Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: DoodleBob

[In China, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law.

I’m sure Mr. Zhanxuan has nothing to fear.]


As a several decade non-Chinese amateur sinologist, I can, based on pre-internet English language sources (i.e. books), attest to the fact that the Chinese were well-armed before the Communist takeover. From medieval crossbows, broom-handled Mausers to various clones of European rifles manufactured locally, they were armed both to ward off bandits and to settle local disputes, to say nothing of the war surplus accumulated from the Sino-Japanese War.

The issue was never gun possession. It was continued gun possession after the Communists took over, with capital punishment for having a gun, and bounties for turning in gun owners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_offences_in_China The Communists started their reign like every other dynasty in Chinese history (and like many other new regimes in other countries in medieval times), by purging (killing or imprisoning) potential political opponents. Many gun-owning land owners were killed outright along with their entire families. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_of_landlords_under_Mao_Zedong

Could they have resisted successfully? I think it’s unlikely, the government generally has the upper hand, as long as it’s somewhat united and ruthless in its approach to quashing resistance. Most rulers have eliminated guerrilla resistance using fairly low-tech, low-resource methods, by imposing collective punishment typically involving the physical elimination of anyone merely suspected of supporting guerrillas. From the standpoint of the ruler, it is better to kill 100 innocents than to let 1 rebel go free. Because that rebel could turn out to be Lenin (who did end up killing the entire Romanov clan - the last of the Russian royal family).

https://www.quora.com/If-guerrilla-warfare-is-so-hard-to-beat-why-didnt-more-countries-militaries-revert-to-guerilla-tactics-when-they-were-on-the-verge-of-defeat/answer/Yifeng-Huang-8

[Guerilla warfare can be easily defeated if the attackers are resolute.

Genghis Khan, probably the greatest conquerer ever, never had a problem with guerilla warfare, even though the lands he conquered included Afghanistan. Why? Because his army simply slaughter all civilians, including their babies, who dare to fight against them.

In the Vietnam war, the Americans struggled against the Vietcongs. When China fought Vietnam, China simply romped through North Vietnam (north of Hanoi), transport removable factories/infrastructure back to China while destroying those that they cannot bring back. One crack Vietnamese division that was rushed back from Cambodia wisely decided to settle into prepared defensive positions near Hanoi instead of reinforcing the surrounded troops north of Hanoi. Why didn’t China has problem with Vietcong guerilla fighters?

When I first visited China in the 1990s, a retired veteran bitterly told me that his Major was killed by a ~6 year old Vietnamese kid holding a secret pistol when he was giving out food to the kid. Apparently, this is not an isolated incident. Very soon, they enacted Genghis Khan’s strategy. North Vietnamese villagers encountered were simply labeled as “civilian militia”, treated as combatants and showed no mercy. PLA never encounter anymore guerilla problems because there were no civilians left to provide the guerilla with information, shelter and food!

In the 1980s, there is no internet and no international reporter who has access to report on this. Chinese body counts, which included “civilian militia combatants”, concluded that enemy casualties were in excess of 10 times PLA losses.]


13 posted on 12/26/2018 2:16:04 PM PST by Zhang Fei (They can have my pitbull when they pry his cold dead jaws off my ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: Zhang Fei
Thank you for the extremely thoughtful reply. It is a good query: would the tactics you outlined have a chance of breaking the back of an individualist nation? Against the tactics you outlined, I *could* see many people being like Loyalists in the Revolution and siding with the govt/"Great Britain." However, there is no doubt many of the nation's owners of the estimated 300-600 million firearms would rather die that give up their guns and I could also see gun owners becoming even more brutal in retaliating in the face of the tactics you outline...two can play at that game.

If you haven't read it, I'd recommend the somewhat outdated but highly relevant The Samurai, the Mountie and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies. Professor Kopel does an outstanding job of defending his thesis that effective gun control and/or gun rights are tethered to a nation's culture. Thus, an individualist country like the US (the cowboy) would chafe at gun control while in Japan (where the Samurai protects others) gun control works because it is...

a racially homogenous society (97% ethnic Japanese) with a state religion (Shinto). Police are not handcuffed by civil rights concerns. The criminal confession rate of 95% is attributed to routine police torture of suspects (pages 25 and 26) and even illegally-obtained evidence is admissible in court. Japan is a police state and is an island.

Kopel didn't cover China but I'd be interested in knowing the extent to which China's pre-Mao culture was more akin to individualism or collectivism.

Thank you again.

14 posted on 12/27/2018 8:11:30 AM PST by DoodleBob (Gravity's waiting period is about 9.8 m/s^2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson