Thread: Why frontline cops should be armed

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Sent from my GT-P5210 using Tapatalk

Oh you're not old enough to have experience hahahahaha

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?

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

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.

Originally Posted by Savage1

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?

Originally Posted by deepsouthaussie

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.

Originally Posted by jim160

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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Originally Posted by 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)

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.

Originally Posted by Savage1

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....

Originally Posted by Jexla

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.

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.