PDA

View Full Version : National Database, National ID


rbryant3
July 8th, 2001, 11:26 AM
This is a article I read the other day that I would like to pass on to everyone who is not aware of what is really going on in the US Congress these days.

I had went to DMV to renew my drivers license and was asked to give my finger prints to go on my license. My answer was you can keep them I will walk first and after a arguement about how it was to keep my identy from being stolen they told me that it was not mandtory but soon would be. I told them the day it was mandtory is the day they can have mine back.



National Database, National ID
Property Confiscation
New World Order Legislation
LAND-MINE LEGISLATION by Claire Wolfe
Let me run by you a brief list of items that are "the law" in America today. As you read, consider what all these have in common.

1. A national database of employed people.

2. 100 pages of new "health care crimes," for which the penalty is (among other things) seizure of assets from both doctors and patients.

3. Confiscation of assets from any American who establishes foreign citizenship.

4. The largest gun confiscation act in U.S. history - which is also an unconstitutional ex postfacto law and the first law ever to remove people's constitutional rights for committing a misdemeanor.

5. A law banning guns in ill-defined school zones; random roadblocks may be used for enforcement; gun-bearing residents could become federal criminals just by stepping outside their doors or getting into vehicles.

6. Increased funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, an agency infamous for its brutality, dishonesty and ineptitude.

7. A law enabling the executive branch to declare various groups "Terrorists" - without stating any reason and without the possibility of appeal. Once a group has been so declared, its mailing and membership lists must be turned over to the government.

8. A law authorizing secret trials with secret evidence for certain classes of people.

9. A law requiring that all states begin issuing drivers licenses carrying Social Security numbers and "security features" (such as magnetically coded fingerprints and personal records) by October 1, 2000. By October 1, 2006, "Neither the Social Security Administration or the Passport Office or any other Federal agency or any State or local government agency may accept for any evidentiary purpose a State driver's license or identification document in a form other than [one issued with a verified Social Security number and 'security features']."

10. And my personal favorite - a national database, now being constructed, that will contain every exchange and observation that takes place in your doctor's office. This includes records of your prescriptions, your hemorrhoids and your mental illness. It also includes - by law - any statements you make ("Doc, I'm worried my kid may be on drugs...... Doc, I've been so stressed out lately I feel about ready to go postal.") and any observations your doctor makes about your mental or physical condition, whether accurate or not, whether made with your knowledge or not. For the time being, there will be zero (count 'em, zero) privacy safeguards on this data. But don't worry, your government will protect you with some undefined "privacy standards" in a few years.

All of the above items are the law of the land. Federal law. What else do they have in common?

Well, when I ask this question to audiences, I usually get the answer, "They're all unconstitutional." True.

My favorite answer came from an eloquent college student who blurted, "They all SUUUCK!" Also true.

But the saddest and most telling answer is: They were all the product of the 104th Congress. Every one of the horrors above was imposed upon you by the Congress of the Republican-Revolution -- the Congress that pledged to "get government off your back."

BURYING TIME BOMBS
All of the above became law by being buried in larger bills. In many cases, they are hidden sneak attacks upon individual liberties that were neither debated on the floor of Congress nor reported in the media. For instance, three of the most horrific items (the health care database, asset confiscation for foreign residency and the 100 pages of health care crimes) were hidden in the Kennedy - Kassebaum Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HR 3103). You didn't hear about them at the time because the media was too busy celebrating this moderate, compromise bill that "simply" ensured that no American would ever lose insurance coverage due to a job change or a Pre-existing condition.

Your legislator may not have heard about them, either. Because he or she didn't care enough to do so. The fact is, most legislators don't even read the laws they inflict upon the public. They read the title of the bill (which may be something like "The Save the Sweet Widdle Babies from Gun Violence by Drooling Drug Fiends Act of 1984"). They read summaries, which are often prepared by the very agencies or groups pushing the bill. And they vote according to various deals or pressures.

It also sometimes happens that the most horrible provisions are sneaked into bills during conference committee negotiations, after both House and Senate have voted on their separate versions of the bills. The conference committee process is supposed simply to reconcile differences between two versions of a bill. But power brokers use it for purposes of their own, adding what they wish. Then members of the House and Senate vote on the final, unified version of the bill, often in a great rush, and often without even having the amended text available for review.

I have even heard (though I cannot verify) that stealth provisions were written into some bills after all the voting has taken place. Someone with a hidden agenda simply edits them in to suit his or her own purposes. So these time bombs become "law" without ever having been voted on by anybody. And who's to know? If congress people don't even read legislation before they vote on it, why would they bother reading it afterward? Are power brokers capable of such chicanery? Do we even need to ask? Is the computer system in which bills are stored vulnerable to tampering by people within or outside of Congress? We certainly should ask. Whether your legislators were ignorant of the infamy they were perpetrating, or whether they knew, one thing is absolutely certain:

The Constitution, your legislator's oath to it, and your inalienable rights (which precede the Constitution) never entered into anyone's consideration. Ironically, you may recall that one of the early pledges of Newt Gingrich and Company was to stop these stealth attacks. Very early in the 104th Congress, the Republican leadership declared that, henceforth, all bills would deal only with the subject matter named in the title of the bill. When, at the beginning of the first session of the 104th, pro-gun Republicans attempted to attach a repeal of the "assault weapons" ban to another bill, House leaders dismissed their amendment as not being "germane." After that self-righteous and successful attempt to prevent pro-freedom stealth legislation, Congress people turned right around and got back to the dirty old business of practicing all the anti-freedom stealth they were capable of.
STEALTH ATTACKS IN BROAD DAYLIGHT
Three other items on my list (ATF funding, gun confiscation and school zone roadblocks) were also buried in a big bill - HR 3610, the budget appropriation passed near the end of the second session of the 104th Congress. No legislator can claim to have been unaware of these three because they were brought to public attention by gun-rights groups and hotly debated in both Congress and the media. Yet some 90 percent of all congress people voted for them including many who claim to be ardent protectors of the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Why?

Well, in the case of my wrapped-in-the-flag, allegedly pro-gun, Republican congressperson: "Bill Clinton made me do it!"

Okay, I paraphrase. What she actually said was more like, "It was part of a budget appropriations package. The public got mad at us for shutting the government down in 1994. If we hadn't voted for this budget bill, they might have elected a Democratic legislature in 1996 - and you wouldn't want THAT, would you?" Oh heavens, no I'd much rather be enslaved by people who spell their name with an R than people who spell their name with a D. Makes all the difference in the world!
HOW SNEAK ATTACKS ARE JUSTIFIED
The Republicans are fond of claiming that Bill Clinton "forced" them to pass certain legislation by threatening to veto anything they sent to the White House that didn't meet his specs. In other cases (as with the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill), they proudly proclaim their misdeeds in the name of bipartisanship - while carefully forgetting -to mention the true nature of what they're doing. In still others, they trumpet their triumph over the evil Democrats and claim the mantle of limited government while sticking it to us and to the Constitution. The national database of workers was in the welfare reform bill they "forced" Clinton to accept. The requirement for SS numbers and ominous "security" devices on drivers licenses originated in their very own Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1996, HR 2202. Another common trick, called to my attention by Redmon Barbry, publisher of the electronic magazine Fratricide, is to hide duplicate or near-duplicate provisions in several bills. Then, when the Supreme Court declares Section A of Law Z to be -unconstitutional, its kissing cousin, Section B of Law Y, remains to rule us.

Sometimes this particular form of trickery is done even more brazenly; when the Supreme Court, in its Lopez decision, declared federal-level school zone gun bans unconstitutional because Congress demonstrated no jurisdiction, Congress brassily changed a few words. They claimed that school zones fell under the heading of "interstate commerce." Then they sneaked the provision into HR 3610, where it became "law" once again. When angry voters upbraid congress people about some Big Brotherish horror they've inflicted upon the country by stealth, they claim lack of knowledge, lack of time, party pressure, public pressure, or they justify themselves by claiming that the rest of the bill was "good".

The simple fact is that, regardless of what reasons legislators may claim, the U.S. Congress has passed more Big Brother legislation in the last two years - more laws to enable tracking, spying and controlling - than any Democratic congress ever passed. And they have done it, in large part, in secret.

Redmon Barbry put it best: "We the people have the right to expect our elected representatives to read, comprehend and master the bills they vote on. If this means Congress passes only 50 bills per session instead of 5,000, so be it. As far as I am concerned, whoever subverts this process is committing treason." By whatever means the deed is done, there is no acceptable excuse for voting against the Constitution, voting for tyranny. And I would add to Redmon's comments: Those who do read the bills, then knowingly vote to ravage our liberties, are doubly guilty. But when do the treason trials begin?
BILLS AS WINDOW DRESSING FOR AN UGLY AGENDA
The truth is that these tiny, buried provisions are often the real intent of the law, and that the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of pages that surround them are sometimes nothing more than elaborate window dressing. These tiny time bombs are placed there at the behest of federal police agencies or other power groups whose agenda is not clearly visible to us. And their impact is felt long after the outward intent of the bill has been forgotten.

Civil forfeiture - now one of the plagues of the nation was first introduced in the 1970s as one of those buried, almost unnoticed provisions of a larger law. One wonders why on earth a "health care bill" carried a provision to confiscate the assets of people who become frightened or discouraged enough to leave the country. (In fact, the entire bill was an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code. Go figure.)

I think we all realize by now that that database of employed people will still be around enabling government to track our locations (and heaven knows what else. about us, as the database is enhanced and expanded) long after the touted benefits of "welfare reform" have failed to materialize.

And most grimly of all, our drivers licenses will be our de facto national ID card long after immigrants have ceased to want to come to this Land of the Once Free.
CONTROL REIGNS
It matters not one whit whether the people controlling you call themselves R's or D's, liberals or conservatives, socialists or even (I hate to admit it) libertarians. It doesn't matter whether they vote for these horrors because they're not paying attention or because they actually like such things.

What matters is that the pace of totalitarianism is increasing. And it is coming closer to our daily lives all the time. Once your state passes the enabling legislation (under threat of losing "federal welfare dollars"), it is YOUR name and Social Security number that will be entered in that employee database the moment you go to work for a new employer. It is YOU who will be unable to cash a check, board an airplane, get a passport or be allowed any dealings with any government agency if you refuse to give your SS number to the drivers license bureau. It is YOU who will be endangered by driving "illegally" if you refuse to submit to Big Brother's procedures. It is YOU whose psoriasis, manic depression or prostate troubles will soon be the reading matter of any bureaucrat with a computer. It is YOU who could be declared a member of a "foreign terrorist" organization just because you bought a book or concert tickets from some group the government doesn't like. It is YOU who could lose your home, bank account and reputation because you made a mistake on a health insurance form. Finally, when you become truly desperate for freedom, it is YOU whose assets will be seized if you try to flee this increasingly insane country.

As Ayn Rand said in Atlas Shrugged, "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

It's time to drop any pretense: We are no longer law-abiding citizens. We have lost our law-abiding status. There are simply too many laws to abide. And because of increasingly draconian penalties and electronic tracking mechanisms, our "lawbreaking" places us and our families in greater jeopardy every day.
STOPPING RUNAWAY GOVERNMENT
The question is: What are we going to do about it? Write a. nice, polite letter to your congressperson? Hey, if you think that'll help, I've got a bridge you might be interested in buying. (And it isn't your "bridge to the future," either.)

Vote "better people, into office? Oh yeah, that's what we thought we were doing in 1994. Work to fight one bad bill or another? Okay. What will you do about the 10 or 20 or 100 equally horrible bills that will be passed behind your back while you were fighting that little battle? And let's say you defeat a nightmare bill this year. What, are you going to do when they sneak it back in, at the very last minute, in some "omnibus legislation" next year? And what about the horrors you don't even learn about until two or three years after they become law? Should you try fighting these laws in the courts? Where do you find the resources? Where do you find a judge who doesn't have a vested interest in bigger, more powerful government? And again, for every one case decided in favor of freedom, what do you do about the 10, 20 or 100 in which the courts decide against the Bill of Rights?

Perhaps you'd consider trying to stop the onrush of these horrors with a constitutional amendment - maybe one that bans "omnibus" bills, requires that every law meet a constitutional test or requires all congress people to sign statements that they've read and understood every aspect of every bill on which they vote. Good luck! Good luck, first, on getting such an amendment passed. Then good luck getting our Constitution-scorning "leaders" to obey it.

It is true that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and part of that vigilance has been, traditionally, keeping a watchful eye on laws and on lawbreaking lawmakers.

But given the current pace of law spewing and unconstitutional regulation-writing, you could watch, plead and struggle "within the system" 24 hours a day for your entire life and end up infinitely less free than when you begin. Why throw your life away on a futile effort?

Face it. If "working within the system" could halt tyranny, the tyrants would outlaw it. Why do you think they encourage you to vote, to write letters, to talk to them in public forums? It's to divert your energies. To keep you tame. 'The system" as it presently exists is nothing but a rat maze. You run around thinking you're getting somewhere. Your masters occasionally reward you with a little pellet that encourages you to believe you're accomplishing something. And in the meantime, you are as much their property and their pawn as if you were a slave. In the effort of fighting them on their terms and with their authorized and approved tools, you have given your life's energy to them as surely as if you were toiling in their cotton fields, under the lash of their overseer. The only way we're going to get off this road to Hell is if we jump off. If we, personally, as individuals, refuse to cooperate with evil. How we do that is up to each of us. I can't decide for you, nor you for me. (Unlike congress people, who think they can decide for everybody.) But this totalitarian runaway truck is never going to stop unless we stop it, in any way we can. Stopping it might include any number of things: tax resistance; public civil disobedience; wide-scale, silent non-cooperation; highly noisy non-cooperation; boycotts; secession efforts; monkey wrenching; computer hacking; dirty tricks against government agents; public shunning of employees of abusive government agencies; alternative, self-sufficient communities that provide their own medical care and utilities.

There are thousands of avenues to take, and this is something most of us still need to give more thought to before we can build an effective resistance. We will each choose the courses that are right for our own circumstances, personalities and beliefs.

Whatever we do, though, we must remember that we are all, already, outlaws. Not one of us can be certain going through a single day without violating some law or regulation we've never even heard of. We are all guilty in the eyes of today's law. If someone in power chooses to target us, we can all, already, be prosecuted for something. And I'm sure you know that your claims of "good intentions" won't protect you, as the similar claims of politicians protect them. Politicians are above the law. YOU are under it. Crushed under it. When you look at it that way, we have little left to lose by breaking laws creatively and purposefully. Yes, some of us will suffer horrible consequences for our lawbreaking. It is very risky to actively resist unbridled power. It is especially risky to go public with resistance (unless hundreds of thousands publicly join us), and it becomes riskier the closer we get to tyranny. For that reason, among many others, I would never recommend any particular course of action to anyone - and I hope you'll think twice before taking "advice" from anybody about things that could jeopardize your life or well-being. But if we don't resist in the best ways we know how and if a good number of us don't resist loudly and publicly - all of us will suffer the much worse consequences of living under total oppression. And whatever courses of action we choose, we must remember that this legislative "revolution" against We the People will not be stopped by politeness. It will not be stopped by requests. It will not be stopped by "working within a system" governed by those who regard us as nothing but cattle. It will not be stopped by pleading for justice from those who will resort to any degree of trickery or violence to rule us.

It will not be stopped unless we are willing to risk our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honors to stop it. I think of the words of Winston Churchill: "If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

NOTES on the laws listed above:
1. (employee database) Welfare Reform Bill, HR 3734; became public law 104-193 on 8/22196; see section 453A.
2. (health care crimes) Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, HR 3103; became public law 104-191 on 8/21/96.
3. (asset confiscation for citizenship change) Same law as #2; see; sections 511-513.
4., 5., and 6. (anti-gun laws) Omnibus Appropriations Act, HR 3610; became public law 104-208 on 9/30/96.
7. and 8. (terrorism & secret trials) Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996; S 735; became public law 104-132 on 4/24/96; see all of Title III, specifically sections 302 and 219; also see all of Tide IV, specifically sections 401, 501, 502 and 503.
9. (de facto national ID card) Began life in the Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1996, sections III, II 8, 119, 127 and 133; was eventually folded into the Omnibus Appropriations Act, HR 3610 (which was itself formerly called the Defense Appropriations Act - but we wouldn't want to confuse anyone, here, would we?); became public law 104-208 on 9/30/96; see sections 656 and 657 among others.
10. (health care database) Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, HR 3103; became public law 104-191 on 8/21/96; see sections 262, 263 and 264, among others. The various provisions that make up the full horror of this database are scattered throughout the bill and may take hours to track down; this one is stealth legislation at its utmost sneakiest.
And one final, final note: Although I spent aggravating hours verifying the specifics of these bills (a task I swear I will never waste my life on again!), the original list of bills at the top of this article was NOT the result of extensive research. It was simply what came off the top of my head when I thought of Big Brotherish bills from the 104th Congress. For all I know, Congress has passed 10 times more of that sort of thing. In fact, the worst "law" in the list --

#9, the de facto national ID card -- just came to my attention as I was writing this essay, thanks to the enormous efforts of Jackie - Juntti and Ed Lyon and others, who researched the law. Think of it: Thanks to congressional stealth tactics, we had the long-dreaded national ID card legislation for five months, without a whisper of discussion, before freedom activists began to find out about it. Makes you wonder what else might be lurking out there, doesn't it?

And on that cheery note - THE END

Copyrighted by Claire Wolfe. Permission to reprint freely granted, provided the article is reprinted in full and that any reprint is accompanied by this copyright statement

Justin
July 8th, 2001, 11:50 AM
rbryant3,

I hope you don't beleive everything you read.

I just love these stories that have a few real facts and then the authors make up their own facts and then come up with wild conclusions.

rbryant3
July 8th, 2001, 01:39 PM
I don't, that’s why I consulted with a couple of friends of mine on this who are in the state legislature. They indeed told me that the reason was federal pressure and loss of funds is why they passed the ID bills in my state. Of course they voted against them and so insisted the clause make it not mandatory be added.

Do you know how many times the ATF as tried to compile information on how many and what kind of firearms the law abiding citizen has in there home, by trying to force FFL’s to provide copies of there yellow sheets. So they could see who was in possession of weapons and ammunition. So if they thought you had to many by their definition you could be investigated. By law it is illegal and if not for the NRA taking them to court they would be actively doing it now.

It all boils down to the UN law they want more control of the world. They want gun confiscation in all countries, free trade and citizens and military personal tried in international courts. Look at Canada’s gun laws they were all suggested and backed by the UN. They go as far as to discuss the UN’s influence on the firearms centre site.

Machineguns made prior to 1986 are illegal for civilian sales in the US after the amendment was sneaked in to the firearms protection act with no one the wiser until it was to late. To date there has only been one person killed by a registered machinegun and the offence was committed by a police officer. Kinda sounds like disarming to me.

In my state if you are prescribed narcotics by a doctor it goes on record where it can be viewed by government an law enforcement.

§60A-9-4. Required information.
Whenever a medical services provider dispenses a controlled substance listed in the provisions of section two hundred six, article two of this chapter, or whenever a prescription for such controlled substances is filled by (i) a pharmacist or pharmacy in this state; (ii) a hospital, or other health care facility, for out-patient use; or (iii) a pharmacy or pharmacist, licensed by the board of pharmacy, but situated outside this state for delivery to a person residing in this state, the medical services provider, health care facility, pharmacist or pharmacy shall, in a manner prescribed by rules promulgated by the board of pharmacy under this article, report the following information, as applicable:
(1) The name, address, pharmacy prescription number and DEA controlled substance registration number of the dispensing pharmacy;
(2) The name and address of the person for whom the prescription is written;
(3) The name, address and drug enforcement administration controlled substances registration number of the practitioner writing the prescription;
(4) The name and national drug code number of the Schedule II controlled substance dispensed;
(5) The quantity and dosage of the Schedule II controlled substance dispensed;
(6) The date the prescription was filled; and
(7) The number of refills, if any, authorized by the prescription.
The board of pharmacy may prescribe by rule promulgated under this article the form to be used in prescribing a Schedule II substance if, in the determination of the board, the administration of the requirements of this section would be facilitated.

Think they aren’t interested in you medical history and what drugs you take think again.

Also t the last summit on terrorism the UN branded a lot of religious organizations as possibly terrorist in nature because of speaking out against one world government, gun confiscation, and end time prophecy as to involvement of the UN and EU. Is free speech a terrorist act?

And if you want to see something really scary take a look at
F.E.M.A.

Under F.E.M.A., the Executive Orders which are already written and is the current law of the land, calls for the COMPLETE suspension of the United States Constitution, all rights and liberties, as they are currently known. The following executive orders, which are in the Federal Register located in Washington DC for anyone to request copies of, call for the suspension of all civil rights and liberties and for extraordinary measures to be taken in, as most of the orders state, "any national security emergency situation that might confront the government." When F.E.M.A. is implemented, the following executive orders will be immediately enforced:

E.O. 12148 - FEMA national security emergency, such as: national disaster, social unrest, insurrection, or national financial crisis.

E.O. 10995 - "... provides for the seizure of ALL communications media in the United States."

E.O. 10997 - "... provides for the seizure of ALL electric power, petroleum, gas, fuels and minerals, both public and private."

E.O. 10998 - "... provides for the seizure of ALL food supplies and resources, public and private, and ALL farms, lands, and equipment."

E.O. 10999 - "... provides for the seizure of ALL means of transportation, including PERSONAL cars, trucks or vehicles of any kind and TOTAL CONTROL over all highways, seaports, and waterways."

E.O. 11000 - "... provides for the SEIZURE OF ALL AMERICAN PEOPLE for work forces under federal supervision, including SPLITTING UP OF FAMILIES if the government has to."

E.O. 11001 - "... provides for government seizure of ALL health, education and welfare functions."

E.O. 11002 - "... designates the postmaster general to operate a national REGISTRATION of all persons." [Under this order, you would report to your local post office to be separated and assigned to a new area. Here is where families would be separated].

E.O. 11003 - "... provides for the government to take over ALL airports and aircraft, commercial, public and PRIVATE."

E.O. 11004 - "... provides for the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, designate areas to be abandoned and establish new locations for populations."

E.O. 11005 - "... provides for the government to TAKE OVER railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities."

E.O. 11051 - "... the office of Emergency Planning [has] complete authorization to put the above orders into effect in time of increased international tension or economic or financial crisis."

I myself don't agree with every statement but the article does make some interesting points. It's all about control and the government keeping it.


[Edited by rbryant3 on July 8th, 2001 at 12:49 PM]

JohnDrake
July 10th, 2001, 10:34 AM
>> Look at Canada’s gun laws they were all suggested and
>> backed by the UN.

Not true. Any Canadian can tell you that Canada's new gun laws were triggered by the massacre of 13 women in Montreal in 1989 by a lunatic with a Mini-14. The Canadian government passed the bill in response to demands from outraged citizens and newly formed pressure groups such as the Coalition for Gun Control.

I sympathize with your aims--the government IS too powerful and our right to privacy NEEDS to be protected.

But blaming everything on those squabbling and ineffectual bureaucrats at the United Nations is just downright ridiculous.

JD

blcjet
July 10th, 2001, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by JohnDrake
[B

Not true. Any Canadian can tell you that Canada's new gun laws were triggered by the massacre of 13 women in Montreal in 1989 by a lunatic with a Mini-14. The Canadian government passed the bill in response to demands from outraged citizens and newly formed pressure groups such as the Coalition for Gun Control.


JD [/B]


The UN had nothing to do with our antideluvian gun laws, some people may like them but some don't. Our wonderful liberal gov't pushed the laws through with a complete lack of disregard to 1/3rd of our country in disagreement.

One of the biggest things they did was say we have to register EVERY gun we own. (Don't get me wrong I don't own any and hate guns, but it's the principle of the thing) So you pay upto $100 a gun to register the stupid thing so the police can see your file if for some reason they have to raid your house and see if you have weapons. Great, so say I have an old rifle in my house.......bullets are on oposite side of house, the police look on my file and see I have a weapon....guess who is going to shoot first and ask later. Like I said, I'm not a gun person and don't want them in my house, but many people I know do have them, and they are being targeted, not the criminals!

zcubed
July 10th, 2001, 03:29 PM
Well, this may be a little off the subject, but in Australia they adopted strict gun control policies. Once it was passed, guns were confiscated and destroyed. Guns that were in people's families for GENERATIONS were DESTROYED in the blink of an eye. It became law that the only way you could get a gun was to first get a license (VERY strict standards). The gun could only be used for the purposes listed in the license -- primarily sport and clay shooting -- limited instances of hunting. Thats it. What was the result of such stringent gun control? Here it is...

The following is a synopsis of an interview conducted by Ginny Simone with Keith Tidswell of Australia's Sporting Shooters Association.

One year after gun owners were forced to surrender 640,381 persoanl firearms to be destroyed, including semi-automatic .22 rifles and shotguns, a program costing the government over 500 million dollars, the results are in...

A dramatic increase in criminal activity has been experienced. Gun control advocates respond "Just wait....we'll be safer...you'll see...".

OBSERVABLE FACTS, AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44%

In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%

Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms (changed dramatically in past 12 months)

Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed robbery (changed dramatically over past 12 months)

There has been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly

At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm."

From 1910 to the present, homicides in Australia had averaged about 1.8 per 100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.

The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions.

The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has risen to 112,000, a 200% increase, in response to the ban and as an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.

Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns." Their response has been to "wait longer."

"...The best organization you've got there, the biggest organization you've got there is the NRA. We don't have an organization that size, and as a consequence, we suffered. And we hope that you don't suffer..."

rbryant3
July 10th, 2001, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by JohnDrake
>> Look at Canada’s gun laws they were all suggested and
>> backed by the UN.

Not true. Any Canadian can tell you that Canada's new gun laws were triggered by the massacre of 13 women in Montreal in 1989 by a lunatic with a Mini-14. The Canadian government passed the bill in response to demands from outraged citizens and newly formed pressure groups such as the Coalition for Gun Control.

I sympathize with your aims--the government IS too powerful and our right to privacy NEEDS to be protected.

But blaming everything on those squabbling and ineffectual bureaucrats at the United Nations is just downright ridiculous.

JD

When I said all maybe that was the wrong word. What I meant to say is the newer more restrictive laws.

In 1995 Canada played an inportant role in the United Nations International Study on Firearm Regulation and probably got a lot of there ideas for their newer laws there.

At this very time in history the UN is holding closed door meetings on how to make not yet compliant countries conform to the resolutions adopted from this study.

If I am not mistaken Canada holds three chairs on this committee and the head of the Firearms Centre was one of them.

Here is part of the agenda the docment can be found here: http://www.cfc.gc.ca/international/UN_en.html
and here: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm


Pursuant to the Economic and Social Council resolution 1995/27, section IV. A., paragraphs 7 and 8, adopted on the recommendation of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice at its fourth session (Vienna, Austria, 30 May - 9 June 1995), the present study on firearm regulation deals with, inter alia, the following topics:


(a) Criminal cases, accidents and suicides in which firearms are involved, including the number of such cases and the number of victims involved, and the status of firearm regulation by the law enforcement authorities;


(b) The situation with regard to transnational illicit trafficking in firearms;


(c) National legislation and regulations relevant to firearm regulation;


(d) Relevant initiatives for firearm regulation at the regional and interregional levels.


An additional purpose of the study was to determine what information could be collected on an ongoing basis.


The international project team established for the study determined at the outset that the research should: a) be descriptive and neutral; b) deal with only firearms, excluding landmines and other armaments; and c) focus solely on civilian regulations and civilian-owned firearms, excluding the military.


In the above framework, the following topics were selected:


Firearm regulation, including issues of ownership, possession and use;
Manufacturing and trade;
Smuggling and other illegal dealings;
Demographic and crime statistics;
Policy and public education initiatives; and
The identification of key contact persons within countries.
Given the need to determine the nature of the information that could feasibly be exchanged on an ongoing basis and the fact that no similar international survey had previously been undertaken, the project team considered the study to be exploratory in nature and determined that a series of questions on each topic would be appropriate, even though it was expected that not all questions could be answered by all States. In addition, a blend of quantitative questions (eliciting yes/no or numerical answers) and qualitative questions (narrative, open-ended) were selected. The project team anticipated that it would be difficult for States to numerically represent the nature and extent of any firearm smuggling problem; hence, verbal descriptions of issues were requested. Generally, the level of detail to be pursued in the questionnaire was limited by the budget available to the study and the expected resource limitations of Governments, which would limit their ability to respond to a new questionnaire on firearms. The detail in the survey instrument was also limited by the need to collect information within a short period of time, enabling the Secretary-General to report to the Commission in time for its sixth session.


A draft of the survey instrument was tested in Canada, Japan, and Singapore. On the basis of the pretests, revisions were made to the survey instrument. To help ensure the accuracy of replies to the survey, the survey instrument was translated into Spanish by the Latin American Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders. In cooperation of the African Institute for the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, the Canadian Government translated the survey instrument into French. The English version of the survey instrument was distributed to the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice at its fifth session as a conference room paper (E/CN.15/1996/CRP.5) and was subsequently endorsed by the Economic and Social Council in its resolution 1996/28.


In addition to the information that would be collected through the survey, it was deemed important by the project team to consult with other intergovernmental organizations and, where possible, to collect other international data pertaining to firearms. The other organizations included the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) and the Customs Co-operation Council (also called the World Customs Organization). Other international data sources to be examined were the international crime (victims) survey, coordinated by the Department of Justice of the Netherlands in conjunction with the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute. The final research report will contain an annex with additional findings.


[Edited by rbryant3 on July 10th, 2001 at 06:50 PM]

rbryant3
July 12th, 2001, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by JohnDrake
>> Look at Canada’s gun laws they were all suggested and
>> backed by the UN.

Not true. Any Canadian can tell you that Canada's new gun laws were triggered by the massacre of 13 women in Montreal in 1989 by a lunatic with a Mini-14. The Canadian government passed the bill in response to demands from outraged citizens and newly formed pressure groups such as the Coalition for Gun Control.

I sympathize with your aims--the government IS too powerful and our right to privacy NEEDS to be protected.

But blaming everything on those squabbling and ineffectual bureaucrats at the United Nations is just downright ridiculous.

JD

Canada is right now leading the United nations U.N. Small Arms Conference in trying to force international regulation of guns both civilian and export. Check out the news world international channel they have been running the story all day.

Canada

STATEMENT

BY

HONOURABLE DR. REY PAGTAKHAN
SECRETARY OF STATE (ASIA-PACIFIC) TO THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE

ON

THE ILLICIT TRADE IN SMALL ARMS AND LIGHT WEAPONS IN ALL ITS ASPECTS

NEW YORK, JULY 11, 2001

Mr. Chairman,

We came together here today, at an historic moment, with one goal in mind - to address the human suffering and insecurity caused by the excessive and destabilizing accumulation and uncontrolled proliferation of small arms and light weapons. The international community must seize the opportunity provided by this Conference to demonstrate its political will and commitment to protect civilian populations and reverse the global proliferation of small arms. Only a truly global partnership holds out any hope of dealing with the problem.

Mr. Chairman,

Small Arms and Light Weapons are truly weapons of mass destruction. Their widespread availability has made it easier and deadlier to engage in combat, multiplying the human cost of conflict. Small arms are simple to use and light to carry. They make it easy to transform innocent children into chillingly efficient killing machines. They endanger international military, police and humanitarian assistance workers, whose very jobs are to help those victimized by conflict. The insecurity caused by the abuse of these arms can make sustainable development impossible. The challenges of controlling them are complex, but come down to questions of supply and demand and, frankly, the political courage to do something about them.

This event represents the first time that the United Nations has organised a global Conference on small arms and light weapons. This Conference has prompted new worldwide attention to this hitherto neglected problem. Africa has already shown leadership with the Bamako Declaration, as did the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean with the Brasilia Declaration. OSCE countries made strides when they committed themselves to action on small arms in November 2000. We should build on these regional foundations and incorporate them in our own work. At the global level, the recently approved United Nations Firearms Protocol is an important vehicle for international law enforcement cooperation to combat firearms trafficking.

Canada believes that the concluding document of this Conference should set out a global Programme of Action for dealing with the small arms problem in a comprehensive way. In Canada's view, a meaningful action plan should include relevant norms and a series of concrete measures. This will ensure that the Programme of Action will have a real impact on global human security by reducing the numbers of small arms and light weapons in circulation around the world by preventing problematic transfers and by promoting transparency and openness. The Programme of Action should be targeted at the global, regional, national and local levels, providing the international community with a road map for its future work.

Many of these weapons are recycled, passed on from area to area, from one conflict to another, by unscrupulous arms merchants, who in many cases take advantage of legal loopholes or exploit inadequate national monitoring and enforcement structures. That is why this Conference is so vitally important.

In our view the Programme of Action must include measures which would increase controls governing legal transfers of small arms and light weapons. Such measures are necessary in order to prevent diversion to illicit or unauthorised destinations and to prevent and reduce proliferation and misuse of these weapons.

Mr. Chairman,

It is now widely agreed that international efforts to prevent and combat diversion of arms to illicit markets would be strengthened by improving our collective capacity to trace illicit small arms and light weapons back to their source and to clarify the chain of transactions. This will allow us to identify the point where legal arms were diverted to the illicit trade and thus to take strong actions. In Canada's view, an effective international system to promote "traceability" requires three key elements: systems to ensure adequate and reliable marking of all arms; adequate record-keeping on arms production, possession and transfers; and international arrangements to enable timely and reliable tracing of lines of supply by relevant authorities.

Problems associated with small arms and light weapons first arose within the United Nations as both a disarmament and peacekeeping issue. We strongly believe that the mandates of UN peacekeeping operations should contain clear provisions for disarmament, including weapons collection and destruction. In this context, Canada and the European Union hosted in Ottawa two months ago a workshop on “Small Arms and Light Weapons Destruction in the Context of Peace Support Operations”. The workshop’s participants made practical recommendations as to how, in cooperation with the United Nations and other international organizations, we might prepare better to plan and execute destruction operations. I am pleased to table those recommendations before you today - you will find them in the annex of my written text.

Canada believes that an effective action plan to reduce the global surplus of small arms, coupled with proper management and security of national stockpiles, is central to the reduction of small arms and the prevention of illicit trafficking.

Moreover, it is generally accepted that the majority of small arms and light weapons are legally produced, transferred or sold and only later in their life cycles they enter into illicit circulation. In order to deal effectively with the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, we must therefore tackle the nexus where legal weapons become illegal ones. Key to this effort is the international community’s ability to oversee and regulate either at the national, regional or international level the legal transfer of these weapons.

Mr. Chairman,

Imagine a child shot dead. Imagine a child shooting at other people. Two million children were killed by small arms during the past ten years. Some three hundred thousand children under the age of 18 are fighting as soldiers. We, Canadians, are deeply concerned by these human realities.

The specific targeting of civilians, including women and children, is on of the tragic realities of armed conflict today. Last September, at the International Conference on War-Affected Children, held in Winnipeg, Canada, the impact of small arms on children was identified as an immediate priority for international action. For too many children in the world today, the first encounter with the technology of the 21st century is not the screen of a personal computer, but the barrel of a gun. We know that small arms directly threaten the lives of children, often causing death or injury and psycho-social trauma. Horrifically, we have also seen that the size and ease of use of these weapons have made it possible for children to serve armed factions as combatants. Millions more children have been denied access to education and health care, critical to their development and well-being. Moreover, the proliferation and misuse of small arms have a grave impact on the primary sources of security for a child - its family and community - ultimately denying children their freedom and indeed their very childhood.

Deeply concerned by this reality, Canada has commissioned a study on the impact of small arms on children. The Bitting the Bullet group of NGOs was chosen to coordinate and produce this study. I am pleased to announce that the study will be officially launched this evening and that copies will be available for all as of tomorrow. We hope that the recommendations of this study will contribute to comprehensive global efforts to mitigate the negative effects of small arms on children.

Canada would also like to seize the opportunity to thank the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on behalf of the Human Security Network. Jordan will facilitate distribution of a statement to the Conference outlining the Human Security Network’s commitment to intensify and coordinate efforts to address the human suffering caused by the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons. Members of the Network, including Canada, regard this Conference as an invaluable opportunity to advance practical work and build global consensus on this issue. The statement encourages Conference participants to adopt a comprehensive and coordinated approach and to take concrete measures. Action is what we now need.

Mr. Chairman,

Sustained and practical follow-up to the Programme of Action will be crucial to the credibility of our enterprise. The Conference should establish annual multilateral meetings to promote exchange, cooperation and a “forward look” of progress in implementing the norms and measures agreed in the Programme of Action. This process should promote sharing of experiences to facilitate the development of "best practices" and provide a stimulus for effective action.

Canada believes that non-governmental organizations and other representatives of civil society are playing a crucial role in global efforts on Small Arms. Continued constructive engagement of industry, civil society and all actors is crucial to Conference success and even more importantly to the implementation of the Programme of Action. The problems posed by small arms are complex, and the solutions will require ingenuity as well as determination. Governments alone cannot solve them. We look forward to greater partnership between governments and civil society in taking action on the proliferation of small arms and light weapons.

Mr. Chairman,

This Conference can provide hope to those who suffer from the scourge of small arms. It is our common responsibility and duty to craft a Programme of Action that will meet their pleas for action and to act and speak for those who cannot do so themselves. This Conference must result in real and decisive action. If it does so, I believe we will be able to make a real difference to the lives of millions of people around the world.

I thank you.


ANNEX: Recommendations of the Canada-European Union Workshop on Small Arms and Light Weapons Destruction in the Context of Peace Support Operations, Ottawa, 16 May 2001:

The recently concluded Canada-European Union Workshop on Small Arms and Light Weapons Destruction in the Context of Peace Support Operations offer the following recommendations to the Conference.

_ that the United Nations through its negotiated peace agreements and mandates should promote early collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons as part of all its peace support operations, in particular through the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration process;

_ that Canada and the Member States of the European Union should make an inventory of their national capacities to contribute to destruction of small arms and light weapons in peace support operations;

_ that Canada and the Member States of the European Union should consider establishing ad hoc units (including on a bilateral or a multilateral basis) available on short notice and with the required operational and technical skills and equipment, to be put at the disposal of a peace support operation that has a weapons destruction mandate;

_ that in addition to commencing weapons and ammunition destruction, the deployed elements should initiate training of other mission or locally employed personnel to take over the task and possibly the equipment as soon as possible;

_ that the above mentioned initiatives would be a valuable contribution to the follow-up to the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, planned for New York, 9-20 July 2001;

_ that following from the Report of the United Nations Secretary-General on Methods of Destruction, the United Nations fully develop a reference manual for planners and managers with respect to destruction of small arms and light weapons.



Better open your eyes JD and find out the facts about what is really going on around you.[Edited by rbryant3 on July 11th, 2001 at 11:44 PM]

Daveee
July 16th, 2001, 02:41 AM
The biggest problem with the USA is the right to bare arms. This crappy part was intended on letting the citizens take over there country if they feel it is threatining them. What bull----. If your truely worried about your gov. taking over.. Get laws pasted that allow you to dump any government offical who doesnt keep there promises or make laws you dont like. So if ----head Bush desides to take all your guns away.. you simply vote him out and replace him. Or have him sign a contract when he's sworn in that he has to keep his promises. see if your founding fathers would have done something like this.. then you wouldnt have the problems you got now.

Can you justify having more then 10 guns? I dont think so. Your country will be ----ed till this is removed from your constution. What bull.. "Aww gee I need my highpower guns just incase the government (FEMA) takes over." Horse----! Get 100 guys planting bombs allover the USA.. what do you want your government do?? Let common people hunt them down? I would suspend all your laws to to stop them. And dont give me crap like it anit going to happen.. Anything is possible. Goto a disaster area one day and you'll see in mini form just why FEMA has this control.. Live in LA when the next big earthquake comes and tell me if you would want someone in control.

I love the USA.. great things downthere but god you guys all hide behind your consistution when you dont like something which is just about everything.. Burn the dam paper and start over with something everybody wants.

JohnDrake
July 16th, 2001, 09:28 AM
>> The biggest problem with the USA is the right
>> to bare arms.

The U.S. would be a nice, safe place to live if only they would adopt tougher gun laws like Canada, right?

Did you know that some U.S. jurisdictions already have TOUGHER gun laws than Canada? New York City and Washington, DC have much tougher gun laws than Canada yet those jurisdictions still have a higher crime rate.

There is no correlation between tough gun laws and crime. The Swiss have a gun in every home (every adult male is a member of the militia) and their crime rate is one of the lowest in the world.

Criticizing the Americans for their gun laws may make us Canadians feel superior but it doesn't help solve the problem of crime.

JD

SammyBoy
July 16th, 2001, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Daveee
The biggest problem with the USA is the right to bare arms. This crappy part was intended on letting the citizens take over there country if they feel it is threatining them. What bull----.

At the time the constitution was written, this was a real concern. Not so much of a problem today, depending on whom you ask though.

There are plenty of statistics to prove that you are DEAD WRONG about the benefits of stricter gun laws. The solutions you offer to the problems of America are comical at best, moronic at worst.

I can definitely justify owning more that 10 guns, but thank God I live in a country where I don't have to justify it. If you are so anti-gun, do me a favor. Put a big sign in your yard that says "I am pro gun control! There are no guns in this house!" Would you have the balls to do that? Probably not, you'd be an easy target.

Daveee
July 18th, 2001, 07:12 AM
I had started this message out diffrently but when you deal with guys who love guns.. its always a waste of time.

The solution is to remove all guns. If your have one.. you get life.. done.. simple. Sure the ones who just have to kill will find other ways of doing it. See most NRA guys feel that everyone should have a gun. I wonder what would have happened to the guy who just shot his kid and wife at a baseball game?

Do you see a use for full auto and semi's? Other then killing people? Where is the use for high power rifles.. you know the ones you mount scopes on to shoot things far away.. Hand guns.. you hunt with them? Please.. The only guns that have a use are hunting rifles and shot guns. Handguns are for killing people. (I you say for your protection.. protection from who.. awww another person.) Semi and Full auto guns.. Well a 9 bullet clip in a semi for hunting is rather nice. anything more then you really need to practice aiming first then. Full auto.. well these are for killing people.

As for painting a big target here.. Im not worried about someone coming in my house and killing me.. If its my time.. then its my time. If they came in and killed my family.. well if they wanted me or them dead they will find away no matter what I do. By the time I could get to my locked gun cabnet, then down stairs to the locked ammo I'll be dead anyways. See only an idiot leaves a loaded gun around the house with kids. Speaking of kids.. How many kids died because of guns they got ahold of?

So you see I anit Pro Gun Control.. as I have two of my own. I just believe that there are some guns that have no place. I have even been a member of NRA till about 92 when I moved to the artic circle for work.. and since I've been back to lower Canada I've been hunting as much as I can. The people that most "Americans" have to worry about are the guys who have 3000+ rounds of ammo for no good dam reason. Some of the guys who have 20 or more guns.. Not all are bad but what the hell do you need 20 guns for? I know of a few guys who have granades, tracers, mortars... They anit with no anit gov group.. they just like to collect.. ya right. And they do this all under the right to bare arms thingy..

True most gun owners are great people but when you get some who kill for no reason.. all it does is give gun owners a bad name.. and then you find guys like me who question guys who store great mounts of guns and ammo all the while saying its my right. You constatution should be changed too the right to bare arms so you can protect yourself from big business lol. Hell there will be a day when guns will be gone and replaced with some other deadlier weapon.

This is a dead argument that will lead no where.. I own guns.. you own guns.. we dont agree.. Im going back to my linux box to work on my emulator and do what we all do here.. watch semi free tv :)

JohnDrake
July 18th, 2001, 10:53 AM
>> The solution is to remove all guns. If your have
>> one.. you get life.. done.. simple.

The solution is NOT simple. There are approximately 200 million firearms in North America. There is no way to make these guns just disappear. So what do we do, pass a law making guns illegal?

Passing a law and making a problem illegal does not make the problem go away. Selling cocaine can draw a 20-year sentence in my city, yet dealers sell it out in the streets in broad daylight.

Also, how would you enforce a law to 'remove all guns?' Are YOU going to go door-to-door to ask these guys to give up their guns, heh...

JD

SammyBoy
July 18th, 2001, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Daveee

This is a dead argument that will lead no where.. I own guns.. you own guns.. we dont agree.. Im going back to my linux box to work on my emulator and do what we all do here.. watch semi free tv :)

You're right, we will just have to agree to disagree. :-)

rbryant3
July 18th, 2001, 05:36 PM
Well looks like I got back on the fourms just in time.

Do you see a use for full auto and semi's? Other then killing people? Yes hunting, target shooting, competition shooting, collecting etc.

Where is the use for high power rifles.. you know the ones you mount scopes on to shoot things far away.. Long range competition shooting, hunting, varmint control. You ever try to shoot a bear at ten yards with a shot gun? Better not if you want to live long.

Hand guns.. you hunt with them? Please.. Yes I hunt with one every year.

The only guns that have a use are hunting rifles and shot guns. do you even know that this country would still be under British rule if not for the militia the best reason to have a gun is to protect against tyranny in the government.

Handguns are for killing people. (I you say for your protection.. protection from who.. awww another person.) Damn right! How far do you think these manic shooters would have got if everyone in the building had a gun? Not very far. Do you think you could talk them out of shooting you? I would rater take my chances at shooting him myself.

Semi and Full auto guns.. Well a 9 bullet clip in a semi for hunting is rather nice. anything more then you really need to practice aiming first then. Full auto.. well these are for killing people. That must by why there has only been one person has been killed from a legally registered machinegun in the last 20 or so years in the U.S. And the crime was committed by a cop. I mean we all know that you average crack head has a cool 10 grand to by a machinegun to defend his turf. We all so know that because if his great service to the community that when the FBI checks his record it will come up clean so he can buy one. You think they sell machine guns to anyone with just a drivers license?

The people that have over 20 guns are called collectors. People who have lots of ammo are called people who shoot a lot and buy by bulk to get a good deal.

They should pass a law against anyone that believes everything that they hear on the news and special interest groups looking to sell out our country and constitution to make a buck.

davidnb
July 18th, 2001, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by blcjet



The UN had nothing to do with our antideluvian gun laws, some people may like them but some don't. Our wonderful liberal gov't pushed the laws through with a complete lack of disregard to 1/3rd of our country in disagreement.

One of the biggest things they did was say we have to register EVERY gun we own. (Don't get me wrong I don't own any and hate guns, but it's the principle of the thing) So you pay upto $100 a gun to register the stupid thing so the police can see your file if for some reason they have to raid your house and see if you have weapons. Great, so say I have an old rifle in my house.......bullets are on oposite side of house, the police look on my file and see I have a weapon....guess who is going to shoot first and ask later. Like I said, I'm not a gun person and don't want them in my house, but many people I know do have them, and they are being targeted, not the criminals! [/B]

Hate to bust your bubble but the cost to register a gun In canada is $20. The governement reduce the cost sometime ago.
And as you mentioned 1/3 of Canada disagrees with the current gun control, I would Like to point out that 2/3 thirds agree withit. Thank God. Strong gun control reduces crime and murders, there is no if/ors/ buts on this one. I see some guys have posted so called facts that show crime goes up when gun controls are enforced but these guys are dreaming or making up there on stats.

Mel
July 19th, 2001, 10:14 AM
Canada is safer than the USA because of their tighter "Gun Control"
Simon Fraser University Professor Gary Mauser demonstrated in a 1995 Fraser Institute essay, "Gun Control is not Crime Control," some Canadian jurisdictions surpass American states in homicide.

Alberta's 1992 homicide rate of 3.6, for example, topped neighbouring Montana's 2.9 and Minnesota' s 3.3, while Saskatchewan beat North Dakota 3.2 to 1.9. Quebeckers out-murdered next-door New Hampshirites 2.4 to 1.6 (notwithstanding their state motto "Live free or die"), while the Yukon and Northwest Territories, with a combined 1994 population of 94,000, overwhelmed Alaska's 606,276 population with a 1992 homicide rate of 17.8 compared to 7.5.
THESE ARE REAL NUMBERS NOT MADE UP OR DREAMING.

Canadian "Researcher" was paid by the Government

Allan Rock, Canada's Minister of Justice states: "My department has conducted a number of research studies which suggest that regulation of firearms has a positive impact on reducing harms attributed to guns.

More specifically, the Department commissioned Thomas Gabor, a Professor of Criminology at the University of Ottawa, to conduct an exhaustive review of the firearms research literature which illustrates that there is considerable empirical evidence to support regulation of firearms."

Concordia University Professor, Taylor Buckner has dismantled Thomas Gabor's study as politically motivated and in my criticism of it to the Canadian Medical Association Journal, I could find only wishful conjecture on his part leading to a sum of $6 billion dollars as the cost of firearm injuries and deaths to the Canadian community. At the time however he was parading as an independent investigator. We now have an admission by Allan Rock that he was a government paid propagandist for the Justice Department.

Source: Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #804, Sun, 13 April 1997ES

I GUESS THIS IS WHERE YOU GET YOUR STATS FROM.

SammyBoy
July 19th, 2001, 01:07 PM
Nice work Mel!!!

davidnb
July 19th, 2001, 06:47 PM
Yea right I like real numbers. Gun control works, reduces crime anyone can see it, if you look at the proper numbers. Yea, you quoted a few provinces comparing them to states that have a low murder rate. In 1999 canada had a population of 30,493,400 and had 165 people murdered with a hand gun. For the same year in the states, they had a popluation of 273,828,000 and had 13,300 people murdered with a hand gun. the unites states has about 10 times the popluation and 90 times the murdered rate then canada has.
You can keep your watered down bias numbers to your self.[Edited by davidnb on July 19th, 2001 at 06:17 PM]

JohnDrake
July 20th, 2001, 09:37 AM
>> Gun control works, reduces crime anyone can see it,
>> if you look at the proper numbers.

You can't expect to prove anything by quoting random numbers to one another. You've got to look at major studies done by recognized experts.

Go to to Amazon.com and pick up a copy of "Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in America" by Professor James D. Wright. This landmark study examines the effectiveness of gun control and demolishes many myths along the way.

One of the myths the study addresses is the belief that guns make America a more violent society. It's true that the U.S. has ten times more violent crime than Canada or Western Europe. But when you remove gun-related crimes from the statistics the U.S. is STILL 10 times more violent--there are ten times as many knifings, beatings and assaults. This means that U.S. SOCIETY ITSELF is more violent, apart from any impact guns may have.

Therefore, to find the root cause of violent crime in America you have to look at factors OTHER than guns...

JD

davidnb
July 20th, 2001, 02:11 PM
I wasn t quoting random numbers, I counted out right murders by hand guns. i could of quote a great deal of numbers dealing with guns, for example robbeires which the states has a higher number then canada. BUT, also, they have a much higher rate of robbereis including hand guns, the same be said for assaults, rape. Yes , the U.S. has more crime, across the board, but also across the board these crimes includes the use of handguns while the crime is being commited.
I do agree with you over a study would help sovle the issue. But the problem with studies is who does them. Without dragging this on, have your local cable company do a study to see if cable is better then satellite. Or maybe get dave tv do a study on whether testing cards should be legal or not.

get the picture.

After all I have written, don t get me wrong. I think it's wrong that gun collectors have all these problems and the avaerage joe blow can't keep a gun in his house or has a pile of paper work. But because some abuse it, causing higher crime , laws are changed to reduce crime.

gametech
July 20th, 2001, 05:44 PM
Davidnb, Your logic is greatly flawed. Laws do not protect anyone from crime. This idea applies to any crime, not just the ones related to guns. Gun laws almost solely affect people who already abide by the law. Violent criminals are no more deterred by gun laws than hackers are deterred by signal piracy laws. By the way, no matter how many times you recite government propaganda, it is still not truth. Gun laws disarm victims, not criminals. The one great truth that is constantly ignored is that committing a crime is ALREADY ILLEGAL! For any of you who may believe that gun control laws reduce crime, I challenge you to look up the statistics on how many crimes are committed with legally owned firearms. The vast majority of gun-related crimes are committed with illegally owned firearms, thereby proving Webster's (the dictionary maker's) theory that a criminal is by definition someone who breaks the law.[Edited by gametech on July 20th, 2001 at 05:12 PM]

davidnb
July 20th, 2001, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by gametech
Davidnb, Your logic is greatly flawed. Laws do not protect anyone from crime. This idea applies to any crime, not just the ones related to guns. Gun laws almost solely affect people who already abide by the law. Violent criminals are no more deterred by gun laws than hackers are deterred by signal piracy laws.

No my logic is mostly right. Its agruements against that are badly flawed. Read my posts, the US has a much larger murder rate with guns then canada. Aswell, other crimes commited are often done with use of a gun. Gun control doesn t get rid of crime, just help reduces it.

gametech
July 20th, 2001, 11:23 PM
I would love to know why that the cities in the U.S. with the strictest gun control laws have the distinction of also having the highest crime rates. I would also like an explanation for why Canada, Australia, and England have all shown drastic increases in gun related violence since enacting their latest draconian gun laws. It seems to me that statistics prove that increased gun control laws inevitably lead to increased criminal activity against the now unarmed population of victims.

ed12
July 20th, 2001, 11:41 PM
i guess i need a lesson in math
canada=32-million
united-sates=320-million
hum do i see a ten there ??
gun control has it's place this is true
most crimes today do NOT happen at GUN point
rather at the end of a knife ie sharp object
for the reading impaired
to take away my right to own one is wrong i agree
but i have a feeling if one of mine took this same said gun i owned and shot somebody out of a disagreement
i would have to take another serious look at it.
the point here is are we mature enough to own and care for this same said thing.
well let me look i can drive
theres a ton of death
i can drink and drive again there we go another ton of death
my point is not the control the gov has on us but the control we have on us.
let start collecting stat's on that
and go from there.
my 2-cents
regards
ed

To The Real King!!
July 21st, 2001, 12:54 AM
Hi gametech,

Your questions are simple, succinct and to the point and no gun control advocate will be able to answer them without their bull---- pseudo logic.

Gun control laws no more reduce gun crimes than satellite signal theft laws reduce hackers.

The most obvious and undeniable statement that can be made and one many here CAN understand.

Except bull---- pseudo-logic gun control advocates who simply repeat BS things they have heard and do NOT really think for themselves.

Gun control is ONLY aimed at law abiding citizens and has absolutely NO EFFECT on the criminal out to rob the bank. He cares NOT about gun control laws and will NEVER register the tool of HIS CRIME. Period!!

ANYONE who believes he will must also believe in Santa Clause, the Easter bunnie and the tooth fairy.

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/niceday.gif
To The REAL King!!
-----------------------
Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/bllrbanner.gif

Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT BATTLE AS I DID (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)<---CLICK here

davidnb
July 21st, 2001, 06:48 AM
Originally posted by gametech
I would love to know why that the cities in the U.S. with the strictest gun control laws have the distinction of also having the highest crime rates. I would also like an explanation for why Canada, Australia, and England have all shown drastic increases in gun related violence since enacting their latest draconian gun laws. It seems to me that statistics prove that increased gun control laws inevitably lead to increased criminal activity against the now unarmed population of victims.

Canad's crime rate has been decreasing in recent years. I can't pass comment on the other two countries. Comparing Canada to the US is the best i can come up with. The augrement that the US is more violnet is just plain BS. In 1999 Canada had 1 murder per 184808 people and the US had 1 murder per 20,588 people. I do agree that gun control hurts the law abiding gun collector and its a shame there wasn't a better way around it. Where gun control helps, is it reduces the access to guns.

SammyBoy
July 23rd, 2001, 10:49 AM
Here's the results of the tough gun laws in Great Britain.

Copyright 2001 Times Newspapers Ltd.

Britain gripped by gun crimewave
BY STEWART TENDLER, CRIME CORRESPONDENT

POLICE forces reported more than 500 gun alerts in the seven
days before the shooting dead of Derek Bennett by police in
Brixton, a Times survey has found.

Four years after the post-Dunblane gun law reforms were
launched, 30 of the 43 forces in England and Wales dealt with 571
incidents in which guns were reportedly seen or heard over a
seven-day period. Real or imitation weapons were involved in 166
of the incidents, most in London and other big cities.

Scotland Yard dealt with 364 reported incidents in the week from
July 12. Officers found that guns had been used in 158 incidents
including armed robberies, shootings and attempted murders.

Police investigated a gun murder in Leeds and a house sprayed
with bullets by a masked gang in Manchester. In Birmingham
car-jackers pistol-whipped a young woman driver. Police officers
twice came under fire on the streets of London and Newcastle. In
the heart of Brixton, less than a mile from the spot where Mr
Bennett was shot, police chasing two gunmen discovered a
Mac-10 submachine gun fitted with a silencer.

The survey also reveals the number of false alarms sparked by
public fear. Surrey police were called to the sound of a gun which
proved to be a door being slammed violently in a house.
Hampshire had twenty 999 calls about guns, and all were proved
to be unfounded. In Lincoln patrols were alerted to a man in a car
with a gun. It was a toy.

Peter Fahy, Assistant Chief Constable of Surrey, said one of his
three armed response vehicles is called to respond to false alarms
every two days.