• Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      More protesters would have been shot. The movement would have been demonized even more than it was.

      The protests were already overwhelming peaceful. To re-envision history saying “moars guns” would have helped is pretty bizarre gun nutters nonsense.

    • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      The BLM protestors who marched with guns in Georgia didn’t get fucked with by the cops at all, because the cops were scared. Look it up.

      Other BLM protestors got beat down by cops in riot gear, in countless examples across the country (when the protestors were unarmed).

    • nomous@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      Is this a serious question?

      Do you believe armed protesters are easier or more difficult to suppress?

      • naught101@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        I don’t think that question is as simple as you think. Peaceful protest is much more likely to garner public support, at least until things are critical. And taking weapons to a protest in the US seems like an almost guaranteed way to die, one way or another. Not saying the cops are well trained with weapons, but neither are the general public.