Dali, you are welcome.
Some correspondents are getting a little off the point, perhaps.
We would probably all agree that there are too many instances of abuse of police power, unintentional or otherwise. The Diallo case in NY, and at the federal level, Waco and Ruby Ridge are all probably self-evident. But I didn't think that was the topic of discussion, which as far as I can see was the use of rifles for "routine" patrol use.
Having said that, Major, FW, and Bullet maker in various ways, made a point I am essentially in agreement with: police functions are distinct from military functions. It makes sense to employ rapid fire long arms with high-powered cartridges in a military environment. Likewise, high-capacity semiautomatic handguns are probably wiser choices than revolvers in a military combat situation. It's not obvious to me that these transfer across to civilian law enforcement. In my County, there was great anguish expressed by the police dept. about being "outgunned", resulting in issuance of a series of ever-increasingly powerful high capacity sa pistols, without a shred of evidence that was a prudent policy. Our county chief of police, who pushed those efforts, got lots of good publicity during the "Beltway snipers" episode despite the obvious fact that he was clueless, ignored citizen reports of the actual vehicle involved, spent weeks looking for a nonexistent white box truck, and "solved" the case because the perpetrators were incredibly stupid. So, despite the fact that my Dad was a NYPD cop, and I worked for the NYPD for more than 3 years, I have no illusion about the average level of judgment or training of most LEOs. They are not generally bad or abusive people (though some clearly have been), but they are not the SAS, Rangers, or Carlson's Raiders. Even the FBI snipers have proven that. I believe that LEOs should have weapons proportionate to the risk they face, which minimizes the risk to the innocent population.
