There were at least two types of people there:
1. Those who truly intended to be peaceful protesters and got caught up with the second group and
2. Those who went to start trouble and knew the first group was comprised of gullible idiots.
So why did the second group not arm themselves, despite stashing weapons nearby? Were they waiting for something to trigger (no pun intended) that response? If so, what would have been the trigger to gather those weapons? This was mainly the oath breakers and perhaps some others.
I'm very curious about just what it was that constrained them.
For better or worse - the reason I don't go to things like that is the escalation and adrenaline factor. It's why I've never attended a protest and (probably) never will. (The Civil Rights protests of the 1960s were a completely different scenario and character of at least 95% of modern protests regardless.
I would have marched on Selma if it was on Long Island).
That's why even though I got the legal argument in the Rittenhouse case, I'm from the old school of "stay the hell away from it" simply because of what CAN happen.
I think the reality is that a number were constrained because they had enough sense to realize that it would have been justifiable on the part of guards at the Capitol if they'd simply laid down several volleys of gunfire - and Trump can't pardon you if you're dead.
What I fear is that the next time this happens, we actually will have a "both sides" type of standoff precisely because of what occurred. That might possibly be for the better and keep it outside, but it's not a good route to go, either. (I think it's perfectly reasonable for a liberal/Democrat or even a centrist voter of either side to think to themselves, "Look what happened last time, there was no opposition, so I'm going to go stand up for my position and maybe help prevent them from entering the Capitol"). I'd never do that, but it's certainly a reasonable thought after 1/6/21.