THE UN reckons there are some 500m small arms in circulation around the world. At least 70m are Kalashnikovs. The Soviet-designed automatic assault rifle, the Avtomat Kalashnikova, was first manufactured in 1947 (hence its commonest version, the AK-47). Its compactness and durability have made it Africa’s killing weapon of choice since the 1980s, despite its inaccuracy. These days, the continent has all of the score of Kalashnikov variants, including the AKM, the Chinese Type 56, and the Serbian Zastava M70.
I remember commenters claiming not to care what goes on in Mexico and Canada. I don't suppose those guys will be too concerned about this. But it is interesting, and may put some of our other discussions in perspective.
In an attempt to make it harder for organised criminals to arm themselves, and in a nod to global counter-terrorist efforts, a group of ten eastern and central African countries, including Ethiopia, Rwanda and Uganda, which owe their liberation movements partly to the Kalashnikov, has agreed to harmonise gun laws.
Now, there's an interesting idea. African borders are easily crossed, much like the state borders in the U.S., and so the obvious solution to them is to "harmonize gun laws" among the different countries. This is one of the solutions proposed by gun control folks in America. Even in Africa, which is not known for its cutting edge politics, they know this much.
What's your opinion? Is the autonomy of individual states in the U.S. more important than attempting to make a unified effort at gun control? Aren't there already many areas in which the federal government "harmonizes" states' efforts? Why do some people resist this when it comes to guns?
What do you think about the statement, "500m small arms in circulation around the world. At least 70m are Kalashnikovs?" Does that sound right to you? How does that jibe with the U.S. numbers we always throw around, 50M, 80M, and so forth? Are we talking about the same thing, "small arms?"
Please leave a comment if you'd like.
I was one of the ones that didn't really care what happens in Mexico or Canada, and, you are right, I care little about Africa either.
ReplyDeleteA few weeks ago we (gun owners) reluctantly agreed to harmonize gun laws across the U.S. and the U.S. Senate were the ones that decided it would be a bad idea. I'm talking of course about the National Reciprocity of Concealed carry that failed to get out of the Senate.
We tried to harmonize and it was the Anti-Gun folks that were against it. If you don't believe me, check the roll call.
Considering no African nation allows civilians to own AK-47s or any type of automatic weapon, i'm trying to figure out what harmonizing their gun laws will accomplish.
ReplyDeleteIf Somali pirates can get RPGs, it's pretty obvious those with the guns are above the law. Much like in Mexico, these aren't your "10%ers" going to gun shows and gun stores to get their weapons. These are professional (and often government sponsored) mercenaries having guns brought in by the crate-load from China and Eastern Bloc nations.
"Is the autonomy of individual states in the U.S. more important than attempting to make a unified effort at gun control?"
Yes. Because if I wanted California's or New Jersey's gun laws, i'd move to one of those places.
FWM, That attempt to harmonize the gun laws didn't work because it was the exact opposite of what we need. In my opinion, real harmony would be to enforce the strictest concealed carry laws everywhere.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting though that all the states' rights guys were in favor of that national law, weren't they?
It's also interesting that the Brady Campaign sent out e-mails with the heading "Keep Sarah Palin's Gun Laws in Alaska", while simultaneously campaigning to have Sarah Brady's gun laws enforced nationwide.
ReplyDeleteWhat? No attempt to blame America for all those 70M AK-47s running around?
ReplyDeleteYou don't want to harmonize gun laws MikeB, you want to impose the greatest restrictions on the law abiding.
Have those gun laws in California or New Jersey stopped the crime?
Heck, can you show that the strict gun laws in England has stopped the violence?
Nope, you can't and your only come back is to cry "well it could have been worse without those laws"....without a shred of proof of evidence.
If the CDC can not find any evidence of the effectiveness of gun laws, why do you continue to insist on imposing those laws?
If the evidence -- and there is enough evidence that even Wintermute acknowledges it-- shows that More guns = more deahths/crime is WRONG, why do you insist on imposing greater restrictions?
"FWM, That attempt to harmonize the gun laws didn't work because it was the exact opposite of what we need. In my opinion, real harmony would be to enforce the strictest concealed carry laws everywhere."
ReplyDeleteAhhh I see, we need to harmonize the laws, and MikeB is the judge to decide that.
Guess it doesn't matter if the majority or reality is against you, does it?
BTW we harmonized the drug and alcohol laws as well. They work REAL good!
In too many places in Africa, "Harmonize gun laws" means something closer to "disarm decent people so government-sponsored thugs have an easier time with genocide".
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteActually I wasn't real in favor of National reciprocity and said so at the time because I don't feel that it is a national issue.
Yeah, the amendment was considered a "pro-gun" measure and if it had passed, I would have been supportive for the simple reason that I could then carry in New York, Bloomberg be damned. But I also didn't lose any sleep when the Senate failed to get enough votes to stop the block on it.
America's gun laws should already be "harmonized"--harmonized under the doctrine of " . . . shall not be infringed . . . "
ReplyDeleteFWM, I remember your saying that you didn't like the reciprocity law for those reasons.
ReplyDelete