A common misconception among society is that the role of police officers is to provide security. It's not. Quite the contrary. Security is on-site, monitoring, and guarding whatever it is that needs to be secured. If it's not, the owner of whatever wealth is in need of security is taking a risk, perhaps acceptable.
Police officers, on the other hand, rarely monitor and guard society. Once in a while there's an event or some such that requires their presence, but that's usually to keep "law and order", not to secure anything. And thus we have their role: law enforcement.
More often than not the law that police officers are enforcing are laws that make it harder for society to secure itself. Laws against firearms, for example. In other words, firearms laws say that we aren't allowed any advantage in securing our persons and property, and we must pay for police officers to bring us to "justice" when we violate these laws.
It's a simple exercise in logic, really. The law, created and enforced by a legal monopoly, is used to make society less secure. Far from police officers as a form of security, they are in fact a form of anti-security. If society does what it believes it must for security, the police will arrest them, cage them, and confiscate their wealth. And there you have it.