POLICE NEED GUNS AS CRIMINALS TAKE UP ARMS

Over little more than a week, two more incidents have brought the
police arming debate into sharp focus.

Two unarmed officers were shot and wounded in Christchurch last
Tuesday and a police dog was killed. On Sunday in New Lynn, armed
police shot and wounded an offender after he presented a firearm at
them. On both occasions, Tasers failed.

These incidents give the lie to the line that "if police arm then the
criminals will arm". The sorts of criminals who might use guns are
already armed and they are not armed to protect themselves against
police.

Armed incidents such as aggravated robberies and family violence calls
are, essentially, the classic armed offender scenarios. Police are
well-equipped and drilled to deal with those through the armed
offenders squad model.

We generally know from the moment we receive a 111 call what we are
dealing with; an armed response can be sent immediately and the
incident can be dealt with in a controlled way.

What's changed in my 35 years as a police officer - and especially the
past few years - is the number of criminals who are arming against
other criminals.

Over the same time we have seen enormous growth in criminal wealth
driven by methamphetamine. It's no coincidence. Even low-level dealers
are now frequently picking up with tens of thousands of dollars in
cash as well as valuable methamphetamine or precursors.

Drug dealers are vulnerable to rip-offs. Associates, suppliers and
customers are also potential double-crossers. The incentives are high
and there is no such thing as "honour among thieves".

Add in the extreme paranoia, delusion, irrationality and tendency to
violence associated with P use and you have a powder keg. Dealers are
arming as a result.

This seachange has spilled over right across the underworld. Cannabis
dealers are also being targeted for rip-offs and stand-overs.

Nine police have been shot in less than two years. With only one
exception, the incidents - including the murders of Len Snee and Don
Wilkinson - were all allegedly drug-related.

In all those cases, unarmed police were suddenly and unexpectedly
confronted with armed and dangerous offenders while carrying out
relatively routine, everyday police duties. Two were killed; six
survived solely by good fortune.

If these four incidents were aberrations, the status quo in police
armed capability might be acceptable. But they are not.

The increase in shootings matches the fact that more and more
dangerous offenders are now carrying weapons. Searches during routine
traffic stops or house warrants are now routinely turning up not only
P or cannabis, but also a firearm.

A recent incident in Auckland even saw police stumble across a
pistol-toting P dealer in a downtown pub.

Most of these incidents don't get much media attention because most
offenders still have enough common sense to realise shooting at police
is only going to make matters worse. But as the number of offenders
with guns increases more of them are using those guns.

When police have been unlucky enough to get in the way recently,
commentators have reacted by saying "it wouldn't have made any
difference if the officers were armed".

It is simply not possible to draw that conclusion. Being armed is not
a magical shield against bullets but it has an enormous impact on the
situation.

I will never be convinced that the incident in Napier would have
unfolded in the same way had Jan Molenaar known he was facing not one
but several overtly armed police officers who could, and likely would,
return fire.

Ultimately nobody knows if it would have changed the outcome because
none of the police involved was armed. None of them had the chance to
find out.

Len Holmwood, the neighbour who saved the lives of two police officers
in Napier by grabbing Molenaar's gun, has been closer to the reality
of the debate than most.

He told the Dominion Post (July 15) "the outcome would have been
different if the officers had been armed ... at least they would have
been able to defend themselves".

Meanwhile, the Herald editorial of July 16 claims - without any
evidence - that arming police "would also result in criminals being
more willing to use their weapons".

Offenders do behave differently when they know police are armed - but
not in the way the Herald seems to believe.

We only need to look as far as Australia, where every police officer
carries a gun, yet they hardly ever have to use them.

As Mr Holmwood says, these are cowardly attacks. Offenders have shot
at police knowing they are unarmed.

Few offenders would stand in a room full of armed police and produce a
firearm - and if they did, the threat could be quickly neutralised,
minimising the casualties.

The incident in New Lynn over the weekend is clear proof of
that.

For decades we've all been proud to live in a country where police
didn't have to carry guns. But the reality is things have changed.

None of us can be proud to live in a country where police get shot on
a regular basis with no means to defend themselves.

The status quo is no longer an option. The minimum we now need is to
entrust every field sergeant to be permanently armed and have firearms
readily accessible in every patrol vehicle for all other frontline
police.

Greg O'Connor is the president of the NZ Police Association.