General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf 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%) |
|
1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
d_r
(6,907 posts)not a crock pot.
supernaut
(44 posts)Neither a crock pot, nor a pressure cooker are protected by the 2nd amendment.
hack89
(39,171 posts)kudzu22
(1,273 posts)I think people just say that to get headlines.
G_j
(40,366 posts)with using a WMD.
kudzu22
(1,273 posts)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.
Crepuscular
(1,057 posts)why does it not apply to automobiles?
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)sarisataka
(18,217 posts)Definitions:
(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
(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
spanone
(135,633 posts)Bake
(21,977 posts)One bomb blast, multiple deaths. One bullet, one death.
Is that simple enough?
Bake
City Lights
(25,171 posts)Bush was right!
Bake
(21,977 posts)For the exact reason you cite.
But handguns and rifles definitely do not qualify.
Bake
City Lights
(25,171 posts)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)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)Shit, let's register everything we buy with the feds and have em ban everything they can.
Cause freedom sucks.
sarisataka
(18,217 posts)explosives are defined as such in 921
I don't write the laws
Joseph Ledger
(36 posts)Is a soldier using a WMD when he fires a grenade?
MattBaggins
(7,894 posts)Joseph Ledger
(36 posts)Anything besides bayonets?
MattBaggins
(7,894 posts)See what definitions and categories they use. Ask them to reclassify grenades and your problem is solved.
City Lights
(25,171 posts)sarisataka
(18,217 posts)yes.
Internationally the definitions are different, through law and treaty
Joseph Ledger
(36 posts)I just think it's a silly use of the term.
sarisataka
(18,217 posts)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)as using a WMD so maximum punishment can be levied?
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)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)they've called bombs using pressure cookers wmds. there's a vast difference.
spanone
(135,633 posts)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)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)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)then Iraq did indeed have WMD. There were bombs similar to this all over Iraq.
spanone
(135,633 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Response to itsrobert (Original post)
Recursion This message was self-deleted by its author.
think
(11,641 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)needing them to function and feel tough.
Skittles
(152,964 posts)pimping for guns, day after day
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Deep13
(39,154 posts)I don't want the govahment taking away my homemade bombs!
Deep13
(39,154 posts)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.
Turbineguy
(37,208 posts)the makers of such bombs do not pay the NRA.