"The Air Gun as a Serious Weapon" by H Marks

[Garvin]

An airgun is a weapon, something designed to cause bodily harm or damage, id say an airgun falls into that catagory.
I know where people are coming from, to serious airgun users they're not weapons as you imagine a weapon something that is used against people, our quarry has a body also and an airgun will cause damage, a knife is a weapon and a bow or crossbow, they're designed for that purpose, to use a thing as a weapon is different, a brick or a lump of wood can become a weapon but a gun will always be a weapon.

I have to disagree with you, my friend. I've just eaten my dinner and there's no way the knife I used was a weapon.

Airguns may look like weapons, but that doesn't mean they are weapons, although it certainly suits some people to blur the distinction.

A match airgun is not designed to cause bodily harm or damage to anything other than a paper target.

Whether a device used to kill small mammals and birds can ever be classified as a weapon (assuming we are not talking about a Girandoni) is open for debate. The word is more properly reserved for human targets.

[harvey_s]

I have to disagree with you, my friend. I've just eaten my dinner and there's no way the knife I used was a weapon.

Airguns may look like weapons, but that doesn't mean they are weapons, although it certainly suits some people to blur the distinction.

A match airgun is not designed to cause bodily harm or damage to anything other than a paper target.

Whether a device used to kill small mammals and birds can ever be classified as a weapon (assuming we are not talking about a Girandoni) is open for debate. The word is more properly reserved for human targets.

An airgun has sufficient power to result in the death of a child as has sadly been proven on more than one occasion.
Therefore I would argue that they must be regarded as weapons irrespective of any intent.
Knives are similarly categorised.
Cutlery and match airguns are merely derivitaves of their primary functions - but the connection is still there and they could instantly be reverted in the wrong hands.

[Lakey]

An airgun has sufficient power to result in the death of a child as has sadly been proven on more than one occasion.
Therefore I would argue that they must be regarded as weapons irrespective of any intent.
Knives are similarly categorised.
Cutlery and match airguns are merely derivitaves of their primary functions - but the connection is still there and they could instantly be reverted in the wrong hands.

The problem here is that in todays society, where the real reasons for problems are glossed over, or pigeon holed into convenient little spots to suit whatever axe has to be ground, or whatever course of action has to be justified, the word weapon is a very contentious one, which unfairly tars our sport/passtime with the illegal acts of others. Air weapons are classed as firearms when it comes to upholding the law and punishing wrong doers, however to most responsible users, they are not seen as weapons in the traditional sense of the word. I think it is important to maintain a distinction between airguns under 12 ft/lbs and guns which are over that limit, and since the majority of us use guns under 12 ft/lbs, the word weapon doesn't seem to fit.
Society is not well versed in different gun categories or derivations, so it doesn't help our long term hobby that airguns are seen in the same light as firearms and handguns etc. We wouldn't class darts or racing cars as weapons - even though both have that capacity to inflict serious injury?

[harvey_s]

The problem here is that in todays society, where the real reasons for problems are glossed over, or pigeon holed into convenient little spots to suit whatever axe has to be ground, or whatever course of action has to be justified, the word weapon is a very contentious one, which unfairly tars our sport/passtime with the illegal acts of others. Air weapons are classed as firearms when it comes to upholding the law and punishing wrong doers, however to most responsible users, they are not seen as weapons in the traditional sense of the word. I think it is important to maintain a distinction between airguns under 12 ft/lbs and guns which are over that limit, and since the majority of us use guns under 12 ft/lbs, the word weapon doesn't seem to fit.
Society is not well versed in different gun categories or derivations, so it doesn't help our long term hobby that airguns are seen in the same light as firearms and handguns etc. We wouldn't class darts or racing cars as weapons - even though both have that capacity to inflict serious injury?

Thats because neither were designed as weapons...!
Just because you don't like the connotation does not alter it's true purpose or capacity to kill or maim and a sub 12 ft/lb airgun can do that to a human child as easily as a rabbit.
They must be treated and handled as such anyway - anything less is lunacy, so just call a spade a spade.
Society does not care one jot about whether your rifle has 20 or 10 ft/lbs there is no distinction in the public eye by power classification.
Failure to treat a 12 ft/lb air gun as a weapon will lead to a lack of respect and that is likely to lead to another tragedy - and that would do FAR more damage to our sport than the use of the word weapon.

[cringe]

Thats because neither were designed as weapons...!
Just because you don't like the connotation does not alter it's true purpose or capacity to kill or maim and a sub 12 ft/lb airgun can do that to a human child as easily as a rabbit.
They must be treated and handled as such anyway - anything less is lunacy, so just call a spade a spade.
Society does not care one jot about whether your rifle has 20 or 10 ft/lbs there is no distinction in the public eye by power classification.
Failure to treat a 12 ft/lb air gun as a weapon will lead to a lack of respect and that is likely to lead to another tragedy - and that would do FAR more damage to our sport than the use of the word weapon.

So, is it sill ok if I call a spade a spade?

[cringe]

So, is it sill ok if I call a spade a spade?

sorry just spotted my spilling mistake their, I mean is it ok to call a black person a spade, [I have negro relations]?

[cringe]

sorry just spotted my spilling mistake their, I mean is it ok to call a black person a spade, [I have negro relations]?

Also, is it acceptable [politically correct] to call my pellets 'ammo' or ammunition? & what about my antiques! should I scrub the name off my 'black boys' & 'cat slugs'?

[scooter48]

I have to disagree with you, my friend. I've just eaten my dinner and there's no way the knife I used was a weapon.

Airguns may look like weapons, but that doesn't mean they are weapons, although it certainly suits some people to blur the distinction.

A match airgun is not designed to cause bodily harm or damage to anything other than a paper target.

Whether a device used to kill small mammals and birds can ever be classified as a weapon (assuming we are not talking about a Girandoni) is open for debate. The word is more properly reserved for human targets.

all guns are designed for killing whether air or firearm.That is their function.

[Garvin]

all guns are designed for killing whether air or firearm.That is their function.

Nonsense!

A match airgun is not designed to cause bodily harm or damage to anything other than a paper target.

[harvey_s]

A match airgun is not designed to cause bodily harm or damage to anything other than a paper target.

You're splitting hairs and just repeating the same thing...and I countered your statement with the following....

...match airguns are merely derivitaves of their primary functions - but the connection is still there and they could instantly be reverted in the wrong hands.

Care to present a reasoned argument that disproves a match rifle abilities to kill or maim a child instead of unqualified repetition?
Don't forget an FT or HFT 'match' rifle will be 12 ft/lbs and even a 10m 'match' rifle will be 6 ft/lbs and could be discharged at point blank range.
A match rifle is just a version of a hunting rifle that is designed to be more accurate than a regular air rifle - its function of delivering the same lead projectile at the highest allowable velocity remains unaltered.

[Garvin]

You're splitting hairs and just repeating the same thing...and I countered your statement with the following....



Care to present a reasoned argument that disproves a match rifle abilities to kill or maim a child instead of unqualified repetition?
Don't forget an FT or HFT 'match' rifle will be 12 ft/lbs and even a 10m 'match' rifle will be 6 ft/lbs and could be discharged at point blank range.
A match rifle is just a version of a hunting rifle that is designed to be more accurate than a regular air rifle - its function of delivering the same lead projectile at the highest allowable velocity remains unaltered.

Harvey I very carefully didn't reply because it's obvious we totally disagree on this question.

"Derivatives of primary functions"? Not sure exactly what you mean by this. Is a kid's cap gun a 'derivative' of a .44 Magnum? In one sense it is, but it's absurd to suggest that it's therefore a weapon...

Hitting someone over the head with a match air rifle is likely to cause much more harm than shooting a pellet from it.

Does this make it a weapon? It just means that like any other heavy object it can be (mis)used as one.

Obviously you have a point about safe handling, and airguns should be treated as dangerous from a safety point of view, like any gun.

But are airguns 'weapons'? No, they are not.

[harvey_s]

"Derivatives of primary functions"? Not sure exactly what you mean by this. Is a kid's cap gun a 'derivative' of a .44 Magnum? In one sense it is, but it's absurd to suggest that it's therefore a weapon...

It means that it's primary function of being a hunting weapon firing the same lead pellet at the same velocity remains unchanged.
Therefore the damage that the projectile can inflict at arrival also remains unchanged.
IE. By adding the word 'match' you have not altered it's intrinsic design purpose.

The kid's cap gun IS an example however of where the design HAS been changed to remove the ability to cause harm and therefore is not a weapon....but the 'match' still is one in the eyes of the law and quite rightly so.

[Geezer]

Does it matter anymore?

By which I mean that it's clear that 100+ years ago, "weapon" did not carry the negative connotation that it does now.

But not that long ago, "gun" did not have a negative connotation.

Look at any recent newspaper and it's clear that gun = bad dangerous hurty/killy thing.

Ditto on "knife crime", which ought more properly to be called something like "stabby/slashy/hacky crime involving bladed object". But that doesn't work in a press release or headline. So knife = bad thing, not knife = everyday tool.

I will continue to call guns guns, and reserve "weapon" for items designed or regularly used for anti-personnel use. But I don't think the general populace not familiar with shooting make any emotional distinction between gun, rifle, pistol, weapon, firearm or whatever.

So this is a debate we have among ourselves without significant effect beyond our community.

[Geezer]

To illustrate my earlier point, while I live in London, I grew up in a small village and still regularly visit family in a (different) small village.

In London, when I disclose I participate in the shooting sports, reactions vary from negative (guns are bad; shooting lovely bunnies is bad) through neutral but intrigued (really, actual guns?) to the odd moment when you meet a kindred spirit who seems relieved and pleased to meet someone else who shoots.

Whereas in rural areas, saying you shoot usually is taken as normal: no different from saying you play golf (ugh!), own a car, or sometimes go to the pub for Sunday lunch.

Those attitudes matter much more than whether recreational guns are or aren't "weapons". And we should focus on increasing the number of people with a positive or neutral attitude to our sport, rather than arguing among ourselves about the meaning of nouns.

Having lived a while on the Continent (and respecting linguistic and cultural differences), it is notable that in places like the Netherlands and Germany that all guns there are routinely called weapons, but that does not appear negatively to affect public or political acceptance of the shooting sports.

[Garvin]

Does it matter anymore?

By which I mean that it's clear that 100+ years ago, "weapon" did not carry the negative connotation that it does now.

But not that long ago, "gun" did not have a negative connotation.

Look at any recent newspaper and it's clear that gun = bad dangerous hurty/killy thing.

Ditto on "knife crime", which ought more properly to be called something like "stabby/slashy/hacky crime involving bladed object". But that doesn't work in a press release or headline. So knife = bad thing, not knife = everyday tool.

I will continue to call guns guns, and reserve "weapon" for items designed or regularly used for anti-personnel use. But I don't think the general populace not familiar with shooting make any emotional distinction between gun, rifle, pistol, weapon, firearm or whatever.

So this is a debate we have among ourselves without significant effect beyond our community.

I think you make a very good point and you're right, this is really a debate only of importance to us, while 'out there' the debate has moved on without us.

But equally I don't think we should feel obliged to adopt language based on fear and ignorance, or give ground that rightfully should never have been conceded in the first place.

Just because many (urban) people see anything gun-shaped as 'bad' and by definition a 'weapon' doesn't mean we have to go along with it.

If plinking with an airgun is equated in the public mind with warfare, that's their problem, not mine.