Even if that is the case (though I haven't seen any data to back it up, and it is unlikely that reliable data exists) that is still a extremely poor example to use from a scientific perspective.
Its a theory, I don't propose its completely correct, but that it might be the basis of understanding their idea of more guns equals less gun play. How is it not scientific?
For one, the population that engaged in "Western expansion" was self-selected (people CHOSE to go to the frontier). So it is entirely possible that the population that self-selected itself also was one less prone to violence.
The people going west were probably less risk averse. Imagine at the time what it would take to travel across the country with your family. Imagine also that there would be people possibly preying on them, much like the migrants from SouthAmerica today. Its not about being prone to violence or not.
Its about defending yourself against it.
Women don't carry handguns because they are prone to violence.
Also, with Western expansion it was a different environment. There were opportunities for success, and if things did not work out for you, then you could move to the frontier and start over. Having options makes people less likely to lash out at people around them when things don't go their way. As well, the Frontier provided an outlet. It allowed people who did not fit in well with society to move outside of society but still be successful (it is theorized that a lot of these people became trappers and traders).
#13 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL
Yes it was a different environment pretty much lawlessness in between oasis of law, over time it transformed into civilized behavior and people could put their weapons away because justice could be served.
We see this today with honor killing societies, being transformed overtime, as justice by the "state" becomes overarching.
most western towns barred public carry and they were far safer than those that allowed weapons.
The Duke link didn't work. But as the Smithsonian link mentioned most everyone owned a gun, though didn't carry it, so it doesn't ameliorate their argument, but actually re-enforces it. What was interesting from that link too was upholding the Alabama ban. Be interesting to read more of what Dykstra has to offer, the example of Bodie is interesting as it was really the last frontier given its location. It follows the theory that law came to town and settled the crazy making eventually.
One of the dumbest ------- posts i've ever seen. So we all have to be subjected to gun violence until enough people are carrying guns that your hypothesis proves itself to be true? No thanks.
#16 | POSTED BY JOE
You don't seek to understand Joe, otherwise you would know its not my position, just a hypothesis as to what gun proponents are thinking and why. Unlike you, I try to ascertain what people are say before I disagree. You must be a real joy to be with in the real world.