Armed Police: Does It Work?
In the state of California the local police are armed to an extent with their standard issued hand guns. From the 1900’s to 2000, more than 14,000 federal, state and local law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty. Just about 50% of those deaths were because of firearms, even though crime is at its low point over the past half a century. Police should be armed because it can reduce crime, can handle more dangerous threats, and can save lives.
Law enforcement should be armed, because when police are not armed, with at least some kind of weaponry, the criminal will probably get their way if they are superior firepower. Almost 50% of the fatalities of law enforcement on the line of duty. It is not right to give them something to protect themselves and other people with. It is their job. They should be allowed to carry the necessary tools to combat potential threats.
With police being armed to a large extent, criminals will know what might happen when and if one opens fire on an officer. Law enforcement having weapons would be intimidating. While if somewhere that the Law enforcement are not armed, the criminals would have an advantage. Riots that may end up happening, and the mobs would easily disperse faster if the law enforcements discharge weapons into the air will stun the crowd. On the side not seeing armed law enforcement, the citizens would feel safer and secure when they see an officer knowing they can tackle threats that might happen. As armed violence has increased sharply in parts of the developed world, the police need to redefine their role so that it is a more appropriate response to a contemporary problem. If they are not armed and something that comes their way that t...
... middle of paper ...
...eing the victims of crime. Police officers should have a right to protect themselves. Fewer officers may die on duty if they were better protected. Arming the police is a matter of self-defense rather than being actively involved in regular shootouts. This is shown by the fact that most routinely armed police never fire their weapon on active duty in their career. John Mizon says “How much longer can this go on? Would criminals not think twice when faced by a police officer holding a firearm? Arm them now, give them the protection they deserve” and film director Michael Winner, founder of the Police Memorial Trust, is among the most vocal advocates of guns for all officers. "The criminals are armed with guns and knives, with weapons that kill the police and I think they should have a better chance of retaliation," arming the police will be a good way to save lives.
This means that students having guns on campus won’t make any impact on the number of suicides in college students. Guns would not be a distraction in class because concealed carry means that it would be out of sight out of mind resulting in no one even knowing that it is there. If we waited to rely on police officers so many more people would have died. There can only be so many police officers. Citizens have to take a training class to receive their concealed handgun license. A background check is ran and they are just as capable of protecting the public as a police officer or other trained individual. The argument about a Taser is bad advice because a Taser has to be used in close quarters and in most cases a person would be shot before being close enough to the gun shooter to tase them. “The answer to bullets flying is almost always more bullets flying. That’s why the police bring so many guns with them when they respond to a report of ‘shots fired’” (Common Arguments). How else do we expect police to respond? If police didn’t carry guns and respond with gunfire to take out active shooters then they would run the risk of being shot and dying. It is insane to believe that answering shooting with anything less than guns is reasonable. There has never been a case that police have encountered a situations that they have had to try to figure out
However, after reading the article the author noted that police are mandated to enforce civilian law and order, investigate crimes, and strictly follow legal procedures even when in pursuit of chronic and dangerous criminals (Kagoro, 2014). Ideally, it has been argued, there should be strict dividing lines between the police and the military; the former for domestic purposes with the latter protecting citizens from external threats (Kagoro, 2014). In his article on the anti-militarization of the police in the United States, Kurt Andrew Schlichter aptly put it that the military is designed, organized, and equipped to execute rapid, violent and efficient obliteration of the “enemy”-whoever the enemy may be ( Kagoro, 2014). However, the law enforcement is usually modeled after the military and in fact there a large number of police officers who are former military personnel. This was a new criticism of police that was unfamiliar to me in the study of criminal justice but, I found it to be a valid point. The idea of changing the focus of policing to be less of a battlefield and more of a community may be a compelling approach to make interaction with citizens less
One of the most disturbing trends in American policing in recent years has been the militarization of police weaponry and tactics. In his new book, “The Rise of the Warrior Cop”, author Radley Balko traces the roots of American law enforcement from the constables of colonial times to present day SWAT teams and special response units. With the high controversy surrounding the “war on drugs” and the “war on terrorism,” policymakers have signed off on a dangerously aggressive style of policing that too often leads to unnecessary deaths and injuries. Some people say that modern law enforcement is on a collision course with our Bill of Rights and is unconstitutional. In the book “ Rise of the Warrior Cop” the author talks about how modern day policing are adapting mostly all military tactic. These wars are more than just metaphors designed to rally public support and secure all the money they can to support these programs. They change the way we think about what the police do. Wars mean shooting first and asking questions later. Wars require military tactics and weaponry. Wars mean civilian casualties. Are we at war with our own people?
Many Americans are now applying for a license to carry licensed concealed arms with them. The rate at which licenses are being approved is worrying. This development is concerning law enforcement authorities. Putting so many firearms at the disposal of the public is counterproductive to the gains that are being made on improving security and especially in the cities where incidences of gun crime and violence are on the rise.
Just to be clear, I am not saying that the 1033 program should be abolished. Since the 1033 program does supply law enforcement agencies with bullet proof vests and other personal protective equipment I believe that the program should be very limited and have a huge oversight by both the people and the government. We have to ask ourselves, Are we willing to give up freedom for security? If law enforcement looks scarier and more militaristic than people will be afraid of them. A growing distrust in, the police will lead to a less effective police and more violence from both the police and the people. If a country had a president that they didn’t trust, then what would happen to that president. That president would probably get impeached or at the very least not re-elected. We should treat the police in the same manner we would with a politician. When people say that we need this equipment in the case of another lone wolf attack or North Hollywood shootout they are wrong. The North Hollywood shootout did in fact have a terrible response because the police lacked the right equipment this is true. Another thing that was true was the fact that police officers weren’t armed with rifles. Law enforcement is armed with rifles, but they do not need an armored vehicle or bayonets to fight people against machine guns. “The suspension, size and weight distribution of the MRAP also make rollovers a frequent concern. The narrow wheelbase and tall profile of many MRAP variants makes the vehicle prone to rollovers (Ake).” While the 1033 program has some good in it, police militarization overall it is still a terrible
Gun admirers have statistics that will prove their side on guns saving lives. According to one study by Lott “… for each additional year that laws allowing people to carry concealed handguns were on the books, robberies decli...
No longer is the average police officer the image of Andy Griffith, he is increasingly becoming something akin to a soldier. Senator Tom Coburn asked the perfect question during a congressional meeting when he said, "Tell me what the difference is between an increasingly militarized police force and a standing army” (qtd. in Devaney). The only way to put a stop to this disturbing trend is for citizens to demand that their representatives pass legislation that ends police militarization, as well as the creation of tougher punishments for excessive use of
Should guns be carried around by everyone? Maybe they should. I am not sure if I am with legalizing guns, but if I look at the situation in Chicago, it might be different. Chicago especially the west side is very dangerous and to be around that neighborhood has its risks. If you do need a gun to defend yourself, it’s less likely for you to get threatened. Not saying that you should kill people because you shouldn’t harm anyone, but to make sure that you are safe. Sometimes all you need is to show that you have the ability to defend yourself and other will leave you alone. The education and poverty seem like the biggest problem that leads to gun violence. I would let people in Chicago get a gun, but only for protection and improve the education and use TIF money to help people get out of poverty.
...t is our job, as citizens, to at least be prepared for the criminals’ attack and to be able to defend ourselves in time of need. At the Virginia Tech shooting, the responding police officers took approximately three minutes to reach the school, but about five minutes to break through the chains binding the doors together. Cho fired rounds off for about nine minutes. Out of those nine minutes only four, or less, could have happened, if a professor or other college personnel stopped the aggressive action before the tragedy was completed. Police cannot get there fast enough sometimes to save a life; citizens must be prepared for the worst. One thing is for sure, one would rather have it and doesn’t need it, than need it and doesn’t have it. People often ask themselves, “Why should I have a gun?” Well guns are needed when seconds count, and the police are minutes away.
Recently in the United States there has been in increase in deaths that have come from police officers using deadly force. The use of force is inevitable as a police officer, many times their own lives or the life’s civilians are at risk when it comes to determine what type of force a officer should use. There are many incidents where police officer have to react in a matter of seconds and has to choose between his own life or that of the individual causing the disturbance. When a Police Officer uses deadly force has caused outraged with the public, stirring up protests and creating a scandal for the police officer and the Police Department. Many do not know when it is right for an officer to use deadly force and what constitutes it, or what happens when the officer does not use the appropriate amount of force that is required to control the situation. There has been many changes in Police Departments around the country to try to reduce the use of deadly force in response to the issues that have occurred because of it.
Patrick Marley from the Journal Sentinel of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, published an article stating, “Instead of firearms training, people can attend hunter safety courses to qualify for permits. Those classes occupy only 10 hours just for the individual to be able to carry handguns for their own private needs.” (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/133370223.html). This is a prime reason why the public’s safety is the job of the authority, officials, and police, not the people. Many states don’t even require as much training for citizens to carry firearms. Officers go through several months to years of training before sent out into duty compared to the public. Why is there a bigger requirements placed on officers around the world, but a lower requirement on average citizen to have the rights to carry handguns? This is why citizens should not be allowed to carry weapons for their own safety and the safety of others. If given that the states disapproved of citizens rights to bare handgun then in order for the police forces to protect their citizen in times of danger, the officer must first arrive at the time of the incident. Politicians and the supreme court will often debate that just in case of an unpredictable events that officers are
Police shootings occur all over the world but are a huge problem within the United States. We continue to hear more and more about them. These shootings are making headlines. Front page news it seems almost weekly. All the shootings go one of two ways. Either a Police Officer has been shot or a Police Officer has shot a citizen, but either way the final result is death. Whether an Officer has been shot or an Officer has shot someone these cases seem to be related to one thing, fear. People in today’s society feel as though they can’t trust Police Officers as they are there to hurt and kill them. And Police Officers feel as though they are in danger of doing their everyday duties because people see them as the “bad guys” and want to hurt or kill them. Yes, police brutality and racism still exist, but not all cops are bad. Yes there are still bad citizens in this world that want to kill and harm others, but not all citizens are bad. People seem to react to these shootings by rioting quickly after a police officer has shot and killed someone without
As a reference from present day, there been news about shooting in Pittsburg which raise questions about the safety of the local individuals. Because from a report of 2014-2015 Pittsburg city’s crime comparison has increased from the previous year. As the violent crime crime comparison per capita per has increased from 2.7 to 3.3 per 1000 capita (Pittsburg Police). The rapid increase in the crime rate arise some question about the performance and availability of police for local population. In all above circumstances, a person needs a gun to defend himself and save his and his families life. The another interesting thing about having guns is who is buying the guns, from whom and under what circumstances ? Because we need guns for our protection not to make more easily available for the criminals and unfit
By teaching police officers alternatives to shooting to kill, they experience higher risks with their lives. Police Commissioner, Ray Kelly, said, “It would be "very difficult" to train officers to shoot to wound” (Jacobo, 2016). Police officers are viewed as “predators” and “an occupying army” rather than allies (Valey, 2016). This is a perception that needs to change because it counteracts the mission of police officers
Why does the government make it harder for average citizens to protect themselves? Police cannot always protect everyone in the community. There are only about 500,000 police officers throughout the country, which means there is around 125,000 police officers on duty at any given time. Other than a bodyguard or a law enforcement officer at everyone’s side twenty-four hours a day, the most effective deterrent to a criminal attack is the criminal’s fear that the potential victim is armed and prepared to defend themselves.