It seems I read your comment as more anti-demilitarization than it was. It seemed like you were implying the US would become less safe by implementing the sugge

It seems I read your comment as more anti-demilitarization than it was. It seemed like you were implying the US would become less safe by implementing the suggestions. If your intent was only that improving safety in one specific way does not merit being called safer in general, that point was not adequately separated from a pro-militarized police position. I would guess most people are ok with the implication from "better on metric X in some way" -> "better on metric X". If that is a particular issue for you, you probably should make a specific effort to make that point clear. > by all means, reign in the out of control over weaponized "peace" officers, but please, let's be realistic on what that will actually do to overall safety. > By all means, move the needle, but don't paint with a wider brush than what the needle is actually moving. If you compared these lines from both of your comments, the first can be interpreted to imply that overall safety will actually go down if the suggestions are implemented whereas the second seems hard to misinterpret from what I believe to be your position.