Civilians have ALWAYS in the past had beter firearms than the Military.
In the 1700’s, the military used the smooth bore flintlock musket. Civilians used super accurate flintlock rifles.
When the miitary adopted a flintlock rifle the civilians were using percussion cap rifles that didn’t misfire.
When the military adopted a percussion cap rifle civilians were already using breech loading cartridge rifles.
During the Civil War the military used anything that would shoot but afterward they adopted a single shot breechloading cartridge rifle. Civilians were using rapid fire lever action rifles, pumps, bolt actions and were experimenting with self-loading rifles and machineguns.
Wehn the military adopted a really good bolt action rifle many civilians were already using European versions as their hunting rifle.
When the military adopted a really good self loading rifle many civilians clammered for one also, even though they had better bolt actions.
When the military adopted the m-14 and later the m-16 they r then surpassed civilians in what they could own.
Civilians had to settle with semi-auto versions and in some retarded states even those were banned.
In all that time the Military and police NEVER claimed to be “outgunned” till the last few years.
I always remember Harry Tracy who piled up dead lawmen like cordwood with only a 30-30 Winchester and a Colt single action pistol.
If one wanted to have a bunch of soldiers march into an area and capture it, a musket was a far superior weapon to a rifle. While a musket could not be aimed accurately at an individual target the way a rifle could, a row of muskets firing simultaneously could do great damage to anything or anyone in front of it.
The problem for the British was that even though their soldiers could go anywhere they wanted, and the colonists didn't have the power to stop them, such ability wasn't of sufficient military use to justify the cost. If the British had simply sought to drive out the colonists from anyplace they captured, they could probably have cleared out the colonies so that new people could move in; the colonists' rifles would not have been able to stop that. On the other hand, the British were trying to put down a rebellion without displacing loyal subjects. That was a much greater challenge, and one the British could not meet.