Thread: Wtf

Originally Posted by Gibo

He has proven he cannot make good ones for himself

Agreed. He has displayed random behaviour in more than one facet of his life. It's mainly been kept below the horizon since the shooting. Now though, on the back of the inquest and on what others' know about him, he should be protected from himself.

This does does not make him a bad man, nor should it vindictive. It's a simple thing really; bar him from firearms to keep him safe, others safe, and to preserve the reputation of shooting sports.

It was interesting to read a wee bit more about Chris,s other problems, some people just continue to surprise you

Originally Posted by Tahr

Agreed. He has displayed random behaviour in more than one facet of his life. It's mainly been kept below the horizon since the shooting. Now though, on the back of the inquest and on what others' know about him, he should be protected from himself.

This does does not make him a bad man, nor should it vindictive. It's a simple thing really; bar him from firearms to keep him safe, others safe, and to preserve the reputation of shooting sports.

It may be true what you say... but the outcome you think is appropriate for this individual case is based on personal knowledge and information, other behaviours and proclivities, that is not true of other people that may be in exactly this situation. I don't deny that he may not be suitable to be allowed a firearm licence ever again and outside information may well be pertinent to that decision which is made as to suitability. In fact I would suggest that if this is the case, and the information is genuine and there is genuine concern, I would suggest that the people that have personal knowledge (not 3rd party) should write and clarify their concerns to the police directly.

But is it sufficient that an error made in the blink of an eye, that is non-intentional and is isolated in terms of general behaviour, should have punitive life time punishment? It is unlikely that this should be the sole reason that a person can never do or be eligible to have a firearms licence again. The criteria to be eligible to hold a firearms licence is suitability, but if the likelihood of transgression or error in future is less than others without the history, is he then unsuitable?

While our emotive response to a persons desire to return to his previous lifestyle is understandable, because of the trauma associated.... what we don't understand is the absolute loss of identity of a person who can no longer do that thing that formed a massive part of their life. People in those situation also have the right to try and move on and for some maybe a return to hunting can aid in that, despite the close associative effect with the actual event that we find hard to understand.

Our lack of understanding of that is not the measure by which a decision should or shouldn't be made.

Originally Posted by Sidney

It may be true what you say... but the outcome you think is appropriate for this individual case is based on personal knowledge and information, other behaviours and proclivities, that is not true of other people that may be in exactly this situation. I don't deny that he may not be suitable to be allowed a firearm licence ever again and outside information may well be pertinent to that decision which is made as to suitability. In fact I would suggest that if this is the case, and the information is genuine and there is genuine concern, I would suggest that the people that have personal knowledge (not 3rd party) should write and clarify their concerns to the police directly.

But is it sufficient that an error made in the blink of an eye, that is non-intentional and is isolated in terms of general behaviour, should have punitive life time punishment? It is unlikely that this should be the sole reason that a person can never do or be eligible to have a firearms licence again. The criteria to be eligible to hold a firearms licence is suitability, but if the likelihood of transgression or error in future is less than others without the history, is he then unsuitable?

While our emotive response to a persons desire to return to his previous lifestyle is understandable, because of the trauma associated.... what we don't understand is the absolute loss of identity of a person who can no longer do that thing that formed a massive part of their life. People in those situation also have the right to try and move on and for some maybe a return to hunting can aid in that, despite the close associative effect with the actual event that we find hard to understand.

Our lack of understanding of that is not the measure by which a decision should or shouldn't be made.

Sydney, no personal offence, i know your a lawyer or about to become one, but that is total shite.....this man had his chance, he blew it, i dont give two fucks about his civil liberties, tell that to the dead mans widow and children....

Originally Posted by Scouser

Sydney, no personal offence, i know your a lawyer or about to become one, but that is total shite.....this man had his chance, he blew it, i dont give two fucks about his civil liberties, tell that to the dead mans widow and children....

You boys need to take your noose and pitchforks and go home. Legality has little to do with the your lack of emotional control. Whether you understand it or not this man has been through due process and is entitled under the law to apply for his firearms licence. Whether he is entitled to receive a firearms licence again isn't for you to decide, nor is it for you to decide what his attitude is about the victim, simply by his desire to go hunting again. He simply has to establish that he is suitable from this point forward. His history plays a part in that decision as it does for any of us.

You may find it hard to reconcile that desire, because you are at the front end of that situation and I am exactly the same. I find it difficult to think that I would too, but don't presume that you would know how you feel in his situation. To assume that he intends to disrespect the victims family just by feeling that he now wants to go hunting, places you fairly in the total bullshit part of the logical universe. Everybody once through the process of legal accountability, has the right to move on.

If you can't process or understand what I write, it doesn't make it shit.... it just means you don't have the capacity and you just can't deal with it emotionally.

The protections of the law for this man and for you, and the ability to make personal choices make this place a better place to live. Go and live somewhere where they don't have them and see the difference.

Originally Posted by Sidney

You boys need to take your noose and pitchforks and go home. Legality has little to do with the your lack of emotional control. Whether you understand it or not this man has been through due process and is entitled under the law to apply for his firearms licence. Whether he is entitled to receive a firearms licence again isn't for you to decide, nor is it for you to decide what his attitude is about the victim, simply by his desire to go hunting again. He simply has to establish that he is suitable from this point forward. His history plays a part in that decision as it does for any of us.

You may find it hard to reconcile that desire, because you are at the front end of that situation and I am exactly the same. I find it difficult to think that I would too, but don't presume that you would know how you feel in his situation. To assume that he intends to disrespect the victims family just by feeling that he now wants to go hunting, places you fairly in the total bullshit part of the logical universe. Everybody once through the process of legal accountability, has the right to move on.

If you can't process or understand what I write, it doesn't make it shit.... it just means you don't have the capacity and you just can't deal with it emotionally.

The protections of the law for this man and for you, and the ability to make personal choices make this place a better place to live. Go and live somewhere where they don't have them and see the difference.

You are correct. Law and objectivity are important elements of this discussion. But so too is emotion. All human interactions have elements of emotion, our own values and our own truths. To deny their existence and to not give them credence is to demean your own level of EQ (emotional intelligence).

Please do not respond with an assignment. I will not grade it. A response that demonstrates that you are at least one legally trained person who can operate at both the objective and emotional levels would though be appropriate.

Originally Posted by Tahr

You are correct. Law and objectivity are important elements of this discussion. But so too is emotion. All human interactions have elements of emotion, our own values and our own truths. To deny their existence and to not give them credence is to demean your own level of EQ (emotional intelligence).

Please do not respond with an assignment. I will not grade it. A response that demonstrates that you are at least one legally trained person who can operate at both the objective and emotional levels would though be appropriate.

While our emotive response to a persons desire to return to his previous lifestyle is understandable, because of the trauma associated.... what we don't understand is the absolute loss of identity of a person who can no longer do that thing that formed a massive part of their life.

You may find it hard to reconcile that desire, because you are at the front end of that situation and I am exactly the same. I find it difficult to think that I would too, but don't presume that you would know how you feel in his situation.

C'mon Thar.. thats a little patronising. I am not your student. Nor am I some 20 something with more conviction than understanding.

Perhaps you would like to identify empathy or emotional understanding in what is already written as above? Sympathy for the victims for their loss is an absolute given.

But I'm actually not convinced that encouraging people to think that its OK to feel aggrieved about someone resuming hunting after such an event, is in fact much different than allowing people to not ban firearms for the same reason.

In fact you could well argue, that the intentional use of firearms is far more traumatic and provides far stronger argument for banning such, but we don't accept that sort of discussion or emotional response as being appropriate either. Nor do we prevent drunk drivers returning to the road, careless drivers or dangerous drivers .. unless they are likely to have continuing issues for other peoples safety.

That is the qualification, your knowledge of this man might indicate that is more likely, and that needs to be assessed and I have no issue with that. Your posts were very sane but some of the following were not.

Originally Posted by Sidney

C'mon Thar.. thats a little patronising. I am not your student. Nor am I some 20 something with more conviction than understanding.

Perhaps you would like to identify empathy or emotional understanding in what is already written as above? Sympathy for the victims for their loss is an absolute given.

But I'm actually not convinced that encouraging people to think that its OK to feel aggrieved about someone resuming hunting after such an event, is in fact much different than allowing people to not ban firearms for the same reason.

In fact you could well argue, that the intentional use of firearms is far more traumatic and provides far stronger argument for banning such, but we don't accept that sort of discussion or emotional response as being appropriate either. Nor do we prevent drunk drivers returning to the road, careless drivers or dangerous drivers .. unless they are likely to have continuing issues for other peoples safety.

That is the qualification, your knowledge of this man might indicate that is more likely, and that needs to be assessed and I have no issue with that. Your posts were very sane but some of the following were not.

Yeah, it could have read as being patronizing. I actually thought I was being as funny as hell. A nice example of the difference between intention and impact. I need to up my EQ

Originally Posted by Sidney

You boys need to take your noose and pitchforks and go home. Legality has little to do with the your lack of emotional control. Whether you understand it or not this man has been through due process and is entitled under the law to apply for his firearms licence. Whether he is entitled to receive a firearms licence again isn't for you to decide, nor is it for you to decide what his attitude is about the victim, simply by his desire to go hunting again. He simply has to establish that he is suitable from this point forward. His history plays a part in that decision as it does for any of us.

You may find it hard to reconcile that desire, because you are at the front end of that situation and I am exactly the same. I find it difficult to think that I would too, but don't presume that you would know how you feel in his situation. To assume that he intends to disrespect the victims family just by feeling that he now wants to go hunting, places you fairly in the total bullshit part of the logical universe. Everybody once through the process of legal accountability, has the right to move on.

If you can't process or understand what I write, it doesn't make it shit.... it just means you don't have the capacity and you just can't deal with it emotionally.

The protections of the law for this man and for you, and the ability to make personal choices make this place a better place to live. Go and live somewhere where they don't have them and see the difference.

Ummm ok. Ive read processed and understood your agument which has lead me to the conclusion that you are still a cock with an intellectual superiority complex!

Originally Posted by Nathan F

Ummm ok. Ive read processed and understood your agument which has lead me to the conclusion that you are still a cock with an intellectual superiority complex!

In your world Nathan, there must be a lot of us around....

Originally Posted by Sidney

It may be true what you say... but the outcome you think is appropriate for this individual case is based on personal knowledge and information, other behaviours and proclivities, that is not true of other people that may be in exactly this situation. I don't deny that he may not be suitable to be allowed a firearm licence ever again and outside information may well be pertinent to that decision which is made as to suitability. In fact I would suggest that if this is the case, and the information is genuine and there is genuine concern, I would suggest that the people that have personal knowledge (not 3rd party) should write and clarify their concerns to the police directly.

But is it sufficient that an error made in the blink of an eye, that is non-intentional and is isolated in terms of general behaviour, should have punitive life time punishment? It is unlikely that this should be the sole reason that a person can never do or be eligible to have a firearms licence again. The criteria to be eligible to hold a firearms licence is suitability, but if the likelihood of transgression or error in future is less than others without the history, is he then unsuitable?

While our emotive response to a persons desire to return to his previous lifestyle is understandable, because of the trauma associated.... what we don't understand is the absolute loss of identity of a person who can no longer do that thing that formed a massive part of their life. People in those situation also have the right to try and move on and for some maybe a return to hunting can aid in that, despite the close associative effect with the actual event that we find hard to understand.

Our lack of understanding of that is not the measure by which a decision should or shouldn't be made.

What a load of shit.

Originally Posted by Nathan F

What a load of shit.

I deleted my post but it was similar to yours

Originally Posted by Gibo

I deleted my post but it was similar to yours

Well its just a whole lot of justification for inexcusable behaviour!

Originally Posted by Nathan F

Well its just a whole lot of justification for inexcusable behaviour!

Something this country is too good at unfortunately.