4 ms·

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 sta

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
      Only in the same sense that ice can help cool you down on a hot day is undermined by the fact that the freezing temperature of ice is 0. I'm not much of a gun person, but in looking at the history of guns and the quite ambiguous information on positive impacts of control - I've become not only more understanding, but also in support, of their efforts to maintain their rights to arm themselves.

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
    Only in the same sense that ice can help cool you down on a hot day is undermined by the fact that the freezing temperature of ice is 0. I'm not much of a gun person, but in looking at the history of guns and the quite ambiguous information on positive impacts of control - I've become not only more understanding, but also in support, of their efforts to maintain their rights to arm themselves.