But then it hit me. Sure, governments always tend to want to disarm their populaces, on the general principle of monopolizing power. But within the context of this newest Menckenian hobgoblin--the deliberate planting of action-not-words Jihadis in refugee populations (and the larger Rube Goldberg plan that ISXX may or may not have, to drive all Muslims worldwide "back" into their loving, caring arms by deliberately causing their worldwide persecution with all the butchery in their name)--there is actually a very specific risk that a protection racket needs to button up, to avoid being outed.
The risk of being shown up by the
victims population served.
Of course we can't have the peasantry armed. If they are, then common plebes might just take it upon themselves to Indiana Jones the Jihadis on the spot. On its own, this is old hat for gunnies, who have long noted how often the concept works for individuals on mean streets. But that's small potatoes, just showing up the cops. Regular people taking out policy-blowback Jihadis when they actually attack, though? That's showing up militaries, and governments.
Think of all the denied exploitation opportunities--the wasted crises! Hell, if that happens regularly enough, their wars may (gasp!) never happen.
And, even worse: if people learn that they don't need their governments to put down an "international threat" that really, actually did come to their very doors--well, then the little people might just start asking dangerous questions that really matter.
The State can tolerate much, among "its people", but it can never tolerate that. People will die first. As good old Maddie Albright said, "We think the price is worth it."