One has to question whether the issue is the visibility of arms, or a change in the expected leading to heightened reactions. In the USofA, Australia and several other locals, arms are traditionally worn. It would be interesting to see whether the addition of further armaments in those localities had the same effect. Much more study is required here before conclusions can be drawn with any degree of reliability.

If you give a cop more weapons ofcourse they will be more aggressive. They are violent and aggressive criminals. Give them body cams not tazers.

Seems to fit in with what you might expect in animal behaviour, some will bow to the visual force of threat whereas the reaction of others would be to increase their own threat of violence to the perceived threat.

It seems plausible that, even with training, an officer with a (nonlethal) distance weapon would behave differently from an officer without one. And that the people around them would react to that difference. Checkhov's Taser.

I grew up unworried about armed Canadian Police, but then I called 911. Asperger's Syndrome gives me atypical eye contact, so I became the suspect, and still terrified.

The statement "Though these figures are small..." is a red flag in this article. You need more data to draw any conclusions from such a study. Just one incident could totally skew any results. This looks more like a preconceived belief that quickly assumes insufficient data as proof. From what I have read, things are getting much more violent in the UK. I'm sure the officers will be carrying guns in the near future no matter what liberal apologists say.

It would seem to be unnatural for any animal to attack a more dangerous animal just because that animal appears more dangerous. Evolutionary survival depends on the 'flight' aspect of 'fight or flight'.

Give a control bully a weapon, and he will want to use it, and will exhibit the aggressiveness that accompanies that attitude. That aggressive body language will be transmitted to the ''prey'' who will act according to their nature. I've spoken to several US citizens that have taken up residence in the UK, and their reason for being there was, ''because the police dont wear guns.'' It's only a small step from tasers to guns, in the minds of control freaks. So to me, tasers are just the thin end of the wedge towards that. Any hostility that tasers provoke, will be used as an excuse to introduce guns as the norm. The use of guns by British police has resulted in the disaster of innocent people being shot, injured or killed, which is deplorable, especially, when the police have ultimately, ''been deemed to have done nothing wrong!'' The British police used to be regarded as ''wonderful,'' but that reputation has slid significantly downhill, when in case after case, they were shown to have made serious errors, and had then lied repeatedly, and extensively, to cover their respective rears, even to the extent of getting innocent people convicted, and jailed. Tasers are just another step in the downhill direction.

I find the comment by NIK interesting and thoughtful. Traditionally New Zealand followed the UK Police example, wearing no weapons but in recent years officers have been issued with tazers, initially only to be used in extreme conditions but quite quickly they became an almost first choice action piece. Now the tazer has lost its novelty the call for police to carry guns is renewed. I agree, body-cams would be my prefered choice. That way you gather more reliable information to better understand the situation.

The guy with the weapon has nowhere near as much incentive to placate any situation.
Give them cameras, not weapons - then everyone will be forced to behave better, instead of incentivised to behave more aggressively!