I entirely agree with this message on . HK is a prime example of the need for such rights in civil defense against tyranny.

ยท 2 ยท 6 ยท 8

There are trade offs, imo. otoh, it's valid to think that common people having access to firearms would deter a violent government. oto, the Chinese government is already using lethal force; I can only imagine how much it would escalate if both sides had ready access to firearms.

@jump_spider The only reason it hasnt escalated is because the chinese already won because people know they will get shot if they stand up.. Im not sure preventing escalation by ensuring the people are on the loosing side is actually a good thing.

Yes people would die if they had guns, probably more of them than if they didnt. But at least it is a fight they could choose to have or not, and potentially win. As it stands right now they dont have the choice at all to put their life on the line for freedom, that isnt a good thing.

That's valid and I agree. I'm concerned about those who want to protest but don't want to use lethal force. They'd be caught in the crossfire.

@jump_spider Would they? Thats not what happens in other countries where guns are legal. PRotesters are usually completely seperated from the battlefields with only a few rare exceptions.

In the USa when people protest no one is shooting them down with machine guns just because some people int he country happen to own guns and use them.

Well, gun culture is different in the states, and I can only imagine that if one lone gunman opened fire during a protest, a few more shots might follow from police. There would definitely be a panic and bystanders would be hurt.

I'm not sure it follows that all protestors who want to use lethal force would organize themselves into a separate space.

@jump_spider In theory maybe, so why is it that almost never happens then?

Presumably if guns were legal in HK then they would have a similar gun culture as america.

In fact int he USa what few examples I can think of where protesters were slaughtered, en masse, were cases where the government had all the guns and the people had none, usually in gun-free zones..

So if anything the evidence not only disagrees with you but it suggests the opposite.

I'm less concerned with en masse slaughter and more maximally reducing harm.

I should clarify that I'm not entirely against private gun ownership; like you said, recent history and modern history speak to how an outright ban ends up working. I'm just hesitant when it comes to adding lethal force to any conflict.

@jump_spider Well considering most the mass slaughters in the USA were against unarmed protesters.. it would seem that arming people reduces overall harm more so than having only one side armed (which tends to result in mass killings)

@freemo @jump_spider I'm not convinced. If you're planning or executing an uprising you will not be acquiring guns and ammunition with legal means, because the same government can easily cut you off. Gun laws don't really apply here, not for a extended period of time at least. Unless the law is "lets sell them in supermarkets with 0 regulation".
A small armed rebellion that is destined to fail will just provide an excuse for the tyranny.


Presumably by the time you decide an uprising is needed you've already long since bought your guns or inherited them from your parents.

I dont think anyone wakes up one day and just decides to plan an uprising and goes out and buys their first gun.


You'll have to buy a lot of ammunition to have a chance at "winning", and there is no way you'll not be noticed doing that, put on the "list" and all your plans prevented before you have a chance to execute them. Unless again you break the law(which you're doing anyway) or the if the law says "bullets are candy".

@freemo @jump_spider The original post seems more like an argument of "if civilians had guns, police won't shoot" which I don't think is the case, police would just have armored vehicles. Protesters can't win an arms race, unless a significant portion of the army is on their side, but then again gun laws don't really apply.


Not so much that they wont shoot, only that they only will do so when they think the cause is worth risking their own lives.

Seems when talking about protesters history is against your assertion. Most cases in america I can think of where people were slaughtered en masse, especially protestors it was when the police knew for a fact no one could be armed (gun free zones).

As for armored bvehicals, thats why any reasonable law would state that any weapon or defense a police officer could buy is something a civial can also buy. So in such a case either armored vehicals are outlawed for both groups or they are availible to both groups.


History is hardly a clean experiment, and logic of a duel does not really apply to situations like that. A group of armed people can be slaughtered just as well as unarmed if they are not prepared to fight, and if they are prepared the situation is so different that you can't draw conclusions.

The "police should be allowed same equipment as everyone else" is almost equivalent to "police should not exist". Also in that case why not go the other way and ban police guns?


If we could ban such guns and ensure the government honors such a ban, then yes. But it would have to be encoded in the constitution of a country and very hard to change for it to work.



Keep in mind for me to approve of the idea of cops not being allowed guns no only would that have to be at a constitutional level but it would have to apply to **all** government and cvivilian agents within the borders of the country (with the exception of an invading force).

Which means I would not approve of something like the UK has where every day cops dont have guns but other types of cops do have guns and can be called in when needed.

It would have to be a complete ban on all guns within the borders of the nation. Not even the people protecting the president would be allowed guns in that case within their own borders unless an invasion is underway.



Yes, that's what I meant... so problem solved! Same effect, no unnecessary lethality. Right?

I guess most people won't agree, and the problem boils down to police having to have an upper hand over the organized crime. I think the consensus is:

have upper hand -> might have tyrannical government, that's hopefully possible to overthrow/outlive/circumvent

no upper hand -> guaranteed tyrannical government, or perpetual civil war, or both

and that seems to make sense.


@freemo @jump_spider by the way, I'm all for regulated access to firearms for general public(even though I haven't a clue how to do it "right"), but I don't think this is a good argument for it. This might actually be a counterargument, since it can be presented as being an equivalent to "if I had a gun I would shoot the policeman I don't like", or "ok boys we lost the election, time to raid the parliament".

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves. A STEM-oriented instance.

No hate, No censorship. Be kind, be respectful

We federate with all servers: we don't block any servers.