[riku_iki]

I see your examples as in opposite direction.

In Ukraine, militia with rifles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_Defence_Forces_(Uk...) dug into the ground and stopped invasion of 1M army with thousands of armored vehicles, absolute superiority in artillery, airforces, tactical missiles and 100B annual budget.

In Gaza, Israel with all tech advantages struggles to efficiently police relatively small urban area for 70 years already.

[hmmm-i-wonder]

Yes the Territorial Defence forces in Ukraine, an example of government backed reserves/semi-trained forces with equipment far beyond the oversimplification of "rifles".

Actual untrained civilian forces with nothing but rifles on their own made little impact to the speed of russian advances however, which after multiple defeats and setbacks led to the formation of that defence force.

Gaza is a whole can of worms in many ways, but its a shining example of a civilian group with access to arms being completely unable to stop a superior local force from driving over them multiple times when they have the desire and political backing.

Which is exactly the point. A bunch of untrained sport shooters and hunters with more guns than they can personally use at once and no supply lines for ammunition or anything else aren't going to stand for any length of time against an organized military, especially on the military's home soil.

More realistic scenarios in any case are full civil war and the military itself splitting and civilians join sides as reserve forces to back them. in which case civilians having blanket access to arms before hand doesn't have any significant bearing on.

All of this is hypothetical, and ultimately comes down to the argument for unrestricted access to guns being 'so we can stand up to a tyrannical government' falls short. You are welcome to disagree, and that's OK with me. My country is largely in line with my sentiment and sees gun ownership as a privilege not a right, one that comes with restrictions balancing the safety of our society. You do you, we will do us.

[riku_iki]

> Territorial Defence forces in Ukraine, an example of government backed reserves/semi-trained forces with equipment far beyond the oversimplification of "rifles".

I don't think this is true. They were formed at the day of invasion (or few days before) with those who voluntarily enlisted(very many people), they received some old AK with bullets, and then moved to frontline to dig tranches, and that's what stopped advancements, because it is still extremely difficult to clear infantry which dug into the ground.

> A bunch of untrained sport shooters and hunters

A bunch is not, but in US number of gun owners is not "a bunch".

> but its a shining example of a civilian group with access to arms being completely unable to stop a superior local force from driving over them multiple times when they have the desire and political backing.

Sure, superior in tech and numbers force can "run over" aka walk on the streets, while being regularly shot from the windows in urban area, and it was with 5x superiority in population. Now imagine dictator tries with say 100k loyalists establish his rule in country with 350M population?

[hmmm-i-wonder]

>I don't think this is true. They were formed at the day of invasion (or few days before) with those who voluntarily enlisted(very many people), they received some old AK with bullets, and then moved to frontline to dig tranches, and that's what stopped advancements, because it is still extremely difficult to clear infantry which dug into the ground.

Read your own wiki link I guess? There was multiple losses before the formation of the reserve defence force. There was also a high element of public participation in training and military force before hand. At no point did a bunch of untrained and unorganized civilians with only rifles significantly hold back the russian advance on their own, however partially trained armed and organized reserve forces did.

>say 100k loyalists establish his rule in country with 350M population?

More like 70 million+ loyalists in the country including the majority of the military which upends the point you are trying to make completely.

[riku_iki]

> a bunch of untrained and unorganized civilians with only rifles significantly hold back the russian advance on their own

I didn't say anything like that, though many were untrained and with only rifles. I said that in urban environment it is still soldier on foot is deciding factor, and in Ukraine freshly enlisted territorial defense units dug into the ground and stopped invasion.

> More like 70 million+ loyalists

70M is a civil war setting, but we are discussing setting of dictator + loyalists military vs population.

[hmmm-i-wonder]

We're talking about the average citizen with a rifle and no training against a dictator/tyrant.

In Ukraines case, that civilian group was not initially effective at stopping the attack, but your example of the defence force is an example of a supported reserve force digging in backed by logistics and support from a military/country.

Those are 2 different things. My contention is that unrestricted access to arms doesn't in any way turn an untrained populace into a reserve force.

You're attempt to frame it as "dictator + small loyalist military" as well as focusing solely on urban settings are a fun hypotheticals, but that's all they are. The reality is that actions like that in a developed nation result in an almost certain war if external or fracturing of countries internally in any real scenario with civilians supporting militaries/militias on the various sides.

There is no reasonable assumption that unrestricted access to arms will stop a tyrant from destroying the country and tossing it into some form of civil war. The accompanying fact those people aren't trained, organized, or supported by logistics is the fundamental reason why they will fail to be effective. (I could also digress into the well organized militia and if we want to get all originalist about the interpretation but this has been unproductive enough)

What we are really discussing is whether gun regulations make sense. Extreme edge cases like your hypotheticals fail to make a convincing argument they are a negative for society, especially when contrasted against the harms lack of regulations has been shown to cause society.

[riku_iki]

> a supported reserve force

my observation is that they were not reserve. They were patriotic citizens who voluntarily enlisted at the day of invasion. Gun ownership and hence training was much lower in Ukraine compared to US. And wiki says about the same: they were some semi-organized units before invasion, and during invasion 100k people volunteered and joined them, and they were absorbed by army.

[simne]

> Actual untrained civilian forces with nothing but rifles

This is myth. Ukrainian war began in 2014 and all adequate Ukrainians learned books about war or have some training, and this was very respectful form of pastime.

Plus, many Ukrainians just served in military from 2014 consciously, this was great patriotic boom.

To be honest, I think, if Ukrainian science and education was reformed before war 2022, we would be much better prepared and would not lost additional territories. But unfortunately, we hear from our governments constant "don't critic us, or Putin will attack", and this is hard to broke circle.

[hmmm-i-wonder]

My point is untrained, inexperienced and under-equipped civilians have little chance against a military.

Once you start giving them training, organizing and arming them with a logistics arm backing them the discussion completely changes.

Ukraine is an example of reserve/partially trained and backed forces being able to make a significant difference, but its also an example of how unorganized civilian resistance on its own has little to no impact on a modern military.

[simne]

Mostly agree. Ukraine lost territories mostly before 2022, because population there was mostly anti-Ukrainian (what interest me, many refugees from Ukrainian east, become more pro-Ukrainian than people in center of country, where nearly not seen occupation).

I would be agree about non-trained people before 2014, but from 2014 we have even experience of self-defense, because in February 2014 government just not paid money to militia (soviet analogue for police), and they just avoid to maintain law.

2014 was not full-scale war in standard understanding, it was more like war against terrorists, but it was very serious, with many cases of terrorists used military weapons and military equipment.

Many people participated in self-defense after 2014 joined military, others participated in trainings, and yes, businesses and civilians supported these trainings, and government don't resisted.

So, on 2022, really many people on territory controlled by government have participated in trainings and even was experienced in real battles.

Mariupol, and other cities now occupied (after 2022), because there was anti-Ukrainian population and they believed will live better under Russia.

Also few border cities occupied (Kherson, Energodar, where Nuclear Power Plant placed), because Ukrainian military avoid to conduct serious city battles, to avoid huge civilian casualties.

And I must admit, Ukrainian military before approx Summer 2023, suffered from shortage of heavy weapons and air support, but now forces are nearly balanced. BTW what also interesting, huge part of Ukrainian weapons used on zero are now FPV drones made in Ukraine.