I don't own any weapons.

[griz]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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...

[Bogie]

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."

[Bogie]

I probably shouldn't even mention the concept of crazy glue and a toilet seat at work.
 
Nope. Bad idea.

[zahc]

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

[HeroHog]

I own Guns, Pistols, Rifles, Shotguns, Knives, Blunt objects, Flammable substances, and more but no "weapons."

[cordex]

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?

[dogmush]

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?

[Perd Hapley]

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?

[charby]

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.

[griz]

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. 

[cordex]

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?

[zxcvbob]

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.

[BlueStarLizzard]

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.

[French G.]

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.

[JTHunter]

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.

[230RN]

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.

[MechAg94]

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.

[dogmush]

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.

[French G.]

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

[Perd Hapley]

For those who think of weapons as only those things designed to hurt/kill humans, where do you think you got that definition?

[griz]

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.

[Nick1911]

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.

[griz]

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...........

[HeroHog]

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!)