Thread: Pot shots with a 308

He might need to keep it for his job.
Hard to work on a farm without one. Not much point in making him jobless and making his family suffer.

Originally Posted by systolic

He might need to keep it for his job.
Hard to work on a farm without one. Not much point in making him jobless and making his family suffer.

I would say if any of the shots had connected then someone else's family would still be suffering so F#$K him and POX on the Judge as well, seems they live on some other planet than the rest of us

Originally Posted by systolic

He might need to keep it for his job.
Hard to work on a farm without one. Not much point in making him jobless and making his family suffer.

I hope that was sarcasm. No guns for that turkey.

Originally Posted by 40mm

I hope that was sarcasm. No guns for that turkey.

Why? Do you think his family should suffer for bad decisions made by him?

Originally Posted by systolic

Why? Do you think his family should suffer for bad decisions made by him?

Yes.

Originally Posted by systolic

Why? Do you think his family should suffer for bad decisions made by him?

I hope your being sarcastic.

Originally Posted by systolic

Why? Do you think his family should suffer for bad decisions made by him?

Do you think that is a valid excuse not to punish him?

Originally Posted by systolic

Why? Do you think his family should suffer for bad decisions made by him?

@systolic Do you think all of society should suffer so that his family does not?

His bad decisions have repercussions. (or at least they should) Does his family deserve to suffer because of him- Probably not. Will they? Probably. Why? Because, unfortunately for them, someone who is connected to them made some very stupid / dumb / moronic decisions. If he cared for his family perhaps he should have thought about it sooner, say, BEFORE he did something that would affect them.


His family will suffer, but not because of what the judge did or did not do, but because of one single, individual persons actions; That person is Dwayne Stubbings. He is wholly and completely responsible for his actions and the consequences that will befall his family.

Problem is that by the judge waving a wet bus ticket at him, now the rest of society gets to feel the consequences as well. If it was your family in the house, would you want him to be let go with no restraint on a repeat???????


On a different note, notice the media posted a picture of what is almost certainly NOT the firearm involved....Now ask yourselves why..... Why would they possibly do that?

Originally Posted by timattalon

@systolic Do you think all of society should suffer so that his family does not?

His bad decisions have repercussions. (or at least they should) Does his family deserve to suffer because of him- Probably not. Will they? Probably. Why? Because, unfortunately for them, someone who is connected to them made some very stupid / dumb / moronic decisions. If he cared for his family perhaps he should have thought about it sooner, say, BEFORE he did something that would affect them.


His family will suffer, but not because of what the judge did or did not do, but because of one single, individual persons actions; That person is Dwayne Stubbings. He is wholly and completely responsible for his actions and the consequences that will befall his family.

Problem is that by the judge waving a wet bus ticket at him, now the rest of society gets to feel the consequences as well. If it was your family in the house, would you want him to be let go with no restraint on a repeat???????


On a different note, notice the media posted a picture of what is almost certainly NOT the firearm involved....Now ask yourselves why..... Why would they possibly do that?

Because the .22 looks way more dangerus cooler than his .308 bolt action and could be passed off as an MSSA, though I notice they avoided the precise term MSSA. Misdirection? Yes. Outright lying? No. Moral distinction? No.

His shooting spree would have been slightly less dangerous if he'd used the dangerous looking gun depicted.

I still can't get over the sentence. Can any on this forum imagine he'd have that sentence if he'd done what he did when sober? Alcohol remains the great excuser --- no matter how much judges flap their lips and say it's not.

Originally Posted by Cordite

Because the .22 looks way more dangerus cooler than his .308 bolt action and could be passed off as an MSSA, though I notice they avoided the precise term MSSA. Misdirection? Yes. Outright lying? No. Moral distinction? No.

His shooting spree would have been slightly less dangerous if he'd used the dangerous looking gun depicted.

I still can't get over the sentence. Can any on this forum imagine he'd have that sentence if he'd done what he did when sober? Alcohol remains the great excuser --- no matter how much judges flap their lips and say it's not.

Probably wont matter, but I thought it was an Sks / Skk. Gas tube on top etc but still not the 308.

As for the Alcohol- Yes people do dumb stuff when drunk, but that is not an excuse, I agree with you there. He chose to drink. So those actions are his responsibility. The victims will have noticed no difference between being shot at by an angry drunk or an angry sober person. Their lives were still at risk.

That is certainly going to qualify for the neighbour from hell. On that note, how did the judge think putting the offender in Home detention make sense when as a result, the victims live next door to the perpetrator? I personally feel that this is not on.

Originally Posted by timattalon

Probably wont matter, but I thought it was an Sks / Skk. Gas tube on top etc but still not the 308.

As for the Alcohol- Yes people do dumb stuff when drunk, but that is not an excuse, I agree with you there. He chose to drink. So those actions are his responsibility. The victims will have noticed no difference between being shot at by an angry drunk or an angry sober person. Their lives were still at risk.

That is certainly going to qualify for the neighbour from hell. On that note, how did the judge think putting the offender in Home detention make sense when as a result, the victims live next door to the perpetrator? I personally feel that this is not on.

The victims don't live next door to Stubbings. They moved away after the shooting. So there's no reason he can't do home detention at his home.

Originally Posted by Cordite

Because the .22 looks way more dangerus cooler than his .308 bolt action and could be passed off as an MSSA, though I notice they avoided the precise term MSSA. Misdirection? Yes. Outright lying? No. Moral distinction? No.

His shooting spree would have been slightly less dangerous if he'd used the dangerous looking gun depicted.

I still can't get over the sentence. Can any on this forum imagine he'd have that sentence if he'd done what he did when sober? Alcohol remains the great excuser --- no matter how much judges flap their lips and say it's not.

The photo is of a SKS or SKK 7.62x39mm rifle in a Dragunov stock. Not a .22. IT IS a MSSA.

The photo was taken from Stubbings' Facebook page. That's why they used it.

Originally Posted by systolic

The photo is of a SKS or SKK 7.62x39mm rifle in a Dragunov stock. Not a .22. IT IS a MSSA.

The photo was taken from Stubbings' Facebook page. That's why they used it.

Not really. That is WHAT they used and WHERE they found it - not the same as answering WHY they used it.

We don't know for certain WHY they used it, but it may be reasonably deduced from the (intentional) effect of the article.

The use of the image in this article, with its MSSA caption, has the effect of suggesting a guy used a .308 MSSA against his neighbours.

The motivation behind this could be just because the journalist's integrity has been prostituted to sensationalism... or because of some Australian type gun control agenda which no inconvenient fact must stand in the way of... or both.

Originally Posted by systolic

Why? Do you think his family should suffer for bad decisions made by him?

They're probably better off without him by the sound of it. And were you really seriously suggesting that you couldn't work on a dairy farm without a firearms licence?

Originally Posted by GravelBen

They're probably better off without him by the sound of it. And were you really seriously suggesting that you couldn't work on a dairy farm without a firearms licence?

No. But it could be a requirement for the particular job he was doing.