General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy is a pressure-cooker bomb a "weapon of mass destruction" but
an assault weapon with a large magazine isn't?
Narraback
(648 posts)nt
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)hay rick
(7,640 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)Well done.
Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)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
(36,286 posts)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
(30,884 posts)Think about the Newtown case -- had he just left after the killing, a similar process would have been needed to identify Lanza.
spanone
(135,875 posts)Isoldeblue
(1,135 posts)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
(39,961 posts)and thought that they were outlawing pressure cookers.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)if the possession of assault weapons became illegal, they would then become WMD's?
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)In fact pretty much everything they used was legal.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)dems_rightnow
(1,956 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)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.
Response to Marr (Reply #11)
dairydog91 This message was self-deleted by its author.
dems_rightnow
(1,956 posts)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
(20,317 posts)dems_rightnow
(1,956 posts)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
(20,317 posts)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
(42,761 posts)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
(3,249 posts)... there were WMD in Iraq?
dairydog91
(951 posts)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
(2,571 posts)malaise
(269,157 posts)bike man
(620 posts)while assault weapons only put out one projectile at a time (but rapidly), so it's one bullet = one victim.
Perhaps.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)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
(53,475 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)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
(21,115 posts)I have heard chilling details that there weren't actual bodies to recover per se.
LeftInTX
(25,555 posts)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
(48,181 posts)People used to fish with dynamite. I think it is pretty much frowned on these days.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)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)
" 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
(12,072 posts)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
(30,252 posts)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
(9,436 posts)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
(42,761 posts)a pressure cooker bomb clearly is a weapon of mass destruction for purposes of US criminal law (18 USC 2332a).
El Fuego
(6,502 posts)as defined by U.S. Code. It's just an exercise of Second Amendment rights
Scuba
(53,475 posts)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
(42,761 posts)Different portions of the law, with different purposes, and different definition
In title 50 ("War and National Defense" 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
(53,475 posts)Conflating these definitions serves a purpose for those who want us fearful.
derby378
(30,252 posts)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
(1,362 posts)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
(42,761 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)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
(15,396 posts)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.