THE PRESS SATURDAY. JANUARY 8. 1983. Resort to firearms

Press, 8 January 1983, Page 12

THE PRESS SATURDAY. JANUARY 8. 1983. Resort to firearms

Firearms are being used more frequently by criminals in New Zealand. Almost every day a gun is produced in a robbery, or a domestic dispute, or in some such incident. New Zealand already has a ban on the private possession of smaller firearms. Control of larger weapons by licences is reasonably efficient, especially for a country in which a lurking cult of the colonial frontier seems still to require possession of a rifle or shotgun as an expression of manhood.

To devise a system of gun control that would deny weapons to criminals and potential criminals, while allowing possession for legitimate use by responsible people, hardly seems possible. Only a tiny fraction of the guns in private hands in New Zealand — more than a million weapons — is ever used illegally. Guns used in crimes have often been stolen guns. Those used in family quarrels are often resorted to by people who, in most other circumstances, are lawabiding citizens. An elaborate system of secure storage for all firearms, like any effective system of psychological screening of the owners of firearms, would go far beyond what public opinion at present would accept.

If New Zealanders are stuck with their guns, and with the expectation that guns will be flourished more frequently by criminals, it is no surprise that the question of arming the police is being raised again. The police do not go unarmed now on all occasions, but New Zealand remains one of the few countries in the world where police going about most of their duties do not carry firearms. In most circumstances in which they are likely to need them, the police have access to firearms. In the last resort they have the efficient Armed Offenders Squad. Few situations have arisen where serious harm has been done because a policeman or policewoman was not carrying a gun. The Opposition spokesman on police matters, Mr M. A. Connelly, is a firm opponent of any proposal that the police, should be further armed. This attitude has the support of many senior police officers. The Minister of, Police, Mr Couch, has also been opposed to the idea that the force should carry guns at all times. This week, after a series of violent crimes, he sounded less sure. “The day could, perhaps, be coming ...," he said. The day should not come until the police themselves are strongly in favour of a proposal to carry arms, and can convince the Government and the community that more would be gained than lost from having armed constables on the beat.

Arguments that arming the police encourages more criminals to use firearms are not convincing. Criminals are well ahead of the police now in their use of weapons. More to the point, when all police are visibly armed ordinary citizens are likely to believe that guns are more necessary for them. too. Carrying firearms

would gain a dangerous and mistaken respectability that could lead to more troubles. Allowing the police to acquire and use guns when a particular circumstance arises is one thing; it is another to assume that, if the police carried guns at all times, crimes committed with firearms would be prevented. A review of past crimes would almost certainly show that the arming of the police would have prevented none, or very few. This must be considered as a test ol whether the general arming of the police can be justified. In the meantime, the obvious conclusion is that the desperate irrational, or ruthless use of guns — or any other dangerous weapons — would not be averted if the police carried guns. At present, anyone who uses a gun to threaten, or injure, or kill knows that the police are almost certain to arm themselves in response, for their own protection and the protection of others. Given the present rules, the speed with which police can arm themselves in most circumstances should be sufficiently well known to anyone who cares about the response of the police to any call after a firearms incident. Since the response of the police to a crime with firearms is already to arm themselves, the effect of generally arming the police raises questions that are not related to crimes with firearms at all.

A case for arming the police at all times and in all places must presuppose that the purpose of police guns is more than self-defence or the disabling of the armed offender. Such a case can be made: that the capture of unarmed offenders (or suspects?) would be facilitated; that more criminals would be caught. This is not an argument that has been seriously raised in New Zealand; it is not an argument to which the police have ever subscribed.

As some New Zealanders have shown an increasing readiness to resort to violence for criminal purposes, the patience of the remainder of the community has become more stretched. The comfortable safety that generally prevailed until, perhaps, 15 years ago has dwindled. In many places, and especially in the cities, people and property are much less secure. The job of the police has become more demanding and more dangerous. Many people are beginning to feel that tolerance of criminal behaviour has gone too far. If violence continues to increase, pressure for further arming of the police, and for much tougher treatment of convicted offenders, can be expected to increase as well.

An argument in favour of arming the police as a way of reinforcing their efforts will crop up sooner or later. It should be resisted. Arming the police would undoubtedly persuade many other people — not just those with criminal intentions — that guns should be part of our day-.to-day life. The saddening evidence of where this attitude has led in some other countries should persuade New Zealand from ever fostering the notion.