Arming the police can lead to a spiral of violence. In places where the police are not routinely armed, a portion of criminals will not arm themselves (since, for example, armed robbery often carries a higher sentence than robbery). Once the police are armed, criminals who do not match their capability operate under a strong disadvantage. Therefore, when the police become routinely armed, the criminal world fully arms itself in response. [1] The mere fact of increased weapons possession (by both police and criminals) will in itself result in higher use, since in circumstances where arms may not be currently used (e.g. a police chase), either side carrying weapons will mean that they consider shooting an option which they did not formerly possess. A study comparing police dispute resolution in Norway and Sweden (the former unarmed, the latter armed) [2] tended to confirm that where police have guns, they are much more likely to use them – the Swedish police shot significantly more suspects. Thus gun availability effectively reduces the options currently available to police along the ‘continuum of force’. For example, if the police are armed, they are less likely to use less harmful alternatives such as tasers, “stun guns”, CS spray, and negotiation, even though the lowered lethality of a technology generally seems to imply it will be used more frequently. [3]  [1] Talking Point, ‘Should British police carry guns?’, BBC News, 12 February 2001,  accessed 20 September 2011  [2] Knutson , J and Strype J. 2003 Police use of Firearms in Norway and Sweden Policing and Society Vol. 13(4) pp. 429-439.  [3] Porter Henry, ‘Should the police ever shoot to kill?’ Liberty Central, 13 May 2009,  , accessed 20 September 2011