Referring to a Firearm as a Weapon

It wasn't me!

esforum wrote: »

destroying paper targets.

Does that not strike you as a rather emotive and sensationalist description for punching small, uniform holes?

Cass

esforum wrote: »

The core purpose was hunting back in the bygone days.

If you seen what an air rifle fires you'd laugh at how ridiculous that statement is. After 25 yards it'd give you a welt, but that is about the worse of it.

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

No it's not. We have already said that a lot of firearms were originally designed by the military for military purposes. However over the decades they have been re-purposed to serve other interests such as target shooting and hunting.

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 - A firearm is a portable gun, being a barreled weapon that launches one or more projectiles often driven by the action of an explosive force

Weapon - A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used with intent to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems

The above are the actual definitions of the words. Note the differences. As we are not military, defense forces, police force and having any firearm for self defense is illegal then they are by the definitions above firearms.

firearm, sword, crossbow, tank, weapon. Really, whats the fuss over the word used?

You said you use a stanley blade for work. You realise you are in possession of weapon right there. Same if you have a screwdriver, file, etc. From the act:

Section 9 wrote:

where a person has with him in any public place any knife or any other article which has a blade or which is sharply pointed, he shall be guilty of an offence

So by your logic you have a weapon, and as the definition above states a weapon is something used to inflict harm you are, again by your logic, going to cause harm.

But wait. The law does not say you are going to inflict harm simply because you have this. t says it's only a weapon IF used with intent. I assume you lack this intent therefore you don't have a weapon but a work tool.

As we (firearm owners), both morally and legally, lack the same intent we have firearms and not weapons. If you want more of a reason then simply look to my earlier post:

Cass wrote:

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.

All sports shooters reject the word weapon because it's wrong and conjures images of a negative connotation. If the weapon is allowed to be used so freely while always in the wrong then we have no chance to change people's minds. We don't seek to make everyone happy with gun ownership but we do want to appease any unfounded fears the general public may have about us because the tools we use in our sport are firearms.
[QUOTE- esforum]In your case its for destroying paper targets.[/QUOTE]
That is highly sensationalist and an example of your preconceived ideas about firearms. Not to mention, wrong. We don't destroy paper targets because, well, we won't get any scores for destroying them. The act of target shooting is to be able to record your shots on the paper and get a numerical score from it which is larger than the competitors.

Sparks

esforum wrote: »

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.

No, it's not.

The core purpose was hunting back in the bygone days.

No, it wasn't. We couldn't build the airguns we can build today back in the "bygone days" (and we do have a name for the sixteenth century, and back then the firearms weren't all being designed for hunting because you didn't generally hunt with them).

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

Ordinarily I dislike argument from authority, so I'm just going to ask you for your citation instead of doing so.
Because "I know it was like that" cuts little ice when you're talking to people who have been doing this for a few decades and who have about the same degree of knowledge of this subject that anyone with a PhD has with theirs.

You are getting very defensive.

Yes, I am. You're calling me a criminal. Specifically, you are calling me a violent criminal who has harmed people.

Oh, no? You didn't? I'm sorry, did you miss the part where I explained what the words you just chose to use actually mean?

This is the reason we take offence - your choice of words is offensive. People who you deliberately offend, they tend to get defensive. It's not about whether or not you're proposing laws to affect us, or whatever whataboutery you're getting on with; it's that you're doing the equivalent to walking up to some random person in the street and calling them a **** and then wondering why they're getting defensive. The problem is you and your choice of word.

You are the one that said pretty much anything can be a weapon so use of the word is accurate.

Sure it is, after that thing has been used for that purpose. Not before.

I mean, I could call a random person a prostitute or a paedophile, but they would (rightly) take offense because while they are physically capable of earning those words, we take offense in this society if you apply those labels to someone before those acts are performed.

And when you say we have "weapons" you are specifically and directly stating that we have harmed or killed some person. And that's offensive.

IRLConor

esforum wrote: »

Really, whats the fuss over the word used?

Because the vast majority of people who make the same argument that you're making do so while trying to further restrict firearms ownership.

Also, your argument about the original purpose of rifles is pointless. You seem to be implying that the purpose of an object is set in stone once the first one is made and that any subsequent evolution and/or diversification is irrelevant. Can't you see that that's obviously wrong?

esforum

IRLConor wrote: »

Because the vast majority of people who make the same argument that you're making do so while trying to further restrict firearms ownership.

Also, your argument about the original purpose of rifles is pointless. You seem to be implying that the purpose of an object is set in stone once the first one is made and that any subsequent evolution and/or diversification is irrelevant. Can't you see that that's obviously wrong?

No, Im suggesting that an objects primary reason for existing in the first place is part of its history and therefore description, thats all. Firearms are weapons in my opinion, you dont agree, well hey thats the beauty of a free world.

In regards other comments, well they are just wrong. Rifles were created for hunting, thats history. They existed prior to 1946 and the modern olympics, thats just historical fact as well. No reason to get jumpy about history.

I never called anyone a criminal, the word 'weapon' does not, has not and never will mean mean a criminal act. Look the word up in a dictionary. Every cop that uses a pistol, baton or spray is using a weapon, they dont get fidgety about the word are not utilising their weapons to commit crime.

Sparks

esforum wrote: »

No, Im suggesting that an objects primary reason for existing in the first place is part of its history and therefore description, thats all.

You might suggest it, but you'd be wrong. Or do you normally swish a capful of floor cleaner around your teeth in the morning? Or cut down trees with a gynecological instrument? Or drive to work in a military vehicle powered by a converted waterwheel?

Firearms are weapons in my opinion, you dont agree, well hey thats the beauty of a free world.

Indeed, but your opinion is wrong. That's the beauty of having written history and verifiable facts and written definitions of the words we use in the contexts of their use.

In regards other comments, well they are just wrong. Rifles were created for hunting, thats history. They existed prior to 1946 and the modern olympics, thats just historical fact as well. No reason to get jumpy about history.

Indeed. Though we'd probably point out that the modern olympics started in 1896 and not 1946 and that 1946 isn't an Olympic year (1944 and 1948 were, but the '44 games weren't held for obvious reasons). And we'd probably point out that there are many, many historical museums with early firearms in them and they are not hunting firearms because when they were invented, people hunted with bows, not guns, for exactly the same reason that today we go to Tescos in Fords, not Ferraris - money.

I never called anyone a criminal

Yes, you did. You just don't understand that you did.

the word 'weapon' does not, has not and never will mean mean a criminal act

No, it does not. It means "the item used to commit a criminal act".
Which is why when you talk about "my weapons" you are accusing me of a criminal act, which is offensive.
And normally, on a day to day basis, I don't haul people up on that, though it makes me uncomfortable, because I got raised right. But you specifically asked, and have now been told, so either you didn't know and now are just trolling to get a rise out of people, or you were trolling to start with. So knock it off because you're being a dick, and that's kindof the first boards.ie rule you're breaking there.

esforum

Sparks wrote: »

You might suggest it, but you'd be wrong. Or do you normally swish a capful of floor cleaner around your teeth in the morning? Or cut down trees with a gynecological instrument? Or drive to work in a military vehicle powered by a converted waterwheel?

I cycle actually. Thats a bike, its primary use being transport even though some people use them for sport.

Sparks wrote: »

Indeed, but your opinion is wrong. That's the beauty of having written history and verifiable facts and written definitions of the words we use in the contexts of their use.

Quote them. Oxford dictionary:
"A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage:
nuclear weapons

means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest:"

Theres plenty, absolutely plenty of perfectly legal reasons why you may inflict bodily harm or physical damage. You are influcing physical damage when you shoot a hole in your target are you not? That in itself justifies the use of the word

The second, well that could even include words.

Sparks wrote: »

Indeed. Though we'd probably point out that the modern olympics started in 1896 and not 1946 and that 1946 isn't an Olympic year (1944 and 1948 were, but the '44 games weren't held for obvious reasons). And we'd probably point out that there are many, many historical museums with early firearms in them and they are not hunting firearms because when they were invented, people hunted with bows, not guns, for exactly the same reason that today we go to Tescos in Fords, not Ferraris - money.

Jesus wept, really? You cant equate another users comments regarding the cold war and my reference to 1946? Really? And rifles werent invented for hunting because people were using crossbows because they were cheaper? Prey tell, if thats the case why were cars invented? Bicycles and horses were cheaper and already in use for transport. Rifles were superior to crossbows, therefore overtook them. Kinda how technological advancement works. We used to use rocks, then we had hammers, now we have nail guns.

Sparks wrote: »

Yes, you did. You just don't understand that you did.

I really didnt, as outlined above. The use of the term 'weapon' does not infer illegal activity. I stated a prime example in my previous post as to why not, namely police officers.

Sparks wrote: »

No, it does not. It means "the item used to commit a criminal act".
Which is why when you talk about "my weapons" you are accusing me of a criminal act, which is offensive.
And normally, on a day to day basis, I don't haul people up on that, though it makes me uncomfortable, because I got raised right. But you specifically asked, and have now been told, so either you didn't know and now are just trolling to get a rise out of people, or you were trolling to start with. So knock it off because you're being a dick, and that's kindof the first boards.ie rule you're breaking there.

As above, thats not the definition of 'weapon'. Im not breaking any rules, you have though. And again, I stated a simple opinion, not looking to argue just stated an opinion on a messageboard and again, just to be ultra clear, wespon does not equal criminal. I have 2 weapons, I carry them every day. i have used them multiple times to inflict harm on another human being, I am not a criminal nor have I committed a criminal act.

The entire subject is about the use of the term, Im completey on topic. Perhaps this whole thread comes from the misuse of the term 'weapon' and thats fine. Im using the strict dictionary meaning. If you dont want to discuss further, thats fine as well. No issue at all, we can agree to disagree

goz83

esforum wrote: »

I never called anyone a criminal, the word 'weapon' does not, has not and never will mean mean a criminal act. Look the word up in a dictionary. Every cop that uses a pistol, baton or spray is using a weapon, they dont get fidgety about the word are not utilising their weapons to commit crime.

A cop is carrying his pistol, baton and spray to inflict bodily harm as and when the need arises. Weapon would be correct in those cases, due to intended use.

A sporting rifles intended use does not define it as a weapon.

Cass

Quote them. Oxford dictionary:
"A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage:
nuclear weapons

means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest:"

That is the definition of a Weapon. The Oxford definition of a Firearm is:

A rifle, pistol, or other portable gun

No mention of harm, injury, etc.

Theres plenty, absolutely plenty of perfectly legal reasons why you may inflict bodily harm or physical damage

No there is not.

You are influcing physical damage when you shoot a hole in your target are you not? That in itself justifies the use of the word

Physical damage to paper?

Christ on a bike. This reminds me when Mitt Romney told Obama that the Navy was getting smaller with less ships being buolt now than ever before. Obama said it's because they are evolving with the times. They don't use ships as much. Same with horses, bayonets, etc. and instead concentrate on submarines, aircraft carriers, drones and other new inventions. Then FOX news tried to defend their Republican candidate by claiming that some soldiers used horses in Afghanistan and some still carry bayonets.

IOW they grasped at straws.

And rifles werent invented for hunting because people were using crossbows because they were cheaper?

So cite your source material to show all firearms were designed for hunting. The AK, AR15, M15, M1 Garand, etc. To recent how about the firelance, the flint lock, etc?

Prey tell, if thats the case why were cars invented? Bicycles and horses were cheaper and already in use for transport.

Carry larger loads, over longer distances. It's why they invented pick ups, vans, lorries, trucks, trains, airplanes AFTER that. Evolution.

Or do you think a horse can swim the Atlantic carrying 10,000 tons of cargo?

Rifles were superior to crossbows, therefore overtook them. Kinda how technological advancement works. We used to use rocks, then we had hammers, now we have nail guns.

I cannot afford a nail gun so i use a hammer and nail. Times might evolve but some things stay the same. People 100, 200, 300 years ago were split as they are today into the wealthy, middle class and poor. The poor cannot afford luxuries no more than they can today.

So the principle remains the same.

When i go clay pigeon shooting i bring 200 - 500 cartridges. My Father used to mock me for this. Ho told me that when growing up they could not afford cartridges in the amount i buy and use. He would go out with two cartridges and must bring back two kills. That is rural Ireland only 50 years ago.

I really didnt, as outlined above. The use of the term 'weapon' does not infer illegal activity. I stated a prime example in my previous post as to why not, namely police officers.

You're being purposely truculent at this point. Its been shown you are wrong. Your own definitions show you are wrong.

As above, thats not the definition of 'weapon'. Im not breaking any rules, you have though. And again, I stated a simple opinion, not looking to argue just stated an opinion on a messageboard and again, just to be ultra clear, wespon does not equal criminal.

Yes it does.

I have 2 weapons, I carry them every day. i have used them multiple times to inflict harm on another human being, I am not a criminal nor have I committed a criminal act.

Really. Admitting to a criminal offence is enough to get you banned from here and the site.

The entire subject is about the use of the term, Im completey on topic. Perhaps this whole thread comes from the misuse of the term 'weapon' and thats fine. Im using the strict dictionary meaning. If you dont want to discuss further, thats fine as well. No issue at all, we can agree to disagree

You're not using the correct definition. You are using Weapon not firearm even though you know and understand the difference between the two.

Sparks

esforum wrote: »

I cycle actually. Thats a bike, its primary use being transport even though some people use them for sport.

That's nice. It's also ignoring four specific examples (listerine, chainsaws, cars and the internal combustion engine) and not posting a single counter-example or counter-argument.

Theres plenty, absolutely plenty of perfectly legal reasons why you may inflict bodily harm or physical damage.

No, there are not. There are precisely none. (Self-defence is not a legal reason why you may do so, it is a legal defence against a case taken against you over causing bodily harm or physical damage illegally, and those are not the same thing).

You are influcing physical damage when you shoot a hole in your target are you not?

First of all, you mean "causing physical damage". Secondly, the targets are specifically made and designed for that purpose (down to the manufacture of the paper, which is not the same process as used for normal paper and which renders that paper unsuitable for most normal purposes). Which means it's normal use, not damage. In the same way that a surgeon carrying out a heart transplant is not legally attacking someone with a knife.

Jesus wept, really?

Jesus wept, yes. First off, the cold war started in '45 not '46 and its roots were far further back (they're pretty much pre-WW2), and secondly my pistol was designed in the 70s, not the 40s.
So if you want to quote dates, please do, but quote the right ones.

And rifles werent invented for hunting because people were using crossbows because they were cheaper?

Longbows for a start, crossbows weren't exactly cheap in the 16th century.
And yes, they were using bows because you can make a longbow yourself but a firearm at that time was a major operation because you couldn't call up to a light engineering company and order a metal tube, you had to start by mining the ore and smelting it yourself.

Prey tell, if thats the case why were cars invented? Bicycles and horses were cheaper and already in use for transport.

Well, the first car was built to be sold to the french army, so I'm guessing it was to do with money rather than a grand design.

Rifles were superior to crossbows, therefore overtook them.

Yes. Centuries later. When we'd gotten the whole costs-less-than-ten-years-annual-income-and-is-only-good-for-100-shots-at-most-if-it-doesn't-explode-in-your-face-first bit figured out.

Kinda how technological advancement works. We used to use rocks, then we had hammers, now we have nail guns.

Please tell me you're not hammering on your chisel with a nail gun.
Or that you buy a 700 euro plus Makita nail gun to put up a single nail to hang a picture and then put it away for ten years because that's all the DIY you'll ever do.

I really didnt, as outlined above. The use of the term 'weapon' does not infer illegal activity.

You keep saying that, we keep pointing out that you're wrong and you're being offensive and you just seem intent on ignoring that.
There are words for that kind of behaviour and they're not nice words.

just to be ultra clear, wespon does not equal criminal. I have 2 weapons, I carry them every day. i have used them multiple times to inflict harm on another human being, I am not a criminal nor have I committed a criminal act.

Yes, you are, if you're using those words they way the law is written. You cannot, for example, carry weapons around the place as a member of the public (and the Army and Gardai have their own rules about this sort of thing). You get caught walking down the street carrying any object that the Garda decides you have to use as a weapon, he or she can arrest you there and then and you have to prove that you aren't guilty to the District Judge. Which is a pretty strong law against the very thing you're saying is fine.

Im using the strict dictionary meaning

You really are not. And that's at the core of this.

esforum

Cass,
Have you completely missed the point on purpose? I am being attacked because I refer to a pistol / firearm as a weapon. regardless of the level of physical harm, harm is caused by your firearm on the paper, therefore it fits the definition of a weapon.

Offence was taken because according to the mods here, weapons are only ever used in crime. I have given a very specific example of when thats not true. You insist that theres no legal way to exert physical harm on someone. really?
Self Defence.
CPR
Arrest by police
Target practice
Paintball
Training

All legal and all causing physical harm by physical force. The level of force doesnt change it.

I stated I carried and used weapons legally every day and your reply is another reference to being banned. Again, you cant think of a time when use of force might be legitimately applied in someones job? really? Miltary, Gardai, Paramedics, firemen and security would all use force on a regular basis.

As for firearm / weapon / pistol / etc. At this stage, whatever.

esforum

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/weapon

My original post is there for all to read. Can you please, I repeat please point out a definition that states a weapon is for criminal purposes only

Sparks, Try reading section 18 and 19, Non fatal offences against the person Act 1997. More than a few examples of legal force.

in regards the second time you claimed a Garda can arrest for carrying anything they think can be used as a weapon, thats just not true at all. Read Section 9 and Section 10, Firearms and offensive weapons Act 1990. Theres a whole set of stuff that has to be met for a crime to have been committed

The simple reality here, as per the Oxford dictionary is that a firearm is a weapon, it meets the criteria and theres plenty of legal ways to use force. thats all, thats it. I have nothing else to say. I didnt intend to offend and really, I cant be blamed because you take offence at a word that you are misusing.

Cass

esforum wrote: »

Cass,
Have you completely missed the point on purpose?

What point? All you have done so far is pout not factual hearsay, refuse to cite sources for your assertions, and ignore fact based responses beacause you either cannot or will not do the same in return.

I am being attacked because I refer to a pistol / firearm as a weapon.

You are not being attacked. Your are being refuted. Embarrassingly so, but refuted none the less.

regardless of the level of physical harm, harm is caused by your firearm on the paper, therefore it fits the definition of a weapon.

What harm? How many court cases have these "injured" targets won? How many have taken legal action against the person shooting them? How many have gotten injunctions against them being shot at? How much have they been paid in compensation for their injuries (both mental and physical suffering)?

If the answer to all the above is none, that is because it's PAPER. It cannot be injured, harmed or wounded. Another example of your bastardisation of words.

Offence was taken because according to the mods here, weapons are only ever used in crime

Offense?

. I have given a very specific example of when thats not true. You insist that theres no legal way to exert physical harm on someone.

With a firearm.

really?

Yup

Self Defence.

Illegal to use a firearm for self defense.

CPR

Don't know what method you are using but i've never seen anyone use a Remington bolt action, Ruger 10/22 or any other gun to perform CPR. But if you can provide video evidence i'd be more than interested to see it.

Arrest by police

An Gardaí are an unarmed force and they are not sports target shooters. Therefore irrelevant.

Target practice

It's illegal to use people as target practice. It's called murder.

Also FYI target shooters are not even allowed to use human shaped targets.

Paintball

Legal landmine. Paintball guns are legally a firearm, but thus far have escaped the need to be licensed. So not firearms (legally) and hence not applicable to the argument.

Training

For what? That is too broad a statement. You need to be specific, like i have asked you to be on other material you have cited but failed to provide thus far.

All legal and all causing physical harm by physical force. The level of force doesnt change it.

Eh, nope. See above.

I stated I carried and used weapons legally every day and your reply is another reference to being banned.

Yup.

You are talking about carrying weapons and harming others, and as i know what a weapon is, but don't know what harm you are causing i can only infer you are admitting to criminality. The discussion of criminality is banned on Boards.ie and this forum.

Again, you cant think of a time when use of force might be legitimately applied in someones job? really?

This is a sports shooting forum. Our firearms are not issued, we buy them. We don't have aright to them or require them in our jobs.

Miltary

not civilians so moot.

Gardai,

Unarmed force and not civilian so moot too.

Paramedics,

Don't carry firearms/

firemen

Don't carry firearms

and security

not allowed to carry firearms. Illegal.

would all use force on a regular basis.

You are meandering from firearms to general use of force. Off topic so irrelevant.

As for firearm / weapon / pistol / etc. At this stage, whatever.

Firearm.

esforum wrote: »

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/weapon

I can do that too:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/firearm

as per the Oxford dictionary is that a firearm is a weapon

Funny that each word has it's own definition and neither are mentioned when you look at the definition of the other. Seems like two SEPARATE words to me.

esforum

Gardai and police are civilians. Gardai are entitled to use firearms in self defence.

Weapon is defined as an object used to apply physical force. Firearms apply physical force.

I have quoted the dictionary and specific acts you have. Cited nothing yet

Sparks

Gardai and police?
Not to mention the idea that Gardai don't have specific rules and laws to adhere to and can't be specified special cases in law because they're not military is fairly disturbing when thought about.
And you still have cited nothing correctly, still have not grasped the whole point that the definition in law and general use stems from intent and not what the object is, nor that you are being offensive.

Enough with the trolling, in other words.

Cass

esforum wrote: »

Gardai and police are civilians.

We only have An Gardaí, not police and not both.

Gardai are entitled to use firearms in self defence.

How?

They are not armed. If you are referring to the Armed Garda unit(s) well they are only called when a situation requires their presence. At that point it's not self defense, and why they must get authorisation before firing a shot.

Weapon is defined as an object used to apply physical force. Firearms apply physical force.

No they don't. Your ignorance is staggering. The only way a firearm can apply force is if its used to club someone with. The bullet a firearm fires applies force, but as i said above discussing other items that apply force is futile as this is the shooting forum so the topic of the conversation is firearms and most everything applies force. My fingers are applying force to respond to this nonsense you are spouting. Are my fingers firearms? Are they weapons? :rolleyes:

I have quoted the dictionary and specific acts you have.

You linked to the dictionary meaning for weapon. I linked to the one for firearm. Did you see that? Did you see how the two words are separate and have deifferent meanings?

Cited nothing yet

I know, it's why i keep asking you for source material to back up your claims. You know:

• All firearms are weapons
• They are the same thing
• All rifles/firearms were originally designed for hunting
• Gardaí can use them for self defense (you know, our unarmed force)
• Security guards, paramedics, firemen can use them
• etc, etc.

Grizzly 45

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

Actually it is 100% incorrect. a "rifle" had been the be all and end all of military arms development up to the early mid 16th century.All military and sporting guns up to then were smoothbore arms.It was only when German gunsmiths in revolutionary America in the war of independence started building the famous Kentucky rifle for the Americans did the term "rifle" start becoming lingua Francain the English langauge,to describe any type of arm and started issung them to skilled "bush whackers" or forest men for sniping they came into military usage first. But then again in those days a firearm was a dual use item,one for shooting dinner or the other to defend your country at a minutes notice.[Hence the" Minute man" of American history.] The devil is in the details when it comes to firearm terminology from a technical and legal as well as historical viewpoint.:)

meathstevie

goz83 wrote: »

A cop is carrying his pistol, baton and spray to inflict bodily harm as and when the need arises. Weapon would be correct in those cases, due to intended use.

A sporting rifles intended use does not define it as a weapon.

Factually incorrect and an interpretation of use of force in complete and utter contradiction of law, common law and international law.

Not a single police officer carries any equipment with the intention of inflicting bodily harm.

Police officers carry their equipment to protect themselves and others from acts of unlawful violence and if such acts take place to stop them with a minimum justifiable use of necessary force.

Success is complete in absence of (serious ) injuries and fatalities and lawful goals achieved.

esforum

Oh FFS, post gone and told to login again. Jesus Christ. Right not doing it all again so in short:

Oxford English dictionary:

Firearm:A rifle, pistol, or other portable gun.

Gun: A weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise."

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

Force: Strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement

You have a firearm, its defined as including a gun, a gun is defined as a weapon. You use it to break or damage targets. Thats physical damage.

Section 4, Firearms and offensive weapons Act 1990: "In the Firearms Acts, 1925 to 1990, “firearm” means—

(a) a lethal firearm or other lethal weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged"

Gardai are the only police: No, we also have Airport police and Harbour police. (http://www.dublinairport.com/gns/at-the-airport/airport_police_service.aspx) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Harbour_Police)

Gardai are unarmed: Well according to the firearms Act pepper spray is a firearm and they carry that (http://www.thejournal.ie/garda-pepper-spray-homeless-man-dublin-investigation-2087623-May2015/)

Armed Gardai only arrive afterwards and cant use firearms for self defence while also requiring prior authorisation: Nonsence, complete and utter nonsense. Heres 3 examples: (http://www.thejournal.ie/ombudsman-rules-that-garda-shooting-in-lusk-was-lawful-257964-Oct2011/) and (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/raiders-under-surveillance-from-elite-garda-units-1.764498) and (http://www.thejournal.ie/ronan-machlochlainn-2318130-Sep2015/)

Theres no legal allowance for the use of physical force: Section 18, Non fatal offences Against the person Act 19997 " The use of force by a person for any of the following purposes, if only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, does not constitute an offence—

(a) to protect himself or herself or a member of the family of that person or another from injury, assault or detention caused by a criminal act; or

(b) to protect himself or herself or (with the authority of that other) another from trespass to the person; or

(c) to protect his or her property from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or from trespass or infringement; or

(d) to protect property belonging to another from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or (with the authority of that other) from trespass or infringement; or

(e) to prevent crime or a breach of the peace."

What else? Oh, I never said paramedics or firemen or security use firearms. I said they use force. CPR is force. restraining a shoplifter is force. Firemen kicking in doors is using force.

Anything more? Oh yes, targets. By breaking the paper target you are causing physical damage. You are also carrying a firearm. You are however not committing a crime as you are licensed and granted exemptions to do so in certain circumstances. Definitions however remain the same, theres no requirement in 'force' that it be unwelcome or against a person. Thats needed for 'Assault' not 'force'.

History of firearms: Long long before 16th century but I may be wrong on being for hunting, it appears it may also have been for war. Still, my point remains the same (http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com.es/) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_firearm) and (http://www.nramuseum.com/gun-info-research/a-brief-history-of-firearms.aspx) and finally, (http://www.americanfirearms.org/gun-history/).

Dont be offended by a word guys, really its only a word and doesnt even mean to be offensive. I get called a lot of things, doesnt effect me.

goz83

meathstevie wrote: »

Factually incorrect and an interpretation of use of force in complete and utter contradiction of law, common law and international law.

Not a single police officer carries any equipment with the intention of inflicting bodily harm.

Police officers carry their equipment to protect themselves and others from acts of unlawful violence and if such acts take place to stop them with a minimum justifiable use of necessary force.

Success is complete in absence of (serious ) injuries and fatalities and lawful goals achieved.

Do you mean to say that a cops pistol (and I said "cop" referring to a police officer in the USA) is not a weapon?

I may have been a bit loose with my words, as I did not intent to suggest that cops go out with the intent to cause bodily harm, but when required, their spray, baton, pistol etc may be used and would therefore be seen as weapons.

Cass

Surprised to see you back. Thought you weren't going to post again.

I'm going to shorten this down because you're a troll and i'm bored entertaining you.

We use firearms in sports shooting. Our licenses say firearm, the acts that govern their use is called the firearms act, even An Gardaí website call it the firearm home page. Weapon, when used incorrectly, is a word for ignorant and uneducated people. It's designed to illicit a reaction from the shooting community and inflame any debate.

esforum wrote:

Dont be offended by a word guys, really its only a word and doesnt even mean to be offensive. I get called a lot of things, doesnt effect me.

But it is offensive. The fact that you think is shouldn't be is irrelevant. As Sparks outlined above using an offensive word against a group of people that resent it, is the height of ignorance. To continue doing it after being told so is trolling.

So that ends now.

Cass

So no one is confused as to whether i'm posting as a Mod or not i'm separating my posts.

This debate is over due to trolling and the continued use of offensive terms. Despite repeated attempts to educate the thread has gone from "Are they firearms or Weapons" to some random thoughts on "force", "destroying targets", admissions to possible criminality by inflicting harm with weapons, etc.

We're going in circles and i can see no end to the thread so i'm closing it and requesting a review to see if the thread warrants editing, re-opening, etc.