Note that weak typing and dynamic typing are orthogonal. I believe you're expressing sympathy for strong dynamic typing: types are checked an enforced by the runtime, but there's no static type analysis done at compile / load time. Python, JS, Ruby, etc. are strong dynamically typed languages.

The C runtime, on the other hand, will gladly (with UB nasal demon caveats) allow you to treat an int as a pointer. There are static type checks, but no hard limits on the type-confused nonsense it will attempt to execute. C is weakly statically typed.

Java, C#, etc. are strong statically typed. There are static checks at compile time, and the runtimes do their best (modulo escape hatches) to use dynamic runtime type checks to plug the gaps in the static type systems. (For any sufficiently complex sound/consistent type system, as per Godel, there will be some type-correct programs that cannot statically type-check. So, in practice, there will always be escape hatches in the type system. Hopefully most of these escape hatches are backed by dynamic runtime checks.)

Of course, these categories are a partially-ordered continuum, not clear binary distinctions. Also, type weakness is more a property of the runtime than the language, but for those languages with specifications, the language specification usually also specifies a large amount of behavior for a compliant runtime.