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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cordite

He heh, very funny mate. I'm not stopping anyone doing whatever erections they want. Just pointing out a known difficulty with gallows - if we build them we are not immune to later get put onto them ourselves, God forbid.

---

Well Cordite, not wishing to find myself hoisted on my own Gallows for challenging you, I wish instead to meekly disagree with your analogy comparing car drivers who cause road fatalities with hunters involved in fatal shootings. The primary use of cars is for transport. If a car driver was instead using the car for running over (Hunting/killing) possums at night and ran over a person that they mistook for a possum, then in my humble non-challenging view we could compare that driver with a person in possession of a hunting firearm, the primary use of which is to kill things, who then shoots another person that they mistook for the quarry sought.

@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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Attachment 90996

Bollocks

He should have taken care but he didn't so no license

He can live without it

The precious git should just suck it up

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.

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 ?

One guy in the ms group is was in was there for the 4th attempt no fukn way should he be getting a licence imo

Quote:

---

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....(-:

@Cordite you are a fuckwit I don't no what makes you think its ok to post such sic images you mite find it funny but I do not nor would any member of my family looking at that shit , your a queer cunt take your sic images & fuck off

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cordite

Attachment 90950

Attachment 90951

Attachment 90952

None of the above images courtesy of Hollywood's sanitised car-chase entertainments.

Sorry for posting such images, but who accidentally causes such devastation with a gun!?!

---

I'm lost for words this forum has really taken a turn for the worse lately, used to be a great place to hang out, even something to be proud of some of the things we achieved as a group.
Some of you guys need a long holiday. @Spanners @jakewire



Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Cordite I'm with Boaraxa on this one. The forum is a big community & I'm sure there are plenty of us on here who have lost friends or family to a road accident. Think about the pain & hurt such a post can cause. As well as younger family/forum members who don't need to see such images. Seems there are a few people on the forum hell bent on making everyone think the same as them no matter what & prepared to go to extreme measures to achieve this.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boaraxa

@Cordite you are a fuckwit I don't no what makes you think its ok to post such sic images you mite find it funny but I do not nor would any member of my family looking at that shit , your a queer cunt take your sic images & fuck off

---

Boaraxa, I will take some responsibility for the photos Cordite posted on my shoulders. I am the one who is debating gun shot deaths against road deaths with Cordite.
I have never in my life seen road fatality images like that before, they are shocking. I didn't even ever imagine that is what it could look like. I would like to see the actual photos of the teenager shot by Diack posted too.
Not through some morbid fascination, but because shooting fatality photos need to be shown to gun users especially new licence holders and those motor vehicle accident photos should be shown to our sons and daughters before they drive. We are hiding from the truth with our sanitised media coverage and that is not helping to save anyone else's life into the future. I will be showing my son those photos in the future and telling him "this is truly how you and your mates could end up in an accident, so think when you drive and don't fuck it up" My 2c

Pics deleted
If you think thats acceptable here, then this isnt the place for you.