- Joined
- Oct 31, 2022
- Messages
- 462
- Reaction score
- 3,656
We are being cautioned about this use of the word, "weapon" here by two NRA certified instructors. These men were told by their NRA trainers to teach in their classes that we ought better to use the word "firearm" and never the word "weapon" as the word is understood to imply offensive aggression.I think the semantics of calling a gun concealed in public a "firearm" instead of a "weapon" is really a distinction without a difference.
If you have a Glock 19 in an IWB holster covered by a shirt and bend over and expose your gun in Wal-Mart and someone calls law enforcement, the responding officer is not going to believe you were carrying that gun for plinking.
It is most assuredly a weapon that one carries legally to defend themselves lawfully. Talking around that with word play only makes a person look like they're trying to obscure that fact.
We are being cautioned about this use of the word, "weapon" here by two NRA certified instructors. These men were told by their NRA trainers to teach in their classes that we ought better to use the word "firearm" and never the word "weapon" as the word is understood to imply offensive aggression.
When Mas brings up things like this, he always quotes actual cases, usually ones in which he participated as an expert witness. He points out the emotional toll on the self-defender as he sees his reputation sullied, when his stupid joke is read out in the courtroom. He does NOT declare that any juror was swayed by the semantics alone, nor does he suggest that such semantic issues are decisive in the jury room.
Since there is a possibility of bringing him as an expert witness in my trial, may God forbid, it makes sense to do as he has advised! However this idea of never using the word "weapon" is NOT coming from him. Has anyone seen a case where this was brought up at trial?
The "Armed Attorneys", Richard D. Hayes II and Emily Taylor, have a YouTube called "A Disturbing Trend..." about how the fact of your getting additional firearms training is being used against you as evidence that you are just a Rambo looking for trouble. Here is the link:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vXeUUEDpvM
Kind Regards!
BrianD
Thank you for bringing this up. Mas's point, which you clearly understand, is that these things can be used against you. But more than that because its about perception rather than legal definition. And its not just the perception of a jury, but the responding officers, and then the investigating team.
That's a good approach. Anything can become a weapon the in the right (or wrong) circumstances. The purpose of shooting sports is to develop knowledge, and skills, which are mental and physical, as well as mechanical. I think the best approach is to call a rifle a rifle, a shotgun a shotgun, and a revolver a revolver unless there is some reason to use a broader term.
Your question has provoked an interesting discussion as well as answers. I'm curious if you were aware of, and possibly the reasons you narrowed the defensive uses?
1. Limiting it to something carried on person. (implied by 'draw').
2. Not including threatening animals or varmints.
3. Assuming just one tool might be 'best' for a variety of circumstances.
I appreciate you are a collector. I hope you have the opportunity to shoot some of your collection because I think you'll come to further appreciate the differences in designs and assembly etc. And therefore why one might have several revolvers even if they were not a collector.
Side note: When I write 'shoot' I mean at an appropriately sized target. An NRA B-8 target is a good one for 25 yards and closer. Although for under 10 yards a smaller bullseye (such as those used for the NRA Basic Pistol qualification) is arguably a better choice.
I figured combat situations and bear attacks would be one thing, but carrying in public places. Downtown or indeed suburbia or wherever was what I mostly wanted to know for people who carry when they’re just going to the cinema or restaurant.
I’m getting into the Kuhnhausen book now. I’m wanting to fix up a beater!
For me, I love the item, but not its ultimate intended purpose.
I guess no one loves that though.
To me it’s the negative sell when I see ads for weapons. Guys talking about self defense etc.
That not what appeals to me.
I’m sold on the engineering and aesthetic. The Finishes. The History.
The target shooting is the cherry on top but the pie is the collection.
... and how I explain this new hobby to my friends who are not “gun guys”.
I tend to agree with you that using this word is harmless. Mas has a short list of these warnings which come from his courtroom experiences. Has any prosecutor ever cited the use of this word to demonstrate hostile intent?I think the semantics of calling a gun concealed in public a "firearm" instead of a "weapon" is really a distinction without a difference.
If you have a Glock 19 in an IWB holster covered by a shirt and bend over and expose your gun in Wal-Mart and someone calls law enforcement, the responding officer is not going to believe you were carrying that gun for plinking.
It is most assuredly a weapon that one carries legally to defend themselves lawfully. Talking around that with word play only makes a person look like they're trying to obscure that fact.
I shot a man in Reno once.
Why?I shot a man in Reno once.