China Calls for ‘No Delay’ on Gun Controls in U.S. HONG KONG — The state news agency in China, the official voice of the government, has called for the United States to quickly adopt stricter gun controls in the aftermath of the shooting rampage in Connecticut that left 28 people dead, including 20 schoolchildren.
According to the state medical examiner who was overseeing autopsies of the children, all of them had been hit multiple times. At least one child had been shot 11 times.
All of the children were in the first grade.
“Their blood and tears demand no delay for U.S. gun control,” said the news agency, Xinhua, which listed a series of shootings this year in the United States.
“However, this time, the public feels somewhat tired and helpless,” the commentary said. “The past six months have seen enough shooting rampages in the United States.”
China suffered its own school tragedy on Friday — a man stabbed 22 children at a village elementary school in Henan Province. An 85-year-old woman also was stabbed.
There were no fatalities, although Xinhua reported that some of the children had had their fingers and ears cut off. The attacker, a 36-year-old man, was reportedly in custody. There was no immediate explanation for his possible motives.
On Sunday, the Web site China Smack compiled a range of comments on Sina Weibo, the Twitter-like service in China. One said: “They should issue a bulletproof vest to every American elementary school student as their school uniform.”
Another comment related to President Obama fighting back tears while addressing the nation on Friday:
In the face of Henan children suffering harm, did our country’s leaders shed a tear!? Why is it that when this kind of incident happens, they always pretend to be deaf and mute!? I’m not saying that our leaders have to be like Obama shedding tears, but can we at least be like others in facing the incident? Instead of the mainstream media not even covering it, hiding it, attempting to avoid it every time the country has a “special incident.” China experienced a spate of attacks on schoolchildren in 2010, with almost 20 deaths and more than 50 injuries. In the fourth of the assaults, a crazed man beat five toddlers with a hammer, then set himself on fire while holding two youngsters.
In another of those attacks in 2010, Zheng Minsheng, 42, stabbed and killed eight primary school students in Fujian Province. Five weeks later, after a quick trial, he was executed.
My colleague Michael Wines reported at the time: “Some news reports stated that Mr. Zheng had mental problems, but most state media said no such evidence existed. Mental illness remains a closeted topic in modern China, and neither medication nor modern psychiatric treatment is widely used.”
“Most of the attackers have been mentally disturbed men involved in personal disputes or unable to adjust to the rapid pace of social change in China,” The Associated Press reported Saturday, adding that the rampages pointed to “grave weaknesses in the antiquated Chinese medical system’s ability to diagnose and treat psychiatric illness.”
Private ownership of guns — whether pistols, rifles or shotguns — is almost unheard of in China. Handgun permits are sometimes (but rarely) given to people living in remote areas for protection against wild animals.
The Chinese school assaults were carried out with knives, kitchen cleavers or hammers, the usual weapons of choice in mass attacks in China. As a precaution before the recent Communist Party Congress in Beijing, the sale of knives was banned in the central area of the capital.
Dr. Ding Xueliang, a sociologist at the University of Science and Technology in Hong Kong, speaking about the Chinese tragedy on Friday, told CNN that “the huge difference between this case and the U.S. is not the suspect, nor the situation, but the simple fact he did not have an effective weapon.
“In terms of the U.S., there’s much easier availability of killing instruments — rifles, machine guns, explosives — than in nearly every other developed country.”
In a blog on the Web site of The New Yorker, the magazine’s China correspondent, Evan Osnos, wrote:
It takes a lot to make China’s government — beset, as it is, by corruption and opacity and the paralyzing effects of special interests — look good, by comparison, in the eyes of its people these days. But we’ve done it.
When Chinese viewers looked at the two attacks side by side, more than a few of them concluded, as one did that, “from the look of it, there’s no difference between a ‘developed’ country and a ‘developing’ country. And there’s no such thing as human rights. People are the most violent creatures on earth, and China, with its ban on guns, is doing pretty well!” Japan, too, has a near-total ban on private gun ownership, and the infrequent mass attacks there — which included a tragic rampage at a primary school in 2001— typically have involved knives.
“Almost no one in Japan owns a gun,” said Max Fisher, writing in The Atlantic in July. “Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country’s infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.”
In 2006, Japan had two gun-related homicides. “And when that number jumped to 22 in 2007,” Mr. Fisher said, “it became a national scandal.”
“East Asia, despite its universally restrictive domestic gun policies, hosts some of the world’s largest firearm exporters and emerging industry giants: China, South Korea and Japan,” according to GunPolicy.org, a comprehensive global database maintained by the Sydney School of Public Health at the University of Sydney.
In recent weeks, Chinese police officials in Jiangsu Province seized more than 6,000 illegal guns from two underground workshops and warehouses; a retired prison guard in Hong Kong was jailed for 18 months for keeping an arsenal of guns, silencers, grenades and thousands of rounds of ammunition in his public-housing apartment; and 17 suspected gun smugglers went on trial in Shanghai as part of a joint investigation with U.S. law enforcement officials.
In the Shanghai case, more than 100 semiautomatic handguns, rifles, shotguns and gun parts were express-mailed to China from the United States. One of the masterminds on the American end was Staff Sgt. Joseph Debose, 30, a soldier with a Special Forces National Guard unit in North Carolina. He pleaded guilty to federal charges in September.
“The defendant traded the honor of his position in the National Guard for the money he received for smuggling arms to China,” said Loretta E. Lynch, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. “In blatant disregard for everything he was sworn to uphold, the defendant placed numerous firearms into a black market pipeline from the United States to China.”
What’s your view? Would the United States do well to emulate China and Japan, with their comprehensive bans on guns? Or is America a special case because of its Constitutional protections of gun ownership? And apropos of the Fujian attack described above, would you support similarly speedy trials and the death penalty for mass murderers of children?
Opinions?
_________________ Darksiege Traveller, Calé, Whisperer Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am Posts: 15740 Location: Combat Information Center
My opinion is China is playing for points with Europe by trying to appear to be on the right side of a human rights issue Europe will agree with. This is just international "dumb 'Merikans won't ban guns like us smurt people in Europe and China hur hur hur" politics.
_________________ "Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."
I am sure China would also recommend scrapping the entire concept of rights to build a better society
_________________ "Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky." — Alan Moore
If I were writing a book, encouraging us to disarm our citizenry would be step one in their invasion plans... Lol.
I mean, maybe they just saw the re-release of Red Dawn, and got jumpy about their current plans?
_________________ "Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee "... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades
I mean, maybe they just saw the re-release of Red Dawn, and got jumpy about their current plans?
They're...afraid we'll release more shitty movies at them?
In a not too distant future Next Sunday AD There was a guy named Chu Not to different from you or me
He worked for Foxconn Institute Just another face in a white poly suit He did a good job makin apple phones But the merkins didn't like him and they shot him into spaaace
There are over 300,000,000 firearms owned by the citizens of the United States. If every gun owner owned ten guns apiece, you would have thirty million gun owners. That leaves 29,999,999 people who own guns and did not shoot a classroom full of kindergarten children. In reality, there are more gun owners, because most don't own ten guns. Because everyone loves statistics, but most citizens are not so inclined, I'll do some math for everyone: Less than 0.000003% of gun owners carry out mass shootings. If we're talking about citizens, and not just gun owners, that decimal point moves one space to the left.
At this juncture, I feel it's best that I level with any gun-control advocates. You deserve some honesty. It's not that we disagree with you. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, that doesn't mean every opinion has equal worth.
I have been a gun owner for twenty years, now. In that time, I have never taken a gun into a school or a church, or any public place that was not a shooting range. I have never pointed a gun at another human being, let alone attempted to shoot another human being. I am the typical gun owner. I am not merely representative of a simply majority. In fact, to say I am representative of an overwhelming majority is a gross understatement.
It is not accurate to say that we disagree. That would imply that I feel your opinion has actual worth. To say that guns are the problem and that we need to ban guns is so outrageously stupid, that the conversation is simply over.
No Timmy, that's a bad Timmy.
_________________ Buckle your pants or they might fall down.
In another of those attacks in 2010, Zheng Minsheng, 42, stabbed and killed eight primary school students in Fujian Province. Five weeks later, after a quick trial, he was executed.
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am Posts: 15740 Location: Combat Information Center
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
We're happy to express our dumbass opinions on their internal issues, why should they be different?
And yet, that sill doesn't explain how Coro's post pertains to the fact that they are.
Also, Chinese people try to sneak into the U.S. USCs, on the other hand, are not regularly caught trying to illegally immigrate to China. That's because our country is **** better to live in than theirs. That's why we should be expressing our opinion on them, and they should be shutting the **** up and listening.
_________________ "Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."
We're happy to express our dumbass opinions on their internal issues, why should they be different?
And yet, that sill doesn't explain how Coro's post pertains to the fact that they are.
I fail to see why I would be expected to explain how Coro's post pertains to anything.
Quote:
Also, Chinese people try to sneak into the U.S. USCs, on the other hand, are not regularly caught trying to illegally immigrate to China. That's because our country is **** better to live in than theirs. That's why we should be expressing our opinion on them, and they should be shutting the **** up and listening.
This is a poorly considered statement. First, who sneaks where has nothing to do with the validity of opinions for those individuals not sneaking anywhere. Second, "better to live in" is subjective, and since we're talking about people's opinions, you don't know if your subjective view is held by those spouting their opinion in China. Third, nobody should be "shutting the **** up", as everyone is entitled to their opinion. Fourth, your rationale as to why they should "shut the **** up" is ridiculous - nothing more than a smug "we're better than you".
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am Posts: 15740 Location: Combat Information Center
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
We're happy to express our dumbass opinions on their internal issues, why should they be different?
And yet, that sill doesn't explain how Coro's post pertains to the fact that they are.
I fail to see why I would be expected to explain how Coro's post pertains to anything.
Probably because you decided to respond to a post in which I was specifically asking Coro how it pertained.
Quote:
This is a poorly considered statement. First, who sneaks where has nothing to do with the validity of opinions for those individuals not sneaking anywhere. Second, "better to live in" is subjective, and since we're talking about people's opinions, you don't know if your subjective view is held by those spouting their opinion in China. Third, nobody should be "shutting the **** up", as everyone is entitled to their opinion. Fourth, your rationale as to why they should "shut the **** up" is ridiculous - nothing more than a smug "we're better than you".
Better to live in may be "subjective" in the sense that any obstinate **** can loudly proclaim that in his opinion, it's better to live in Mao's worker's paradise than here, but the simple fact is that since "better to live in" is, in fact, decided by where people will choose to live if they have a choice and will try to get to regardless of the law if they don't, that makes our country better by any sort of impartial measurement.
So yes, they should shut the **** up. Them being entitled to their opinion is irrelevant; voicing it does not make it, or them, any less stupid. Smug or not, we are doing better than them.
_________________ "Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."
We're happy to express our dumbass opinions on their internal issues, why should they be different?
And yet, that sill doesn't explain how Coro's post pertains to the fact that they are.
I fail to see why I would be expected to explain how Coro's post pertains to anything.
Probably because you decided to respond to a post in which I was specifically asking Coro how it pertained.
My above post contains no quote and is no reply to any post.
Quote:
Quote:
This is a poorly considered statement. First, who sneaks where has nothing to do with the validity of opinions for those individuals not sneaking anywhere. Second, "better to live in" is subjective, and since we're talking about people's opinions, you don't know if your subjective view is held by those spouting their opinion in China. Third, nobody should be "shutting the **** up", as everyone is entitled to their opinion. Fourth, your rationale as to why they should "shut the **** up" is ridiculous - nothing more than a smug "we're better than you".
Better to live in may be "subjective" in the sense that any obstinate **** can loudly proclaim that in his opinion, it's better to live in Mao's worker's paradise than here, but the simple fact is that since "better to live in" is, in fact, decided by where people will choose to live if they have a choice and will try to get to regardless of the law if they don't, that makes our country better by any sort of impartial measurement.
Look up the word "fact". Also, "subjective". I'm sure millions of people in China disagree with you. Your sense of superiority is... poorly considered.
Quote:
So yes, they should shut the **** up. Them being entitled to their opinion is irrelevant; voicing it does not make it, or them, any less stupid. Smug or not, we are doing better than them.
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am Posts: 15740 Location: Combat Information Center
I posted:
Quote:
While I agree, I'm a little unclear on how that pertains to China expressing their dumbass opinion on the subject.
in response to Coro.
You posted:
Quote:
We're happy to express our dumbass opinions on their internal issues, why should they be different?
You were replying to me, quote or not. Quit trolling.
As for the rest of it, it isn't me that needs to look up those words, it's you. You also need to learn that calling something "subjective" is not a counter-argument.
_________________ "Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."
You were replying to me, quote or not. Quit trolling.
As for the rest of it, it isn't me that needs to look up those words, it's you. You also need to learn that calling something "subjective" is not a counter-argument.
/facepalm
No, I was not. Nor would a reply to you require that I justify Coro's statement.
"Subjective" is a very, very good counter-argument to "fact".
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am Posts: 15740 Location: Combat Information Center
Hey, guess what? When you use the exact adjective and talk about the exact same action that the person before you used, it's a dead giveaway that you're replying.
_________________ "Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."
Hey, guess what? When you use the exact adjective and talk about the exact same action that the person before you used, it's a dead giveaway that you're replying.
Hey, guess what? When someone says multiple times that they were not replying to anyone, and had no quotes in their reply, it's a dead giveaway that they were not replying to anyone. Why are we still talking about this again?
Further, as I've said, it wouldn't matter anyway. I have no need to justify someone else's remark simply because I replied.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 247 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum