Small Weapons of Mass Destruction?

[welsh]

The NRA just loves this.

Expect more black helicopters and UN takeover!!!!

Yeah, right. Like who the fuck wants to take over Nebraska?

Small weapons of mass destruction

Jun 29th 2006
From The Economist Global Agenda

A United Nations meeting this week on the illegal flow of small arms serves as a reminder of the existence of a mass killer. But there is no agreement on what to do next

NUCLEAR, chemical and biological weapons may grab the world’s attention as threats to human life. But it is hand-held and cheap weapons that deliver most violent death in wars today. A Kalashnikov rifle costs as little as $30 and there are some 70m of them scattered around conflict-ridden places. Illegal and unregulated flows of small arms are said to fuel conflicts from Colombia to central and western Africa to Papua New Guinea.

note to gun fanatics- If you want your own AK-47 or a bunch of them, you only need to travel to Papua New Guinea with some cash. Or Columbia..... Or Liberia...

The Kalashnikov—the AK47 model is the most common—is manufactured in 14 countries, then traded to governments, warlords and criminals, often through transit countries. The designer of the rifle, Mikhail Kalashnikov, laments the “lack of international control over arms sales” and wants governments to do more to stop their spread. There is no global system to ensure that exports of such weapons do not, ultimately, end up in the wrong hands. Private middlemen are unregulated. And ageing and poorly-guarded government stockpiles are often sold off by corrupt officials, or become targets for criminal gangs.

I know that there are some folks who will sweat that the AK-47 makes a great hunting rifle. Interestingly, it was the Enfield .303 (World War 2 vintage) that the US first sent to Afghanistan to the help the resistance- why- it was a better, more accurate, more reliable and more robust weapon.

This week, a UN conference convened to consider what progress there has been since member states agreed, in 2001, on a “programme of action” to reduce the flow of small arms to war zones and elsewhere. An earlier campaign to persuade governments to stop using landmines recorded some success. But in this case, say non-governmental groups, almost nothing has been achieved. A coalition called Control Arms estimates that a million people have been killed and many more maimed by small arms since 2001. While governments talk big about curbing illegal gun traffic, there are few specifics on how to do so.

Perhaps because its so hard to stop the flow of any form of contraband.

One problem is commercial. The biggest exporters of small arms are powerful states: Russia, America, Italy, Germany, Brazil and China. As so often at the UN, many fingers point at America. It has taken an isolated position on some plans at the conference. While some call for a register to help track the trade in ammunition, as well as weapons, America’s ambassador says the proposal is impractical and unlikely to be effective. That might be right, but an effective register could push up the price and reduce the availability of illegal ammunition.

Whihc helps explain the NRA's position and therefore the US position.

America—and others—also opposes a ban on selling weapons to non-state actors. It insists on the right of the oppressed to defend themselves (reflecting the traditional American view of citizens’ weapons as a defence against tyranny). The only ones that may be banned for non-state actors are portable anti-aircraft weapons. That is more clearly in America’s interest, with its large air force. But Arab states oppose a ban on them, as they are a formidable tool for anti-Israel fighters.

Indeed. Why stop at assault weapons when you can also sell portable ground to air missiles which are probably more useful based on teh "defend the oppressed" thesis.

Or is that "defend the oppressed thesis" a lot of bullshit meant to protect the companies that make weapons?

Other exporters are equally opposed to binding measures that might help clamp down on the supply of light weapons. Last year, the UN’s General Assembly called for the marking of weapons in such a way as to make them easily traceable, putting the onus on producers and exporters to keep them out of the wrong hands. But these rules have no legal teeth. The best hope for this week’s conference is a set of more specific guidelines on rules for exporters that would somehow be “politically” binding. These might, at least, be used to shame careless exporters. But this will hardly, says one activist, be an occasion for champagne at the end of the conference.

It is unlikely that big countries with global strategic concerns will give small arms much attention. But the flow of such guns makes progress on other fronts harder. Promoting development and keeping states from failing is harder to do when small arms proliferate. In countries like Somalia and Afghanistan, which have become havens for terrorists, the AK47 is widely touted by Islamist extremists. If some way could be found to limit the spread of such rifles the benefit, though hard to measure, could be enormous.

Yet another gun thread... Oh yes.

 

[SuAside]

note to gun fanatics- If you want your own AK-47 or a bunch of them, you only need to travel to Papua New Guinea with some cash. Or Columbia..... Or Liberia...

kinda hard to import though :s

I know that there are some folks who will swear that the AK-47 makes a great hunting rifle. Interestingly, it was the Enfield .303 (World War 2 vintage) that the US first sent to Afghanistan to the help the resistance- why- it was a better, more accurate, more reliable and more robust weapon.

yeah & i like fishing with grenades...

while it's true the AK isn't 'all that' in the accuracy department, it's still cheap, reliable & robust.
you're kinda forgetting a few things there though, Welsh: the US would never buy communist weapons to supply Afghanistan :s
besides, the enfield was cheap western surplus...

 

[PhredBean]

Even as a gun advocate, I really don't see any reason to oppose the ban of automatics, explosives, silencers and the like. Expecially from violent regions. Anyone who claims Africa has a right to dirt cheap AKs when regions are locked in genocidal wars is a goddamn moron. I certainly don't see why any American should oppose disarmament in the middle east where such weapons are being used to support our soldiers, the officials trying to sort out the region, and the few "coalition" soldiers left.


The NRA leadership and the officials that support it really should keep its nose out of gun debates outside the US, its sole purpose in my opinion should be my right to bear arms. It's the National Rifle Association, not International. If other countries want that right, they'll create their own lobby groups.

It's never our business or right to tell anyone how to run their country or pass their laws. Our founding fathers believed that explicitly. It irritates the hell out of me when Americans (particularly those in power) feel they need to force our beliefs elsewhere.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

The NRA leadership and the officials that support it really should keep its nose out of gun debates outside the US, its sole purpose in my opinion should be my right to bear arms. It's the National Rifle Association, not International. If other countries want that right, they'll create their own lobby groups.

It's never our business or right to tell anyone how to run their country or pass their laws. Our founding fathers believed that explicitly. It irritates the hell out of me when Americans (particularly those in power) feel they need to force our beliefs elsewhere.

Thank you for being a real patriot...not only supporting your country, but actually understanding what its built on and about.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller