The wild thing is that if the media started saying "firearm" instead of "weapon", then that would be a net positive for pro-gun advocates. I don't understand why people are so passionately in favor of sticking with the status quo in this particular case.
The media wouldn't do that, because "weapon" is a more terror-inducing word. Terror gets ratings, not facts or correct nomenclature. You don't make sure to tune into the weather because the guy says "no changes this week", you tune in because he says "could there be a chance of rain? Find out tonight!"; after which you find out that the chance of rain is for an area 300 miles away.
By *not* using the word weapon, we give it almost a taboo status, further increasing it's power as a terror-inducing word.
Look at the word "tactical". Tactical actually used to mean something - whatever you were referring to was more often than not a little more rugged, a little more accurate, etc... than it's 'non-tactical' counterpart. Now, however, since it has been so over-used, it means virtually nothing, other than "comes in black" or "looks cool" (hence the new word "tacticool").
The more you use a word, the less shocking it becomes. That's a fact. There was a time when the words "ass" and "bitch" on your local TV station would have caused a massive letter writing campaign, boycotts and general outrage. Now it's so commonplace to hear them in your favorite TV show (on those same channels that once barred it's use) that you hardly notice.
So the question becomes, do you want the word 'weapon' to be more or less shocking to the general public? Wouldn't it be better for the MSM to over-use it to the point that it's no longer a buzzword that instantly fills the mind with scenes of bloodshed and mayhem?