What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
275 Comments
- Njon, on 02/19/2009, -24/+108Thanks for this. Too many people watch cowboy movies and think that they are an accurate representation of 'The Wild West.' In fact, a good number of cowboys --- I think around 1/4 or 1/5 --- were actually black or Hispanic, but how many times have you seen a black or Hispanic cowboy in a movie?
Sure there was crime then, but there's always crime. The concept of a perpetual 'Hey, it's high noon; let's go watch the daily shootout' is unrealistic. It's the same thing when people refer to the Middle Ages as 'the Dark Ages.' Who thought up that term? More slaughter occured in the 20th century than any other period in history. Do you think prohibition of private weapons had anything to do with it? http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart
Hmm... - nomonkey, on 02/19/2009, -8/+57Oh, and another irony... the moron author chose at least one, maybe all four, cities that for at least some of those years had a NO GUN wearing policy for huge sections of the city. Guy by the name of Wyatt Earp did it in Dodge City. Brought gun deaths down dramatically. Huh.
Oh, and using "homicide" rates is kind of weak, too. How about gun deaths? You don't want to count all the "justified" shootings, or gun battles involving law enforcement, or accidental death to bystanders?
Like, I said, I'm not a gun control guy, I like all of the bill of rights. But I hate ***** disguising itself as facts. - nomonkey, on 02/19/2009, -2/+37http://books.google.com/books?id=5oabRaJVmysC& ...
On page 58 of that google book preview is a table of the REAL homicide rates.
Don't kid yourself, the American West was an exceedingly violent and dangerous place. That's one of the reasons it is so fascinating.
That DOESN'T mean it is the fault of the guns, but it does mean that some people around here need to research before they submit or digg complete ***** like this article. - nomonkey, on 02/19/2009, -17/+47I am largely in favor of the supporting the second amendment, but that article is hogwash. Completely intellectually dishonest *****.
The overall homicide rate was about 7 times higher than today.
Never trust an "historian" with an agenda.
Like the high murder rate then means gun carrying now would correlate anyway. - JimmyTheClam, on 02/19/2009, -22/+48FTA:
"With all this talk of “The Wild West”, I thought it might be informative to look at the reality of crime in the “wild west” cattle towns and compare them to the peaceful streets of such eastern, gun-control paradises as DC, New York, Baltimore and Newark.
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 shows us the following regarding the aforementioned gun control “paradise” cities of the east:
DC – 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents)
New York – 494 Murders (6 per 100,000 residents)
Baltimore – 281 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents)
Newark – 104 Murders (37 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." - nomonkey, on 02/19/2009, -6/+29Read Homicide, Race, and Justice in the American West, 1880-1920. It is the definitive work on the subject and blows this nonsense out of the water.
And I am a big wild west buff and pro second amendment. I just don't have to make stuff up to support my position.
This guy is a penny ante version of a holocaust denier. The record of the west is pretty open and well documented. Any historian would find this article a complete joke. - azureskies88, on 02/19/2009, -9/+32Why do people need to prohibit guns from being carried in public?
Why do people need to prohibit guns from being carried openly in public?
Why do people want to prohibit guns from being carried in public?
Why do people want to prohibit guns from being carried openly in public? - UObean, on 02/19/2009, -13/+34Fairly strong evidence? Seriously, some of you pro-gun people come up with the dumbest arguments. You mean the death rates of 5 cow towns in the 19th century compared with dense, highly populated, major cities show differences in violence? If you want to be ridiculous, lets compare the UK with Africa. Oh look more guns in Africa = more deaths per capita.
People referencing the wild west are also talking about the fact that a lot of people don't live in a cow towns anymore. More people living in close proximity equals a greater risk of violence with everybody carrying guns on the street. Pulling a gun in Times Square with everyone else having a gun is probably not the same as pulling a gun in some ***** smelling town in Kansas. - HarryTuttle, on 02/19/2009, -1/+22The low numbers for Dodge city seem bogus. I know for a fact that Marshall Matt Dillon killed at least one man a week in the opening credits of Gunsmoke.
- Mavital, on 02/19/2009, -7/+28If a criminal happens to be in public as well.
To deter a criminal from committing a crime through visual deterrence.
If a criminal happens to be in public as well.
To deter a criminal from committing a crime through visual deterrence. - dikky, on 02/19/2009, -10/+31how accurate were the amounts of murders reported compared the actual amount of murders back then?
- nj2005, on 02/19/2009, -5/+23That's not strong evidence at all...
First off we don't have any sources cited with the actual data in them. They mention 45 murders, but don't indicate where the number came from. Also, to have 45 murders in a 15 year period come out 1 murder per 100,000 people per year; you would need to have an average population of 300,000 people per year. Those towns were no where close to that populated. In fact the total population of the counties they are within (Dickenson, Ellsworth, Ford, Sumner, and Sedgwick) only come out to 110,000 people in 1890.
(http://www.kshs.org/genealogists/places/counties.h ...
In 1870 the total population of the five COUNTIES that the towns were located in was 5,772 meaning a single murder in any of the counties would give you 17 murders per 100,000. The article specifically mentions that Abilene had no murders in 1869. He forgets to mention that Abilene had a population of less than 1,000 at that time (~3,000 people in the county, less than a third living in cities at the time). A single murder within the city would have made the murder rate worse than D.C.
The fact is, if you are for gun rights, you should be burying articles like this. It completely takes away from legitimate arguments, and makes it look like you are supporting made up data (which this is). - Tenareth, on 02/19/2009, -3/+19Most gun crime is still done with a revolver, or at best a semi-automatic with 13 rounds. It's an economics thing.
I've fired fully automatic weapons, despite what you see in the movies, you have about 15 seconds of ammo at best, a good old fashioned UZI is out of ammo before you finish pulling the trigger. - inactive, on 02/19/2009, -11/+26yet another paid front page article by examiner.
And I don't even have to read this to know it takes exceptions and tries to use them as the rule. - Mavital, on 02/19/2009, -7/+22Don't worry, I'd still defend you if you were robbed at gun point.
- NonServium, on 02/19/2009, -5/+19"Sure there was crime then, but there's always crime. The concept of a perpetual 'Hey, it's high noon; let's go watch the daily shootout' is unrealistic. It's the same thing when people refer to the Middle Ages as 'the Dark Ages.'"
So wait. Are you one of those pro-pitchfork nuts too?!!! Do you want us to pretend that the dark ages' nightly lynch mobs armed with torches and pitchforks to storm the castle du nuit were just a Hollywood fabrication as well? :D - hfactor, on 02/19/2009, -0/+14Your average pitchfork mob doesn't go for the castle, it goes for the odd mentally handicapped kid or for the stranger who clearly appeared in the village just when the cows started to get ill.
Also, think again about monarchies. Who do you think ruled when the king was inept? The most ruthless intriguers at court, that's who - 45superman, on 02/19/2009, -1/+15If his penis is so big that it can serve to defend his life, he's quite a man.
- jtbell04, on 02/19/2009, -2/+16Yes, god forbid someone use examples from history to make a political point.
- azureskies88, on 02/19/2009, -3/+17That argument is like saying people can't control themselves from not drinking when they get into a car. Therefore, we should ban cars and/or alcohol. I mean, it worked so well from 1919-1933.
- inactive, on 02/19/2009, -0/+13Actually, getting shot back then was far more likely to result in death than it is today.
Why? Well, #1 trauma care has improved greatly. #2 reason is there were no antibiotics back then. You were more likely to die of sepsis than any other aspect of a gunshot wound. - 45superman, on 02/19/2009, -0/+13"Yeah but back then you just got winged with a six shooter 'ahhhh, he got me!' not spray and pay with an AK from a moving vehicle."
Try again--a study determined that the average number of rounds fired in a gun battle was 2.04 for a revolver, and 2.53 for a semi-automatic--regardless of magazine capacity (Michael McGonigal, John Cole, William Schwab, Donald Kauder, Michael Rotondo, Peter Angood, “Urban firearm deaths: A five-year perspective”, Journal of Trauma, 1993)
Also, ya' think maybe medical technology has gotten a bit better since then? - cyrus255, on 02/19/2009, -2/+15And are you saying it's bad for the citizenry to rise up and overthrow their oppressors leeching off them in the castle?
I'm no communist, in fact a die hard capitalist, but that's precisely why I disagree with entitlements, and "divine authority".
If you ask me, the middle ages didn't have ENOUGH pitchfork mobs to overthrow the oppressive monarchies. Though in hindsight, those monarchies are better than the technocratic dictatorships of "democracy". Atleast you get an inept king with monarchy, instead of devious and competent liars in democracy (best liar wins). - remando, on 02/19/2009, -2/+14That link is really enlightening, obviously Nazi Germany, Uganda or Cambodia are great examples of the effect of anti-gun laws. Funny they don't mention aaall the countries in today's Europe.
- JimmyTheClam, on 02/19/2009, -16/+28As opposed to the thoughtful prose from HufPo, Prison Planet, Crooks and Liars and all the other weirdo politico porn YOU Digg?
Free your mind! - quamb, on 02/19/2009, -14/+26Guns are fun. Shooting range = good times.
And not trying to be dick, but seriously, what's with all the "defending my own life" "protecting my property" mentalitiy? Paranoid much?? Is crime so bad in America that you all are really that afraid of "defending my own life"?
Here in Australia, if a mate pulled out some **** off rifle and said "It's awesome to shoot. And perfect to protect the house with." you'd think he's a total loon. - factsahoy, on 02/19/2009, -3/+14"Strong evidence"? You're kidding. Three paragraphs?
With critical thinkers like you, it's no wonder that journalism is dead. - Mavital, on 02/19/2009, -7/+18Well, when your care bear false reality crashes beneath you, I'll still defend you if you are robbed at gun point.
- chadder, on 02/19/2009, -7/+17It's not the fact that you are statistically unlikely to end up in a situation in which you would need to defend your life with force, but that it DOES happen. Living in an urban society with relatively high crime, it would blow your mind to see what kind of crazy things happen.
I say it's better safe than sorry anyways. I have personally been in a situation where the option to defend myself with deadly force was relevant, though I was fortunate that the situation turned out differently by a one in a million chance. I have my concealed handgun license now and I carry a Glock 27 on my person. If you try to hurt me or my family, you will die.
People need to learn that the Police are a reactionary force, they will not show up in time to save you from an attacker. When is the last time you heard of a policeman intervening in a rape/murder? No, they just show up to investigate the aftermath.
Just remember that it's not the people who legally own guns that commit the extremely vast majority of gun crimes, it's those who will obtain firearms no matter what the laws say. - BiLLtheButch3r, on 02/19/2009, -0/+10What about Tombstone??
I'm your huckleberry... - haikuFU, on 02/19/2009, -14/+24If you think carrying is bad, then you should read this. Carry laws actually reduce and prevent crime:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30405 - inactive, on 02/19/2009, -0/+9You've got to be really stupid, really gullible, really dishonest, or a combination of the three to honestly think that they had anything close to the kind of historical recording standards and accuracy back then that we have today. Not ONE person was killed over those two years? Don't you think it makes a tad more sense that the murders simply weren't recorded? Can you even imagine how easy it would be to kill somebody and not leave any traceable evidence knowing that they had NO access to any kind of "forensics" , and more importantly, that they genuinely didn't care like they do today?
- nomonkey, on 02/19/2009, -0/+9That's fine. But not in the wild west, which was his point.
And in Dodge City it was ANY carry north of the line.
I'm not arguing against guns. I'm arguing against ***** historians. - JeddHampton, on 02/19/2009, -0/+9A BLACK SHERIFF?!
- nomonkey, on 02/19/2009, -7/+16A quick google gives me this:
http://volokh.com/posts/1188076990.shtml
I just finished a book called The Frontier Army in the Settlements of the West, that talks about using the army as law enforcement during those years and the rates were sometimes almost one in a hundred.
It's just really bad revisionist history. There are better arguments against gun control. Hell, hard to think of any worse. - anothrnbdy, on 02/19/2009, -18/+27Mmmmm, delicious FUD. To be fair, I am against gun control, but this article is just plain bad.
- david76, on 02/19/2009, -5/+14What's up with the sudden flood of front page articles from this obviously pro-gun website?
- cybrguy, on 02/19/2009, -19/+27That's fairly strong evidence. Anyone care to dispute it? So guns don't cause more crime, unless your willing to argue that people today can't control themselves from going ballistic when they touch a gun like the people obviously could a hundred+ years ago.
- mrdecember, on 02/19/2009, -1/+9That's a huge distortion of what America is and who Americans are.
You're making some pretty big generalizations here. The vast majority of Americans want nothing to do with violence, and those that carry guns are by FAR the minority. And we do NOT take the archetypical "Wild West" as central to our identity.
"Then I lived in other cultures and found they also think the US is violent and has very distorted values..."
In the same way, quite a few Americans think that everyone in England loves tea and literature. But it isn't true, is it? It's a stereotype. Just like the cowboy stereotype that the United States continually suffers.
As for "waging wars" and our foreign policy, PLEASE do not take the actions of one administration as representative of all, or even most Americans. It just isn't true. We didn't ALL vote for George W. Bush. In fact, he campaigned on "humble" foreign policy. No "nation building." Fiscal "responsibility." The people who voted for him didn't get the policies they thought they were voting into office.
Please don't equate the American government with the American people. We're not a democracy, we're a REPRESENTATIVE democracy. Once a politician is voted in, it's mostly beyond our control what they do with their power.
As for our values, that is a very difficult concept to qualify and pin down. But please don't take gun violence or foreign policy alone as an indication of our values. If you really want somewhere to look, I guess the best advice I can give you is our Constitution.
Most Americans are truly good people. It's just that good people never make the news. - marklestrange, on 02/19/2009, -8/+16The US seems to take this very brief (mostly made up) and pretty insignificant part of their history as central to their cultural identity. (Also true of the 'Pilgrim Fathers' but that is another argument)
Is this why it seems to be OK to kill a man for theft?
I once thought it was a British thing, only having really lived in the UK and the US as a child.
.....that life is more important than property ... period.
Then I lived in other cultures and found they also think the US is violent and has very distorted values, typified in the classic Western fight where the good guy always wins and the baddy drops to the floor with a small patch of blood on his chest and hand. Shoot a man with a Colt 45 at 10 ft and you will see an arm taken off or a head explode - brains on the street. It amounts to a very weird and sanitized glorification of extreme violence. That in itself would not be such a problem but then that attitude seems to spill over and influence public opinion when it comes to waging wars.
(Hey gun crime in your own country is your own problem not mine)
Show the American public rotting corpses, bits of body and burning children and they are horrified and want to stop the war. It happened in Vietnam, it happened in the 1st gulf war and it seems to be happening now despite the sanitized news you get. (No sex and don't show the consequences of violence on censored TV coverage).
I'm always hearing how the US is 'better' than Europe because we have 20 odd cultures and languages and will never be able to agree about anything.
Funny how we all agree about the value of life isn't it?
All of Europe with all our different ideas and values agree the death penalty is wrong.
This isn't about the death penalty as such, but it is indicative of US values and how they differ fro the rest of the 'civilised' world.
In the 'West' the US stand alone with these attitudes.
A minority of 1.
If this cannot be attributed to the 'wild west' it is never the less reinforced by the portrayal of this period. - NCSUspoon, on 02/19/2009, -0/+8Blazing Saddles?
- sturmgiest, on 02/19/2009, -7/+14There in Australia if someone breaks into your home, you have to let them do whatever you want. Here in the USA they will receive a nice helping of lead.
- haikuFU, on 02/19/2009, -4/+11Citation on that 7 times higher stat?
- inactive, on 02/19/2009, -1/+8"Figured out how to work Digg's algorithm to their advantage" is a pretty fancy way of saying they vote a lot.
- Mavital, on 02/19/2009, -4/+11I'm not sure where you are from, but almost all concealed carry permits prohibit carry in schools and colleges. Texas prohibits them in schools, colleges, government buildings, sporting events, businesses selling over 51% alcohol, and many more places.
Open carry is another story. I'm poking some fun at the anti-gun guys in this comment thread, but I'm not really fond of open carry and I'm a huge supporter of the right to bear arms. - jenkles316, on 02/19/2009, -1/+7Buffalo Soldier, look, it's like I told ya'
- seventhc, on 02/19/2009, -4/+10"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
- ByteGuerilla, on 02/19/2009, -1/+7None o' this six-gunninest brother runnin' this
- boomslang101, on 02/19/2009, -11/+17typical wingnut article. Lets do away with the facts people lets just copy and paste some statistics that support our article.
Then we sit and wait as other wingnuts digg this up and bury the dissenters comments. No one will call us on our ***** cause wingnuts typically don't read or do any research since it's elitist and the truth is about what feels right because no one cares about facts anyway. - LenBaird, on 02/19/2009, -0/+6Felons are already banned from owning guns legally.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 290 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is