Thread: Wtf

There is nothing to prevent them. They are not banned from using. They just don't hold a firearms licence.

Well that quite clear thankyou Sydney.

I thought some of the posts were starting to stray a little away from what is considered good manners.

Are there any provisions in the law for someone to be banned from using firearms for a period of time or indefinitely ?

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 Sidney

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.

Sydney, thats because, to coin a phrase 'the laws an ass'.....i fully understand where you are coming from as regards the legal standpoint, the man in question has 'served' his punishment according to the sentence handed down!

But herein lies the problem, the vast majority of Kiwis in this country (im a pom by the way) are sick and tired of these limp sentences that are being handed down, where the rights of the convicted wrong doer are considered first

and not the 'rights' of the victims family!!!!...."arr the poor man will miss his hunting 'hobby' and probably end up depressed".......its people of 'your ilk' (stereotyping here) and mindset that are the problem.....

he should never be allowed to touch a firearm again, im sorry if your civil libertarianism is knocked out of kilter by my judgemental emotionalism, but this forum is all about opinions....guess everybody on here now knows were we both stand...

you didnt answer my question either!

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!

this is the part .... sure it could be emotional biais and only the reporters spin on things... but it makes me see red all the same.


In another sign that Dummer lacked remorse for the shooting, he questioned Cyndy McDonald about whether her son had a permit to be hunting in Aorangi at the time of his death.

She referred him to a police report, saying it confirmed her son had a permit.

Dummer can still pick up a bow and arrow if he still wants to hunt shit.

He's obviously a couch potato, being a smoker and whatnot. That's why he wants a gun, so much easier work.

Didn't he keep insisting, he 'saw the shoulder of a deer'? When it was actually a blaze beanie 16 meters away? Fuck he probably has glaucoma from all that tobacco.

Actually these two little snippets are more close to each other than all sides realise. This fella SHOULD have a new respect for the consequences of pulling the trigger. One thing that I took from the process of obtaining my licence was when you look through the scope ask yourself, "Is this a person?"

Originally Posted by Scribe

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

Originally Posted by Sidney

Everybody once through the process of legal accountability, has the right to move on.

I agree with both sides of the argument. Sidney is saying that Drummer has the right to apply, he is not saying that this application should be immediately accepted nor rejected. Everything should be weighed up and a decision made by those with all the information. Hence his suggestion that Tahr submit his experiences. There are a lot of questions that could be asked. Could loosing his FAL for life be considered serving his sentence, and that he is still serving it?

Settle down you guys. Your victim has escaped your clutches for the time being. Put away your pointy hats and blazing brands.

Just remember in a few days time you can dig him up and do it all over again.

Sydney has a point, the only prob I have is that, and im not just saying this guy, the past history of a person can be hidden or not told to the people making the decision to find guilty or not. Id be pissed if due process had occurred and I couldnt get on with what I legally allowed because of emotion. If you have previous convictions etc they should be laid on the table, a bad egg is usually a bad egg, not a born again virgin. Of course in the case of a raped woman the tables are turned with as much shit as possible about her, not the accused, being laid bare. Its a cocked up heap of shit!

Originally Posted by Maca49

Sydney has a point, the only prob I have is that, and im not just saying this guy, the past history of a person can be hidden or not told to the people making the decision to find guilty or not. Id be pissed if due process had occurred and I couldnt get on with what I legally allowed because of emotion. If you have previous convictions etc they should be laid on the table, a bad egg is usually a bad egg, not a born again virgin. Of course in the case of a raped woman the tables are turned with as much shit as possible about her, not the accused, being laid bare. Its a cocked up heap of shit!

The difference between a legal system and a justice system. It does have a valid foundation though. Just because someone did it last time doesn't mean they did it this time. It must be proven that in the present situation they did it. Their history is meant to be taken into consideration for any punishment if found guilty of the latest transgression.

Trouble with jurisprudence is it does, with bad decision on top of bad decision, seem to eventuate in

a cocked up heap of shit!

You know very time the subject of a shooting comes up and forum members wish for a harsher sentence for a loss of a life.

I wonder why 'Cave Creek' is never mentioned. 14 young lives were lost and others badly injured in this disaster. Just to refresh everybody's memories here. DOC ignored the need for a resource consent and built a platform out over a Gorge virtually relying upon screw nails to hold the structure together. It failed of course and collapsed down onto the canyon floor 40 metres below killing and maiming all that were on it at the time.

No one was ever charged with any offence at all on this matter nor was anyone penalised in any way. You see nobody at all was to blame for this, don't ask me why not, a school kid building it after school would have made a better job of it.

Actually looking at Dummer's reputation and behaviour it's possible that he's had a head injury at some point in which case he is not a fit and proper person

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.