Thread: Wtf

Shooter breaks vow to dead man's mum - national | Stuff.co.nz

Yeh I saw that on the news last night. I don't reckon there is any way in hell that he will get his firearms license restored. If the Police don't opposed that then it would make a mockery of the licensing process.

Originally Posted by Rushy

Yeh I saw that on the news last night. I don't reckon there is any way in hell that he will get his firearms license restored. If the Police don't opposed that then it would make a mockery of the licensing process.

My thoughts exactly , I'm not sure but is this the cocksucker that shot the poor bloke at like 16 mts then did a runner ( later to say he was going for help ) ?

Personally I think 4 months improsonment is a joke. It hardly puts any fear up us (hunters) about being punished severely for not following the firearm rules does it.
And to allow someone that has clearly not followed said rules to be back amongst the ones that do and other wildlife users would shameless.

Police have already said he won't be getting it, according to the news last night.

Read it this morning. Absolutely dumbfounded...

The problem is that he probably is already out there hunting with a mate's firearm.

When will we learn ?

Question for any members of the Welly Deerstalkers.

Has Dummer's membership been suspended or is he still around ?

U think he's more or less dangerous to have out hunting now? U know than someone who perhaps thinks that it can never happen to him?

I don't support him, but its less clear to me that his choices should be made by other people.

Originally Posted by Sidney

U think he's more or less dangerous to have out hunting now? U know than someone who perhaps thinks that it can never happen to him?

I don't support him, but its less clear to me that his choices should be made by other people.

He has proven he cannot make good ones for himself

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.

No way should he be allowed near a firearm again......we all know the 7 'commandments' and he has broken no1 in my book, after taking someones life, it should be written into the law, that he is never allowed a FAL again....just my 2c

And as for @7mmwsm question, i would not (just my opinion again) compare driving to shooting, if someone is found guilty of reckless driving causing death, they should also never be allowed behind a wheel again!!!!!!

I think he'd probably be safer having killed someone once he would be making damn sure it wouldn't happen again. imo

But then if he was to get his fal back then it's not very fair in the sense he has killed someone and gets to go back to doing what he loves so I think no for that reason. Not because he would shoot someone again.

Originally Posted by Toby

I think he'd probably be safer having killed someone once he would be making damn sure it wouldn't happen again. imo

But then if he was to get his fal back then it's not very fair in the sense he has killed someone and gets to go back to doing what he loves so I think no for that reason. Not because he would shoot someone again.

Thanks Tahr, your judgement on this, especially as you know the bloke is something we should all take note of, as I trust your opinion.