Food for thought...

[PavePusher]

"It may have become a weapon of choice due to its lack of complexity, but the world's relationship with the AK-47 is anything but simple.

A killing machine responsible for a quarter of a million deaths a year in conflicts from Afghanistan to Central America, its instantly recognisable silhouette figures in the consciousness of people in even the most peaceful countries.

It has been used to suppress pro-democracy movements, to overthrow governments, to resist occupations and to commit gangland murders. In the 60 years it has been in use, it has also become the most common firearm in the world; one in five of the guns on the planet is a Kalashnikov, or a cheap copy.

During that time, the AK-47 has become more than a gun. With its cheap, simple and reliable design, it has become a metaphor for the conflicts in which it has been used."


http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/11/2009111112531230316.html


My major quibble is the phrase "A killing machine responsible for a quarter of a million deaths a year..." I doubt the rifles got up and shot people all on their own. And I would venture to say that some of those dead truly needed and deserved to get shot. And many certainly didn't. Tools always are two-edged swords, capable of harm or benefit, depending solely on the intent and care of the wielder. And a source is not always indicitive of the veracity of the message.

[ZombieHorde]

1. My major quibble is the fist sentence, especially the first word, of the article, "It may have..."

"It" should refer to something previously stated.

"I touched my car, it was hot."

"I ate a candy bar, it was yummy."

I clicked on the link and "It may have become a weapon of choice due to its lack of complexity, but the world's relationship with the AK-47 is anything but simple." is the first sentence of the article.

The word "it" is used twice before the subject appears in the sentence.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. Oh man

:loveya:

[burrfoot]

2. I believe that the appropriate term for that article is:

Epic Fail.

The entire thing is basically an ad hominem attack on an inanimate object. This is like: Hitler had a mustache, Hitler was evil, therefore mustaches are evil.

Does it make somebody feel better to be "morally superior" to all those EVIL AK-47 owners? Oooooohhhh, Eeeevviiiiill.......

Ridiculous crap. The only reason it's even worth a second thought is that a lot of people will read it, be moved by it, and "guns are bad, m'kay?" will be spread to yet another likely otherwise perfectly functioning brain.


I know I'm preaching to the choir. Not meant as a rebuttal to your post, Pave, just sharing a little frustration.

[PavePusher]

3. Hmmm. True, there was a "guns bad" slant flavor to it...

but I came away with a "guns can be useful as a tool against oppression" and "good or evil is in the eye of the beholder" message as well.

Of course, I've often been told I have a very different outlook on things, myself.... :evilgrin:

[burrfoot]

7. Interesting...

while I completely agree with your two points, I definitely had a more negative impression of the article.

And usually I have such a positive outlook.....:smoke:



p.s. I'm assuming that's a cancer stick and not a joint. I'm green, but not that green.

:toast:

[GreenStormCloud]

5. The AK-47 is a remarkable design.

Cheap to produce, using mostly stamped metal and plywood. It can be produced in many third world factories.

Rugged, able to take a lot of abuse and stay in the fight. It can thrive on loving neglect. Although it should be cleaned, if it doesn't get cleaned often, or ever, it will still fire.

Simple, easy to use. Illiterate goat herders can be taught how to use it in less time than it takes to milk a goat.

Easy to field strip for cleaning. No tiny parts that can be easily lost. With a little training one can take one apart and put it together blindfolded.

[rrneck]

6. The piece wasn't about a rifle.

It was about what the rifle means to people. It was about a symbol.

[burrfoot]

8. Hmm.

I definitely see where it discusses the weapon as a symbol, but in my opinion, the majority of the article does address the way the actual, physical rifle has been used.

Either way, I think it still paints the gun in a negative light. People will read this and focus in the part about "this gun is now being used to kill American soldiers" (paraphrased), and that will be the take-away message.

[rrneck]

9. That wasn't my impression of it.

But I'm not you.

I'm not going to start cutting and pasting and parsing the piece because that's not the point for me. I think I understand exactly what you're talking about, and I agree with your point of view even though I considered the piece to be quite even handed in its treatment of our understanding of the object. I know that's contradictory.

Why do people like firearms in general? They like them for what they do. And they do many things, most of which are quite contradictory. Firearms require tremendous concentration, fine motor control and discipline to operate well. And when they are fired they are everything that their successful operation is not. A firearm discharge is sudden, explosive, and violent.

Those qualities; calmness and discipline in the face of violence extend to why firearms are used as well. While they can be used recreationally they are after all weapons designed to destroy life regardless of whose or why. Is it any wonder we suffer so much conflict about how to interpret them?

I'm guessing you're fairly comfortable with firearms. A gun may have saved your life once. The symbolism surrounding them will have a different impact on you than someone who had suffered because of their use especially in the context of this forum. Even more so if they don't understand guns at all. Many posters on this board have expressed extreme dislike for guns. I wonder how many of them have suffered because of them or have known someone who has?

In the end there is no right or wrong way to interpret the symbolism of anything unless we understand how others understand it.