Should our police carry guns?

18 May 2011 01:12p.m.

Laura wrote:

Un armed vs armed < think about it

13 Dec 2010 06:45p.m.

Shane wrote:

Victor you are so wrong in many ways

1) Do you actually know whats involved in getting a rifle or pistol licence in NZ ? its not as easy as you would think, tighter gun control will not have any effect on criminals who dont bother with licencing.

2) The notion of carrying firearms for self defence is not an 18th century concept, it does have a place in the modern world, why shouldnt a person be able to defend their life with whatever tool they feel most effective ?.

13 Dec 2010 12:40p.m.

Glen wrote:

I think Police should carry Tasers. A taser will incapacitate the offender and will not seriously injure and/or kill the offender like a gun has the potential to do.

13 Dec 2010 12:21p.m.

joe wrote:

andrew nice thought but obviously you have no experieince to call on any idea how long the special force takes to get to an incident and any idea how long a critical incident takes from first shot to someone dying

13 Dec 2010 10:59a.m.

Victor wrote:

The argument that, if police carry/use firearms, so will criminals, is based primarily from projecting the US experience onto New Zealand. But there are many highly law-abiding countries in western Europe where the police have always been armed. What distinguishes the US from most other developed countries is the ease with which people can buy weapons. So, to avoid their mistakes, we need to both arm the police and tighten up our gun control laws (including for shot guns and air guns). The notion that we all have a right to carry firearms is, again, drawn from the US, where citizen militias armed with muskets were once seen as the backbone of defence against the similarly armed armies of foreign tyrants. Hey, guess what? The eighteenth century ended some time ago!

04 Aug 2010 03:01p.m.

uhgdabd wrote:

i reckon they should armed the police officer

20 Jul 2010 10:12a.m.

Carlos wrote:

Give them 'machine-guns' !!1

17 Jul 2010 12:02a.m.

Trooper wrote:

My life is worth as much as anyone elses - police officer or not. I have as much right to defend my life as anyone else has. Yes, arm the Police but also allow me to arm myself. I have as much right to the means of credible self defence as any government agent.

16 Jul 2010 06:56a.m.

Alex wrote:

No, what needs to be looked at is the protocols. For instance, if police are carrying a drug raid they should be equipped with backup and have the armed offenders squad on call. In most situations for duty police there is no justification to carry firearms and not every member of the force should be eligible to use them. Having armed police means criminals are more likely to counterattack using their own guns, resulting in killing innocent people in the foray. It happens often in other countries where their law enforcers are fully armed, and I don't want it to happen here.

15 Jul 2010 10:17p.m.

Dan wrote:

In any democratic society, the state has to justify every new freedom or power it vests in itself or its agents. Thankfully we are not like the US where Police power is virtually impossible to curb. This single incident will bring the typical knee jerk reactions from members of society who fear or wish to deter those very few who dare to shoot at police. This itself is not a justification to have all police with holstered firearms. I think that perhaps they should have holstered firearms in situations where a higher than normal level of risk is present. I don't know if this would have alleviated this specific incident but it is a reasonable step.