Really?
A dry ice bomb is a Destructive Device?
How about Mentos in a diet coke?
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
July 2nd, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Does that make having a bottle constructive possession?
July 2nd, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Almost all household objects have some use in constructing explosives, incendiaries or harmful chemical agents.
Possessing (for example) a bottle, aluminum foil and “works” toilet bowl cleaner in them self is not really an issue, provided that those items be in an “appropriate” place.
To have thee three items in one cupboard with instructions nearby detailing how to assemble them into a chemical bomb is a very serious issue though.
The pressure device that these items could be assembled into is most certainly a dangerous device, as is a dry ice bomb, though a dry ice bomb doesn’t disperse chemicals that’ll blind you, only give you chemical burns … so there’s that.
I’ve actually blogged about this before and linked to a pretty decent news report which is still active*.
(If you’re wondering; I have a degree in chemistry and multiple years of experience with “high energy chemistry” I am quite at home in these things and their potential detestation. Though these “bombs” are harmless fun 99% of the time, people do lose their fingers to them once in a while, one kid had his nads blown off and got a Darwin award for it I might add)
* ( http://mglv.blogspot.com/2008/04/infamous-works-bomb-makes-news-again.html )
July 2nd, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Michael,
While fun to read, Darwin awards are by and large complete fabrications.
Uncle,
Mentos and coke would qualify as a destructive device if you were able to get the cap on fast enough.