Is that opinion or fact Bruce? (I'm assuming you're giving me a reason for the continued glorification?)

I'd be interested in your sources because there are quite clearly a lot of sources that suggest people can expect a much longer lifespan now than back in 'the good old days'.

The increase in lifespan has nothing to do with danger, it's improvement in nutrition, sanitation, medicine, etc.

So you don't think the fact that dealing with the conflict between indigenous people of the US now being less violent has anything to do with it? Or people being so isolated that they felt the need to shoot first and ask questions later in order to protect their property and family?

Yes of course medicine and better standards of living for many has increased lifespans immeasurably, but I think it's unwise to discount the fact that life is much 'safer' now than it was then.

On the other hand, you could argue that in place of the dangers of the past, new dangers have become apparent. I agree with that even, but the point is that the mentality of the wild west is still apparent even in many of the posters here.

ETA: This is my perspective as an outsider. Perhaps citizens of the US don't see it that way, but I can guarantee that I'm not in the minority with my thoughts on this as far as non-US citizens go.

The conflict between indigenous people has been pretty much over since they were separated into different reservations over a hundred years ago.
The conflict between indigenous people and the settlers, although bloody, was really quite rare. Partially because of the extremely low population density and partly because most of the conflict took place between the indigenous people and the US calvary.

Of course in the "wild west", and the rest of the country for the most part, everyone assumed (and rightly so) that everyone else was armed. This tempered peoples behavior, especially the criminals.

Today, most people are unarmed and the criminals know that... btw, they're armed. Unlike Wolf, most of the time when I leave the house I'm unarmed, because even though I have a concealed carry permit, I'm going somewhere I can't be armed.

I'm well aware that you furriners have a skewed perspective of us... we cultivate it.

It would be almost impossible to make an unbiased availability of guns versus death ratio because of the tremendous amount of factors involved. Number of deaths from guns can be determined by gun culture, gang numbers, poverty, homelessness, graduation rate, parenting, how a neighborhood is perceived by rest of city, etc.

Guns can be safer in some instances and more dangerous in others.

So explain why an Africa that has clearly become less safe also has a massive population explosion? Some of the world's greatest and most recent genocides are Africa. The entire central Africa is in constant conflict every decade. It's not unusual for a million to die. That is a safer continent? Hardly. But then studies on this topic defined what the populations in Africa have recently exploded. Better human services, nutrition, and medical treatment.

Meanwhile, and in contradiction of Hollywood fiction, large numbers of families trekked across the American frontier without guns. A typical family might have had one gun. Are more people alive in the western US now that more guns are available? Hardly. Violence has played a minor part in causing or suppressing a population explosion.

So what does that say about boy genius with sunglasses in Australia?

What?

Who is the "boy genius" to whom he is referring?

I'm just wondering why tw brought Africa into it. I wouldn't say that it's clear Africa has been a 'safe' place ever by western standards. Up till a couple of hundred years ago (or less) tribes were being captured by whites and sold as slaves still. To this day tribal nations kill each other off indiscriminately as we've seen throughout what history we know of Africa. Not a lot has changed when the continent is taken in a broad view.

As for the boy genius, I've no idea what that's supposed to mean.

He's talking about the douchbag with the sunglasses who threw the party in his parents' house, the one in the YouTube video. But what that has to do with the rest of what he was talking about, there's no telling.

Hmmm...things become curiouser and curiouser...:)

Maybe he's suffering from old-timers

All the people who lived here and decided to move west had guns, at least one per family and usually one for each boy over ten years old. Hunting was an important part of their food supply. The few that were unarmed would be the ones fresh off the boat headed to the midwest, and that was not exactly the frontier, at that point.

The white slavers didn't capture tribes, they bought slaves from the Black and Arab slave traders that had operated in Africa for a thousand years. Slavery is not dead in Africa even today... or the rest of the world.


I think the "sunglasses dude" is referring to post 16, but no idea what it has to do with the price of beans.

Nope, slavery happens all over the place still. It's just not demonised as much when it happens in western nations because most of us prefer to believe it doesn't happen.

I think it's probably arguing semantics as to who actually did the catching of African people. Ultimately, in western history it's white people who've been the masters.

In western history, yes. I was just pointing out the white slavers didn't invent it, just took advantage of an established trade. They probably did escalate it, however, through the laws of supply and demand.

Oh wait, natives of both North and South America had slaves, but that could be considered pre-western history I suppose.