My problem with the use of lethal weapons

[Ucy]

Actually I have a lot of problems with lethal weapons usage. But my main problem with them is the "taking of lives" part.

Why not use the most effective non-lethal and cheap  weapons instead? You get the "job" done with them too, right ?  You immobilize a criminal, send evidences to the police and get justice... Isn't this good enough?

[Ahmed Abdelrahman]

The use of non lethal weapons is there. They developed electric guns and hand held electrics which are designed for immobilising the criminal and are being used right now

But in some situations criminals can't be stopped with non lethal force and if it has been used it will lead to more loses... So it depends on the situation and you must be well prepared

[Foxpup]

Why not use the most effective non-lethal and cheap  weapons instead?

In the first place, because "effective non-lethal" weapons don't exist outside of science fiction. Less-lethal weapons, as they're properly known, are also much less effective, with many criminals (particularly those under the influence of certain drugs) being almost immune. And they're called less-lethal weapons because they often end up proving fatal anyway.

You get the "job" done with them too, right ?  You immobilize a criminal, send evidences to the police and get justice... Isn't this good enough?

No. That is not (or at least shouldn't be) the primary "job" of the police. Their first duty is to protect the public, and that means using the most effective means available to immediately stop the threat. If a criminal is actively posing a deadly threat to innocent lives, protecting the criminal's life so they may be brought to trial is secondary to protecting the public, and the police can't afford to risk using less effective weapons and techniques that don't always work.