With their estimate of 928 police shootings, and a rough yearly death by firearm statistic of 10,000 per year in the US, that means the police fire the shots that kill almost 10% of those people?
Remember, at least half of all firearms related deaths are suicides. So it’s closer to 20% of one person shooting another is done by cops.
I can’t take seriously someone who writes “The militia mentality is the only reason the US exists today.” Canada, Australia and New Zealand did not have to fight their parent country to gain independence. Given the general support in the UK for the Americans against the unpopular German King (George 3rd) it is at least likely that without a rebellion, independence would just have been delayed till George 4th - who wasn’t interested in much other than screwing actresses and eating. On the other hand, without Madison’s attempted land grab on Canada to drive Canadian independence, it is also possible that the US and Canada would have been one country and an even bigger world power.
Ironically, I´ve read the same thing given as one of the reasons the U.S. decided to drop atom bombs on Japan instead of attempting an invasion.
No irony at all! The same mechanism works for both cases. That they were on the opposite sides of the war does not mean they weren’t quite similar in many aspects.
Where did I say “only”?
Given the finite human lifespan, waiting things out is not always a viable option for the individuals involved.
That is true.
Yup. Now you have lots of manpower available, but also lots of guns available. Another counterbalance.
To a degree, yes. There were local governing structures that “we the people” were happy enough (weren’t unhappy enough) with. The oppressor was foreign, and didn’t have much of control.
The situation in the Middle East is substantially different in its initial conditions; no wonder it evolves along completely different trajectory.
Any actor that is united enough will act this way.
The ones who were supposed to do the regulation lost the public trust?
I would call it ironic to decide not to invade another country because you consider its population too well-armed, and that very same country later nukes you for the very same reason.
The nuking did quite less damage than the conventional firebombing earlier. But the new tech used turned them into a mythological thing of fearsome strength in comparison. Thousands tons of incendiaries and fragmentation bombs vs one single atom bomb, not much difference in effect; the logistical issues are shifted from the delivery to the production, that’s about it.
It’s said that the primary or at least strongly contributory factor in Japanese surrender was Stalin’s refusal to help, and the risk of Stalin joining the fray and carving part of the land for himself. (But consider this a handwaving, I am not a history buff; ask me how weapons work and how they can be made. I am weaker in tactical deployment, and even worse when it comes to history.)
So you wrote that feedback post on Wikipedia that you linked to and I quoted? I just rechecked and that is exactly what it said. You seem a lot more reasonable than that, I am surprised.
Some historians argue that the reason that the bombs were dropped was that they existed, Truman wanted to look like a tough President, and after spending so much money on the Manhattan project
nobody involved wanted it to go for nothing. Two bombs were dropped to test the relative effectiveness of the competing U235 and Pu technologies. At some point Japan would have to be occupied, it was a matter of how much resistance there might be in practice.
My father was in the Far East at the time and as a naval officer trained in combined ops he would have been part of the initial invasion. So if they hadn’t been dropped, I might not be here to comment. Fortunately, alternative pasts are actually unknowable.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.