Defund or Disarm?

To the Editor:
G.K. Chesterton famously wrote that good reform begins by questioning the purpose of a thing before changing it. Prior to removing a fence, he advised, you should figure out why it was put there in the first place. With that in mind, I ask the following question: what if we reduced the number of armed police officers? 
Watching the footage of George Floyd’s murder, I wondered what might have happened if the officers had been unarmed. Would they still have been emboldened to act as they did? Would the crowd of concerned onlookers have intervened and stopped them? Who knows… but it begs the question whether police officers need to carry firearms as frequently as they do.
Certainly, we need police officers who are able to respond to lethal threats with appropriate force, but what is the threat level in Wildwood? Cape May? Middle Township? Does it necessitate that police be armed on routine patrols or while directing traffic? Or, can public safety be effectively maintained with the same number of officers, but fewer guns?
As someone who identifies strongly as “pro-gun,” it feels strange to be asking these questions, but I think the majority of Second Amendment supporters and gun control advocates recognize and respect firearms as lethal weapons. They are designed to kill, not threaten or maim. For this reason, the very presence of a gun can be intimidating – particularly for those who don’t trust the person carrying it.
Despite current events, this is not a critique of any local police department. As a resident of Middle Township, I have been especially happy with the department under Chief Christopher Leusner.
However, we live in a state where firearms are heavily restricted, which has furthered the imbalance of power between law enforcement and the citizens they serve. Perhaps we can take a page out of Chesterton’s book and question the necessity of firearms in police activities, then consider whether a partial disarmament would result in better behavior and greater trust.