This book challenges what are, for many people, deep-rooted expectations regarding the routine arming of police and compares jurisdictions in which police are routinely armed (Toronto, Canada and Brisbane, Australia) and those where police are not routinely armed (Manchester, England and Auckland, New Zealand). With a focus on Western jurisdictions and by examining a range of documentary, media and data sources, this book provides an evidence-based examination of the question: Do police really need guns? This book first provides detailed insight into the armed policing tradition and perceptions/expectations with respect to police and firearms. A range of theoretical concepts regarding policing, state power and the use of force is applied to an examination of what makes the police powerful. This is set against the minimum force tradition, which is typified by policing in England and Wales. Consideration is also given to the role played by key tropes and constructs of popular culture. Drawing on Surette's model of symbolic reality, the book considers contrasting media traditions and the positioning of firearms within narrative arcs, especially the role of heroes. The book concludes by drawing together the key themes and findings, and considering the viability of retaining and/or moving towards non-routinely armed police.

Policing and firearms: it is a crucial relationship. Should police be routinely armed? If so, what restrictions should be imposed on the use of firearms? Where police are not routinely armed, there is still a need for specialist armed police: how do these units operate, and are they effective? This ground-breaking edited book explores the nexus between policing and firearms with a genuinely international focus. Contributors from Ireland, Germany, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Mexico, the United States, Venezuela, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada explore the issues from a range of perspectives, including human rights, militarization, police legitimacy, and the risks police firearms pose to the community and to police themselves. This thought-provoking collection is an indispensable resource for law enforcement policymakers and students of policing and criminal justice.

This book uses an Australian case study to shine a much-needed spotlight on discretionary police powers to punish, and their implications for justice and human rights. It offers a revealing analysis of the problematic rationales that secured the legislative passage of banning notice provisions through the State Parliament of Victoria, Australia in 2007, which occurred amidst similar developments in other jurisdictions across the world: in the UK, New Labour's "tough on crime" initiative in the 1990s, responses to the post 9/11 terror threat, and more recent lockout laws in Sydney, Australia. The Victorian case study offers a range of datasets including Hansard parliamentary debates, Victoria Police data, media coverage and interviews with magistrates. This material provides critical insights into the broader consequences of discretionary police powers, including their effect upon the separation of powers, individual rights, and the steady and largely unchecked proliferation of discretionary police powers across most Australian jurisdictions. On the tenth anniversary of these first Victorian on-the-spot banning powers, this Brief provides a sound basis for subsequent criminological explorations of the effectiveness of banning in tackling issues of disorder, deterrence and punishment, and of the broader challenge of balancing individual rights and community protection.