Prompt: Some people believe that if a police officer carries guns, it can encourage a higher level of violence. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Whether a police officer should carry a pistol or not is debatable.A few people ponder that if a policeman carries guns then it might lead to more violence. I firmly dissent with this notion and will explain my standpoint in the upcoming paragraphs. Ċ To commence with, the fundamental reason why an officer should carry a weapon is that they are professionally trained to use a gun so it will not lead to violence.To elaborate, an officer will only take out a pistol in adverse circumstances where the life of citizens is in danger.For example, recent news published by the Times of India illustrated that a policeman was able to protect the employees at the bank robbery because he immediately used his revolver to distract and shoot the robbers on site. Therefore, a self-defence weapon is required to be carried by police personnel for people's safety. Ċ Another point to consider is that a weapon can be useful to maintain discipline in society. In other words, some criminals are highly proficient in fighting skills hence they can overpower the police officer so in these situations a handgun can be helpful to bring out fear in the minds of the offenders. For instance, BBC news reported an incident where a group of fighters got into a quarrel and started hitting each other, a policeman was able to tackle this situation by taking out the pistol and arresting them all. Thus, a gun can be a useful asset for an officer to wisely handle situations without violence. Ċ To conclude from the aforementioned arguments, I would like to infer that a police officer needs to carry a handgun in order to maintain decorum in society, and also protect the life of the citizens at risk during life-threatening circumstances such as robberies and gun fires by lawbreakers.