Organization is far more important. If the real shit pops off there will be plenty of ammo and guns laying on the ground. Logistics, secure communication, and strong, decentralized organization is vastly more important, and also what is lacking. If there was a real resistance, that's what they would be doing right now.

If you've got a gun you've always got at least one shot in it (throwing the gun at the target)!

Moreover, a violent revolution was never achieved without the attendant political and logistical organization. So regardless of eventual character, the method of building a movement remains the same. Unfortunately it's boring, difficult work that leaves the most active most vulnerable to reprisals. Which is why people like Fred Hampton and Harvey Milk and Berta Cáceres are all so important and also ended up with their brains splattered on their beds/office floors etc.

Yeah, that's why there's no more Taliban. Or ISIS. Or Hamas. Or ...

Time to check out a history book or two. With that attitude, US would still be a colony of Britain. Or the US would've won in Vietnam instead of getting kicked out by the locals. Granted, it is a bit different without an ocean in between, but it could still happen. Or we could break up like what happened to the USSR.

The purpose of an armed resistance isn't a direct confrontation with an armed force. It's the death of a thousand logistical cuts. It's bleeding the country's economy dry by disrupting the commerce required to keep daily life running smoothly and crippling the regime's forces by making people afraid to sign up - one way or another. Whether that's neighborhoods chasing ICE out or people finding out where cops and soldiers live and "paying them a visit" in the dead of night. An armed resistance's goal is to simply be too big of a thorn to ignore but too entrenched and evasive to be worth the amount of money and effort it would take to catch them. Even just their existence in the media is a form of warfare. By simply being in the news they show a population that the regime can be resisted, even by just a bunch of people with guns.

Look at Napoleon's war in Russia in 1812 and his massive losses due to poor supply lines, disease, and the Russians scorched earth policy ahead of the fierce Russian winter. Or to the American Revolution, where a bunch of farmers with guns and the financial backing of France became such a thorn in the side of the British Empire that they became one of the most powerful and obnoxious countries of the past two centuries and are the subject that started this whole conversation.

You can turn your guns on the entire country's population, but then what? You're going to have a hard time keeping troops loyal when it's their friends and family on the other side of the gun, and terrorizing the population like that will make it impossible to keep the propaganda machine going. You'd be forced to rule through direct oppression, which would breed more resentment and more people willing to pick up a gun and fight back. Your only hope is to convince the discontent population that opposition is pointless and the true believers that you are right.

Why don't you ask those guys in Vietnam about that? Or Afghanistan, for that matter.

Vietnam

Same way people with guns stood against us for like 20 years.