Written with Lead: America's Most Famous and Notorious Gunfights from the Revolutionary War to Today | Historical Firearms Battles Book | Perfect for History Buffs and Gun Enthusiasts

Readers expecting to read the nitty-gritty details of famous gunfights -- the guns, the ammo, the tactics, the wound trauma -- will be sorely disappointed with this book. While Weir gives some general information in this regard, this book is not an after-action report or a forensic analysis of gunfights -- and it isn't intended to be.Instead, Weir offers readers narratives of violent incidents from the American Revolution to Columbine that are rich in character studies and historical detail, and try to tell the story behind the story. Sure, there's mention of guns and gunfights, but they are secondary to the stories of the people and events that have helped shape and define America and Americans.Weir cuts through the myths and legends surrounding famous figures like Aaron Burr, Jesse James, Wyatt Earp, Pancho Villa, Billy the Kid, Bonnie and Clyde, and Dillinger, and incidents like the Brinks Job, the Alamo, the Johnson County War, and the siege at Waco. While Weir doesn't explicitly tie the stories together (each is a stand-alone chapter), several recurring themes emerge. Among them is how different the historical reality is from modern popular perceptions (not to mention Hollywood's renditions). Another is how the clear-cut distinctions we like to make between "good guys" and "bad guys" were often not as clear cut as we like to think.This book starts slowly, and Weir sometimes allows the level of detail to slow the pace of the book too much. But in this kind of work, the detail is ultimately appreciated, and Weir seemingly picks up the pace as he moves along. This book will almost certainly be worthwhile for those who have an interest in learning the truth behind many of the legendary heroes and villains that have become so integral to the American identity.This came very close to being a truly outstanding book. Then came chapter eight in which the author completely lost his objectivity and his desire to do adequate research, and in which he presented a thoroughly biased and one sided view of an extremely complex and controversial subject. This chapter is so bad, in fact, that I had to go back and look at the "Notes" and the bibliography to see where he obtained his information. My suspicions were confirmed when I found that he had taken his data from relatively few sources, all of which apparently paint the same picture. This is obviously not one of the author's favorite subjects.The sad thing to me is that this chapter is so one sided as to cast serious doubt on everything else the author has written.Not to be too critical: here are a few things which I would dispute. Mr. Weir states that Wyatt Earp once sold stolen horses for a living. There is one instance, when he was a young man, of Earp having been accused of stealing a horse, but, lets get real, Wyatt Earp never sold stolen horses for a living. He also casts aspersions on Earp for making his living as a gambler, but that was a legitimate way to earn a living on the western frontier. He goes on to insinuate that Earp strong-armed himself into a partnership in a gambling house much as Al Copone might do, but there is no evidence that he ever did such a thing. He even represents Wyatt Earp as not much of a lawman, but neglects to say that during the preliminary hearing held in the wake of the "gunfight at the OK Corral" a missive was received from Dodge City attesting to the fact that Earp had been an honest, diligent, and highly respected law officer in that town, and it was signed by virtually every leading citizen there at the time. He also states that Earp claimed to have single-handedly disarmed Ben Thompson in Ellsworth, Kansas, while there as a private citizen. But it is much more likely that this was simply poetic license taken by Stuart Lake to enhance his book, "Frontier Marshall," a book which was published after Earp's death. (Lake frequently did that sort of thing.)Most significantly, Weir, in his attempt to vilify Wyatt Earp, ignores everything that happened in Tombstone which doesn't support his point of view. For example: All of the witnesses at the hearing who were friends of the cow-boys ("outlaws" in the vernacular of the day) who fell at the OK Corral claimed that the cow-boys threw up their hands in surrender whereupon Holliday started the shooting with his nickel plated revolver. But Holliday was known by everyone to be carrying a shotgun in his gun hand. How and why would he do that? Furthermore, the testimony of the only indisputably unbiased witness to the shooting, a lady standing in a second story window, refuted the testimony of the cow-boy friendly witnesses that the cow-boys had thrown up their hands. Secondly: If the Earp party had gone to the corral with the intent of shooting down the cow-boys, why was Marshall Virgil Earp carrying Holliday's walking stick in his hand instead of his gun? Thirdly, why did the author ignore the testimony of the Earps regarding what Sheriff Behan said to them as they approached the cow-boys?Still farther, why didn't the author make note of the fact that the Sheriff was known to have changed his earlier tune when he testified in support of the cow-boys as to what had happened near the corral. Didn't the author ever wonder why no cow-boys were ever able to remain locked up in the sheriff's jail? And why didn't he remark on the fact that Sheriff Behan's deputy was also the editor to the "Nugget," the newspaper which just happened to be the law and order factions chief antagonist? And why did he not take note of the fact that Ike Clanton, whose actions most likely precipitated the whole affair, was known to have been going around Tombstone all day saying that he intended to shoot down the Earps on sight, or that the only totally unimpeachable witness in town had warned the Earps that he overheard the cow-boys plotting to kill them down by the corral?Did Weir never puzzle over why Marshall Virgil Earp was shot down and maimed from ambush following the verdict, or why Ike Clanton's hat just happened to be found at the scene the next morning? Does he, for some strange reason, think it was all right to assassinate Morgan Earp, from the darkness, while he was shooting pool? Did he really expect Wyatt Earp to simply go about his business in Tombstone until he, too, was murdered? Does he really think that Frank Stilwell, who was widely suspected of being the man who killed Morgan Earp, just happened to be at the railway station in Tucson when the crippled Virgil was leaving for California with his murdered brother's body? Did it ever occur to him that Stilwell might have been there to finish the job?And, with regard to Curly Bill Brocius: The author once again insinuates that if Brocius had come into town, he would have been killed. But there is no evidence to support that. On the other hand, Wyatt Earp was said to have killed Brocius in a gun battle while on his rampage to avenge his brother's death, although the cow-boys maintained that Brocius had simply gone to live in Mexico. Doesn't it seem rather odd that Brocius would suddenly decide to go to Mexico at just this particular time? And, isn't it strange that he never came back to Tombstone, even after the Earps were long gone, and that no one ever saw him again -- anywhere?Finally, to top it all off, Weir even tells us that Wyatt Earp, as a one-time boxing referee, deliberately threw a fight, held in San Francisco in 1896, to enrich his "smart money" friends. But, as usual, this is purely biased conjecture on the author's part.Bottom line: This is a very good book which would have been a great one except that, in chapter eight, the author deviated from the seemingly high standards he otherwise had set for himself, thereby doing himself a disservice and missing the mark by a mile. That chapter certainly rates no better than a minus ten on anyone's scale.But there might still be hope. Perhaps someday Mr. Weir will expand his limited and dreadfully biased research and present both sides of this highly controversial subject in a revision to this book. He might begin by reading such books as "Wyatt Earp: The Untold Story" (Bartholomew), "The Earps of Tombstone" (Martin), "The O.K. Corral Inquest" (Alford E. Turner, ed.), "Wyatt Earp: The Life Behind the Legend" (Tefertiller), "Billy King's Tombstone" (Sonnichsen), "The Tombstone Story" (Myers), "Tombstone's Epitaph" (Martin), "Doc Holliday: The Life and Legend" (Roberts), and "Inventing Wyatt Earp: His Life and Many Legends" (Barra) among others.Weir starts with a short examination of U.S. and North American history. He concludes that "in Europe, whose area is roughly equal to that of the United States, violence tends to be collective; in the United States, individual". He then delivers 21 short stories on violent incidents in the U.S. from the Alamo to the D.C. sniper case.The last three stories on Waco, Columbine and D.C. were the most interesting for me because they dealt with recent events. I was in the D.C. area on a business trip when the "snipers" were caught and had lived in the vicinity of Waco for many years. I learned something new from all of the stories and will probably do additional reading on many of the events because of this book.Weir provides an excessive amount of detail in some of the stories. He speaks intelligently about firearms, which is refreshing, and does not make judgements about the tools used in his stories. The title is misleading because many of the events are not "gunfights". Some glaring omissions from his stories are the North Hollywood and Miami FBI shootouts.Overall a worthwhile book that may increase your interest in further reading on U.S. history.