Accurate reporter 252 is assuming less deaths than what typically happens when governments have a unilateral access to use of force, especially when outside agencies--like the US and possibly NATO or the UN--are willing to put boots on the ground to stop massive killing by government.

So, Bosnia... that was interfered with (late in the game) by NATO.

Most of the sub-Saharan African "culls" of citizens like Rwanda played themselves out without much outside interference.

The Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, and others killed millions after disarming their countrymen.

As far as nonviolent protest...

Nonviolent protest is highly effective up to the point the government isn't willing to directly or indirectly use violence on people.

So, Chinese nonviolent protests haven't worked out for a long time. Likewise, Southern US efforts to stop Jim Crow didn't work for about a century until the rest of the country started seeing dead black men hung from trees in the news more often and made it a national issue instead of the state levels.

Until then, "nonviolent" protests by black people against being kept out of the ballot boxes usually resulted in a whole lot of violence done to them.

You should read a bit about the "Arab Summer" as well.

You play peace until it doesn't work, then you go to war.

Oh, and the Second Amendment?

That's insurance to try and keep the American government from using violence against non-violent protests. It's there to make the cost of violence against the people high enough to keep the government listening to non-violent complaints...