Yes, George Nonte is a respected writer, but I would still be interested in his source.
Myth:
"Succesful gunfighter were quick-draws.
Fact: The successful ones stressed they took the time to be deliberate and aim, not snap a shot from the hip. Wyatt Earp was widely quoted on this point."
These two comments are not necesarily mutually exclusive. You are making an assumption that anyone that could pull a pistol quickly would shoot from the hip in the modern "sport" or hollywood fashion. Earps comment does not exclude a draw, only that the time it took to make sure of the shot is of highest importance. He also mentioned that it was a fraction of a second to make sure. Same then as today. I'm not necessarily saying that any shooting incident was a stand-up face to face fast draw competition, because I don't believe that's true, but I don't believe the opposite extreme is true either. Some men were quite fast at pulling a pistol, and some were not. Those that survived were the ones that took the time, even fractions of a second, to make sure of the shot. Fast is relative also. The "fast draw" sportists like to reduce it to thousandths of a second times. All it means in real life is fast enough to act before someone else can react adequetly. Bill Jordan could draw and accurately shoot before someone holding a cocked pistol on him could pull the trigger. He demonstrated it many times, sometimes with LEO's holding the gun on him. Jordan was also known for his ability to shoot asprins thrown in the air from the draw. It's hard to argue that fast and accurate are mutually exclusive. In true life, few are that fast, but, as in the joke about only having to run faster than your friend when in bear country, you would only have to be faster and more accurate than who was in front of you when things got ugly.
There's an interesting picture by Remington titled The magic of "the drop". It shows a man walking out a door, to find another man holding a pistol on his back. That was likely a more common occurance than a face to face fight. The commentary I've seen regarding that picture was that the one taken by surprise stood by while severly verbally berated and abused, but no shots were fired. Where that commentary was, I don't recall, perhaps someone here knows it's source?
Roosevelt, in his book Ranch Life and the Hunting Trail, in the chapter "Frontier Types", comments on shootings, "...As in most of these encounters, all of the men who were killed deservers their fate. In my own not very extensive experience I can recall but one man killed in these fights whose death was regretted, and he was slain by a Eoropean. Generally every one is heartily glad to hear of the death of either of the contestants, and the only regret is that the other survives". He further comments, as have many other first hand accounts, that it's generally the low life types that become engaged in shootings, the general population isn't often directly affected. Charlie Russell, the writer and artist, said in a letter that if there were as many gunfights as the early movies made out, and as many people killed in them as portrayed, then the red man would have had the country back long ago.
I disagree that many carried in the waistband, with no holster. I'd like to see some citation of that. If you've ever tried it, its very uncomfortable, and not at all secure. At the very least, a flap holster will keep the gun secure, and available. Not everyone that carried felt it necessary to be a fast hand. Not even every man carried, I believe it was less common in towns than in the hills and plains, but those that did, were often more interested in protection from red men, horse thieves, and animals, like a bad cow, or a horse that stepped in a badger hole on the plains.
Someone mentioned that cities today are much more dangerous than frontier towns of the old west. I believe some contemporaries have stated that the cities of the time were more dangerous than the frontier, as far as crime and shooting incidents are concerned.