Conference kaosws::canada

    
    not being from the area I can't tell what's "really" happening but
    it sure seems like the mayor is grandstanding.
    
    The problem with cig smuggling it pretty wide spread though.
    
    What I find interesting is the governments response. Both Ont. and Que
    are willing to lower the cig tax in an attempt to decrease the
    incentive for smuggling.
    
    This is hilarious when you realize that the Ont. gov is now
    licensing cassino gambling which is known to attract criminal
    activity.
    
    
    
    Politicians sure are flighty aren't they.
    
    
    Brian V
    

    There was a bombing, and a shooting up of public buildings. Death
    threats all around, gunshots are commonly heard along the river and the
    Natives have stated it would be open warfare if the government tried to
    stop them. The warriers are the Native version of organised crime, I say
    put a few tanks along the river bank, and blow them out of the water. I
    don't take kindy to armed groups with attitudes shooting up peaceful
    towns, and the government is remiss for not putting a stop to it alot
    earlier. The problems are real, the mayor's grandstanding is not
    totally fabricated.
    
    							Derek.

Illiminate the taxes put on cigarettes and you'll have no more problems. It's
that simple. I hear people talk about how Canadians are always so complacent 
and how they talk the talk but never walk the walk. Everbody bitches about
taxes but no one ever really pressures the government enough to force them to 
find another way to bail themselves out of their own fiscal mismanagement.   

I'm not saying that it's OK for the smugglers to start shooting up the country
but let's not lose sight of who's to blame for this situation and why it's come
to this.

Ben 

    
    
    Cornwall eh? Who wrote this note for you?
    
    
    
    :-)

    I disagree about reducing taxes. Now that the smuggling channels have
    been opened, people will still get their cigarettes from contraband
    sources. There is no way that the government is going to reduce the
    taxes to the point that a carton will be sold for $20.00. That being
    the case, the smuggling will go on, and, less taxes will be brought in
    from legitimate sales. It's a no win scenario.

    The country is just around the corner from a full scale tax revolt.
    
    Park a few old navy destroyers around where the smuggling goes on
    across the St.Lawrence river and fire warning shots. Better yet, sink
    their row boats!
    
    Glenn

    
    And the radio reported this AM that photo stations are being setup to
    take pictures of all plates on vehicles to monitor illegal traffic
    and enable officers to look up offenders on their database with higher
    efficiency. One step closer to the police state. This is at customs
    points in Ontario and BC. What is the answer?

    > What is the answer?
    
    42

    Our medical insurance and all of our social programs are based on the
    fact that all of us pay our share.  When this chain is broken, there
    has to be a tradeoff, what should be done, is something close to the
    old Fram oil filter commercials "you can either pay me now, or pay me
    later"  translated; you can remove the taxes from cigarettes (booze...)
    BUT pay user fees, if you get lung cancer and you have smoked all your
    life, you pay your hospital bill, if you get liver cancer or cirrosis,
    you pay your hospital bill.  
    
    Insurance is insurance, nothing is free, the guy with the Mercedes pays
    more than the guy in the Chevy Cavalier BECAUSE it costs more to remove
    the dents in the more expensive car.  The same holds true for smokers,
    statisticaly 25% of them will get lung cancer so they have to pay now
    with taxes or later when they do get the desease.
    
    Jean
    

    
    I'm confused; why are they trying to smuggle smokes into the US???
    
    D

    So, if you get AIDS from having `unsafe' sex, you should pay then.

    If you ski and break your leg, you should pay then.

    If you play hockey and suffer a separated shoulder, you should pay
    then.

    If you jump off of someone's roof and break your neck in a pool, everyone
    should pay and you should be awarded $2,000,000 for such a spectacular
    feat.

    I think I'm going to go have a good cry now.

    Glenn

    Duty free Canadian cigarettes are smuggled into the US ... apparently
    some American smokers prefer Canadian brands ... just as some Canadian
    smokers prefer US brands.
    
    Stuart

    A store in Quebec has gooten a fair bit of press in Ontario.
    Apparently it has openly sold smuggled cigs. on 2 seperate 
    occassions. Both times the RCMP just stood by.
    
    In Hamilton yesterday police pursued and caught 2 men that were selling
    cigs. out of a vehicle.
    
    There are 20 stores on the 6 nations indian reserve (south of
    Brantford) that all sell smuggled cigs. quite openly. In addition
    they sell gas for 20-30 cents/litre. So far no charges have been laid.
    Leader of the reserve has stated that they will not interfere with
    the police, if they decide to lay charges or attempt to stop the
    sales.
    
    
    
    I guess what I'm trying to say in the above is that the police
    have not been given any direction in dealing with the smuggling
    or the sale of smuggled goods....so naturally it is going to
    escalate.
    
    Leave the TAX alone stop the criminals.
    
    
    Brian V

    
    Prohibition...here we go again. Those who do not study and learn from
    history are condemned to repeat it.

    Boooooooooooo Hoooooooooo Hooooo Hooooooooooooooo!
    
    Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
    
    Snif.

    Placing a high tax on a product is not the same as "prohibition." 
    
    Alcohol is also heavily taxed, I believe.
    
    The social purpose of taxes on cigarettes is to deter smoking; raising
    revenue is incidental.  
    
    It is the tobacco companies who profit most from the current situation.  
    Why not re-implement the export tax on cigarettes that they succeeded in 
    having lifted?  The vast majority of exported cigarettes are simple 
    smuggled back in, as seems to be commonly admitted; why not deter the 
    manufacturers/profiteers from facilitating the smuggling by exporting a 
    low-price product?

    Why?
    
    
    $$$  and Canadian Tobacco Industry jobs.
    

    We've known that use of tobacco causes cancer & other diseases for a
    generation or more; the objective of public policy ought ot be to phase
    it out, not preserver tobacco industry jobs.

    There are a lot of "ought to be"'s in this world. Doesn't make'm be.
    
    Jobs are jobs. Right now, people are more concerned about jobs.
    
    Glenn

    Except, perhaps, those who have cancer.
    
    -Stephen

    Keeps people in radiology labs busy.
    
    Glenn

    
    I've heard that they are dropping cigarette taxes in favour of a
    Kleenex tax....they feel that they can get it back from Glenn....
    
    
    Sniff.
    

    Exactly.  So in our new user pay society we either drop medicare
    and pay at the hospital door or tax the cause of the illness at
    the source.
    
    
    Robin

    re. Note 787.22 by TROOA::MCRAM

    |Kleenex tax....

    I don't believe this is true as that would be singling out a particular
    brand name of facial tissue. If there really was going to be a Kleenex
    tax, I would just switch brands to, say, Facelle Royale, thus
    circumventing the governments attempt a taxing me more simply because
    I'm a very tender and sensitive type of guy.

    If this is a mistake on your part and the new tax covers all brands of
    facial tissues, then I would have to resort to purchasing mine from the
    nearest Mohawk reservation. Or, I could just use the coat tails I am
    riding on at the moment.

    Please help, I'm going to cry again.

    snif.
    
    Glenn

    Glen,
    
    	I know it's not nice to have to pay trough the nose (no pun
    intended on your condition) for services we now consider to be "free"
    and part of our heritage but there is a sad fact we are in the hole,
    not just for a short term, we can't even pay each year for what we
    "buy".  If Canada had a VISA card, we would be forced to declare
    bankrupcy and start over again with a fresh slate and NO LUXURIES.
    
    	I think there is still time to get over the problem if we act as
    soon as possible, this means reduce our spending ways by introducing
    user fees on all public funded programs.  
    
    	And yes, if you hurt yoursefl doing something dangerous like
    skydiving or mountain climbing, you should pay a bigger fee to get
    treated.  Why should a social program be any different than a private
    one?  Just look at your own car insurance, would you get it repainted
    everytime there was a scratch if it was COMPLETELY free without having
    to pay more the next year? of course you would.  When your premiums are
    too expensive, you raise the deductible.  Even DEC with it's company
    cars (when we had them) went from $100 to $1000 of deductible.  If you
    break a tail light in a parking lot, just pay it!  if you get in a
    major accident, pay the $1000 and get it fixed.  Social programs are
    the same, get a bad cold; stay in bed, take plenty of fluids and
    aspirin, get hit by a bus, go to the hospital, pay your fee and get
    well.
    
    Jean
    

    I believe a graded user fee would be too difficult to manage. Insurance
    for property can't be compared to health care.
    
    I like your idea about free Kleenex though, because I think I'm going
    to cry again.
    
    
    Glenn

    No, graded user fees are a great idea, you could have a civil servant
    per person....hummmm no that wouldn't work,  OK, OK lets say one civil
    servant per family to watch our lives, if we break a leg dancing the
    "achy breaky dance", we would have to pay at the hospital because that
    would be abuse of our bodies... but we could also BRIBE our civil
    servant to say we broke our leg in the shower before going to work,
    whirlie twirlies excepted of course.
    
    Jean
    

    Well the tax cut is now a done deal.....
    
    What do you think ? does it make a difference to you ?
    
    In my ussual Q bashing manner it looks as though this is yet another
    case of the feds caving into pressure from Q.
    
    Bob sure as H@## didn't want this done and no one out west did either.
    
    Any guesses out there as to where they are going to try and make up
    this revunue ???? Can you say more income tax ???
    
    
    Brian V
    
    

    I don't know about you, but I'm going to take up smoking. The
    government has sent a clear message to me, "Smoking is good". In light
    of this new revelation, how can I not start smoking? I've never smoked
    in my life, why should I not start now? It seems like the sensible
    thing to do. I'm happy about it.

    Now I'm going to have a cigarette and a good cry.

    Glenn

    
    I agree with the approach taken in this case, since the problem
    was so widespread the RCMP couldn't begin to tackle it. What makes
    me chuckle is the comment by a government official today that "We'll
    put the tax back on, once smuggling is stamped out." Brilliant,
    Sherlock, what do you think got you into that situation?
    
    Of course I'm against "feel good" legislation and enforcement of
    personal safety and health, any way. This includes cigarettes, booze,
    seat belts, helmets, you name it. I feel that freedom of choice
    should exceed the power of the government. I don't smoke, and I prefer
    to work in a smoke free workplace, don't drink to excess. I wear the
    legislated safety equipment most of the time, I just would like the
    right to choose not to wear it without fear of financial penalty and
    delays by police pulling people (me) over. I don't buy the "greater
    good of public health" argument.  I respect the alternate approaches
    that the Netherlands and Switzerland have taken with respect to the
    world's oldest profession and the drug trade. I think that we should
    approach some of our own problems without bullets flying and fists
    beating.
    
    Now to wait for the incoming rounds, and suggestions that I move south
    of the 49th.
    
    8*)
    Pat

    Actually, if you saw the drug zones in Switzerland, you would be
    reduced to uncontrolled weeping. All of Europe's junkies congregate in
    these places. It's not a pretty sight.

    Have a happy day!

    Glenn

    
    You don't have to go far off the beaten track in our own Byward market
    to see some amazing stuff, as I'm sure you are aware. Certain public
    park areas in Montreal are awash with boozed and drugged out shells
    of humans who beg and steal to continue their lifestyle. I think every
    Canadian is issued a pair of rose colored glasses at birth and very
    few indeed ever take them off.
    
    Of course it bothers me to see waste of human life. Ever the optimist,
    I feel sure there is a better approach.
    
    Pat (My tear ducts have long ago dried up...)

    After that reply, my eyes are welling up with tears again, and my
    bottom lip is trembling.

    If you made say "Montreal" a legalized drug zone, you would magnify the
    problem x 100. Drug users would come from all across North America to
    do drugs, it would be simply terrible.

    Choking back the tears,

    Glenn

    
    I'm not sure what you base your arguments on, Glenn, but like any human
    problem, the answer lies in a concerted approach across the country,
    even across the continent. As much as certain people would like to
    segregate and push problems onto someone else's turf "Say Montreal", I
    don't think drug users would travel across the country from Vancouver
    to do drugs in Montreal.
    I do however believe that there is real possiblity that people will
    buy cigarettes in Que for sale in Ontario, creating a whole new
    business unit 8*) (Unless Rae caves in...).
    
    Looking for a towel..
    
    Pat

    POLAR::ROBINSONP
    
     So you are against the government legislating "health and safety"
    issues. You would prefer that DDT was still in use ? Use of let's say
    "Agent Orange" to defoliate under power lines ? Car seats for children
    that detach during an accident and bounce around inside the car ? I
    think you over stated your case. Perhaps you meant that you disagree
    with sin taxes, and a few other ideas that are plainly for the public
    good.  Having driven motorcycles for more than a decade, I can assure
    you helmet laws are not "feel good" laws, they save lives. Maybe you
    don't want the government to save your life, but let it save other
    peoples. If you really don't like it, dive your 'cycle without a
    helmet, and consider the fine a sin tax.
    
    								Derek

    
    Derek, the name is Pat, and please use it when replying.
    
    I am not against the government outlawing DDT or Thalidomide. I am
    against the government legislating against eating bacon  and eggs
    for breakfast, (Heart disease is THE biggest killer of Canadians) and
    taxing cigarettes (Lung disease) to the point where smugglers are
    getting rich. Where do you think the Kennedy's made most of their
    family fortune? Smuggling booze during prohibition...
    
    I do not deny that safety devices save lives, and I thank my helmet
    that I still have a face that is recognizably human. However, I am
    a grownup now, and I feel able to weigh the risks of certain situations
    where only my personal health or safety is at stake. The most dangerous
    thing about a public health plans is that legislators will look at
    personal health statistics and drive wedges in where they think they 
    will fit. I resent this even if it doesn't affect me personally. To 
    this extent, I have a strange sympathy to the smokers I see standing 
    outside in a -35 deg windchill. On the other hand, their behavior affects 
    the health of others (me) so I am happy to work in a smoke free office.
    
    Hope this rids me of the those extra words I found stuffed in my mouth.
    
    Pat

    Great so the RCMP cant deal effectively with smuggling so lets
    drop the tax.
    
    And while we're at it the cops don't solve the majority of thefts
    so lets stop trying.
    
    And we're having no luck at all in stopping any/all drug related 
    problems so let elliminate all drug laws. (no minimum age no pessession
    no trafficing)
    
    And lets face it what percentage of speeders get caught ?  lets get rid
    of all speed limits.
    
    
    This is the most irresponsible line of reasoning I've ever heard !!!
    
    If the police can not deal with a problem effectively you don't
    ignore it you put more attention and focus on it.
    
    
    	Brian V
    

    The difference with cigarettes is, it's not illegal to smoke them.
    Trying to stop the smuggling of cigarettes is difficult because (unless
    they're traceable somehow) it's not illegal to possess cigarettes.

    It is not cut and dry like it is for cocaine for example.

    This issue is about taxes. People are tired of the various ways the
    governments have tried to get their hands in peoples pockets.
    Cigarette smuggling is just a small piece of an increasing pie. More
    and more people are finding ways to not pay taxes because they've had
    enough.

    Glenn

    
    The ingenuity of our millionaires with regard to avoiding taxes
    amazes me. How do they do it? I shudder to think I'll have to approach
    that pile of receipts and T1 on my kitchen table soon.
    
    ECCH!

	A serious reply from Glenn...now I think I am going to cry.

	Eiweep Knightly

    It is not illegal to use cocaine/pot or any other drug the charge
    is for possession. Similarly it is not illegal to have sex sex for
    money it is illegal to solicit money for sex.
    
    
    	Brian V
    

    Pat:                                                              
    
    >>I am a grownup now, and I feel able to weigh the risks of certain
    >>situations where only my personal health or safety is at stake.
    
     I would say you are not likely to make informed judgements on all
    issues that effect your H/S. I would also say that not all people have
    the same ability to make those value judgements you *are* able to do. So
    who arbitrates ? Speeding laws are a good example. I judge that I can
    drive 180KM/HR to work on my on my motorcycle, I have been known to do it,
    and a fellow employee called the cops "for my own good". Who is right ?
    Who is wrong ? I was wrong because the law says so. If it were up to the
    individual, too many people would drive beyond their own/cars ability. The
    government tries to set a reasonable standard. You or I may be able to
    drive well beyond the posted limit in complete safety, but does that mean
    all people can ?
    
    I would agree that the government many times gets involved in areas
    they should not, but these are not those cases.
    
     As for words in your mouth. I tried to say that you overstated your
    case with the following:
    
        Of course I'm against "feel good" legislation and enforcement of
        personal safety and health, any way. This includes cigarettes,
        booze, seat belts, helmets, ***you name it***. I feel that freedom of
        choice should exceed the power of the government.
    
     So I did name a few that I felt would point out that the government
    setting standards is not *always* a bad thing. Once a person gets out of
    the BLACK/WHITE mode it is easier to sway their opinion.
    
     As for not calling you Pat, sorry, no insult intended. I just find it
    easier to click on NODENAME::USERNAME than search to the bottom to see if
    there is a real name associated with the note. I have met one person who
    has stated offense, you. Sorry, I will try to remember to address you
    as Pat.
    
    								Derek.

	re .45

>     As for not calling you Pat, sorry, no insult intended. I just find it
>    easier to click on NODENAME::USERNAME than search to the bottom to see if
>    there is a real name associated with the note. I have met one person who
>    has stated offense, you.

	There are conferences in which half the membership would flame you for
	doing that. Especially with the "I'm too **** lazy" excuse.

	Tony

    R2ME2::HINXMAN
         ^
         |
     If that is going to get a flame, wait till they read the contents.
    Glad I stay out of those "I take offense when none was intended" notes
    files. Who needs more professional victims anyway.
    
    							Derek.

  >  Speeding laws are a good example. I judge that I can
  >  drive 180KM/HR to work on my on my motorcycle, I have been known to do it,
  >  and a fellow employee called the cops "for my own good". Who is right ?
  >  Who is wrong ? I was wrong because the law says so.

   One day they'll tell you that your motorcycle is illegal and I'm sure your
   response will be something like, "Oh well, the government knows best. They're
   definitely looking out for my own interest." 

   More government, more legislation, more interference!! Makes me want to
   puke! HEY, that means the government is a health risk! Let's get rid of it!

	Ben

    
    Hi Derek:
    	Let's take your speeding example vs. seatbelts...
    
    Excess speed in the presence of other traffic affects others,
    regardless of your personal "safety envelope."
    
    Excess speed on an empty highway does not affect anyone except
    you.
    
    In which environment is it OK to speed? The law says neither. The
    judge would ream you. Guess which environment I like to speed in.
    
    In the case of seat belts, it is legislation which is still
    controversial in some areas of North America. A seat belt will only
    protect you in certain limited situations, and will in fact cause
    great damage in other situations. You have to ask yourself what kind
    of accident you are likely to have. However, the point is if you
    choose not to wear it you affect only yourself, not everyone else on
    the road. I find the resources expended to charge people for not
    wearing their seat belt particularly galling, especially when compared
    to Brian V's comments regarding proper application of police efforts
    in solving thefts,(and preventing bank robberies, and paying visits to
    violent spouses in violation of their restraining orders.) Patricia
    Allen might be alive today if police were not out randomly searching
    out seatbelt violators, if you get my drift. It comes down to
    how public funds are applied with respect to the magnitude of the
    problem.
    
    I can't believe I'm the only one that thinks this way.
    
    Pat
    

    re:

    |                   <<< Note 787.44 by KAOFS::B_VANVALKENB >>>
    |
    |    It is not illegal to use cocaine/pot or any other drug the charge
    |    is for possession. Similarly it is not illegal to have sex sex for
    |    money it is illegal to solicit money for sex.
    |
    |
    |        Brian V

    	This has got to be one of the silliest arguments I've ever seen.
    	How can you use cocaine/pot if you first don't possess it. You're
    	splitting a hair that doesn't support you argument.

    	It is not illegal to posses/use cigarettes. tobacco is not an
    	illegal substance. Cocaine is, whether you're holding it in your hand
    	or holding it up your nose.

    	Also, if you think that all sex is legal, you are gravely mistaken
    	and very ignorant of the laws of this country. It is illegal to "have"
    	sex with a minor for one. 

    Glenn

    
    Gee, I've never had sex with a miner. What's it like?
    
    Pat

    Pat:
    
     I think seatbelts will protect you more often than not wearing one.
    Ask the police who show up at accidents, they don't seem to agree with
    your assesment that they are of limited value. You believe the right to
    do stupid things is paramount (ie. no helmet), I believe that government
    can and should set guidelines for society. If the rights of the
    individual gain too much power over the rights of society, we will end
    up like the US, where to protect the "rights" of an individual, they
    are willing to put everyone else at risk. (gun control as an example)
    We as Canadians have a new charter of rights, but even that has been
    demonstrated to be subserviant to the rights of society
    (notwithstanding clause). I honestly feel your perception is that of an
    American, probably from watching TV, and it is out of step with the way
    *this* country is governed. You of course can desire and work for
    change, but that does not alter the fact that in this country the
    rights of society and the individual are more balanced than in the
    States.
    
    					     		Derek 

	I can dig it...

	Cole Myne

    Be careful, you might get shafted.

    
    Well Derek, our wonderful government has put a gag on the press, is
    putting cameras out to watch it's citizens, has gun control policies
    that protect money, empower criminals and endanger the private
    citizen, (witness the family in Nepean who's house was stormed by
    criminals who beat them and robbed them recently), we have drive-by
    shootings (sound familiar?). Now we're going to spend a few million
    trying to find the guilty party because someone was fed up with
    being a vegetable and decided to end it all.
    
    When my son was born, we got a visit (non-optional!) from a public
    health nurse who brought half a pound of government health pamphlets
    which we already had picked up at our pediatrician. Poor thing, I made
    her feel most unwelcome for intruding in my house, spending my tax
    dollars uselessly checking out where my child would sleep and eat. I
    also made a fuss about the stinging drops they put in newborn's eyes
    to counteract the effects of the possibility of the parent's having
    syphilis. I KNOW I don't have V.D.!!!
    
    	When my daughter was born last Feb, the nurse didn't show. I guess
    they have my number now.
    
    For my part, I will continue to act against those social
    engineers in every way I can possibly think of, arranging my affairs
    to pay minimum tax, and teaching my children to thumb their noses in
    the general direction of those who seek to drive the wedge too far in
    imposing their collective "wisdom" on others. Hopefully my children
    will inherit my values, and join with others who share them, to build
    independent lifestyles in a debt and violence free country, where
    government opression through taxation or other subtle means is 
    stamped out.
    
    In the words of Paul Martin, I have, to a certain extent, "withdrawn
    my consent to be governed". I am watching my government *VERY* closely
    at all levels. I know they are watching everybody...I have relatives
    working in CSIS.
    
    Pat

    Oh no.... I think..... I think I'm going to......
    
    
    CRY!
    
    sniff.
    
    Glenn

    
    
    Hey POLAR::RICHARDSON
    
    
    Get a life!

    Cote;
    
      Like the beer commercial says, "It doesn't get any better than this".

	It's emunderscorecote...the emunderscore is silent...

	M_LACAILLE

    Pat:
    
     I really didn't want to say this, but since you:
    
    		want to hear all the gory details of sickos crimes
    	 	don't think the government has the right to enforce laws
    		think the answer to a in-house beating is giving out guns
    		think drive by shootings are common occurences
    		can't see the benifit to a public health visit
    
     You should really move. I can think of a place where these ideas are
    common, and welcome. Remember to pick up you "personal protection" when
    you cross the border. I thought this was going to be a discussion, but
    when you say "has gun control policies that protect money" I take it
    you are not in favour of gun control, and my opinion, of your opinion
    falls through the floor.
    
    							Derek.

    

  ?  shootings (sound familiar?). Now we're going to spend a few million
  ?  trying to find the guilty party because someone was fed up with
  ?  being a vegetable and decided to end it all.


    		I read somewhere that:

    	She locked herself in the garage, closed all the doors and lit
    a cigarette. providing a most efficient means for suicide. It only 
    goes to show you that the government knows best about smoking.

    Glenn,
    
    	It is quite easy to identify a package of cigarretes that have
    not been imported correctly. It is impossible to identify an individual
    cig. though.
    
    	Just like other laws it is possession that is the charge not use.
    
    	Possession of smuggled goods is a crime. I beleive the police are
    charging $100.00/carton in your possession.
    
    	My point was that there are a lot of laws out there that the police
    can not enforce effectively. It does not mean that they are bad laws or
    that the laws should be removed. The society just needs to decide what
    is acceptable behavior and what isn't.
    
    	"everyone else is doing it" is not a good excuse.
    
    
    Brian V
    

    Hey KAOFS::M_COTE
    
    Get a sense of humour!

    
    Derek, I expected to hear you say that eventually. However, I'll pass
    on the offer to move, since I was born in Ottawa and intend on staying
    to collect whatever CPP has to offer when I get there.
    
    Re: gory details: It's helps me form an opinion of the society we
      live in, and what precautions I need to take as social disease
      progresses.
    
        enforcement of laws: I'm only against enforcement of "feel good"
        legislation as defined by my earlier replies. Your sweeping
        generalizations undermine your arguments.
    
        in-house beatings: The knowledge that a homeowner has the means
        to exercise self defense is certainly a deterrent. Think of that
        as you feel the boot on your neck, trying to dial 911, and the
        operator answers, "Sorry, all our officers are busy filling out
        paperwork caused by Kim Campbell's bill c17, please wait for the
        next available officer. Your call is important to us"
    
        Drive-by's: We aren't there in frequency yet, just wait a bit.
                Especially as the government turn's the heat up on
                smugglers.
    
        Public health visits: I didn't ask for it, don't want it and
        I told them to stuff it. 'Nuff said.
    
        Personal protection: I've got more than enough to do the
            job. I'll remember to phone 911 first though, since I already
            pay for it. What if I accidentally break my Louisville slugger
            needlessly?
    
        Your opinion of my opinions: Politely put, I don't really care. I 
        suppose each of us thinks the other is dangerous. Time will show
        the truth, and maybe we can revisit this topic in 5 years or so
        and compare notes.
    
        Rgds, Pat

    I have a clever reply to each of your points, but you ended seeming to
    say we can agree to disagree. That works for me.
    
     The only point you make that I would consider dangerous is the one
    about criminals not entering a house if they think it is "protected".
    The truth is that a criminal would be stupid to go unarmed into a house
    in the States exactly because of the fact that there is a fair chance
    the owner will have a gun. The crooks are not going to give up crime,
    they are going to "protect" themselves. I prefer our generally unarmed
    crooks, it keeps them humble.
    
     							Derek.

    

    Hey POLAR::RICHARDSON


    If your dribblings are humour, I'm glad I have the sense not to
    have one!

    Actually I'm sorry. The first 45 times or so your jokes are so very
    funny. It's that repeat factor that's killing your routine.

    	

    
    This is the classic chicken and the egg argument. Whoever is first
    armed gets the advantage. Sure, we have plenty of unarmed kids around
    committing petty theft, but the career criminal has no disincentive
    to using arms and will enter even if you are still in there. Most
    prefer to wait until you leave or will choose another home that appears
    empty. Personally I don't feel threatened by some kid stealing my
    VCR, I'm insured. We do however, also have that segment of the
    population out there who likes the power trip of imposing violence
    on others, while they ransack your home for drug money to support
    their habit.
    	I'm sure you will be most understanding as you ride with your
    wife to the hospital, nursing your concussion and stab wounds, telling
    her that sampling for semen and pubic hair doesn't really hurt, it's
    only necessary to support the court trial. This all will be going
    through your mind, as will the images of that high capacity
    semi-automatic pistol that was held behind your ear while you watched.
    
    By the way, that pistol or shotgun was easily purchased from the same
    truck that holds cigarettes and booze, for about $500. A small drop
    in the bucket from last weeks $20,000 intake.
    
    The reason I look suspiciously at gun control is that I have been
    around them for 20 years, off and on, and I have yet to see one
    jump off the bench and shoot someone. In the back of my mind, I had
    always thought that someday I might take up hunting, time allowing.
    This sensitized me to the legislation, which I have examined in
    some detail. Perhaps you have also examined it. Perhaps not.
    
    Most of the new legislation is an excellent example of "feel good"
    law. Laws that serve to protect oneself from oneself. Locks upon
    locks upon cabinetry. Don't keep ammunition near or in them at home,
    in case your child takes a notion to play with them. Penalties for
    violation that exceed all rational thought. For example, you can get
    10 years for *possession* of a high capacity magazine. This is
    technology that has been around since the turn of the century .If you 
    choke someone to death, you can be out sooner than that.
    	The new law also has provisions that the police have the right
    to inspect your home to ensure that the rules are being followed. You
    can guess how I feel about that. The "order in council" provisions
    are so sweeping, that even Hitler and Mussolini would have been proud.
    Basically it means that the solicitor general can order any firearm
    or multiple thereof, confiscated at any time, without compensation, or
    going to parliament for permission. I wonder how our Olympic Gold
    medal shooter, Linda Thom, is going to feel when Chretien confiscates
    her Olympic free pistol is the name of public safety.
    	If you are in doubt as to the paper load all this has created for
    our boys in blue, call the local OPP office or Ottawa police, and
    ask them how many FAC's they process per week, and how long it will
    take to get yours. When you get to the bottom line, like I did, you'll
    find that hunting has become a rich man's pursuit.
    
    The value added component of such legislation is very small
    indeed,compared to the investment in resources, and will have no effect
    on the Marc Lepines of this world, or even the Colin Fergusons. We have
    not yet found a machine to read people's thoughts, and the mass
    murderers will still choose their victims in the best environment to
    find them without protection. I can't help thinking that the female
    engineers would have been greater in number today if one of them had
    had a "little something" in her purse, even a can of mace or pepper
    spray.
    	Our emergency response team did a good job of sweeping up though,
    I was impressed.
    	I can hear the criminals chuckling now....
    
    Pat 

	The U.S. statistic that murder occurs about three times more frequently
	in households with guns as with households without, of course, simply
	reflects that it is those with homicidal tendencies who are more likely
	to own guns.

	Tony

    re. Note 787.65 by KAOFS::D_STREET

     |I have a clever reply to each of your points, but you ended seeming to

    oooooooooo! Let's see them! I want to gurgle and kooooo at every one as
    the cleverness enraptures me and sweeps me off to a magical land of
    euphoria never before trodden on by ugly bags of mostly water like us!


    re: M_COTE

    Thanks for the warning. Your reply really cheered me up! 

    Have a great day everyone! It's great to be alive!!

    Happy Happy!! Joy Joy!!
    
    Glenn



     

    Wow a made in Canada gun-nut. Are you one of the people who went under
    LSD experiments by the CIA ? You can't see that the States has become an
    armed camp, with children afraid to go to school ? You want the crook
    to pick another house ? Get a dog, that way the criminal will know what
    is in the house. Or did you plan on having one of those cute "This
    house protected by Smith & Wesson" signs to advertise to the crooks
    where they could steal a gun ? Your "solutions" are short sighted, and
    dangerous. What I don't understand is why you don't see what free and
    easy access to guns has done to the States, or do you think it is a
    fluke we have less violent crime ? Talk about "feel good" solutions.
    You would feel good until the crook appears in your living room, and
    your gun is in the basement. See how poor made up examples are ? Maybe
    I should have referenced your wife's pubic hair to make it more
    forcefull.
    
     You mention my wife again and I'll be sure to do something you do not
    like.
    
    							Derek.
    

    POLAR::RICHARDSON
    
    Stick to weeping, it's your strong suit.
    
    
    							Derek.

    gurgle.

    RE .68
    Tony, I suspect that that the 2 million legal Canadian gun owners would
    take issue with you on whether they have "homicidal tendencies".
    
    Perhaps there are other "activities" going on in those households. The
    people who use this murder statistics without looking closely at how
    they were gathered and interpreted are misleading themselves. For
    example, murder with firearms is often interpreted to occur between
    "close acquaintences". What they forget to say is that "close
    acquaintences" *includes* competing drug dealers who know each other
    since they share territory. Another reason to be suspicious.
    
    Sporting uses aside, examining the self defense use, at what point
    do you think that your "instinct for self preservation" would include
    a "homicidal element". Do you bend over and submit as in "Deliverance"?
    Do you beg for mercy? Many victims get offed anyway. 'Course, if you
    believe unswayingly in God and government, the police will rescue you, 
    and if they don't, you'll be floating on a cloud taking those harp 
    lessons you always wanted to take.
    
    The government should stick to collecting garbage, building roads
    and defending helpless nations.
    
    Well, on the last point, maybe not. I've been reading about Dieppe
    since the TV special, we're court martialling private for following
    orders to defend his post in a war zone, and we're about to get our
    butt kicked in Bosnia. Better just call the U.S. to go in and clean
    up.
    
    Pat

    RE. -1.
    
    	>The government should stick to collecting garbage, building roads
        >and defending helpless nations.
    
        >Well, on the last point, maybe not. I've been reading about Dieppe
        >since the TV special, we're court martialling private for following
        >orders to defend his post in a war zone, and we're about to get our
        >butt kicked in Bosnia. Better just call the U.S. to go in and clean
        >up
    
    Their's a green card waiting for you at the Cornwall border....
    I'll give you the $2.50 for bridge fare too. 
    
    
    

     RE -.1
    
    Gee, I'm really bringing them out of the woodwork. At this rate
    I'll have enough toll fare to make it to Florida. Keep your
    pledges coming, and it'll start looking better than the CPP which
    is keeping me here.
    
    Derek, I'm sorry my somewhat graphic examples offended you, and the
    pubic hair I referred to was not your wife's. I forgot that getting
    too descriptive with my examples might shock you, since we are, after
    all, getting used to having a gagged press, and all our entertainment
    has been preselected by people that know what's good for us. I will
    endeavour to use the third person from now on, and to predigest my
    replies to suit the "It can never happen to me, I'm non-violent" crowd.
    
    However, you must also agree to tame your violent streak, and to
    refrain from personal threats.
    
    Do we have a deal?
    
    Pat

I have looked at this argument from the side-lines for a long time ...
as both moderator and noter ...

As a noter, I have seen lots of examples down here in Colorado of homicides
that may not have happened were it not for the free availability of handguns.
A hot headed argument, with a gun handy, seems to result in shots fired.
Without handguns available, what might have happened ?  Someone maimed or
beaten maybe, but not dead.  The biggest objection that I have to handguns
is that it is so much easier to mortally injure another person, either by
accident or by design.  I don't know about you, but I think I would prefer
to be beaten than shot at with a gun ... my chances of surviving the assault
are a bit greater!

Yes, there are a large number of guns in the hands of criminals, and laws
only serve to keep legal users legal, but the number of accidental shootings
and shootings from hot-headed arguments by legal gun owners is staggering.

On the matter of laws, the problems every society faces is defining and
implementing enforceable laws without violating individual rights, and at
the other end, defining reasonable punishments for violating those laws.

We have known for a long time that punishment and sentencing for violent
crime is out of whack, especially when compared with non-violent crimes.

Often there is little wrong with the laws ... just the enforcement and
punishmenet and sentencing.  Clearly we really need to see if the laws
currently on the books are capable of doing what society needs, and
find out why they are not working as they should before adding other
piece meal laws to the books.

On the other hand, be thankful that Canada does give the Crown right of
appeal.  I have seen several people here, acquitted by a jury due to
essentially technicalities, but still very guilty of crimes and yet
allowed to walk free forever on that crime.

Now, as a moderator ... Please be careful on this subject.  Generally
gun control discussions in US notesfiles  get quickly quashed because
they easily get out of hand.

Stuart

    
    Ahhhh. He hath spoken. 8*)
    
    Thanks for the needed perspective, Stuart. Maybe I have some
    unreasonable fears, others have different fears, like the fear
    of inanimate objects.
    
    I fear the armed lawbreaker and the government that empowers him.
    I am aware of my vulnerability to both.
    
    Pat

    Pat,
    
    Don't read me wrong ... I have an intense fear of that cold inanimate
    object, just like I have a fear of the surgeon's knife, just like I
    have a fear of bare electrical wires.  Obviously, it is not the
    actual object itself that one should be afraid of, but rather a
    fear of what the object is capable of, if used (I meant *used* and
    not *misused* ... and that is even more frightening) ...
    
    The ownership and use of a hunting rifle is a lot different from the 
    ownership and use of a handgun.  A handgun is essentially for one
    single purpose ... you would not go out hunting bear with a handgun!
    
    Stuart

    What you all have failed to understand is that Pat owns a Harley
    Davidson. And if you saw it, it would bring a tear to your eye.
    
    Glenn

    Pat
    
    >>others have different fears, like the fear of inanimate objects.
    
    
     If you are refering to me, I fear the intent of the individual who
    wants to own the gun, not the gun. I suspect you are drawing people out
    because of your point of view, and faulty logic in defending it. As the
    paranoid said, "The whole world is against me".
    
    							Derek.

    Oh yeah, PAT:
    
     Go down to who ever you go to to get a gun permit and say you want to
    buy a gun for self defence. As I understand it, that is not a valid
    reason for owning a gun. Hunting, collecting, and target shooting are
    the only reasons I know of that you can state for ownership. I have a
    friend who is a gun nut (owner), and he said it was very clear that you
    are not to own a gun to blow the VCR thief away. As I see it, there is
    no capital punishment in Canada, so no citizen has the right to take
    the life of another, regardless of circumstances. My views are
    substantiated by the law, yours are opinions.
    
    							Derek.

    Hey Mr. KAOFS::M_COTE (I hear you like to be addressed that way),
    
    Please stop picking on Glenn (Polar::Richardson).  He's a very
    sensitive guy!  Everyone needs a jester.  Here's one more vote for
    Glenn to continue his crying crusade.  Ren and Stimpy quotes?  ...NOT!
    
    And about the issue at hand...
    
    Before we had societys we were nothing better then animals in the jungle,
    killing each other for whatever whim drove us.  It is important for the 
    society to find a common ground to give quality of life to most who 
    belong to it.
    
    Survival of the fittest works in the jungle. It doesn't work in 
    our world though, because SO MANY are fitting themselves with guns
    and automatic weapons. And that puts them at a distinct advantage,
    whether they deserve it or not.
    
    Steve

    
    Derek, it may surprise you to know that it is possible for an
    individual citizen to own and carry a handgun for self protection. It
    is extremely rare, and permission is granted on an individual basis
    by court order. I believe the number is less than 10 individuals
    across Canada. It depends how they can demonstrate that their life
    is threatened due to their business (ie carrying alot of money) and
    amount of political influence. There are also many individuals who own 
    and operate fully automatic firearms, although I can't figure out how 
    they can afford to feed them. Despite the fact that a fully automatic
    firearm has never been used in a crime in Canada, they are now a
    prohibited item, but grandfathered owners can keep 'em.
    
    It is also possible for a citizen of Ontario to carry a handgun in the
    northern regions, to "protect life". It must be displayed in a non-
    threatening manner, and is only valid within a stated area, during
    a fixed time period and it may be carried in a loaded condition. Many
    hunters do this, to protect from bear attacks. I believe the reason
    is that a handgun can be aimed more quickly in dense bush if you are
    surprised by a mom and her cubs. We all know how pi$$ed off an upset
    mother bear can be, don't we Goldilocks?  Other provinces and
    territories have different requirements and quirks in the law.
    
    Sigh...I am growing weary of extracting words placed in my mouth from
    external sources. I think I stated that the burglar could have my
    VCR, I'm insured. Read back a few.
    	I only raised the self defense issue because of recent events in
    the media, and my personal experience with undesirables in and around
    my home. I am paid by DEC to solve materials problems at the molecular
    level and I know how to study and dig into an issue. (Too bad DEC's
    problems are at a Macro level now...)I analyse everything, including my 
    home, and have a mental picture of emergency plans for fire, flood etc.
    
    When I read about someone breaking into a home within a couple of miles
    of mine, forcing their way in, beating the occupants to the point where
    OHIP has to kick in, I transpose the situation to me ....Unfortunately
    I found that my home is not particularly suited to escape due to the
    location of the bedrooms at a second floor level. I have become even
    more sensitized with the raising of a young family, who at home alone
    while I am at work. They are essentially defenseless. Their only chance
    is if I am at home to operate the Louisville Slugger on their behalf.
    I shudder to think of what happens when they get to the bedroom, to
    find my wife and kids cowering beside the bed, and there is no jewelry
    to speak of. 'Nuff said. Time for my Prozac pill. Well, on second
    thought, there is a motion detector and buzzer etc. and stickers on the
    windows. They are in the name of the alarm co., not Smith and Wesson.
    
    I am not really "into" self-defense. At 6'3" 230lbs, I've defused many
    threatening situations just by standing up and looking at my
    confronter. My physical size has acted in my favor almost every time
    the fists were forced to fly. I know that there a people out there, the
    elderly, the small of stature, the disabled, who are not in such a 
    position. I fear for them.
    
    By the way Stuart, there are several hundred Ontario target handgun
    shooters who would disagree with you statement on the utility of
    that particular configuration of firearm.
    
    Derek, I challenge you to get your friend to take you down to the
    RA on Riverside Dr. to try out a little recreational target handgun
    shooting, you may find it relaxing. Unfortunately I am not a member,
    but I hear it is an excellent facility, and has produced Olympic Gold
    class competitors.
    
    As to flawed logic, it is all on your side, with one possible exception
    that I was thinking about yesterday, but nobody picked up on it. Paul
    Teale is innocent until proven guilty, therefore his rights stand and
    the court is correct to gag the press. 
    
    I can read what happens off the Internet anyway. Most Canadians can't,
    and I fear for them.
    
    It's been a most interesting rathole, fully furnished, full of twisty
    little passages, most alike. An adventure, to be sure.
    
    In closing, I think that the major difference between the US and Canada
    is our approach to solving confrontations. It a mentality, a mind set
    that no gun control will ever solve from Brady through to Bill C17.
    When I see a Waco type massacre happen in Canada, I will be forced to
    reconsider my position. Derek, you have offered no convincing argument
    to sway me, and the Email I have been getting is skewed in my favor. In
    fact, you wrote a reply entitled "Violence is not the answer", and then
    at the closing line, write an not so subtle personal threat. Your
    credibility is near zero. I know you don't care. You don't have to
    waste any more disk space or company time telling me. I know of
    several nice fern bars where other social engineers who know everything
    hang out. I'll even offer to buy you a beer if I happen to cross tracks
    with you as you eat your filet mignon, which was *gasp* killed with
    a bullet for your enjoyment. Maybe you prefer a nice Cabarnet
    Sauvignon, though.8*)
    
    Pat
    
    

    re: Note 787.82 by REFDV1::MURPHY
    
    |    Please stop picking on Glenn (Polar::Richardson).  He's a very
    |    sensitive guy!  Everyone needs a jester.  Here's one more vote for
    |    Glenn to continue his crying crusade.  Ren and Stimpy quotes? ...NOT!
    
    Now I've got a big lump in my throat.
    
    Sniff.
    
    Glenn

    Pat:
    
     I said I would do something you would not like, and you assume I would
    resort to violence. Pretty hard to do over this medium. See what I
    mean by flawed logic ? I would agree that one of the main differences
    between the US and Canada is our approach to confrontation resolution.
    In the States a gun is considered a reasonable response to a confused
    student on your front lawn, in Canada it is not. In that you think
    Johnny Sixpack should have a gun, you are taking an American approach,
    so you may prefer the freedom to live in an armed camp to the tyranny
    of living in an unarmed camp.
    
     As for nameless people who send you supportive mail:
    
     If they won't express themselves publicly, you have no right to claim
    support. Maybe if they had a gun, they would have the nerve to enter a
    note, but since they don't, all we get is your opinion of their
    opinion. Not exactly something to loose sleep over.
    
     As for the 10 people allowed to carry guns for self protection:
    
     You must have used a microscope to split that hair. I ask YOU to try
    it. Rather than admit I was right and you could not get a license to
    "protect" yourself you dig up this tangent. Fortunatly the people who
    do express their views in public do agree that gun control is a good
    thing, so you and your shadow people will just have to live with it.
    
    							Derek.

    
    Derek, you don't seem to understand that Johnny Sixpack already has
    a gun, and laughs at your brand of gun control. In fact, he drove down
    to Florida for a holiday, got his Florida driver's license, sold
    drugs for 6 months, drove back up, got a haircut in New York and
    brought his gun in under the fender of his new Camaro. He may have
    even stopped on the reserve to pick up a couple of extra clips. he
    smiled at the Customs agent as he was waved through. He smiled
    as he drove up the bridge. He wore his seatbelt. He smiled at the
    officer who passed him on highway 16. Whew! He was driving 100 km/h.
    
    	Your absolutely right I am 230lbs of dead meat, just like the
    fellow with with the swinging swords in Indiana Jones. And you could
    be too. And your gun control couldn't help you. 
    
    Pat

	re .83

>    RA on Riverside Dr. to try out a little recreational target handgun
>    shooting, you may find it relaxing. Unfortunately I am not a member,

	That worries me, at the "what sort of person would find that relaxing?"
	level. But then again, I don't understand the attraction of
		Heavy metal music
		Motor racing
		.
		.
		.

	Tony

    I find it hard to believe that "Joe Average" (which is what I ment by
    the reference to Johnny Sixpack) that is to say the vast majority of
    Canadians, has smuggled a gun into Canada. And you bring into question
    MY credability.
    
    							Derek.

    Hi Derek:
    
    No, Joe Average can still legally get his gun in Canada, just like in the
    US. Sorry I misunderstood "Joe Sixpack". Somehow I associated drinking
    with illegal guns...OOPS. Just like I misinterpreted "Do something you 
    won't like" with "Write something you won't like". My mistake..shame,
    shame. And no smileys anywhere to be found. Highly illogical of me.
    
    In my defense:
    
    I was momentarily distracted by the sound of Ontario's social
    utopia beginning to crumble (ie, cigarette taxes being lifted).
    Unfortunately, at the same time I also heard on the radio that
    Kanata is the region's highest growth welfare area. The noose is
    beginning to tighten.
    
    *wheeze* 
    Cover your wallets, people....
    
    Pat
                                                                       

    Heard this morning that the finance minister for Ontario said
    that Ontario has little choice but to lower cig taxes because 
    when people go to Q. to buy cig's the buy other things as well
    and that stores in the Ottawa valley are suffering.
    
    Lets try and look at this logically. How far would people drive
    to get cheaper cig's in Q. . How is this any different that the
    mass exodus to the states that was occuring when the Canadian
    dollar was low and continues still to a lesser extent.
    
    I don't understand why the government is so fixated on this issue.
    Why cant we solve the smuggling problem ?
    The debt is still climbing and the governemt WILL get this money
    from other sources.
    
    
    Brain V
    

    
    There is an Gary Larson cartoon, where one caveman is holding a rock
    above his head, and two others are holding rocks by their sides.
    One of the pair is saying to the other "We better do as he says, Thag
    ... He's got the drop on us."
    
    It seems to me that having the freedom to own a gun means that more
    'criminals' will have to commit their crimes with a gun for their own
    'protection', and increase the likelyhood of fatalities.
    
    If you are going to use a gun for protection, then you had better keep
    the gun in your hand, ready to fire, because how do you know that the
    knock at your door is not a thug with his gun ready and waiting ? 
    
    When the breakin does occur in your own home, can you really be
    sure that you will get to your gun before he (or they) gets to his ?
    The fact that you have a gun means that he is more likely to shoot.
    
    You can't proctect your wife and family with a bullet in your head. 
    
    Having said all that, I do sympathise with your views, and
    the reasons why you want a gun. I have a baseball bat that I keep
    handy, so as to be better able to protect ny own wife and daughter,
    but living in the U.K., I do not have to worry too much about
    smuggled guns. I do not, however, agree with your views.
    
    Regards,
    Wayne.
    
    P.S. - Fascinating topic ! Keep it friendly though.

	re .91

>    If you are going to use a gun for protection, then you had better keep
>    the gun in your hand, ready to fire, because how do you know that the
>    knock at your door is not a thug with his gun ready and waiting ? 

	Well, at least he doesn't live in Orlando, where it might be two or
	three armed thugs.  Presumably they want to be sure they have more
	fire power than the resident.

	Tony

    
    yah - thugs travel in flocks around the states. It's that inbread
    sense of teamwork that we all exibit down here ;-)
    
    re: .91  (Currnt::Rowell)
    
    So many of us rely on out baseball bats.  They sit proudly in our
    closets, giving us that false sense of security we so desperatly need.
    
    >>> I do not, however, agree with your views.
    
    Um - who's views?  There have been so many in this topic.  
    
    >>> P.S. - Fascinating topic ! Keep it friendly though.
    
    I agree, it has been facinating - but unfriendly??? Naaah!  Communication 
    is enhanced by tension. The reading wouldn't have been so compelling 
    if the notes opened "Hi Pat - I'm sorry to say - but I dissagree with
    you" and "Derek - You are entitled to your own opinion and I respect
    you for that, but..."
    
    Steve
    
    
    

  How true!

  How wonderfully true!

  How wonderfully , bubblingly , frothingly , burstingly true!

  What a truly ecstasy inducingly correct observation!
    

    
    RE: -.2
    
    Hi Wayne:
    	If I were you, I would worry alot about smuggled guns. Both
    the UK and Canada have violent crime rate *increases* over the past
    10 years that outstrip the US. With the fall of the iron curtain,
    there is a stream of cheap available arms flowing all over Europe,
    and plenty of political tension to boot, not to mention the
    ever present drug trade.
    	Correct me if I am wrong, but haven't there been some shootings
    of your unarmed bobbies recently, with the proposal that they consider
    carrying sidearms?  My family has a long history of military men
    and police officers. My uncle is a former RCMP officer who was shot
    in the stomach with a shotgun for standing between a drug dealer and
    his money. Fortunately he lived to tell the tale, and believe me they
    would raise your hair. I propose that we use our recombinant DNA 
    technology to produce drugs so cheaply that it runs all illegal drug
    dealers out of business. The junkies can register for treatment 
    through our most excellent health system, and get treated for the
    problem, (instead of breaking into your house and mine to support
    the artificially high prices the dealers demand). Some won't make it,
    tough. We'd have a safer environment all around, and more of those
    silly expensive to enforce feel good laws could be dropped from the books
    forever. Put that in your social engineering pipes and smoke it.8*)
      
    	Seems to me it would be relatively easy to fill a boat with
    illegal items and make a run across the channel.
    	Anyway, the Brits are generally well behaved with their firearms,
    and certain segments of the shooting sports are very healthy over
    there, especially skeet shooting and sporting clays. Too bad nobody
    could find a way to stop the idiot with the AK47 who shot up that small
    town (something-borough). I'm sure the majority of criminals over there
    are more polite.
    
    Re Brian V.
    	To stop smuggling as we know it to be today, in Canada, would
    require armed occupation of Indian reserves along the Canada US border.
    
    Recalling OKA, the Federal government realizes this is political
    suicide. I for one, would not want to see another Waco in Canada. It 
    would force me to reconsider my views. 8*)
    Surely there are some more readers out there who are chess players, and
    remember their last game as well as how to think 2 or 3 moves ahead???
    
    
    Pat
    The Feds are using their leetle grey cells....

    re: .94
    
    Glenn,
    Thanks for all the adverbs and adjectives.  I'll add 'em to my list.
    Steve
    
    

    Pat,
    
      The small town that the guy shot up was Hungerford, about 10 miles
    up the road from this office (Newbury).
    
      However, we are talking a LONG time ago. How many similar incidents
    have occured in the states ( what about just one city in the states ?)
    since then.
    
      Yes, we are having a lot of trouble at the moment, but I do not feel
    that I need to get myself a gun, nor do I feel the need to be allowed
    to get myself a gun. Perhaps, when the level of crime, and shooting
    incidents have reached a certain level, my views will change. At this
    moment, I feel safer in my house than I do driving my 42 mile round
    trip to work.
    
    Regards,
    Wayne.
    
    (BTW, my earlier note should have been addressed to Pat and refered to
    Pat's views.)
    

	re .97

>	Cop shooting not an everyday occurance !

	However, ambulance crews in Manchester have been issued bullet-proof
	vests.

	re .96

>    would raise your hair. I propose that we use our recombinant DNA 
>    technology to produce drugs so cheaply that it runs all illegal drug
>    dealers out of business. The junkies can register for treatment 

	What are you wittering on about? Most of these drugs are like IBM
	computers. Cheap to produce but supplied to the customer with a
	massive mark-up. Legalization by itself should bring shipping and
	handling charges down to something reasonable.

	Tony

    Pat,
    
    	If you need to blockade the reserves to enforce the law then
    it should be done. Native rights need to be settled in this country
    and that wont be done until the feds hand is forced. (just like Q.)
    
    	Turning a blind eye to the problem will only lead to more of
    the same. How much is a carton in Q. now ??? $30. I can get a
    carton delivered to my house in Ont. for $20 and I'm 1.5 hours
    away from the closest bourder. Oh and by the way I can can get 
    discount booze from the same source on the same delivery run.
    
    	Cig's are just the tip of the iceberg...if they fed's don't
    squash this they'll find that out the hard way.
    
    
    Brian V
    

    
    Hi Brian:
    	I sense in what you are saying that violence(or force, which
    could very well lead to violence) is the solution to this problem. I
    smell hipocrisy in the air. Remember Chatauguay? I submit that the
    Indian population is fully capable of blockades of their own, and
    are organised and ready to act. I found the images on TV of white
    people throwing bricks and stones at the Indians cars absolutely
    sickening.
    
    	If you can get cigarettes delivered for $20/carton, then they
    should be available at the cornerstore for $18. Destroying the
    competition is the name of the game, as we at DEC are finding in the
    PC space, and as the consumer electronics industry was targeted by
    the Japanese. 
    
    Re: Tony, of course you are right about the production cost of
    conventional drugs. I was thinking about ultra pure designer drugs etc,
    that could (?) be made and distributed, and may be easier to treat for
    addiction. I passed organic chemistry class strictly on memory, not
    understanding, so I'll not speculate further.
    
    Pat

    
    Hey Wayne,

    	Didn't the outlaw carrying concealed bombs over there, or was 
    that only on busy urban streets?

    Good one KAOFS::M_COTE !
    
    Have a great day everyone!
    
    Happy Happy! Joy Joy!
    
    Glenn

    Pat,
    	What am I saying that is contradictory ? I agree that the Indian
    population is fully capable of blockades, and indeed violence; as 
    they have prooved time and again. But their rights and the limitation
    of those rights need to be settled. In my opinion the government needs
    to take a 2 pronged approach with native peoples. 1 enforce the law
    equally for all Canadians and 2 spell out native rights in the 
    constitution. The problem is politicians are jelly-fish more
    concerned with getting re-elected than in doing what's right.
    Tough constitional decisions need to be made in this country if we
    are ever going to make any real progress.
    
    	You can not compete on price no matter how low you cut the taxes.
    All you can do this way is reduce the incentives. All the government
    is doing is shifting the tax burden from cig users to all tax payers.
    This lost revenue will be made up somewhere else, the finance 
    minister has already said that next weeks budget will be tough.
    
    	How much more are you willing to pay in taxes because government
    doesn't have what it takes to face the problem.
    
    
    Brian V

seen on a bumper sticker in COlorado Springs ...

Criminals prefer unarmed victims

My reaction

Victims prefer unarmed criminals


The solution is in achieving the latter, rather than obvious intent of
the first (arm potential victims).


Stuart

    CURRNT::ROWELL
    
     Shouldn't that have been a cricket bat you keep handy ??
    
    				Derek

    
    Have we set a new record here with more than 100 replies in X days?
    Where the heck is that basenoter anyway?
    
    Pat

    
    Brian, your say that all the government is doing is shifting the
    tax burden onto everyone. I submit that you can't make the screen
    against smuggling cigarettes fine enough (read that cheaply enough, in
    both economic and political cost) to force the customers to pay that
    tax, using the outdated methods that history has proven ineffective.
    
    You want to raise taxes fairly? Tax food. Everybody's gotta eat, even
    the rich. Not too many people can go without it for very long.
    You would expend too much energy to get it if you had to go far to
    get it. It would reduce urban congestion as people wanted a little
    square of land to grow their lettuce. Apartment dwellers could get
    a little fresh air out on the rented city plots. Fibre consumption
    would go up, certain types of cancer would be reduced. Fat people
    would get slimmer, bulemics would think twice about the old binge
    and purge. What a healthy happy place this would be! Cows could run
    around...wait...maybe rustling would increase. Uh Oh...major flaw.
    
    I tried...
    
    Pat

    
    Hey English_Accent_Guy::S_Brook

    ?   Criminals prefer unarmed victims
    ?   Victims prefer unarmed criminals


    With all these people walking around without arms, Chickens can
    start ordering Hot Human Arms at any greasy spoons.

re: .106
        
    >>> Where the heck is that basenoter anyway?
    
    I am concerned with the disappearance of Alan "basenoter" Atkinson.
    I sent him some VAXmail asking him to check out what happened to his 
    topic.  Perhaps, after a detailed review, he'll have some comments 
    and -heck- maybe even still another opposing view.
    

    I'm just soo darned excited about this discussion that I really do think
    that I will truly burst!

    Have a fantabulous day everyone!!

    Glenn

From a man beside himself, that's pretty good!

I bet there wouldn't be that confusion in French between being
Unarmed (as in no additional weapon) and Unarmed (as in having no arms)!

Stuart (an English as in UK English sounding guy ...  Befo' long tho I'll
be talkin' 'mercan ... so be carful in yo' description dere bo-uh'!)

    
    No, in French it would be spelled "unharmed" and pronounced "un-armed". 
    
    This works as
    
    "Victims prefer unharmed victims" and
    
    "Criminals prefer unharmed criminals".
    
    GVA05 is in Geneva, and the Swiss have arms in almost every home. I'll
    bet he didn't have his, being the professional Canadian victim, and
    is at this very moment fending off his attackers.
    
    Pat

    
    >>> ...  Befo' long tho I'll be talkin' 'mercan ... so be carful in yo' 
    >>> description dere bo-uh'!)
    
    Yo - Dat's how we 'mercan's talk... eh hoser?
    
    've
    

    It's all depen on wayuh y'awl cuhm frum don' it ?
    
    :-)
    
    Stuart (who enjoys talking dialects for fun!)

    PS  Whatever else I might be, a hoser I am not!
    
    (To the person who said I was nothing but a dumb programmer ...
        Look ... I might be dumb, but I'm NOT a programmer!)
    
    

    >>> It's all depen on wayuh y'awl cuhm frum don' it ?
    
    We're thinking of changing the national bird from the Bald Eagle 
    to the apostrophe.
    
    Steve
    
    (why does a nation need a national bird anyway)
    

    |    (why does a nation need a national bird anyway)
    
    Because everyone and their cat is having one.
    
    Glenn

    
    Personally, I'd prefer a bird over a rodent with an overgrown tail
    and a huge overbite.
    
    Pat

    yah... leave it to beaver :-)
    
	Stuart - sorry I called you a hoser.  That, coupled with 'Eh is the
    only Canadian dialect I know.  What is a "hoser" anyway. Never really
    knew the definition...
    
    Steve
    
    

    

 *   GVA05 is in Geneva, and the Swiss have arms in almost every home. I'll
 *   bet he didn't have his, being the professional Canadian victim, and
 *   is at this very moment fending off his attackers.



    I thought the Swiss army used those, um, Gouda Army Knives. If you
    look carefully, the Canadian Victim is there, but sometimes you
    break your fingernail trying to prior the sucker out. When will our
    army have these tools?

    the corkscrew comes in soooo handy... 
    

    M_COTE - I don't care what you say, but there is NO way that I am gonna
             carry a concealed bomb in case I get accosted by thugs who
    	     have their own concealed bombs !    ;)
    
    D_STREET - Cricket Bats ? With the way the English play ?  ;)
    
    	       Nah, I used to play Baseball here a few years back, so I
    	       have a Baseball Bat.
    
    CURRNT::ROWELL

    Pat,
    
    	Taxing food would tax everyone equally as everyone eats close
    to the same amount. The way our tax system is suppose to work is to
    tax people in proportion to their ability to pay (income). 
    
    	The garden senario mentioned is another example of how those
    people that have greater financial freedom would be able to avoid
    even more taxes.
    
    
    Brian V
    
    
    	I guess I'm just old fashioned ... thinking that the police should
    	try to catch criminals.
    
    	Tell you what Pat. Try not paying your income tax and see what
    	happens.

	If Canada has a national bird, then why not too the 'mericans.

	Feeling a-loon,

	Sike O'Path

    Well, if the government started taxing food, and people were resorting
    to growing things in gardens to eat tax free, the government would
    impose a garden tax of some sort. A garden permit if you will. And,
    those who would try to grow food indoors hydroponically would have to
    have a hydroponics license.

    So what will you do then eh?

    Well, you could stand and scream for help.

    Right! Try that with a pineapple down your windpipe!
    
    Glenn

    
    Well, Brian, I hate to nitpick, but if I were rich, the amount of
    food I ate may be the same as a poor man, but the composition thereof
    would be quite different. Shrimp and New York cuts would replace
    the Kraft dinner on my plate. The truly destitute would continue to
    obtain their food through our excellent system of food banks. It costs
    me about $500/mo to feed my family of 4. Let's say we are taxed at the
    rate of 2% (political suicide is likely at higher levels than that.)
    This works out to about $30 per person per year, a total of almost 
    billion dollars per year assuming inelastic demand and every Canadian
    paying his share. Sounds like a cash cow to me.
    
    As you know, our taxes are deducted at source for those of us who
    still have the status symbol of the '90s, a job. As such, they are
    unavoidable. I think the experts have grossly underestimated the
    extent of the underground economy, however, and like smuggling, it
    is impossible to implement a system with fine enough resolution to
    catch everything and everybody, even with a building full of Alpha
    AXP's. As Derek puts it, there is still Johnny Sixpack out there.
    And I say that Johnny Sixpack collects his UI, and also works 60
    hour weeks drywalling for cash. And the chances of us catching him are
    slim. If we do catch him, he doesn't keep bank accounts, and his
    physical assets will be protected by the personal bankruptcy laws of
    this country. And...he gets his food at the food bank on the way home
    from the last rec room he drywalled for cash. These are the "job
    smugglers" that make all our other problems pale in comparison.
    
    Talk about the government turning a blind eye...
    
    Pat

    Pat:
    
     The one guy I know who got caught working while on UIC had to pay
    back every cent.
    
     Taxing food is a joke. (or at least I hope you meant it that way)
    
    
    							Derek.

    
    Derek, I used to think it was a joke, until that notorious provincial
    budget a few years ago. If I wasn't so taxed to death, I'd bet money
    on the appearance of new food taxes.
    
    I like a good joke, especially political ones.
    
    Until they get elected that is.  8*(
    
    Pat (Who was offered two different prices on his engine work recently
         one with receipt, one without)
    
    I got a receipt. 8*(
    
    Pat

    Your right Pat ... they can never catch all of the underground
    		   economy; but I think it their responsibility to
    		   try. If Joe average becomes really worried about
    		   getting caught he wont try.
    
    		   As to the likelyhood of a food tax...I don't think
    		   that the feds would try it but Bob sure would.
    
    Brian V
    
    Ps. my brother-in-law just got a good deal on a Bronco $ 500....
        but had to pay tax on the fair market value $ 3000
    	This Bites !
    
    

    
    Brian:
    Did you read Brown's beat in the Citizen on the weekend? Or the
    article about the cigarette smuggling welfare lady who was caught
    with $10000 worth of cigs? Seems she got a $2200 fine and a year to
    pay. Lawyer got her off by playing on her "deprived childhood" and
    the jury believed her story about "holding the cigs" for a third party
    who was not named. It's a shame that our tax money goes in one hand
    and out the other like that.
    
    She was described as a "nuisance to the court". Made me nauseous. This
    is our justice system?
    
    Pat (If I had the time I would type in the Brown' beat article on the
         crooks winning at "Cops and Robbers". Seems the Ottawa police
         can't keep up with the business robberies, and businesses are
         having to fold because insurance rates are going through the
         roof. A police spokesman says he wasn't "aware there was a
         problem", but would consider the proposal for stepped up patrols.
         One businessman even had his security cameras stolen!!!. 911
         response time was about 20-30 minutes, a lifetime under those
         conditions, no pun intended. The police just hand out occurence
         numbers....)

    

    	I don't understand this talk, "Government losing money..." stuff,
    like the smokers of this country are to pay the way for the non-smokers
    sorry @sses. The tax was just a easy target for the moralist government
    in the first place. Sin tax indeed. If smoking is costing the Canadian
    government for medical needs, then the Sin tax money should have been
    transferred directly to the hospitals, not to line the pockets of our
    do-gooder governments. 

    	 

    
    Of course, Miriam Bedard had no rational use for her firearm in
    acheiving her gold medal at Lillehammer.
    
    Eddie Murphy movies are to be taken with a grain of salt, although
    I did enjoy the scene where he was hanging from the door of a
    semi-trailer loaded with cigarettes. I wonder if they were bound for
    Canada?
    
    BTW, the final tallies are not yet in, but the interim bill for 
    implementation of Cambell's feel-good C17 is in the range of
    100 million dollars for the first year. This does not reflect the
    cost to gun owners for locks etc. and the cost to modify all those
    evil firearms to comply. It costs $80 to process every FAC application,
    and the fee is $50 to the applicant. But hey, Canadians will pay
    any price to feel safe and insured. Kind of like putting a new roof
    on the house instead of setting up sandbags when the river is flooding.
    
    And, like the Ottawa businesses who are forced out by criminals, I
    may be forced to sell an excellent motorcycle because the insurance
    rates are too much to bear. We have had two vehicles stolen right
    out of the parking lot here at KAO in the last 2 weeks in broad
    daylight. Our contract security is stepping up patrols. Are we having
    fun yet? I won't even consider parking my bike in Montreal....
    
    Pat

    Pat:
    
     I can't see why I missed it for so long. Buy a competition rifle and 
    maybe you could pick off that car thief in the parking lot. Guns *ARE*
    the answer. I have seen the light, and it is the muzzel flash from a
    sport rifle.
    
    								Derek.

    
    Actually, Derek, what you write in your title string is absolutely
    correct. Increase the sample of population participating in any
    activity, and you statistically improve your chances of having a
    gold medal in that sport, since you might just get that special someone
    with the right genetic makeup and mental fortitude to excel at that
    particular activity.
    
    Glad you have seen the light...
    
    Pat

    I read this in the Irsih Times via the New York times service.
    
    Gun-lust spatters the blood of children on the star-spangled banner.
    
    In 1992, handguns were used in the murder of 33 people in Britain, 36
    in Sweden, 97 in Switzerland, 128 in Canada, 13 in Australia, 60 in
    Japan and 13,220 in the U.S.A.
    
    Tnhose are the latest annual statistics available. They were released
    this week by Handgun Control Inc., and the Centre to Prevent Handgun
    Violence.
    
    Here is some other informamtion about guns and violence in America
    (USA). 
    
    In 1991 - just one year - 38,317 people were killed by firearms in
    homicides, suicides and accidents. That's more than 100 people a day.
    It's also more than the total number of Americans killed in the Korean
    War.
    
    A new handgun is produce every 20 seconds.
    
    Every year more than 24,000 Americans are killed with handguns.
    
    An average of 14 children and teenagers are killed with guns each day.
    
    In 1991, 18,526 Americans committed suicide with a firearm.
    
    A child or teenager commits suicide with a gun very 6 hours.
    
    92% of the people who commit suicide with a gun succeed.
    
    President Clinton speaking in Chicago last Monday, said: "At the Cook
    County Hospital trauma unit, from 1987 to 1992, the number of
    admissions for gunshot wounds increased from 449 to 1.220 and accounted
    for over 70% of the overall increase in admissions. That is a stunning
    fact. And all across Illinois, 1992 was the first year in this state
    where more people were killed by handguns than by auto accidents."
    
    Dr. Mindy Statter, a paediatric surgeon at the University of Chicago
    Medical Centre, told the President she had treated "a chold as young as
    1 month of age who received a single gunshot wound and died in the
    operating room."
    
    She added: "With children - and we're seeing children being struck at
    close range in classrooms - a simple gunshot wound can do significant
    damage and damage multiple organ systems in the body. It doesn't take a
    multiple gunshot wound to kill a child."
    
    Another surgeon told Mr. Clinton that last Saturday morning, when he
    came fome from work, his 6 year old son asked "Daddy what'd you do last
    night?" The doctor said, " I had to tell him I was there sewing the
    whole in the heart of a boy who was shot in the back multiple times in
    school."
    
    On Tuesday, a 9 year old boy who was out walking his dog on Hartford,
    Conn. came home with a loaded Mac-11 submacine gun. "look what I have
    ," he said to his stunned father. He found the gun lying next to a
    snowbank just a block from the local high school.
    
    50% of the children who are shot accidentally are shot on their own
    homes, 38% in the homes of friends or relatives. 
    
    An estimated 1.2 million latchkey kids of elementary-school age have
    access to guns in their homes.
    
    The leading cause of death for both black and white teenage boys is
    gunshot wounds./
    
    Firearms kill more people between the ages of 15 and 24 than all
    natural causes combined.
    
    Rosella Gambini (17) was murdered in Miami last month while on adate
    with her boyfriend. They were travelling in his van when an angry
    motorist on the passenger side of the vehicle opened fir with a 9 mm.
    semi-automatic pistol.
    
    From 1985 to 1989 gun production int hte U.S. increased by 42%.
    
    In Bushnell, FLorida, a first-grader took a loaded handgun to school
    and threatened his teacher with it.
    
    More than 1,000 people were shot to death  at work in 1992.
    
    In 1993, 72 police officers were shot to death.
    
    Last week, a Los Angeles police officer, Christy Lynn Hamilton, was
    shot to death by a teenager with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. Officer
    Hamilton died just 4 days after her Police Academy graduation
    exercises. The boy who killed her, Chris Golly, also killed his father
    and himself.
    
    By 2003, if trends continue, the number of Americans killed by handguns
    each year will be greater than the number killed in automobile
    accidents.
    
    The Bardy Law, requiring a 5 day waiting period and background checks
    for handgun buyers, took effect on Monday.
    
    It won't be enough.
    
    
    
    
    How do defend all that Mr. Robinson?
    
    
    Ted

    SIOG::EGRI
    
     It is amazing we can keep it at bay.
    
    			Derek.

    As long as it doesn't end up at Eaton's.

    The US police and the Mounties teamed up to arrest 3 whites and one
    mohawk smuggling weapons in Canada.  Many of these weapons were used in
    armed robberies and murder cases.
    
    Jean
    

    
    RE: Jean- Glad to hear that the mounties are doing the right thing
    with illegal gun smugglers, but do we really know if that i just the
    tip of the iceberg?
    
    	I have a feeling some more stuff is going to hit the fan. A mountie
    friend of mine, who was a SERT (SWAT) team member before it was
    disbanded, has returned to Ottawa for refresher courses. He is
    currently posted to a rural Canadian area as head of traffic
    enforcement. What's he taking a course in, you ask? Machine gun
    operation and moving target practice. I guess they have a real speeding
    problem where he is posted. The range is in Dwyer Hill, BTW. He 
    doen't think his handgun is useless, either.
    
    RE: Ted
    	You don't really expect me to defend the HCI's emotional anecdotal
    unscientific numbers do you? Or analyse the complex social differences
    that exist below and above the 49th? I'll send you some "pamplet
    research " taken from Canadian statistics, offline, rather than clutter
    this topic with acedemic references. I wonder how may of those 
    incedents occurred in areas where gun ban laws are in effect. 
    
    	The US already has plenty of gun laws, Brady is the first national
    law. I just find it strange that the areas of the US that have very
    strict gun laws also have shocking crime statistics. If these gun laws
    really work, like their proponents claim they do, then the only
    reasonable assumption is that the laws are not enforced, or are
    unenforceable.
    	The context of my replies is always "why are we spending our
    resources (tax dollars) uselessly." When Jean writes of arrest
    of gun smugglers, I cheer. When I see good capable policemen inspecting
    homes of law abiding citizens, I see a criminal running free.
    
    Re:Derek , is that the "royal we" or the "social engineer we"? Just
       so I know who's working on the problem.
    
    Pat

Re: <<< Note 787.140 by POLAR::ROBINSONP "EVO Inside" >>>

>>    	The US already has plenty of gun laws, Brady is the first national
>>    law.

Brady is the fourth major federal law that has passed.  The first was in 1934,
another in 1968, one in 1986 and now Brady in 1993.

At the state, county and city level the US has over 20,000 gun laws.

                           Roak

Re: <<< Note 787.136 by SIOG::EGRI >>>

>>    In 1992, handguns were used in the murder of 33 people in Britain, 36
>>    in Sweden, 97 in Switzerland, 128 in Canada, 13 in Australia, 60 in
>>    Japan and 13,220 in the U.S.A.

Per capita firearm ownership is higher in Switzerland than the US, so there
must be some other variable at work than guns.
    
>>    In 1991 - just one year - 38,317 people were killed by firearms in
>>    homicides, suicides and accidents. That's more than 100 people a day.

Homicide and suicide is already illegal.  Is the solution to pass *more* laws?
Seems the existing ones are already being ignored.

This 38,000+ deaths also includes police intervention.  Do you suggest that
police be disarmed too in order to reduce that number?

As for accidents, they amount to about 1200 deaths a year.  That actually makes
firearms rather safe, especially when the accidental deaths from cars run in the
hundreds of thousands.
    
>>    A new handgun is produce every 20 seconds.

Interesting stat.  If we take the number of handguns produced in one year,
(1576800 using the 1 every 20 second stat) and we completely ignore all the
handguns that are already in circulation, and we compare that to the 38,000+
deaths that you entered above, that ((1 - (38,317/1576800)) * 100) = 97.6% of
firearms are NOT used to kill someone, and that's only counting one year's
production!  Making a *very* conservative estimate of the total number of
handguns being 20 times that (not a stretch assuming that they've been produced
for over 90 years, and they very rarely wear out) we have 99.9% of handguns
not being used for killing people.  Rather odd that people are against some
item with a 99.9% safety record; I wish cars were that safe...
    
>>    Every year more than 24,000 Americans are killed with handguns.

Given the 38,000+ number above this is reiteration.  Violent American criminals
being killed by police would be included in this number, again, do you wish to
disarm the police in order to reduce the number?
    
>>    An average of 14 children and teenagers are killed with guns each day.

We still don't have police intervention broken out of this statistic.
    
>>    In 1991, 18,526 Americans committed suicide with a firearm.

The suicide rate in Japan is several times that of the United States, and they
don't use firearms.  So what's this stat supposed to be saying?
    
>>    A child or teenager commits suicide with a gun very 6 hours.

See reference to Japan above.  More reiteration.
    
>>    92% of the people who commit suicide with a gun succeed.

And even more succeed in Japan without guns.
    
>>         And all across Illinois, 1992 was the first year in this state
>>    where more people were killed by handguns than by auto accidents."

Apples-and-oranges comparison.  You're comparing car ACCIDENTS to deliberate
criminal misuse of an inanimate object.  If you compare car accidents only to
firearms accidents, you'd be much more interested in banning cars.
    
>>    Dr. Mindy Statter, a paediatric surgeon at the University of Chicago
>>    Medical Centre, told the President she had treated "a chold as young as
>>    1 month of age who received a single gunshot wound and died in the
>>    operating room."

I wonder how many children of that age she's seen die from car accidents?
Parental neglect?  Crack babies?  As terrible as even one death is, to have only
one does not a statistical argument make.
    
>>    She added: "With children - and we're seeing children being struck at
>>    close range in classrooms - a simple gunshot wound can do significant
>>    damage and damage multiple organ systems in the body. It doesn't take a
>>    multiple gunshot wound to kill a child."

Shooting someone is already illegal.  Is the solution to pass *more* laws?
Seems the existing ones are already being ignored.
    
>>    Another surgeon told Mr. Clinton that last Saturday morning, when he
>>    came fome from work, his 6 year old son asked "Daddy what'd you do last
>>    night?" The doctor said, " I had to tell him I was there sewing the
>>    whole in the heart of a boy who was shot in the back multiple times in
>>    school."

Shooting someone is already illegal.  Is the solution to pass *more* laws?
Seems the existing ones are already being ignored.

>>    On Tuesday, a 9 year old boy who was out walking his dog on Hartford,
>>    Conn. came home with a loaded Mac-11 submacine gun. "look what I have
>>    ," he said to his stunned father. He found the gun lying next to a
>>    snowbank just a block from the local high school.

If it was a machine gun, this is in violation of state *and* federal laws. Is
the solution to pass *more* laws?  Seems the existing ones are already being
ignored.
    
>>    50% of the children who are shot accidentally are shot on their own
>>    homes, 38% in the homes of friends or relatives. 

Even more die from accidental poisoning, like getting into the drain cleaner
or bleach under the sink, so which is more of a threat?
    
>>    An estimated 1.2 million latchkey kids of elementary-school age have
>>    access to guns in their homes.

They also have access to the drain cleaner and bleach under the sink, and even
more die from drinking them.  If you really want to save the maximum number of
lives, concentrate on what's causing the most deaths.  If you simply hate guns,
and saving of lives isn't a real concern, then go ahead and go after the guns.
    
>>    The leading cause of death for both black and white teenage boys is
>>    gunshot wounds./

"leading cause" is a bit misleading...  If you're young, you're typically
healthy, and when you're healthy there's isn't much you die from.  So even a
very small number of deaths by firearms would make it "the leading cause of
death" for such a carefully crafted statistical sample.  And anyway, killing
someone is already illegal.  Is the solution to pass *more* laws? Seems the
existing ones are already being ignored.
    
>>    Firearms kill more people between the ages of 15 and 24 than all
>>    natural causes combined.

Exactly the same carefully crafted statistical sample as above.  Again, shooting
someone is already illegal.  Is the solution to pass *more* laws? Seems the
existing ones are already being ignored.

>>    Rosella Gambini (17) was murdered in Miami last month while on adate
>>    with her boyfriend. They were travelling in his van when an angry
>>    motorist on the passenger side of the vehicle opened fir with a 9 mm.
>>    semi-automatic pistol.
    
A sample of one.  Should we base far-reaching laws on samples of one?  Besides,
shooting someone is already illegal.  Is the solution to pass *more* laws? Seems
the existing ones are already being ignored.

>>    From 1985 to 1989 gun production int hte U.S. increased by 42%.

Without an identical increase in firearm deaths, and in fact a *decrease* in the
number of accidents.  Seems that firearms aren't as tightly coupled to crime and
death as Handgun Control Inc. would like you to believe.
    
>>    In Bushnell, FLorida, a first-grader took a loaded handgun to school
>>    and threatened his teacher with it.

Threatening someone with deadly force is already illegal.  Is the solution to
pass *more* laws? Seems the existing ones are already being ignored.

>>    More than 1,000 people were shot to death  at work in 1992.

Assuming people in a 8 hour day at work, five days a week, they're in work for
(40/(7*24)*100) = 24% of the time, using the 38,317 deaths in 1991 (wrong year,
but let's assume it's close enough), that means that 3% of the deaths happen
where a typical person spends 24% of their time.  Statistically a pretty safe
place to be.
    
>>    In 1993, 72 police officers were shot to death.

Many by their own guns.  Do you propose we disarm the police to reduce this
number?  Killing a police office is even more severely punished than killing a
civilian.  Is the solution to pass *more* laws? Seems the existing ones are
already being ignored.
    
>>    Last week, a Los Angeles police officer, Christy Lynn Hamilton, was
>>    shot to death by a teenager with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. Officer
>>    Hamilton died just 4 days after her Police Academy graduation
>>    exercises. The boy who killed her, Chris Golly, also killed his father
>>    and himself.

Again, a sample of one.  And gain, killing a police office is even more severely
punished than killing a civilian.  Is the solution to pass *more* laws? Seems
the existing ones are already being ignored, and in this case the person was
even willing to take their own life.  How to you make someone obey laws when
they're willing to take their own life?  Even the death penality has no meaning
to them!
    
>>    By 2003, if trends continue, the number of Americans killed by handguns
>>    each year will be greater than the number killed in automobile
>>    accidents.

Again an apples-and-oranges comparison of accidents to deliberate criminal
misuse.
    
>>    The Bardy Law, requiring a 5 day waiting period and background checks
>>    for handgun buyers, took effect on Monday.
    
>>    It won't be enough.

The above three lines were in an HCI brochure?  But HCI lobbied *HARD* for
the Brady Bill, saying that it *would* cut crime.  And now they even admit that
they lied!

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

Note that this brochure said nothing about the crime that the ownership of
firearms *prevents*.  An analogy to this brochure would be a brochure that only
described all the deaths caused by *wearing* seatbelts -- people burning to
their deaths in cars because they were unable to get out of their seatbelts,
people drowning when they were unable to get out of their seatbelts when their
car went into a body of water, etc.

If all I heard about were the *deaths* caused by seatbelts, I'd be all for
banning of seatbelts too.

But you know that seatbelts save more lives than they take, and in the US that's
true for firearms too.  Two and a half *million* crimes are prevented by
civilians lawfully using firearms.  The vast, vast majority of them don't even
require a shot being fired -- the criminal is scared off.  And because no shots
were fired, it's not "newsworthy" so you never hear about it.

Make no mistake, every death is a tragedy, and I was *not* making light of the
deaths related in the HCI brochure, but by restricting or banning firearms in
the US you'll actually cause *more* deaths, just like if you banned seatbelts.

The laws only effect the law abiding, the criminals will continue to ignore the
laws.  After all, that's why we call them "criminals."

                                 Roak

    Now If have a big lump in my throat and my eyes are welling up with
    tears.

    Sniff.

    Glenn

    PEAKS::OAKEY
    
    Any comparison between gun control laws in the States and Canada is 
    designed to make gun control laws look ineffective. Take a place like
    New York City, has gun control laws, and lots of violence. Does anyone
    honestly think that saying "no more guns" after millions have been
    distributed would have an effect ? Those that want them either 1) already
    have them, 2) can go get one with little difficulty. Where as in Canada,
    if you want one to "protect" yourself, you stand little chance of getting
    one. Ineffective gun control can always be used to make the concept look
    bad.
    
    Canada has strick gun control, and far less violent crime than the States.
    If not gun control, what explains the difference in violent crime rates ?
    
    
    Canadians are just nicer people ?
    Americans have a blood lust ?
    Poverty ?
    Racisim ?
    
     Please feel free to explain the difference. Most gun control people say
    it is part of the reason. Since you feel this not to be true, you must have
    an explaination that fits the facts.
    
                                                            Derek
    
    
     PS Guns don't kill people, people do. So don't give people guns.

Roak,

You are right, there is more to the problem than the number of guns in
circulation ...  The very fact that the Swiss per-capita have more
guns than Americans says that ... The Swiss have guns for predominantly
militia purposes ... ie protecting their COUNTRY and not for protecting
their own person.

You are also right that laws as they stand now in the USA are not the
answer ... The existing laws are unenforceable because of the sheer number
of weapons in circulation.

One person shot by someone with a gun, whether killed or maimed, by accident
is one accident too many.  One child playing with a real gun is an accident
waiting to happen.  This is NOT the illegal use of firearms ... this is
the careless use of firearms.  How do you eliminate the careless use of
firearms ?

You talk at great length about the criminal use of firearms ... That firearms
save lives.  I saw a bumper sticker in the CXO3 car park the other day
"Criminals prefer unarmed victims".  My reaction is simple "Victims prefer
unarmed criminals".  How do you reduce the amount of armed crime ?  It seems
to me that the best way is to reduce the number of firearms in circulation.

I know full well that producing statistics to show that crime with injury
and death in countries where the general public does not have easy access
to handguns is significantly lower than in the USA does not reinforce
the gun control argument in your eyes.

I know full well that in the present climate where guns are in such free
circulation amongst criminals, that to reduce the armed general public
may not be the best course of action, but it is a start towards limiting
the number of weapons in circulation.

Many weapons, legally acquired, are used illegally ... The numbers are not
large in comparison with the illegal use of illegally acquired firearms,
but they are still significant, and people are being killed and maimed
because someone who legally has a weapon goes off their rocker and takes
out their anger on someone with the weapon.  But the fact remains, people
are getting injured and maimed ... and if one innocent person is killed
in this manner, that is one person too many.

Another factor to consider in this discussion is that in many jurisdictions,
the claim of self defence has a limitation on the amount of force a person
could reasonably be expected to use when he is threatened.  (for example,
Vern Smalley, here in Colorado Springs, could not have used the self-defence
argument when Carmen Tagliere attacked him with his fists and Smalley shot
him, in many countries.)  This applies even to police.

So the arguments for gun control are an attempt to reduce the guns in
circulation.  Generally, they are ineffective in the US because of the
number of illegally acquired guns, and the total number of guns in circulation.
But the argument is that you must start somewhere.  If there was an effective
way of limiting the number of guns illegally in circulation, then this would
be effective, but the question is HOW ?

What I see from the pro-gun camp is any mechanism for reducing accidents
from the careless use of firearms, any mechanism for reducing the number of
arms in the hands of criminals.  Gun controls in the US have so far had
mixed results.  Let's see some strong plans for making the streets altogether
safer.

Stuart

Re: <<< Note 787.145 by KAOFS::D_STREET >>>
    
>>    Canada has strick gun control, and far less violent crime than the States.
>>    If not gun control, what explains the difference in violent crime rates ?
    
>>    Canadians are just nicer people ?
>>    Americans have a blood lust ?
>>    Poverty ?
>>    Racisim ?

3 & 4 are a good start.  From those I've met, I feel that #1 has something to do
with it too. :-)

But basically for whatever reason, at this point in time crime in the US has
exceeded the police's capacity to deal with it.  If you've got one detective
with 20 open murder cases, what's the chance that he'll be able to solve them
all?  Even half?  Crime has exceeded critical mass in the US to the point that
crime pays, so people are willing to "get into that line of work".

Murder in Canada is, shall I say, infrequent, and a lot of effort is put into
solving it; crime still does not pay (and I hope it stays that way) in Canada.

Now that crime has exceeded the capacity for the police to effectively deal with
it in the US, the *last* thing you want to do is to disarm the good guys, and
let the bad guys prey on them with impunity, since 99.9% of the time the police
are there to *solve* crimes, not to stop them.

I consider a rapist scared off by an armed potential victim a "crime control"
success.

A raped woman, no matter if they catch the guy or not, is a "crime control"
failure.

Do you disagree?

                               Roak

>I consider a rapist scared off by an armed potential victim a "crime control"
>success.
>
>A raped woman, no matter if they catch the guy or not, is a "crime control"
>failure.
    
    Under those conditions, yes, I agree.
    
    But, if the woman actually shot and killed the rapist was that right?
    It's easy to say he got what he deserved ... but is it right that the
    woman was judge jury and exectutioner ?  I think that even in the USA,
    you'll agree that the rapist deserves his rewards according to the
    laws of the land, not according to the panic of a woman fearing rape.
    Therein is another problem ... that the judicial system does not
    punish equitably in most countries. 
    
    To stretch this example a little further, say the woman was being
    followed by someone who meant her no harm, but she had a fear of
    rape, and carried a gun.  She felt panicked by the footsteps behind
    her as they drew closer ... and then in absolute fear, as the person
    walked in front of her, pulled the trigger.  It isn't that far fetched
    an example ... it does happen.
    
    The use of a firearm must be in the hands of trained individuals, who
    are trained not only in the physical use of a weapon, but also in the
    emotional use of a weapon.  I suspect that a great many people who
    carry weapons are not emotionally skilled enough to know when to use
    it, and whether they really need to pull that trigger.
    
    Americans talk about Freedom a lot ... One freedom that I enjoyed in
    England and Canada was that I did not have to fear for my life from
    the use or misuse of a firearm.
    
    Stuart

Anyone who's really (I mean *really*) interested in uncovering the truth
about firearms in America should spend a little time reading authors who
have done real research rather than listening to politicians who are merely
spewing cooked statistics.  A good place to start is any of Professor Gary
Kleck, PhD's works; Kleck is a liberal non-gunowner down at Florida State
University who has brought to light the fact that there are well over
600,000 successful defensive uses of handguns (that's just handguns, not
rifles and shotguns) against violent crime in America each year.  His list
of references is impressive.

Some points to keep in mind:

        Cities that have restricted or banned gun ownership experience much
        more violent crime than those who have not imposed such
        restrictions.  Look at Washington, DC; New York City; Chicago; Los
        Angeles; Atlanta, Georgia.  There has been virtually no crime in
        Kennesaw, Georgia, which is a suburb of Atlanta; it is a town law
        that every household have a loaded firearm present.  If you were a
        burglar, rapist, or murderer, which town would you rather conduct
        business in, one in which the citizens (and remember, it's only the
        honest citizens) were disarmed or one in which guns were available
        freely?  Kleck quotes a survey of imprisoned criminals which reveals
        that criminals' greatest fear is not the police, not arrest, not
        imprisonment, but rather being shot by an armed civilian.
        
        You should not forget the concept of "net benefit."  There is a net
        benefit to gun ownership in the United States.  More than 600,000
        non-completions of violent assaults (murders, rapes, and muggings)
        versus a few thousand accidents makes this concept pretty easy to
        understand.  Besides, people who turn guns on themselves are very
        likely desperate enough to find another way to end it all if guns
        are not at hand, such as ingestion of barbiturates or exsanguination.
        
        Banning or restricting guns removes them only from hands attached to
        people who obey the law in the first place.  Somehow I can't picture
        any significant numbers of muggers, rapists, and murderers deciding
        to turn in their stolen guns because merely because it's against the
        law for honest people to have them.  "Gun control" disarms only the
        law-abiding, leaving a fertile feeding ground for society's criminal
        elements.
        
        Even if it were possible to remove guns entirely from a society,
        including from the hands of criminals (which would imply a
        government that would make Stalin's purges look like a summer
        lakeside picnic), crime would not magically go away.  You'd still
        have the threats of multiple assailants, assailants on drugs,
        assailants whose weight/strength/fitness puts them at an advantage
        with respect to their victims, and assailants using weapons other
        than guns (cue sticks, knives, screwdrivers, and so on).
        
        In this country, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the government to
        restrict the availability of firearms to its citizens.  The reason
        this was written into the Constitution of the United States is for
        exactly the ones we are seeing today - a small segment of society,
        financially well-endowed and in complicity with a similarly well-
        endowed media, is trying to remove firearms from the hands of
        American citizens, and in some cases are murdering them (Weaver)
        and/or burning them alive (Waco) in the process.  Those who are not
        killing U.S. citizens in order to achieve these objectives are
        trying to pass laws which will deprive Americans of their tools of
        self-defense, and the only result will be more rapes, more assaults,
        more murders, and more crime in general.  Note that the people
        trying to pass these laws invariably are members of a social elite,
        secure from environments in which self-defense ever would be
        necessary.  

By the way, I used to abhor firearms until I began thinking rationally about
them; that was back in 1982.  I could never go back.  The only thing I miss
is the comfortable numbness of the anti-gun mindset, and some former friends
who apparently consider independent thought, logic, and research revolting
enough to have excluded me from their circles.

- craig pahigian

    The subject certainly has a lot more to it than simple gun control.
    There can be no doubting that.
    
    That crime goes down in enforced armed communities and up in lesser
    armed communities is just evidence that criminals tend to be armed
    and there are just too many armed criminals.
    
    Therein should be the goal ...to reduce the illegal acquisition of
    guns by anyone, whether in Canada, or in the US, or anywhere.
    
    Clearly, the best way would be to put limits on weapons production,
    and control their purchase and sale at every level.  Where so many
    weapons are in circulation, as in the USA, this is difficult.
    In Canada, where there are far fewer, this should be far more
    effective.
    
    Stuart

    
    And the circular argument continues. Canada has about the same number
    of firearms per capita as the US, has a fairly healthy arms and
    ammunition industry, builds hanguns by the thousands in Toronto,
    semi-automatic and automatic firearms components in Kitchener. It is
    still fairly easy for a criminal to get an illegal gun of any type,
    just spread the word and a little cash around and voila. The
    transaction control at the criminal level is virtually non-existent,
    and if the criminals do get caught, the gun laws are not brought
    to bear with appropriate force, to the legal gun owners dismay. Repeat
    offenders are turned loose on the streets, and if they don't hook up
    with a gun, will substitute cross-bows or claw hammers to do their
    dirty work. The system stinks.
    
    Pat

    re: Note 787.145 by KAOFS::D_STREET
    
    |    Canada has strick gun control,
    
    
    But, what does this mean? I've never heard of strick guns before.
    
    Glenn

    Pat,
    
    Several things ....
    
    1) Are you certain about the number of firearms per capita ?
    
    2) What about handguns (ie those you can conveniently carry that a
       lot of crime and accidents occur with in the USA)
    
    As you well know, Pat, I am not a particularly strong individual.
    That I am not exactly likely to be very successful in hand to hand
    fighting.  BUT, I would be far happier to be beaten up by a criminal
    than have him wave a gun at me with a strong likelihood of using it.
    
    What arming the public does, is to increase the likelihood that the
    criminal WILL use his gun, in a "I'd better shoot you before you get
    me" scenario.
    
    Stuart

"IF GUNS ARE THE ANSWER, WHAT"S THE QUESTION?"

by Geoff Pevere (from recent Globe and Mail)


'Being that this is a .44 magnum and the most powerful handgun in the world,
and would blow your head clean off, you gotta ask yourself one question: Do I
feel lucky? Well do ya, punk?'
				-- from "Dirty Harry" (1971)

Like American history and culture, American movies are impossible to imagine
without guns.  The earliest known American narrative feature, Edwin S. Porter's
10-minute "The Great Train Robbery" (1903), consists of 13 tableaux long shots
and one medium closeup of a mustached villain pointing and firing a large
pistol directly at the camera.  The latter was clearly signified as the movie's
so-called 'money shot,' even at the dawn of this century.  Exhibitors were
encouraged to splice it either to the end or the beginning of the movie,
depending on which would crank up the rabble the most.

Since this primordial moment in the development of Hollywood storytelling, the
gun has evolved into the virtual "deus ex machina" of American movies: the
solution to all problems, the resolution without which no control or order is
possible.  In a word, The Answer.  Some of the greatest screen icons -- like
Bogart, Cooper, Wayne, Mcqueen, Eastwood -- can't even be called to mind
unarmed, and many of the most widely cherished Hollywood movies hinge upon the
eventual use of armed force -- "Casablanca", "The Maltese Falcon",
"Stagecoach", "High Noon", "The Great Escape", "Jaws", "Raiders of the Lost
Ark".

It is, of course, a sexual symbol, which makes its function as a certification
of heroism all the more significant.  Heroism is possible only thorugh its use,
and that use becomes a virtual condition of masculinity.  Guns make men, and
men make history: Indy Jones blasts away an Arab swordsman in a glib display of
superior weaponry in "Raiders", and presidents bomb small countries to prove
America's world leadership.  Cowboy president Ronald Reagan named an American
missile after the legendary Colt Peacemaker.

Masculinity itself is only possible by the eventual use of the gun, and popular
culture thus regards pacifism as, at best, a display of well-intentioned
idiocy, or a certification of underdeveloped sexuality.  In the early 1970s,
the era of "Dirty Harry" and the war America couldn't win, movies abounded that
forced pacifistic men into corners they could only shoot their way out of:
"Straw Dogs", "Deliverance", "Billy Jack".  Today, in the ludicrously
unconvincing eco-sensitive butt-kicker "On Deadly Ground", Steven Seagal's
pro-native eco-terrorist reads to a Chinese actress playing an Inuit the
bottom-line riot-act about how necessary force supersedes even the spiritual
cleansing of tribal baptism.  After undergoing a shamanistic rebirth that might
make even Oliver Stone wince, Seagal turns to the big guns when, as it always
must, clobbering time finally arrives.  Not to shoot in such a
testosterone-charged climate is unthinkable -- almost as unthinkable as not
being a man.

Thus, in the hands of a woman, a gun becomes either a threat, a fetish object
or both.  From "Johnny Guitar" and "Forty Guns" to "Ms. 45", "Point of No
Return" and "Thelma and Louise", the spectacle of girls with guns is redolent
with the dark promise of forbidden sexuality: it's dangerous by virtue of its
unnaturalness, exciting for its suggestion of woman touching the most private
part of a man.

True, popular culture offers occasional gestures to the deconstruction of such
barrel-based self-certification, movies which re-cast the use of guns in
socially and morally calamitous terms -- "Menace II Society", "Unforgiven",
"Schindler's List".  But these movies are exceptional, and noteworthy precisely
because they break form the norm.  The contemporary norm is defined by the
sequence that became a virtual staple of action films in the wake of "Rambo:
First Blood Part 2".  I'm referring to the cathartic, pre-ejaculatory "suiting
up" sequence, in which our hero, pushed to the limit by non-negotiable evil,
pulls out the arsenal and, in terms that a saner culture might call
pornographic, begins to assemble his firepower in the most sexual terms
possible.  Pushed to the limit, he's hard and he's ready.  "Don't mess with
me," warns Lou Reed in a chilling song called "The Gun", "I'm carrying a gun."

Significantly, and perhaps mercifully, gun worship appears to be culturally
specific.  In Canadian movies, for example, guns tend to be as rare as heroes
are, which probably says as much about heroes as it does Canadians.  And when
guns do figure prominently in those rare Canadian movies that feature them,
they solve nothing, but merely exacerbate a prevailing sense of impotent gloom. 
Cases in point: the accidental shooting of a moose-hunter that climaxes Francis
Mankiewicz's "Once Upon a Hunt", the post-shooting descent into madness that
finishes Cronenberg's "Videodrome", and the suicide that finishes off the
wannabe cop-hero of "I Love a Man in Uniform", itself noteworthy not only as a
movie about the corrosive consequences of buying the fabricated image of
Hollywood heroism, but also one of the rare Canadian movies that's even about
cops.  And a fake cop to boot.

Culturally, we seem to shun guns, a condition that may be as rooted in our
relatively non-aggressive national origins as American gun-worship is anchored
in that country's revolutionary beginnings.  While that may qualify us, in
Hollywood terms, as a nation of pansies, it's a condition I'm certain many of
us are content to live with, considering the alternatives.  Personally, Harry,
I *do* feel lucky, if not exactly safe.

    
    Re: Firearms per capita
    
    These are difficult numbers to pin down, but I believe the Solicitor
    General survey in the late '80s said it was about 60% of US rate (some
    gun owners are mysteriously averse to telling the government what they
    have), to industry surveys which base their results on production/sales 
    numberssince the turn of the century, or whenever they started to count 
    which indicates about the same rate. The unknowns are how many arms are 
    still functional and not just wallhangers, and how many are multiple gun
    owners.
    	As to handguns, you'd better ask the Solicitor General. They
    know all the *legal* ones. When I asked the Kanata OPP detachment
    what sort of numbers own handguns in Kanata, They mumbled "You wouldn't
    believe it." I personally know a half dozen handgun owners at the KAO site, 
    who are *collectors* on their permit. They only own one handgun,and keep 
    it in the bedroom, where all *collectors* should keep them. If they use 
    it in a home defense situation, they will need a lawyer, and probably a 
    second mortgage, but they(and their families) will be alive. On the street,
    in the same situation, in Canada, they are history.
    	As far as your argument that criminals will kill armed victims,
    then doesn't it follow that if there is a penalty for any crime, why
    leave a simply beaten witness? Just finish them off, and walk free...
    
    Pat
                

    PEAKS::OAKEY
    
     I could care less about the "American gun problem/solution". I agree
    that gun control is like closing the gate AFTER the hosre got out of
    the barn. In Canada, the horse is still in the barn, and I am glad we
    have no intention of opening the door.
    
     In my opinion, in *CANADA* gun control is contributing to a safer
    society. It may well be true that in the States it would be the
    reverse. If that is your argument, take it to a US forum.
    
     As for Stuart's case of a scared woman. Look at the Japanees student
    shot in the southern states. His CRIME ? Got the wrong house. I have
    little faith in the average person being smart enough to use a gun
    wisely. Why do you think we don't hear about people being shot in
    traffic? ANSWER: not enough people have guns, so the odds of a complete
    idiot getting one are reduced. Let anybody have a gun, and that's what
    you'll get, half wits with a gun, that think it is a "solution" to
    a problem.
    
    
    							Derek.

    
        
   :  I could care less about the "American gun problem/solution". I agree
   : that gun control is like closing the gate AFTER the hosre got out of
   : the barn. In Canada, the horse is still in the barn, and I am glad we


    	Hmm, so the hosre got out of the barn.Stupid Hosre. Worthless %4%!
    Should be shot! Wooops, sorry Derek, should be given unemployment and
    allowed to live a dignified life. right!
    
    
    

787.150> That crime goes down in enforced armed communities and up in lesser
787.150> armed communities is just evidence that criminals tend to be armed
787.150> and there are just too many armed criminals.
    
The logic of that statement escapes me entirely, although I agree with your 
last assertion that there are too many criminals, armed or not, regardless 
of the cause.

787.150> Therein should be the goal ...to reduce the illegal acquisition of
787.150> guns by anyone, whether in Canada, or in the US, or anywhere.

Agreed.  It also would be nice to punish the misuse of guns far more 
strongly as a deterrent and as a means to have a lesser number of violent 
offenders on the street at any given time.
    
787.150> Clearly, the best way would be to put limits on weapons production,
787.150> and control their purchase and sale at every level.

If you mean firearm production (a weapon is *any* instrument used for 
combat), then the logic of this escapes me as well.  I have already stated 
that the facts show that areas with the strictest "gun-control" laws 
experience the most violent crime.  Your recommendation would cause an 
exactly-opposite effect from that which you intend.

More "gun-control" laws and less firearms will *not* reduce crime, as has 
been proven by Kleck and many others who have undertaken serious scholarly 
research on the matter.  There are thousands of gun-control laws on the 
books already in this country (and in Canada).  They just plain don't work.  
Criminals will always have weapons, whether they be guns, baseball bats, 
monkey wrenches, tire irons, or sheer physical strength.  

I know this is not what a lot of people want to hear, and I know it makes 
them feel uneasy, as it did me many years ago, but nevertheless these are 
facts.  There is so much evidence out there that correlates "gun control" 
and gun banning with death and injury of innocent civilians that, in this 
country, the debate between those who uphold the Bill of Rights and the gun 
banners has deteriorated into one in which the former hurls examples of 
solid research at its opponents, while the latter, with the help of a 
powerful electronic media and millions of "useful idiots" (those who 
haven't the energy or attention span to study the issue in depth) hurls 
lies and emotional rhetoric at its.

- craig

Re: <<< Note 787.146 by CSC32::S_BROOK "There and back to see how far it is" >>>

>>One person shot by someone with a gun, whether killed or maimed, by accident
>>is one accident too many.  One child playing with a real gun is an accident
>>waiting to happen.  This is NOT the illegal use of firearms ... this is
>>the careless use of firearms.  How do you eliminate the careless use of
>>firearms ?

Again, accidental deaths by firearms are *way* down the list.  Are you willing
to go after the things that cause *more* deaths first, thus maximizing your
"return on investment" (read: saving more lives) or are you really not
concerned with saving the greatest number of lives, only saving lives that were
taken by firearms?

>>                                    How do you eliminate the careless use of
>>firearms ?

Through education.  That's the way we reduce accidental drownings (swimming
lessons) car accidents (driver's ed), etc.  The NRA has for several years had an
"Eddie the Eagle" program that is free to schools.  It is not pro-gun, it simply
gets across the message through coloring books (lower grades) or puzzles (upper
grades) that if you see a gun:

	1) Stop
	2) Don't touch
	3) Leave the area
	4) Tell and adult

However, because it's distributed by "The evil NRA", it's blocked from being
used in many schools.  This is in fact the way HCI and the Center to End Handgun
Violence operates -- they offer NO education, actively block education, and when
a death occurs that may have been avoided by education that they blocked, they
call for more laws.  They build their case on the deaths that they caused!

>>You talk at great length about the criminal use of firearms ... That firearms
>>save lives.  I saw a bumper sticker in the CXO3 car park the other day
>>"Criminals prefer unarmed victims".  My reaction is simple "Victims prefer
>>unarmed criminals".  How do you reduce the amount of armed crime ?  It seems
>>to me that the best way is to reduce the number of firearms in circulation.

What's "unarmed?"  Is it only the lack of a firearm?  What about knives?  Would
you consider a 225 pound man "unarmed" if he was only using his fists on a 125
pound woman?

Please define the term more clearly, then we can discuss it further...

>>I know full well that producing statistics to show that crime with injury
>>and death in countries where the general public does not have easy access
>>to handguns is significantly lower than in the USA does not reinforce
>>the gun control argument in your eyes.

But as you stated at the start of this very note:

	You are right, there is more to the problem than the number of guns in
	circulation ...  The very fact that the Swiss per-capita have more
	than Americans says that ...

I'm confused; if you admit that you can produce stats of countries with both
more and less per capita ownership of firearms with a lower crime rate than the
US, why do you fall back and then imply that it's only guns that contribute to
the crime rate?

>>I know full well that in the present climate where guns are in such free
>>circulation amongst criminals, that to reduce the armed general public
>>may not be the best course of action, but it is a start towards limiting
>>the number of weapons in circulation.

Ok, let's say we took the guns away from all the good guys (remember, the bad
guys don't have them registered, and I think it's a fair assumption that they
won't turn them in).  What do you think would happen to the crime rate?

I need an answer before we continue down this avenue of discussion.

>>Many weapons, legally acquired, are used illegally ... The numbers are not
>>large in comparison with the illegal use of illegally acquired firearms,
>>but they are still significant, and people are being killed and maimed
>>because someone who legally has a weapon goes off their rocker and takes
>>out their anger on someone with the weapon.  But the fact remains, people
>>are getting injured and maimed ... and if one innocent person is killed
>>in this manner, that is one person too many.

How do you tell if any one person is "going to go off their rocker"?  Wouldn't
you also worry about the Precillia Fords in society that drive their cars up
onto crowded sidewalks, killing and injuring?  If you're going to base controls
on "if it just saves one life" there are many more dangerous things you should
concentrate on rather than firearms fatalities.  Unless of course again you're
not interested in saving the maximum number of lives, only a small subset of
deaths, mainly firearm fatalities.

>>So the arguments for gun control are an attempt to reduce the guns in
>>circulation.  Generally, they are ineffective in the US because of the
>>number of illegally acquired guns, and the total number of guns in circulation.
>>But the argument is that you must start somewhere.  If there was an effective
>>way of limiting the number of guns illegally in circulation, then this would
>>be effective, but the question is HOW ?

Excellent question.  About the only thing we know is that enacting laws that
only effect the law-abiding and restrict the access of guns to the law abiding
doesn't work in the US.  But despite the overwhelming data showing this to be
true, we continue down that road...

>>What I see from the pro-gun camp...

First let me address your "pro-gun" comment.  I'm not pro-gun; I'm
anti-restrictions.  I don't say people should or shouldn't have a firearm. 
That's a personal decision, and I may be able to help them make an informed
decision, but that's all I ever want to do.  It's up to each and every person
individually.

However, the anti-gun position is anti-choice.  They want to *remove* that
personal decision from you, and give it to the government.  That's all I'm
against.  No more, no less.

>>What I see from the pro-gun camp is any mechanism for reducing accidents
>>from the careless use of firearms, any mechanism for reducing the number of
>>arms in the hands of criminals.

I assume there's a missing "don't" in the first sentence, as in "What I DON'T
see".

First part:

NRA Eddie the Eagle program.  NRA instructors.  USPSA's "Introduction to IPSC"
program, USPSA National Range Officer Institute, random shooters instructing
friends on safe handling.  All these and more.  Two facts:

1) The TOTAL (not per capita) number of accidental firearm injuries has been
*declining* steadily since (cut me some slack here) I think it was the sixties
or seventies.  Despite more total firearms, and more total shooters, accidents
are declining.

2) None of this safety training is given any media time.  Imagine how effective
it would be if the nightly news, when it reported an accidental shooting would
give a 10 second blip on safe handling of firearms?  As you would say "it would
be worth it if it saved only one life".  But no, we have all sorts of other
"community service" messages, but *nothing* on safe gunhandling.  If people (and
especially the media itself) thinks it's that big a threat, why not?  Because
again, the anti-gun movement must be built on a death count, and they don't want
anything to reduce that death count; saving lives is *not* their highest
priority, controlling and banning guns is.

>>                                 Gun controls in the US have so far had
>>mixed results.  Let's see some strong plans for making the streets altogether
>>safer.

Mixed results?  Where?  Strict gun laws = high crime rate, lax gun laws = low
crime rate.  You can even see differences year to year in some areas that have
either tightened their gun laws (Morton Grove, handgun ban, robberies doubled
the following year) or Orlando (allowed women to carry, rape dropped to a just
about insignificant number while the surrounding continues continued to climb
from the previous year's level.

                           Roak

Ps. Not knowing if you've ever shot before, Stuart, In keeping with training =
reduced firearm accidents, if you're interested in learning I'd be more than
happy to teach you to shoot.  It's free.  Consider it an open offer.

    Pat:
     You hang with a rough crowd. It dismays me to hear that in Kanata, a
    two bit B&E artist is going to become an armed B&E Artist. Your friends
    are irresponsible, and a menace to the safety I hold dear, your claims
    they will be used to "defend" themselves not withstanding. To own a gun
    as a response to the crime rate in Ottawa is a pathetic joke, without a
    doubt these people have inflated perception of their risk, and are
    contributing to the decline of Canada. One or two shot robbers will not
    stop the robbers, it will make them arm themselves. Or is that to
    complicated ? I am not willing to raise the stakes, take the VCR, but
    leave me and my family alive.
    
    							Derek

    
    Derek, anyone without a criminal record can get a gun in Canada
           legally. No IQ test required.
           anyone with a criminal record can circumvent the system
           and get one illegally if he wants one. Criminals have
           their networks too.
           Gun control has done virtually nothing for the state that
           Canada is in today, other than make people like you feel
           all warm and fuzzy.
    
    
     Pat

Re: <<< Note 787.160 by KAOFS::D_STREET >>>

Calling friends "irresponsible, and a menace..." and calling a position "a
pathetic joke..."

I thought we were having (for once) a nice, level-headed discussion.  Any chance
of keeping it that way?  Please?

                           Roak

    I'm not sure what kind of gun laws we have in Canada, or how many
    people own firearms of various kinds.  I do know that there are far,
    far fewer shootings of people in this country than in the U.S.  I think it 
    is very important that we avoid the kind of problems the Americans
    have.
    
    For this reason, I find it depressing when I hear Canadians  voicing
    arguments around gun ownership that echo the American ones so closely.
    We remain a different, less violent society than the American one.  Let
    us do what we can to remain that way.  I don't have any objection to
    responsible people, sportsmen, etc. owning guns, but I hope we're a
    long way from a situation in which reasonable people would think it
    necessary to own firearms for self-defence.
    
    -Stephen

    PEAKS::OAKEY
    
     Sorry, those were not insults, but accurate representations of those
    people.
    
     Irresponsible: NRA members would have a problem with that type of
    storage.
    
    Menace: In that the storage leads to increased odds that a gun would
    belong to one of those criminals, yes they are.
    
    Pathetic Joke: You have to admit it is kind of sad, and in a way funny
    to think of someone in Kanata having a gun beside their bed to feel
    "safe". 
    
    							Derek.

    VICKI::CRAIG
    
     As stated earlier limited gun control is not gun control. Canada does
    not have the same situations as in the States. and finally, it is not a
    "choice" in Canada to own a gun for self protection.(despite the
    illegal ownership described in here by PAT) We have a
    completely different situation up here, and I might add a considerably
    less dangerous one. Most Canadians feel that strick gun control is part
    of the reason. I would be interested to know why we have less violent
    crime. If I go to SOAPBOX and try to say it is because of our social
    system I will get abuse, if I say it is because of our better race
    relations I will get abuse, if I say it is because of gun control I
    would get abuse.
    
     You gun types tell me. Why less violent crime ? Untill given a
    reasonable alternate explaination, I choose to believe it is because
    guns are not considered an answer by Canadians, and Americans think it
    is. Gun control enforces the idea that guns are not an answer, free and
    easy access to guns enforces the idea that guns/violence is a valid
    response to a given situation.
    
     Either that or America is a sesspool of human waste that can't control
    themselves. (which I think is not true) Hate to break it to you, but
    guns do kill people. One (1) murder in Nepean in five (5) years, what a
    surprise, it was done with a hand gun. What are the odds that gun was
    stolen from a "collector" who kept it in their night table beside the
    bed ?
    
    							Derek.
                                              
    (PS. NEVER use the US as an example of proper gun management to a
    Canadian, we abhor what goes on down there)
    
    (PPS Except Pat, who thinks we should strive to be more like the US)

787.156> As for Stuart's case of a scared woman. Look at the Japanees student
787.156> shot in the southern states. His CRIME ? Got the wrong house. I have
787.156> little faith in the average person being smart enough to use a gun
787.156> wisely.

It is obvious that little effort has been made to understand the dynamics 
of this admittedly-tragic event.  The defendant's wife was screaming to him 
to get the house gun because a masked intruder was breaking into the house.  
The woman was trying to hold back the intruder but could not.  The 
defendant, fearing for his life and for that of his wife, yelled at the 
intruder to stop.  He did not.  The defendant shot.  In the defendant's and 
in his wife's mind, they were in danger of, at the very least, imminent and 
severe harm.  What were they supposed to do, ask, "Pahdon me, ewld chappie, 
but would you be wanting to do us mischief, or are you ewnly here for 
evening tea?"  You will note, also, that the defendant was found innocent 
at trial.  I question whether you have the right to try him again at so 
great a distance and with so little understanding of what really happened 
that night.

If you have little faith in the average person being able to defend 
him/herself with a firearm wisely, perhaps you would like to explain why 
you feel that way?  Do you have data that show far more instances of 
irresponsible firearm use than instances of responsible use?  I have data 
that show just the opposite, with the scales quite heavily-balanced in 
favor of gun ownership by your so-called "average person."

787.156> Why do you think we don't hear about people being shot in
787.156> traffic? ANSWER: not enough people have guns, so the odds of a complete
787.156> idiot getting one are reduced. Let anybody have a gun, and that's what
787.156> you'll get, half wits with a gun, that think it is a "solution" to
787.156> a problem.

This is so typical of the anti-gun mind: the attempt to establish a trend 
by evoking an isolated event.  Yes, people have shot others in traffic.  So 
what would you do, disallow the ownership of firearms altogether because of 
a few isolated incidents like this?  What would you say to the hundreds of 
thousands of people who've used guns for *good* purposes?  "Gee, sorry, 
Frank shot Al on Route 93 last year, so you lot of 600,000 are on your 
own."  Such logic ignores entirely the concept of net benefit.  Far more 
people stay alive each year because they have effective tools of self- 
defense at hand than die each year because someone chooses to misuse a gun.  

If you were deny the people of this country free access to firearms for 
defense, a couple of orders of magnitude more innocent people would die 
than would be the case if free access were maintained.  You can "think" and 
"feel" about this all you want, but the fact remains, supported by solid 
scholarly research, that a society with free access to firearms is safer 
from violent crime.

Look at the terminal or PC or workstation in front of which you sit as you 
read this.  Can you say that it does not exist?  To say that "gun control" 
has a net benefit in reducing crime would be just as ludicrous, individual 
human-interest stories notwithstanding.

- craig

p.s.  I know this probably isn't the place for further debate, but I will 
      gladly pursue it in another forum should you so desire; just let me
      know.
             

    Pat:
    
    >>anyone without a criminal record can get a gun in Canada
    >>legally. No IQ test required.
    
     We have gone through this, and you admitted that there might be 10-20
    people in the country that have a permit to carry a gun for self
    protection, and that you need a court order to do it.
    
     Yeah, too bad about the lack of IQ test, isn't it.
    
    						Derek.

    Roak,
    
    I don't particularly want to carry on down the US examples here in the
    Canadian notes conference ... Just as you would point me at the
    US consititution with too many Canadian eamples in the Colorado
    conference :-)
    
    But, I think we can pretty well agree that there are too many factors
    than just simply "guns" in US violence.  At the same time, I do not
    believe that an increase in the armed public is the answer....
    
    I do believe in gun controls ... that is plain ... but acknowledge
    that forced disarmament of the public is not the answer *at this
    time*.  Gun control MUST be a more broad control to attempt to at
    least help to limit the guns that are capable of or do fall into
    the hands of those with criminal intent.  If this means that it is
    a little more difficult for those who legally want / need firearms
    then that should be a small price to pay, PROVIDING that the screening
    is EFFECTIVE, and is capable of dealing with those that cannot be
    allowed to purchase a gun.  It is certainly unfortunate that the
    shop owners in the US are the ones who have to tell the buyer ..."Sorry
    but your record does not allow us to sell you a gun"  This should
    be in the hands of the police!
    
    After all is said and done, to get a DRIVERS LICENSE in Colorado,
    you must give a finger print.  It is almost easier to buy a gun
    than get a driver's license!  People gladly go in every day and offer
    up their right fore-finger!  Moreover, there are tighter controls
    of car ownership than there are on gun-ownership.  There is clearly
    soemthing out of balance here.
    
    I still say that you've got to start somewhere, but will acknowldge
    that there are good and bad places to start, and there are probably
    better places than Brady!
    
    Pat ...
    
    Both sides of this issue can pull up circular arguments.  One of the
    major problems about violence increasing in Canada is the decrease
    in policing.  The Kanata OPP detachment has 1 officer available at
    any 2 time for Stittsville, and about 2 for Kanata.  Clearly this
    is insufficient.
    
    Stuart
    

Re: <<< Note 787.156 by KAOFS::D_STREET >>>
    
     In my opinion, in *CANADA* gun control is contributing to a safer
    society. It may well be true that in the States it would be the
    reverse. If that is your argument, take it to a US forum.
    
>>     As for Stuart's case of a scared woman. Look at the Japanees student
>>    shot in the southern states. His CRIME ? Got the wrong house.

The police in the US have been shooting innocent people in increasing numbers
due to incorrectly addressed search warrants, arrival at a scene and sizing
up who is the criminal/non-criminal incorrectly, etc.

Do you also propose we disarm the police, or is some small pecentage of failure
acceptable in the face of the benefit of an armed police?

The same answer goes for armed citizens.  Some mistakes will be made.  They're
tragic mistakes, I don't deny that, but the alternative is far worse.

                               Roak

    
    Derek, it was the full truth. Anyone can get a gun, only a select
    elite few can carry one on their person, other than police. Hope that
    clarifies it.
    
    Pat

    VICKI::CRAIG
    
    >>You can "think" and "feel" about this all you want, but the fact remains,
    >>supported by solid scholarly research, that a society with free access to
    >>firearms is safer from violent crime.
    
    
     Except for the obvious "fact" that in Canada we have less crime, and more
    gun control. Sort of like the "fact" that government run health care is
    more expensive, even though America pays way more % of GNP for healthcare
    than Canada does. Please refrain from quoting American gun control
    statistics, they are invalid because 1) guns are readily available within
    a few miles of the "controlled" area, 2) we are not Americans, 3) who
    the hell would want to live in a society like they have in Florida (the
    one CAA was advising against going into by the way)
    
                                                            Derek.

Re: <<< Note 787.168 by CSC32::S_BROOK "There and back to see how far it is" >>>
    
>>                                  Moreover, there are tighter controls
>>    of car ownership than there are on gun-ownership.  There is clearly
>>    soemthing out of balance here.

Question:  Would you agree to placing the same restrictions on gun ownersip that
are placed on car ownership, and nothing more?  Could we meet at that point?

                                   Roak

    re .166
    
    
    Remember, this is the CANADA notes conference ...
    
    Canada does NOT have the crime per capita of the US
    Canada does NOT have the same percentage of crime commited with a
       firearm as the US
    Canada always has had gun controls
    The last time I looked at the map, free trade or not, Canada was not
    a state of the USA.
    
    
    So comments like 
    
>If you were deny the people of this country free access to firearms for 
>defense, a couple of orders of magnitude more innocent people would die 
>than would be the case if free access were maintained.  You can "think" and 
>"feel" about this all you want, but the fact remains, supported by solid 
>scholarly research, that a society with free access to firearms is safer 
>from violent crime.
    
    are totally out of place and proof that the your last sentence is
    totally incorrect.  Moreover, you don't define violent crime.
    
    There is scholarly research and then there is scholarly research.
    
    Research in the USA may show this to be true ... but it is not a
    global thing.
    
    Please be careful when painting the world with an American Brush!
    
    
    Stuart

    PEAKS::OAKEY
    
     you keep pointing out American problems with gun control, believe it
    or not, we have very few people shot by the police up here, and I can't
    remember any instance where it happened at the wrong house.
    
    							Derek.

>Question:  Would you agree to placing the same restrictions on gun ownersip that
>are placed on car ownership, and nothing more?  Could we meet at that point?

    I would certainly agree that controls like title and renewed possession
    licenses (by presentation to show that the gun is still under the
    registered owner's control) are appropriate places to start ... I also 
    believe that he who possesses a weapon should be required to take a
    test, eye test etc, much like a driver's test.
    
    Certainly to start with, I'd meet you at that point.  In Canada, that
    would not be enough ... :-)
    
    Stuart
    

Re: <<< Note 787.174 by KAOFS::D_STREET >>>

>>     you keep pointing out American problems with gun control, believe it
>>    or not, we have very few people shot by the police up here, and I can't
>>    remember any instance where it happened at the wrong house.

About the only stats we have to work with is what was posted from the HCI
pamphlet; those are USA stats.

Therefore I'm (as you noticed) only dealing with USA characteristics.

To deal directly with your country, it'd be nice to have some hard stats, like
what's your firearm crime doing in Canada?  Increasing?  Decreasing?  Staying
the same?

                                Roak

Re: <<< Note 787.175 by CSC32::S_BROOK "There and back to see how far it is" >>>
    
>>    Certainly to start with, I'd meet you at that point.  In Canada, that
>>    would not be enough ... :-)

We're talking the US for the moment.

"To start with..."  -- nope, why should I agree to anything if all it does is
move the starting point to favor you?  I'm trying to give you a big jump, so
again:
    
Question:  Would you agree to placing the same restrictions on gun ownersip that
are placed on car ownership, and nothing more?  Could we meet at that point?

It's a serious question, Stuart...

                           Roak

    And mine was a serious answer ...  
    
    where the "to start with" does not mean I want to arbitrarily add or
    take away other controls.  It means I believe that this would be a
    relatively good plan to implement and evaluate.  It may be that it
    has little impact on the bottomline, but it does give authorities the
    easy ability to identify illegal and stolen weapons.  It is then up
    to the legal system to apply the laws in a simple and equitable manner
    like owning a car. Drive a car without a license ... you're fined.
    Own a gun without a license ... you're fined and either license the
    gun or have it confiscated.  Own a gun without legal title, have it
    confiscated.
    
    I don't know if this exists now, but it would make some sense to
    require a gun owner, like a car owner, to possess liability insurance.
    To own a legal gun without insurance ... fined.
    
    That is the nature of "to start with".  One of the major problems
    I've heard in the US is that in many states, it is virtually impossible
    to know whether anyone owns a gun legally or not.
    
    Stuart

Re: <<< Note 787.178 by CSC32::S_BROOK "There and back to see how far it is" >>>

>>    That is the nature of "to start with".  One of the major problems
>>    I've heard in the US is that in many states, it is virtually impossible
>>    to know whether anyone owns a gun legally or not.

With such an open-ended proposal, I guess I will have to start resisting you
with the way the laws are here and now.

Oh well, I tried.

                           Roak

    I'm not deeming an open ended proposal per se.  If, in the light of
    experience (and I'm not saying a month or even a year or two) of such
    a proposal, that something MORE effective could be added, then I
    could accept it.  If the results of such a proposal had no positive
    impact and the law authorities were not taking advantage of the help
    this kind of registration and control provided, then clearly, either
    the controls should be abandoned as a waste of time and effort, or
    the law authorities need a kick !!!
    
    Stuart

Re: <<< Note 787.180 by CSC32::S_BROOK "There and back to see how far it is" >>>

>>    I'm not deeming an open ended proposal per se.  If, in the light of
>>    experience (and I'm not saying a month or even a year or two) of such
>>    a proposal, that something MORE effective could be added...

That's the very defintion of open-ended.

Saying it isn't doesn't make it so.

                               Roak

    >>Question:  Would you agree to placing the same restrictions on gun
    >>ownersip that are placed on car ownership, and nothing more?  Could
    >>we meet at that point?
    
     No. I do not consider a gun to be a normal requirement of Canadian
    society, where as a car is (in most places) pretty hard to do without.
    For this reason I expect guns to be more difficult to obtain than
    cars. please remeber there is no "right" to have guns up here.
    
    
    								Derek.

    
    In keeping with notesfile etiquette, Derek, please refrain from
    commenting on the legality of firearms ownership unless you can
    quote the statute. You suggested in an earlier reply that I 
    advocated an illegal activity/use of a gun. The facts are:
    
    1. It is legal to be a collector of "one gun"
    
    2. It is legal to keep it anywhere in the house, including
       the bedroom.
    
    3. It must be securely stored when you leave the house.
    
    If you are going to advocate your brand of gun control, please at
    least take the time to read the law.
    
    It has been common over the decades for rural Canadians to keep a
    firearm handy to protect property, livestock and yes, life. It is
    very rare for a firearm in such a situation to be fired at another
    human. The usual scenario is to show the firearm, which diffuses the
    situation. Of course, the response time of a call to police is
    long in the country. The trend in the city, even with 911 is getting
    longer, so one would expect a drift towards self defense in the 
    city.
    
    It is fairly clear to me now that your true agenda is the disarming
    of the law abiding, without basis in fact, because your social utopia
    has failed to control criminals adequately. Rather than keep them
    locked up, you give them a welfare check and turn them out on the
    street to commit B&E and run everybody's insurance up. 
    
    Pat

    re: .174
    
    Anecdotes galore on this one:
    
    Two carpetlayers were shot to death in their motel room after
    they were mistaken for bank robbers by police in the Eastern Townships
    in Quebec a few years back.
    
    Reaching under your seat to stow some grass will get you a police bullet
    in a vital location in Montreal.
    
    A bass guitar looks like an assault weapon and in a darkened room,
    will also net you a hail of police lead, especially if you wear
    dreadlocks in your hair in Ottawa.
    
    There are more...
    
    Pat

    Canada is generally a safer place to live when it comes to getting hit
    by bullets. I don't think it's the laws that make the difference but
    the attitude of the people.

    Compare American history to Canadian history and you will see that
    there's very little bloodshed in Canada's. American history is
    remarkably bloody for such a young country. A warning though, if you
    intend to read up on Canadian history, be sure that the text you are
    reading is equipped with an airbag. ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

    Glenn

    A gun is just a tool to get the job done; get your money!
    
    In the US, the poor people get the money the hard way from your pockets
    with the tools of the trade (weapons of any kind including guns).
    
    In Canada, the poor people get welfare checks which are enough (barely)
    to live on because we have other social programs covering things like
    medical care, judicial help.....
    
    Jean
    
    The only good use for a gun here would be to keep the governements from
    extracting ever so much money from your salary.
    

    
    Interesting concept..an armed tax revolt, Jean. Really?
    
    Now there's a good reason to go door to door and collect those
    nasty guns. Of course, it has been done already with the
    War Measures Act under Trudeau when the FLQ was flying high (1970). Can't
    let those separatists arm themselves, y'know. They are much easier
    to subdue with rhetoric and political foot dragging if they have no
    power.
    
    Pat

    Pat:
    
     You have stopped being constructive in this conversation. Comments
    that the FLQ should not have been crushed like a bug really worry me.
    It is interesting that the poitical seperation movement picked up steam
    after the terrorists were removed from the mix. I suppose like all
    other Canadians the people of Quebec are uncomfortable with terrorist
    acts, regardless of their position on the issue. I personally feel the
    WMA was warrented. As it turns out there were not alot of these FLQ
    types, but how could we know that in advance ? PET did a great service
    to Canada, (and to seperatists in Quebec) by forcing the issue to be
    resolved in the political arena. Look at Nothern Irland, after
    centuries of violence, they want to talk, but can't stop killing each
    other long enough. I do not want Quebec to seperate, but I have to
    respect the peaceful measures they are useing to try to reach their
    goal. You would appear to prefer sensless death and terror.
    
    				Sad.
    
    
    							Derek.

    
    Derek, appearances can be deceiving.
    
    Hmmm, you admit then that some of my comments have been contructive?
    
    The plot thickens....
    
    Pat

    What did Warren have to do with the implementation of the War Measures
    Act during the October crisis?
    
    Glenn

    Pat:
    
     Before you get too carried away with your pride in being constructive.
    
     The straight man in a comedy routine is constructive, but says nothing
    that actually is funny.
    
    
    							Derek.

    
    Let's see...
    
    So I'm the straight man, you're the joker/comedian and
    together we are notesfiles entertainment..
    
    I can live with that. 8*)
    
    Pat

    re: Note 787.136 by SIOG::EGRI
    
    Howdy from Dawsonville Georgia, USA.
    I live in the mountains.
    I own "many" guns.  All of them have never shot anyone.  I never shot
    anyone either.  However, fortunantly, I'm still able to own guns for
    my own protection, why?  Because we have a very small police force in
    this county.  Around here they have to lock people up for beating up
    their wives or driving around while lit up.  But that's rare.  Plus
    many (most? I think I heard 80% somewhere) of my neighbors are armed.
    When was the last murder?  I don't remember hearing of one.
    
    Hmm... sorry to hear you bought into the emotional HCI touchy-feely BS.
    
    Regards,
    MadMike

    Oh no! Not MadMike!
    
    Next thing you know, CHELSEA will be in here!
    
    8-)
    
    Glenn

    > Oh no! Not MadMike!
    Relax, I'm just passin' through...  ;^)

    PAT,
    
    
    A couple of months back, the Ontario Handgun Association published
    stats in their regular news letter, from stats Canada.
    
    I will look for that newsletter this weekend,
    
    
    Tom

    VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK
    
    >>We obviously have a "problem", but it's not guns.
    
    
     Care to elaborate ?
    
    							Derek.

    Yes, Americans like using guns on themselves, Canadians don't.
    Americans have a history of using guns on themselves, Canadians don't.
    Americans have a warm climate to live in, Canadians don't.
    Canadians say "eh", Americans don't.
    
    
    Glenn

    And we have Glenn, and American's don't.   That's why they keep
    shooting each other.   Sad, eh.
    
    
    
    
    
    

    I am deeply touched and I think I'm going to cry!
    
    
    Sniff.
    
    Glenn

    .197> >>We obviously have a "problem", but it's not guns.
    .197> Care to elaborate ?
    
    Ok.
    "Violence" happens here, for one reason or another.  Guns are a means
    to creating violence.  I saw a show which compared the US vs. Canada
    a while back which implied our country was founded on "violence".
    Maybe your culture doesn't allow it's citizens to be armed.
    
    In the old days, when someone did something "bad" here they were
    punished.  Let me clarify the word bad.  If you did something wrong,
    you were punished.  If you killed someone, or created mayhem, they'd
    hang you.  Needless to say, not many folks went nuts back then.
    
    Today, take myself for example.  If I went off the deep end and shot
    a whole bunch of people, "it's not my fault.  It's society's fault for
    turning me into a basketcase."   There is no accountability, and it's
    easy to avoid RESPONSIBILITY for ones actions here.
    
    Up there, you're used to your "systems".  Down here, the "system" (i.e.
    gov't programs/etc..) promote needy people and create disenchantment
    with the "system"  Folks think they can take what they're owed and
    often they take it by force.  Also, we have a *HUGH* drug problem here.
    It's a problem, because our gov't makes it one.  And the violence.
    A young boy recently got shot in a shootout, and cryed to the police
    when they showed up "I didn't know it would hurt".
    
    Our values are in the toilet.  Why can over 80% of my neighbors be
    armed, and we don't shoot each other?  I went on vacation a few weeks
    ago and left one of our cars unlocked, with the garage door opener on
    the dash, thus basically leaving my house "unlocked".  Nothing was
    taken.  _why_ do you think I live where I do?
    
    It's a very complex issue.  The way to "fix" our problem is tough.
    It requires some backbone.  As I'm sure your aware, we're taking some
    steps in that direction, but our gov't is pussyfooting around and
    "special interest groups" are stalling/screaming for peoples "rights".
    What's wrong with the "rights" of honest folks getting gunned down
    for their sneakers in broad daylight?
    
    Yes, we do have a problem.  Will it get fixed?  Not until our gov't
    deals with the real causes of the problem.  Many of which they create.
    Hope this provides some insight for our friends up north (or as we
    say down here, " out over yonder") :^)
    
    Regards,
    MadMike

    Let me ask a question
    
    I'm sure you have some folks who blow a gasket now and then and kill
    someone up there.
    
    You lock them up right?  Do you keep your violent people in prison?
    You don't let them out for a _long_ time I assume.
    
    Here, we release violent rapists, muderders and robbers from prison
    after serving 1/3 of there term to make room for Joe Blow who got caught 
    with a joint.  Case in point:  Look at the menendez brothers who
    admitted they shotgunned their parents to death.  The jury couldn't
    CONVICT them of wrongdoing!  WHY?   If I told "you", yes, I just shot
    so&so, how hard is it to _think_ that I *MAY* be telling the truth!
    
    Our justice system fell apart.  I hope yours is ok.  It sounds like
    it is ok.  Thus you don't get to read about gun battles everyday
    and a women mudereing her husband over a bigmac hamburger....
    
    If I blow someones brains out, and there is only a 40% chance of
    even being caught, and if I'm caught, a (?)% chance of being convicted,
    and then after conviction, I only serve 18 MONTHS in prison....
    
    You see where I'm coming from?  That's why I like to open .136's eyes.
    It's not the guns that are the issue friend.

.198> Yes, Americans like using guns on themselves, Canadians don't.
.198> Americans have a history of using guns on themselves, Canadians don't.
.198> Americans have a warm climate to live in, Canadians don't.
.198> Canadians say "eh", Americans don't.

I agree with three of your points Glenn. But a warm climate??  Nyet!

.199> And we have Glenn, and American's don't.   That's why they keep
.199> shooting each other.   Sad, eh.

Whenever I go on my weekend shooting spree's ... I always think of Glenn.
    
.201> often they take it by force.  Also, we have a *HUGH* drug problem here.

I wouldn't go blaming Hugh for all of our problems.  HOWEVER... If Hugh is
a lawyer, then he's certianly part of the problem. "our problem" is not guns
*but* they are a certian catalyst.  "our problem" is an ineffective judicual 
system. Coupled with greed, it is a system that allows the rich to go free
and the poor to blame the society, and also go free.

I don't mean to critisize all lawyers here. They are meerly the mechanism that
allows our corrupt judicial system to work.  They're messengers (or client
servers if you wish to get technical).

The sad thing is - these folks go into law for all the right reasons,  and it
is the system itself that lends to their corruption.  Sit down and watch the 
Al Pacino flick "And Justice for All" and you'll have a better understanding.

Steve

p.s. Do Canadian lawyers advertise on TV?
    
    

>> p.s. Do Canadian lawyers advertise on TV?

Don't believe they're allowed to, certainly never seen one.

And, at least in Ontario, it's illegal for a lawyer to take a case for a 
percentage of the settlement or no fee.  This stops frivolous cases as if 
you lose it's your money.

    It's nice to know I'm being thought of during a shooting spree.
    
    I am, once again, moved to tears.
    
    Sniff.
    
    Glenn

    Re -.1
    
    In Toronto while driving on the 401, I saw a sign from a lawer's firm
    "If we lose, you don't pay"!!
    
    So much for percentage issues!  This only means lawers are getting to
    be too numerous here too and they have not yet developped the genetic
    heritage which keeps lemming populations within reasonable numbers.
    
    Re Mr Mad Mike (I ALWAYS call someone with a gun Mister)
    
    I disagree, here it is not part of our culture to have access to
    HANDguns (the sixshooter of your folklore).  Many people have rifles or
    shotguns because they are hunters, but that is not a majority of
    people.  Any gun is an easy answer to a problem because you can defeat
    your opponent from a distance, and the bigger and meaner your gun is
    the better your chances are of winning (why do you think you have an 8
    liter engine in your car? answer: it's better than the 2 liter engine
    the guy in the other car has {unless of course he has NOX and a
    turbo}).  But that's United Stater's usual solutions, bigger is 
    always better, unfortunately it doesn't always work as intended, if
    every one has a gun there *are* chances they will be used for purposes
    other than self protection (get rid of your -->insert here<-- because
    -->insert cause here<-- for good).
    
    Jean
    

    I didn't know I had an -->insert here<-- .
    
    I'm very worried!
    
    Glenn

    I tought we all had one
    
    Jean -->insert here<--
    
    

    <<< Note 787.205 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Sick in balanced sort of way" >>>

    <<It's nice to know I'm being thought of during a shooting spree.
    
    <<I am, once again, moved to tears.
    
    Boy, you sure move a lot! Is that near Ottawa?
    
    
    I always thought this was a PG-rated notes file, but with all this
    talk of insertions I'm having my doubts.
    
    

    Well, at least my name isn't CRAM.
    
    ;-)
    
    
    Sniff.
    
    Glenn

.207>    I didn't know I had an -->insert here<-- .
.207>    I'm very worried!
    
    
    Yah... it's directly above your -->CRAM here<-- .
    
    

    Wow what a nifty file:
    
    Someone (REFDV1::MURPHY) comes and beats me up due to a typo
    I meant huge, not hugh.  I suspect he didn't read .202 yet when he
    answered.  (Plus I probably got more guns than he does :^))
    
    No one answered my ? on the Justice system y'all have in Canada.  I
    assume you LOCK UP your violent criminals.
    
    RE: the "Mister" reply.  You can call me what you want :^), I'm not a 
    violent person.  Hell, you can come down here and we'll have a beer (is 
    Molsen considered %^$%&$& up there?) together.
    
    re: Glenn, <sniff>, getta life boy.  I mean really, you should get yer
    head checked.  :^)
    
    MadMike

    
    um... do you really think I thought you meant Hugh?
    
    I don't own a gun.  I don't want a gun.  I don't even like to say
    g-g-gg-g-g--ggggg-g---gg-ggggun.
    
    p.s. I hadn't read .202 yet - but I think it kinda blames the same
    thing.
    
    and as far as commercials for Lawyers... we're bombarded with them down
    here ---  "you've been injured in an accident - you should know your
    rights -- come to the law offices -->insert here<-- and we'll see to it
    that you rightfully screw others"
    

    >(why do you think you have an 8
    >liter engine in your car? answer: it's better than the 2 liter engine
    >the guy in the other car has {unless of course he has NOX and a
    >turbo}).  But that's United Stater's usual solutions, bigger is 
    >always better, unfortunately it doesn't always work as intended, if

I assume You noticed my PN, eh?
Why I have a 454 CID engine is because of economics.  The last 5.8 liter
engine I had exploded at 8500 RPM (revolutions per minute) and I spent
a mint having it built.  So I figured, what the hell.  I can build an engine
cheaper than these folks that works just as well.  Go BIG.  So I did.

One of my 454's came from a big HUGE (not hugh) utility truck.  Car runs
nice. yes.

RE: Nitrous &/or Turbos
Bzztt, don't bother.  I took a 300zx turbo and put 100 feet (30 meters) on
him in seconds.  I think I messed him up so bad he shut it down.  I got
clocked by our local fuzz for Zero to 60 miles per hour in 4 seconds.  Needless
to say I paid a big wad of a fine for "exhibition of excelleration".  (and
could have lost my license, but the insurance company never (yet) found out
and I BSed my out of the deal, see the system works! :^) ).
Same deal with the mustang GT on the freeway at 70MPH.  Hosed him badly too
I did.  And the...

Ah yes, the facial... I luv it when "you" try me.  :^)

MadMike
                   

	Absolutely fascinating. Loads of replies from Americans saying how the
	social fabric of the U.S.A. has broken down.

	Looks like the incoming head of the CBC is right in his
	strong belief that Canada is the "best country in the world.

	Tony

    
    Don't get me wrong, I still love my country.  I happen to think a lot
    for Canada too.
    
    It's part of a country's spirit to label itself "Best".  We all
    do it.  But we must always remember what we're  "shooting" for.
    
    Steve
    

    Lawyers can advertize in Ontario but the Law Society has set rules around 
    it are so strict that few bother.
    
    The sign on the 401 is legal for 2 reasons. That particular law applies
    to civil litigation, you don't win, you don't pay is perfectly legal
    for criminal cases, and those poeple aren't lawyers, heck it's
    stretching it to call them paralegals. They're mostly ex-police
    officers, it's a roulette game, chances are, when you show up in court
    to fight a traffic ticket, the arresting officer will not be available,
    if you stand up at the right time, sit down when you're supposed to,
    use the correct respectful language etc. the JP will usually throw
    the charge out, unless you're offence is impaired driving, it gets
    treated a little more seriously than 20 cliks over.   
         

    {I can't help myself}                                              
    
    re: Note 787.215 by R2ME2::HINXMAN
    
    PSSTT... wanna buy some cigarettes?  $13/carton, er, for you I'll 
    do ya a deal, say $45. :^)
    
    Howbout some booze, eh?  Er, distilled out back it is.
    
    > strong belief that Canada is the "best country in the world.
    Your country is nice.  Been there several times.  Work hard to keep it
    nice.  That's what we're doing here (locally).  60 miles south of here 
    Atlanta is falling apart. You only hear about the trash from Atlanta.  You
    don't hear about normal nice stuff in Dawsonville, or elsewhere else USA.   

    Who ever thought a note about Cornwall would ever give the Sarnia note
    a run for its money?
    
    I certainly didn't.
    
    ---> insert here <---

	re .218

>    Your country is nice.

	I'm sure John Major will be pleased to hear that.

>    don't hear about normal nice stuff in Dawsonville, or elsewhere else USA.   

	Don't know what passes for normal in Dawsonville, but the following
	incident occurred recently in Chelmsford, MA.

	Two teenagers shot each other in order to add convincing verisimilitude
	to their story that the $200 they had extracted from the till of a
	fast food outlet had been stolen by an armed robber.

	Tony

    Gee Tony
    
    I thought you were a Canadian.  I live two towns north of Chelmsford,
    MA (Nashua NH) and I hadn't even heard of it.
    
    It kinda reminds me of the Charles Stewart thing - just to a lesser
    degree.
    
    Steve
    

    
    and... oh yah Tony...
    
    Thanks for the new word;
    
    			"Verisimilitude"
    
    I plan to use it often in casual conversation :-)
    

    I'm shedding "Verisimilitude" tears...
    
    sniff.
    
    Glenn

    VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK
    
    >>I assume you lock up violent criminals.....
    
     As yet we have no fallen into the "society made me do it" trap, but
    our lawyers are (unfortunatly) learning from the US experience. Case
    recently:
    
     Teenagers have a fight at a bar. After, one drives home with 3 others
    in his car. The guy they fought with follows them, and appears to have
    rammed their car from behind, causing it to collide with on comming
    truck. All kids killed in first car. Perp charged with murder, and a
    host of other not nice things. Perp's lawyer says, he is a kid, if he
    were older he would have figured another way to deal with the
    situation, so he should be cut some slack. I suspect (hope) that this line
    of defense will go down in flames. If you're old enough to drink and
    drive, you are old enough to take responsibility for your actions while
    drinking and driving. If not, according to your view on the US "problem"
    we are right behind you. 
    
     Say it ain't so.....
    
    							Derek.

    
.224>    As yet we have no fallen into the "society made me do it" trap
    
    your society hasn't digressed to the point where it can be blamed.
    Don't allow your government to let it's system of justice
    deterioriate!  Keep 'dem lawyers under control.
   
    These are words I NEVER want to hear...
    
    			"Dad, I want to be a Lawyer".
     
    
    Steve

    
    Heck, I go away for a week of R&R and you guys have the gall to
    continue without me???
    
    Re-.2 by Derek about the car murders by young offender, age 17.
    
    Typical Ottawa Citizen feel good editorial this week stated that the new
    progressive licensing system would have prevented this tragedy, since
    he would not have been on the road at 4:30 am. What a load of @#$%.
    They forgot to mention that he was also too young to drink, even in
    P.Q.
    	Hey, let's ban cars, and save everyone. But then, you might get
    electrocuted in your home office while cruising down the information
    superhighway.
    
    Pat

    
    Re: Smuggling
    
    Reports from statistics Canada released today indicate that cigarette
    sales in Ontario are up over 60% and that export of cigarettes to the
    US are down by over 80% from levels before the tax reduction.
    
    Liquor seizures are increasing in volume, so much that it is not
    possible to dump it into the environment and the gov't is arranging
    to have the alcohol distilled for use in automobile fuels. No reports
    on how much this is costing the taxpayer.
    
    Smuggling of firearms is also up, as recent reports of seizures of arms
    gain media attention.
    
    Sound like an unstable smuggling environment to me, with markets
    changing so fast that the suppliers are struggling to adapt. 
    
    Watch for trouble in OKA, Cornwall and Montreal this summer....
    
    Pat
    

    
    
    
    
<><><><><><><><>  T h e   V O G O N   N e w s   S e r v i c e  <><><><><><><><>

 Edition : 3127              Tuesday  2-Aug-1994            Circulation :  5843 

        VNS MAIN NEWS .....................................   38 Lines
        VNS COMPUTER NEWS .................................  236   "

  For information on how to subscribe to VNS, ordering backissues, contacting
  VNS staff members, etc, send a mail to EXPAT::EXPAT with a subject of HELP.


    Gun attacks on police in London increased by almost 600 per cent last
    year, prompting Sir Paul Condon, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner,
    to call yesterday for stricter regulation of the firearms trade.


********************************************************************************
    (of course it works, we just need more of it....)

	For a fuller account of what he said see
		loblo::ef94
	note 5.1808, in particular,

    Police chief Sir Paul Condon said: "We are not a gun culture like the
    United States. We have still the possibility to keep on top of it and
    the answer is not to arm the police but to stay on top of the
    acquisition of guns."


	Tony