6 ms·

"some of whom had been deputized and given weapons by city officials" Holy shit

ashtonkem 5y ago
In the weeks running up to the massacre, black men desperately tried to purchase firearms to defend themselves with. Remington purposefully gave them the run around so that they couldn’t buy guns, as they legally should have been able to, leading to their deaths. Remington knew what was going to happen, but they decided they cared about their reputation more than black people’s lives. I think we should resurrect some old school name-damning punishment for those that perpetrated this massacre. Their grave sites should be smashed, and their remains cast into an anonymous pit. It’s too late to give them the capital punishment they deserved, but we can damn their name and memory for all ages.
- sudhirj 5y ago
  Dave Chapelle has an interesting take/joke on gun control: get everyone who can legally buy a gun to buy one. If the people you don't like (outgroup / different race) also benefit from the same "freedoms" you hold dear, some thinking will start to happen.
  - brightball 5y ago
    FWIW, this is the view point held by many people regarded as “gun nuts”. If everybody has them, the violence against anyone carries the threat of deadly force in response. There is no greater deterrent to violence. There’s a reason mass shootings happen in places where a swift armed response isn’t expected.
    - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
      Mass shootings are headline grabbing, but the majority of homicides are interpersonal conflicts that escalate. If everyone had guns, there's no way it would not result in more gun deaths.
      - nickthemagicman 5y ago
        Even if your uncited claim IS correct..so what. Freedom is not safe and safety is not freedom. The world is not safe.
        wing-_-nuts 5y ago
        I always find this to be such an interesting peek into the minds of others. The ability to love who you like is freedom. The ability to ingest whatever substance you like is freedom. Neither of these freedoms statistically put others in danger. One of these things is not like the other. You have the right to self defense but the 'freedom' to own something which can kill or maim dozens of others has to be balanced against the overall good of society. I find this viewpoint and willingness to sacrifice lives for this particular 'freedom' to be a little sociopathic.
        nickthemagicman 5y ago
        What you're saying is a slippery slope argument subject to whoever determines what items put others in danger. You could use your exact same argument that cars put other people in danger and we should walk everywhere. Or that it's for the collective good that we never leave our house because doing so increases other people's risk of death. Safety is a tyrants best friend. >>You have the right to self defense but the 'freedom' to own something which can kill or maim dozens of others has to be balanced against the overall good of society. Society exists because men with items that can kill or maim others died to create and defend it. I find your viewpoint and willingness to sacrifice your freedom in the name of safety.. a little unaware, ungrateful, and privileged. This current veneer of civilization that you're so privileged to live in exists because of guns and violence and is actually a rarity in the history of humankind. If you want to learn more about this you can go to the library and ask them for a book on the past 100,000 years of human history.
        wing-_-nuts 5y ago
        >You could use your exact same argument that cars put other people in danger and we should walk everywhere. Or that it's for the collective good that we never leave our house because doing so increases other people's risk of death. Cars are a great example, because we absolutely weigh their costs and benefits. One does not have the 'right' to drive a car. It is a licenced and regulated activity. 18 wheelers are more dangerous than cars, and thus are subject to more restrictive regulation. >Society exists because men with items that can kill or maim others died to create and defend it. What you're talking about here is the state's monopoly on sanctioned violence. Guns are a part of that, but not a requirement. There are plenty of 'beat cops' around the world that discharge their duties without relying on firearms.
    - vkou 5y ago
      > There’s a reason mass shootings happen in places where a swift armed response isn’t expected. Actually, they do, and the reason for it is that in a mass shooting situation, even if you have a gun, you usually have zero idea of what to do with it, and where to shoot back. Vegas has concealed open carry, and that didn't do a goddamn thing to stop the 2017 massacre. Also, what do you think the SWAT team responding to a shooting is going to do to you if you are on the scene, with your gun? You may get a chance to surrender and get things cleared up, or just as likely, you may just get shot on sight.
      - nickthemagicman 5y ago
        Vegas is interesting because the guy had to become a sniper and had to have a very specific location to do his shootings. Because of all the concealed carry. And what else is interesting is that the shooter chose an extremely crowded music festival to do his shooting. A fertilizer bomb or hidden IUD could have just easily killed as many people just like the Boston marathon bombing(which could just as easily had more than one nail bomb). So should nail bombs also be illegal? Oh yeah they are! Mass gatherings are always at risk of mass violence. Airplanes/airports had the same issue before 9/11. Mass gathering of people and easy ingress of deadly weapons/bombs. So too schools. The lesson for mass gatherings is to secure a perimeter and do your best to eliminate deadly items from entering the perimeter. Its not really a gun specific issue. Its a vulnerable crowd issue.
    - jkubicek 5y ago
      This doesn't make sense to me. Don't most mass shooters go into it expecting to die? If you know you're going to die anyway, what deterrent would armed civilians be? Glancing at this list of mass shootings, it seems like most end with the shooter committing suicide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...
      - brightball 5y ago
        I can’t say for sure what a shooter is thinking, but the shooting of innocent people stops the moment the shooter is on defense. This was a lesson police learned after Columbine.
    - soperj 5y ago
      >There’s a reason mass shootings happen in places where a swift armed response isn’t expected. Most mass shootings take place in the USA, which has the most guns per capita on earth by far, double the #2 country. How many more guns would make a difference?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - brightball 5y ago
        It only takes one where the act is happening to put the shooter on defense and stop the massacre immediately.
        JohnWhigham 5y ago
        Easier said than done. You really expect someone to be that rational when they were already stressed enough to use their firearm in the first place?
        brightball 5y ago
        Who, the shooter or the person shooting back? I don't expect a shooter to be rational, but I do expect them to self preserve when being shot at. That's not rational, that's instinct. Police have repeatedly said ever since Columbine that it is most important to engage a shooter as soon as possible for this exact reason.
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        >that it is most important to engage a shooter as soon as possible for this exact reason. "Shooting your way out of an ambush" (i.e. taking initiative when attacked) has been tactical doctrine for literally every armed group, police, military, etc, for decades.
    - sudhirj 5y ago
      I don't have the data, but because this idea I'm curious to know what the crime rates are per capita in countries that mandate military training for the entire population. I think Israeli people (both men and women) do mandatory military and combat training - does this translate to a decrease in domestic violence and shootings?
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Not really a joke, that’s actual history. Reagan signed a gun control bill into California law in direct response to the black panthers protesting under arms.
    - uselesscynicism 5y ago
      The Democrat controlled Congress also got him to sign the National Firearms Act So we can agree that gun control is racist, at least if one Republican forty years ago signed a gun control bill? Because I have to tell you something about which party has written and signed more gun control bills than the other, and it's the one that calls itself "anti racist" Or is gun control only racist if it's signed by a Republican? What point are you trying to make?
    - missedthecue 5y ago
      Ronald Reagan signed anti gun bills as president too. He was generally more pro gun control than history remembers him for. For instance, he signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 which severely restricted multiple categories of firearms ownership for everyone nationwide (not just minorities).
  - ydlr 5y ago
    It is a strategy known to work. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
happytoexplain 5y ago
Remember, slavery itself was normal only 60 years earlier (and was abolished via a civil war, not a popular vote). This massacre, which had the support of many citizens, some businesses, and some government, is still in living memory - there are thousands of Americans alive today who were ~5-13 years old at the time. Ideas take much longer to die than people do. Considering all this, it seems clear that the long tail of evil and hatred in the US will linger for at least many decades more, maybe centuries, but hopefully shrinking the whole way.

In the weeks running up to the massacre, black men desperately tried to purchase firearms to defend themselves with. Remington purposefully gave them the run around so that they couldn’t buy guns, as they legally should have been able to, leading to their deaths. Remington knew what was going to happen, but they decided they cared about their reputation more than black people’s lives. I think we should resurrect some old school name-damning punishment for those that perpetrated this massacre. Their grave sites should be smashed, and their remains cast into an anonymous pit. It’s too late to give them the capital punishment they deserved, but we can damn their name and memory for all ages.

sudhirj 5y ago
Dave Chapelle has an interesting take/joke on gun control: get everyone who can legally buy a gun to buy one. If the people you don't like (outgroup / different race) also benefit from the same "freedoms" you hold dear, some thinking will start to happen.
- brightball 5y ago
  FWIW, this is the view point held by many people regarded as “gun nuts”. If everybody has them, the violence against anyone carries the threat of deadly force in response. There is no greater deterrent to violence. There’s a reason mass shootings happen in places where a swift armed response isn’t expected.
  - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
    Mass shootings are headline grabbing, but the majority of homicides are interpersonal conflicts that escalate. If everyone had guns, there's no way it would not result in more gun deaths.
    - nickthemagicman 5y ago
      Even if your uncited claim IS correct..so what. Freedom is not safe and safety is not freedom. The world is not safe.
      - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
        I always find this to be such an interesting peek into the minds of others. The ability to love who you like is freedom. The ability to ingest whatever substance you like is freedom. Neither of these freedoms statistically put others in danger. One of these things is not like the other. You have the right to self defense but the 'freedom' to own something which can kill or maim dozens of others has to be balanced against the overall good of society. I find this viewpoint and willingness to sacrifice lives for this particular 'freedom' to be a little sociopathic.
        nickthemagicman 5y ago
        What you're saying is a slippery slope argument subject to whoever determines what items put others in danger. You could use your exact same argument that cars put other people in danger and we should walk everywhere. Or that it's for the collective good that we never leave our house because doing so increases other people's risk of death. Safety is a tyrants best friend. >>You have the right to self defense but the 'freedom' to own something which can kill or maim dozens of others has to be balanced against the overall good of society. Society exists because men with items that can kill or maim others died to create and defend it. I find your viewpoint and willingness to sacrifice your freedom in the name of safety.. a little unaware, ungrateful, and privileged. This current veneer of civilization that you're so privileged to live in exists because of guns and violence and is actually a rarity in the history of humankind. If you want to learn more about this you can go to the library and ask them for a book on the past 100,000 years of human history.
        wing-_-nuts 5y ago
        >You could use your exact same argument that cars put other people in danger and we should walk everywhere. Or that it's for the collective good that we never leave our house because doing so increases other people's risk of death. Cars are a great example, because we absolutely weigh their costs and benefits. One does not have the 'right' to drive a car. It is a licenced and regulated activity. 18 wheelers are more dangerous than cars, and thus are subject to more restrictive regulation. >Society exists because men with items that can kill or maim others died to create and defend it. What you're talking about here is the state's monopoly on sanctioned violence. Guns are a part of that, but not a requirement. There are plenty of 'beat cops' around the world that discharge their duties without relying on firearms.
  - vkou 5y ago
    > There’s a reason mass shootings happen in places where a swift armed response isn’t expected. Actually, they do, and the reason for it is that in a mass shooting situation, even if you have a gun, you usually have zero idea of what to do with it, and where to shoot back. Vegas has concealed open carry, and that didn't do a goddamn thing to stop the 2017 massacre. Also, what do you think the SWAT team responding to a shooting is going to do to you if you are on the scene, with your gun? You may get a chance to surrender and get things cleared up, or just as likely, you may just get shot on sight.
    - nickthemagicman 5y ago
      Vegas is interesting because the guy had to become a sniper and had to have a very specific location to do his shootings. Because of all the concealed carry. And what else is interesting is that the shooter chose an extremely crowded music festival to do his shooting. A fertilizer bomb or hidden IUD could have just easily killed as many people just like the Boston marathon bombing(which could just as easily had more than one nail bomb). So should nail bombs also be illegal? Oh yeah they are! Mass gatherings are always at risk of mass violence. Airplanes/airports had the same issue before 9/11. Mass gathering of people and easy ingress of deadly weapons/bombs. So too schools. The lesson for mass gatherings is to secure a perimeter and do your best to eliminate deadly items from entering the perimeter. Its not really a gun specific issue. Its a vulnerable crowd issue.
  - jkubicek 5y ago
    This doesn't make sense to me. Don't most mass shooters go into it expecting to die? If you know you're going to die anyway, what deterrent would armed civilians be? Glancing at this list of mass shootings, it seems like most end with the shooter committing suicide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...
    - brightball 5y ago
      I can’t say for sure what a shooter is thinking, but the shooting of innocent people stops the moment the shooter is on defense. This was a lesson police learned after Columbine.
  - soperj 5y ago
    >There’s a reason mass shootings happen in places where a swift armed response isn’t expected. Most mass shootings take place in the USA, which has the most guns per capita on earth by far, double the #2 country. How many more guns would make a difference?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - brightball 5y ago
      It only takes one where the act is happening to put the shooter on defense and stop the massacre immediately.
      - JohnWhigham 5y ago
        Easier said than done. You really expect someone to be that rational when they were already stressed enough to use their firearm in the first place?
        brightball 5y ago
        Who, the shooter or the person shooting back? I don't expect a shooter to be rational, but I do expect them to self preserve when being shot at. That's not rational, that's instinct. Police have repeatedly said ever since Columbine that it is most important to engage a shooter as soon as possible for this exact reason.
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        >that it is most important to engage a shooter as soon as possible for this exact reason. "Shooting your way out of an ambush" (i.e. taking initiative when attacked) has been tactical doctrine for literally every armed group, police, military, etc, for decades.
  - sudhirj 5y ago
    I don't have the data, but because this idea I'm curious to know what the crime rates are per capita in countries that mandate military training for the entire population. I think Israeli people (both men and women) do mandatory military and combat training - does this translate to a decrease in domestic violence and shootings?
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  Not really a joke, that’s actual history. Reagan signed a gun control bill into California law in direct response to the black panthers protesting under arms.
  - uselesscynicism 5y ago
    The Democrat controlled Congress also got him to sign the National Firearms Act So we can agree that gun control is racist, at least if one Republican forty years ago signed a gun control bill? Because I have to tell you something about which party has written and signed more gun control bills than the other, and it's the one that calls itself "anti racist" Or is gun control only racist if it's signed by a Republican? What point are you trying to make?
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    Ronald Reagan signed anti gun bills as president too. He was generally more pro gun control than history remembers him for. For instance, he signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 which severely restricted multiple categories of firearms ownership for everyone nationwide (not just minorities).
- ydlr 5y ago
  It is a strategy known to work. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

happytoexplain 5y ago

Remember, slavery itself was normal only 60 years earlier (and was abolished via a civil war, not a popular vote). This massacre, which had the support of many citizens, some businesses, and some government, is still in living memory - there are thousands of Americans alive today who were ~5-13 years old at the time. Ideas take much longer to die than people do. Considering all this, it seems clear that the long tail of evil and hatred in the US will linger for at least many decades more, maybe centuries, but hopefully shrinking the whole way.