So for the English class that I teach, the topic of discussion was (due to my recent encounter with burglary) self-defense. We talked about whether guns are good or bad, or neutral etc..
I answered all their questions about guns, etc... most were passivists, who said that as long as the thief only came to steal, then they wouldn't do anything about it. Even when I asked if the thief started hacking away at their family members, only a few said then they would try to do harm to the thief in self-defense. I don't know what kind of medicine they pump these people with that makes them so sheepled that they will just sit around and take it where the sun don't shine from the thieves... I also asked if they think, if the thief is in the house, and they came home, and caught the thief, if the thief would attempt to do bodily harm to them.. They all answered yes, they believe if caught in the act, the thief would try to kill them. Yet, all of them thought an attempt to harm the thief in self-defense was wrong
There were 5 students, and they all said that more guns would lower crime, but most also believed that there would be daily shootings over normal disputes if everybody had a gun, despite the fact that they all answered if they are armed and knows the other person is armed as well, they would probably be more polite, as risking one's life over say, who cut in line, was stupid... So they believe an armed society is a polite society, but they still refuse to accept the concept of protection themselves; even though they also admitted that cops can't protect them.
At the beginning of the class, I took a survey; 0 out of 5 said that guns were good for society.
At the end of the class, 3 out of 5 said if guns were legal in Taiwan, they'd own one, 4 out of 5 said that they know for sure that citizens with guns would reduce crime, but 5 out of 5 STILL said that if they vote, they'd vote in favor of making guns illegal..
5 out of 5 admitted this line of thinking is without logic, but still, this is what they "believe"... :banghead:
I answered all their questions about guns, etc... most were passivists, who said that as long as the thief only came to steal, then they wouldn't do anything about it. Even when I asked if the thief started hacking away at their family members, only a few said then they would try to do harm to the thief in self-defense. I don't know what kind of medicine they pump these people with that makes them so sheepled that they will just sit around and take it where the sun don't shine from the thieves... I also asked if they think, if the thief is in the house, and they came home, and caught the thief, if the thief would attempt to do bodily harm to them.. They all answered yes, they believe if caught in the act, the thief would try to kill them. Yet, all of them thought an attempt to harm the thief in self-defense was wrong
There were 5 students, and they all said that more guns would lower crime, but most also believed that there would be daily shootings over normal disputes if everybody had a gun, despite the fact that they all answered if they are armed and knows the other person is armed as well, they would probably be more polite, as risking one's life over say, who cut in line, was stupid... So they believe an armed society is a polite society, but they still refuse to accept the concept of protection themselves; even though they also admitted that cops can't protect them.
At the beginning of the class, I took a survey; 0 out of 5 said that guns were good for society.
At the end of the class, 3 out of 5 said if guns were legal in Taiwan, they'd own one, 4 out of 5 said that they know for sure that citizens with guns would reduce crime, but 5 out of 5 STILL said that if they vote, they'd vote in favor of making guns illegal..
5 out of 5 admitted this line of thinking is without logic, but still, this is what they "believe"... :banghead:
.) When he came back he told me that it was a great land, great people, and that we as Westerners would never, never, understand how the Asian mind works. 
