I don't own any weapons.

[cordex]

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.

[MechAg94]

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.

[Grandpa Shooter]

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.

[cordex]

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.

[Ben]

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.

[Boomhauer]

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.

[MechAg94]

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. 

[Grandpa Shooter]

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.

[dogmush]

  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.

[Perd Hapley]

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=weapons+used+for+hunting&t=ffab&ia=web

[Ron]

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.:

[Ron]

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

[Ben]

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.

[Ron]

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.

[Ben]

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. 

https://youtu.be/4kU0XCVey_U

[HeroHog]

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.

[MechAg94]

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. 

[Grandpa Shooter]

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.

[Ben]

"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.

[RoadKingLarry]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ternps0JFwo

[Perd Hapley]

...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.

[Ben]

Say it proudly - "I own weapons. I am armed. I am not harmless or toothless. I am a threat."

Word.

[RocketMan]

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.

[French G.]

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.

[RoadKingLarry]

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.