They sure do love calling things weapons

[brisb]

Looking up some unrelated stuff and found this on the QLD Weapons Licensing page.

Category E weapons

A bulletproof vest or protective body vest or body armour designed to prevent the penetration of small arms projectiles is a category E weapon.

Can't help themselves can they. I'd love to know how a vest meets any criteria of being a "weapon". Smother someone with it?

[headspace]

It's only a weapon if it bounces the bullet back and kills the shooter

[on_one_wheel]

Because they dont want us to set ourselvs up like the riot squad. The police basicly need us to be almost defenceless or else thier job could be made very difficult.

But perhaps it might help for the QLD Weapons Licensing folks to look up the meaning of the word, weapon.

[chilliman]

by strict definition a bulletproof vest is a weapon:

weapon n.noun

An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense.
A means used to defend against or defeat another.

[on_one_wheel]

By that logic my motorcycle helmet, shin guards, leather jacket, newspapers under my clothes, gas mask, and steel capped boots might be weapons to... man... I realy need to watch how I dress when I head out on the town !

[Broom]

It's only a weapon if it bounces the bullet back and kills the shooter

Fair enough if they're trying to shoot you though?

[Norton]

by strict definition a bulletproof vest is a weapon:

weapon n.noun

An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense.
A means used to defend against or defeat another.

Geez that's a stretch

How you gunna "defeat another" with a vest? Slap them?

Deliberately mis interpreting it IMO.

[Ken]

Agree with Norton.

Bad interpretation there...

[chilliman]

Geez that's a stretch

How you gunna "defeat another" with a vest? Slap them?

Deliberately mis interpreting it IMO.

no, when police shoot a criminal in the chest that is wearing a vest they don't get stopped so it's a defensive weapon. I'm guessing you understand that are you are being humourous. it's hard to tell on forums sometimes as the written word can easily be interpreted many different ways, much the same as FA legislation can be.

it might be a bad interpretation/definition but that is what the lawmakers are using. I guess firearms/prohibited weapons legislation is the best 'catchall' for items such as these.

a motorcycle helmet is not the same as a bullet proof vest but I was once stopped from taking a fullface helmet on a Qantas flight as they deemed it to be a dangerous item. depending on the situation many things can be interpreted as being weapons - two-inch fruit knife, cricket bat, 30cm length of waterpipe but if the knife was in a kitchen there's no problem, but walk around town swinging one around and see what happens....

[Norton]

it might be a bad interpretation/definition but that is what the lawmakers are using. I guess firearms/prohibited weapons legislation is the best 'catchall' for items such as these.

It being a bad interpretation was my point.

Obviously I understand that they don't want dangerous criminals having body armour.

That's fine. But lets call it what it is, it's armour. No one can argue that calling a "protective body vest or body armour designed to prevent the penetration of small arms" armour is a bad interpretation or description.

Calling it a "weapon" is just sensationalizing it for no reason.

(P.S. Not having a go at you.)

[Norton]

depending on the situation many things can be interpreted as being weapons - two-inch fruit knife, cricket bat, 30cm length of waterpipe but if the knife was in a kitchen there's no problem, but walk around town swinging one around and see what happens....

They can. My point is they can deliberately be interpreted poorly.

Do we start having Police inspections of kitchens to make sure knives - or "weapons" depending on your interpretation - are stored properly?

Do sports shops need to start locking up cricket bats in steel safes to prevent people who view them as "weapons" accessing them?

Look at anything by the greens on gun control. Us LAFO don't have "pistols" or "longarms", we don't have "rifles" or "shotguns", we have WEAPONS! , hwoar, gasp, shock, horror!

Anyway, rant over. You get my point.

[brisb]

Calling it a "weapon" is just sensationalizing it for no reason.

My thoughts too.

[Vati]

I'd like to see someone perform an armed hold-up with a vest.

Go in and puff at your chest at someone - "gimmi all your money!" *puff*

They'd just punch you in the face

[chilliman]

It being a bad interpretation was my point.

Obviously I understand that they don't want dangerous criminals having body armour.

That's fine. But lets call it what it is, it's armour. No one can argue that calling a "protective body vest or body armour designed to prevent the penetration of small arms" armour is a bad interpretation or description.

Calling it a "weapon" is just sensationalizing it for no reason.

(P.S. Not having a go at you.)

No problem - we're all adults - I understand your point - it's all good

[Arth]

we're all adults

+1

I like this forum for that. One of the few where you can voice a different opinion without the replies turning into a flame war and insults.

[sooey]

Yeah.

A few agro ones come up go, but the mods clear 'em out pretty quick it seems.

[Aster]

It's not really an issue these days.

Typically the way that a problematic few make all the noise. Clear them out and things run smoothly.

[brisb]

Some forums don't though.

Happy to have everyone arguing for some reason.

[Aster]

I assume they don't want to lose that member/traffic to their site.

If they're pissing your other members off though you can do without it IMO. That's bad traffic.

[1290]

The weapon definition is definitely screwed up in Aus.... AFAIC a weapon is an article the the bearer either intends or is in the process of using to attack/injure or harm in some way another person (what about the animals some will plead).

The article can be absolutely anything. Anything.

A vest, can be if you intend to smack someone over the head with it, ceramic plates can hurt apparently..., I can not reasonably agree that by definition a vest is a weapon.

My firearms are absolutely NOT weapons, they may become weapons just as my hammer, or my motor vehicle or even the wooden cutting board in the kitchen could become 'weapons'.

It is absolutely about language and using an emotive word to convince the people that GUNS need to be controlled as well as articles we, the law abiding people could use to defend our self.

{{Turns on record player}} Criminals are not encumbered by the laws, if they want a pistol or a rifle or a bullet resistant vest.... they WILL get hold of it.

[Norton]

My firearms are absolutely NOT weapons, they may become weapons just as my hammer, or my motor vehicle or even the wooden cutting board in the kitchen could become 'weapons'.

It is absolutely about language and using an emotive word to convince the people that GUNS need to be controlled as well as articles we, the law abiding people could use to defend our self.

Exactly.

The focus in the media is always on the gun. Not the criminal. Not the crime.

A "man" didn't rob someone, a "gun-wielding man" did it... as if the gun someone influenced his decision to become a criminal.

[Vati]

It is absolutely about language and using an emotive word to convince the people that GUNS need to be controlled as well as articles we, the law abiding people could use to defend our self.

{{Turns on record player}} Criminals are not encumbered by the laws, if they want a pistol or a rifle or a bullet resistant vest.... they WILL get hold of it.

That's the thing that always s**ts me about the whole gun control argument. I'm totally for some reasonable practices to promote safety, some of the things mentioned on here before are stuff like....

1) Licensing system to stop crims convicted of violence purchasing guns in store.

2) I don't mind having a database of serial numbers etc. to help match/recover stolen firearms. Needing a permit/approval every time you get a new one though is crap though. If you're a licensed LAFO you should be able to buy anything you want on the spot and the dealer can send of the paperwork after. There is no reason to make us wait weeks or months depending on your state to buy something your allowed to have.

3) Sensible storage.

That would be enough even?

Instead, useless politicians who have NFI how to solve crime related problems just stack layer upon layer of read tape on LAFO. A criminal commits a crime with a pistol and hunters and target shooters are forced to jump through more and more hoops to keep and use their longarms. All the while the criminal still just has his off-the-books pistol stuffed in a shoebox in the bottom of his cupboard.

Way to target the wrong people....

[on_one_wheel]

The weapon definition is definitely screwed up in Aus.... AFAIC a weapon is an article the the bearer either intends or is in the process of using to attack/injure or harm in some way another person (what about the animals some will plead).

The article can be absolutely anything. Anything.

A vest, can be if you intend to smack someone over the head with it, ceramic plates can hurt apparently..., I can not reasonably agree that by definition a vest is a weapon.

My firearms are absolutely NOT weapons, they may become weapons just as my hammer, or my motor vehicle or even the wooden cutting board in the kitchen could become 'weapons'.

It is absolutely about language and using an emotive word to convince the people that GUNS need to be controlled as well as articles we, the law abiding people could use to defend our self.

{{Turns on record player}} Criminals are not encumbered by the laws, if they want a pistol or a rifle or a bullet resistant vest.... they WILL get hold of it.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
and
Yes

[Hatter]

I think OOW agree's with you 1290

[chilliman]

apparently now a knife is a firearm... => http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2014/0 ... bbing-bank

'A 77-year-old US retiree who gets around with the help of walker has spent the night in jail after he allegedly tried to rob at (sic) a bank at knifepoint ... Cooper was arrested and has faces charges of kidnapping and robbery with a firearm.'

[1290]

'firearms' do sell more papers, but perhaps he had a handgun on his person at the time...

Eitherway sound like they took away access to his account and he got peed off.... you've either got zero fund or you've got funds - consistent lack of funds sounds more like he didnt have 'enough' in there to satisfy the bank..

[roob]

'A 77-year-old US retiree who gets around with the help of walker has spent the night in jail after he allegedly tried to rob at (sic) a bank at knifepoint ... Cooper was arrested and has faces charges of kidnapping and robbery with a firearm.'

Sharp bread sticks too soon?