Thread: Man who shot teen dead in hunting accident 22 years ago loses firearms licence bid

Originally Posted by northdude

Yet repeat drunk drivers get their licenses back

Yes, and get to be in charge of a much deadlier weapon. Maybe some hypocrisy and inconsistency there, but society as a whole accepts that the road toll is an unfortunate and not entirely avoidable side-effect of motor vehicle use. For some reason society is reluctant to accept a much lower death toll, any death toll, to arise from gun use. But we are never going to have a zero accidental death toll from firearms.

I was interested to read the following:

"Southland police area commander inspector Joel Lamb said he had spoken to police officers in Tuatapere and they had expressed concern about the feelings in the community if Diack were to be granted a firearms licence."
"Lamb said the major reason police had refused Diack's application for a firearms application was due to the 1996 shooting."

In regard to the "fit and proper or not" test as per the Arms Act, the fact that you may be unpopular, with respect to the bereaved, is frankly irrelevant to whether you are fit and proper. And if you are fit and proper, unpopularity should not be used to block you getting a FAL. If you are fit and proper you SHALL be granted a FAL, that is the law.

Punching someone ... bummer, should not have done. Seems that should correctly be looked into when determining if someone is fit and proper. Violence towards men is (also) not OK.

IMHO shooting someone and having 22 yrs to reflect on it is plenty assurance that someone will now take excellent care around guns, it is also a great vaccination against the stupid notion of bringing a firearm to a fight. The guy is dedicating part of his life to saving lives, for goodness sake, what might be motivating him to do such a thing? No prizes given for correct answers.

B

Originally Posted by Cordite

Yes, and get to be in charge of a much deadlier weapon. Maybe some hypocrisy and inconsistency there, but society as a whole accepts that the road toll is an unfortunate and not entirely avoidable side-effect of motor vehicle use. For some reason society is reluctant to accept a much lower death toll, any death toll, to arise from gun use. But we are never going to have a zero accidental death toll from firearms.

I was interested to read the following:

"Southland police area commander inspector Joel Lamb said he had spoken to police officers in Tuatapere and they had expressed concern about the feelings in the community if Diack were to be granted a firearms licence."
"Lamb said the major reason police had refused Diack's application for a firearms application was due to the 1996 shooting."

In regard to the "fit and proper or not" test as per the Arms Act, the fact that you may be unpopular, with respect to the bereaved, is frankly irrelevant to whether you are fit and proper. And if you are fit and proper, unpopularity should not be used to block you getting a FAL. If you are fit and proper you SHALL be granted a FAL, that is the law.

Punching someone ... bummer, should not have done. Seems that should correctly be looked into when determining if someone is fit and proper. Violence towards men is (also) not OK.

IMHO shooting someone and having 22 yrs to reflect on it is plenty assurance that someone will now take excellent care around guns, it is also a great vaccination against the stupid notion of bringing a firearm to a fight. The guy is dedicating part of his life to saving lives, for goodness sake, what might be motivating him to do such a thing? No prizes given for correct answers.

And yet some one kings hits my son from behind in a non confrontal situation, knocks him unconscious on his feet, lucky not to smash his head on the concrete, but does go into hospital over night, judge gives diversion, go figure!!

Originally Posted by Maca49

B
And yet some one kings hits my son from behind in a non confrontal situation, knocks him unconscious on his feet, lucky not to smash his head on the concrete, but does go into hospital over night, judge gives diversion, go figure!!

Diversion for an unprovoked violent assault. That really is a bullshit ruling and I think that is an outrage !! A few months of sodomy in the cells would have fixed that arsehole. Regarding the shooting case in this thread, the police may not have focused on the common assault but that does not mean that the Judge considered it minor. Diack did that, even though he knew the eyes of the law were or would be upon him in the future judging his actions with regard to FL applications. As men we can all loose our tempers at times and want to punch someone, that is just a part of being a man, but unless the situation is really serious we control ourselves. Seems to me like a small financial debt isn't justifiable provocation to loose control. I don't want a bloke who cant control his temper and make sound snap decisions joining the ranks of good honest firearms licence holders.