Written By: - Date published: 7:02 am, July 15th, 2010 - 121 comments
Categories: police -
Tags: guns, shootings
In the shadow of recent police shootings we are being presented with the idea of increased police access to firearms as a virtual fait accompli:
Police should have easier access to guns by Christmas, Police Minister Judith Collins says. The issue of access to guns was raised after two Christchurch policemen were shot and seriously wounded yesterday. Dog-handler Senior Constable Bruce Lamb, 51, and Constable Mitchel Alatalo, 39, both underwent surgery in Christchurch Hospital last night after being shot while carrying out routine inquiries in suburban Phillipstown yesterday morning.
“The time for talking has stopped. We’re now at nine police officers shot in two years … It’s unacceptable,” [Police Association president] Mr O’Connor said. “Whatever we’re doing now is not working, so certainly we’re going to have more people on the frontline armed.” The officers were unarmed and did not take a Taser from their vehicle with them but Ms Collins said easy access to a gun may have helped them.
Police can have guns with them, kept in a box in their vehicle’s boot, but Commissioner Howard Broad is looking at a policy change where they could be kept within hand reach in the vehicle. “We should have a policy from police by Christmas,” Ms Collins told Radio New Zealand. There would be no need for a law change and it was an operational matter for police.
According to the above the changed proposed is from guns locked in the boot of the car to guns “within hand reach” in the vehicle. Other coverage puts the issue differently:
The present policy allows for police to be armed, depending on the level of risk, with authorisation from superiors. … “These [shooting] situations that are occurring, many are surprise events. An ambush if you like,” said Mr Broad. In these situations, there could be weapons such as handguns immediately available to police officers.
“At the moment, those weapons are either held at the police station or held in one of the supervisor’s vehicles. It’s quite a big step to actually withdraw and go and get weapons and return to the scene of an incident. We are looking at a situation where those weapons would be available to officers on frontline duty with their vehicles, held in secure facilities, but available to them. “Now, it’s a judgment call for our officers, but I back the judgment of our officers.”
These accounts differ in detail, but what is agreed is that police will be getting easier access to firearms. This doesn’t require a law change. And it’s likely to be done by Christmas.
I don’t think such a change should be made without significant public debate. And I for one am opposed to any such proposal. I’m opposed for four reasons.
First objection – It won’t make the police any safer. Anyone mad enough to shoot at a cop (or anyone else for that matter) is not going to be deterred if the cop is armed. The move is being justified by reference to “ambush situations”, but carrying a gun doesn’t stop you from being ambushed, it doesn’t make you any less likely to get hit. Better protective gear does that.
As it happens I’m not alone in this opinion. And here I salute the honesty and character of Senior Constable Bruce Lamb who should certainly know something about it, don’t you think?
The police dog handler shot in the jaw in Christchurch yesterday is deeply upset about the loss of his dog Gage, but does not think it would have made a difference if he had been armed at the time of the incident. … Mr Lamb had access to a firearm in his police truck, but chose not to pick it up when he went into the house.
Second objection – It will make the public less safe. More guns means more bullets means more people getting hit. It’s not rocket science. From the second article above:
The Police Association welcomed the move, but gave warning that it would ultimately mean more people getting shot.
Credit for acknowledging the truth, but then:
Greg O’Connor, the association’s president, said: “If these officers had shot someone [yesterday] there would be a massive outcry in the media about why did the police need to shoot them and that’s where we just need to grow up as a country.” New Zealanders needed to stop “getting squeamish” about firearms and “get squeamish” about officers getting shot, he said.
I find the causal attitude to increased civilian deaths horrifying. If it’s all the same to you, Greg, I will remain “squeamish” about people getting shot, and I refuse to “grow up” about it. If I thought that carrying guns was going to make police safer there might be a debate to be had here, but see above.
Third objection – The argument that there has been a recent upsurge in police shootings that justifies this escalation is rubbish. This post is already too long, so I’ll simply direct you to the excellent No Right Turn.
Fourth objection – Escalation is a bad idea. If guns become more visible and are used more frequently, then of course the serious criminal element will respond in kind. No one ends up any safer, the general public are considerably more at risk, and New Zealand has lost another stubborn vestige of its innocence, never to be regained. How safe are the heavily armed police in America?
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Seeing cops with pistols makes you feel safe and secure?
You’re into the illusion of safety versus actual safety, then?
The police have tasers and pepper spray now, they did not have these powerful weapons just five or six years ago, now you want even more.
Would seeing cops with automatic weapons, like they have in Thailand or the UK make you feel even more secure? Why should we not have police officers routinely armed with MP5′s or AR15′s like they do throughout Europe and the Americas? Or are you going to start pushing for that in a few years’ time when its shown that arming every officer with glocks and .223s aren’t making us any safer.
And one more question – you have seen the list of innocent people who have been killed by police firearms, yes? Some of them killed by police on specialist firearms squads? Do you really think that a rank and file officer with minimal firearms training and experience who is not on one of those specialist squads but has a gun is really going to keep you safer?
Police already have much greater access to weapons than they did a few years ago. Lets consider further increases very cautiously.
I’ve only seen one innocent person killed by police firearms in the lists above and that was the armed offenders incident.
Is ONE innocent person going to be enough for you comedy. Apparently not?
Police with pistols, as well as having the tools to protect themselves would be more able to protect law abiding citizens like myself, especially if under violent assault from weapons or knives etc.
I don’t think we can ‘yet’ quite compare ourselves with places like Thailand, the UK, Europe or the Americas so let’s not get excited about the imminent possibility of police here routinely arming with automatic weapons, the smaller arms on the hips are what’s needed now, & let’s also not worry about what the situation will be in another 5-6 years, we may still find that the glocks & .223′s are adequate then.
Maybe the police might have greater access to weapons than a few years ago, but apparently not enough given the recent situation in Christchurch.
So tell me Thomas, why did the police not have time to draw their tasers to incapacitate their firearm wielding assailent in Chch? That’s right they had left their tasers in the car. Along with the police firearms which were also in their car.
So not having greater access to weapons is irrelevant, they had additional weapons right there in their own police vehicle.
Thomas I think you should seriously think about changing your associates if they carry weapons and knifes. The law abiding citizen is unlikely to ever to met this crazed criminal you are so desperate to protect us from. Truth though many of us are likely to fall victims to members of our own families or neighbours. In these horrid incidents present police procedures work well. It is unfortunate that there will and always has been mad killers out there and the best preparations and plans will not stop them. It is the life that this killer will kill not just innocent victim but that that victim may be Police person to. It is why soldiers serve and police protect, it is what makes hero’s and young men and women love. It is life’s passion. In truth Thomas you may be policeman but also coward.
loota,
You seem to have destroyed your own argument here in saying that the police did not have time to draw their tasers in the recent Christchurch incident, as they had left their tasers in the car along with their firearms, when I have been arguing they should be readily armed when approaching these situations…guns on hips as well as tasers if you like.
We must be on guard against the coercive powers of the state.
All over the world police forces are becoming paramilitary units. Usually under the guise of some necessitating pretext – “more armed crims” or “an immanent terrorist threat”. One can’t help but wonder if there is not a “constabulary-industrial complex” not unlike the military-industrial complex. Boys who want toys and the people who enable them.
That’s not to say that there is not a need to protect those who serve. We owe such a debt to those take up the role of enforcing the rules we set. We play in the playground and they watch the fences.
But it is not in our interests to give them carte blanche.
What sort of country do we want to live in?
I do not want to live in a “gun-culture’.
1. That means that people do not have the right to bear arms. I would rather that it was a privilege given to those who are proven/qualified to be responsible users, proportional power to their needs and with in set limits of use, storage etc. This requires restrictions on ownership, sale and type. But this needs to be enforced. We are quite lax in this area. (My brother had been living out of the country for 15 years before the police came looking for him to see if he still needed his license!).
OMG, slug-guns that have the firepower of bullet based weapons. Who the hell fell asleep at the switch to allow them to be sold without restrictions? Customs, police, cabinet?
2. License the owner AND the weapon. Yes, this is a big task and has been in the too hard basket. That’s why succeeding governments have been content to license only the owner. It’s cheaper.
3. The police use an escalating scale of response to an incident. We want to put as much distance between the incident and resorting to firearms. Once firearms are resorted to (by either party) then a whole new set of rules apply. (Too big to discuss here – I have written on this at http://bierkeller.blogspot.com/2008/10/police-shooting-of-woman-in-whangarei.html)
This is achieved by making it less likely that either party resorts to firearms. Restrictions as outlined above and barriers to easy access for the police. We don’t need them to be more accessible. Resorting to firearms in our police culture should considered, unhurried and by well trained professionals. Not in the hands of some hormonally-charge, pimply-faced recent graduate from police college because the experienced and seasoned have perf’ed off to Queensland.
That means that there is a grey area between the extremes of no armed police and armed police. It is in this grey area that the greatest amount fluidity occurs, the greatest amount of wisdom and training is required but that the risk occurs a risk that cannot be eliminated only managed.
If our goal is to resist becoming a gun-culture then we also have to accept that police may get hurt and some will be killed. Whichever way we go, this will always be a risk to the police as long as there are firearms in the community. It only takes one licensed or illegal.
If the statistics change and the risk increases then go after the guns (ruthlessly) before arming the police.
3. That leaves the problem of the illegal weapons. We have to accept that there will always be illegal weapons. All we can hope for is a sinking lid approach by ensuring security of those that exist for genuine owners, restriction of those available (less outlets, less weapons, greater license checks)
To do all this requires political will and adequate resources (funding & personnel). It is easier to live in the black and white world of the extremes, of the cheap solution, than to manage risk.
We have to resist the temptation to live in the extremes, to develop policy on the back of overreaction, ratings-driven manufactured hype of what may be statistically anomalous events, or the pooling of collective ignorance by talkback callers.
(Mental Health Warning: never listen to talkback in the early hours the level of irrationality will drive you nuts!)
It’s time that policy in New Zealand was tempered by the advise from science group(s) set up to advise government – social scientists, statisticians, ethicists etc etc. Not ad hoc TV3 polling or talkback outrage.
I really do wonder though if the so-called scientists, statisticians & ethicists etc can always get it right on these matters, can they always make rational decisions, I mean think it through in their own minds rather than lose themselves in all the mind-boggling data they have in front of them.
The recent Christchurch incident where 2 unarmed policemen & a police dog were shot tells me the police need the tools to respond, but not sitting in their cars though.
It might be different if it was a situation that could not happen again, but it can & will…so bully to to the statisticians, but I suppose these people have to try & justify their salaries somehow.
I think the investigation into the incident will probably reveal several areas completely unrelated to weapons access that officers could improve upon in future, changes which may have ameliorated the negative outcomes of this particular incident.
The scene commander stated on TV3 and Prime that it would not have made a difference if the officers were armed.
Surprisingly, Broad and Collins, within hours, said that this was an example of why they need to make firearms “more accessible” to police and that this had been in the pipeline for some time.
loota,
Well that’s a new angle to your line of debate eh, sounds like a lost argument to me & I’m not really buying it, but nothing will detract from the logic of arming the police….nothing much more they could have done in the way the police approached that house apart from phoning the occupants to say they were on their way….with guns in the car just in case.
It seems like Judith Collins & Howard Broad have been listening to me, common sense has prevailed.