Defining Weapon in Law

[bigfathairybiker]

The only people that have a problem with the word "weapon" are firearm owners.

I know of no one that is caused alarm by the word that does not shoot. Apart from the media.

Pointless petition.

Mark

[Marmite5]

Signed

[Maggot]

Its a bit like the old offensive weapon/weapon of offence....it changes when its intended use changes.

You are quite right to request what the FEO calls it, that is your right, and as far as I know the lack of a definition of a weapon is a sticking point however, looking at "Offensive weapon" or "weapon of offence"...where an everyday object becomes a weapon, I think you are wasting a lot of time and effort on arguing a point that will still come down to the individual.

Certainly within the Military its a weapon (saves tongue twisting when asked if the "General purpose machine gun" or "Weapon" is clear) and as far as I know its the same in the ACF.

What was their original intention? A sword is a weapon, regardless of what its current use it, it was made as a weapon.

I suppose this is another one along the lines of figure targets being banned because they show an intent

We put a Brit into space again yesterday....bit more interesting innit

[froggy]

Indeed the term weapon legally implies an intent, ie: That crystal ashtray stops being a crappy wedding present from your boring in-laws and it becomes a weapon the very moment you use it to smash the skull of that milkman you caught bonking your bird.
Whereas all the toys in my safes are all firmly legal firearms, even those evil black or Russian ones

[Les]

Got this e-mail from our Club Chairman -
I have started a petition on the House of Commons website to try and get the word “Weapon” defined in law.

You/he are on to a loser right from the start, because every definition of a firearm that I have ever seen in a dictionary refers to a firearm as a (usually small) weapon.

[Airbrush]

Good intentions but a waste of time.

[Racalman]

I also correct firearms licensing when the say weapons, if they persist I say I cannot help them as I do not possess any weapons.

Signed.

[breacher]

Words can be powerful.

And skilled use can push an agenda.

Look at "assault rifle" for example. Puts a spin on it in favour of the antis.

"Weapon" does the same, in my humble opinion.

[Maggot]

I dont disagree with that Bri, but changing the law so that a handfull of FEOs who dont go public anyway have yet another thing to pander to wont help.

Just occasionally something sensible gets written (or repeated ad nauseam) on here or elswhere and that's as far as it gets.

We all seem to like bitching, speculating and moderating in private, but the usefull stuff never hits where it needed, as a balanced, public, and well backed up reply to the likes of Yardley etc.

Incidentally, its a source of frustration to those I work with on the other side of the fence that you cannot truly define a weapon.

Perhaps thats a good place to start in many ways, in so much as if they cannot be defined under law as such (specifically) then they are not weapons....until taken up with intent.

But will that stop the likes of Yardley (and real professionals) who use the word as a generic term from using it?

No

Will their use cause us any harm?

It depends on the context, but its not a new word is it?

My take would be to save the private gum bumping, dreaming and hoping and canvass the NRA etc to take some sort of public stand....but then I guess shooters behaving themselves is hardly news is it?