Myths about the western gunfighter.
- Thread starter bear71
- Start date
- Status
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
Why get into a gunfight when a derringer to the back of the skull while the target is outside the saloon relieving himself does the job just as well.
Did they ever do a "duel" in a Western story? If so, I've always been fascinated with the fact that two people can draw a gun, fire one shot at the other person from a good distance away, and one of the two shots ALWAYS hits and fatally wounds the other.
Many of the "good guys" were also not so good. With even many of the LEO being hired goons to protect the interests of gambling houses, brothels, and enforce the will of the richer men in town whether they were morally and legally right or wrong.
Yet in most novels and movies it is good against bad. The honorable good guy with superior quick draw skills defeating the bad guys.
In the legends the good guys are far more honorable than in life, and the bad guys more sinister than reality.
Gun fights were actually very rare, and per capita a modern major city today has more murders than most most boom towns in the old west.
In the Wild West you were safer from violent crime than in a major city today.
Yet then just as today those involved in violent crime, or victims of it often chose to hang out in dangerous places. Gambling houses, saloons, and brothels, where people tried to make a quick buck for minimal work, and spent it on a fast life.
Really not that different from drug dealers today, trying to make a lot of quick cash, and spending the money they make quickly in a fast lifestyle.
People living in town not choosing to be involved in, or around those involved in those lifestyles, rarely had a problem with violent crime.
One of the big reasons the lawmen and criminals involved in gunfights became legends and are remembered today is because they were in fact rare.
Today they would just blend in with all the other criminal and police shootouts, and would never have become a legend people were talking about over 100 years later. Yet in those days a shooting was such a big deal, it could be embellished and talked about in newspapers across the country.
In fact the Eastern United States couldn't get enough of the myth of the "Wild West" even in those days.
Which can be seen in the popularity of the Buffalo Bill shows which greatly exaggerated the dangers and lifestyle for ticket sales to people who had never experienced the West themselves.
Yet in most novels and movies it is good against bad. The honorable good guy with superior quick draw skills defeating the bad guys.
In the legends the good guys are far more honorable than in life, and the bad guys more sinister than reality.
Gun fights were actually very rare, and per capita a modern major city today has more murders than most most boom towns in the old west.
In the Wild West you were safer from violent crime than in a major city today.
Yet then just as today those involved in violent crime, or victims of it often chose to hang out in dangerous places. Gambling houses, saloons, and brothels, where people tried to make a quick buck for minimal work, and spent it on a fast life.
Really not that different from drug dealers today, trying to make a lot of quick cash, and spending the money they make quickly in a fast lifestyle.
People living in town not choosing to be involved in, or around those involved in those lifestyles, rarely had a problem with violent crime.
One of the big reasons the lawmen and criminals involved in gunfights became legends and are remembered today is because they were in fact rare.
Today they would just blend in with all the other criminal and police shootouts, and would never have become a legend people were talking about over 100 years later. Yet in those days a shooting was such a big deal, it could be embellished and talked about in newspapers across the country.
In fact the Eastern United States couldn't get enough of the myth of the "Wild West" even in those days.
Which can be seen in the popularity of the Buffalo Bill shows which greatly exaggerated the dangers and lifestyle for ticket sales to people who had never experienced the West themselves.
Last edited:
huntsman
Member
I'm just glad the good guys all wore white hats or things would have been even more confusing.
crebralfix
member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,356
When I wrote "Citation?", I meant more than just the title of the book.
Just because someone wrote it down in a book doesn't make it true. I do not consider the myth "busted" until it's been verified. Is there an actual source cited in the book? Perhaps some eyewitness accounts, news paper articles, court testimony and so on? What does the author provide?
Case in point: UVA professor writes an article. He cites another book, but doesn't trace it back. VA Tech professor, fueling the flames of competition and rivalry, reviews the article. He did some research on the UVA prof's research. Guess what? The conclusion based upon the citation was WRONG. The first guy didn't verify his source, wrote it down and people were blindly using the erroneous information. Needless to say, the VA Tech professor has been very careful with his citations since then
Just because someone wrote it down in a book doesn't make it true. I do not consider the myth "busted" until it's been verified. Is there an actual source cited in the book? Perhaps some eyewitness accounts, news paper articles, court testimony and so on? What does the author provide?
Case in point: UVA professor writes an article. He cites another book, but doesn't trace it back. VA Tech professor, fueling the flames of competition and rivalry, reviews the article. He did some research on the UVA prof's research. Guess what? The conclusion based upon the citation was WRONG. The first guy didn't verify his source, wrote it down and people were blindly using the erroneous information. Needless to say, the VA Tech professor has been very careful with his citations since then
Last edited:
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.
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.
HoosierQ
Member
Basically the myth of the "High Noon" style gunfight happened because, if I am not mistaken, Wild Bill Hickock and another guy sort of did just that...sort of. Except I believe what happened is these two gentlemen, having a very serious beef with one another, had a chance encounter on the street and found themselves in a "showdown". Nobody agreed to meet or anything like that. Wild Bill made the shot and the other guy went down. The stuff of legends. Neither chose for it to happen that way and wouldn't.
Another myth is the gunslinger coming to town and terrorizing everybody...that never happened. These guys, many of them, faced the guns at Shiloh or Gettysburg, endured the bombardment and siege of Vicksburg, etc. Some tough-guy with a gun is going to terrorize them? I think not.
Another myth is the gunslinger coming to town and terrorizing everybody...that never happened. These guys, many of them, faced the guns at Shiloh or Gettysburg, endured the bombardment and siege of Vicksburg, etc. Some tough-guy with a gun is going to terrorize them? I think not.
I think a lot of men died days later from infection, including a couple of assassinated presidents.
Grump
Member
Well, there's a BIG difference between the much more typical "gunned down" incident and a gun "fight".
Like to see a listing of the two types of events which are considered historically verified.
OK Corral was a gunfight. Notable for rarity, number of people involved, mucked up "prior history" of the parties, and so forth.
Various killers and lawmen getting whacked were often NO "fights", but garden variety murders, with the possible preemptive strikes by a lawman or citizen who chose to bypass the "waiting period" of the mostly-unavailable circuit courts.
That's what I've gleaned from reading way too much history and noting how the writings of Louis L'Amour and even Zane Gray deviated from the reported facts. Mind you, both of them *did* keep the facts quite straight before and usually even after the gunfight.
Like to see a listing of the two types of events which are considered historically verified.
OK Corral was a gunfight. Notable for rarity, number of people involved, mucked up "prior history" of the parties, and so forth.
Various killers and lawmen getting whacked were often NO "fights", but garden variety murders, with the possible preemptive strikes by a lawman or citizen who chose to bypass the "waiting period" of the mostly-unavailable circuit courts.
That's what I've gleaned from reading way too much history and noting how the writings of Louis L'Amour and even Zane Gray deviated from the reported facts. Mind you, both of them *did* keep the facts quite straight before and usually even after the gunfight.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
