• @FiniteBanjo
    link
    103 months ago

    To answer the title: probably pretty poorly for them because it would solve nothing and making dying a lot more common, but at least that whole society isn’t really pitiable.

    It’s just not logistically possible to arm a specific demographics without creating opposition forces. I’m sure the author would have thought of that solution if it made any sense at all.

    • @HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      73 months ago

      The difference is that one side is already armed, and police have no interest in preventing them from being armed.

      People that act tough and hard are a lot less belligerent when they know that their victim is armed and prepared to fight.

      • @Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        -43 months ago

        That’s demonstrably not true. There have been plenty of wars of aggression against well armed enemies.

        Bank robbers go into places knowing there are armed guards.

        People pick fights with bouncers at bars all the time.

        Look at the gunfight at the OK Corral. Both sides knew that the other was full of well trained combatants.

        • @HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          33 months ago

          Wars of aggression are declared by people that have no direct skin in the game. If Putin had to be on the front lines, leading the very first charges into Ukraine, do you think he would have done it?

          Drunk people pick fights with bouncers. Very, very few sober people do.

          The fight at the OK Corral was an ambush by the Earp brothers and Doc Holliday; it was anything but a fair fight. And I wouldn’t call the Clanton and McLaury bros. “trained combatants”; none of them had any kind of military or law enforcement experience, while all of the ambushers had been in lawmen or in the military.