Excerpt: On this day in 1981, President Ronald Reagan was shot in the chest at the side entrance of the Washington Hilton on Connecticut Avenue by John Hinckley Jr. Reagan was walking to his limousine after a speech to AFL-CIO leaders when Hinckley, 25, who was standing among a group of reporters, fired six shots, hitting Reagan and three others.

Source

  • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    7 months ago

    Six shots and only got him once and no kill shot. Imagine the world if he been successful.

    We could actually never gotten Trump. And definitely no Reganomics.

    • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      And no Dubya. I think in a long term view, Dubya was far more destructive than Trump has been so far. That of course could change if he gets reelected.

      • PugJesus@kbin.socialM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Dubya’s Iraq delusions cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. But Dubya didn’t threaten the fabric of our democracy, nor did he encourage internal divisions and hatred.

        • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Without Dubya, we wouldn’t have Trump, Putin and possibly Xi. After Clinton the US had a very high prestige in the world and even their antagonists were more likely than not to try and not piss them off too much. After the Iraq invasion the US lost all claim to being not just another imperialistic power and this definitely emboldened the others. Any idea that rules and international law mattered went out of the window. Add to that the normalization of torture, unrestricted mass surveillance and open disregard for democracy and we have a lot of the ingredients for the mess we’re in right now. And let’s not forget the 2008 financial meltdown which contributed to the feeling of disenfranchisement that drives a lot of the present day political divisions. So in my view Dubya really fucked shit up and we’re all still paying the price.

          • PugJesus@kbin.socialM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Oh, Dubya DEFINITELY fucked shit up and set things in motion. He is one of the worst presidents, just above Ronald Reagan. But Trump, tied with Andrew Johnson, has him beat, I hold.

      • cabron_offsets@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Dubya was fucking horrendous, but nothing compared to trump, the most damaging traitor in American history and potentially the proximal cause of the loss of the Republic.

    • Zoidsberg@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Raegan goes down as a martyr, igniting the hearts of die-hard conservatives around the world?

  • PorradaVFR@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    7 months ago

    Thankfully he was literally surrounded by good guys with guns preventing….oh.

    But surely trained and armed amateurs are the solution to stop shootings because reasons.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      The other thing that never seems to get taken into account is that most of the NRA membership wouldn’t be able to hit the broad side of a barn if it weren’t for the fact that the barn was stationary and not firing back.

      They think that proficiency at the shooting range is the same thing as proficiency in combat.

        • remotelove@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          It’s got a stock so its a little less spray-and-pray, but not by much. It wouldn’t be my first choice in a crowded area, is what I am saying.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            I kind of feel like it was chosen for the cool factor. Because there’s no way in the hell that a professional would look at all of the weapons they had on offer and choose that one.

            • setsneedtofeed@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Keeping in mind that the Uzi was concealed in a briefcase, making overall length a limiting factor, the choice is not strange for the early 1980s.

              The Uzi has a ten inch barrel despite its very compact size, and a controllable 600RPM. And there’s no rule in real life that says it has to be fired on full auto.

              The natural competition that comes to mind would be an MP5K. However it has no stock, a 4.5 inch barrel, and a higher full auto rate of fire. That variant had also only been introduced a few years before.

              The USSS did eventually adopt MP5A3s/MP5A5s and P90s but those are carried more openly with less emphasis on concealment, at least within the restraint of a briefcase carry like in the Reagan era.

              Other than the Uzi, many weapons would seemingly be too large for the desired concealment (carbines), too foreign (Skorpion machine pistols for example), or straight up inferior (MAC-10s). Of what’s left, the Uzi is not going to be outlandish in comparison.

          • setsneedtofeed@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            While it would be difficult to know exactly everything they have, they seem to have kept up with the times. The Uzis have been reportedly phased out.

            In recent use, the secret service definitely has Knight’s Armament Company 5.56x45mm SR-16E3 CQB rifles.

            MP5A3s (possibly MP5A5s, but MP5A3s seem more overall popular with law enforcement, and full auto seems more like what USSS would choose.). I’ve never seen MP5Ks in USSS hands, but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn about them.

            P90s.

            Remington 870 PGO shotguns. Probably intended for breaching, but possibly for less-than-lethal rounds. The USSS agent in the photo is carrying 5.56mm magazines, making the shotgun clearly not the primary long weapon.

            While I’ve never seen an MP7 in USSS hands, a solicitation request from 2016 seems like it would be a good fit for them.

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    If it was a TV show set in the 1980s and it depicted a scene that look like that you’d say it was unrealistic. That is the most 80s photo I’ve ever seen everything about it is so stereotypical of action movies of the time.

    I just love the fact that the US secret service used Uzi’s, a weapon that has always been about form over function I know it works, but there are much better options.

    • setsneedtofeed@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Given that overall length was a major factor, there was a short list of comparable arms that are 18.5 inches or less to choose from.

  • Zoidsberg@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’ve always passively wondered what career choices lead to working these ultra-high level security jobs. What’s this guys story? What was he doing before he became Ronald’s well dressed uzi man?