Thread: Why frontline cops should be armed

What advocates of general arming of the police have no experience with, is the change in the nature and the manner in which you then have to deal with the general public. The personal space issues increase, methodologies for crowd interaction change, responses to the public are affected.

Some of what we see in the USA is a direct result of carrying a firearm, as opposed to not carrying a firearm here... criminals will also arm themselves more frequently and in general it is highly debatable that the police will suffer less issues with armed criminals as a result of being individually armed. Certainly having the means to protect yourself and others is desirable in that context as a policeman, but overall? It may be worse.

I finished policing in 1990, because of 2 things the impending amalgamation with the Ministry of Transport, and the at the time likely and possible arming of the police. This issue is not new and the issues arising from it, are not either.

The figures from back in my time was that around 75% of police deaths by firearm (in the US) were caused by their own weapon or their partner's weapon. Friendly fire, loss of weapon etc... this is why they stand 20m away and shoot people that are walking away from them in the US.

You have to be at least 5m away with your firearm drawn to get the guy with the knife before he gets you. As a policeman I didn't want to interact with people with a 5m space and I like guns. Well that and not becoming a parasitic traffic cop as well....

Going to full time arming is a more significant choice than most understand, and its not reversible...