Roger Petersen offers a useful framework for understanding why people participate in political violence.
In his terms we should understand Jan 6th as unorganized resistance (+1), not an organized rebellion (+2/3). https://www.amazon.com/Resistance-Rebellion-Studies-Rationality-Social-dp-0521035155/dp/0521035155

The Trump mob had all the classic features Petersen describes for unorganized resistance:
- Widespread resentment & status inversion
- Shared cultural symbols & focal points
- Status rewards for risk-accepting individuals
- Low risk of harm from security service

Organized community resistance (+2) or mobilized insurgency (+3) is a whole different ballgame. They are held together by strong social norms, dense social ties, and bureaucratic administration. This does not describe Trumpism or the 1/6 mob at all.

There are surely elements of organized resistance (+2) in the Trumpist movement that bear close watching and counterintelligence attention. But I don't think they get the credit here. Unorganized mechanisms (+1) were more than sufficient to generate what we saw on Wednesday.

Note that coups are products of organized social networks (+2) that coopt security services (+3). The insurrection (+1) on 1/6 was thus not a coup.
See @jimgolby's roundup of more reasons why from actual coup experts, along with bad takes from others: https://twitter.com/jimgolby/status/1347393020489052161

This matters because unorganized (+1) and organized (+2) rebellion have different causes and are thus repressed with different mechanisms:
Coups--arrest the conspiracy and purge security forces of disloyalists.
Social movements--protect the population and address grievances.

An unwillingness to describe 1/6 as a coup does not negate its seriousness. Disorganized mobs can sometimes be more violent than organized conspiracy. Sedition to encourage such mobs is just as serious. This does not have to be a coup to justify the 25th A or impeachment.

It is specious to accuse scholars who use terms precisely of threat minimization. It is not hairsplitting if we see different mechanisms with different policy consequences. Policy advocates can call it a coup to mobilize support, but scholars have a duty to be more careful.