“Fish Knife Frenzy” and Culture of Resentment
by James Na ~ October 27th, 2008. Filed under: Korean Culture, Miscellaneous, South Korea.[Update 11/19/08] Apparently, Korea is not the only “gun-free” society to experience knife killings. Some demented, resenful criminal in Japan is going around knifing people to death. Where is the anti-knife outrage?
[Original Post] Although Richardson and I do not speak for each other, we generally share similar views about many things, including Korea-related topics and, yes, guns (see my op-ed on guns and violence for a more in depth view on the topic).
Although murder, especially multiple killing sprees, are often blamed on guns by the mainstream media and their left-wing allies in the United States, news from countries that essentially ban private ownership of guns show that such events, however rare, do occur in absence of guns. This tragic news item from South Korea demonstrates this well (h/t VCDL newsletter):
A financially strapped South Korean man went on an arson and stabbing rampage in Seoul on Monday, leaving six people dead and seven others wounded, police said.The 31-year-old suspect, identified only by his surname, Jeong, first set fire to his room in a low-cost lodging facility in southern Seoul and then stabbed other residents with a sashimi knife while fleeing the fire, police said.
Five people were stabbed to death and another died after jumping out of a window to escape the blaze, police said.
Clearly no gun was necessary to commit these ghastly crimes.
Of course the blame for such incidents belong to the perpetrators alone, but there are certain sociological and cultural undercurrents to stories like this. The perpetrator in this case stated his own motive clearly:
The suspect, arrested at the scene, told police he did not want to live because “everybody looks down on me,” Kim Kap-shik, chief detective at Seoul’s Gangnam Police Station, told reporters.
In the past when South Korea had a more “go-getter” culture of self-improvement in the midst of widespread poverty, people so alienated or disturbed who felt like failures sometimes resorted to suicide (as apparently the suspected did unsuccessfully in his youth). In other words, such people blamed themselves and themselves alone.
Now, increasingly, such disturbed people take out their anger at others, often total strangers (or they burn down a priceless national treasure).
I admit I have no hard data to back up this idea, but my suspicion is that the changing culture of South Korea plays a strong role in incidents like this. As South Korea grows affluent and achieves near-first world standards of living, it also has acquired that first world social disease — the sense of inflated entitlement and the inevitable and attendant resentment when the entitlements fail to materialize. To wit, South Korea has become a “victimhood society” where the traditional response to experiencing personal failure, a deep sense of peronal shame, is being replaced by resentment at the society at large.
The media reflect and compound the problem, too. In the past, Korean media, including its famous melodramas, often showed the trials and tribulations of hardworking ordinary folks (e.g. starving little girl character grows soy beans in her spare time to sell at the market next day). Now, as with Western media, Korean TV programs show the young and the beautiful who are effortlessly rich, fashionable and hip. Everything comes easily to these fictional characters — it’s no work and all play.
The result is that when underachievers fail to acquire the trappings of the rich and the beauitiful quickly and easily, they become angry — not at their own lack of hardwork or perhaps even bad luck, but at the society at large, represented by faceless “others.” With enough resentful people, most of who, of course, would not harm others or even themselves, there is bound to be a minority of maladjusted malcontents who take out their frustrations on others violently.
And such people do not need guns to harm others, as amply demonstrated by this sad episode. As South Korea grows richer and joins the first world proper, I expect this kind of violence to increase.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:21 am
But a gun would have enabled the man to kill far, far more people. Just ask Seung-Hui Cho.
October 28th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Seung-Hui Cho was aided by the gun ban placed on law-abiding students, leaving them defenseless. That incident is further evidence that gun bans do not deter criminals from packin’ heat, they simply leave the rest of us without the means to defend ourselves and our families during such an episode.
October 29th, 2008 at 12:12 am
It is true — as a mechanical device, a gun is often a facilitator or amplifier of violence. But that begs the question: is violence always bad?
Yes, a gun can enable someone to kill more people than, say, with bare hands. But it also allows a 95 lb. female defend herself effectively against a 200 lb. rapist. It also allows a lone gunman to defend himself against a gang of thieves about to rob and murder him.
It also allows ordinary citizens to defend themselves against disturbed and violent individuals like Seung-Hui Cho, rather than be slaughtered like so many hapless rabbits.
Given that the vast majority of gun owners are decent, law-abiding people, the potential for good use far outweigh the evil use, and the net social benefit is decidedly positive.
October 29th, 2008 at 2:29 am
[...] “Fish-Knife Frenzy and Culture of Resentment” at DPRK Studies is a sad reflection on the Fish-Knife Murderer at the goshiwon in southern Seoul. The money shot: In the past when South Korea had a more “go-getter” culture of self-improvement in the midst of widespread poverty, people so alienated or disturbed who felt like failures sometimes resorted to suicide. In other words, such people blamed themselves and themselves alone. [...]
October 29th, 2008 at 6:12 am
So what are you suggesting, silentfellow? Every kid that goes to school should pack a piece?
October 29th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I am not particularly familiar with Australia’s situation, but a casual look at the situation seems to contradict your view (very detailed analysis of Australia’s situation here and more on Australia as well as Canada and the UK here). To quote the second referenced article, as of 2004:
I am more familiar with our, that is American, situation.
Gary Kleck, a noted criminologist, conducted a study in the 1990’s that showed that “in 1993 there were about four hundred thousand crimes committed with guns, there were approximately 2.5 million crimes in which victims used guns for self-protection.”
Later, John Lott did a pioneering and the largest to-date study of gun control and concealed carry law, the result of which led to the title of his book “More Guns, Less Crime.” Since I do not have the time to summarize the whole book, I will simply copy a section of Amazon.com’s review (for the record, Amazon as a company is considered fairly “liberal”):
Lastly, it MAY be that “more guns = more GUN crimes” (that’s actually not the case in the UK). There are several problems with this claim, however, two of which I will note.
First, gun bans do not necessarily lead to fewer guns. They simply lead to fewer guns among law-abiding citizens. The number of guns possessed by criminals at large may or may not decline. We do know, however, that gun bans drastically reduce the ability of the said law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.
Second, “more guns = more GUN crimes” is rather like saying “more computers = more COMPUTER crimes.” Even if true, it does not say much about the increase or decrease in overall violent crime number/rate.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Hoju Saram: “So what are you suggesting, silentfellow? Every kid that goes to school should pack a piece? ”
Of course I’m not advocating that every student carry a firearm. But I think that college students who have a concealed carry permit that is valid in the state they are in shouldn’t be banned from carrying on campus. Allowing properly licensed citizens to concealed carry benefits all citizens, even those that choose not to carry a firearm, by acting a a crime deterrent–the criminals have no way of knowing who is carrying a firearm and who is not.
October 31st, 2008 at 6:19 am
[...] The full post is here. [...]
October 31st, 2008 at 11:55 pm
James,
The American gun-lobby has used the example of tougher gun-laws in Australia to prove that such laws don’t work by deliberately distorting the data. It was quite in vogue when I was living in the U.S, and I had plenty of people tell me all about it.
Personaly, I don’t care what laws the U.S has regarding guns, but it anoys me that the NRA would use a successful gun-law reform program - which has overwhelming popular support in my country, and which has been overwhelmingly successful here - to further their aims.
More personally, my father is a farmer and an ex-soldier. He was more than happy to hand in his guns; so was I.
Google gun laws and Australia and you’ll find a ton of US-based “articles” misrepresenting statistics - or defending those misrepresentations. (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=australian+gun+statistics&meta=)
Did deeper and you’ll find a lot of Australian articles debunking those claims (the last one by the national newspaper).
http://modleft.blogspot.com/2006/05/lies-damn-lies-and-gun-statistics.html
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-deaths-in-rapid-decline-since-buyback/2006/12/13/1165685752421.html
In short, the gun buy-back in Australia was a success.
Or, to quote the last report: THE risk of dying by gunshot has dropped dramatically since the gun buyback scheme was introduced after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996…the buyback saw the number of gun deaths a year fall from an average of 521 to 289..
Now again, I’m not saying that the US ought to try to do the same, or that it would be a “success”. For starters, there are already too many fire-arms in circulation stateside, it is easier smuggling weapons into the US (large land borders) and the US gun-lobby is far stronger than the Australian counterpart. People want to keep their guns there. Fair enough. But I find something basically wrong with using societies that are relatively (and popularly) gun-free to further a pro-gun agenda, particularly when it is so dishonestly done.
November 1st, 2008 at 12:25 am
Remember Cho Seoun Hui, Koreans all called him American and he was a mass murderer. I think the common denominator is Korean culture.
November 1st, 2008 at 12:30 am
interesting how you don’t mention Korea is your op-ed. I guess you are too busy filling people with BS about what a paradise South Korea is. Oh and “priceless national treasure” LOL! It was build in 72. I guess my poo is a priceless piece of art. Oh and lint in my house is priceless. What eva~
LOL
November 1st, 2008 at 6:55 am
“Remember,” you must be very confused.
First of all, Choi grew up in the United States. His video was recorded in perfect American English, in the idiom of disaffected American teenager. It is far fetched at best to blame “Korean culture” for his disturbance.
As for Namdaemun, it was first built in 1395-1398 and was declared a national treasure in 1962 after an extensive repair from stemming from the Korean War (1950-1953). It was not “build in 72″ (sic).
I have no idea where you get this statement “I guess you are too busy filling people with BS about what a paradise South Korea is.” If you read anything I’ve written about South Korea, I am often critical about Korean society and culture (but I do not, at the same time, mindlessly bash it like some commentators).
I also write quite a bit about the greatness of America. Please see:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002509337_na21.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002678358_na12.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002998654_na17.html
November 2nd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Hoju_saram,
Your post was moderated by the software, so I brought it back alive.
We can debate the numbers till cow comes home, I guess — but it’s odd that one of the links you cite as a support for declining crime number actually says no such thing. It simply concludes that a clear answer is difficult to achieve due to multiple variables (or some such statement to the effect; I should note Dr. Lott had no problem isolating for most of the known variables in his comprehensive study).
Contrary to your statement now of “I am not suggesting anything for your county,” your earlier statement indicated that restoring gun rights was bad for the United States.
Let me address this one more time: “THE risk of dying by gunshot has dropped dramatically since the gun buyback scheme was introduced after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996…the buyback saw the number of gun deaths a year fall from an average of 521 to 289…”
First of all, I do not even know if this is true. But, let’s assume for the moment it is. So what? Confiscate all guns from legal hands and identifiable deaths from guns drops. That’s like saying if you confiscate all kitchen knives, the number of people who die from kitchen knives (accident, suicide, crime, etc.) declines. Again, so what? But what are other implications that result from this?
Violent crime is still committed by other means. What is more, people who otherwise would not have been victims (e.g. a woman defending herself with a gun against a bigger, stronger rapist) now becomes victims, which is not reflected in the simplistic “fewer guns = fewer gun deaths” stat.
You would think that given your view of guns as such crime creators, prisons where inmates are not allowed guns and are monitored by the goverment 24/7 would be the safest places in the world. And, yet, they are some of the most dangerous, violent places in the world where people are killed daily by improvised weapons. The single most important variable for crime is the people in question, i.e. criminals!
Perhaps you think it was good that your father and you handed in your guns like good little children to papa government, but here in America (thank God) we have the Second Amendment to preserve liberty and the right of self defense, so any government that tries to confiscate my guns and those from my fellow citizens can have them — bullets first.
November 2nd, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Hoju Saram Said “… I find something basically wrong with using societies that are relatively (and popularly) gun-free to further a pro-gun agenda, particularly when it is so dishonestly done.”
I’ll agree with you on this point. I think the unique culture and other factors within the U.S. make it incomparable to other societies. However, plenty of studies can be (and have been) made within the U.S. itself that show that confiscatory gun laws don’t deter crime.
Regardless of your view of the influence of gun ownership on crime statistics, United States citizens do enjoy a constitutionally protected right to bear arms. And although I don’t posess a firearm at this time, I have no problem with others owning them as long as they are responsible about it. And I really don’t like it when people try to re-interpret the Constitution of the United States to fit their own agenda.
November 8th, 2008 at 5:16 am
Perhaps you think it was good that your father and you handed in your guns like good little children to papa government, but here in America (thank God) we have the Second Amendment to preserve liberty and the right of self defense
You forget, James, that the gun buyback in Oz was carried out by popular mandate. In other words “papa government” didn’t take our guns - we, the people, gave them away willingly. Got it?
And a word of advice, quit with the “vulnerable women need guns” bullshit. In the same way a weak person can use a gun to defend herself against stronger attackers, so can a weak attacker can become imeasureably more dangerous. And if both people have guns, the guy who pulls it first - ie, the atacker - is going to win everytime. Give me a dangerous gun-free neigborhood over a dangerous gun-saturated one any day.
At least have the balls to stick to the truth: you like guns, they’re fun to shoot, they make you feel like a tough guy and you don’t give a f*ck about their consequences.
any government that tries to confiscate my guns and those from my fellow citizens can have them — bullets first
lol, I rest my case.
November 8th, 2008 at 11:54 am
I see, so by that logic, if the majority of Australians decided that a particular liberty or a particular minority is “too dangerous,” they can simply vote to have it expunged, eh?
Thank goodness I live in a constitutional republic that is the United States of America. You see, we in the States have what is called the Constitution. Certain basic rights are endowed by the Creator as Jefferson put it and cannot be taken away even by majority vote. As the popular saying goes, democracy (which is apparently what Australia has) is “two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.”
Your advice is neither needed, warranted nor requested. Gary Kleck, a noted criminologist, found 2 million defensive uses of firearms in the United States. The vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens, and they use guns legitimately to target shoot, to hunt, to defend themselves, etc. I might note, as well, that the vast majority of these defensive uses required no shooting — as in, the simple presentation of the firearm was enough to deter the attempted crimes.
On a personal note, I feel great knowing that my wife, who has been trained to operate and shoot safely, carries and is able to protect herself.
Except under your scenario, one of the guys (the law-abiding one) won’t have a gun at all — whereas the criminal still will.
I think you need to stop projecting. You are the one who is throwing around vulgarities, Mr. Internet Tough.
And I do think of the consequences — hence my demonstration of the net social benefit of mass gun ownership in the U.S.
Furthermore, the most important element of the Second Amendment is not about hunting or self-defense — it’s liberty. Our Founding Fathers wanted to reserve for us, the People, the ability to resist a tyrannical government and that is why the Second Amendment is there. It keeps our government honest. Kinda hard to do that when the populace is disarmed, is it?
And that is why, should our government go the way yours did and tries to confiscate guns, millions of liberty-loving citizens like me will let it have them, bullets first. That’s not a boast, Internet toughness or a threat. That’s just the character of the American people (WWII Japanese Admiral Yamamoto was said to have uttered, upon hearing discussions of the invasion of U.S. mainland, “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass”).
Lastly, I see that since your power of logic has failed, you are beginning to be hostile and vulgar, which says a lot about the quality of your arguments and your personal character. I let the last comment slip through, but if you persist in being so and refuse to argue politely, your future comments will be moderated.
November 9th, 2008 at 4:19 am
I see, so by that logic, if the majority of Australians decided that a particular liberty or a particular minority is “too dangerous,” they can simply vote to have it expunged, eh?
You clearly have a very tenuous understanding of how Westminster democracies function and no understanding at all of how Australia’s works. That’s fine, but let me just make a couple of points:
1. Australia’s system of government is based on the liberal democratic tradition, which includes religious tolerance and freedom of speech and association.
2. We also have a Constitution. Unfortunately ours was not given to us by a divine deity, but that’s something we poor antipodean wretches have to suffer I’m afraid.
3. Our constitution can be altered by popular referendum. This is to ensure that our government can adapt to the changing needs of the people. Referendums require a vast majority of people to succeed, which means that it tends to be a constant, unless there is an overwhelming need for change. Personally, I think this is a Good thing.
democracy (which is apparently what Australia has)…
It is indeed what we have, and let me be clear on another point: it is no lesser a democracy than yours, despite your waxing lyrical to the contrary. It simply serves fewer people.
Gary Kleck, a noted criminologist…
Gary Kleck is a Quack. Apparently he used a very small sample size (science 101 no-no) and didn’t confine self-defense to attempted victimizations where physical attacks had already commenced.
read: http://timlambert.org/1998/06/dgu-00037/
But whatever. People will believe what they want to believe and tailor stats to suit their personal views.
Except under your scenario, one of the guys (the law-abiding one) won’t have a gun at all — whereas the criminal still will.
In America, yes. Elsewhere, no. I’ve never seen a handgun in Australia or South Korea. The chance of being a victim of a gun-crime here and in Oz is so negligable it’s not even worth talking about. Which brings me back to my original point: have your guns. Just don’t project your gun-views on gun-free countries, such as the ROK.
You are the one who is throwing around vulgarities, Mr. Internet Tough.
I was reacting to your snide, arrogant, belittling comments about myself and my country in the previous post, ie
Perhaps you think it was good that your father and you handed in your guns like good little children to papa government, but here in America (thank God) we have the Second Amendment to preserve liberty and the right of self defense
which have continued into this latest one. You’ll have to excuse me if I’m not overawed by your use of capitals when you describe your government and the people who began it, or your particular choice of God for that matter. My country was born in blood and misery so we’re not particularly given to worship or easily wowsered by vainglory.
One more thing:
That’s just the character of the American people (WWII Japanese Admiral Yamamoto was said to have uttered, upon hearing discussions of the invasion of U.S. mainland, “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass”).
Japan never entertained the idea of invading the U.S - nor has anyone else, nor, more than likley, will anyone else. That’s not because of your milita, it’s because of your military. Japan was defeated by the guns and heroism of soldiers and by two big bombs.
Incidentally, Japan did seriously entertain the idea of invading Australia - they drew up plans for the action, actualy - but our army stopped them in Papua.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Milne_Bay)
“Australian troops had, at Milne Bay in New Guinea, inflicted on the Japanese their first undoubted defeat on land. If the Australians, in conditions very like ours, had done it, so could we. Some of us may forget that of all the Allies it was the Australian soldiers who first broke the spell of the invincibility of the Japanese Army; those of us who were in Burma have cause to remember.” Briton, William Slim.
Military guns, not civilian guns. Had our soldiers not met them at Milne Bay and Kokoda and turned them back, and had the US not later entered the war, then the situation may have arisen that we would have needed to flood the general populace with guns. I have no problem with doing such a thing in a national emergency, nor, do I imagine, did my forebears. I’m at a lost to understand why you would need to pre-empt it during a time of peace, however.
Lastly, I see that since your power of logic has failed, you are beginning to be hostile and vulgar, which says a lot about the quality of your arguments and your personal character
Like I said, you’ve hardly been a friendly or humble debater yourself. If it bothers you so much, you could always disable comments like you partner
November 9th, 2008 at 7:46 am
hoju_saram,
I see you’re worried about “dangerous gun”s. I share that concern; there is nothing worse than a dangerous gun. Which is why I suggest such firearms be a) destroyed, b) locked away, if they have sentimental value, or c) taken to a competent gunsmith to repair whatever was making it dangerous.
If not properly maintained, a gun would blow up in your hand, or not work when you really need it, so it’s essential to make sure the weapons doesn’t fall into disrepair and become dangerous.
But aside from such defects, the only thing that makes a gun dangerous is the person that is using it.
November 9th, 2008 at 8:02 am
hoju_saram,
You don’t have to be, “friendly or humble” here, but engaging in ad hominem or vulgarity will result in being edited, deleted, and banned. James was right about your logic failing you, and now you’re clearly engaging in strawmen arguments.
Disabling comments on a single post is more akin to taking the phone off the hook for that topic, which you likely understand but are taking out of the obvious context. Not surprising.
Pot-kettle.
November 9th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
I suppose I could argue about the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975 (whereby the Governor-General of Australia — yes, as in the guy appointed by a lady wearing a crown and robe — to act as head of state allegedly in her stead — removed the duly-elected prime minister and appointed the opposition leader as the caretaker PM). I suppose I could kindly and gently explain to someone about how Liberty is granted by the rather ecumenical Creator (never once did I mention a particular kind of God), and that the American Founding Fathers merely enumerated the Liberty in our Constitution (in other words, the rights universal originate from a higher power, but the document was an idiomatic creation of very enlightened and bright men of specific cultural-historical milieu). I suppose I could do all that. I suppose I could also put my graduate education (which included a good dose of statistics and econometrics) to work and demonstrate the statistical bases for not just Gary Kleck’s work, but also those for the far larger (in fact, the largest and the most comprehensive) study of John Lott.
But I keep remembering that once a very wise Iowa hog farmer (who doubled as my FFL, aka gun dealer) told me, a bit of folksy wisdom: Don’t try to teach a pig how to sing. You will annoy the pig, and the pig still won’t sing.
I just leave ya’all with this: http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/25794-2/obamathreat5799-2.jpg
I do not know the young lady in the photograph, but my kudos to her and her photographer, Oleg Volk (a Russian emigre and now a proud American who knows a thing or two about your friendly neighborhood Big Brother).
November 10th, 2008 at 5:50 am
Pot-kettle.
People, Richardson. Not gun-advocates. People. Read it again.
But aside from such defects, the only thing that makes a gun dangerous is the person that is using it.
No, it’s the sum of the two, which I think you know full well.
The rest, blah.
James,
The GG is a ceremonial position - he isn’t appointed by the Queen, he’s appointed by the acting PM. The one time he did wield power was in the 1975 crisis. Incidentally (since we seem to be having a government pissing contest) Australia had a referendum to get rid of the GG and become a republic. The referendum failed, largely because - wait for it - the alternative was seen to be too similar to the US model, which isn’t held in very high regard, largely because the executive is considered to have too much power and not enough accountability.
Few countries have not had some sort of governmental “crisis”, the US included, ie:
The Nullification Crisis of 1832, in which South Carolina declared that it would not permit collection of a federal tariff.
The death of President William Henry Harrison, 9th President of the United States, in 1841.
The secession of the southern U.S. states prior to the American Civil War, which the federal government did not recognize.
1876 presidential election: Republicans and Democrats disputed voting results in three Southern states. A congressional panel voted along party lines in favor of Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes, who dampened Southern fury by withdrawing federal troops from the South.
Not to mention the endless instances of your congress failing to uphold amendments and the constitution, the debacle of the 2000 elections, and one possibly coming up - Obama’s citizen status.
I’m not suggesting your system of government is worse than ours, all I’m saying is it’s no better. Surely that’s not so upsetting? No democracy will ever be perfect, they’ve been flawed since the first demagogues sent Greek ships to Syracuse and so destroyed Periclean Athens.
Now someone stop talking about it and please ban me.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
No one is talking about banning you. You are not that important or noteworthy or even provocative enough.
But the image you linked to in your last e-mail was more than bad taste. So I simply moderated out the link.
You can continue to try to bait me into more useless dialog, but I have had my fill of your “blah” as you put it.
So, take a breather and go pay homage to your queen (”Then who is your lord?”) “Bloody peasant!”
November 12th, 2008 at 2:51 am
Many people here have posted that a gun would have enabled the murderer to kill far, far more people. While that may be true, had one of his would-be victims been armed with a gun (and knew how to use it), he might have killed far, far less people.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:55 am
James:
No one is talking about banning you. You are not that important or noteworthy or even provocative enough.
Richardson:
hoju_saram…engaging in ad hominem or vulgarity will result in being edited, deleted, and banned
Just saying.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:02 am
I don’t see where Richardson wrote “We’ll ban you.” He was stating, rather factually, that engaging in bad behavior will get one banned.
Is this an implicit recognition and admission that you have been engaging in bad behavior to warrant banning?
November 12th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Yes, that is not a threat, but a statement of the policy listed on the “About” page. Hoju_saram’s comments have already been edited, but he seemed to have toned down the vulgarity after a warning (I thought it fair to give notice since not everyone will read the page with that info). So unless that changes, there is not a great prospect for being banned.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
There is an update at the top of the post.
December 6th, 2008 at 7:35 am
after reading this long debate, i can only hope for one thing : that mister James Na gets killed by a guy wielding a gun. Then the demonstration would be eloquent and complete.
December 6th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Uriah,
That kind of comment says more about you than anything else.
Maybe there is Karma and what you wish upon another human being will doubly visit upon you. Karma can be funny that way.
Only God knows how I will die, but if it is my fate to die at the hands of a thug (with or without a gun), I hope I go down fighting back (with or without a gun). Better that than to die defenseless like so much sheep or cattle.
December 6th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
There is no karma.
But feel free to believe in the illusion of a justice from outside this world if it makes your life easier.
“Only god knows how i will die”.
Sorry to tell you this : God is certainly not interested in you or in me. Anyway, i doubt that any “good god” would let babies come to this world without limbs.
I am just amazed by the time and energy some people spend just to be able to wield guns. I can’t imagine how giving someone the ability to kill another person can be a good thing. The “lonely girls defends against a rapist” theory is one of the best examples, out there since decades. Wouldn’t be more efficient if we just teach the boys early on that women are not underlings we can have for our satisfaction ? When women will cease to be “property” that mal can trample without guilt, maybe raping will be less of a problem. It’s possible to teach that in school. To teach that in the family too.
of course, you will tell me that guns are the best solution.
December 6th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Fellow gun control advocate Uriah appears blissfully unaware of the irony of wishing a violent death upon law-abiding blogger James Na.
In debating gun control, abortion, and other hot topics, people seem to forget that folks on the opposing side are just as intelligent and thoughtful as folks on your side. Thoughtful, intelligent people disagree because the issues are complex with no clear and easy resolutions.
December 9th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Sonagi,
I think such a concept as “irony” is lost upon Uriah, who seems utterly unaware of the fact that his wish is both immoral, useless and in bad form (i.e. impolite).
Uriah,
It is silly of me to engage in a dialog with someone who wishes a violent death upon me, but in a (perhaps misguided) hope that you might see some reason, I’ll reply to a number of points you made, some of which are theological.
In my experience (YMMV), Karma is not instant, not always comprehensible and not perfect, but does seem to exist. Rarely have I seen a bad person end up well in the long run, if ever. Rarely have I seen a good person end up badly in the long run, if ever. Even if one does not believe in God, there seems to be a certain balance in life and in nature most of the time.
Why don’t you read a column in a newspaper I wrote about three years ago?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002732279_na11.html
I implied no such interest. I merely noted that only God knows how I would die. God can be defined in many ways, but one property attributed to God is omniscience. Thus, by definition, God would know how I would die, or for that matter, how everyone would die. That statement does not necessarily imply that God cares although I would like to think so. But this is not something I am willing or able to prove.
You, on the other hand, seem to claim that you know what God is up to by stating that “God certainly” this or that. This is either enormously misplaced hubris or simple lunacy.
If you are in any way interested earnestly in philosophy and theology, you should know that there is much debate over why evil seems to be present in a world created by a benevolent God.
I have read a number of convincing, if not perfect, responses ranging from “God’s view of good and evil is different from ours” to “How would we recognize goodness without the presence of evil just as we would not seek the sweetness of freedom without tasting the bitterness of oppression.” I suggest you read more rather than simply dimissing the possibility of benevolent God simply because there seems to be evil in the world.
A number of points come to mind in response to this, the first of which is: why can’t we do both? In other words, why not empower not just women but all physically weaker members of society with the means and freedom to defend themselves AND do our best to educate respect for others even if they are physically weaker?
Why are these two solutions mutually exclusive?
As a corollary, how would imparting respect for women prevent all or even most violent criminals from engaging in criminal violence against defenseless women? Are you suggesting educational attempts cure all human beings of desire for violence and domination?
Lastly, since you seem a fan of family education, were you not taught by your parents that it is immoral to wish a violent death upon another human being who has done no wrong to you?