[watwut]

Gangs are that resistance and they are not winning.

In slums, drug cartels found enough of people willing to throw the life away. And as much as they are able to deal drugs, there is no symmetry between them and state. The Dead bodies just pile up.

Armed population does absolutely nothing except lynching here and there. And even those lynching happened with approval from state.

[hellojesus]

The gangs clearly aren't trying to war against the state. If they were, I imagine the scenario would result in the national guard or a result akin to Mexico.

If the gangs wanted to make a stand against the state, they could. They would need to take and defend their territory while increasing their numbers, likely via kidnapping and child recruitment.

[watwut]

> If the gangs wanted to make a stand against the state, they could. They would need to take and defend their territory while increasing their numbers, likely via kidnapping and child recruitment.

That is a pure fantasy. You know how I know? Because gangs historically and worldwide occasionally tried. This fails all the time.

[hellojesus]

Revolutions have succeeded in the past. It is an unlikely outcome but possible.

My original point was that there is utility in having an armed populace because it requires government agents to evaluate the risk of infringing actions more heavily. Even if the citizens lose, nobody wants to be a casualty in they're resistance.

[ceejayoz]

> Because gangs historically and worldwide occasionally tried. This fails all the time.

It succeeds plenty. The list of successful coups by paramilitary groups is loooooong.

Hell, the Nazis started essentially as a gang.

[watwut]

They did not won the way OP suggests.

[baremetal]

Tell that to the Mexican government.