Thread: Hunting With No FAL

the reality is that PT is a farm kid and has grown up around firearms.

i would bet that he is about 300% safer around firearms than hundreds of auckland wannabes about to descend on the bush for the roar. I know which one I would rather be next to for the following month...

but rules are rules and the shiny arses keep making them...

Originally Posted by ebf

the reality is that PT is a farm kid and has grown up around firearms.

i would bet that he is about 300% safer around firearms than hundreds of auckland wannabes about to descend on the bush for the roar. I know which one I would rather be next to for the following month...

but rules are rules and the shiny arses keep making them...

I tend to see those who "grew up with firearms" doing as much if not more dumb shit than those who were introduced to them through shooting on a range with safety instruction.

Originally Posted by gimp

I tend to see those who "grew up with firearms" doing as much if not more dumb shit than those who were introduced to them through shooting on a range with safety instruction.

Yeah, fair comment, just like motorcycle accidents, most happen to either newbies or guys who've ridden for years and get complacent.

Originally Posted by ebf

the reality is that PT is a farm kid and has grown up around firearms.

i would bet that he is about 300% safer around firearms than hundreds of auckland wannabes about to descend on the bush for the roar. I know which one I would rather be next to for the following month...

but rules are rules and the shiny arses keep making them...

I hear yah. It's just the phrase that pisses me off as it's a catch all for "things were better in the good ol days and we'd be better off without it" . When in reality, things have changed for the better all round. And not just in this topic, but life in general.

Just my 2c.....as others have said, 2 firearms but 'close supervision' (arms length) on private land, 1 firearm for public land.....the 'law' will come down hard otherwise!

I don't see this delineation that others are seeing between public and private land with respect to immediate supervision.

Strictly neither do I Moutere, however I think the actual delineation reality comes in the chances of running into someone else in both those scenario's.

exactly....less chance of bumping into 'Mr plod' too......

Dundee from my understanding,and Im fairly certain I ve heard police state too,that its a single firearm between two people one of whom must of course be the FAL holder.
given the draconion powers of the modern equivalent of dept of labour and the coppers ,if an accident did happen you could be well in over your swede in smelly solution if they found you'd done otherwise.No offence to PT or yourself in saying that ,and all power to you for teaching kids responsibility with Firearms ,but alas the law is the law.
Certainly if as I do from time to time ,teach firearm useage -I use the old military method _"rear ranks up ..watch this way.>if you make a mistake my boot will disappear up your arse to rest behind your teeth"(swinging my shitty boot enthusiastically whilst eyeballing em!.and I stand right on the shoulder,with a strict one action per time when i say so.
i will step back as i issue "fire".but thats it.
BTW no other person is allowed with a 5m radius for safety sake. had one a wee while ago who thought hed have a fiddle with the bolt on my s/a 12g whilst my back was momentarily turned,a strangled yelp sees mr wiseguy holding a finger mangled by a bolt flying homeand jamming digit between it and barrel. Hes f..n lucky i didnt charge for the bandaids i used to patch him up. still being the butt of mates scorn bought him back to earth!

I thought this over long and hard with my kids and more recently, my grandson. Initially when they started tagging along I gave them a wooden replica which looked and felt realistic. They were taught how to carry, where and where not to point etc; all the basic stuff. From the age of about 12 onwards I provided a Remington youth model 870 pump. This gun can have a round in the mag but an empty chamber with a closed bolt / action and has to be manually pumped to load. In other words, the safety has to be first released, then the action pumped before a round can be fired. I only ever allowed on round in the mag and nothing in the breach. Loading was never carried out unless I instructed the kid expressly to do so. If a shot was not taken, the gun was unloaded, made safe, and the round replaced in the magazine and the breach remained empty and closed. They were always close and any operation of the gun could be clearly heard.
Even in a boat or mai mai, the gun was never charged without my express instruction to do so. Sometimes a duck might circle to the decoys and calling for several minutes before I would instruct the kid he or she could pump a round from the mag into the chamber. If a shot was difficult, I would take it but if feasible for youngster then I would simply back up. The Remington 870 pump is a really safe option; more safe than a single or any other break barrel gun where rounds are always in the chambers. I never permitted them the use of a semi auto where the simple press of a button could result in a charged and dangerous gun in an instant, and I never carried a semi myself, always only a u/o or sbs. Using the pump allowed a very significant and controllable safety margin enabling youngsters to fully participate. If the dogs were setting a bird, the kid could walk up, get in position and then look to me for permission to pump the single round into the chamber, safety still engaged, until the bird was flushed. (Hairy pointing dogs, not labs or spaniels) We never came close to an incident or accident in over 30 years.

I grew up in the country and we were cruising on bikes etc at young ages and all that stuff, wife's family is from the chatthams and similar story there. When we look back now though at permanent injuries to friends and how many friends have died in accidents you can see the logic in adopting more careful practice in things in general...accidents happen so it's a matter of eliminating risk, not being distracted by your own temptation to shoot and focusing solely on the new shooter reduces the chance of something happening unnoticed. A lot of people do a lot of prep work to get the young ones responsible, a lot don't... i still think one rifle is the best approach

It all comes down down training .
I think the general idea is that alot of young people without FAL have the training ,but if there is a stuff up you leave yourself exposed and open to alot of heartache .
Private land vs Public land is simple on Private land you are only affecting people you let on there .
Public land you could affect others who are not part of your party.
As a young 14 year old I learnt my lesson early ,walking down a farm track stalking rabbits with a old loaded semi browning shotgun flicking safety catch on and off with trigger finger.
Boom I tripped and pulled trigger .
Lucky my old man had been smart enough only to let us hunt alone .
pity I hadnt followed his other rule and lucky I didnt blow my own foot off.

I don't entirely agree, only thing it comes down to is responsibility.
As the licence holder you are the one responsible for an unlicensed user. If there is an incident, whether involving a 3rd party or not, you are the one that is culpable and liable.
I agree that some discretion comes into it, obviously the manor/level in which a mature knowledgable and experienced 15 year old is mentored will be different to say supervising my own 7 year old lad.
But either way, the buck stops with the licence holder.

Sorry to be blunt Dundee but its your licence are you prepared to loose it if shit goes bad ? There was a article a while in the NZ Outdoors magazine about direct supervision and it certainly gave me a wake up call. Your call. Judging by the posts on here id P.T is more than competent in handling firearms but....is it worth from a legal point of view?

Originally Posted by tiroatedson

Sorry to be blunt Dundee but its your licence are you prepared to loose it if shit goes bad ? There was a article a while in the NZ Outdoors magazine about direct supervision and it certainly gave me a wake up call. Your call. Judging by the posts on here id P.T is more than competent in handling firearms but....is it worth from a legal point of view?

No! that is why we went bush last night and he took the bow and I thank you all for the advice.