Why Are Police Carrying AK-47s, Pellet Guns at Protests? What’s Really Changed? Are protests evolving in the age of social media?
If someone had shown you a picture of a protest ten years ago, chances are you would have seen police officers with lathis, helmets and perhaps a water cannon in the background.
Today, the picture often looks very different.
Images of police carrying AK-47 rifles, wearing heavy protective gear and reports of pellet guns being used during protests have left many people asking the same question: Has policing changed?
The short answer is yes—but so have protests.
Gone are the days when demonstrations were organised weeks in advance through posters and word of mouth. Today, a single social media post can bring thousands of people together within hours. Information spreads instantly, crowds grow rapidly and situations can change in minutes.
Most protests begin peacefully. People gather to voice their opinions, demand action or express disagreement with government policies. Peaceful protest is an important part of any democracy. However, there are times when demonstrations take a different turn. Stone-pelting, vandalism, damage to public property and clashes with security personnel have become part of some large-scale protests. When that happens, the job of the police becomes far more complicated.
This changing reality has also changed the equipment they carry.
The AK-47 is one of the most recognisable rifles in the world. Seeing it in the hands of police officers during a civilian protest can understandably make people uncomfortable. While these rifles are usually associated with anti-terror or high-risk operations, some police units also carry them as part of their standard security equipment in situations where there is a possibility of serious violence. Their presence does not necessarily mean they will be used, but it certainly changes the atmosphere.
Pellet guns have raised even more questions.
They are often described as an alternative to live ammunition because they are meant to disperse violent crowds without using conventional bullets. But “less lethal” does not mean harmless. Pellet guns can still cause severe injuries, particularly if pellets strike sensitive parts of the body. That is why every report of their use immediately sparks public debate.
At the heart of the discussion is a difficult question.
How should the police maintain law and order without using excessive force?
There is no simple answer. On one hand, officers have a responsibility to protect people, themselves and public property if a protest turns violent. On the other hand, citizens have a constitutional right to assemble peacefully and express their views. Balancing these two responsibilities is one of the toughest challenges any police force faces.
Ideally, force is meant to be used in stages. Police usually begin with warnings, negotiations and barricades. If tensions rise, they may use tear gas or water cannons to disperse crowds. Stronger measures are expected to be a last resort, used only when there is a serious threat to life or public safety.
That is why images of advanced weapons at protests often trigger strong reactions. For some, they represent preparedness in an increasingly unpredictable world. For others, they raise concerns about whether policing is becoming too militarised.
Perhaps the bigger question is not whether police should have modern equipment—they need the tools to deal with modern challenges. The real question is when those tools should be used, how they should be used and whether they are used with restraint and accountability.
As protests evolve in the age of social media, policing will continue to evolve too. But one expectation remains unchanged: in a democracy, public safety and the right to peaceful protest should go hand in hand, not stand in opposition.