The New York Times on the AK-47

All the accumulated ideological venom of the Cold War propaganda machine has been encapsulated in the obituaries--read vicious attacks--on Mikhael Kalashnikov.  But you have to understand: the Vietnam war was in one aspect of it a war between the AK-47 and the M16, and we know who won and who was humiliatingly forced to withdraw and to abandon an imperialist project.  Look at this in the Times:  "The weapons also became both Soviet and revolutionary symbols and widespread instruments of terrorism, child-soldiering and crime. "  But wait: why blame the rifle for child-soldiering and crime? Is this not the country in which the slogan "guns don't kill, people kill" was invented?  So people are not able to commit crimes with the M-16?   Most crimes in the US are committed by US-manufactured hand guns.  Most of the fascist militias in Lebanon carried the M16 supplied to them either by Israel or by the US.  And has the AK-47 been praised when sold and distributed by the US to its compliant thugs and fanatics, like the Contras or Bin Laden and his kooky terrorists in Afghanistan?  Did the US not supply Bin Laden with his AK-47?  Mr. Kalashnikov intended his rifle to be used by members of liberation armies and not by reactionary fanatics hired and organized and funded by the US and Saudi Arabia.  My favorite part is that Western media mocked Mr. Kalashnikov because he did not make millions for his design, but he never cared about millions.  Finally, I ask: one more time, who won the war in Vietnam? I forgot.