4 ms·

You can please provide a source instead of just stating things that don't really make any sense? Guns were quite expensive and there were countless laws prevent

You can please provide a source instead of just stating things that don't really make any sense? Guns were quite expensive and there were countless laws preventing blacks from owning or buying guns as well as making it a crime to provide them to blacks. "Blacks had easy access to guns" does not follow from these facts.

foldr 8y ago
Those laws were passed following the civil war because of concerns about groups of black soldiers who did in fact have guns. https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/02/what-reconstruction-and-its-end-meant-for-black-americans-who-had-fought-for-the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms.html https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/02/what-reconstruction... >The end of the Civil War left an army of occupation in the South. The natural tensions of military occupation were exacerbated by black troops. Only a fraction of Union troops occupied the South after the war, and the balance mustered out according to length of service. Because blacks were not admitted into ranks until the middle of the war, they were retained at a higher rate, making the occupying force “blacker” than the one that won the war. The roughly 200,000 black Americans who served in the Union Army comprised an estimated 10 percent of the North’s total fighting force. But by the last quarter of 1865, blacks made up about one-third of the occupation army. Many Southerners took this as a deliberate Union insult.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  The slave population in 1860 was about 4 million. ~150k surviving black soldiers with an unknown number who decided to stay in south, doesn't really justify stating that blacks had easy access to weapons. That said, I think you were also stating something different than I was. In particular a recurring theme in history is that people don't tend to fiercely resist disarmament. So even if blacks had easy access to guns prior to disarmament, we would have expected them to give them up with relatively minimal resistance. This happens time and again because disarmament, in and of itself does, not seem particularly heinous. But the problem is that the heinous acts, that would more clearly justify violent resistance, start only after disarmament - when it's already too late.
  - foldr 8y ago
    >So even if blacks had easy access to guns prior to disarmament, we would have expected them to give them up with relatively minimal resistance. That seems to pretty clearly undermine the whole case for guns somehow preventing violations of rights. >~150k surviving black soldiers with an unknown number who decided to stay in south, doesn't really justify stating that blacks had easy access to weapons. Then why did they bother passing the laws? It's also patently absurd to suggest that an occupying army doesn't constitute a significant force. No citizens' militia is likely to approach the capabilities of a 150k well-organized soldiers.
    - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
      The reason the laws are passed is because of an awareness that the acts they planned to engage in might justifiably result in violent resistance. And this is, again, a very typical pattern. Guns prevent egregious violations of rights. But egregious violations of rights tend to be preceded by confiscation of guns or other forms of gun control, which is generally not seen as sufficient justification for violent resistance. This is even more true when the control is done through more clever means. For instance one way that black individuals and poor whites (who were just as much a cause for concern - see: armed labor strikes) were prevented from having access to weapons was by putting absurdly large taxes on them. Since the tax ostensibly affects everybody equally, it makes it much more difficult to argue that it's discriminatory even though such acts 100% through and through were aimed with exclusively discriminatory ends in mind.
      - foldr 8y ago
        > Guns prevent egregious violations of rights. But egregious violations of rights tend to be preceded by confiscation of guns or other forms of gun control, which is generally not seen as sufficient justification for violent resistance. Again, if true, that clearly undermines the claim that guns prevent violations of rights.
        TangoTrotFox 8y ago

foldr 8y ago

Those laws were passed following the civil war because of concerns about groups of black soldiers who did in fact have guns. https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/02/what-reconstruction-and-its-end-meant-for-black-americans-who-had-fought-for-the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms.html https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/02/what-reconstruction... >The end of the Civil War left an army of occupation in the South. The natural tensions of military occupation were exacerbated by black troops. Only a fraction of Union troops occupied the South after the war, and the balance mustered out according to length of service. Because blacks were not admitted into ranks until the middle of the war, they were retained at a higher rate, making the occupying force “blacker” than the one that won the war. The roughly 200,000 black Americans who served in the Union Army comprised an estimated 10 percent of the North’s total fighting force. But by the last quarter of 1865, blacks made up about one-third of the occupation army. Many Southerners took this as a deliberate Union insult.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
The slave population in 1860 was about 4 million. ~150k surviving black soldiers with an unknown number who decided to stay in south, doesn't really justify stating that blacks had easy access to weapons. That said, I think you were also stating something different than I was. In particular a recurring theme in history is that people don't tend to fiercely resist disarmament. So even if blacks had easy access to guns prior to disarmament, we would have expected them to give them up with relatively minimal resistance. This happens time and again because disarmament, in and of itself does, not seem particularly heinous. But the problem is that the heinous acts, that would more clearly justify violent resistance, start only after disarmament - when it's already too late.
- foldr 8y ago
  >So even if blacks had easy access to guns prior to disarmament, we would have expected them to give them up with relatively minimal resistance. That seems to pretty clearly undermine the whole case for guns somehow preventing violations of rights. >~150k surviving black soldiers with an unknown number who decided to stay in south, doesn't really justify stating that blacks had easy access to weapons. Then why did they bother passing the laws? It's also patently absurd to suggest that an occupying army doesn't constitute a significant force. No citizens' militia is likely to approach the capabilities of a 150k well-organized soldiers.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    The reason the laws are passed is because of an awareness that the acts they planned to engage in might justifiably result in violent resistance. And this is, again, a very typical pattern. Guns prevent egregious violations of rights. But egregious violations of rights tend to be preceded by confiscation of guns or other forms of gun control, which is generally not seen as sufficient justification for violent resistance. This is even more true when the control is done through more clever means. For instance one way that black individuals and poor whites (who were just as much a cause for concern - see: armed labor strikes) were prevented from having access to weapons was by putting absurdly large taxes on them. Since the tax ostensibly affects everybody equally, it makes it much more difficult to argue that it's discriminatory even though such acts 100% through and through were aimed with exclusively discriminatory ends in mind.
    - foldr 8y ago
      > Guns prevent egregious violations of rights. But egregious violations of rights tend to be preceded by confiscation of guns or other forms of gun control, which is generally not seen as sufficient justification for violent resistance. Again, if true, that clearly undermines the claim that guns prevent violations of rights.
      - TangoTrotFox 8y ago