Some people believe that if a police force carries guns, this encourages a higher level of violence in that society. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

There is a controversial perspective heating a debate over the impact of gun possession by the

police

on the community. Personally, I would contend that doing so might do more harm than good. It is understandable to claim that

police

officers should be equipped with

guns

in those areas where armed criminals are rampant. By having a gun, the

police

can protect ordinary citizens as well as themselves from potential attacks. It gives the

police

the leverage in their combat against criminals, especially those hardened perpetrators.

For example

, Norway

police

forces previously were not armed with

guns

while doing patrols.

However

, after a destructive attack of the IS terrorist,

this

has not been the case anymore.

As a result

, firearms are obviously necessary since they serve as a deterrent to would-be offenders.

On the contrary

, polices' carrying

guns

is unreasonable since it could increase the potential of a miscarriage of justice and mistaken shootings of innocent civilians. Even though the legislations are put forward to protect citizens from torture or cruel treatment, if the

police

are armed, they

also

protect their rights on using

guns

.

For instance

, the

police

will be less likely to give a

second

thought before pulling the trigger when they see someone as a dangerous threat. They can easily get away with private execution by inventing a legitimate excuse,

such

as

self-defense

Change the spelling

self-defence

show examples

.

Consequently

, the chance of shoot-out would naturally rise, causing many preventable injuries or losses of life. In conclusion, while owning firearms is of importance, it still contributes to higher violence percentage.

Therefore

, it is unsuitable to apply a gun possession policy.