Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 957 posts

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#161

Post by lostlogin »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #33
swarnie_ wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-American here, i never really understood your second amendment or how you cling to it in the modern age. What are a couple of rednecks with assault rifles (which arguably they shouldn't be able to purchase anyway) going to do against semi-autonomy kill droids being flown from a bunker in the desert?

Asymmetric warfare[1] strategies are incredibly powerful and allow just a couple of rednecks with assault rifles, common chemicals, and vehicles fight successfully against the most powerful militaries in the world. Just look at the war in Afghanistan to see how difficult such warfare can be. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare?wprov=sfla1

The same thing has happened in Afghanistan 3 times. Superpowers seem to fare poorly there.

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#162

Post by close04 »

SkyBelow wrote: post #133
kristiandupont wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If HK'ers had a similar right to carry guns, do you honestly believe that they would be any better off right now?

With or without the gun culture of the US?

Looking at still ongoing insurgencies where both sides are heavily armed you'd be hard pressed to find one where the dictator gave up even when the insurgents were backed by strong armies like the US.

So yeah, the assumption is great but too simplistic. It's the same when people say "if we have guns we can stop mass shooters". Very few (if any) shootings were ever really prevented by a citizen and their gun even when the shootings happened (repeatedly) inside military bases where the shooter was literally surrounded by trained and armed military personnel.

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#163

Post by djsumdog »

kristiandupont wrote: post #25
nvahalik wrote: post #18

> Imagine if the US suddenly had a dictator This is why we have the second amendment. And the constitution as the thing to which office-holders swear allegiance to rather than to "the party" or "the president".

If HK'ers had a similar right to carry guns, do you honestly believe that they would be any better off right now?

You really can't protect yourself from a government in a stable State, because the State needs a monopoly on violence to exist. Even in America, the argument from 2nd amendment advocates, that guns help protect American citizens from their government is absolutely ludicrous.

There is no realistic way for Americans to stand up to the entire US State with violence. Not without some very wide spread belief in the failure of the state, believe that would probably be easier to get with non-violent protest (and it still wouldn't be easy).

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#164

Post by snagglegaggle »

derefr wrote: post #91
thaumasiotes wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the simple fact is that the government will win in the game of “who has more guns and power”, just as it would in the USA I do not actually agree with the premise that, in this modern day, governments can no longer be overthrown. Civil wars are not won on the basis of "who started with more guns?".

Most countries you’re thinking of as counterexamples don’t have an equivalent to Air Force One (= near-complete invulnerability for said dictator) or nuclear submarines with SLBMs (= near-complete invulnerability for said dictator’s hard power.) Nothing a militia does storming US land civil or military infrastructure would matter to a US dictator, any more than it would if a foreign military did so. The US military d…

There have been inquests into what would happen in event of US civil war. Some projections see >40% of people immediately defecting from the government, many with high level clearances. At least in the case of the US the nation ceases to exist the moment it is in civil war.

But that is kind of besides the point. A lot of people are arguing "they may have overwhelming force, so roll over and give them what they want." No thanks?

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#165

Post by rcruzeiro »

rcruzeiro wrote: post #94
swebs wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problems are unrelated to gun ownership. If you were to plot the percent of gun ownership vs the crime rate among various states or even countries, you wouldn't find much of a correlation.

But there is a correlation with mass shootings (yes, I know it's kinda obvious since you need guns for mass shootings whereas you don necessarily need guns for most crimes).

Copying the same source as a comment above to whoever downvoted this: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-an...

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#166

Post by NoInputSignal »

LandR wrote: post #75
nodea2345 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Full context is police officers often beat protests during arresting. Sometimes they just fight each other. Anyway, I think the officer have better choices than attempting to kill the kid(shot in chest is obvious willing to kill).

I think anytime you shoot a gun at one someone you are shooting to kill, shoot to maim feels like it would be practically impossible outside of movies. But I might be wrong, I've never shot a gun.

I'm not taking a side on this specific situation, but shooting at a limb in a high stress, crowded situation would not be a wise shot. You would likely miss--and hitting someone that was not your target would not be good.

Another comment mentions training for center of mass, and I would assume that's what they do.

Let's say 80% of your shots constitute a "tight grouping", 20% being somewhere other than where you were aiming. Aiming for the middle of the body would likely mean you have a very high success rate of hitting your target individual. Aiming for the shoulder/leg/arm (each one harder than the last to hit) you are looking at a very low success rate of hitting your target. If you choose to use your weapon, I would hope you are confident you will hit your target and only your target.

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#167

Post by gleenn »

easytiger wrote: post #11
marliechiller wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think i saw yesterday though that the Government there is infiltrating the protest groups with agent provocateurs so i dont know what to believe anymore

Entirely irrelevant as there is a video of the kid hitting a police officer with his gun drawn. This is entirely self inflicted. There is no strategic advantage to physically attacking a police officer in this context. It didn't further a cause in any conflict. If you go and hit someone with a gun pointed at you it is undeniable that the person acted in self defence. I hate to be defending these things, but the hypoc…

While I would expect repercussions when swinging at police, I think being physically present in confrontation shows a level of commitment that a weaker protest movement might not show. Sure, if you die you aren't going to be protesting any longer, but that doesn't mean it has no strategic value as perhaps the only option a protester might see is violent escalation.

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#168

Post by Fezzik »

nvahalik wrote: post #18

> Imagine if the US suddenly had a dictator This is why we have the second amendment. And the constitution as the thing to which office-holders swear allegiance to rather than to "the party" or "the president".

I always find this sentiment a little silly - if the US President went in to full dictator mode and had the support of the military, do you really think a militia of armed citizens would be anything but gnats against the windshield of the United States Armed Forces? And if s/he did not have the support of the Armed Forces, it would not be a very effective dictatorship and you would not even need guns for a rebellion. I truly do not get it.

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#169

Post by jbattle »

LandR wrote: post #72
swarnie_ wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-American here, i never really understood your second amendment or how you cling to it in the modern age. What are a couple of rednecks with assault rifles (which arguably they shouldn't be able to purchase anyway) going to do against semi-autonomy kill droids being flown from a bunker in the desert?

Not American, but I think maybe the point is the minute the government has to resort to taking up arms, or using the military against it's own people then it has already lost. At that point the country is effectively done, it's a failed state.

Abstractly speaking, this represents a sort of a mutually-assured-destruction dynamic between the government and the governed, forcing each to compromise with the other.

As an American, the thought of an actual armed uprising feels so outlandish in 2019 that I'm pretty certain that no one in government takes it seriously (c.f. the steady erosion of civil liberties)

Re: Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

#170

Post by bhupy »

emptysongglass wrote: post #158
nvahalik wrote: post #18

> Imagine if the US suddenly had a dictator This is why we have the second amendment. And the constitution as the thing to which office-holders swear allegiance to rather than to "the party" or "the president".

This is absurd. Any chance a rebellious citizenry had armed to the teeth evaporated with standing armies. Gun owners of the US cling to this ideal even while experiencing the worst spate of mass shootings in its history. There is no solution to this other than disarming.

The US (with its standing army) has been at war in the Middle East for nearly 2 decades now with insurgents.

The argument is not that a rebellious citizenry will necessarily win a war, it's that it will draw out a bloody civil war so long and so expensive as to be a form of mutually assured destruction, the risk of which acts as a check in and of itself.

Post reply on HN