Starting a new thread to continue the discussions:

Ar-Cunin posted:

In Rwanda the ethnic majority (hutus) attacked the minority (tutsies)
IIRC the massacres were stopped by the tutsi-dominated army (or rebel movement) that had guns. If the civilian hutus had had guns this intervention would IMO have failed.

As for the other areas - it might or it might not have helped - noone can say - but to go over them one at a time
Kosovo - the UCK had guns, but they were fighting a regular army
Myanmar - are talking about the current ruling junta?
Tibet, Estonia, Kuwait, Hungary (and DK during WW2) small contries attacked by a vastly supirior neighboor (China, USSR, Iraq, USSR (again) (and nazi-Germany) respectively) - guns in the hands of the general population wouldn't have helped - sheer numbers will (or would) dictate the outcome
Kurdistan - the kurds also have weapons - but they were f***** at the negotiating table (IIRC after WW1 (or was it WW2?)) - where 'their' territories were divided between Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and USSR)
American Indians - that's the same the world around - the European powers effectively combined military might and exploration to dominate the world.

Sir Taliesin posted:

Epona, you just reminded my about one of the things that sparked the American Revolution. The Boston Massacre. I think it was in 1774. Engish soldiers fired on a crowd of civilians in Boston and killed many. It was one of the rally crys in 1775.

Donut posted:

I know that Attalus ;)

Attalus posted:

Yes, 16 August, 1819. I'm not a fan of Shelley's political poems, which probably says more about my politics than the poetry.

____________________________________

Ok, carry on! [img]smile.gif[/img] Copy and paste anything else from the old thread you wish to quote.

-Saz

Well spotted, Saz [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Just in case anyone is joining this thread for the first time and would like to see what's been said already, the previous 302 posts are here ;)