Originally Posted by mcguyver
I notice that it seems that you need a little refresher in how folks outside urban centers think.
And I notice you seem to think that those of us near or in urban centers, especially in Ontario, seem to think along the same lines as the ANTIs.
The fact is, we have no problem seeing a tool as a weapon and a weapon as a tool, and neither does the law. Things can be designed to serve a purpose. A car is a form of transportation, even if I don't drive it. A gun can reach out and hurt someone, even if I don't shoot it. Neither of those two devices will work without my operating them, but if I operate them, they will function to allow a narrow range of tasks to be achieved.
And weapons and tools are all property. The only reason some PRO argue otherwise seems to be because they think relegating weapons back to being property will somehow protect them from gun control, though ironically sometimes these are the same that will complain about the lack of (federal) property rights in Canada.
The attempt to split hair on whether a gun is designed to hurt/kill animals versus people is not productive as far as arguing in favour of gun ownership. If it can hurt an animal, it can hurt a person. Killing is not always the measuring stick, and the fact that I can't accurately use a M2 without a tripod doesn't make it any less a firearm. In such an event, the question is not even about whether one was attempting to use a weapon (because it is a weapon) against another person, but whether the act of employing the weapon can be reasonably accomplished.
Canadian federal law says you can carry that knife with the handle sticking out, in fact, it encourages you to do so (concealing a weapon has no lawful excuse). Again, it's not an issue of whether it's a weapon or a tool (in the eyes of the law, it's both), the issue is what you intend to do with it.
Incidentally, the self defence cases you've pointed out demonstrates that, with proper legal representation, a firearm can be argued to have been wielded in a non-lethal manner.
Ultimately, if the "guns aren't weapons until used as such" position isn't gaining much traction even with many gun owners/supporters here, doesn't that make you wonder about how effective a message it'd be to the wider population? Like I said, is the point of such a message to strengthen resolve of the existing like-minded PROs, or is it actually meant to be a position that the PROs are trying to popularize? I expect it's more of the former, since there seems to be a general attitude that only gun owners will support gun owners. Because if it's the latter, what some of us are saying is that you're not going to get anywhere. And worse, if the "guns aren't weapons" position is based in any way on the surrounding of the word "weapon" to the ANTIs as a socially "evil" term, you're doing more to hurt your own cause than the ANTIs.