A New Study Suggests That Black Southerners' Access to Firearms Reduced Lynchings
The analysis reinforces the historical case for armed self-defense in response to racist violence.

In her 1892 pamphlet Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases, the journalist Ida B. Wells argued that firearms were an essential tool in preventing the deadly white supremacist violence that she chronicled. "Of the many inhuman outrages of this present year, the only case where the proposed lynching did not occur, was where the men armed themselves in Jacksonville, Fla., and Paducah, Ky, and prevented it," she wrote. "The only times an Afro-American who was assaulted got away has been when he had a gun and used it in self-defense."
Wells thought the lesson was clear: "A Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give. When the white man who is always the aggressor knows he runs as great risk of biting the dust every time his Afro-American victim does, he will have greater respect for Afro-American life. The more the Afro-American yields and cringes and begs, the more he has to do so, the more he is insulted, outraged and lynched."
Many African-American leaders, including Frederick Douglas, W.E.B. Du Bois, T.R.M. Howard, Roy Wilkins, and Martin Luther King Jr., took a similar position, which was supported by voluminous anecdotal evidence. A recent paper by Clemson University economists Michael Makowsky and Patrick Warren reinforces Wells' case for self-help by showing that "rates of Black lynching decreased with greater Black firearm access" during the Jim Crow era.
Makowsky and Warren's data on lynchings come from a 2019 inventory by University of Georgia sociologists E.M. Beck and Stewart Tolnay. "Our sample includes a mean of 2.16 lynching deaths per year, with 41% of state-years experiencing at least one Black lynching death and a maximum of 13 in Georgia in 1922," the economists write. "Lynching deaths per state capita steadily decrease through our window, with upticks in 1919 and 1933."
During this period, Makowsky and Warren note, "Black citizens were subject to state and local governments that were rarely better than indifferent to their safety and, at their worst, actively supportive of terrorist violence targeting them." This was the context in which Wells et al. urged armed self-defense to provide "that protection which the law refuses to give."
As a proxy for firearm access, Makowsky and Warren use the percentage of suicides committed with guns, which they calculate based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau from 1910 to 1950. Since gun control laws in Southern states were used to selectively disarm black residents, the authors also consider the police resources available to enforce those laws. And they take into account fluctuations in retail gun prices, as reflected in Sears-Roebuck catalogs and records from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
"From 1920 to 1940," Makowsky and Warren report, "White firearm access increased
substantially alongside a decline in Black firearm access." Their analysis supports the hypothesis that racially motivated gun control policies had something to do with that.
"Although policies like increased police employment or the enactment of pistol bans were, on their face, race-neutral, these results show that, in practice, they had the consequence of disarming Black residents without having a similar effect on Whites," Makowsky and Warren write. "This differential disarmament could go a long way toward explaining the Black-White firearm access gap that arose in the Jim Crow South."
That racist strategy, the data suggest, had a lethal impact. "In states and years in which Black residents had more access to firearms, there were fewer lynchings," Makowsky and Warren report. "In all three estimation strategy variants, the estimated negative effect of Black firearm access on lynchings is quite large and statistically significant." An increase of one standard deviation in firearm access, for example, is associated with a reduction in lynchings of between 0.8 and 1.4 per year, about half a standard deviation.
"Drawing on historical vital statistics, we show that efforts to disarm Black residents under Jim Crow were successful, as the intra-war period was characterized by a significant relative decline in Black residents' access to firearms," Makowsky and Warren write. "This decline may have had substantial consequences in a world in which the formal institutions of the law would not protect Black citizens' lives and property. Using suicide records as a proxy for firearm access, we find a negative relationship between Black firearm access and the number of recorded lynchings."
Makowsky and Warren think their results "tell a consistent story about how Black firearm access can shift the lynching risk that Black residents of the Jim Crow South faced." That story, "consistent with the historical record, is one in which Blacks residents in fear of lynchings seek out firearms to protect themselves. But in places and times where policy choices and economic circumstances made it difficult, Black residents had less access to firearms, perhaps due to the increased enforcement of disarmament laws targeting Black residents. That reduction in access led to more lynching victims, as Black residents were not able to protect themselves or rely on the institutions of law enforcement to protect them."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Armed people don’t go to the gas chambers either.
this. That's why step 1 in the pathway to authoritarian hell is ALWAYS disarming the populace
Not exactly: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/1327/
First, with regard to possession and carrying of firearms, the Nazi regime relaxed the gun laws that were in place in Germany at the time the Nazis seized power. Second, the Nazi gun laws of 1938 specifically banned Jewish persons from obtaining a license to manufacture firearms or ammunition. Third, approximately eight months after enacting the 1938 Nazi gun laws, Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms.
So they relaxed laws for the oppressors and removed them for the oppressed. Great find shrike.
Fucking idiot.
Lefties all over these boards own-goaling today. Fun (but sad) to watch
They don't even read their own links.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (anu-06) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://cashprofit99.netlify.app/
Do you even read that? It says Hitler banned Jews from owning guns. The fact that the let the rest of Germany have them doesn't exactly make your case.
You are retarded Shreek.
This is like Maduro or whoever the fuck it was that banned guns for everybody, then handed them out to his supporters. Only an idiot would say he 'relaxed gun laws' by arming his mob.
orrrrrr....
a dishonest, unintelligent, shitlib partaking in sophistry
this is a Tony/Jeff argument, perfectly emulated
Adolf also ran on free healthcare for all..sound familiar?
... and who doesn't realize that the term "Nazi" identifies the "National Socialist Party". I see our "woke progressives" as no more or less than "socialists" only a small dose of violence removed from their brethren the "communists".
Hitler bragged that his party's huge gains in 1933 resulted from "conversion" of communist looters into nazi looters. But there was no non-looter option on the ballot, and most Krupp workers at Kiel weapons plants were Social Democrats who had no problem with laboring to support the Christian National Socialist agenda. After 14JUL1933, of course, all other parties were outlawed with a 3-year penalty should anyone try what David Nolan did in 1972. They sure as... uh... sure stopped liberal Jews from owning guns.
Now, keep in mind which party wants to take away guns and get rid of the second amendment. Anyone want to take a guess as to who?
But the parties switched sides!!
Switched sides, my ass.
no no totes in 1964. Al Gore's daddy is good guy for reals
What president banned the bump stock? I forget.
Wow, you had to grasp pretty hard for that lame "both sides" position. But you're right, everyone knows that the right supports banning guns as much as the left does.
the same one that delivered a 6-3 SCOTUS that is very likely to not allow the 2A to be infringed.
Banning bump stocks wasnt great, but pretty minor considering what we did get
Trump only paid attention to a few specific goals. If he didn't care, he paid almost no attention. Thus bump stocks got banned; I doubt he knows much about guns. Thus Brix and Fauci locking down the country; pandemics didn't interest him.
But he sure as shit cared about that Mexican wall, and about China.
Meh, he's smart enough to delegate issues to the passionate.
Yeah,, and we got Brix and Fauci. Delegation is pointless when done mindlessly without any followup supervision.
Both sides aren't perfect which makes them equal right brandy?
What is the connection between white lynch mobs and black gang members?
Honkie prohibition laws for Jesus?
Scumbags don’t want to be shot?
Say it ain’t so!
Firearms also reduced the pedofile polulation of Kenosha by 2.05
Gun control has always been racist.
The less racist people become, the less they support gun control.
"That Black Southerners' Access to Firearms Reduced Lynchings"
And thus was born the idea of gun control.
I'm old enough to remember "Armed gays don't get bashed" and my parents are old enough to remember "Armed blacks don't get lynched."
It's no wonder they want us unarmed.
My friend used to run the local Pink Pistols, whose motto was indeed "Armed gays don't get bashed". Some of them literally had pink pistols. More power to them.
Same story why my Dad, a ww2 medal of honor recipient, wanted all of us 'injuns' trained up to fire a gun, male and female.
Similar to how Antifa fought back against the MAGA/Klan/Unite the Right alliance in 2020.
Ideas aren’t armed.
You support Antifa?
Jesus.
Since Antifa is not a real organization with a defined objective I can't give an unqualified reply.
But in general I support anti-fascists over fascists.
After Charlottesville if another Neo-Nazi/MAGA/Unite the Right rally had been organized I would support Antifa against that - yes.
Would you support an anti-fascist or anti-nazi if they were actively goose stepping, wearing swastika's, and killing jews?
Sometimes we have to use our big boy eyes and ears and respond to whats actually happening. Stopping cars, ganging up on people, and shouting "RAISE YOUR FIST IN SOLIDARITY FUCKING RIGHT NOW!!!" and attacking them if they dont sounds pretty fucking fascist to me.
Maybe dont fall for the blatantly orwellian double speak they employ and grow the fuck up
The anti-Semites were clearly on the Unite the Right side.
And fuck the Nation of Islam and Farrakhan too. They are as vile as the Klan and Nazis are.
Name a current Republican elected officail that's antisemite. I've got these for the Dems: Ilhan Omar, Rashida Talib, Betty McCollum, Cori Bush, Ayanna Pressley, Bernie Sanders and OAC. And Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris disagreed with pushback from Eliot Engel (D), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee when he criticized Omar's Feb 2019 antisemitic tweet as “unacceptable and deeply offensive". I'm sure their are more examples of Democrat officials, but give me some examples of Republicans. If you're gong to make an argument give examples not just a sound bite you've heard somewhere.
See, JimboJr is exhibiting the worst of tribalism.
He reflexively sides with the fascists because TEAM RED! It is all instinct for him.
*whoosh*
After Charlottesville if another Neo-Nazi/MAGA/Unite the Right rally had been organized I would support Antifa against that - yes.
Charlottesville proved that there is very little support for events perceived as promoting white supremacist viewpoints anymore. It called for national action and got a few hundred people. The reaction of Antifa supporters to that news was, 'Yeah, well then let's get together and beat the shit out of them now that they are a small minority!" This encouraged much larger groups to organize against the violence promoted by Antifa supporters.
People with actual intelligence know that violently suppressing any viewpoint is not just wrong, but foolish. It will always generate more interest in the viewpoints you want to suppress than if you left them alone, starved of attention.
Antifa supporters are bullies and cowards.
Which is why I would never attend a political rally of any type.
A few years back you posted kiddy porn to this site, and your initial handle was banned. The link below details all the evidence surrounding that ban. A decent person would honor that ban and stay away from Reason. Instead you keep showing up, acting as if all people should just be ok with a kiddy-porn-posting asshole hanging around. Since I cannot get you to stay away, the only thing I can do is post this boilerplate.
https://reason.com/2022/08/06/biden-comforts-the-comfortable/?comments=true#comment-9635836
Don't respond to SPB, just shun him.
#FillingInForOvert
A few years back you posted kiddy porn to this site, and your initial handle was banned. The link below details all the evidence surrounding that ban. A decent person would honor that ban and stay away from Reason. Instead you keep showing up, acting as if all people should just be ok with a kiddy-porn-posting asshole hanging around. Since I cannot get you to stay away, the only thing I can do is post this boilerplate.
https://reason.com/2022/08/06/biden-comforts-the-comfortable/?comments=true#comment-9635836
Don't respond to SPB, just shun him.
#FillingInForOvert
So you still buy into the "Antifa is an idea and not a group" bullshit?
Is that so you can avoid what Antifa really is in order to bask in the air of pseudo-intellectualism?
If you truly don't believe that Antifa is a thing, you have no basis discussing this subject.
But, I do find it funny that your initial post that I responded to referred to Antifa as an entity fighting back. Yet, now you claim it doesn't really exist.
Do you ever find being so intellectually dishonest tiring?
So you support burning down court houses, blinding cops, and terrorizing the entire city of Portland for months on end.
I can't say I am surprised. You are the most worthless piece of shit in the world. The best thing you could do for the world is kill yourself. You are just garbage.
"So you support burning down court houses, blinding cops, and terrorizing the entire city of Portland for months on end."
Which he counts as 'anti-fascist' because they successfully perform their fascism on his political opponents
I applaud any struggle to the death between two looter factions I despise. FDR and Churchill also understood this sort of chessboard and were successful in playing it.
Ha ha nice bait my troll friend.
Which bridge do you live under? i want to send you a cookie.
Fuck off and die you pedo
By burning down black businesses?
Antifa wasn't fighting back against anything. They were the aggressors.
A few years back you posted kiddy porn to this site, and your initial handle was banned. The link below details all the evidence surrounding that ban. A decent person would honor that ban and stay away from Reason. Instead you keep showing up, acting as if all people should just be ok with a kiddy-porn-posting asshole hanging around. Since I cannot get you to stay away, the only thing I can do is post this boilerplate.
https://reason.com/2022/08/06/biden-comforts-the-comfortable/?comments=true#comment-9635836
Don't respond to SPB, just shun him.
#FillingInForOvert
Why don't you Communists simply state who you are v. stating what you are against?
We all know that Communists and Fascists have always been mortal enemies. Just say it - you're a Communist with a capital 'C'. It's not hard and it is much clearer to everyone, including yourself.
If the sockpuppet gave a damn, it'd read the nationalsocialist and international-socialist programs. Illiterate masked nazis and communists who flock here to try to irritate Reason subscribers turn into grey rectangles. (https://tinyurl.com/3k65fvnd)
Is that the extent of our civil discourse ? Has the willingness to leave each other alone only ever been enforced by the counter-willingness to put hot lead in each other ? Sad. I wont say it isn't true, but it's sad.
Go back a couple of 100,000 years in human history, and substitute virtually any weapon for "hot lead" and see what your answer is.
And in the 1940s, Einstein laid out that into the future the only thing that would really change would be to substitute 'atomize' for 'put hot lead'.
Personally, I remain unconvinced that a society unwilling to put hot lead in some people is less sad than the one that is.
This from the pages of the scientific publication titled "Well, Duh."
I thought it was the "Journal of Duhology"
Imagine if they had a few F-15s.
That would be pointless. How could they fly them without pilots licenceses, duh!
But we already do, the government just doesn't want to admit it. That's why they are sending everything they can to Ukraine to be stolen and sold off to the people they will use to fight us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbVjDkx8Zsg
Racists, just like rapists, don't like to risk getting shot.
Amazing.
In 1892 the Winchester lever action was the equivalent of todays AR 15.
But I do not hang mine above my fireplace.
And also despite the demonizing of AR's right now, Uvalde could have happened with that lever action rifle, or a bog standard handgun, or even just a little ol 22.
This is why I laugh at people who say weapons designed for war. The bolt action was specifically designed for military use in the 1860s. For the most part, until after WW1, bolt action rifles were rare in America except military rifles. Semi-automatic rifles on the other hand were specifically designed for the civilian market, and not considered suitable for the military originally. So, really what most people consider sporting rifles today were literally designed for war, not sporting usage and what they label as weapons of war were originally designed specifically for the civilian sporting world, not warfare.
Well, what will you do with the FACT that jOhn Moses Browing develooped his BAR semiautomatic rifle specificlly FOR military use. It was originally chambered in the .30/06, also called 7.62 x 59. Much of that mechanism was later modified to develop the BMG, a belt fed machine gun that originally fired the same round as the BAR. Later the BMG .50 was developed because the .30/06 lacked both super long range and hit power. The BMG fifty is still today one of the most capable rifles ever.
Civilians cannot purchase these BMG rifles without a hard to get takes forever and costs a pair of legs . Too bad.
But the bolt guns and semi-auto versions firing the same rounds can be had by we normal folks.... though they come rather dear, and are also costly to shoot. But, if one really wants to reach out nd touch someone who is a mile or more away, these will do if you can do.
Stuff developed for military then trickling down into our civilian world.
Thanks for the history lesson.
Blacks' access to guns today of course results in roughly 50 per cent of all U.S. murders.
Carry on.
But the vast majority of that "black access to guns today" is in violation of existing laws, and is being abused to attempt to justify the denial of guns to the law abiding. The vast majority of recovered firearms used in the crimes to which you allude are ones that had been stolen, most often two to five years prior to their seizure at the scene of a crime. Lets keep ALL the facts straight, shall we? Those crime guns you mention are NOT the same as mine, nor those of the other law abising citizens roaming about.
It's probably higher than that, because the race of the perpetrator doesn't enter the stats unless the crime is solved, and the clearance rate of murders in high crime Black neighborhoods is low.
..the clearance rate of murders in high crime Black neighborhoods is low.
And why would that be the case? Maybe a lack of law enforcement resources? Maybe a lack of political will to adequately address it? Maybe a lack of trust in law enforcement by Black people in those neighborhoods such that they don't cooperate with investigations very well? Maybe all of the above?
Maybe those neighborhoods just need more people owning guns (legally!). I'm sure that would solve the problem and not further feed the violence by making more guns available to fall into the wrong hands.
And why would that be the case?
Mostly it's because residents of high-crime areas fear retaliation from the thugs if they cooperate with police investigations. Also, when these crime occur, the witnesses and those with useful information are often involve in criminal activities themselves, and don't want to risk ANY contact with the police.
The pamphlet is claimed to date from 1892, yet uses terms far more modern than that. I do not believe the term "afro-american' was used prior to at least the 1960's. And they CERTAINLY did not refer to themselves, nor did others, as (capital B) Blacks. Something does not line up here.........
I noticed this too. The cut and dried narrative is a bit (way bit) too simplistic for this complex of a topic.
That reduction in access led to more lynching victims, as Black residents were not able to protect themselves or rely on the institutions of law enforcement to protect them.
Lynching wasn't like other forms of violence that people might want to arm themselves to protect against. It was essentially a terrorist tactic aimed at keeping Black people in the South down and living in fear. That it existed at all was because of the indifference or even complicity of law enforcement. Investigating and prosecuting the murderers that did these things with the same diligence that the murder of a white person could expect would have been far more effective at discouraging it than greater access to firearms was.
As a historical analysis meant to support gun rights more broadly, this does not make the case as strongly as Sullum thinks it does. When crime exists because law enforcement is choosing not to do its job, the preferred solution is not for the populace to arm itself. The solution is to elect those that will make law enforcement protect them.
So, Black people were foolishly voting for white racists?
So, Black people needed to arm themselves because they were denied the right to vote for people that would enforce the law equally as well as because the white racists in charge of law enforcement wouldn't protect them. Why not really use the 2nd Amendment the way that many of its supporters think it should have been used and actually fight against their government oppressors?
My point here is that owning guns is not good solution to racism. If racism is the root of the problems Black people were experiencing under Jim Crow (and its legacy still affects them), then owning guns would do little to address that short of armed revolt. The Civil Rights movement, correctly, in my opinion, recognized that non-violent protest was the only way to succeed in the long run.
Would gun ownership protect Black people from job discrimination? Redlining? From having factories and toxic waste processing done next to their neighborhoods?
"the preferred solution is not for the populace to arm itself."
Says a pacifist with a victim mentality who wants all other people to simply follow suit. No thanks!
You're comparing different things and acting as if they have the same solution! There was, and is, both a short term immediate problem - with BOTH a short term and a long term solution required.
Telling a family who's father was about to be lynched to peacefully protest because gun ownership won't solve racism - is utterly foolish to the extreme! It's no wonder fools fail to comprehend the reality of the world around them!
Guns can be a short term solution that can provide time to work on the long term solution - and this is still the case! Guns can protect the innocent from the lawless - allowing time for reforms to reduce crime! Or they can save the family today, and allow them to move tomorrow!
Any other mental gymnastics justifying keeping arms from the hands of the potential victims - is simply foolish utopian hog wash!
Your "solution" is like telling a starving family to plant crops, knowing full well they will all be dead before they mature!
That all might be reasonable, if this article was written to justify gun ownership in the present as a temporary solution to the problem of increased violent crime in Black neighborhoods. But gun rights supporters among the writers here at Reason don't offer gun ownership as a temporary solution. As well as the argument for self defense being a natural right (and guns are necessary for adequate self defense, in their view), they also frequently argue that higher rates of gun ownership would deter crime and thus be an effective long-term solution as well.
That is where this gun owner differs from the activists. Increasing the number of people owning guns means more guns in circulation. More homes that get burglarized will have guns in them for criminals to steal; more people prone to domestic violence but don't have the existing criminal record to bar them from owning a gun will have one handy to use against their victims; more people dealing with depression or other mental illness will have a convenient and highly lethal method of suicide at the ready.
I wish gun rights supporters would recognize this and/or be more honest if they already do. The enormous number of guns in civilian hands in this country means that there will are more guns in the hands of people that shouldn't have them. I don't see any way to dispute that.
The long-term solution is to reduce the number of people who shouldn't have them.
A New Study Suggests That Black Southerners' Access to Firearms Reduced Lynchings
- Well duh! -
Sullum found a "study" that confirms what Mark Twain explained in Huckleberry Finn in 1884: "The idea of YOU lynching anybody! It’s amusing. The idea of you thinking you had pluck enough to lynch a MAN! Because you’re brave enough to tar and feather poor friendless cast-out women that come along here, did that make you think you had grit enough to lay your hands on a MAN?" America was plagued by girl-bulliers and racial collectivists then just as we are now. ALL blacks and women ought to pack heat, no questions asked. (https://bit.ly/3x7K9pB)
Next you are going to try and tell us water is wet!