Do our cops need guns?

I think no.

It will only lead to move violence imho.


Plus what will the cost be on the public if all the cops have guns? The extra training, and the cost of the guns. We will just turn into America if all our cops have guns.

They all have a pistol in the glovebox already and a shotgun in the boot so why are we asking for them all to carry a gun, it's just asking for trouble.

Your thoughts?

Have you actually read what the proposal is?

*Some* properly trained cops have access to guns in the car or are able to take weapons when patrolling alone every time it is done so it is recorded.

Not that it is what is being proposed but I dont think youll find that always armed police would lead to more violence. Perhaps you could argue what there was would be more extreme.

Regardless we are heading to a place where lack of armed response is making it difficult to be a cop and acting to reward crimes involving guns (by increasing the chance of getting away due to slow reaction time). What the police are proposing is having ready rapid action teams on patrols during high risk times in high risk areas.

Really? They ALL do? Didn't think that was the case at all.

And the proposal I've seen in the last few days is for a few quick response armed cars to be available so that you have trained individuals on call for armed situations - seems like a step before the full armed offenders business. Good idea to me

Further - Not escalating the conflict has been the right decision up till now (give or take) but crims have guns to protect themselves from each other and then use them in crimes as a secondary thing.

Your argument lacks clarity - are you happy with the current state of affairs where cops 'all' have guns anyway or not? Are you opposed to them carrying side arms?

Cops are already trained in firearms anf the extra costs of outfitting wouldnt be significant versus the cost of recruiting for a demoralised force who is on the back foot.

Im all for tazers (especially ones with cameras on them) and for armed patrols as proposed - in high risk times and areas.

The thing I don't like about these ideas is that they're definite stepping stones - bit by bit - to allowing the full/permanent possession of guns by all Police. After a couple of successful years of this sort of thing the flow would always be to allow another step, another bit.. until one day we realise all of our cops have guns on them - maybe not out of full necessity.

Surely more guns = more chance of innocent injury/deaths - no matter how much care or training is promised. I bet it even makes criminals decide they would then have to carry guns - further ramping up the problems.

I'd ideally like NZ to basically roll-back private ownership of guns (to something similar to Japan) where any illegal possession is a serious crime worthy of an automatic ten year jail term.

R

I don't agree with cops always carrying guns, I don't mind them having them in the car (and I'm not 100% sure ALL cops have them in their cars). And I also believe that the armed defenders squad would be the people to call on if a situation arose.

Why put more guns into the public arena and potentially put the public at risk if someone takes a cops gun.

I too am all for tazers....as these don't kill (well not often, only overseas)

they want to have four dedicated armed response units

in the recent case where the liquor store owner was shot, the police wouldn't enter the scene until they were satisfied the offenders had left (possibly because they were not suitably armed to defend themselves against any assailants? I'm not entirely sure...)

my interpretation was that these dedicated units would furnish police with the means to be able to respond to call outs involving firearms and allow them to attend to victims quicker

I probably didn't need to quote gdub but nevermind

and to answer the original question posed, it could be a good idea

is the rate of offending involving firearms increasing? would dedicated armed units mean that victims could be reached quicker in these situations?

But also, would armed police actually bring down the rate of firearm related crime? I don't think it would...

Bingo. You're right... it would - without fail - increase it. The worst crims would just up the anti and carry guns instead of knives.

Tazers all the way imo.

R

Dunno, IF an armed response and increased penalty for armed crimes was guaranteed then maybe it would reduce the overall number. But as i said it might increase the severity of the remaining ones.

I get the feeling you guys (Rob&TNO) are sticking your heads in the sand a bit. Violent crime HAS increased dramatically and so have assualts on police. We have already seen stab proof vests, pepper spray and tazer trials have they increased the incidence of a particular crime?

I think we are heading the way of armed police, we are not the sheltered backwater that some people think and 'removing guns from circulation' isnt going to do much to get them out of the hands of criminals. We cant stop drugs coming into the county what makes you think we can stop illegal guns?

Yes armed patrols are a step up, but at the moment the police are being left far behind by the criminals.

The worst crims already carry guns...

cops already have guns

imo no need to take them out with them

they should never be on patrol alone

R

They are,

??

was that an incomplete post, or did you mean 'they are on patrol by themselves'?

if it was the former... i dunno

if the latter... i simply think people should worry about cops being on patrol by themselves before we worry about arming them more often

imho the money would be better spent on more cops than more guns available
(yes i know the issue is not about BUYING more guns, but im talking about priorities)

I would like to see more cops about as well...I'd rather have any money spent on solutions that don;t involve dangerous weapons....

Fair call - but nothing like in most other countries. You only need to go to Thailand to see how people having guns makes the place so much more dangerous. The cops don't bail people up for it because they know that that person would rather shoot them than be arrested - so they live in a dangerous stalemate... that is until there is a real problem, in which case, gunfights ensue where a dozen "suspected drug dealers" get shot dead in an alley-way.

Remember also - our top crime response cops do have guns and have had for years. I'd rather not give a gun to a regular cop walking around town at night...

Tazers seem like an ideal solution IMO. If you get the wrong guy then it's not a scenario where cops get blamed for being trigger-happy killers.

R

Ok, I support the proposal as it is and the more cops (within reason) the better - more cops = more control of the situation. But it would be a sad day when there were 20 cops but none with a gun and someone on a rampage.

I dont see it as a different senario as to what we have now, only a faster response which may mean fewer normal cops have a need to take a firearm with them.

I have to say, i would hate to be a cop in south auckland these days and i think they need as much support as we can give. Not to mention the flow on effects to the people in the area feeling/being safer.

Precisely - there is NO proposal for most cops to be armed, not sure we're some of you are getting this from? The proposal is to have specific teams that are trained for those situations and in firearm use - I'm all for ensuring you've got the right people involved in those situations for a quick and trained response.

thing about hand guns, is that you have to spend a LOT of time practising with them, to be any good at using them.

If some crim was 50ft away from me and popped 3 shots, there is a 90% they would all miss by a mile.

I think in certain areas all patrol cops should be armed, and trained in the use of that weapon (which also includes when not to use it, and how to not lose it)

Fact is, at the moment, you coud walk into a TAB in Manurewa, hold it up with a sawn off, and pretty much garuntee no-one is going to mess with you... cos the cops wont come near the place until you have gone.
Now, if you knew that the cops around the area were armed, and trained in the use of that weapon, you would certainly be thinking twice about robbing the TAB.

but, when people are desperate,t hey do crazy things.. like shoot the dairy owner after he gave over the cash. I cant see how that guy cant't get anythig less than the rest of his natural life in jail tbh.

Indeed, at a 25yard shooting range i used to go to which was shared with the cops there were always new bullet holes in the strangest of places. It reduced my faith somewhat in the police. In the heat of the moment a normal cop isnt likely to be able to accurately hit someone more than 10m away which is part of why they teach them to double shoot.

That said, there shouldnt be many situations where a cop would need to take a shot at that range. The person has to be a threat and that means unless they have a ranged weapon like a rifle chances are theyre going to be a lot closer or the armed offenders squad will be about (or the new patrols).

No normal measure is going to stop all violent crime and cops will still die and inoocent people will still get injured but id rather see 2 more police/civilians killed by new measures than 100 innocent people killed by crims because the police werent equiped to do anything about it.

yes

kill the crims

it's called capital punishment and that should be decided by courts and juries not one police officer who happens to be having a bad day.

As far as I know this all came about following the slow response by police to the stabbing of an alchohol shop owner.

I doubt police with guns would've solved this matter. Armed forces usually show up in much shorter timeframes than the 30 or so minutes that it took them this time. The way I see it, this was a miscommunication internally within the police department that led to the delay. The police are now using the criticism against them by the public and the media as an excuse to play the martyr and go on about how they should now carry guns to better protect new zealanders. It's bollocks.

Put as many rules and regulations as you like on the use of firearms by the police and you'll still find a good number who are a little too trigger happy - and they WILL get away with it, it wouldn't be the first time that a police officer has over-reacted and all they get is a slap on the wrist and he's back on the beat in no time.

They should not be carrying guns.

Please specify if you mean side arms or the rapid reaction patrols the proposal has.

The situation may have been different if the patrols were about but then again maybe not. Regardless i doubt this was prepared in response to the shopkeeper being shot it was just an oportune time to release it. That said these days there are all to many firearm incidents.

Im not sure i buy the trigger happy cop thing - at some point the threat of trigger happy crims outwieghs the trigger happy cop defence.

i'd rather there were more trained cops with guns, than untrained P smoking crims firing willy nilly.


Sure, I predict there might be an incident of some young teen getting his head blown off because he was a deaf mute holding black water pistol - and couldnt hear the cops telling him to throw his weapon down...

small price to pay for deterring more crims to take up arms.

NZ is different to other countries, in that our border isnt not beside other countries. Our customs service here are pretty good, so if a few more cops were training in operating pistols, I doubt you would see the Mongrel Mob suddenly importing a container of AK47's.

Thing is, a pistol or a taser, will stop a P-Crazed headcase. If you're going to suck the glass cock and go on a RSA rampage, i'm all for the cops blowing your head off.

*is not bordering (think log sandy beaches, not miles of jungle like Thailand)

Extra-judicial killings for the win huh Damien?

I'm not asking for Judge Dredd to roam the streets of Rewa...


altho being stuffed in a small box for tagging might change a few young punks minds.

ok on a serious note. If some guy is rampaging thru a car park with a machete and a sawn off shooting at people... what would you rather happen? him to get taken down with a taser or once warned, shot?

being trained in the use of a pistol (in the force) means you get trained u i the best way to use it. That also includes using it at all.

It' been really nice that cops in NZ havnt been for the most part, armed, but times have changed, and I think in some parts of NZ, armed patrols who are properly trained in the use (and also non-use) of lethal force, is going to be come a reality.

The taser trial, stab proof vests, its kinda last resort stuff for the Police. I drove past a patrol car the otherday, cop was checking the barrel of his pistol after making an arrest.

Turns out a young island lad, up to his eyeballs on god knows what, was swinging a knife around.. and only once presented with the drawn firearm, did he drop the knife and lie down.
No shots fired, and no stab proof vest needed stitching.

I look at armed cops as deterrance, rather than Judge Dredd types.

Yeah like I've said, I agree with this. But the "blowing off of their heads" should not be considered a positive thing for cops to do. Any killing undertaken by the state (particularly in a country without capital punishment) is a huge deal and should be seriously investigated, as it is now.

I guess my biggest question is why do we need these extra armed patrols? I don't see why they need them over the AOS?

I may be wrong, but im sure I aint..

AOS - the guys are just normal cops* with extra training. They aint sitting around in a readyroom like say, SWAT or HRT. Frm what I recall, they volunteer to do AOS, and are on call.

With the rise in violent armed crime, surely a measure of somewhere between I-Car and AOS for those paricular areas that suffer the highest rates of such crime would be the best bet.


* could be detectives, forensics, any part of the Police.

AOS = full body armour and masks, m16 style + sniper rifles.

This proposal = normal cops with access to pistols and rifles all ready driving round the streets in high risk areas..

Have just looked it up and you're about right.

I guess the question then becomes, do you want a "lightly armed/lightly armoured" police response force as an in-between? Perhaps these armed temas should become the AOS?

AOS is there as a last resort really. They are specialised for things like Hostage rescue, taking down multiple armed crims, etc.

lighty armed/armoured cops would be a stop gap between the incredibly specialised training AOS get, and the basic policing of iCars.

I would see them more as a deterrant, however being trained enogh to use the weapon if they have too (ie-that 30+ minute window between scrambling AOS and them arriving on the scene)

as an example - the robbery of the Dairy. In that area, light armed police could have responded immediatley. As it stands, they couldnt really do much cos the correct resource wasnt able to get there in time (add in some comms confusion about BB gun as well)

An in between localised and speicalised response patrol in areas like that, would be ideal as a rapid reponse to events, and as visible deterrant to crims.

At the mo, pretty much worst case for a crim will be a tasering or a dog bite. Sure as shit they would think twice about doing a robbery if they knew that trained armed police were around.

it was only a matter of months ago that we were referring tazers as the so called "half measure" between fully fledged armed forces and completely helpless cops with nothing to protect them other than a baton.

So the tazers were allowed as a half measure because they were a great alternative to guns - in that they can still take a man down if he is more than an arm's length away - and the likelihood of them leading to accidental deaths was considerably less than that of guns.....

Exactly what has changed SO much over the past few months that suddently tazers are no longer enough and now we need to go all the way to guns.....

which raises the question, exactly what was the point of wasting tax payers money convincing people that tazers were the way to go if all along the plan was to move onto guns. It's all wrong.

tazers in my opinion should be issued to all iCars.

as so far as taking down someone who won't go peacefully - great deterrant and work better than a baton. (Baton can break bones, and one wrong hit u got some serious injuries + pepper spray doesnt work all the time on P-heads)

This issue is about a mid range specialised type patrol, with proper training, to deal with an armed offender.

AOS is there to to deal with multiple armed suspects.

Just playing devils advocate here...

Tazers are actually very dangerous, while I was in Canada there were several deaths from tazers cause the cops went a little tazer happy and killed someone in the airport. So they can definitely kill, BUT are much less likely to kill than a gun.

The Police recieve something like 3 days of firearms training while at Police College. This is insufficient time to be competent at handling and using the XM15 Bushmaster rifles and Glock pistols in armed response situation. In the Army we spent a full week at the range coming to grips with Steyr and many many more hours praticing before we were allowed to conduct live fire exercises. So no I dont think regular Police should be armed all the time.

As I understand it Sargents and above carry the rifles and pistols secured in the boot of their patrol cars. By the time they reach this level they will have undergone further firearms training and have spent many more hours at the range honing the skills required.

The AOS is made up of regular officers who pass a rigourous selection criteria and then undergo further specialist training. They go about their normal day to day policing jobs but can be called in as needed. Due to this their response time is quite low.

There is an armed police unit you are all forgetting about. The STG, Special Tactics Group. These are officers selected from the various AOS units around the country to undergo even more specialised training. They regularly train alongside NZSAS and CTTAG (Counter Terrorist Tactical Assualt Group) and have capabilities beyond the AOS. In a high risk armed situation the AOS will be used to contain the area while the STG actually go in and deal to the situation. STG officers do not conduct regular policing duties and a unit is always on duty ready to respond at a moments notice.

The next level of escaltion above the STG is the SAS.

arm the liquor shop owners

Normal cops should not have guns.

General duties police should probably not have guns at the moment with the amount of embarrasment that they are causing themselves in the media.

Firearms and firearms handling is a skill that is attained after extensive and detailed training over periods of time, and continued not just at college. Senior police members.....yea maybe? but not the younger or general ones its a recipie for trouble. Tasers for them be about it.

There are enough cocky big headed young officers as it is to actually give them a gun too!. Could be a disaster considering all the misconducts going on at the moment.

A special unit at each region would be good...just dedicated to daily and nightly call outs that dont require the AOS.

Like idiots shooting people.

my fear too