This book challenges what are, for many people, deep-rooted expectations regarding the routine arming of police and compares jurisdictions in which police are routinely armed (Toronto, Canada and Brisbane, Australia) and those where police are not routinely armed (Manchester, England and Auckland, New Zealand). With a focus on Western jurisdictions and by examining a range of documentary, media and data sources, this book provides an evidence-based examination of the question: Do police really need guns? This book first provides detailed insight into the armed policing tradition and perceptions/expectations with respect to police and firearms. A range of theoretical concepts regarding policing, state power and the use of force is applied to an examination of what makes the police powerful. This is set against the minimum force tradition, which is typified by policing in England and Wales. Consideration is also given to the role played by key tropes and constructs of popular culture. Drawing on Surette’s model of symbolic reality, the book considers contrasting media traditions and the positioning of firearms within narrative arcs, especially the role of heroes. The book concludes by drawing together the key themes and findings, and considering the viability of retaining and/or moving towards non-routinely armed police.

An urgent look at the relationship between guns, the police, and race The United States is steeped in guns, gun violence—and gun debates. As arguments rage on, one issue has largely been overlooked—Americans who support gun control turn to the police as enforcers of their preferred policies, but the police themselves disproportionately support gun rights over gun control. Yet who do the police believe should get gun access? When do they pursue aggressive enforcement of gun laws? And what part does race play in all of this? Policing the Second Amendment unravels the complex relationship between the police, gun violence, and race. Rethinking the terms of the gun debate, Jennifer Carlson shows how the politics of guns cannot be understood—or changed—without considering how the racial politics of crime affect police attitudes about guns. Drawing on local and national newspapers, interviews with close to eighty police chiefs, and a rare look at gun licensing processes, Carlson explores the ways police talk about guns, and how firearms are regulated in different parts of the country. Examining how organizations such as the National Rifle Association have influenced police perspectives, she describes a troubling paradox of guns today—while color-blind laws grant civilians unprecedented rights to own, carry, and use guns, people of color face an all-too-visible system of gun criminalization. This racialized framework—undergirding who is “a good guy with a gun” versus “a bad guy with a gun”—informs and justifies how police understand and pursue public safety. Policing the Second Amendment demonstrates that the terrain of gun politics must be reevaluated if there is to be any hope of mitigating further tragedies.

Policing and firearms: it is a crucial relationship. Should police be routinely armed? If so, what restrictions should be imposed on the use of firearms? Where police are not routinely armed, there is still a need for specialist armed police: how do these units operate, and are they effective? This ground-breaking edited book explores the nexus between policing and firearms with a genuinely international focus. Contributors from Ireland, Germany, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Mexico, the United States, Venezuela, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada explore the issues from a range of perspectives, including human rights, militarization, police legitimacy, and the risks police firearms pose to the community and to police themselves. This thought-provoking collection is an indispensable resource for law enforcement policymakers and students of policing and criminal justice.

For years proposals for gun control and the ownership of firearms have been among the most contentious issues in American politics. For public authorities to make reasonable decisions on these matters, they must take into account facts about the relationship between guns and violence as well as conflicting constitutional claims and divided public opinion. In performing these tasks, legislators need adequate data and research to judge both the effects of firearms on violence and the effects of different violence control policies. Readers of the research literature on firearms may sometimes find themselves unable to distinguish scholarship from advocacy. Given the importance of this issue, there is a pressing need for a clear and unbiased assessment of the existing portfolio of data and research. Firearms and Violence uses conventional standards of science to examine three major themes - firearms and violence, the quality of research, and the quality of data available. The book assesses the strengths and limitations of current databases, examining current research studies on firearm use and the efforts to reduce unjustified firearm use and suggests ways in which they can be improved.

The Glock pistol is America’s Gun. It has been rhapsodized by hip-hop artists and coveted by cops and crooks alike. Created in 1982 by Gaston Glock, the pistol arrived in America at a fortuitous time. Law enforcement agencies had concluded that their agents and officers, armed with standard six-round revolvers, were getting "outgunned" by drug dealers with semi-automatic pistols; they needed a new gun. With its lightweight plastic frame and large-capacity spring-action magazine, the Glock was the gun of the future. You could drop it underwater, toss it from a helicopter, or leave it out in the snow, and it would still fire. It was reliable, accurate, lightweight, and cheaper to produce than Smith and Wesson’s revolver. Filled with corporate intrigue, political maneuvering, Hollywood glitz, bloody shoot-outs—and an attempt on Gaston Glock’s life by a former lieutenant—Glock is not only the inside account of how Glock the company went about marketing its pistol to police agencies and later the public, but also a compelling chronicle of the evolution of gun culture in America.

This report explores the use of lethal force by police in the United Kingdom. Following a discussion on the organization and policies of London's Metropolitan Police, the focus turns to weapons, training, issues in the use of force by police and the controversial question of whether police should be armed. The need for tactical and refresher training for police, and appropriate training for police unit-commanders, to make them aware of the tactical operations available to them, is pointed out. The demand for the greater firepower of self-loading pistols may be reduced if ammunition issued to police officers has greater stopping power. An alternative to ball ammunition is necessary, since ball ammunition poses a danger to innocent citizens when it is used. The most acute dilemma is not faced by policymakers but rather by police officers who must decide whether to draw their weapon, to take aim, or to open fire. Sometimes, police officers have only a second in which to decide whether to fire their guns; if they make the wrong decision, the may be killed, or kill someone else unnecessarily. There is a continual need to balance police operational effectiveness against public acceptability and safety.