When everyone wore a gun.....1870s!

[beretta304]

Remind me. How many people had automatic or semiautomatic weapons with high capacity clips in the 1870s?

How many people had guns in the Stone Age? What the hell??????

 

[rdean]

When everyone wore a gun, bullies were in charge. It's why the law claimed the old West.

 

[beretta304]

When everyone wore a gun, bullies were in charge. It's why the law claimed the old West.

And the bullies claimed the schools.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The idea that men were permitted to just walk around any western town in 1870 with a gun strapped to their hip is a matter of controversy. Checking guns at the Sherriff's office was a common requirement for visitors to certain towns or communities.

Also...a Colt 45 would cost the equivalent of about $1300 back then. Not every patriot had that kind of scratch.

Oh....the good ol' days!

 

[beretta304]

The idea that men were permitted to just walk around any western town in 1870 with a gun strapped to their hip is a matter of controversy. Checking guns at the Sherriff's office was a common requirement for visitors to certain towns or communities.

Also...a Colt 45 would cost the equivalent of about $1300 back then. Not every patriot had that kind of scratch.

Oh....the good ol' days!

A very unpleasant moment as I have to almost agree with LL. I'd add that justice in the earlier 1800's often was on the spot.

Comparing the Old West to today is a bit of a stretch for me. However one should still have that right to bear arms until it is constitutionally otherwise..... if our laws are to mean anything.

 

[LoneLaugher]

We have tht right. The right is not in danger.

 

[beretta304]

We have tht right. The right is not in danger.

I know where you're going with this. We have the right but can the "availability" be limited?


Make ammunition so expensive as to be out of reach is one way. Naturally by Big Brother's intervention.

 

[LoneLaugher]

We live in a nation with laws and stuff. The laws protect our right to have a gun in our house. That law is not being challenged.

 

[beretta304]

We live in a nation with laws and stuff. The laws protect our right to have a gun in our house. That law is not being challenged.

I'm not disagreeing with you...yet.

 

[Sallow]

We live in a nation with laws and stuff. The laws protect our right to have a gun in our house. That law is not being challenged.

I'm not disagreeing with you...yet.

I think most people agree that you should be able to have a gun for home and business protection.

It's the carrying them in the streets that is the sticky wicket.

I would also add, I don't want terrorists and crazy people to be able to purchase guns under any circumstances.

 

[beretta304]

We live in a nation with laws and stuff. The laws protect our right to have a gun in our house. That law is not being challenged.

I'm not disagreeing with you...yet.

I think most people agree that you should be able to have a gun for home and business protection.

It's the carrying them in the streets that is the sticky wicket.

I would also add, I don't want terrorists and crazy people to be able to purchase guns under any circumstances.

I look at it somewhat pragmatically. No matter the law, there are just too many guns in the world to be controlled so the issue never really gets resolved.


One thing for sure when a right is gone forever...it's just that....gone forever. So look before one leaps.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'm not disagreeing with you...yet.

I think most people agree that you should be able to have a gun for home and business protection.

It's the carrying them in the streets that is the sticky wicket.

I would also add, I don't want terrorists and crazy people to be able to purchase guns under any circumstances.

I look at it somewhat pragmatically. No matter the law, there are just too many guns in the world to be controlled so the issue never really gets resolved.


One thing for sure when a right is gone forever...it's just that....gone forever. So look before one leaps.

Yeah. The sale and consumption of alchohol is still prohibited. I see your point.

 

[Oldguy]

In his book, Frontier Violence: Another Look, author W. Eugene Hollon, provides us with these astonishing facts:

In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides.
This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.

In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.

Zooming forward over a century to 2007, a quick look at Uniform Crime Report statistics as shown in Table 6,
shows the following regarding the aforementioned gun control “paradise” cities of the east and our home town:

Chicago - Obama's home town..516 HOMICIDES IN CHICAGO AS OF Dec. 16, 2012 most from guns!
DC – 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents)
New York – 496 Murders (6 per 100,000 residents)
Baltimore – 282 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents)
Newark – 104 Murders (37 per 100,000 residents)
San Antonio - 122 Murders (9.3 per 100,000 residents)


It doesn’t take an advanced degree in statistics to see that a return to “wild west” levels of violent crime would be a huge improvement for the residents of these cities.
Death Toll in the Old West from firearms vs the unarmed East!

As with Dodge City, the excitement in the Old West in general has been much overstated. All the big cattle towns of Kansas combined saw a total of 45 murders during the period of 1870-1885. Dodge City alone saw 15 people die violently from 1876–1885—an average of 1.5 per year. Deadwood, South Dakota and Tombstone, Arizona (home of the O.K. Corral), during their worst years of violence saw four and five murders respectively. Vigilante violence appears to not have been much worse.

According to Dykstra and Richard M. Brown, while the Kansas code gave mayors the power to call a vigilante group from all the men in the town who ranged in ages from 18–50, it seems, at least in Kansas, that it was rarely done. In a span of 38 years, Kansas had only 19 vigilante movements that accounted for 18 deaths. In addition, between 1876 and 1886, no one was lynched or hanged illegally in Dodge City.
The American West: A Heritage of Peace - Ryan McMaken - Mises Daily

That's a bit disingenuous to compare major urban cities of the 21st century with tiny, rural towns on the 19th century. Of COURSE you'll find more murders today and it has nothing to do with gun control.

Let's compare those cities you cited from back then with today:

Wichita, KS---In 1870, when the city was incorporated, the population was 600. Today, it's about 400,000. In 2010, they recorded 16 murders. 25 in '09 and 30 in '08. As you can see, the murder rate has fallen considerably in just 2 years.

Dodge City, Ks--Population 28,000. There were no murders in Abilene in 2010, 3 in 2008 and 2 in 2007. 2009 was unavailable.

Ellsworth, KS--Population 3100. They have not had a murder since 2002.

Abilene, KS--Population 6800. They did not record a murder in '08,'09 or 2010.

Caldwell, KS--Population just over 1000. They have not recorded a murder in at least 10 years.

Now...what was that case you were trying to make?

 

[RandallFlagg]

We live in a nation with laws and stuff. The laws protect our right to have a gun in our house. That law is not being challenged.

I'm not disagreeing with you...yet.

I think most people agree that you should be able to have a gun for home and business protection.

It's the carrying them in the streets that is the sticky wicket.

I would also add, I don't want terrorists and crazy people to be able to purchase guns under any circumstances.

Actually, I think a large number of people might disagree with you in this climate. Three times I have heard (MSNBC, CNN) the call for ALL weapons to be confiscated from ALL Americans. I am curious to see what the idiot Matthews and Madow's take will be.

Inner city folks have carried guns in the streets for as long as I can remember. "legal" means nothing to those folks.

It has been ILLEGAL for "crazy people" to purchase firearms since the Clock Tower shooter in Austin Texas in the 60s, yet this monster's Mother had no problem buying them for her murderous son.

So, no. I DO NOT believe that those on the left believe in MY right to own a gun. I believe that they would like nothing better than to live in a "police state".

 

[Sallow]

I'm not disagreeing with you...yet.

I think most people agree that you should be able to have a gun for home and business protection.

It's the carrying them in the streets that is the sticky wicket.

I would also add, I don't want terrorists and crazy people to be able to purchase guns under any circumstances.

Actually, I think a large number of people might disagree with you in this climate. Three times I have heard (MSNBC, CNN) the call for ALL weapons to be confiscated from ALL Americans. I am curious to see what the idiot Matthews and Madow's take will be.

Inner city folks have carried guns in the streets for as long as I can remember. "legal" means nothing to those folks.

It has been ILLEGAL for "crazy people" to purchase firearms since the Clock Tower shooter in Austin Texas in the 60s, yet this monster's Mother had no problem buying them for her murderous son.

So, no. I DO NOT believe that those on the left believe in MY right to own a gun. I believe that they would like nothing better than to live in a "police state".

I watch both Matthews and Maddow..and neither one of them have called for a complete ban of firearms.

And it's quite the opposite on the right. They look for things to make it even more dangerous in society. "Stand your ground" is a prime example. The ban on assault weapons was pretty reasonable....and that was reversed.

It's amazing.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Gee, Flagg.....what an original approach to things. You should post here more often. We need fresh content like that.

 

[Dutch]

In fact many frontier towns like Dodge City had stricter gun regulations than today. Many frontier towns including Dodge City had signs posted to check your firearm at the sheriffs office. Imagine the outrage today if gun owners had to relinquish there guns before entering a town?

 

[bripat9643]

I see you failed math.

You're comparing things without any thought to population size, technology, and about a dozen other sociological factors.

You're thread is a FAIL.

I imagine your life is the same.

As usual, you prove you are one of the biggest morons in the forum. The OP compares the murder rate in each of the places mentioned. That's murders per 100,000 people. So it does take population into account.

As far as the technology is concerned, a revolver can fire as fast as an automatic pistol.

Get a brain transplant.

 

[bripat9643]

I think most people agree that you should be able to have a gun for home and business protection.

It's the carrying them in the streets that is the sticky wicket.

I would also add, I don't want terrorists and crazy people to be able to purchase guns under any circumstances.

Actually, I think a large number of people might disagree with you in this climate. Three times I have heard (MSNBC, CNN) the call for ALL weapons to be confiscated from ALL Americans. I am curious to see what the idiot Matthews and Madow's take will be.

Inner city folks have carried guns in the streets for as long as I can remember. "legal" means nothing to those folks.

It has been ILLEGAL for "crazy people" to purchase firearms since the Clock Tower shooter in Austin Texas in the 60s, yet this monster's Mother had no problem buying them for her murderous son.

So, no. I DO NOT believe that those on the left believe in MY right to own a gun. I believe that they would like nothing better than to live in a "police state".

I watch both Matthews and Maddow..and neither one of them have called for a complete ban of firearms.

And it's quite the opposite on the right. They look for things to make it even more dangerous in society. "Stand your ground" is a prime example. The ban on assault weapons was pretty reasonable....and that was reversed.

It's amazing.

The ban on so-called "assault rifles" was a joke. a true assault rifle is fully automatic. What the anti-gun cranks call an "assault rifle" is only semi-automatic. It's technically no different than most hunting rifles that fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled. The only difference between a so-called "assault rifles" and hunting rifles is purely cosmetic.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Unfortunately, liberals cannot fathom this argument.

Liberals believe ( and cannot be convinced otherwise...) that:

(a) higher tax rates will always bring in more revenue

(b) if guns are made illegal, criminals will not have guns



Liberals are sooooooo dumb...it hurts to think about it!

If you really believe what you post you may be dumber than Stephanie, CrusaderFrank and Willow tree (among others).