China Law Blog

You should tell them about the countries where everyone is in the reserve and they take their weapons and uniform home when not on duty. These are AK47's or M16's, and not just a Colt.

Great insights. I just started realizing how many lawyers not only carry, but devote quality time to practice and/or competition. Mao's first initiative when he took control of an area during the Great War was to ban any all shooting even when farmers tried to control predators. This according to Jung Chang. See http://markknapp.multiply.com/reviews/item/4. How is Mao viewed in modern China? Send e-mail to knapp.m@comcast.net.

As the old saying goes, "take away the right to own guns and the only ones that'll be packing will be the criminals".

In China that is exactly true. You have an increasingly uncivil society with a proliferation of weapons now owned by the criminals or "criminal class" (rogue PSB and PLA thugs) and an unarmed population (which I agree overall is a good thing) that is unarmed purely because the CCP fears for its grip on power.

I wonder if there have been any studies on Asian immigrants as being some of the most prolific buyers of legal weapons once they get into the U.S.? Anecdotally, it sure seems so.

This is one of he aspects from which most British folk (myself included) think Americans are just plain nuts. The fact that way more people are killed with their own guns that are shot in self-defence (and I believe this includes police officers) tells you everything you need to know.

Hell, absolutely 100% the best thing about the police here in the UK is that they do not regularly carry firearms. Can crooks get hold of guns? Yup, they most definitely can, but most people aren't shot by random criminals, but by themselves or their own family.

Does firearms ownership protect people against dictatorships? There's pretty much no evidence that it does, and plenty that it doesn't. An untrained pack of gun-toting hicks have never been a match for any half-decent army or police force.

Lawyers packing heat has a bad name here in the UK ever since a city family law barrister tried to go on a little killing spree of his own last year with a double-barrelled shotgun as the perfect aperitif to a drug/booze binge. Fortunately the only person who got shot was himself - although the family of the man who started blazing away at his neighbours through his sitting-room window claim the police shouldn't have even done that.

My guess would be that most of the gun-toting lawyers mentioned above may just have seen one-to-many episodes of Perry Mason (random fact: Raymond Burr, the Canadian actor who played Mason in his 80's incarnation, grew up in China in the late 20s/early 30s).

Not sure about criminals only. One of my good friends' fathers has a rifle hidden in his city apartment. Apparently, whenever the city got around to asking for the relinquishment of weapons, the father turned in one of his two guns and kept this one.

I was intrigued by this fact (a gun in China) and asked to see it one day. My friend and his mother were strangely nonchalant about the whole thing and puzzled that I thought it was unique.

Another student of mine has talked about how his father shoots birds out in the countryside.

I concluded from these experiences that there are probably many Chinese nationals with guns.

Most Americans? Ah... was this law voted on by a majority of the voting public? The enactment or repeal of laws doesn't always represent what the "majority" might accept were it put to a vote. See: abortion.

There is a idea that the guns in parks law passed because the administration wasn't ready to take on that fight, not because they agreed with with guns in parks. Supposedly, Obama's administration wants to lace them up for Guantanamo and some of his other cornerstone projects. Then too he has proven to be not as liberal as some had hoped. I would hardly say most Americans love them; I would say we are, sadly, fascinated by them. Part of people's love affair with guns stems from a deep sense of fear; we are still in the wake of 9/11 incident, involved in two (acknowledged) wars, and have a startlingly high rate of incarceration.

I'd say we love scaring each other and being scared more than we love guns.

The original ban was enacted by Reagan, and it stood through Bush I and II, so I am surprised it's being politicized, but then again everything short of sunrises is these days.

One of the questions I always got from students on the first day of class was, "Do you own gun?" They were surprised when I said no. Far too many of them really believed that all Americans own a gun.

@FOARP: obviously you've never seen "Red Dawn"!! ;^)

Brits should be more in love with guns seeing as how every corner in the country is going to have networked cameras recording your faces and tracking your movements.

And in this country, stuff like "The Patriot Act" and "Homeland Security" keep even many left leaning people not completely opposed to gun ownership. The US revolution against the UK was only successful because farmers were allowed to keep guns to fight natives and wild animals, and it is they who stormed the British armories around Boston.

Americans love guns. We also love booze and explosions. I can't wait until direct energy weapons start showing up at gun shows!

Gun control is having a firm grip on your weapon.

I just told the joke about Chinese, guns, and a reduction in population from 1.3b to 1.0b.

She did not see the humor in it. Said it was true.

I know I'm going to sound very English but when you look at the number of children killed and maimed each year in America I prefer living in a country that understands that the love of guns is not a healthy love - - American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States.

The fact that way more people are killed with their own guns that are shot in self-defence (and I believe this includes police officers) tells you everything you need to know.

You mean it tells us that most responsible gun owners who use guns for self defense are able to solve the situation without killing people (ie. by holding people at gunpoint for the police)?

Agreed...

Another argument for widespread gun ownership.

FOARP made a lot of good comments but not all Americans have a firearm in the closet and of those who do most use the gun for sport, i.e. hunting and not the hunting of homo sapiens; I remember my stepfather cleaning his shotgun, careful to let me know it wasn't a goddamned toy. Not wanting to trivialize this thread still I must acknowledge the bio info on Raymond Burr - grew up in China, did he? - who went on to play the spouse-killer in "Rear Window" and the reporter in "Gozilla". Nah, no connection there I'm sure.

By the way, put a firearm - pistol or rifle, antique or automatic - in the hands of most people and some short while after overcoming their initial shock and fear they'll be sighting in on every living form within eyeshot.

I can understand why Chinese society is so averse to gun ownership.

If Chinese could buy guns, the outcome would put US gun crime stats in the shade. It would be utter carnage!

Substitute "New Zealand" for "British" and I pretty much agree with FOARP, except for this point:

"An untrained pack of gun-toting hicks have never been a match for any half-decent army or police force. "

The American revolution? The Viet Cong?

I have to side with FOARP and Chris Waugh on this one. But I learned a long time ago, there is no hope for a rational discussion with Americans who cherish their "right to bear arms." You can show them all the statistics about family deaths and self maiming and accidents compared to the relatively paltry number of actual times when guns prevented crimes but it never seems to matter, guns are looked upon with a religious reverence. Abortion and guns. These topics are totally radioactive with Americans, and I always wonder why their reaction is so radically different from the far more level-headed Europeans (and New Zealanders, of course).

I still own a home in gun-worshipping Phoenix, Arizona, where a common bumper sticker reads, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." I always wanted to take a magic marker and correct that statement: "Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people."

I'll add to Chriswaugh's list:

The Afgans, most successful guerilla force of all time.

The Bolsheviks (the US marines were helping the Tsar's army).

The French resistance during WW2

The KMT during WW2 (Mao was hiding in the bushes).

And who would really cry for the 300 million would be "gone" in a gun toting China? We all know who'd they be and they deserve to die.

And ya don't quit
Yeah
And ya don't stop
'Cause its 187 on a undercover cop...

While the post was about guns in China, I do think some of the comments directed at the U.S. from across the pond are humorously illustrative of the longstanding GB-US divide. I think there must be some significant discrepancies in our early curriculums on the American Revolution. As we were taught, the "well-trained" Redcoats marching properly through our main thoroughfares never stood a chance against our guerilla colonists familiar with the land.

And today, many of us carry that lesson with us. The government may abridge our speech rights, and perhaps even our voting rights, but noone will ever succeed in trying to conquer us again without one hell of a fight. The "cold, dead hands" line from Heston, though often dismissed as a barbaric statement actually announces our intent to fight for freedom until the very last.

As one last thought, consider this: Forgetting for a moment the existence of organized armies, which community would be easier oppressed/invaded/compromised, England or the State of Maine?

In my experience, American attitudes towards guns are closely related to geography. Most of the people I grew up with in Connecticut wish that guns had never been invented, but my relatives in Western Pennsylvania made sure that I knew how to use a shotgun by the time I turned ten.

Error added to misconception still equals wrong. The irregular Viet Cong forces did not defeat the US in the field or the city, it was NVA regulars who bore the brunt of fighting and casualties and ultimately won what from first to last was a civil war. The US withdrew from a country it could not hold no matter how many of the enemy were killed.

The American revolution was won the same way; the British army would defeat the forces in front of them but ultimately could not win and hold a country markedly different from their own - gee, sound familiar? The British forces operated from a 3,500 mile logistical point against mostly irregular American forces which they regularly routed. Americans - those vaunted Minute Men, or "colonial guerrillas" in modern parlance - were ill-disciplined and fickle at best, and at the Battle of Bunker Hill for example, in the heat of battle only about 20% were at their firing positions as others loitered in the rear unresponsive to orders, threats and pleads. Washington was so exasperated by this undisciplined rabble that could not stand toe-to-toe against the British firing line that he threatened resignation and ultimately credited von Stueben with discipline of what became an army. Americans against the French and Indians had fared even worse, and in the war of 1812 a superior force of terrified American militia surrendered to the British and their Indian allies who initiated a three-day orgy of scalping and torture.

French resistance in WWII is yet another myth as most of France by even the most conservative estimates comprised silent collaborators or actively assisted the Nazis in rounding up Jews far surpassing the quotas alloted to the town and provincial levels, and were not active resisters.

After decades of misgovernance the KMT had simply lost the heart of the people who wanted an end to fighting.

Each of these peoples at different times, the Americans, the French, the KMT and others have sustained themselves by myths about their history, but these myths do not withstand historical evidence. And one of those myths is that freedom is secured by unrestricted firearms in the hands of citizens. Yeah? Like Lebanon? Iraq? Somalia? the former Yugoslavia? Or that US institutions of law, governance, education and a free press are only secured by the threat of guns? Better put your faith in an educated and tolerant citizenry that shares the common experience of living in a civil, democratic society which institutions serve all without bias or favour.

With freedom comes responsibility. If the citizenry at large doesn't wish to shoulder the responsibility, perhaps they get the government they deserve.

The trouble with the gun-control debate is that it has been taken down to the level of the pro-gun-control side. When anti-gun-control debaters defend their views, they are defending a section of the constitution of a sovereign country. When pro-gun-control debaters defend their views, they are simply defending opinions, nothing more. Either side can use statistics to support their view, either side can warp statistics to support their view, but what's the point? Only one side is reality, the other is a pipe-dream.

@ Scott Loar

All of the guerilla wars you mentioned had one thing in common:

guns

No guns, the NVA would not have won. Same with the American militias (and the head to head victories by the Brits you mentioned only happened in the beginning of the war. The Americans started getting help with leadership, weapons and logistics from across Europe, everyone wanted to see England lose).

There was a French resistance and it did have an impact on the Germans' ability to hold cities, intelligence and rescuing downed airmen and soldiers. Same with the Italian resistance.

As for the KMT, the CCP sit back and let them take the brunt of punishment from the Japanese. The CCP was also not just financed but armed, advised and even transported around China by the USSR per the Yalta accords. The Soviet Union even trained CCP leaders in modern combat techniques, Marxism, etc inside the USSR.
The US did nothing to stop it per that agreement (citing "When Presidents Lie). The US even told Chiang to back off when he could have finished Mao in Manchuria.

And the CCP was no better at winning the hearts and minds of the people. Mao would defeat local warlords, offer them the choice between death or service to him, and as the CCP moved through towns, the grunts would be allowed to plunder and rape as payment for their service (citing "Mao; the Untold Story).

But again, it was all done with guns. Big guns and lots of guns.

another anon ,

This is one of the biggest jokes I have heard on Chinese civil war history. You apparently knew nothing about the CCP-KMT civil war. Seriously, you are brain-washed.

@ Chip

"When anti-gun-control debaters defend their views, they are defending a section of the constitution of a sovereign country. When pro-gun-control debaters defend their views, they are simply defending opinions, nothing more."

I know you are not referring to the US, as the second amendment to our constitution firmly establishes the rights of individuals to possess firearms. Attempts by cities to ban the possession of handguns was struck down by all but one or two justices on the US Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

Scott Loar writes:

Error added to misconception still equals wrong. The irregular Viet Cong forces did not defeat the US in the field or the city..

I don't see how this is a misconception - anyone with a cursory knowledge of the Vietnam War knows the VC sustained 10:1 losses in many battles. The Tet Offensive was a spectacular tactical failure, which involved significant numbers of VC. However, it proved to be a turning point, because many Americans realized that jets, tanks, and a heavily armed force cannot defeat a determined group armed with rifles and light artillery. After all, Mao said, "political power comes from the barrel of a gun."

Although guns are necessarily the key ingredient for a vibrant democracy, I think it provides a good insurance policy - nothing like a armed populace to put a healthy fear in those in government.

@Hunxuer - WOLVERINES!

Quoting out of context is another error. The full sentence reads,

"The irregular Viet Cong forces did not defeat the US in the field or the city, it was NVA regulars who bore the brunt of fighting and casualties and ultimately won what from first to last was a civil war."

The Tet Offensive, as the example volunteered above, was in the main conducted by NVA regulars, and became General Vo Nguyen Giap's failed attempt to recreate by force another decisive Diem Bien Phu. Eventually, and I repeat the very next sentence, "The US withdrew from a country it could not hold no matter how many of the enemy were killed" and not for reason of The Tet Offensive.

@ ScottLoar aka AlGore

If the NVA "regulars" and "irregulars" had no guns, they would have not won.

I can't wait for the day when direct energy weapons, plasma grenades and shoulder mounted rail guns come to a outdoors enthusiasts' store near me.

To a Wannabe Posing as "another anon";

By definition NVA are regulars as in North Vietnamese Army while irregulars were the Viet Cong but... say, you really don't know any of this because unlike Al Gore or ScottLoar you didn't serve.

To the Forum Host;

This is a topic gone on too long and at the least you need not indulge me any more; this is my last post on firearms.

@ Scottloar

You would like to think I didn't serve, but that is besides the point or that the VC and the NVA were two independent entities.

But you keep avoiding the fact that both had guns and both needed guns to fight the French, the US and China.

@Hunxuer - Actually, Red Dawn is being updated, with a rather predictable new enemy taking the place of the Russians:

http://www.angryasianman.com/2009/04/chinese-invaders-first-look-at-red-dawn.html

WOLVERINES!

@ FOARP and Hunxuer

I hope the film doesn't just begin with paratroopers dropping in, for accuracy there needs to be some American Old Hands from AmCham convincing DC and the American people that China is a peaceful country and that we just don't understand them.

Its good we can not hide behind a constitution here. Guns would make it very unsafe.

Many are killed by guns, mainly/especially when people get emotionally imbalanced. Not because they are psychos, some drinks, some regular anger or frustration normally will do.

Please keep guns in the hands of army and give citizens the right to go to a shooting range (which is available, at least in Beijing) but for god sake, do not allow them to be legal to be kept at home / in private.

It was about 7 or 8 years ago in Shanghai some drunk guy in front of Pegassus (nightclub, not sure if its still there) pulled out a gun from his car during a brawl. Of course everyone ran for cover and luckily nothing happened. I assume you sometimes see these brawls, do you really want guns involved? This is what will happen, a gun will be cool, macho and whatever else and people will carry it with them...

Lets not go there. If you insist on hunting etc etc, go to the US or Africa to satify your needs.

Everyone is perfectly sane and balanced 99.9% of the time, just do not allow access to firearms in the other 0.1%.