Glenn Reynolds has put up one of many interesting but hitherto-unwebbed law review articles that provides a systematic and thorough debunking of the book Arming America.
This book, by Michael Bellesiles, purports to be a serious historical challenge to the idea of gun ownership in Colonial America. By using probate records, etc., Bellesiles claimed that gun ownership was in fact quite rare, and that the spin of gun organizations that the Second Amendment was designed to protect individual gun ownership, versus organization of state militias, was therefore dead wrong.
I recall when Bellesiles’ book came out a few years back, and at the time I thought it was an incredible concept, and a serious stake through the chest of the Second Amendment gun-thumpers. It won numerous awards and critical acclaim. It was also recommended to me by my good friend Mary, who has an eye to good books.
Almost immediately, though, the book came under fire. As folks did what any good historical researchers did, and tried to follow up on Bellesiles primary documents, they discovered weird things. Like the records didn’t actually say what the author claimed. Or the numbers there didn’t add up to what the author said. Or the records didn’t exist, or hadn’t existed for decades or centuries.
Bellesiles and his supporters went into spin mode, claiming this was all just an attack on him by rabid gun nuts and political kooks. But he’s never provided any good excuses for the problem — the fundamental and overwhelming problems — that have been dug up. The best he’s been able to do are some lame “the dog ate it” sorts of reasons why he can’t even provide some of his original notes and tallies.
Academia has been largely quiet about Bellesiles apparent — well, fabrication is a strong word, but may be the most fitting — and the various awards he’s received have not been withdrawn. His employer, Emory University, has concluded an internal review of the matter, but has not released any conclusion.
The damning thing, of course, is that if it turns out that Bellesiles’ book is as much a made-up mass of bogus statistics as it appears, he’s not only ruined his own reputation, but has given a black eye to the gun control movement, which seized on its publication and position with a vengeance.
He’s also not done the history profession much good, either.
(via InstaPundit)
This idiot really pissed me off too. I always secretly supected that there was more plowing than shooting in the early days of the country, and this guy has now made it impossible to look at that period without scepticism. Plus, I wasted many hours reading a book that now turns out to be fiction – and I don’t read fiction!
Well, aside from the occasional comic book …
For more jolliness with dubious numbers, may I also submit this?
I think plowing and shooting, historically, go hand in hand. Farmers shot animals to stop crop damage as well as for meat. Today, permits are routinely given to farmers to shoot animals destroying crops.
This article reinforces my feelings of teaching based on feeling or personal biases instead of fact. Facts, whether they be mathmatical, historical etc. don’t lie. Although this professors original intent may have been admirable, when the facts didn’t support his biases (dislike of guns and gun owners) he stooped to creating information. Just incredible.
On a seperate note, it’s kind of interesting that more hasn’t been made of his errors. I wonder if media or public outcry would be greater if the topic were more politcally correct?
My apologies if this appears twice.
Why hasn’t the NRA made a big deal about this article? Or has it?
No apologies necessary. The slowdown at my site for me (mentioned in a post I just posted) is also affecting comments, natch.
The Bellesiles book never quite broke out of the academia market before there were hints that something was rotten with it. Thus it never made it into the popular anti-gun crowd’s vernacular, which means the NRA hasn’t had to crow (too loudly) about its debunking.
So far.
Plowing and shooting together, yes. But contrary to what many folks believe (maybe because they get all their info from movies), guns (especially those built before the standardization of manufacture) were not very acurate. The shooting in “The Patriot,” which I enjoyed, had 10 year olds making shots that sharpshooters whould have had trouble making with 18th century weapons. Guns could be useful (wounds were sometimes fatal because medical care was inferior), but they also had drawbacks.
Some museum back east (and I can’t remember which one although Williamsberg would make sense), fired off some vintage weapons to test their acuacy. In addition to finding that some weapons were more acurate than others, they determined that the manufacture of the shot could easily affect acuracy as well. (Knowing that something exists doesn’t mean you can find it when you want it – Bleh)
It is not widely known that Henry Leland (builder of Cadillacs and Lincolns) garnered some of his experience with maching to 1/1000th of an inch at a factory which built guns. Implementation of these high tolerance machining skills allowed Cadillac engines to be assembled without extra drilling or filing during assembly. For more useless auto related trvia, you know where to find me.
You are correct, before the advent of rifling, smooth bore muskets were fairly inaccurate. I’ve had the opportunity to fire patch and ball from a smooth bore shotgun and it really wasn’t accurate past 40 yards. Once rifling was introduced, accuracy increased to between 80 and 90 yards. Shot/projectiles are interesting. Most of the soldiers and settlers actually owned casts for the caliber of weapon they owned and poured their own shot. For the die hard reenactor, casts for 50 and 54 caliber projectiles can be purchased from Cabela’s.