Referring to a Firearm as a Weapon

jacknife

I would just like an opinion on some wording, a friend of mine, who is a keen sportman applied for a license for a .22 rifle, the local super send a letter of acknowledgement and referred to his application for a rifle as the above mentioned weapon.

I find this an offensive term, a weapon has a different purpose, i know a kitchen knife can be classed as a weapon in certain circumstances, but its primary aim is a kitchen utensil the same as a .22 rifle is a sportsman's equipment.

has anyone else come across this before a firearm referred to as a weapon

Sparks

Once or twice...

goz83

As someone only learning about the sport, I have to admit that it is hard to get used to saying "firearm". I often find myself saying "gun" and occasionally, "weapon". I certainly don't intend it as being offensive terminology, but I understand completely why anyone would use the word.

If you have €50 in your pocket, I might correctly assume that you would call it money. Am I right? Well, those who know better, know that the €50 is not money at all. It is in fact, currency. I won't go into the differences here, but a quick google will enlighten people who don't understand the terminology used. So, I don't get offended when someone refers to currency as money. I just acknowledge to myself that most people are trained to call it money.

Sparks

"gun" is okay in a pinch, but artillery folk will point out that you can't lift a gun and you usually mount it on a ship...

Personally, I tend to only say "firearm" when talking about legislation; the rest of the time I'll say "rifle" or "pistol" or "shotgun". Dunno about you, but my "weapons training" was more about rather long kitchen knives and sticks, there wasn't any cordite involved.

I see "weapon" in translations a lot because translators see "waffen" and use "weapon" but here's the funky thing about translation - not every word in every language has an equivalent word in another language. Try saying "lagom" in english sometime, or "mu-shin", or "iktsuarpok", or "tartle". Even though you know what they mean, you don't have a single word for them. So translators, rather than have an existential crisis about the nuances of language and the interrelation of language to both culture and the many unique cultural variations of the human condition every twenty minutes on a tuesday afternoon, just pick a word that's close enough and get on with it.



"lagom" is swedish and means "enough" but in a sense that implies that the objective person recognises how much is enough and takes no more than they need and no more than is their fair share and neither does anyone else as a kind of social moral;

"mu-shin" is japanese and means literally "no mind" but means the state of mind you have when shooting in that instant when everything in your mind that has to do with "you" just... stops and everything else takes over and you're "in the flow" and everything "just happens" but is in fact thousands of hours of training being absorbed by the subconscious and then taking over the actual act being performed;

"iktsuarpok" is inuit and one of the funnier ones, it means to go outside to see if someone is coming but isn't so much that specific act as the mindset involved - we see it in people who check their email compulsively even when the email program will beep when new email arrives, or people who look at their mobile phone to see if it's ringing even though it actually rings when a call comes in;

and "tartle" is scottish and means that hesitation you have mid-conversation when you're introducing someone and momentarily forget their name...

Sparks

But there's an important reason for insisting on using the right words in some circumstances (though you don't always have to be an ass about it):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt45mXPCy3g

g00167015

It's sickening to receive the same utterly offensive, cut-and-pasted AGS acknowledgement letter for every application and/or renewal.

Cut-and-paste is a very popular pursuit in AGS as anyone with experience of contacting them will probably know. The ignorant and inappropriate pieces of text often contained therein only serve to strengthen one's belief that the sender really does lack the intellect and basic literacy to successfully compose sentences all by himself.





Rather brings into question the standards and relevance of training and assessments/exams at Templemore, don't you think. Although to be fair, there are not any realistic academic requirements for acceptance, nor have there ever been. The dated and archaeic material taught down there and the poor standards of teaching really shine through all too often. In terms of being a modern and relevant police force, they are decades behind most other western countries.

However I don't think this has much chance of changing whilst we still have such a deep rooted and disgusting ethos of dishonesty and malpractice in so many different facets of this public service, at pretty much all levels of rank too........

Another €0.02 in the piggy bank, I must have at least a fiver by now :-)

dodderangler

It's only a weapon if it's used by wrong people for breaking the law .

gleesonger

dodderangler wrote: »

It's only a weapon if it's used by wrong people for breaking the law .

So it's a good thing to remind everybody that your firearm is also a weapon and that it should be treated as such.

Cass

Why? Why remind everyone?

The Firearms act specifically prohibits the authorising person from issuing a license to anyone that may be or is a threat to public safety. So by saying that our firearms are still weapons is by default/inference saying that we are still a threat to public safety, that An Gardaí should not have issued the license or done so in error and lastly is a an insult to the entire shooting community.

With the amount of background checks, personal information, private information (that cannot be legally obtained, but must be divulged voluntarily in order to get our licenses), security checks and continuous monitoring that FIREARM owners go through i reject that premise in its entirety.

More people are killed or seriously injured by, well, pretty much any other means. Cars, buses, trucks, screwdrivers, kitchen utensils (knives, etc), hurls, tools (pry/crow bars, hammers, etc), rope, etc. None of these are classed as weapons until they are used as such. You don't see campaigns to end the use of rope, stop people having tools, to use only plastic utensils in kitchens or rid sports of clubs, bats, hurls, etc. So why is that our tools for our sport are classified as weapons simply because they fire a projectile?

The item itself is not offensive, or dangerous. If a gun were left sit on a table for a hundred years and no one touched it, went near it, or abused it, it would cause no harm to anyone or anything. There is an old adage that firearm owners use and it's brought out so often that the meaning behind is lost or ignored as "the same old tired excuse". That is "Guns don't kill people, people do". Whether you are rolling your eyes at this or not is irrelevant. It's true.

Only on the news today i heard about yet another stash of weapons that were recovered. I did not start yelling at the radio because the man used the term weapon because they are weapons. AK47s, Sten gun, explosives, etc. All of these are illegal to own in Ireland, and their only use is for nefarious purposes by people seeking to do harm. In every aspect they are weapons.

MY point being i don't object to the term when used correctly. However when used inappropriately, in ignorance, or simply to illicit a response (trolling if you will) i won't tolerate it.

Wadi14

g00167015 wrote: »

It's sickening to receive the same utterly offensive, cut-and-pasted AGS acknowledgement letter for every application and/or renewal

Don't complain too much I have never received an acknowledgment letter ever. would be nice to even get a cut and paste:( sometime

extremetaz

gleesonger wrote: »

So it's a good thing to remind everybody that your firearm is also a weapon and that it should be treated as such.

do you treat your Car as a weapon?
What about your kitchen knives/Hurley/Golf clubs/Safety boots? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Sparks

gleesonger wrote: »

So it's a good thing to remind everybody that your firearm is also a weapon and that it should be treated as such.

Except that it's not a weapon. Unless you're saying he has already used it to attack someone. In which case that's between you and the Gardai thanks, this ain't the place for it.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

The design of a rifle, gun, firearm etc etc, is the very definition of a weapon, is it not?

long range shooter

Chelsea Flaky Tag wrote: »

The design of a rifle, gun, firearm etc etc, is the very definition of a weapon, is it not?

The design of car,plane or a boat could be used as a weapon too;)

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

long range shooter wrote: »

The design of car,plane or a boat could be used as a weapon too;)

Oh yes of course, I understand that. Their fundamental design is for transport though.

Initially firearms were designed with the intent on harming/killing somebody. The design is basically the same (fire, pressure, projectile). The firearms possessed legally in Ireland are never intended to inflict harm on another person, but the same firearm in another country could be purchased for self defence, making it a weapon.

Would it be fair to say that it would depend where you live?

freddieot

Origin or what something was originally designed for is an interesting issue.

Was the first knife used to butter bread or was it used as a weapon

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

freddieot wrote: »

Origin or what something was originally designed for is an interesting issue.

Was the first knife used to butter bread or was it used as a weapon

If I were to take a guess, I would say the first cutting tools were used practically rather than offensively/defensively. Skinning wabbits and the like

Sparks

Chelsea Flaky Tag wrote: »

The design of a rifle, gun, firearm etc etc, is the very definition of a weapon, is it not?

Fundamentally, no, and that's the point. The use of any object to harm someone is what makes it a weapon. What it actually is, what it was designed for, these things have nothing to do with it. The intent of the person who caused the harm is what makes the object a weapon.

In fact, look at the 1990 Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act - aside from the title distinguishing between the two, the Act itself treats them as two objects - one, a firearm as defined in the act; and the other, any object used to cause harm to a person.

long range shooter

Chelsea Flaky Tag wrote: »

Oh yes of course, I understand that. Their fundamental design is for transport though.

Initially firearms were designed with the intent on harming/killing somebody. The design is basically the same (fire, pressure, projectile). The firearms possessed legally in Ireland are never intended to inflict harm on another person, but the same firearm in another country could be purchased for self defence, making it a weapon.

Would it be fair to say that it would depend where you live?

No,the fundemental of a firearm is for sport,though.
Weapons where design for the reason of harming others.
And i dont think it matters where you live,a weapon is still a weapon,and a firearm is still a firearm.

Cass

Chelsea Flaky Tag wrote: »

The design of a rifle, gun, firearm etc etc, is the very definition of a weapon, is it not?

No.

It's about intent, as said above, not design.

Chelsea Flaky Tag wrote: »

The firearms possessed legally in Ireland are never intended to inflict harm on another person,

Hence they are firearms.

but the same firearm in another country could be purchased for self defence, making it a weapon.

Yes and no. While it remains in storage it's a firearm, and any other use it could be classed as a weapon. However this is in other countries, and not applicable to Ireland as we have no Right to Keep & Bear arms. We also cannot have firearms for self defence, or any other purpose than game hunting or target shooting.

Would it be fair to say that it would depend where you live?

It would, but it would also be more correct to say its about attitudes.

In America they have a constitutional right to firearms. That means they have a "God given right" to get or own a firearm. We have no such right here, and afaik, no other country has this right in their constitution. This right comes with a freedom to talk about firearms in any manner they wish, to act in any manner they wish while in possession of a firearm, etc. We don't have this. In fact it's in the law (the offensive weapons act, and the firearms act) which states a person carrying most any item, not just a firearm, that is used in threatening manner or brandished in a way so as to cause alarm to the public is guilty of an offense.

In America, and i've gotten this first hand from my Uncle who is a cop in New Jersey, when someone is involved in a self defense situation (need to thread very lightly here as the RTKBA topic is prohibited on this forum) and cleared they are handed back their gun there and then. People in America don't flinch at the word weapon because their right to them is protected. It is not looked at as a dirty word or taboo topic.

It is here.

I've been called a murderer, a gun nut, a fanatic, mentally unstable. All because i own firearms. The people that say this have no idea who i am, what i do or what my sport involves. They have never seen a gun, held a gun, shot a gun, or been to a range. Yet because of their preconceived notions about firearms they class me as all the above without ever educating themselves to what it's all about.

So the reason, other than its incorrect, we don't refer to our firearms as weapons is about changing attitudes.

meathstevie

If anyone is of the belief that all firearms are by design weapons than I wish them the best of luck going to war with Sparks' air rifle.

Some firearms are primarily designed as weapons, sub machineguns, belt fed machine guns, assault rifles and the like fall into that category but they're impossible to licence in Ireland.

Others are useless as weapons, think of high end target shooting air rifles for example.

Others like shotguns, revolvers, rifles, pistols etcetera can be weapons with the necessary malicious intent and that's why all of us need to tick a vast amount of boxes and jump as many hoops as a circus dog to satisfy the powers that be that the chances that we'll use our firearms as weapons are negligible. Not that's a bad thing as such.

useurowname

"This is my rifle, this is my gun. This is for fighting, this is for fun." Full Metal Jacket. The missus calls the baldy lad a weapon, doesn't offend me one bit!!

Sparks

Does the general way in which we have been historically treated by the law and those who draft and enforce it leave you with the same sense of "erra it's fine"?

Grizzly 45

Chelsea Flaky Tag wrote: »

Oh yes of course, I understand that. Their fundamental design is for transport though.

Well thats quantative.. Comparing a F18 hornet jet fighter to a airbus,or a battleship to a luxury liner.They both can transport people,but have totally different functions.

Initially firearms were designed with the intent on harming/killing somebody. The design is basically the same (fire, pressure, projectile). The firearms possessed legally in Ireland are never intended to inflict harm on another person, but the same firearm in another country could be purchased for self defence, making it a weapon.

Would it be fair to say that it would depend where you live?[/QUOTE]
Again quantative as it can come down to a definition and translation good or bad to English.
Germany for example the generic term for "weapons" [guns knives,etc] is "waffen" They then break it down into things like Jagd waffen Hunting guns Luft waffen Air gunss or "kalt gas waffen" Cold gas weapons [IE CO2 or gas powered] "Schusswaffen" Firearms with a cartridge or Schwarzpulver Waffen Black powder guns or Schreckschuss waffen an intresting one, translated it means scare shot weapons,what we would call blank firing firearms..Which are perfectly legal to aquire without a permit and unless you want to carry it concealed as a self defence firearm,all you need is a so called "klein waffen schein" or litttle gun permit,which you get at the police station for I think 50 euros.

The point of this is what might be called a "weapon" in one country may or may not be fitting in our langauge If I say to a German I have a fuerwaffe he knows I have a gun,but not that I am using it as a "weapon" per se.
Fernch might be better in many cases "Armes De Chasse"[Hunting arms] or "Armes de Guerre" [arms of war] is abit more descriptive .

yubabill1

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well thats quantative.. Comparing a F18 hornet jet fighter to a airbus,or a battleship to a luxury liner.They both can transport people,but have totally different functions.

Initially firearms were designed with the intent on harming/killing somebody. The design is basically the same (fire, pressure, projectile). The firearms possessed legally in Ireland are never intended to inflict harm on another person, but the same firearm in another country could be purchased for self defence, making it a weapon.

I like to use the analogy of motorbikes vs, firearms.

Motorbikes have no use that cannot be performed by an alternative form of transport.

Motorbike use cause x amount of deaths every year (if only ONE death could be prevented..)

Why do you want a motorbike?

etc., etc.

CarrickMcJoe

useurowname wrote: »

"This is my rifle, this is my gun. This is for fighting, this is for fun." Full Metal Jacket. The missus calls the baldy lad a weapon, doesn't offend me one bit!!

Might offend Private Gomer Pyle though...

I can see both sides of the argument, but as a gun is designed to cause harm it is classed as a weapon as is a sword, or a knife (crocodile Dundee knife), even a Stanley knife could be classed as a weapon even though I use one a fair bit in my work.

goz83

CarrickMcJoe wrote: »

Might offend Private Gomer Pyle though...

I can see both sides of the argument, but as a gun is designed to cause harm it is classed as a weapon as is a sword, or a knife (crocodile Dundee knife), even a Stanley knife could be classed as a weapon even though I use one a fair bit in my work.

I'm getting a bit tired of reading this tripe.

A motorcycle is designed to carry one and sometimes more than one person. The intended use of the driver/owner is what will sub-categorize the motorcycle as a mode of transport, a racing bike, a display item in a trenty restaurant.

A gun is not designed to cause harm. It is designed to fire a projectile. It is therefore only classified by the intended use. The users intention when firing a projectile, or displaying the gun is what may sub-categorise the gun as a weapon, a sporting tool, an ornament etc.

If by default someone calls a gun a weapon, it lends a concerning glimpse into their mindset and if one was to be honest when applying for a firearm license and openly referred to the firearm chosen as a weapon, then it would be no surprise to see that individual fail to receive a license, because they see it as something not within the legal intended use.

Sparks

CarrickMcJoe wrote: »

I can see both sides of the argument

Yes, and those two sides are called "correct" and "incorrect" because we're not discussing a point of philosophy or social policy or some moral point; we're talking about the definition of a word. In law, "firearm" and "weapon" are not the same thing, they are treated seperately, both in the title and the text of statute law. In practice in the area of law enforcement, "weapon" has a specific subtext that directly implies how the object has been used. In day to day conversation, yes, people often incorrectly use the term and we often don't correct them on it because most of us have enough good manners to not haul them over the coals on something when it's not a critical point, but in some places and at some times - usually when it's either going to shape law or when the audience is so wide that it will shape thinking on the matter - we damn well do insist on using the right word, for the same reason you don't call the Pope the chief kiddie fiddler on the front page of the Irish Times.

Why people who don't partake in our sport think that we ought to be well-mannered about them being ill-mannered enough to use the wrong word when that wrong word implies we are murderers I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect it might just be that we've never kicked up enough of a fuss of it in front of a wide enough audience that it becomes more widely-known what that faux pas actually means to us.

esforum

firearms were designed for hunting, they were designed for killing animals. They moved on to many other uses now but primarily as objects to cause harm to a living creature. Therefore they are weapons.

The Act refered to above is only giving a description, thats why it says firearms and OFFENSIVE weapons, not just weapons. Its putting firearms and any other implement used for harm in the same category.

Same for a crossbow or a sword but not a knife or axe. the design and originally intended use defines the object,

Sparks

esforum wrote: »

firearms were designed for hunting

Mine were *actually* designed for the Olympics. Seriously, the air pistol was designed in Russia as part of a massive State-mandated push to beat the Americans in the Olympics back during the cold war. And my air rifle and smallbore rifle were designed by Anschutz and Walther designers specifically for the Olympics (in fact the Air Rifle was specifically marketed in the lead-up to the London Games, as you could tell from most of the ads for it back then and the big push to get international shooters to use it (or at least its stock) for marketing purposes.

And now we're into "oh, I mean some were designed for hunting" but no, others are designed for paintball (yes, those are firearms). And some are designed for other purposes (the army doesn't use our kind of thing for many, many reasons). The birdscarer at Dublin Airport is a firearm too, but it sure as hell wasn't designed to shoot birds (because firing projectiles into the air at an airport is not a great idea). And now we're splitting hairs to try to find the group of firearms you're talking about so it's no longer this simple insight into the nature of firearms.

In short, it's a (very old btw) bull**** argument you're making there.

The Act refered to above is only giving a description, thats why it says firearms and OFFENSIVE weapons, not just weapons. Its putting firearms and any other implement used for harm in the same category.

If you read that Act, you'd know that the first part of it amended the Firearms Act and the second part of it dealt with offensive weapons, which includes knives, swords, various martial arts things, and literally "any object". That's the actual term in the act - you can be arrested on the street by a Garda for carrying any object at all, if he or she thinks it will be used by you as a weapon.

The word does not relate to the object it is being attached to, but the intent of the person involved.

esforum

Sparks wrote: »

Mine were *actually* designed for the Olympics. Seriously, the air pistol was designed in Russia as part of a massive State-mandated push to beat the Americans in the Olympics back during the cold war. And my air rifle and smallbore rifle were designed by Anschutz and Walther designers specifically for the Olympics (in fact the Air Rifle was specifically marketed in the lead-up to the London Games, as you could tell from most of the ads for it back then and the big push to get international shooters to use it (or at least its stock) for marketing purposes.

Im pretty sure the current Olympics and the cold war came way way way after the first rifles did so regardless of why your specific model was designed, its based on the original concept. The core purpose was hunting back in the bygone days.

Sparks wrote: »

And now we're into "oh, I mean some were designed for hunting" but no, others are designed for paintball (yes, those are firearms). And some are designed for other purposes (the army doesn't use our kind of thing for many, many reasons). The birdscarer at Dublin Airport is a firearm too, but it sure as hell wasn't designed to shoot birds (because firing projectiles into the air at an airport is not a great idea). And now we're splitting hairs to try to find the group of firearms you're talking about so it's no longer this simple insight into the nature of firearms.

I didnt say anything of the sort. I merely stated that the original purpose of a rifle was hunting and thats 100% accurate.

You are getting very defensive. I didnt try to take your firearms away from you, just making my own observation on why its correct to label them weapons. You are the one that said pretty much anything can be a weapon so use of the word is accurate.

firearm, sword, crossbow, tank, weapon. Really, whats the fuss over the word used? Regardless of what you use it for, its not for tiddlywinks. In your case its for destroying paper targets.