🚀 go-pugleaf

	Dave

Jon Wiest wrote:
> 
> You guys might want to check out the history of America's Gun Love in this
> week's issue of the Economist ( www.economist.com ).  

	Heres the direct link to save time:
http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/19990703/index_sf8740.html


> Turns out that less
> than 10% of the population had a gun at all from the days of the Mayflower
> up to the Civil War.

	Consider the notion that the population was basically families of several kids
and older grandparents, and that they probably also counted slaves who couldn't
own significant property.
	Quoted from the article: "From the time of the earliest settlement on the James
river, the English colonies required every freeman to own a gun for
self-defence"
	Freemen were definitely a minority of the population, perhaps even 1/10. 
Seeing that the article is an attempt to vilify the supposed 'gun cult', I
wouldn't be surprised if this idea completely accounts for the 10% statistic.

> Guns had nothing to do with starting the nation or
> winning the west, it's a myth.

	I don't buy the article's argument.  At no time was the American Revolution
supported by or contributed to by more than a fraction of the populus.  Most
people were busy getting on with the more immediate issues: money, food,
farming, etc.
	The argument about the inheritance records also presents questions: Since guns
were so expensive and valued, why would an ailing owner allow his guns to be
filtered through with the bent and tarnished spoons?  I would think that these
were passed down to a chosen heir before the owner's passing.  I would have made
certain that my most valued possessions did indeed reach my preferred heir
before the accountants arrived.

> Guns only became omnipresent during the
> Civil War for two reasons:  the cost of manufacture came way down due to the
> Industrial Revolution, from a year's wages to about 2 months wages;

	Another reason why gun owners were more responsible at that time and why so
many owners (esp. those who buy cheap guns) are so irresponsible today.

> So all that "we won the west because of the gun" or "we fought off the
> Indians because of the gun" is horseshit.

	I don't think the article provided any such proof.  It harps upon the idea that
not every single person owned a gun.  I certainly never asserted that and no one
ever has.  The fact is, the few who owned guns had a large impact.  There are
countless accounts of how riflemen were able to turn away Natives because of
their superior firepower (which, BTW, included horses).  Indians weren't dumb,
either, and those that fought hardest against the US military traded for guns. 
BTW, I don't approve of the way things happened in our past, but it must be
retold as correctly as possible.
	The article also mentioned a couple of isolated reports of poorly armed US
forces.  The army of our past was nothing like the armies of today - even the
Civil War is ripe with problems supplying troops - heck, even the battle of
Gettysburg took shape because of troop movements forced by shortages in supplies
from shoes to gunpowder.

> Most of America was unarmed in
> those days.  In fact, most large cities in the west confiscated weapons when
> the cowboys came to town.
> 
> Check it out, it's a good read.

	I liked it, it made me think, but I would need to answer all of my stated
questions before I feel that is presents any proof.
 
	Dave

> Jon