Thread: Why frontline cops should be armed

Originally Posted by top gun

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.

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!!!!

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.

Originally Posted by nseagoon

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.

Originally Posted by Kscott

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.

Originally Posted by nseagoon

Criminals don't know which cars carry arms

They all do.

Originally Posted by Jexla

They all do.

No Jexla, they don't.

Originally Posted by Jexla

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.