|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
everybody [in the Old West was] armed and dangerous
On Apr 21, 2:35 am, Harry Brogan
hbrogan57_AT_NOSPAM_DOT_YAHOO_DOT_COM wrote: It's only relatively recently, here in the U.S., that people have not been able to be "armed" while out and about. I don't recall reading anywhere about the "old west" being a blood bath. From http://volokh.com/posts/1188076990.shtml ================================================== ======== How Homicidal Was the Old West?-- Randy Roth (Ohio State), the leading historian studying homicide rates, has a piece in Reviews in American History [available only to some readers logging on through their university libraries] that examines two items of academic folklore. In this post, I address the widespread myth that homicides were rare in the “Old West.” In recent years it has become fashionable for historians (such as Robert Dykstra and Michael Bellesiles) to claim that it was a myth that the Old West was particularly violent. Notheless, other historians, such as Clare McKanna and David Peterson Del Mar, have reported very high rates of homicide in the West in the late 19th century (compared to current rates in the US). Who is right? Roth carefully reviews the data and confirms the work of McKanna and Peterson Del Mar, showing it to be consistent with recent work by Kevin Mullen, John Boessenecker, and (the late, great) Eric Monkkonen, . Roth concludes: Because the counties in McKanna’s study reflect the diversity of rural southern and central California as a whole, there is reason to believe that the homicide rate in the southern two-thirds of the state (excluding San Francisco) was between 66 and 80 per 100,000 adults per year—the 99% confidence interval for McKanna’s seven counties combined. If we include San Francisco and Los Angeles counties, the interval for all of southern and central California was between 60 and 70 per 100,000 adults per year—seven times the homicide rate in the United States today (and 28.7 standard deviations away). An adult exposed to that rate for sixteen years stood a 1 in 96 chance of being murdered, and an adult exposed to that rate for 45 years would have stood a 1 in 34 chance of being murdered. We cannot make assumptions about the homicide rate in northern California, which has yet to be studied. But with McKanna’s study alone, we have 29 percent of the population of southern and central California (38 percent outside San Francisco); and with the addition of Mullen’s study of San Francisco and Monkkonen’s of Los Angeles, we have 57 percent of the population. The claim that the area was not unusually homicidal is statistically and arithmetically impossible. The data of Peterson Del Mar and McKanna show that there is no such thing as a “fallacy of small numbers.” The laws of probability make it possible to predict the character of a large population from a sample of surprisingly modest size, as long as that sample is representative of the population as a whole. That is why national opinion polls of 1,500 or 3,000 potential voters can be so accurate, even for subgroups of the population. That is the genius of statistics. Indeed! How homicidal was the Old West? According to the best historical evidence today, the answer is: Extremely Homicidal. Thus, another bit of academic folklore bites the dust. ================================================== ==== - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"never stand before the bull"
[snip] Goodness gracious. All this is very un-British. I live, and ride my bicycle in London, which seems to be the far-away land that you are talking about. London's a pretty good city to ride a bicycle in, no need for new laws or conventions. Oh, c'mon. The article was written by a Briton about Great Britain. As, indeed, was my previous e-mail. As indeed is this one. I can look out of my window, right here, at actual London traffic. I've said your driving laws are very good Thankyou. I missed that posting, I guess. My apologies. What is it about our laws that impresses you? Are we unique, or do other places have similar laws? and your new laws restricting traffic into London are very encouraging, Well, I have to admit that we haven't quite reached perfection yet. Oxford Street, for example, from which private cars were already banned before the congestion charge, has obviously - all too obviously - not had its congestion reduced at all, because all those buses, taxis, and delivery vehicles still clog it up. The "City" part of London probably benefited more from the "ring of steel" anti terrorism precautions which were introduced somewhat before the congestion charges reduced motorised traffic still further. but I trust the writer's statement that cyclists still live under the law of the jungle in London to be right. Hmm. As one who lives here, and cycles here, I would say that is unwise. Cycling is safe enough here that, if you do choose to live by the law of the jungle, your mean free path between collisions might be long enough for you to get away with it, but it's still not a good idea. Either London is like Amsterdam, or it's not a welcoming place for cyclists. Now you are just being silly. Cambridge is the British city which has more cycling than Amsterdam, but I think that London is a better city to cycle in than Cambridge. Of course, London has a good enough public transport system for really the only reason to ride a bike in London to be because it is fun. People travel thousands of miles to come and ride on our buses, and our taxis, and their drivers, really are wonderful. A London taxi can carry a bike, too, in case of emergency. London is rather bigger than Amsterdam. London was the largest city in the world when I was growing up, although other ciries have long since overtaken it. Amsterdam is such a dinky little town that you can **walk** from the center of town - the main train station - to the Ring Road, their beltway, in an hour. How many people ride bike in London? The should be new annual figures out any time now - watch for a press release from Transport for London on their web site www.tfl.gov.uk. Last years figures estimate 480 000 journeys a day. I would guess that most people take around two journeys a day, rather than getting on the train with their bike to come home again. Whether this includes journeys to a train station, I don't know. Most London statistics count only the "main leg" of a journey, so riding to the station to catch a train might not be counted Give me a percentage to show. About 1.5% averaged over all London. Around 7% in Central London (roughly the congestion charge zone). The south western part of London seems to have a higher rate of cycling than average, nobody knows why. London is tending now to base its statistics on the automatic bike counters on the TLRN (Trunk London Road Network) Because of the nature of the TLRN this might lead to some undercounting in Outer London. Anyway, I'd rather ride a bike in London than in places where still the drivers ignore any civilized rules of the road. In America we have to tame the beast first. Having ridden many miles on both sides of th Altlantic, I would say that there is not much in it, though there are, of course, many places in the USA where I have not ridden (Chicago, for example). Civilized or not - that might depend on your definition of civilized, which doesn't always seem to be the same as everyone's on this newsgroup - I would say that there always are rules, and when you ride or bike, or are anywhere among other people, it's advisable to know what those rules are. I read the reviews of the book, but I'm sure even bullfighting can be done in a safe way if you know the tricks of the trade [snip] The moral of which, I take it, is to know the tricks of the trade. Buy a copy of "Effective Cycling" Jeremy Parker |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
BAD LAWS + CARS + GUNS = DEATH & FEAR
Hey, I speak in parables (like Jesus), but I don’t have a clue if
people understand them. Well, just in case they don’t here’s an easy explanation… On Apr 20, 11:13 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote: In article , “ZBicyclist” writes: ComandanteBanana wrote: On Apr 20, 12:16 pm, Tom Sherman wrote: ComandanteBanana aka donquixote1954 wrote: OK, I finally took delivery of official vehicle of the revolution (the trike), with plenty of space in the basket to carry bananas for the lions.[...] What type of lions eat bananas? The ones that are actually hungry to eat them. And they have the guts for it. It’s in the Bible. Cite? There’s something by Isaiah about how the lion shall eat straw, like the ox. As an erstwhile guardian of felines, I can assert they do eat grass. They don’t digest it very well, though. I had a Persian/alley cat (I called him “Balzac") that enjoyed the occasional piece of doughnut. He weighed 23 lbs, and lived just as many years. He only growled once in his life, and that was because of a severe toothache. Personally, I dislike bananas. I’m not terribly partial toward straw, either. I’d rather eat the ox. And y’know what? Lions lead such tough, tragic lives. Interesting fact is that the Rich and Powerful surround themselves with statues of lions and claim the lion in their family crest, so it is that the lion is their cherished symbol. (They hate the monkey -- their real self-- for the same reason.) And what’s the symbol for the down and out? The monkeys, of course. So the statement that the lions eat banana could be understood to mean that they’ll be humbled. When the monkey was cornered by the beast, he said, “You can eat my banana!” |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
BAD LAWS + CARS + GUNS = DEATH & FEAR
ComandanteBanana wrote:
I simply quoted that article, but I share his concern. Settling something with a finger or a gun are two different things. The result of the equation above is that people are exposed to a real threat, particularly if they assert their right with a finger. And while few people actually get shot, the rest of the population live in fear. Particularly the cyclists. And we would have to start with changing the laws of the republic... Florida gives you an option to deal with this: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/index.html |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
everybody [in the Old West was] armed and dangerous
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:35:29 -0500, Harry Brogan
hbrogan57_AT_NOSPAM_DOT_YAHOO_DOT_COM wrote: How homicidal was the Old West? According to the best historical evidence today, the answer is: Extremely Homicidal. Thus, another bit of academic folklore bites the dust. ================================================ ====== - Frank Krygowski KUDOS to you on your research. However, will that stand up to ALL of the "old west". Starting at about the Mississippi river and continuing westward. It would seem that the information you have provided is all California and does not include other states. I'd like to know if that historic data includes the genocide of the native American people. Or maybe it was a "war" so civilian casualties don't count. -- zk |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
everybody is armed and dangerous
Bob Hunt wrote:
On Apr 20, 5:49 pm, ComandanteBanana wrote: One of the problems we've got is that everybody is armed and dangerous. Hyperbole must be part of the Troll's Rules of Conduct. If "everybody is armed and dangerous" every day should be one gigantic bloodbath with hundreds of thousands killed or maimed yet that isn't the case. An automobile could be far more effective in killing a lot of people than a gun. It would also be possible to murder someone with an automobile, with a far greater chance of it being considered an "accident" than it would be if the murder was committed with a gun. [...] -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
everybody is armed and dangerous
On Apr 21, 1:35*am, Harry Brogan
hbrogan57_AT_NOSPAM_DOT_YAHOO_DOT_COM wrote: On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:25:50 -0700 (PDT), Bob wrote: On Apr 20, 5:49*pm, ComandanteBanana wrote: One of the problems we've got is that everybody is armed and dangerous. Hyperbole must be part of the Troll's Rules of Conduct. If "everybody is armed and dangerous" every day should be one gigantic bloodbath with hundreds of thousands killed or maimed yet that isn't the case. Until this point, the worst I got for cutting someone off was the finger, not a bullet in the chest. The inference to be drawn from this would seem to be that you've recently been shot for cutting someone off in traffic. In that case, best wishes for a speedy recovery- and stop cutting people off. Regards, Bob Hunt It's only relatively recently, here in the U.S., that people have not been able to be "armed" while out and about. *I don't recall reading anywhere about the "old west" being a blood bath. * *__o * | Every time I see an adult on a bicycle.... *_`\(,_ *| I no longer despair for the human race. (_)/ (_) | * * * * * * * * * * * * ---H.G. Wells---- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - He didn't merely say "armed". He said "armed *and dangerous*" (emphasis added) which implies a certain mindset that the overwhelming majority of the population doesn't have just as they didn't have back in the "Old West". Regards, Bob Hunt |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
BAD LAWS + CARS + GUNS = DEATH & FEAR
Had you left Jesus out of it and stopped after saying-
Hey, I speak in parables (like Jesus), but I don’t have a clue I doubt many here would disagree. Regards, Bob Hunt |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
everybody [in the Old West was] armed and dangerous
Zoot Katz wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:35:29 -0500, Harry Brogan hbrogan57_AT_NOSPAM_DOT_YAHOO_DOT_COM wrote: How homicidal was the Old West? According to the best historical evidence today, the answer is: Extremely Homicidal. Thus, another bit of academic folklore bites the dust. ================================================== ==== - Frank Krygowski KUDOS to you on your research. However, will that stand up to ALL of the "old west". Starting at about the Mississippi river and continuing westward. It would seem that the information you have provided is all California and does not include other states. I'd like to know if that historic data includes the genocide of the native American people. butbutbut, that was only about 98-99% of the pre-European arrival population. Himmler must have been jealous of the effectiveness. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
BAD LAWS + CARS + GUNS = DEATH & FEAR
Bob Hunt wrote:
Had you left Jesus out of it and stopped after saying- Hey, I speak in parables (like Jesus), but I don’t have a clue I doubt many here would disagree. LOL! -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Revolution trailer bike? | Brendan Halpin | UK | 5 | April 6th 08 09:09 AM |
The 'Velorution' at Ripon College: Give Up Your Car, Get a Bike | Claire | General | 2 | February 14th 08 05:36 PM |
More Velorution | Charles | Racing | 0 | June 11th 07 06:14 AM |
Velorution ! | Keith | Racing | 2 | June 10th 07 02:42 AM |
The Velorution will not be motorised. | David Martin | UK | 2 | March 3rd 05 09:05 AM |