Is there any evidence that guns prevent tyranny?

[Ravenman]

@doorhinge

Stalin rounded up firearms after WWII but firearm ownership was difficult before Stalin took power.

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?

Once the weapons are gone from the public sector, it’s much easier to enslave the people.

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?

[rat_avatar]

It is all so simple if you reduce it down to the level of number of guns != protection from tyranny.

Really this is a Reductio ad absurdum, you are ignoring all the other safeguards that were put into place to prevent a standing army from taking over the government.

E.G. the President, a civilian, is the commander in chief, in theory this keeps them under civilian control.

They have to go to the House, originally the body of the people and renew appropriations every two years.

The people, having the right to bare arms would greatly increase the costs of a military coup.

Those three, working together were meant to mitigate the risks of a standing army which the founding fathers knew was a high risk having studied the fall of many republics in history.

To pull this one right out of that original context is really just a straw-man.

[Ravenman]

@rat_avatar

It is all so simple if you reduce it down to the level of number of guns != protection from tyranny.

Really this is a Reductio ad absurdum, you are ignoring all the other safeguards that were put into place to prevent a standing army from taking over the government.

E.G. the President, a civilian, is the commander in chief, in theory this keeps them under civilian control.

They have to go to the House, originally the body of the people and renew appropriations every two years.

The people, having the right to bare arms would greatly increase the costs of a military coup.

Those three, working together were meant to mitigate the risks of a standing army which the founding fathers knew was a high risk having studied the fall of many republics in history.

To pull this one right out of that original context is really just a straw-man.

Surely you aren’t arguing that because the Founders said something, they were correct? Because, you know, they were wrong on quite a few big things.

But in any case, you seem to be arguing that guns may not keep some random country from becoming tyrannical; but that the presence of guns has helped keep the US free. Do you care to propose some way that we can test that hypothesis? Because it sure sounds like, “If A, then B; B, therefore A.”

[rat_avatar]

@Ravenman

Surely you aren’t arguing that because the Founders said something, they were correct? Because, you know, they were wrong on quite a few big things.

But in any case, you seem to be arguing that guns may not keep some random country from becoming tyrannical; but that the presence of guns has helped keep the US free. Do you care to propose some way that we can test that hypothesis? Because it sure sounds like, “If A, then B; B, therefore A.”

Strawman, I said you needed to argue it in the context as they framed it, I never said they could not be wrong.

[Lumpy]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

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).

That was kinda the whole point. Before the rise of modern weapons systems around the beginning of the 20th century, the populace- unless deliberately disarmed- had access to the same kinds of weapons that the government did. Civilians even could and did own cannon and large stocks of gunpowder; iirc, the first move in the US to eliminate privately owned artillery came during Reconstruction. I have no idea what the Framers would have done- except maybe throw up their hands in dispair- if they could have foreseen the existence of weapons such as tanks and attack aircraft that except for the rich or consortiums private citizens could never hope to possess. George Orwell took note of this disturbing fact in his essay You and the Atomic Bomb:

It is a commonplace that the history of civilisation is largely the history of weapons. In particular, the connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon — so long as there is no answer to it — gives claws to the weak.

[Ravenman]

@rat_avatar

Strawman, I said you needed to argue it in the context as they framed it, I never said they could not be wrong.

You can argue any context you like. I’m saying that in the real world, there is no correlation between the level of freedom enjoyed by countries that are well-armed and those that aren’t.

If you are going to jump in with accusations of logical fallacies, but fail to come up with a way to test the presumed hypothesis that the Second Amendment has contributed/helped/promoted/had kind things to say about efforts to preserve our system of government, then I’m not sure you’re really advancing the discussion.

[rat_avatar]

@Lumpy

That was kinda the whole point. Before the rise of modern weapons systems around the beginning of the 20th century, the populace- unless deliberately disarmed- had access to the same kinds of weapons that the government did. Civilians even could and did own cannon and large stocks of gunpowder; iirc, the first move in the US to eliminate privately owned artillery came during Reconstruction. I have no idea what the Framers would have done- except maybe throw up their hands in dispair- if they could have foreseen the existence of weapons such as tanks and attack aircraft that except for the rich or consortiums private citizens could never hope to possess. George Orwell took note of this disturbing fact in his essay You and the Atomic Bomb:

Small arms are quite effective as a gorilla weapon. Our country can barely afford to maintain a protracted war against a small foreign country but some how they would be able to effectively fight against gorilla forces over 20X the land area, 10X the population and with a marginally or non functioning economy?

Once again, it does not preclude the a military Junta in the US but it does greatly increase the risk and cost.

Even with the full force of the US military in central america several gorilla groups have successfully revolted.

The human costs were huge but they happened.

Our huge military is based around fighting states and it is quite skillful at destroying them in short order, but it is pretty poor at fighting for hearts and minds.

[Lumpy]

guerrilla, not gorilla.

Sorry to nitpick, but that’s just painful.

[Deeg]

@Quartz

Britain, 17th century. America and France, 18th century. Afghanistan, 20th century.

I don’t think that Britain and France are examples of tyranny prevented. The British Civil War ended with Oliver Cromwell declaring himself “protector” for life. The French Revolution had the Reign of Terror and ended up with Napoleon. I believe that guns are just as likely to enforce tyranny than prevent it.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Lumpy

guerrilla, not gorilla.

Sorry to nitpick, but that’s just painful.

In that case, it’s despair, not dispair.

[Kobal2]

@Deeg

I don’t think that Britain and France are examples of tyranny prevented. The British Civil War ended with Oliver Cromwell declaring himself “protector” for life. The French Revolution had the Reign of Terror and ended up with Napoleon. I believe that guns are just as likely to enforce tyranny than prevent it.

…and Afghanistan is pretty much still tyranny at this point

[QUOTE=rat avatar]
Small arms are quite effective as a gorilla weapon. Our country can barely afford to maintain a protracted war against a small foreign country but some how they would be able to effectively fight against gorilla forces over 20X the land area, 10X the population and with a marginally or non functioning economy?
[/QUOTE]

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.

[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.

[Quartz]

@Deeg

I don’t think that Britain and France are examples of tyranny prevented. The British Civil War ended with Oliver Cromwell declaring himself “protector” for life.

But the immediate result was the removal of Charles I.

The French Revolution had the Reign of Terror and ended up with Napoleon.

But the immediate result was the removal of the tyranny. What happened later was due to the people.

[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.

[Syme]

@Quartz

But the immediate result was the removal of Charles I.

But the immediate result was the removal of the tyranny. What happened later was due to the people.

What happened next was (well, not next but after a few ‘nexts’) that Napoleon proclaimed himself emperor and embarked in a series of temporary military victories which took him to Moscow and back with some remnants of his army.

[Dissonance]

@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.

I don’t place much if any faith in the idea, but you’re misstating the guns prevent tyranny belief; the belief is **private ownership **of guns prevents tyranny.

In China I’m guessing you mean the Communist victory over the KMT in the Chinese Civil War. The KMT itself was a tyranny and the guns on both sides were owned by the military.

In Tsarist Russia which again was itself a tyranny the guns were in the hands of the military before the revolution and the military itself became part of the revolution.

In Cambodia I’m assuming you mean the Khmer Rouge defeating the government of Lon Nol in the Civil War. Again, gun ownership on both sides was in the hands of militaries and the government of Lon Nol was itself a tyranny. In all three cases it was a worse tyranny replacing the existing tyranny and private gun ownership was a non-issue.

[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.

[PrettyVacant]

Looking at Syria, death and fear more likely comes from the people in the next town or village - assuming private gun ownership.

[Evil_Captor]

@newcomer

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.

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.

[Evil_Captor]

@Quartz

But the immediate result was the removal of Charles I.

But the immediate result was the removal of the tyranny. What happened later was due to the people.

Ah, guns got nothing to do with tyranny, it’s PEOPLE! I see! … which side did you intend for this argument to support?