"What some folks want is to go to the wild west"

[nadinbrzezinski]

We read this every so often when we talk about gun control... and people talk about the NRA and the rest of them

You know what? We should go back to the wild west.

But, but... let me explain

Gun ownership in the old west wasn't that high. The cost of a sidearm ranged from six months of your yearly salary to a year.

Ammo wasn't that cheap either.

This meant most folks didn't own guns. So no... that image of the cowboys walking in town armed to the teeth that hollywood has spread is not quite real

On the other hand, little house on the prairie, (when it comes to guns) it's a little closer to reality... they were rare in the show... alas they were rare in the Old West

So lets go back to the old west

Oh here is another myth to slay... the every so popular high noon... guess what? There is a record of only ONE of these shootings ever happening... don't tell that to Hollywood though, and neither of the two guys involved wore either a white or black hat...

Of course we should indeed go to the old west... you know what the shooting at the OK Corral was about? Try to follow, Wyat Erp and his guys were trying to enforce LOCAL gun control laws... that's quite a bit of what they did.

Ah so yes... please NRA, thrown me into that briar patch.

By my estimation the cost of a gun at your local gun store should go up to about 10K... and a bullet should go up to about ten dollars a round...

Oh and we would have gun control laws... that have little to do with confiscation....

Yep, throw me into that briar patch

Ah how much fun is to slay the myths that plague what people think is history... not the real thing...

[david13]

1. Yep. People say they need a gun to feel safe,

but what about those 4 Oakland CA p o's the other day. They had guns, all of them. Were they safe? Doesn't seem like it.
I guess if you want to feel "safe" maybe you should wear a bullet proof vest all the time. Or not, again the OPD po's probably had bullet proof vests and they weren't safe, were they.
So why everybody is so hung up on 'safe' is beyond me. There is no such thing.
Now, some people may say, well if we had gun control then the killer (of the 4) would not have had a gun. WRONG. There were many laws against the guns he had, which he had contrary to the law, that is, illegally, and that didn't make anybody 'safe' either, did it.
But guns is big business and big business always wins out over individual rights, such as your right not to be shot.
dc

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. It is part of the mythology

and as to the cops... the vests they wore could not, and would not, protect them against those particular rounds

Vests are rated by what they can stop... and I will leave it at that

Suffice it to say that a few times, AK's were involved... I took my vest off... would be a little less painful... nope, was not rated for that round, by a far shot

[XemaSab]

6. I'm assuming you're male

I work in the woods, and there are creeps and wild animals out there.

And in many cases, you're a long, long way from help.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. In that case, by all means carry a rifle

[Mojorabbit]

2. I for one am glad your estimation

of the cost of a gun and ammo probably will never happen. I can shoot a couple of hundred rounds at the range in one afternoon.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. I'm taking into account inflation and the real cost of rounds back then

the only reason why the cost is down to about fifty cents a round (average) is industrial production

Chew on this, the Army used to have troopers fire three rounds a year at the range... due to the cost

[Xithras]

5. Some of your info is a little off.

In 1875 you could buy a brand new Colt revolver for about $20. In 1880 the average income for a farmer (the typical resident of the old west) averaged out to about $5 a week (about $8 a week on the east coast). That means that a brand new, state of the art gun was worth about a months salary to the average settler.

Like today, however, most people didn't buy their guns new. In 1875 you could pick up a secondhand gun in good condition for $10-15, and a worn but usable older handgun for as little as $5. Bullets were about 10 cents each. Adjusting for inflation, that gun would cost $516 today, and the bullets would be around $2.50 each.

Price was not the issue with handguns, practicality was. It's true that handgun ownership in the west wasn't that high, but longarm ownership pushed 100% in many areas, and it was generally uncommon to enter a western home that didn't have a shotgun or a hunting rifle leaning in the corner. Longarms were practical for doing things that helped keep people alive...things like hunting for food, keeping predators away from herds, and defending yourself from restless natives. Handguns weren't very useful for these sorts of things, so they didn't get purchased much.

There was also a very real rural/urban split on this issue. In urban areas, handguns were more popular simply because you were typically dealing with predators of the two-footed kind, up close and personal. In rural areas, you were typically dealing with more distant threats.

Old west gun control laws also wouldn't pass constitutional muster. In the old west, handguns were typically confiscated from nonresidents when they entered the town, and were returned when they left. Residents were permitted to own any type of firearm they wanted in their homes, but it was uncommon for them to be able to carry them openly. Open carry was never restricted outside of urbanized areas.

[spoony]

13. Thank you for that analysis.

That makes a lot of this make sense, especially the long gun v. handgun thing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. It took me a little while to get the info, which is now under revision

http://www.jstor.org/pss/969961
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2944942

There is more...

But this common view that ownership was that common and that guns were cheap has been under revision over the last ten to twenty years

It is based on silly things like going over wills

Suffice it to say, you are right, most folks who owned guns owned long arms, for the reasons stated, but their numbers were never that high... except for a couple places (Kansas comes to mind) where we saw virtual civil wars explode

Or later in the century, where farmers went against ranchers

Overall, we are seeing a revision on this view

Not to say that this will leave History Journals any time soon

Don't expect it

Like the Alamo... there are way too many myths surrounding that... and most of them are ingrained in the culture, and will not leave that easily

By the way... until relatively recently most ownership in the US was long arms, hunting related... go for it... I have no problem

[Obamanaut]

8. Looks like redux of earler thread on same subject

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5325905&mesg_id=5325905

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. That one takes a lot of myths, this one goes after just a few

:-)

We need to start discussing this in a rational manner, that's the truth

Oh and that is not only involving gun control myths and realities... empire comes to mind... role of the US in the world... the right revising history... was scary to see the amount of books in the history section at Borders perpetuating RW myths....

Some of them were down right cute

You should know that women had a lot of rights in the early republic... never mind all them laws that have been repealed and changed

:hi:

Maybe it would be good to try to pre-emtively slay those ones before they take hold!

[Mike 03]

9. I wish you could hear what goes on here in a small town in Arizona

We have a kind of "Swap Meet" every day on the radio here, and half of the items up for sale are guns. And I'm not talking about little guns but AK-47s, Chinese automatic weapons... It's incredible. And I don't know what the laws are about whether or not anybody can purchase these weapons or not, since they are being privately sold. There may not be any waiting period or background check.

[spoony]

10. ...Really? Automatic weapons at a swap meet?

Not semi versions of autos?

[Mike 03]

11. It's a radio program, every noon here in my small town.

The callers name the weapons they have to sell or just say "I have a lot of guns for sale" and give a phone number.

They are not shy about naming the weapons.

I'm NOT a weapons expert, but I thought an "AK" prefix referred to an automatic weapon. Also "China made automatic weapon..." or "Chinese made automatic rifle..."

Trust me, I am not knowledgeable in this area, but that is what I'm hearing.

More often we will hear people trying to sell "Magnums" or more conventional weapons. "The gun that Diry Harry used..." That kind of thing.

[spoony]

14. Honestly I'd consider contacting the ATF if I heard that

Most legally transferred automatic weapons cost tens of thousands of dollars and require involvement by local law enforcement and special ATF dispensations. I doubt all of that could be accomplished at a swap meet. It'd certainly be sketchy. You might want to jot down the details next time you hear it and send a quick email to them, even anonymously (contacts at http://www.atf.gov/contact/index.htm).

[Posteritatis]

21. "AK" is a manufacturer's name/title

Most weapons in the Kalashnikov line are automatic (that's what the A stands for), but an AK-47 converted to semiauto no longer warrants the "A" bit. It keeps it, because that's what the general form of the rifle's named and numbered as, but you've got to break a lot of laws or jump through a lot of hoops to own an AK-47 in the US that fires more than one round per trigger pull.

If I saw one for open sale in the US, I'd (usually!) assume it had been similarly declawed. As someone said in another thread on the same subject, selling a real automatic weapon without all your Is dotted and Ts crossed will usually get you a harsher prison sentence than rape or manslaughter.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. One more piece of trivia

Like the Geber '44, the number stands for the year it entered service

So the AK-47 entered service in 1947 while the AK -70 in 1970

Now tanks... that is a whole different thing... after all the T-34 didn't enter service in 1934 and the IS-1 on the year one... (1944 they were more or less widely deployed)

Well, the Germans and the Russians used that numbering system for their small arms for many years...

Yep, useless trivia

As to declawing them... not that hard... just won't go into it.

[doggie du]

28. Could you provide an address, I would love to get my hands on a Chinese automatic weapon!

:D

[aikoaiko]

12. So you're saying the anti-gun folks are ignorant?

Because that's who brings up the "wild west" canard.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Everybody is, actually on all sides

not just about the west, but about a lot of things

And the lets go back to the west has been at times pushed by the NRA and the OH NOES we are gonna become like the Old West by the anti gun people

Kind of funny actually

[aikoaiko]

18. I think you have something to add to the gun control debate.

But one thing that bothers me is your theme that the NRA wants no laws regulating guns. Its just not true. Except for the rare extremist, there is almost nobody who says there should be no law concerning guns.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Problem is that this has been their stated position for some time

In my view we actually have radicals on both sides...

And those are the loud ones

[aikoaiko]

20. You are wrong. The NRA has always supported some gun laws.

In fact they worked with Democrats to improve NICS.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/09/AR2007060901080.html

"The NRA worked diligently with the concerns of gun owners and law enforcement in mind to make a . . . system that's better for gun owners and better for law enforcement," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), a former NRA board member, who led the talks. "

The gun laws the NRA fight, are the ones that take guns out of the hands of law abiding folks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Well they are the ones who are screaming that we all should be able to own

anything, code for gun abiding laws

While their counterparts scream, TAKE THEM ALL AWAY!!!!!!!!!

And I am sorry... there are some things that should not be in the hands of civies... (read a very specific list of guns... and ammo, which for the most part have very little to do with hunting or self defense)

That is what they are also against. I am sorry, but as a civie I don't need to own an AK... or an SKS, or for that matter an AR-15, or a 50 sniper system... as much fun as they may be to shoot. (But not to be downrange from them... whole different discussion)

Here we enter into the area of what is rational... and I fear the nation will be having that discussion very soon.

Now people owning hunting rifles, sure... pistols, yeah, knock yourself silly... automatics, of course... we do

And I am sure some of this we will not see eye to eye... but make it clear... I am not for confiscation but rational controls, which actually are part of US history...

[aikoaiko]

23. Ahh, being able to own anything is not the same as saying there should be no gun laws

Its perfectly reasonable to have some regulation of things that are owned (such as NICS checks and usage laws). But you can't regulate the ownership of something that is banned.

I don't know why you would fear the nation having a discussion on what it rational gun ownership.

I have my AR-15 for self-defense just like police do. I think, at minimum, non-leo civilians should be able own the same guns and accessories as civilian leo. Why? Because leo use those weapons to defend themselves against criminals. And generally those criminals are first engaging civilians (not police usually, but sometimes yes like in Oakland).

AR15s are excellent home-defense rifles.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Actually I am all for that discussion happening

alas every time this issue is brought up, leads to flame wars

As to your AR-15... I will disagree, a shotgun is a far better home defense weapon

:-)

To each their own...

Though I am sure it is a blast to shoot at the range

[aikoaiko]

26. I agree the shotgun is a very good home defense weapon, but the AR has it beat on precision .

And sometimes precision counts.

But as you say -- to each their own. That is where I stand as well.

Gun bans (like the AWB), however, do not let individuals decide what guns to own for self-defense.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. I think in the next two to three years,

whether democrats and republicans in congress want this.. we will actually start this debate

And part of the reason, south of the border... that mess is spilling

As to precision

Yep, if you can do trick shots!

:-)

I only worry if you miss and where the damn round goes from there?

Ah memories from 50 cal HMG... and where do they go?