4 ms·
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
by 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 agoSame with a tank, and the National Guard. Should they get involved too? :P
- mpyne 13y agoA 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.