Taiwan ‘Gun Control' Means Civilian Training Too Little Too Late

“The war in Ukraine saw civilians take up arms and put up a fierce fight for their homeland. As the war rages on, Taiwan is now taking cues to strengthen its home grown defence program in particular with civilians now proactively studying urban warfare to bolster their defences against China's increasing military might,” The World is One News noted in the overview to its video report on the move to create invasion deterrents. 

“Taiwan has been focused on strengthening its domestic defense programs with self-reliance now key, especially after Russia's war on Ukraine which has served as a grim reminder of the plausibility of Chinese invasion that has rekindled the need to bolster defenses,”  the reporter explains. 

“It's not just the Taiwanese military taking inspiration from the fierce resistance of civilians in Ukraine,” the report elaborates. “Taiwanese people are now taking up urban warfare studies. The number of students studying urban warfare firearms studies and first aid courses has quadrupled.”

“Since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war ... there has been an increase of two to four times more people enrolled in our various courses,” one interview subject observes.

“So here they are, people from various walks of life taking up arms and undergoing drills, determined to protect their country as they prepare for the worst,” the reporter concludes. And that makes fair the question “But can they?”

“In Taiwan, there's a gun control debate playing out. But here's what's unusual about that,” the public radio program The World reports. “This is an island with hardly any guns. Taiwan's government has implemented extremely strict laws on firearms. Almost no one is allowed to own them — except for one type of citizen.”

“Using a gun is taboo in Taiwan,” reporter Patrick Winn points out, relating a television documentary about a man hunting a deer. Guns are limited to less than two percent of the population, members of indigenous communities for whom hunting is a necessary way of life.

“The government will only allow indigenous people to use extremely archaic guns, muzzle-loading rifles, the same kind used in the U.S. Revolutionary War” Winn explains. It was the Han Chinese who fled the mainland to Taiwan who told the natives they “could only use old-fashioned muzzle loaders, ones that you make in your own back yard.”   

“They’re not safe at all. They often jam or misfire in people’s hands,” Winn elaborates. “They would prefer to use modern weapons, rifles that in America you could buy at Walmart. But they can’t.”

---

And while indigenous people protest, “a court ruling  said the law is not going to change. Judges worry about guns falling into the hands of criminals...” 

At least that’s the excuse.

“In Taiwan, civilians are not allowed to possess any firearms with narrow exceptions for fishermen, indigenous citizens, and authorized civilian institutions,” GunPolicy.org, a global research project from the University of Sydney corroborates. While decidedly anti-gun, their compilations of laws from countries round the globe provide a useful resource overview of restrictions by countries and regions.

Taiwan prohibits “private possession” of “automatic weapons, semiautomatic assault weapons [and] handguns (pistols and revolvers).”

“In Taiwan, civilian possession of rifles and shotguns prohibited with narrow exceptions for fishermen and indigenous citizens,” GunPolicy reiterates. Stiff penalties are applied to violators, with up to life imprisonment for illegal manufacture or sale of firearms, and up to capital punishment for “[a]n offender with intent to commit a crime by himself/herself or assist others to commit a crime...”

They mean business. That’s reflected in the estimated number of “unregistered and unlawfully held guns,” estimated in 2017 to be .02 per 100 people. While “estimated” means “unknown,” it’s a safe bet the “illegal” guns are held by indigenous people and pose no threat to (what is essentially) a monopoly of violence.

But doesn’t that “prove” that “gun control” works?

What it mostly proves is that an essentially homogenous population generationally conditioned to obey authority and to expect severe punishment for disobedience behaves itself for the most part. Demographics show 95 to 97% Han Chinese, a bit over 2% indigenous, and .1% Westerners. They’re not big on their diversity being their strength.

While parallels to the situation in Ukraine are understandable enough to make with this new move to recruit civilians into the defense equation, the biggest similarity (and biggest mistake) is, both nations waited until the wolf was at the door to start the process. Something not similar between both nations is that it has been legal for Ukrainians to own modern sporting rifles, “hi-cap” magazines, shotguns, and sniper rifles (up to .50 BMG) for decades (handguns are still illegal to purchase). Our own Second Amendment presupposed an already armed and trained citizenry that could be mustered and deployed to match a professional military threat. 

Back before the Russian invasion, Ukraine Gen. Oleksandr Pavlyuk “floated the idea of handing over the country’s own weapons to its citizens.” When that finally happened, this column observed “the biggest case for the 2nd Amendment [with] leftists in America ... forced to watch.”

“And for their part, now that they’re armed and have experienced firsthand what is needed to fight tyranny, don’t look for soon-to-be battle-hardened Ukrainians to give up their guns the next time peace pokes through the war clouds,” it continued. “Scripps News reports ‘Ukraine disperses at least 18,000 (other reports are upping that number considerably) machine guns to volunteers to fight against Russia,’ and from the scenario related above showing weapons being distributed off of trucks, it’s doubtful the defenders are making records-keeping a priority.”

Which hasn’t stopped them from trying.

As this column noted a few months later, Ukrainian digital broadcaster Hromadske reported “Terrorist fighters [Ukrainian Territorial Defense fighting terrorists/Russians] in the liberated territories must hand in their weapons,” citing an order from Troop Forces commander, General Yuri Galushkin.

Compliance is another issue that has yet to be explored. Hasty and incomplete initial records-keeping along with retrievable guns from fallen comrades and enemy soldiers essentially being there for the taking make it  fair to speculate on whether those who have seen firsthand the savagery of the enemy threat and authoritarian corruption in their own leadership are just going to turn in their new guns. Would you?

There’s also another notable directly relevant difference between Ukrainians (a more diverse population, with a significant Russian minority) and Taiwanese: Per Gun Policy, as of 2017, there were an estimated 3.6 million “illegal” guns in the country, to the tune of 8 per hundred people (recall in Taiwan it’s .02).

And there’s another difference that can’t be ignored: Differences in population sizes, deployable forces, and available armaments between a Russia/Ukraine matchup and China/Taiwan, and more significantly, willingness to do whatever it takes. Unless things devolve literally into World War Three, it’s doubtful Vladimir Putin will dare use monstrous tactics from the last one like executing villagers to get them to give up armed partisan threats. Who can say with any certainty the same for Xi Jinping?

And while it might seem more applicable to invoke military strategist and philosopher Sun Tzu to assess the forced “reunification” of Taiwan with the mainland, a more relevant citation to illustrate the differences between the two invasion scenarios may come from Prussian General Carl Von Clausewitz, who observed “Without public support, no war can be conducted successfully."  

Ukraine’s recently demonstrated ability to hit military targets inside Russia with drones, and to inflict heavy casualties on invading troops, is taking its toll on that support. On the other hand, still developing and exponentially outmatched Taiwanese offensive capabilities, combined with a mainland population that knows from experience not to challenge government diktats, makes Von Clausewitz’s considerations less of a concern for ruthless and purposeful Chicoms.

“Defense is offense,” an interview subject in the World is One News report cited at the beginning of this article opines. “The best way to protect ourselves, to put it bluntly, is to annihilate the enemy and stop any enemy advances.”

All true. But who’s going to do that? The descendants of those who fled...? Us? Recalling Washington’s Farewell address when he declared “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world," it’s hardly out of line to ask how it’s in the interests of American citizens to risk our own annihilation -- especially when our “permanent ally” has heretofore suppressed the one thing our Founders knew was “necessary to the security of a free State.”

The best thing we can do – for ourselves and for the world – is to show it the strength that comes from the prosperity and freedom of a Bill of Rights culture, and to be that example that other nations can then emulate. So, naturally, our collectivist politicians are bent on doing the exact opposite.

Epilog

“Here’s how we protect Taiwan without going to war with China,” entrepreneur, author, and extreme longshot GOP presidential contender Vivek Ramaswamy tweeted. “Open a branch of the @NRA in Taiwan, put an AR-15 in the hands of every family, and train them how to use it. That’ll give Xi Jinping a taste of American exceptionalism.”

It’s a fun thought—on the surface. It’s also one he knows has no chance of ever happening, making it a form of Republican pandering that gun owners are all too familiar with— talking big to please the crowd when they know there’s no chance they’ll ever actually have to make good on anything.

It would also be a violation of strict Taiwanese law, making fair the question of why the U.S. should help people who won’t help themselves, and a government that insists on holding a monopoly of violence.

---

About the Author

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. In addition to being a regular featured contributor for Firearms News  he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook. 

---

If you have any thoughts or comments on this article, we’d love to hear them. Email us at FirearmsNews@Outdoorsg.com.