Firearms or Weapons!


PDA






drj3828
December 27, 2006, 09:02 AM
Most of us here on the High Road most likely have Firearms, Now if you are in Military or Law Enforcement you carry weapons. This subject realy needs to be addressed when out in public and talking about guns in general. As a certified Four H rifle instructor we where taught that the rifles are rifles not weapons. We must practice this because in the Anti-gun world the word Weapon is very Bad, but when you say rifle or handgun they usualy don't panic.
My nephew who is a former Marine and his father who is a retiered Air Force officer does the same thing. So I have got onto them while there over the Holidays. They are both trying to correct themselfs from saying weapon.
Just remember a weapon is used for defense or offense, A rifle or hand gun is used for hunting or sporting purposes.

DRJ

If you enjoyed reading about "Firearms or Weapons!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
El Tejon
December 27, 2006, 09:04 AM
My firearms are weapons to be used against humans just as the Founding Fathers intended.:)

I have absolutely no interest in "sporting purposes."

crazed_ss
December 27, 2006, 09:15 AM
I refer to guns as weapons.. because that's what they are (at least the ones I own) .. Also, it may be a side effect of military training. We always referred to M-16's as "weapons" .. never gun or firearm.

Monkeybear
December 27, 2006, 09:19 AM
Anything can be a weapon; a firearm is a specific type of weapon.

shaggycat
December 27, 2006, 09:23 AM
Although I often say firearm out of habit, by your definition I own weapons. I shoot guns with the intention of developing a skill that can be used to protect myself or my family. That means my guns are for shooting at people, if, heaven forbid, I must.

The day that we accept that guns are only for sporting purposes is a sad day indeed. That mindset is one of the reasons Britain has the laws it does.

1911Tuner
December 27, 2006, 09:24 AM
I guess in the purely technical sense...Until it's used AS a weapon, it's a firearm. i.e. A Louisville Slugger is a baseball bat until ya swing it at somebody.

grizz5675
December 27, 2006, 10:39 AM
you dont want to call your firearm a weapon,if you had to defend yourself and shoot someone ,you could end up in court. It would be better for your case if you said firearm or even gun which implies target shooting or hunting.The term weapon would imply ,use to kill.

entropy
December 27, 2006, 10:43 AM
As a certified Four H rifle instructor we where taught that the rifles are rifles not weapons. We must practice this because in the Anti-gun world the word Weapon is very Bad, but when you say rifle or handgun they usualy don't panic.


As a certified 4-H rifle instructor and former military armorer, I use rifle, pistol , or shotgun accordingly when talking about them at a 4-H function, and whichever term I choose when I am not. I also make it clear these terms are of 4-H's choosing, not mine. All you semi-auto pistol aficianados will note that I used the term 'pistol' correctly to denote both semi-auto and revolving pistols, as well as single shot and others. The semi-auto crowd seems to have taken over the term 'pistol' to mean only semi-automatic pistols, when in fact, it includes all non-shoulder fired firearms.

<rectracts from rant mode>

FWIW, I mostly noted the use of the word weapon in the Army by those who didn't want to stop and think about which type it was, or in reference to several types at once, not wanting to catagorize them.

dfaugh
December 27, 2006, 10:48 AM
Because I needed a new hunting license (hadn't hunted in afew years), soulcn;t find an old licence I had to go through the "Hunter Safety Class" that's now required. Got off on the wrong foot, with the instructor, right away, when called a rifle a "weapon". It went downhill from there. (but I passed the test 100%---so THERE!)

Henry Bowman
December 27, 2006, 10:49 AM
My firearms are weapons to be used against humans just as the Founding Fathers intended.

I have absolutely no interest in "sporting purposes."Exacly my position as well.

kid_couteau
December 27, 2006, 10:50 AM
I read this somewhere once

The gun, the knife, the sword are all just tools

I AM THE WEAPON

Makes sense to me
Kid

Zero_DgZ
December 27, 2006, 10:54 AM
Plus one million to El Tejon.

I have guns for two purposes:

1. Shooting targets, including fun targets that self destruct in an amusing manner, such as tannerite, cans of stale beer, jugs of water...
2. Shooting two legged critters that deserve to be shot, such as JBT's, out-of-hand government officials, and criminals.

I guess that makes me a "cold blooded killer" and a "ticking time bomb waiting to go off." Sorry, the second amendment exists for a reason. It has nothing to do with shooting Bambi, and I really have no interest in that sort of thing. Could I, in a survival situation? Sure. But it's less work and probably cheaper to buy pre-killed Bambi from the store when I am able.

If shooting Bambi is your thing I support you all the way. But don't confuse that with my fun of shooting tannerite and cans of stale beer, and don't confuse that with my right to shoot JBT's and criminals.

Glockfan.45
December 27, 2006, 10:59 AM
guess in the purely technical sense...Until it's used AS a weapon, it's a firearm. i.e. A Louisville Slugger is a baseball bat until ya swing it at somebody.


Not really correct being that the Louisville Slugger was intended to thump baseballs not skulls. To be purely technical a baseball bat would be an improvised weapon. Firearm is more P.C/puts a positive spin on it to the ignorant, weapon however is indeed the true nature of the beast. Ah word games are fun are they not?

Eleven Mike
December 27, 2006, 11:41 AM
An arm is a weapon, so it really makes little difference. "Gun" is pretty neutral, right? Why not say "gun"? Unless you've been brainwashed by military semantic nonsense. Besides, killing an animal involves a weapon, just as much as killing a human being.


Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: 3arm
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English armes (plural) weapons, from Anglo-French, from Latin arma
1 a : a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : FIREARM



Main Entry: fire·arm
Pronunciation: 'fI(-&)r-"ärm
Function: noun
: a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder -- usually used of small arms

Waywatcher
December 27, 2006, 11:47 AM
Anything can be a weapon; a firearm is a specific type of weapon.

He's got it. A pistol/rifle/shotgun is both a firearm and a weapon; the terms are not mutually exclusive.

DoubleTapDrew
December 27, 2006, 11:49 AM
"This is my rifle, this is my gun..." :p

You make an interesting point. I never refer to them as weapons, as I see them as tools. Some help propel a hunk of metal at a high speed, some are sharp to aid in slicing through materials, etc. I do refer to them as guns, rifles, pistols, or firearms. I decide whether to use them as weapons.

shaggycat
December 27, 2006, 11:59 AM
I guess in the purely technical sense...Until it's used AS a weapon, it's a firearm. i.e. A Louisville Slugger is a baseball bat until ya swing it at somebody.

By that logic, Iran could develop nuclear bombs that are not "weapons" because they haven't blown anyone up with them yet. That would mean the hot off the lines m4 issued to a soldier in peacetime isn't a weapon, even if it goes on patrol in a combat zone because it hasn't shot at anyone.

nplant
December 27, 2006, 12:16 PM
Not to fuel any fires, but guns were designed as weapons. They weren't designed to shine shoes, or wash dishes, or build other tools - they were made with the express and explicit purpose of hurling a projectile much faster than humans are capable of with just about any other tool.

That said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the idea that a gun is a tool. It's a specific tool, and an important one, but it's still just a tool. It has no will of its own, and it depends on the operator for instructions (i.e. when to release it's payload).

For people that already understand this, there should be NO qualms referring to it as a weapon. In fact, I would argue that more people that understand guns and how they work, and why and when we use them (as tools), the safer we'll be because there won't be any BS dancing around the issues. The problem with the semantics usually comes about because an anti has some problem with the reality that there are bad people and weapons in the world, and this means that sometimes bad people use weapons against the rest of us.

For me, I generally refer to guns as specifically as I can (as to type) when talking to people that I don't know, or know they are scared or uneasy with them. For example, I will say, "Let's go to the range and shoot my handgun/rifle/shotgun" instead of "Let's go to the range and shoot my firearm/weapon." As they get comfortable, then I begin to go into the whole self-defense issue, and the Second Ammendment. In my experience, I've had, precisely, one person decide that they didn't want to shoot again, out of nearly a hundred that I've personally introduced to shooting over the years.

orygunmike
December 27, 2006, 12:54 PM
When I went through training to become a certified NRA instructor....the training counselor was a real stickler for NOT using the term "weapon". If at anytime during the course you used the word "weapon", a rubber band was placed around your wrist.

Being raised by a former marine (dad)...I had a hard time not using the term 'weapon' and ended up having the most rubber bands around my wrist.

When I teach new shooters, I make every effort to use any term (firearm, gun, pistol, etc) other than "weapon". I agree that in a class room of students of varying degrees of experiene and backgrounds, or in a casual discussion with folks who may not be 'gun people', avoiding the use "weapon" is proper.

Eleven Mike
December 27, 2006, 01:04 PM
So, we don't want new shooters to think of their - uh, uh - their guns as weapons? "Don't worry guys, they're just warm and cuddly firearms. They won't hurt you."

I know I'm exagerating, but I take issue with this. We have got to stop hiding the fact that we are prepared to kill people - yes, KILL PEOPLE - if we must do so to defend ourselves. Unless you really are an extreme pacifist, you probably have at least one gun that you plan on using to KILL PEOPLE if your life is threatened in your home. We're told that using the term "weapon" might be used to show that you really wanted to kill the perp that assaulted you. Well, if that's such a big concern, then don't ever apply for a CCW. If that doesn't show an intent to kill an attacker, what does?

GEM
December 27, 2006, 01:05 PM
The protection of the 2nd Amendment is based on these objects being instruments of lethal force. It was not based on sport or hunting.

The sporting usage has been the center of gun rights organizations in the UK and Australia and did them no good. It is reasonable to argue that if they are just instruments of sport, that they are too dangerous to be uncontrolled or not strictly limited.

The purpose of these instruments is to prevent tyranny, protect the nation and yourself (associated loved ones).

Thus, I don't mind calling them weapons. That's why we have a right to them. They are not primarily tools or instruments of sport. That is a side effect of their existence.

If you try to hide their purpose, you fool no one except yourself.

LeonCarr
December 27, 2006, 01:14 PM
I usually refer to rifles as rifles, handguns as handguns, and shotguns as shotguns. Sometimes I refer to shotguns and rifles as long guns or long arms. I very seldom ever use the term weapon. As previously mentioned, any thing can be used as a weapon in an emergency, like a coffee table :).

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

JesseL
December 27, 2006, 01:20 PM
I've got a couple firearms that would make for pretty poor weapons and were never built to kill anything but paper (I'd hate to be stuck with a heavy barreled single shot Remington 37 in a fight).

I've also got a couple whose only purpose is to put a severe hurtin' on somebody, should the need arise.

I subscribe to the philosophy that these objects of metal and wood are tools, my mind is the weapon.

Otherguy Overby
December 27, 2006, 01:24 PM
Here in Arkansas there is a legal difference: A long gun is considered a firearm and can be carried most anywhere and in a vehicle. A handgun is considered to be a weapon and generally may not be carried without a license.

So, if you are on a journey in Arkansas and carrying a handgun in your car (exception in law) do remember to answer, if questioned by LEOs, that the handgun is for snakes. If you say "protection" they might reason you may have the intention to use it as a weapon...

meef
December 27, 2006, 01:33 PM
Zero_DgZ:I have guns for two purposes:

1. Shooting targets, including fun targets that self destruct in an amusing manner, such as tannerite, cans of stale beer, jugs of water...
2. Shooting two legged critters that deserve to be shot, such as JBT's, out-of-hand government officials, and criminals.Well now, that looks really good on a public bulletin board.

:cool:

GEM
December 27, 2006, 01:35 PM
All of this is to obfuscate the intention of the 2nd Amend. - IMHO.

That the law has some conditions on carry based on terminology or purpose implies that you have no right to the weapon. That some instruments would be crappy to use is really irrelevant to the RKBA issues involved in the terminlogy debates.

The right is based on the instrument being an instrument of lethal force to be used against other humans. That sound blood thirsty but is the only rationale that makes sense from a Constitutional point of view.

Zero_DgZ
December 27, 2006, 01:58 PM
Well now, that looks really good on a public bulletin board.

That's precisely the sort of paranoia that irritates me. Why should I (or you, or anybody) bend to the politically correct expectations of whoever? I'm supposed to mindlessly parrot that my arms are for hunting and shooting Bambi only, when they most certainly are not?

The second amendment exists for a reason. People need to get over it or move out and start their own country.

mpmarty
December 27, 2006, 02:17 PM
+1 Zero

Most CCW permits are concealed WEAPON permits. The intent of a small, portable device capable of rendering severe and immediate injury to others goes back to sharpened sticks and bones, to dirks and daggers, derringers and finally to what we carry today. Any and all of them are Weapons. My intent in carrying a .45 instead of a water pistol is to inflict maximum damage to an assailant in the minimum amount of time. Any other alleged intent is bogus.

meef
December 27, 2006, 02:37 PM
Zero_DgZ:That's precisely the sort of paranoia that irritates me. Why should I (or you, or anybody) bend to the politically correct expectations of whoever? I'm supposed to mindlessly parrot that my arms are for hunting and shooting Bambi only, when they most certainly are not?Call it paranoia if you like. I prefer to call it common sense. I don't recall anybody suggesting that hunting or shooting Bambi are the only purposes of firearms. If they did, I'd be in line to disagree with that.

Where you get the idea that beating your chest on this forum and suggesting shooting JBT's and out-of-hand government officials in any way promotes the objectives of THR is beyond me.

There are places where that sort of thing looks really good to the membership. I just don't think this is one of them, nor do I think it is appropriate here.

As always, just my opinion.

Zero_DgZ
December 27, 2006, 02:54 PM
A lot of leftists don't think that your very ownership of firearms is "appropriate." Where do you draw the line?

We can agree to disagree; That's fine. But I'm not going to be shushed because my opinion differs from anybody else's.

Eleven Mike
December 27, 2006, 02:55 PM
I repeat myself, but:

ARMS are WEAPONS. Any time you call something a FIREARM, you are calling it a WEAPON. What does one use to hunt deer or squirrel, or kill poisonous snakes, or slaughter beef cattle? A weapon. When you put out rat poison for its intended purpose, you are using a chemical weapon. An airgun can be a weapon, if you are using it as such. As has been stated, a baseball bat is the sort of thing that is not a weapon until it is stored, carried or used just for that purpose. The same applies to a screw-driver or a pot full of boiling water. Guns are tools, sure, but they're a class of tools that are usually also in the subset of tools that are weapons.

The only gun that could possibly not be considered a weapon are those so peculiarly crafted for target-shooting that they are obviously not meant for use in killing. Or we could count nail guns that use gunpowder propellant. Perhaps we could just define it this way; a weapon is a tool meant for hurting or killing a living thing.

Werewolf
December 27, 2006, 03:02 PM
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet.

William Shakespeare

SniperStraz
December 27, 2006, 03:09 PM
...I think it brings to mind just how dangerous these guns are. To say gun or firearm to someone who doesn't appreciate the damage it can cause seems alot like sugar coating to me.

CornCod
December 27, 2006, 03:16 PM
A firearm is a particular species of weapon. If it can be used to "kill people and break things" its a weapon. Let us not get obsessed with developing a counter-PC PC.

Eleven Mike
December 27, 2006, 03:34 PM
Great comment, corncod. I'll obsess a tad bit, and say that, if it is designed to be used to kill or break living things, it's a weapon.

10-Ring
December 27, 2006, 03:34 PM
For me it really depends on context. The context of the people involved & the subject of the conversation. If I'm talking to shooting buddies, it really doesn't matter - weapons or firearms. If I'm involved in a political discussion, the term firearm may be more PC

SuperNaut
December 27, 2006, 03:53 PM
From scary guns to scary words now eh?

Sorry PC folks I'm not changing the words I use just to help you be less frightened. :rolleyes:

Gbro
December 27, 2006, 05:55 PM
Orygunmike;
The same BS in my instructors course. But I ignored it, I will make the decision when and what to call my "linear heat engine".
Its Way Too Bad the NRA has to think its got to be politically correct. How can they defend our constitution? All political correctness does is make lyres and Hippocrates.
I think that is why I choose to be a RED NECK!

Gbro

Werewolf
December 27, 2006, 06:01 PM
Great comment, corncod. I'll obsess a tad bit, and say that, if it is designed to be used to kill or break living things, it's a weapon.Which means that with the exception of a very, very few firearms uniquely designed for target shooting (Anschutz comes to mind) that just about every firearm qualifies as a weapon.

Eleven Mike
December 27, 2006, 06:07 PM
Great comment, corncod. I'll obsess a tad bit, and say that, if it is designed to be used to kill or break living things, it's a weapon.
Which means that with the exception of a very, very few firearms uniquely designed for target shooting (Anschutz comes to mind) that just about every firearm qualifies as a weapon.

I suppose so. Is that bad?

yooper_sjd
December 27, 2006, 06:21 PM
a gun/weapon is desgined for one reason, and that is to destroy the target. wether it be stationary, four or two legged.:what:

Ala Dan
December 27, 2006, 06:57 PM
"to be feared and revered by all"~!

Gen. George Washington, General Of The Army and U.S. President

spartan55
December 27, 2006, 07:04 PM
"Anyone can use a weapon, but the ninja is a weapon"

Black ninja from GI joe

DoubleTapDrew
December 27, 2006, 07:15 PM
They taught me that knowing is half the battle!

The other half is destroying your opponent I reckon :D

meef
December 27, 2006, 07:24 PM
We can agree to disagree; That's fine. But I'm not going to be shushed because my opinion differs from anybody else's.Zero_DgZ, I doubt that you and I disagree too much on firearms and their multiple uses. I'm not attempting to shush you or anybody else.

The point that I do keep emphasizing - and this is going to be my last comment on it in this thread - is that suggesting "shooting two legged critters that deserve to be shot, such as JBT's and out-of-hand government officials" is out of place in any area of The High Road forums.

It hasn't got one single thing to do with being PC, but rather with sticking to the spirit of THR and the image that is presented of the members here.

I've seen way too many posts with the statement made in various forms that read along the lines of "If they mess with me, I'll blow 'em away, cold dead fingers, kill 'em all let God sort 'em out", etc., etc.

I guess I can't state my view any clearer than that, so I'm signing out of this one.

JesseL
December 27, 2006, 07:53 PM
meef:

You might want to ponder on a couple of images by the owner of THR (http://www.olegvolk.net/).

http://www.sunnimaravillosa.com/images/takesome.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v504/ZendoDeb/history/panther_s.jpg

meef
December 27, 2006, 08:02 PM
Okay, I'm back for the moment.

JesseL, you make a point too good to ignore.

Perhaps the powers that be here might want to set me straight on my opinion/interpretation as to what's appropriate and what's not?

:scrutiny:

Sharps-shooter
December 27, 2006, 08:07 PM
I don't usually use the word weapon, because it's too vague. Like calling a fork "utensil" or a book "document". I would talk about "weapons" if I meant guns and knives and swords and all of that, but "weapon" singular is too vague to refer to a specific object-- "hand me that weapon".

"Firearm" seems to be a composite of "fire"-- burning something, and "arm", the part of your body. This seems even more primitive than "bang stick", as it seems to presume that the gun is part of the human body, which burns. Like what a caveman might call a gun the first time he saw one.

I just like "gun", or rifle or pistol or shotgun or whatever. Plain, straightforward, and common.

sofltodd
December 27, 2006, 08:58 PM
In my mind a firearm is a gun used for non lethal applications such as the shooting sports. I'm sure it will sound odd to some but my machines guns I use for subgun competition I refer to as firearms as well as some pistols I use for targets only.

On the other end, my conceal carry pistols and a few of my other guns are weapons. I train to defend my life with them. If needed I will use them to stop those who which to harm me and mine. It is really that black and white.

In my eyes in a sporting environment they are firearms in a tactical situation they are weapons. I have had several discussions on this topic with many people and I think if you pay attention to the words used and dig deeper into the person using it you will find that often those who view a gun primarily as a dangerous thing used for killing will call them weapons. Those who see the true duality of guns as both life taker and savers as well as sporting tools will use the word firearm.

Good post.


-Todd

Vairochana
December 27, 2006, 10:48 PM
In Australia Self Defence is not considered a "genuine reason" for owning firearms.
Therefore all of my firearms are for "recreationl/sporting use" and "destruction of feral species".

Eleven Mike
December 27, 2006, 11:22 PM
Arm is a synonym for weapon. A firearm is a weapon by definition. I will repeat this until some of you begin to think it through.

Merriam-Webster

Arm: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : FIREARM
Etymology: Middle English armes (plural) weapons, from Anglo-French, from Latin arma


fire·arm : noun
: a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder


ARMS are WEAPONS. Any time you call something a FIREARM, you are calling it a WEAPON. What does one use to hunt deer or squirrel, or kill poisonous snakes, or slaughter beef cattle? A weapon. If your hunting rifle is not a weapon, you had better drop it and go get one, because that is what one uses to kill an animal. When you put out rat poison for its intended purpose, you are using a chemical weapon. An airgun can be a weapon, if you are using it as such. As has been stated, a baseball bat is the sort of thing that is not a weapon until it is stored, carried or used just for that purpose. The same applies to a screw-driver or a pot full of boiling water. Guns are tools, sure, but they're a class of tools that are usually also in the subset of tools that are weapons.

The only gun that could possibly not be considered a weapon are those so peculiarly crafted for target-shooting that they are obviously not meant for use in killing. Or we could count nail guns that use gunpowder propellant. Perhaps we could just define it this way; a weapon is a tool meant for hurting or killing a living thing.

Eleven Mike
December 27, 2006, 11:28 PM
The gun, the knife, the sword are all just tools

I AM THE WEAPON

Rubbish. That's like saying; "My computer is just a tool, I am the web browser." If you're using a weapon to kill someone or something, you are not the weapon. You are the killer.

rchernandez
December 27, 2006, 11:34 PM
For now, they remain:


Precision paper punching equipment.


...that's for now.

RioShooter
December 27, 2006, 11:38 PM
At a recent IDPA match, I was the RO and used to command "holster your weapon" as the IDPA rule book states. An NRA instructor who was competing began to give to me a lecture on why I should not use that term. I told him that my CCW is a weapon and that's what I'll continue to call it. I also told him that IDPA is not an NRA activity, and I would not follow their policies. He was of the opinion that NRA policies should take precedence over all others.

yooper_sjd
December 31, 2006, 11:18 AM
For now, they remain:


Precision paper punching equipment.


...that's for now.


well said rchernandez;)

ambush
December 31, 2006, 11:40 AM
This seems quite silly to me. Do we have an abundance of lawyers here?? Although it apparently matters to some, I personally do not care what you call my firearms, rifles, pistols, shotguns, weapons, etc...just don't call me late for dinner. I mean really, is this that much of a big deal? Can what you call a rifle make a difference in a big way?? Enlighten me. I come here to learn.

GEM
December 31, 2006, 12:50 PM
There was a recent article on how the Australian gun ban was successful in reducing crime, rampage killings and suicides. We were discussing it on another list (don't have the reference here).

In the article, it was clearly stated that Australians do not accept the premise that guns are to be allowed in the hands of citizens for self-defense. That is unacceptable to Australian society. Thus, the revulsion over a rampage killing led their society to accept the bans.

Thus, gun were instruments of sport - and thus - bye, bye to all but sporting arms.

That is what comes from not seeing guns as weapons but tools or playthings. It negates the fundamental reason for the RKBA as we see it in the USA.

MBane666
December 31, 2006, 02:21 PM
I spent 5 years running the NSSF Media Education Program, working very successfully with the largely antigun national media; I have also handled "crisis" communications for the industry, have appeared on numerous radio and television programs and in articles in the national media discussing and supporting RKBA issues. It is fair to say that I have been one of the top media strategist in our fight.

I agree with GEM...when we play word games like this, we play into the hands of our enemies. Our enemies are many things, but "stupid" and "ignorant" they are not. The division between "sporting use arms" and "self-defense arms" and "military/LEO arms" is DISASTEROUS for our cause, because it plays directly into our enemies' primary strategy, which can be described simply as, "Divide and conquer."

Our enemies have said that they are willing to "take what they can get" — the goal is the complete elimination of firearms in civilian hands in the United States, but if they can get a .50BMG ban here and an "assault weapon" ban there, that's fine for now. The important thing is NOT that certain weapons will be prohibited, but that the PROHIBITION of a type of weapon is allowed to stand. Then it's a matter of expanding which weapons fall into the PROHIBITED class.

We shouldn't be giving them a handy list to choose from!

Our enemies draw no distinction between a 4-H target .22 rifle or a .50 BMG Barrett or an STI .38 Super "racegun" or a WWII vintage Colt 1911A1...they will, if we let them, take them all.

This idea of swaying the "public at large" by saying we're just "playing golf with guns" — as I've heard numerous times — is dangerous nonsense, because it sets up a scenario allowing that same public to say, "Well, if it's only 'play,' we prefer you 'play' with something that won't kill my kid from 50 yards away!"

I have used exotic target guns to "get inside" the media's preconceived notions about guns, but in EVERY SINGLE CASE I and my instructors have made the point that regardless of a gun's purpose design, each and every one is a potentially lethal weapon and we treat it accordingly.

I believe we are far better served by being WHAT WE ARE, people who through training, philosophy and skill use, carry and sometimes compete with a very specialized tool; a tool that unlike other tools, is protected under our fundamental laws. You'll notice in SHOOTING GALLERY I draw no distinction between types of guns or uses of guns...that is by intent.

My $0.02 worth...

Michael B

the pistolero
December 31, 2006, 06:49 PM
when we play word games like this, we play into the hands of our enemies.

I think this is more true if we let our enemies define the terms of the debate. Take, for example, the term "handgun." We all have seen how media outlets from sea to shining sea have taken this term and given it a hugely negative connotation. How that could be reversed, I don't know...but, taking that example and running with it, if you replace the term "handgun" with "defensive sidearm," it takes away that negative connotation and replaces it with something a little more neutral, and even more positive. And for another example, does anyone remember the whole Dihydrogen Monoxide Scare (http://www.snopes.com/science/dhmo.asp)? :evil:
In any event, I think if we're going to make any headway in the battle to retain our rights, the so-called word game is going to have to be a secondary or tertiary strategy. The primary strategy we're going to have to use goes more to the heart of the matter -- we need to get it through the heads of the public at large that there are just some out there who will only be stopped with lethal force -- and that using that force is right, just and moral and that not only is it our right, but our duty. And that's a much bigger mountain to climb...

smince
December 31, 2006, 09:55 PM
Funny thing is, some guy with only 12 posts got this whole thing started.:rolleyes:

A quote, I don't remember where it came from:
"Some see the glass as half empty. Some see the glass as half full. I see the glass as a weapon that can be used in an emergency".

Anything can be a tool or a weapon, from the 1911 on your hip to a drinking glass, a hammer or a #2 lead pencil. It is attitude and mind-set. Even the Anshutz or the Remington 37 mentioned in earlier posts. Use it to shoot the BG and take his AK or handgun from him.

Sorry if I shocked any of you "liberal gun owners":eek:

EDITED TO ADD: I'm a former NRA Personal Protection Instructor (early 90's) and I don't remember being told to not call it a weapon. Must be a new, PC thing?

JesseL
December 31, 2006, 10:40 PM
I'm going to start referring to all my guns as "soulless killing machines, brutal instruments of death and destruction":D .

wildburp
January 1, 2007, 01:18 AM
Can be deployed as weapons or recreational machines. Punch paper targets, or make bad guys bleed and die, it really does not matter as long as one uses the tool correctly. And let nobody infringe upon our rights, or we will use our tools to discourage them.

wb

Wes Janson
January 1, 2007, 01:41 AM
Let me see if I remember this correctly (I'm forgetting most of it and this may be inaccurate).

In the state of Florida, there are deadly weapons and there are weapons. Certain objects are considered to be weapons, but not deadly weapons until and unless used specifically in the commision of a crime. IE, a Louisville Slugger might be a weapon, but it's not a deadly weapon unless you attempt sidewalk reconfigurative surgery on someone's skull with one.


I'd agree that virtually all firearms are weapons and should be referred to as such interchangeably. Even an Anschutz target pistol could be used offensively against a person, if it really came down to it. However, some are indeed deadlier weapons than others.



And I agree completely with El Tejon. The only interesting "sporting purposes" are the ones that offer applicability elsewhere.

Eleven Mike
January 1, 2007, 03:51 AM
Funny thing is, some guy with only 12 posts got this whole thing started.
And what's funny about it? ??? I'm glad the issue was aired, as it demonstrated a silly misunderstanding that needs clearing up. Now, how can we straighten out the NRA on this?

Dr. Dickie
January 1, 2007, 05:31 AM
And if you really want to get picky, ships have guns, you have rifles or pistols.:evil:
It's a new year, and somebody has to stir the pot:neener:

Eleven Mike
January 1, 2007, 07:36 PM
Military brain-washing strikes again. Gun = firearm.

smince
January 1, 2007, 07:52 PM
What about:
GAT?
Piece?
Roscoe?
Heater?
Shootin' iron?
Smoke Pole?
Hogleg?
Ol' Slabsides?
:D

U.S.SFC_RET
January 1, 2007, 11:05 PM
You can call whatever rifle I have a rifle, that's fine if that's what you want to think. I am trained to use it as a weapon and as a weapon I will use it in a split second should I see fit to protect my family.

carpettbaggerr
January 2, 2007, 02:36 AM
The point that I do keep emphasizing - and this is going to be my last comment on it in this thread - is that suggesting "shooting two legged critters that deserve to be shot, such as JBT's and out-of-hand government officials" is out of place in any area of The High Road forums.

I'd have to disagree.

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0300.htm

Stachie
January 2, 2007, 03:54 AM
Publicly, I refer to them as firearms, guns, or pistols/rifles/shotguns. Among close friends or family, I refer to them as "weapons." In the end, my firearms are designed to take the lives of others in order to preserve mine.

Zoogster
January 2, 2007, 05:22 AM
Ugh I hate PC terms that turn into twisted logic people believe is reality years later.
Firearms are weapons, thier protection in the constitution is as a weapon to be used to deter and kill. That they are wonderfuly versatile and great for hunting and enjoying recreationaly in target shooting that is done far more than any 'weapon' use is just a bonus. Because shooting is a sport they are also a tool used in the sport. Because fencing exists the sword does not cease to be a weapon.

Trying to appease the gun grabbers by pretending the purpose of the RKBA is not in use as a weapon by being PC for them is playing a losing game. This is exactly what gun owners in the UK and Australia did. Now they can store thier 'sports tool' at the range (or disassembled ) or other place to use in the sport. They also no longer need anything dangerous as the weakest .22 is perfectly capable of any target sport requiring a pistol to make holes in something. So they gradualy are reduced to less and less powerful paper punchers.

Guns are weapons. They are also a fun tool for use in hobbies that help to train people in safer use of them as weapons for both defense of self, family and even country if called to action (draft will happen if attacked by a formidable opponent) in the future.

The protection of gun rights cannot exclude thier use as weapons or tools in hobbies for a loss of rights in either eventualy leads to loss for the other. If all you do is shoot at the range and the 'weapon use' is banned then you will suddenly be limited to calibers unreliable as potential manstoppers, with serious capacity limitations and such legislation that the hobby would suddenly require so much legal navigation and paperwork that it would be less enjoyable if possible at all and then only with specific boring calibers and low capicty severely limiting your recreational options. While if the hobby use is limited or restricted you have people much less skillful in safe proper use of the arms with so little practice that thier firing in self defense/weapon use would pose greater risk to themselves and other unintended targets.

It is the Right to Keep (not just use, but to keep yourself in your own possession) and Bear (present and use) Arms (refering to the firearms equal to those employed by the military soldiers in order to successfuly resist tyranny if necessary in case of improper use of the military against the civilians for the purpose of carrying out the tyranny of a dictator or tyranical government body or defending them from overthrow by the citizens.)
This was well thought out, infers both legal right to protect oneself and the firearms purpose in use as a weapon which is legal to own and posses unhindered for the purpose of killing those that pose a threat to safety or our freedom as citizens.

Trying to seperate the legal protection and main design purpose of firearms in use as weapons from thier use in sports to be more appealing to a wider audience is foolishness that will only lead to an eventual argument of why many types of firearms/ calibers/ accessories are needed for 'sporting purposes' as they exceed the needs of the sport and are only necessary for helping one kill things. Yet killing things is what they are protected by the
2nd to do.

mike101
January 2, 2007, 09:52 AM
I have an idea. How about we just call 'em guns?
:D

DnPRK
January 2, 2007, 09:54 AM
"Firearm" is what it is. "Weapon" can be one of it's uses, if you choose to use it as such.

Deanimator
January 2, 2007, 09:54 AM
I say "firearm" because that's what I was taught in the NRA instructor's course, and that's what's required to teach their material. Otherwise, I don't care.

Eleven Mike
January 2, 2007, 10:12 AM
"Firearm" is what it is. "Weapon" can be one of it's uses, Again, when you call something a firearm, you are calling it a weapon. "Arm" means weapon in that context.

broncoII
January 2, 2007, 10:14 AM
Ok my 2 cents woth. I call them firearms/pistol/rifle/shotgun/gun. A weapon is anything used for protection (knife/bat/finger/sharp stick). Oh and on the PC issue I say stick it where the sun don't shine, but thats my 2 cents,well 2.5 cents (inflation):rolleyes:

AdamXBT
January 2, 2007, 02:57 PM
Weapons Is A General Term Of Any Ofensive Or Defensive Object,Firearms IS A Sub-Term,Like Knife,Bo,Legs,Sword Or A Car If You Visualize Like A Arm.Thats Is My Opinion,Everybody Has One.;)

Carl N. Brown
January 2, 2007, 04:04 PM
Weapon describes a use of an object or tool,
like a knife or a firearm, that can have a lot
more uses that as a weapon.

Even firearms designed as weapons--military firearms
in particular--are more likely to be kept and used as
curios, relics, ornaments or recreational items, than
as weapons.

This is not to say that use was weapons is not legitimate--
since about 1972 my position has changed to the point
that I see self-defense as a valid reason to have a firearm
and no longer make apologies for owning certain guns
as dedicated weapons.

But again, weapon is a use: firearm is an object.

Eleven Mike
January 2, 2007, 04:07 PM
Again and again, when you call something a firearm, you are calling it a weapon. "Arm" means weapon in that context.

JohnKSa
January 2, 2007, 04:10 PM
NRA Instructor Doesn't Like the Word Weapon

At a recent IDPA match, I was the RO and used to command "holster your weapon" as the IDPA rule book states. An NRA instructor who was competing began to give to me a lecture on why I should not use that term. I told him that my CCW is a weapon and that's what I'll continue to call it. I also told him that IDPA is not an NRA activity, and I would not follow their policies. He was of the opinion that NRA policies should take precedence over all others.Yup, NRA training materials strongly discourage the use of the word weapon. I guess that makes sense in the basic safety classes where you're focusing exclusively on safety, use and maintenance, but they even carry it over to their defense oriented training. That seems a stretch...

Not calling a gun a weapon was the hardest part of getting my NRA instructor certifications.

Eleven Mike
January 2, 2007, 04:19 PM
I'm not giving up my NRA membership - but it's tempting.

If you enjoyed reading about "Firearms or Weapons!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!