Then you probably shouldn't have raised it...
"Outcomes don't matter?" What the what?
You're claiming that violence is the only option. I'm telling you that non-violence not only works, it works better than violence.
Or perhaps you are inchoately suggesting that gun ownership is a prophylactic against autocracy? If so, that doesn't hold up either. Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Iraq all have high gun ownership rates, and are autocracies. Japan, India, and most European nations have low gun ownership rates, and are in no way under threat to lose their democratic governments. In fact, I can't think of any examples where citizen ownership of firearms stopped a democratic nation from turning into an autocracy.
And no, the American revolutionary example isn't terribly persuasive on that point. The existence of colonial militias obviously did not stop the English Parliament from repeatedly taking heavy-handed actions that riled many of the colonists, or strike such fear that the Brits immediately capitulated. The colonial militias were in sad shape at the start; the laws were inconsistently enforced, the citizens older and poorly trained, and materiel (including ammo) in short supply. (Washington regularly complained about poor discipline.) Much of the success was because France armed the US and took advantage of the situation to harry their ancient foes; even with that aid, the war was long and difficult, and the outcome far from certain -- even at the very end.
And of course, within 20 years after the end of the war, the Republicans were accusing the Federalists of moving towards autocracy -- and not without some reason, given the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion, and passage of the Sedition Acts.
I.e. the American experience is not a great example of "arming citizens prevents dictatorships."
Better luck next time.
