Is Mise, you say <<why are National Parks any different?>>

I say "A fox hunter has been accidentally shot by a friend on a property north of Albury in NSW, near the Victorian border." SMH.

I say "the program in South Australia has been suspended because a man was shot in the ankle during a supervised cull of feral goats earlier this month." ABC News

I say "A teenager was shot dead when his friend mistook him for a deer while on a hunting trip in Victoria's north late yesterday afternoon." The Age

I don't want to read "A bush-walker was accidentally shot dead in a New South Wales national park when a nutter of a shooter, who thought he was Rambo, mistook him for a Wooly Mammoth."

No way should the 98% of the community, pander to the perverse wants of the 2% of crazy shooters

Paul1405

Your second report appears to be a duplicate of the first.

In fact your appeal to emotion is purely hysteria. The numbers prove the very opposite of what you intend. Few reports it seems and a very safe sport considering the number of people with licences.

Would it were that the Greens consumption of wine had a similar enviable safety record, eh? Or those MaryJ stooges!

Paul,

"No way should the 98% of the community, pander to the perverse wants of the 2% of crazy shooters"

To be in any way statistically significant you need to give the actual number of shooters then the percentage of them that are crazy so that we may calculate what 2% represents.
One also wonders what percentage of GDP your post represents.