No, guns aren't the cause. They're the means to the Civil Wars of 3rd World countries.
The cause is corrupt governments, that don't give a damn about their citizens.
How many peasants could seriously afford an FAL, or HK, or whatever weapon it is they're carrying in these wars?
Think about it a minute. The images we're being handed show a nation of starving children, living in squalor. I don't doubt the images. I suspect they're real. Somewhere.
What I'm challenging is this. If the people are left to decay in such as way, how is that the fault of a gun in their hands? Again, where the Hell did they get the resources to obtain such a firearm? Nobody will convince me that they sold their children to obtain such a firearm. Who would pay them for their children when they're diseased, and dying from malnutrition, if that were the case?
No, these firearms in the Civil Wars are provided for by their own countries, and expecially others, hoping to cash in on the unfortunate outcome of the event of whoever wins in the end.
And everyone here should know that it's almost always the best prepared who will survive the war. That would require military grade weaponry of the kind you see these villagers fighting with.
That brings another item into focus. Who would stand to gain from the annihilation of one group, political or religious, in such a conflict.
Easy access to firearm in 3rd World Countries?
I don't suppose the US, and the former USSR could be held accountable for any of that, huh? Nor the Brits, of Belgians, or Chinese.
Right back to the ability of the masses to afford such weaponry. Even beyond that, is the means to have ammunition for those weapons.
How many people do you know who can, and do buy a several million rounds of ammunition??
[This message has been edited by Donny (edited August 05, 2000).]
