Guest golden goose Posted August 3, 2006 Posted August 3, 2006 Gunfighters, Highwaymen and Vigilantes, Violence on the Frontier, Roger D. McGrath, University of California Press, 1984. A superb anecdotal analysis of crime on the frontier in America. A definitive work comparing and contrasting two wild west frontier towns with modern day America (late 70's and early 80's). The history of the settlement of the western US was unique in many ways. Americans carried two things with them that prior occupations of new territories lacked, a form of democratic government (the law), and the press. The book focuses on two of the wildest town in the west, Aurora and Bodie of the trans-Sierra. Separated by roughly 20 years in their respective heydays, Aurora in the 1860's and Bodie in the 1880's. Exhaustive research by the author on still existing courthouse records and newspaper clippings (including the early writings of Samuel Clemens aka Mark Twain as a junior newspaperman) provides a text rich in stories told in both media as they happened. Chapters are divided into types of crime. Emerging from the author's investigation of these two wild west towns, an investigation that exhausted every available source, is a much fuller picture (possibly the first really representative view) of frontier violence as well as the stories of some of the most colorful characters and exciting events in the history of the old west. Included with a goodly number of gunfights, stage robberies, and vigilante actions is a revealing look at the operation of the criminal justice system; the role that women and minorities played in the violence; and direct statistical comparisons of frontier crime with crime contemporaneously in the settled East and that which occurred in the United States just a few decades ago. The carefully reported statistical conclusions of the book are stunning. On a normalized basis using today's FBI crime scales and statistical methods, the wildest of the wild west towns were kittens by comparison with crime rates in the latter half of the 20th century. The author concluded that the reason for such low crime rates was fairly obvious. You didn't go around messing with other people or their property back then because you were liable to get your ass shot off. The great majority of the populace was armed, including the women. From the last pages of the book: "Bodie's 45 instances of theft gave it a theft rate of 180 (on the modern FBI scale). In 1980 Miami had a theft rate of 5,452, San Francisco - Oakland 4,571, Atlanta 3,947, Los Angeles 3,372, New York 3,369 and Chicago 3,206. (source Uniform Crime Reports: 1980, pp. 61, 64, 73, 74, 76, 81. All figures have been rounded off. Auto-thefts are not included in these figures, the FBI lists auto-thefts in a separate category). ......"The citizens themselves, armed with various types of firearms and willing to kill to protect their persons or property, were evidently the most important deterrent to larcenous crime." As others here, I have a fairly significant collection of firearms. Several I do not keep at my home, but in another state, as they are instant felonies here, and perfectly legal there. and they were also purchased well before such restrictions were passed. In this collection are not a few highly prized handguns. I am divorced, no kids and live alone. They are all loaded at all times. I also tinker with them, and have produced some very interesting weapons just for the pure heck of it. BTW, the things I do to my motorcycles are also illegal. I'm all torn up about it, really! I shoot at a local range, and weekends, and holidays during the non-riding winter months, I can often be found 4-wheeling out into the deep desert exploring for interesting geological locales, and to camp. More or less each day, we get in some target practice. It is extremely rare that anyone will comment on how good a shot they are becoming with regards to criminal suppression. I can't ever remember someone mouthing something like "Take that, you scumbag that slighted me the other day...." Its just a fun, interesting and technically challenging thing to do with one's time and exotic equipment. Entirely unlike riding motorcycles, which is a fun, interesting and technically challenging thing to do with one's time and exotic equipment. Strictly no comparison whatsoever. I don't own and buy new guns for personal defense. Except for going to the range and camping trips, I never have them on me. Even a few months ago doing a 72-hour aquifer stress test, the thought occurred to me to take a pistol along, but for grins and giggles, I armed myself with a mill bastard file and my trusty 30-year old Marine issue machete (both live in my field truck for brush clearing when I need to). I took graveyard each night as my junior geologists were all women. Sitting there all night, each night, keeping a close eye on the pumps etc., I worked on spreadsheets on my laptop I could never get the time to refine at work, and sharpened that machete. The test site was smack dab in south central LA. Lots of critters, but no one came too close with that gleaming edged machete sitting on the foldup table beside that expensive laptop. I still can't figure out why....................
Guest ratchethack Posted August 3, 2006 Posted August 3, 2006 Good post, GG. I've been to Bodie. It's a genuine ghost town with part of it still standing and in fairly good shape (considering), and I've read the self-defense analysis on Bodie, also. There will always be people who fail to comprehend the direct, simple truth behind the name of one of the most famous handguns of the Old West, and indeed of all time -- the Colt Peacemaker. But you can bet there were damned few in Bodie who were anywhere near as confused about it as so many "sophisticated" and "enlightened" anti-gunners seem to be today. Didn't somebody with "an agenda" say, "More Guns, Less Crime"??
Guest golden goose Posted August 3, 2006 Posted August 3, 2006 Struth mate! "God made all Men, Samuel Colt made them equal."
dlaing Posted August 3, 2006 Posted August 3, 2006 Good post, GG. Unless I missed it, GG's post appears to omit "per capita" statistics. Didn't somebody with "an agenda" say, "More Guns, Less Crime"?? Really?!!? No Agenda! How unbiased!!!! This Lott guy is even sited on junkscience.com!!!! What credibility!!!!
mike wilson Posted August 3, 2006 Posted August 3, 2006 Tex, With Marines like that on the job, they better order up more virgins. Do prairie dogs know about virginity? Or care? It's someone plinking vermin in the midwest somewhere, iirc. I think it's even on Snopes.com
Guest ratchethack Posted August 3, 2006 Posted August 3, 2006 Unless I missed it, GG's post appears to omit "per capita" statistics. Er, Dave, I could be wrong on this, but I don't b'lieve detailed per capita data that you seem to have snagged y'erself upon was collected or available in remote Western frontier towns in the mid-nineteenth century. The obvious conclusions of the principles at work have been as clear as they can possibly be without much need for the support that might be afforded them by per capita data for well over a century -- that is, except to the previously mentioned "sophisticated and enlightened" among us who seem to be so dazed and confused by simple hard facts. Your point is?? This Lott guy is even sited on junkscience.com!!!! Hooooooboy, here we go. . . . . "Sited [sic] on junkscience.com", eh? Not to cross-thread things here, but: I went to junkscience.com to see what you're referring to and couldn't find anything at all pointing to Lott from the main page, but who could fail to notice that y'er Chief GW Fraud Propagandists, Algore, is still featured so prominently, "Front and Center" as Chief Junk Science Fraud Propagandist? And just below this at the top of their page, who could fail to notice that since Algore was first offered and subsequently declined the open invitation to facilitate serious debate on the underlying science of global climate change, 6 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 18 hours, 44 minutes, and 41 seconds have now elapsed without a response?? Also, it seems that one of your other GW Fraud Pals whom you referenced in the GW thread, Michael Mann, and his infamously debunked "hockey stick" has evidently made their Top 10 Junk Science Claims of the year for '05. If you would please be so kind as to guide me to junkscience.com's reference to John R. Lott and in what context he is mentioned? I'd be most sincerely interested. TIA
dlaing Posted August 3, 2006 Posted August 3, 2006 spouting numbers of crimes as evidence of the effectiveness of guns as deterents is useless without comparative statistics of populations, percentage gun ownership, etc. Even with those statistics we don't know whether the presence of the gun is the deterent or other factors, like jobs, pay, cost of living, presence of bible pushers, presence of opium, presence of alcohol, morals, etc. I am sure you will enjoy learning even more about Lott from Milloy http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=...amp;btnG=Search
Guest ratchethack Posted August 3, 2006 Posted August 3, 2006 Really?!!? No Agenda! How unbiased!!!! This Lott guy is even sited on junkscience.com!!!! What credibility!!!! . . . . . I am sure you will enjoy learning even more about Lott from Milloyhttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=...amp;btnG=Search Er, Dave -- have you been experimenting with magic mushrooms, and/or possibly stretching out with y'er FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELINGS again? You KNOW what happens when you do these things, Dave. . . . Regardless of what influences you may be subjecting y'erself to today, I'm compelled to throw a fence around your wild flailing, lest the discussion descend into silliness of no interest to anyone here. You've evidently failed to read what you've referenced once again. I can hardly believe this, but you seem to've entirely ignored not only the content of what you've linked, but also the CONTEXT!!! You clearly don't have any understanding of what you've done, or you wouldn't have done it. Your link is a Google lookup list of articles written by John R. Lott, wherein his articles are cited as legitimate scientific DEBUNKING of the Junk Science exposed at junkscience.com and elsewhere, including such widely respected credible publications as The Wall Street Journal. Illustrating how the scientific strength and power of Lott's book, and the articles he's written about the hard science in it, is cited by so many different publications to debunk the popular delusions of gun control the way you've done it here is about as effective a way to demonstrate Lott's widely respected credibility as any! I don't ever recall such a pathetic demonstration of poor "marksmanship" -- even on the GW Fraud thread. . . . . I'm afraid y'er repeatedly shootin' y'erself in the foot in SPECTACULAR fashion here, Dave. Looks like y'er in serious need of practicing for better gun control! May I suggest some range time until you can at least hit your own target, rather than the target of someone else?! Even with those statistics we don't know whether the presence of the gun is the deterent or other factors, like jobs, pay, cost of living, presence of bible pushers, presence of opium, presence of alcohol, morals, etc. Uh, this kinda thing seems to be a pattern with you, Dave. Once again, you seem to be attempting to discredit a study you don't like by interjecting irrelevant possibilities WRT what we DON'T know, rather than paying attention to the relevant data that we DO know. Your tactic again seems to be, "Whatever I can dream up, I'll throw it all against the wall and see if anything sticks." May I suggest that this is still folly. We don't know for certain if all the women of Bodie might've been Nuns, all the men might've all been Priests, or if all the itinerant drifters that happened upon the town were choirboys, or if the lack of crime in Bodie might be explained away by extraterrestrial behavior-correcting mind control beams from Remulac, either -- but none of these hardly seem likely, or relevant to what we DO know from the study either, do they? . . . . . It'd be one thing if such findings were anomalies. As it turns out, when the significant data can be measured accurately, the results have been the same nearly every time . . . . . .
Skeeve Posted August 3, 2006 Posted August 3, 2006 ... Illustrating how the scientific strength and power of Lott's book, and the articles he's written about the hard science in it, is cited by so many different publications to debunk the popular delusions of gun control the way you've done it here is about as effective a way to demonstrate Lott's widely respected credibility as any! ... One thing that I don't recall seeing you enumerate in your upholding of John Lott's studies of gun control is that Mr. Lott himself was a proponent of gun control when he started his statistical research! He was discouraged by the poor foundation that gun control was based upon & hoped to provide a solid scientific basis from which to proceed. Once he discovered the truth in the course of his research, he realized how wrong he'd been & began to come around to the side of gun owners, since that was what the facts substantiated. Gotta admire someone with that much intellectual honesty... Ride on!
Guest ratchethack Posted August 3, 2006 Posted August 3, 2006 That's correct, Skeeve! Despite what we seem to experience around here so often, there actually are SOME intellectually honest people left with analytical thinking capability, who're capable of recognizing irrefutable, scientifically derived facts and hard logic when they see it and changing their minds accordingly. . . . . There is, in fact, much else of an equal or even greater impressive nature that might be enumerated here WRT the history behind the book itself, but it's probably more practical to refer people to the book than to attempt to mention it all here. . . . . especially when there's evidently so much basic, pedestrian-level disinformation, propaganda, irresponsible claims, faulty logic, and outright delusion to be dealt with . . . . . . [sigh]. . . . . Am I to assume correctly that you've read More Guns, Less Crime yourself, since this is the most prominent source of what you've noted?
Guest golden goose Posted August 5, 2006 Posted August 5, 2006 "Bodie's 45 instances of theft gave it a theft rate of 180 (on the modern FBI scale). In 1980 Miami had a theft rate of 5,452, San Francisco - Oakland 4,571, Atlanta 3,947, Los Angeles 3,372, New York 3,369 and Chicago 3,206. (source Uniform Crime Reports: 1980, pp. 61, 64, 73, 74, 76, 81. All figures have been rounded off. Auto-thefts are not included in these figures, the FBI lists auto-thefts in a separate category). The "modern FBI scale" was not quite such a "dead giveaway" as I suspected it might be. So I suppose this will require clarification. The modern FBI scale refers to incidents per 100,000 residents. In order to normalize Bodie's population to this scale, all events had to be multiplied by 20 (hence the rounding referred to, in case you don't see that in the quote above). Bodie's average population during its heyday years was about 5,000. Doing the math, 100,000 divided by 5,000 yields the factor referred to above of 20. There, that wasn't too painful now was it
dlaing Posted August 5, 2006 Posted August 5, 2006 buncha crap All I am saying is that like most people, Lott has a bias. I am simply amused and not suprised, that junkscience.com took an interest in his work. Nothing more and nothing less. One thing that I don't recall seeing you enumerate in your upholding of John Lott's studies of gun control is that Mr. Lott himself was a proponent of gun control when he started his statistical research! He was discouraged by the poor foundation that gun control was based upon & hoped to provide a solid scientific basis from which to proceed. Once he discovered the truth in the course of his research, he realized how wrong he'd been & began to come around to the side of gun owners, since that was what the facts substantiated. Gotta admire someone with that much intellectual honesty... Ride on! If that is true, I stand corrected about Lott's bias. Thank you, Skeeve. Your arguing skills are much politer and better than Ratchet's. EDIT I retract that retraction. A little research about Lott and his credibility is certainly under question. Why is it no surprise that a man as Conservative as Lott would turn against gun control. If you don't believe he is right wing, check out his website http://johnrlott.tripod.com/ While 64% of Republicans view what Israel is doing in the war as justified and 17 erpcent do not, only 29% of Democrats view it as justified and 36% do not. Obviously, I am in with the 64% of Republicans and the 29% of Democrats on this one. It would be nice if we lived in a world without violence, but given that we do, I am not sure what other alternatives that Israel has. I wonder what percentage supports more gun control, of the 64% of Republicans that support Israel's attack of Lebanon?????? Probably somewhere between 0% and 1% But I should not prejudge the man...there is still some faint chance he was objective. The "modern FBI scale" was not quite such a "dead giveaway" as I suspected it might be. So I suppose this will require clarification. The modern FBI scale refers to incidents per 100,000 residents. In order to normalize Bodie's population to this scale, all events had to be multiplied by 20 (hence the rounding referred to, in case you don't see that in the quote above). Bodie's average population during its heyday years was about 5,000. Doing the math, 100,000 divided by 5,000 yields the factor referred to above of 20. There, that wasn't too painful now was it Thank you G.G. Now I am corrected about the numbers actually being based on per capita. Sorry, I had no idea what an FBI scale was....I thought it was for dividing up the contraband mushrooms that Ratchet is so fond of.
Skeeve Posted August 7, 2006 Posted August 7, 2006 All I am saying is that like most people, Lott has a bias. Yes: his bias extends to using statistics to generate data, instead of lies. It's a bias I share strongly enough that my friends & relatives will no longer let me watch tv news, since I start yelling & laughing like a maniac anytime they throw charts up on the screen. You may find it hard to believe, but even the most right-leaning news source (Fox) is far, far, far to the left of John F. Kennedy's politics. We've slid a long way, baby, down that slippery slope! His methods were reprehensible, but Joe McCarthy did prove how pervasive and effective the Leninist methodology of subverting higher education and thence the media had become. Still is. Will continue to be, as long as the students of the 1st wave of Potemkins are still in charge... EDIT I retract that retraction. A little research about Lott and his credibility is certainly under question. Why is it no surprise that a man as Conservative as Lott would turn against gun control. If you don't believe he is right wing, check out his website http://johnrlott.tripod.com/ Most modern economists are, according to the leftist-media poisoned minds of the majority of the population, "right wing." This is because the Austrian school has completely demolished the Keynesians, who left us with the permanent-inflation, NWO economic model we're all currently suffering under. I wonder what percentage supports more gun control, of the 64% of Republicans that support Israel's attack of Lebanon?????? Probably somewhere between 0% and 1% But I should not prejudge the man...there is still some faint chance he was objective. A far greater chance than you, my friend, a far greater probability than you. Sorry, I had no idea what an FBI scale was....I thought it was for dividing up the contraband mushrooms that Ratchet is so fond of. The FBI scale, like most government statistics, is designed to make you think your tax dollars are being spent wisely, no more, no less. It has very little to do with reality. Ride on!
Guest ratchethack Posted August 7, 2006 Posted August 7, 2006 Say, Skeeve! Y'er startin' to show unmistakable signs (some fairly well-developed ones, I might add) of being of one of those annoying Independent Thinkers that our "precious few" seem to have so much difficulty with around here. . . . . . Where you been, man? It's about time you started trompin' on some o' those toes that're so sorely in need o' trompin'!!
Skeeve Posted August 8, 2006 Posted August 8, 2006 Say, Skeeve! Y'er startin' to show unmistakable signs (some fairly well-developed ones, I might add) of being of one of those annoying Independent Thinkers that our "precious few" seem to have so much difficulty with around here. . . . . . Where you been, man? It's about time you started trompin' on some o' those toes that're so sorely in need o' trompin'!! Oh, I spend a lot of my time sheperding gun threads over on the LABiker listserve. Seriously, I find trying to convince the willfully deceived of their judgmental errors to be such a Sysyphean task of futile thanklessness that I derive little pleasure from its essay. Having been held up at gunpoint, tied up, and nearly had my head blown off by the perp who was too completely stupid to follow clear directions on how to find a safe that he couldn't have gotten into anyway, I have little patience for those too stupid to realize that gun banning only affects the law-abiding citizenry, and that if I'd been aware at the time that it was legal to go heeled at your place of business under the laws of Olde California [the band of charlatans in Sacramento not having had time from their rape of the public coffers to change this... yet!], the world would be one @sshole fewer, and probably more [my having no knowledge of how many illegitimate progeny he has left behind, dependent upon the public coffers and almost predestined to follow him down that particular career path..] Fight the good fight, Rachet, but be forewarned: you will not be thanked for trying to open the eyes of those who so diligently try to keep them screwed shut!
Recommended Posts