> Either water down the second amendment ... or give the police what they need That's a false dichotomy and misses the main point of the argument to reduce pol

> Either water down the second amendment ... or give the police what they need That's a false dichotomy and misses the main point of the argument to reduce police militarization. Nobody is upset when SWAT responds to a school shooting or a terrorist act. The problem (I suppose a really good problem to have after all) is that those things almost never happen, even though they are the ones we see on the news and can quickly retrieve in our minds. You're more likely to die in a plane crash than in a terrorist act in the US. That begs the question: if militarized units don't have enough violent crime to respond to, but are still a full time unit then what do they respond to? The answer is why people are upset and it's because we are sending them to respond to drug offenses and to execute search warrants instead. Situations thay they inevitably end up escalating (on average) and killing people in. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053168017712885 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20531680177128...