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

441–450 of 957 posts

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

#441

Post by huntie »

Sandman wrote: post #396
daenz wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 f…

> 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? Basically, yes. Do you honestly think people would have any chance against probably the most powerful army in the world? Sure, they could try fighting a guerilla warfare, they'd even inflict some casualties against the enemy but it's unlikely tha…

It wouldn't work as you imagine because it would be far too expensive for the government. In the Middle East it works out because none of our infrastructure is affected by the war; so our GDP, and thus tax revenue, is still strong. In a civil war where the government is bombing its own infrastructure the cost for each kill will skyrocket and the effect on the economy will be catastrophic. Fighting a defensive war is immeasurably cheaper than an offensive war as the defenders value the lives of their soldiers much less than the offenders do. Also keep in mind that a rebel faction could very easily sabotoge critical infrastructure like electricity which would be very difficult to repair in a timely manner.

Relying on very expensive advanced weaponry is the modern equivalent of relying on mercenaries, and Machiavelli told us why mercenaries are bad.

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

#442

Post by filoleg »

tekkk wrote: post #209
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".

It's admirable that Americans hold their 2nd amendment to such high-degree. If only your politicians and people in power weren't such crooks you wouldn't have to fear in the first place. I live in a country near Russia, yet I don't feel a need to keep an assault rifle in my home. I think the reason you are clinging onto your 2nd amendment is mostly purely sentimental, the legacy of your ancestors and their glorious r…

I dont feel the need to own an assault rifle in the present time in the US, but I feel like you are misrepresenting the point. You have to be prepared for the worst times, not the good times. When the worst times roll, it will be too late to worry about it.

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

#443

Post by solotronics »

parliament32 wrote: post #377
loquor wrote: post #349

This might sound alarmist, but do you think China is the biggest upcoming global problem after climate change? For two reasons: 1. China has a totalitarian ruling system. They intend to realize George Orwell's 1984. 2. Present-day China essentially has no ethics. Take the US in comparison. No matter how perverse the people in power become and even if they do messed up things, the US has some founding morals and princ…

I'm usually not a huge fan of the US rolling in and stomping out governments (and installing their own, of course), but this is one faux-dictatorship where it sorely needs to happen. Some actual democracy would be amazing for these people. With the recent "trade war" and whatnot the stage has been set pretty well for a US intervention.

Wow what a horribe viewpoint! I can not disagree with you more here. Can you even begin to imagine the massive scale of casulty and human suffering that would occur in this scenario?

Lets break it down - tens or possibly hundreds of millions of people would die - there would be almost a 100% chance of a hot ww3 but this time with hydrogen bombs, there is a good chance if this happens all life will be wiped off the face of the Earth - starvation on a massive scale, modern society with its on demand supply chains would suffer greatly in a new world war - automated drones targeting people

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

#444

Post by jki275 »

kristiandupont wrote: post #44
mc32 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s uncertain what the eventual outcome would be, but one thing is for sure, it would increase the threshold before the tanks rolled in.

I might be misreading what "increase the threshold" means, but it seems to me that if people were armed, the tanks were more likely to roll in quickly, not less.

No, he's correct, and it means exactly the opposite. The armed citizen is a deterrent to rolling tanks at all.

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

#445

Post by jancsika »

vorpalhex wrote: post #314
josephdviviano wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

During the cold war, both Russia and the US developed a post-strike strike capability (basically a response if your enemy nukes you first which in turn destroys your enemy). The US called this a 'second strike' capability, and Russia called this the 'deadman's hand'. Most commenters since have simply referred to it as "mutually assured destruction" or MAD. Here's the thing - from an ethical standpoint, it never makes…

I still don't understand the argument.

Compare

* armed citizenry gathering illegally and getting slaughtered by a superior military force

* weaponless non-violent citizenry gathering illegally and getting slaughtered by a military force (which would have been superior to the citizens if they had been armed)

You've already conceded that the armed citizenry is no match for the military. At best your point about morale is equally true in both cases. At worst arming the crowd gives a boost to military morale because armed opponents gives them a way to rationalize their slaughtering.

Finally: if the slaughter of innocent citizens still matters to a critical mass of other citizens, it's vastly more powerful for them to hear that the citizens had been unarmed. And if there is no longer a critical mass of other citizens to organize against the military, then you're screwed either way.

I just can't figure out what the benefit to arms would be in this case, especially given that there obvious downsides to arming a population.

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

#446

Post by coryfklein »

kaolti wrote: post #216
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?

They would be infinitely better off. I don't understand this sentiment of "even with guns it's not gonna work so let's just roll over and take it". If you personally don't think you'll be better off that's fine, but surely you get that if someone WANTS to fight tooth and nail in self-defense he should be given a chance to do so.

Really?! Like somehow having Hong Kong in rubble and surrounded by the largest army in the world is a better situation?

If Hong Kong had to rely on force of arms to win its independence, then it's defeat is nearly a foregone conclusion. They just do not have the capacity to stand up to the LARGEST ARMY IN THE WORLD.

Maybe, MAYBE an armed conflict in Hong Kong would sway the U.S. to intervene, but the U.S. is so averse to armed conflict right now and, frankly, today they have a very antagonistic view to foreigners. Not likely they'd be willing to take a bullet for the people of Hong Kong.

If the protestors in Hong Kong take up arms, it will only provide an excuse for Beijing to escalate.

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

#447

Post by hnuser54 »

raisedbyninjas wrote: post #359
ChrisLomont wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

Firearms are faster a killing; it's why we use them. However a military entering a hostile area doesn't just stroll through casually even if they could know for a fact no guns are in the area. They still have to contend with fertilizer bombs, molotov cocktails, suicide trucks, bows and arrows, those 3 watt laser pointers, plus any other improvised weapon. If lasers weren't being banned from war for cruelty would mayb…

It's likely that insurgents wouldn't be treated as irregulars or partisans under the Geneva Convention in any case, so the incentives to not just "blind away" with lasers would be more about personal reservations, retaliation, and PR.

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

#448

Post by rjf72 »

slg wrote: post #367
daenz wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 f…

Isn't this basically what the fascist in Germany, the communists in China and the Soviet Union, and countless other examples did? It is weird that people think that Americans are somehow a morally superior people to all the other countries that had already fallen down that path. I mean we are already locking up toddlers in cages and I haven't heard a single report of any push back from the people who are controlling…

In the instances you mention, the government tended to pass gun control or confiscation before engaging in widescale tyranny. In 1938 Nazi Germany passed a gun control law that effectively gave 'true Germans' vastly more gun rights (which had been compulsory rescinded at the end of WW1) yet, they it simultaneously prohibited Jews from owning any weapon - even knives. [1] The holocaust began in 1941.

In 1924 in the Soviet Union all firearms were banned except for smoothbore shotguns which pose minimal In the danger outside of close range. [2] This was greatly expanded with increased penalties and also eventually applied to knives as well. The culling of opponents and directed starvations began around 1929 leading to the deaths of millions of Soviets.

In 1966 China laid out the foundation of their now famously strict gun laws. That was the same year that Mao began the "Cultural Revolution" leading to the deaths of millions of Chinese.

Ultimately their civilians, by the time the worst came, had no way to pose any resistance. And so they died.

---

As for our situation, I think we can appeal to the declaration of independence: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

You're comparing a transient discomfort for a relatively tiny number of people entering the country illegally, to events where millions of citizens were systematically and intentionally killed or starved to death by their governments.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_the_German_Jews

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_in_the_Soviet_Unio...

[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_in_China

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

#449

Post by jacobush »

MS90 wrote: post #317
jacobush wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Swedish police. They are allowed to shoot to kill, but in some circumstances (likely not a riot, but it's a case by case judgement) are instructed to aim for the legs.

This is strange to me. Firstly, because hitting a target with a pistol under high stress can be extremely difficult and legs are smaller than torso, and secondly, because "aiming for the legs" doesn't guarantee that it won't be lethal. If you take a shot to the femoral artery your chances of surviving aren't great. In fact, they're probably worse than taking a shot to the torso. There was a video going around a few y…

It is kind of strange, but nevertheless, that's how it is. They are supposed to use the maim option with discretion. And it has caused death several times.

The police used to have smaller caliber pistols, and IIRC they put 14 rounds in someone leg, which didn't stop him from approaching the policemen doing the shooting. He still died though! This incident was one reason why they were later equipped with the more powerful SigSauer for more stopping power.

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

#450

Post by paul_milovanov »

tempguy9999 wrote: post #362
mytailorisrich wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The situation of HK and the rights of the residents have not fundamentally changed since it was ceded to the British in 1842. In fact they have more democratic representation now than during most of their history. It's far from perfect but it's infinitely better than on the mainland. Nothing justifies "resorting to violence" in HK today. The violent actions along with anti-Chinese displays are in fact counterproducti…

> Nothing justifies "resorting to violence" in HK today If they're basically going to be steamrolled by a rather unsubtle up-and-coming superpower, perhaps they have no choice. In fact IF violence is all you're left with (and that does seem to be the case as legal recourse is blocked) then violence is necessary. The CCP is not backing down until it has borged HK.

What are the specific "actions of the CCP" that have actually occurred to date that supposedly justify violence from the protesters?
Post reply on HN