Bravery is not: proactively shooting someone who might be a threat.
Bravery is: not proactively shooting someone who might be a threat.
The best and bravest are the ones who choose to take the jobs where they place themselves in the line of danger. Is that brave? Not if one goes in guns blazing.
Bravery is not mowing down any potential threat. Anyone with a big enough gun can do that. The true brave souls are those who are willing to enter a dangerous situation without a shoot-first-ask-questions-later mentality. They are the ones who cannot accidentally gun down a 12-year-old boy or an innocent man in his own home.
Perhaps applicants for these jobs should be asked if they would still want the job if they cannot shoot first? Or perhaps most peacekeepers should go sans weapon with only the most elite, highly trained given the tremendous burden of carrying a deadly weapon? They would just be a small elite group that have weapons that are called in to the extreme cases when they are needed. To think that chasing someone down a big city warrants a plethora of people carrying a weapon is laughably naïve at this point when thousands of cameras cover every square foot of the world. What are we not going to find these people? Are they going to get away?
Most critics of this proposal instantly argue something along the lines of “if police cannot carry weapons no one would apply for the job.”
Great – let the market decide. That is in fact, the entire point of the exercise. Let the market weed out the “shoot first” crowd so that only the bravest men & women take on the job and only the most elite of that group are given weapons on the regular. The result may be less accidental/mistaken shootings with more qualified people on the job. Efficiency all around.