Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
yyyyyeeesssss!!
Need to stop using the word weapon. What's more appropriate?
- Thread starter breakingcontact
- Start date
- Status
yyyyyeeesssss!!
Hows that old saying go "People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts" or something like that. Well, its a fact that all firearms fall under the classification of weapons. Stating otherwise won't change that fact. Its not just semantics, its not just opinion, its well documented and defined in law and the English language.
jeepstrapped
New member
Chemical Reaction Engine
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
When you try to sanitize boom things by not calling them weapons, you are playing into the hands of antis. The 2nd Amend protects their use as weapons, not as tools or sporting instruments.
Bowling bowls have no constitutional protection. AR-15s are so deadly as are O/U shotguns that one should ban them - except that they are protected as weapons. If you want a hobby collect stamps or bowl. You don't take your bowling ball to the Aurora theatre.
The Brits and Australian gun communities bought into sports and tried to protect their guns by evoking manly sports. They actually insulted American gun views and lost!
Even the sporting uses of guns are derivative of their killing purpose.
I only know of one tool use of a firearm. That is a special shotgun like gun used to blast scale off the inside of blast furnances.
Thus, tools and sports are giving it up. Don't.
Bowling bowls have no constitutional protection. AR-15s are so deadly as are O/U shotguns that one should ban them - except that they are protected as weapons. If you want a hobby collect stamps or bowl. You don't take your bowling ball to the Aurora theatre.
The Brits and Australian gun communities bought into sports and tried to protect their guns by evoking manly sports. They actually insulted American gun views and lost!
Even the sporting uses of guns are derivative of their killing purpose.
I only know of one tool use of a firearm. That is a special shotgun like gun used to blast scale off the inside of blast furnances.
Thus, tools and sports are giving it up. Don't.
I'm not so sure about that . No wear in the 2nd amendment does it mention weapons but it does say something about the right to bear ARMS . My geuss it they ment fireARMS
The most interesting thing about this thread is that it shows how we need to have an organized vocabulary for these issues . We all believe in pretty much the same thing when it come to guns . Yet we can not agree on how best to articulate it .
Arms are synonymous with weapons.
arms plural of arms (Noun)
Noun: 1. Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".
2. Distinctive emblems or devices, forming the heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or countries.
Synonyms:
weapon - weaponry - arm - armament
arms plural of arms (Noun)
Noun: 1. Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".
2. Distinctive emblems or devices, forming the heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or countries.
Synonyms:
weapon - weaponry - arm - armament
Weapon, firearm, sidearm, pistol... I tend to switch fairly freely between them. I've found myself using "sidearm" when using it on-duty, and "pistol" when talking about it off-duty. Otherwise I actually just refer to it by make. (I.e. "Let me grab my Sig" or "Yeah, my Glock is in the top drawer, next to the Walther")
I'm in the same boat as (apparently) several other members in that I did my training at Fort Sill, and it was DRILLED into my head that I was using a rifle, or a weapon, never a gun. Guns were for the Artillery and Navy types.
I'm in the same boat as (apparently) several other members in that I did my training at Fort Sill, and it was DRILLED into my head that I was using a rifle, or a weapon, never a gun. Guns were for the Artillery and Navy types.
Sheesh, what's in a name?
Five pages already of semantics and wordsmithing....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA4LcsyczA8
Five pages already of semantics and wordsmithing....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA4LcsyczA8
Here's something else to consider. The concealed carry permit in Arizona is called a Concealed Weapons Permit. If guns aren't weapons, does that mean this card only allows me to conceal a sword? Or a knife? Or a dagger or something?
No! It's purpose is to allow me to carry a gun to use in the defense of myself and my family. There you have a government entity called a gun what it is...a weapon.
As has been said before, sanitizing the name of something (in this case, weapons) only helps the other side. It does nothing to help us. The constitution protects our right to bear arms (which has already been defined earlier in the thread as weapons and ammunition. If we call it something else, we're just asking for it to become even more controlled.
"Oh, we're not taking away your weapons, we're just heavily regulating your sporting equipment because it's dangerous! There's precedent...remember when we (the CPSC) banned lawn darts?"
I may call them many things, but the bottom line is, my guns are weapons.
No! It's purpose is to allow me to carry a gun to use in the defense of myself and my family. There you have a government entity called a gun what it is...a weapon.
As has been said before, sanitizing the name of something (in this case, weapons) only helps the other side. It does nothing to help us. The constitution protects our right to bear arms (which has already been defined earlier in the thread as weapons and ammunition. If we call it something else, we're just asking for it to become even more controlled.
"Oh, we're not taking away your weapons, we're just heavily regulating your sporting equipment because it's dangerous! There's precedent...remember when we (the CPSC) banned lawn darts?"
I may call them many things, but the bottom line is, my guns are weapons.
breakingcontact
Moderator
Suppose I could sign on to the concept of using my firearm as a weapon if need be.
TX calls it a CHL (concealed handgun license). Because that's all it is while its sitting on your hip. Just a handgun. When you draw it if attacked...then you are employing your handgun as a weapon for defense.
My biggest issue is that we don't come off as aggressors and much of the language used is that aggressive language. Should we appear to the public as well armed for defense? Sure. This issue of saying if you want to modify our language being akin to other nations losing their gun rights trying to hide behind sporting and hunting is just a red herring. If we had some gun owners logo tying us all together...it could very well be a triangle with sides labeled (hunting-defense-sport). This isn't about pretending that firearms aren't tools by which we can perpetrate violence.
My point is that we as a community/culture need to not appear as hostile. We need to appear and appeal to others as normal. Wanting to defend yourself and your loved ones is totally normal and nearly universal. (Note I said "wanting to", not willing to)
So if we appear to the public as "that guy" you see at the range. Or "that guy" at the gun shop/show. And we speak in an aggressive language about what should be normal. Then we are marginalizing ourselves and our cause and for what to inflate our egos with some militaristic machismo?
TX calls it a CHL (concealed handgun license). Because that's all it is while its sitting on your hip. Just a handgun. When you draw it if attacked...then you are employing your handgun as a weapon for defense.
My biggest issue is that we don't come off as aggressors and much of the language used is that aggressive language. Should we appear to the public as well armed for defense? Sure. This issue of saying if you want to modify our language being akin to other nations losing their gun rights trying to hide behind sporting and hunting is just a red herring. If we had some gun owners logo tying us all together...it could very well be a triangle with sides labeled (hunting-defense-sport). This isn't about pretending that firearms aren't tools by which we can perpetrate violence.
My point is that we as a community/culture need to not appear as hostile. We need to appear and appeal to others as normal. Wanting to defend yourself and your loved ones is totally normal and nearly universal. (Note I said "wanting to", not willing to)
So if we appear to the public as "that guy" you see at the range. Or "that guy" at the gun shop/show. And we speak in an aggressive language about what should be normal. Then we are marginalizing ourselves and our cause and for what to inflate our egos with some militaristic machismo?
The OP is about finding better words to make your point and or arguement .
Maybe it just me but I'm not seeing why calling a gun a firearm and not a weapon is bad while trying to articalate a message . It is in fact calling a spade a spade. Yes I do believe a gun , firearm is a weapon to inflicting bodily harm or physical damage and to gain an advantage or to defending oneself in conflict or contest .
I believe that is the issue here . When one says firearm you don't istantly think of hurting or damaging something but when you say weapon , that's what you are saying because that is the actual definition of the word weapon .
Someone wrote earlier that even if a gun was purpose built for target shooting it is still a weapon because its original design is still a gun and firearm . This is why wording matters . Is it not one of our biggest pet peeves that the semi auto AR15 is not an assault rifle . Using the same logic . It is an assault rifle because although purpose built not to be an assault rifle it still is derived from the same platform and design as an assault rifle there for it is an assault rifle . I may not have worded the perfectlly but I'm sure you get the point .
Maybe it just me but I'm not seeing why calling a gun a firearm and not a weapon is bad while trying to articalate a message . It is in fact calling a spade a spade. Yes I do believe a gun , firearm is a weapon to inflicting bodily harm or physical damage and to gain an advantage or to defending oneself in conflict or contest .
I believe that is the issue here . When one says firearm you don't istantly think of hurting or damaging something but when you say weapon , that's what you are saying because that is the actual definition of the word weapon .
Someone wrote earlier that even if a gun was purpose built for target shooting it is still a weapon because its original design is still a gun and firearm . This is why wording matters . Is it not one of our biggest pet peeves that the semi auto AR15 is not an assault rifle . Using the same logic . It is an assault rifle because although purpose built not to be an assault rifle it still is derived from the same platform and design as an assault rifle there for it is an assault rifle . I may not have worded the perfectlly but I'm sure you get the point .
sigcurious
New member
I disagree that the general use of the word weapon is hostile. But accepting that premise for a moment, why do we need to not appear hostile(specifically change the language we use)? As noted before, public opinion is and has been swaying in our favor when it comes to gun control. So if all this time the word weapon has been hostile and off putting, why aren't people more and more people indicating that additional gun control is needed or handgun ownership should be banned? Why should we now start to put on airs to appease the public that's already starting to come around and becoming more accepting of the ideas surrounding the 2A?
The flip-side would be even if some people do find the word weapon to be aggressive or detrimental in nature, would it not be better to remove the stigma around a word that describes a core aspect of firearms, rather than dance around it?
The flip-side would be even if some people do find the word weapon to be aggressive or detrimental in nature, would it not be better to remove the stigma around a word that describes a core aspect of firearms, rather than dance around it?
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
The trouble is not in calling a firearm something besides a weapon. In fact, I'm not sure I ever use the word weapon in that context. The trouble is in claiming that a firearm ISN'T a weapon.
You can call it a gun, firearm, piece, roscoe, peacemaker, revolver, pistol, handgun... uhg, even platform, I suppose, probably quite a few other names too but whatever name you use, it's STILL...
a weapon.
You can call it a gun, firearm, piece, roscoe, peacemaker, revolver, pistol, handgun... uhg, even platform, I suppose, probably quite a few other names too but whatever name you use, it's STILL...
a weapon.
@breakingcontact Just want to comment on a few parts of your statement here. This is all for the sake of discussion.
The flaw in this reasoning is that you're saying it's not a weapon until you use it. The problem with this is, a handgun IS a weapon, regardless of how it's used. It's purpose is as a weapon. It was produced as a weapon. Even a target only race gun is a weapon because it still can be used to stop, kill, injure, maim, etc, AND it's purpose is to emulate shooting at targets, which are, throughout history, an analog to something that you wish to stop, kill, injure or maim. Even if I give on the area that "target only" firearms are not weapons, that handgun on your hip IS still a weapon. You are lying to yourself if you believe differently. No amount of semantic jujitsu will get around the hard fact that a handgun is a weapon.
By the way, Arizona calls it a Concealed Weapons Permit because that's what the gun on your hip is...a weapon. It also covers other objects that are weapons as well.
I understand what you're saying here. But our guns are only protected BECAUSE they are weapons. Their use as weapons for defense (and as a check against the government) are the only protected uses. The fact that they can be used for hunting and sport is a side affect of having them for defensive purposes. By calling a weapon by a politically correct term, you're watering it's PROTECTED PURPOSE down.
Whether you call it a gun, weapon, piece, sidearm, or high pressure combustion based slug thrower is irrelevant. Non-shooters will still look at those of us with guns (which they automatically see as violent killing tools) as having dangerous objects to society. Read my first post in this thread where I mentioned paintball. The ONLY people using the politically correct term were the players themselves. Society as a whole saw paintball guns for what they were. We are absolutely not helping a thing by saying our guns aren't weapons. We are, however, watering down their true purpose, and lying to ourselves. Also, if we all as a whole decided that our guns aren't weapons anymore, we would be the only people who wouldn't call them weapons. Non-shooters would still call them what they are...weapons.
We would be marginalizing ourselves and our cause if we lied about what we have, and what we shoot. And now, you just used the non-shooters stereotype. I'm not inflating my ego, or boosting some militaristic machismo by calling my guns what they are. I'm simply not willing to lie about what they are because it's not politically correct. There are some who maybe that stereotype fits, but it would be the exception, not the rule. And by not calling guns what they are isn't going to change that, and it won't change people's perception. They will see right through the lie.
Let me put it to you another way. When, um, a certain President we currently have says that he supports the 2nd Amendment, what do you think in your mind? I certainly don't think he supports the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. He might support the militia part (in the form of the NG), and therefore can say he supports the 2nd Amendment. We see right through the deception. Non-shooters will see right through us if we start watering down our language, and lie to them by saying the Glock on my hip isn't a weapon.
The flaw in this reasoning is that you're saying it's not a weapon until you use it. The problem with this is, a handgun IS a weapon, regardless of how it's used. It's purpose is as a weapon. It was produced as a weapon. Even a target only race gun is a weapon because it still can be used to stop, kill, injure, maim, etc, AND it's purpose is to emulate shooting at targets, which are, throughout history, an analog to something that you wish to stop, kill, injure or maim. Even if I give on the area that "target only" firearms are not weapons, that handgun on your hip IS still a weapon. You are lying to yourself if you believe differently. No amount of semantic jujitsu will get around the hard fact that a handgun is a weapon.
By the way, Arizona calls it a Concealed Weapons Permit because that's what the gun on your hip is...a weapon. It also covers other objects that are weapons as well.
I understand what you're saying here. But our guns are only protected BECAUSE they are weapons. Their use as weapons for defense (and as a check against the government) are the only protected uses. The fact that they can be used for hunting and sport is a side affect of having them for defensive purposes. By calling a weapon by a politically correct term, you're watering it's PROTECTED PURPOSE down.
Whether you call it a gun, weapon, piece, sidearm, or high pressure combustion based slug thrower is irrelevant. Non-shooters will still look at those of us with guns (which they automatically see as violent killing tools) as having dangerous objects to society. Read my first post in this thread where I mentioned paintball. The ONLY people using the politically correct term were the players themselves. Society as a whole saw paintball guns for what they were. We are absolutely not helping a thing by saying our guns aren't weapons. We are, however, watering down their true purpose, and lying to ourselves. Also, if we all as a whole decided that our guns aren't weapons anymore, we would be the only people who wouldn't call them weapons. Non-shooters would still call them what they are...weapons.
We would be marginalizing ourselves and our cause if we lied about what we have, and what we shoot. And now, you just used the non-shooters stereotype. I'm not inflating my ego, or boosting some militaristic machismo by calling my guns what they are. I'm simply not willing to lie about what they are because it's not politically correct. There are some who maybe that stereotype fits, but it would be the exception, not the rule. And by not calling guns what they are isn't going to change that, and it won't change people's perception. They will see right through the lie.
Let me put it to you another way. When, um, a certain President we currently have says that he supports the 2nd Amendment, what do you think in your mind? I certainly don't think he supports the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. He might support the militia part (in the form of the NG), and therefore can say he supports the 2nd Amendment. We see right through the deception. Non-shooters will see right through us if we start watering down our language, and lie to them by saying the Glock on my hip isn't a weapon.
Holy Strawman Batman
This has nothing at all to do with calling a gun a weapon. Technically speaking ALL rifles are assault rifles because they can be used to assault something. The problem with the term isn't the violent connotation that assault has to it, it's the arbitrary definition that's attached to it. My sporterized SKS isn't an assault rifle, but put a folding stock and flash hider on it, and magically it is? That's the problem with the assault rifle wording...not the term itself.
So, if you are carrying a concealed handgun it is not a weapon?! What then is its purpose...ballast? That argument is exactly what makes us look like "that guy" in my opinion, and smells an awful lot like herring to me. I completely agree that we have a responsibility to conduct ourselves in words and deeds in ways that shows us to be responsible, intelligent, law abiding citizens. To try to convince anyone that a concealed handgun is not a concealed weapon lacks integrity IMO. If that opinion is an example of "military machismo" then I am guilty as charged.
breakingcontact
Moderator
Certainly not accusing the folks engaging in civilized discussion here of militarized machismo. And as far as our gun rights growing...that had a lot of ground work laid and political work done before the YouTube types I'm calling out for making us look bad came to popularity.
Who do you think does us more good? Someone discussing/handling/shooting firearms in a civilized manner including defensive use(without viola in the background kind of civilized) or someone running around the range blasting with his weapon from behind a skull ski mask?
Who do you think does us more good? Someone discussing/handling/shooting firearms in a civilized manner including defensive use(without viola in the background kind of civilized) or someone running around the range blasting with his weapon from behind a skull ski mask?
- Status