Currently only officers attached to the elite Special Operations Group are armed.

The Police Association has reiterated its desire to see all frontline staff issued with the devices. With the recent upgrade of the threat level for police, questioning the need for another avenue for self-defence is entirely appropriate.

However, the question should be asked whether police need the devices and if providing them would complicate an already complex decision-making process when confronted with volatile situations.

There is no evidence that police are resorting unnecessarily to drawing their firearms, but having a less lethal option could be a desirable alternative.

It is important to note that tasers are not non-lethal; they are less lethal option than a firearm.

There has been examples of police using tasers inappropriately, or even accidentally, such as the case of a NSW policewoman who, in a stressful situation, mistook her firearm for her taser and shot dead a mentally disturbed man.

If confronted with a situation where capsicum spray was not effective, most people would prefer police have recourse to use a taser rather than a firearm.

Police are trained to use the least force necessary to manage risk and there are serious consequences if they overstep the mark.

Tasmania Police already has a fine reputation for restraint and common sense policing.

Frontline policing would be a difficult and complicated task, particularly when dealing with aggressive people who might be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Providing another tool to keep the public safe would not be the worst outcome but it must be treated with the utmost caution and be evidenced based.