Quote Originally Posted by El Kabong View Post
The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality: The Independent Review: The Independent Institute


The "Wild" West, pfffft more like The "Mild" West
I stand by the claim that bad guys get access to all kinds of guns- including the 1800's- there is no era innocent or free from killers; none.


This (sole-single) link you gave -by Anderson, Hill & Umbeck, backed by a Bruce Benson gives you the confidence to say the “West was not violent?
I focused on (2) things:
1. Their claims
2. Their sources for such claims (they gave quite a few references at the end )

As I read-Something stood out- like sweaty buttocks: ass open: I noticed_ ALL of the material can be dated 1860-1890
Are the writers insinuating that :
the West wasn't wild until 1860-1890? then they blame Indians for it?

Every historical source I've come across are in agreement that by the 1880's the Vaudeville shows were a success- because it allowed the old WEST to be relived on stage. the Anny Oakleys of the world went on tour- acting out a time that had come and gone- BUT according to the writer(s) of the link U provided, the west --just got wild? Did I miss any references? At the bottom they all detail 3 decades- that's it.


They refuse to site the names of criminals during the 1800's. I mean even I know that some of the stories were embellished. Yet the names are real. Wyatt Earp to Johnny Ringo, Billy the Kid, Abran Baca the Outlaw who was lynched by a vigilante committee, his brother Antonio Baca: killed by authorities to James Malone executed for murder.


But this article says fuck even acknowledging those names. Why? These criminals came after the invention of the camera- - they took photos- so we know they existed!! At least put their names out in this article then invent/lie makeup some shit as how/why Hollywood took their 2 or 3 killings and turned them into 2 or 300. But, no. They said fuck it all together.

Index of Old West Outlaws - M
The above link is one of (many) records that government had- in order to pursue those who did have guns and used them illegally.


Then this link U have pissed all over the government for what they did to Indians --and they pulled it off without having to name people- (blame the government but not the soldiers who executed what the government asked them to do-...then if indians respond- well then- THAT is the west going wild?

Indians killin' mofos. Speed up to 2015- black killing mofo's -outside of these two- it appears that writer wants me to think guns haven't caused problems in America, they prevent them.

ALL of their resources hinges on the Lincoln era. No wonder they claim the west wasnt wild- they did no fucking research on it (the 1800's)-

They researched the end of the 1800's- 1860-1890, then zeroed in on the effects of the civil war & the profiteers- Republicans, Lincoln and a few families- the ones that when I name them- I'm called a liberal...well now these guys are tearing the booty lining outta republican politicians just to claim- the west wasnt wild.


By their perspective of looking at 1860-1890, I'd begrudgingly agree with them. However if they look at how many guns were owned by common people since the advent of mass producing them. They'd have to ask, what for? Why do you need guns in an era that isn't (WILD)?
- Let me re-read over one other point they mentioned---brb...