[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.