Can we call a Glock 9 a Weapon of Mass Destruction?

[Philosoraptor]

Aren't ALL guns wmd's? Aren't there thousands upon thousands of U.S. citizens who are dangerously unstable with easy access to cheap wmd's? Aren't these people terrorists?

Aren't we always talking about weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists? Isn't our nation absolutely drowning in weapons of mass destruction?

Fuck all those missing wmd's, I know right where they are.

[hang a left]

1. I. Am. Trying. to. Stay. Calm. nt

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Little Wing]

29. Good thing you don't own a gun.. No, wait a minute

:eyes:

[REP]

2. No.

[onehandle]

3. Yep. A ticking time bomb tucked away in clothes and ankle holsters, nt

[ET Awful]

4. Sure, why not, after all, we don't want the smoking gun to be a smoking gun.

:sarcasm:

[MadHound]

5. No, the Glock is just a weapon.

The real WMD are the people whose hands guns go into, you know, those folks who decide to kill. That's the real WMD.

[BushOut06]

8. Um, sure - and a nuke is just a little bit of radioactive material

Nukes don't kill people - only the countries that use them. :sarcasm:

Looks like the NRA bumper stickers are alive and kicking here on DU.

[MadHound]

11. Look, you can take away all the guns you want, and you know what?

You will still have incidents like this occurring, just using different weapons. Hell, I can kill a hell of a lot more people with a fully gassed rental car, a few mothballs and some scotch tape. Take out a building and a hell of lot more people. Any person who's halfway bright about chemistry can figure this one, and a lot more nasty shit you can do with common items.

What we need to address to cure this problem are the stresses and strains in our society that cause people to go over the edge into the abyss. Canada has more guns per capita that we do, yet they don't experience these sort of incidents. Of course they have a sane, less stressful society. Geez, is it any wonder that people are going off the deep end? Massive workloads, trying to find time for the family, keep up with the Jones, fed a constant diet of violence in the media, etc. etc. ad nauseum. It is these problems, these stresses we need to address in order to come to a real solution. Slapping a band aid on the problem, like say banning all guns, will not solve the problem. You'll just see these people, who are bent on destruction, carrying out their insanity with a different weapon.

Oh, and for your information, I'm not an NRA member, but it's nice to see you jumping to such conclusions:eyes:

[EstimatedProphet]

17. Absolutely!

Until we fix the problems in our society we will just be avoiding them. Ban guns, and people will pick up swords and knives. And we will never address the real problems.

[hang a left]

18. So now you are trying to compare a handgun to a nuke?????

Ya gotta do better than that.

[BushOut06]

28. A weapon is a weapon

Both are designed for one purpose and one purpose only - to KILL.

[hang a left]

30. hmmmmm

I think you may be off topic here.

[Beelzebud]

31. Yeah but not all weapons are WMD... There is a HUGE difference.

[kiki]

24. LOL - "Nukes don't kill people, Einstein did."

[durrrty libby]

6. Well of course they are all WMDs. Only someone living in denial

would disagree

[Irreverend IX]

9. A .35 inch hole punched in something does not constitute "mass destruction." nt

[durrrty libby]

10. If you are the "something" it is, but you go right ahead and live

in phony baloney world. It suits so many

[Irreverend IX]

12. Mass destruction kind of implies destroying many things at the same time.

Guns inflict precise, focused destruction.

[soothsayer]

13. nope.

[zbdent]

14. Funny how it seems that nobody called him a "homicidal" whatever ...

remember, it's not a "suicide bomber", it's a "homicide bomber" ... Right?

So, this act, committed with handguns ... normally that would be called a homicide, Right? (Right as in capital RRRRR)

[MrSlayer]

15. No, come on.

It's a tool that's only purpose is to kill, true. And, given the proper situation, could kill a whole lot of people but it's not the same as a nuke or a yellow rain shell or the like. It's main purpose is not to wipe out massive amounts of people.

[Philosoraptor]

16. But there are millions of them.

And collectively, they cause mass destruction, all you need do is the math.

[hang a left]

19. OK Philosoraptor

I am sending you some cotton balls and nail polish remover and that is what you will have to defend yourself and your property.

And if you want to date me...I suggest you buy some pink polish.

[Philosoraptor]

21. I have a 44. special.

And several other fire arms. I once owned a Glock 40. I truly consider guns wmd's.

[hang a left]

22. Those are hand guns....are they not?

They are what most people have in their bedrooms to repel intruders. Those ARE NOT weapons of mass destruction. Have you gone delirious on us??

[Beelzebud]

35. So a gun can destroy an entire city in one shot? Wow!

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Now that is an interesting concept for sci fi though

Pull the trigger, there goes a whole city

Falls in the same category (rejected by the way) as the nuclear hand grenade.

Somehow nobody in the army could throw that one the requisite five miles to be out of the lethal zone.

Oh and that last bit, true story

:-)

[Beelzebud]

42. They did have nuclear tipped RPG's in Germany pointed at the front lines.

Can you imagine firing a nuclear tipped grenade from a tri-pod mounted mortar? They had them.

[MrSlayer]

20. Bah, that's no argument to consider a single Glock a WMD.

Which is what your original statement says. Come on.

[soothsayer]

26. then call them 'mass weapons of destruction' but not the other

[kiki]

23. Good point.

The best line in the otherwise mediocre Nicolas Cage vehicle Lord of War suggests that the AK-47 should be considered a weapon of mass destruction. Its virus-like spread across the world's most troubled countries is unstoppable, and the carnage it causes is frequently indiscriminate.

[Ezlivin]

25. War is Peace

Stop aiding the destruction of the language. We've seen the Republicans do this sort of shit the past 6 years. Words mean something.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
Through the Looking Glass

A nuclear bomb is a weapon and it causes mass destruction. Hence, weapon of mass destruction.

A gun is a weapon that causes limited destruction. It is not a weapon of mass destruction.

We use the term WMD to differentiate one kind of weapon from another. It serves to clarify distinctions.

[Hangingon]

27. From Wiki - doesn't sound like a Glock fits

Weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a term used to describe a massive weapon with the capacity to indiscriminately kill large numbers of people. The phrase broadly encompasses several areas of weapon synthesis, including nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) and, increasingly, radiological weapons. There is controversy over when the term was first used, either in 1937 (in reference to the mass destruction of Guernica, Spain, by aerial bombardment) or in 1945 (with reference to nuclear weapons). Following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and progressing through the Cold War, the term came to refer more to non-conventional weapons. The phrase entered widespread popular usage in relation to the U.S.-led 2003 invasion of Iraq. Terms used in a military context include atomic, biological, and chemical warfare (ABC warfare), nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) after the invention of the hydrogen bomb, and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN), recognizing the threat of non-explosive radiological weapons.

[karlrschneider]

32. You can call it a coffee pot if you want.

Doesn't make it one.

[Beelzebud]

33. Sounds like Truthiness to me.

I think we should keep the definitions of things the way they are. A small caliber handgun isn't the same thing as a thermo-nuclear device...

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. no, a WMD needs certain things to qualify

I still need to aim my Glock to hit a target... mind you I'm not the best of shots so was oh so happy when I kept my rounds IN THE TARGET last time at the range

But I still need to take aim

A WMD is pretty much indiscriminate

If you are going to call a Glock a WMD, well a repeater crossbow could as well

By the way, WMDs are not a modern invention....

The ancients used biological warfare, well before we even came out with a theory of disease, by hurling plague infested bodies into cities (yep that is a WMD)

They also used massive bombardment using first ballistas and later on cannon.

But notice the difference between the Glock I sometimes fire (which is the equivalent of a repeating crossbow) and the other examples I gave you.

Another useful tactic was to starve cities and either pollute water supplies or cut them... both are part of total warfare.

Now tell me exactly how exactly these actions compare to either the repeating crossbow or the Glock.

[treestar]

36. No, let's leave that term for nukes and such

Mass destruction on a much higher level than can be done by one person.

[aikoaiko]

37. Only if you wish to seen as someone prone to hyperbole.

[slackmaster]

38. Writers who abuse hyperbole should be taken out and shot

Summary execution, baby.

[Beelzebud]

40. Another point. This is the same logic the right wing uses trying to justify Iraq.

[cgrindley]

41. No. You can't.

That's just ridiculous.

[NI4NI]

43. What's the difference between mass murder and mass destruction?

32 people killed in one shooting not destructive enough?

[Beelzebud]

44. Ask some of the people still suffering radiation sickness in Hiroshima or Nagasaki....

Ask the people of the Marshall Islands, that were forcefully evacuated when we covered them in fallout, testing Edward Teller's hydrogen bomb...

Ask the people of Los Vegas Nevada, which was covered in fallout many times in the 50's and 60's from atmospheric tests.

Ask the people of the world, now that we ALL contain minute traces of Plutonium in our systems as a direct result of atmospheric nuclear testing...