Bolt-action Kalashnikov in this video clip.

[Sandman]

Check out the bolt action Kalashnikov in this video clip about gun control in Pakistan. Anyone have any idea what it's chambered in? I'm thinking 7.62x54R.

http://www.cnn.com/video/world/2001/11/01/cl.gun.merchant.cnn.med.html

 

[atek3]

--- pakistan. These were our ALLIES in the war on terror? Now they are disarming their own people. Screw them.

atek3

 

[samualt]

---- CNN for showing such liberal crap.

Sandman:
It did look like a 7.62.

 

[Admiral Thrawn]

Well I don't know about you, but for those lawless countries in the middle east, africa and south america where every man and his dog has a Kalashnikov of some sort, i'd rather they "thin out" the number of arms the people have than let them run wild in militias, terrorist organisations and gangs.

Of course, if you say that such countries should be "disarmed," but on the other hand say that western countries should not have such regulations, you're setting double standards and can be called a hypocrite.

Difficult situation IMO.

 

[atek3]

Not that difficult IMHO. What gives ANY government the right to decide whether or not I own a Kalashnikov. Note I said 'right' not 'ability'. The fact is most countries (including our own) have the ability to decide if I may own a Kalashnikov, but that isn't the way it should be.

atek3

 

[Admiral Thrawn]

I'm not advocating banning weapons in these countries, I'm just saying that the weapons taken from criminal organizations should be destroyed to "thin out" the rediculous number of firearms within some of these countries.

 

[Greg L]

Do you advocate the same thing here AT? I'm sure that Brady & Co. consider the US to have a "ridiculous number" of firearms. Should the authorities "thin out" any weapon that comes into their hands for whatever reason?

Just food for thought.

Greg

 

[Admiral Thrawn]

Yeah I know Greg...

But just look at the USA and somewhere like Columbia, (formerly) Afghanistan or Somalia;

Stark contrast... something's severely wrong in the latter three.

 

[Greg L]

Something certainly is wrong over there. In fact if they managed to kill each other off it wouldn't make me lose much sleep. However them having guns over there isn't going to hurt me over here. It just seems hypocritical & elitist to (not you necessarily AT) advocate destroying weapons over there while pitching a huge fit if it was tried over here.

Greg

(I just noticed your location AT - different influences growing up I guess)

 

[Bonker]

I love it! It's more poof that gun control won't ever work. Even under the threat of life in prison they are still buying and selling illegal guns.
It's also more proof that people who want guns will always be able to get them no matter what the government does.

 

[Augustwest]

Where can I get one of the Kalashnahkov rifles Ms. Lin keeps referring to?

 

[Bonker]

But here's the problem Admiral T...when you use a loose and open definition such as "rediculous number" you open it up for interpretation.
This will become the job of the government and whichever way the political wind is blowing at he time will determine how the definition of written. And it can (and will) be written to be more and more stringent over time.

So you don't consider America to have a "rediculous number" but unfortunately you and I don't get a vote. The politicians do and many of the think that even one gun in private hands is a "rediculous number".

So isn't it much better to just let people have whatever they want, after all, it is a legal product here. All we need to say is that if you do violence then you are screwed. Good guys do what you want.

Personally, if a loved one of mine is killed by a gun, I really don't care if the crimminal had only one gun or if he owned an arsenal of hundreds of guns. The result is the same. It only takes one weapon to do good or evil. It's the person, not the tool he uses.

I am never comfortable in allowing the government to make "sensible" regulations because they go overboard 100% of the time. That's just the way it is, al;ways has been, and always will be I'm afraid. Be on your guard!

 

[Justin]

Too bad Ms. Lin didn't go to Dhara Adam Khel. That's a town in northern Pakistan where pretty much everyone there has been making a living churning out small arms and ammunition for the last hundred years or so. The place is reportedly so well armed that Pakistani law enforcement won't go near it to try and enforce these laws.

Interestingly enough, crime is nearly nonexistent in Dhara.

HMMMMMMM...

 

[Mike Irwin]

Wow. That was pretty neat.

I'd think, though, that the action on the Kalashnakov is too short to handle the 7.62x54R round...

 

[Navy joe]

Admiral T, disarming the normal folks is not the answer. In many countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, etc. almost all normal rural folks own an evil gun, usually an AK variant. Taking them away there is no more correct than it would be here. Sure, dis-arm the terrorist camps after they are dead, but the rest they will have to sort out on their own, we can't just go and take the guns and expect a nation of soccer mommies to spring forth. Some countries will always be very factional/tribal, that is just the way it is.

Besides, guns don't kill people, people do. How many people died in Rwanda(After a national ID with ethnic group on it was issued)? Not many guns there, but a lot of mobs with machetes, whack and stack as it were.