The police response to a gunman in Upper Hutt proves officers have ready access to firearms, Duncan Garner says.

I just can't get my head around this argument that all frontline police need to be armed.

Surely the events that unfolded in Upper Hutt this week confirmed that police already have prompt access to guns in an emergency.

I'm not suggesting for a minute that it's a good result that gunman Pera Smiler was fatally shot by police. It's a tragedy for his family and let's not forget the emotional impact on the officers who pulled the trigger.

It'll be up to a coroner, and the Independent Police Conduct Authority, to investigate. But it's hard not to think it was suicide-by-cop.

READ MORE:

* Woman tried to talk down gunman

* Witnesses proved clues over what tipped Upper Hutt gunman

* Upper Hutt shooting: police defend response time

Predictably, Police Association president Greg O'Connor chimed in early, repeating yet again his bullish demands about cops and guns.

I'm not criticising O'Connor, he's doing his job and going into bat for the men and women in blue. But he's also a shameless opportunist. And I think he's wrong.

I don't think the public wants our cops to have guns on their hips. Politicians know this – hence their reluctance to enter the debate.

The reality is our police force is already well-armed. They have guns in their cars in a lockbox in the boot.

Within three minutes of Pera Smiler brandishing his gun in McDonald's on Tuesday police with access to guns were on the scene. Smiler showed no interest in harming the public, it seems he wanted to engage police.

Yes, O'Connor is correct that this was the fifth time in a month that frontline officers have had to deal with armed and dangerous offenders. But that doesn't mean it's time to change the firearms policy. These cases confirm the current policy is sound.

On August 20 police shot Ford Hurinui, who was wanted for breaching parole, in Motueka. He refused to obey repeated requests from armed police to surrender.

On August 2 David Cerven was shot dead in Myers Park in Auckland. He refused to co-operate with armed police.

Vaughan Te Moananui was killed in May after he pulled a gun out and refused to surrender to armed police.

Officers were armed at all these incidents. They did not need firearms on their hips to do their job safely.

Yet O'Connor, after the Upper Hutt incident this week, was quite clever (if not shameless) again. He never actually called for police to have guns on their hips. He's said that before.

But he got close, saying: "The Police Association on behalf of its members asks how many such incidents it will take before the changing nature of the policing environment is acknowledged by authorities." That's code for guns on hips folks.

And he also used the incident to demand more police resources. Yet police had plenty of resources in Upper Hutt. Have you seen the video footage shot by witnesses, there were cops everywhere.

Do we really want to end up like the trigger-happy American police the rest of the world reviles? US officers killed 59 people in just the first 24 days of this year.

In England and Wales 55 people were shot dead by cops in 24 years.

We must not head down this mad path. And we must also never forget the reason why police now have Tasers.

Steven Wallace was fatally shot by a police officer in Waitara's main street in 2000. It was the early hours of the morning and he had been smashing shop windows.

Wallace had a golf club, the cop had a Glock. The entire street was deserted yet somehow the officer felt threatened enough to open fire.

That officer was later acquitted of murder after a private prosecution, but criticised in a coroner's inquiry.

Steven Wallace should still be alive today. He would be 38-years-old.

Let that be our lesson. Police already have ready access to guns. They have dogs and they have Tasers. In fact all frontline officers will soon be armed with Tasers while on duty.

That's good enough for me.

It will clearly never be good enough for Greg O'Connor.