The case for disarming America’s police force — Quartz

America is moving more and more rapidly toward a garrison state, and soon we will not find solace by repeating to ourselves: ‘Ours is a democratic society’

Paul Takagi, American criminologist, 1974


Guns aren’t just a danger in and of themselves. They enable a policing philosophy built on violence and forced compliance, rather than one founded on respect, trust and consent. That philosophy affects every police interaction, even those that don’t involve actual shooting.

Source: The case for disarming America’s police force — Quartz


I’ve thought that for years. Equipping the majority of police with lethal armaments and military-style dress and equipment (body armor, armor helmets, armored vehicles, black motif, etc.) is not helping them ” to serve and protect” society, which I’d argue is the more fundamental purpose of police than “law enforcement”.
We have thousands of laws which should not be enforced by a death sentence, and “resisting arrest” or “being scary” should not themselves be sufficient cause for a death sentence.
SWAT, drilled daily in both accurate use of firearms and restraint against resorting to using them too quickly in tense/stressful situations, can keep its guns. They are the ones sent after organized crime and active shooters anyway, not normal officers. Normal police dealing with vehicle traffic, tickets, fines, parole violations by non-violent offenders, etc. do not need to be armed.
I could see a special exception for Alaska and Yellowstone National Park officers to be suitably armed against grizzly bears.