HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » No Sane Govt Allows Its C...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:42 PM

No Sane Govt Allows Its Citizenry to Own Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs)

I'm getting fed up with the nitpicking about gun technology and terminology. Here's the bottom line. The govt should ban anyone from owning a weapon that has more than 6 bullets in its chamber. After 6, you should re-load. The reason for 6 bullets is because that's probably closest to the norm that most people have. Anything above 6 bullets should be deemed to be a WMD.

Now, is this going to prevent all gun deaths? No. Do laws against murder prevent all murders? No. Will criminals be able to get higher capacity guns? Probably. Terrorists are able to make bombs. We don't throw up our hands and give up trying to stop them.

33 replies, 1962 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 33 replies Author Time Post
Reply No Sane Govt Allows Its Citizenry to Own Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) (Original post)
Yavin4 Jan 2013 OP
Jenoch Jan 2013 #1
Travis_0004 Jan 2013 #26
rgbecker Jan 2013 #28
bobclark86 Jan 2013 #29
oldhippie Jan 2013 #30
tama Jan 2013 #2
2naSalit Jan 2013 #3
sarisataka Jan 2013 #4
Yavin4 Jan 2013 #6
sarisataka Jan 2013 #7
Yavin4 Jan 2013 #8
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #13
sarisataka Jan 2013 #16
Fire Walk With Me Jan 2013 #5
Puzzledtraveller Jan 2013 #9
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #10
Yavin4 Jan 2013 #11
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #14
Yavin4 Jan 2013 #15
hrmjustin Jan 2013 #17
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #18
Yavin4 Jan 2013 #19
Jarhead1775 Jan 2013 #20
seabeyond Jan 2013 #21
Recursion Jan 2013 #24
oldhippie Jan 2013 #31
Recursion Jan 2013 #33
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #32
beevul Jan 2013 #25
Travis_0004 Jan 2013 #27
guardian Jan 2013 #12
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #22
Heimer Jan 2013 #23

Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:46 PM

1. This will never work because

there is only room for one bullet in the chamber of a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 09:35 AM

26. My thoughts exactly.

In fact, if there was a gun with even 2 bullets in the chamber at the same time, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near it when it was fired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #26)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 09:42 AM

28. I love you guys keeping everybody up to speed about the terminology.

Nothing gets by you. Sharp as tacks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #28)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:47 AM

29. When writing legislation or proposing action...

terminology is vital.

Banning 30-round clips would do nothing, as you use three 10-round clips (a piece of spring steel) to load a 30-round magazine (the box that goes into the gun). Banning a 30-round magazine WOULD do something.

Being willfully ignorant of the terminology is like a Todd Aiken legislating about rape when he knows absolutely NOTHING about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #28)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:53 AM

30. If you get a law passed limiting all guns to one round per chamber .....

.... absolutely nothing will change. You have to use the right terminology or your law is useless, or worse, worthy of mockery. If you don't know what you are talking about, be prepare to be corrected. We're all here to learn, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:04 PM

2. Any herbalist knows how to make WMDs

 

from ingredients anyone can find and no Govt can ban.

So why are there no school killings by mass poisoning, but with guns? What do they symbolize?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:27 PM

3. It must be that

"Merikkin exceptionalism" that is all the rage these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:35 PM

4. Food for thought

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).
************************************************
Criminal (Civilian)
For the purposes of US Criminal law concerning terrorism, weapons of mass destruction are defined as:
any destructive device defined as any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clause.
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
any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector
any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life
************************************************
Because of its prolific use during this period, the American Dialect Society voted "weapons of mass destruction" (and its abbreviation, "WMD") the word of the year in 2002, and in 2003 Lake Superior State University added WMD to its list of terms banished for "Mis-use, Over-use and General Uselessness".
emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:40 PM

6. No matter what the great Lake Superior State University has to say...

It's a term that is used to define a weapon that kills people en masse. Nit picking the term does not counter the thrust of the argument.

Pedantry is not going to win your argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:45 PM

7. I find it is easier to win arguments

by not changing the meanings of commonly understood terms. If I call a duck a chicken is it a chicken? They are both birds.

Unlike many, I have no issue with the term 'assault weapons' in conversation; we know what we are talking about. In legislation, yes I will be more nit picky. But to refer to a small arm in the same terms as nuclear weapons is only trying to 'win' by muddying the water and sowing confusion.

Hyperbole is no better than pedantry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:51 PM

8. Whar weapon kills more people en masse at one time

a dirty bomb or an assault weapon? Look it up and get back to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:04 PM

13. A dirty bomb by a large amount

Any other questions based on your unique definition of terms?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:28 PM

16. No need to look it up

it is like asking if water is wet.

Say I want to cause carnage at a soft target, like an outdoor concert. I can easily get my AK on site with say 600 rounds in 20 magazines. On paper it has a rate of 600 rpm, reality is more like 100 rpm on full auto. That gives six minutes to use my ammo. Within 2-3 most people will have gone to cover, local security is likely already responding. If lucky, I have killed 30-60 and wounded about 100. Over time, maybe 10 die of their wounds.
The type of dirty bomb I am thinking of is easily made; the only difficult ingredient is the radio-actives. Placed in the crowd, also very easy, the explosion probably kills 100-150 at detonation wounding 200-300 more. Over time, 50 likely die of wounds and 500+ have shortened lifespans from radiation poisoning. I am not even on site when the bomb goes so local security is not an issue.

A hard target like the world series is more difficult to get into. Security makes the AK harder to get in and security will be returning fire almost immediately. The bomb is more difficult to place but still is possible. The placement is less than optimum so immediate casualties is likely halved though long term may be higher. I would get more publicity at the hard target if that is the goal instead of how many are killed.

So to answer, the dirty bomb is far more lethal and is the bottom end of what is considered a WMD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:39 PM

5. No sane government twice signs legislation allowing for the indefinite detention of its citizens

 

with neither trial nor representation (NDAA section 1021) or builds a murderous, terrorist drone empire within and without its borders. Yet both are in full swing. 64 drone bases are being built within the US, and law enforcement are after them, becoming increasingly militarized. wtf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:53 PM

9. Bravo Fire Walk With Me!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:15 PM

10. What you are calling the norm is not

Minimum for a modern handgun is 7 or 8 (depends on caliber) and the norm is 15-16.

Your misuse of the term WMD is not going to help things and diminishes any credibility you might otherwise have

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:26 PM

11. Okay. Guns should be restricted to 7 or 8 rounds. No one needs more than the minimum.

I have every right to use the term WMD to describe any weapon that can kill a mass of people in one single action. Killing 15-16 people is a mass of people.

Your fucking nit-picking every damn phrase and every fucking feature of a gun just shows you to be nothing more than an asshole.

If your kid was in that damn classroom, you would call that fucking gun a WMD.

You fucking asshat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #11)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:10 PM

14. Words have meaning, and they matter

if you want to have any credibility. Obviously that matters not in your case.

A more appropriate standard would be "what fits in the hand grip" for handguns.

A fucking gun is not a firearm...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:21 PM

15. The Sarin Gas Attack in the Subways of Japan Killed 13 People. The Newtown school shooter killed 26

The Sarin gas attack was coordinated with 5 people. The Newtown shooter was one person.

I stand by my choice of words to describe a WMD. You can disagree with me all you want. A weapon of mass destruction is something that can kill a mass of people in one short action.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #15)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:17 PM

17. Well said!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #15)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:26 PM

18. The term has real meaning, feel free to continue to embarrass yourself and hurt your cause

The rest of us will discuss things meaningfully and try to come to resolution

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #18)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:12 PM

19. You Do Whatever You Have To Do

I chose the term WMD because I am accurately defining it. Each word in the term has it own meaning.

Weapon = arm, or armament is a tool, device, equipment or instrument used in order to inflict damage or harm to enemies or other living beings, structures, or systems.

Mass = a considerable assemblage, number, or quantity

Destruction = the condition of being destroyed; demolition; annihilation.


An assault weapon, high capacity weapon, anything that can fire over 8 rounds without re-loading is in my humble opinion a WMD. As I've posted the Newtown shooter killed more people by himself with a Bushmaster than 5 different attackers did using Sarin gas on a Japanese subway.

In London, July 2005, it took 4 terrorists using 4 different bombs to kill 52 people. That's 13 kills per attacker. The Newtown killer killed 26 on his own in less time, and his weapon can be re-used unlike a bomb.

I'm sorry, but these assault weapons are indeed WMDs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #19)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:35 PM

20. By your definition

Bush did find WMD's in Iraq.

Care to rethink your hypothesis?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarhead1775 (Reply #20)


Response to Jarhead1775 (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:22 AM

24. We found some degraded pre-Gulf war munitions, and some precursors

And I can even use "we" here literally. But we found no active WMDs at any location where we thought they were.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #24)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:06 AM

31. The point was that by the OPs definition every AK-47 .....

.... found in Iraq was a WMD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #31)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:08 AM

33. *facepalm* thanks

That's what I get for reading at 3am.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarhead1775 (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:07 AM

32. Good catch...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:13 AM

25. Nonsense.

"I have every right to use the term WMD to describe any weapon that can kill a mass of people in one single action. Killing 15-16 people is a mass of people."

And everyone else has a right to laugh at you, and point out that it wasn't a "single action".

For each bullet fired, the trigger was pulled to fire it. 10 bullets - 10 trigger pulls.


You can "call" it a wmd, just like I can "call" a corvette a race car - but the act of "calling" something a wmd, does not make that thing a wmd, any more than me calling a corvette a race car makes it one.

Accuracy > hyperbole, and pointing that out, and pointing out the absurdity of the contrary, does not make one an asshat.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 09:41 AM

27. Is a bolt action rifle a WMD?

After all, Charles whitman killed 14 people, most with a bolt action rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:59 PM

12. "6 bullets in its chamber"

 

THAT would be interesting to see.

chambers hold one round/bullet each...


chambers hold one round/bullet each...


Unless you are talking about this...


Now that's what I call home protection!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:48 PM

22. Are you Bashar al-Assad?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:19 AM

23. Seriously?

Discussion on magazine capacity? Reloading takes less than ONE second. Can we discuss something that might at least make a 1,000th of a dent in US homocides?

Sorry felt the need to fix this for you:

"Now, is this going to prevent all gun deaths? Not even one. Do laws against murder prevent all murders? No. Will criminals be able to get higher capacity guns? Without a doubt. Terrorists are able to make bombs. We don't throw up our hands and give up trying to stop them." Exactly, you have to stop the person/badguy to stop the threat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread