Of the weapons I use for work I have over $10,000 in the two rifles and the city paid for the $400 pistol.
I can show you plenty of examples where it costs a city (taxpayers) far more to not properly train their police officers than it does to buy the ammo to train them in the first place. We provide quality firearms training for 1500+ officers every year for far less than it would cost the city to pay one settlement if an officer were to use his firearm inappropriately. If you are thinking its open season on ammo and officers can shoot up as much as they want you are incorrect.
Studies have shown the benefits of officers having take home vehicles. The vehicles last longer which saves money and the presence of those vehicles in the community (even if driven off duty) tends to deter crime. We have to pay to drive our vehicles off duty or to use them for part time employment now so it's not free.
I'm fine with the paying for the ammo, so that they can train, just not the firearm. The firearm that people pay for can double as a home protection or off duty firearm. And there is wear and tear on those take home vehicles that taxpayers have to pay for. As far as deterring crime. I would rather people learn to deter crime themselves via the purchase of firearms. But if take home vehicles really are a crime deterrent, then I say in order to take home a vehicle, the officer should be required to live in the worst most crime infested neighborhoods in order to deter the maximum amount of crime. It would only make sense to have the taxpayers money be used where it can do the most good.
And I like police officers, My grandpa was an officer, some of my friends are officers, many of my customers are officers, and some of my coworkers are officers. But I still think that there are spending cuts that they could be making.