←back to thread

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

(www.reddit.com)
628 points nodea2345 | 2 comments | 01 Oct 19 11:19 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 #
kristiandupont ◴[01 Oct 19 13:36 UTC] No.21125139[source]▶
If HK'ers had a similar right to carry guns, do you honestly believe that they would be any better off right now?
replies(10): >>21125201 #>>21125693 #>>21125818 #>>21125820 #>>21125872 #>>21125917 #>>21126045 #>>21126229 #>>21126494 #>>21129586 #
mc32 ◴[01 Oct 19 13:41 UTC] No.21125201[source]▶
It’s uncertain what the eventual outcome would be, but one thing is for sure, it would increase the threshold before the tanks rolled in.
replies(4): >>21125236 #>>21125711 #>>21125904 #>>21125957 #
kristiandupont ◴[01 Oct 19 13:44 UTC] No.21125236[source]▶
I might be misreading what "increase the threshold" means, but it seems to me that if people were armed, the tanks were more likely to roll in quickly, not less.
replies(3): >>21125247 #>>21125808 #>>21127708 #
mc32 ◴[01 Oct 19 13:46 UTC] No.21125247[source]▶
I see it the opposite way, the tanks become a last resort. They have to use hard power rather than alternatives.
replies(4): >>21125640 #>>21125679 #>>21125804 #>>21126316 #
orf ◴[01 Oct 19 14:30 UTC] No.21125679[source]▶
You’d think that an armed protest group would mean that the government reacts with _less_ force? Rather than simply deploying an appropriate amount of force to stop them? Because the simple fact is that the government will win in the game of “who has more guns and power”, just as it would in the USA, and there is no way a government would set a precedent that all you need to make it capitulate is wave a gun around.

I’m not saying that the outcome would be the protesters would not be successful, in saying that the government would roll in the tanks immediately and without hesitation.

replies(5): >>21125720 #>>21125934 #>>21125979 #>>21126082 #>>21126246 #
goatinaboat ◴[01 Oct 19 15:16 UTC] No.21126246[source]▶
the government will win in the game of “who has more guns and power”, just as it would in the USA

After Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq it literally boggles my mind that anyone still believes that.

In fact Afghanistan twice, the Mujaheddin defeated the Soviets the same way.

replies(1): >>21126538 #
1. AnimalMuppet ◴[01 Oct 19 15:35 UTC] No.21126538[source]▶
Well... the mujaheddin had US-supplied shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles. That did help them a bit...
replies(1): >>21130788 #
2. goatinaboat ◴[01 Oct 19 21:18 UTC] No.21130788[source]▶
True, but the US has more helicopters than the Soviets, and the Taliban don’t have Stingers anymore, and they’ll still be there long after the US has quit

“You have the watches, but we have the time”