Terminology Acceptable?

[Savhmr]

Its not pedantry; it's a point of principle and I am frankly amazed that so many of you are fine with the terminology "weapon" being banded about so readily! Never mind.

[welsh1]

Its not pedantry; it's a point of principle and I am frankly amazed that so many of you are fine with the terminology "weapon" being banded about so readily! Never mind.

It is being pedantic, they are weapons it really is very simple,they were never designed with the intention of scratching your nose,they had a sole purpose.

 

And yes i understand your grievance about them being called weapons especially when they are prefixed by high power or similar words, weapons they are in the absolute true sense of the word just because you don't want to accept a statement of fact doesn't mean it is not so.

[Savhmr]

They are only weapons if that is their intended use. Why is that so hard to accept?

 

Otherwise, they are what they are, FIREARMS. I have rifles, firearms; not tools designed and used for the intent purpose of harming another human being. I can see why some would call them weapons, but that is a matter of intent. The correct noun for my 22LR is a rifle. "Weapon" describes intent as far as I am concerned. Their sole purpose was NOT for harming humans but for hunting. A "hunting rifle" is a far more accurate term than a "hunting weapon". A weapon can be anything used for the purpose of offence or defence, and last time I looked, my FAC hadn't sanctioned either of those as lawful purpose for using my sporting rifles.

 

Just because you dont want to accept the proper way to describe lawful firearms and insist that they are weapons equally doesn't make it so.

 

If that is pedantry, then I hold my hands up, I'm a pedant but I will never accept the term "weapon" unless used with unlawful intent or for harming another person. I'll not add any more as I've put my point across clearly enough and am happy to stand by my viewpoint.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Taken from Wikipedia

 

"A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems. Weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, crime, law enforcement, self-defense, and warfare. In a broader context, weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary.

While just about any ordinary objects such as sticks, stones, cars, or pencils can be used as weapons, many are expressly designed for the purpose – ranging from simple implements such as clubs, swords and guns."

[welsh1]

They are only weapons if that is their intended use. Why is that so hard to accept?

 

Otherwise, they are what they are, FIREARMS. I have rifles, firearms; not tools designed and used for the intent purpose of harming another human being. I can see why some would call them weapons, but that is a matter of intent. The correct noun for my 22LR is a rifle. "Weapon" describes intent as far as I am concerned. Their sole purpose was NOT for harming humans but for hunting. A "hunting rifle" is a far more accurate term than a "hunting weapon". A weapon can be anything used for the purpose of offence or defence, and last time I looked, my FAC hadn't sanctioned either of those as lawful purpose for using my sporting rifles.

 

Just because you dont want to accept the proper way to describe lawful firearms and insist that they are weapons equally doesn't make it so.

 

If that is pedantry, then I hold my hands up, I'm a pedant but I will never accept the term "weapon" unless used with unlawful intent or for harming another person. I'll not add any more as I've put my point across clearly enough and am happy to stand by my viewpoint.

Oh my goodness how hard is it to understand,when someone invented a mop it was classified as a cleaning utensil,they have evolved to the point where you have steam mops, but they are still cleaning utensils.

 

Rifles were designed with one purpose to hurt another human,they have evolved a great deal as well you now have lightweight polymer stocks, stainless steel fluted barrels and hi tech moderators, but they are still in the same classification and that is weapons,it doesn't matter if it is .22 or.50 they are still weapons.most people in the world outside of shooting do not even think about the connotations of calling them weapons because that is what they are,it is you hang up it is a word,it is used all the time and 99.9 % of the time used in a normal descriptive mode that is correct,when it is used to sensationalise by the media, it will make no difference to them if the word vanished tomorrow, they would just call them high powered rifles,it makes no difference to them.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Don't you just love the fluffy shooters!

 

Bet they like Countryfile too!

[RossEM]

...when people call airguns firearms. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

...when people call airguns 'pellet guns' Grrrrrrrrrrr

 

...when people call pistols handguns. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[RossEM]

Oh my goodness how hard is it to understand,when someone invented a mop it was classified as a cleaning utensil,they have evolved to the point where you have steam mops, but they are still cleaning utensils.

 

Rifles were designed with one purpose to hurt another human,they have evolved a great deal as well you now have lightweight polymer stocks, stainless steel fluted barrels and hi tech moderators, but they are still in the same classification and that is weapons,it doesn't matter if it is .22 or.50 they are still weapons.most people in the world outside of shooting do not even think about the connotations of calling them weapons because that is what they are,it is you hang up it is a word,it is used all the time and 99.9 % of the time used in a normal descriptive mode that is correct,when it is used to sensationalise by the media, it will make no difference to them if the word vanished tomorrow, they would just call them high powered rifles,it makes no difference to them.

There might be some truth in that, but there are many calibres and actions which are not and have never been derivatives of military rifles. I wouldn't have thought a self-loading .22LR could be described as anything but a sporting rifle, in orgin, action, calibre or intended usage (allowances made for subsequent developments of self-loading .22LR rifles built on military actions.)

 

We're talking about the fine line between sporting and paramilitary rifles, and I have to admit I'm horribly biased here, as I tend to believe their place in private ownership bears little relation to their practical suitability for the legitimate discipline. I'd sooner shoot targets with a target rifle - not one that can be used for the discipline, but more importantly looks 'cool' in the owners' unfathomable opinion. Even it's a single shot variant, it is undeniably a copy of a weapon - I'd certainly not feel comfortable with handling or using one - it is a personal opinion of mine, I just find it odd that people wish to own paramilitary-style rifles or shotguns. Personally I don't have anything in common with shooters who view their guns/rifles as objects of defence or offence.

 

Back on to the point, the analogy you made in the first sentence is flawed, in that the implied intended usage of a steam mop(!) is to clean things. Sporting rifles have little in common with military rifles, in that they are not generally designed for maximum lethality in terms of capacity (moreso in terms of accuracy and in relation to target species) and have different considerations in their design such as aesthetics, weight etc.

[muffin]

To me it is about changing non shooters perception of shooting people when I ask people not to call my sporting guns weapons and explain why most understand and realize more to this shooting than they realized. Thats what it is for me as simple as that I never let anyone put shooting down. Normalize it .

[Savhmr]

To me it is about changing non shooters perception of shooting people when I ask people not to call my sporting guns weapons and explain why most understand and realize more to this shooting than they realized. Thats what it is for me as simple as that I never let anyone put shooting down. Normalize it .

 

Exactly.

[welsh1]

There might be some truth in that, but there are many calibres and actions which are not and have never been derivatives of military rifles. I wouldn't have thought a self-loading .22LR could be described as anything but a sporting rifle, in orgin, action, calibre or intended usage (allowances made for subsequent developments of self-loading .22LR rifles built on military actions.)

 

We're talking about the fine line between sporting and paramilitary rifles, and I have to admit I'm horribly biased here, as I tend to believe their place in private ownership bears little relation to their practical suitability for the legitimate discipline. I'd sooner shoot targets with a target rifle - not one that can be used for the discipline, but more importantly looks 'cool' in the owners' unfathomable opinion. Even it's a single shot variant, it is undeniably a copy of a weapon - I'd certainly not feel comfortable with handling or using one - it is a personal opinion of mine, I just find it odd that people wish to own paramilitary-style rifles or shotguns. Personally I don't have anything in common with shooters who view their guns/rifles as objects of defence or offence.

 

Back on to the point, the analogy you made in the first sentence is flawed, in that the implied intended usage of a steam mop(!) is to clean things. Sporting rifles have little in common with military rifles, in that they are not generally designed for maximum lethality in terms of capacity (moreso in terms of accuracy and in relation to target species) and have different considerations in their design such as aesthetics, weight etc.

 

w

 

You need to read my post again,a rifle is still a rifle no matter how it is changed,they were first designed to ignite a propellant which forces a projectile down a tube exiting at high speed toward its intended target,your sporting rifle still does this,it may have slightly different capacities and characteristics but in essence still does what it was designed to do,so it will always be in that class of weapons.

[The Mighty Prawn]

I don't think anyone prefers the term weapon as it obviously has a very strong connotation to it, all we're saying is that actually this is not an argument about whether a sporting rifle is a weapon or not but rather how we can influence a preferable terminology? It isn't right to ask people not to use the term weapon but we should be trying to educate them away from using that to the less emotive terms like firearm or sporting rifle

[Savhmr]

I don't think anyone prefers the term weapon as it obviously has a very strong connotation to it, all we're saying is that actually this is not an argument about whether a sporting rifle is a weapon or not but rather how we can influence a preferable terminology? It isn't right to ask people not to use the term weapon but we should be trying to educate them away from using that to the less emotive terms like firearm or sporting rifle

 

Yes, that is one of the main points that I would encourage others to grasp. Legislators are swayed by public opinion and often, knee-jerk political reaction to "do something" arrives out of public feeling and reaction. That in turn IS motivated by emotive language in common usage (ie people don't get "shot", they get "blasted" to coin a well hackneyed media phrase. The media love their sound bites and will exploit them over and over to amplify human interest stories).

 

Point is (again) that just about anything can be used as a weapon, so one simply cannot remove intent from the terminology and the throwback in legislation stems back pre 1920 FA but has carried on into modern legislative terminology today, even when it's context has changed beyond recognition. That is a stone cold fact and none here I guess would argue that point, so why accept the out-dated and emotive terminology that can only damage our lawful activities in the future?

 

The pedantry here is in using the old chestnut that all guns work the same way and were derived from weapons, therefore all firearms are "weapons". The same could be argued for big sticks! The importance is in recognition of the distinction in today's world, not pre WW1.

[wymberley]

I don't think anyone prefers the term weapon as it obviously has a very strong connotation to it, all we're saying is that actually this is not an argument about whether a sporting rifle is a weapon or not but rather how we can influence a preferable terminology? It isn't right to ask people not to use the term weapon but we should be trying to educate them away from using that to the less emotive terms like firearm or sporting rifle

Precisely - good post. But there's never any harm in asking.

 

Please call semi-automatic shotguns/rifles self loading shotguns/rifles for the same reason.

[Breastman]

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

So whatever something originally was, it can never evolve beyond what its ancestors may or may not have been?? In that case a vaccum cleaner is a pillow case/set of bellows and GPS devices/satnavs are clocks

 

FYI if you want to take it back firearms were originally a replacement for seige engines to bring down castle walls, not for harming people or animals directly.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Breastman

[welsh1]

 

 

The pedantry here is in using the old chestnut that all guns work the same way and were derived from weapons, therefore all firearms are "weapons". The same could be argued for big sticks! The importance is in recognition of the distinction in today's world, not pre WW1.

Sticks were not thought of and designed for a specific role,a stick would have been picked up to be used as kindle,knock back brambles,hit apples from a tree,used to wade rivers etc,so there is no direct correlation between a stick and the word weapon until it is actually used as a weapon,it is then described as a weapon,but only the stick that was used not all sticks.

 

Words change according to the generations,the English language is constantly evolving and while weapon is seen by some as a negative connotation ,most do not think of it like that,in fact most give it no thought it is just a word.

But constantly challenging people who use the word and telling them why will eventually lead to the word being perceived as that negative connotation you so want to stop

[wymberley]

 

Yes, that is one of the main points that I would encourage others to grasp. Legislators are swayed by public opinion and often, knee-jerk political reaction to "do something" arrives out of public feeling and reaction. That in turn IS motivated by emotive language in common usage (ie people don't get "shot", they get "blasted" to coin a well hackneyed media phrase. The media love their sound bites and will exploit them over and over to amplify human interest stories).

 

Point is (again) that just about anything can be used as a weapon, so one simply cannot remove intent from the terminology and the throwback in legislation stems back pre 1920 FA but has carried on into modern legislative terminology today, even when it's context has changed beyond recognition. That is a stone cold fact and none here I guess would argue that point, so why accept the out-dated and emotive terminology that can only damage our lawful activities in the future?

 

The pedantry here is in using the old chestnut that all guns work the same way and were derived from weapons, therefore all firearms are "weapons". The same could be argued for big sticks! The importance is in recognition of the distinction in today's world, not pre WW1.

Don't all-together agree with the outdated terminology bit. It's not this but the modern terminology that's the problem. In my more recently published dictionary, sure enough you'll find 'semi-automatic but look in the Kings English version and there's no mention of that word. It's not too difficult to guess where it floated ashore from. Now, of course, it's almost invariably used. There's a clue there.

[welsh1]

So whatever something originally was, it can never evolve beyond what its ancestors may or may not have been?? In that case a vaccum cleaner is a pillow case/set of bellows and GPS devices/satnavs are clocks

 

FYI if you want to take it back firearms were originally a replacement for seige engines to bring down castle walls, not for harming people or animals directly.

Vacuum cleaners were invented to suck up dirt, a dyson with all it's technology is still a vacuum cleaner,sat navs were designed to give you your coordinates from satelites above you, the one in my car now tells me lots of things about fuel and how my engine runs but it is still giving me my gps position.they were made for a specific role, just because they look nothing like the original does not change what they are.

 

I think you may find it was cannons that were used to breech castle walls, and they are classed a weapons also,even though down my local yacht club they fire a cannon for the races to start and finish .

[Savhmr]

It looks like this will just continue to go full circle without agreement on either side over the principles involved.

 

There are those happy to have anyone describe their firearms as "weapons" with all the connotations that encapsulates and those opposed to the emotive nature of the terminology. The latter still includes the fact that without intent, the more accurate description remains "sporting rifle", "bolt action rifle"; "self loading rifle" or whatever.

 

I will obviously remain in the last camp and be opposed to the use of the term to describe legally held sporting rifles.

 

As an ex serving infantry soldier, the terminology we were taught to use for the SLR (as it was then) was "personal weapon", yet for the indoor ranges, the 22-barrelled training rifles were referred to as "small calibre rifles" or "rim-fire trainers" since they (obviously) were never intended to be used as weapons, merely used to train in the effective use of our personal weapons (at least to begin with). When the shooting teams were present at competitions over longer out door ranges (including Bisley), the terminology was generally "target rifle" or "full bore rifle" and never "weapon" again because intent (and the specific design of the rifles used) was different.

 

If we, as a shooting community cannot agree on this one issue with regard to public perception and indeed police perception (no harm to any serving or ex police personnel on here by the way, it's just I've met my fair share of poorly informed or trained police officers wrt to the Firearms Act and those who have very clear views/agendas on the subject of private ownership of firearms as well), then we may as well pack up and go home as there's little hope in educating the wider public about or passions for field sports or target shooting without the misguided emotive aspects removed.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Savhmr

[panoma1]

Nothing is a weapon until it is picked up and used as such! its just something made out of wood and/or metal it may be called a gun, a hammer, a screwdriver etc. etc. etc!

 

If I pick up a screwdriver and stab someone its a weapon.....if I pick up a screwdriver and screw a screw in a piece of wood............its a screwdriver!

[welsh1]

Savhmr, your argument should not be as to the word but the context the word is used in,there is no doubt that all rifles are in the class of weapons.

 

As to your thing about the SLR,they say personal weapon because that is exactly what they are asking you to fire on the range,the same terminology was used in my day and i could have had my SLR, GPMG, SMG "THE RIFLE 5.56" or pistol depending on my role,in an indoor range you are all using one type of weapon and everyone knows what that is.

[welsh1]

Nothing is a weapon until it is picked up and used as such! its just something made out of wood and/or metal it may be called a gun, a hammer, a screwdriver etc. etc. etc!

 

If I pick up a screwdriver and stab someone its a weapon.....if I pick up a screwdriver and screw a screw in a piece of wood............its a screwdriver!

You are correct to a point,the screwdriver was developed to screw in screws,but when you stab someone with it that screwdriver is a weapon,it does not mean that all screwdrivers then become weapons because that was not what they were designed to do.

 

It is what a "thing"was first designed to do.

[panoma1]

If I pick up a shotgun and shoot someone it is being used as a weapon .....if I pick up a shotgun and break a few clays with its being used as a shotgun!

 

I understand your argument but was nuclear energy not developed as a weapon? ergo by your interpretation nuclear generated electricity is also a weapon?

 

I still feel its not what a gun (or anything else!) is, its what its used for that determines whether its a weapon or not!

[Scully]

Why don't we just call them all guns? At least no one can argue that regardless of what they were intended for, they're all guns.

[welsh1]

If I pick up a shotgun and shoot someone it is being used as a weapon .....if I pick up a shotgun and break a few clays with its being used as a shotgun!

 

I understand your argument but was nuclear energy not developed as a weapon? ergo by your interpretation nuclear generated electricity is also a weapon?

 

I still feel its not what a gun (or anything else!) is, its what its used for that determines whether its a weapon or not!

The electricity is not a weapon as it is a by product and the way that radioactive rods are used is not the same as an atomic bomb so they are not weapons.

 

In a bomb the neutrons are released in a rapid and uncontrolled way and impart their energy very quickly causing the explosion

 

In a nuclear power station they are released in a controlled way causing then to heat the water.

 

 

 

 

Your shotgun is a weapon you can use it to knock in nails but it will always be classified as a weapon