4 ms·

The reality is that tear gas is not an effective riot control tool. It works fine against spontaneous mobs of sports fans after their team loses, but it's not e

The reality is that tear gas is not an effective riot control tool. It works fine against spontaneous mobs of sports fans after their team loses, but it's not especially effective against prepared insurrectionists. The last time the US faced this level of organized political resistance against lawful federal authority, the Army and National Guard routinely used fixed bayonets to control segregationist protesters. The same technique would work today, but with modern rifles being significantly shorter and hence being less effective bayonet platforms, a dedicated spear might be the better option. Such weapons, employed in a close-order formation, would be much less lethal than they might seem at first blush. Historical data from 18th and 19th century conflicts shows that, even in battles where bayonet charges happened, there was still an extremely low rate of actual bayonet casualties. Even trained and disciplined soldiers will break and rout rather than let themselves be stabbed with bayonets (or, presumably, spears).

shrubble 9mo ago
The most recent organized resistance was not segregation but the 1970s bombings. There were 2000 bombings in less than two years.
- philwelch 8mo ago
  Excellent point, and I think those bombings are not as well remembered as they should be. However, none of those bombings happened at the encouragement of and with the tacit cooperation of state government authorities.
the_gastropod 9mo ago
Poe’s Law strikes again. Surely you’re not for real?
NoMoreNicksLeft 9mo ago
>Even trained and disciplined soldiers will break and rout rather than let themselves be stabbed with bayonets (or, presumably, spears). What if the organizers have drilled it into their heads that they won't use real spears? "WHY DID YOU HAVE REAL BULLETS?!?!?"
amanaplanacanal 9mo ago
Wasn't "the last time" in 2020?
- nerdsniper 9mo ago
  I'd say Jan 6, 2021. But there are so many examples between "bayonets" and now. 2020 Seattle CHOP, 2014/2016 Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, 2011 Occupy Wall Street, 1999 Battle in Seattle, 1992 Ruby Ridge Standoff, 1969 People's Park, the entire civil rights movement era, 1946 Battle of Athens, 1921 Battle of Blair Mountain. I intentionally alternated between left wing / right wing events. These things aren't limited to one side, and they're somewhat frequent, if a bit cyclical.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
mindslight 9mo ago
Maybe we should talk about the first time the US had this level of political resistance against "lawful authority". That seems like a better analogy for what's going on here. Also I feel compelled to point out that "lawful authority" does not imply "authority acting lawfully". The difference is painfully demonstrated by the existence of a thread discussing the use of respirators in response to government jackboots suppressing lawful first amendment activity. The obvious alternative is to let the protests happen, per our Constitution.
- philwelch 8mo ago
  > government jackboots suppressing lawful first amendment activity If that was actually happening, I would be opposed to it. The only people suppressing lawful first amendment activity were Don Lemon and his friends invading a church, interrupting services, and blocking the exits as they screamed abuse at the parishioners.
  - mindslight 8mo ago
    We're in a topic about tear gas being used to attack protestors. You yourself opened up this thread by saying that tear gas isn't the right answer, so it doesn't seem like you're denying this activity is happening. The only remaining angle I see is that you're claiming that the bulk of protestors who have been attacked were doing something illegal to prompt it? That is a tall claim, but I am of course open to evidence. Because to me, it looks like you're merely doing whataboutism to the latest spectacle your media bubble is showing you. That you add "If that was actually happening, I would be opposed to it" is most concerning as it indicates how far your cognitive dissonance is able to be stretched.
    - philwelch 8mo ago
      > We're in a topic about tear gas being used to attack protestors. You say protestors, I say rioters and organized physical resistance to legitimate law enforcement. If you think that’s a “tall claim” you’re the one in a media bubble.

shrubble 9mo ago

The most recent organized resistance was not segregation but the 1970s bombings. There were 2000 bombings in less than two years.

philwelch 8mo ago
Excellent point, and I think those bombings are not as well remembered as they should be. However, none of those bombings happened at the encouragement of and with the tacit cooperation of state government authorities.

the_gastropod 9mo ago

Poe’s Law strikes again. Surely you’re not for real?

NoMoreNicksLeft 9mo ago

>Even trained and disciplined soldiers will break and rout rather than let themselves be stabbed with bayonets (or, presumably, spears). What if the organizers have drilled it into their heads that they won't use real spears? "WHY DID YOU HAVE REAL BULLETS?!?!?"

amanaplanacanal 9mo ago

Wasn't "the last time" in 2020?

nerdsniper 9mo ago
I'd say Jan 6, 2021. But there are so many examples between "bayonets" and now. 2020 Seattle CHOP, 2014/2016 Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, 2011 Occupy Wall Street, 1999 Battle in Seattle, 1992 Ruby Ridge Standoff, 1969 People's Park, the entire civil rights movement era, 1946 Battle of Athens, 1921 Battle of Blair Mountain. I intentionally alternated between left wing / right wing events. These things aren't limited to one side, and they're somewhat frequent, if a bit cyclical.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

mindslight 9mo ago

Maybe we should talk about the first time the US had this level of political resistance against "lawful authority". That seems like a better analogy for what's going on here. Also I feel compelled to point out that "lawful authority" does not imply "authority acting lawfully". The difference is painfully demonstrated by the existence of a thread discussing the use of respirators in response to government jackboots suppressing lawful first amendment activity. The obvious alternative is to let the protests happen, per our Constitution.

philwelch 8mo ago
> government jackboots suppressing lawful first amendment activity If that was actually happening, I would be opposed to it. The only people suppressing lawful first amendment activity were Don Lemon and his friends invading a church, interrupting services, and blocking the exits as they screamed abuse at the parishioners.
- mindslight 8mo ago
  We're in a topic about tear gas being used to attack protestors. You yourself opened up this thread by saying that tear gas isn't the right answer, so it doesn't seem like you're denying this activity is happening. The only remaining angle I see is that you're claiming that the bulk of protestors who have been attacked were doing something illegal to prompt it? That is a tall claim, but I am of course open to evidence. Because to me, it looks like you're merely doing whataboutism to the latest spectacle your media bubble is showing you. That you add "If that was actually happening, I would be opposed to it" is most concerning as it indicates how far your cognitive dissonance is able to be stretched.
  - philwelch 8mo ago
    > We're in a topic about tear gas being used to attack protestors. You say protestors, I say rioters and organized physical resistance to legitimate law enforcement. If you think that’s a “tall claim” you’re the one in a media bubble.