0
Usenet Posted 22 years ago
English in UK
Arms vs. wapons
Last night in our English class, a doubt arised:
Which is the difference in saying "arms" or saying "weapons". Thanks in advance,
chabral
Which is the difference in saying "arms" or saying "weapons". Thanks in advance,
chabral
Top answer
[nq:1]Last night in our English class, a doubt arised: Which is the difference in saying "arms" or saying "weapons". Thanks in advance,[/nq] In a general sense, there is little practical difference and you can use one or the other. However, "arms" often suggests weapons carried by an individual - sword, pistol, rifle, grenade, anti-tank rocket, etc.
- [nq:1]Last night in our English class, a doubt arised: Which is the difference in saying "arms" or saying "weapons".
- Thanks in advance,[/nq] In a general sense, there is little practical difference and you can use one or the other.
- However, "arms" often suggests weapons carried by an individual - sword, pistol, rifle, grenade, anti-tank rocket, etc.
- , that are not, and cannot be, carried by an individual.
- The term "armaments" encompasses all forms, and is functionally identical to "weapons".
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
13 Answers
0
[nq:1]Last night in our English class, a doubt arised: Which is the difference in saying "arms" or saying "weapons". Thanks in advance,[/nq]
In a general sense, there is little practical difference and you can use one or the other.
However, "arms" often suggests weapons carried by an individual - sword, pistol, rifle, grenade, anti-tank rocket, etc. These are all weapons, but "weapons" als
In a general sense, there is little practical difference and you can use one or the other.
However, "arms" often suggests weapons carried by an individual - sword, pistol, rifle, grenade, anti-tank rocket, etc. These are all weapons, but "weapons" als
00
"John Mazor" (Email Removed) ha scritto:
[nq:2]Last night in our English class, a doubt arised: Which is the difference in saying "arms" or saying "weapons". Thanks in advance,[/nq]
[nq:1]In a general sense, there is little practical difference and you can use one or the other. However, "arms" often ... weapons, but "weapons" also includes artillery, long-range rockets, bombs, etc., that a
[nq:2]Last night in our English class, a doubt arised: Which is the difference in saying "arms" or saying "weapons". Thanks in advance,[/nq]
[nq:1]In a general sense, there is little practical difference and you can use one or the other. However, "arms" often ... weapons, but "weapons" also includes artillery, long-range rockets, bombs, etc., that a
00
[nq:2]In a general sense, there is little practical difference and ... that are not, and cannot be, carried by an individual.[/nq]
[nq:1]So that famous sentence couldn't be "Arms of mass destruction", could it? :-)[/nq]
-) It could be.
"Weapons" seems to have a wider meaning than "arms".
"Arms" seems to be limited to weapons that have a physical effect.
The techniques
[nq:1]So that famous sentence couldn't be "Arms of mass destruction", could it? :-)[/nq]
-) It could be.
"Weapons" seems to have a wider meaning than "arms".
"Arms" seems to be limited to weapons that have a physical effect.
The techniques
00
[nq:2]However, "arms" often suggests weapons carried by an individual - ... that are not, and cannot be, carried by an individual.[/nq]
[nq:1]So that famous sentence couldn't be "Arms of mass destruction", could it? :-)[/nq]
And the famous weapons race
[nq:1]So that famous sentence couldn't be "Arms of mass destruction", could it? :-)[/nq]
And the famous weapons race
00
[nq:1]And the famous weapons race 
and the right to bear weapons?[/nq]
No, no. It's the right to arm and keep bears :-)
and the right to bear weapons?[/nq]No, no. It's the right to arm and keep bears :-)
00
[nq:2]And the famous weapons race and the right to bear weapons?[/nq]
[nq:1]No, no. It's the right to arm and keep bears :-)[/n
and the right to bear weapons?[/nq][nq:1]No, no. It's the right to arm and keep bears :-)[/n
00
[nq:2]No, no. It's the right to arm and keep bears :-)[/nq]
[nq:1]For pity's sake! Aren't bears dangerous enough without their having firearms?[/nq]
Right! Bears should wear only bows and arrows!
enrico /dot/ c /at\ people \dot\ it "Now let me correct you on a few things, ok? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not Every Man For Himself. And the London Un
[nq:1]For pity's sake! Aren't bears dangerous enough without their having firearms?[/nq]
Right! Bears should wear only bows and arrows!
enrico /dot/ c /at\ people \dot\ it "Now let me correct you on a few things, ok? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not Every Man For Himself. And the London Un
00
[nq:2]For pity's sake! Aren't bears dangerous enough without their having firearms?[/nq]
[nq:1]Right! Bears should wear only bows and arrows![/nq]
They're allowed matchlocks, flintlocks and goldilocks.
Phil C.
[nq:1]Right! Bears should wear only bows and arrows![/nq]
They're allowed matchlocks, flintlocks and goldilocks.
Phil C.
00
[nq:2]And the famous weapons race and the right to bear weapons?[/nq]
[nq:1]No, no. It's the right to arm and keep bears :-)[/n
and the right to bear weapons?[/nq][nq:1]No, no. It's the right to arm and keep bears :-)[/n
00
[nq:2]No, no. It's the right to arm and keep bears :-)[/nq]
[nq:1]I thought it was the right to keep and bare arms. Why the Constitution needs to protect my right to ... wish, is a mystery to me, but then, the exact meaning of the Second Amendment always has been in dispute.[/nq]
Never mind the exact meaning, what do you make of the punctuation?
John Briggs
[nq:1]I thought it was the right to keep and bare arms. Why the Constitution needs to protect my right to ... wish, is a mystery to me, but then, the exact meaning of the Second Amendment always has been in dispute.[/nq]
Never mind the exact meaning, what do you make of the punctuation?
John Briggs
0
Related Questions