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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why call it a "weapon" to begin with? A weapon is so nonspecific that it could refer to anything from a hydrogen bomb to a slingshot.

Part of my job is technical writing. The best writing is direct and to the point. In this case, rather than calling the gun something generic like "firearm" or "weapon" - just refer to it as exactly what it is: pistol, revolver, shotgun, or rifle.
 
I use the word piece a lot. It makes it sound like a piece of art, or a collectable, like part of a hobby.

...exactly what it is.

However it can have a gangster ring to it, like yo check my piece. It can be a double edged sword.
 
It is what it is. I don't think any attempt to palliate the term weapon should be made. Why? Are gun owners the new homosexuals which must go into the closet? Being secretive is one thing, but trying to pretend that weapons are not weapons in some sort of effort to placate the ninny's is...akin to ninnyism in and of itself.

It could also be dangerous if you were to palliate weapons in front of children. They may get the idea that there is less danger than there really is with guns.
 
LEO's and some gun experts often refer to a gun as "a weapon" or "the weapon". Sorry, could you please be a little more specific? A lot of things could be used as "a weapon".

I also don't care much for the ubiquitous "Firearms". It makes me think of old flintlock muskets or something. :confused:
 
Last edited:
The firearms training course I took to qualify for my CCL would not permit the word "weapon" to be used. One reason not to use that word was in case you ever shot someone in self defense and you had to make a statement to the police or defend yourself in court. The word weapon has more negative connotations than say firearm, gun, pistol, shotgun or revolver. If you end up in court a prosecuting attorney would latch onto everything you say to use against you and if you call a firearm a weapon it suggests aggressiveness on you part, even premeditation.
I think this philosophy originated with the NRA.
 
Last time I went to Canada and the Customs officer was checking out my pickup/boat.I had no firearms with me.I did have an empty CCI 22 Mini-mag plastic ammo box visible,the intent being to put small terminal fishing tackle in it.Customs agent's hand goes to sidearm.I very slowly,carefully showed her it was empty,I was recycling a plastic box that was useful.

Another agent comes over.After about the third"Do you have any weapons?"
I told them I had a machete in the truck but I considered it a tool rather than a weapon.

End of interview,they let me go on to my fishing trip.
 
...if a gun is not a weapon unless it's used as such then a car is not a vehicle unless it's moving. Neither of those arguments holds any water with me.
Click to expand...



I agree with this entirely.



In case anyone missed a point in an earlier post: The "arm" in firearm means "weapon".
 
For some "guns" are weapons, for most they are not. My guns are rarely weapons.

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

I'll add that this is generally against a person or persons. So my gun sitting on the table needing cleaned after a plinkin session is not a weapon, nor is the pen on my desk or my daughters softball bat on the porch. Only when I train, use or carry for SD a gun for the above definition does it become a weapon. I call a hammer a hammer, a bat a bat, a knife a knife, a bow a bow, a gun a gun. If I train or use any of those items for SD then yes they become weapons. Outside of that I'm not callin a steak knife or a softball bat a weapon and pity any fool who does. Same goes for guns.

Now being said, I own guns for a multitude of reasons with defense being down the list a good ways. A different person may only own guns for defensive and/or offensive reasons (sad sack that he would be) and thus their guns may be considered weapons all the time. But if said person uses their gun(s) for any other reason they can not call them a weapon all the time and they'd be a moron to generically use that term for their guns. Personally if I start to only consider my guns to be weapons and start using the term on a regular basis I'll check myself into the funny farm.

So when is it all right for you to call a gun a weapon? Let's say you decide to take a course on shotguns and HD. You grab your trusty bird or deer gun and head off. I have no problem with you then callin your shotgun a weapon on the way to the coarse, at the coarse, on the way home. But the minute you get home and put it away it's then nothing more than a gun. And I'd severely wonder about the guy that gets up the next morning to go hunting referring to his gun as a weapon.
 
Last edited:
You have to admit that "shooter", has a nice ring to it. It also fits in the event that the sport for which it is used, is a non-bloodsport (trap, skeet, etc.).
 
Websters: something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy.

I'll add that this is generally against a person or persons. So my gun sitting on the table needing cleaned after a plinkin session is not a weapon, nor is the pen on my desk or my daughters softball bat on the porch. Only when I train, use or carry for SD a gun for the above definition does it become a weapon. I call a hammer a hammer, a bat a bat, a knife a knife, a bow a bow, a gun a gun.
Click to expand...

Rule #2: Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. It seems that if you follow the 4 rules a gun is always a weapon by the definition you've provided.

While I understand the argument people are trying to make about only calling it a weapon when it's being used as such, this does not get around the fact that guns are inherently weapons, unlike a piece of cake or a pie.

This doesn't mean that you have to go around calling firearms weapons all the time, and in all circumstances. However, this is not the idea that the OP was contending.

We need to control the language to put out a better public image.

What should we always call firearms? Call them just that "firearms", guns? Call it what it is, rifle/pistol/shotgun?

I like "defensive firearm". Think of it as the opposite of "assault rifle". The media pounded on the term assault rifle and altered the meaning and perception. They controlled the language.

Imagine if we always described a weapon...er...a firearm...in a language "positive" way. If we tie the word defense to the word gun or firearm, that would be golden.
Click to expand...

The OP is suggesting we as firearms/weapons/<insert subtype here> owners play the same game as the other side and add spin to the words we use. Trying to use smoke and mirrors does us no good for various reasons. In part , if we were to make a concerted effort as a community to disavow the idea that firearms are weapons by refusing to use that word to describe them, it hinders the idea of many 2A arguments that firearms are for self-defense and not only "sporting purposes".

It's one thing what you call them in everyday life, but playing political spin games and denying a core aspect of what firearms are is another.
 
Shootin iron

After years of military service I use the term weapon. When one considers the design intent of guns it is a fitting term.

If you are pulled over by an LEO and you are asked "Do you have any weapons in the vehicle?" there is no exception for guns you only use to shoot paper, knives you only use to cut rope, and the list could go on indefinitely.

One could argue that someone could be suffocated with a teddy bear but I would not call that a weapon prior to such a use, but that is also not the design intent of a teddy bear.

I have always been fond of the term shootin iron though :D
 
the fact that guns are inherently weapons
Click to expand...

No they are not. A gun is no more inherently a weapon than any other inanimate object. More guns are sold to and used by civilians for sporting reasons everyday than have ever been used by civialians for offensive or defensive reasons. That's not just in the last year, or the last decade, or the last century. It's since the inception of the gun itself. Do you think the cowboy's carried guns for SD or the Colonist had rifles and muskets for HD? No, they were tools and sometimes toys that on occasion HAD TO be used as a weapon. The military has used the term weapon for centuries but you'd never had seen any civilian in the past say grab your weapon, or I went hunting with my weapon, or I shot some targets with my weapon and so on. Civilians using the term wholesale is a fairly modern thing with many using it for dubious reasons.
 
L_Killkenny my Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (copyright 1977) offers the following: Weapon 1: an instrument of offensive or defensive combat: something to fight with 2: a means of contending with another

Every one of my weapons/firearms is perfectly capable of doing the above, although I generally use them for sport and recreation. While I don't think someone who considers a firearm to be the equivalent of a steak knife or a softball bat to be moronic, foolish or worthy of my pity, I do think it shows a fundamental lack of understanding about the nature of these items. I will continue to refer to my guns as weapons, because at the end of the day that is exactly what they are.
 
L_Killkenny said:
No they are not. A gun is no more inherently a weapon than any other inanimate object.
Click to expand...

This argument simply does not hold water for average people. Ordinary usage of the word indicates otherwise.

By that logic, NOTHING is ever ANYTHING except an "inanimate object" until you actually use it for something.

A hammer is not a tool until you hit nails with it.

A car is not a vehicle unless you're driving it.

A sneaker is not a shoe unless you're wearing it.

It's astonishing to me how desperately we try to make our firearms into something they're not, especially since we seem to be the only ones in the world who care and certainly the only ones who believe it.

This is like the firearms worlds version of Schrödinger's cat. It's not dead or alive until you open the box.

It's not a weapon until you use it.

Unbelievable silliness.
 
Go up and read your definition. You are correct that guns are capable of that but until they do it they are not a weapon. Again, you have to look at actual use and maybe intent. Not one of my guns was purchased with the use or intent of SD/HD a primary reason or concern. All could be used for it. Many, hell most "instruments" can be. You just can't make a blanket statements about guns and call them all weapons. Can't be done, doesn't fit. As for lack of understanding, touche. I can't see how anyone can differentiate between inanimate objects. Actual use or as I stated maybe intent are required to fit the definition. The actual object is irrelevant.
 
No they are not. A gun is no more inherently a weapon than any other inanimate object. More guns are sold to and used by civilians for sporting reasons everyday than have ever been used by civialians for offensive or defensive reasons. That's not just in the last year, or the last decade, or the last century. It's since the inception of the gun itself.
Click to expand...

Actually...the inception of firearm(see fire lance and it's immediate off shoots/subsequent developments) was for warfare and since then their primary and widespread uses has been warfare(see handgonne and arquebus). In fact just the opposite could be argued. Only in the relatively recent history of firearms have they been primarily personally owned items for the common person and not weapons of war issued to troops or owned as a requirement for use in a militia (see brown bess). These examples while not the end all be all, are a pretty good outline of firearms usage and ownership from inception(~700AD) to transition into common private ownership(~1700)

Also you're arbitrarily restricting the definition of a weapon as something used against another person. On top of which you're making a false comparison. Qualifying all guns sold for sporting purposes against all guns USED (Not just sold) for offensive/defensive purposes. Do you have stats to support that conclusion or is it just speculation?
 
I just finished watching "Lonesome Dove". Capt. Gus McRae used his Remington 1858 as a weapon when he smacked the bar keep up along side his head for being rude to Capt. Call! And he didn't even need to pull the trigger for it to be an effective weapon!

Maybe it was a Colt 1851? Not sure, but it was a good weapon in that situation, regardless!
 
This argument simply does not hold water for average people. Ordinary usage of the word indicates otherwise.

By that logic, NOTHING is ever ANYTHING except an "inanimate object" until you actually use it for something.

A hammer is not a tool until you hit nails with it.

A car is not a vehicle unless you're driving it.

A sneaker is not a shoe unless you're wearing it.

It's astonishing to me how desperately we try to make our firearms into something they're not, especially since we seem to be the only ones in the world who care and certainly the only ones who believe it.

This is like the firearms worlds version of Schrödinger's cat. It's not dead or alive until you open the box.

It's not a weapon until you use it.

Unbelievable silliness.
Click to expand...

In a lot of cases I'll agree with you but in this you're reaching for the sky and fallin short. Yes a hammer is a tool, a car is a car, a shoe is a shoe. But all that points out reality, that a gun is a gun. It's not like I'm out there saying a gun isn't a gun for Lord's sake. I'm callin it exactly what it is, a gun. But nothing, absolutely nothing is a weapon without use and/or intent. Yet, everything and anything including the previously mentioned teddy bear can be a weapon. So where do we draw the line in what we call weapons or what we call tools or what we call toys etc etc? The only place we can draw the line is with use and intent. And for civilians to generically refer to guns as weapons is no better then generically callin their skinnin knife a weapon. Because at the heart of things most guns are not and will never be a weapon.

When I go blow up some cans I use a toy not a weapon, when I hunt I use a tool not a weapon, when I CC THEN I have a weapon.
 
Last edited:
The OP is suggesting we as firearms/weapons/<insert subtype here> owners play the same game as the other side and add spin to the words we use. Trying to use smoke and mirrors does us no good for various reasons. In part , if we were to make a concerted effort as a community to disavow the idea that firearms are weapons by refusing to use that word to describe them, it hinders the idea of many 2A arguments that firearms are for self-defense and not only "sporting purposes".

It's one thing what you call them in everyday life, but playing political spin games and denying a core aspect of what firearms are is another
Click to expand...

I may agree with this in principal , the reality is quite different . The left is winning the PR war and if we don't start playing by the same rules we will lose . ( no one wants new taxes but new revenues is OK ) wording matters ! As much as we don't like it , this garbage SELLS . This last election shows this to be true . Proceeding with blinders on hoping the 2nd amendment will speak for it's self is a very risky plan .
 
Because at the heart of things most guns are not and will never be a weapon.
Click to expand...

So if the intent when purchased is for protection, but it's never used it's not a weapon? Once again...do you have some sort of source that says most firearms purchased the sole intent is to shoot inanimate objects?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top