Asymmetrical Information

A gun in every household would not STOP a modern military totalitarian state, but it would make it very difficult for one to succeed.

People love to point out that a populace armed with handguns and hunting rifles could not stand up to a real military with tanks and planes. That's not quite true. Numbers come into play.

There are a lot fewer soldiers than citizens (and we'll ignore for the moent that out soldiers ARE citizens and can be expected to have some trouble shooting other citizens) and the citizens are, literally, everywhere.

Imposing a totalitarian government on an armed populace is not PRACTICAL. It's certainly doable, but pretty much not worth the effort.

I think a gun in every household might be a great deal of use against, if not a totalitarian state, at least a creeping socialist one. The daily nuisance in such a place would be lightly armed or unarmed local officials, not the regular army. The threat of being shot at might be a rather effective deterrent to such types.

The first thing every totalitarian state does is round up the guns.

I think they know how useful guns are. Totalitarian states rely on a submissive population. Without that, they fall. You're a lot less likely to be submissive if you've got a shotgun. There's less of a chance of their being a totalitarian state in the first place.

Guns in every household did help stop a (fairly) modern totalitarian state: Germany. Hitler et al really wanted to slurp up Switzerland, but never did. Could Germany have conquered? Yes, at least in terms of getting their soldiers into the territory; controlling key buildings, etc. But the price would have been too high, in their estimation. In part the deterrence lay in the fact that what they really wanted was access to roads through the Alps; and the Swiss were ready to dynamite the tunnels. But in part they feared the partisan activity that they knew they would face from that rifle in every home.

This is not precisely on topic: but it is worth reading. It's a review by Dave Kopel of a book that relates the genocides of the 20th century to gun control. From reading the review, one can see that the book documents in some detail the gun controls that preceded the genocides in Armenia, Germany, the Soviet Union,
Guatemala, Uganda, and Cambodia. (The book was published before the genocide in Rwanda; it would be interesting to see what the gun laws were there.)

Every genocide is preceded by gun control. Further, there have been no genocides in any country where the people were armed. These facts alone don't prove anything, though they are suggestive. Certainly a plausible causational mechanism exists to explain the correlation: regimes who may care nothing for the lives and property of one group still require the support of other groups, in particular, the police and army. Placing the latter at risk is politically unpalatable.

I'm not sure that I agree that you could control an armed populace with a totalitarian state. In a war, the attackers are pretty indiscriminate about destroying stuff. On the other hand, it doesn't do you much good to level a town with tanks if you need the stuff the people in the town make. Anything above the level of a tank is pretty much useless, and even tanks haven't done the Israelis all that much good. To effectively control a populace, you need targeted action, which means getting out of the tank. If half your targets have guns, that's a sucker game; you may have automatic weapons, but there are a lot more of them than of you. That's why street fighting is so damn costly even when you're willing to blow the hell out of the buildings, which a totalitarian state would not.

The first thing every totalitarian state does is round up the guns.

I have heard this said many times by pro-gun types, and it's puzzling to hear. It entirely undermines the argument that a totalitarian government can't take power if the people are armed.

It entirely undermines the argument that a totalitarian government can't take power if the people are armed.

Dear Alkali,

I'm not sure I believe you meant what I think you meant by that comment, but I'll address it nonetheless. The point is not just that the people have guns, but that the government DOESN'T KNOW WHERE THE GUNS ARE. That's why gun registration is such a danger. Note that every gun confiscation is also preceeded by gun registration.

The idea is that first they take the guns, then they become totalitarian. Not the other way around.

"pistols can't stop tanks"

Ah yes, but with a pistol I can get an anti-tank rocket.

Jane Galt writes:

The idea is that first they take the guns, then they become totalitarian.

That makes more sense; however, I'm not sure that there are any actual examples that bear it out. (I seem to recall that the examples of this phenomenon that are cited are the Nazis and the Bolsheviks, both of which exhibited varying degrees of ruthlessness from day one.)

"Totalitarian" is being used here in two different ways. 1: a description of the ideal political goals of a group. 2: a description of the practical political power that a group has achieved.

Under the one definition, you could say that Hilter was a totalitarian when he languished in jail writing Mein Kampf. Under the other, you could say that the Nazis only became "really" totalitarian at some point after 1933. (In 1933 they had power but perhaps it was not enough to have given them total control over the populace until later.)

Usually any group that is totalitarian[2] will be totalitarian[1], for political power does not just happen; it must be sought. But it is, in theory at least, possible to imagine a party with total power that doesn't want it.

With these clarifications in mind, the general pattern of degeneration into socialism can be described as follows. First, a totalitarian[1] party manages to take power. At this point it is not yet totalitarian[2]. It then begins to implement socialism of various sorts, including gun controls. After a while of this, the party becomes totalitarian[2].

Re: Leonard's comment --

The Nazis took power in March 1933, just after the Reichstag fire. In July 1933 they had outlawed all other political parties, and had started sending political opponents to Dachau to be tortured.

The Nazi "Weapons Law" providing for gun confiscation was passed in March 1938.

With my old 30'06 deer rifle I can snipe an enemy soldier and take his weapon. With his weapon I can get a better weapon yet. The point is that you can use any firearm tactically to get a better weapon. The Ak 74 and 47s that the Taliban had they got when some mujahideen with either a 60 year old British Lee-Enfield bolt rifle or more likely a 150 year old flintlock shot a Soviet troop. Obviously the saw about civilians not being able to defeat a modern Army didn't hold true in Afghanistan did it?

I'm not so sure that's true Gary. Certainly on many levels machine guns, tanks, fighter jets, and tactical nukes trump handguns, shotguns, and rifles in a battle. There's little question that today's best militaries can defeat even large, well armed populations in military terms, but that's not even remotely the half of it. An armed population has many tools at its disposal to fight off oppression, not the least of them directly fighting police forces in the streets. How many presidents, politicians, bureaucrats, and leaders have been assassinated throughout history? How many presidents, congressmen, senators, judges, police commissioners, generals, etc. would be assassinated in a heavily armed country where the majority of the populace was pissed off at the government and its oppression? When you're the 4th President to assume the office in six months and your expected lifetime is somewhere in the range of less than a year you start to seriously wonder whether the job is worth the risk and the cost and whether it might not be worthwhile to change the government's policies to maybe increase your life expectancy. That's the sort of thing that seriously degrades the ability of any government to do its business (including oppression) and seriously disincentivizes (hey, it is a word ;) everyone at all levels in the oppression heirarchy against taking part in oppression activities. And that's the sort of thing that sets a very concrete barrier of "achievable levels of oppression" to fairly low levels, beyond which the government and its forces simply could not push.

With my old 30'06 deer rifle I can snipe an enemy soldier and take his weapon. With his weapon I can get a better weapon yet. The point is that you can use any firearm tactically to get a better weapon.

Someone's been playing too many video games.

Here's the interesting thing about the "guns stop totalitarianism" argument: the definition of totalitarianism is disturbingly loose. If you postulate that they do: ok, I think we can all agree that an armed populace stopping Hitler's rise is a good thing. (Well, ignoring that the armed segment of the populace gave him the strongest support in his rise to power; come to think of it, it's actually relevant, so keep reading.)

However, "stopping Hitler" isn't the subtext I hear when this argument pops up. "Stopping those goddamn commie/socialist/fascist/republican/democrat bastards I disagree with" seems to be a better description.

In short: as someone who's all for the second amendment (excepting a possible theoretical handgun ban; rifles could be just fine) there's a bit too much distrust of democracy itself, and an aggrieved view of the concept someone might disagree with you and win anyway, for me to buy this.

Illustrative case: I've heard more than once that .50 caliber sniper rifles should remain legal for private possession because it "provides a constraint on politicans, like, say, Clinton, from getting out of hand." In other words, "we can assassinate anyone who really disagrees with us, even if they're pretty mainstream."

You're not going to convince any moderates with that, I'm afraid.

Alkali: If you look at the article that Leonard posted, you'll find that the Nazis were able to do all the gun-grabbing they needed for political purposes under the Weimar Republic's gun law of 1928. They passed their own expanded law - which, unlike the Weimar law, singled out Jews - in 1938. Six months later came Kristallnacht.

Alkali: Dave Kopel's "All the Way Down the Slippery Slope..." may prove interesting to your questions. Britain is not a 'totalitarian' state per se, but the evidence he discusses is quite illuminating, and may give you a better understanding of how a state could progress to tolitarianism through gun control. Long, but readable.

Jason: If you know a better way to keep government from exceeding its authority than "fundamental distrust" among the governed, I'd like to hear it. For that matter, the Dave Kopel essay I linked above may prove relevant to your interest in distinguishing between rifles and handguns.

Second, so what if some nut (or ten) wants to talk about excercising the second ammendment in terms of specific political figures s/he dislikes? As long as that is the case s/he will not gain significant following to overwhelm law enforcment agencies. But if the government were to irritate enough people that a very large section of them would be willing to shoot in order to slow government's advances...THAT'S when government has to be worried.

Why on earth does everyone assume that the majority of the population would be fighting *against* a totalitarian government? When people start talking about armed citizens vs. soldiers, they always ignore the likelihood of a *reactionary* citizens' militia as well as the revolutionary one.

The example of the American colonials versus the British (an easily identified foreign power) is presumably the historic root of this supposition, but there's been a lot of history since then.

And one of the few things we do know about international criminology from the examples of such countries as Mexico, Jamaica etc, is that the correlation between the widespread ownership of guns and the laws relating to gun ownership is negligible.

I think people are misunderstanding the post over at Rachel's that started this discussion. The point of that post, as I understood it, was that there is a fundamental attitudinal difference between people who grow up in an armed society and those that do not.

Remember, the question wasn't "why didn't those Jews shoot their way out of the killing fields". The question was, "why didn't those unarmed Jews rush the few Germans who were guarding them." The answer was, and I paraphrase brutally here - because Europeans who are raised as unarmed subjects have a habit of submission to authority, while Americans who are raised as armed citizens, do not.

The talk about whether an armed citizenry could defeat a professional army is pointless; there are far too many variables. The average boy scout troop could whip most of the "professional" armies in the field these days, because most armies are not war-fighting armies, they are either political trophies or intended primarily to control the domestic citizenry.

Even against a war-fighting army like the U.S. Army, armed citizens can make any military action more costly; clearly, however, the critical variable is political - is the oppressor (native or foriegn) willing or able to absorb these costs in order to gain their objective (whatever that is). Examples can be cited on both sides, but this political question changes so much from one situation to the next that speculation, while it may be fun, is pointless.

>>The answer was, and I paraphrase brutally here - because Europeans who are raised as unarmed subjects have a habit of submission to authority, while Americans who are raised as armed citizens, do not.

Really? Would you like to try to count the number of popular revolutions in Europe since the American one? When was the last General Strike in the USA? This is a ludicrous generalisation, attempting to explain one data point which is completely atypical of European history.

In any case, what's this business about "subjects"? The only three European countries which have a monarch as head of state are the UK, Sweden and Spain, all of which (the UK in particular) have fine traditions of civil disobedience.

Just a note on totalitarian/authoritarianism:

The important point to remember, as Hayek pointed out, is that socialism leads to totalitarianism. Somewhere above, it is suggested that a certain type of person (totalitarian 1) has to use socialism to become an effective totalitarian.

Hayek showed that because planners require vast authority to plan effectively, they become, sui generis, authoritarian. The system creates them. We cannot snip out the authoritarian gene and have "safe" socialism.

One might point out, D^2, that we don't have to have popular revolutions, because we never get the authoritarian governments that make them necessary.

That's a good point, Mindles. Perhaps [1] should be, "a description of the practical power required to implement the political goals of a group".

We just get fewer revolutions. We had one in 1861 (assuming you count a secessionist bid as a revolution). This is, certainly, hard to see as a reaction to authoritarian government. So maybe it doesn't count.

But there was the Southern counter-counterrevolution that ended Reconstruction - surely, among other things, a reaction to the undemocratic governments imposed on the South by the victorious North.

> Why on earth does everyone assume that the majority of the population would be fighting *against* a totalitarian government?

Not everyone does. In fact, the Jews in Germany example is concerned with a minority.

> When people start talking about armed citizens vs. soldiers, they always ignore the likelihood of a *reactionary* citizens' militia as well as the revolutionary one.

They ignore it because it isn't relevant. The arming of the "support the govt" militia isn't an issue because the govt will see to that, just as it sees to arming its official troops. In other words, no matter what, the govt and its supporters will have guns. The only question is whether the opponents will.

> The example of the American colonials versus the British (an easily identified foreign power) is presumably the historic root of this supposition, but there's been a lot of history since then.

Actually, the American revolution is NOT an example of a "majority revolution". It was a revolution of a significant minority. The colonials were in three groups, all roughly the same size, the supporters, the opponents, and the don't cares.

As Kopel points out, the point of popular gun ownership is not to defend totalitarians against themselves. It is to defend significant minorities against majorities and govts.

Interestingly enough, the first gun control laws in the US demonstrate this. They banned gun ownership by slaves and newly freed slaves.

I wonder why....

Actually, I don't. The term "Saturday Night Special" was coined for one of the early gun control campaigns. It comes from "those guns aren't good for anything but N*town on Saturday Night", suggesting crime, when the real problem was that armed Blacks made Klan raids dangerous.)

Jason: If you know a better way to keep government from exceeding its authority than "fundamental distrust" among the governed, I'd like to hear it.

You're conflating "fundamental distrust" with "danger of assassination." They're not equivalent.

Second, so what if some nut (or ten) wants to talk about excercising the second ammendment in terms of specific political figures s/he dislikes?

The 2nd amendment does not anyone the right to kill political leaders: it gives the right to own firearms. Would you say that talking about how you can run over a politican in your car is "exercising your car-owning property rights?"

As long as that is the case s/he will not gain significant following to overwhelm law enforcment agencies. But if the government were to irritate enough people that a very large section of them would be willing to shoot in order to slow government's advances...THAT'S when government has to be worried.

You know, when I hear the phrase "everyone should have a gun to keep the government under control," I don't think of "protecting a minority (conservatives, blacks, jews, whatever) from tyranny. I think of a third-world style coup where a minority seizes power to defeat another minority.

As Kopel points out, the point of popular gun ownership is not to defend totalitarians against themselves. It is to defend significant minorities against majorities and govts.

Alright, let's lay the cards on the table: name a future development in the United States that would justify the armed populace overthrowing the government.

> name a future development in the United States that would justify the armed populace overthrowing the government.

If the left is correct about Bush, Ashcroft, et al, that would seem to qualify.

Does McCullough really believe that there's no chance that such a situation would arise?

I have no idea, "Freeman." What specifically do you mean about "the left being correct about Bush?"

You're conflating "fundamental distrust" with "danger of assassination." They're not equivalent.

It's not conflation at all. Danger of assassination is an element of fundamental distrust, really; but how many of those people who made such casual comments were later arrested for setting up a tripod within sniping distance of the White House? As we all know, casual comments are always backed up with a comprehensive assassination plot. Or maybe YOU have been watching too many movies?

The 2nd amendment does not anyone the right to kill political leaders: it gives the right to own firearms. Would you say that talking about how you can run over a politican in your car is "exercising your car-owning property rights?"

If any "conflating" is going on here, it may involve your apparent inability to separate casual comments from substantive action on the same. Go and re-read Twelve Angry Men for a very relevant illustration.

You know, when I hear the phrase "everyone should have a gun to keep the government under control," I don't think of "protecting a minority (conservatives, blacks, jews, whatever) from tyranny. I think of a third-world style coup where a minority seizes power to defeat another minority.

The limitations of your mind to create appropriate mental illustrations are you own business. Myself, I see the difference between, say, Britain and the US: In Britain, habeas corpus is itself weak; in the US, an officer of the law acting outside of his jurisdiction and without immediate witness to criminal activity could be legally stopped through force of arms, if necessary, by whatever citizen he was attempting to violate.

Thanfully that doesn't happen very often, but the logical observation is that it doesn't happen very often precisely BECAUSE it can happen. The officer's possession of a firearm no longer gives him an advantage.

That right there is a fundamental check to government overextending its power, because in a system like that of the US, the fundamental way for power to begin exceeding its bounds is through police mis-deeds.

Jason -- you probably don't hang around with this set, but I've been getting emails from the lunatic left for quite some time stating the belief that George Bush's presidency and 9-11 are all part of an elaborate plot to install a dictatorship with Cheney or Rumsfeld as Leader. I think that's what Andy means.

Interesting, isn't it. . . is there something about your party losing the presidency that causes people to become unhinged, or do the fruitcakes merely crawl out of hte woodwork?

Oh, that; one of Those People is on this gaming messageboard I frequent. My theory is that their kookiness is just used on other things (WTO, the gay agenda) when their party is in power.

Anonymouse, I'll buy that the founders intended gun ownership as a method where the populace could rise up in armed revolution against an oppressive government. This *isn't the same* as "guns let people keep politicians in line through threat of assassination."

In general, a revolution requires some sort of broad-based movement, while assassination is just one guy with a gun.

You mean kind of like when I said this --

Second, so what if some nut (or ten) wants to talk about excercising the second ammendment in terms of specific political figures s/he dislikes? As long as that is the case s/he will not gain significant following to overwhelm law enforcment agencies. But if the government were to irritate enough people that a very large section of them would be willing to shoot in order to slow government's advances...THAT'S when government has to be worried.

-- but got instantly contradicted?

We're actually agreeing on the key point but arguing small particulars, it would appear. You're claiming that targeted killing wasn't the subject of the second amendment and, oddly enough, I'm not arguing you on that point. What I AM saying is that anecdotal quotations of people talking about 'limiting' xyz political figure, and acually following through, are two separate things.

So long as the people who talk that way never follow through, so what? Let them spout their hot air. They do not represent the majority (else we would have a revolution already in the making), and their talk is impotent.

For the very few that DO follow through, they will in turn be checked by the appropriate law enforcement mechanisms. They are indeed a nuisance and a threat to democratic process, but the system is designed to deal with their ilk.

I really don't see where you are trying to go with this. Assassination is not the intent of the second amendment; assassination is not a particular problem or threat to the US system. From there I should conclude...?

Comments are Closed.