That the police should carry weapons while on regular duty

I'd like to open by addressing the "status quo" statement my opponent opened with. As it happens, I DO live in one of the countries that maintains an unarmed Police Force - New Zealand. Other countries in this list include the UK (pop 68 million) and Japan. (pop 128 million people)
I make this point to illustrate that in this debate, BOTH of us will be arguing to maintain the status quo. In my opinion, the status quo should have very little to do with the outcome of this debate thanks to a single word in the resolution - "SHOULD". 

I'd like to quickly address some of my opponents points and then come back to this. 

Points #1 and #5:

My opponent both opens and closes with a familiar refrain for the anti-gun control brigade, "the criminals have guns so we should have them too!" Another common variation on this theme is that the Police should have more/bigger guns than the criminals. This is a major point so I'd like to deal with it clearly here. 

Judges will quickly see that this is a self-defeating argument. Criminals operate outside of the law meaning that they will ALWAYS have the upper hand when it comes to weapons. They are the outnumbered and often physically outmatched as well, they need a weapon to seize the advantage. Operating outside of the law as they do, this is never a problem. Especially not in countries like the USA where gun control is lax, ineffective or non-existent.
Understand this loud and clear - Law will NEVER have a weapon advantage over Lawless 100% of the time. Here's how it looks...

Policemen are the biggest guys in the tribe. 

Criminals carry a club.

Policemen arm themselves with a club. 

Criminals now carry knives to again give themselves the advantage.

Policemen arm themselves with knives.

Criminals now carry swords to regain the advantage.

Policemen arm themselves with swords.

Criminals now carry pistols to regain the advantage.

Policemen arm themselves with pistols...

Now, the above scenario is conservative. Police are merely reacting and are each time only matching. Realistically other scenarios are possible as well, but in each of them the ease of which serious harm can be dealt escalates. In EVERY case innocent citizens are caught up in the cross fire and fallout as well. In the early instances they are merely beat up and stabbed. In the later stages they are being shot and killed instead. 

It's important to note that the criminals only need to have an advantage over the law-abiding. It's equally important to note the WE THE LAW-ABIDING dictate what that advantage will be. The only reason that advantage has escalated to a potentially fatal gun is because the law-abiding also carry guns. If the arming of a society is held back, then the criminal's military advantage is less likely to be life threatening.

My opponent brings up an excellent source in his second point and then misquotes it. I'll clear up what was certainly just an accidental 100x exaggeration and then look a little closer at his source material.
He's used this source to claim that there are 88 firearms PER PERSON in the US. In actual fact the figures show 88 firearms per 100 people. This figure places the USA on top of yet another bad list. Along with having more mass shootings between 1966 and 2012 than any other country, (USA - 16 vs Next highest - 2), the USA holds more firearms per capita than any other country. It will not surprise you to learn that this table also lists the USA as having more firearm-related deaths as well, the only country in double digits. 

Japan, the country my opponent mentions does not arm its police force, also has the lowest rate of firearms per capita and the lowest rate of deaths as well. 

It's clear that arming the population in the USA has not helped reduce gun related deaths. If this resolution was related to the USA then I think I would probably find myself on the opposite side of this debate. HOWEVER - the resolution is NOT country-specific. I see no evidence in this table or anywhere else that arming police is something NZ, UK or Japan should adopt. 

It's true that the Police often arrive at a job without knowing what the potential dangers are. It's also true that this MAY result in death or injury for the first responders. But let's remove the emotion from this and look at the facts.
MOST jobs can be quickly assessed once on site. Back up can be called, including armed police. Personal body armour can be worn further reducing the risk. 

Guns can even be safely locked in vehicles without violating the resolution we're debating, and can therefore be accessed IF needed.

Being a policeman is a hazardous job. As explained above, arming police also means arming criminals. Arming criminals directly results in MORE hazards for Police, not less.

My opponent seriously makes the point here that women need a gun to become a police officer. Seriously. There are so many holes in this that I'm going to let him pick which one he'd like to rebut and we can come back to this line if he chooses to pursue it in the second round.
- Police can not be effective if they are weaker physically than someone else. 

- Why not just arm the Policewomen the men who fail the fitness requirements?

- What specific benefit does having women officers bring? How does arming them enhance this benefit?

---

I began this debate with a reference to the word "SHOULD" in our resolution. If we were designing a society what SHOULD its police force look like?

It's my contention that Policing by Consent SHOULD be the idea we strive for. It ensures that the criminals are clearly identified and vilified. It lessens the temptation for Police to become bullies or to be perceived as such. It forces them to use intelligence, logic, reason and courtesy when dealing with the public - the vast majority of which are NOT criminals. It presents a positive role model for children who learn that even adults don't need to rely on violence and intimidation to stand up to bullies.

I'd like to note that he has indicated that he will address my rebuttals to his #3 and #4 points in the next round. Until he does so, those rebuttals stand unopposed.

This is going to be a critical point when it comes to judging this debate so I'd like to address it before we go any further. In his last round my opponent has stated that, "I am concerned with practicality, my opponent is concerned with ideals."  - PRO (Round 2) He's also indicated that I might be a little naive as to the proliferation of violent crime in the USA and that if I lived there I would likely be on his side. I agree. In fact, in my first round, I said, "If this resolution was related to the USA then I think I would probably find myself on the opposite side of this debate." - CON (Round 1) I travel all over the world for work and the USA remains the ONLY country I travel to where I take out travel insurance. I can assure everybody that I am well aware of the state of that particular country and I am not arguing that their Police should stop carrying guns. 

The FACT is that today's resolution is not region specific. Given that there is NO global status quo, how else can this resolution be taken except as a theoretical one for a theoretical ideal society?

PRO has already suggested that NZ has little need for policing at all, so he certainly has no problem with us maintaining OUR status quo. 

It is entirely appropriate to treat this debate as contrasting views on how a Police should present itself in a new ideal society. To that end, I again draw your attention to Sir Robert Peel, the founder of the modern Police Force.

"When Robert Peel started the 'New Police' in 1829, the idea faced profound and widespread hostility. Peel and his colleagues realised that the police could not defeat the mass of the population by force. Policing by consent was the only option, even if that consent was grudgingly offered by the lower social classes. That was why he consciously decided that the 'bobbies', unlike the Bow Street Runners and other ad hoc groups of constables, should be unarmed. Even the truncheon was to be hidden away, lest it should appear offensive.

The doctrine of 'minimum force' came to mean that there was a ceiling on the weapons to which the police had access - and a low ceiling at that. When a serious threat presented itself, the military was called in." - Peter Waddington (Source in Round 1)

As a quick aside as well - I'd like to point out that the society into which Peel placed his Police Force was hardly peaceful. In fact for my opponent to suggest that the UK has no crime rate worth noting suggests that he's not overly familiar with an international news channel - or maybe he forgot the massive nation-wide rioting they had there recently?
 

My opponent has brought up several countries where strict gun control laws do not work. I could address these. I could point out where Brazil, Mexico, Honduras and El Slavador sit on the governmental corruption index. But I don't have to because this is not related to our debate which is focused on the Police force. The Police carry guns in ALL of the countries he's mentioned. The fact that gun related crime is rampant there supports my point more than it does his. 

The criminals are forced to carry guns there thanks to the afore mentioned...

Ok - this is not really a "law". I made that up just now. But it could be because we literally see it in almost every facet of society. My dad is bigger than yours. My car is flasher than yours. Yo' Mama so fat...

My opponent asked what evidence my comment that the Lawless will ALWAYS have the advantage over the Lawful? I again direct him to his own comments. He and I both agree that criminals operate outside of the law. Police operate within the law. This means that Police will ALWAYS be restricted in terms of the weapons they can carry and use while criminals will not be. This fact is undisputed by either of us. Or at least it was in Round 1.

Criminals NEED a force advantage, since they are usually at a numbers disadvantage. Exactly what level that force advantage is can largely be determined by society. The Bulls don't play Jordan if they are playing some second rate college team. 

PRO reveals that not only did he misquote his source material, but he also deliberately used a misleading document. It turns out that there are a lot of other countries WHERE POLICE CARRY GUNS that ALSO have a high incidence of gun-related death. Nice. Probably not the knock out punch for his side that he seems to think it is. Adding more countries to the top of that list doesn't help him. Maybe if this were a debate about Gun control for the masses rather than just for the Police force?

Obviously I'd like to address my opponents unsubstantiated assertion that the Police men and women from NZ and the UK don't have what it takes to handle policing in the USA. Clearly it takes far more courage to enforce the law with a gun on your hip than it does to do so without. This is a five round debate though, and my opponent is digging himself a nice little hole here, so I'm going to let it go on for a bit. 

Yes you caught me, this is not a new point. I'm restating it this way to make it clearer. 

Criminals and cops are against each other. If cops carry guns, then criminals need to carry guns. It doesn't work the other way because pre-selection ensures that cops are always prime specimens in the peak of fitness. They also have a numbers advantage, information advantage, usually an experience advantage not to mention they have society and the law on their side as well. 

To win this debate, PRO wants to convince us that the Good guys have the disadvantage. We LIKE the good guys. Of course we want them to have the advantage in EVERY area - but, as has already been established, there is NO WAY to prevent the crims from accessing whatever level of weaponry they need. Police can never have a weapon advantage 100% of the time. 

What happens when a cop gets it wrong? PRO mentions the innocents in Japan that get locked away. What about the innocents that get shot and killed by a nervous or mistaken cop? 

Many countries place heavy restrictions on Police when it comes to car chases. These governments have recognised that the act of chasing the criminal poses a high risk to innocents that may be caught in the figurative cross fire. With this debate, the innocents may be caught in the literal cross fire.
Like this guy from Canada who was just walking to work when he was shot and killed as cops tried to subdue a homeless guy with a knife.
Googling, "innocent bystander caught in police shoot out" is quite depressing. Many of these people had their lives actually ended for absolutely no reason. In most of the results, the criminal the police were killing didn't even have a gun! 
In the USA and Mexico we might not have a choice. The situation there is too far gone. To disarm the police may be to place them at too much of a disadvantage. But this debate is not country specific. 

 

  

No problem:

1.  Reader's Digest's Most Trusted Professions 2014 places Police at #10, three places above the people we let look after our kids.  This survey was from NZ. Interestingly, the identical survey conducted by Reader's Digest Australia had their Police, (who DO carry guns) ranked three places below ours at #13. 

2.  A random sampling of this list of past and present Police TV Dramas showed that in 98% of them, the Police played the hero role. In the few where the Criminal was the hero, the majority of the Police characters were shown to be criminal AGAINST the status quo, ie they were "dirty" cops. 

3.  This completely exhaustive report finds that "Police in America enjoy relatively high levels of satisfaction, support, confidence, and esteem from the public..." - The Public Image of the Police, IACP Report. This report also emphasizes the importance of the Public perceiving the Police as being on their side. This echoes Robert Peel's initial vision of the modern Police Force. 

I trust this evidence is enough as I'm not really sure why he wants it and I have other things to deal with.

PRO has finally gotten around to addressing my rebuttals to some of his first round points. I'm going to quickly deal with his explanations and then get on with expanding my case.

Re: Point #3 - Arriving at a job with a limited amount of information. 
In this point, PRO stated that because officers may often find themselves arriving at a job with little or no information, they need to be prepared for the worst. "Prepared for the worst" means they need a gun strapped to their waist. In rebuttal I pointed out, quite correctly, that the vast MAJORITY of police work is actually quite mundane and weapons are not required, let alone guns. Despite what TV tells us, this is true.
I also pointed out that my side of the house DOES NOT PREVENT COPS FROM ACCESSING FIREARMS. Police in squad cars may have a firearm locked up in a safe within the car. If the situation looks dire, they can quickly and easily access it. 

Finally I pointed out that there are a myriad of alternate options, both offensive and defensive, which cops can employ to reduce the risk to themselves. These include but are not limited to: Body Armour, Tasers, Pepper Sprays, Batons, Karate, Negotiations, Radioing for backup, the Buddy system, Running away... the list goes on.
YOU might not like these tactics but these tactics have been proven again and again to save lives. 

There are two quick points I'm going to make about this particular issue:

 

There was a lighthearted moment in the first round when PRO suggested that women would not be on the Police Force were it not for the fact that the fitness requirements were lowered and Police can carry guns.

When questioned, he stated that he doesn't think women bring any special benefit to the job, except that some people wanted them there. 

He does bring up a valid point which is that a gun DOES bring a measure of lethality to a person who might otherwise be weak. This is a great argument for gun control, but that might be a debate for another time.

Unlike my opponent, I happen to believe that women bring a lot to the table as far as policing is concerned. And the DC Police appear to agree with me. In this study, they found that:

As you can see, this model mirrors that of Robert Peel. Policing by Consent rather than Policing by Force. This will all be dealt with in my 4th Round argument.

I'd also like to draw Judges attention to the fact that in the first round, PRO used this Point #4: Equality comes through the barrel of a gun to say that specifically Women police officers should be armed because they are weaker. When I asked why he wanted to stop at just women, why not include the less fit men as well, he replied with a story he claimed showed that physical fitness was important, (crucial even!) arming the police would not have helped apprehend the suspect, and that extra equipment weight can slow officers down. Let's just point out that for this point to support his argument AT ALL, he needs to accept that arming the police places a lower priority on physical fitness, will add two or three pounds minimum of weight to the officer and in cases like the one he cites, they will STILL find themselves unable to stop crime. 

To say this point is rebutted is an understatement.