The Rwanda genocide wasn’t carried out with guns as the primary weapon. It was machetes and fire.
It was volumes of people, primarily. An oppressed underclass poisoned with fascist ideology who overwhelmed they’re wealthier tribal neighbors not unlike how the French ended up butchering their aristocracy at the end of the 18th century.
Had the Tutsis been more heavily armed, they might have given as well as they took.
Sometimes they did. It’s not like nobody got shot in the Rwandan genocide. Lots of people did, and when it happened, it went like it almost always does, the people with guns killed a bunch of people with impunity unless the people they were shooting at also happened to have guns.
The Rwanda genocide wasn’t carried out with guns as the primary weapon. It was machetes and fire.
It’s only very rarely one-on-one like a movie gunfight.
It was volumes of people, primarily. An oppressed underclass poisoned with fascist ideology who overwhelmed they’re wealthier tribal neighbors not unlike how the French ended up butchering their aristocracy at the end of the 18th century.
Had the Tutsis been more heavily armed, they might have given as well as they took.
The genocide ended with the victory of the rebels led by Kagame. They were mostly Tutsis.
The armed Tutsis did indeed hit back.
Now imagine if someone came in there with a gun. That would change things. In which direction, I couldn’t say.
Sometimes they did. It’s not like nobody got shot in the Rwandan genocide. Lots of people did, and when it happened, it went like it almost always does, the people with guns killed a bunch of people with impunity unless the people they were shooting at also happened to have guns.