Tallinar
Member
This is a silly splitting of hairs.
Firearm, by simple virtue of its etymology, is the joining of fire and arm. Arms are armaments. Armaments are weapons.
I understand that “anything can be a weapon” depending on how it’s used. Fine. But that doesn’t obscure the reality that some things are designed to be weapons — instruments for fighting. Firearms, easily fall into that historical and etymological category.
I suppose an argument could be made that not all firearms are designed for fighting. But I’ve generally never understood what people are hoping to gain by arguing that firearms are not weapons, unless it’s just trying to create some legal scenario where you can still own certain “firearms” after a liberal takeover.
Firearm, by simple virtue of its etymology, is the joining of fire and arm. Arms are armaments. Armaments are weapons.
I understand that “anything can be a weapon” depending on how it’s used. Fine. But that doesn’t obscure the reality that some things are designed to be weapons — instruments for fighting. Firearms, easily fall into that historical and etymological category.
I suppose an argument could be made that not all firearms are designed for fighting. But I’ve generally never understood what people are hoping to gain by arguing that firearms are not weapons, unless it’s just trying to create some legal scenario where you can still own certain “firearms” after a liberal takeover.