Heath 1

Maya Heath

Professor Kane

Expository Writing R C- 1000

16 November 2020

The Loaded Question: Should Policemen Carry Firearms?

The United States has always had a reputation for its love of firearms. Our great nation

was founded on new freedoms and inalienable rights. Resting on the founding principles of

“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” To help enforce new laws, militias formed. These

militias slowly became the modern-day police force. As there is resistance today towards police,

resistance in colonial times was just as prevalent. Reasons are argued to be similar, such as

excessive force and brutality. Colonial militias were known to be cruel and used excessive force.

Before regulations, it was common for policemen to accept bribes to overlook illegal businesses

in the community. Overtime regulations took place and policemen began to carry firearms. The

police’s use of firearms has both built trust and fostered fear amongst our nation’s citizens

resulting in fear and the desire to abolish the institution. Rather than abolish the system,

reform it and build trust throughout the nation. The police are needed more than is realized.

For years, many people have said they want to take away the police’s firearms. Some

credit countries such as England as proof of the success of unarmed cops. England’s officers

have been unarmed and as of 2019 “only 33 people killed by guns,” in a year. Meanwhile, in

New York, one weekend resulted in “51 shootings.” That major difference needs to be

examined. The United States and England could not be any different culturally and socially. The

United States’ passion for guns extends back to its founding. Americans have always had,
 Heath 2

bought, and sold firearms. They bring business and a sense of security to Americans. The

founding fathers prepared for this by writing the Second Amendment. It states that it is,

“necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall

not be infringed.” Meaning we have the right to a weapon and to defend ourselves. It

specifically states that this amendment should not be altered or removed. While in England it is

not common for anyone to own a gun besides being a high-ranking government official. In the

States, own many firearms, and most go through the correct channels to acquire one due to

gun regulations and laws.

There have been suggestions over the years for stricter gun laws. Where it would be

harder to buy a gun and have it registered. This could create a black market for the buying and

selling of firearms. A black-market would increase the chances of having access to weapons. If

people want anything, they will find a way to get it. People will always have a drive and

whether it is good or evil that's up to them. Another discussion altogether with disarming the

police is what happens when an armed officer has been shot. The rest of the force could walk

away because they know how dangerous it is when facing an armed suspect unarmed. It is

terrifying to face an intense situation unprepared. There is a time and a place for firearms to be

used accordingly. Policemen are trained for these instances. People view the police in varying

ways both as protectors and harmers. Many have spoken of ideas of disarming the police or

defunding them all together because they’re seen as violent oppressors. The police began to

change after 9/11. They took on more military properties in protecting the U.S. The people saw

militarization as an imbalance of power and creeping in on their daily lives.

 Heath 3

The militarization of the American police has become a common thing. Militarization is

defined by, “process whereby civilian police increasingly draw from and pattern themselves

around, the tenets of militarism and the military model.” This is a result of an increase in

terrorist groups and the general need to be protected. Policemen are equipped with the

standard regulation pistols. They also carry non-lethal weapons such as tasers, batons, and

pepper spray. Some might argue that those are too harsh, but it depends on the situation. The

saying, never brings a knife to a gunfight, plays a role in this. There is a time and place for lethal

and non-lethal weapons. When faced with an armed and dangerous suspect an officer uses the

necessary weapon. An officer’s goal is to control the situation without violence but will use it if

provoked. Both violent and non-violent protests have become increasingly frequent in today’s

current society. The police need protection for themselves and bystanders, so they choose the

appropriate weapon and or call in military backup.

With or without militarism, police have never been seen as safe in the public eye.Police

with guns are seen as violent and unruly. They believe that the police are not regulated enough

and disregard regulations set in front of them. Now, disarming the police wouldn't lessen the

mass shootings, armed robberies, or homicides. The agency that is supposed to be keeping us

safe is supposedly safer without guns. Now, in other countries, there are officers not armed.

They face armed suspects with and without weapons. The natural response is to keep the

peace. When the suspect attacks a police officer, they are left with nothing but themselves for

defense. Instead of taking away the police’s firearms, retrain the officers on how to use them in

certain situations. Officers are trained only to shoot when they or a bystander is in danger from

a suspect. Yelling and pointing a weapon at a suspect engages the fight or flight response. A
 Heath 4

suspect can either fight or surrender to the officer. Situations like this are intense and time to

think is limited. New training for officers should be implemented. Weapons shouldn’t be taken

away. The officers should be re-taught how to use them.

Firearms do not commit crimes. They are not inherently evil. It is the person and motive

behind the trigger that dictates what it does. The police know when and how to use it but it is

time to update when they do. Times are constantly changing in this current society there is a

push to defund the police altogether. Rather than taking away the police entirely, change the

way they approach high-risk situations. America needs the police in some form or another.

America functions differently than countries. Most of those countries are smaller and do not

have access to guns. Therefore America cannot be held to the same standards and those

countries cannot be held to America’s standards. Nevertheless, the U.S. can learn from

unarmed officers without having to take away their weapons.

 Heath 5

Works Cited

“Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute.” Bill of Rights Institute, 2011,

billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/.

Morgan, Jared. “Post-9/11 Conflicts Increased Civilian Police Militarization, New Study Claims.”

Military Times, 16 Sept. 2020, www.militarytimes.com/news/your-

military/2020/09/16/post-911-conflicts-increased-civilian-police-militarization-new-

study-claims/. Accessed 14 Nov. 2020.

Mosteller, Jeremiah. “Militarization of Police In the United States.” Charles Koch Institute,

www.charleskochinstitute.org/issue-areas/criminal-justice-policing-

reform/militarization-of-police/#:~:text=The%20increased%20militarization%20of

%20police. Accessed 14 Nov. 2020.

Peyton, Kyle, et al. “A Field Experiment on Community Policing and Police Legitimacy.”

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116, no. 40, 16 Sept. 2019, pp.

19894–19898, 10.1073/pnas.1910157116.
 Heath 6

Stuart Miller. “Should Cops Carry Guns?” CSNY, 24 Aug. 2020,

www.cityandstateny.com/articles/policy/criminal-justice/should-cops-carry-guns.html.

Accessed 14 Nov. 2020.

Yesberg, Julia A., et al. “An Experimental Study of Responses to Armed Police in Great Britain.”

Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9 Jan. 2020, 10.1007/s11292-019-09408-8.