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

661–670 of 957 posts

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

#661

Post by solidsnack9000 »

bdowling wrote: post #567
sjwright wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was being serious. I don’t have a problem with responsible gun ownership. Switzerland is a good model. The NRA loves to point at rates of Swiss gun ownership. If the USA implemented all of Switzerland’s gun laws I think you’d be okay.

If the USA implemented all of Switzerland’s gun laws, a citizen who passes a background check would be able to buy a newly-made full-automatic machine gun that is not allowed in the US outside of law enforcement or military. I’m not sure that is what you’re implying that you’d want.

In Switzerland, people can not actually buy those guns, I don't think. They are issued by the military to pretty much everybody, that's true -- but they are kept on base these days, not at home.

One of the big differences between US gun culture and Swiss gun culture is that in the US we believe in a certain right "to enjoy arms", to keep and bear them in an undisciplined and disorganised way.

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

#662

Post by aphextim »

Ancalagon wrote: post #390
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…

Well said, I am very tired of these blasé remarks about the second amendment. Sure, the people don’t have tanks, but when the people and the guns out number the tanks 1000:1, and the tank driver doesn’t really want to fight, and those 1000 guns are all playing geurrilla tactics, I like to imagine the people stand a chance.

Also take into account even if the military supported this theoretical dictator, many brothers in arms would NOT attack their fellow citizenry mindlessly. Sure there are those who will follow an order no matter what, but many folks would easily defect and help their fellow citizenry.

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

#663

Post by SimbaOnSteroids »

soperj wrote: post #550
SimbaOnSteroids wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you kill political dissidents and harvest their organs as part of an active genocide campaign, you lose any claim at behaving ethically. Ethics are measured by the actions you take that you'd rather not advertise.

Same as when you water-board people.

Nanking was ethical because Manzanar.

Unit 731 was ethical because Tuskegee.

The Opium Wars were ethical because the CCP does nothing to stop the flow of fentanyl overseas.

All of these are as ridiculous as what your comment implies, they're also equally relevant.

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

#664

Post by cwkoss »

homonculus1 wrote: post #641
cwkoss wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is unfortunate that so many Americans don't know about the history of the Black Panthers. In US public school system, we are taught that the Civil Rights Act was won through peaceful marching - this is not the whole story. Black Panthers carried guns to protect protests, and having guns created a situation where cops could not rush in and beat dissent into submission. There is a strong argument that withou…

>Any discussion of gun control in America must account for the self-defense rights of Americans who do not have adequate protection from the police. Not to detract from your excellent point but when it comes to personal defense against crime, this applies to everyone who doesn't have private security. Even if the police are 100% on your side, they can't help you if they aren't at your side. When seconds count, the co…

I agree. Similarly, most people who live in rural areas also have a need for guns to protect themselves adequately - from animals as well as malicious people - as police and other state protection can be an hour or more away when they try to respond rapidly.

I prefer to focus on the Black Panthers use case because there is an interesting cognitive dissonance in the modern left in that anti-racism and gun control are both promoted by the same ideological groups. Tends to be more persuasive in my liberal social bubble as I see a growing lack of empathy for rural Americans.

My personal litmus test for gun control legislation is: "Would this law meaningfully decrease access for a black single mother who is a victim of domestic violence and does not have confidence in a timely police response?"

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

#665

Post by CharlesColeman »

koheripbal wrote: post #636
mattnewton wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is another angle that shows the cop charging in with a gun drawn before the shot. https://mobile.twitter.com/antielabhk/status/117897105163343... Also, further muddying things, it shows a moltov cocktail nearly miss a cop right afterwards, and a cop tackle and arrest someone who is on the ground trying to attend to the protestor who was shot. It looks like total chaos on both sides and is way more complicated t…

Here is a more complete video showing the exact protestor who got shot (with the blue shield) chasing down an officer and then beating him on the ground before attacking the rescuing officer and getting shot. https://twitter.com/bbcchinese/status/1179082367337713666

What happened before that one-and-a-half minute video to cause the protesters to chase down the officer?

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

#666

Post by jfim »

cwkoss wrote: post #580
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 think it is unfortunate that so many Americans don't know about the history of the Black Panthers. In US public school system, we are taught that the Civil Rights Act was won through peaceful marching - this is not the whole story. Black Panthers carried guns to protect protests, and having guns created a situation where cops could not rush in and beat dissent into submission. There is a strong argument that withou…

> Any discussion of gun control in America must account for the self-defense rights of Americans who do not have adequate protection from the police.

Interestingly, that would be most of them, with the supreme court ruling that the police does not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-po...

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

#667

Post by malandrew »

enraged_camel wrote: post #345
tenaciousDaniel wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't see any historical evidence that superior weaponry always wins, whereas there are plenty of examples to the contrary. So I don't know why it's a "fact" that the dictator would still win.

Except the US military doesn't just have superior weaponry. It also has superior training, superior discipline, superior logistics, superior intelligence, superior force projection capability, superior everything . Unlike the Taliban or the Viet Cong, the US citizenry, even armed, would be like chaff. edit: so many downvotes. I guess I hit a sore spot. I'm sorry the truth hurts, guys and gals. :)

> Except the US military doesn't just have superior weaponry. It also has superior training, superior discipline, superior logistics, superior intelligence, superior force projection capability, superior everything.

You assume that all members of the US military would fight on behalf of the government. All members of the armed forces swear an oath to the US Constitution, not the federal government, so it's pretty much certain that a non-trivial proportion would defect from the will of the government if the orders were contrary to the oath sworn to the US Constitution. At that point, that superior training, discipline, logistics, intelligence, force projection, everything is also in the hands of the insurgency against unconstitutional orders.

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

#668

Post by yonaguska »

cwkoss wrote: post #592
jki275 wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You raise a very good point. And something else -- during this time, the US started to pass gun control laws. They were understood primarily to apply only to black men at the time. This is the heritage of gun control in America -- racism and hate written down and codified in law.

The NRA advocated for gun control to disarm the Black Panthers. Gun control has historically been used to disarm minorities much more often than for public safety.

The NRA actually helped Robert F. Williams, from my parent comment, establish a gun club and donated rifles and ammunition. So while they helped with establishing the Mulford Act, they also supported the early civil rights movement. Not to defend them, but organizations aren't necessarily single minded in their actions.

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

#669

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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 why we have checks and balances, a strong constitution, strong interest in rule of law, and an effort to have fair elections.

The second amendment hardly helps that much, as if shooting those we think are wrong* is going to do anything good (or trying to go after the military, who is much better trained and armed than we are).

* e.g. would Trump supporters be justified in going after progressives with their guns if they thought they were harming the country? Or vice versa?

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

#670

Post by solidsnack9000 »

diminoten wrote: post #460
nostrademons wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surprised you're downvoted. The U.S. already has one civil war in its history, conducted when the 2nd amendment was in force and even more people owned guns than do today. It played out exactly like what the grandparent said was ridiculous: the respective militaries fired into every rural and urban home, set whole plantations on fire, destroyed their own infrastructure, killed their brothers and extended families, fo…

The second amendment was nothing then like it is today; until 2008 it has been interpreted to mean the states have a right to raise a militia, not as an individual mandate to possess firearms.

That is not true, although there is a DailyKos article that says that.

Whatever rights they wanted to give the states in the Constitution, they gave to "the states". The right to bear arms was specifically given to "the people", to prevent disarmament.

Post reply on HN