what are positive effects of having armed policemen?
612228
they can shoot armed criminals before getting shot by them
307154
Handgun ownership is illegal in the UK and in the UK home invasion robbery is on the rise.  When a population is unarmed, then criminals can rampage the countryside without much danger of a homeowner protecting his family and property.\n\nThis is an ugly side effect of banning gun ownership.\n\nWe in the USA can still own guns and it is LAW given us by the Second Amendment.
923673
Better education and training were recommendations that have been repeated in other studies and panels. Vigorous prosecution of illegal activity by public officials, including police officers, is key to deterrence.
976068
I guess I am qualified to answer this.  I was a police officer in London for 30 years and am somewhat unique in that I was both shot and stabbed.  I was trained to use a firearm for over 20 years.\n\nThere are several different issues here, one of which is that we select police officers based on certain criteria, none of which is their ability to use a firearm.  It therefore goes without saying that many serving officers, if not most, will not have the skills (either practical or emotional) to be armed.  We do NOT recruit people into our police forces in order for them to kill our fellow countrymen.\n\n(As far as one of the other contributors to this answer is concerned, just about the only "accidental" shooting was of Charles de Menezes, and we all know WHY he was shot.  I think everyone in the police understands that that was a terrible mistake, but the mistake was not made by the firearms officer, who acted (a) in good faith and (b) in the belief that he was protecting the lives of many other Londoners when he fired his shots.  There are several other controversial ones, but unfortunately all you ever read are headlines without knowing the full substance behind the stories.\n\nHowever, the most pressing argument against officers being routinely armed is this:  at present officers attend many incidents where physical contact is involved; pub fights, domestic arguments, theft, assault; whatever you can possibly think of where, ultimately, the police officer and the alleged criminal come into physical contact.\n\nAt present, in the vast majority of instances, such physical contact results in a peaceful arrest or solution to the dispute.  In a few it involves a scuffle or worse.  Rarely, if ever, does it involve a confrontation by the officer with a lethal weapon, for the very simple reason that most people do not carry such weapons.\n\nHowever, arm EVERY police officer and the difference is apparent.  Every single time a member of the public comes into contact with a police officer he or she has the opportunity to become an armed criminal by the very simple expedient of overpowering the officer.\n\nMany of our new breed of officers are of very slight build - the smallest I ever saw (I left in 1998) was a 4'10" girl at Brixton, who was the same size as a 12-year-old girl.  It takes very little imagination to see how just about anyone could get her gun off her.\n\nThus, with every officer armed, every single incident they ever attend has the potential to become an armed incident.  This would require a profound change of policing practice which would be only of benefit to the police officers, who would be duty bound to protect themselves, and of no benefit whatsoever to the public who they serve.  Officers would have to become very aloof and distant.  That is the total antithesis of what we expect in a British police officer.\n\nWhat we DO need is an armed response that is available at very short notice - it was always my view that the system that I left was nowhere near good enough.  I understand that armed officers are more readily available nowadays.\n\nThe other measure that could be taken to protect society (including police officers) from armed criminals is a robust sentencing policy (which we aren't going to see).  In my view, anyone arrested for carrying a knife unlawfully should go to court in the first instance.  If convicted they should receive a custodial sentence of 12 months without remission.\n\nSimilarly, anyone convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm should receive an immediate custodial sentence of 14 years imprisonment.\n\nFinally, in your example of the house where the shooting took place, the decision not to enter was nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the officers were armed.  It was a very poor management decision by a senior officer.\n\nUnfortunately, in these days of liberal academic senior officers, many of whom are selected to fill some sort of quota, such poor dec
1081397
Even if they somehow managed to vaccinate against every illness, new ones will pop up (or old ones will mutate). Furthermore, some injuries cannot be avoided.\nFinally, doctors will always be needed to assist births (complications etc) and the elderly.\n\nPS. You could ask this about ANY career.\nExample;\nWhy do cops try to end crime? Think about it.
149873
Sallu, thanks for answering my question. Politics is very useful to people. The nation we live in exists because it is built around laws and values the people support. Without police I would be afraid to go outside without a gun. Think more theoretical. Why don't terrorists blow up every city here? I mean are frisked everytime you leave your house? No. Politics is the governing body that has developed public safety. It is supposed to be built by the people it governs. Arguments happen so people can learn to understand one another and learn. It is okay to debate. You don't have to always be right but take time to learn. \nIts not politics that destroys people, its the media projecting it. Whether you are democrat or republican, you must admit the media slanders whomever is in office. Clinton almost got impeached and the media was all over it. Cheeny with the gun accident, oh they are having a hayday. Just be patient, listen close, and VOTE!!!
339016
if you take away the guns and the drugs and all the gangs i think it will be a good enviroment.
826329
Only criminals have to worry about it. The rest of us just need to \nstay out of the way of criminal activities. \n\nConversely, you stand a greater chance of being shot by a criminal\nthen by a police officer.\n\nThank you very much, while you're up!
1019609
I think this is a good idea, might even do something to lower crime rates....added bonus
826520
no, drugs and thier dealers kill 100's,  the Police only use deadly force when forced,  so when they do, they are reacting to other deadly force.\n\nthey do a dangerous job, and using force is a requirement too often
950298
If it is gang related, it will raise some concerns and you would be expected to have a good explanation. However, it will not automatically preclude you from becoming a police officer. More important for becoming a police officer is to have a clean criminal background, no financial problems, and passing the psychological evaluation.
730343
That's a pretty loaded question, but there are certainly ways that crime can be useful. For instance, overthrowing governments, riots against unjust laws or rulers, and civil disobedience to draw attention to abuses of power or inequalities. Crime is defined by the law, so crime that leads to the repeal of unjust laws could be considered useful.
861414
They kill.  That's what they're designed to do.  Without seeing one, I couldn't tell you what they're for.\n\nTurn them over to the cops.  Wait for one of the "amnesty" days if you're concerned about repercussions.  That said, most PDs would rather have them off the street than make life miserable for you.
726002
Ignoring the Constitutional complications that would arise from such a law, it would not be effective in keeping weapons out of the hands of the "bad guys."  It would, however, make it more difficult for "good guys" who are conscientious about obeying the law to defend themselves.\n\nYou point out that there are already laws against possession of drugs, and yet our prisons are filled with drug offenders.  This demonstrates that laws are not 100% effective at controlling behavior.  Even if all weapons were illegal, those who want them would find ways to get them.  Unfortunately, a large percentage of "those who want them" will be the bad guys out to do harm.\n\nThere will always be people who have weapons.  If you feel threatened by them, you might want to study how to defend yourself against them.  Warning:  this might mean you will have to take up a weapon yourself.  But at least you won't have to be scared anymore.\n\nIt is also important to teach children what to do in the presence of weapons.  It is far easier to teach your children not to touch weapons than it is to prevent them from ever coming in contact with one.
946978
Tasers render a person incapable of coming along as with a prod. They are used as a compliance tool and to defuse situations which might escalate into violence against the police.
900180
1. Constitutional right to bear arms.\n2. Self-defense.\n3. Crime deterent ( Bad guys will not know if you're armed ).
1082302
A strange fact - Shops near precincts and donut shops and cop parks normally have higher crime rates - of course detection is higher too, but it appears criminals think its "ultra cool" to rob such shops in close proximity to police to prove some adolescent gang level.