Firearm not Weapon. Proper firearm terminology.

Sparks

Ghost. wrote: »

It is kind of hard to argue against that one.

It actually isn't since you can't make an inert nuclear bomb, as they all have to have a critical mass of nuclear material, something that doesn't and cannot exist inertly and which has to be actively maintained. In other words, a nuclear bomb is in a whole other category even setting aside the more obvious legal and common sense points.

The simpsons!!! As in the cartoon.....I really think you could source better reference material to construct a better counter arguement. And records from the time and the origin of the earliest firearms and their purpose are well documented.

I'm afraid they really aren't. You're talking about records that were created not only before modern english but before the language modern english derives from and depending on what you call the first firearm, possible even before that language.
We just don't have records of anything that old that are reliable in the kind of detail you're talking about. From anywhere. On any subject. We have fragments, here and there, and we piece the rest together.

Do you really expect people to believe the chinese invented and developed them for the purpose of target shooting!

When did I say target shooting? We know fireworks were developed before firearms, is it so unlikely to you that a recreational device was repurposed?

Saying somthing isnt useful doesnt make it so. Remember the horse and the dog? Take for example the bow, been around a lot longer that firearms and about that records of origin are non existent. But I think its reasonable to assume that the earliest hunter gatherers didnt invent it for archery competition and target shooting. Its logical it was invented to cause harm and catch prey. Id consider it a weapon.

It's also possible it was used to start fires. Are we really having a discussion about what prehistoric man was thinking when he designed something we'd recognise in the modern world, from scratch?

My point does hold up as modern firearms still operate on the same principles and do the exact same thing as the earliest ones, they just do it a lot better. They are designed to cause harm, be it humans or animals as I said all along.

Again, you're saying all firearms are designed to do the one thing.
They're just not. You have actual hard evidence of that sitting right there on the firing line of every Olympics since the modern games started in the 1890s, you just don't want to accept that it's real. That's denial, not logical argument.

Really, you believe your firearm would only be a weapon and could harm humans if it was used as a club. And you think Im taking the mickey for using a nuclear bomb as an example of a weapon.....:rolleyes:

My kind of firearm (an air rifle) was used in at least one suicide attempt in the UK in the last decade that I know of. It was not successful at point-blank range. If you wanted to use it as a weapon, you would have to use it as a club. Since it's metal, it'd be a pretty good club, but so would a hurley and a hurley won't cost you two grand.
And we're back to the abuse argument again anyway there.

Its not the wrong word to describe a firearm, its only wrong in your opinion. I never said a weapon is another name for a firearm. What I said is its correct to describe a firearm as also being a weapon. The same as a sword is also a weapon.

This is not argument, this is denial.

I agree that the public are largely uneducated about firearms and this is well known. But it has no bearing on your arguement that a firearm schouldnt be called a weapon.

Are you seriously suggesting that we should use the wrong word for a thing because nobody is educated about that thing?
Especially when the word you're suggesting has very strong negative connotations that imply an object has already been used for an unethical purpose?

Come on now, there no point in being daft about it. And you need have no fear of being labeled a killer in waiting.

I, and every other shooter with a licenced firearm, already have been. By TDs. In the Dail, on the official record of this country's government.
So please don't tell me what happens when people use the wrong word to describe things to me, because I and every regular poster in here and tens of thousands of others live it on a daily basis.

I understand you dont agree with it because it upsets you

No. Your premise doesn't upset me, it's just wrong. What upsets me is that you believe that denying logical argument and evidence somehow counts as logical argument in and of itself. That kind of thinking doesn't just affect this narrow topic - it's a pretty basic reason why this world we're living in is so ****ed up.

Ghost.

World English Dictionary (Better source of reference than the simpsons in my opinion)
firearm (ˈfaɪərˌɑːm)

— n
a weapon, esp a portable gun or pistol, from which a projectile can be discharged by an explosion caused by igniting gunpowder, etc

Ive highlighted the important word for you. Its the english language, I hope you arent going to say there are few records of it.

The free dictionary:
firearm (ˈfaɪərˌɑːm)
n
1. (Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) a weapon, esp a portable gun or pistol, from which a projectile can be discharged by an explosion caused by igniting gunpowder, etc

Again Ive highlighted the important word for you

Collins Dictionary
firearm (ˈfaɪərˌɑːm Pronunciation for firearm )

Definitions
noun

a weapon, esp a portable gun or pistol, from which a projectile can be discharged by an explosion caused by igniting gunpowder, etc

Again Ive highlighted the important word for you. You cant really still think what Im saying is wrong and you are right can you. Unless you are now going to tell me the dictionary and the english language is wrong!!! Maybe it is and you are right!!! That is denial. But I dont really care any more.

My logic is sound, you seem to be having difficulty following it though. And you seem to have a good grasp of the english language so I dont see why what Im saying doesnt make sense to you. Just use a little common sense and it will click for you.

If you are caught in posession of any item covered by the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act, 1990 and find yourself in court Id be interested to see if your argument that something isnt actually a weapon until its used to cause harm will stand up. Therefor if you have not used it to harm somebody you arent in possession of a weapon. I doubt the guards would back your argument then.

Ive nothing more to say about it. Thats why I deleted my last post, I dont want to get drawn any further into this daft pointless argument. Your argument is deeply flawed and just choosing to ignore historical facts and the english language is difficult to respond to.

If you ever decide to pursue a career in law good luck with it, you will need it.

clivej

I remember target shooting @ 10y on the buildings years ago with a Hilti nail-gun. Scary when you see the 3" nails hit a block wall flat on. :eek::eek::eek:

---

Can anyone tell me where you can tick the box for a moderator on the FCA1 form. Section 3.2 Accessories it says silencer. So when we tick the box we are applying to use a silencer.

So then with that reasoning we all have permission to use a silencer not a moderator. ;);)

reniwren

Just noticed, the receipt letter I received from the guards had reference to both firearm and weapon, you can see why people call them different things according to their point of view really

meathstevie

Personally I tend to think of offensive weapons as anything produced, used, modified or intended to unlawfully hurt or kill people other than it's user. It can be anything from a rifle to pallets of fertilizer and a tank of diesel to make a bomb to something like a stick of wood.

Firearms in someone's possession for lawful purposes like target shooting, hunting, pest control, soldiering, policing, lawful sale and supply and so on are not offensive weapons but firearms.
In some cases the users are trained to use them against other persons but even then the principal purpose of doing that is hardly ever to hurt or kill someone but to neutralise threats or achieve certain objectives.

extremetaz

"Weapon" is an interesting word in that it's defined as a noun but regularly used as an adjective - that's where all this confusion is coming from.

Even the definition in any of the dictionaries is ambiguous (but for the "noun" declaration), usually phrased along the lines of "any object used"... which in itself is a pretty good indictment of the state of our society's ability to phrase anything precisely (which is, of course, pretty high on the list of things that a dictionary is meant to do), yet those three words are the crux of the matter.

Under Sparks interpretation, the implication of those words is that the specific artifact in question has itself been used in an offensive manner. "Used" is interpreted as being a statement of the past tense. This however would make the word "weapon" an adjective.

Under the counter arguments, "used" is interpreted in the present tense, leading to the phrase *actually* meaning "any object which has present application". Which of course conforms with the definition of a noun.

So - strictly speaking, the latter argument is correct.


However - for the love of all that is the superpower elseways known as common sense - would ye ever COP THE F*CK ON!! - Seriously, what is it with you people?!? is it simply "grammer entitlement"?? or is there some sort of "hard man" satisfaction gleaned from being able to say that you own a "weapon". For christ sake would ye ever grow up and get with the program!!

The application of sensationalist, Hollywood terminology (no matter how grammatically correct and justifiable), to the tools that we use to enjoy our hobby, serves only to project associations of violence to what is an entirely non-violent passtime.

In short you're doing a significant disservice to the entire community through the application of such terms - and even for the sake of that very fact I'd actually go so far as to submit that a revision of both terms is required in their dictionary definitions. It is quite obvious that they are each incorrect as they are presently defined.

Regardless of its status as a noun, the associations that "weapon" leads to mean that, in practice, it *IS* an adjective - making Sparks definition the more correct (albeit colloquially). Thusly, the term "firearm" is *not* justly defined by its application.

So, in summary - to all ye hardmen who want to describe your firearms as weapons, you're entirely grammatically correct in doing so according to the rules of the English language...


....but you're still assholes.


QED. :rolleyes:

Ghost.

extremetaz wrote: »

"Weapon" is an interesting word in that it's defined as a noun but regularly used as an adjective - that's where all this confusion is coming from.

Even the definition in any of the dictionaries is ambiguous (but for the "noun" declaration), usually phrased along the lines of "any object used"... which in itself is a pretty good indictment of the state of our society's ability to phrase anything precisely (which is, of course, pretty high on the list of things that a dictionary is meant to do), yet those three words are the crux of the matter.

Under Sparks interpretation, the implication of those words is that the specific artifact in question has itself been used in an offensive manner. "Used" is interpreted as being a statement of the past tense. This however would make the word "weapon" an adjective.

Under the counter arguments, "used" is interpreted in the present tense, leading to the phrase *actually* meaning "any object which has present application". Which of course conforms with the definition of a noun.

So - strictly speaking, the latter argument is correct.


However - for the love of all that is the superpower elseways known as common sense - would ye ever COP THE F*CK ON!! - Seriously, what is it with you people?!? is it simply "grammer entitlement"?? or is there some sort of "hard man" satisfaction gleaned from being able to say that you own a "weapon". For christ sake would ye ever grow up and get with the program!!

The application of sensationalist, Hollywood terminology (no matter how grammatically correct and justifiable), to the tools that we use to enjoy our hobby, serves only to project associations of violence to what is an entirely non-violent passtime.

In short you're doing a significant disservice to the entire community through the application of such terms - and even for the sake of that very fact I'd actually go so far as to submit that a revision of both terms is required in their dictionary definitions. It is quite obvious that they are each incorrect as they are presently defined.

Regardless of its status as a noun, the associations that "weapon" leads to mean that, in practice, it *IS* an adjective - making Sparks definition the more correct (albeit colloquially). Thusly, the term "firearm" is *not* justly defined by its application.

So, in summary - to all ye hardmen who want to describe your firearms as weapons, you're entirely grammatically correct in doing so according to the rules of the English language...


....but you're still assholes.


QED. :rolleyes:

That was a really good post. Especially the first half. But you lost the run of youself with the hardman and hollywood stuff in the second half. Dunno where you plucked the "hardman" stuff out of.

as for the last comment

extremetaz wrote: »

....but you're still assholes.

Well you really let yourself down there. I dont think there is any need to be abusive towards anyone. You had already made your point in a very good and civil manner.

Sparks

Ghost. wrote: »

World English Dictionary ...
The free dictionary:....
Collins Dictionary....
...
Unless you are now going to tell me the dictionary and the english language is wrong!

No, but I will point out that those are US English dictionaries and we speak UK English, whose de facto primary dictionary is the OED, which says:

weapon:
A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage:

firearm
A rifle, pistol, or other portable gun:

Different words, for different things.

If you are caught in posession of any item covered by the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act, 1990 and find yourself in court Id be interested to see if your argument that something isnt actually a weapon until its used to cause harm will stand up.

Can I just point out to you there the name of the act?
It's the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act.
If firearms were weapons in the eyes of the law, why wouldn't that be called the Firearms Act? Why have two seperate terms in law unless they refer to two seperate things? (In fact, it's more explicit than that in reality - there are two seperate legal definitions for firearm and weapon because the law says they're two seperate things).

If you ever decide to pursue a career in law good luck with it, you will need it.

No thanks, I've written enough of the stuff for a lifetime

Sparks

For fits and giggles and because I couldn't actually remember back that far, I went and looked up the first time we had this argument on this website (I've had it on several others before this one as well). 2003 is the first reference I found on here. And that wasn't very long after I started posting on here in the first place.

Just to point out that this isn't a new argument and it's not the first time, or even the hundredth time, that we've heard this line of argument and there's nothing that's been said here in this thread that hasn't come up and been debunked the same way many, many times before. And it always boils down to "yes, I know the OED and the law and the gardai and the judiciary and the government all agree with your definition, but I can find dictionary entries/out-of-context quotes/sentimental pleas for acceptance of defamation for the good of society/derogatory jokes/etc/etc/etc, and my common sense says you're wrong so you are".

This is beyond getting old.

extremetaz

Ghost. wrote: »

But you lost the run of youself with the hardman and hollywood stuff in the second half. Dunno where you plucked the "hardman" stuff out of.

that latter half is what you may call an "opinion piece" if you like - bottom line is that I don't understand the insistance, and it's simply my stated opinion of those who chose to engage in it.

I would of course be interested in hearing a counter argument should anyone care to present one, and who knows, you might even manage to change my opinion - but right now I'll stand by every word of it - including that last line - because I can't feckin' stand ye!

Ghost.

Sparks, for more giggles the best bit is I like most shooters including yourself Im sure dont refer to them either as firearms or weapons, but as rifles, shotguns, guns etc. day to day.
As I said its a pretty pointless debate on pretty much a point of grammer a extremetz pointed out, and an old one as you have said.

extremetaz wrote: »

I would of course be interested in hearing a counter argument should anyone care to present one, and who knows, you might even manage to change my opinion

No counter argument from me, Ive argued my little heart out. Everyones entitled to their own opinion.

extremetaz wrote: »

I can't feckin' stand ye!

Ah no, dont say that. You seem like a lovely fella. You made me feel sad now, Im going to cry myself to sleep:(
Your last comment does say a lot about you, I guess it does lend weight to your post as you seem to be a lad who would know all about being a hardman.

extremetaz

what can I say - ya got me. :rolleyes:

Sparks

I think that's as good a place to draw a line as any.