Row grows on officers having guns

TO arm or not to arm. Like nuclear weapons or the death penalty, whether police should carry guns has long been the kind of binary debate which lights up the switchboards for radio phone-ins.

We all know the way such talk shows go: a Beth from Aberdeen will want bobbies to be able to shoot baddies, a

Bob from Ayr will reckon that would be scary and, most likely, unBritish.

The reality of policing, of course, has long been very different to the rhetoric. There is a consensus that Scottish police should have an armed capability while remained mostly unarmed. But within that consensus there are quite profound disagreements.

The number of officers who carry guns or who are trained to carry guns, to take one example, has varied over the years, depending on everything from fashion to the perceived threat from terrorism or organised crime. In the pre-heroin 1970s – a relatively low-crime era – Glasgow’s Sweeney-style detectives sometimes carried revolvers in their blazer pockets.

As recently as 2014 there was a huge controversy when Scottish officers in some areas started to “pack” more overtly. Back then there was no rise in the number of officers: there were merely changes in how officers wore their weapons and what duties they carried out when they were armed.

So the debate changed. Should “gun cops” patrol on foot outside their armed response vehicles or ARVs? Even if they stayed in their vehicles, should they stop a dangerous driver or help a distressed pensioner?

Police chiefs said any officer who witnessed a crime and did not act would be in dereliction of duty. That argument did not stop horrified responses from members of the public pulled up for minor road traffic offences by men with guns. A tabloid newspaper began a campaign which saw police wearing holsters photographed when they nipped in supermarkets to go to the toilet or buy a sandwich. Armed officers were, understandably, dismayed.

Yet last summer there was little or no political backlash when, in response to spree terror attacks in France, Police Scotland announced it would increase its number of armed officers by a third.

Some police want still more protection. What of Tasers? Should they be deployed routinely? Such weapons can be dangerous. But more so than a bludgeoning with a baton? Certainly not. Many police officers grow impatient with the level of debate. Some want one policy-makers and senior officers to answer one simple question before any others are posed. It goes like this: What do you expect an unarmed cop to do when faced with a suicide bomber or knifewielding extremist?