Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yavin4

(35,357 posts)
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:42 PM Jan 2013

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 = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
No Sane Govt Allows Its Citizenry to Own Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) (Original Post) Yavin4 Jan 2013 OP
This will never work because Jenoch Jan 2013 #1
My thoughts exactly. Travis_0004 Jan 2013 #26
I love you guys keeping everybody up to speed about the terminology. rgbecker Jan 2013 #28
When writing legislation or proposing action... bobclark86 Jan 2013 #29
If you get a law passed limiting all guns to one round per chamber ..... oldhippie Jan 2013 #30
Any herbalist knows how to make WMDs tama Jan 2013 #2
It must be that 2naSalit Jan 2013 #3
Food for thought sarisataka Jan 2013 #4
No matter what the great Lake Superior State University has to say... Yavin4 Jan 2013 #6
I find it is easier to win arguments sarisataka Jan 2013 #7
Whar weapon kills more people en masse at one time Yavin4 Jan 2013 #8
A dirty bomb by a large amount ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #13
No need to look it up sarisataka Jan 2013 #16
No sane government twice signs legislation allowing for the indefinite detention of its citizens Fire Walk With Me Jan 2013 #5
Bravo Fire Walk With Me! Puzzledtraveller Jan 2013 #9
What you are calling the norm is not ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #10
Okay. Guns should be restricted to 7 or 8 rounds. No one needs more than the minimum. Yavin4 Jan 2013 #11
Words have meaning, and they matter ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #14
The Sarin Gas Attack in the Subways of Japan Killed 13 People. The Newtown school shooter killed 26 Yavin4 Jan 2013 #15
Well said! hrmjustin Jan 2013 #17
The term has real meaning, feel free to continue to embarrass yourself and hurt your cause ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #18
You Do Whatever You Have To Do Yavin4 Jan 2013 #19
By your definition Jarhead1775 Jan 2013 #20
This message was self-deleted by its author seabeyond Jan 2013 #21
We found some degraded pre-Gulf war munitions, and some precursors Recursion Jan 2013 #24
The point was that by the OPs definition every AK-47 ..... oldhippie Jan 2013 #31
*facepalm* thanks Recursion Jan 2013 #33
Good catch... ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #32
Nonsense. beevul Jan 2013 #25
Is a bolt action rifle a WMD? Travis_0004 Jan 2013 #27
"6 bullets in its chamber" guardian Jan 2013 #12
Are you Bashar al-Assad? friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #22
Seriously? Heimer Jan 2013 #23
 

Travis_0004

(5,417 posts)
26. My thoughts exactly.
Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:35 AM
Jan 2013

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.

rgbecker

(4,806 posts)
28. I love you guys keeping everybody up to speed about the terminology.
Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:42 AM
Jan 2013

Nothing gets by you. Sharp as tacks.

bobclark86

(1,415 posts)
29. When writing legislation or proposing action...
Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:47 AM
Jan 2013

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.

 

oldhippie

(3,249 posts)
30. If you get a law passed limiting all guns to one round per chamber .....
Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:53 AM
Jan 2013

.... 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?

 

tama

(9,137 posts)
2. Any herbalist knows how to make WMDs
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:04 PM
Jan 2013

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?

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
4. Food for thought
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:35 PM
Jan 2013
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&quot 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

Yavin4

(35,357 posts)
6. No matter what the great Lake Superior State University has to say...
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:40 PM
Jan 2013

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.

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
7. I find it is easier to win arguments
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:45 PM
Jan 2013

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.

Yavin4

(35,357 posts)
8. Whar weapon kills more people en masse at one time
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:51 PM
Jan 2013

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

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
16. No need to look it up
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:28 PM
Jan 2013

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.

 

Fire Walk With Me

(38,893 posts)
5. No sane government twice signs legislation allowing for the indefinite detention of its citizens
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:39 PM
Jan 2013

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

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
10. What you are calling the norm is not
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:15 PM
Jan 2013

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

Yavin4

(35,357 posts)
11. Okay. Guns should be restricted to 7 or 8 rounds. No one needs more than the minimum.
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:26 PM
Jan 2013

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.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
14. Words have meaning, and they matter
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:10 PM
Jan 2013

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...

Yavin4

(35,357 posts)
15. The Sarin Gas Attack in the Subways of Japan Killed 13 People. The Newtown school shooter killed 26
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:21 PM
Jan 2013

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.



ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
18. The term has real meaning, feel free to continue to embarrass yourself and hurt your cause
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:26 PM
Jan 2013

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

Yavin4

(35,357 posts)
19. You Do Whatever You Have To Do
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:12 PM
Jan 2013

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.

Response to Jarhead1775 (Reply #20)

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
24. We found some degraded pre-Gulf war munitions, and some precursors
Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:22 AM
Jan 2013

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

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
25. Nonsense.
Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:13 AM
Jan 2013

"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.


 

Travis_0004

(5,417 posts)
27. Is a bolt action rifle a WMD?
Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:41 AM
Jan 2013

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

 

guardian

(2,282 posts)
12. "6 bullets in its chamber"
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:59 PM
Jan 2013

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!

Heimer

(63 posts)
23. Seriously?
Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:19 AM
Jan 2013

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»No Sane Govt Allows Its C...