# Hunting > Firearm Safety >  Man who shot teen dead in hunting accident 22 years ago loses firearms licence bid

## systolic

*Fat Fireman who shot teen dead in hunting accident 22 years ago loses firearms licence bid*

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/105...unting-tragedy

A Southland man who shot a teenager dead in a hunting accident 22 years ago has lost his bid to get his firearms licence back.

Brendon Diack took police to court in Invercargill on Friday, appealing a 2015 decision to refuse him a firearms licence.

In 1996, Diack admitted to a charge of careless use of a firearm causing 16-year-old Mark Whyte's death at Tuatapere and was sentenced to two months' jail and fined $3000.

He also lost his firearms licence at that time. 

During Friday's hearing, Diack said he had applied for his firearms licence "five or six times" since 1996, but to no avail.

A hunter for years before the tragedy, he now wanted to go hunting with his sons and pass on his knowledge, he said.

Judge Mark Callaghan refused Diack's bid to get his licence back, pointing to the 1996 tragedy and two incidents in 2013 and 2014 to show Diack was not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.

In 2013 Diack, who had a $300,000 a year contracting business, hit a man on the chin who owed him $300; and in 2014 he dug up  gravel he had laid for another client because he was owed $500, the judge said. 

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."

Earlier in the hearing, Diack said there had been a lot of angst in the community since the 1996 tragedy but he believed a lot of people had moved on except for Mark Whyte's family. 

"Jimmy and Shirley [Mark's parents] are going to hate me for the rest of my days for what I done to their son, I am sorry about that."

No-one went hunting with the intention of shooting a person, he said. 

When people asked him about the incident he always sat down and talked about it and "believe it or not it still brings a tear to my eye ... because it's tragic."

Apart from wanting to go hunting with his sons, he also wanted his licence back because it gave him the opportunity to speak with different hunters who were on the same page and he wanted to do trap shooting again, he said.

After the accident he had still gone out with hunters "videoing", but it wasn't the same, he said.

His lawyer, John Fraser said Diack was an honest and hard working man who in 1996 made a fatal error with a rifle.

Since that time, Diack had managed a business and had a stable home life, Fraser said.

Diack is the Tuatapere fire station chief which Fraser suggested would not be the case without the support of a large number of firefighters and a significant vetting process.

Fraser said the 2013 and 2014 incidents were minor and out of character for Diack and they did not demonstrate a pattern of  behaviour.

However, police lawyer Sarah McKenzie said the offences in 2013 and 2014 tainted Diack's character when coupled with the the 1996 fatal shooting.

Southland police area commander inspector Joel Lamb said he had spoken to police officers in Tuatapere and they had expressed concern about the feelings in the community if Diack were to be granted a firearms licence.

Lamb said the major reason police had refused Diack's application for a firearms application was due to the 1996 shooting.

He didn't accept the incidents in 2013 and 2014 were minor.

"Incidents involving violence aren't minor."

A long-time mate of Diack's, John Munro, said he did not get the feeling the Tuatapere community was divided over the 1996 shooting.

Diack was a respected member of the community and it was not in his nature to be aggressive, Munro said.

 - The Southland Times

----------


## Rushy

Hmmm!  Police don't think he is fit and proper and the judge doesn't think he is either.  Whether you look at this objectively or subjectively, he isn't getting an FAL.

----------


## 257weatherby

So, if he had been a skinny fireman, you would have felt happier? Have an issue you would like to sit down and talk about? We of the forum shrink panel can be all fuzzy and sympathetic if we feel like it. Now just to get you started, here is a picture,  :36 1 5:  :36 1 5:  :36 1 5:  :36 1 5: what does it make you think of?

----------


## Boaraxa

Best thing he can do is wait for his kids to get there Fal , pass his knowledge on & explain to them why he is not aloud a fal back .

----------


## Barefoot

If the 1996 shooting is the one I'm thinking of, it was spectacularly dumb incident.

----------


## northdude

Yet repeat drunk drivers get their licenses back

----------


## Cordite

> Yet repeat drunk drivers get their licenses back


Yes, and get to be in charge of a much deadlier weapon.  Maybe some hypocrisy and inconsistency there, but society as a whole accepts that the road toll is an unfortunate and not entirely avoidable side-effect of motor vehicle use.  For some reason society is reluctant to accept a much lower death toll, any death toll, to arise from gun use.  But we are never going to have a zero accidental death toll from firearms.

I was interested to read the following:

"Southland police area commander inspector Joel Lamb said he had spoken to police officers in Tuatapere and they had expressed concern about the feelings in the community if Diack were to be granted a firearms licence."
"Lamb said the major reason police had refused Diack's application for a firearms application was due to the 1996 shooting."

In regard to the "fit and proper or not" test as per the Arms Act, the fact that you may be unpopular, with respect to the bereaved, is frankly irrelevant to whether you are fit and proper.  And if you are fit and proper, unpopularity should not be used to block you getting a FAL.  If you are fit and proper you SHALL be granted a FAL, that is the law.

Punching someone ... bummer, should not have done.  Seems that should correctly be looked into when determining if someone is fit and proper.  Violence towards men is (also) not OK.

IMHO shooting someone and having 22 yrs to reflect on it is plenty assurance that someone will now take excellent care around guns, it is also a great vaccination against the stupid notion of bringing a firearm to a fight.  The guy is dedicating part of his life to saving lives, for goodness sake, what might be motivating him to do such a thing?  No prizes given for correct answers.

----------


## Micky Duck

> So, if he had been a skinny fireman, you would have felt happier? Have an issue you would like to sit down and talk about? We of the forum shrink panel can be all fuzzy and sympathetic if we feel like it. Now just to get you started, here is a picture, what does it make you think of?


1st thought...caterpiller
2nd thought...drunks in a waka paddling slowly.

----------


## BT50

Guilty for life by the sounds of it. Judge is a dickhead to even consider those other 2 minor incidents.

----------


## Blisters

Wrote and deleted a few things to say on this then decided not too

----------


## Cordite

What could his maximum penalty be for giving up on the system and going hunting with no FAL / hunting permit?  Kiwi Gun Blog has plenty examples of wet bus tickets.

----------


## Cordite

> Wrote and deleted a few things to say on this then decided not too


 @Blisters

You are like Abraham Lincoln.  He would write really nasty letters, drop them in his desk drawer, and discard them the next day once he'd calmed down.

Of course, once he had his encounter with Mr Wilkes-Booth, some nasty out-of-character letters were found in his desk.  Well, they were in fact entirely in keeping with his character, at least until the next day.

----------


## Micky Duck

he can still bowhunt....... its the only other option for many.... swings n roundabouts as to wether or not decision is fair or just,at the end of the day someone has to make the call and they are damned if they do and damned if they dont.

----------


## Paddy79

So he lost his licence for shooting some one 17 years latter does more stupid stuff over a few hundred dollars? Simple he does not deserve it back.
If he wants to hunt he can still hunt and pass his knowledge on to his son on how to track/stalk animals, a firearm is not needed to hunt

----------


## oneshot

No sympathy at all. The amount of deer I have not pulled the trigger on because it didn't feel right is in numbers I cant recall. Zero tolerance for this shit, A kids life has been taken.

----------


## Boaraxa

> So he lost his licence for shooting some one 17 years latter does more stupid stuff over a few hundred dollars? Simple he does not deserve it back.
> If he wants to hunt he can still hunt and pass his knowledge on to his son on how to track/stalk animals, a firearm is not needed to hunt


Couldn't agree more mate , he shot & killed someone "if" its the incident im thinking of the young fella was shot in a open paddock in the fog , that happened in tui though it may not be this case .

----------


## Solo

In this article, he talks about crashing though bush, which suggests it wasn't an open paddock. He also acts like he's the only victim in the whole thing and barely mentions the kid he shot...

----------


## MB

No comment on this case, but I know that if I ever accidentally shot someone, I would never want to see another firearm again.

----------


## Moa Hunter

> @Blisters
> 
> You are like Abraham Lincoln.  He would write really nasty letters, drop them in his desk drawer, and discard them the next day once he'd calmed down.
> 
> Of course, once he had his encounter with Mr Wilkes-Booth, some nasty out-of-character letters were found in his desk.  Well, they were in fact entirely in keeping with his character, at least until the next day.


I thought that Abe had been lampooning Mr Wilkes-Booth by dropping humorous ditty's along country roads where he knew they would be found and that is what enraged WB and led to the Duel on the sandbar.  But regardless Cordite are you saying that we should check Blisters desk for historical similarities and then make a judgement on his suitability to run for President ???

----------


## Cordite

> I thought that Abe had been lampooning Mr Wilkes-Booth by dropping humorous ditty's along country roads where he knew they would be found and that is what enraged WB and led to the Duel on the sandbar.  But regardless Cordite are you saying that we should check Blisters desk for historical similarities and then make a judgement on his suitability to run for President ???


 @Moa Hunter

Yes, Abe, a very interesting character with dark sides that just go to make his good side shine.  Actually he also left fake letters about to slander people, at least in his younger days, learnt a lesson when an old military man challenged him to a duel after taking severe exception to Abe's slanders.  Abe was shitting himself, taking sword classes, but in the end was saved from the duel, as I said, valuable lesson learned about caring a bit more about not injuring others' feelings.  He was just a typical jerk lawyer, who learnt to debate in an adversarial system and thought himself clever in his ability to put down others with his wit.  But you just don't do that outside the court room - other rules apply there.

In viking society, no duel would have been challenged.  The offended party would hold his temper (a matter of honour not to blow your lid hastily at anyone) and instead plot a cunning and severe revenge a year or so later.  Sometimes involving torching the person's house and braining him when he emerges from the smoke,  You don't go around offending people lightly in that sort of society, rather make the preservation of their honour your business.  OK still not a great society what with slavery, rape, and virgin sacrifices etc.

Anyway, yeah, I reckon we could make @Blisters our leader.  Surely investing him with absolute power would not corrupt him in the least.

----------


## Moa Hunter

> @Moa Hunter
> 
> Yes, Abe, a very interesting character with dark sides that just go to make his good side shine.  Actually he also left fake letters about to slander people, at least in his younger days, learnt a lesson when an old military man challenged him to a duel after taking severe exception to Abe's slanders.  Abe was shitting himself, taking sword classes, but in the end was saved from the duel, as I said, valuable lesson learned about caring a bit more about not injuring others' feelings.  He was just a typical jerk lawyer, who learnt to debate in an adversarial system and thought himself clever in his ability to put down others with his wit.  But you just don't do that outside the court room - other rules apply there.
> 
> In viking society, no duel would have been challenged.  The offended party would hold his temper (a matter of honour not to blow your lid hastily at anyone) and instead plot a cunning and severe revenge a year or so later.  Sometimes involving torching the person's house and braining him when he emerges from the smoke,  You don't go around offending people lightly in that sort of society, rather make the preservation of their honour your business.  OK still not a great society what with slavery, rape, and virgin sacrifices etc.
> 
> Anyway, yeah, I reckon we could make @Blisters our leader.  Surely investing him with absolute power would not corrupt him in the least.


You are right Cordite, I didn't and still haven't looked up the case but was going from foggy memory - it wasn't Wilkes booth that was lampooned (he was the shooter) it was as you say an ex Military man, wasn't he involved in local politics or some such ?. Anyway to Abes credit he did accept the challenge and took sabre lessons from a Westpoint trained chap. I believe that he gave away lampooning and speaking ill etc after that experience. The very sad part about this thread is that a young bloke was shot and never got that second chance.

----------


## tonyd

so whats stopping him from hunting with his sons and useing a firearm under there direct supervision when they get a licence? or anyone else for that matter, if your under direct supervision from a FAL holder hes allowed to use a firearm. so i dont see what his fuss all about? or are his boys to young to get a licence yet? yes he shot someone and probably shouldnt be using a firearm ever again some would say though.

----------


## 7mmwsm

If he had purposely run someone over with a vehicle (ie murder), he would have done his time in jail and be out. Free to get on with his life and I doubt he would be prevented from getting a driving licence.
The judges comments about his two incidents, one is common assault, possibly provoked but should't have happened. The other is basically a business transaction. The goods weren't paid for so they were repossessed. I would have done the same on the second one.
I know of a handful people who travel overseas to "hunt insurgents". That's not their job description, but that is what they do. They come back to New Zealand and slot back into their life and no one bats an eye. Should there suitability to have a firearms licence be questioned?

----------


## Micky Duck

> so whats stopping him from hunting with his sons and useing a firearm under there direct supervision when they get a licence? or anyone else for that matter, if your under direct supervision from a FAL holder hes allowed to use a firearm. so i dont see what his fuss all about? or are his boys to young to get a licence yet? yes he shot someone and probably shouldnt be using a firearm ever again some would say though.


I BELIEVE if your licence has been REVOKED/TAKEN off you the rules are different to not having one... you are/have been deemed to be UNFIT therefore anyone allowing you to use a firearm even under supervision risks ALSO being deemed unfit as they are allowing you access to them............ its a shit sammie no matter how its cut.

----------


## 40mm

> @Moa Hunter
> 
> Yes, Abe, a very interesting character with dark sides that just go to make his good side shine.  Actually he also left fake letters about to slander people, at least in his younger days, learnt a lesson when an old military man challenged him to a duel after taking severe exception to Abe's slanders.  Abe was shitting himself, taking sword classes, but in the end was saved from the duel, as I said, valuable lesson learned about caring a bit more about not injuring others' feelings.  He was just a typical jerk lawyer, who learnt to debate in an adversarial system and thought himself clever in his ability to put down others with his wit.  But you just don't do that outside the court room - other rules apply there.
> 
> In viking society, no duel would have been challenged.  The offended party would hold his temper (a matter of honour not to blow your lid hastily at anyone) and instead plot a cunning and severe revenge a year or so later.  Sometimes involving torching the person's house and braining him when he emerges from the smoke,  You don't go around offending people lightly in that sort of society, rather make the preservation of their honour your business.  OK still not a great society what with slavery, rape, and virgin sacrifices etc.
> 
> Anyway, yeah, I reckon we could make  @Blisters our leader.  Surely investing him with absolute power would not corrupt him in the least.


Thats @Blisters and @Cordite on my special list.

----------


## csmiffy

devils advocate here.
Yup bad shit about the shooting and agree with previous comment about being scarred for life if somehow that happened because of me.
Also agree about the business transaction. Not the first time I've heard of something like that but possibly as it was brought up in the court maybe a bit more volatile than first thought.
As for the assault, imagine if you will, a guy playing say rugby. somewhere in the middle of the game he is slighted somewhat and chins someone.
Used to be quite acceptable and even the all blacks got in heavyweight boxers (who also must've been good players) to help sort out opposition. One of the SA tours springs to mind and was widely acknowledged. Skinner maybe?
Obviously not as accepted now as it was then but what goes on the field stays on the field right?
I'd suggest there would be several of us on this forum that would've done this at least once. Would you then say we (collectively)are unfit for a FAL?
He obviously did it in a civilian area and was busted for it so a little different from the sporting arena.
Considering stories of an old (ex)family friend who ended up being a serious child molester and the only thing that would've stopped my daughter being exposed to that was me being in aussie at the time he was caught.... well lets just say that wouldn't have ended well if it had happened to her.
Am I unfit to own a firearm then?
Philoshophy session over

----------


## Frogfeatures

The passage of time doesn’t bring the man he shot, back to life.
Death is permanant, as should be his loss of licence.

----------


## ghosts

Knowing the family and what they still go through in terms of dealing with the loss of there son.
Also knowing a few more details on this case and the guy who shot Mark.
There is no way he should ever get a firearms license back.

----------


## csmiffy

> Knowing the family and what they still go through in terms of dealing with the loss of there son.
> Also knowing a few more details on this case and the guy who shot Mark.
> There is no way he should ever get a firearms license back.


 @ghosts
Good to hear the other side of the story albeit about a bad circumstance.
Your restraint is commendable.

----------


## Cordite

> In this article, he talks about crashing though bush, which suggests it wasn't an open paddock. He also acts like he's the only victim in the whole thing *and barely mentions the kid he shot.*..


 @Solo

A touch of witch dunking, perhaps?  Should we expect him to round wearing a t-shirt with a picture of his victim?  

He will NEVER be able to bring up the kid's name without massive emotional baggage getting stirred up.  Just a normal, non-psychopathic way to deal with things.  He is talking of the safety message, that he can change, talking of the dead is non productive.  The dead are dead.

Interesting how the article dealt with a more recent accidental shooting -- perpetrated by someone who allegedly persecuted Diack, including allegedly saying to Diack's face, _"There is no such thing as an accident when you're hunting. There is no excuse for shooting anyone."_  Then the guy later went and did likewise.  May have been deaf to a lot of safety messages and lessons about how genuine accidents can occur because of his arrogance.  There are similar mouths on Forums such as this.  But to learn from accidents we have to get away from this childish, punitive mind set (which is based on the assumption that people screw up because they are "bad" and must get punished) or more will die as a direct result.


 @Frogfeatures @ghosts @csmiffy,

Hear what you are all saying, yes it is a sensitive case.  But no more sensitive than every single road kill.  We do not gather our pitch forks, faggots and scythes and round up every bastard we've ever heard of causing a road death, do we?

What makes me VERY uncomfortable about this whole affair is that the withholding of a firearms license is used as a de-facto ongoing punishment for him screwing up 22 yrs ago, likely made worse by living in a small community where some obviously hang on hard to their grudges and the local cops are too close to some parties to do their job properly and impartially (read Solo's article).

There is NO lawful provision for perpetually banning someone from having a firearms license, just like there is no such thing as a lifetime firearms license.  

All legal penalties on this man got handed out in the immediate aftermath of the shooting.  NZ Police has no business engaging in vigilantism by seeking to impose further penalty on someone through declining his firearms license application.  That should be done on no other basis than if he is/isn't (not was or wasn't) "a fit and proper person".

Actually, does involvement in a shooting accident automatically make you an unfit and improper person?  Shall we remain children or grow up?

----------


## Frogfeatures

@Cordite fair point.
I guess 2 wrongs dont make a right.
Speaking personally if Id shot another person through negligence, I doubt Id ever want to handle a firearm again.
Just my take on the situation

----------


## Cordite

> @Cordite fair point.
> I guess 2 wrongs don’t make a right.
> Speaking personally if I’d shot another person through negligence, I doubt I’d ever want to handle a firearm again.
> Just my take on the situation


 @Frogfeatures

Yes, same here, plenty other hobbies to take up instead.  Aren't we all glad this story is not about us.

----------


## systolic

> @Solo
> 
> 
> What makes me VERY uncomfortable about this whole affair is that the withholding of a firearms license is used as a de-facto ongoing punishment for him screwing up 22 yrs ago, likely made worse by living in a small community where some obviously hang on hard to their grudges and the local cops are too close to some parties to do their job properly and impartially (read Solo's article).
> 
> All legal penalties on this man got handed out in the immediate aftermath of the shooting.  NZ Police has no business engaging in vigilantism by seeking to impose further penalty on someone through declining his firearms license application.  That should be done on no other basis than if he is/isn't (not was or wasn't) "a fit and proper person".


A court judge in Invercargill refused the licence on the grounds he's not a fit and proper person. After the police refused to give it back on the on the same grounds. 

_Judge Mark Callaghan refused Diack's bid to get his licence back, pointing to the 1996 tragedy and two incidents in 2013 and 2014 to show Diack was not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence._

Doesn't sound like an ongoing punishment or seeking to impose a further penalty to me.

----------


## Cordite

> *Southland police area commander inspector Joel Lamb said he had spoken to police officers in Tuatapere and they had expressed concern about the feelings in the community if Diack were to be granted a firearms licence.
> 
> Lamb said the major reason police had refused Diack's application for a firearms application was due to the 1996 shooting.
> *
> *He didn't accept the incidents in 2013 and 2014 were minor.
> 
> "Incidents involving violence aren't minor."
> *
> A long-time mate of Diack's, John Munro, said he did not get the feeling the Tuatapere community was divided over the 1996 shooting.
> ...


   @systolic,

Sure, the judge concluded he was not fit and proper, but chiefly based on an accident he was involved in 22yrs ago.

One thing is what the judge concludes, the other thing is what brought the court case about.  There would be no court case if the police just granted him his FAL on application.

The alleged feelings of people in the community that police are hiding behind has nada, zilch, zero to do with whether someone is fit and proper.  Cops referring to other cops having said that some in the community may feel a certain way if a FAL was to be reinstated is echoes of fresh victim statements being read out but completely unchallengeable / unexaminable.  Should not have been admitted to the court, but clearly it was the elephant in the room.

Police did throw in the kitchen sink with the more recent incidents, but that was all that was, they were not the reason police refused his license.  In spite of chief cop saying incidents involving violence are not minor, in this case he contradicts himself insofar that he implies the violent incidents were not the police's major reason for declining the FAL application.  In other words, they were minor in that regard.

Plenty FAL holders in the community are known by Police to have done similar stupid minor stunts but did not lose their FAL over it.  No,  this is about branding someone permanently and irredeemably unfit and improper.

----------


## Cordite

Question, do we know of ANYONE successfully applying for reinstatement of his FAL after being involved in an accidental shooting?

----------


## Maca49

B


> Yes, and get to be in charge of a much deadlier weapon.  Maybe some hypocrisy and inconsistency there, but society as a whole accepts that the road toll is an unfortunate and not entirely avoidable side-effect of motor vehicle use.  For some reason society is reluctant to accept a much lower death toll, any death toll, to arise from gun use.  But we are never going to have a zero accidental death toll from firearms.
> 
> I was interested to read the following:
> 
> "Southland police area commander inspector Joel Lamb said he had spoken to police officers in Tuatapere and they had expressed concern about the feelings in the community if Diack were to be granted a firearms licence."
> "Lamb said the major reason police had refused Diack's application for a firearms application was due to the 1996 shooting."
> 
> In regard to the "fit and proper or not" test as per the Arms Act, the fact that you may be unpopular, with respect to the bereaved, is frankly irrelevant to whether you are fit and proper.  And if you are fit and proper, unpopularity should not be used to block you getting a FAL.  If you are fit and proper you SHALL be granted a FAL, that is the law.
> 
> ...


And yet some one kings hits my son from behind in a non confrontal situation, knocks him unconscious on his feet, lucky not to smash his head on the concrete, but does go into hospital over night, judge gives diversion, go figure!!

----------


## Micky Duck

yip Maca49 there are some glaring hypocracies in our legal system.....someone brought up rugby....do you fellas remember the case in Timaru a few years back where two chaps got into scuffle outside pub and one got punched then hit head on pavement and died..the young fella who hit him (once) was being charged with manslaughter...... as for heavyweight boxers...still think the best line Ive ever heard a comentater say was during world cup a few years back the ABs were versing Irish...scuffle broke out and "the captain is lining up with NZ heavyweight champ" it was rather comicle as SBW was just itching for excuse to let loose...thankfully the Irish chap saw sense and didnt throw punch.

----------


## timattalon

> @Cordite fair point.
> I guess 2 wrongs don’t make a right.
> Speaking personally if I’d shot another person through negligence, I doubt I’d ever want to handle a firearm again.
> Just my take on the situation


If anyone has been driving a car and hit /killed someone in a crash ( I hesitate to use the word accident) would you expect them to give up their license for life and never drive again? If a racing accident ends in someone dying, it would be very hard to face driving again, but could that driver get back in a car and drive either competitively or asa normal person?

I can only hope there s more to his background that has not been published. Maybe there is something there that would preclude him from reinstatement. But if not, the after 22 years I think he would have been considered. Your situation can change over time and someone who was once suitable, fit and proper for a F/A license may no longer be fit and proper. Surely this goes the other way too. Someone who may not have been fit and proper 20 years ago may well be now a fit and proper person. (Think as an example a teenage boy racer with many speeding tickets and infringements modified cars and fluting the law as a teen would not be fit and proper as his judgement is clearly not capable of acting responsible enough for firearms, but n his 30s as an adult, with a couple kids, wife and career / profession and a clear change in direction of his life may now be the very definition of fit and proper) So to hold his status because of something that long ago seems off. But lets be honest, its not like the media to report the whole story and truth, just enough to push their own agenda....

----------


## Cordite

@timattalon

Argument for driving license reinstatement is that people need to drive, it causes them hardship not to have a license, unable to work, do school run, take kids to violin lessons etc etc.  Those are of course relatively minor concerns compared to the risk of death and injury - but people get their licenses back.

Same argument of necessity is not as readily made for a firearms license.  Other hobbies available.  Still, the unsuccessful FAL applicant here is a middle aged man in a rural area, well out in the sticks, and shooting sports is likely a major pastime for most of his friends.  Excluded in a very real way, with predictable negative effect on his health.  But the actual the risk to human life of him having a FAL, at least based on the 1996 accident, is minuscule - particularly compared to being a car driver.  

I get it the two later incidents featured in the latest decision, but as he applied 5-6 times for his FAL, the first turn down at least was not done for any other reason than that 1996 accident.

To repeat, I take it nobody on this forum knows of anyone who got his license reinstated after an accidental shooting.

Wrong!  Whaaaat?!?  So OK if you are a drinking-and-shooting rugby player, not if you are a firefighter.  Yes, the courts take their cues from the cops on this one.

----------


## Boaraxa

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/105...-investigation

----------


## Bos

> Knowing the family and what they still go through in terms of dealing with the loss of there son.
> Also knowing a few more details on this case and the guy who shot Mark.
> There is no way he should ever get a firearms license back.


I guess its easy to sit in front of a laptop and play judge and jury on a public forum without knowing any details.
Seems like he's got a few options to still get out there, without the need to have his fal reinstated. Lots of issues to consider but as a hunter, he's surely committed the worst crime there is.

----------


## timattalon

> https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/105...-investigation


Reading this quote in that article raises a whole new perspective..."_Police Minister Stuart Nash has welcomed the decision, telling Stuff it set a legal precedent.

The Government was reviewing firearms policy: "I think the police need more powers_." More powers? They are continually trying to overstep boundaries on the ones they have now.

----------


## Sasquatch

> Reading this quote in that article raises a whole new perspective..."_Police Minister Stuart Nash has welcomed the decision, telling Stuff it set a legal precedent.
> 
> The Government was reviewing firearms policy: "I think the police need more powers_." More powers? They are continually trying to overstep boundaries on the ones they have now.


If they really are Nash's words then he has contradicted himself to all FAL holder's. Using this case to set legal precedent? No thanks.

I see he mentioned the same old backwards meaning rhetoric that police policy implies:

_"It's a privilege to have a firearms licence, not a right, and we need to ensure that those that do have the ability to own a firearm meet the good character test," Nash said. "Any time a decision like this is made for the first time, that can set a legal precedent judges can follow."_

Hasn't taken him long to be brain-washed has it.

  @Cordite the Andrew Hore case seems like _double standards_ to me.

----------


## Moa Hunter

> B
> And yet some one kings hits my son from behind in a non confrontal situation, knocks him unconscious on his feet, lucky not to smash his head on the concrete, but does go into hospital over night, judge gives diversion, go figure!!


Diversion for an unprovoked violent assault. That really is a bullshit ruling and I think that is an outrage !! A few months of sodomy in the cells would have fixed that arsehole.  Regarding the shooting case in this thread, the police may not have focused on the common assault but that does not mean that the Judge considered it minor. Diack did that, even though he knew the eyes of the law were or would be upon him in the future judging his actions with regard to FL applications. As men we can all loose our tempers at times and want to punch someone, that is just a part of being a man, but unless the situation is really serious we control ourselves. Seems to me like a small financial debt isn't justifiable provocation to loose control. I don't want a bloke who cant control his temper and make sound snap decisions joining the ranks of good honest firearms licence holders.

----------


## systolic

> Still, the unsuccessful FAL applicant here is a middle aged man in a rural area, well out in the sticks, and shooting sports is likely a major pastime for most of his friends.  *Excluded in a very real way, with predictable negative effect on his health.*  But the actual the risk to human life of him having a FAL, at least based on the 1996 accident, is minuscule - particularly compared to being a car driver.


I think his obesity would have more predictable negative effect on his health than being a bit sad because he's not allowed guns.

----------


## 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.

----------


## Cordite

> *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.

----------


## 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 !!

----------


## Cordite

> 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:

----------


## McNotty

> 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

----------


## systolic

> 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."
_

----------


## McNotty

> 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."
> _


Totally agree with this also, I'm in the position that the licencing should be a lot tougher to get and penalties more harsh. But I wonder if the above factor did come into it also.

----------


## Gibo

"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."

End of fucking story.

----------


## Moa Hunter

> "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."
> 
> End of fucking story.


Here is the test then: Lets imagine that this licencing matter is to be decided by a Court Jury and we are the members of that Jury. Jury decision: Diack doesn't get his licence back. And yes Gibo and I would vote the same !!

----------


## SiB

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!!!

----------


## Moa Hunter

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.

----------


## Cordite

> 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.


 @Moa Hunter

Yes.  Maybe spelling out what "identify your target" means has more mileage in it.  'Identifying' a deer would include what sex it is.


 @scottyrees @SiB @systolic @Gibo

In cheering the courts, do you also agree with the deference shown by NZ Police towards a drinking-and-shooting former All Black?

Do you agree with Society's comparatively lax attitude to allowing killer drivers back on the road?  What's so much more bad about killing someone with a gun, not a car?

We either _demonise_ these shooters as bad eggs (who didn't _really_ make an honest mistake), or we _learn_ from their mistakes in the knowledge that if they could do it so can we.  Kick or learn, we can't do both.

----------


## Gibo

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

----------


## Moa Hunter

> @Moa Hunter
> 
> Yes.  Maybe spelling out what "identify your target" means has more mileage in it.  'Identifying' a deer would include what sex it is.
> 
> 
>  @scottyrees @SiB @systolic @Gibo
> 
> In cheering the courts, do you also agree with the deference shown by NZ Police towards a drinking-and-shooting former All Black?
> 
> ...


You are a difficult character Cordite forcing us to examine our prejudices. Why can't you just agree with Gibo and I and help us erect a gallows ??

----------


## McNotty

> @Moa Hunter
> 
> Yes.  Maybe spelling out what "identify your target" means has more mileage in it.  'Identifying' a deer would include what sex it is.
> 
> 
>  @scottyrees @SiB @systolic @Gibo
> 
> In cheering the courts, do you also agree with the deference shown by NZ Police towards a drinking-and-shooting former All Black?
> 
> ...


In this case kick. Are there any instances of licences being returned after a shooting death? Would it be right to tar everyone with the same brush? Or is it dangerous territory to determine this on a case by case basis.  
All I know is that by human nature, poeple make mistakes. Maybe use these cases as a learning oppurtunity for future licence applicants. Would not be hard to present half a dozen cases to them to show what basic mistakes can cause.

----------


## Cordite

> You are a difficult character Cordite forcing us to examine our prejudices. Why can't you just agree with Gibo and I and help us erect a gallows ??


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.

----------


## Moa Hunter

> 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.

----------


## 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.

----------


## Moa Hunter

> @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.
> ...


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.

----------


## Cordite

> 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.

----------


## 308

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

----------


## 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.

----------


## 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 ?

----------


## northdude

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

----------


## Cordite

> 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....(-:

----------


## 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

----------


## BRADS

> 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

----------


## Hutch

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.

----------


## Jexla

> 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?

----------


## Moa Hunter

> @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

----------


## Spanners

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

----------


## dannyb

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


I don't know what the new system is like or what it will change if anything.....purely stating the current system is a failure aimed at getting pretty much everyone through so long as they attend.
That is the impression I was left with when I sat mine. We were constantly reminded that these "course providers" would get us through and weren't here to fail us.

----------


## Sasquatch

@Spanners why is it that Boaraxa's post hasn't been deleted? Abuse towards another member shouldn't be acceptable either.

----------


## BRADS

> @Spanners why is it that Boaraxa's post hasn't been deleted? Abuse towards another member shouldn't be acceptable either.


If Spanners deleted all the babys and bitching on here latley there'd be no one left .
Clean it up guys or fuck off.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

----------


## Cordite

> @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

Sorry to have offended you, but mind your language if your kids are about on the forum.  Mods, fine to blank the carnage images.  This is what happens on roads but we take more note of hunters making mistakes, so who is sick?

----------


## Moa Hunter

Spanners I agree with Sasquatch above. Now I don't want to come across as a prick here and perhaps some will make that judgement anyway but that is just too bad. Can you explain why you took Cordites photos down please. I wish to know the facts and don't want to be made to guess.
I would like to also know from Cordite why he posted those photos. Seems that so far judgements are being made based on guesses and not facts 
Some poor bastard has to actually clean-up after those road accidents we only saw the pictures
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     HOW I SEE THIS SPANNERS AND EVERYONE ELSE IS THAT AVOIDABLE ACCIDENTAL DEATHS RESULTING FROM BOTH THE MIS-USE OF FIREARMS AND VEHICLES ARE UNACCEPTABLE !!
The road toll keeps climbing each year - it's not like it is totally under control and nothing to worry about, in fact the reverse is true. And that is despite more speed restrictions, blood alcohol reductions, seatbelts road realignments etc etc. If we are not actually mature enough to face the morbid reality of what can happen through driving or hunting accidents, are we mature enough to have a firearms licence ??.

----------


## jakewire

Any more the whole things gone.

----------


## Cordite

> Spanners I agree with Sasquatch above. Now I don't want to come across as a prick here and perhaps some will make that judgement anyway but that is just too bad. Can you explain why you took Cordites photos down please. I wish to know the facts and don't want to be made to guess.
> I would like to also know from Cordite why he posted those photos. Seems that so far judgements are being made based on guesses and not facts 
> Some poor bastard has to actually clean-up after those road accidents we only saw the pictures
>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      HOW I SEE THIS SPANNERS AND EVERYONE ELSE IS THAT AVOIDABLE ACCIDENTAL DEATHS RESULTING FROM BOTH THE MIS-USE OF FIREARMS AND VEHICLES ARE UNACCEPTABLE !!
> The road toll keeps climbing each year - it's not like it is totally under control and nothing to worry about, in fact the reverse is true. And that is despite more speed restrictions, blood alcohol reductions, seatbelts road realignments etc etc. If we are not actually mature enough to face the morbid reality of what can happen through driving or hunting accidents, are we mature enough to have a firearms licence ??.


 @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.

----------


## .300 RUM Guy

Has anyone in New Zealand ever accidentally fatally shot somebody and got their firearms licence back?

----------


## Moa Hunter

> Any more the whole things gone.


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"??
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.

----------


## .300 RUM Guy

Has anyone in New Zealand ever accidentally fatally shot somebody and got their firearms licence back??

----------


## jakewire

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.

----------


## Spanners

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

----------


## Spanners

> Has anyone in New Zealand ever accidentally fatally shot somebody and got their firearms licence back??


There is someone who has fatally shot another and has a firearms license - yes. 

Whether it was lost and regained, never lost, or issued for the 1st after said event - unsure exactly. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Paddy79

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?

----------


## .300 RUM Guy

> There is someone who has fatally shot another and has a firearms license - yes. 
> 
> Whether it was lost and regained, never lost, or issued for the 1st after said event - unsure exactly. 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks Spanners.

----------


## Cordite

> 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?


 @Paddy79

Yes, if the shooter wasn't drinking.  Except for former All Blacks of course.

----------


## Cordite

Correction - that was a NON fatal accident.

----------


## 7mmwsm

I know two people who have shot another hunter, one fatal, and both still have licences.

----------


## Moa Hunter

> I don't know what the new system is like or what it will change if anything.....purely stating the current system is a failure aimed at getting pretty much everyone through so long as they attend.
> That is the impression I was left with when I sat mine. We were constantly reminded that these "course providers" would get us through and weren't here to fail us.


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.
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 ??

----------


## Cordite

@dannyb

----------


## dannyb

> @dannyb


??????
 @Cordite

----------


## Gapped axe

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.

----------


## Cordite

> ??????
>  @Cordite


 @dannyb 
Moa Hunter just forgot to put in the @ sign -  I'm not losing the plot. (-:

----------


## 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.


That settles it then.

----------


## timattalon

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??????

----------


## systolic

> 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.

----------


## 6x45

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.

----------


## Cordite

> 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....

I believe persons with a police-cancelled license are forbiddcn from even using an air rifle under direct supervision.  Someone pls correct me.

----------


## 6x45

@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.

----------


## systolic

> @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.


Read the Arms Act and see what it says. Then you might have more of a clue than "As far as I'm aware".

----------


## 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.

----------


## video hunter

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 ?

----------


## Cordite

@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.

----------


## Moa Hunter

> @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.
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.

----------


## Sidney

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.

----------


## Moa Hunter

> 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'

----------


## timattalon

> 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'


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. 

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.

----------


## Moa Hunter

> 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. 
> 
> 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 ??

----------


## Max Headroom

> Teaching idiots is a waste of time. I have tried , tried and tried again and guess what...They are usually still idiots.


There's distinction to be drawn amongst idiots:

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.

----------


## Cordite

> 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 utterly 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.


 @Sidney,

Fair summary of one take-home message of this thread.  Pride before fall.  Kick them or learn from them, can't do both.

----------

