zlacker

That could work in Massachusetts, Maryland or some other states with very low firearms ownership rates. I don't think it's fair to ask police to go out and police without at least letting them have (at their discretion) the same level of armament as the local law abiding citizens and holding them to the same standards when they do use force. Allowing a civilian police force to have things the local civilians can't have doesn't make sense IMO.

What cops really need is more training to not shoot first and ask questions later. 18yo marines manning checkpoints in the middle east are expected to more or less hold their fire until they come under fire. Domestic police should be held to similiar standards.

>>throwa+(OP)
A different argument in favor of disarmed police is specifically relevant for the presence of an armed citizen (at least in very urban and central area where reinforcements can be minutes away, not half an hour)

You could say that disarmed police in regular patrols can be safer as it is less of a threat to a criminal. this would obviously not apply to known cases of dangers or cases were reinforcements are unlikely.