There's been a number of occasions in the US when someone's gone postal and done pretty much exactly that.
So I'm suggesting that the cure of having all police armed isn't necessarily a cure at all.
That's a fallacious argument. Nobody is suggesting that the routine arming of the police would have stopped this happening. The police
have to be armed. Only a policeman with a gun is in a position to stop a madman with a gun. So you have to have armed police. It's a given, nobody disputes that. The question is
when do you arm them? Do you have a special group of policemen who can be called out after the fact and in response to a threat, or do you routinely arm all operational officers, so they are already armed when that threat appears? It is an absolute truth that having officers already armed, puts them in a tactically superior position, than having to wait for an armed response unit. There is no question or doubt about that. It is only for social reasons that we choose not to arm operational officers. The question therefore, is are your social reasons for not arming officer routinely, good enough? At what point does preventing loss of liberty, loss of freedom, loss of property and loss of life become more important than your social reasons? What exactly are you sacrificing in exchange for an unarmed police force? Ask the people of Croydon what they think.
Whatever your opinion, an increasing lawlessness and an increase in the ownership and use of illegal firearms, will inevitably result in the routine arming of operational officers. It has to. My point is, if we are not there already, we are heading towards it at breakneck speed.
This country is fighting a loosing battle against lawlessness and crime and the routine arming of operational police officers is as inevitable as the sun rising. It's all about when, not if.
. Why would you wish to carry one if you didn't need it?
