Your Questions About If You Choose To Pull The Trigger

February 5, 2014
By

Donald asks…

What does it mean if a gun has “single/double action”, not either, but both?

I have been researching revolvers, and I came across the S&W Governor. It says it is “single/double action”. I imagine this means you can choose single or double, but how exactly does that work? How do you set it to one or the other, or how do you switch?

admin answers:

Single Action (SA) – For single action, the hammer is manually brought to the full c0ck position and pulling the trigger performs single action: Releasing the Hammer . The pull of the trigger is usually fairly light and short, making it easier to shot quickly and accurately.

Double Action (DA) – Pulling the trigger performs two actions: 1. C0cking the Hammer; and 2. Releasing the Hammer. The pull of the trigger is usually heavy and long, providing a bit of a safety feature.

Most modern revolvers are DA/SA, but small stubby hammerless revolvers are Double Action Only (DAO). Cowboy action revolvers are SA.

It is a little more complicated with semi-auto pistols. Early semi-auto designs like the 1911 and Hi-power are SAO and must be carried “c0cked and locked” with a manual safety. Most (but not all) modern semi-autos with external hammers are DA/SA however. Modern semi-autos that use an internal striker (and some stubby hammer designs) can either be Single Action Only, Double Action Only, or have some hybrid design where the striker is partially pre-c0cked and the trigger completes the c0ck before it releases the striker.

Richard asks…

What do you think of this seven-point proposal to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

FIRST: Israel would recognize Palestine as a fully sovereign state fully independent from Israel. Palestine’s borders would be the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem. Likewise, Palestine would recognize the right of Israel to exist, and would recognize the area not part of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, or East Jerusalem as being the borders of Israel.

SECOND: All refugees would be allowed to return home, regardless of whether their homes were located inside Israel or Palestine.

THIRD: Israelis already living inside Palestine would retain their Israeli citizenship for twenty-four months, long enough for them to decide whether to move back to Israel or stay in Palestine. At the end of the two-year period, all Israeli citizens who choose to stay in Palestine would cease to be citizens of Israel and become citizens of Palestine.

FOURTH: The government of Israel and the government of Palestine would agree to treat ethnic and religious minorities inside their respective states as fully equal under the law.

FIFTH: Citizens of one country would be free to move to, own land and other property in, and do business in the other; but the government of neither country would actively try to promote these activities.

SIXTH: The government of Israel would agree to not cut off the Gaza Strip from the rest of Palestine.

SEVENTH: The government of each country would agree not to meddle in the internal or external politics of the other.

admin answers:

All of Jerusalem should remain a neutral entity. The Palestinians and Arabs have no better claim to it than the Israelis or Christians.

The right of return is over. When the Palestinians decided, mostly voluntarily, to leave Israel because of a war caused by the Arab League in the hopes that the Jews would be eradicated, their rights in the land of Israel became null and void. If there are legal claims persisting, then create a court to address those cases on an individual basis.

No problems with the rest, although disarmament of the Palestinians and a repudiation of terrorism and aggression from them and the Arab world should be a requirement for an agreement.

You also failed to address the issue of the Golan Heights. It would be absolutely stupid for Israel to give that area back. It would be like pointing a loaded gun at your head and hoping someone who hates you won’t pull the trigger.

Thomas asks…

Why did the US nuke civilian populations twice in Japan in WW2?

If it was to show capability, why not choose other targets that had the potential of high visibility with lower civilian exposure? And if it was necessary to study effects of nuclear fallout, why not bomb actual military installations with military personnel who were part of the war?

admin answers:

>Why did the US nuke civilian populations twice in Japan in WW2?

The U.S. Did not intent to nuke civilians, we nuked military installations and munitions plants. And it also happened twice because Japan didn’t surrender after the first. After Hiroshima, the Japanese in Tokyo concluded that it was an atomic bomb that destroyed the city but felt that the U.S. Could not have enough fission materials to create a second atomic bomb or more so they chose to continue the war. The U.S. Codebreakers, known as MAGIC, intercepted these messages and decided to drop the second bomb to show Japan we had tons of atomic bombs in our supply lines back home. After the second atomic bomb that destroyed Nagasaki, Japan was scared that more atomic bombs could destroy the Japanese race entirely. So therefore, Hirohito intervened and order the surrender of the Japanese government to the Allies.

Http://books.google.com/books?id=BvEZvTuyUbEC&pg=PA33&dq=In+describing+the+effectiveness+of+the+bomb+in+bringing+about+an+end&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CnaPUc7EC4mRiQLAwoCACQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=In%20describing%20the%20effectiveness%20of%20the%20bomb%20in%20bringing%20about%20an%20end&f=false

>And if it was necessary to study effects of nuclear fallout, why not bomb actual military installations with military personnel who were part of the war?

You don’t realize that they were munitions plants in both cities right? Munitions plants were occupied by civilians, not soldiers. Munitions workers are also part of the war along with military personnel. Without civilians, who were mostly responsible for creating weapons of war, then the military cannot wage war. If I’m a military personnel and I don’t have weapons (made by civilians) needed to fight, how could I go to war unequipped? It was not soldiers that created weapons because they were responsible for pulling the trigger so creation falls under the responsibility of civilians. In war, you use everything in your disposal to destroy the enemy’s ability to wage war, that includes civilians who worked in military plants.

20,000 military personnel in Hiroshima were killed by the atomic blast, 150 for Nagasaki. In Nagasaki, the bomb was dropped on the outskirts on two major Mitsubishi arms plants: “Steel and Arms Works” and “Urakami-Ordnance Works”. All of other factories including those major two arms plants were destroyed, around 70% of the war industries in the city.

Fact is these justifications comes from Article 25 of the 1907 Hague Convention on Land Warfare: “The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.”

http://www.icrc.org/ihl/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/1d1726425f6955aec125641e0038bfd6?OpenDocument

Does it seem like Hiroshima and Nagasaki fall under this provision? No, because both cities were protected with military installations, munitions plants, and by anti-aircraft defenses as well, therefore, making them liable for bombardment.

People overlooked that half of Japan’s war industry was farmed out to individual households (cottage industry). Much of their war production started in civilian homes sprinkled throughout Tokyo, Kobe, Yokohama, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and other Japanese cities. Parts and assemblies bubbled up to the factories where they were put into the war machines to create weapons of war (i.e. Tanks, planes, bombs, etc). With limited aerial tech during WWII, there can be no avoid killing civilians when civilian homes near and in densely-populated areas were used as factories to pump out parts for the enemy’s war effort like Japan did. Placing military installations in and/or use dwellings for military purposes near highly-populated areas is one serious problem which is why the 1977 Geneva Protocol 1 made this illegal. Http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule23

http://books.google.com/books?id=EBmynsBj2BUC&pg=PA159&dq=cottage+industry+homes+Japan+1945&hl=en&sa=X&ei=S9mSUc-xLaGMiAKnxIDYCA&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=cottage%20industry%20homes%20Japan%201945&f=false

>If it was to show capability, why not choose other targets that had the potential of high visibility with lower civilian exposure?

There was no way to avoid killing civilians (as stated above the second question). Hiroshima and Nagasaki was chosen because of high-value targets, less cultural significance, and modest civilian population. Tokyo could be the number one target for many reasons because it had a population of over 6 million and was the capital city where Hirohito stayed. Kyoto was the same deal due to being the center of high-value cultural and religious landmarks only except it had no valid military installations. They could cause the biggest impact on the Japanese military and civilians. But in terms of military perspectives, Tokyo and Kyoto had little importance than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Tags:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*