Wednesday, Feb 01, 2006 at 17:12
>>facts, facts , facts......you got them.
>Mike I would submit that neither have you.
That’s half true :) Mainly because it’s a subject it’s probably impossible to site objective “facts” which prove a point one way or another. Although I would certainly suggest that the acknowledgement by the government that Project
Beacon needed to be implemented is as close to a fact as we’re likely to get.
>The links you provided are nothing more than newspaper articles.
Errrr… the Police Association Assistant General Secretary stating on the 7.30 Report that all police shooting are justified – words from his own mouth and it’s indicative of an attitude. If he’s brazen enough to say that on national TV perhaps the officer on the beat is thinking the same thing?
And I note there is no response from you to the point I made in regard to the British police not routinely carrying firearms despite a higher rate of violent crime in the UK or the reluctance of the police to agree to random drug and alcohol testing.
>I disagree with your argument that Police don't routinely need
>to carry firearms. What constitutes "Routine" in the normal
>course of a Police Officers day?
This is a very valid point and the only argument which carries any weight at all for police to routinely carry firearms.
>Hmmm!! yep he's patrolling the local shopping Centre when two
>heavily armed robbers come out of the nearby bank see the Police
>uniform, panic and start shooting!!!!
But it’s also a “thin end of the wedge” argument – what happens if those robbers have fully automatic weapons – should we not therefore ensure out police are routinely equipped with machine guns – what if the robbers have bazookas etc etc
In addition if police were not routinely armed maybe criminals would be less likely to carry, and use, a firearm and I would prefer not to have a “shoot out” in a shopping centre anyway it’s most likely to be some poor bystander who cops a stray round.
>What about the Victorian officer who recently stopped a driver for
>a routine traffic matter and was killed with his own gun,
I don’t have a source for this but, anecdotally, I hear more USA police are killed with their own weapons than in any other way? Surely an argument against the carriage of guns?
>A case in argument against solo policing and this WA incident may
>have had a different outcome if there had been two officers involved.
We’ll never know, of course, but I wonder if the officer had not had the reassurance of a firearm would he have chosen not to stop the man in those circumstances but to have arranged a road block etc?
>I personally know several Police officers who have attended
>domestic disputes and been shot at, just everyday routine
>police attendances you know.
Yes… well… the whole issue of the appropriateness of police involvement in domestic matters is one which could fill an entire conference.
>You want Police to act in our interest and maintain law and order,
>well then you have to give them every opportunity to protect
>themselves by supplying both proper training and equipment or
>don't expect people to do the job.
That’s a very fair point and I agree totally – but they do have a range of options at their disposal and I must repeat: British police do OK and the police themselves, in the UK, don’t want to routinely carry firearms.
Thank you John for a rational and balanced post. I don’t agree with you but I respect your different point of view.
Mike Harding
FollowupID:
405982