This is about the dumbest argument I've seen on a hunting forum in a long time. Shoot an elk with your rifle and it's called a different word than calling it a weapon if you shoot a person. What a bunch of hogwash!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Nitro Express:
And for the last time, not calling a firearm a weapon unless it is used against humans is NOT about Political Correctness, or “softening” the impact of killing an animal to appease the anti’s—it’s about correct use of our language. .

Then you should have no problem pointing us all towards some type of reputable English language reference guide to support your contention of a "sporting" firearm not being a weapon?

Not meaning to Hi Jack the thread.......But..
I have not been able to find anything about the shooting of a United Airlines agent anyplace other than this thread.
I wasent able to open the link to Youtube that Kathy had posted.
Nothing on the news or in the papers.
Did it really happen ????

quote:

Originally posted by leemar28:
Not meaning to Hi Jack the thread.......But..
I have not been able to find anything about the shooting of a United Airlines agent anyplace other than this thread.
I wasent able to open the link to Youtube that Kathy had posted.
Nothing on the news or in the papers.
Did it really happen ????

A simple google search gets 6,910,000 hits in .13 seconds on my computer.

Among them: http://travel.usatoday.com/fli...ssenger-gun/178487/1

quote:

Originally posted by Nitro Express:
You know, a few years ago it was possible to have a civilized discussion on AR without people making snide remarks or resorting to name-calling or profanity.

The anonymity of the Internet allows people to say whatever they please--people who otherwise would be too courteous—or afraid—to make those comments to a person’s face.

Electronic communication has many benefits but unfortunately almost as many drawbacks.

I can't see where anyone called any poster on this thread any names.

And I could not find any snide remarks.....

Maybe you decided to leave because you realized that your definition of a "weapon" was incorrect?

No, I didn't "leave" because of anything--I am still here.

My definition of weapon IS correct, and a number of sources will support it.

Admittedly, you'll also find sources that use "weapon" and "firearm" interchangably.

"Weapon" should apply when we're talking about anything--a firearm included--that is used in war, for self-protection, and (unfortunately) in criminal activity against a human being.

Thus, a rifle can be a weapon, or a sporting firearm, depending on how it's being used.

I think the best course of action on this thread would be to agree to disagree--I personally have used up my quota of time devoted to a back-and-forth that will never reach universal agreement.

Kind of reminds me of my DI in Boot Camp,he stood there with a M14 in one hand and his crank in the other. His words,this is your Weapon,and this ones your Gun.Your Weapons for shooting and the others for Fun!!!!

All guns are weapons except to PC pussys!!!!

A knife is lying on your kitchen counter. Is it a weapon or a tool? Is a base ball bat always a weapon or only under certain conditions?

465H&H

Why stop at knives and baseball bats. What about fists and steel-toed boots and automobiles and sticks and stones and...... We can carry on that silly shit ad infinitum.
The point is a rifle does one primary job and that's sending a metal capsule down the barrel. What the metal capsule is directed at doesn't change anything. Pointing it at a paper target doesn't make it not a rifle; not a weapon. Calling it "Thunder stick" or "Rover" only points out your inability of taking responsibility for yourself. Think about that.

quote:

The point is a rifle does one primary job and that's sending a metal capsule down the barrel. What the metal capsule is directed at doesn't change anything. Pointing it at a paper target doesn't make it not a rifle; not a weapon. Calling it "Thunder stick" or "Rover" only points out your inability of taking responsibility for yourself. Think about that.

I don't buy it... you knock over a store: run in, crash the register and take what is in it. The charged crime is Robbery.

Same scenario, but you flash a 45 Auto. The charged crime is Aggravated Armed Robbery. Why? Because when you flash the 45, you show intent or willingness to cause bodily harm. Same is true whether is is a knife, baseball bat, boxcutter, whatever. To me, intent of use makes something a weapon, and that is all I said in the beginning. The courts have upheld this idea over and over; hence the term "vehicular homicide", among others. Would any of us call an automobile a weapon?

Certain firearms were originally intended to be weapons; the 9mm parabellum is one very obvious one. The name says "for war". Many more were not. Is a Remington 700 a weapon against whitetail deer? No. Is the same firearm used against an attacking Grizzly Bear a weapon? Yes.

At least that is how I see it. Subtle differences maybe, but differences to me. But again, I shall learn to respect other opinions and not cringe.

I think we are beating that dead horse again. To further your argument how does your definition agree with the law? The law defines a weapon used in an armed robbery to include toy guns and knives. They were never intended to be used to harm another human, in fact they are incapabale of causing harm. So is coercion by perception a weapon? Does that then make the plastic pistol or rubber knife no matter how unreal looking actually a weapon? It still all boils down to semantics. Those who have an agenda wont give a damn that you I or anyone else used the PC word. I do understand the point you are trying to make. Although well intended I think it is an exercise in futility.

Anyone who has flown this airline has to be wondering if it was an accident.

quote:

Anyone who has flown this airline has to be wondering if it was an accident.

At the risk of beating a dead horse on a thread I came to late. . . .

I'm with NitroExpress on this issue. I never heard of any hunting firearm called a "weapon" until I flew on Lufthansa with rifles once and they insisted on calling them "weapons." "Oh, you're checking a WEAPON?" I have to say my natural reaction to that was negative.

I agree with those who have suggested this is kind of a silly disagreement, and I definitely agree with those who have said that the "antis" will do what they do no matter what we call a firearm, but I still don't call a firearm whose primary purpose is hunting a "weapon." It just doesn't seem right to me.

Similarly, I hate the term "harvest." I don't "harvest" an animal, I kill it, or "take" it.

quote:

Is a Remington 700 a weapon against whitetail deer? No. Is the same firearm used against an attacking Grizzly Bear a weapon? Yes.

If it's a 700 Remington it's not a firearm or a weapon, especially if a grizzly is going to eat your azz, LOL!!! Sorry, I couldn't resist and because this thread is such a joke I thought I better throw in a real one!!! Hey, I do agree that "harvest" is for crops though!!!

IMHO this idiot should lose his rights to firearm ownership. He has proven himself too negligent to responsibly handle firearms. Sorry if this offends some of you, my personal opinion only.

Sad to see a serious and meaningfull thread deterioriate into a pitifull argument over semantics.

I have no problem refering to any of my weapons as weapons. But at the same time I also appreciate not wanting to give any "ammunition" (pun intended) to the anti-2nd amendment libtards. Anti-American marxist bastards anyway.

I remember a time when "accidents" like this were viewed as unfortunate and not much more. Negligent, yes. But still unfortunate SHOULD be the bottom line.

When VP cheney shot his partner I dont recall anyone calling for his "Gene pool to be eliminated" or for fear of his offspring.



That is except for the Leftist, Marxists who talked like that about him even before the accident..

The sad fact is we live in an imperfect world, and the great responsibility of saftey with firearms combined with that fact will inevitably lead to such things from time to time. Get over it.. Same with Automibles, power tools and going outside your door.

The firearm discharging was completly the owners fault, I expect he regrets it and will likley be penalized accordingly. The important thing was no one was hurt. This is the problem with Liberalisim, we get sidetracked and loose sight of what is important in order to defend our most basic rights from their twisted ways of thinking.

quote:

Originally posted by swampshooter:
IMHO this idiot should lose his rights to firearm ownership. He has proven himself too negligent to responsibly handle firearms. Sorry if this offends some of you, my personal opinion only.

In the opinion of Librals, we should ALL loose our rights to bear arms because of incidents like this. Are you going to join in the chorus? Would you willingly grant "the federal government" authority to remove the 2nd amendment rights from "this Idiot"? And if you do, what makes you think they would be restrained with said authority and not take away YOUR rights??

Be carefull what you wish for..