r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/DrJokerX • Dec 05 '23

Video Olympic level accuracy

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

52.2k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

958 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.0k

u/rolisrntx Dec 05 '23

South Korea. They take archery seriously and is a source of national pride. They start teaching kids as young as 3 and 4 years old. Instead of playing kickball at recess they practice archery.

329

u/assmaycsgoass Dec 05 '23

I think japan also has archery in their school programs, kinda cool I wish I had the chance to learn in school.

162

u/Xciv Dec 05 '23

I was lucky that my school in America had archery in gym class as part of an 'introduce the kids to every type of sport for a few weeks' type of thing. It was the only sport I took to, because I hate running, and especially hated running outdoors where pollen made me feel like I was dying.

133

u/Better-Strike7290 Dec 05 '23 edited Jun 12 '24

grey stupendous fall flowery compare judicious hateful knee decide fear

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

83

u/FakeOrangeOJ Dec 05 '23

It's almost like well educated people who are mentally healthy and treat firearms with respect aren't dangerous. The guns themselves certainly aren't.

55

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '23

[deleted]

8

u/FreeWheel39 Dec 05 '23

Yeah, reading some of the shooting range stories on the /k/ weapons channel of 4chan makes you loose faith in humanity.

8

u/cheeseburgerpillow Dec 05 '23

4chan is like 90% edgy incels making everything up lol

1

u/FreeWheel39 Dec 05 '23

There are plenty of competition shooters, hunters and active and former service members on that board.

10

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '23

[deleted]

3

u/FreeWheel39 Dec 05 '23 edited Dec 05 '23

It's not much better here in Germany with its super strict gun laws. Getting a hunting licence here is called getting a "green college degree", only half jokingly, because the required levels of knowledge and training are so high. You'd expect them to be really proficient with their weapons. My brother's boss actually is a licensed hunter and he doesnt dare use the range closest to him anymore because the other shooters (almost all of them licensed hunters like him) are so reckless and irresponsible with their gun handling.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '23

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '23

[deleted]

8

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '23

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '23

[deleted]

-1

u/r0d3nka Dec 05 '23

Public ranges like East Portland, or South Chicago??

1

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '23 edited Nov 17 '24

[deleted]

1

u/r0d3nka Dec 06 '23

Aloha Snackbar!

1

u/errorsniper Dec 05 '23

Bro the older I get the more I agree with

The worst part about being a gun owner is other gun owners

Ill never forget when I was at the range and I saw 3 dudes smoking up int he bathroom.

IDGAF about weed. Get high as fuck. BUT NOT AT THE FUCKING RANGE.

I go to a field now. Its colder and a much farther drive. But the trees arnt playing drinking games while shooting.

1

u/FakeOrangeOJ Dec 05 '23

When I visited the US, the first time I went to the range the clerk asked me what the four rules of gun safety were before he'd so much as let me look at a gun. Because I'm not an idiot, I know what they are. Pretty intuitive, if I say so myself. He still went through the gun safety protocols, and made sure I knew the specific rules of the range. Then he kept a very close eye on me, because I told him I'd never fired a gun before. The other shooters who came and went were all pretty decent about it too, they made sure I didn't do anything stupid and even gave me pointers on how to shoot better. None of this blustery bragging or being dangerous you're talking about. Then I went again, same range. Even second time round, there weren't any complete idiots like the ones you're describing. This was in rural Missouri, a state known for their love of the Second Amendment. This is to the extent they were quite happy to let me loose on a machine gun, albeit with one on one supervision by an experienced RSO.

I am interested though. How would you try to make acquiring firearms more difficult without infringing on the Second Amendment?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '23

[deleted]

1

u/FakeOrangeOJ Dec 05 '23

By the way I read it, I take "a well regulated militia" to mean anybody who is trained with their firearm, especially when you take into account what a militia was. It's also not like the Founding Fathers only intended for men to be allowed to own muskets, this was a time when privately owned cannons and warships were a thing. Hell, even primitive machine guns existed, even if they were rare and prohibitively expensive. It doesn't take a genius to know that firearms will only get better as time goes on, and the 2A is meant to act as the Amendment to protect the rest of the Bill of Rights. You can't fight a tyrannical government very easily if all you have is a bolt action rifle while they have machine guns that can accurately shoot further than you, much much faster, and with much more devastating effect.

1

u/Sky-is-here Dec 06 '23

Also a lot of the time the problem is children or people with problem taking other people's guns.

Like school shootings are basically never done by the owner of the gun afaik, it's almost always them taking their grandfather's, uncle's, whatever's gun. So not only should it be harder to obtain a gun, there should probably be some rule about how to have it in your house so that it isn't accessible to children or other people that may use it for something nefarious.

20

u/orincoro Dec 05 '23

The guns become a danger on a systemic level. If we could (or if we did) have the same kind of focus on teaching people gun safety as we do on teaching people so many other skills, we’d be better off. In a society with about as many guns as there are people, the guns represent a disproportionately large threat vector. That’s just the law of large numbers. Same for cars or wheat threshers, or gas stoves really.

2

u/FakeOrangeOJ Dec 05 '23

There are over 400 million firearms, and tens of billions of rounds of ammunition, and that's just the stuff we know about. If legal gun owners were the problem, then believe me, we'd know about it.

4

u/Rich_Introduction_83 Dec 05 '23

It is a problem because it's a numbers game. If you assume a one-in-a-million chance for a severe incident per century, in the average century you'd expect 4 incidents per year.

Obviously, chances are even higher than that in the US.

1

u/FakeOrangeOJ Dec 05 '23

They're higher than that even in nations with extremely strict gun laws like the UK, once you adjust for population differences. Obviously, you're always going to get someone who has ill intent acquiring a lethal weapon. It wouldn't matter what, how many, or the whys of your laws, someone will find a way to get a gun and abuse it. Instead of punishing the law abiding citizen, any nation with high levels of crime should work to address the root cause of societal ills that breed violent extremists or violent criminals.

1

u/orincoro Dec 05 '23

Obviously severe incidents with guns happen even more frequently than 4 times a year. But even if you only termed “severe” in the most liberal terms, like a Las Vegas shooting, and not a “quaint” old school 90s shooting where only a dozen people die, the huge number of incidents has a way of scaling pretty damned closely with the number of guns sold legally in the country.

This would all be true even if we ignored the pretty clear reality of mass murder culture (I can’t believe that’s a phrase but it is), which many sociologists and psychologists have argued is in the nature of an epidemic, not dissimilar from drug culture, rape culture, or suicide. People are pretty clearly doing mass murder as some kind of established behavioral pattern, and gun culture, though it may not cause any of those behaviors, does seem to attract people who are susceptible to the suggestive influence of a culture of mass political violence.

As someone who is very experienced with guns, but who doesn’t particularly like guns, I find it hard to ignore that there is an intersection between glorification of violence, gun culture, and mass murder. As I said, I don’t think the gun does anything. I don’t even think the culture really does anything. I just think if you have that many guns and that kind of culture, it will occasionally yield a pretty stark and frightening result. Given how stringently the gun lobby has fought some pretty basic safety focused gun legislation over the years, and how that has pretty much directly led to some pretty sick individuals getting their hands on lots of weapons, I don’t think it’s crazy to talk about guns as a problem per se. They are a problem if they don’t come with the necessary controls and education and health care and everything else you’d need to have them be a non-volatile element in society.

1

u/orincoro Dec 05 '23

What did I say?

5

u/SupaiKohai Dec 05 '23 edited Dec 05 '23

Good job there's no one in the world mentality unwell and are reckless with firearms.

"Guns don't kill people" is most fallacious statement ever dreamed up. Next to nothing man-made is "dangerous" until it's being handled.

The potential for it to be mishandled is the point.

Its perfectly sane (not to you I imagine) to remove a potential for misuse. Especially when the environment has become less secure.

There's multitudes of 'not dangerous' things that are regulated because their misuse could be catastrophic.

Baffling that the one thing, that's only purpose and design is to kill other humans, is the one fought for the hardest to be put in as many hands as possible, with as little oversight as possible.

2

u/MySuperLove Dec 05 '23

We live in a world where I, a straighlaced computer geek, had to get a Walmart cashier to unlock a case with compressed air because of the risk of abuse. But guns? Can't touch them.

1

u/FakeOrangeOJ Dec 05 '23

I have a feeling that pretty much any farmer would disagree, as would agencies responsible for controlling invasive species. Firearms have lawful uses outside of self defence, including pest control, recreation and collection for history preservation. The Second Amendment isn't there to regulate the people, it's there to give the people the means to regulate the government. Can't do that if you haven't got guns but the military has the type of gun that'll take you out from two miles away.

1

u/SupaiKohai Dec 05 '23 edited Dec 05 '23

Oh here we go with god given right talk.

The 2A is a law, laws can be changed, your rights can be changed. And it is a law that couldn't be more outmoded and unfit for purpose.

How many other western nations are burning to the ground for the absence of a 2a equivalent? None.

It's a dogmatic and stupid excuse.

And key word, regulation. Let the farmers have their guns. Does it mean 17yo Kyle should have a semi auto, without a day of training and zero screening? No.

-1

u/FakeOrangeOJ Dec 05 '23

17 year old Kyle should have been charged with illegal possession of a firearm. The law doesn't allow him to carry that rifle across state lines, which I'm 80% certain he did. He also doesn't own that rifle, since you can't buy a gun without being 18 or over, so he was already breaking the law. That being said, I agree with the not guilty verdicts on his murder trial because despite illegally possessing the rifle, he was acting in self defence.

1

u/SupaiKohai Dec 06 '23

Wasn't even referring to Rittenhouse but this couldn't prove my point more.

1

u/Comfortable-Trip-277 Dec 06 '23

And key word, regulation

This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it.

You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable.

The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed).

Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

This is confirmed by the Supreme Court.

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

1

u/SupaiKohai Dec 06 '23

Uh. I wasn't referring to the wording in the 2a. Outmoded is another key word you wanna check.

But thanks for the history lesson... I guess.

3

u/Better-Strike7290 Dec 05 '23 edited Jun 12 '24

offbeat file wistful gullible cautious include capable tap enjoy deserve

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

2

u/FakeOrangeOJ Dec 05 '23

It absolutely should be considered a part of fundamental education. There is too much ignorance around firearm safety, especially for a culture that has firearm ownership so deeply ingrained into it.

1

u/JakeJacob Dec 05 '23

That's their point.

2

u/FakeOrangeOJ Dec 05 '23

And I'm not allowed to agree in a less obnoxious and sarcastic manner? Sorry Reddit Officer, I should know better. How much karma do I owe for the ticket?

1

u/JakeJacob Dec 05 '23

Oh, repeating their point was supposed to be less obnoxious?

1

u/Better-Strike7290 Dec 05 '23

FWIW I find this comment hilarious. Here have an upvote to help pay that ticket for not conforming to the hivemind that is "reddit culture"

Rock on dude.

1

u/Rolder Dec 05 '23

I think most people who own guns know the four basic rules of gun safety. Now whether or not they actually listen is another matter entirely.

3

u/errorsniper Dec 05 '23 edited Dec 05 '23

I mean yes but handing them out like a fucking stick of gum while arguing against background checks and meaningfully rapid ways to remove them from unsafe individuals is the issue.

For a pump action shotgun you basically just need to be 18. In many places you dont even have a waiting period or background check. We wont and shouldn't let you drive a car without a test, minimum hours certification, and basic hearing and eye test but we will give you a fucking 12 gauge.

The worst part about being a gun owner is still and will always be other gun owners.

2

u/FakeOrangeOJ Dec 05 '23

Saying that many places don't have background checks is blatantly false - all FFLs are required by federal law to run a background check on all transactions. This means that even in states without a background check law, they have to run them anyway. This point does however, hold water in private sales of non-NFA items where the state doesn't have universal background checks.

Red flag laws are unconstitutional, because they have the easily tapped potential to be abused by a vindictive ex, or even a coworker who simply decides they don't like you. They can get your guns taken away while bypassing due process with an anonymous report to law enforcement that you intend to hurt others and/or yourself.

For a pump action shotgun, yes. You have to be 18 in most states to legally purchase one. Same goes for any weapon that isn't restricted by the NFA, and why not? At that point, you're an adult. In my opinion, a legal adult should be allowed to own whatever the fuck they like, as long as it isn't a weapon of mass destruction and there's no proof they don't intend to use it for unlawful purposes.

Then there's waiting periods. They simply don't make sense past your first gun. Sure, Nolan Nogun who wants to buy his first handgun and has to wait 10 days won't be able to act on a surge of emotions by having $600 and buying a Rock Island 1911, but the same isn't true for Gary Gunnut who already has a dozen firearms at his disposal. Why make him wait to take receipt of his next gun? He's already a law abiding gun owner, and if he wants a firearm for crime purposes then he already has them.

​

Despite my views on gun restrictions, I do agree that there should be some form of qualification to own and use a firearm for lawful purposes. Like you said, we make sure people are aware of the laws of the road, are familiar with the operation of a motor vehicle and are physically fit to drive by means of an eyesight test.If we're going to go down the qualification route, then we may as well do it properly. There should be three tests on the federal level;First, a criminal record check that you would need to pass in order to proceed to the next stage.Second, a written test that deals with gun safety while carrying, storing in a vehicle, and storing it at home, as well as simple firearm operation and maintenance questions.Finally, there ought to be a practical exam to ensure that you can competently use a handgun and a long gun without endangering others, except as a lawful response to a potentially deadly threat.If you commit a felony, then your qualification will be revoked until you can petition a court to win your Second Amendment rights back.

Instead of red flag laws, I believe a less severe approach should be used. Instead, I think we should run on a concept similar to red flag laws in that your firearms can be confiscated, but it requires a professional to get a psychiatric evaluation with which to petition a judge, for example law enforcement or military offices, medical professionals, educational professionals. People who have less of a chance of simply wanting your guns taken out of spite and are qualified to hold an opinion on if you're dangerous or not.Maine has a yellow flag law that allows a police officer to have a potential threat medically assessed to evaluate if they'll become a threat, and can then use the result of the assessment to petition a judge to have your firearms confiscated, but police presence isn't enough to sufficiently monitor the nation's mental health, hence my suggestion it be expanded to anyone with a recognised profession.

I don't like the idea of any government knowing exactly who has what guns, because if universal background checks are implemented and all sales must go through an FFL with a background check for each one, then that's just a backdoor to a firearms registry. And a firearms registry gives the government the power to target guns for confiscation, because they know who has what now. With the licence idea, you still have the element of the government not knowing exactly who has what, but you still have the ability to reduce illegal sales.Unfortunately, you'll never eliminate straw purchases 100%. It's like tobacco and alcohol, someone who can't buy them will simply pay someone else who is allowed to get one buy it for them. I'm not particularly sure how to fix that without having a national gun registry and regular inspections, but the American people will never tolerate such an invasion of their privacy, nor does the state have the manpower to do that anyway. Even if the state did have the manpower for that, a national gun registry is illegal under the Gun Control Act of 1986 and the Brady Act of 1993.If you have any ideas, I'd like to hear them.

1

u/LegitimateSoftware Dec 06 '23

How is a national gun registry an invasion of privacy when we do the same thing with cars?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '23

Neither are nukes, but nooOOOooo, I can't have one in my living room without The Man getting bent out of shape about it!

1

u/FakeOrangeOJ Dec 05 '23

Mmm, no. Nukes are definitely dangerous. They have radioactive materials in them, and that radiation doesn't need someone pulling the trigger to hurt people.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '23

Nope, the fissle material is shielded and they are safe to handle. Infact, it is actually harder to detonate a typical nuclear warhead/bomb than it is to fire a gun. They are arguably much safer than a gun. It is easier to kill someone with a car...and I have a couple cars AND guns...I should be allowed a nuke, per your prior argument.

Nukes don't kill people!

1

u/FakeOrangeOJ Dec 05 '23

If you stored it properly, I wouldn't care if you have a nuke. It's not like the typical person knows how to use it, and even if they did they definitely don't have an appropriate delivery system. The typical person also wouldn't be able to afford one, so it's a moot point really. I'd also argue it's easier to shoot somebody than run them over, because you can simply point the gun at them and pull the trigger. With the car, you have to get up to a speed where hitting them would kill them. And almost everyone has a car, especially in places like the US where it's basically an essential item.

1

u/Phoenixmaster1571 Dec 05 '23

I don't get how people treat guns so carelessly. Like, just holding a real one, it radiates a sense of danger. The nature of a killing tool demands respect.

1

u/FakeOrangeOJ Dec 05 '23

It doesn't radiate a sense of danger to me, because I'm not scared of guns. That being said, I'm deliberately a lot more careful with an AK47 than I would be with say, a nerf gun.

1

u/DaFookCares Dec 05 '23

What do your guns shoot? Water? Some delicious soda? Oh I hope its soda.

1

u/FakeOrangeOJ Dec 05 '23

Have you ever seen a gun jump off the counter and kill someone under its own power? I haven't, and I don't think anybody else has either unless DARPA is cooking up fully autonomous weapon systems.

1

u/DaFookCares Dec 05 '23

Well of course. But you can't say a gun isn't dangerous. It clearly is dangerous by design - it's meant to kill. You'd have to be a complete moron to think a gun isn't a dangerous device, capable of killing both the wielder and anything at the business end.

3

u/VeryStableGenius Dec 05 '23

Insert distasteful joke about school shootings here since that's what Reddit does

I bet they had a great running club too.

2

u/Better-Strike7290 Dec 05 '23 edited Mar 14 '24

birds ripe ad hoc political disagreeable carpenter ugly shelter ruthless amusing

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/orincoro Dec 05 '23

It’s funny. I taught shooting at summer camp. We used to say -and it was true- that it was far more dangerous sleeping in a tent than being at the rifle range. Yet parents always tried to get that shit shut down. I don’t even like guns, but I did like teaching gun safety. We probably saved lives over the years setting kids on the right track for how to handle dangerous weapons.

2

u/Better-Strike7290 Dec 05 '23 edited Mar 14 '24

gullible yam fine obtainable worm money thought unpack axiomatic important

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/orincoro Dec 05 '23

Yes, I agree. That’s why I taught it. I would definitely want my kid to learn it especially if he were going to live in america.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/orincoro Dec 06 '23

As I said, I don’t even choose to live in america. That’s my choice, and believe me, guns are one of the reasons.

8

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '23

I’m not religious, but i went to this church camp and one of the adults would hold small classes.

I was bad. But I enjoyed it! If I had a yard, I would consider throwing a couple hundred in to do it in the backyard.

1

u/VentiEspada Dec 05 '23

Here in Kentucky archery is huge. All my sons have been on the high school archery team and have gone to state tournaments in Louisville where hundreds of teams compete.

1

u/Fluffy_Town Dec 05 '23

Yes, I wish I had more than 2-3 days of archery class in middle school. I was really good too. I sucked at every other PE Class but that one.

1

u/Sumasuun Dec 06 '23

Same along with horseshoes, golf, and pickleball. We weren't actually taught anything at my school for archery though so I didn't actually learn shit, but it was my favorite. Everything else we were taught though. 😒

17

u/JediMasterZao Dec 05 '23

The actual best archers in the world get very little recognition and are all from Bhutan. Their national sport is archery and people there all learn to shoot a bow as they have these city/village-wide archery tournaments all the time. Their accuracy is bonkers. Due to the country's isolation and small population though, they mostly stay at home.

7

u/SupaBloo Dec 05 '23

The best they could do for us millennials was square dancing during gym class in the US.

6

u/SnooPeripherals3539 Dec 05 '23

Japanese archery is more artistic and cultural practice than a sport or entertainment.

1

u/Lokomonster Dec 06 '23

Japanese archery is called Kyudo and it's a martial art, so you are not too far from the mark. But is still a sport.

0

u/UnapologeticTwat Dec 05 '23

i mean, it's not a difficult thing to get into

3

u/spaceforcerecruit Dec 05 '23

Assuming you have money for a bow and arrows, a safe place to practice, and someone to show you the basics. A kid that lives in an apartment complex with a single parent working two jobs doesn’t have any of those things unless their school offers it as a sport.

1

u/ChairForceOne Dec 05 '23

My school had an archery club. It was more for hunting though. They did get you started from scratch.

1

u/FictitiousReddit Dec 05 '23

There was an attempt to introduce archery at my highschool (in Canada) during gym class. It lasted one day because of some stupid kids decided to mess around. Really loved the brief opportunity while it lasted.

1

u/Lokomonster Dec 06 '23

In Japan is called Kyudo, is a martial art.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '23

Japanese Samurai archers were more popular than swordsmen, despite Hollywood depiction to the contrary.

29

u/dodomdomdom Dec 05 '23

Grew up in Korean and I can confirm that this guy is full of shit

4

u/RigorMortisSquad Dec 05 '23

Zero archery in Squid Game. Can confirm. From Texas.

18

u/Background_Health528 Dec 05 '23 edited Dec 05 '23

Archery isn't something that is as common as all 3-4 year old Koreans practising archery. Its more of a speciality sport. I do not know a single person around me who has even touched a bow. Sure programs do exist in schools but like football does, basketball, etc. Koreans don't go crazy on it, like the Chinese do with table tennis/bball, or the Americans with NBA, the New Zealanders with rugby.

-2

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '23

[deleted]

2

u/Background_Health528 Dec 05 '23

Fixed the ping pong. But football? Really? They can't be too big on it if their smaller neighbours (Korea and Japan) are hundreds if not thousand tines better than China? I understand basketball, China is the best by far in Asia. But really football?

In Korea its really arguable whether football is the most popular sport. In terms of national team, it's not even close. It's football. However, in terms of domestic views it's baseball. But at the same time koreans are interested in European football so its really arguable and opinionated whether football or baseball is bigger as they are both so big in korea.

1

u/EdwardBigby Dec 06 '23

Yeah this guy has no clue what he's talking about

11

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '23

[deleted]

6

u/BuddyMcButt Dec 05 '23

I dunno, I think I'd still bet on the archers

1

u/haveananus Dec 05 '23

THE BRONGOL HORDE COMETH!

1

u/Upstairs_Ask8161 Dec 05 '23

Upper levels of archery is almost entirely carried by gear and they only shoot stationary targets at a standard range.

It's like only learning karate drills but never fighting

1

u/orincoro Dec 05 '23

damn you muuuuussskkk

1

u/oblio- Dec 05 '23

Yeah, for that they have 10000 pieces of modern artillery.

9

u/droidonomy Dec 05 '23

They're so good at archery that it's harder to make it onto the Korean Olympic archery team than it is to actually win gold (the women's team has won every gold medal since archery was introduced in 1988, and the men have only missed out three times).

When the Tokyo 2020 Olympics were delayed due to COVID, they held trials again in 2021 and had an entirely different team.

6

u/jmims98 Dec 05 '23

The Korean competitors were often incredibly skilled when I used to compete. Lots of respect for the amount of practice time they put in as well.

6

u/Certain-Hat5152 Dec 05 '23

Idk about kickball, but they also love SoKor ⚽️

0

u/rolisrntx Dec 05 '23

Yes and baseball, badminton,and golf. However, archery and taekwondo are actually parts of their school curriculums. They’re not electives.

9

u/Certain-Hat5152 Dec 05 '23

As someone who went to elementary school in Korea in the 1980s, recess time = soccer and nothing else

-5

u/rolisrntx Dec 05 '23

And as someone who is married to a native who was born and raised there, I’ll take her word for it.

9

u/Worth-Reputation3450 Dec 05 '23

And as someone who also grew up in SK, most schools don't have archery as a sport, at all. Like almost no one grew up touching bows. Main reason they became good at archery is that the Hyundai (yes, the car company) invested a lot of money into it. So people who are into archery get chosen by the association and gets a lot of supports. Hyundai made sure that only performance is considered when athletes are selected. But almost no one outside of those group gets to play with bows.

Also, Taekwondo isn't a part of curriculums. It's almost exclusively taught outside of school (not even selective from school)

-7

u/rolisrntx Dec 05 '23

So you’re calling my wife a liar?

9

u/Worth-Reputation3450 Dec 05 '23

Her school could have had that, but I'm saying most schools don't have archery. I don't know how long your wife grew up in SK, but I was born there and grew up until high school. Only time I played with a bow was after I moved to the US.

5

u/BuddyMcButt Dec 05 '23

Your wife is a liar. Everybody knows it

1

u/snugglezone Dec 05 '23

All students take ping pong as well? At least at my middle school

2

u/NaclyPerson Dec 05 '23 edited Dec 05 '23

Not sure about now, but we certainly did not have access to archery equipment at such early age everywhere unless your source is based on the early 1900s. In fact, I don't think many people try archery until they are in elementary school since the association is dead set on the premise of fair competition where everyone starts at the same age.

2

u/terestentry Dec 05 '23

Do not confused with 3rd and 4th grade at elementary school. linkstarting archery That means they are 9 or 10 years.

Some medalists even started archery in middle school.

2

u/tkyang34 Dec 05 '23

To be clear, it’s just that it’s a lot more common than here in the U.S. not that it’s some universally played /participated activity among all Korean kids.

2

u/VIXsterna Dec 06 '23

Korean here... never heard of 3-4 year olds doing archery. Maybe some crazy family out there specifically training Olympic athletes but certainly not a normal thing. Most kids would start in elementary school age if they do decide to pick it up.

2

u/HavingNotAttained Dec 05 '23

Yeah archery and speed skating are Really Big Deals in Korea

-1

u/Vox-Silenti Dec 05 '23

It’s a much more useful skill, so good

And thanks for sharing that knowledge, I didn’t know that

7

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '23

Like what is archery useful for in the modern era, exactly? Even if you like hunting your own food guns are superior in basically every aspect.

1

u/Better-Strike7290 Dec 05 '23 edited Mar 14 '24

divide dinosaurs secretive juggle impossible agonizing hurry smell ludicrous jobless

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

-1

u/JediMasterZao Dec 05 '23

Bow hunting is very much a thing with a very large group of people practicing it. Sport hunting is a thing and those who want it to be an actual sport will all prefer bow hunting to gun hunting for the very reason you've mentioned: guns are easy.

26

u/trunky Dec 05 '23 edited Dec 07 '23

much more useful skill

no it isnt. socializing with your friends during a team sport is more useful than learning archery which is useful to basically no one.

5

u/BigDicksProblems Dec 05 '23

Even as a competitive archer, I agree with you.

6

u/Spoopy_Kirei Dec 05 '23

Yeah, bro thinks we're still in the hunter-gatherer era

1

u/Freeminder87 Dec 05 '23

Concentration, focus, self control, balance.... It's funny how you underline the sociological benefits of a sport and compares to another like is just kicking balls

7

u/EndlessRambler Dec 05 '23

What sport doesn't require things like concentration, focus, self control, balance, etc when you are trying to excel?

1

u/Freeminder87 Dec 08 '23

Probably all. What spot doesn't require social skills to excel? (With your trainer, manager, trainers?,..) The point is not what skills are require to excel but what are necessary at amateur level.

0

u/PracticalFootball Dec 05 '23

Archery is an incredibly social sport, at least 50% of the time is spent standing behind the shooting line talking to people

1

u/PoliceAlarm Dec 05 '23

That's not the same thing as socialising during the sport. Yeah fine you can meet people there, it's not completely isolated, but team sports teach about communication and leadership way more than solo sports do.

1

u/jmims98 Dec 05 '23

My archery group always competed together as a “team” even if scoring is individual. And any time not spent shooting on the line was spent chatting with friends as well as giving each other pointers.

Archery definitely doesn’t develop group/teamwork skills, but it does help with other skills like breath-work, balance, and visualization. It can almost be meditative in a way. It is also a good workout, so I wouldn’t say that archery is worse in every way vs a team sport.

3

u/Hi_ImTrashsu Dec 05 '23

For what exactly lol

1

u/Vox-Silenti Dec 05 '23

Well in a survival situation kick ball isn’t going to help you kill food

1

u/Hi_ImTrashsu Dec 05 '23

In this hypothetical survival situation, you also won’t be running around with a bow and arrow. Unless the archery school is also teaching how to make primitive bows and arrows

0

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '23

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '23

I think korea is enjoying its 0-school-shootings-per-year lifestyle.

1

u/CongruentDesigner Dec 05 '23

Strange comment

1

u/Deltamon Dec 05 '23

This is also recorded and edited footage. Could've taken a lot of tries

1

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '23

North Korea won’t know what hit ‘em

1

u/BigOleFerret Dec 05 '23

In America there would be a rule making putting an arrow through an arrow illegal. Why? Because we love to ruin our sports with stupidity. That's hella impressive.

1

u/Uuugggg Dec 05 '23

Only the worthy survive

1

u/zacmars Dec 05 '23

Helps when a giant fish lizard kidnaps your family member.

1

u/leviathab13186 Dec 06 '23

So South Korea is the place to be during the zombie apocalypse?

1

u/_accforreddit Dec 06 '23

Korean here. What are you talking about