Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by Clubber » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:31 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #134

sudhirj wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same thing the original Americans did when protesting the massively better trained and armed British Army. Keep their wits about them and keep fighting. If anything the war in Afghanistan has proven that technology is no match for resilience and grit.

Afghanistan is a fool's mission, not a war. If the US had the desire and stomach to wage total war against the people of Afghanistan (gladly we do not), there would not be a lingering quagmire.

It didn't work out that way when the Nazi's invaded Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_partisans

>The partisans made significant contributions to the war by frustrating German plans to exploit occupied Soviet territories economically, gave considerable help to the Soviet Army by conducting systematic strikes against Germany's rear communication network, disseminated political work among the local population by publishing newspapers and leaflets, and succeeded in creating and maintaining a feeling of insecurity among German forces.[1]

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

#282

Post by chongli » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:31 PM UTC

hnuser54 wrote: post #222

markstos wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US Armed Forces is made up of people, many of which would not support a self-appointed dictator attacking their own people.

The rise of killer death robots like Boston Dynamics definitely changes this dynamic. A handful of people in charge of the robots could order them to murder whomever with little oversight or room for ethical qualms on the part of the "soldiers".

It’s not a question of whether the robots could attack and kill people, it’s a question of whether they could defend the dictator’s interests. In a protracted guerrilla war against survivalist Americans with machine guns and large stashes of preserved food, not to mention access to tons of technology? I doubt it.

It’s not very difficult to attach a hand grenade (or even a pipe bomb) to a quadcopter drone and use it to attack a military checkpoint or a politician’s entourage. It’s simply much harder to defend than it is to attack nowadays, and centralized power is offset by scattered, decentralized resistance.

Finally, you might be able to convince a unit based in one state to attack another, but you’re unlikely to have the loyalty of all generals in a civil war.

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

#283

Post by PhasmaFelis » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:31 PM UTC

josephdviviano wrote: post #238

bhupy wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US (with its support of the military) 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.

The fact is that the dictator would still win. The rebellious citizenry would live a life of absolute misery, just as those in the middle east do. The 2nd amendment made a lot of sense when weaponry consisted of horses and rifles, not computer-guided missiles. If there was ever a true US dictator, the 2nd amendment would mostly be used by the oppressed to rob, attack, and oppress one another.

There's an interesting sci-fi dystopia in there, maybe. Everything up to light machine guns are available with no restrictions to anyone who wants to buy them. The government constantly talks up the sanctity of the right to bear arms, and the importance of being prepared at all times to defend innocents against . The dystopian military enforcers wear bulletproof powered armor, and private ownership of any weapon that can pierce that armor is a "grievous threat to public order," punishable by summary execution.

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

#284

Post by simonh » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:31 PM UTC

bhupy wrote: post #174

Fezzik wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

The US (with its support of the military) 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.

And then all you get is a whole bunch of mutually hostile regional militias sitting on piles of rubble shooting at each other. This is not a recipe for a stable state of any kind, and certainly not a democratic one. Guns and democracy simply don't mix. Democracy is about giving an equal voice to every citizen, while firearms are a force multiplier. They make the strong stronger and the weak comparatively weaker.

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

#285

Post by grugq » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:32 PM UTC

khuey wrote: post #147

grugq wrote: post #53

This should be put in some context. Today is the anniversary of China as a communist country. The Hong Kong marchers were all wearing black today as a sign of mourning. That is why the kids are dressed in black (so please, no black bloc/antifa comments.) The police have been particularly aggressive towards protestors and journalists. They deliberately shoot tear gas at journalist "clusters" (presumably to prevent doc…

They've been wearing black for the five months or whatever that this has been going on.

This is not supported by the evidence. They wear street clothes. Look at any pictures or videos, you'll see that they're wearing normal clothes of all colors.

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

#286

Post by ChrisLomont » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:32 PM UTC

Fezzik wrote: post #168

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.…

The US military requires a massive functioning economy to feed it goods, fuel, food, etc. If enough of the US were rebelling against the govt, the military would fold.

And it's likely hard to get troops to shoot their own countrymen.

As direct evidence, over the past few decades the US has been unable to stop a vastly smaller, vastly less armed resistance in various regions of the world.

Maybe you underestimate the power of a few armed people against a military. And in any case, if it came to people vs military (which I do not think is anywhere close to happening), armed people do much better than unarmed.

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

#287

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:32 PM UTC

aasasd wrote: post #278

bhupy wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US (with its support of the military) 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.

To clarify, are those insurgents buying rifles at shops, or are they supplied with military-grade missiles by friendly countries?

[deleted]

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

#288

Post by planetzero » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:32 PM UTC

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?

Yes, they would. But only if they were given the right a decade or more ago, so more people were trained to use firearms. Now, it won't really do much.

The 2nd amendment isn't necessarily a way to win a fight one-on-one. It creates an idea in any leader in government not to even attempt to start killing people by force, because of the potential bloodbath and resistance that would ensue.

IEDs are also pretty effective.

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

#289

Post by close04 » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:32 PM UTC

Clubber wrote: post #230

close04 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Typically military people at a US base are not armed. MP's are but not regular military.

The point I was making is that we aren't just talking about people with guns (the ones who had them) but people with guns and training.

But judging from the downvotes most people assume the only thing they need to effectively stop a mass shooter or fight a war is a gun.

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

#290

Post by bhupy » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:33 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #284

bhupy wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US (with its support of the military) 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.

And then all you get is a whole bunch of mutually hostile regional militias sitting on piles of rubble shooting at each other. This is not a recipe for a stable state of any kind, and certainly not a democratic one. Guns and democracy simply don't mix. Democracy is about giving an equal voice to every citizen, while firearms are a force multiplier. They make the strong stronger and the weak comparatively weaker.

> This is not a recipe for a stable state of any kind

It is not meant to be used in a stable state. It’s a Hobbesian point of last resort, to be used when democracy has failed and autocracy/tyranny is in effect. It’s a break-glass-in-case-of-emergency, so to speak.