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

911–920 of 957 posts

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

#911

Post by jacobush »

geggam wrote: post #236
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...

The only way this sort of training would work IMO would be with sociopaths or psychopaths who dont have the huge adrenaline jump from emotional attachment to other humans.

I don't understand this notion. The training is exactly to make people just respond with how they were trained, automatically. This is also how the military works. Since you just do it, you aren't as likely to ponder what will happen to the human in the cross hairs. These thoughts come afterwards.

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

#912

Post by coldtea »

phaus wrote: post #910
coldtea wrote: post #901

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gun owners accidentally shooting themselves means there's a 100% chance they were doing something that following the most basic gun safety controls that everyone knows about would make impossible. You can infer from this that those people were not responsible gun owners. My point was that the supposed "responsible gun owners" also get it wrong. Else it's more like a No True Scotsman (where a "responsible gun owner…

The examples you gave were all extreme cases of gross negligence. You're feigning ignorance and acting as if they are highly trained people dealing with incredible complexity and unmitigatable danger. Its as simple as it sounds. They pointed loaded guns at other people and/or themselves. Its really easy not to do it 100% of the time. Everyone knows its not ok whether they use guns on a regular basis or not. Everyone…

>Its really easy not to do it 100% of the time.

That's the same tired argument of C advocates regarding memory safety faults in C: "just program carefully, just don't double free / don't go over buffers, etc". As if those doing those things are consciously doing them, and can just decide not to.

And even less so is that case that someone teaching about gun safety, consciously shot himself with a loaded gun. The reality is that people with the best intentions and training can mess it, and that even more so for people don't have the best intention and training. Also people are faulty, memory is faulty, and just "you're doing it right, just do it wrong" is a naive non-solution.

>The No True Scotsman fallacy doesn't apply. Its a form of unfair gatekeeping. That's not the case here. These people were ignoring everything about gun safety so its perfectly fair to say they don't fall into the category of people that are responsible.

If these people (gun owning NRA employee, gun safety demonstrator, and tons of similar examples) can those things happen to them (and ignore safety), anybody can do it.

Even more so when gun safety isn't the issue. Even the most fanatic and OCD-level gun safety follower could just get their gun, when in some anger episode, and kill their spouses. So there's that too.

And it happens by the tons -- unless you're in the mafia or street gang, it's more likely to get it by a gun owning family/friend than by e.g. burglars.

>You should be able to recognize by the actions that led to the shootings that these people are not experts.

That's not even wrong.

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

#913

Post by diminoten »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #879
diminoten wrote: post #872

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you asking me to give you a history lesson? Go look it up! Much more authoritative sources than I available to you if you actually want to know what was going on at the time. Once you've done that you will realize that it was VERY specifically written to deal with a problem going on at the time. Hell, there are even comments in this very submission that also describe.

I am asking you to clarify and support your position — to say what the problems you are referring to actually are, and how, in your view, they went away — not to give me a history lesson.

> What were the problems the 2nd Amendment was written to solve, and what happened to them?

Google this. Get a factual basis under your feet and our conversation can continue. Figure out what Britain was trying to do at the time to the then-colonies, what laws it was passing. Go read federalist paper #46, understand Madison's contemporary writings of the time to get a better view of the mindset of the author of the Second Amendment. Read other contemporary writings, read opinions on the various Supreme Court decisions.

Do some homework, then ask the question again because while I could give you this lesson with my viewpoint already embedded, you need to arrive there on your own if your mind is actually going to be changed.

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

#914

Post by unethical_ban »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #909
magduf wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wanting to take over Taiwan, and trying to take over the South China Sea by building artificial islands and using them as military bases, for starters.

> Wanting to take over Taiwan, This is as expansionist as the American Civil War... I.e. it's not expansionist but really a 'domestic' matter. There is big amount of propaganda from Western media on this topic as well: If Taiwan had been in a position to fight the communists to retake the mainland the US would have supplied help and call this 'liberation' of the mainland. But of course any plan of the communists to c…

The difference being one side is evil and the other isn't so much.

The Chinese government, the CCP and everything they stand for regarding liberty and freedom of thought and expression is against the fundamental values of the West. The ideas are not equal in value. China is wrong. Oppression of thought is wrong. Incarceration without trial is wrong.

The US and other countries don't get it right all the time, but at least our citizens have the expectation of rights the Chinese can only dream of.

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

#915

Post by mytailorisrich »

unethical_ban wrote: post #914
mytailorisrich wrote: post #909

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wanting to take over Taiwan, This is as expansionist as the American Civil War... I.e. it's not expansionist but really a 'domestic' matter. There is big amount of propaganda from Western media on this topic as well: If Taiwan had been in a position to fight the communists to retake the mainland the US would have supplied help and call this 'liberation' of the mainland. But of course any plan of the communists to c…

The difference being one side is evil and the other isn't so much. The Chinese government, the CCP and everything they stand for regarding liberty and freedom of thought and expression is against the fundamental values of the West. The ideas are not equal in value. China is wrong. Oppression of thought is wrong. Incarceration without trial is wrong. The US and other countries don't get it right all the time, but at l…

Every time people have to argue to counter the hard reality, which I described in my previous comment, they try to clutch at straws by trying to convince themselves that China is "evil" or "wrong"... This is a feeble argument.

Moreover, even if we accept that China is evil and wrong, some of the best 'friends' of the West are at least as evil and wrong, if not more, as China, which should really finish off this line of argumentation.

This is self-interest among states, standard geopolitics, there is not right or wrong, including when it comes to determining the US' foreign policy.

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

#916

Post by CharlesColeman »

coryfklein wrote: post #740
CharlesColeman wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Blowing up a home or two harboring a "terrorist cell" during a meeting I'm sure will be deterrence enough for a lot of those gun owners. By deterrence, did you actually mean motivation? Killing someone's family and friends often radicalizes them, and I would say it very rarely pacifies them. I mean look at the example of the HK protests: the police didn't stop them by kicking some people's teeth in [1], they actual…

No. I believe that the sum total effect would be deterrence - sure some would radicalize and may throw themselves suicidally against the regime, but I believe the majority would give way to their desire for self preservation. Why does the USA order strikes on terrorist targets, knowing full well there will be blowback? Because, on the whole, the strategy works.

> No. I believe that the sum total effect would be deterrence - sure some would radicalize and may throw themselves suicidally against the regime, but I believe the majority would give way to their desire for self preservation.

Your belief is contradicted by recent evidence.

> Why does the USA order strikes on terrorist targets, knowing full well there will be blowback? Because, on the whole, the strategy works.

No, it doesn't. They've been doing that for 20 years in Afghanistan, and we still have headlines like:

"Afghan government controls just 57 percent of its territory, U.S. watchdog says" (2017)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/02...

"As talks to end the war in Afghanistan continue in Qatar this week, and amid continued political disarray in Kabul, there seems to be one clear trend on the ground: The Taliban are consolidating control. The longer the war drags on—now in its 18th year—the more the balance of the conflict tips in the insurgent group’s favor. While there has been fierce debate in the West and in government-controlled areas of Afghanistan about what peace talks with the Taliban mean for women’s rights and the future of Afghan democracy, the view from Taliban-controlled areas suggests a harsh reality that few in the international community seem prepared for: If peace talks succeed, the Taliban will effectively formalize, and likely expand, their control over vast swaths of the country. If peace talks fail, however, the outcome will likely be far worse, with renewed fighting and a precarious government in Kabul."

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/04/afghanistan-taliban-pea...

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

#917

Post by CapricornNoble »

diminoten wrote: post #705
CapricornNoble wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>There is absolutely no such thing as the "American spirit of defending yourself from tyranny", whoever told you that sold you a lie. "The means of defense against a foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." —James Madison[1] "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." —Thomas Jefferson[1] "What country before ev…

> The Revolutionary War was not a precedent, it was a single violent act by a unified people. What you're talking about is literally the opposite of unification. You dropped this when you quoted me. I wonder why... To think that we should resort to violence instead of using the systems in place for peaceful negotiations is insane. Also, interesting how you only quoted slave-owning inspirations of Southern Democrats,…

>>>You dropped this when you quoted me. I wonder why...

There was nothing particularly egregious about that particular statement. I didn't feel a response was necessary.

>>>To think that we should resort to violence instead of using the systems in place for peaceful negotiations is insane.

Soap box --> ballot box --> ammo box.

There is a spectrum of methods for effecting change. If people are reaching for the ammo box, it SHOULD only be because all attempts to utilize other methods have already conclusively failed.

>>>Also, interesting how you only quoted slave-owning inspirations of Southern Democrats

They were the first ones I came across in a 30-second Internet search for "Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment" or "Founding Fathers on tyranny". A further search for non-slaving owning Founding Fathers reveals [Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, John Adams].

"In a state of tranquility, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny." ~ Samuel Adams[1]

Thomas Paine doesn't have many juicy tyranny/2A quotes. John Adams seems to take the position that the militia should be an extension of the state security apparatus (my reading of his quote).[2]

But anyways, this is all getting away from why I replied at all: you stated there was "no such thing as an American spirit of defending yourself against tyranny" and implied anyone stating such is a liar. That is a blatant falsehood. Positions from the nations founders on tyranny are so easily accessible and, IMO, fairly clear on the subject. So what sort of information have you been exposed to that would ever lead you to hold such a strong, and objectively erroneous, position?

[1]https://www.azquotes.com/author/99-Samuel_Adams

[2]https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Adams#A_Defence_of_the_Co...

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

#918

Post by poseidonist »

sbmthakur wrote: post #538
orthecreedence wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> US has some founding morals and principles they do not forget. Excuse my french, but what the fuck are you talking about? How about imprisoning and torturing US citizens without due process in the name of a nebulous war that only gets worse the more we fight it? What about all the puppet governments we've set up so that our corporate overlords can make a quick buck at the expense of some country who's resources we…

> The US is an empire. Not based on governmental control, but based on financial control. But people in the US can remove legislatures and the top executive(the President). Do people in China have that option?

A majority of the people didn't even vote for the president.

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

#919

Post by dang »

easytiger wrote: post #876
dang wrote: post #856

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obviously China is evil Good grief. Would you please review the site guidelines and take care to edit such flamebait out of your posts to HN? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Apologies, but I was clearly making humorous reference to the hyperbolic knee jerk condemnation of China in the thread irrelevant to the situation. Not actually making an ideological statement.

Oh, I see. Unfortunately, many readers won't read a comment like that any more closely than I did. It's best not to go there when the topic is inflammatory.

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

#920

Post by dang »

UIZealot wrote: post #877
dang wrote: post #853

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bias you're talking about is real, in my observation, but you can't counteract it by ranting and breaking the site guidelines, let alone baiting others into downvoting you. It's a direct consequence of HN's demographics, which are overwhelmingly Western, and there's no way to change it other than slowly and patiently, by adding good information. Of course it's frustrating to encounter inflammatory comments that a…

I was baiting for good information, not downvotes. My apologies if it came out wrong.

Ah. The way to get good information is to post some yourself, and to do it in a way that communicates neutrality and openness to other points of view.

If you post in the flamewar style, everyone's going to just go rigid and fire on all cylinders. This mechanism works the same way regardless of what the topic is, and regardless of whose position is right or wrong.

Post reply on HN