Unlike other countries, police in UK do not carry guns. Some think it leaves citizen unprotected, other think it reduce the overall violence in the society. Please discuss.

　　There is a heated debate over the issue whether policemen should be armed with pistols when on patrol. The debate is caused by a recent report, which told a story that a victim was killed by a policeman when the victim rushed out from a supermarket and was mistaken for a robber.

　　Some people even suggest that policemen should be disarmed, for this can reduce the mishaps of innocent victims. This is a sound suggestion at first sight, because cold pistols are merciless. They can kill the criminals as well as innocent people. But on second thought, policemen cannot afford to be disarmed.

　　Imagine that some gangsters break into a bank, fully armed, what policemen could do to protect the security of the bank and the clients in it? Arms are the authority which can stop crimes and render a sense of security to the society. If policemen do not take arms, the number of criminals will increase and peoples life and property will be impeded.

　　What is worse, a policeman cannot protect himself when there are crimes. Figures released by the authorities concerned show that thousands of policemen devoted their cherished lives to the maintenance of social security. Most of the contributors are killed by the brutality of criminals with arms. A policeman cannot protect himself, not to mention to protect the social security. Arms are indispensable in the protection of personal and social security.

　　Of course, arms should be taken by responsible persons. Otherwise, they will become weapons which can kill innocent persons. Nevertheless, the policy-makers should not overcorrect. The key is to put the gun on the one who are highly responsible for the society and the people.

　　Unlike other countries, police in UK do not carry guns. Some think it leaves citizen unprotected, other think it reduce the overall violence in the society. Please discuss.

　　There is a heated debate over the issue whether policemen should be armed with pistols when on patrol. The debate is caused by a recent report, which told a story that a victim was killed by a policeman when the victim rushed out from a supermarket and was mistaken for a robber.

　　Some people even suggest that policemen should be disarmed, for this can reduce the mishaps of innocent victims. This is a sound suggestion at first sight, because cold pistols are merciless. They can kill the criminals as well as innocent people. But on second thought, policemen cannot afford to be disarmed.

　　Imagine that some gangsters break into a bank, fully armed, what policemen could do to protect the security of the bank and the clients in it? Arms are the authority which can stop crimes and render a sense of security to the society. If policemen do not take arms, the number of criminals will increase and peoples life and property will be impeded.

　　What is worse, a policeman cannot protect himself when there are crimes. Figures released by the authorities concerned show that thousands of policemen devoted their cherished lives to the maintenance of social security. Most of the contributors are killed by the brutality of criminals with arms. A policeman cannot protect himself, not to mention to protect the social security. Arms are indispensable in the protection of personal and social security.

　　Of course, arms should be taken by responsible persons. Otherwise, they will become weapons which can kill innocent persons. Nevertheless, the policy-makers should not overcorrect. The key is to put the gun on the one who are highly responsible for the society and the people.