Untitled

The Fantasy of The Power of Gun Ownership

I came across this meme and had to take a few minutes to explain why this sentiment is fueled by a dangerously inaccurate view of reality. I say this because the truth is that citizen gun owners would not stand a chance in fighting a national army.

I believe this hot-blooded, nerves of steel, rebel dream comes from three places. We are all raised under the magnificent story of rag-tag villagers rising up against the mightiest army in the world. We have romanticized this story into the idea that we can stand up to anyone. Our culture is full of movies where one lone hero topples corrupt towns, drug kingpins, and anyone who stands in their way. Lastly, people make the mistake of extrapolating the power a gun has in personal situations to revolutionary situations. What I mean is that people think that because having a gun could help you stand up to local thugs that this translates to defending against tyrannical governments.

Let’s talk about some real life examples though. The Native Americans were defeated largely due to three factors: foreign disease, superior weaponry, and massive numbers. In the beginning European’s guns were a massive advantage over Native’s bow and arrows. Even with their knowledge of the land and experienced war tactics, the rifles of the day were too powerful. By the time Natives got their hands on guns the westerners were far too many to fight. The expansion of the west is proof of that. The difference in between a rifle then and a bow and arrow is not that profound if you think about it. It’s nothing compared the difference between an AK-47 and a tank.

Because if a government truly went full on tyrannical then what you’re really facing is tanks, drone strikes, dirty bombs, possible biological warfare, being bombed from sea, being bombed form the other side of the country, a variety of ATV’s that have 50 cal. machine guns and larger ordinance. The idea that you will do anything with your home collection of semi-auto rifles is laughable.

You know who has a lot of guns? Drug cartels. We still put their leaders in prison though. The government doesn’t need tanks. They just need to send a swat team to your house and flood it with tear gas and flash grenades and walk right in and gun you down. Or they’ll mark your position with a drone the size of a fly and snipe you from a mile away.

When governments start doing scary stuff like this citizens, most people put their guns down and think of keeping their families safe by not causing trouble. That’s reality. It’s not because everyone is weak, it’s because they see a few examples like I just described and they having the sobering realization that they are vastly overpowered. I’m sorry, but real life is not Red Dawn. Admittedly it was one of my favorite movies as a kid. It’s an exciting fantasy, but just a fantasy.

The other problem with this view is that Governments don’t turn tyrannical overnight and just suddenly attack you. What they do is manipulate the culture and legitimize their power over time until they are so entrenched that the majority of the population doesn’t want to stand up to them and those that do are too afraid. Nazis are, of course, the perfect example.

There is a misconception that Nazis were able to carry out their murderous agenda because they disarmed their citizens first. Politifact responded to Ben Carson’s claim that this was the case. They state that:

This is a misreading of history on two levels. First, German citizens as a whole were not disarmed by the Nazis. Jews and other supposed enemies of the state were subject to having their weapons seized. But for most German citizens, the Nazi period was one in which gun regulations were loosened, not tightened.

Second, a lack of guns was not the issue. If the majority of Germans had wanted to use these guns to fight the Nazis, they could have. But they didn’t. Carson ignores that the Nazis enjoyed significant popular support, or at least, broad acquiescence.

So What Can We Do?

If you reflect on history, some of the most significant victories over evil governments and oppressive cultures has come from non-violent protest. MLK, Gandhi, Mandela. These men made lasting change in their societies and harnessed the power of the people, without ever firing a weapon. Research shows in no uncertain terms that non-violent protest is more successful.

Research shows that a country need only rally the full and consistent support of 3.5% to 5% of the population to topple a corrupt regime through political activism and protest. It doesn’t sound like a lot, but it is millions of people putting constant pressure and disrupting the balance of power. Furthermore, these types of protest gain support from the larger population by not giving the other side anything to use as propaganda, such as violent raids, bombings, and so forth.

More importantly, when a group chooses violence as their main means of protest you automatically limit the number of supporters you will gain. Like I mentioned above, people are not willing to engage in battle with a superior force. Most people are non-violent by nature and could not stomach being a part of violent action anyway. Then you only get young males involved in your cause. When you are proactive through non-violent political activism then you draw in literally everyone to your cause. Think of the fragile old people with signs at the women’s marches in America. That is how you mobilize hundreds and thousands of people at a time to march and demonstrate. This is why citizens in the Middle East have been turning more toward non-violent, social action to combat their oppressive governments.