3 ms·

| While you never know who's armed and who's not This may be true, but if the person has no history of violence, isn't wanted for a violent offence, has no reg

by pyre 13y ago

| While you never know who's armed and who's not This may be true, but if the person has no history of violence, isn't wanted for a violent offence, has no registered firearms, and is not known to have any radical anti-government / Michigan Militia-type views, then there is probably no reason for such an armed assault. | in these cases they're probably just as worried | about the destruction of evidence So a group of men armed with assault rifles is necessary to prevent destruction of evidence, because a couple of agents armed with handguns would have encouraged resistance?

mpyne 13y ago
"Registered firearms" in a nation with the 2nd Amendment? Even in states that require it I wouldn't trust that info with my life. :) And either way I don't see why you'd not be OK with rifles but would be OK with handguns. Once you're OK with the arresting officers being armed the rest is just a matter of degree.
- pyre 13y ago
  | the rest is just a matter of degree. Exactly. Sending a couple of armed officers vs. a SWAT team with snipers and helicopters. Let's not forget that the US taxpayers are footing the bill if every arrest involves a highly-trained 10-person team donning assault rifles, etc.
  - gyardley 13y ago
    Man, I don't know. If I was a lot stupider and could get the drop on them, I might like my chances against two agents with handguns. A SWAT team, on the other hand - I don't care how dumb, drunk, or high I am, if ten officers with heavy weaponry come with a helicopter escort, I know I'm going to lose.
    - pyre 13y ago
      Same with a tank, and the National Guard. Should they get involved too? :P
      - mpyne 13y ago
        A tank would have a much higher risk of needless collateral damage compared to rifles, and the NG couldn't play anyways due to Posse Comitatus Act restrictions (except possibly if they were activated under the state governor's authority, I forget the specifics). Either way the comment didn't say that "more force is always better" like you seem to go along with, only that a couple of agents with handguns are in a different category than a bunch of agents with rifles available. But once you have a bunch of agents with rifles, adding a tank or soldiers doesn't significantly change the risk equation for the Feds so even their ORM analysis would say not to do it.
- newbie12 13y ago
  Only five states require firearms registration (as opposed to the near-universal, one-time federal background check at purchase).

by pyre 13y ago

mpyne 13y ago

"Registered firearms" in a nation with the 2nd Amendment? Even in states that require it I wouldn't trust that info with my life. :) And either way I don't see why you'd not be OK with rifles but would be OK with handguns. Once you're OK with the arresting officers being armed the rest is just a matter of degree.

pyre 13y ago
| the rest is just a matter of degree. Exactly. Sending a couple of armed officers vs. a SWAT team with snipers and helicopters. Let's not forget that the US taxpayers are footing the bill if every arrest involves a highly-trained 10-person team donning assault rifles, etc.
- gyardley 13y ago
  Man, I don't know. If I was a lot stupider and could get the drop on them, I might like my chances against two agents with handguns. A SWAT team, on the other hand - I don't care how dumb, drunk, or high I am, if ten officers with heavy weaponry come with a helicopter escort, I know I'm going to lose.
  - pyre 13y ago
    Same with a tank, and the National Guard. Should they get involved too? :P
    - mpyne 13y ago
      A tank would have a much higher risk of needless collateral damage compared to rifles, and the NG couldn't play anyways due to Posse Comitatus Act restrictions (except possibly if they were activated under the state governor's authority, I forget the specifics). Either way the comment didn't say that "more force is always better" like you seem to go along with, only that a couple of agents with handguns are in a different category than a bunch of agents with rifles available. But once you have a bunch of agents with rifles, adding a tank or soldiers doesn't significantly change the risk equation for the Feds so even their ORM analysis would say not to do it.
newbie12 13y ago
Only five states require firearms registration (as opposed to the near-universal, one-time federal background check at purchase).