Question for NRA instructors about the "W" word

[jasons]

....trying to shove an opinion down someone else's throat is just idiotic.

That's the biggest issue I have with this particular policy. The NRA doesn't say "Be careful when and how you use the word "weapon" because it can have a negative connotation to certain people," (which I don't buy, but still.) Instead they say "Do not use..." like it's the 11th ****ing commandment.

Erasing a word from the language just because the NRA says so? Nope.

 

[n1zfg]

You answered the question in the affirmative, and that's inconsistent with NRA dogma. There is no "wiggle room," even when the full explanation, in a context like the one you elaborated above, makes perfect sense. Their position is as absolute as it is ridiculous.



See why I take issue with letting people limit the means by which I express myself?

It's not about you. It's about your students. They will do stupid crap and it is our job to make sure they understand the hazards before someone's life gets wrecked.

The reason for the lack of "wiggle room" is to ingrain a sense of caution in your students for when they do "wiggle". I consider calling the firearm a weapon to be about as hazardous as examining a bore by putting a cleaning patch on the open bolt face and looking down the muzzle. Double and triple checking everything even remotely related to the other rules before doing that kind of thing minimizes the risk of getting hyper-velocity lead poisoning. Without that sense of caution, you might as well join the DEA and be one of the few professional enough to handle that "weapon".

Intermixing "Weapon" with "Firearm" in front of experienced students during a tactical class makes a certain amount of sense, which is why I agreed with you. If you're teaching the weapon application of the firearm, I don't have a problem referring to it as the weapon. Doing it with people who barely know what they're doing is a whole other matter. It impresses a cavalier attitude regarding what can be described as a legal minefield.

If you show a cavalier attitude with regards to that legal minefield, they will be cavalier about it. Experienced guys will either understand where you're coming from or diss you behind your back. Newbies will emulate you...poorly. When any of us gets cavalier about our language, we become an easy target to the sharks looking to score. And when one of us goes down, we all look bad.

Again it's not about you. It's about your students.

When you use the "W" word for firearm to save a syllable, it's at their risk.

 

[n1zfg]

I do this as well. This does not however change the fact that this "toy" is also a weapon.

Hey, that is what it was invented for. And like the javelin used in track meets, it is more than just a weapon. Calling it one diminishes the non-weapon uses it has obtained.

 

[jasons]

It's not about you. It's about your students. They will do stupid crap and it is our job to make sure they understand the hazards before someone's life gets wrecked.

The reason for the lack of "wiggle room" is to ingrain a sense of caution in your students for when they do "wiggle". I consider calling the firearm a weapon to be about as hazardous as examining a bore by putting a cleaning patch on the open bolt face and looking down the muzzle. Double and triple checking everything even remotely related to the other rules before doing that kind of thing minimizes the risk of getting hyper-velocity lead poisoning. Without that sense of caution, you might as well join the DEA and be one of the few professional enough to handle that "weapon".

Intermixing "Weapon" with "Firearm" in front of experienced students during a tactical class makes a certain amount of sense, which is why I agreed with you. If you're teaching the weapon application of the firearm, I don't have a problem referring to it as the weapon. Doing it with people who barely know what they're doing is a whole other matter. It impresses a cavalier attitude regarding what can be described as a legal minefield.

If you show a cavalier attitude with regards to that legal minefield, they will be cavalier about it. Experienced guys will either understand where you're coming from or diss you behind your back. Newbies will emulate you...poorly. When any of us gets cavalier about our language, we become an easy target to the sharks looking to score. And when one of us goes down, we all look bad.

Again it's not about you. It's about your students.

When you use the "W" word for firearm to save a syllable, it's at their risk.

Where are you getting this crap? The stated reason for this policy, directly from the instructor guide, is quoted above. It has nothing to do with legal anything and everything to do with "avoiding negative connotation." In other words being politically correct. That's it.

Someone's life getting wrecked because they say "weapon?" Now I've heard everything.

And who are these professionals who might "diss" me for properly using the English language? Please be specific.

 

[n1zfg]

Where are you getting this crap? The stated reason for this policy, directly from the instructor guide, is quoted above. It has nothing to do with legal anything and everything to do with "avoiding negative connotation." In other words being politically correct. That's it.

Someone's life getting wrecked because they say "weapon?" Now I've heard everything.

And who are these professionals who might "diss" me for properly using the English language? Please be specific.

For the past several decades we as a community have been having to deal with a movement who has been trying to destroy us through the use of that negative connotation. It is a propaganda war, brother. We have been dancing around that trap by using the technical definitions regarding the tools we are shooting by purposely not calling them weapons. I remember 20 some years ago seeing perfectly good instructors get edited into looking like total fudds on national news by not watching what they say. It was soon after that, use of the word "weapon" really started to get discouraged.

And no, just uttering the word "weapon" isn't going to wreck someone's life by itself. That kind of damage these days requires the "N-word". But that's a rant for another thread. I honestly believe that Automatically calling a firearm a weapon would undermine any potential legal defense. Juries can be swayed by emotions, the sharks know it and capitalize on it at every opportunity. For example, if me, you, or one of our students gets stuck in a Zimmerman situation, and told the cops he "drew his weapon" the persecuting attorney would try tying that use of the word and its general definitions to establish some sort of intent.

Specifically, we're fighting a propaganda war. How do you present yourself? There are plenty of stereotypes to present. Nerd, Mall Ninja, Fudd, gangbanger, Take your pick.

 

[crazymjb]

Theres no way your not trolling...

It has nothing to do with "the law" period.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2

 

[jasons]

For example, if me, you, or one of our students gets stuck in a Zimmerman situation, and told the cops he "drew his weapon" the persecuting attorney would try tying that use of the word and its general definitions to establish some sort of intent.

Yeah, that would be a big problem for someone who just deployed a weapon in legitimate self-defense and killed an attacker. If Zimmerman had just called it a "gun" he would have been all set. Good to know. I think I have to agree with my brother, you must be trolling. Well done.

 

[n1zfg]

Theres no way your not trolling...

It has nothing to do with "the law" period.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2

You are right. It has nothing to do with the law.

In fact, Here it is right out of the definitions in MGL Ch. 140 Section 121: “Weapon”, any rifle, shotgun or firearm.

The law makes it a synonym. But it isn't about the law that we do it.

It is all about the politics. We're fighting a propaganda war.

Yeah, that would be a big problem for someone who just deployed a weapon in legitimate self-defense and killed an attacker. If Zimmerman had just called it a "gun" he would have been all set. Good to know. I think I have to agree with my brother, you must be trolling. Well done.

What I haven't brought up is that the vast majority of students taking the basic NRA classes will not have gone through boot. They will not have received the psychological conditioning meant to prepare someone for combat. Coming out of a legitimate self defense situation killing someone will probably leave them an emotional train wreck. Thinking before talking probably won't happen. This is where the habit of calling it a firearm shows its true benefit.

I bet Zimmerman did call it a "gun". He did get acquitted, and even the talking heads agreed with the verdict.

I personally think he got scapegoated to distract the masses of in-duh-viduals for several reasons. But that's a rant for another thread.

Call me a troll if you like. I don't care. And thank you for your service. Both of you. Of the five services I do think the corps has the highest concentration of badaxes.

I also hate the PC crap as much as the next turd extruder, and wish I didn't have to be careful about calling it a weapon.

But the bottom line is this: The aftermath will involve civilian courts, byzantine legal codes, and panels of 12 random induhviduals, not the UCMJ and fellow servicemen. Appeals to emotion often work. Terminology like "deploying a weapon" will often go right over their heads.

 

[travis]

From google, I think we can agree this is a good common definition for a weapon: A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage

I disagree and so does the English language. Weapon - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[crazymjb]

Didnt help your anti-weapon case there... where mw specifically referenced a gun. If you disagree that a gun on your person for use against another in the event it is neccessary, or an m1 garand, is a weapon, than you are a moron and I'm scared that you teach students how to use guns.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2

 

[n1zfg]

Didnt help your anti-weapon case there... where mw specifically referenced a gun. If you disagree that a gun on your person for use against another in the event it is neccessary, or an m1 garand, is a weapon, than you are a moron and I'm scared that you teach students how to use guns.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2

We are fighting a propaganda war with the gun grabbers.

The term "Weapon" is inflammatory among the useful idiots and has an established negative connotation with them.

By pushing the practice of calling a firearm a weapon, they are selling the fallacy that guns are bad, mm-kay?

By avoiding the term "weapon" when speaking of firearms, we stop reenforcing that fallacy.

I'm not saying they weren't invented to be such. I'm not saying certain models weren't primarily designed to be used as weapons.

I'm saying a couple of things:
1: Calling them weapons plays into the grabber's propaganda.
2: Calling them weapons dismisses their uses in things like the target sports.

For crying out loud, like I said 34 posts ago, they are more than JUST weapons.

 

[jasons]

The term "Weapon" is inflammatory among the useful idiots and has an established negative connotation with them.

Which useful idiots? Surely not the ones taking a class so that they can qualify for a license to carry?

By pushing the practice of calling a firearm a weapon, they are selling the fallacy that guns are bad, mm-kay?

The burden of proof here is on those who are calling for the deletion of a word from our language. That burden has not been met. How exactly is calling something what it is, in the appropriate context, "selling the fallacy that guns are bad?"

In other words, prove it....

By avoiding the term "weapon" when speaking of firearms, we stop reenforcing that fallacy.

Really? A future anti-gun moonbat is going to get all worked up about the word "weapon" but "gun" is OK? I just don't buy it.

For crying out loud, like I said 34 posts ago, they are more than JUST weapons.

And nobody is saying that we should JUST call them weapons. We (or at least I) take issue with the NRA's inflexible and dogmatic stance on the word. Sometimes (as you have admitted yourself) the word fits, and when it does I will use it. Sometimes a different word fits, and in that case I'll use a different word.

For what it's worth I'm unsubscribing from this thread. I'm either getting trolled or arguing with a wall, either way I've had my fill.

 

[travis]

The term "Weapon" is inflammatory among the useful idiots and has an established negative connotation with them.

By pushing the practice of calling a firearm a weapon, they are selling the fallacy that guns are bad, mm-kay?

By avoiding the term "weapon" when speaking of firearms, we stop reenforcing that fallacy.

No in fact those who twist the truth to bend at the alter of stupidity are the looser. Thus the solution is to use the CORRECT word and not let the few that bastardize it rule over us with their stupidity. Kind of like "assault weapon". The definition is clear live in reality or live in the liberal bizarro world. I will stay in reality and stick with what is right. MM-kay!

 

[crazymjb]

Yes, some guns have different purposes. I don't refer to the MkIII HB I teach students on as anything other than a target pistol or pistol. However, I am happy to say "if you are carrying a weapon on your person..." or "this was designed first and foremost as a weapon and must be respected as such."

As I said, I don't always use weapons, and of course there is more to shooting than just using guns as weapons. HOWEVER, the only point of shooting that COUNTS as far as I am concerned, IS the use of guns as weapons. You will never convince an anti that we should be allowed to own AR15s because they are fun after the recent tragedies... YOU MAY be able to convince a reasonable one that those types of WEAPONS are ideal for use by Americans for protection.

To purposely omit the term weapon in a basic pistol class, which almost always lands on concealed carry, self defense, etc, is just plain stupid.

Mike

 

[MisterHappy]

Antis cannot be convinced - that's why they are Antis.

The Nons that are taking the class to become shooters, and the other Nons that we see in the real world on a daily basis are the ones that need education.

If your Basic Pistol class student goes into work on Monday, saying, "I received weapons training this weekend," people will most likely take it poorly; if they say, "I learned to shoot a pistol at a safety class this weekend," the reaction will likely be more positive.

This is the root of the NRA's stance against "weapon" in the BP Class, IMO.

 

[crazymjb]

Yes because I use the word weapon they will tell people it is weapons training... and if I don't they will say pistol safety. Especially because they've never heard the word weapon before. That's ridiculous.

Many people who are simply uneducated on the matter can have their minds changed. I've done it, as have many on this forum.

Mike

 

[Rider]

If your Basic Pistol class student goes into work on Monday, saying, "I received weapons training this weekend," people will most likely take it poorly; if they say, "I learned to shoot a pistol at a safety class this weekend," the reaction will likely be more positive.

This is probably the best post on this thread so far, IMHO. I work in an office where almost any legitimate discussion of guns, the martial arts, etc, quickly devolves into nons/antis joking about you coming into work and going postal. Consequently, the using the least threatening terminology possible when I do mention anything seems to be the best way to approach it. Yes, there is a larger sociological problem with respect to people's perception of guns, but still, I don't see a benefit fanning the flames.

By way of an anecdote similar to your example: When I told a couple of people at work that I took a personal defense/personal protection seminar over the weekend, they thought it was cool. I wonder how they would respond if I told them I spent the weekend learning the best ways to kill a person with a knife, stick, gun, brick, car door, or anything else that happened to be handy.

 

[Picton]

If your Basic Pistol class student goes into work on Monday, saying, "I received weapons training this weekend," people will most likely take it poorly; if they say, "I learned to shoot a pistol at a safety class this weekend," the reaction will likely be more positive.

This is the root of the NRA's stance against "weapon" in the BP Class

I'd love to see the NRA's research that backs up this claim, because I don't buy it. My guess is that 99% of the folks who finish their basic class will tell people, "Guess what? I shot a gun this weekend!" no matter what terminology their instructor uses.

I'm not an NRA instructor, and before reading this thread I had no idea this was such a hot topic. Now, it just seems childish to me on the NRA's part. It is their syllabus, but this strikes me as one of their many positions that they seem to arrive at without thinking about it much, and certainly without any research.

 

[Boman]

I make the mistake in classes of calling it a weapon and generally correct myself under NRA's guidelines. I do not see why this is such a big deal and yes I have read the replies on the use of both words. To me it is a personal choice and one that people in our world like to debate.

 

[ochmude]

This is probably the best post on this thread so far, IMHO. I work in an office where almost any legitimate discussion of guns, the martial arts, etc, quickly devolves into nons/antis joking about you coming into work and going postal. Consequently, the using the least threatening terminology possible when I do mention anything seems to be the best way to approach it. Yes, there is a larger sociological problem with respect to people's perception of guns, but still, I don't see a benefit fanning the flames.

By way of an anecdote similar to your example: When I told a couple of people at work that I took a personal defense/personal protection seminar over the weekend, they thought it was cool. I wonder how they would respond if I told them I spent the weekend learning the best ways to kill a person with a knife, stick, gun, brick, car door, or anything else that happened to be handy.

The Eddie Eagle program doesn't attempt to pretend that guns don't exist. It fully admits that they do exist, and then teaches children how to respond when they encounter a firearm. This is because the program operates under the assumption that children are better off being informed than kept in the dark in order to make the best decision. When it comes to programs for adults, the NRA seems to think it's better to pretend the word "weapon" doesn't exist, rather than acknowledge that the word does exist and should not be used in certain contexts.

 

[DemonChronicles]

My past military training has all but removed the word "gun" in my conversations, it's a bit of training that has "stuck" to this very day.

I've taken a number of courses of the past 3 years, and I've rid myself of the "w" word as well.

I always use the term firearm, even in casual conversation.

Truth is, there are a number of items in front of me on my desk right now that I could use "as a" weapon. I refuse to lump my respect, admiration, and enthusiasm for firearms into such a general category.

 

[n1zfg]

Truth is, there are a number of items in front of me on my desk right now that I could use "as a" weapon. I refuse to lump my respect, admiration, and enthusiasm for firearms into such a general category.

+1

I wish I could have thought up those words last week!

 

[DemonChronicles]

+1

I wish I could have thought up those words last week!

Feel free to use them my friend, I'll give you my PayPal info later.

 

[crazymjb]

Yea many things can be weapons. Many firearms exist with rhat as their soul or at the very least primary purpose.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2

 

[n1heu]

I teach NRA classes (basic pistol, rifle, shotgun, and reloading along with the First Steps classes) and use for terminology pistol, revolver, handgun, rifle, shotgun and firearms. I am prior USN and as such never use 'gun' unless the device is attached permanently to a ship. I also avoid 'weapon' and positively loathe the word 'toy' in relation to anything firearms related. My students can use any word they like as along as it is technically correct and it is not the word 'toy'. This has included 'roscoe' 'gat' 'rod' 'heater' 'piece' 'burner' 'chopper' ect.

 

[crazymjb]

I call them toys sometimes... heck some are in the truest sense of the word. My harley is a toy, statistically a much more dangerous one.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2

 

[daceman63]

Firearm vs. Weapon

I did a quick search and I was unable to find anything related. I have a pet peeve.....I was watching the wheelchair video from the When seconds count thread and the guy in the video kept referring to his gun as a weapon.

Now I think we can all agree that almost anything can be used as a weapon but continually calling firearms weapons give them a negative connotation.

I call my guns what they are either by name i.e. glock, AR or 357 or I refer to them generally as firearms. Even when I carry I have a license to carry firearms. I would only consider my firearms a weapon if I were to use it in defense, otherwise it is a firearm.

What are your thoughts? Do you own firearms or weapons?

 

[Deleted member 12999]

I have a couple of BOTH.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Mr Weebles]

Boomstick.

 

[Chris_BAO]

I did a quick search and I was unable to find anything related. I have a pet peeve.....I was watching the wheelchair video from the When seconds count thread and the guy in the video kept referring to his gun as a weapon.

Now I think we can all agree that almost anything can be used as a weapon but continually calling firearms weapons give them a negative connotation.

I call my guns what they are either by name i.e. glock, AR or 357 or I refer to them generally as firearms. Even when I carry I have a license to carry firearms. I would only consider my firearms a weapon if I were to use it in defense, otherwise it is a firearm.

What are your thoughts? Do you own firearms or weapons?

carrying your firearm open, or concealed is a defensive act......