11 ms·
If HK'ers had a similar right to carry guns, do you honestly believe that they would be any better off right now?
by kristiandupont 7y ago
If HK'ers had a similar right to carry guns, do you honestly believe that they would be any better off right now?
- mc32 7y agoIt’s uncertain what the eventual outcome would be, but one thing is for sure, it would increase the threshold before the tanks rolled in.
- kristiandupont 7y agoI 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.
- mc32 7y agoI see it the opposite way, the tanks become a last resort. They have to use hard power rather than alternatives.
- chrift 7y agoIf citizens had guns, they would be less likely to stick soldiers in front of them without some sort of heavy armour between them. I.e. a tank
- orf 7y agoYou’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.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago> 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 I do not actually agree with the premise that, in this modern day, governments can no longer be overthrown. Civil wars are not won on the basis of "who started with more guns?".
- derefr 7y agoMost countries you’re thinking of as counterexamples don’t have an equivalent to Air Force One (= near-complete invulnerability for said dictator) or nuclear submarines with SLBMs (= near-complete invulnerability for said dictator’s hard power.) Nothing a militia does storming US land civil or military infrastructure would matter to a US dictator, any more than it would if a foreign military did so. The US military domestic defence system was designed under the assumption that this is exactly the type of attack a foreign military would try, in fact—convincing US citizens (and members of the US military!) to foment a coup, the way the US foments coups in other countries. Basically, the US president is in the constant implicit position of being able to hold the entire US hostage from a flying doom fortress† like some kind of supervillain. The only people who can really stop a “crazy president” scenario are people either high up in the Secret Service or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who would 1. Have the authorization to be in the president’s presence during DEFCON 1, and then 2. Have the personal trust/authority to tell the president’s bodyguards to buzz off for a minute. † The “doom fortress” part applies more to the subs than to AF1, but if you treat the two as a unit, it works.
- tialaramex 7y ago"By Dawn's Early Light" is a movie with James Earl Jones as "Alice" the general aboard an EC-135 carrying out the "Looking Glass" mission (a 24/7 airborne command and control, now obsoleted) after a surprise attack. Jones' character decides to ram Air Force One to eliminate the hawkish Secretary of the Interior who has assumed the role of President - and thus resolve a deadlock so that the actual President (who has survived, badly wounded and unable to prove his identity to those aboard Air Force One) can countermand US forces and prevent a retaliatory strike which would inevitably cause World War III. It's made for TV but I thought it did a surprisingly good job. I don't know whether you actually could chase and collide with the plane normally designated Air Force One in an EC-135, but certainly I'd bet on military pilots to give it their best shot if their commander explained the consequences otherwise.
- ct0 7y agoHave tanks ever rolled in on a human rights protest in the USA?
- ajmurmann 7y agoAre the human right protesters usually the ones to bring guns to the protests? Seems like that’s typically done by protesters on the other end of the spectrum.
- beefalo 7y agohttps://www.pri.org/stories/2014-08-14/why-are-police-using-military-gear-ferguson-and-how-did-they-get-it https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-08-14/why-are-police-using-... Not quite a tank, but it is an armored military vehicle.
- wbronitsky 7y agoAnd this exchange exposes us to the fallacy of this argument in that it cannot be proved one way or another. One post says the reaction will be one way, the next asserts the opposite, and neither have relevant facts that can support their argument.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoOne side has Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Iraq as evidence. The other has... what?
- ekianjo 7y agoguerilla warfare is risky business.
- jki275 7y agoNo, he's correct, and it means exactly the opposite. The armed citizen is a deterrent to rolling tanks at all.
- kristiandupont 7y agoWell we clearly can't know how China would react, but I personally doubt that statement.
- jki275 7y agoHistory bears against you.
- empath75 7y agoIf they were armed this would have been over a long time ago. China would have gone in with tanks and the army, or even air strikes. Once you take up arms against the government that’s not a protest, that’s a civil war.
- derefr 7y agoOr, given alliances and treaties, the spark setting off a world war.
- trophycase 7y agoAir striking the people would be just the beginning, not the end
- hokumguru 7y agoThe world would react quite brutally I imagine to another massacre from China - especially one on this potential scale.
- Andrex 7y agoThey successfully swept Tiananmen Square under the rug without much internal fuss, so I wouldn't underestimate the Chinese state in this regard. Also, "the world" is too homogeneous a group to predict it would all simultaneously go after China for some single incident. Who is in the world? What would their motivations be for "reacting" to China? And more importantly, what counter-motivations exist that could sway them from doing so? If you take all this into account, you'll find the group willing to go "against" China for anything is actually very small. Edit- Added section responding to the "world" comment.
- heavyset_go 7y agoChina is putting millions of Uighers in concentration camps[1]. The response from the international community has been crickets chirping. [1] https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/muslims-camps-china/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/muslims-...
- empath75 7y ago
- ajross 7y agoWhy wouldn't it decrease the threshold? Armed insurrection is a trivial justification for military force. Non-violent protest is not, which is why they've held back.
- Clubber 7y agoThey won't for long I suspect. I suspect they'll send in troops and tanks anyway.
- exabrial 7y agoI don't think the Hong Kong government would allow the PLA to invade.
- bhy 7y agoHong Kong is defended by the PLA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Hong_Kong_Garrison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Hon...
- exabrial 7y agoD'oh, for some reason I thought it was more of an analog like Taiwan. So basically, they could say "No", but really there's nothing they can do
- PeterisP 7y agoThe Hong Kong government wouldn't say "No" because they're not elected by the mass population of Hong Kong but appointed in a manner controlled by China (through https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Committee https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Committee).
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoNo need, they've been invited. "China has now assembled its largest-ever active force of People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops and other anti-riot personnel and equipment in Hong Kong." "the reinforcement includes elements of the People’s Armed Police (PAP), a mainland paramilitary anti-riot and internal security force under a separate command from the PLA" https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-china-army-hongkong-military-exclusiv/exclusive-china-has-doubled-troop-levels-in-hong-kong-envoys-estimate-idUKKBN1WF0ZM https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-china-army-hongkong-milita...
- Elect2 7y agoYou need to define what is "better".
- abstractbarista 7y agoYes. Without == no chance of freedom. With == marginal chance of freedom.
- zacharytelschow 7y agoDo you think it's coincidental tyrants are more powerful when their populace is unarmed?
- dorfsmay 7y agoNo. Chinese army would have walked in and do away with armed protesters.
- SkyBelow 7y agoWith or without the gun culture of the US?
- close04 7y agoLooking at still ongoing insurgencies where both sides are heavily armed you'd be hard pressed to find one where the dictator gave up even when the insurgents were backed by strong armies like the US. So yeah, the assumption is great but too simplistic. It's the same when people say "if we have guns we can stop mass shooters". Very few (if any) shootings were ever really prevented by a citizen and their gun even when the shootings happened (repeatedly) inside military bases where the shooter was literally surrounded by trained and armed military personnel.
- Clubber 7y agoTypically military people at a US base are not armed. MP's are but not regular military.
- close04 7y agoThe point I was making is that we aren't just talking about people with guns (the ones who had them) but people with guns and training. But judging from the downvotes most people assume the only thing they need to effectively stop a mass shooter or fight a war is a gun.
- CompanionCuuube 7y agoNo, the problem with your comment was that it is based upon a faulty assumption regarding the presence of armed and trained personnel being abundant on a military base. The comment in response to your point was correcting you on that incorrect assumption: an overwhelming majority of base personnel were not armed, because they weren't MPs.
- close04 7y ago
- djsumdog 7y agoYou really can't protect yourself from a government in a stable State, because the State needs a monopoly on violence to exist. Even in America, the argument from 2nd amendment advocates, that guns help protect American citizens from their government is absolutely ludicrous. There is no realistic way for Americans to stand up to the entire US State with violence. Not without some very wide spread belief in the failure of the state, believe that would probably be easier to get with non-violent protest (and it still wouldn't be easy).
- falcor84 7y ago>There is no realistic way for Americans to stand up to the entire US State with violence. Yup, particularly not as long as the same people vote to reduce access to secure communication methods.
- yonaguska 7y agoRead up on the civil rights movement, specifically Robert F. Williams. You have a situation where blacks stood up to their local governments that refused to convict whites for lynching blacks, local governments that refused to protect blacks from white violence, where police actually sought to disarm blacks in the face of white lynch mobs with little to no federal oversight, and all the peaceful protests in the south, the diner sit ins, and the freedom riders were backed by armed black men and the threat of reciprocal violence. I think that counts as a successful instance of Americans standing up to not only their hostile government but their adversarial fellow Americans as well.
- djsumdog 7y agoAnd what if violence had broken out? How do you think that would play out? Some counter examples are the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) or possibly even the Kent State Shootings (although there it was the State causing violence). No matter where the violence comes from, the message tends to get lost from the reaction to the violence. Sure, even Gandhi talked about needing the capacity for violence for non-violence to work, but the moment things break down; the message may still get across or it may be totally drown out.
- kaolti 7y agoThey would be infinitely better off. I don't understand this sentiment of "even with guns it's not gonna work so let's just roll over and take it". If you personally don't think you'll be better off that's fine, but surely you get that if someone WANTS to fight tooth and nail in self-defense he should be given a chance to do so.
- coryfklein 7y agoReally?! Like somehow having Hong Kong in rubble and surrounded by the largest army in the world is a better situation? If Hong Kong had to rely on force of arms to win its independence, then it's defeat is nearly a foregone conclusion. They just do not have the capacity to stand up to the LARGEST ARMY IN THE WORLD. Maybe, MAYBE an armed conflict in Hong Kong would sway the U.S. to intervene, but the U.S. is so averse to armed conflict right now and, frankly, today they have a very antagonistic view to foreigners. Not likely they'd be willing to take a bullet for the people of Hong Kong. If the protestors in Hong Kong take up arms, it will only provide an excuse for Beijing to escalate.
- remarkEon 7y agoI love this. Hong Kongers don’t need the 2nd Amendment because “maybe” the United States will start WWIII over their protests, which they started after realizing that integration with China will actually happen.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago>If Hong Kong had to rely on force of arms to win its independence, then it's defeat is nearly a foregone conclusion. They just do not have the capacity to stand up to the LARGEST ARMY IN THE WORLD. If they'd rather die free than old that's their choice to make and they deserve to be able to make it.
- planetzero 7y agoYes, they would. But only if they were given the right a decade or more ago, so more people were trained to use firearms. Now, it won't really do much. The 2nd amendment isn't necessarily a way to win a fight one-on-one. It creates an idea in any leader in government not to even attempt to start killing people by force, because of the potential bloodbath and resistance that would ensue. IEDs are also pretty effective.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]