Flub's General Discussion - Firearms Laws and Licensing

Print Page | Close Window

Firearms Laws and Licensing

Printed From: Kiwi Airgunners
Category: General
Forum Name: Flub's General Discussion
Forum Description: General discussion goes in here.
URL: www.kiwiairgunners.co.nz/forum_posts.asp?TID=1143
Printed Date: 18 Dec 2024 at 8:12pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 10.14 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Firearms Laws and Licensing

Posted By: JasonEdward
Subject: Firearms Laws and Licensing
Date Posted: 13 Dec 2024 at 10:14am

I posted the following as a rant in the wrong thread so I'm starting this one because I'm interested in what air gun users think. It seems to me if we choose to use air-guns we may be less into the macho bullsh*t that sometimes comes with some people and their firearms (FAs) , and as you will see I'm an opinionated prick who hates "tactical" designed FAs...

I first wrote:

OK here's my 5c worth of ranting about Firearms and licencing and the huge cock-up resulting from NZ FA laws changing a few decades ago and new laws are trying to fix now that the horse has bolted...

It's hard to argue that any decent air rifle is not a lethal weapons and I've always thought it silly that I have 2 springers that are more powerful than my PCP that requires a FAL.

Getting a FAL is not difficult but does cost a bit and seems to be getting more and more of a PITA process - my recently renewed licence because they reviewed the standards involved a form that took a couple of hours to sort with uploads of photos, ID etc and then a home visit checking my safe was effective and securely bolted to the wall. In fact they were way over the top in my view and wanted literally zero gap behind the steel cabinet "in case thieves put a strop round the safe and towed it off the wall with a motor vehicle" FFS, surely a battery powered angle grinder or gas axe would be a smarter idea for a thief and there simply is no 100% way to stop well equipped thieves who know what they are doing.

I also noted following paying for my first "Life-time Licence" card (to replace the piece of paper ca 1994) I was unaware things changed and my licence became an expiring licence. So the cops charged me a fee of literally double the fee to re-do the FAL - yes that's twice what I would have paid had I been making a new application. Arbitrary fee for no good reason really pissed me off and I initially wanted to raise hell about that fee but decided getting off-side with the local Feds was a very bad idea so I zipped my lip and just asked them why NZ had ever dropped the requirement to advise the cops when you buy or sell a firearm and have it registered by serial number on your licence by the cops. Yes, when I was a lad pretty much the same system they have re-introduced was in force - and removing that directly resulted in a huge number of firearms in criminal hands...the cops could not tell me why the old system had been dropped and now needed reinstating...now that the crims have a nice stock of guns to play with...

And I have to say, being a judgmental old bastard, when i went to the Thames Valley Deerstalkers clubrooms to sit the FAL quiz, there were about 15 lads re-sitting after failing the quiz and just by looking at them and their behaviour I reckon there is no way about 5 of them should be allowed anywhere near a sling-shot let alone a FA.

But hey, I'm the guy who simply cannot understand why anyone would want to own a FA or air rifle that looks like a military assault rifle - but around half the FA on the wall at Penrose Gun City are that kind of design. That's what the punters want and in my view if you want something that looks like an assault rifle best you join the army because man killing FA are mostly good for fcuk all else compared to FA designed for hunting or target shooting. Can anyone explain why ANYONE has ever had a need for a military assault rifle in NZ? Maybe the early deer cullers needed a large caliber semi-auto but i can think of no other legitimate use so why did NZ change the law about late 70s or early 80s to allow the previously banned man-killers into NZ?

Oh...I forgot. We don't like using the words "assault rifle" any more because, y'know, that's what mass murderers use. So we call them tactical, which means basically military design and well, military generally means killing people so yep, a tactical gun is one that looks like a man-killing gun....

Anyway I digress - the FAL changes are a bullsh*t system trying to cover arse re-instating the really really bad dropping of good law. And pandering to the anti-guns lot by making the process of getting a FAL way more complex and expensive than it needed to be. FFS how many FAL holders - old type, new type, any type - have killed people with intent. Very few and the main one should never have been issued a licence with online gamers as his only referees. That was a cop employee failure that totally ignored the obvious intent of legislation - a referee by definition must know you pretty well surely..

Meanwhile the morons using assault rifles to shoot up people have much of the general public really anti firearms so I'd be surprised if sooner rather than later some PC clown makes air rifles subject to a FAL I'm anti that happening mostly because FAL holder or not or not I think a killer is very unlikely to choose to kill someone with an air rifle - a much heavier projectile is more effective or if range is short, the 12 gauge makes the biggest hole.

We honest and good citizens seem to more and more often pay very dearly for the cops to keep us honest - achieving zero change in us and only minimal inconvenience for the crims who don't give a rat's arse about the Arms Act 1983. And the latest from of that Act means with the stroke of a pen any or all air guns can be specified as a "specially dangerous air gun" and then a FAL will immediately be required.

Replies:

Posted By: JasonEdward
Date Posted: 13 Dec 2024 at 10:18am

Also:

You're right and maybe we need a discussion thread.

Crazy no FAL for Police...but given their training, powers, and that we trust them with those it's probably not a big deal.

Yeah, basically my grumbles about the FAL is all about politics and do-gooders but we do need a licensing system and register moving forward.

I'll close though that I was trolling through a US dude's FB page because he was strongly advocating against new NZ laws as were many other US people sticking their noses in.
Anyway his FB page was fully open and there were a few laughs there but then I came across a vid clip showing someone playing with fast draws of a pistol and then bang fired it.

Not at all funny to me but but there were many comments, all light, most laughing, from his FB friends including THREE who said they had done exactly this - accidentally fired a gun inside their home - and all 3 just laughed it off. Well, frankly if i did that I would consider it a fcuk-up so bad I would likely have to reconsider whether I was capable of managing firearms and consider surrendering my FAL and my firearms.

But these comments were a huge reminder of what is wrong with US gun laws and even more important how Americans view firearms - when 3 people can laugh about their accidental discharge in their home....no wonder the US has such a gun problem...I also laughed long and loud a year or so ago when I read a US pro-guns person had been shot by her daughter by a loaded pistol the daughter some how had access to in the back of the car she was driving - poetic justice I guess.

I also see people who have no understanding of how powerful an air rifle can be so they treat them like toys which could also result in air arms being all added to the restricted list and requiring a FAL...

I'm also a little annoyed that displaying an old firearm is illegal. I am looking at making a 1840s shotgun un-fire-able likely with a welder mate as I have removed the hammer driven firing pins but it seems likely that is not enough to turn it into a display gun as it is an early cartridge shotgun and could be made to fire with new firing pins.

In any case it would be secured like a firearm locked onto a stub bolted steel rack... has anyone else found a way to display a lovely old gun without risking a breach of the law or the police guide made pursuant to the latest amendments to the Arms Act 1983?

Posted By: kruzaroad
Date Posted: 13 Dec 2024 at 12:05pm

Its fully understandable why they did it with pcp. A cop got killed. My objection with the testing by the NZ medical journal 8 march 2024 is they took a gun claim of shooting 1000fps to 1200fps obviously off the box, as no actual chrono data was provided, used a pellet with a brass tipped penetrater. They used a cadiver which no longer has moister or anything that imparts hydrostatic shock. Then pig into ballistic gel,
Ive never considered the gel a good medium. It seems to me that from videos ive watch that gel tends to allow more penitration than i experience in real life shooting. Its a comparison medium for differnt rounds in my view.
It brings into question the validation of the test in my view.
People accidently shooting themselves with a springer (which was a large portion of injures reported through air rifles) seems to be more of a case for auto saftey than trying to sway the argument towards having to licence air rifles.
Banning springers that shoot over 900 fps wouldn't worry me as it isn't needed to successfully bring down small game to a reasonable distance. Tends to make for more accurate shooting. It also gets rid of the buying the most powerful air rifle mentality, which in my view is an indication that your not ready to use an air rifle if thats what you judge a gun on.
Brass tipped or ball bearing pellets being banned wouldn't worry me either. They don't seem to provide a stable pellet.
A sling shot or bow type weapon would worry more at 5m to 10m.
They didn't seemed fussed about co2 either. That's used in arrow firing guns (air bows?) which i have watched videos on, and they seem to out preform compound crossbows in penitration.
It also is of no advantage to deprive kids the experience of learning to shoot. A projectile that has arched into the ground within a couple of hundred meters and lost penitration power well before then is much safer weapon than a 22lr, which is probly more likely to be brought if you're required to get a license.
A tactical style rifle is no differnt to a semi auto (fully auto is a differnt class) and it is totally irrelevant as to how it looks.
The cops not needing a license come strait from a cop who i know who was doing pistol training. I asked if he had got a pistol licence and was told then about them being exempt when on duty for needing one
I totally disagree with it. There is no excuse why they shouldn't need to abide by gun laws.
Recommendations by medical journals about changing springer laws because of idiots being idiots and few in number compared to the actual ppl who use them is just taking the piss.

Posted By: JasonEdward
Date Posted: 13 Dec 2024 at 1:19pm

I tend to agree that a research project examining the effects of ballistics on pigs makes no sense at all without measuring the speed of the projectile. And a chrono is cheaper than a pig.

One cop killed at point blank range when sprung attempting to fit a tracking device to surveil a meth operation is very unfortunate but in my view did not merit the knee jerk reaction against PCPs. Frankly until I recently did some research into PCPs - and bought one - I had thought they were way more powerful than any other air rifle. I thought this simply because I can understand no other sensible reason to restrict PCPs but not significantly more powerful air rifles...on the same logic, perhaps knives should require a permit.

Yes, I agree that it is my old fashioned personal bias that only sporting use of firearms is a credible reason to posses them - buy a toy gun or replica if you want to possess a weapon designed for killing human beings. Yet military style man-killers AKA "tactical" are now the fashion for especially younger people buying arms of all kinds. (Tactical with respect to such weapons is correct English only if your tactic is killing humans).

But hey, I was brought up with firearms only having three distinct purposes: hunting, war and target shooting and I can't see where the "tacticals" fit in here but they are invariably the (logical) choice of mass murders.

Cops? Well, I think their training means they must abide by gun laws or they will not be issued firearms for Police purposes. As for AOS, I knew a few and shot game birds with one and all were hunters as well and did hold FALs, which makes sense if they are selection cops for AOS training.

Posted By: JasonEdward
Date Posted: 13 Dec 2024 at 1:28pm

Cops and soldiers exemption from Arms Act 1983 conditions:

s3 (2) Nothing in this Act renders unlawful the carriage or possession of arms items,

ammunition, or explosives—

(a) by any person in the course of that person’s duties as—

(i) a member of the New Zealand Defence Force or a member of the

Cadet Forces; or

(ia) a member of a visiting force under the Visiting Forces Act 2004;

(ii) a member of the Police or an armourer employed or engaged by

the Police; or

(iii) a person employed by the Police to provide firearms training to

members of the Police; or

(iv) an officer as defined by section 4 of the Anti-Personnel Mines

Prohibition Act 1998; or

(iva) an officer as defined by section 7 of the Cluster Munitions Prohibition

Act 2009; or

(v) a person authorised by the Commissioner or the Chief of Defence

Force to provide training to members of their respective organisations

referred to in this paragraph in the use of any arms item,

ammunition, or explosive; or

(va) a civilian employee of the Ministry of Defence, so long as the person

carries or possesses any firearms or other items regulated by

or under this Act under the direct supervision of a member of the

New Zealand Defence Force; or

(vb) a Customs officer; or

(vi) an employee of the body that, immediately before the commencement

of the Arms Amendment Act 2000 was known as the Institute

of Environmental Science and Research Ltd; or

(vii) a person working in any forensic laboratory or facility that provides

forensic services to the Police:

(ab) by a member of the New Zealand Defence Force or a member of the

Police in the course of exercising any power or performing any function

under the Customs and Excise Act 2018:

(ac) by a member of the New Zealand Defence Force or a constable who is

an enforcement officer as defined in section 4(1) of the Maritime Powers

Act 2022 in the course of exercising any power or performing any function

under that Act:

Part 1 s 3 Arms Act 1983

Version as at

24 June 2023

(b) by any other person authorised pursuant to regulations made under this

Act to carry or possess arms items, ammunition, or explosives belonging

to the Crown.

Posted By: kruzaroad
Date Posted: 13 Dec 2024 at 1:49pm

It's still a semi.
Its like the difference between a synthetic stock and wood,a preference. It makes no real difference and if anything allows you make a judgement about the person using it, prior to actually seeing how they are using it.
They didn't design the tactical that way for looks. All the practically of a tactical applies to using it as a hunting rifle, in my view.
Id more worried about air soft, with people using weapons against ppl. That sort of conditioning is a bad mindset, especially without them having to pass a psychological test first. Perfect training ground for nut cases and a small step to transfer it to a real weapon.
With an air rifle and hunting its not all laid out and your not guaranteed a target hunting. You also deal with reality of taking a life form. What happens when you shoot badly, cause and effect which in my view is a much less numbing effect on weapon use.

Posted By: JasonEdward
Date Posted: 13 Dec 2024 at 3:05pm

Fair enough Kruza - I freely I'm an old man who does not like seeing anything remotely military involved in hunting or target firearm use for basically the same reasons you don't like airsoft shooting games.

I think we could be talking about very similar mind-sets in these people.

Tactical, well most tactical stuff is ex military or made to look that way - camo has become fashionable.

But hey, as a kid we had fun with toy guns made to look tactical, which at the time was a revolver or I guess plastic "machine gun" copy that made cool rachet type noises to mimic an auto man killer.

But I also will never forget - and only as an adult now understand - my grandfather absolutely going ballistic (pardon the accidental pun) at us kids of 4 and 6 years old when he saw us pointing toy pistols at each other. He went from zero to 100 in a split second - he was angry AF and shouted at us "You don't EVER point any kind of gun at anyone you don't want to kill!!!" We were stunned mullets and Mum heard the shouting and raced in and dragged us away from our loving grand-dad and told us never to play with toy guns at grandad's place.

We kids were not nearly old enough to be aware of his three gunshot wounds, plus face smashed up badly by shrapnel from his decorated WW1 experiences at Gallipoli and other places, And in those days they had not yet invented the PTSD that no doubt caused his out of character anger.

But I will never forget that unexpected reaction from my Grandad. And maybe that's part of why I don't like seeing people using military sh*t for fun...

Posted By: kruzaroad
Date Posted: 13 Dec 2024 at 3:24pm

Thats fair enough.
Im assuming its just the ar type stuff as you've mentioned. I have no dought you were out there back in the day with the good old 303 lee Enfield army surplus rifle shooting large game like so many.
Its really the mindset these days as i see it. I dont think the fal test deals with that in anyway.
Id be happier with having to pay to see a psychiatrist specialist out of your own pocket for mental out look, then a small fee for background check, testing and registering. Skip the referees all together. Still be cheaper and faster than the current system.
Im still trying to figure out how the price for a fal has gone up so much when the system is digital.

Posted By: Pauly5
Date Posted: 14 Dec 2024 at 8:10am

Quite a read. I have an FX Impact that is quite tactical looking. I'm used to it, but I know that when a non gun person sees it they must think it's uber tactical.

I would prefer less tactical style, but there are advantages such as adding on equipment for pest control work such as torches and night vision stuff. When someone is paying you to control a pest, it has to be effective. Plus the gun performs well, so I let the tactical image slide.

Posted By: kruzaroad
Date Posted: 14 Dec 2024 at 9:32am

Why would you prefer a less tactical looking gun pauly?
Why cant you add a night vision, torches etc to a standard rifle?
I have a bi pod in shed that can be added to a break barrel rifle or pcp, i have night vision which can be fitted on my rifle or pcp, i have a torch which is used on my rifle scope and is also capabile of being mounted on the night vision hence also pcp.
That seems like a weak reasoning.
I cant argue against the fact that an fx appears to be an excellent and accurate gun and styling doesnt change that. I assume that looks that way because design dictated its basic form for user comfort and is essential for shooting a gun accurately.

Posted By: Pauly5
Date Posted: 14 Dec 2024 at 11:41am

I would like more wood and tactical reminds me of war and killing people rather than sport and hunting.

The impact has multiple rails that allow for easier customizing like bipods, additional torches, sling attachments, but can then be taken off just as easily.

So slightly weak reasoning, I agree, but just adding a viewpoint to the discussion.

Posted By: kruzaroad
Date Posted: 14 Dec 2024 at 4:13pm

Posted By: kruzaroad
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2024 at 9:58am

Turns out in nz registered pest controllers can get an exception on banned semi autos. There's a few interesting pcp semi auto ive seen on the web that would fall under the banned category that would be great for rabbit control, if accurate.

Posted By: JasonEdward
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2024 at 10:53am

I think we're more part in our thinking than we are in expressing our thinking.

Tactical is fashionable and I'm not really judging the people but think this fashion is not a good look for a air rifle/firearms industry in a bit of a PR crisis with many of the public thinking there is no good reason to own anything that can be used as a weapon.

It does seem that the latest and best PCPs are more and more a non-traditional look. But the default look for non-traditional seems to be tactical.

Kruzer, interesting stats but a more detailed breakdown to see what is an "incident", seriousness of injuries and deaths. Death numbers are predictably high from the weapon of choice of mass murderers.

We seem to only hear about hunters shot while hunting, accidents with loaded firearms accidentally fired (which should never happen but usually firearms are being used legally - a failure of the operator to do what he/she was taught in FAL training, gangs bringing firearms to a brawl or a stand-over murders with intent and mass shootings.

Good point Pauly and exactly my thinking re the Impact - it's the latest and greatest from FX and I'd love one but there does not seem to be a traditional option in the Impact i.e. like the Dreamline Classic.

It is interesting that most cullers have a bull-pup style. I've never even held one but can't get my head around how they would fit me...but there must be significant advantages given they usually required more trigger and cocking linkages.

I'd like to hear from some younger people on this forum because I am definitely biased by age and perhaps experience and struggle with tactical FAs even looking like mankillers. And most regular posters here aren't young.

It's too easy for old codgers like me to grizzle "it wasn't like that in my day" ... but I guess I'm actually suggesting there is a link between tacticals and their users being more likely to be unsafe which is likely to be bollocks I'm guessing... :-)

But yeah, I do fail to see why anyone but a serious collector would want an AR-15 style FA...

Posted By: kruzaroad
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2024 at 11:01am

https://interactives.stuff.co.nz/the-homicide-report/data.html

Data released by police under the Official Information Act shows 10 murder or manslaughter deaths in 2022, up until 31 July. There were 11 in total in 2021.

Injuries are also running at a record rate, on track to exceed 300 firearm-related injuries for the first time. In 2021, there were 298 gun-related injuries recorded by police, the highest ever.

That was despite a year on year drop in the number of firearms-related crimes police have had to deal with.

In 2021, police dealt with 3683 firearms-related offences, down 7 percent on the previous year. Up until 31 July, those figures are tracking 1 percent lower again.

It shows a growing willingness of people to use their guns against other people.
source:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/473805/firearms-injuries-and-deaths-occurring-at-record-rates-data-reveals

While information about the firearm 'pool' of yesteryear is lacking, recent information shows some 1.1 million firearms in NZ, of which 43% are rifles, 29% are shotguns, 25% are airguns and 3% are handguns. The proportion of firearms per capita has steadily increased from 0.236 to 0.311, because of firearm imports exceeding the population growth rate3. The age distribution of arms accident casualties has changed slightly, with the age for accumulated 50 percentile casualties increasing from 25 years (1930 to 1966 and early 1980s data) to 30 years (1987 to 2004

Source:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237328626_An_analysis_of_trends_in_firearms_casualties_in_New_Zealand

Posted By: kruzaroad
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2024 at 11:31am

Gees with appox 400 000 air guns in nz youd think they would be a better 2nd hand market

Posted By: Pauly5
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2024 at 2:07pm

I do like bullpup guns, and they can have plenty of wood. My favourite gun is my EDgun Matador R3, single shot, bolt action. (bottom gun) Top left is an AGT Uragan.

Having the forward cocking lever is the best setup though, and this is what the Wildcat and Impact have.

The advantage is that all the weight is close to you when shouldered and the length is greatly reduced over a classic style, so for hunting they have their advantages.

They may not appeal to all, but they are very practical and don't always have to look too tactical.

Posted By: kruzaroad
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2024 at 4:07pm

Bottom one looks really nice
I actually dont think any of them look tactical.
No mag off them,mo ejection port/bolt charging handle, no carry handle,no fire select switch,dials pn it,,big cylinder under barrel, wood definitely looks great but very untactical. Just look like well looked after hunting rifles to me.
Wonder if they make a bull pup springer must have a search.

Posted By: Growlybear
Date Posted: 16 Dec 2024 at 8:40am

"Crazy no FAL for Police...but given their training, powers, and that we trust them with those it's probably not a big deal." Their firearm handing skills are widely considered abysmal in the firearms community.

Posted By: kruzaroad
Date Posted: 16 Dec 2024 at 9:33am

That in my view growlybear is a big deal. For the situations the police use guns in, they should be fully versed in fire arms, ballistics, projectiles, saftey.
They shoot in the most dangerous areas.
Heres an example i remember from years ago that shocked me, and i look it up now as an example.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/raging-bull-hornys-rampage-ends-in-hail-of-police-bullets/BFOWQ7776TNBYHQG6764VGW3J4/

Basically 9 shots to body, 3 to head.
What was the issue? To low a fpe?
Bad placement?
Wrong projectile type?
Did the cop just wildly shoot it in the side as it passed ?
I dont know , but its totally obvious this person should not have been in control of a fire arm (at least in my view)
Ill do a quick search and see if i can find the weapon used

Posted By: kruzaroad
Date Posted: 16 Dec 2024 at 9:48am

Since 2012, frontline vehicles have had a locked box in the passenger foot-well containing two loaded and holstered Glock 17s and, in the rear of the vehicle, a locked case with two Bushmaster ar type rifles.

That would be a 9mm glock
For the bushmaster i only found referance to the aos and are assuming its the same.

Bushmaster M4A3 carbine is equipped to shoot 7.62 mm rounds
New Zealand Police recruits receive one week of firearms training during their 16-week training course. Recruits practice shooting with the Glock pistol and Bushmaster rifle while wearing ear and eye protection.
After qualifying, police officers receive seven and a half days of weapons training each year. They also receive firearms retraining every six to twelve months

Posted By: kruzaroad
Date Posted: 16 Dec 2024 at 10:56am

Final stats from me.
81 hours per year.
300 rounds to qualify for being “qualified“ to use a glock.
43 rounds per year to keep skills up on glock

250 rounds before being "qualified“ to use bush master
49 rounds per year to keep skills up on bushmaster.

For some thats from zero gun use!
That is minimum requirements
I assume none of those front line guns are sighted to the indervidual on duty at the time

Posted By: RangerPete
Date Posted: 16 Dec 2024 at 2:07pm

My 2 cents worth...

With regards to the cop who shot the bull.
I hate journalists who use provocative language to try and sensationalise everything they report on.
Its easy for someone who wasn't there to make assumptions and say "they should have done this or they should have done that..."
Its easy for someone who has never had to stand face to face with 500 kilograms of stressed/panicking/angry/rampaging??? beast to say "well you should have done this and you should have been using that".
Very easy...

The reality is, unless and you your-self have had to make quick decisions about the safety of others and make quick predictions of POSSIBLE out comes and potential disasters caused by unpredictable animals (no one can predict the future, but we can predict possible outcomes) and have to make considerations about the safety of (usually stupid) onlookers or the unsuspecting people in the cars driving at 70km/h who have no idea that a rampaging bull could run out in front of their vehicle, causing a 20 car pile up and killing how many...? Unless you have had personal experiences of being in situations like that, its difficult to fully appreciate what the cop had to consider, assess and make decisions about.

As someone who has training, and experience, in having to deal with life threatening situations from charging dangerous game, and being responsible for the safety and well being of others in those situations, from what I've read in the article I believe the cop:
A - would have assessed the situation and made his decisions based on the safety of people in the area.
B - made the correct decision to shoot the animal (immobilise the threat that was running around).
C - used what ever means was available to him at the time.
D - did well to immobilise a moving animal of that size with a "semi auto rifle", intended for immobilising people, not really suitable for a 500kg moving animal, but was likely the only tool he had available to get the job done then and there.

In a situation where a large and unpredictable animal has become a danger to the people in the immediately vicinity, once the decision has been taken to drop that animal and the first shot has been fired, I dont care how many shots it takes, you dont stop until that animal is down.
In the movies it is very romantic to drop a charging animal at close range with one shot, but in reality its quite different.
It is only very experienced professional hunters, those with nerves of steel, or the very lucky who get it right on the first shot.
There is no shame in someone who has had no training or experience in dealing with large aggravated/rampaging animals, requiring 12 shots from an inadequate caliber rifle to immobilise and dispatch the problem animal. Especially if he got it down and done in 10 seconds.

With regards to the police not needing firearms licences but being allowed to handle and use firearms in NZ...
That dosen't make much sense. Maybe a firearms licence is only required to own, buy or sell firearms, and is not necessary if you are only using someone elses fire arm?
I'm assuming that the service weapons the police use are owned by the state and not by the individual officers them selves?

With regards to the firearms training that police get before being considered "qualified" to handle a firearm...
In all fairness, 81 hours of training, 300 rounds to get qualified on handguns, 250 rounds to get qualified on semi-auto rifle, and a week of re-training every year, is, to be honest, 81 hours and 550 rounds of hands on supervised practical training MORE then any member of the public gets before being granted a firearms licence and allowed to OWN and USE any firearm they want!

A member of the public can get a firearms licence by doing the standard 15 minute multiple choice test and attending a 30min handling demonstration... they don't even need to fire a single shot or have their saftey assessed while holding a firearm and using live ammunition!
I'd say even with out requiring a fire arms licence, the cops 81 hours of training and hundreds of supervised training rounds, in a safe environment on a supervised firing range before they are "qualified" to use their weapons in public in the line duty, is light years ahead of the training and experience that the average new firearm licence owner has before he is allowed to buy his first firearm.

-------------
Walk quietly, but carry a big stick.

Posted By: kruzaroad
Date Posted: 16 Dec 2024 at 2:33pm

Guess you dont live on a farm.
You can drop a bull with a 22 to the back of a skull.
The article said the bull was walking calmly.
A shot quarting back under the shoulder not through it will do it with 7.62 though not ideal cal.

F.y.i i did 13 years dairy farming and 3 years dry stock before i went truck driving. Ive shot my fair share of of beasts both bull/steer and cows for meat or due to sickness/injury both in the field and in the yards.

Its not a comparison of what the public does compared to police its about actual time police spend learning. The public dont shoot built up areas. Or under stress situations like police do.
I think there should be a hell of lot longer arms training. Its just about getting officers out there due to police shortages we always seem to have.
Thats not safe for the public or the officers especially with gun use. Or fair on the cops themselves.

From NZ herald

A police officer, who wished to remain anonymous, told the Herald that he felt he wasn’t adequately trained.

“We only train live-fire shooting once every 12 months, it’s not enough at all. The main one for me is firearms, the training we do is bullsh*t because it’s all role-playing”.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Thats it from me all together this is getting away from air guns pretty rapidly.

Posted By: JasonEdward
Date Posted: 16 Dec 2024 at 6:44pm

Well, my view with the Police is if there is a high possibility of firearms they get the AOS in. Standard training is training for defence not expertise. With lots of rules and policies and only the best will make AOS and even then I think after a heap of psych testing but many of them are skilled hunters as well.

We have basically very simple rules and areas we are permitted to use FAs - all but zero little skill is required to be safe with firearms and that's hat we're talking about here. The Cop and cow episode may have been that Cop's worst nightmare and he had to do what he had to do. You or I may have done a better job but only the cop was lawfully allowed to do the job in that public place.

I actually don't think police FA training etc is at all relevant to our civilian type possession and use of firearms. Only in exceptional circumstances including that we fear for our safety with good reason, will our legal system accept our use of firearms outside the usual strict rules. Or in fact any lethal force.

I'm comfortable with cops having the legal power to use firearms when they have to protect themselves or the public, with the training they have which I agree is more training than most of us have had. And cop training is not going to help them hunt game or pests except of the armed and very dangerous human variety.

Again though, I think we all agree on more than we disagree with.

For this forum/air guns, the issue I struggle with is should unsupervised air rifle possession and use require a FAL. I don't know but I do know that my parents Ok with us shooting targets with a BSA Meteor in the back yard when they were home from age 11 or 12 on (in theory at least only while they were home but they were well aware we used it when they were. especially after my dumb brother put a slug graze in a wooden window sill while shooting birds on the lawn... :-) )

But a much higher power air rifle - springer or PCP is a very different weapon dangerous at many times the range of a low powered air Meteor - and there was nothing more powerful than the rare higher powered BSAs in NZ in those days, but there were a lot of low powered inaccurate Slavias.

I actually think higher powered air rifles probably should require a FAL and to be on the FA register because it's only a matter of time before the gangs wise up to 30 cal beast springers if they haven't already and we know some of those would be a bit of a problem for anyone receiving a close range head shot.

It's not that difficult to get a licence. And it pisses me off that FA laws basically just keep the honest people honest given the gummint dropped the ball big time decades ago by dropping licencing of FAs at the Cop Shop and allowed man killers into NZ in large numbers.

But it seems to me more and more crazy people even here in Godzone like to either carelessly play with lethal weapons or use them in crimes so I accept the need for strong laws unless we want to be like the U.S. where department stores sell all kinds of man killers and the right to carry arms is seen as a human right (FFS!!!) hence the US continues to have cowboys all over the show, some with maniac mass murderous impulses.

I just can't see any valid argument that our quality air rifles are anything but lethal weapons.

Posted By: kruzaroad
Date Posted: 18 Dec 2024 at 8:45am

Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee has welcomed Cabinet’s decision to undertake public consultation on the rewrite of the Arms Act 1983.
The discussion document and further details on the public consultation will be available on the Ministry of Justice website from 13 January 2025. Submissions will close on 28 February 2025.