My objection to the word "weapon"

[Guest JohnGalway]

Evening all,

 

Ok, this stemmed from the Prime Time programme I posted about earlier in the week, but, it's been a pet hate of mine for a while anyway. I broke out the dictionary for this one so prepare for heavy weather (kidding). My copy of the Oxford Dictionary defines the word "weapon" as below..

 

Weapon, 1 a thing designed or used to inflict bodily harm or physical damage. 2 a means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself.

 

Then I went and looked up the word "firearm"...

 

Firearm, a rifle, pistol, or other portable gun.

 

The basis of my argument is the word weapon can be twisted into a negative more easily than firearm. A weapon is used in crimes, think murder weapon. While, to me at least, firearm is a term that in itself lends one to think of something that's regulated by a licencing process. You can talk about "illegal firearms" but in sporting terms this has no bearing on us as we do not use illegal firearms. I suppose it can be argued that we use firearms to gain an advantage over pests and predators and in some parts of the world they are used in rare cases of having to defend oneself from predator attack. The first part of the "weapon" definition I do have a problem with, it suggests to me (in sporting or control terms) that a person using a weapon would be out to maim or injure instead of getting a clean and humane kill.

 

I find the word "firearm" to be a lot more acceptable in sporting terms as we're engaged in legal persuits

 

Does that make sense to anyone else, or is it the result of my Sunday power nap

 

Something to ponder of an evening.

 

All the best,

 

John

[ChrisJones 7,975]

Superb definition John.

 

Words are potent weapons whereas a firearm is just a firearm.

[john b 38]

I have just gone through the video clip that you posted and made a bit of a tally.

 

The word Weapon was used 17 times

Firearm was used 14 times

Gun was used 9 times

 

What was interesting was that the news team and the Firearms association guy were most of the 'Firearms'. Conlon always used 'weapon' but what swung it was that so did the lawyer - although otherwise his input was fairly balanced I thought.

[markbivvy 6]

it sells news john.

the robber was pointing his weapon so the police man shot him with his firearm.

the medias way of making all of us look like bad guys mate.

[Guest JohnGalway]

it sells news john.

the robber was pointing his weapon so the police man shot him with his firearm.

the medias way of making all of us look like bad guys mate.

 

Oh no Mark, I mean in our own discussions as legal shooters. I, as I assume everyone on here would draw a very clear and distinct line between legal use of a sporting firearm and illegal use of an illegal firearm. The media, well I'll keep my opinions to myself. I sometimes hear the word weapon bandied about too much by shooters, including gun dealers who IMHO should know better. I figure if I went up to the Garda station and had a chat with them about applying for a weapon I'd get looked up and down a few times and get promptly refused due to my attitude. In my mind it creates a terribly negative image of all shooting sports. It raises my hackles every time I hear it, I just think "Weapons are used to hurt people" and wince.

 

I guess I'm trying to say we need to help ourselves more by being careful about the words we choose. That could be pedantic but it makes sense to me. Someone can obviously be shot, and it happens a lot with illegal firearms but in my mind that does not have a bearing on us as law abiding shooters as it's not in our interest to endanger our FAC's, which are not exactly easy to come by. Criminals use illegal firearms and weapons as they operate outside of the law.

 

Oh and a general thing, this is just me talking as me not a moderator thing or anything

[Mr_Logic 5]

It's an emotive word, weapon. Personally I think weapon or firearm is fair. Let's be honest here, a lot people take a weapon and use it as a hunting rifle. When I say weapon, I do of course mean a tactical/sniper rifle, many of which make excellent varmint guns, or indeed the other way round.

 

Fundamentally, firearms were originally conceived as weapons, but their uses became known. Any firearm (OK, perhaps not FAC air!) can be used as a lethal weapon, but the difference is that the shooting community, highly-publicised exceptions notwithstanding, doesn't do this.

 

Therefore, to call a firearm a weapon is a fair enough thing to do, but is best avoided unless you have a good reason because it sets the fluffy-bunny-ites off which is never a good thing!

[dicehorn 38]

Weapon, 1 a thing designed or used to inflict bodily harm or physical damage. 2 a means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself.

 

Totally agree John - we should all use the word firearm - lets just keep the weapon in the trousers

 

Peter

[JOE BLOCKY 0]

It's an emotive word, weapon. Personally I think weapon or firearm is fair. Let's be honest here, a lot people take a weapon and use it as a hunting rifle. When I say weapon, I do of course mean a tactical/sniper rifle, many of which make excellent varmint guns, or indeed the other way round.

 

Fundamentally, firearms were originally conceived as weapons, but their uses became known. Any firearm (OK, perhaps not FAC air!) can be used as a lethal weapon, but the difference is that the shooting community, highly-publicised exceptions notwithstanding, doesn't do this.

 

 

I have to disgree with you with not including air wapons....any gun is dangerious and can be lethal.....an non fac air rife can be lethal......even a air or co2 pistol could do damage if close up (prob not lethal though)

Edited May 26, 2008 by JOE BLOCKY

[Mr_Logic 5]

I have to disgree with you with not including air wapons....any gun is dangerious and can be lethal.....an non fac air rife can be lethal......even a air or co2 pistol could do damage if close up (prob not lethal though)

Yes, if you happen to put a shot very close in the right place, but you can't really say that a 12 ft/lb air rifle, and similar ilk, were ever conceived as a weapon - they have always been for small vermin and targets without any connotation as a human-human weapon.

 

My point was that with an airgun, it's very hard to kill someone. From .22LR and upward, that is not the case, hence the differentiation.

[ChrisJones 7,975]

It might be worth mentioning that there are quite a few forces lads on here, in the military, you do not carry a firearm you carry a weapon.

Just a thought.

Psychology. Weapon implies offensive action. Soldiers carry weapons as they may have to be aggressive. Armed Response Units carry firearms as their role is one of law enforcement.

 

If weapon is the correct terminology, then why do civilian experts deal in firearms?

 

Yes, if you happen to put a shot very close in the right place, but you can't really say that a 12 ft/lb air rifle, and similar ilk, were ever conceived as a weapon - they have always been for small vermin and targets without any connotation as a human-human weapon.

 

My point was that with an airgun, it's very hard to kill someone. From .22LR and upward, that is not the case, hence the differentiation.

I disagree. Air rifle 'technology,' if you will, has been around since the 15th century. In the late 1700's France had snipers equipped with air rifles. They were superior to the muzzleloaders of the time as they could be fired when it was wet and didn't have the muzzle flash and plumes of smoke of their black powder alternatives. They were roughly the same size of the muskets and delivered similar ballistics to a 9mm pistol. In this context they were conceived as a weapon although the use in Britain, especially now is one of firearm.

[Malt 379]

It might be worth mentioning that there are quite a few forces lads on here, in the military, you do not carry a firearm you carry a weapon.

Just a thought.

Psychology. Weapon implies offensive action. Soldiers carry weapons as they may have to be aggressive. Armed Response Units carry firearms as their role is one of law enforcement.

 

If weapon is the correct terminology, then why do civilian experts deal in firearms?

 

Yes, if you happen to put a shot very close in the right place, but you can't really say that a 12 ft/lb air rifle, and similar ilk, were ever conceived as a weapon - they have always been for small vermin and targets without any connotation as a human-human weapon.

 

My point was that with an airgun, it's very hard to kill someone. From .22LR and upward, that is not the case, hence the differentiation.

I disagree. Air rifle 'technology,' if you will, has been around since the 15th century. In the late 1700's France had snipers equipped with air rifles. They were superior to the muzzleloaders of the time as they could be fired when it was wet and didn't have the muzzle flash and plumes of smoke of their black powder alternatives. They were roughly the same size of the muskets and delivered similar ballistics to a 9mm pistol. In this context they were conceived as a weapon although the use in Britain, especially now is one of firearm.

Agree there Chris, even as recently as the second world war, (possibly later?) air guns (pistols) were used by special forces as a silent assassination weapon.

[Mr_Logic 5]

I knew about the older uses, not the WW2 side - when was that?

[Malt 379]

I knew about the older uses, not the WW2 side - when was that?

I'm not quite sure on that one, I read it somewhere! I can't remember if it was in a book or online. I'll have a quick look!

[charadam 0]

I had this discussion with my FLO during my last renewal visit.

 

He asked "how many weapons do you have at the moment?" - my answer was, none, only some guns and rifles.

 

I should point out that we have known each other for years and the relationship is one of mutual respect.

 

We went on to discuss the gun/weapon and basically agreed to differ.

 

When I was a soldier, I carried a weapon, with the clear duty and objective of killing the enemy if necessary. My training was second to none and weapon safety was rigorously observed and enforced,

 

Now a civilian, I do not possess a single weapon.

 

My firearms are tools used to make holes in paper in the most inefficient way possible and for the final conversion of the local fauna into food.

 

Perhaps a serving police officer has to have a different mindset - after all, he is issued with stab vests etc for normal patrolling and this is a defence against "weapons".

 

However, when he is full-time armed, he is part of a Firearms Unit - not a Weapons Unit.

[JOE BLOCKY 0]

My point was that with an airgun, it's very hard to kill someone. From .22LR and upward, that is not the case, hence the differentiation.

 

 

Yes, i get your point now....yer you a right, airguns were premarly designed for hunting small vermin or target practice..for example..on some of the usa wbsites, forums etc, those co2 or air pistols are sometimes called training wapons.........to all the way to full match types pistols...which is what they are for, training / match tools (if you live in usa, use your co2 pistol for practice in the garage and the 9mm one on the range.) I dont like the term wapon either i prefer instruments for vermin control or target / plinking shooting