A Peaceful Bushwalk
There you are, enjoying a leisurely, relaxing bushwalk in one of our beautiful national parks.
And then you feel a sensation like you've been punched hard on the side of the head... just as the lights go out.
The bits of brain and blood on the tree trunk next to where your head was only a few seconds ago give a clue as to why your body is now lying lifeless, but still twitching its final twitches, at the base of that tree.
You've been shot dead.
What am I on about?
Read this >>>
The Australian Shooters and Fishers Party wants to be allowed to hunt in our National Parks.
Discuss.
And then you feel a sensation like you've been punched hard on the side of the head... just as the lights go out.
The bits of brain and blood on the tree trunk next to where your head was only a few seconds ago give a clue as to why your body is now lying lifeless, but still twitching its final twitches, at the base of that tree.
You've been shot dead.
What am I on about?
Read this >>>
The Australian Shooters and Fishers Party wants to be allowed to hunt in our National Parks.
Discuss.
posted by The Editor at
6:35 PM
17 Comments:
This sort of incident crops up too often. Call it an accident if you choose to.
Killing or culling of wild dear should be left to those qualified to perform the task.
Yes it is very sad to hear about these happenings, however, it will happen again and again.
This comment has been removed by the author.
What about starting a campaign to eliminate the Recreational Shooter category from the Shooter's Licence? I can't believe that a firearm is a particularly effective means of controlling rats, for example; I mean, if it was, there wouldn't be any rats, would there?
Restrict shooters to target shooters only, on a range, supervised by a gun club. That's my theory.
@lemminwinks: There is a link. The link is that shooters sometimes get it wrong and accidentally shoot people.
The shooter in that story _knew_ his mate was out there somewhere and _still_ he shot him. How much easier would it be to accidentally get killed if the shooters didn't even know you were in the area.
As for the idea of 'special free fire zones' in the state forests, I guarantee that things will go wrong. Often. People will unknowingly wander into such an area, or shooters will accidentally wander out of their area.
Even in Vietnam, where special areas were set aside as "free fire zones", civilians regularly walked into them and got shot to bits. Heck, we often accidentally shot our own. It was incredible dangerous just to go out a short distance to have a bog because of the number of diggers accidentally getting shot whilst coming back in.
On the question of feral animal control on public lands, that should be done, IMHO, via military-style operations conducted by very highly skilled and disciplined professional shooters (or our grunts; ghod know they need the practice, and I'd rather they hone their skills shooting feral animals than Iraqis or Afghanis).
Game hunting? Easy. On private lands only. At the land owner's discretion and liability. More than enough game on private lands to keep game shooters happy.
Just wanna play with guns? Go join a gun club and do it on the range. That's my view on "recreational shooting".
Want a more adrenaline-charged life involving guns? Join the army, or an outlaw motorcycle club.
All tastes are already being catered-for. No need to do it on public lands.
Sorry...
This (from my point of view) is a rather specious argument. Yes, accidents happen. Should i refrain to drive a motor vehicle on a public road - on the chance that somebody else might "run into me" or my motor vehicle????
Have, as far as i am aware, set up me, my property; and lifestyle - to not expect to be shot by projectile weapons.
Where is the problem?
Game hunting? Easy. On private lands only. At the land owner's discretion and liability.
Not that easy to "control". Long range weapons do not respect "fences".
Gerry, am making several responses here. It's a complicated concept .. and am sort of on Lemmiwinks side on this one.
Guns are part of the male (and some female) perspective. "banning" them is stupid.
The "trick", from my point of view, is create a society where they are UN-nessesary - and you and i know that that is impossible.
@Davo:
[1] Who's talking about banning guns?
[2] "Guns are part of the male (and some female) perspective." Oh, really? can you explain that, Davo?
[3] Why are guns "necessary" in national parks, state forests, and crown lands (except in the ways in which I have "allowed" them)?
[1} You'd have to ask John Howard about that bit. Yes, there have been several incidences in Australia where individuals have used 'guns' to murder civilians. Have to revert to the aphorism - guns don't kill .. people do.
[2] There is no real reason why females cannot be taught to understand guns, and what the result might be.
[3] First part; Difficult discussion. "National Parks". there are some 'feral' animals - not "native", not 'native' - no local "predators", that have - in the brief time allowed them to 'adapt'.
So, problem. Should we, as humans, allow "natural selection". Given that the local inhabitants in this country have been given only 200 years to "adapt"?
@Davo: I mean this in the nicest possible way, Davo. Get off the grog and stay off the grog. You've stopped making sense.
Methinks many notions depend on the definition of 'sense'.
Article in The Canberra Times today: illegal shooters are not only operating in the Namadgi National Park adjacent to Canberra, they are introducing pigs into the park because they (the illegal shooters) have killed most of the feral pigs.
This obviously makes a nonsense of Lemmiwinks' claim that they would have to get a licence, make a booking, etc., etc. These pig-shooting bogans are operating illegally already.
Lemmiwinks. Very discriptive of your self, couldn't put it better.
Bloodthirsty Redneck Gun Nut.
Sorry don't have your Royal Tastes for Venison.
I'm with Andrew on this one.
This comment has been removed by the author.
@lemminwinks: I admit I don't know the details of the proposed legislation and therefore I said "national parks" when I should have said "state forests and crown lands." But that doesn't change the reason for this post or what I think is wrong with the shooters' agenda.
IMHO, professional shooters, or the army, are the only ones should be used to deal with the problem of feral animals on public lands.
If "hunters" or "recreational" shooters want to hunt live animals, be they feral or anything else, there's more than enough of that stuff on privately owned land all over the country, so if the landowners won't welcome you onto _their_ land, well, maybe that's a good enough reason for why you shouldn't be wandering around on public lands with loaded guns and camo.
Bigotry, lemmiwinks?
Where's the bigotry?
One is a bigot if one has a point of view which you disagree with?
And please stop obfuscating by bringing in dodgy "comparisons" with cars and motorcycles, that's just pure sophistry.
AndrewM and I are like many people (maybe even the majority???) out there who believe that the public should be free to enjoy the state forests and public lands without having to worry about whether there is a guy with a gun "accidentally" taking a bead on their head.
If you're going to call us bigots for having that point of view, then I think it's you who's lost the plot.
... ...many people (maybe even the majority???) out there who believe that the public should be free to enjoy the state forests and public lands without having to worry about whether there is a guy with a gun "accidentally" taking a bead on their head.
Doubt it Gerry, National Parks are (from my point of view) - not a "warzone". Accidents may, or may not, happen.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
==========
<<<<< Home
==========