Can "civility" coexist with....STUPIDITY??


August 6, 2004, 08:09 PM
I would post this in "General" where the subject is sticky, but it would be MOVED to here so I'll start here to begin with.

We are such easy targets. We even think we're "cool" to call a firearm a "weapon."

Can anything be more stupid than to refer to a firearm (which we KNOW is under attack by those who would disarm us) as a .....WEAPON?

Sure, we KNOW that it's proper and correct, but we ALSO know that EVERY POSSIBLE effort is being made to portray gun owners as .."violent."

And "weapon" is violent. No debate. A weapon protects or attacks.

Personally, I would like to see anyone who refers to a firearm as a "weapon" asked to leave any ranges.

Until we become POLITICALLY SMART, we will watch as we lose more and more of our RIGHT to keep and bear ARMS.

And the word "weapon" is not smart.

"Blade" magazine recently reported an incident of a man who got reamed for using a knife simply because he told the police that he had it for "protection." The court held that his statement of its being used for "protection" justified a "concealed WEAPON" charge whereas if he had simply been savvy enough to say he carried it for cutting things would have stopped the WEAPONS charge dead in its tracks.

I know this is beating a dead horse, but seeing a sticky thread on "civility" while VERY much warranted from my experience, made me think of seeing if there was a shred of political awareness glimmering in the muck that was capable of SEEING how the ....word...."weapon" harms our interests.

I doubt it but will always hope so.

Prove me wrong. Explain the advantages of convincing the public that what we own are WEAPONS.


If you enjoyed reading about "Can "civility" coexist with....STUPIDITY??" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
August 6, 2004, 08:21 PM
I am a firearms instructor for a youth shooting sports program at the county level and during our instructor training we were taught not to refer to firearms as weapons. I know it can be considered an operation in semantics or nit picky by some but I do my best to refer to them as firearms or as rifles, etc. and avoid the word weapon as we were instructed.

August 6, 2004, 08:38 PM
God bless ya, RR.

There is real HOPE if you were TAUGHT that.



August 6, 2004, 08:40 PM
The way I see it is that a firearm, knife, club, whatever, is a weapon. We all know they're weapons. We all know what happens when you mishandle a firearm, knife or other weapon. By using a more PC term to refer to a firearm we may be taking away some of the seriousness associated with the safe use of those firearms.

Having said that I do agree that some people are too squeamish to accept that a weapon can be used in a non-evil way.

Therefore, when discussion firearms with others in a general fashion the term "firearm" would probably be (as much as I hate to admit it) a better term to use. When in a training situation, teaching the safe and proper use of firearms the term "weapon" should not be shied away from as it imparts a much more serious tone to the average person and could help them realize the potential consequences of their actions.

August 6, 2004, 08:46 PM
I think the point of communicating with people is to convey information accurately and in a way that can easily be understood. If the word “weapon” is the most accurate word and the easiest way to convey my meaning then I will use it without hesitation. The only amendment that comes before the second is the first.

Common sense needs to win here. We don’t need to play games. We can’t be scared away from the truth to make our reasons and arguments more anti-gun friendly. Some people are anti-gun beyond reason and we can’t put enough sugar on top of our position to make them eat it. We need to let reality be our guide, and reality requires us to use the right word for what we’re trying to say.


Marko Kloos
August 6, 2004, 08:55 PM
A thing is what it is: that's the law of identity. By trying to obfuscate the term "weapon", you play into the hands of the reality-haters who want to call a thing something else in the attempt to wish themselves a different reality.

My gun is a weapon. That is its nature, and its purpose. A thing is what it is, not what we wish it to be. To pretend otherwise is to deny reality. If someone wants to delude themselves and call a set of teeth ornamental, that's their business. I have no desire to aid them in avoiding reality, and I don't give a hoot about how they feel about the whole thing.

R.H. Lee
August 6, 2004, 08:59 PM
I'm convinced. I think I'll paint my 1911 pink and call it "Fluffy".

August 6, 2004, 09:00 PM
"What fools these mortals be."


And "pucked" is what we gonna be. Righteous, correct, valiant, brave, and handsome.......but "pucked" nevertheless.

Good for the "weapon" principles. We shall win by dint of RIGHT!

How happy it must make the antis to know that we are tactically outGUNNED.

:D :D :D

August 6, 2004, 09:04 PM
Marko.....LOOK said "teeth."

I'm sure you meant "mandibular weapons" as people usually BITE to protect themselves.


August 6, 2004, 09:05 PM
I generally use firearm, gun, pistol, revolver, rifle, etc. I almost never use weapon. But then many of my guns are range guns, and I therefore don't consider those weapons. Now, my defensive guns, those I do consider weapons, though I just call them guns or firearms. But every firearm I don't necessarily consider a "weapon" as that's not it's intended use, although it could still serve that capacity.

August 6, 2004, 09:10 PM
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
But calling a rose "dung" will make people not take you seriously.

Brian Williams
August 6, 2004, 09:11 PM
My firearms are tools and as a tool using Sheepdog, I will use these tools as a means of providing for my family by hunting, providing joy and fun by giving me something to occasionally play with in shooting events or other competition and when I have to use them as a weapon in self defense or defence of a sheep, then I and my weapon will be ready and available.

Til then, practice and preparation will suffice.

El Tejon
August 6, 2004, 09:15 PM
Arms are weapons. Weapons are used to fight. That is why, as the Supreme Court says, we have the Second Amendment.

My firearms are weapons. To persist in euphemisms is to deny reality and hurt our cause by debasing firearms to the status sporting goods, which they most assuredly are not.:)

Standing Wolf
August 6, 2004, 09:15 PM
People who are afraid to exercise their civil rights don't have them.

August 6, 2004, 09:16 PM
ssr....STOP! Stop immediately. Good sense and reason make it hard to call you "crazy."

Of COURSE all guns can be WEAPONS. That's the point of this debate.

But put something......ANYTHING......under a handkerchief on a table and label it a "weapon" and then put ....ANYTHING....else under another cloth and call it a "tool" and then ask ANY crowd (outside of prison) which they would rather show to their children.

We're not talking "nomenclature" here. This is called "strategy."

Something sorely lacking in the RKBA....."arsenal."


August 6, 2004, 09:29 PM
Look, I usually refer to my guns as either guns or firearms. I don’t know if I’ve ever used the word weapon to describe them, but I’m not going to avoid doing so.

It is important to carry on our fight to protect our rights with good strategy and foresight, but we will not serve our best interest by skewing reality by using more pleasant but less accurate words. People who refuse to understand why people defend themselves with weapons and not hugs and wishful thinking cannot be won over by the use of the word firearm as opposed to weapon.


August 6, 2004, 09:32 PM
I use the term that best applies to the firearm/application I'm talking about. My CCW gun is a weapon. My HD shotgun is a weapon. My scoped longgun is a hunting rifle. My .22LR pistols and rifles are target and/or plinking guns. My .410 shotgun is a rabbit gun. My government defined semi-automatic assault weapons are mainly target/plinking guns, although they could double as home defense or self defense rifles.

August 6, 2004, 11:18 PM
To avoid the term "weapon" is coy and disengenuous. We deride others for worrying about PC, and then do this. Uh uh. I/We are the good guys and girls, we should be proud to have weapons.

August 6, 2004, 11:43 PM
A weapon is anything I have in my hand while performing the act of assault.

It might be a gun, rifle, club or spatula.

If my rifle is out of ammo, with a bayonet its a bigass knife, no bayonet its a club to fetch more ammo. Either way, if I'm assaulting someone it's a weapon.

So if I hunt with a so called "assault weapon" it becomes a hunting rifle.

A box cutter is a tool unless used in assault, then it's a weapon.

So if I'm holding off an attack with an M-16, wouldn't it be a "defensive" weapon?

I'll stay with my usage of weapon, gun or rifle depending on the situation. Under the heading of weapon, the list is infinite.

It's not stupidity or civility, it's just the way it is.


August 7, 2004, 08:37 AM
If we want to stay with the tool discussion, guns are tools correct? They serve a purpose. Not all guns are designed to be weapons. My 22 plinkers, while they could be used as a weapon, are not the best design for a weapon. I have others that are better suited for that purpose. So I don't see a need to call my plinkers or range guns weapons, since that's not what I use them for and never will (probably).

I don't think we call every knife a weapon. Isn't that the same thing?

August 7, 2004, 11:15 AM
I'm and NRA instructor and a college English instructor, and I have some experience in several different areas that might apply when talking about which words to use.

Three language concepts to consider here.......

1) Context.....the surrounding ideas and people around the words being spoken.

2) Denotation.....the dictionary definition of the words being used.

3) Connotation....the emotional impact of the words being used.

In certain contexts, calling your guns "weapons" or "implements of nasty death" or even "blue helmet extermination machines" would be just fine and dandy.

The connotation of those words would be just fine, depending on the context.

In other contexts, calling your 12 gauge short-barreled riot shotgun anything more threatening than a "gun" or would be an absolute no-no.

The point I'm trying to make is this.......

There is really no such thing as words that should be never or always used in all circumstances.

Your words depend upon your circumstances and the context and the connotation you wish to communicate.

One more example.

I'm large and hairy and from the hills of Arkansas.

If one of my long-time friends hollered "Hey, ya big hairy redneck!" at me in my front yard, I'd just whoop and holler and call him a banjo-picking sister-raper, all in good fun, and we'd both laugh and have a beer and a cigar on the porch.

However, if on a city street, some Armani-suit wearin' sissy boy didn't like me standing too close to his chauffered limo, and rolled his window down to shout in a New Yawk accent, "Hey, ya big hairy redneck!" at me, I would not react with such good nature.

Folks who are truly good with language make their words fit whatever situation they are in.

The gangsta rapper Fitty Cent would never sell any concert tickets ever again if he began every show by approaching the microphone and saying calmly, "Good evening, my fellow Americans, and welcome to Detroit. It is so nice to see you all tonight."

Conversely, no President of the US will never begin a campaign speech by shouting, "Sup, Dee-troit? Weeee in thaaaa Haaaaay-oussssssse!"


August 8, 2004, 08:14 PM
Brian and others stole my thunder :uhoh:

August 8, 2004, 10:43 PM
Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. They have no right to keep and bear sporting goods.

Do you believe that there should be an assault weapons ban? How many times have you heard something like this?: " The frickin' things are designed to spray as much ammo as possible as fast as possible. By design, they're simply machines for killing; they're weapons! They have no sporting purpose!"

If you're not willing to vigorously argue that weapons in the hands of honest, law-abiding citizens are good, where does that leave you?


August 9, 2004, 12:13 AM
If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does the dog have?

August 9, 2004, 12:18 AM
Let's get the terminology correct and use it correctly when possible.

To me;

If it is a semi-automatic pistol call it a "pistol'.

If it has a rotating cylinder that turns one notch with each shot, call it a "revolver" or maybe even call it a "pistol"

If it has a long barrel and shoots a single slug, call it a "rifle".

If it has a long barrel and shoots a number pellets, call it a "shotgun" or a "scatter gun".

Frankly, to me pistol, revolver or rifle does not sound as threating as weapon or firearm.

Just my opinion.:rolleyes:

August 9, 2004, 03:28 AM
TimRB nailed it, exactly.


It seems that Iraq is to receive a new constitution. Why don't we give them ours? We aren't using it any more. -- John Sellis

Double Naught Spy
August 9, 2004, 07:24 AM
To answer the topic question, yes, civiliity can exist with stupidity. They are not mutually exclusive categories. I find it amusing that you are overly concerned with the gun-weapon politically correct distinction but fail to recognize that your contrasted categories of civility and stupidity are not mutually exclusive.

So Topgun, calling a gun a weapon is what you would consider as stupidity? Is that right?

I also find it amusing that you think that calling a gun a weapon is stupid. Given that stupidity refers to being unintelligent or slow of mind, that says a lot about what you are saying about the people who use the term. The amusing part is that you have assumed them to be stupid without consideration for being ignorant. A person can be extremely intelligent, but ignorant of a given topic. You might catch more flies using honey instead of vinegar. More than likely, folks calling guns weapons are not stupid as you imply, but ignorant to your reasoning and justification or to the distinctions of refering to the gun or weapon as would be appropriate given the context of speech.

Are these failings of term useage by you stupidity? No, but they do show ignorance. Ignorance is not the same as stupidity, but some stupid people are also ignorant as well.

As near as I can tell, you are just engaging in one of those silly politically correct conformations. You are not engaged in strategy nearly as much as you think, but nomenclature.

In getting to the idea of context of use, only rarely do I shoot just a "gun." I shoot a weapon as what I am doing is self defense training/practice. In that context, it is being used as a weapon and that is what it is.

Go shoot your guns all you want. I will train with my weapons.

August 9, 2004, 08:22 AM
Australian shooting organizations have been sending out pamphlets to gun owners for several years now begging, pleading and then demanding that firearms NEVER be referred to as "weapons".

Has anyone been keeping up with what is happening regarding 'gun control' in Australia?

The 'antis' want to ban ALL ownership of firearms by individuals.

They want to ban GUNS.

Semantics are not the issue here....:fire:

August 9, 2004, 12:27 PM
I use my guns to put holes in things. :)

If I went around talking about "weapons" it would scare my friends and family. They already know I am a gun lover. I do not want to be considered as a potential danger to them. Confidence is earned and it's a hard enough thing to gain when you're larger than them to begin with.

Many who refer to guns as weapons believe that guns are only good for killing people (cops). That's something I have not done and can't agree with even though I would use a gun to put holes in somebody if it was needed.

August 9, 2004, 01:19 PM
That's it. From now on I'm going to refer to guns as "poofers" because they go poof when I pull the trigger. That surely will keep people from implementing silly gun laws. Who knows, it may even bring about world peace.

BTW, please do not confuse my use of the word "refer" with my condoning the use of drugs or other controlled substances because it looks like the word "reefer.":rolleyes:

August 9, 2004, 03:28 PM
OK, henceforth I will refer to my 1911 as "my tool" as in, "I've got to clean my tool." or "The trigger on my tool needs some work."

August 9, 2004, 03:32 PM


Please, when in public keep your "tool" concealed. If you were to open carry your "tool" it might make the soccer moms uncomfortable.

August 9, 2004, 03:34 PM
My tool would make soccer moms VERY uncomfortable with its hair trigger....

Jeff White
August 9, 2004, 05:34 PM
It's time people in our society were brought back to reality. Firearms, knives, brickbats, broken bottles or any other tool you use to fight with are all weapons.

IMHO we are doing ourselves a disservice by allowing the antis to set the terms of the debate. Firearms are weapons...period. They are the tools that good men use to defend themselves and others and they are tools that bad men use to do evil upon others. Evil does exist in the world and we gain nothing by pretending that it doesn't.

I think that we are doing nothing but reinforcing the notion that only society at large may have weapons (through the police and military) by speaking of firearms as guns, or other non-threatening terms when referring to those weapins held in private hands. We need to get the average person comfortable with the idea that free men bear arms.


August 10, 2004, 05:14 AM
to the success of our preserving RKBA:

"We need to get the average person comfortable with the idea that free men bear arms."

August 10, 2004, 07:18 AM
Until we become POLITICALLY SMART, we will watch as we lose more and more of our RIGHT to keep and bear ARMS.

The right to keep and bear what? Speak up with that last bit; can't hear you. The right to keep and bear tools? The right to keep and bear toys?

Let's see what ol' Roget has to say about "ARMS", shall we?
Entry: arms
Function: noun
Definition: weaponry
Synonyms: accoutrements, armaments, artillery, equipment, firearms, guns, munitions, ordnance, panoply, weapons

Sounds to me like you have the right to keep and bear weapons, although the Constitution also guarantees your right to own toys and fowling pieces in the Ninth Amendment. :)

(It's okay to be honest; you could call 'em "Snugglepuffs", and Feinstein would still want to ban them. ;) )

joe sixpack
August 10, 2004, 11:31 PM
Some good points to reflect on.

Guess I'll stop referring to my gun as "the gawdforsaken man killing machine o'death" now.


cheers, ab

August 11, 2004, 02:47 AM
Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. They have no right to keep and bear sporting goods.

Arrrgh, don't use that argument! We damned well have a right to keep and bear sporting goods, as well as any other item so long as the possession of it doesn't harm anyone else but potentially yourself or other consenting adults.

Life, liberty, and property, remember? ;-)

August 13, 2004, 07:27 PM
Well, at least Double Naught Spy knows the difference between "stupidity" and "ignorance."

And he is correct in his application.

As far as calling firearms "weapons" it is a very ignorant tactic. (If we define "ignorance" as being unaware that even ...instructors in the art of shooting are being taught that it is counterproductive.

But I can't change anyone any more than I can prevent the loss of gun rights by the ignorant "antis" because they are fortunate in having even MORE ignorance espoused by their opposition.


By jingies, call em WEAPONS all you like. Dianne will love you just a bit more tonight.

August 13, 2004, 07:43 PM
My firearms are tools

My thoughts also, but then I consider my hammer a fine weapon, when
confronted with a larger problem my chainsaw as a weapon will
solve most disputes.

August 14, 2004, 01:09 AM
"As far as calling firearms "weapons" it is a very ignorant tactic. (If we define "ignorance" as being unaware that even ...instructors in the art of shooting are being taught that it is counterproductive.

But I can't change anyone any more than I can prevent the loss of gun rights by the ignorant "antis" because they are fortunate in having even MORE ignorance espoused by their opposition."

As falling into the P.C. trap set for you by those who would disarm you.

August 14, 2004, 10:36 AM
Topgun, I know that it's your opinion that somehow being more PC will be helpfull to us.

It's important to remember that obfuscating what the 2nd amendment is all about is the reason that we have the phrase "sporting purposes" in so many of our unconstitutional laws.

In the short term, obfuscating the term "weapon" might seem like a good idea, but in the long term, you lose the ability to argue your rights on Constitutional grounds.

The Second doesn't protect your right to hunt piggies or paper. It protects your right to hunt people.

Trying to hide that hard fact only hurts us, as evidenced by the AWB (Again, "legitimate sporting purposes").

If you enjoyed reading about "Can "civility" coexist with....STUPIDITY??" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!