I don't think this really deserves its own post, but I have a question about the whole "The AK has killed more people than any other gun in history" that you hear on the history/military channel/mtv documentaries.
Is there any academic paper that supports this? How is this tabulated? I'm a history buff, but I'm not a full time academic so I don't really have access or maybe the right amount of info, but where is this ranking coming from?
The ak-involved war death toll is (this is really ball-parked): 1 million s.vietnamese in the vietnam war, maybe another million in the afghan conflict, and figure maybe another 2 million in the various dirt ball african conflicts (sierra leone, congo, angola, somalia, rhodesia, etc). Then add maybe .5 million from eastern europe and you're only at 4.5 million.
These are gross figures that don't incorporate the deaths from tanks, artillery, mines, machine guns, and other explosives. So you're only taking a fraction of that 4.5 million.
I don't see how this could compare to say, the mauser k98, which was involved in two world wars. This is including both ww1 and 2's russian front, where over 40 million russians died. Even if only 10% of those deaths came from mausers, you're already past the Ak's total. Then add the millions of french and british and take a small fraction of that.
*though it should be noted that a lot of the Russian civilian deaths were from disease and starvation.
djs622 fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Dec 29, 2009
|# ¿ Dec 29, 2009 01:25|
|# ¿ Jun 16, 2021 18:20|