From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Wed Nov 15 18:03:31 1995 From: Owner-Cdn-Firearms-Digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca To: Cdn-Firearms-Digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest #345 Content-Length: 28795 Status: RO X-Lines: 722 Cdn-Firearms Digest Wednesday, 15 November 1995 Volume 01 : Number 345 In this issue: rules on being a member of more than one party WANTED: coroner's reports letter to the Ontario Senators: suicide issues Senators visit to Saskatoon (more from 7 Nov 1995) Senate hearings in Vancouver, 9 Nov. 1995 anti-firearm piece in Montreal Gazette (14 Nov 1995) Toronto Star Article - 4 November 1995 Letters to senators (25 Oct 1995) Hansard: page 16375, 1995 Nov 08 Hansard: page 16488, 1995 Nov 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ab133@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 17:16:12 -0600 Subject: rules on being a member of more than one party I've gotten quite a few responses to this questions and it seems no one has heard of any law saying a person cannot belong to more than one party. The parties themselves may have rules regarding membership in other parties. (It seems there are rules about being on the executive and such.) I'll post a summary very soon. Skeeter ------------------------------ From: ab133@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 10:28:27 -0600 Subject: WANTED: coroner's reports I am looking for a copy of the coroner's reports on: a) the Marc Lepine - Ecole Polytechnique incident, and b) the Quebec Coroner Anne Marie David's 74 page report released in January 1995 on storage and registration. Do you know how I can get copies of these? English versions are preferred. Skeeter ------------------------------ From: jeffrey@terraport.net (Jeffrey Edwards) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 11:16:59 -0600 Subject: letter to the Ontario Senators: suicide issues Here is a letter which I have recently sent to the Ontario Senators. If it is useful, please feel free to use it. Dear Senator, I am writing to you regarding the proposed firearms legislation Bill C-68. This bill is defended partly by the premise that it will somehow prevent suicides in Canada. Although both sides arguing the fate of Bill C-68 quote statistics, I would like to share a small piece of information which I dug up at the library that will hopefully broaden the scope and meaning of these statistics. >From Statistics Canada - Mortality 1991 - Suicide (rearranged by frequency - total suicides 3593) 1. Other firearms 29.64 % 2. Hanging/strangulation 28.78 % 3. Other means 14.19 % 4. Drugs 13.97 % 5. Gas 10.94 % 6. Other solid or liquid 1.28 % 7. Handgun 1.20 % Although these are not the latest figures, I understand that the number of suicides and the percentage by method are generally constant from year to year. First, I must question the government's logic regarding the expected changes to these percentages should Bill C-68 be passed into law. Is it expected that all firearm related suicides will end and the overall number of suicides drop by 30.84 percent? There has been no evidence to base any speculations upon but the majority of those I have questioned on this subject tend to agree that the overall number of suicides will remain constant and that the method percentages will change only slightly. Please note that the above statistics as presented by Statistics Canada would lead one to believe that 30.84 percent of suicides involve a firearm. From the book Waking Up Alive by Richard A. Heckler 1994: "Although there are no official statistics on attempted (ie non-fatal actions) suicide, it is generally estimated that there are at least 8 to 20 attempts for each death by suicide." Using this estimate we may conclude that in 1991 there were an estimated 28,744 to 71,860 attempted suicides. Considering even the lowest estimate of 28,744 attempts this may indicate a definite social problem. Also, assuming that the majority of suicides attempted with a firearm are successful, due not only to the lethal nature of a firearm at such close range but also to the extreme determination of the person making the attempt, we can make the following calculations: For 1991: Total number of suicides 3,593 Percentage accomplished by firearm 30.84% Number accomplished by firearm 3,593*30.84% = 1,108 Minimum estimated suicide attempts 8*3,593 = 28,744 Actual percentage of suicide related incidents involving a firearm 1,108/(3,593+28,744) = 3.4% If we conclude that firearms are involved in only 3.4 percent of all suicide related incidents then would it not be more logical, and hopefully more effective, to direct our resources at the underlying causes of suicide within our society. Targeting the minimum 28,744 individuals is more likely to produce successful results than concentrating on only the 3.4 percent firearms related incidents and ignoring the rest. After all, if we eliminate the cause of suicides then the method of suicide will become irrelevant. I hope that you find these calculations to be useful and beneficial to the debate of Bill C-68. Please feel free to share my findings with your fellows. When you compare the number of attempts to number of successes it certainly changes the picture that Mr. Rock would have you see. - ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ From: "Alfred.Hovdestad@usask.ca" Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 14:09:05 -0600 Subject: Senators visit to Saskatoon (more from 7 Nov 1995) In Digest 342, I detailed events during my presentation to the senators in Saskatoon on 7 Nov 1995. Here's some more info from that day. - ----- Begin Included Message ----- I attended part of the meeting with the Senators (Len Gustafson - PC , Dave Tkachuk - PC, Herb Sparrow - Lib ) in Saskatoon on November 9, 1995. The following are some of the notes that I made. I didn't recognize the Senators so I cannot state what was spoken by a given Senator. Many of the speakers gave copies of their presentation to the Senators. If anyone wants a copy of the presentation, we can try to get one from a sympathetic Senator. Ms. Fisher - Provincial Association of Transition Houses The only person I saw supporting Bill C-68 was from the Provincial Association of Transition Houses who repeated her presentation that was given in Ottawa. She ranted how guns in the home pose a threat to women, how women live in terror every day, that women are being held hostage in their own homes. One of the Senators asked for actual data that would support her claim that gun registration would reduce violence in the home. He stated that Canada has the most gun control in the Western World but that the rate of violence in the home was no different from countries where there is little gun control. He argued that Bill C-68 could potentially increase the problem of domestice violence. As police officers spend more time dealing with increased smuggling (due to Bill C-68), and with more red tape dealing with registration, they would have less time to deal with violence in the home. Ms. Fisher replied that people would get used to it. By the year 2003 when the Bill is mandatory, people will accept registration as a fact of life (this prompted a snicker from the crowd, and several Senators). The Senator repeated his question asking for actual data but Ms. Fisher was unable to provide any, to which the Senator replied that you have no actual data supporting your brief. One of the Senators quoted from an Angus Reid poll in Saskatchewan that 2/3 of the women in Saskatchewan oppose Bill C-68. Another was disappointed in the low turnout of people supporting Bill C-68. In Regina there was only one (Archdiocese of the Catholic Church) and they backed out. He also stated that letters were sent to every one who supported the Bill (an article from Regina claimed that supporters of Bill C-68 were not invited). Pat Lorje - MLA Saskatoon Southeast Ms. Lorje opened her presenation with the comment "I can't believe that as an NDP MLA who doesn't believe in the Senate, here I am begging for your co-operation in defeating this Bill." One of the Senators replied, "That's OK, we don't believe in the NDP." Ms. Lorje doesn't want the Justice Department to waste its time on impractical, ineffective laws, painting men as brutes. It will not stop the violence. In the larger cities in Canada, there seems to be a mindset of guns=crime=violence, in Saskatchewan the culture is guns=ducks=lifestyle. She faults Allan Rock for creating a simplistic solution (Bill C-68) for a complex social problem (domestic violence). She argued that Bill C-68 does not get tough enough on violence and smuggling. Along with the prohibition orders against violent offenders, she wants compulsory disclosure on access to guns for any man who has a restraining order against him. She stated that in vases of domestic violence, the weapon of choice is not a gun, it is a fist. She stated that Bill C-68 will not work in solving violence against women. She would prefer to see Bill C-68 defeated. She argued that if Allan Rock wants to get tough on violent offenders, why was stalking and unlawful confinement not included in the list of violent offences in Bill C-68? {In the lobby afterward, she described Ms. Fisher's presentation as a pile of bullshit.} Chief Alphonse Bird - Prince Albert Grand Council I was at the meeting with the Senators in Saskatoon when Chief Alphonse Bird of the Prince Albert Grand Council (representing 12 First Nations with 24,000 members) spoke. He told the Senators that the P.A. Grand Council had not been consulted, had not received any letter or other correspondence from the Department of Justice, and would not abide by Bill C-68. He also argued that Bill C-68 violated their treaty rights. He stated that Sikhs in Canada are allowed to carry a concealed weapon (ceremonial dagger) but that a First Nations person would go to jail if they do not register their firearm. He stated that none of the members of the P.A. Grand Council will register their firearms. One Senator asked what the consequences of that action might be. Chief Bird replied that we will test that one in court. Robert Head - Retired Assistant Commissioner R.C.M.P. Also present was Robert Head, retired Assistant Commissioner with the R.C.M.P. and a lifetime member of the CACP (Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police). He appeared as an individual but gave his background so that his presentation would be given some credit. He had worked in B.C., Saskatchewan, N.W.T. and Ottawa (on 3 ocassions). He told the Senators that the CACP did not seek the opinion of the retired (lifetime) members of the CACP, and that not all of the Chiefs support Bill C-68. He pointed out that the police in Saskatchewan face a difficult situation, being required to enforce a law that they do not support, that their chiefs do no support, that the Provincial Department of Justice does not support, and that the people of Saskatchewan do not support. He knows Chief Alphonse Bird personally and has great respect for him and his people. In his 38 years with the R.C.M.P., he has investigated hundreds of cases of domestic violence, many, many homicides, he has seen two police officers shot and killed (where no amount of registration would have saved their lives), and never - in any investigation - has he found a legal, registered firearm used in the crime. The firearms that he has encountered, were ALL illegal - either stolen, smuggled or manufactured unlawfully. He cited an example of a modern, well-secured gun shop that he has visited. It was estimated that it would take one officer ONE FULL YEAR to fully document and register every firearm in the store. He argued that we should not be increasing the amount of bureaucracy at a time when police budgets are very tight. One Senator commented that it was interesting that we have already seen two senior police officers opposing this bill because they are concerned about the people's civil rights. (I missed Constable Murray Grismer's presentation.) Another Senator asked if Bill C-68 can be implemented? Mr. Head replied that the correct question is "Can it be enforced?" One of the other Senators replied that the Provincial Solicitor General must enforce the bill, but how he chooses to enforce it is up to him. Mr. Head replied that the Line Fence Act (?) and the Cemetery Act were not (and have never been) strongly enforced in Saskatchewan. Comments: I was only able to spend two hours at the meeting, but I found it interesting and provided me with some hope that this Bill will be defeated (possibly through a long list of amendments). One thing that I noticed was there were more cameras in the room when Ms. Fisher made her presenation than at any other time. As well, many of the reporters (female) were sitting with Ms. Fisher before she made her presentation. It seems that we still have a lesson to learn from the anti-gun crowd: We have to make sure that media personnel sympathetic to our rights are invited to any function where we present our views. - -- Alfred Hovdestad -- Member of -- Saskatchewan Bowhunters Association Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation Saskatchewan Responsible Firearm Owners CRIME CONTROL, NOT MORE GUN CONTROL! - ----- End Included Message ----- Just a note: PATHS (Provincial Association of Transition Houses in SK) has no official position on Bill C-68, nor do many (if not all) of its member transition houses. ------------------------------ From: andre sponselee Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 15:47:40 -0600 Subject: Senate hearings in Vancouver, 9 Nov. 1995 From: andre sponselee Subject: Senate hearings in Vancouver, 9 Nov. The following Senators came to Vancouver: (Chairman) Gerry St. Germain (PC), Pat Carney (PC), David Tkachuk (PC), Ronald Ghitter (PC), Edward Lawson (Ind), Paul Lucier (Lib). The Following groups made presentations: Richmond Rod & Gun club, Historical Arms Assn. of BC, Vancouver Island Arms Collectors, BC Handgun Assn., Coniagus Ranch, BC Association of Guides and Outfitters, Indian Homemakers Assn., Nanaimo District Fish & Game club., BC Coalition of Responsible Firearms Owners, BC Wildlife Assn. While I was in the hallway, I overheard one of the reporters on the telephone say the Wendy Cukier and the Coalition for Gun Control would not be at the hearings beacause in her opinion it was a "stacked deck" (Indeed, and it's stacked against us, that's why I was there). Sen. St. Germain stated at the outset that the Senate is an "appointed" body. While it does have the power to "kill" a bill, this bill was passed by people "elected" to represent their interests and that what democracy is all about is that MPs can be re-elected or not, depending on the wishes of the people. Having said that, he stated that there are some serious flaws in this bill that will be addressed by the senate and that there certainly will be amendments. I found all senators very unpretentious. They all seemed genuinely interested in what was being said. Pat Carney stated that she didn't think the bill was much of an issue until she found 3000 letters to the contrary sitting on her desk, and decided she'd better come out and have a closer look at it. Due to a delayed presentor, I had the opportunity to speak early, which also allowed me more time. My presentation was well received, to such an extent that Sen. Lucier took time out while the next group was getting ready to walk to the back of the hall where I had gone to let me know that my presentation was "good, solid, common sense and a hell of a presentation". (a brief of this presentation was sent earlier to cdn-firearms.) I also had the opportunity to ask Sen. Ghitter what he meant by a comment he made in the September hearings when he said that "if the bill had banned firearms completely, he would have voted in favour of it". He replied that he was being facetious with one of the witnesses' questions. It did not reflect his real opposition to the bill. I found all Senators on the panel very down to earth and genuinely concerned about the ramifications of this bill. But as one of the presentors said, we are where we are now because of MPs who seemed genuinely concerned. **************************************************************************** Andre Sponselee, CD, SSM "Ponder the path of thy feet, and Site 485, C19, RR4 Courtenay let all thy ways be established" B.C., Canada, V9N 7J3 Proverbs 4:5 (604) 334-3996 E-mail: hunter@comox.island.net http://www.comox.island.net/~hunter **************************************************************************** - ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ From: Jean_Hogue-Y10408@email.mot.com Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 17:06:02 -0600 Subject: anti-firearm piece in Montreal Gazette (14 Nov 1995) The Montreal Gazette published yet another puff piece this morning (14 Nov 1995). (Second page only this time -- about 8 1/2 " by 14 " page surface). "... If Senators truly want to listen to experts on gun control, they should bypass on-going consultative sessions with those whom senators call ``law-abiding gun owners'' and talk instead to trauma surgeons at the Montreal General Hospital who treated the young women massacred that night ... " "... Bill C-68 is headed for oblivion. etc. etc..." "... I registered my dog an my car but nobody has to register an instrument made to kill ..." "... Jean Charest seems aligned on the wrong side of the issue ..." "... If you want to voice support for the impending gun control bill the Coalition for Gun Control suggests contacting Jean Charest's office either in Ottawa (613) 943-1106 or in his riding (819) 563-0115 ..." I think we should follow the Coalition's advice and phone Jean Charest as well. With our own message. - ----- End Included Message ----- Emergency surgeons are experts on "gun control"? Interesting concept. Does using a fire extinguisher make me an expert on arson? You can fax Jean Charest by e-mail: remote-printer.Jean_Charest@16139950364.iddd.tpc.int Skeeter ------------------------------ From: jeffrey@terraport.net (Jeffrey Edwards) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 17:11:40 -0600 Subject: Toronto Star Article - 4 November 1995 >From the Life section of Toronto Star - 4 November 1995 Guns cause $6.6 billion wound (really big print) That's what firearms violence in Canada cost in just one year (not quite so big print) By Leslie Papp - Medical Reporter Gunshot wounds in Canada cost society about $6.6 billion in one year, a new study has found. The $6.6 billion bill includes $63 million for medical and mental health care, $10 million for police and other public service costs and $1.5 billion for reduced productivity and other out-of-pocket losses incurred by victims and their employers, says a report published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal this week. The single biggest cost, totalling about $4.9 billion, represented lost quality of life. The report assigned a dollar figure to that loss based on an analyses of U.S. jury awards for pain and suffering in the aftermath of an assault. The report, written by Ted Miller, associate director of the U.S. National Public Research Institute, concluded that Canadian society is $4.1 million poorer each time someone is killed by firearms. Each gunshot survivor costs society about $300,000 if admitted to a hospital, and $75,000 if treated in an emergency department and released, he reported, using data for 1991. Miller based most of his findings on published and unpublished Statistics Canada figures. "Estimates from this cost analyses are a first step toward understanding the economic burden of gunshot wounds on the already- limited resources of Canada's health care system," he wrote. In 1991, about four Canadians in every 200,000 were hit by gunfire and almost three died. The price tag incurred by homicides and assaults was $1.1 billion while suicides and attempted suicides accounted for $4.7 billion in 1991. Does anyone care to calculate how much car accidents are costing us each year ? BTW - this suggests that it would be cheaper for Canada if you allow an assailant to kill you instead of shooting and taking the chance of wounding him. - ----- End Included Message ----- The study also fails to take into account that some of the people killing each other have a much shorter life-expectancy. More on this later... Skeeter ------------------------------ From: Giles Parcels Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 17:15:29 -0600 Subject: Letters to senators (25 Oct 1995) The following is a letter that I sent to Senators Lawson,Carney,Austin,Marchand,Perrault,St. Germain. On Oct.25/95 October 25,1995 Senator _________ c/o The Senate Ottawa,Ont K1A-0A4 Dear Senator ___________ I am disgusted with the way our current government has handled bill C-68! Bill C-68 is ill conceived, impractical, disgusting and a threat to the rights and freedoms of millions of honest law abiding Canadians. Bill C-68 would be a horrendous waste of time and money and it would do virtually nothing to combat violent crime. This bill is so outrageous that the Prime Minister was forced to threaten members of his own party in order to prevent them from voting in accordance with their conscience and the wishes of their constituents. Bill C-68 is so assinine that at least three provinces and both territories are opposed to it. If this bill is passed it could emphasize the already growing east-west split in the country. Witness the growth of the Reform party in Western Canada in the last election which is certainly a strong indication that we, in the west, are getting "fed-up" with the way Ottawa ignores us! Senator, I beg of you, for the good of all Canada, refuse to accept Bill C-68. Sincerely, The only response I have received was from Senator Lawson's office dated Oct. 31/95. On behalf of the Honourable Edward Lawson, I wish to acknowledge your correspondence expressing your concerns about Bill C-68 the Government's Firearms Control legislation. As the bill currently stands, Senator Lawson has strong reservations about the creation of a national registration system. Thank you for writing. Yours sincerely, Allen Sharyk Personal Assistant BTW, the wording of my letter was supplied by my local gun club. - ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ From: ab133@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 17:16:16 -0600 Subject: Hansard: page 16375, 1995 Nov 08 Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents from the High Prairie area of my constituency. The petitioners request that Parliament support the laws which would severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime; to support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions which recognize and protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms; and to support legislation which will repeal and modify existing gun control laws which have not improved public safety or have proven not to be cost effective or have proven to be overly complex as to be inefficient and/or unenforceable. - ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ From: ab133@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 17:16:52 -0600 Subject: Hansard: page 16488, 1995 Nov 10 Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Senate committee studying Bill C-68 has passed a motion asking the Minister of Justice to ``document or conduct such consultations as contemplated in section 35 of the Constitution and laid out in the Sparrow case, and various agreements such as those with the Yukon First Nations and the Cree, and inform the Senate committee that the Constitutional requirements are not violated''. I ask the Minister of Justice, will he comply with the senators' request? The Speaker: Order. This question is before the other house. However, because it deals with the hon. minister, if he wishes I will permit him to answer the question. The hon. member for Crowfoot. Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is a first for this minister. During the hearings of the other place on this bill a question was raised. I will ask the minister if he wishes to respond to this question. The question was why is the House passing legislation that is not constitutionally sound. I ask the minister, why was Bill C-68 rammed through without the constitutionality of the bill being assured? Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his party are not in a position to say they are the champions of aboriginal rights in this country. When they see in this issue an opportunity to attack Bill C-68 they take it. For the many months the bill was before the House committee, of which the hon. member formed a part, it was examined in great detail. There were both legal and constitutional witnesses before the committee. It was established there, as it has been established before the Senate, that this bill is completely constitutional. - ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #345 **********************************