Thread: Wtf

That adds balance Tahr, some things you cannot get from reading the report in the paper, Thanks calmed me down and changed my opinion!

Originally Posted by Nathan F

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

Something this country is too good at unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Scribe

Experience has shown me over the years that the more times you go to the well the closer you are to falling in.

It could well be claimed that I never identified my target.

Thats true but in my view I see your situation as justified - you were in combat and believed that YOUR life was in immediate danger and you acted accordingly, where the extra time took to clearly identify your targets could have cost you big time.
However this guy was hunting deer and the extra time taken to identify his target would at a worst case be a lost animal - big deal, get out and try again.
Just how I see it

'tell that to the dead mans widow and children' by scouser

i have to apologise for this statement i made, the victim was single, i got him mixed up with 'another' poor victim who was married with children....too many, just too many....really sad

Give me a man to hunt with who thinks he could kill someone than the one who thinks he never could.

Originally Posted by Scribe

Never made a mistake, hell I once fired eighty rounds at two of our guys and completely missed them both.

So many rounds, that should be a lifetime without a FAL for me.

In what are a Scribe? If it was an arena of war then it did not require you to have an FAL in the first place and as scary as that sounds it would not have been a first time event in the heat of a battle.

Originally Posted by wsm junkie

Thats true but in my view I see your situation as justified - you were in combat and believed that YOUR life was in immediate danger and you acted accordingly, where the extra time took to clearly identify your targets could have cost you big time.
However this guy was hunting deer and the extra time taken to identify his target would at a worst case be a lost animal - big deal, get out and try again.
Just how I see it

yep that's true, but the circumstances were different than how you see it above.

But I have come close to killing two people since then. One myself.

Originally Posted by Rushy

In what are a Scribe? If it was an arena of war then it did not require you to have an FAL in the first place and as scary as that sounds it would not have been a first time event in the heat of a battle.

Hello Rushy, Interesting discussion, aye what!!!. I don't know what you are saying in your first sentence. It was the arena of war you are right. And no a FAL was not required.. But I know human nature, if I had have killed those two soldiers people would have sat in Judgement on myself as they a doing here.

What I am trying to say is that if you do anything with a firearm long enough or often enough then one day the cards will fall bad for you and you are just as capable as the next person of killing someone.

Not just with Weapons, Chopper Pilots kill Passengers, Taxi Drivers run over people on pedestrian crossings. There's a whole raft of bad shit waiting to land on your head.

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.

Sydney....you assume a lot too......pot, kettle, black......i have my opinion, you have yours.....hope this person does not kill one of your family or friends if he is allowed his FAL back.........

Ah yes, the law student is correct, we are all just dumb shits.

Debate sorted

Shit the forum is a real nail bitter today

Originally Posted by BRADS

Shit the forum is a real nail bitter today

Must be dirty laundry day

Originally Posted by ebf

Ah yes, the law student is correct, we are all just dumb shits.

Debate sorted

If thats the strength of your argument.... self classification won't fix it for you....

The shit throwing started with someone else.... nothing in my original post has actually been challenged, contested with any semblance of logical contribution. The response was pure emotional bullshit.

If you want to not be classified with the hanging mob, then don't behave like them.

Well, since we've managed to turn what started as an emotional and moral debate into a legal one, here's a legal question.

If a person has had a FAL revoked, are they still able to handle a firearm under the close supervision of a FAL holder ?