[dwcfastrice]

Subject: guns

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
......
*********************************************
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

***....

....

This needs to be put into historical Context. Japan invaded China in 1931.

By 1935, the "Chinese government" was actually a Japanese occupation force along the coast and in the northeast. Occupation forces don't want people to have weapons. In the interior of the country, the nationalist government and the communist rebels who, previous to 1938, were too busy fighting with each other to give much of a hoot about the Japanese, came to an uneasy alliance to fight the Japanese.

So this 1935 statement is not entirely true.

At the end of the war in 1945, the two sides go back to fighting each other. I would suspect, it would be at this time that that good guys (the nationalists) also institute some sort of gun control in an effort to keep arms out of the hands of the rebels.

Soon thereafter, in 1949, the "glorious revolution" is complete and the Nationalists flee to Taiwan and to this day the "Free Chinese" enjoy the protection of the United States.

Communist China had it's own set of gun control laws in place shortly after the takeover. THIS is what left political dissidents defenseless. Not some law in 1935.

Fast forward to June 1989, Tiananmen Square. Can you imagine what kind of spark would have been ignited if private citizens were armed in China? Arab Spring? Forget that. Tainanmen would have been much worse. If an armed revolution started in China then, they would STILL be fighting to this day.

Anyway, I digress.

The Chinese are still concerned about gun control because.. guess what? Even WITH all their gun control laws, criminals and terrorists STILL get guns. Go figure:
http://armedselfdefense.blogspot.com/2012/02/communist-china-calls-for-stricter.html

Sign up for the GLock Forum: get a lesson in Chinese history.

D

 

[dwcfastrice]

Thanks for the clarification and additional information. Somebody sent me the info via an email moving through cyberspace so I wasn't sure on the accuracy of much of it. However, I think it illustrates a good point - when citizens are unable to defend themselves (for whatever reason), bad things can and have happened.

Absolutely! The core lessons are the same and that's the key.

Since this e-mails been flying around, there have been a ton of discussions on the validity of the arguments. If you google part of phrase from the e-mail, there are pages and pages of arguments (I hesitate to call them "discussions") about the arguments presented in the e-mail.

Chief argument from the non-2a folks doesn't often come from the historic side, but from this, "the arguments laid out in the e-mail only work if based on the supposition that an armed populace would have been successfully able to defends itself and create a different outcome".

Anyway, there you go.

D