Hammers are trickier, since killing is not their sole purpose. I think I can safely assume you don't use your gun to eat your dinner or fix your roof. If you do, you really need to have your gun taken away.
And gun confiscation leading to tyrannical dictators? Yes, that must be why the Netherlands has a queen who has barely any actual power at all and a government composed of parties that were chosen by the people, and a police force that only harasses you if you have something to answer for, and why you don't get arrested when you say something bad about the government... Actually, that's not tyranny at all. If anything, many people there consider themselves much, MUCH, better off than they would be in the US. I'm afraid history has even more countries where it did NOT lead to tyranny. If there is one government agency I would like to call tyrannic, it's the FBI. They ocassionally get people from other countries exported to the US for doing something in their own country that might be considered illegal in the US. They tried to do that to Kim Dotcom, who probably never even set foot in the US, and they've done it to many others. It was New Zeeland's job to judge him, the US had nothing to do with it. Enforcing your own laws on other countries, that's what I call tyranny. Or how about people in the US who were innocent but got sued. They're practically considered guilty until proven otherwise. Probably under the assumption that the US law system is perfect, so people who get sued must be guilty. Of course reality doesn't work like that. Or people who share 24 MP3-files on the internet and get a fine of over a million US dollars. They'll be paying that off for the rest of their lives. I'd rather be in prison for 10 or 20 years, at least then I'd be done with it before I die. The punishment for sharing a few files on the internet is almost worse than the punishment for murder. That is something I would call tyranny. It's a thing the US does a lot. If you can't see that, you're either only using biased propaganda news papers/videos, or simply utterly retarded.
And then there are countries like Columbia, a country that makes the rant from before look like flowers and sunshine, where half the populace has weaponry, and there is definitely a lot of tyranny, not from the government, but from armed militia. People get killed with guns on a daily basis. The government is nearly powerless thanks to these militia. It's a dangerous place to live, but at least they have firearms (which make it only much more dangerous).
I daresay this is what the future of the US will eventually be, if not more control is passed. If you prefer living in a warzone over not having a gun, fine by me. I'll make sure to stay far away.
So what's that about weaponless states being free from tyranny?