• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

WEAPON

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I too have seen the term 'harvest' become commonplace in my lifetime and IMO, I think it comes from one of two points of view:

1) As wildlife management has taken on a more professional, accepted role in our society, it seems the term springs from their view of the set of wildlife being managed, 'x' number need to be taken (harvested) from the herd in relation to range carrying capacity, etc;

2) And also as a means of softening / toning down the harshness of the word "killing" in our ever more 'politically correct' thinking society.

In this regard, I also find myself using softer words like 'harvest' instead of "killing' when I'm discussing it with 'john & jane city slicker'.
 
Mike Brooks said:
Dave K said:
I too know where Mike is coming from. When I go fishing I use a fishing pole. Though ultimately it is to kill fish, yet I don't call it a weapon, it is a fishing pole.
BRAVO! I couldn't have made a better point if I tried the rest of my life. :hatsoff:


Ahh, the old semantics game. This manure gets old real fast.

A fishing rod was designed to CATCH the fish. It's the fisherman who KILLS that fish, if he so chooses AFTER it is caught.

A GUN was designed to KILL, therefore it IS a weapon.

YES, anything can be a weapon, but a gun was DESIGNED to be a weapon - that is the difference no matter how many cute analogies we choose to make it otherwise.

Why do you guys put us through this stuff about every 6 months on the forum?

:shake:
 
Dale Brown said:
Mike Brooks said:
Dave K said:
I too know where Mike is coming from. When I go fishing I use a fishing pole. Though ultimately it is to kill fish, yet I don't call it a weapon, it is a fishing pole.
BRAVO! I couldn't have made a better point if I tried the rest of my life. :hatsoff:

Ahh, the old semantics game. This manure gets old real fast.

A fishing rod was designed to CATCH the fish. It's the fisherman who KILLS that fish, if he so chooses AFTER it is caught.

A GUN was designed to KILL, therefore it IS a weapon.

YES, anything can be a weapon, but a gun was DESIGNED to be a weapon - that is the difference no matter how many cute analogies we choose to make it otherwise.

Why do you guys put us through this stuff about every 6 months on the forum?

:shake:

I would have chosen other words, but I agree with your basic premise that a "gun" was initially and purposely designed as a weapon. Not so with a fork, baseball bat, or table lamp. Those objects are only weapons when being used as such, but a gun is a weapon by virtue of it's design.

Or, we can all agree to disagree. :grin:
 
I teach Hunters Edd here in Ma. And the hardest thing to get a new instructor to do is use the word weapon.

It took me quite a while to strike that from the lesson being accidently let out.
 
Gents:
An interesting discussion in terminology. If you carry a knife in your pocket, is it a weapon or a tool? Depends on your intent. A knife is designed to cut. If you are carrying it for defense against another, it is a weapon. If it is to cut boxes, it is a tool.
Are firearms weapons or tools? Again, it depends on your intent. If you carry for the purpose of protection or to be used for protection, then they are weapons. If they are carried for the purpose of "punching holes in paper", then they are tools in a sense. Legally, it is the intent of the person carrying the firearm that defines it. In the hands of the military or police, firearms are weapons; their sole purpose is to injure others when necessary. In peacetime, firearms in the hands of Joe Citizen is for the purpose of .... depends on the intent. The Constitution says 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." They did not use the term weapons, they said Arms - firearms. No intent implied. Following the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, the Commonwealth of Virginia
has a right to carry law. You can apply for a "permit to carry a concealed handgun" with proper ID. Unless you are a felon or otherwise legally not allowed to do so, your permit will be granted. This is NOT A CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT. It is merely permission to carry a handgun concealed. There is no intent applied to it. It is your RIGHT to carry a concealed handgun. Period. You may ask, what is your intent in carrying? Since I do not legally have to give you a reason or define it as for protection, then it is simply my right to do so. If accosted, and I use it with deadly force, then it is a weapon. If someone asks me why do I carry a handgun, I respond that it is my right to do so. No intent. And the Commonwealth of Virginia agrees with me. I would not say that it is to defend myself, since this would be an admission that it is a weapon.

I realize that this has not put the arguement to rest. What is the purpose of a firearm? Is is a weapon to kill another human being? An animal? Target practice? It is an invention, a piece of wood and metal that has the potential to deliver a projectile for the purpose of ______. You fill in the blank. If it is to kill, its a weapon. If it is to target shoot for sport, it is not a weapon.
If you think that this is just a matter of "choosing one's words", you are correct. Choosing one's words in a court of law. If stopped by a policeman and legally searched they find a knife and ask what it is for. If you respond "to protect myself", it can be considered a concealed weapon in some states and you can be arrested. If it is to cut boxes at work, then it is not a weapon, unless defined by style, size, or "switcability".
Some items by LEGAL definition are considered weapons - brass knuckles, certain martial arts items, switchblades, dirks and daggers to name of few. Some states define concealed loaded firearms weapons.

This may be a fine point, but legally, I am not willing to give in and call all firearms weapons. When teaching my sons and daughter the safe handling of firearms, I told them of the potential they have to injure others, merely by the design of the firearm and its potential with unsafe handling. The firearm has no intent. The end user does. I also teach them the safe handling of matches, chemicals, bows and arrows, cars, electricity, and boiling water; all of which can be weapons, not by design, but by intent.

As the old story goes, the man, legally carrying a firearm, goes to enter a shopping mall. The sign says "No Weapons Allowed" Is he carrying a weapon or simply a firearm that has the ability to be a weapon? If he has a pocket knife, is it a weapon? If he is returing a baseball bat, is it a weapon? :yakyak:

I am thankful that this forum gives us the opportunity to discuss such topic without getting personal or throwing barbs at each other.

John
Patriot
 
"Or, we can all agree to disagree"

I think that most would agree that a gun is a weapon, but the issue is that we are not required to call it such all the time there are other softer, less offensive (to some) terms which we can use and still carry on an intelligent conversation, how often does anyone use the term weapon when speaking of a gun when going hunting or shooting?....."I am going to take my 1770 Lancaster flintlock weapon out tomorrow and try for a deer before season ends"......
 
A GUN was designed to KILL, therefore it IS a weapon.
Dale, I've designed and built nearly 250 guns. Not one of them were designed to be used as a weapon to kill a human. There for I don't think I build weapons.
Hey, why the hostility, this is only a discusion of termanology. I find the term "weapon" to be offensive when applied to a sporting gun, and others obviously don't. It's no big deal either way. :shake:
Sorry I got it satrted, my personality that can't let go of annal details gets me in trouble again! :winking:
 
Mike - appology not accepted - I learned from reading this discussion that this is yet another example of how my living in a military and law enforcement bubble all these years makes my thinking different than the norm - these examples come up all of the time (man could I tell you some stories!!!). As I near retirement and yean to become a normal citizen I for one need to see these different points of view - thanks.
 
Mike Brooks said:
A GUN was designed to KILL, therefore it IS a weapon.
Dale, I've designed and built nearly 250 guns. Not one of them were designed to be used as a weapon to kill a human.

Nobody said "human". You just added that to the discussion. The use of a weapon to shoot targets came later.


Mike Brooks said:
There for I don't think I build weapons.

As is your right. You may call them whatever you wish, but that won't change history or the primary reason that guns were invented.

If someone were to be arrested for carrying one of your "guns" in the wrong place, they can call you as an expert witness to explain to the court why your rifles are not weapons. Who knows, you may set a legal precedent. :grin:

No hostility intended.
 
If you saw how I use my fishing pole and set the hook, you would call my fishing pole, a weapon.
 
If you ask the fish I bet he would not consider the pole a weapon, delivery system maybe, but that hook stuck in his lip is a different story.....
 
OK, so ya take the game warden fishin. Ya go out to the middle of the lake. The two of you start settin up. You pull out a stick of dynamite and light the fuse, hand it to the warden, and say "are you gonna fish or sit there and futz with that fishin pole." Yep, it's all symantics! :blah: :rotf: Bill
 
According to the State of Texas, when I renewed my Concealed Carry a month ago--

Weapon is defined as:

Any object, which, by its very nature, is used for offensive or defensive purposes.

Bill
 
I use the term 'weapon' quite often but are more likely to refer to the particular firearm as 'the rifle", 'the pistol', or, 'the shotgun'

As with many others, It's a military thing. If you say 'gun', you had better be talking about artillery!

I personally don't hold with this trend of 'softening down' language. I own weapons and kill animals. Us non-city dwellers tend to call a spade a spade! :winking:
 
Yes my guns are weapons and I do not mind referring to them as such. If I owned a non-firing gun than that could be called other things like POS.

Mike makes a point that in this PC world one must try to hide the true identity of possessions so that "the man" won't come take it from you.

I actually like the term "weapons" but understand the other side of the arguement as well.
 
Just adding my two cents here..not replying to any post directly. I dunno if I should cry or roll over in hysterics... Now come on guys..really... You all need to get a life.... :grin: This "thing" about "weapon"...who cares??? Personally..I usually call whatever kind of gun I happen to be carrying as a gun. Example: I need to have a new recoil pad put on this gun. If I wanted to be specific...I would say rifle, shotgun, pistol. In truth...anything that could cause pain or injury could be called a weapon. I can just imagine some 1830 trapper in the Rockies telling one of his buddies about his "weapon". Yeah, right. Fwiw, I have put in over 16 years in the military and no way do I have a "habit" of calling any of my guns weapons. At one time about 30 years ago I carried a weapon, well, really...I called it my gun. But that was job related and a couple of times I had to pull it from its holster. So what? I still called it my gun. All that being said...do I consider my guns as weapons rather than sporting arms? I dunno...I do know that I would not hesitate in using one to kill someone if the situation warranted it. Why is it so necessary to keep splitting hairs on these things?
 
oomcurt said:
Why is it so necessary to keep splitting hairs on these things?


Because every so often, out of the blue, someone has to start a thread with, "Here's something we can argue about". :rotf:
 
Dale Brown said:
A GUN was designed to KILL, therefore it IS a weapon.

Surely that is a rather over simplification? Many firearms (specifically target rifles) were never designed as weapons. From the fine muzzle loading match rifles of Metford and Rigby in Great Britain, the Continental offhand rifles with their hook butt plates and set triggers, the heavy US bench rest rifles through to the modern Olympic .22 target rifles; none of these were designed as weapons. The fact that they are capable of being used to kill does not make them a weapon.

David
 
My '58 Remmies sure weren't made to punch holes in paper!

Nor was my 1911, my colt .357 or the 9mm Tanfoglio Combat.

Folks, call them whatever you want, just don't tell me what to call mine!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top