Philip Johnston: “Since the time of Robert Peel, it has been accepted that, if the police are to have the consent of the public, they should be unarmed. Peel even decreed that truncheons should be hidden from view. Although the police today are less community-based than many would wish, to give every bobby a gun would change their character for ever.”
I've heard it said (from the mouth of a prospective RCMP candidate) that Canadian police officers must report each instance that they draw their gun in public. It's not clear to me what the policy is for police officers Stateside, but if TV is any guide—and it's not—American officers draw their gun hourly on the hour. Anyway, Johnston interestingly notes that only 22% of those polled in the police officer's association in Britain favour armed officers on the beat. (A message for politicians and the public: if you have a certain policy idea, it might be wise to first see what the people who will carry out that policy think.) Johnston argues for more unarmed police offers on the street who are approachable and part of the community they serve, rather than separate from it.
It should—well, shouldn't, but who cares about that, right?—be mentioned that when I first read the headline, I thought it said "More boobies on the beat is the answer"—an agreeable sentiment—instead of "bobbies". Breasts, British police officers, same diff.