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

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 ?

@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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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'

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

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.

Originally Posted by timattalon

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 ??

Originally Posted by timattalon

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.

Originally Posted by 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 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.