Hacker News Reader

Comment by Spooky23 | Hacker News Reader

There’s nothing factual about that fantastical history. Possessing a firearm doesn’t prevent state violence, if anything it justifies further escalation. An armed rabble doesn’t have a chance against trained soldiers, and a citizen militia doesn’t have a chance against artillery.

Ask the various native peoples, who at various times outgunned the then pitiful US Army, how well that worked out. Read the survivor accounts about how well the Easter Rising did in Ireland. Political movements defeat state power, period.

View on HN

It does prevent state violence the same way nukes prevent world wars. State violence rarely looks like soldiers vs citizens, because soldiers would rebel if they were given such an order. What tyrannical states do is they employ a third party, gangsters or cartels, that are given a carte-blanche to terrorize citizens. See what happened in Hong Kong: CCP hired Triads, those attacked citizens, while the riot police standed behind and arrested _citizens_ who dared to push back. The same cannot happen in the US because the gangsters would be outnumbered 1000:1, and the order to engage soldiers against citizens would split the army into competing factions. Edit: when I say gangsters I don't mean those who rob banks, I mean radicalized mobs who are far more dangerous because their motive is not money, but ideological control.

What happened in the United States when cheap guns began flooding the streets?

A: Tactical teams with automatic weapons, sometimes snipers or air support now serve warrants and raid moderate risk suspects.

We don’t have a tyrannical government. The US unrest scenario is different than China as the citizenry is neutral or pro-government, but you have a vocal minority. We have reactionary political parties that use armed LARPer militias to intimidate voters and influence policy.

Can you name just one example of a US armed "militia" intimidating a voter?

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/06/election-officials-facing-ar...

I'm far more worried about BLM-style riots. Iirc, in Seattle they even managed to cordone off parts of the city, called them "autonomous zones" and declared themselves kingpins of the square, while the gov forces were ordered to not engage. The local citizens who lived there had to get over it. Only when BLM kingpins killed someone the gov forces had to engage.

Reference to these events, please?

Which native peoples outgunned the US Army? Please provide a citation for such an outlandish claim.

Try reading stuff not written for a gun audience. Lots of scenarios in American history exist where tribes were well equipped with repeating rifles while the Army was stuck with Civil War surplus or breechloaders. The 1870s army was a ramshackle affair underfunded and poorly maintained.

Ditto with the Boers and the British. The Brits weren’t faring well against mobile artillery and people not marching around with redcoats and brass. The Brits “won” when they put the families in concentration camps and half starved them.

Guns are powerful, but power doesn’t come from the barrel of a gun.

I'm trying to read it by asking you to cite something, but you have so far been unable to. "Lots of scenarios" is vague and you should be able to come up with at least a few specific examples to support your argument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com