It's firearm......

[jakemccoy]

TRguy, I understand your point. When I first became a gun owner, calling my gun a weapon was technically inaccurate. I had bought a Remington 870. The only things I've ever shot with my 870 are clays. So, in my mind, my shotgun was more like a golf club. It wasn't until I started thinking about home defense scenarios when I truly viewed my 870 as a potential weapon.

Most law abiding gun owners technically do not use their guns as weapons. They've gone to the range and have shot thousands of rounds at targets. They're using their guns for sport like a golf club, even though they may be imagining they're shooting a criminal.

In contrast, a boxer can accurately claim his fists are weapons because he actually enters the ring and uses his fists to hurt his opponent. There is nothing analogous happening with the vast majority of law abiding gun owners.

Anyway, you're going to get less than half gun owners to agree with you. One positive about calling a gun a weapon is that the term "weapon" eventually becomes so common that it's no longer a demonizing word. When I don't carry a gun, I carry a knife. Sometimes I call it my weapon. Sometimes I call it my blade. To me, it doesn't make a difference. Eventually, the term "weapon" won't be a big deal to anybody if the media keeps pushing it out there. They'll have to come up with another shock term.

Just don't get too passionate about what you're saying here. Otherwise, you'll get your thread locked. Make your case and let it be. Those that agree with you will agree. Those that don't agree with you will fight you harder the more you talk.

 

[kanook]

In Florida we have a "CONCEALED WEAPON OR FIREARM LICENSE" . It is what is issued when you apply to carry a "weapon" or "firearm". There are people that call most everything that goes BANG a "weapon". but to the state of Florida it is a "FIREARM".

When and if you get stopped by the LEO, you are asked if you are in possesion of weapons or firearms that they need to be aware of. Most anything can be used as a "weapon", very few things can be used as a "firearm".

One positive about calling a gun a weapon is that the term "weapon" eventually becomes so common that it's no longer a demonizing word.

I have to disagree with this statement. If you tell somebody you are taking "Meth" they will look at you like you're a drug addict. Methadone is a prescription that the Dr. gives for cronic pain. Methaphetimine is what is made in the tub or backyard and is highly illegal. Most people until told the difference don't even know of the prescrition only the drug.

If you call it what it is people can not get confused with what something is.

 

[TRguy]

Thanks jakemccoy, you are right and noted.

My point has been made.

 

[rocky branch]

I like "piece" as an interim word between guns and weapons.

Having done a few pushups over the "G" word, I personally don't use it unless it involves something designed primarily for sporting purpose.

A bayonet lug indicates a weapon for sure.
Not sure how much sillier this can get.
Fun, though.

 

[waterhouse]

You started this thread with a definition.

You defined weapon. Why is there no definition of firearm?


From Webster:
* Main Entry: fire·arm
* Pronunciation: \ˈfī(-ə)r-ˌärm\
* Function: noun
* Date: 1646

: a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder —usually used of small arms


From dictionary.com
fire⋅arm
  /ˈfaɪərˌɑrm/ Show Spelled [fahyuhr-ahrm] Show IPA
–noun
a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.


ETA: I also notice that the definition of weapon is listed as:

something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy

When I shoot clays, I am using my shotgun to attempt to destroy the clay. When I shoot doves, I'm using my shotgun to injure (to the fullest extent, kill) them. When I go to the range to shoot paper or cans, my goal is to hit the paper or cans, thus destroying them.

In other words, most cases of firing a firearm seem to fit your posted definition of weapon as well.

 

[CoRoMo]

The terms "biggest baddest" are added for emphasis to accentuate the absurd and my point. You wouldn't explain or discuss "firearm terminology" in a civil educated discussion using those adjectives.

Okay. So you just used those words to slant the view of someone using the term you don't like. Fabulous.

 

[jackstinson]

In Florida we have a "CONCEALED WEAPON OR FIREARM LICENSE".

Mine says, "Ohio License to Carry a Concealed Handgun".

If you tell somebody you are taking "Meth" they will look at you like you're a drug attic.

A drug addict in the attic?
A couple of times a year I have to take massive doses of Dexamethasone. If I refer to it as "Dex", people think of "dextroamphetamine"...or as "Meth", same story. But if I just say "nastiest imaginable steroids", nobody bats an eyelash. A rose by any other name......etc.

My opinion? The term "weapon" seems more common on gun boards and in gun stores due to the percentage of current/ex-military, current/ex-LEO, and the plethora of people who just love the cool sound of their own voice saying, weapon, piece, gat, shotty, EBR, equalizer, etc. Different streaks for different freaks.

 

[MrCleanOK]

I have firearms that I use just for hunting, and I don't call them weapons. I have firearms that I keep for self defense, and I call them weapons unless I'm specifically using them otherwise (taking my HD shotgun pig hunting, for instance). I don't see a problem with calling firearms weapons or not, and I don't give a rip about trying to sugar coat it to appeal to somebody else's sentiments.

 

[TRguy]

No, CoRoMo no slant. That is your take on it.

I typed the word "emphasis" and I meant it to make a point using the absurd, sarcasm.

As far as a definition, if anyone looks hard enough (Really not hard at all) you can find a definition to fit anything. First thing came up on my search of the definition of firearm was:


firearm

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition | 2008 |
firearm device consisting essentially of a straight tube to propel shot, shell, or bullets by the explosion of gunpowder . Although the Chinese discovered gunpowder as early as the 9th cent., they did not develop firearms until the mid-14th cent. By that time, firearms, particularly in the form of heavy cannon, were in general use in Europe and Asia Minor. With such firearms, the Ottoman Turks captured Constantinople. From the 15th cent., when the matchlock appeared, to the end of the U.S. Civil War, firearms became increasingly important in battle, and military tactics had to adapt constantly to successive improvements in their design. The early matchlocks, which depended on a lit match for firing the gunpowder, were supplanted first by flintlocks (perfected at the turn of the 17th cent.) that used a striking flint for firing, and then by various breach-loading firearms (perfected in the middle of the 19th cent.), which used bullets fitted with shells full of gunpowder that was ignited by the impact of a firing pin. In the 15th cent. firearms also came into use in hunting . Firearms were spread throughout the world during the period of European expansion. In some areas they were rapidly integrated into the existing culture and economy. Firearms are generally classified either as large firearms, i.e., artillery , or as small arms .

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/firearm.aspx

So cherry pick whatever definition you choose, just cause you find something on the internet that says it is so, doesn't make it so.

In North Carolina it is a "Concealed Handgun Permit"

 

[waterhouse]

So cherry pick whatever definition you choose, just cause you find something on the internet that says it is so, doesn't make it so.

Wait, did you just say that I cherry picked a definition from an online dictionary? And then did you imply that this made my argument invalid?

I used the same online dictionary you used for your definition.

From Webster's online dictionary, this is the exact definition you posted in the original post:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weapon

* Main Entry: 1weap·on
* Pronunciation: \ˈwe-pən\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: Middle English wepen, from Old English wǣpen; akin to Old High German wāffan weapon, Old Norse vāpn
* 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

You put in bold that a firearm is not a weapon, and used that definition as the basis for your bolded statement.

I used the exact same resource that you did, Webster's online dictionary. No need to cherry pick.

And when I went to that exact same source, it stated that a firearm is a type of weapon:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/firearm

* Main Entry: fire·arm
* Pronunciation: \ˈfī(-ə)r-ˌärm\
* Function: noun
* Date: 1646

: a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder —usually used of small arms

Not only did I use the same source you did, but I also found a secondary source which agreed with the first source.

As far as a definition, if anyone looks hard enough (Really not hard at all) you can find a definition to fit anything.

Not hard eh? Please find me a definition in Webster, or dictionary.com, or the OED, which defines basset hound as "1 a : any of a genus (Quercus) of trees or shrubs of the beech family that produce acorns; "

That's the definition of an oak tree. You won't find those words near basset hound because, even with cherry picking, the definition of oak tree doesn't match the definition of basset hound.

Unlike basset hound and oak tree, you will find the word weapon in the definition of firearm.

If you want to encourage people to use one word because you think it will make the public feel better I'm OK with you doing that, but don't post definitions and then claim that I am incorrect when I refer to a firearm as a weapon.

 

[CoRoMo]

Thanks waterhouse.
That's what I meant by a slanted report.

 

[TRguy]

you also picked:

From dictionary.com
fire⋅arm
  /ˈfaɪərˌɑrm/ Show Spelled [fahyuhr-ahrm] Show IPA
–noun
a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.

However the OP purpose is:

The MSM uses the term weapon to demonize and make it sound ominous. We should describe it in proper terms. People come into my office (I typically open carry in my office) they say,"Why are you carrying a weapon?". To which I reply in some form of a question, "To which weapon are you referencing? My Pen, knife, firearm, shoe, .....?"

When I am paper punching, it isn't a weapon it is pistol, rifle, revolver, firearm,.....

When I am instructing it is a pistol, revolver, firearm,.....

Why the need to use the term weapon so much in general civilian conversation?

However by terms I means firearm, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, etc. and yes WEAPON when used in the appropriate context. (This not a Firearms vs Weapon right or wrong) It is proper use of language in dealing with the public who may or maynot be gun enthusiast. Not being PC to the antis cause the are too dumb to know difference anyhow.

It is use of terms in their context and not the universal biggest baddest CoRoMo Weapon.

I had to use emphasis and sarcasm on my last sentence to make a point but not wanting to slant my argument.

 

[jakemccoy]

I have to disagree with this statement. If you tell somebody you are taking "Meth" they will look at you like you're a drug attic. Methadone is a prescription that the Dr. gives for cronic pain. Methaphetimine is what is made in the tub or backyard and is highly illegal. Most people until told the difference don't even know of the prescrition only the drug.

When I was a youngster in the 80's, it was taboo to mention "joint" (referring to a marijuana cigarette). Eventually, the term became used so often that the term's shock appeal fizzled away. Now, the term "joint" is basically a comical term that doesn't demonize anything. I expect the same thing with the term "weapon". In my mind, the term "weapon" is already an innocuous term with no shock appeal.

My overall point is that I'd rather if the media refers to guns as firearms instead of weapons. However, if they still refer to guns as weapons, then I imagine the shock appeal to fade away eventually.

 

[bababooey32]

This is an absurd argument.

Pistols, rifles and shotguns are all types of firearms and a firearm is a type of weapon. To suggest firearms are not weapons or that guns in general are not weapons is absurd. They are weapons at all times, even if used only as a paper weight.

Suggesting that using pistol, rifle or shorgun is more accurate is fine.

 

[jakemccoy]

When the media talks about someone being "brought up on weapons charges", what's your initial thought?

Be honest.

My initial thought is somebody getting caught using their gun for a nefarious activity like robbery, gang retaliation or a drug deal.

My initial thought is NOT Elmer Fudd getting caught driving from the sporting clays range while accidentally leaving a shell in his shotgun.

 

[waterhouse]

My initial thought is the same as yours jake.

That has nothing to do with the definition, only probability. Usually in the news the weapons charge is tacked on to some other criminal action.

The guy driving home from the range with the loaded shotgun is statistically not going to get pulled over and caught (I'm not implying that he is doing anything illegal, as this would vary by state law, merely responding to the question). The guy robbing the corner store is likely to get brought up on the robbery, the weapons charge, etc.

Both the shotgun in the trunk and the pistol at the stop and rob are weapons. I'm just more likely to hear about one of those weapons on the news.

If the news said a man robbed a store with a pistol, or a shotgun, or a rifle, or a weapon, or a firearm, the reaction is generally the same. Anti gun people and pro gun people and fence sitters are upset that someone else got robbed at gunpoint. We all have different solution to the problem of innocent people getting robbed at gunpoint, but whether we call it a weapon or a firearm or a shotgun doesn't matter, at least not to me.

 

[jakemccoy]

It's interesting to note that Plaxico Burress got "arrested on felony weapons charges" according to the media:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/f...giants_receiver_plaxico_burress_accident.html

If I hear that terminology without first hearing the facts, then my first impression is all kinds of bad thoughts about the person. In fact, Plaxico was demonized by practically everybody, including the gun community. People accepted him as an idiot (at best) or a violent criminal (at worst). It seemed like most of the people on this site were aboard the train that was headed to knock Plaxico off his feet. Sure enough, he got 2 years in prison as people wanted. The gist of what Plaxico did was negligently shoot himself with his own gun. That's unworthy of the hype that case got.

 

[chaled]

Firearms were created as weapons period.

 

[HardShell]

... The gist of what Plaxico did was negligently shoot himself with his own gun...

Which he was carrying/concealing illegally (in NYC, to boot) and tried to hide after the fact.

Downplay it all you want, he is still a criminal...

 

[Hokkmike]

Karate means empty hands. Considered by many to be weapons.

 

[jakemccoy]

Which he was carrying/concealing illegally (in NYC, to boot) and tried to hide after the fact.

Downplay it all you want, he is still a criminal...

Well, obviously...he got 2 years. So, he's technically a criminal. Nevertheless, Plaxico's actions are about the equivalent of someone negligently running over their foot with their car.

There is no man made law that will make me believe 2 years in prison is justifiable for what Plaxico did. Many of New York's firearms laws should be found to be illegal under the Second Amendment. What's left is a man who negligently shot himself in public.

 

[HardShell]

... Many of New York's firearms laws are illegal under the Second Amendment...

Not unless and until the USSC declares them so -- regardless of what you or I think about it (and I agree with your opinion 100%, FWIW).

I don't agree with the NFA of '34 and I think I ought to be able to own a machine gun, etc. without all that red tape and cost... but I know what the law is and what the penalty is for breaking such, so as a law-abiding citizen I... well, abide by the law.

PB knew he was breaking the law, which is why he didn't want his buddies to call for help -- I can't work up even one bit of sympathy for his conviction or sentence. But YMMV, and that's fine.

 

[jakemccoy]

I know what the law is and what the penalty is for breaking such, so as a law-abiding citizen I... well, abide by the law.

Well, that's great. Many experienced lawyers, including me, don't even know about every law is in their particular state. What I do is rely on the fact that if I use my common sense, then I'll probably be within the law. I also feel like if I do happen to break a particular law unintentionally, then the penalty won't be unreasonably severe. Laws and penalties related to firearms should not be so egregious that they defy all common sense. In Plaxico's case, the penalty is unreasonable. I doubt too many gun owners can honestly say that the penalty is reasonable.

By the way, I do have sympathy for Plaxico. I guess I'm just not as hardcore as you.

 

[Dogbite]

Tempest in a tea cup.

 

[sohcgt2]

However the OP purpose is:

The MSM uses the term weapon to demonize and make it sound ominous. We should describe it in proper terms. People come into my office (I typically open carry in my office) they say,"Why are you carrying a weapon?". To which I reply in some form of a question, "To which weapon are you referencing? My Pen, knife, firearm, shoe, .....?"

When I am paper punching, it isn't a weapon it is pistol, rifle, revolver, firearm,.....

When I am instructing it is a pistol, revolver, firearm,.....

Why the need to use the term weapon so much in general civilian conversation?

Am I to assume that since you profess to know the intent of MSM use of the term weapon you are a member of MSM? I only ask because sometimes my little sister says things and I have to get clarification from her as to the meaning of what she said. To claim a weapon is not because it is not currently in operation to that end is exactly as others here have said like saying a car is not a car because it is not currently being used for transportation. Aircraft carriers are not war machines when docked, coats are not clothing when they get put in the closet for summer, and a hat becomes a decorative ornament when removed the head.

Too much silliness in this thread.