# Is there any evidence that guns prevent tyranny? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 11, 2012, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802 "2012-06-11T10:33:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/41 "2012-06-12T15:01:53Z")
Hey, the OP just wanted to know if guns prevented tyranny. He didn’t say anything about whether they prevented secular non-monarchial dictatorships, which of course resemble tyranny in no way. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/42 "2012-06-12T15:05:47Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Gun ownership prevents the tyranny of taking away peoples right to own guns. Since stopping tyranny in general is more about the number and the size of the guns, individual gun ownership isn’t going to be a big factor. Oddly the guns that the military uses for individual soldiers are “smaller” than most hunting rifles. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/43 "2012-06-12T15:09:08Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > If recent history is any guide then explosives, booby traps and sabotage are far better methods of bleeding a government dry than small arms. > > Keep in mind that in America you can generally only buy handguns, shotguns and rifles. Buying assault rifles or class III weapons is harder. And militaries or insurgencies usually require assault weapons and class III weapons. Full auto is of little practical use except in covering fire, most military groups actually spend quite a bit of time trying to get their armies to not use full auto or removing it completely. The M4 only has 3 round burst for most configurations, full auto only wastes ammo for the most part. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/44 "2012-06-12T15:15:20Z")
He didn’t say anything about full automatic fire. However, you’d have to be nuts to say a weapon capable of fully automatic fire is not preferable to a semiautomatic. British troops in the Falklands actually looted automatic FN FALs from the corpses of Argentine troops because _theirs_ were automatic and the British-issued version wasn’t. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/45 "2012-06-12T15:16:52Z")
> [@Syme](#): > > Every man, woman and child and pets can own an arsenal and still would be unable to shake off a tyranny. > > First you need to be organised, second you need military training, third you need to outgun the enemy (can mums and dads outgun the US Army? ) , fourth, you need to have the guts to fight, and let us not forget all the logistic issues, and hospitals and … forget it. You haven’t got a chance against the Army. > > You wake up one day and find out that the military or some group with the support of the armed forces has taken control of the US of A, and all you can do is either stay put or head for the nearest border, compadre. > > In my home country when the Armed Forces gave a coup and took control of the government. It just took the Armed Forces hours to subdue whatever resistance the Allende supporters (who were armed) put up. > > But, if you want to keep on dreaming, be my guest. Members of the U.S. military grew up in a culture that believed in the 2nd Amemdment, the U.S. Constitution, and the right of the people to be free of government tyranny. They are not easily swayed by some fast-talking politician/military leader (aka Commander in Chief) who believes our sons and daughters should attack their own friends and family to give some tyrant more power. Ain’t gonna happen here. The gun grabbing supporters of registration/confiscation made several advances in changing U.S. laws for many decades. Currently, they have little support. The majority of taxpaying voters replaced many of the elected representatives who pushed for gun control and registration/confiscation laws. The UN is pushing for more gun control in it’s member States. The UN isn’t exactly popular in the U.S.. Our President can select a UN representative but that doesn’t mean that the U.S. Senate will vote to accept any agreement between the Whitehouse and the UN. Our elected representatives don’t currently address major gun control issues because the voters WILL replace them. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/46 "2012-06-12T15:19:25Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > …and Afghanistan is pretty much still tyranny at this point 😛 > > First, the Taliban have quite a bit of support from the local population - either on ideological grounds or simply from scaring the shit out of the goatherders. The same can’t be said of all armed insurrections - hell, even the French Resistance couldn’t really boast widespread support from the civvies back in '43. Way more in '46 for some reason :rolleyes: > Second, the Taliban are more or less powerless over the important, heavily protected civilized areas. > > Just like, say, American survivalists would be hard to dislodge from the deep forests of Mount Nowhere (and who would care what they’d be up to out there ?), but wouldn’t even have a dream of seizing a major city or industrial centre, nevermind holding it. Oh, the government would have much trouble \*winning \*no doubt. But it’d never lose, either. Ask the FARC how well guerilla works. They’ve been at it for ~60 years now, against a military less trained and far less robustly equipped than that of the US. > All they’ve really achieved is turning Colombia into a dangerous shithole. Straw man, the idea was that the it would help prevent a military takeover of the government, so there would be a portion of popular support, it was not for a group of survivalists to be able to take over the government. And to claim that the Colombian government doesn’t have the full support of the US military is a bit silly too. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/47 "2012-06-12T15:22:19Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Members of the U.S. military grew up in a culture that believed in the 2nd Amemdment, the U.S. Constitution, and the right of the people to be free of government tyranny. They are not easily swayed by some fast-talking politician/military leader (aka Commander in Chief) who believes our sons and daughters should attack their own friends and family to give some tyrant more power. Ain’t gonna happen here. In that case, what difference does private ownership of firearms make? You can’t have it both ways: either the military is some overarching Defender of Freedom, or it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/48 "2012-06-12T15:24:15Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > In that case, what difference does private ownership of firearms make? You can’t have it both ways: either the military is some overarching Defender of Freedom, or it isn’t. Actually historically it has been both…thus the founding fathers fear of standing armies. That is pretty much their entire point in having one, while trying to restrict it’s power. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/49 "2012-06-12T15:26:32Z")
That’s not the point. **doorhinge** seems to think the military will rise up in opposition to a coup, Turkey-style (and presumably that, Turkey-style, it will turn power back over to a civilian administration afterwards). If that’s the case, then private ownership of firearms is irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/50 "2012-06-12T15:32:58Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That’s not the point. **doorhinge** seems to think the military will rise up in opposition to a coup, Turkey-style (and presumably that, Turkey-style, it will turn power back over to a civilian administration afterwards). If that’s the case, then private ownership of firearms is irrelevant. The fact it may be true, if it were, this decade does not mean it will be true in 30 years. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/51 "2012-06-12T15:34:57Z")
Fair enough. I will concede that private ownership of firearms could theoretically prevent tyranny in some dimly imagined future. We might also be riding on flying cows in 30 years, too. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/52 "2012-06-12T15:46:38Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > And to claim that the Colombian government doesn’t have the full support of the US military is a bit silly too. Straw man, the US military does not run our foreign policy. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/53 "2012-06-12T15:59:49Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Straw man, the US military does not run our foreign policy. Wait…what??? How did you straw man with a straw man…that is so meta. The claim that FARC and Columbia was evidence that citizens uprising doesn’t work, the fact that the US military provides money, equipment and training to the Colombian government is quite relevant. The political structure that provides that external support is not relevant. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/54 "2012-06-12T16:00:04Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > In that case, what difference does private ownership of firearms make? You can’t have it both ways: either the military is some overarching Defender of Freedom, or it isn’t. Yes, I can. **BEFORE** you can have an attempt at a tyrannical takeover, you have to convince others that the takeover has a chance of succeeding. An armed society is much, much, much harder to subdue than an unarmed one. As long as “We the People” still have a voice in our government, as long as “We the People” still have a means to legally change who our elected representatives are, there will be NO armed takeover attempt by either a tyrant or the populus. Private ownership of firearms is no guarentee that an overthrow will never be attempted but private ownership of firearms insures that it will be a very costly attempt with no guarentee of success. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/55 "2012-06-12T16:09:46Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Wait…what??? > > … > > The political structure that provides that external support is not relevant. Straw man… you have to recognize the context of the support. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/56 "2012-06-12T16:16:10Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > As long as “We the People” still have a voice in our government, as long as “We the People” still have a means to legally change who our elected representatives are, there will be NO armed takeover attempt by either a tyrant or the populus. > > Private ownership of firearms is no guarentee that an overthrow will never be attempted but private ownership of firearms insures that it will be a very costly attempt with no guarentee of success. All kidding aside, the first point you make here is a great one. The best defense of a modern civil society is the fact that a country has a modern civil society. The enfranchisement of the American people through guarantees of free speech, association, voting, and economic opportunity (plus the structure of the government with checks and balances, etc) are reasons number one through a hundred of why the United States remains a free society. The threat of violence against the government is a miniscule reason why the country remains very free and secure. But really, the OP isn’t about the United States Constitution. The question is broadly applicable to other countries as well. And as I’ve said repeatedly, there is no correlation whatsoever between the relative freedom of countries and the ownership of weapons. The presence of a robust civil society and the freedom of the government, on the other hand, are directly connected (with perhaps a couple of exceptions). ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/57 "2012-06-12T16:18:47Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > … > The UN is pushing for more gun control in it’s member States. I think you refer to the Arms Trade Treaty. It has no thing to do with control of guns in member states, it is about international trade in small military arms. > **[U.N. Arms Trade Treaty](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/un-arms-trade-treaty/)** > > A U.N. small arms treaty signed by the U.S. provides a 'legal way around the 2nd Amendment'? > **[Separating fact from fiction on the Arms Trade Treaty](https://politicsofpoverty.oxfamamerica.org/separating-fact-from-fiction-on-the-arms-trade-treaty/)** > > Oxfam is a global organization that fights inequality to end poverty and injustice. The treaty text says “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.” Please do not promote ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/58 "2012-06-12T16:19:05Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > All kidding aside, the first point you make here is a great one. The best defense of a modern civil society is the fact that a country has a modern civil society. The enfranchisement of the American people through guarantees of free speech, association, voting, and economic opportunity (plus the structure of the government with checks and balances, etc) are reasons number one through a hundred of why the United States remains a free society. The threat of violence against the government is a miniscule reason why the country remains very free and secure. > > But really, the OP isn’t about the United States Constitution. The question is broadly applicable to other countries as well. And as I’ve said repeatedly, there is no correlation whatsoever between the relative freedom of countries and the ownership of weapons. The presence of a robust civil society and the freedom of the government, on the other hand, are directly connected (with perhaps a couple of exceptions). As the sole method of protection from a military junta a armed population is not effective, it is quite useful as a portion of a systemic balance of powers. But who was claiming that the right in it’s self was the sole protector from tyranny? ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/59 "2012-06-12T16:23:48Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Straw man… you have to recognize the context of the support. > > 😉 misuse of straw man 🙂 However I present FMLN, your argument is invalid. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/60 "2012-06-12T16:26:58Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > As the sole method of protection from a military junta a armed population is not effective, **it is quite useful as a portion of a systemic balance of powers**. As I asked you on the previous page, please provide proof of this. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802.md?page=4)