Why was this downvoted? It's completely factual. Officer Sicknick passed away from natural causes (the narrative that his head was bashed in with a fire extinguisher evaporated a couple of days ago[0]). Two of the protesters had heart attacks and one apparently had a meth overdose. The only person who was killed was shot by police. If you have evidence to the contrary, please cite it.
Person you're replying to didn't say that the protesters killed anyone directly.They said "lives were lost." But it is obviously highly probable that those death occurred due to their activities.
This is a dumb argument because they were at least trying to IMPLEMENT A COUP. It seems pretty clear to me that they would have assaulted and killed representatives if they would have gotten the chance which they very nearly did.
Also, don't call them "protestors". The nicest term I can think of for them would be rebels since they were in open rebellion to the United States. Some people at the capital that day were protestors, but the people who stormed the capital went far beyond protest.
2. The hypothetical coupers would not have believed it to be a coup, merely reinstating the rightful president.
3. Those invading the capitol were likely mostly just doing because they could rather than because they had a concrete plan on what they'd do if they found Pence and the representatives. I expect the vast vast majority would have done nothing more than shout slogans.
4. In general, when it comes to ones Outgroups there's a strong tendency to assume the worst at every opportunity. You might want to work to counteract that tendency (if only so you can better understand said Outgroup).
No, not really. Quite a few successful coups have been essentially bloodless and relied on a combination of surprise and bluff. Napoleon's actual seizure of power was disorganized to put it mildly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_of_18_Brumaire
Also, there are charges pending against people who had a stash of firearms in a hotel in Virginia, just across the Potomac, and planned to bring them over at a later stage. Firearms are largely banned in DC so the idea was to take over the Congress first and then establish a defensive perimeter.
Is it remotely plausible to believe a group of unarmed protestors were seriously attempting to gain control over the most powerful superpower the world has ever seen with their barehands? This narrative strains credulity, counselor.
It's plausible that it's what some people were personally thinking (or a better word might be "LARPing"). But for the reasons you point out, it's not realistic to suggest that the loftiness of the goal implies the danger was historically-serious, or requiring some kind of revolutionary increase of law enforcement (beyond handling protests at the capital more wisely next time).
They probably would have if they got their hands on people and they also beat several cops which could have potentially killed them. They were definitely out to hurt people and take over Congress.
> They probably would have if they got their hands on people
You cannot know this. You should be suspicious of thoughts that say your Outgroup is worse than what you have concrete evidence for. Confirmation bias is a hell of a thing.
