Talk:Hunting weapon

Encyclopedia Britanica

It seems the EB recognises the term... see their entry on "bow and arrow" here. Blueboar 14:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the whole sentence, the bow and arrow serves a dual use, both for hunting and for warfare. Again, I don't dispute that a subset of English uses 'hunting weapon'. But in standard English 'hunting implement' conveys the same meaning and is a more universal usage of English. Wikipedia is global and when possible should use the more universal usage. SaltyBoatr 15:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Boots are a hunting implement, as are tree stands, binoculars, and a host of other items that are not directly used for killing game, and are not in the scope of the article. What about non-lethal weapon or less lethal weapon, or the legal terms dangerous weapon and deadly weapon? Are those all invalid because they don't relate to use in combat? scot 21:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

To tell the truth, if given a choice between standard English and general usage English, I will go with general usage, because in this case, Hunting weapon just makes more sense. Hunting equipment, tools, and implements just sounds like the peripharies of hunting, not the actual firearms or weapons used.--LWF 17:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line here is: How do we determine what is general English? Do we take a vote? Or, do we look it up in the best available dictionaries? SaltyBoatr 17:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

General use--dictionaries are descriptive, not definitive, and are often neither complete nor timely. As for what is "general English", that is far harder to define; for example, I was just recently got an e-mail from a friend in the UK describing an Alfa Romeo engine as sounding "frutier than a gay strawberry"--a phrase that does NOT translate well into American idom (I dare you to go up to the next mullet sporting American redneck Camero driver that you see and tell him his car sounds fruity). On the other hand, I can easily point to sources in the UK that deal with "weapon" in a non-military sense--just search on "weapon" and "air gun" and "britain" and see how many BBC hits you get. Newspapers are often the best source for finding the current usage of words and phrases (such as the new verb "to Swift Boat", which I first encountered today). Magazines and trade publications are a good source for more esoteric technical terms. Laws also are, in this case, a good source for definitions of terms, as there are many laws regulating weapons--whether for combat, self defense, or hunting. Take a look though the OED's etymology, and (if they provide references for the etymology) you'll see that the OED is a tertiary source, often referencing newspapers, magazines, and books in the etymologies. scot 19:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The OED is hardly a 'general use dictionary'. Also, from the perspective of study of word usages in the world, the document in which the word is found (the book, newspaper, etc.) is the primary, and the OED is the secondary source. Similarly, when you do Google searches to find favorable usages of the term 'hunting weapon', you are acting as a secondary researcher. SaltyBoatr 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I think that it won't be long before the OED adds the definition from the Dictionary of Current English. After all, they published it. Although if we are talking about current general use, the Oxford Dictionary of Current English at least purports to document current English and seems like a good source.--LWF 22:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not use the best source? The OED is considered the best by many experts. SaltyBoatr 14:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

How can it be the best if it's definition of "weapon" is clearly flawed and at odds with current worldwide usage? Your constant insistence that the OED is the only source acceptable source of defining the use of standard English, and rejection of any other source, appears to me to be a violation of the NPOV policy. I don't care how many experts say the OED is the best, any single source can have errors and omissions, so multiple sources are essential, and multiple independent sources have been provided that use the phrase "hunting weapon" in the same context as this article. scot 15:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Your perception of 'current worldwide usage' has the appearance of being based on personal opinion. Further, I see no surprise that several people who are active editors, like you with a 'gun' history of edits[2], believe that their own English usage equals 'current worldwide usage'. This calls attention to the problem of systemic bias found in Wikipedia. Your arbitrary denigration of the Oxford English Dictionary, "I don't care how many experts say" runs contrary to Wikipedia policy of WP:V. My evaluation of the credibility of the OED is based on a reading of the verifiable expert opinions that the OED is widely respected. SaltyBoatr 15:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No, my opinion of 'current worldwide usage' is based on observation. For example:

• Princeton WordNet explicitly defines "weapon" in terms of hunting (and you still haven't said why a lexical database isn't a valid source)
• A "how to disarm America" article, US source using the term "hunting weapon"
• A BBC Science & Nature article on Neanderthals, using the term "hunting weapon"
• Australian touring company, talking about the boomarang as a "hunting weapon"
• A New Zealand statue using the term "hunting weapon"
• A Canadian article on the Firearms Act, using the term "hunting weapon"

Those references show the term "hunting weapon" in current use in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, by sportsmen, gun control advocates and opponents, legislatures, scientists, and shows a group of Princeton lexicographers defining "weapon" as applying to hunting. All of this should be proof that the OED is incompletely defining "weapon". The systemic bias you accuse me of in this case just means I know the subject matter at hand--I've worked in the industry, I'm familiar with it, and I know what the terminology means and how people use it. There is no other word in the English language today that you can pair up with "hunting" to get the exact breadth and precision of meaning encompassed by the term "hunting weapon", covering spears, airguns, firearms, boomerangs, bows, and atlatls. The only other option I see is to move the article to Things people use to kill animals whilst hunting them, and that's just a bit wordy for my taste. scot 16:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not surprised that you can do Google searches and find usages matching your variant of English, like you have done. Still, that is personal research. Your personal research does not carry the same weight of authority as the Oxford English Dictionary. What is wrong with Hunting implements? It does a pretty good job of communicating the point while at the same time using a more worldwide version of English. SaltyBoatr 16:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"Hunting implement" is far too ambiguous. A blaze orange vest, or chemical handwarmers, or shooting mittens are all just as much hunting implements as a rifle. And my "personal research" just shows that the descriptive OED is incomplete. It's also inconsistent with the other OED publications. These are taken from the Compact OED, accessible online without a subscription:

• huntverb 1 pursue and kill (a wild animal) for sport or food.
• weaponnoun 1 a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.

So a weapon (designed or use for inflicting bodily harm) used to hunt (pursue and kill a wild animal for sport or food) would, but the standard practice of making adjectives from nows, would be a hunting weapon. Since the OED and the Compact OED come from the same source, they should be of equal validity on terms that both contain. scot 17:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason the article cannot include sections on hunting implements of significant types, though mittens and hand warmers are trivial; hunting dogs, hunting safety equipment or hunting horses are significant and could be included in this article along with hunting firearms, etc.. Considering that the adjective hunting means 'to pursue', there is no reason to make a distinction for killing that I can see. SaltyBoatr 17:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a very large difference in weight between the Oxford English Dictionary and the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, specifically in the coverage of the history of the usage of the word. This is a key issue, in that the usage you advocate is a modern usage not worldwide and not yet recognized by the Oxford English Dictionary. I point out that Compact OED does not conflict with the OED definition. The real conflict is that your variant English usage conflicts with the OED (but not with the the shortened definition found in the Compact OED). It appears you hope to ignore the OED so as to push your point. By the way, have you actually read the OED definition? If not, it would be helpful if you did so we can discuss it. By the way, you misused the dictionary (with apparent intent to push your point) by citing the verb 'to hunt' when you should have cited the noun. SaltyBoatr 17:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. Publications have no authority; it is the authors of said publications that have the authority, as is clear in the etymology of authority, Old French autorite, from Latin auctor ‘originator’. Since the OED and the COED have the same author, Oxford University Press, then they must have the same authority on any words cited in both editions. As for my use of the definitions, yes, I am quoting only ONE definition of "weapon", because it is the relevant one. A single use of a word only fits one definition of the word; if I say my hunting weapon is hot, I mean produces a sensation of uncomfortable heat (definition 2), not that it is showing signs of intense lust (definition 3). I am using the verb tense of "hunt" because that is the tense used by the COED when defining phrases such as hunting crop, ...used chiefly in hunting. If you want the noun, then fine: hunt noun 1 an act or the process of hunting.

But in the end, what the OED says isn't really relevant to this discussion. This is not an article about the word "weapon", this is an article about items that are universally called weapons. If I were to start an article about kit guns, the usage almost certainly wouldn't match any of the definition of "kit" in the OED. However, it is a well defined term in the industry, applied to a set of easily delineated firearms, and that's what matters. scot 19:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You write 'in the industry' which begs the question. Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia of the gun industry, or an encyclopedia of the world? Please answer. SaltyBoatr 19:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

For the English speaking world, with the caveat that many articles must use jargon to avoid ambiguity. For example, the title Gastroesophageal reflux disease is not a commonly encountered English term (being, in fact, mostly Latin), but it is the proper medical jargon for a certain form of heartburn; moving the article to heartburn would make it more easily found, but it would not be correct, as gastroesophageal reflux (a physical disorder) is not the only cause of heartburn (a symptom). Likewise, hunting implement is overly broad and not a correct title for the article, applying to anything used in hunting. scot 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is Hunting implement overly broad? You give no reason. Certainly the article could cover firearms, like you want; and still have room for coverage of other related types of hunting implements. What harm would come of that? You seem to be avoiding an obvious, harmless and easy compromise. SaltyBoatr 22:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I should have written 'the editors of the OED have great authority'. And, they do have more authority than an individual editor of Wikipedia like you or me. You claim your English usage is 'universal', but you lack the authority of the editors of the OED. I take it by your evasion of my question: Have you read the OED definition? ...to mean that you have not. Could you read it please so we can constructively discuss what it says? Thanks. SaltyBoatr 19:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not have access to a copy of the unabridged OED, so I have not read the definition in THAT VERSION of the OED. All I have is what is available online, which is the Compact OED, third edition. The third eidtion, by the way, claims to be a "Major new edition, offering comprehensive and authoritative coverage of current English", with a publication date of June 2005, and a history of biannual revisions. The full OED, second edition, on the other hand, dates to 1989, so the Compact edition appears to be the most up-to-date edition of the OED available. If you would like to quote the relevant sections of the OED 2 definition, that would be fine, but again, the shared authorship makes the COED equally authoritative, in addition to being more current, so I see no point in using an obsolete definition. scot 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between the Compact OED and the OED. Do you have a library card? It is very common for libraries to make the OED available online to their library patrons. Until you read the OED definition, discussing it with you can hardly be productive. No the COED is not equally authoritative to the OED if the question involves evolution of the history of usage of the word, as we have here. The OED is the better dictionary for that purpose. SaltyBoatr 21:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

But what the OED says is STILL not the point--I don't care about how "weapon" was used in the 16th century, I care about how it's used now, so etymological information is not of use here. Do you accept that the COED definition of weapon as "a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage" is correct and reflects common usage? scot 21:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

For comparison this is definition 1.a. quoting from the OED: " 1. a. An instrument of any kind used in warfare or in combat to attack and overcome an enemy." Viewed in context of the full 2,700 word OED entry describing the continuum of usages of the word 'weapon', I favor the OED definition as carrying more weight. I see the COED definition #1, which you quote, to be consistent with the OED definition, and I accept them both. The problem I have is that the COED coverage of the word consists of a paltry two sentences and twenty-two words. This creates ambiguity, which you exploit to push your POV. The OED coverage spans six pages and contains 2700 words, and is much less ambiguous. SaltyBoatr 21:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that the definition you cite SaltyBoatr is not the only definition, what are the others? There is one other thing that I find telling: the fact that when it came time to condense all the definitions from the OED into a smaller number of concise accurate definitions they said, "a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage". This implies that they think that is the best definition possible while still being concise. Besides, you just said that you accept them both, meaning you believe both to be correct, and if their both correct, why do you still oppose the article being named Hunting weapon.--LWF 22:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I already answered your questions earlier which you repeat again. You are reading into the ambiguity of the shorter definition, to advance your POV. I favor reading the dictionaries together to get the full picture. You prefer to selectively choose the dictionary you find useful to advance your POV. As to the full OED definitions, please read the OED (this conversation is a waste of time until you do so.) I already summarized the other OED definitions before; they are the figurative, the transferred, and the vulgar definitions of the word. SaltyBoatr 00:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Numerous mainstream sources (dictionaries, newspapers, magazines, state hunting regulations, province hunting regulations, international hunting regulations, etc.) all have been shown to use the terminology hunting weapon. I strongly suspect that even the OED does in its 2,700 word definition, especially since the Compact OED does, but that you simply have not permitted this interpretation in your reading to date of the OED. As has been pointed out by several others on the Verifiability discussion associated in parallel with this discussion, dictionaries are not the best sources for determining usages of words. Etymologies do not enter into this discussion, either, as this article is not about 15th Century usages of the word weapon, or 11th Century usages of the word weapon. (I would point out that Caxton only started standardising English in the late 15th Century, so tracing the use of the word weapon prior to written English is a bit of a stretch, anyway.) As for the vulgar usages, using the Shakespearean meaning of vulgar to mean the common uses, and not the OED-cited instances of profane which perhaps you intended as a bad pun, the common worldwide usage is clearly hunting weapon and not hunting implement. It is not advancing one's POV to take the common usage of a word. Instead, it is advancing one's POV to insist that somehow the usage in Beowulf should govern modern-day English. Well, it doesn't. Although I enjoy Olde English and middle English as much as anyone (personally, I like Chaucer over some of the others; for it is bawdier, although Njal's Saga and the other Icelandic sagas are more action-packed :-), the ancient usage of the word weapon is not relevant to an article on today's common usage. If you wish to write an article on historical meanings of the word weapon in Old and Middle English, go for it. Meanwhile, such etymologies are not relevant to this article, based on modern day English usage of Hunting weapon. Yaf 04:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a rhetorical trick to misstate an opponents position, please stop. Your presumptions about my reading of the Oxford English Dictionary are way off base, please instead assume good faith. I find your assertion that 'dictionaries are not the best sources for determining the usages or words' to be simply astonishing. What is the purpose of a dictionary then? You instead advocate, (only when you are confronted with dictionary definitions you don't like), for doing original research using Google searches to find usages more to your liking. Can I say the obvious? It appears that you view me as an bitter opponent in some great gun rights battle. Stop. Let's just be friendly co-editors of Wikipedia, please. SaltyBoatr 17:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

References

Recent change in article format

I just made a rather drastic change to the article so I felt I should explain it. My decision to move the Primitive hunting section up was to make the article more chronological, as the old way seemed a little strange to me when read having the weapons that came first in time coming last in the article. Also in the sections on firearms I changed the titles from weapon to firearm, as the sections in question were specifically about firearms and it made more sense to have them listed as firearms. If anyone doesn't agree with these changes let's discuss a compromise for the article.--LWF 02:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly an improvement, and meets WP:Be bold, too! Good ideas, and good implementation. Yaf 04:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new introduction

The introduction paragraph seems to be lacking in clarity and conciseness. Here's some proposed changes. Irrelevant stuff is left out (how popular hunting is is relevant to hunting, but not hunting weapons) and stuff that is not readily verifiable (such as relative popularity of weapons) has been dropped.

First paragraph--short and to the point, delineate the category:

Hunting weapons are weapons designed or used primarily for hunting game animals for food or sport, as distinct from defensive weapons and weapons used in warfare.

New section: Characteristics

Since human beings are lacking in the natural weapons possessed by other predators, humans have a long history of making tools to overcome this shortcoming. The evolution of hunting weapons shows an ever increasing ability to extend the hunter's reach, while maintaining the ability to produce disabling or lethal wounds, allowing the hunter to capture the game.

The spear was in use for hunting 400,000 years ago, and its usage may go back millions of years (reference, spear). The spear gave the hunter the ability to kill large animals, at ranges as far as the hunter could throw the spear; the Roman pilum, for example, had a range of 30 meters (100 feet) (reference, pilum). The atlatl, a device for throwing a spear, extended that range even further by giving the hunter leverage to throw the spear faster and farther. The atlatl allowed a skilled user to throw a dart up to 100 meters (110 yards). Archaeological evidence of the atlatl has been found on all continents except for Antarctica. (reference, atlatl) The atlatl was displaced starting in the late Paleolithic with the easier to make and use bow and arrow, which remains in common use today in both sporting and hunting. With the advent of accurate, reliable firearms, firearms became the weapon of choice. (find stats on bow and firearm use in hunting) Each new evolution of hunting weapons extended the range and accuracy; a skilled hunter, with suitable equipment and good conditions, can take game at ranges of over 1000 yards (910 meters). (reference, Lilja)

New section:Usage and regulations

Hunting weapons are typically regulated by game category, area within the state, and time period. Regulations for big game hunting often specify a minimum caliber or muzzle energy for firearms. The use of rifles is often banned for safety reasons in areas with high population density, limited topographic relief, or for hunting on bodies of water where the danger of ricochet exists. Specific seasons for bow hunting or muzzle-loading black powder guns are often established to limit competition with hunters using more effective firearms. (find sources)

(remove non-relevant statistics)

Comments welcome--if there's no objection, I'll look for some references as needed and stick this in tomorrow. scot 19:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me.--LWF 19:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Article title and scope

SaltyBoatr has proposed a change in article title and scope, to hunting implement, and to cover any or all items used in hunting. Here are my thoughts on that.

Human beings are pretty useless when it comes to being a predator--we're slow, our teeth are a poor hybrid of plant and meat eater, and our fingernails are a joke, and our senses are dull. The only natural weapon that humans have are their brains. We don't use our teeth and nails, we use sharp stones and bits of metal; we don't rely on our speed to run down prey, we put it into projectiles that travel faster than any animal can run; we don't use our meager sense of smell to track prey, but rather use our intelligence to learn its behavior and anticipate its movement. Of all the forms of hunting I'm aware of, there is one constant, and that is a weapon (the one possible exception, noodling, I would classify as trapping, not hunting; sports such as falconry and fox hunting use trained animals as weapons). No one chooses to go out and run down a deer and rip its throat out with their teeth, they use a spear, or a bow, or a gun, or some other weapon that gives them extended range and killing ability. A weapon is the only constant--all other equipment is optional. Primitive tribes in the South American rain forests still hunt monkeys and other small game with nothing but a blowgun and a loincloth; American Indian tribes hunted with obsidian arrowheads sharper than any steel ever made, due to the ability to get a mono-molecular edge through lithic reduction.

While other equipment is common when hunting, there is no natural limit to what can be included; binoculars, maps, GPS systems, four-wheel drive vehicles, boats, GMRS radios, horses, camouflage, scent maskers, blaze orange markers, none of these are necessary for all forms of hunting. If you wanted to cover other items, they would best be documented on articles on specific types of hunting, where the scope is limited and the requirements are easier to document.

While you could also say that hunting weapons could also be documented in articles on specific types of hunting (and they should be mentioned there), the overall class of hunting weapons is also an important topic. Gun control advocates (at least in the US) are always saying "We don't want to take away your hunting weapons," so it is important to be able to enumerate what types of weapons are used in hunting. scot 14:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that using Wikipedia as a tool in the gun rights battle might be a bad thing? SaltyBoatr 16:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"Sporting weapon" is often considered pejorative, in that it is a term of art used by gun banners in deciding which weapons to ban. The phrase "hunting weapon", on the other hand, is generally never considered pejorative. "Hunting weapon" is also more factually correct here, in that it implies a weapon used for killing game; sporting weapons, even if not considered pejorative, is a much broader topic. Yaf 17:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing cause and effect, unless you have proof that politicians reference Wikipedia articles when drafting legislation. Politicians do, however, do things like claim the AR-15 has "no sporting purpose", which it clearly does--in its accurized variants it is a highly capable varmint rifle and it is used in many sporting competitions. Am I supposed to suppress mention of the sporting uses of some firearms because the truth might conflict with someone's political agenda? The political nature of the "sporting purpose" has nothing to do with the neutrality of the article, I mentioned it only to illustrate the importance of the topic. scot 16:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You evaded my question, I think. If the AR-15 has a sporting purpose, then so do hunting dogs, right? SaltyBoatr 17:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

To address this question: May I suggest that using Wikipedia as a tool in the gun rights battle might be a bad thing? You may suggest this, but I think you'll find that your logic may be flawed. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. A general encyclopedia is a comprehensive compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge. By substitution, what you are suggesting is using comprehensive information as a tool in the gun rights battle might be a bad thing. This statement I strongly disagree with.

As to the question If the AR-15 has a sporting purpose, then so do hunting dogs, right?, yes, hunting dogs have as sporting purpose. So do sailboats, and ping pong balls, and skis, and countless other items that belong to the category sports equipment. However, the scope of the article is not general sports equipment, rather it is the sub-category sporting_equipment/hunting/weapon. In the case of birds of prey and (I think, thought I'm not sure) fox hounds, the animals in question are hunting weapons, and should be included in the scope of this article--that they are not is merely a reflection of the fact that the article is still evolving and growing. scot 17:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

To restate. There is a disagreement whether 'weapon' when used for hunting is standard English. We could easily resolve this disagreement by calling the article title 'Hunting implement'. This could resolve the dispute easily. Why avoid this easy way to resolve the dispute? Is it because 'hunting dogs' are not used as hunting implements? I don't understand your logic in any other context than that you need this article to be tool in the gun rights battle. If I am wrong, please explain. SaltyBoatr 18:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is the mediator when you need him?--LWF 18:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Given this discussion, wisely in hiding :) scot 19:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll restate too: You said I see the COED definition #1, which you quote, to be consistent with the OED definition, and I accept them both. The COED definition 1 is a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage. So it appears to me that any weapon used for hunting is correctly described as a hunting weapon; I see no other interpretation of the phrase, nor do I see any other phrase which provides the same scope. The title hunting implement has a far, far broader scope, as it would cover, just as a random example, boots. Most hunters, I would expect, wear boots, as they are the logical footgear for outdoor activities over rough ground, and in variable weather conditions. However, boots are also used in many other activities--I'm wearing a pair right now, and I'm not hunting. As I have argued above, the weapon is the ONLY item I see as essential for hunting game animals for food or sport. This seems to be a natural level of scope for an article.

As for my alleged political agenda, forget I ever brought up the issue. I will stand on the article's merits as being a relatively clear, concise, and unambiguous classification. Why don't you provide a list of criteria for what you would see included in hunting implements and let's hash that out before we decide; I have no objection to hunting weapon, or weapons used in hunting being a sub-section of an article if you can provide an agreeable set of rules for inclusion. scot 19:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You evaded my question again. Please reread WP:DR, taking the other person's perspective into account is a key early step towards resolving disputes. SaltyBoatr 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be so helpful if you bothered to read the OED definition yourself. Summarizing it; I see it starts with the literal definitions, all related to combat and warfare. Then it covers the figurative, vulgar and trans formative types of definitions. It is these latter three types that are accommodated in the abbreviated 22 word short COED definition you favor. For instance, in the trans formative usages, for instance that a women's tears are her weapon, the COED definition 'a thing designed or used' makes perfect sense. But, not in the literal usage of combat or warfare. When you read both the OED and COED definitions together, this subtlety is clear. Yet you cannot or will not read the OED with the result being that the COED ambiguity serves as a tool for you to push your POV. SaltyBoatr 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I managed to track down access to this OED entry (I had a friend send me a 3-day link to the OED online entry for "weapon"). I will quote definition 1a here--excuse the format, it doesn't paste well, but it's enough to be understandable, I think:

weapon 1. a. An instrument of any kind used in warfare or in combat to attack and overcome an enemy. {alpha} Beowulf 1509 Swa he ne mihte no..wæpna {asg}ewealdan. Ibid. 1573 He..wæpen hafenade heard be hiltum. c930 O.E. Chron. an. 917, & a-hreddon eall {th}æt hie {asg}e-numen hæfdon, & eac hira horsa & hira wæpna micelne dæl. c1205 LAY. 6424 Morpidus..seouen hundred of-sloh and swemde mi{edh} wepnen. a1225 Ancr. R. 240 {Th}e {th}et his wepnen worpe{edh} awei, him luste beon iwunded. c1330 R. BRUNNE Chron. Wace (Rolls) 15518 When {th}ey were waxen on elde, Armes to bere, & wepne to welde. 1377 LANGL. P. Pl. B. III. 304 Alle {th}at bereth baslarde, brode swerde or launce, Axe other hachet or eny wepne ellis. c1386 CHAUCER Monk's T. 34 With-outen wepene saue his handes tweyne He slow and al torente the leon. 1415 HOCCLEVE To Sir J. Oldcastle 471 A clod Of eerthe, at your heedes to slynge or caste, Were wepne ynow. c1511 1st Eng. Bk. Amer. (Arb.) Introd. 28/1 There wepyns is lange pykes and stones ther they caste myghtly with. 1559 Mirr. Mag., Dk. Suffolk xxi, And sum with weapons would have layed on lode. 1610 SHAKES. Temp. II. i. 322 'Tis best we stand vpon our guard..: let's draw our weapons. 1614 RALEGH Hist. World V. iii. §21. 579 The Battels of foote..drew neere together..till they were almost within a weapons cast. 1636 MASSINGER Bashf. Lover I. ii, In a cause like this, The Husbandman would change his ploughing-irons To weapons of defence. 1697 DRYDEN Æneis v. 668 Fix'd in the Mast the feather'd Weapon stands. 1750 GRAY Long Story 39 They hid their armour And veil'd their weapons bright and keen. 1821 BYRON Sardan. II. i, My sword! O fool, I wear no sword: here, fellow, Give me thy weapon. 1859 DICKENS T. Two Cities I. v, Nothing was represented in a flourishing condition, save tools and weapons. 1870 EMERSON Soc. & Solit., Eloquence (end), The Arabian warrior of fame, who wore seventeen weapons in his belt. 1880 Encycl. Brit. XI. 278 The term ‘small arms’ includes sporting and military weapons carried by the shooter. 1902 A. S. HURD How Navy is run 81 There is a roar and a crash as the great 25-ton weapon speaks.

What I note in this is the reference to the 1880 Ecyclopedia Britannica, which states: The term ‘small arms’ includes sporting and military weapons carried by the shooter. So there we have the phrase sporting weapon, which provides precedent for using the term weapon for something used for attack in a non-combat sense. scot 22:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, after this argument drawing on far too long due to a failure to communicate, I truly appreciate your cooperation by actually looking at the OED definition. I had missed this nuance; the 1880 usage of 'sporting weapon'. This is fascinating how the meaning evolved at that point in time. It begs the question, just when did firearms first become used for sporting? I am guessing the answer is that sporting use occurred around 1870 or 1880. A similar question exists, when did hunting first become a sport? Probably about this same time. Now, the obvious neutral title for this article, instead of 'hunting implement', I now favor Sporting weapon, based on the User/scot attribution given just above. SaltyBoatr 18:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sporting use of firearms far pre-dates that, although organized firearms marksmanship doesn't pre-dated it by much (see Schützenfest, for example) as marksmanship and smoothbore firearms don't really mix well. Hunting for sport pre-dates firearms use by millenia. The early Pharaohs hunted using spears and bows, facilitated by chariots and dogs (see Pharaoh Hound, named for its resemblance to these ancient hunting dogs depicted in murals in pyramids). Likewise, hunting for sport and food were prevalent prior to 1880, as can be shown by the fact that hastily formed regiments in the Continetal Army and Confederate Army were armed with fowling pieces and squirrel rifles they brought from home.

The reason I restrict the term sporting weapon to hunting is that since the word weapon implies attack, I don't believe that the term weapon really applies to non-living targets; looking at the OED definition for attack I see:

• 1. a. To fasten or fall upon with force or arms; to join battle with, assail, assault. (The ordinary word to describe offensive military operations.) (1600)
• 1. b. absol. (a1755)
• 2. To set upon with hostile action or words, so as to overthrow, injure, or bring into disrepute. (1643)
• 3. To assail with temptations. (1673)
• 4. To enter upon a work of difficulty, with the intention of conquering or completing it. (1812)
• 5. Of disease: To seize upon, begin to affect. (1677)
• 6. Of physical agents: To begin to act upon destructively, to begin to destroy, devour, waste, decompose, or dissolve. (1842)
• 7. Mus. intr. and trans. (See quot. and cf. ATTACK n. 7.) (1835)

Definition 1 goes directly to the military definition, which we've agreed is not applicable in this case. Definition 2 is clearly applicable to hunting, as the intent is to injure the game animal, sufficiently to cause a quick death. Definitions 3, 5, and 7 are not relevant, which leaves us with 4, "To enter upon a work of difficulty" and 6, "To begin to act upon destructively, to begin to destroy, devour, waste, decompose, or dissolve". I think 4 can be rejected, because in target shooting the target is not "a work". Definition 6 is trickier, because shooting obviously damages the target. However, as the purpose of a target is to be shot, that damage doesn't prevent it from fulfilling its purpose, in the same way that you don't say your car "destroys" gasoline, because in the process of burning the gasoline it fulfills its purpose. Now using a firearm for vandalism, such as the popular but illegal practice of shooting holes in rural stop signs, is destructive, and can be considered an attack, but as it is a criminal act, I argue that it is not considered "sporting".

Therefore my suggestion is that since "sporting arm" is an accepted term, quoted by the OED, and since the only "sporting" purpose for which the term "weapon" is appropriate is hunting, the term "hunting weapon" is a clear and unambiguous function equivalent of "sporting weapon". scot 14:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, after a reading twice, I just don't follow your convoluted logic. Also, I am not aware of what you claim 'we've agreed'. To help me understand you, could you restate your point concisely? SaltyBoatr 15:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As for what we've agreed to, we've agreed that hunting is not combat, as per your statement in the first paragraph of the talk page, where you state Therefore a firearm used in hunting is not a 'weapon'. No combat and not warfare is involved. I agree with the part about combat and warefare not being involved in hunting, and thus definition 1a of attack, dealing with combat, is not relevant to the discussion related to hunting. My argument, in simple steps, is:

1. Sporting weapon is used by the OED definition 1 of weapon.
2. COED definition 1 of hunting is pursue and kill (a wild animal) for sport or food
3. From step 2, hunting encompasses all sports whose intent is to injure or kill an animal
4. OED definition 1 of weapon as ...An instrument of any kind used ...to attack and overcome... (emphasis my own)
5. OED definition 2 of attack, To set upon with hostile action or words, so as to overthrow, injure, or bring into disrepute, is applicable to weapon use in the sport of hunting (emphasis my own)
6. OED definitions 3-7 of attack involve destroying the target of the attack
7. A target used in a marksmanship competition is not destroyed by use, for the same reason that an automobile is not said to destroy gasoline, therefore defintion 2 of attack is the definition applicable to hunting
8. Break down sporting into hunting and other sporting in sporting weapons by steps 1 and 2 to get the sets hunting weapons and other sporting weapons
9. Since we have defined the phrase other sporting weapons to exclude uses involving attacking a live target, the result is that other sporting weapons is the set of weapons which are not used to attack
10. Since by step 7 the verb attack does not apply to the use on non-living targets, the set of weapons which are not used to attack is self contradictory and therefore empty
11. Therefore set sporting weapons contains only the elements of the set hunting weapons, and sporting weapon can correctly be replaced by hunting weapon, provide greater clarity by excluding only impossible combinations

scot 16:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your logic loses credibility at step 2, when you arbitrarily jump to the COED. Per the OED, 'to hunt' means "To go in pursuit of wild animals or game; to engage in the chase. Also of animals: To pursue their prey.". What is the reason for your fixation on killing? SaltyBoatr 21:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Since when does logic require a single source for all information? If you want to be picky, you should NEVER use a single source, but rather several independent sources, so as to avoid bias. Assuming we come to a mutually acceptable source for step 2, do you have any other issues with the logic?

And as to the common use of to hunt, I do not claime that all definitions of to hunt involve killing; hunting for an escaped convict or hunting for my car keys for example do not. But, in the context of game animals, such as hunting license, a goal of killing is certainly implied; for example, This license is not required for those who run or chase furbearers with dogs but do not take. My conduit to the OED is not available right now, but in the meantime might I suggest looking at the definitions for game animal and prey and see if killing is implied in those definitions? If it is, then the OED definition quoted would carry that same implication. scot 21:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You logic appears tenuous and contrived, for what purpose? Why go through such convoluted 'logical' steps simply to avoid using 'sporting weapon' as the title? SaltyBoatr

Well of COURSE it's contrived; you don't just start with some random axioms and wander about applying random rules and expect a useful theorum to result, you start with a set of appropriate axioms and a desired result and apply the rules needed to get there. Two valued logic cannot be tenuous--if the axioms and steps applied are all correct, then the result is correct; there is no "maybe" in classical logic, it's all true or false. Either my proof is correct, or it is not.

Let's try a different approach. We're currently discussing two article titles, "sporting weapon" and "hunting weapon". Let's approach this from the angle of notability--which of these phrases is the most notable? A Google search for "hunting weapon" yields 30,000 hits, and a search for "sporting weapon" yields 3,530 hits. This gives a result 88% in favor of "hunting weapon". I'm sure you'll immediately call this "original research", as you did before, and yes, it is, but it's not going to be cited in the article and therefore that is not relevant. For establishing notability of a proposed title, a Google search is an accepted test. Since both terms exist, they should both be in Wikipedia, but the most common term should be used for the article title, and the others should be redirects. scot 14:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering that all hunting weapons are sporting weapons, but not vice versa. Then Sporting weapons would be the more versatile title. SaltyBoatr 15:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please consider that the intent of the article is to cover hunting weapons, not sporting weapons. Sporting weapons would be a good article, but at this point I think it would be better to start a new article for sporting weapons, rather than moving this article to that title.--LWF 15:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Whose intent? See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. SaltyBoatr 16:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The intent of the article as it currently stands. scot 16:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

An article, being inanimate, cannot have intent. SaltyBoatr 20:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I still view that 'Hunting weapon' is non-standard English. I accept that 'Sporting weapon' is standard English since about 1880. A change in the title could easily fix this problem. The best way to resolve disputes is to avoid them. Why avoid this easy solution? SaltyBoatr 17:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What would it take to demonstrate to your satisfaction that "hunting weapon" is standard English, short of it appearing in the OED? You cannot find a source that says "Hunting weapon is not standard English", or I would assume you would have used it. Likewise, I can't find a source that says "Hunting weapon is standard English". I can, however, find credible uses of the term from present to over a century ago.

• From before, a credible media source:
  • A BBC Science & Nature article on Neanderthals, using the term "hunting weapon"
• From before, a credible government source:
  • A New Zealand statue using the term "hunting weapon"
• The seminal book of hunting archery:
  • Saxton Pope, in his 1923 book Hunting with the Bow and Arrow, refers to "hunting bow" "hunting arrow", "hunting head", and how these are different from a "target bow", etc., and also uses "hunting weapon" as in But if you are to get the best results for the hunting field, I believe it should approximate in weight the hunting weapon.
• Two other works, not hunting related:
  • Maspero, Gaston Camille Charles, 1846-1916 History Of Egypt, Chaldæa, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria, Volume 1 (of 12) a fighting or hunting weapon; published by Oxford University
  • Macé, Jean, 1815-1894 The History of a Mouthful of Bread And its effect on the organization of men and animals, translated into English in 1864, the chameleon...his tongue serves him for a hunting weapon,

The way I see it, all that is required to disprove the assertion that "hunting weapon" is not standard English is to show credible use of the term, and I think I've managed to provide that, from current usage to usage well over a century ago, and including an Oxford University publication. I don't know what else I can do to prove that to you, short of getting "hunting weapon" used in the OED 3rd Ed. As for "sporting weapon", what sort of activity uses something as a weapon, and is considered a sport, but is not considered hunting? Trapping might qualify for "weapon", but not "sporting", likewise marksmanship qualifies for "sporting" but not "weapon". While it is possible, for example, to use the same firearm for both hunting and target shooting, the intended use will, if nothing else, influence factors like ammunition selection (expanding vs. full metal jacket, bullet weight, velocity) and setup (maximum point blank range zero vs. fixed range zero, use of a sling, magazine capacity). scot 19:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Marksmanship is I think a better term for that, since it eliminates the connotations of the word "weapon". An airsoft gun, for example, can be used for target shooting (and the only thing you can use for IPSC in Japan and the UK) and they are certainly not weapons. Currently Marksmanship redirects to the article Shooting, which is in need of work. One definition of "marksman" reads "a person who is skilled in shooting at a mark" dating back to the 1640s, and I think that definition would cover all sorts of target sports, from archery to hatchet throwing to all firearms shooting sports. It misses out on distance sports, such as javelin, discus and hammer throw, but those are already covered under Athletics (track and field). I think working over the shooting page and making it into a decent page on general marksmanship would cover everything else. scot 16:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You ignored my question, Why avoid the easy solution? SaltyBoatr 20:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

For the same reason you avoid the even easier solution to keep it titled "hunting weapon"--because I believe it is not the best solution. scot 20:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, your reason is not my reason. Again, the easiest way to resolve a dispute is to avoid a dispute. I offered a simple compromise. You reject it, saying 'I believe it is not the best', but you give no reason. Please, let us find a compromise. SaltyBoatr 20:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

References

While wandering through on unrelated business...

...I stopped to view the carnage. After soaking it all up, my mind distilled it down to this:

• Who gives a damn about the OED (any edition)? Several sources were given showing the term in common use. The OED doesn't appear contradict it. Just doesn't confirm it. Soooo... in this case, toss it out.
• "An article, being inanimate, cannot have intent." -SaltyBoatr What? I rolled my eyes at that one. Come on! You knew what he meant. Knock it off.

I don't think you guys realize how silly the whole thing sounds from the outside. Splitting hairs, then splitting them again. And then... splitting them... again! Pfff. I fully expected someone to soon say "That depend on what the word 'the' means."

Hey, I'm obviously not inside the mind of this discussion. But for my part, as an outside observer just contributing to a concensus, Hunting weapon is a fine title. Better than Hunting implement. Better than Sporting weapon. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Arthurrh 03:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Weapon?

Is it really an appropriate term for an object used for hunting. A weapon is an object used for harming human beings right, not for hunting game, anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldfishsoldier (talk • contribs) 04:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is an appropriate term for an object used for hunting. It is also the standard terminology used in hunting regulations worldwide. Yaf (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)