I would say there are a few events in history and in the geopolitical world that support my claim. The first is the recent spike in gun ownership in Israel following the Hamas attacks [1]. Similarly, you have militias such as Hezbollah who have refused to lay down their weapons post the civil war conflict and have retained a disproportionate amount of power over the citizens of Lebanon. In one example, they have built their own telecom network which, when the state attempted to remove it, Hezbollah fought back by terrorizing the population [2].
In the first case, you see the population seeking to arm themselves to bring the balance of power back inline. In the second case you see the balance of power already tilted towards an armed group.
I am not saying guns are the solution. But they are a deterrent. An aggressor will think twice before attacking.
That's a pair of events that are not about the 'precipice between democracy and tyranny'. The argument is a trope of US gun rights advocates but it's not really based on much beyond frequent repetition. I don't mean this as some sort of opening for a gun policy debate, just that this particular thing is largely a slogan, not some meaningful historical pattern. One of its forms has its own Wikipedia page:
In the first case, you see the population seeking to arm themselves to bring the balance of power back inline. In the second case you see the balance of power already tilted towards an armed group.
I am not saying guns are the solution. But they are a deterrent. An aggressor will think twice before attacking.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/world/middleeast/israel-g... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Lebanon_conflict