I don't understand that argument.
Imagine if you were to ask THOSE people if a gun is a weapon. How many of them would get "all esoteric" about it like we do?
So what is the effect of changing the word? They still know you're talking about a gun, they know a gun is a weapon, you're not "fooling" anyone by using a different word.
I find it more likely that you would irritate them. It's almost like we think they're stupid. Like if we call a puppy a kitten they'll believe it's a kitten.
Besides, what would be the context where you're talking about guns in the presence of "anti-gun people" and you'd be using the word weapon where something like "platform" would be better. I don't know what that conversation would be.
Anti-gun people don't know our lingo (hence the esoteric nature of this discussion), they know the basics. The "thing" is a gun, weapon, pistol, Saturday Night Special, heck, every handgun might be an "AK" in their world, but they sure as hell know it's a "weapon". I surely can't see any benefit of trying to make like it isn't.
None of which particularly matters IMO, as I fall back to the concept that if a gun is not a weapon unless it's used as such then a car is not a vehicle unless it's moving. Neither of those arguments holds any water with me.
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.