If they are predominant amongst agressors and victoms alike, that obviously cancels through.
My point is that it doesn’t. Aggressors are the ones who have an advantage in combat, e.g., those who are stronger or have the free time to train. Guns reduce the “strategic inequality” between those in the biggest advantage in combat and those with the smallest.
In a way that increases the chance victims will die or be injured in a confrontation.
It also increases the chance the aggressor will die or be injured, thus reducing the motivation to become an aggressor and decreasing the chance that a confrontation occurs in the first place.
My point is that it doesn’t. Aggressors are the ones who have an advantage in combat, e.g., those who are stronger or have the free time to train. Guns reduce the “strategic inequality” between those in the biggest advantage in combat and those with the smallest.
In a way that increases the chance victims will die or be injured in a confrontation. It’s choosing to stand at the end of an arms race.
It also increases the chance the aggressor will die or be injured, thus reducing the motivation to become an aggressor and decreasing the chance that a confrontation occurs in the first place.