= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kindly comments on Minor, perspective changing facts - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (157)
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.
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.