For seroius crimes this is quite often the only option they have especilly when they are shot first. For more petty crimes however, it shouldn't be needed so why have it? Cops should have a gun when they need it and then only, otherwise criminals start feeling threatened and 'war' may break out.This however is only my opinion yours most definitely will be different.
With assaults, rape and murder becoming more and more common, and with the terror threat raised, I feel it is now appropriate for police to carry firearms. This is not borne out of any wish to see police given any unnecessary powers, I feel this would genuinely be a well-needed check against the morally-corrupt thug culture developing across our country.
The UK is a place where guns are illegal, but that doesn’t stop countless criminals from getting guns either from the “black market.” So you can see why some people are thinking: if the police are armed everywhere and not just in airport security, security van drivers and (in some extreme conditions) riot control it would make the UK safer. This quote is from a web site called debateabase: “most countries in Europe and North America have armed police forces, in part to deter criminal acts, but also to protect officers working in an armed or dangerous environment’. Armed criminals operate in at least some areas of virtually every jurisdiction.
When a police officer walks into a place where they have been called out they always walk In fearing what could happen someone could maybe jump out with a pistol, however in America police know they are going to rule the situation when someone is told to put their hands up they normally do that alot faster with a firearm pointing at them. I agree police shouldn't be classed as violent people but they do need some form of weaponry to ensure the peace sometimes the police can't always fight people that are 50 ft away with a stick.
You never know what will happen in any situation. The criminal could have a fire-arm and if the officer didn't then the officer could get shot and die. People often take unarmed officers for granted and when they an officer that is unarmed they take advantage of it and they try to kill them.
Gun crime is on the rise as more gang members and criminals are arming themselves with firearms to commit crimes. Sometimes unarmed police meet armed criminals on the beat which can lead to police officers being killed. I think that arming the police would be best because the police can protect the public and themselves from armed criminals without waiting around 10 minutes or so for armed response to arrive when the situation could have already escalated quickly.
Originally i thought that our police should preserve the way we usually do it, bobbies and batons as such. However with the continued urbanisation and increase in gangs, as well as the forming roma communities as well as other foreign cultures appearing tensions are rising, i believe that our police should be armed in certain areas like these to act as deterrents, but the police should still resort to using tasers, batons or even lesser methods of action until the use of a firearm is absolutely necessary in a serious situation.
Gun crime is only going to get worse in this country, likes most things it's only a matter of time before we "catch up" with America - as others here have said if a cop in the UK is faced with an armed person the only thing they can do is sit on the floor and accept their fate - it's now the 21st century, half the world is at war and we need to stop being so soft as it's just not going to work any more.
As long as communities expect police to intervene in case of assaults or other kind of life-threatening actions, they should be wise enough to understand that police officers are humans too and they need protection themselves. If you would be attacked on the street, and the police officer who comes to help doesn't carry any weapon to threat the criminal, and he escapes, I can assure you would accuse the policeman.
I admit we rarely see any police officers being killed due to criminals. But what happens to the ones that are? Police today are very limited in their authority, despite them being the authority. When police officers are up potentially insanely dangerous people, they have to be able to defend themselves. A baton isn't going to work well. Guns should be used as a deterrence. Why?? Because they need to stop crime. Crime that could be life-threating to the public, the officer and the criminal themselves. Furthermore if one criminal has a gun, what is the police officer going to do about it. Police officers should be trained in how to use firearms correctly and then should be distributed throughout the nation.
Armed officers are generally more intimidating than unarmed, and the police are there for the community. I also feel having a gun in such easy reach makes one more liable to want to use it, but not necessarily shoot, even when it may not always be required.
I would, however, support an increase in the number of armed officers, and I like the New-Zealand model where officers are not armed, but are all trained to use firearms and have them in a secure locked-compartment in their cars for use when they are really needed.
If police seem to want the use of weapons for protection then civilians should also be allowed. 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 live in the US and have all my life. The police around here get scared when a "civilian" has a gun but expect us not to be scared of them with their guns on their hips unless we're "criminals". They constantly support gun control (which doesn't apply to them) making legally possessing a gun difficult, if not impossible, and banning guns in banks, federal buildings, schools etc. so that we "need" them if and when someone brings in a gun and uses it where it's banned. They make themselves a bigger priority than anyone else, resulting in many innocent people getting directly and indirectly hurt or killed (shooting unarmed people sometimes while they are running away). I'm thinking about buying a gun while I still can, I don't really want a gun, but it seems to be about the only way for the average person to get the police to leave them alone and protect themselves (concealed carry registration). They are given public recognition for things the rest of us do everyday without even a thanks, keeping their egos bloated. They are given paid vacations when they shoot someone and almost never are found to have done anything wrong. I'm seriously considering trying to move to the UK to get away from all this madness (if they don't arm their police too). We've got these short-tempered police with weapons whereas many cool-headed "civilians" can't legally carry a gun or certain other weapons (convicted felons, guilty or not, violent or not) The "civilians" should have the same rights as police. Anyone who thinks every police officer should have a gun without any restrictions should move to the US and ask some of the working poor about the police.
Most officers in London aren't armed, as far as I'm aware, and it doesn't seem any more dangerous here than anywhere else I've been. Of course it is important to have officers on hand with guns somewhere because guns might come in handy sometime, but every single officer needn't have a gun.
More and more police are using lethal force in situations not requiring it. Examples include the shooting death of a driver who was not armed and not weapons were found in the vehicle. If weapons empower criminals to perpetrate more excessive crimes, they can also empower the police to use them in ways that violate a suspects civil rights. Police weaponry should only be given to those officers who are in high risk areas, and not to all. Does a meter maid really need a gun in a rural area's downtown parking garage?
Given that arms travel freely, and that ours is a society particularly fond of guns, it seems important for police to be ready to take control of most situations with superior force at a moment's notice. But only as a way of acclimating people to alternate, less violent, and non-lethality-oriented ways of maintaining law and order. It's worth keeping the door open to the use of non-weapons-bearing police in closed settings in which the civilians present have been verified to be unarmed. Societies in which guns are less prevalent symbols of power, prestige, and security are apt to be safer and more trusting. So, such small steps in the direction of alternative law enforcement approaches, under appropriate circumstances, seem worth exploring.
The idea of all police being armed is actually somewhat peculiar to the United States. It's been suggested that it's primarily due to liberal gun laws. Many countries in Europe and Scandinavia do just fine with only a fraction of their police forces being armed. Interestingly, police are also generally more trusted in those countries than in the United States. In America, we should try some pilot programs of unarmed police especially in inner city communities where trust in the police is low. These could easily be built on top of existing community policing efforts.
The 'beat cop' should be a sign of law and order and witness. As far as gathering evidence, peace and police officers can use phones just like anything else. To shoot or hit someone is street justice and should be rarely needed, and not an instant option for people observing and interacting within their own home neighborhoods. It's a throwback of an earlier time to have people in authority capable of being able to force submission on people when they can record what happened and allow the courts to do their job. Need for deadly force is rare and even rarer is it needed without indication of the situation beforehand.
Police forces are representatives of authority, civil order, and assistance; they should not be seen primarily as forces of violence or repression. In many countries, the police do not routinely carry arms; this is of course famously the case in the United Kingdom. In situations of peaceful crowd control for example, police that are not armed convey the expectation that the demonstration will remain peaceful, while officers bristling with weapons convey exactly the opposite. Of course, police have to be carefully trained to know how to carry themselves without arms and need easy and quick access to weapons if necessary.
Of course, a police in areas of high violence would probably need a gun, a police patrolling a neighborhood or highway patrol should not be armed or at least not have guns at all times on their person. This only breeds violence and a distrust of police, as well as causing some police to take innocent lives, either unintentionally or intentionally, as there are some police that do abuse the privilege of packing heat.