I don't own any weapons.

[Grandpa Shooter]

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."

[Bogie]

I own five 5-gallon fuel containers.

[bedlamite]

Anything in your hand is a tool. The weapon is your mind.

[WLJ]

I own a bunch of things that can be USED as weapons. The kitchen and garage are full of them.

[zahc]

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.

[BobR]

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

[Ben]

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.

[230RN]

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

[BlueStarLizzard]

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!

[RoadKingLarry]

I know 17 ways to kill a man with a wooden spoon.

[Ben]

I know 17 ways to kill a man with a wooden spoon.

https://youtu.be/16RdEtQL9EQ

[dogmush]

I own several  weapons.  Why would I pretend they aren't?

[Jim147]

He killed three guys with a pencil, a f'ing pencil.

[JTHunter]

How about "death by teacup"? 

[Bogie]

The best weapon right now is intel and networking - which is one of the reasons why social media providers have been purging.

[Perd Hapley]

Aside from guns meant especially for target shooting, aren't they all weapons? Whether for hunting, war, self-defense, etc.

[Angel Eyes]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4yzkefot3c

[griz]

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.

[Angel Eyes]

I know 17 ways to kill a man with a wooden spoon.

... 18 if the spoon is used to feed him Taco Bell.

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[Grandpa Shooter]

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.

[zahc]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[griz]

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.

[Ben]

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