Canadian Press Vs Stockwell Day - UPDATED

Wow! A massive mea culpa from CP and a massive kick to the 'nads of the gun control crowd.

Is it hope beyond hope that the truth about gun control might actually reach the Canadian general public some day?

I can only hope that my email to them regarding this
was of some help in getting this corrected.

I hope the hoplophobes at CP and the Star like their SXXT sandwich served steamy hot ;-)

No way. Cindy wouldn't lie to us! CTV/CBC/ wouldn't lie to us. You are dispicable lying scum here on SDA! /sarc off

I still want to see the number of criminals/gangs who are registering their guns. Please. NDP? Lieberals? Conservatives? Never mind.

Not many years ago misleading, disingenous, and outright fabricated "reporting" in the MSM would have gone unchallenged. It would have been left to enter the mythology Ted Byfield calls "The Official Version of Canada".

The debunking of lies and promotion of the truth is something we should all celebrate.

Kudos to Tarantino!

Great that there is a correction out, but most people don't read the corrections/retractions. They only remember the hype. Some don't want to hear it either, head in the sand types.

Good on you for getting the correction in any event.

I spent several hours the other week actually reading the relevant Home Office Statistical Bulletin, and I posted the relevant stats and a partial analysis on the earlier thread (http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/006365.html#c170627)

The point is not factual error. The point is bias. The Canadian Press individual who attempted to slant the news and discredit Stockwell Day should be fired.

dont expect CBCpravda or CTV(tass) to jump to Stocks defence.

the balance isnt tilted their way. maybe a picture of Stock in a wetsuit , saying he have his stats correct but he is all wet in the theory of the CBC.

"OTTAWA (CP) - The Canadian Press erroneously reported June 1 that there was a 16 per cent drop in the number of firearms crimes in the United Kingdom in 2006 compared with the previous year. "

They did not "erroneously" report anything. They lied. Plain and simple. Only when caught,did they do anything to try to save themselves. That is the truth. And try to sue me for telling the truth. I would love the chance,you hacks at CBC/CTV/CP.
Thank you Kate and SDA for getting this out and exposing the lying scumbag MSM for what they are,as you have done numerous times.

In addition, the story should have included information from the Home Office that supports Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day's assertion that the number of overall offences involving firearms has increased in Britain each year since handguns were banned in 1997

That omission was big enough to drive a truck through it.

It's like the MSM's constant carping on Bush's low poll ratings, but, they never mention the other half of the equation, Congress has an even lower rating. Another omission of convenience. They do the same thing with reporting from Iraq. No positive developements makes it to print or on the airwaves if they can suppress it.

The MSM can't die fast enough. They are agenda driven liars.

Maz2...are you Kate in hiding? Between the two of you,a lot sure gets out,which is a good thing,as Martha would say.BZ to you Maz.

Richard --

In an ideal world where media exist to present facts and not partisan political opinion masquerading as such, the CP reporter in question might well be fired. But this is the era of fifth column "journalism", of the formation of public opinion, of purveying a single line of thinking to the masses. Bias *is* the media these days; the CP reporter isn't going anywhere except perhaps further up the food chain for playing the game so well.

I think you know this full well though.

Fired Richard? No way, that dude got a major Attaboy from his boss.

I think its possible some corrective action might take place if the Government of Canada suddenly stopped talking to CP. Maybe. Short of that, prevarication and fabrication are the order of the day.

Any lawyer types out there with the legal term ??

Guilty by omission, or something ?

Gun control in Canada has it's beginnings starting in the 1960's. I'm speaking of the modern gun control activism here. The history goes back long before that but the motives have changed, I believe.
Gun control to begin with was enacted to prevent rebellion (Riel) and then later, the rise of criminal gangs as was seen in the US (1920's).
The new era of GC was formulated by the Peace Movement. Back in the 60's, Greenpeace was formed as an independent offshoot of the former Soviet supported Peace Movement. The Coalition for GC was started by active or former Greenpeace operatives; first in Vancouver in the 1960's, and later in Toronto in the 70's.
To quote the Mackenzie Institute occasional paper; Misfire: The Black Market And Gun Control, 1995: "Cukier's skills may have been honed in early years in Toronto's community of centre-left activism. The Coalition for Gun Control has also drawn on the services of Bob Penner's Strategic Communications. Penner was a peace activist for the Toronto Disarmament Network and an environmental activist for Greenpeace, and is an expert on coalition building and attracting support from all levels of governments."
Penner was also instrumental in fighting Regan's Strategic Defense Initiative.
The point is; gun control is an activist movement, not a tool for safety enhancement or crime prevention.

So what? Is it on the front page like the original story was? My thinking is that, it probably is buried deep in the paper where no one will ever find it.

They should have to print the retraction in the same spot and same size as the original article.

Time we start a new National Newspaper, the lot of them now are owned by the same conglomerate.
We'd have to come up with a catchy name, maybe incorporate the name Kate, any suggestions?
It would comprise a few sections just to correct the lies and straighten out the spins. Gotta happen soon.

If an erroneous story is printed on the front page, the retraction must also be retracted with a full apology. However it never is, always hidden in shame and nothing but regrets offered. They should be sued out of business.

Nailed it Gunney !!

I would bet Patrick Moore would agree.

www.greenspirit.com

What is it with being a fanatic just to be a fanatic ?? An activist ??

Is it as simple as just being a punk sh** disturber ?? Hippy syndrome ?? Stop-the-world-I-want-to-get-off nut cases ??

Are the fanatics/activists simply a tool of the media ?? A group, easily manipulated for a "good story" ??

Media's role as the media sees it;

Find or create controversy.
Perpetuate the controversy.
Use mistruths, omissions and even lies to keep the story going.

The "best" kind of controversies are the ones that are, at least initially, hard to prove, either way. Then, even the fanatic's 'take' on the story will find traction with a certain segment of society. The ones looking to disturb.

Gun control for the law abiding reduces crime.
The Earth will be warmer in 100 years.
DDT will cause the spring to be silent in the future.
Genetically enhanced food will cause trouble someday.
We will run out of oil -- someday.
Aliens made the crop circles -- will return.
Y2K will be big trouble.

How many trees were cut down for the above ?

what are you celebrating here? the fact that the CP made an error or the fact that gun crime increased in the UK in 2004/5?

whichever the case, to suggest that this somehow supports day's assertion that gun control doesn't work is ludricrous.

first off, crime in the UK has been on the decline for the last decade. the total number of homocides in 2004/05 were 839. further, only 9% of reported homocides involved guns. there was however, a slight increase over 2003/04 (0.7%). the expectations held by police are that homocides involving guns will decrease along with the overall crime rate.

contrast the figures in the USA. in 2004,there were 9,326 homocides committed with firearms.
7,265 were committted with handguns. these figures are actually up from 2000 by over 700 murders with firearms.

worldwide, the majority of recent shooting massacres have been committed with legally-held weapons.

So are you saying that gun registration does not work Jeff?

"I doubt very much that if the Jewish citizens of Germany had been armed, they would have been able to fend off the Nazis"

ET.

Your trendy "doubt" and the lefties doubt has guaranteed a repeat of the same mistake again and again, in country after country.
It's that doubt that the gubmint is counting on.

Here's something you can't doubt, unarmed jews, were slaughtered in the millions by the Nazis.

Of course the Jews could have fended off the nazis if they were armed, it was only guys with guns who fended off the nazis; nothing else worked. Everybody without guns, failed miserably!

Unarmed meant quitely queing up for the gas chamber express, and armed meant resistance to the gas chamber, pretty simple stuff.

Would you personally want to be an armed Euro-jew in 1939 or an unarmed one?

I'm not saying the Jews would have defeated the third Riech but, while all the shooting was going on far more innocents could have escaped. Far more nazis would have died, and thus the war would have probably ended sooner, and the rest of the civilized world might have been drawn into the fight at an earlier date once we understood what all the racket was about across the pond, which again, would have saved lives.

People will continue to die because of doubt like yours.
I'll take a gun and sleep well knowing that you have doubt.
You live unarmed doubting the effectivness of my gun, and I'll do my darndest to help you if you require it.

We have been thoroughly brainwashed regarding guns in Canada.
For everyone who has never fired a gun , it's fun, and you do not know what you are missing.

ET, may I offer some reading on what poor hillbilly Kentucky Squirel hunters did to the British and Mexicans using their superior knowledge, practice, and familiarity with guns.

What ol hoss said!

Things that make you go hmmmmm......

Here is some unrefuted reporting from the New York Times which shows that Iraq had 202 murders in 14 days or 14.4 per day! Iraqi population estimates vary, but for comparison purposes Chicago (at 450 confirmed murders in 366 days with a population of 2.8 million) had .439 murders per million per day. The two would be equal if Iraq's population was 32,858,867 people! Population estimates vary but about 25 million people live in Iraq. Therefore, the streets of Iraq are about as safe as the streets of Chicago.....

For Days assertion to be untrue, show some facts. A fact such as placing controls on guns limit and even decrease gun crimes.

Typically, Jeff throws unrelated stats at us. Crime in western countries has generally been on the decline. The aging population, especially aging baby boomers may (notice i say may, not declaring this as the only reason)have contributed to this greatly.

Also nice of Jeff to choose the one year in the last 10 that had an increase. Cherry picking anyone?

Jeff, if you seriously cared about the issue you would want real relevant statistics. Then you could see what the actual problem is, formulate a way to solve this problem. You just show that you are ideologically motivated.
enough

Gunny said: Gun control in Canada has its beginnings starting in the 1960's. I'm speaking of the modern gun control activism here. The history goes back long before that but the motives have changed, I believe."

The motives for the first Canadian handgun bans was totally racist but the motives were the same they attempted to ban Chinese and foreign insurrectionists (meaning any Bolshevik immigrants from Russia) from owning firearms...the motivation was bigotry disguised as public safety and the real motive was the government felt threatened by armed citizens it did not see eye to eye with...as always the government allows some shrill lobby group to lead it in a direction it was going anyway.

In the 40s they attempted a "gun registry" under the authority of the war measures act (which could circumvent property rights) and with the excuse of homeland security...all rifles and shot guns were to be registered with the RCMP...there was about 2% compliance...you see these old WWII RCMP-stamped registered pieces from time to time at auctions where they bring a premium for their rarity and historic value.

The motives are all the same everywhere civil disarmament becomes a social issue...essentially NO government which seeks imperial control over its citizens feels comfortable with them armed.

The latest rash of gun control by the liberals in 1993 was no different that the early Canadian gun prohibitions and registries...the motive was a distinctly leftist statist authoritarian regime had a social engineering agenda to "pacify" ( read: subordinate) individuals who are remnants of the freer individualist era of Canadian democracy before modern leftist statism adopted by the LPC...this “rugged individualist” group was typified by people who own firearms to sport shoot or hunt or for self defense from vermin/predators both 4 and 2 legged....there was no room in the looming secular socialist oligopoly and the ant hill society of kleptocratic collectivism for the "individual" ...particularly "individuals" who resist creeping collectivist statism who happen to own the tools of rebellion. Lawful law-abiding firearms owners were targeted in this law and not criminals…never let anyone tell you otherwise because the first thing the passed law did was confiscate 1/3 of the legally owned and registered hand guns in the hands of law-abiding Canadian…the second thing it did was make the peaceful responsible ownership of a firearm a crime…one had to obtain a government vended “licence” to avoid criminal prosecution for owning the same property one owned and used peacefully for years.

The Montreal massacre offered the excuse, the shrill hysterical anti gun lobby ( funded by liberal slush money) and sycophant left media offered the motivation and the government used the false pretense of public safety (as they did in the early bans and prohibitions at the turn of the century) to introduce sweeping charter rights breaching statutes that criminalized the simple peaceful ownership of a firearm...made the owners totally criminally liable before the fact and set up a collection system for systemic confiscation.

THAT, my friends, is not "gun control" THAT is unwarranted civil disarmament and "people control" authoritarianism.

Stalin would be proud how his plan to disarm the population of the Ukraine was followed so closely by the federal liberal justice department Jacobins.

To minister Day I would say that for the health of this nation's democracy and charter-compliant rule of law we don't need "changes" to the criminalized civilian firearm’s control regime...we need it repealed entirety and replaced with true criminal acts...a civilian simply being in peaceful possession of a firearm one has owned for years does not warrant arbitrary criminalization or criminal liabilities...it is not the registry that is the civil abomination...it is the requirement under threat of criminal indictment to own a licence for something you have owned peacefully for years which is the outrage.

In proper application of criminal law the absence of a government vended licence does not create criminal liability...only criminal actions....time the civilian firearms act reflected this most basic tenet of criminal law.

Rant mode off! ;-)

Jeff said: "worldwide, the majority of recent shooting massacres have been committed with legally-held weapons."

BS show the source for this crap statistic.

"According to the Canadian blogger Kate MacMillan, a caller to her local radio station went further and said she was teaching her children to "fear guns.""

http://www.nysun.com/article/52996
Mark Steyn

enough said: "Jeff, if you seriously cared about the issue you would want real relevant statistics. "
That's the problem 'enough'. You can't tell who is ideologically motivated and who sincerely believed we would run out of oil by 1984.
I attempted to show that the pointy end of the spear when it comes to GC is a group who want to dismantle our capitalist system and install a caretaker Cuba like regime.
In the 1950/60's our government was organizing militias as a threat against Soviet attack. The Soviets of course tried to counter this with their own form of citizen army and also tried to throw a monkey wrench into ours via the peacenicks. After the Berlin wall fell, the peace activists moved on to other destructive pursuits.
Read Haseck; The Disarming of Canada, for starters.

Ontarians: Ancaster gunshow this Saturday anyone? See ya there!

Ancaster , on the road to cottage country from Ottawa. say it aint so???

It's by Hamilton: http://www.hamilton-dog-obedience.com/page2.html

What is everyone in such a bother about. If there is news that since the UK started to reform law in this area, handgun crikme has declined, is that not good news? Why then does the author pounce on the one big number to be found in a UK Government report on crime, a 60% increase, and joyfully run around displaying that as a trophy?

But there is good news according to the Home Office Statistical Bulletin, Jan.06. In the ten years from 95 to 05 violent crime has fallen by 43%, which is astonishing (page 7);
and this in a time of increasingly dogged police reporting of incidents as required by law, such that now 41% of violent incidents were not considered to be a crime by the victim.(page7), and one half of al violent offences recorded by police involve no injury to the victim (page 11). And firearms? Well it seems they only are used in one percent of all violent crimes (page 23_)
Yes, that is ONE PER CENT.

But what about increases and all that? First off, fire arms includes air weapons (target, bb guns, pepper spray, imitation guns (imitation? yup). So even if the numbers stayed even that would just mask a huge increase in the use of "air weapons" (give it up or I will devastate you with my Red Rider Carbine and back up bear spray!). Imitation weapons offences have gone up 55% while handgun olffences went down 15%. All firearm offences went down in '04-'05, the first fall since '97 and firearms as defined were used in only .4% of all recorded crimes (page 71).

In the period '99 to '05 the population of the UK went up a million or so to about 60 million, and much of that is in migration of those entitled under the Common Market so there is some disturbance socially going on. As well, in this period the police had to revise three times the way and the items they recorded as crime, which also inflates upward the absolute number offfences, in the second case, while the absolute numbers not adjusted for greater population also exaggerate in the first case. (page 72)

And even where firearms are used most of them are involving imitations that fire blanks, pellets, or BBs. which account for 77% of offences involving such weapons.(page73).
And what about handguns, which seems to be the concern?

"As stated earlier, over half of all firearm offences involved an air weapon. Of those offences involving a non air weapon, 40% involved a handgun. (Figure 3.3) . These handgun crimes fell by 15% to 4,347 in 2004/05 following a seven per cent decrease in the previous year. Shotgun crimes also fell by 17 per cent to 598 in 2004/05 (Figure 3.4)." (page 74)

Serious crime seems to be pretty modest in the UK with 176 incidents per 10000 people in London and only 40 in the south west..The uk police had under 23000 recorded offences in 2004-05 (England and Wales). Not good to see a big increase in fake guns, but I guess that is a lot better than the use of a real one. In her eagerness to support the used up dishwash rag of an argument opposing the restriction of hand guns, the blog author is has over reached. Mind you, there is a lack of consistency in the structure of the references in the report which is not well written. But I think somebody should put back that 60% and leave it alone, it does not help

If we are concerned

Statistics showing overall reductions are fine.
IF you report the ACTUAL statistics.

CP's problem is that they seem to be incapable of reporting anything without some editorial enhancement to make their POV come across!

So for the Bloggers who pay attention I say Good!
For CP - just more shame.

My mother who was born in Russia said the Bolshevik's first came to every village and took all the guns. Then they came back and massacred 20 million unarmed men, women and children.
Never trust anyone who wants to take away your guns.

sorry, I was thinking Arnprior.

@garhane:

Based upon what you wrote, the real source of the decrease in crime is more thorough law enforcement. The use of fake guns is consistent with a plea to the judge if hauled to the docket:

"M'Lud, the Crown has horridly and arbitrarily dragged me in for carrying a toy! A mere toy, that they call a gun!..."

As for Canadian Press ..... Here's another example of their
BS
Who decided that the offshore resource revenue issue was a "Political Firestorm"? OR That "The Conservative" government is scrambling to dampen it?

CP writers and editors did. Telling you what to think yet again!

So garhane, is this an ideologically motivated rant or do you seriously believe that all of the newspaper(Guardian) and columnists who have written about this subject are totally wrong?
Just a sample: (Handgun Ban Fails to Quell Surge in Gun Crimes Across Britain
Wednesday, January 09, 2002 Associated Press LONDON — In a country where most police are armed with little more than......According to figures released by the London police, muggings involving a firearm have risen by 53 percent, from 435 during the six months ending November 2000 to 667 during the same period last year.)
I don't dispute your facts, I can't, you don't leave a link, but I have read of suspected government interference in cooking the stats.
Wouldn't a reasonable person suspect something is wrong here; no one is lying, so why are your figures correct and all others wrong?

It's not difficult to see how we've had so many wars throughout the history of mankind when you look at the desperate degenerate Bozos, Liberals and Dippers in the HOC trying to score points.
Casey ought to be ashamed of his actions, no member of caucus votes against the Party Budget and remains a loyal member. That's the rule and Casey knows it.

The flipping Offshore Oil revenues "firestorm",is a product of the MSM's wishful thinking, spurred on by Casey,who is rumored to be leaving for provincial politics thus is looking after his personal interests.
He's simply trying to gain some political capital at the expense of the Conservatives, playing into the hands of the hungry hounds in the press and the Opposition.

Ladies and gents, for a look a a pack of howling hypocrites and phonies, tune in to CPAC and see them in action.

In his book Freakonomics Steven D. Levitt wondered why in the US despite all predictions from the police, politicians and the FBI that crime in the cities would rise drastically in the late 80 and 90s it didn't. When crime did not rise the police and other authorities claimed their actions prevented the expected rise and patted their own backs and Giuliani accepted the praise of cutting crime in New York. Levitt wondered what was the real reason for the decline and as a economist began to crunch the numbers.

It turned out that the real reason crime dropped was the 1973 Supreme Court decision of Roe vs Wade which allowed women unrestricted rights to an abortion. The women that began to have abortions were greatly represented by single inner city women. This male offspring of this group is statistically shown to commit the greatest percentage of crime. In the late 80s, 90s and early 2000s these males were simply not there to commit crimes so the rate fell.

And crime rates are continuing to fall yet you don't hear that this is the reason.

David.... how Politically Incorrect of you!

Jeff, I did a little research and it only took a little to, instead of saying you are full of it to, say prove your statements. Tell us the sources as I can't find them or anything I could even spin that way!!!!!!!

OMMAG its all about the spin on a subject. Most people can't be bothered to research a subject so they follow the MSM or the politics of their family or friends. The truth can be uncomfortable to say the least.

Jeff, I did a little research and it only took a little to, instead of saying you are full of it to, say prove your statements. Tell us the sources as I can't find them or anything I could even spin that way!!!!!!!

When it comes to guns the news media lie all the time i mean 24/7. They were predicting after BILL CLINTONS gun ban ended in 2004 that there would be a high crime rate and murders would increase and nothing happned or the predictions they made when KENNISHAW GEORGIA passed a GUN IN EVERY HOME LAW and made all the usial predictions of masscares in kennishaw rivers of blood flowing through the streets and the crime rate in kennishaw dropped the NYTs vulture went to georgia looking for a feast and starved instead and more recently when FLORIDA passed a CASTLE DOCTIRNE saying a person can stand their ground and defend their home and property from home invaders and the BRAINLESS BRADY CAMPAIGN is doing all sorts of rediclous things i mean when a person is armed no crinimal is going to rob or mug them unless they have a death wish

For some excellent reading on topic (all of it worth repeating), check out Mark Steyn's columns:

In the Absence of Guns (2000)

This is what happens when governments try to ban guns (2003)

and, more recently

Let's be realistic about reality (2007)

(last article drops Kate's name)

mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm

David Hand the Americans also incarcerated a million criminals, who didn't get the chance to make an aborted fetus.

Let's ban drugs, and usage will decrease, right? Wrong. Wait, let's ban alcohol, usage will decrease, right? Wrong. If you ban what people want, they will go to criminals to get it. Sad but true about human nature.