Todays Kalashnikov's 90'th Birthday, and he's still making guns. He's been an idol to me, and has been a great inspiration to my country, so I thought why not celebrate his Birthday on ArmorGames?
Genocide isn't necessarily about genes. It could easily be just a bunch of dudes with AK-47s shooting people and burying the bodies with bulldozers. I also question the good taste of ending a post about the tools of genocide with an "lol", but that's a story for another day.
I'd also like to point out the fact that the AK-47 isn't a weapon of mass destruction. At all. Not even a little bit.
I mean sure, I don't hate him, but idolize? I'm not criticizing you, I just want to know your logic/reasoning
First off he's a 90year old geezer who's still designing new weapons for us which is very generous of him, secondly he created a rifle that changed modern combat itself, thirdly he was the 2nd one to create an assault rifle (1st was the STG44 a German assault rifle made 2years before the AK47), fourthly his rifle is in a flag of 2countries, and finnaly it's his birthday cut him some slack.
Fine. AK-47s kill a lot of people, but that isn't the definition.
A weapon of mass destruction is a weapon that inflicts mass destruction. So yes, it is a weapon of mass destruction. Just because it can't kill cities doesn't make it any less lethal.
AK-47s inflict minimal destruction. Their are lots of them, each one doing very little on its own. The fact that all put together they have caused many deaths is irrelevant. Read the definition of the term.
AK-47s inflict minimal destruction. Their are lots of them, each one doing very little on its own. The fact that all put together they have caused many deaths is irrelevant. Read the definition of the term.
A nuke causes a million deaths in a second. That is a true weapon of mass destruction. But that is not the only type of weapon of mass destruction. I'll rephrase it for you, seeing as you like to stick to the dictionary too much.
No. Relative to what? The destruction is in no way massive. A weapon of mass destruction causes massive destruction. I'm sorry if using the actual definition of words is being to literal, but calling an AK-47 a weapon of mass destruction because they have been used, throughout history, to kill lots of people seems to me to be like calling a dog a weapon of mass destruction for the same reason.
calling an AK-47 a weapon of mass destruction because they have been used, throughout history, to kill lots of people seems to me to be like calling a dog a weapon of mass destruction for the same reason.
Dogs don't have the ability to blast your head everywhere. They can't kill you instantly. They don't even have a very high chance of killing you. They aren't used for mass murder either.
Dogs don't have the ability to blast your head everywhere. They can't kill you instantly. They don't even have a very high chance of killing you. They aren't used for mass murder either.
But none of those things are in the definition of WMD. A weapon of mass destruction causes mass destruction by itself, that's the point. That's what separates them from regular weapons.
But none of those things are in the definition of WMD. A weapon of mass destruction causes mass destruction by itself, that's the point. That's what separates them from regular weapons.
Whatever. I give up.
You win. And I assume you take everything to its most literal meaning as well?
I'm pretty sure that makes no sense.
There are 10's on millions. They have killed 10's of millions. More than all the literal weapons of mass destruction combined.
