One of the beliefs commonly held by Americans who advocate for broader gun rights is that broad based gun ownership is an effective tool in resisting tyranny. Is there evidence to support this assertion?
It seems like China, Russia & Cambodia were all awash with guns when the respective tyrants took over.
Gun ownership was also common among Iraqis under Saddam; we guns-are-good Americans amusingly systematically confiscated all the guns we could in Iraq, while Saddam never bothered.
And of course one of the common flaws in the guns-prevent-tyranny concept is that it assumes that the people with guns will be fighting against the tyrants, and not for them. Unless you presume that gun ownership has some sort of link with morality or a dedication to freedom that assumption makes little sense; gun ownership by citizens can easily just mean that the local death squads don’t need to be armed by the government.
There’s no evidence that gun ownership prevents tyranny, or that a lack of guns causes tyranny.
While you can find some examples of people fighting tyranny with firearms I do agree with Der Trihs. The possession of firearms in and of itself is no guarantee against tyranny.
Britain, 17th century. America and France, 18th century. Afghanistan, 20th century.
Well, one might argue it would be really difficult to provide a case like that because having guns and knowing about it in the first place was a deterrent enough. Ergo, no “tyrant” dared.
However, in former Yugoslavia – and more specifically in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia – you have what one could call a selective “right to bear arms” where, predominantly it was Serbs who possessed them and who were always gang-ho for Yugoslav Army, they were predominantly in its leading structures and they were known for all kinds of celebrations that include firearms. The other ethnic groups always explained it to themselves as half-cultural half-maniacal aspects of a Serbian collective soul.
Anyways, one of the critical factors of every war that Serbs started in 1990’s was the fact that everyone knew the side attacked had very little if no weapons at all. That’s what made it easy and that’s what made civilian casualties so high. In fact, specific cities and/or areas deemed as “armed” in Bosnia or Croatia suffered very little in terms of direct civilian deaths while others (including my hometown) were pretty much slaughtered.
Now, 20 years later, you have two options to consider – how likely is it to disarm a group (in this case Serbs) to make everyone equal; i.e. no weapons whatsoever. Or, was it a better option to match what the other side had and see what happens. Based on the experience I’d always go for the latter as evidence from Bosnia & Croatia overwhelmingly show that an enemy faced with a prospect of being killed in large numbers will most likely seek a negotiated resolution.
The same can be said of many conflicts around the world, most notably Palestinian occupation – their plight is only and solely a result of enormous and foreign supported (namely, US) disadvantage in weapons. Nothing else matters and nothing else will resolve it.
Very true, but that’s not what the OP asks.
You are mixing up better equipped military/paramilitary entities with firearm ownership.
To the OP. No correlation. There is no realistic way that a modern military force is going to be defeated by what citizens have access to and certainly not with the handguns that seem to dominate American disscussions.
You have to take the distribution of guns into account. If a country is “awash” in guns but only troops, guerillas and death squads have them, then they’re not going to be very beneficial. It’s how well armed the ordinary people are that makes a difference.
Gun ownership is an issue usually supported by conservatives as opposed to liberals. Doesn’t that by default mean those who are for it are more moral and freedom-loving than the rest of us? 
Can you document that? I think you are probably right, but when I have investigated that I have found conflicting information.
Except, that takes us back to the problem that the guerillas and death squads generally start out as the “well armed ordinary citizens.”
What better way for a tyrannical government to legitimize their brutal oppression than for some of their soldiers to get shot.
Cite for them being “awash with guns?” AFAIK, all three were dirt-poor peasant societies.
In any event, assuming you’re talking about the Communist takeovers in those countries, these were not tyrants taking power against the will of the people … in all three, the Communists enjoyed a significant measures of popular support. The overthrowing of the Tsar in Russia was pretty much exactly the kind of the thing the US framers had in mind. Those regimes only became obviously tyrannical after taking power, and AFAIK none allowed private ownership of firearms once in power.
Quartz’s list covers three obvious examples of popular resistance to perceived tyrrany.
One of my favorite examples is the Dorr Rebellion of 1842. Long story short, the mass of disenfranchised men in Rhode Island took up arms to demand a voice in the state government.
Let’s just look at current-day data: link.
If one looks at the 40 or so countries with more gun ownership, there’s places like the US, Switzerland, Iceland, Germany, Belgium, and other developed, modern countries. And mixed along with them is Saudi Arabia, UAE, Angola, Yemen, Iraq, and Libya. Look at the bottom of the list and you have Japan, Singapore, and South Korea right alongside Chad, Ethiopia, and Sierra Leone.
Clearly, political freedom doesn’t correlate with gun ownership. At best, I would say that gun ownership may tend to indicate moderate to higher income countries, but even that isn’t clear.
We through sticks at the British. They had bark allergies. </sarchasm off>
I’m not sure the Dorr Rebellion is a very good example, since the Rhode Island government of 1842 didn’t have any equipment the rebels didn’t have (except possibly artillery). I suppose China and Russia probably weren’t good examples either, and the OP cited them, but still.
Which respective tyrants? Stalin rounded up firearms after WWII but firearm ownership was difficult before Stalin took power. Disarming the populace can lead to a situation where the government believes they can force any type of rule on the people. Once the people are unable to fight back, the people will never be able to fight back without outside help.
Resigstration always leads to confiscation. Once the weapons are gone from the public sector, it’s much easier to enslave the people.
Stalin didn’t “take over”. He effectively inherited power under the existing authority structure. Anyway, nobody will take you seriously if you say things like “registration always leads to confiscation.”
Oh No, how will I sleep tonight? Are you “nobody” or do you claim to represent “everybody”?
California registered firearms and then began confiscating some of them. Hitler registerd firearms and the began confiscating them. In 1775, the British military dispatched 700 troops to confiscate the British colonials firearms at Concord which ended when they met armed resistance at Lexington Green. That incident was also the start of the American Revolution.
It’s much more difficult to confiscate firearms if you don’t know where they are.