Terminology Acceptable?

[Savhmr]

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.

 

I don't altogether agree with that but see what you're getting at.

 

Lets start with context. Yes, re-read my posts and it is most definitely the context of the term "weapon" that I object to since, by definition, a weapon can only have ONE contextual meaning.

 

As to the second, a "personal weapon" when used to describe the infantryman's weapon was (usually) specifically the L1A1 SLR for infantry soldiers (or certainly was in my case), and usually the same for junior officers with the addition of a 9mm Browning, or an SMG with 9mm Browning. Depending on deployment and theatre, the L1A1 could be replaced with the SMG, (eg house clearance or jungle/woodland work) but in general, it was a term used to describe the section rifle, L1A1 and latterly the SA80. I have never heard the GPMG described as a "personal weapon" as we referred to it as a "section support weapon" or "platoon support weapon", more usually referred to as simply the GPMG at the ranges, designed for multi-role theatre applications; When on the ranges, all weapons may have been designated "personal weapon" meaning the weapon used at that specific time for range practice, but we never ever used that as range terminology. We either shot with the "Gimpy" or a "personal weapon" meaning our SLRs. Part of the personal thing was the fact that in our section, our rifles were matched to our own serial number as some short armed (ar*ed) soldiers could otherwise end up with a personal weapon which didn't fit properly since some stocks were different lengths, or at least butt plates were varied to alter length of pull and eye relief depending on individual fit.

 

I think, broadly speaking, we're on the same page here though.

[Jay_Russell]

Blimey our SA80's where one size fits all. Although our personal weapon was usualy the same. The LSW (light support WEAPON) varient was normally given to a crow as they got excited about the ally image. Sod that to heavey. As for the gimpy or minimi good fun but sod lugging it around!

[TIGHTCHOKE]

My green card had all of them on and GPMG was my personal weapon!

[Jay_Russell]

My green card had all of them on and GPMG was my personal weapon!

Ouch that and 500 rounds killed me after 5 clicks.

 

I much prefered a FP role, top cover with a wimik + .50cal. Kinda felt safer.

 

And for the interests of the post. My shotgun is just that a shot gun! I too dont get the attraction of going rabbit shooting looking like i have just come of a CT detail

Edited June 16, 2015 by Jay_Russell

[welsh1]

 

I don't altogether agree with that but see what you're getting at.

 

Lets start with context. Yes, re-read my posts and it is most definitely the context of the term "weapon" that I object to since, by definition, a weapon can only have ONE contextual meaning.

 

As to the second, a "personal weapon" when used to describe the infantryman's weapon was (usually) specifically the L1A1 SLR for infantry soldiers (or certainly was in my case), and usually the same for junior officers with the addition of a 9mm Browning, or an SMG with 9mm Browning. Depending on deployment and theatre, the L1A1 could be replaced with the SMG, (eg house clearance or jungle/woodland work) but in general, it was a term used to describe the section rifle, L1A1 and latterly the SA80. I have never heard the GPMG described as a "personal weapon" as we referred to it as a "section support weapon" or "platoon support weapon", more usually referred to as simply the GPMG at the ranges, designed for multi-role theatre applications; When on the ranges, all weapons may have been designated "personal weapon" meaning the weapon used at that specific time for range practice, but we never ever used that as range terminology. We either shot with the "Gimpy" or a "personal weapon" meaning our SLRs. Part of the personal thing was the fact that in our section, our rifles were matched to our own serial number as some short armed (ar*ed) soldiers could otherwise end up with a personal weapon which didn't fit properly since some stocks were different lengths, or at least butt plates were varied to alter length of pull and eye relief depending on individual fit.

 

I think, broadly speaking, we're on the same page here though.

I agree we are on the same page with this,

the difference in classification of personal weapon is because you think in an infantry context, i was Royal Engineers,I drove a CVR(T) and at times the GPMG was tested on the vehicle ,this was usually at vogelsang over the lakes,this would be my personal weapon as i would not draw out any other weapon.I also had a pistol, not because i was a rodney but i supervised on the 9mm range so had a pistol allocated to me. the **** part to having a GPMG and SMG was that when the CVR(T) went on rail flats i had to lug both about until the vehicle was collected at the other end,a pain in the butt..

 

But at least i was never in a mortar platoon,those poor **** with the base plate.

[Jay_Russell]

 

 

But at least i was never in a mortar platoon,those poor **** with the base plate.

Aint that truth! Mortars where dumped at the start line for them do deal with

[Mitchiet123]

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

 

Yes and firearms are used in a controlled way. Does that then make them different to firearms that are used in an uncontrolled manner? e.g shooting people?

 

You've contradicted yourself there mate as you say its not the way in which you use it, it is what it was originally intended/made for....

[Savhmr]

I agree we are on the same page with this,

the difference in classification of personal weapon is because you think in an infantry context, i was Royal Engineers,I drove a CVR(T) and at times the GPMG was tested on the vehicle ,this was usually at vogelsang over the lakes,this would be my personal weapon as i would not draw out any other weapon.I also had a pistol, not because i was a rodney but i supervised on the 9mm range so had a pistol allocated to me. the **** part to having a GPMG and SMG was that when the CVR(T) went on rail flats i had to lug both about until the vehicle was collected at the other end,a pain in the butt..

 

But at least i was never in a mortar platoon,those poor **** with the base plate.

 

Isn't that the truth!

 

I was in an anti-tank infantry platoon, and often had to lug the gimpy miles with at least a couple of bandoleers of ammo, plus my allocation of 7.62 mags and backpack. I think that gimpy with bipod was 32lbs weight. Add for the bandoleers, mags and at least 35lbs personal kit and 12 to 20 miles as a yomping exercise (typical for what we trained for) was no fun at all with often a hundredweight being lugged over rough terrain. No lightweight Minimi then! Mind you, it could have been worse....I could have been the poor b*gger carrying the Carl Gustav! (actually, the M3 was lighter than the gimpy, just awkward to lug around). We did supersede that with Milan, though it was still used in training.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Savhmr

[wymberley]

My green card had all of them on and GPMG was my personal weapon!

Mine was hammer and GS!

[welsh1]

 

Yes and firearms are used in a controlled way. Does that then make them different to firearms that are used in an uncontrolled manner? e.g shooting people?

 

You've contradicted yourself there mate as you say its not the way in which you use it, it is what it was originally intended/made for....

I think you will find that the bomb came second research started back in 1880-90's into using nuclear power for heating water, they later discovered as a by product that using it in a certain way made it bangs.

At the point the nuclear bomb was made it became a weapon in its own sub category.

[panoma1]

I think you will find that the bomb came second research started back in 1880-90's into using nuclear power for heating water, they later discovered as a by product that using it in a certain way made it bangs.

At the point the nuclear bomb was made it became a weapon in its own sub category.

I think you'll find it didn't?

 

Rutherford in 1917 was first to artificially induce a nuclear reaction, which lead to the development of nuclear bombs and nuclear power.

 

In 1946 the Acheson-Lillianthal report on the control of atomic energy recognised that " the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes and the development of atomic energy for bombs are in much of their course interchangeable and interdependent"

 

So Nuclear energy when used as a bomb in conflict situations is a weapon and when used for peaceful purposes it is not, Equally a gun used In a conflict situation is a weapon a gun used for peaceful purposes is not.

Edited June 16, 2015 by panoma1

[welsh1]

I think you'll find it didn't?

 

Rutherford in 1917 was first to artificially induce a nuclear reaction, which lead to the development of nuclear bombs and nuclear power.

 

In 1946 the Acheson-Lillianthal report on the control of atomic energy recognised that " the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes and the development of atomic energy for bombs are in much of their course interchangeable and interdependent"

 

So Nuclear energy when used as a bomb in conflict situations is a weapon and when used for peaceful purposes it is not, Equally a gun used In a conflict situation is a weapon a gun used for peaceful purposes is not.

The set up of a nuclear reactor is different to that of a nuclear bomb,the same as you can take a piece of bar and drill it out,saw it in half and you can make a gun barrel out of one half,you then add other components and it becomes a weapon.With the other half you use brackets in your wardrobe to fix it and it becomes a clothes rail.

The same principal is true for all parts and components and this also applies to nuclear reactors and weapons, they only become weapons when they are assembled for that purpose.

 

• The science of atomic radiation, atomic change and nuclear fission was developed from 1895 to 1945, much of it in the last six of those years.

   

  http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Outline-History-of-Nuclear-Energy/

[RossEM]

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.

I don't agree Welsh. What you've said there is equivalent to saying a sword and a kitchen knife are weapons - you'd justify this by saying that they'd both damage tissue (and of course they would) but a kitchen knife is undeniably not designed as a weapon. If you don't agree with the analogy, consider how useful a bolt action .22LR would be in combat, in comparison with, say, an AR15. In my opinion that is the proportionate difference.

 

The capabilities and characteristics of military rifles are precisely what make them totally different from sporting rifles. The term weaponry is associated with weapons - you 'arm' yourself before doing battle - do you arm yourself before going pigeon shooting? You don't keep your guns in a weapons cabinet do you? To use another analogy, traction engines and microlights are both modes of transport, but do you ever see them being referred to as such?

Edited June 16, 2015 by RossEM

[panoma1]

If in your example the clothes rail is removed and used to batter someone it then also becomes a weapon!

 

The power of Nuclear energy is used in both a bomb and to generate electricity, one is a weapon the other isn't..............unless of course if nuclear generated electricity was used to deliberately kill people.........it would then become a weapon.

 

It's not a gun that's a weapon........its a gun! it is the way in which someone intends to use or uses it that determines whether it is a weapon.

 

Weaponsmith? Weaponmaker? Nah!!! No such thing!

[RossEM]

"If in your example the clothes rail is removed and used to batter someone it then also becomes a weapon!"

 

Yip.

[welsh1]

I don't agree Welsh. What you've said there is equivalent to saying a sword and a kitchen knife are weapons - you'd justify this by saying that they'd both damage tissue (and of course they would) but a kitchen knife is undeniably not designed as a weapon. If you don't agree with the analogy, consider how useful a bolt action .22LR would be in combat, in comparison with, say, an AR15. In my opinion that is the proportionate difference.

 

The capabilities and characteristics of military rifles are precisely what make them totally different from sporting rifles. The term weaponry is associated with weapons - you 'arm' yourself before doing battle - do you arm yourself before going pigeon shooting? You don't keep your guns in a weapons cabinet do you? To use another analogy, traction engines and microlights are both modes of transport, but do you ever see them being referred to as such?

A sword was designed with one thing in mind to hack people to death,you can buy a sword for decorative purposes but it is still a sword designed to be a weapon,all rifles are weapons the primary design and their whole existence is that they were made initially to be a weapon,you cannot change that fact and you cannot say that just because your weapon in your hands will not injure anyone it is no longer a weapon, because it is and always will be. if you want to know how useful a bolt action is on a battle field look at footage of the second world war the lee enfield .303 did a pretty good job.Also check out the british army sniper rifle, notice anything?that's right a bolt.

 

To arm means to prepare or put into readiness,so to answer your question,yes you do arm yourself before going pigeon shooting

 

Your kitchen knife is not a weapon because it was not initially designed to be a weapon,it is close to blunt with a small serrated edge to cut your meat,you could stick it in someones chest and as i have said before that knife will then be a weapon,but it will not change all the kitchen knives in the world.

 

Where you keep your rifles is not a weapon so why should you need to classify it as a weapon cabinet?just because your rifle is a weapon you don't call it a weapon all the time do you, but it is still a weapon, and i have tried to say this in the past,it will always be classified as a weapon, you may not call it one but it is in that category,and as such there is nothing wrong with somone calling it a weapon because they are correct,disagreeing with them is pointless because as i said they are correct.

 

Your last point about traction engines and microlights is sort of correct but they have sub categories the traction engine will be a steam powered mechanical category and the microlight will be a wind assisted gliding machine, or you could categorise them differently,they were though ultimately designed for a single purpose and in no way can be in the category of weapons.

[welsh1]

If in your example the clothes rail is removed and used to batter someone it then also becomes a weapon!

 

The power of Nuclear energy is used in both a bomb and to generate electricity, one is a weapon the other isn't..............unless of course if nuclear generated electricity was used to deliberately kill people.........it would then become a weapon.

 

It's not a gun that's a weapon........its a gun! it is the way in which someone intends to use or uses it that determines whether it is a weapon.

 

Weaponsmith? Weaponmaker? Nah!!! No such thing!

The clothes rail yes

 

Nuclear power works differently to the bomb,they were designed differently for different purposes,one is a weapon the other not, just because they share some parts and characteristics does not mean they are the same,motorbikes and cars share much of the same technology and the engines are very similar, but they are both different do you see what i mean?

 

And to end yes that gun is a weapon,it falls in that category and as i said above you can call it matilda if you want ,but it will always be a weapon.

[muffin]

We getting very deep with this as I said its all about normalizing shooting and not missing a trick to put shooting in a good light Not interested about what the dictionary or Goole say its about how shooting folk are viewed by non shooting folk.

[RossEM]

This is insane. I've used equivalents of the comparisons you made, yet you don't agree!!

[Oxon T]

People who are against shooting won't care if they think you are using a weapon or a "sporting rifle" to kill a wickle bunny wabbit!

 

Some people on this thread must be so unbelievably boring to talk to at a party.

You might feel less stressed in life if you got on with it and just enjoyed what you do and not get wrapped up in minor facts.

[welsh1]

This is insane. I've used equivalents of the comparisons you made, yet you don't agree!!

Explain please Ross,,it was you that thought I would say a kitchen knife and a sword were both weapons,I never said it it was a weapon and have agreed with you and then given my reason as to why I agree.

 

And as to your bolt action analogy I have again explained why I disagree with you and given some examples.

 

It's not a difficult concept to grasp,if something was designed with the purpose of injuring someone it is a weapon,you can paint it pink and call it Mabel but it will still be a weapon.

[CharlieT]

Welsh

 

They are all missing the point I made in a very early post, where I quoted the dictionary definition of firearm, gun, weapon.........................

Which clearly shows that a firearm is a gun which is a weapon, I think that rests our case, does it not.

 

Get worked up all you like, but the dictionary definition states

 

A firearm is......

a rifle, pistol, or other portable gun.

 

A gun is......

a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise

 

A weapon is......

a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage

 

 

[Breastman]

Welsh

 

They are all missing the point I made in a very early post, where I quoted the dictionary definition of firearm, gun, weapon.........................

Which clearly shows that a firearm is a gun which is a weapon, I think that rests our case, does it not.

 

 

And if you remove the tenous firearm and gun definitions and just use YOUR weapon definition, the vast majority of guns owned in this country aren't weapons FGS!! What you appear to be saying is that any gun, no matter when or why is was designed, has to be a weapon because some other guns were designed as weapons?! Its like saying all Ford Fiestas are rally cars because some Fiestas are designed for that purpose.

 

To make it easy use this gun;

 

 

It was designed from the ground up to put holes in pieces of paper in order to measure marksmanship, not to "inflict bodily harm or physical injury" (unless you want to make the ridiculous leap that its physically injuring pieces of paper ). Its not derived from a military rifle, or even a hunting rifle, it was designed with one purpose in mind, putting holes in paper. How is this rifle a weapon until it is pointed at another human being?

Edited June 17, 2015 by Breastman

[panoma1]

Definition...........A weapon is "a 'thing' designed or 'used' for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage"

 

Bodily harm or physical damage to what? Humans, animals, insects, plant life? It does not specify!! So a hoe is a 'weapon' when used to inflict bodily harm or physical damage on a weed? A fenn trap is a 'weapon, when used to inflict bodily harm or physical damage on a rat? I find these examples impossible to accept...........So I interpret the definition as inflicting bodily harm or physical damage on humans!

 

If a .22 RF rifle was used to inflict bodily harm or physical damage on humans it would be correctly described as used as a weapon, if it was used to shoot a crow or a rabbit it would be what it is........a firearm or a rifle!

 

Was a .22 RF designed to inflict bodily harm or physical damage on humans? Nope!

 

So for all sporting rifles designed as a sporting rifle and not designed or used to inflict bodily harm or physical damage on humans it cannot be described as a weapon....

[Mitchiet123]

Definition...........A weapon is "a 'thing' designed or 'used' for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage"

 

Bodily harm or physical damage to what? Humans, animals, insects, plant life? It does not specify!! So a hoe is a 'weapon' when used to inflict bodily harm or physical damage on a weed? A fenn trap is a 'weapon, when used to inflict bodily harm or physical damage on a rat? I find these examples impossible to accept...........So I interpret the definition as inflicting bodily harm or physical damage on humans!

 

If a .22 RF rifle was used to inflict bodily harm or physical damage on humans it would be correctly described as used as a weapon, if it was used to shoot a crow or a rabbit it would be what it is........a firearm or a rifle!

 

Was a .22 RF designed to inflict bodily harm or physical damage on humans? Nope!

 

So for all sporting rifles designed as a sporting rifle and not designed or used to inflict bodily harm or physical damage on humans it cannot be described as a weapon....

 

Exactly! By that definition, Breastmans example of the Anschutz TARGET rifle is a weapon because it is designed to inflict physical damage to a piece of paper!

Ridiculous! Some people are starting to sound like tree huggers around here!

 

And if you remove the tenous firearm and gun definitions and just use YOUR weapon definition, the vast majority of guns owned in this country aren't weapons FGS!! What you appear to be saying is that any gun, no matter when or why is was designed, has to be a weapon because some other guns were designed as weapons?! Its like saying all Ford Fiestas are rally cars because some Fiestas are designed for that purpose.

 

To make it easy use this gun;

 

<script pagespeed_no_defer="" type="text/javascript">//=d.offsetWidth&&0>=d.offsetHeight)a=!1;else{c=d.getBoundingClientRect();var f=document.body;a=c.top+("pageYOffset"in window?window.pageYOffset:(document.documentElement||f.parentNode||f).scrollTop);c=c.left+("pageXOffset"in window?window.pageXOffset:(document.documentElement||f.parentNode||f).scrollLeft);f=a.toString()+","+c;b.b.hasOwnProperty(f)?a=!1:(b.b[f]=!0,a=a<=b.e.height&&c<=b.e.width)}a&&(b.a.push(e),b.d[e]=!0)};p.prototype.checkImageForCriticality=function(b){b.getBoundingClientRect&&q(this,b)};h("pagespeed.CriticalImages.checkImageForCriticality",function(b){n.checkImageForCriticality(b)});h("pagespeed.CriticalImages.checkCriticalImages",function(){r(n)});var r=function(b){b.b={};for(var d=["IMG","INPUT"],a=[],c=0;c=a.length+e.length&&(a+=e)}b.g&&(e="&rd="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify(s())),131072>=a.length+e.length&&(a+=e),d=!0);t=a;if(d){c=b.f;b=b.h;var f;if(window.XMLHttpRequest)f=new XMLHttpRequest;else if(window.ActiveXObject)try{f=new ActiveXObject("Msxml2.XMLHTTP")}catch(k){try{f=new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP")}catch(u){}}f&&(f.open("POST",c+(-1==c.indexOf("?")?"?":"&")+"url="+encodeURIComponent(b)),f.setRequestHeader("Content-Type","application/x-www-form-urlencoded"),f.send(a))}}},s=function(){var b={},d=document.getElementsByTagName("IMG");if(0==d.length)return{};var a=d[0];if(!("naturalWidth"in a&&"naturalHeight"in a))return{};for(var c=0;a=d[c];++c){var e=a.getAttribute("pagespeed_url_hash");e&&(!(e in b)&&0=b[e].k&&a.height>=b[e].j)&&(b[e]={rw:a.width,rh:a.height,ow:a.naturalWidth,oh:a.naturalHeight})}return b},t="";h("pagespeed.CriticalImages.getBeaconData",function(){return t});h("pagespeed.CriticalImages.Run",function(b,d,a,c,e,f){var k=new p(b,d,a,e,f);n=k;c&&m(function(){window.setTimeout(function(){r(k)},0)})});})();pagespeed.CriticalImages.Run('/mod_pagespeed_beacon','http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/index.php?s=55554e09f6b09d086d43def5555ed054&app=forums&module=ajax§ion=topics&do=quote&t=314351&p=2847091&md5check=759688dbca7af126b5f0ce02691450b6&isRte=1,l8PuqRhht8,true,false,n08QoZMNS94');//]]></script> &&0

 

It was designed from the ground up to put holes in pieces of paper in order to measure marksmanship, not to "inflict bodily harm or physical injury" (unless you want to make the ridiculous leap that its physically injuring pieces of paper ). Its not derived from a military rifle, or even a hunting rifle, it was designed with one purpose in mind, putting holes in paper. How is this rifle a weapon until it is pointed at another human being?

 

Just waiting for WELSH1 to make some leap as to why that rifle is derived from a military rifle!