The call to normalise the arming of police in New Zealand, in the immediate aftermath of the shooting last week in Christchurch of two officers, is understandable.
It brings the total number of police shootings in the past two years to nine.
That is nine too many.
Two were fatal, which is a terrible tragedy.
Police Association president Greg O'Connor has called for immediate and far-reaching reforms: "Nothing short of every frontline supervisor being armed, all the time, and every patrol car having firearms available will be an adequate response ..," he said.
Police Commissioner Howard Broad is unconvinced and instead is working on proposals to facilitate greater ease of access to weapons in patrol car lock-boxes.
Police Minister Judith Collins has said such changes should be in place by Christmas and rejects criticism this would represent a move towards full arming of the police.
Similar discussions follow almost every incident in which police and firearms are involved, as evidenced by the discussions following Sunday's happening in Auckland in which a man allegedly armed with an air rifle was shot by police.
The arguments are familiar: arming police would be an effective deterrent against criminals, provide protection and allow police to carry out their duties more safely; it would give the public greater confidence and imbue the police with a more meaningful authority.
Those against argue arming the police simply leads to an escalation of gun violence resulting, ultimately, in more trauma and deaths; that the resort to weaponry devalues other forms of law enforcement, including negotiation, use of lesser weapons such as pepper spray and tasers; and that it is a quick-fix populist solution to the complex sociological business of crime prevention.
Inevitably when such arguments are made, rhetoric makes its presence felt.
Are Mr O'Connor's views shared by rank-and-file police officers throughout the country? Would being armed have prevented the deaths or injuries to police that have occurred? In the case of Senior Constable Bruce Lamb, shot through the jaw last week in Christchurch when he and a partner went to investigate a suspected drug house, has intimated having firearms in this instance would not have made a difference.
There was nothing to indicate risk that required being armed as the officers approached the house.
The same might be said of Constable Jeremy Snow, shot and wounded on December 22, 2009, when he and his partner saw a car with its hazard lights flashing in the driveway of a Papatoetoe house while on routine patrol.
At the inquest of Senior Constable Len Snee, fatally shot, with two colleagues wounded - by Napier gunman Jan Molenaar - while executing a cannabis search warrant, evidence was heard that the team had failed to advise the national Police Communications Centre or a dispatcher of their intention to serve the warrant that morning, no risk assessment analysis had been done prior to the search, and only three officers instead of five originally planned for the task were used.
It is impossible to know whether being armed might have saved Snr Const Snee, but it seems better intelligence and planning could have.
Since 1890, 29 New Zealand police officers have been killed by criminal acts in the line of duty, 22 of these as a result of being shot.
In the past 30 years, the number of gun fatalities is six, in the past 10 years, three.
The regrettable frequency of police fatalities has remained reasonably static.
At the same time, there has been an increase in the number of weapons in circulation, and indications of a permeable regulatory system.
None of the occupants of the Christchurch house at the centre of last week's incident, where police found a .22 rifle, a .308 rifle, and a shotgun, had a firearms licence.
The ease with which criminals seem able to access weaponry is at best worrying.
High-powered air rifles, which do not require owners to be licensed, have been responsible for recent fatalities, including police Sergeant Don Wilkinson in 2008 while on an undercover assignment.
The facts and figures, the legislative environment around gun ownership and distribution, and the changing social and cultural circumstances pertinent to arming the police need to be carefully considered in the cold light of day, rather than the emotional heat of the moment.
Police officers lead difficult and often dangerous professional lives.
They deserve every protection.
They must feel able to perform safely and also retain the confidence of the general public.
If Parliament and the senior police hierarchy are wise, the experience of other jurisdictions will be carefully considered, then weighed with respect to the particularities, and expectations, of New Zealand society.
The views of lobbyists should be treated with circumspection.
This is especially the case when there is evidence to suggest change is unwarranted, will not achieve what it is supposed to, and may exacerbate the situation.
Pandora's box, once opened, can prove impossible to close.
