• HelixDab2
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      6 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 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.