1700's - a gun violent century?

Clayton Cramer, Armed America. Same problems, different centuries.

The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783)

Sure, there were many wars in the 1700s

Click to expand...

Kinda answer yer own question there.

Wars aside, I'm sure SSS applied often.

Surely there was violent crime in the 1700's.

One must consider the way information flowed in that century compared to now. In our society we can read about every murder in the country in a matter of hours. In the 1700's, it could take weeks for news to travel to the next county over. I think our instant-news system makes many things seem much more commonplace than they are.

What kind of criminal records even survive from that era? There were no FBI Uniform Crime Reports. On what do the "no violence in 1700's" people base their opinion?

Public duels were fairly common, would that count?

first these idiots and defectives need to understand that there is NO SUCH THING AS GUN VIOLENCE, just as there is no such thing as fork violence or claw hammer violence or motor vehicle violence. once they get that one simple fact through their maladjusted little brains we can continue on to intelligent discourse.

Clayton Cramer and Joe Olson(?) are getting a law review article published soon that discusses the prevalence of handgun-facilitated crimes in colonial America. That should "quiet down" that hysterical line of thinking mentioned in the OP. I'll see if I can find a link . . .

Also consider the reporting of crime, or lack thereof.

In our age, all we have to do is flip open our cell phones and call 911. The call will be recorded, and an officer will be dispatched. That officer will take a report, and that information will go into the FBI's Uniform Crime Report data.

No such luck for our colonial ancestors. If you were robbed by highwaymen while traveling through the country with the nearest town a day's ride away, you simply could not report your situation. Would you take a day out of your travel to go report the crime, knowing there was nothing anybody could do about it? Or would you just accept the fact that you'd been robbed, and carry on?

The notion that violent crime is only a contemporary problem is simply false.

One must consider the way information flowed in that century compared to now. In our society we can read about every murder in the country in a matter of hours. In the 1700's, it could take weeks for news to travel to the next county over. I think our instant-news system makes many things seem much more commonplace than they are.

Click to expand...

Not to mention the less cities they had, less states, people, and LE in those days. Just wonder how many deaths from guns are not known or were reported.

It was kind of a violent century. Guns, knives, axes, bows, spears, clubs, burning alive, scalping, whatever.

Shays's Rebellion (1786) prompted Thomas Jefferson to write "I hold that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical"

Few shots were fired in this "little" rebellion, however, it did serve to pit an armed body of rebels seeking relief from taxation against a "militia" raised to protect government interests. It also raised awareness of unfairness. A lesson as valid then as now.

The "Indian wars" of the time pitted "pioneers and settlers" against the native inhabitants of the land as the populace "headed west". I am sure that there we many cases of violence in that time.

Armed, how dare you defame the Noble Savages!

I'll telling the English Department at UCSD on you.

The simple fact that the people of that era were either painted or engraved made the violence seem less visceral as it was occurring. Blood either was not in a bright pigment, or it puddled into a series of delicate parallel lines. It was accepted as part of the overall landscape that they lived in.

With the advent of the daguerreotype, carnage was seen much more crisply and detailed as it happened, and was shocking to see in real time. There are anecdotes of older soldiers on the battlefield being overwhelmed by the lack of linework or brushstrokes, and dazzled into a stupor by the subtle nuances of shaded gradations.

Since then of course, our world has transformed into one of overwhelmingly rich color and 3 full dimensions. By its very nature it seems far more violent to us since we experience infinitely more sensory stimulus than our ancestors could ever comprehend.

; )

I'll telling the English Department at UCSD on you.

Click to expand...

I got a diploma from them, then washed my hands of the whole thing. Too late now.

Actually, they had real writers teaching some classes. Some might have even been Republicans, God forbid.

Things really didn't start getting bad exponentially as far as violent crime until drugs were made illegal. Yea, legislating peoples minds and bodies was the tipping point IMO...

Not any so-called increase in arms proliferation...

Violent acts commented by someone with a gun in the 1600's was probably pretty rare on North America.

The 18th and 19th Centuries I am sure it went up. My great great grandmother was born in 1850 and lived till 1947. The remarks that she made that I heard my grandfather mention was that in those days people were generally "better" people.

I would feel safer to live in those days then now. Today you can't even stop and help somebody. Either they will rob you or blame you for something you didn't do and then you are in a lawsuit.

I think it would be safe to say that a higher percentage of people in todays society needs to be shot then did then.

The Founding Fathers had one HECK of a better understanding of the darker aspects of Human Nature than do today's Liberals.

i doubt all the wars from 1000-1899 combined worldwide would surpass the wars in just the first half of the 20th century.

Click to expand...

guys, your only hope of making that argument would be based on per capita violence.

Click to expand...

Cane killed Able at a time when the population was 4 ? That's a 25% murder rate an he didn't even need and assualt rifle . Hows that for statistics !

I spent most of yesterday reading the complete SCOTUS report, all 157 pages of it. (For those interested print out the first 45 pages, which is the conclusion. The remainder are arguements). What I got out of it is pretty simple. When the 2nd amendment was written and why it was written was the knowledge the Founding Fathers had of British common law and to some extent of European laws dating back to the 1500's. In other words they did not want a centralized government disarming the citizens at the "whim" of a King just because some of the citizens didn't attend Catholic mass on Sundays, or because the King decided to implement political rules that discriminated against the masses.
It has nothing to do with criminal behavior or dangerous ordinance or even carrying a gun in the streets. The concept is the same today as it was in the 1700's. It's a freedom that that is very clear and can't be taken away a few "jerkoffs" who represent a very tiny minority. Using the argument that guns kill people doesn't fly. Of course they do, that's what they're for dumbasses. :banghead::banghead::banghead:

ar10 has got it.

It ain't mainly about crime. Never has been. Unless you count the crime governments do against people.

In the 1700's, the sword was the primary 'defensive' weapon. At least for those who could afford one. The same thing applies to the single shot(primarily) flintlock handguns. Most people didn't have the money to own a handgun. There was no mass production of any firearm.
"...until drugs were made illegal..." Alcohol. 18th Amendment in 1920.