🚀 go-pugleaf

From: "Truebrit" <sly_bacon@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: A reason for the number of violent deaths in the US
Date: January 23, 2013 12:28 AM


in message news:XnsA15064BB98954hopewell@216.196.121.131...
> "Truebrit" <sly_bacon@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:kdl64g$ufk$1@dont-email.me:
>
>>
>> in message news:XnsA14F94F93A95Ahopewell@216.196.121.131...
>>> "Dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com.au> wrote in
>>> news:JIednae8ktbeL2DNnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> admit you have a problem would be a start
>>>>>
>>>>> I have not denied we have a problem.  It is just that I think the
>>>>> problem and its solution are different from what you think they
>>>>> are. I live here, you don't.
>>>>
>>>> I'd go for a multi faceted approach including some basic gun control
>>>> measures like compulsory background checks,
>>>
>>> I have no problem with that but it would have to be done on a state
>>> by state basis, in my opinion, due to constitutional restraints on
>>> the federal government.
>>>
>>>> cooling of periods
>>>
>>> Some states already have those and the anti gun crowd told us that
>>> "instant Brady background check" would rid us off that nuisance and
>>> fix all our problems.  Care to comment on the problem with Brady in
>>> that they claim all their denials are guns not sold to criminals,
>>> however, there are not only very, very few prosecutions of these
>>> "criminals" but successful prosecutions occur only in about 0.05% of
>>> the denials.  Not the applications but the denials.  Only 0.05% of
>>> them.  I would think that is spending a lot of money and time for
>>> very little gain wouldn't you?
>>>
>>> and
>>>> safe storage
>>>
>>>"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote
>>> My guns that are not in use are in a half ton, fire resistant safe
>>> with a four position combination lock and the safe is bolted to the
>>> cement floor.  To remove the safe would require removing a wall or
>>> two doors and refrigeration unit.....after getting it free from the
>>> floor.  Good enough?
>>>
>>
>> Not according to Toronto Police Service it isn't.
>> I did supply a link some time back regarding a gun theft in Toronto
>> where the thieves took two days to remove a gun safe from a guys home
>> and the cops still charged him with unsafe storage.
>> Truebrit.
>>
>>
>>
>"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
> That is not unsafe storage, that is a portion of the government running
> amok.
>

The reasons for it are quite simple. The previous Lieberal government that
brought in the legislation for the long gun registry included in the Bill
(C68) a whole raft of regulations including the unsafe storage laws. What
they purposely did not do was provide the definition of what constitutes
"unsafe storage" and purposely left it as disingenuous as possible to allow
the cops a huge net to cast. The cops just love that. It gives them all
kinds of offences to threaten legitimate owners with if they talk back.
Truebrit.
Truebrit