Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Yes, more guns is always the solution !!!


Voting and protesting are resulting in oppression and physical assault.

Your argument, such as it is, is equivalent to saying people should not be allowed to defend themselves, because someone might get hurt. It rests on the hidden assumption that guns cause violence, which isn't supported by the evidence you offer; and flies in the face of the actual violence in HK.

Too add on to your point, there is also another hidden assumption:

That violence is never the answer.

In civil society, we like to preach that, but as soon as the basic pillars of civility disappear, violence is unfortunately the only answer.

Worrisome times indeed.

Nobody was killed in the recent violence. Are you seriously suggesting that the commuters would have been safer, and less likely to get killed, if both sides had been armed with guns?

Regardless of what you think of 2A, this is exactly the sort of situation it was designed to address. In Hong Kong, you have a completely unarmed population demanding democracy. Being oppressed by an (in the particular case, arguably foreign) government, with a long history of slaughtering unarmed populations who demand democracy.

What if the 60% of US citizens who don't approve of Trump want to overthrow his government ? Would that be part of the 2nd amendment ? Where do you draw the line ?

Generally speaking: "There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order."[0]

Where to draw that line is a personal choice. There are no simple answers. "You can never make that choice" is just as extreme and absolute an answer as "any time you are unhappy about anything the government does, start shooting."


Nothing about those situations are comparable. The president of the USA is democratically elected. The USA is ruled by its own government, not the government of a foreign country (which a huge amount of Hong Kong citizens view China as), the citizens of Hong Kong don’t want to overthrow their government, they want to protect themselves from clearly oppressive regime, the USA has a rather impressive set of constitutionally guaranteed rights, citizens of the USA have access to a robust legal system.

There is nothing about the situation in Hong Kong that compares to any level of dissatisfaction you believe may exist with a democratically elected government.

It's a hell of a lot harder (or at least more costly) to violently impose your will on people who can violently defend themselves.

A civilian population armed with guns to the teeth will still not be able to stand up even a little to a real well organized military with gear.

Maybe it would be more costly, but the escalation would also provide the justification to strike down the population completely and simply murder all the protesters. Instead of reading about peaceful protesters being attacked you'd read about the military taking out insurgents.

Vietnam. US won every single battle, but failed to achieve anything.

Civilian militias have an enormous advantage over organized militaries. Guerilla tactics.

Yes, special forces employ them, but never the less, you’ll never see a special forces groups throwing IEDs on insurgent convoys.

Unlike civilians, organised militaries have rulebooks to follow.

This is true especially in authoritarian states with centralised decision making. See: the six day war. When communications were out, Arabs became mindless drones and the morale was in the toilet. Perhaps not the best example because that was organised military vs organised militaries. However, for Israel, everything was at stake. It was either victory or total annihilation.

> Instead of reading about peaceful protesters being attacked you'd read about the military taking out insurgents

I'm curious. What was the last anti-insurgent war we won? I'll list the ones where we lost: Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.

Afghanistan and iraq would like to talk to you

Both are very good examples of the point. Both are dominated not by free armed civilians protecting their rights, but by organised well armed militias that completely suppress the rights and freedoms of the general population in their areas of control.

Yes ordinary people in much of Afghanistan and parts of Iraq can get hold of firearms if the want to. It doesn't help them at all. They are utterly dominated by either the local militias in Iraq (Sunni and Shiia depending on their area), or by the Taliban in much of Afghanistan.

If arming everybody worked to promote freedom, then Iraq and Afghanistan would be free associations of local communities joining together to protect their liberties. That is clearly not the case, and it isn't the case in any country with weak government and pervasive access to arms. Guns everywhere make the weak weaker and the strong stronger.

Guns do not even the playing field. In practice they dramatically tilt the playing field even more in favour of those with a willingness and propensity to use violence.

To your first point, there are numerous historical examples to the contrary. To the second, HK has millions of protesters out, something like a quarter to a third of the population. You can't simply liquidate an entire generation of young people if you want to maintain a grip on anything more valuable than a smoking crater.

> Instead of reading about peaceful protesters being attacked you'd read about the military taking out insurgents.

In both cases, you'd read what the oppressor wants you to read.

Do you believe the US population has any kind of chance against the US army ?

It created an arm race between civilians and the authorities. The basic police in the US is better equipped than the military of most EU countries.

I would describe this line of reasoning as tautological. A proper analysis would compare total violence and eliminate other factors like income inequality and education. The preoccupation with "gun violence" is like fixating on, say, truck collisions-- it provides no actual insight into what variable is driving traffic fatalities, but trucks sure are big and scary!

North Korea has very few gun deaths. I am pretty sure people would trade a slightly higher gun death rate for actual freedom.

correlation != causation

It's better that a thousand individuals get to kill each other than one person be oppressed by a government.

Change "one person" to "all persons" and you have the heart of the second amendment argument.

You may disagree, but it is not an unreasonable position.

Oh absolutely but when you phrase it like that you risk getting bogged down in the minutiae of irrelevant details like the exact impact removing/adding more guns would have on a society's homicide rate, like that's at all relevant to what is at it's core a disagreement on principles. Best to express your stance in the most extreme way possible so you don't get stuck in detail quibbles.

A disarmed society is an enslaved society.

That's the tough part isn't it? It's just a cost benefit analysis. There's no "one true way". The Americans chose one end of the spectrum, the English the other. Both approaches worked out reasonably well.

That's not something either side really wants to hear these days.

Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact