You have sort of a logical fallacy there. You're presuming that people assume "if (bloodshed) then (reform)" but I think what is generally assumed is "if not(bl

You have sort of a logical fallacy there. You're presuming that people assume "if (bloodshed) then (reform)" but I think what is generally assumed is "if not(bloodshed) then not(reform)". Using boolean algebra, let p be (bloodshed) and q be (reform), then what is assumed is !p -> !q which (and it's been a little while since my boolean algebra classes) would be identical to q -> p, i.e. the inverse of what you said, reform implies that there was bloodshed or rather that reform cannot happen without bloodshed. In that light, I think how many people naively supposing that reform can only come from bloodshed is pretty surprising. However, it seems to be the case that the threat of bloodshed tends to be a strong motivator for action; however, the action is not always what's desired. What is viewed as an external threat (e.g. Oklahoma City Bombing, McVeigh et al are viewed as dangerous extremists not "America's own sons") and thus reaction to their wishes--apparently that the US move away from a dominant federal government--was largely in the reverse; whether by their actions or others, the federal government since 1995 has probably gotten considerably more powerful.