R.I.P Mikhail Kalashnikov

[ralphchadkirk]

Fire arms do not kill people.

Other people do.

What a ridiculously stupid argument.

Firearms are built and made with one purpose: to kill things.

 

[Monty]

What a ridiculously stupid argument.

Firearms are built and made with one purpose: to kill things.

But they require a user to operate, no different from any other weapon. People like to conviently forget the human factor in war. If we didn't have guns or knives we would use rocks and our bare hands, we need accept the fact that while we as a species are capable of great compassion and charity we are also highly territorial and violence is in our very nature. In short people kill people, firearms merely makes the process more efficient.

@Merdian2 I'm no apologist, but not I'm naive enough to think we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya. Weapons manufacture is a necessary evil in this world. Kalashnikov was a brilliant engineer FACT, and while I won't call him a hero he is certainly not deserving of a place in history as a man complicit in mass murder.


Oh Merry Christmas btw.

 

[GatwickDepress]

Completely indifferent to the man, he was an engineer - a good one, mind - but he certainly didn't orchestrate the AK47's place as an icon of revolution and he doesn't deserve to be vilified.

In my opinion, if you vilify Kalashnikov, then you may as well vilify everyone who's ever manufactured a weapon; whether it be a sabre or shotgun.

Him aside, Maxim ranks higher in my totally made up scale of firearms engineers, since did Kalashnikov ever contribute to Blackpool Pleasure Beach?

Exactly!

 

[Trog]

Are you really that uneducated and ignorant of history?

His rifle has started more revolutions and over thrown more dictators then any other weapon in history.

I think that honour probably belongs to the sword or the bow and arrow.
If only due to the length of the period they were the worlds most common weapons.

 

[fowler9]

I think that honour probably belongs to the sword or the bow and arrow.
If only due to the length of the period they were the worlds most common weapons.

Haa ha, good point.

 

[meridian2]

@Merdian2 I'm no apologist, but not I'm naive enough to think we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya. Weapons manufacture is a necessary evil in this world. Kalashnikov was a brilliant engineer FACT, and while I won't call him a hero he is certainly not deserving of a place in history as a man complicit in mass murder.


Oh Merry Christmas btw.

Weapons manufacture is indeed a necessary evil, but equally it should not be celebrated. And 'brilliant engineer' is merely the opposite to my view of him, and I still believe it doesn't justify the creation of a memorial thread.

 

[Aictos]

End of the day a gun doesn't kill people, its the person behind the gun pulling the trigger who kills people, a gun is perfectly safe in the right hands providing people remember that very simple saying

If Russia wishes to celebrate his life then so be it, I will join them in celebrating the life of a great engineer.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

End of the day a gun doesn't kill people, its the person behind the gun pulling the trigger who kills people, a gun is perfectly safe in the right hands providing people remember that very simple saying

Except whoever has a gun is infinitely more likely to shoot and kill someone than someone without one.

If I give you a telephone, are you more or less likely to call someone on it?

 

[Aictos]

Except whoever has a gun is infinitely more likely to shoot and kill someone than someone without one.

If I give you a telephone, are you more or less likely to call someone on it?

Interesting theory but here's one for you if you did give me a telephone who's to say I would actually use it? The same argument applies to gun owners, just because they hold a gun license doesn't mean they going to go all GTA and slaughter people!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The same argument applies to gun owners, just because they hold a gun license doesn't mean they going to go all GTA and slaughter people!

But they will still be infinitely more likely to shoot and kill than someone who doesn't own a gun. So if a gun owner 'goes all GTA' then the consequences will be much worse than if a non-gun owner does the same.

 

[GB]

Owning a gun does not necessarily mean that the owner is "infinitely" more likely to go out and shoot and kill someone than someone that doesn't own a gun. All it does is make it a lot easier for that gun owner to do it if he choses to go down that path. I'm sure a lot of people could probably go out tomorrow and procure a firearm by illegitimate means if they really wanted.

And lets be honest....a knife or a car can be just a deadly in the right hands in the right circumstances.

 

[Monty]

And lets be honest....a knife or a car can be just a deadly in the right hands in the right circumstances.

As Lee Rigby was unfortunate enough to discover. Ironically it appears at least one of the perpetrators had a firearm in his possession when they carried out this most heinous crime.

 

[Trog]

Its how you look at it, up to the point when his rifles started being dished out to every terrorist organisation you can think of. Mr Kalashnikov was an engineer who was doing his best to provide a weapon to defend his homeland against an invader. Much like our own engineering hero's who invented Spitfires, Radar, Bouncing Bombs, Jet Engines etc.

He can hardly be blamed for what happened later, anymore than Barnes Wallace would have been at fault if the British Government of 1947 had started supplying Grand Slam bombs to all and sundry.

 

[meridian2]

Its how you look at it, up to the point when his rifles started being dished out to every terrorist organisation you can think of. Mr Kalashnikov was an engineer who was doing his best to provide a weapon to defend his homeland against an invader. Much like our own engineering hero's who invented Spitfires, Radar, Bouncing Bombs, Jet Engines etc.

He can hardly be blamed for what happened later, anymore than Barnes Wallace would have been at fault if the British Government of 1947 had started supplying Grand Slam bombs to all and sundry.

Trouble is there are people on this thread calling him 'brilliant' and creating a whole memorial thread about him. Not blaming him is debatable; but what's absolutely certain is that he is not worthy of a memorial. By all means if you feel that he was a 'brilliant engineer' do so privately, but I question the appropriateness of this thread when opinion is so blatantly polarised.

 

[bb21]

but what's absolutely certain is that he is not worthy of a memorial.

But surely that is only your opinion. Why is it "absolutely certain"? Who gets to make that call?

By all means if you feel that he was a 'brilliant engineer' do so privately, but I question the appropriateness of this thread when opinion is so blatantly polarised.

You do not have to join in if you feel that it is inappropriate for others to commemorate him in some way. You are given the chance to put your arguments forward, surely others should be allowed their chance to express their feelings if they see something positive about the guy?

So in your opinion should Nobel and Curie not be commemorated for the positive side of their contributions because what they invented/discovered were used by those with ulterior motives?

 

[meridian2]

Yes but I didn't start the thread, bb21, and the OP could've easily NOT posted in the first place, and if you'd bothered to read the WHOLE thread, I gave my responses re Curie and Nobel.
So much irony in that paragraph of yours it is utterly risible.

 

[Monty]

Yes but I didn't start the thread, bb21, and the OP could've easily NOT posted in the first place, and if you'd bothered to read the WHOLE thread, I gave my responses re Curie and Nobel.
So much irony in that paragraph of yours it is utterly risible.

But you could of easily not posted either, if you think that a thread about a person who designed firearms for a living is unpalatable well I'm sorry your are in for a shock. Welcome to the Internet.

 

[ainsworth74]

Yes but I didn't start the thread, bb21, and the OP could've easily NOT posted in the first place

I think you've missed the point. The OP (and others it seems) obviously feel the passing of Kalashnikov is worth marking, what makes their opinion less worthy than yours? Why are you the final arbiter of what is worth commemorating?

In your opinion it would seem that Kalashnikov was not far removed from a mass murderer and war criminal which is fair enough, I don't personally agree but you're entitled to your opinion just as those that disagree are entitled to theirs. So why do you feel that you are in a position to decry the creation of this thread? Why is your opinion worth more than anyone else's?

 

[meridian2]

I think you've missed the point. The OP (and others it seems) obviously feel the passing of Kalashnikov is worth marking, what makes their opinion less worthy than yours? Why are you the final arbiter of what is worth commemorating?

In your opinion it would seem that Kalashnikov was not far removed from a mass murderer and war criminal which is fair enough, I don't personally agree but you're entitled to your opinion just as those that disagree are entitled to theirs. So why do you feel that you are in a position to decry the creation of this thread? Why is your opinion worth more than anyone else's?

Being concerned at the appropriateness of a thread does not make one an 'arbiter of what is worth commenting on'. It is obvious that some people are being blindsided by his so-called engineering 'genius' to the fact he invented a weapon to be used in wars of any kind. As such, I am concerned as to their opinion as a result of this hence why I am seemingly pulling people up on it and as a moderator of this forum, I would appreciate a little more objectivity and less of this 'I am on the side of those who want to pay their respects and stuff everyone else'.
Others have pulled people up over their opinions of Kalashnikov, why are you unilaterally 'targeting' me?

 

[GB]

Would you hold the same opinion if he was a British engineer responsible for saving countless British soldiers?

 

[bb21]

Being concerned at the appropriateness of a thread does not make one an 'arbiter of what is worth commenting on'.

I quote you again,

but what's absolutely certain is that he is not worthy of a memorial.

Can you explain why it is "absolutely certain"?

It is obvious that some people are being blindsided by his so-called engineering 'genius' to the fact he invented a weapon to be used in wars of any kind.

Or is it rather that people hold their own opinions and do not agree with your own?

As such, I am concerned as to their opinion as a result of this hence why I am seemingly pulling people up on it

You can pull others up on it. Others do not have to agree with you.

and as a moderator of this forum, I would appreciate a little more objectivity and less of this 'I am on the side of those who want to pay their respects and stuff everyone else'.
Others have pulled people up over their opinions of Kalashnikov, why are you unilaterally 'targeting' me?

Such an easy accusation to make, isn't it?

You comment on things, and you prepare to be asked to justify them, which is exactly what you do to others. Quite a simple concept really. I certainly do not expect everyone I have challenged over the years to all agree with me, even when I feel that I was absolutely correct and backed up by relevant facts and legislation.

And no, you haven't answered my question posed in Post 45 in either Post 30 which is your response to my earlier post, or Post 46.

 

[meridian2]

'Absolutely certain' was an oversight on my part, I admit that. In my opinion should have followed.