Routinely arming police
THE issue of whether New Zealand police should routinely carry firearms arises regularly. It is a matter which has been backed by the Police Association, the police officers’ union, and this view receives substantial public support.
Calls to normalise the arming of police come in the wake of shootings, and they are understandable. Police are our proxy in the fight against crime. We want them to be able to do their job effectively and safely.
The latest incident to spur debate follows a shootout between police and a man in a quiet Christchurch street last week. A second person was in the shooter’s car. The police district commander decided, until the person was found, that officers should carry their Glock pistols in their holsters instead of them being locked in their vehicles. District commanders have that authority.
Over the years, the fire power available to police has steadily increased. Pepper spray was introduced, as were Tasers. Pistols in car lock boxes and rifles secured in the boot are available if required. These are improvements. Having to go back to the station for a firearm was impractical and dangerous.
Nonetheless, the drawbacks to arming police fully continue heavily to outweigh the advantages. New Zealand, like most of Britain, should remain one of the few jurisdictions where police are in the normal course of events unarmed.
This country in its offenders’ squads has a welltrained backup. Police at international airports carry guns, one presumes because of the security protocols and terror threats, as do diplomatic protection police.
As Police Commissioner Mike Bush said this week, once officers were armed there was no going back. It would fundamentally change the way police operated. Police had among the highest public trust of anyone and ‘‘we jealously guard that’’.
Police Minister Stuart Nash, if any reassurance can be taken from this, described the Christ church shooting as a rare event. It did not mean arming police was any closer.
Police with a weapon on hand are more likely to use it. Their highly developed means of skilfully defusing and deescalating potential confrontations will be undercut by the potential pistol shortcut. No doubt, as has been experienced with occasional inappropriate use of Tasers, more shots will be fired and more civilians killed.
Police themselves, while they might feel safer, would not be. If criminals know police are always armed, the incentive to arm themselves increases. Police and criminals will also be tempted to shoot first if they believe they are going to come under fire. And there is always the threat of officers’ firearms being turned on themselves. Fear and distrust in police could grow, and arming police could be seen as provocative.
The argument is that police need more selfprotection because of drugs, gangs and increasing violence. Illegal firearms are, indeed, often found when drug busts take place.
Inevitably, though, if there are more guns around, the more they will be fired.
New Zealand has worked to make police guns more easily available and to extend policy to allow officers more discretion on when to use them. Allowing this access when police believe they might need firearms is a sensible balance.
What can be stepped up are firm measures through the courts on illegal guns and on gun threats to police. Already, someone must have a proper reason for carrying any firearm, and selfdefence does not count. The law that says drivers of vehicles are deemed to be the person in possession of firearms in those vehicles, unless they can prove otherwise, is another positive deterrent. The various laws on firearms and their storage should be supported as they help create a culture where legal gun use is curtailed to restricted legitimate uses, notable for hunting and in gun clubs.