Bombs Explode At Boston Marathon, Three Dead

[klunderbunker]

1) That's reaching insanely far, considering the "mass destruction" in question amounts to three dead people.

2) If bombs that kill 3 people are classed as WMDs, then how the heck does the US Government justify using "WMDs" in the form of every grenade, missile, shell and bomb that it supplies its armed forces with? Fuck, a bullet could be classed as a WMD if that's all it takes.

3) This is what happens when an actual WMD is deployed.

Boston is not a crater.

*deep breath*

Ok. Given that you are the most annoyingly stubborn person on the planet, I'll say you're right just so you'll drop this and I don't get into a four day debate over something that you'd like to go into ridiculous detail over.

 

[JGlass]

It doesn't hurt that Remix has a good argument here. If we call a bomb that kills three people a WMD, then what do call a nuclear bomb?

The damage these terrorists did was horrific, but calling this a WMD sets up an interesting president. That could make something like an assault weapon, or even just a handgun, able to be classified as a WMD.

 

[klunderbunker]

It doesn't hurt that Remix has a good argument here. If we call a bomb that kills three people a WMD, then what do call a nuclear bomb?

The damage these terrorists did was horrific, but calling this a WMD sets up an interesting president. That could make something like an assault weapon, or even just a handgun, able to be classified as a WMD.

It's a WMD because of the potential for damage it had, not the damage it does. To use his example, a grenade isn't a WMD because it's not going to hurt/kill a lot of people due to its low range of damage. If someone dropped a nuclear bomb over the arctic circle and it didn't hurt anyone, it's still a WMD because it had the potential to hurt that many people. A pressure cooker filled with nails and metal has the potential to kill/maim a lot of people, which it did. It was very lucky that only three were killed.

 

[JGlass]

It's a WMD because of the potential for damage it had, not the damage it does. To use his example, a grenade isn't a WMD because it's not going to hurt/kill a lot of people due to its low range of damage. If someone dropped a nuclear bomb over the arctic circle and it didn't hurt anyone, it's still a WMD because it had the potential to hurt that many people. A pressure cooker filled with nails and metal has the potential to kill/maim a lot of people, which it did. It was very lucky that only three were killed.

I'd like to know what you're basing this information off of, as I'm sure a well placed grenade can do just as much damage as a pressure cooker bomb.

 

[Alastor]

Under the law even a grenade can be defined as WMD.

 

[klunderbunker]

I'd like to know what you're basing this information off of, as I'm sure a well placed grenade can do just as much damage as a pressure cooker bomb.

I'm thinking hundreds or thousands of sharp pieces of metal flying at 330 miles per hour are going to be able to take out more people than a single grenade.

 

[Uncle Phatso]

Who the fuck cares... really. Jesus fucking Christ people. Debating over stuff like this... look at yourself. Really, I could understand if you were debating over something really revelant to the situation. KB tell him to shut the fuck up and move on, you're an admin you can do that. Good god, you people could "debate" over the amount of sugar on frosted flakes. Go do something with your day.

 

[klunderbunker]

Oh and one more thing before I go to bed. From the FBI's website, as in the organization in charge of the hunt for this guy:

What are Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are defined in US law (18 USC §2332a) as:

“(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title (i.e. explosive device);

In case you're wondering what is listed in said section 921:

(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;

So in other words, anything that explodes is defined by the FBI as a WMD.

 

[sidney]

Dear Rayne

At least as while you quoted Ayn Rand we know on which wing you stand. You do realize that while you are debating jingoistic opinions on both sides ( mine and yours )more innocent people were slaughtered by your arcane gun laws.If you had 9/11 happen every year you would go ( rightfully so ) mental. But that is the equivalent of how many people die each year.

Dear klunderbunker

Whilst i think you are a clever person you are woefully wrong on this. To quote your quote

" To use his example, a grenade isn't a WMD because it's not going to hurt/kill a lot of people due to its low range of damage "

You then quote

What are Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are defined in US law (18 USC §2332a) as:

“(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title (i.e. explosive device);

Which says

(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) GRENADE,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;

So which is it ?

Also according to the F.B.I. everything is a W.M.D. Bullets use an explosive propellent so therefore they are included.

 

[Alastor]

KB got owned....by himself.

 

[Rayne]

At least as while you quoted Ayn Rand we know on which wing you stand. You do realize that while you are debating jingoistic opinions on both sides ( mine and yours )more innocent people were slaughtered by your arcane gun laws.If you had 9/11 happen every year you would go ( rightfully so ) mental. But that is the equivalent of how many people die each year.

1) Pigeonholing someone based on the literature they've read is an idiot's move. A smart person's move would be reading literature you don't necessarily agree with and reflecting your morals and biases off of that.

2) Mentioning a character's name isn't "quoting" someone, but I'll forgive you, as you only brought it up in an attempt to criticize my beliefs through a very narrow understanding of the literature I've read. Furthermore, it was used in a context completely outside of the ideology of "Atlas Shrugged", and I didn't even name the right Taggart to complete the reference.

If you're going to cry and bitch about what someone's reading, you look terribly ignorant when you demonstrate that you haven't read it yourself. But hey, maybe you watched the movie. *slow clap*

3) "At least as while" is a sentence construction which allows us to know where you stand; as someone who does not know how to construct a sentence.

But most of all-

4) You didn't address a single thing I said, and instead went off on some tangent about gun laws.

Now, do you have anything to add that might have anything to do with my response to your post, or should I just expect another bizarre tangent having to do little with what's being discussed? Be thankful there are so many Brits on this board, if there weren't you'd be giving people a horrible representation of your countrymen.