Printable View
It must have been since Jackson had only a motley troop of 4000 against 10,000crack British troops fresh from the European campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
The story is more than myth. Jackson's rag-tag army was actually comprised of various militia, Indians, pirates, free blacks and what have you. Thir guns were not state of the art, and that is reflected in the squirrel gun mention.
They certainly were not fresh or crack troops , nor were the motley group all from the european campaign , the Jamaican troops mostly died of exposure (those that hadn't already died of disease).Quote:
It must have been since Jackson had only a motley troop of 4000 against 10,000crack British troops fresh from the European campaign.
The British only attacked .....after a long upstream row , a very very long walk through bad ground in atrocious weather , with a severe shortage of supplies and ammunition ....because it was their experience throughout the war that the militia would turn and run .
Their guns state doesn't come into it , emplaced artillery inside strong fortifications on firm ground with plentiful ammunition will slaughter ill equipped , sick , exhausted troops advancing in close order over a narrow restricted frontage on open ground , especially when their own supporting artillery is short of ammunition and sinking in a swamp under its own weight .Quote:
Thir guns were not state of the art, and that is reflected in the squirrel gun mention.
I've already shown an example of armed university students subduing an armed attacker on campus. That is how it happens. Sure, it's possible (but rare) that innocents could get accidentally shot- but innocents are going to also get shot when an armed attacker is unopposed. I think most cases of innocent bystanders getting shot involves the police, the so-called experts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
It is happening. Most universities probably have policies against weapons, but legally, there's no restrictions in place in many states. States like Utah apparently have laws that explicitly allow it. And what's happening? Mostly nothing. University students aren't accidentally shooting each other or blasting one another over a parking space or any of the other nonsense arguments people trot out.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I`m curious how it could be `possible, but rare`, that innocent people could get shot. An interesting use of language.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Do you have any views on the sorts of handguns and ammunition that should be allowed to be carried on campus? Would you agree to any limitations?
Since you would allow handguns, does that mean you would also allow knives, stun guns, impact weapons, and mace?
People seem to assume that just because someone isn't a police officer, they'll blindly plug away without a thought- I haven't seen any evidence to suggest this and the only cases I've seen contradict the notion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
I think hollow points make the most sense, but I don't see reason to regulate it.Quote:
Do you have any views on the sorts of handguns and ammunition that should be allowed to be carried on campus? Would you agree to any limitations?
Mace makes sense as an alternative for those who can't or won't carry a gun. Knives, brass knuckels, stun guns, ect don't really make much sense to me- so if you're asking me personally, I'd say no to them but it's really not my call. :shrug:Quote:
Since you would allow handguns, does that mean you would also allow knives, stun guns, impact weapons, and mace?
I think the spray & spray technique derives from the shooter`s perception of his limitless magazine capacity, unless the shooter is well trained, which often leaves out a lot of police and perhaps even more civilians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Wouldn`t you think that young people (reasonably assumed to be inexperienced shooters mostly) carrying high capacity semi-autos, which for reliabiltiy`s sake are most often loaded with FMJ ammunition (which can overpenetrate), would present a highly dangerous situation in a crowded shooting environment environment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
What about people carrying overpowered handguns, such as a .44 Magnum, which might be Dirty Harry cool, but utterly unsuited to a crowded shooting environment?
What about cocked and locked single action semi-automatics, which present a much higher danger of accidental discharge for an inexperienced shooter?
What about mandatory snatch-proof holsters?
What about the newer (and quite nasty) ammunition types like the Winchester Black Talon rounds, which create particularly heinous wounds?
Would you not agree that there are serious techical considerations to be taken into account before allowing handguns carried by young inexperienced shooters onto a crowded school campus?
Ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Spray and pray? I don't know any gun owner who thinks that. The gun owners I know are very conscientious- and that goes double for permit holders. Again, evidence does not bear out the spray and pray notion- there are tens of thousands of permit holders in my state alone and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any accounts of "spray and pray" from a law-abiding citizen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
I like the reliability and predictability of revolvers better than semi-autos, but again, that's just a personal preference and I see no need to regulate. If you want to see a flame war, go on a gun site and tell people that semi-autos are unsafe for carry. :laugh4:Quote:
Wouldn`t you think that young people (reasonably assumed to be inexperienced shooters mostly) carrying high capacity semi-autos, which for reliabiltiy`s sake are most often loaded with FMJ ammunition (which can overpenetrate), would present a highly dangerous situation in a crowded shooting environment environment?
Now, if we ever find ourselves with a rash of bystanders being shot by overzealous spray & pray permit holders whose rounds over-penetrate maybe we should try to look into ways to better educate people. But right now, it doesn't seem to be a problem.
I think 44's are also utterly unsuited to concealed carry- they're too big and too heavy. And I seriously doubt that people who wish to conceal/carry put having a cool-looking gun above one that's convenient and effective.Quote:
What about people carrying overpowered handguns, such as a .44 Magnum, which might be Dirty Harry cool, but utterly unsuited to a crowded shooting environment?
Nah.Quote:
What about mandatory snatch-proof holsters?
IIRC, Black Talons were essentially normal JHP ammo that they made the mistake of giving a black coating. The ensuing bad PR made their manufacturer pull them only to replace them with a similar non-black, less scary version that's essentially the same in all other ways. I'm not an expert, a lawyer, or anything else of the sort, but I think JHP ammo makes good sense because it shouldn't overpenetrate and should be more likely to stop your target. I've heard good things about CorBons.Quote:
What about the newer (and quite nasty) ammunition types like the Winchester Black Talon rounds, which create particularly heinous wounds?
I think that if most people exercise some common sense, that's usually enough. I also think that most regular gun carriers are responsible people and I'm not going to get too excited about it until it's shown otherwise. Further, I think it's a gun owner's responsibility- and those who carry in particular- to learn how to properly use, maintain, and handle their guns. Any who use their guns in an irresponsible and negligent manner should be dealt with harshly- it's a big responsibility and should not be taken lightly.Quote:
Would you not agree that there are serious techical considerations to be taken into account before allowing handguns carried by young inexperienced shooters onto a crowded school campus?
I think it's mainly about mind-frame. You seem to look at a room of your peers and are afraid that one of them may be carrying. On the other hand, I can take a small measure of comfort in thinking that other law-abiding citizens may be carrying weapons whenever I'm out and about. :shrug:
Common sense can be a rare commodity .Quote:
I think that if most people exercise some common sense, that's usually enough.
I would think that a spray & pray shooting would come from a reaction to a dangerous situation as opposed to being thought out beforehand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Agreed, though, most of the gun owners I know are conscientious as well.
Why go there when I can do it here. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I don`t think most semi-autos are unsafe to carry, but a cocked and locked single action semi-auto, for example, is a beast that requires a very experienced shooter to carry safely.
I cannot help but think of the horse and the barn door.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Amongst younger people, especially young men, I`m not sure I share that opinion. Bigger, better, badder is a real influence on young people. And there is doubtlessly going to be some, shall we say, anthropomorphizing of guns amongst younger men which could, and probably will, lead to poor choices in weapons and ammunition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
By the by, there are some short barrelled .44s that are well suited to concealed carry.
Or yah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
The Black Talon handgun ammo, unless I`m mistaken, are JHP with serrations in the lead that cause the bullet to open up like a round saw blade, causing an actual removal of body tissue instead of a temporary wound cavity. Very nasty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Agreed, it should not be taken lightly at all. But do you not think students carrying guns at school constitutes an unusual carry environment that (God forbid) even if carry was allowed, very special considerations and rules would have to be set in place?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I don`t fear that other people are carrying because the vast majority of Canadians feel that carrying a handgun on a day to day basis is insane and represents a horrible cultural and social outlook. I take great comfort that no one is carrying a handgun. (Yes, I know that criminals will do as they please, but I don`t want to emulate the worst aspects of their behaviour and neither do the vast majority of Canadians.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Again, as if it hasn`t been stated already, most Canadians would rather sell their children to a Nike factory in China then send them to a school where there are armed students. I think, and I am sure the vast majority of Canadians agree, that legalizing guns in school is nothing less than absolutely insane.
Thank you for answering in detail. Mostly, I was looking to see if any of the pro-carry people were willing or able to take this discussion to a greater depth. I`m willing to discuss the finer technical points, the devil being in the details, but I think that might bore the pants off everyone and goodness knows we both know where we stand. I`ll leave it to you if you wish to further the discussion. If you do, I will be delighted to respond.
The obvious (with hindsight) British mistakes were compounded by the fact that Jackson was a brilliant tactician.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
1. He chose to set up quarters near Chalmette precisely because it was a choking point.
2. His surprise attack on the night of the 23rd on the encamped British prevented their organised march on New Orleans. For that engagement Jackson could commit only two 6-pounders, one of which was overturned early in the engagement.
3. As to the final engagement on the 8th, Jackson actually ordered his batteries to cease fire in order to lift the smoke so his musket-men could take aim..
And Jackson was the one who was short of ammunition. He had to buy half his stuff from the pirates: "I procured from them 7500 flints for pistols and boarding peaces, which was solely the supply of flints for all my militia and if it had not been for this providential aid the country must have fallen. "
If he obtained half his stuff from an arms dealer he was not short of ammuntion at the time of the engagement was he .Quote:
And Jackson was the one who was short of ammunition. He had to buy half his stuff from the pirates:
Its funny that you chose a war that demonstrated the inadequacies of the militia .
Funny that Jackson thought the militias saved the day. The U.S. navy certainly didn't, not did the handful of 16-pounders Jackson could bring to bear. The militias were surprisingly effective considering that during assembly some (Mississippi and Kentucky) had no guns at all...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Terribly sorry old boy but eyewitneses said that the artillery caused most of the casualties , especailly the 18 and 24 pounders across the river (the ones that were supposed to be taken care of before an advance should be attemted)Quote:
Funny that Jackson thought the militias saved the day. The U.S. navy certainly didn't, not did the handful of 16-pounders Jackson could bring to bear.
Jackson said the militia had saved the day to boost his popularity and to cover that he mistakenly sent most of the regulars to the wrong place leaving him only 2 regular army regiment in Orleans .
Eyewitnesses say the British were mown down during their ill-conceived frontal assault by both American artillery and expert musketry from the Kentuckians and Tennesseans. And they had been demoralised not by disease, but by previous American feats such as Jackson's pre-emptive attack on the 23rd of December.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
And finally, of course, the stupid Irish of the Fourty-Forth forgot to bring the planks they were ordered to cary so everyone else could cross the ditches .. :laugh4:On the contrary, Jackson set up a line that was near impossible to overturn. Even when the British under Colonel Rennie conquered an American battery, it was reclaimed by American musketry.Quote:
Jackson said the militia had saved the day to boost his popularity and to cover that he mistakenly sent most of the regulars to the wrong place leaving him only 2 regular army regiment in Orleans .
The affair illustrated something else, too. As American military mapmaker Arsene Latour put it, the British seemed innately unable to 'sacrifice the regularity of their movements to promptitude and celerity' because 'it is well-known that agility is not the distinctive quality of British troops.' Opposed to their slavish notion of discipline was the free spirit of the American militias who stood coureageously (and irresponsibly) atop their reinforcements to pick off British 'squirrels'.
It is a typical mistake of British historians to attribute some of their nation's losses to bad British leadership instead of the superior leadership or mentality of the opposition. And Europeans in general tend to overlook how revolutionary the American Revolution really was.
All in all, your mistaken analysis leads to the mistaken conclusion that the militias failed at new Orleans. In fact, their success contributed to the postponement of the establishment of a strong American professional army till WWI.
While Tribes has been nitpicking in his usual fashion, his original claim for the failure of the militia was for the war, not the battle. Whatever happened at New Orleans could hardly compensate for what happened at Bladensburg as a test of the militia as a viable home defence force.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
'Its funny that you chose a war that demonstrated the inadequacies of the militia .'
Well, there were/are a lot of german immigrants in the US, should be clear why the militias were/are so good, with such genes.... :sweatdrop:
Hehe. "Jawohl, ya'll!".Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
The militia was always meant to be the last resort in the defense of the nation. As such it proved its metal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The War of 1812 started out as a war of agression, something at which the British were much better at the time. When the tide in Europe turned, more British troops became available while the strangehold of the British navy resulted in national bankruptcy (and the personal bankruptcy of Jefferson) - after which there was only one recourse left, as always in the early years of the American republic.
Sure, the militia system wasn't ideal. Even Jackson had trouble controlling some of the rabble under his command (to the point where he had to face a mutiny of the Tennesseans because he'd had one of the shot for insurordination). His success however contributed to the notion that there was no need for a large standing army along the lines of the British example.
Sorry Adrian , those militia that stood courageously , would they be somewhat different tothe militia that ran away at that battle .Quote:
Opposed to their slavish notion of discipline was the free spirit of the American militias who stood coureageously (and irresponsibly) atop their reinforcements to pick off British 'squirrels'.
the ones that stood stood with regular troops and strong fortifications and supporting fire .
the ones that ran just had strong fortifications and supporting fire .
Ok leaving aside that Britain didn't have a large standing army, are you forgetting the call and debates within his administration for a large standing army precicley because of the failures of the militia during the war .Quote:
His success however contributed to the notion that there was no need for a large standing army along the lines of the British example.
His success did contribute to the notion , but the notion was a flawed one and was recognised as a flawed one .
so would American historians , like American army college historians for example attribute bad leadership of the British for the failure of the assaultQuote:
It is a typical mistake of British historians to attribute some of their nation's losses to bad British leadership instead of the superior leadership or mentality of the opposition.
Yes, they were differently led (Winder was an idiot) as well as differently motivated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
You seem to forget that the War of 1812 was the most unpopular war in American history, begun for the wrong reasons by the wrong people (Madison was a brilliant thinker, but a poor President) and under persistently weak military leadership, a problem that has plagued the Americans far more than it ever did the British (beside corruption and sutlers which were an additional plague for the militias). The New England states were always opposed to it and enthusiasm in the South and West quickly evaporated. Many militias refused to cross the border with Canada. After Bladensburg some of the New England ports even pledged allegiance to the Crown again, and happily so, since it meant they could resume trading.
In this atmosphere, the battle of Bladensburg, fought by badly motivated and poorly led American militias who hardly outnumbered the professional British troops opposing them, was bound to be lost.
In which school did the War fo 1812 occur?
LoL, Tachikaze. The school of discussion of the legitimacy of the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" bit of the 2nd A.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
Although AdrianII and Tribesman have wandered pretty far afield, I trust they'll come back 'round to more immediate relevance soon.
So far, it's been a refreshing change from the usual "You gun-luvvin Nazi", v "Commie-pinko property- grabber" argument.
In my opinion.
I don't forget , its just that that war happens to be my favourite war , and that battle in particular always makes me laugh (especialy all the myths that grew from it).Quote:
You seem to forget that the War of 1812 was the most unpopular war in American history
Why is it your favorite?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
The last page of this thread has had me more interested in something I knew little about than most of the backroom has for a few months. I hope it doesn't get back on track or die anytime soon.
:7teacher: :2thumbsup:
That should be obvious Strike , the whole thing was a joke , a completely pointless stupid joke that was totally uneccesary and achieved absolutely nothing , the battle of new orleans is so funny in particular because it happened after the pointless war was already over .Quote:
Why is it your favorite?
Though I think my real favourite from the whole farce was the EIC Nautilus and USS Peacock , that is just to funny by half .
Well that leaves us allot of canadites. I wouldve opted for WWI but to each his ownQuote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
:book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackadder
well yeaQuote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Other people's wars and conflicts often look pointless, particularly from afar or with 20/20 hindsight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman