[vacri]

Military weapons are designed for maximum lethality, police weapons are designed for minimum lethality. Military weapons are about killing opponents, police weapons are about controlling citizens.

There's not much call for a soldier to be sent into battle with a taser, or for a police officer to be on duty with a SAW.

[dragonwriter]

> Military weapons are designed for maximum lethality, police weapons are designed for minimum lethality.

That's actually not true in either case. Military weapons are designed (or at least, selected) for cost-effective lethality -- even the heavy-spending US weighs logistical concerns heavily.

And police weapons are, for the most part, not designed for minimal lethality (TASERs are designed intentionally as less-lethal weapons, but they aren't cops main weapons.)

[vacri]

cost-effective

Everything is designed for cost-effectiveness in this age of economic rationalism. Military weapons, police weapons, this keyboard I'm typing on... being cost-effective is not a hallmark of being military.

TASERS ... aren't cops main weapons

In some parts of the US. Which is the problem being discussed here: that police in the US reach first for the lethal solution. Police in the UK don't often carry firearms at all. Police here in Australia carry firearms, but they're a weapon of last resort, not their 'main weapon'.