Why is a pressure-cooker bomb a "weapon of mass destruction" but

[no_hypocrisy]

an assault weapon with a large magazine isn't?

[Narraback]

1. Because the weapons industry buys Congress

nt

[etherealtruth]

23. ^^^ Exactly^^^

[hay rick]

30. Cuisinart and Presto can't compete. nt

[Robb]

33. In one. Sinks it.

Well done.

[Newest Reality]

2. There is this black ball ...

that they twist and shake and then they look in the little window and it tells all.

So, you have to consult it to know.

[hedgehog]

3. Just a thought, but the bomb is anonymous while a shooter is generally

identified.


Maybe people also think they can get away from a shooter, but not from a bomb.

I think bombings have been associated with terrorists since the 19th century, while shootings have been associated with assassins.

[Gormy Cuss]

29. Only if the shooter commits suicide or is killed on the scene.

Think about the Newtown case -- had he just left after the killing, a similar process would have been needed to identify Lanza.

[spanone]

4. cause we're a fucking insane nation?

[Isoldeblue]

5. I had the same thought last week...

There is little difference, in being a WMD, considering how many more people have been killed so very quickly with an assault weapon, than a bomb...

Of course those rethug asshole, legislatures will deny it with some poor, lame excuse.

[Aerows]

6. Lord, I misread this for a moment

and thought that they were outlawing pressure cookers.

[Logical]

7. Guns are legal to possess. Bombs are not. n-t

[Newest Reality]

8. So, then

if the possession of assault weapons became illegal, they would then become WMD's?

[Posteritatis]

20. No, because there's a specific definition of WMD under US criminal law. You should read it. (nt)

[Warren Stupidity]

44. Pressure cookers are legal.

In fact pretty much everything they used was legal.

[Jenoch]

9. Who said a 'pressure cooker bomb' is a WMD?

[dems_rightnow]

10. The US Code.

[Marr]

11. Who is calling pressure-cooker bombs "weapons of mass destruction"?

I'm asking sincerely. If people are really doing that, the term has lost all meaning. I mean, even those mythical chemical weapons Hussein was supposed to have shouldn't have been deemed "weapons of mass destruction". I thought that term was strictly for nuclear devices.

[dems_rightnow]

18. The US Code defines it

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a

The definition of destructive device is:

(4) The term “destructive device” means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;

[Marr]

21. Well, a "destructive device" is not the same as a "weapon of mass destruction".

[dems_rightnow]

27. It is, yes.

It's defined as such right there. If you want to make the case that it's a stupid law or definition, go right ahead. but it IS the law and definition.

Be sure you click the link provided.

[Marr]

28. Holy cow, so it is. I stand corrected.

Has that term been redefined in the last few years? I could swear that it only applied to nuclear devices, and a select few other very large-scale weapons around 2002.

[onenote]

43. No. This definition dates back to 1994

The definition of the term "weapon of mass destruction" is not the same for all purposes. In the portions of the US Code that address National Defense (and specifically non proliferation of WMD), it has one definition. In the Criminal Code, it has a broader definition.

Hardly the only example of the same terms being defined in different ways in different portions of the United States Code.

[oldhippie]

38. So Bush was right ......

... there were WMD in Iraq?

[dairydog91]

12. Because "WMD" implies large-scale weapons.

For that matter, cluster bombs, ultra-large bombs, artillery batteries, rocket batteries, and other weapons which do inflict enormous amounts of destruction are not often considered WMDs.

Legally, a "WMD" must be either an explosive or a CBN (Chemical, Biological, Nuclear) weapon. Small arms are not WMDs under that definition (And why would an assault weapon be a WMD, while a 12-gauge pump action shotgun presumably would not be a WMD?).

[galileoreloaded]

13. because neither are

[malaise]

14. Because there are no lobbyists for pressure cookers

[bike man]

15. Perhaps it is because a WMD will usually injure/maim/kill a large number of victims all at once,

while assault weapons only put out one projectile at a time (but rapidly), so it's one bullet = one victim.

Perhaps.

[Xithras]

17. WMD has a specific definition.

It's a device that is capable of injuring or killing multiple people with a "single action". Set a bomb off once, it kills many people. A gun is only designed to kill a single target per shot.

Firearms are certainly destructive devices, but they fail the "mass" test because they require multiple actions to achieve their destruction against multiple targets. If you could design a single bullet that, when fired, would steer itself around a room to kill everyone in it, that would be a WMD.

The real difference is selectivity. With a firearm, every death is individual. The shooter chooses a target, points the weapon at them, activates the weapon, and then repeats the process again for the next target. Every person shot in a mass shooting is shot because the shooter specifically targeted them with their weapon and pulled the trigger.

There's a pretty simple contrast between that and a WMD, which simply targets everyone indiscriminately if they're in range. Instead of choosing to kill individuals, they are choosing to kill EVERYONE.

[Scuba]

36. So then we DID find WMD's in Iraq?

[HockeyMom]

19. Adam Lanza versus the Boston Bombers

Legal weapons (Mommy's guns) versus homemade weapons of mass distruction (pressure cookers). Right religion versus wrong religion. Dead is dead regardless of the reasons, method, or religion.

[VanillaRhapsody]

22. Tell that to the people tasked with the clean up of those childrens bodies at Newtown

I have heard chilling details that there weren't actual bodies to recover per se.

[LeftInTX]

24. You can't use a bomb to hunt

Although assault weapons aren't needed for hunting, many people in rural areas say that is why they have them.

So a bomb is even more useless than a gun.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. Well you sure can use them to fish.

People used to fish with dynamite. I think it is pretty much frowned on these days.

[The Straight Story]

25. Because a single 'shot' from it can injure multiple people/property. How hard is this reallY?

I am starting to thing we are losing our minds when we can't tell the difference between a bomb and a gun (or a car, plane, etc)

&quot B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors; "

Hmm that could be a car IMHO.

(4) The term “destructive device” means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses

[GreenStormCloud]

26. It isn't.

The guy who said that is expanding the definition of WMD for momentary political convenience. WMDs are nukes, poison gasses, biological weapons, and radiological ones.

[derby378]

31. Because a pressure-cooker bomb is NOT a WMD

Not in my experience, at least - the term only covers CBRN weapons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction

Methinks these charges are a little "politically correct" so that the punk-ass kid stays eligible for the death penalty. Not that I don't think he shouldn't face the full penalty of the law, mind you, but this is a bit much.

[neverforget]

32. Apparently an RPG is a weapon of mass destruction

Thirty-year-old U.S. Army veteran Eric Harroun was charged Thursday with violating U.S. law by fighting with Syrian rebels to depose Bashar al-Assad.

Harroun was charged with "conspiring to use a destructive device outside the United States" after telling FBI agents that he used rocket-propelled grenades against Syria's military. Harroun entered Syria in January and ultimately joined up with Al Nusrah fighters, which the U.S. says are aligned with al-Qaida. He boasted about his war exploits on Facebook, including the downing of a Syrian government helicopter.

An affidavit drafted by FBI agent Paul Higginbotham reads: "There is probable cause to believe that, in or about January 2013 to March 2013, Eric Harroun conspired to use a weapon of mass destruction, i.e. a Rocket Propelled Grenade, outside of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2332a(b)."

http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/03/29/fbi-affidavit-us-army-vet-used-weapon-of-mass-destruction-in-syria

[onenote]

41. maybe not in your experience, but as the page you link indicates

a pressure cooker bomb clearly is a weapon of mass destruction for purposes of US criminal law (18 USC 2332a).

[El Fuego]

34. Slaughtering 20 children and 6 adults with a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle is NOT "mass destruction"

as defined by U.S. Code. It's just an exercise of Second Amendment rights

[Scuba]

35. If cooker bombs are WMDs, then we found a whole bunch of WMDs in Iraq and Bush is a hero.

I recall WMD originally applying to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Using "WMD" to describe pipe bombs is a good way to keep people scared.

[onenote]

40. The term has different definitions in different statutes

Different portions of the law, with different purposes, and different definition

In title 50 ("War and National Defense&quot WMD is defined as follows for purposes of laws relating to nonproliferation of WMD:

(1) The term “weapon of mass destruction” means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of—
(A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors;
(B) a disease organism; or
(C) radiation or radioactivity.


In title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), WMD is defined for purposes of offenses committed against US citizens or within the US as including not only those items, but also any "destructive device" which is defined as

(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and
(C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.

[Scuba]

42. And the media is careful to always point out this distinction.

Conflating these definitions serves a purpose for those who want us fearful.

[derby378]

49. That describes the problem of redefining WMDs to a T

I know, I know, we're dealing with US criminal law, and Congress in its infinite wisdom has automagically (cue Tinkerbell's magic wand sound effect) transformed a bunch of non-WMDs into WMDs as far as our law books are concerned. Now that I think of it, some of those fireworks I set off in rural Texas come close to being labelled as WMDs. That's plenty reassuring.

[just1voice]

37. WMD discussion is "off the table", we must "look forward"

and everybody "has to contribute something" to our deficit reduction and "we're at war" in the "homeland".

It's all BS political spew, none of it makes any sense.

[onenote]

39. Because it fits within the definition adopted by Congress in 1994 and an assault weapon doesn't.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

[rrneck]

46. Hyperbole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear. This differentiates the term from more technical ones such as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons (CBRN).

Neither pressure cooker bombs or firearms are WMD's .

[ileus]

47. pressure cooker bombs aren't meant to save lives.

While what some call "assault weapons" are actually civilian firearms, designed and marketed to save lives.

Hard to defend your home and family with a bomb...Not so hard to defend your family with an AR with 30 round Pmag.

[TheKentuckian]

48. Neither are. Trying to make either one such is a lie.