ROD AND GUN Case For More Effective Control Of Firearms

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31177, 29 September 1966, Page 8

ROD AND GUN Case For More Effective Control Of Firearms

(Specially written for “The Press” by

JAMES SIERS)

It would come as a shock to most of the righteous writers of letters to the daily papers if they were told that they are as much to blame for some of the destructive acts caused with firearms as the people who commit them. The fact is that the general public is responsible for the rules and regulations concerning social behaviour, and obviously the legislation concerning firearms is inadequate, in spite of the stricter sections of the Arms Amendment Act, which was passed earlier this year. Present legislation does not tackle the problem effectively. This is also true of legislation concerning drivers and drinking drivers in particular. Yet while a driver is not allowed to drive without passing a suitable test, all that a shooter has to do is to apply to the Police for a permit to purchase a firearm when he has reached the qualifying age of 21, or 16, with his parents’ permission. The law also says the applicant should be free of criminal convictions, and that’s it. Whether he or she knows anything about the safe use and maintenance of the weapon is not its concern. Equally the law is not concerned about the proper use of firearms until they’ve been misused. Its much like our medical system; cure and not prevention.

In this column I have already put forward an alternative method of control, as outlined by the provisional committee of Rod and Gun Sportsmen to a Statutes Revision Committee some two years ago.

Shooting organisations are the obvious controlling bodies of shooters, and if its good enough for a Rugby player to be a member of the Rugby Union before he can play, should this not apply to a target shooter or a hunter.

If a shooter is sufficiently interested in shooting he should become a member of an organisation such as a defence club for large-bore outdoor target shooting; a small-bore club for winter indoor competitive shooting, including pistols in some cases; and the Deerstalkers’ Association for big game hunting. Now that New Zealanders, through a national federation of all these shooting organisations, including trap shooters, can take part in Olympic competition, this should be even a greater incentive to join one of these clubs. The pattern for firearms ownership, as the Statutes Revision Committee was told, should be something like this: A youngster who is interested in his sport should join the club. During the initial phase of his membership, as happens now, he or she receives instruction in the use, maintenance and safe handling of the weapon. When the club committee is satisfied the new member is capable and responsible enough, a recommendation should be made to the police that he or she be allowed a permit to purchase firearms of their own. In this way every individual who owns a firearm can be watched and judged by those with sufficient experience to know. The control of each individual would not end here. Once a firearm is acquired under the system the' club, with the co-operation of the police, continues to have authority over the individual. If he or she commits a breach of rules just as a Rugby player may do, they can be suspended for a period and this automatically cancels the use of the firearm. In more serious cases of misuse the club recommends or helps

police action, and in such cases the shooter may lose the right to future arms ownership. What could be simpler? There are defence, small-bore and deerstalkers’ clubs throughout New Zealand, hence the machinery is already available and I’m sure the police would be grateful to have the co-operation of existing organisations rather than be forced to set up its own training and testing facilities.

Recent reports of an incident at Cape Palliser, in South Wairarapa, were misleading. The report said a gunman had shot more than 20 sheep, and later had shot at a farmer.

I spoke to the farmer, John Holmes, the day after the incident

After telling me about the shot sheep, he said he went back to look for clues, but avoided talking about being shot at until I asked him outright and then he said: “Yes, I was shot at.” At the time it was halflight, he was walking on the beach next to booming breakers, and he said one shot was fired and not a half-dozen as reported next day in the papers.

“Did you see the muzzle flash?” I asked—“ No.” “How did you know the gun was fired at you, did you hear the bullet strike nearby?”— “No, but I knew it was fired at me.” With the south wind and booming breakers, I have my doubts. Those who’ve worked in the butts on a shooting range s would find it hard to accept.

The subsequent story I not yet verified by the police, is that a deer culler’s dog ran amok and mauled the sheep, and that to put them out of their misery, the man shot them. There’s no doubt the sheep were mauled and this seems a likely story, yet because of the report of the farmer that he had been shot at, the police send in 21 armed men and two dogs. There was an incident at Makara, also near Wellington, when a farmer reported sheep driven over a bluff and shot. Two weeks later he happened to see a neighbour’s dog driving the sheep over the bluff. It seems that this is what happened the first time and two rabbit shooters who spotted the mutilated sheep at the bottom of the bluff shot them to put them out of their misery and got the blame for it all. REPLY TO CORRESPONDENT “Stop This Thing.”—The point of using rifles on game is to kill game as humanely as possible and if the .17 calibre will do this, then, logically, it should be used. I’m sure its much better to kill a wild beast with one shot than to wound it so it will crawl away to die. Why shoot game at all? —Perhaps it is better to poison it? Or have you seen what happens to rabbits with maxomytosis? It’s horrible. Christchurch Police.— The incorrect definition of the law only goes to prove my article that the Police Department is better employed in crime prevention than in the management of shooters. The Forest Service does not prevent the use of .22s in forest lands and parks, only .22 rimfire cartridges. Many Forest Service deer cullers use the .222, a twentytwo centre-fire calibre, which incidentally does not equal the .17 Ackley Magnum ballistically.