• Save a life...

    Police Officers are the only protection of civilized communities from total anarchy. Having been involved in numerous life and death situations as a police officer in a large city police department, I can attest that when the need to protect the community from unexpected deadly behavior by armed criminals, officers need to be armed to prevent total lawlessness and unexpected deaths from occurring. If there were no armed law enforcement (LE) servants in the community, there would be more deaths and destruction. And if officers can't protect the community, they can't protect themselves. Who in their right mind would want to serve a community without self-protection. Another consideration that is missed by those who wish to not arm regular officers and only arm those who have special skills like SWAT to respond when the need arises is; there aren't enough SWAT officers at any LE agency to be able to address all the armed suspect calls that occur. Often times, regular field (first responder) officers need to address deadly behavior as they occur per Federal Case Law. If not, by waiting for armed SWAT officers to respond, more than likely there will be dead victim(s). Knowing what I know now, I'm for lawfully arming citizens who are not felons or those deemed violent offenders. This is because the police can't be everywhere. The standard response time for officers to respond to a life threatening event/call in the city I'm employed in is 5-7 minutes. A lot can happen in 5-7 minutes. Now add to that, multiple pre-planned attacks occurring at various public locations at the same time. This has occurred in several countries causing numerous deaths. If anyone thinks this type of attack can not happen in any state of the union, they are in for a rude awakening. Lastly, Police officers are hired from the community, therefore, like any other profession, there will always be bad apples. Those bad apples can be weeded out as their unprofessional traits occur. The majority of all police officers are extremely professional, service oriented, kind hearted and would only use their firearms as a LAST RESORT.

  • Arm the Police

    How else can they defend themselves or others from an armed assailant? Police even in countries with very low crime rates are armed. It would definitely deter a lot of would be criminals.

    Also, Police here are more like servants than enforcers, they aren't respected enough as it is! I personally would feel a lot safer if Police had the proper tools to protect innocent people on the spot against an armed threat rather than have to wait for AR units to arrive.

  • Officers need to be able to protect themselves and others effectively

    Most countries in the world have armed police. Only a handful of countries such as the UK, Iceland, and New Zealand have unarmed police, and they still have armed response officers ready just in case. There have been cases in these countries where cops have been attacked with knives, guns, or other weapons and have been basically unable to respond. in these countries, they have to hide and wait for armed units, while in countries with armed police, any officer has the potential to neutralize a deadly situation quickly Also, with the history or armed police in the US, if the police were suddenly disarmed, they would become a laughingstock, particularly to gang members and criminals who have their own guns. Having unarmed police would simply result in more dangerous and brazen criminals who would be quite difficult to stop.

  • YES

    THEY SHOULD BECAUSE THEY NEED TO PROTECT THEMSELVES IN TIMES OF DANGER. It can be argued that the police in England do not use guns but England has a very different culture about owning guns and it is not as common for criminals to use guns there. Here in America criminals have guns, and often bigger and more powerful guns than the police. Having the police armed is necessary.

  • The criminals have guns, so the police need them to defend themselves.

    It can be argued that the police in England do not use guns but England has a very different culture about owning guns and it is not as common for criminals to use guns there. Here in America criminals have guns, and often bigger and more powerful guns than the police. Having the police armed is necessary.

    Posted by: ddeathnote
  • Being a police officer does require being armed, because many criminals are armed and so should the police be, in order to protect themselves.

    In today's violent climate, more and more criminals are armed and dangerous. If police officers were unarmed, then they would not be able to protect themselves and criminals would be more brazen. A police officer carrying a gun, in and of itself, acts as a deterrent to crime and, without one, the officer would be less effective.

    Posted by: OverratedRussell87
  • Officers must be able to intimidate and impose their authority.

    Police officers must be armed in order to protect citizens and uphold the laws. Yes, sensible people would be able to respond to a peacekeeper who is not armed, but many of the people who commit serious crimes do not respond to anything, except the possibility of death. This makes arming our officers a necessity, in order to keep the peace.

    Posted by: LongBo86
  • A police officer is charged with enforcing the law and, unfortunately, that is no longer possible without the threat of serious bodily injury or death.

    Police officers put their lives on the line everyday at work. To expect them to do their jobs effectively, they absolutely must be able to defend both themselves and the public. To say police officers could do their jobs without firearms is like saying our military can fight a war without weapons.

    Posted by: EweIICist
  • I agree that police officers should be armed, given the fact they run into various situations that could be dangerous, and even fatal.

    A person wanting to become a police officer goes through various training programs, including handling and using a firearm. They should be armed, because they deal with people on drugs, who suffer from mental illness, and may not be in the right frame of mind, while choosing to use violence.

    Posted by: eddietron
  • In the United States, police officers need to armed, due to all of the armed criminals.

    Unlike in other countries, like Great Britain, where Bobbies walk around without guns, here in the United States, with the amount of gangs, violence and illegal guns, our officers need to be armed at all times. Unfortunately, we see more cops being killed in the streets than we see criminals bring killed by cops. They need to protect themselves.

    Posted by: WillowsErv
  • My mommy said so and u cant do notang bout it

    Jkqhruq2hcuig2g3huofiejtv9824cojrufvirciuyontvc43uc9pg3cogijoijxyh7vujyxcyjn dsv mukm kjum fk mkm nkfujnkdu ndu,j nu6k nuj mkuxjkniy6 hj bx rnj ghh njjjjj nnnnn nnnnn nm m m m mm m m m m mk mm mnvm bn b nb nb b b b b b b bv vb vb n b nb b b b bbm

    moms a

  • Technology allows today's police to use non-lethal means to subdue dangerous criminals.

    Firearms are an archaic means of neutralizing a threat. Today, modern law enforcement has teargas, tasers, martial arts training and a host of other non-lethal means at their disposal. Putting a gun in cop's hand is giving them a means to bypass the judicial system. Though many police think they know the law, their legal training is minimal. We don't need to put them in a situation with the means to be judge, jury and executioner.

  • Ofcourse it is not and here's why

    Does it feel safe? It is never safe cause we don't know when will police kill incocent people. They are also not trained well. I would rather want tax to be used for our country's develpment not in police weapons which give no help I think. I think police should not be armed.

  • Is it logical?

    It is extremely rare that police actually make it to the scene where there is an armed suspect before that suspect commits a crime. The profile of a person that WANTS to kill a cop is a really rare type, usually the I'm not going back to jail or political radical type who is cornered so there really isn't an argument for police having firearms. The one thing pattern that is consistent in this recent spike of police murders is the incompetence of the officers involved. I sense that fear was the motivating factor behind the recent shootings from Ferguson to Cleveland to Utah, fear. I do not want scared officers running the streets with weapons I want men and women who are capable of split second critical thinking. There are numerous European countries where the police force uses alternate forms of defense and rely on SWAT for more hairy situations and considering that mostly all officers show up after the crime has already been committed I think that model might work here in the U.S as well.

  • Should not be armed at all times.

    Police should not be armed at all times. There are different situations in which it does not require to be armed. In a case of danger police should be armed but from other situations they should not. Since they have the right to legally carry a gun, they should not abuse it and take advantage of their power. Police officers feel as if they are in charge of all people in the community that they can protect the people but they should not point a gun to someone who is not causing sign of danger.

  • Public paying police to carry firearms is no different than public paying military to carry firearms.

    Of great consequence is how, when, and under what circumstances they are used - which would require a survey of national importance.

    The alternative is fielding a force that carries no firearms to distinguish them between the military and citation writing which typically constitutes a friendly police force, with the ability to call in the aid of the standing military which has no function but wars, and is essentially unused otherwise. If soldier layoffs are not the protocol, using them for emergency civilian backup for police makes sense, and prevents police brutality, or police hostility from becoming commonplace.

  • They arm themselves which can lead to innocent civilians being shot.

    Civilians may be shot by armed officers, thus meaning that the death rate highers. Some police officeras have egos which don't inforce rthe law and may let it cloud over their common sense and just using it dfor no aspparent reason, its pretty pointless to be honest. Why should they be aremed if we aren't alpoud to be?

  • WAY too many innocent people shot because of an "accident"

    There are many cases all over the Internet concerning police raiding the wrong house and shooting innocent people, making the value of life for humans unimportant. Also, many police take advantage of their position of authority using their police badges for the wrong reasons, which makes the police force look unprofessional.

  • It is introducing a death penalty on how well the police can aim

    No amount of training can ever teach a policeman to always shoot the right person in the right place. One slip and a life is killed, maybe even an innocent life. The world has created a way of life which destroys the freedom, destroys the natural way of life, destroys the freedom of speech and means we have to adapt to new rules. Police can do just fine with non lethal weapons like tazers.

  • Police are supposed to be community heroes.

    If we were to arm the police, people in the community would feel intimidated and scared to approach police officers. Guns would make officers look scary and unapproachable, when they are actually there to make us feel safe and secure inside our homes. Children look up to police officers, but if we arm them they will become unfriendly and daunting. It would become harder to talk to officers if they are carrying a gun.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.