weapons

[Sim G]

Use the term "weapons" around non shooting people as see how quickly their attitude towards your sport soon deteriotates.

Look at some of the walters and wannabes on the ranges and in the gunshops that refer to their firearms as "gats" or "longs"......

Fact is, shooting still still needs good PR for it to become even remotely acceptable. The term as used by the police is one of the first attitudes to challenge.....

[Porcupine]

I think completely the opposite. The 'sporting purpose' approach, trying to make shooting PC and remove all connotations with violence, has never worked. Everywhere that has tried, Britain included, has seen its gun rights eroded or destroyed. The only place to reverse this trend, apart from some Eastern Bloc countries coming out of communism, is the United States where the argument has explicitly been: more guns = less crime, or at least on an individual level that guns = safety. You can convince people to accept and feel good about shooting, but at the end of the day they will always choose to save lives over saving a sport they don't partake in - which is the dichotomy when you forget that guns are weapons.

[Robin128]

Good discussion!

:)

[Sim G]

The 'sporting purpose' approach, trying to make shooting PC and remove all connotations with violence, has never worked.

United States where the argument has explicitly been: more guns = less crime, or at least on an individual level that guns = safety.

I agree that the PC has never worked in the UK and we have ended up rock bottom in regards to our "gun rights".

The US have had the advantage that different states have had completely opposed attitudes that can be used to illustrate that more guns equals less crime. The facts that states with liberal gun laws clearly show the effects on crime compared with localities that have had almost complete "bans" cannot be denied. All within the same national borders.

In the UK however, we're almost starting from a position that it is guns that are the problem. Constant media bombarding of such tripe and a failure of the courts to deal with criminal use have brought us to that. But, until Mrs Miggins does not feel "threatened" by the mere fact that the bloke down the street owns a shotgun for shooting clay targets, we are on a hiding to nothing. And as long as Mr Miggins views all guns as "weapons", those that own said articles will be regarded as a risk.

A full on frontal assault in attempting to regain UK gun rights is a non starter. It may go against the grain in attempting a PC approach to shooting, but those senisbilities have to be put to one side for the long term gain. It was not tha long ago that it was a serious proposal that gun shops should have a "blank" store front like a sex shop in order to prevent influence! With that sort of opinion around, being dogmatic in referring to guns as "weapons" hinders the cause.

[Blackstuff]

This is a major bug bear for me. You only have to look in a dictionary to see that a "weapon" is ANY instrument designed or used offensively or defensively. No Section 1 or 2 gun is sold in the UK for either offense or defence, although they can be used in such a manner, they are not designed to do so and until they are pointed at another person aren't used for either purpose. Dictionaries are the generally accepted source for definitions of words and i'll chose those over what my FEO 'reckons' any day of the week.

I am fully aware that the most pertinant firearms acts refer/class firearms as 'weapons', however its my opinion that this is the reasons; 1/The language of firearms legislation was composed when firearms could be used for defensive purposes and therefore were weapons, 2/ The word 'weapon' is used as a plural as referring to a shotgun as a firearm may cause confusion - weapon is a 'catch-all' word. 3/Tinfoil hat time - to maintain the negative image of firearms in the minds of the general public :roll:

[Porcupine]

No Section 1 or 2 gun is sold in the UK for either offense or defence, although they can be used in such a manner, they are not designed to do so and until they are pointed at another person aren't used for either purpose.

It is true that no police force in the country will (perhaps with some extremely rare exceptions) accept 'defence' as a good reason for a section 1 firearm but there is no such requirement for section 2.

Also, I think there's a few thousand deer, rabbits, foxes, squirrels, duck, geese, pheasants, pigeons, crows and all the rest that would disagree about guns not being sold for offensive purposes! A gun used to kill animals is as much a weapon as one used to kill people.

[Robin128]

I find it difficult to argue that a revolver is not a weapon, although we use it for target shooting and humane disposal.

[Blackstuff]

No Section 1 or 2 gun is sold in the UK for either offense or defence, although they can be used in such a manner, they are not designed to do so and until they are pointed at another person aren't used for either purpose.

It is true that no police force in the country will (perhaps with some extremely rare exceptions) accept 'defence' as a good reason for a section 1 firearm but there is no such requirement for section 2.

Also, I think there's a few thousand deer, rabbits, foxes, squirrels, duck, geese, pheasants, pigeons, crows and all the rest that would disagree about guns not being sold for offensive purposes! A gun used to kill animals is as much a weapon as one used to kill people.

Hmm, if you were applying to the police/HO for a self-defence weapon, would you really be asking for gun that would conform to S1 restrictions :G :lol: I think i'd be going for something from the Section 5 list myself

And as for animals, i don't think they're aware of the concept of offense/defence so i only refer to those terms in regard to humans. You're not one of those killing animals is murder types are you . . . . :?

[Porcupine]

And as for animals, i don't think they're aware of the concept of offense/defence so i only refer to those terms in regard to humans. You're not one of those killing animals is murder types are you . . . . :?

I don't think animals are aware of concepts like death or nutrition yet you say you 'kill' an animal and that its meat is 'nutritious' none the less. The object does not have to comprehend the terms used with reference to it or else we would not call a hammer a tool since nails do not understand what 'work' means.

Merriam Webster defines the noun 'weapon' as:

"something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy"

That applies as much to animals as to humans.

And no, I don't believe that killing animals is murder. Did I imply as such?

[ronboy]

I have a blue plastic type pistol that fires a disc powered by a strong spring, the disc is attached to the pistol by a length of string. It is deadly to flies, I have killed loads even flying ones. It is a weapon and should it be kept locked away. A thought occurs to me concerning deacts, is it still classed as a weapon by the powers that be, as I would not like to hit on the head by one. In the UK to use a gun for defence in the home, first we would have to call out to the young guys breaking in, asking them to give us fiffteen minutes while the safes are unlocked for the guns and ammo. I dont think an enquiring officer would believe that we would be cleaning a gun at three in the morning. Many items could be classed as weapons, a match, a biro pen,
an egg, a length of string to garrote the list is endless. Therefor I am not convinced that my guns are weapons. Ronboy