Yeah, you sometimes can (I wonder how often though). And you can make things at least somewhat harder for the occupying army.
The problem is, when you have a hammer in your hand, everything becomes a nail. Equip people with guns and they will seek an opportunity to use them.

First years of syria?

>First years of syria?

why "first years" only? state what is the outcome of the war: a professional army defeated the civillian insurgence

Now

But in first tears rebels had adventage

And army defended syria and now dominate mostly becouse of russian help

But without it syria might fail

it does help because the civilians can easily arm themselves, thats like last ditch tier though after occupation of soil has happen

>because the civilians can easily arm themselves
Well, you see, that's the problem. Civilians are not soldiers. They are more useless during a real war than you might think. In Poland we have some experience with this.
The second thing is a question, if civilians should participate in active fight during a war at all. I'd argue that sending an untrained civilians to a fight is not worth it. Too much of a price to pay. It would be much better for the cause (whatever it is) if they lived and kept the idea going on.

the point is like i said to form an insurgency, regardless of how effective they are compared to a real army if even 5% of the few hundred million guns we have are used properly its going to be advantageous

and like i said this is implying that american soil has been reached, not to say theyll be sent to the front lines

it also means our production capability for guns is higher also

advantages aside, dunno if you read what I said earlier but nvm

what is the probability that the US gets invaded in this century?

meanwhile thousands people die every year

not very high but its just a side benefit

if you want to talk directly about guns

and do you think that "side benefit" outweighs people getting killed all the time over some totally stupid shit

1. there are like 30k gun deaths a year, the over whelming majority of them are suicides and those that are murders are almost all from gang violence

2. theres no reasonable means to get rid of guns already here

why are you saying it like suicides weren't a problem too?

people are more eager to kill themselves if they have a gun

its the easiest way

japan has the highest suicide rate and the strictest gun control

>2. theres no reasonable means to get rid of guns already here
you have no law enforcement in the US ?

i understand suicide is a problem and im not trying to mitigate it, but you cant bring up gun violence and then be oh look suicides count too. They're important but its clearly not a violence problem

yes and japan has a hundreds years old culture of suicide whats the point

and awful working conditions and education environment, same with other countries in east asia

usa doesnt share that

theres like a million other countries that have worse rates

killing yourself is violence too

like i said thats kind of irrelevant to this whole thing and belongs in a seperate category

>theres like a million other countries that have worse rates
like which fucking ones

no first world country comes even close to your hellhole

sweden

talking suicides here

anyway

gun wise you cant confiscate guns

it wont work

why are you talking about suicides

im talking about gun violence