Printable View
I understand and can agree with all of you who say he should never have a gun licence.
In the back of my mind though is the nagging thought that there needs to always be a path to redemption. My father, once a senior police officer, always said, Forgive, but don't forget.
If you don't question the system there is no improvement. I don't believe for a second that there is anyone in the current system that thinks it's fit for purpose and not needing improvement.Quote:
Originally Posted by inglishill
The issue is - the people administering it are not looking at it from the lens of an end-user, they are only looking at it from a simplification and cost reduction model overlayed with a 'make it simple for us so it can't be cocked up by the people we employ cheaply to do the work' filter.
For us as the people who are the 'users' of the system (as opposed to the beneficiarys in the public at large as a safety regime) the simplified and cost reduced model will never supply what we need in terms of technology changing, different types of activities that need to be completed, so there is always going to be friction. Example being 3-gun - no one to my knowledge was injured from a shooting at one of these events so by definition the sport was safe and it was only when someone who shouldn't have been granted access was that there was a problem (or 51+), but due to events it was deemed 'too hard' so was gone-d.
This is scary accurate:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DI15F...FxMXY1djF1cjFq
The bloke doesn't need a gun licence if he wants to revert to crime again. Everyone knows that.
He wanted a gun licence so that he can enjoy hunting, the bush, nature. And influence the disadvantaged into doing the same.
Fill your boots I say.
Just 'cos we are pissy about the gun laws and how we and others are treated does not mean that this guy doesn't deserve a break. He's maybe done more for society in seeking his redemption in a short time than many FAL holders have done in their lifetime.
Im all for giving people a chance but theres a bit of a diffetence between a dumb mistake and repeat offending. In this case 15 times? Thats not a dumb mistake or in the wrong place at the time to me that shows total
Disreguard for the law and anyone else.
I feel for the people working at the Firearm safety authority after this making the news. Ex convict applications are going to soar
You win the internet today. If you are ever in Auckland, I'll buy you a beer.Quote:
Originally Posted by norsk
True. The issue is the inconsistent nature. People having licenses removed for speeding tickets but 15x criminal conviction gets a licenseQuote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
You are right, but I think that your points are not the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
For a FAL holder who's been through the fisher and paykel test (sorry fit and proper person assessment rigmarole for a FAL) anything that is a minor offense becomes a black mark that can be used to remove your right to hold that FAL. And yes it is a right to hold the FAL if you meet the requirements, and not a privilege as there are specific processes enshrined in the legislation to challenge a revocation of the license despite the waffle about it being a privilege...
If you have never held a FAL and seriously offended in the past - it seems that those offences can be deemed to be 'in the past' despite the associations you have made and any links that may or may not remain. People don't just decide on the spur of the moment to commit violent crime, there is a whole ecosystem of people and social and environmental factors that contribute to the normalisation of the risk taking behaviour that leads a person to decide that the possible rewards of violent offending is worth any perceived risk. Once those links/contacts have been established they are still there in some form and for me it's the same as giving an ex-gang member a FAL - the contacts and risks remain in some form even if the individual has left that lifestyle.
That is the issue for me here, for a FAL holder that makes one error of judgement that is entirely isolated for what may be entirely understandable contributing factors and does not involve links and established criminal connections that can remain long after the offending - this can be enough to cause a revocation of the licence. Yet for whatever length of time these people have chosen to live a life of violence and premeditated criminal action, this can somehow be overlooked? There is a test of rationality and fairness that appears to be missing here.
How is the register a simplification and cost reduction?Quote:
Originally Posted by No.3
Get caught drink driving too many times= no more licence ever
I hear this sort of thing a lot, can you point me in the direction to where this is documented?Quote:
Originally Posted by blip
I have tried to find the source information but have been unable to.
Every 'thing' is tracked. The theory being that the system knows what's out there, where and with who - simpler than relying on a 'high trust' "vetted license holder" model. The issue with the vetting system is how do you ensure that the vetting is done right every time without an expensive audit system?Quote:
Originally Posted by inglishill
In reality - we on the ground can see the failures with the registry in terms of accuracy and usefulness but it's much much simpler to audit that as a database of 'things' rather than having an audit division having to retrospectively revisit fit and proper person tests and that's it.
The license testing model is changing from July again too, much fewer people to audit with more stringent access requirements to complete the testing to jump through that hoop to get your licence...
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danger Mouse