Armed cops recover collector's stolen guns
R_LaCasse
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:19:45 -0600 (CST)
From: Breit...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca, Garry - Assistant 1 <Bre...@parl.gc.ca>
Subject: Armed cops recover collector's stolen guns;
PUBLICATION: The Hamilton Spectator
DATE: 2005.02.26
SECTION: Local
PAGE: A04
SOURCE: The Hamilton Spectator
BYLINE: Paul Legall
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----
Armed cops recover collector's stolen guns; Tactical team kicks in
Concession Street door
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----
A heavily armed tactical team kicked in a glass door of a commercial
building on Concession Street while searching for firearms stolen during a
Glanbrook burglary earlier this month.
Police found two semiautomatic handguns and a revolver during early-morning
raids at two addresses on Hamilton Mountain yesterday. The guns were among
five firearms stolen during a break and enter at an 84-year-old gun
collector's home on English Church Road in Glanbrook.
Police say the weapons aren't connected with two shooting incidents in the
city this week.
Staff Sergeant Ted Davis, head of the police intelligence unit, said police
found a .22-calibre pistol, ammunition, crack cocaine and marijuana when
they raided an apartment in the Concession Street building at about 6 a.m.
They charged a 21-year-old Hamilton man with unauthorized possession of a
firearm, possession of a stolen firearm, possession of a restricted weapon,
unsafe storage of a firearm and possession of drugs for the purpose of
trafficking.
To get to the accused's apartment, a heavily armed police Emergency Response
Unit (ERU), which handles dangerous and gun calls, smashed a glass door on
the street in front of the building.
The complex has five living units on the second level and a tanning salon
and an office at street level.
Shortly after the Concession Street search, police raided a sprawling white
brick house in a quiet neighbourhood on the east Mountain where they found
two more handguns, including a Beretta pistol and ammunition.
They charged a 24-year-old man with a number of weapons offences, including
possession of a loaded firearm, possession of a restricted weapon with
ammunition and two counts each of unauthorized possession of a firearm,
possession of a prohibited firearm, possession of a stolen firearm and
unsafe storage of a firearm.
Neighbours of the Lorraine Avenue home were surprised to see police on the
street where they say hardly anything newsworthy happens. They described the
occupants of the house as quiet people who kept to themselves and didn't
bother anybody. The city directory shows that a tiling business was operated
out of the house until recently. Davis said police are continuing to search
for two other firearms that were stolen from the Glanbrook collection, which
included more than 90 firearms and about 1,000 rounds of ammunition.
Davis said the weapons seized yesterday weren't related to two shooting
incidents that occurred within a kilometre of each other during a 16-hour
period Thursday.
The first occurred at about 6 a.m., when somebody fired six rounds into the
door of a basement apartment in a house at 103 Sherman Ave. N. It was the
same apartment where Desmond Mingo, 20, was shot to death on Feb. 19, 2002.
In December 2003, two men believed responsible for the shooting were tried
and acquitted of second-degree murder. But one of the accused, Adrian Roy
Baptiste, 20, was gunned down in Toronto a few weeks later in what appeared
to be a revenge shooting.
Police said the Sherman Avenue shooting wasn't random and the shooter or
shooters had specifically targeted the apartment. There were two persons in
the unit at the time but nobody was hurt.
The second shooting occurred at about 10:30 p.m., when a volley of shots
were heard behind an apartment building at 75 Wentworth St. N. Sergeant
Carol Pacey said police found four or five shell casings behind the complex,
but there was no damage to the building and nobody was hurt. Pacey said
police are still trying to determine whether the incidents are linked.
During the Glanbrook burglary, which occurred Feb. 1, an assault rifle and
four handguns were stolen, as well as ammunition. While investigating the
burglary, police seized 87 licensed firearms that were not properly stored.
Police said the elderly collector would not be charged criminally, but his
licence to own firearms could be revoked out of concern for the public and
his own safety.
------------------------------
MY REPLY:
The other key concept here, is, the police seized 87 licensed firearms
that were "not properly stored" in accordance to their little dictator
standards. If they were not properly stored, why did the thieves not take them
as well........which explains why the gun collector was not charges, and just
conveniently robbed case closed
Are the fuzz on a self collection agency as usual, constantly arming
themselves to be stronger than the respecting legal firearms owners. They stole
the firearms and not some bunch of hooligans..
Now they think they can enforce their own laws beyond the U.S. Patriot
Act, which mostly affects B. Columbia. They are arming themselves, like most
gangs, to protect themselves, under guise of offering a decent protection
racket.
The proven peaceful gun collector was taken for a ride on and pinned
with a cheap catch 22 rap. The idiots who were charged, will get a sweet legal
recycle deal, but the gun collector is out a lifetime heritage collection that
will cost him way too dearly to recover......
ciao
Bob
Triad Productions-Fantalla(c)~EZine~ParaNovel
National Astrophysical Assault Research
http://lacasse.naar.be http://triad.naar.be
10x@teluös.net
<REMOVE_TH...@istar.ca> wrote:
>Police say the weapons aren't connected with two shooting incidents in the
>city this week.
>
>Staff Sergeant Ted Davis, head of the police intelligence unit, said police
>found a .22-calibre pistol, ammunition, crack cocaine and marijuana when
>they raided an apartment in the Concession Street building at about 6 a.m.
>
>They charged a 21-year-old Hamilton man with unauthorized possession of a
>firearm, possession of a stolen firearm, possession of a restricted weapon,
>unsafe storage of a firearm and possession of drugs for the purpose of
>trafficking.
>
Anyone care to explain how the licensing and registration system
worked to catch these theives???
Anyone else care to explain why the victim of these theives is facing
criminal charges?
take the ö out of 10x@teluös.net to email me
10x@teluös.net
<REMOVE_TH...@istar.ca> wrote:
snip....
>During the Glanbrook burglary, which occurred Feb. 1, an assault rifle and
>four handguns were stolen, as well as ammunition. While investigating the
>burglary, police seized 87 licensed firearms that were not properly stored.
>Police said the elderly collector would not be charged criminally, but his
>licence to own firearms could be revoked out of concern for the public and
>his own safety.
Really, this old fellow is a victim of a crime and the police want to
take the rest of his property away?
Remember that the police knew the fellow had these firearms through
the gun registry. Someone breaks into his home and steals them and HE
becomes a threat to society?
Incalcitrant
enforcement, over zealous and self-righteous prosecutors, and a corrupt
bench. People are all too willing to sacrifice their liberties in the name
of security, and this always leads to tyranny.
<10x@teluös.net> wrote in message
news:20q321hv41651s3pb...@4ax.com...
10x@teluös.net
<Incalc...@linkline.com> wrote:
>The only threat to society is our own ambivalence toward abusive law
>enforcement, over zealous and self-righteous prosecutors, and a corrupt
>bench. People are all too willing to sacrifice their liberties in the name
>of security, and this always leads to tyranny.
Hindsight is 20-20....
CD
<10x@teluös.net> wrote in message
news:prp321po8mmpec357...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 23:08:02 -0800, R_LaCasse
> <REMOVE_TH...@istar.ca> wrote:
>
>>Police say the weapons aren't connected with two shooting incidents in the
>>city this week.
>>
>>Staff Sergeant Ted Davis, head of the police intelligence unit, said
>>police
>>found a .22-calibre pistol, ammunition, crack cocaine and marijuana when
>>they raided an apartment in the Concession Street building at about 6 a.m.
>>
>>They charged a 21-year-old Hamilton man with unauthorized possession of a
>>firearm, possession of a stolen firearm, possession of a restricted
>>weapon,
>>unsafe storage of a firearm and possession of drugs for the purpose of
>>trafficking.
>>
> Anyone care to explain how the licensing and registration system
> worked to catch these theives???
Good question. But, attention to correct storage of firarms may have helped
prevent them from being stolden in th first place.
> Anyone else care to explain why the victim of these theives is facing
> criminal charges?
The last paragraph will answer your question. It would appear that the owner
wont be charged criminally. But, due to the owner not having stored the
firearms as requiredby NZ law, it would appear he's going to lose the right
to own firearms. I'd guess that his firearms aren't being confiscated, but
due to his licence revoked, they'll have to be held by another licensed
person on his behalf or sold on behalf of the owner. Please note; I'm not
familiar with NZ firearm laws!
Steve
"CD" <loco_d...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4222684c$0$6166$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> you can be excused for not knowing the NZ gun laws.
>
>
CD
"Steve" <guns...@nrtco.net> wrote in message
news:1YuUd.5887$Vf6.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Thanks Steve,
Just assumed it was Hamilton New Zealand as this story was posted on an
Aussie shooting News Group. I definitely don't know much about the Canadian
Gun Laws! But, I do know registration has been a huge waste of Canadian tax
payers money and is massively over budget.
.........................
Throwing good millions after bad: Liberals will need another three years
before gun registry is 'fully implemented'
The Edmonton Journal
Fri 03 Dec 2004
Page: A18
Section: Opinion
Byline: Lorne Gunter
"It is anticipated that all components of the firearms program now planned
or under development will be fully implemented by December 31, 2007."
Pardon me!?
What struck me about the above line when I first read it was its
matter-of-factness. It was uttered almost casually, as if it were no big
deal, at the end of a formal response to an order paper question in the
Commons on Monday.
Roy Cullen, the parliamentary secretary to Anne McLellan, the Minister of
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, was giving a detailed breakdown of
the costs of the government's monumentally incompetent firearms registry, in
response to a request from Saskatchewan Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz.
After all the sums had been presented, Cullen said, "It is anticipated that
all components of the firearms program...will be fully implemented by
December 31, 2007."
What!? The thing's not done yet!?
The registration scheme has blown through more than $1 billion. It has been
open six years and in planning three years before that, for a total of nine
years. And it's not ready!?
You would think the people in charge of this colossal foul-up would run away
from it as fast as they can.
Or at least they'd slink away from it slowly, some moonless night, when no
one was watching.
But no, there they are, two or three or more times each year blithely
standing there -- earnest and determined -- insisting that somehow, someday
this giant, flightless monument to social-engineering incompetence is going
to magically catch air and lift off the ground.
I'd have to admire their pluck, if I weren't sure their steadfast resolve
was really a mask for an almost pathological inability to admit they've
blundered -- big time.
It is, after all, easy to keep bulling ahead with a bad idea when you have a
nearly bottomless reservoir of other people's money to throw at your next
bungle, and your next, and your next.
But what confidence do you have that the Liberals will be able to make their
gun registry work with three more years and, say, $400 million more of your
money and mine, when in nine years with $1 billion they have managed only to
create a textbook example of over-reaching, out-of-control political and
civil service ineptitude?
I have no confidence that, no matter how much time and money is devoted to
the registry, it will ever be useful.
Two other troubling implications arise from Cullen's statement. First, it is
in direct contradiction of an assurance McLellan made in 2001 that the
registry was "fully operational." And second, the numbers Cullen released
confirm the Liberals have no intention of keeping the cost of their firearms
fiasco down at $25 million per year. When they promised they would in last
spring's election, they were just being clever with words, intentionally
confusing two sets of figures to give the impression they could get this
rampaging disaster under control.
Exactly three years to the day before Cullen assured the House that his
government's registry would be "fully implemented," but not until nearly
2008 -- on November 29, 2001 -- McLellan insisted in the same chamber that
the "startup" phase of the registry "ended as of Dec. 1, 1998, and we are
now in full operational mode."
Oh sure, you could argue that saying the registry was in "full operational
mode" did not necessary mean it was already "fully implemented." But it was
clear from McLellan's remarks that she wanted to leave the House with the
impression that her vaunted registry was up and humming along at full
capacity. There is certainly no way her "full operational mode" left room
for speculation that the registry would not be "fully implemented" for a
further six years after her speech.
When laying out the full cost of the Liberal firearms program to the end of
March 2004, Cullen also (unintentionally) revealed how duplicitous the
Liberals' election pledge was to cap the registry's costs at $25 million.
From 1995 to the end of last March, the "firearms program" has cost $943
million. But the "registration component of the program" has cost just $228
million, less than one-quarter of the total.
In the last three years, the "registration component" has cost $50.1
million, $22.6 million and $33.3 million, respectively. Meanwhile, over the
same period, the total cost of the "firearms program" has been as high as
$170 million in a single year.
The Liberals clearly only meant they would keep a lid on the one-quarter of
costs pertaining directly to the registration of guns. Administration costs,
licensing of gun owners, advertising, gun owner training and all other costs
associated with this grandiose plan...well, they're not technically
"registry" costs, so the Grits have no intention of holding the line on
them.
Their election promise might save $6 million or $8 million a year --
might -- but they will still be throwing away over $100 million annually on
their "firearms program."
The distortions and deceptions (and self-delusions) continue.
Freddy K
> <REMOVE_TH...@istar.ca> wrote:
>
>>Police say the weapons aren't connected with two shooting incidents in the
>>city this week.
>>
>>Staff Sergeant Ted Davis, head of the police intelligence unit, said
>>police
>>found a .22-calibre pistol, ammunition, crack cocaine and marijuana when
>>they raided an apartment in the Concession Street building at about 6 a.m.
>>
>>They charged a 21-year-old Hamilton man with unauthorized possession of a
>>firearm, possession of a stolen firearm, possession of a restricted
>>weapon,
>>unsafe storage of a firearm and possession of drugs for the purpose of
>>trafficking.
>>
>
> Anyone care to explain how the licensing and registration system
> worked to catch these theives???
The registration system indicated that the serial numbers related to
firearms owned by the victim, not by the thieves.
>
> Anyone else care to explain why the victim of these theives is facing
> criminal charges?
Because he didn't secure the firearms in the manner prescribed
by the law and in accordance with the conditions of his licence.
Freddy K
<10x@teluös.net> wrote in message
news:20q321hv41651s3pb...@4ax.com...
Yes - he didn't adhere to the conditions of his licence.
> Remember that the police knew the fellow had these firearms through
> the gun registry. Someone breaks into his home and steals them and HE
> becomes a threat to society?
His problem is that he didn't secure them as required - and yes his laxity
that allows thieves easy access to his firearms does raise questions about
the appropriateness of allowing him to own them.
Paul (Oz)
wrote:
>
><10x@teluös.net> wrote in message
>news:prp321po8mmpec357...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 23:08:02 -0800, R_LaCasse
>> <REMOVE_TH...@istar.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Police say the weapons aren't connected with two shooting incidents in the
>>>city this week.
>>>
>>>Staff Sergeant Ted Davis, head of the police intelligence unit, said
>>>police
>>>found a .22-calibre pistol, ammunition, crack cocaine and marijuana when
>>>they raided an apartment in the Concession Street building at about 6 a.m.
>>>
>>>They charged a 21-year-old Hamilton man with unauthorized possession of a
>>>firearm, possession of a stolen firearm, possession of a restricted
>>>weapon,
>>>unsafe storage of a firearm and possession of drugs for the purpose of
>>>trafficking.
>>>
>>
>> Anyone care to explain how the licensing and registration system
>> worked to catch these theives???
>
>The registration system indicated that the serial numbers related to
>firearms owned by the victim, not by the thieves.
But surely, the police couldn't have known that until they examined
the guns the thieves had and used the registration system to establish
they did not own them. This does not explain how the registration
system helped to locate the thieves, only how the guns were
established to have been stolen.
10x@teluös.net
wrote:
>
><10x@teluös.net> wrote in message
>news:prp321po8mmpec357...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 23:08:02 -0800, R_LaCasse
>> <REMOVE_TH...@istar.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Police say the weapons aren't connected with two shooting incidents in the
>>>city this week.
>>>
>>>Staff Sergeant Ted Davis, head of the police intelligence unit, said
>>>police
>>>found a .22-calibre pistol, ammunition, crack cocaine and marijuana when
>>>they raided an apartment in the Concession Street building at about 6 a.m.
>>>
>>>They charged a 21-year-old Hamilton man with unauthorized possession of a
>>>firearm, possession of a stolen firearm, possession of a restricted
>>>weapon,
>>>unsafe storage of a firearm and possession of drugs for the purpose of
>>>trafficking.
>>>
>> Anyone care to explain how the licensing and registration system
>> worked to catch these theives???
>
>Good question. But, attention to correct storage of firarms may have helped
>prevent them from being stolden in th first place.
Baloney! Anyone willing to break into his home is willing to break
into his storage compartment.
>> Anyone else care to explain why the victim of these theives is facing
>> criminal charges?
>
>The last paragraph will answer your question. It would appear that the owner
>wont be charged criminally. But, due to the owner not having stored the
>firearms as requiredby NZ law, it would appear he's going to lose the right
>to own firearms. I'd guess that his firearms aren't being confiscated, but
>due to his licence revoked, they'll have to be held by another licensed
>person on his behalf or sold on behalf of the owner. Please note; I'm not
>familiar with NZ firearm laws!
At least they will be sold and the fellow and his heirs don't loose
the value of the firearms as would likely happen in Canada.
The bottom line is that a man's home is his castle. If he has his
home secure and someone breaks into it and steals anything, do you
blame the man? This includes firearms.
10x@teluös.net
10x@teluös.net
wrote:
>
><10x@teluös.net> wrote in message
>news:prp321po8mmpec357...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 23:08:02 -0800, R_LaCasse
>> <REMOVE_TH...@istar.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Police say the weapons aren't connected with two shooting incidents in the
>>>city this week.
>>>
>>>Staff Sergeant Ted Davis, head of the police intelligence unit, said
>>>police
>>>found a .22-calibre pistol, ammunition, crack cocaine and marijuana when
>>>they raided an apartment in the Concession Street building at about 6 a.m.
>>>
>>>They charged a 21-year-old Hamilton man with unauthorized possession of a
>>>firearm, possession of a stolen firearm, possession of a restricted
>>>weapon,
>>>unsafe storage of a firearm and possession of drugs for the purpose of
>>>trafficking.
>>>
>>
>> Anyone care to explain how the licensing and registration system
>> worked to catch these theives???
>
>The registration system indicated that the serial numbers related to
>firearms owned by the victim, not by the thieves.
Don't mislead. This 87 year old man would have reported the breakin
and the missing firearms. It is a crime not to do so in Canada. The
police had a description of the firearms before they did this bust.
Remember too that not all firearm have serial numbers.
>> Anyone else care to explain why the victim of these theives is facing
>> criminal charges?
>
>Because he didn't secure the firearms in the manner prescribed
>by the law and in accordance with the conditions of his licence.
>
Please explain "the manner prescribed by the law and in accordance
with the conditions of his licence." ?
CIte references to the firearms act please?
10x@teluös.net
wrote:
>
Please tell us what the conditions of his license were all knowing
one?
>> Remember that the police knew the fellow had these firearms through
>> the gun registry. Someone breaks into his home and steals them and HE
>> becomes a threat to society?
>
>His problem is that he didn't secure them as required - and yes his laxity
>that allows thieves easy access to his firearms does raise questions about
>the appropriateness of allowing him to own them.
Baloney. If his front door was locked his guns were secure.
A theif will not stop at a second lock.
Courageous
>>His problem is that he didn't secure them as required - and yes his laxity
>>that allows thieves easy access to his firearms does raise questions about
>>the appropriateness of allowing him to own them.
>
>Baloney.
That's the shortest misspelling of "complete and utter bullshit" that I've
ever seen! :)
C//
CD
news:fpb621hm4cmfpf630...@4ax.com...
Well, it's a little hard to work out exactly what happened while just using
this news paper article. But it does say "While investigating the
burglary, police seized 87 licensed firearms." I would assume as your've
said, that the Police attended this collector residence after he reported
the thieft and due to the storage conditions they found there, they were
forced take some action agaist the owner.
>>> Anyone else care to explain why the victim of these theives is facing
>>> criminal charges?
>>
>>Because he didn't secure the firearms in the manner prescribed
>>by the law and in accordance with the conditions of his licence.
>
> Please explain "the manner prescribed by the law and in accordance
> with the conditions of his licence." ?
Well this article does say that 2 men were charged with "unsafe storage of a
firearm". So it resonable to assume there is a law in Canada that requires
firearms to be stored in a particular manner.
> CIte references to the firearms act please?
That would be interesting to see as there seems to be some confusion about
the correct or personal obligation to store firearms in a sensible and
manner.
RD Sandman
> <10x@teluös.net> wrote in message
> news:prp321po8mmpec357...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 23:08:02 -0800, R_LaCasse
>> <REMOVE_TH...@istar.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Police say the weapons aren't connected with two shooting incidents in the
>>>city this week.
>>>
>>>Staff Sergeant Ted Davis, head of the police intelligence unit, said
>>>police
>>>found a .22-calibre pistol, ammunition, crack cocaine and marijuana when
>>>they raided an apartment in the Concession Street building at about 6 a.m.
>>>
>>>They charged a 21-year-old Hamilton man with unauthorized possession of a
>>>firearm, possession of a stolen firearm, possession of a restricted
>>>weapon,
>>>unsafe storage of a firearm and possession of drugs for the purpose of
>>>trafficking.
>>>
>> Anyone care to explain how the licensing and registration system
>> worked to catch these theives???
>
> Good question. But, attention to correct storage of firarms may have helped
> prevent them from being stolden in th first place.
While true, being in a private home with the doors locked should be good
enough. Anyone entering the home without the permission of the owner is
committing a crime to begin with.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
CD
news:uhb621h3ngrp5634h...@4ax.com...
Come on, While locking something up might not stop all thief's, it a good
idea to make it a little harder for them. Anyway it would appear that there
is a storage requirement for firearms in Canada as the article mentions that
the 2 thief's were charged with "unsafe storage of a firearm." So, it make
sense as a firearm owner to protect your property by fulfilling the minimum
standards required by the law.
I'm a collector of Lee Enfields and have all my firearms stored in a 500kg
safe. About 6 months ago the Police inspected my storeage, as required by
New South Wales law and were very happy with my storage facilities.
>>> Anyone else care to explain why the victim of these theives is facing
>>> criminal charges?
>>
>>The last paragraph will answer your question. It would appear that the
>>owner
>>wont be charged criminally. But, due to the owner not having stored the
>>firearms as requiredby NZ law, it would appear he's going to lose the
>>right
>>to own firearms. I'd guess that his firearms aren't being confiscated, but
>>due to his licence revoked, they'll have to be held by another licensed
>>person on his behalf or sold on behalf of the owner. Please note; I'm not
>>familiar with NZ firearm laws!
>
> At least they will be sold and the fellow and his heirs don't loose
> the value of the firearms as would likely happen in Canada.
I had another closer look at this article. It does say that his firearm
licence COULD be revoked, "Police said the elderly collector would not be
charged criminally, but his licence to own firearms could be revoked out of
concern for the public and his own safety." This gives me the impression
that this collector is being given a chance to appeal and have his firearms
returned. Presumably after he corrects his substandard store.
> The bottom line is that a man's home is his castle. If he has his
> home secure and someone breaks into it and steals anything, do you
> blame the man? This includes firearms.
Yes, but that doesn't give you the right to disobey the law.
Harry The Horse
>
> Baloney. If his front door was locked his guns were secure.
> A theif will not stop at a second lock.
>
he knew that he could work undisturbed for the time necessary to smash a
secure safe off the wall or bash in its door, then you might be right. In
the real world most burglaries are opportunistic. Decent locks and alarm
systems will persuade the burglar to try his luck somewhere else. And a
decent firearms safe, bolted securely to an exterior brick wall, will thwart
a burglar who's broken it to grab whatever he can get. Now perhaps these
thieves targetted this collector deliberately, but that doesn't sound likely
as they stole only a small proportion of his collection. It seems more
likely, from the posted report, that they were opportunistic, in which case
decent security would have foiled them.
BTW, I keep my handgun collection in a Home Office approved safe and I would
even if the law did not oblige me to do so.
BTMO
"CD" <> wrote
>> Baloney! Anyone willing to break into his home is willing to break
>> into his storage compartment.
>
> Come on, While locking something up might not stop all thief's, it a good
> idea to make it a little harder for them. Anyway it would appear that
> there is a storage requirement for firearms in Canada as the article
> mentions that the 2 thief's were charged with "unsafe storage of a
> firearm." So, it make sense as a firearm owner to protect your property by
> fulfilling the minimum standards required by the law.
If someone steals your car, and uses it to commit a crime (eg, get away car,
road rage, ram raid, driving over kindergarten children, etc) are you
charged with unsafe storage of a motor vehicle?
*I* am in NZ, and understand the difference (and the official answer to that
question), btw...
BTMO
"Harry The Horse" <> wrote
>> Baloney. If his front door was locked his guns were secure.
>> A theif will not stop at a second lock.
>>
> Not necessarily. If the thief had planned his burglary so completely that
> he knew that he could work undisturbed for the time necessary to smash a
> secure safe off the wall or bash in its door, then you might be right.
And yet, this is exactly what happens in the real world. Thieves DO target
firearm collectors. It has been suggested that the firearm lists themselves
(ie, registration records) are far from secure (police stations / depts have
cleaners, etc...) and information is valuable in the hands of dedicated
thieves.
> In the real world most burglaries are opportunistic. Decent locks and
> alarm systems will persuade the burglar to try his luck somewhere else.
In this country (New Zealand) all that is required for most firearms is a
"stout locked cabinet" - it can be wooden, metal or a safe. There is no
requirement for alarms.
And surprise surprise, the number of firearm thefts is relatively low.
Indeed, the only one I have heard about in the last year or so was... a
collector who had an alarm system, a proper safe and all the rest. There is
some evidence that he was targeted, and the thieves broke in while he was
out, and had time to defeat the alarm, the locks, the safe. They had
knowledge of what he had, and planned their attack accordingly.
CD
news:uMNUd.5300$1S4.5...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
> "CD" <> wrote
>
>>> Baloney! Anyone willing to break into his home is willing to break
>>> into his storage compartment.
>>
>> Come on, While locking something up might not stop all thief's, it a good
>> idea to make it a little harder for them. Anyway it would appear that
>> there is a storage requirement for firearms in Canada as the article
>> mentions that the 2 thief's were charged with "unsafe storage of a
>> firearm." So, it make sense as a firearm owner to protect your property
>> by fulfilling the minimum standards required by the law.
>
> If someone steals your car, and uses it to commit a crime (eg, get away
> car, road rage, ram raid, driving over kindergarten children, etc) are you
> charged with unsafe storage of a motor vehicle?
What on earth has this got to do with what where talking about? Is there
some law that requires you to keep you car under lock and key? I don't think
so! But, apparently there is one that requires you to keep your firearms in
such a way. The fact of the matter is, that this guy apparently failed to
keep his firearms stored correctly. Why is this so hard to fathom??????
> *I* am in NZ, and understand the difference (and the official answer to
> that question), btw...
I'm not sure what your getting at here. Yes, I know your from NZ, BTMO. Is
this something to do with the original poster of this article not
identifying the origin of this story and then me thinking it was NZ and not
Canada. I have to admit that I was surprised to see NZ suffering such a wave
of gun crime in the article. Not the norm for NZ. I should have realised my
mistake then.
CD
Freddy K
"Paul (Oz)" <nom...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:j81621dg0cn4rgd91...@4ax.com...
Yes. So it helped to catch the thieves.
> This does not explain how the registration
> system helped to locate the thieves, only how the guns were
> established to have been stolen.
A necessary aspect of catching thieves ie determining that they are
in possession of stolen goods.
Freddy K
<10x@teluös.net> wrote in message
news:vvb621dcc1shg9ko8...@4ax.com...
I must admit to not knowing the details of Vic licensing, but since
there is supposed to be basically uniform licensing around Australia,
then I assume that the conditions are similar to NSW. In NSW my licence
has the following printed on it -
"This licence must be produced upon demand by a Police Officer and may
be cancelled for failure to comply strictly with the firearms storage and
safe keeping requirements."
>>> Remember that the police knew the fellow had these firearms through
>>> the gun registry. Someone breaks into his home and steals them and HE
>>> becomes a threat to society?
>>
>>His problem is that he didn't secure them as required - and yes his laxity
>>that allows thieves easy access to his firearms does raise questions about
>>the appropriateness of allowing him to own them.
>
> Baloney. If his front door was locked his guns were secure.
The law says otherwise.
BTMO
"CD" <> wrote
>> If someone steals your car, and uses it to commit a crime (eg, get away
>> car, road rage, ram raid, driving over kindergarten children, etc) are
>> you charged with unsafe storage of a motor vehicle?
>
> What on earth has this got to do with what where talking about? Is there
> some law that requires you to keep you car under lock and key? I don't
> think so! But, apparently there is one that requires you to keep your
> firearms in such a way. The fact of the matter is, that this guy
> apparently failed to keep his firearms stored correctly. Why is this so
> hard to fathom??????
It isn't hard to fathom, but what I was writing about the fact that there
are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people (old quote from Robert
Heinlein, but I agree with it completely).
The simple fact is that guns are no more dangerous than cars. Each can be
misused. But because guns are "bad", we (as a society) write a plethora of
laws that have no real impact on crime, don't actually work to keep guns out
of the hands of criminals, don't impact the murder or suicide rates, and
only serve to annoy people who will obey the law anyway. Most gun law is
legislative wishful thinking.
The old guy at the centre of this case had some guns stolen. He was a victim
of crime. But because of the attitude by some segments of society who refuse
to acknowledge that crimes of violence are committed by people rather than
inanimate lumps of metal, HE is also branded a criminal.
For the heinous act of having his house broken into, and having his private
property stolen.
This is abhorrent to me - I firmly believe there is only one villian in this
story - the person who robbed this guy. Well, him and the legislators that
believe that gun crime can be combated by locks...
This old guy grew up in a world where guns were commonly owned, where
storage requirements basically boiled down to "keep out of reach of
children" and people trusted their neighbours to the point where they didn't
bother to lock their doors at night. The old guy is perhaps guilty of one
thing - growing old in a world that has lost the will to make people
accountable for their own actions. Yes, he broke the law. But the law is
feel good bullshit.
Guns can be, and are, made by criminals, stolen by criminals (if they really
want them) regardless of the alarms and all of the other stuff that the
do-gooders believe will make crime go away. Hell - they even get stolen from
cops and the military!
>> *I* am in NZ, and understand the difference (and the official answer to
>> that question), btw...
>
> I'm not sure what your getting at here. Yes, I know your from NZ, BTMO. Is
> this something to do with the original poster of this article not
> identifying the origin of this story and then me thinking it was NZ and
> not Canada. I have to admit that I was surprised to see NZ suffering such
> a wave of gun crime in the article. Not the norm for NZ. I should have
> realised my mistake then.
:-)
NZ is a remarkably safe place. Gun crime is *very* low.
Guns are pretty readily available, too. Air guns (including air pistols) are
available to anyone older than 18 without a licence. They are available to
anyone under 18 with a licence.
Rifles and shotguns are easy to get (legally) assuming you pass a pretty
simple test, and we can even buy silencers without paying bullshit taxes or
demonstrating "need" or anything like that.
"Military" style rifles and pistols are a little harder to get, but
certainly not impossible.
And still, gun crime is remarkably low...
So of course, we are reviewing firearms law at the moment!
One of the sillier things under discussions is...bulletproof vests are being
included in the arms act this time around. I have no idea what calibre
bullets vests fire...
Just because something is the law, there is no reason to assume it is right,
or just, or even does what was written to do. Think of the US's AWB...
Cheers,
Brenton
BTMO
"Freddy K" <> wrote
>> Baloney. If his front door was locked his guns were secure.
>
> The law says otherwise.
Does that make the law right, or effective?
BTMO
"Freddy K" <> wrote
>> But surely, the police couldn't have known that until they examined
>> the guns the thieves had and used the registration system to establish
>> they did not own them.
>
> Yes. So it helped to catch the thieves.
Conversely, the rightful owner could have said "I had gun serial number
XXXXXXX stolen". That information would have helped the police catch thieves
as well...
>> This does not explain how the registration
>> system helped to locate the thieves, only how the guns were
>> established to have been stolen.
>
> A necessary aspect of catching thieves ie determining that they are
> in possession of stolen goods.
And a description by the owner is invalid... how?
I don't know about you, but if someone stole something of mine (especially
one of my guns) I would be pretty pissed. I would be down at the police
station or on the phone giving a description as quickly as my little legs
would carry me!
Same for my PC, or the telly, or the camera or...
michael price
In other words you have no idea what these requirements were and no
idea if he breached them, even assuming they're consistent enough to
talk about meaningfully.
>
> >>> Remember that the police knew the fellow had these firearms through
> >>> the gun registry. Someone breaks into his home and steals them and HE
> >>> becomes a threat to society?
> >>
> >>His problem is that he didn't secure them as required - and yes his laxity
> >>that allows thieves easy access to his firearms does raise questions about
> >>the appropriateness of allowing him to own them.
> >
> > Baloney. If his front door was locked his guns were secure.
>
> The law says otherwise.
Then the laws an ass. Nothing is "secure" so requiring it to be
is impossible and therefore unconstituional.
Harry The Horse
>
> "Harry The Horse" <> wrote
>
> >> Baloney. If his front door was locked his guns were secure.
> >> A theif will not stop at a second lock.
> >>
> > Not necessarily. If the thief had planned his burglary so completely
that
> > he knew that he could work undisturbed for the time necessary to smash a
> > secure safe off the wall or bash in its door, then you might be right.
>
> And yet, this is exactly what happens in the real world.
>
legal firearms are so small that the police don't bother keeping statistics
on them. It one of the perennial lies of Shaun that legal firearms
collections are a significant source of illegal firearms. They are not.
> Thieves DO target firearm collectors. It has been suggested that the
firearm lists themselves
> (ie, registration records) are far from secure (police stations / depts
have
> cleaners, etc...) and information is valuable in the hands of dedicated
> thieves.
>
> > In the real world most burglaries are opportunistic. Decent locks and
> > alarm systems will persuade the burglar to try his luck somewhere else.
>
> In this country (New Zealand) all that is required for most firearms is a
> "stout locked cabinet" - it can be wooden, metal or a safe. There is no
> requirement for alarms.
>
There isn't an automatic requirement for alarms in the UK. However, if the
licensee lives in a high crime area he might be required to implement more
security than someone who lives in a low crime area. That could include an
alarm.
Personally I want to keep my property secure so I will install whatever
security I feel is warranted. My licensing authority has never asked me to
install anything I felt was unwarranted.
CD
Well said Brenton!
Regards......CD
Harry The Horse
news:5678a39d.05022...@posting.google.com...
>
> Then the laws an ass. Nothing is "secure" so requiring it to be
> is impossible and therefore unconstituional.
>
Paul (Oz)
wrote:
No more so than a description and serial number off a stolen TV set
recorded by the rightful owner and given to police when the item is
reported stolen. IOW, the gun register provides nothing that is not
otherwise available.
>> This does not explain how the registration
>> system helped to locate the thieves, only how the guns were
>> established to have been stolen.
>
>A necessary aspect of catching thieves ie determining that they are
>in possession of stolen goods.
Which could be done by the owner identifying the goods when reporting
them stolen.
The original question was:
" Anyone care to explain how the licensing and registration system
worked to catch these theives???"
I put it to you that it did not do anything that is not accomplished
by other means when the item stolen is something other than a gun.
Paul (Oz)
Paul (Oz)
But do you also use an immobilizer on your car? A steering wheel
lock? Wheel locks?
The question I would ask is how much "security" is enough? If I lock
my house (I have security bars all round and deadlocks on all doors)
then I question the need to also purchase a safe to store firearms in.
I do it because I have to, but it seems an unnecessary imposition.
Harry The Horse
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:22:23 GMT, "Harry The Horse"
> <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"michael price" <nini...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:5678a39d.05022...@posting.google.com...
> >>
> >> Then the laws an ass. Nothing is "secure" so requiring it to be
> >> is impossible and therefore unconstituional.
> >>
> >So you leave your car and house unlocked?
> >
>
> But do you also use an immobilizer on your car? A steering wheel
> lock? Wheel locks?
>
> The question I would ask is how much "security" is enough? If I lock
> my house (I have security bars all round and deadlocks on all doors)
> then I question the need to also purchase a safe to store firearms in.
> I do it because I have to, but it seems an unnecessary imposition.
>
I know one gun collector in the UK, who also trades and has section 5
authority, who has a secure room in which to keep his guns. He has no safe.
Clearly if the room and house are sufficiently secure then a safe is
superfluous. But for most people a safe is the most economical option.
10x@teluös.net
wrote:
"the minimum standards " vary from situation to situation and from one
police person's opinion to another police persons opinion.
A trigger lock is considered enough to disable a firearm. The gun
does not have to be "locked up". A trigger lock will not stop a gun
from being stolen and the theif can disable the lock later. Many
stolen guns that have trigger locks on them still have the locks when
they are found by the police. Why, you may ask? They are stolen so
they could be sold, not used in crime. The Canadian firearms act has
not stopped the illegal sale and possession of firearm in Canada. In
fact is has CREATED a black market trade in guns that are never used
in a crime against a person.
10x@teluös.net
wrote:
>"BTMO" <bt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:uMNUd.5300$1S4.5...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>>
>> "CD" <> wrote
>>
>>>> Baloney! Anyone willing to break into his home is willing to break
>>>> into his storage compartment.
>>>
>>> Come on, While locking something up might not stop all thief's, it a good
>>> idea to make it a little harder for them. Anyway it would appear that
>>> there is a storage requirement for firearms in Canada as the article
>>> mentions that the 2 thief's were charged with "unsafe storage of a
>>> firearm." So, it make sense as a firearm owner to protect your property
>>> by fulfilling the minimum standards required by the law.
>>
>> If someone steals your car, and uses it to commit a crime (eg, get away
>> car, road rage, ram raid, driving over kindergarten children, etc) are you
>> charged with unsafe storage of a motor vehicle?
>
>What on earth has this got to do with what where talking about? Is there
>some law that requires you to keep you car under lock and key? I don't think
>so! But, apparently there is one that requires you to keep your firearms in
>such a way. The fact of the matter is, that this guy apparently failed to
>keep his firearms stored correctly. Why is this so hard to fathom??????
>
In Canada, the key is the gun can be stored with a trigger lock and
considered "disabled". It DOES NOT HAVE TO BE LOCKED UP.
10x@teluös.net
wrote:
><10x@teluös.net> wrote in message
>news:fpb621hm4cmfpf630...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 09:38:52 GMT, "Freddy K" <nos...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>><10x@teluös.net> wrote in message
>>>news:prp321po8mmpec357...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 23:08:02 -0800, R_LaCasse
>>>> <REMOVE_TH...@istar.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Police say the weapons aren't connected with two shooting incidents in
>>>>>the
>>>>>city this week.
>>>>>
>>>>>Staff Sergeant Ted Davis, head of the police intelligence unit, said
>>>>>police
>>>>>found a .22-calibre pistol, ammunition, crack cocaine and marijuana when
>>>>>they raided an apartment in the Concession Street building at about 6
>>>>>a.m.
>>>>>
>>>>>They charged a 21-year-old Hamilton man with unauthorized possession of
>>>>>a
>>>>>firearm, possession of a stolen firearm, possession of a restricted
>>>>>weapon,
>>>>>unsafe storage of a firearm and possession of drugs for the purpose of
>>>>>trafficking.
>>>>>
>>>> Anyone care to explain how the licensing and registration system
>>>> worked to catch these theives???
>>>
>>>The registration system indicated that the serial numbers related to
>>>firearms owned by the victim, not by the thieves.
>>
>> Don't mislead. This 87 year old man would have reported the breakin
>> and the missing firearms. It is a crime not to do so in Canada. The
>> police had a description of the firearms before they did this bust.
>> Remember too that not all firearm have serial numbers.
>
>Well, it's a little hard to work out exactly what happened while just using
>this news paper article. But it does say "While investigating the
>burglary, police seized 87 licensed firearms." I would assume as your've
>said, that the Police attended this collector residence after he reported
>the thieft and due to the storage conditions they found there, they were
>forced take some action agaist the owner.
Police are never forced to do anything. There have been several
crimes commited in our community that the police were aware of while
they were happening. They were forced to finish their coffee and
donuts before they decided to attend the crime scene.
And some police are offended by people who own certian types of guns
so they respond in an inapropriate manner. It has happened a number
of times in our community.
Trevor Wilson
**And I, as a fellow Australian, am FAR happier and secure in the knowledge
that when you local neighbourhood junkie robs your house, he will not be
able to easily grab a gun, whilst he pinches your valuables, because you
forgot to lock your back door when you went to the movies.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
James F. Mayer
--
"More than 50% of Australians are dumber than rocks."
Trevor Wilson 18 February 2005
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:38k63eF...@individual.net...
But you feel that is not so bad that he has stolen everything else to pay
for his drug habit.
Paul (Oz)
I understand your position but I *never* leave my door unlocked. But
since we are postulating the improbable; What if I also forgot to lock
my safe?
Trevor Wilson
"James F. Mayer" <jf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:hy7Vd.3419$wy3...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
**No. I feel that Australian society is MUCH safer without making it easy
for junkies to get guns.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
**Forgetting to lock your front door AND your gun safe, would be extremely
unfortunate.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Paul (Oz)
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Then perhaps you can see my point. Security (IMO) follows the law of
diminishing returns. There are certainly some houses where the only
secure place to store a gun is in a safe, others where a safe provides
very little in the way of extra security. Unfortunately the law is
written to cover the lowest common denominator.
Trevor Wilson
**Indeed it is. I have safely driven my car at 200kph and I know when and
how to do it, without killing my self and others. I recognise the fact that
not all drivers have the necessary skills to do so and I must drive at the
speed that the law allows. One more thing about gun safes, though. They are
designed to ensure that a child cannot easily pick up the weapon and use it.
Is there ever a possibility that a child could be in your home?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Mark Bedingfield
A very illegal pastime, too.
I recognise the fact that
> not all drivers have the necessary skills to do so and I must drive at the
> speed that the law allows.
200Kph? ;-)
One more thing about gun safes, though. They are
> designed to ensure that a child cannot easily pick up the weapon and use it.
> Is there ever a possibility that a child could be in your home?
How many shooters here started shooting as children. I had access to
firearms from a very early age (about 7 years old from memory), but had
a huge respect for the firearms Dad had. I would never have dreamed of
using anything other than the slug gun. Mostly because I would have
wound up on my arse. But also because I new the damage they could cause.
I will tech my kids safe handling, before I will start prohibition. My
school had firearms safety instructors come in and give talks. As did
Scouts. I do not need the government telling me how to raise my kids either.
To top it off, I would regard more effective policing and sentencing of
burglaries would be a better answer than making a shooter accountable
for the burglary. Sentences are too lenient and victims wind up becoming
the criminal.
Mark
Paul (Oz)
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Certainly. I have children (and now grandchildren). However they
don't (and never did) have access to my office unless supervised, it
also has a well used lock. Added to that they are all familiar with
the use and safe handling of firearms from an early age.
As you point out, ability and responsibility are things that the law,
unfortunately, does not take for granted.
michael price
No car, but I don't kid myself that people couldn't get into my
house if they wanted to. Security is an illusion.
Alex Cunningham
>> "michael price" wrote:
>> > Then the laws an ass. Nothing is "secure" so requiring it to be
>> > is impossible and therefore unconstituional.
> >"Harry The Horse" wrote :
>> So you leave your car and house unlocked?
> "michael price" wrote:
> No car, but I don't kid myself that people couldn't get into my
> house if they wanted to. Security is an illusion.
There's an old saying that goes, "a lock only stops an honest man"
--
Cheers.
Alex C.
There are 12,000,000 sheep in Ontario.
Problem is 9,000,000 of them think they are people.
BTMO
"Harry The Horse" <> wrote
> No doubt it depends on the country. In the UK, the number of thefts of
> legal firearms are so small that the police don't bother keeping
> statistics
> on them.
If there are no stats, how do you *know* that the number of thefts is low?
Oh, and if the number of thefts are so low, why does the UK have such
draconian laws?
Simple answer to both questions... the Chunnel. Getting guns into the UK
would have to be pretty damn easy...
> It one of the perennial lies of Shaun that legal firearms
> collections are a significant source of illegal firearms. They are not.
Please see above...
Cheers,
Brenton
BTMO
"Trevor Wilson" <> wrote
> **Indeed it is. I have safely driven my car at 200kph and I know when and
> how to do it, without killing my self and others. I recognise the fact
> that not all drivers have the necessary skills to do so and I must drive
> at the speed that the law allows. One more thing about gun safes, though.
> They are designed to ensure that a child cannot easily pick up the weapon
> and use it. Is there ever a possibility that a child could be in your
> home?
My children are 16 and 18 - old enough to get their own gun licences, and
drive a car. No other younger children enter my home.
I no longer need a safe... (or a "stout locked cabinet")
Incidentally, when I was growing up in South Australia, the guns in the
house were stored in my room. In the corner, near the cupboard. Amazingly
enough, we (brother and I) never touched the guns without permission.
Education is *so* much more effective than logic puzzles... sorry - locks...
10x@teluös.net
wrote:
>
>"Paul (Oz)" <nom...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
>news:j81621dg0cn4rgd91...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 09:38:52 GMT, "Freddy K" <nos...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><10x@teluös.net> wrote in message
>>>news:prp321po8mmpec357...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 23:08:02 -0800, R_LaCasse
>>>> <REMOVE_TH...@istar.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Police say the weapons aren't connected with two shooting incidents in
>>>>>the
>>>>>city this week.
>>>>>
>>>>>Staff Sergeant Ted Davis, head of the police intelligence unit, said
>>>>>police
>>>>>found a .22-calibre pistol, ammunition, crack cocaine and marijuana when
>>>>>they raided an apartment in the Concession Street building at about 6
>>>>>a.m.
>>>>>
>>>>>They charged a 21-year-old Hamilton man with unauthorized possession of
>>>>>a
>>>>>firearm, possession of a stolen firearm, possession of a restricted
>>>>>weapon,
>>>>>unsafe storage of a firearm and possession of drugs for the purpose of
>>>>>trafficking.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anyone care to explain how the licensing and registration system
>>>> worked to catch these theives???
>>>
>>>The registration system indicated that the serial numbers related to
>>>firearms owned by the victim, not by the thieves.
>>
>> But surely, the police couldn't have known that until they examined
>> the guns the thieves had and used the registration system to establish
>> they did not own them.
>
>Yes. So it helped to catch the thieves.
The person who had the guns legally reported them stolen to the
police. There is no need for a registration system to keep a record
of stolen goods. The registration system is redundant in this
matter..
>> This does not explain how the registration
>> system helped to locate the thieves, only how the guns were
>> established to have been stolen.
>
>A necessary aspect of catching thieves ie determining that they are
>in possession of stolen goods.
This has nothing to do with the registration system. It has
everythign to do with the report of stolen firearms.
The registration system is redundant in this matter.
Harry The Horse
>
> "Harry The Horse" <> wrote
>
> > No doubt it depends on the country. In the UK, the number of thefts of
> > legal firearms are so small that the police don't bother keeping
> > statistics
> > on them.
>
> If there are no stats, how do you *know* that the number of thefts is low?
>
report those on thefts of legally held guns separately. The police
themselves tell us that the rate of theft of legal guns is negligible.
> Oh, and if the number of thefts are so low, why does the UK have such
> draconian laws?
>
I don't consider that being obliged to keep a lethal firearm and its
ammunition in a safe is draconian. It is a sensible precaution given the
damage that a unbalanced person could do with it if he burgled my house. If
you are referring to UK guns laws in general, then that's a subject for a
different thread. I've posted my views on the subject which should be
viewable through google.
> Simple answer to both questions... the Chunnel. Getting guns into the UK
> would have to be pretty damn easy...
>
It is. This is well known by everyone except the extreme anti-gun fringe
groups.
Harry The Horse
time, then they will, regardless of the level of security you have
implemented. However in the real world, burglars are not usually very
skilled and are usually scared of being caught so are rather pushed for
time. If you put obstacles in their way, in the form of decent security,
most will go away and look for easier pickings elsewhere.
Harry The Horse
news:5uudnVoQVNt...@look.ca...
>
> >> "michael price" wrote:
> >> > Then the laws an ass. Nothing is "secure" so requiring it to be
> >> > is impossible and therefore unconstituional.
>
> > >"Harry The Horse" wrote :
> >> So you leave your car and house unlocked?
>
> > "michael price" wrote:
> > No car, but I don't kid myself that people couldn't get into my
> > house if they wanted to. Security is an illusion.
>
> There's an old saying that goes, "a lock only stops an honest man"
>
Alex Cunningham
>> draconian laws?
>>"Harry The Horse" <> wrote
> I don't consider that being obliged to keep a lethal firearm and its
> ammunition in a safe is draconian.
I don't suppose you consider the banning of legal ownership of all handguns
draconian either.
Alex Cunningham
in message news:cdkVd.3841061$f47.6...@news.easynews.com...
> "in message
> news:5uudnVoQVNt...@look.ca...
>>
>> >> "michael price" wrote:
>> >> > Then the laws an ass. Nothing is "secure" so requiring it to be
>> >> > is impossible and therefore unconstituional.
>>
>> > >"Harry The Horse" wrote :
>> >> So you leave your car and house unlocked?
>>
>> > "michael price" wrote:
>> > No car, but I don't kid myself that people couldn't get into my
>> > house if they wanted to. Security is an illusion.
>>Alex Cunningham"wrote
>> There's an old saying that goes, "a lock only stops an honest man"
>>"Harry The Horse" wrote:
> Or a crook who doesn't have the time to thwart it.
That's the thing. A crook will take the time to "thwart it" It's what crooks
do.
Alex Cunningham
in message news:KckVd.3841025$f47.6...@news.easynews.com...
If a crook is looking to steal guns he will still have to break into a house
to see if there are any available to steal.
Incalcitrant
is available. Live your life as you choose . . . but have enough respect
for your neighbor to allow him likewise.
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:38kmhvF...@individual.net...
Harry The Horse
>
> > "BTMO" <bt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> Oh, and if the number of thefts are so low, why does the UK have such
> >> draconian laws?
>
> >>"Harry The Horse" <> wrote
> > I don't consider that being obliged to keep a lethal firearm and its
> > ammunition in a safe is draconian.
>
> I don't suppose you consider the banning of legal ownership of all
handguns
> draconian either.
>
for sensible storage provision for firearms could in no way imply support
for the post-Dunblane ban.
As it happens, I strongly opposed and continue to oppose the ban on the
sport of target shooting. I could hardly oppose the 'banning of legal
ownership of handguns' as they haven't been banned. I am a licensed owner
of several automatic pistols and revolvers.
Harry The Horse
>
>
> >>"Harry The Horse" wrote:
> > Or a crook who doesn't have the time to thwart it.
>
> That's the thing. A crook will take the time to "thwart it" It's what
crooks
> do.
>
Harry The Horse
news:BjlVd.3847001$f47.6...@news.easynews.com...
>
> As it happens, I strongly opposed and continue to oppose the ban on the
> sport of target shooting. I could hardly oppose the 'banning of legal
> ownership of handguns' as they haven't been banned. I am a licensed owner
> of several automatic pistols and revolvers.
>
to oppose the ban on the sport of target shooting with PISTOLS". Centre
fire target shooting with rifles is still legal.
Harry The Horse
Magus
True, if someone wants in YOUR house, specifically, they will find a way.
All it takes to defeat most standard key locks and deadbolts is a
cordless drill and about 30 seconds . Drill out the pins and open the
lock. Works on most pad locks too. Most tumbler assemblies are made of
brass so there is very little noise. A Master lock might take a 30-06
slug and not open [as shown on TV], but it fails every time to the drill.
If you're not home, regardless of how hardened or how much perceived
security you have, a determined individual is going to enter your home.
If you are home and someone breaks in, put a slug in the little bastard,
he gets buried, and nobody else ever has to worry about that particular
individual again.
This should be standard for all people and places:
"It is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs. He does not have
to... he is not obligated to retreat, nor to consider whether he can
safely retreat, but is entitled to stand his ground, and meet any
(life-threatening) attack made upon him with a deadly weapon..." Gibson
v. Commonwealth, 34 SW 936 (Ky. 1931).
Scott Steven Riley
"RD Sandman" <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1kz7ni21...@hopewell.invalid...
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:39:36 +1100, CD wrote:
>
>> <10x@teluös.net> wrote in message
>> news:prp321po8mmpec357...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 23:08:02 -0800, R_LaCasse
>>> <REMOVE_TH...@istar.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Police say the weapons aren't connected with two shooting incidents in
>>>>the
>>>>city this week.
>>>>
>>>>Staff Sergeant Ted Davis, head of the police intelligence unit, said
>>>>police
>>>>found a .22-calibre pistol, ammunition, crack cocaine and marijuana when
>>>>they raided an apartment in the Concession Street building at about 6
>>>>a.m.
>>>>
>>>>They charged a 21-year-old Hamilton man with unauthorized possession of
>>>>a
>>>>firearm, possession of a stolen firearm, possession of a restricted
>>>>weapon,
>>>>unsafe storage of a firearm and possession of drugs for the purpose of
>>>>trafficking.
>>>>
>>> Anyone care to explain how the licensing and registration system
>>> worked to catch these theives???
>>
>> helped
>> prevent them from being stolden in th first place.
>
> While true, being in a private home with the doors locked should be good
> enough. Anyone entering the home without the permission of the owner is
> committing a crime to begin with.
What if somebody picks up a rock of someone else's property and brains
somebody with it?
Unsafe storage of a rock?
...picks up a pointy rock, pointy stick, ties rock to stick, or shoots stick
from bow?
...drops rock from high building, shoots rock from catapult, shoots rock
from hollow bamboo with mixture of saltpeter/charcoal/sulfer, where is the
line drawn between property and action?
Making the owner of property responsible for crime is simply wrong.
It is saying the true criminal (thief or killer using stolen weapons) is not
responsible for his or her actions.
Harry The Horse
news:AIlVd.609306$b5.27...@news3.tin.it...
> >
>
> All it takes to defeat most standard key locks and deadbolts is a
> cordless drill and about 30 seconds . Drill out the pins and open the
> lock.
>
burglars will not carry tools, even standard DIY stuff such as power drills,
when they are going out to burgle. A buglar with 'previous' will face
almost certain conviction if caught by the police found in possession of a
power drill.
pyotr filipivich
wrote back on Tue, 1 Mar 2005 17:22:23 +1300 in talk.politics.guns :
>
>"Freddy K" <> wrote
>
>>> But surely, the police couldn't have known that until they examined
>>> the guns the thieves had and used the registration system to establish
>>> they did not own them.
>>
>> Yes. So it helped to catch the thieves.
>
>XXXXXXX stolen". That information would have helped the police catch thieves
>as well...
How?
A paperchase will show that the gun was sold to the B&E victim. Is
there a classification for firearms "transferred to persons unknown" by
means of a theft?
>
>>> This does not explain how the registration
>>> system helped to locate the thieves, only how the guns were
>>> established to have been stolen.
>>
>> A necessary aspect of catching thieves ie determining that they are
>> in possession of stolen goods.
>
>And a description by the owner is invalid... how?
>
>I don't know about you, but if someone stole something of mine (especially
>one of my guns) I would be pretty pissed. I would be down at the police
>station or on the phone giving a description as quickly as my little legs
>would carry me!
>
>Same for my PC, or the telly, or the camera or...
And now, the police have a description of the stolen goods.
How does a national registry of legal transfers help you now? They
start the paperchase, and viola - you are the last person to have the
stolen goods - you must be the criminal!
tschus
pyotr
>
--
pyotr filipivich
This is a .22 caliber derringer, one of the smallest, lightest handguns
ever made. It's over a hundred years old and might not even penetrate your
skull if I miss your eye socket. So you have to ask yourself just one
question: "Do I feel lucky?" - Ancient Kung Foole Proverb by Lady Foole
pyotr filipivich
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote back on Mon, 28 Feb 2005 09:45:06 GMT in
talk.politics.guns :
>
>> Really, this old fellow is a victim of a crime and the police want to
>> take the rest of his property away?
>
>Yes - he didn't adhere to the conditions of his licence.
>
>> Remember that the police knew the fellow had these firearms through
>> the gun registry. Someone breaks into his home and steals them and HE
>> becomes a threat to society?
>
>His problem is that he didn't secure them as required - and yes his laxity
>that allows thieves easy access to his firearms does raise questions about
>the appropriateness of allowing him to own them.
Unfortunately, he lives in Canada. Nice country, lovely people, lousy
Government.
He needed a liscense from the State to own firearms, and with that
liscence comes strings, if nothing else, the need to fill out the paperwork
and pay the attendant fees. ("No check, no tech") As his is not an
inalienable right granted him by his creator, the government can liscence,
restrict, revoke or otherwise control by executive fiat, his privilege to
posses firearms.
One more reason (for me) to not immigrate to Canada. To close to the
US, too far from sanity.
Magus
As I don't live in the UK I wasn't aware of that; thank you for pointing
it out.
Now, if you'll excues me, I have to take a little personal time to give
thanks to the universe that I don't live in the UK.
pyotr filipivich
<loco_d...@hotmail.com> wrote back on Tue, 1 Mar 2005 09:39:02 +1100 in
talk.politics.guns :
>
>> Baloney! Anyone willing to break into his home is willing to break
>> into his storage compartment.
>
>Come on, While locking something up might not stop all thief's, it a good
>idea to make it a little harder for them. Anyway it would appear that there
>is a storage requirement for firearms in Canada as the article mentions that
>the 2 thief's were charged with "unsafe storage of a firearm." So, it make
>sense as a firearm owner to protect your property by fulfilling the minimum
>standards required by the law.
>
>
>
>I'm a collector of Lee Enfields and have all my firearms stored in a 500kg
>safe. About 6 months ago the Police inspected my storeage, as required by
>New South Wales law and were very happy with my storage facilities.
All well and good.
But who decides? Do I have to lock up my guns because you have
children in you house? I'm a career bachelor, with few underage visitors
("she said she was 18 ... twenty years ago."), so "for the children"
doesn't make sense.
I also keep in mind my father's story of being called out to a migrant
camp, to investigate a report of a new born sleeping in a fruit box with an
electric light bulb for heat. That was the situation, which also meant the
baby had the best bed in the house. Unless you want to spend your money to
bring everybody up to your middle class standards, go ahead. Just leave me
out of it.
The comparison often gets made to automobiles, which are stolen more
often, and kill people more often. But if you had to store your automobile
with the same level of safety, you would not be allowed to park the car
anywhere but in a locked garage, with the gasoline drained and stored in a
separate locked facility.
pyotr filipivich
wrote back on Tue, 1 Mar 2005 12:34:09 +1300 in talk.politics.guns :
>
>> In the real world most burglaries are opportunistic. Decent locks and
>> alarm systems will persuade the burglar to try his luck somewhere else.
>
>In this country (New Zealand) all that is required for most firearms is a
>"stout locked cabinet" - it can be wooden, metal or a safe. There is no
>requirement for alarms.
>
>And surprise surprise, the number of firearm thefts is relatively low.
>Indeed, the only one I have heard about in the last year or so was... a
>collector who had an alarm system, a proper safe and all the rest. There is
>some evidence that he was targeted, and the thieves broke in while he was
>out, and had time to defeat the alarm, the locks, the safe. They had
>knowledge of what he had, and planned their attack accordingly.
The question which comes to me is the "obvious" one. Are the low "with
firearms" crime rates solely a result of the storage laws, or is there
other "cultural" elements which hold all crime rates down. That is to say,
if there is a high rate of Violent Crime X, and a low percentage of those
involve a firearm, that could be attributed to the safe storage laws. On
the other hand, there are few Violent Crime X, the fact that there are safe
storage laws is _probably_ not that much of a factor.
I have been told that the Japanese cultural imperative for co-operation
and peacefulness extends even to the Insane Asylums. Even the Criminally
Insane are not "violent". Of course, that could also be an artifact of the
Japanese judicial system - the criminally violent not being considered
"criminally insane", and thus not sent to the Asylums.
Harry The Horse
>
> Now, if you'll excues me, I have to take a little personal time to give
> thanks to the universe that I don't live in the UK.
>
Harry The Horse
news:3arb21hgm2raoro0r...@4ax.com...
>
> As his is not an
> inalienable right granted him by his creator, the government can liscence,
> restrict, revoke or otherwise control by executive fiat, his privilege to
> posses firearms.
>
the state?
Harry The Horse
pyotr filipivich
<HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote back on Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:09:33 GMT
in talk.politics.guns :
>
>> The question I would ask is how much "security" is enough? If I lock
>> my house (I have security bars all round and deadlocks on all doors)
>> then I question the need to also purchase a safe to store firearms in.
>> I do it because I have to, but it seems an unnecessary imposition.
>>
>authority, who has a secure room in which to keep his guns. He has no safe.
>Clearly if the room and house are sufficiently secure then a safe is
>superfluous. But for most people a safe is the most economical option.
I know of collectors in the States who have "secure rooms", some folks
have gone so far as to buy an old bank vault to use as a storage locker.
Others, just lock them in a wardrobe.
I wonder, can we cite an arms museum for not having their weapons
safely stored? After all, if they're just behind glass, that doesn't seem
to secure to me.
pyotr filipivich
price) wrote back on 1 Mar 2005 21:30:06 -0800 in talk.politics.guns :
>"Harry The Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<PfYUd.3706702$f47.6...@news.easynews.com>...
>> "michael price" <nini...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:5678a39d.05022...@posting.google.com...
>> >
>> > Then the laws an ass. Nothing is "secure" so requiring it to be
>> > is impossible and therefore unconstituional.
>> >
>> So you leave your car and house unlocked?
>
> No car, but I don't kid myself that people couldn't get into my
>house if they wanted to. Security is an illusion.
I read an article about Home Security written by G. Gordon Liddy. It
was focused on the securing of Private Art collections (that Pierson in the
living room kind of thing.)
His observation was there were basically two kinds of thieves. The one
will spend the time and effort to discover what your security is, and how
to bypass it. (Think "Mission Impossible".) The other style is what he
calls the Four Yugos. Four big beefy guys (usually Yugoslavians at the
time of his writing) will break in, working on the theory they can get in,
goods and out, before any response can stop them. All you can do is
combine the hard security of alarms and locks, with a certain amount of
"security by obscurity", and keep your insurance premiums paid up.
But there is no need to make it easier. But living in a high security
facility is not fun. You can ask Prince Harry about that. :-)
tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."
Clive Taylor
<HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Alex Cunningham" <sly_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:0aqdnQ11PJJ...@look.ca...
>>
>> > "BTMO" <bt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> Oh, and if the number of thefts are so low, why does the UK have such
>> >> draconian laws?
>>
>> >>"Harry The Horse" <> wrote
>> > I don't consider that being obliged to keep a lethal firearm and its
>> > ammunition in a safe is draconian.
It's not draconian, it's just plain sensible.
>> I don't suppose you consider the banning of legal ownership of all
>handguns
>> draconian either.
>>
>That's called a strawman sonny. And a particularly obtuse one as support
>for sensible storage provision for firearms could in no way imply support
>for the post-Dunblane ban.
>
>As it happens, I strongly opposed and continue to oppose the ban on the
>sport of target shooting. I could hardly oppose the 'banning of legal
>ownership of handguns' as they haven't been banned. I am a licensed owner
>of several automatic pistols and revolvers.
>
Aaah! A section 7 owner (.1 or .3 - can never remember which for home
collection) ...... but you don't shoot them do you? Then you'd have
store those self same pistols at an approved range and shoot them
there behind locked doors.
pyotr filipivich
<HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote back on Wed, 02 Mar 2005 14:38:00 GMT
in talk.politics.guns :
Okay, a lock stops only the honest man. Or the lazy crook.
Okay, the two things a lock stops are the honest man ad the lazy crook.
Or the incompetent crook.
Three things a lock stops, and honest man, a lazy or incompetent crook.
Or a forgetful owner ...
Can I go out and start over from the top...?
>
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them, Selecting a new Them
pyotr filipivich
in talk.politics.guns :
Bwahahaha. That's why there are liberals, who don't believe in evil
(except amongst honest citizens, for some bizarro world reason.)
tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Harry The Horse
news:gvsb21h60h3hmtlqv...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 15:53:05 GMT, "Harry The Horse"
>
> collection) ...... but you don't shoot them do you?
>
there. The restrictions that obtain to 7(3) are draconian and idiotic. I
am thinking of joining a pistol club in Calais (only 25 miles from where I
live) and moving the whole lot there. It would certainly be cheaper and
less hassle.
Harry The Horse
>
> I wonder, can we cite an arms museum for not having their weapons
> safely stored? After all, if they're just behind glass, that doesn't seem
> to secure to me.
>
Harry The Horse
> >>
> >If someone really wants to get into your house or car, has the skill and
the
> >time, then they will, regardless of the level of security you have
> >implemented. However in the real world, burglars are not usually very
> >skilled and are usually scared of being caught so are rather pushed for
> >time. If you put obstacles in their way, in the form of decent security,
> >most will go away and look for easier pickings elsewhere.
>
> Bwahahaha. That's why there are liberals, who don't believe in evil
> (except amongst honest citizens, for some bizarro world reason.)
>
responded to mine. I am talking about the practicalities of discouraging a
thrieving sccrote from breaking into my house. You appear to be high on
something.
RD Sandman
It depends on how bad he wants what is inside. If he doesn't feel the
reward would be worth it he will go next door or somewhere else.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
RD Sandman
> "michael price" <nini...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5678a39d.05030...@posting.google.com...
>> "Harry The Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<PfYUd.3706702$f47.6...@news.easynews.com>...
>>> "michael price" <nini...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5678a39d.05022...@posting.google.com...
>>> >
>>> > Then the laws an ass. Nothing is "secure" so requiring it to be
>>> > is impossible and therefore unconstituional.
>>> >
>>> So you leave your car and house unlocked?
>>
>> No car, but I don't kid myself that people couldn't get into my
>> house if they wanted to. Security is an illusion.
>>
> If someone really wants to get into your house or car, has the skill and the
> time, then they will, regardless of the level of security you have
> implemented. However in the real world, burglars are not usually very
> skilled and are usually scared of being caught so are rather pushed for
> time. If you put obstacles in their way, in the form of decent security,
> most will go away and look for easier pickings elsewhere.
Damn, the same reaction as when citizens can carry firearms for defense.
Jeff Berlin
Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> "Paul (Oz)" <nom...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:uo1a2153tqm5svnjg...@4ax.com...
> > I understand your position but I *never* leave my door unlocked. But
> > since we are postulating the improbable; What if I also forgot to lock
> > my safe?
>
> **Forgetting to lock your front door AND your gun safe, would be extremely
> unfortunate.
What Trevvy is trying to say(and wants and believes in) is that if you
"forget", then you are GUILTY of any crime committed with your stolen
property.
No matter how air tight your alibi is, YOU are guilty of murder or
whatever, if your knives, guns, cars, gasoline, blunt objects, etc. are
used in a crime.
Jeff Berlin
Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> "James F. Mayer" <jf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
> > But you feel that is not so bad that he has stolen everything else to pay
> > for his drug habit.
>
> **No. I feel that Australian society is MUCH safer without making it easy
> for junkies to get guns.
Then why is your "society" getting worse and so much more "unsafe?"
Alex Cunningham
>> All it takes to defeat most standard key locks and deadbolts is a
>> cordless drill and about 30 seconds . Drill out the pins and open the
>> lock.
>>"Harry The Horse" wrote:
> In the UK there is the offence of 'going equipped'. This means that
> burglars will not carry tools, even standard DIY stuff such as power
> drills,
> when they are going out to burgle. A buglar with 'previous' will face
> almost certain conviction if caught by the police found in possession of a
> power drill.
You also have in the UK, Yardies and other assorted gangbangers in all the
major cities that go around carrying concealed handguns. That is against the
law also but it does not stop them.
A charge of "being in possession of burglary tools" is a hard one to
substantiate if the person arrested was/is in anyway a DYI type.
--
Cheers.
Alex C.
There are 12,000,000 sheep in Ontario.
Problem is 9,000,000 of them think they are people.
Alex Cunningham
>> > If someone really wants to get into your house or car, has the skill
>> > and
>> > the
>> > time, then they will, regardless of the level of security you have
>> > implemented. However in the real world, burglars are not usually very
>> > skilled and are usually scared of being caught so are rather pushed for
>> > time. If you put obstacles in their way, in the form of decent
> security,
>> > most will go away and look for easier pickings elsewhere.
>>Alex Cunningham" <sly_...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> If a crook is looking to steal guns he will still have to break into a
>> house to see if there are any available to steal.
>>"Harry The Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote
> So additional security would be required.
So by your reasoning every householder should have, Fort Knox type security
whether they have firearms on the premises or not?
Alex Cunningham
> >> >>"Harry The Horse" wrote:
>> > Or a crook who doesn't have the time to thwart it.
>>"Alex Cunningham" wrote:
>> That's the thing. A crook will take the time to "thwart it" It's what
> crooks do.
>>"Harry The Horse" wrote:
> You must have a different sort of crook in Canada.
Not particularly. A crook is a crook.
Some are possibly more resourceful and determined than others is all.
William Black
> I wonder, can we cite an arms museum for not having their weapons
> safely stored? After all, if they're just behind glass, that doesn't seem
> to secure to me.
In the UK you'll find that the whole building the museum sits inside is the
'secure container'.
The requirements for secure storage in the UK can be met by anything, a
safe, a room, a whole building.
However, there's an old story...
Once upon a time the storage requirements in the UK were made binding on
museums.
The police said all firearms must be securely stored every night.
The then curator of the Imperial War Museum (I think it was Dr Alan Borg at
the time) invited his local crime prevention officer round and told him that
the museum could provide secure storage for the two huge battleship guns
outside the front of the museum, but could the police please send round a
couple of very strong constables every night to help lift them into the
necessary box...
Museum cases containing weapons tend to be both alarmed and a reasonable
distance from any exit, all of which tend to have attendants standing there
making sure nobody is leaving with a rifle stuck down their trousers.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
Harry The Horse
>
> > >> >>"Harry The Horse" wrote:
> >> > Or a crook who doesn't have the time to thwart it.
>
> >>"Alex Cunningham" wrote:
> >> That's the thing. A crook will take the time to "thwart it" It's what
> > crooks do.
>
> >>"Harry The Horse" wrote:
> > You must have a different sort of crook in Canada.
>
> Not particularly. A crook is a crook.
> Some are possibly more resourceful and determined than others is all.
>
security measures.
Alex Cunningham
"in message news:NspVd.60744$Zm5....@news.easynews.com...
> in message
> news:yKmdnZw5GY4...@look.ca...
>>
>> > >> >>"Harry The Horse" wrote:
>> >> > Or a crook who doesn't have the time to thwart it.
>>
>> >>"Alex Cunningham" wrote:
>> >> That's the thing. A crook will take the time to "thwart it" It's what
>> > crooks do.
>>
>> >>"Harry The Horse" wrote:
>> > You must have a different sort of crook in Canada.
>>"Alex Cunningham" <sly_...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Not particularly. A crook is a crook.
>> Some are possibly more resourceful and determined than others is all.
>>Harry The Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote
> No you don't. Because most crooks in Britain are deterred by sensible
> security measures.
While Canadian crooks aren't? You're delusional.
As for the rest of your statement I am wishing that I could send you a sound
bite in reply.
Imagine if you will the sound of somewhat hysterical derisive laughter.
Your violent street crime is out of control along with the binge drinking
culture that has developed over the last few years. Your hot burglary rates
are amongst the highest around because when a burglar is apprehended by a
householder the householder runs the serious risk of prosecution for
assault.
Blair recently promised that the law would be changed in order for
householders to repel burglars without fear of prosecution then immediately
reneged.
William Black
.
> Imagine if you will the sound of somewhat hysterical derisive laughter.
> Your violent street crime is out of control along with the binge drinking
> culture that has developed over the last few years. Your hot burglary
rates
> are amongst the highest around because when a burglar is apprehended by a
> householder the householder runs the serious risk of prosecution for
> assault.
Nope.
> Blair recently promised that the law would be changed in order for
> householders to repel burglars without fear of prosecution then
immediately
> reneged.
Nope.