General Discussion

HockeyMom

(14,337 posts)

19. Adam Lanza versus the Boston Bombers

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 07:17 PM

Apr 2013

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

49 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why is a pressure-cooker bomb a "weapon of mass destruction" but [View all] no_hypocrisy Apr 2013 OP

Because the weapons industry buys Congress Narraback Apr 2013 #1

^^^ Exactly^^^ etherealtruth Apr 2013 #23

Cuisinart and Presto can't compete. nt hay rick Apr 2013 #30

In one. Sinks it. Robb Apr 2013 #33

There is this black ball ... Newest Reality Apr 2013 #2

Just a thought, but the bomb is anonymous while a shooter is generally hedgehog Apr 2013 #3

Only if the shooter commits suicide or is killed on the scene. Gormy Cuss Apr 2013 #29

cause we're a fucking insane nation? spanone Apr 2013 #4

I had the same thought last week... Isoldeblue Apr 2013 #5

Lord, I misread this for a moment Aerows Apr 2013 #6

Guns are legal to possess. Bombs are not. n-t Logical Apr 2013 #7

So, then Newest Reality Apr 2013 #8

No, because there's a specific definition of WMD under US criminal law. You should read it. (nt) Posteritatis Apr 2013 #20

Pressure cookers are legal. Warren Stupidity Apr 2013 #44

Who said a 'pressure cooker bomb' is a WMD? Jenoch Apr 2013 #9

The US Code. dems_rightnow Apr 2013 #10

Who is calling pressure-cooker bombs "weapons of mass destruction"? Marr Apr 2013 #11

This message was self-deleted by its author dairydog91 Apr 2013 #16

The US Code defines it dems_rightnow Apr 2013 #18

Well, a "destructive device" is not the same as a "weapon of mass destruction". Marr Apr 2013 #21

It is, yes. dems_rightnow Apr 2013 #27

Holy cow, so it is. I stand corrected. Marr Apr 2013 #28

No. This definition dates back to 1994 onenote Apr 2013 #43

So Bush was right ...... oldhippie Apr 2013 #38

Because "WMD" implies large-scale weapons. dairydog91 Apr 2013 #12

because neither are galileoreloaded Apr 2013 #13

Because there are no lobbyists for pressure cookers malaise Apr 2013 #14

Perhaps it is because a WMD will usually injure/maim/kill a large number of victims all at once, bike man Apr 2013 #15

WMD has a specific definition. Xithras Apr 2013 #17

So then we DID find WMD's in Iraq? Scuba Apr 2013 #36

Adam Lanza versus the Boston Bombers HockeyMom Apr 2013 #19

Tell that to the people tasked with the clean up of those childrens bodies at Newtown VanillaRhapsody Apr 2013 #22

You can't use a bomb to hunt LeftInTX Apr 2013 #24

Well you sure can use them to fish. Warren Stupidity Apr 2013 #45

Because a single 'shot' from it can injure multiple people/property. How hard is this reallY? The Straight Story Apr 2013 #25

It isn't. GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #26

Because a pressure-cooker bomb is NOT a WMD derby378 Apr 2013 #31

Apparently an RPG is a weapon of mass destruction neverforget Apr 2013 #32

maybe not in your experience, but as the page you link indicates onenote Apr 2013 #41

Slaughtering 20 children and 6 adults with a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle is NOT "mass destruction" El Fuego Apr 2013 #34

If cooker bombs are WMDs, then we found a whole bunch of WMDs in Iraq and Bush is a hero. Scuba Apr 2013 #35

The term has different definitions in different statutes onenote Apr 2013 #40

And the media is careful to always point out this distinction. Scuba Apr 2013 #42

That describes the problem of redefining WMDs to a T derby378 Apr 2013 #49

WMD discussion is "off the table", we must "look forward" just1voice Apr 2013 #37

Because it fits within the definition adopted by Congress in 1994 and an assault weapon doesn't. onenote Apr 2013 #39

Hyperbole. rrneck Apr 2013 #46

pressure cooker bombs aren't meant to save lives. ileus Apr 2013 #47

Neither are. Trying to make either one such is a lie. TheKentuckian Apr 2013 #48