law enforemcentin Alaska is no different than anywhere else
Untrue. EVERY law enforcement agency has to consider what we in the Army refer to as "METT-T" (Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Troops and equipment, and Time). Rural agencies will have different specific needs than urban ones, etc. (But, since you're in Alaska, you KNOW this.)
Since you're in Alaska, depending on your locale, your high speed AR fixation could lead to someone
dying if they are in an area with high numbers of large animals, and are armed with an M4 instead of a good shotgun loaded with slugs. Yes, I now suggest a good carbine for defensive purpose for MOST people, but there IS no single "best" solution for everyone.
at more than $200 a copy back then only the most wealthy criminals could afford them
Hello? You can buy an automatic weapon on the streets today for how much? Oh, that's right, you can buy one practically anywhere, for $50. Not.
Pat, I do not downplay the very real risks law enforcement officers face every day. At the same time, it's not usually quite the same thing as facing IEDs and incoming mortar fire.
I've lost friends too, and sometimes, just pieces of friends.
People usually don't do any time for simple drug use. Rather Drug dealers do. You know the guys that try to kill cops and others on a daily basis.
If a drug dealer "tried to kill cops on a daily basis" he would be listed as a violent crimimal, not as being in jail for a drug offence. And "drug dealer= guy who tries to kill cops and others on a daily basis" is a pretty major non sequiture, even for you.
History correct? I'm sorry, I missed the authoritative sources, such as the US Census Bureau, that you quoted. Point them out to me again. (See, that's what historians do. They look for reliable sources to explain past happenings leading to current trends.)
You're right, Pat, I probably will have an M16 or M4 (or M9), not a 9mm carbine, if I go to the sand box. Oh, wait- did I just mention I MIGHT HAVE A 9MM HANDGUN. I'm sorry- I'd prefer a 9mm carbine to a 9mm handgun practically every damn day, and did I mention I used to carry a 60mm mortar? Where does indirect fire capability fit into the law enforcement mission? What's that? The law enforcement mission is different than the military one? Oh, so they might have different gear? I see.
You mean, for instance, (depending on locale), a longarm that could stop a large dangerous animal might be preferable for the local LEO than a high capacity autoloading carbine? Wow, that's a great point. What's that? The LEO needs a firearm with which to engage suspects at 400 meters? (Why is it okay to laugh at tactical posers, but not okay to laugh at tactical posing by those with badges? Just a rhetorical question.)
I'm sorry, that doesn't sound like the typical need of a good law enforcement officer. It could happen, yes, but then again, it's not very darn likely, is it?
Pat, I'm not insulting law enforcement in general, or Alaskan enforcement in particular. I have considered just such work myself, though I think in the long run I'll make more working at a think tank than working as Alaskan LEO.
What I am questioning is your ability to accurately deduce the threats you face, and furthermore, to say I seriously doubt your ability to semi-eloquently elucidate such threats to this audience is a massive understatement.
When poor deduction is combined with a need to present your One, True opinion to the community, we have a problem.
So, though I think they're ugly, I do believe the Hi-Point carbine is a very cost-effective possible option for some law enforcement agencies.
John