Without a doubt, the single most produced and utilized small arm is the AK-47. The AK-47 stands for the Avtomat Kalashnikova model 1947, designed for the Soviets in times of war, but now the Middle East, Latin America, and parts of Africa are flooded with this weapon. The AK can fire 600 rounds a minute, is light weight, is hard to jam, can be used in almost any environmental condition other than being fully submerged in water, is cheap to manufacture, bullets are powerful, and burst shots are deadly accurate. It is the most widely used weapon in rogue-state and Terrorist war training.

SMALL ARMS USE IN AFRICA:
From random skirmishes to all out battles, Africa has been crippled by war. Economically, Africa loses about $15 billion per year. The human cost, however, is far greater. In 2000 in South Africa the total murders were 22,030 people. The percentage of those murders that came from firearms were 49.3% or about 11,000 people. Michael Fleshman writes, "reducing the availability and use of small arms in places where fighting has ended has become increasingly important to Africa's development." There is no doubt that consistent violence reduces trust in the state, population of the people, and the economy. This is counter-democracy and perhaps a factor in the resulting failed states of Africa. About half of Africa is impoverished, so how can they afford guns? Well the surplus of the AK-47 in Africa during the Cold War has resulted in low prices. A single AK can be purchased for $4-$10. To put that into perspective, the Romanian AK-47 WASR-10 costs about $330 in the United States. Standard pistols can range from $100-$2000. Some people spend more on a light lunch than an African spends on an assault rifle.

Men, women and even children can easily use weapons like the AK-47. The abundance of the weapon results in massively armed peoples when there is no conflict. This, consequently, raises crime and decreases population and the economy.

With that this mind, how does Africa attain this weapon and weapons like it? As of 2004, the top eight arms exporters are as followed:
#1 United states- ($18.5 Billion)
#2 Russia- ($4.6 Billion)
#3 France- ($4.4 Billion)
#4 UK- ($1.9 Billion)
#5 Germany/Canada- ($900 Million each)
#7 China- ($700 Million)
#8 Israel- ($500 Million)

North America controls 63.5% of the World Arms Exports and Europe controls 30.5%

Here is where red flags come up:
Permanent Members of the UN Security Council
China
France
Russia
UK
United States of America

HYPOCRISY?
The UN Security Council wants to reduce the impact of small arms, yet all permanent members are the biggest exporters of small arms in the world. Dictators, Warlords, militant groups main source of small arms come from the illegal arms trade. Thus, the UN Security Council wants to eliminate this black market. Mainly, they want to get rid of the "gunrunners". A gunrunner is a person who attains weapons, ammunition, etc. and sells these products illegally. However, the manufacturing of guns requires factories, labor, science, inventor creativity, materials, among a plethora of other things. Are we to assume that gunrunners have these abilities and means of production? "It is estimated that 80-90% of all illegal small arms start in the state-sanctioned trade." http://www.controlarms.org/latest_news/media_briefing.htm. So it is more realistic to assume that gunrunners get their supplies from the members of the UN Security Council. Granted, the Security Council does not do this on purpose, but they are indirectly responsible for the small arms black market because they create the small arms. Is the UN Security Council going in circles? They want to prevent illegal small arms trade, yet they mass produce small arms. This is not to suggest that there is some vast conspiracy that the UN Security Council provides gunrunners with their merchandise and the policies of small arm prevention is merely a cover, but it does raise some eyebrows and compromise the legitimacy of the UN Security Council's goals.