Oh dear - more ammo for antis

[deaquire]

Identifying your quarry is fundamental in shooting and I' m sure some mistakes have been made but I cannot subscribe to a fox and a whippet looking alike at 100 yds. A fox has pricked ears, a whippets ears drop close to the skul, the fox has a level topline, a whippet is roached backed and as for the gait they couldn't be more dissimilar.

 

Nor me. Even less so a rabbit looking alike to a whippet. Additionally, who can't tell the difference between a whippet and a rabbit at 100 yards in the lamp? It's annoying that the media only publish what they want.

[dadioles]

OK I fully take the negligence- ie failed to take proper care - point.

 

 

Lucky - maybe so, just like I am lucky not to have has a motor accident / negligent episode for over 25 years I guess -

 

Hi David

 

Maybe there is no such thing as luck.... Or as some would say... You make your own luck.

 

You have not caused a collision because you are a skilled and careful driver, a few close shaves perhaps, but you avoided the ultimate crash because you stayed away from driving "on the edge" and leave a margin of safety to allow for unforseen error or misjudgement on your part. Either that or you are disaster on wheels and everyone else is skilled!!

 

Leaving a big gap between yourself and the car in front is classic. It is too easy to get briefly distracted and a small gap may mean a conversation at the roadside while a big gap means "sh&%£ that was close".

 

As a mater of "chance" rather than "luck" you have not been in a position to be hit by another driver who was being negligent, then again you probably make allowances for other peoples bad driving which lessens the probability of being hit.

 

We should start a philosophy forum. No, only kidding.

[David BASC]

I agree, my top 3 tips to any diver are:

 

Assume all other drivers are idiots

Keep as much space around you as possible

Only go as fast as the conditions allow

 

As to shooting:

Only shoot birds with sky round them

Never shoot at eyes at night

Never ever shoot if you can’t see where your shot will go.

[roger3167]

There is some **** talked on here sometimes.

 

Quite how anyone can blame the dog owner or defend the shooters action is beyond me.

 

Dog steps off the owner's property by a few yards and get a shot by some irresponsible twit.

Fortunately said twit has no lawful "get out of jail free card" and can and I trust will be sued by the owner for damages.

Firearms licensing, whose remit when dealing with all licensing matters is public safety, will I trust revoke said twits license and prosecute for a breach of FAC conditions..

 

A PR disaster for shooting. We can do without twits like this.

Well said, Totaly agree with your statement. We must all be totally 100% positive before we pull the trigger.

[jayDT10]

Funny this has happened as a little while back a chap came on this site asking on the legalities of shooting dogs worrying sheep and I was astounded that members on here were giving this chap the go ahead on a open forum. I would just like to say that no one on here seems to know the in and outs of what happened on this golfcourse but you never know this whippet might have been digging up greens or running out during the day grabbing golf balls or worrying golfers, which would also effect this golf course owners lively hood just as the sheep farmer. Im most probably wrong but you never know.

[spanj]

But that's the important bit - RTAs happen all the time but people are not trying to ban car ownership or drivers...the accidental shooting of a pet dog is not acceptable because the tool who did it clearly isn't safe to have a spud gun never mind a firearm. People are frightened of guns, not frightened of cars.

 

"People are frightened of guns, not frightened of cars". They should be, they kill way more than guns in this country

[Bazooka Joe]

A fox has pricked ears, a whippets ears drop close to the skul, the fox has a level topline, a whippet is roached backed and as for the gait they couldn't be more dissimilar.

 

 

Add the tail to that aswell, a whippets is tucked away between its legs 90% of the time, & is as thick as your little finger.

[thepasty]

 

They should be, they kill way more than guns in this country

 

so does the humble kitchen knife...

[JonathanL]

It's an emotive press report, says a man has been questioned by police but no arrests made.

 

The FACTS are thin on the ground pending a full investigation.

 

It doesn't look great on the face of it, but lets not leap in too quick!

 

What really gets me is many of the ill considered, irrational and clueless comments after the article!

 

These are the best points so far on this subject. The fact of the matter is that we simply do not know the full facts of the case; much of the article is speculation, opinion, emotion and sensationalism. It's quite shocking that everyone seems to be accepting what a tabloid rag is telling them without questioning it too closely.

 

I agree that it doesn't look too good for the chap who pulled the trigger and, on balance, it was probably due to his negligence but we cannot be sure of that as yet. Bullets can do some very strange things sometimes. There was a case a few years back at a range in the US where a bullet which was fired in a 'safe' direction managed to ricochet in a very bizare fashion and get into an adjoining room and kill someone. I seem to recall that there was no suggestion that it had been fired negligently, it was just 'one of those things'.

 

If it turns out to be a freak occurence for which no one can be held liable you can be sure the fact will not be covered with such zeal in the same tabloid rag.

 

J.

[Kes]

 

These are the best points so far on this subject. The fact of the matter is that we simply do not know the full facts of the case; much of the article is speculation, opinion, emotion and sensationalism. It's quite shocking that everyone seems to be accepting what a tabloid rag is telling them without questioning it too closely.

 

I agree that it doesn't look too good for the chap who pulled the trigger and, on balance, it was probably due to his negligence but we cannot be sure of that as yet. Bullets can do some very strange things sometimes. There was a case a few years back at a range in the US where a bullet which was fired in a 'safe' direction managed to ricochet in a very bizare fashion and get into an adjoining room and kill someone. I seem to recall that there was no suggestion that it had been fired negligently, it was just 'one of those things'.

 

If it turns out to be a freak occurence for which no one can be held liable you can be sure the fact will not be covered with such zeal in the same tabloid rag.

 

J.

Now that is speculation, opinion, emotion and sensationalism. The man shot a dog - have you shot a dog when rabbiting and would you call it a safe shot if you did ?

Incredible

[JonathanL]

Now that is speculation, opinion, emotion and sensationalism. The man shot a dog - have you shot a dog when rabbiting and would you call it a safe shot if you did ?

Incredible

 

No, it wasn't any of the above. It was my opinion. Yes, someone shot the dog; it was probably due to negligence on the part of the shooter. However, it may not have been. It may have just been one of those very rare unknowable things which happen sometimes which do not involve negligence. I refer you to the story a poster here recounted about shooting out the shed window. Sometimes unfortunate things happen which cannot be guarded against.

 

The runing theme here is one of 'always be sure', 'absolutely sure', 'be 100% sure of your target' and 'be 100% sure of your back-stop'. The point which people miss is that there is no such thing as 100% certainty in anything. The word 'safe' is over used. There is no such thing as 'safe', only varying degrees of risk.

 

In fact, the one thing which is 100% certain is that nothing is 100% certain. No one on this board, no shooter anywhere in the UK or the rest of the world has ever taken a 100% safe shot since the time the first firearm was invented. There simply is no such thing. Every shot you take is based on a risk assesment, an assesment of its dangers. You take it because it is relatively safe; because the danger it presents is outweighed by its potential benefits.

 

The only way to be 100% safe is not to shoot.

 

To reiterate; yes, on the balance of probibilites, the dog was shot due to the shooters negligence. History tells us that this will likely be the case. However, there is still the possibility that it died due to a freak and highly unlikely set of cirsumsdtances which could not reasonably be known to the shooter. As yet, we simply do not know.

 

J.

[jayDT10]

No, it wasn't any of the above. It was my opinion. Yes, someone shot the dog; it was probably due to negligence on the part of the shooter. However, it may not have been. It may have just been one of those very rare unknowable things which happen sometimes which do not involve negligence. I refer you to the story a poster here recounted about shooting out the shed window. Sometimes unfortunate things happen which cannot be guarded against.

 

The runing theme here is one of 'always be sure', 'absolutely sure', 'be 100% sure of your target' and 'be 100% sure of your back-stop'. The point which people miss is that there is no such thing as 100% certainty in anything. The word 'safe' is over used. There is no such thing as 'safe', only varying degrees of risk.

 

In fact, the one thing which is 100% certain is that nothing is 100% certain. No one on this board, no shooter anywhere in the UK or the rest of the world has ever taken a 100% safe shot since the time the first firearm was invented. There simply is no such thing. Every shot you take is based on a risk assesment, an assesment of its dangers. You take it because it is relatively safe; because the danger it presents is outweighed by its potential benefits.

 

The only way to be 100% safe is not to shoot.

 

To reiterate; yes, on the balance of probibilites, the dog was shot due to the shooters negligence. History tells us that this will likely be the case. However, there is still the possibility that it died due to a freak and highly unlikely set of cirsumsdtances which could not reasonably be known to the shooter. As yet, we simply do not know.

 

J.

 

Totally agree with all you've said on this one , I for one have shot rabbits and foxes in quite big numbers under the lamp and have been amazed especially when it's comes to 22rf where the bullet can end up after which i thought was a totally safe shot . I have shot a rabbit and also killed another further up the bank 6ft about two feet to the left that i was totally unaware of until my lamper at the time pointed it out to me . We all hear the dreaded ricochet from time to time and these can end up anywhere even behind you. As said the only 100% safe shot is no shot.