Why David Hogg’s ‘Five Point Plan’ To End Gun Violence Betrays His Ignorance

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were military targets.

The Dresden firestorm was a British endeavor. US bombers focused on trying to strike the railyards.

 

Wrong. Look up who died in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Choice of targets
The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10–11, 1945, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members. They also agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized.

 

Hiroshima was a large military center filled with tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers.

Hiroshima Castle was the military headquarters in charge of repelling our coming invasion of Kyushu.

The second A-bomb was intended for Kokura Arsenal, a massive (1280 meters by 610 meters) weapons-building complex.

The backup target for the second A-bomb was the Mitsubishi Nagasaki Shipyards, which produced warships like the battleship Musashi (one of the largest warships ever built) and the aircraft carrier Jun'yō (which killed countless Americans throughout the war).

The second A-bomb ended up being dropped between the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works and the Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works.

Before WWII, Pearl Harbor had been regarded as immune to air-dropped torpedoes because the water was so shallow that they would embed themselves in the mud. Japan had to modify their torpedoes to come up with something that would work in shallow water. The Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works was the place that designed, built, and installed these modifications to their torpedoes.

The damage to the torpedo factory was most satisfactory:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060929120212/cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/nagasaki.htm

 

Wartime casualties have nothing to do with the difficulty our military would have in shooting friends, family and neighbors for disobeying gun ban laws or during the process of the fight to remove a tyrannical government.

 

Now we have devolved into the government ordering soldier to shoot civilians for disobeying gun laws. I think you have suceeded in bring the discussion to the level of idiocy where it would be foolish to continue the discussion.

 

The majority of causalties were civilians. The war was over. There was no need to aim and hit civilian targets

 

If the Pentagon was hit during a nuclear war, the majority of casualties would be civilians.

That is incorrect. Japan didn't surrender until after both A-bombs had been dropped.

Which is why we didn't do that. Both A-bombs were directed at military targets.

 

Well you are the one who thinks taking guns away from everyone is a good idea and you think that if our government becomes tyrannical we don't need guns to take it back.

 

Where did I say taking guns away from everyone is a good idea? If you can't back up your claim it would behove you to admit you are lying.

 

Funny how those military targets happened to be right over the center of the city. And surrender terms were being negotiated begore the bombs were dropped. The Japanese were defeated and were no longer a threat. Even Eisenhower said there was no need to drop the bombs.

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

 

Statistically, there will be no noticeable change in murder rates if every single assault type rifle (including those owned by the police and military) were removed from the world. It's a stupid thing to do, based on naivity and ignorance.

 

So lets do nothing and let more people die from guns; after all we can replace them as new babies are born.

 

Military targets are military targets.

That is incorrect. Japan did not discuss surrender with us until after both A-bombs had already been dropped.

They had some two million well-armed soldiers awaiting our invasion.

Most people disagreed with him.

 

Well, so long as the only proposals do not address the problem at all and are merely designed to violate people's rights for fun, yes. Let's do nothing.

If you only want to do something dramatic, and you don't care if it doesn't do anything to solve the problem, you could always set fire to your house. That would definitely tell the world how passionately you care about the issue.

But if you insist on violating our rights for no reason as a way of demonstrating how much you care, I'm afraid that we decline to allow you to violate our rights.

 

Since I own no weapons, it has no impact on me personally; I just hate seeing innocent people die due to gun violence. I know from the tenor of your post that it obviously is not bothersome to you, but I do have a conscience.

 

The fact that I refuse to let you harm me in a useless publicity stunt doesn't mean that I don't care.

 

Enjoy living with your conscience.

 

No worries there. I am quite happy with myself.

 

I'm curious. I presume that you are declining to set your house on fire to make a bold statement showing how much you care.

I don't blame you. I wouldn't set my house on fire either. But....

How can you live with the guilt?

 

When someone asks me to commit arson to make a statement, I cannot take them seriously; based on your mindset, any further discussion on the topic with you would be a complete waste of time in my view.

 

It's not my mindset. It's your mindset. You are the person who suggested that I should feel guilty for not allowing you to harm me in a pointless demonstration of how much you care about an issue.

 

Banning 'assault weapons' is just a step - after they are banned, the left will find a new 'assault weapon' to vilify.
See, the state cannot have a monopoly on force, so long as the citizenry remains armed.

 

Talks were underway when the bombs were dropped. There was never any need to invade Japan. And the military targets were not in the center of the city.

And those that disagree with Ike do so because if you admit there was no need to kill those hundreds of thousands of civilians you basically admit the US was guilty of a major human right atrocity which it was.

 

That is incorrect. Japan refused to talk to us until after both A-bombs had already been dropped.

That is incorrect. Hiroshima Castle was only about half a mile from the center of the blast.

A large number of the tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers in the city were centrally located as well.

That is incorrect. Those who disagreed with Ike did so because they saw nothing to convince them that Japan was anywhere near surrender.

And collateral damage is hardly a human rights atrocity. It is a normal part of warfare -- unfortunate certainly, but not a crime.

 

I can't argue with someone so obviously ignorant of history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration