Likewise, I wouldn't issue police equipment based on the extremely common case where a policeman doesn't need a vest nor a gun all day and, in fact, on the majority of days doesn't even need their set of handcuffs.
Or to put it another way, aren't you arguing that all civilians should carry firearms as well? After all, there could be a mugger, or a rapist, or a grizzly bear. Better to have it and not need it, right?
Meanwhile, cops are murdering people with impunity at a rate of about 10x the former.
"Police" is a subculture of anti-society though and behavior and for some reason we keep giving them guns.
I don't like it; but it's not helpful to shout blame. Have to understand where we are, to drive any change.
I don't think this thread demonstrates anti-police thought in general. I think it demonstrates anti-police abuse of power/double standards/hypocrisy and other undesirable issues. It's certainly not littered with people chanting "ACAB!".
It's a fairly common occurrence in the US for the highway patrol to pull over a driver for speeding, the driver has a firearm, the police issue a speeding citation and everyone goes on their way.
How does that require the police to be armed? Do you think it likely that typical motorists would be willing to shoot a police officer in order to avoid a traffic citation? Or that the infinitesimal minority crazy enough to do that are going to be deterred if the police are armed as well?
Ordinary police officers don't need firearms because ordinary police officers are not especially likely to have anyone try to shoot at them.
The situation is different if they're executing a warrant on a meth lab, but exceptional situations are exceptional and routine situations are not.