Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Media Myth - Guns Are Always Bad for Us

Expand Messages
  • Gary Nunn
    I apologize in advance, because I know this topic can get a bit heated on this list. The reason I m posting this, is because this is the first media article
    Message 1 of 9 , Dec 31 7:24 AM
      I apologize in advance, because I know this topic can get a bit heated on
      this list. The reason I'm posting this, is because this is the first media
      article that I've seen, from a major media outlet, that makes an attempt to
      be fair and accurate.

      (link to complete list of myths at the bottom)



      Myths, Lies and Straight Talk
      A List of 10 Media-Fed Myths

      MYTH # 5 - Guns Are Always Bad for Us

      America is notorious for its culture of gun violence. Guns sometimes do
      cause terrible harm, and many kids are killed every year in gun accidents.
      But public service announcements and news stories make it seem as if the
      accidents kill thousands of kids every year.

      According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, however, fewer
      than 100 kids 15 and under are killed in gun accidents every year. Of course
      that's horrible, and I understand why demonstrators say we need more gun
      control.

      But guess what? The Centers for Disease Control recently completed a review
      of studies of various types of gun control: background checks, waiting
      periods, bans on certain guns and ammunition. It could not document that
      these rules have reduced violent crime.

      The government wants to say regulations and laws like the Brady Gun Control
      Law are making a difference, but they aren't. Some maximum security felons I
      spoke to in New Jersey scoffed at measures like the Brady law. They said
      they'll have no trouble getting guns if they want them.

      A Justice Department study confirmed what the prisoners said. But get this:
      the felons say that the thing they fear the most is not the police, not time
      in prison, but, you, another American who might be armed.

      It's a reason many states are passing gun un-control. They're allowing
      citizens to carry guns with them, it's called concealed carry or right to
      carry. Some women say they're comforted by these laws.

      But many people, including Rev. Al Sharpton, are horrified at the idea of
      concealed carry laws, and predict mayhem if all states adopt these laws.

      But surprise, 36 states already have concealed carry laws; and not one
      reported an upsurge in gun crime.


      http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123606


      __________________________________________
      "...speak your mind, even if your voice shakes..."

      - Maggie Kuhn


      _______________________________________________
      http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
    • William T Goodall
      ... If the difference in violent crime or murder rates or whatever was really obviously significantly different between gun-control/non-gun- control areas then
      Message 2 of 9 , Dec 31 10:58 AM
        On 31 Dec 2005, at 3:24 pm, Gary Nunn wrote:

        >
        > I apologize in advance, because I know this topic can get a bit
        > heated on
        > this list. The reason I'm posting this, is because this is the
        > first media
        > article that I've seen, from a major media outlet, that makes an
        > attempt to
        > be fair and accurate.
        >

        If the difference in violent crime or murder rates or whatever was
        really obviously significantly different between gun-control/non-gun-
        control areas then one side or the other of the debate would be
        trumpeting that fact loudly. So whatever difference guns make it
        isn't enough for either side to have proved it after years of argument.

        Given that we have strict controls over the sale of alcohol, tobacco,
        fireworks and other possibly harmful materials it seems entirely
        sensible and in line with other regulation to control firearms sales
        especially since there is no compelling evidence that they
        significantly improve (or harm) personal safety *in general* but are
        obviously dangerous items individually.

        Most comparisons of gun ownership/crime rates are apples/oranges
        comparisons. Anomalies like Switzerland crop up.

        I'd be interested in a comparison of the USA with places that are
        similar such as Canada or Australia. That might be more enlightening
        than comparisons with Europe or South America.


        --
        William T Goodall
        Mail : wtg@...
        Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
        Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

        If you listen to a UNIX shell, can you hear the C?

        _______________________________________________
        http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
      • Doug Pensinger
        ... A few points. First, its very disturbing to me that people feel the need to carry deadly force with them in order to feel safe. Second, how fair is it
        Message 3 of 9 , Dec 31 12:04 PM
          William wrote:

          >
          Gary wrote:
          >
          >>
          >> I apologize in advance, because I know this topic can get a bit heated
          >> on this list. The reason I'm posting this, is because this is the
          >> first media article that I've seen, from a major media outlet, that
          >> makes an attempt to be fair and accurate.
          >>
          >
          > If the difference in violent crime or murder rates or whatever was
          > really obviously significantly different between gun-control/non-gun-
          > control areas then one side or the other of the debate would be
          > trumpeting that fact loudly. So whatever difference guns make it isn't
          > enough for either side to have proved it after years of argument.
          >
          > Given that we have strict controls over the sale of alcohol, tobacco,
          > fireworks and other possibly harmful materials it seems entirely
          > sensible and in line with other regulation to control firearms sales
          > especially since there is no compelling evidence that they
          > significantly improve (or harm) personal safety *in general* but are
          > obviously dangerous items individually.
          >
          > Most comparisons of gun ownership/crime rates are apples/oranges
          > comparisons. Anomalies like Switzerland crop up.
          >
          > I'd be interested in a comparison of the USA with places that are
          > similar such as Canada or Australia. That might be more enlightening
          > than comparisons with Europe or South America.

          A few points. First, its very disturbing to me that people feel the need
          to carry deadly force with them in order to feel safe. Second, how fair
          is it that the article doesn't mention that the reason the gun laws don't
          work might be that they are not enforced?
          <http://w3.agsfoundation.com/enf2nationalpr.html> Third, the article
          points out that fewer than 100 kids died in gun accidents last year, but
          fails to point out how many were killed in all firearm incidents. I'd be
          surprised if that number was lower than 2,500. Fourth, the fact is that no
          matter how poorly gun laws are working at present, gun violence is a
          plague.

          I'm a realist when it comes to firearms in this country; we'd sooner ban
          pizza than guns. But that doesn't negate the fact that they're a serious
          problem.

          --
          Doug
          _______________________________________________
          http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
        • Julia Thompson
          ... I d sooner ban guns than pizza. Not sure how my next-door neighbor who owns a pizza joint and a gun feels about it. :) I think he gets a lot more out of
          Message 4 of 9 , Dec 31 12:15 PM
            Doug Pensinger wrote:

            > I'm a realist when it comes to firearms in this country; we'd sooner ban
            > pizza than guns. But that doesn't negate the fact that they're a
            > serious problem.

            I'd sooner ban guns than pizza. Not sure how my next-door neighbor who
            owns a pizza joint and a gun feels about it. :) I think he gets a lot
            more out of the pizza joint than the gun, for the most part.

            But where I am, you'd have a much easier time banning pizza than guns.
            The pizza wouldn't be easy, though. (Especially the stuff our neighbor
            makes -- it's really good.)

            Julia


            _______________________________________________
            http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
          • Ronn!Blankenship
            ... Even if you count the number of suicides as well as homicides and accidents in the total of deaths due to firearms, IIRC about as many or more people die
            Message 5 of 9 , Dec 31 1:37 PM
              At 02:04 PM Saturday 12/31/2005, Doug Pensinger wrote:
              >William wrote:
              >
              >Gary wrote:
              >>
              >>>
              >>>I apologize in advance, because I know this topic can get a
              >>>bit heated on this list. The reason I'm posting this, is because this is the
              >>>first media article that I've seen, from a major media outlet,
              >>>that makes an attempt to be fair and accurate.
              >>
              >>If the difference in violent crime or murder rates or whatever was
              >>really obviously significantly different between
              >>gun-control/non-gun- control areas then one side or the other of
              >>the debate would be
              >>trumpeting that fact loudly. So whatever difference guns make
              >>it isn't enough for either side to have proved it after years of argument.
              >>
              >>Given that we have strict controls over the sale of alcohol, tobacco,
              >>fireworks and other possibly harmful materials it seems entirely
              >>sensible and in line with other regulation to control firearms sales
              >>especially since there is no compelling evidence that they
              >>significantly improve (or harm) personal safety *in general* but are
              >>obviously dangerous items individually.
              >>
              >>Most comparisons of gun ownership/crime rates are apples/oranges
              >>comparisons. Anomalies like Switzerland crop up.
              >>
              >>I'd be interested in a comparison of the USA with places that are
              >>similar such as Canada or Australia. That might be more enlightening
              >>than comparisons with Europe or South America.
              >
              >A few points. First, its very disturbing to me that people feel the
              >need to carry deadly force with them in order to feel safe. Second,
              >how fair is it that the article doesn't mention that the reason the
              >gun laws don't work might be that they are not enforced?
              ><http://w3.agsfoundation.com/enf2nationalpr.html> Third, the
              >article points out that fewer than 100 kids died in gun accidents
              >last year, but fails to point out how many were killed in all
              >firearm incidents. I'd be surprised if that number was lower than
              >2,500. Fourth, the fact is that no matter how poorly gun laws are
              >working at present, gun violence is a plague.
              >
              >I'm a realist when it comes to firearms in this country; we'd sooner
              >ban pizza than guns. But that doesn't negate the fact that they're
              >a serious problem.


              Even if you count the number of suicides as well as homicides and
              accidents in the total of deaths due to firearms, IIRC about as many
              or more people die in the US each year due to AIDS, and IIRC about
              twice as many die in automobile accidents, of which about half
              (according to those who collect the statistics) are due to alcohol
              use. What do you suggest might be banned to prevent those
              deaths? Or is the one thing common to all three personal responsibility?


              --Ronn! :)

              "Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country
              and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER
              GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that
              would be eliminated from schools too?"
              -- Red Skelton

              (Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.)




              _______________________________________________
              http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
            • Nick Lidster
              ... From: brin-l-bounces@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-bounces@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of William T Goodall Sent: December 31, 2005 3:28 PM To: Killer Bs
              Message 6 of 9 , Dec 31 11:08 PM
                -----Original Message-----
                From: brin-l-bounces@... [mailto:brin-l-bounces@...] On
                Behalf Of William T Goodall
                Sent: December 31, 2005 3:28 PM
                To: Killer Bs Discussion
                Subject: Re: Media Myth - Guns Are Always Bad for Us


                On 31 Dec 2005, at 3:24 pm, Gary Nunn wrote:

                >
                > I apologize in advance, because I know this topic can get a bit
                > heated on
                > this list. The reason I'm posting this, is because this is the
                > first media
                > article that I've seen, from a major media outlet, that makes an
                > attempt to
                > be fair and accurate.
                >

                >If the difference in violent crime or murder rates or whatever was
                >really obviously significantly different between gun-control/non-gun-
                >control areas then one side or the other of the debate would be
                >trumpeting that fact loudly. So whatever difference guns make it
                >isn't enough for either side to have proved it after years of argument.

                >Given that we have strict controls over the sale of alcohol, tobacco,
                >fireworks and other possibly harmful materials it seems entirely
                >sensible and in line with other regulation to control firearms sales
                >especially since there is no compelling evidence that they
                >significantly improve (or harm) personal safety *in general* but are
                >obviously dangerous items individually.

                >Most comparisons of gun ownership/crime rates are apples/oranges
                >comparisons. Anomalies like Switzerland crop up.

                >I'd be interested in a comparison of the USA with places that are
                >similar such as Canada or Australia. That might be more enlightening
                >than comparisons with Europe or South America.


                >--
                >William T Goodall
                >Mail : wtg@...
                >Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
                >Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

                >If you listen to a UNIX shell, can you hear the C?

                _______________________________________________

                http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050628/d050628a.htm

                "Health Reports: Deaths involving firearms
                2002:

                The rate of deaths involving firearms declined by more than one-half between
                1979 and 2002, according to a new report based on the most recent data
                available from the Canadian Mortality Data Base.

                The report in the latest edition of Health Reports showed that 816
                individuals — 767 males and 49 females — died from injuries related to
                firearms in 2002.

                Among males, this represented a rate of 4.9 deaths for every 100,000
                population, down from 10.6 in 1979. The rate for females fell from 1.2
                deaths for every 100,000 population to 0.3.

                In each year during this period, about four-fifths of firearms-related
                deaths were suicides. Homicides accounted for around 15% of such deaths, and
                about 4% were unintentional.

                In 1979, the rate of deaths related to firearms was highest among young
                people aged 15 to 24. By 2002, the differences between age groups had
                largely disappeared for people aged 15 or older.

                The risk of death from an injury related to firearms was a fraction of that
                in the United States. In 2000, the rate of homicide involving a gun in the
                United States was 3.8 for every 100,000 population, nearly eight times
                Canada's rate of 0.5.

                In Canada, homicides accounted for 18% of deaths involving firearms in 2000,
                compared with 38% in the United States.

                Decline in homicide rates involving firearms:

                Canada's rate of homicide involving firearms declined since 1979, mirroring
                a decrease in the overall homicide rate. However, the proportion of
                homicides in which a firearm was used remained fairly stable over the entire
                period at just under one-third.

                A report based on police records indicates that handguns accounted for
                two-thirds of homicides involving firearms in 2002, up from about one-half
                during the 1990s. Rifles and shotguns accounted for one-quarter of all
                homicides involving firearms.

                In 2002, 31 people were unintentionally killed by firearms, less than
                one-half of the total of 71 in 1979. Three of the victims in 2002 were
                younger than 15, compared with 16 in 1979. Another 3 were between 15 and 24
                compared with 27 in 1979. Declines in death rates in these two age groups
                accounted for much of the drop in the overall rate of unintentional
                firearms-related deaths between 1979 and 2002.

                Among all suicides committed throughout the 1980s, around one in three
                involved firearms. By 2002, this proportion had declined to only about one
                in six."



                Ok with the US being roughly 10x the pop of Canada.... were at about 32.5
                million right now that would put us scaled up at about 8200 persons having
                firearm related deaths. With direct homicide that would be about 2500 at us
                pop. Our rate hold true to about one third of firearm related deaths being
                homicides.

                Keep in mind that this is all 2002 stats well '77 through'02 and this year
                in Ontario alone the total fire arm deaths are @ 71 up 30 from previous
                years that’s a 73% jump. The latest was a boxing day shooting in Toronto
                that claimed the life of a 15 year old girl and injured 6 others. Its now
                looking like there will be a near total ban on all hand guns if the Liberals
                are elected to power on Jan. 23rd.

                Currently there are really 2 camps that are slugging it out on this issue,
                the liberals who want more laws and to create a new gun task force within
                the RCMP who are in a huge manpower shortage. Then there is the
                Conservatives who are taking a stance on increasing funding to the provinces
                and increasing the funding to the RCMP to enforce the current laws, as well
                as increasing sentence lengths and giving mandatory min sentences for all
                firearm related crimes.

                The main problem with the RCMP shortage is that after a decade of budget
                cuts the RCMP cannot cover all its duties properly so officers are tasked
                from major crime division to fill gaps in local districts. Right now I
                believe that the RCMP staffing is at 80% of needed positions and the ONE
                training school for them can only put through 1500 cadets a year.

                nick

                --
                No virus found in this outgoing message.
                Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.9/216 - Release Date: 29/12/2005


                _______________________________________________
                http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
              • Doug Pensinger
                ... Sounds like the conservatives have the more practical solution in this case. -- Doug _______________________________________________
                Message 7 of 9 , Jan 1, 2006
                  Nick Lidster wrote:

                  > Currently there are really 2 camps that are slugging it out on this
                  > issue,
                  > the liberals who want more laws and to create a new gun task force within
                  > the RCMP who are in a huge manpower shortage. Then there is the
                  > Conservatives who are taking a stance on increasing funding to the
                  > provinces
                  > and increasing the funding to the RCMP to enforce the current laws, as
                  > well
                  > as increasing sentence lengths and giving mandatory min sentences for all
                  > firearm related crimes.
                  >
                  > The main problem with the RCMP shortage is that after a decade of budget
                  > cuts the RCMP cannot cover all its duties properly so officers are tasked
                  > from major crime division to fill gaps in local districts. Right now I
                  > believe that the RCMP staffing is at 80% of needed positions and the ONE
                  > training school for them can only put through 1500 cadets a year.

                  Sounds like the conservatives have the more practical solution in this
                  case.

                  --
                  Doug
                  _______________________________________________
                  http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                • Ronn!Blankenship
                  ... I doubt it seems that way to those who believe that all guns are e—ee—eee—vil . . . --Ronn! :) Since I was a small boy, two states have been added
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jan 1, 2006
                    At 03:09 AM Sunday 1/1/2006, Doug Pensinger wrote:
                    >Nick Lidster wrote:
                    >
                    >>Currently there are really 2 camps that are slugging it out on this issue,
                    >>the liberals who want more laws and to create a new gun task force within
                    >>the RCMP who are in a huge manpower shortage. Then there is the
                    >>Conservatives who are taking a stance on increasing funding to the provinces
                    >>and increasing the funding to the RCMP to enforce the current laws, as well
                    >>as increasing sentence lengths and giving mandatory min sentences for all
                    >>firearm related crimes.
                    >>
                    >>The main problem with the RCMP shortage is that after a decade of budget
                    >>cuts the RCMP cannot cover all its duties properly so officers are tasked
                    >>from major crime division to fill gaps in local districts. Right now I
                    >>believe that the RCMP staffing is at 80% of needed positions and the ONE
                    >>training school for them can only put through 1500 cadets a year.
                    >
                    >Sounds like the conservatives have the more practical solution in this case.


                    I doubt it seems that way to those who believe
                    that all guns are e—ee—eee—vil . . .


                    --Ronn! :)

                    "Since I was a small boy, two states have been
                    added to our country and two words have been
                    added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER
                    GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that
                    is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too?"
                    -- Red Skelton

                    (Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.)




                    _______________________________________________
                    http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                  • Nick Lidster
                    ... case. I doubt it seems that way to those who believe that all guns are e—ee—eee—vil . . . --Ronn! :) Since I was a small boy, two states have been
                    Message 9 of 9 , Jan 1, 2006
                      >Sounds like the conservatives have the more practical solution in this
                      case.


                      I doubt it seems that way to those who believe
                      that all guns are e—ee—eee—vil . . .


                      --Ronn! :)

                      "Since I was a small boy, two states have been
                      added to our country and two words have been
                      added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER
                      GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that
                      is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too?"
                      -- Red Skelton

                      (Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.)




                      _______________________________________________
                      http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l




                      I agree the Cons def have the more practical solution in this case and in
                      most cases their platform does seem more piratical then that of the
                      "fiberals" and the NDP (new democratic party).


                      Here are the liberal and conservative platforms for the upcoming election:

                      Liberal:

                      http://www.liberal.ca/issues_e.aspx

                      Our economy:

                      Following a strategy of balanced tax cuts, social spending and debt
                      repayment, the Liberal government has invested in our social foundations and
                      moved us towards a green economy and sustainable communities while enabling
                      us to overcome a challenging deficit. More..
                      <http://www.liberal.ca/issue_e.aspx?itype=64>

                      Cities and communities:

                      Canada’s cities and communities are where we truly experience what it means
                      to be Canadian. Paul Martin and the Liberal government understand this and
                      have committed a great deal to improving where we live and raise our
                      children. We also know that cities propel economic growth, employment and
                      innovation. They are at the center of our country’s success. More...
                      <http://www.liberal.ca/issue_e.aspx?itype=60>

                      Our families:

                      Giving families a helping hand, at all stages of life, is an important part
                      of creating a society of which we can all be proud. Paul Martin and the
                      Liberal government strive to treat every Canadian family with dignity and
                      respect. From our children to our seniors, we are committed to promoting
                      initiatives that reflect everyone’s needs. More...
                      <http://www.liberal.ca/issue_e.aspx?itype=61>

                      Canada in the world:

                      Whether it is through international aid, peacekeeping, trade or security,
                      the Liberal government is committed to ensuring Canada's continued role of
                      pride and influence in the world.
                      More... <http://www.liberal.ca/issue_e.aspx?itype=62>

                      Our environment:

                      Like the majority of Canadians, Prime Minister Paul Martin and the Liberal
                      government believe that a smart environmental policy is vital to our
                      continued success as a nation. We recognize the importance of continuing to
                      make investments to protect and preserve our rich inheritance of land, water
                      and wildlife.
                      More... <http://www.liberal.ca/issue_e.aspx?itype=63>

                      Universal health care:

                      The Liberal government is committed to upholding the Canada Health Act and
                      protecting our national, universal health care system. We will ensure that
                      our health care system will continue to be there when Canadians need it, no
                      matter where they live, and no matter what their income.
                      More... <http://www.liberal.ca/issue_e.aspx?itype=66>



                      Conservatives:

                      http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2326/

                      The Choice:
                      http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2326/32981?PHPSESSID=29e57798aab7c8f14b477e43a
                      5886639

                      The time for accountability has arrived.

                      On January 23rd, Canadians will finally be able to hold the Liberals
                      accountable. Accountable for the stolen money; accountable for the broken
                      trust; accountable for all that did not get done because this government has
                      been totally preoccupied with damage control; lurching from one scandal to
                      another; always trying to avoid the people’s verdict.

                      Stand Up for Accountability:
                      http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2326/31885?PHPSESSID=29e57798aab7c8f14b477e43a
                      5886639

                      Let’s clean up government


                      Canadians have been let down by 12 years of Liberal scandal. We need a
                      change in government to restore accountability and end the culture of
                      entitlement. Canadians must be able to trust our government and know that
                      our tax dollars are well spent.


                      Stand Up for Opportunity:
                      http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2326/31896?PHPSESSID=29e57798aab7c8f14b477e43a
                      5886639

                      Let’s cut taxes

                      Canadians are working longer and longer hours but finding it harder and
                      harder to get ahead.

                      A new government must create more opportunity for individuals, families, and
                      small businesses to get ahead. Under the Liberals, high taxes and red tape
                      have held back growth and prosperity. A new government must reduce taxes on
                      middle-class families starting with the GST, lower taxes on small business,
                      and help our farmers and resource industries to compete in the world.


                      Stand Up for Security:
                      http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2326/31900?PHPSESSID=29e57798aab7c8f14b477e43a
                      5886639

                      Let’s crack down on crime

                      Under the Liberals, gun, drug, and gang crime has increased and border,
                      port, and airport security has been soft. A new government must toughen
                      criminal justice, impose mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes, and
                      strengthen our border security.

                      Stand Up for Our Communities:
                      http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2326/31912?PHPSESSID=29e57798aab7c8f14b477e43a
                      5886639

                      Let’s build better roads and transit and keep our environment clean

                      The strength of Canada is our people and our communities. Sadly, the
                      Liberals have ignored the role of government in building strong communities.
                      A new government must invest more money in better roads and infrastructure,
                      a strong immigration system that meets our economic needs and helps
                      families, and a clean and healthy environment.

                      Stand Up for Canada:
                      http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2326/31916?PHPSESSID=29e57798aab7c8f14b477e43a
                      5886639

                      Let’s keep Canada strong and united

                      Canada needs a government that will stand up for our values of freedom,
                      fairness, and compassion. That means a democratic government at home that
                      respects all of our provinces, and defending our national interests and
                      values abroad through a stronger military and a tougher stand on
                      international trade disputes.





                      Ok well after going through both platforms again I have noticed that for as
                      much talk that they have done on the military its not a key issue for
                      conservatives. So ill do a little section on military issues.

                      A little background first. With last years budget the Canadian military
                      spending would approach 20 billion roughly 1.6% GDP. Amounts that have been
                      suggested by senate committees and outside think tanks both look to an
                      increase to a min of 1.8% -2.0% GDP. Current levels of spending are approx
                      10-11 billion (9.82 billion budgeted several hundred million per branch
                      overage spending). The Cons had also announced that they would fund the
                      Forces to increase over the current increase of 8000 by another 5-75,000
                      person over then next 10years. For a nation of 33 mil a army reg-force of
                      33k is not very big at all, and this expansion would bring us back up to our
                      post cold war strength during the early 90's.

                      Conservative:

                      http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2023/37406?PHPSESSID=40fbb0a1db1571b4d014f7f77
                      ce94980


                      --
                      No virus found in this outgoing message.
                      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                      Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.9/217 - Release Date: 30/12/2005


                      _______________________________________________
                      http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.