“Geez, they’re not snipers! They’re just using the sniper scope as a telescope! They’re not for use as actual snipers! We just gotta use them to look at the evil protestors!”"
“These are not weapons trained at your precious little foreheads, they’re Democracy Spreaders™’. You go to class & learn all about democracy & when you exit the building, we use these to spread all that democracy stored up in your brains all over the wall behind you.“
Managed democracy is a joke too close to reality.
Managed democracy is not a joke.
The fact that a rifle is attached to the telescope is just a funny coincidence
It feels like these protests are going to shape how the governments of the world will respond to mass unrest in the future.
Or in other words - those in charge want the common person to be disempowered, to frame a peaceful protest as an act of terrorism so they can be more aggressive in future.
Hopefully no one on either side does anything stupid.
In the future?
Ask any student population in the past who were shot, beaten, tasered, hosed down with water cannons, and jailed what they thought would happen to future protesters.
The shape of silencing unrest, especially anti-war or liberal unrest, hasn’t changed at all. And it will look just the same a decade from now.
If those snipers were to shoot someone, the protests would be twice the size the next day.
Look what happened when Nixon, Reagan and Trump escalated violence in response to protests.
Nixon’s in songs for killiing Ohioans.
From Wiki, sadly: “President Richard Nixon, who is criticized in the song, won a landslide reelection in 1972, which included winning the 1972 United States presidential election in Ohio by a margin of over 21%.”
Nation-level gerrymandering
You can’t gerrymander the presidential election. There are no districts in that election.
You can however influence it with bribes, coercion, and intimidation.
This seems so incredibly ill-advised. If students become martyred by trigger-happy snipers, these protests will boil over into open violence. Imagine thousands of videos flooding social media in an instant showing student corpses. I fear that gasoline has been poured and matches are being lit everywhere.
There won’t be any meaningful amount of violence. People in the US are total bitches when it comes to actually fighting the system. At worst, there will be a riot, where the most predominant activity is looting, and then the National Guard will be called in and everyone will roll over like they always do.
Totally not true lol. Jan 6th, LA riots of the 90s, the various riots during the height of BLM movements, Seattle, Unite the Right rally both sides.
People are upset, they cause damage and even sometimes try to assassinate people. The US probably faces more domestic terrorism than most places.
We have a very strong police state
The People didn’t cause damage in Portland as much as the fucking pigs lit fires and defaced buildings to then blame the protestors for it, FYI. Caught on video from multiple angles and everything, yet still nothing in the way of consequences. “Police state”, you say? It’s fascism in a candy wrapper.
Lol okay my point stands people are constantly in the streets fighting.
Fascism is a police state, a police state is fascism.
Why are you fuckin mad? lmfao
People are not “constantly in the streets fighting”, you nonce.
There is also more to “fascism” than simply “police state”.
Are you purposefully stupid, or just lazy? Smart money’s on you thinking your username was spelled with an “e” when it’s correctly spelled with an “a”.
you’re being dumb yes they are we can literally sit here all day and go through different ways people have attempted to resist the government from Waco and MOVE to the many many many many many domestic terrorist attacks. We can talk about civil rights movements from MLK to Black Panthers to BLM. Occupy Wall Street, Unite the Right Rally(counter protestors), numerous school demonstrations from Kent State to walk outs to what’s happening today for Palestine.
They’re always fighting.
We’ll get some kickass industrial songs about it in 15 years though.
There ain’t gonna be a 15 years from now.
Sir, this ain’t the exciting dystopia, this is the boring dystopia.
What is it with Ohio and murdering college protesters? (See: Kent State)
Civil war speedrun any%
the land of the free
Never has been. National anthem notwithstanding the United States has always been land of the richest getting what they want.
Hell the entire history of the United States is basically, we want something so we’re going to have it, and if there’s inconvenient people in the way then those inconvenient people will go away or die. The US had race separation until as recently as the 1960s. Wherever was the freedom?
It’s like it was almost designed for the rich to begin with.
Isn’t USSA the land of religions? They even have it in their motto.
That’s a remnant of the previous Cold War that we engaged in, it wasn’t supposed to be that way. The founding fathers specifically separated church and state.
That’s a remnant of the previous Cold War that we engaged in
Really? All of this religiousness of brain is because other side of the Pacific Bathtub wasn’t religious?
Really not sure what you’re asking, but yes, the current wave of fundamentalists and evangelicals is a backlash because the USSR was a non-religious state.
Huh. Takes phrase “to spite mom I’ll freeze my ears” to new level.
What? The “land of the free”?
Whoever told you that is your enemy
I mean, obviously question: how does one treat them as if they are?
(Make them say the quiet part out loud)
Ideally, countersnipers
If everyone’s a sniper, we’re all safe.
That’s literally how it works, and the Black Panthers proved it a long time ago. The cops stay peaceful when the protesters are heavily armed and heavily organized, because cops are fucking cowards who don’t want an actual fight
Reposting this because it’s relevant here too: A scenario like this is what led to the formation of the Black Panthers during the civil rights era, and subsequently led to gun control laws being started by republicans. During the civil rights protests, people quickly realized that peaceful protests were violently broken. But heavily armed peaceful protests had police nervously watching from across the street.
Because police had no qualms about firing into an unarmed crowd to get people to disperse. But when the entire crowd is armed to the teeth and can immediately return fire, the police are suddenly okay with watching from afar. This was the start of the Black Panthers; a group who organized heavily armed protests.
When conservative lawmakers saw a bunch of heavily armed black people (and allies) on their front steps, and saw the police unwilling to break the protests, those conservative lawmakers got really fucking sweaty. So instead, they gave the police tools to arrest individual protestors. The Mulford Act was drafted and quickly passed. At the time, it was the most restrictive gun control law the country had ever seen. It was written by Ronald Reagan (yes, the same Ronald Reagan that the right uplifts as a paragon of conservative values,) and was supported by the NRA, (yes, the same NRA that lobbies for looser gun control laws in the wakes of school shootings.)
This gave the police the power to arrest individual protestors after the fact. Instead of firing into the crowd to disperse the protest, they would wait for the protest to end, follow the protestors home, then kick in their front doors while they were having dinner with their families. (Remember all of the “don’t bring your cell phone to protests because police will arrest you a week or two later if your phone was pinged nearby” messaging during the pandemic protests? Yeah…)
This led to the Black Panthers diving underground. They realized what was happening after protests, so they took efforts to guard their members’ identities. They pulled tactics straight out of anti-espionage textbooks. Randomized meeting places, so police couldn’t set up stings ahead of time. Code names, so arrested members couldn’t rat even if they wanted to. Fragmented info, so no one person (even the leaders) could take down the entire operation if busted. Coded messages. Dead drops. Et cetera, et cetera…
We’re on a rocket trajectory straight down that same pipeline now.
I strongly disagree that not wanting an actual fight is cowardice. Turning up armed to intimidate unarmed people is cowardice.
Being willing to attack people who can’t or won’t fight back, but being afraid to attack people who will fight back (especially if they will do so effectively), is basically the definition of cowardice
Ah well you should’ve said that to begin with, because I agree with that!
I don’t know if it would go like that these days. Cops now have equipment to beat a small army. It’s insane that we let it get like this.
We were so innocent back in the day - my bit of activism was protesting campus security getting certified as a police force. Did no good, so now every incident has someone bringing guns and looking to escalate
So I have a question I sort of posted in there too but figure I’ll bring the conversation over here (in a more respectful way)
These are called spotters/marksman and they have them at football games, the Olympics, presumably political events, etc. to handle the threat of suicide bombers and other mass-population terrorist threats
How should we handle these threats without police intervention/snipers to quickly take out a bomber?
Looking for civil discourse if at all possible, but I also understand this is a high stakes discussion and directly affects some more than others
Edit: Asks a legitimate question, without ulterior motives, literally just trying to steer the conversation to a productive, constructive discussion: is bombarded with bad faith arguments, downvotes, accused of being down right disingenuous, and minimal attempts (1 as of this edit) to actually address the conversation. Psychotic experience this was.
Do these snipers ever actually intervene ?
Also, the solution is simple : outlaw guns.
There was an updated image that clearly shows the barrel of a rifle, so no. These are not for spotting. They are for sniping.
While it’s possible that people shot by guns are bad people, there is very little reason to assume it is likely at a peaceful protest on a University Campus that is ALWAYS crowded. Especially with the current track record of US Police.
My understanding of the original comment was that it was a marksman/spotter. Those are two people who work in tandem to perform a function.
The spotter looks at the larger picture, usually with some kind of binocular or similar, looking for threats and scanning a large area. Their other function is to protect the marksman. So if a threat (or anything really) approaches their position, the marksman can continue to focus on their job, while the spotter defends their position.
The marksman is simply just a sniper. It’s a fancy name for a sniper.
They deploy like this in pretty much every operation. Two man teams. The spotter providing protection and support for the marksman, and the marksman executing the mission.
I feel like people missed that, or maybe I misunderstood the poster? IDK.
Killing people is bad.
A needless inaccurate distinction obscuring what it really is, it is a sniper. It is not normal. These crowds existed before the snipers arrived and will exist long after the protests end.
Are they also not the students from the school? So they would have been on campus but not all in one place anyway.
Again with pointless and needless distinctions that attempt to lessen the sin being committed.
Umm, I think you have my point backwards… unless you are implying the protesters are sinners?
I’m saying it doesn’t matter if the people at the protest went to school there or not, that the sniper isn’t warranted, but I do apologize that in a heated moment I accused you of intentionally aiding the opposition.
The fact you Americans think this is normal for a protest says more then anything I can comment.
A good test is to think of a private entitiy doing this and if that passes the smell test. I don’t think deploying snipers at events has ever saved anyone (correct me if I am missing an incident) and in this case if they are there to protect the students why does the school not hire their own sharpshooters?
You bring up a good point. The prevention part - snipers are seemingly ineffective. The reaction/response portion however, does point to guns being used to prevent further damage. 2016 dallas shooting - police used a bomb to take out the shooter after the fact. LA airport shooting in 2013 - taken down with regular guns.
Overall, I think you make a good point, they’re ineffective at prevention, and even response can be handled w/o the need of long range or automatic weapons. There’s always the argument that “well there aren’t any attacks because we have these” that I can see people making but that feels fallacious somehow, just not sure how exactly.
I am still left to wonder, how do you actually prevent the bombing and other attacks from happening. What is effective?
I think you might be mistaken as to the point of the police being on site. Its not really the job of police to protect (and extra so for protesters). The risk of a terror attack on any large group of people is a weak excuse for this sort of response from police.
Something about those who give up liberty for safety deserve nether…
I sorta agree, but wanted to ask for some clarification - what liberties do you see being given up here? They didn’t really take anything away, they were just there. It’s definitely intimidating, and nobody trusts the police (for good reason, namely lack of appropriate oversight, action, and training) but I can’t see how anything was taken away or given up here for the illusion of saftey that the snipers would hypothetically be providing, know what I mean?
You have normalized a police state where as a people you now think it is normal to have things like sniper teams set up at all major events with a lot of people. This has been done as you have stated; “to handle the threat of suicide bombers and other mass-population terrorist threats” even though sniper teams have almost no ability to stop or even just not make the situation considerably worse.
The thing about trading liberties for extra safety is not only about the liberties lost but that it is a fools journey since the things done for safety are more likely to be ether useless, or just bad (think TSA vs militarizing the police).
You are not stopping a mass casualty event at the time and place of the event itself but well before it. This show of force is just control, theatre, a waste of taxpayer money and in the worst case the cause (ironically enough) of a mass casualty event.
When the bomber intends to die in glory, there is no deterrent possible. Death isn’t any deterrent. It can only be stopped before they get to the scene.
Why won’t anyone answer my question, I know this.
What can be done to prevent
OK…
Reeducation or incarceratin of zealots. Large investment in mental health. Prosecution of group’s and individuals that call for violence or have violent philosophies. Reduce access to weapons and materials. High bounties for reporting suspicious activity or behavior. Promotion / enforcement of a homogeneous society.
None WILL be done. Many are undesirable. But they can be used to prevent. Does that help you?
Yes absolutely. These are most definitely actionable and are also excellent conversational pieces that can be discussed further, which was all I wanted instead of outrage commenting basically.
I think healthcare in general (including mental health) services would be hugely impactful to the general population.
I also think our educational system is being eroded and a lot of kids are pushed away from continuing education (in any form, not just traditional university which fails a lot of people) in favor of blue collar work
Now I’m not saying blue collar work is bad, but I do think continuing education is important, especially as our life expectancies are increasing. It’s important people stay educated and continue to practice things like the scientific process so that we don’t lose that information and become disinformation spreaders.
Without solid education, we can’t possible expect a “bright” future imo.
What did you mean about the homogenous society? In what ways? Looking forward to any examples/explanation you could give!
In a homogeneous society, everyone has the same background. No differences of traditions, religions, art, music, etc. They all look roughly similar. They have no fuel to make another member into the “other”. As I understand, Iceland has something approaching this. I expect the Sentinalese do, to. The ways to get to this from a large and diverse society are, of course, appalling.
“These threats” what threat?? People protesting? These snipers have never once protected protestors from the violent freaks that show up to run people over or shoot people.
From my point of view/questioning, it’s the threat of suicide bombers and other terrorist efforts (acid, dirty bombs, driving through a crowd of people) when it comes to protesting middle eastern matters in the states. Hell we have American terrorists doing terrorism here too, how do we better prevent that or are we stuck only responding?
Actual prevention of terrorism comes by building a just society. People who have basic needs, healthcare, education, and justice do not become terrorists.
And how do you expect a sharpshooter team to stop a suicide bomber, acid attack, or dirty bomb? Even stopping a crowd-driving-maniac would require significant luck. This isn’t an action movie.
I never made this claim… I was asking the question literally, which you answered and lead with, before going back to say I was implying something else. I’m confused how we ended up here, but I think we both agree that snipers are a threatening, and apparently not that effective means to prevent these things from happening. And even in reacting, snipers are overkill.
Yeah, you think all those people on January 6th weren’t having their basic needs met? No, terrorists are not logical people fed up with the system. They’re fanatics and psychopaths, and in Gaza it’s a revered profession. They literally don’t have their basic needs met because they are spending all their money and resources on violent extremism. They’ve been doing it so long their economy depends on it; if they stop killing Jews, they stop getting money from their benefactors in Iran and Qatar. Panislamism, which includes Hamas and its allies, is an ideology of violent repression of non-muslims and infidels, it’s not a freedom movement, it’s MAGA for Islam.
This is a complete distraction. The only people spilling protestors’ blood on American soil right now are cops. And your response to it is to try to justify why they need intimidation snipers on top of that?? Absolutely not.
You did not address what they said and instead made a slew of assumptions about their intent. They actually had a question
We should treat them like snipers? ie. We should rush them and neutralise the threat they pose?
Rocket jump up there and disrupt them, that’s your job as a soldier
As a former pyro main: w+m1 with a back burner.
When you play as pyro, do you get the rainbows and song?
Use jetpack
That would be foolhardy: I so want to take this one step further for imaginary karma but don’t want to be on a list
Why aren’t they going to where the lawmakers are to protest? /s
Oddly enough as the world saw a few Januarys ago, that might have less of a police response.
Those don’t look like rifles from this angle. They appear to be monoculars.
Yeah, a monocular with a bipod attached. The first picture ok maybe, the second one is 100% a rifle.
I agree. Look at the dude’s clothes and kit. That’s someone who’s out for a shoot.
this is the monthly post of someone realizing that crowds of people in public venues, particularly large ones, draw snipers.
Love to see it.
Snipers flock like birds.
wouldnt be a comment about snipers if someone didnt post furry tf2 i suppose
Da fuck? Not a furry. He is wearing the hat Sir Shootsaloot. TF2 is hat simulator, not a furry simulator.
wait until you figure out the lore
Halloween magic except Medic which “experimented on his own head”.
oopsie
that crowds of people in public venues … draw snipers.
No, not here. Must be an american thing.
I think those are to protect from psychos that want to kill the protesters.
Think about it, it would be idiotic for any crowd control “measures” and doesn’t make any sense otherwise.
Oh you sweet summer child.
No. The cops ARE the psychos that want to kill the protesters.
Just look at the past century of protests in America and how much “good” cops did vs how many innocents they hurt.
Maybe touch the grass. No, seriously. Break from tankie doomerposting in some insane web bubble.
I am scared to think how you must feel on a day to day basis if you believe they will do what exactly?
It must suck to be you honestly.
Doomerposting is all the rage nowadays but while I acknowledge things aren’t going that great some people take it a lil bit too far. Bordering on mental illness. I blame twitter
Triggered much, kitten? 🤣
This is fucking cope… I guess you lived in a cave during the BLM protests
Or lived in saner country.
EDIT: for some reason I typed “like was” instead of “lived”
OK, so lets think this out. These are pointed at the crowd correct so lets assume the threat is from the crowd.
You have some Ne’er-do-well in the crowd who is planing some type of trouble, you notice this person looking “dastardly” from your sniper nest. You radio in and get the go ahead to take the shot with your trusty Remington M700. You shoot centre mass as you have been trained to do and the villain drops like a puppet with its strings cut.
You saved the day right? Oh no that is just the start, since the round fired was a 7.62x51mm NATO (there is no “rubber” round for this firearm) it went straight through the torso of that protester with a box knife and into and then back out of at least a few other people in the dense crowd (must be their fault for not wearing better body armour). The gunshot is still noticed even with the police issued silencer and at seeing the carnage the crowd does what crowds do, they stampede.
After the chaos settles down the body count will be a lot higher then that one person with a box cutter could ever manage (not that you can even say they where going to do anything).
These are not there to protect people, that is not their role, this is not an action movie.
I imagine there are situations where benefits outweigh the risks. Probably not your interestingly creative scenario. But congratulations for your vivid depiction.
The issue is I can not even with my vivid imagination can think of a scenario where shooting into a crowd (where these teams have their rifles pointed) would have benefits that outweigh the risks.
The use for sniper teams on roof tops is in VIP protection (as in fuck all the little guys as long as the important one is safe) and offensive actions.
Or you know, like, deterrence.
From protesting or attacking protesters? Its getting hard to tell.
I don’t need to go back in time by far. Moscow shootings. One or four well positioned snipers could save some lives there.
Probably someone in a car driving over protesters, someone shooting an automatic weapon. Any person or humanoid unleashing high explosive fragmentation devices.
In all these cases the teams would have to reaim outside of the crowd, and also unless they have been given permission to shoot at their discretion (oh please no) they need to call it in. Not really a great solution where the benefits outweigh the risks.
And since no snipers saved the day in Moscow it does not really work as an example of snipers being used to defend a crowd. I also doubt with what we now know about the internal workings of the Russian federation I kinda doubt their snipers would have been fully capable.
And yet they are always present during such events so some people that aren’t random internet experts, like us, must see the benefit.
Your yearning for fitting this into narrative got the better out of you this time around. I blame twitter.
Never had a twat account, sorry. I am more coming at this from a gun nuts thinking, Oh and the complete absence of any evidence of sniper teams being used to save a crowd. But maybe I just am not looking hard enough.
I think you either overestimate overpenetration at range or underestimate the training a sniper has on that very subject.
As someone who has shot this round, no I don’t think I am overestimating the penetration. Also as it turns out police (I think state troopers in this case) snipers operate at ranges of 100 yards or less according to the police https://www.police1.com/swat/articles/a-first-of-its-kind-effort-describes-police-sniper-use-of-force-engagements-in-us-j7JjrYjYZmPtsoMt/. I know of no way to magic a bullet fired into a crowd to not over penetrate and yes I checked if there was some sort of less lethal or low pen police round (I found none).
Know your target and what is beyond it. This is basic firearm safety, but that seems to not be common in the US of A.
I put this in the other thread but they have these guys out for EVERY football game. I believe its their standard practice for crowded events. Have your own options, but its not like this is a unique situation. Like I see people talking about trigger happy snipers and shooting kids but that just isn’t something that had happend dispite being frequently deployed.
