These last few days further pressure has been applied to Christine Nixon, our Chief of Police, by the Police union to arm members of our force with semi-automatic weapons. Ms. Nixon speaks a lot of sense when advising caution in the delivery of such weapons to the police.
More police get killed or injured with their own weapons (often taken from them by unfriendlys) than other firearms.
For myself I have two views on the subject. One is based on my first impression of seeing a traffic policeman in Melbourne carrying a holstered gun. It was shock and a big question as to why? It appears to me to be completely unneccesary for police to carry fire-arms at all, as a matter of course. I can't carry one. Why should they.
It is about time that the police union realised they are not above the law, or the people they protect. They servce them, hopefully using intelligence, good faith, wisdom and bravery. All things that some police demonstrate every day, however qualities seldom seen in the union representing such officers.
The recent shooting in Melbourne in which a policeman was injured was said to have resulted in the policeman emptying his 6 rounds before diving for cover. A difference would have occured should he have had a semi-automatic weapon, we are told. Indeed I agree, it goes without question that more rounds would have been fired in the same amount of time, prior to the policeman diving for cover. A semi-automatic weapon does not improve firing accuracy, or public safety.
More to follow on this subject I'm sure....
No comments:
Post a Comment