of all the things to be deathly afraid of, it makes sense to be somewhat cautious about the use of a product that is designed to cause death, and marketed on the basis of how lethal it is
but what do i know im just a shitposter
#pearreview
of all the things to be deathly afraid of, it makes sense to be somewhat cautious about the use of a product that is designed to cause death, and marketed on the basis of how lethal it is
but what do i know im just a shitposter
I'm scared of inanimate objects.
A report released Monday indicates the Department of Defense has dramatically shifted its views towards climate change, and has already begun to treat the phenomenon as a significant threat to national security. Climate change, the Pentagon writes, requires immediate action on the part of the U.S. Military.
The report is a “roadmap” of the Department’s future needs and actions to effectively respond to climate change, including anticipating that climate change may require more frequent military intervention within the country to respond to natural disasters, as well as internationally to respond to “extremist ideologies” that may arise in regions where governments are destabilized due to climate-related stressors.
The United States Department of Defense is one of the largest single consumers of energy in the world, responsible for 93% of all US government fuel consumption in 2007 (Air Force: 52%; Navy: 33%; Army: 7%. Other DoD: 1%).[1] In FY 2006, the DoD used almost 30,000 gigawatt hours (GWH) of electricity, at a cost of almost $2.2 billion. The DoD's electricity use would supply enough electricity to power more than 2.6 million average American homes.
if guns kill people, then pens, pencils and keyboards misspell words.of all the things to be deathly afraid of, it makes sense to be somewhat cautious about the use of a product that is designed to cause death, and marketed on the basis of how lethal it is
if guns kill people, then pens, pencils and keyboards misspell words.
what good is being a militant leftist if you cannot use force to force society to behave how you want them to?
it makes sense to be somewhat cautious about the use of a product
so basically you trust the government with guns and you don't trust the people
got it
the gun debate is neat because while inspiring emotional positions from both sides, there's a very rational fact-based way of looking at this, since gun statistics are fucking everywhere.
If you look at the statistics, say total gun incidents vs. legit self-defense, or gun deaths in countries with bans and those without, or even total violent crime in countries without guns, or maybe rate of incarceration per capita..
Well I subscribe to the rational part of that argument. I don't emotionally care about guns one way or the other like you do, so I don't really have a side unless you count wanting less gun deaths as a "side."
I guess my main point is, other countries, actually most of the free world, have already banned guns but retain them for their armed forces and police (obviously) but somehow they haven't turned into north korea yet. There's just a lot less gun violence. Weird, right?