Thread: More stupidity

As per the title. Teen's death while duck shooting 'avoidable' Dunno who is the most stupid - dad for letting the boys out with guns, unsupervised - the kid who somehow shot himself, or the Coroner, who seems to think that stupidity and lack of responsibility can be regulated away. We already have the Firearms Act, The Arms Code and, supposedly, "common sense" which is obviously not that common. But these people "in authority" all seem to be control freaks.

Originally Posted by keneff

As per the title. Teen's death while duck shooting 'avoidable' Dunno who is the most stupid - dad for letting the boys out with guns, unsupervised - the kid who somehow shot himself, or the Coroner, who seems to think that stupidity and lack of responsibility can be regulated away. We already have the Firearms Act, The Arms Code and, supposedly, "common sense" which is obviously not that common. But these people "in authority" all seem to be control freaks.

I love how a teenager shooting himself requires a look at "identifying your taget" as the coroner asks. I am pretty sure everyone in the Mai Mai knew he was not a duck. Aksing in this case for a look at what is considered "supervision" or safety procedures with Teens and shotguns etc fair enough but how the F__K does this situation have anything to do with identifying a target???????? Did the coroner study muppetry at college? Was that even a course?

My understanding of supervision is the person supervising must be "in control" in in a position to take control of the firearm if the person using it is not licensed. To me this means that if you are supervising someone you are in close enough proximity to be able to stop the firearm from being pointed or discharged in any manner other than what is intended. I do not see how one adult can be responsible for supervising three teenagers with shotguns and maintain this level of control over those guns. In that respect I think the cops may need the charges relating to lack of proper supervision and the consequences of those actions to be looked at as in the other part of the coroners request.

Finally I only saw what was reported on the news so I apologise if the facts I got are wrong. I work with statistics and unfortunately I know the chances of the media being "mistaken" are very possible.....

Pretty supervised is arms length away ?

I found it interesting that the opening line for this story reported last night mentioned about re-writing the act...

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

I found it interesting that the opening line for this story reported last night mentioned about re-writing the act...

And it was 2 years ago.Are the coroner's that busy??..

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

Supervision is a grey area.
Go to any secondary schools clay bird event. A large percentage of the shooters are not licenced. Very seldom will you see supervision to the letter of the law ie within arms length.
Competence is a crucial factor. Maybe in this case the teenagers were competent, but made a mistake.

That may be, but any clay shoot we have (once a week) if there is an unlicensed (or its someone's first time at the club even and they are licensed) we have a range office or experienced member stand beside EACH of these shooters to assist with safety /supervise and provide any other assistance / guidance that may be needed.

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

Supervision is a grey area.
Go to any secondary schools clay bird event. A large percentage of the shooters are not licenced. Very seldom will you see supervision to the letter of the law ie within arms length.
Competence is a crucial factor. Maybe in this case the teenagers were competent, but made a mistake.

Letter of the law? Arms Length?

Where does it say anywhere in the law how close supervision is? The law says "immediate supervision".

We have enough cops making their own definitions, without shooters doing it too.

Originally Posted by madjon_

And it was 2 years ago.Are the coroner's that busy??..

I'm pretty sure the coroner has to wait for any criminal court cases to finish before he can make a finding.

Two years through the criminal courts where there was a death involved would be quick. I've had cases go longer than that through the employment court just to fire a employee.

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

My sincerest apologies @systolic.
How foolish of me to included the term "letter of the law" when I knew you would read my post.
Although it is generally accepted that immediate supervision means within arms length and ready to take control should the need arise.
But perhaps, with your wealth of knowledge on such matters, you could fill the rest of us in on what is acceptable under the heading of supervision.

Umm. No.

YOU are the one saying "immediate supervision means within arms length and ready to take control should the need arise".

You should have to back it up with facts like the law or regulations to prove your point.

I've already said the law doesn't define immediate supervision. It's up to you to prove otherwise.

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

Quite frankly, I can't be bothered.

Because you know you are wrong and I am right.

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

Yes you quite possibly are right.
So as you are so certain you know you are right, please enlighten us as to what is acceptable under the law relating to direct supervision.

I never said what is or isn't acceptable. I asked: Where does it say anywhere in the law how close supervision is? The law says "immediate supervision".

The word "immediate" can mean:

1.occurring or accomplished without delay; instant: an immediate reply.

2.following or preceding without a lapse of time: the immediate future.

3.having no object or space intervening; nearest or next: in the immediate vicinity.

Therefore is it not reasonable to assume that "immediate supervision" means supervision where the supervisor can supervise immediately by being next or nearest to the unlicensed person; to act instantly, if necessary?

[QUOTE=10
Probably wasting your breath 10ring its kinda funny how the "smart ones " can be total dumb asses when it comes to common sense

Sheldon.
Doesn't realize that he offends others,
and really doesn't care.

if i am supervising/training an unlicensed shooter I make bloody sure of the following
1 I am within arms length .
2 they only act on my instruction,when i speak
3 once shot is fired weapon is made safe and handed to me.bolt open -action broken etc. barrells must always point down range.
4 I load the rounds no one else.
5 anyone else in the vicinity is made aware of what we are doing and stays well clear ,unless specifically invited in
6very occasionally with cocky users a wee bit of army discipline is required ,or else my pet I tell you once then my boot goes up your arse.
had that happen with one little smartarse who wouldnt listen using his old mans .270-reckoned it was just a pussy to shoot -didnt like it when i grabbed the barrel and pulled it then shoved it hard back-a baby would hold it tighter,and when he fired the shot it kicked him hard.his old man had no sympathy with him whining about his shoulder.he declined the boot in the arse even though we pointed out it would take the focus away from the so called painful shoulder.
he actually turned out to be a gifted shooter,and funnily enough a very good teacher.

In relation to the above thought coroners have been harping on in this vein for for the past 5 yrs at least,and its highly likely to continue as "classic solution to" all firearms tragedies given they are in fact civil servants reliant on police input