Thread: Why frontline cops should be armed

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.

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.

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

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...

Originally Posted by Gibo

? 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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.