Holy shit. You’re not even kidding! Check out the definition here. Under the definition, it says that it includes (among other things) anything that is a ‘destructive device’ as defined here which in turn includes,
any type of weapon...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...
This is so funny, it’s not even funny.
Note: the above links say it’s a U.S. Code prelim (i.e. some revisions might happen). But I found similar things here.
The Boston marathon bomber was charged with using WMDs...
That would totally make sense if the marathon bomber had managed to blow up an entire 42.2km course with one device. It’s less credible for the actual Boston [finishing line of a] marathon bomber.
It’s not that bad. At the very least, a destructive device must be “designed for use as a weapon” or else it doesn’t count. I’m still not sure why these things (the definition seems to include most guns, although I’m not sure what the bore measurements imply) are called “weapons of mass destruction”, though...
The bore measurement requirement excludes any guns of .50 caliber or under (or around 12.7 mm in metric) from the “destructive device” category for legal purposes, which covers most modern small arms. Aside from a handful of experimental or exotic weapons, the only real exceptions are a few Eastern Bloc heavy machine guns and anti-materiel rifles, which you’d have a hard time getting ahold of in the States anyway.
It’s common for black powder weapons to have larger bores -- .5 to .8 inches were typical calibers for colonial-era muskets—but they’re excluded from the “destructive device” category by a separate provision.
Like that under the US criminal definition of a Weapon of Mass Destruction almost anything that can disrupt a mass qualifies?
I guess there really were WMDs in Iraq.
Yes, it would be quite odd, if Aasd of Siria had possed it and Husein of Iraq had not possesed it, after all.
Holy shit. You’re not even kidding! Check out the definition here. Under the definition, it says that it includes (among other things) anything that is a ‘destructive device’ as defined here which in turn includes,
This is so funny, it’s not even funny.
Note: the above links say it’s a U.S. Code prelim (i.e. some revisions might happen). But I found similar things here.
The Boston marathon bomber was charged with using WMDs...
I actually did not know that. Thanks.
That would totally make sense if the marathon bomber had managed to blow up an entire 42.2km course with one device. It’s less credible for the actual Boston [finishing line of a] marathon bomber.
It’s not that bad. At the very least, a destructive device must be “designed for use as a weapon” or else it doesn’t count. I’m still not sure why these things (the definition seems to include most guns, although I’m not sure what the bore measurements imply) are called “weapons of mass destruction”, though...
The bore measurement requirement excludes any guns of .50 caliber or under (or around 12.7 mm in metric) from the “destructive device” category for legal purposes, which covers most modern small arms. Aside from a handful of experimental or exotic weapons, the only real exceptions are a few Eastern Bloc heavy machine guns and anti-materiel rifles, which you’d have a hard time getting ahold of in the States anyway.
It’s common for black powder weapons to have larger bores -- .5 to .8 inches were typical calibers for colonial-era muskets—but they’re excluded from the “destructive device” category by a separate provision.
Like a cannon from a civil war reenactment?
That is one of the deliberately excluded cases.
I want to believe this is a pun. That definition includes swords.
I thought that swords of mass destruction exist only in anime.
Cut a piece off a body of mass, and its mass has been disrupted.