One of the key concerns with routine arming is the potential for excessive use of force by police officers, leading to increased risk of harm to both civilians and officers. Additionally, the mere presence of firearms in a situation may escalate tensions and lead to unnecessary violence. The fear and anxiety that communities may feel towards armed police may also cause them to be less likely to cooperate with law enforcement, hindering investigations and making communities less safe overall.

Another factor to consider is the training and responsibility that comes with arming police. Proper training and education on firearm use, handling, and safety is crucial to ensure that police officers are equipped to handle high-stress situations without resorting to excessive force. Additionally, the responsibility of carrying a firearm is a significant one, and police officers must be held accountable for any misuse or abuse of their weapons.

Overall, while there may be situations where arming police officers is justified, it is important to carefully consider the potential risks and benefits. Routine arming of police should not be seen as a panacea for community safety, and alternative measures such as community policing, de-escalation techniques, and non-lethal weapon alternatives should be explored and prioritised.

In their book, Do Police Need Guns, Richard Evan and Clare Farmer challenges the notion that routinely arming police officers improves community or police safety by examining four jurisdictions: Canada, England and Wales, Australia, and New Zealand. It found that England and Wales were “safer” than Canada by all measures except robbery, with lower homicide levels and an approximately 18 times lower rate of fatal police shootings. The study also found insufficient evidence to support the assumption that routinely arming police officers increases safety, and that deploying routinely unarmed police does not correlate with lower levels of community or police officer safety.

Furthermore, their book notes that there is a significantly higher risk to civilians of being shot by police officers in routinely armed Canada than in the other three jurisdictions. The findings suggest that the mere presence of firearms in a situation may escalate tensions and lead to unnecessary violence. In addition, the media, particularly American-made crime and policing dramas, may have contributed to the popular perception that police officers need guns for their own safety and the safety of the community. However, this portrayal is a circular relationship, with media and reality reinforcing each other. American media’s embrace of the armed tradition of policing in its plotlines and imagery influences attitudes and expectations across the world, leading to the assumption that police need guns for their own and the community’s safety.

Moreover, the study suggests that the responsibility of carrying a firearm is a significant one, and police officers must be held accountable for any misuse or abuse of their weapons. Proper training and education on firearm use, handling, and safety are essential to ensure that police officers are equipped to handle high-stress situations without resorting to excessive force. However, the study found that the risk of harm to both civilians and officers from the excessive use of force is increased when police officers are routinely armed.

Therefore, while there may be situations where arming police officers is justified, the evidence suggests that routine arming is not always a good idea. Instead, alternative measures such as community policing, de-escalation techniques, and non-lethal weapon alternatives should be explored and prioritized to maintain community safety.