I had a good laugh this morning. Pulling up to a red light in the center of Rome, I was very quickly surrounded by motorbikes. Besides the two or three cars in the other lanes - although no one pays attention to the lanes here, about ten scooters came up to the front swerving around cars and coming to a stop on either side of me.
I imagined myself carrying a gun and determined to be responsibly aware of any possible danger or false moves around me. Most of them kept looking straight ahead, apparently waiting for the light to turn green so they could get the jump on the others. But, being extremely attuned to my environment, I realized that could all be an act. I nervously scanned the small crowd for telltale signs and they were everywhere. The guy just a few inches to my left was fidgeting. One of the guys outside my passenger side window went for his cell phone. I would have had to draw down on both of them.
All this while I was distressingly aware of the ones just outside my peripheral vision and those directly behind me.
In the end, about the time the light changed, I laughed out loud at the foolishness of the gun-owning situationally aware guys. Talk about living in a fantasy world, one in which you possess incredible intuition and super-sensitivity. Like ten-year-olds they play pretend and imagine themselves saving the day with a gun.
The sad reality is they make themselves and everyone around them less safe.
Good job. You used situational awareness to review and monitor your surroundings and determine that moped riders in Rome were of little danger to you. Would you have been a little less amused if it were instead Hell's Angels in central Nevada in the middle of a lonely stretch of dessert?ReplyDelete
Situational awareness is a tool to use to avoid a confrontation or at least help you to prevail should it become impossible to avoid.
I would think that you would be supportive of applying situational awareness so that deadly force encounters can be avoided? Guess not.
Situational awareness is not some sort of magic sensory process--it is keeping your nose out of your phone or iPod while in public.
And in a case like that, it's also remembering that your car is the best weapon that you have.ReplyDelete
"moped riders in Rome were of little danger to you. Would you have been a little less amused if it were instead Hell's Angels in central Nevada in the middle of a lonely stretch of dessert?"ReplyDelete
Depends on whether the "dessert" was real chocolate mousse or that crap that Jell-O markets.
We may posit a few things here, yes?
1.) You're in the middle of the "dessert" and you have your trusty 1911 or Glockenspewer or maybe oneatheseherebadboyz:
d//4a-7, addendum 6.) Them biker dudes? They REAL Hell's Angel's, not some knock-off, spin-off, fuck-off bunch like Satans Weekend Warriors or CPA Hogriderz From Hell or somesuch? 'cuz, if they are, lotza them unwashed, smelly, scraggly-haired, oral hygeine deficient, tonsorially adventurous, toad suckin', meth snortin',8Ball spikin, Xperienceing, tongue (and cheek, lip, ear, nose and eyebrow) pierced, sartorially challenged folks carry teh gunz. And ALL of the men do!!
Gimme my shitbox Ford Ranger v a 19ll and a few extry MAGAZINES of hollowpoints* I'll be makin' a run for it. Goin' up against one thug with your hogleg (specially if they don't have teh gunz OR know that they're thugz), you might have a shot. You shoot a couple of bikers and the rest of them are likely going to, then or later, enjoy your slow and gruesome death.
Those folks, they're vindictive.
" Me, I hadda shoot some badassbikerz I'd want API depleted uranium 'splosive rounds--DIPPED in garlic/habanero sauce.
FWM, your description is a good one. Someone needs to tell the other gun guys, many of whom certainly do think they have super powers of observation and intuition.ReplyDelete
FWM, I almost forgot, you must have missed the most important part of my story, the funny part. The guy who was fidgeting and the one who went for his cell phone required that I draw my gun and have it at the ready, if I were stupid enough to be carrying one. You see, their actions were indistinguishable from those of bad guys getting ready to lethally threaten me.ReplyDelete
That's the problem with over-reliance on this silly technique and with carrying a gun at all.
I'm waiting for you to call Dog Gone silly for ever carrying a handgun. What if her stalker had tried to draw a cell phone?
It would be silly for me to draw a weapon on a stalker with a cell phone.ReplyDelete
I never did. In fact, I've never relied on a firearm for self defense.
On a couple of occasions, I did turn loose some very large dogs on the person you incorrectly identify as a stalker.
Of course, if you ever ADEQUATELY answered the questions put to you, you could have the full and correct details.
Now back to watching Casablanca.
Are you ever going to explain how the cultural customs of friendship in other countries relates to that specific American movie for American audiences, btw?
I'm waiting for Greg and MA gunner to assert next that 'street guns' refers not to transactions where criminals get their guns from other criminals, but rather refers only to transactions that occur out of doors alongside roadways and thoroughfares, LOL....ReplyDelete
You're either being disingenuous, or you've reporting falsely. You carried a handgun for self defense. Whether you drew it on someone or not, it was there for your protection. Otherwise, why did you carry it? You say that I incorrectly identified someone as a stalker, and yet you sent Mikeb a message about why you carried a handgun in which you used that very term. If you want to set the record straight, you have the opportunity to do so. Until then, I am justified in concluding that you wish to enjoy a right that you want to deny to the rest of us.
I have answered your questions. You just don't like the answers. I even gave you more about carry techniques in the Old West, but you have said nothing in response so far. Just today I saw a picture of a Russian nobleman with General Custer on a hunt in the Dakota territory. The Russin had his revolver in a crossdraw position in what appeared to be his belt. With regard to "Casablanca," I was telling Mikeb something that I have to explain to my students, namely that friendship in Europe gets expressed differently from America. I wasn't speaking about your knowledge on the subject. I can't help what you take personally. But I've told you this before.
You're either being disingenuous, or you've reporting falsely. You carried a handgun for self defense.
Yes, I obtained a carry permit.
No, I did not in fact carry it for self defense; it never left my property except to go shooting, at the gun range, with friends. I did have it with me when I took dogs out for their last outing of the night when it was dark, or at odd hours if they woke me to be let out in the wee hours of the morning (yes, pun intended).
S0,no; while I could use it, and could carry, I rarely had it with me. When I did not have it with me, it was very safely secured.
Subsequent to the person who was the serious threat, for which I acquired the permit, there was also a stalker, but that was never a threat as serious as the original person had been, who was overtly and explicitly threatening.
GC then writes, in his usual hysterical fashion:Until then, I am justified in concluding that you wish to enjoy a right that you want to deny to the rest of us.
Not at all. I have always here stipulated that those who require a firearm for their jobs should be allowed to carry, including those who have to make large cash deposits for businesses, or carry valuable items such as diamonds which make them a likely target for violent robbery.
I have also stipulated that anyone with a clear and very specific danger or explicit threat that was objectively recognized should be allowed to carry if they chose, for the duration of the time the threat existed. I fell into that category. YOU DON'T. This category of threatened person refers to a real, specific threat, not some vague free floating anxiety that a crook might somewhere somehow someday maybe possibly it-could-happen randomly attack you. You want a gun because you fear the world, without reasonable regard to low, declining crime statistics.
YOU GREG do NOT by any stretch qualify as someone who NEEDS a gun, who has any reasonable probability or likelihood of being the victim of crime.
Further, you lack the ability to think and your judgment appears poor at best, and dangerous at worst.
Then GC writes:I even gave you more about carry techniques in the Old West, but you have said nothing in response so far.ReplyDelete
Unless I missed it, you haven't provided any reliable or credible historic source for carry techniques in the old west. What you have claimed is that apparently was capable of understanding safe gun handling prior to the codifying of them by Jeff Cooper.
That's bollocks. You don't provide any source whatsoever that indicates that - and it was patently NOT the case.
Just today I saw a picture of a Russian nobleman with General Custer on a hunt in the Dakota territory. The Russin had his revolver in a crossdraw position in what appeared to be his belt.
I have seen plenty of photos of hunting in the Dakota territory - which is that part of the country I live in - including Custer, who hunted with Colonel Sibley from Fort Snelling. My antecedents on my maternal side of the family include the mayor of the town across the river from the fort at the time Sibley was the ranking officer of the fort; his home, now a museum is in that town, Mendota MN. So, I'm actually quite familiar with the photographic and written records of the hunting in that period - Sibley often ventured into what is now North and South Dakota. The paternal side of the family came here in 1803.
And NO, that was not the way firearms were handled or carried, other than some few people who used a cavalry holster style of carry cross-drawn, at the time. This was the area where Custer did that hunting on his way west through the Dakotas to eastern Montana where he was killed at the Little Big horn.
I have had a particular interest in the pack of hunting / coursing hounds that accompanied Custer.
With regard to "Casablanca," I was telling Mikeb something that I have to explain to my students, namely that friendship in Europe gets expressed differently from America.
BS again; you were addressing my assertion that some people see a bisexual / homosexual attraction on the part of the Renault/ Claude Rains character for the Rick Blaine / Bogart character. That is the only context in which your statement about friendship in Europe being expressed occurred. It did not spontaneously arise in the course of the discussion about Casablanca; your comment arose specifically as part of your disagreement with my statement. You are such a dishonest person.
And as I am watching it now, here is a section of dialog, transcribed verbatim that suggests that attraction :
Renault/Raines, addressing Ingrid Bergman "Well, mademoiselle, he is the kind of man that (pointing to his heart) ...if I were a woman and I would be around him, I should be in love with Rick. But what a fool I am talking to a beautiful woman about another man."
approximately 23 minutes into the movie.
That is just one of the points where Renault/ Rains indicates an attraction that can be taken as part of a pattern of bisexuality - a very predatory bisexuality.
That is NOT typical of European expressions of friendship between men. Not that I think you know much about the subject anyway, so I doubt you have anything to teach your students about it.
So, NO, you haven't provided any credible answers; you've provided some second hand bullshit that doesn't document anything other than you don't research facts very well. And you've made it clear you're not very honest.
1. The lines that you quoted from "Casablanca" don't prove that Capt. Renault is bisexual. He says, "If I were a woman. . ." Perhaps you don't understand the subjunctive. But that's a matter of interpretation. I've answered your question to me about it, but you keep harping on the same question. Let it go.
2. You and I both live in shall-issue states. We don't have to have a specific threat to our lives to get a carry license. You're creating a standard that doesn't exist in most of the country. The fact that I exercise my right and my state-approved privilege isn't an error in judgement--not according to Arkansas, not according to Florida, and for you, not according to Minnesota. California and New York may retain their foolish requirements until H.R. 822 becomes law.
3. The picture is of Grand Duke Alexis sitting with Gen. Custer and can be seen in "Guns of the American West," by Dennis Adler. I've shown you multiple sources. If you're merely going to dismiss them all, then I've given you the answer that I have.
Now it's your turn.
OH, dear God.....you idiot. Have you watched the movie recently? It is full of refernces like that about attraction to men.ReplyDelete
In the scene with a Bulgarian refugee, asking Rick about whether or not Renault can be trusted, where Renault sends her to Rick to ask the question, she wants to know if she sleeps with Renault, will he keep his word to help them leave Casablanca. When she mentions her husband is there with her, Rick leers and makes a comment about how Renault is broadminded that way - in a way that implies that Renault might sleep with both the woman AND her husband, possibly in a three way.
Throughout the movie there are double and triple entendres, including references to Renault not being primarily oriented towards women, and other comments indicating sexual attraction to Bogart's character. It is fairly subtle; not surprising, since the brothers Warner were notoriously prudish, and because of the censorship hassles. It is legendary that there were Warner Brothers studio producers, writers, directors and some actors who made an ongoing game of getting stuff past the censors, as a sort of continuing inside joke.
I'm not going to quote you all the lines that are sexual entendres; either you get them or you don't.
Further, the theme of Casablanca is about decadence and character flaws redeemed by patriotism, sacrifice, and heroism.
Yes I understand the subjunctive; I can conjugate it in multiple languages and use it correctly.
Are you still trying to pretend that you weren't making your stupid claim about how 'differently' other cultures express friendship in response to my statement about Renault being portrayed as a bisexual by Raines?
You are so fundamentally dishonest; you have no intellectual integrity.
Greg, You keep making the same mistake. My little story was not to say "I want no one to carry a gun." My story was to point out the difficulty one who decides to carry one faces every day.ReplyDelete
I don't want to deny you anything, except the ability to own and carry guns withougt qualifying adequately. Unfortunately, you can do that now.
I had to qualify to get a carry license. The process was adequate and quite a lot of fun.
I do believe that if I made a comment about craters on the back side of the Moon, you'd tell us about how your family went fishing regularly with Neil Armstrong in the 70s and oh, by the way, your father had a secret rocket program for his bank and you got to ride along to the Moon yourself.
You want more evidence that I'm right? Review the testimony of the Earps regarding the events leading up to and of the OK Corral shootout. According to statements by both Virgil and Wyatt Earp, several persons involved on both sides were carrying revolvers in their waistbands.
And Dog Gone,ReplyDelete
If Rick made a snide comment about Renault, that's hardly proof, since Rick was a sarcastic fellow. You've never heard men insult each other's sexuality? Or perhaps that's evidence that they're also bisexual--ask Laci about his own orientation, if so, since he keeps making remarks about me.
Greg Camp said...ReplyDelete
And Dog Gone,
If Rick made a snide comment about Renault, that's hardly proof, since Rick was a sarcastic fellow. You've never heard men insult each other's sexuality?
It's not a single line of dialog, Greg. It's a continuing thread of dialog throughout the movie between the two characters.
That it is an intentional pattern, including that it is something they are trying to 'sneak' past censors and at least some of the audience is even more evident if you look at the pacing of the dialog. In every case where there is a line or two of that kind of dialog, it is followed by a very rapid, distracting line of dialog that changes the subject. Unlike the other dialog that is NOT like these, the other actor speaks so quickly they virtually step on the other actor's lines, almost talk over them. There is both a change of subject, and/or a new line of conversation or action, that distracts from that previous more risque line.
That seems very consistent with the premise that there was an attempt to sneak this content past the censors and to distract the more prudish members of the audience from catching the innuendo, the implication.
But if there was any question beyond even that technique to distract, there is another technique that is effective in understanding what is happening on the screen and how an impression is conveyed. You watch the applicable segments of the movie first with the sound, and then with just the visual image. That allows you to see what the actors are doing with their facial expressions as well as their body language. There seems to be a clear special attitude, a special humor, a clear definite sort of 'shared secret' between the characters that argues that there is a risque meaning, a private joke taking place in the way those scenes are played that supports the interpretation of the dialog.
But I'm sure you'd rather we think YOU are more expert than people who make their living as experts on movies and/or human sexuality, including in historic contexts of intolerance, where people could not be as overt about their sexual orientation.
Or perhaps that's evidence that they're also bisexual--ask Laci about his own orientation, if so, since he keeps making remarks about me.
I speak with Laci from time to time; I know him fairly well. He can be sharp tongued, although rarely is he so to me. And NO, there is nothing ambiguous about his sexual orientation. He is clearly a very masculine, heterosexual man.
Laci has the confident character of someone who has seen more conflict, and more cultures, of someone with more life experience than you have Greg, including dangerous ones, and dealt with them. That comes from both greater self-confidence on his part AND greater sophistication.
You lack that, and it makes you appear weak and fearful in contrast, and a at times you appear to be quite comedic - you come across like a taller civilian version of the fictional television character Barney Phyfe from the old Andy Griffith show played so brilliantly back in the day by Don Knotts..
Greg, I am comfortable enough in my sexuality to not be threatened by your comments.ReplyDelete
That precludes any "ambiguity" about my sexuality.
On the other hand, this stuff seems to really bother you.
Maybe all this says more about your sexuality than it does about mine.
So, keep up the insuination, Greg, I know better.
As does my wife and former girlfirends.
BTW, I have pointed out that James Bond wore kilt in a previous post.ReplyDelete
Not to mention that other masculine men have no problem with it.
But, this stuff really bother you, Greg.
I'd be more worried about you than me, mate.
Greg, any attempt to attack me through my sexuality is about as much of a failure as you pretending to be a wild west shootist.ReplyDelete
GC wrote:According to statements by both Virgil and Wyatt Earp, several persons involved on both sides were carrying revolvers in their waistbands.ReplyDelete
Check again; I believe that was a reference to additional firearms to the ones in their holsters. There were no automatic/ semi automatic weapons in those days; there is no really quick way to reload.
With that many people, it was expected that a lot of ammo was going to be fired.
That still does not show that belt carry was common, particularly as a preference over holster carry by those who were proficient gunslingers.
If you want to discuss the dark side of the moon, by all means lets do so. You are the one who loves the fiction, the myth, the glamorized rather than the factual, the real. I'd expect you to claim the moon is made of green cheese and that the 1969 moon landing was a fake faked on a movie sound stage.
Or maybe that we all need to go armed because of fiction like the War of the Worlds or Marvin the Martian, clear indicators that we daily must be prepared to defend ourselves against space aliens.
Laci the Dog,ReplyDelete
James Bond in a kilt? Yes, he is Scottish, so that's not surprising. Actually, if you look at that thread, I made no comments about his kilt. It's no big deal to me. Nor are your comments about me. I mentioned them only to point out how vulgar you are.
You're just never going to let this "Casablanca" thing go, are you. I take it that you don't know the difference between fact and interpretation. You have one interpretation of the movie. I have another. I'm willing to say that your way of seeing the film is valid, though not necessary. Can we put this to rest now?
Of course, the problem here is that your interpretation of everything is the only right one, according to you. That's a common fallacy--a lot of people believe the same about their own. If you were as open-minded and as intelligent as you claim to be, you'd acknowledge that there are other possible ways of understanding many things, including guns, obviously.
GC writes:You're just never going to let this "Casablanca" thing go, are you. I take it that you don't know the difference between fact and interpretation. You have one interpretation of the movie. I have another.ReplyDelete
You keep wanting to make this be about MY interpretation of the movie. It isn't specifically mine; it is an interpretation by experts on film from this era, and on the portrayal of minority sexual orientations in film. These are experts who write critically acclaimed books and academic papers, who are well paid to present lectures on the topic to large groups of people, where they have to demonstrate sections of the film that back up their claims with both visual images and dialog.
You asked me to explain some of the reasons; and I have done so. You haven't argued against them with any facts; you simply don't wish to see this possibility for whatever reason.
But what this is REALLY about for me is your dishonesty. You have tried to assert that there is an expression of friendship that conforms to some other culture depicted in the film - but you don't show any evidence that was the intent or that such a different cultural expression occurs.
I show the intent in support of the expert interpretation in the many instances including this one of the film makers trying to get around or put one over on the censors of the day, and specifically over the Warner Brothers execs. You show nothing that refutes it.
You show no indication there was ever an intent to depict an alternate cultural normative expression of ANYTHING. You don't demonstrate any factual knowledge of any other norms of friendship expression, and you demonstrate no knowledge of any from personal experience. You quote CS Lewis, but nothing which directly supports your claims of expressions of friendship versus sexuality. I suspect that the only basis you have for expounding on this to your captive audience of students is fiction, not anything remotely based on fact or real experience.
I'm willing to say that your way of seeing the film is valid, though not necessary. Can we put this to rest now?
No. I don't really care if you are able to perceive the bisexuality of the Raines characterization in the film. It is sufficient for me that many others do so, and that the interpretation has significant recognition.
What I want to see from you is an admission that you were responding to what I wrote, not to MikeB, when you brought up alternate cultures, and an admission you don't really see anything from another culture in this movie and that you don't really know anything of substance about other cultures and their expressions of friendship.
What I object to Greg is your claiming knowledge you don't have, including claiming to teach something you yourself don't know to students. What I object to is your dishonesty about the topic here, and your inability to substantiate what you have claimed.
This is just one example of something that you do on a larger scale.
You bullshit on topics, and then you try to bullshit your way out it some more when you are called on it.
You say you can support your positions, and then you consistently fail to do so.
GC wrote:(about my friend Laci) I mentioned them only to point out how vulgar you are.ReplyDelete
I find Laci to be very well mannered and well spoken in my direct dealings with him.
He can be vulgar, when he chooses; so was Chaucer, Shaekspeare. Swift. Voltaire, The ancient Greeks and Romans. And as are many other very articulate and expressive men and women.
I find Laci a very English gentleman; but he is not a prude or a puritan. He expresses his impatience very directly, when he deems it appropriate.
GC writes:You're just never going to let this "Casablanca" thing go, are you. I take it that you don't know the difference between fact and interpretation. You have one interpretation of the movie. I have another.ReplyDelete
You're wrong and trying to weasel out of it, Greg.
James Bond was a Scot and so am I.
You got a problem with that, Greggy?
I have far more of a problem with wankers like you playing "shootist".
Although, you are a "shootist" in the disparaging sense of the word.
Greg should really shut up and listen.ReplyDelete
Of course, it is far more fun watching his shoot his mouth off to demonstrate what an idiot he is.
Your comment about the Earps shows me that you haven't looked into the matter. Virgil Earp said that he shifted his revolver from one side to the other of his pants so as to hold a walking stick in a different hand. The point here is that he was going into a situation in which shooting was possible, and he grabbed a gun to be ready. That was a practice of the time--stick one in the pants when an emergency arose. Again, it was done, whether it was common or not. And yes, I was aware that gun fighters of the Old West carried more than one. Reloading takes a long time, as I well know, and sometimes those guns don't work as one expects.
very English gentlemanReplyDelete
Correction, British Gentleman.
I refer to my nationality as British--although my Driver's licence says English since my residence is there.
So, depending on whether you go by me or DVLA...
This just in, since you're still going on about the subject, Pat Garrett shoots William H. Bonney, aka Billy the Kid, in Fort Sumner, New Mexico. Bonney was carrying a Colt Thunderer in his waistband.
You may have heard of the story.
Greg Camp, you have just about the sloppiest idea of scholarship that I have seen in a long time.ReplyDelete
That report you cite is bullshit, and if you are reporting it here in support of your claim that belt carry was in any way common, you are ridiculous.
The only known photo of Billy the Kid is this one. Note the description:
"The photograph of The Kid, commonly known as the Upham tintype – after its longtime owner Frank Upham– was the subject of intense study by experts in the late 1980s. Their detailed findings were presented at a symposium held in 1989. The experts concluded that the Colt revolver carried by McCarty was probably not his primary weapon, since his holster is not the type normally associated with gunslingers. Rather, it is a common holster, with a safety strap across the top to keep the six-shooter from bouncing out. McCarty's main weapon appears to be the Winchester Carbine held in his hand in the ferrotype."
We have multiple problems with accounts of Pat Garret shooting Billy the Kid (not his real name). We have NO indication that Billy the Kid in fact was an accomplished gun slinger or 'shootist' to use your silly word for it. Rather he was a figure badly hyped by penny dreadfuls and dime novels.
So you provide NO credible support that this was a wide spread practice among men who were accomplished with firearms in the west, and you provide no credible support that anyone did this as their regular style of carrying weapons AT ALL, and you provide absolutely no remotely credible evidence that people who routinely carried and used firearms in the old west were unaware of gun safety.
YOU sir, are an appallingly sloppy scholar for someone who presumes to educate others, you are NOT sir, in any way shape or form a critical thinker, and you are an idiot. And you sometimes dress funny, but in no way historically accurate.
I would suggest that your slow speed as any kind of historical researcher should start with the wikipedia, and then have a nice quiet sit down until the material is absorbed.
Then if you're up to more challenging material, start on the content of the footnote sources.
Once again, you flood the page with irrelevant information. I'm familiar with the photograph that you discussed, but that's not what I'm talking about. There was also confusion for a long time about whether he was left handed, but it's been shown that the picture was reversed--since the loading gate of the Winchester is visible, that has to be the answer.
The photograph doesn't show the incident in question. Bonney, as he was calling himself at the time, went out to see about getting some meat for his dinner from a friend, someone who also knew Pat Garrett. Garrett was in the house at the time on the strength of that connection. Bonney was not looking for a fight. The report of the incident has him putting a revovler into his waistband.
My point here is not to debate what kind of person Billy the Kid was, nor to claim that people never used holsters. I'm merely saying that there were a variety of methods used to carry a revolver, depending on the person and the circumstances. Well, it's also to say that your absolutism about your own rightness ought to be reevaluated.
I started reading things about guns - then suddenly I realised I had been transferred to the IMDB page...ReplyDelete
I love Casablanca...
GC wrote:The report of the incident has him putting a revovler into his waistband.ReplyDelete
No you utter twit. IT DOES NOT.
There are NO reliable reports of his doing that. There have been a whole lot of second hand reports that range from his being unarmed to having a knife in his belt, etc. but there are NO RELIABLE REPORTS OF THIS EVENT, nothing which credibly supports your damn claim.
In point of fact, Bonney/ Billy the Kid, Antrim was not a gunslinger, not a 'shootist' to use your stupid term that doesn't mean what you think it means.
Billy the Kid was not a marksman of any note, he was not known for being exceptional for quick draws either. He was not noted for his use of hand guns, but was far better known for long barrel firearms. So not only is this NOT a credible claim of belt carry, it does not support your claim that this was done by exceptional or admirable gun fighters.
To quote fro the wikipedia section on Billy the Kid's death (aka McCarty:
There are at least two versions of what happened next. One version suggests that as the Kid entered, he failed to recognize Garrett in the poor light. McCarty drew his pistol and backed away, asking "¿Quién es? ¿Quién es?" (Spanish for "Who is it? Who is it?"). Recognizing McCarty's voice, Garrett drew his own pistol and fired twice, the first bullet striking McCarty in the chest just above his heart; McCarty fell to the floor and gasped for a minute and died. In a second version, McCarty entered carrying a knife, evidently headed to a kitchen area. He noticed someone in the darkness, and uttered the words, "¿Quién es? ¿Quién es?" at which point he was shot and killed. Although the popularity of the first story persists, and portrays Garrett in a better light, some historians contend that the second version is probably the accurate one.
A markedly different theory, in which Garrett and his posse set a trap for McCarty, has also been suggested. Most recently explored in the 2004 Discovery Channel documentary, Billy the Kid: Unmasked, this version says that Garrett went to the bedroom of Pedro Maxwell's sister, Paulita, and bound and gagged her in her bed. When McCarty arrived, Garrett was waiting behind Paulita's bed and shot the Kid.
In his book, Billy the Kid: A Short and Violent Life, Robert Utley told the story of Pat Garrett's book effort. In the weeks following Garrett's execution of the Kid, he felt the need to tell his side of the story. Many people had begun to talk about the unfairness of the encounter, so Garrett called upon his friend, Marshall Ashmun (Ash) Upson,to ghostwrite a book with him. Upson was a roving journalist who had a gift for graphic prose.
There is no single, verifiable, credible version of Garrett shooting Bonney/McCarty with a pistol in his belt. It is crap. It is sloppy, sensationalism, not legitimate history.
Further, it does not in any way shape or form substantiate that this was a practice in the old west. To do that you need more than this nonsense.
It is one more example of a bad understanding of history, and a dangerously sensational belief in what people did and did not do with guns on your part. You are clearly unable to differentiate the sensational from the factual, or to distinguish objective reality from the fiction. You go for the fake, every time.
Greg, for someone who professes to instruct others in writing, doesn't himself read very well.ReplyDelete
While he claimed I provided irrelevant information, he clearly missed the significance of the following information from a symposium in 1989 that was the culmination of scholarly study of Billy the Kid:
"Their detailed findings were presented at a symposium held in 1989. The experts concluded that the Colt revolver carried by McCarty was probably not his primary weapon, since his holster is not the type normally associated with gunslingers. Rather, it is a common holster, with a safety strap across the top to keep the six-shooter from bouncing out. McCarty's main weapon appears to be the Winchester Carbine held in his hand in the ferrotype.
Yeah, there doesn't seem to be a huge scholarly support for belt carrying revolvers by Billy the Kid,or any other significant use or proficiency with one as his primary weapon of choice.
History is a bitch when you try to cherry pick and misrepresent it, Greg.
SirSteve, Thanks for noticing that wer're more than your usual one-trick pony around here.ReplyDelete