Originally Posted by mcguyver
Any object is a weapon if used offensively. If it is not used offensively, it is not a weapon.
That means that there are over 20 million firearms in Canada that are by definition not weapons. They are firearms, nothing more, nothing less.
Only about 200 selected firearms are weapons used to kill. There are thousands more that are used to intimidate or to injure. But only those specific examples are weapons, not all guns of the same make or model, and certainly not all guns completely.
As soon as you transpose the word weapon with gun, you have lost your right to keep them. Nobody needs weapons, weapons kill and injure. Guns do nothing of the sort.
Sorry to trot out the rhetoric, but "Guns don't kill people. People kill people".
Again Semantics... NO ONE believes that Firearms are not weapons NO one believes that Swords are not weapons.. This is the basis of the ANTI Movement.. that people don't "need" weapons.
And I agree it is very likely that I will never need a weapon... but i'd certainly rather not need one and not have one.
This is at it's root the inherent weakness of the PRO movement.. that is is too reliant on semantic arguments.
You can say all you want that firearms are not weapons.. the issue is that the people who want to take them from you don't believe you. And so that argument is MOOT .. and starts to become a "black Knight" argument..
"your arms off! no it's not.. it's just a fleshwound"
If the PRO gun lobby's only argument is based on the fallacy that firearms are not weapons.. it's doomed because in the perception of any "reasonable man" they are.. regardless of if they are on a shelf or in a holster on someone's hip.
The argument has to move past that to an issue that is more deep.. and addresses issues beyond the right of an individual to possess harmless property.