Russia sends 2 nuclear-capable bombers to Venezuela

Why would firearms be excluded from that?

Thinking I'm not just an edgy redditor

Suits you dumb mutt

Maybe because with chemical weapons its exactly the chemical compound that is doing the killing, unlike with firearms where you have the gunpowder as an indirect factor?

Just let it happen eight chin is a Reddit now give up BO

Then that also includes everything that uses kinetic energy to kill. Explosives work by initiating a rapid expansion of gas or acceleration of material, it's not the fuel nor the oxidizer the ones that kill. Given how much explosives we use in warfare, I wouldn't say that most weapons are chemical.

Bullets are made out of chemicals. A firearm is a lump of chemicals that uses chemicals to push other chemicals into whatever chemicals you happen to be pointing it towards at the time. All matter is chemicals. All weapons are chemical weapons.

Attached: 02-Masao-Sato-1984-illus-for-magazine-cover_900.png (750x899, 825.82K)

Now that you put it that way, you're right…

I thought Central banks borrow the money at interest from private institutions or is that just the Fed?

A bullet does not cause any meaningful chemical action on the target. Even if the energy input caused some kind of biochemical change in the flesh, it is still triggered by purely mechanical means rather than the lead reacting chemically.

You might as well ask, why don't nukes count as chem? Isn't fission part of chemistry? There's two ways to interpret the word "chemical". One is useful and commonplace among actual chemists and other scientists. The other is absolutely nonsense and often chosen by stupid people.