A firearm is an inanimate object, unless you are an anti gun person. It will not jump of the table and kill anything in sight by itself. If an object is a weapon it is because it is USED as such, not for what it is. I get all kinds of looks, especially from ex GI types, when they call my latest a "fine looking weapon" and I reply that it is not a weapon. They don't understand and no amount of explaining will change that. None of my firearms are weapons and I hope none of them will ever be used as such. It is the misuse of this terminology that feeds the anti's agenda....chris3
Is a firearm a weapon? no.....
- Thread starter ball3006
- Start date
- Status
shermacman
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2002
- Messages
- 1,751
Can't imagine some one looking at my car and saying "Man, that is one dirty looking weapon!".
cratz2
Member
A weapon does not imply intent. A weapon is something designed to destroy or damage a person or animal. I think there is more of a stigma attached to the word weapon than there should be. A weapon isn't something used by a crazed madman to kill indiscriminately. It may be used as such, but it is designed to cause damage to or to kill something else. A car is not designed to inflict damags - even though I do find those Geo Storm stationwagons offesnive to my eyes. 
There's a similar thread going on in the Non-Firearm Weapon forum. If I am carrying a P32 in my pocket, it is a weapon in every single sense of the word. It was designed with the intention of being brandished and /or shooting something, more than likely a person, should they attempt to cause me harm. That's the definition of a weapon.
There's a similar thread going on in the Non-Firearm Weapon forum. If I am carrying a P32 in my pocket, it is a weapon in every single sense of the word. It was designed with the intention of being brandished and /or shooting something, more than likely a person, should they attempt to cause me harm. That's the definition of a weapon.
I do not buy into this whole liberal argument that "guns were only meant to kill".
A full-race handgun was made for IPSC. A fine O/U was probably made for sporting clays. A tricked out AR was probably made for long-range competition.
Given the relatively small number of gun owners who hunt, and the small percentage of gun designs that are suitable for personal protection, I'd say the empirical evidence is that the vast majority of guns were made for shooting sports and recreation.
A full-race handgun was made for IPSC. A fine O/U was probably made for sporting clays. A tricked out AR was probably made for long-range competition.
Given the relatively small number of gun owners who hunt, and the small percentage of gun designs that are suitable for personal protection, I'd say the empirical evidence is that the vast majority of guns were made for shooting sports and recreation.
El Tejon
Member
Read the Founding Fathers, there is a reason that firearms are weapons.
cratz2
Member
Not to be argumentative DaveR, but I will be anyway.
It's dismissive to consider the calling of a gun, 'a weapon' a liberal concept. Maybe an intellectual concept, might even go for a well-read concept or educated concept, but not a liberal concept.
I'm a strong supporter to RKBA and recruit new shooters all the time. And it's been a long time since anyone's called me a liberal. Maybe a libritarian on some issues, but not a liberal. The webster.com definition of a gun is:
Main Entry: 1weap·on
Pronunciation: 'we-p&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English wepen, from Old English w[AE]pen; akin to Old High German wAffan weapon, Old Norse vApn
Date: before 12th century
1 : something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy
2 : a means of contending against another
So, by that semi-official definition, if a gun is intended to injure, defeat or destroy something - which most of our collective guns were designed to do - then they are, in fact weapons.
I think intended use is more important in conjuring a definition than actual use. Is a missle a decorative jet decoration until it is launched or is it a weapon due to the fact that it is designed to injure people and/or destroy buildings? You chose perhaps the only three exceptions to that definition. You could even add in a working firearm mounted on a plaque as a gift as another exception. Those four exceptions, added together, probably count for significantly less than 1% of all the firearms in the world.
It's dismissive to consider the calling of a gun, 'a weapon' a liberal concept. Maybe an intellectual concept, might even go for a well-read concept or educated concept, but not a liberal concept.
I'm a strong supporter to RKBA and recruit new shooters all the time. And it's been a long time since anyone's called me a liberal. Maybe a libritarian on some issues, but not a liberal. The webster.com definition of a gun is:
Main Entry: 1weap·on
Pronunciation: 'we-p&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English wepen, from Old English w[AE]pen; akin to Old High German wAffan weapon, Old Norse vApn
Date: before 12th century
1 : something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy
2 : a means of contending against another
So, by that semi-official definition, if a gun is intended to injure, defeat or destroy something - which most of our collective guns were designed to do - then they are, in fact weapons.
I think intended use is more important in conjuring a definition than actual use. Is a missle a decorative jet decoration until it is launched or is it a weapon due to the fact that it is designed to injure people and/or destroy buildings? You chose perhaps the only three exceptions to that definition. You could even add in a working firearm mounted on a plaque as a gift as another exception. Those four exceptions, added together, probably count for significantly less than 1% of all the firearms in the world.
I disagree that all firearms are by default weapons.
Any object used to assault a living being is rightly considered a weapon.
Most of my firearms will never be used in such a fashion. When one is picked up with that express purpose, then it becomes a weapon. Just as a hammer would under similar circumstances.
Until that time, it is a tool. I really don't care how Webster defines it.
Any object used to assault a living being is rightly considered a weapon.
Most of my firearms will never be used in such a fashion. When one is picked up with that express purpose, then it becomes a weapon. Just as a hammer would under similar circumstances.
Until that time, it is a tool. I really don't care how Webster defines it.
cratz2
Member
Yeah... though I've made my outlook clear on this thread, military instructors have a much more verbose and flamboyant stance.
I think that some guns are definitely NOT weapons.
For example: Some of the unlimited class bench-rest guns aren't even portable. They can weigh over a hundred pounds and may be permanently attached to a mounting base.
For example: Some of the unlimited class bench-rest guns aren't even portable. They can weigh over a hundred pounds and may be permanently attached to a mounting base.
Devonai
Member
I'll take the martial artist's perspective on this one.
A weapon is defined as a force multiplier, or something that is used to transfer the user's kinetic energy to the target while vastly increasing it's force.
A firearm is a mechanical device which of it's sole purpose is to multiply force onto the target.
By itself a firearm is a tool, I agree with this definition. But a firearm is also by definition a weapon. No firearm can be one without the other, this is a simple rule of physics. Deadly force is deadly force, whether or not it is direct at a human being. It is the intent that defines it's ultimate function.
A weapon is defined as a force multiplier, or something that is used to transfer the user's kinetic energy to the target while vastly increasing it's force.
A firearm is a mechanical device which of it's sole purpose is to multiply force onto the target.
By itself a firearm is a tool, I agree with this definition. But a firearm is also by definition a weapon. No firearm can be one without the other, this is a simple rule of physics. Deadly force is deadly force, whether or not it is direct at a human being. It is the intent that defines it's ultimate function.
madkiwi
Member
NRA Instructors would never call it a weapon.
It is always a gun or a firearm.
The word "Weapon" has too many negative connotations.
That is all I have to say on the matter.
madkiwi
NRA Pistol, Personal Protection Instructor
It is always a gun or a firearm.
The word "Weapon" has too many negative connotations.
That is all I have to say on the matter.
madkiwi
NRA Pistol, Personal Protection Instructor
Agreed. The language by which we refer to firearms is important to establish mindset. A weapon is anything used with the intent to inflict damage. A firearm is simply the machine itself. Neutral.
A firearm is a firearm, until it's used as a weapon, just like a baseball bat is a baseball bat, but it becomes a weapon if used as such. A knife is a knife, until it's used against someone, then it's a weapon.
The word weapon has too many negative connotations for me to be comfortable saying it routinely, especially with new shooters.
Military personnel are accustomed to calling their firearms "weapons" and understandably so... they are in combat situations where they are absolutely used as weapons.
Mine is predominantly used as a sporting tool, but God forbid I'd ever need to defend myself, it would rather quickly become a weapon.
Semanics? Yes. But I think it's important to choose words carefully.
Shoeless
NRA Certified Instructor
Zundfolge
Member
I have a bit of a controversial view on this subject, but my guns are TOYS!
Thats right :eel: I said toys (albeit toys with very very strict safety rules).
Now I know we've been told all our lives that "guns are not toys" but for most of us thats just not true.
I own guns because I like to shoot paper and steel plates (and the occasional coke can) ... this is an adult form of play.
I pray every day that my toys never need to become weapons.
Thats right :eel: I said toys (albeit toys with very very strict safety rules).
Now I know we've been told all our lives that "guns are not toys" but for most of us thats just not true.
I own guns because I like to shoot paper and steel plates (and the occasional coke can) ... this is an adult form of play.
I pray every day that my toys never need to become weapons.
fastbolt
Member
Interesting thoughts ... but not something I've ever lost any sleep over ...
So, using the "My gun isn't a weapon" line of thinking ... If I carry an issued "Service" weapon, or an off duty weapon, and it happens to be the same make, model & caliber as your favorite "non-weapon" firearm ... and I don't carry my weapon as a sporting arm, but only against the potential need for it to be used to defend & protect life ... Which of these 2 similar firearms is "properly acceptable" in polite society, and which will cause "liberals" to run screaming from the room?
Do you suppose the folks making the earliest firearms thought they'd make dandy things to use for hobby & "sport" during polite pastimes, or for defensive & hunting uses?
Were they intended to be a "better" arrow or spear, or, something to substitute for boring lawn games?
Granted, a competition .22 with an electric trigger is a firearm pretty much solely intended to be used for sporting, non-defensive purpose, but it can certainly be used as such in exigent circumstances ... but the 1911 or M9 wasn't designed and built to be used for sporting purpose, and neither was the first G17, submitted for consideration by the Austrian military.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Is that YOU saying this, or the ex-GI types, after listening to your PC transmutation of your firearm into something warm & fuzzy? ...
So, using the "My gun isn't a weapon" line of thinking ... If I carry an issued "Service" weapon, or an off duty weapon, and it happens to be the same make, model & caliber as your favorite "non-weapon" firearm ... and I don't carry my weapon as a sporting arm, but only against the potential need for it to be used to defend & protect life ... Which of these 2 similar firearms is "properly acceptable" in polite society, and which will cause "liberals" to run screaming from the room?
Do you suppose the folks making the earliest firearms thought they'd make dandy things to use for hobby & "sport" during polite pastimes, or for defensive & hunting uses?
Were they intended to be a "better" arrow or spear, or, something to substitute for boring lawn games?
Granted, a competition .22 with an electric trigger is a firearm pretty much solely intended to be used for sporting, non-defensive purpose, but it can certainly be used as such in exigent circumstances ... but the 1911 or M9 wasn't designed and built to be used for sporting purpose, and neither was the first G17, submitted for consideration by the Austrian military.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Is that YOU saying this, or the ex-GI types, after listening to your PC transmutation of your firearm into something warm & fuzzy? ...
Cratz2, its OK to be a little agumentative. That's why this section of the board is called General _Discussion_. Good supporting argument, with the definition and all.
But you haven't convinced me.
The definition you gave says a weapon is something intented to "injure, defeat or destroy".
I maintain that most guns are not created, nor purchased nor used to injure, defeat or destroy.
What percentage firearm models on the market are intended for self-defense (or even criminal offense?) Scratch bolt guns, long-barreled shotguns, long-barreled revolvers, .22's of all types (except maybe NAA's and Jetfires). I'd say fewer than 40% of models.
What percent of all gun owners hunt? Again, I'd venture fewer than half. Maybe as low as 10%.
I think there are published sources that say that fewer than 1% of all firearms are used in the commission of a crime, or in the defense of a crime.
So I stand by my statement that most guns do not meet the definition of a weapon, which you quoted. Sure, they could be used as a weapon, but that's not their designed purpose nor their intended use. You could use a carving knife as a weapon, but that's not its intended use.
Regarding "liberal concept"--I said "Liberal argument", as in, people who describe their poilitical leaning as "Liberal" are far more likely to use this argument than are conservatives or Libertarians.
But you haven't convinced me.
The definition you gave says a weapon is something intented to "injure, defeat or destroy".
I maintain that most guns are not created, nor purchased nor used to injure, defeat or destroy.
What percentage firearm models on the market are intended for self-defense (or even criminal offense?) Scratch bolt guns, long-barreled shotguns, long-barreled revolvers, .22's of all types (except maybe NAA's and Jetfires). I'd say fewer than 40% of models.
What percent of all gun owners hunt? Again, I'd venture fewer than half. Maybe as low as 10%.
I think there are published sources that say that fewer than 1% of all firearms are used in the commission of a crime, or in the defense of a crime.
So I stand by my statement that most guns do not meet the definition of a weapon, which you quoted. Sure, they could be used as a weapon, but that's not their designed purpose nor their intended use. You could use a carving knife as a weapon, but that's not its intended use.
Regarding "liberal concept"--I said "Liberal argument", as in, people who describe their poilitical leaning as "Liberal" are far more likely to use this argument than are conservatives or Libertarians.
hondo68
Member
All my firearms are "tyrant killing tools".
Zundfolge
Member
So hondo68, when was the last time you killed a tyrant?
Andrew Wyatt
Member
i don't know about you, but all my firearms are weapons.
WhoKnowsWho
Member
I consider my guns firearms, or tools.
The internet can be attacked, servers can be brought down by hackers, which makes my computer a weapon if used in that way.
Cars, knives, bats, fists, heads, a rock, all weapons if used for that purpose.
I would prefer not to use my firearm as a weapon, just as I would prefer not to run over a perp with my car, but either one could be used if the situation and need arises.
Otherwise, I use my firearm, gun, rifle, projectile firing tool, for sporting/fun purposes.
The internet can be attacked, servers can be brought down by hackers, which makes my computer a weapon if used in that way.
Cars, knives, bats, fists, heads, a rock, all weapons if used for that purpose.
I would prefer not to use my firearm as a weapon, just as I would prefer not to run over a perp with my car, but either one could be used if the situation and need arises.
Otherwise, I use my firearm, gun, rifle, projectile firing tool, for sporting/fun purposes.
fastbolt
Member
Shoeless makes an excellent point about semantics and mindset.
Since I generally only teach L/E and some CCW folks, I'm in the position of discussing the lawful use of deadly force as applicable to using a firearm ... Even so, we focus on the aspect of the firearm being used as being deadly force, not on the semantics of what the firearm "is" ... What does the word "is" mean, anyway?
Sorry, couldn't resist when I saw where I was going with that last sentence.
Anyhow ... When I find myself off the range, and the subject of firearms comes up because someone learns of my "job" (which is something I generally try to avoid, by the way ... saves annoyance), I seldom use the non-PC term "weapon" unless the person is ex-military, or former Marine. It saves ruffled feathers and emotional distress among the dainty, civilized masses which inhabit the area in which I live ...
Seriously, on those infrequent occasions when I find myself detailed to give a talk to ordinary folks ... many of which may not have ever held a firearm ... and the subject of firearms comes up, I try not to antagonize them by using "provocative" or "intimidating" terms which might bother them. "Weapon" is one such word ...
We also never heard the "W" word when my son was a member of a local .22 target shooting club, either, which is how it should be.
Show me a Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 Magnum with a 7.5" barrel and I'll think hunting or silhouette shooting ... but I'll also think of a S/A revolver design from the 1800's which was used as a military & L/E weapon, not to mention as a defensive weapon used by the common American of the time, against both human & animal attackers ... and which has been suitably converted over to "sporting" use in modern times now that "better" weapons have been developed and produced.
Show me a 1911 Government Model in stock condition, and I'll think of something similar, except this design is still VERY practical for use as a defensive weapon, and is still in use as such, by all th folks I listed above, even though it's become adopted and often modifed for "sporting" use ... Also, show me a pistol or revolver of the same type used by L/E as Service Weapons, in the same condition as issued models, and guess what?
A rose by any other name ...
Since I generally only teach L/E and some CCW folks, I'm in the position of discussing the lawful use of deadly force as applicable to using a firearm ... Even so, we focus on the aspect of the firearm being used as being deadly force, not on the semantics of what the firearm "is" ... What does the word "is" mean, anyway?
Sorry, couldn't resist when I saw where I was going with that last sentence.
Anyhow ... When I find myself off the range, and the subject of firearms comes up because someone learns of my "job" (which is something I generally try to avoid, by the way ... saves annoyance), I seldom use the non-PC term "weapon" unless the person is ex-military, or former Marine. It saves ruffled feathers and emotional distress among the dainty, civilized masses which inhabit the area in which I live ...
Seriously, on those infrequent occasions when I find myself detailed to give a talk to ordinary folks ... many of which may not have ever held a firearm ... and the subject of firearms comes up, I try not to antagonize them by using "provocative" or "intimidating" terms which might bother them. "Weapon" is one such word ...
We also never heard the "W" word when my son was a member of a local .22 target shooting club, either, which is how it should be.
Show me a Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 Magnum with a 7.5" barrel and I'll think hunting or silhouette shooting ... but I'll also think of a S/A revolver design from the 1800's which was used as a military & L/E weapon, not to mention as a defensive weapon used by the common American of the time, against both human & animal attackers ... and which has been suitably converted over to "sporting" use in modern times now that "better" weapons have been developed and produced.
Show me a 1911 Government Model in stock condition, and I'll think of something similar, except this design is still VERY practical for use as a defensive weapon, and is still in use as such, by all th folks I listed above, even though it's become adopted and often modifed for "sporting" use ... Also, show me a pistol or revolver of the same type used by L/E as Service Weapons, in the same condition as issued models, and guess what?
A rose by any other name ...
Last edited:
Ala Dan
Member in memoriam
The Way I See It
Definition of a firearm may include, but is not
limited to: instrument, tool, object, or weapon.
If a firearm is necessitated, if can be either an offensive
or defensive weapon; depending on the circumstances.
Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
Definition of a firearm may include, but is not
limited to: instrument, tool, object, or weapon.
If a firearm is necessitated, if can be either an offensive
or defensive weapon; depending on the circumstances.
Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
