Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: New WMD?

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    645
    If you don't define something, then people complain that there isn't any definition and therefore determinations are arbitrary.

    If you define it comprehensively, with ten or twenty degrees differentiating different levels of egregiousness, then people complain about excessive bureaucracy, and complain when even the twenty degrees aren't enough to differentiate two things that in their own minds should be considered differently.

    My personal preference would be to hinge the distinction on potential number of people harmed. It shouldn't be hard to come up with an objective way of determining what can harm whom - after all, the Mythbusters can very effectively do so.

    I would want any firearm with a larger clip to be classified as a WMD. The medium of dispensing harm shouldn't matter.

  2. #12
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    9,389
    Quote Originally Posted by bUU View Post
    I would want any firearm with a larger clip to be classified as a WMD. The medium of dispensing harm shouldn't matter.
    So, if the medium doesn't matter, should an airliner or train or cruise ship or high-rise building in an earthquake zone be classified as a WMD?
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    645
    Possession of such things should indeed be regulated, just like we regulate large stores of various chemicals which can be used for such purposes. Luckily, all of the items on your list are regulated.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    2,175
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    So, if the medium doesn't matter, should an airliner or train or cruise ship or high-rise building in an earthquake zone be classified as a WMD?
    Actually this discussion makes me think the whole WMD classification is pretty pointless - like bringing down a skyscrapers or a federal building using an airliner is somehow less heinous than if it was done with homemade explosives.

  5. #15
    Helper Gregg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Macondo (or is that my condo?)
    Posts
    4,015
    Intent should be considered from a couple of angles, including that of the manufacturer of a specific item along with the end user. The intent behind building a nuclear warhead seems obvious enough, but almost anything else can be used in a capacity other than what it was designed for so trying to include things like airliners would create a never ending loop. A pressure cooker isn't a weapon, IMO. The only way mine will ever hurt anyone is through negligence in it's use. If I were to adapt it in the same way the Boston bombers did it can obviously be used as a weapon although it is still only capable of inflicting damage in a very localized fashion so still not capable of mass destruction. Now if I filled that cooker with explosives and a couple pounds of ricin and blew it up at the Super Bowl killing thousands of people that would, again IMO, qualify as mass destruction.


    Quote Originally Posted by bUU View Post
    I would want any firearm with a larger clip to be classified as a WMD. The medium of dispensing harm shouldn't matter.
    I just don't understand the "large clip" argument. Smaller magazines won't stop a crazy person hell bent on inflicting harm, but I guess that's another debate. More on point, the notion of classifying a firearm as a WMD falls into the same argument that an airliner or a pressure cooker does. Ultimately it is the intent and later the associated actions of the end user that determines whether any item is harmful or not.
    "Back when I was a young boy all my aunts and uncles would poke me in the ribs at weddings saying your next! Your next! They stopped doing all that crap when I started doing it to them... at funerals!"

  6. #16
    Helper Gregg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Macondo (or is that my condo?)
    Posts
    4,015
    Quote Originally Posted by creaker View Post
    Actually this discussion makes me think the whole WMD classification is pretty pointless - like bringing down a skyscrapers or a federal building using an airliner is somehow less heinous than if it was done with homemade explosives.
    That's about where I'm ending up too, creaker.
    "Back when I was a young boy all my aunts and uncles would poke me in the ribs at weddings saying your next! Your next! They stopped doing all that crap when I started doing it to them... at funerals!"

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    645
    Quote Originally Posted by Gregg View Post
    Smaller magazines won't stop a crazy person hell bent on inflicting harm, but I guess that's another debate.
    I'm not so sure it is: The 'M' in WMD is "mass" meaning "a considerable assemblage, number, or quantity." It seeks to differentiate between violence aimed at individuals or small groups and violence aimed at larger groups.

  8. #18
    Helper Gregg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Macondo (or is that my condo?)
    Posts
    4,015
    Agreed, with the definition of "mass" at least. All I'm saying regarding classifying certain firearm/magazine combinations as WMDs is that a larger magazine does not make a firearm any more or less capable of inflicting 'mass' violence than multiple smaller magazines would. I'm not sure the outcome in Boston would have been any different if pressure cooker capacity were limited to 6 quarts instead of 12 quarts. Either way the damage is ultimately caused by the user of the tool, not the tool itself, which is why the WMD classification for common objects loses relevance when used in conjunction with small scale events.
    "Back when I was a young boy all my aunts and uncles would poke me in the ribs at weddings saying your next! Your next! They stopped doing all that crap when I started doing it to them... at funerals!"

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    9,656
    Is the purpose of classifying it as a WMD even for regulation (and how exactly do they plan to regulate pressure cookers, is anyone other than in jest proposing background checks or tracking of pressure cookers purchases or something?). If your plan for making society safe is tracking or banning everything that could possibly be used to make small bombs or weapons (including fertilizer and including gasoline - motor oil, gasoline - the amount in a tank of gas would more than suffice - so are molotov cocktails WMDS?) it seems to me you need a plan B.

    I've heard the only point of classifying it as a WMD is to make the death penalty an option. The people of MA have, quite rightly in my view, outlawed the death penalty, but it seems in this case you could have federal involvement WMD or not.

    Q: where did they learn about making pressure cooker bombs anyway?
    A: the anarachist COOKBOOK - da da dum (maybe the pressure cooker recipes edition)

    Sorry, that's bad . Remember folks pressure cookers don't kill people .... only outlaws will have pressure cookers ...
    Trees don't grow on money

  10. #20
    Senior Member Yossarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by bUU View Post
    I would want any firearm with a larger clip to be classified as a WMD.
    Well dang, there were WMDs in Iraq after all.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •