Dear Korean,
I came across this passage on Wikipedia and it startled me: "In South Korea, it is a capital offense for anyone not related to military to own or distribute firearms" Is this true?
Clinging to my guns and religion
Dear CtMGaR,
No, it is not true. (As the Korean said repeatedly, please don't trust Wikipedia when it comes to discussions about finer points of Korean life.) But owning or distributing firearms in Korea is definitely against the law. Consequently, there is virtually no guns available to civilians, except for hunting rifles. (We will get to that in a bit.)
This question jumped the line in light of the terrorist shooting in Arizona. The Korean wants to make a clear point here: it is eminently possible to eradicate guns from a society -- even in a society where nearly every single adult men are familiar with guns (during their military service.) And eliminating guns from a society is easier than eliminating crazy people.
Here is how gun regulations work in Korea. Guns are regulated along with all weaponry, which are in three categories: guns, knives and explosives. Guns include all firearms and air- and gas-powered rifles. Knives with blades longer than 15 cm (about six inches!) are also regulated. Separately, pepper sprays, tasers and crossbows are also regulated. Importantly, even the mock weapon that have no capacity of hurting anyone is regulated the same way. (Sometimes, this provision actually prompts complaints from Korean movie directors about the red tapes through which they must wade in order to film war movies.)
First, the manufacturing. No one who has been convicted of a crime and received a jail sentence (including suspended sentence) can enter into manufacturing of any weaponry. People who want to import, export or sell weapons have to receive a permit from the local police office. Again, you cannot sell weapons if you are a convicted criminal who received jail sentence.
Second, possession. Everyone requires a permit from the police office to own a gun. The following types of people cannot legally own a gun:
- People under age 20, except for a training athlete with a permit.
- People with impaired mental capacity, including those who have been convicted of drug addicts.
- People who committed crime and received a jail sentence (including suspended sentence.)
For all other people, they may own a gun with a permit from the police office, renewable every five years. The permit is essentially a license, and one has to take classes on gun safety in order to receive a permit. If you own a gun without a permit, the maximum penalty is 2 years in prison. If you lost your legally owned gun, you must report to the police immediately. If a person happened to find a gun on the street, she is required by law to report it to the police within 24 hours of discovery.
In practice, only hunters own guns in Korea. (And hunters are not many in Korea.) By regulation, hunters cannot keep their guns all the time -- they must keep their guns at the police station during off-season. Handguns are pretty much nonexistent among civilians.
If a gun-related incident does happen in Korea, it is pretty much limited to the weapons procured from the military one way or the other. For example in 2005, a private who was not adjusting well to the military life threw a grenade and fired his rifle into his barracks, killing eight and injuring two. (He was arrested and sentenced to death.) -EDIT 1/11/11- As commenter Adeel pointed out, the worst gun-related murder in Korea happened in 1982, when a renegade police officer stole two rifles and seven grenades from a nearby military base. He went on an all-nighter rampage over four rural villages, killing 56(!) people before blowing himself up with a grenade. He was able to do this by first killing the telephone operators for the village, cutting off communications with the outside world. (Goes to show how far back Korea was -- in 1982, rural villages still had switchboard operators.)
The example to closest to the Arizona shooting that the Korean could think of -- in a sense that a civilian attacked a public official with a legally obtained ranged weapon -- is an incident in 2007, when a person shot with a crossbow a judge who ruled against him. The judge only suffered minor injuries, and no one else was hurt.
Obviously, getting America's gun regulation to Korea's level would be a difficult task, because Korea's history has no element like America's historical relationship with guns. But know this: when gun advocates say something like "Psychopaths will find a way to kill with or without guns", they are blatantly lying. Despite filled with people with famously fiery temper, Korea has never suffered a mass murder like the ones happened in Columbine or Virginia Tech, in which civilians were able to kill scores of people with legally obtained guns. In fact, on occasions when Koreans manage to get their hands on guns, they plainly show that Korea's low, low crime rate is not because Koreans are angels. So what is easier to believe -- that Korea is completely devoid of nut cases, or Korea is completely devoid of guns?
Got a question or comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I agree except for the part that Korea has never had a mass murder.
ReplyDeleteThe worst spree killer in history is a Korean:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woo_Bum-kon
TK,
ReplyDeleteKoreans, by large, are absolutely against guns and arms control. I can't remember ever hearing stories of an armed civilian taking hostage and killing someone in Korea. Have you? I am talking about civilians?
Even robberies make the front cover of the news paper in Korea. Its probably one of the safest country in the world, albeit we got our neighbors in the north we have to deal with. But thats another animal.
I would have to say, as an immigrant living in the US for 20 years or so, Americans are more violent than non and Koreans are more non-violent than violent.
Koreans fight in the streets like any other countries around the world, but they dont resort to bringing a gun to settle their disputes. Or, at least, Ive never heard of such instances.
This is somewhat relevant, but not completely irrelevant. Among Asians, based upon my experience, Vietnamese and Cambodians are the most dangerous Asians I've ever encountered. I was at a Korean bar in D.C. with a Korean-friend of mine, and there was a fight between a group of Viets in the restaurant. Soon after, one of the Viets pulled out a gun in middle of the bar and started waiving uncontrollably. I was scared for my life. I couldnt believe it. That was the first time I've ever seen a live gun ever.
Moreover, Koreans think that Americans passion for guns is crazy. Although I wouldnt say Koreans
South Korea doesn't share a land border with a country that would try to smuggle guns into it. Korea is also much smaller then the U.S., so it is easy to keep an eye on the places that people make guns.
ReplyDeleteGuns are a century old technology, and are a lot easier to make than one would think. I could drive down to any home improvement store and buy all the things I need to make a gun. All it takes to make an AK-47 knockoff is the right amount of mettle, knowhow, a portable forge, and a hammer.
So trying to keep weapons out of circulation works in Korea, It would not work in the U.S. You would need a closed border, government eyes in every mettle shop and private residency that could potentially be used to manufacture a gun, and confiscation of the guns already owned by U.S. citizens. Which is only a little under 50% of a population numbering 300,000,000.
And yes, this kind of tragedy is rarer in South Korea, but it is also rarer in Switzerland. Which leads me to believe it only happens here more because their are more people here for things like this to happen two. :(
Dear American,
ReplyDeleteWhy do most gun-lovin' Americans emphasise their religion - I assume Christianity - in the debate regarding gun control?
Clearly Lost Christian from Australia.
South Korea doesn't share a land border with a country that would try to smuggle guns into it. Korea is also much smaller then the U.S., so it is easy to keep an eye on the places that people make guns.
ReplyDeleteThe Korean government is not monitoring every shop for guns. It just requires permits to sell them. The U.S. can do the same thing. Most Americans get guns from legal AMERICAN outlets.
Guns are a century old technology, and are a lot easier to make than one would think. I could drive down to any home improvement store and buy all the things I need to make a gun. All it takes to make an AK-47 knockoff is the right amount of mettle, knowhow, a portable forge, and a hammer.
Most people will not go to all that trouble to obtain a gun. They would not have the know-how to do so. There would be far less people with guns in the U.S. if that were required.
So trying to keep weapons out of circulation works in Korea, It would not work in the U.S. You would need . . . . confiscation of the guns already owned by U.S. citizens.
The U.S. government can do that, but it will not be able to get all the guns out there. It will, HOWEVER, reduce the amount of gun violence. And the reduction itself is significant.
And yes, this kind of tragedy is rarer in South Korea, but it is also rarer in Switzerland. Which leads me to believe it only happens here more because their are more people here for things like this to happen two. :(
No. That would mean that there should be a comparable rate of gun violence PER CAPITA for Korean and Switzerland, but that is not the case.
the dude that said America is much bigger than Korea, or more populous:
ReplyDeletehow do you explain Japan, which seems to have similar anti-gun laws, yet has more than 33% of US's population?
You are right Adeel. The Korean misremembered -- somehow he thought Woo Bum-Kon was a serial killer, not a spree killer. The post is updated to reflect that point.
ReplyDeleteAlex, the pen name for the questioner is a crack at a gaffe that Barack Obama made during his campaign, when he said angry rural white people are clinging to guns and religion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with not selling guns to the mentally ill. However, in this case in Arizona, the shooter never got an official diagnosis- his school told him to go get mental health evaluation, and he chose to drop out instead. His internet presence clearly suggests schizophrenia, the guy who sold him the gun could not have possibly known that.
ReplyDeleteYour point that "eliminating guns from a society is easier than eliminating crazy people" is the clearest and most sensible statement I've read on gun control and makes far more sense that more statues designed to restrict guns from designated classes of "crazy" people.
While I respect the Korean I must take issue with your arbitrary comment regarding the tragedy in Tucson. I've lived in Arizona for thirty years an am proud of my state. We have been the subject of a political witch hunt since the Obama administration took office (2 more years and he'll be gone, thank God). They are using this tragedy is another excuse for them to interfere with freedom of speech in this country. I don't believe in conspiracies (that's the domain of the extreme left these days) but one could make an argument for a "Manchurian Candidate" plot cooked up by some of Obama's radical associates back in Chicago, and putting this kid up to doing it. Silly, I know.
ReplyDeleteBut not as silly as the current frenzy fueled the the main stream media that apparently even the Korean has bought into.
The gunman in Arizona was clearly a psychopathic individual acting on his own. He was not a terrorist. A real terrorist, the Islamic Army Major who gunned down 13 of his fellow soldiers was is getting much different treatment. the Obama administration has bent over backwards to call him anything but what he is, an Islamic terrorist. Funny how that works now isn't it.
KC Hovey,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the comment, but the Korean would appreciate it if you could stay on topic. This post is about gun control.
You can, however, buy a telescoping steel whip off the shelf at E-Mart. http://pixelpipe.com/item/53e2c5e8-e1e4-40ee-acb7-e5adb2092961
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the recent incident is how easy it is in AZ for a guy like the perp to get a gun, without a permit, or psych evaluation, etc.
ReplyDeleteI've been doing some research on gun permits and regulations in different states, related to my work, and the data clearly show that the stricter the gun control is in a given state, the fewer homicide and suicide deaths by firearm there are. States across the US have different levels of gun control, ranging from quite strict in states like NY and MA, to almost non-existent as in AZ. The sad trend is that NRA folks have pushed and won their grounds recently in Chicago and TN. Bringing a concealed firearm to a bar sounds like an excellent idea - though the law says the person carrying the gun is technically not allowed to drink, but who goes to a bar and not drink?
It's really not about how big and populous the US. Sure, we'll always have illegal guns coming from Mexcio, but what about Canada? other European nations? It's really the old American notion of a free man, blab blah that is holding us back from having a stricter gun control.
I stand corrected, and will comment on the topic. Confiscating guns and restricting their use will not change human nature. Humans are flawed creatures and will always find ways to harm or kill each other. Restricting the possession of guns to the military and police will not change this fact. Recent history has shown that in extreme situations a repressive government will, given the opportunity, use excessive force against an unarmed population with horrendous results. Gwangju 1980 and Tianamen Square in 1989 are two notable examples of this. The American Revolution is another example of a repressive government taking up arms against civilians but the citizens in that case, were armed. And we all know how that turned out.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many flaws in this story...
ReplyDeleteFor one thing, "Americans" are not some homogeneous group sharing the same DNA, culture, and sense or we-ness...
Most gun crimes in the USA are by criminals against criminals... With guns obtained illegally...
Sheesh... I really expected a lot better from you...
Sorry to disappoint setnaffa. Just telling like it is. Like the fact that firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation.
ReplyDeletehow do you explain Japan, which seems to have similar anti-gun laws, yet has more than 33% of US's population?
ReplyDelete- Homogenous population, island (easier to regulate access) and as for violence statistics that is a fuzzy area since you can play with statistics.
Recently, there was a nasty stabbing (man ran on the bus) in Toride, Ibaraki, the year before that another one in Yamagata, then there was the guy who went crazy running around Akihabara killing several people, the one in Kyushu, and on and on. This all in the span of the three years I was in Japan.
Yet somehow Japan has a low crime rate? Strangely the stabbing in Yamagata barely got mentioned except in local news. Be careful with crime rates. It matters how much is actually reported.
Well, thank goodness crime rates are not compiled by the news agencies then.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with America is that we reward criminals for their behavior and punish innocent victims.
ReplyDeleteFor example this gun law. We rewarded the criminal because he's only going to get perhaps 20 years in prison, plea mental insanity, etc. Then we punish the innocent by saying we need stricter gun laws when clearly guns aren't the problem here.
The questions people should ask is:
1) How come said person never got mental help despite the fact that he went through the legal system numerous times and clearly he was mentally ill? It was a matter of time before he done something to himself or someone else.
2) How come we don't severely punish criminals? If we had mandatory death sentences for any murder by gun, then people wouldn't go shooting. If we had laws where we severely beat, publicly humiliate, or even hold a public execution, it would prevent any copy cat from doing it.
In all America's problem is that we reward criminals for their dumb behavior. We shouldn't do that. Other countries would immediately kill people who do this type of crime. It's not about gun control or anything of the likes. It's about what sort of punishment they get, and they get none while victims are left to suffer.
Great call Dan. We should punish the criminals and reward innocent people. So let's take away the guns from the criminals, and put the innocent people in jail for 20 years. That sounds like a great idea.
ReplyDeleteDear Korean,
ReplyDeleteYou fall into the trap of comparing firearms ownership rates to firearms deaths. This comparison is intentionally pushed by gun control advocates to show guns in a bad light, especially since nearly 50% of firearms deaths are suicides (not usually considered to be a crime).
In reality, if you compare all murders or all crime rates (with and without firearms) to firearms ownership, the comparison disappears. Guns are used by criminals to commit crimes, but they are also used by law abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminals. In the US, this is at least 100,000 times a year, and could be as much as 2 million times a year depending upon who conducted the survey. In many cases, the defensive gun use succeeds without a shot being fired. The criminal decides to seek an unwary victim elsewhere, such as a Korean :-)
I only joke about the last statement. In reality, Koreans in the US have a low crime rate AND are heavily armed. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_armed_resistance_in_the_Los_Angeles_riots
You might reconsider the relationship between guns and crime. Gun Control only affects law abiding citizens who are not the problem. It disarms them and leaves them defenseless against criminals. Criminals on the other hand, don't care about gun control laws. They routinely commit other crimes that are much worse, like murder, rape and robbery - against disarmed citizens. This is the great truth of gun control which has become widely known in the US in the last twenty years. From a peak in the early 1990s, the crime rate in the US has dropped steadily to HALF of what it used to be. During this same period of time, gun laws have been liberalized, more citizens carry guns and the number of guns in private hands has increased from 200 million to 300 million. It's hard to argue with this basic fact.
The problem with the Atlantic article is that it doesn't separate the types of gun deaths.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Korea and Japan have very high suicide rates, despite their lack of guns, but here the Atlantic has lumped a large number of gun-implemented suicides in the US (about half of the total) into our "gun deaths", making it appear that its the guns that are the problem - not so.
Also, it doesn't subtract deaths of bad guys attacking good guys in self defense or police actions, so it's misleading.
It also doesn't address the race issue - if you single out whites or asians in the US population e.g., then both the crime-comitting and victim rates are much much lower.
For a more rigorous study see:
International Journal of Epidemiology 1998:27:216
" Kleck found "no significant (at the 5% level) association between gun ownership levels and the total homicide rate in the largest sample of nations available to study this topic. (Associations with the total suicide rate were even weaker.)" (Targeting Guns, p 254.)
"
Ok, pro-gun folks. Purely out of curiosity, a question for you guys: what did you think about Korea's gun laws? Not the actual practice or regulations, but the law itself. So let's not consider having to check the hunting rifle at the police station during non-hunting season, just that criminals cannot manufacture guns and requiring a renewable license to possess a gun. Would you be in favor or against having that type of law in America?
ReplyDeleteI would not be in favor. Few reasons, first, this assumes that people intent on doing harm are intent on following regulation. Second, it would assume that the traditional interpersonal interactions and societal base that is present in Korea is the same as it is in the United States.
ReplyDeleteIt would also go against our founding documents and principals, of letting a government decide what is best for the people, instead of the other way around.
I am stunned at how quickly the South Korean people have forgotten what happened in the early 1950s. I would think you would all be armed to the teeth, and training together on a regular basis. Keep your gun control. I'd like to see some other nation try to occupy the U.S.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest problem with your premise is you leave culture virtually unmentioned, and that is the primary difference between Korea and America. And I'm not just talking about our gun culture, but EVERYTHING. You cannot compare two ridiculously different countries and assume that because something works in country A, that it would work the same in country B.
ReplyDeleteI went to Japan some years back with my friend's band (never been to Korea, bear with me), and I was blown away by just how much safer it is there. When we were loading our gear into the clubs, we didn't need to leave anyone watching the van ... we didn't even need to close the doors. Nobody steals anything there. One club we played was so small that the bands sold their merch on tables outside, and the bands left their equipment outside on the sidewalk. When bands played, everyone went inside to watch, and just left all their shit out on the sidewalk unattended. Nobody took anything. The next morning after one of the shows, I woke up at 7am and decided to go for a walk and ended up back near the club. I saw a shirt and some CDs on a bench that had been purchased at the show the night before, and inadvertently left there. They sat there all night with nobody taking them. There's no gum stuck all over the subway, there's no garbage littering the streets. People respect authority, appear to respect each other more (wearing masks when they are sick so as not to get other people sick), and respect public property.
I am guessing that Korea and Japan are much more similar to each other (especially since Japan stole all of it's culture from the superior Koreans :) than Korea and America are. Saying "gun control works in Japan" does not mean it would work in America, because we are too different culturally. So the same goes for Korea.
Korean and Japanese communities in the US—although able to get firearms just as easily—retain their exceptionally low crime rates. They can get guns, but they just don't want them. It's their culture, not the laws they are living under.
Also, you concentrate on "firearm deaths" instead of total deaths. You're implying that since "firearm deaths" are lower in states with restrictive gun control laws, lives are saved. But what matters is not "firearm deaths" but total deaths—that is to say, if the firearm homicide rate goes down after gun control measures are passed, but the total homicide rate stays consistent, then all you have done is changed the method that people are using to commit homicide. Same goes for suicide—in Japan, where guns are not available, firearm suicide rates are very low, but their overall suicide rate dwarfs many countries where guns are readily available. Both Australia and Canada passed significant gun control legislation—firearm suicides dropped noticeable. But they were almost completely replaced by an upsurge in hangings.
If gun control effects only method of death, and not overall death rates, then gun control is, in effect, accomplishing nothing. That's why looking only at firearm homicide rates and firearm suicide rates is misleading, to say the least.
Passing Korean-style gun laws would not turn the United States into Korea.
The Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV) rates US states with a gun law rating. That rating is based on the number and type of gun laws in that state, such as background checks, mental health checks, concealed carry regulation, etc. The higher the LCAV rating, the stricter the gun laws for that state.
ReplyDeleteAt the top, the #1 ranked LCAV state is California, the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. With 19.5% household firearm ownership, they have an 8.98 per 100,000 gun death rate. Near the bottom, the #48 ranked LCAV state is Vermont, with almost no gun control laws to speak of—you don't even need a permit to carry a concealed weapon. With 45.5% household firearm ownership—more than twice that of California—they have an 8.38 per 100,000 gun death rate.
It's almost as if firearm homicide and firearm suicide have more complex causes than mere firearm availability, or something.
TK,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughtfulness and respect on this topic. You are one of the most measured, diligent thinkers on the internet, and it's very interesting to hear your perspective.
However, I would like to make a point that no one else has made yet.
The primary rationale for the second amendment was NOT for defense against crimes (theft, rape, etc.). Rather, the "right to bear arms" was recognized as a defense against tyranny. That is, a defense against the government.
I believe in gun ownership, not because I'm afraid of a robber, but because I'm afraid of a Kim Jeong-Il.
The problem is that, in a society where the citizens have no guns, ONLY THE GOVERNMENT HAS GUNS.
And that's bad. Just look North.
Justice Avocado,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the kind words, but the Korean respectfully disagrees for two reasons.
First, having guns will not stop tyranny. If American government truly wanted to turn tyrannical, no one's handgun, or even a semiautomatic will stop the bombers and tanks.
Second, having guns is not a prerequisite for stopping tyranny. Egypt is in the process of escaping from tyranny, and it has no guns involved. South Korea escaped from tyranny, and it required no guns. In fact, the lack of guns helped Korea's democratization intense but relatively bloodless. The one time guns WERE involved -- in Gwangju, 1983 -- it ended in a government massacre.
Overall, the Korean just does not understand the tyranny concern from some Americans. We live in the most advanced democracy in the world. Our tradition of democracy is one of the longest in the world. Our government is us, not some aliens or foreigners. Why are we so afraid of our own government?
ReplyDeleteWhy are we so afraid of our own government? BECAUSE our government is us hahaha ... we have a whole lot of ignorant, hateful and uneducated people in this country. Being a democracy does not guarantee anything. Hitler was elected, after all.
ReplyDelete...why don't Korean movie directors just go to a toy store? Korean toy guns are SUPER realistic-looking (to someone like me with no specific knowledge about guns and from a country where squirt guns must be florescent colors).
ReplyDelete"If you make guns criminal, only criminals will have guns."
ReplyDeletePro-gun Korean-American.
Criminals, mentally unstable individuals, and minors should not be able to purchase firearms.
Woo Bum Kon obtained his weapons from the military illegally and could have been stopped by a gun owner with the will and knoweledge to use one.
The people who obtain guns illegally are the ones you don't want having guns. To provide protection from these disturbed individuals, armed law-abiding citizens are the best defense. Unarmed citizens are soft targets to them.
Switzerland and Kennesaw, GA are good examples of places which require guns and have lower than average crime rates.
I intended to write more, but blogger erased my text when previewing.
The US never suffered from dictatorship resulted from a military take over of the government like South korea has nor massacre of 100s of citizens by the government such as in Kwang Ju in 1980. Would this have happened if the people had arms to fight back? If the common North Koreans were armed, would there be such brutal dictatorship for decades where people live their whole life never ever seeing a single day of freedom?
ReplyDeleteI am sure they have very effective gun control systems and no gun related crimes in N Korea, communist China, middle East nations and anywhere they have oppressive regimes. I wonder why.
The US never suffered from dictatorship resulted from a military take over of the government like South korea has nor massacre of 100s of citizens by the government such as in Kwang Ju in 1980.
ReplyDeleteCitizens of Gwangju were heavily armed, because they raided the armory. The idea that armed citizenry can defeat the advances of tanks, jets and paratroopers is silly.
"The idea that armed citizenry can defeat the advances of tanks, jets and paratroopers is silly."
ReplyDeleteIt really is only based on the intents and goals of the military force—if a brutal dictatorship, answerable to nobody, decides it wants to massacre the citizenry, it will often be able to do so regardless of whether or not they are armed.
On the other hand, if the armed forces are answerable to a democratic institution, or if they're intent is not massacre but suppression or mere control—that is to say, if they must avoid indiscriminately murdering women and children and/or destroying infrastructure—then an armed citizenry can hold them off, sometimes indefinitely.
Our heaviest casualties in both Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan were not from regular army, tanks, jets, etc, but from ragtag bands of informally trained citizen-soldiers usually armed only with rifles and some homemade explosive, booby traps, etc.
We have the tanks and jets, but if we're not willing (or able) to use them brutally, then they're very ineffective against lightly armed guerilla bands.
"Citizens of Gwangju were heavily armed, because they raided the armory. The idea that armed citizenry can defeat the advances of tanks, jets and paratroopers is silly."
ReplyDeleteGood point, but I would argue that the people of Gwangju raided the armory after the situation had already escalated and the massacre had started, and not prior to the activation of martial law. Raiding of the armory by the citizens was not something the military government could have predicted.
I don't know if the government would have done the same knowing the people may have the means to protect themselves.
The military urged the Gwangu citizens to voluntarily give up their weapons and turn them in.
Really? I'll give up my gun when you give up your tanks and jets.
I don't know if the government would have done the same knowing the people may have the means to protect themselves.
ReplyDeleteYou will have to do better than guessing based in accordance with your faith.
For a counter example, gun ownership in America did not stop the National Guards from killing the students at Kent State.
Of course, the protesting students at Kent State were pacifists ... definitely no worry about them being armed :)
ReplyDeletePolice shoot civilians all the time in the US—the point is not "The state will never do anything wrong if Americans own guns," but rather something along the lines of "It would be much harder for an oppressive dictatorship to take hold in the first place."
the point is not "The state will never do anything wrong if Americans own guns," but rather something along the lines of "It would be much harder for an oppressive dictatorship to take hold in the first place."
ReplyDeleteFor a counter example, see former Yugoslavia, current Serbia.
The former Yugoslavia—where my grandfather is from—did not have the long history of democracy or established democratic institutions that we have here ... it's not a very good comparison—it's not like they were a democracy for 400 years and then all of a sudden dictatorship took over.
ReplyDeleteThus is the problem—for both sides of this debate—with comparing us to other countries: we're not really like any of them, and they're not like us.
Agreed. But the Korean will note that you said earlier: "Hitler was elected, after all."
ReplyDelete"You will have to do better than guessing based in accordance with your faith."
ReplyDeleteYou make an excellent point. One cannot and should not guess, hope, wish that any one else, including government and the law enforcement, will ultimately protect her and her family.
That is not guess work nor blind faith. That is just reality.
Touché!
ReplyDeleteMy point is this: being a democracy does not guarantee anything—dictatorship could try rise up in this country—but there's no way of telling what would happen by looking at what has transpired in other countries, our cultures are too different.
Personally, I do not own guns as protection against my government, just as protection against my fellow citizens :)