TexasCHLforum.com

All of this nonsense stems from the fact that some folks believe they can end violence by making possession of certain objects they regard as weapons illegal. The logic is that if the objects used to inflict injuries are not available, those injuries will not be inflicted. Hence, we should be able to make lists of "good" objects and "bad objects", ban the bad objects, and the world will become a peaceful and happy place.

This entire line of reasoning rests on the baseless assumption that a distinction can be made between objects that are and are not weapons. It also leads to further silliness like attempting to define at what point a non-weapon becomes a weapon after all due to a change in size, appearance, or accessories.

When I teach seminars on surviving active shooters or other violent incidents, I use a Powerpoint slide that shows a rifle, a revolver, a can opener, a poodle leash, a bathroom scale, and a Listerine bottle. I then ask the participants to tell me how many weapons are depicted. Most civilians go for 2 (rifle and revolver), and most law enforcement officers go for 6. My answer is: it depends. I have personally investigated homicides where each of those objects was the instrument of death. However, all clearly also have other uses, and 4 of them are not generally regarded as weapons even though they were quite effective in causing a person's death in some instances.

Objects by their nature are neither weapons nor non-weapons - they are neutral, although some are more suitable than others for use as weapons. My point is that virtually any object can be used to inflict injury or cause death to a living creature. When used for this purpose the object becomes a weapon in that context. In any other context it is a tool or simply an object.

The factor which determines whether or not an object is a weapon in any given circumstance and whether that use is beneficial or harmful is the intent of the user. No legislative action will ever change that.