Busted blasting clay pigeons in Tidbinbilla

HenryBG said :

LSWCHP said :

A .22 will kill you stone dead if it hits you in the right place, regardless of the range.

Mossad agents and Israeli sky marshals used to use .Beretta model.22 calibre handguns (perhaps they still do) to kill terrorists and hijackers, and I assume they knew what they were doing at the time.

Remember the Aussie soldier in East Timor who was driving a truck which was ambushed by the Indonesian-sponsored militia, he was shot in the neck and then jumped out of his truck and returned fire?

http://www.specialoperations.com/Foreign/Australia/SASR/East_Timor.htm

Hogno from memory.

Disinformation said :

Current American technology for Sky Marshals is extremely high velocity aluminium (or probably “aluminum” ) rounds which have rapid energy bleed off compared to lead based projectiles. Awesome for poking holes in perps at 20 feet, but eminently friendlier for the passengers right behind them. I think we need friendlier bullets for bystanders.

Frangible rounds, also go for blowing doors off their hinges without a lump of lead going through three houses.

LSWCHP said :

A .22 will kill you stone dead if it hits you in the right place, regardless of the range.

Mossad agents and Israeli sky marshals used to use .Beretta model.22 calibre handguns (perhaps they still do) to kill terrorists and hijackers, and I assume they knew what they were doing at the time.

Remember the Aussie soldier in East Timor who was driving a truck which was ambushed by the Indonesian-sponsored militia, he was shot in the neck and then jumped out of his truck and returned fire?

http://www.specialoperations.com/Foreign/Australia/SASR/East_Timor.htm

LSWCHP said :

A .22 will kill you stone dead if it hits you in the right place, regardless of the range.

Mossad agents and Israeli sky marshals used to use .Beretta model.22 calibre handguns (perhaps they still do) to kill terrorists and hijackers, and I assume they knew what they were doing at the time.

I’m not sure about how the Israeli’s do things now, but it appears that they use Forged Australian passports to kill terrorists as well these days.

Current American technology for Sky Marshals is extremely high velocity aluminium (or probably “aluminum” ) rounds which have rapid energy bleed off compared to lead based projectiles. Awesome for poking holes in perps at 20 feet, but eminently friendlier for the passengers right behind them. I think we need friendlier bullets for bystanders.

HenryBG said :

PBO said :

Rebos said :

This brings back memories of the incident a few years back (late 80’s??) where a man with his family at the Cotter reserve playground was shot in the neck and killed by a .22 bullet discharged half a kilometre away from up on the hill adjacent to the road to Uriarra. The offender was shooting a target on a tree, missed, and the bullet arced downwards to the reserve hitting the poor man.

Given the distance and type of rifle you have stated i would have to say BS. It would have to be a larger calibre to achieve what you have said.

A .22 is very survivable at close range (why do you think the last six months of tit-for-tat drive-bys in Sydney have resulted in zero deaths?), the idea that a spent .22 shell is going to kill someone is quite surprising. Very unlucky, if true. Like the Canberra truck driver in Sydney last year.
/quote]

Casualties have been limited because the shooters are crap marksmen and don’t hit their targets, not because of the caliber of the weapons they use.

A .22 will kill you stone dead if it hits you in the right place, regardless of the range.

Mossad agents and Israeli sky marshals used to use .Beretta model.22 calibre handguns (perhaps they still do) to kill terrorists and hijackers, and I assume they knew what they were doing at the time.

PBO said :

Rebos said :

This brings back memories of the incident a few years back (late 80’s??) where a man with his family at the Cotter reserve playground was shot in the neck and killed by a .22 bullet discharged half a kilometre away from up on the hill adjacent to the road to Uriarra. The offender was shooting a target on a tree, missed, and the bullet arced downwards to the reserve hitting the poor man.

Given the distance and type of rifle you have stated i would have to say BS. It would have to be a larger calibre to achieve what you have said.

It happened.I remember it occurring when I was a kid. In fact, I was upgrading my firearms licence at the firearms registry a couple of months ago and I discussed this very incident with the registry staff as we were going through the paperwork. The shooter was firing from the top of a hill overlooking the Cotter reserve, and the projectile travelled over the crest of the hill and down into the reserve, striking this poor man and killing him.

A .22 Long Rifle can be dangerous up to several kilometers. The packets generally contain warnings to this effect.

Birdshot from a 12 gauge won’t travel too far and that’s probably what these damned arsehats were using. But double-ought buckshot is .32 calibre in diameter (ie 8mm), and can travel a helluva long way.

I’m filled with anger and frustration every time I hear of firearms being used stupidly and illegally. Particularly so in the case of a registered owner doing somethign profoundly stupid like this. It can only give the good guys a bad name.

PBO said :

We dont know if they had precautions in place or had determined whether or not the area was safe.

.

We can fairly safely assume that if they were unaware of a bunch of coppers waiting for them to come out of the bush, then they were probably unaware of many other things.

This has nothing to do with whether they were practicing safe shooting, they were doing it in the wrong spot regardless. As a practicing gun nut myself , the arrogance of other owners (and anti gun nuts) is what pisses me off the most.

c_c said :

Bullet arced downwards – contrary to what Angelina Jolie may have demonstrated, that’s not likely.

I don’t know what you mean exactly, but you seem to be suggesting that bullets are immune to gravity, and that they don’t follow a ballistic arc like every other object thrown or fired within the earths gravity.

snoopydoc said :

HenryBG said :

A .22 is very survivable at close range (why do you think the last six months of tit-for-tat drive-bys in Sydney have resulted in zero deaths?), the idea that a spent .22 shell is going to kill someone is quite surprising. Very unlucky, if true. Like the Canberra truck driver in Sydney last year.

Henry, being new to The Riot Act, I’m still not _entirely_ sure. Do you intentionally make obtuse comments to keep the rest of us entertained, or are you really that stupid?

I am genuinely curious, as the idea that anyone would consider a .22 weapon fired at another person at close range to be not terribly dangerous… well, it kind of bothers me.

I find it entertaining that you can’t tell the difference between “survivable” and “dangerous” and this inability bothers you.

HenryBG makes perfect sense. That you can’t understand it isn’t his problem.

thy_dungeonman said :

snoopydoc said :

It’s not a cotton-wool issue. Firearms are dangerous. Would you make an argument that driving on the footpath is okay because well, it didn’t look like that many people were around, and I probably wasn’t going to hit anyone… ?

You would be surprised, I have witnessed people driving, parking, and operating heavy machinery (without any warning signs or cones) on footpaths and shared paths, usually it’s tradesmen, they seem to think the world is their road just because they fixing something (and usually they destroy the area around it completely).

Well said Snoopydoc. Btw in recent months I’ve seen a car driving along the footpath parallel to King Edward Terrace in front of the Gallery and a car driving along the footpath alongside the lake where the road curves around Blundells Cottage.

snoopydoc said :

HenryBG said :

A .22 is very survivable at close range (why do you think the last six months of tit-for-tat drive-bys in Sydney have resulted in zero deaths?), the idea that a spent .22 shell is going to kill someone is quite surprising. Very unlucky, if true. Like the Canberra truck driver in Sydney last year.

Henry, being new to The Riot Act, I’m still not _entirely_ sure. Do you intentionally make obtuse comments to keep the rest of us entertained, or are you really that stupid?

I am genuinely curious, as the idea that anyone would consider a .22 weapon fired at another person at close range to be not terribly dangerous… well, it kind of bothers me.

And I’m not entirely sure where you get “not terribly dangerous from”.

Is this some new form of analysis they are teaching nowadays at the numerous pretend-universities where numeracy, literacy, and basic analytic skills are considered no just unimportant, but positively subversive?

Here’s a hint: until you figure out how to comprehend text, stick to reading it and avoid commenting on it.

c_c said :

HenryBG said :

PBO said :

Rebos said :

This brings back memories of the incident a few years back (late 80’s??) where a man with his family at the Cotter reserve playground was shot in the neck and killed by a .22 bullet discharged half a kilometre away from up on the hill adjacent to the road to Uriarra. The offender was shooting a target on a tree, missed, and the bullet arced downwards to the reserve hitting the poor man.

Given the distance and type of rifle you have stated i would have to say BS. It would have to be a larger calibre to achieve what you have said.

A .22 is very survivable at close range (why do you think the last six months of tit-for-tat drive-bys in Sydney have resulted in zero deaths?), the idea that a spent .22 shell is going to kill someone is quite surprising. Very unlucky, if true. Like the Canberra truck driver in Sydney last year.

Also surprising is that fact that despite spending portions of the last 5 decades living in Canberra, I never heard this story before, and I would expect I would remember it.

Details?

Bullet arced downwards – contrary to what Angelina Jolie may have demonstrated, that’s not likely.

Well it is, he’s not talking about bending the bullet around a corner, he is talking about a bullet that follows it’s natural arc when fired, it would trend towards gravity and have a downwards arc.

snoopydoc said :

It’s not a cotton-wool issue. Firearms are dangerous. Would you make an argument that driving on the footpath is okay because well, it didn’t look like that many people were around, and I probably wasn’t going to hit anyone… ?

You would be surprised, I have witnessed people driving, parking, and operating heavy machinery (without any warning signs or cones) on footpaths and shared paths, usually it’s tradesmen, they seem to think the world is their road just because they fixing something (and usually they destroy the area around it completely).

HenryBG said :

PBO said :

Rebos said :

This brings back memories of the incident a few years back (late 80’s??) where a man with his family at the Cotter reserve playground was shot in the neck and killed by a .22 bullet discharged half a kilometre away from up on the hill adjacent to the road to Uriarra. The offender was shooting a target on a tree, missed, and the bullet arced downwards to the reserve hitting the poor man.

Given the distance and type of rifle you have stated i would have to say BS. It would have to be a larger calibre to achieve what you have said.

A .22 is very survivable at close range (why do you think the last six months of tit-for-tat drive-bys in Sydney have resulted in zero deaths?), the idea that a spent .22 shell is going to kill someone is quite surprising. Very unlucky, if true. Like the Canberra truck driver in Sydney last year.

Also surprising is that fact that despite spending portions of the last 5 decades living in Canberra, I never heard this story before, and I would expect I would remember it.

Details?

Bullet arced downwards – contrary to what Angelina Jolie may have demonstrated, that’s not likely.

HenryBG said :

A .22 is very survivable at close range (why do you think the last six months of tit-for-tat drive-bys in Sydney have resulted in zero deaths?), the idea that a spent .22 shell is going to kill someone is quite surprising. Very unlucky, if true. Like the Canberra truck driver in Sydney last year.

Henry, being new to The Riot Act, I’m still not _entirely_ sure. Do you intentionally make obtuse comments to keep the rest of us entertained, or are you really that stupid?

I am genuinely curious, as the idea that anyone would consider a .22 weapon fired at another person at close range to be not terribly dangerous… well, it kind of bothers me.

PBO said :

Rebos said :

This brings back memories of the incident a few years back (late 80’s??) where a man with his family at the Cotter reserve playground was shot in the neck and killed by a .22 bullet discharged half a kilometre away from up on the hill adjacent to the road to Uriarra. The offender was shooting a target on a tree, missed, and the bullet arced downwards to the reserve hitting the poor man.

Given the distance and type of rifle you have stated i would have to say BS. It would have to be a larger calibre to achieve what you have said.

A .22 is very survivable at close range (why do you think the last six months of tit-for-tat drive-bys in Sydney have resulted in zero deaths?), the idea that a spent .22 shell is going to kill someone is quite surprising. Very unlucky, if true. Like the Canberra truck driver in Sydney last year.

Also surprising is that fact that despite spending portions of the last 5 decades living in Canberra, I never heard this story before, and I would expect I would remember it.

Details?

1. It’s illegal.
2. It’s stupid.
3. Arguments in favour of it being “kinda okay because they might have sorted out their safe arcs and fields of fire”, etc., are even more stupid.

It’s not a cotton-wool issue. Firearms are dangerous. Would you make an argument that driving on the footpath is okay because well, it didn’t look like that many people were around, and I probably wasn’t going to hit anyone… ?

PBO said :

Given the distance and type of rifle you have stated i would have to say BS. It would have to be a larger calibre to achieve what you have said.

In 1993 at the Brukunga Shooting Club range in SA, I watched a guy hit the 500 meter gong with his single shot .22 target rifle. Sure, he was aiming at a spot about 40 feet up and 12 feet left and he only hit it about one shot in four, but it was easily making the distance with enough energy to make enough noise on the gong. It was hilarious. Everyone paused as soon as he fired just so they could hear it.

I have no doubt at all that a .22 can make that distance. Getting hit and killed by one is incredibly unlucky.

Rebos said :

This brings back memories of the incident a few years back (late 80’s??) where a man with his family at the Cotter reserve playground was shot in the neck and killed by a .22 bullet discharged half a kilometre away from up on the hill adjacent to the road to Uriarra. The offender was shooting a target on a tree, missed, and the bullet arced downwards to the reserve hitting the poor man.

Given the distance and type of rifle you have stated i would have to say BS. It would have to be a larger calibre to achieve what you have said.

This brings back memories of the incident a few years back (late 80’s??) where a man with his family at the Cotter reserve playground was shot in the neck and killed by a .22 bullet discharged half a kilometre away from up on the hill adjacent to the road to Uriarra. The offender was shooting a target on a tree, missed, and the bullet arced downwards to the reserve hitting the poor man.

HenryBG said :

buzz819 said :

HenryBG said :

peterh said :

PBO said :

Whoa, better get some more cotton wool to wrap us in!

Would this really have been such an issue 20 years ago? How do we know that they did not have a safe area marked out or had not calculated where their shot would fall?

are you serious? what if a hiker walked into the line of fire, .

You mean, if a hiker flew into the line of fire.

Honestly, a bit of shot isn’t something to panic about. It really isn’t going to hurt anybody. It’s a tiny fraction of the size of a bullet.

Issuing a gun licence to somebody who thinks this is a good idea, on the other hand, is seriously concerning. What were the AFP thinking?

Obviously in the answer section for “Are you going to take your licensed shotgun to a nature reserve to conduct illegal trap shooting?” the crafty young lad must have lied and said no he wouldn’t.

You seem to be suggesting that the AFP relies primarily on confessions to do its job.
A bit 1970’s, don’t you think?

No I’m sure they use Police checks to find out if he has committed any offences, if this is the first time he has been caught committing and offence, then what grounds would they have of denying him the licence? Maybe they have made illegal to maybe committing a crime?

HenryBG said :

You seem to be suggesting that the AFP relies primarily on confessions to do its job.
A bit 1970’s, don’t you think?

Seems to be the way they handle people smugglers…
AFP: “Are you a refugee, or a people smuggler?”
Boat Captain: “Sorry, what were the choices again?”
AFP: “Are you a refugee, or a people smuggler?”
BC: “Ohhhhh. Which one’s the bad one again?”
AFP: “People Smuggler.”
BC: “Well, I’m the other!”
AFP: “No worries then, let me just check” (looks at ASIO agent in the corner, fapping; mistakes frantic nodding for gesture of agreement)
AFP: “Right sir, thank you for your time”

buzz819 said :

HenryBG said :

peterh said :

PBO said :

Whoa, better get some more cotton wool to wrap us in!

Would this really have been such an issue 20 years ago? How do we know that they did not have a safe area marked out or had not calculated where their shot would fall?

are you serious? what if a hiker walked into the line of fire, .

You mean, if a hiker flew into the line of fire.

Honestly, a bit of shot isn’t something to panic about. It really isn’t going to hurt anybody. It’s a tiny fraction of the size of a bullet.

Issuing a gun licence to somebody who thinks this is a good idea, on the other hand, is seriously concerning. What were the AFP thinking?

Obviously in the answer section for “Are you going to take your licensed shotgun to a nature reserve to conduct illegal trap shooting?” the crafty young lad must have lied and said no he wouldn’t.

You seem to be suggesting that the AFP relies primarily on confessions to do its job.
A bit 1970’s, don’t you think?

Disinformation said :

MissChief said :

Wow…. and to think I’d only recently been sent there to see the kangaroos because our local mobs have been decimated (see decapitated joey story). !

Decimated? They killed one in ten of the local kangaroos?

MissChief said :

Which poses an interesting question: where will the shooters go when they’ve finished killing the kangaroos that live in our city? Seems like they already have some idea, and how clever of them to set up a decoy excuse… because in all reality, no one could be that stupid!

I believe that you’ve supplied evidence to the contrary.

My thought exactly, especially when she accuse wildturkeycanoe for shooting at her in the joey thread ………. you cant let a good story get in the way of the truth. I am sure if there was a threat to life they would have been locked up & needed bail.

The rhetoric about safe distances is moot, and I recommend knowing before speaking.

This bloke knew what he was doing was not legal, and regardless of his own safety assessment he would have known that the law and the residents of Canberra would take a pretty dim view on his actions.

One less cowboy giving the rest of us a bad name.

MissChief said :

Wow…. and to think I’d only recently been sent there to see the kangaroos because our local mobs have been decimated (see decapitated joey story). !

Decimated? They killed one in ten of the local kangaroos?

MissChief said :

Which poses an interesting question: where will the shooters go when they’ve finished killing the kangaroos that live in our city? Seems like they already have some idea, and how clever of them to set up a decoy excuse… because in all reality, no one could be that stupid!

I believe that you’ve supplied evidence to the contrary.

Wow, the police responded to a report of gunshots in a nature reserve! I tried getting someone to attend chainsaw use and shooting of firearms in a national park with campers abundantly located last year and the NSW Police said they’d contact the local ranger. Nobody ever showed up to correct the error of their ways, I just stayed close to the ground for the rest of the night and hoped they weren’t totally off their heads. Good on the AFP for doing something right though, congratulations. Now, if only the judicial system will follow through appropriately….

HenryBG said :

peterh said :

PBO said :

Whoa, better get some more cotton wool to wrap us in!

Would this really have been such an issue 20 years ago? How do we know that they did not have a safe area marked out or had not calculated where their shot would fall?

are you serious? what if a hiker walked into the line of fire, .

You mean, if a hiker flew into the line of fire.

Honestly, a bit of shot isn’t something to panic about. It really isn’t going to hurt anybody. It’s a tiny fraction of the size of a bullet.

Issuing a gun licence to somebody who thinks this is a good idea, on the other hand, is seriously concerning. What were the AFP thinking?

Obviously in the answer section for “Are you going to take your licensed shotgun to a nature reserve to conduct illegal trap shooting?” the crafty young lad must have lied and said no he wouldn’t.

peterh said :

PBO said :

Whoa, better get some more cotton wool to wrap us in!

Would this really have been such an issue 20 years ago? How do we know that they did not have a safe area marked out or had not calculated where their shot would fall?

are you serious? what if a hiker walked into the line of fire, .

You mean, if a hiker flew into the line of fire.

Honestly, a bit of shot isn’t something to panic about. It really isn’t going to hurt anybody. It’s a tiny fraction of the size of a bullet.

Issuing a gun licence to somebody who thinks this is a good idea, on the other hand, is seriously concerning. What were the AFP thinking?

peterh said :

EvanJames said :

Stupid and yobbish, and I’m glad the authorities were on to it as gunshots could well be scum blasting away at teh wildlife. But, of all the firearms least likely to endanger bushwalkers etc, a 12-gauge would have to be right up there, as their range is pretty short. So stray bullets continuing on to get people some distance away are unlikely to happen.

But nature reserves are reserves, for nature. Not gun-nuts.

12 gauge has a range for AA class shooters of 21m. 15m for C Class. At Tidbinbilla, there are a couple of areas that would accommodate the distance, but there would be kids at one site, and picnickers at the other. Marking out the site is fine if you expect that kind of behavior, but who would in a nature park?

Pellets aren’t the only thing falling to earth, there are clay traps as well, and they do sting if they hit you.

probably why you can’t stand forward of the firing area when there is a shoot on.

The 21 meter mark is the length of the trap that you shoot from, the projectiles don’t magically stop at this point.

Wow…. and to think I’d only recently been sent there to see the kangaroos because our local mobs have been decimated (see decapitated joey story). Which poses an interesting question: where will the shooters go when they’ve finished killing the kangaroos that live in our city? Seems like they already have some idea, and how clever of them to set up a decoy excuse… because in all reality, no one could be that stupid!

EvanJames said :

Stupid and yobbish, and I’m glad the authorities were on to it as gunshots could well be scum blasting away at teh wildlife. But, of all the firearms least likely to endanger bushwalkers etc, a 12-gauge would have to be right up there, as their range is pretty short. So stray bullets continuing on to get people some distance away are unlikely to happen.

But nature reserves are reserves, for nature. Not gun-nuts.

12 gauge has a range for AA class shooters of 21m. 15m for C Class. At Tidbinbilla, there are a couple of areas that would accommodate the distance, but there would be kids at one site, and picnickers at the other. Marking out the site is fine if you expect that kind of behavior, but who would in a nature park?

Pellets aren’t the only thing falling to earth, there are clay traps as well, and they do sting if they hit you.

probably why you can’t stand forward of the firing area when there is a shoot on.

Jivrashia said :

buzz819 said :

Why would they go out there at all??? Every Wednesday night at the shotgun at Majura you can do it legally and safely.

Some thing to do with only one person out of the three holding a gun license?
(you do still have to have a license to be allow to shoot at the Majura range, don’t you?)

Nope, I did it for about 3 years, I still don’t have a gun license, you go out, hire a range gun and have a shoot. So that theory doesn’t really hold.

DrKoresh said :

GardeningGirl said :

Doing something illegal doesn’t inspire much trust in their ability to do things the right way.

peterh said :

PBO said :

Whoa, better get some more cotton wool to wrap us in!

Would this really have been such an issue 20 years ago? How do we know that they did not have a safe area marked out or had not calculated where their shot would fall?

are you serious? what if a hiker walked into the line of fire, or shot rained down on the kids playground? It is a nature reserve. It is used by many canberrans for weekend activities. This is just plain stupidity. They could have, oh, I don’t know, gone out to the gun club at majura and shot clay pigeons there. It’s pretty close to casey, in fact a lot closer than tidbinbilla is.

I doubt they were shooting at the kiddie’s playground. As for missed shot raining death on the ground, MythBusters tested what damage a bullet falling to earth can do and it wasn’t a lot. Seeing as this was most likely pellets I imagine they would pose even less danger than a bullet on the way back down.

Well the mythbusters did do this test, but that was for a bullet fired straight up, not at angle. A different arc would mean that the projectile would not lose as much energy as fast as the same projectile fired straight up in the air. Yes, it probably was bird shot they were firing with, but that still has an effective range of about 30 – 45 meters, with an up angle this could still cause I would image significant injury for maybe 70 – 80 meters, might not kill, but would definitely piss me off.

buzz819 said :

Why would they go out there at all??? Every Wednesday night at the shotgun at Majura you can do it legally and safely.

Some thing to do with only one person out of the three holding a gun license?
(you do still have to have a license to be allow to shoot at the Majura range, don’t you?)

Stupid and yobbish, and I’m glad the authorities were on to it as gunshots could well be scum blasting away at teh wildlife. But, of all the firearms least likely to endanger bushwalkers etc, a 12-gauge would have to be right up there, as their range is pretty short. So stray bullets continuing on to get people some distance away are unlikely to happen.

But nature reserves are reserves, for nature. Not gun-nuts.

GardeningGirl said :

Doing something illegal doesn’t inspire much trust in their ability to do things the right way.

peterh said :

PBO said :

Whoa, better get some more cotton wool to wrap us in!

Would this really have been such an issue 20 years ago? How do we know that they did not have a safe area marked out or had not calculated where their shot would fall?

are you serious? what if a hiker walked into the line of fire, or shot rained down on the kids playground? It is a nature reserve. It is used by many canberrans for weekend activities. This is just plain stupidity. They could have, oh, I don’t know, gone out to the gun club at majura and shot clay pigeons there. It’s pretty close to casey, in fact a lot closer than tidbinbilla is.

I doubt they were shooting at the kiddie’s playground. As for missed shot raining death on the ground, MythBusters tested what damage a bullet falling to earth can do and it wasn’t a lot. Seeing as this was most likely pellets I imagine they would pose even less danger than a bullet on the way back down.

PBO said :

Whoa, better get some more cotton wool to wrap us in!

Would this really have been such an issue 20 years ago? How do we know that they did not have a safe area marked out or had not calculated where their shot would fall?

I remember more than 20 years ago reading in the news of a case where a car passenger on a public road was killed by someone target shooting cans in a nearby paddock. Not to mention the hunting accidents reported over the years despite the people involved being aware of each others presence and location. How is ensuring sensible separation of sports involving projectiles from the general public a “cotton wool” issue?

PBO said :

Yes what they did was illegal, however, they may have gone about it mostly the right way.

Doing something illegal doesn’t inspire much trust in their ability to do things the right way.

PBO said :

peterh said :

PBO said :

Whoa, better get some more cotton wool to wrap us in!

Would this really have been such an issue 20 years ago? How do we know that they did not have a safe area marked out or had not calculated where their shot would fall?

are you serious? what if a hiker walked into the line of fire, or shot rained down on the kids playground? It is a nature reserve. It is used by many canberrans for weekend activities. This is just plain stupidity. They could have, oh, I don’t know, gone out to the gun club at majura and shot clay pigeons there. It’s pretty close to casey, in fact a lot closer than tidbinbilla is.

We dont know if they had precautions in place or had determined whether or not the area was safe.

Yes what they did was illegal, however, they may have gone about it mostly the right way.

Why would they go out there at all??? Every Wednesday night at the shotgun at Majura you can do it legally and safely. People playing with guns when and where they are not supposed to is when people get injured.

peterh said :

PBO said :

Whoa, better get some more cotton wool to wrap us in!

Would this really have been such an issue 20 years ago? How do we know that they did not have a safe area marked out or had not calculated where their shot would fall?

are you serious? what if a hiker walked into the line of fire, or shot rained down on the kids playground? It is a nature reserve. It is used by many canberrans for weekend activities. This is just plain stupidity. They could have, oh, I don’t know, gone out to the gun club at majura and shot clay pigeons there. It’s pretty close to casey, in fact a lot closer than tidbinbilla is.

We dont know if they had precautions in place or had determined whether or not the area was safe.

Yes what they did was illegal, however, they may have gone about it mostly the right way.

Ummmmm, of all the miscellaneous places they could have picked to illegally use a shotgun, they pick the nature reserve? Rocket surgeons they are not.

PBO said :

Whoa, better get some more cotton wool to wrap us in!

Would this really have been such an issue 20 years ago? How do we know that they did not have a safe area marked out or had not calculated where their shot would fall?

are you serious? what if a hiker walked into the line of fire, or shot rained down on the kids playground? It is a nature reserve. It is used by many canberrans for weekend activities. This is just plain stupidity. They could have, oh, I don’t know, gone out to the gun club at majura and shot clay pigeons there. It’s pretty close to casey, in fact a lot closer than tidbinbilla is.

Maybe they thought that they were in NSW – where our Dear Leader has allowed the Shooters and Fishers into National Parks so he can sell off the power stations…

Whoa, better get some more cotton wool to wrap us in!

Would this really have been such an issue 20 years ago? How do we know that they did not have a safe area marked out or had not calculated where their shot would fall?

These guys must have a few sheep loose in the top paddock. They had to have known it was a nature reserve and what they were doing was not allowed and dangerous to the public in that area, good grief!