AK Sponsor
Posted: 6/22/2006 9:39:56 AM EDT
|
I have recently been fascinated with the problems and issues of Africa. Particularly Rwanda and what is now the people's republic of the Congo. I thought I would postulate a way to solve some of these problems. Recently, the great Kalashnikov made a public statement to the point of how sorry he was that his weapon had proliferated so and been "responsible" for so much misery. Usually, what happens is one group or another gets control over the stock of weapons, usually kalashnikov and variants. They then pick up where they left off and start reigniting genocidal craziness that dates back sometime around the birth of Christ. Horrific atrocities are carried out with kalashnikovs, machetes and parangs on unarmed, screaming villagers. Horror beyond imagining. Refugees run away like crazy with nothing more than the rags on their back. Now what if those villagers had kalashnikovs as well? Have any of you ever seen footage of well armed refugees running away? I sure haven't. Genocide requires massive amounts of unarmed victims, cattle in an abbatoir. It's like something I try and tell as many people as I can, it's really hard to rape and murder after you've been shot several times. The kalashnikov series of rifle has a very small learning curve. I am a recent initiate to the system and I believe wholeheartedly I could show a ten year old kid how to operate one. Fighting is dangerous but which would you rather be? A combatant or a statistic? To my thinking the UN is betting on the wrong pony trying to limit the spread of small arms. How about a new charity, one where we pay a military contractor or 4 to go these villages with a small load of kalashnikovs and ammunition. Over the space of a day those such that are willing are taught to load and fire them. Maybe even a few hours teaching them to use those funny little bumps on the top we call sights here in the US? Kalashnikov gave everyone the means to remain parity in a gunfight under 200yds with a robust, easy to use, easy to manufacture system. He gave the means to freedom to anyone in the third world with 25 bucks. |
| they might be armed but if they got the weapons awa they that is just more weapons for the rebels and more for them to use on us if we go there to help out.Everyone things we are the worlds police and have to get in every little squabell we shouldnt be doing that. |
|
Doctors308 is right on with what I was trying to say. He just said it in fewer words than I did. And I am personally very, very dissapointed that anyone here would say that the solution IS NOT more weapons. That's what those limp wristed eunuchs at the violence policy center think. No unarmed victims. Less women and children in ditches. If we get the Africa end worked out I am going to see if we can take donations in paypal. Won't you please contribute to the Reverend's "let's arm the world" campaign? 
|
Edzachery! Hitler disarmed the jews, all the other tyrents in history always disarmed their victums. Why does the US government want to disarm us????????????? Let's hope we never find out. |
|
There is a saying "it takes two groups fighting to have a war, but it only takes one group fighting to have a massacre." IMO the situation in Africa is fucked up, but the solution is not to get rid of the weapons. The solution is to sit back and let them figure out thier own solution. Given time without our meddling and the constent meddling of other nations some equalibrium will be established. |
What? |
|
J9191482, You and I are of a like mind. Maybe it's the massive amount of gin I have pumped into my system right now but, fuck the UN in it's miserable goat ass. We've tried all kinds of stuff to fix that continent, that amazing dark continent so called the cradle of civilization. Let's try something a little different. Personally, I laugh like a coked up hyena whenever a rapist gets shot by their supposed victim. And let's all not come out and say "mud races" but let's just agree that we don't care about anyone but white europeans. A victim is a victim and let's arm the victims. I say no more ditches filled with children. Let's improve the quality of life everywhere by not only distributing medicine but kalashnikovs and loaded mags. Death to rapists. And the UN can suck drano and grin. But hey, I'm drunk. What do I know? Doctors308, want to be co-chair in my charity? |
Funny you ask. I had a poli sci professor, old school guy. Fought in the Rhodesian Army, then fled to South Africa, then to the US. He was invited to speak on how to solve Africa's problems, by the Peace and Justice Dept at my school. He gets up there and starts telling them how they should have a bake sale to raise money for a new Africa Charity. Cookies for Kalashnikovs.  He told them the best way to help Africans was to raise money, buy the oppressed peoples guns, and arm them. The P/J's were aghast. He then told them they needed to rename their dept, as it should be Peace OR Justice - you can't have both. Dr. Strack was a badass mo' fo'. |
|
Interesting thread.... I suggest most of you should watch Hotel Rwanda if you haven't already. It's a fair take on how genocide happens and how poeple die becuase they can't fight back effectively. Now given that most of the hatred in Africa is long term issue, before even the time of Christ people have been killing one another for crazy reasons. You can't take away the tools of genocide, becuase they often aren't AKs or other small arms. Sometimes, and quite often in Africa they are machetes, clubs and improvised blunt force weapons. People will kill people as long as they see a benefit to them, whether it be for resources, or to clean out there country of a race that is simply not as good as theres. Doing nothing isn't the answer. The French in Rwanada proved that. One of the worst killing sites was a building that was being held by the French. When the Tootsies came to the building for protection the French told them they could do nothing, they were UN "peace keepers". The Hutu follow the Tootsies to the building and killed 45,000 of them in front of the French troops, all with simple machetes. The French being the bastards of society they are simply dug huge holes, shoved the bodies in, reseeded the area, and built volley ball courts on top of them to cover up what they had let happen. Arming the helpless can work, but its only part of the solution to a problem that is far bigger and far older than most can fully grasp, including myself. We can't police the world, but not trying at all is morally unacceptable. I can fully understand how one can say, "Who cares, its just Africa" its simply a statement to the point of, ok I understand its horrible over there, but nothing can be done. I don't believe that is entirely true, but the time, money and lives that are necessary to do anything of great impact there is probably unacceptable to the great majority of the world. So sure, if you can determine a way to arm the poor and helpless, and keep the UN from taking there weapons and smelting them down, more power to you. Give the world some time and the UN may indeed fall as Europe slowly destroys itself due to the policy that have been in place for the past few years. The world is changing, and faster than most would care to think. |
| The Tootsies had been oppressing the Hutus for years before the Hutus took out their revenge on them in the massacre. It's interesting how the boomerang came back on them. They got what was coming to them. And for once, the US, to its credit, didn't get involved. |
I bet the unarmed people in Africa who are getting slaughtered would like a nice AK. Most of them anyway that are smart enough to figure out the stupid "UN" is worthless and only wants to use them PR for more world control. |
Those who want to help the poor Africans, here are some suggestions. A.) Start by donating YOUR extra AR's, AK's, and ammo. B.) Give Michael Jackson a call, and make a second "We are the World" cd...
Sure, so who should you arm, the opressed or the opressor? And once the opressed turns into the opressor who should you arm them? More weapons can only lead to more violence, peace should be reached with economic reactivation plans and diplomatic ways. Dumping weapons in Africa is just the easy short term solution for a much greater issue. |
Well no, it doesn't. Most of the violence comes from majority groups attacking minority groups. If you arm the minorities, you force the majorities to back off. People who hack each other up with machetes aren't going to sit down at a table and talk out their differences. The only way to get two parties to negotiate is if they are both equals. If one side just keeps butchering the other, there ain't any kind of parity there, bub. And who pays for that? I smell a RED. |
and one part of the world said the same thing about Afghanistan not so long ago. |
LOL I did not say I was giving anybody a rifle. What I said was that people being murdered would probably like a rifle. As far as your diplomatic peace methods yes we have seen the UN power mongrels food for oil and politcal games already. I know people who hid in a hut "unarmed" while unarmed people where hacked to pieces out side with machetes. So yes the argument that more guns will only make more violence is nothing but propoganda. I know two more people who were able to escape after their parents were murdered and "unarmed". Ask those people if they would have liked to be able to defend themselves. The first thing an opressive government does is disarm the people. |
|
Anyone here who says "more weapons aren't the answer" needs to sell anything they have that is not used for skeet shooting and stick to airsoft. As far as I am concerned the average rwandan has as much right to a kalashnikov as I do. Parity of force is the absolute necessity of any negotiation. It is so incredibly rare that one group will actually give another, weaker group any chance or recognition is rare beyond belief. Whoever has tbe capability or looks like they have the capability, to do the most violence wins. Mercy rarely enters into it. Think about it, why do we in the US hold onto the 2nd amendment so fiercely? Because the weapons we have give us parity of force in any negotiation. Armed citizens are not at anyone's mercy. There is more to this than just kalashnikovs. We need to teach these people to build schools and hospitals and have the people with kalashnikovs nearby at all times. They have NO ability to build up their infrastructure because different groups keep seizing power and laying waste to other groups. And the UN? If they won't interfere when women and children are being butchered then they have no right to interfere when the women and children start shooting back. And no one, absolutely no one, for any reason has a right to do these sorts of things to people. For any reason. It's fucking barbaric in extremes. Doctors308, it sounds like your teacher and I would get along very, very well. I am actually going to look into this. |
| You don't just hand them a bunch of guns and let them go to town. They'll be disarmed and back to where they were again in no time. You need to educate them. They need strong leaders. They need people who can organize them. I'm not saying that it should be us but I am saying that it's their only hope. |
|
What they have needed forever is hope. A rifle of any kind would be a start. Personally though, I really couldn't care less. If people want to survive, they will survive. If people want to kill, they will kill. As long as I'm not in the middle of it. If for any reason, I ever am, well, this is where that hope thing comes in. I hope I have my fucking Ak. |
And now look at us, thriving like prairy dogs!!! Who would have thought the Lombards, Goths, Visigoths, Brittans, and Kelts would have faired so well. Hell while everyone else was learning to harness the power of wind, we had the industrial revolution, changed the modern world, sent men to the moon, and so on. Not bad at all. 
|
|
All of this is very interesting. In America, "an armed society is a polite society." In Africa, if you give guns to every living man, woman, and child, people will still kill each other. It's not the same as America, or at least America prior to 1965 or so. Our country's foundation is built upon religious principles such as "Do unto others..." and "Love thy neighbor." There was retribution(eternal damnation) for evil deeds(murder, rape, torture, etc...). When much of America began to lose it's faith in the late 60's, we saw the emergence of the same evils that are plaguing other parts of the world, such as Africa. There is still a strong reverberation of those spiritual ideals of our past, but as America becomes more secularized, it will become more and more like those that we now frown upon. I'm hardly one to talk--I don't attend church as often as I should. I do work with kids, though, and the ones that seem to have the most problems getting along in school and in life don't have any type of spiritual connection. Unfortunately, at least in the public schools, the attempted solution is to send troubled youth in for counseling, and helping them with "coping skills," and how to blame others for their problems, etc, etc, ad nauseum. A little religious exposure could do wonders for many of these kids, and it would ensure that our glorious society would stay on track for another 230 years of existence. Sorry to get off track. I met with an old friend back in December. Hadn't seen him for 10 years. He said he was moving to a small country in Africa(don't ask me the name--I'd never heard of it before!) and I asked him if he was afraid of bringing his family over there. He said he is not worried about any hostilities in that particular country because of the strong religious background of the people there. In my opinion, it speaks volumes about human nature in general. Remember that the communists tried to rid the Soviet Union of all religion, and looked what happened to them. Look at Rome. Gun ownership isn't the solution to achieving freedom and pursuing happiness, but is only one very necessary(and funhe Oh, and the UN really does suck(just had to say it! Forgive my crudeness, please--I am very tired right now). |
|
Ahhh, so you are saying that a strong religous background is essential in not murdering people? What about the crusades, salem witch trials, inquisition and a million other atrocities? What about the butchery white european slave traders have perpetrated on various other groups? White chrisitan slave traders? People generally are vicious bastards. The catholic church was, at one point in time, an organization with a tremendous amount of military power that used it to do whatever it wanted to whomever it wanted. The dark ages? Lots and lots of devout religious faith throughout europe. They also publicly disemboweled people as a common means of execution. Lets not forget that the jewish priests of the time period are the ones who killed Jesus in the first place. I am an actual ordained minister but I trust my HK USP 9mm much more than any religous faith in others. I will say it again, as I have said it several times. It is really, really fucking hard to kill, maim, rape or otherwise hurt someone after being shot. I propose teaching the women and children to shoot as well as men. People are less likely to try and kill lots of other people if they know that these other people are armed and will shoot back. They may kill the hell out of each other but at least the people the UN would leave to be gang raped and executed will have a better chance or at least take some bastards with them. Disarming people always leads to disaster. Victim or combatant? Which one would you choose? I know my choice. I think they should have the tools themselves to decide. |
|
Reverand, You have a good point--religion, when misguided, can act as a lightning rod for all sorts of attrocities. Just look at the current situation in the Middle East. But when spirituality, under the guise of any religion, becomes a tool for elevating humanity rather than "my God is better than your god," it can lead to great things. And yes, it is nice to be armed and willing, too. By the way, nice choice of pistol. I have a few of USP's myself(40c, 40f, and 45f--great stuff). What were you saying about beer?  Best, Rich |
|
My goodness. Political discussion on gun boards brings out the best in everyone. I’ll throw my offering into the mix as well however: The number of guns in the country is of lesser importance than the distribution of guns. And while this plays a role in the development of nations, it is of lesser importance than economy. The first thing that needs to be done is for the US and UN to stop giving away ludicrous amounts of money in the form of aid. Human nature generally dictates that as long as you do not have to work for something, you won’t. If these nations can keep depending on others for their source of income than why bother creating you own sustainable economy? Second, as an alternative to monetary aid, agree to let an MNC or two set up shop in-country. Probably textiles or something else relatively low-tech at first, because infrastructure will be touch-and-go for a while. This would serve two purposes: first, it would give people jobs and generate at least a small amount of income, probably dwarfing the $413 per year that Joe Namibia makes. Second, it would help establish basic infrastructure such as electricity and plumbing. I guarantee if Nike needs electricity to keep the sewing machines running at an assembly plant, there will be electricity, one way or another. A small number of US forces may have to be stationed in the country to provide protection to power plants, sewage treatment plants, etc. Not ideal, but if it has to be done, then it will. Of course, the majority of money will still be leaving the country rather than being reinvested. However, once the average Joe can be sure that the lights will come on when he throws the switch and the toilet will flush when he wants it to, he may be more inclined to set up a small business. Secondary industry now has a solid base to stand on as well. Maybe someone will take advantage of the cheap eastern-bloc surplus weapons and start importing guns for cheap. The key is to provide them an alternative to wandering the streets all day with an AK or machete looking for something to do. This doesn’t address the years of tribal strife that has transgressed in that country, but without going back a century or so and redrawing the borders, I don’t know what can be done about that. Guns and religion both play stabilizing roles, and I think when combined with solid economics it is possible for the nations of Africa to rise out chaos. It won’t happen overnight, but given the vast amounts of investment capital and technology available in the US, it definitely could happen. |
|
Goh, you raise some excellent points and yes, the USP series rules. Personally I am not a very big believer in organized religion. Paragon, I believe your plan is the likely future of the African nation. I am thinking that some forces somewhere are going to move that way. At least I hope so. Giving people alternatives to a life of despair is a good thing. Hate to say it, but we need to make people realize that money, food and medicine for their kids is a much more important goal than offing another tribe. My statements starting this thread pretty much stemmed from having never, ever seen well armed refugees. Think about it, you never see columns of people hanging clothes off of RPKs, old men using AK's for crutches and people lugging crates of ammo in addition to what little livestock they have left. Arming the people in this country is a good idea too. And personally, I try and do that as much as I possible can. I love to teach any female who will listen how to effectively neutralize a male who thinks "no" means "yes". And getting as many people to buy guns as possible. But this great land of ours is in a state where we can talk out our problems with the government and don't need to fight so much. Africa does not have these luxuries. Let's change that, one step at a time. No standing armies, just armed citizens. Armed Citizen. Aren't those words pretty together? |
|
I'll throw my 2 cents into the mix. First off let me say that I spent some time in both the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda last summer as a missionary, and my current research for my dissertation is on Africa and currently focuses on the conflicts in Rwanda, Uganda, and the DRC. My unscientific impressions of Rwanda were that is was a relatively safe and stable place, and I felt very safe there. That is not to say that I went out alone at night, but I did not feel threatened at any moment there. The DRC was very different. I was in the eastern city of Goma, and the best way I can describe it was that it was like the Wild West, and I did not feel safe there. First, I agree with the principle that everyone should have the right to defend themselves, and that for many the best means to achieve this is through firearm ownership. Those in Africa and anywhere else in the world should have the means to protect themselves. Firearm ownership does not lead to security however. In the same way that guns do not lead to violence, it would be a mistake to assume that the presence of guns leads to peace. Guns can help achieve piece like they can help achieve violence. You have to distinguish between a normative argument (an argument that states what ought to be), and an empirical argument (an argument saying what is). Normatively, I do not think there is any good argument against civilians, especially refugees from owning firearms. Empirically, I think there is some basis for arming so many civilians, but this is dicey. First, they become a greater target. If they are seen as a threat to another group, what is to stop them from mounting another attack to eliminate that theat? Second, mounting an effective resistance takes more than just guns. You have to have organization, training, and support, amongst other things. Third, how are relatively small groups of villagers or refugees supposed to fend off a better armed group? Fourth, if there are long seeded hatreds, or even short seeded grievances, arming them gives them the ability to go tit for tat, and to continue the conflict. Eventually you want peace and someone will have to make a concession. All of this is not to say that arming refugees and villagers would not reduce some violence, or should not be done. Instead I am suggesting that there are hidden problems associated with arming these people that can reduce the effectiveness of the program.
No offense, but that is describing the nature of the violence in only a very finite way. While the conflict in the DRC and the Rwandan genocide are closely related, the nature of the violence is different. In Rwanda you had a country with three ethnic groups, with an organized genocide carried out by one group against another in a very short period of time. The list of groups that operated in Rwanda at that time were relatively few in number, and were mostly Rwandan. The ethnic differences while old, were exacerbated by the Belgians. The roots of the conflict have roots both histories with the tribes, but also with the way that Belgians colonized Rwanda. I am not clear if empirically arming the Tutsi in Rwanda would have prevented the genocide. How do you mount a resistance against a numerically superior mob that consists of old friends, neighbors, and even family members? The conflict in the DRC is very different however. There have been two wars there with almost continual hostilities lasting since 1996. There are many groups that have operated out of the DRC that have come there many reasons and from many countries. To address that conflict you have to address which groups you are referring to, because each group relies on different tactics and has different aims. There domestically grown rebel groups like the Mai Mai. Then there are the foreign rebel groups, like the FDLR, the LRA, and formally the SPLA. Then you have foreign military groups from Rwanda and Uganda that been active in the DRC until recently. Then you have the Congolese army that actively abuses the population. Then you have the cattle conflicts that happen over grazing land. Intermixed with all of these groups are local warlords, tribal leaders, and opportunist trying to gain power and resources. Each of these groups uses different tactics and has different objectives in mind, and it is unclear if arming the civilian population would make them more secure.
You are right, a genocide requires relatively unarmed individuals, but it requires more than that. The genocide in Rwanda was perpetrated by well armed groups from the military, but also the Interahamwe that were often armed with edged and blunt force weapons. Weapons, that many of the victims had access to. Why didn't the victims of the genocide resist against the groups that were armed with weapons that they the victims had access to? Another essential for a genocide is a compliant population. You would be amazed at how many people without fighting waited to die in Rwanda. Part of this is a psychological function. When faced with such prospects many people will enter into a state of disbelief. The same effect was present with the Jews in Germany, the Armenians in Turkey, and the Cambodians under the Khmer Rogue. I am not sure if being well armed will reduce such an effect. I like you idea, but am unsure about how much it will actually help in these conflicts. It will do some good, and I think allowing people the opportunity to protect themselves is always a good thing, but other factors also need to be dealt with to really solve these problems. In some instances relatively simple solutions can alleviate some large problems. Sorry for such a long post. If anyone wants to discuss this more with me or wants to know of some good books and articles on the subject, then please feel free to email me. |
|
99% of Africa consists of uncivilized tribes who only sometimes live in peace with each other. It would be nice to say, give them arms and the genocide will stop, but the fact is quite a few of the victims wouldn't use a gun if you gave it to them. Do you want my evidence? They could easily fashion spears again, or use farm implements, or their own damn machetes, but they don't. They are sheep, and they'll die like sheep, the same way sheep have died for thousands of years. Television cameras and disparity in weaponry allow a greater degree of genocide than once occurred, but it happened in the past. In the 1820's, one of Shaka Zulu's generals broke off anc headed north with a bunch of people. They conquered what was later known as Rhodesia and were known as the Matabele by the local Tswana tribe they conquered, though they called themselves the Ndebele or amaNdebele. If you fast forward 160 years, Rhodesia falls to the communists. Interestingly, they are largely composed of the Tswana tribe, while the Ndebele supported the whites. After "Liberation", the Tswana, who disarmed the Ndebele, then slaughtered thousands. Arming Africans doesn't just mean they'll defend themselves today. It provides them with arms to attack their neighbor tomorrow when they think they can get the edge. Africa is a shithole that will remain so for probably centuries to come. In some countries, over 20% of the population is infected with AIDS. The ones that aren't are busy slaughtering each other or starving because they out-populated their resources or have been killing farmers and spoiling croplands for 20 years or more. The number of relatively stable sub-Saharan African countries can probably be counted on one hand. The cold hard fact about compassion, is that it provides short time relief only. Sad, but true. |
Do you have any evidence to back this up? How are they uncivilized? If you are going to make such a claim, then please back it up with some empirical evidence.
It seems that what you are describing are several different conflicts and problems that occur in parts of Africa and attributing them to the Africa as a whole. It is true that most African countries have a major an AIDs problem, but there are several countries where the rate of infection is declining. Uganda has only a 4.1% rate of infection among adults, Ghana is at 3.1%. As for your other descriptions, there are cases where such things occur, but this does not describe the whole of Africa. True, there are many problems in Africa, but you cannot only focus on the worst cases without also taking into account the good things that are happening. |
That does not address my question. Certainly there are groups like the LRA, the FDLR, and the Mai Mai that act in fashions that are considered uncivilized, but this is not indicative of the whole of Africa. What I want is someone to explain to me how it is that 99% of the people in Africa are uncivilized. I have been to Africa and worked along side many them. I found the vast majority of the people that I met very kind and well meaning individuals. I did not find any of them uncivilized, whatever that means. |
First of all, I never said 99%. But anyway, there is a reason why certain places are considered third world countries. And I would consider most of Africa, third world. Civilize means: to bring out of a primitive or savage condition to a higher level of social organization and of cultural and technological development. If Africa was civilized, they wouldn't need us to help them at all. They would be able to help themselves.
|
Yuri Orolov, anyone? |
|
Interesting to see some of the members here turn anti-gunner when the topic is brought to other people of other nationalities in other circumstances. I suggest anyone who thinks more guns in africa for the potential victims isn't the answer take a long hard look at what the same philosophy (more guns, less crime) does for us here in the states. There's no reason the same results wouldn't carry over. Its a war crime that should be punishable for so many weapons to be destroyed so commonly. They should be distributed amongst the winners populace and the winners friends and the winners friends of friend and so on. |
|
I think that whatever "civilization" you find in Africa is a veneer only and it has and will change in an instant. The groups that suddenly start killing their neighbors with machetes and AKs don't do it all the time. Before they did it, they were living peacefully. All it takes is some economic or agricultural upheaval, a perception that some other group is the cause, taking advantage of the crisis, or is not as affected, plus a leader who can catalyze the feelings and you'll have another massacre. Kenya has had the longest period of peace, but even they are not immune. The Mau Mau's of the sixties were in Kenya. Are they at peace now? Yes. Will they be so in 10 years? Sorry, I won't take that bet. Some might take my comments as racist. They are not. Europe experienced roughly equivalent ethnic violence as well, most recently in the Balkans. Nazi Germany before that. Then go back to the pogroms in eastern Europe, or the 30 years war in the 1600's. I think Africa will probably grow out of it, but it will be many generations from now. Thinking that you can stem it now is as ridiculous as King Canute trying to stop the tide. |
AK Sponsor