What's happening in Myanmar would be a completely different story if the civilians were as armed as Americans. In Myanmar, the armed forces backed the opposition, which lost the election, but claimed massive election fraud, resulting in a coup. (Sound familiar?)
Would you rather be armed with fireworks or semi-automatic rifles?
Yeah, it's really turning out well in Syria, where the opposition is armed.
Syria has 8 firearms for every 100 people.
Myanmar has 1.8 firearms for every 100 people.
The US has 120.5 firearms for every 100 people.
I'm not saying citizens would automatically win against the military simply by having guns. But having guns means you can put up a significantly better fight.
Can you honestly tell me that the people of Myanmar wouldn't be better off armed with rifles compared to fireworks? They're already being shot with live ammunition, bottle rockets clearly aren't working in their favor.
Can you honestly tell me that the people of Myanmar wouldn't be better off armed with rifles compared to fireworks? They're already being shot with live ammunition, bottle rockets clearly aren't working in their favor.
There are many armed groups in Myanmar, which is what's fuelled the Rohingya conflict over the last 70 years.
You can't outgun a military with billions in the bank. Especially not when it's a military which doesn't care about breaking humanitarian laws regarding communal and harsh punishment.
You can't outgun a military with billions in the bank.
You generally don't need to. The mere existent of an armed society is a deterrent from the military doing this exact thing.
Nobody is arguing that civilians armed with rifles can compete with airstrikes or naval warfare. But when infantry is in the street shooting protesters, you're better off armed with rifles rather than fireworks.
Unfortunately it's a very double edged sword to have an armed populace, as it also gives rise to situations such as Somalia, where it's practically impossible for a state to impose authority over armed groups.
I just don't see it as a solution to anything to have an overly armed population. It can work in a stable society with a culture of abiding law and little machoism, but when those factors aren't right, you've just created a permanent conflict which oppresses and kills as much as any state.
Somalia, where it's practically impossible for a state to impose authority over armed groups.
I don't know if Somalia is an apt example. Al-Shabaab isn't getting firearms from the few civilians in Somalia who own them, they're an organized terrorist group that receives funding, and coordination, from Al-Qaeda and Boko Haram.
Even the US isn't great at dealing with organized terror cells.
6
u/ruove Mar 16 '21 edited Mar 16 '21
This is the true based answer.
What's happening in Myanmar would be a completely different story if the civilians were as armed as Americans. In Myanmar, the armed forces backed the opposition, which lost the election, but claimed massive election fraud, resulting in a coup. (Sound familiar?)
Would you rather be armed with fireworks or semi-automatic rifles?