Thread: Why frontline cops should be armed

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.

Originally Posted by nseagoon

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.

Originally Posted by Smartie

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Savage1

No Jexla, they don't.

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

Originally Posted by Jexla

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.

Originally Posted by Savage1

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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.