[Winniesboy]

I don't have any expertise on this subject, so say this with some diffidence, but -
on the face of it seems common sense that a police force in which the only armed officers are those who have volunteered, been vetted and intensively trained for the purpose is likely to be be more effective and safer in the use of those arms than a force where every officer carries a gun as a matter of course, whatever his competence. I'm not suggesting this is an argument against routinely arming police, but simply that when guns are actually used the average level of competence is likely to differ.

[El Gato]

only armed officers are those who have volunteered, been vetted and intensively trained for the purpose is likely to be be more effective and safer in the use of those arms than a force where every officer carries a gun as a matter of course

So, they're all volunteers to begin with, you train them all to handle firearms, and you make them practice and requalify periodically.

Would be police who don't want to "handle firearms", should never be hired, and those already on the force should be relegated to desk jobs, or laid off it there aren't enough desk jobs.