In an interview with Channel 7, outgoing NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione has called for NSW Police to be equipped with semi-automatic rifles before he retires in April.
From the interview:
“It won’t be too long before you are going to find long-arms on the streets, and it’ll be a decision that we will reluctantly make, but at the end of the day, I’ve got an obligation to keep communities safe,” he told 7 News.
Yes, the same NSW Police that shot three pensioners out for morning tea in Hornsby and ignored ADF advice and shot hostages in the Lindt Café.
Well, where do we begin with this?
This is the same NSW Police that just a week ago tacitly admitted it had lost the war on drugs. What goes hand in hand with drugs? Guns. So, Scipione is essentially justifying his position that NSW Police couldn’t stop the drug war and illegal importation of drugs and firearms that come with them as his position to militarize the Police? Got it.
That’s about as ridiculous as the mandatory sentencing laws introduced today in Parliament by serial idiot George Brandis. But hey you criminals, it’s illegaler!
As FOU have learned, Scipione also wanted NSW Police to extend firearm requalification shoots from 1 year out to 18 months to “save money.” Yes, what better way to make your case for increased armament of general duties Police by reducing their training and qualification standards? Sure, the security situation globally has definitely changed and a valid argument could be made for Police resources in this regard – but ultimately at what standard and cost to the public?
Some people have raised the point that “NZ police carry semi-auto rifles in their patrol cars.” True, however New Zealand Police do not carry handguns and have a largely rural beat, particularly in the South Island where backup may not be so readily available. See: Aramoana. The other major difference being that New Zealand also allows it’s citizens to own semi-automatic and automatic rifles, suppressors, Airsoft, etc and a whole slew of firearms and accessories that the authoritarian bansturbators in Australia do not.
Furthermore, Scipione making this directive is essentially a tacit admission that Australian’s “tough gun laws” have failed spectacularly. If they cannot keep firearms out of the hands of criminals then what hope have Joe Public got and why the continued harassment of those doing the right thing? Farad Jabbar? Man Monis anyone?
Realistically speaking, how many incidents in NSW are there every year that require the use of semi-automatic rifles as a first response? Absolutely no data has been provided by NSW Police to back up this claim. If the security situation has deteriorated so much that NSW Police are now being armed with semi-automatic rifles, while at the same time disarming the public over a lever action shotgun, what kind of message are they sending to the public?
It’s the exact same message that the European Union is sending to the citizens by it’s recent gun grab while the security situation deteriorates – and it’s got nothing to do with public safety as Scipione claims and everything to do with public disarmament.
Ironically, even Germans are now giving the EU the two finger salute on that front.
Furthermore, NSW Police don’t exactly have the best track record with the “misplacement” of firearms, neither do their counterparts in Victoria, or indeed, Queensland. With a Policeman in Queensland recently reprimanded for this show of force against a speeding driver, how can we be convinced that these firearms will be used responsibly? Or not “go missing”? It’s not as if criminals would start breaking into Police cars now, would they?
NSW is perhaps leading the charge to become Australia’s first full blown authoritarian Police state thanks to the lockouts, Greyhound ban, Coogee Beach alcohol ban, etc. Now it appears the Police are upholding their end of the nanny state bargain. Further, militarizing the Police in the USA has had serious repercussions. However, the citizenry of the USA is just as well armed if not better armed than the Police (and many Police are private firearm owners), providing an invaluable public extension in the fight against criminals. But nah, “Muh Port Arthur” and all that.
If front line NSW Police get access to semi-automatic rifles then licenced firearm owners (outside of Category D) should also have access to them. Otherwise, militarization of rank and file Police with long arms they are not trained well enough to operate has no place in Australia, is purely authoritarian in nature and is just another Lindt Café or Hornsby waiting to happen. What excuse will Police give when innocents are shot again?
Ultimately, how can NSW Police justify having access to semi-automatic rifles when they are held to a much lower training and qualification standard than licenced firearm owners? That question is yet to be answered and when it is, it will most likely be the tried and tested Australian bureaucratic catch all justification of “muh public safety…”
Oops, too late.