Pistols Offer No Protection (more NZ madness)

This is a discussion on Pistols Offer No Protection (more NZ madness) within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Long read but very valuable insight into the way our head of police thinks here in the mad country of New Zealand. This is downright ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Pistols Offer No Protection (more NZ madness)

  1. #1
    Member Array heylin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    394

    Pistols Offer No Protection (more NZ madness)

    Long read but very valuable insight into the way our head of police thinks here in the mad country of New Zealand.

    This is downright scary that our top police brass have this type of logic.

    For those who dont have time to read here are the key points \ highlights

    1) Pistol offers no protection (its illusionary)
    2) Pistol has to aimed, time better spent ducking for cover
    3) Pistol is not adequate firepower against rifle or shotgun
    4) Officer has to protect pistol first and do job second
    5) Officers weapon can be used against him

    Heres the full statement (made 3 weeks ago)

    The death of Senior Constable Len Snee was deeply felt by police officers of all ranks, all over the country.

    Alongside the sorrow caused by a 'death in the family,' it was an acute reminder to all officers that they are vulnerable. Their work frequently takes them to people who are unstable, angry, drunk, drugged or irrational, and to weapons including knives, baseball bats, screwdrivers, chainsaws... recently even a weed-eater.

    Our data on risk has been improved under my watch and it shows police frequently deal with people with weapons.

    In Len's case, the weapon was a gun. This has, quite rightly, led to public discussion about whether all field officers should be routinely armed.

    The majority of commentators say 'no'. That is in line with the public feedback Police received when we consulted on the Policing Act 2008; it's also in line with the sentiments of police officers themselves.

    Being unarmed is a unique and cherished feature of the policing style adopted by New Zealand Police - a style for which we are held in high regard internationally.

    Routine arming of the police would not erase this style of policing, but it would make the job of being a community police officer considerably more difficult.

    I have no doubt that carrying handguns would compromise officers' ability to do their regular work, because when you carry a weapon, your primary concern is to protect that weapon. If this was balanced by a clearly demonstrable increase in personal protection, it would be a price to consider paying. But the protection offered by a firearm - particularly a pistol - is more illusory than real.

    The firearms offenders we encounter most in New Zealand are toting hunting rifles, shot guns or cut-down versions of these. A pistol is no match for that sort of fire power. It must be drawn from a holster and sighted before it's fired - precious milliseconds which can be better spent diving for cover.

    It's the surprise effect that is most dangerous. In virtual shoot/don't shoot training scenarios where my pistol was up against a rifle, I saw the danger of being surprised by an offender who had made up their mind to shoot.

    So our strategies rely on officers' good judgment. They are trained to identify risk and if they encounter an armed situation, to withdraw, cordon and contain until appropriately armed officers can be deployed. If the situation is equivocal, they have arms at ready resort with which to equip themselves.

    This tactic has worked very well for over 40 years.

    International evidence gives me no cause to think it is outdated. Literature on police experience and practice points to a high risk that officers can have their own weapons turned against them, having been overpowered in otherwise innocent situations.

    There is also concern about the number of officers shot because they didn't want to fire their weapons. People tend to join the New Zealand Police because they want to help people, not shoot them. Carrying a weapon is a heavy responsibility. I was obliged to carry a gun for several years as a nightshift detective. It was the one part of my field work where the full range of 'what if' circumstances played on my mind over and over again.

    We also have to ask how many officers' lives might have been saved if they were carrying a hand gun. I can think of one - I can also think of two instances where the officer was beaten to death with his own baton.

    There are several incremental steps available to Police before we could run out of options and be forced to routinely arm police.

    A full roll-out of Taser is on the cards; I'm encouraged that the Prime Minister sees value in pushing along this process.

    But while I caution, frequently, that Taser is a good option to use primarily against knives, bats, screwdrivers and so on, it could also have been used in several recent circumstances where police had to draw a gun instead. Tellingly, a Taser was used successfully in recent weeks to apprehend an alleged offender who moved to pull a pistol tucked into his belt. Without a Taser, such an incident may well have resulted in the death of either the offender, a police officer, or both.

    So, Taser is a first step in non-lethal options. As technology develops, it will be more effective at long range, and potentially better able to combat armed threats. Ideally, that technology will move faster than any perceived requirement to routinely arm police.

    I take no joy in resorting to a weapon such as Taser. But I take much less joy in the prevailing risk to police of violent offenders, and the risk that without Taser, we might have to use guns to stop an offender carrying knives, bats and other such weapons.

    There are other models around the world which may work well here. The UK has Armed Response Vehicles (ARVs), where small teams of specially trained officers are permanently on standby to respond to a serious threat. They are not armed officers most of the time, and are able to carry out routine frontline duties, but they have immediate access to firearms from a small, secure armoury in their vehicles and are better trained than our current general staff to handle armed threats.

    Some version of this could be useful in areas with a population base and number of incidents to justify it, such as Auckland. It is one option to consider for the future.

    New Zealand Police is constantly looking at options to protect our staff. Routine arming will no doubt continue to be discussed and debated but my judgement is that there is no immediate need or prospect to have every frontline officer carrying arms. We police by consent; there will be no hasty decisions in this area.
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Evil prevails when good men stand by and do nothing
    --------------------------------------------------------------

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Senior Member Array TucAzRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    792
    Ok.. I'm sure they will get ALOT of people wanting to be LEO,.. You go out and put your life on the line, but we'll give you nothing to protect yourself,. ???? Hmmmmm.... No-thanks!!!!

  4. #3
    Senior Member Array boscobeans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    upstate new york
    Posts
    1,176
    Sounds like the San Angeles PD in the movie Demolition Man.

  5. #4
    Ex Member Array United93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    911
    That's too bad. New Zealand, from what I have read, is such a beautiful country. I hope to visit it one day, but it is a shame that the gun / SD laws are so nonsensical.

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array JoJoGunn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    2,874
    New Zealand airline issues nude safety video
    Just when you think the weirdness couldn't get any worse, I found this on the net. Maybe Law Enforcement can get the same advertising company to do a Police Dept. promotional video. I'm sure the criminals would be watching it and not out doing crime.

    Last edited by JoJoGunn; July 6th, 2009 at 09:14 PM. Reason: add link
    "A Smith & Wesson always beats 4 aces!"

    The Man Prayer. "Im a man, I can change, if I have to.....I guess!" ~ Red Green

  7. #6
    Member Array Jetpilot007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    449
    Too bad. The real intent to disarm a people to exert governmental control over the people. Of course the government officials will sell it as a need to control crime, taking guns away from the bad guy etc. However we all know that that argument is a crock of crap. In fact if we examine the state of Florida in which full carry concealed weapons have been issued for many years, we can see that crime actually fell. There was no "lets settle arguments with our pistols" as argued by the drive by media. One should read the following from article by the Cato Institute titled: Trust the People: The Case Against Gun Control.

    Trust the People: The Case Against Gun Control

  8. #7
    Ex Member Array PNUT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    913
    Insane in the membrane !!

    Jetpilot,
    very interesting article, thanks for the link.

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,172
    He's right a pistol isn't much defense against a rifle or shotty unless you are engaging at pistol ranges,That's why you carry a rifle or shotgun or both,and use your pistol to fight your way back to your long gun.As far as needing to draw and "sight" a pistol before firing he apparently doesn't have much trigger time on anything.At close range a competent shooter should be able to draw and put rounds COM fast and accurately
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  10. #9
    Member Array heylin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    394
    As far as needing to draw and "sight" a pistol before firing he apparently doesn't have much trigger time on anything.
    Actually :) a bit of truth in that statement, our regular beat police officers (becuase they are unarmed) only have 1 day training per year on the Glock17 and only fire 50 rounds.

    So COM accuracy and speed dont even play into it. Ive often thought its crazy that mr police person with 1 days training can be trusted to pick up a Glock 17 for an armed response to come to my aid if a trained police team is ages away.
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Evil prevails when good men stand by and do nothing
    --------------------------------------------------------------

  11. #10
    Ex Member Array BikerRN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    State of Discombobulation
    Posts
    5,253
    I don't even know where to start, or if I even want to.

    Being married to an aussie I can understand the mindset a little better, but just because I understand it doesn't mean that I agree with it.

    In my opinion a Taser is not the appropriate response to a knife wielding threat. No sane or rational person wants to kill another but sometimes you may be forced to kill someone in order to help someone, or yourself.

    It sounds to me like there is a lack of training and understanding of the firearm's role in the protection of society. I could go on and on about this, but I will refrain. Also, anybody carrying a gun should carry two, IMHO. Weapon Retention, Defensive Tactics and Disarming are also things that should be taught before you send your neophyte Peelers in to the void.

    Not to be rude, but I fail to see why anyone is proud of being unarmed. To me the pride should come from having the tools and training necessary to do the job and being able to get the job done. It's not that I am blood thirsty, it's just some expiriences I have had have taught me lessons that I'm lucky to have survived.

    BTW: My aussie wife likes my Glock 19 and Coach Gun. She sleeps safely when I'm working.

    Biker

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,172
    Quote Originally Posted by BikerRN View Post
    I don't even know where to start, or if I even want to.

    Being married to an aussie I can understand the mindset a little better, but just because I understand it doesn't mean that I agree with it.

    In my opinion a Taser is not the appropriate response to a knife wielding threat. No sane or rational person wants to kill another but sometimes you may be forced to kill someone in order to help someone, or yourself.

    It sounds to me like there is a lack of training and understanding of the firearm's role in the protection of society. I could go on and on about this, but I will refrain. Also, anybody carrying a gun should carry two, IMHO. Weapon Retention, Defensive Tactics and Disarming are also things that should be taught before you send your neophyte Peelers in to the void.

    Not to be rude, but I fail to see why anyone is proud of being unarmed. To me the pride should come from having the tools and training necessary to do the job and being able to get the job done. It's not that I am blood thirsty, it's just some expiriences I have had have taught me lessons that I'm lucky to have survived.

    BTW: My aussie wife likes my Glock 19 and Coach Gun. She sleeps safely when I'm working.

    Biker
    Exactly,I can see it now ,Knife wielding psychopath kills hundreds while Police wait for Swat team
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  13. #12
    Distinguished Member Array GWRedDragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    1,413
    Being unarmed is a unique and cherished feature of the policing style adopted by New Zealand Police - a style for which we are held in high regard internationally.

    ...

    We also have to ask how many officers' lives might have been saved if they were carrying a hand gun. I can think of one - I can also think of two instances where the officer was beaten to death with his own baton.
    He must be so proud that his fellow officers died for such a great cause -- the cause of being held in high regard by a bunch of people from other countries who irrationally hate an object.

    Just how many officers in the US are beaten to death with their own batons?
    "Trust in God with hand on sword" -Inscription on my family's coat of arms from medieval England
    ---Carry options: G26/MTAC, PF9/MiniTuck, PPK/Pocket, USP40/OWB---
    ---NOTE: I am not an expert. If I ever start acting like a know-it-all, please call me on it immediately. ---

  14. #13
    Member Array heylin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    394
    Yeah I had to laugh at that statement he made. Its easier to be beaten to death with your own baton than it is to be shot with your own gun.

    Bad thing about batons is you need to get within 1/2 a meter to use it. Hence why 2 cops were beaten to death. To compare apples to apples we need the following formula

    x = a + b - c

    a = how many cops were shot with own firearm ?
    b = how many bystanders have been shot by cops ?
    c = lives saved because cop was armed
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Evil prevails when good men stand by and do nothing
    --------------------------------------------------------------

  15. #14
    Member Array BaserRonin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    304
    His reasoning that Tasers are a much better option does not fit with his earlier argument against pistols. It was stated that that drawing a pistol and aiming it takes too long (milliseconds according to the article), time that would be better spent diving for cover.

    If the author feels going unarmed is morally superior to going armed, it would have been nice if had just stated that up front and save me precious seconds reading the rest of the gibberish that lead up to that key point.

  16. #15
    Member Array Urk 22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky
    Posts
    413
    Wow, this shows how little some people know about firearms, and the propaganda they spew........

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. More Madness In The PRM
    By Captain Crunch in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: July 6th, 2007, 11:30 AM
  2. March Madness?
    By lilducky08 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: March 18th, 2007, 11:54 AM
  3. AR Madness =)
    By Nate in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: February 5th, 2007, 11:23 PM
  4. Moon Madness
    By Euclidean in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2005, 10:10 PM