Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Police, arming of the
Section I. United Kingdom issues

Britain is one of a small minority of countries where the police force does not carry guns. Is the idea of a bobby carrying a truncheon old-fashioned and unsafe, or is it something that works and that we should be proud of?

Pros

[1] The police need to be able to protect the public as effectively as possible. There may be occasions where being able to shoot to disable a criminal (or where having the threat of doing so) provides the optimum safety to those present, especially if the criminal is armed. There are an increasing number of guns on the street so the problem is becoming more acute.

[2] We ask our police to risk their lives in the line of duty, and we should give them the best means of protecting themselves. If a police officer is faced with an armed criminal, they deserve to be armed themselves to deal with that threat. A truncheon is not sufficient defence.

[3] Carrying of guns by the police acts as a deterrent to criminals. It is important that the police should be feared, and carrying a firearm achieves this.

[4] Carrying a gun gives a police officer authority in a way that the uniform alone does not. The officer does not need to use the gun; it is the carrying of it visibly that increases their status and therefore helps them to do their job.

[5] Police officers would be given extensive training in the use of guns. There would be a strict policy for when a gun could be fired including punishment for misuse.

[6] This would bring Britain into line with most countries in the world which arm their police forces. It would also standardise the police force as, increasingly, special units do carry guns.

Cons

[1] The public are well protected by the current system. The police have a number of options for dealing with different situations which do not involve shoot-outs in which civilians could be caught. The police also have special armed divisions for when the need is there.

[2] Carrying a gun does not increase the safety of police officers — it decreases it. Criminals are more likely to arm themselves and more likely to shoot if the police are armed. An officer’s gun could also be used against them. Surveys of the police show that an overwhelming majority does not support the arming of all officers.

[3] Giving guns to the police would create an arms race as criminals would feel the need to carry guns too. The more guns there are in society, the less safe we are.

[4] The police need the trust of the public, not its fear. They need communities to report crimes and aid investigations and this would be hindered by the presence of guns.

[5] If the whole police force were armed, there would be accidents and wrongful shootings and this is too high a price to pay. The proposal could also attract the wrong type of person to apply to join the police.

[6] There is no reason why Britain needs to follow other countries in this issue; it is free to follow its own best interests. There are also no advantages in standardising the police force rather than allowing for specialisation. The current model allows armed police to be deployed when needed without having to give guns to every bobby on the beat.

Possible motions

This House would arm the police.

This House would give a gun to the bobby on the beat.

Related topics

Capital punishment

Zero tolerance