Why frontline cops should be armed

Rubber buckshot

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 ..

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 ..

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savage1

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zimmer

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassiveAttack

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gibo

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

---

A firearms license.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jexla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassiveAttack

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.

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savage1

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banana

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savage1

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banana

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savage1

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassiveAttack

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?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassiveAttack

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassiveAttack

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gibo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rushy

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 :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gibo

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rushy

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 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebf

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gibo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.... :D

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savage1

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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.