whether a 
firearm is used or not.


QUESTIONS:

What, exactly, is the law in Canada concerning self-defense?
What is the law concerning the use of self-defense tools that aren't firearms
(e.g. pepper spray)?

    Note 130.471

    >both countries offer the "freedom" from gun crime that you 
    >referenced in you previous replies.  Both are paying a price in personal
    >freedom.

    Many of us don't see the price in this case as being very high.

    >Canada...has changed a good deal in the last 10-15 years.

    Oh, really?  Well, I've lived here for the past 31 years, and I have
    few complaints.  It's not perfect.  What is?


    Note 130.472

    The argument that criminals will always find a way to get guns is no
    reason to abandon efforts to prevent it.  It may not eliminate gun crime,
    but it's likely to reduce it.


    Note 130.473

    Uhhh...the note you quoted was directed specifically at Amos and his
    `drive-by' noting.  But if you want...

    >1.  It cannot be done, because the ban will not affect the illegal 
    >    manufacture, importation, and sale of weapons.

    Ummm...yes it will.  The new legislation will specifically reduce
    the number of weapons entering the country legally, thereby reducing
    the number available to steal.  It will also toughen penalties for 
    crimes involving the illegal use or smuggling or manufacture of
    firearms.  Tougher penalties are a good thing, wouldn't you agree?

    >2.  The ban will affect only certain firearms, not the ones that can 
    >    be the most lethal (such as shotguns, which are not designed to 
    >    stop or wound but are designed to kill).

    Perhaps, but gun crime in Toronto involves mostly handguns, ALL stolen
    or purchased from their legal owner.  Shotguns won't be banned, you are
    right.  Some pills Canadians just won't swallow.  :^)

    >3.  The ban will not reduce the crimes of violence that are committed 
    >    without firearms and may, in fact, create an atomosphere in which 
    >    such crimes increase...

    Didn't happen in 1977, why should it happen now?
 
    >...(physically challenged people or small people
    >will be easy targets; violent offenders with knives, blunt objects,
    >or partners will be able to commit violent crimes with impunity).

    This is no different than today, unless you are arguing that criminals,
    without their guns, are more likely to pick on the less fortunate.  But
    then, where are you going with this?  You say gun control won't keep
    guns out of criminal's hands, so this should be a moot point, shouldn't
    it?

    >4.  The ban will take away law-enforcement resources from the 
    >    investigation and prevention of violent crime and put it into the
    >    control of peaceable citizens.

    Hardly, unless you've vastly overestimated the number of weapons we
    have here that will be affected by this ban.

    >I will continue to monitor the situation in Canada, confident that I can
    >use it as another example of bad policy.

    Happy to be of service to you.  :^)

    >The best way, in my opinion, is to make the illegal use of firearms such a 
    >huge liability that the criminals simply choose not to use them.

    I agree, and that is a major component of the new legislation.

    >In 80% of the cases in which a suspect is arrested for a violent crime, 
    >these (Federal) charges are never filed.

    We also have enforcement lapses on this side of the border, and I would
    like to see Allan Rock address those as part of this entire package.

    >However, this involves punishing people for illegal acts and not prior 
    >restraint.

    Jim P. and I have been around the block on this one before.  Crime control
    would not have prevented Marc Lepine's massacre of 14 women.  Keeping the
    weapon out of his hands would have.  Whether for technical or merely
    emotional reasons, the particular weapon he used (Ruger Mini-14) is on
    the list of weapons that will be banned under this new legislation.


    Note 130.474

    >RE: Hate Law 
    >Then you have censorship is the truist sense of the word.

    If we're talking about the same thing, then the law you're referring
    to makes it a crime to disseminate hateful AND incorrect information.
    Both elements are necessary for the laying of a charge, and in that
    sense, it differs little from libel and slander laws; it merely
    allows the government to act when the victim is not an individual, but
    rather an identifiable racial, ethnic or religious group.

    The law is very rarely applied, and usually without success (which means
    that the court system is still looking out for us :^).


    Note 130.475

    >Censorship is alive and well in Canada.  I remembered you obsenity laws,
    >but I forgot about the hate law until this string reminded me.

    We're off on a tangent here.  I'm not going to defend Canada's 
    obscenity laws, because I don't agree with them.

    >My intention was to talk about Candian law -- not necessarily the Canadian 
    >Customs Service.  My intent was to show examples to illustrate how indiv-
    >idual rights in Canada are being eroded.

    Then we're back to the `my country vs. your country' debate again.  Sorry,
    but I've seen nothing to be envious of south of the border, besides the
    warm weather.  You've got big problems of your own down there, so it's
    going to be a hard sell, not only for me, but for most Canadians.

    >I appreciate the information.  I hope it wasn't boring.
    >I have heard similar views expressed by others in Canada.

    I'm happy to provide it...and I think that we can both agree that the
    Canadian and American experience are fundamentally different.  I don't
    believe the American model will work here any better than the Canadian
    model will work there.

    >What, exactly, is the law in Canada concerning self-defense?
    >What is the law concerning the use of self-defense tools that aren't 
    >firearms (e.g. pepper spray)?

    The law provides for an individual to use only as much force as is
    necessary in self defence.  I can recall no cases where victims have
    been prosecuted for excessive use of force except in cases where they
    were willing participants in a fight or were using the force AFTER the
    need to had passed (ie. shooting at fleeing felons or revenge-motivated
    violence).  The use of some items is prohibited (like electric stun-guns).
    The use of pretty much whatever comes to hand is okay, but you might end 
    up facing `weapons dangerous' charges if it looks like you were carrying
    the item merely for the purpose of using it violently.

    For example...suppose I started carrying a knife for self-defence.  If I
    end up stabbing someone with it, the unfortunate stabbee's lawyer will
    have little difficulty making it look like I was predisposed to violence.
    "Why were you carrying the knife?  What were you expecting to happen?
    Why didn't you just run away?" and so on.  The stabbee may well be
    aquitted, and I may be charged.

    It gets back to my point about our fundamentally different approach to
    this issue...Canadians don't want to be armed, and don't want to feel
    the need to be armed.  You may not want to feel the need, but you DO
    feel the need, and your statistics back up your feelings.  To the
    outside observer, you've got a sadly broken society.  That may not be
    the case, but on the other hand...our RATE of violent crime is
    significantly lower.  Given that, how do you think you can sell your
    model to us as a superior one?

    jc
        

      <<< Note 130.476 by TROA02::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>


>    The argument that criminals will always find a way to get guns is no
>    reason to abandon efforts to prevent it.  It may not eliminate gun crime,
>    but it's likely to reduce it.

	You have spoken about the murder rate in Canada having come down,
	do you have the figures for gun related crime of all types since
	the gun control laws were put into effect?

>    It gets back to my point about our fundamentally different approach to
>    this issue...Canadians don't want to be armed, and don't want to feel
>    the need to be armed. 

	I know quite a few Canadians that do wish to own firearms. Of course
	most of them do not live in Toronto or Montreal. We have the same
	problem in the US. Those that live in the big cities think that
	their views are shared by everyone who does not.
	
>but on the other hand...our RATE of violent crime is
>    significantly lower. 

	Your murder rate is about 2/3ds ours (5.45 vs. 8.4/100k), serious
	assaults about 1/3d ours, aggravted theft is almost the same (1490
	vs. 1530/100k), robbery about 1/2.

	Given the very low rate of gun use (based on the earlier posted
	stat that only .2% of murders involve a gun) why are "guns" 
	considered such a serious problem?

> Given that, how do you think you can sell your
>    model to us as a superior one?

	Superior? Depends on the frame of reference. Better for those of
	us that value individual freedoms? Yes. Safer? No.

Jim

    
    
re:      <<< Note 130.470 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>
    
    
>    "Homicides account for a small proportion of all violent crimes.  In
>    1992, 0.2% of all reported violent incidents were homicides.  Homicide
>    includes first and second degree murder, manslaughter and infanticide.
>    In 1992, the number of of homicides decreased to 732, from 753 in 1991.
>    Although there have been year-to-year fluctuations, the homicide rate
>    has remained relatively stable in recent years.  The 1992 rate of 2.67
>    per 100,000 was actually 14% lower than the peak rate of 3.09 in 1975.
>    Over the past decade, the average ratio of homicide rates between the
>    U.S. and Canada was three to one."
    
    	Lower than the PEAK rate of ONE year? What about the average rate
    of years before? You pull one bad year out and suddenly think you have
    a case? Like I said, do some real research.
    
    jim

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Subject: (fwd) Canadian Police Chiefs target guns *and* the Internet

From: [email protected] (Financial Opportunities)

>From the TORONTO STAR, April 4th, 1995, p. A9:

             POLICE CHIEFS TO FIGHT PRO-GUN "MISINFORMATION"
                           by Tim Harper
                           Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA - Canada's police chiefs say they will step up their fight against
a "deliberate campaign" of misinformation being waged across this country by
pro-gun advocates.

Vince MacDonald, the President of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of
Police, told reporters yesterday he's concerned about the spread of this
misinformation through *the Internet* , on *open-line radio shows* and at
public meetings.

"If you get 100 people at a meeting wearing hunters orange and military
fatigues, they tend to get media attention," MacDonald said - after again
pledging his association's support for the gun-control package now before the
House of Commons.

He spoke of participating in one radio show on which callers were told to
{*shock*, *horror*!} go out and bury all their guns {I *do* hope that the
caller who advised listeners to do this didn't refer them to the inserts in
SOLDIER OF FORTUNE, October and November 1991, and easily available at any
reference library, which would have told them *exactly* how go about
caching their weapons in this way! - JW}.

He also knows of *Internet* messages in which contributors have pledged to
fight with their lives for their right to keep unregistered guns.

But MacDonald conceded that there is little police can *now* do *to regulate
the Internet* {HINT - watch for future legislation! JW}

*The Internet will be on the Chiefs' agenda at their upcoming convention in
Regina*, he said.

Most disconcerting, the association executive said in a statement, is the
effort by some lobbyists to promote the arming of citizens for self-protection.

"As the U.S. example has shown", MacDonald said, "arming for self-protection
does not work. (It) in fact escalates violence."

He also said yesterday that the chiefs still favour a *Criminal Code violation*
for anyone *convicted of failing to register firearms*, even on a first
offence.

But MacDonald said that they would go back and look at other options after the
Canadian Police Association, *representing some 35,000 rank-and-file officers*,
last week called upon Justice Minister Allan Rock to remove criminal sanctions
for a first offence.

MacDonald said that other options are already on the books that police can
call on, including an absolute discharge for a first offence.

He said there is no rift between the Chiefs and the officer in the street
{funny - that's not the impression that gave *me* :) -JW}.

"They are concerned about resources and there isn't a chief of police in this
country who is not concerned about resources."

                                 - o O o -

--

>      <<< Note 130.460 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>

    
>    .458
    
>    Native North American Indians don't consider themselves to be Canadians
>    OR Americans, Amos.  But then, you knew that.
 
Then why does your gov't work so hard to control them and dictate their way of 
life? why does your gov't take their children aweay from the families for 8 to 
10 months every year to force them into white-mans schools? (talk to Cree
indians in North Ontario for details, I have lived with Cree)
Why does your gov't try to impose social controls on native population?

I wait your answers.
Amos   

>                     <<< Note 130.461 by KAOFS::D_STREET >>>
    
>    As far as the government taking things. Canadians have a sense of
>    community rights that Americans don't have. A good example is our
>    Hate law. We try to prevent the dissemination of literature that is
>    intended to promote hate. KKK stuff would be an example. Most Americans
>    (I think) would say that is an infringment on the right of free speech.
>    We don't think holocaust denial is a free speech issue, it is about
>    hate, and society is protected over the right of the individual to say
>    what they want.
    
Precisely what I am talking about. You don't even realize what you've given 
up.

There are no COMMUNITY rights, only individual rights. collective-ist thinking
does more harm than good except to allow the gov't free reign.
The community is individuals, harming a minority harms the community in the 
long run.

    
    
    
        Many cultures 
        that have severe gun restrictions * Japan, China, USSR, Germany, 
        Luxembourg, Denmark, Belgium, Surinam, Trinidad, Tobago, 
        Hungary, Rumania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Finland, and 
        Sweden * have total suicide rates far exceeding the USA suicide 
        rate. Many others * Canada, Iceland, Bulgaria, Norway, and 
        Australia * exceed the USA suicide rate though not quite so 
        dramatically.
    
    source: World Health Organization. World Health Statistics 1989. 
    Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. 1989.
    
    

    
    Remember the comparison between the Seattle Washington (USA) and
    Vancouver (CAN) homocide rates that was made by the NEJM?
    
    
    *       the Vancouver homicide rate increased 25% after the institution 
    of the 1977 Canadian law.
    
    
    from:    Guns in the Medical Literature * A Failure of Peer Review
             an article reviewing politicized and incompetent research
             by Edgar A. Suter MD
    
    
    
    

    To say the rate went up in Vancouver because of the new legislation
    would be wrong, and it would be wrong to say it might have been higher
    without the legislation.

    
    
    I don't think that's what Jim's saying, Glenn.  I think he is pointing
    out that that there's no correlation at all between the suicide rate
    and gun control.
    
    
    Mike

    
    	re: .484
    
    	exactly my point. There is no correlation. Enacting the law did not
    reduce crime and I'm not saying crime increased because of it. My point
    is that legal firearms ownership does not equal high crime rates.
    Canada's crime rate is not down due to gun-control and I even contest
    the fact that Canada's crime rate is lower today than was the AVERAGE
    (not the high for one year) years ago.
    
    jim

| <<< Note 130.485 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>



| I think he is pointing out that that there's no correlation at all between the
| suicide rate and gun control.


	Mike is right. But there IS a correlation between suicide and Tylenol
sales. 

    TIS::HAMBURGER
    
     I provide a fairly clear example of how Canadians and Americans view
    the same thing (dissemination of literature that is intended to promote
    hate) in a different manner, and you return with a repeat of what I
    said the American position would be. I think I said I understood what
    the American position would be. Believe it or not, Canadaians do
    not care to protect the right to promote hate with factually incorrect
    information. We do not think the right to shoot an un/mis informed
    mouth off is paramount. Americans do, and you comparison of Canada to
    PRC proves it.
    
     As for community rights, are you so sure that they do not exist ? What
    about the guy with the Christmas lights. If the community had no
    rights, why was it able to force him to reduce his light display?
    Surely his right to be a spectale (celibrate a religous holiday) supersedes
    the communities right to a peaceful existance. Or maybe not.....
    
    
    							Derek.
    
     

    
    
>     As for community rights, are you so sure that they do not exist ? What
>    about the guy with the Christmas lights. If the community had no
>    rights, why was it able to force him to reduce his light display?
>    Surely his right to be a spectale (celibrate a religous holiday) supersedes
>    the communities right to a peaceful existance. Or maybe not.....
    
    	You're comparing apples to oranges. You talked of dissemination of
    literature (KKK)...you don't have to read it or even look at it if you
    don't want to. Not the same as a large christmas display in the middle
    of the neighborhood. Now, if he wanted to have the same display in his
    cellar, no one could say a word.
    
    jim
    

    SUBPAC::SADIN
    
     One could argue that you don't have to look at the lights either. I
    can't discuss this if the objective is to split hairs until I give up.
    The comparison is not perfect, but close enough for discussion. If you
    think having this literature put on you windshield is avoidable, but
    the Christmas lights are not, then I give up. Your dictionary and mine
    must disagree about what is and is not avoidable.
    
    							Derek.

    
    For all those eagerly awaiting my predictable responses, you will have to
    bear with me a bit...my time for 'boxing is extremely limited at the
    moment.  :^)
    
    Note 130.477, Jim:

	>do you have the figures for gun related crime of all types since
	>the gun control laws were put into effect?
    
    Sorry, I do not.  Do you?  (This isn't a smarmy question...it's just
    that the gun control debate is not a life's priority with me right
    now, so my time for research is limited.  The NRA seems to post a lot
    of this stuff on the net, and Jim S. and Amos talk as though they DO
    have these figures, so I'd be delighted to see them).

	>I know quite a few Canadians that do wish to own firearms. Of course
	>most of them do not live in Toronto or Montreal. We have the same
	>problem in the US. Those that live in the big cities think that
	>their views are shared by everyone who does not.
    
    People in rural area (or in the cities, for that matter) will still be
    able to purchase and own hunting rifles, shotguns, and sporting weapons
    for the various needs they might have.
	
	>Your murder rate is about 2/3ds ours (5.45 vs. 8.4/100k)
    
    I'm sorry, Jim, but my information does not agree with that.  Our
    murder rate is about 1/3rd yours (my stats run up to 1993).  The other 
    stats you posted look to be accurate.
    
	>Given the very low rate of gun use (based on the earlier posted
	>stat that only .2% of murders involve a gun)
    
    I think you misread that, Jim.  The stats I posted said that 0.2% of 
    violent crimes are homicides.   Unless you're referring to a note that
    I may have missed.
    
    	>why are "guns" considered such a serious problem?
    
    Because the use of guns *appears* to be increasing.  As I said, I do
    not have all the stats.

	>Superior? Depends on the frame of reference. Better for those of
	>us that value individual freedoms? Yes. Safer? No.
    
    `Safer' is a form of freedom, Jim.  Freedom from fear, freedom from
    harm.

    jc
    

    Canada's major cities are very safe compared to U.S. counterparts
    in terms of homicides.

ban canadian gun owners!!!!!

      <<< Note 130.491 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>

    
>    Sorry, I do not.  Do you?  (This isn't a smarmy question...it's just
>    that the gun control debate is not a life's priority with me right
>    now, so my time for research is limited.  The NRA seems to post a lot
>    of this stuff on the net, and Jim S. and Amos talk as though they DO
>    have these figures, so I'd be delighted to see them).

	The NRA has stats available for the US, courtesy of our Department
	of Justice. I really don't know if your Ministry keeps or 
	publishes similar data. A quick call to your local library would
	likely yield the answer. Without those stats, your support of 
	gun control in Canada rests on a foundation of ignorance (not an
	insult, I once supported gun control in the US out of ignorance.
	Then I educated myself on the issue).

>    People in rural area (or in the cities, for that matter) will still be
>    able to purchase and own hunting rifles, shotguns, and sporting weapons
>    for the various needs they might have.

	Quite a number of Canadians were shooting IPSC (an international
	pistol sport comfederation with 41 member countries). These shooters
	were promised that they would be exempted from the magazine capacity
	ban, under the "sporting arms" definition. Your government lied to
	them. You may think that this is a small issue, but high capacity
	is required to be competitive at the international level. In fact,
	had Canada not exhibited such an unfriendly attitude regarding guns,
	you folks north of the border might have had the bragging rights
	to a World Champion. Matt McClearn moved from Nova Scotia to the
	US and two years ago took both the US and World titles.

>    I'm sorry, Jim, but my information does not agree with that.  Our
>    murder rate is about 1/3rd yours (my stats run up to 1993).  The other 
>    stats you posted look to be accurate.
 
	My data is from The Software Toolworks World Atlas. Data is current
	to 1992. What source are you using?

>    I think you misread that, Jim.  The stats I posted said that 0.2% of 
>    violent crimes are homicides.

	I may indeed have misread. Do you know the percentage of homocides
	involving firearms?

>    Because the use of guns *appears* to be increasing.  As I said, I do
>    not have all the stats.

	If it is indeed increasing, then your gun control laws *appear* to
	be a failure. If we accept, for the moment, that this is the case,
	how does passing even MORE gun laws address the real problem?

>    `Safer' is a form of freedom, Jim.

	We disagree. Freedom, in the sense that I use the word is NOT
	safe. You bristled at the comparison with the PRC, but if I
	accept YOUR definition of "freedom", then folks in the PRC
	are far more "free" than either you OR I.

Jim

    
    Note 130.478, Jim S.:
    
    >Lower than the PEAK rate of ONE year? What about the average rate
    >of years before? You pull one bad year out and suddenly think you have
    >a case? Like I said, do some real research.
    
    Jim, your getting as belligerent as Amos!  :^)
    
    You will HAVE to forgive the fact that I don't keep lots 'o' data in
    my desk drawer at work.  Now then...
    
    Canadian Murder Rates per 100,000 (source: Statistics Canada, via the
    Canadian Global Almanac):
    
    1961    1971    1975    1976    1981    1986    1991    1992    1993
    ----    ----    ----    ----    ----    ----    ----    ----    ----
    1.28    2.20    3.09    2.91    2.66    2.25    2.78    2.67    2.21
    
    As you can see, murders were increasing up until 1975, and have
    levelled off to rates below the two years previous to 1977, when
    current gun control legislation was passed.
    
    jc
    

    
    .479, Jim S.:
    
    Jim, you're not THAT uncritical, are you?  When police chiefs say they
    plan to fight the (mis)information being propogated on the net, they
    OF COURSE mean that they plan to post counter-information, not that
    they plan to seek censorship.
    
    Sheesh!
    
    When the Canadian gov't proposes such censorship, you get back to me,
    and I promise I will fight it full tilt.
    

    Lots of freedom up here.

    In .454, Amos says:

>This is a note about gun-control so try to stick to the topic or do you
>prefer the Canadian style of discussion exemplified by Ren & Stimpy
>(A truly enlightening Canadian export)? Chaotic conversations!

    Then, in .458, Amos tries to deflect attention from the American role
    in gun smuggling by saying:

>How many truckloads of cigarettes did _YOUR_ indians smuggle in?

    Then, when reminded that Native North American Indians don't consider
    themselves to be Canadians OR Americans, Amos, in .480, says:
 
>Then why does your gov't work so hard to control them and dictate their way of 
>life? why does your gov't take their children aweay from the families for 8 to 
>10 months every year to force them into white-mans schools? (talk to Cree
>indians in North Ontario for details, I have lived with Cree)
>Why does your gov't try to impose social controls on native population?

    Amos, I'm not even going to try to defend my government's treatment of
    Native Indians and Inuit.  I've disagreed with it publicly, and have never
    felt the the Natives received a fair shake.  I'm assuming that you wouldn't
    defend America's treatment of blacks through history, either.

    So...what's your point?  I mean, on the topic of gun control.  Or are
    you changing the topic?

>I wait your answers.

    I doubt that you're awaiting anything except an opportunity to attack me.
    However...you have twice insinuated that my posts in this topic are
    factually incorrect, and thrice declined the invitation to support this
    position.

    So I am repeating it, for the fourth time...where have I posted incorrect
    data.  For that matter, what have YOU contributed to the topic at hand
    (that being CANADIAN gun control) besides vitriol, insults, and ONE
    well written essay (that YOU didn't write).

    I am (still) awaiting your response.

    jc

    
    Note 130.481, Amos:
    
>You don't even realize what you've given up.
    
    And YOU don't even realize that in the U.S., guns are a perfect example
    of "the medium is the message".

>There are no COMMUNITY rights, only individual rights.

    I can think of no rights that are absolute.  Can you?  And you should
    bear in mind that individual rights OFTEN clash with the individual
    rights of another.  THAT's where all the trouble begins.
    

    
    NOBODY better even DREAM about snarfing in the middle of my ranting!!
    

    
    .482, Jim S.:
    
    Actually, I've never considered suicide rates to be validly included
    in the gun control debate, because I don't consider suicide to be a
    crime, and I doubt that a suicide would be deterred by lack of a
    firearm.  I suppose many in the pro-control side would disagree with
    me, but I'm a wacky guy, so that's understandable.
    
    A person committing suicide is not liable to be any threat to me, or
    anyone else, so I just don't think they should be included in this issue.
    

    
    .483, Jim S.:
    
    Again, you're not THAT uncritical, are you?  You don't really believe that
    there's a cause-and-effect relationship (even IF I accept that the study
    quoted is accurate)?  After reading your followup, I guess that you
    don't.  So what's your point?  The national rates I posted in .495 don't 
    match the findings of that study, so if you have this study (and I'll bet
    that you do), I'd like you to post it here, thanks.
    
    Besides, you're playing both sides of the fence here.  When Canadian
    stats don't support the American position, you dismiss them as being
    unapplicable to the American situation.  So which is it?  Do they
    apply, or don't they?
    
    jc
    
    

    Note 130.494, Jim P.:

	>The NRA has stats available for the US, courtesy of our Department
	>of Justice.
    
    My impression was that the NRA would collect ANYTHING, even
    international stats, that would support their position.
    
        >I really don't know if your Ministry keeps or 
	>publishes similar data.
    
    As I said, my research time is limited these days.
    
	>Without those stats, your support of 
	>gun control in Canada rests on a foundation of ignorance
    
    Well...not really, Jim.  I've turned up a lot of information lately,
    and I dare say it's a far sight more than most of the Americans here
    have been able to provide regarding Canadian crime and law.
    
    	>(not an insult...)
    
    None taken, coming from you.  It's too bad that not all noters can be
    as civilized as yourself.

	>...had Canada not exhibited such an unfriendly attitude regarding 
        >guns, you folks north of the border might have had the bragging
        >rights to a World Champion.
    
    Yes...well...I guess there's always a down side to this sort of thing.
    I'm not denying it.

	>My data is from The Software Toolworks World Atlas. Data is current
	>to 1992.  What source are you using?
    
    Statistics Canada.  See .495.

	>Do you know the percentage of homicides involving firearms?
    
    Offhand, no.  In 1992, 1359 Canadians died by firearm.  That includes
    suicides and accidents.  There were 732 homicides in 1992.  My guess is
    that about 15-20% of the homicides involved a firearm.  This is based on
    some other stats I have, which I will post later, showing that use of
    a firearm causing injury (but not death) is fairly low for crimes like
    assault, sexual assault, and robbery.  Incidentally, my stats also show
    that firearms have accounted for over 50% of the murders annually in the
    U.S. since 1988 (as far back as my stats go).  If I cross the border,
    I'm more likely to be killed with a firearm than I am to be killed AT
    ALL in Canada.

	>If it is indeed increasing, then your gun control laws *appear* to
	>be a failure.
    
    Well, one problem is enforcement.  But many of the laws we have now,
    like $500 fines for smuggling firearms, are long overdue for change.
    
        >If we accept, for the moment, that this is the case,
	>how does passing even MORE gun laws address the real problem?
    
    Jim, what do YOU think the REAL problem is?

	>We disagree. Freedom, in the sense that I use the word is NOT
	>safe.
    
    Tom-AY-to, tom-AH-to...    :^)
    
        >You bristled at the comparison with the PRC, but if I accept YOUR
        >definition of "freedom", then folks in the PRC are far more "free"
        >than either you OR I.
    
    `Freedom' as I define it is not solely based on safety, Jim.  But I
    contend that if you are three times more likely than I to be murdered, 
    twice as likely to be robbed, and FOUR times more likely to be
    imprisoned, than you are less free than I, at least in ONE sense.
    
    Anti-controllers often complain that the pro-controllers are
    intellectually dishonest.  To compare Canada to China is dishonest,
    Jim, and you know this.  The differences are too numerous to mention,
    but the fact is that the Chinese emigrate to Canada...Canadians don't
    generally emigrate to China.
    
    jc
    

      <<< Note 130.503 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>

>    My impression was that the NRA would collect ANYTHING, even
>    international stats, that would support their position.
 
	I suppose that they could, but the Association's resources are
	limited. In general, comparing crime stats between different
	countries is not fruitful. I prefer to look at the numbers
	FOR the country involved. This eliminates a LOT of the variables 
	that exist when comparing two different cultures.

>    As I said, my research time is limited these days.
 
	OK, I can appreciate that. But it might be worth a few hours
	at the local libarary. Your option, of course.

>    Well...not really, Jim.  I've turned up a lot of information lately,
>    and I dare say it's a far sight more than most of the Americans here
>    have been able to provide regarding Canadian crime and law.
 
	Most of us south of the border do not have access to the information.
	In the US, the DOJ publishes something called the Uniform Crime Report.
	This is an annual event and we have quick access to crime stats going
	back several decades. I would hope that your Ministry of Justice 
	performs similar analysis and that you can find the time to review
	the information.

>It's too bad that not all noters can be
>    as civilized as yourself.

	It my style, developed over years of debate on this issue. It's
	not that I can't become emotional about the topic, it's just that
	I find that my "conversion" rate is better if I don't.

>    Yes...well...I guess there's always a down side to this sort of thing.
>    I'm not denying it.

	And it's the downside that concerns me. Not because Canadian law
	affects me directly (unless I really wanted to compete in an IPSC
	match up in Canada), but the fact that rights of Canadian IPSC
	shooters were affected.

>Incidentally, my stats also show
>    that firearms have accounted for over 50% of the murders annually in the
>    U.S. since 1988 (as far back as my stats go).

	"Statistics Canada" has US crime stats?

>    Well, one problem is enforcement.  

	Same here. We pass laws and then don't use them. Then we use the
	excuse that the last law was ineffective, so we need MORE laws.
	It sounds like your politicians and ours are not all that much
	different.

>    Jim, what do YOU think the REAL problem is?

	If I knew the answer to that one, I'd run for office. What causes
	someone to become a criminal? I suppose we could make a list of
	possibilities, but if we did, I don't think that "availibility
	of guns" would be on the list. Do you?

>    `Freedom' as I define it is not solely based on safety, Jim.

	That's good to know.

>    Anti-controllers often complain that the pro-controllers are
>    intellectually dishonest.  To compare Canada to China is dishonest,
>    Jim, and you know this.
 
	I was just using the comparison, to point out the fallacy of a
	very simplistic argument.

Jim

    
    Note 130.504, Jim P.:
    
	>I would hope that your Ministry of Justice performs similar analysis
    
    The Ministry and StatsCan have LOTS of info available...it's just a
    matter of finding the time to track it down.

	>It's not that I can't become emotional about the topic, it's just
    	>that I find that my "conversion" rate is better if I don't.
    
    There's a lesson here for OTHER nameless noters...   :^)

	>"Statistics Canada" has US crime stats?
    
    No...those were gleaned from the 1994 World Almanac...they are FBI
    stats.

	>I suppose we could make a list of
	>possibilities, but if we did, I don't think that "availibility
	>of guns" would be on the list. Do you?
    
    It has been said in the past that "A lock keeps an honest man honest."
    The availability of guns may not cause crime, but it does facilitate
    it.  It's possible to believe that the easier it is to commit a crime,
    the more likely it is that someone will.

    jc
    

      <<< Note 130.505 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>

    
>    The Ministry and StatsCan have LOTS of info available...it's just a
>    matter of finding the time to track it down.

	It sounds like the library is not the source for you in the same
	way as it is for us. That does make the task more difficult.

>    The availability of guns may not cause crime, but it does facilitate
>    it.  

	You can, of course, see that a weapon that is considered effective
	for offensive use is neccessarily also effective for defensive use.

>It's possible to believe that the easier it is to commit a crime,
>    the more likely it is that someone will.

	I don't think that I agree. I believe that the decision made by
	a criminal depends on a number of factors. High on that list is
	"can I get away with it?. Once the decision is MADE, then the
	criminal will look for the most effective tools available to him
	or her. I don't think that the availibility of guns CAUSES people
	to decide to become criminals. They make the decision AND THEN
	go looking for a gun.

Jim

      <<< Note 130.422 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>

You asked for more details on the obscenity case.  I found the article 
last night.  The source is "Pornographobia: Feminists Got To War"
by Chi Chi Sileo.  It's in _Insight_on_the_News_, February 27, 1995 
(Volume 11 Number 9), pages 6-10.

The article deals with anti-pornography laws proposed by radical feminists
and the religious right in the United States.  The article references
the Butler Law in Canada.


    "What we stress is choice.  We are not pro-pornography, but we are not
    anti-porn either," says Rachel Hickerson, executive director of Feminists
    for Free Expression, which was founded in 1992 to combat the PVCA [KDO:
    an anti-pornography law proposed in the US].  "We believe women should 
    have the right to make their own choices.  We've seen what happens when 
    they can't.  Our favorite example is Margaret Sanger, who was imprisoned 
    on obscenity charges for writing about birth control."

    . . .

    In addition to the Sanger example, pro-sex feminists note that when 
    they've been applied, censorship laws almost always have been used to
    target writings by women and politically or socially oppressed groups.

    A 1992 Canadian law based on a court case called _Butler_vs._the_Queen_
    has proven to be a chilling example.  Now known as Butler, the law allows 
    Canadian customs officials to confiscate any "obscene" material anyone
    attempts to bring across the border and local officials to arrest anyone
    selling "obscene" material.  Canadian booksellers have issued pleas and
    countersuits, charging that they are losing titles and money as books are
    confiscated.

    With censorship, says Strossen [KDO: ACLU], the question always comes 
    down to: Who decides?  "Feminists should be the last people on Earth to 
    trust the government with that kind of power.  Don't they know that they 
    are likely to be the first ones it turns against?"

    As Strossen sees it, Butler provides an early-warning signal of what 
    would happen under new obscenity codes.  Last year, Butler was used to
    prevent a bookstore from distributing transcripts of taped telephone
    conversations that would have proved embarrassing to government officials.
    Many free-speech advocates note parallels with the tactics of 
    totalitarian regimes such as Nazis Germany, in which materials written
    by and for Jews, or against Nazis, were branded "obscene", and the 
    Soviet Union, where anti-Communist propaganda was called "pornographic".

    The primary targets of Butler have been gay and lesbian publications,
    pornographic or not; it has not been used to ban the kind of violent
    heterosexual pronography described by Dworkin and MacKinnon.  In other
    cases, Butler has been used to confiscate books solely on the basis of
    their titles, including on called _Hot,_Hotter,_Hottest_ which is a 
    cookbook focusing on the use of spices, and Dworkin's own books, 
    _Pornography_ and _Woman_Hating_.


I point this out simply as an example of a Canadia law that appears to 
erode individual rights.  From a personal perspective, I believe that 
censorship is an outrage.  It is oppressive and demeaning to the individual.
Oppressive because it seeks to deal with a problem through prior restraint,
it provides a vehicle for the State to excercise control over the peasants, 
and it restricts the expression of minority points of view.  Demeaning 
because it takes away an individual right, it appears to be based on the 
idea that the individual cannot be trusted to make choices, and it creates 
a two-tiered society: censors, who have free access to information, and the 
peasants.

      <<< Note 130.476 by TROA02::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>


Sorry for the delay...

> >both countries offer the "freedom" from gun crime that you 
> >referenced in you previous replies.  Both are paying a price in personal
> >freedom.
>
>    Many of us don't see the price in this case as being very high.

When the rights of the minority are being taken away, those in the majority
rarely see the price as being very high.


> The argument that criminals will always find a way to get guns is no
> reason to abandon efforts to prevent it.  It may not eliminate gun crime,
> but it's likely to reduce it.

The best approach, in my opinion, is to take away the incentives for 
criminals to acquire firearms.

One more time: the problem is "violent crime" -- not "gun crime".
A guy I work with is fond of saying with a smile, "Thank God Nicole 
Simpson and Ronald Goldman were only killed with a knife.  If they had
been shot, it would be a REAL crime."


> >1.  It cannot be done, because the ban will not affect the illegal 
> >    manufacture, importation, and sale of weapons.
>
>    Ummm...yes it will.  The new legislation will specifically reduce
>    the number of weapons entering the country legally, thereby reducing
>    the number available to steal.  It will also toughen penalties for 
>    crimes involving the illegal use or smuggling or manufacture of
>    firearms.  Tougher penalties are a good thing, wouldn't you agree?

A ban only affects what is legal to do.  The illegal activities will 
probably increase.  As long as there is a market, there will be people
to fill those needs, no matter how Draconian the laws are made.
The number available to steal may go down, but the number illegally 
imported can grow to fill the need.  I imagine that the Canadian border 
is harder to protect than, say, Great Britain.  Both countries have 
blackmarkets in firearms today.

Tougher penalties and vigorous enforcement for illegal possession and use 
are a good idea, but a ban is not required to do that.


> >2.  The ban will affect only certain firearms, not the ones that can 
> >    be the most lethal (such as shotguns, which are not designed to 
> >    stop or wound but are designed to kill).
>
>    Perhaps, but gun crime in Toronto involves mostly handguns, ALL stolen
>    or purchased from their legal owner.  Shotguns won't be banned, you are
>    right.  Some pills Canadians just won't swallow.  :^)

Are handguns banned by this proposal, or is that in future legislation?
Furthermore, my point still holds.  Your society is still at risk from 
"gun crime" carried out by weapons so terrible that they are banned by
the Geneva Convention.  :^)

Regarding "Some pills Canadians just won't swallow": I cannot determine,
so far, where that limit is.


> >3.  The ban will not reduce the crimes of violence that are committed 
> >    without firearms and may, in fact, create an atomosphere in which 
> >    such crimes increase...
>
>    Didn't happen in 1977, why should it happen now?

It may or may not have happened in 1977 due to a variety of factors.
(More on this later in the broadcast.)

 
> >...(physically challenged people or small people
> >will be easy targets; violent offenders with knives, blunt objects,
> >or partners will be able to commit violent crimes with impunity).
>
>   This is no different than today, unless you are arguing that criminals,
>   without their guns, are more likely to pick on the less fortunate.  But
>   then, where are you going with this?  You say gun control won't keep
>   guns out of criminal's hands, so this should be a moot point, shouldn't
>   it?

Not just the less fortunate, the risks for everyone may increase.

Weapons (including knives and blunt instruments), physical strength, force 
of numbers, and surprise are the tools of the trade for criminals who 
commit violent crimes.  They are also advantages that the average citizen
cannot use to defend themselves.  Firearms are truly the great equalizer.
Firearms do not require great physical strength.  It requires some training
and a little hand-eye coordination, but the average person can quickly 
acquire the necessary skills to defend themselves.  Restricting the ability
of people to defend themselves is an invitation to violence.  It creates a
situtation in which violent criminals have more opportunities to carry out
their plans in safety.

Firearms in the hands of citizens are a tangible deterrent to violent
crime.  (I can provide a short list of reasons, if you like.)  If you 
damage or eliminate that deterrent, violent crime may increase.  One of 
the biggest problems in the United States is that citizens in most states
are not allowed to carry weapons.  The United States may have 220 million
firearms, but on the street, we are an unarmed society.  This is a critical
reasons why most violent crimes in the United States occur outside the home.

After all, if police need firearms, why not peaceable citizens?
Do they encounter a different class of criminal than the rest of us?
(Didn't the Ottawa police department just switch to high-capacity semi-
automatics and hollow-point bullets?)  Granted, the police are more likely 
to encounter a criminal, but then again, I own a couple of fire 
extinguishers even though the probably that I will ever need one is 
extremely rare.  Up until a few years ago, the police in Great Britain 
didn't need firearms either.  The situation may be changing, now.


> >4.  The ban will take away law-enforcement resources from the 
> >    investigation and prevention of violent crime and put it into the
> >    control of peaceable citizens.
>
>    Hardly, unless you've vastly overestimated the number of weapons we
>    have here that will be affected by this ban.

Future bans will cost much more.  This is particularly true if Canada stops
nibbling around the edge of cookie and bans everything but certain 
bolt-action rifles.  That law, even if it is created in small steps, would 
probably be very unpopular.  In that case, large numbers of peaceable 
citizens probably won't comply.  The costs of locating the firearms and 
imprisoning people will be substantial.


>    We also have enforcement lapses on this side of the border, and I would
>    like to see Allan Rock address those as part of this entire package.

Again, this will do far more good, and it should be a priority.  It requires
no new laws.  It can be implemented today.  It does not inconvience anyone
except the criminals.


>   Jim P. and I have been around the block on this one before.  Crime control
>   would not have prevented Marc Lepine's massacre of 14 women.  Keeping the
>   weapon out of his hands would have.  Whether for technical or merely
>   emotional reasons, the particular weapon he used (Ruger Mini-14) is on
>   the list of weapons that will be banned under this new legislation.

If the only weapons that Marc Lepine could have used were on the list of 
banned firearms and if Marc Lepine could not have acquired a satisfactory
weapon through illegal channels, then your example would hold true.
Unfortunately that is not the case.  He could have just as easily used some
other weapon.  How about a shotgun?  In terms of illegally acquired 
firearms, didn't a news person in Canada try to illegally buy a gun a 
couple of months ago?  It was widely reported reported that he could get 
the firearm of his choice in only a day or two with no prior experience.
Didn't somone in this conference provide a newspaper article with a list of
high-profile crimes committed by weapons smuggled from the United States?
It would appear that Canada has a black-market that could have easily 
provided Lepine with the necessary tools for committing his crime.


>   The law is very rarely applied, and usually without success (which means
>   that the court system is still looking out for us :^).

This is interesting line of reasoning.

    1.  The government of Canada did arrest people in 1972 and hold them 
        without charges.  However, this is OK because fewer than 100 people
        were arrested, and they weren't held very long.
    2.  Hate laws and obscenity laws are not a problem, because they are
        rarely used.
    3.  Confiscation of firearms (private property) is OK because few 
        firearms will be taken.

I submit that once these laws have been used, their use will be expanded,
and new laws will be written to put even more limits on personal freedom.
I also believe that the views of many people on personal freedom will 
change if they find themselves in the minority sometime in the future.


RE: Self-defense law

Thanks for the information.
Specifically about pepper-spray: is this controlled?


>   It gets back to my point about our fundamentally different approach to
>   this issue...Canadians don't want to be armed, and don't want to feel
>   the need to be armed.  You may not want to feel the need, but you DO
>   feel the need, and your statistics back up your feelings.  To the
>   outside observer, you've got a sadly broken society.  That may not be
>   the case, but on the other hand...our RATE of violent crime is
>   significantly lower.  Given that, how do you think you can sell your
>   model to us as a superior one?

Again, it is not my intent to "sell" any model for a society.
I am not a sociologist, and I don't play one on TV.

It is my intent to gather information and to explore the logic behind this 
law because we will undoubtedly hear about it in the United States.
When your obscenity laws and hate law were passed, liberals in this country
tried to get similar laws passed here.  For years, gun-control advocates 
have used the experiences in Great Britain as an example to push for their
legislation.  In the most recent debate I've seen, the party line is to
make comparisons with Japan.

Yes, we have a sadly broken society.  The causes include:

    1.  The median prison sentence for murder in 1992 -- as measured in 
        time served -- was less than six years.  For rape, the median time 
        served was about three years [US Bureau of the Census].
    2.  30% of murders, 25% of rapes, and 40% of robberies are committed 
        by people out on bail, probation, or parole [INSIGHT, 27-Dec-1993].
    3.  Two years ago only 20% of Federal firarms charges were every filed
        against people arrested for other crimes [US Attorney under the 
        Bush Administration].  Current Justice Department estimates 
        indicate that that number is falling.
    4.  The juvenile justice system in many states is constructed so that
        youthful offenders get a "get out of jail free" card when they 
        reach the age of emancipation.  Juvenile violent crime is the 
        fastest growing area in recent years, and the juvenile justice 
        system is hopelessly out of date to deal with the problem.
    5.  The probability of a criminal getting caught and successfully 
        prosecuted has always been low, but it has been getting worse.
    6.  We have a huge drug problem, particularly in cocaine use.  The rise
        of violent crime coincides well with the introduction of crack.
        One survey from a few years back shows that most homocide 
        victims in Washington, D.C. had residual traces of cocaine in
        their blood.  If I recall, this implies that they ingested cocaine 
        within 36 hours of death.
    7.  We have a number of sociological problems that appear to be related 
        to fatherless households and poverty.

Some have suggested that the cause of the problem is also the availability 
of firearms in this country, but I have yet to see a good case made for 
this line of reasoning.

      
    Note 130.506, Jim P.:

	>You can, of course, see that a weapon that is considered effective
	>for offensive use is neccessarily also effective for defensive use.
    
    I can.  However, the propogation of weapons for defensive use may
    well lead to an increase in accidental deaths and opportunistic acts
    of violence.  I see this as being very possible.

	>I believe that the decision made by
	>a criminal depends on a number of factors. High on that list is
	>"can I get away with it?.
    
    Agreed, but I think that crimes like robbery and assault and murder
    are viewed as easier to commit with the use of a gun, and subsequently
    easier to get away with.  Especially robbery.
    
    jc

    
    .507, Kevin:
    
    Thanks for posting the article.  Of course, as I have said in the past,
    I don't agree withe that sort of thing.
    
    As for the "transcripts of a taped conversation", I think it's likely
    that the tape was not legally made, and to publish the transcript
    would have been a violation of privacy.
    
    We do, in fact, have very strong laws protecting personal privacy.
    
    jc
    

      <<< Note 130.510 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>

>   As for the "transcripts of a taped conversation", I think it's likely
>   that the tape was not legally made, and to publish the transcript
>   would have been a violation of privacy.
>    
>   We do, in fact, have very strong laws protecting personal privacy.

The article states that Butler was used.  

In the past, in countries all over the world, such laws have been used by 
governments to intimidate people.  The original NOTES entry in this string 
is a good example.  The RCMP was prepared to use the law to force the 
citizen into doing more than what the law required.

    Note 130.508, Kevin:

>One more time: the problem is "violent crime" -- not "gun crime".

    As I have said before, I believe that guns facilitate violent crime.
    Marc Lepine would have had a great deal more difficulty racking up
    14 victims with a lower capacity magazine.  I think low-capacity 
    firearms are an inconvenience Canadians can live with.

>A ban only affects what is legal to do.

    Marc Lepine was the legal owner of the weapon he used.  If you use
    the existence of the black-market to justify his legal access to that
    weapon, you are just admitting that the criminals control the agenda.

>Are handguns banned by this proposal, or is that in future legislation?
>Regarding "Some pills Canadians just won't swallow": I cannot determine,
>so far, where that limit is.

    Jim S. posted the full text of the legislation in .383, and a precis
    of the proposals in .385.  Most handguns with barrel lengths of 105mm
    or less will pass from being `restricted' to being `prohibited' (banned).
    All other handguns will be subject to greater restrictions.  Collectors
    will only be able to sell to each other.  Weapons will not be able to pass
    down as heirlooms.  Target shooters will have to prove that they are still
    actively competing every five years.  There's more, obviously.

>Firearms are truly the great equalizer.

    In all of Ontario (last I heard), there are less than a dozen licences
    to carry issued to citizens outside of the law enforcment and military
    establishments or security industry.  The use of firearms for self-defence
    is a rare thing in Canada, especially in urban areas.  In rural area, the
    use is generally against wild animals and such.

    It simply is not a factor in the Canadian equation to the same extent
    that it is in the U.S.

>Didn't the Ottawa police department just switch to high-capacity semi-
>automatics and hollow-point bullets?

    Police forces around Ontario are upgrading from .38 Specials to
    .40 or 9mm weapons, the Glock being the most common.

>Future bans will cost much more.  This is particularly true if Canada stops
>nibbling around the edge of cookie and bans everything but certain 
>bolt-action rifles.  That law, even if it is created in small steps, would 
>probably be very unpopular.

    Future bans?  Very unpopular?  Well...tell you what.  We have a great out
    for this situation, if Canadians so decide.  The Reform Party, which came
    within two seats of being the official opposition in the last federal
    election, is vehemently opposed to this legislation.  If this issue
    becomes important enough to Canadians to get involved with in large
    numbers, they have only to cast their vote for Reform.

>>    We also have enforcement lapses on this side of the border, and I would
>>    like to see Allan Rock address those as part of this entire package.
>Again, this will do far more good, and it should be a priority.

    Agreed.

>[Marc Lepine] could have just as easily used some other weapon.  How about
>a shotgun?

    My understanding is that shotguns can hold from one to seven rounds,
    with the average being about four to six rounds.  This does not include
    some of the newer style shotguns like the `Street Sweeper' by Daniels,
    but then, those types of shotguns are restricted weapons anyway, and
    I believe will be banned by this new legislation.

    Let's say, seven rounds.  And the shotgun is not exactly easy to reload
    quickly.  You probably disagree, but I think the kind of crime Marc
    Lepine committed is easier to perpetrate with a semi-automatic weapon that
    has two 30-round magazines `jungle-clipped' than a pump-action shotgun
    with seven shells.

>Didn't somone in this conference provide a newspaper article with a list of
>high-profile crimes committed by weapons smuggled from the United States?

    Yes...I did.  Canadians killed with weapons that Wayne Reed of Vermont
    is technically still the legal owner of.

>The government of Canada did arrest people in 1972 and hold them 
>without charges.  However, this is OK because fewer than 100 people
>were arrested, and they weren't held very long.
>Hate laws and obscenity laws are not a problem, because they are
>rarely used.

    Here we go again.  We've been down this road before.  Do you really
    want to re-address these things?  I don't agree with the obscenity
    laws, the hate laws affect only UNTRUE statements (ie. slander), 
    and the War Measures Act is off topic, as is the Vietnam draft.

>Thanks for the information.
>Specifically about pepper-spray: is this controlled?

    I'm not sure.  I think certain kinds of spray repellent are, and others
    are not.  The police here have begun carrying pepper-spray, and found it
    to be of limited effectiveness.

    jc

                                 

    
    Note 130.511, Kevin:

>The article states that Butler was used.  

    Well...you know that news media...they can't always be trusted!  :^)
    
    I'd need to know more about the case before commenting further.
    
    jc
    

Give one justification for me to NOT be allowed to leave my private property 
to my children when I die. 
Why should a 4" gun be banned but a 4-1/2" with the same action/caliber/etc
be legal. and why should my property be confiscated if I do not wish to 
give it up. 
Suppose my parent left me a WWII M1 carbine that earned him a medal, what is 
the value of this and why if it has never been used in a crime should I give 
it up.
The more you write the deeper you dig yourself in. The lack of freedom
is appaling. You  say you're against your anti-porn laws but what is to 
prevent the gov't from arresting whomever they want on those? What are you 
personally doing to overturn them? your example of them being left on 
windshields is bogus that can be regulated but possesion or printing
is not in a free society. 
citizens are armed, subjects and slaves are not.
No matter how much gold your masters put into your slave-collars you are still
slaves.
Amos    

      <<< Note 130.509 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>

      
>    I can.  However, the propogation of weapons for defensive use may
>    well lead to an increase in accidental deaths and opportunistic acts
>    of violence.  I see this as being very possible.

	If we were discussing a loosening of Canadian gun laws, this
	might be an issue. But we are not. We are talking about taking
	guns away from people who, to date, legally own them.

>    Agreed, but I think that crimes like robbery and assault and murder
>    are viewed as easier to commit with the use of a gun, and subsequently
>    easier to get away with.  Especially robbery.
 
	I disagree. Given the fact that your population is effectively
	disarmed, the diference between a gun, a knife or a baseball
	bat is very small.

Jim

      <<< Note 130.512 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>

>    Marc Lepine would have had a great deal more difficulty racking up
>    14 victims with a lower capacity magazine. 

	You've mentioned LePine on a number of occasions. Are you prepared
	to have ALL Canadian laws re-written so as to protect you from
	the potential actions of a madman? Think about this carefully.

Jim

    
    
    	re: troa::collins
    
    	I'm sorry that I haven't responded to any of your notes...I promise
    to do some more research and give some viable responses. My duties here
    at work have increased 3 fold and I'm afraid idle time is just not
    available any more. I'll do my best to get back to you....
    
    
    	jim

    
    
re:      <<< Note 130.495 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>
    
>    Jim, your getting as belligerent as Amos!  :^)
    
    	why thank you! :*)
    
>    Canadian Murder Rates per 100,000 (source: Statistics Canada, via the
>    Canadian Global Almanac):
>    
>    1961    1971    1975    1976    1981    1986    1991    1992    1993
>    ----    ----    ----    ----    ----    ----    ----    ----    ----
>    1.28    2.20    3.09    2.91    2.66    2.25    2.78    2.67    2.21
>    
    
    	what about 1961-1971? I see much lower rates there. I see a peak in
    1975 and then a DOWNWARD TREND the next year (before the gun-laws).
    There is certainly nothing that lends itself towards the gun-law
    having a great effect on homocide. It looks like for most years before
    the law the actual homocide rate was LOWER than after than law.
    
    	I can't see where this data can provide any conclusions.
    
    
    jim

    
    
    re:       <<< Note 130.496 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>
    
>    Jim, you're not THAT uncritical, are you?  When police chiefs say they
>    plan to fight the (mis)information being propogated on the net, they
>    OF COURSE mean that they plan to post counter-information, not that
>    they plan to seek censorship.
    
    	How do you know that? Didn't they say they couldn't REGULATE the
    internet YET? that doesn't say anything encouraging to me....
    
    
    jim

    Note 130.514

>you prove your own lack of freedom
  
    You continue to prove your own clue-impairment regarding Canadian life.

>Why should a 4" gun be banned but a 4-1/2" with the same action/caliber/etc
>be legal.

    Uhhh...where would YOU draw the line, Amos?  :^)

>The more you write the deeper you dig yourself in.

    Still awaiting your response to .498.  Put up or shut up.

>The lack of freedom
>is appaling. You  say you're against your anti-porn laws but what is to 
>prevent the gov't from arresting whomever they want on those?

    Your off into the wild blue yonder now, Amos.

>your example of them being left on windshields is bogus that can be 
>regulated but possesion or printing is not in a free society.

    Who are you addressing now, Amos?  It wasn't my example, it was Derek's.
    You can't even pay close enough attention to keep track of who you're
    `debating'.
 
>citizens are armed, subjects and slaves are not.  No matter how much gold 
>your masters put into your slave-collars you are still slaves.

    Nice rhetoric.  Don't hog the smog, man.    

    
    
re:      <<< Note 130.502 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>
    
>    Besides, you're playing both sides of the fence here.  When Canadian
>    stats don't support the American position, you dismiss them as being
>    unapplicable to the American situation.  So which is it?  Do they
>    apply, or don't they?
    
    	Point out where I claimed any inaccuracy in the Canadian stats. The
    study I point to is an American study. I will provide it in the next
    note.
    
    jim

 


British and Canadian Crime Rates:
Not Evidence For Gun Prohibition

by Clayton Cramer

Gun prohibition advocates frequently point to British and
Canadian crime rates as proof that gun prohibition makes a
dramatic reduction in crime rates. Does the evidence support
this claim? 

Equivalent Societies? 

First of all, for such a comparision to be meaningful, here
needs to be similiar cultural values and legal ystems. While
most people can immediately see that Japan and the United
States are dramatically different, the assumption of
equivalence between Canada, Britain, and the United States is
never questioned. Since the principal language of all three
countries is English, and our legal systems are usually grouped
together as "Anglo-Saxon law", this assumption is
understandable. But scratch the surface similarities, and the
differences start to appear. 

If you ask the average white American where our culture
comes from, as likely as not, the answer will be "England".
The more careful may answer "Britain". A few will say
"Western Europe". But if you ask much of the population of
the Southwest the answer is likely to be "Por Favor Senor".
American is a brew of imported cultures, of which British
cultural norms are at most the predominant strain. Canada has
experienced significant immigration, just like the United
States, but the mix is different: less Hispanic, less African,
more French, more English. 

Another area of cultural difference may be the people that
immigrated to America. Before the American Revolution, it
was common for minor criminals to be transported to the
United States. After the Revolution, they were sent to
Australia. Keep in mind that many of the criminals who came
to America were "criminals" because they refused to conform
to the religious establishment of their home countries. Is
non-conformity necessarily criminal in nature? Not
necessarily -- but criminals are by definition those who
refuse to conform the majority's values. 

Culture is transmitted from one generation to the next -- does
American culture's long noted love affair with non-
conformists and outlaws reflect the criminal past of our
ancestors? A good question -- and one that needs to be
addressed by those who claim equivalence for these three
societies. In the case of Canada, there may be another selection
process -- many Canadians are descendants of those
Americans who remained loyal to the King in 1776, and chose
not to live under a government of "traitors". 

What about our supposedly shared legal system? Again,
beneath the similarities are many differences. American law
diverged from British law at the time of the Revolution. The
continuance of the grand jury system is one obvious difference
between our systems. In this century, our Bill of Rights has
dramatically extended the rights guaranteed to defendants in
criminal actions. (Before you become too critical of these
procedural guarantees, remember that the more certain we are
of a convict's guilt, the more comfortable we can be imposing
a severe punishment.) 

British Crime Rates: Those Brits Sure Are Peaceful 

I have spent some time locating British crime figures, and the
numbers are quite interesting -- though they do strongly
support my position that British crime rates are not the result
of British gun control laws. 

British and Canadian crime figures are remarkably difficult to
locate, even in a university research library. It's not surprising
that the claims of the gun control advocates have seldom been
directly challenged. I found articles about British crime rates
in both New Statesman (14 November 1986, "The absence of
acceptable authority") and The Economist (21-27 March 1987,
"Still unsafe on the streets"). 

How the numbers were used says a lot about the impact of
partisan politics on journalism. New Statesman's article
printed a chart showing total crimes reported to police (raw
numbers) during this century. Not surprisingly, total crimes
has risen dramatically, most of that increase since the late
1950s. Of course, the population has also dramatically risen,
but New Statesman, while acknowledging that the population
is much larger, didn't provide enough information to
determine crime rates -- that is, crimes per people. Perhaps if
the Labor Party were in power currently, they would have
been more careful. 

The Economist did take efforts to mitigate the unpleasant
details of the numbers (and doubtless for the same reason New
Statesman made no effort to do so) by pointing out the
dramatic rise in population during that time, as well as
improvements in how crimes are reported (rape in particular,
being more likely to be reported now than it used to). The
Economist's article also pointed out that: 

   one in three Londoners though crime and the threat of
   violence were the worst things about living in the
   capital. Women were most frightened: an astonishing
   one in four of 16- to 24-year-olds said they did not go
   out at all on their own -- day or night -- for fear of
   being attacked. The 1984 British Crime Survey also
   found a high proportion of women living in fear: 41%
   of all women aged 30 or under, and 64% of women on
   the poorest council estates [public housing projects],
   said that they were "very worried" about being raped. 

Now we get to the numbers. There were 662 homicides and
2,288 rapes in England and Wales. Note that there were
approximately 49 million people living in England and Wales
at that time (a total derived from 1983 World Almanac). That
gives a murder rate of 1.35/100,000 population. By
comparision, the 1985 Uniform Crime Reports show North
Dakota with a murder rate 1.0/100,000, and South Dakota
with a murder rate 1.8/100,000. England & Wales would be
between the lowest and the second lowest murder rate states in
the U.S. The U.S. murder rate for 1985 was 8.2/100,000 (down
significantly from its peak in 1980 at 11/100,000). But is this
necessarily an indication of gun control at work? (Keep in
mind that the Dakotas are among the least restrictive states in
the U.S. on gun ownership). 

The rape rate computes to 4.67/100,000 population. By
comparision, the U.S. as a whole had a rape rate of
36.39/100,000 population, and even the lowest rate rape in the
U.S. (again, South Dakota) was 7.30/100,000. "Big deal," you
say, "It must be gun control at work." Except that firearms are
used in rape only 7% of the time (Source: Report To The
Nation On Crime, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1983). The very
low British rape rate can't be because of gun control laws --
adding 7% to British rape rates they would STILL be lower
than the safest part of the U.S. -- and by a large margin, and
still be one-eighth of U.S. rape rates as a whole. 

That rape is associated with warm weather seems quite clear. 

   Monthly totals showed the greatest number of forcible
   rapes were reported during the summer, with August
   recording the highest frequency. The lowest total was
   registered in February. [Uniform Crime Reports, 1987,
   p. 14] 

There is a chart associated with this paragraph that shows a
clear temperature association, and a table of forcible rapes for
1983-1987 that show this wasn't a fluke of 1987. That rape is
very rare in Britain is not surprising -- it's a cold climate.
Are there similiar relationships involving murder? I've read
that high temperatures and murder are associated. Considering
how tempers and temperatures seem to rise in even
well-adjusted people, I don't find this surprising. 

As I said at the beginning, the numbers are not persuasive that
gun control in Britain is responsible for their low crime rate.
In the U.S., homicides are 63% committed with firearms.
Let's engage in a thought experiment and see if firearms laws
explain Britain's murder rate: 

+ Assume that firearms were as freely available in Britain as
they are in the U.S. 

+ Assume that none of the murders committed currently in
Britain would be done with firearms in preference to other
methods. (This is an unlikely assumption for premeditated
murders). 

+ Assume that no one successfully defended themselves with a
firearm. (Another demonstrably bogus assumption). 

The murder rate in England & Wales would STILL only be
2.1/100,000 people -- lower than almost every American
state. 

Are British people intrinsically less likely to commit rape and
murder? Perhaps. After all, much of the population of the U.S.
is descended from criminals transported from England,
"troublemakers" who refused to subscribe to the preferred
religion in much of England and continental Europe, and
criminals sold into slavery by their own tribes in West Africa.

Canadian Crime Rates -- What Do They Tell Us? 

First of all, the following caveat about Canadian crime
statistics comes from an article titled "Crime" in The
Canadian Encyclopedia (more accurately, a Canadian
supplement to a real encyclopedia): 

   Crime statistics have to be viewed with reservation.
   While the national figure for offences reported to the
   police was about 2.5 million in 1980, charges laid in
   Ontario alone during the same period were reported to
   be almost 4 million. Statistics based on offences,
   offenders or charges yield very different counts. [The
   Canadian Encyclopedia, 1:441] 

A little earlier in the article: 

   Serious problems have plagued national data collection
   and processing. As a result, the Canadian Centre for
   Justice Statistics (Juristat) was established in 1981, and
   is beginning to yield more reliable and useful data,
   although a consistent national reporting system will
   still take years to develop. [The Canadian
   Encyclopedia, 1: 441] 

Note that this is the reason why the FBI developed the
Uniform Crime Reports -- to deal with inconsistencies in
crime reporting. 

The following raw numbers are quoted from the same article
and page: 

1977 1981 Homicide 707 647 Attempted murder 684 900
Kidnapping 536 782 Sexual offences 10 932 13 313 

Unfortunately, no rates are shown. From the 1983 World
Almanac I get a population (1981 est.) of 24,100,000. This
gives crime rates for 1981 of: 

Crime raw rate/100,000 population Homicide 647 2.68
Attempted murder 900 3.73 Kidnapping 782 3.24 Sexual
offences 13 313 55.24 

I don't have 1981 crime rates for the entire U.S. available, but
I was able to derive 1980 crime rates for the entire U.S. from
1980 census population and total crime reports (both in the
same, now very dog-eared 1983 World Almanac). 

Crime raw rate/100,000 population Homicide 23 044 10.17
Forcible Rape 82 088 36.24 

Unfortunately, the FBI doesn't put figures for attempted
murder or kidnapping in the Uniform Crime Reports, so a
direct comparision is difficult. "Sexual offences" seems from
the header to mean "rape", but there is no explicit statement of
it. (To make it even more confusing, Canadian law was
changed in the 1980s, according to another article in the same
encyclopedia, so that "rape" was redefined as "sexual assault",
with three degrees, corresponding roughly to "molestation",
"rape", and "rape by savages in need of slow torture before
execution". This will make it even more difficult to compare
1970s and 1980s Canadian crime figures). 

As you can see, the evidence suggests that Canadians do a lot
of rape, and relatively little murder -- and also that they are
darn successful at it -- 41.8% of the attempts are successful.
(Amazing what you can do, even with guns restricted). Do
they have more crime than the U.S.? I'm not prepared to go
that far -- and the following paragraphs will point out why. 

On comparing different countries' crime rates, the article
"Homicide" in The Canadian Encyclopedia, vol. 2, p. 828, has
something to say which bears repeating when these sort of
apples and oranges discussions come up: 

   Canada is the only nation in the western hemisphere
   whose homicide rate is as low as that of Europe.
   International homicide statistics are generally
   unreliable and always outdated, but Canda's rate is
   roughly 5% that of Mexico or Columbia; 25% that of
   the US; equal to that of France or New Zealand, and
   triple the rate of Norway and the Netherlands. 

It might be tempting to note the two data points above (1977
and 1981) and conclude that the murder rate declined because
of the stricter Canadian gun control laws passed in 1977. 

From the same article: 

   After increasing in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the
   Canadian homicide rate began to decline in 1975 and
   dropped an average of 5% annually until 1981, when it
   again began to rise. 

I've seen some Canadian gun prohibitionists claim that
Canada's murder rate is as high as it because too close
proximity to the U.S. causes gun diffusion. Again, the same
article and page: 

   The Maritimes have the lowest homicide rates in
   Canada, and Newfoundland (0.68 in 1981) has the
   lowest of all. Quebec's rate (2.93) was lower than
   Alberta's (3.43) and BC has the highest provincial rate
   (4.02), but the NWT and the Yukon have the highest
   rates of all (11.57 and 4.57 respectively). These
   sparsely populated territories also have Canada's
   highest rate of increase, while in the US the increase is
   highest in the major metropolitan areas, but this
   discrepancy may reflect the location of the 2 countries'
   socially alienated populations, America's blacks in
   urban slums, Canada's native people in the North
   (*see* Native People Law). Less than 2% of the
   Canadian population, the Inuit, Indians, and Metis
   comprised 16% of the homicide victims between 1961
   and 1974. 

If U.S. gun diffusion is a cause of murder in Canada, the effect
must be utterly overwhelmed by other factors, since the
Northwest Territories have absolutely no contact with the
U.S., while the Yukon directly borders Alaska, and has a much
lower rate. 

Notice that Alberta, directly bordering Montana, has a murder
rate only 17% lower than Montana (1980 Uniform Crime
Report murder rate for Montana: 4.0), and 11% higher than
Idaho (1980 Uniform Crime Report murder rate: 3.1).
Compare Alaska's murder rate (9.7 in 1980) with the
Northwest Territories (11.57) and the Yukon (4.57). Compare
Washington's murder rate (5.5 in 1981) with British
Columbia's murder rate (4.02 in 1980). There are differences,
but they aren't always in Canada's favor, as you would expect
if gun laws were the dramatic factor that is sometimes
claimed. 

Remember also that we are comparing U.S. 1980 (the peak
year for the U.S. murder rate since 1903), and Canada 1981
(the lowest recent year for the Canadian murder rate). I wish I
had more Canadian crime data available -- but if Canada is
going to be presented as an example of the success of gun
control laws, the facts readily available aren't persuasive. 

Crime rates are very multifactorial. If you want to argue that
gun availability is a factor, I will agree it could be a factor --
though the evidence available suggests that it isn't a major
factor, and something more persuasive than a few random
crime rates needs to be presented. 


World-Wide-Web html format by

   Scott Ostrander: [email protected]

    
    Note 130.515
    
	>If we were discussing a loosening of Canadian gun laws, this
	>might be an issue. But we are not. We are talking about taking
	>guns away from people who, to date, legally own them.
    
    True.  I have no response at this time.  Let me mull this over.  :^)

	>Given the fact that your population is effectively
	>disarmed, the diference between a gun, a knife or a baseball
	>bat is very small.

    The number of people I can, barehanded, defend myself against gets
    higher the less, uhhh, efficient (shall we say) the weapon used is.
    
    I also think that a borderline badguy might find the act of stabbing
    someone more personally frightening than simply shooting them from a
    distance.
    

    
    .516, Jim P.:
    
    Thinking carefully.  :^)
    
    The reason I bring up Marc Lepine so much is that such crimes are much
    rarer here than there, and we wish to keep it that way, if possible.
    

    
    .518, Jim S.:
    
    Sorry, but my Almanac doesn't break down the rates for me...so I have
    to calculate the numbers of murders against the population figures for
    the same year.  Not all of the years that murder numbers are listed for
    have a corresponding population figures entered.  That's the best I can
    do with what I have at home.
    
    I think it does show that the rising rate has levelled off after 1976.
    This may or may not be attributable to gun control.
    
    jc
    

    .519, Jim S.:
    
    This is what the *writer*, Tim Harpur said:
    
>But MacDonald conceded that there is little police can now do to regulate
>the Internet.
    
    That sounds like the writer asked the question: "Do you think these
    messages should be regulated?" and the chief replied: "Well, there's
    little we can do about that, now, can we."
    
    jc
    

    
    Note 130.521, Jim S.:
    
>>    Besides, you're playing both sides of the fence here.  When Canadian
>>    stats don't support the American position, you dismiss them as being
>>    unapplicable to the American situation.  So which is it?  Do they
>>    apply, or don't they?
    
    >Point out where I claimed any inaccuracy in the Canadian stats. The
    >study I point to is an American study.
    
    I didn't say that you said the stats were inaccurate.  I said...well...
    what I wrote above.  If the Canadian stats showed that gun control
    prevents crime, could those stats be used down south?  Or would they be 
    unapplicable due to a vast number of sociological, economic and
    political differences that exist between our countries?
    
    The study may be American, but it is studying (amongst other things)
    Canadian crime rates.
    
    jc
    

    
    .522:
    
    Thanks Jim.  I think you posted that once before, in topic 21, but I
    couldn't find it.  Thanks for the repost (riposte?).  :^)
    
    I'll let you know what I think.
    
    jc
    

[contact Dr. Suter as: [email protected] for more information]


Guns in the Medical Literature -- A Failure of Peer Review


an article reviewing politicized and incompetent research

by Edgar A. Suter MD
Chair, Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public Policy
CIS:73407,3647
Abstract

Errors of fact, design, and interpretation abound in the 
medical literature on guns and violence. The peer review 
process has failed to prevent publication of the errors of 
politicized, results-oriented research. Most of the data on 
guns and violence are available in the criminological, legal, 
and social sciences literature, yet escapes acknowledgment or 
analysis of the medical literature. Lobbyists and other 
partisans continue to promulgate the fallacies that cloud the 
public debate and impede the development of effective 
strategies to reduce violence in our society. This article 
examines a representative sample of politicized and 
incompetent research.


Introduction

   It is philosophical bias, rather than scientific 
objectivity, that characterize the debate on gun control.(1) 
Despite a pretense of scientific objectivity and method, the 
medical literature is no exception. As an example of the 
naked bias, consider the stated no-data-are-needed policy(2) 
of the New England Journal of Medicine. Consider the illogic 
and prejudice of its editor's recent proposal that if a 
little gun control does not work, then, certainly, more gun 
control is needed.(3) As this paper will document, errors of 
fact, design, and interpretation abound in the medical 
literature on guns and violence. Many have credulously 
restated the opinions of partisan CDC researchers, but given 
short shrift to the refuting data and criticisms. For matters 
of "fact," it is not unusual to find third hand citations of 
editorials rather than citations of primary data.
   Though it has become quite fashionable to speak of an 
"epidemic of violence," analysis of recent homicide and 
accident rates for which demographics are available show a 
relatively stable to slightly declining trend for every 
segment of American society except inner city teenagers and 
young adults primarily involved in illicit drug trafficking. 
(See Graph 1: "US Homicide Rates 1977-1988" & Graph 2: 
"Selected Homicide Rates Comparisons") Federal law makes gun 
purchase by teenagers illegal throughout the US. The 
teenagers and young adults most at risk for violence live in 
urban jurisdictions with the most stringent gun controls. The 
areas with the most severe gun restrictions have the worst 
violence and areas with the most permissive gun policies have 
the least violence. Long term study shows that homicide and 
suicide rates wax and wane independent of gun controls and 
gun ownership. (See Graph 3: "20th. Century US Homicide and 
Suicide Rates") The gun accident rate has fallen steadily for 
decades and now hovers at an all time low.(4)(See Graph 4: 
"20th. Century US Firearms Accident Rates")  Though guns and 
ammunition meet none of Koch's Postulates of Pathogenicity, 
certain physician advocates of gun prohibition have played 
deceptively with the imagery of "the bullet as pathogen."(5) 
Using incompetent research or contrived and emotive imagery 
to promote a political agenda only obscures the real problems 
and impedes real solutions. The prohibitionists' undeserved 
pose of moral superiority is a distraction from objective 
analysis and is, therefore, an impediment to rational 
solutions.
   Webster et al.(6,7) use powerful images of children in 
carefully crafted comparisons to mislead us. Mentioning 
"Gunshot wounds are the third most common cause of injury 
deaths among children aged 10 to 14 years..." assiduously 
avoids noting that only the first leading cause of death 
amongst children, motor vehicle accidents , is horrific. (See 
Graph 5: "Children's Accidental Deaths")
   How do guns compare with other causes of death? (See Graph 
6: "Actual Causes of Death") The 1990 Harvard Medical 
Practice Study, a non-psychiatric inpatient sample from New 
York state, suggests that doctors' negligence kills annually 
three to five times as many Americans as guns, 100,000 to 
150,000 per year. With sad irony it has become vogue for 
medical politicians to claim that guns, rather than medical 
negligence, have become a "public health emergency." (See 
Graph 7: "Estimated Annual US Deaths from Doctors' 
Negligence")
   Politicization of research cannot coexist with the 
scientific objectivity necessary for sound design and 
analysis of studies. Errors of fact, design, and 
interpretation abound in the medical literature on guns and 
violence. The medical literature is a relative newcomer to 
the public debate on guns and violence, yet the medical 
literature has virtually ignored all of the comprehensive 
scholarly evaluations of guns, violence, and gun control, 
such as the National Institute of Justice studies,(8,9) the 
monumental review by gun control advocate Kleck (that in 1993 
won the American Society of Criminology's Hindelang Award as 
"the most important contribution to criminology in three 
years"),(10) the cross cultural or other analyses by 
Kopel(11,12,13) or Kates,(14) Fackler's criticisms of voodoo 
wound ballistics,(15,16,17) and refutation(18) of the 
American Medical Association's gross distortions(19) on 
"assault weapons."
   Those readers familiar only with the medical literature on 
guns should review the extensive criticisms of methodology 
and conclusions,(20) documentation of false citations, 
fabrication of data, and other "overt mendacity" in the 
medical literature on guns,(21) "sagecraft,"(22) and thorough 
reviews of Centers for Disease Control bias.(23,24) The 
medical literature's inbred selectivity demonstrates half-
hearted, if any, effort at objectivity. Rather than balance 
the merits and demerits of gun prohibition, it is the purpose 
of this paper to expose representative samples of biased and 
incompetent research and to spur greater skepticism of 
"politically correct" results-oriented polemics. The taxpayer 
funding of such politicized research merits debate. For a 
discussion of the merits and demerits of gun registration, 
licensing, waiting periods, and bans, the reader is guided to 
the scholarly reviews cited above.


The benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries 
prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property 
protected - not the burglar body count...

the "43 times" fallacy

   Kellermann AL. and Reay DT. "Protection or Peril? An 
Analysis of Firearms-Related Deaths in the Home." N Engl J. 
Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.

methodological and conceptual errors:
*     prejudicially truncated data
*     non-sequitur logic
*     correct methodology described, but not used, by the 
authors
*     repeated the harshly criticized methodology of 
Rushforth from a decade earlier
*     deceptively understated the protective benefits of guns
   To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself 
or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists 
often claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a 
family member than an intruder." This is Kellermann and 
Reay's flawed risk-benefit ratio for gun ownership,(25) 
heavily criticized for its deceptive approach and its 
non-sequitur logic.(10,26,27) Clouding the public debate, 
this fallacy is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-
self-defense lobby.

The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the 
lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, 
and the property protected - not the burglar or rapist body 
count.

   Since only 0.1% to 0.2% of defensive gun usage involves 
the death of the criminal,(10) any study, such as this, that 
counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective 
benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits 
of firearms by a factor of  500 to 1,000.
   Interestingly, the authors themselves described ,but did 
not use , the correct methodology. They acknowledged that a 
true risk-benefit consideration of guns in the home should 
(but did not in their "calculations") include "cases in which 
burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the 
use or display of a firearm (and) cases in which would-be 
intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be 
armed...."(25)
   Kellermann and Reay had repeated the harshly criticized 
folly of Rushforth(28) from a decade earlier. In 1976 Bruce-
Biggs criticized Rushforth noting that the protective 
benefits of guns are the lives saved and the property 
protected, not the burglar body count.(29) Kellermann and 
Reay would have done well to heed that simple caveat. 
Objective analysis, even by their own standards, shows the 
"more likely to kill a family member than intruder" 
comparison to be deceptively appealing, though only a 
specious contrivance.
   Caveats about earlier estimates of 1 million protective 
uses of guns each year(10) have led Kleck to perform the 
largest scale, national, and methodologically sound study of 
the protective uses of guns suggesting between 800,000 and 
2.4 million protective uses of guns each year(30) - not quite 
as "intangible" as Kassirer claimed(31)  - as many as 75 
lives protected by a gun for every life lost to a gun, as 
many as 5 lives protected per minute.  Guns not only repel 
crime, guns deter crime as is shown by repeated National 
Institute of Justice surveys of criminals.(9) These are the 
benefits of guns overlooked by scientists whose politics 
overshadow their objectivity.
   At his presentation to the October 17, 1993 Handgun 
Epidemic Lowering Program conference, Kellermann emotionally 
admitted his anti-gun bias, a bias evident in the pattern of 
Kellermann's "research."

The "43 times" fallacy becomes the "2.7 times" fallacy...

   Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB et al. "Gun 
ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home." N Engl 
J Med. 1993; 329(15): 1084-91.

methodological and conceptual errors:
*     used only one logistic regression model to describe 
multiple socially distinct populations
*     psychosocially, economically, and ethnically 
unrepresentative study populations
*     study populations, compared to general population, 
over-represented serious social dysfunction and financial 
instability, factors that would expectedly increase risks of 
homicide
*     unrepresentative nature of dysfunctional study 
populations prevents generalizing results to population at 
large
*     when properly used, an "odds ratio" only estimates 
relative risk of study and control populations -misleading 
because the ratio gives no estimate of actual or baseline 
risk
*     one week after publication of this article, during his 
presentation to a gun prohibition advocacy group, H.E.L.P. 
Conference (Chicago, October 18, 1993), the lead author 
emotionally admitted his anti-gun bias, and
similar to Kellermann AL. and Reay DT. "Protection or Peril? 
An Analysis of Firearms-Related Deaths in the Home." N Engl 
J. Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.:
*     ignored criticisms of 1986 methodology, so, for the 
second time, repeated the harshly criticized methodology of 
Rushforth from 1976
*     non-sequitur logic
*     In 1986, correct methodology described, but never used, 
by the lead author
*     failed to consider the protective benefits of guns

   Kellermann and his co-authors have persisted in their 
discredited methodology. In a 1993 New England Journal of 
Medicine article,(32) Kellermann et al. once again attempted 
to prove that guns in the home are a significant risk.
   Both the case studies and control groups in this study 
were socially and demographically unrepresentative of the 
areas studied or of the nation as a whole. The groups had 
exceptionally high incidence of social dysfunction and 
instability. For example, 52.7% of case subjects had a 
history of a household member being arrested, 24.8% had 
alcohol-related problems, 31.3% had a household history of 
illicit drug abuse, 31.8% had a household member hit or hurt 
in a family fight, 17.3% had a family member hurt so severely 
in a family fight that medical attention was required. Both 
the case studies and control groups in this study had very 
high incidence of financial instability. For example, both 
case subject and control heads of household had a median 
Hollingshead socioeconomic score of 4 (on a scale of 1 to 5 
with 1 being the highest level of socioeconomic status). 
These are factors that would expectedly be associated with 
higher rates of violence, including homicide. The subjects 
and controls did not even reflect the racial profile of the 
studied counties; 62% of the subjects were Black compared 
with 25% of the overall population of the three studied 
counties.
   The unrepresentative nature of the case and control groups 
undercut the authors' attempts to generalize from this study 
to the nation at large. The results cannot even be 
generalized to the counties studied because both the case and 
control groups did not even represent the ethnic or 
socioeconomic diversity of the counties studied. With so many 
complex variables, the authors should have used multiple 
logistic regression models, but, with their a priori bias, 
used only one logistic regression model.
   Interestingly, according to the authors' own data, guns 
were next to last in importance of the "risk factors" 
studied. Alcohol, living alone, family violence, and renting 
one's home held more risk than guns according to the authors' 
calculations, yet the most important risks were barely 
mentioned in the publicity or the authors' discussion. (See 
Graph#8: - "Kellermann's Homicide Odds Ratios") It appears 
that the authors were more concerned about generating a 
headline-grabbing "factoid," exaggerating gun risk, than 
about accurately or honestly assessing the risks of the 
dysfunctional populations studied.


"Proving" a foregone conclusion...
   Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. Suicide in the 
Home in Relationship to Gun Ownership. N Engl J Med. 1992; 
327: 467-72.

methodological and conceptual errors:
*     an "adjustment" to eliminate suicide outside the home 
for the stated purpose of exaggerating the focus on guns
*     ignored the vast body of data on suicide method 
substitution
*     the authors virtually ignored their own data showing 
that factors, such as psychotropic medications, drug abuse, 
living alone, and hospitalization for alcoholism, have much 
higher correlations with suicide than guns
*     failed to address the important social and ethical 
dilemma - how to reduce overall suicide rates
*     ignored the role of failing health in the suicide of 
the elderly
   In another effort to prove that guns in the home are a 
significant risk, Kellermann and his co-authors purported to 
examine certain correlates of suicide.(33) Though the 
authors' own data showed higher correlations between suicide 
and psychotropic medications, drug abuse, living alone, and 
hospitalization for alcoholism, the article focused on guns. 
(See Graph#9: - "Kellermann's Suicide Odds Ratios")
   The authors' "adjustment" - their word - that eliminated 
the 30% of suicides outside the victim's home intentionally 
skewed the data towards their foregone conclusion. The 
authors candidly acknowledged their bias - "Our study was 
restricted to suicides in the victim's home because a 
previous study has indicated that most suicides committed 
with guns occur there..." (emphasis added).
   As Kleck's review(10) of the broad expanse of American and 
cross-cultural suicide literature shows, even if guns 
instantly evaporated from the US, universal access to nearly 
equally effective and accessible means of suicide - hanging, 
auto exhaust, drowning, and leaping - would likely interfere 
with an overall reduction in suicide. Evidence of such 
"method substitution" is extensive. Many cultures that have 
severe gun restrictions - Japan, China, USSR, Germany, 
Luxembourg, Denmark, Belgium, Surinam, Trinidad, Tobago, 
Hungary, Rumania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Finland, and 
Sweden - have total suicide rates far exceeding the USA 
suicide rate. Many others - Canada, Iceland, Bulgaria, 
Norway, and Australia - exceed the USA suicide rate though 
not quite so dramatically.(34)  (See Graph 10: "International 
Suicide Rates Comparisons")
   Guns are often portrayed as uniquely lethal as tools of 
suicide, yet, amongst tools of suicide, guns are neither 
uniquely available, uniquely lethal, nor causal of 
suicide.(10) (See Graph 11: "Suicide Method Lethality") The 
authors' preoccupation with guns bypasses the real social 
dilemma, reducing the total suicide rate. Changing merely the 
method of death is an inadequate response to a grave social 
problem. Is suicide from hanging or auto exhaust so much more 
"politically correct" that research, particularly in these 
times of financial austerity, should focus on one 
instrumentality rather than on the common roots and 
prevention strategies?


Where is lawful self-defense "murder"?

   Kellermann AL and Mercy JA. "Men, Women, and Murder: 
Gender-specific Differences in Rates of Fatal Violence and 
Victimization." J Trauma. 1992; 33:1-5.

methodological and conceptual errors:
*     most women kill in defense of themselves and their 
children. In these common circumstances, lawful self-defense 
by women against their attackers is not "murder" in any 
jurisdiction
*     the authors' discussion focused almost entirely on guns 
though the data on knives and other weapons are virtually 
identical
*     the authors failed to note that during the study period 
the domestic homicide rate nearly halved
*     provided no primary research, instead provides largely 
faulty analysis of FBI Uniform Crime Reports data
*     though purporting to assess an aspect of risk, the 
authors failed to analyze the protective uses of guns -lives 
saved, injuries prevented, medical costs saved, and property 
protected - no true risk-benefit analysis
*     ignored data that suggest guns are actually the safest 
and most efficacious means of resisting assault, rape, and 
even non-violent crime
*     offered no new insights or solutions to the problem of 
domestic abuse
   Though recognizing the risk and physical disadvantage of 
women, Kellermann and Mercy attempted to draw us to their 
conclusion that "...the wisdom of promoting firearms to women 
for self-protection should be seriously questioned."(35) No 
effort was made by the authors to assess the protective uses 
of guns by women, in fact, the authors attempted to portray 
legitimate self-defense as "murder." Women are abused 2 
million to 4 million times per year.(36) Their children are 
similarly abused, even fatally.(37) Almost all the "spouses 
and domestic partners" killed by women each year are the very 
same men, well known to the police, often with substance 
abuse histories, who have been brutalizing their wives, 
girlfriends and children.(10,14) Defense with a gun results 
in fewer injuries to the defender (17.4%) than resisting with 
less powerful means (knives, 40.3%; other weapon, 22%; 
physical force, 50.8%; evasion, 34.9%; etc.) and in fewer 
injuries than not resisting at all (24.7%).(10) Guns are the 
safest and most effective means of protection. This is 
particularly important to women, children, the elderly, the 
handicapped, the weak, and the infirm, those who are most 
vulnerable to vicious male predators. (See Graph 12: "Rates 
of Crime Completion by Victim's Method of Protection" & Graph 
13: "Rates of Victim Injury by Victim's Method of Protection" 
)
   Would it be more "politically correct" if women or 
children were killed by their attackers - the common outcome 
when women do not defend themselves and their children with 
guns? Should women, children, the elderly, the physically 
challenged, or anyone rely on riskier or less effective means 
of self-protection?  Or... should innocent victims defend 
themselves with the safest and most effective means of 
defense until such time as prevention strategies become 
significantly more effective?
   The article's title notwithstanding, lawful self-defense 
is not "murder" in any jurisdiction. It has been estimated 
that as many as 20% of homicides are self-defense or 
justifiable in the final analysis.(38)  Since the FBI Uniform 
Crime Reports records "justifiable homicide" based on the 
preliminary determination of the reporting officer, rather 
than upon the final determination, the FBI data dramatically 
under-reports "justifiable homicide." Knowing one another is 
sufficient to meet the FBI's definition of "acquaintance," so 
"acquaintance" includes the maniac in one's apartment 
building and dueling drug dealers, hardly the type of good 
people most would call "friends." These are predators that  
Handgun Control Inc. considers "friends and family."
   At unconscionable expense this article recapitulated FBI 
Uniform Crime Reports data that was already available "off 
the shelf" for $20 from the US Government Printing Office. 
The data only bolster what we already knew about women's risk 
at home, but Kellermann and Mercy - unjustified by the data - 
singled out guns for special treatment. "When women killed 
with a gun, their victim was five times more likely to be 
their spouse..."(35) Kellermann and Mercy failed to 
acknowledge, however, that the FBI data they recounted showed 
that when women killed with a knife, their victim was also 
five times more likely to be their spouse - and when women 
killed with other means, their victim was over four times 
more likely to be their spouse.
   The most meaningful conclusion from this study, the 
conclusion missed by Kellermann and Mercy, is the tremendous 
restraint shown by women, that they kill so few of their 
contemptible abusers. Interestingly, during the study period 
of this article, 1976-87, the domestic homicide rate fell 
from 2.4 to 1.4 per 100,000 (39,40) and the number of teen 
and child gun accident fatalities fell from 530 to 280 (41)  
-- all this while increasing numbers of guns were in the hands 
of US citizens. It is also worth noting that the highly 
touted "proliferation of guns" has not been associated with 
an increase in rates of gun ownership.(10)
   The male authors' patronizing suggestions about gun 
ownership by women are not justified by available data. 
Partisan "scientists" who struggle to sculpt their data to 
fit their a priori conclusions should be ignored or censured. 
Statistical legerdemain cannot hide what the authors failed 
to recognize: a woman's or child's life lost because a gun 
was absent is at least as valuable as a violent predator's 
life lost because a gun was present. Women are justified in 
concluding that guns are the most effective and safest tools 
of self-defense. Catchy ratios and contrived comparisons 
detract from the public debate and are little consolation to 
the brutalized victims or their grieving survivors.


Why are the Black and Hispanic homicide rates so high in 
Seattle?

   Sloan JH, Kellermann AL, Reay DT, et al. "Handgun 
Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicide: A Tale of Two 
Cities." N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 1256-62.

methodological and conceptual errors:
*     attempted a simplistic single-cause interpretation of 
differences observed in demographically dissimilar cities and 
cultures
*     purported to evaluate the efficacy of Canadian gun 
control without evaluating the situation before the law
*     the Vancouver homicide rate increased 25% after the 
institution of the 1977 Canadian law
*     failed to acknowledge that, except for Blacks and 
Hispanics, homicide rates were lower in the US than in Canada
   Sloan, Kellermann, and their co-authors attempted to prove 
that Canada's gun laws caused low rates of violence.(42) In 
their study of Vancouver, the authors failed to compare 
homicide rates before and after the law. As Blackman 
noted,(43) they had ignored or overlooked that Vancouver had 
26% more homicides after the Canadian gun ban, an observation 
that should warrant scientific exploration and generate a 
healthy skepticism of the authors' foregone conclusions. 
Blackman's critique and analogy were so "on target" as to be 
amusing:
   "... The Vancouver-Seattle 'study' is the equivalent of 
testing an experimental drug to control hypertension by 
finding two ordinary-looking, middle class white men, one 25 
years old and the other 40, and without first taking their 
vital signs, administering the experimental drug to the 25-
year-old while giving the 40-year-old a placebo, then taking 
their blood pressure and, on finding the younger man to have 
a lower blood pressure, announcing in a 'special article' a 
new medical breakthrough. It would be nice to think that such 
a study would neither be funded by the taxpayers nor 
published in the (New England Journal of Medicine)."(43)
   Since its publication this article on gun control is among 
those most frequently cited, though this small scale (two 
cities) study has been thoroughly debunked by three large 
scale (national and multi-national) studies.(44,45,46) 
Kellermann and Sloan's biased interpretation of their data, 
asserting that guns are to blame for crime, assaults, and 
homicide, is even refuted by their own statistics.
   Kellermann and Sloan glossed over the disparate ethnic 
compositions of Seattle (12.1% Black and Hispanic; 7.4% 
Asian) and Vancouver (0.8% Black and Hispanic; 22.1% Asian). 
The importance? Despite typically higher prevalence of legal 
gun ownership amongst non-Hispanic-Caucasians in the US,(10) 
the homicide rate was lower for non-Hispanic-Caucasian 
Seattle residents (6.2 per 100,000) than for those in 
adjacent Vancouver, Canada (6.4). Only because the Seattle 
Black (36.6) and Hispanic (26.9) homicide rates were 
astronomic could the authors make their claim. (See Graph 14: 
"Ethnic and Racial Groups - Seattle and Vancouver" & Graph 
15: "Homicide Rates by Ethnic and Racial Group - Seattle and 
Vancouver" )
   Could guns have some special evil influence over Blacks 
and Hispanics, but not others? Hardly! The authors failed to 
identify the inescapable truth. The roots of inner-city 
violence lie in the disruption of the family, the breakdown 
of society, desperate and demoralized poverty, promotion of 
violence by the media,(47,48) the profit of the drug trade, 
the pathology of substance abuse, child abuse, disrespect for 
authority, and racism - not in gun ownership.
   For an even-handed and scholarly cross-cultural comparison 
of guns, violence, and gun control, the reader is referred to 
Kopel's compendium.(11) If one reviews homicide and suicide 
data, despite high levels of gun ownership and high levels of 
gun control, the US fares well in comparison with many 
countries, even those supposedly "non-violent" nations whose 
gun controls the US is invited to emulate, such as Japan. How 
do US homicide, suicide, and intentional fatality (combined 
homicide and suicide) rates compare with other nations? (See 
Graph 10: "International Suicide Rates Comparisons"; Graph 
16: "International Homicide Rates Comparisons"; and Graph 17: 
"International Intentional Fatality (Homicide+Suicide) Rates 
Comparisons") Certainly the determinants of the levels of 
violence in a society are many and complex.


Foretelling the future - gun prohibitionists and criminals 
share a crystal ball

   Loftin C, McDowall D, Wiersema B, and Cottey TJ. Effects 
of Restrictive Licensing of Handguns on Homicide and Suicide 
in the District of Columbia. N. Engl J Med 1991; 325:1615-20.

methodological and conceptual errors:
*     the apparent, temporary, and minuscule homicide drop 
occurred 2 years before the Washington DC law took effect
*     the "interrupted time series" methodology as used by 
Loftin et al. has been invalidated
*     the study used raw numbers rather than population-
corrected rates - not correcting for the 20% population 
decrease in Washington, DC during the study period or for the 
25% increase in the control population -exaggerating the 
authors' misinterpretations
*     the study conveniently stopped as Washington, DC's 
overall homicide rate skyrocketed to 8 times the national 
average and the Black, male, teen homicide rate skyrocketed 
to 22 times the national average
*     used a drastically dissimilar demographic group as 
control
*     the authors virtually failed to discuss the role of 
complicating factors such as the crack cocaine trade and 
criminal justice operations during the study period
   Loftin et al. attempted to show that Washington, DC's 1976 
ban on new gun sales decreased murder.(49) Loftin and his co-
authors, using tax money, produced "research" with several 
negating flaws that were ignored or overlooked by "peer 
review" and the editorial board of the New England Journal of 
Medicine -perhaps a corollary of the editor's no-data-are-
needed(2) policy.
   Not only has the "interrupted time series" methodology as 
used by Loftin et al. has been invalidated,(50) but the 
temporary and minuscule homicide drop began during 1974, 2 
years before the gun law - How could the law, even before its 
proposal, be responsible for the drop? Since homicidal 
maniacs and criminals could not clairvoyantly anticipate the 
law, other causalities should have been considered. The 
authors, however, side-stepped the question and dismissed 
non-gun causalities without any analysis whatsoever.
   The study conveniently stopped as the Washington, DC 
homicide rate skyrocketed. If the gun freeze law, which has 
not changed, were responsible for the homicide drop, we would 
expect the "drop" to continue. If the "guns-cause-murder" 
theory is valid and if the gun freeze were effective, as 
"grandfathered" guns leave circulation (owner moves, dies, 
guns become unserviceable, etc.), the homicide rate should 
drop steadily. Quite the opposite is observed. The 1976 
Washington, DC homicide rate before the law was 26.9 (derived 
from population(51)and homicide(39) statistics) and then 
tripled to 80.6 by 1991(52)despite or due to the law;
   Justifiable and excusable homicides, including those by 
police officers, were treated the same as murders and were 
not excluded from the study. The study used raw numbers 
rather than population-corrected rates. This did not correct 
for the 20% population decrease in Washington, DC during the 
study period or for the 25% increase in the control 
population - exaggerating the authors' misinterpretation. The 
study used the adjacent suburbs as a control group, an area 
with demographics drastically different from the study group.
   The authors examined and allowed only a single cause 
interpretation - guns are to blame. They offhandedly 
discarded any other possible explanation. They specifically 
ignored the role of the crack cocaine trade, FBI stolen 
property and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms illegal 
weapon sting operations in progress during the study, and 
measures instituted during the study period that improved the 
efficiency of the Washington DC court system. They generally 
ignored the role of poverty and myriad other factors related 
to criminal violence.
   Homicide has declined for every segment of American 
society except teenage and young adult inner-city residents. 
The Black teenage male homicide rate in Washington, DC is 227 
per 100,000,(53) yet less than 7 per 100,000 for rural, 
middle-aged white men,(54) the US group for whom gun 
ownership has the highest prevalence.(10) If the "guns-cause-
violence" theory is correct why does Virginia, the alleged 
"easy purchase" source of all those illegal Washington, DC 
guns, not have a murder rate comparable to DC? The "guns-
cause-violence" theory founders. (See Graph 2: "Selected 
Homicide Rates Comparisons")
   Even in their responses to criticism,(55) the authors' 
intransigent bias is evident. Their position? If a drop in 
murder is discovered (or statistically contrived), gun 
control must receive the credit, but when attention was drawn 
to the failures of gun control and their study design, the 
skyrocketing murder rate must be credited to "other causes." 
Shall we examine gun control as science or religion? It 
appears that the faith of true believers is unshakable 
heedless of data and the scientific method.


Aberrant data, illogical analysis, weak analogies, and gross 
exaggerations are not a basis for public policy

   Koop CE and Lundberg GD. "Violence in America: A Public 
Health Emergency." JAMA. 1992; 267: 3075-76.

methodological and conceptual errors:
*     claimed 1 million US gun homicides per year - a 35-fold 
exaggeration
*     lumped gun accidents, homicides, and suicide in a 
comparison with automobile accidents alone
*     used data from 2 exceptional states, rather than data 
from the 48 states where gun deaths were falling faster than 
auto deaths
*     the authors' weak analogy concluded that registration 
and licensing of guns would decrease deaths, though offering 
no data to show that registration and licensing of 
automobiles resulted in such a decrease
*     postulated that controls appropriate to a privilege 
(driving) are also appropriate to an inalienable human right 
to self-preservation(gun ownership).
*     dismissed - without analysis or authority - the 
constitutional and natural rights to gun ownership
*     though the authors promote a public health model of gun 
ownership, the "bullet as pathogen" vogue, guns meet none of 
Koch's Postulates of Pathogenicity
   An editorial by Koop and Lundberg(56)  promoting the guns 
and autos analogy demonstrated deceptions common amongst 
prohibitionists - the inflammatory use of aberrant and 
sculpted data to reach illogical conclusions in the promotion 
of harmful and unconstitutional policy. The authors attempted 
to draw a comparison between motor vehicle accidental deaths 
with all gun deaths.

aberrant and sculpted data

   "One million US inhabitants die prematurely each year as 
the result of intentional homicide or suicide" is a 35-fold 
exaggeration(57)Whether carelessness or prevarication, such a 
gross distortion evokes, at best, questions regarding 
competence in this field.
   It is doubtful that the authors would lump deaths from 
surgery, knife attacks, and hara kiri  to contrive some 
inference about knives, but to claim that Louisiana and Texas 
firearms deaths exceed motor vehicle accidents,(58)it was 
necessary to total firearm accidents, homicides, and 
suicides.  Koop and Lundberg, as promoters of the fashionable 
"public health model" of gun violence, should know that the 
root causes and, hence, prevention strategies are very 
different for accidents, homicides, and suicides. Also, it is 
not that firearms deaths rose, but that, in just those two 
states, they fell less rapidly than accidental auto deaths.58
   In the forty-eight other states the converse is noted, 
firearms accidents (and most other accidents) fell 50% faster 
than motor vehicle accidents - between 1980 and 1990, a 33% 
rate drop nationally for guns compared to a 21% drop for 
motor vehicles.(59) Should we base public policy on 
contrivances and exceptions?

illogical conclusions

   Koop and Lundberg referenced a Morbidity and Mortality 
Weekly Report(58) that claimed seven reasons for the fall in 
motor vehicle accidents - better cars, better roads, passive 
safety devices, children's car seats, aggressive drunk 
driving enforcement, lower speed limits, and motorcycle 
helmets - but did not claim licensing or registration of cars 
was responsible for the fall.  It is by a fervent act of 
faith, rather than one of science or logic, that Koop and 
Lundberg proposed their scheme.
   The selectivity of the analogy is further apparent when we 
recognize that licensing and registration of automobiles is 
necessary only on public roads. No license or registration is 
required to own and operate a motor vehicle of any kind on 
private property. The advocates of the automobile model of 
gun ownership would be forced by their own logic to accept 
use of any kind of firearm on private property without 
license or registration. Since any state's automobile and 
driver license is valid in every state, further extension of 
the analogy suggests that the licensing of guns and gun 
owners would allow citizens to "own and operate" firearms in 
every US jurisdiction. A national concealed firearms license 
valid throughout this nation would be a significant 
enhancement of self-protection, a deterrent to violent crime, 
and a compromise quite enticing to many gun owners.

harmful and unconstitutional nostrums

   Crime and homicide rates are highest in jurisdictions, 
such as Washington, DC, New York City, Chicago, and 
California, where the most restrictive gun licensing, 
registration, and prohibition schemes exist. Why are homicide 
rates lowest in states with loose gun control (North Dakota 
1.1, Maine 1.2, South Dakota 1.7, Idaho 1.8, Iowa 2.0, 
Montana 2.6) and highest in states and the district with 
draconian gun controls and bans (District of Columbia 80.6, 
New York 14.2, California 12.7, Illinois 11.3, Maryland 
11.7)?(49) (See Graph 18: "Representative State Homicide 
Rates")
   Precisely where victims are unarmed and defenseless is 
where predators are most bold. Gun prohibitionists argue a 
"need" for national controls, yet similar national 
prohibitions have not stemmed the flow of heroin, cocaine, 
and bales of marijuana across our national borders. What 
mystical incantation will cause homicidal drug criminals to 
respect new gun laws when they flaunt current gun laws and 
ignore the most basic law of human morality, "thou shalt not 
murder"? The proponents of adding to the 20,000 gun laws on 
the books have yet to explain how "passing a law" will disarm 
violent, sociopathic predators who already ignore laws 
against murder and drug trafficking.


The new prohibition - enforceability and constitutionality

   The deceptions in the medical literature are not 
restricted to scientific issues. The insurmountable practical 
and constitutional impediments to gun bans are either 
offhandedly or deceptively(60) discounted. Neither practical 
matters, such as the massive expense and civil rights 
violations necessary to enforce gun bans,(61) nor historical 
matters, such as the racist and oppressive roots of gun 
control,(62-66) are discussed by medical politicians who 
advocate gun bans.
   Besides unenforceability, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms 
is an insurmountable impediment to gun bans. Gun 
prohibitionists mistakenly predicate that controls 
appropriate to a privilege, driving, are appropriate to an 
inherent, irrevocable, and constitutionally protected right. 
While certain state and federal gun controls may be 
constitutional, gun prohibitions are clearly 
unconstitutional. Gun controls may not be so onerous as to 
regulate the right into meaningless, virtual nonexistence.
   Failure to recognize that the National Guard is a 
component of the US Army and not equivalent to the Second 
Amendment's "militia"(67) has allowed prohibition advocates 
to misconstrue the protections guaranteed to individual 
citizens by the Second Amendment. Considerable legal 
scholarship also finds protection of gun civil rights in 
"unenumerated rights" protected by the Ninth Amendment,(68) 
the natural right to self-protection,(69) and in the 
"privileges, immunities, equal protection" and "due process" 
guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment.(70,71)
   Despite plausible misinterpretations by physicians(72) and 
Handgun Control Inc.(73) and other prohibitionist(74) 
attorneys about the function and definition of "militia,"
   "The militia of the United States consists of all able-
bodied males at least 17 years of age... and under 45 years of 
age."(75)
   Notwithstanding prohibitionists' convoluted distortions 
about "the people," and constitutional case precedents, the 
US Supreme Court has explicitly protected an individual right 
to keep and bear arms,(76-79) especially and explicitly 
protecting military-style weapons, "part of the ordinary 
military equipment...."(79) To claim that "the people" who have 
the Right to Keep and Bear Arms are actually the States and 
not the same "the people" who have First, Fourth, Ninth, and 
Tenth Amendment protections requires some rather unlikely 
assumptions. Did the authors of the Bill of Rights use the 
term "the people" in the First Amendment to refer to 
individuals, then, 28 words later, use the term "the people" 
in the Second Amendment to refer to the States, then, 44 
words later, use the term "the people" in the Fourth 
Amendment and four and five articles later, in the Ninth and 
Tenth Amendments, to refer to the individual?
   The US Supreme Court has rejected such convoluted logic. 
In US v. Verdugo-Urquidez,(80) a Fourth Amendment case 
holding that the warrant requirement is inapplicable to the 
search of a home in a foreign country, the Supreme Court 
noted that "the people" who have the right to free speech, to 
peaceably assemble, and to be secure in their papers and 
effects are one and the same "the people" who have the right 
to keep and bear arms.
   The US Supreme Court has yet to use the Fourteenth 
Amendment to incorporate many Bill of Rights protections 
against the states, the Second Amendment protections among 
them.(70,71) Using a "states' rights" prohibitionist argument 
that the Bill of Rights fails to protect the right to keep 
and bear arms from infringement by states,(73,74) however, 
uses logic that, if similarly applied, would fail to protect 
freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, 
freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to 
trial by a jury of peers, and other rights from state 
infringement. Prohibitionists take hypocritical refuge in a 
guns only interpretation of collective states' rights. The 
supportive authorities referenced above are quite convincing 
of the inherent and irrevocable right to self-protection 
against criminals, crazies, and tyrants. The right to keep 
and bear arms and ammunition is essential to that self-
protection and has little, if anything, to do with duck 
hunting or other subjective "legitimate sporting uses" of 
guns.
   These important civil rights matters will be discussed in 
detail in a forthcoming article.


Conclusions

   Utopia is not one of the available solutions to violence 
in our society. Only incremental improvements are attainable 
through repeal of victim disarmament laws and through 
implementation of effectual, affordable measures. Objective 
assessment of the risks and benefits of various proposals 
will assist development of rational and effectual public 
policy. Hysterical, ineffectual, unconstitutional, and merely 
symbolic measures only squander time, money, and energy that 
are better devoted to effectual solutions and realistic 
goals.
   The author hopes that sufficient data and analysis have 
been provided so that the reader questions common, but 
erroneous, assumptions about guns and gun bans and to 
generate deserved skepticism of the medical literature on 
guns and violence.
   The responsible use and safe storage of any kind of 
firearm causes no social ill and leaves no victims. In fact, 
guns offer positive social benefit in protecting good 
citizens from vicious predators. The overwhelming 
preponderance of data we have examined shows that between 25 
to 75 lives may be saved by a gun for every life lost to a 
gun. Guns also prevent injuries to good people, prevent 
medical costs from such injuries, and protect billions of 
dollars of property every year. In view of the overwhelming 
benefits, it is ludicrous to punitively tax gun or ammunition 
ownership. They save far more lives than they cost.
   The peer review process has failed in the medical 
literature. In the field of guns, crime, and violence, the 
medical literature - and medical politicians - have much to 
learn conceptually and methodologically from the 
criminological, legal, and social science literature. Gross 
politicization of research will only increase the present 
disrespect in which medical journals and peer-review are held 
by physicians.(81) To further honest public debate, organized 
medicine and CDC researchers should adopt scientific 
objectivity and integrity and improve the peer review 
process. Since it has demonstrated it is unable to police 
itself, stringent oversight must be placed over the CDC's 
grant award process. Taxpayers must demand meaningful 
oversight of scientific integrity and competence.
   If devotees of the "true faith" of gun prohibition and 
pacifists who deny we have a right to self defense wish to 
eschew the safest and most effective tools of self-
protection, they are welcome to do so. In this imperfect 
world their harmful philosophy must not be imposed upon an 
entire society. In essence, society should adopt a "Pro-
Choice" approach to self-defense and gun ownership.


Endnotes

1     Kates DB. "Bigotry, Symbolism and Ideology in the 
Battle over Gun Control" in Eastland, T. The Public Interest 
Law Review 1992. Carolina Academic Press. 1992.
2     Kassirer JP. Correspondence. N Engl J. Med 1992; 
326:1159-60.
3     Kassirer JP. "Guns in the Household." N Engl J Med. 
1993; 329(15): 1117-19.
4     National Safety Council. Accident Facts 1992. Chicago: 
National Safety Council. 1993.
5     Schwab CW. "Violence: America's Uncivil War 
-Presidential Address, Sixth Scientific Assembly of the 
Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma." J Trauma. 
1993: 35(5): 657-665.
6     Webster DW, Wilson MEH, Duggan AK, and Pakula LC. 
Firearm Injury Prevention Counseling: A Study of 
Pediatricians' Beliefs and Practices. Pediatrics 1992; 89: 
902-7.
7     Webster DW, Wilson MEH, Duggan AK, and Pakula LC. 
Parents' Beliefs About Preventing Gun Injuries to Children. 
Pediatrics 1992; 89: 908-14.
8     Wright JD. and Rossi PH. Weapons, Crime, and Violence 
in America: Executive Summary. Washington, DC: US Dept. of 
Justice, National Institute of Justice. 1981.
9     Wright JD and Rossi PH. Armed and Considered Dangerous: 
A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine 
de Gruyter. 1986.
10     Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. 
New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991.
11     Kopel DB. The Samurai, The Mountie, and the Cowboy: 
Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? 
New York: Prometheus Press. 1992.
12     Kopel DB. "Children and Guns: Sensible Solutions." 
Golden CO: Independence Institute. 1993.
13     Kopel DB. "Why Gun Waiting Periods Threaten Public 
Safety." Golden CO: Independence Institute. 1993.
14     Kates DB. Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A 
Realistic Assessment of Gun Control. San Francisco: Pacific 
Research Institute for Public Policy. 1990.
15     Fackler ML, Malinowski JA, Hoxie SW, and Jason A. 
"Wounding Effects of the AK-47 Rifle Used by Patrick Purdy in 
the Stockton, California, Schoolyard Shooting of January 17, 
1989." Am J Forensic Medicine and Path. 1990; 11(3): 185-90.
16     Fackler ML. "Wound Ballistics: A Review of Common 
Misconceptions." JAMA. 1988; 259: 2730-6.
17     Fackler ML. "Wound Ballistics." in Trunkey DD and 
Lewis FR, editors. Current Therapy of Trauma, vol 2. 
Philadelphia: BC Decker Inc. 1986. pp. 94-101.
18     Suter E. "'Assault Weapons' Revisited - An Analysis of 
the AMA Report." San Ramon CA: Doctors for Integrity in 
Research & Public Policy. 1993.
19     American Medical Association Council on Scientific 
Affairs. "Assault Weapons as a Public Health Hazard in the 
United States." JAMA 1992; 267: 3070.
20     Suter E. "Common Incompetence - Tax Money and Gun 
Research." San Ramon CA: Doctors for Integrity in Research & 
Public Policy. 1993.
21     Kates DB, Lattimer JK, and Cottrol RJ. "Public Health 
Literature on Firearms - A Critique of Overt Mendacity." a 
paper presented to the American Society of Criminology annual 
meeting. New Orleans, LA. November 5, 1992.
22     Tonso WR. "Social Science and Sagecraft in the Debate 
over Gun Control." 5 Law & Policy Quarterly 3; 1983: 325:43.
23     Blackman PH. "Criminology's Astrology: The Center for 
Disease Control Approach to Public Health Research on 
Firearms and Violence.". a paper presented to the American 
Society of Criminology. Baltimore, MD November 7-10, 1990.
24     Blackman PH. "Children and Firearms: Lies the CDC 
Loves.". a paper presented to the American Society of 
Criminology. New Orleans, LA. November 4-7, 1992.
25     Kellermann AL. and Reay DT. "Protection or Peril? An 
Analysis of Firearms-Related Deaths in the Home." N Engl J. 
Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.
26     "Firearms Related Deaths." Correspondence. N Engl J. 
Med 1986; 315:1483-5.
27     Suter E. "A Deceptive Contrivance." Arch Neurol. 1993; 
50:345-46.
28     Rushforth NB, Hirsch CS, Ford AB, and Adelson L. 
"Accidental Firearm Fatalities in a Metropolitan County 
(1958-74)." Am. J. Epidemiology. 1975; 100: 499-505.
29     Bruce-Biggs B. "The Great American Gun War." The 
Public Interest. 1976; 45: 37-62.
30     Kleck G. "Q&A: Guns, Crime, and Self-defense." Orange 
County Register. September 19, 1993. p. C-3.
31     Kassirer JP. "Firearms and the Killing Threshold." N. 
Engl. J. Med. 1991; 325: 1647-50.
32     Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB et al. "Gun 
ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home." N Engl 
J Med. 1993; 329(15): 1084-91.
33     Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. Suicide in 
the Home in Relationship to Gun Ownership. N Engl J Med. 
1992; 327: 467-72.
34     World Health Organization. World Health Statistics 
1989. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. 1989.
35     Kellermann AL and Mercy JA. "Men, Women, and Murder: 
Gender-specific Differences in Rates of Fatal Violence and 
Victimization." J Trauma. 1992; 33:1-5.
36     Novello AC and Shosky J. "From the Surgeon General, US 
Public Health Service." JAMA. 1992; 267: 3132.
37     American Medical Association Council on Scientific 
Affairs. "Adolescents as Victims of Family Violence." JAMA. 
1993; 270(15):1850-56.
38     Kleck G. "Crime Control through the Private Use of 
Armed Force." Social Problems. 1988; 35:1-21.
39     FBI. Uniform Crime Reports Crime in the United States 
1976. 1977. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
40     FBI. Uniform Crime Reports Crime in the United States 
1987 1988. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
41     National Center for Health Statistics. Vital 
Statistics of the United States. Washington, DC: US Govt. 
Printing Office. 1976 through 1987.
42     Sloan JH, Kellermann AL, Reay DT, et al. "Handgun 
Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicide: A Tale of Two 
Cities." N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 1256-62.
43     Blackman PH. "Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, 
and Homicide: A Tale of Two Cities." Correspondence. N Engl 
J. Med 1986; 315:1483-5.
44     Centerwall BS. "Homicide and the Prevalence of 
Handguns: Canada and the United States, 1976 to 1980." Am J. 
Epid. 1991; 134: 1245-60.
45     Mundt RJ. Gun Control and Rates of Firearms Violence 
in Canada and the United States." Can J Crim. Jan 1990: 137-
54.
46     Mauser GA. "Evaluating the 1977 Canadian Firearms 
Control Legislation: An Econometric Approach." a paper 
presented to the American Society of Criminology. San 
Francisco, CA, November 1991.
47     Centerwall BS. "Television and Violence: The Scale of 
the Problem and Where to Go From Here." JAMA. 1992; 267: 
3059-63.
48     Centerwall BS. "Exposure to Television as a Risk 
Factor for Violence." Am. J. Epidemiology. 1989; 129: 643-52.
49     Loftin C, McDowall D, Wiersema B, and Cottey TJ. 
Effects of Restrictive Licensing of Handguns on Homicide and 
Suicide in the District of Columbia. N. Engl J Med 1991; 
325:1615-20.
50     Kleck G. "Interrupted Time Series Designs: Time for a 
Reevaluation." a paper presented to the American Society of 
Criminology annual meeting. New Orleans, LA. November 5, 
1992.
51     US Department of Commerce. Statistical Abstract of the 
US. - 96th. Edition. 1976. Washington DC: US Government 
Printing Office.
52     FBI. Uniform Crime Reports Crime in the United States 
1991. 1992 Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
53     Fingerhut LA, Ingram DD, Feldman JJ. "Firearm Homicide 
Among Black Teenage Males in Metropolitan Counties: 
Comparison of Death Rates in Two Periods, 1983 through 1985 
and 1987 through 1989." JAMA. 1992; 267:3054-8.
54     Hammett M, Powell KE, O'Carroll PW, Clanton ST. 
"Homicide Surveillance - United States, 1987 through 1989." 
MMWR. 41/SS-3. May 29,1992.
55     Loftin C et al. Correspondence. New England Journal of 
Medicine. 1992; 326:1159-60.
56     Koop CE and Lundberg GD. "Violence in America: A 
Public Health Emergency." JAMA. 1992; 267: 3075-76.
57     US National Center for Health Statistics. Vital 
Statistics of the United States. Washington, DC: US Govt. 
Printing Office. 1981 through 1990.
58     Massachusetts Medical Society. "Current Trends: 
Firearms-Related Deaths - Louisiana and Texas, 1970-1990." 
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. April 3, 1992; 
41(13):213-15 & 221.
59     National Safety Council. Accident Facts 1991. Chicago: 
National Safety Council. 1991.
60     Vernick JS and Teret SP. "Firearms and Health: The 
Right to Be Armed with Accurate Information about the Second 
Amendment." Am. J. Public Health. 1993; 83(12):1773-77.
61     Kates DB. Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A 
Realistic Assessment of Gun Control. San Francisco: Pacific 
Research Institute for Public Policy. 1990.
62     Tonso WR. "Gun Control: White Man's Law." Reason. 
December 1985. pp. 22-25.
63     Tahmassebi S. "Gun Control and Racism." George Mason 
University Civil Rights Law Journal. Summer 1991; 2: 67-99.
64     Cottrol RJ and Diamond RT. "The Second Amendment: 
Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration." The Georgetown 
Law Journal. December 1991: 80; 309-61.
65     Kates DB. "Toward a History of Handgun Prohibition in 
the United States." in Kates, DB, Editor. Restricting 
Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out. North River Press. 
1979.
66     Kessler RG. "Gun Control and Political Power." Law & 
Policy Quarterly. July 1983: Vol. 5, #3; 381-400.
67     Fields WS and Hardy DT. "The Militia and the 
Constitution: A Legal History." Military Law Review. Spring 
1992; 136: 1-42.
68     Johnson NJ. "Beyond the Second Amendment: An 
Individual Right to Arms Viewed through the Ninth Amendment." 
Rutgers Law Journal. Fall 1992; 24 (1): 1-81.
69     Kates D. "The Second Amendment and the Ideology of 
Self-Protection." Constitutional Commentary. Winter 1992; 9: 
87-104.
70     Amar AR. "The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth 
Amendment." The Yale Law Journal. 1992; 101: 1193-1284.
71     Halbrook S. "Freedmen, Firearms, and the Fourteenth 
Amendment" in That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a 
Constitutional Right. Albuquerque, NM: University of New 
Mexico Press. 1984.  Chap. 5.
72     Christoffel KK. "Toward Reducing Pediatric Injuries 
>From Firearms: Charting a Legislative and Regulatory Course." 
Pediatrics. 88; 1991: 294-305 at 295.
73     Henigan DA. "Arms, Anarchy and the Second Amendment." 
Valparaiso University Law Review. Fall 1991; 26: 107-129.
74     Vernick JS and Teret SP. "Firearms and Health: The 
Right to Be Armed with Accurate Information about the Second 
Amendment." Am. J. Public Health. 1993; 83(12):1773-77.
75     USC X  311(a)
76     US Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. The Right 
to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary. United States 
Congress. 97th. Congress. 2nd. Session. February 1982.
77     Halbrook SP. "The Right of the People or the Power of 
the State: Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second 
Amendment." Valparaiso University Law Review. Fall 1991; 26: 
131-207
78     Levinson S. "The Embarrassing Second Amendment." Yale 
Law Journal. 1989; 99: 637-59.
79     US v. Miller. 307 US 174 (1938).
80     US v. Verdugo-Urquidez. 494 US 259 (1990).
81     Roth RR, Porter PJ, Bisbey GR, and May CR. "The 
Attitudes of Family Physicians Toward the Peer Review 
Process." Arch. Family Medicine. 1993; 2:1271-75.

    
    Note 130.515, Jim P.:

>>    I can.  However, the propogation of weapons for defensive use may
>>    well lead to an increase in accidental deaths and opportunistic acts
>>    of violence.  I see this as being very possible.

	>If we were discussing a loosening of Canadian gun laws, this
	>might be an issue. But we are not. We are talking about taking
	>guns away from people who, to date, legally own them.
    
    Well, the theory is that we are attempting to strike a balance between
    the rights of the individuals who own firearms and the rights of the
    individuals who are killed with those same firearms, once stolen (or
    lost or sold illegally).  As I have said, not a lot of these newly
    banned weapons (apparently) are in circulation, so not too many people
    should be affected.  Also, as I have said, compensation IS to be paid,
    although I admit that nothing I've seen from the gov't so far indicates
    exactly WHAT will be paid for these weapons.  I'm in favour of paying
    a fair market value for the weapons, or the price the owner paid,
    whichever is greater.  It's the least we can do, and certainly will
    help to encourage voluntary compliance.

    Note 130.516

	>You've mentioned LePine on a number of occasions. Are you prepared
	>to have ALL Canadian laws re-written so as to protect you from
	>the potential actions of a madman? Think about this carefully.
    
    I think this has to do with more than just one madman.  Certainly,
    Lepine has earned a permanent and prominent spot in Canadian infamy,
    but even just last year there were at least two people killed in Toronto
    with weapons stolen from private Canadian collections.  We aren't
    rewriting ALL Canadian laws here, but we are rewriting ones that can
    (yes...CAN) affect the availability of these weapons in the future.
    
    The new law will not prevent all (and MAY not even prevent SOME) of
    these crimes, but Canadians in general are willing to gamble that they
    will AT LEAST make life more difficult for the individuals prepared to
    commit these crimes.
    
    I don't see how it can make things any worse.  Maybe that doesn't sound
    like a very positive thing to say in support of the legislation, but
    again it boils down to a fundamentally different approach.
    
    An article I read in the paper this weekend spoke of the vast numbers
    of weapons available in Switzerland  and the low crime rates that
    prevail in spite of those weapons.  This model is often pointed to by
    anti-controllers, and especially Americans, as being a good model to
    emulate.  But there again, the Swiss have demonstrated a vastly
    different approach to these issues than either the Americans OR the 
    Canadians, and it bears noting that there are many aspects of the Swiss
    model that don't exactly fit the American model of individual liberty.
    
    Therein may lie an important difference between Switzerland and the
    U.S.; the concept that community rights are AT LEAST AS important as
    individual rights.
    
    Something to bear in mind when discussing the relative advantages and 
    drawbacks of different approaches like the American, Canadian, British,
    and Swiss models.
    
    jc
     
    

    
    For Kevin O'Kelley, in response to his question regarding pepper spray.
    From Canada's `Prohibited Weapons Order No. 1, C.R.C., 1978':
    
    "Any device designed to be used for the purposes of injuring,
    immobilizing, ot otherwise incapacitating any person by the discharge
    therefrom of either (a) tear gas, Mace, or other gas; or (b) any
    liquid, spray, powder, or other substance that is capable of injuring,
    immobilizing, or otherwise incapacitating any person."
    
    It would appear, then, that pepper spray is illegal in Canada.
    
    jc
    

    
    .522, Jim S.:
    
    The article was interesting.  It appeared to be making two important
    distinctions between American society and British/Canadian society:
    
    1. That the cooler climates prevalent in Canada and Britain are at
       least partially responsible for relatively lower crime rates.
    
    2. That Americans have a social (and perhaps even genetic) heritage
       that would make their society more prone to violent behavior.
    
    In the case of point #1, I would be tempted to agree.  However, let me
    note that Southern Canada, where most of its population reside, has a 
    fairly wide climate swing between winter and summer, ranging from 35
    degrees Celcius in the summer (with humidity that can make it feel MUCH
    hotter) to -35 degrees Celcius in the winter (with wind chill that can
    make it feel MUCH colder).
    
    My StatsCan 1992 Crime journal breaks down the occurrence numbers of
    sexual assault, assault, minor assault, and robbery over the course of 
    the year, and there is no discernable variance between winter and
    summer rates for any other than the minor assault category.  Even in
    the case of minor assault, the variance is not wide, and shows peaks
    in the months of May and October rather than July and August.
    
    Having said that, I'm still willing to believe that climate is a factor
    in American crime rates relative to Canadian/British rates.
    
    Let me say at this point that population density is a factor that is
    also often pointed to in regards to high crime rates, and if this were 
    to hold true, then British crime rates *should* be higher than American 
    rates.  That does not appear to be the case, according to this article. 
    As the writer says, the comparisons are fairly inconclusive at the moment.
    Certainly, I'd like to see more of the much-vaunted British crime stats.
    
    In regards to the second point...I'm not sure where he's going with
    this.  It MAY be accurate to say that American society, as a whole, is
    a much more independent, free-thinking, and aggressive society, but
    I'm not sure this can be used as a justification FOR higher crime
    rates.  Perhaps this is not what he is saying.  Maybe it CAN be used as
    a reason why American and foreign rates can't be compared.  But then,
    if that is the case, then it also stands to reason that American stats
    can't be applied to the Canadian or British models, either.
    
    I agree with his final paragraph, although where he says the he thinks
    gun availability *could* be a factor, I would say that I'm relatively
    sure that gun availability *is* a factor.  To me, the only question is:
    to what extent?
    
    jc
     

    
    .529, Jim S.:
    
    That's an article *debunking* the Seattle/Vancouver study, rather than
    the Seattle/Vancouver study itself, correct?  That's fine...I can
    believe that the Vacouver/Seattle study is crap.  I can believe that
    MOST such studies are crap, including the one you referenced in .432,
    by Gary Mauser, which is under attack here right now as being a poorly
    extrapolated poll of 400 Canadians.
    
    Good info can be hard to come by.
    
    jc
    

    I promised Jim Percival the following information back in .503.
    
    On thing to bear in mind when reading Canadian Crime stats:  the category
    `sexual assault' is fairly broad when compared to the U.S.  It includes
    everything from a breast-squeeze or a buttock-pinch at the office to 
    brutal rape and forced sexual acts.  This change was enacted to discourage
    sexual harrasment; your average citizen doesn't want to end up a convicted
    sexual offender on the basis of a slapped backside.


    From `Canadian Crime Statistics, 1992'
    Canadian Centre For Justice Statistics

    Page 67:

    Use Of Weapons
    --------------

    When weapons are present in an incident, the most serious weapon present
    is reported on the incident record of the Revised UCR survey, whether or
    not the weapon was used.  In 65% of sexual assault incidents 1n 1992, 
    physical force was the most serious weapon present.  Firearms were present
    in 0.5% of sexual assaults, knives or other cutting/piercing instruments
    in 3%, and other weapons were present in 29% of sexual assaults.  Other
    weapons include clubs, blunt instruments, and all other weapons.

    By definition, minor assaults do not involve the use or threat of the use
    of weapons, although there may be weapons present in the incident.  In
    1992, 68% of minor assaults involved physical force.  In 28% of minor
    assault incidents, weapons other than firearms or knives were present.
    Weapons were present more often in other non-sexual assault incidents.
    These included firearms (5%), knives or other cutting/piercing instruments
    (24%), and other weapons (32%).  Physical force was used in 39% of other
    assaults.

    
    Weapon Causing Injury
    ---------------------

    When a weapon is actually used and causes physical injury to a victim,
    the weapon that caused that injury is recorded on the victim record of
    the Revised UCR survey.  Most victims of violence suffer some form of
    physical injury.  In 1992, victims in 91% of other assaults, 83% of minor
    assaults, 77% of robberies, and 76% of sexual assaults sufferred an 
    injury from an identified weapon, including physical force.  The remaining
    victims sufferred no physical injury, or the weapon that caused the injury
    was unknown.

    Physical force was the most common cause of injury to victims, accounting
    for injuries sufferred by 62% of minor assault victims, 50% of sexual
    assault victims, 39% of victims of other assault, and 38% of robbery
    victims.  Weapons other than firearms or knives were the next most common
    cause of injury to victims, accounting for 30% of other assault victims,
    25% of sexual assault victims, 21% of minor assault victims, and 15% of
    robbery victims.

    Injuries caused by more serious weapons were less common.  Knives or other
    cutting/piercing instruments accounted for injuries sufferred by 18% of
    other assault victims, 13% of victims of robbery, and 1% of sexual assault
    victims.  Firearms caused injury to 11% of robbery victims, 3% of victims
    of other assault, and 0.2% of sexual assault victims.

    

    
    I also wanted to say at this point that I've changed my mind regarding
    one particular part of this legislation:  the registration of firearms.
    
    I've decided that, of all the provisions of this bill, this is the least
    likely to have any effect on crime, and the most likely to see the bill
    defeated.  I'm also concerned (as any computer-industry type should be)
    about the security of such a database.  Hacked into, it would provide
    a shopping list of homes to break into if one wanted to steal firearms.
    
    One of the reasons given in support of this registry is that police
    officers responding to domestic calls will be able to use this database
    to find out if there are guns present in the home they are attending.
    This strikes me as problematic in two ways:
    
    1. How is this information going to be communicated to officers in the
       field?  Over publicly-scannable airwaves?  It's true that police
       cruisers usually have computer terminals nowadays, but many of our 
       officers in Toronto are on foot, on bicycle, on horseback, or on
       motorcycle, and this information will have to be passed to them
       somehow.
    
    2. A officer responding can't really let the apparent lack of firearm
       presence affect his behaviour; if there is a gun there, more likely
       than not it won't be in the database.  An officer should always be
       prepared to face the worst, so he shouldn't need this information
       to influence his behaviour in this situation.
    
    Have I ruined anybody's day?  :^)
    
    jc
    

    Um, John, if I'm ever in TO, I'm buying you a beer. 8^)

      <<< Note 130.523 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>

    
>    True.  I have no response at this time.  Let me mull this over.  :^)

	Patience R Us. ;-)


>    The number of people I can, barehanded, defend myself against gets
>    higher the less, uhhh, efficient (shall we say) the weapon used is.
 
	You would be willing to go hand to hand with someone with a knife?
	A length of pipe? A baseball bat?

>    I also think that a borderline badguy might find the act of stabbing
>    someone more personally frightening than simply shooting them from a
>    distance.
 
	Might be true for those contemplating 1st degree murder, but it
	is likely not true for the average mugger. 

Jim
   

      <<< Note 130.524 by TROOA::COLLINS "Arguing in my spare time..." >>>

    
    
>    Thinking carefully.  :^)
    
>    The reason I bring up Marc Lepine so much is that such crimes are much
>    rarer here than there, and we wish to keep it that way, if possible.
 
	Your response does show careful thinking. It took some thought
	NOT to answer my question.

Jim
   

    <<< Note 130.530 by TROOA::COLLINS "Deep down deep, I'm shallow. :^)" >>>

    
>    Well, the theory is that we are attempting to strike a balance between
>    the rights of the individuals who own firearms and the rights of the
>    individuals who are killed with those same firearms, once stolen (or
>    lost or sold illegally). 

	How many people were killed, last year, with firearms that are 
	being banned?

> As I have said, not a lot of these newly
>    banned weapons (apparently) are in circulation, so not too many people
>    should be affected. 

	So as long as the number of people affected is small, it's OK?

	You see, to me, a wrong is wrong no matter how small the number
	of people affected.

> Also, as I have said, compensation IS to be paid,
>    although I admit that nothing I've seen from the gov't so far indicates
>    exactly WHAT will be paid for these weapons.  

	A rather important point I would think. Don't you?

>    I think this has to do with more than just one madman. 

	One or a hundred, the question remains. Are you willing to have
	ALL Canadian lws re-written so as to "protect" you from the actions
	of a madman?

>    I don't see how it can make things any worse.  Maybe that doesn't sound
>    like a very positive thing to say in support of the legislation, but
>    again it boils down to a fundamentally different approach.
 
	It doesn sound very positive, because it isn't. Passing a law that
	declares legally owned property to be contraband should have a 
	much better reason behind it than "what can it hurt?".

>    An article I read in the paper this weekend spoke of the vast numbers
>    of weapons available in Switzerland  and the low crime rates that
>    prevail in spite of those weapons.

	I have used the same stats on occasion. It really only shows that
	"guns" are not the problem or the cause of the problem. Something
	else must be looked at if we, or you, are to get a handle on
	violent crime. The real tragedy of gun control is that it is NOT
	the solution and all efforts in this one area actually prevents
	the politicians from addressing real root causes. This delays
	the day when the problem will be truly addressed.

Jim

    <<< Note 130.534 by TROOA::COLLINS "Deep down deep, I'm shallow. :^)" >>>


	(Non-Injury)
>    Weapons were present more often in other non-sexual assault incidents.
>    These included firearms (5%), knives or other cutting/piercing instruments
>    (24%), and other weapons (32%).  Physical force was used in 39% of other
>    assaults.
	
	(Injury)
>    Injuries caused by more serious weapons were less common.  Knives or other
>    cutting/piercing instruments accounted for injuries sufferred by 18% of
>    other assault victims, 13% of victims of robbery, and 1% of sexual assault
>    victims.  Firearms caused injury to 11% of robbery victims, 3% of victims
>    of other assault, and 0.2% of sexual assault victims.

	It would seem from these numbers that firearms are a very minor 
	problem as far as crimes of violence goes in Canada.

	I take it the the works of Pareto are not taught in the Canadian
	school system?

Jim

    

    
    
>    2. A officer responding can't really let the apparent lack of firearm
>       presence affect his behaviour; if there is a gun there, more likely
>       than not it won't be in the database.  An officer should always be
>       prepared to face the worst, so he shouldn't need this information
>       to influence his behaviour in this situation.
    
    
    	Oh so true!! These were my thoughts exactly when I was listening to
    an officer at the Mass Statehouse claim they needed registration to
    know whether the house they were being called to had a firearm. I
    wanted to stand up and shout, "Do you always assume there is no
    firearm?!". I'd be more worried about the folks not in the database
    than the ones in it!
    
    	jim
    
    
    

    
    .536, Glenn:
    
    If you're ever buying me a beer, I'm drinking that beer!!  :^)
    

    
    Note 130.537, Jim:
 
	>You would be willing to go hand to hand with someone with a knife?
	>A length of pipe? A baseball bat?
    
    Willing?  Hardly!  But I once faced a bum waving a knife on a city bus,
    and I had every intention of forcing him off the bus.  Fortunately, it 
    came to nought, when he decided to leave of his own accord.
    
    But I still think I stand a better chance against a knife than a gun,
    because I stand zero chance against the gun.

    jc
    

    <<< Note 130.543 by TROOA::COLLINS "Deep down deep, I'm shallow. :^)" >>>

    
>    But I still think I stand a better chance against a knife than a gun,
>    because I stand zero chance against the gun.

	Not exactly zero chance. About 70% of people shot with a firearm
	survive.

Jim

    Note 130.539, Jim P.:

	>How many people were killed, last year, with firearms that are 
	>being banned?

    StatsCan has a journal specifically dedicated to homicides.  I will
    pick it up when I get the chance.

	>So as long as the number of people affected is small, it's OK?
	>You see, to me, a wrong is wrong no matter how small the number
	>of people affected.

    It's not just a matter of the quantity of effect, Jim, it also has to do
    with the quality.  The reasoning `collecting neat-o guns' doesn't stack
    up against the deaths and injuries.  People who have good use for weapons
    AS TOOLS (hunters and ranchers, for instance) will be still have access
    to them.  Those who simply want to collect them 'cause they're cool will
    have greater difficulty doing so.  I'm sorry, but I think gun collections
    are simply accidents or crimes waiting to happen.

>>    ...I admit that nothing I've seen from the gov't so far indicates
>>    exactly WHAT will be paid for these weapons.  
	>A rather important point I would think. Don't you?

    Well, as I've said, I would support paying either the fair-market value
    or the original price paid, whichever is greater.

	>One or a hundred, the question remains. Are you willing to have
	>ALL Canadian lws re-written so as to "protect" you from the actions
	>of a madman?

    Not all.  But some.

 	>Passing a law that
	>declares legally owned property to be contraband should have a 
	>much better reason behind it than "what can it hurt?".

    Well, the reason IS better than "what can it hurt?".  The reason, in
    theory, is "lives will be saved".

	>The real tragedy of gun control is that it is NOT
	>the solution and all efforts in this one area actually prevents
	>the politicians from addressing real root causes. This delays
	>the day when the problem will be truly addressed.

    I would be curious to know how firearm usage in Canadian crimes stacks up
    against American usage, percentage-wise.  However, you are correct.  Gun
    control does nothing to help the majority of crime victims in Canada.

    Note 130.540

	>I take it the the works of Pareto are not taught in the Canadian
	>school system?

    Umm...I musta been out back smokin' dope that day...who is Pareto?  :^)
    
    jc
          

    
    Note 130.544, Jim P.:

	>Not exactly zero chance. About 70% of people shot with a firearm
	>survive.
    
    I was not aware of that.  Tell me, how does this stack up versus knives
    or blunt instruments?

    -1 what about automobiles?
    
       Chip

    <<< Note 130.545 by TROOA::COLLINS "Deep down deep, I'm shallow. :^)" >>>


>    It's not just a matter of the quantity of effect, Jim, it also has to do
>    with the quality.  The reasoning `collecting neat-o guns' doesn't stack
>    up against the deaths and injuries.

	You see why I asked the question about just how many deaths and
	injuries were caused by these "neato guns". The next question,
	of course then becomes "how were the neato guns acquired by the
	criminal".

	You need to understand that I am of the absolute belief that
	guns in the hands of the good guys are NOT a problem. Guns
	in the hands of the bad guys are. A little basic problem
	solving analysis (a very simplified Kepner-Trago) would tell
	us that we have "guns" on both sides of the equation, so that 
	they can NOT be the cause of the problem. The difference that
	we find is that there are "good guys" and there are "bad guys".
	THe problem lies with the "bad guys". Any solution that does not
	address the "bad guys" is doomed to failure. Any solution that
	focuses on the "good guys" is a waste of time, money and resources.

>    Well, as I've said, I would support paying either the fair-market value
>    or the original price paid, whichever is greater.

	I appreciate your feelings on this part of the issue. But yet you
	support the law without knowing what compensation WILL be made.


>	>One or a hundred, the question remains. Are you willing to have
>	>ALL Canadian lws re-written so as to "protect" you from the actions
>	>of a madman?

>    Not all.  But some.

	Why not all? After all, if the issue is safety, then ALL laws
	should meet the same standard.

>    Well, the reason IS better than "what can it hurt?".  The reason, in
>    theory, is "lives will be saved".

	An unproven wish. Even if we accept the argument, you then need
	to back and look at ALL of the laws for that "madman factor".
	After all, "lives will be saved". 

>    I would be curious to know how firearm usage in Canadian crimes stacks up
>    against American usage, percentage-wise.  However, you are correct.  Gun
>    control does nothing to help the majority of crime victims in Canada.

	Based on your figures, the useage of guns in crime are higher.
	My guess is that you'll find that the firearms useage in homocides
	will pretty much track the other crimes that you have listed.
	Something around 20-25% would be a "highside" guess. In the US,
	that figure is 58%.

Jim

    <<< Note 130.546 by TROOA::COLLINS "Deep down deep, I'm shallow. :^)" >>>

    
>    I was not aware of that.  Tell me, how does this stack up versus knives
>    or blunt instruments?

	I don't thave the data. I would suspect that your chances of suvival
	are higher.

Jim

                    <<< Note 130.547 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    -1 what about automobiles?
    
	In the US, 38,000 deaths vs. around 1.2 million injuries. 

Jim

    Note 130.548, Jim P.:

	>You see why I asked the question about just how many deaths and
	>injuries were caused by these "neato guns". The next question,
	>of course then becomes "how were the neato guns acquired by the
	>criminal".

    I will attempt to address these questions later this week.  Of course,
    this legislation may become law before then.  :^)

	>You need to understand that I am of the absolute belief that
	>guns in the hands of the good guys are NOT a problem.

    You are correct...they are not a problem...right up to, but not including,
    the point when either: [a] the owner ceases to be law-abiding (as in the
    case of Marc Lepine or Wayne Reed), or [b] they are stolen from the owner
    during a break-in, and subsequently used in further crimes.  The
    legislation does not outlaw all guns, but it does outlaw the guns with 
    the greatest capacity for harm, and it does seek to reduce the number of
    guns sitting around in collections waiting to be stolen.  If the owners 
    could guarantee that the guns would never fall into criminal hands, then
    all would be well, but they *can't*, and therin lies the concern.

    Hopefully the documents I turn up this week will shed more light on the
    extent to which this occurs.

	>Why not all? After all, if the issue is safety, then ALL laws
	>should meet the same standard.

    Well, what are some examples of laws you feel have a `madman factor'
    that, if addressed, might save lives?  

	>Based on your figures, the useage of guns in crime are higher.

    So you would say that percentage-wise, guns are used more often in
    American crimes than in Canadian.  Would you not admit that it is at
    least *possible* that current Canadian gun-control legislation may have
    been partially responsible for this?

    jc

    <<< Note 130.551 by TROOA::COLLINS "Deep down deep, I'm shallow. :^)" >>>


>If the owners 
>    could guarantee that the guns would never fall into criminal hands, then
>    all would be well, but they *can't*, and therin lies the concern.

	So then your government's answer to crime victims (gun owners that
	have been burgled) is that they are the ones at fault and that the
	government will remove the temptation that motivated the burglars.

	Interesting concept. No doubt you could reduce your incidence of
	auto theft in the same manner.

>    Well, what are some examples of laws you feel have a `madman factor'
>    that, if addressed, might save lives?  

	Well, It is intuitively obvious that all persons applying for
	a driving license should be required to undergo a physchiatric
	examination at a government certified facility and that they
	must brings a sworn statement by a licensed physchiatrist that
	they are sane, stable and are guarunteed to remain such for the
	period covered by the driving license. The same would apply to
	anyone purchasing gasoline. A gasoline license would have to be
	shown prior to pumping any fuel. Of course these requirements
	pale by comparison with the regulations that must be placed
	on those wishing to purchase any form of cutlery.

>    So you would say that percentage-wise, guns are used more often in
>    American crimes than in Canadian.  Would you not admit that it is at
>    least *possible* that current Canadian gun-control legislation may have
>    been partially responsible for this?

	No. If we go back to a time prior to your legislation and prior
	to OUR legislation, you'll find that your incidence of gun crime
	has ALWAYS been lower than ours.

	Note that this was the argument (as it related to the UK) that
	caused our dearly departed Eastland to re-think his position
	on gun control.

Jim

    
    Note 130.552, JIm P.:

	>So then your government's answer to crime victims (gun owners that
	>have been burgled) is that they are the ones at fault and that the
	>government will remove the temptation that motivated the burglars.

    In all likelihood there was no temptation to begin with (except in the
    case of gun store robberies).  The guns just happened to be a happy by-
    product of the burglary.  And what of the Lepines and the Reeds?
    The distinction is often made between legally owned and illegal guns,
    but EVERY gun, at one time or another, was legally owned.  Somehow,
    they continue to pass into the illegal stream.
    
	>Well, It is intuitively obvious that all persons applying...
    	>	.
    	>	.
    	>	.
	>...on those wishing to purchase any form of cutlery.
    
    Well, I guess you know that I'm going to say that in Canada, cars and
    gasoline and cutlery are demonstrably more useful in day-to-day life
    than firearms, so that their usefulness-to-danger ratio is much higher
    than that of firearms.  It is for this reason (for example), that 
    hand grenades are illegal.  They're fairly useless in daily life, and 
    they're very dangerous.  Of course, now we get back to the argument 
    "Firearms aren't dangerous...", which you and I have done before.

	>If we go back to a time prior to your legislation and prior
	>to OUR legislation, you'll find that your incidence of gun crime
	>has ALWAYS been lower than ours.
    
    Probably, but I suspect that our rate is lower than it would have been
    in the absence of our current legislation.  This will remain, at this
    point, my humble opinion.

	>Note that this was the argument (as it related to the UK) that
	>caused our dearly departed Eastland to re-think his position
	>on gun control.

    Eastland was before my time, old man! ;^)   However, I'm still curious
    about these British stats I hear so much about (reason being that I'm
    of British descent myself, as is much of Canada's population).
    
    jc
    

    <<< Note 130.553 by TROOA::COLLINS "Deep down deep, I'm shallow. :^)" >>>

    
>    In all likelihood there was no temptation to begin with (except in the
>    case of gun store robberies).  The guns just happened to be a happy by-
>    product of the burglary. 

	Doesn't change the fact that your government is penalizing the
	victims of crime.

> And what of the Lepines and the Reeds?

	We are discussing the "madman factor" in another thread.

>    Well, I guess you know that I'm going to say that in Canada, cars and
>    gasoline and cutlery are demonstrably more useful in day-to-day life
>    than firearms, so that their usefulness-to-danger ratio is much higher
>    than that of firearms.

	Doesn't matter. Your justification was "saving lives". Given that goal
	my proposals are perfectly rational, indeed, they are neccessary.

>    Probably, but I suspect that our rate is lower than it would have been
>    in the absence of our current legislation.  This will remain, at this
>    point, my humble opinion.

	That same argument was used in the US for a very long time. "It 
	would be worse" we were told. Then a few states, starting with Florida,
	relaxed their gun laws. They made it easier for the law-abiding to
	obtain firearms. They even made it easier for the law-abidning to 
	carry cocealed firearms. And the result? Not only did the crime
	rate NOT increase, it actually went DOWN.

>    Eastland was before my time, old man! ;^)

	Your loss, i'm afraid.

>   However, I'm still curious
>    about these British stats I hear so much about (reason being that I'm
>    of British descent myself, as is much of Canada's population).
 

	In the UK, the incidence of gun use in crimes has been doubling
	every two years for the last 8 years. This from a report in the
	London Times. The government is now arming Bobbies at an 
	unprecedented rate. And their is a very serious movement calling
	for universal armement of all police forces in the UK.

Jim

reposted from newsgroups: can.talk.guns,talk.politics.guns

From: [email protected] (Barry Glasgow)

With all the crap being spewed on the net about how the English
experience dictates that we need more gun control, I thought it
fitting to relay this bit of info;

Chief Inspector Colin Greenwood of the West Yorkshire
Constabulary spent six months at Oxford, 
studying gun control laws in many countries.

He concluded:

"At first glance, it may seem odd or even perverse 
 to suggest that statutory controls on the private
 ownership of firearms are irrelevant to the problem
 of armed crime; yet that is precisely what the
 evidence shows.
 Armed crime and violent crime generally are products
 of ethnic and social factors unrelated to the
 availability of a particular type of weapon.

 The number of firearms required to satisfy the crime
 market is small, and these are supplied no matter
 what controls are instituted.
 Controls have had serious effects on legitimate
 users of firearms, but there is no case, either in
 the history of this country or in the experience of
 other countries in which controls can be shown to
 have restricted the flow of weapons to criminals,
 or in any way reduced crime."

   While the number of legal firearms owners in Britain
   has been declining due to a hostile gun control 
   bureaucracy, crimes involving firearms increased
   196% between 1981-1992.

     "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1992, p.34,65

====================

 

== Johann Opitz      e-mail:  [email protected] ==
== All Disclaimers Apply (so as to protect my employer) ==


% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail1.digital.com by us4rmc.pko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA09733; Fri, 10 Mar 95 14:49:40 -050
% Received: from nova.unix.portal.com by mail1.digital.com; (5.65 EXP 2/22/95 for V3.2/1.0/WV) id AA24496; Fri, 10 Mar 1995 11:15:07 -080
% Received: from jobe.shell.portal.com ([email protected] [156.151.3.4]) by nova.unix.portal.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA05861; Fri, 10 Mar 1995 11:10:18 -0800
% Received: (chan@localhost) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) id LAA14015 for firearms-alert-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 1995 11:09:02 -0800
% Received: from nova.unix.portal.com ([email protected] [156.151.1.101]) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA14001 for <[email protected]>; Fri, 10 Mar 1995 11:08:50 -0800
% Received: from gatekeeper.svl.trw.com (gatekeeper.svl.trw.com [129.193.146.11]) by nova.unix.portal.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA05603 for <[email protected]>; Fri, 10 Mar 1995 11:08:49 -0800
% Received: from smtp.svl.trw.com (smtpout.svl.trw.com) by gatekeeper.svl.trw.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA19789; Fri, 10 Mar 95 11:08:44 PS
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% Date: 10 Mar 1995 11:05:02 -0800
% From: "Johann Opitz" <[email protected]>
% Subject: A real Brit's view on gun c
% To: "Firearms Alert" <[email protected]>
% X-Mailer: Mail*Link SMTP-QM 3.0.2
% Sender: [email protected]
% Precedence: bulk
% Reply-To: "Johann Opitz" <[email protected]>
% Followup-To: [email protected]

>    Then, in .458, Amos tries to deflect attention from the American role
>    in gun smuggling by saying:

>>How many truckloads of cigarettes did _YOUR_ indians smuggle in?


>    So...what's your point?  I mean, on the topic of gun control.  Or are
>    you changing the topic?

This exchange is extremely pertinent in that you blame Americans for your
gun-smuggling problems but it is clear from articles that it is native
people who do a bulk of the border smuggling in NY/Vermont region
but when it is pointed out you disavow that they are your citizens when 
clearly the storm-troopers from the RCMP think they are Canadian.


>>I wait your answers.

>    However...you have twice insinuated that my posts in this topic are
>    factually incorrect, and thrice declined the invitation to support this
>    position.

>    So I am repeating it, for the fourth time...where have I posted incorrect
>    data.  
>    I am (still) awaiting your response.

Your facts regarding crime are not what I am arguing. Your facts regarding 
crime rates may be correct. it is your insistance that there is a cause and
effect of guns versus crime that I believe is absolutely incorrect.

So I have answered your question how about you answering mine?

1) Why does your gov't treat native people like chattel and serfs?
  (and comments about 100 years ago don't count, I'm talking TODAY)
2) Why should I give up my property that was purchased legally.
3) how do you set a value on a firearm with historic and sentimental value?
3a) Why should the gov't decide whether I can or cannot keep it if it has 
never been involved in a crime?
4) Why are gun collections "a crime waiting to happen"? when car collections 
  are not "a highway fatality waiting to happen" or coin collections "a 
robbery waiting to happen"?
5) Why should I not be allowed to leave my property to my children?
6) why is a short barrel illegal and a longer one legal?
 (you answered this with "where do I draw the liune?" I don't believe
 any gun should be illegal. no matter what caliber or length or rate of fire.)
7) How many crimes were commited with machine guns in Canada before they
were regulated in such a draconian manner a few years ago? (Clue; the
answer is ONE, the radio-station bandit who held-up a bank in 1967(68?).
He wore a radio-station tee-shirt and was called the Cxxx bandit)


What I am trying to show is a pattern of gov't that runs roughshod over human 
rights and you don't even recognise it. You have been lulled into a condition
that "mommy knows best" in everything in your lives. That pattern is apparent
in every aspect of your law from gun-control to disallowing freedom of 
speech/press to the treatment of native people.

That I consider brain-washing by a failed or malevolent school system

Amos

    Note 130.554, Jim P.:

	>Doesn't change the fact that your government is penalizing the
	>victims of crime.

    The victims of the breakins?  Yes, I guess so.  And those who haven't
    been broken into, either.  It's considered the lesser of two evils.

>> And what of the Lepines and the Reeds?
	>We are discussing the "madman factor" in another thread.

    The problem is multi-faceted; the madman factor is but one part.  The
    propogation from the legal to the illegal stream is another part.  The
    involvement of guns in deliberate or accidental death by otherwise law-
    abiding owners is yet another part.  In 1992, 1359 Canadians died by
    firearm, but there were only 732 homicides, and most of those probably
    didn't involve a firearm.  If we estimate that 25% of homicides (183) 
    were firearms-related, then that leaves 1176 firearms deaths that are
    either accidents, suicides, or justifiable homicides.  I'd need better
    data on this, as I would prefer to exclude suicides before taking this
    path any further.

	>Your justification was "saving lives". Given that goal
	>my proposals are perfectly rational, indeed, they are neccessary.

    My justification is "saving lives, when charted against the relative
    usefulness of the item in question".  Firearms have limited usefulness
    in daily Canadian life, and the arms affected by prohibition have NO
    usefulness.

        >They made it easier for the law-abiding to
	>obtain firearms. They even made it easier for the law-abidning to 
	>carry cocealed firearms. And the result? Not only did the crime
	>rate NOT increase, it actually went DOWN.

    See below.

	>In the UK, the incidence of gun use in crimes has been doubling
	>every two years for the last 8 years. This from a report in the
	>London Times.

    If you or Jim Sadin (or even Amos!) have this article online, I'd like
    to see it.  I don't doubt you, I'm just curious.

        >The government is now arming Bobbies at an 
	>unprecedented rate. And their is a very serious movement calling
	>for universal armement of all police forces in the UK.

    Similar things are happening in Canada.  The Royal Newfoundland
    Constabulary are now packing heat (as opposed to keeping it in the 
    trunk of the car), and forces in Ontario are upgrading to semi-autos
    from revolvers, to give them increased ammo capacity and stopping power.

    Do you think that increasing gun controls will *decrease* public safety
    in Canada?  Will loosening the controls *increase* our safety?

    jc

    Note 130.556, Amos:

>This exchange is extremely pertinent in that you blame Americans for your
>gun-smuggling problems but it is clear from articles that it is native
>people who do a bulk of the border smuggling in NY/Vermont region
>but when it is pointed out you disavow that they are your citizens...

    No, I was simply pointing out that THEY don't consider themselves to be
    Canadian OR American, which is why they have reservations that span the
    border.  They then use this situation to their advantage in these kinds
    of activities.  And I am subsequently torn on the issue because I don't
    see how we can prevent it without usurping the limited autonomy that
    currently exists on these reserves.  Remember, though, that the FIRST
    person to step outside the law in this chain of events is the American
    citizen who is illegally selling these guns to the Indians (Wayne Reed,
    for example).

>...when clearly the storm-troopers from the RCMP think they are Canadian.

    "Storm-troopers"?  Where do you come up with this stuff, Amos?  Is
    everyone in your black-and-white world EITHER good OR evil?  No middle
    ground?  The RCMP is doing their job, and there is a court system here to
    deal with the situations when law enforcement personell do MORE than their
    job.  Just the same as down there.

>...it is your insistance that there is a cause and
>effect of guns versus crime that I believe is absolutely incorrect.

    You have insinutated much more than that, but if that is your version of
    backing down from those allegations, fine.  Note your use of the word
    `believe'.  I have been hammered for using that word.  So far I have
    been unable to prove a relationship between gun control and crime here in
    Canada.  Can you prove that the relationship DOESN'T exist?  I thought not.
    You have spouted off in here repeatedly without ANY Canadian stats to back
    you up.  Bear in mind, Amos, that this legislation is likely to pass, and 
    if it does, it will be because people like yourself on this side of the
    border were unable to make a good case against it.  A case that YOU appear
    to believe is as plain as the nose on your face.

>1) Why does your gov't treat native people like chattel and serfs?
>   (and comments about 100 years ago don't count, I'm talking TODAY)

    I responded to this, Amos, by saying that I don't agree with the way
    natives in this country have been treated.  What else would you expect
    me to say?  And how is that `on topic'?

>2) Why should I give up my property that was purchased legally?

    See my answer to 3a).

>3) how do you set a value on a firearm with historic and sentimental value?

    Historic value?  What does it sell for among collectors?  Sentimental
    value?  Can't be done.  How do you set a value on a human life?  Or
    14 of them?

>3a) Why should the gov't decide whether I can or cannot keep it if it has 
>    never been involved in a crime?

    Tough call.  Ultimately, though, this is not the gov't we're talking
    about here, but the electorate, which has been demanding these changes
    since Marc Lepine's little stroll.  As I have said, sometimes property
    rights take a back seat to the right to life.  It's a balancing act.
    So you don't like they way we balance these things?  Fine.  Be aware
    that WE often don't like the way YOU balance these things.  That's why
    we live in a different country.

>4) Why are gun collections "a crime waiting to happen"? when car collections 
>   are not "a highway fatality waiting to happen" or coin collections "a 
>   robbery waiting to happen"?

    Well...to the best of my knowledge, no one has been killed with a coin
    collection (although it's possible that some have been killed *for* coin
    collections).  Cars...well...it gets back to the point I raised with
    Jim P.:  the relative danger of the item in question is being balanced
    with it's relative usefulness.  Sure, cars are dangerous when used
    maliciously or ineptly.  But cars are much more universally useful in
    Canadian day-to-day life.  Handguns and military-style weapons somewhat
    less so.

>5) Why should I not be allowed to leave my property to my children?

    Ah...well...the gun in question is NOT that child's property, now, is
    it?  So it's no longer a case of taking something from the legal owner.
    It's now a case of preventing the legal owner from passing it to another.
    For the kid to receive the weapon, the kid would have to get a collector's
    certificate.  No more of those are going to be issued, I believe.  If
    you're not a collector by the time this legislation goes into effect, you
    never will be.  Not a legal one, anyway.

>6) why is a short barrel illegal and a longer one legal?
>   (you answered this with "where do I draw the line?" I don't believe
>   any gun should be illegal. no matter what caliber or length or rate of 
>   fire.)

    My answer was facetious, as the smiley should have indicated.  The
    distinction has to do with concealability.  I admit that 105mm is quite
    arbitrary.  Can a 5" barrel be concealed?  Certainly.  So, should we
    draw the line at 5" instead of 4"?  Well...right now, the line is 4".
    If you think the logic is faulty, I'm sure the pro-controllers could be
    persuaded to extend the prohibition to ALL handguns.

>7) How many crimes were commited with machine guns in Canada before they
>   were regulated in such a draconian manner a few years ago?

    Amos, I don't give a flying LEAP!!  Automatic weapons of ANY sort have
    no place in Canadian civilian life.  Deal with it.

>What I am trying to show is a pattern of gov't that runs roughshod over human 
>rights and you don't even recognise it.

    No, Amos, you are trying to perpetuate the pissing match regarding relative
    freedoms in the U.S. and Canada, and I'm not going to play that game. 
    There have been plenty of examples posted, not only here, but in other 
    topics, of oppressive and bizarre gov't actions against the U.S. citizenry,
    actions that have been upheld by high courts.  If you claim that Canada is
    worse than the U.S., then I have a perfect solution for you:  stay there.

>That I consider brain-washing by a failed or malevolent school system

    Again, the reality of Canadian life completely escapes you.  I must
    go now...it is time for my electro-shock therapy.

    jc

    <<< Note 130.557 by TROOA::COLLINS "Deep down deep, I'm shallow. :^)" >>>


>    The victims of the breakins?  Yes, I guess so.  And those who haven't
>    been broken into, either.  It's considered the lesser of two evils.

	Another difference in how you and I approach problems. My Father
	taught me that two wrongs do not make a right.

>    The problem is multi-faceted

	It is indeed.

>The
>    propogation from the legal to the illegal stream is another part. 

	And we are waiting for the data on this process.

>In 1992, 1359 Canadians died by
>    firearm, 

	The figure that my World Atlas has for the population of
	Canada in 1992 was 24.5 million. This means that your
	"death rate" from firearms is on the order of 0.0055%.
	Conversely, 99.99445% of your population is NOT at risk
	of death by firearm.

	And you are convinced that you have a problem that requires
	all this intrusion by the government?

	Amazing.

>    My justification is "saving lives, when charted against the relative
>    usefulness of the item in question". 

	Now wait a minute. You've added a new qualification. This means
	that your goal is NOT saving lives. It means that your goal is
	saving lives, unless it is inconvenient.

>    If you or Jim Sadin (or even Amos!) have this article online, I'd like
>    to see it.  I don't doubt you, I'm just curious.

	The article was quoted in the Wall Street Journal a while back.
	I know that I made copies. I'll see if I can dig them out.

>    Do you think that increasing gun controls will *decrease* public safety
>    in Canada?  Will loosening the controls *increase* our safety?

	Given the low risk represented by firearms (see above) I doubt that
	it will have much effect one way or the other. I do find it curious
	that even your POLICE forces are "arming up" while advocating the
	disarmament of the rest of the populace. It appears that they have
	little faith that the tighter gun laws will make THEM safer. If they
	have this opinion, why should you think otherwise?

Jim

    Note 130.559, Jim P.:

	>Another difference in how you and I approach problems. My Father
	>taught me that two wrongs do not make a right.

    Possibly.  Just curious Jim...I don't want to change the topic or anything,
    but do you support capital punishment?  Would you support it even though
    there might be a risk of executing an innocent person?  Don't answer if you
    don't want to, it's just that I've seen a lot of the anti-control types
    arguing in another topic that the few possible innocents put to death is
    an acceptable tradeoff to the greater number of deaths expected to occur
    at the hands of repeat murderers.  I was just wondering if you felt the
    same way or not.

>>The propogation from the legal to the illegal stream is another part. 
	>And we are waiting for the data on this process.

    When I have better data, I will post it.  But I maintain, and have yet
    to see any refutation, that ALL illegal firearms, apart from homemade
    weapons, begin their life in the legal stream.  For this reason, I find
    the distinction to be a bit of a red herring.

	>This means that your "death rate" from firearms is on the order 
	>of 0.0055%.  Conversely, 99.99445% of your population is NOT at 
	>risk of death by firearm.

    Gee...you manage to make 1,359 sound so...insignificant, I guess in much
    the same way that I make the number of people affected by the ban sound
    insignificant.  Which is the more significant number?

	>And you are convinced that you have a problem that requires
	>all this intrusion by the government?

    Convinced?  I have doubts all the time, Jim, and I *never* trust anyone
    who is *so* convinced that they will not even *look* at another 
    possibility.  If I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

	>Now wait a minute. You've added a new qualification.

    No, that qualification was always there.  I may not have communicated it
    clearly enough.

	>This means that your goal is NOT saving lives. It means that your 
	>goal is saving lives, unless it is inconvenient.

    Why does this sound familiar?

        >I do find it curious
	>that even your POLICE forces are "arming up" while advocating the
	>disarmament of the rest of the populace. It appears that they have
	>little faith that the tighter gun laws will make THEM safer.

    The process was actually interesting to watch.  The police claimed that
    their inferior firepower was an occupational hazard, and lodged a complaint
    with the province.  Citizens groups protested that the number of innocents
    shot by police was greater than the number of guilty persons, so the guns
    should remain less powerful to increase the odds of survival of an innocent
    shooting victim.  The province decided in favour of the police.

	>If they have this opinion, why should you think otherwise?

    Good question.  Let me (again! :^) mull this one over.

    jc 

    <<< Note 130.560 by TROOA::COLLINS "Deep down deep, I'm shallow. :^)" >>>


>I was just wondering if you felt the
>    same way or not.

	I believe that capital punishment has a place, though its application
	should be limited to cases where guilt has been proven beyond doubt
	(not just reasonable doubt as the sustem requires today).

>    When I have better data, I will post it.  But I maintain, and have yet
>    to see any refutation, that ALL illegal firearms, apart from homemade
>    weapons, begin their life in the legal stream.  For this reason, I find
>    the distinction to be a bit of a red herring.

	Any implement or tool that is used by a criminal was once in
	the "legal stream". Singling out firearms is disengenuous at
	best, hoplophobic at worst. In the US it is illegal for a 
	criminal to purchase, possess or own a firearm. Yet prosecutions
	for illegal gun possession are rare. Neither you or I can blame
	this fact on the gun.

>    Gee...you manage to make 1,359 sound so...insignificant,

	Only because, in the grand scheme of things, it IS insignificant.
	From your resource, how many causes of death in Canada total MORE
	than 1359? How much energy and government resource is involved in
	eliminating, or even criminalizing, the causes of those deaths?

> I guess in much
>    the same way that I make the number of people affected by the ban sound
>    insignificant.  Which is the more significant number?

	You tell me. How many Canadian gun owners are going to be affected
	by this new law?

>    Convinced?  I have doubts all the time, Jim, and I *never* trust anyone
>    who is *so* convinced that they will not even *look* at another 
>    possibility.

	Which is why I have encouraged you to do your own research. As I have
	mentioned, I was relatively pro-control at one time. You can even ask
	Amos about my first entries in the Firearms Notesfile. Then I started
	to look into the matter for myself. I am an Analyst by inclination,
	training and profession. The data was clear. What you see now is the 
	result of very careful research and thought.

>  If I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

	Don't despair. I was once wrong about gun control as well. I survived,
	so will you.

>    No, that qualification was always there.  I may not have communicated it
>    clearly enough.

	In this string you did not communicate it at all, until challenged.
	When you start qualifying just which devices must be banned, and
	more importantly which ones (even more deadly) will not, then you
	lose the "I'm saving lives" highground.

>The province decided in favour of the police.

	So even the Provincial authorities have no faith in the Canadian
	gun laws.

>    Good question.  Let me (again! :^) mull this one over.

	My goal is to ask good questions. If the result is that you give
	the issue careful thought, then I WILL succeed in MY goal.

Jim

    Note 130.561, Jim P.:

	>Any implement or tool that is used by a criminal was once in
	>the "legal stream". Singling out firearms is disengenuous at
	>best, hoplophobic at worst.

    Oooooo...`hoplophobic'...I knew that word would come up sooner or later.
    Sorry to disappoint you Jim, but I am not afraid of firearms.  I've
    held and fired a few in my time, and have quite an interest in them.
    In fact, if I lived in the U.S., I probably wouldn't be the least bit
    interested in gun control.  But I don't...I live in Canada.  And here,
    in Canada, we're gonna try something just a *little* different.

	>In the US it is illegal for a criminal to purchase, possess or own a
	>firearm. Yet prosecutions for illegal gun possession are rare. 
	>Neither you or I can blame this fact on the gun.

    I don't blame the gun, Jim, I just don't think we should abandon the effort
    to make life as difficult as possible for the criminal.  I, too, would like
    to see a greater rate of enforcement.

>>    Gee...you manage to make 1,359 sound so...insignificant,
	>Only because, in the grand scheme of things, it IS insignificant.

    The problem with this approach is that the families and friends of the
    victims DON'T consider the the number to be insignificant, and they can
    make good political hay of that fact.  To fail to acknowledge the 
    significance of those numbers makes the anti-control side look cold
    and selfish.  That may not be the case, but it sure weighs against you
    when the voters go to the polls.

	>From your resource, how many causes of death in Canada total MORE
	>than 1359? How much energy and government resource is involved in
	>eliminating, or even criminalizing, the causes of those deaths?

    Gee...that's a good question too!  You're good at this.  Why do I feel
    as though I've been handed *just enough* rope?   :^)

	>So even the Provincial authorities have no faith in the Canadian
	>gun laws.

    Well, the judgement was handed down under the province's Occupational
    Health And Safety Act.  It was reasoned that police are more likely than
    the average person to encounter an armed person.  Personally, I can't
    recall an incident in which an officer fired all six rounds from his
    revolver AND THEN was wounded or killed, but I don't begrudge the cops 
    their new weapons.  I can't really think of any reason to deny the police
    these weapons, if they feel the need for them.

	>How many Canadian gun owners are going to be affected by this new law?

    See below.  This is extracted text (so you may want to go back to .385 for
    the complete note), and I admit that it is a bit confusing.  Apparently, if
    I read this correctly, there will be about 50 weapons in total that will 
    have to be turned in, and the remainder can be traded amongst collectors
    or kept by the owner until s/he passes on, at which point the weapons will
    have to be turned in.
     
==============================================================================

Note 130.385

[THIS IS A SERIES OF SLIDES PRESENTED IN LATE 1994 BY THE CANADIAN
GOVERNMENT TO INTRODUCE THEIR NEW FIREARMS RESTRICTIONS]

THE GOVERNMENT'S ACTION PLAN ON FIREARMS CONTROL

Department of Justice -- Canada
November 30, 1994


INCREASED HANDGUN CONTROLS

_Key Approaches:_

o    Will continue to allow Canadians to possess handguns for
     certain legitimate purposes--i.e., target shooting and
     collecting

o    Measures to reduce number of handguns in circulation that
     are not suitable for these legitimate purposes

_Results:_

o    Over time, significantly fewer handguns

o    Remaining handguns will be in safer hands

============================================================

INCREASED HANDGUN CONTROLS
(Cont'd)

_Plan:_

(1)  Amend _Criminal Code_ to ban further import, sale, or
manufacture of:

o    .25 and .32calibre handguns, AND

o    all other calibres with barrel lengths of 105mm and under
     (just over 4 inches)

These are calibres and barrel lengths that are designed and
marketed primarily for self-defence:

o    small, cheap, very easily concealed

o    Ban will not affect legitimate target shooting or
     collecting interests

o    Will grandfather owners for life but no transfers or
     sales

o    Will come into effect when legislation is passed

============================================================

INCREASED HANDGUN CONTROLS
(Cont'd)

_Results:_                    _No. on Register_

All .25 Calibre                40,800
All .32 Calibre               174,825

Barrel lengths of 105mm and under:

.22 Calibre                    85,702
.30 Calibre                     1,075
.38 Calibre                   135,576
Other Calibres                117,261
     Grand Total              555,239


============================================================

INCREASED HANDGUN CONTROLS
(Cont'd)

(2)  Certain assault pistols will be outrightly prohibited. 
Should not be grandfathered, compensation will be paid.  Few
in number, under 75 in registry.


============================================================

INCREASED HANDGUN CONTROLS
(Cont'd)

(3)  Collectors:

o    Close "relic" category--existing registration will be
     grandfathered

o    Compulsory periodic inspections--cost-recovery fee

o    Increased storage requirement for large collections

o    If more than certain number of transactions per year,
     more costly transaction fee

============================================================

INCREASED HANDGUN CONTROLS
(Cont'd)

Special application form to help enforce _Criminal Code_
requirements for collectors:

o    Collection must have historical, technical or scientific
     characteristics

o    Collector must have knowledge of those

o    Consent to reasonable periodic inspections

o    Record keeping

o    Secure storage

Create breach of regulations penalty

============================================================

INCREASED HANDGUN CONTROLS
(Cont'd)

(4)  Will tighten controls on shooting clubs--Now 1,040 gun
clubs approved by AGs across Canada.  Must be approved by AG
but there are no national standards.

o    Will develop national accrediation standards for gun
clubs and put these into regulations, in collaboration with
firearms sporting groups

o    Expand AG powers to include revocation and inspection
powers

o    Links to permit process
     --   Permit to carry with proof of club membership and
          participation
     --   Verified annually--e.g., reporting requirement by 
          clubs

============================================================

INCREASED HANDGUN CONTROLS
(Cont'd)

(5)  Will introduce Canadian handgun training requirements for
persons wishing to acquire handguns or employees who handle
handguns

o    A handgun safety training course including range practice
     will be developed in co-operation with firearms groups

(6)  Registration process will require that reasons for every
handgun registered be re-validated every 5 years when FPC is
renewed

============================================================

INCREASED HANDGUN CONTROLS
(Cont'd)

(7)  Cost-recovery fee structure starting 1996

(8)  Preemptive review process (Permit to Import) prior to
entry to Canada will clarify status of guns before
availability on market

============================================================

MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY FIREARMS

o    Designed for military, police, or other enforcement
agency

o    High lethality

o    Fully-automatic (1978) and converted fully-automatic
(1992) already prohibited and owners grandfathered

o    Over 200 other types were prohibited or restricted in
1992

============================================================

MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY FIREARMS
(Cont'd)

Military/Paramilitary Firearms Possessed by Individuals in
Canada:

Now Prohibited and Grandfathered:

o    Fully Automatics                        2,761
o    Converted Fully-Automatics              4,763
o    Firearms Under Prohibited Weapons
     Order #12--e.g., Uzi, Steyr-Aug         1,580

Now Restricted:

o    AK-47 and variants                      4,091
o    Colt AR-15 and variants                 5,798
o    FN-FAL and variants                     6,000
o    Other Restricted Weapons                3,081
     TOTAL                                   28,074


============================================================

MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY FIREARMS
(Cont'd)

_Plan:_

(1)  Use Order In council power to prohibit 21 types
previously restricted

o    These are direct copies or generic copies, in semi-
     automatic version, of military firearms

o    Of interest primarily to military collectors

o    Not commonly used for hunting and target shooting

o    Grandfather existing owners but no transfer or sales

============================================================

MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY FIREARMS
(Cont'd)

_Rifles and Carbines:_

1. AK-47 and variants                                  4091
2. Armalite AR-180                                      199
3. Auto-Ordinance M27A1/M1927A-3                        975
4. Beretta AR-70                                         15
5. Bushmaster Assault Rifle                              23
6. Cetme Sporter                                          1
7. Commando Arms Carbine                                 71
8. Daewoo K-1, K-2, MAX-1, MAX-2, AR-100, AR-110C       318
9. Demro Tac-1M Carbine                                  23
10. Eagle "Apache" Carbine                               11
11. FN-FAL and variants and 
12. FNC-11, 22, 33                                     6000
13. Galil                                               571
14. Gonez High-Tech Carbine (now called Claridge High-Tech)
                                                          0
15. Heckler and Koch HK-91                              808
16. J&R Eng M-68/PJK-M-LF                                 1
17. Leader Mark 5 Auto Rifle                              8
18. SIG AMT, PE-57                                       16
19. SIG SG-550/SG-551                                    31
20. Springfield Armoury--BM-59                            4
21. Springfield SAR-48                                    8


MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY FIREARMS
(Cont'd)

(2)  Some paramilitary or military firearms cannot be
prohibited now because of statutory limitations on Order in
council power..."not _commonly_ used for hunting or sporting
purposes"

o    Will act on those firearms once the Bill is passed e.g.
Colt AR-15, Ruger Mini-14

(3)  Will outrightly prohibit as of Jan. 1, 1995, a series of
assault pistols and military  rifles and combat shotguns--no
grandfathering for these weapons but will compensate.  Numbers
are small

(4)  Introduce a preemptive review process in future--no gun
may be admitted to Canadian market unless aproved first as
appropriate (permit process)

============================================================

FIREARMS TO BE PROHIBITED AND COMPENSATION PAID

_Assault Pistols:_

1.  OA-93                                               0
2. "Patriot" semi-automatic Pistol                      0
3. XM 231 B                                             0
4. AA Arms Model AP-9                                  28
5. Kimel Industries AP-9 and variants                   0
6. Grendel P-31                                         1
7. Claridge Hi-Tec Model S and variants                 4
8. Stery SPP Assault Pistol                             2
9. Maadi "Griffin" Pistol                               0

_Combat Shotguns:_

1. Franchi SPAS-15                                      8
2. Benelli M1 Super 90 and variants                     4
3. Bernadelli B4 Shotgun and variants                   0

_Rifles and Carbines:_

1. Maadi "Griffin" Rifle and Carbine                    0
2. AA Arms Model AR-9 Rifle and Carbine                 0
3. Clairidge Hi-Tec C and variants                      3
4. Kimel Industries AR-9 Rifle and Carbine              0
5. Grendal R-31 Auto Carbine                            0

    <<< Note 130.562 by TROOA::COLLINS "Deep down deep, I'm shallow. :^)" >>>



>    Oooooo...`hoplophobic'...I knew that word would come up sooner or later.

	Notice that it wasn't an accusation. It was part of a range of
	posible motivations.

>    in Canada, we're gonna try something just a *little* different.

	And I am merely commenting on those efforts.

>    I don't blame the gun, Jim,

	When you pass laws that affect people who are NOT criminals by
	focusing on LEGALLY owned firearms that have NOT been involved
	in a crime, you are blaming the gun, not the person that used 
	A gun illegally.

>    The problem with this approach is that the families and friends of the
>    victims DON'T consider the the number to be insignificant, and they can
>    make good political hay of that fact.  To fail to acknowledge the 
>    significance of those numbers makes the anti-control side look cold
>    and selfish.  That may not be the case, but it sure weighs against you
>    when the voters go to the polls.

	So then you admit that the argument for gun control in Canada is
	based on pure emotion, not on logic. We too pass emotionally
	justified laws. They are failures from the very start and in
	many cases they CREATE problems that did not exist before they
	went into effect. Our brief experiment with Prohibition is 
	probably the best example.

>	>From your resource, how many causes of death in Canada total MORE
>	>than 1359? How much energy and government resource is involved in
>	>eliminating, or even criminalizing, the causes of those deaths?

>    Gee...that's a good question too!  You're good at this.  Why do I feel
>    as though I've been handed *just enough* rope?   :^)

	I just hate it when the prey notices the trap. ;-)

	Seriously, when you start to look at the debate in rational terms
	there IS only one conclusion. Now, you can state that you support
	the law anyway, but you can not rely on logic to back up your decision.

	The reason that I asked THAT particular question is that one of
	our foremost pro-control organizations has shown quite conclusively
	that saving lives is NOT one of their goals.

>It was reasoned that police are more likely than
>    the average person to encounter an armed person. 

	That's an interesting theory. That would imply that police officers
	are more likely to be the victims of crime. I doubt that this is
	the case. Earlier you published stats concerning the use of 
	firearms in various crimes. How many of those victims were cops?

	In my experience, police officers take REPORTS about crimes that
	have alreasy occurred. They alsost never actually STOP a violent 
	crime that is in progress. And, in fact, the CAN NOT stop a violent
	crime before it occurs.

>I can't really think of any reason to deny the police
>    these weapons, if they feel the need for them.

	Oh, I don't begrudge them their new guns. I just pointed out that
	THEIR faith in the new laws seems to be very low.


	As for how many are affected.....

	Well, it's a little difficult to extrapolate, but the law affects
	1,110,478 registered handguns (any idea on the average per owner?),
	28,074 semi-auto rifles, 9104 machine guns, and a handfull of other
	categories.

	It also places new restrictions and requirements on gun clubs (how
	many gun clubs have committed a violent crime?). Is gun club membership
	a requirement for owning a firearm in Canada?

Jim

From: Wayne  Chapeskie <[email protected]>
Subject: Canadian gun ban list
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 17:48:37 -0700


Further to the recent post about some of the goings on in Canadian gun
laws, here is the brochure from the Department of (In)Justice,
courtesy of the local gun store, regarding
the list of newly prohibited and restricted guns.  I have reproduced it
essentially in its entirety, hypocrisy and inconsistencies intact.
It is a bit long;  there is apparently a companion "Weapons Prohibited
and Restricted by Order in Council Reference Manual", which I have not
seen, which lists all of the "and variants" in great detail.

Idle readers may wish to determine which catalogues and "Gun Digest"
style publications are the source of the lists; apparently they include
some oddball guns that have probably never been seen in this country, as
well as omitting others, for no discernible reason.


Some background:
        - An "Order in Council" is a law or regulation made by Cabinet
          and the federal government bureaucracy; it is not debated
          in Parliament.
        - a "restricted weapon" must be registered, can't normally be
          used for hunting, and requires permits to transport anywhere
        - we have in the past escaped the gun ban fever which has been
          popular with various US governments in the past few years.
          Until now, only full autos were prohibited weapons (since
          1978; even they were grandfathered).  Only handguns, short
          barrelled rifles, and FN-FAL's were restricted weapons.

-------------------------------------

Weapons Prohibited and Restricted by Order in Council

The law authorizes the Governor General in Council to prohibit or
restrict weapons, parts, components or accessories by Order in Council.
Firearms which are reasonable for use in hunting or other sporting
activities cannot be prohibited or restricted under this authority.
Generally, this authority is used to control weapons and accessories
which are seen to be a threat to public safety.

The Orders in Council, which will come into force on October 1, 1992,
except as otherwise noted, deal with three classes of weapons.

1.  Prohibited weapons (with "grandfather" clause)
    Coming into force July 27, 1992
    Registration deadline October 1, 1992

    Three assault pistols and one carbine become prohibited.
    Existing owners will be allowed to retain firearms they have
    on the date of the coming into force.  These will be
    registered as "restricted weapons".  Once existing owners
    die or dispose of the weapons, they revert to prohibited
    weapons status and must be deactivated or disposed of. ...

    This Order applies to the semi-automatic versions of the
    following firearms:

    - Sterling MK-6 carbine
    - Steyr AUG rifle
    - MAC and Ingram type pistols
    - Partisan Avenger auto pistol
    - UZI series

2.  Prohibited weapons (without "grandfather" clause)
    Effective October 1, 1992

    A list of "assault pistols", "combat shotguns", .50 calibre
    sniper rifles and other military-type firearms are
    classified as prohibited weapons.  There can be no retention
    of these weapons after October 1, 1992; they must be
    disposed of, surrendered, or deactivated by that date.
    These Orders apply to the following firearms, accesories,
    components and types of ammunition:

    Shotguns

    - Franchi SPAS 12 ans LAW 12
    - Striker 12 and Streetsweeper
    - USAS-12 Auto shotgun

    Rifles and Carbines

    - American 180 Auto Carbine and variants
    - Barrett "Light Fifty" Model 82A1, Model 90 Rifle and variants
    - Calico M-900, M-951, M-100 and M-105 and variants
    - FAMAS Rifle, MAS 223, FAMAS Export, FAMAS Civil and Mitchell MAS/22
      and variants
    - Feather AT-9 Semi-Auto, Feather AT-22 Auto Carbines and variants
    - Federal XC-450 Auto Rifle, XC-900, XC-220 and variants
    - Gepard Long Range Sniper Rifle and variants
    - Heckler and Koch (HK) Model G11 and variants
    - Illinois Arms Co. Model 180 Auto Carbine
    - Iver Jonson AMAC Long Range Rifle and variants
    - McMillan M87, M87R, M88 and variants
    - Pauza Specialties P50 Rifle and P50 Carbine and variants
    - Research Armament Industries (RAI) Model 500 Rifle and variants
    - Spectre Auto Carbine and variants
    - US Arms PMAI "Assault" 22 Rifle and variants
    - Weaver Arms Nighthawk Carbine and variants

    Assault Pistols

    - Bushmaster Auto Pistol and variants
    - Calico M-110, M-950 and variants
    - Encom MK-IV, MP-9, MP-45 and variants
    - Federal XP-450, XP-900 Auto Pistols and variants
    - Goncz High-Tech Long Pistol and variants
    - Heckler and Koch (HK) SP89 Auto Pistol and variants
    - Intratec Tec-9 Auto Pistol, Tec-9M, Tec-9MS, Tec-22T, Tec-22TM
      and variants
    - Iver Johnson Enforcer Model 3000 Auto Pistol, Plainfield Super
      Enforcer Carbine and variants
    - Leader Mark 5 Auto Pistol and variants
    - Skorpion Auto Pistol and variants
    - Spectre Auto Pistol and variants
    - Sterling Mk 7, Mk7C4, Mk 7C8 Pistols and variants
    - Universal Enforcer Model 3000 Auto Carbine, Model 3010N, Model 3015G,
      Model 3020TRB, Model 3025 TCO and variants
    - US Arms PMAIP Assault 22 Pistol and variants

    Ammunition

    A list of cartridges and components are declared prohibited wepons.
    These are of a military or para-military nature and are not suited
    for sporting applications.  They include "cop-killer"
    armour-piercing bullets, explosive and incendiary cartridges, and
    exotic shotgun cartridges known as "flechettes".

    Accessories and Components

    One accessory and one component are prohibited.  The component is a
    "bull-pup" stock, used in modern assault rifles and shotguns to
    reduce length.  The accessory is a type of trigger enhancement
    device designed to fire semi-automatic firearms at machine gun
    speeds.  This is done by rapidly moving the trigger back and forth,
    as the gun reloads and fires.

3.  Restriced Weapons
    Effective October 1, 1992

    Several semi-automatic assault rifles and similar firearms are
    declared to be restricted weapons.   This requires registration and
    precludes use for hunting, but allows owners to retain and transfer
    affected weapons.  It allows continued use of these firearms in
    sporting applications (ie. target-shooting) and for gun collections.
    This Order applies to the following rifles and carbines:

    - AK 47 Family and variants
    - Armalite AR-180 Sporter Carbine and variants
    - Beretta AR-70 and variants
    - Bushmaster Auto Rifle and variants
    - Cetme Sporter and variants
    - Colt AR-15 and variants
    - Commando Arms Carbine
    - Daewoo K1, K1A1, K2, Max 1, Max 2, Ar-100, AR 110C and variants
    - Demro Tac-1M, XF-7 Wasp Carbine and variants
    - Eagle "Apache" Carbine and variants
    - FN 308 Model 44 and variants
    - FNC-11, 22, 33 and variants
    - Galil and variants
    - Goncz High-Tech Carbine and variants
    - Heckler and Koch HK-91 and other models
    - J&R Eng M-68, PJK-M-LF, Wilkinson "Terry" Carbine and variants
    - Leader Mark 5 Auto Rifle and variants
    - SIG AMT, PE-57
    - SIG SG-550/SG-551
    - Springfield Armoury BM59 and variants
    - Springfield Armoury SAR48 and other models
    - Thompson Submachine gun and variants

    Existing orders covering the High Standard Model 10, Series "A" or
    "B", FN-FAL, and any reproductions were merged into this new order.

Stun guns

On July 10, 1992, Prohibited Weapons Order No. 3, which declared the
"Taser Public Defender" and similar devices to be prohibited weapons,
was amended to ensure that "stun guns" fell within the scope of the
Order.

-------- end of government list ----------

At this point, I have no idea how Canadian owners of newly restricted
and prohibited weapons will respond.  There are probably several hundred
thousand of these newly restricted weapons in this country.  Given that
there are about a million restricted weapons already, if everyone
registered the guns on this list, it would swamp the system.


Wayne Chapeskie         [email protected]
University of Victoria
Victoria, B.C.,  Canada

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [email protected] (Keith de Solla)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Canadian point system
Organization: Canadian Microelectronics Corporation

As some people have requested it, here is the new point system to
be used in Canada to determine the status of a firearm if it is
not easily classified.  In theory, if a weapon accumulates 50 points
it may be analyzed to determine whether or not it should be restricted
or prohibited.  Other factors are also supposed to be considered such
as availability & use in crime.  Followup to t.p.g or better yet, to
our Minister of Justice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

        Firearm Classification (Long Arms Only)

Firearm Action Type                                     Points

Single Shot/Break open 2 or 3 shot                      5
Bolt Action Repeater                                    5
Lever Action                                            5
Pump Action                                             10
Semi-Automatic                                          25
Selective for Full Automatic                            100

Ammunition Type

Rimfire                                                 10
Shotshell                                               15
Centre-Fire                                             15

Specific Characteristics

Overall Length less than 26"                            100
Barrel Length less than 18"                             40
Barrel Length 18" to 18.5"                              20
Folding or Telescoping Stock                            20
Bayonet Lug or Folding Bayonet                          5
Flash Hider/Flash Suppressor                            5
Carrying Handle                                         5
Full Rear Pistol Grip                                   20
Full Forward Pistol Grip                                20

Magazine Capacity

Rimfire:
                10 rounds                               5
                20 rounds                               10
        over 20 rounds                                  20

Shotshell/Centre-Fire: 
                5 rounds                                10
                10 rounds                               25
        over 10 rounds                                  35

-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Keith P. de Solla        | "I don't enforce the law, I regulate |
| CMC                      |  human behaviour"                    |
| [email protected]    |    - Commissioner Scali              |

    Note 130.563

	>As for how many are affected.....
	>Well, it's a little difficult to extrapolate, but the law affects
	>1,110,478 registered handguns (any idea on the average per owner?)

    The average would appear to be about 2 or less per owner.

	>28,074 semi-auto rifles, 9104 machine guns, and a handfull of other
	>categories.

    Actually, most of the guns affected have either already been affected by
    the 1977 or 1991 laws, or they are affected as follows:

    - no new sales, imports, or ownership transfers (except amongst other
      collectors).

    - current owners will be able to keep their weapons, except for (as
      far as I can extrapolate from the figures below) about 50 weapons
      that will have to be turned in for compensation.  That's 50 out of
      over a million firearms.

    - keepsakes and war trophies, as well as other restricted or prohibited
      firearms, will not be permitted to pass down as heirlooms.

 	>Is gun club membership a requirement for owning a firearm in Canada?

    Pretty much.  You have to become a member and take a course to get your
    Firearms Aquisition Certificate, but I don't think you have to keep the
    membership current, unless you're shooting handguns.

    jc

=============================================================================

FIREARMS TO BE PROHIBITED AND COMPENSATION PAID

_Assault Pistols:_

1.  OA-93                                               0
2. "Patriot" semi-automatic Pistol                      0
3. XM 231 B                                             0
4. AA Arms Model AP-9                                  28
5. Kimel Industries AP-9 and variants                   0
6. Grendel P-31                                         1
7. Claridge Hi-Tec Model S and variants                 4
8. Stery SPP Assault Pistol                             2
9. Maadi "Griffin" Pistol                               0

_Combat Shotguns:_

1. Franchi SPAS-15                                      8
2. Benelli M1 Super 90 and variants                     4
3. Bernadelli B4 Shotgun and variants                   0

_Rifles and Carbines:_

1. Maadi "Griffin" Rifle and Carbine                    0
2. AA Arms Model AR-9 Rifle and Carbine                 0
3. Clairidge Hi-Tec C and variants                      3
4. Kimel Industries AR-9 Rifle and Carbine              0
5. Grendal R-31 Auto Carbine                            0

    Remember what I said in .557?

  "In 1992, 1359 Canadians died by firearm, but there were only 732 homicides,
  and most of those probably didn't involve a firearm.  If we estimate that
  25% of homicides (183) were firearms-related, then that leaves 1176 firearms
  deaths that are either accidents, suicides, or justifiable homicides.  I'd
  need better data on this, as I would prefer to exclude suicides before
  taking this path any further."

    The figure `1,359' was quoted from a newspaper article I read.  Turns out
    that it's a little off (unless I missed something), but not by much.  I
    browsed through the 1992 Mortality journal, and found the following:

    suicides w/firearms			1,046
    accidents or injury w/firearms	   84
    homicide w/firearms			  214
					-----
    TOTAL				1,344

    There were also 9 deaths due to `legal intervention', but no breakdown
    was given of the instrument causing the death.

    jc  

    <<< Note 130.565 by TROOA::COLLINS "Deep down deep, I'm shallow. :^)" >>>


>	>As for how many are affected.....
>	>Well, it's a little difficult to extrapolate, but the law affects
>	>1,110,478 registered handguns (any idea on the average per owner?)

>    The average would appear to be about 2 or less per owner.

	So in round numbers, we're talking about a half million people?

>    Pretty much.  You have to become a member and take a course to get your
>    Firearms Aquisition Certificate, but I don't think you have to keep the
>    membership current, unless you're shooting handguns.

	So virtually every gun owner is affected then. How many gun owners
	are there in Canada?

Jim

    <<< Note 130.566 by TROOA::COLLINS "Deep down deep, I'm shallow. :^)" >>>
>                      -< Things that make you go `Hmmmm' >-

	You bet it does. ;-)

>I
>    browsed through the 1992 Mortality journal, and found the following:

>    suicides w/firearms		1,046
>    accidents or injury w/firearms	   84
>    homicide w/firearms		  214
					-----
>    TOTAL				1,344

	So discounting suicides, we now have 294 deaths divided by
	24,500,000. I don't have my calculator handy, what's this
	work out to? About .0015% or thereabouts?

	Even if one of every type (or clone) was used in the 214
	murders, you are banning or regulating more guns than were
	used.

Jim

    Note 130.567, Jim P.:

	>How many gun owners are there in Canada?


FIREARMS OWNERSHIP IN CANADA:  

o    3 Million Firearms Owners

o    7 Million Firearms
     1.2 Million are registered as restricted weapons (these are the
     weapons that will be affected by this new legislation).    

o    1993:     3,800 firearms reported lost or stolen

o    1974-1993:     65,000 cumulative reported missing, lost
                    or stolen and have never been recovered

o    Personal handgun possession: 950,000 owned by 560,000 people (these
     are part of the 1.2 million restricted weapons). 

    jc
    

    <<< Note 130.569 by TROOA::COLLINS "Deep down deep, I'm shallow. :^)" >>>



>o    3 Million Firearms Owners

>o    7 Million Firearms
>     1.2 Million are registered as restricted weapons (these are the
>     weapons that will be affected by this new legislation).    

>o    Personal handgun possession: 950,000 owned by 560,000 people (these
>    are part of the 1.2 million restricted weapons). 

	So 3 million Canadian citizens are at least somewhat affected, more
	than a half million are definately affected, all becuase of 294
	firearms deaths? As Yakov Smirnoff is fond of saying "WHAT a country!".


>o    1993:     3,800 firearms reported lost or stolen

>o    1974-1993:     65,000 cumulative reported missing, lost
                    or stolen and have never been recovered

	So an average of 3500 or so per year. Out of 7 MILLION total.
	(0.05% for those who are keeping score)

	Ans as yet no numbers on how many of that 3500 end up being
	used in crimes (are there 3500 gun crimes in Canada in any
	year?)

	Not looking good for your side JC. ;-)

Jim

    
    Note 130.570

	>So 3 million Canadian citizens are at least somewhat affected, more
	>than a half million are definately affected, all becuase of 294
	>firearms deaths?

    HEY!  That's *298*!   :^)

	>And as yet no numbers on how many of that 3500 end up being
	>used in crimes (are there 3500 gun crimes in Canada in any
	>year?)
    
    I'm-a just gettin' started!

	>Not looking good for your side JC. ;-)

    Uhhhhh...ummmmm...well...uhhhhhh...maybe I'll turn up something good
    this weekend...yeah, that's the ticket...
    
    jc
    

    <<< Note 130.571 by TROOA::COLLINS "Deep down deep, I'm shallow. :^)" >>>

    
>    HEY!  That's *298*!   :^)

	I TOLD you I didn't have my calculator. ;-)

>    I'm-a just gettin' started!

	Well, I;ve dealt with slow starters before, but they were mostly
	from Marketing. ;-)

>    Uhhhhh...ummmmm...well...uhhhhhh...maybe I'll turn up something good
>    this weekend...yeah, that's the ticket...
 
	You could take a page from our pro-control outfit. LIE! ;-)

	Seriously. it almost sounds like you are ready, very ready,
	to switch sides. It's a bit painful, but you'll feel better
	when you come out the other side.

Jim

It's no wonder I don't see John around the office anymore!

    
    I've abandoned `snarfing' in favour of `skulking'.
    

    <<< Note 130.574 by TROOA::COLLINS "Deep down deep, I'm shallow. :^)" >>>

    
>    I've abandoned `snarfing' in favour of `skulking'.
 
	As long as you don't move on to sulking. ;-)   

	BTW, not to put any pressure on you , but if you're going to
	decide to become a gunnut, could you do it by tommorrow?
	I'm going on vacation for 3 weeks starting Monday.

	;-)

Jim

    
    Hmmmm...naw, I think I'll make you wait 'til you get back to see what
    I've decided.   :^)
    
    If I don't talk to you beforehand, have a good three weeks!
    
    jc
    

    TRODA::COLLINS "Deep down deep, I'm shallow ;-)"
    
    I beg to differ, as I am Shallow, but it's not by choice ;-)
    
    Bob

    
 >N2DEEP::SHALLOW     No, I'm Shallow ;-)
    
    Sorry, Bob.   :^)
    

    No Problem jc, I just had to ya know?
    
    bs

    At least you're not Smoketoomuch, Mr. Smoketoomuch.

    
    Well!  You'd better cut down, then 8^).

    Sorry?

From the Firearms file, with permission.

================================================================================
Note 6282.25                  Canadian Gun Control!                     25 of 25
POLAR::ROBINSONP "Liv'er on the edge"                63 lines  19-APR-1995 11:34
                     -< One result of "safe storage laws" >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the local net in Ottawa, Canada..
    
Welcome Home Bill Baldwin

	Bill Baldwin lives in Gloucester, Ontario, part of Ottawa. 
In March he took a short vacation.  While he was away, burglars
broke into his apartment and stole his computer.  They also found
his carefully-stored target rifles (stored with the bolts removed
to disable the guns).
	After looking the guns over, the burglars apparently left,
leaving the guns behind - after all, what use is a 12-lb, single
shot target rifle to a life of crime?
	Some time later the building superintendent noticed an open
window, and crawled in to discover the guns laying around.  He
called the Gloucester police (part of the Ottawa-Carleton regional
police force working under chief Brian Ford who believes no one
should have a gun but he and his minions).
	The police arrarently forced their way into Bill's apartment
and confiscated all Bill's guns, broke into locked boxes containing
ammunition and a coin collection, left Bill a note and a copy of
an unsigned search warrant.
	On Bill's return from vacation and discovery of the damage he
contacted the police as requested - to be charged with three counts
of "careless storage" - a charge already thrown out of one Canadian
court as being to vague to be permitted.
	Bill Baldwin is what is usually described as a "pillar of the
community".  He's a quiet, gentle man, a gentleman of the old
school, perhaps partly as a result of his upbringing in the gentler
society of Saskatchewan.
	Bill has been a competitive shooter almost 20 years and has
won spots on eight Canadian international shooting teams.  He has
represented Canada in competitions in Scotland, England, the USA. 
He has won more than 20 major international shooting medals while
representing Canada, including gold at the 1986 Commonwealth games,
the Governor-General's prize in 1984 (Canada's highest rifle
award), the Queen's Prize at Bisley, England Centenary competition
in 1990 (against 1,500 other competitors), and a host of other
*very* prestigious shooting awards.
	Bill is a qualified range officer, shooting coach and safety
instructor.  He volunteers with junior rifle shooters at the Ottawa
Civil Service recreation association and #2870 Ottawa Service
Battalion Cadet shooters.  He is an active member of the Shooting
Federation of Canada, life member of Dominion of Canada Rifle
Association and the National Capital Region Rifle Association.
	Bill is a man of modest means - now faced with legal costs
expected to exceed $4,000 to defend himself against this
persecution.  He (perhaps naively), always believed the police were
here to *help* law-abiding citizens rather than persecute them by
way of trumped-up tyrannical charges ordered simply as a means to
confiscate their legally-owned sporting guns.
	Welcome home Bill.
	Welcome home to the kind of country Allan Rock and Jean
Chretien say you want to live in.
	BTW, a defense fund has been started to help Bill pay the
costs of his defence of these charges.<Defense fund info deleted, as
    this is a US forum>

    ============================================================
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing.                 Edmund Burke


    

    
    Whadya expect from "God's Goosesteppers"????
    
    
    
    
     Oooooops!! Sorry!!
    
    Wrong Goosesteppers...
    

    
    .583, Amos:
    
    This, of course, should be filed right along with the unpunished 
    murders of U.S. citizenry at the hands of the BATF and FBI.  
    
    Right?
    

>  <<< Note 130.585 by TROOA::COLLINS "From Sheilus to the Reefs of Kismar" >>>
>                    -< Which `here' are you referring to? >-

America, where there are so many in favor of "safe storage laws" without 
thinking thru the consequences. I wouldn't refer to Canada as here as you are 
beyond help.

    
>    .583, Amos:
    
>    This, of course, should be filed right along with the unpunished 
>    murders of U.S. citizenry at the hands of the BATF and FBI.  
    
>    Right?
 
Since hearings on BATF are only just getting started don't bet they will go 
unpunished. or the current dance in Oklahoma may be some form of retribution
only time will tell.

But what possible excuse can you give for your police to confiscate his 
property and charge him with a crime after he was already victimized by a 
police system that doesnot control the criminal element?

But you probably see nothing wrong with laws that would criminalize his
actions.

Amos