Recreational Firearms Community of Saskatchewan

Cdn-Firearms Digest Excerpts

submitted letter to the editor re: "Poll show Canada, US split over owning guns" (Gazette December 12, 2002)
arms seizure
Unpublished letter to National Post
Re: Assault Rifles Seized
RE: Seized gun cache Vancouver-bound
Re. Ben Affleck and PETA
Need help. lost newspaper email addresses
Re: Updated Canadian homicide stats
RFC Ottawa: Tip of the Hat

Cdn-Firearms Digest Saturday, December 14 2002 Volume 05 : Number 434

Subject: submitted letter to the editor re: "Poll show Canada, US split over owning guns" (Gazette December 12, 2002)

The un-credited article, "Poll show Canada, US split over owning guns" (Gazette December 12, 2002) should raise some serious questions. First off, the timing. A few days after the Auditor General blasted the Firearm Registry, the Gazette publishes poll results from "last year". Second, the reader isn't privy to all the questions which resulted in a miraculous result of 63% of Canadians favouring the abolition of private firearm ownership. Before firearms can be confiscated ( without compensation, as prescribed in our gun law) they have to be found; that takes an accurate registry. Do Canadians support the continuance of their error ridden firearms registry even though it will surpass $1 billion ? In a letter to the Globe and Mail , Darrell Bricker, president, Public Affairs, Ipsos-Reid wrote (regarding Koyoto but the principal applies): "while Canadians may not know the "facts" about these issues, it doesn't stop them from forming opinions" he continues "So, why do the opinions of the misinformed matter? Well, because the misinformed vote, the misinformed write to their MPs, the misinformed boycott products and the misinformed march in the streets."

In essence, the government and its partners (the government funded Coalition for Gun Control) feed cooked facts, cooked books and voodoo science to the public then trumpet the legitimacy and public support for a gun registry.

A sterling example of manufactured consent. Forced to can an additional $72 million for the registry, Martin Cauchon announces he'll raid funding from other Justice projects to carry on the registry, thank you very much. Has sound fiscal and public policy become a masquerade? This isn't value for money spent, its damn the cost, agenda politics.

Top of Page

Subject: arms seizure

CTV Vancouver: 6,000 suspected Vancouver-bound guns seized in Italy 2:47

Associated Press

ROME Italian police have intercepted a shipment of 6,000 assault rifles that was apparently destined for Canada, news reports said Friday

These so called assault rifles are just plain SKS rifles.
Legal to buy, sell, or trade in Canada.
The CTV sound byte compared them to full auto and restricted firearms.
They certainly don't let truth interfere with their newscasts...
Propaganda is alive and well on CTV

Top of Page

Subject: Unpublished letter to National Post ...


Madame Laplante Edward's letter is poignant in a couple of respects. As the mother of one of the victims of the tragic incident she is entitled to be heard, and to whatever opinions she holds. Those would subvert her pain to their own political ends do not share the same moral authority. She has my utmost respect and sympathy.

Alas, the Firearms Registry would not have saved her daughter. Nor will it ever save any Canadians, as has been shown to be the case with the handgun registry in place since 1934.

I fear that like most Canadians, and all politicians, Madame Laplante Edwards has confused the Firearms Registry with effective gun control measures. Licensing with proper background checks and safety curriculum requirements, along with safe storage and transport provisions will have a direct effect on the public safety. They are reasonable and equitable measures, both cost effective and meaningful.

If the Ministry of Justice spent as much effort in deterring the real criminal use of firearms that they do in creating a brand new class of criminal (the law abiding kind), then perhaps other mothers might be spared the grief.


Robert S. Sciuk Oshawa, Ont.

Top of Page

Subject: Re: Assault Rifles Seized

Are these the same, semi-automatic SKS carbines that dealers like lever Arms have sold for years for a little over $100? Last time I checked, I though that an "assault rifle", by definition, was capable of full-auto fire. Looks like someone beating the bushes to try and give the Lieberals some "damage control" ammo to support the registry to their Politically-Correct bumpkins and their moronic buddies in the media being anxious to assist.

Is there no media representative out there who cares enough about reporting the facts to get things straight? A revolver has a cylinder, an assault rifle is selective fire, a converted machine gun is no longer a machine gun - this is not rocket surgery, folks! There are several million of us out there willing to help you report the truth - how about taking us up on the offer? If you started reporting downed jumbo jets as Piper Cubs, would you expect to retain credibility?


Top of Page

Subject: RE: Seized gun cache Vancouver-bound

ASSULT RIFLES???? five round clip, semi-auto, can't easily mount a scope and not pistol gripped????

-----Original Message-----
Subject: Seized gun cache Vancouver-bound

Dec. 14, 2002. 01:00 AM

Seized gun cache Vancouver-bound
6,000 SKS assault rifles found on ship Italian police suspicious of cargo


LONDON Italian police have seized a shipment of thousands of assault rifles on a ship destined for Vancouver.

The shipment of 6,000 Russian-made assault rifles was reportedly seized in the southern port of Gioia Tauro yesterday morning. The cargo apparently included an undisclosed number of grenade launchers.

Gioia Tauro's police chief, Antonio Militello, confirmed the seizure in an interview with the Star last night but refused to give details.

The 4,600 gross tonne ship, sailing under a Croatian flag, was scheduled to stop at Norfolk, Va., before proceeding to its final destination of Vancouver.

The ship's waybill declared it was transporting antique rifles, but police became suspicious when they noticed weapons that did not fit the description.

Italy's Ansa news agency said a search of the ship uncovered the stash of Russian-made SKS military assault rifles; among them were an unspecified number of modern weapons.

The ship's captain insisted the shipment was legal, and neither he nor the crew were under arrest as of late last night.

Italy has been used as a major logistics base for Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network, and several of the group's suspected operatives are currently being tried in a Milan court.

But late last night, a police investigator dealing with Al Qaeda-related activities in Italy told the Star his unit had not yet been notified of the seizure.

Sharon Gill, a spokesperson with Canada Customs in Vancouver, told the Star's Allan Woods that port authorities there are aware of the discovery but she could not say if the shipment will be investigated in Canada.

Guns being brought into or leaving Canada must be accompanied by a permit, available only from the Department of Foreign Affairs, she said.

Andrč Lemay, deputy director of trade for foreign affairs, said the department is aware of the shipment but isn't involved in the investigation.

And RCMP spokesperson Constable Danielle Efford said the Mounties "don't comment on other agencies' investigations."

Sheldon Clare, president of the B.C. branch of the National Firearms Association, said the powerful rifle is quite popular in Canada among deer hunters.

With files from the Star's wire services

Top of Page

Subject: Re. Ben Affleck and PETA

You are what you eat--which is why PETA supporters usually demonstrate the intelligence of a turnip.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Sam Adams

Top of Page

Subject: Need help. lost newspaper email addresses

Could you please send me email addresses for newspapers in Canada, Ontario or any lists you have. Computer ate mine. Thanks

Dan Baron

Top of Page

Subject: Re: Updated Canadian homicide stats

Oops - URL I gave was wrong, it should be:
(html extension instead of htm that I mistakenly used)

Boris Gimbarzevksy

Top of Page

Subject: RFC Ottawa: Tip of the Hat

RFC Ottawa/FED UP Canada
Protecting Canadian Freedoms

Dear Firearms Owner, December 14, 2002

I would like to thank Rick Lowe, personally and publicly, for his unsolicited, constructive and wonderful letter to my Liberal MP, Marlene Catterall, Ottawa West-Nepean, Government Whip. I spotted Rick's submission on the Digest for the first time.

His letter penetrates through the facade of spin doctoring, emotionalism and deception that spawned C-68/FA.

It illustrates how all Members of Parliament, federal or provincial, need to be better and more accurately informed on firearms legislation. That omission is our collective error.

Without a doubt, the information with which Mrs. Catterall has been provided comes from an anti gun source. This demonstrates that firearms owners need to make accurate "information giving" a major priority of the RFC.

That is why I requested a direct meeting with my MP, immediately. I urge you to do the same.

The bulk of quality scientific research and evidence lies clearly on our side.

Rather than being reactive and waiting to see what is going to happen next, the RFC needs to be more proactive in educating key politicians, the media and the general public.

An Ottawa Office of the RFC would do precisely that!

Professor Al Dorans

Director, RFC Ottawa
Chairman, FED UP II


Subject: Support For The Firearms Act.

Mrs. Marlene Catterall, MP
Government Whip
2571 Carling Avenue
Ottawa, Ontario

Ms. Catterall:

Mr. Al Dorans has chosen to share with me your response to a letter he wrote.

While you are not my MP, my degree programs were in criminology and criminal justice administration, and I would like to address what you have said from that perspective. In addition, I spent 12 years in law enforcement working with two different forces, so I have some familiarity with those concerns as well.

You said:

I am not sure to what research you are referring. What I have seen comes to a different conclusion. For instance, research by an international police association comparing different countries shows that the more stringent gun legislation is, the lower the rate of deaths by guns.

As you are probably aware, the scientific community places little value on "research" that does not pass peer review in a refereed journal. The reason for this is simple and obvious - it eliminates faulty research that is either deliberately skewed to arrive at a foregone conclusion or flawed in methodology.

I am not aware of the unnamed research you refer to or the similarly unnamed police association that supposedly did it. However, I am willing to bet that the methodology that was employed did not eliminate demographic dissimilarities between countries - which essentially leaves you comparing apples with oranges.

Furthermore, a few countries quickly come to mind that directly contradict what this anonymous study claims to have found.

Switzerland and Israel have both a heavily armed citizenry (often with those terrible "assault rifles" no less) and firearms legislation much more lenient than either the US or Canada. Yet their murder rate is lower than Canada or the US - even in Isreal with their civil strife.

In comparison, right at the top of the "murder rate by firearm" ladder sits South Africa and Jamaica. In comparison to our neighbor to the south at 6.2/100,000, South Africa sits at 26.6/100,000 and Jamaica at 18.2/100,000 (figures are for last year available, 1997). If you take the time to research South Africa and Jamaica's firearms laws, you will find it is extremely difficult for a citizen to pass police scrutiny and obtain permission to own a firearm. With a disarmed law abiding populace, it is obvious that the criminals are having little problem obtaining and murdering with firearms.

While I am sure you do not want an exhaustive review of all country's firearms laws and murder rates, I would hope you will agree that the above shows there are some pretty large holes in this unnamed survey claiming stringent gun legislation in other countries results in lower firearms homicide rates.

Furthermore, instead of comparing apples to oranges using different countries, perhaps you should compare apples to apples. Stay within one country - compare states in the US with lenient firearms legislation to states with restrictive firearms legislation. If you take the time to do that, you will find that almost without exception the states with the most restrictive firearms legislation have the highest murder rates while the states with the most lenient firearms legislation have the lowest.

Unless you dispute that fact, how does the police survey you refer to explain such an absolute contradiction of its' findings within the borders of one country?

Does this not at least cause you to question the accuracy of the study you referred to?

I would be interested in being referred to the study you mentioned, by the way, and the journal it can be read in.

Other research shows that someone who owns a gun for their own protection is more likely to have their weapon used against them in the commission of a crime.

This comment of yours leaves me particularly concerned about the "research" you are being provided with. Is this a package given to all Liberal MP's?

The study/studies you are referring to were done by Dr. Arthur Kellerman. Dr. Kellerman is a medical doctor and not a criminologist or social scientist of any kind.

I can give you the problems that were found in Kellerman's "research" if you are truly interested, but suffice it to say that Kellerman's work has been repeatedly rejected as both flawed and biased in every criminology journal where I have seen reference to it. It has been condemned by the most prominent criminologists who deal with the issue of firearms and crime. Kellerman himself has publicly admitted that the "research" was done with personal bias.

Prominent criminologists have done research into the Kellerman contention that firearms kept for self defense are more likely to be used against them; there has quite simply been no evidence found to support that contention. That includes whether the firearm is kept in the home or is in the form of a concealed carry permit as presently allowed by so many states.

If you wish to put it in a simple math perspective, peer reviewed research has established there are approximately 2.5 MILLION defensive uses of firearms in the US each year - incidentally, in all but a few percent of those instances, simply producing the firearm is sufficient to chase the attacker off without even a warning shot being fired.

Now, if there are 2.5 million defensive uses, we can fairly safely say there are 2.5 million firearms being owned for defensive use aside from anything else. If Kellerman's claims that the firearm is more dangerous to the owner than the criminal are true, then it follows that there have to be more than 2.5 million Americans each year who "have their weapon used against them in the commission of a crime".

I don't see any evidence of in excess of 2.5 million murders and criminal woundings with firearms each year in the US. Do you see any evidence of criminal firearms murders and woundings being as high as Kellerman's research says exists?

The bottom line in my comments on these studies is that whoever is supplying you with the "scientific studies" that you are basing your position on is either ignorant of the concept of peer review or is deliberately deceiving you with biased research.

I would not expect you (or want you) to make a decision based on biased and fraudulent research from a pro-firearms lobby group that has failed peer review. At the same time, I think it is equally unacceptable when biased, flawed, and fraudulent research is accepted as authoritative simply because it supports the Firearms Act.

Perhaps the most compelling information is that the rate of deaths by guns in the United States is ten times the rate in Canada.

I expect you have a university degree and therefore the invariable first year statistics course. Can I remind you of what you were repeatedly told in that first year statistics course? "Correlation does not equal causation".

Comparing us to the US in defense of firearms legislation is an apples and oranges comparison. Such a statement would not survive for ten seconds in any first year criminology course.

However, if you find country to country comparisons acceptable, Canadian firearms owners can probably live with that. If you find the US comparison compelling, then surely you find comparing us to Switzerland and Israel even more compelling.

After all, both countries have firearms murder rates lower than Canada's - yet both allow people to keep fully automatic firearms freely in their homes, retain their military assault weapons after retiring from the armed forces, etc.

If you find country to country comparisons to have the "most compelling information", would you push for allowing Canadians to keep fully automatic weapons at home, retain their military weapons after retiring from the armed forces, carry handguns and submachine guns for self defense, etc?

I suspect you wouldn't agree with that compelling comparison... But why not, if you find comparing us to the US so compelling?

To summarize - and in particular in view of the billion dollars wasted to date - I hope that at the very least you take the information you are presently relying on to a reputable school of criminology and ask them for their assessment as to its reliability. The school of criminology at U of T is probably the closest decent criminology program to Ottawa, and may I recommend Philip Stenning in that program? If memory serves me correctly, Prof. Stenning has spoken to Parliament at least once about the effectiveness of C-68 when it was still in the bill stage.

Other than that, if you really do care about how much money is spent on "gun control" and whether it is effective, may I suggest you have your research assistant obtain the work done by Gary Kleck and James Wright for your benefit. Both have been frequently published in refereed criminology journals on the subject of firearms, their control, and their relationship to crime. Neither are on the side of either "the gun lobby" or "the gun banner lobby"; both are among the most respected researchers in the field.

I look forward with interest to what you intend to do from this point forward.

Respectfully yours,
Mr. Rick Lowe

Top of Page

Subject: letter

Taking a cue from Dr. Mike's excellent submission, "Who is Responsible?", I sent the following to two local papers and the London Free Press. Since it is well over the meagre 200 word limit for a letter to the Free Press I asked that it be printed in the Vox Pop slot where word restrictions are not so strict. I'm nopt expecting to see it in print.

Whose Fault Is it? Since the release of the Auditor General's report on the cost of the gun registry there has been more finger pointing in Ottawa than if an errant snowball from a kids' snowball fight had broken a neighbour's window. Anti-gunners blamed the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice blamed the provinces and gun organizations. Allan Rock hinted Paul Martin should shoulder some of the blame because he was Minister of Finance at the time. Paul Martin accused Allan Rock of being "emotionally involved with the issue". Everyone blamed the government. So, whose fault is it?

First on the list is the federal government. In the wake of the tragic events in Montreal on December 6, 1989, the government was pressured to do something. Enter C-68, the Firearms Act, a feel good, knee-jerk exercise in public relations to make us believe that the government was actually doing something to fight crime. Against the advice from firearms organizations and even from the government's own advisors that the program would be impractical to administer, too costly and would meet with resistance, the government persisted. The result is over $1 Billion for 124 pages of badly formulated law, with only 7 dealing with criminals and 117 dealing with law-abiding citizens.

Next are the special interest groups such as the Coalition for Gun Control who are vocal supporters of the United Nations agenda to disarm all law-abiding citizens of their legally owned property. These social engineering elitists believe they know best how firearms owners and citizens should live their lives. Forgetting that criminals will never register their guns, they support this flawed legislation regardless of the cost.

Firearm owners must share some of the blame as well. We were not proactive enough in this fight. We were content to preach to the converted and hope the federal government would eventually listen to reason. The latter happens with the same frequency as Halley's comet coming into view. All the while urban Canada turned a deaf ear to our pleas.

Then there are the Liberal MP's who appeared shocked when the Auditor General's report surfaced. Don't believe them when they say they had no idea of the costs. MP Garry Breitkreuz hounded the government almost daily on cost overruns. Recently Sarnia-Lambton Liberal MP Roger Gallaway described the Firearms Act as "a joke, a shambles, a 1250% cost overrun". If one MP was aware of the fiasco, they all were.

Neither should Canadian voters be left off the list. Firearm organizations have been warning us about the flaws in this legislation, especially the potential for horrendous costs, for the past ten years. Nobody listened, choosing instead to trust a government which used bogus polls, flawed statistics and spin doctors to further its own agenda. You can bet, the Minister of Truth, David Austin of the Canadian Firearms Center will be working overtime spinning the "safety and value to society" themes.

Nor is the media without blame. Until the Auditor General's report came out only a few noted journalists dared to speak out or write anything criticizing the Firearms Act. Now every journalist and network in the country is on the bandwagon. Where were they the last seven years? With those same noted exceptions reporters were too busy referring to two firearms as an "arsenal, a firearm as an "assault weapon", burglars, murderers and rapists as "gunmen", firearm owners as the "gun lobby", a handgun as a "semi-automatic revolver" and an anti-gunner as an "activist or advocate". They ignored our pleas to investigate this scandal.

Last but not least to blame are Allan Rock, Anne McClellan and Martin Cauchon. Allan Rock started this fiasco, promising it would not exceed $85 million and vowed to scrap it if the costs exceeded $150 million. Anne McLellan perpetuated the spending and refused to release 272 pages of budget documents citing "cabinet confidences". This information has still not been released. Martin Cauchon, current Minister of Justice, continues to hide figures from parliament. Had this happened in business or industry, all three would have been fired on the spot.

But rest assured the system is working! The Department of Justice just issued bulletins to police departments demanding they aggressively seek out and prosecute those hunters and target shooters who fail to register their firearms by January 1/03. Now this is serious crime fighting! Our $1 Billion tax dollars at work! Street gangs, drug lords and other assorted criminals must be rolling in the aisles laughing.

So, whose fault is it? All parties are at fault to some degree but the federal government should bear the vast majority of the blame for wasting $1 Billion. The bottom line is, this Chretien government couldn't fiscally manage a dog fight.

Top of Page

Home Page | Links | Calendar of Events | Bringing You the Facts | Saskatchewan | RFC Sask