I don't sell "weapons" , I sell firearms. That's more of a political term they use to take away our 2nd amendment.
Maybe it's that all firearms are weapons, but not weapons are firearms? Either way its tomato, tomaaado. Overall responsible ownership of boom boom sticks is OK with me.
If you are arrested for using a firearm in an assault, you are charged with assault with a deadly "weapon"..... Dan
You would be charged with that too if you were to use fire or an arm (imagine there was one laying around ) to assault someone.
All firearms are tools. They only become weapons when they are used in such a manner. I have several firearms that have only seen target practice. I also have a baseball bat that could be used as a weapon, but hasn't been used as such. Goes for a lot of things in this house. - not a weapon amongst them and I hope that is always the case.
Never thought of it that way and it makes sense. But when looking up the definition in a dictionary, it appears that even if used in a contest it is a weapon. Overall its usually when a tool owns a firearm, it is a weapon.
When I read that second definition I think it means like a trick play in football or some unforseen skill someone may have.
Anything can be defined a weapon. Depends on hiw it is actually used in that circumstance. Generally it is decided what the objects main purpose is decides what it is. An assault riffle is probably considered a weapon. A hunting rifle probably not. At least that's my interpretation.
Not really. It lists "tool" which is what a firearm can be as well. In reality its all semantics. If something has the ability to inflict physical, mental or emotional damage it can be a weapon. Like most things it is how it is used and the intent that makes a difference. Personally I could not hunt game as I couldn't pull the trigger. Now if I needed to eat or was in harms way, that would be completely different.
Yes it is a lot of semantics. Firearm is a very broad category, as is what is considered a tool. Hence why politicians get involved and make it worse.
But you would not say to someone, "I have several tools at my house, but I only use them for target practice" Dan (NRA member, and Bullseye League shooter)
hmm...good points, all! I guess the term weapon might better describe how it was used....because the intent of the use can vary so much. A dog could be a weapon, if used to attack someone, but also could be a loved family member...... If someone knows a fighting (martial) art, say, Krav Maga, could their hands be construed as a weapon? His/her hands can kill....probably more dangerous than me with my S&W M&P 9mm. I'm passably good with a shotgun and rifle, but man, I couldn't hit a barn with that pistol if I were standing inside it! We had a couple gents here in town who had a physical fight, they were gay men. When the police arrived, one was bleeding, and somehow, he was charged with assault with a deadly weapon (his blood), that, since the officer realized the poor guy was gay, he also made the jump to, since he's gay, he might have AIDS, and therefore his blood is a deadly weapon....go figure....
Notice that the first definition uses and active tense; I.e. used in fighting, attacking, defending - it doesn't say something that can be used in such an instance. But I also don't say I have several weapons that I use for target practice. Quarterbacks throw the ball at their target (receiver), darts are thrown at a target and horseshoes is pitching at a target (a pin). But they don't say they use several "toys" for the game. Semantics? Yes. But that is how the world works. Couse we could go round and round all day over semantics - I do that for a living decoding contracts from customers and I have to decipher every word and its meaning - not how it is intended, but how it can be construed legally if things go badly in execution of that contract. So, I will let it rest and hope no one here ever needs to worry about such definitions in their life.
I have thought of this analogy often in reference to the gun control debate. In terms of physics, a car is far deadlier than a gun with the energy it imparts on impact. Yet, when a driver uses a car as a weapon, all focus is on the driver, whether drunk or not, and no one promotes a ban on cars. On another note, I have met bogieb and you really don't want to mess with her.
Huh ? What am I missing here? How is that different from the 2nd definition? Something that can be used is used as some point in time. Not being argumentative but trying to see your thought process here.
