Thread: Wtf

Originally Posted by Sidney

It may be true what you say... but the outcome you think is appropriate for this individual case is based on personal knowledge and information, other behaviours and proclivities, that is not true of other people that may be in exactly this situation. I don't deny that he may not be suitable to be allowed a firearm licence ever again and outside information may well be pertinent to that decision which is made as to suitability. In fact I would suggest that if this is the case, and the information is genuine and there is genuine concern, I would suggest that the people that have personal knowledge (not 3rd party) should write and clarify their concerns to the police directly.

But is it sufficient that an error made in the blink of an eye, that is non-intentional and is isolated in terms of general behaviour, should have punitive life time punishment? It is unlikely that this should be the sole reason that a person can never do or be eligible to have a firearms licence again. The criteria to be eligible to hold a firearms licence is suitability, but if the likelihood of transgression or error in future is less than others without the history, is he then unsuitable?

While our emotive response to a persons desire to return to his previous lifestyle is understandable, because of the trauma associated.... what we don't understand is the absolute loss of identity of a person who can no longer do that thing that formed a massive part of their life. People in those situation also have the right to try and move on and for some maybe a return to hunting can aid in that, despite the close associative effect with the actual event that we find hard to understand.

Our lack of understanding of that is not the measure by which a decision should or shouldn't be made.

What a load of shit.