Indeed Elizabeth a sad reflection of the times, made even more disturbing by those tourists who embrace & condone a gun culture. But onto better things... While you were there did you by chance hear anything of the Australian Eva Cox, a remarkable Adelaide women, who runs a much-needed orphanage for the Khmer kids in PP i think? Regards.

Sounds ghastly. But, there is obviously a market for such things or they wouldn't exist. It shows the difference between cultures, but it says far more about the tourists who take take advantage of such 'entertainment' than it does about the Cambodians.

A better question would be "Would we tolerate a shooting range at Port Arthur?"

Thank you, thank you, Elizebeth Asocroft for the information. If I am ever in Cambodia, I would just live to go shooting at this range. I have always wanted to fire an AK 47, just to check the recoil level, the trigger pull, and find out how bad the barrel climbs on full auto.

I still maintain that the 7.62x39 bullet in the AK 47 is a better killer than the Armalites 5.56 mm round. Especially since the Good Guys were dumb enough to replace the "tumbling" 55 grain projectile with that poncey, 62 grain SS 109 round with the hardened tip. I heard the yanks in Iraq had to shoot jihadis 20 times with SS 109 before the scumbags would drop. The damned SS 109 has no stopping power, it would not even make a good rabbit bullet, if you ask me.

Yep, the AK's 7,62x39 round really packs a wallop, and my bet is that sooner or later, the armies of the West will have to admit that the 5.56 mm is just no good and begin development of a round of at least 7mm calibre.

I have fired the .303 Lee Enfield, the Bren, the famous Australian 9mm Owen gun (another good weapon with a poncey round, it should have been made in .45 calibre), a Garand (nice balance, low recoil and good recovery) and the SLR (which kicks like a mule). But I am still sad about not buying a Springfield M-14 in 7.62x54 before the buyback, it would have made an outstanding pig gun.

If you don't like shooting, Elizebeth, then don't go shooting. I don't know what you do for kicks, but whatever it is, I am sure you would not like me looking down my nose at you with a solomn face and telling you that I don't approve of it. Playing the moral puritan has never made people popular, and such a role ill becomes you.

Sorry, Elizabeth. But my outrage meter is not even moving. When you have so many horrible things going on in Cambodia - a high rate of HIV, child prostitution (perpetrated not just by expats but also by Khmer men), mines in forests, and a corrupt and nasty piece of work called Hun Sen who runs the place - well, a firing range for bored foreigners doesn't even rank in the top ten.

The big question is: how do the Cambodians feel about it? That should be the dealbreaker.

Elizabeth: How bloody sanctimonious.

Firstly, people who want to fire a gun don't necessarily want to fire it at anyone, nor do they condone other people firing it at others.

Secondly, maybe it does provide money to the locals. Maybe it's a way of making the best now of something bad in the past. If you're so concerned about being so respectful, then why travel to any country that doesn't have a perfect history of government and human rights past and present? Otherwise, in some way or another, you're part of the problem too. I'm sure in some way the money you spent travelling in south-east Asia found its way into the coffers of the (present) local regime, but never let that get in the way of taking the moral high ground.

For the record, I've been to Auschwitz and I saw people eating potato chips on site. Tacky, yes, but I'm not the local sheriff. I also saw plenty of people then go back to Krakow and go out and get drunk and try to pick up later that night. Tacky at the best of times, yes, but I'm not the local sheriff. Where does the "look how pious I am" zone end and when do people get off their high horses? While we're at it, why don't we reintroduce some "standards" and "morals" back into society and wind back the clock? The irony about free choice is that people are free to make tools of themselves.

By the way, you forgot to mention how tourists are destroying local cultures (ie. your personal museum of quaint locals living in authentic squalour) and all those other perennial favourites that distinguish someone as a "traveller" not a "tourist". Gee, I seem to only remember having that conversation one million times.

A sophomoric article at best.

redneck: You might like The War Nerd (aka Gary Brecher) at exile.ru. I'd highly recommend that site in general. It's gonzo journalism at its best (worst?). The only media website I take seriously.

The argument seems forced to me, manufactured. Maybe the author just needed to file some copy. And really, it's not like she could write about the truly debaucherous stuff that goes down around here. More analysis at:

http://detailsaresketchy.wordpress.com/2006/07/05/eating-journalists/

Shorbe, are you saying that you approve of weapons that have contributed to genocide then being used as tourists attractions? 'cos that's a real live and let live attitude you got there...

Hey Das, make sure you get your blog URL in there. You sound like a frustrated journo to me. Got something to say? Send it through to me at Eureka at Eurekastreet dot com dot au.

what debaucherous stuff are you talking about by the way. I checked out your blog and it barely gets a mention. Instead of criticising for the sake of it, why don't you make a positive contribution to the debate?

james: I'm saying it's a great deal more complicated than some morally righteous westerner perhaps cares to understand. Like I said, maybe it provides money to people and makes the best of a bad situation.

As for genocide, there are plenty of western companies (and governments!) around today that have aided and abetted genocide or despotic regimes. Yet who gets all worked up about IBM for instance? If people really wanted to take the moral high ground, they wouldn't buy most clothing or coffee either, but that would cut into their fun. I'm just saying people are hypocritical.

Elisabeth, thank you for your great article.

I currently live and work in Phnom Penh, and have for the past 10 months. What you highlight in your article is appalling and worth drawing awareness to. These shooting parks in such appallingly close proximity to killing fields are indecent and completely disrespectful to a country that is still traumatised and recovering from years of conflict, civil war, genocide and foreign occupation.

More so, everywhere you turn in Phnom Penh, there are street signs, trying to disencourage the use of arms, in addition to the many NGOs whose missions are to promote peaceful solutions to conflict. The mere prescence of these shooting ranges, completely undermines and contradicts the creation of these positive norms of non-violence.

To those, who say that these shooting ranges create livelihoods for the handful of khmers who work there - that is a weak argument - surely the damage from this mixed message, far outweighs these small financial gains. From what I have seen here, I am sure the majority of these workers could find employment in other pursuits.

To those, that say these ranges exist due to market demand - well, yes, obviously there are tourists who want to partake in what Elizabeth ascribes to "the wild west perception of Cambodia" - but I'm sure this activity would hardly be missed if these ranges were to shut down - which they SHOULD - particularly when you speak to Khmers - who I just did in my office - and who replied "It's disgusting and should not happen". So, to 'downandoutinsaigon' your outrage meter should be moving - - and if it isnt - well maybe that's because your father wasnt forced to work in a collective field for four years, as my colleague's was - - ....

alexs, i could not agree with you more. As someone who has not been to Cambodia, I was fascinated to learn about what Elizabeth described.

Shorbe, I dont think Liz is being morally righteous, not by a long shot.
Your comments are a bit far fetched. Some people go out of their way to buy 'ethical' coffee, or to buy 'vegan' leather. Furthermore, yes, companies like IBM have committed grievous mistakes, but that was a lot longer ago than, now, today, this week. These ranges are open now. As far as I know, IBM is not aiding genocide anywhere.

alexs,

The important question for me: who runs the firing range in Cambodia? Is it a locally run business or an expat one. That's an important distinction?

Just to explain where I am coming from - I live in Viet Nam. About 30 or 40 km north of me is the Cu Chi tunnels, a famous area where the VC buried tunnels from which to fight the South Vietnamese and the US. These days, it is a popular tourist attraction, especially among foreigners. Buses come from HCMC bearing Japanese, Americans and Australians. See how the guerillas lived! Wonder at the architecture of the tunnels! Shudder at the ingenious traps made from shell casings and wood!

If you wish, you can also shoot at the firing range present. The options are a little more limited than Cambodia: AK-47s (which everyone seems to prefer) and M16s. I saw no RPGs, I'm afraid. On two out of the three occasions that I have visited Cu Chi, I have use the occasion to have another crack at the AKs.

I felt no guilt, and feel none whatsoever now. Why? Well, you got the feeling that the government of the day (and the locals who helped out) condoned and approved the firing range. The Cu Chi tunnels are a symbol of the war... and a symbol of who won it. (It wasn't the nation with the initials U, S, or A, was it?) If they tacked on a firing range, then they thought it was a pretty good idea. They thought it was ok for foreigners like myself to let off a full clip. I should add that I'm pretty certain the people who handed the ammo over and supervised the guns were serving soldiers. (Put it this way, it's probably easier work than running 10 km a day.)

Oh, and my Vietnamese wife sees nothing wrong with the firing range either.

Hey jamesmassola, I'm the one that sounds frustrated?

If the link wrinkled your collar I apologize. All I'm saying is that it doesn't seem that bad to me. And I tried to say it politely. As for the "Would we tolerate a tourists' shooting range next door to Auschwitz?", that too is more than just a bit disingenuous. The shooting range is a kilometer away, probably further, not "next door".