Reply #4: Is there such a thing as a "non-dangerous weapon"? [View All]

It strikes me that any weapon is, by definition, dangerous, in that it can be used to inflict bodily harm upon another. If it could not be used for that purpose, it wouldn't be a weapon. So "dangerous weapon" is something of a tautology.

Unless, that is, by "dangerous" we mean "more dangerous (in some way) than a semi-automatic firearm." One possible example is area-effect weapons, like hand grenades or artillery, as they are more indiscriminate than "point target" weapons like small arms (even though an individual grenade fragment is not more lethal than many bullets). But that's not how legislation tends to use the term "dangerous weapon." Under Washington state law, for example, the term "dangerous weapon" explicitly comprises spring-operated switchblades, gravity knives, brass (or other metal) knuckles, "slung shot," "sand clubs," double-edged knives, nunchakus and throwing stars, none of which are inherently more lethal or indiscriminate than a firearm. They are, however, more unusual than firearms, and thus we arrive back at the interpretation that "dangerous and unusual" does indeed mean "both dangerous and unusual."