Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests • Hacker News Board

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

#911

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 4:20 PM UTC

justsubmit wrote: post #508

Sandman wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Sure, they could try fighting a guerilla warfare, they'd even inflict some casualties against the enemy but it's unlikely that in the end they'd succeed against an army that is professional, highly skilled, better equipped, has better offensive and defensive capabilities, knows a lot more about tactics and logistics and has trained for this type of situation on a daily basis. Have you heard of the Viet Cong?

> Have you heard of the Viet Cong?

The one that got basically wiped out despite foreign backing (though the regular army that was their most direct supporter—the North Vietnamese Army—intervened and ultimately won the war after they were crushed)? Yeah, heard of them.

They kind of prove (or at least demonstrate) the point the grandparent post was making, though.

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

#912

Post by HeWhoLurksLate » Sat, Oct 05, 2019, 4:22 PM UTC

c0nducktr wrote: post #488

HeWhoLurksLate wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, that's probably a hugely underappreciated factor that would make fighting a war like that even harder. The CIA also has a document (sorry, I don't remember the name) detailing ways that civilians can sabotage efforts by doing things like holding extra meetings, etc. I wonder if anyone would stay in the military to better thwart it.

I believe this is the document. Page 28 of the book, (18 of the PDF) "General Interference with Organizations and Production" https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/...

That's it!

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

#913

Post by jki275 » Sat, Oct 05, 2019, 11:13 PM UTC

kristiandupont wrote: post #868

jki275 wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well we clearly can't know how China would react, but I personally doubt that statement.

History bears against you.

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

#914

Post by CompanionCuuube » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 10:47 PM UTC

close04 wrote: post #908

CompanionCuuube wrote: post #896

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because they represent authority and the law just like in any other country. The fact that LEOs carry guns is because they are surrounded by a lot of other individuals who are unable to take smart decisions while wielding a deadly firearm. Even in locations where firearms are heavily restricted from the civilian populace, the police remain armed. The funny thing is that individuals wanting bodyguards hire armed bod…

> the police remain armed [...] armed bodyguards The police and bodyguards are there specifically to deal with dangerous situations and attractive targets. You are not authority, not trained, and not a target that attracts attacks. You don't need the gun, you want it "just in case", makes you feel "bigger". What else must you be allowed to use just because someone else is? There are bigger hurdles to clear for many o…

Are you even willing to waive your extensive list of gatekeeping items even when we do have the improvements in education(and income inequality) you claim to care about?

Your argument regarding surgeons and scalpels looks superficially reasonable at first, but no one has proposed restricting scalpels to ordinary people. We shouldn't prohibit external defibrillators or occupant firehoses because these are items "for professionals".

The comment about "the talk" is also a huge strike on your position. That statement was about the policy positions of candidates for the highest elected office. If you're this out of touch, then hopefully you do not participate in the presidential election(if you are a legal US voter). The country is better off without you.

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

#915

Post by tsegratis » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 6:53 PM UTC

mieseratte wrote: post #834

tsegratis wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shooting to kill a 16yr old instead of getting beaten up is justified?? Not where I'm from -- The only way to end such confrontation is simplistically to love your enemy; or at least stop being quite so mean ;) Edit: I've never been shot or faced those injuries, but I've certainly been in worse situations than that police officer. So just on that basis that I'm judging his actions

It takes one blow from a bat to the head to die. Yours is asking someone to risk death death, not a beating. Were it simple fists I’d wonder what lack of training these officers have. Weapons are another matter.

Thanks @goblin89, you are right

Sorry @mieseratte, what you say is true. I exaggerated. Looking at the videos now though the boy was armed with a swimming float as a shield and a relatively thin white (plastic??) pole. It's true that that could still cause a lot of damage

But I wasn't there, and if someone is facing a baseball bat (and others in the crowd had hammers) to the head then you are right, that is a different ball game to what I was hoping for

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

#916

Post by camgunz » Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 1:25 AM UTC

ChrisLomont wrote: post #910

camgunz wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is untrue, and the Supreme Court has ruled several times on it. This is a pretty weak appeal to authority. My rejoinders are Dred Scott and Korematsu (or anything about the idiotic "right to contract"). The Court isn't always right. > or realize that the Bill of Rights was added at the states request to protect individual rights, not collective govt sanctioned rights Well, 9A protects individual rights not enu…

>This is a pretty weak appeal to authority. This is not appeal to authority. You keep misusing that term in this thread to belittle things you dislike. Appeal to authority would be to say an argument is right solely because an expert said so. No one has made that argument. The things people are pointing out to you are quotes and historical facts. There is no other evidence than these to demonstrate the point. So much…

> "2A is absolutely not about individual rights. No Founder ever talked about it in this way."? I just gave you two Founder quotes; there are many more. There's a lot more in that report that proves you wrong. The state constitutions they wrote also prove you wrong.

They're not talking about 2A.

> So much of what you say is wrong. A good source with a lot of historical references is the 1982 Congressional Research Office report on the matter, with hundreds of citations for you to check.

I sincerely hope you're not saying a document written by lobbyists (NRA's in there) for a committee chaired by Strom Thurmond is an authority here.

> States blah blah

Yeah, my position is that 2A lets the States regulate the right to bear arms. So that's fine.

> This is not appeal to authority. You keep misusing that term in this thread to belittle things you dislike. Appeal to authority would be to say an argument is right solely because an expert said so. No one has made that argument.

More than one person has said "the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and Heller is the law of the land" (paraphrasing). That's a direct appeal to the authority of the Supreme Court as experts. But the Court is wrong all the time, and is deeply political.

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

#917

Post by mav3rick » Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 6:39 AM UTC

flukus wrote: post #865

mav3rick wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know about Gandhi's nonviolence and civil disobedience movement ? Not saying this is what's required right now. But ultimately it was that that turned the British public opinion and the Crown was forced to withdraw from the colonies.

Civil disobedience worked because it became unprofitable for Britain to stay in the short to medium term, for China it's a territorial claim and they're happy to wait out any lost profits. Gandhi's first stint at civil disobedience also landed him in jail for 6 years and there was a lot of violence that also played it's role in Indian independence. Even with an Afghanistan style insurrection it's hard to see China bl…

The public opinion completely turned on the British because of Gandhi and that movement. Colonization was seen for what it was...slavery. Having a whole other continent to supply and feed your country was never unprofitable.