Arms and weapons

[irmamar]

Is there any difference between arms and weapons?

Thanks.

[laepelba]

Um, I think that they're mostly the same. But I usually think of individual items and non-gun weapons (more generic?) when I say "weapons", but "arms" would mostly be understood as "guns", and not just one gun, but more collectively "guns". I don't know that I've ever heard "arm" as one gun ... but you can have one weapon or many weapons....

[irmamar]

I'm interested in the most general term, so I think 'weapons' is the word I'm looking for (to prepare the war, people began to collect weapons). What do you think?

[Perikles]

The second amendment to the American constitution is the right to bear arms, right?

This may be my own interpretation, but it seems to me that arms can be used for attack and defence, but weapons are clearly for attack.

[poli]

I agree with Perikles. I think arms and armor have the same root. The purpose is protection. Weapon is an instrument used for attack.
Over the years the meaning if the word arms and weapons has grown to be nearly synonomous, but the bearer of arms may think they are protecting themselves, and the victim of those arms may see them as
weapons.

[pjt33]

Originally Posted by irmamar

Is there any difference between arms and weapons?

De las respuestas que ya has recibido, creo que queda demostrado que hay una diferencia, pero las detalles son una idiosincrasía.

Originally Posted by laepelba

Um, I think that they're mostly the same. But I usually think of individual items and non-gun weapons (more generic?) when I say "weapons", but "arms" would mostly be understood as "guns", and not just one gun, but more collectively "guns". I don't know that I've ever heard "arm" as one gun ... but you can have one weapon or many weapons....

I bet you've heard the singular term "side-arm", though.

Originally Posted by Perikles

The second amendment to the American constitution is the right to bear arms, right?

This may be my own interpretation, but it seems to me that arms can be used for attack and defence, but weapons are clearly for attack.

Me parece que todo es muy gris. "Arms" puede incluir un escudo - "coat of arms" lo deja muy claro, si había dudas - pero el verbo "to arm" me parece más agresivo. "He armed himself with a poker" "He armed himself with a buckler"

Y luego con "weapons", creo que los varios "escudos" anti-mísiles que han sido propuesto desde Star Wars hasta hace muy poco se pueden describir como "weapons", aunque su propósito es explícitamente defensivo.

[poli]

Remember, you can arm yourself with weapons as well as a sharp wit, or immunization or a good education, or a good attorney.(blindamientos)
Arms definitely imply protection. I believe that in the true sense, arms are defensive devices, and weapons are offensive devices. As I have written before and others have written, the two words are often interchangable.

[irmamar]

I'm referring to a group of people that collect weapons/arms, with the idea of starting a war. So, weapons will be used first, because they want attack; but later, these weapons can be named arms, since because of the enemy's response, they use the former weapons to defend themselves. Therefore, limits are not so clear, or I think so (and as you said).

However, as the context is that of a militia gathering weapons, I think that this word is more appropriate in this context.

Thanks.