On the contrary, this is a myth created by Hollywood. Studies have shown that the "wild west" was considerably tamer than our modern society. The most infamous towns of the old west, like Dodge City, Tombstone, or Bodie, still had crime and murder rates far lower than current day New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, or even our capitol, Washington, D.C., all of which have effectively banned guns.
Furthermore, most of the rather limited violence of the actual towns (as opposed to the glorified version of television and movies) was confined to the streets at the end of town where the saloons and rough boarding houses frequented by the rough crowd of visiting cattle hands, or back-breaking miners, looking for a little release on a Saturday night. Most of that was just tussles and fist-fights, with things rarely getting out of hand to the point of someone getting killed.
One must also remember that the lawmen of those days were not charged with actively protecting everyone. There was no telephone, no radio, and no squad car. Lawmen were not expected to be summoned in time to stop crime, as this was not remotely possible, only to take custody of the guilty for trial...or to take custody of the body. A "citizen's arrest" was very real, and probably accounted for most of the arrests. Citizens took responsibility of their own safety, and their neighbors.
The truly infamous 'bad men' of those days were so famous because they were so rare. It took a surely reckless, greedy, ruthless, and amoral person to face an armed citizenry and get away with robbing and stealing. Very few took up that life, and even fewer survived it long enough to become well-known. Most met bad ends, either a bullet or a rope, rather quickly.
The other myth today is that police *can* protect everyone. However, even with the phone, the radio, and the squad car, it still requires precious time to respond, and the crimes happen very fast. A relative handful of officers are responsible for many square miles and thousands of citizens. Incidents seldom happen so close that the police can even get there before it is all over. As the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are minutes away. So today, we trust our safety to others who are simply not capable of providing that.
No, the "wild west" was anything but. It was a place where, as long as one avoided the rough-and-tumble bars on the wrong side of the tracks, the average citizen had very little to fear. However, that didn't make for good television or movie ticket sales, so the myth was created.
It seems now, though, that the Western is a dead genre. Why? You'll notice that the shows and movies built around violence are almost all in contemporary settings, and in the cities where guns are banned or most controlled. The violence of the day has become sufficient; the myth of the Wild West is no longer needed to push the profits of the productions of Hollywood.
This is a test sig. If this was an actual sig, it would have been profound or amusing.
reply
share
rj-27
11 years ago
One must also remember that the lawmen of those days were not charged with actively protecting everyone. There was no telephone, no radio, and no squad car. Lawmen were not expected to be summoned in time to stop crime, as this was not remotely possible, only to take custody of the guilty for trial...or to take custody of the body
Pretty much the way it is today, wouldn't you say? Despite the saying on squad cars (To Serve and Protect), today's cops are much more likely to commit mayhem on you than protect you.
Citizens took responsibility of their own safety, and their neighbors.
Yes. As we need to today.
Agree with you on the gross misconception of the "wild west" as well as the liberal hysteria over conceal and carry laws that would take us back "there".
reply
share
cameron3482
10 years ago
"Pretty much the way it is today, wouldn't you say? Despite the saying on squad cars (To Serve and Protect), today's cops are much more likely to commit mayhem on you than protect you." What makes you say that? Even as a retired NYPD cop who still lives in the Bronx and has a lot of bones to pick with my former employer as to practices and such (as many former cops do), unless you live in some incredibly corrupt city where cops routinely shake-down, beat-up and rob the general populace, how do you justify your post?
reply
share
batvette
11 years ago
One must also remember that the lawmen of those days were not charged with actively protecting everyone. There was no telephone, no radio, and no squad car. Lawmen were not expected to be summoned in time to stop crime, as this was not remotely possible, only to take custody of the guilty for trial...or to take custody of the body. A "citizen's arrest" was very real, and probably accounted for most of the arrests. Citizens took responsibility of their own safety, and their neighbors.
Thus proving completely false any presumptions by studies comparing crime rates of 130 years ago vs. now. If lawmen weren't responding to complaints by citizens then there was no possible way crimes would be reported or documented historically.
Sorry but the faulty logic you've employed just jumps off the page at me.
I know you are but what am I?
reply
share
harrell_d
11 years ago
Strawman.
You completely fail to understand the difference in "actively protecting everyone" and arresting/prosecuting the guilty.
Crimes were reported, so the sheriff could either apprehend the guilty for trial, take custody of arrested parties from citizens, or pick up the corpse to bury at the county's expense. That's even referred to above, i.e. "citizen's arrest". What do you think the citizens did with them after they arrested them? Lock them in the basement for a suitable length of time?
Again, there is a vast difference between reporting a crime of murder/armed robbery/assualt/rape/etc., and calling for an active response from law enforcement, expecting them to arrive in time to prevent and/or interrupt the crime in progress. The former was certainly done. The latter was not, because it was impossible. The thing people in general fail to understand is that it is functionally still impossible today in the vast majority of cases. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
The complete lack of logic you've employed jumps off the page at me.
This is a test sig. If this was an actual sig, it would have been profound or amusing.
reply
share
batvette
11 years ago
Oh, gimme a break.
The lack of interstate cooperation, fingerprinting, forensics, databases, hell even photographs weren't widely used until the turn of the century- make statistical comparisons of reported crimes between the two eras and conclusions that it was safe in the past, to be just plain absurd.
Crimes weren't reported or documented as often. When they were solved it was nearly a miracle. There were no picture IDs or drivers licenses, a person could effortlessly change names and identities at will.
And let's not forget rape wasn't even a crime that could be prosecuted in most cases until the end of the 1960's.
Reading your post again it appears you may be a strong proponent of 2nd amendment issues, if that's the case I doubt reason will appeal to you. The perception of personal safety always seems there to be the assumption you'll always get the drop on the other guy.
While the philosophy "if you criminalize gun ownership only criminals will have guns" is undeniable, so is this: Owning a gun makes you far more likely to be injured or killed by a gun.
Perhaps the most preposterous thing is when you ask an NRA member how they will use their gun to protect their second amendment rights. Yeah, they'll shoot at Obama's federal officers if they come to take their guns. LOL.
I know you are but what am I?
reply
share
rixrex
10 years ago
It is stupid to argue about crime rates of the old west vs modern times. A totally different society with different kinds of survival needs.
It's just as stupid to say if you own a gun you are more likely to get injured or killed by a gun. There's nothing to support that, unless you specifically mean getting injured or killed playing around with that gun you own vs those who own no gun. It's hard to get injured by your gun when you have none.
Smart gun owners don't do this kind of stupid goofing around nor leave their guns for family idiots to get to them, and the NRA is one organization that promotes smart gun ownership and safe use of guns and education. Those who are educated rarely have issues about their own gun being misused. The NRA also supports more stringent background checks and proper psychological evaluations.
That's being responsible. Trying to take away guns from citizens who have the constitutional right to have a gun is not responsible governing at all.
The largest injury from guns comes from their use by criminals against innocent people, many of whom don't own a gun and if they did, would not be carrying it around anyway. On a lesser scale, there's injuries in the home as well from accidents caused by ignorant gun-owners who could have easily prevented it by taking an NRA gun safety course.
This is also pretty dumb:
"Perhaps the most preposterous thing is when you ask an NRA member how they will use their gun to protect their second amendment rights. Yeah, they'll shoot at Obama's federal officers if they come to take their guns."
Stereotyping the NRA membership with such an ignorant comment is what is preposterous. You may not like the second amendment, but it's there until it's repealed. So if you don't like it, get it repealed. That would be the proper and responsible way to do it. The purpose of the Constitution is not just to spell out our rights but to also prevent abuse or reduction of those rights by the government without the proper legal process being followed. It's typical knee-jerk reaction to try to throw together a law that is unconstitutional in order to appease some voting block.
I don't on a gun now, though I grew up with them on a ranch and learned how to use them properly. But if I did own a gun and the Obamaites came to get it I'd save them the trouble and just send it to Mexico on my own. Now that's something to LOL about if it wasn't such a shame that so many have been murdered in Mexico by CRIMINALS who got guns from our corrupt bureaucrats.
-----
The Eyes of the City are Mine! Mother Pressman / Anguish (1987)
reply
share
bcamphome
10 years ago
Citizens were ready to pick up guns and shoot when outlaws attacked. Check out the Northfield, Minnesota raid in 1876 that left the James and Younger gangs in shambles. A citizen army laid in wait and made short work of the outlaws. There were plenty of instances like that. Whenever Hollywood westerns have shown the citizenry backing down in the face of a threat, as in HIGH NOON where the townsfolk refuse to help out Marshal Kane, it's a complete distortion.
reply
share