
Originally Posted by
_Stormin_
This has actually been the subject of a few discussions here. Rural LEOs are in less dense environments and actually more likely to need to (and be able to) safely engage targets at longer distances. How many 100 yard sight lines without potential collateral damage do you think exist in downtown Seattle? What about 30 miles outside of Seattle in rural North Bend, WA in the foothills of the cascades?
Help me understand... Are you saying rifles have no place in urban LE? Using a rifle does give you the advantage of being able to engage at longer distances. Heck, some of the Indian country offices in the FBI now have LaRue .308's with Nightforce optics because of the vast expanses of terain.
But having a rifle is about having a small arm that quickly and effectively stops a threat. Handguns are defensive and in general suck at stopping a determined human aggressor. That doesn't even include bad guys who are behind cover. If I'm going into a situation where violence is a possible outcome, I'm bringing my rifle. I don't care if the bad guy is in the same room.
I don't have the actual numbers, but most LE snipers engage bad guys inside 75 yards. That's why I am cautious about putting a distance number on something like rifle use. That goes for LE and private citizens.
Before you suggest that licensing, background checks, or other restrictions for the 2nd Amendment are reasonable... Apply those same ideas to the 1st and 4th Amendments. Then tell me how reasonable they are.
Bookmarks