The point is the number would be even higher. Unrestricted/unregulated car usage would be utterly insane. Surely I don’t need to spell this out?

It’s wild how much of a slam dunk 2A Evangelists think the car argument is.

Also, cars are dangerous AF. Tens of thousands of people die a year because of them. Hence why we have licenses and maintenance rules and an unbelievably extensive road system with clear signals and lights.

Honestly surprising to me there’s anyone left brave enough to be a journalist in Saudi Arabia

No “if” about it, that’s what I meant!

It wasn’t edgy bullshit? I agree with you. I’m just saying there are a lot of “ifs” we have to depend on here. And given less than 20 years ago nations across the world did not give a shit and we saw literally all of those ifs not happening, I feel like my dig at regulatory agencies is very much warranted

If, if, if lol

Germany pretty concretely abandoned their ambitions for an atomic bomb towards the end of the war. If I remember correctly they came to the (incorrect) conclusion that the amount of uranium they would need is completely unfeasible

No but you’re the kind of person who starts to DM people when you can’t keep spreading your casual sexism. Do you just go everywhere and troll people/get into fights?

Everyone should block this asshole. I’m about to myself. He was being a piece of shit sexist in another thread, and when the moderator locked it down, he started to DM me going “debate me bro.”

also various other attacks that have been taking place by both sides.

Here we go again

tanks fired

Israeli tanks. It was in the headline.

then people died. How many were killed directly?

26, it was in the headline.

This was literally all in the headline. I don’t understand how you have these questions if you read anything.

There are so many valid reasons to be upset about media portrayals of the ongoing genocide in Palestine. We don’t need to make shit up.

Damn that’s a really fucked headline

OK but I am talking about the main post here, I did not reply to their comment about the guardian and hadn’t seen it when this discussion started. I’m sure the Guardian headline is bad, shame on them for it. But I am talking about the BBC one.

What are we even doing here? I don’t want to talk about the guardian, I’m talking about BBC.

Ok, but we aren’t assessing the guardian’s headline. I don’t even know what it is. I am looking at the BBC headline and talking about that one. Why are we talking about the guardian?

How is “Israeli tanks” not clearly the IDF? I could easily see a headline about “American tanks“ in a similar fashion.

Like don’t get me wrong, most media outlets have been dog shit about all of this. But I’m struggling to see what y’all find so offensive about this particular headline. I could really use a little insight here

I mean I’m sure it could be a little more direct, but I don’t know dude. It’s pretty clear what happened here. If I was talking to somebody about it I would say something like “Israel just killed dozens of people at an aid center, how do you not give a shit?” I feel like it's pretty unambiguous what is meant here.

Can I ask what you read it as?

I don’t know man I read the headline and it seemed pretty clear to me that the IDF, using tanks, purposely shot and killed 26 people at a Gaza aid center. I’m not really sure what’s ambiguous about this

Way to call it what it is without compromise 💪