Any more the whole things gone.
Any more the whole things gone.
@Moa HunterQuote:
Originally Posted by Moa Hunter
I think you summarise quite well why I posted the images, thanks, but add an element of frustration. It was to stir up debate, because as pointed out above there's massive denial about a horror side of our favourite transport, but my frustration was of how up in arms people get about a shooter who is no worse in his accident.
Half as gruesome images would have done better though --- but I suspect the problem of forum members is more to do with a perfectly normal human aversion to contemplating human death. What got to me in the motorbike image was that the guy had cool gloves... of no use to him. His mode of death was as uninteresting as it was obvious. Yes, show them to your son for his road safety so he knows the kind of cold mind he needs for the road. Plenty rifle suicide brain shot pictures out there too when it comes to firearms safety training. Instill absolute gut revulsion at even the thought of pointing a firearm in an unsafe direction.
Has anyone in New Zealand ever accidentally fatally shot somebody and got their firearms licence back?
No it's not jakewire, the reverse is actually true. We are all being made to think about what is important. While it is great to learn from the fantastic pool of firearms and hunting knowledge here related to our sport intermingled with all forms of humor, we only have that sport we love because it is accepted by society as a whole. Some members of the non hunting public might find a dog shredding a possum, a goat running around with its guts hanging out bleating like a human child crying, or two dogs stretching a piglet out like a guitar string just as offensive as the road fatality images, things that we can look at and with heartfelt compassion say " that fixed the bastard"??Quote:
Originally Posted by jakewire
This thread started because Systolic thought it important enough to bring the case of Diacks re-licencing to our attention. I am pleased he did.
Has anyone in New Zealand ever accidentally fatally shot somebody and got their firearms licence back??
I think you misunderstood me Moa Hunter so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
I'll make it clear.
It takes me one click and everything disappears.
Any more abuse of members and that is exactly what will happen.
Not sure about you, but I don’t see photos of dismembered bodies on TV3 news, Facebook, Stuff, the Press or anywhere else in my daily goings.
Regardless of the context or how you think it applies and is appropriate to a Hunting forum- it’s not, and is not going to be accepted in any way.
What was an interesting civil discussion was well fucked by that interjection.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is someone who has fatally shot another and has a firearms license - yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by .300 RUM Guy
Whether it was lost and regained, never lost, or issued for the 1st after said event - unsure exactly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Drunk drivers who cause a fatal accident can get their licence back in due time. So should a person in a hunting/shooting accident be allowed to gain a licence back?
Thanks Spanners.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spanners
@Paddy79Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddy79
Yes, if the shooter wasn't drinking. Except for former All Blacks of course.
Correction - that was a NON fatal accident.
Thank you for your very honest posting dannyb. Your post is a much better start point for us to make a difference than a discussion debating societies and the courts comparative view of road accident versus shooting accidents . As I have said before I have never seen even one new firearms licence holder who is fully trained in firearms handling safety. I am sure that there are things that I would do better with some better training too.Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyb
I will open this up with two good sound habits for new licence holders:
1)Get in the habit of stopping at a perimeter line - could be a garden gate for example that you 'do not cross' without checking your firearm is safe and that means bolt out or gun broken, action pined back mag out empty before you proceed to a dwelling etc.
2) Count your ammo before you go hunting, shooting rabbits etc and be able account for every shot fired and every unused shell when you get back. If there is one missing where is it ??
??????Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordite
@Cordite
Oh good grief. After the shooting he has proven that he's not in control of his emotions, also there appear to be a number on here who know the guy and the circumstances around the various issue with him getting his license back. Guess what, they are saying no also, so I guess that's a no from me as well.
@dannybQuote:
Originally Posted by dannyb
Moa Hunter just forgot to put in the @ sign - I'm not losing the plot. (-:
That settles it then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gapped axe
And then this happens...
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-...home-detention
It states "Patterson was able to buy 10 firearms on Hayes' TradeMe account using his name and firearm licence. The guns included two AK-47 type weapons. " and then it adds "While Hayes held a gun licence it didn't permit him to own military style semi-automatic weapons either.". So much for accuracy. If he got them from trade me they would not have been MSSA and if they are now MSSA it is because they modified them afterwards....
Another question arises. If he enabled an unlicensed person to obtain firearms, is he still a fit and proper person to hold a license??????
Well obviously not. Which is probably why Hayes' licence was revoked in August last year, according to the NZ Herald.Quote:
Originally Posted by timattalon
People have lost their f'arms license for getting convicted of drink driving. The law surrounding when a license should be revoked is less than gray... its more a muddy colour.
One of this guys arguments was he wants to be able to teach his kids hunting. He still can, just not with a firearm unless they have a license as well. In fact, he can still hunt under the supervision of a flicno holder, so what is his real issue?
Interesting unrelated side note; They guy who wrote the original NZ Arms Code shot and killed a ranger in Woodhill Forest. No system is infallible.
Yes. Food for thought....Quote:
Originally Posted by 6x45
I believe persons with a police-cancelled license are forbiddcn from even using an air rifle under direct supervision. Someone pls correct me.
@Cordite hadn't heard that one ?
As far as I am aware, I don't think there is a provision for people not to use firearms if they have had their licence revoked. They fall in the same category as "unlicensed" so therefore can use one under direct supervision. Unless of course it is a court directed order (which is usually only while a person is on bail). I've run into at least one person that was prosecuted for careless use causing death as he was in possession of a firearm, still hunting in the bush with a firearms license holder.
The other thing that is apparent is that there is clearly no real benchmark for when a person should have their license revoked. It comes down to what Police member holding the rank of inspector, views the case and it is on a case by case basis. Again, being convicted of growing 30odd cannabis plants and having an MSSA within reach of your front door does not necessarily mean you will lose your license in district "x" (in fact in that case it didn't). Where as the same offence in another district that same person would definitely lose it rather quickly.
I know of one person who lost their license in one district in NZ and a couple of years later got it back again after moving to another district and putting the application before another person.
IMHO we have in NZ a pretty liberal if not casual attitude towards firearms and its related laws and that goes for those in charge of keeping us "safe" as well.
Read the Arms Act and see what it says. Then you might have more of a clue than "As far as I'm aware".Quote:
Originally Posted by 6x45
Can you just spell it out for the whole class @systolic instead of doing what ever it is you just did? We can all learn a thing or too. Section 49A?
I think you are placing too much literal emphases on the words "unlawful" and "possession". I get your point, I was wrong to simplify something as complex as the law in an "off-hand" statement about "using firearms"
Thanks for pointing that out.
I'll refer to a case of Unlawful Possession where a hunter was caught hunting without a firearms license. This is not a direct parallel with your section 49A reference but it gives you an idea of how these things can be interpreted [in court as opposed to forums]. It was deemed in the end that the act of "hunting" is a tradition (from some old case law) and therefore not unlawful. Both the charge of "Unlawful Hunting" and therefore "Unlawful Possession" were thrown out. This is an over simplification on my part but I dont have the typing skills to go into detail and besides @systolic it would seem you can use a keyboard as well as the next forum warrior so you could likely find that bit of case law yourself by digging around.
Nothing in law, is ever straight forward. I apologise to you wholeheartedly for getting it so wrong.
Conclusions after whats been stated on here after reading all this ?
Brendon Diack crashing through the southland bush......
Mark being in a paddock in the fog....at the time of that tragedy.
It has been stated it was a beautiful clear sunny day....but was it foggy at the time of that incident...or did fog have nothing to do with it?
Police admit flawed investigation......
The two shot scenario......two bullet holes in marks swandri.
Brendon Diack maintains only one shot fired.
What exactly did happen.....There seems to be misconceptions.....Perhaps the police what this firearm incident swepted under the carpet ?
The public can only wonder and speculate on what happen...particularly the two shot scenario ?
@video hunter,
Yes, wonder how you can even tell if something is a bullet hole in absence of powder residues or underlying damage to body or undergarments.
I'm left with an impression of widespread reluctance to accept accidents do happen.
Cordite I am left with the impression that shootings are difficult to investigate for the police. Just look at the Bain shootings for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordite
I am left with the further impression that aside from homicide cases, shootings be they fatal or non fatal are mostly due to totally avoidable situations and committed by certifiable idiots. The case of the poor girl fatally shot shot by spotlighters whilst cleaning her teeth at a campground tap is a case I will never forget.
There will always be differences of opinion and differences in how people see things and behave - some people even vote for Labour and worse some for the Greens for example, but there should be a united front from firearms users calling for better training in how to recognise potential accident situations and how to prevent them.
The first place to start, would be to refrain from categorising all as a totally avoidable category committed by certifiable idiots.
There are lots of idiots, but I am yet to discover one who actually thought they were trying to shoot a human. There are plenty who are still uterly baffled as to how they made such a dreadful mistake.
There are plenty more out there, who think that the only people who make those mistakes are certifiable, and by implication in thinking of themselves as being sane think its never going to happen to them. This prevents them from proactive systematic analysis of what they are doing, and an active consideration of how to avoid making those sort of mistakes.
Because of course they are not certifiable. But they are bloody dangerous.
Dear Sidney, I am concerned that you may have misread my post. What I have written is certifiable idiots ( I will issue them a certificate for idiocy if required) not that the people are mentally ill ('certifiably insane') If I had thought that then my last line 'better training etc' would be pointless. I see that we do both agree on the point of need, as you put it 'proactive systematic analysis etc' Also, I do clearly understand the reference of your last line to the Greens (Q) 'they are bloody dangerous'Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
Sorry, but there is one small point I disagree with. Teaching idiots is a waste of time. I have tried , tried and tried again and guess what...They are usually still idiots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moa Hunter
We can all make mistakes and we ned to be aware that we are all fallible. Once we acknowledge this we can address our failings- in these cases addressing our failings would make us look to question ourselves whether it is exactly what we think it is. Not by asking is it a deer /pig etc, but by asking ourselves, "Could it be anything else?" If the answer is maybe then do not shoot. It is not just a cae of identifying our target is, but also identifying what our target is not.
Yes, I must concede timattalon it is a waste of time training idiots, but then we can't shoot them ….. And we can't stop them being issued firearms licences either. Funny how when a person learns to drive then they will receive training in practical driving skills but for a firearms licence to date this hasn't been needed. The new testing regime will hopefully address this ,But as far as I know it doesn't have a target recognition and confirmation skills component in the way that you describe. Has anyone made a video clip on this ??Quote:
Originally Posted by timattalon
There's distinction to be drawn amongst idiots:Quote:
Originally Posted by timattalon
Billy Connolly described himself at school as being in the "Stupid but saveable " category. This fits a modest percentage of idiots.
The trick is to figure out who can be successfully helped, and who shouldn't be allowed to wander round with anything more dangerous than a large carrot, in case they accidentally stab themselves with it.
@Sidney,Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
Fair summary of one take-home message of this thread. Pride before fall. Kick them or learn from them, can't do both.