Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Djidji5739291 t1_iwf8wzn wrote

Makes perfect sense. Touch grass before you get a gun.

181

rocknin t1_iwfwkfz wrote

no no, see, planting that many trees means your bark will always be worse than your bite, by ratio.

51

Educational_Earth_62 t1_iwf99lx wrote

America, take heed!

Grabs a shovel and rides off into the distance

47

mobrocket t1_iwi1m4z wrote

America actually doesn't have a lack of tree problem.

They just don't have the right trees in many areas.

Our greatest loss is grasslands... Up to as much as 99% of all US grasslands are destroyed or partially damaged...

12

mrm00r3 t1_iwfc6m1 wrote

Something something Iran Conifer Affir

39

Acrobatic_Video_6770 t1_iwg23pb wrote

what is it?

2

redenno t1_iwg6l2t wrote

They took the name of an American weapons scandal, the "Iran Contra Affair" and replaced Contra with the similar sounding conifer, which is a type of tree

16

johnn48 t1_iwgisl1 wrote

This has nothing to do with the article, but it does need to be said. Too often these plant a tree campaigns are not well thought out or implemented. Too often they’re implemented without thought for sustainability or whether the place’s where the trees are planted are environmentally suitable. An extreme example obviously but planting trees in an area subject to drought or the wrong type of tree for the area, deciduous vs coniferous.

19

_Iro_ t1_iwhjl1p wrote

Exactly. The famous “Great Green Wall” of Africa had 80% of its trees die because numbers are more important than sustainability.

10

johnn48 t1_iwhlor0 wrote

> A man in Java, Indonesia has completed a herculean task: Planting an entire forest all on his own.

I think what we’re saying is not to abandon the effort, but think it through. We badly need trees, but we need effective planning more.

8

DickweedMcGee t1_iwf95yl wrote

In the moment that someone starts shooting at me, I'd value a group of trees that I could hide behind more than a gun of my own to shoot back at them.

15

BrokenEye3 t1_iwfa738 wrote

Unless it's your grandaddy's old gun, I doubt the trees will provide much shelter

12

psychecaleb t1_iwfdfxo wrote

Depending on some conditions, trees can ricochet bullets. Especially knots in the wood.

The tree is not defense, the tree is offense!

3

newjackcity0987 t1_iwgdn16 wrote

Depending on the age of the tree, it can def stop a 9mm from a glock. With the right thickness, it will probably stop civilian grade 5.56 rounds as well

−1

PermanentTrainDamage t1_iwh8t2t wrote

So don't get into a firefight for at least 20 years after you plant the trees, gotcha

3

BrokenEye3 t1_iwikhfu wrote

Hence your grandaddy's old gun, implying that the trees were planted at least a whole generation ago.

2

Ghost17088 t1_iwg9s1d wrote

Anyone want to take bets on how many bribes are paid vs trees planted?

12

ArmageddonSnakeEye t1_iwhf2v6 wrote

You mean to tell me the Indian state of Punjab isn't the world's largest forest?

2

prt56 t1_iwg818t wrote

But do those trees survive ?

2

Craw__ t1_iwh6uz5 wrote

They plant 10 trees of their own and get themselves a gun.

4

SuperSimpleSam t1_iwhl22u wrote

They should also show the tree growing to show that you can be responsible.

2

ddejong42 t1_iwi62ey wrote

Nice way to make sure that only people with enough land to plant 10 trees can get a gun. /s

2

NecessaryName1885 t1_iwjw9kl wrote

Omg if we did this in America we'd be a rain forest

1

[deleted] t1_ixhay95 wrote

Supplying wood for the coffin.

1

Aquamarooned t1_iwi4t8y wrote

They're just preparing your burial site if you happen to commit with that gun

0

brianinohio t1_iwffmvb wrote

Can you imagine that in America? Fucking Republicans would have a hissy fit. They be like "how dare you make us plant trees. Communists"....lol

−15

BenMcKeamish t1_iwfhaxr wrote

American gun owner chiming in. I have no issue with that. That’s trivial. I’m a hunter and outdoorsman, and the additional trees would restore habitats for the game I hunt. As farmland turns into tract housing, at least in my area, wild animals start to disappear. I would support natural conservation efforts as a condition of my hunting license, gun purchase, or even just as a matter of civic duty. Why not? I’ve already better than tripled that quota.

50

brianinohio t1_iwfhryw wrote

Cool. Good on you man. I didn't mean to attack gun owners. Was just thinking more big picture. Politics wise. Can't really see Republicans playing around with 2nd amendment. They're just so hardcore there.

−18

BenMcKeamish t1_iwfjpyx wrote

Just take into consideration that, simply because we have two dominant parties doesn’t mean the people only have two dominant mindsets, nor are the parties necessarily polar opposites in their interests. I’m not a Republican, but I will say that there should be no barrier for a person of good legal standing to purchase and possess a firearm of any kind in this country. I do differ from many of my right-leaning countrymen in allowing for some creative civics in the process, such as dropping a few trees in the ground.

10

pslessard t1_iwgbbi4 wrote

The people may not have two dominant mindsets, but the politicians do, and the only mindset of the Republican party the past several years is "Don't let the Democrats do anything." Seriously, they didn't even write a platform in 2020. You personally may not have a problem with planting trees, but I guarantee you the politicians would make a huge deal out of it, not because the people actually care about it, but because they want to drive engagement in their voter base

−3

rabbyburns t1_iwg7q6n wrote

> a person of good legal standing

Who is now in possession of a dangerous tool with which they can quickly lose that standing.

Being in good legal standing is a good minimum bar, but it absolutely shouldn't be the only bar.

−9

brianinohio t1_iwfk7pb wrote

Understood...like I said, I got nothing against gun owners, or anyone who follows the laws and constitution. I just don't think the Republicans would ever negotiate in the sense that guns and the environment would ever meet...lol

−11

iRecond0 t1_iwfnigp wrote

I think you watch far too much cable news.

14

brianinohio t1_iwfnkjl wrote

Whatever....I don't watch cable news.

1

iRecond0 t1_iwfnvwb wrote

How many trees have you planted btw?

2

brianinohio t1_iwfnzao wrote

I don't know....20 maybe....what the fuck has that to do with anything?

4

iRecond0 t1_iwfoi1r wrote

See how aggressive you’re being? I haven’t even pressed you about how ignorant your comments are yet. Look up the Pittman-Robertson Act and then ask yourself who contributes to that more, democracts or republicans.

6

brianinohio t1_iwfoln3 wrote

Not being aggressive....you asked a stupid question.

6

iRecond0 t1_iwfoznz wrote

K, good luck with your sweeping generalizations of millions of people. Thanks for planting trees.

6

ProfessorZhirinovsky t1_iwftcpj wrote

The largest funding source for US wildlife conservation programs is from taxes generated from gun owners buying firearms and ammo.

26

rocknin t1_iwfwp97 wrote

Because it's completely unrelated to the target?

see, planting trees to get a drivers licensed would make sense. not for guns.

0

Keffpie t1_iwg2u3j wrote

You clearly don't hunt.

−6

throwaway_4733 t1_iwg6h22 wrote

You clearly think most people buy guns so they can hunt.

6

Keffpie t1_iwg9acj wrote

I'm not American. It may surprise you to find that 95% of the world isn't. The only reason people buy guns in my country is to hunt.

−7

mobrocket t1_iwi19z6 wrote

Well anything they don't like is communism somehow...

When they like it... It's fine...

Notice they never call any social program for old people communism???

0