The 1800's Wild West Had Stricter Gun Control Than We Have Today.

[JaneyVee]

-snip-

Today’s anti gun control forces count their strongest support among society’s leaders from the states that once formed part of the Old West. The actual Old West pioneers of historical fact viewed matters differently, however. They would certainly hail the campaign to protect an American right to bear arms, but the record puts them behind "moderate, common-sense measures" for gun control --

-snip-

Pioneer publications show Old West leaders repeatedly arguing in favor of gun control. City leaders in the old cattle towns knew from experience what some Americans today don't want to believe: a town which allows easy access to guns invites trouble.

What these cow town leaders saw intimately in their day-to-day association with guns is that more guns in more places caused not greater safety, but greater death in an already dangerous wilderness.

By the 1880s many in the west were fed up with gun violence. Gun control, they contended, was absolutely essential, and the remedy advocated usually was usually no less than a total ban on pistol-packing.

The rest: http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~rcollins/scholarship/guns.html

other source: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/23/nation/la-na-tombstone-20110123
----------------------------------------------

It's kind of comical to think that even back then townspeople would have loved the 2nd Amendment so much they wouldn't have minded bullets flying around, dead children & family members being killed. Because love & wanting to live are 21st century concepts I guess?

Other articles state that guns were banned in public and in many towns you had to hand over your guns before entering. There would literally be a line in the sand you couldn't cross with a gun.

[cantbeserious]

1. Stubborn Truth Triumphs Over Myth And Legend

eom

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. Actually, the "wild, wild" west wasn't really as wild as Hollywood would have you believe

"How many murders do you suppose these old western towns saw a year? Let's say the bloodiest, gun-slingingest of the famous cattle towns with the cowboys doing quick-draws at high noon every other day. A hundred? More?

How about five? That was the most murders any old-west town saw in any one year. Ever. Most towns averaged about 1.5 murders a year, and not all of those were shooting. You were way more likely to be murdered in Baltimore in 2008 than you were in Tombstone in 1881, the year of the famous gunfight at the OK Corral (body count: three) and the town's most violent year ever."

http://www.cracked.com/article_18487_6-ridiculous-history-myths-you-probably-think-are-true.html

[mikekohr]

4. How Many Cowboys Had Bushmasters with 30 round magazines?

I believe the answer is none.

Drunk Cowboys with pistols shot a lot of lead but did not hit much. On the other hand a modern day antisocial loser with a a maniacal intent to kill lots of people quickly has been aided in that goal by todays vastly more deadly firearms.

[Recursion]

10. Just like today, people preferred handguns for nearly all murders

Though Doc Holliday seemed to prefer a sawed-off shotgun.

[melm00se]

22. The Winchester 73 (a very popular rifle from the day)

had a capacity of 15 rounds, the "assault" rifle of the day.

[Art_from_Ark]

21. Cracked is not exactly an authority

A lot of times, they just make bullshit claims. Perhaps they have never heard of Virginia City or Aurora, Nevada, or Bodie, California, mining towns that had a lot of violence and more than 5 deaths due to violence in various years. And in 1892 in Coffeyville, Kansas, at least 8 people were killed in one day in a gun battle involving the infamous Dalton Gang.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/daltons.htm

[DetlefK]

26. But they provide links for people to start digging.

Of course Cracked doesn't offer a complete and infallible analysis: It's a comedy-website and its articles are geared towards sensationalism. But they always provide sources.

[aikoaiko]

3. It was always the anti-gun folks who claimed pro-gun folks wanted a return to the wild west

Not the pro-gun folks.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

5. yep.

[caseymoz]

7. I believe you miss the point.

Does it matter to them that people closer to the time and history of the Framers never interpreted the right the way progunners now insist? Even in a frontier environment?

Or do you mean progunners don't want safer towns?

[melm00se]

23. But the Constitution

is a living document, open to interpretation.

Right now the interpretation of the 2nd amendment has swung one way.

[caseymoz]

24. Which means, of course . . .

. . . we're free to swing it in a different way with consensus.

[melm00se]

31. true

as long as the "consensus" doesn't trample on the current interpretation of rights.

[caseymoz]

6. And here's the way we actually remember the Old West

Pro-gun, family friendly, and all about teaching kids responsible gun use:

(What the hell is Chuck Conners shooting at? Is he testing smart bullets by blasting away a bunch of targets without re-aiming? Is he doing demolition on a building? Does he have a bad guy pinned to the wall? Is he assisting a coroner in a Wild West version of an autopsy? Are the bad guys drawing on him while lined up in single file?)

Yep. Utterly responsible, and no testosterone on tap in that vid.

And no gun industry propaganda to be found.

[Recursion]

8. And a significantly higher level of gun violence

Hmmm....

[Gravitycollapse]

11. Gun violence was actually lower.

[Recursion]

12. Nope, not per capita at least

That rate except for an uptick in the 1970s and 1980s has been dropping steadily since the country was founded.

[Gravitycollapse]

13. The per capita homicide rate was lower in the mid 19th century than today.

[Recursion]

14. Negative

We're pretty much at an historic low

[Gravitycollapse]

16. Actually, upon further review, you're right.

[Recursion]

17. You'd never know it from anything any politician or media figure says

I find that frustrating: we should be trying to figure out what (if anything) we've been doing right.

What's really interesting to me is the "bump" wars seem to give to the rate, and how it lasts several years after the war, and how Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be an exception (or the correlation is spurious to begin with: the bump I'm associating with the Civil War starts in 1850, though presumably that includes Bleeding Kansas-type stuff).

[Ron Obvious]

18. Spikes

Those spikes near the revolutionary war, the civil war and Vietnam are interesting. I'm assuming they're not including war casualties in the homicide rates, though. I wonder if there's a connection. More guns in circulation, maybe?

I'm not trying to make a point. Just wondering.

[Recursion]

19. I'll have to go read it again, but I think combatant deaths are not counted

But guerrilla and paramilitary deaths (Bleeding Kansas, the Bowery riots, Francis Marion killing loyalists, etc.) are.

[Hoyt]

27. Think how much lower it would be without tens of millions of guns floating around.

How about wound rate, use of guns in intimidation/racism, yahoos armed up, etc.

Besides, this is 21st century, not the 1800s.

[Recursion]

28. That's an interesting contrafactual

The data we don't have are firearms ownership rates historically; that would be a good time series regression to run.

[dsoppet]

32. source data

can you provide the source for the graph provided on per capita homicide rates

[progressoid]

15. And gun ownership was higher.

[Historic NY]

9. A couple more from the old days...

http://listverse.com/2013/02/18/9-crazy-truths-about-the-wild-west/

[TexasProgresive]

30. I wonder how many were killed by "Prickly Ash Bitters" and

other such "medicines"? The old folks (oh wait that's me now!) around here called the prickly ash-tooth ache tree. If you cut the bark and place the green cambium on your gums there is a definite sensation of numbing.

[beevul]

20. This BS again?

Simple common sense refutes this fabrication in its entirety:

Permits needed back then to carry guns generally? No. We do however have those now.

Anyone that thinks that permits being required for gun carry, is less strict than permitless legal carry, raise your hand.



Permits needed back then to own a gun? No. Im some places we do, now.

Anyone that thinks permitted ownership to own a gun is less strict than permitless ownership, raise your hand.



Need to be 18 to buy a rifle and 21 to buy a handgun back then? No. That is, however, the case now.

Anyone that thinks that not having an age requirement of 18 to buy rifles and 21 to buy handguns, is stricter than having them, raise your hand.



Felons prohibited by law from owning guns back then? No, we do however have that prohibition now. Back then, violent criminals were handed their guns at the door when they left prison.

Anyone that thinks that that is stricter than a prohibition of ownership by felons as we have now nationwide, raise your hand.



Those are just examples, and far from the only ones.




How is it even possible, that there was stricter gun control before the national firearms act of 1934, the gun control act of 1968, and brady bill, and the lautenberg amendment which are all in effect now?

I wont hold my breath waiting for all the hardline gun control supporters to line up to repeal all those laws because gun control was stricter before they were passed.

[hack89]

25. Can you show what the murder rates were like? Just curious. nt

[setab]

29. Colonial practice?

I think more importantly was the actual practice of keeping and bearing arms during colonial times. I think that is where the arguments for gun control tend to fall short - practically every household then had a (somewhat) modern military firearm, and each individual adult male was a militia member. The founders (I know I am stepping into right-wing territory here) DID tend to side with individual gun ownership, and there wasn't much debate on the matter.

Here's where the right wing may be right about the issue during America's founding - the "originalist" argument holds water not because of theory, but because of actual practice, but whether that translates into what should be going on now may be different.