🇳🇱
I entirely agree with this message on #gunrights. HK is a prime example of the need for such rights in civil defense against tyranny.
@freemo
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.
@freemo
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.
@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.
@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.
@freemo
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?
@jump_spider
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.
