Editorial: Gun licensing should be key police weapon

Opinion

The shooting of a probationary constable in Papatoetoe has prompted an immediate call for renewed debate on arming the police. Leading the charge has been Police Association president Greg O'Connor, who has every reason to be concerned by the attack, the seventh of its type in 18 months. But, in reality, the focus should be on the cache of firearms at the shooting scene - a shotgun, a large-calibre pistol and a rifle. Being armed would not have helped Constable Jeremy Snow, who was surprised by semi-automatic gunfire ringing out of the darkness. Being thoroughly forearmed about what was at that house might just have.

The salient fact here is that the police have no real idea about the location of such arsenals. Once, every firearm had to be registered. The number of guns was, therefore, relatively tightly controlled. In 1982, this system was abandoned, and, instead, owners were licensed. Licensed owners, let alone those unlicensed, could accumulate any number of rifles or guns. Too often, the police do not know how many guns are at an address, even as they exercise a search warrant or even as they investigate something that appears to be a routine patrol matter.

Twelve years ago, an inquiry by Sir Thomas Thorp recommended the registration of all firearms, as is the case in almost every other Western country, and the reduction of the 10-year licence to three years. Nothing was done, in large part because parliamentarians allowed themselves to be bullied by the gun lobby. Nothing was done this year, either, in the aftermath of Jan Molenaar's shooting of a Napier senior constable. Molenaar did not have a current licence but possessed an arsenal of 18 guns, including military-style semi-automatic weapons.

The Government should be taking steps to stop such an accumulation of arms. It must resource the police so they can locate expired licence-holders and their weapons. More importantly, it should establish a gun register as a means of restricting lethal arsenals and preventing so many firearms falling into criminal hands. Yet despite the Papatoetoe incident underlining this need, the Police Minister preferred to talk about whether there should be harsher sentences for those convicted of attacks on police officers. That may appeal to those who seek simplistic answers, but it does not address more fundamental issues.

At least Judith Collins said she was not keen on the general arming of police. Apart from its irrelevance in this instance, there are good reasons to think she is right. If guns were within easy reach - as suggested by Mr O'Connor, who wants them in unlocked cabinets in police cars - there would be a danger that they would be used as a policing method of first, rather than last, resort. The police, in effect, would become the judge and jury. There would also be an unavoidable increase in deaths once a criminal's weapon of threat became a means of defence. Inevitably, innocent bystanders would be endangered in some incidents.

Ms Collins is probably also right when she talks of an increasing disrespect for the law from a small sector of the community. For that very reason, the range of weapons in the police arsenal has been increased over the past decade or so to include the likes of capsicum spray and Tasers. In addition, night police patrols in districts deemed dangerous regularly carry guns - undeclared - so they can respond to an armed crime with immediate firepower. That is reasonable in situations where officers may be risking their lives, but not in routine policing.

Rather than a general arming of the police, we should be seeking to disarm those who possess firearms for no legitimate reason. Gun licensing must be the focus.