Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Grandpa Shooter on December 25, 2021, 02:31:40 PM
-
I keep seeing posts, news articles, news videos and such all talking about "weapons." I don't own any weapons. I own a few firearms, a long gun or two, a pistol or revolver, but no weapons. Nothing I own has an inherently evil nature, or will to kill, and neither do I. Could one or more of my personal guns be used for self defense, or used during an insurrection or riot to protect my house or my neighbors? Of course. Would I go to a mall, restaurant or school and shoot people? No. So stop calling what I own "weapons."
-
I own five 5-gallon fuel containers.
-
Anything in your hand is a tool. The weapon is your mind.
-
I own a bunch of things that can be USED as weapons. The kitchen and garage are full of them.
-
Disagree with your point. All my guns are weapons, I call them that, and I think it's appropriate to call them that. There's no benefit in sugar coating the fact that I own weapons, either practically or politically.
-
Tools, weapons, I would say it depends on its use.
A mean, even a Taco Bell Burrito can be a weapon, weapon of ass destruction that is. :)
bob
-
Disagree with your point. All my guns are weapons, I call them that, and I think it's appropriate to call them that. There's no benefit in sugar coating the fact that I own weapons, either practically or politically.
I agree with this. My guns are weapons of self-defense and weapons for hunting. I don't see a reason to be afraid of the word. I WANT a weapon to defend myself.
-
I always call my EDC a "Personal Defense Sidearm" iif I have to discuss it. (E.g., after a neighbor spotted targets in the back of my station wagon.)
Although the Lefties are far more adept at word control than we, I think making an issue out of not calling them weapons is counterrproductive in that it would sound like grasping at straws.
My Personal Defense Sidearm is a weapon just strapped to my side or in my pocket. So are the cheap dollar-store 10 inch kitchen knives I have squirreled away around the house JIC. They're weapons too, and that's that.
No sense apologizing for them to anti-gunners. You know how they seize on any little thing and blow it out of all proportion.
Terry, 230RN
-
While any firearm could be used as a weapon, not all are. Also, just because it's a weapon, doesn't mean it can't be used for sporting purposes.
Which pretty much covers most of what I own. Hell, the one designed specifically for SpecOps is the biggest safe queen and only comes out for special play dates at the range. If I actually need a weapon, I promise I won't be grabbing that one!
-
I know 17 ways to kill a man with a wooden spoon.
-
I know 17 ways to kill a man with a wooden spoon.
https://youtu.be/16RdEtQL9EQ
-
I own several weapons. Why would I pretend they aren't?
-
He killed three guys with a pencil, a f'ing pencil.
-
How about "death by teacup"? >:D
-
The best weapon right now is intel and networking - which is one of the reasons why social media providers have been purging.
-
Aside from guns meant especially for target shooting, aren't they all weapons? Whether for hunting, war, self-defense, etc.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4yzkefot3c
-
The dictionary definition is something that is designed for, or is used to inflict damage. Admittedly any gun can be used as such, as can a hammer, baseball bat, or minivan. But like those other potential weapons, most firearms are never used for that purpose, or even used as a threat. Assuming nobody is saying a that, as an example, a Browning Citori is designed to kill people, I agree with the OP that it's a misleading term.
-
I know 17 ways to kill a man with a wooden spoon.
... 18 if the spoon is used to feed him Taco Bell.
-
The dictionary definition is something that is designed for, or is used to inflict damage. Admittedly any gun can be used as such, as can a hammer, baseball bat, or minivan. But like those other potential weapons, most firearms are never used for that purpose, or even used as a threat. Assuming nobody is saying a that, as an example, a Browning Citori is designed to kill people, I agree with the OP that it's a misleading term.
You moved the goalpost from "designed for" to "used for." You may never use your sidearm to damage anything other than paper, but it's still designed for the purpose of damaging bad guys.
-
As far as I am concerned the use of "weapon" designates a firearm designed expressly for the purpose of killing, or maiming another human being, as in, military grade firearms. I own no military grade weapons, hence my objection to calling my guns: "weapons" since I have no desire or intention to use them for harm. If you do own military grade and don't object to the term that's fine, but I do.
-
Yeah but practically all of our sporting weapons (see what I did there) started out as military or still are. Even the 30-30. So the distinction of military or non military or the supposed internal state of mind of the designer, is irrelevant.
-
As far as I am concerned the use of "weapon" designates a firearm designed expressly for the purpose of killing, or maiming another human being, as in, military grade firearms.
OK, but English-speaking people haven't typically used or defined "weapon" that way. So you'll probably have to live with it. I think it would make more sense to just come to terms with the fact that most of our legally-owned guns are weapons.
"Military grade" is a term that's really misused by the news media, and you're misusing it, too. When applied to weapons, does it even have any real meaning? It seems to be a term anti-gun media started using, just to make some guns sound scary.
I own no military grade weapons, hence my objection to calling my guns: "weapons" since I have no desire or intention to use them for harm. If you do own military grade and don't object to the term that's fine, but I do.
Are you suggesting that owning certain kinds of weapons means the owner desires or intends to hurt people? Yes, most of us here do desire and intend to harm anyone that would try to hurt us, but that applies to concealed carry guns just as much as the more militaristic guns.
-
You moved the goalpost from "designed for" to "used for." You may never use your sidearm to damage anything other than paper, but it's still designed for the purpose of damaging bad guys.
I disagree in that many* guns are designed for hunting, not damaging bad guys. Admittedly the very idea of firearms can be traced back to when somebody first had the idea that gunpowder could be used to poke holes in the enemy at longer ranges. But even though the AR platform was designed to appeal to military buyers, you'll have to admit that a 12-pound heavy barrel rig with an 18 power scope is "designed" to hunt little tiny rodents. I guess it comes down to the fact that there are two kinds of things in the world, those designed to damage bad guys, and improvised weapons.
* Probably most, since the rimfire 22 rifle is the most common gun out there.
-
Definition of "weapon", form Webster, 1828:
WEAPON, noun [G., Latin ]
1. Any instrument of offense; any thing used or designed to be used in destroying or annoying an enemy. The weapons of rude nations are clubs, stones and bows and arrows. Modern weapons of war are swords, muskets, pistols, cannon and the like.
2. An instrument for contest, or for combating enemies.
The weapons of our warfare are not carnal. 2 Corinthians 10:4.
3. An instrument of defense.
4. Weapons, in botany, arms; thorns, prickles, and stings, with which plants are furnished for defense; enumerated among the fulcres by Linne.
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/weapon
-
Trigger Warning: the following contains a little bit of a rant. Use caution when reading.
Part of my objection to the term weapon is it's use when people mean "something that scares me". I worked in a place that became woke enough that about ten years ago the safety head cautioned us that "weapons" were not allowed on site. He said this restriction included knives and suggested we only use automatic retracting utility knives from now on. (a rule that wasn't enforced) I routinely carried a pocketknife, what most would call a Boy Scout knife or a Swiss Army knife, so I asked him what the definition of weapon was. He said he would find out but never did. I know one contractor was fired because he had what they called a "military style knife" in his car. And that's my problem. There was no rule on fixed blade versus folder, no length maximum, no definition at all. I think it was just a blanket statement so they could claim the rule was violated if you did something, or had something, that scared somebody. The fact that this building had kitchen knives in the break room, ordered single edge razor blades by the gross, worked on developing real weapons for the military, and was located on a military base were not considered, just that "weapons" were not allowed. Thus my objection to the term.
-
I disagree in that many* guns are designed for hunting, not damaging bad guys. Admittedly the very idea of firearms can be traced back to when somebody first had the idea that gunpowder could be used to poke holes in the enemy at longer ranges. But even though the AR platform was designed to appeal to military buyers, you'll have to admit that a 12-pound heavy barrel rig with an 18 power scope is "designed" to hunt little tiny rodents. I guess it comes down to the fact that there are two kinds of things in the world, those designed to damage bad guys, and improvised weapons.
* Probably most, since the rimfire 22 rifle is the most common gun out there.
I said "your sidearm," meaning a gun you carry for self-defense against humans. That kind of gun is designed for hurting bad guys. Also, hunting weapons are weapons.
We could avoid all this if we stopped being frightened that anyone might see us, the armed citizenry, as a threat. Our weapons should be reassuring to our fellow Americans, and intimidating to the anti-Americans that griz works for. Americans are supposed to be armed with "military-grade" weapons. "That a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Come to think of it, is there any difference between an arm and a weapon? I don't think so...
-
How to make people uncomfortable:
"Hey, if I was going to snap, there are a LOT of better ways to rack up big numbers that don't even begin to require a firearm."
-
I probably shouldn't even mention the concept of crazy glue and a toilet seat at work.
Nope. Bad idea.
-
Trigger Warning: the following contains a little bit of a rant. Use caution when reading.
Part of my objection to the term weapon is it's use when people mean "something that scares me". I worked in a place that became woke enough that about ten years ago the safety head cautioned us that "weapons" were not allowed on site. He said this restriction included knives and suggested we only use automatic retracting utility knives from now on. (a rule that wasn't enforced) I routinely carried a pocketknife, what most would call a Boy Scout knife or a Swiss Army knife, so I asked him what the definition of weapon was. He said he would find out but never did. I know one contractor was fired because he had what they called a "military style knife" in his car. And that's my problem. There was no rule on fixed blade versus folder, no length maximum, no definition at all. I think it was just a blanket statement so they could claim the rule was violated if you did something, or had something, that scared somebody. The fact that this building had kitchen knives in the break room, ordered single edge razor blades by the gross, worked on developing real weapons for the military, and was located on a military base were not considered, just that "weapons" were not allowed. Thus my objection to the term.
The problem with this is that by avoiding the term "weapon" in order to avoid scaring the sheep, you merely enter a euphemism treadmill, and soon enough the sheep are simply scared of a different word. Better to call a spade a spade and desensitize them to it
-
I own Guns, Pistols, Rifles, Shotguns, Knives, Blunt objects, Flammable substances, and more but no "weapons."
-
Unless you are a dedicated pacifist who is trying to justify your gun hobby to your pacifist friends this seems like a silly distinction to try to make.
“Weapon” does not indicate malicious use or intent. Nor are you going to satisfy your political opponents if you start calling your guns “tools” instead of “weapons”. Finally, as Perd points out, any of us who carry a gun cannot use the excuse that our guns are never intended to be used as weapons - else why would we carry them?
-
Further, I disagree with the idea of nerfing yourself, even if just in language, as if to win some sort of linguistic battle.
It is an observable fact that there are a lot of bad people in this world. I may, one day, run across one in a situation that does not allow me the luxury of calling and waiting for a government sponsored rule enforcer. In that situation, faced with someone that needs killing, you should kill them. And don't shy away from that responsibility. Weapons make that job safer all around.
As far as firearms, I own a bunch. Some are sporting arms that I wouldn't consider "weapons" (like my 1858 Navy, ironically) because I didn't aquire them, nor do I intend to ever use them that way. I could use them as a weapon, much like I could a 2x4. I also have a bunch of legitimately "military grade" firearms, because I collect old guns. Is my Garand, Arisaka, SMLE, or Colt M1911A1 a "weapon"? They certainly were at one time, but again I did not acquire them as, nor do I intend to use them as, weapons. They are historical artifacts.
And then I have my "serious use" guns. Instruments I bought, or built, with the express purpose of defending mine or someone else's life. I train with them on human shaped targets, and they are, without a doubt, weapons. I hope good ones. Why shy away from that fact?
-
I had this crazy idea we'd all agree (or mostly agree) that things meant for the purpose of killing animals are weapons. For example, deer rifles. Is that not the case?
-
I had this crazy idea we'd all agree (or mostly agree) that things meant for the purpose of killing animals are weapons. For example, deer rifles. Is that not the case?
I refer to my .444 Marlin as my deer and bear rifle.
-
I had this crazy idea we'd all agree (or mostly agree) that things meant for the purpose of killing animals are weapons. For example, deer rifles. Is that not the case?
Good question, it kind of gets to the point of the whole debate. By some definitions of the word a hunting gun is a weapon, but I don't think of them that way. Just as I don't think of the gun the butcher uses to stun an animal as a weapon or the knives he uses to bleed it out. To me those are tools. In the context of this thread, I think of a weapon as something intended for or used in battle. And yes, to me defending yourself against an unexpected attack is a battle.
-
However you want to split the hair, I guess I'm still not understanding the root need to categorize certain firearms as "not weapons". To those for whom this is important, what is to be gained or makes you stand a little taller if you are able to say: "I don't own any weapons"? Is there some moral victory in claiming that? Do you believe there is any practical value in saying it? Do you think that if you paint "I own no weapons" on your doorpost that the angel of gun confiscation will pass you by?
-
The problem is people are trying to anthropomorphize weapons as being evil. The person with the weapon can be either good or evil; the weapon itself doesn't care. It has no agency, it's just a tool. Powerful tools are dangerous.
-
However you want to split the hair, I guess I'm still not understanding the root need to categorize certain firearms as "not weapons". To those for whom this is important, what is to be gained or makes you stand a little taller if you are able to say: "I don't own any weapons"? Is there some moral victory in claiming that? Do you believe there is any practical value in saying it? Do you think that if you paint "I own no weapons" on your doorpost that the angel of gun confiscation will pass you by?
I guess I'm far out on the other side, but I think we do need to define a difference, though not for lefty snowflakes.
Certain firearms are significantly more suited to certain jobs than other and not all firearms are suitable as weapons. A bolt action .22 that you can have a lot of fun plinking with at the range is not going to cut it if multiple attackers burst into your home.
For our own sakes it certainly is suitable to define the difference between this is a proper, purpose built weapon and this is a thing that could maybe be used as a weapon if your desperate.
-
You own weapons. Just semantics.
We all have our hang-ups, I have owned most of the commie bloc patterns but I just don't get much joy out of them knowing the system they came out of. Don't have any now. Always actively hated the nazi gun collector people. I know they are inanimate metal chunks but thats just how I feel on them.
-
As far as I am concerned the use of "weapon" designates a firearm designed expressly for the purpose of killing, or maiming another human being, as in, military grade firearms. I own no military grade weapons, hence my objection to calling my guns: "weapons" since I have no desire or intention to use them for harm. If you do own military grade and don't object to the term that's fine, but I do.
Do you hunt? Do you plan on using your "firearms" to defend yourself and your family?
If so, then your "intention" is misleading and incorrect.
-
The company had a no-weapons policy. They gave out pens as gifts for some winter holiday or other.
This pen was big, heavy, pointy, and grippy. It was about 5/8 inch in diameter. I took one look at it and decided it would make a handy weapon of opportunity.
I mentioned it to a fellow worker and he thought it was a pretty good weapon too.
We suspected someone in lower authority had selected it as a gift on the theory that Manglement would think it was a pen.
I figured perhaps it was the pen John Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence with, but I guessed that joke was too abstruse.
An ounce or two more and it would have made a fair to middlin' railroad spike.
Well, that's an exaggeration for the sake of illustration, but that was one big moose of a pen.
oWhile 9-11 was still on top of everybody's mind, I went to the County courthouse and they seized a nail clipper with a small 1 1/2" blade on it. I questioned that it was a 'weapon," but they had the "rules are rules" argument on their side. I asked them to give it back on my way out, there was no problem with that. Later, I figured they were right. After all, they didn't use weapons to hijack the 9-11 planes, they used box cutters.
Colorado removed some switchblade knives from the "weapons" classification a couple of years ago. Limitations on blade length and concealment, but they are not in with prohibited weaponry any more. I guess they're just "arms" now.
I can't find the clip from "Shane" where Shane is explaining to Marion that a gun is just a tool.
Terry, 230RN
----------------------------------------
I'm constantly being reminded that Medicine is a business and Insurance inevitably drives the cost of services up.
-
My company doens't want "military knives" or guns, but stopped short of banning knives partly because they knew it was a lost cause. They do want us to use the self retracting box cutters at work. That was all mainly due to injuries from using knives. Most chemical plants have restrictions on guns especially in cars.
-
I can't find the clip from "Shane" where Shane is explaining to Marion that a gun is just a tool.
Terry, 230RN
https://youtu.be/Ternps0JFwo?t=120
Weapons in general are just tools.
-
The company had a no-weapons policy. They gave out pens as gifts for some winter holiday or other.
This pen was big, heavy, pointy, and grippy. It was about 5/8 inch in diameter. I took one look at it and decided it would make a handy weapon of opportunity.
I mentioned it to a fellow worker and he thought it was a pretty good weapon too.
We suspected someone in lower authority had selected it as a gift on the theory that Manglement would think it was a pen.
I figured perhaps it was the pen John Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence with, but I guessed that joke was too abstruse.
An ounce or two more and it would have made a fair to middlin' railroad spike.
Well, that's an exaggeration for the sake of illustration, but that was one big moose of a pen.
oWhile 9-11 was still on top of everybody's mind, I went to the County courthouse and they seized a nail clipper with a small 1 1/2" blade on it. I questioned that it was a 'weapon," but they had the "rules are rules" argument on their side. I asked them to give it back on my way out, there was no problem with that. Later, I figured they were right. After all, they didn't use weapons to hijack the 9-11 planes, they used box cutters.
Colorado removed some switchblade knives from the "weapons" classification a couple of years ago. Limitations on blade length and concealment, but they are not in with prohibited weaponry any more. I guess they're just "arms" now.
I can't find the clip from "Shane" where Shane is explaining to Marion that a gun is just a tool.
Terry, 230RN
Post 9/11 I went in a courthouse to pay my speeding bill. Metal detector pegged and it gave the guy the old Jedi mind trick. I said it’s the boots, he hand wands my steel toes and waves me on. I watched another court guard allow my dad in with his titanium cane. (Cue not taking staff from wizard scene). Until stolen by a trusted coworker I had a metal handled spyderco native that had been through seven metal detectors with me, including going flying out of country. No I’ll intent, just spite. Security ;/
-
For those who think of weapons as only those things designed to hurt/kill humans, where do you think you got that definition?
-
From common usage, including various media. You hear expressions such as weapons of war, lethal weapons, primitive weapons, and usually it is used in the context of violence against people. I guess it's more a perception from the context.
-
Interesting discussion.
I think weapon is defined by use. Almost anything can be a weapon. A car, firearm, stick, toaster over, arc welder, pre-65 dime. If used in a manner to cause deliberate injury, they are weapons.
Is anything intrinsically a weapon? Maybe. Is a nuclear bomb ever not a weapon? If it goes it's whole life, from creation to sitting on top of a missile, and eventually is dismantled, was it still a weapon? I think most people would classify it as such.
I'm not overly concerned about calling my firearms weapons. In the event I need a weapon, they are by far the most suitable object in the house for such purpose. One can argue that a firearm doesn't become a weapon until it is used in the capacity of a weapon. In either case, we retain the right to own firearms, and so long as self-defense is legal, logically we must have the right to own weapons.
-
Nick's post reminded me of an example of how people view weapons. A couple years ago there was a crime wave in a big city and some residents were being interviewed to get their reactions. Several said they had bought things like wasp spray and baseball bats. In that city it was perfectly legal to buy and use pepper spray or a club, or even a gun. They wanted to be prepared, but chose to buy something improvised rather than an actual tool for self-defense. That's the kind of mindset that points to the bias against things that are weapons and thus the objection to the label. They were willing to obtain something to be used for self-defense, but wanted to avoid the stigma of buying something designed for the task. I think that shows a bit of internal denial on their part. It may also make the point that I, and some of the other weapon label opponents here, are guilty of the same. But it shows the human resistance to resorting to planned violence.
I may be talking myself out of my dislike of the term...........
-
Interesting discussion.
I think weapon is defined by use. Almost anything can be a weapon. A car, firearm, stick, toaster over, arc welder, pre-65 dime. If used in a manner to cause deliberate injury, they are weapons.
Is anything intrinsically a weapon? Maybe. Is a nuclear bomb ever not a weapon? If it goes it's whole life, from creation to sitting on top of a missile, and eventually is dismantled, was it still a weapon? I think most people would classify it as such.
I'm not overly concerned about calling my firearms weapons. In the event I need a weapon, they are by far the most suitable object in the house for such purpose. One can argue that a firearm doesn't become a weapon until it is used in the capacity of a weapon. In either case, we retain the right to own firearms, and so long as self-defense is legal, logically we must have the right to own weapons.
BINGO! Someone tells me my (insert random object here) is a "weapon", I will inform them "Not since I have owned it!" (Now, git offa my lawn before I turn it inta one!)
-
We're getting deep into freshman philosophy territory here, but while I agree that a weapon can be defined by use, it can also be defined by design and functionality. A predator's claws are still weapons if it uses them to dig. A hammer you never strike a nail with is still a tool. A car in a museum or fresh off the assembly line and not yet driven is still a vehicle. A rifle you never shoot a living being with is still a weapon. A man who never draws his pistol in anger is still armed with a weapon.
Guns are fundamentally weapons. They can also be tools, marvels of mechanical engineering, toys, historical artifacts, or pieces of art, but at root they were invented for, and have been in constant production and use ever since as weapons. Yes, there are fringe cases, but they are exceptions that prove the rule.
The problem I have with this argument, however, is that at root it seems to presume that a good person should never own or use a weapon. That there is something inherently wrong with having a weapon. That maybe weapons should be reserved only for use by certain classes or imply something negative about the intent of any person who possesses one. Shrinking from reality and pretending that our guns are not weapons, or that the guns that we like aren't "military grade" (or whatever arbitrary line you use to distinguish the guns you own from bad guns) ultimately grants victory to those who would like to disarm you.
Yes, a weapon makes a person more dangerous, but it is good for a free human to be dangerous. You can't have an "armed polite society" without weapons, because to be armed means to have weapons.
-
I got busy yesterday and haven't followed the discussion closely. However, I agree with what cordex said for the most part.
1. Anything can be a weapon in the hands of someone who intends to use it as such. This applies to my machete, a broom, or a hunting rifle.
2. There is nothing wrong or evil about owning, carrying, or using a purpose built weapon. Whether it is used for a useful, good, or bad purpose is up to the user.
3. As free citizens, we have an inherent right to own, carry, and use weapons.
I don't like dancing around words just because some people view them as "bad" or fearful. The left is always trying to redefine words and I don't like to participate in that.
-
Thank you to all who participated in this discussion. Any who know me (most of you don't) realize I chose my original post carefully to provoke discussion. This is the first real gun related conversation I have seen since I dropped back in after 10 years. To address some of the points made let me make the distinction between gun owners and gun collectors. In rural areas folks own guns because they serve a useful purpose, like hunting, protecting livestock, scaring off birds, etc and typically don't think of them as weapons. They are more likely to grab a baseball bat (kept by the front door) or a 2 x 4, than grab a hunting rifle. Many of them own no handguns at all. Then there are the gun collectors who take pride in the ability to amass great number of weapons, purely for the sake of owning them because after all, this is a free country. It is not just the liberals who use words as labels. City slicker and redneck are labels too. There is a fundamental difference in the urban and rural attitude toward things, including firearms. When I moved here 8 years ago from Arizona, where I carried every day, I was surprised to see no one carrying. Over time I came to realize there is no significant threat here, unless you were in an urban area. When I was taking my wife for radiation treatments 5 days a week I carried because it is my responsibility to protect her. Do I own firearms that could be used as weapons? Yes. I don't hunt and my eyes are bad enough I don't enjoy target shooting that much, but I still own guns. I don't think there will ever be an agreement on the issue of labeling of guns or gun owners. I appreciate no one attacking me over this.
-
let me make the distinction between gun owners and gun collectors. In rural areas folks own guns because they serve a useful purpose, like hunting, protecting livestock, scaring off birds, etc and typically don't think of them as weapons. They are more likely to grab a baseball bat (kept by the front door) or a 2 x 4, than grab a hunting rifle. Many of them own no handguns at all. Then there are the gun collectors who take pride in the ability to amass great number of weapons, purely for the sake of owning them because after all, this is a free country.
It seems to me that in your dichotomy, the folks in rural areas are the ones using guns for their intended purpose as weapons (however they think of them), and that the collector is the one who is keeping them for non-weapon use.
-
In rural areas folks own guns because they serve a useful purpose, like hunting, protecting livestock, scaring off birds, etc and typically don't think of them as weapons. They are more likely to grab a baseball bat (kept by the front door) or a 2 x 4, than grab a hunting rifle. Many of them own no handguns at all.
I would suggest that rural dwellers are more varied than that. While I have run into a few people here that fit the above, as my neighbors have opened up and trusted me more, I find that most here will grab an AR for a bump in the night. My one neighbor introduced me to two farther away neighbors, one of whom has the spare armor "for the neighborhood" and the other that literally has a 55gallon drum of 5.56, both for "in case the SHTF and everybody needs to arm up." They also told me where the roadblocks will be set up.
This is the Redoubt, so I think that has some influence on the local philosophy compared to say, rural Georgia. Just food for thought that you can't put "rural", or "urban" for that matter, into a single container. I'm betting, just from conversation, that one of my neighbors has no guns at all.
This rural dweller will grab his suppressed AR, along with, as required, NODs and armor for a bump in the day or night. I like to live by the philosophy that the BoR, Federalist Papers, and Founding Fathers all wanted and expected us to keep "military grade" weapons and equipment at hand.
EDIT: I should add that I have several "bump in the night" definitions, and up to this point, 80% of my bump in the night responses have been, between the sound and the dog's reaction, walking out the back door with either a flashlight, NODs, or, recently my awesome thermal scope to find that it's a skunk, coon, coyote, or fox (so more of a "wildlife curiosity bump in the night"). The other 20% have included a firearm because the bump was close enough that it could have been a coyote on my side of the fence. I haven't had a battle rattle bump in the night yet.
-
Thank you to all who participated in this discussion. Any who know me (most of you don't) realize I chose my original post carefully to provoke discussion. This is the first real gun related conversation I have seen since I dropped back in after 10 years. To address some of the points made let me make the distinction between gun owners and gun collectors. In rural areas folks own guns because they serve a useful purpose, like hunting, protecting livestock, scaring off birds, etc and typically don't think of them as weapons. They are more likely to grab a baseball bat (kept by the front door) or a 2 x 4, than grab a hunting rifle. Many of them own no handguns at all. Then there are the gun collectors who take pride in the ability to amass great number of weapons, purely for the sake of owning them because after all, this is a free country. It is not just the liberals who use words as labels. City slicker and redneck are labels too. There is a fundamental difference in the urban and rural attitude toward things, including firearms. When I moved here 8 years ago from Arizona, where I carried every day, I was surprised to see no one carrying. Over time I came to realize there is no significant threat here, unless you were in an urban area. When I was taking my wife for radiation treatments 5 days a week I carried because it is my responsibility to protect her. Do I own firearms that could be used as weapons? Yes. I don't hunt and my eyes are bad enough I don't enjoy target shooting that much, but I still own guns. I don't think there will ever be an agreement on the issue of labeling of guns or gun owners. I appreciate no one attacking me over this.
When I was growing up the rural gun owners (pretty much everybody) owned them just as much for protection as hunting/predator control/pest control.
In fact the area I grew up in was a hotbed of meth and thievery so we were extremely heavily armed and alert for threats and prepared for them. The criminals knew law enforcement was well over an hour away and that’s if the goddamn stupid bitch in the dispatch center sent them instead of arguing over which county you were in. The small town I live in now is extremely quiet and under much less threat.
-
I grew up in a rural area. I don't know many people currently (outside family) well enough to know what they own, but when I was a kid it wasn't uncommon for kids to talk about the 30-30 or shotgun they or their parents had. Up until the last 10 years, a 30-30 wasn't all that expensive and was sold at Wal-Mart and Academy. Same with a basic pump shotgun. They might only have a couple boxes of ammo. Most people didn't own tactical shotguns, but they had a basic pump shotgun or a side by side. Used revolvers also used to be a lot more plentiful and cheaper back around 2000 or before, including old single actions. Now days, I think an AR-15 or a Glock style gun are the inexpensive guns to own where revolvers and lever guns have gotten expensive.
Back when I was growing up (before concealed carry), the laws about having a gun in your car were confusing. However, I don't know if I knew a working adult that didn't have a gun in their car. That was relatives, but I doubt they were that unique.
I am sure the guns people owned varied quite a bit depending on attitudes and money available.
-
When I was growing up the rural gun owners (pretty much everybody) owned them just as much for protection as hunting/predator control/pest control.
In fact the area I grew up in was a hotbed of meth and thievery so we were extremely heavily armed and alert for threats and prepared for them. The criminals knew law enforcement was well over an hour away and that’s if the goddamn stupid bitch in the dispatch center sent them instead of arguing over which county you were in. The small town I live in now is extremely quiet and under much less threat.
I would bet if you went out into a rural area and asked people how many weapons do you own? (A very stupid thing to do, I do not recommend it.), they would look at you with a puzzled face. If you asked how many rifles, shotguns or handguns they own you would get an answer. The difference being their perception of gun ownership. It is a natural thing to do, they grew up with them and generally do not consider them to be "weapons" just a gun they own. Yes there are those who have gotten into the survival, fight the man when he comes mentality, and have stockpiled firearms and ammo. Hell I own more ammo than most of the gun stores do these days. I decided long ago I am not going to run out into the street to fight anyone. There are those who own weapons who are just itching to get into a fight. I fear they are going to lead to our downfall.
-
There are those who own weapons who are just itching to get into a fight. I fear they are going to lead to our downfall.
I feel like you don't know as many rural folks as you think you do. I know plenty of folks that live rural, have weapons, and aren't pineing for the boogaloo. Also, may I suggest that you are falling into the trap of painting with broad brush. There's more diversity in gun owners, urban folks, and rural folks than you seem to think.
-
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=weapons+used+for+hunting&t=ffab&ia=web
-
Websters 1828
WEAPON, noun [G., Latin ]
1. Any instrument of offense; any thing used or designed to be used in destroying or annoying an enemy. The weapons of rude nations are clubs, stones and bows and arrows. Modern weapons of war are swords, muskets, pistols, cannon and the like.
2. An instrument for contest, or for combating enemies.
The weapons of our warfare are not carnal. 2 Corinthians 10:4.
3. An instrument of defense.
Cambridge Dictionary
weapon
noun [ C ]
UK /ˈwep.ən/ US /ˈwep.ən/
any object used in fighting or war, such as a gun, bomb, knife, etc.:
-
There appears to be two major categories of weapons.
- Purpose built by design to be a weapon
- Tools designed for one purpose but (can be) used as a weapon
-
There appears to be two major categories of weapons.
- Purpose built by design to be a weapon
- Repurposed tools designed for another purpose
We also have terms such as, "He used his words as weapons", so "weapon" is a very broad term.
-
We also have terms such as, "He used his words as weapons", so "weapon" is a very broad term.
(you posted before I clarified #2)
Words can then be said to be a tool designed to communicate but can be repurposed to inflict harm.
I would consider all my guns to be weapons.
They are all based on military platforms (weapons) or were designed for use in hunting and can easily be used as weapons.
-
I would consider all my guns to be weapons.
Me too. My AR15s, deer rifles, revolvers, and defensive pistols are all in the broader category of guns*, and the guns are in the broader yet category of weapons. I have a sword collection as well, and though they are merely displayed, they are still display weapons.
* Well, guns or small arms, depending on who you ask. :laugh:
https://youtu.be/4kU0XCVey_U
-
My (everythings) are POTENTIAL "weapons" in "today-speak" and I can, and will, "weaponize" them ALL in a heartbeat. I'm getting older and choosing my words a little more carefully now so that I might remain in the currently ongoing "fight" a little longer.
-
I would bet if you went out into a rural area and asked people how many weapons do you own? (A very stupid thing to do, I do not recommend it.), they would look at you with a puzzled face. If you asked how many rifles, shotguns or handguns they own you would get an answer. The difference being their perception of gun ownership. It is a natural thing to do, they grew up with them and generally do not consider them to be "weapons" just a gun they own. Yes there are those who have gotten into the survival, fight the man when he comes mentality, and have stockpiled firearms and ammo. Hell I own more ammo than most of the gun stores do these days. I decided long ago I am not going to run out into the street to fight anyone. There are those who own weapons who are just itching to get into a fight. I fear they are going to lead to our downfall.
I might agree in a different way. If someone asked me how many weapons I owned, I would be thinking of more than just firearms (not that I would actually answer the question). Probably depends a lot on context. "Weapons" is not the normal word I use.
-
I might agree in a different way. If someone asked me how many weapons I owned, I would be thinking of more than just firearms (not that I would actually answer the question). Probably depends a lot on context. "Weapons" is not the normal word I use.
"Weapons" is not the normal word I use. That is exactly my point. The use of the term weapons has been pushed by the liberal media to the point that all firearms have been demonized as terrible and evil. I object to that term precisely because of that. I don't use the word and I don't believe most of us do. If you want to call your guns weapons, go ahead, I don't really care, but don't assume that my firearms are "weapons" and condemn me for owning them.
-
"Weapons" is not the normal word I use. That is exactly my point. The use of the term weapons has been pushed by the liberal media to the point that all firearms have been demonized as terrible and evil. I object to that term precisely because of that. I don't use the word and I don't believe most of us do. If you want to call your guns weapons, go ahead, I don't really care, but don't assume that my firearms are "weapons" and condemn me for owning them.
Well, that's a bit different than identifying the class of item that firearms are. If someone asks me if I want to go hunting, I'll say "Sure, just let me grab my shotgun." I don't say, "Sure, let me grab my bird hunting weapon."
This has more to do with common forms of speech than definition of an item. If someone asks me to drive a nail, I say, "Sure, let me grab my hammer.", not "Sure, let me grab my tool."
A hammer is still a tool, a firearm is still a weapon.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ternps0JFwo
-
...don't assume that my firearms are "weapons" and condemn me for owning them.
Anyone who condemns you or your neighbors for owning weapons (no matter what they're called) should either get their minds right, or find some other part of the world to live in. The right to own and carry weapons is something guaranteed by the basic law of the land. In addressing the right to arms, our constitution specifically references the militia. Therefore, "arms" must refer primarily (if not exclusively) to the kind of weapons specifically intended for hurting or killing human beings. As one of the founders wrote:
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.
The use of the term weapons has been pushed by the liberal media to the point that all firearms have been demonized as terrible and evil.
Yes, the left wing media have demonized gun ownership, but I don't think the word weapon has anything do with that. But let's say you're correct. Let's grant for the sake of argument that millions of Americans feel demonized by people referring to their firearms as weapons. If that's true, then we have at least two problems. The first problem is left-wing propagandists attacking America's tradition of an armed citizenry. The second problem is that we have let ourselves become ashamed of our birthright. Luckily, that second problem is a little easier to fix. I suggest we start by using the word weapon ourselves. Say it proudly - "I own weapons. I am armed. I am not harmless or toothless. I am a threat." Live it. Love it. Etc.
-
Say it proudly - "I own weapons. I am armed. I am not harmless or toothless. I am a threat."
Word.
-
Say it proudly - "I own weapons. I am armed. I am not harmless or toothless. I am a threat."
I'm down with that. Folks need to understand why being armed is a good thing.
-
I am probably demented(hush you people that might actually know) but I spend a fair amount of time studying my surroundings for what I could weaponize.
-
I am probably demented(hush you people that might actually know) but I spend a fair amount of time studying my surroundings for what I could weaponize.
A thinking person is never truly disarmed.
-
I'm not giving up my weapons.
I'm not going to stop using the word "weapon" to describe my weapons.
The left can play it's little mind game all it wants and if they want to call me a baby killer (which many have simply because I own firearms) because I have WEAPONS, they can and they can also go *expletive deleted*ck themselves.
I don't cater to the delusions of idiots who would disarm me if they could. Not IRL, and not with stupid mind games.
-
I own a nice S&W 625 and a nice S&W 1911, neither of which would be my go to tool for self defense ( unless we are in the apocalypse ) due to courts/cops confiscate tools used for s.d ( until after verdict and i am told they deliberately treat those guns like garbage before returning them ).
I plan on owning 3 or four glocks for s.d purposes as well as cheaper/reliable shot guns ...
anything better will be reserved for a road warrior/walking dead type apocalypse
-
Some time ago, I posted a picture of some of the "unconventional weapons" in my house. I can't remember if I did it in these forums or just elsewhere so here is the picture.