Here's the difference between a "weapon" and a "firearm."

[Percher]

Explained in common sense detail.

http://www.therebel.media/difference..._and_a_firearm

[agentsmith]

Now, I do not know how many of you own guns, but I would like to categorically state that NONE of my guns fit the definition of "weapon." I use my guns to target shoot and hunt, not for the purpose of threatening or intimidating or causing death or injury to any person.

What do you call a tool used to kill animals, if not a "weapon"? Just sayin.

Though the Code does seem worded to define all weapons as designed and intended to be used on people rather than animals.

[HoytCRX32]

Originally Posted by agentsmith

What do you call a tool used to kill animals, if not a "weapon"? Just sayin.

Though the Code does seem worded to define all firearms as designed and intended to be used on people rather than animals.

He is referring to the legal definition, not arbitrary opinion

[agentsmith]

Originally Posted by HoytCRX32

He is referring to the legal definition, not arbitrary opinion

Oh I get that the Code definition of "weapon" is worded poorly, but by the end of the article, it seems the author is basically saying that firearms shouldn't be considered weapons at all, which I have to disagree with.

This was done to legitimize the introduction of Section 91 and 92 of the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC), because now that a gun is legally defined as a "weapon," there is legal cause to control all guns.

Maybe, but that doesn't mean these two sections would fall apart if firearms weren't previously defined as weapons, since they refer directly to "firearms".

This is the existing Firearms Act we're talking about, not Trudeau's (largely pointless) proposed changes. There's legit criticisms, like the way it's worded to allow for arbitrary reclassification. But this author is trying to use a half-baked semantics argument about a single paragraph in the separate Criminal Code to generally advocate that firearms aren't weapons and the Firearms Act shouldn't exist. As a gun owner, neither strikes me as useful and reasonable debate on gun control.

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by agentsmith

What do you call a tool used to kill animals, if not a "weapon"? Just sayin.

Though the Code does seem worded to define all weapons as designed and intended to be used on people rather than animals.

I killed a few chickens with an axe, I call it an axe not a weapon.
I killed a coyote with a bow and arrow, I call it a bow and arrow.
I killed a fish with a club, I call it a club.
I killed a mouse with a mouse trap. I call it a trap.
I don't call any of those tools weapons. Weapons are used for killing people. Any tool can be used as a weapon to kill people.

[ATF]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

I killed a few chickens with an axe, I call it an axe not a weapon.
I killed a coyote with a bow and arrow, I call it a bow and arrow.
I killed a fish with a club, I call it a club.
I killed a mouse with a mouse trap. I call it a trap.
I don't call any of those tools weapons. Weapons are used for killing people. Any tool can be used as a weapon to kill people.

Best damn description I have ever read. All guns are firearms up until they are used or are going to be used on people. Then they can be called a weapon.

[agentsmith]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

I killed a few chickens with an axe, I call it an axe not a weapon.
I killed a coyote with a bow and arrow, I call it a bow and arrow.
I killed a fish with a club, I call it a club.
I killed a mouse with a mouse trap. I call it a trap.
I don't call any of those tools weapons. Weapons are used for killing people. Any tool can be used as a weapon to kill people.

When I kill deer with my rifle, I call it a rifle or a gun, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a hunting weapon. The term still applies even if you don't use it on people. There's important distinctions between hunting weapons and those intended for self-defense, competition, warfare, etc, but pretending that firearms aren't inherently weapons is disingenuous.

In your list, the bow and arrow is inherently a weapon, the rest are not. There's a big difference between things that CAN be used as weapons (almost anything) and those that are explicitly intended to be, so those false equivalencies don't fly. Many things CAN be a vehicle, but that doesn't mean my car isn't a vehicle.

The fact that the vast majority of us don't use firearms for bad things doesn't change what they are. And I don't see how silly semantics arguments like this help us defend our right to own them.

[mgvande]

A weapon is the bat u just hit someone with. Or the finger u just gave someone a wet willy with. Judging by some people's view I have a bunch of weapons in my cutlery drawer. I use them to eat. Kinda like a gun which indirectly I too use to eat.

[Grizzly Adams]

Come on now, according to the NDP, these guys aren't legitimate journalists.

Grizz

[recce43]

a rifle or firearm in the armed forces is a weapon bought and used for the purpose of killing the enemy and protecting it's user.
a hunting rifle is a firearm was never intended to be use against humans

[Bushrat]

Well, Agentsmith, all semantics aside how bout we use the Canadian Criminal Code Section 2 Definition of 'WEAPON": Means anything used, or intended (a) in causing death or injury to a person, or (b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person.

Most anything can be used as a weapon, plastic bag, pickle jar, hammer, knife, gun. It is the intended use of the object that defines whether it is a weapon.

I hunt and shoot animals with a gun. I'm not breaking any laws with it. I'm not intending to kill people with it.

If it gives you the jollys to call your gun a weapon that's fine with me. In the context of legalities in a court of law nothing is a weapon until it is used as a weapon against another person..

[purgatory.sv]

Originally Posted by Percher

Explained in common sense detail.

http://www.therebel.media/difference..._and_a_firearm

It only matters if you have to explain.

[58thecat]

noun
1.
any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.
2.
anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim:
the deadly weapon of satire.
3.
Zoology. any part or organ serving for attack or defense, as claws, horns, teeth, or stings.

So it is all in how the tool was used.
Carrying your rifle to hunt a deer and attacked by a bear now the rifle is called a weapon if you live to tell the story.

[mark-edmonton]

Intention

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by agentsmith

In your list, the bow and arrow is inherently a weapon, the rest are not. There's a big difference between things that CAN be used as weapons (almost anything) and those that are explicitly intended to be, so those false equivalencies don't fly. Many things CAN be a vehicle, but that doesn't mean my car isn't a vehicle.

So when I shoot my bow at foam or paper I intend to do harm to an inanimate object....that makes my target bow a weapon?

Again it can be used as one but its use does not make it an explicit weapon. All indoor and some outdoor archery tournaments would be shut down because in most towns and cities "discharge of a weapon" is an offence.

Your understanding and definition is off-base.

LC

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

So when I shoot my bow at foam or paper I intend to do harm to an inanimate object....that makes my target bow a weapon?

Again it can be used as one but its use does not make it an explicit weapon. All indoor and some outdoor archery tournaments would be shut down because in most towns and cities "discharge of a weapon" is an offence.

Your understanding and definition is off-base.

LC

You can argue that a bow has a history hundreds of years old as a weapon. For centuries a bow really only had 2 purposes. Hunting and as a weapon. Yes things have changed and it would be ridiculous to regulate it but it all boils down to intent.

Intent can't be regulated .... other things can.

[brendan's dad]

The difference is... and argue it if you like but.....

When you use a bat, axe, tennis racket or frying pan as a weapon and strike someone, the crown must establish that the item now qualifies as a "weapon" as a result of how it was used.

When firearm is used to injure or kill the Crown does not need to established the firearm as a "weapon" as the courts and case law have already determine that a firearm is always a "weapon"

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

The difference is... and argue it if you like but.....

When you use a bat, axe, tennis racket or frying pan as a weapon and strike someone, the crown must establish that the item now qualifies as a "weapon" as a result of how it was used.

When firearm is used to injure or kill the Crown does not need to established the firearm as a "weapon" as the courts and case law have already determine that a firearm is always a "weapon"

and rightly so I think, the vast majority of firearms produced are produced exclusively as weapons.
Also it's hard to accidently kill someone with a frying pan from a mile away.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by fitzy

You can argue that a bow has a history hundreds of years old as a weapon. For centuries a bow really only had 2 purposes. Hunting and as a weapon. Yes things have changed and it would be ridiculous to regulate it but it all boils down to intent.

Intent can't be regulated .... other things can.

You mean the first ever archers never practiced for hunting? Or had competitions between Ugg and Ogg to shoot the dinosaur egg off the stump?

LC

[Okotokian]

So author thinks that the weapon designation should depend on use. OK,, I can get with that. makes sense to me. But it would also have to include intended use, and that might be subject to judicial interpretation. Your hunting rifles in you basement safe wouldn't be weapons in that location/configuration, but your short barrel pump action shotgun you have under your bed or the handgun in your nightstand might be.

And if we ever get to the time when concealed or open carry of handguns is allowed in your local city, if we are being totally honest here, those would be weapons. Not that that will ever happen in Canada.

But the basic premise.... that a gun is sometimes a weapon and sometime not, just like a baseball bat is sometimes a weapon and sometimes not.... Yup.

[dgl1948]

The anti,s like to call all firearms weapons. I never use the word weapon when refering to a firearm because it ****es them off. Good enough reason for me.

[Gavinmiller]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

I killed a few chickens with an axe, I call it an axe not a weapon.
I killed a coyote with a bow and arrow, I call it a bow and arrow.
I killed a fish with a club, I call it a club.
I killed a mouse with a mouse trap. I call it a trap.
I don't call any of those tools weapons. Weapons are used for killing people. Any tool can be used as a weapon to kill people.

This explains it perfectly. Guns are a tool, like an axe or a wrench. And any of these can be considered as weapons if you kill or injure someone with them.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by fitzy

and rightly so I think, the vast majority of firearms produced are produced exclusively as weapons.
Also it's hard to accidently kill someone with a frying pan from a mile away.

No, but you can sure do a lot of damage close up with a 12"Frying pan if you use it s a weapon otherwise it's only a frying pan for cooking!
Cat