Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nonsensitive" data-source="post: 1143367" data-attributes="member: 12188">Food for thought. The guns officers use are "Tools". When officers face armed, violent criminal offenders located beyond the typical effective handgun range, the handgun obviously is not the prefered tool of choice. Officers have carried shotguns forever. A shotgun is a very versitile tool. It has many applications. Shotguns however, are not always the best tool. It’s unrealistic and dangerous to expect officers in high stress, life-threatening situations, to direct aimed, accurate handgun or shotgun fire beyond their effective distances. It is better at longer distances to use a patrol rifle for accuracy if nothing else. Especially if the bad guy has a rifle. There is no reason however to not use the rifle at closer ranges as long as over penetration is addressed. For self defense, accuracy and first round knock down is what everyone is looking for. Remember though, Police Officers are called to defend others, not just themselves. If called to stop an active shooter for example, a rifle is nice to have. How many examples are there now of individuals walking in with both handguns and long guns and shooting as many people as they can, just because they can? Why would an officer not need a rifle; vest; helmet; protective eyewear; as much ammo on them as possible; etc, if they can get it. Maybe that is what makes them look like "Military". Military goes for useful and practical equipment. Why shouldn't Law Enforcement use practical and useful equipment? Failure to train and equip PATROL OFFICERS - the first responders - (Not SWAT Officers) - with needed equipment can place the public and police at a deadly disadvantage. Why be at a disadvantage? "Don't bring a KNIFE to a GUN FIGHT"</blockquote>

Verification