The Term "Weapon"
- Thread starter bthr22
- Start date
- Status
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Generally I completely agree and hate getting tied up in "is it a magazine or a clip" type silliness.
However, this debate resonates as important. I've had instructor friends of mine (especially the NRA-trained guys) run on about, "OOoooooh, don't ever ever ever call it a WEAPON! That's bad, it presents our SPORT in a negative light."
I think that kind of mealy mouthed, transparent, disingenuous, obfuscation should be STOMPED ON.
It just feels like we're trying to blow smoke up some soccer moms' skirts trying to sucker them into coming out to the range to [strike]shoot[/strike], er plink with [strike]guns[/strike], ahhh, toys (what to do the paintball geeks call it? "Markers?"
), and once we get them hooked on our "sport" we can get Allan Funt, or maybe that kid from Punked, to run out and yell, "SURPRISE!!! Ha ha! You've been SHOOTING DEADLY WEAPONS this whole time! HA HA HA HA HAAAA!" 
Last edited:
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
In a recent self-defense case a man had to shoot a thug who was holding him down and using a paved sidewalk as a weapon.
ShamboPyro
Member
It depends on the gun. My model 1890 Winchester is as much a weapon as my pocket knife is; it could be used as a weapon but was not designed as such. A Mossberg 500 would be considered a weapon, as it was designed to be a weapon (well not ONLY a weapon, but you get it).
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
Ahh... I remember this philosophical debate way back in college.
To me, if you are hunting or using a gun for self defense it is most certainly a weapon. If you are using it merely as a paper-puncher, without any intention of ever considering it as a defensive tool, perhaps it is not.
To me, if you are hunting or using a gun for self defense it is most certainly a weapon. If you are using it merely as a paper-puncher, without any intention of ever considering it as a defensive tool, perhaps it is not.
beatledog7
Member
I find myself in the "whatever I'm prepared to use to cause harm to someone is a weapon," and “whatever I'm not prepared to use to cause harm to someone isn't a weapon" camp.
While there is some merit in the concept of not hiding behind semantics so that our firearms can be made to seem, to those who want to take them, less threatening, using the word “weapon” to describe every firearm is semantically flawed and harmful to the cause of protecting RKBA.
Webster defines a weapon as “1: something (as a club, knife or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy 2: a means of contending against another.” That second definition is key, as it includes the concept of using something to coerce another person. Coercive use of a thing also makes that thing a weapon.
How can one say that a baseball bat or a knife can be a weapon but is not always a weapon, then say that a firearm is always a weapon? If how a thing is employed determines its "weaponness," then that principle must be universal. Webster agrees—it puts guns into the same category as knives and clubs, saying that how they are used is what makes them weapons.
I don't buy the notion that guns are always weapons because they were invented to produce harm against other people. They were actually invented purely for the amusement of those who invented them. Their potential for use as weapons was very quickly discovered, of course. But they were invented as curiosities.
But if a gun is not a weapon until it is employed to injure, defeat, destroy, or coerce--what is it? Is it the same as a baseball bat or a knife? Not exactly.
Imagine a linear scale on which we could place anything; I'll call it the Human Coercion and Lethality Potential (HCLP) scale. One end of the HCLP scale is near zero; things there have very little to no potential to be coercive or lethal to a person and/or could be coercive or lethal only under a very narrow range of conditions. At the other end are those things that have extremely high potential to be coercive or lethal to a human under a wide range of conditions.
Near Zero _________________________ Moderate _________________________ High _________Extremely High
What things could we place on Near Zero end of the HCLP scale? A crayon, maybe? How about a shoestring? Both have limited coercive/lethality potential, and only under very specific conditions. In the normal course of life they are not considered weapons. A bat and even a knife fall short of the high range of the spectrum because their use as a weapon requires close contact with the subject (granted, a knife can be thrown, but then it's a projectile). A firearm has very high potential because it can be employed in a lethal manner from a distance under an almost unlimited set of conditions and has a great measure of coercive power. (Extremely high would be reserved for WMD, well beyond our current scope.)
Firearms are among the few instruments accessible to the average person that can achieve a condition of very high human coercive and lethality potential. Every functional gun in our safes can be brought into this condition; loading a gun and aiming it at another person creates this condition straight away. That fact alone sets guns apart from clubs and knives, and it is by and large the reason why anti-gun people are anti gun and not anti-club/knife. But in and of itself it does not make all firearms "weapons." Many of us own firearms that we did not acquire for any sort of defensive or coercive purpose. These are not weapons.
Going back to original premise, intended use universally determines a thing’s "weaponness." Nothing is a weapon until one employs it in such an intentional manner as to give that person the ability to cause harm to or coerce another person. M16s carried by soldiers are weapons because the reason they are carrying them is so they have the ability to inflict harm on or coerce other people. When I carry a sidearm (incidentally, my permit is a CHP, Concealed Handgun Permit; the word "weapon" doesn't appear on it anywhere), that firearm is a weapon because having the ability to prevent harm to myself by causing harm to or coercing another person is the reason why I'm carrying it.
A gun that's not meant by its owner to give him the ability to injure, defeat, destroy, or coerce other people should the need arise is not a weapon. It is an implement, much as a screwdriver, a violin, or a car. It is a person's mindset that makes something a weapon, nothing more.
While there is some merit in the concept of not hiding behind semantics so that our firearms can be made to seem, to those who want to take them, less threatening, using the word “weapon” to describe every firearm is semantically flawed and harmful to the cause of protecting RKBA.
Webster defines a weapon as “1: something (as a club, knife or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy 2: a means of contending against another.” That second definition is key, as it includes the concept of using something to coerce another person. Coercive use of a thing also makes that thing a weapon.
How can one say that a baseball bat or a knife can be a weapon but is not always a weapon, then say that a firearm is always a weapon? If how a thing is employed determines its "weaponness," then that principle must be universal. Webster agrees—it puts guns into the same category as knives and clubs, saying that how they are used is what makes them weapons.
I don't buy the notion that guns are always weapons because they were invented to produce harm against other people. They were actually invented purely for the amusement of those who invented them. Their potential for use as weapons was very quickly discovered, of course. But they were invented as curiosities.
But if a gun is not a weapon until it is employed to injure, defeat, destroy, or coerce--what is it? Is it the same as a baseball bat or a knife? Not exactly.
Imagine a linear scale on which we could place anything; I'll call it the Human Coercion and Lethality Potential (HCLP) scale. One end of the HCLP scale is near zero; things there have very little to no potential to be coercive or lethal to a person and/or could be coercive or lethal only under a very narrow range of conditions. At the other end are those things that have extremely high potential to be coercive or lethal to a human under a wide range of conditions.
Near Zero _________________________ Moderate _________________________ High _________Extremely High
What things could we place on Near Zero end of the HCLP scale? A crayon, maybe? How about a shoestring? Both have limited coercive/lethality potential, and only under very specific conditions. In the normal course of life they are not considered weapons. A bat and even a knife fall short of the high range of the spectrum because their use as a weapon requires close contact with the subject (granted, a knife can be thrown, but then it's a projectile). A firearm has very high potential because it can be employed in a lethal manner from a distance under an almost unlimited set of conditions and has a great measure of coercive power. (Extremely high would be reserved for WMD, well beyond our current scope.)
Firearms are among the few instruments accessible to the average person that can achieve a condition of very high human coercive and lethality potential. Every functional gun in our safes can be brought into this condition; loading a gun and aiming it at another person creates this condition straight away. That fact alone sets guns apart from clubs and knives, and it is by and large the reason why anti-gun people are anti gun and not anti-club/knife. But in and of itself it does not make all firearms "weapons." Many of us own firearms that we did not acquire for any sort of defensive or coercive purpose. These are not weapons.
Going back to original premise, intended use universally determines a thing’s "weaponness." Nothing is a weapon until one employs it in such an intentional manner as to give that person the ability to cause harm to or coerce another person. M16s carried by soldiers are weapons because the reason they are carrying them is so they have the ability to inflict harm on or coerce other people. When I carry a sidearm (incidentally, my permit is a CHP, Concealed Handgun Permit; the word "weapon" doesn't appear on it anywhere), that firearm is a weapon because having the ability to prevent harm to myself by causing harm to or coercing another person is the reason why I'm carrying it.
A gun that's not meant by its owner to give him the ability to injure, defeat, destroy, or coerce other people should the need arise is not a weapon. It is an implement, much as a screwdriver, a violin, or a car. It is a person's mindset that makes something a weapon, nothing more.
keithbayne
Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2012
- Messages
- 31
i completely agree. a base ball is not a weapon,but in the right circumstances,it has been.
i also dont like the term assault rifle.i prefer to call it a tactical target rifle. i do not intend to assault any one with it. at the same time,
a .22 derringer can be an assault weapon. just the liberal gun grabers will take any thing they can to harm our libertys.
i also dont like the term assault rifle.i prefer to call it a tactical target rifle. i do not intend to assault any one with it. at the same time,
a .22 derringer can be an assault weapon. just the liberal gun grabers will take any thing they can to harm our libertys.
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
Twarl speak says I.
A weapon is just a thing. A thing is not to be feared by way of being a specific thing.
A weapon is only dangerous if someone is using it in that capacity, but it is still a weapon. The intent of the user creates positive or negative consiquences, but a weapon is still a weapon.
I could use a rusty pocket knife to perform surgery, but the knife doesn't suddenly get called "a well used scalpel". It is still a rusty pocket knife.
Agreed!!!!! Antigunners may be ignorant, but they aren't stupid. Calling something by a different name does not make it something else.
A weapon is just a thing. A thing is not to be feared by way of being a specific thing.
A weapon is only dangerous if someone is using it in that capacity, but it is still a weapon. The intent of the user creates positive or negative consiquences, but a weapon is still a weapon.
I could use a rusty pocket knife to perform surgery, but the knife doesn't suddenly get called "a well used scalpel". It is still a rusty pocket knife.
Agreed!!!!! Antigunners may be ignorant, but they aren't stupid. Calling something by a different name does not make it something else.
mgmorden
Member
I think the line of reasoning that the gun is "only a weapon when used as such" is a bit misleading. Realistically, all items need some baseline description to describe them "at rest" - otherwise nothing is really anything until its actively being used.
You don't go into a store and insist that all the motor oil isn't a lubricant until its used, nor do you insist that a pencil is not a writing utensil until it is used as such.
Realistically firearms at their cores are weapons. As said using them for hunting or defense IS using as a weapon so those uses aren't excluded by the definition.
I think a better goal for us, rather than to try and dissociate firearms from the word weapon, would be to try and remove the negative connotation from the word weapon. Yes, a gun is a weapon - and you know what? People in society NEED weapons.
You don't go into a store and insist that all the motor oil isn't a lubricant until its used, nor do you insist that a pencil is not a writing utensil until it is used as such.
Realistically firearms at their cores are weapons. As said using them for hunting or defense IS using as a weapon so those uses aren't excluded by the definition.
I think a better goal for us, rather than to try and dissociate firearms from the word weapon, would be to try and remove the negative connotation from the word weapon. Yes, a gun is a weapon - and you know what? People in society NEED weapons.
beatledog7
Member
mgmorden said:
I agree with your assertion here, but it'll never happen. Far too many people will never be able to grasp why citizens need weapons; thus, the negative connotation of the word is here to stay.
My lengthy post was not purely an attempt to dissociate guns from the term weapon; many of my guns are weapons because of how they are used, and I'll never back away from that. But can you argue that a rifle built specifically for use as a target rifle, as for a biathlon event, is a weapon?
My post was also an attempt to show that if we insist that a firearm is always a weapon, regardless of how it is used, then it's difficult to support the idea that some other things are only sometimes weapons.
Either things are inherently what they are, or not. My answer is they are. Firearms are always firearms. Nothing is inherently a weapon.
mgmorden
Member
If that's the case though, then its already lost. As already posted, the second amendment does not protect our right to hunt. It doesn't protect our right to target shoot. It doesn't protect our right to collect interesting pieces of history. If guns were simply recreational tools they'd have gone the way of lawn darts and many types of fireworks long ago.
The only part about guns that is constitutionally enshrined is their status as weapons.
Matthew Courtney
Member
Most of the civilian use of firearms in the US is as sporting equipment. That said, the word weapon is appropriate in the general sense. When we are referencing a particular firearm, using more descriptive terms like pistol, revolver, rifle, etc is optimal for effective communication.
I have to admit that I, like many others, have from time to time taken the position that "guns are tools." However, I've moved away from that opinion and have begun to believe that we (gun owners) ought not pretend that guns are something they're not. I think we do ourselves a disservice in that. Like many other items, firearms are capable of use as a weapon. Unlike baseball bats and ball-peen hammers (both of which make very capable weapons, I'm sure), most guns are designed to be weapons. I am perfectly happy to admit that my guns are weapons. If they weren't, I'd carry something else.
Legally, ArfinGreebly makes a very good point. The 2A doesn't protect the right to keep and bear tools. It protects the RKBA. If guns aren't weapons (arms), they're not protected by the 2A.
Legally, ArfinGreebly makes a very good point. The 2A doesn't protect the right to keep and bear tools. It protects the RKBA. If guns aren't weapons (arms), they're not protected by the 2A.
beatledog7
Member
When the founders decided to make a direct reference in the Constitution to our inherent right to keep and bear arms, they did so with the thought that some things were too important to leave to chance. Arms in this sense means firearms, and we have the right to keep and bear them because they are the best means by which we ultimately can defend ourselves, using firearms as weapons. The right of self defense is an internationally accepted human rights and political principle, so it's not in jeopardy.
But how can we participate effectively in defending ourselves and our nation if we're not allowed practice? How as a people's militia can we be expected to aid in our country's defense from invasion, or our personal and community defense from tyranny, if we can have a gun for that purpose but can't break it out until the threat is upon us?
The ability and freedom to hunt and participate in target shooting of all kinds is inherent in the RKBA because with any right comes an inherent responsibility. The Right is expressed by carrying out the Responsibility of being able to do it effectively, and in the case of bearing arms that means being safe and proficient. Safety requires study and instruction. Proficiency requires practice, and practice happens on ranges, at shooting sports events, and in the hunting fields and woods.
So, our firearms become weapons when we need them to be. Don't worry. We're covered.
mgmorden
Member
And you just circled back to the same concept though. If you acknowledge that the purpose of those other things is practice, then the item in question is still be used as a weapon. If your current activity is to gain proficiency with the gun for use as a weapon, then its still being used as a weapon.
Besides, as I said, all things retain an adjective that describes some baseline status even when not being used. Is an airplane not an airplane after it lands? Is food not food until its being eaten? Is a phone only a phone while you're actually talking on it? Is your toolbox simply full if "items" until you turn a bolt with the wrench at which point only then does it become a tool (until you finish with it of course)?
You're allowing political correctness to lead you to a path of logic that would be considered downright laughable if compared to ANY OTHER OBJECT.
As I said, guns are weapons, and society needs weapons. I don't see the issue.
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
We don't need guns!!!!!!! The government will save us!!!!!!!!!! Yaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!
crankyoldlady
Member
It depends on the setting.
Active military and veterans tend to refer to their firearms as weapons. They were trained as such by their patient, soft voiced DIs.
But in a family-friendly shooting club environment that offers archery, trap, skeet, and rifle/handgun target shooting, "firearm" is a more appropriate term.
When Grandpa takes his 8 year old granddaughter to shoot a Cricket for the first time, should he be instructing her concerning the safe and proper way to shoot her rifle or her weapon? Words matter. So does the context.
Active military and veterans tend to refer to their firearms as weapons. They were trained as such by their patient, soft voiced DIs.
But in a family-friendly shooting club environment that offers archery, trap, skeet, and rifle/handgun target shooting, "firearm" is a more appropriate term.
When Grandpa takes his 8 year old granddaughter to shoot a Cricket for the first time, should he be instructing her concerning the safe and proper way to shoot her rifle or her weapon? Words matter. So does the context.
beatledog7
Member
mgmorden said:
No, I'm as far from PC as Earth is from Pluto. And what's laughable is saying that sometimes a thing is just a thing, and sometimes it's a weapon depending on how it's used, but a gun is always a weapon, regardless of how it's used. That kind of logic will never win a rational debate. But I can see that's not what we have here--some posters are simply too emotional about the term "weapon" to see reason.
I was trying to be rational about it while not appeasing anyone. But I failed. So be it. From now on when I need to refer to them all in general terms, I'm calling them firearms, which is what they are. Always, when in use or in the safe, when on the range or pointed at an assailant's nose. I'm simplifying my position based on the direction of this thread. They are firearms. That's my stand.
We can argue all day about whether they are weapons, but there's no question that they are firearms. If I'm wrong, I invite you to prove it.
crankyoldlady said:
I wholeheartedly agree.
Last edited:
Most baseball bats, screwdrivers, and golf clubs are never used as weapons.
Most guns are never used as weapons but that has nothing to do what they were originally invented for and that is as weapons. You can also take up archery, fencing, or throw a javelin but that doesn't change what they were developed as.
Trying to be PC with what we call firearms doesn't make sense.
I've always liked Jeff Cooper's stock response when asked "aren't guns dangerous" and that is "of course they are they'd be useless if they weren't".
Most guns are never used as weapons but that has nothing to do what they were originally invented for and that is as weapons. You can also take up archery, fencing, or throw a javelin but that doesn't change what they were developed as.
Trying to be PC with what we call firearms doesn't make sense.
I've always liked Jeff Cooper's stock response when asked "aren't guns dangerous" and that is "of course they are they'd be useless if they weren't".
MedWheeler
Member
I call it a weapon at times, and have no issues with it, especially in a self-defense connotation. I'm tired of altering once-accepted vocabulary in the interest of appeasement of the lesser-educated.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
I've never been too heavily invested in labels, but saying that this gun is a weapon or that gun isn't seems to be a bit absurd. If we discount the firearms that are designed specifically to punch holes in paper targets...all guns are primarily weapons, and anything else secondarily, and...even pure target arms can be pressed into service as weapons.
There's an old adage that says: "If the dog will eat it, it's dog food." And, conversely...if the dog won't eat it, it's not dog food...at least not at the moment.
The dirk is...by design and intent...a weapon. The folding stockman isn't. Either one can be used to perform at least a few functions of the other, but that doesn't mean that the dirk is a utility knife and that the stockman is a weapon.
The Louisville Slugger used by a ball player to hit a triple with is a baseball bat. If the coach picks it up and goes after a heckler in the stands...it's a weapon.
A paring knife is a paring knife, until you cut somebody with it.
It's what you happen to be using it for at the moment that defines it.
The 1911 pistol was...by design and intent...a weapon, and that's the way that I view it. Its purpose was to kill enemy soldiers with.
If I'm at the range, burnin' ammo on the falling plate rack with a 1911 pistol, it's not being used as a weapon. If...while burnin' that ammo...I see a rattlesnake in the bay, and dispatch it with the pistol...it's a weapon.
Disregarding pure target rifles...all rifles are primarily weapons. More than that...all rifles are "assault" rifles, whether the target is man or beast. It's function is attack. The rifle is an arm with which we take it to the target...whether man or beast...and most often at, but not limited to, distances beyond normal pistol range. If the rifle is being used to bounce tin cans or punch paper, it's not being used as a weapon. What we use it for defines what it is, even if only for one shot.
Whenever guns is the topic of casual conversation here, it's Rifle/Pistol/Shotgun, etc. If I'm involved in basic marksmanship or self-defense instruction...they become weapons...mainly to ingrain the idea in the beginner's mind that guns are dangerous if mishandled. (Is gun! Gun not safe!)
There's an old adage that says: "If the dog will eat it, it's dog food." And, conversely...if the dog won't eat it, it's not dog food...at least not at the moment.
The dirk is...by design and intent...a weapon. The folding stockman isn't. Either one can be used to perform at least a few functions of the other, but that doesn't mean that the dirk is a utility knife and that the stockman is a weapon.
The Louisville Slugger used by a ball player to hit a triple with is a baseball bat. If the coach picks it up and goes after a heckler in the stands...it's a weapon.
A paring knife is a paring knife, until you cut somebody with it.
It's what you happen to be using it for at the moment that defines it.
The 1911 pistol was...by design and intent...a weapon, and that's the way that I view it. Its purpose was to kill enemy soldiers with.
If I'm at the range, burnin' ammo on the falling plate rack with a 1911 pistol, it's not being used as a weapon. If...while burnin' that ammo...I see a rattlesnake in the bay, and dispatch it with the pistol...it's a weapon.
Disregarding pure target rifles...all rifles are primarily weapons. More than that...all rifles are "assault" rifles, whether the target is man or beast. It's function is attack. The rifle is an arm with which we take it to the target...whether man or beast...and most often at, but not limited to, distances beyond normal pistol range. If the rifle is being used to bounce tin cans or punch paper, it's not being used as a weapon. What we use it for defines what it is, even if only for one shot.
Whenever guns is the topic of casual conversation here, it's Rifle/Pistol/Shotgun, etc. If I'm involved in basic marksmanship or self-defense instruction...they become weapons...mainly to ingrain the idea in the beginner's mind that guns are dangerous if mishandled. (Is gun! Gun not safe!)
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
This is arguing specificity here, not semantics or context. A rifle is a type of weapon. If she was shooting a .500 magnum we could say "Grandpa is teaching her to shoot her revolver (or pistol)." If we said weapon instead it would be just as applicable to the rifle. A rifle is a type of weapon. Maybe word choice matters, and I agree that it does, but that doesn't make a rifle, gun, or cannon not a weapon.
Resist Evil
Member
My firearms are weapons. Every one was purchased with the express intent to use for destroying living tissue for lawful purposes. As often as I am able, I operate these weapons for lawful recreational purposes against animate and inanimate targets which gives me pleasure.
Guns, to me, are always weapons.
It doesn't matter what the insensate think of the terminology. Americans should speak and shoot straight with each other; letting the rest get worked up over whatever trivial bushwa catches their attention at the moment.
Guns, to me, are always weapons.
It doesn't matter what the insensate think of the terminology. Americans should speak and shoot straight with each other; letting the rest get worked up over whatever trivial bushwa catches their attention at the moment.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
