Re:Guns are now killing as many people as cars in the U.S
by pdkl95 on Thursday December 17, 2015 @03:28PM
(#10754271)
That is possible. My point is mainly that it isn't going to be the lopsided "civilians vs army" scenario. The military isn't a single monolithic entity.
As for the utility of civilian being armed, I think you are underestimating the deterrence factor. Yes, they would lose in some situations and are less important in others.
Consider the situation from the perspective of the attacking army. Fighting an army is hard enough, but that attack is a lot harder if you also have to defend against the population in general. The counter to that problem is a scorched earth policy that doesn't leave a population that could be a threat, but such a policy is risky and can easily turn more people against you.
We see this when our army fights in the middle east: when you want to maintain good PR instead of razing cities, small arms and IEDs can be surprisingly effective.
As for the utility of civilian being armed, I think you are underestimating the deterrence factor. Yes, they would lose in some situations and are less important in others.
Consider the situation from the perspective of the attacking army. Fighting an army is hard enough, but that attack is a lot harder if you also have to defend against the population in general. The counter to that problem is a scorched earth policy that doesn't leave a population that could be a threat, but such a policy is risky and can easily turn more people against you.
We see this when our army fights in the middle east: when you want to maintain good PR instead of razing cities, small arms and IEDs can be surprisingly effective.