CDN-FIREARMS Digest 33 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) fw:re:fw:Why indeed? by "fred (f.) davis" 2) two or three interesting things by skeeter@skatter.usask.ca (Skeeter Abell-Smith) 3) Re: more tidbits by Achim Lohse 4) Re: more tidbits by Achim Lohse 5) Re: Why indeed? by Achim Lohse 6) Re: Why are we doing this, again? by Achim Lohse 7) Calgary Meetings of Law & Society. Y'all come. by skeeter@skatter.usask.ca (Skeeter Abell-Smith) 8) re: Why indeed? by desolla@cmc.ca (Keith de Solla) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Topic No. 1 Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 14:36:54 +0600 From: "fred (f.) davis" To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: fw:re:fw:Why indeed? Message-ID: <9405192036.AA00490@orion.sal> Skeeter, this is from a co-worker of mine who gave me permission to send it along to you. (He will be subscribing soon!) (Edit at will!) Forwarded message: ----------------------> from: Hal (H.V.) Kauffeldt :1R28 (BNR) subject: re:fw:Why indeed? Fred, Thanks for passing this (and some other stuff in the past couple of days) along. I agree 100% that logical arguments are not the issue - emotions are. The flip-flop effect I've perceived in my elected officials confirms that they do not care about facts - they only care about the opinion du jour. If we can sway the opinions of the masses, we can control our elected officials. Unfortunately, I have no simple solution to offer - anyone have any ideas? On a related note, though, allow me to share some of my own experiences with fear and its effects. Despite the fact that I am a gun owner, hunter, sport shooter and (at least I feel) logical guy, I always find myself getting a bit tense when I discover that someone I know is a gun owner too, although the feeling is a fleeting one. I always go through the same cycle when I find this out: 1) Initial fear 2) Realization that my fear is irrational, and due to conditioning by society. 3) Anger that society has subjected me to feelings of fear (however fleeting) for no logical reason 4) Anger that I'm now feeling like a "victim" of society. 5) Conviction that the cycle must be broken, and future generations should not have to go through steps 1 to 4. Perhaps a ray of hope may be coaxed from realizing some other things about our society: - people go to lots of movies that involve the (liberal, illegal and unsafe) use of guns - people cheer the good guys, even if they are breaking the law and using firearms, as long as it is perceived as being a "just" response to a bad guy. - people hate bad guys. Period. - people like revenge, and good guys beating bad guys in movies are usually doing so while exacting the revenge that most of us never get to experience in our normal lives If we could convince people that they were going to be safer if they had guns around than they would otherwise be, we may be able to turn the tide. The problem, I think, is how to put this sort of positive spin on acts of random violence like drive-by shootings - people want to feel that something will be done to ensure this cannot happen to them, while we all (logically) know that such guarantees are impossible. Maybe we should use these as justification and demand that the government introduce legislation allowing citizens to act in self defence. I think a valid case could be made on a cost/benefit basis, showing that allowing armed citizens to defend their lives/property and that of their neighbours is a cost effective policing solution. The other tactic, which hasn't yet worked for me, is to urge politicians to raise minimum punishment levels for those convicted of an offence involving a firearm. The "3 strikes and your out" approach is a good one too; allow the courts to exercise discretion on a first offence, but make the second offence carry a minimum of 50% of the maximum penalty and the 3rd carry an automatic maximum penalty. Maybe we can even use protectionism to our advantage by visibly lobbying for trade sanctions to be enacted against nations who are seen to be the cause of illegal imports (guns, drugs, etc.) into our country unless they can show they are addressing the problem at their end, and not just allowing these exports to continue unchallenged? Hal Kauffeldt | Bell-Northern Research Ltd. | Liability for (613)-765-4589 | P.O. Box 3511 Station C | expressed views halk@bnr.ca | Ottawa, Ont. CANADA K1Y 4H7 | is mine. ---------------------------------------------------------------- "It is easier to do a job right, than to explain why you didn't." ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 2 Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 09:56:48 +0600 From: skeeter@skatter.usask.ca (Skeeter Abell-Smith) To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: two or three interesting things Message-ID: <9405201556.AA00664@orion.sal> ONE Saskatchewan Chiefs of Police will be meeting in Prince Albert, SK, today, to talk about gun laws. On CBC Radio this morning they reported the Association (spokesperson) said that more restrictive laws are NOT what is needed and not useful in SK. Trying to keep people from owning firearms is pointless and wouldn't help anyway. The reasonable approach is to emphasize safe and responsible gun ownership, as most violent acts in SK involve knives anyway. The Association is asking that knives be banned in bars and restaraunts. (But what if your steak is REALLY tough?) TWO Very interesting article by local columnist Dale Eisler in the May 19 Saskatoon Star-Phoenix. He had the guts to point out that gun use in crimes in Canada is down but that the Canadian per capita violent crime rate is increasing. (The Canadian violent crime rate is also higher than the U.S. average.) Now, if violent crime is up, but illegal gun use is down, what good will it do to pass more laws against guns? Shouldn't we deal with violent criminals and crime? (paraphrased) None of this was news to me, but it was nice to see it printed. THREE I have been talking to friends and to people where I work about gun laws. The reaction is mostly one of "Aren't the laws already pretty strict?" or "But we HAVE gun control!" (sometimes they add to this "and it's not working.") I also find that people will talk about it for awhile are are fairly receptive. It seems to work better to ask what they think and get into a light discussion WITHOUT LECTURING. This is sometimes hard to do and is a fine line to tread, but I have had success with the method. Stick to short facts about current law regulations and requirements. Avoid opinion. Works for me. ------------------------------ Topic No. 3 Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 10:10:04 +0600 From: Achim Lohse To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Re: more tidbits Message-ID: <9405201610.AA00667@orion.sal> You're quite WRONG about the police being required to act on information of a criminal offense. I've been trying for two months now to get the Regina Police Service to lay a charge of perjury. I have written, taped, and independent witness evidence of the offence. I presented my evidence to an inspector with the Regina police the day after the offence, and offered further evidence later. When it became clear that nothing had been done to investigate it, I spoke at length with the Regional Crown in charge of prosecutions for Regina. He told me there is nothing anyone can do if the police refuse to act on my evidence. The prosecution can only act on evidence provided by the police, and the police have refused to pass on my evidence even for an opinion. Yesterday, his vacation stand-in reiterated the same litany. BTW - since you seem to imply that anyone who can't get the police to act is some sort of weak sister - I've spoken twice to the Acting Chief of police (while th Chief was away) and twice to the Chief of Police himself about this matter. Both have made promises to "look into" the matter, and the latter to have the case re-examined by another officer. But I have yet to be interviewed by anyone regarding the charge since my initial complaint on March 22. What I'm saying here is FACT. What yo've been broadcasting is so much pie-in-the-sky. As for founding the list - I'm sorry, I don't pay any attention as to who writes what here. I respond to the content. Achim ----- End Included Message ----- Filling out a "Form 2" gets the ball rolling; it doesn't guarantee anything will be done. It's just procedure. The police can give it bottom-of-the-pile priority and htere is nothing you can do about that. If the police will not act then it is up to the individual to pursue the issue however he can because otherwise nothing will be done. Sometimes there is no way to keep from being screwed. However, where the gun was registered, one has a much better chance of being compensated than if the gun was not registered. Legally, they MUST compensate you but that doesn't mean you WILL get a cheque, nor does it mean that you won't spend $10,000 on legal fees. It's possible, but there are no guarantees. Just because it's required by law, doesn't mean it WILL happen. ------------------------------ Topic No. 4 Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 10:10:27 +0600 From: Achim Lohse To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Re: more tidbits Message-ID: <9405201610.AA00670@orion.sal> Almost forgot - if anyone out there really believes that we have an enforceable legal right to compensation for our banned firearms, maybe they could also recommend a lawyer who would handle the case on a percentage basis? ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 5 Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 10:12:34 +0600 From: Achim Lohse To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Re: Why indeed? Message-ID: <9405201612.AA00673@orion.sal> To Ross Pippin, You maintain that fear of "teeth" is what motivates the public to deprive us of our access to firearms. So kindly explain to me, why this same public never got up in arms when Sherbrooke police killed a sleeping drywaller with automatice weapons fire and barely missed three other people? Why was there no outcry for stricter police screening and training when police shot a native for possession of a deadly walkman, or about better screening and control of the military and their weapons when Cpl. Lortie ran amok in the Quebec National Assembly? He was released not very long ago, and I noticed that "victims" organizations didn't go on the warpath./ Nor did they stir when the infamous Calgary "baseball cap bandit" who robbed 28 Calgary banks while on active duty as a Calgary policeman. How is it , for that matter, that such actions by police don't result in any fear about their "teeth". In fact, they seem to be getting more "teeth" as we are losing ours. There may well be fear involved in the refusal of reason we've all witnessed, but it's not fear of weapons or of violence - it's fear of ostracism for holding to a politcally incorrect view. It's the most cowardly type of behaviour, and not something that deserves any consideration. ----- End Included Message ----- We must consider it if we are to 'convert' any of them.... ------------------------------ Topic No. 6 Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 10:14:32 +0600 From: Achim Lohse To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Re: Why are we doing this, again? Message-ID: <9405201614.AA00676@orion.sal> To Fred: "Sticking together" by endorsing or pretending to endorse views we consider mistaken and information we consider inaccurate simply means descending to the lowest common denominator. In my opinion, that's EXACTLY how we got to this position. Do you think we can achieve anything with a load of nonsense, just because we all agree to pretend it's the wisdom of the ages? Let's at least get our facts straight. Achim ----- End Included Message ----- I disagree (of course). "Sticking together" doesn't imply mistakes. We can discuss things without venom. That's what Fred was talking about, I think. ------------------------------ Topic No. 7 Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 10:18:36 +0600 From: skeeter@skatter.usask.ca (Skeeter Abell-Smith) To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Calgary Meetings of Law & Society. Y'all come. Message-ID: <9405201618.AA00688@orion.sal> Sender: BUCKNER@VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA Subject: Calgary Meetings of Law & Society. Y'all come. CANADIAN LAW & SOCIETY ASSOCIATION L'ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE DROIT ET SOCIETE 1994 CONFERENCE/CONGRES 1994 UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY, ALBERTA SECTION: FIREARMS AND SOCIETY/LES ARMES A FEU ET LA SOCIETE TUESDAY JUNE 14, 1:45PM/MARDI, 14 JUIN 13:45 "Is There a Need for Armed Self Defense in Canada?" Gary A. Mauser, Simon Fraser University Abstract The use of firearms for self defense is strongly discouraged in Canada. This discouragement takes the form of restrictive firearms laws as well as limited legal grounds for self defense in any form. Nevertheless, lethal force may still be used legally in Canada to defend oneself, and occasionally private citizens resort to its use. In this paper, I present the results of a nationwide telephone survey of adult Canadian residents. The sample was drawn using stratified random sampling methods, all interviews were conducted by professional interviewers. Canadians report using a firearm to defend themselves or their families over 60,000 times per year between 1985 and 1990. Approximately half of these incidents involve threats by dangerous animals and half involve people. It is unknown how many lives are saved annually by firearms owners in Canada. "Zen Handgun: Ritual, Responsibility and Control" Brian J. Given, Carleton University Abstract The author points to the relative ineffectiveness of increased limitations on the use of handguns in reducing firearms-related crime. Noting Taylor Buckner's finding that public support for more restrictive "gun control" legislation is based upon ignorance of restrictive laws already in effect as well as ignorance of the actual threat of handgun-related violence, it is suggested that competing symbolic exegesis rather than differing analyses of evidence constitute the battleground upon which this competition for public support is waged. This isn't so much a question of whether handguns or handgun enthusiasts are dangerous but rather it is about whether they are symbolically "bad," and shooters have been unable to convey their constructions of the meanings associated with being a firearms enthusiast or sense of recreational enthusiasm to the non-shooting public. While social class is clearly a factor, deeper issues relating to the social construction of the meaning of guns and shooting are implicated. Hence, it is suggested that an examination of the bases of such symbolic exegeses is in order. A research project conducted by the author with practitioners of I.P.S.C. "action shooting" competition is offered as a case study in the performative construction of meaning and control. With reference to the literature on ritual and sport, more conventional Durkheimian analysis which are likely to emphasize themes of violence and male power are contrasted with the reported experiences and derived meanings of participants, mediated through enculturation and performance. The author suggests that shooting clubs, such as the one where this research was conducted, posses considerable expertise in the use of social and ritual control strategies which, through mediating the construction of meaning, constitute by far the most effective form of gun-control. "Concordia's 'Gun Control' Petition: Ignorance of the Law is the Only Excuse" H. Taylor Buckner, Concordia University Abstract A representative survey of Concordia University undergraduate students (n=780) taken in February and March 1984 was the basis of an experiment designed to discover whether the students who signed the Concordia "gun control" petition were in reality asking for a new law that would prohibit the possession of handguns, except for the police and army. In a random double-blind experiment half of the students were asked if they supported the policies demanded by the petition, the other half were asked if they supported the present law. There were no significant differences on background variables between the experimental and control groups, and they were equally likely to support either policy. Other questions revealed that the students had very little knowledge of gun control laws, Canadian handgun murder rates, or guns. This finding brings into question the validity of public opinion polls that suggest a majority of Canadians support handgun prohibition, and sounds a warning to politicians who would formulate policies on the basis of uninformed public opinion. ------------------------------ Topic No. 8 Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 10:18:49 +0600 From: desolla@cmc.ca (Keith de Solla) To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: re: Why indeed? Message-ID: <9405201618.AA00691@orion.sal> >Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 10:46:37 -0600 (CST) >From: "ross (r.j.g.) pippin" >Subject: Why indeed? > >Some very good comments have come my way so far. I'm delighted. > >Keith: > >Your points are all very good, very valid, and very correct. Your thanks. :-) >arguments are sound. Unfortuanutely, a lot of people will take your >arguments to mean that you are placing your personal fetishes ahead of >the safety of the common man. quite true. > >I've talked to a lot of people down here about the gun control issue. >Since all of them have been from work, they are all at least a standard >deviation over the mean on the intelligence scale. These people have no >problem figuring out logic and they do know how to construct sentences. >Not many of them drool. > >Of all the people I have talked to, I have "converted" two people to our >worthy cause in my whole lifetime. One is my wife; another is my co-worker >who, upon finding out what my opinions were, asked me to lay out my >arguments because he could not fathom why such a reasonable being would have >an opinion contrary to his own. Ten minutes worth of argument later, and >he was a right-wing gun nut. > >That is, however, a very rare thing here. Most people I talk to don't want >to hear arguments. Most of them get very emotional or even irate within >about a fifteen second span. Some of them give the pretense of listening, >but you must have heard the old phrase "in one ear and out the other"? >Bear in mind that these are all intelligent people. One of them is my >roommate, who comes from a rural community in Saskatchewan. I guess I'm fortunate to have much better luck in this area. My office is adorned with target shooting 'stuff' and other staff tend to be interested and generally supportive. >When I mentioned that the common man is a lover of opinion and not a lover >of truth, I wasn't being (entirely) flip. People will ignore evidence that >contradicts their opinions. They have the remarkable capacity to ignore >quite an amount of evidence, actually. sad, but very true. ("...don't bother me with the facts, I know what I know..") >I was talking to one woman from another department over lunch. She told >me, just in passing, that if she were in a person's house and she discovered >that there was a handgun on the premises, she would walk out. On some >prodding, she told me that it would not matter how long she had known this >person, whether they were friends, what. She would turn around, and leave. >Bear in mind that this person *is* more intelligent than the average. >Think about it for a minute: what makes a person behave in such an irrational >fashion? I wish I knew, 'cause its all too common. (snip, snip) >I hate to break it to you, but being right isn't going to mean **** if we >lose. Losing sucks. What we have to do is to convince others that we >are right. To do that, we have to find a way to actually get others to listen >to our arguments. Maybe I've been reading too much of the Art of War lately, >(a quick prayer to the Most Blessed Saint of Conflict), but to win this >one, we must know our enemies - thoroughly. We know ourselves well enough, >but we have to understand them too. The politicians are doing this for >political gain. (If you're a politician, public opinion isn't something you >listen to; it's something you surf!) The people are supporting those >politicians because they fear. agreed. the politicians play on the fear, and the media feeds it.... >You know, I was talking to the one person (very bright) about this issue, >and she started bringing up statistics that supported her view. I started >bringing up statistics that supported my view - with the sources. After >not too long, she bluntly told me that arguing with statistics was pointless, >as you can make statistics say anything you want. She didn't want to >argue any more. She was also getting a mite tense. > >I'm pretty certain that Jean Cretin did not read my letter. I'm certain >my arguments had no effect, because after he received my letter, he made >his announcement for more gun control laws. Heck, most people I talk to >WILL NOT READ my letter. They refuse. These people are all fairly >intelligent, and they all do not want to listen. We have to know why, and >we have to find a way to get them to listen. Until they listen, they >will not accept. Until they accept, they will never be convinced. Until >they are convinced, they will keep voting for the people who will keep them >safe by pulling the teeth from sheep dogs like us. And the politicians that respond have this awful habit of paraphrasing the laws back to me & ignoring every issue I raise in my letters. >Unfortunately, I do not at this time know how to get past the fear and the >stubbornness to the point where people will listen. If we can't find a way >to do that, we're *toast*. > >Incidentally, for those who haven't figured it out yet, yes, I believe in >an armed society. I don't believe we're going to get one anytime soon. we have an armed society; just that some of the wrong people are armed >Comments, please? If we can figure out a way to reach people so they will >accept what we have to say, we can win this. Unfortunately, there is no easy answer. And we're running out of time. If only we could get the media to print some facts... The media tends to like controversy/tragedy/etc as it makes good press. Unfortunately, this provides a very twisted view of the world. Let's compare 2 hypothetical headlines: (a) 10 shots fired in drive-by shooting; 3 injured. (b) 257 participate in annual action pistol event: no one gets hurt which do you think will be printed? So we end up with Joe Q. Public who: 1. knows about drive-bys, AK-47 assault weapons 2. "knows" all criminals get guns by stealing from the stacks of them us irresponsible collectors leave in our 'red' pickup trucks. 3. can't tell a Hammerli from a Howitzer 4. screams for more gun control, not knowing a damn thing about current laws 5. can't spell "IPSC", let alone understand it. 6. couldn't care less about the facts Sooooo....... * how do we educate the public and get them to look at things logically instead of emotionally? * how do we get the media to help us for a change? * how do we point out Miriam Bedard got a gold shooting at targets that are illegal in Quebec? * how do we point out that we have disabled athletes that will be criminals because they target shoot with handguns? * how do we get the bowhunters/hunters/black powder shooters to realize this just isn't about handguns? ok, I'll stop. I'm making up more questions & not giving Ross any answers. :-) anybody know a reporter who owns guns????? To be fair, once in a while I see something with promise: * A recent newspaper article described an Ontario undercover police operation that pointed to smuggling as the real source of illegal guns, not guns stolen from lawful owners. * Another article actually pointed out that crime stats are being used selectively to make it appear violent crime is skyrocketting. -keith ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ End of CDN-FIREARMS Digest 33 *****************************