It seems to me that the word "weapon" is used somewhat indiscriminately on the various message boards. I'm not all that sure we should be using that terminology when referring to our sporting firearms.
As I see it, a weapon is a device, be it gun, knife, baseball bat, whatever used either in an act of aggression or defense.
In the Hunter Education class I teach, the word weapon will draw a fine of 25 cents from the user.
I realize that many who use the word got into the habit while serving in the military and like most habits, a bit hard to break
Let's be honest here, I don't doubt that anti-gun and anti-hunting people come to these sites to gain insight into our ways of thought so as to use them against us. When some nimrod says, "I raised my weapon and shot the deer." they see the word "weapon" (aggression) and deer. (Poor little Bambi.) You and I know it's stupid, but let's face it, they want to stop our sport any way they can. let's not give them the ammunition to do so.
Paul B.

I agree 100%, Paul. It's a matter of the perceptions derived by the unknowing public which are the problem, and I prefer to present the most-benign, peaceable appearance that I can muster.

For some reason, I don't even like using the word "gun", because it's so non-specific. My terms are "rifle", "shotgun", "revolver" and "pistol", mostly.

"Weapons", and I have a few, are those designated by ME as anti-personnel instruments, and actually my designation for a given firearm can change on short notice. If I'm using my M1A for punching paper at the range, it's just a rifle. If I'm using it the next day as a defensive tool, that same rifle becomes a weapon. Of course, the same can be said for an innocuous rock laying over there, or a length of pipe left behind by my plumber. They too can be instantly transformed to 'weapon' status.

My concealed-carry handguns are most-certainly "weapons", being chosen and carried mainly for the purpose of puncturing those who may wish harm upon me or mine.

No sporting-use firearm in our family is EVER referred-to as a "weapon", for exactly the reasons which you stated so well.

I've got to respectfully disagree.

The word "weapon" is an perfectly appropriate term to describe a rifle, shotgun or bow/arrow used to kill game. Shooting an animal with the intent of killing it is an agressive act. An animal is not a human but it is an aware being with a will to live. How can searching for an animal and intentionally inflicting a lethal wound with the intent of ending its life possibly not be considered an "agressive" act?

The killing of an animal while hunting may have an entirely different connotation than warfare or self-defence. A soldier shoots an enemy do do away with him. I shoot a game animal so that I might have it for my own. (At least it's flesh, hide and antlers.) But dead is still dead...

I don't often use the word "weapon." Not having been in the military, I prefer "rifle," "shotgun" or "archery." But I see nothing wrong with "weapon." I also prefer to say that I "kill," "bag" or "take" game instead of using one of the most redicilous euphamisms ever coined - "harvested."

The animal rights, anti hunting and anti gun fanatics don't care what terminology we use. They oppose it by any name. The general public knows "sugarcoating" when they see it. To use euphamisms can be looked at as a tacit admission that we might not be so comfortable with what we are doing.

quote:

I also prefer to say that I "kill," "bag" or "take" game instead of using one of the most redicilous euphamisms ever coined - "harvested."

The animal rights, anti hunting and anti gun fanatics don't care what terminology we use. They oppose it by any name. The general public knows "sugarcoating" when they see it. To use euphamisms can be looked at as a tacit admission that we might not be so comfortable with what we are doing.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by Bigasanelk:

The general public knows "sugarcoating" when they see it. To use euphamisms can be looked at as a tacit admission that we might not be so comfortable with what we are doing.

I kill animals with various weapons. Trying to be "politcially correct" and sugar-coat reality is trying to be like "them" that oppose us.

Good shooting,
desmobob

Well, y'all just carry on with your your misnamed WEAPONS, in defiance of good English and centuries of history.

My 3800-page Webster's Third International English dictionary says the following:

"weapon: 1. an instrument of offensive or defensive combat: something to fight with"

"COMBAT!" Is THAT plain enough? I don't "harvest" (yeccchh) animals either; I KILL them with my hunting rifles or shotguns....and not with "weapons". Of course, if you view hunting as some sort of warfare, have at it. I prefer using the language properly.

I'm not sure which tactic is the best but I can see the value of using their type of "politially correct" patterns of speach against them.

Weather being subtle like PaulB is suggesting, or using politically correct speech in a rediculously exaggerated "over-the-top" way (I.E. Sarchasm) to show it's rediculousness, in other words stripping away the aforementioned "sugarcoating" for those too stupid to do it for themselves.

there is much to be said for any of these approaches, me I like using every WEAPON in my arsenal against those proven to be hostile and if speech and written words can be used against them, a form of "indirect fire" as opposed to other more physical means so much the better.

Unfortunatly when you are engaged in a battle of wits
using logic as a WEAPON against people who are driven by emotion rather than reason it's rather like attacking werewolves when you are out of silver bullets, no matter how many times your points get home (swordfighting metaphore) they simply don't acknowledge it if it doesn't fit
into their belief system.

Try arguing theology with a comitted Jehova's Witness some time, while it's sorta....

quote:

Originally posted by Bren Mk1:
Well, y'all just carry on with your your misnamed WEAPONS, in defiance of good English and centuries of history.

My 3800-page Webster's Third International English dictionary says the following:

"weapon: 1. an instrument of offensive or defensive combat: something to fight with"

"COMBAT!" Is THAT plain enough? I don't "harvest" (yeccchh) animals either; I KILL them with my hunting rifles or shotguns....and not with "weapons". Of course, if you view hunting as some sort of warfare, have at it. I prefer using the language properly.

Really? Then check out the other definitions of "weapon." Does "using the language properly" only allow one to use the first listed Webster's definition of any word? If so, that must be something new. (Was your first sentence evidence of the good English and proper usage you purport follow?)

Good shooting,
desmobob

I hate political Correctness with a passion. My pet peave is that so and so "passed away". No he didn't, you idiot, He DIED.
Grizz

This is my weapon,
This is my gun,
This ones for killin',
This ones for FUN.

In the NRA instructor courses you are told to not to use the word weapon.

I learned to use the word weapon in the USAF starting in 1952 then in LE for about 37 years to describe whatever the perps were using.NRA not withstanding when I taught hunter safety I used the weapon word regularly as it encompassed everything.

I agree that a hunting gun shouldn't be called a weapon. We teach that at hunter ed courses in Canada also. You use a weapon for war/protection against humans. A spear used for hunting is a spear-used to kill a man, it's a weapon.

I don't think it has anything to do with political correctness. It has to do with a mindset, we're sportsmen not military personel. In the forces it absolutely should be called a weapon.

the chef

Like it or not, we all have the most powerful weapon out there which is our minds!

I think the word "weapon" is used by police departments when referring to guns; pistols, rifles and shotguns. The term sucks.... It's too general.
When I took the CCW course up here, the guy who taught it was the Chief of Police and he kept referring to hand guns as weapons.. I cringed every time he said it.

Though my rifles can be considered weapons I refer to them as "rifles"... I refer to a handgun as a handgun.... Pretty simple... I don't "harvest" animals, I kill them, again pretty simple... No sugar coating but nothing over the top either....

Ken....

Hey Paul,

Misusing "weapon" is no worse than misusing "nimrod" in the context of a hunter. In fact, Nimrod was considered a great hunter. And only through misuse has it become a slang term for a goofus of sorts. -TONY

pretending that there is a difference in one rifle and another is what gets gun bannes based on cosmetic features. all firearms are weapons. you pretending that your sporting arms for hunting are different from my mp5 is foolish and leads down the path to eventual total gun ban and restriction. 50 bmg to big for sporting use ban it 5.7x28 too small for sporting use ban it. m700 30-06 with leupold scope well thats a sniper rifle and a weapon ban it. you just want to feel superior to the nuckle dragging black rifle crowd. you are not and your "sporting arm" is a weapon.

if you think being reasonable with the gun grabbers will make them slack off your guns you are wrong.

try barganing and being nice to muggers its the same concept.

if you dont hang together as "weapon" owners you will all hang seperatly

as to the 25 cent rule first thing to do is give you two quarters and tell you that that weapon is a weapon.

On the same note, someone mentioned "harvesting" game. F*** I hate that word. I hunt and kill I don't harvest, what a load of crap!!! I also agree that cosying up to the anti's does no good and should be avoided.

Gidday Guys,

This is an exercise in semantics. A rose by any other name is still a weapon.

There are far more important things to worry about.

Crusher you are on the button.

Also the authority for correct spelling and usage of words is not Websters but the Oxford Concise Dictionary.

Happy Hunting

Hamish

quote:

Originally posted by calgarychef1:
On the same note, someone mentioned "harvesting" game. F*** I hate that word. I hunt and kill I don't harvest, what a load of crap!!! I also agree that cosying up to the anti's does no good and should be avoided.

If you were trained as a wildlife management biologist you'd be exposed to the term harvesting animals.

weapon is an item used to commit an act of agression and violence.
a pool cue is a weapon when someone is hit with it. so is an iron an ashtray a car and a shoe.
a rifle is a rifle and a pistol is a pistol. a knife is a knife.
it is only when used for assault and violence they are weapons.
i dont kill deer with weapons.
i harvest deer with a rifle.
i much prefer the word harvest.
why do i need to say kill
if there was a way to get all that meat off them without killing them i would do it. so killing is just a side effect.

I agree with you Paul B, keep collecting them quarters.

In Canadian law. at least, anything that is, or can be used to harm someone, is classified as a weapon, which can lead to some bizarre scenarios. When your ex hit you with that over sized turkey drumstick, that was assault with a weapon.
Grizz

you are promoting the idea that some guns are good and some are bad even if you dont mean to.

the flaw in that is at some point someone else will decide what guns are bad and must not be in civilian hands.

you are setting yourself up for disaster because you want to use words that make you feel good about your guns and your hunting.

the rifle I hunt deer with is exactly the same as the one the core uses in its sniper teams not simular but built in quantico by the same guy exactly the same.

the problem is that some liberal fuckwit will be the one to decide what guns ae bad and yours will inevitably be on the list.

the act of changing the name of a tool to make it different breeds the idea that the bad tools can be removed even though there is no difference in how they work or what they are for.

you want to play word games for your own ends but the antis are better at it than you are and will use your rehtoric to disarm us.
so sell your b.s. somewhere else keep on teaching kids the good stuff and leave out the word police buisness.

all this trouble because you want to feel good and sell the idea that you are somehow better and different from the killers with the weapons.

you are not and we like you anyway.

Posted by KSTEPHENS:

quote:

weapon is an item used to commit an act of agression and violence.
a pool cue is a weapon when someone is hit with it. so is an iron an ashtray a car and a shoe.
a rifle is a rifle and a pistol is a pistol. a knife is a knife.
it is only when used for assault and violence they are weapons.
i dont kill deer with weapons.
i harvest deer with a rifle.
i much prefer the word harvest.
why do i need to say kill
if there was a way to get all that meat off them without killing them i would do it. so killing is just a side effect.

Rifles are Weapons.

Just because you aren't shooting a person with your rifle doesn't make hunting any less agressive or violent. You might argue that you are not doing anything agressive, I bet you sure feel the adrenelin kick in when you see the animal you want to shoot. We all feel a little thrill from killing an animal and when that thrill wears off the whole process is kind of anti-climatic. Very few of us need to subsistance hunt these days but we hunt because we like to. I enjoy hunting even if I don't kill/harvest an animal but you have to admit it is a lot more fun if you don't go home empty handed. Just the simple act of pulling the trigger or releasing a bow string with the intent to kill your quarry is a violent act of assult. Humans are violent and agressive by nature and hunting is just a release or extension of that.

Just about any item you can hold in your hand or operate can be used as a weapon that is a simple fact of life. Rifles, pistols, and knives were designed to kill or aid in the process of killing, it is as simple as that. I can't think of any major advancement in firearms that didn't arise out of the need to kill humans or animals better than what was there before. A hammer wasn't designed to kill but it sure can be a weapon but anything desigend to kill is still a weapon.

Harvest or kill really doesn't make a difference to me, I'll say them both. I really don't need to sugar coat what I'm doing anyone with half a brain will relate the two. I really get tired of having to be PC, we worry too much about what people are feeling and too little about what is really important.

....you can sure tell it is summer again.

Some of my rifles were designed as sporting firearms. One in particular, a beautiful wood stocked bolt action 30-06, is the essence of a sporting arm. However it certainly could be employed as a sniper weapon if the need should arise and I would not hesitate to use it for that pupose.

Some of my other rifles were designed as military combat arms. Very much like the current U.S. military combat weapon carried by our troops. I have never used any of them as weapons but should the need arise they are available for that purpose. I have used several of them to kill deer hand hogs. They make very effective sporting arms.

My personal opinion, so take it for what it's worth. I refer to any and all weapons as such. It keeps you and everyone else aware of the responsibility that they hold in their hand. If you honestly think that simple word play is going to swing the opinion of the anti in your favor, I would suggest that you aren't absolutely clear as to who you are dealing with.

quote:

Only 7% of Americans are hunters. That means there are more of us than there are of them. It is simply a matter of democracy. The majority rules in a democracy. We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.
- Wayne Pacelle, Senior Vice-President, Humane Society of the United States, Full Cry, October 1990

We have found that civil disobedience and direct action has been powerful in generating massive attention in our communities ... and has been very effective in traumatizing our targets.
- J.P. Goodwin, Executive Director of the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade, National Animal Rights Convention, June 1997

Arson, property destruction, burglary or theft are "acceptable crimes when they directly alleviate the pain and suffering of an animal."
- Alex Pacheco, Co-founder, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Associated Press Newsfeature, January 1989

Other interesting quotes can be found by reading and following the links here, though that barely scratches the surface. These people are environmentally incorrect and socially irresponsible. By now, I would have thought that most would agree that you cannot argue with a fundamentalist of any type, with the hope of changing their mind or viewpoint. In my opinion, this is a subject upon which they will not budge and will take no prisoners.

They are implying that since 7% of the population are hunters then 93% are anti-hunters. Not true at all. 7% are hunters, 92% are non-hunters, and 1% are anti-hunters. So infact there are more of us hunters than there are of them.

I prefer "firearm" - plain and simple.

Also "long gun", "rifle", "handgun", "pistol", "revolver", "shotgun", "sidearm", "hunting implement", "longbow", "sporting arms", "smoke pole", etc.

I only use "weapon" when describing an implement used to kill or maliciously injure a human. I avoid "semi-automatic assault rifle", as the general public has come to believe that it's the same as a "machine gun".

quote:

Originally posted by Bob in TX:
....you can sure tell it is summer again.

yep......................

quote:

Originally posted by taylorce1:
Posted by KSTEPHENS:

quote:

weapon is an item used to commit an act of agression and violence.
a pool cue is a weapon when someone is hit with it. so is an iron an ashtray a car and a shoe.
a rifle is a rifle and a pistol is a pistol. a knife is a knife.
it is only when used for assault and violence they are weapons.
i dont kill deer with weapons.
i harvest deer with a rifle.
i much prefer the word harvest.
why do i need to say kill
if there was a way to get all that meat off them without killing them i would do it. so killing is just a side effect.

Rifles are Weapons.

Just because you aren't shooting a person with your rifle doesn't make hunting any less agressive or violent. You might argue that you are not doing anything agressive, I bet you sure feel the adrenelin kick in when you see the animal you want to shoot. We all feel a little thrill from killing an animal and when that thrill wears off the whole process is kind of anti-climatic. Very few of us need to subsistance hunt these days but we hunt because we like to. I enjoy hunting even if I don't kill/harvest an animal but you have to admit it is a lot more fun if you don't go home empty handed. Just the simple act of pulling the trigger or releasing a bow string with the intent to kill your quarry is a violent act of assult. Humans are violent and agressive by nature and hunting is just a release or extension of that.

Just about any item you can hold in your hand or operate can be used as a weapon that is a simple fact of life. Rifles, pistols, and knives were designed to kill or aid in the process of killing, it is as simple as that. I can't think of any major advancement in firearms that didn't arise out of the need to kill humans or animals better than what was there before. A hammer wasn't designed to kill but it sure can be a weapon but anything desigend to kill is still a weapon.

Harvest or kill really doesn't make a difference to me, I'll say them both. I really don't need to sugar coat what I'm doing anyone with half a brain will relate the two. I really get tired of having to be PC, we worry too much about what people are feeling and too little about what is really important.

i have extensive experience with weapons. i dont own any now.
i do like my firearms though and ill be using many of them to harvest deer this year.
and PC or not, if you want to keep this lifestyle of hunting another generation then i'd suggest you do alot less killing with weapons and a little more harvesting. but hen you may be the kind of guy who rides around downtown shitzville with a deer hanging out the back of your truck.
then again maybe not.

Calling a rifle a firearm is just as bad as calling it a weapon. Look it up in just about any dictionary and it will use the word weapon side by side with rifle and pistol in the definition. I really doubt our soldiers in Iraq are using their weapons to maliciously injure or kill a human. I'll bet most of them would love to get out of there without having to pull the trigger. Having been in the Army most of my adult life I can say I have never wanted to point a weapon of any kind at another human being unless it was to keep my buddies or myself alive, luckily I've never had too.

Just because you own a weapon doesn't mean you have to use it as one. Using your choice of rifle, pistol, bow, muzzle loader, spear, or knife to kill/harvest an animal or human is employing it as a weapon plain and simple. When you target shoot of any style you are not using your weapon as one, but that doesn't make it any less of one.

Go out and ask your friends what is the first thing they think of when you say weapon, I'd bet most of them will say "Gun". Zumbo sure got flamed for saying that AR-15 and AK's had no business hunting because they were weapons. We are being just as blind as Zumbo when we say that our firearms are not weapons regardless of what we use them for.

Yes, I sure do drive around with my deer in the back of my pickup. It is usually under a tarp, unless I'm really close to camp or home when I shoot it. I'd rather someone come up and question me on what I'm doing than try to hide it from them. I might find a strong anti-hunter to debate with. I might find someone on the fence and then I'll invite them to go with me sometime so that they can get the experience to form there own opinion.

We lock up our rifles, shotguns, pistols, and ammunition not only to protect our investment but to keep them from being accidentally or purposely used to kill or injure someone or something. In the military we are taught that they are weapons to signify the importance of treating them with respect and care. Weapon is not derogatory or misleading; it is simply stating that this firearm, bow, spear, or sword was designed with the purpose of killing what ever you used it on.


Being PC to appease the antis rarely ever helps any cause. I’d would rather that I be right in what I state than to be PC. By failing to recognize our firearms as weapons we are striking a compromise so that we feel better when we talk to the uniformed so not to upset them.

quote:

Originally posted by KSTEPHENS:
weapon is an item used to commit an act of agression and violence.
a pool cue is a weapon when someone is hit with it. so is an iron an ashtray a car and a shoe.
a rifle is a rifle and a pistol is a pistol. a knife is a knife.
it is only when used for assault and violence they are weapons.
i dont kill deer with weapons.
i harvest deer with a rifle.
i much prefer the word harvest.
why do i need to say kill
if there was a way to get all that meat off them without killing them i would do it. so killing is just a side effect.

You harvest corn, or soybeans etc.

This is silly. Call it what ever turns your crank. I doubt the deer (or an anti looking at it) cares if he is harvested with a rifle or killed with a weapon.