Global progressive policing
OPINION:

The Police Debate: “Should all police officers be armed?”

Inviting your views on this, our FIRST Police Debate brought to you by PolicingInsight.com. Should all our police officers be armed?

Your opportunity to express YOUR views on a key policing topic of the moment. 

What do YOU think? Should all police officers be armed?

West Midlands PCC David Jamieson has called for a “proper debate” on arming all police officers. In an article published in the Birmingham Mail, he said:

“The readiness of the police to respond to serious incidents is something that I regularly probe and take incredibly seriously. Making sure that we have enough specialist officers and units, such as firearms officers, is crucial to protecting the public. However, we need a serious discussion before changing the British model of policing and dramatically increasing the number of armed officers patrolling our streets”.

Surrey PCC Kevin Hurley has also commented on arming police officers. In an article published in the Daily Mail, he said: 

“Above all, we just do not have enough armed police… We need far greater numbers ready for action. And it is a myth that the terrorists will only strike in urban areas like Manchester or London: they could just as easily inflict their savagery in provincial towns such as Guildford or Norwich”. 

What do YOU think? Should all police officers be armed?


One Response to “The Police Debate: “Should all police officers be armed?””

  1. foggy says:

    Don’t tell the public but the myth is that firearms of any description can defeat terrorist activity or indeed the activities of anyone with an ambition to cause fatalities or seriously maim others. Unless they expose their intentions first. The damage is done before anyone, no-matter how many duly equipped are readily available.
    Suicide bombers are even more difficult because unless you can get clear repeated shots to the head a bullet could detonate the explosive and any non-fatal bullet will cause the terrorist to activate the explosive there and then possibly bringing many fatalities or serious injuries.
    I am not suggesting that we should just throw the towel in but to seriously consider the wider issues:
    Firstly anyone who thinks we can arm all officers do a discredit to those who do bear arms. To imply it is the firearm that resolves the issue, it is the brave men and women who carry them, have the integrity to know when to use them and are prepared to live what could be a dreadful legacy thereafter. Mistakes are made and whilst they are under investigation these poor people are unsupported as colleagues are not allowed to contact them. To assume that you can equip all officers, in my opinion, exposes a complete absence of understanding of the mental aptitude necessary to carry a lethal weapon. I never carried a firearm during my service, never wanted to, it wasn’t what l joined for and it will not be the ambition of so many to carry.
    I think l would be rather worried if men and women were joining because they wanted to carry firearms. I served with many ‘jumpy’ officers who grabbed their baton at the suggestion of violence. Coppers are human and they get scared. If it should become mandatory to carry a firearm each force will loose many very competent officers either because they resign or they don’t have the very specific aptitude for carrying.
    Secondly: While we cannot and must not roll over to any aggressive behaviour are we really saying that the actions of these few represent our society – no most are law abiding citizens. Many are children or pensioners and all should feel the police are an approachable ally.
    I fear that if we arm all police those perpetrators of less significant crime will become afraid and will arm themselves. Let us try and learn something from America who bury far too many officers. Please

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment

Please LOG IN or REGISTER
Top