Should a police force be routinely armed?

Question

Routinely arming the police is an effective deterrent to criminal behaviour; most countries in Europe and North America routinely arm police officers, in part to deter criminal acts. Armed criminals operate in at least some areas in almost every jurisdiction. But, routinely arming the police causes a spiral of violence. What do you think? Should a police force be routinely armed? I'm interested in the opinions of others.

Answer 1

It all depends on where the police is operating. In North America it's a definite yes! Because of the easy access to firearms, most criminals will probably be armed with fire power and it'll be an unwise move to dispatch officers armed with mere batons.

But then again, increasing the fire power of the police force would not have much effect in reducing crime, since criminals would simply seek out more powerful firearms to match those of the police. When both sides are better armed, then there'll definitely be more violence.

Over here in (non war-zone) Africa, it's a different story. Most criminals are petty thieves and pickpockets, and the police casually shoot them dead with AK-47's. In some parts of the world, the police are way over-armed and tend to abuse their fire power.

In conclusion, the police should only be armed to a necessary degree according to the situation of the area of operation.

Answer 2

Yes they should. What are your facts that arming the police causes a spiral of violence though? The police are doing the "pest control" of society and this can't be done just with clubs.

Answer 3

Yes,

firearms are the great equalizer........

Answer 4

Well kind of have to be ya know. But I do think that they just like using them whenever they get the chance, just to look like a badass or have fun with it. Even if it's in a situation it's not needed at all.

Answer 5

Arming a police force does not solve the problem of crime and the expense to arm a police force could be better spent on other aspects of society.  A police force is one of the tools used by the bourgeoisie to oppress the working and poor classes, often in conjunction with the judicial system.  Is it any surprise that people with little money are often arrested at a greater rate, receive poor legal councel, and serve longer sentences than those with money?  

No, the solution is not more police or better armed police, the solution is the elimination of alienation caused by capitalism.  Under alienation, people are treated as objects.  When a person applies for a job, they are forced to sell their labor at whatever price the employer deems fit, usually minimum wage if the person is a member of the working class.  If you were selling your car, you would not allow a buyer to force you to sell it at an unfair price, but this is what occurs in the sale of labor.  No matter how hard that person works and no matter how much he produces, he still only makes minimum wage.  The worker has become a tool to be used by the capitalist.  He is oppressed by his own labor which takes on more value than himself.  This alienation then spreads to other aspects of life.  If a man is walking down the street and spots another man with a gold watch, the first man looks upon the other as an object, thinking that this person is an object, so their is nothing wrong with stealing the gold watch.  It is quite obvious that this is the same thinking that takes place with white collar criminals.  They few their employees as objects so their is nothing wrong with stealing from their pensions, for example.  

In "The Civil War in France," drawing upon newspaper reports and diaries of various Communards, Karl Marx describes how when the working class had taken over the government of Paris, crime became nearly nonexistent; the streets of Paris were safe to walk at night.  People viewed each other as brothers, sisters, and comrades, all working together to build a better life.

Here is excerpt from this book: "No more corpses at the morgue, no nocturnal burglaries, scarcely any robberies; in fact, for the first time since the days of February 1848, the streets of Paris were safe, and that without any police of any kind. 'We,' said a member of the Commune, 'hear no longer of assassination, theft and personal assault; it seems indeed as if the police had dragged along with it to Versailles all its Conservative friends.'"

Answer 6

Yes, without a doubt.  The other night two patrol cars in my area were shot up with an assault rifle.  The officers were not injured and the bad guy was taken into custody.  Only one of many examples of why the Police need to be armed and armed well.

Answer 7

Yes.

Unless and until you can guarantee that the criminal populace you expect the police to deal with are not armed, it is unfair to ask men and women to put themselves at a disadvantage attempting to enforce society's rules against a superiorly armed criminal force.  

Answer 8

EVERYBODY should be routinely armed.

History has proven, time and time again, that there is no better deterrent to crime than the criminal's fear that the victim could fight back.

As cops, we would much rather arrive to find a dead criminal than an injured or dead victim.

Every dead criminal is an improvement in the gene pool and makes the neighborhood better and safer for everybody.

Answer 9

If we take away the guns from everyone then sure. But until then I won't be taking a baton or OC spray to a gun fight.

Police carry guns to stop an immeadiate threat of grevious bodily harm or death. If there is another way to do it let me know.

Ask the UK police, they are losing too many civilians and police to knife and gun related crime.