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

331–340 of 957 posts

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

#331

Post by bhy »

baybal2 wrote: post #307
bhy wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of activists are children of very well off people Do you have data or reference to back them? Surely there could be rich kids among the protestors, but is that a majority of them?

HK is just across the river from me, and I lived enough on both sides to know how the social architecture of both countries works The best proof of what I said is that all convenience stores and seven elevens are fully staffed, and running. Janitors, taxi drivers continue to work like nothing happened. HK Poly is more or less preserving minimal functioning, but HK University is effectively defunct now. All kinds of b…

What I heard is that they only protest on weekends? Are they doing it everyday now?

> All of well of Hongkoners I know myself either: 1.) ran away to Mainland, 2.) ran away to Vancouver, 3.) are on the streets right now

So, among them, what kind runs away, and what kind goes to the street?

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

#332

Post by voldacar »

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 wars in Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan would like to have a word with you. Furthermore, there are about 393 million firearms in the USA, and that's just a minimum as you can suspect that many do not report their firearms. Considering that plus the fact that about 43% of American households own at least one firearm, this means that in the event of a rebellion against a dictator, very quickly 100% of households are armed. Modern weapons such as nukes, fighter jets, tanks, etc, are effective at completely obliterating an opponent, if they were deployed against American citizens, there would be no country left to rule over.

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

#333

Post by dx87 »

LandR wrote: post #259
jacobush wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The police in Sweden is trained to shoot to maim, but only in somewhat controlled situations, such as someone wielding a knife approaching officers from a distance. First warn verbally, then fire a warning shot, then fire at the legs. When there is no margin left, fire to stop. (Which means in practice, often death.) https://polisen.se/om-polisen/polisens-arbete/polisens-befog...

THis might be a stupid question, but where are Warning shots fired? Are they fired close to the target, but far enough away to miss? Can this only be done if there is no one behind the target, are they shot into the sky? If so is their no danger of bullets hitting people falling back down? Or do they lose enough speed on the downward arc to be safe? Or is the chance of a warning shot hitting someone innocent so stagg…

I live in the USA, and the only place I've ever seen warning shots being recommended was by the military in Iraq when civilian vehicles would drive too close to a convoy. If a gun is used, it's because you feel that your life or someone elses is in imminent danger. Warning shots can ricochet and kill someone, and bullets can still come down with lethal force if a warning shot is fired into the air. Shooting to maim is possible if the situation allows for it, but warning shots can end up killing someone besides the intended target.

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

#334

Post by filoleg »

admax88q wrote: post #152
hanniabu wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the problems are unrelated to gun ownership Exactly, if the same logic for guns were used on other things then you'd have people up in arms saying nobody should be able to drive cars because of how many people kill others with them.

Lol are you seriously comparing cars to guns? Guns have one primary purpose, to shoot things. A car's primary purpose is not to hit things.

>guns have one purpose - shoot things

There is another one you are missing: deterring people from violence against other people, given the knowledge they might be carrying a gun. In a similar way to how nukes are actually used in 21st century.

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

#335

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#336

Post by dTal »

MS90 wrote: post #276
tialaramex wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"By Dawn's Early Light" is a movie with James Earl Jones as "Alice" the general aboard an EC-135 carrying out the "Looking Glass" mission (a 24/7 airborne command and control, now obsoleted) after a surprise attack. Jones' character decides to ram Air Force One to eliminate the hawkish Secretary of the Interior who has assumed the role of President - and thus resolve a deadlock so that the actual President (who has s…

You probably could not, unless you set your EC-135 up way ahead of AF1 and took a crazy pursuit angle and timed the impact perfectly. The maximum speeds of the two planes are within 10mph of each other (at least, a base C-135 and a base 747. I'm sure there's some variance between those and an EC-135 and AF1 due to equipment loadouts and whatnot).

Hm, you don't need a crazy pursuit angle if you're way up ahead. Just use your time advantage to climb until you've exceeded AF1's altitude. Now, in a shallow dive, your speed will exceed AF1's.

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

#337

Post by simonh »

easytiger wrote: post #4

Obviously China is evil etc etc. But isn't it pretty obvious these people are physically attacking armed officers as they are retreating? And they are beating up and kicking another downed officer in the head? Whilst I might have sympathy for their cause the kid struck an armed officer with a weapon whilst he wielded a gun as his friends beat another armed officer. I have very little sympathy for anyone who makes suc…

There are two things to unpack here.

One is, what it the police officer right there and then supposed to do? Police forces across the world have faced similarly violent protests, and even riots while managing not to shoot anybody. It's part of their job. Police in the UK in riot situations aren't even armed with firearms. Pretty much the only situations in which UK police ever get issued firearms is when facing similarly armed criminals. If they are getting themselves in situations, against protesters not armed with guns, where they feel the need to shoot their way out, they have badly screwed up.

Secondly, HK police routinely assault and very severely beat even non-violent protesters. They have frequently provoked and incited violence. This isn't an isolated example of defensive violence by peace keeping law officers. This is a further escalation to potentially lethal violence by a hostile force that has repeatedly upped the scale of violence in HK.

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

#338

Post by daenz »

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.

>The 2nd amendment made a lot of sense when weaponry consisted of horses and rifles, not computer-guided missiles.

Let me make sure I understand your basic premise: the ability to defend yourself against a tyrannical dictatorship made sense until the government developed better technology, now it's pointless so just give up your guns?

Aside from being completely contrary to the American spirit of defending yourself from tyranny, it's based on the bogus premise that the advanced military technology can be used effectively against its own people. Where is the military going to fire those "computer guided missiles?" Into every rural home and every urban apartment window of everyone they suspect has guns, with thousands of civilian collateral casualties? Are tanks and fighter jets going to roll in and level entire economic hubs like cities? Are they going to destroy their own infrastructure? Are you envisioning "the rebellion" would set up a nice neat base in some remote location for the military to aim its tech at? Do you think the real men and women of the military would follow orders to destroy its own hometowns and families? How long before regional coups? How big do you think the US military is, relative to the armed civilian population? You are also aware that soldiers and police wear recognizable uniforms, while "the rebellion" doesn't?

I don't think you've thought this through.

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

#339

Post by moate »

geggam wrote: post #211
moate wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's assuming they side with the civies and don't rejoin the standing military. Truth is, we have no idea what a US civil war might look like. There would be military defections as well as citizens joining the government. With no understanding of what the factions would look like, it's difficult to forecast blindly (not that you couldn't make projections based on certain groups leading the antagonists side and how…

It would be bloody, beyond that no idea. A demonstration like happening in Hong Kong likely wouldnt ever happen. I use the nevada rancher incident as an example. Govt agents backed down from armed "militia" to avoid the bloodshed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff Govt agents

I like to believe that the US government wouldn't fire the first shot, that it would be citizen aggression against them that would spur them into action. But who knows.

In the Bundy incident(s) no shots were fired. I believe that's because as much as the Bundy group believe their own bullshit (about land rights and white supremacy and whatnot) they also know that this is a fight about taxation currently and that they can keep enough support on their side by making that the principle issue. The government isn't going to go in hot to collect taxes, because jesus christ that's a terrible look for them and they don't want another Waco.

The whole incident involve those yahoos is a mess, but a really great example of a militia strong arming the feds (it sucks that the feds screwed the pooch in the trial of the 2016 standoff and let them get off because of procedural misconduct).

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

#340

Post by everyone »

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".

There are plenty of examples of the US army (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan), and US controled dictators forces (Cuba) being beaten or stalemated by guerilla forces. Depending on how widespread and committed a revolution was, they could have a very good chance imo. Also if the revolution is extremely popular, then elements of the army will side with them.
Post reply on HN