Savhmr Posted June 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) What this is about and if you do not see it we are in the mire More people do not shoot than do We do not need them all to shoot would not be enough to go around what we need is all to understand that shooting folk are normal members of society and accept them as that. That is what I want our organisations to do normalize shooting Thats what I like about Firearms UK they support all shooting sports at the expense of non. Precisely so. For people who do not shoot, there are many thousands (hundreds of thousands) of the civilian population holding, what are to them, considered as "dangerous weapons". It is this Guardian Reader mentality (sorry to anyone here that actually reads that paper!) used as scaremongering in the press to make shooting anti-social and unacceptable, with comparisons drawn especially from the USA where things like AR15 military combat rifles and handguns are freely obtainable and which have sadly been used by nut jobs over the past number of years to shoot innocent people. Now those ARE weapons. The UK is very different, with the tightest gun controls in the world (Esp N Ireland) and arguably, one of the most responsible group of firearms owners anywhere worldwide (because we have to be). To have to convince someone who currently holds an FAC that their 22LR or whatever is NOT a weapon unless they choose to make it so is a very sad state of affairs, and quite extraordinary. My argument is the terminology and its connotations, not what the dictionary may or may not say. If that point is lost on some, then so be it and again, more shame on them for considering their legally held firearms as weapons. They are no more a weapon than the car they drive or the kitchen knife they use at meal prep time. Bodily harm caused to runny babbits or flappy things cannot, in any way, be confused, nor should it, with harm inflicted on the body of a human being. Again, to have to explain this to a member of the shooting community is extraordinary. Most here "get it" so its disappointing that there remain some who don't understand how offensive the terminology can be to a law abiding, responsible firearms owner. Its not a point to bicker over however, as clearly there will have to be a case of agreeing to disagree but it is quite telling how divisions in understanding and what I term "social engineering language" prevail even amongst the shooting fraternity. Edited June 14, 2015 by Savhmr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malkiserow Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) I find it most interesting to watch the folk who do use the term 'weapon'. We will never win the terminology battle as Daily Mail readers are there in enormous numbers and small minds are in the majority. I don't plan to get all Victor Meldrew about it as I appreciate the self pigeonholing. It find it irksome that knives are now weapons and not tools. Yet another lost battle due to societies idiots from inner cities. Edited June 14, 2015 by malkiserow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitebridges Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 The term weapon leaves a bad taste.I have never heard it used in fieldsports circles. Perhaps when talking with our police officers and they use this horrible word we should refer to them as "my licensed weapons". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanj Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 Just mind conditioning by politicians. Get every one paranoid to suit their political agenda. yup and am not paranoid by nature Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STOTTO Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 I think if you re-worded that to "capable of being used as deadly weapons" or have the potential to be lethal weapons" then I would agree with you STOTTO. The same could be said for the motor car which has killed more people and continues to kill more people every year in the UK than all privately registered firearms have done over the past 50 years. The motor car is an especially lethal and effective "weapon" but was not designed to take life, but to enhance our lives! “You Say Tomato” The original concept of the motor car was to take its driver near or far. As for the deadly gun as a weapon of war its life begun. Designed to kill, we cannot circumvent its intended use by language bent! STOTTO Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 Precisely so. For people who do not shoot, there are many thousands (hundreds of thousands) of the civilian population holding, what are to them, considered as "dangerous weapons". It is this Guardian Reader mentality (sorry to anyone here that actually reads that paper!) used as scaremongering in the press to make shooting anti-social and unacceptable, with comparisons drawn especially from the USA where things like AR15 military combat rifles and handguns are freely obtainable and which have sadly been used by nut jobs over the past number of years to shoot innocent people. Now those ARE weapons. The UK is very different, with the tightest gun controls in the world (Esp N Ireland) and arguably, one of the most responsible group of firearms owners anywhere worldwide (because we have to be). But we can't have it both ways; you have just said yourself that AR15 type rifles are 'military combat rifles', and have even categorised handguns in there as well as those you regard as weapons, yet AR15 type firearms are available in this country as are handguns. You haven't made any distinction between those AR15's used for pest control or handguns used for target work, you've simply lumped them all together as you accuse others of doing. Regardless of whether they were manufactured for the civilian market or the military, they're all firearms. You could possibly tell your FEO or whomever that yours are primarily used for 'sporting' purposes and his are designed for taking human life, but both are equally capable of both, and I doubt he'd even care. Likewise, I very much doubt as to whether the general public care whether we call them weapons or firearms (we have a shotgun and firearms license, not a weapons license) it's the fact we use them to kill living creatures for enjoyment which the antis object to, and even then without weapons it's that 'killing for fun' that generally grates, and especially if you are perceived to be wealthy. The media and antis play up their bias by emotive use of words such as deadly weapons, while we play down our part by claiming killing for fun is 'sport'. It's an argument we're never going to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savhmr Posted June 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) It's the general way in which the term is banded about that I don't agree with and never will. Again, we'll have to agree to disagree but I will always pull anyone up who refers to my own licenced firearms as "weapons". It's not the end of the world and I wont loose sleep over it I had a robust debate with someone recently introduced to me who was anti-bloodsport (fair enough, each to their own) and who was told that I was a regular shot. He turned on me and then out of no-where came a tirade about what right did I have to shoot anything and it was disgusting that I was allowed to own dangerous weapons "...only the armed forces and police should be allowed those.". There's no point in wasting breath arguing with people like that so I simply smiled at him, turned my back and continued talking to another friend at the bar. There IS a clear distinction between the word "weapon" and the word "firearm". One has intent in its very meaning. I care not about winning arguments, but I wont roll over and be told by anyone that my legally held firearms are "weapons", full stop. Edited June 14, 2015 by Savhmr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 Fair enough and good for you. I'm not interested in having an argument either, I just want people to tell it like it is. I commend your attitude when faced with antis; none of whom are eating meat for survival, but rather because they like the taste. Bunch of hypocrites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savhmr Posted June 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) Yup, they are. Said "hypocrite" will regularly eat meat and KFC and doesn't pass a thought to the inhumane way that his battery reared chickens live and die; at least pigeon have a good life! ps...Sorry Scully...no offence meant to you or any one else taking part in this debate by my responses by the way. I just tell it how I see it, same as everyone else. Edited June 14, 2015 by Savhmr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike737 Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 From the CPS.Gov.uk website: Definitions of Firearms and Air WeaponsA firearm is "a lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged" (section 57 (1) Firearms Act 1968), it includes: any prohibited weapon (see below in this guidance section 5 Firearms Act 1968), whether it is such a lethal weapon as aforesaid or not; and any component part of such a lethal or prohibited weapon; and any accessory to any such weapon designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the weapon So, they all seem to be weapons... The word is used 7 times in 5 lines. Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savhmr Posted June 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 They are all described as weapons, but that's the whole point of the objection to the terminology. A minor point to some, but not to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossEM Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 Two words I hate are: Cull - always used out of context, and particularly annoying is its usage within the phrase 'humanely culled' - a phrase that is a good indicator of the orator/writer having no idea of what they're talking about. Predation/Predated. Countryfile and Spring/Autumnwatch seemed to have invented these terms to avoid the word 'kill.' Anyone with half a brain knows that 'Predated' means something else entirely. First time I heard the term was on Springwatch, Kate Humble I think - nearly made me spew. But yeah, I agree. I have never thought of my guns as being weapons. The civil servants and solicitors who draft the forms broadly have no knowledge of sporting or the equipment used, so it's no surprise that they use quasi-military terminology for objects that clearly not designed to defend the user. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 Yup, they are. Said "hypocrite" will regularly eat meat and KFC and doesn't pass a thought to the inhumane way that his battery reared chickens live and die; at least pigeon have a good life! ps...Sorry Scully...no offence meant to you or any one else taking part in this debate by my responses by the way. I just tell it how I see it, same as everyone else. No apology needed, no offence taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 Next time just ask him what his job title is . . . Beat me to it DM, he isn't a WEO is he. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demonwolf444 Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 Would rather it was not called weapon. Thanks for bringing this up. My biggest gun gripe is that the entire shooting community is a bunch of toffs, it really gets to me, i have had a reasonably varied experience on the shooting field but have never come across legions of purdey wielding aristocrats ( I'm obviously not on the right invite lists ) on the most part the majority of people on the shooting field are just normal people, farmers, farm labourers, builders, mechanics, just because is on shooting that you decide to spend your money doesn't make you a toff, all the tweed and what not IMO is just a fun nod of the hat to a rich sporting heritage we singularly enjoy in the UK, but no none understands that, to them we are all just toffs. definition: Toff's noun derogatory noun: toff; plural noun: toffs 1. a rich or upper-class person. verb dated past participle: toffed; verb: toff; 3rd person present: toffs; gerund or present participle: toffing 1. be smartly dressed. "he was all toffed up in officer's broadcloth" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitloop Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 and the term bullet head........ its not the head its a bullet the head is on the other end of the case hence the name head stamp !!!!!! I get tired of correcting the flo of this fact . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muffin Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 This was what I was on about shootings just a normal passtime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breastman Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 'Weapon' is an emotive word and has very different connotations to 'firearm', its bizarre to hear people arguing otherwise, especially shooters. Do you refer to where you store your guns as a weapons cabinet?? Any shooter that refers to their guns as weapons, IMO, is someone to be avoided. When the firearms legislation was first written in the early 20th century, firearms could be owned by civilians for the sole purpose of self-defence, and hence could legitimately be described as weapons. Once the 'language' of the legislation was written it would be perfectly natural for it to continue in subsequent Acts. It does however boil my **** as it is frequently used in a negative manner to describe S1 & 2 firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savhmr Posted June 15, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 (edited) Exactly so. Well put. The history is a little more far reaching though. The first legislation to build on the previous (and still un-repealed) Longbow legislation, was the Bill of Rights Act of 1688 which gave every citizen a right to bear arms for personal defence and defence of the Realm. There followed concerns by Parliament in the 19th Century that major civil unrest could get nasty with all citizens allowed access unfettered to arms, so the first controlling legislation came in with the "Six Acts" of which the 1820 Act which abrogated the right to keep arms except where qualified. One might argue that this was the first real Firearms control Act. Subsequent Acts added additional controls and the 1903 Pistols Act placed specific restrictions on pistol ownership. By the end of WW1, the Government were especially concerned about the vast quantity of largely uncontrolled privately held guns, rifles and ammunition of all sorts in private ownership so the first formalised Firearms Act defining more clearly restrictions on what could be owned and for what purpose alone can argue that subsequently, along with qualification, was enabled in the Firearms Act of 1920. One can see that subsequently, what were previously "weapons for personal defence and offence" wrt to defending the person and the Realm, many specifically designed for that purpose, were largely taken out of private ownership except where evidence supported ownership for hunting etc. Later Acts placed further restrictions on firearms ownership and whilst one can still legally own and use rifles designed as offensive weapons (Styer 50 Cal anyone?) for target and some for sporting purposes, this does not apply to rimfire for example, or to .243 etc which were specifically designed for sporting (hunting and target) purposes. I therefore do not own purpose designed "weapons". I own firearms as defined by the FA Act for the purposes of vermin control. Interestingly, the American Bill of Rights regarding gun ownership stems right bact to the original 1688 British Act which was largely lifted in its wording, modified slightly, to become the American Right to Bear Arms. Whilst they have in recent years carried out certain amendments instigating largely administrative gun control, the term "control" is used very loosely indeed! Edited June 15, 2015 by Savhmr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Prawn Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 Personally although I would not use the word weapons, instead using guns or firearms the bottom line is a gun is a weapon, a sling is a weapon, a catapult is a weapon - a tool used to enhance your ability to cause damage to something Although we don't like the connotation of the term weapon it does not stop it being an accurate use of the word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breastman Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 And so the circle continues ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savhmr Posted June 15, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 Personally although I would not use the word weapons, instead using guns or firearms the bottom line is a gun is a weapon, a sling is a weapon, a catapult is a weapon - a tool used to enhance your ability to cause damage to something Although we don't like the connotation of the term weapon it does not stop it being an accurate use of the word No. The bottom line is that a gun/rifle can be used as a weapon but is not automatically qualified as a weapon unless that is it's intended use. Why is this viewpoint so hard for some of the shooting community to comprehend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Prawn Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 No. The bottom line is that a gun/rifle can be used as a weapon but is not automatically qualified as a weapon unless that is it's intended use. Why is this viewpoint so hard for some of the shooting community to comprehend? Because it's not right? Anyway what was the consensus on legal highs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 You don't need a weapon to shoot at targets, you don't need a weapon to hammer in a nail, you don't need a weapon to peel potatoes, you don't need a weapon to transport you to work.....they are not weapons they are a gun, a hammer, a knife and a car! They only become weapons if you have the intent to use them to do someone harm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 A weapon is something that when it was designed it's primary role was to injure kill or maim,therefore rifles guns call them what you want are weapons,just because your lovely little sporter rifle is used to shoot bunnies or paper makes no difference it takes it's design from the primary weapon of that class.It is the same for a sword,it can be used for dancing round, or cutting wedding cake or even taking the top off champagne bottles, but there is no getting away from it's primary purpose, to injure maim and kill. You can be as pedantic as you want about the terminology that you want for your weapon or rifle or sword or bayonet or pistol,the fact remains if they were initially designed to injure kill or maim they will forever remain in the weapon classification,and it will matter not how many variants of the initial design it evolves it will be a weapon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts