The word "immediate" can mean:
1.occurring or accomplished without delay; instant: an immediate reply.
2.following or preceding without a lapse of time: the immediate future.
3.having no object or space intervening; nearest or next: in the immediate vicinity.
Therefore is it not reasonable to assume that "immediate supervision" means supervision where the supervisor can supervise immediately by being next or nearest to the unlicensed person; to act instantly, if necessary?
Never try to teach a pig to sing...
...it wastes your time and annoys the pig!
Probably wasting your breath 10ring its kinda funny how the "smart ones " can be total dumb asses when it comes to common sense
Last edited by Boaraxa; 25-03-2017 at 01:10 AM.
Doesn't realize that he offends others,
and really doesn't care.
VIVA LA BLOKE
if i am supervising/training an unlicensed shooter I make bloody sure of the following
1 I am within arms length .
2 they only act on my instruction,when i speak
3 once shot is fired weapon is made safe and handed to me.bolt open -action broken etc. barrells must always point down range.
4 I load the rounds no one else.
5 anyone else in the vicinity is made aware of what we are doing and stays well clear ,unless specifically invited in
6very occasionally with cocky users a wee bit of army discipline is required ,or else my pet I tell you once then my boot goes up your arse.
had that happen with one little smartarse who wouldnt listen using his old mans .270-reckoned it was just a pussy to shoot -didnt like it when i grabbed the barrel and pulled it then shoved it hard back-a baby would hold it tighter,and when he fired the shot it kicked him hard.his old man had no sympathy with him whining about his shoulder.he declined the boot in the arse even though we pointed out it would take the focus away from the so called painful shoulder.
he actually turned out to be a gifted shooter,and funnily enough a very good teacher.
In relation to the above thought coroners have been harping on in this vein for for the past 5 yrs at least,and its highly likely to continue as "classic solution to" all firearms tragedies given they are in fact civil servants reliant on police input
I am sure some of the older forum members may have experienced this, and don't come across all perfect and say "nope":
- Aged ~ 12 yrs, visiting parents' friends property on the edge of town. Farmland out the back. Given 15 shot tube mag 22 to go on my own and get a rabbit whilst olds drank tea and yakked. Happened on several occassions/visits. Had received firearm instruction on many outings with Dad (ex serviceman).
- Aged ~ 15 years, on L&S farm behind Taupo. Dad and mate headed off with one 22. Mate and I given box of bullets and other 22 and headed off in opposite direction. Met up later and compared numbers shot (in those days teaming with rabbits). Jokingly chastised if the ratio per bullets fired wasn't 1:1.
- Aged ~ 14 years. Staying on L&S farm during school hols. Out every day on my own shooting rabbits with farm's 22 Gecado Plinker. Meeting mate from adjacent farm of similar age also armed. More rabbit dead.
Cringe now when I think back. Supervision, even down to the finer point of how it should occur up close - NOPE.
How common in those days - pretty common from my recollection and comparing notes with mates.
Last edited by zimmer; 25-03-2017 at 01:24 PM.
My own view is with supervision comes responsibility. The person "supervising" is 100% completely responsible for everything that occurs while the unlicensed person is with the firearm. If you are within arms length or you choose not to be does not matter in the sense that if something goes wrong, no matter how stupid or Darwin like the action may be, you were responsible because you were supervising.
In the situation from the original article, this means that the person supervising those boys is responsible for the death because as a supervising person he was in sole charge and should have been in a position to stop the incident happening. If you have taken every possible step that you can and someone gets hurt, your only defence is what you have done, and what you could have done to prevent it occurring but didn't, that will affect the outcome. If there was nothing further you could have done then that means it probably would have happened anyway.
No matter how old you are, if you do not have a firearms
licence but want to use a firearm, you may do so only under the
immediate supervision of someone who has a firearms licence.
In other words, the person with the licence must be with the
shooter, and close enough to take control of the firearm if
necessary. To meet this requirement the supervisor cannot be
using a firearm at the same time. Generally, this means that
there will be only one firearm between the two people.
Close enough to take control of the firearm if necessary. Unless you deem kicking it out of their hands as acceptable then I would suggest that 'within arms length' is correct.
Really? The arms code isn't the law? I never knew that. I concede the point to you then Sir.
It takes 43 muscle's to frown and 17 to smile, but only 3 for proper trigger pull.
What more do we need? If we are above ground and breathing the rest is up to us!
Rule 1: Treat every firearm as loaded
Rule 2: Always point firearms in a safe direction
Rule 3: Load a firearm only when ready to fire
Rule 4: Identify your target beyond all doubt
Rule 5: Check your firing zone
Rule 6: Store firearms and ammunition safely
Rule 7: Avoid alcohol and drugs when handling firearms