Subject:
|
Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Jul 2001 15:49:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
446 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> People deride the "wild west" but it's my opinion that people were more
> likely to intervene and aid then than they are now.
I've certainly read a number of instances where this is true - but in
Victorian times in England, people would tackle criminals, too, with neither
side armed with guns. It may be more a function of the times. But then
again, maybe it means the Libertarians are right and we should depend on
ourselves more (arguing myself in circles again).
My derision of the "wild west" is that it is an example of everyone (well, a
significant portion) walking around armed, and it was NOT peaceable and
wonderful.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) My understanding is that some places and some times were peacable for the most part. What counts as the wild west? I'm reading books written by J.D. Fitzgerald about his life in southern Utah prior to the turn of the 20th century. Some of the (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) Admittedly, no. At least as far as I knew, they weren't. At some remove, I can tell you I'd think I'd be less likely to intervene in a fist fight, though, than in a situation where someone had a gun drawn, assuming I was carrying. Fist fights (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
182 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
