mortalsatsuma said:
I know this question has probably been asked many times before but I need some help with an essay I am handing in tomorrow with the title being the one above. I'm looking for peoples opinions on the subject, especially Americans who already have armed police "Protecting and serving" them and whether they think it is a good or a bad thing to have armed police and whether You think it has any effect on the levels of crime in your country.
Police of any sort cannot reduce crime rate by changing something as mundane as what they are armed with (guns or pepper spray).
Guns simultaneously make things harder and easier for coppers.
In deal with unarmed suspects they have to use a lot more caution so they don't shoot someone without warrant, or allow their gun to be stolen or used against them.
On the other hand, the use of weapons is so common is hobbles police response, over and over again the experienced beat police are forced to stand-down when guns, imitation guns or other dangerous weapons (machetes, chainsaws, etc) are threatened.
It's no longer the situation that police can depend on most violent/gang disturbances will not have weapons involved.
Two cops vs 5 thugs with knives, a pistol is the only defence.
Frankly, I'd much rather arm the cops who are PART OF the community than some "elite" outside force. Canteen Culture is a big problem with British policing - by that I mean how our police force are so separate from the communities they police only ever socially interacting with other police in canteens (which is the only designated place junior officers are allowed to eat.
I find it an infuriating contradiction that high ranking Police Officers are permitted to have exquisitely expensive lunches and hotel visits with rich media moguls (who depend on police "leaks" to fuel their tabloid newspapers) yet a beat copper isn't allowed to go into Burger King for their lunch break while in uniform.
That's the problem, THAT is why we cannot have armed police nor have our police have many powers at all because they are so detached that they cannot be trusted to use such powers responsibly.
There is this idea that there will be less unjustified killings if only highly trained officers are armed but that has not been demonstrated. If you want people to be SAFE you need EMOTIONAL incentive! My dad told me of a French explosives company that had a terrible safety record, the solution: move the families of the employees on sight so they would be in shrapnel range of any explosion.
Accident rates fell through the floor, safety shot up with no other encouragement.
You send an elite firearms unit to confront a gunman who may just be a kid with a black-spray-painted water-pistol: the LOCAL copper with less experience but 10x more consideration is going to be way less "trigger happy".
In conclusion:
Armed Policing needs to be a grass-roots exercise, starting with local and integrated policing.
-Cops always need to have guns within quick and easy deployment. We cannot have a repeat of Derrick Bird's shooting spree where his path of destruction actually went past a police station where not a single policeman could respond with a gun. They tried to follow him but were forced to turn and flee.
Every copper should have firearms training and have one in their car in a bio-metrically locked gunsafe.
(I also had the idea that police helicopters should consider using it as a platform for Sharp-shooters. A bird's eye view with a high power rifle would be supremely effective against spree-killers or a mumbai-style terrorists attack.)
