Printable View
what is it with this ' ex military ' that they think they're so much better with guns than anyone else . . because they did some training for dummies back in the day.
this lack of thinking that says ' its a recipe for disaster if anyone but them has a semi-auto ' facts have no place with them . . you cannot fix stupid but you do have to spend so much time trying to fend them off before they do to much damage.
Who are all these people that shoot the shit out of anything that moves?Quote:
Originally Posted by Natatale
In my experience most shooters and hunters are responsible, considerate and above all law abiding.
My 2 cents worth.
My son turned 16 last month and obtained a learners drivers licence and a firearms licence.
Both were relatively easy to get. He had more vetting for his FAL than the drivers.
He is more likely to injure or kill someone when using his drivers licence than his firearms licence.
It is the misuse of vehicle or firearm that will kill regardless of the licence status of the user.
I don't think raising the age for either licence would achieve any meaningful change.
I presume you're talking about hunting accidents here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Natatale
Have you ever stopped and wondered why so many hunting accidents are caused by experienced hunters. I think the discussion on human factors is a good direction. Sadly, I bet in nearly every situation the individual was convinced that they were shooting at game and not a person. No amount of competence based training will help someone that succumbs to visual illusions and incorrectly identifies their target.
Yeah but I have no doubt that a process that we were trained to go through would help with that.... we just need to know how it happens, and how to best deal with it.. then perhaps we might be able to generate a mental exercise that is more highly likely to be the correct outcome. The aim small, identify 3 parts of the animal sort of thing might be a useful part of that process... I would make the point also that we will be unlikely to be able to realistically identify people more likely to have issues prior to an incident. Eyesight tests and colour blindness and any potential susceptibility to optical illusion doesn't necessarily translate into poor decision making. It often makes people more careful and less likely to have problems.
Also there is no evidence to suggest that only some individuals are susceptible... I think that we all are. There could be a genetic factor at work, but all of us are subject to optical illusion under certain circumstances.
Exactly my point, anyone is susceptible to this phenomenon. All the things you added Sidney are all part of the Swiss cheese effect that lead up to an incident to where some is situationally impaired. Maybe that was a better term than visual illusion.
My previous post would be more correct to read...... 'someone that succumbs to a visual illusion and incorrectly identifies their target'.
As a former soldier (ex military for you that are not in the know) I do not believe that the training that I received has made me a safer handler of firearms than anyone that has not been in the forces. In fact when I first sat my FAL test I got one question wrong and that was one of the seven critical questions that cannot be answered incorrectly. In hindsight on the day when reviewing why I had gotten all other questions correct and this one wrong it was simply because I had answered from a former soldiers viewpoint. Being ex military is no determinant of safety.
Yep firearms registries are a joke, and a nightmare to administer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan88
Ok so you join a branch of the military do you get a firearms licence?
If you leave the military do you instantly get given a firearms licence or do you still need to sit one?
Now join the military and don't have vehicle licence?
Q1. No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sideshow
Q2. No.
Q3. If your trade requires a vehicle licence, the army will train you and get you your vehicle licence in the relevant vehicle class(es). The Army has its own LTSA certified instructors for this.
Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Had a funny conversation with a cop mate at one stage about him being qualified to use handguns, AR15s etc on duty if necessary but couldn't go shooting in his own time as he didn't have a licence. Good bugger with his head on the right way, think I'd still trust him more than most people with a gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sideshow
A very interesting thread, with some very divided opinions...
Yes already new the answer to this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by stretch
But while in the forces how many times did you see dick next to you do something so stupid you thought bugger that could have been me us?!
Don't get me wrong here any body who serves to protect hats off in my book...but not all are trained the right way!
If you have been tought in one envorment dose not mean that you can't retrain for a new envroment.
Just to throw my 10c on the Military training discussion.
Not all military are fully trained in the art of war. All are trained during basic, but at a basic level. After that most would be lucky to fire their rifles more than a couple times a year, at the most.
Just because someone has "got some time up" it dosn't mean they are jungle fighting snipers that fly Wokkers, jumping out of C130's while firing their cruise missles. More than likely they are mechanic's, cooks, blanket counters etc that go to work just like Mr Civi
1/2 of them have to reminded that the sharp end is the bit that the bullets comes out of
Doesn't matter what role you have. In the Army for example so many civilian safety rules are pointless and not practiced that I think teeth arms especially have a different approach to safety. And would go as far as saying they would come out of the service as complacent.
I did.
If you sweep someone with a pistol in ipsc you are likely DQ and considered a safety risk.
You could be firing it to cover a withdrawal toward someone running straight back at you in the military especially during training.
Dunno about now as it may have changed but certain members of a patrol would be locked and loaded with safety off and auto selected for weeks on end whilst moving. If you are doing your job properly you would sweep other members of your team countless times.
I never gave it a second thought, it was a requirement.
My point being, soldiers are not imo, going to automaticly have better safety standards than civilians that have high standards.
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Hmm still not getting the point, don't care about military training, been there done that and I know what you are on about.
But how many of the wantabee shooters get hold of a sks and a 100 rounds and haven't a clue of ANY form of training, only 1 hour of a safety talk that got them their FAL.
I would love to see 1/2 a day on a range as part of the FAL process in place of the 1 hour safety talk. Surely that's got to help ???
The head of police/minister of police countered that question by quoting a shooting incident where the shooter aimed shot and killed his mate so he had just proved he knew how to aim accurately and hit his target so what more would a couple of hours at a range do for him?
There shouldn't be any 'wannabe' shooters, people are either licenced or should be under the direct supervision of someone who is licenced.
There is an exam at the end of their 'safety talk' in which one must demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of the subject matter, the following of which should in theory preclude any accident or incident. Not to mention referrals and interviews.
Quit making generalisations about us a user group to be a bunch of muppets. Anyone with a computer can read this forum, they shouldn't have cause to form a negative opinion of us.
1) What difference does it make whether a "wannabe" shooter gets and sks, a jw15 or whatever?Quote:
Originally Posted by Natatale
2) Who is going to run this half a day on the range?
3) Whose range are you going to use? Some towns and rural areas have no range.
4) How is your half a day on the range going to stop people from shooting at each other in the field, when the range is nothing like the bush?
5) Who's going to pay for all this?
Australia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
I would think it very very rare for someone in New Zealand to apply for their license who has not had previous experience with firearms. and by experience I mean has at least fired a gun of some sort. most people applying for a FAL would probably have mates or family who are interested in shooting and from whom they caught the bug.
Two of the biggest idiots I have ever shot with, both in unrelated time and places, were both ex army. Just saying
No I don't think you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Natatale
My first centrefire WAS an SKS, long before I had any military training. The Mountain Safety Instructor made it very clear to us that a semi auto could be just as safe as any other gun, you just have to always remember that another round is loaded after you fire it. It is also very easy to check the chamber in an SKS (or SLR) and see if you have a round in the chamber or magazine. Very simple safety also. NEVER had an incident...
The Mountain Safety Instructor also warned us about tube magazines. Much more dangerous as they require a more work to check properly. I know of several untended discharges with tube fed firearms. Some bolt actions are also harder to check.
I hope one of these idiots wasn't me Pointer because I can't ever remember every shooting with you. Have I? Surely not! Can't have could I?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pointer
Hmm ok so all shooters are perfect, with a perfect FAL system and no one will ever shoot anybody else so what more can I say, nothing !! :thumbsup:
In my opinion and experience.... it is a good, simple, robust, tenable system, where by far the majority do the right thing.
This chap is anything BUT 'fit and proper'. http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti...ectid=11541131
Faaaaaark.... And this is just the one stupid enough to put that on a public facebook post.Quote:
Originally Posted by stretch
Ha, can't blame that rooster for wanting to change his name, what a mouthful.
Hopefully that's just an airsoft BB gun for show.
I'm glad the Feds are on to him.
Religion cool eh !
No... blaming religion for nut jobs is no different than blaming guns for nut jobs...
In fact its actually worse and even more inaccurate... most extremists ignore what their religion teaches....because they are nut jobs..
Religion's got the same guilt by association bullshit that firearms have got.... try to be a little smarter than that....
Is not quite the same thing. To be religious by definition you have to believe in a particular higher power without any concrete proof that he\she\it exists. Once you start accepting ideas because of "faith" and you are in the same dubious group of people who believe in a flat earth and homeopathy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
Also in Islam the punishment for apostasy (leaving the faith or questioning its fundamental beliefs) is defined in the Qur'an is death so you can't deny that is a violent religion.
I am not saying Islam is any worse than any other religion, just that they are all illogical and violent.
So the GCSB is reading all of emails to protect us all from "terrorism" and they found out about this bloke by reading his Facebook posts?Quote:
Originally Posted by stretch
One day religious belief will land you outside the 'fit and proper' classification.
Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Hearing voices in your head used to be enough for the pope to make you a saint. These days they call it schizophrenia.Quote:
Originally Posted by stretch
Fuck off back to Oz, taQuote:
Originally Posted by Natatale
Every human being has beliefs that don't have conrete proof. If you deny that then I'd be inclined to think you're delusional.Quote:
Originally Posted by MassiveAttack
C̶o̶n̶c̶r̶e̶t̶e̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶o̶f̶ evidence
Evidence that Mohamed existed? Plenty of that. Evidence that he was a military leader and that his followers conquered large parts of the world? Also plenty of that. More evidence than for many historic figures that we accept as real. I guess they are just following their leader...
However The biggest butchers in history have mostly been Atheists like Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler etc trying to achieve some sort of very earthly goal (power).
People can be led to do all sorts of evil stuff if you have the power and techniques to convince them (and they let you do it).
You can even convince people that gun owners are bad people if you control the press!:wtfsmilie:
*Says what we were all really thinking but didn't want to be so ruthless*Quote:
Originally Posted by gimp
Nah that is one of the biggest points. Nothing is ever perfect. There will always be some stuff ups and errors. Just part of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Natatale