Chechnya, on the contrary, clearly showed that armed civilians can deter even a hugely disproportionately powerful invader. During the first war (1994-1996) the

Chechnya, on the contrary, clearly showed that armed civilians can deter even a hugely disproportionately powerful invader. During the first war (1994-1996) the Chechen had plenty of good weapons, and kicked the Russian army to the point of winning (they re-took Grozny!). Then the Russians took measures in order cut logistic lines and re-attacked in 1999, focusing on further barring civilians from obtaining weapons and any related material, with a great success (the Chechens had to build inefficient homemade weapons). This is documented, see for example https://reaperfeed.com/5-homemade-weapons-from-the-chechen-wars/ https://reaperfeed.com/5-homemade-weapons-from-the-chechen-w... The ongoing civilian war in Syria isn't pertinent, as it isn't "civilian vs. regular army" but many tribal factions and armies fighting each other and volatile alliances. Iraq under Saddam also shows that armed civilians (the Kurds) can resist to a tyrannic government. Others were not well-armed and were indeed crushed. The rebels during the 1991 uprising could not grab weapons. "U.S. troops that were deployed in southern Iraq defended arsenals or blew up them altogether to prevent the rebels from arming themselves, blocked the rebels from advancing onto Baghdad and even actively disarmed some rebel forces" (sourced at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq ), in practice killing the rebellion by discouraging it. In Myanmar civilians aren't really armed, and even decades-old ethnic guerilla groups aren't (they even lack cartridges). Read https://www.pri.org/stories/2021-06-02/souring-peace-marches-myanmar-protesters-seek-weapons https://www.pri.org/stories/2021-06-02/souring-peace-marches... > India in Kashmir Kashmiri separatists are notoriously badly armed, their main approach is a sort of Intifada (throwing rocks)! As far as I know Pakistan gives very few weapons to some subgroups read as not too dangerous for them, and India yells about it but after years and years fails to show serious evidence, probably because there are too few weapons. > Pakistan in Baluchistan. Baloch separatists are losing not because they cannot resist, but because their cause is dying as the majority of the population (especially Pashtuns) doesn't adopt it and as the central government concedes more and mode towards decentralization/autonomy. > More guns? Easy, just pile on more repression. It works. I doubt so. > Personally I'd rather put my trust in democracy. There is no mutual exclusion between weapons and democracy. Switzerland, one of the (or rather, at least IMHO, _the_) more advanced democracy, is shock-full of weapons and has a solid weapon culture.