←back to thread

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

(www.reddit.com)
628 points nodea2345 | 1 comments | 01 Oct 19 11:19 UTC | HN request time: 0.56s | source
Show context
nvahalik ◴[01 Oct 19 13:30 UTC] No.21125093[source]▶
> 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".

replies(26): >>21125127 #>>21125139 #>>21125892 #>>21126027 #>>21126073 #>>21126084 #>>21126204 #>>21126397 #>>21126398 #>>21126638 #>>21126890 #>>21126892 #>>21127286 #>>21127513 #>>21127874 #>>21127880 #>>21128227 #>>21128793 #>>21129412 #>>21129418 #>>21129526 #>>21129658 #>>21130063 #>>21130220 #>>21131181 #>>21131653 #
swarnie_[dead post] ◴[01 Oct 19 13:34 UTC] No.21125127[source]▶
Non-American here, i never really understood your second amendment or how you cling to it in the modern age.

What are a couple of rednecks with assault rifles (which arguably they shouldn't be able to purchase anyway) going to do against semi-autonomy kill droids being flown from a bunker in the desert?

ericmay ◴[01 Oct 19 13:37 UTC] No.21125154[source]▶
The same thing that people in Afghanistan did?

It's also not cool to characterize people who have assault rifles or support the 2nd amendment as rednecks. I'm certainly not one. It's actually kind of offensive to even use that term anyway if you ask me.

replies(4): >>21125187 #>>21125194 #>>21125893 #>>21128574 #
swarnie_ ◴[01 Oct 19 13:41 UTC] No.21125194[source]▶
No offence intended, just a stereotypical image i go to when thinking about the US's gun culture and all the problems it brings.
replies(4): >>21125343 #>>21125423 #>>21125825 #>>21125866 #
swebs ◴[01 Oct 19 14:03 UTC] No.21125423[source]▶
I think the problems are unrelated to gun ownership. If you were to plot the percent of gun ownership vs the crime rate among various states or even countries, you wouldn't find much of a correlation.
replies(4): >>21125800 #>>21125809 #>>21125864 #>>21125879 #
davinic ◴[01 Oct 19 14:48 UTC] No.21125879[source]▶
There are several studies on this that conclude otherwise. For example[1]:

"Firearm prevalence is significantly related to total violent crime (B = .600, p < .05). With each unit increase in firearm prevalence, the expected count of the violent crime index increases by .600. This also indicates that the percent change in the total violent crime is an 82% increase for every unit increase in firearm ownership. The prevalence of guns does significantly increase the violent crime in the county. This finding is consistent with previous research on firearm prevalence and crime both in the United States and internationally."

[1]: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_firearm_owner...

replies(3): >>21126120 #>>21126128 #>>21126585 #
SkyBelow ◴[01 Oct 19 15:06 UTC] No.21126120{4}[source]▶
So the study found a correlation between suicide by firearm and violent crime, not firearm prevalence and violent crime. They try to justify using suicide by firearm as a stand in for gun ownership, but if they don't have good stats on gun ownership to use for this study, then how could the previous studies have been able to make the connection between suicide by firearm and prevalence since they would need the same data.

>Firearm prevalence in the United States is difficult to determine because there is no database that collects information on firearm ownership and prevalence. Thus, analyses that study firearm prevalence have had to develop proxies for firearm ownership. As a proxy for firearm ownership, the current analysis used the percentage of suicides by a firearm from 2000 to 2010.

Little tricks like this are why people lose faith in science.

replies(1): >>21126455 #
1. heavyset_go ◴[01 Oct 19 15:30 UTC] No.21126455[source]▶
Proxies are used all of the time in studies and analysis of information that can't be directly collected. To claim that proxies are why people lose faith in science is absurd.