THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 22, 1979. Firearms for the police

Press, 22 August 1979, Page 16

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 22, 1979. Firearms for the police

Crimes committed in recent weeks have stirred a revival of the idea that police should carry arms. On this occasion, and for the first time, a spokesman has said that the Police Association itself may consider the idea favourably. The feeling against arming the police is so entrenched in New Zealand that a sudden reversal of policy may not seem very likely. However, when police have been injured seriously in a series of attacks every incident is likely to redouble the demand for change. Sooner or later a continuation of injuries to the police will cause the public to have a change of heart simply because they cannot expect the police to expose themselves, without defence, to the increased risk of injury, and because the public will not be able to endorse the notion that the police should stay away from potential trouble. If violent offences cannot be averted by other means, the police must be equipped to do their work and this equipment may mean guns. The fact that criminals have seldom used guns against the police does not alter the argument. The weapons and savagery that have been employed against the police and ordinary citizens are beginning to persuade more people that arming of the police is inevitable.

A stream of similar events before has raised demands for a departure from the exceptional policy of not arming the police. So far, adherence to the policy has paid off, and it is by no means certain that any of the recent events would have taken a better course if the police had been armed. The fear must always be held that the results would have been worse.

Although New Zealanders are the owners of a huge supply of firearms, it is rare for them to carry arms; the idea that they should do so should not be encouraged by a change in police

policy. Arming the police is not sufficient; this would mean nothing without an understanding that the police were prepared to use their guns. No violent criminal is going to be impressed unless it is quite plain that the police mean business. If the argument in favour of armed police prevails, the reasons offered for police having guns may be applied just as readily to the needs of traffic officers. This branch of the law is also running serious risks when apprehending some offenders.

Most attention has been focused on the problems of the police in dealing with gangs. Although troublesome gangs, or some members of the gangs, have been consuming a great part of police time and manpower, it is at least possible to see gangs and their savagery as a particular problem and one that is capable of isolation from other crime.

The incidents of recent weeks do not necessarily argue for the universal arming of the police. If the spate of incidents cannot be arrested by other means, the conclusion may well be that in certain places, at particular times, or as a precaution against a foreseeable explosion of violence, the police should be armed. This would be little more than an extension of the practice already followed by the police, and the degree to which it would be followed would depend on the needs of the time. The rules of the police, at present very strict, would have to be rewritten to give officers more discretion in the carrying and use of guns. It is surely possible to hope that gang warfare and assaults are not a permanent part of the New Zealand scene. If this hope can be justified, avoidance of the universal and permanent arming of the police can also be justified. The existence of a particular problem at a particular time should not lightly be allowed to alter for ever a basically successful policy.