The police should be armed because one: Tasers are not that effective. Some criminals can still keep on running even after they have been tasered possibly because they felt no effects or they were quite a big fellow, but does this not show that maybe, tasers isn't the answer all the time in stopping a criminal. Guns stop them and it also enforces safety in the public which brings me to my second point: The public need to feel safe. The police is there to protect the people and tasers won't be much help in protection, and also the police need to protect themselves. My third point is: What if something were to happen - the policeman's gun is in the car under lock and key which would obviously take time to get to. Carrying a gun on them at all times means they are armed and prepared for anything. Which brings me to my conclusion that The police should be armed at all times because tasers are not that effective, the public and the police need to feel safe and protected and usually, their gun is not by their side which makes them more at risk. Thank you! :D
What would happen when a gunman is walking down the street, murdering everyone that is in sight? Would a cop say STOP RIGHT THERE! And expect anything to happen? Taser vs Gun, gun wins. Also it will influence people to want to carry their own guns which should be legal, according to the Constitution but the liberal dont like the constitution. The more guns in a society the harder it is to commit a crime and therefore the more lives that are saved. It is common scence.
If you had been catch by the bad guy, the police can take out his gun and kill that guy, but if you got bad luck, the police can't shoot very well, you will die. You better to buy the life insurance. By the way, the police must be doing the training.
Police are often being sent into very dangerous situations, often where assailants have lethal weapons at there disposal. It would not be ethical if they were sent into these kinds of situations unarmed. Police are also asked to patrol the most dangerous neighborhoods and it is unknown what could happen. It is true that sometimes police use their weapons when they should not, and on occasion they kill innocent people but these cases are rare. I also believe these cases can be avoided by providing better training for police officers.
Police need to be able to protect people and enforce the law. Criminals are going to try to use force in order to get what they want, so it seems to be a necessary evil that police also have to have the ability to use force in order to stop the criminals. Naturally, the power of police must remain in check, but not by completely removing their ability to do their jobs.
In an ideal society there would be no need for weapons, but our society is not ideal, nor are most of the countries in the world. Police are hired to protect society and enforce our laws. We cannot ask them to do so if they do not have as equal of a defense ability as criminals have to offend. Unfortunately, as long as weapons exist, people will be tempted to use them to exert force on others, so those who have to protect society should be able to meet the offenders on equal ground.
The police should be armed because when someone considers the idea of robbing a convenience store with a gun, one of the strongest deterrents is the fact that an armed peace officer is only a phone call away. What would keep liquor stores and banks in business if anyone could just rob the place at gunpoint and walk out the door with impunity? Are the police going to visit the robber's home later and just hope that he lost the gun? No. At some point, armed force is needed to deal with armed criminals.
I think if the Police officers in Britain are armed for self-protection everyone else would get influenced. Also if young people see police with guns then they are more likely to be intimidated and therefore carry a gun. This means that the society will be influenced and the crime rate could possibly increase. I also think that Policemen carrying guns would lead to them shooting civilians for unnecessary reasons. For example 2 months ago a 12 year old boy was shot in Cleveland by 2 police officers, because they thought the boy was carrying a gun. These kind of situations the police might not know and shoot the person because it looks like a gun. I think they should’ve asked him to put then gun down or maybe just point the gun at him, there was no reason to shoot at him just for carrying a gun. What would you do if a police officer walked up to you with a gun pointed at you? Because you were carrying a bb gun. I’m sure you agree there is no point in a police officer to do that as it will scare all civilians, then the civilians will lose trust in the officer s then they could go against them, which could cause lots of problems. Once people around the world hear this they would be scared to talk to policemen, even though there meant to protect civilians. Also we ae not in America, in the UK not many of the criminals are armed at all so there is no need for our officers to carry guns and shot at criminals.
The police have no need to be armed, as the best offence is a good defence, not vice versa. The police are there to protect people, not scare the life out of them. I believe that only in exceptional circumstances, such as terror threats or kidnappings, armed specialist police should be deployed. In a society, such as America, where all police are armed, they are not doing their job by keeping the peace.
As a police officer they would be put into situations where they have the chance to kill someone and if they do, it doesn't matter about how much training they have, they would still have to go through having the knowledge that they have taken someones life away, and this can cause alot of difficulties in someones life.
Guns potentially place a distance between the people and the police and impact the relationship in a negative way. It impacts not only those who would perform potentially criminal activity but even day to day police interaction such as breathalyzing and spot checks on vehicles. The police would no longer be viewed as "upholding the peace" but rather enforcing it through threats.