They're at the higher-threat areas. A truck tries to run the barricades, and a rifle would be better than a pistol. A man with a gun tries to storm the lobby of the UN or a Fed Reserve bank, and a rifle is better than a pistol.
A man wearing an explosive vest with a deotonator in his hand goes running up the steps, and a rifle is far better than a pistol.
Snipers from the rooftops demand a rifle to respond effectively.
Multiple BG's assaulting a building would indicate a faster-acquiring, more accurate, more powerful weapon than a pistol.
Note that they are wearing their rifles for a faster deployment. They are not simply parking a tac cop on every corner, either.
But, looking at it with utterly honest eyes, I have to admit that one of the main roles they're playing is window dressing. Don't knock window dressing. It makes a difference. In this case, seeing Very Serious Men (
TM) decked out in tac gear with readied carbines/assault rifles at points of interest absolutely impresses many with the point that threats are taken seriously. You know, if I was brass for NYC Emergency Services, I'd be wiling to spend the man hours on just that duty, as well. 3 years ago, they received the most overt attack against their city. A month later, a more subtle attack against our country (anthrax). NYC might just have the
right to be a little bit paranoid.
Thumper put it very well:
Security and Freedom are inversely proportional.
True.
As a rule, I'm NOT real happy to see beat cops walking around with military rifles or subguns slung. (Though I encourage them to train with and carry rifles in their cruisers.) But these particular cops have very specific rather boring --while highly serious-- duties. Their being more heavily armed than a beat cop and wearing a different uniform actually makes it clear that their role is different.
