If officers don't engage because they are insufficiently equipped, you effectively have less policing. Less policing causes more violence and more deaths.
Why pick out a random statistic like knife crime? It sucks, but matters much less than the following statistics:
US has 4 times more intentional homicide rate vs. UK. US has 18 times more murder rate vs. UK.
I think the evidence is quite clear that the UK with police that are less heavily armed have better crime statistics, fewer police deaths, AND fewer civilian deaths caused by police.
I don't think this would be a good idea. There's a lot of content created on Facebook at any given moment. If you show things only in chronological order, it would take an incredible amount of filtering (that the vast majority of users won't do) to get to anything reasonable.
Reddit and HN front pages are both driven by an algorithm sampling both popularity and time. I think HN also has a chronological view, but that's not considered the front page.
"Pg. 10: Yeah, Juul and the like really are hurting children. Grades 2 & 3 Obesity are increasing too. Both are not good."
I read the charts a little differently - overall tobacco product usage has gone down quite significantly, with cigarettes and cigars driving the majority of that. I think it's a safe assumption to make that at least some of that drop is due to the switch to e-cigarettes like Juul. Obviously "how much" of that drop is due to the increase in e-cigarettes vs. the natural decline of smoking is in question, but I would not draw a conclusion that e-cigarettes are hurting children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officer...