Fellow gunners, stop using euphemisms to talk about guns and self-defense.

[GreenStormCloud]

When we us soft language to talk about guns, concealed carry, self-defense, and similar topics, we concede important territory to the gun-banners. By using soft words and phrases to soft-petal them we are agreeing with the gun-banners that there is something shameful about them, not fit for polite discussion.

A gun is a gun. Yes, it is a tool. Just as a screwdriver is designed to drive screws of different types, but can be used for many other tasks, a gun, although also capable of being used for many other tasks, has a basic task it is intended for. Their basic function is to kill, easily and from a distance. We need to embrace and own that truth. Killing isn't always evil. Showing the ability to kill is usually enough to make an attacker turn tail and run. A gun gives an elderly woman power to put a young male thug to flight, or to the hospital, or the morgue. All other weapons would require here to match her strength to that of the young male thug. Of course it makes killing an animal much easier and surer also.

Possessing such power is a serious responsibility. Such a tool must be handled carefully, just as many other dangerous tools be handled carefully. That tool has a generic name - gun. Rifle, shotgun, handgun, etc for various sub-types, but they are guns.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

1. You say, "Their basic function is to kill, ..." On this we disagree. The basic function is to deter

unwanted criminal activity.

When the criminally minded are uncertain as to whether homeowners own firearms, the more cautious ones who have an interest in self-preservation are inherently going to choose criminal activities which do not involve the risk of facing a homeowner with a firearm.

There are many other criminal activities that they can choose. Many do so.

Most of the millions of Democrats who own firearms never shoot their guns to kill. Statistically, about one out of three households with Democratic voters own firearms. A great many of them have owned firearms for years without ever firing them. They certainly do not own such firearms to kill people.



A Gallup poll shows that many Democrats own firearms for protection. There is nothing to indicate that they own such firearms to kill people. http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx

A more recent poll conducted by the Pew Research group confirms this:


http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/why-own-a-gun-protection-is-now-top-reason/

[GreenStormCloud]

4. They gun owner achieves that deterrence...

...by presenting the criminal with a genuine threat of immediate death. It the threat was not real, the criminal would ignore it.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

14. In a neighborhood where one out of three households has a firearm (and maybe 1 out of 500 has any

time at a range or other experience), the uncertainty as to whether a criminally-minded person will encounter a homeowner with a firearm deters some criminally-minded from being home invaders.

Most homeowners never present a criminal with a genuine threat of death. Most never will.

For the criminal types that choose to be burglars or escalate their actions so that they become home invaders, how many actually encounter any homeowner whoever that has ever presented them with a genuine threat of death?

Whatever the number, it has to be extraordinarily small.

Why, if you ever encountered a criminal who intended to do harm to you in your home would you present "the criminal with a genuine threat of immediate death"? Do you want to risk being unable to hit a moving target, a dangerous moving target? If they are armed, do you want to risk a cowboy-type shoot-out? One person who had a cowboy-type shoot-out, Wyatt Earp, learned from his experience and in subsequent shootings never had an additional OK coral shoot-out.

Presenting one or more home-invaders with a genuine threat of immediate death? Show and intimidate them a firearm? No thank you.

[Starboard Tack]

61. You completely miss the point of the OP

You may well use your gun to deter, but that does not change the purpose of the gun, nor the manufacturer's intent and design, which is to kill, if and when the user desires. If you brandish your gun with the sole intent of deterring a would be attacker, then you are fooling yourself and would be better off not having one in such circumstances. You might as well have a toy gun.

[rdharma]

7. Do you mean "brandish and intimidate"?

You really can't quantify how many "non-existent" threats you "scared away"....... can you?

[rdharma]

2. There be dragons there.........

.......... and you need a weapon to slay those demons that exist in your paranoid brain!

Careful not to shoot any family members going to the bathroom at night, or the paper boy, or the door to door salesman, or Jehovahs witnesses or YOURSELF (by accident or otherwise)!

[GreenStormCloud]

5. Such accidents are extremely rare.

The chances of me getting stuck by lightning are greater than any of the disasters you envisage.

[rdharma]

8. Then you are an EXCEPTIONAL gun owner!

As all gun enthusiasts like to think of themselves!

[gejohnston]

11. or he and I are typical

and you might want to pick better hunting buds than Cheney.

[rdharma]

15. That response is laughable at so many levels! nt

[lastlib]

62. ...and let me add:

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .


The OPer sounds like he wouldn't pass a background check on insanity grounds.

[samsingh]

35. gun lovers cherry pick stats or make them up

if guns made people safer wouldn't the US be the safest country in the world?

[gejohnston]

36. and gun haters don't?

Well, we are safer than many countries.

[Bazinga]

46. And if guns made people less safe,

wouldn't we be the most dangerous country in the world?

[rdharma]

50. I think we're #1 on the list of 1st world countries in firearms deaths.

Does that count?

[Bazinga]

58. If you're only concerned with dying from a GSW.

We're also 103rd in murder rate based on my limited Google-fu.

I know, I know. Confounding factors, right?

Well... my point exactly.

[samsingh]

63. i think parts of the us r amon the most dangerous

[Bazinga]

65. Yeah, the parts with the fewest guns! n/t

[AnotherMcIntosh]

40. At a minimum, isn't it odd for anyone to think that paper boys and door-to-door salesmen still exist

[gejohnston]

3. what euphemisms?

I haven't seen anyone use "servicing the target" to describe a shooting.

[GreenStormCloud]

6. "Personal protective devise" for gun. N/T

[rdharma]

9. WHat are you "protecting " yourself from? nt

[TheFutureWillCome]

53. criminals

looking to harm you for personal gain.

[rdharma]

56. Real or imaginary?

[TheFutureWillCome]

59. UM

real, unless all this crime being reported constantly is imaginary of course.

[gejohnston]

10. I thought of that as a generic term

to describe a pistol or the Kimber Pepperblaster. I guess SD weapon would be a better choice.
Of course the term could also be referring to non weapons, but I'll leave that between him and his SO.

[ileus]

21. My wife gave me her peperblaster when she upgraded to a 642.

I carry the plastic Kimber often now, nice little device.

This is my Kimber this is my gun
This one's for squirting this one's for....shit I'm confused now.

[Jenoch]

38. 'Devise'? Where are you located?

I have not seen widespread use of 'euphemisms' used in place of a reference to guns or weapons on RKBA threads on DU. Do you have any links to such instances?

[petronius]

12. I disagree that "their basic function is to kill" - I think you're blurring

function with application (a purpose chosen by the user).

The function of a screwdriver is to transfer rotation, not to build a skateboard ramp. The latter may be one purpose to which the function is applied, but a screwdriver can also be used to take apart a cabinet, adjust a bicycle, or tighten a hinge. All of those are purposes to which the function can be applied, but none of them are the basic purpose of the tool.

Likewise, the basic purpose of a firearm is to propel a projectile; the purpose of that function can be many things. Historically, the firearm function has been desired and developed to increase the effectiveness of the killing (human or animal) application, but that application is no more the basic function (or even purpose) of a firearm than ramp-building is the basic function of a screwdriver.

I agree with you about accurate and non-euphemistic language in general, but 'guns are mainly/only for killing' is also a misleading rhetorical device - one that is favored by critics of private firearms ownership...

[rdharma]

23. Better than a screwdriver to defend against non-existent "bogeymen", eh?!!!!

[rdharma]

17. Sorry! Not intimidating........

Did you used to put "kick me" tags on your back as a kid?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

18. Sometimes violence is the answer.

Even this guy, a Quaker, knew that:

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. Ever heard of the Free Quakers?

http://www.ushistory.org/tour/free-quaker-meeting-house.htm

[rdharma]

24. And WHAT does that have to do with paranoid gun huggers today?

What a stretch! Hope you didn't overextend yourself!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. My apologies but...

...apparently my previous non-response to you was a bit too oblique.

I'm ignoring you.

[rdharma]

31. You're ignoring me.

Yup! That's apparent by your RESPONSE!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

26. Yes.

Thanks for the link.

After the Revolutionary War, as you may already know, some Friends had to make choices between their principle of avoiding conflict and their principle of opposing slavery. One choice meant banishment, and some chose that. Others had to let their family members and friends go while they remained true to their pacifism and helped with the underground railroad.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

27. You're welcome...

...That schism is considered to have precipitated the acquaintance of GW with Betsy Ross as her first husband, John Ross, attend the same church as Washington. BTW, did you know that John and Betsy eloped?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

30. Eloped?

That must have caused a lot of stress for her and her family. Eloped, of course, generally meant that a Quaker involved in the marriage would lose the support of their family.

From your knowledge, can I assume that you are Friend or a descendant of Friends? As kind and as intelligent as the Friends could be, they could also be unnecessarily strick even to the point of being cruel. One of my ancestors had the experience of being shunned because, when his wife died, he left a stone to mark her grave.

[NYC_SKP]

32. Can't believe a jury voted to hide your t-shirt post.

Weak.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

34. Agreed. I can't either.

[MotherPetrie]

16. But cuddling guns is what you DO

[ileus]

19. My SD firearms are personal protection devices.

Just like the PPE's I wear at work each day, my EDC and HD firearms are for the protection of my person, family, and home. No one can argue with the point that my self defense firearms are for saving the lives of my family and I, if the need should ever arise.

I never said they won't kill, only that they aren't designed to kill, they're designed as defense devices for you personal defense.

It would only be killing if misused and the end user was found guilty in a court of law. The true use of a self defense firearm is the antithesis of the "guns kill people" crowd.

Of course viewpoints may be correct one sees the single blade of the sights first.

[enough]

22. Interesting, GreenStormCloud, we seem to be coming around full circle to my

basic objection to the proliferation of guns. They allow weak and cowardly people to kill others at will. They give a massive power of life and death to the weak and cowardly.

I am no doubt permanently affected by having experienced the life-long devastation of a family that resulted from a cowardly asshole walking into a nice quiet peaceful public place and killing several people at will. This cowardly asshole would not have been able to kill or even injure these people if not for the gun, as he was a dysfunctional, unfocused, physically weak, mentally chaotic individual.

The gun alone gave him to power of life and death over all these people. The power, the basic function as you say, to kill. He had that the power to "kill, easily and from a distance," because and only because, he had the gun.

[GreenStormCloud]

44. Is a small elderly woman a coward for using a gun against...

...a young male thug? She is certainly weak as that will happen to all of us as we reach our older years. Is it morally wrong to be old and weak? You seem to think that physical weakness is some kind of sin.

My wife is alive because her would-be attacker (I have posted the details many times) discovered that the little old lady that he was about to mug had the ability to kill him with a flick of her finger. He turned and ran away. She would definately not have been able to fight him muscle against muscle.

While I understand your grief at your loss, please remember that there are people, lots of them, that have used guns to save themselves from violent criminal attack.

[geckosfeet]

28. Who exactly do you think you are fooling.

Certainly no one who carries a concealed weapon.

This, imho, is a big load of horse hockey.

[Just Saying]

29. I've heard the assertion that guns deter crime

and as someone up thread pointed out, it's hard to know what threats you may have deterred as they didn't happen, but isn't it also possible that the known presence of firearms would make it more likely that any criminal targeting that area would be more likely to arm themselves as well?

And as far as deterring, a wise person once told me that a gun is worthless unless your actually willing to use it. (IE The only deterrent is your willingness to shot an intruder, robber, attacker, etc.)

All of this is speculation of course just as it's speculation that heavy gun presence have deterred robberies that didn't occur.

Are there statistics (NOT from the NRA) that show that ratio of guns in a state/city/neighborhood reduce violent crime? I live in a nice suburb and have no idea who has guns, but the police are around often and a lot of people have security systems-crime is low. However, in the city, there seems to be tons of guns and they are used regularly for murder, assault, robbery and rape.

[gejohnston]

33. hard to tell

and as someone up thread pointed out, it's hard to know what threats you may have deterred as they didn't happen, but isn't it also possible that the known presence of firearms would make it more likely that any criminal targeting that area would be more likely to arm themselves as well?

If a criminal changing their mind when having a gun or some other weapon aimed at them could be described as deterring, perhaps. It's really unknowable. It is reasonable to assume that any predator will go for the easiest target. That doesn't always have to mean people being armed, it could be better physical security. Criminologists Robert Rossi and James Wright interviewed various prison inmates. The consensus was that the reason you would break into an occupied home would be poor casing skills, suicidal, or there for more than just stuff. The important thing is the the gun should be the last line of defense, not the first or only. Self defense instructor Massad Ayoob uses the term "in the gravest extreme", which means only when avoidance, deterrence and deescalation fails and there is no other choice.

And as far as deterring, a wise person once told me that a gun is worthless unless your actually willing to use it. (IE The only deterrent is your willingness to shot an intruder, robber, attacker, etc.)

very wise indeed, perhaps worse than worthless.

Are there statistics (NOT from the NRA) that show that ratio of guns in a state/city/neighborhood reduce violent crime? I live in a nice suburb and have no idea who has guns, but the police are around often and a lot of people have security systems-crime is low. However, in the city, there seems to be tons of guns and they are used regularly for murder, assault, robbery and rape.

There might be a correlation, or there might not be. Even if there were, it would not show cause and effect. It would be the same logical fallacy that gun control advocates do when they mention UK or Japan. I cringe when Ted Nugent does it as much as I do when Piers Morgan does it. It isn't how many guns, it is who has the guns. Florida's gun ownership rate is about the same as France's and lower than Norway's. Of course, the laws are different but so are a lot of other things. Many of those other things have a greater impact than guns.

[Just Saying]

52. Thanks for the honest

No bullshit response.

If only we could have real debate about this issue!

What are your thoughts on reducing gun violence? Do you think our current system is flawed? What do you think would help keep guns from criminals?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

41. If the alternative was better, bank guards would not carry sidearms.

[Just Saying]

49. Well lets be honest

There are reasons to have guns.

I just don't necessarily buy into the virtually unprovable premise that more guns have deterred crimes in the home. I mean where is the statistical evidence that more homes with guns equals less violent crime?

[GreenStormCloud]

45. The question is in who has the guns.

Legally owned guns are rarely misused. There are some extremely solid statistics on concealed carry in Texas. The Dept. of Public Safety keeps a record of all the convictions of people who have Concealed Handgun Licenses. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm You may wish to notice that in 2011, out of 518,625 active CHLs there were six (6) convictions for murder/manslaughter versus 578 for the general public. The armed public's rate is far lower than the general public's rate.

There previous year there was only one (1) CHLer who murdered, and the year before that there were none., so 2011 was an anomoly.

However, the Texas LEGALLY armed public justifiably killed 50 felons in that same year. That number has been running fairly constant.

So you can see that there are many times more felons getting killed by LEGALLY armed citizens than there are innocent people getting killed. Therefore, LEGALLY owned guns are saving innocent lives.

The vast majority of murders are committed by people who already have records as violent criminals, and who are already forbidden to own weapons.

In talking about guns it is important to distinguish between people who legally own guns and those who do so illegally.

[Just Saying]

51. Ok that PDF only compares concealed carry with general populace on crime,

Where is your other info coming from? Where is info that the legally armed killed 50 felons? I have no idea how you got to this conclusion.

So you can see that there are many times more felons getting killed by LEGALLY armed citizens this there are innocent people getting killed.

The number you used is 50 felons killed and you must know the murder rate of innocents is far higher. I'm confused.

Please show me something to back up your assertions. I find in gun debates that the "pro" side states lots of things as fact but there's nothing to show it. Yes, I looked at the table you posted but that seems to be one very specific sect of people. The other column wasn't criminals but anyone in general not having a concealed carry.

I don't know the stats but I know legal guns are used in crime also. (The guns used at Newtown were all legal.)

Also if its true that the vast majority of murders are committed by those who should not have guns, (proof?) what's the plan to try to keep guns from violent criminals? You do understand that our current laws give them a huge hole to go thru to acquire them?

Illegal guns must come thru legal means at some point unless there are little pink fairies making them for criminals.

[GreenStormCloud]

54. Sorry. Forgot to include the link for the 50.

The new number, for the new year, is 33 felons killed by private citizens. http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/11/citCh3.pdf page 13. You can look at the number for each year, chapter 3: http://www.dps.texas.gov/administration/crime_records/pages/crimestatistics.htm

It is rare for a legal gun to be used in a crime. Please note that rare does not mean never.

Stolen guns are the primary source of criminal guns. Gun are very durable items so a gun stolen 20 years ago is highly likely to still be functional.

I have some errands to run. I will be back later. Thank you for being polite. I will strive to answer your questions.

[sarisataka]

37. Damned if you do, damned if you don't

If you use 'hard' terms e.g. weapon, lethal force... you are a gun-humping Rambo wannabe who is itching to kill and is probably a bigot

If you use softer terms, you are deflecting, being dishonest and spouting NRA talking points (although to some, saying "it looks like rain today" is an NRA talking point)
and there is still a good chance you are a gun-humping Rambo wannabe who is itching to kill and is probably a bigot

I agree, killing is not always evil, though it is never trivial.

[Eleanors38]

39. I believe that'ssss...NRA TalkingPoint™No. 32611. Yes.

[GreenStormCloud]

48. Yes.

And because killing is never trivial, we should avoid softer terms when talking about deadly weapons.

[Eleanors38]

42. I think the the controller/banners use "only purpose is to kill" as

as a general-purpose, self-rising stigma, it is true. They have little tolerance for critical thought on the varied purposes of firearms, and brook little tolerance for those not buying into their views. But I dutifully correct them when they utter the above paraphrase in quotes.

I think Green is correct in acknowledging that not all killing is evil. Self-defense is not just a human right, it is an obligation recognized by most people, including Gandhi. That self-defense sometimes results in killing is not an argument against that right, nor a reason to outlaw it or through subterfuge regulate that basic right into a meaningless gesture of vulgar pacifism.

Even the gun by my bed, made and marketed as a powerful Police Service weapon, is designed as a short-range self-defense handgun capable of "stopping" a determined attacker, though there is a good chance the attacker may die. If killing was the main reason, that could be accomplished by firing a round filled with concentrated toxin; trouble is, an attacker may follow through with a deadly attack on me since the purpose of the weapon has been altered from that if "stopping" power to that of "killing" power, another thing altogether.

[GreenStormCloud]

47. You are correct.

Stopping vs. killing is some legal hair-splitting, but it is an important legal hair that gets split.

[spin]

43. The object should not be to kill your attacker but to stop his attack. ...

In many, if not most, defensive gun uses the fact that the victim is armed is enough to deter the criminal. In some cases shots are fired and miss but convince the attacker to flee. In others the attacker is injured and sometimes he ends up dead. Much depends of the caliber of the firearm, the power of the round, the design of the bullet, shot placement and to a certain degree fate.

The chances are higher that the attacker will die if he is shot in center body mass by a 4" .357 magnum revolver using a 125 grain hollow point bullet than if he is hit by a full metal jacketed round fired from a .380 auto.

Of course at close range a round from a 12 gauge shotgun using 00 buck is extremely lethal.

If I ever have to shoot a firearm for legitimate self defense, I hope that I will be able to hit my attacker and not injure other innocent people. If I successfully stop his attack I will immediately call 911 and hope that assistance arrives in time to save his life.

I hope and pray that I never find my self in such a situation.

[kudzu22]

55. A point I've made myself many times

Face facts -- nobody invented a remote paper punching device. A gun is for killing, period. That is its reason for being invented. That we choose not to use them for that purpose is testament to how rarely the need to kill arises in our society.

Second point -- if you want to argue that your pistol is a not a weapon, then it isn't constitutionally protected, either. The second amendment protects the right to keep and bear ARMS, not sporting goods.

[jimmy the one]

57. who legally owns guns

gsc: .. in 2011, out of 518,625 active CHLs there were six convictions for murder/manslaughter versus 578 for the general public. However, the Texas LEGALLY armed public justifiably killed 50 felons in {2011}.

The latter figure of 50 'felons' killed also includes a few homicides rated as justifiables since there was 'no body' to contest it & the shooters got the benny of the doubts.
Note also (to be used later) gsc's link .. reported number of murders committed inTexas 2011 was 1,089, vs 578 gsc cites as homicide convictions for 2011 (isn't directly connected to 2011 of course, previous years conv's apply).

gsc: So you can see that there are many times more felons getting killed by LEGALLY armed citizens than there are innocent people getting killed. Therefore, LEGALLY owned guns are saving innocent lives.

Misleading & untrue, since the 50 justifiable killings did not all prevent the shooter's deaths, only a fraction about 25% perhaps, most other justifiable killings were done during a robbery or aggr asslt or burg etc; further, the 50 'felons' who were justifiably killed by 'legal guns', were not all felons at the time of their deaths - some were law abiding citizens up to the moment of their deaths, & applying 'felon' to them all is misleading.

gsc: The vast majority of murders are committed by people who already have records as violent criminals, and who are already forbidden to own weapons.

This is not true at all, & is offset by the nra backed fopa1986 law which prohibits gunowners from losing their alleged 'gun rights' unless there is a conviction for a prior violent felony (aggrasslt, robb, murder, rape, arson).
FBI data run of murder arrestees nationally over a four year period in the 1960s found 74.7% to have had prior arrests for violent felony or burglary. In one study, Bureau of Criminal Statistics found that 76.7% of murder arrestees had criminal histories as did 78% of defendants in murder prosecutions nationally. In another FBI data run of murder arrestees over one year period, 77.9% had prior criminal records Guncite note: 50.1% had prior convictions (Kleck and Bordua ). http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html

Note the end, only 50% had prior convictions, which is the top end determinant in denying future 'gun rights'.
.. Just having a prior criminal record does not necessarily mean one is disallowed from gun ownership or gun rights (fopa86). There must be a conviction for a violent felony. Burglary, larceny, auto theft are property crime felonies, & perjury (amongst others) is a white collar felony, which do not necessarily mean loss of gun rights even with convictions - & moreover gun rights can be restored, again per fopa86, for plea bargaining down or dismissals or after time for a nonviolent felony conviction. Only a conviction for a violent felony denies future 'gun rights'.
Gun guru volokh 1998 supports the previous 1960s (dated) data, even tho it's only a partial record (same link):

Volokh - prior arrest data for homicide offenders from: Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 1998:
81% of all homicide defendants have at least one arrest on their record. does not deny gun rights in itself.
66% have two or more arrests. does not deny gun rights in itself (need conviction)
67% have at least one felony arrest. does not deny gun rights in itself
56% have two or more felony arrests. does not deny gun rights in itself, unless conviction
70% have at least one conviction. includes propcrime & whitecollar crime.
54% have at least one felony conviction. includes propcrime & whitecollar crime.

Thus 54% is top end of possible murderers who'd've been previously disallowed firearms, & the true number likely closer to half this or 25%, when you dismiss convictions for property crimes (burglary, larceny) & white collar crimes. Recall my above note that in 2011 there were 1089 Texans murdered while only 578 convictions for murder. This demonstrates the point, there were only half convictions compared with total murders, meaning the other arrested half still have 'gun right's - if they're not still in jail.

gsc: .. it is important to distinguish between people who legally own guns and those who do so illegally

[Starboard Tack]

60. +1. I applaud you for your honesty.

You and I may not see eye to eye on everything, but I consider you an honest man. You don't use bullshit euphemisms like so many, pretending that a gun is something other than what it was designed for, which is to kill.
There are few exceptions to that rule, such as flare guns, nail guns, water pistols, toy guns and starting pistols.
The only one I know of that can legitimately be called a "safety device" is a flare gun. I have 2 of them.

[jimmy the one]

64. tools of destruction

gsc: A gun is a gun. Yes, it is a tool. Their basic function is to kill, easily and from a distance. We need to embrace and own that truth .. That tool has a generic name - gun. Rifle, shotgun, handgun, etc for various sub-types, but they are guns.

Webster's 1828 dicionary agrees with you for the most part, & only differs on a hairsplit.
Does it really matter what modern interpretation of 'tool' is? It's what madison & FF intended in 1791 bill of rights, did they intend a firearm as a tool? read on:

n. Websters 1828 dictionary: Tool, n. [In old Law Latin, we find attile, attilia, stores, tools, implements.] 1. An instrument of manual operation, particularly such as are used by farmers and mechanics; as the tools of a joiner, cabinet maker, smith or shoemaker. 2. A person used as an instrument by another person; a word of reproach. Men of intrigue always have their tools, by whose agency they accomplish their purposes. TOOL, v.t. To shape with a tool
-- Webster's 1828: In'strument n. [L. instrumentum, from instruo, to prepare; that which is prepared.] 1. A tool; that by which work is performed or any thing is effected; as a knife, a hammer, a saw, a plow, &c. Swords, muskets and cannon are instruments of destruction. A telescope is an astronomical instrument. http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,instrument

Ergo, webster in 1828 thought a firearm was a tool of destruction, synonymous with an instrument of destruction.
He splits hairs with you on this one, tho of little consequence imo: GUN, n. An instrument consisting of a barrel or tube of iron or other metal fixed in a stock, from which balls, shot or other deadly weapons are discharged by the explosion of gunpowder. The larger species of guns are called cannon; and the smaller species are called muskets, carbines, fowling pieces, &c. But one species of fire-arms, the pistol, is never called a gun. why not webster? barrel length?

Whereas you said: Rifle, shotgun, handgun, etc for various sub-types, but they are guns

Webster would've called them all firearms: FI'REARMS, n. plu. Arms or weapons which expel their charge by the combustion of powder, as pistols, muskets, &c

[GreenStormCloud]

66. I was using modern, common usage.

If I were still in the Army it would be a wrong usage. There a "gun" is an artillery piece.

[jimmy the one]

67. a gun is for fun

gsc:If I were still in the Army it would be a wrong usage. There a "gun"is an artillery piece

Just like the navy; I've onloaded my share of 5 inch GP's onto DD's & fast frigs - frigates inaptly named imo, a frigate being 'fully rigged' is hardly applicable to modern guided missile FFs like the Farragut (stationed once, armed gds with pistols).
Likely just retained frigate for the name of a middlin' sized ship of the line (the higher gunned 1st,2nd,3rd rate frigates in 18th century - while 4th, 5th, 6th rate frigates were generally not considered ships of the line, tho vastly superior to brigs & sloops.)

army/navy ditty: This is my rifle,
This is my gun,
One is for shooting,
The other for fun.

[NYC_SKP]

68. I remember that ditty, I wish I could remember who told it to me.

Thanks for the memory!