1. UK Firearm Laws (2 November 2004)
2. UK Firearm Law Overhaul (14 May 2004)
3. Antidotes for Anti's (2 April 2004)
4. UN Security Council - small arms in Africa (25 March 2004)
5. Firearms registry on firing line
6. Big game + big bucks = big conservation
7. Brazil Adopts Strict Gun Controls
8. The people have spoken – the bastards. The UK controversy
9. UN Secretary General's latest Report on Small Arms
10. Canadian Registry problems again
11. Police blast Canadian firearm register
12. Do gun laws really improve public safety?
13. Shooting Down the Gun Registry
14. Swiss Justice Minister Ruth Metzler (pro gun registration) loses seat
15. Ireland Arms Ban - Interesting Facts
16. Ban Handgun sales - Ballot Brazil 2005
17. Thailand
18. IANSA & Oxfam & Nude Calendars
19. Head of IANSA - quote
20. IANSA - Oxfam
21. IANSA Report Comment 9/10/2003
22. MEMORANDUM
23. Firearm Violence Reduction ?
24. Switzerland
25. Heart Shots: Women Write about Hunting
26. In Defence of Hunting
27. US - National Geographic
28. British Circumstances
29. U.S. House passes gun lawsuit immunity bill
30. Anti Gun Lobby takes a shot at Australia Olympic Shooters
31. London Police seize firearms
32. EU goes for game shooting
33. Calif. lawmaker wants 5-cent tax on every bullet
34. Jersey City Rejects Programs Proven To Curb Gun Violence; NSSF:
35. VPC launches web site
36. Boston drops gun maker lawsuit, others may follow (3)
37. NSSF: Boston Abandons Lawsuit Against Firearms Manufacturers; City Acknowledges Industry Members Committed To Safety, Responsibility (2)
38. Federal Firearms Licensing Reforms and Declining Crime Rates
39. Boston Drops Gun Industry Lawsuit (1)
40. MALTA
41. Byers bids to ban clay pigeons
42. Unintended Consequences
43. ISRAEL

Where I come from, our homes are still our castles
By Joyce Lee Malcolm

Sunday Telegraph 31 October 2004

If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night you can presume he is not there to read the gas meter. But current British law insists that he have the freedom of the premises. When, last Christmas, thousands of Radio 4's Today listeners called for legislation authorising them to protect their homes by any means necessary, the proposal was immediately denounced as a "ludicrous, brutal, unworkable, blood-stained piece of legislation". Until recently that "unworkable, blood-stained" legislation was the law of the land. There was no need to retreat from your home, or from any room within it. An Englishman's home was his refuge, and, indeed, his castle.

But no more. Rather than permitting people to protect themselves, the authorities' response to the recent series of brutal attacks on home-owners has been to advise people to get more locks and, in case of a break-in, retreat to a secure room - presumably the bathroom - to call the police. They are not to keep any weapon for protection or approach the intruder. Someone might get hurt. If that someone is the intruder the resident will be sued by the burglar and vigorously prosecuted by the state. I heartily applaud The Sunday Telegraph's campaign to end this lamentable state of affairs.

Happily for us Americans, English common law prevails in the US; our homes are still our castles. Californians, for example, are entitled to use force to protect themselves and their property. Legislation in Oklahoma which allowed the home-owner to use force no matter how slight the threat has reduced burglary by nearly half since it was passed 15 years ago. What British police condemn as "vigilante" behaviour has produced an American burglary rate less than half the English rate. And, while 53 per cent of English burglaries occur when someone is at home, only 13 per cent do in America, where burglars admit to fearing armed home-owners more than the police. Violent crime in the US is at a 30-year low.

Whatever became of the Englishman's castle? He did not lose the right and means to protect himself at once. It was teased away over the course of some 80 years by governments claiming to be fighting crime, but actually fearful of revolution and disorder. When the policy began, crime was rare. For almost 500 years, until 1954, England and Wales enjoyed a declining rate of violent crime. In the last years of the 19th century, when there were no restrictions on guns, there was just one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million people. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world.

The practical removal of the right to self defence began with Britain's 1920 Firearms Act, the first serious limitation on privately-owned firearms. It was motivated by fear of a Bolshevik-type revolution rather than concerns about householders defending themselves against robbers. Anyone wanting to keep a firearm had to get a certificate from his local police chief certifying that he was a suitable person to own a weapon and had a good reason to have it. The definition of "good reason", left to the police, was gradually narrowed until, in 1969, the Home Office decided "it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person". Since these guidelines were classified until 1989, there was no opportunity for public debate.

Self defence within the home was also progressively legislated against. The 1953 Prevention of Crime Act made it illegal to carry in a public place any article "made, adapted or intended" for an offensive purpose "without lawful authority or reasonable excuse". Any item carried for defence was, by definition, an "offensive" weapon. Police were given broad power to stop and search anyone.

Individuals found with offensive weapons were guilty until proven innocent. The scope is so broad that a standard legal textbook explains that "any article is capable of being an offensive weapon". The public were told that society would protect them and their neighbours. If they saw someone being attacked they were to walk on by, and leave it to the professionals.

Finally, in 1967, tucked into an omnibus revision of criminal law, approved without discussion, was a section that altered the traditional standards for self-defence. Everything was to depend on what seemed "reasonable" force after the fact. It was never deemed reasonable to defend property with force. According to the Textbook of Criminal Law the requirement that an individual's efforts to defend himself be "reasonable" is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it still forms part of the law". Another legal scholar found it "unthinkable" that "Parliament should inadvertently have swept aside the ancient privilege of selfdefence. Had such a move been debated it is unlikely that members would have sanctioned it." She was confident that Parliament would quickly set things right: "In view of the inadequacy of existing law there is some urgency here." That plea was written 30 years ago, and the situation is infinitely more urgent now.

At the same time as government demanded sole responsibility for protecting individuals, it adopted a more lenient approach toward offenders. Sentences were sharply reduced, few offenders served more than a third or a half of their term, and fewer offenders were incarcerated. Further, they were to be protected from their victims. Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer jailed for killing one burglar and wounding another, was denied parole because he posed a danger to other burglars. "It cannot possibly be suggested," the government lawyers argued, "that members of the public cease to be so whilst committing criminal offences" adding, "society can not possibly condone their (unlawful) murder or injury".

Meanwhile, much of rural Britain is without a police presence. And the statutes meant to protect the people have been vigorously enforced against them. Among the articles people have been convicted of carrying for self defence are a sandbag, a pickaxe handle, a stone, and a drum of pepper.

This trade-off of rights for security has been disastrous for both. Crime has rocketed. A UN study in 2002 of 18 developed countries placed England and Wales at the top of the Western world's crime league. Five years after the sweeping 1998 ban on handguns, handgun crime had doubled. As was forecast at the time, the effect of outlawing handguns has been that only outlaws have handguns.

In recent years governments have even felt it necessary to prevent the public from defending themselves with imitation weapons. In 1994 an English home-owner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the home-owner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.

The impact on law-abiding citizens has been stark. With no way to protect themselves, millions of Britons live in fear. Elderly people are afraid to go out and afraid to stay in. Self defence, wrote William Blackstone, the 18th-century jurist, is a "natural right that no government can deprive people of, since no government can protect the individual in his moment of need". This Government insists upon having a monopoly on the use of force, but can only impose it upon law-abiding people. By practically eliminating self defence, it has removed the greatest deterrent to crime: a people able to defend themselves.

Joyce Lee Malcolm is Professor of History at Bentley College, Massachusetts, and Senior Advisor, MIT Security Studies Program. Her book, Guns and Violence - the English Experience, is published by Harvard University Press.

Blunkett backs call for 'right to fight back' against burglars
By Patrick Hennessy, Political Editor

David Blunkett has given his backing to The Sunday Telegraph's campaign to change the law to give homeowners more rights to protect themselves against burglars. The Home Secretary said yesterday that he was "deeply sympathetic" to those who thought the law should do everything possible to help householders against intruders - and signalled that government action was likely.

David Blunkett: said last week that law should be 'rebalanced' 
Ministers are said to have an "open mind" about changing the current law, which allows homeowners to use "reasonable force" to protect themselves. What this term means is unclear, and many people who have defended themselves against intruders have faced criminal charges.

Mr Blunkett's comments follow backing for this newspaper's campaign from David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, who said last week that the law should be "rebalanced" in favour of householders and against burglars. The Home Secretary's intervention is also further clear evidence that the Government will do all it can to hammer home the message in the run-up to the general election that it is "tough on crime".

Any government action specifically aimed at tightening the law is likely to have to wait until after the election - expected next year - although Labour is expected to promise a review in its manifesto.

The Sunday Telegraph launched the campaign last weekend following the fatal stabbing of Robert Symons, a London teacher, during a burglary at his home.

Mr Blunkett said last night: "I am deeply sympathetic to those who feel the law should do everything possible to protect householders. That's why I changed the law last year to prevent homeowners being sued by intruders who injure themselves while breaking in. What's lacking is a clear alternative to the definition of 'reasonable force', which has thankfully been interpreted by the Crown Prosecution Service and the judiciary in favour of householders just in the last few weeks."

"If David Davis and the Tory Party have a better alternative, they have not provided it yet." He added: "What anyone advocating change must prevent is murder, under the guise of reasonable force, which no civilised society would want, especially given that our law already allows 'self-defence' as a complete defence against a murder charge."

One of Mr Blunkett's senior officials said: "If there is a better way of defining the law we are certainly not going to have a closed mind to it."

Mr Davis said last night: "What is required is a review of how the current law operates. David Blunkett hasn't done that yet."

Blunkett orders overhaul of outdated firearm laws

By Sophie Goodchild and Francis Elliott

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=519443
The Independent
9 May 2004

The Government will attempt to tackle Britain's gun culture with plans to be unveiled this week for an overhaul of outdated firearms laws. David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, will publish a consultation document which is expected to lead to tougher restrictions on the sale and manufacture of replica firearms as well as new age limits on gun ownership, especially for airguns, starter pistols and shotguns. The consultation follows lobbying by the police and anti-gun campaigners who say Britain's gun laws are confused, out of date and in desperate need of reform.

Of particular concern are replica firearms which are popular with gun collectors and can be bought legally but are being converted by criminals into lethal weapons to fire live ammunition. Police say that the greatest increase in gun crime is linked to a rise in the use of imitation weapons and converted airguns. In London alone, at least 70 per cent of weapons now seized by officers are converted replicas.

Last November, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Gun Crime published a report calling for a complete ban on the import, sale and manufacture of replica firearms. There has also been a rise in attacks on people involving airguns. Last week, a firefighter was shot in the face by an airgun pellet as he drove a 24-ton fire truck along a street in Dumfries, Scotland.

Ministers have already brought in some measures to curb gun crime in Britain. Last month, new anti-social behaviour laws came into effect which included a new imprisonable offence of carrying a replica gun in public. The legal age for owning an airgun has also been raised from 14 to 17 and it is now an offence to buy a weapon for someone under 17. But the ban on underage ownership only applies to Brocock-style airguns, which operate using a gas cartridge, and not to all types of airguns.

A Home Office source confirmed that the consultation document would cover all aspects of gun-control legislation. "We will be seeking people's views on all aspects of firearm legislation. We are looking at the whole issue, although replica and imitation firearms are of particular concern," the source added.

Anti-gun groups have welcomed the planned reforms, which are the first major overhaul of firearms laws since 1997, when the Government introduced a ban on handguns after 16 schoolchildren and their teacher were killed at Dunblane primary school in Scotland.

The Gun Control Network, which campaigns for tighter arms control, said Britain lagged behind other countries because it did not have a universal age limit on people buying guns. "In our increasingly violent world we need to ... tighten up on our gun laws," said Gill Marshall-Andrews, chairwoman of the GCN. "The world-wide pressures are for ... an increase in global gun violence."

But any restrictions on gun ownership are expected to face fierce opposition from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which represents gun enthusiasts.

World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities

top

Antidotes for antis

Being a victim of 'animal rightists' is no fun; but to win the battle for hunting, get the law on your side, be creative and have some fun By James A. Swan, Ph.D.

http://espn.go.com/outdoors/general/columns/swan_james/1773602.html
From ESPN Online April 2004

Recently I attended the "The Price We Pay" conference in Washington, D.C., produced by the National Animal Interest Alliance. The purpose of the program was to spotlight the monumental damage that has been done by animal rights "humaniacs" to law-abiding, researchers, educators, sportsmen, wildlife managers, restaurateurs, rodeos, circuses and breeders who treat animals in a humane and compassionate way.

Since 1986, the Environmental Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front have pulled off more than 10,000 incidents resulting in more than $100 million in damage. And this is just the tip of the iceberg when you consider the millions that have been spent on legal fees, the countless costs when hunts like Ontario's spring bear hunt get canceled, the pain and suffering of victims of attacks and threats, the loss of cultural identity and livelihood by native hunters, nuisance animal attacks, harassed workers at circuses, zoos and rodeos, increased costs for security and even the starvation of native peoples when legal hunting is outlawed.

I'm sure that you are aware that there were extra security precautions for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Did you realize that the most security was needed to protect the rodeo, which was part of the Arts and Culture Festival. The reason was that animal rightists attacked the rodeo with an international assault of letter writing, a billboard campaign, celebrity spokespeople (Scott Hamilton and others) and protests, including one man who chained himself to the doors of the International Olympic Committee headquarters in protest of the rodeo. More than 300 law enforcement officers were called to action to protect the rodeo at the Games. Bob Costas, why didn't you report that?

Not surprisingly, the FBI has declared eco-terrorism the No. 1 domestic terrorism priority, according to Michael Gallagher, the head of the FBI's Domestic Terrorism Operations Unit in Washington, D.C.  

The good news
Fortunately, some good things are being done about this international issue on many fronts. In 2003, for example, the FBI established a special task force to unite all efforts to combat domestic terrorism.

The Internal Revenue Service is investigating People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals for donations made to individuals and groups associated with terrorist activities. If you'd like to find out more about what is being done to combat this group of grandstanding hate-slingers, check out the Web site of the Center for Consumer Freedom and their related Web sites - www.animalscam.com and www.activistcash.com/

These programs target the specific groups, document what their leaders are saying and reveal how these so-called charitable organizations have spent the millions they raise by stereotyping, stigmatizing and propagandizing people.

You also may know that fur farmers, tanneries and department stores that sell fur have received threats and been targets of arson, bombs, fires and animal releases. And don't forget the folks who wear fur in public and have had their clothes sprayed with paint and have been assailed with threats and insults.

The fur-farming industry has stood its ground, and it's paying off. It has created a version of the "Neighborhood Watch" crime-fighting strategy of residential areas that trains people to network, develop close ties with law enforcement and prepare and plan to prevent attacks. And it's working! Fur sales have gone up 40 percent since 1998, despite the fact that animal-rights groups are raising in excess of $100 million a year to put them out of business.

In Great Britain, where the Blair administration came to power with an agenda to ban hunting, the Countryside Alliance has not only blunted the anti-hunting forces, it has demonstrated enormous grass-roots support. In 2002, it organized the Liberty and Livelihood March on London that attracted 407,000 marchers to stand up for the rights of people who live close to the land. It was the largest peacetime march in England since WWII.

In addition, Countryside Alliance held a vigil on Parliament Square, lit 7,000 beacons across the United Kingdom and conducted 15 rallies and six marches that collectively have involved more than a million people.  

When your back is against the wall, people do fight back.

The Countryside Alliance has said to the government that if hunting were curtailed, civil disobedience would follow. As a guide for Countryside Alliance members who may want to commit civil disobedience in support of rural lifestyles, the Alliance has said that it would only support people:
1.) When the only law they break is the unjust hunting law itself (not being reckless or lawless).
2.) If they submit to trial and punishment for their alleged civil disobedience, and not try to escape capture.
3.) When their issues create no inconvenience to the general public.

In addition, the Alliance also has found occasion to use the power of "the naked truth" to win the media war, according to Simon Hart, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance. On one occasion, when the Alliance wanted to draw attention to a petition they were going to deliver to Parliament, an attractive young female foxhunter delivered the document to parliament on horseback while topless. Simon says that they got a full-page coverage in The Sun, which reaches 10 million people. In addition, the young woman sold her story to the British Press, which made her enough money to pay off her college loans. 

Humor often is one of the most potent weapons for the truth. 

The eccentric magician-comedians Penn and Teller are taking on the animal-rights crowd. Be sure to watch their show April 1 at 10 p.m. on Showtime. It will be re-aired April 8 at 10:30 p.m.

The lesson that seems to emerge from all this is, simply put, "success is the best revenge."  

James Swan - who has appeared in more than a dozen feature films, including "Murder in the First" and "Star Trek: First Contact," as well as the television series "Nash Bridges," "Midnight Caller" and "Modern Marvels" - is the author of the book "In Defense of Hunting."

_____________________________________________________________________

World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities

top

UN SECURITY COUNCIL DISCUSSES SMALL ARMS IN AFRICA

25/03/2004
Press Release /8037 
Security Council 4933rd Meeting (AM)* 

SECURITY COUNCIL CALLS FOR REGIONAL APPROACH IN WEST AFRICA TO ADDRESS SUCH CROSS-BORDER ISSUES AS CHILD SOLDIERS, MERCENARIES, SMALL ARMS

The Security Council this morning, emphasizing the importance of addressing continuing destabilizing factors in West Africa through a regional framework, called on States in the region to take a number of measures to address such cross-border issues as child soldiers, mercenaries and illegal arms trafficking....

Presenting his report, the first devoted specifically to cross-border problems in the subregion, Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged a coordinated approach to tackling the problems in West Africa and called his recommendations practical. They had been grouped not in order of priority, but rather broad thematic headings such as security sector reform, disarmament, extortion, "naming and shaming" and the proliferation of small arms. They were not a "shopping list" for donors, but rather a call to action, he stressed.

"The overarching theme is that, if we want the region's problems to be dealt with in an effective and sustainable manner, these recommendations cannot be carried out solely on a country-by-country basis", he stated. Their implementation required a multifaceted, regional approach. At the same time, certain issues such as small-arms proliferation, natural resources exploitation and the use of child soldiers and mercenaries, had a particularly strong bearing on security and stability, without which no other progress would be possible....

Nana Adkufo-Addo, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ghana and Chairman of the Mediation and Security Council of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), said the security situation in West Africa today engendered cautious optimism, while also justifying concern.

In adopting the "Declaration on a subregional approach to peace and security" at a meeting in Abuja on 28 May 2003, he said ECOWAS leaders had reaffirmed their determination to strengthen peace and stability in West Africa, as well as the importance of a concerted regional approach. They also adopted several key instruments to govern their conduct, such as the light weapons moratorium and a code of conduct for its implementation, as well as a protocol relating to the mechanism for conflict prevention, management, resolution, peacekeeping and
security.

Also, to combat the illegal trafficking of small arms and light weapons, referred to as "the real weapons of mass destruction", several speakers encouraged West African leaders to consider transforming the Moratorium on Importation, Exportation and Manufacture of Small Arms, set to expire later this year, into a legally-binding instrument.

The meeting, which began at 10:12 a.m., adjourned at 1:35 p.m.

Background
The Security Council met this morning to hold a public meeting on West Africa, for which it had before it the Secretary-General's report on ways to combat subregional and cross-border problems in West Africa (document S/2004/200).

According to the report, the increasing use and proliferation of mercenaries, child soldiers and small arms account for much of the instability in the West African subregion.

The recommendations laid out in the present report are grouped under the following 12 broad headings: improving United Nations harmonization; ratification and observance of existing conventions; collaboration in the Mano River Union area; strengthening the ECOWAS secretariat; strengthening and implementing the ECOWAS Moratorium; supporting national commissions; disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes; security sector reform; reducing extortion at roadblocks within and between countries; strengthening civil society participation and awareness-raising; "naming and shaming"; and small arms exporters and private security companies.

Statements

MOHAMED IBN CHAMBAS, Executive Secretary of ECOWAS.
He said West African leaders had renewed their commitment to the Moratorium on Importation, Exportation and Manufacture of Small Arms and tasked the ECOWAS secretariat to take the necessary measures for the full implementation of the plan of action. In line with that, the secretariat, together with Canada, the Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom convened a conference in Abuja on "Combating Small Arms Brokering and Trafficking" from 22 to 24 March to explore appropriate strategies to address the dangers posed by the illicit trade in small arms that had become West Africa's "weapons of mass destruction". What was now required was the political will of West African leaders and the support of the international community to transform the moratorium into a convention, in order to make headway in combating that scourge.

RONALDO MOTA SARDENBERG (Brazil) said: With the support of the international community, ECOWAS had a fundamental role to play in strengthening the 1998 moratorium on small arms in the region. He also welcomed the Secretary-General's recommendation for a meeting of defence ministers later this year, which should count on the full involvement of the African Union.

ANA MAR�A MENENDEZ (Spain) said: As for the issue of small arms and light weapons, she supported the Secretary-General's recommendation that ECOWAS member States consider the possibility of adopting a legally-binding instrument before the expiration of the moratorium later this year. Also, the establishment of a regional ECOWAS registry, a ban on the activities of mercenaries and the establishment of national commissions to carry out the moratorium were relevant recommendations that warranted serious study.....

GUNTER PLEUGER (Germany) Regarding illegal arms trafficking, he supported stricter national controls of arms exports and increased transparency in that area, including compliance with arms embargoes imposed by the Council, as well as regional embargoes. The governments of small-arms-exporting countries should require their companies to better mark those weapons. He called on all countries concerned to further strengthen and implement the moratorium, due to expire in October, and transform it into a legally-binding instrument. In resolution 1467 (2003), the Council had called on ECOWAS member States to consider the establishment of a regional register of small arms and light weapons. As a first step, member States might focus on records of light weapons, with a view to expanding the register to small arms at a later stage.

ISMAEL ABRAÃO GASPAR MARTINS (Angola) said: In that regard, he said he fully agreed with the suggestion of his German colleague that small arms were the real weapons of mass destruction in the subregion and in Africa, in general. Serious consideration should be given to strengthening existing mechanisms, such as the small-arms moratorium and the Mano River Union peace initiative. (Emphasis added.)

* The 4932nd Meeting was closed.
______________________________________________________________________

World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities

top

PUBLICATION: The Daily News (Halifax)
DATE: 2004.02.25
BYLINE: Martin, Don

Firearms registry on firing line 
Grits quietly planning to move controversial registry from Criminal Code to Firearms Act

As an opening shot of pre-election damage control, it's low-calibre ammunition. But a plan up for discussion at the inner cabinet in the next week or so puts that crime-busting joke of a billion-dollar federal firearms registry into full legal farce.
Sources confirm the feds will decriminalize the firearms registry before the election. It will remove fail-to-register violations from the federal Criminal Code and place them under the kinder, gentler Firearms Act. It is not expected to encounter serious objections from Prime Minister Paul Martin's top ministers.
It means duck hunters, gun collectors and self-governed natives would no longer risk a criminal record if convicted of possessing an unregistered rifle or face the theoretical, but very unlikely, spectre of a jail sentence for non-compliance. In lieu of a court date, they'd get a ticket, with a modest fine attached.
But even that slap on the wrist for registry-resistant gun owners might not exist for long. Enforcing the Firearms Act is a provincial responsibility. And eight of the 10 provinces - Quebec and Prince Edward Island being the lone federal toadies - will not prosecute registry violations. That means a gun registry that doesn't actually work will no longer be backed by force of law in provinces with three-quarters of the Canadian population.

In short, the registry and the law become even more asinine, if that's possible.

Tinkering explored
While other registry tinkering is being explored in the extensive and intensive registry review by Civil Preparedness Minister Albina Guarnieri, who will address a convention of hunters and anglers tomorrow in Toronto, decriminalization will be the main push to ease public angst at former prime minister Jean Chretien's firearms folly. Sources say the package - including fee reductions and tighter gun-storage requirements - could end up before Parliament as a free vote before the expected election call in April.
But what Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz calls a tiny step in the right direction is the only action Canadians can expect to rein in the out-of-control, auditor general-condemned registry. While costs have continued to escalate far above budget and police-verified examples of the registry actually preventing or circumventing gun-toting crime simply do not exist, the Liberals cannot abandon the registry entirely because, inexplicably, it still has strong support in their political strongholds.
Western officials tell me the Toronto and Quebec caucuses stand as a single bloc behind the registry, refusing to even consider scrubbing or watering down the concept. Martin admitted as much last week. While refusing to confirm decriminalization was being planned - I'm not going to scoop what Albina's going to do or not do - the prime minister admits the issue triggers stark regional polarizations.
There's no doubt this is a western issue, but also a very big issue in rural Ontario, rural Quebec and rural Atlantic Canada, he said in an interview.

The importance of gun control ... may be felt very strongly, but it's also felt very strongly on the other side.

Problematic West
Particularly problematic for Martin is the West, where he has pledged to make Liberal electoral gains a legacy accomplishment. For westerners, the gun registry has longer legs then even the Quebec sponsorship scam as proof their tax dollars by the billions are being put to death on Parliament Hill.
Little wonder. The registry continues to backfire on the balance sheet. Direct costs and related expenses have soared $30 million over budget for this fiscal year. And there's still that nagging $300-million contract from a private consortium to run the registry through 2008. Keeping it around flunks every one of Martin's litmus tests for continued program spending, starting with its inability to deliver efficiency, affordability or value for money.
But after so much money has been squandered, it cannot be easily trashed politically. Besides, those who somehow believe a billion dollars will be saved for better purposes by the registry's elimination simply do not understand the concept. It's already gone. Down the drain. In a giant sucking sound. Lost forever.
Meanwhile, long-necked gun crime continues a drop that started a decade before the registry was put in place, while crimes involving handguns, which have been registered for a fraction of the cost since 1934, escalates.

Firing squad
So bring on decriminalization, if only to save western ministers Anne McLellan and Ralph Goodale from an electoral firing squad, while eliminating the risk of innocent hunters and collectors with criminal records. After all, once law enforcement refuses to prosecute Canada's armed resistance, the obvious becomes official: The federal gun registry is just shooting blanks.

____________________________________________________________________

World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities

top

National Review Online
http://www.nationalreview.com/swan/swan200401300950.asp
January 30, 2004, 9:50 a.m.

Field Financials
Big game + big bucks = big conservation.

By James A. Swan

About 14 million people a year buy hunting licenses in the U.S. That's less than 30 years ago, but if you add to that people who own lifetime licenses and youth hunters under 17 who don't need to buy licenses in some states (as they are accompanied by adults), there are close to 19 million hunters in the U.S. each year. If you add in those who don't hunt each year but still consider themselves active, the total number of hunters is closer to 24 million.

But the untold story is that the culture of hunting is changing. There are fewer small-game hunters today than 30 or 40 years ago, but according to Conservation Force, the number of big-game hunters is growing exponentially. In l955 there were 1,579,704 big-game hunters in the US. Forty-one years later, in l996, there were 11,288,000 — a 615 percent increase.

Part of the reason big-game hunting is on the rise is that the numbers of white-tail deer, elk, and wild turkey are exploding in the U.S. In addition, more and more women are taking up hunting. Ironically, during the last decade, the number of people who say they took trips to watch wildlife for recreation decreased by 10 million.

And these big-game hunters are increasingly from the big-pocket set. The New York Times recently reported that the number of hunters with household incomes of $100,000 or more increased more than 25 percent, to 1.3 million, between 1991 and 2001 (taking into account inflation and population increases).

Which brings us to the bottom line: The rise of big-game hunting means that hunters are pumping a lot more money into the economy. According to Southwick Associates, big-game hunters contributed more than $60 billion to the nation's economy in l996.

Hunting big game is expensive, but people who have money seem to relish the enjoyment that comes from harvesting wild meat and bringing it to the table. That's why big-game hunting organizations — like Safari Club International, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, Dallas Safari Club, and the National Wild Turkey Federation — are holding very successful, multi-million dollar fundraisers that attract high memberships.

At the recent Safari Club International Hunter's Convention in Reno, more than $6 million in auction items were donated and gobbled up by an enthusiastic crowd. According to the newsletter African Indaba, African outfitters donated close to $1 million in hunts to SCI this year. Already in 2004, African outfitters have donated nearly $2.5 million to all American hunting organizations.

And what happens to the big bucks collected?

In contrast to animal rights groups, who spend nearly all of their income on fund-raising appeals and media sensationalism, and environmental groups who spend on legal battles with federal, state, and local agencies, hunting organizations put the majority of their income into wildlife conservation.

Take, for example, Safari Club International. In the past year, SFI and its chapters have funded museum and zoo exhibits, nature centers, state and federal wildlife agency research and law enforcement, the building of thousands of nesting boxes for birds and bats, the donation of thousands of meals of wild game, free medical services to the needy in many parts of the world, wildlife-agency needs in foreign countries (including planes to patrol for poachers), teacher training and youth education programs, stuffed animals for blind children ("Sensory Safaris"), purchasing and management of hundreds of thousands of acres for wildlife habitat, and the teaching of prison inmates on how to raise pheasants and other game birds for stocking.

Despite what the antis rant or the liberal press writes about hunters and hunting, today's highly active hunting "organizations" are, in reality, service clubs. Frankly, modern wildlife conservation could not exist without them.

____________________________________________________________________

World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities

top

Brazil Adopts Strict Gun Controls to Try to Curb Murders
The New York Times
Foreign Desk; 3
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/21/international/americas/21BRAZ.html

January 21, 2004
Byline: LARRY ROHTER

SAO PAULO, Brazil -- No country in the world has a higher rate of homicide by firearms than Brazil, and the toll is highest in large cities like this one. But now, in what gun control advocates describe as a bold but risky social experiment, Brazil has virtually outlawed the possession of handguns.
Since just before Christmas, no one in this nation of 175 million except police officers, soldiers and prison and security guards has been authorized to carry a pistol.
The sale and trade of weapons has been similarly limited: the illegal purchase, possession or furnishing of arms has become a criminal offence with no bail and long prison sentences. Gun owners are being told that most of them will have to hand over their weapons within six months.
"This is an expression of the unanimous will of society to cut the spiral of violence that unsettles us and embarrasses us before humanity," President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said when he signed the bill. Noting that a homicide occurs in Brazil every 12 minutes, he added that "this statute is certainly not the solution to everything, but it is an exceptional step forward."
No one knows how many guns are circulating in this vast nation, which is larger than the 48 contiguous states of the United States and shares a similar history of cowboys and explorers pushing, often violently, to open a rugged frontier.
About two million guns are legally registered, but government officials estimate that the number of unregistered weapons may run as high as 20 million, including those of poor peasants who hunt out of necessity.
Under the legislation, no one who is under 25 or has been convicted of a drug or alcohol offence is permitted to own a gun. To acquire a weapon, an applicant must submit a statement of need -- the rural hunters, for example, can qualify, but the standard of need is much stricter in cities.
The applicant must also prove that he or she has no criminal record and is gainfully employed and then register the weapon with a new centralized federal data bank after paying a $350 annual tax.
But the law also contains an unusual feature that worries gun advocates in a country where people talk routinely about ambitious laws that are passed but "don't catch on" because of a lack of enforcement. A national referendum has been scheduled for October 2005, in which voters will be asked whether they want the gun sale restrictions to continue or be revoked.
"This is an act of cowardice by the governing class, which ought to at least be willing to take the political risks involved," said Oscar Vilhena, board chairman of the Latin American Institute for Crime Prevention here.
"They can't offer security to the people," he said, "so by asking a terrorized populace to vote in favour of this, they have assured that if things don't work out, they are not the losers."
Originally introduced in 1999, the legislation had to overcome tenacious resistance from the military and a gun lobby generous with campaign donations.
The main cartridge manufacturer, for instance, opposed the bill because it contained a provision requiring that lot numbers be stamped on all bullets sold to the police and the military so that their origins could be traced.
"This was an important amendment that makes it possible to trace the diversion of military and police stocks," said Rubem Cesar Fernandes, the co-chairman of Viva Rio, a civic organization concerned with urban violence that worked in favour of the legislation. "You see an enormous quantity of material diverted from these institutions and private security firms to Paraguay, and then brought back into the country illegally."
Many of the guns used to commit crimes are, in fact, police or military weapons that have been stolen by or, more often, sold to criminal groups.
There is also a booming traffic in weapons seized by police officers, so the law calls for the destruction within 48 hours of all guns confiscated by the police that are not needed as evidence.
More than 40,000 people are murdered annually in Brazil, about 90 percent of them with firearms, the highest rate in the world among more than 60 countries studied by the United Nations.
About a quarter of the killings occur in this state of 38 million, which includes Brazil's largest city as well as extensive ranch and farming areas where gun ownership is traditional.
"The majority of those who kill are not criminals, but ordinary people with guns who get into arguments about banal things, like traffic disputes or arguments in a bar," said Jose Vicente da Silva, a former secretary of public security for the state of Sao Paulo. "Obviously this law is not going to deter the professional criminal, but it can be a valuable tool to substantially reduce the murder rate."
Supporters of the legislation are calling on the federal government to make more money available for complementary measures that will help toughen the law.
"It doesn't make any sense for the population to be disarmed if the bandits have easy access to weapons," Geraldo Alckmin, the governor of Sao Paulo State, argued in an interview with O Globo, a major daily.
"The contraband of arms is disgraceful," Mr. Alckmin added. "It is essential that there be a border police and an effective combating of that contraband, because the ease with which criminals have access to weapons is enormous."
Legislators have given the Justice Ministry until the end of March to draw up regulations to enforce the new law. But already some problems have emerged, most notably as the result of a provision that forbids municipal civil guards, a sort of police auxiliary, in cities with less than 250,000 people from carrying weapons.
"Criminals aren't stupid," said Luiz Tortorello, the mayor of Sao Caetano, a Sao Paulo suburb with 146,000 people that is completely surrounded by other cities that are above the cut-off line. "They are going to look at the situation and realize that they can operate here with alacrity."
In one widely publicized case, a bank clerk from an interior state who was on vacation in Rio de Janeiro was arrested there when he drew his gun and fired it in the air to scare off what he thought were three criminals intent on robbing him.
The would-be assailants fled, the gun owner has been fined and criticism of what are seen as unfair features of the new law have grown in the news media.
"For this law to have the greatest impact, it must be accompanied by an intense publicity campaign in favour of disarming and alerting people that possession of a gun leads to imprisonment," said Mr. da Silva, now a researcher on public security issues at the Fernand Braudel Institute here.
But so far, he added, that has not happened.

Photos: On Copacabana beach in Rio de Janeiro, a man passed a sculpture installation calling for "Brazil Without Arms." Activists in Sao Paulo lighted candles in front of the Catedral da Se in memory of victims of gun violence. (Photo by Reuters); (Photo by Associated Press)
c.2004 Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC (trading as Factiva).
All rights reserved.

____________________________________________________________________

World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities

top 

Notes: The UK controversy over a proposed home defense law continues. MP Stephen Pound now says that it was "American gun nuts" that hijacked the original poll in which BBC listeners selected a home defense law as one they wanted introduced - BBC denies it.

Below is the actual transcript of what Pound said. This is the first time this has been published, so please feel free to circulate it. I am also including the "American gun nut" article and two others.

This material should be an excellent start for any articles, media pieces or speeches you might want to do.
___________________________________________________________________________

“The people have spoken – the bastards”

BBC Radio 4 – transcript of interview with British MP Stephen Pound

January 1, 2004

Listeners were invited in a BBC Radio 4 competition to put forward their choice for a new law on any subject, to be introduced in Parliament (In the UK these are known as “Private Member’s Bills). The competition would be won by the proposed law with the largest number of proponents.

Interviewer: As you may have heard earlier we have a winner in our Listeners’ Law competition and it’s a proposal to authorize homeowners to use any means to defend their homes from intruders. What happens now? Throughout this lawmaking experiment we’ve had the help of the MP Stephen Pound and he’s on the line now. Stephen Pound, what’s going to happen to our Listeners’ Law next?

Pound: Well, I have to say that my enthusiasm for direct democracy is slightly tempered.

Interviewer: Why do you say that?

Pound: Well, to be perfectly honest, this is a difficult result. I can’t remember who it was who said: “The people have spoken – the bastards” (laughs)……

What I’ll be doing is emailing the twenty people who’ve drawn ballots for the Private Member’s bill and saying to them would you be interested in taking this bill forward? Equally, the one that came second, which I think is an excellent proposal, the idea for an opt-out for organ transplants, I’ve actually spoken to (the Secretary of State for Health) John Reid about. He’s quite interested in actually picking this one up as well. We could get a (inaudible)… At the moment it depends whether some MP is willing to take it forward. Interestingly, as you heard earlier on it’s quite likely that this bill is unworkable. Any bill which endorses the slaughter of sixteen-year-old kids with (inaudible) … pump-action shotguns –

Interviewer (interrupting): – Yeah, but hang on a minute, hang on a minute, let’s not give up hope on our Listeners’ Law yet. I mean it could, could it not, capture the imagination of the House? – in the sense that it’s now clear that a great many people in the United Kingdom want something to be done about the rights of home owners in their own homes when they face intruders.

Pound: That’s absolutely right: they want something to be done… Whether that something is to give carte blanche for people to slaughter anybody who –

Interviewer (interrupts): Well, okay, maybe we’ve got to fine tune it.

Pound: Exactly. Exactly. So this is going to be a wonderful exercise in real participative democracy. People are going to say that we’ve got this one-line bill that somebody can come up with, and it would make it wonderful if we did this – and then people are going to think well, maybe actually it’s not that easy. I think it’s we win on that basis.

Interviewer: You don’t think we should call it Schwarzenegger’s Law… sort of call it the Make My Day Bill…?

Pound: (Laughs) Nothing would surprise me after the result of this poll, I can tell you that. Absolutely nothing. They’re all good ideas. I mean, at the end of the day it’s an extraordinary exercise…This is a one-off and I don’t think we’ve seen the end of it. I rather think this has got legs and will be looking to carry on further. Let’s not perhaps think that because the Radio Four listener could come up with the one-liner, The Tony Martin Memorial Bill, that’s going to alter the (inaudible). I’m hoping somebody will take it up so we can ventilate this and talk about it, because quite clearly people out there are worried and no government worth its salt ignores that sort of (inaudible).

Interviewer: Excellent. Hang on to that very positive thought, Stephen Pound. Thanks very much.
_____________________________________________________

MP's debate call on 'defending homes'
Newsquest Media Group Newspapers (UK)
January 9, 2004

EAST Lancashire Tory MP Nigel Evans has called for a Commons debate on strengthening the right of people to defend themselves when their homes are broken into following the Tony Martin case.
Mr Martin was jailed for shooting and killing one burglar and injuring another after they burgled his remote Norfolk farmhouse.
Labour MP Stephen Pound is currently considering whether to introduce a Private Members' Bill on the issue after listeners to BBC Radio Four's Today programme voted for him to do so in a poll.
Yesterday Ribble Valley MP Mr Evans raised the issue in the Chamber of the House of Commons with the Leader of the House, Peter Hain. He said: "If if a Ribble Valley farmers finds an intruder with a gun trying to raid his premises he should allowed to use his shotgun to defend himself."
c.2004 Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC (trading as Factiva).
All rights reserved.

*** End of Article ***

_________________________________________________________________________
21,500 reasons why we need a Tony Martin law: Readers give massive backing
to MoS campaign for the right to defend homes against burglars.
So, what are you going todo about it Mr Blunkett?
The Mail on Sunday (UK)
Page: 38
January 11, 2004

Byline: BERNARD GINNS
THE Mail on Sunday has received a huge response to its campaign to give
people greater rights to defend their families and property against
burglars.
More than 21,500 readers are demanding a Tony Martin law named after the
Norfolk farmer jailed for shooting dead a teenage burglar to end the
prosecution of householders who use force against intruders.
Last weekend, we invited readers to respond to an appeal by Robin Baker
White, a former High Sheriff of Kent, to ask Home Secretary David Blunkett
to introduce legislation to allow people to defend their families and
property.
And there has been a huge response to our Police Watch campaign, which
invited readers to tell us about police who have refused to tackle criminals
while persecuting their victims.
We took three sacks of readers' response coupons to the Home Office
where a spokesman said: 'We recognise the concerns of Mail on Sunday readers
and thank them for sending their views.' We began the Police Watch campaign
by highlighting the cases of two victims of crime who saw the law turn
against them.
Mr Baker White had his gun confiscated by police after he fired a shot
to scare off burglars. The defenceless 71-year-old was coshed over the head
when criminals returned to his Canterbury home.
Pharmacist Brian Conn was warned by the Metropolitan Police for
breaching data protection laws after he used shop records to identify the
thug who beat him unconscious at work.
Our campaign brought sackfuls of mail and phone calls from readers
telling shocking stories of how victims of crime ended up on the wrong side
of the law.
Yesterday, a Tory MP said he would try to force Parliament to back calls
for a Tony Martin law by using a little-known procedure a Back of the Chair
Bill.
North Thanet MP Roger Gale said: 'The objective is not a vigilante Bill
or an encouragement for the public to take the law into their own hands but
an attempt to tip the balance of the law back in favour of the victim rather
than the criminal.
'Legislation must be ruled by common sense. If a 12-year-old kicks a
football into a garden, we cannot allow someone to blast him with a
shotgun.'
The Law Commission, the independent body set up to review law and
recommend reform, acknowledged yesterday that some changes may be necessary.
Chairman Roger Toulson told Radio 4's Today programme: 'We are looking
at two broader aspects of the law of selfdefence. One is whether if a person
kills using excessive force in self-defence they should have a partial
defence, reducing what would otherwise be murder to manslaughter. We are
also looking more generally at the law of self-defence.'
A Tony Martin law emerged as the top choice in a listeners' poll on the
Today programme to find which single change people most wanted to see on the
statute book. Andrew Moffat, one of the listeners who suggested the idea,
yesterday urged MPs of all parties to take notice of the huge public desire
for the law.
He has asked lawyer Francis Benyon, a former Parliamentary draughtsman,
to come up with workable legislation under the title of the Home Defence
Bill.
Speaking on yesterday's Today programme, Mr Moffat said: 'The idea is to
remove the anomaly whereby if a householder is burgled and if he has a go
and confronts the burglar, the presumption of guilt is against him whereas
it should be against the criminal.
'It's self-defence and if he kills the burglar it's too bad. We want a
legal system that protects the victim and not the criminal. Either the
Government recognises that there's very serious ill- feeling among the
population of this country or it regards the public with contempt.'
In response to Mail on Sunday readers, the Home Office said people were
entitled to use reasonable force to protect themselves, their property or
their family under the law as it stands.
It added: 'In applying the "reasonable force" test, the jury (or the
magistrates) look at all the circumstances.
'But the law does not allow an act of retaliation. Punishment of
criminals is rightly a matter for the courts. It is not for the victims,
vigilantes or anyone else to take the law into their own hands.'
Caption: NOW READ THIS: REPORTER BERNARD GINNS, RIGHT, HANDS READERS'
DEMANDS TO HOME OFFICE OFFICIAL JOHN TOKER
c.2004 Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC (trading as Factiva).
All rights reserved.

*** End of Article **

____________________________________________________________________

World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities

top

Please find link here to the UN Secretary General's latest Report to the Security Council on small arms. This is a very important document and reflects increasing involvement of the SC with the issue. The report should be read in its entirety. Here are some areas you might want to pay particular attention to:

Paragraph 4 - This notes UN General Assembly resolution 58/241 which starts the process of negotiating an instrument on marking and tracing. I have mentioned this frequently. The first meeting of this group will be February 3-4, 2004, in New York.

Paragraph 5 - This discusses a new study on the Interpol Weapons and Explosives Tracking System (IWETS). We have not seen the study yet, but there seems to be more and more emphasis on this.

Paragraph 9 - This discusses the "small arms advisory service.." which apparently will be a permanent part of the UN Department for Disarmament Affairs. The significance of this is the further institutionalization of the small arms effort at the UN.

Paragraph 10 - This mentions "modalities of support for the establishment of the service." This means there are ongoing talks on how to finance this permanent UN body.

Paragraph 12 - This notes the new effort on brokering. There will be a report ready for the 59th session f the UN General Assembly which will be in October 2004.

Paragraphs 37, 40 and 45 - These discuss efforts on the end use issue. Look for more of this.

Paragraph 51 - This mentions the broadening of the Economic Community of Western African States (ECOWAS) arms moratorium to include "registers..(of) national inventories of small arms.." This could be a precedent for other registration efforts.

Paragraph 55 - This notes the "voluntary" expansion of the UN Register of Conventional Arms to small arms. This was a little noticed, but very important occurrence.

____________________________________________________________________

World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities

top

Ottawa committed to gun control, Martin says
The Globe and Mail (Canada)
National News; A4
January 4, 2004

Byline: KIM LUNMAN
Ottawa ONT - Prime Minister Paul Martin says it's "just common sense" to review the Liberal government's controversial gun registry, estimated to cost taxpayers $1-billion - 500 times more than its original price tag.
"We are committed to gun control and we are committed to the registration of weapons," he told reporters in Ottawa yesterday.
"At the same time . . . common sense simply dictates there have been a number of problems and that these problems have got to be looked at and have to be dealt with."
The national firearms registry is one of the biggest political hangovers Mr. Martin has inherited from his predecessor, Jean Chrétien, as he prepares to go to a spring election.
Mr. Martin, who announced that Parliament will resume on Feb. 2, said the latest review of the gun registry is necessary.
"Unfortunately that billion dollars has been spent and I've already said I've found that unacceptable." The review was announced as the government, which Mr. Martin says is "cash constrained," looks for ways to trim the fat.
Three studies have already been done on the cost-effectiveness of the registry, including a report by Auditor-General Sheila Fraser in December of 2002 that lambasted the program for its "astronomical overruns."
The report projected the program would cost taxpayers $1-billion by 2005. When registry was introduced in 1995, Canadians were told it would cost $2-million after the fees from licences and registration were recovered.
The program is plagued with problems. Eight of the 10 provinces are not complying with the law, refusing to charge or prosecute anyone who does not register their firearms. Only one person has been convicted under the legislation, and an estimated one million guns remain unregistered.
Canadian Alliance Saskatchewan MP Garry Breitkreuz, a critic of the firearms registry, said it's ridiculous for the government to review the program for a fourth time. There were two government studies after the Auditor-General's report, he said.
NDP Leader Jack Layton said the government does not need another study to improve the system. "We're saying, 'Get this sorted out,' " Mr. Layton said. "The Auditor-General has laid out what needs to be done. Just get that done."
Liberal MP Albina Guarnieri, Minister of State for Civil Preparedness, is conducting the latest review.
When asked whether one of the options includes scrapping the gun registry, she replied: "All options are on the table. We have to measure results against the costs. Are we spending the money wisely and are we getting our money's worth. . . ? We're looking for ways to improve the program."
But Liberal MP Paul Steckle, who represents a rural Ontario riding and will be involved in the review, told reporters that getting rid of the program might be the best solution. "I don't see why not. To say it was a waste of money, perhaps. We look at a billion dollars but do we continue to fuel the fire and to continue to throw more money at it when it doesn't work?"
But Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control said a new review will merely rekindle a debate that Canadians have already had. She said the national firearms registry has been effective in reducing gun-related injuries and deaths, and any move to abolish the program would be irresponsible.
Mr. Martin promised an "ambitious agenda" and said he will reintroduce legislation including a bill allowing the export of generic medication to poor countries to fight killer diseases, another bill to create an ethics commissioner, and a third to create a new electoral map.
 Illustration
c.2004 Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC (trading as Factiva).
All rights reserved.

*** End of Article ***

____________________________________________________________________

World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities

top

PUBLICATION: Calgary Herald
DATE: 2004.01.05
BYLINE: Mario Toneguzzi
SOURCE: Calgary Herald

Police union blasts gun registry: Koenig urges government to scrap program
The union head of Calgary's front-line police officers is calling for the federal government to scrap the billion-dollar gun registry because it has been a colossal failure in reducing violent crime in the country.
Al Koenig, president of the Calgary Police Association, said the vast amount of money spent on the firearms program could have been much better put to use for front-line police officers in Canada.
He said the program has had no effect on crime or acted in any way as a deterrent. "Our position on this is very firm," said Koenig. "We do not support it, and we will be fighting against it. "The police and the public are still at risk. . . . Despite the money spent, it should be scrapped."
Last week, new federal Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan said the goal of the program is to protect Canadians from violence without unnecessary spending. She has launched a cabinet-level review of the gun registry to try to make it more effective and cost-efficient.
In November, federal government figures showed that the firearms registry could top the $1-billion mark a year earlier than originally forecast. The most recent government estimates showed the total program cost will rise to $814 million by March.
Last year, federal officials estimated the total cost of the registry, which was originally budgeted at $2 million, would hit $1 billion sometime in 2005.
Jim Hinter, president of the National Firearms Association, said "police, the firearms community and the Canadian public are coming to the same conclusion: this is a joke."
"It's not doing anything to reduce crime," added Hinter. "We're seeing increased home invasions and increased gang violence across the country. . . . This (legislation) has nothing to do with crime and that was what the legislation was sold to the public as."
For instance, in Toronto, of the 65 homicides committed during 2003, guns were used in 31 of them, or 48 per cent.
Hinter said there have been "very minimal charges" across the country as a result of the legislation that was "supposed to make society safer."
"If they (federal government) can prove it reduces violence in the country, they would have the absolute support of the firearms community," said Hinter.
Don Stewart, spokesman for the Calgary Police Service, said that to the best of the force's knowledge, there have been no charges laid this past year by police specifically related to the new gun legislation.
Mahfooz Kanwar, a criminologist and sociologist with Mount Royal College, said the legislation will certainly have an impact on crime, especially murder. "Any control on guns can help," said Kanwar. "I know people say guns don't kill people, people kill people. But a gun does kill someone. . . . Fortunately, our culture is not a gun culture like the Americans. Our culture is peaceful. "Even if you trace one criminal because of the registry, it's worth it."
David Austin, spokesman for the Canada Firearms Centre, said about one million guns remain unregistered in the country. He said the firearms program now has data on almost seven million guns in Canada.
Austin said police forces in Canada lay charges on a regular basis as a result of the program and it is effective because it keeps guns away from people who could be a danger to themselves and to others. "A goal of Canada's gun control program is to prevent people who are a danger to themselves or others from accessing firearms," states the Canada Firearms Centre website.
"This is done in large part by registering firearms and issuing licences to their owners, who play a fundamental role in the success of the firearms program. Licensing works to ensure that high-risk individuals do not have access to firearms while registration encourages responsible firearm ownership, provides critical information to police investigations and helps curb illegal gun trading."
As of Dec. 6, the centre said it had 1.6 million firearm owners with at least one registration certificate and 6.8 million firearms registered nationally.

toneguzzi@theherald.canwest.com

____________________________________________________________________

World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities

top

PUBLICATION: Vancouver Sun
DATE: 2003.12.31
EDITION: Final
SECTION: Editorial
PAGE: A9
BYLINE: Gary A. Mauser
SOURCE: Special to the Sun

"Do gun laws really improve public safety?:  
Statistics show that violent crime in Canada is on the rise even as we do more to restrict"

Paul Martin's image as a fiscal conservative is already fading. In his year-end interview with Global TV, the prime minister refused to scrap the most infamous Chretien-era boondoggle -- the billion-dollar firearm registry.

A study I did recently shows that not only has the registry squandered billions, but more importantly, it hasn't had any discernable impact on violent crime.

In The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales, published by the Fraser Institute, I examine trends in violent crime in Commonwealth countries that had recently introduced firearm regulations.

The widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations is to examine trends in total violent crime, not just gun crime. Firearms are involved in only a small fraction of criminal violence. The real problem is criminal violence, not just gun violence.

I use the United States as a point of comparison for assessing crime rates because its criminal justice system differs so dramatically from those in the Commonwealth. Not only are criminal penalties typically more severe in the U.S., but also conviction and incarceration rates
are usually much higher.

Perhaps the most striking difference is that qualified citizens in the U.S. can carry concealed handguns for self-defence. During the past few decades, more than 25 states in the U.S. have passed laws that relax the rules for allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. In 2003, there are 36 states where qualified citizens can get such a permit.

As surprising as it may seem to some, violent crime rates, and homicide rates in particular, have been falling in the U.S. The drop in America's crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world. In 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990s. This contrast should provoke thinking people to wonder what happened in those countries where they introduced more and more restrictive firearm laws.

During the 1990s, Canada increasingly restricted firearm ownership, but the violent crime rate in Canada increased during that period. New laws were introduced in 1991 and again in 1995. Licensing and registration are still being phased in. How can that be while violent crime has plummeted in the U.S.? Some will say that homicide rates have been falling in Canada. Unfortunately, homicide rates are falling even faster in the U.S.

Given that violent crime continues to increase, can the Canadian experiment with firearm regulation be justified? The effort to register all firearms, which was originally claimed to cost only $2 million, has now been estimated by the Auditor-General to top $1 billion. Final costs are unknown.

Gun laws must be demonstrated to cut violent crime, or gun control is no more than a hollow promise. It's time to pause and ask: Do gun laws actually work?

At the same time that funds seem to flow freely for gun registration, the RCMP, Immigration, and prisons were starved for money. For a billion dollars, we could have kept the Ports Police, which was disbanded early in the 1990's, conducted more investigations of the Hells Angels, as well as kept better track of violent criminals who had been released from prison.

Recent gun laws introduced in the United Kingdom and Australia have also failed to improve public safety. In the past 20 years, the U.K. has introduced increasingly restrictive laws on firearm ownership, finally banning handguns in 1997. The result? Police statistics show
that the homicide rate in England and Wales jumped 50 per cent in the 1990s, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000. Violent crime rates are twice as high in England and Wales as in the U.S.

The Australian government made similar draconian changes to its firearm laws during the 1990s, even confiscating a large number of firearms from hunters and target shooters. Unfortunately, this effort has not made Australia any safer. Homicide and violent crime continue
to increase in Australia, while both are decreasing in the U.S. Robbery and armed robbery rates have doubled in Australia, while they are decreasing south of our border. The homicide rate in Australia has started climbing again.

Restrictive firearm legislation has failed to reduce violent crime in Australia, Canada, or the U.K. The policy of restricting gun ownership has been an expensive failure. Unfortunately, policy dictates that the current directions will continue. And more importantly, it will not be examined critically.

It is an illusion that restrictive gun laws protect the public. Maybe we should crack down on criminals rather than hunters. Maybe that really would save lives.

Professor Gary Mauser is with the Institute for Canadian Urban
Research Studies at Simon Fraser University .
http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/

____________________________________________________________________

World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities

top

Shooting Down the Gun Registry

By: Garry Breitkreuz
Calgary Herald
Wednesday, December 17, 2003
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/CalgaryHeraldColumn2003-12-17.pdf

If Prime Minister Paul Martin is a man of his word, we'd expect him to scrap the gun registry in the next few days or weeks. Why? Because he promised last week, at a $2.8-million Liberal fundraiser, that his new government must "have the will to shut down what doesn't work and the discipline to focus on what can." Even the Liberals now realize that the gun registry doesn't work, and no matter how many billions they spend on it that it will never hit the real target: criminals.

Since the Liberals have blown a billion implementing Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, homicides have increased, including domestic homicides, and suicides have increased. So much for saving lives as they promised it would. Daily police reports confirm the Liberals' firearms program hasn't done a thing to control the criminal use of firearms in our cities. Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino said it best earlier this year: "We haven't yet come across any situation where the gun registry would have enabled us to either prevent or solve any of these crimes."

But putting the gun registry of tax dollars into this money pit. The registry is only one component of the fatally flawed Firearms Act, and there are abundant examples of other problems with this failed legislation. This is why five provinces and three territories refuse to help the federal government implement and administer the firearms program and why eight provinces refuse to enforce the act. The only way to fix the Firearms Act is to repeal it and replace it with gun laws that are at least aimed at the right target -criminals.

For example, Firearms Act regulations require every law-abiding owner of a firearm to report his or her change of address within 30 days or risk going to jail for up to two years.

But the Firearms Act does not require the same of the 131,000 convicted criminals who have been prohibited from owning firearms by courts. The government even admitted in Parliament that the Privacy Act protects the rights of these convicted criminals because they failed to include this provision in the Firearms Act. As a consequence, police only know where completely innocent gun owners live- not the criminals. Firearms owners, but not the homes of the 131,000 convicted criminals who have been prohibited from owning firearms.

Consequently, the police can't check their homes to see if these prohibited gun owners have actually turned in all their guns or have acquired more guns illegally. This flaw in the Firearms Act is one of the reasons why Hells Angel leader Maurice "Mom" Boucher was able to have access to a registered 9 mm handgun and three legally owned shotguns in his home.

The Liberal government failed to fix these flaws when it rammed Firearms Act amendments through Parliament earlier this year. For some reason only known to Liberals, they still consider law-abiding gun owners more dangerous than violent criminals who are prohibited from owning guns.

As if we needed more proof that the Liberals' gun laws were off target, Statistics Canada's Homicide Report for 2002 re-ported that 2/3 of those persons accused of murder had a criminal record, and 73 per cent of those had a previous conviction for a violent offence including eight who had been previously convicted for murder. Just think how much safer our cities would be and how many lives could have been saved if the billion-dollar Firearms Act allowed police to keep better tabs on known criminals since 1995 rather than trying to track two million completely innocent, government-licensed firearms owners.

Martin wrote most of the cheques for this firearms fiasco while he was finance minister. Now, he has put Anne McLellan back in charge of the mess she helped create while she was justice minister. They both have a lot of tracks to cover up. Unless they propose a complete rewrite of the Firearms Act, and unless they are able to get the complete support of all the provinces and the recreational firearms community for what-ever they propose, and unless they make public the cost-benefit analysis they've been keeping secret all these years, their promises will fall far short of solving the problem they have created for themselves. And sadly, Canadian taxpayers will keep paying through the nose for nine years of Liberal incompetence and ineffective gun laws aimed at the wrong target.

Garry Breitkreuz is the Justice Critic for the Canadian Alliance

____________________________________________________________________

World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities

top

Swiss Justice Minister Ruth Metzler loses seat

Note: Here is an extremely important story which most of us missed. Swiss Justice Minister Ruth Metzler has lost both her seat and her cabinet post.

She was the leading advocate for gun registration in the Swiss government (http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissinfo.html?siteSect=111&sid=4263352
"Metzler calls for tighter gun controls").

Although the article does not mention it, gun registration played an important role in her defeat. It will be interesting to see what impact this has on Swiss small arms policy.

_____________________________________________________________________________

http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=105&sid=4534943
Switzerland braced for Blocher shockwave
swissinfo December 10, 2003 5:22 PM

Christoph Blocher's election to the Swiss cabinet has rattled much of the Swiss establishment and is likely to complicate relations with the European Union.
The rightwing Swiss People's Party was rewarded for its success in October's parliamentary election with a second cabinet seat.
Blocher, the outspoken leader of the party's Zurich branch, replaces the Christian Democrat minister, Ruth Metzler.

Blocher is known for his opposition to the EU and his hardline attitude on asylum. His presence in the cabinet, along with the conservative Radical, Hans-Rudolf Merz - who was also elected on Wednesday - is expected to push the government further to the Right.
New approach
Fribourg-based political analyst Jeremias Blaser warned that Blocher's populist style could spell a new, aggressive style of government politics in Switzerland.
"Policies of destabilisation and populism have always been the two main aspects of rightwing politics," Blaser told swissinfo.
"And if you look at history you can see what kind of outcomes we have to expect – a new, much more aggressive political style, further cuts in public services, further privatisation and a regression in environmental policy."
He said there were also question marks over how Blocher – who has been a strident critic of the government – would fit into the cabinet.
"He was, and still is, a politician who for 15 years has systematically discredited all the political institutions – parliament, the government, the Federal Court."

Clive Church, a British expert on Swiss politics, said there was a danger Blocher's election would be viewed negatively in Europe and could be interpreted as a sign of the rise of the Far Right.

Image problem
"People tend to see the People's Party as being a bit like [Jörg] Haider's [Austrian rightwing Freedom] party and the smaller xenophobic parties. And even though this is really only a very partial truth, it won't help the country's image," Church told swissinfo.
He added that having Blocher in the cabinet could also hamper negotiations with the EU over a new set of bilateral accords.
"I suppose it could make Brussels feel that Switzerland is even less likely to join the EU than it was before," Church said, "so I can't imagine this is going to make Switzerland's job easier in Europe."
Blaser agrees that Blocher could complicate Swiss-EU relations. "Blocher was always against the EU, so the chances of getting a good outcome of the negotiations currently underway are dropping again."

Two become one
Metzler's departure reduces the number of women in the cabinet from two to one.
Blaser said this could be seen as "another sign that there's a clear rightwing tendency in parliament".
"Rightwing parties have never pushed for equal representation of men and women in politics," he commented.

Blaser said it was the first time in 130 years that a cabinet member had failed to be re-elected.

Swissinfo, Morven McLean

____________________________________________________________________

World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities

top

Ireland Arms Ban - Interesting Facts

When will they ever learn, it is a pity that someone does not highlight the situation here in Ireland to show the practical effects of a ban on civilian ownership of firearms.

Since a 30 day temporary custody order was enacted in Ireland in 1972 all privately owned pistols have been in the states custody, we cannot even get a bb gun. What has been the net effect on crime with firearms and murder with firearms,.......................nil, I understand our homicide rate with firearms is second only to Mexico city in world terms.

One only needs to look at the murder rate in Ireland to see that a ban on civilian ownership of firearms does nothing to deter the criminal possession and use of illegally imported firearms, nobody in Ireland can argue that legally held pistols has contributed to crime because we have not had a single pistol licensed to civilians since 1972.

Firearms for criminals continue to be imported with all major drug shipments, if someone risks importing drugs what's a few extra firearms for loose change, and here is the good part, most of the firearms seized by police here are serious ones that would not even be available for civilian ownership even if we did have silenced firearms, HK MP5's Ingram machine pistols, fully suppressed and even some firearms from Europe that were found to have no serial numbers on them?

The old adage is so true, outlaw civilian ownership of firearms and then only the outlaws will have them.

And of course the sting in the tail, when terrorism started in Northern Ireland all those years ago, it was the Government in the Republic of Ireland (unaffected by the troubles) that decided to ban pistols, Northern Ireland never prohibited the possession of pistols for personal protection or target shooting, there has never been a reported incident in NI with a legally held firearm, and here is the best bit, members of my association travel North to practice target shooting with pistols, not 65 miles from Dublin the capital of the Republic and guess what we are no danger to anyone either north or south of the boarder and crime is not increased as a result.

You are right actions like this threaten all owners of legally held firearms because it lends legitimacy to the concept that removing firearms from civilian ownership makes the word safer...................look around my country and see the effect of a 30 year ban.


Ireland

____________________________________________________________________

World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities

top

Ban Handgun sales - Ballot Brazil 2005

Miami Herald
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/7461154.htm
Brazil gun laws are toughest in South America
By KEVIN G. HALL
Knight Ridder Newspapers

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil - New legislation passed by Brazil's Congress will give one of the world's most homicidal nations the toughest gun laws in South America. The hitch is that the law would cover legal gun sales, not widespread black-market arms dealing.

The new measure raises the minimum age for gun ownership in Brazil to 25 from 21, severely restricts carrying handguns in public and requires background checks of potential gun buyers. It makes cross-border gunrunning a felony and - most controversially - calls for a referendum on Oct. 2, 2005, to determine whether to ban handgun sales in Brazil
.................................................................
.....................................................etc etc
The requirement that ammunition be marked with the name of the buyer is incredible, but that there will be a ban on the ballot in 2005 is the most significant aspect of this whole thing. This is a threat to every shooter and firearm owner in the world.

____________________________________________________________________

World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities

top

Thailand

http://www.phuketgazette.net/news/index.asp?id=3111
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
Phuket Gazette - Thailand
Weapons amnesty until December 15


PHUKET TOWN: Phuket residents in possession of unregistered firearms or explosives have until December 15 to turn them in without risk of prosecution.
The amnesty, which actually went into effect two weeks ago, on October 17, was announced today by Phuket Provincial Chief Administrative Assistant Visasva Sasismit through a press release.
It is not clear whether the amnesty is an extension of one announced by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra on October 5, which he said would last 30 days only. Nor is it clear why local authorities delayed announcing the amnesty until two weeks after it began.
The release said that the amnesty was part of the Government’s on-going campaign against “influential people”
Following the announcement of that campaign – and before the amnesty came into effect – caches of arms and explosives have been turning up all over the country, sometimes endangering people living in areas where they were dumped.
Those wishing to take advantage of the amnesty may turn in their weapons at any of Phuket’s three district offices (Muang, Kathu and Thalang) between 8:30 am and 4:30 pm on government working days, until the December 15 deadline.
Those with large arsenals of weapons, especially explosives, are encouraged to notify the district registrar, so that he can dispatch a team to collect the weapons, rather than having them delivered to the district office.
Individuals who turn in arms during the amnesty will not be prosecuted, nor will information related to the surrender of weapons be used in investigations or pending legal cases, even those cases lodged before October 17.
K. Visasva said that there will be no cash compensation for the weapons, which would become the property of the government.
It is two years since the Cabinet approved a draft bill banning guns in various parts of Thailand, including Phuket.
Under the bill, anyone carrying a gun in these gun-free zones – even if they had a license – would be liable to a jail sentence of up to 10 years and/or a fine of up to 200,000 baht.

The last illegal firearms amnesty in Phuket, declared in July last year, was a failure. Not one gun was handed in. (Emphasis added.)

____________________________________________________________________

World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities

WFSA

IANSA & Oxfam & Nude Calendars

Note: Needless to say, there are some very current instances of movie stars getting involved in politics (this is being written from California!), regardless the below article is example of phenomenon at it worst. Dame Helen Mirren dresses up the IANSA party line and sends it out as a column. The incorrect facts are almost too numerous to mention.

________________________________________________________________________
The Age (UK)
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/18/1066364538179.html
The UN's Big Five supply 88% of all killer arms
By Helen Mirren
October 19, 2003

Each minute, one person dies from armed violence. We can demand it be stopped, writes Helen Mirren.

My television alter ego, Prime Suspect's Detective Chief Inspector Jane Tennison, has to face violent lawlessness on a daily basis. But at the end, there is a resolution. The evildoers are unmasked, justice is done and order is restored.

In the real world, it is not so simple. Violence is not always controlled by the law. Justice is not always done. This year, about 500,000 people will die from armed violence - nearly one a minute.

Millions live in daily fear of their lives. They are victims of a dangerously unregulated global trade in arms.

Where do these weapons come from? An incredible 88 per cent of the world's arms are supplied by the permanent members of the UN Security Council - the US, Britain, Russia, France and China. More than two-thirds of the value of all arms are sold to Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America.

With the value of globalauthorised arms exports estimated at $US21 billion ($30 billion) a year, arms exporters are making massive amounts of money out of this trade in deadly weapons. Yet arms-exporting governments deny accountability for the death and suffering caused by the weapons trade, claiming they only export to responsible arms users. They point the trigger of blame at illegal users. Yet it is estimated that 80-90 per cent of all illegal small arms are initially manufactured and traded legally, in the state-sanctioned trade.

Many of these weapons end up in the wrong hands. They fuel conflict and abuse in the most unstable areas of the world.

I have seen first-hand the result of this trade, and the terrible damage weapons can do. I visited South Africa with Oxfam and met primary school children such as Lydia, whose mother was shot dead in a car by unknown attackers. Another women, Cecilia, told me how she was raped, shot and blinded in the eye. Her son, who was sleeping next to her when she was attacked, was also shot. He survived.

Lydia and Cecilia's suffering is repeated in dozens of other countries throughout Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and Asia, which are awash with weapons. Millions of weapons seep through porous and unguarded borders on every continent each year. There are a staggering 639 million small arms in the world, one for every 10 people.

The onus to control the proliferation of weapons lies withall governments that export orre-export arms. Rich governments are constantly urging developing countries to become less reliant on aid and to become accountable for improving their own country and regional security, economies, education and health. Yet, in what can only be seen as enormous hypocrisy, the very countries that are urging self-reliance are helping to fuel the conflicts that destroy people's livelihoods and trap countries in a cycle of violence and poverty.

In the past four years, Britain, France and the US earned more income from arms exports to Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America than they provided in aid.

The hypocrisy cannot go on. Rich governments must admit the role they play in allowing the deadly and global trade in arms to go unchecked. Organisations such as Oxfam Community Aid Abroad and Amnesty International Australia are calling for an arms-trade treaty to stop the flow of arms to abusers. The treaty must be agreed to by governments around the world and provide a universal standard for all arms exporters to comply with.

We need tougher global arms controls. By campaigning for change, ordinary people can force their governments to act. In North Yorkshire, England, four years ago, a small group of women from the Rylstone Women's Institute produced a calendar of themselves nude, hoping to sell a few hundred copies. This calendar became a worldwide sensation, and now the story has been turned into a film, Calendar Girls, in which I feature. This small group earned 1 million for leukaemia research and raised the profile of the disease internationally.

The effect of these women's work demonstrates that we have the power to demand action and change. Perhaps the best way is not for the entire population to go naked in the name of international arms controls, but if enough people stand up and demand an end to the deadly global trade in arms, governments must listen.

On October 10, Oxfam Community Aid Abroad, Amnesty International Australia and the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), which is a network of more than 500 organisations, joined together to demand international change by launching the Control Arms campaign. Thousands of people have already given their support to this global campaign that aims to ensure that the supply and use of conventional weapons are strictly regulated.

There is little time to lose: in the same minute in which a person dies from armed violence, 15 new arms are manufactured for sale. By the time we turn our calendars from October to welcome in November, nearly 42,000 people will have died.

The bare facts of the global arms trade should be chilling enough to spur governments to implement strong controls. It is now up to people in Australia and around the world to demand their leaders take this action.

Dame Helen Mirren, an Oxfam ambassador on conflict, has just finished filming her sixth series of Prime Suspect and stars in the film Calendar Girls, now showing in Melbourne.

____________________________________________________________________

World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities

WFSA

Head of IANSA - quote

With someone, somewhere in the world killed every minute by guns, lobby groups on Thursday launched a campaign for a global treaty to curb what they called an out-of-control international weapons trade.
"(Small) arms are ... the new threat of mass destruction," said Rebecca Peters, head of the International Action Network on Small Arms, grouping 550 organizations in 100 countries. The action network, along with Amnesty International and the aid group Oxfam launched the campaign in Lima, Nairobi and London.
Light weapons kill half a million people a year, Peters said, and there are 650 million such firearms in circulation -- one for every 10 people on earth.
Some 70 percent of those weapons are in civilian hands. "That's incredible. Civilians possess more weapons than all the soldiers and police in the world," Peters said.
The campaign, which is focusing on small arms bought illegally by individuals or crime gangs and on the states that permit it, "is seeking to make governments and the public aware (of the problem) and to put in place a universal treaty to control these weapons," Peters added.
The United States has 200 million firearms, almost a third of the world's total, but the drugs trade and rising levels of urban crime is making guns a growing problem in Latin America. The Inter-American Development Bank reckons they cost the region up to $170 billion a year directly and indirectly.
In Colombia, the world's biggest producer of cocaine in the grip of a four-decades war, the quality of a restaurant can by judged by how many gun-toting bodyguards are outside.
Wealthy Colombians live in fortresses with private armed guards in the lobby. In the countryside, warlords swagger in broad daylight with pistols -- even machine guns -- in view.
No surprise then that Colombia, where even traffic disputes can end up being settled by shootouts, has the world's highest murder rate -- and the action network says 85 percent of that is with guns.
Firearms caused 40,000 deaths in Brazil in 2002, according to official figures. The United Nations says it has 11 percent of gun killings, the highest for any country not at war.

CITIES LIKE WAR ZONES

Rio de Janeiro has become a huge market for Colombian cocaine and a recent U.N. report said the murder rate in the hilltop favelas, or shantytowns, averages 150 per 100,000 people -- comparable to war zones.
During Rio's famous carnival this year, 3,000 troops reinforced 35,000 police after drug gangs opened fire on police posts with machineguns and firebombed scores of buses.
In Venezuela, gunfights are common in the sprawling hill-top slums and shanty towns around Caracas. At night, the sound of gunfire, often automatic weapons fire, is common. More than 50 people are murdered every weekend, mostly with guns.
Even in calm Chile, a millionaire last month shot dead an old woman and fatally wounded another person after kidnapping the woman who said he owed her money. His gun was registered.
Experts say many in Latin America feel the need to protect themselves because poverty has caused police cutbacks. Ironically, many illegal weapons once belonged to the police.
According to a U.N. study, 100,000 small arms are stolen worldwide every year.
One Argentine province collected 2,600 firearms after offering to swap them for food, while in Rio, police seize an estimated 10,000 weapons a year. (Additional reporting by Ibon Villelabeitia in Bogota, Pascal Fletcher in Caracas, Peter Blackburn and Maria Pio Palermo in Rio, Gabriela Donoso in Santiago) (Emphasis added.)

____________________________________________________________________

World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities

top

IANSA - Oxfam

http://www.controlarms.org/

http://www.controlarms.org/documents/arms_report_full.pdf

Updated: 10:06 AM EDT
October 9, 2003
Charities launch campaign against arms trade
By Kate Holton, Reuters

LONDON (Reuters) - Uch Hy was asleep when a fellow taxi-driver threw a grenade through his window to settle a business dispute.
The $5 weapon from a street market in Cambodia killed his wife and maimed his daughter.
Hy's case was one of many included in a report published on Thursday by Amnesty International, Oxfam and IANSA, the International Action Network on Small Arms, to promote a new campaign to control the international arms trade.
The report said the trade was spiraling out of control, with one person killed every minute by armed violence.
If the trend continues, it said, by 2020 more people would die from war and violence than from diseases like malaria.
The three charities launched their campaign in London's Trafalgar Square by covering the site in grass and gravestones. They were later launching it in 65 countries, calling for governments to agree an Arms Trade Treaty by 2006, similar to the 1997 Landmines Treaty.
The campaign is aimed at the world's most powerful governments, who are also the world's biggest arms suppliers -- France, Russia, China, the UK and the United States.
"In my village, every man has a gun, a gun of his own," a worker from Papua New Guinea was quoted as saying in the report.
"Nowadays if you don't have one for yourself then you don't have a name in the village. Your wife can be raped. They can steal. They can do anything to you."
The "Control Arms" report said the demand for guns and small arms would continue unless new rules were introduced.
"The availability of arms can create a climate of fear," the report said. "Insecure groups and individuals arm themselves for protection, and their actions are perceived as a threat by others, who respond by arming themselves and thus a demand for yet more weapons is created."
The report said the U.S.-led war on terror had allowed arms suppliers to relax their controls in order to arm "new-found allies against terrorism, irrespective of their disregard for international human rights and humanitarian law."
"International arms supplies to those responsible for gross human rights abuses send a message that the behavior of such groups is tolerated, even supported, by the international community."
The report said that in Iraq there were thought to be 24 million guns in June 2003, enough to arm every man, woman and child and that they could be bought for around $10 each.
It also described the effect unexploded ordnance has had on communities once a war has finished, preventing access to homes, roads and fields and stopping people rebuilding their country.
The effect of small arms and the threat of war could also be seen in communities decades after a conflict, it said.
Psychiatrists in Croatia working with women who were raped, bereaved or displaced, believe it will take two to three generations before the psychological impacts of the 1990s war there pass.
The charities are urging the public to send a picture of themselves for their "Million Faces" campaign.
"The governments will then have to look these people in the face and tell them why they are letting them down," Oxfam director Barbara Stocking told Reuters. ^
10/09/03 10:04 ET

____________________________________________________________________

World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities

top

Note: IANSA (the largest anti-firearms NGO), Oxfam and Amnesty International are releasing their latest small arms report today. The release of the report coincides with the UN General Assembly First Committee deliberation which will takes place this month in New York. Small arms will be a major topic. Unfortunately the below article's author, Paul Knox, seems to have adopted the conclusions of the report without any questioning of the facts. There are at least three major errors/omissions. First he says there are "639 million weapons" in the world. What he ignores is that 60% of these are legally owned by civilians and are not part of some plague of small arms. Likewise he says that the number of small arms is growing by 8 million a year. Again what he ignores is that a great majority of these are civilian sporting arms and not weapons of war. Finally Mr. Knox adopts the 500,000 a year causality figure. This has been demonstrated to be blatantly incorrect, the actual number is more like 130,000. I have placed some of the other interesting aspects of the article in bold.

___________________________________________________________________________

Arms trade revived by war on terror; Human-rights curbs skirted to arm allies in U.S.-led effort, new report warns
The Globe and Mail (Canada)
International News; A20
October 9, 2003

Byline: PAUL KNOX
The U.S.-led battle against terrorism is pumping new life into the deadly global arms trade after a steady post-Cold War decline, disarmament campaigners say in a new report.
Kicking off a drive to win support for a global small-arms treaty, they say sales of conventional weapons are rising as human-rights curbs on transferring arms to poor countries are put on hold.
"The 'war on terror' should have focused political will to prevent arms falling into the wrong hands," says the report, Shattered Lives: The Case for Tough International Arms Control.
"Instead . . . some suppliers have relaxed their controls in order to arm new-found allies against 'terrorism,' irrespective of their disregard for international human rights and humanitarian law."
The report puts the number of small arms in existence at 639 million weapons -- one for every 10 people in the world -- and says it is growing at the rate of eight million a year. The weapons kill 500,000 people a year -- nearly one every minute, the report adds.
"The arms trade is out of control," said Debbie Hillier, co-author of the report and a policy adviser to Oxfam in Great Britain, one of three groups mounting the new campaign. She said the toll dwarfs that of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, which are covered by long-standing global treaties.
"The world takes them seriously," Ms. Hillier said. "But there's nothing at all on conventional weapons, and these are weapons that actually kill people."
The report says other factors besides counterterrorism are also responsib