Tags for this video have been changed from 'data, enterprise, hip hop, picard, music video' to 'data, enterprise, hip hop, picard, music video, Those arent muskets' - edited by MarineGunrock

I'll answer your questions MINK.
the members of the church that were detained in Carthage jail had between them one pepper box revolver. It was fired twice at the over two hundred members of the mob that had surrounded and stormed the building. There was one other weapon, a cane that was used to deflect muskets aiming through the door to the room where Joseph and Hyrum Smith were shoot.

Smith was inside the building when the mob entered, when his brother was shot Joseph was at his side until his last breath, then he walked towards the window and was struck from bullets outside and then from behind as some of the mob had breached the door. He landed near the water pump for the well about 2 stories below.

And please tell me what 'crazy' organizations the LDS church is supporting. I'd be interested in your source for that comment.

And don't compare Jesus to Joseph, that's just asinine. Read the bible and then if you still don't understand I can point out distinct diffrences between Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ, namely one was perfect the other not so much. Are you suggesting that Joseph should have just thrown himself in front of a gun? I know that I for one would not be willing to die so calmly as he did. I suspect you would, if your being rational agree on that.

>> ^MINK:
deedub, you got me, "resisting arrest" wasn't the right way to put it.
but you also aren't being open.
who shot guns in this story, just the mob?
was smith inside or outside the building when the dust settled?
these things have got to make you wonder. jesus died in a more appropriate way, wouldn't you say? i get the feeling if jesus had tried to jump off the cross and run away, his message would be a little weaker. you have to admit smith had a messy ending to his story.
and... comparing smith to hussein doesn't mean i am saying they are the same.
i am saying that they both led organisations, are you denying that?
i am saying that some people in their organisations were nice. are you denying that?
so then, given those facts, it doesn't make sense to defend mormonism by saying "mormons are mostly nice people" because then you are also defending a lot of other crazy organisations by implication.
it's just logic, man, don't be scared of it, it can help you work out what's going on.

#1, I can't believe this dude killed two people over some stuff. No one is arguing the burglars shouldn't be punished, but that's why we have laws, police, and due process. Do the police screw up sometimes? Ya, but at least they are held (somewhat) accountable. Vigilantes are the last thing we need.

#2 for all the gun toting people who think the SOLUTION to Virgina Tech, Columbine etc is to add MORE guns to the mix, I'm really trying hard to understand you... Let's think about it, a random shooting opens up, people scramble, they're scared, nervous, and shocked... Do you think they're going to react by pulling out their "piece" and nailing the assailant(s) with one clean shot? Come on! And what happens when inevitably someone trying to "do good" accidentally shoots another civilian? "oops?, sorry, my bad, I was trying to get the bad guy..."?

The solution is LESS guns, NOT more.

You wanna hunt? fine... get a license, get dressed up in your orange outfit and hunt... with a hunting rifle. You want to go to a shooting range, fine. That doesn't mean you need to be carrying a gun with you all the time (honey, stop the car, there's a deer!), you certainly do not need it concealed, and certainly do not need a handgun/shotgun/automatic-death-cannon.

The second amendment was written in a time of muskets where the US had no full-time army and the populous would be relied up to defend against/overthrow the government. Well... a lot of good all those guns have done preventing the government from stripping the US citizens of their rights. At this rate, the right to bear arms will soon be the only right remaining.

Are you guys f**king serious? You think it's OK to end somebody's life over a physical object, owned by the killer, and taken by the victim? ..

There are only two reasons people get killed during a home invasion. Either they confront the invader, with a weapon of some kind, or the invader has nothing to loose since he's already risking his life. (Due to the society and gun-acceptance)

Here in Norway, the police don't carry guns. They have them in the car, locked away, for use if needed. This means that the criminals don't really use guns either.. Of course there are gun-robberies, murders, etc. BUT in the big picture, it's a different world.
The way gun-enthusiasts go off on a tear when we discuss gun-politics, is as if the gun itself was their manhood. The reason guns are constitutionalized in
USA is only because off the founding fathers saw a possibility where the people would have to fight the government. I don't say this doesn't apply today, but not in the same way.. That would only work if both sides had muskets.. But that's not the reality anymore..

Another problem I see is that If you have a gun, the likelihood of a bad guy shooting after you / back at you is a million times greater, than if your hands are up, and you're not coming off as threatening. I can't see how people can't understand that..
And further more, it's only property.. I got my car stolen once, but I didn't want to kill the guy, nor have anybody else kill him!

Gah.. Guns kill people.. People kill people.. There shouldn't be a "not" in there.

Is it the importance to protect yourself, or is it just really fun to play with? What if your three-year old plays with it.. Will it be just as fun?

-seltar

"thats an in-effective way of getting your war on!"

It was actually a very effective way to get your war on. The musket only had an effective range of about 50 yards and was extremely inaccurate. The only way to make effective use of the weapon was therefore to mass your men. The idea was that if you if you have a group of musketmen standing shoulder to shoulder, firing in volleys, then the mass of musket balls being fired would be bound to hit something. Were they to spread out and fire individually, the inaccuracy of the musket would prevent them from hitting a damn thing. In other words, in order to mass their fire they HAD to mass their men.

In this particular attack, where the French are unsupported by artillery, the Brits would not have had to sustain quite so many volleys. It takes roughly twenty seconds to reload a musket, which is plenty of time for an attacking force to run across the 50 yards or so where musket fire threatens them. This then is what the attack would have looked like: the Brits march across the open field until they are roughly 50 yards away from the French; the French fire a volley and begin reloading; the Brits fire a volley and then charge in with the bayonet; the Brits will most likely close to hand to hand range before the French can finish reloading; a bayonet fight breaks out where numbers, skill and bravery determines who wins. Not quite as suicidal as this makes it out to be, eh?

If the French had artillery however, the Brits would be pretty well fucked. They'd be sustaining artillery fire from the moment they began marching to the attack, such that by the time they actually reached musket range, their attacking force would be so diminished that they would no longer be combat effective.

Still a pretty cool clip, nevertheless.

Also, National Geographic Channel has just revealed from their programming: the first gunshot in Americas, that Spanish vs Native American battles weren't always what Spanish chronicles claimed.

They were ALWAYS accompanied by Inca's former enemy states. And the siege of Lima (Puruchuco) in particular reveals that most of the fighting was done between Native Americans and the battle won by Native Americans, not by some sheer overwhelming power of horses and muskets.

So politics plays a very critical role in human history than just purely on physical geographic location, critical though it may be.

I'm also bit miffed at what Diamond said when he gave ancient Greeks as evidence of 'cultivation civilization'.

From what I know, Greek cities (Peloponnese) did have large population with heavy population density, but they weren't too big on farming, mainly because the Greek land is not the most ideal place for farming because it's full of jagged rocks and salty coastlines. They had a big animal herding tradition with goats and sheeps, and probably had a big fishing tradition going on, but not to the extent to feed big cities. Plus, that's not really a diverse diet.

There survived mainly as active traders, who got lot of their material needs from other parts of the world by setting up colonies and establishing trade relations (Mycenae, Asia Minor, Egypt, and Dorians later on). They especially had a very close relation with Egyptians, perhaps because they were the largest providers of wheat at the time. They give them fish and sheep skin, Egyptians give them surplus of wheat.

Anyways overall, Diamond comes up with definitely interesting fresh theories, but also comments on some things that are directly against historic evidence. Like how conquistador's guns and swords were such a large factor, enough to compensate their lack of numbers (which he later corrects as germs), how Greeks flourished because of cultivation or that Sumerian writings had influenced Chinese characters... etc etc.

Like, Huh?

And I also couldn't find anything about smallpox and black plague originating from farm animals. As far as evidence goes, some say bubonic plague started from Ethiopia, where Diamond claim domestication of animals didn't take place... that 13 of 14 farm animals all originated from Middle East, which is another point of doubt (he also contradicts himself from 1st part to 3rd part.. what's going on here).

Oh! and why Europeans happened to be the ones to keep colonizing the world, when Ming and Qing China had plenty of capability to do the same, but never did so?

Oh! and how was conquistadors survive in the tropics? or early American pioneers who were dying by hundreds?

This is why this guy is a biologist, and not a Historian. Stay in your own profession old man!

Stick with the original theory of geographic effect in human history. Discard the rest.

awwww, in your avatar you look like some kind of dangerous french musketeer, and in real life you look like a nice normal IT guy. So in a way, you kinda do play D&D

my avatar's the best anyway.

The semi-automatic musket changed the face of warfare.

KaiEr, in my meagre grasp of the concepts of rifling physics - rifling provides stability to the projectile in flight, making it more resistant to external forces. Such as crosswinds, for example.

Picture how a spinning top is able to 'stand up' while it's rotating. The force that would want it to fall over in one direction is counteracted by it's 'gyroscopic' forces in the other directions. You can even knock it a little and it will still try to stay up (if it's spinning fast enough )

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope
and I spose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifling

Old 'smooth bore' weapons like muskets and flintlock pistols were inaccurate because their shots weren't protected by gyroscopic effects and were blown all over by the wind/rain/etc (also they weren't hugely aerodynamic or propelled quite as fast).