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

611–620 of 957 posts

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

#611

Post by humble_engineer »

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.…

Yes, absolutely, its called asymmetrical warfare and the Vietnamese defeated the US with it, and the Taliban are about to defeat the US with it. These were also foreign enemies, if you also consider the US soldiers would be fighting their own people, in their own land, yes....they could defeat the US military. Its not about totally destroying the US military, its about creating a situation where the US can't win and dragging it on long enough until its just pointless and heart clenching to continue.

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

#612

Post by celdon25 »

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.…

This is not a "sentiment", it's the very foundation the country's freedom was built on. When you admit that you don't understand it, then ask questions in a leading form that way, you're effectively arguing against the idea and forcing people to respond to it, or reinforcing others who have the fallacious beliefs against the second amendment based on lack of understanding on military and political strategy.

It's astonishing how many people these days have suddenly become armchair generals to push back against the very foundation of the freedom of the United States in the form of this tired argument.

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

#613

Post by dsfyu404ed »

spaginal wrote: post #461
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.

Every war goes to the streets in the end. No amount of tanks or missiles stops this eventuality. At some point you are going door to door with guns. You can't just bomb people from far away with a few missiles and wipe your hands clean of it and call it a day. The only effective bombing campaign that subdued a citizenry outright in military history were nukes, and if we ever crossed that line as a nation where the go…

>The only effective bombing campaign that subdued a citizenry outright in military history were nukes

The firebombs and the nukes didn't subdue the citizenry. They were still willing to follow their cause to the death. You can't win against that unless you're going to kill each and every last one of them.

The nukes showed their leader that his people would be destroyed with little cost to the enemy and convinced him to call it off.

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

#614

Post by jacobush »

MS90 wrote: post #544
jacobush wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 powe…

Jeez that's crazy. 14 rounds in a leg...how was that thing even still attached? Do the police there have tasers? That could be a good tool for this type of thing.

Small caliber rounds. Tasers may come in the future. But back when that incident happened, tasers were not a thing.

Edit: I am torn on tasers. It’s a viable tool. I am just very pessimistic. I fully expect them to used VERY liberally in all sorts of situations where we got along very fine without them. It’s yet another way of dehumanising an encounter

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

#616

Post by munk-a »

UnFleshedOne wrote: post #410
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…

Not everyone who has guns, but everyone who resists. Even worst tyranny has some public support usually. And if people who tend to have guns are more inclined to support your flavor of tyranny (because you purpose-built it that way), you side step most of those problems.

> Even worst tyranny has some public support usually.

Tyranny always has public support. The evil wizard lord of a kingdom scenario has never and will never occur in reality - someone despised by everyone cannot come into power... That doesn't mean the tyrant has the majority of public support, but I'd find it hard to believe any tyrant has less than 30% when coming to power.

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

#617

Post by uoaei »

new2628 wrote: post #534
uoaei wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reticence of politicians to address climate change is strongly correlated with their age. Of course there are outliers but it seems clear that "I'm not going to be alive when the shit hits the fan" does a lot to assuage existential anxieties related to climate change.

Blaming the elderly here seems misguided to me. I suspect the lifestyle of an average 20-year-old today puts much more burden on the environment/climate than the lifestyle of their parents in their twenties. ADD: The amount of time each spends _talking_ about climate change is a different matter of course.

Comparing the behavior of people now to people 20-40 years ago seems dishonest. Many new technologies have prevailed since then, and cultures around consumption have rapidly shifted.

We should consider instead the current consumption habits of both cohorts for an appropriate comparison.

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

#618

Post by goblin89 »

mieseratte wrote: post #578
goblin89 wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> warrants the officer acting in self-defense I question the appropriateness of using a firearm with conventional lethal ammunition. A rubber bullet in lower body would have had enough stopping power. What happened looks like a blatant violation of any reasonable protocol law enforcement would be supposed to behave in accordance with under the circumstances.

> A rubber bullet in lower body would have had enough stopping power. No, it wouldn't. I've sustained worse injuries than a rubber bullet and remained fighting. A bat to the head is a lethal assault. Using a firearm against such an assailant is completely justified. This has nothing to do with pro / anti CCP feelings. As far as I'm concerned the CCP should be eliminated. Your assertion is devoid of any reality.

> remained fighting

Without interruption? Then I stand corrected.

I imagine the point would be to confound, give the time to extract the officer from immediate danger, not to immobilize the attacker entirely with a rubber bullet.

(And you’re right, I should not have phrased that as an assertion not being an expert in the field.)

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

#619

Post by x86_64Ubuntu »

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.

So we are just going to sit here and act like the US Civil War didn't happen?

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

#620

Post by xienze »

diminoten wrote: post #437
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…

I don't think you've thought this through; you won't be fighting soldiers in your little quest for rebellion, you'll be fighting your neighbor, because your neighbor thinks you're a fucking dumbass who he'd rather kill than reason with, because of how little you've respected honest discourse and conversation over a long period of time. To create an American insurgency would be to threaten everyone around you, and no…

>I don't think you've thought this through; you won't be fighting soldiers in your little quest for rebellion, you'll be fighting your neighbor, because your neighbor thinks you're a fucking dumbass who he'd rather kill than reason with, because of how little you've respected honest discourse and conversation over a long period of time.

Does he really want to do that, seeing as how I have a gun and he doesn't?

Post reply on HN