Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

dudeone

Truly Stunning: More Americans Killed by Guns Since '68 Than In All Wars Put Together

18 posts in this topic

Truly Stunning: More Americans Killed by Guns Since '68 Than In All Wars Put Together

By tomasyn

SAT JAN 19, 2013 AT 08:01 AM PST

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/19/1180353/-Truly-Stunning-More-Americans-Killed-by-Guns-Since-68-Than-In-All-Wars-Put-Together

I'm motivated to write this diary by a diary that appears on the rec list calling my ignorance of gun nut culture "stunning". You want stunning? Try this on for size:

More than a million Americans have been killed by guns since 1968.

More than in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and various smaller conflicts. Combined.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it's time to take a page out of Rick Perry's book and pray away the gun violence in America.

Okay, I couldn't contain myself. What a joke LOL :lol: And this guy had a shot at becoming president?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm Interesting but not surprising at all.

Russia lost the most in WW 2 (25 million) and were the ones who defeated Germany. America (400 k) loves to take credit but didn't enter the war until Germany was falling.

US lost around 60 k in Vietnam, less in Korea around 40 k.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does it say how many people guns protected huh? ....HUH?!?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not Truly Stunning: Another dudeone gun news thread.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes sense when you realize the population growth. In the revolutionary war, 1 in 20 white males* were killed, but since the population was so low at the time, the number comes out to 4000 ish deaths, which is equivalent to 3 million killed by today's population.http://www.shmoop.co...statistics.html

*Given the social customs at the time, this would be the population of men eligible to fight

I don't want to downplay the problem, but stats can be misleading.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very informative post with proof of claim. Thanks! :)

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not Truly Stunning: Another dudeone gun news thread.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this just proves how much more effective the US military is vs other countries, lol.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm Interesting but not surprising at all.

Russia lost the most in WW 2 (25 million) and were the ones who defeated Germany. America (400 k) loves to take credit but didn't enter the war until Germany was falling.

US lost around 60 k in Vietnam, less in Korea around 40 k.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My father who fought at D-day says hello , so do the millions of allied troops who flew , sailed and fought in europe.

And also the brits payed for and sent millions of tons of military supplies to Russia on the kola run , where an icy death waited for many a sailor .

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a touchy subject. My family members also served in WW2 under the British flag.

Soviet Union lost far more ppl than all the allied countries combined, approx 25 million and 14 % of population. US lost 400 k and less than 1/2 of 1%. Canada lost more per capita than US.

It's a fact the Americans spent most of WW2 sending in aid. They didn't enter the war until Pearl Harbor which was 4 years after the war started. Even then they fought Japan, not Germany.

US didn't get into a head to head fight with Germans until end of 1943 in Africa. D day landings were about 6 months later 1944. By now the Germans were essentially defeated by the Russians. The war ended in 1945.

Stalin had continuously asked America to enter the Euro front against Germany but Roosevelt refused and only sent in aid.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what universe is this revelation "truly stunning?" I should think it falls more under the category of "duh".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Soviets did handle 75% of the fighting vs the 3rd Reich, however the weaknesses in their system were to blame for their ludicrous casualty figures, a system that would ultimately kill just as many of its own people in "peacetime".

What's more is that the Soviets were heaviliy responsible for the Nazis being so strong in the first place, the plan was to have Germany fight itself and the rest of Europe to exhaustion, then roll in with the Red Army for the enormous backstab, only they never foresaw how easily continental Europe would fall, and ended up getting backstabbed themselves.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Soviets did handle 75% of the fighting vs the 3rd Reich, however the weaknesses in their system were to blame for their ludicrous casualty figures, a system that would ultimately kill just as many of its own people in "peacetime".

What's more is that the Soviets were heaviliy responsible for the Nazis being so strong in the first place, the plan was to have Germany fight itself and the rest of Europe to exhaustion, then roll in with the Red Army for the enormous backstab, only they never foresaw how easily continental Europe would fall, and ended up getting backstabbed themselves.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.