Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

itsrobert

(14,157 posts)
Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:34 PM Apr 2013

If a pressure cooker bomb is a WMD, why does that not apply to rifles like AR-15

That have killed by far more people?


Is a gun a WMD if a pressure cooker bomb is defined as one too?


1 vote, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
Yes
1 (100%)
No
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
44 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If a pressure cooker bomb is a WMD, why does that not apply to rifles like AR-15 (Original Post) itsrobert Apr 2013 OP
I think a pressure cooker d_r Apr 2013 #1
Well.. supernaut Apr 2013 #2
By that definition handguns are WMDs. nt hack89 Apr 2013 #3
I'm not sure I'd call a cooker bomb a WMD either kudzu22 Apr 2013 #4
I believe he was charged G_j Apr 2013 #6
I guess they have a different definition kudzu22 Apr 2013 #8
Using the logic employed by the OP Crepuscular Apr 2013 #5
Certainly, automobiles have killed more people than crock pots. AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #11
US law says that is the case sarisataka Apr 2013 #7
any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury ...gun. spanone Apr 2013 #16
If you can't tell the difference between a gun and a bomb, for cryin' out loud, I can't help you. Bake Apr 2013 #18
So if one bomb blast = WMD, then Iraq had WMD. City Lights Apr 2013 #25
Frankly, I doubt the Boston bombs actually qualify as WMDs. Bake Apr 2013 #30
IMO, the Boston bombs shouldn't qualify, but Tsarnaev was charged with City Lights Apr 2013 #35
The definition of WMD is different from department to department. lob1 Apr 2013 #42
And pressure cooker. And cars. And planes. And lighters (catch a house on fire with one) The Straight Story Apr 2013 #22
Not according to 2332a sarisataka Apr 2013 #32
It's an absurd definition of the term. Joseph Ledger Apr 2013 #24
Yes MattBaggins Apr 2013 #26
All right then...what weapons do soldiers use that *aren't* WMDs? Joseph Ledger Apr 2013 #29
You will have to take that up with both the DoJ and DoD MattBaggins Apr 2013 #31
Agreed. Now we're dumbing down WMD. City Lights Apr 2013 #27
Under US law sarisataka Apr 2013 #33
I certainly agree that's how US law defines it. Joseph Ledger Apr 2013 #34
I agree sarisataka Apr 2013 #36
It's a definition giving big brother wide latitude to categorize any act by the un-cleansed indepat Apr 2013 #41
You have a question I can't answer. Life Long Dem Apr 2013 #9
you mean pressure cooker and no one has called pressure cookers wmds. NO ONE. cali Apr 2013 #10
they were charged with using a weapon of mass destruction. spanone Apr 2013 #17
yes, but is anyone calling pressure cookers wmd? fuck no. cali Apr 2013 #38
It was a pressure cooker bomb jmowreader Apr 2013 #12
Bill Maher said last night that if a pressure cooker bomb is considered WMD, City Lights Apr 2013 #13
i have wondered the same. 26 murdered in newtown ....was that not mass destruction? spanone Apr 2013 #14
At least one of them you can aim. (nt) The Straight Story Apr 2013 #15
Read the legislation and then start emoting. (nt) Posteritatis Apr 2013 #19
This message was self-deleted by its author Recursion Apr 2013 #20
It doesn't fit their meme...../nt think Apr 2013 #21
Because pressure cookers don't have the NRA, and millions of yahoos Hoyt Apr 2013 #23
I am so sick of our resident DU yahoos Skittles Apr 2013 #28
Please tell the admins. They need to hear this until it sinks in. Most Dems are not gun nuts. Electric Monk Apr 2013 #37
I'm the NBA and I vote! Deep13 Apr 2013 #40
Killing in succession is better than killing all at once? Deep13 Apr 2013 #39
Because Turbineguy Apr 2013 #43
good question. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #44

kudzu22

(1,273 posts)
8. I guess they have a different definition
Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:48 PM
Apr 2013

I think of WMDs as things that wipe out whole towns -- chemical, biological or nuclear. I suppose it could be that WMDs are just weapons that kill indiscriminately, as opposed to ones with specific targets. That would explain why rifles and handguns are not WMDs.

sarisataka

(18,217 posts)
7. US law says that is the case
Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:46 PM
Apr 2013

Definitions:

(2) the term “weapon of mass destruction” means—
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(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;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a
4(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.
The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684 (2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.

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

Bake

(21,977 posts)
18. If you can't tell the difference between a gun and a bomb, for cryin' out loud, I can't help you.
Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:13 PM
Apr 2013

One bomb blast, multiple deaths. One bullet, one death.

Is that simple enough?

Bake

Bake

(21,977 posts)
30. Frankly, I doubt the Boston bombs actually qualify as WMDs.
Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:35 PM
Apr 2013

For the exact reason you cite.

But handguns and rifles definitely do not qualify.

Bake

City Lights

(25,171 posts)
35. IMO, the Boston bombs shouldn't qualify, but Tsarnaev was charged with
Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:48 PM
Apr 2013

using them. IMO, it's a slippery slope. Based on the loose definition used in Boston, Iraq had them, and we are using them all over the Middle East.

On edit - I agree that handguns and rifles don't qualify either.

lob1

(3,820 posts)
42. The definition of WMD is different from department to department.
Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:51 PM
Apr 2013

The FBI calls a bomb a weapon of mass destruction, the pentagon doesn't. So no, Bush wasn't right even by accident.

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
22. And pressure cooker. And cars. And planes. And lighters (catch a house on fire with one)
Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:20 PM
Apr 2013

Shit, let's register everything we buy with the feds and have em ban everything they can.

Cause freedom sucks.

sarisataka

(18,217 posts)
32. Not according to 2332a
Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:43 PM
Apr 2013
through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors


explosives are defined as such in 921

I don't write the laws

MattBaggins

(7,894 posts)
31. You will have to take that up with both the DoJ and DoD
Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:39 PM
Apr 2013

See what definitions and categories they use. Ask them to reclassify grenades and your problem is solved.

sarisataka

(18,217 posts)
36. I agree
Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:52 PM
Apr 2013

I do not like diluting the term WMD. Those who equate a firearm as such are very sadly misinformed as to what an actual WMD does. West is more akin to a very, very, very small WMD.

indepat

(20,899 posts)
41. It's a definition giving big brother wide latitude to categorize any act by the un-cleansed
Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:21 PM
Apr 2013

as using a WMD so maximum punishment can be levied?

 

Life Long Dem

(8,582 posts)
9. You have a question I can't answer.
Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:51 PM
Apr 2013

Bombs can throw a lot of shrapnel and kill many people. But bullets are the AR-15's shrapnel which kill many people. You could say, bombs use a lot of powder. But then so do a lot of bullets when added up. So I don't know this answer. Maybe our representatives do?

"The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684 (2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes."

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

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
10. you mean pressure cooker and no one has called pressure cookers wmds. NO ONE.
Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:54 PM
Apr 2013

they've called bombs using pressure cookers wmds. there's a vast difference.

spanone

(135,633 posts)
17. they were charged with using a weapon of mass destruction.
Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:11 PM
Apr 2013
How Boston bombs qualify as ‘weapons of mass destruction


Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction, but two young Boston bombers did?

No doubt many Americans were a bit perplexed Monday when 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was federally charged with "using a weapon of mass destruction," even if the explosions at the Boston Marathon did result in three deaths and injuries to more than 170 people.

In the late 1990s, President Clinton and other top officials, in discussing the fears about the Iraq dictator, repeatedly used the term to describe chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons that could kill vast numbers in the Middle East.

The term grew to even greater currency with the Bush adminstration in the months before and after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. President Bush used the term four times in his 2003 State of the Union speech, warning that Hussein had the capability to produce enough anthrax and botulinum toxin to kill millions.

http://articles.philly.com/2013-04-24/news/38766063_1_boston-marathon-mass-destruction-saddam-hussein
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
38. yes, but is anyone calling pressure cookers wmd? fuck no.
Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:56 PM
Apr 2013

they're calling a bomb that blew the limbs off people a wmd. they used a pressure cooker to manufacture it. they also used ball bearing and nails and black powder and a circuit board.

this is not tough to grasp.

jmowreader

(50,451 posts)
12. It was a pressure cooker bomb
Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:02 PM
Apr 2013

A crock pot bomb is walking into the house and finding the $50 prime rib being turned into a pot roast.

City Lights

(25,171 posts)
13. Bill Maher said last night that if a pressure cooker bomb is considered WMD,
Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:02 PM
Apr 2013

then Iraq did indeed have WMD. There were bombs similar to this all over Iraq.

Response to itsrobert (Original post)

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
23. Because pressure cookers don't have the NRA, and millions of yahoos
Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:21 PM
Apr 2013

needing them to function and feel tough.

Deep13

(39,154 posts)
39. Killing in succession is better than killing all at once?
Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:09 PM
Apr 2013

Seriously, neither of them is a WMD. That term is generally limited to nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. The exception is that if there a place with oil the govt. wants to invade, then imaginary weapons also count.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If a pressure cooker bomb...