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

Originally Posted by 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

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 .

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...

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

Originally Posted by Cordite

@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 ???

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

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.

Originally Posted by Cordite

@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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Cordite

@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.

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

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

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by 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...

@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?

@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