The Pioneering Spirit (Kodiak, Port Lions: credit card, purchase, to live)

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by warptman

Read my first sentence, who cares anymore?

Understand your sentence, Warpt. It isn't good enough to just read... it isn't what you say, it's what you do that leads to understanding!

Since you were reading this thread and obviously still are reading this thread, it's very clear that you care. If you are still interested in reading it, we should continue to discuss it.

[starlite9]

Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson

Are you actually going to claim that I'm wrong about accidental gunshot wounds being a major cause of death because in fact all those deaths were intentional murder, not accidents at all?

Then you went from Accidental to:

The fact that gunshot wounds were one of the major causes of death in migrations across the continent during mid-1800's is not even slightly controversial. Yet you deny it repeatedly, though you can't show any supporting evidence.

You keep building to a shrill

Like I said, this discussion is at an end. You have nothing to say.

Yeah, I normally deny stuff that isn't true.... For ending a thread, you are still cranking 'em out...

To quote you, "You ARE a Pathological Liar", by your own actions and deeds. Night!

[Floyd_Davidson]

Is that supposed to mean something, Starlite?

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by Marty Van Diest

I just am getting a kick out of the obvious passion in both of your arguments.

That is certainly a valid point of interest (for you or anyone).

I do hope you notice that the several people involved do have a different pattern to their passion. Most of them have a great passion for an ideology, and this discussion for them is the defense of that ideology, not a discussion of history. For that purpose it has little to do with history or truth. Obfuscating "facts" that have nothing to do with the points contested are just as useful as facts that pertain.

I personally don't give a dang what ideology history supports. I've always been a history buff, and history just for the sake of truth is where my passion lies.

[Grannysroost]

Hey guys, you're still here....Like a two-side, or three-ringed at times LT thread all on your own...Anybody hungry....want a sandwich or something...how about a drink, .....OK, will check in on ya'll later

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson

I'm sorry that you cannot read through obvious typos. Are you (and Warpt and Marty) really that small?

That silly typo is great though, because it showcases your entire argument! "How many firearms were around definately makes a difference"... but only if they were there at the time! You keep citing numbers that are for sales of weapons during the Civil War. That clearly has nothing to do with militia training or weapons familiarity in the time period of 1820-1840 which is significant for those who went over the Oregon Trail in 1841-1843 (when gunshot wounds were the most significant). Even the figures for a gun designed in 1849 have virtually nothing to do with any part of the migration that was substantially complete by 1860.

You don't have a silly typo though, just a silly argument. You repeatedly cite data from years after it could have made any difference at all, and you don't even see the problem with that when is it pointed out to you.

Then you have the nerve to jump on "1943" that should have been "1843" as if it means something!

The logic necessary to understand this discussion seems to be missing for some who want to enter into it. But if you don't have the required logic...

1847-1860 was not during the Civil War Floyd. You can't avoid the fact that Colt sold well over 300,000 revolvers in that time mostly to civilians. And if people were buying up all those brand new guns clearly, people were quite interested in having guns. Did you read the link to the study of the Booth Deringer and what they pointed out about civilians and carrying guns at that time? And we could expand the dates back to the 1830's and include the Colt Patterson revolvers. Your argument isn't based on any facts. You keep saying how significant gunshot deaths were yet you have nothing to back that up but a book that has been trashed by serious scholars, and some pithy comments from a few anti-gun historians. Back yourself up with facts.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by warptman

Who cares anymore? The both of you are losing way too much sleep over this. You spent the past week on this subject. Go out and play or something. Winter is coming, go out and enjoy what warmth there is left out there. I know this might be too late on the slope. Oh well.

Warpt, I'm just having too much fun with this one to let it stop now...Floyd owes me a few keyboards.

[warptman]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Warpt, I'm just having too much fun with this one to let it stop now...Floyd owes me a few keyboards.

[karibear]

Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson

That is certainly a valid point of interest (for you or anyone).

I do hope you notice that the several people involved do have a different pattern to their passion. Most of them have a great passion for an ideology, and this discussion for them is the defense of that ideology, not a discussion of history. For that purpose it has little to do with history or truth. Obfuscating "facts" that have nothing to do with the points contested are just as useful as facts that pertain.

I personally don't give a dang what ideology history supports. I've always been a history buff, and history just for the sake of truth is where my passion lies.

I've been reading all along, and am rather impressed with both sides' viewpoints and extensive research to support each ones POV. I like history, but more as a global thing, not the dates and statistics so much. I'd rather see how certain events cause different trends in different societies. It's the people who interest me most, what they've done, what they plan to do, how what they are doing impacts their futures. Like the transition from nomadic societies to villages, the Black Plague, serfdom, the rise of a middle class in European society, the Mongols settling down to become Russia, things like that. And the impact of geography on how a society develops - the availability of sea food on the west coast, up through AK's southeast and around the Aleutians to the Bering Sea. Now, THAT is fascinating to me. The Civil War had it's moments, but overall, to me all it really signifies is that the US was most proficient at self-destruction and encouraging divisiveness on a grand scale, guns/no guns notwithstanding.

One set of my great grandparents were emigrants and went westward, but they started in Germany and ended up western Illinois where they farmed. From what I was told, they had no guns of any kind, livestock was killed and butchered by a hammer blow to the forehead, then the body was hauled up by a block and tackle and it's throat cut. They did a lot by hand, too. During the winter my great grandfather knitted stockings for all their children, when he wasn't caring for the livestock [pigs and a dairy herd] while my great grandmother did a great deal of hand sewing, preserving, cooking, washing, and cared for the chickens.

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

1847-1860 was not during the Civil War Floyd. You can't avoid the fact that Colt sold well over 300,000 revolvers in that time mostly to civilians. And if people were buying up all those brand new guns clearly, people were quite interested in having guns. Did you read the link to the study of the Booth Deringer and what they pointed out about civilians and carrying guns at that time? And we could expand the dates back to the 1830's and include the Colt Patterson revolvers. Your argument isn't based on any facts.

You continue to quote sales numbers for a time period after the significant dates. The Oregon Trail was first opened in 1836, and migration was intense from 1841 for several years, and then tapered off to relative completion by 1861. You have cited no weapons that were sold prior to the last twilight of that migration. They could not have been an influence over the 10 or 20 years prior to the period in question.

In addition you are citing pistols, not long guns. What has been mentioned, numerous times, is the fact that muzzle loading long guns were the weapons of choice for accidental gunshot deaths.

You even cited a webpage titled "Common Guns in the Civil War" for your data.

You keep saying how significant gunshot deaths were yet you have nothing to back that up but a book that has been trashed by serious scholars, and some pithy comments from a few anti-gun historians. Back yourself up with facts.

You are being dishonest again. I cited "Arming America", the book you dislike so much, for one statement regarding the lack of an Adjutant General for the Vermont militia from 1825 to 1837. You have not denied that is a valid fact.

The "pithy comments froma few anti-gun historians" happen to be from virtually every historian! They all say that gunshot wounds were a major cause of death, particularly in the early 1840's, among wagon train migrants. (As I've noted, there is one exception, in that I have not seen anyone make that statement about the Morman migration. But the Mormans also had about half the death rate overall too.)

It should also be noted that in the early years, before 1849, cholera was not the number one cause of death that it became later. It was epidemic in 1849, 1850 and 1852. Prior to that many accounts are like this one:

"

No. 1 cause of death: being runover by wagon wheels.
No. 2 cause of death: firearm accidents.
No. 3 cause of death: stampeding livestock.
Source: Oregon-California Trails Association"
The Oregon-California Trail Association's 26th annual convention began a little unconventionally - with a wagon train. | Life | Idaho Statesman (http://www.idahostatesman.com/life/story/458864.html - broken link)

And just as clearly there are impeccable sources for the concept that ignorance of proper handling was the reason for a high rate of gun accidents.

" Most gunshot wounds on the emigrant trails were the result of
somebody's carelessness or lack of experience with firearms.

Some stir in camp this morning in consequence of a sentinel's
gun going off accidentally, which killed a mule belonging to
James Williams, the bullet breaking the mule's neck. This is
the most serious accident which has yet occurred from
carelessness in the use of firearms, though, judging from the
carelessness of the men, I have anticipated more serious
accidents before this time, and if they do not occur, they
will be avoided by great good luck, not by precaution.
-- James W. Nesmith"

By way of comparison, the three leading causes of death on the
trail were: disease, drowning, and accidental gunshot wounds."
The Trail Through Nevada

" A second leading cause of death was accidents with wagons,
firearms, and drowning at river crossings. Many of the
emigrants - inexperienced at handling wagons - met their fate
falling under wheels or coping with runaway livestock. The trip
required several treacherous river crossings and many emigrants
drowned trying to maneuver wagons and livestock through swift
currents. Nervous emigrants - fearful from stories about
Indians and wild animals - were heavily armed, and carried
loaded guns with no safety devices in jostling
wagons. Accidental shootings were not uncommon. Inexperienced
hunters shot wildly while pursuing antelope and buffalo, and
weary guards sometimes mistakenly shot their comrades believing
they saw a thief, a rustler, or a wild animal in the shadows
around a wagon camp."
National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center