# 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:** 4
**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, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/61 "2012-06-12T16:31:36Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > As I asked you on the previous page, please provide proof of this. Federalist 26 ---
**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, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/62 "2012-06-12T16:32:52Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > So, the Soviet Union went from a tyranny with people owning firearms to a tyranny without firearms. > > What part of this proves your implied point that firearms are needed to combat tyranny? > > Which group of people are more “enslaved” today: the people of Japan or the people of Saudi Arabia? Bonus question: which country owns more guns? Can you define Tyranny, it is hard to argue when you keep moving the goalpost ---
**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, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/63 "2012-06-12T16:54:49Z")
Also note…even if your line of thinking was valid Japan is not a good example, it has been restricted from having a large military post WWII. Saudi is pretty bad on womens rights go but by what standard are you calling it “tyranny” Not that I find their laws acceptable. ---
**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, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/64 "2012-06-12T16:56:42Z")
Japan’s restrictions are self-imposed. Anyway, what does that have to do with anything? Its military is still entirely capable of crushing armed insurrection. If you don’t consider Saudi Arabia’s “hereditary monarch that exercises all executive and legislative power with constitutional limitations” system of government tyrannical, what _would_ qualify? ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/65 "2012-06-12T16:57:55Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Gee, all the Palestinian’s Arab buddies that love them so much and hate the Israelis so much could probably buy them guns. They get those rockets from SOMEWHERE. Not buying that particular example. So, you argue that Israeli and Palestinian sides are equal or near equal as far as weaponry is concerned? ---
**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, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/66 "2012-06-12T17:07:17Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Japan’s restrictions are self-imposed. Anyway, what does that have to do with anything? Its military is still entirely capable of crushing armed insurrection. > > If you don’t consider Saudi Arabia’s “hereditary monarch that exercises all executive and legislative power with constitutional limitations” system of government tyrannical, what _would_ qualify? Are you really going to assert that Japan would have been allowed to recreate a large army after WWII? It does not matter what I think obviously, you are not affording my position as an opinion in this debate, please provide a definition so I may respond, I have the feeling you wouldn’t keep it at the one you just posited for Saudi. It is also you don’t view communist revolutions to be actions of the people the the discounting of the red revolution etc… ---
**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, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/67 "2012-06-12T17:11:30Z")
I really have no idea what the last two paragraphs of your post mean. Could you explain? > [@](#): > > If you don’t consider Saudi Arabia’s “hereditary monarch that exercises all executive and legislative power with constitutional limitations” system of government tyrannical, what would qualify? Whoops. That should have said “without constitutional limitations”. ---
**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, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/68 "2012-06-12T17:13:21Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Federalist 26 A gratuitous assertion may be equally gratuitously rejected. In any case, you’ve presented as a tautology as proof: we know that the Founders were correct in the importance of guns to a free society because the Founders wrote that guns are important to a free society. Perhaps you could advance an argument that’s based more on empirical evidence? ---
**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, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/69 "2012-06-12T17:27:29Z")
> [@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). The reasons for a government overthrow are numerous and are related to the governments own actions or the intentions of an angry populus. I know of no governement that was overthrown simply and only because it allowed or didn’t allow private firearm ownership. The availability of private ownership of firearms makes it very, very, very difficult to subjugate an armed populus. I can’t list the number of reasons that any group used to justify every attempt at tyranny or overthrow. The list would take to much time to compile. Private ownership of firearms makes the bad guys think twice (or maybe a dozen times) before they would attempt a violent takeover in the U.S.. What happens in other countries varies by how their civil or not so civil society. ---
**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, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/70 "2012-06-12T17:30:26Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > A gratuitous assertion may be equally gratuitously rejected. > > In any case, you’ve presented as a tautology as proof: we know that the Founders were correct in the importance of guns to a free society because the Founders wrote that guns are important to a free society. > > Perhaps you could advance an argument that’s based more on empirical evidence? Your complete argument is an appeal to emotion, it isn’t even worth responding to but the fact that you wholsale reject the stability of countries like the US, Switzerland and the UK which have (or had in the UK’s case) a right to arms is ridiculousness. “prove something provides a stable government but the existence of example governments that are stable doesn’t count” 226 years of orderly transfer of power without a central king, religion or ancestry to tie people together is a good example of how their balance of powers has worked fairly well. Stalin, Hitler, and Mao all sought to disarm their own citizens in order to control them and ensure their own power. Are you claiming they had no need to? what had they to fear from hunting rifles? ---
**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, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/71 "2012-06-12T17:57:28Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Your complete argument is an appeal to emotion, it isn’t even worth responding to but the fact that you wholsale reject the stability of countries like the US, Switzerland and the UK which have (or had in the UK’s case) a right to arms is ridiculousness. You seem to have a very poor grasp of logical fallacies. At no point have I made any reference to emotion. I’m asking you to provide evidence for your assertion that is more rigorous than you’ve presented. If you have looked at the list of countries I linked to that ranks them by gun ownership, it’s patently obvious that there are stable, modern, free democracies that have lots of guns, and similar countries with virtually no guns. There are also repressive countries that have lots of guns, and repressive countries that have no guns. So, contrary to your claim, I’m not disregarding the experience of the US, Switzerland, and the UK – I’m saying that those examples are belied by the facts of Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Libya, Saudi, and numerous other countries. Keep in mind that a good theory on any subject should explain not only cases where theory predicts why something happens, but also why other things do not happen. > [@](#): > > Stalin, Hitler, and Mao all sought to disarm their own citizens in order to control them and ensure their own power. Are you claiming they had no need to? what had they to fear from hunting rifles? Saddam, Qaddafi, and Saleh saw no need to ban guns while their governments were extremely repressive. And each of those countries have very high rates of gun ownership. If banning the ownership of firearms is important to maintaining dictatorial control over a country, why didn’t those megalomaniacs ban guns? Furthermore, are you suggesting that if Russians, Germans, and Chinese had not been disarmed, that those dictators would not have maintained control of their countries? What evidence do you have for that? ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/72 "2012-06-12T18:06:19Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > 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. You misunderstand. I’m saying a rugged band of survivalists would not be able to prevent the military from taking over the country if they so wished, nor necessarily garner much local support. A large portion of the public might \*welcome \*a military takeover, in that hypothetical grimdark future. Hence the bringing up of WW2 France. As for Columbia, full support, really ? Y’all are rolling the tanks down there, flying AC-130s, launching continuous drone bombing runs, sending the Marines ? Shipping down crates of M-16s and the odd CIA advisor does not qualify as “full support”. It barely qualifies as “support”, really :). One would also note the US people informally extend its not-inconsiderable financial support to the FARCs through buying inordinate amounts of cocaine, so there’s that too. But the distinction hardly matters, since I’m relatively sure a military putsch in the US would enjoy the \*actual \*full support of the US military. It’s sort of implied in the name, at least :). Or were you saying rugged American survivalists would run a guerilla much better than thems there Columbian no-goodniks ? ---
**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, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/73 "2012-06-12T18:38:09Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You seem to have a very poor grasp of logical fallacies. At no point have I made any reference to emotion. I’m asking you to provide evidence for your assertion that is more rigorous than you’ve presented. > > If you have looked at the list of countries I linked to that ranks them by gun ownership, it’s patently obvious that there are stable, modern, free democracies that have lots of guns, and similar countries with virtually no guns. There are also repressive countries that have lots of guns, and repressive countries that have no guns. So, contrary to your claim, I’m not disregarding the experience of the US, Switzerland, and the UK – I’m saying that those examples are belied by the facts of Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Libya, Saudi, and numerous other countries. Keep in mind that a good theory on any subject should explain not only cases where theory predicts why something happens, but also why other things do not happen. > > Saddam, Qaddafi, and Saleh saw no need to ban guns while their governments were extremely repressive. And each of those countries have very high rates of gun ownership. If banning the ownership of firearms is important to maintaining dictatorial control over a country, why didn’t those megalomaniacs ban guns? > > Furthermore, are you suggesting that if Russians, Germans, and Chinese had not been disarmed, that those dictators would not have maintained control of their countries? What evidence do you have for that? You realize the reason the UK does not have a right to bare arms is duu to a fear of a worker revolution? ---
**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, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/74 "2012-06-12T18:43:24Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > You misunderstand. I’m saying a rugged band of survivalists would not be able to prevent the military from taking over the country if they so wished, nor necessarily garner much local support. A large portion of the public might \*welcome \*a military takeover, in that hypothetical grimdark future. Hence the bringing up of WW2 France. > > As for Columbia, full support, really ? Y’all are rolling the tanks down there, flying AC-130s, launching continuous drone bombing runs, sending the Marines ? Shipping down crates of M-16s and the odd CIA advisor does not qualify as “full support”. It barely qualifies as “support”, really :). One would also note the US people informally extend its not-inconsiderable financial support to the FARCs through buying inordinate amounts of cocaine, so there’s that too. > But the distinction hardly matters, since I’m relatively sure a military putsch in the US would enjoy the \*actual \*full support of the US military. It’s sort of implied in the name, at least :). Or were you saying rugged American survivalists would run a guerilla much better than thems there Columbian no-goodniks ? And as I said, that is a strawman, I don’t see anyone stating that we would be saved by a rugged band of survivalists, that a complete creation in your mind. ---
**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, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/75 "2012-06-12T18:56:02Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > You realize the reason the UK does not have a right to bare arms is duu to a fear of a worker revolution? Cite? And do you have any thoughts on the questions I asked you? ---
**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, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/76 "2012-06-12T18:57:44Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You seem to have a very poor grasp of logical fallacies. At no point have I made any reference to emotion. I’m asking you to provide evidence for your assertion that is more rigorous than you’ve presented. > > If you have looked at the list of countries I linked to that ranks them by gun ownership, it’s patently obvious that there are stable, modern, free democracies that have lots of guns, and similar countries with virtually no guns. There are also repressive countries that have lots of guns, and repressive countries that have no guns. So, contrary to your claim, I’m not disregarding the experience of the US, Switzerland, and the UK – I’m saying that those examples are belied by the facts of Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Libya, Saudi, and numerous other countries. Keep in mind that a good theory on any subject should explain not only cases where theory predicts why something happens, but also why other things do not happen. > > Saddam, Qaddafi, and Saleh saw no need to ban guns while their governments were extremely repressive. And each of those countries have very high rates of gun ownership. If banning the ownership of firearms is important to maintaining dictatorial control over a country, why didn’t those megalomaniacs ban guns? > > Furthermore, are you suggesting that if Russians, Germans, and Chinese had not been disarmed, that those dictators would not have maintained control of their countries? What evidence do you have for that? Can you quit trying to frame my argument to fit your baseless claims. Libia was mostly won by armed civilians, they did have help from NATO but I would say that works towards my side. But you are making broad generalizations and ignoring my statement, I have admitted that alone, it does not prevent it, but as a part of the balance of power it does. Without civilian control of the military chain of command and purse strings this becomes more difficult. I have also stated that civilian arms make actions more expensive for the state actors, I have never claimed it was a guarantee of success but I assume you view your argument is so weak you have to still resort to straw-man? Is the fact that voting is fixed in some elections proof that it is of no value? Is the fact that the judicial branch has been corrupted in various states remove it’s value? Once again you are appealing to emotion and offering no logical reason why an armed citizenry is not a impediment to a military coup d’état instead you have offered examples like Libia where the supporters were armed and claimed that proved your point that a general right to bare arms has no value against a coup d’état. Note Japan never had a right to arms expressly because they wanted to maintain power with the elite. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/77 "2012-06-12T19:33:11Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > And as I said, that is a strawman, > > I don’t see anyone stating that we would be saved by a rugged band of survivalists, that a complete creation in your mind. It’s a derisive representation of your position that “gorilla forces” (and what’s more rugged than 400 pounds of sheer, undiluted ape, I ask you ?) could ever to achieve much of anything against the brunt of the US military. > [@](#): > > Libia (sic) was mostly won by armed civilians, they did have help from NATO but I would say that works towards my side. How about Syria, where NATO doesn’t butt in ? Does it work towards your side ? Mind you, those are all 3rd world shitholes with 1950s militaries. The gap between the Libyan army and even just the modern British one was vertiginous. > [@](#): > > But you are making broad generalizations and ignoring my statement, I have admitted that alone, it does not prevent it, but as a part of the balance of power it does. What “balance of power” ?! The military has all of the fighting power, the citizens are a roadblock at best. There’s no balance here. And if the generals collectively told the civilian President to fuck right orff, with the full backing of their troops, what would you expect the President to do exactly ? Whip out his Glock and drop a Samuel L. Jackson quip ? What about Congress and the Senate ? What would or could they _do_ in that eventuality, d’you reckon ? The only thing preventing the military from taking over is, in fact, that the militaro-industrial complex doesn’t currently aim to. I’d be curious to see if that’d still be the case should the civilian government elect to, say, slash all military funding by half for example. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/78 "2012-06-12T19:35:46Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > You realize the reason the UK does not have a right to bare arms is duu to a fear of a worker revolution? Err, wot ? You’re going to have to provide a cite for that one, otherwise I’m going to stick with the assertion that the reason the British do not elect to recognize a right for themselves to bear arms is that they enjoy the quiet. ---
**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, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/79 "2012-06-12T19:37:43Z")
**rat avatar** : The term “straw man” does not mean “I disagree with your reasoning so therefore it is in error.” Please make a note of this. > [@](#): > > Libia was mostly won by armed civilians, they did have help from NATO but I would say that works towards my side. Perhaps the 2nd Amendment should also enshrine the right of the American people to be supported in insurrection by precision guided munitions delivered by friendly alliances of modern militaries. ---
**Author:** ![Docta\_G](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Docta\_G](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Docta_G)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802/80 "2012-06-12T19:39:49Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > 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. Americans are idiots. BTW, I’m a meta-American from Puyallup. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-evidence-that-guns-prevent-tyranny/624802.md?page=5)