Quote Originally Posted by 40below View Post
My point was not that there have never been child soldiers...and the average child soldier would get about one shot in his active military career before seeking treatment for a broken collarbone and a dislocated shoulder, maybe a broken jaw too.
but as a big bore (.30-06, slightly more potent than the .303 and not to mention that %$&* 12 gauge...) shooter at age 11, I do not agree. Not at all.

The Australian, British or Canadian Soldier in the third picture above may not be malnourished. he has the pre-war British pattern ammunition pouches for the .303.SMLE (the WW I Mk III, not your Ranger's WW II era No.4). The Poles and the Russians are probably malnourished. Note the Russian all have Nagants and the 7.62x54 is a contemporary of the .303. I posted two pictures showing .303 category weapons in the hands or likely so of 'child soldiers' and you come back and impute that weapon recoil would be a determining factor. Not a good argument, kids were padding their shoulders with rags a long time ago-- in the era of muzzle loaders...

While it is fact the AK enabled a proliferation of 'child soldiers,' for the reasons you cite in your response, my initial comment was not aimed primarily at refuting your perhaps unintentional overstatement. You said
"...without the AK, we wouldn't have child soldiers at all, or at least far fewer of them." (emphasis added /kw)
'None' initially then added the caveat 'or not as many.' I agreed on the not as many, just as a minor aside, really, disagreed on the none.

The comment by me -- and the pictures -- really was intended to make two important points. Thanks for allowing me to reiterate them:

(1) Armed kids are not an African or third world only problem.

(2) Whenever and wherever armed kids exist and attack, they are as dangerous as adults. Perhaps more so because many through a false sense of concern will not react as quickly to kill a child and they deserve no special consideration. None.