"Police violence supporters will say the USA is a far more dangerous and lawless country, but how much of the danger is self-fulfilling prophecy?'

Beats me. Since when is a (non-rhetorical) QUESTION an argument? (No one is a "police violence supporter." By using that obnoxious and dishonest description, the author forfeits any claim to thoughtfulness.)

We don't know how much of police fear is the result of a violent culture that would make policing here without a weapon suicidal. But the author is prepared to bet the lives of cops and citizens that if we disarmed police, the quality of life in these United States would improve.

That most police encounters do not involve violence is a non sequitur. I could leave my nice new car unlocked on the streets of my town, with the key in plain sight, and it would not be stolen, on most days. Should I do that?

Maybe social workers don't need guns because police are sent to the scarier social work cases.

I agree completely that the equilibrium struck in the rest of the industrialized world is better than that struck in the USA. But disarmament his hard, largely because inter-bad-guy warfare here is fought with guns. While the bad guys stay armed to protect themselves from each other, the cops must stay armed to protect themselves from the bad guys. Unilateral disarmament is simply a non-starter.