You're arguing that coercion is bad. I don't need to be persuaded of that. I'm suggesting that potential increases in coercion be tolerated if they can be part

You're arguing that coercion is bad. I don't need to be persuaded of that. I'm suggesting that potential increases in coercion be tolerated if they can be part of a tradeoff that results in fewer deaths. I also didn't mean to suggest anything about increasing the total amount of equipment carried by an officer. Are you suggesting that proliferation of a greater total number of weapons is a likely practical outcome? Variety coincides with proliferation, or something to that effect?