🇳🇱
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
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.
@freemo
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)