←back to thread

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

(www.reddit.com)
628 points nodea2345 | 5 comments | 01 Oct 19 11:19 UTC | HN request time: 1.015s | 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 #
cwkoss ◴[01 Oct 19 18:18 UTC] No.21128793[source]▶
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 without the second amendment, the Civil Rights Act would not have been passed, and we would still be living in an institutionally segregated society.

I don't own a gun and don't feel I need one because I'm a privileged urban white. Gun control has historically been used as a tool to disarm Black Americans: the NRA supported gun control in response to the Black Panthers! (https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-...)

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.

replies(6): >>21129340 #>>21129509 #>>21129684 #>>21130401 #>>21131110 #>>21131185 #
homonculus1 ◴[01 Oct 19 19:07 UTC] No.21129340[source]▶
>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 cops are only minutes away.

replies(1): >>21129489 #
cwkoss ◴[01 Oct 19 19:22 UTC] No.21129489[source]▶
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?"

replies(2): >>21129717 #>>21131121 #
jammygit ◴[01 Oct 19 19:43 UTC] No.21129717[source]▶
As a Canadian, I’m always confused at how safe Americans think a gun makes them when in the woods.

Guns are not a good defence against many wild animals. Get some bear spray, it is dramatically more effective and will not kill somebody as easily if you accidentally shoot a person in the dark!

Point taken about the civil rights marches though

replies(4): >>21129795 #>>21130237 #>>21131018 #>>21131565 #
1. thisisnico ◴[01 Oct 19 20:28 UTC] No.21130237[source]▶
I have witnessed a teen use bear spray in a fight that took place outside of tim hortons between 20 teens and an (Not naming) Food delivery service driver in their mid 40's. The guy was screaming on the floor for an hour. The Police considered it as a weapon.
replies(2): >>21130468 #>>21131608 #
2. allannienhuis ◴[01 Oct 19 20:50 UTC] No.21130468[source]▶
still better than having been shot multiple times at close range, no?
replies(1): >>21130755 #
3. GhettoMaestro ◴[01 Oct 19 21:16 UTC] No.21130755[source]▶
Oh man I'm sure glad that poor youth showed restraint and chose bear mace instead of the glock!

Sounds like you just made a great reason for concealed carry.

replies(1): >>21131052 #
4. allannienhuis ◴[01 Oct 19 21:46 UTC] No.21131052{3}[source]▶
what are you talking about? As described, it was the teens who had the weapon - you'd rather they were carrying guns in that situation rather than bear spray? If that's so, I don't want to live in your world.
5. slavik81 ◴[01 Oct 19 22:36 UTC] No.21131608[source]▶
Under Canadian law, pretty much anything that can be used as a weapon is illegal to carry for use as a weapon. If that fight was in a wooded area where carrying bear spray was a reasonable precaution against bears, there would be no crime. The weapon offense was for carrying bear spray with the primary intention of using it on people.