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

Originally Posted by Solo

I think a problem a lot of us are having here is that we can't really imagine ourselves accidentally shooting someone. We look at the level of negligence required, and we are certain that we couldn't make that number of consecutive mistakes. I know this is how I feel, and I hope I never have to re-examine that mindset. I fully accept that I am fallible, and I've certainly made mistakes due to negligence in other areas of my life. But I treat firearms safety with such reverence that it just doesn't seem possible.

In light of all that, I absolutely believe in rehabilitation, and that we shouldn't repeatedly punish someone for the same offence, but I'm sure the people who have these incidents didn't see themselves as irresponsible at the time, so I'd be wary to trust their own judgement of their safety again.

@Solo

In deed, safety begins when we admit we are unsafe and fallible. Problem within that problem is that we treat hunters who do such things as criminals, and since WE are not criminals ourselves it leads to a very unhelpful disconnect. Some like Wayne Edgerton have been so certain of their immunity to error that they were prepared to throw fellow hunters under a bus. And we know what he ended up doing himself. Labeling those who make mistakes as bad eggs contributes nothing to safety, rather the opposite.

It would have been great to see Mr Edgerton in court supporting Mr Diack's reapplication. Now that would have been real gun safety promotion.

Putting aside for a moment the case of Mr Diack, I don't believe that current firearms training and licencing is sufficient at all. I have never met even one new firearms licence holder who is actually fully up to speed with safe firearms handling. Hopefully the new system under MSC will fix this.
Then as far as field target identification, well we are relying on some silly rods in our eyes to receive refracted/reflected light waves from an object and then for our brains to correctly interpret that information. It is easy for a mistake to be made with visual identification. We must be made aware of the potential for mistakes to be made, how they are made and have a check system. For example the Graf Boys ' Assume everything is Human until you prove otherwise' is vastly superior to Positively identify etc...
So back to Mr Diack if he had undertaken training courses with MSC, assisted at a range and talked at his local school about his mistake. Then he could put his hand on his heart in front of the court and say "this is how I made mistakes leading to the fatal accidental shooting" "I can promise the court and the public that if issued with a firearms licence I will never make a firearms mistake again". That to me would be rehabilitation. Instead he has punched someone over a small debt and even the aspirations to fire chief may have a dark side - We always have two reasons that we do something, The one that we tell everyone and the real one !!

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

Putting aside for a moment the case of Mr Diack, I don't believe that current firearms training and licencing is sufficient at all. I have never met even one new firearms licence holder who is actually fully up to speed with safe firearms handling. Hopefully the new system under MSC will fix this.
Then as far as field target identification, well we are relying on some silly rods in our eyes to receive refracted/reflected light waves from an object and then for our brains to correctly interpret that information. It is easy for a mistake to be made with visual identification. We must be made aware of the potential for mistakes to be made, how they are made and have a check system. For example the Graf Boys ' Assume everything is Human until you prove otherwise' is vastly superior to Positively identify etc...
So back to Mr Diack if he had undertaken training courses with MSC, assisted at a range and talked at his local school about his mistake. Then he could put his hand on his heart in front of the court and say "this is how I made mistakes leading to the fatal accidental shooting" "I can promise the court and the public that if issued with a firearms licence I will never make a firearms mistake again". That to me would be rehabilitation. Instead he has punched someone over a small debt and even the aspirations to fire chief may have a dark side - We always have two reasons that we do something, The one that we tell everyone and the real one !!

@Moa Hunter

Yes, the presumption of human till otherwise established seems correct, except hunters are tuned in to look for non-human targets, so it is as unnatural/non-intuitive as using your middle finger as trigger finger (although in theory it is the ideal finger for the job what with a straighter tendon, better hold on gun between index/thumb etc, etc).

Blaze colour choice orange vs blue has been debated a lot, but perhaps at the expense of the role of SHAPE, or lack of shape. Whether blue or orange, the current blaze hunting clothes you can buy have unhelpful black disruptive patterns which break up shape. Not super clever if adrenaline charged brains tune into shape and movement. Read: adrenaline may effectively render us partially colour blind - similar to the animals who are supposed not to notice the blaze orange - by focusing attention away from colour and on to size/shape instead!

Never mind that colour vision is poorer in lower light dusk/dawn situations. Uniformly coloured orange or blue blaze is then more likely to save your life, because your shape is less broken up.

Blaze orange:


Blaze orange, grayscale, notice the effect of the disruptive black patterns in breaking up body shape:

In reply to Cordite re 'presume Human until proven otherwise'. This is not our natural response or as Cordite says it is not our intuitive response BUT that does not mean that it cannot become our learned response and behavior. It should be taught to put a check on that intuitive response, slow it down just enough to make a definitive decision.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

Putting aside for a moment the case of Mr Diack, I don't believe that current firearms training and licencing is sufficient at all. I have never met even one new firearms licence holder who is actually fully up to speed with safe firearms handling. Hopefully the new system under MSC will fix this.
Then as far as field target identification, well we are relying on some silly rods in our eyes to receive refracted/reflected light waves from an object and then for our brains to correctly interpret that information. It is easy for a mistake to be made with visual identification. We must be made aware of the potential for mistakes to be made, how they are made and have a check system. For example the Graf Boys ' Assume everything is Human until you prove otherwise' is vastly superior to Positively identify etc...
So back to Mr Diack if he had undertaken training courses with MSC, assisted at a range and talked at his local school about his mistake. Then he could put his hand on his heart in front of the court and say "this is how I made mistakes leading to the fatal accidental shooting" "I can promise the court and the public that if issued with a firearms licence I will never make a firearms mistake again". That to me would be rehabilitation. Instead he has punched someone over a small debt and even the aspirations to fire chief may have a dark side - We always have two reasons that we do something, The one that we tell everyone and the real one !!

I wonder if the situation has come about because no one wants to sign on the dotted line that this man is fit to regain his firearms licence. Imagine the public outrage if he was to have another incident in the future. The backlash towards the police and judge would be huge, especially with the media coverage that has been shown. NZ Police and justice system get a hard enough time as it is with leniant sentences. Maybe this is them making an example to all other firearms owners.
I think it's just a case of this being the easiest and safest option for the people involved. ARSE COVERING

Originally Posted by scottyrees

I wonder if the situation has come about because no one wants to sign on the dotted line that this man is fit to regain his firearms licence.

I think it's just a case of this being the easiest and safest option for the people involved. ARSE COVERING

It's simply a case of neither the cops or the judge wanting to give a licence to someone who is not a fit and proper person to have one.

His actions, 17 years after the fatal shooting, were irrational and violent and showed he had not learned how to control his aggression, the judge said.

Diack was "possibly a risk to others if he had access to firearms".

"His actions in 2013 and 2014 indicates he can't control himself properly and in my view he isn't a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence."

The interesting point to me is that the judiciary are too frequently criticised for their “wet bus ticket” approach to consequences for breaking the law

In this instance the judge has felt otherwise; regardless of our interpretation of the media information provided, it serves to remind us all that the courts do view firearms misuse, and any associated anger management issues as serious, and our FAL is in serious jeopardy

Regardless of the ‘human’ side to this sad case where a young man lost his life; the law, our law is clear; there are consequences if you stuff up. If there’s any hint of lack of remorse or changed behaviours, the law steps up.

Good on the courts!!!

I never kicked anyone. If he’s not fit and proper then thats that. Shit drivers is another matter

@Moa Hunter

I agree with your description of how things are currently viewed, but the current public, legal and court logic is wrong:

1. Gun purpose: kill animals, hole targets.
2. Car purpose: get places, carry stuff.
3. Car & gun used to accidentally kill someone.
----------
4. We persecute the shooter.

The logic break oi course occurs between (3) and (4). Something else happens there, based on a strong mental association between guns and war / murder... So we are deeply resistant to process the idea of gun accidental deaths.

To increase the contrast, Hollywood rarely portrays how devastatingly effective cars are at killing people, occupants and bystanders alike.

So in the end it comes down to a simple 'guns are evil, cars are not' delusion, widely held, even by many shooters.

That is why the latest court case (correctly IMHO) got hailed as a victory for gun control.

Mad? Yes. For real? Yes.

Originally Posted by Cordite

@Moa Hunter

I agree with your description of how things are currently viewed, but the current public, legal and court logic is wrong:

1. Gun purpose: kill animals, hole targets.
2. Car purpose: get places, carry stuff.
3. Car & gun used to accidentally kill someone.
----------
4. We persecute the shooter.

The logic break oi course occurs between (3) and (4). Something else happens there, based on a strong mental association between guns and war / murder... So we are deeply resistant to process the idea of gun accidental deaths.

To increase the contrast, Hollywood rarely portrays how devastatingly effective cars are at killing people, occupants and bystanders alike.

So in the end it comes down to a simple 'guns are evil, cars are not' delusion, widely held, even by many shooters.

That is why the latest court case (correctly IMHO) got hailed as a victory for gun control.

Mad? Yes. For real? Yes.

Of Course we are all totally shocked, sickened and saddened by the accident photos in your last post Cordite. If I may make a comment that I believe represents the view of others here without actually asking them, however I doubt that I am wrong.
As to the quoted post above: When a hunter makes the decision to squeeze the trigger and fire a shot, they have made a decision to Kill. Not disable, wound, incapacitate or maim but to 'Kill' the animal they have taken aim at. This is quite a different situation to that when a person for example picks up someone else's firearm and accidentally discharges it killing another person. Or perhaps an inexperienced poorly trained person trips in the field and discharges their firearm with the same result. To my mind these handling errors are more comparable to a driving error that leads to a fatal accident. Crazy mad high speed reckless driving is different. We might perhaps consider that a fatality from reckless firearms use like firing a high-powered semi auto for fun into a block of trees might be considered accidental. But now back to our shooter who has fired that deliberate shot with the intention of killing, he has achieved his intended goal and killed, but sadly not the deer that he imagined.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

Of Course we are all totally shocked, sickened and saddened by the accident photos in your last post Cordite. If I may make a comment that I believe represents the view of others here without actually asking them, however I doubt that I am wrong.
As to the quoted post above: When a hunter makes the decision to squeeze the trigger and fire a shot, they have made a decision to Kill. Not disable, wound, incapacitate or maim but to 'Kill' the animal they have taken aim at. This is quite a different situation to that when a person for example picks up someone else's firearm and accidentally discharges it killing another person. Or perhaps an inexperienced poorly trained person trips in the field and discharges their firearm with the same result. To my mind these handling errors are more comparable to a driving error that leads to a fatal accident. Crazy mad high speed reckless driving is different. We might perhaps consider that a fatality from reckless firearms use like firing a high-powered semi auto for fun into a block of trees might be considered accidental. But now back to our shooter who has fired that deliberate shot with the intention of killing, he has achieved his intended goal and killed, but sadly not the deer that he imagined.

@Moa Hunter,

Thanks, I agree handling errors are perhaps excusable if it is someone not licensed/trained in firearms handling, less so by a licensed person, but then again currently there has been no practical safety training in handling guns. But are we to make breaking the target identification rule the unpardonable sin, but pointing a possibly loaded firearm around in unsafe directions somehow more forgivable? Maybe you're right, since target misidentification is often committed by experienced hunters, whereas the other types of error seem more like untrained ignorance.

You are correct to specify that the "intent to kill" we speak of when pulling the trigger is an intent to kill an animal, not an intent to kill a human. And therefore we cannot transform it on hindsight into intent to kill another person.

IMHO going for a drive and shooting at an animal to humanely kill it are morally neutral. That is, nothing inherently wrong with either act. If we accept that, it follows that accidentally killing someone by car or by gun while carrying out the above respective activities are also morally neutral and should be treated equally by our Courts. That is, neither as a crime as crimes require "malice aforethought".

But should we correct matters by going lighter on gun-accidentees, or by going harder on car-accidentees? Both certainly warrant a serious response, no doubt we agree.

Would it be a fair view to take regarding both hunting and driving accidents that we should expect to make mistakes and that we therefore need to be actually trained in how to identify those high danger areas and situations and how to mitigate them. Through better training and more stringent testing of both hunters and drivers the general standard would be higher for one and any borderline individuals across the testing programme would be weeded out - that is people who may not be able to keep it together and drive defensively when the really need to for example.
My Mrs is a German import, over there she did night classes three or four nights a week as well as practical training on weekends for three months as part of the driver licence training.
IMHO German drivers have a much higher skill level than Kiwis.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

Would it be a fair view to take regarding both hunting and driving accidents that we should expect to make mistakes and that we therefore need to be actually trained in how to identify those high danger areas and situations and how to mitigate them. Through better training and more stringent testing of both hunters and drivers the general standard would be higher for one and any borderline individuals across the testing programme would be weeded out - that is people who may not be able to keep it together and drive defensively when the really need to for example.
My Mrs is a German import, over there she did night classes three or four nights a week as well as practical training on weekends for three months as part of the driver licence training.
IMHO German drivers have a much higher skill level than Kiwis.

@Moa Hunter

Your Mrs too? My German taught me to drive better, she still does in fact....(-:

When I did my FAL last year we were all told "don't worry you pretty much can't fail" this alone should ring alarm bells, basically leaving your referees and interview with the arms officer to decide if you get you licence or not.
On the evening I did my test there were 2 clowns there that were basically coached through the whole multiple choice test, even the mountain safety guy was getting frustrated with them. I remember hearing him say on a few occasions "pick the answer that is MOST correct" then going through the responses emphasising the CORRECT answer. These 2 clowns should probably never handle a firearm without competent supervision (FYI no one failed that night). I have heard lots of similar stories "don't worry mate unless your dead you can't fail your FAL etc..." So really until we fix firearms licencing there will more than likely be firearms accidents. Sad but true.

Has anyone actually heard of someone failing the FAL test ?

Originally Posted by dannyb

When I did my FAL last year we were all told "don't worry you pretty much can't fail" this alone should ring alarm bells, basically leaving your referees and interview with the arms officer to decide if you get you licence or not.
On the evening I did my test there were 2 clowns there that were basically coached through the whole multiple choice test, even the mountain safety guy was getting frustrated with them. I remember hearing him say on a few occasions "pick the answer that is MOST correct" then going through the responses emphasising the CORRECT answer. These 2 clowns should probably never handle a firearm without competent supervision (FYI no one failed that night). I have heard lots of similar stories "don't worry mate unless your dead you can't fail your FAL etc..." So really until we fix firearms licencing there will more than likely be firearms accidents. Sad but true.

Has anyone actually heard of someone failing the FAL test ?

Which accidents do you purpose the new system will be likely to lower?