Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

History of Violence

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by sawdeanz, Apr 18, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sawdeanz

    sawdeanz Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    590
    Location:
    Florida
    No not the movie.

    I'm just wrapping up a semester of a class I'm taking called a History of Violence in America. I thought I might share a little bit of what I gleaned from it, regarding firearms of course.

    The question of firearms was wrapped up in the first week. No lie. I'm sure this isn't a surprise to you all, but firearms just aren't a factor when it comes to patterns of violence. The farthest my professor would go was to suggest that the presence of a gun could turn a violent situation deadly more often, as in someone shot with a gun was more likely to die than someone stabbed with a knife.

    Most of the class was spent looking at periods of rising violence and falling violence (for example violence rose in the roaring 20s and fell in the great depression) and what caused these patterns. Not once was gun legislation cited as a reason. Sometimes, firearm advances or veteran's war experience was mentioned, but again, patterns of violence are complex and almost always counter intuitive (whoda thunk the depression would be one of the least violent times of our nation?)


    p.s. For a project I had to analyse 1913 police reports. There were a surprising number of "one shot stops" with little old revolvers (colt and s&w of course).
     
  2. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    33,736
    Location:
    Central PA
    Very interesting! I'd have enjoyed that class.

    Did he have any data to back up that statement, or was it just a hypothetical example?
     
  3. Tim the student

    Tim the student Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,427
    Location:
    IA
    Sounds like it would be an interesting class.

    Out of curiosity, can you tell us a bit about your school?
     
  4. sawdeanz

    sawdeanz Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    590
    Location:
    Florida
    I don't know about data, it seemed like his standard response when asked if guns contribute to violence.

    I go to the University of Florida. I'm pursuing a history minor, which just involves taking any of the history classes, so I pick the ones I like
     
  5. mortablunt

    mortablunt Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,590
    Location:
    Deutschland
    That sounds like an interesting course. Unfortunately, they don't offer anything like that at Goucher.
     
  6. MtnCreek

    MtnCreek Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2010
    Messages:
    3,954
    Location:
    West GA
    I wonder if that had anything to do with the lack of action movies and people still thought you were suposed to aim.
     
  7. 4v50 Gary

    4v50 Gary Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    18,679
    Have you read Clayton Cramer's Armed America? It's highly relevant to your paper.
     
  8. Certaindeaf

    Certaindeaf member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,170
    Location:
    Wet Oregon
    ^
    Probably the lack of 18" of lard. Never know.
     
  9. Elm Creek Smith

    Elm Creek Smith Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Messages:
    971
    Location:
    Outrider
    I believe a lot of the old timers were still using .45 Colt, .44-40 WCF, and .38-40 WCF in their revolvers back then.

    Just sayin'.

    ECS
     
  10. rcmodel

    rcmodel Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    59,082
    Location:
    Eastern KS
    I'm not sure I agree completely with that.

    A wound from a sharp knife is hard to deal with.
    A victim can bleed out before help can get there.

    Of course if you get shot in the heart, the same thing can happen.

    rc
     
  11. DoubleTapDrew

    DoubleTapDrew Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,356
    Location:
    Oregon
    ^ I've heard the same thing. There was a quote along the lines of "The loser of a knife fight dies in the street...the winner dies in the hospital"
     
  12. Steel Horse Rider

    Steel Horse Rider Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    2,122
    Location:
    Loveland, Colorado
    In the days before penicillin a torn wound from a knife was probably more likely to cause a death due to infection than a single clean wound from a bullet so I would suspect historically his information may not be accurate. Due to the proliferation of modern antibiotics (until the so called "super bugs" become commonplace) infection is not viewed as a serious problem. Until the discovery and mass production of penicillin infection from any cut or tear of the skin was a far larger cause of death than the original injury.
     
  13. rcmodel

    rcmodel Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    59,082
    Location:
    Eastern KS
    Back in those days bullet wounds were not as clean as a knife cut though.

    They were all lead bullets with internal or external grease lube.

    As a consequence, they were loaded with dirt and clothing fibers and carried all kinds of nasty stuff into the wound.

    A civil war solder, or a Jim Bowie type knife fighter would rather be cut then shot, because getting shot was a sure amputation or slow painful death from blood poisoning.

    rc
     
  14. Slamfire

    Slamfire Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    7,579
    Location:
    Alabama
    A puncture wound was very bad, be it knife or gun. They just did not know about bacteria and infections.

    Wound infection - The scale of wound infections was most evident in times of war. During the American Civil War, erysipelas (necrotizing infection of soft tissue) and tetanus accounted for over 17,000 deaths (anonymous, 1883). Because compound fractures at the time almost invariably were associated with infection, amputation was the only option despite a 25-90% risk of amputation stump infection.

    As late as the 19th century, aseptic surgery was not routine practice. Sterilization of instruments began in the 1880s as did the wearing of gowns, masks, and gloves. Halsted (Professor of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, United States, 1852-1922) introduced rubber gloves to his scrub nurse (and future wife) because she was developing skin irritation from the chemicals used to disinfect instruments. The routine use of gloves was introduces by Halsted's student J. Bloodgood

    http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/188988-overview
     
  15. Loosedhorse

    Loosedhorse member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2008
    Messages:
    3,454
    Location:
    eastern Massachusetts
    Why should we believe that is true?

    There is a big difference between violent crime and reported violent crime. We had large numbers of itinerant workers moving from the dust belt to CA and other destinations, often meeting folks who let them know they were not welcome and needed to move along. My guess is that there was violence, but that it did not make it into any official police report to be tallied later.

    Also, we often hear that the Saint Valentine Day's Massacre, (1929, 8 months before the Depression began) "caused" the National Firearms Act. But we sometimes forget that the 1930s was the Age of Bank Robberies: Baby Face Nelson, Pretty Boy Floyd, Machine Gun Kelly, Willie Sutton, Bonnie and Clyde, Ma Barker and the Barker Boys, Alvin Karpis...and John Dillinger. There are many others, less well known, from that era--does anyone even know who Herman Lamm was, anymore?

    One also wonders whether, to the extent that "violent crime" was down in cities like NY, Chicago, and Boston, how much of that was due to the fact that protection money was changing hands, and "violations" were handled "off the books."

    One of the least violent times in our history? Maybe.
     
  16. sawdeanz

    sawdeanz Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    590
    Location:
    Florida
    Clarification

    I guess I should clarify that we almost exclusively studied murder, it being the only violent crime consistently and accurately recorded over time. Sure, we discussed all sorts of violence, but when comparing different periods of time, or the "history" of it, murder is the only way and is used as an indicator of the overall level of violence.
    I may stand corrected in it being the least violent time, as that is probably now, but it was half as violent as the 20's and half as violent as the 60's. I think that the violence from gangsters and corrupt cops pales in comparison to general trends seen all over the nation. We are talking about normal people who get in fights and kill each other. These people are hardly influenced by crime rings, but seemingly inexplicibly, there will be times when people fight and kill more, and times when they kill less, and the point of the class was to examine the social reasons behind these trends. Usually there is a discrepancy between violence in the north and in the south, which has always been more violent, but the 1930's were the first time both saw a decline at the same time. I'm not saying this decline was caused by the great depression, there were lots of factors. I was just pointing out that one of the interesting parts of the class was that standard theories often failed to explain a particular trend.
     
  17. Paris

    Paris Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    118
    Well, the tell him the FBI disagrees as 8 out of 10 people shot with handguns don't die. :)
     
  18. beadhead

    beadhead Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    6
    Any chance you could post the reading list for the course? I'm guessing Adler's First in Violence is on it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page