Stabilizer comments on Minor, perspective changing facts - Less Wrong

38 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 22 April 2013 07:01PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (157)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: shminux 22 April 2013 10:17:16PM 6 points [-]

Like that under the US criminal definition of a Weapon of Mass Destruction almost anything that can disrupt a mass qualifies?

Comment author: Stabilizer 23 April 2013 01:41:14AM *  6 points [-]

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.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 23 April 2013 05:17:17AM 5 points [-]

The Boston marathon bomber was charged with using WMDs...

Comment author: wedrifid 23 April 2013 06:56:39AM 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Stabilizer 23 April 2013 06:50:12AM 2 points [-]

I actually did not know that. Thanks.

Comment author: Kindly 23 April 2013 02:04:43AM 2 points [-]

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...

Comment author: Nornagest 30 December 2014 06:56:06PM *  1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: BlazeOrangeDeer 23 April 2013 04:22:53AM 1 point [-]

Like a cannon from a civil war reenactment?

Comment author: Kindly 23 April 2013 11:41:48AM 2 points [-]

That is one of the deliberately excluded cases.