I’m HIGHLY UNCOMFORTABLE with this. I’m NOT COMFORTABLE AT ALL with it, and here’s why:
The term “weapon of mass destruction” has typically been reserved for:
“Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties.”
This traditional definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction sets them apart from what is known as Conventional Weapons. “The terms conventional weapons generally refer to weapons that are in relatively wide use that are not weapons of mass destruction (e.g. nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons). Conventional weapons include small arms and light weapons, sea and land mines, as well as (non-nuclear) bombs, shells, rockets, missiles and cluster munitions.”
Many may remember George W.’s justification for invading Iraq was because of evidence that they had “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” (“Prior to the war, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom claimed that Iraq’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed a threat to their security and that of their coalition/regional allies”.)
Here’s the VERY UNCOMFORTABLE part…
If the term Weapon of Mass Destruction is being expanded to include a conventional bomb that killed only 3 people, then YOUR SHOTGUN, YOUR BASEBALL BAT, YOUR POCKET KNIFE — whatever your self-defense weapon of choice — can ALL be defined as Weapons of Mass Destruction.
And as we saw in the Iraq War, the entire fury of the U.S. Military AND the UN can fall upon you for exercising your right to employ their use!
© 2013, Dr. Phil Bryant
Dr. Bryant is an Assistant Professor of Management at Columbus State University and co-author of Managing Employee Turnover.