Need to stop using the word weapon. What's more appropriate?

[silicosys4]

Firearms are weapons, by design. With the exception of some neutered examples such as Flobert guns, they are designed by nature to transfer large amounts of kinetic energy into a soft target, incapacitating it, with the death of that soft target the final desired result. Target shooting is a benign offshoot of that design, an exploration into the enjoyment of the mechanical and physical aspect of what the firearm is designed to do, and capable of doing.
You might use them for something other than weapons, but they are at their core a weapon, designed to dump kinetic energy via projectiles, into soft targets. That you enjoy other aspects, such as the ability and precision to place those projectiles at will in very minute adjustments, is irrelevant to the base design of the firearm. That some firearms are designed to be more precise in the placement of the projectile is irrelevant to the base design of a firearm.

We as gun owners do ourselves a great disservice by denying the base purpose of firearms, to say they are something other than weapons.
I do own weapons. Multiple weapons. Shovels, machetes, cars, bricks, kitchen knives, guns, bowling balls, sticks, baseball bats, I own them all. They are all weapons and dangerous in the hands of someone willing to use them as such against the innocent.
The emphasis is on the owner, and the safety factor involved with the owners intent.
Yes I have a weapon. And anyone who is not intent on causing me or innocent others bodily harm has nothing to fear from me or any weapons I might have access to.
I feel that the people who are going to be offended or frightened by hearing someone mention the word "weapon" NEED to be offended or frightened...Its like therapy for phobia, repeat exposure is the key to persuading someone of the benign nature of the firearm itself in the hands of reasonable people. The base reality is, people are offended and frightened by stupid things, and the only way to get them over it is to familiarize them with the concept.

 

[CraigC]

But when you're at the gun shop or sporting goods gun counter or here on these forums, YouTube or elsewhere on the ultranet...you're in public. While in public best not to offend/confuse/anger polite society. Not saying hide away your secret gun hobby. But why would you want to portray yourself as hostile? Weapon this. Tactical system that. I was in the military. Where we are trained to commit overwhelmingly aggressive violence. Now im a civilian. Do i retain my right to perform violence if needed? Of course. In a DEFENSIVE role. I had to leave my combat mentality or at least the aggressor part there...along with my weapons. Portray yourself as a pro-2nd amendment target shooter/hunter/right to carry person? Sure!

This is political correctness and as folks who typically hold the Constitution in higher regard than your average socialist/liberal/Democrat, we should avoid political correctness at every opportunity. Again, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, target shooting or concealed carry.

...they are designed by nature to transfer large amounts of kinetic energy into a soft target, incapacitating it, with the death of that soft target the final desired result.

They are designed to fire a projectile, forget the nonsense about "energy transfer". Energy does not incapacitate or kill. Blood loss and tissue damage do that.

 

[mcdonl]

Can I point out this discussion is taking place in the "General GUN Discussions"

They are guns. Most buy them at gun shops.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[silicosys4]

CraigC. A bullet absolutely transfers its kinetic energy into its target, in the form of permanent and temporary cavitation, fragmentation, and bullet deformation. What do you think causes that tissue damage and blood loss? Why do we see more damage from bullets traveling at higher velocities?

 

[beatledog7]

They are guns. Most buy them at gun shops.

Excellent point.

What seller of firearms has a sign in front of his shop that says "WEAPONS SHOP"? Why do we often compare shopping for firearms items on-line to shopping for them at our LGS (rather than our LWS)?

 

[silicosys4]

gun (gn)
n.
1. A weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory.
2. A cannon with a long barrel and a relatively low angle of fire.
3. A portable firearm, such as a rifle or revolver.
4. A device resembling a firearm or cannon, as in its ability to project something, such as grease, under pressure or at great speed.
5. A discharge of a firearm or cannon as a signal or salute.
6. One, such as a hunter, who carries or uses a gun.
7.
a. A person skilled in the use of a gun.
b. A professional killer: a hired gun.
8. The throttle of an engine, as of an automobile.



gun
1 [guhn] Show IPA noun, verb, gunned, gun·ning.
noun
1.
a weapon consisting of a metal tube, with mechanical attachments, from which projectiles are shot by the force of an explosive; a piece of ordnance.
2.
any portable firearm, as a rifle, shotgun, or revolver.
3.
a long-barreled cannon having a relatively flat trajectory.
4.
any device for shooting something under pressure: a paint gun; a staple gun.
5.
Slang. a person whose profession is killing; professional killer: a gangland gun.


Gun

of Gin
A weapon which throws or propels a missile to a distance; any firearm or instrument for throwing projectiles by the explosion of gunpowder, consisting of a tube or barrel closed at one end, in which the projectile is placed, with an explosive charge behind, which is ignited by various means. Muskets, rifles, carbines, and fowling pieces are smaller guns, for hand use, and are called small arms. Larger guns are called cannon, ordnance, fieldpieces, carronades, howitzers, etc. See these terms in the Vocabulary.
A piece of heavy ordnance; in a restricted sense, a cannon.
Violent blasts of wind.
To practice fowling or hunting small game; -- chiefly in participial form; as, to go gunning.


A gun is a weapon designed to discharge a projectile. The projectile may be solid, liquid, gas or energy and may be free, as with bullets and artillery shells, or captive as with Taser probes and whaling harpoons. The means of projection varies according to design but is usually effected by the action of gas pressure, either produced through the rapid combustion of a propellant or compressed and stored by mechanical means, operating on the projectile inside an open-ended tube in the fashion of a piston.

 

[silicosys4]

Thats four different definitions, from four different sources. Pretending a gun isn't a weapon doesn't make a gun owner sound like a responsible person.
Being open and honest about the fact that your firearms are very capable weapons, and engaging in reasonable discussions about why people have the right to own weapons (for various reasons very well explained on this forum and elsewhere) is a more productive approach.

 

[rondog]

I have several named "Roscoe"......

 

[mcdonl]

Big deal, all of the definitions are of a GUN so calling them a GUN does not make a gun owner wrong either. But, calling them a weapon on the other hand certainly paints a different picture....

Weapon
noun
1. any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.
2. anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire.
3. Zoology . any part or organ serving for attack or defense, as claws, horns, teeth, or stings.

 

[beatledog7]

I'm sticking to this: the human-caused weaponization of anything requires intent on the part of that person--the one using it, not anyone else--to harm another person using that thing. Ability to harness the thing's potential, intent, and purpose are required.

"Weapon" is akin to "lie." One can relay false information unknowingly or can state what he believes to be true but is actually false, and in doing either he is not lying. To "lie" is to intentionally convey a known falsehood for the purpose of deceiving. Knowledge, intent, and purpose on the part of the user are required for the words to be a lie. Without all three, they are just inaccurate.

In the same way, understanding of the firearm's power, intent, and purpose are required on the part of the user for the firearm to be a weapon.

 

[CraigC]

What do you think causes that tissue damage and blood loss?

Uh, a bullet poking holes in stuff???

If a 250gr .45cal bullet traveling at 900fps produces 450ft-lb of energy and kills a critter just as dead as a high velocity rifle cartridge producing 3000ft-lbs of energy, don't you think we ought to be looking at something besides energy??? By contrast, does it really matter that a .220Swift launching a 40gr bullet at 4000fps produces 1400ft-lbs of energy and "transfers" all that energy into an 800lb bull elk if all it does is create a nasty, yet very shallow wound? Or do we use our brains and understand that our wonderful 250gr .45 has the ability to break a shoulder, pass completely through the vital organs and produce an exit would is probably a better solution???

 

[Skribs]

Rondog, that's terrible to name several of your guns Roscoe. How will we know which Roscoe you were talking about?

Thats four different definitions, from four different sources. Pretending a gun isn't a weapon doesn't make a gun owner sound like a responsible person.
Being open and honest about the fact that your firearms are very capable weapons, and engaging in reasonable discussions about why people have the right to own weapons (for various reasons very well explained on this forum and elsewhere) is a more productive approach.

I agree with this, however the problem is that some guns - while they COULD be - are not used as weapons. If I had a safe queen, for example, it's job would be to look pretty, and I wouldn't go to it if someone broke in (unless it was my only option). So at that point, its purpose isn't that of a weapon. Similarly, my home defense weapon of choice when I was being invaded by ants was a square of toilet paper, so even though I wouldn't go to the store and buy "12 rolls of weapons", it was used as such.

This is why "weapon" doesn't always apply, and "firearm" is a much more accurate word to use.

 

[Trent]

I agree with this, however the problem is that some guns - while they COULD be - are not used as weapons. If I had a safe queen, for example, it's job would be to look pretty, and I wouldn't go to it if someone broke in (unless it was my only option). So at that point, its purpose isn't that of a weapon.

This depends on the perspective. If I'm a tyrant planning to enforce my will on the population, what you have in the safe becomes a weapon WITHOUT your intent. The mere existence of those long arms in the safe is a point of contention.

I covered this in a previous post (#40) - one definition of weapon is "a means of contending against another."

Long range rifles give tyrants pause, and for good reason. It's an automatic point of contention against another who would do your country harm. They are a weapon at all times, even if YOU don't consider it a weapon.

I know several people who own 50 BMG rifles. In every day life, it's a heavy, cumbersome hunk of metal without any purpose. And as long as we can own them, they'll stay that way. The mere fact they are in circulation provides "a means of contending against another." If there was ever a "weapon" designed to give a tyrant pause, that would be it.

 

[Skribs]

Yeah but by that token, anything that could potentially be used as a weapon would have to be considered, including anything portable with a blade, spike, or hard blunt (preferably heavy) surface. Yeah it can't be used at the same range as a rifle, but my hammer could easily be used as a weapon.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

My home state constitution refers to "arms" as in, the citizens of this state have the right to keep and bear arms. The state law recognizes intent to use an arm as a weapon of offense or as a weapon of defense. The court rulings and AG opinions also recognize possession as curio, ornament or keepsake.

To me "weapon" implies use or intent of user. I have designated guns that are my weapons intended for defense against criminals or predatory animals. I have hunting guns that I don't call weapons. Also I own target sport guns, curios, collectibles and keepsakes that are not weapons to me. I also own edged weapons used as tools or kept as collectibles or curios.

 

[Trent]

Ok, ok.. now the whole inference logic is making my head hurt.

A cat has fur, a dog has fur. Yet, a dog is not a cat. (Artificial intelligence programming 101 - how to segment inference by nodes).

How can you say a firearm is not a weapon? It is a weapon just as much as a baseball bat or a fist is a weapon. Sure, 99.999% of the baseball bats produced are used to hit balls of wrapped cowhide and smack the sides of boots to knock off dust on the baseball diamond.

The other .001% are used to commit murder via bludgeoning.

If you look at a deadly weapon such as a firearm in any other light you are courting disaster. It's not a toy. It's not "just" a target rifle/handgun. It's not "just" a hunting or sporting shotgun.

They are highly lethal weapons.

And, there is absolutely NO reason to hide from this fact, to disguise it, to "soften" it for the easily offended.

Yes, I own weapons. I own a lot of exceedingly dangerous weapons. And for 15 years the worst those weapons have done is hurt paper, and the occasional game animal.

But make no mistake, I view them all as weapons, and stay proficient in their use, in case I ever call upon them to perform their function.

My children are trained to view them as weapons, because it is also my duty to pass our right (yes, I view it as a duty) to keep and bear these arms on to them, and their grandchildren, and the subsequent generations to follow.

WE cannot at present envision such a world in which these weapons are called upon.

That does NOT mean it won't happen at some point in the future.

 

[gym]

Handgun, and long gun. More accurate on handguns would be Pistol and revolver, and rifle or shotgun, for that type of firearm.A pistol used to be only used when describing automatics where a handgun may be either. And again Revolver is more specific than weapon or handgun., from wikipedia:
Multiple senses of the word "pistol"

The word "pistol" is often synonymous with the word "handgun". Some handgun experts make a technical distinction that views pistols as a subset of handguns. Sometimes in American usage, the term "pistol" refers to a handgun having one chamber integral with the barrel, making pistols distinct from the other main type of handgun, the revolver, which has a revolving cylinder containing multiple chambers. But UK/Commonwealth usage often does not make this distinction. For example, the official designation of the Webley Mk VI was "Pistol, Revolver, Webley No. 1 Mk VI", and the designation "Pistol No. 2 Mk I" was used to refer to both the Enfield Revolver and the later Browning Hi-Power semi-automatic.[1][2][3][4]

Handheld firearms were first made in China where gunpowder was first developed. They were hand cannons (although they were not necessarily fired from the hand, but rather at the end of a handle). By the 14th century, they existed in Europe as well. The first handheld firearms that might better be called "pistols" were made as early as the 15th century, but their creator is unknown.[5] By the 18th century, the term came to be used often to refer to handheld firearms. Practical revolver designs appeared in the 19th century, but it was not until the mid-twentieth century that the (sometimes-observed) differentiation in usage of the words "pistol" and "revolver" evolved among some speakers and the use of "handgun" became prevalent. Previously there had been no such differentiation, and in fact Samuel Colt's original patent was for a "revolving-breech pistol." There is no literal equivalent for "handgun" in the Romance languages, which continue to use cognates of the word "pistol".

 

[whtsmoke]

Firestck yep firestick

 

[bogon48]

I'm too am tired of political correctness, but I'm aware that some people panic over the word gun, let alone the word weapon. For me it's about figuring out the context and recipient. I try to tailor the word to fit the situation.

When getting fitted for a shooting prescription, I brought in the slide from my "target pistol" and the optometrist thanked me for not bringing my "gun" into their office. To me, guns are crew-served weapons, and I can't buy these at my "gun" store. Of course, they can be firearms and weapons too.

In discussions defending our 2A rights, I would be inclined to follow terminology used by the NRA.

 

[Chuck Dye]

We need to control...

No, we do not.

 

[Agsalaska]

We have a theme at work. That is don't over think things. It is way too easy to make simple things extraordinarily complicated. Just ask the government. They are experts at it. And I would apply that logic to this thread.


It's a weapon if it's used as a weapon. If it's not it's a gun. My ccw is weapon.it has one job no matter how you spin it. I would consider my deer rifle a weapon too. It also has one job. The old safe queens, they are, well, safe queens. Ive already given this too much thought.

 

[Salmoneye]

Can I point out this discussion is taking place in the "General GUN Discussions"

They are guns. Most buy them at gun shops.

Apparently, the obvious needs to be repeated often...

I shoot 'guns'...Yes...I am well aware that a gun can be considered a 'weapon', but if I say I am going to the range with my 'weapon', it could mean I am taking my sword, or my cudgel...

This has absolutely nothing to do with 'political correctness' (at least on my part)...

I say I am taking my gun, because that is what it is...

 

[gopguy]

You could always call it a thunderstick... but I prefer not to give into PC nonsense and use the proper terminology...

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Need to stop using the word weapon. What's more appropriate?

I think we need to recognize guns are weapons, sporting implements, historical collectibles and a lot of things based on use and intent.

I know that to gun banning liberals about the only appeal that appears to work is to appeal to the right of self defense (if they approve of that and many of them don't).

Objection (a) gun control does not work to control criminal behavior in the first place, and (b) most gun owners own firearms for non-weapon uses.

Weapon-only is too narrow. Sorry, but weapon is usage intent, not an object. I can carry a magazine to read or to use as a thrusting weapon tightly rolled.

People kill people and motive and opportunity are more important than weapons. Antigun criminologist Marvin Wolfgang admitted in his study of 588 homicides that few homicides due to shooting could be avoided by the absence of the gun: the motive and circumstances were such that the murderer could choose another weapon and achieve the same destructive goal.

My thinking is conditioned by growing up under the Tennessee "going armed" statute. Basically anything carried outside the home with intent to use as a weapon of offense or defense is a violation. The use and the intent make whatever it is a weapon. You can get a state permit to carry a handgun as a weapon for self defense. You can get certified as trained in use of a cane by a martial arts instructor and carry it as a weapon for self defense. You do have an absolute right to have a weapon in the home or business for self-defense; the state reserves the power to regulate the wearing of arms in public with a view to prevent crime and not, as court ruling and AG opinions point out, with a view to prevent keeping and bearing for lawful purposes including non-weapon use of guns and knives. A lot of weapons prohibited from lawful carry can be owned as curios, relics or ornaments, including the infamous "slingshot" listed in the "going armed" statute: a sash weight on a cord. Hanging on the wall it is not a weapon; carried in the pocket it may be assumed to be weapon.

Now, I can take a gun to the hunting fields, to a gunsmith, to a shooting range, to my uncle's farm; but if I take it as a weapon I had better be in possession of a carry permit.

Reading the NSPOF survey, one third of gun owners state self-defense as their primary reason to own a gun; for two-thirds, guns are primarily owned for sporting purposes or as collectibles. So "weapon" ignores the intent and use of the majority of gun owners.

I have a M70AB2 military rifle that I keep as a military curio and I use for military target matches and don't keep or intend to use as a weapon; I have a revolver for carry as a weapon and a shotgun as designated home defense weapon. And other guns for other intents and uses.

 

[brnmw]

1) "Thunder stick".
2) "Projectile placement extenstion driver". (PPED)

Are two that quickly come to mind... otherwise I just call it a firearm.