# Hunting > Firearm Safety >  Why frontline cops should be armed

## Savage1

This is exactly why they should be armed, what a f$%king embarrassment and display of incompetence due to not having immediate access to the correct tools.

Gun-wielding man threatens police in 'terrifying' standoff - National - NZ Herald News

I'm purely going off of the facts in the article. This is hardly the first time this has happened either.

I think frontline Police should be routinely armed, I don't really care if other people disagree or it makes some people uncomfortable, their lack of comfort doesn't make me any safer.

----------


## jim160

It will only be a matter of time.

----------


## res

Completely agree they should be armed, the extra $ for the training etc just has to be found. 
I would be upset if cops just started carrying guns on there hip as standard without extra training

----------


## Maca49

How many would die if they're armed without proper process?
I am of the belief that a policeman should never die by bullet doing his job, I also think if you present with a firearm and do not comply with a request to put it down you have given up your right to life,
But it is scary putting pistols on the hips of young insufficently trained officers, but I do believe in arming them.

----------


## northdude

They should all be armed I'm not intending to do anything that's going to get me shot by the police so it doesn't intimidate me I've been in Aussie and they are armed it didn't bother me at all if anything I'd more likely want to have a chat with him about his piece

----------


## Jexla

Have to disagree personally. Looks like the situation was handled, if the cop was already armed the guy would be dead and the cops may have some holes too.

Side note, notice how they say "high-powered firearm" when it's a .22
Interesting. What's a low powered firearm?

----------


## jim160

> Have to disagree personally. Looks like the situation was handled, if the cop was already armed the guy would be dead and the cops may have some holes too.
> 
> Side note, notice how they say "high-powered firearm" when it's a .22
> Interesting. What's a low powered firearm?


But the media has never been good at identifying firearms.  We all know that.  They can never be relied upon to tell the accurate truth about anything.

----------


## northdude

An air rifle

----------


## MassiveAttack

The thread isn't sensible.  They are armed, every patrol car has a Bushmaster in the back (without fashionable carbon fiber stock) so you are asking for something they already have.

If they had a glock strapped to their side when the bloke in the article pointed a sawn off shotty at them then he may have just shot them to stop them drawing the gun.  With it in the car they have flexability to pull it out of not.

I would also ask the question how would it have been any different if a non police officer had a swan off shotgun pointed at them.  Everyone has a right to defend themselves.

Shouldn't the title be:

Why new zealanders should have concealed carry

So yes I think cops should be armed but then I think you and I should be as well.

----------


## Jexla

> But the media has never been good at identifying firearms.  We all know that.  They can never be relied upon to tell the accurate truth about anything.


Pretty much my point about the whole thing.




> An air rifle


Problem being that it doesn't work like that. High/low powered is a matter of opinion.

----------


## jim160

> An air rifle


Depends on the air rifle.  Don Wilkinson was killed with an air rifle.  So not so low powered.

----------


## Jexla

> Depends on the air rifle.  Don Wilkinson was killed with an air rifle.  So not so low powered.


So you think if it's capable of killing it's high powered?
Check out my high powered knives I have in the kitchen....

----------


## jim160

> So you think if it's capable of killing it's high powered?
> Check out my high powered knives I have in the kitchen....


No.  The compressed air rifles like that one used to kill him, fires at the same speed or similar to a 22.  Hence why you now need a firearms licence to own one.

Guns account for bugger all deaths in nz.  More people are killed with knives, cars and other blunt weapons.

----------


## Jexla

Yeah, that's pretty much it right there, it's no longer just a restricted weapon, but now considered a firearm. Still in my opinion a low powered one.

----------


## bully

Obviously up to no good with a cut down firearm like that. Not to mention pointing and threatening police.
Do us all a favour, reach for the ar and mag dump.

----------


## Tommy

> Depends on the air rifle.  Don Wilkinson was killed with an air rifle.  So not so low powered.


Dead is dead for sure, there are no degrees of dead.

----------


## stretch

> Interesting. What's a low powered firearm?





> An air rifle


By labelling it a "high-powered firearm", you are categorising it as a firearm (correct), and quantifying it WITHIN THAT CATEGORY as high-powered (incorrect). 

You can't justify the "high-powered" label by comparing it to an air rifle, because air rifles aren't firearms. The "high-powered" label needs to be relative to other things in the same category.

It's like calling a Corolla a "high-performance car" by comparing it to a pushbike.

----------


## stretch

> Yeah, that's pretty much it right there, it's no longer just a restricted weapon, but now considered a firearm. Still in my opinion a low powered one.


When did that change?

----------


## Jexla

> When did that change?





> No.  The compressed air rifles like that one used to kill him, fires at the same speed or similar to a 22.  Hence why you now need a firearms licence to own one.
> 
> Guns account for bugger all deaths in nz.  More people are killed with knives, cars and other blunt weapons.


Pretty much after that cop got shot they made it so if an airgun is over x fps it is a firearm.

----------


## stretch

> Pretty much after that cop got shot they made it so if an airgun is over x fps it is a firearm.


Yep, found it: Firearm definition includes:

(iv) any specially dangerous airgun.

----------


## Tommy

> Pretty much after that cop got shot they made it so if an airgun is over x fps it is a firearm.


I think it only applies to precharge air rifles

----------


## Maca49

I like your attitude Bully saves money as well!

----------


## Sasquatch

@Savage1 I agree with you and respect you guys for wanting to be armed 24/7, it seems as of lately there is a lot about this in the media about arming the police because of the supposable increase in firearm threats & criminals arming themselves more. 

But this is also where you lose a little of my support...

You say you need to be armed for moments like this? ^^^ That's fine but why can't we (civilians) defend ourselves? This is where I agree with  @MassiveAttack for concealed carry, under strict reasoning & perhaps extensive training with B endorsement that is.

Because right now if there was ever a 'bump in the night' I have to fumble around with my baseball bat and deal to the threat. The perpetrator could be armed with nothing, the same as me, a knife or a "high-powered" firearm to which then my life & my families lives could come to an end. I wouldn't be able to get to my guns and the police would not be able to get to my house in time sadly.

I can see these discussions painting obscure & doubtful opinions on others but in short, if you believe in being armed for legitimate threats in today's society then so do I.

----------


## Maca49

In my younger days when I had a call out for the alarm at work I went armed, mainly because it was in the middle of nowhere pitch black and the cops left me to it. Entering an empty building by yourself, you need comfort in your hand :Cool:

----------


## jackson21

My understanding was firearms, glocks etc where carried in the cars already?  Is this not enough?

One of the things I like about NZ is that cops aren't tooled up everywhere like overseas. 
Think if they openly carry it will escalate to more crims arming up and having a go USA style from watching too many movies shoot-outs etc...

I'm not doing their job though, maybe in some areas could be carried at their discretion maybe if felt necessary?

----------


## Tommy

@Savage1

How much time does your average policeman spend training with the Glock or Bushmaster? Can all police use them, or is there a 'ticket' or something they have to have to be able to open the boot and get the gear out? (Obviously not meaning AOS/STG etc)

----------


## 199p

Its an interesting point.

from the media and police spokesmen it definitely sounds like firearms are getting more common when it comes to crime and criminals. 
It doesn't seem to have increased shooting a lot tho, It makes me ponder the point that if the criminals know the police aren't carrying on there hip 
and thus it dose decrease the tension as opposed to them both holding each other at gunpoint.     

I can see the police wanting the upperhand but i am a firm believer that it will increase shootings for both partys.
If its a free for all then i am with massiveattack and think there should be a concealed carry permit like you see in USA.

When I was bouncing in town it was scary to watch how the young police responded to a small fight say 3 or 4 people on the street, More often then not it escalated the fight and ended in a brawl. 
It was generally better to hope the police didn't arrive and it was much easier to get on top of. 
examples would see them running into the crowd spraying 20 - 30 people with pepperspray or tackling the wrong people.

Cant imagine it being any better with a glock on there hip.

----------


## jackson21

How many Police men and women are actually prepared mentally to shoot to kill someone dead when required at close range is another question?
I would hazard a thought that not many people in general are and you would not know until situation arises. 
This has been proven psychologically and is why often firearms can be taken off people by the nutcase who is prepared and used against them. 
This also needs to be taken into consideration

----------


## GravelBen

> How much time does your average policeman spend training with the Glock or Bushmaster? Can all police use them, or is there a 'ticket' or something they have to have to be able to open the boot and get the gear out? (Obviously not meaning AOS/STG etc)


AFAIK they need a ticket, which involves doing a course (which they may have to pay for themselves). I have a cop mate who told me that despite being previously firearms qualified, because he hasn't done the latest update if another cop is getting shot he "isn't allowed" to pick up a firearm to defend them. I get the impression he finds the police bureacracy a tad frustrating at times.

----------


## GravelBen

> from the media and police spokesmen it definitely sounds like firearms are getting more common when it comes to crime and criminals. 
> It doesn't seem to have increased shooting a lot tho, It makes me ponder the point that if the criminals know the police aren't carrying on there hip 
> and thus it dose decrease the tension as opposed to them both holding each other at gunpoint.     
> 
> I can see the police wanting the upperhand but i am a firm believer that it will increase shootings for both partys.


From the media and some police spokesmen yes, from actual crime statistics? I'm not so sure.

I agree about the potential for escalation, its a change that would _really_ need to be justified by solid evidence rather than emotionally-loaded rhetoric.

----------


## deepsouthaussie

> How many would die if they're armed without proper process?
> I am of the belief that a policeman should never die by bullet doing his job, I also think if you present with a firearm and do not comply with a request to put it down you have given up your right to life,
> But it is scary putting pistols on the hips of young insufficently trained officers, but I do believe in arming them.


Iagrre with everything  maca except 'young' age is no barrier to brain farts

Sent from my GT-P5210 using Tapatalk

----------


## Maca49

Oh you're not old enough to have experience hahahahaha :Thumbsup:

----------


## Savage1

> Sasquatch
> @Savage1 I agree with you and respect you guys for wanting to be armed 24/7, it seems as of lately there is a lot about this in the media about arming the police because of the supposable increase in firearm threats & criminals arming themselves more. 
> 
> But this is also where you lose a little of my support...
> 
> You say you need to be armed for moments like this? ^^^ That's fine but why can't we (civilians) defend ourselves? This is where I agree with @MassiveAttack for concealed carry, under strict reasoning & perhaps extensive training with B endorsement that is.
> 
> Because right now if there was ever a 'bump in the night' I have to fumble around with my baseball bat and deal to the threat. The perpetrator could be armed with nothing, the same as me, a knife or a "high-powered" firearm to which then my life & my families life could come to an end. I wouldn't be able to get to my guns and the police would not be able to get to my house in time sadly.
> 
> I can see these discussions painting obscure & doubtful opinions on others but in short, if you believe in being armed for legitimate threats in today's society then so do I.


I believe conceal carry is a separate matter and shouldn't be used as a reason for or against Police arming. Police go to threats an encounter a lot of threats on a daily basis, their role can't be compared to a civilian in everyday life.

I'm truely neutral when it comes to conceal carry, I'm neither for or against it. But I hope people don't use that issue to prevent cops from having immediate access to firearms.




> Originally Posted by Jexla
> Have to disagree personally. Looks like the situation was handled, if the cop was already armed the guy would be dead and the cops may have some holes too.
> 
> Side note, notice how they say "high-powered firearm" when it's a .22
> Interesting. What's a low powered firearm?


Hindsight is always 20/20, what if the offender opened up on the cops? If you were in the cops situation would you prefer to have a glock on your hip or approach the same situation with just spray and a TASER?

It's easy to have your opinion when you're never the one going voluntarily into the situations that Police do.

Surely you don't think it's OK for cops to get chased around by a guy with a gun and have them attempt to steal patrol cars with more guns in them?

----------


## Maca49

Savage I think the choice of weapons should be reviewed. Pistols are an experienced person choice of weapon, I'd go 12 g with buck shot, very threatening looking at the barrel and offers an easier deadly force, and if a firearm is used by the police the outcome should be DEAD.
Cause that's the only reason you would pull the trigger,to kill to stop some else being compromised, otherwise you can use pepper spray or tazer

----------


## scotty

I have no problem with the police being armed....In principle.   
but the govt would have to front up with a lot more money so that police were properly trained and had to regularly (not once a year) have proficiency and psych tests .
we have seen in the past bad decisions made in the heat of the moment resulting in the death of an innocent man. as firearms liscence holders we are responsible for identifying our target and not endangering anyone .... the police should be held to the same standard...... and before anyone gets uppity  an example of this would be checking the firing zone and being aware of possibilities  of bystanders getting caught up in the crossfire.

----------


## Jexla

> Hindsight is always 20/20, what if the offender opened up on the cops? If you were in the cops situation would you prefer to have a glock on your hip or approach the same situation with just spray and a TASER?
> 
> It's easy to have your opinion when you're never the one going voluntarily into the situations that Police do.
> 
> Surely you don't think it's OK for cops to get chased around by a guy with a gun and have them attempt to steal patrol cars with more guns in them?


If he opened up on the cops they wouldn't have had a chance to to even pull their guns before at least one of them was riddled with .22 holes.
Did they not have tasers on them?
Also what's the deal with the key to the guns? Is it the same keys for the car?
Because if so that might be something that could be changed?

----------


## Tommy

> Iagrre with everything  maca except 'young' age is no barrier to brain farts
> 
> Sent from my GT-P5210 using Tapatalk


Years ago, my mate's blind aunty and her dog got run over by a traffic cop outside the Birkenhead RSA, on a pedestrian crossing, in a police car. He had just left the RSA after being there for a few hours, and despite three family members repeatedly requesting that he be breath tested because he smelled of booze, he wasn't. She had bones poking out of her leg, and that really ruined her mobility (she was a triathlete, despite being completely blind. Had done the Kona Ironman amongst dozens of others). Word got back through a couple of friends on the force that yes he was pissed as a parrot, but he was a leftover from the traffic police that got merged with the regular police in the 90's, and he was allowed to get away with it so he could resign a few months later once he'd qualified for a full pension. This appeared to be common knowledge amongst the police in the area. The fact that this (and two other things) in particular was allowed to happen puts a slight shade on my view of the NZ police (99.9% being A for awesome mind you). There was an old boys club and although we are bloody lucky to have a very very good police force, I will still be a little uneasy with all of them getting one after a quick box-ticking exercise. I'm all for certain parts having what they need, and they do, but I want to know that they are adequately trained before everyone gets one, cos there is the odd dickhead, and yes accidents happen.

----------


## Jexla

> I wonder how many people on here who have an opinion on how police should do the job, and dealing with firearms job will go out and join the thin blue line.
> 
> My first thought would be.......none.
> 
> 
> its much easier giving an opinion from the safety of a computer.


If we cannot share our opinion as a citizen then why did he post here?
Don't be stupid.

----------


## Dan88

i think that all cops should carry tasers and have access to pistols in the cars and the correct training. the taser is far more likely to be used and the consequences for both parties are much less severe

----------


## Rushy

I am happy for Police to be provided with the tools (small arms) needed to protect themselves and deal with situations such occurred today.  Maca I am not sure I like your idea about shotguns and buckshot though.  The thought of nine pellets of 30 caliber double ought ripping into a scumbag causes me a great deal of......... Oh fuck it, go for it.

----------


## Savage1

> My understanding was firearms, glocks etc where carried in the cars already?  Is this not enough?
> 
> One of the things I like about NZ is that cops aren't tooled up everywhere like overseas. 
> Think if they openly carry it will escalate to more crims arming up and having a go USA style from watching too many movies shoot-outs etc...
> 
> I'm not doing their job though, maybe in some areas could be carried at their discretion maybe if felt necessary?


Sure they are carried in the cars, but they're no good to you when they're locked in the car and a person has suddenly pulled a gun/bat/knife etc. You'd have to get back to the car and into the lock boxes without being run down and attacked first. 

I am proud the NZ Police has remained unarmed for so long, but times have changed along with my insight into the situation.

Police can carry when they want, but they must be believe, and be able to justify, there is a risk of death or GBH first.

----------


## Savage1

> @Savage1
> 
> How much time does your average policeman spend training with the Glock or Bushmaster? Can all police use them, or is there a 'ticket' or something they have to have to be able to open the boot and get the gear out? (Obviously not meaning AOS/STG etc)


Trigger time, not a lot. TOETS etc a bit more. Decision making training, a fair bit.

You have to be 'certified' to deploy with a firearm, I think it's yearly.

----------


## Jexla

> Sure they are carried in the cars, but they're no good to you when they're locked in the car and a person has suddenly pulled a gun/bat/knife etc. You'd have to get back to the car and into the lock boxes without being run down and attacked first. 
> 
> I am proud the NZ Police has remained unarmed for so long, but times have changed along with my insight into the situation.
> 
> Police can carry when they want, but they must be believe, and be able to justify, there is a risk of death or GBH first.


Why the fuck would you pull a gun on a guy with a bat?
This is the issue I have....

----------


## jim160

> Why the fuck would you pull a gun on a guy with a bat?
> This is the issue I have....


Cause getting hit in the head can kill you.
Spray doesn't always work and can take a few seconds to kick in to work.  
Tasers work half the time.

Im sure if you were confronted with someone with a bat, your opinion might change.  but you would call the police and leave and let them deal with it.

----------


## Jexla

You're fucking delusional if you think it's acceptable to point a firearm at someone with a bat unless you're absolutely out of options.

----------


## bully

> @Savage1 I agree with you and respect you guys for wanting to be armed 24/7, it seems as of lately there is a lot about this in the media about arming the police because of the supposable increase in firearm threats & criminals arming themselves more. 
> 
> But this is also where you lose a little of my support...
> 
> You say you need to be armed for moments like this? ^^^ That's fine but why can't we (civilians) defend ourselves? This is where I agree with  @MassiveAttack for concealed carry, under strict reasoning & perhaps extensive training with B endorsement that is.
> 
> Because right now if there was ever a 'bump in the night' I have to fumble around with my baseball bat and deal to the threat. The perpetrator could be armed with nothing, the same as me, a knife or a "high-powered" firearm to which then my life & my families lives could come to an end. I wouldn't be able to get to my guns and the police would not be able to get to my house in time sadly.
> 
> I can see these discussions painting obscure & doubtful opinions on others but in short, if you believe in being armed for legitimate threats in today's society then so do I.



Sadly no you can't use your baseball bat, that would be excessive use of force. After asking a police woman what I should do next time I get robbed..  she basicly said if I have something and he doesn't then thats excessive force, you have to go out there, see what he's got, then go back inside to get something equal. Hopefully he waits for you.
And before you think oh I will just let the dog out! Nup, also excessive use of force.

----------


## Savage1

> Why the fuck would you pull a gun on a guy with a bat?
> This is the issue I have....


If you were cornered by a guy with a baseball bat, or being chased down the street by someone with a bat wouldn't you? Or would you go hand to hand and risk getting your skull caved in? Pepper spray didn't work (quite common especially with mental people), has a thick jacket or probes miss on TASER.

I'm guessing you've never had a guy seriously trying to hurt you before.

----------


## Jexla

> If you were cornered by a guy with a baseball bat, or being chased down the street by someone with a bat wouldn't you? Or would you go hand to hand and risk getting your skull caved in? Pepper spray didn't work (quite common especially with mental people), has a thick jacket or probes miss on TASER.
> 
> I'm guessing you've never had a guy seriously trying to hurt you before.


Like I said, unless you're out of options it's excessive.
I just don't want to see our police force turning into the US police force where they pull their gun out on anyone and everyone who doesn't "comply".

----------


## Tommy

> If you were cornered by a guy with a baseball bat, or being chased down the street by someone with a bat wouldn't you? Or would you go hand to hand and risk getting your skull caved in? Pepper spray didn't work (quite common especially with mental people), has a thick jacket or probes miss on TASER.
> 
> I'm guessing you've never had a guy seriously trying to hurt you before.


Steven Anderson in Waitara being a good example. Rep league player armed with bat and/or golf club while off his nut on drugs. No way I would want to try stop a fit gut with a bat with a taser at under 5 meters, that is a distance that can be closed VERY quickly

----------


## Jexla

> Steven Anderson in Waitara being a good example. Rep league player armed with bat and/or golf club while off his nut on drugs. No way I would want to try stop a fit gut with a bat with a taser at under 5 meters, that is a distance that can be closed VERY quickly


Agreed, tricky situation, but the fact the cop was put into that situation by himself was questionable in the first place wasn't it?

Not to mention he had his gun on him, so clearly the current plan works.

----------


## jim160

> Agreed, tricky situation, but the fact the cop was put into that situation by himself was questionable in the first place wasn't it?
> 
> Not to mention he had his gun on him, so clearly the current plan works.


In that event, the cop returned to the Police station (they didn't have them in the cars then) and got a Glock from there and then went back to where Steven Wallace was and confronted him.
Prior to him shooting Wallace, he was attacking a Police car that a female cop was in.  That's why he was shot.  That's what I recall anyway.

I think the family is still trying to have the cop charged.

Steven Anderson was the guy who killed his family and spent time in a mental hospital and was released this year.

----------


## Jexla

> In that event, the cop returned to the Police station (they didn't have them in the cars then) and got a Glock from there and then went back to where Steven Wallace was and confronted him.
> Prior to him shooting Wallace, he was attacking a Police car that a female cop was in.  That's why he was shot.  That's what I recall anyway.
> 
> I think the family is still trying to have the cop charged.
> 
> Steven Anderson was the guy who killed his family and spent time in a mental hospital and was released this year.


In that case with the current plans the female cop could have shot him herself. They also could have had a go at tasering him now days.

----------


## jim160

> In that case with the current plans the female cop could have shot him herself. They also could have had a go at tasering him now days.


And if the taser fails, which it probably would, then they are dead with one strike to the head.

----------


## Savage1

> Agreed, tricky situation, but the fact the cop was put into that situation by himself was questionable in the first place wasn't it?
> 
> Not to mention he had his gun on him, so clearly the current plan works.


No it isn't working

Fourth cop bashed this month | NZNews | 3 News

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Napier_shootings

Update on Police dog handler's gunpoint rescue of partner | New Zealand Police

Plenty more and not to mention the incident today.

----------


## Tommy

> In that event, the cop returned to the Police station (they didn't have them in the cars then) and got a Glock from there and then went back to where Steven Wallace was and confronted him.
> Prior to him shooting Wallace, he was attacking a Police car that a female cop was in.  That's why he was shot.  That's what I recall anyway.
> 
> I think the family is still trying to have the cop charged.
> 
> Steven Anderson was the guy who killed his family and spent time in a mental hospital and was released this year.


Yep wrong Steven. I believe there were three police that night, and the female was basically locked in the car. 

It's ironic that his family are pushing for Mr Abbott to be convicted, seeing as they called police in the first place due to his behaviour

----------


## Jexla

Whilst I can see your point here Savage, I feel like I can agree to some arming of the police under more circumstances, but not all.
Here's a quote:
"Also on Boxing Day a Hamilton policeman was attacked by two teenagers armed with a machete and a knife when he went to a house at Pukete, north of Hamilton, after reports of people fighting with weapons."

People fighting with weapons might be a good idea to turn up with more than one cop and more than one taser, maybe even a gun or 2.
Why not? We already know there's weapons involved.

Also in the case of the Napier shootings, it was a drug house warrant for someone who never renewed their firearms licence in the 90's when the licencing was changed and was also in the TF and was fired from the railways. (Yes, the railways)
I don't think I could object to police executing search warrants especially drug ones, armed. 

As for the cop who had his car stolen, I'm not so sure a glock on his hip would have helped him at all, I think it would have in fact meant he would have been worse off.

My issue is with routine arming where people will have a gun pulled on them for not "complying" or any reason the police officer pleases.

----------


## Jexla

> Yep wrong Steven. I believe there were three police that night, and the female was basically locked in the car. 
> 
> It's ironic that his family are pushing for Mr Abbott to be convicted, seeing as they called police in the first place due to his behaviour


Yeah, I can understand the shooting, but it's not like you call the police expecting them to shoot your son.

----------


## Savage1

> Whilst I can see your point here Savage, I feel like I can agree to some arming of the police under more circumstances, but not all.
> Here's a quote:
> "Also on Boxing Day a Hamilton policeman was attacked by two teenagers armed with a machete and a knife when he went to a house at Pukete, north of Hamilton, after reports of people fighting with weapons."
> 
> People fighting with weapons might be a good idea to turn up with more than one cop and more than one taser, maybe even a gun or 2.
> Why not? We already know there's weapons involved.
> 
> There aren't always numbers, or firearms, available. Police deal with very fluid and unpredictable situations with no intel, something I'm guessing you have never experienced. Previously you said a baseball bat doesn't justify a firearm, so do we need to confirm what weapons are involved first before arming up?
> 
> ...


I think frontline cops should be taking a gun off for certain situations, not putting them on for certain situations.

----------


## GravelBen

It still seems a bit odd that the police like to proudly quote statistics to say how well they've been doing at reducing violent crime, and then turn around and say they need be armed all the time because its so much more dangerous and violent than it used to be.

----------


## Savage1

> It still seems a bit odd that the police like to proudly quote statistics to say how well they've been doing at reducing violent crime, and then turn around and say they need be armed all the time because its so much more dangerous and violent than it used to be.


Police proudly quote the statistics.

It's the Police Association that is pushing for Police to be armed. The Police Association is like a union and is not part of the Police.

----------


## GravelBen

So is the police association ignoring the statistics, or saying they're wrong? There is obviously an inconsistency there one way or another.

----------


## Maca49

Waitara was the correct outcome IMHO he was told to put it down and what happened left the correct guy alive. Where do these people get off? The law is the law! And don't blame drugs! 
But a Glock? FFS

----------


## jim160

It's the number of staff getting assaulted and threatened with weapons, knives and guns. 

It's not happy days out there anymore.

----------


## Jexla

> I think frontline cops should be taking a gun off for certain situations, not putting them on for certain situations.


That makes no sense. When would you ever take your gun off?

You're extremely bias, I must say. Maybe get your B cat and do some recreational shooting instead of feeling the need to do it at work.




> It's the number of staff getting assaulted and threatened with weapons, knives and guns. 
> 
> It's not happy days out there anymore.


It never was.

----------


## jim160

> That makes no sense. When would you ever take your gun off?
> 
> You're extremely bias, I must say. Maybe get your B cat and do some recreational shooting instead of feeling the need to do it at work.
> 
> 
> 
> It never was.


Maybe you would take it off for protests, large demonstrations and the like. 

And are you speaking from your personal experience in the police about it not been happy days or from what you see on tv.

----------


## Jexla

You missed every point I made Savage.

Yes of course there are not always numbers available but if numbers are limited why not take holstered firearms and tasers? 
Firearms not available? Stop talking shit, we know firearms ARE available (in every vehicle in fact).
I said pulling a gun on someone with a baseball bat when you have other options is insane. At no point did I say NOR imply that having a holstered firearm is not acceptable. Stop reading what you want out of what I say.

You're right I bet they didn't know all of that information when they approached the address, which raises more questions, why not? Why would you not do a background check on someone who's house you have a warrant for for drugs?
Maybe there needs to be a process change when it comes to executing warrants, it's for your safety remember?

How could it not help? As I already explained, instead of having his car taken from him, he would have been riddled with bullets instead then lost his car. Also he got his dog out. Stop making more shit up.

It is NOT a different issue that isn't a problem in NZ, batons don't have the same effect as a gun to suspects and tasers record everything every time they're unholstered and a report has to be made, wouldn't be the same with a firearm.

----------


## Jexla

> Maybe you would take it off for protests, large demonstrations and the like. 
> 
> And are you speaking from your personal experience in the police about it not been happy days or from what you see on tv.


Same place as you are Jim.

----------


## Shooter

> This is exactly why they should be armed, what a f$%king embarrassment and display of incompetence due to not having immediate access to the correct tools.
> 
> Gun-wielding man threatens police in 'terrifying' standoff - National - NZ Herald News
> 
> I'm purely going off of the facts in the article. This is hardly the first time this has happened either.
> 
> I think frontline Police should be routinely armed, I don't really care if other people disagree or it makes some people uncomfortable, their lack of comfort doesn't make me any safer.


Mate I'm with you 100% on this one @Savage1.




> You're fucking delusional if you think it's acceptable to point a firearm at someone with a bat unless you're absolutely out of options.


Wow I think you are the one that is delusional!  You clearly do not understand what it is like to be placed in a hostile situation that is unfolding before you that may or may not end with paying the ultimate price.

----------


## 308

If frontline cops are to be armed then a dead Auckland courier driver wants them to hit the correct target more often

----------


## sako75

No cop should go to work for his/her shift and go home in a coffin - full stop
Our society is changing and so are the threats they are facing. Give them the tools they need to ensure they go home each day. 

I'm sure @Maca49 would like to see them armed with black powder pistols and long rifles

----------


## Nibblet

Arm the cops to the teeth. Put the fear into criminals and make it known there will be consequences for being a douchebag. 

This argument of if cops are armed so should I is nonsense. You don't go to bed or work each day with the expectations of being in a fight and dealing with the lowest of the low.

In a situation where you may possibly draw a firearm on someone with say a bat, it's not about shooting the prick but scaring him into compliance.

Maybe you should take Jexla on a ride along so he can be educated. 

As a side note, all the cops around the airport area (not just airside) are armed and it hasn't caused any escalation that I'm aware of?

----------


## Hunt4life

A fairly healthy debate, although bordering on personal attack which is disappointing among forum members I generally respect. My two cents, I simply don't trust NZ Police to 'get it right' enough for me to endorse routine arming. I am sympathetic to cops and also to people in our society who are fearful. I'm not. I also am so highly anti-American gun slinging culture, that I'll fight against my precious country following their lead. Tasers are fine. When one of you said earlier on this thread that the probes might miss and the cop could be hit...I actually laughed out loud at the irony, as if a bullet missed, the cop could be hit...but, there's still the outrageously important question of where the fucking bullet went then?!! Seriously guys, if you hunters who know bullets pass through bodies and ricochet and miss and go fuck-knows-where beyond your target, why are you so adamant arming cops with sidearms is such a fabulous idea? I'm sorry to all cops, but if you don't want the risk, don't become a cop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Boar Freak

> Completely agree they should be armed, the extra $ for the training etc just has to be found. 
> I would be upset if cops just started carrying guns on there hip as standard without extra training


I agree, and I think if we cancel the East Kaweka 1080 drop that should cover some of the training costs  :Thumbsup:

----------


## res

> I agree, and I think if we cancel the East Kaweka 1080 drop that should cover some of the training costs


Problem is that if you cancel the 1080 drop you still will have to spend the $ on possum control.  

Personally I would suggest the $ we give to pacific island country's for language preservation could be used. 

But even both together would not cover the cost of proper training, so we need to keep thinking

----------


## Nibblet

Need decent weight triggers on their glocks too, not the thousand pound one they have.

----------


## Maca49

> No cop should go to work for his/her shift and go home in a coffin - full stop
> Our society is changing and so are the threats they are facing. Give them the tools they need to ensure they go home each day. 
> 
> I'm sure @Maca49 would like to see them armed with black powder pistols and long rifles


I'm sure looking down the barrels of an express rifle would have the Sama affect, and the smoke would give you a chance to escape if you missed and smell better than some low life crim! :ORLY:

----------


## Maca49

> A fairly healthy debate, although bordering on personal attack which is disappointing among forum members I generally respect. My two cents, I simply don't trust NZ Police to 'get it right' enough for me to endorse routine arming. I am sympathetic to cops and also to people in our society who are fearful. I'm not. I also am so highly anti-American gun slinging culture, that I'll fight against my precious country following their lead. Tasers are fine. When one of you said earlier on this thread that the probes might miss and the cop could be hit...I actually laughed out loud at the irony, as if a bullet missed, the cop could be hit...but, there's still the outrageously important question of where the fucking bullet went then?!! Seriously guys, if you hunters who know bullets pass through bodies and ricochet and miss and go fuck-knows-where beyond your target, why are you so adamant arming cops with sidearms is such a fabulous idea? I'm sorry to all cops, but if you don't want the risk, don't become a cop.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I agree with trusting the ability of the police and the fact their culture can be corrupt, but that I think is the nature of their environment, dealing with scum all day every day is some thing I couldn't do! I struggle with some of my customers and staff! But that's the best we have and we would be much worse without them. I know an ex Senior Detective who was high profile in NZ, his attitude to the police now is appalling, mainly from his use and abuse, there no doubt is a deep rooted prob somewhere. Oh and Shotguns would be safer for most police to use, I guess cleaning up the mess and photos in the media wouldn't help, at least a bullet only leaves one neat hole, very PC

----------


## Savage1

> You missed every point I made Savage.
> 
> Yes of course there are not always numbers available but if numbers are limited why not take holstered firearms and tasers? 
> Firearms not available? Stop talking shit, we know firearms ARE available (in every vehicle in fact).
> I said pulling a gun on someone with a baseball bat when you have other options is insane. At no point did I say NOR imply that having a holstered firearm is not acceptable. Stop reading what you want out of what I say.
> 
> I didn't miss the point at all, firearms aren't always available and aren't in every car, no matter what you think you know. You clearly know nothing about frontline policing other than what you've been told by the media. I'm not talking shit, where do you get your knowledge of firearms availability in the Police? Why didn't every cop have a firearm at the recent Lower Hutt standoff?
> 
> Pulling a gun on someone with a baseball bat isn't insane even when you have other options, such comments just shows your complete lack of knowledge or experience in such situations. Have you used a TASER or OC Spray? Do you know what you're talking about? Have you ever been lunged at by a person wanting to assault you? Do you realise how quickly that ground can be covered by a determined offender?
> ...


Don't worry, you can explain to my wife and kids, when they're old enough to understand, why I shouldn't carry a firearm at work to defend myself or others.

----------


## northdude

shot gun loaded with a couple of different loads if police have been called to a job that involves a death or vicious attack the first round up the spout is a leathal round if a less threatening situation is at hand first load could be rubber slug or buckshot followed by a leathal round if the message didnt get through ..... bring on the what ifs

----------


## Tommy

> shot gun loaded with a couple of different loads if police have been called to a job that involves a death or vicious attack the first round up the spout is a leathal round if a less threatening situation is at hand first load could be rubber slug or buckshot followed by a leathal round if the message didnt get through ..... bring on the what ifs


I like this non-lethal buckshot!

----------


## northdude

Rubber buckshot

----------


## Gibo

I think the need to arm police is also location based. I would think there are plenty of towns that don't need it. I fully support arming police in the crazy towns and suburbs where shits real nasty. 

Armed carry....fuck off to America ..

----------


## Maca49

Come on Gibo Wheres your sense of adventure? Often get a laugh out of the guy in the states who was accosted by, I think about 5 youths, late at night on a train, carrying a .45 auto I think, he killed some and put other into wheels chairs, guess problem solved!

----------


## zimmer

> I think the need to arm police is also location based. I would think there are plenty of towns that don't need it. I fully support arming police in the crazy towns and suburbs where shits real nasty. 
> 
> Armed carry....fuck off to America ..


So, you wouldn't see the need for small towns eg places like Mangakino?

----------


## Gibo

> Come on Gibo Wheres your sense of adventure? Often get a laugh out of the guy in the states who was accosted by, I think about 5 youths, late at night on a train, carrying a .45 auto I think, he killed some and put other into wheels chairs, guess problem solved!


Yeah great outcome aye. Just look at some of the comments in this thread. The public being armed would be a lot more worrying to me than the police.

----------


## MassiveAttack

> I believe conceal carry is a separate matter and shouldn't be used as a reason for or against Police arming. Police go to threats an encounter a lot of threats on a daily basis, their role can't be compared to a civilian in everyday life.
> 
> I'm truely neutral when it comes to conceal carry, I'm neither for or against it. But I hope people don't use that issue to prevent cops from having immediate access to firearms.


Thats not true.  My wife is a social worker in a rural area so her job involves going out to the middle of nowhere (often with no cellphone reception) visiting people who come from the poorer section of our socieity.  The bloke who went in insane and shot up the Ashburton Winz office last year had made up a list of people he was going to kell and my wife's boss was on the list.  Luckerly for her he didn't get very far down the list on his insane murder day.

So she encounters threats on a daily basis and unlike police officers she doesn't have a radio, pepper spray, training or backup.   Legally she isn't even allowed pepper spray.

If this was the states I would buy her a glock and send her on a training course to teach her how to use it.  It wouldn't prevent all situations but at least it's something.

If you look at safty statistics the police generally do far worse than civilians.  There has only been one injury at a civilian rifle range but there have been many at police ranges.  Your average police officer spends less time being trained than I did to become a IT guy and has less firearms handling experiance than the average hunter bloke.  Most average hunter blokes are scary unsafe people who I wouldn't want to stand in front of while they were holding a gun...

----------


## Gibo

> So, you wouldn't see the need for small towns eg places like Mangakino?


What's wrong with Mango?  :Grin:   I didn't call out any particular towns for a reason.

----------


## Gibo

> Thats not true.  My wife is a social worker in a rural area so her job involves going out to the middle of nowhere (often with no cellphone reception) visiting people who come from the poorer section of our socieity.  The bloke who went in insane and shot up the Ashburton Winz office last year had made up a list of people he was going to kell and my wife's boss was on the list.  Luckerly for her he didn't get very far down the list on his insane murder day.
> 
> So she encounters threats on a daily basis and unlike police officers she doesn't have a radio, pepper spray, training or backup.   Legally she isn't even allowed pepper spray.
> 
> If this was the states I would buy her a glock and send her on a training course to teach her how to use it.  It wouldn't prevent all situations but at least it's something.
> 
> If you look at safty statistics the police generally do far worse than civilians.  There has only been one injury at a civilian rifle range but there have been many at police ranges.  Your average police officer spends less time being trained than I did to become a IT guy and has less firearms handling experiance than the average hunter bloke.  Most average hunter blokes are scary unsafe people who I wouldn't want to stand in front of while they were holding a gun...


What's the difference between a civilian and a average hunter bloke?

----------


## MassiveAttack

> What's the difference between a civilian and a average hunter bloke?


A firearms license.

----------


## MassiveAttack

> No cop should go to work for his/her shift and go home in a coffin - full stop
> Our society is changing and so are the threats they are facing. Give them the tools they need to ensure they go home each day. 
> 
> I'm sure @Maca49 would like to see them armed with black powder pistols and long rifles


That applies to everyone.  Farmers who live in poor rural areas.  People who live in poor urban areas.   Security guards that go out to alarms late at night, social workers.

Everyone who faces a threat has the right to defend themselves and should have the right to use the appropriate tools to do so, police or not.

----------


## GravelBen

> It never was.


My cop and ex-cop mates would agree with you on that, I've heard some pretty hair-raising stories from them about policing in the 'bad old days' of the 80s and 90s.

----------


## Savage1

> Thats not true.  My wife is a social worker in a rural area so her job involves going out to the middle of nowhere (often with no cellphone reception) visiting people who come from the poorer section of our socieity.  The bloke who went in insane and shot up the Ashburton Winz office last year had made up a list of people he was going to kell and my wife's boss was on the list.  Luckerly for her he didn't get very far down the list on his insane murder day.
> 
> So she encounters threats on a daily basis and unlike police officers she doesn't have a radio, pepper spray, training or backup.   Legally she isn't even allowed pepper spray.
> 
> If this was the states I would buy her a glock and send her on a training course to teach her how to use it.  It wouldn't prevent all situations but at least it's something.
> 
> If you look at safty statistics the police generally do far worse than civilians.  There has only been one injury at a civilian rifle range but there have been many at police ranges.  Your average police officer spends less time being trained than I did to become a IT guy and has less firearms handling experiance than the average hunter bloke.  Most average hunter blokes are scary unsafe people who I wouldn't want to stand in front of while they were holding a gun...


When was the last time your wife was deployed to a domestic/disorder/warrant at such addresses? Slightest hint of trouble who do they call? Police. I've passed no end of fire fighters/paramedics/social workers to enter addresses because they're unwilling to do so, it's not their job and I think no less of them holding back.

Your wife may face "threats" if that is what you want to call that sector of society, but she faces them in the social worker role, not in a Police role where you are, more often than not, there against their wishes and are likely to deny them of their freedom. Policing is confrontational at the physical level, hardly comparable to social working.

Like I said earlier, I'm neutral when it comes to carrying weapons for defence, I just don't know whether the risks outweigh the benefits.

In regards to range safety, where are the statistics? I haven't looked into it but the only injuries I can recall is a broken leg and a stroke whilst on the range, never heard of a GSW but I could be wrong. The training they do is different to what the average civilian does on a range, vehicle stops, transitions etc.

----------


## kotuku

Im with Savage on this .we deal with the same thing having to confont aggression and unpredictability+++++and at times deny peoples freedom by secluding them.
Never faced a firearm but hot drinks hot food ,shit piss vomit snot or combinations of all have been offered at close range sometimes bloody effectively, usually accompanied by extreme obscenities etc etc etc 
 Seen at least two hostage situations,resolved by extremely quick nursing staff reaction.
.had to drop a guy who was beating the livng shit out of one of my nursing colleagues -weapons -bare hands certain techniques and team work.
even the cops and prison officers are aghast at what we do when they would have at least some protective gear.
 you guys overlook one essential factor -the need to utilise a firearm is formulated by an inbuilt bloody computer -your brain-none of which are alike ok.
put any group people in a high risk situation and ask if they'd deploy a weapon knowing full well also if it is used the sequeale is likely to be just as traumatic. 
now try all this in less than 30seconds-its 50/50 wether youd ever get the same result.
 Risk assessment is the name of the game and until youre actually trained and using it youre only entitled to generalised opinion.
Massive -your wife -old chap I trained as a duly authorised officer -a highly trained nurse again called by anyone to assess and if neccesary arrange placement of a person under the mental health act .we are trained both to utilise whanau and police if required.If your wife is allowed to go about her tasks as you describe without essentiaL PROTECTIVE BACKUP-THEN SHE NEEDS TO BE ASKING SOME BLOODY HARD QUESTIONS! especially in todays crazy fucked up social climate.
 As for the ashburton gent -I served him breakfast lunch and tea via"roomservice and in the dining room as he tried to convince us .alas no go horatio!

----------


## Banana

> Like I said earlier, I'm neutral when it comes to carrying weapons for defence, I just don't know whether the risks outweigh the benefits.


Carrying weapons for defense is exactly what you're advocating, just for a select group of people only.

----------


## ebf

> You missed every point I made Savage.
> 
> Yes of course there are not always numbers available but if numbers are limited why not take holstered firearms and tasers? 
> Firearms not available? Stop talking shit, we know firearms ARE available (in every vehicle in fact).
> I said pulling a gun on someone with a baseball bat when you have other options is insane. At no point did I say NOR imply that having a holstered firearm is not acceptable. Stop reading what you want out of what I say.
> 
> You're right I bet they didn't know all of that information when they approached the address, which raises more questions, why not? Why would you not do a background check on someone who's house you have a warrant for for drugs?
> Maybe there needs to be a process change when it comes to executing warrants, it's for your safety remember?
> 
> ...


I suspect you would benefit significantly from some time spent with cops out facing what they do on a daily basis. Be interesting to see how your statements change once you've been on the receiving end...

Just out of interest, can you tell us what percentage of the tasers currently deployed have this "recording" facility ?

----------


## Savage1

> Carrying weapons for defense is exactly what you're advocating, just for a select group of people only.


Absolutely, but the select group of people has been through no end of vetting, trained in the use of firearms, law surrounding firearms and have had their decision making tested under pressure. This select group is the group that is called to go into dangerous situations and deal with some of the most dangerous people on a regular basis, at a moments notice and on the offenders territory. This group is also under constant scrutiny and are readily hung out to dry when they do wrong. 

Select group, absolutely, general public, don't know.

----------


## MassiveAttack

> When was the last time your wife was deployed to a domestic/disorder/warrant at such addresses? Slightest hint of trouble who do they call? Police. I've passed no end of fire fighters/paramedics/social workers to enter addresses because they're unwilling to do so, it's not their job and I think no less of them holding back.
> 
> Your wife may face "threats" if that is what you want to call that sector of society, but she faces them in the social worker role, not in a Police role where you are, more often than not, there against their wishes and are likely to deny them of their freedom. Policing is confrontational at the physical level, hardly comparable to social working.
> 
> Like I said earlier, I'm neutral when it comes to carrying weapons for defence, I just don't know whether the risks outweigh the benefits.
> 
> In regards to range safety, where are the statistics? I haven't looked into it but the only injuries I can recall is a broken leg and a stroke whilst on the range, never heard of a GSW but I could be wrong. The training they do is different to what the average civilian does on a range, vehicle stops, transitions etc.


So basically what you are saying is that while she might face risks they are not that bad and she doesn't need a gun.  Given that people she works with were on a hit list of a bloke who actually went on a murderious rampage I respectfully disagree.

You can't say you are neutral on self defence (for non police) and they say you don't know if the risks outweigh the benefits.  Those two statements contradict.

I don't have any stats but you are forgetting the accidental discharge in the old Chch central police station.  My info came from the instructor when I did the RO certification course.  Civilian rifle ranges used to have a perfect safty record but there was an injury at a pistol range in recent years.  As that was discussed the police officers in attendance said that there have been many injuries\incidents at police ranges so thats where I got my info from.

----------


## MassiveAttack

> Carrying weapons for defense is exactly what you're advocating, just for a select group of people only.


And that select group of people have risks associated with them carring them.  Personally I am not convinved that those risks outweigh any increased benefit.

----------


## MassiveAttack

> Absolutely, but the select group of people has been through no end of vetting, trained in the use of firearms, law surrounding firearms and have had their decision making tested under pressure. This select group is the group that is called to go into dangerous situations and deal with some of the most dangerous people on a regular basis, at a moments notice and on the offenders territory. This group is also under constant scrutiny and are readily hung out to dry when they do wrong. 
> 
> Select group, absolutely, general public, don't know.


Firearms license holders are a select group with all the attributes you describe.   Nobody is arguing that the non FAL general public should be allowed concealed carry.

----------


## Gibo

> Firearms license holders are a select group with all the attributes you describe.   Nobody is arguing that the non FAL general public should be allowed concealed carry.


Heaven forbid this comes in. There's enough dickheads shooting each other in the bush let alone allowing them to carry pistols wherever they like for 'defence'. Defence against what?

----------


## Cyclops

I've read this discussion with interest.

My view, for what it is worth, is that our police have sufficient access to firearms at present and I don't want them to always be carrying a firearm.

In my view if all officers carry then this will lead to an escalation (in reaction) from those who confront police. If you expect police to be armed then you're going to be armed if/when you confront them.

If police reach for a firearm before pepper spray or taser then there will be more 3rd party casualties, accidental shootings, ricochets etc will happen. 

I don't want our police officers hurt in the line of duty, but I don't believe further arming is an answer. 
If it is the answer then the wrong question is being asked.

----------


## Nibblet

Yup, the right question to ask is why aren't parent's instilling better morals, manners and ethics in their kids anymore. 

I'm sure it can't just be the smacking law change but it seems a lot worse than when I was young and I'm still shy of 30.

----------


## Savage1

> So basically what you are saying is that while she might face risks they are not that bad and she doesn't need a gun.  Given that people she works with were on a hit list of a bloke who actually went on a murderious rampage I respectfully disagree.
> 
> You can't say you are neutral on self defence (for non police) and they say you don't know if the risks outweigh the benefits.  Those two statements contradict.
> 
> I don't have any stats but you are forgetting the accidental discharge in the old Chch central police station.  My info came from the instructor when I did the RO certification course.  Civilian rifle ranges used to have a perfect safty record but there was an injury at a pistol range in recent years.  As that was discussed the police officers in attendance said that there have been many injuries\incidents at police ranges so thats where I got my info from.


The WINZ incident was committed by a lone person with mental health issues, it's a one off or extremely rare, not a daily occurrence. Who got called in to deal with that guy? Police.

Because I don't know is exactly why I'm neutral, there is no contradiction in that statement.

You stated "if you look at the safety statistics", now you're saying you don't know the statistics, that gives me great confidence in what you post. 

I wasn't forgetting anything, I never heard of the CHCH incident, are you saying there has never been an accidental discharge on a civilian range? I talk to a lot of cops and don't hear of many injuries and incidents.

----------


## Sidney

What advocates of general arming of the police have no experience with, is the change in the nature and the manner in which you then have to deal with the general public.  The personal space issues increase, methodologies for crowd interaction change, responses to the public are affected.

Some of what we see in the USA is a direct result of carrying a firearm, as opposed to not carrying a firearm here...  criminals will also arm themselves more frequently and in general it is highly debatable that the police will suffer less issues with armed criminals as a result of being individually armed.  Certainly having the means to protect yourself and others is desirable in that context as a policeman, but overall?  It may be worse.

I finished policing in 1990, because of 2 things the impending amalgamation with the Ministry of Transport, and the at the time likely and possible arming of the police.  This issue is not new and the issues arising from it, are not either.

The figures from back in my time was that around 75% of police deaths by firearm (in the US)  were caused by their own weapon or their partner's weapon.  Friendly fire, loss of weapon etc...  this is why they stand 20m away and shoot people that are walking away from them in the US.

You have to be at least 5m away with your firearm drawn to get the guy with the knife before he gets you.  As a policeman I didn't want to interact with people with a 5m space and I like guns.  Well that and not becoming a parasitic traffic cop as well....

Going to full time arming is a more significant choice than most understand, and its not reversible...

----------


## Savage1

> Firearms license holders are a select group with all the attributes you describe.   Nobody is arguing that the non FAL general public should be allowed concealed carry.


A FAL holder goes through as much vetting as a Police Applicant?! Care to quote your sources?
Trained in the law? S39,40,41,48 and 62 of the Crimes Act?
Trained in the use of a firearm? Don't remember that being a requirement to getting a FAL
Decision making tested under pressure? When? Where? What kind of scenarios?
Called to go into dangerous situations? Really?! Is there a blanket phone number for the nearest FAL holder?
Constant Scruitiny? I don't think so, not unless they do something to draw attention to themselves.

FAL holders do not hold the same attributes. 

Like I said, concealed carry for the public is a separate issue.

----------


## Sidney

The public are not FAL holders.  FAL holders are a subset of the public that have more training than the wider public.  I take your point that FAL holders may have less training that the police, but that is not always true either is it?  Many FAL holders have screeds more firearms experience and practicable use than the general police (non-specialised) although legal training will be distinctly lacking.

From my time, the guys I worked with were all useless.  I cleaned up everyone all the time with pistols and rifles and I am no pistol shooter.  If I saw a policeman coming to protect me with a firearm I would get completely behind him, lie down and play dead, and I still wouldn't guarantee my safety.

----------


## Rushy

> Yeah great outcome aye. Just look at some of the comments in this thread. The public being armed would be a lot more worrying to me than the police.


You wouldn't have to worry about me shooting you Gibo.  If I held any firearm extended at close range, you would be below the impact zone.

----------


## Gibo

> You wouldn't have to worry about me shooting you Gibo.  If I held any firearm extended at close range, you would be below the impact zone.


? Pretty sure I'm as tall as you, not as round but as tall  :Grin:

----------


## ebf

> What advocates of general arming of the police have no experience with, is the change in the nature and the manner in which you then have to deal with the general public.  The personal space issues increase, methodologies for crowd interaction change, responses to the public are affected.


Complete agree. I prefer the system that we have where police officers think about several options before reaching for a firearm. 

Unfortunately that does nothing to reduce the danger front-line cops face every day. I have a huge amount of respect for the courage shown by cops, but do not believe that having them walk around with a pistol on the hip is the answer...

----------


## Rushy

> ? Pretty sure I'm as tall as you, not as round but as tall


You might be as tall as my nipples if you stood on Dundees shoulders.  ha ha ha ha

----------


## shift14

Nothing good will come of this discussion about this subject on this forum. It will end up being a never ending circle-jerk of opinions, that will come to no logical conclusion.

It has the potential to become unsavoury, and verges on a political discussion.

There's a time and place and for it and it's not here, now.

No disrespect intended to the OP, but there are official channels to work through.

B

----------


## Gibo

> You might be as tall as my nipples if you stood on Dundees shoulders.  ha ha ha ha


ha ha if I stood on dundees shoulders he wouldn't like it and probably put his bloody knife on me again  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Rushy

> Yup, the right question to ask is why aren't parent's instilling better morals, manners and ethics in their kids anymore. 
> 
> I'm sure it can't just be the smacking law change but it seems a lot worse than when I was young and I'm still shy of 30.


You wouldn't know a good whooping if it slapped you upside your head Nibblet.  You should have seen my old lady perform the jug chord tickle.  Ha ha ha ha , ouch even the memory leaves welts.

----------


## Jexla

> I suspect you would benefit significantly from some time spent with cops out facing what they do on a daily basis. Be interesting to see how your statements change once you've been on the receiving end...
> 
> Just out of interest, can you tell us what percentage of the tasers currently deployed have this "recording" facility ?


I have been on ridealongs, I have a mate who is a cop also. 
100% of NZ police tasers record video when deployed.
Try Google it.

----------


## Rushy

> ha ha if I stood on dundees shoulders he wouldn't like it and probably put his bloody knife on me again


he couldn't reach you if you were on his shoulders.  You'd be safe as long as you stayed up there.

----------


## Sidney

> Nothing good will come of this discussion about this subject on this forum. It will end up being a never ending circle-jerk of opinions, that will come to no logical conclusion.
> 
> It has the potential to become unsavoury, and verges on a political discussion.
> 
> There's a time and place and for it and it's not here, now.
> 
> No disrespect intended to the OP, but there are official channels to work through.
> 
> B


Nah disagree... its not a political issue.   The argument isn't conclusive either way and its really hard to be emphatic about what should happen and the tone is good....  But for all that most has been said that can be said and we probably won't reach any valid conclusion because there actually isn't one.  It's all trade-offs.

Of course its been 25 years since I left the police thinking it was about to happen....  so to expect to reach conclusion might be a touch unrealistic....   :Grin:

----------


## jim160

Everyone can and has said their point of view on this, but unfortunately it won't mean a pinch of shit when it comes to the decision been made. 

They said the police would not routinely carry tasers but hey, what do you know they are.

And to say criminals will arm themselves cause the police are is silly. They are armed already to protect themselves and use against other gangs. 

I doubt they want to get into a shootout with cops as it will affect their business dealings. 

But we shall see what happens.

----------


## Banana

> A FAL holder goes through as much vetting as a Police Applicant?! Care to quote your sources?
> Trained in the law? S39,40,41,48 and 62 of the Crimes Act?
> Trained in the use of a firearm? Don't remember that being a requirement to getting a FAL
> Decision making tested under pressure? When? Where? What kind of scenarios?
> Called to go into dangerous situations? Really?! Is there a blanket phone number for the nearest FAL holder?
> Constant Scruitiny? I don't think so, not unless they do something to draw attention to themselves.
> 
> FAL holders do not hold the same attributes.


FAL holders (b endorsed in particular) hold the required attributes for the purpose of CC, and any deficiencies can be made up through classes and training.  Concealed carriers wouldn't be getting the power and responsibility of a police officer, so directly comparing attributes is pointless.




> Like I said, concealed carry for the public is a separate issue.


I think it's the exact same issue.  The only gain police are getting from full time arming is immediate access to a firearm for their own self defense.  Why should only the police be afforded that ability.  Increased risk doesn't make their life any more valuable.

----------


## jim160

I think if Police were armed it would be for self defence but it would be mainly to have the tools with them when needing to protect others when going to jobs. The delay in going back to get firearms could cost someone their life.

They are required to deal with crimes when they occur, which put themselves in danger.  So therefore they would probably need the tools to protect themselves and others.

Whereas, you, and members of the public would run away from the danger, whilst Police go towards it.  So why would you need firearms to protect yourself because you wouldn't go into a house to deal with a domestic or violent assault.

You are thinking of self preservation as a reason for having a firearm, yet Police want them to better enable themselves to protect others.  Quite a difference I think.

----------


## Ricochet

I personally don't like the idea of our Police force carrying firearms on their person at all times, I believe such an action will only lead to more people being shot per year (on both sides), I would be interested to know what the consensus is amongst the Police though.

----------


## Danny

> FAL holders (b endorsed in particular) hold the required attributes for the purpose of CC, and any deficiencies can be made up through classes and training.  Concealed carriers wouldn't be getting the power and responsibility of a police officer, so directly comparing attributes is pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's the exact same issue.  The only gain police are getting from full time arming is immediate access to a firearm for their own self defense.  Why should only the police be afforded that ability.  Increased risk doesn't make their life any more valuable.


Crazy.

----------


## R93

My employer is currently in the process obtaining CC permits for 3 different countries.
The one proving most difficult is the one anyone would think would be the easiest.

I am against  any form of public arming in NZ. But I would like to be able to hunt with a pistol legally.
I believe police should be and will eventually be armed.





Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

----------


## MassiveAttack

> The WINZ incident was committed by a lone person with mental health issues, it's a one off or extremely rare, not a daily occurrence. Who got called in to deal with that guy? Police.
> 
> Because I don't know is exactly why I'm neutral, there is no contradiction in that statement.
> 
> You stated "if you look at the safety statistics", now you're saying you don't know the statistics, that gives me great confidence in what you post. 
> 
> I wasn't forgetting anything, I never heard of the CHCH incident, are you saying there has never been an accidental discharge on a civilian range? I talk to a lot of cops and don't hear of many injuries and incidents.


Of course the police got called in to deal with him.  Nobody else in the country is allowed to carry an effective means of defense and if they used it then it's likely that they would end up on the wrong side of a court case even though their intentions were to defend life and property.  Basically what you are advocating is disarming the public and then arming the police more in order to protect a disarmed public.

I may have used the wrong word when I said satistics.  My info came directly from the blokes on the RO course and it wasn't second hand.  I don't think they release public stats on police range accidents but if they do let me know where they are.  To the best of my knowladge there has been one firearm related injury at a civilian range.

Here is an article detailing the eight accidential dischanges by police between 2010 and 2013, it doesn't make for great reading.
Police shooting still unresolved a year on | Stuff.co.nz

_He was being helped to his feet when a police officer's Bushmaster rifle discharged. Pere spent several weeks in Wellington Hospital recovering.

The officer involved has since returned to work on restricted duties, and was stood down from the armed offenders squad._

That doesn't contain the Chch one so I will see if I can find that.

----------


## jim160

Why would anyone need to have the need for concealed carry in NZ.  NZ is a safe place to live.

People here say the shootings would increase if the police were armed, what do you think would happen if the public could carry guns.  Homicides would increase because if someone got into a disagreement with someone bigger than them, then guns would be drawn and someone would be shot.
And then more people would be in jail for murder/manslaughter.

And how many people who would conceal carry guns would be killed by their own guns, or even lose them.  Then the shitfight begins when the criminals get them.

Not to mention, gangs would definitely carry and to increase their stocks, they would target CC people.

----------


## GravelBen

> And how many people who would conceal carry guns would be killed by their own guns, *or even lose them.*


Thats a risk for armed police officers as well mind you... one of my cop mates told a story about a colleague who attended a domestic at a known gang house, no backup available so strapped the pistol on for insurance. Predictably there is a bit of aggro, he is well outnumbered and gets smacked around and thrown back outside. Doesn't even realise his gun is gone until he's dragging his bruised ass back to his car afterwards and one of the older, wiser residents quietly hands it back to him. Could have been far worse!

He tells me that as a cop your greatest weapon (and greatest liability if you use it wrong) is your mouth, and his first option is always to try and defuse a situation by talking it down. Personally I'd like to see that attitude continue in the police force - obviously there are some situations that do require force, but increasing the level/frequency of police being armed seems likely to also increase the authoritarian 'do what I say or else' attitude some police officers demonstrate at times, and the 'them and us' response from the public.

----------


## kotuku

jexla -youve been on" ride alongs" -ever been the one on point ,the one who has to make that decision.
jesus wept the boys in blue have had to deploy tasers x3 on our site and the fucking post mortems ,/arse covering documentation would filla bloody rubbish skip.
me -i worked with the bloke who was present in 2/3 occasions when the situations went"current"and ohms law applied-ohm=resistance -the more resistance shown the bigger the dose!.
he certainly had no qualms about police actions given the weapons presented were a shard of glass like a dagger and screeds of airborne human blood -exactly who was responsible for what in hindsight was a clear as"dogpaddling through a lake of sloppy dogturds" in his words.
yep that desription is just as apt in the auckland courier driver tragedy.
just a pity the arsehole at the centre is set to spend his doubtful existence in taxpayers expense! sidney &savage seem to me to have the most cogent views on the prospect.

----------


## Shooter

> Of course the police got called in to deal with him.  Nobody else in the country is allowed to carry an effective means of defense


Ah there are at least two others organisations that can and have been called upon... But yes the police will be the first responders in all cases, well unless the country turns to shit!

----------


## jim160

> Ah there are at least two others organisations that can and have been called upon... But yes the police will be the first responders in all cases, well unless the country turns to shit!


Who are they.  I only thought the police enforced the law.

----------


## MassiveAttack

> Why would anyone need to have the need for concealed carry in NZ.  NZ is a safe place to live.
> 
> People here say the shootings would increase if the police were armed, what do you think would happen if the public could carry guns.  Homicides would increase because if someone got into a disagreement with someone bigger than them, then guns would be drawn and someone would be shot.
> And then more people would be in jail for murder/manslaughter.
> 
> And how many people who would conceal carry guns would be killed by their own guns, or even lose them.  Then the shitfight begins when the criminals get them.
> 
> Not to mention, gangs would definitely carry and to increase their stocks, they would target CC people.


If it's a safe place to live then front line police don't need to be armed...

----------


## Shooter

> Who are they.  I only thought the police enforced the law.


 :Have A Nice Day:  you will work it out

----------


## northdude

I recon we should show the world we are hard cunts and have unconcealed carry   :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Jexla

> jexla -youve been on" ride alongs" -ever been the one on point ,the one who has to make that decision.
> jesus wept the boys in blue have had to deploy tasers x3 on our site and the fucking post mortems ,/arse covering documentation would filla bloody rubbish skip.
> me -i worked with the bloke who was present in 2/3 occasions when the situations went"current"and ohms law applied-ohm=resistance -the more resistance shown the bigger the dose!.
> he certainly had no qualms about police actions given the weapons presented were a shard of glass like a dagger and screeds of airborne human blood -exactly who was responsible for what in hindsight was a clear as"dogpaddling through a lake of sloppy dogturds" in his words.
> yep that desription is just as apt in the auckland courier driver tragedy.
> just a pity the arsehole at the centre is set to spend his doubtful existence in taxpayers expense! sidney &savage seem to me to have the most cogent views on the prospect.


I'm sorry but I can't read any of that without getting a headache, get some punctuation and I might take you seriously.




> If it's a safe place to live then front line police don't need to be armed...


My thoughts exactly. Stupidity is starting to show...

----------


## kotuku

lets face it folks -we have the unarmed bobby as a legacy from the days of our colonial era when we were subservient to the UK&followed their social mores &traditions.
 unfuckingfortunately thosae social mores &traditions have progressed massively (backwardsIMHO)and today the feral reigns supreme .the days of the 6'6''rugby playing plod giving you a short sharp size 11 up the arse and threatening to "have a word with ya dad lad". we have in the past 2 decades and by&large due to some socially antagonistic experts bred a whole generation of sperm byproducts who belive theyre entitled to it&now". fuck society and what they think ..its me me me.Iknow my rights cause they told me so"and so on.

 social media fed em violence and plenty of it as a way to get what they want-tacitly sanctioned by our own indifference, long on the talkfest short on the bloody act ion to halt this corrosive attitude   and hence we arrive at this moot point.
  me _if hindsight is so fucking valuable why dont we all have a spare set of eyeballs in our arsecheeks!!
 massive -cmon man youre more bloody socially aware than what youre writing-takin the piss aint doinanyone any favours.

----------


## Pengy

> I'm sorry but I can't read any of that without getting a headache, get some punctuation and I might take you seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> My thoughts exactly. Stupidity is starting to show...


And so is arrogance....punctuation ...really.

----------


## kotuku

> I'm sorry but I can't read any of that without getting a headache, get some punctuation and I might take you seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> My thoughts exactly. Stupidity is starting to show...


 Dont take the piss lassie or I will let loose. Ignorance is not bloody excuse on this forum -consider yourself warned young un! 
Sorry my arse

Obviously you like to think ya got it sussed well just sit quite take a deep breath and think on this
 40yrs ago an old bloke gave me this wee gem to think on and I think on it every day 
"tis the old dog who walks the footpath "
 "the pups they run the street"

  Dont bother replying in haste -you may well find Ive already bared me teeth .Take ya time and have a wee think then apply the conclusions youve reached to the point of debate -you may very well be suprised at the conclusions you reach,i
f so just open a new folder in the computer between your ears and call it lifes new experiences!
  finally seasons greetings to you asnd yours and may all your days be happy ones.

----------


## gimp

> Dont take the piss lassie or I will let loose. Ignorance is not bloody excuse on this forum -consider yourself warned young un! 
> Sorry my arse
> 
> Obviously you like to think ya got it sussed well just sit quite take a deep breath and think on this
>  40yrs ago an old bloke gave me this wee gem to think on and I think on it every day 
> "tis the old dog who walks the footpath "
>  "the pups they run the street"
> 
>   Dont bother replying in haste -you may well find Ive already bared me teeth .Take ya time and have a wee think then apply the conclusions youve reached to the point of debate -you may very well be suprised at the conclusions you reach,i
> ...


You realise your posts are largely incomprehensible nonsense, right?

----------


## gadgetman

> You realise your posts are largely incomprehensible nonsense, right?


I have no problem. Mind you it can be a good ploy to make things difficult to read as then you really have to read them to understand.

It is a curly topic though and there is no clear clean cut answer as we do not live in a perfect world. There are enough crooked/bad/incompetent cops in the mix to not want them all armed. There is also the vast majority that would be fine. Then there is the criminal element that really don't give a toss about anyone else, and with some of the drugs like P they are unpredictable and very dangerous. 

As far as the argument about citizens not being armed because they do not have the experience and training; this could be applied to the Police as well. Many of them do not and will not have the skills required to safely carry. Many also do not have the skills to negotiate situations that would be better handled my someone with mental or social worker training so would arguably be better leaving those situations to professionals in those arenas. The reality is we just about need cars with a copper, mental health worker, medic and fire fighter. This is obviously totally impractical.

The solution is not going to be at all easy. Perhaps step back a little and get back to a justice system that avoids the criminal sector from getting to such a state rather than the legal system that we have now that favours the criminal. The analogy of the guy at the top of the cliff stopping people jumping rather than the ambulance at the bottom.

----------


## Jexla

> Dont take the piss lassie or I will let loose. Ignorance is not bloody excuse on this forum -consider yourself warned young un! 
> Sorry my arse
> 
> Obviously you like to think ya got it sussed well just sit quite take a deep breath and think on this
>  40yrs ago an old bloke gave me this wee gem to think on and I think on it every day 
> "tis the old dog who walks the footpath "
>  "the pups they run the street"
> 
>   Dont bother replying in haste -you may well find Ive already bared me teeth .Take ya time and have a wee think then apply the conclusions youve reached to the point of debate -you may very well be suprised at the conclusions you reach,i
> ...


You are clearly already loose in the mental department, I'll leave it at that.

P.S go see the doc and ask him if he thinks you're fit to still have a FAL.

----------


## Jexla

> And so is arrogance....punctuation ...really.


Yes! Punctuation is a clear sign of intelligence or lack thereof!
Not to mention even with the correct punctuation it still spits up the vial nonsensical crap coming out of some mad mans head.

----------


## Jexla

> You realise your posts are largely incomprehensible nonsense, right?


But apparently calling him out on it is ignorance. Interesting....

----------


## Pengy

If I had been drinking tonight I would suggest you are a fwit Jexla. But I haven't, so I will leave it at that

----------


## 300CALMAN

:O O:  ouch this has gone of the rails :On Fire:

----------


## Jexla

> If I had been drinking tonight I would suggest you are a fwit Jexla. But I haven't, so I will leave it at that


Think what you will. 
Haven't seen you add anything to the conversation.

----------


## 300CALMAN

I really hope we can keep the Police as they are, not openly armed. I think we have a relationship with our Police force like no other Country that I know.

On the topic of CC I have to say that although I have no problems with firearms  :ORLY:  even in a public place but I prefer not to carry one. It is an extra stress and responsibility. On the other hand if I was living somewhere that was particularly violent? Maybe.

----------


## Savage1

> Of course the police got called in to deal with him.  Nobody else in the country is allowed to carry an effective means of defense and if they used it then it's likely that they would end up on the wrong side of a court case even though their intentions were to defend life and property.  Basically what you are advocating is disarming the public and then arming the police more in order to protect a disarmed public.
> 
> Exactly, Police get called to deal with it, it's their job, not the average member of the public.
> 
> You obviously know nothing of the law and how it is applied, I recommend you don't comment on what you don't know about. Have you ever even read S48 of the Crimes Act? Let alone looked into case law surround possessing offensive weapons?
> 
> When and where did I mention, let alone advocate, disarming the public? Stop making up my opinion for me in order to suit your argument, I said nothing of the sort.
> 
> I may have used the wrong word when I said satistics.  My info came directly from the blokes on the RO course and it wasn't second hand.  I don't think they release public stats on police range accidents but if they do let me know where they are.  To the best of my knowledge there has been one firearm related injury at a civilian range.
> ...


Another sensationalist news article, much like some parts of your posts, you can't tell me there hasn't been any AD/NDs on civilian ranges? The guy getting shot in the back was tragic and steps have been taken to remedy the cause of that accident.

----------


## Savage1

> If it's a safe place to live then front line police don't need to be armed...


Because Police are the ones that are deployed into the small unsafe areas trying to keep NZ safe, stop being arrogant.

----------


## Savage1

> But apparently calling him out on it is ignorance. Interesting....


Well when you can understand the message but choose to ignore it because it lacks punctuation, that means you are choosing to remain ignorant.

----------


## Savage1

> FAL holders (b endorsed in particular) hold the required attributes for the purpose of CC, and any deficiencies can be made up through classes and training.  Concealed carriers wouldn't be getting the power and responsibility of a police officer, so directly comparing attributes is pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's the exact same issue.  The only gain police are getting from full time arming is immediate access to a firearm for their own self defense.  Why should only the police be afforded that ability.  Increased risk doesn't make their life any more valuable.


Massiveattack directly compared them stating FAL holders carry the same attributes, as I was merely pointing out he was a long way from the truth.

I know a lot of FAL holders that most certainly don't hold the required attributes, but then that is just my personal opinion, just as your ideas on what attributes are needed are just your opinion.

It's not the same issue at all, I see it as a selfish argument the 'Police shouldn't be armed because I can't'. It's got nothing to do with you being armed, it's about whether they need to be armed or not.

----------


## GravelBen

> Another sensationalist news article, much like some parts of your posts


Speak for yourself!  :Wink:

----------


## Savage1

But mine is first hand personal experience  :Thumbsup: 

No I can't sleep, yes I'm bored.

----------


## gadgetman

> But mine is first hand personal experience 
> 
> No I can't sleep, yes I'm bored.


What is this sleep thing you talk about? I recall it some time before kids arrived. Think it was some sort of feathered creature.

I agree with @30calman that it would be good if *we* could sort *our* society out so that the Police are not required to routinely carry firearms. That is the crux of the issue. Then we could maintain our generally extremely good and easy relationship with the Police, and this relationship works in both directions.

There will always be an element of our society that will never toe the line, but the smaller that group is the better. The more people we can persuade to contribute to the country the better.

----------


## kotuku

Thanks you for your support gents.as for the catty remarks Ive had worse ! My original POV still stands.

----------


## 308

> Yes! Punctuation is a clear sign of intelligence or lack thereof!
> Not to mention even with the correct punctuation it still spits up the vial nonsensical crap coming out of some mad mans head.


Vile, not vial and you missed the apostrophe on man's

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Kotuku's turn of phrase shares a lot with the stream of consciousness method used by James
Joyce who wrote "Ulysses" which is considered to be one of the high water marks of the English language.

Attacking his punctuation style misses the wider point and comes across as petty.

If you are trying to convince people of your argument, a little charm goes a long way..

----------


## shift14

> ouch this has gone of the rails


Refer post # 111.

B

----------


## jim160

> Refer post # 111.
> 
> B


Yep. Pretty much. 
And no one here will have any say on the outcome. 

Only time will tell.

----------


## 199p

> Yep. Pretty much. 
> And no one here will have any say on the outcome. 
> 
> Only time will tell.


That's what makes it so much fun end of the day it makes No difference anyway  :Thumbsup:

----------


## Pengy

> Yes! Punctuation is a clear sign of intelligence or lack thereof!
> Not to mention even with the correct punctuation it still spits up the vial nonsensical crap coming out of some mad mans head.


Punctuation is certainly not a sign of lack of intelligence. It certainly can be a sign of Dyslexia, as suffered by those that you would call un-intelligent, such as Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci and Richard Branson, to name a few.
Punctuation, or lack of it can also be a sign that the writer does not have English as their first language. 
I respectfully request you think before you type. 

My take, for what it is worth, is that I don't believe cops routinely carrying firearms would make things any better or any worse in NZ.

----------


## Pointer

I have to admit though Pengy, Jexlas' comment made my morning. 

To criticize a members' writing style as a symptom of unintelligence, then to misspell "vile" as "vial" had me in fits of laughter  :Grin:

----------


## Pengy

I think Jexla needs to focus  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Dead is better

> Yeah great outcome aye. Just look at some of the comments in this thread. The public being armed would be a lot more worrying to me than the police.


Right on Gibo! There is the distinction of HAVING the said firearm and having it ready when you NEED it. There is no point in having one at all if it isn't reachable - therefore the public would be better off not having the associated risks of storing them.

My 2c. Cops having bushmasters in their cars is BS. All or nothing. Arm them, train them or don't do either. There will be consequences either way that we will just have to deal with. Somebody mentioned the killing of the courier, which I want to point out was caused by a highly trained individual and some extreme bad luck. Shit happens sadly

----------


## Dead is better

> lets face it folks -we have the unarmed bobby as a legacy from the days of our colonial era when we were subservient to the UK&followed their social mores &traditions.
>  unfuckingfortunately thosae social mores &traditions have progressed massively (backwardsIMHO)and today the feral reigns supreme .the days of the 6'6''rugby playing plod giving you a short sharp size 11 up the arse and threatening to "have a word with ya dad lad". we have in the past 2 decades and by&large due to some socially antagonistic experts bred a whole generation of sperm byproducts who belive theyre entitled to it&now". fuck society and what they think ..its me me me.Iknow my rights cause they told me so"and so on.
> 
>  social media fed em violence and plenty of it as a way to get what they want-tacitly sanctioned by our own indifference, long on the talkfest short on the bloody act ion to halt this corrosive attitude   and hence we arrive at this moot point.
>   me _if hindsight is so fucking valuable why dont we all have a spare set of eyeballs in our arsecheeks!!
>  massive -cmon man youre more bloody socially aware than what youre writing-takin the piss aint doinanyone any favours.


Going to have to annoy NZ here by pointing out that you were administered out of NSW Australia in your early years so it was Australia that gave you useless unarmed cops haha. We needed the guns to point at all the convicts evidently. That settles it, I hereby bequeath the original consignment of muskets the NZ police force! Much safer 'cause the bad guy can run away while you load the thing  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Jexla

> Well when you can understand the message but choose to ignore it because it lacks punctuation, that means you are choosing to remain ignorant.


Except I can't understand anything that nut case writes.

----------


## Jexla

> Vile, not vial and you missed the apostrophe on man's
> 
> Live by the sword, die by the sword.
> 
> Kotuku's turn of phrase shares a lot with the stream of consciousness method used by James
> Joyce who wrote "Ulysses" which is considered to be one of the high water marks of the English language.
> 
> Attacking his punctuation style misses the wider point and comes across as petty.
> 
> If you are trying to convince people of your argument, a little charm goes a long way..


As I and gimp have said, punctuation aside, he's spewing nonsensical garbage. Having no punctuation makes it just that much harder to try to understand. 
The fact you all deem it acceptable to try enter an intelligent debate with absolutely diabolical punctuation is the opposite of charm and disrespectful to everyone you expect to read it. 
As for a few mistakes, everyone makes those, we all get over them, but it seems his paragraphs are a mistake in its entirety.

----------


## jim160

> Except I can't understand anything that nut case writes.


That's because you chose not to.  You wont accept anyone elses opinion or view which doesn't align with your own.
I don't want this to get into a personal attack thing, but it appears that you are educated as far as knowledge goes, but have little knowledge as far as life experience goes.

Some of the stuff you have said appears to have come from a sheltered view.  Some of the people on here know what they are talking about as they have been at the sharp end of the stick.  You have never experienced these things and will have no idea of what you are talking about.

Much like I have not deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq, so I don't choose to tell people how to fight or act in that environment.

And given your comments, I don't think you would ever join the police, that is if you can.

----------


## Jexla

> That's because you chose not to.  You wont accept anyone elses opinion or view which doesn't align with your own.
> I don't want this to get into a personal attack thing, but it appears that you are educated as far as knowledge goes, but have little knowledge as far as life experience goes.
> 
> Some of the stuff you have said appears to have come from a sheltered view.  Some of the people on here know what they are talking about as they have been at the sharp end of the stick.  You have never experienced these things and will have no idea of what you are talking about.
> 
> Much like I have not deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq, so I don't choose to tell people how to fight or act in that environment.
> 
> And given your comments, I don't think you would ever join the police, that is if you can.


No, I've read and understood everyone else's comments perfectly fine, I appreciate their opinions and experiences, I take those in to help me form my own opinions.
I am not unaccepting of other opinions or views. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean you're unaccepting, or that would mean you are unaccepting of mine.
This really isn't about joining the police or if you ever would, or if you even can. It's about us all from a forum debating a hot issue, nothing more than that. 
95% of the people commenting won't join the police, does that make their point any less valid? Get off it.

----------


## kotuku

Try adding know all to your CV Jexla,

 look up shit on the liver for it seems youve ample of both.

accepting of other opinions ;sweet jesus what do you take people on here for??


 Tried trademe message boards -theyre full of shallow academics like yourself. !!

----------


## Jexla

> Try adding know all to your CV Jexla,
> 
>  look up shit on the liver for it seems youve ample of both.
> 
> accepting of other opinions ;sweet jesus what do you take people on here for??
> 
> 
>  Tried trademe message boards -theyre full of shallow academics like yourself. !!


Because you're such an intellectual person yourself right?
Keep smashing back the head meds.
I applaud you for attempting to use punctuation, I was actually able to read that.
Shit on the liver? If I've ever seen someone in a bad mood on this forum it's consistently you.

----------


## BRADS

Shit guys some of you need to chill, go mow the lawns or something!
It should be noted my grammar is always bang on


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

----------


## 7mmsaum

"Shit guys some of you need to chill, go mow the lawns or something!
It should be noted my grammar is always bang on"


Yeah your grandma is a lovely lady and wise beyond her years

----------


## Gibo

> Shit guys some of you need to chill, go mow the lawns or something!
> It should be noted my grammar is always bang on
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Two rite marmite

----------


## GravelBen

Only one way to settle things between jexla and kotuku... Handbags at ten paces!

----------


## Maca49

> Try adding know all to your CV Jexla,
> 
>  look up shit on the liver for it seems youve ample of both.
> 
> accepting of other opinions ;sweet jesus what do you take people on here for??
> 
> 
>  Tried trademe message boards -theyre full of shallow academics like yourself. !!


Kotuku, love your posts :Thumbsup:  Keep up the good work, They can be like a cryptic crossword at times, but I not complain!!

----------


## Danny

I cannot understand this thread although I read and accept most points of views- some are wildly generic and plain nonsense, reminding me of a relative of mine whom has a Dr in front of his name, he is often fucked when building a deck, changing a tyre or nappy or talking any sense at all.

The police ARE armed but unfortunately no one can foresee into a crystal ball. Police routinely 'tool' up when attending a certain address or addressing an individual because of the history that some have so those who have no idea should just mow their lawns or go pull their pud...that you may be actually qualified to do...

No one can pick a David Gray or a Napier situation or a random 3T in a back country road that turns bloody ugly within seconds. So we need to accept shit happens, the PC brigade will always squeak the loudest, police will always be under resourced, under trained-and that's another matter entirely imo but the Police work bloody hard to protect YOUR family and friends and property. 

But...God I hope we never see the general public allowed to bare arms in public; (like America), that would be a bad day indeed. 
Now, I'm off to pull my pudding.

----------


## Maca49

Worksafe will fix it! They know everything and even more!!! :Wtfsmilie:

----------


## gadgetman

> Worksafe will fix it! They know everything and even more!!!


But wait, ... we need traffic management to block traffic and generally be more of a road hazard that whatever they are trying to protect or protect us from.

----------


## shift14

> Shit guys some of you need to chill, go mow the lawns or something!
> It should be noted my grammar is always bang on
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Done the lawns bud, fed and sprayed them...took the rubbish to the tip, took her and other teachers to their last day of school drinks,had my eyebrows and nails done, and legs waxed.....and still this shit continues.

Drenching all done?

Contestants, , refer post #111 again, please FFS.

B

----------


## MassiveAttack

> Because Police are the ones that are deployed into the small unsafe areas trying to keep NZ safe, stop being arrogant.


So if I lived in a small unsafe area (which are normally lite on police) then I would also need to be armed?

Is it arrogant to expect to be able to defend myself?

----------


## Rushy

> Two rite marmite


And you once questioned me about posting for the sheer hell of saying something.  Pull up a chair, grab a decent beer like a Waikato or a Waikato, this is a fun ride to watch.  I was actually starting to wonder whether the ghost of Toby was having some fun shit stirring by typing their posts for them.

----------


## jim160

I think we have pretty much covered everything and we are just going over the same points over and over.

Currently the Police don't carry guns but have ready access to them.  They routinely carry tasers, and put guns on if they think they may need them.

People don't have the right to carry guns in a concealed carry role, and I don't think that will ever happen.  they think there is enough issues with guns at the moment and some are advocating stricter gun control, so I think concealed carry is a dream that will never occur.  You want CC, then go to the states.

Now it seems as though direct attacks on peoples comments are occurring rather than a constructive argument.

I think if this keep going, I think admin should remove the thread.

Just my thoughts anyway.

----------


## Danny

Fuck the lawns but I did catch a nice Rainbow trout out Tarawera.

----------


## Rushy

> Fuck the lawns but I did catch a nice Rainbow trout out Tarawera.


We need photos or it never happened.

----------


## Danny

Was scared I'd drop the phone in the lake so it stayed in the ute lol

----------


## Rushy

> Was scared I'd drop the phone in the lake so it stayed in the ute lol


Then you need a sworn affidavit from Gapped Axe.

----------


## Danny

That prick would have kicked me out of his turf and taken my trout

----------


## Rushy

> That prick would have kicked me out of his turf and taken my trout


Well he is the sheriff of Tarawera after all.

----------


## Danny

does a good job all told too. But don't tell him that though.

----------


## MassiveAttack

So ignoring the tube vs the world side of the argument and summarizing my position:

Do I think NZ will ever introduce concealed carry?  No, not a chance in hell.
Do I think NZ should introduced concealed carry?  Yes, it's worth discussing even though it's unlikely to happen.

Why should we do this?  Because every person has a right to self defence and that right is worthless if you don't have the tools to defend yourself.  NZ is a safe country so generally this isn't something we have to worry about but there will definitly be people who are at risk and places that are more risky.  This applies to both NZ police who should be expected to go into dangerious situations without the tools to defend themselves and the public of NZ (acknowledge that to own a firearm you need a FAL).

But wouldn't there be chaos with people shooting each other everywhere?  This is the "think of the children" side of the argument and it comes down to culture.  Every week there are groups of FAL holders who gather to shoot clays, targets, animals etc.  During these events there are arguments etc and all the normal stuff that happens between people.  Nobody gos and grabs a shotgun off the rack and starts shooting people cos thats just bloody stupid.  Our culture says thats unacceptable and if you break that there are peanalties from both the social group you are in and the law.  In the states if you have a CC permit and you pull your gun out and wave it around then you are breaking the law and will likely loose your CC permit.  There is a culture around what is acceptable and what is not.

So what would change if in the unlikely event we were allowed this.  Many pages ago somebody said that if a fight happend between a bigger and a smaller person then it would quickly descend into a gunfight.  I see that as a good thing, if you are about to be beaten (potentially killed) by someone physically stronger than your self shouldn't you be allowed to defend yourself?  The other effect is that people who beat others for fun would think twice about it cos they might have a gun...

In NZ if your house gets burgled then you are only allowed to resist if you life (not property) is in danger and then only with an appropriate level of force.  If they have a baseball bat you are not allowed a knife etc  If you grabbed the bloke and locked him in the bathroom until the Police arrived you would likely be charged with kidnapping.

In the USA there are a lot less burgleries because people who break into houses get shot.  This depends on the state but if someone has broken into your house then you don't have to prove that your life was in danger, you just get to shoot them.

Now a liberal would say that a tv is not worth a human life and thats all bad but I say screw them, I want to live in a world where people who break into houses are more worried about their safty than the people living in the houses.

All of these opinions apply to the police as well.  I have no problem with them being armed when the situation requires it and I think they shouldn't be visibly armed when it's not required.  I don't think they (or anyone else) should have to risk their live due to lack of access to the right tools.

Would I use a firearm to defend myself in NZ? No because the legal peanalties are set up to discourage this and given storage requirements you would never be able to access it in time anyway.  I would have to be convinced that myself or my family were about to die before I would risk my freedom that way.  They can have the TV.

This is how far NZ has swung back the other way:
*In the live coverage of the chch earthquakes members of the public where tearing apart the rubble to try and rescue pople.  Police officers stopped rescuing people and then threatened the members of the public with arrest unless they stopped cos the public is not qualified to rescue people and stopping that is more important than saving lives.

*If you shoot a burgler then you will end up on trial for murder.

*If you hold a burgler captive then you will end up on trial for kidnapping.

*A helicopter who defies a medical ban on flying to save the lives of two people is facing up to 10k in a year in jail.

*You can't import pepper spray because apparently thats dangerious and nobody needs to defend themselves.

What the hell happened?  When did we turn into a nation of politically correct wusses?

----------


## Rushy

Years ago unfortunately.

----------


## kotuku

Congrats on the trout-bloody great work.
Thanks for the kind words Brads- I did just that and with a coupla ales Ive built meself anew DIY gunviceas i cant find me other bastard.
 this comes about because we are having to clear out my garage (which features 25yrs of hoarded treasures) before its demolished and the section cleared in order to build two brand new Lockwood homes.we'll be selling one to clear our mortgage -so the big hecienda willbe ours mortgage free!yipeei fucking ah!
 massive -a quiet word in your rather large lughole 
Son-Dont call me "Tube"-its fucking gone OK big fella !!!!!its a relic  with the arsekissers on the other side.
 Im not agin the world Massive,I simply look at it through a different set of glasses
 You know exactly where I fucking work and how long etc,so dont attempt to take the piss.
Nuff said big fella -hope youre girdin the loins for Xmas and the hoped for influx of geese. 
 me Im in hog heaven on ferals at present ,whilst the black&white cuzzies commute overhead.
Im preparing the buffet for the canadas -Twill be like Brutus and Julius Caesar!

----------


## steven

> @Savage1
> 
> 8><----
> 
> That's fine but why can't we (civilians) defend ourselves? 
> 
> 8><----


Because mostly its too dangerous and there is simply no need.  

On top of that, frankly having listened to some in the AR forums as an example I wouldn't consider them mentally stable enough for a pea shooter let alone give them the ability to legally carry a concealed pistol on top of their E&B cat, yet its highly likely these very ppl would be the ones most likely to want to conceal carry.  

No thanks.

----------


## Gibo

> Because mostly its too dangerous and there is simply no need.  
> 
> On top of that, frankly having listened to some in the AR forums as an example I wouldn't consider them mentally stable enough for a pea shooter let alone give them the ability to legally carry a concealed pistol on top of their E&B cat, yet its highly likely these very ppl would be the ones most likely to want to conceal carry.  
> 
> No thanks.


+1 where are all these people that think they need CC living?

----------


## 7mmsaum

Auckland  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Gibo

> Auckland


 :36 1 5:  say no more

----------


## kotuku

my thought is that if some of you were placed in a position of being confronted by a screaming foaming violence driven human out of the blue youd probably be changing your daks sooner or later ,and unfortunately I could also see a coroners report or two. Concealed carry - more trouble than its worth IMO

----------


## jim160

I agree tussock. 
I don't think anyone could add anything else to this thread which hasn't been covered already.

----------


## Proudkiwi

Should all frontline cops be armed fulltime? Fuck no. No, no, nooooo!

Just, no!

For every retarded thing I have ever seen a civilian do, I have multiple examples that I have observed a cop do. In uniform. While on the job.

----------


## gimp

> But...God I hope we never see the general public allowed to bare arms in public


Short sleeved shirts are a fashion faux pas anyway, the correct thing is to wear a long sleeved shirt with the sleeves rolled neatly to just below the elbow.

----------


## gadgetman

> Short sleeved shirts are a fashion faux pas anyway, the correct thing is to wear a long sleeved shirt with the sleeves rolled neatly to just below the elbow.


There is always the kiwi classic black singlet.

----------


## kotuku

and the baggy jockeys -designed to let the boys swing free and accomodate a big hairy paw to scratch em if required!

----------


## Smartie

> I cannot understand this thread although I read and accept most points of views- some are wildly generic and plain nonsense, reminding me of a relative of mine whom has a Dr in front of his name, he is often fucked when building a deck, changing a tyre or nappy or talking any sense at all.
> 
> The police ARE armed but unfortunately no one can foresee into a crystal ball. Police routinely 'tool' up when attending a certain address or addressing an individual because of the history that some have so those who have no idea should just mow their lawns or go pull their pud...that you may be actually qualified to do...
> 
> No one can pick a David Gray or a Napier situation or a random 3T in a back country road that turns bloody ugly within seconds. So we need to accept shit happens, the PC brigade will always squeak the loudest, police will always be under resourced, under trained-and that's another matter entirely imo but the Police work bloody hard to protect YOUR family and friends and property. 
> 
> But...God I hope we never see the general public allowed to bare arms in public; (like America), that would be a bad day indeed. 
> Now, I'm off to pull my pudding.


Had a good laugh at most of this thread since it started, some good posts such as this ^^, some others just make my mind boggle and reinforce that the notion that arming the public is ridiculous...

As stated through this thread Police have access to firearms, taser other appointments for any job where we believe they are necessary - you certainly don't meet a knife head on with a taser,so firearms are not always for firearm related jobs.

I think we should celebrate the lack of Police shootings considering jobs with knives (weapons) and firearms occur almost daily in most of the regions, your just not privy to them - or they are not good story's?

99% of the time decision making is sound and there are good outcomes for all, the 1% is what the armchair experts dwell on and regurgitate.

MY 2C

----------


## Sasquatch

> that arming the public is ridiculous...


Rather then currently being presented with rhetoric & anecdotal _evidence_ that the police "should" be armed, actual data needs to be ascertained. Then there is a fair argument for both the police and everyday citizens for self-defence.

I get that CC for some people may seem 'over-the-top' & unnecessary in this country (and you are probably right...) but we have to consider there are some very run down and potentially dangerous regions in NZ where good honest everyday people with FAL's have to live. I don't think it's unrealistic or ridiculous for those people to have at least an option for home defence. It's more a natural right that goes far beyond the legislation we have now.

----------


## top gun

Here's my 2 cents worth.

  I know many people in my town who will not come into town for a show or a meal after dark on a Sat night, due to the incidents of being accosted by two or three knuckle draggers who's intent is to make life unpleasant for them, if they don't make a compulsory contribution for their next drug purchase!!!!!

   IF ( a big "IF" ) properly police approved FAL holders had the lawful ability to carry a concealed short piece????   The knuckle draggers would never know whether their next client was carrying or not. A fairly good disincentive I'd have thought.  Even if you weren't carrying a piece you'd be fairly sure that only a completely whacked out knuckle dragger could make life unpleasant for you. But then he may well be so spaced out that the problem could be resolved by a good swift kick in goolies!!!!!

  Home invasion protection is a different matter.  You just need to do what you have to do in the circumstances that you're faced with, do a "kahui" when the fed's arrive and follow your lawyer's advice on what to say & when to say it!!!

----------


## Cyclops

> Here's my 2 cents worth.
>    IF ( a big "IF" ) properly police approved FAL holders had the lawful ability to carry a concealed short piece????   The knuckle draggers would never know whether their next client was carrying or not. A fairly good disincentive I'd have thought.  Even if you weren't carrying a piece you'd be fairly sure that only a completely whacked out knuckle dragger could make life unpleasant for you. But then he may well be so spaced out that the problem could be resolved by a good swift kick in goolies!!!!!


I'm not sure concealed carry is the solution you think it is.

Organised thugs can/may disperse themselves so as to overwhelm the victim before they could respond by shooting. 
It may actually produce a hit first policy from the thugs - not sure if that's what society would want.

----------


## top gun

From what I have seen on emails I get from friends in the US and on the U.S. Firearm forum that I'm on; the "not knowing" deterrent works quite well. I don't think too many of our knuckle draggers are armed with a firearm,a knife maybe, but being the cowards that most of them are, the sight of a short piece with BIG hole in the muzzle would make them wet their pants & run for it.

  I was particularly trying to point out the deterrence factor of the knuckle draggers not knowing if you were carrying or not. That's supposing we ever got a law passed that would allow properly licenced FAL holders to do so IF THEY WISHED.  I'm NOT holding my breath waiting for our elected superiors at Fort Fumble to allow us such a right!!!!

----------


## nseagoon

Another point of view is police are usually responding to incidents.... as in a crime has already happened or is under way.
A few police are pistol endorsement holders.
Pistol endorsement holders have to shoot a minimum of 12 times a year. Also within that you have to get holster qualified for each holster and type you use.
Arguably pistol holders have 12 times the training as police.

Front line police MAY have to do their test shoot annually. As in it is possible for a police officer to be armed to shoot at a person, yet not have touched a firearm for over a year.
Also police being under funded aren't necessarily armed. all cars are equipped for carriage but only 1/3 of patrol vehicles have firearms at any time. Again you don't know which vehicles are armed.

Bottom line is if police are in danger enough to be armed full time when on the job it's logical to suggest the same risk is present when off duty.
I believe if police were to carry full time then there should be the option for those with pistol endorsements and holster qual to obtain CCW permits.

----------


## veitnamcam

Give em all full auto 308s I say, big black ones with banana mags...yes I know 308s dont need a banana mag because they dont have much case taper but they should have them anyway and on one of those slings like the army boys use and a glock on one hip and a dirty harry on the other....it wont make a bloody bit of difference because whenever you actually need a cop they are all to busy handing out traffic tickets.

I used to respect my local cop when I was a kid, he sorted out issues caught criminals and yes booted my arse a few times.

I and most other Kiwis have no respect for the police anymore for a multitude of reasons that dont need listing here...we all know them, the last thing I want is a gun on every hip.

----------


## mikee

> Give em all full auto 308s I say, big black ones with banana mags...yes I know 308s dont need a banana mag because they dont have much case taper but they should have them anyway and on one of those slings like the army boys use and a glock on one hip and a dirty harry on the other....it wont make a bloody bit of difference because whenever you actually need a cop they are all to busy handing out traffic tickets.
> 
> I used to respect my local cop when I was a kid, he sorted out issues caught criminals and yes booted my arse a few times.
> 
> I and most other Kiwis have no respect for the police anymore for a multitude of reasons that dont need listing here...we all know them, the last thing I want is a gun on every hip.


Especially given their tendency to miss when it matters, and get away with it unscathed

----------


## Sideshow

> Give em all full auto 308s I say, big black ones with banana mags...yes I know 308s dont need a banana mag because they dont have much case taper but they should have them anyway and on one of those slings like the army boys use and a glock on one hip and a dirty harry on the other....it wont make a bloody bit of difference because whenever you actually need a cop they are all to busy handing out traffic tickets.
> 
> I used to respect my local cop when I was a kid, he sorted out issues caught criminals and yes booted my arse a few times.
> 
> I and most other Kiwis have no respect for the police anymore for a multitude of reasons that dont need listing here...we all know them, the last thing I want is a gun on every hip.


You went and forgot the flame thrower...that really would sort the men from the boys. Now I'd pay just to see the look on there face just before you light em up it would be like  :Wtfsmilie:

----------


## 10-Ring

Concealed carry for 'B' endorsed general public FAL holder's? Anyone who thinks that's ever going to happen in this country is seriously delusional. You've got more chance of winning Wednesday night Lotto three times in a row than that ever happening.

----------


## Kscott

> Pistol endorsement holders have to shoot a minimum of 12 times a year. Also within that you have to get holster qualified for each holster and type you use.
> 
> Arguably pistol holders have 12 times the training as police.


There is considerable difference between drawing a loaded pistol from a holster on a range, and carrying a pistol because some deranged P fuelled fuckknuckle wants to smash your face in.

Attending a pistol range doesn't equate to training, it's just attendance. And besides, on a range do something wrong and you just get a DQ. Do something wrong in the real world and you have an endless run of media, court and private prosecutions to deal with.

Police are already sufficiently armed for New Zealand IMO. They have a shit job to do, are constantly criticised and don't have the support/budget from their boss to do the job properly.

----------


## nseagoon

> There is considerable difference between drawing a loaded pistol from a holster on a range, and carrying a pistol because some deranged P fuelled fuckknuckle wants to smash your face in.
> 
> Attending a pistol range doesn't equate to training, it's just attendance. And besides, on a range do something wrong and you just get a DQ. Do something wrong in the real world and you have an endless run of media, court and private prosecutions to deal with.
> 
> Police are already sufficiently armed for New Zealand IMO. They have a shit job to do, are constantly criticised and don't have the support/budget from their boss to do the job properly.


you're making a direct comparison when I suggested things would need to change anyway.
-police Training maybe once a year isn't enough to develop the muscle memory to do what police are expected to do if they carried full time.
-CCW Obviously training for carry would be different than Holster use for IPSC or the like. I know work is completely separate to sporting use.

I agree police are sufficiently armed at the moment. Criminals don't know which cars carry arms, and the cops do a good job considering they're over worked, under paid, and no matter what they do in the eyes of many public they should have always have done the opposite no matter the outcome.

----------


## Jexla

> Criminals don't know which cars carry arms


They all do.

----------


## Savage1

> They all do.


No Jexla, they don't.

----------


## nseagoon

> They all do.


Being equipped to carry is different to carrying. 
They all have lock boxes for pistols and locker drawer for m4 but they don't all carry the actual firearms at all times.

----------


## Smartie

> Being equipped to carry is different to carrying. 
> They all have lock boxes for pistols and locker drawer for m4 but they don't all carry the actual firearms at all times.


Not quite right, unit I'm in currently has no taser or firearms or lock boxes.

----------


## nseagoon

> Not quite right, unit I'm in currently has no taser or firearms or lock boxes.


Oh dear,  that's a bit behind the deadline. 
Also in this current climate I'd hazard a guess the reason isn't because it isn't a new one :-(

I stand corrected and retract my last post then. 
* many

----------


## Smartie

No dramas ,definitely all first responders do, I'm doing a brief stint in a group that has three cars, two completely bare one with firearms and taser.
Just have to exercise good judgement if you end up in an interesting situation and know what your limits are.

----------


## Moutere

Personally, I like the fact that we live in a country where the police force aren't openly armed. I think the NZ policeman generally lacks an arrogance and bully demeanour that is often exhibited by their overseas counterpart who is armed all the time. Professionally I think they are better for it.

On the flip side though, when there is cause to use a firearm. Force should be met with force and all the stops removed. Any rat-bag levelling a gun at police should expect to be shot there and then, no question.

----------


## Jexla

> No Jexla, they don't.


Interesting, is there a reason for this?
Because I don't see why.

----------


## Savage1

> Interesting, is there a reason for this?
> Because I don't see why.


Money. Police have had a budget freeze for a number of years now.

----------


## Jexla

> Money. Police have had a budget freeze for a number of years now.


Yeah I understand that has been the case, it's probably one of the biggest issues I can see with the police right now.
But how does the budget effect it? The guns just don't exist to put into all the cars? 
Because if that's the case, I'd tend to agree with you if you were trying to argue that they need to be in all the cars.

----------


## jim160

There is no money in the budget to buy all the guns at once. 
I believe they are buying them as they go and are building numbers gradually rather than all at once.

----------


## Beavis

The way I see it, if you need a gun, you need it now, because not many people that want to kill you will give you the courtesy of going to the car to get them. If you are only half armed you may as well not be. Granted, you could arm up if you got called to a dodgy sounding situation, but if routine turns into a violent assault or a gun fight you're fucked. I think the change will come when or if we have an active shooting scenario occur where responding police are not trained or equipped to stop it. Or they'll just do a gun banning spree and business as usual. Funny how that hasn't resulted in a general disarming of Australian officers. You would think with such stringent and world leading gun control laws, there would be little reason to have front line staff routinely armed.

----------


## marky123

> The way I see it, if you need a gun, you need it now, because not many people that want to kill you will give you the courtesy of going to the car to get them. If you are only half armed you may as well not be. Granted, you could arm up if you got called to a dodgy sounding situation, but if routine turns into a violent assault or a gun fight you're fucked. I think the change will come when or if we have an active shooting scenario occur where responding police are not trained or equipped to stop it. Or they'll just do a gun banning spree and business as usual. Funny how that hasn't resulted in a general disarming of Australian officers. You would think with such stringent and world leading gun control laws, there would be little reason to have front line staff routinely armed.


cos its public safety....no really...!!!

----------


## homebrew.357

The police have a dirty job to do and regally put them self's in harms way, so when they need a gun it should be a .357 mag, gets the job done better than a 9mil . As they say, the best defence against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, think of all those school kids in the U S, if only  the teacher had a gun.   Homebrew.357.

----------


## Sideshow

Bloody hell if I was a teacher the last thing I'd want is a gun............have you seen the kids of today.........
You would not have enough ammo :ORLY:  :Zomg: 
Or one of them would get there kits on it :Sad:

----------


## Maca49

Tussock I think you a right, but knee jerk reactions haven't helped in the past and long term strategies change every change of government, minister or commissioner. The crap that has happened over the s43 a form shows either no one knows what is happening really, or as I suspect the police cocked up they way they administered it and won't fess up. It's a fcuking shambles really. I do believe if you have a firearm and present it you have given away your right to life, no negotiation,

----------


## MassiveAttack

> Concealed carry for 'B' endorsed general public FAL holder's? Anyone who thinks that's ever going to happen in this country is seriously delusional. You've got more chance of winning Wednesday night Lotto three times in a row than that ever happening.


I agree with you but 20 years ago I would have also said that about gay blokes in the military and decriminalising marijuana.  Both of those things have happened in the states and will flow through to the rest of the world baring weird backward thirld world countries like Saudi Arabia and Australia.

In the middle of the Cinton administration after the assult weapons ban you would have said that gun control will never get better in the states but it has.

Brazil is about to bring in US style gun laws because they already loose 20k people per year to violent crime and the criminals already have all the guns they want so why shouldn't everyone else be able to defent themselves?

Brazil Seeks To Copy U.S. Gun Culture

_Brazil is an extremely violent country and the state has failed to resolve this problem, says Laudivio Carvalho of the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party, who guided the bill through a special committee of lawmakers, in a telephone interview. The population needs the right to defend themselves, their family and their property as they are the ones being attacked. Ninety percent of assaults are being carried out with illegal weapons._

----------


## MassiveAttack

> Rather then currently being presented with rhetoric & anecdotal _evidence_ that the police "should" be armed, actual data needs to be ascertained. Then there is a fair argument for both the police and everyday citizens for self-defence.
> 
> I get that CC for some people may seem 'over-the-top' & unnecessary in this country (and you are probably right...) but we have to consider there are some very run down and potentially dangerous regions in NZ where good honest everyday people with FAL's have to live. I don't think it's unrealistic or ridiculous for those people to have at least an option for home defence. It's more a natural right that goes far beyond the legislation we have now.


This bloke is a good example of someone who needs more than a cell phone to defend himself:

Farmer credited for security in fuel theft | Stuff.co.nz

----------


## Tommy

> This bloke is a good example of someone who needs more than a cell phone to defend himself:
> 
> Farmer credited for security in fuel theft | Stuff.co.nz


Fucking arseholes. They were armed too. If the farmer was allowed to get thier attention by racking a shottie in the shadows, they'd have both the cunts in custody wouldn't they?

Also, do you like ""By their very nature farms are an attractive target for opportunistic burglars, given their isolation and the likelihood of fuel, tools and vehicles being accessible". - what a load of horseshit. What is 'opportunistic' about being on a farm in the middle of the night with a knife or whatever? They are just about trying to downplay it as if the toads walked into the bowser in the dark! They planned that, and there's no fucking way I'd believe that was thier first rodeo.

----------


## 199p

> Like what Massive Attack said. With New Zealand about to become an extremely poor country, the lack of stability in our future may change a few things.


My thinking is that if the whole country get to a point where the police need to carry firearms at all times to deal with the average public then the war is already lost and we need to re thing the laws.

For example if the cop who sits out on state the highway camping the stop sign, cheeking everyones speed using his radar gun needs to carry a firearm on his hip then they have lost, 
I have no problem at all with them " tooling up " when required.
So long as "when required" isn't when on duty.

----------


## jim160

> My thinking is that if the whole country get to a point where the police need to carry firearms at all times to deal with the average public then the war is already lost and we need to re thing the laws.
> 
> For example if the cop who sits out on state the highway camping the stop sign, cheeking everyones speed using his radar gun needs to carry a firearm on his hip then they have lost, 
> I have no problem at all with them " tooling up " when required.
> So long as "when required" isn't when on duty.


Fair enough comment. But criminals drive and carry weapons and don't like been stopped. If the police don't have guns on them when they need it then they are in serious shit. 

For example, recently in America that cop got shot sitting in his car, he got out and shot the offender and now he's in custody. If he had the gun in a lock box, the criminal would have stood there till the cop was dead. He only ran cause they are armed and can defend themselves. 

I agree it will be a sad day when police are routinely armed, but it will happen. Society is causing that. 

Police just have to adapt, as will everyone else.

----------


## 199p

> Fair enough comment. But criminals drive and carry weapons and don't like been stopped. If the police don't have guns on them when they need it then they are in serious shit. 
> 
> For example, recently in America that cop got shot sitting in his car, he got out and shot the offender and now he's in custody. If he had the gun in a lock box, the criminal would have stood there till the cop was dead. He only ran cause they are armed and can defend themselves. 
> 
> I agree it will be a sad day when police are routinely armed, but it will happen. Society is causing that. 
> 
> Police just have to adapt, as will everyone else.


Fair point that the criminals do carry weapons but think of how many stops the police make in a day and how many of them would be aided by the officer carrying a firearm.

We are lucky that it wouldnt be a blip on the radar unless they where going to use them for compliance like they do dogs, taisers and battons.

----------


## GravelBen

> I agree it will be a sad day when police are routinely armed, but it will happen. Society is causing that. 
> 
> Police just have to adapt, as will everyone else.


Is that actually true though, or just media-fuelled fearmongering? After all, the police stats keep telling us that violent crime is decreasing.

----------


## Andrew46826

The Police will be armed full time eventually, it's only a matter of time. Unfortunately it will take more front line Police to be shot or shot at before this will happen. The reality is crime is changing.

To those of you opposing Police being armed full time, how comfortable would you feel doing their job? For example pulling over a car to find a loaded .22 or shotgun tucked down into the door card? And all you had was your OC spray and baton?

Or is it expecting too much for Police to be able to defend themselves properly while defending you?

----------


## Andrew46826

> Whats wrong with the traditional method of letting them go, finding out where they live and kicking the door in when they are in their jocks? Is the real reason they need guns total atrophy of the capacity to find people? I recall my mate taking a cops niece home at 2am and me opening the door to a large smiling man with an enormous mustache at 8am. He did not need to say he was a cop due to the mustache, but this was confirmed later. All I could think was, how the f*ck did he get there by 8am if we stumbled home to a random location at 2am? All he said was "I have come to pick up Sarah" to which I thought "well, that's a relief". Can't see that guy needing a gun very often. 
> 
> If you have a rapidly expanding wealth gap and a police force that is increasing in power and armament alongside the growing wealth gap, where are you headed? Backwards.


What happens if they decide to go and stab or shoot someone on their way home? Worst case scenario I realise but these are the worst people being dealt with.

Take a look at your own scenario...there's 6 hours there where anything could have happened before Mr Plod turned up on your doorstep...

----------


## GravelBen

> Unfortunately it will take more front line Police to be shot or shot at before this will happen. The reality is crime is changing.


Please feel free to back up claims like that with evidence, it might be more convincing.  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## gimp

the societal harm caused by arming the police full time would be greater than it would ever prevent, this thread is gay & retarded

----------


## Jexla

> Whats wrong with the traditional method of letting them go, finding out where they live and kicking the door in when they are in their jocks? Is the real reason they need guns total atrophy of the capacity to find people? I recall my mate taking a cops niece home at 2am and me opening the door to a large smiling man with an enormous mustache at 8am. He did not need to say he was a cop due to the mustache, but this was confirmed later. All I could think was, how the f*ck did he get there by 8am if we stumbled home to a random location at 2am? All he said was "I have come to pick up Sarah" to which I thought "well, that's a relief". Can't see that guy needing a gun very often. 
> 
> If you have a rapidly expanding wealth gap and a police force that is increasing in power and armament alongside the growing wealth gap, where are you headed? Backwards.


Speaking of the wealth gap, look what Oxfam have said today...
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/...of-world-oxfam

----------


## Tommy

> Speaking of the wealth gap, look what Oxfam have said today...
> Richest 1% have wealth equal to rest of world - Oxfam | Radio New Zealand News


Don't get me started on the scam bullshit that is OXFAM

----------


## Andrew46826

> Please feel free to back up claims like that with evidence, it might be more convincing.


In my opinion :Thumbsup: 

But then you only have to look at tasers...they were introduced and worn only when they thought they might be required. A recent change now allows them to carry one at all times. Why?

----------


## mawzer308

Reading this thread there are some extremely ill educated people on here, and some people who think because they have qualified at a particular subject at uni or some other institution they have the right or knowledge to say otherwise. Such arguments as they already have them in the car are ridiculous. When you are presented with a threat that requires you to draw your weapon it is too late to grab it from the vehicle. You need to have it on your person at all times so you can react immediately if need be. Better to have it and not need it than need and oh wait its in the vehicle hold on ill just go grab it!! Lets remember here it's about the officers right to defend themselves or take out the threat immediately.

----------


## mawzer308

> What if they develop acute paranoia?
> 
> You do a hand to hand combat class and realize you need more room than you thought to get the safety off. Then you take it off prematurely and shoot off your own foot. 
> 
> Get a dog and an impressive mustache.  
> 
> Compulsory mustaches I say. 
> 
> When will the rain stop?


How is this mitigated? Through good regular training with qualified instructors, by the way the glock is a safe action pistol meaning there is no safety on the weapon draw and fire. As for the moment of truth, no one knows until they have been in that situation whether or not they will choke.

----------


## GravelBen

> Get a dog and an impressive mustache.  
> 
> Compulsory mustaches I say.


You might be on to something there you know!

Higher ranks could be allowed a full beard, and commissioners may look like an Amish lumberjack.

----------


## mawzer308

> You might be on to something there you know!
> 
> Higher ranks could be allowed a full beard, and commissioners may look like an Amish lumberjack.


It may be a laugh for you fellas but actually talk to some of the guys that are on the beat or serving, now I can't represent everyone and it wouldn't be fair to say every officer would be the same however the ones I know are in favour of full time carry.

----------


## Andrew46826

> If they (whoever they are) decides to stab or shoot someone then someone may or may not get stabbed or shot. Or they might get rabies. Or struck by lightning. 
> 
> I thought about what a criminal might do at large in 6 hours. But while I was at it I started to worry about germs on my hands and started furiously scrubbing them. Then I remembered I don't actually have acute paranoia and so I stopped imagining up horrific improbably scenarios. 
> 
> Crime is 30% of tv and print news and 0.00000005% of actual events. Of that 0.00000005% only about 1% of those crimes of any physical threat to you. In New Zealand, on a spectrum of things worth worrying about, it does not make it on. Worrying about obscure improbable negative experiences will kill you far sooner. 
> 
> Having lived in actual dangerous places and twice lived alone where people actually actively wanted to do me in, I would suggest rather than putting an armed cop on every corner, you just stop worrying.
> 
> Your nervousness makes you a mark. Its obvious a mile away. Watched my mother in law get all fretty because of two dudes in a car park recently. "They look dodgy" she said. They looked like painters eating lunch to me. Just relax. Nervous people get done over. Easy marks. You get left alone if you look comfortable. 
> ...


So while you had people 'actively wanting to do you in' did you take any steps to defend yourself if need be? 

You're right chances are I won't get shot or stabbed. But then I'm not dealing with people on a daily basis that have charges for carrying concealed firearms in public either, or numerous other firearms charges, or some that have yet to have firearms charges, take Daniel Luff for example. Not to mention the other charges not related to firearms. And lets not forget that most violent offenders probably have a grudge against Police.

I'm quite certain if I had a Glock 17 on my hip I'd get left well alone whether I looked comfortable or not.

----------


## gimp

> When will the rain stop?


Sunny as in Hokitika, I'm considering digging up some of my lawn to plant my pumpkins

----------


## Maca49

> Reading this thread there are some extremely ill educated people on here, and some people who think because they have qualified at a particular subject at uni or some other institution they have the right or knowledge to say otherwise. Such arguments as they already have them in the car are ridiculous. When you are presented with a threat that requires you to draw your weapon it is too late to grab it from the vehicle. You need to have it on your person at all times so you can react immediately if need be. Better to have it and not need it than need and oh wait its in the vehicle hold on ill just go grab it!! Lets remember here it's about the officers right to defend themselves or take out the threat immediately.


I'd start by letting them biff a few snot bags in the ears than start with firearms. If someone hoiked in my face and I was armed, I'd shoot the barsted. Maybe I'm not a suitable person to be a policeman? :Wtfsmilie:

----------


## R93

> Sunny as in Hokitika, I'm considering digging up some of my lawn to plant my pumpkins


Meanwhile your handguns are sulking with little use.
Planting pumpkins sounds way more fun tho😆


Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

----------


## gimp

> Meanwhile your handguns are sulking with little use.
> Planting pumpkins sounds way more fun tho
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk


Have had gf here all day, she only just left...

----------


## R93

> Have had gf here all day, she only just left...


Excuses😆

Sing out when ya want to burn some powder.
I am home another 2 weeks.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

----------


## gimp

Will be keen tomorrow or Thursday I reckon. Off to work again on Friday...

----------


## EeeBees

Interesting thread...I think police should be armed; the days of Mr Plod telling some errant juvenile twat to get away home have gone...

----------


## R93

> Will be keen tomorrow or Thursday I reckon. Off to work again on Friday...


Sounds good. Send me a txt when you're keen.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

----------


## Andrew46826

> I worked my arse off. Basically a more intense version of the common sense that helps people not get robbed or mugged  or kidnapped unarmed in any other society. Don't be an idiot and if you insist on being an idiot, don't do it in the wrong place at the wrong time.


I seriously hope you're not referring to the Police with that comment?

----------


## jim160

I think this thread is done and dusted.  
I really don't think anyone can add any more to this.
If they arm, then they will and we will have no say.  If they don't, then Happy Days.

Like everything, we just have to roll with it and hope for the best.

----------


## EeeBees

> Shoot them instead?


No @Tussock...

----------


## Kscott

> You will get more respect with the mustache. Every one knows not to mess with a cop with a mustache.


/thread

----------


## gimp

> I seriously hope you're not referring to the Police with that comment?


lol who gives a fuck

----------


## Pointer

@Kscott yep! Compulsory mustaches for male and female officers, beards for higher ranking cops. Problem solved end of thread

----------


## Maca49

> Shoot them instead?


No! Just keep pandering to the low life, he can be put on the straight and narrow with love and nurturing! Deal to the lazy arse parent as well!

----------


## Gapped axe

What about me!! I often work out in the middle of no where with no coms, no support, dealing with aggressive alcohol fuelled offenders. Who at times (always) are armed in some form or matter, firearms are common. I'm not allowed any weapons or protection tool, I have a torch and always take Jazz with me. Most times the offenders have their own dogs who are more than a match for her. My only advantage is my knowledge of the area and the various skills I have, at times these would be in doubt in a lot of situations. My powers to be (3 different organisations)train me every 2yrs on how to aid myself  in these situations. A weapon of some form and the legal use of could of been handy on numerous occasions. I have been assaulted, had my life and that of my family threatened. Possibly harsher sentencing would be a better deterrent than that of a weapon, but then what would I know only been in the game for 20yrs. Years ago my Boss was killed whist doing his duty, I was supposed to of been with him that night but he took another ranger. A protection device probably would of saved his life. One of my other Boss's in another organisation has had a firearm discharged in his direction.

----------


## gimp

Give a man a hammer and every problem starts to look like a possum.

----------


## shift14

> I think this thread is done and dusted.  
> I really don't think anyone can add any more to this..


Refer post #111, about 9 pages ago.

B

----------


## Gibo

> Refer post #111, about 9 pages ago.
> 
> B


Is that you Nostradamus?  :Grin:

----------


## Rushy

To the member that said this thread can't be added to.  I call bullshit, Gibo just posted and so to have I.

----------


## jim160

> To the member that said this thread can't be added to.  I call bullshit, Gibo just posted and so to have I.


Yep, you call it, and I say that's all that's been added to this thread.  Which is bullshit.

----------


## Kscott

Yesterday, Sydney, Australia.

Police shoot a nutty, armed with a knife guy _in the shoulder_, with just one shot. Man dies.

----------


## gimp

> Yesterday, Sydney, Australia.
> 
> Police shoot a nutty, armed with a knife guy _in the shoulder_, with just one shot. Man dies.


lethal force yo

----------


## veitnamcam

> Yesterday, Sydney, Australia.
> 
> Police shoot a nutty, armed with a knife guy _in the shoulder_, with just one shot. Man dies.


That will happen if vitals are behind the shoulder at the time of firing and were penetrated,or main arterial are severed under the "shoulder" and first aid is lacking or non existent, or the description of "shot in the shoulder" is inaccurate.

----------


## Tommy

Subclavian artery probably.

----------


## veitnamcam

Of course he wouldnt have been cuffed on the ground bleeding out....cops would never do that.

----------


## kokako

Some light reading.............

Below are the Police General Instructions around the use of firearms, the issuing and carriage of firearms procedures by New Zealand Police. 






> F061 - Use of Firearms by Police 
> 
> (1) Members must always be aware of their personal responsibilities in the use of firearms. Under Section 62 of the Crimes Act 1961 a member is criminally liable for any excess force used. An overriding requirement in law is that minimum force must be applied to effect the purpose. Where practical Police should not use a firearm unless it can be done without endangering other persons. 
> 
> (2) Police members shall not use a firearm except in the following circumstances: 
> 
> (a) to DEFEND THEMSELVES OR OTHERS (Section 48 Crimes Act 1961) if they fear death or grievous bodily harm to themselves or others, and they cannot reasonably protect themselves, or others, in a less violent manner; 
> 
> (b) to ARREST an offender (Section 39 Crimes Act 1961) if they believe on reasonable grounds that the offender poses a threat or death or grievous bodily harm in resisting his or her arrest; 
> ...

----------


## Pointer

Did anyone actually read all of that? Me neither.  Back to mustaches

----------


## Tommy



----------


## Pointer

That cop has giant nipples

----------


## Kscott

I'm getting some dubious looks from co-workers now wondering what web site I'm browsing. They're so used to seeing guns. But now . . .

----------


## gundoc

> That will happen if vitals are behind the shoulder at the time of firing and were penetrated,or main arterial are severed under the "shoulder" and first aid is lacking or non existent, or the description of "shot in the shoulder" is inaccurate.


I was involved in a case about 5 years ago where the victim was fatally shot in the shoulder with an FMJ 7.62x39 from about 2 feet.  The bullet partially fragmented on the shoulder joint and a sliver of jacket clipped the top off his heart.  His abdominal cavity had several pieces of bullet fragment in various places.  If he had been shot in the chest he probably would have survived.

----------


## Tommy

You can't get any more authorataaaaaah than that. Unless he could find some gold wire Ray Bans.

----------


## Pointer

> That was what you thought set him apart from regular cops? Can't see anything else wrong?
> 
> Not a cop mustache at all, that is whats wrong with with that image. 
> 
> Supposed to go over the top lip and down the sides. Should be large.


He's obviously a high ranking official with a beard and all. He could hang his truncheon off those pointy buggers. Mind you, he looks like he's had a few trucheons on him over the years

----------


## gadgetman

The thing is they wouldn't need arming if they did more policing. Unfortunately the police, like everyone else, have been regulated out of a lot of common sense powers. If they had the ability to effectively deal with offenders at the beginning of their careers things would be sweet and dandy. Unfortunately the front line police have not been given the backing of the courts, politicians, society or their own hierarchy. They are not meant to pursue too many things that are not cost effective, hence they don't turn up and are not interested in pursuing thefts/burglaries; we just get to pay for that ourselves with higher insurance premiums. Minor traffic infringements by the usually law abiding though is a good money spinner. The trouble with this approach is the crims get to carry on until it becomes an embedded way of life for them and when they do finally get dealt with properly it's too late turn them around and they are a bigger problem for society. 

Now onto the more serious issue. Daughter wants to paint moustaches on my newly painted trailer. I don't want it to look too authoritarian so what style?

----------


## Rushy

Hitlerian

----------


## StrikerNZ

> Now onto the more serious issue. Daughter wants to paint moustaches on my newly painted trailer. I don't want it to look too authoritarian so what style?


The kind that matches a sombrero..

----------


## Pointer

Curled at the ends with wax

----------


## gadgetman

I reckon Handlebar like Chopper Reed. Daughter wants it like the one below.

----------


## gadgetman

Or in the case of this thread the Gunslinger. Now that one is tempting in wild west sort of way.

----------


## Pointer

For new cops it would be chevron, as they go up ranks lampshade then walrus

----------


## timattalon

> The thing is they wouldn't need arming if they did more policing. Unfortunately the police, like everyone else, have been regulated out of a lot of common sense powers. If they had the ability to effectively deal with offenders at the beginning of their careers things would be sweet and dandy. Unfortunately the front line police have not been given the backing of the courts, politicians, society or their own hierarchy. They are not meant to pursue too many things that are not cost effective, hence they don't turn up and are not interested in pursuing thefts/burglaries; we just get to pay for that ourselves with higher insurance premiums. Minor traffic infringements by the usually law abiding though is a good money spinner. The trouble with this approach is the crims get to carry on until it becomes an embedded way of life for them and when they do finally get dealt with properly it's too late turn them around and they are a bigger problem for society. 
> 
> Now onto the more serious issue. Daughter wants to paint moustaches on my newly painted trailer. I don't want it to look too authoritarian so what style?



I had an acquaintance call the police because a few of the local teenagers were being a nuisance and harassing traffic on the local street. He got the reply " Its just teenagers being teenagers...". To which he suggested that "teenagers being teenagers" used to get a telling off by "Cops being Cops" and they would pull their heads in and become people being society. Now the "Cops being Cops doesn't happen so the teenagers often push the boundary's and become "Dicks being Vandals" and onwards towards "crims being crims" and now the cops have a bigger mess to deal with.....The officer at the end of the phone went  quiet and said he would send someone when he got the chance....

I dont know if anyone actually came but thats beside the point. Point is, if kids are taught proper boundary's when they start pushing, they dont push so far past the boundarys that we have to move the boundarys to get them back.

----------


## Tommy

> I had an acquaintance call the police because a few of the local teenagers were being a nuisance and harassing traffic on the local street. He got the reply " Its just teenagers being teenagers...". To which he suggested that "teenagers being teenagers" used to get a telling off by "Cops being Cops" and they would pull their heads in and become people being society. Now the "Cops being Cops doesn't happen so the teenagers often push the boundary's and become "Dicks being Vandals" and onwards towards "crims being crims" and now the cops have a bigger mess to deal with.....The officer at the end of the phone went  quiet and said he would send someone when he got the chance....
> 
> I dont know if anyone actually came but thats beside the point. Point is, if kids are taught proper boundary's when they start pushing, they dont push so far past the boundarys that we have to move the boundarys to get them back.


I like the cut of your acquaintance's gib

----------


## Jexla

> I like the cut of your acquaintance's gib


Very sharp cut, I must agree.

----------


## gadgetman

> I had an acquaintance call the police because a few of the local teenagers were being a nuisance and harassing traffic on the local street. He got the reply " Its just teenagers being teenagers...". To which he suggested that "teenagers being teenagers" used to get a telling off by "Cops being Cops" and they would pull their heads in and become people being society. Now the "Cops being Cops doesn't happen so the teenagers often push the boundary's and become "Dicks being Vandals" and onwards towards "crims being crims" and now the cops have a bigger mess to deal with.....The officer at the end of the phone went  quiet and said he would send someone when he got the chance....
> 
> I dont know if anyone actually came but thats beside the point. Point is, if kids are taught proper boundary's when they start pushing, they dont push so far past the boundarys that we have to move the boundarys to get them back.


Exactly!

----------


## timattalon

> Actually, if teenagers were harassing traffic, someone should get out of their car and knock one or two on their arse.
> 
> But then the cops would show up. 
> 
> Save a fortune in taxpayers money of you were just allowed to knock them on their arse.



What they were doing specifically (which beggars belief in all honesty as I saw them myself) 

They would hide behind a parked car along our street just after a speed bump. When a car passed the speed bump and stated to accelerate, one of them would jump out in front of the car and slam their hands down on the bonnet giving the drivers a fright. Any normal person can see how this behaviour could end in tears VERY quickly, but these kids thought they were invincible and were laughing about it. 

I know this because when they did it to me I let loose a chain of loud (and very descriptive) expletives questioning their heritage and suggesting they were not very bright.....Hence why we thought the police may be able to do something to prevent someone A) getting hurt or B) being arrested for a serious assault on a teenager (Minor?) as one or two of the drivers looked very much like they were going to "have a word" themselves....

One of the reasons we no have a dash cam in all our cars....

----------


## gadgetman

> What they were doing specifically (which beggars belief in all honesty as I saw them myself) 
> 
> They would hide behind a parked car along our street just after a speed bump. When a car passed the speed bump and stated to accelerate, one of them would jump out in front of the car and slam their hands down on the bonnet giving the drivers a fright. Any normal person can see how this behaviour could end in tears VERY quickly, but these kids thought they were invincible and were laughing about it. 
> 
> I know this because when they did it to me I let loose a chain of loud (and very descriptive) expletives questioning their heritage and suggesting they were not very bright.....Hence why we thought the police may be able to do something to prevent someone A) getting hurt or B) being arrested for a serious assault on a teenager (Minor?) as one or two of the drivers looked very much like they were going to "have a word" themselves....
> 
> One of the reasons we no have a dash cam in all our cars....


They were doing it round the corner from us but pushing out a shopping trolley just after you turned into the street from a busy road so the gas pedal was down. I just put the trolley in the back of the van and they came up with the expletives.

----------


## timattalon

I just wished I still had the falcon with the two tone maseratti air horns I got from my old man. That would have scared the bejesus out of him. Dont have the falcon anymore, but the air horns are round here somewhere...just have to figure out where they will fit in the nissan March........It will just about go backwards when the horn is pushed I suspect.

----------


## Tommy

> I just wished I still had the falcon with the two tone maseratti air horns I got from my old man. That would have scared the bejesus out of him. Dont have the falcon anymore, but the air horns are round here somewhere...just have to figure out where they will fit in the nissan March........It will just about go backwards when the horn is pushed I suspect.


I had the same horns in a VL commodore. I'm pretty sure they are louder than a shuttle launch. The compressor died but I still have the horns to hook up to an air gun to cheer myself up

----------


## timattalon

Dad told me the story of when he got them. They had just bought a brand new Ford Falcon so around the early 80s, and he owned a car parts store. He fitted them one weekend and forgot to tell mum. Next day or so she is trundling down Market st (narrow one way with a 10km limit) in down town Blenheim following a cyclist doing about 5km. She thinks she will give him a quick "peep" so he knows she is there and so he doesnt just ride out in front of her.  *BLAAAAAARRRRRTTTT!!!!!!*. She got as big as a fright as the cyclist did. Just about wet the seat of a brand new car. Boy did she have words with dad when she got home........Not impressed. But the horns stayed on that car til he sold it nearly a decade later.

----------


## Rushy

When a Policeman doing his job gets shot at multiple times as occurred in South Auckland today then I say it is time to arm the thin blue line and the fucktard that does that sort of shit deserves to have a some well placed lead returned in his direction.

----------


## Tommy

> When a Policeman doing his job gets shot at multiple times as occurred in South Auckland today then I say it is time to arm the thin blue line and the fucktard that does that sort of shit deserves to have a some well placed lead returned in his direction.


Proper jail time will fix it. Put the bad fuckers in jail for 15 years instead of 6 months and you'll be seeing less of these dropkick fuckwit wannabes. 

Unfair? Too long? Sorry, I have run out of fucks for these crackhead parasites

----------


## Rushy

> Proper jail time will fix it. Put the bad fuckers in jail for 15 years instead of 6 months and you'll be seeing less of these dropkick fuckwit wannabes. 
> 
> Unfair? Too long? Sorry, I have run out of fucks for these crackhead parasites


Tommy you are far too lenient.  A one way ticket to Auckland Island in the middle of winter with nothing to aid the preservation of life is more appropriate for that idiot and others like him.

----------


## veitnamcam

> Proper jail time will fix it. Put the bad fuckers in jail for 15 years instead of 6 months and you'll be seeing less of these dropkick fuckwit wannabes. 
> 
> Unfair? Too long? Sorry, I have run out of fucks for these crackhead parasites


I gotta pay for that...I would rather they were shot myself.

----------


## Rushy

> I gotta pay for that...I would rather they were shot myself.


I am with you on that and would happily provide the bullets VC.

----------


## Tommy

> Tommy you are far too lenient.  A one way ticket to Auckland Island in the middle of winter with nothing to aid the preservation of life is more appropriate for that idiot and others like him.


Hey I'd though Campbell Island would be great. Bit of an X over the heart would do the job at 1/100000000th the price, can't argue with that.

----------


## Rushy

> Hey I'd though Campbell Island would be great. Bit of an X over the heart would do the job at 1/100000000th the price, can't argue with that.


Happy with that.

----------


## timattalon

> Hey I'd though Campbell Island would be great. Bit of an X over the heart would do the job at 1/100000000th the price, can't argue with that.



I was thinking White Island. I hear there's a nice climate there they can enjoy for the rest of their days......

----------


## Walker

The police are subject to the same law's as all of us, so I'd think you would find if an armed policeman unloaded a mag into a fleeing vehicle, they would be charged the same as the shooter's.

----------


## Rushy

> I was thinking White Island. I hear there's a nice climate there they can enjoy for the rest of their days......


Likely to survive far too long there in my opinion.

----------


## Dead is better

> When a Policeman doing his job gets shot at multiple times as occurred in South Auckland today then I say it is time to arm the thin blue line and the fucktard that does that sort of shit deserves to have a some well placed lead returned in his direction.


I'm thinking maybe arm the cop cars like Batman's corvette (a Couple of pop up mini-guns)

----------


## kidmac42

Cmon guys, this kind of talk is counter productive. 
The best we can do as citizens and firearm owners is keep our artillery secure and and if selling, cite licences or if they look or appear dodgy- don't sell to them. Commonsense should be our watchword. If you like to show the world you have guns etc, then expect to get burgled, robbed etc.
There. Can of worms opened. Your thoughts?

----------


## Maca49

KM I agree but get pissed with all the regs on me and love and kisses for the crim, look at the bullshit in Featherston and Masterton. The kids were snot bags and paid the ultimate price for their criminal act. Bored huh, blamed the police for the pursuit? Simply just hold them accountable for their dumbass stupidness and feel the pain of their family, if they care.

----------


## Kscott

> Your thoughts?


I wonder for this thread, is a pitch fork and flaming torch provided for the lynch mob, or do we have to bring our own ?  :Grin:

----------


## Maca49

There so much to enjoy and get on with in this world. NZ is a magic country full of opportunity, why do we spend so much money, time and effort on those that do not want to help themselves, just sucks up energy :O O:  there are far more positive kids, achievers that deserve a share!

----------


## kokako

> The police are subject to the same law's as all of us, so I'd think you would find if an armed policeman unloaded a mag into a fleeing vehicle, they would be charged the same as the shooter's.


Repost because some of you missed it first time around:




> F061 - Use of Firearms by Police 
> 
>  (1) Members must always be aware of their personal responsibilities in the use of firearms. Under Section 62 of the Crimes Act 1961 a member is criminally liable for any excess force used. An overriding requirement in law is that minimum force must be applied to effect the purpose. Where practical Police should not use a firearm unless it can be done without endangering other persons. 
> 
>  (2) Police members shall not use a firearm except in the following circumstances: 
> 
>  (a) to DEFEND THEMSELVES OR OTHERS (Section 48 Crimes Act 1961) if they fear death or grievous bodily harm to themselves or others, and they cannot reasonably protect themselves, or others, in a less violent manner; 
> 
>  (b) to ARREST an offender (Section 39 Crimes Act 1961) if they believe on reasonable grounds that the offender poses a threat or death or grievous bodily harm in resisting his or her arrest; 
> ...

----------


## timattalon

> I wonder if the last fella warned his foot as per Instructions prior to shooting it.
> 
> Feet are the new master criminals.  I need to email #HDPA and get her to write a piece on that!


You are assuming she can read emails....I was under the impression she is simply a mouth piece for someone else as its clear she doesn't understand half of what she says.........

----------


## veitnamcam

This probably belongs here in this thread.
If they cannot train the specialist firearms end of the police how can they train the whole lot of em?

Officer acquitted after accidentally shooting man during AOS callout | Stuff.co.nz

----------


## veitnamcam

Who does "your" refer to?

----------


## veitnamcam

Yes....from the time I was a kid to now it almost seems we have turned into a police state.
Yet all these laws only affect poor old muggins the working class. 
The unemployed and minnimun wage earners have nothing to fear from the law...fine me ha ahahhha I cant pay a fine,comunity work a great place to socialise and network with other criminals or just dont go....A case a while back was 80grand of mostly boyracer fines, comunity work didnt go, then it was 3 months jail(might have even been one month) get your teeth fixed while your in there etc and then a handfull of cash on ya way out to set you off on the right track.

Fuck I cant even earn 80k before tax in a year let alone a month,pretty good wages.

Then you have the polys/police/govt depts/big businessmen....when was the last time you saw any of those do time for anything they did wrong? 

Which leaves working middleclass who obey the laws generally because they cannot afford not to.

----------


## screamO

> Yes....from the time I was a kid to now it almost seems we have turned into a police state.
> Yet all these laws only affect poor old muggins the working class. 
> The unemployed and minnimun wage earners have nothing to fear from the law...fine me ha ahahhha I cant pay a fine,comunity work a great place to socialise and network with other criminals or just dont go....A case a while back was 80grand of mostly boyracer fines, comunity work didnt go, then it was 3 months jail(might have even been one month) get your teeth fixed while your in there etc and then a handfull of cash on ya way out to set you off on the right track.
> 
> Fuck I cant even earn 80k before tax in a year let alone a month,pretty good wages.
> 
> Then you have the polys/police/govt depts/big businessmen....when was the last time you saw any of those do time for anything they did wrong? 
> 
> Which leaves working middleclass who obey the laws generally because they cannot afford not to.


Yep I would love my bank to follow suit..........yea mate I will do 300 hrs community service and you take 80k of my mortgage.

----------


## veitnamcam

> I believe once the wealth gap swings to a certain point they stop referring to us as the middle/working class and go back to calling us "Peasants".


 :Thumbsup:

----------


## keneff

> But the media has never been good at identifying firearms.  We all know that.  They can never be relied upon to tell the accurate truth about anything.


The media willnever let the facts get in the way of a good story. Never mind the story.

----------


## Smartie

More danger of being shot by a licensed hunter than a policeman.

----------


## keneff

True that

----------


## keneff

> Police proudly quote the statistics.
> 
> It's the Police Association that is pushing for Police to be armed. The Police Association is like a union and is not part of the Police.


It's silly Greg o'Connor pushing this barrow. And he has his own agenda.

----------


## keneff

> Vile, not vial and you missed the apostrophe on man's
> 
> Live by the sword, die by the sword.
> 
> Kotuku's turn of phrase shares a lot with the stream of consciousness method used by James
> Joyce who wrote "Ulysses" which is considered to be one of the high water marks of the English language.
> 
> Attacking his punctuation style misses the wider point and comes across as petty.
> 
> If you are trying to convince people of your argument, a little charm goes a long way..


Equating punctuation with intelligence is plain dumb. And ignorant. It might denote some education, but that's all.

----------


## keneff

> I cannot understand this thread although I read and accept most points of views- some are wildly generic and plain nonsense, reminding me of a relative of mine whom has a Dr in front of his name, he is often fucked when building a deck, changing a tyre or nappy or talking any sense at all.
> 
> The police ARE armed but unfortunately no one can foresee into a crystal ball. Police routinely 'tool' up when attending a certain address or addressing an individual because of the history that some have so those who have no idea should just mow their lawns or go pull their pud...that you may be actually qualified to do...
> 
> No one can pick a David Gray or a Napier situation or a random 3T in a back country road that turns bloody ugly within seconds. So we need to accept shit happens, the PC brigade will always squeak the loudest, police will always be under resourced, under trained-and that's another matter entirely imo but the Police work bloody hard to protect YOUR family and friends and property. 
> 
> But...God I hope we never see the general public allowed to bare arms in public; (like America), that would be a bad day indeed. 
> Now, I'm off to pull my pudding.


I see bare arms in public all the time. some of them need shooting.

----------


## keneff

> So ignoring the tube vs the world side of the argument and summarizing my position:
> 
> Do I think NZ will ever introduce concealed carry?  No, not a chance in hell.
> Do I think NZ should introduced concealed carry?  Yes, it's worth discussing even though it's unlikely to happen.
> 
> Why should we do this?  Because every person has a right to self defence and that right is worthless if you don't have the tools to defend yourself.  NZ is a safe country so generally this isn't something we have to worry about but there will definitly be people who are at risk and places that are more risky.  This applies to both NZ police who should be expected to go into dangerious situations without the tools to defend themselves and the public of NZ (acknowledge that to own a firearm you need a FAL).
> 
> But wouldn't there be chaos with people shooting each other everywhere?  This is the "think of the children" side of the argument and it comes down to culture.  Every week there are groups of FAL holders who gather to shoot clays, targets, animals etc.  During these events there are arguments etc and all the normal stuff that happens between people.  Nobody gos and grabs a shotgun off the rack and starts shooting people cos thats just bloody stupid.  Our culture says thats unacceptable and if you break that there are peanalties from both the social group you are in and the law.  In the states if you have a CC permit and you pull your gun out and wave it around then you are breaking the law and will likely loose your CC permit.  There is a culture around what is acceptable and what is not.
> 
> ...



When Mr Helen Clark ruled our world and started engineering the guts out of us.

----------


## kotuku

umm-from the days of the krays etc -spraybottle fullof domestic cleaning ammonia ,a ladies rattail comb rolled up copy of the press ,even a wad of dunny paper freshly smeared with you know what -where the hell have you been all your life massive-do i have to teach you buggers all the naughty tricks.
best one Ive ever read was in the UK,where a coupla wannabe thugs confronted an old duck who;d just bought her Xmas leg'o ham
.she apparently swung it like Baz McCullum swung a cricket bat -the rozzers arrived only to have to phone an ambulance to cart two KO'd males to A&E as both were out for the count
.imagine tellin ya mates ya tried to rob an old sheila and she decked ya-sheeeesh thered be a few beers in that eh.

----------


## gadgetman

Well most of the coppers I see wandering around (emphasis on the round) look pretty 'armless. Think if they ever fell over they'd need assistance getting back on their feet. I thought these guys needed to pass a fitness test on a regular basis? Or has the test threshold been lowered like in pretty much every other realm of modern life.

----------


## gimp

> More danger of being shot by a licensed hunter than a policeman.


per hour of firearm use police probably have way higher accidental shooting stats actually

----------


## Smartie

In terms of actually pointing at a human, hunters would be winning that stat

----------


## Smartie

I still suggest irrespective of hours spent with a firearm that your more likely to be shot by a hunter.

----------


## gimp

> In terms of actually pointing at a human, hunters would be winning that stat


I dunno, hunters spend a lot of time (accidentally) pointing guns at people

----------


## screamO

Anyone else just see tv3 news regarding police and firearms training?

----------


## Rushy

> Anyone else just see tv3 news regarding police and firearms training?


Yep.

----------


## Ryan

> Anyone else just see tv3 news regarding police and firearms training?


No - what about it?

----------


## 199p

> No - what about it?


I missed it but herd on radio about serous concerns about their lack of training and hands on experience the police have with there firearms

----------


## 199p

Concern at lack of police gun training | NZNews | Newshub

copy
Official Information Act figures, obtained by Newshub, show level one officers who respond to the most dangerous incidents only get about eight hours' live fire training time per yea

Read more: Concern at lack of police gun training | NZNews | Newshub

----------


## Ryan

> I missed it but herd on radio about serous concerns about their lack of training and hands on experience the police have with there firearms


Concerning. One wouldn't want their surgeon to be lacking in training or experience. Drastic comparison, sure - but either could kill you just as fast. Mmm, increase the budget perhaps?

----------


## screamO

> I missed it but herd on radio about serous concerns about their lack of training and hands on experience the police have with there firearms


Yea basically, then that silly bitchc opens her mouth. Basically back to a funding issue. I find the funding thing wearing a bit thin now, in my trade (and all soon) now cost has no place in providing inadequate training or safety but the govt departments get away with using it.

----------


## screamO

> Concern at lack of police gun training | NZNews | Newshub
> 
> copy
> Official Information Act figures, obtained by Newshub, show level one officers who respond to the most dangerous incidents only get about eight hours' live fire training time per yea
> 
> Read more: Concern at lack of police gun training | NZNews | Newshub


 :Thumbsup:

----------


## 199p

Yip surely its not that hard 

even if they had a bunch of .22's to use since ammo is so cheap 

but then if they are buying containers of ammo at a time it wouldn't end up that expensive  especially once they can claim the tax back off it

----------


## res

Hmmm I think we all agree that the police don't get enough training- I wonder if we could come to some sort of agreement as to what would be a fair amount?  
One day rifle and two pistol per year? 
Five days total?
Four hours a month?

----------


## screamO

> Hmmm I think we all agree that the police don't get enough training- I wonder if we could come to some sort of agreement as to what would be a fair amount?  
> One day rifle and two pistol per year? 
> Five days total?
> Four hours a month?


Well I think there are enough things they could practice on, on  a daily basis. And when they run out of things on the street they could practice some more at the prisons, then they could use the prisons for more state housing,  hang on that's what they are doing now.
oops did I just post that.

----------


## screamO

> Well I think there are enough things they could practice on, on  a daily basis. And when they run out of things on the street they could practice some more at the prisons, then they could use the prisons for more state housing,  hang on that's what they are doing now.
> oops did I just post that.


Didn't want that to come across wrong, what I was meaning to say is, I think there are enough oxygen thieves kicking about that would make for some nice practice

----------


## gimp

> In terms of actually pointing at a human, hunters would be winning that stat


I dunno, hunters spend a lot of time (accidentally) pointing guns at people

----------


## screamO

Anyone else just see tv3 news regarding police and firearms training?

----------


## Rushy

> Anyone else just see tv3 news regarding police and firearms training?


Yep.

----------


## Ryan

> Anyone else just see tv3 news regarding police and firearms training?


No - what about it?

----------


## 199p

> No - what about it?


I missed it but herd on radio about serous concerns about their lack of training and hands on experience the police have with there firearms

----------


## 199p

Concern at lack of police gun training | NZNews | Newshub

copy
Official Information Act figures, obtained by Newshub, show level one officers who respond to the most dangerous incidents only get about eight hours' live fire training time per yea

Read more: Concern at lack of police gun training | NZNews | Newshub

----------


## Ryan

> I missed it but herd on radio about serous concerns about their lack of training and hands on experience the police have with there firearms


Concerning. One wouldn't want their surgeon to be lacking in training or experience. Drastic comparison, sure - but either could kill you just as fast. Mmm, increase the budget perhaps?

----------


## screamO

> I missed it but herd on radio about serous concerns about their lack of training and hands on experience the police have with there firearms


Yea basically, then that silly bitchc opens her mouth. Basically back to a funding issue. I find the funding thing wearing a bit thin now, in my trade (and all soon) now cost has no place in providing inadequate training or safety but the govt departments get away with using it.

----------


## screamO

> Concern at lack of police gun training | NZNews | Newshub
> 
> copy
> Official Information Act figures, obtained by Newshub, show level one officers who respond to the most dangerous incidents only get about eight hours' live fire training time per yea
> 
> Read more: Concern at lack of police gun training | NZNews | Newshub


 :Thumbsup:

----------


## 199p

Yip surely its not that hard 

even if they had a bunch of .22's to use since ammo is so cheap 

but then if they are buying containers of ammo at a time it wouldn't end up that expensive  especially once they can claim the tax back off it

----------


## res

Hmmm I think we all agree that the police don't get enough training- I wonder if we could come to some sort of agreement as to what would be a fair amount?  
One day rifle and two pistol per year? 
Five days total?
Four hours a month?

----------


## screamO

> Hmmm I think we all agree that the police don't get enough training- I wonder if we could come to some sort of agreement as to what would be a fair amount?  
> One day rifle and two pistol per year? 
> Five days total?
> Four hours a month?


Well I think there are enough things they could practice on, on  a daily basis. And when they run out of things on the street they could practice some more at the prisons, then they could use the prisons for more state housing,  hang on that's what they are doing now.
oops did I just post that.

----------


## screamO

> Well I think there are enough things they could practice on, on  a daily basis. And when they run out of things on the street they could practice some more at the prisons, then they could use the prisons for more state housing,  hang on that's what they are doing now.
> oops did I just post that.


Didn't want that to come across wrong, what I was meaning to say is, I think there are enough oxygen thieves kicking about that would make for some nice practice

----------


## gimp

> In terms of actually pointing at a human, hunters would be winning that stat


I dunno, hunters spend a lot of time (accidentally) pointing guns at people

----------


## screamO

Anyone else just see tv3 news regarding police and firearms training?

----------


## Rushy

> Anyone else just see tv3 news regarding police and firearms training?


Yep.

----------


## Ryan

> Anyone else just see tv3 news regarding police and firearms training?


No - what about it?

----------


## 199p

> No - what about it?


I missed it but herd on radio about serous concerns about their lack of training and hands on experience the police have with there firearms

----------


## 199p

Concern at lack of police gun training | NZNews | Newshub

copy
Official Information Act figures, obtained by Newshub, show level one officers who respond to the most dangerous incidents only get about eight hours' live fire training time per yea

Read more: Concern at lack of police gun training | NZNews | Newshub

----------


## Ryan

> I missed it but herd on radio about serous concerns about their lack of training and hands on experience the police have with there firearms


Concerning. One wouldn't want their surgeon to be lacking in training or experience. Drastic comparison, sure - but either could kill you just as fast. Mmm, increase the budget perhaps?

----------


## screamO

> I missed it but herd on radio about serous concerns about their lack of training and hands on experience the police have with there firearms


Yea basically, then that silly bitchc opens her mouth. Basically back to a funding issue. I find the funding thing wearing a bit thin now, in my trade (and all soon) now cost has no place in providing inadequate training or safety but the govt departments get away with using it.

----------


## screamO

> Concern at lack of police gun training | NZNews | Newshub
> 
> copy
> Official Information Act figures, obtained by Newshub, show level one officers who respond to the most dangerous incidents only get about eight hours' live fire training time per yea
> 
> Read more: Concern at lack of police gun training | NZNews | Newshub


 :Thumbsup:

----------


## 199p

Yip surely its not that hard 

even if they had a bunch of .22's to use since ammo is so cheap 

but then if they are buying containers of ammo at a time it wouldn't end up that expensive  especially once they can claim the tax back off it

----------


## res

Hmmm I think we all agree that the police don't get enough training- I wonder if we could come to some sort of agreement as to what would be a fair amount?  
One day rifle and two pistol per year? 
Five days total?
Four hours a month?

----------


## screamO

> Hmmm I think we all agree that the police don't get enough training- I wonder if we could come to some sort of agreement as to what would be a fair amount?  
> One day rifle and two pistol per year? 
> Five days total?
> Four hours a month?


Well I think there are enough things they could practice on, on  a daily basis. And when they run out of things on the street they could practice some more at the prisons, then they could use the prisons for more state housing,  hang on that's what they are doing now.
oops did I just post that.

----------


## screamO

> Well I think there are enough things they could practice on, on  a daily basis. And when they run out of things on the street they could practice some more at the prisons, then they could use the prisons for more state housing,  hang on that's what they are doing now.
> oops did I just post that.


Didn't want that to come across wrong, what I was meaning to say is, I think there are enough oxygen thieves kicking about that would make for some nice practice

----------

