Feanaro
Member
RKBABob said:
We obviously have very different ideas about how to employ our firearms. I can't quite wrap my head around stopping an attacker without using my firearm to facilitate violence, except to hope that he chickens out.
Weapon or Firearm-Is it just semantics?
- Thread starter Grandpa Shooter
- Start date
- Status
We obviously have very different ideas about how to employ our firearms. I can't quite wrap my head around stopping an attacker without using my firearm to facilitate violence, except to hope that he chickens out.
Officers'Wife
Member
Hi 230,
Sounds like a plan to me, all roads lead to Rome after all. As long as you aren't asking me to agree to disagree.
Selena
Sounds like a plan to me, all roads lead to Rome after all. As long as you aren't asking me to agree to disagree.
Selena
Brad Johnson
Member
Now what fun would that be?
Brad
OP
OP
Grandpa Shooter
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 948
It is truly nice to see that some things don't ever change. Take five years off and all the arguments are the same, the logic behind them is intact.
This ladies and gentlemen is why we are losing ground IMO. They have one objective. To end the private ownership of firearms. We still can't agree on what to call them. They have a huge advantage.
Take care and good shooting!
This ladies and gentlemen is why we are losing ground IMO. They have one objective. To end the private ownership of firearms. We still can't agree on what to call them. They have a huge advantage.
Take care and good shooting!
RKBABob
Member
OK, let me put it another way. The word "weapon" connotes an intention that may or may not be present in its user. This is my reasoning:
Soldiers carry weapons when sent out into a battle, because it is assumed that they are sent with the intent to do violence to their nation's enemies.
Criminals carry weapons when out on a crime spree, since they have armed themselves with the intention of offering aggression and violence to their fellow citizen for money, power, or some other goal.
Gentlemen (and ladies
) carry firearms. These are not weapons, since no true gentleman would ever intend to offer another person violence. Most gentlemen would hope to live an entire lifetime without ever having the need to unholster their firearm, and use it as a weapon, but have prudently prepared themselves for such a scenario, however unlikely.Since I never intend to use a firearm as a weapon, why should I continually refer to it as a weapon? As other posters have pointed out, alot of inanimate objects can be used as devastating weapons. Many a victim was brutalized with a baseball bat. Yet we don't refer to bats as weapons, because that use is just a small exception to a baseball bats common use, ie: fun and recreation.
This reflects the battle of semantics. I don't know if we should call rifles weapons as civilians.
* Our instructor said the same thing- he said "this is a rifle, not a weapon, don't call it a weapon. If you serve in Iraq and carry a rifle, you can call that a weapon- but don't call hunting rifles weapons." He was a Vietnam vet, not a politically correct type. So he had a point.
Blackbeard
Member
Ok, here's the bottom line. You don't have the right to keep and bear tools, sporting goods, or anything else. You have the right to keep and bear ARMS. What are arms? WEAPONS!
arm n. 1. A weapon, especially a firearm.
There it is right in the word.....firearms, not firetools, not fire-collectables
arm n. 1. A weapon, especially a firearm.
There it is right in the word.....firearms, not firetools, not fire-collectables
Blackbeard
Member
Intent has nothing to do with the classification of the object. An unused weapon is still a weapon. A gentlemen may have no intent to do bodily harm with his weapon, but it's still a weapon.
We need to get past the PC BS and quit denying the nature of these little objects of our obsession.
It's all in the use
If I use an ice ax to climb a glacier it's a tool. When I use it to part someone's scalp, then it becomes a weapon, unless I am performing emergency brain surgery with it. If the patient accidently dies, the ice ax still isn't a weapon, even though I may be charged with manslaughter or civilly sued for malpractice.
If I club someone to death with a Maglite, it is a weapon. Until then it is a flashlight.
Same with an ax, a baseball bat, or a driving iron.
Inspite of my intent, none of my sidearms, longarms, or "investments purchased for all lawful purposes" have, thank God ever been weapons. The capability of an object to perform well as a weapon is a neither a necessary nor sufficient aspect for something to actually BE a weapon.
Similarly someone with a penis isn't a rapist until they commit rape, inspite of the intrinsic capacity, indeed the design, to perform the deed.
To believe otherwise is to think with a level of precision that obscures the crux of what makes any inanimate object an actual weapon. Firearms are very useful as weapons, but so is petroleum distillates and detergent. In spite of the tons of napalm we dropped in jungles in southeast asia, no one ever accuses the gas station or the supermarket for dispensing weapons.
Guns get special fear-think treatment because the media and the state iconizes and glamorizes them. Gee, now I wonder why they do that?
If I use an ice ax to climb a glacier it's a tool. When I use it to part someone's scalp, then it becomes a weapon, unless I am performing emergency brain surgery with it. If the patient accidently dies, the ice ax still isn't a weapon, even though I may be charged with manslaughter or civilly sued for malpractice.
If I club someone to death with a Maglite, it is a weapon. Until then it is a flashlight.
Same with an ax, a baseball bat, or a driving iron.
Inspite of my intent, none of my sidearms, longarms, or "investments purchased for all lawful purposes" have, thank God ever been weapons. The capability of an object to perform well as a weapon is a neither a necessary nor sufficient aspect for something to actually BE a weapon.
Similarly someone with a penis isn't a rapist until they commit rape, inspite of the intrinsic capacity, indeed the design, to perform the deed.
To believe otherwise is to think with a level of precision that obscures the crux of what makes any inanimate object an actual weapon. Firearms are very useful as weapons, but so is petroleum distillates and detergent. In spite of the tons of napalm we dropped in jungles in southeast asia, no one ever accuses the gas station or the supermarket for dispensing weapons.
Guns get special fear-think treatment because the media and the state iconizes and glamorizes them. Gee, now I wonder why they do that?
Nolo
Member
I have to disagree that it's in the use. Is a sword a weapon? Yes. Even when it's being used to cut grass? Ummm... yes? A weapon is something designed as a tool for killing. You could argue that your target rifles aren't weapons, but I'd disagree. They aren't designed for killing, but they are designed for practicing killing, which also classifies them as weapons. Unless it was designed for something like transportation (which I've only heard of in science fiction novels) or something like industry, then it's a weapon. I supposed you could find other uses for high speed mass-drivers, but I've yet to think of them. Guns are weapons, and should be respected as such. Do not let the antis get to you.
I'd also like to point out that there is a difference in what something is and what something is being used as. A flashlight is a tool, but you can use it as a weapon. Does this make it ever a weapon? No. It is only a weapon in the moment it is being used as such. A flashlight was designed as a tool, not a weapon (which is a subset of tools, I would observe). A firearm was designed as a weapon, which makes it also a tool, but it is still a weapon. That is why they are called firearms. "Arm" is a synonym for "weapon".
I'd also like to point out that there is a difference in what something is and what something is being used as. A flashlight is a tool, but you can use it as a weapon. Does this make it ever a weapon? No. It is only a weapon in the moment it is being used as such. A flashlight was designed as a tool, not a weapon (which is a subset of tools, I would observe). A firearm was designed as a weapon, which makes it also a tool, but it is still a weapon. That is why they are called firearms. "Arm" is a synonym for "weapon".
Officers'Wife
Member
Hi Blackbeard,
While your dictionary needs a new editor the above quote is closer than any I've seen. Take a Pepsi out of petty cash, you've earned it.
Selena
While your dictionary needs a new editor the above quote is closer than any I've seen. Take a Pepsi out of petty cash, you've earned it.
Selena
Legal definition
>"A weapon is something designed as a tool for killing"
According to this (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d011.htm) that isn't correct. The legal crux is in both the use and the intent of the user. Design intent is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for something to be a weapon.
I have firearms that were admittedly designed as weapons (very good for turning dollars into noise and flash (or optionally little noise and no flash)). Olympic grade target rifles can hardly be said to be designed as weapons.
What firearms are (hopefully) are precision projectile throwers. It's the target that makes them weapons.
Okinawan rice flails in the hands of a peasant are a farm tool. In the hands of a karate practioner it could be used as a weapon (nunchaku). Katana swords in Japan today are objects of art for most owners. For an Iaido practioner a sword could be a weapon. But for most of us having one is an accident waiting to happen.
Having a piano doesn't make one a musician. Having a power projecting tool doesn't make one armed. It's a popular saying around here, but it really is the software, not the hardware.
>"A weapon is something designed as a tool for killing"
According to this (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d011.htm) that isn't correct. The legal crux is in both the use and the intent of the user. Design intent is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for something to be a weapon.
I have firearms that were admittedly designed as weapons (very good for turning dollars into noise and flash (or optionally little noise and no flash)). Olympic grade target rifles can hardly be said to be designed as weapons.
What firearms are (hopefully) are precision projectile throwers. It's the target that makes them weapons.
Okinawan rice flails in the hands of a peasant are a farm tool. In the hands of a karate practioner it could be used as a weapon (nunchaku). Katana swords in Japan today are objects of art for most owners. For an Iaido practioner a sword could be a weapon. But for most of us having one is an accident waiting to happen.
Having a piano doesn't make one a musician. Having a power projecting tool doesn't make one armed. It's a popular saying around here, but it really is the software, not the hardware.
Nolo
Member
And the law also defines a rifle with a short barrel and no stock as a pistol, but it's not. The law is not always (you could argue usually not) correct.
Olympic target rifles are weapons, and should be treated as such. They are training weapons for actual combat, whether that training has evolved into a sport or not.
What firearms are is arms. As in weapons.
Okinawan rice flails are tools. When they are used by a peasant to defend their home they become weapons in the instant that they are used as such, at no other time are they weapons. Nunchaku are weapons that were adapted from Okinawan rice flails, and they are weapons and solely so.
A sword is aways a weapon. It is highly specialized to be such. Just like firearms.
RioShooter
Member
I've been thinking about this thread since yesterday, and there is one point I think should settle the argument, and it has already been stated:
If you consider the history of firearms, they were invented to kill. That's it.
They exist for that reason. Over time they were collected. And humans being naturally competitive, target shooting was developed. But the argument still goes back to the origin of ALL firearms.
They are tools designed to kill. Therefore, in my mind, they are weapons.
If you consider the history of firearms, they were invented to kill. That's it.
They exist for that reason. Over time they were collected. And humans being naturally competitive, target shooting was developed. But the argument still goes back to the origin of ALL firearms.
They are tools designed to kill. Therefore, in my mind, they are weapons.
Nolo
Member
I honestly think that this debate can be settled with one word:
Firearms.
Firearms.
Not firetools.
Or firetrainers.
Firearms.
As in weapons.
Respect them as such. That's how I learned my muzzle discipline.
Firearms.
Firearms.
Not firetools.
Or firetrainers.
Firearms.
As in weapons.
Respect them as such. That's how I learned my muzzle discipline.
Blackbeard
Member
This whole tool vs. weapon debate is rather silly. It's like one guy arguing that his Kawasaki is a motorcycle, not a conveyance. It's both. Arguing that a gun is not a weapon unless you use it to shoot someone is like arguing that a pizza is not food unless you eat it.
Guns are a subset of Weapons, which are a subset of Tools.
Guns are a subset of Weapons, which are a subset of Tools.
Nolo
Member
Blackbeard's got it.
That's what I've been saying.
:banghead:
Random smileys ftw!
That's what I've been saying.
:banghead:Random smileys ftw!
RKBABob
Member
Well... Now that we got that settled, I'm going out to shoot my Colt Strifemaker BADSBSNF81
Member
Anything can be a "weapon". rolled up magazine, can of corn, pencil, automobile, rock, etc.. A firearm is just one of many weapons.
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,709
This guy has it right.
Hey new guy, welcome to THR, and an exceptionally well-presented debut.
Havegunjoe
Member
Weapon has a more sinister connotation than firearm. I use firearm. No need to antagonize the anti's any more than necessary.
The Lone Haranguer
Member
It is really semantics
Whether any object is a weapon depends on the intent of the person wielding it. Further, a weapon can be used righteously -- e.g., for self defense or hunting -- or wrongly, although the end result (some sort of bodily harm) is the same.
Agreed.
Disagree. For example, a baseball bat can be used as a weapon -- and with deadly effect -- but its purpose is to hit baseballs.
Whether any object is a weapon depends on the intent of the person wielding it. Further, a weapon can be used righteously -- e.g., for self defense or hunting -- or wrongly, although the end result (some sort of bodily harm) is the same.Nolo
Member
The Lone Haranguer's got it.
I love that comic.
I love that comic.
10 Ring Tao
Member
This has been one of my biggest pet peeves for some time.
For us, its just semantics. For the non-shooting public, it is a matter of political survival.
The ignorance I encounter when I bring this up astounds me. There are a lot of people in the gun owning community who are absolutely without a clue when it comes to the importance of public perception.
Facts don't matter. Perception is the only thing that matters. Perception is what elections are won and lost on. Perception is what makes passing bad laws possible.
The reason we are so far in the hole, legislation wise, is because we as gun owners suffer from a horrible image problem. Not because of what/who we are, but because of the perception of us.
We all need to do everything we can to improve the non-shooting public's perception of the shooting sports and shooters.
Changing our perception in the non-shooting public's eyes, centers around changing the idea that the very act of firing a gun is a violent act.
One of the simplest ways to do that, is to never refer to a gun as a weapon, unless it is indeed intended to be used to potentially harm another person.
We harp on the idea that guns don't kill people, people kill people. We say that it has everything to do with the intention of the person holding the gun. That means we need to continue that logic, and never refer to a gun as a weapon, unless the intention of the person holding the gun could be to harm another human being.
So, to summarize:
-We have a perception problem in the non-shooting public.
-That poor perception is because any firing of a gun is seen as a violent act.
-To change our poor perception, we need to avoid feeding it by being selective with our actions and words.
-To fail to do so will result in the eventual extinction of our sport and ability to carry.
For us, its just semantics. For the non-shooting public, it is a matter of political survival.
The ignorance I encounter when I bring this up astounds me. There are a lot of people in the gun owning community who are absolutely without a clue when it comes to the importance of public perception.
Facts don't matter. Perception is the only thing that matters. Perception is what elections are won and lost on. Perception is what makes passing bad laws possible.
The reason we are so far in the hole, legislation wise, is because we as gun owners suffer from a horrible image problem. Not because of what/who we are, but because of the perception of us.
We all need to do everything we can to improve the non-shooting public's perception of the shooting sports and shooters.
Changing our perception in the non-shooting public's eyes, centers around changing the idea that the very act of firing a gun is a violent act.
One of the simplest ways to do that, is to never refer to a gun as a weapon, unless it is indeed intended to be used to potentially harm another person.
We harp on the idea that guns don't kill people, people kill people. We say that it has everything to do with the intention of the person holding the gun. That means we need to continue that logic, and never refer to a gun as a weapon, unless the intention of the person holding the gun could be to harm another human being.
So, to summarize:
-We have a perception problem in the non-shooting public.
-That poor perception is because any firing of a gun is seen as a violent act.
-To change our poor perception, we need to avoid feeding it by being selective with our actions and words.
-To fail to do so will result in the eventual extinction of our sport and ability to carry.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
