Online discussion on the debate over Arming America (1/28/2002)

Josey1

A year ago, historians were singing the praises of Michael A. Bellesiles's Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, which won awards and received glowing reviews in leading publications -- even as supporters of the right to bear arms immediately criticized the book's evidence as faulty. More recently, others have raised questions about the book, especially about portions asserting that far fewer people in colonial America owned guns or cared about them than had been commonly believed. Mr. Bellesiles has conceded that the book contains some errors, but he says that its overall points remain accurate and that the personal and bombastic nature of some of the criticism has prevented him and others from having a rational discussion about the book. But critics -- some from the right, but others from a variety of ideological perspectives -- worry that the errors in the book are serious. And some think that historians were too quick to embrace the book because it seemed to back a political view they agreed with (gun control) and because they disliked its main critics (people affiliated with the National Rifle Association). How adequately have historians responded to the controversy over Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture and allegations that some of the information in the book is incorrect? What is the significance of the controversy?For further information, see this background http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2002/guns/guns.htm