Johns Hopkins: More gun control needed to prevent second civil war

[Dagosa]

The bill allowed 5,000 border crossings per day. How can you not know that?...lol

Of course bubba, we have many thousands who live in one side and work or go to school on the other.

 

[Dagosa]

So, a 21st Century militia should be armed with 17th Century weapons and that's your idiotic idea of "well regulated"?

That was you trying to be funny.

 

[Batcat]

Because Indians used them in their own version of a “militia.”
You never reloaded and fired a muzzle loaded flint lock in wet weather have you. Didn’t think so. You wouldn’t making such uninformed statements.

Indians appreciated the advantages of firearms over the bow and arrow.

How did the introduction of guns change Native America? | Aeon Essays

Multilateral imperial politics triggered an indigenous arms race and led to the violent transformation of Native America

aeon.co

Snip

European technological superiority, particularly in terms of guns, cannot serve as a blanket explanation for Euro-Americans’ ultimate triumph over Native North Americans. In early Quebec, Jamestown and Plymouth, colonists held an advantage in firearms only for a handful of years before Native people began building their own arsenals. The founders of later colonies, such as Pennsylvania or Georgia, arrived to find indigenous people already furnished with the best gun technology Europe could produce and keen to acquire more. Except under the rarest circumstances, no one state authority had the ability to choke Indians off from guns, powder and shot. There were just too many rival imperial powers and colonies in North America, their governments were weak, and the trade ran through a labyrinth of unofficial channels such as itinerant fur traders, Native middlemen and smugglers. Indians often wielded better weapons than Euro-Americans, including their armed forces. Europeans and, later, white Americans, controlled the manufacturing of firearms technology, but their leaders exercised little authority over its distribution in Indian country.

snip

Attributing too much explanatory power to European technological superiority has obscured this critical story. So too has the stubborn presumption that Native people valued firearms less for their capacity to kill than for their ‘psychological effect’, which is to say, for the terror induced by their pyrotechnics. Without question, Indians were generally awestruck when they first experienced the firing of a gun. But it took little time for them to grow accustomed to the sound and flash, and to learn the practical applications of this tool. They traded for firearms in large quantities and used them in warfare and hunting because they recognised that guns were superior to the bow and arrow, especially for setting ambushes, besieging fortified settlements and hunting deer. … emphasis added

snip

It is common to deride early modern firearms as slow to load, inaccurate and undependable in wet weather. Indians had a more favourable opinion of these weapons, particularly of the flintlock muskets that became available at the beginning of the 1630s. Older matchlocks operated by lowering a lit wick into a pan of gunpowder. Firing the flintlock, in contrast, involved pulling the trigger to thrust a clamp (or ‘cock’) holding a piece of flint against a small metal plate (or ‘steel’), creating a shower of sparks that ignited the priming powder and then the main charge. Flintlocks were still cumbersome. They required about 25 seconds to load, and were accurate only to about 100 yards. Yet Indians did not intend to use the weapon in open-field, pitched battles. Rather, they wanted flintlocks to fire on human or animal targets from ambush at close range. After firing, they would rush in with hand weapons. The manner in which Native peoples used guns is critical to understanding their demand for them.

Indians valued the flintlock less for the terror it instilled than for its power. Unlike arrows, which needed a clear path to their target, bullets could pass through the camouflage of tall grasses and even thickets without being diverted. Whereas arrows shot from long distances could be dodged, musket balls could not. The damage inflicted by a bullet wound was far greater than that of an arrow. Killing an enemy with an arrow required hitting a vital organ. By contrast, when a lead ball struck its victim, it carried roughly six times more kinetic energy than an arrow, expanded to the size of a large fist, and left behind a medical disaster. A direct hit dropped an enemy or deer in its tracks. At especially close range, gunners could load their weapons with small shot consisting of several small lead balls instead of a single slug. What this approach sacrificed in terms of accuracy and force, it compensated for in the large, cloud-shaped area covered by the blast, which could disable more than one person at a time.…emphasis added

Though Indians continued to use bows and arrows, hatchets and clubs alongside muskets, they could not mistake that warriors with guns routinely won victories over those without them. The intensity of intertribal rivalry meant that those who failed to build up their arsenals would suffer at the hands of those who did. For this reason, the opening of colonial markets set off Indian arms races throughout Native America.

************

The Indians were not as fond of using militia tactics as you suggest.

Native American Warfare in the East: Mourning Wars | Encyclopedia.com

Native American Warfare in the East: Mourning Wars Sources Source for information on Native American Warfare in the East: Mourning Wars: American Eras dictionary.

www.encyclopedia.com

snip


Typical Campaign. Centered as they were on ambush and surprise, woodland Indian military operations generally occurred during the warmer months to take advantage of the cover that foliage provided. The typical campaign began when clan matriarchs commissioned a male war chief to avenge the death of a family member. After assembling a raiding party, gaining village approval, and holding a ceremonial feast, the war chief led his men into battle. Upon entering the foe’s territory, the war party split into smaller groups of five or six; each group then established ambushes near fields or along paths frequented by the enemy. As ambushing Indians enjoyed surprise and could refuse to give battle to larger forces, engagements were usually one-sided affairs that ended with the taking of captives.

Tactics and Spiritual Beliefs. Aside from increasing the chances of taking captives, ambushes and surprise attacks reflected the woodland Indians’ belief system. Native Americans believed that those who died a violent death could not spend their afterlife with other deceased members of their families in the villages of the dead; rather, they had to spend eternity wandering about in search of vengeance. Indian warriors consequently avoided combat when overmatched and generally shunned high-risk assaults on fortified positions in favor of hit-and-run attacks on outnumbered and surprised enemy groups.… emphasis added

 

[Dagosa]

Indians appreciated the advantages of firearms over the bow and arrow.

How did the introduction of guns change Native America? | Aeon Essays

Multilateral imperial politics triggered an indigenous arms race and led to the violent transformation of Native America

aeon.co

Snip

European technological superiority, particularly in terms of guns, cannot serve as a blanket explanation for Euro-Americans’ ultimate triumph over Native North Americans. In early Quebec, Jamestown and Plymouth, colonists held an advantage in firearms only for a handful of years before Native people began building their own arsenals. The founders of later colonies, such as Pennsylvania or Georgia, arrived to find indigenous people already furnished with the best gun technology Europe could produce and keen to acquire more. Except under the rarest circumstances, no one state authority had the ability to choke Indians off from guns, powder and shot. There were just too many rival imperial powers and colonies in North America, their governments were weak, and the trade ran through a labyrinth of unofficial channels such as itinerant fur traders, Native middlemen and smugglers. Indians often wielded better weapons than Euro-Americans, including their armed forces. Europeans and, later, white Americans, controlled the manufacturing of firearms technology, but their leaders exercised little authority over its distribution in Indian country.

snip

Attributing too much explanatory power to European technological superiority has obscured this critical story. So too has the stubborn presumption that Native people valued firearms less for their capacity to kill than for their ‘psychological effect’, which is to say, for the terror induced by their pyrotechnics. Without question, Indians were generally awestruck when they first experienced the firing of a gun. But it took little time for them to grow accustomed to the sound and flash, and to learn the practical applications of this tool. They traded for firearms in large quantities and used them in warfare and hunting because they recognised that guns were superior to the bow and arrow, especially for setting ambushes, besieging fortified settlements and hunting deer. … emphasis added

snip

It is common to deride early modern firearms as slow to load, inaccurate and undependable in wet weather. Indians had a more favourable opinion of these weapons, particularly of the flintlock muskets that became available at the beginning of the 1630s. Older matchlocks operated by lowering a lit wick into a pan of gunpowder. Firing the flintlock, in contrast, involved pulling the trigger to thrust a clamp (or ‘cock’) holding a piece of flint against a small metal plate (or ‘steel’), creating a shower of sparks that ignited the priming powder and then the main charge. Flintlocks were still cumbersome. They required about 25 seconds to load, and were accurate only to about 100 yards. Yet Indians did not intend to use the weapon in open-field, pitched battles. Rather, they wanted flintlocks to fire on human or animal targets from ambush at close range. After firing, they would rush in with hand weapons. The manner in which Native peoples used guns is critical to understanding their demand for them.

Indians valued the flintlock less for the terror it instilled than for its power. Unlike arrows, which needed a clear path to their target, bullets could pass through the camouflage of tall grasses and even thickets without being diverted. Whereas arrows shot from long distances could be dodged, musket balls could not. The damage inflicted by a bullet wound was far greater than that of an arrow. Killing an enemy with an arrow required hitting a vital organ. By contrast, when a lead ball struck its victim, it carried roughly six times more kinetic energy than an arrow, expanded to the size of a large fist, and left behind a medical disaster. A direct hit dropped an enemy or deer in its tracks. At especially close range, gunners could load their weapons with small shot consisting of several small lead balls instead of a single slug. What this approach sacrificed in terms of accuracy and force, it compensated for in the large, cloud-shaped area covered by the blast, which could disable more than one person at a time.…emphasis added

Though Indians continued to use bows and arrows, hatchets and clubs alongside muskets, they could not mistake that warriors with guns routinely won victories over those without them. The intensity of intertribal rivalry meant that those who failed to build up their arsenals would suffer at the hands of those who did. For this reason, the opening of colonial markets set off Indian arms races throughout Native America.

************

The Indians were not as fond of using militia tactics as you suggest.

Native American Warfare in the East: Mourning Wars | Encyclopedia.com

Native American Warfare in the East: Mourning Wars Sources Source for information on Native American Warfare in the East: Mourning Wars: American Eras dictionary.

www.encyclopedia.com

snip


Typical Campaign. Centered as they were on ambush and surprise, woodland Indian military operations generally occurred during the warmer months to take advantage of the cover that foliage provided. The typical campaign began when clan matriarchs commissioned a male war chief to avenge the death of a family member. After assembling a raiding party, gaining village approval, and holding a ceremonial feast, the war chief led his men into battle. Upon entering the foe’s territory, the war party split into smaller groups of five or six; each group then established ambushes near fields or along paths frequented by the enemy. As ambushing Indians enjoyed surprise and could refuse to give battle to larger forces, engagements were usually one-sided affairs that ended with the taking of captives.

Tactics and Spiritual Beliefs. Aside from increasing the chances of taking captives, ambushes and surprise attacks reflected the woodland Indians’ belief system. Native Americans believed that those who died a violent death could not spend their afterlife with other deceased members of their families in the villages of the dead; rather, they had to spend eternity wandering about in search of vengeance. Indian warriors consequently avoided combat when overmatched and generally shunned high-risk assaults on fortified positions in favor of hit-and-run attacks on outnumbered and surprised enemy groups.… emphasis added

So you got off on this gun a holics tripe and get ass into the real world of history. What nimrods. there were few to no successful military engagements without ranks of participants firing volleys from large groups of soldiers with these guns…Get real. The early muskets and rifles fired one round in 1/2 to a minute. The idea it provides personal defense is ludicrous….You live in the movies where D Boone drops three Indians on horse back from 200:yards.

Foolish, as many were stabbed to death with the bayonets and pikes as were shot during charges.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Of course bubba, we have many thousands who live in one side and work or go to school on the other.

At least you're honest about it being an open border bill...lol

 

[Dagosa]

Indians appreciated the advantages of firearms over the bow and arrow.

How did the introduction of guns change Native America? | Aeon Essays

Multilateral imperial politics triggered an indigenous arms race and led to the violent transformation of Native America

aeon.co

Snip

European technological superiority, particularly in terms of guns, cannot serve as a blanket explanation for Euro-Americans’ ultimate triumph over Native North Americans. In early Quebec, Jamestown and Plymouth, colonists held an advantage in firearms only for a handful of years before Native people began building their own arsenals. The founders of later colonies, such as Pennsylvania or Georgia, arrived to find indigenous people already furnished with the best gun technology Europe could produce and keen to acquire more. Except under the rarest circumstances, no one state authority had the ability to choke Indians off from guns, powder and shot. There were just too many rival imperial powers and colonies in North America, their governments were weak, and the trade ran through a labyrinth of unofficial channels such as itinerant fur traders, Native middlemen and smugglers. Indians often wielded better weapons than Euro-Americans, including their armed forces. Europeans and, later, white Americans, controlled the manufacturing of firearms technology, but their leaders exercised little authority over its distribution in Indian country.

snip

Attributing too much explanatory power to European technological superiority has obscured this critical story. So too has the stubborn presumption that Native people valued firearms less for their capacity to kill than for their ‘psychological effect’, which is to say, for the terror induced by their pyrotechnics. Without question, Indians were generally awestruck when they first experienced the firing of a gun. But it took little time for them to grow accustomed to the sound and flash, and to learn the practical applications of this tool. They traded for firearms in large quantities and used them in warfare and hunting because they recognised that guns were superior to the bow and arrow, especially for setting ambushes, besieging fortified settlements and hunting deer. … emphasis added

snip

It is common to deride early modern firearms as slow to load, inaccurate and undependable in wet weather. Indians had a more favourable opinion of these weapons, particularly of the flintlock muskets that became available at the beginning of the 1630s. Older matchlocks operated by lowering a lit wick into a pan of gunpowder. Firing the flintlock, in contrast, involved pulling the trigger to thrust a clamp (or ‘cock’) holding a piece of flint against a small metal plate (or ‘steel’), creating a shower of sparks that ignited the priming powder and then the main charge. Flintlocks were still cumbersome. They required about 25 seconds to load, and were accurate only to about 100 yards. Yet Indians did not intend to use the weapon in open-field, pitched battles. Rather, they wanted flintlocks to fire on human or animal targets from ambush at close range. After firing, they would rush in with hand weapons. The manner in which Native peoples used guns is critical to understanding their demand for them.

Indians valued the flintlock less for the terror it instilled than for its power. Unlike arrows, which needed a clear path to their target, bullets could pass through the camouflage of tall grasses and even thickets without being diverted. Whereas arrows shot from long distances could be dodged, musket balls could not. The damage inflicted by a bullet wound was far greater than that of an arrow. Killing an enemy with an arrow required hitting a vital organ. By contrast, when a lead ball struck its victim, it carried roughly six times more kinetic energy than an arrow, expanded to the size of a large fist, and left behind a medical disaster. A direct hit dropped an enemy or deer in its tracks. At especially close range, gunners could load their weapons with small shot consisting of several small lead balls instead of a single slug. What this approach sacrificed in terms of accuracy and force, it compensated for in the large, cloud-shaped area covered by the blast, which could disable more than one person at a time.…emphasis added

Though Indians continued to use bows and arrows, hatchets and clubs alongside muskets, they could not mistake that warriors with guns routinely won victories over those without them. The intensity of intertribal rivalry meant that those who failed to build up their arsenals would suffer at the hands of those who did. For this reason, the opening of colonial markets set off Indian arms races throughout Native America.

************

The Indians were not as fond of using militia tactics as you suggest.

Native American Warfare in the East: Mourning Wars | Encyclopedia.com

Native American Warfare in the East: Mourning Wars Sources Source for information on Native American Warfare in the East: Mourning Wars: American Eras dictionary.

www.encyclopedia.com

snip


Typical Campaign. Centered as they were on ambush and surprise, woodland Indian military operations generally occurred during the warmer months to take advantage of the cover that foliage provided. The typical campaign began when clan matriarchs commissioned a male war chief to avenge the death of a family member. After assembling a raiding party, gaining village approval, and holding a ceremonial feast, the war chief led his men into battle. Upon entering the foe’s territory, the war party split into smaller groups of five or six; each group then established ambushes near fields or along paths frequented by the enemy. As ambushing Indians enjoyed surprise and could refuse to give battle to larger forces, engagements were usually one-sided affairs that ended with the taking of captives.

Tactics and Spiritual Beliefs. Aside from increasing the chances of taking captives, ambushes and surprise attacks reflected the woodland Indians’ belief system. Native Americans believed that those who died a violent death could not spend their afterlife with other deceased members of their families in the villages of the dead; rather, they had to spend eternity wandering about in search of vengeance. Indian warriors consequently avoided combat when overmatched and generally shunned high-risk assaults on fortified positions in favor of hit-and-run attacks on outnumbered and surprised enemy groups.… emphasis added

More soldiers died of desease and infections from wounds in general than direct combat. The US won as much because of infrastructures proximity than your black powder weapons.,

 

[Leo123]

Shades of King George the III. He certainly wished that the citizenry in the colonies were unarmed.

 

[Dagosa]

At least you're honest about it being an open border bill...lol

Ha ha. Of course it is bubba It was that way with Trump and it’s that way with every president. That’s why more legislation needs to be written to accomsdate this passage from one side to another. The absolute stupid idea of closing the border makes as much sense as closing the border between Texas and New Mexico and it’s surrounding states. There are a plethora of places where literally free WALKING. passage is allowed or the economies of both sides collapses.
You can walk all the way into Mexico without reaching border control, as border control is typically located at the official border crossing points. However, crossing the border without going through border control is illegal and not recommended….but wtf checks when you’re going to work or school.

 

[Dagosa]

Shades of King George the III. He certainly wished that the citizenry in the colonies were unarmed.

Read history. The colonials were left to their own and neglected. They literally had their own colonies by neglect. It’s only when tobacco and other trade came from the Americas that the English decided they wanted a cut of the loot. The colonials were Englishmen. They had their most slave dependency later in the colonial era and wanted to keep them and their economy.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Because Indians used them in their own version of a “militia.”
You never reloaded and fired a muzzle loaded flint lock in wet weather have you. Didn’t think so. You wouldn’t making such uninformed statements.

The biggest advantage of a firearm over a bow is that a person can be taught to use a firearm in a few days and it takes a lifetime to make a bowman.

 

[AZrailwhale]

So you got off on this gun a holics tripe and get ass into the real world of history. What nimrods. there were few to no successful military engagements without ranks of participants firing volleys from large groups of soldiers with these guns…Get real. The early muskets and rifles fired one round in 1/2 to a minute. The idea it provides personal defense is ludicrous….You live in the movies where D Boone drops three Indians on horse back from 200:yards.

Foolish, as many were stabbed to death with the bayonets and pikes as were shot during charges.

Boone used a Pennsylvania long rifle. The weapon was perfectly capable of that level of performance. As for battles, the bayonet was a terror weapon, as it is today. Yes battle lines closed with bayonets IF they could, fighters could retreat faster than attackers could advance. Bot that was the major reason militia troops were routed so easily by British Regulars, the militia troops used their civilian muskets which couldn’t be fitted with bayonets so they had no answer to a bayonet charge.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Read history. The colonials were left to their own and neglected. They literally had their own colonies by neglect. It’s only when tobacco and other trade came from the Americas that the English decided they wanted a cut of the loot. The colonials were Englishmen. They had their most slave dependency later in the colonial era and wanted to keep them and their economy.

During the colonial era, slavery wasn’t widespread, it existed mostly in the Deep South.

 

[Batcat]

So you got off on this gun a holics tripe and get ass into the real world of history. What nimrods. there were few to no successful military engagements without ranks of participants firing volleys from large groups of soldiers with these guns…Get real. The early muskets and rifles fired one round in 1/2 to a minute. The idea it provides personal defense is ludicrous….You live in the movies where D Boone drops three Indians on horse back from 200:yards.

Foolish, as many were stabbed to death with the bayonets and pikes as were shot during charges.

I suspect the ”gun a holics tripe“ I linked to was far more knowledgeable than you ever will be about Indians and firearms.

Firearms and the Violent Transformation of Native America – SHEAR

shear.org

In 1776, why didn’t soldiers use bows and arrows instead of muskets?

www.straightdope.com

 

[Dagosa]

I suspect the ”gun a holics tripe“ I linked to was far more knowledgeable than you ever will be about Indians and firearms.

Firearms and the Violent Transformation of Native America – SHEAR

shear.org

In 1776, why didn’t soldiers use bows and arrows instead of muskets?

www.straightdope.com

Bottom The Brown Bess was used as a musket because rifles took so long to reload. That’s the firearm of choice for warfare. You’re totally confused. Accurate rifles gave way to volley shooting . We‘re trying to equate hunting rifles with a military weapon.

 

[Dagosa]

I suspect the ”gun a holics tripe“ I linked to was far more knowledgeable than you ever will be about Indians and firearms.

Firearms and the Violent Transformation of Native America – SHEAR

shear.org

In 1776, why didn’t soldiers use bows and arrows instead of muskets?

www.straightdope.com

Funny, all of your posts emphasis the effects of muskets used in volley shooting. Besides, white settlers were seldom trained as soldiers and shooting on mass was the easier way to get and train an army. What’s a musket ?

Essentially a long barrel shot gun. We won the revolutionary war because the French and other nations joined the fray and spread the English out so thin trying to defend all their colonies, they lost because of attrition. It’s no different than today. We need allies not some dream of American individuals besting back invaders with exotic self defense weapons.

 

[Batcat]

Funny, all of your posts emphasis the effects of muskets used in volley shooting. Besides, white settlers were seldom trained as soldiers and shooting on mass was the easier way to get and train an army. What’s a musket ?

Essentially a long barrel shot gun. We won the revolutionary war because the French and other nations joined the fray and spread the English out so thin trying to defend all their colonies, they lost because of attrition. It’s no different than today. We need allies not some dream of American individuals besting back invaders with exotic self defense weapons.

Where did I emphasize the effects of muskets used in volley shooting?

I mentioned some of our Revolutionary soldiers had rifles or grove muskets which were much more accurate than the British muskets. The Revolutionaries also did not always use volley fire but often shot from cover.

Lexington & Concord | British Retreat | Apr 18-19, 1775

BATTLE MAP | The American Battlefield Trust's map of the British retreat during the Revolutionary War Battle of Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts on...

www.battlefields.org

By the time the British arrived at the North Bridge, a force of almost 400 colonial militiamen from Concord and the surrounding area had gathered on the high ground across the Concord River. The Minute Men formed up and advanced on the British, who responded by retreating back across the bridge and taking up a defensive position. When the British troops opened fire, the Minute Men responded with a volley of their own, killing three British soldiers and wounding nine others. The British troops fell back to the town.

The British, realizing their vulnerability, decided to return to Boston. Their retreat turned into a rout, however, as thousands of militiamen attacked the British column from all sides. Shooting from behind trees, rocks, and buildings, the Patriots inflicted heavy casualties on the retreating Redcoats. ….emphasis added

By the time the fighting stopped, the British had lost 73 men killed and many more wounded, compared to the Patriots’ loss of 49 men killed.

Revolutionary War Weapons: The American Long Rifle​

The American long rifle was a legendarily accurate weapon in the hands of dead-eye frontier marksmen during the Revolutionary War.
Link… Revolutionary War Weapons: The American Long Rifle

snip

Accuracy Over Volume of Fire​

In the frontier territory of Kentucky or Pennsylvania, a rifle was vitally important for survival, and every man became proficient in shooting at an early age. Rifles were used by settlers to supply meat for the table, as well as to defend themselves against Indians and robbers. Boys were taught how to load and aim a rifle as soon as they were old enough to carry one. An entire population of American backwoodsmen grew up with rifles, and marksmanship had become second nature to them. They also used their weapons for entertainment—there were frequent turkey shoots, beef shoots, and target matches. A few American “specialists” were employed by British units during the French and Indian War, and made quite an impression. These men were used to living and fighting in the wilderness, and the accuracy of their firearms left British soldiers goggle-eyed.

 

[Batcat]

Bottom The Brown Bess was used as a musket because rifles took so long to reload. That’s the firearm of choice for warfare. You’re totally confused. Accurate rifles gave way to volley shooting . We‘re trying to equate hunting rifles with a military weapon.

I am not confused and I am linking to or quoting articles discussing the history of the Revolutionary War. You are just expressing your opinion on the subject and pretending to be an expert.

How Rifling Technology Gave Americans a Victorious Edge in the Revolutionary War | Senioritis

One of the significant changes in the construction of rifles that helped the Americans during the Revolutionary War was the introduction of the grooved

senioritis.io

Rifles and Groove-bored Muskets in the American Revolution

“I never in my life saw better rifles, or men who shot better, than those in America.” Lt. Colonel George Hanger, 4th Baron Coleraine, considered one of the finest marksmen in all of Eu…

revolutionarywarjournal.com

snip

Open field warfare of the eighteenth century favored muskets fired in mass volley, and where accuracy was not an issue. Muskets could stop and man cold, depending on volume and the weight of the musket ball. The ball stayed inside the body, tearing at flesh and organs until its momentum was spent.

Despite shortcomings of time to reload, use in open field warfare, and lighter shot, Washington and his fellow officers knew the rifle’s value and effectiveness. At the beginning of the Revolutionary War, John Adams wrote of “a peculiar kind of musket, called a rifle.” He went on to describe how Congress ordered that ten companies of riflemen were to be recruited from Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Washington had first hand knowledge of the benefits attributed to the backwoodsman’s skill with the rifle. Englishmen who had escaped Braddocks’ defeat along the Monongahela in 1755, in which Washington was a colonel of Virginians, owed their lives to the riflemen.

The rifleman would show his worth throughout the Revolutionary War, turning the fortunes of a battle with their well placed and obstinate stand from behind barricades, while their enemy doggedly marched into its killing field.… emphasis added

 

[AZrailwhale]

Bottom The Brown Bess was used as a musket because rifles took so long to reload. That’s the firearm of choice for warfare. You’re totally confused. Accurate rifles gave way to volley shooting . We‘re trying to equate hunting rifles with a military weapon.

Unrifled muskets were used because European tactics didn't require the more expensive rifled musket. Those tactics were to march up to about fifty feet and blaze away with unaimed fire. Brown Bess muskets didn't even have sights to aim with. Both sides fired and reloaded and fired again until one side broke, most casualties happened in the pursuit of a broken force.

 

[Dagosa]

Unrifled muskets were used because European tactics didn't require the more expensive rifled musket. Those tactics were to march up to about fifty feet and blaze away with unaimed fire. Brown Bess muskets didn't even have sights to aim with. Both sides fired and reloaded and fired again until one side broke, most casualties happened in the pursuit of a broken force.

The Brown Bess was chosen because it could reload faster. As the literal long barrel smith bore shot gun, it was effective by shooting in ranks. Those who faught more in southern colonies used rifles more likely.
And,monce ranks were broken it was a of pikes, bayonets and swords, knives and hatchets……all stabbing and slashing instruments. close quarter self defense was not a just a firearm domain…the early regulations were on all weapons, nit just firearms. They all were regulated

 

[Dagosa]

The biggest advantage of a firearm over a bow is that a person can be taught to use a firearm in a few days and it takes a lifetime to make a bowman.

Yup….we can teach any idiot to shoot an AR15 too.
Big difference. Three were “only“ 25k U.S. casualties in the revolution. That’s why black guns weren’t regulated federally. 25 k is still a big proportion of our relatively small population, but the 2@ is a mandate for Peoples, not persons.

Where did I emphasize the effects of muskets used in volley shooting?

I mentioned some of our Revolutionary soldiers had rifles or grove muskets which were much more accurate than the British muskets. The Revolutionaries also did not always use volley fire but often shot from cover.

Lexington & Concord | British Retreat | Apr 18-19, 1775

BATTLE MAP | The American Battlefield Trust's map of the British retreat during the Revolutionary War Battle of Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts on...

www.battlefields.org

By the time the British arrived at the North Bridge, a force of almost 400 colonial militiamen from Concord and the surrounding area had gathered on the high ground across the Concord River. The Minute Men formed up and advanced on the British, who responded by retreating back across the bridge and taking up a defensive position. When the British troops opened fire, the Minute Men responded with a volley of their own, killing three British soldiers and wounding nine others. The British troops fell back to the town.

The British, realizing their vulnerability, decided to return to Boston. Their retreat turned into a rout, however, as thousands of militiamen attacked the British column from all sides. Shooting from behind trees, rocks, and buildings, the Patriots inflicted heavy casualties on the retreating Redcoats. ….emphasis added

By the time the fighting stopped, the British had lost 73 men killed and many more wounded, compared to the Patriots’ loss of 49 men killed.

Revolutionary War Weapons: The American Long Rifle​

The American long rifle was a legendarily accurate weapon in the hands of dead-eye frontier marksmen during the Revolutionary War.
Link… Revolutionary War Weapons: The American Long Rifle

snip

Accuracy Over Volume of Fire​

In the frontier territory of Kentucky or Pennsylvania, a rifle was vitally important for survival, and every man became proficient in shooting at an early age. Rifles were used by settlers to supply meat for the table, as well as to defend themselves against Indians and robbers. Boys were taught how to load and aim a rifle as soon as they were old enough to carry one. An entire population of American backwoodsmen grew up with rifles, and marksmanship had become second nature to them. They also used their weapons for entertainment—there were frequent turkey shoots, beef shoots, and target matches. A few American “specialists” were employed by British units during the French and Indian War, and made quite an impression. These men were used to living and fighting in the wilderness, and the accuracy of their firearms left British soldiers goggle-eyed.

it’s still a ridiculous assumption. Black powder muskets and rifles are not suitable for self defense vs Indians and English except used en mass…that’s it. Being a sniper is not self defense. It’s a military prerogative. It’s hilarious. The entire 2@ was written to mandate militia preparedness….