Let's face it - taxes are one of those things that are simply a necessary evil. No one likes paying them - no one likes it when taxes go up, and it was only a couple of years ago that I sat down and realized how much taxes I actually pay. Without giving exact numbers, here's how I was able to break it down:
First, taxes on my yearly salary. I get taxed something like 34% of my annual salary - that is, more than 1/3 goes towards federal and provincial income tax. This money's gone before I even see it. Now, all the financial planners out there would tell you that you can lighten the pain by Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) deductions. This is true, only if (and this is a big if) you have anything left over after you pay your bills (most of which have taxes on them). Now, the federal and provincial taxes are used for health care, education, the military, etc. I am OK with the expeditures as long as they are not wasteful - but of course, as you know, liberal governments tend to gravitate towards spending more than cutting costs, and when you hear of instances where the government in the U.S. spent $10 million on a single missle that is used to shoot down a satellite, or the billions of dollars that go into ridiculous ventures like space exploration - it just boggles the mind. Now, I'd be in favour of having a voice in how my tax money is being used. While I can't say I'm thrilled about paying taxes, I realize it's a responsibility as a Canadian citizen that I must do so. I am OK with that. What I'd like is for the governments to give us a list of what programs they have and we can prioritize them so that our tax dollars are weighted towards what's important to us. This way, you won't have make-work fart-away programs that no one wants, that gouge the taxpayers of millions of dollars every year. It is more democratic to do it this way, since people can help fund what is important to them, rather than trusting the government with the purse strings without a means of accountability. But I am getting off topic here...
So I basically have 66% of my paycheque left. Of that, the largest chunk of it goes towards my mortgage (which, as far as I am aware, carries no additional taxes). However, like most people, I pay property tax to the municipal government - that funds schools and roads and parks and libraries and such. Now that I have a kid in school, I can see the direct benefit of paying these taxes. So after you take out property tax, we have things like telephone, water/hydro, and heating/gas, the bills of which all have taxes in addition to the already exaggerated amounts. After the bills are all taken care off, what meager amount is left is used for the daily spending (thankfully grocery store food is not taxed - at least not yet). If you have a car, your car's purchase price is taxed. Your gas that you put in your car is taxed. Anything you buy for your home is taxed (not to mention your home's purchase price itself, whether it is new or used). Your consumables and non-consumables around the house are taxed.
Some people have tried to save on taxes by buying from second hand stores (or stores that sell used merchandise, like Blockbuster, DejaVu Discs, etc.) Even used stuff is taxed (why, I have no idea - it was already taxed once). Now, in Ontario, we pay an automatic 8% on provincial purchases, and on top of it another 5% that is a federal tax (Goods and Services tax). Now, that GST amount used to be 7%, but thanks to the kept-promise of the federal Conservative government, it has been cut down to 5% over the past couple of years. Still, it sucks to have to pay 13% tax on top of anything you buy.
In the end, it's a pretty depressing story. Some people have indicated that they are taxed to death, utilizing an old cliche, that is more used to complain than to get results. These folks complain about the tax, yet continue to pay it.
Now, there are some things you can change and some things you can't. I certainly am not in favour of tax evasion - that is illegal, and I would never advocate this. Similarly, I am not talking about buying black market or stolen goods. Nor am I suggesting that you pay for things from a merchant (who should be charging taxes) by cash so you avoid tax and they avoid reporting the sale - this is totally illegal and I'd never support someone doing this). However, there are some legal avenues which you can take, as a consumer to lessen your tax burden. It all revolves around not buying anything new, and buying things through non-retail outlets. I know, you may be skeptical and wonder how much you can actually save doing this - trust me, it's well worth it.
You already know that buying anything new in the store will automatically gouge you another 13%. So why buy new? I don't know - some people just have an aversion to buying second hand goods. We're not talking about buying someone else's used underwear or someone else's toilet or their toothbrush. We're talking about things which people buy a lot of these days - cell phones, computer equipment, gadgets, etc. People buy second hand or used cars all the time, yet they insist on buying a new DVD player. Not sure why, but if you do and go into Best Buy, you are going to be paying an inflated price which will certainly have taxes on top of it. Why not look at places like craigslist.com, which has local sellers who are looking to get rid of stuff (stuff that they more than likely bought brand new, retail). Or you can check eBay, if you can find someone in Canada who has it (I don't recommend buying from the U.S. consistently, as eventually the random duty charges will hit your package and of course, by then it will incur GST/PST as well for some stupid reason (why the government feels it necessary to charge taxes on used items you didn't even purchase in Canada, I will never know).
You know, these days, it is very, very rare to see me buying ANYTHING retail. My wife, who is almost nine months pregnant, got maternity clothes (Thyme brand, which is not cheap) through Craigslist. These are barely worn by the mothers selling them. I managed to figure out what I saved on the clothes in comparing it to what Thyme has on their website. My wife's maternity wardrobe would have cost $3100.00 Cdn. + tax in the store. You know how much we got it for, second hand (in excellent condition)? We paid a mere $285.00 from various sellers. $3100.00 + 13% tax is about $3500.00. We saved a combined 92% off the retail price, and that includes taxes. Every single piece of networking equipment I have at home now was purchased off eBay or craigslist. My cell phone was bought from Crraigslist. My PDA from eBay. All the memory sticks/expansion modules I bought off eBay. My video cards for my computer and almost all my computer games - off eBay. My PSP and all the games for it - craigslist and eBay. 90% of the DVDs that I have in my collection are either gifts, or second hand purchases from eBay or Craigslist. I've not only saved a ton of dough, but I saved the taxes as well. It is not illegal for me to buy something second hand from someone. It's a win-win situation. They can make back some of their original purchase price (and since they did not make a profit on the sale, they are not legally obligated to report it). As a buyer, I save on retail price and taxes.
Many of the car experts have it right. Buy your car second hand. Not only are you not overpaying for a quickly depreciating asset (what a poor combination) but you save on the taxes.
Coupons are another great way to reduce taxes, and save money in general. Yes, I know what you'll say - it takes more effort to clip the 25 cent off coupon than the yield produces. But like everything else, we're talking an established and consistent practice of using coupons - it will save you hundreds, if not thousands, over the years.
Another method that some can use is the good old fashioned bartering system. No, this is not the same as paying someone under the table, since they are selling the service for money (whether it be cash, credit card, cheque, debit, whatever). It is illegal because money is exchanged and the sale is not reported. In the case of bartering, no sale for funds takes place; rather, you barter goods for services or services for services. An example: if I were to hire an electrician, I'd have to pay him/her his/her hourly cost + tax on top. That is the law. Now, if the electrician does not accept funds from me, but rather I exchange my services of fixing his/her home computer or what not, that is perfectly legal. No money is exchanged. Now, where this likely can get dicey is when people don't regard it as a legal barter, but as a bribe or whatever else. So bartering carries some potential legal risks.
Now, some people believe that you can save on taxes by reducing your usage of things. That is technically true. By using less electricity/heat/water, you are in effect contributing to a lower overall bill, which translates to less taxes. But make no mistake, these companies are not stupid - they can comply with environmental lobbies who put pressure on them to encourage their users to use less - but ultimately, they run a business, so their lost up-front revenue by your conservation practices, will no doubt show up as back-end fee increases later. Conservation is not the way to go if you want to save money, since they'll gouge you one way or another.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Monday, February 18, 2008
Black-Only or Afro-Centric Schools - Are You Kidding Me?
Ah, leave it up to the liberal establishment in Toronto to float an idea that reeks of racial preference and reverse discrimination under the guise of "increased tolerance" and "racially advantageous education". If you haven't heard by now, Toronto has approved the start-up of a racially segregated school. Yup, you heard that right, and nope, we're not back in the 1950s in the American south, ladies and gentleman. In 2008, in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, there will be the establishment of an essentially all-black school. I suppose afro-centric is the proper politically correct name, but since this isn't the Toronto Star, black-only school is more than sufficient to describe what will undoubtedly be a inevitable failure. I don't agree with much with the very liberal premier of Ontario, one Dalton McGuinty, but I have to say that I am in full concurrence with him in his uneasiness and opposition to such a school being put in place.
Unfortunately, such an issue can not only be a contentious one, but has an extremely high risk of polarizing people racially. From what I've seen and heard, not unlike many race issues, we see a clear divide in how members of racial groups (in this case, the reaction is generally broken down along historical Black/White lines). However, despite what the media may report, not all Black folks are keen on this idea.
Earlier last month, my wife and I had the opportunity to accept an invitation to have "brunch" with one of my wife's clients. I don't know them very well, and to be honest, didn't really want to go, but she insisted, so I went, mostly to serve as an example to my son that you can't always do what you really want to do. The family is part Haitian/part African (for the sake of this discussion, it would be safe to simply say that they were Black). Anyhow, we show up and the food is not ready. For a brunch, we didn't eat until 3PM. While to me it is generally not generally a significant detail as far as social interactions go, I did chuckle to myself, as this late lunch sort of underscored a prevalent societal stereotype about Black folks - that late is OK (of course, I'm always late, so it may be an Asian thing as well). Anyhow, we thought it would be an oppotunity to get to know this family better. Between trying to make conversation over the large Samsung LCD TV that was blasting away the soundtrack portion of some clearly pirated DVD, we found out that we weren't the only ones that were invited to this late brunch. In fact, there are lots of people invited. Fantastic, I thought, it's going to be a freaking house party now, as if the CD player blaring in the background, trying to compete with the aforementioned DVD, wasn't loud and irritating enough.
Their friends showed up, and not surprisingly, they were all Black. The conversation turned to world current events and then proceeded to focus back on local Canadian issues. It was a pretty interesting conversation, with some very knowledgeable and articulate folks there, not the least of which was this news junkie, who like me listened to talk radio and had an opinion on almost any current event. To no one's surprise, after some ice-breaker topics, the subject shifted quickly to the (at the time) proposed all-Black school in Toronto. The fellow turned to me, and with other eyes turned my way, he asked what I thought of the idea. Now, what the heck would you say to a group of Black folks huddled together to discuss such a topic, particularly if you were the only non-Black there (my wife was there as well, but didn't say a whole lot and was subtly tapping my foot with hers as code to say that it's time that we went home)? Of course, I am not one to be shy with my opinions and since I figured that I am not exactly bursting with politically correct diplomacy skills, I may as well state my honest opinion, and if I do get attacked (figuratively or physically), there were several exit routes I could have taken. So I told the group how I thought it was such a terrible idea, not because it was contrary to some contemporary utopian view about how everyone should simply get along and ignore the differences between us, but that the idea did not have my support because it was essentially a weak, bailing-out type of response, which is not uncommon in today's lack-of-responsibility and throwning-in-the-towel mentality. People nowadays do not deal with challenges very well, whether it be societal, financial, emotional, physical, etc. People as a whole have also generally abandoned long-coveted virtues such as hard work and paying your dues, to use an overused cliche.
Here's the rub, essentially, I continued to tell them. The idea of this school was floated, in part due to some Blacks (in mostly urban centres) not performing as well academically, in relation to their non-Black counterparts (White, Asian, etc.) Now, there are people, like that sociologist (what's his name? Russell or something?) who make claims that Black people are as a whole less intelligent than Whites, and especially Asians, due to brain size, etc.) I don't give that guy's argument much credence, because over time, I have seen more than my fair share of Black nerds out there, just as much as I have seen White nerds, though hardly competitive with the amount of Asian nerds out there. Still, I don't think any of this is due to any racially-contributed gifting of natural intelligence. Have a look at where these Black kids come from? Fact is, many of them in urban areas come from single families, the vast majority of which are headed up by a Black woman who has to work to support her kids that she more than likely had out of wedlock. The father is nowhere to be seen. No one can debate this - it's just a fact. Now, these kids grow up with essentially an absentee mother (who, to her credit is working) but there is no one at home to stress the value of education and academic achievement. Contrast that to the amount of White families who have a mother and father in the house (I know this is changing, but the incident of two-parent White families is considerably higher than Blacks) and contrast that particularly with Asian families who almost certainly have a mother and father at home and are culturally achievement-oriented. That's why you see Asians excel at school. Culturally, they have no choice, since any slacking at a young age would be met with spanking or worse, a paternal beating (netiher of these are kosher in today's sensitivity-trained politically correct environment). So having all these Black kids, who are underachieving, in their own school will do nothing but perpetuate mediocrity.
Now, there are the racial and social aspects. Some parents claim that their kids would perform better socially with people who are the same as them. I won't dispute this claim, since I am pretty certain of its validity. Growing up in an all-White school, I think I would have gained more social skills at an earlier age, if there were more people like me at the school. Instead, I was a bit of an outcast, carrying my Chinese food-based drink and wearing my Hong-Kong inspired clothing to class, where I was met with jeers and worse. However, if I were to do it again, I wouldn't do it any differently. Reason why is because despite my being ouside of my own comfort zone, I did realize at an early age (grade four) that by going into a shell and keeping to myself, I wasn't going to make matters any better. Sure I wanted to fit in, but moreso I wanted to desperately show that I wasn't much different than they were. I believe through my efforts, I have diffused future racists from developing. Could you imagine if there were more Asians in my school? No doubt I would have gravitated towards them. We would have formed our own clique. Probably ate lunch together and avoided the rest of the White kids. What would that do? I'd certainly feel more comfortable and to a degree, safer. But make no mistake, I would have perpetuated all the stereotypes that others already had about Asian kids. I have always maintained that mentality, from childhood throughout adulthood. My disgust over a city like Toronto which claims to be multicultural and "tolerant" (which is as much of a hogwash term - I had a stronger word, but this is a family show - as I've ever heard), while they in essence practice a sort of isolationist politic by allowing ethnic ghettos to develop and remain self-sustaining (like it or not, places like Chinatown, Greektown, Koreantown, Little Italy, etc. are in essence all segregated ethnic ghettos) is something that constantly leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Being a born-again Christian, I find it absolutely abhorrent that Christian believers have chosen to segregate themselves in various ethnic churches, under the guise of cultural limitations). The former pastor of the church that I currently attend once told me that he was faced with a decision long ago - shall they do the right thing and stay in the increasingly Asian community that they found themselves and partner with other Asian ministries, or shall they pick up and leave. At the time, the church's demographics were heavily white and middle-age/elderly, and when the church decided that the right thing to do was stay put and partner up with an Asian church, 20% of the congregation left. My former pastor impressed upon me while a homogenous church will likely grow faster than a heterogenous church, is catering to one's self-absorbed sense of comfort and ease the right thing to do?
My opposition to an all-black school carries the same tenets of arguments that I espouse for other ventures that try to cater to a castle-type of mentality. It is no surprise to anyone that I hold a very strong view against things like homeschooling, which are really segregationalist schools for White parents who hold either religiously fundamentalist views, or who have a fortress mentality to child-rearing. In either case, it's not much different than the all black-schools argument. I suppose you can take me to task and argue that there is no difference between black-only schools and private schools. In private schools, however, there is generally no overtly sinister intention - that is, there isn't any racial overtones, though it may be argued that subtly, some parents by sending their kids to a private school are in essence keeping their kids away from urban minority youth. Private schools are also not funded by any level of government, whether it be municipal or provincial. The old adage applies - it's your money - you do whatever you want with it - as long as I'm not paying for your private school or segregated school, I don't really care.
It is funny that this whole thing has cropped up this year. Last year, in the Ontario election, Progressive Conservative leader John Tory was roundly criticized for his position on allowing faith-based schools to be provincially funded. While I disagree with Tory's position (in which he has since backtracked), I find it funny that there seems to be a modicum of support for an all-Black school, while there was vocal opposition to a provincially funded all-Christian or all-Jewish or all-Muslim school (all of which I oppose, as well as the currently government-funded Catholic school system in Ontario).
Some of the other problems with a all-Black school include an unhealthy focus on race. Yes, February is officially Black history month (not sure who decided this, but I neither observe nor support it), but you would think that with all the struggles that Black civil rights leaders have fought to achieve, that the best that the community can come up with is a all-Black school. There are more than Black people in a city like Toronto, in academia, is there really a racial distinction when it comes to core subjects like math, science, reading, etc. - which brings me to my next point: in the global economy and in today's business world, one has to be prepared and able to work with a diverse employee base. I mean, I have worked with people who are of all races, and have worked with gay peple as well as an individual who had a horrific sex change. Did I enjoy all these interactions? Absolutely not. Did I agree with these people's personal views? No. But I have to work with them. And, I believe that in learning and interacting with different people during my academic and educational days, it well prepared me in dealing with a diverse group of people, some of which I don't agree with and even some that I may not particularly like. In perpetuating a Black school, I believe its students would not be as well prepared to work in the workplace when they graduate (except for working for B.E.T. or something like that).
Last week, it was revealed that a Barrie police inspector circulated a email that essentially played up the stereotypes of Black people, in the context of the all-Black school in Toronto. Many were offended by the email, which posed mathematical problem solving scenarios based on drive-by shootings, drugs, or prostitution. I can't say that I was necessarily offended by this, but I do thing that another negative by-product of such a school is to create more racists, or possibly bring racists that were in the closet out in the open. I can forsee Whites glad to see Blacks no longer attending the same schools as their kids. Add to that the fact that these all-Black schools are essentially a double-standard: if several Whites came together to propose an all-White school, would that have much traction? Likely, the societal condemnation would be fast and swift. In my view, having an all-Black school is no different than an all-White school or an all-Asian school. It is essentially a poor effort to address a symptom of a larger issue.
Unfortunately, such an issue can not only be a contentious one, but has an extremely high risk of polarizing people racially. From what I've seen and heard, not unlike many race issues, we see a clear divide in how members of racial groups (in this case, the reaction is generally broken down along historical Black/White lines). However, despite what the media may report, not all Black folks are keen on this idea.
Earlier last month, my wife and I had the opportunity to accept an invitation to have "brunch" with one of my wife's clients. I don't know them very well, and to be honest, didn't really want to go, but she insisted, so I went, mostly to serve as an example to my son that you can't always do what you really want to do. The family is part Haitian/part African (for the sake of this discussion, it would be safe to simply say that they were Black). Anyhow, we show up and the food is not ready. For a brunch, we didn't eat until 3PM. While to me it is generally not generally a significant detail as far as social interactions go, I did chuckle to myself, as this late lunch sort of underscored a prevalent societal stereotype about Black folks - that late is OK (of course, I'm always late, so it may be an Asian thing as well). Anyhow, we thought it would be an oppotunity to get to know this family better. Between trying to make conversation over the large Samsung LCD TV that was blasting away the soundtrack portion of some clearly pirated DVD, we found out that we weren't the only ones that were invited to this late brunch. In fact, there are lots of people invited. Fantastic, I thought, it's going to be a freaking house party now, as if the CD player blaring in the background, trying to compete with the aforementioned DVD, wasn't loud and irritating enough.
Their friends showed up, and not surprisingly, they were all Black. The conversation turned to world current events and then proceeded to focus back on local Canadian issues. It was a pretty interesting conversation, with some very knowledgeable and articulate folks there, not the least of which was this news junkie, who like me listened to talk radio and had an opinion on almost any current event. To no one's surprise, after some ice-breaker topics, the subject shifted quickly to the (at the time) proposed all-Black school in Toronto. The fellow turned to me, and with other eyes turned my way, he asked what I thought of the idea. Now, what the heck would you say to a group of Black folks huddled together to discuss such a topic, particularly if you were the only non-Black there (my wife was there as well, but didn't say a whole lot and was subtly tapping my foot with hers as code to say that it's time that we went home)? Of course, I am not one to be shy with my opinions and since I figured that I am not exactly bursting with politically correct diplomacy skills, I may as well state my honest opinion, and if I do get attacked (figuratively or physically), there were several exit routes I could have taken. So I told the group how I thought it was such a terrible idea, not because it was contrary to some contemporary utopian view about how everyone should simply get along and ignore the differences between us, but that the idea did not have my support because it was essentially a weak, bailing-out type of response, which is not uncommon in today's lack-of-responsibility and throwning-in-the-towel mentality. People nowadays do not deal with challenges very well, whether it be societal, financial, emotional, physical, etc. People as a whole have also generally abandoned long-coveted virtues such as hard work and paying your dues, to use an overused cliche.
Here's the rub, essentially, I continued to tell them. The idea of this school was floated, in part due to some Blacks (in mostly urban centres) not performing as well academically, in relation to their non-Black counterparts (White, Asian, etc.) Now, there are people, like that sociologist (what's his name? Russell or something?) who make claims that Black people are as a whole less intelligent than Whites, and especially Asians, due to brain size, etc.) I don't give that guy's argument much credence, because over time, I have seen more than my fair share of Black nerds out there, just as much as I have seen White nerds, though hardly competitive with the amount of Asian nerds out there. Still, I don't think any of this is due to any racially-contributed gifting of natural intelligence. Have a look at where these Black kids come from? Fact is, many of them in urban areas come from single families, the vast majority of which are headed up by a Black woman who has to work to support her kids that she more than likely had out of wedlock. The father is nowhere to be seen. No one can debate this - it's just a fact. Now, these kids grow up with essentially an absentee mother (who, to her credit is working) but there is no one at home to stress the value of education and academic achievement. Contrast that to the amount of White families who have a mother and father in the house (I know this is changing, but the incident of two-parent White families is considerably higher than Blacks) and contrast that particularly with Asian families who almost certainly have a mother and father at home and are culturally achievement-oriented. That's why you see Asians excel at school. Culturally, they have no choice, since any slacking at a young age would be met with spanking or worse, a paternal beating (netiher of these are kosher in today's sensitivity-trained politically correct environment). So having all these Black kids, who are underachieving, in their own school will do nothing but perpetuate mediocrity.
Now, there are the racial and social aspects. Some parents claim that their kids would perform better socially with people who are the same as them. I won't dispute this claim, since I am pretty certain of its validity. Growing up in an all-White school, I think I would have gained more social skills at an earlier age, if there were more people like me at the school. Instead, I was a bit of an outcast, carrying my Chinese food-based drink and wearing my Hong-Kong inspired clothing to class, where I was met with jeers and worse. However, if I were to do it again, I wouldn't do it any differently. Reason why is because despite my being ouside of my own comfort zone, I did realize at an early age (grade four) that by going into a shell and keeping to myself, I wasn't going to make matters any better. Sure I wanted to fit in, but moreso I wanted to desperately show that I wasn't much different than they were. I believe through my efforts, I have diffused future racists from developing. Could you imagine if there were more Asians in my school? No doubt I would have gravitated towards them. We would have formed our own clique. Probably ate lunch together and avoided the rest of the White kids. What would that do? I'd certainly feel more comfortable and to a degree, safer. But make no mistake, I would have perpetuated all the stereotypes that others already had about Asian kids. I have always maintained that mentality, from childhood throughout adulthood. My disgust over a city like Toronto which claims to be multicultural and "tolerant" (which is as much of a hogwash term - I had a stronger word, but this is a family show - as I've ever heard), while they in essence practice a sort of isolationist politic by allowing ethnic ghettos to develop and remain self-sustaining (like it or not, places like Chinatown, Greektown, Koreantown, Little Italy, etc. are in essence all segregated ethnic ghettos) is something that constantly leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Being a born-again Christian, I find it absolutely abhorrent that Christian believers have chosen to segregate themselves in various ethnic churches, under the guise of cultural limitations). The former pastor of the church that I currently attend once told me that he was faced with a decision long ago - shall they do the right thing and stay in the increasingly Asian community that they found themselves and partner with other Asian ministries, or shall they pick up and leave. At the time, the church's demographics were heavily white and middle-age/elderly, and when the church decided that the right thing to do was stay put and partner up with an Asian church, 20% of the congregation left. My former pastor impressed upon me while a homogenous church will likely grow faster than a heterogenous church, is catering to one's self-absorbed sense of comfort and ease the right thing to do?
My opposition to an all-black school carries the same tenets of arguments that I espouse for other ventures that try to cater to a castle-type of mentality. It is no surprise to anyone that I hold a very strong view against things like homeschooling, which are really segregationalist schools for White parents who hold either religiously fundamentalist views, or who have a fortress mentality to child-rearing. In either case, it's not much different than the all black-schools argument. I suppose you can take me to task and argue that there is no difference between black-only schools and private schools. In private schools, however, there is generally no overtly sinister intention - that is, there isn't any racial overtones, though it may be argued that subtly, some parents by sending their kids to a private school are in essence keeping their kids away from urban minority youth. Private schools are also not funded by any level of government, whether it be municipal or provincial. The old adage applies - it's your money - you do whatever you want with it - as long as I'm not paying for your private school or segregated school, I don't really care.
It is funny that this whole thing has cropped up this year. Last year, in the Ontario election, Progressive Conservative leader John Tory was roundly criticized for his position on allowing faith-based schools to be provincially funded. While I disagree with Tory's position (in which he has since backtracked), I find it funny that there seems to be a modicum of support for an all-Black school, while there was vocal opposition to a provincially funded all-Christian or all-Jewish or all-Muslim school (all of which I oppose, as well as the currently government-funded Catholic school system in Ontario).
Some of the other problems with a all-Black school include an unhealthy focus on race. Yes, February is officially Black history month (not sure who decided this, but I neither observe nor support it), but you would think that with all the struggles that Black civil rights leaders have fought to achieve, that the best that the community can come up with is a all-Black school. There are more than Black people in a city like Toronto, in academia, is there really a racial distinction when it comes to core subjects like math, science, reading, etc. - which brings me to my next point: in the global economy and in today's business world, one has to be prepared and able to work with a diverse employee base. I mean, I have worked with people who are of all races, and have worked with gay peple as well as an individual who had a horrific sex change. Did I enjoy all these interactions? Absolutely not. Did I agree with these people's personal views? No. But I have to work with them. And, I believe that in learning and interacting with different people during my academic and educational days, it well prepared me in dealing with a diverse group of people, some of which I don't agree with and even some that I may not particularly like. In perpetuating a Black school, I believe its students would not be as well prepared to work in the workplace when they graduate (except for working for B.E.T. or something like that).
Last week, it was revealed that a Barrie police inspector circulated a email that essentially played up the stereotypes of Black people, in the context of the all-Black school in Toronto. Many were offended by the email, which posed mathematical problem solving scenarios based on drive-by shootings, drugs, or prostitution. I can't say that I was necessarily offended by this, but I do thing that another negative by-product of such a school is to create more racists, or possibly bring racists that were in the closet out in the open. I can forsee Whites glad to see Blacks no longer attending the same schools as their kids. Add to that the fact that these all-Black schools are essentially a double-standard: if several Whites came together to propose an all-White school, would that have much traction? Likely, the societal condemnation would be fast and swift. In my view, having an all-Black school is no different than an all-White school or an all-Asian school. It is essentially a poor effort to address a symptom of a larger issue.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Mental History Checks Needed Before Firearms Are Sold in the U.S.
Another year, another school shooting...
Sorry if it sounds crass, but doesn't this start to seem commonplace on an annual basis? Like we're simply expecting to hear about the next one. Last week, on Valentine's day, a former graduate of Northern Illinois University returned to his alma mater, and armed with a shotgun and handguns, proceeded to shoot students in a lecture hall. In total, this individual shot and killed five others before turning the gun on himself.
In the days ahead, internet forums and discussion groups were filled with renewed calls to ban firearms in the U.S. Guns are once again pointed out to be nothing more than a tool in which life can be extinguished.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - guns are not the problem here. Banning them won't solve any problems - schools like NIU were gun-free zones (so was Virginia Tech). Notice how these mass shooters gravitate towards places which are essentially gun-free? Schools, churches, shopping malls. Besides, you can look at countries like England, who, along with other parts of the U.K., have put a major squeeze on gun sales and the types of guns available (essentially banning them, even airguns) - there has been a noticeable rise in crime since these restrictions have been enacted. On the contrary, countries like Switzerland, whose citizens are armed more per capita than the U.S., have extremely low gun crime rates. But that is not the focus of this discussion and you can see my other blog entries for more info on this topic...
And no, I am not a flag-waving American gun nut, who cites the second amendment ad nauseum. Whatever your view on the second amendment, I find it difficult, even as a pro-gun guy, to believe that it is societally acceptable to sell guns to anyone, without a thorough suitable criminal background and more importantly, a mental history check performed first. The problem with some of these gun-loving Americans, is that they seem to favour individual rights over collective societal rights. So even a waiting period to get a gun license is considered an affront to their civil sensibilities. I personally, while I favour responsible gun ownership, have no issue with things such as a waiting period, as inconvenient as that would be for me. In Canada, you need to get a gun license, which involves a fairly detailed process, along with mandatory waiting periods for criminal and mental history checks - I have been through this and am glad this is in place - sure, it's a pain in the ass for me to have to wait, but I understand the reasoning behind it. Sure, one may be able to pass their Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) course and exams, and may have great references and such, but the government still does probe into your history a bit, and while it's conceivable that a person may get a gun license in Canada and still commit a crime later, the risk is far lessened, and if I were to hazard a guess, this is likely an exception, not the rule.
In this case, the Illinois shooter purchased his firearms legally a week or so before the campus shooting took place. From what I understand, he had a valid Illinois firearms license (not all states have such requirements, but Illinois does). So the anti-gun lobbyists may argue that even a firearms license may not work. Ah, but if you look at the last two prominent college campus shootings in the U.S., this one as well as Virginia Tech from last year, you'll see a bit of a parallel in the profiles of the shooters (I have decided to withhold their names to not afford them any more publicity). Both of these shooters, while having no previous criminal records, had documented cases of mental illness/depression, and in the case of the Illinois shooter, he was off his medication. Here's where probing a person's mental history would be of tremendous benefit, particularly before issuing the said person a firearm. The National Rifle Association (NRA) supports the release and use of this information before selling a gun to someone. Unfortunately, in most States, the extent of the background check would be for criminal activities and criminal records (and as we all know, criminals aren't necessarily law abiding citizens and as such, are unlikely to procure their guns legally anyway).
I think it's fairly obvious why the mental check is so important. Clearly, anyone hellbent (or even casually or seriously considering) on destroying human life via a shooting massacre is not playing with a full deck of cards. How they are ever issued either a firearms license or sold a firearm, is beyond me.
I find it laughable that in the initial reaction to the shooting, those close to the shooter and those who have known the shooter seemed so shocked that he did it. After all, he was supposedly a smart guy (which he would have been to have fooled so many people). He was a teacher's assistant, and was involved in developing some ideas on justice programs. Those around him used words like "revere" in describing him. Give me a freaking break...
If you recall, I wrote a blog entry last year about people living a life facade. Nothing surprises me anymore, and I have learned over time not to believe anything that I see. In this case even his teary-eyed girlfriend, who has known about his turbulent past and his needing to be medicated, is still somehow shocked that he was capable of doing this. Lady, the guy had mental problems - his profile should make him the prime candidate, not an after-thought! I've met a few people in my life who were really nice people, but you just saw signs that they had some mental issues. While under control, great, but if a person willingly goes off medication or pulls a fast one on someone and manages to acquire a firearm, look out. Being able to weed these people out (and whether you call it discriminatory or people profiling, I don't really care - for the societal good, some inconveniences are worth committing) will ensure that they don't have easy access to a gun license or firearm. Sure, they may still be able to acquire one, but it will be inevitably more difficult to do so. Like I said, anyone who is willing to turn a firearm on an innocent, unarmed group of human beings clearly has mental and emotional issues.
Sorry if it sounds crass, but doesn't this start to seem commonplace on an annual basis? Like we're simply expecting to hear about the next one. Last week, on Valentine's day, a former graduate of Northern Illinois University returned to his alma mater, and armed with a shotgun and handguns, proceeded to shoot students in a lecture hall. In total, this individual shot and killed five others before turning the gun on himself.
In the days ahead, internet forums and discussion groups were filled with renewed calls to ban firearms in the U.S. Guns are once again pointed out to be nothing more than a tool in which life can be extinguished.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - guns are not the problem here. Banning them won't solve any problems - schools like NIU were gun-free zones (so was Virginia Tech). Notice how these mass shooters gravitate towards places which are essentially gun-free? Schools, churches, shopping malls. Besides, you can look at countries like England, who, along with other parts of the U.K., have put a major squeeze on gun sales and the types of guns available (essentially banning them, even airguns) - there has been a noticeable rise in crime since these restrictions have been enacted. On the contrary, countries like Switzerland, whose citizens are armed more per capita than the U.S., have extremely low gun crime rates. But that is not the focus of this discussion and you can see my other blog entries for more info on this topic...
And no, I am not a flag-waving American gun nut, who cites the second amendment ad nauseum. Whatever your view on the second amendment, I find it difficult, even as a pro-gun guy, to believe that it is societally acceptable to sell guns to anyone, without a thorough suitable criminal background and more importantly, a mental history check performed first. The problem with some of these gun-loving Americans, is that they seem to favour individual rights over collective societal rights. So even a waiting period to get a gun license is considered an affront to their civil sensibilities. I personally, while I favour responsible gun ownership, have no issue with things such as a waiting period, as inconvenient as that would be for me. In Canada, you need to get a gun license, which involves a fairly detailed process, along with mandatory waiting periods for criminal and mental history checks - I have been through this and am glad this is in place - sure, it's a pain in the ass for me to have to wait, but I understand the reasoning behind it. Sure, one may be able to pass their Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) course and exams, and may have great references and such, but the government still does probe into your history a bit, and while it's conceivable that a person may get a gun license in Canada and still commit a crime later, the risk is far lessened, and if I were to hazard a guess, this is likely an exception, not the rule.
In this case, the Illinois shooter purchased his firearms legally a week or so before the campus shooting took place. From what I understand, he had a valid Illinois firearms license (not all states have such requirements, but Illinois does). So the anti-gun lobbyists may argue that even a firearms license may not work. Ah, but if you look at the last two prominent college campus shootings in the U.S., this one as well as Virginia Tech from last year, you'll see a bit of a parallel in the profiles of the shooters (I have decided to withhold their names to not afford them any more publicity). Both of these shooters, while having no previous criminal records, had documented cases of mental illness/depression, and in the case of the Illinois shooter, he was off his medication. Here's where probing a person's mental history would be of tremendous benefit, particularly before issuing the said person a firearm. The National Rifle Association (NRA) supports the release and use of this information before selling a gun to someone. Unfortunately, in most States, the extent of the background check would be for criminal activities and criminal records (and as we all know, criminals aren't necessarily law abiding citizens and as such, are unlikely to procure their guns legally anyway).
I think it's fairly obvious why the mental check is so important. Clearly, anyone hellbent (or even casually or seriously considering) on destroying human life via a shooting massacre is not playing with a full deck of cards. How they are ever issued either a firearms license or sold a firearm, is beyond me.
I find it laughable that in the initial reaction to the shooting, those close to the shooter and those who have known the shooter seemed so shocked that he did it. After all, he was supposedly a smart guy (which he would have been to have fooled so many people). He was a teacher's assistant, and was involved in developing some ideas on justice programs. Those around him used words like "revere" in describing him. Give me a freaking break...
If you recall, I wrote a blog entry last year about people living a life facade. Nothing surprises me anymore, and I have learned over time not to believe anything that I see. In this case even his teary-eyed girlfriend, who has known about his turbulent past and his needing to be medicated, is still somehow shocked that he was capable of doing this. Lady, the guy had mental problems - his profile should make him the prime candidate, not an after-thought! I've met a few people in my life who were really nice people, but you just saw signs that they had some mental issues. While under control, great, but if a person willingly goes off medication or pulls a fast one on someone and manages to acquire a firearm, look out. Being able to weed these people out (and whether you call it discriminatory or people profiling, I don't really care - for the societal good, some inconveniences are worth committing) will ensure that they don't have easy access to a gun license or firearm. Sure, they may still be able to acquire one, but it will be inevitably more difficult to do so. Like I said, anyone who is willing to turn a firearm on an innocent, unarmed group of human beings clearly has mental and emotional issues.
Monday, February 11, 2008
I (And Millions of Others) Are Done with Ebay April 30, 2008. Enjoy the Sinking Ship, John Donahoe...
My disillusionment with eBay has been increasing over the past year, and last week, the news that made it all the way to front-page CNN business news, was the last straw, not only for me, but for millions of other eBay sellers who will officially close-up shop on April 30, 2008. This really does suck, since eBay had so much potential and was a fun place to sell stuff. Meg Whitman, outgoing CEO of eBay, and who grew eBay from small auction site to worldwide phenomenon, has decided to leave the company she founded, after more than a decade. No doubt a large part of it is decreasing profits. But unfortunately, eBay has been handed over to John Donahoe, who has clearly demonstrated that he does not anything about the grassroots of eBay, and who really makes the money for the company. He has decided to implement a series of changes, some being implemented immediately, while others being phased in by May 1, 2008. Yes, there is another fee increase, but he actually had the gall to market this as a fee decrease and made it sound as if it benefitted sellers. Listing fees have decreased slightly, while the final value fees (what the seller pays to eBay as commission, so to speak, upon a sale, has increased from 50-65%). Sellers who make up the backbone of eBay profits cannot afford such blatant cash gouges, so they are planning two things: one is a mass exodus from eBay at the end of April (I'll explain why in a minute). The other is a widespread boycott/strike from the 18-25th of this month. The strike/boycott I can't see being very effective, but leaving with your wallet certainly will send a message. Between all my accounts on eBay, I spend tens of thousands of dollars in fees per year (eBay and Paypal), and eBay will no longer have this stream from me at the end of April 2008.
Why end of April? Because that's when eBay will be implementing perhaps the most destructive change it has ever made. It will revoke the seller's ability to leave anything but a positive feedback for a buyer. The rationale, claims Donahoe, who obviously got his MBA by sleeping with the dean of his business school, is to ensure that buyers can no longer be hostages of the feedback system. In some ways, the feedback system was broken in that good buyers would be afraid to leave positives for sellers who are increasingly holding off on leaving feedback until the buyer does. Of course, if the buyer finds the item unacceptable (not as described) or shipping prices ridiculous, they cannot honestly leave a negative, for fear of getting retaliatory feedback. However, this new system hardly levels the playing field, but rather, turns the tables around and allows the seller to be at the mercy of the buyer. A buyer can now have buyer remorse and demand a refund or threaten negative feedback. They can make up any excuse under the sun and leave negative feedback. The seller can only sit back and watch. eBay even has anticipated that seller positive feedback percentages will drop dramatically.
But Donahoe doesn't care. Calling sellers nothing more than a nuisance flea marketers, he has obviously forgotten who is paying his bills and salary and has backstabbed the very people who are paying his salary. But that's OK - this guy won't last long. If he thinks that by gouging the sellers via the biggest FVF hike in history, disguised as a fee decrease, followed by an awful decision to alter the feedback system, which is paramount to buyer and seller confidence, far in favour to the buyer (he believes that this will bring forth more buyers - he's obviously never sold anything on eBay in his life), which eBay has consistently been increasingly catering to, he has something coming. One of the biggest eBay powersellers, Bargainland (based in Tennessee) have left eBay last fall (this is a seller who brings in $25 MILLION a year to the eBay coffers - well, not anymore). Other big sellers are starting to realize that Donahoe's vision will no doubt alienate the sellers who sell unique items, but instead are rewarding the big cookie-cutter sellers who sell en masse and don't care about fees and such - these sellers are turning eBay into a gigantic Walmart. Online auctions have dropped significantly, replaced by fixed-price or store inventory listings (no doubt as a response to fee increases in the past). eBay has been slowly dinging the store and fixed price sellers over the years and under the new proposed structure, they will be charged even more. The smart large volume sellers are realizing that this is the time to leave and have been abandoning their eBay accounts, setting up their own online websites.
I have slowly been moving off of eBay in the past year and have been active selling on Craigslist (which has no fees and no B.S. policies - see my other blogs on eBay that I post here). eBay misleads people into thinking that other forms of payment are not secure and really force you to use PayPal (which they also own and is a big joke from a security and support perspective, since I was scammed on it last year). They have forgotten the people who have helped build eBay to where it is now - the millions of individual sellers who made eBay a fun place to shop. Well, John Donahue, on April 30, 2008, your brilliant idea will backfire in your face and you sinking ship will develop major leaks at that point. Sellers are bailing on you left right and center, based on what I'm seeing in the forums. Thanks for destroying what was once somewhere I was proud to sell stuff, and also make some money to boot. But just like millions of others, I have decided that my patience has its limits, and you guys aren't getting any of my money anymore.
Why end of April? Because that's when eBay will be implementing perhaps the most destructive change it has ever made. It will revoke the seller's ability to leave anything but a positive feedback for a buyer. The rationale, claims Donahoe, who obviously got his MBA by sleeping with the dean of his business school, is to ensure that buyers can no longer be hostages of the feedback system. In some ways, the feedback system was broken in that good buyers would be afraid to leave positives for sellers who are increasingly holding off on leaving feedback until the buyer does. Of course, if the buyer finds the item unacceptable (not as described) or shipping prices ridiculous, they cannot honestly leave a negative, for fear of getting retaliatory feedback. However, this new system hardly levels the playing field, but rather, turns the tables around and allows the seller to be at the mercy of the buyer. A buyer can now have buyer remorse and demand a refund or threaten negative feedback. They can make up any excuse under the sun and leave negative feedback. The seller can only sit back and watch. eBay even has anticipated that seller positive feedback percentages will drop dramatically.
But Donahoe doesn't care. Calling sellers nothing more than a nuisance flea marketers, he has obviously forgotten who is paying his bills and salary and has backstabbed the very people who are paying his salary. But that's OK - this guy won't last long. If he thinks that by gouging the sellers via the biggest FVF hike in history, disguised as a fee decrease, followed by an awful decision to alter the feedback system, which is paramount to buyer and seller confidence, far in favour to the buyer (he believes that this will bring forth more buyers - he's obviously never sold anything on eBay in his life), which eBay has consistently been increasingly catering to, he has something coming. One of the biggest eBay powersellers, Bargainland (based in Tennessee) have left eBay last fall (this is a seller who brings in $25 MILLION a year to the eBay coffers - well, not anymore). Other big sellers are starting to realize that Donahoe's vision will no doubt alienate the sellers who sell unique items, but instead are rewarding the big cookie-cutter sellers who sell en masse and don't care about fees and such - these sellers are turning eBay into a gigantic Walmart. Online auctions have dropped significantly, replaced by fixed-price or store inventory listings (no doubt as a response to fee increases in the past). eBay has been slowly dinging the store and fixed price sellers over the years and under the new proposed structure, they will be charged even more. The smart large volume sellers are realizing that this is the time to leave and have been abandoning their eBay accounts, setting up their own online websites.
I have slowly been moving off of eBay in the past year and have been active selling on Craigslist (which has no fees and no B.S. policies - see my other blogs on eBay that I post here). eBay misleads people into thinking that other forms of payment are not secure and really force you to use PayPal (which they also own and is a big joke from a security and support perspective, since I was scammed on it last year). They have forgotten the people who have helped build eBay to where it is now - the millions of individual sellers who made eBay a fun place to shop. Well, John Donahue, on April 30, 2008, your brilliant idea will backfire in your face and you sinking ship will develop major leaks at that point. Sellers are bailing on you left right and center, based on what I'm seeing in the forums. Thanks for destroying what was once somewhere I was proud to sell stuff, and also make some money to boot. But just like millions of others, I have decided that my patience has its limits, and you guys aren't getting any of my money anymore.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Digesting Super Tuesday in the U.S. and Beyond
Well, what a week - aside from the New York Giants beating my at-the-time undefeated New England Patriots, this week had lots of excitement from the U.S. political front with Super Tuesday results. I wasn't feeling well that evening, so unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to follow the web results as they flowed in. Though I got up in the middle of the night to grab a Pepto-Bismol and quickly glanced at the results.
Not really terribly surprised at the end results. Clinton won the big states of California and New York, and still maintains a slim lead over Obama, who to my surprised, won more States than Clinton, and even more surprising, won several predominantly "white" states. Now, after his Iowa caucus win, in a state that is something like 97% white, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But he pulled off wins in other states which I don't think are chok-full-of minorities (Idaho and Utah, for example). In analyzing exit poll information, I think Clinton is surviving based on the Latino vote from the big states (now, why the Latino vote seems to be overwhelmingly in Clinton's favour is another topic for another time - I can't tell you why right now). Now, that being said, I equally acknowledge that Obama is winning semi-big states like Georgia and South Carolina based on the extremely high percentage of black voters supporting him (we're talking 80-90%). However, the fact that Obama can win white states should make Clinton leery. Personally, while I am not a Democratic supporter (actually, I can't even vote in the U.S. election, as I don't live there, even though I give money towards the Huckabee campaign, the Brownback campaign, and many years ago, the Bush/Cheney ticket), I would prefer to see Obama win over Hillary - and that, despite the fact that I have one of the books that Hillary wrote signed by her, that I continue to use as an investment vehicle. Clinton recently revealed that she gave 5 million bucks of her own money towards her campaign - if she's running out of cash in your war chest, this is the wrong time. There are a few primaries today and several more on Tuesday. We'll see how it goes.
Enough on Democrats. On the Repulicans side, John McCain came out the clear winner, winning the big States and several other ones. Romney won a few, but could not compete. And in a growing movement against McCain, conservatives have (rightfully) gathered around Huckabee to provide him some "upset" wins over Romney for the conservative wing. Now, to my surprise, Romney dropped out a couple of days ago. Yes, he was trailing McCain badly, but was ahead of Huckabee. But I think he knew that he'd be taken to task on his flip-flopping positions over the years (ie. claiming to be pro-guns though he joined the NRA only in 2006). McCain is and would beat him hands down. But don't discount Huckabee though - I know conservatives (myself included) are not happy with McCain - he is not as socially conservative as I'd like, but his moderate positions are likely helping him get support from voters in generally liberal states like New York and California. The deep southern states more or less supported Huckabee. Unfortunately, I don't think the vast majority of Republicans these days are social conservatives, so I think that as much as I'd like to see Huckabee win, it will likely be McCain. And if it was between McCain and Clinton, I think McCain would win. Between Obama and McCain? Not sure about that one - Obama is actually similar to McCain in terms of reaching across party lines. Obama's wife Michelle would be a great first lady - she has the poise and confidence and does not look as "fake" as McCain's wife Cindy. But between McCain and Obama...not sure who I'd pick. Probably would still go with McCain since he's never pretended to be anything other than a moderate, so at least he's honest (unlike Romney). Obama has some positions I am not comfortable with (ie. gay unions, etc.), and he is way too focussed on Iraq.
I see that for whatever reason, Mike Gravel of the Democrats is still officially in the running. Why, I don't know - he neither has any delegates or superdelegates supporting him. He's won nothing - he isn't even being invited to debates. At least Ron Paul (who is not doing great, but I'm glad is still running) has not dropped out yet, but I would think that will change pretty soon. But as mentioned previously, Paul is a rabidly pro-homeschooler, and I am rabidly anti-homeschooling. Not to mention Paul also focusses too much on Iraq (which, like it or not, does not have an easy solution - sure, you can say pull out now, but consider all the logistical, geo-political, and local issues that will cause in Iraq).
OK, let's stop talking about the U.S. On the Canadian side, I recently became a bit disillusioned with my conservative federal government (who I support financially and of which I am a member) - they decided it was a good idea to send a Chinese New Year card to anyone who has an Asian sounding last name (or who indicated their ethnic status on their last census form, but that is unlikely). I am of Asian background and am ethnically Chinese, though I celebrate Chinese New Year as a general family get together for food and such, and not much more. I would think that I'd receive one of these cards from Prime Minister Harper and family. But nooo...my wife, who is not Asian, gets the Happy Chinese New Year card and I get zippo. This adds additional insult to injury to me, as last year, my wife and I took this wacky online "How Asian Are You?" test. She scored 78% Asian, while I scored 46%. Ah, what can you do...
Not really terribly surprised at the end results. Clinton won the big states of California and New York, and still maintains a slim lead over Obama, who to my surprised, won more States than Clinton, and even more surprising, won several predominantly "white" states. Now, after his Iowa caucus win, in a state that is something like 97% white, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But he pulled off wins in other states which I don't think are chok-full-of minorities (Idaho and Utah, for example). In analyzing exit poll information, I think Clinton is surviving based on the Latino vote from the big states (now, why the Latino vote seems to be overwhelmingly in Clinton's favour is another topic for another time - I can't tell you why right now). Now, that being said, I equally acknowledge that Obama is winning semi-big states like Georgia and South Carolina based on the extremely high percentage of black voters supporting him (we're talking 80-90%). However, the fact that Obama can win white states should make Clinton leery. Personally, while I am not a Democratic supporter (actually, I can't even vote in the U.S. election, as I don't live there, even though I give money towards the Huckabee campaign, the Brownback campaign, and many years ago, the Bush/Cheney ticket), I would prefer to see Obama win over Hillary - and that, despite the fact that I have one of the books that Hillary wrote signed by her, that I continue to use as an investment vehicle. Clinton recently revealed that she gave 5 million bucks of her own money towards her campaign - if she's running out of cash in your war chest, this is the wrong time. There are a few primaries today and several more on Tuesday. We'll see how it goes.
Enough on Democrats. On the Repulicans side, John McCain came out the clear winner, winning the big States and several other ones. Romney won a few, but could not compete. And in a growing movement against McCain, conservatives have (rightfully) gathered around Huckabee to provide him some "upset" wins over Romney for the conservative wing. Now, to my surprise, Romney dropped out a couple of days ago. Yes, he was trailing McCain badly, but was ahead of Huckabee. But I think he knew that he'd be taken to task on his flip-flopping positions over the years (ie. claiming to be pro-guns though he joined the NRA only in 2006). McCain is and would beat him hands down. But don't discount Huckabee though - I know conservatives (myself included) are not happy with McCain - he is not as socially conservative as I'd like, but his moderate positions are likely helping him get support from voters in generally liberal states like New York and California. The deep southern states more or less supported Huckabee. Unfortunately, I don't think the vast majority of Republicans these days are social conservatives, so I think that as much as I'd like to see Huckabee win, it will likely be McCain. And if it was between McCain and Clinton, I think McCain would win. Between Obama and McCain? Not sure about that one - Obama is actually similar to McCain in terms of reaching across party lines. Obama's wife Michelle would be a great first lady - she has the poise and confidence and does not look as "fake" as McCain's wife Cindy. But between McCain and Obama...not sure who I'd pick. Probably would still go with McCain since he's never pretended to be anything other than a moderate, so at least he's honest (unlike Romney). Obama has some positions I am not comfortable with (ie. gay unions, etc.), and he is way too focussed on Iraq.
I see that for whatever reason, Mike Gravel of the Democrats is still officially in the running. Why, I don't know - he neither has any delegates or superdelegates supporting him. He's won nothing - he isn't even being invited to debates. At least Ron Paul (who is not doing great, but I'm glad is still running) has not dropped out yet, but I would think that will change pretty soon. But as mentioned previously, Paul is a rabidly pro-homeschooler, and I am rabidly anti-homeschooling. Not to mention Paul also focusses too much on Iraq (which, like it or not, does not have an easy solution - sure, you can say pull out now, but consider all the logistical, geo-political, and local issues that will cause in Iraq).
OK, let's stop talking about the U.S. On the Canadian side, I recently became a bit disillusioned with my conservative federal government (who I support financially and of which I am a member) - they decided it was a good idea to send a Chinese New Year card to anyone who has an Asian sounding last name (or who indicated their ethnic status on their last census form, but that is unlikely). I am of Asian background and am ethnically Chinese, though I celebrate Chinese New Year as a general family get together for food and such, and not much more. I would think that I'd receive one of these cards from Prime Minister Harper and family. But nooo...my wife, who is not Asian, gets the Happy Chinese New Year card and I get zippo. This adds additional insult to injury to me, as last year, my wife and I took this wacky online "How Asian Are You?" test. She scored 78% Asian, while I scored 46%. Ah, what can you do...
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Beretta M92FS .177 Caliber CO2 Pistol Review
Just like anything else in life, you get what you pay for. Just like there are cheap cars out there (a colleague of mine years ago rolled into work in his new Kia Rio subcompact car, which he said cost him under $10,000) and there are your more higher end cars like Lexus and BMW. Hard to be able to compare a Lexus and a Kia.
I recently discovered that sometimes it's not just name or brand recognition that differentiates similar products in varying price brackets. Most of my CO2 air pistols I have purchased for under $100.00 each. And I can tell some of the contributing factors to the cheap price - more plastic parts, less features, etc. But I was OK paying for more cheaper construction, as long as there was a decent modicum of quality in the gun.
Well, I recently thought I'd splurge a bit (last month or December - don't remember exactly when) and I dropped over $200.00 for the Beretta M9FS .177 Caliber CO2 Pistol. I have seen this in the catalogs and have been interested in checking it out. Now, there is a BB version, but as an aspiring competitive sport shooter, I wasn't going to make the same mistake as I did when I bought the Crosman T4. I am not interested in backyard plinking or in shooting tin cans. My desire is to acquire rifled steel barrel pellet guns that are decent for accuracy on paper targets. I was pretty sure that the M92FS wasn't going to be match-grade, but I thought I'd pick it up nonetheless.
Now I know why the gunshop is constantly out of these (I had to put myself on a 3-month long waiting list, before mine came in). This is a fabulous gun in almost every regard, from presentation, look, feel, and especially performance. It was $200.00+ well spent, and I can honestly say that if it weren't for the fact that my wife and I are expecting a child anyday now, and I need to save my cash, I'd probably spring for the sister-version of this pistol, the Colt 1911A Government. But enough of my wish-lists - let's get on to the review of this pistol.
The first thing that you will notice when buying this gun is that it comes in a nice, compact, hard plastic, foam-insulated carrying case. It's not security lockable, but it is only a sub-500FPS airgun, afterall. The case does lock with standard plastic flaps, but it would have been nice to have a lockable loop where you can hang a padlock or a keyed lock. The pistol itself is fairly authentic in its look and feel (the weight is close to 3lbs, and if you've ever handled a "real" handgun before, you'll know that the weight is pretty close). The gun comes with two (2) 8-shot rotary cylinder magazines, though I already had a few that I bought for my CP Sport (the cylinder magazines are interchanged with the other Umarex guns - Walther, Colt, Beretta, Magnum Research, Inc., etc.).
By the way, as an aside, I should note that while this gun is branded Beretta, it's actually made by Umarex U.S.A. (who bought the branding rights for the airguns from the above manufacturers). Just like the Hammerli guns you see out there are all made by Umarex.
Asthetically, the version that I purchased was the all-black version (some refer to it as a slightly blued version), though it also comes in nickel (yuck) and you have the option of wood grips. Because mine was all-black, it came with the default plastic grips - in fact, the grips are the only thing plastic about the gun - it's solid metal pretty much everywhere else.
The gun is similar to the CP Sport in terms of how the 12 gram CO2 cartridge is loaded. In other words, it's a severe pain in the butt to load - at least for me. You need to press the grip release on the left-hand side, and that pops the opposing grip out. I originally assumed by sight that the grip and its connectors are all plastic, and inferred that over time I can see something breaking, with all the snapping in and out. However, as a subsequent edit to this review, it was pointed out to me by a couple of folks that there is actually a metal lining inside the grip, which I obviously missed. This reinforces the grip and really makes it difficult, if not impossible to break by indvertent mishandling. As a result, my assessment of the grip is no longer negative.
Anyway, after you pop out the opposing grip, you pull out the lockable feet (at the butt of the gun) and then turn the notched wheel to lower the CO2 retainer. Then you place the cartridge in, start turning the wheel again to more or less lock it in place (not too tight) and then snap the feet back into place so it locks - I experienced the need to do this a few times as I wasn't sure how tight to turn the wheel initially - I still don't have that sense). Now, some have suggested that this system is better than other guns, but from a simplicity standpoint, no one can convince me that the loading of the CO2 in this gun is comparable or easier than, say, a Crosman 2240 or a Crosman/Benjamin EB22, where you just unscrew a cap, put in the CO2 cartridge, tighten the cap, and press the trigger to puncture the 12g powerlet. But I digress...
After doing all this, then snap the grip back into place, and try to do a test fire after taking off the safety (which is conveniently one switch connected to both sides of the gun near the hammer in the back of the breech - you can flick it on/off easily, unlike the pressurized one on the CP Sport). As you probably know, it's OK to dry-fire CO2 powered guns, so go ahead and test it out.
This gun's metal rotary cylinder magazine is easy to load - the slide release switch is on the left hand side. Once the magazine is loaded, pull the slide to lock into place. As for aiming, you have the standard front and rear sights, with the rear site adjustable for windage. There are no rails on which you can mount accessories or sights (I originally thought there was, but a reader had corrected me on this).
Now onto performance. Surprisingly, this pistol is quite accurate. The trigger was a non-factor - I liked the feel and weight of the trigger and while I believe the trigger is adjustable, I didn't have to do any adjustments. For the first 16 shots, I was able to get decent groupings, though I was only at 10 yards. Add to this the adjustments I made in getting used to the pistol, and I was quite happy with the initial performance. I used Crosman standard .177 wadcutter pellets - I have lots of these el cheapo pellets, though I wouldn't mind trying RWS or even Gamo in the future to compare results.
The sound was reasonable, and didn't sound like a bomb exploding, like the EB22 does.
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of this pistol was its gas economy. On all my other guns, I get around 50-65 shots on one 12g CO2 canister. That is pretty good, all things considered...of course, that is standard fare from my experience (except for the EB22, which gets around 30). Once I hit the 60 shot range, I was expecting to call it a day. But for reasons I can't understand, the gun still had gas in it. In fact, it wasn't until I hit slightly over 100 (that's right, one hundred) shots - around the 106 mark - that the pellets started to bounce off the target, and I was literally out of gas. But by then, I had looked at my target and it was awash with cleanly punched pellet holes within about a 3 1/2" diameter (which I know from 10 yard is nothing special, but many of my other guns will group 5" or so - it could just be my unsteady hands and my bad eyesight - or the other guns).
Overall, this gun gets my highest recommendation. With only the cheap plastic grips and the obtuse Umarex CO2 loading mechanism as the exception, I cannot find enough good things to say about this gun. Apparently, there is a match/competition version, but that may be for another day. I was quite happy with the feel/look and performance on this pistol and for over $200.00, it was well worth the money, in my opinion, especially given its accuracy and its incredible gas economy. You won't be disappointed with the Beretta M92FS.
I recently discovered that sometimes it's not just name or brand recognition that differentiates similar products in varying price brackets. Most of my CO2 air pistols I have purchased for under $100.00 each. And I can tell some of the contributing factors to the cheap price - more plastic parts, less features, etc. But I was OK paying for more cheaper construction, as long as there was a decent modicum of quality in the gun.
Well, I recently thought I'd splurge a bit (last month or December - don't remember exactly when) and I dropped over $200.00 for the Beretta M9FS .177 Caliber CO2 Pistol. I have seen this in the catalogs and have been interested in checking it out. Now, there is a BB version, but as an aspiring competitive sport shooter, I wasn't going to make the same mistake as I did when I bought the Crosman T4. I am not interested in backyard plinking or in shooting tin cans. My desire is to acquire rifled steel barrel pellet guns that are decent for accuracy on paper targets. I was pretty sure that the M92FS wasn't going to be match-grade, but I thought I'd pick it up nonetheless.
Now I know why the gunshop is constantly out of these (I had to put myself on a 3-month long waiting list, before mine came in). This is a fabulous gun in almost every regard, from presentation, look, feel, and especially performance. It was $200.00+ well spent, and I can honestly say that if it weren't for the fact that my wife and I are expecting a child anyday now, and I need to save my cash, I'd probably spring for the sister-version of this pistol, the Colt 1911A Government. But enough of my wish-lists - let's get on to the review of this pistol.
The first thing that you will notice when buying this gun is that it comes in a nice, compact, hard plastic, foam-insulated carrying case. It's not security lockable, but it is only a sub-500FPS airgun, afterall. The case does lock with standard plastic flaps, but it would have been nice to have a lockable loop where you can hang a padlock or a keyed lock. The pistol itself is fairly authentic in its look and feel (the weight is close to 3lbs, and if you've ever handled a "real" handgun before, you'll know that the weight is pretty close). The gun comes with two (2) 8-shot rotary cylinder magazines, though I already had a few that I bought for my CP Sport (the cylinder magazines are interchanged with the other Umarex guns - Walther, Colt, Beretta, Magnum Research, Inc., etc.).
By the way, as an aside, I should note that while this gun is branded Beretta, it's actually made by Umarex U.S.A. (who bought the branding rights for the airguns from the above manufacturers). Just like the Hammerli guns you see out there are all made by Umarex.
Asthetically, the version that I purchased was the all-black version (some refer to it as a slightly blued version), though it also comes in nickel (yuck) and you have the option of wood grips. Because mine was all-black, it came with the default plastic grips - in fact, the grips are the only thing plastic about the gun - it's solid metal pretty much everywhere else.
The gun is similar to the CP Sport in terms of how the 12 gram CO2 cartridge is loaded. In other words, it's a severe pain in the butt to load - at least for me. You need to press the grip release on the left-hand side, and that pops the opposing grip out. I originally assumed by sight that the grip and its connectors are all plastic, and inferred that over time I can see something breaking, with all the snapping in and out. However, as a subsequent edit to this review, it was pointed out to me by a couple of folks that there is actually a metal lining inside the grip, which I obviously missed. This reinforces the grip and really makes it difficult, if not impossible to break by indvertent mishandling. As a result, my assessment of the grip is no longer negative.
Anyway, after you pop out the opposing grip, you pull out the lockable feet (at the butt of the gun) and then turn the notched wheel to lower the CO2 retainer. Then you place the cartridge in, start turning the wheel again to more or less lock it in place (not too tight) and then snap the feet back into place so it locks - I experienced the need to do this a few times as I wasn't sure how tight to turn the wheel initially - I still don't have that sense). Now, some have suggested that this system is better than other guns, but from a simplicity standpoint, no one can convince me that the loading of the CO2 in this gun is comparable or easier than, say, a Crosman 2240 or a Crosman/Benjamin EB22, where you just unscrew a cap, put in the CO2 cartridge, tighten the cap, and press the trigger to puncture the 12g powerlet. But I digress...
After doing all this, then snap the grip back into place, and try to do a test fire after taking off the safety (which is conveniently one switch connected to both sides of the gun near the hammer in the back of the breech - you can flick it on/off easily, unlike the pressurized one on the CP Sport). As you probably know, it's OK to dry-fire CO2 powered guns, so go ahead and test it out.
This gun's metal rotary cylinder magazine is easy to load - the slide release switch is on the left hand side. Once the magazine is loaded, pull the slide to lock into place. As for aiming, you have the standard front and rear sights, with the rear site adjustable for windage. There are no rails on which you can mount accessories or sights (I originally thought there was, but a reader had corrected me on this).
Now onto performance. Surprisingly, this pistol is quite accurate. The trigger was a non-factor - I liked the feel and weight of the trigger and while I believe the trigger is adjustable, I didn't have to do any adjustments. For the first 16 shots, I was able to get decent groupings, though I was only at 10 yards. Add to this the adjustments I made in getting used to the pistol, and I was quite happy with the initial performance. I used Crosman standard .177 wadcutter pellets - I have lots of these el cheapo pellets, though I wouldn't mind trying RWS or even Gamo in the future to compare results.
The sound was reasonable, and didn't sound like a bomb exploding, like the EB22 does.
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of this pistol was its gas economy. On all my other guns, I get around 50-65 shots on one 12g CO2 canister. That is pretty good, all things considered...of course, that is standard fare from my experience (except for the EB22, which gets around 30). Once I hit the 60 shot range, I was expecting to call it a day. But for reasons I can't understand, the gun still had gas in it. In fact, it wasn't until I hit slightly over 100 (that's right, one hundred) shots - around the 106 mark - that the pellets started to bounce off the target, and I was literally out of gas. But by then, I had looked at my target and it was awash with cleanly punched pellet holes within about a 3 1/2" diameter (which I know from 10 yard is nothing special, but many of my other guns will group 5" or so - it could just be my unsteady hands and my bad eyesight - or the other guns).
Overall, this gun gets my highest recommendation. With only the cheap plastic grips and the obtuse Umarex CO2 loading mechanism as the exception, I cannot find enough good things to say about this gun. Apparently, there is a match/competition version, but that may be for another day. I was quite happy with the feel/look and performance on this pistol and for over $200.00, it was well worth the money, in my opinion, especially given its accuracy and its incredible gas economy. You won't be disappointed with the Beretta M92FS.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Getting a Firearms Licence (P.A.L.) in Canada
A lot has changed in the past ten years in terms of how one acquires firearms in Canada. Now, irrespective of you gun politics and what you think of this, it now requires a bit more work in order to get a licence to possess and acquire firearms. In the old days, you'd just need to drop by a police station to get the application form for the Firearms Acquisition Certificate, or F.A.C. Send it in, along with a fee, and once they do a background check on you in sufficient time, they will issue you a F.A.C. The F.A.C. was not needed to possess firearms, just acquire them. Technically, you could have had a Posession Only Licence (P.O.L.) which allowed you to keep the firearms you already had, but not get any more. Ammunition back then did not require a firearms licence, but rather, you just needed to be over 18 and show a valid driver's licence.
In 1998, the Chretien Liberals scrapped that and replaced it with a licence called a Possession and Acquisition Licence (P.A.L.), which is not as easy to get. Now, you are required to pass two exams (one written, the other practical - which involved actually handling firearms) for the Canadian Firearms Security Course. Then comes the application itself which you require your spouse to sign off on, two references, a photo, etc. It is also a long wait to get your licence, since there are mandatory waiting periods. Also, there are different licences that you can get: the common non-restricted P.A.L. is for long guns: essentially rifles and shotguns. The restricted P.A.L. is primarily for handguns (some rifles apply to this - there are some measurement details). There is also a licence to acquire/possess prohibited weapons, but that is next to impossible to get, and the Canadian government have only issued a handful of those. Further, there are other licences you can get, like the Minor's Licence, which allows those 12-17 to use firearms as long as they are in immediate direct supervision of a person legally licenced to possess and use the firearms that the minor is using. And there are some other stipulations and / or exceptions for those who hunt to sustain their families (ie. Aboriginals on a reserve, etc.). The Possession-Only Licence was scrapped in 2001, so that is no longer obtainable, unless you are renewing an existing one.
Why was I considering getting a P.A.L.? As an avid recreational airgun shooter, I was quite happy at the selection of under 500FPS pistols and rifles that were available. Airgunning has grown in popularity and there are shooting clubs which are more or less for airgunners (I am a member of one here in the Toronto area). Still, there is an entire class of airguns which require a firearms licence - because they exceed the Canadian government's criteria of exceeding 500FPS velocity and exceeding 4.2 FPE (foot pounds energy) - as such, these primarily air rifles are classified as firearms and require a P.A.L. to purchase. That being said, right now the highest velocity air rifle shoots at around 1600FPS velocity (not sure of the FPE on that) with a special .177 caliber alloy pellet. Most P.A.L. rated air rifles will shoot between 700-1000 FPS. Consider that your average centerfire cartridge yields over 3500 FPS velocity and well over 1000 FPE, you can see that side by side, the most powerful air rifle still cannot hold a candle to its gunpowder-based comrades. Essentially that is why I originally chose and continue to choose airguns to shoot. I've been to several shooting ranges and while under 500 FPS airguns work at ranges which have its targets at 20 yards, you lose performance very quickly when shooting at the professional grade shooting facilities, built for centerfire rifles and handguns, which has the target around 50-100+ yards away. As such, I thought it would be good for me to get my P.A.L. in order to acquire better performing airguns (and one of the few air shotguns out there requires a P.A.L. - my local gunshop has this on hold for me).
Of course, I consulted with my wife first, who is not a firearms afficianado per se, but recognized my serious interest in sport shooting. She was more than happy to OK my request to attend the Canadian Firearms Safety Course one weekend, and was also OK that I applied for a firearms licence, since she knew why I was doing so. At the course, a few people looked at me strange, since most of them were getting their P.A.L. because they wanted to hunt, or because their job/vocation called for them to obtain a P.A.L. (ie. security guard or police officer). I simply want to be able to get better airguns - I have no interest in hunting - never have, never will, as long as I can buy my food at the grocery store (I'll let someone else deal with the mess in the slaughter house). Besides, I don't like the gamey taste of wild meat anyway.
So I thought I'd get a leg up by buying the course materials (which are only available from certain places, like some shooting ranges and of course, from the certified firearms instructors (see here for a list: http://www.fseso.org/),
signed up for the course, which ran one weekend. You don't need to buy the manuals before the course, but as I said, I wanted to get a leg up on the materials and read them beforehand - otherwise, they are supplied by the course instructor at the class itself (they are $15.00 per manual). The course itself is $120.00 for the non-restricted firearms course and $120.00 for the restricted course. You can take both together for $200.00 on the same weekend.
Despite my instructor strongly encouraging me to take both non-restricted and restricted, I was pretty adamant in taking the non-restricted only. I have no interest in handguns and since there are virtually no air pistols that are firearms-grade, I had no reason to take it, despite the savings (why pay for something I will never use?) Even for airguns, I far prefer the rifles over the pistols, due to the amount of tweaking and accessories you can get - I am a sucker for optics like scopes and sighting devices. So I signed up for the non-restricted P.A.L., which will allow me to purchase the higher-powered air rifles and should I be interested later on, in rimfire (maybe) and centerfire (probably not) rifles as well as shotguns (the only shotguns I could see myself buying are for skeet shooting, but I think I just prefer the stationary paper targets).
So one Friday evening early last month, I went directly from work to a shooting facility about 30 minutes from my home and sat with a class of 10 other people who were looking to get their P.A.L. for one reason or another. Now, I have to confess, I was expecting to see a certain demographic of people there, especially when this facility was far away from Toronto in a more rural area. I was expecting to see your standard stereotypical redneck in suspenders, unwholesome bikers, mafia and other crime types, and some loner types, all of whom were Caucasian. I was quite surprised (and glad) to see that my perceptions were challenged. I ended up sitting at the same table as an older Greek grandfather guy who was a retired medical doctor. In front of us was a 20-something Black girl, who was a university student. Beside me sat an young Asian couple, who were also students in their 20s, there were a couple of Italian tough-guys behind us, but in conversations with one of the guys the next day, he was telling me that they were to-be hunters and he had people give him strange looks about taking the course (probably assumed he was a mobster as well) - and he said that criminals wouldn't be taking firearms safety courses, showing their face in public, etc. That is true. We also had a younger guy who was a security guard, and a couple of other guys who were a bit harder to read, though one of them was a married Russian guy - the other guy may have been the aforementioned loner type). Shortly before class began, two East Indian young guys walked in, with baggy pants and all, who wanted to take the restricted course to get their handgun licence - they didn't want to take the mandatory non-restricted course...I wondered about those guys...). Anyhow...
For those who have never handled a firearm or any type of gun in your life (squirt guns don't count), this course is a MUST. There are some firearms enthusiasts who don't have their P.A.L., but have worked with firearms long enough to know the terminology and parts and ammunition, that they would likely be able to pass both the written and practical portions of the RCMP-issued exam (the pass for both written and practical is 80% and you MUST pass BOTH). For me, it was a non-issue, since knowing the parts and workings of an airgun hardly qualifies me as knowledgeable in firearms. I'm glad I took the in-class portion. For the non-restricted course, it was about 12 hours of instruction in total. Some of the course involved videos, but the bulk of the course was the instructor going through the course manual piece-by-piece, giving a comprehensive understanding of the history of firearms, the class of firearms, the types of firearms, the types of ammo, and of course, the heavy component which involve gun safety from usage (loading/unloading/shooting), choosing and using the right ammunition (and recognizing the differences), using safeties to transport and storage, and social responsibilities, all of which was under the ACTS and PROVE principles (the course explains all this). You will get an opportunity to interact with different types of long-guns (rifles/shotguns), none of which actually involve live firing.
Most of the FSESO instructors will run their course as a "one-stop shop" for the whole process. They will administer the actual course, and will provide you the manuals, provide the P.A.L. application forms and run through the process with you, but the administering of the exams will be done by a third party examiner brought in. For the exams, you will fail if you get under 80%, but also, an instant fail is given if at any point, the firearm is pointed at someone, including yourself. You will lose points for not identifying the right ammo, and lose points badly if you put your finger inside the trigger guard or on the trigger at any point during the practical test. I scored 100% on the written test (much of this I attribute to reading the manual before the class and remembering a lot of it - which wasn't all that hard, since I had a keen interest in this stuff to begin with), and I scored 98% on the practical hands-on portion (only point I lost was when I did not check the size of the shot shell that I grabbed from a pile of ammo, before loading it into a pump-action shotgun - I already knew it was a 3" shell, but they docked me points for not checking before loading).
Once the course is done, the tests are all sent to the Chief Firearms Officer in your province to certify, after which they will send you back a copy of the test results by mail. At that point, you would fill out the application for the P.A.L., get your spouse (if you have one) to sign, get two references to sign, include a copy of your test results, include a photo that is to the government's guidelines, have a photo guarantor sign to confirm that that's you, and include your fee ($60.00 for non-restricted, $80.00 for restricted) to pay for your licence (which is good for five years).
Any time you subsequently buy a firearm (whether it be a gunpowder based firearm or a high power air rifle), you will need to show your P.A.L. They will then ring up the sale and if it is a good store, they will actually register the firearm with the federal government's gun registry for you while you wait (yeah, the gun registry sucks, but that's another discuss for another time). The gun registry is used by police, amongst other things, to alert them to a potential household that may have firearms if they are responding to a call (ie. domestic abuse, etc.). Of course, from what I understand, there have been search and seizure of homes that house firearms without notice (though those who fear this happening to them have not really read the cases where this has happened - the cops always have reasonable cause to ring your doorbell and ask to look at your firearms - they don't just do this out of the blue).
Except for the long gun registry, I personally like this process. It sure beats the U.S., where anyone can go into a store and buy a gun, with only a quick background check to verify non-criminal behaviour. That's how guys like Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech gunman, was able to buy his guns, even though he had severe mental and emotional problems. Sure, it's a pain in the butt for me to have to wait months (literally) to get my P.A.L., but I'd rather them go through this process and cause a legitimate law-abiding citizen like me some inconvenience, rather than to not do the due diligence and issue firearms licences like they were free tickets. The government has turned down thousands of P.A.L. applications and have revoked many others. And while some may view the safety course as an impediment, its value to any one handling firearms is invaluable.
In 1998, the Chretien Liberals scrapped that and replaced it with a licence called a Possession and Acquisition Licence (P.A.L.), which is not as easy to get. Now, you are required to pass two exams (one written, the other practical - which involved actually handling firearms) for the Canadian Firearms Security Course. Then comes the application itself which you require your spouse to sign off on, two references, a photo, etc. It is also a long wait to get your licence, since there are mandatory waiting periods. Also, there are different licences that you can get: the common non-restricted P.A.L. is for long guns: essentially rifles and shotguns. The restricted P.A.L. is primarily for handguns (some rifles apply to this - there are some measurement details). There is also a licence to acquire/possess prohibited weapons, but that is next to impossible to get, and the Canadian government have only issued a handful of those. Further, there are other licences you can get, like the Minor's Licence, which allows those 12-17 to use firearms as long as they are in immediate direct supervision of a person legally licenced to possess and use the firearms that the minor is using. And there are some other stipulations and / or exceptions for those who hunt to sustain their families (ie. Aboriginals on a reserve, etc.). The Possession-Only Licence was scrapped in 2001, so that is no longer obtainable, unless you are renewing an existing one.
Why was I considering getting a P.A.L.? As an avid recreational airgun shooter, I was quite happy at the selection of under 500FPS pistols and rifles that were available. Airgunning has grown in popularity and there are shooting clubs which are more or less for airgunners (I am a member of one here in the Toronto area). Still, there is an entire class of airguns which require a firearms licence - because they exceed the Canadian government's criteria of exceeding 500FPS velocity and exceeding 4.2 FPE (foot pounds energy) - as such, these primarily air rifles are classified as firearms and require a P.A.L. to purchase. That being said, right now the highest velocity air rifle shoots at around 1600FPS velocity (not sure of the FPE on that) with a special .177 caliber alloy pellet. Most P.A.L. rated air rifles will shoot between 700-1000 FPS. Consider that your average centerfire cartridge yields over 3500 FPS velocity and well over 1000 FPE, you can see that side by side, the most powerful air rifle still cannot hold a candle to its gunpowder-based comrades. Essentially that is why I originally chose and continue to choose airguns to shoot. I've been to several shooting ranges and while under 500 FPS airguns work at ranges which have its targets at 20 yards, you lose performance very quickly when shooting at the professional grade shooting facilities, built for centerfire rifles and handguns, which has the target around 50-100+ yards away. As such, I thought it would be good for me to get my P.A.L. in order to acquire better performing airguns (and one of the few air shotguns out there requires a P.A.L. - my local gunshop has this on hold for me).
Of course, I consulted with my wife first, who is not a firearms afficianado per se, but recognized my serious interest in sport shooting. She was more than happy to OK my request to attend the Canadian Firearms Safety Course one weekend, and was also OK that I applied for a firearms licence, since she knew why I was doing so. At the course, a few people looked at me strange, since most of them were getting their P.A.L. because they wanted to hunt, or because their job/vocation called for them to obtain a P.A.L. (ie. security guard or police officer). I simply want to be able to get better airguns - I have no interest in hunting - never have, never will, as long as I can buy my food at the grocery store (I'll let someone else deal with the mess in the slaughter house). Besides, I don't like the gamey taste of wild meat anyway.
So I thought I'd get a leg up by buying the course materials (which are only available from certain places, like some shooting ranges and of course, from the certified firearms instructors (see here for a list: http://www.fseso.org/),
signed up for the course, which ran one weekend. You don't need to buy the manuals before the course, but as I said, I wanted to get a leg up on the materials and read them beforehand - otherwise, they are supplied by the course instructor at the class itself (they are $15.00 per manual). The course itself is $120.00 for the non-restricted firearms course and $120.00 for the restricted course. You can take both together for $200.00 on the same weekend.
Despite my instructor strongly encouraging me to take both non-restricted and restricted, I was pretty adamant in taking the non-restricted only. I have no interest in handguns and since there are virtually no air pistols that are firearms-grade, I had no reason to take it, despite the savings (why pay for something I will never use?) Even for airguns, I far prefer the rifles over the pistols, due to the amount of tweaking and accessories you can get - I am a sucker for optics like scopes and sighting devices. So I signed up for the non-restricted P.A.L., which will allow me to purchase the higher-powered air rifles and should I be interested later on, in rimfire (maybe) and centerfire (probably not) rifles as well as shotguns (the only shotguns I could see myself buying are for skeet shooting, but I think I just prefer the stationary paper targets).
So one Friday evening early last month, I went directly from work to a shooting facility about 30 minutes from my home and sat with a class of 10 other people who were looking to get their P.A.L. for one reason or another. Now, I have to confess, I was expecting to see a certain demographic of people there, especially when this facility was far away from Toronto in a more rural area. I was expecting to see your standard stereotypical redneck in suspenders, unwholesome bikers, mafia and other crime types, and some loner types, all of whom were Caucasian. I was quite surprised (and glad) to see that my perceptions were challenged. I ended up sitting at the same table as an older Greek grandfather guy who was a retired medical doctor. In front of us was a 20-something Black girl, who was a university student. Beside me sat an young Asian couple, who were also students in their 20s, there were a couple of Italian tough-guys behind us, but in conversations with one of the guys the next day, he was telling me that they were to-be hunters and he had people give him strange looks about taking the course (probably assumed he was a mobster as well) - and he said that criminals wouldn't be taking firearms safety courses, showing their face in public, etc. That is true. We also had a younger guy who was a security guard, and a couple of other guys who were a bit harder to read, though one of them was a married Russian guy - the other guy may have been the aforementioned loner type). Shortly before class began, two East Indian young guys walked in, with baggy pants and all, who wanted to take the restricted course to get their handgun licence - they didn't want to take the mandatory non-restricted course...I wondered about those guys...). Anyhow...
For those who have never handled a firearm or any type of gun in your life (squirt guns don't count), this course is a MUST. There are some firearms enthusiasts who don't have their P.A.L., but have worked with firearms long enough to know the terminology and parts and ammunition, that they would likely be able to pass both the written and practical portions of the RCMP-issued exam (the pass for both written and practical is 80% and you MUST pass BOTH). For me, it was a non-issue, since knowing the parts and workings of an airgun hardly qualifies me as knowledgeable in firearms. I'm glad I took the in-class portion. For the non-restricted course, it was about 12 hours of instruction in total. Some of the course involved videos, but the bulk of the course was the instructor going through the course manual piece-by-piece, giving a comprehensive understanding of the history of firearms, the class of firearms, the types of firearms, the types of ammo, and of course, the heavy component which involve gun safety from usage (loading/unloading/shooting), choosing and using the right ammunition (and recognizing the differences), using safeties to transport and storage, and social responsibilities, all of which was under the ACTS and PROVE principles (the course explains all this). You will get an opportunity to interact with different types of long-guns (rifles/shotguns), none of which actually involve live firing.
Most of the FSESO instructors will run their course as a "one-stop shop" for the whole process. They will administer the actual course, and will provide you the manuals, provide the P.A.L. application forms and run through the process with you, but the administering of the exams will be done by a third party examiner brought in. For the exams, you will fail if you get under 80%, but also, an instant fail is given if at any point, the firearm is pointed at someone, including yourself. You will lose points for not identifying the right ammo, and lose points badly if you put your finger inside the trigger guard or on the trigger at any point during the practical test. I scored 100% on the written test (much of this I attribute to reading the manual before the class and remembering a lot of it - which wasn't all that hard, since I had a keen interest in this stuff to begin with), and I scored 98% on the practical hands-on portion (only point I lost was when I did not check the size of the shot shell that I grabbed from a pile of ammo, before loading it into a pump-action shotgun - I already knew it was a 3" shell, but they docked me points for not checking before loading).
Once the course is done, the tests are all sent to the Chief Firearms Officer in your province to certify, after which they will send you back a copy of the test results by mail. At that point, you would fill out the application for the P.A.L., get your spouse (if you have one) to sign, get two references to sign, include a copy of your test results, include a photo that is to the government's guidelines, have a photo guarantor sign to confirm that that's you, and include your fee ($60.00 for non-restricted, $80.00 for restricted) to pay for your licence (which is good for five years).
Any time you subsequently buy a firearm (whether it be a gunpowder based firearm or a high power air rifle), you will need to show your P.A.L. They will then ring up the sale and if it is a good store, they will actually register the firearm with the federal government's gun registry for you while you wait (yeah, the gun registry sucks, but that's another discuss for another time). The gun registry is used by police, amongst other things, to alert them to a potential household that may have firearms if they are responding to a call (ie. domestic abuse, etc.). Of course, from what I understand, there have been search and seizure of homes that house firearms without notice (though those who fear this happening to them have not really read the cases where this has happened - the cops always have reasonable cause to ring your doorbell and ask to look at your firearms - they don't just do this out of the blue).
Except for the long gun registry, I personally like this process. It sure beats the U.S., where anyone can go into a store and buy a gun, with only a quick background check to verify non-criminal behaviour. That's how guys like Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech gunman, was able to buy his guns, even though he had severe mental and emotional problems. Sure, it's a pain in the butt for me to have to wait months (literally) to get my P.A.L., but I'd rather them go through this process and cause a legitimate law-abiding citizen like me some inconvenience, rather than to not do the due diligence and issue firearms licences like they were free tickets. The government has turned down thousands of P.A.L. applications and have revoked many others. And while some may view the safety course as an impediment, its value to any one handling firearms is invaluable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)