ATTENTION: Any Device designed ... SPECIFICALLY... to kill massive amounts of humans is a WMD !!!

[uponit7771]

ATTENTION: Any Device designed ... SPECIFICALLY... to kill massive amounts of humans in short amount of time with little human input or training is a WMD.


DO NOT NORMALIZE THE DEVICES THE YOUNG MAN USED !!!!
CALL THEM FOR WHAT THEY ARE !!!
WMDS !!!


That labeling is FACT not hyperbole


The Earth is round, Trump is a traitor, Water is wet and any device designed ... SPECIFICALLY ... to kill massive amounts of humans in a short time with little human input or training is a WMD.


WMDs' should NOT be able to be purchased by the general public ... PERIOD

[Fred Sanders]

1. Gun free zones are always in the buildings that politicians sit in to pass laws allowing guns

everywhere else...anyone else see the irony and hypocrisy?

[uponit7771]

2. +1

[Skittles]

3. but...it's not the rifle, it's capacity! I NEED THEM FOR COYOTES!

[uponit7771]

4. +1, I've heard all their excuses but this one stops them dead in their tracks. They ... KNOW ... the

... assault weapons were ... SPECIFICALLY ... designed to kill massive amounts of humans and a hand gun was not.

A bunch of stuff can be modified to kill a lot of people but the assault style rifles were designed to kill

[NickB79]

21. It is the capacity that's the problem

Canadians can legally own AR's, but are limited to 5-round magazines. They don't have mass shootings like the US.

Ban the magazines, and you functionally neuter the rifle. And nothing in the law prevents Congress from doing this right now. No Constitutional challenge routes. Legal under Heller. It should happen.

[mythology]

5. The counter argument would be that guns aren't designed soley to kill large number of people

And in a sense they would be correct just as you could use a car to run lots of people over doesn't make a car a weapon of mass destruction. You can maybe make an argument that the gun manufacturers and the NRA have a theoretical symbiotic relationship where the NRA gins up fear, so people buy guns, so gun manufacturers funnel money to the NRA, but that doesn't feel particularly strong.

Guns should be banned or at least severely restricted, but the logic here is faulty. They should be banned/restricted because people have proven themselves in capable of safely owning guns as a whole.

I think the better argument would be to argue that gun manufacturers have deliberately chosen to not make guns safer in the same way that car manufacturers and tobacco companies were found to have willingly made unsafe products. For car manufacturers, basic safety measures like seat belts are analogous to biometric safety methods. People can unlock their cell phone with a fingerprint or a face scan. Tobacco companies were found to have targeted groups more susceptible to their scam like kids. Gun manufacturers have worked hand in hand with the NRA to constantly bring up the fear of some bad guy with a gun, a message that has unfortunately been heard loud and clear by people who aren't mentally stable enough to own a gun.

[uponit7771]

6. True, the device the young man had ... IS... designed SPECIFICALLY to kill massive amounts of humans

... and they have no counter for that.

They know the AR-15 and its counter parts were designed to kill a lot of humans in a short amount of time and has the ability to do such unlike the hand gun and unlike the bolt action rifle or unlike shot gun.

[linuxman]

7. It'd be on you to prove they were designed for that express purpose then, right?

[uponit7771]

8. No, even Gumpers understand the device the young man used is modeled after a device used to kill ...

...SPECIFICALLY designed to kill massive amount of humans in a short amount of time with relative little human input or training.

There are some that obfuscate with asinine ass'd questions but the point is either ad homed or sunk

[linuxman]

9. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Your argument is bad, and you should feel bad.

[uponit7771]

10. Facts aren't bad, normalizing WMD use by general public is though

Please continue the position that the device used by the young man today was designed for skeet shooting or some shit.

[linuxman]

11. Well you certainly feel free to create your own "facts"

"Because I said so" is a pretty bad argument.

[uponit7771]

12. Fact not in dispute, the device the young man used today was modeled after and designed to kill ...

... massive amounts of humans in a short time.

You are free to take the position that it was modeled after and designed for something else other than killing massive amounts of humans in a short time.

Please make it an OP, should be interesting.

Reality isn't "because I said so"

[linuxman]

13. No, your assertion that the rifle it was modeled after

was designed to do that is nonsense. Please examine the origin of the M16, particularity in regard to design philosophy and performance parameters. Try as I might, I can't seem to find the part where someone said, "Dammit Jim, they aren't getting killed quick enough!" Even if that were the case, the lack of full auto functionality makes it entirely different, and more akin to a Remington model 8. Your comparison is superficial and facile.

[uponit7771]

14. So your position is the device is NOT designed to kill massive amounts of people...

... because there's lack of any written wording saying such or one or two minimal functions that can be easily added are missing?

Really?

As if said lack of similar wording about the M1A1 sans its gun gyro makes it a SUV ?!

Again, the opposite of my position on its face is illogical

But at least you feel comfortable arguing said device the young man used today was designed to tickle kitten bellies. (my wording of course)

On other sites they just cut and run

[linuxman]

15. Yep. But just not due to that.

Rifles are used for small, point target engagement with individuals. Historically, relatively few casualties on a battlefield are inflicted by individual small arms. The bulk are made up by explosive ordinance and crew-served weaponry, such as heavy machine guns. The fantasy of soldiers cleaning each other off the map wholesale with rifles is just that. Fantasy. Now, if you were making the argument that a Maxim gun, an 81mm mortar, or a mk19 grenade launcher were designed in such a way, I'd concede the point, though calling them WMDs is still a stretch.

[uponit7771]

16. I'm referring to the devices design not its efficacy on a battle field. Seeing...

... said device was used in a high school my point about keeping it out of the hands of Joe Blow citizens is amplified by your use of the battlefield setting.

High schools in the US aren't war fronts.

Also, on the battle field, there are ways to minimize the effects of all the weapons of war including the weapon the device the young man used today.

But

That doesn't make them ... ALL ... less of a WMD because their highest level of effectiveness can be minimized in a setting.

Its STILL a WMD because of what it was designed for and what it was modeled after.

Naw man, you can't call a grenade a firecracker because it wasn't used in a battle setting and it COULD be used to make big blast sounds ... its still a device designed to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time.

The grenade and the murder weapon used today were all designed to do just that very thing; kill a lot of humans in a short amount of time.

This sounds like a position resting on systematics vs substance of what the devise was design for and what it was modeled after.

[linuxman]

17. Way to miss the entire point.

Oh well, that settles it I guess. Dubya has been vindicated. WMDs were found all over Iraq. Hell, every Iraqi soldier had one. How about that?

Words mean things, regardless of your desire to re-purpose them for sensationalism.

[uponit7771]

18. So does context, in a non battlefield setting that device is a WMD. On the battle field ...

... the device might just be another something flinging metal its DESIGN was still to kill massive amounts of people.

Our schools and neighborhoods aren't war zones so why allow the weapons that permeate war zones or devices modeled after such weapons allowed to exist freely in those places?

I don't think it's hyperbole at all to call the murder weapon used today a WMD due to the context.

[Squinch]

19. WOW!!! Did you see this?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=311686

[Vinca]

20. I just heard a veteran of war talking about the purpose of assault rifles:

to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. I don't think it would be terribly hard to prove an assault rifle is a WMD.