The article begins with a story about a police officer who was able to thwart a life-threatening attack by an inmate because he had a backup gun. An argument in favor of allowing police officers to carry backup guns is presented, relying on case examples of officers whose lives were likely saved by their backup gun. The main contention is that if an officer must rely on a gun for survival, it is better to have two of them. However, some police departments prohibit officers from carrying backup weapons. Two reasons for such policies are liability issues and the danger presented by second guns. First, some police departments erroneously believe that by allowing officers only one gun, they are limiting their liability. An interview with a former police officer and current police liability attorney established that the real liability issue is presented when departments do not provide adequate training for the use of backup weapons. Other departments with policies against backup guns site the additional danger posed by a second gun; in a scuffle with a suspect, the officer has to keep track of two guns instead of only one, heightening the danger. Other departments declare their officers do not need backup guns because crime in their jurisdictions is not bad. However, one of the case examples presented at the beginning of the article took place in a small town with minimal crime problems. The San Antonio Police Department decided to change its anti-backup gun policy after several officers were seriously wounded when a suspect lifted an officer’s gun and began shooting. Finally, the author urges police officers to approach their commanders about allowing officers to carry backup weapons. A textbox offers the basic elements that should be included in any comprehensive backup gun policy.