Wikipedia

Talk:Gun control/Archive 1

< Talk:Gun control
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Justanonymous in topic Statistics
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

for libdemplus

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You're preaching to the choir, ld+. One need look no further than the Minneapolis Star/Tribune's recent reportage concerning the implementation of Minnesota's concealed carry law. Why, you'd think that public life as we know it is about to end, if you believed them, with shootouts at the library, day care parking lot, shopping mall, and coffee shop about to become daily events.

It is comparable in its unabashed partisianism to the sort of crap they ran when Ventura won the race for governor.

I don't have a TV, so I can't speak to the television coverage.

The more relevant point, however, is that the term is not widely used even among pro-gun organizations, at least not the more influential ones. NRA does not use it, the hunting magazines don't use it, the pro-gun politicians don't use it. Now, I know you think that they are all milquetoasts, and that may be, but the fact remains that they are the ones who frame the discussion because they are the largest and most prominent pro-gun advocates.

But if you include stuff like that, other Wikipedians, most of whom have never fired a gun, will just revert the whole article on POV grounds. I try to pick and choose so that won't happen. Kat 22:04, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This article is exclusively about Gun control in the United States, and should be moved there.

Another option would be for someone with subject matter knowledge to write here about gun control in other countries. Kat 22:23, 13 August 2003 (UTC)
I think there should be a top-level stubby "Firearms laws" page with links to the various nations with the relevant histories of the firearms laws for each. The various USA state and federal laws should also be sub-linked under the "Firearm laws; USA" page. "gun control" is not the NPOV "fair & balanced" heading underwhich to place these issues.

Libdemplus Aug. 13, 2003 (UTC)

Kat, From here in The People's Republik of Kalifornia, I can't recall anything in the TV or newspapers here or on the national TV news/talk shows which seemed to be a chicken-little scare-piece about Jesse Ventura. Most stories I recall before the election just dismissed his chances. Which is natural considering how extremly rare a 3rd-party win is, even in state politics. Once he won, the stories I recall were more surprise and how did it happen than anything. I really can't recall a slam-Jesse piece. But then, I don't read the papers or watch the local news from his state either, so... Libdemplus Aug. 13, 2003 (UTC)

I see a real POV and mis-direction (bait & switch) problem with the entire paragraph that talks about "accidents". For example, it starts out talking about domestic "accidents" and switches to talking about all types of gunshot deaths. Actual accidental gunshot deaths are down to about 600 or so last year, 776 in 2000. Only a tiny number, less than 10/yr., are caused by actual children "finding" an unsecured firearm. The paragraph combined with some comments in other parts of the article imply some very mis-leading things. Mixing up the statistics is a classic gun control lobby tactic.

I will work on a re-write. Libdemplus Aug. 13, 2003 (UTC)


I notice the language:

There are only a few hundred thousand lawfully owned fully automatic weapons. The bulk of these are owned and used in the motion picture industry.

The movie industry owns "a few hundred thousand" fully automatic weapons?! Boy, they could sure take care of those *^(%)#$ downloaders, ... hey, taking no sides on this highly contentious issue, I have to wonder about that one. -- dino

Hello, I just added a bit to the Debate section, including some general structuring subheaders. I am thinking of adding a bit more about the phychology in the debate, what gun control and gun rights symbolize to the proponents of each, and how that makes the issue a hotter one than it might otherwise be. I see that this is a somewhat controversial entry, though, so I think I'll wait a while and see what people think of the edits I just made. GTBacchus 01:46, 12 January 2004 (UTC)

Gun Rights

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This needs to be its own article, and I'm going to create it. This is your heads up. Jack 06:08, 26 January 2004 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is one of the most blatantly one-sided articles I have ever seen in Wikipedia, using words like "fascist", "communist", "racist", to describe gun controls! I've added a NPOV tag.83.71.16.216 23:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes...and the part "Security against tyranny and invasion" has some serious lack of NPOV and outright false information (contrary to myth, gun control was by no means meaningful part of Nazi political agenda). Iraqi and Afghan civilians had plenty of firearms - that did not protect them from tyranny and invasion, did it? --Mikoyan21 23:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Fully Automatic Weapons

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Most people Don't know that out of all the LAWFULLY REGISTERED Fully automatic Firearms. Only TWO have ever been used in a homicide. One of those two times. It was a Police Officer in NYC who had a full auto mac-11 and used it to murder a witness.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.254.58.8 (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2006‎ (UTC)

YOUR LOGIC IS FLAWED

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Iraqi and Afghan civilians had plenty of firearms - that did not protect them from tyranny and invasion, did it?"

Yes and Hamas was democratically elected. It just goes to show you that democracy does NOT automatically mean freedom. Which means we must be ever vigilant in who we choose to run our country.

The Afghans definetly had lots of guns, they have this "cottage industry" in the mountains. Where you can find crudely built, but operational, AK-47, RPGs,and in rare circumstances, M16's obtained from firefights where afghani's were the victor. The Russians were supplying the weapons since the 80's when they found themselves stocked with more weapons then they could ever use, and gun lords started selling them..

The Iraqi's were 'allowed' to own one full auto AK-47 at home. This was part of Saddam's "home defense" plan. Although Everyone who was willing to speak out against him ended up in a Mass grave. So it wasn't exactly a threat to him to let his own ethnic group own weapons. He didn't bother trying to dictate gun laws to the kurds. They owned guns and didn't care if saddam liked it or not. Russians drink vodka.

Same thing with the Soviets. I'm sure you had to be a very loyal communist to be able to own a weapon, even though the wanted the "masses" to be armed, in truth they only want the pro-Communist masses to be armed.

I understand there were lots of firearms in civilian hands in Soviet Union after WW2. Soviet gun laws were not tightened until about 1970's, to combat rampant violent crime and robber gangs. --Mikoyan21 22:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

/* Gun control in Australia */ Marked unsourced statement contradicting main article as dubious

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The statement "Another fact that Australia has released, is that gun crime and violent crime has gone up 44% at its highest in a specific few regions after taking guns away from people." is highly dubious as it does not have a source, appears to be contradicted by all other sources in the "Gun Control in Australia" article, and appears to use weasel words "i.e specific few regions".

This should be removed and replaced with a sourced statement that serves as a summary of section 3.2 of the "Gun Politics in Australia" article See here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perrettben (talk • contribs) 12:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to sign the above section

Perrettben (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

History of gun control in the US

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Details about the first major pieces of legislation after the Black Codes in the post-Civil War South should be included. The first of these were in the 1930s under the FDR administration. The first major pieces of legislation in even more recent history came out of Sacramento, CA in the late 1970s and early 80s to control the possession of weapons among and in response to an armed demonstration by the Black Panthers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.181.167 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

rewording problem

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control#Private_ownership

Help me understand what this is supposed to be saying...

According to statistics available from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, of nearly 31,000 firearm-related deaths in 2005, suicides account for 55 percent of deaths in the United States whereas homicides account for 40 percent of deaths, accidents account for three die, and the remaining two percent were legal killings.

accidents account for three die?? accidents account for three percent maybe? Then the numbers would add up.

Quebec99 (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Dubious tag and unsupported "officially unproven" claim

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In an argument against gun control, the National Center for Policy Analysis, a non-profit conservative think tank, reported the following statistics. Please note that most of the following has come under questioning of authenticity and officially remains unproven.[58][dubious – discuss]

I find this, especially the last sentence, to be problematic, for a few reasons.

  1. If it has "come under questioning" and "officially remains unproven," that claim should be cited. As it stands, the citation which follows links to the National Center for Policy Analysis paper, not to a source which states that it is questionable.
  2. It has been tagged as dubious, but this talk page doesn't discuss why.

I am going to rectify this by moving the citation to the sentence to which it belongs, and tagging the last sentence as unsourced, to be removed if no source can be found. If this is the result of a misunderstanding, please rephrase the paragraph for clarity and respond here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.255.57 (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

External links

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The External links section only has links to gun rights web sites, this should be corrected as it looks poorly on the trust worthiness of the article. 74.61.36.90 (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Do we need "citation needed" tags for this section?

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Under Statistics, and Gun Control Laws, there is a study cited, and part of the study taken and put in the article. The claims and statistics made in the study have citations and, in some cases, citation needed tags. Is that necessary? it's not part of the encyclopedia proper... the claims are made by an outside source. Do we need citations for claims made by a study wikipedia is citing? Also they have citations in the pdf of the study, as well. 99.24.237.40 (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Essays about Gun Control

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If I'm writing an essay about gun control for my rhetoric class, what topics should I make sure I include? I'm really interested!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.133.67 (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Random crap that was at the top of the page for some reason

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Below is a heap of text that was for some reason at the top of the page (not sorted into a section). I've copied and pasted it below. Prawn Skewers (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-defensive uses of guns, such as hunting, varmint control and the sport of target shooting, are often lost in the debate despite being the most common reasons for private gun ownership.

In 1996, 2 people were murdered by handguns in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany, and 9,390 in the United States. [FBI Uniform Crime Report]

Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense. [ Kellermann and Reay, N.E. Journal of Medicine]

Every two years, more Americans die of gunshot than there were American soldiers killed during the entire Vietnam War [National Center for Health Statistics, Department of Defense Almanac].

In homes with guns, a member of the household is almost three times as likely to be the victim of a homicide compared to gun-free homes. Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home." NEJM 329:15 (1993):1084-1091.

• In 2001, firearms were used to murder 6 people in New Zealand, 56 in Japan, 96 in Great Britain, 168 in Canada, and 331 in Germany United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2001-2002).

In comparison, firearms were used to murder 11,348 in the United States WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports. • In 2003, there were only 163 justifiable homicides by private citizens using handguns in the United States FBI Uniform Crime Report, 2003, table 2.16, p. 24.


What the ****! This is the most baised article I've ever read on Wikipedia. "Gun control is promoted by various statist philosophies such as Communism, Socialism, and Fascism." This atricle need to be completely re-made as soon as possible. -The monkeyhate 17:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • That's not a biased comment, it's a matter of fact. -- Freemarket 03:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • If I'm not mistaken, Wikipedia is supposed offer both views, which this certainly doesn't. It sounds like it comes straight from the NRA. I added another ideology to your list. -The monkeyhate 15:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
      • It is not a matter of fact. There is nothing in communist or socialist ideology that either supports or opposes gun control. The 1918 Constitution of Soviet Russia stated: "For the purpose of securing the working class in the possession of complete power, and in order to eliminate all possibility of restoring the power of the exploiters, it is decreed that all workers be armed" (Article I, chapter 2, paragraph G). -- Nikodemos 20:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I second the suggestion to begin with a top-level stubby "firearms law" page with subheadings relative to the U.S. and, hopefully, other countries. I've made a few small changes to the gun control page, and overall I agree that the page is fairly balanced. - Teresag

Re: Firearms Law Page, From what I've seen, there are loads of on-line sources for specific firearms laws in specific jurisdictions for the bulk of the industrialised nations. So, this would not be hard to do.

The USA would need something like 55 sub-catagories for the various major jurisdictions. (ie states, Federal, DC, protectorates, military) Our roughly 25,000 gun control laws run the range from Vermont with no state-level gun control laws to Washington DC with total registration, near total bans and wide-spread confiscations. Some states, like California, New York, Nevada, will also need sub-catagories for some serious local gun control laws.

Canada, the UK, Australia, Switzerland also need some sub-catagories for their various jurisdictions differences in gun control laws. I think Japan is all national laws. Taiwan, last I heard it was a capitol crime to be caught with any sort of firearm. Mexico has a total ban. Brazil has some interesting laws. For Germany it would be educational to include historical laws going back to the early 1900's.

Right now Canada is having a bit of a revolt in many provinces where some provincial governments are flatly refusing to apply or even cooperate with the national-level firearms laws, mostly registrations and confiscations ordered by the national laws. Detailing these laws and the systems set up to enact them will be very educational. These laws were passed with the assurance the costs would be no more than about 2 million (USA dollars) to set up then a few hundred thousand/yr to run. These laws have already cost 1 billion in just the first 5 years and escalating in cost/yr every year.

Another point is "Enforcement". Many nations, including the USA, make little or no effort to actually enforce their own firearms laws, some do, but most don't. The history of this could also be educational.

Anyway, the whole area of firearms laws around the world, set out in catagories by jurisdictions, history, enforcement, observable effects, costs, etc... would be well worth the effort, educationally speaking of course.

Libdemplus Aug. 28, 2003

Wow, that is actually rather even-handed. It's not possible to impute either a pro-gun or anti-gun position to the Wikipedia, on the basis of this article. This is an excellent starting point for a more in-depth article.

I suggest more details on the various positions (what they want), as well as the arguments they make defending their positions (why they want it): research and research methods, guiding philosophy, and so on.

Let's leave this up for a few days. Even if gun control and gun politics eventually get merged again, there may be some value in keeping separate articles.

May I hear some other opinions before someone just reverts this article to a redirect? --Ed Poor

I think the two should be merged. Right now, the articles have quite a bit of overlap; I don't see how it helps to have two articles talking about essentially the same thing.

I would even argue for the title "Gun politics in the US" since I don't think the issue exists to any appreciable extent elsewhere, and Gun politics seems to confirm that. AxelBoldt 23:08 Oct 3, 2002 (UTC)

I like the title "Gun politics in the US", because the article seems exclusively focussed on US policy. --Ed Poor

I made today's edits as a series of small changes -- rather than making them all at once, so that other contributors can look at each change in context, using the History feature. This way, if one of my changes isn't as neutral as I thought it was, it's easier to isolate my error and fix the article -- without losing my other valuable (?) changes. --Ed Poor

Hi there...

I agree that as things are organised now "gun politics" and "gun control" have lots of overlap, but this can be corrected with a plan of what goes on each page. Also, there is a rather obvious and biased ommission in the fact that there is no "gun rights" page.

I propose that the "control" and "rights" pages each have a similar structure that speaks directly to each issue and avoids the "politics". Such as, theory, long-term goals, advocates (who and quotes), history of major law changes, current status of laws, observable effects of changes in the laws, court rulings, economics, ...

Things that are more directly related to the politics should be preserved over on the "gun politics": How the issue has effected elections, media practices, 2nd Amendment, political tactics, ...

Considering that almost everything we see relating to fireams in the popular media, even in the news, is mostly made up of fictional mythology rather than facts, it would be educational to have a "gun mythology" page as well. A place to list popular percieved myths seen in TV and movies frequently, like the bullet breaking the window of an airplane causing people to get sucked-out the hole and crashing the plane myth, and then busting those myths with facts.

Anyway, I think it would be helpful and educational to all to have the pages seperate rather than just one huge page trying to fully cover the firearms issue. Libdemplus Aug. 13, 2003 (UTC)

So, what exactly is "wrong" with hoplophobe?

I assure you it is indeed a term used in the debate. It's been around for some years.

Libdemplus Aug. 13, 2003 (UTC)

I don't believe that the term appears in any mainstream articles, which is why I cut it. Kat 19:49, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Simple google search results for hoplophobe, 257 pages: www.2asisters.net/mo/info/outsidelinks.html www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1677 members.aol.com/gunbancon2/Frames/Hoplophobe.html vikingphoenix.com/Internet/reference/defglos.htm home.hiwaay.net/~craigg/g4c/vin/vin-aw1.htm home.sprynet.com/~frfrog/glossary.htm www.saf.org/LawReviews/KatesAndPolsby.htm

Would you prefer "gun-phobic" "gun-phobe"???

I assure you the term "hoplophobia" is indeed being commonly used in the gun ownership debate and it's use is spreading. It's even being used by some mental health professionals to describe the unreasoning fear of firearms or other tools. Libdemplus Aug. 13, 2003 (UTC)

Kat, By the way one of the main points of the gun rights advocates is that the "mainstream" media is heavily, extremely, dishonestly biased against gun rights. This bias makes it almost impossible for the gun rights side to speak to the public on the issue other than in tiny sound-bites the media occasionally makes available in order to pretend to be "balanced".

This can be verified by any examination of TV news, newspapers, or TV talkshow or TV news magazine show and keeping track of both the time/space allotted to the gun rights side versus the gun control side and the clear attitude of the "reporter" or "commentator" on the issue.

Just the volume of TV shows and newspaper articles specifically pushing the gun control agenda should be enough to prove the bias. If they bother to mention anything on the gun rights side they simply spew off some sound-bite quote from some NRA spokesperson and then the reporter ridicules that quote.

The mainstream media does everything it can to prevent gun rights advocates from being able to get their message out to the general public.

Libdemplus Aug. 13, 2003 (UTC)

Possible problem with a source

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all,
I've noticed that this article, and Political arguments of gun politics in the United States, and Gun politics, all seem to have quite a lot of citations of Miguel Faria on Hacienda Publishing. As far as I can tell, the site is run by Faria and simply promotes Faria's views (and their professional expertise is in a different area) so I think that should be treated as a WP:SELFPUB problem. Any suggestions? bobrayner (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Bobrayner. I have (once again) removed the Faria citations from the Gun Control article, as they are simply his opinion from his blog (Hacienda Press). I have not yet looked at the other articles you have pointed out. It seems that Dr. Faria's personal musings and ramblings on gun politics are used in a lot of places.StopYourBull (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

British propaganda

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Have removed the poorly summarized statements here, cited with the wrong first name of the author by the way, of the Harvey book that is written from just a British perspective of the "real" American Revolutionary War. I have nothing against putting in actual quotes, when cited properly, but the quality needs to be a lot better than what was in the first attempt that was done with a rather broad brush of pushing solely a British perspective as the only "correct" perspective, in an attempted rewriting of history. Let's get the quality of this up, use actual quotes to make the desired points, and also identify the point of view as being from a British perspective, instead of from an American perspective. Done that way, it won't reek so much of sounding like British propaganda. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

British propaganda? In what world would this be British propaganda? Have you actually read the Robert Harvey (thanks for the spellcheck) book? I doubt it. His version of the Battles of Concord and Lexington follow the majority of classroom texts on the subject: the point being that you cannot misconstrue a well-documented military action in a time of war to be "gun control," as has Kopel in an entirely skewed and revisionist history of the event that suits his particular propaganda. If you would actually read my entry, it also includes reference to the webpage of Dr. Quintard Taylor, Professor of History at the University of Washington. I did this for convenience, but I can supply many more more legitimate references--from the US and other countries--that describe the history of the Battles of Concord and Lexington that has been accepted for more than 200 years. As a concession, I have changed the word "revised" to make the sentence a little more palatable.
In speaking of propaganda, I've noticed, as have others (see BobRayner's comment above) that there are several instances of Miguel Faria's self-published blog being used as references for some badly worded specious arguments that are inappropriate ramblings in an article on Gun Control. As these do run afoul of WP:SELFPUB (along with being just generally bad), I have removed them.
I hope I can make it quite clear that this article is about gun control in general and it is not limited to the opinions or scholarship of citizens of the US. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StopYourBull (talk • contribs) 20:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I have no problems with including multiple cited perspectives. But, to be honest to our readers, we need to at least identify the perspectives, instead of somehow leading readers to believe that only one perspective is somehow the "correct" one. The best way to do this is to provided cited points of view that address all of the major viewpoints. Have tweaked the wording a little more, and added such a cite. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
These are not differing perspectives--British versus American; Kopel's view is revisionist history plain and simple, and it is all you are citing throughout (the Tench Coxe quote is in his book). Historians, American and other, have always seen the Battles of Concord and Lexington as battles from a war that was declared when the rebels stockpiled military arms, and trained militias, among other actions. The actual battle was an act of war, on the part of both the British and the rebels, and it was fought as such. It was the first battle of the American Revolution. Capturing and destroying a store of military arms during an act of war is by no stretch of the imagination "gun control." Some of the colonists were not rebels but were loyal to the colonial government. There was absolutely no attempt to "disarm the populace." If that was the case there would have been declarations by the colonial government that arms would be confiscated and that citizens were not to have weapons. This did not happen. What did happen was a common military manoeuvre to weaken the opposing force by destroying their arsenal.
Unless you can come up with some good solid historical evidence, not just from Kopel and his imitators, or worse yet from "news" blogs[1]--that gun control and not military action took place at Concord I don't think it's appropriate to label Kopel's view as the "American" view and Harvey's view as the "British" view.
I have a temporary solution: I will mark one view as being Kopel's and the other as being Harvey's and eliminate the other chatter including the "revisionism" inference. We can return to this in about a week and see what both of us have come up with in terms of solid references (I have some other things to do, as I'm sure you have, as well.)StopYourBull (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Not claiming that the following is a reliable source itself, but it does include many references to primary source documents from the period which may be used as a launching point for other sources. Interestingly, from my brief scan seems to make the claim that ownership and bearing of arms was MANDATORY initially, with later restrictions coming into play for slaves/indians/political reasons. No specific commentary on the lexington&concord issue that I saw Gaijin42 (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Gaijin. I think you forgot to include the source you refer to in your comment. If you would add that I'm sure it would be of use in exploring this matter in more depth. Thank you.StopYourBull (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

lol! thanks! http://www.saf.org/journal/16/colonialfirearmregulation.pdf Gaijin42 (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Jeff Snyder?

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

What conceivable reason is there to quote this guy's obscure 2001 small press book 'Nation of Cowards' at such length? He's not a notable figure, nor is the book particularly influential. (Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #281,130 in Books). The extensive quotes from one random gun rights advocate, comprising the bulk of a poorly written and poorly conceived 'Civil Rights' section, seems more like a book plug than an encyclopedic entry, and detracts from the article's neutrality. Bustter (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. My suggestion is to add to this section with any rebuttal you can find short of self-published blogs, etc.. A lot of what appears here is of very low quality and needs to be brought up to date--in a fair way. There is a lot of work to be done just checking spurious references and misinterpretations of published work. The entire article needs to be brought up to date with a world view of gun control. I look forward to seeing your additions and deletions and arguments on this page.StopYourBull (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your suggestion, but I only noted this because a casual perusal of the entry hit a very jarring note when I suddenly found myself reading Snyder's opinions. Gun control is not a topic of particular interest to me, but the quality of Wiki articles is. I am not about to give Jeff Snyder's writing elevated importance by rebutting him, can you tell me why his writing or thinking is of encyclopedic importance?
Would it be appropriate for me to select a random book on gun control, and then create a section for the article based on that book? It looks like that is what happened here, possibly as self-promotion. Arguing with Snyder's POV would only enhance the promotional value of this text. Bustter (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it is just unsupported opinion, but it seems to have found a home here. If you can demonstrate that it violates some WP policy or standard then you should be able to remove it. Snyder's "book" is available floating around on the Internet in PDF format, for what it's worth. It reads like some sort of "Patriot Militia" or "Freeman on the Land" manifesto, and is certainly not something I would add to a serious discussion of gun control. It is a product of gun culture in the US and means little for gun control in the rest of the world.StopYourBull (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
A relevant WP policy fragment here would be WP:DUE; see the lead paragraph of that section of the WP:NPOV policy. I don't know anything about Jeff Snyder or his book, but I see that the book was characterized above as an "obscure 2001 small press book". Perhaps a consensus can be reached here about whether mention in this article gives the book or the views it presents undue weight. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Check your sources

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I've removed the following as they didn't fit with a few Wikipedia policies regarding sources:

Martin Luther King said, "By our readiness to allow arms to be purchased at will and fired at whim... we have created an atmosphere in which violence and hatred have become popular pastimes."[64] At the same time, Dr. King applied for a permit to carry a concealed firearm after his house was bombed in 1956.[65] Professor Adam Winkler recounts that "William Worthy, a journalist who covered the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, reported that once, during a visit to King's parsonage, he went to sit down on an armchair in the living room and, to his surprise, almost sat on a loaded gun. Glenn Smiley, an adviser to King, described King's home as 'an arsenal.'"[65]

Similarly, the Dalai Lama said, "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate.

Mahatma Gandhi said "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." in his autobiography.

Firstly, regarding the MLK stuff, a lone blogger on The Huffington Post is not an acceptable source to make claims that MLK owned a number of weapons (see WP:ORS). I don't care if Adam Winkler is a Professor of Law, this hardly qualifies him to make unsubstantiated statements about MLK. Maybe if he was a Professor of History, but even then I'd be skeptical.

Secondly, the stuff by the Dalai Lama and Gandhi had no souce at all (sorry, but "May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times" is not good enough!) and I have a hard time believing they would both support free gun ownership. Prawn Skewers (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the content.

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


Also, regarding Ghandi, his views on non-violence changed often during his lifetime. Here are some additional quotes which confirm his sentement in the quote you removed. “In this instance of the fire-arms, the Asiatic has been most improperly bracketed with the natives. The British Indian does not need any such restrictions as are imposed by the Bill on the natives regarding the carrying of fire-arms. The prominent race can remain so by preventing the native from arming himself. Is there a slightest vestige of justification for so preventing the British Indian?” ~ The Indian Opinion, March 25, 1905

“It is indeed necessary to be physically strong. If the Indians want to learn the use of fire-arms and swords, by all means let them do so. ?” ~ The Indian Opinion, June 18, 1908

“I do believe that where there is a choice between cowardice and non-violence I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence.” ~ CWMG, Vol. XXI, p. 132. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do not misinterpret what I did as an attack on pro-gun politics, I was merely removing stuff that did not comply with WP:ORS. I suggest you actually read the page - it explicitly states The Huffington Post as a dubious source. Furthermore, if you want to cite the Seattle Times, then do so - May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times is not how we cite information on Wikipedia. And the Ghandi quote is still not sourced. Once again, if you want to include this information it needs to be cited properly - see WP:CITE for more detail. Prawn Skewers (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Gaijin42, the Seattle Times is good enough. It meets WP
RS, it was written by a staff reporter who knows to verify his story. If you have a retraction or correction or a WP:RS statement where Ghandi refuted the statement or called it a misattribution then we can consider removing. Otherwise, this meets WP:RS and WP:ORS. I agree that there are many objectionable sources out there and even mainstream media is generally biased in one direction or another but in this case, the statements seem to meet WP:ORS. One article is good enough for WP:RS - that is the standard-Justanonymous (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bolsheviks

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

In the "Associations with authoritarianism" section, this sentence makes no sense:

" In December 1918, they made it a crime for non-Bolshevik citizens to own guns"

What is a "non-Bolshevik citizen" exactly? I would like to delete this sentence but I wanted to check here first.

--KurtFF8 (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Someone recently changed this bit on Bolshevism and I don't think anyone has checked the references (they appear to be in Russian). I would agree that the sentence you are talking about does not make sense. The editor was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vlad_Rutenburg, if you want to check with them.StopYourBull (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Bolshevik was a political party (or a part of a political party at least), so the statement just means only party members were allowed guns? (Not commenting on its accuracy, but it makes sense to me at least) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

google translate from the 3 sources linked, confirming that the intent of the edit was indicating that weapons were restricted to party members

  • "After the October Revolution of 1917, the position of collector of antique weapons radically changed radically - nebezizvestny SNK RSFSR Decree of 10 December 1918 "On the surrender of weapons." Weapons are not withdrawn, only members of the party to provide the Committee of the RCP (b), but not more than one rifle and one pistol per person. The right to own guns, and thus it is now carefully concealed secret and collectibles, now has become a class and party affiliation."
    • goes on to say "Remaining in the Soviet Union, private collectors weapons forced "gone underground" in order not to fall under the criminal liability for illegal possession and sale of weapons - art. 220 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR in 1922 introduced criminal liability for illegal possession of a firearm without a permit - forced labor"
  • " Permission to possess firearms issued before the publication of the decree shall be void. In order to encourage citizen participation in the delivery of weapons to citizens decree providing for the grant of monetary compensation from the commissariat for military affairs in the following amounts: the citizens who discovered hidden at the end of the decree date weapons, for a serviceable rifle assumed 600 rubles, for defective - from 100 to 500 rubles for each gun remuneration doubled. Decree made an exception only for members Kavbureau (b), but here, there are restrictions."
  • "Only December 10, 1918 signed a decree "On the surrender of weapons," binding "all the people and all the institutions of civil authorities are to pass them all, both ways, rifles, machine guns and revolvers of all systems, cartridges for and drafts of any specimen." The authors of the decree specifies that "all is for weapons surrendered by the Red Army. A truly revolutionary in this decree was that it does not apply to members of the Communist Party. Special instructions that came with the decree to enable members of the RCP (b) to retain their existing rifles and revolvers."

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice work.StopYourBull (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Civic duty.

Latest comment: 11 years ago22 comments4 people in discussion

I checked the only reference source provided for the "Civic duty" section and it appears to be a blog operated by several people with a mailing address in Australia (the server is located in the US). I have looked around for a better possible reference for this entry in the article, or even for a different idea of what civic duty could be with reference to gun control, and I have not been able to come up with any. Does anyone have any (legitimate) references, ideas, or opinions about civic duty and gun control?StopYourBull (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

two places to start would be the federal militia code, stating that the militia is all military age males, and perhaps the laws of towns that mandate gun ownership.

A few other possible sources

Gaijin42 (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Gaijin, but I was thinking more of a globally-understood concept of civic duty. Do you have any thoughts on that?--StopYourBull (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Jumping in from the sidelines, I'll offer this. I don't have time just now to search for more sources, but I note the disparity between "a few scholars" in this source and "some opponents" in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bill. I'm pretty sure that Militia Information Service and Human Rights Coalition (Australia) are just blogs run by the same three or four people to promote their views. I do not think it is a valid reference according to WP policies (WP:QS, WP:BLOGS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, etc.). Any source referencing the Second Amendment to the US Constitution also would be counterproductive in making this article more global in scope. I don't understand your "scholars/opponents" point.--StopYourBull (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, I haven't been editing but I have been watching. There is a very strong civic duty aspect to this. In Switzerland, all able bodied citizens are required to own firearms. In several cities in the US, every household is required to have a firearm, like Kennesaw Georgia. Historically in the US, every able bodied male from 18 to 40s was a potential member of a militia (we are all the militia concept) and were expected to have firearms. Historically from a founding fathers standpoint that was one of Washington's biggest qualms....the reason the term "well regulated militia" was put in, was because he was agast that citizens didn't have suitable arms in good working condition, enough powder, or that the men couldn't shoot. Look at National Guard of the United States for some information on the laws that have shaped the republic and how people went from having a voluntary militia to a structured one. At the end of the day, when society breaks down (during a national disaster etc), the entire body of the able people in effect become the militia until we can reestablish responsible government. Certainly militias don't try people for crimes (like looters) but there is precedent of citizens arresting other citizens and holding them after crimes are witnessed until we can reform responsible government - it's very hard for citizens to hold another without access to substantial force like that provided by firearms. In any case, plenty of material out there but much of it is in books. Happy to help if you all want. The concept of civic duty stems straight from the militia concept in the second amendment but there are european roots to it. -Justanonymous (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I also think we have to treat this section carefully, there is a lot of material out there that touches on this and a lot of it in Wikipedia and we might want to link to main like Right to bear arms etc. It really seems that this concept originally arose out of common law tradition in England and expanded into the United States and then went back to places like Switzerland. It seems to be intimately tied to common law, the evolution of police forces, the evolution of standing armies, militias, and inalienable rights. So it certainly does appear to be Western. I'll see if I can find any similar stuff in eastern traditions. Traditionally though arms have always been expensive and common people generally could not afford them and many times were illegal....I think possessing a samurai sword in feudal Japan if you weren't a samurai was a capital offense and you were summarily executed ....then again I think the Samurai could kill pretty much legally and rightfully kill anybody they wanted if they were displeased in any way. In any case, I'll look around but it really appears to be a Western concept out of the enlightenment period tied to rights.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur that the MIS source is completely unsuitable, and should be basically considered link-spam. But I do think that the overall topic is sourceable. (Although I am somewhat confused why it is in the gun control section, unless it is being presented in the context of an argument against gun control). From a global/historical perspective, I think we would have to broaden the scope of "bearing arms" to include pre-firearms weapons. There are numerous sources discussing the civic duty of the populace to participate in defense of their country/state/town/etc, or provide military service (using their own arms) in service of their lord, or to be prepared to assist law enforcement, or the duty to defend themselves. Not sure why the constitution is prohibited (though it certainly should not be the only source, to avoid globalization issues).

Gaijin42 (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm with you Gaijin42 100% -Justanonymous (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
In answer to JustAnonymous, Switzerland has been included in another section of this article but could be merged with this section. In response to Gaijin, it may be inappropriate for an article on gun control, but I could be wrong. In response to everyone here, in any event, I think there are three distinctions about militia and civic duty that need to be clarified:
1) There are militia that are part of, and loyal to, the existing government such as the State Militia in the US, or the militia in Switzerland. I see these militia as just being an extension of the government that is "on call" when required.
2) There are militia that may be independent of the existing government whose loyalties are subject to differing points of view. These militia, although organized to some degree, differ from those in 1) in that they may act for or against the existing government depending on if they agree or disagree with the government's actions.
3) There are militia that are set in opposition to the existing government whose objective it is to usurp the existing government. Examples may be found in El Salvador, or Nicaragua, or in Peru and Ecuador.
There may be points for and against all three distinctions with respect to gun control. If someone wants to start to put together a section on civic duty, I am happy to jump in and edit and add points to the section. I would ask that we try to keep it global in scope, however, and avoid--as much as possible--involving US gun politics.--StopYourBull (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that the only place something like this has in this article is as one counterpoint to gun control, of which there should be several but the opposition section should be limited with potentially pointing to a main on gun rights and vice verse. Regarding the militia concept, I'm not sure the 1,2,3 categories are needed here and indeed they are only one way to organize the view into militias - the relevant theory in the context of gun control is only that the right to bear arms is seen by some as a civic responsibility (an essential requirement) to be able to form militia from time to time for the purposes of establishing government when it breaks down or as a last recourse to repelling invasion or rejecting opression. In the end Militias form as they are deemed needed by the body politic (the citizenry) for a variety of purposes and yes some to be contrary to the established government but more commonly they're stood up just to maintain order when law breaks down during natural emergencies and in most cases the actual militia is invisible in those cases (my neighbors and I don't call ourselves a militia when a tornado rolls through but we all understand that we're all armed and that we will not steal from each other and will not tolerate looting by outsiders - a militia function). -Justanonymous (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I do see that the distinctions are necessary as 2) and 3) can disrupt order rather than preserve it. 2) is particularly problematic in that it can be viewed as vigilantism or treason if it goes against a legitimate government and its policies.--StopYourBull (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I dont disagree that armed forces may be divided into groups 1-3 above, but that is irrelevant to our discussion. We are discussing civic duty, Which therefore limits our discussion to those that are loyal to a particular government or society. There is a lot of overlap of this. Obviously the revolutionary militias were not loyal to their official government, but it doesn't mean they weren't performing their civic duty to themselves, their neighbors, etc. When talking about government - In the US/English law, it is very explicit that the militia is everyone. There were specific prohibitions in place against standing armies, and everyone was a potential conscript/recruit. This is an echo of ancient times, when the greek city states, and roman empire had very similar policies. Plenty of lofty reliable research available on roman "farmer-soldiers" etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed Gaijin42. My intent was not to say that the classification system didn't have merit, only to say that there are other equally valid mechanisms to classify militias and also to say what Gaijin42 has stated that any classification is probably beyond the scope needed here for our purposes. Also agree that we need to dig back to the pre-firearm period. We're talking about the duties of citizens and one of the duties is to fight for what they perceive is their accepted form of government....it is a civic duty and they have to be armed to do so properly., we're going back to Plato and the republic's guardians here.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that for most of the world 2) and 3) would not be considered as part of "civic duty." The US is almost all by itself in viewing 2) as a civic duty (at least as of the last 20 years). Even in the US there is considerable disagreement over militias performing any function. A case in point is the Arizona militias that have taken it upon themselves to police the border with Mexico to deal with what they consider to be illegal immigrants and drug dealers. Some Americans do not see them as any more than vigilantes.--StopYourBull (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Very respectfully, the evidence doesn't support that:
  • Syria - a loose aglomeration of rebels (a militia) has been fighting to overthrow their government.
  • In Lybia - a loose agglomeration of rebels (a militia) overthrew their government.
  • In Egypt - civil disobedience has led to violence (a militia type action) rejecting their government.
Certainly the so called militia movement in the United States has come to the forefront of media thought in the last 20 to 30 years but the existence of militias has existed throughout the history of the United States and before without much fanfare. Citizens colonizing the west formed militia quite regularly to repel indian invasions, outlaws from taking over their towns, etc. It's quite common, it's just that nobody writes a story everytime a group of citizens gets together to form a militia - that doesn't mean they weren't there. -Justanonymous (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
And most certainly, the rebells who overthrew the british in 1776 were performing their civic duty, although the British at the time would label them criminals outside the law. Still, to the citizenry of the United States, they were patriots later given the honorary "founding fathers." So 2) and 3) by your classification system are very much performing their civic duty just like the syrians and the Libyans are doing today.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Here to support my theory of militias being commonplace - straight from the Battle of Gonzales

In 1831, Mexican authorities gave the settlers of Gonzales a small cannon to help protect them from frequent Comanche raids.

The citizens were given the cannons, not to an army but to the citizens. Imagine for a second the Feds dropping a tank in your community and saying, good luck amigos. but that kind of stuff was commonplace, it was the citizenry, and their self formed militias who took possession of such things. What if the Arizona national guard gives radios to the Arizona voluntary militia to help them spot drug running or other transgressions? -Justanonymous (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Your examples of Syria, Libya, and Egypt would all be instances of the third type--they existed solely to bring down the government--and they would be considered traitors. The second type is peculiar to the US. They are allowed to exist whereas they would be lumped in with the third category in almost all other countries. If you look at US history of the 20th century, it appears that this is something new. Patty Hearst and the Symbionese Liberation Army, The Weather Underground, or the Black Panthers were all considered to be traitors from their very beginnings (i.e. even before they had taken any action against the US government). Today, even the Michigan Militia, etc. were allowed to exist with their clearly anti-government positions. I thought the problem with the Arizona militias was that they were going beyong just helping the police?--StopYourBull (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I have to go, but I will return shortly.--StopYourBull (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
No worries, enjoy the superbowl. Ok so by your own admission only your second category remains but very respectfully, the Liberal model in the United States places strict limits on the federal, state, and even local governments so militias are not allowed to exist, the people don't grant the state any authority to limit their formation - vast difference. Liberalism is very radical. People can form as they see fit to form militias or clubs or whatever they want to call themselves but this is not peculiar to the United States, this has existed throughout time and the power of the militia lies not in its name but in the people from which it is formed. So if the Michigan militia is a bunch of morons with radical ideologies, the rest of the citizenry of Michigan won't support them and if the Michigan militia tries to take a town, well they'll feel the full fury of a real militia backed by a real responsible government. So let's be very careful that just because a bunch of people get together and call themselves a militia doesn't mean that they ARE a militia. Militias are the people, the armed populance. I certainly don't recognize any body of people who call themselves a militia but I certainly classify myself along with my neighbors as a militia when law and order breaks down after a natural calamity, until we can open up the roads for the Sheriff and his deputies to get to us and at that point we turn over the looters we caught for proper trial by jury (because the looters are citizens too). It's nuanced - the Michigan militia is not a militia - per se, much as they'd love to be. They might be patriots or they might be criminals and we should be cautious of such groups. Beyond that and around the world there are many examples, the ILA, Cendero Luminoso, Basque Separatists. How will the Libyan rebels be remembered? since they won they'll be remembered as patriots but if they had lost as murderous rebels. Militias are not peculiar to the United States - it's just that we use the term militia where somewhere else they might use the word tribe or something else. Remember it was Mexico who gave Gonzales it's canon and it was Mexico who then had second thoughts about doing so.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
and just to be very clear, a so called militia that is not formed from the citizenry of the community at large and who doesn't represent the will of the citizenry at large in their community is just a bunch of criminal thugs with guns and if they exercise power against the citizenry, then a real militia should form or an army brought in to deal with them quickly.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Gun control in the United States POV Tag

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have placed a POV-section tag, Template:POV, because this section currently only provides arguments against gun controls. To be in line with Wikipedia sections that introduce specialized articles (in this case, Gun politics in the United States), it should be contain a summary of the linked article, with both sides presented. --Zeamays (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Kristallnacht

Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

StopYourbull has issue with my linking the German disarmament of the Jews with Kristallnacht. Arguments copied from various other talk pages in order to gain consensus here.

General background for argument, backed by sources below.

  • Announcement of diarmament made on Nov 8, 1938, the night before Kristallnacht.
  • Announcement made with justification of disarmament being the killing of von Rath, the same justification used for the Kristallnacht pogroms
  • Announcement made BY Wolf-Heinrich Graf von Helldorf, who has been attributed as the general architect of the Ghetoos, and Pogroms against jews, and specifically as one of the ones directing the Kristallnact pogroms, and instructing the police/SA etc not to interfere.

One of the telegrams directing the events of Kristallnacht (and remember, this is immediately after the actual disarmament and announcement that the Jews would be disarmed to the public)

This FS must be lodged by the quickest route. first It will take place in a very short time in Germany actions against Jews, especially against their synagogues. You are not to interfere. However, in consultation with the Ordnungspolizei to ensure that looting and other special incidents can be prevented. second Provided that in synagogues important archive material, this shall be achieved through immediate action [sic]. third It is preparing the arrest of about 20-30000 Jews in the kingdom. It should be selected primarily wealthy Jews. Further arrangements were made ​​in the course of the night. 4th Are [sic] in the upcoming actions Jews in possession of weapons are found, the most severe measures must be carried out. To the overall actions taken are available troops of the SS and SS General Appropriate measures is the leadership of the actions by the State Police to ensure in any case. [...] II Gestapo Mueller - FS This is secret


  • 3 contemporary german newspaper articles (again, all 3 on the actual day of Kristallnacht, announcing that the Jews were disarmed) (based on the wording below, plus the NYT wording, I'd say both were pretty much reprints of the actual announcement or press release) "waffen" is weapons. "Bewaffnete Juden" is "armed jews", "entwaffnet" is "disarmed". Judenwaffen is "Jew-weapons"
    • Razzia auf Judenwaffen, DER ANGRIFF, Nov. 9, 1938, at 14. 150.
    • Bewaffnete Juden, FRÄNKISCHE TAGESZEITUNG, Nov. 9, 1938, at 2. 151.
    • Berlins Juden wurden entwaffnet, BERLINER MORGENPOST, Nov. 9, 1938.
    • Translation excerpt of one of the articles
      • "In view of the Jewish assassination attempt in the German Embassy in Paris, Berlin’s Police President made known publicly the provisional results so far achieved, of a general disarming of Berlin’s Jews by the police, which has been carried out in recent weeks. The Police President, in order to maintain public security and order in the national capital, and prompted by a few individual incidents, felt compelled to disarm Berlin’s Jewish population"

An article from our sister DE wiki, making the connection as well. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entwaffnung_der_deutschen_Juden Gaijin42 (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Also this additional telegram directing the events of Kristallnacht All Jewish stores are destroyed immediately by SA men in uniform. After the destruction has raise a SA guard, has to ensure that any valuables are stolen. [...] The press is to be used. Jewish synagogues are immediately on fire, Jewish symbols are secure. The fire department may not intervene. There are only protect homes Aryan German, however, the Jews out, because Aryans will move in the next few days there. [...] The Fuhrer wishes that the police does not intervene. All Jews are disarmed. With resistance immediately shoot to the ground. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Gaijin42. What issue does Stopyourbull have from a policy perspective? There is a very clear historical connection and the fact that the German Wiki makes reference to it is also material. I don't think we should engage in revisionist histories here. Facts are facts, this is notable, rs, and relevant. He better have a fantastic and very objective reason to attempt to exclude. I'd like to read his thinking. -Justanonymous (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
We should also put this into historical perpective. There is a very longstanding history of tyrannies disarming societies. Plato and Aristotle made reference to this, In feudal Japan only Samurais could keep katana style weapons and it was punishable by death for anybody else to have them, In Mideival Europe only nobles, royals chartered knights and the king's armies could have swords and weapons like that legally, In recent there are all kinds of examples Khmer, Phillipines, Rhwanda etc. There is plenty of room for a very comprehensive view into all of this. It's real history and we should not try to make it opaque because it benefits one narrative that might be going on here. -Justanonymous (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
''I have a response. Please don't make any edits until I get a chance to reply.--StopYourBull (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

German sources, google translate does a decent job. Search for "entwaffnen" in german, or "disarm" in english.

Another NYT article, after Kristallnacht. See page 52, One of the first legal measures issued was an order by Heinrich Himmler, commander of all German police, forbidding Jews to possess any weapons whatever and imposing a penalty of twenty years confinement in a concentration camp upon every Jew found in possession of a weapon hereafter http://books.google.com/books?id=4LnoQgC4GKQC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=%22Nazis+Smash,+Loot+and+Burn+Jewish+Shops+and+Temples&source=bl&ots=EqNgMo7Ryb&sig=FkSpRQIjoY8Ob3Q5rqfSbvU4Zn4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ywApUY3eMYTLrQGAioGYAw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22first%20legal%20measures%20issued%20%22&f=false

My first concern is that this relies on innuendo implying that gun confiscation was a cause or precursor to the holocaust. This is wrong: gun ownership was just another right that the Nazis stripped from the Jews. At the same time, the Nazis were also expelling foreign Jews from Germany (at least) and moving Jews into ghettos to provide more and better housing for Aryans (as they professed). Hitler finally determined that he needed a better "solution" for the "Jewish problem" and the horror that was the final solution was unleashed.
Gun control has almost nothing to do with this, and, as I said in one edit, the allies were as guilty of confiscating weapons and running concentration camps during WWII as anyone. Japanese citizens on the west coasts of both the US and Canada were stripped of their possessions and livelihood, and forced to live in camps. In New York City, German and Italian Americans had their weapons--including knives and baseball bats--taken away.
In this section of the article, the British have also been labelled as "totalitarian," but the rebels could just as easily be labelled such, given their treatment of Loyalists during and following the American Revolution. This included banishment, forfeiture of property to local rebel politicos, and seizure of guns if the citizen would not pledge allegiance to the cause. It has even been convincingly argued that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution was only ratified after Patrick Henry made sure that it read such that militias were under state control, thus ensuring that state militias could operate to enforce slavery and not be fettered by any federal control.
I do not like to believe that the Allies, the British, or the US rebels were "tyrants," but their actions were the same as the Nazis as they pertain to gun confiscation.What makes the Nazis tyrants was the Holocaust and, as Abraham Foxman states, it was their genocide machine. Arms confiscation is just another tool of war, or maintaining an ordered state--right or wrong--that, as JustAnonymous points out, has always occurred and been practiced by all involved. Ignoring this is just making a value judgement that "we" are somehow better than "they."
-
My second concern--and it is a big one--is that this entire section equates gun confiscation with gun control. This is wrong. If I was hard nosed about this, I would want to remove the entire section for this reason. It is a spurious argument against gun control that runs to extremes and involves a lot of arm waving about the "thin edge of the wedge," "the "slippery slope," or other such unprovables. The article is about gun control and not gun confiscation. A true and fair discussion of gun control would not include a section devoted entirely to gun confiscation, while mislabelling it, and conflating it with gun control. Every modern nation has gun control to some degree. The Japanese may be all alone in outlawing guns, but it works for them in their small land and within the peculiarities of their culture. The argument here is whether more gun control leads to a more or less safe and healthy society, not whether gun confiscation leads to tyranny or is a hallmark of tyranny. To put it bluntly: this is just bollocks.
Being a reasonable man, I am content with leaving it in as long as it doesn't become too much of a vehicle for pushing POV, and at some point, we should make a statement about it dealing with gun confiscation only. If you want to add more of the "Nazis were into gun control" line of reasoning, then to balance it I would have to add all of the stuff about the Allies and the US Patriots, etc., with the appropriate references, of course.
I do believe we are making headway in retrieving this article from the POV pushing swamp it was mired in six months ago. The work of Michaplot particularly, in organizing and making sense of the first section "Impact on mortality and injury," in a very fair and balanced way, deserves note.
On a different but associated topic, I assume that you, (Gaijin), JustAnonymous, Miguel Escopeta, North8000, and Yaf (ret) are members of the Firearms project. I would like to get together to discuss all of the articles dealing with firearms politics and the seeming dysfunctional redundancy that exists. In short, a look at these articles shows that they most certainly can be combined into fewer but better articles, they can be more readily managed if some of them are merged, and that they shouldn't just be a means to divide, separate, and devolve into an alternate way to push your POV when another article deals with the same topic in a more balanced fashion. Please consider this and reply.
While I am here, Gaijin, I'm not sure about what you have added to the von Helldorf page, as he was head of police in Berlin and the NYT article deals with Kristallnacht occurring in Kassel which is about 400 km to the west. Should we point this out?----StopYourBull (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
To me the article of Gun control is about just that. It's not a health article or an article of whether less guns equate to less violence. It's quite simply an article about the entire spectrum on the practice of Gun control. Confiscation can be a part of gun control at one extreme, it all depends on what degree of control is desired by a government or population. A tyrant wants complete control of all weapons and as such might make "laws" outlawing guns and "laws" requiring confiscation. THat's the far end of the spectrum spectrum. On the other end, as soon as a society attempts to put any restraint on any firearm, it's engaged in gun control even if the restraint is trivial and from there the spectrum progresses to absolute illegality. Some societies might be quite peacable without guns while others might descend into anarchy without guns - the converse might be true of other societies. In a Wikipedia article we must describe the practice of gun control, not what the democrats might envision it or how republicans might envision it or how the Swiss see it. We must describe the entire spectrum of gun control from the first law that limits society from having cannons to the extreme where gun confiscations are a part of outlawing guns entirely. Crime, propensity for authoritarianism etc can all be byproducts. I'm very happy to talk about how to rationalize our articles to make it better. -Justanonymous (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that there is too much redundancy in the firearms project articles and that some can be combined.
  • Nobody is arguing that gun confiscation was the primary driver or method or cause of the Holocaust. But you seem to be trying to deny that it was used in a tool of that effort at all. Frankly with the sources provided, I think this is beyond questioning that it was A specifically identified and implemented tool that the Nazi's used in order to make the holocaust easier to accomplish.
    • Yes the Jews eventually had all of their possessions stripped of them, as did the Japanese intern camps etc. But We have several primary sources, specifically saying that the guns should be confiscated as an individual item. laws being passed, commentary by the Nazis that the gun confiscation was helping their cause, primary sources from Jews saying that their arms were stripped so they could not defend themselves, German citizens saying that they were specifically told the Jews were disarmed, as well as reliable secondary sources (both contemporary and modern) commenting on this. It is not like they took everything without special notice to the guns, and we are calling it out here.
    • A notable occurrence of the above is specifically associated with Kristallnacht, by MANY of reliable sources.
  • Regarding the helldorf article, You seem to be arguing that the article from the NYT, which directly quotes and mentions Helldorf confiscating guns, on Kristallnacht, mentioning the pogroms in response to the assassination which "justified" Kristallnacht, is not sufficient sourcing, and to do so would be WP:SYNTH. Kassel is mentioned in the article. Are you trying to argue that Kristalnacht only occured in Kassel and not in Berlin? this baffles me. Also, please see the SECOND NYT article, also directly mentioning the gun confiscation, in the context of the mass riots Germany wide. I will escalate this to RS/N etc if you insist.
  • Gun confiscation/prohibition is a subset of gun control. Discussing one end of the spectrum seems perfectly appropriate? Nobody here (in the article edits) is equating the current gun control efforts (which btw DO include confiscation) to these historical events. That such events can be used by one side or the other in their arguments is irrelevant to us. It is verifiable. It is notable. It is on topic. If you wish to clarify in the article that the section is discussing the more extensive side of gun control, that is fine. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both for your replies, and, because I have an engagement tonight, I will reply to you on Sunday. Have a good evening--StopYourBull (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Gun confiscation by the Nazis is a red herring, as far as it concerns gun control. Arms confiscation is standard operating procedure during times of war and has been practiced by all, and not just the ones that have shown themselves to be tyrannical or authoritarian. It is not a defining characteristic of Nazi tyranny, as "our side" did it as well. What defines the Nazi's tyranny was their genocide machine, as Foxman states. The elemental mechanics of the Holocaust, unfortunately, are probably the same as any military logistics during war. It is the extremes the Nazis carried it to in terms of violence, the degradation of human life, and the criminal adherence to an abominable mindset that are the definition of Nazi tyranny.
I agree that gun confiscation is the extreme of the spectrum for gun control, but, with the exception of Japan and as a measure of war, complete confiscation of guns from a group of people does not occur, to my knowledge. The question for this article, then, is why would so much space be taken up with this rarity, twisting and turning and trying to link "gun control" to the great horrors of the 20th century when in fact it is not a specific defining characteristic of these horrors? Halbrook seems to be the progenitor of this particular line of thinking about gun control, and even he has backed away from this approach (he declared he was writing a book on it but it is ten years later and he hasn't). I also note that many gun afficianado web sites (to their credit) take pains to state that the fake 1935 Hitler quotation is in fact fake.
As I stated earlier, I am content with leaving this section as it is, for now, including von Helldorf's statement, but pushing gun control onto other, more specific, Nazi actions, such as Kristallnacht, is just starting the inevitable spiral to balance it. That Kristallnacht in Kassel occurred at the same time as von Heldorf announcing he had disarmed Jews in Berlin is not not the same as an announcement that Jews in Kassel had been disarmed and then Kristallnacht occurred in Kassel. Leaving the WP reader with any implied linkage is wrong. The section should include some kind of statement about this being the extreme of gun control. I would prefer to see this section give a fairer treatment of confiscation with a discussion of how it is used during wars, rebellions, and uprisings, both good and bad, and that it is, in fact, rare to have complete banning of guns as a national law.
As far as violations of WP policy or guidelines are concerned, I would believe that the entire section leans toward WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP and easily strays off course, or is already off course, in invoking Nazis and what was Soviet Russia. I tend to see WP as an actual encyclopaedia and, as our teachers told us early on, you go to the encyclopaedia first, get an idea of what the topic is about, what the main concepts and arguments are, and then to go to more specific references to get in-depth information about the topic. If I was a student in Portugal (an amazing number of Portugese people are fluent in English) and I looked up Gun control in English WP, I think I would be put off by this section, to say the least. It has been given far too much weight, it invokes Nazis, and it stretches to make idiosyncratic connections with authoritarian regimes that are also present in regimes traditionally viewed as not being authoritarian. At the very least, everyone fluent in "Internet" is probably well aware of Godwin's Law, and this is a prime example.
In summary, as far as I am concerned, we can leave von Heldorf's announcement in, not include Kristallnacht or any other specific Nazi atrocities here, and make some statement about this being an extreme of gun control and how it is usually used. Eventually I would like to see this as having the title corrected and with a fairer discussion of extremes of gun control (without the Nazi references).
For the von Helldorf Article, Gaijin, I would like that it be explained that yes, von Heldorf's announcement and the Kristallnacht occurrence at Kassel occurred at the same time, but that that does not imply that guns were confiscated at Kassel before Kristallnacht took place there (they may have been, but for that there is no proof). I leave it at that.
For discussion of the redundancy in Firearms articles, I will try to ask specific people I am aware of who are interested in improving these articles (notably the people I mentioned earlier) and start the ball rolling. I'm not much of an authority on Firearms, per se, but I can certainly be the spoiler and provide input.--StopYourBull (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for ease of editing

Lets set aside the larger "authoritarians/nazis" issue, and just focus on the specific edits. Specifically, Kristallnacht, the von Helldorf article etc. Kassel is irrelevant. The ENTIRE ARTICLE is about Kristallnacht. That they chose to mention some events that happened in Kassel says nothing about what happened elsewhere. Are you sayingthat Kristalnacht took place in not in Berlin , but only Kassel? Do you think it took place on a time other than Nov 8-11, 1938? I don't think so. the entire article is discussing what is happening as a result of the killing of von Rath which is UNIVERSALLY acknowledged as the starting point of Kristallnacht.

I will leave aside completely the argument over if gun confiscation was an overall method of the Holocaust. The sources below offer irrefutable proof (at least to the standard required by WP:V, WP:N etc) that gun control WAS a specifically identified and implemented part of the Kristallnacht pogroms.

  • There are two contemporary NYT aticles about Kristallnacht (one from the 8th, one from the 10th). Neither of them use the word "Kristallnacht". This is not surprising, as the moniker was not created until later. Both of them specifically mention gun confiscation.
  • We have two telegrams from Nazi officials directing the actions of Kristallnacht. Both of them specifically mention that thew Jews were disarmed.
  • Goebbels Diary, on Nov 10th :(google translation) "Helldorff can completely disarm the Jews in Berlin . Which will also still can be prepared for lots of other stuff"
  • Several books (all discussing the Holocaust, none written from a gun control/gun rights perspective)
  • German books regarding the holocaust and Kristallnacht

id=FFOY_HOgA6cC&pg=PA359&dq=helldorf+entwaffnen&hl=en&sa=X&ei=74grUZWnOuyQyQHzvoHwBQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=helldorf%20entwaffnen&f=false

    • Die Verfolgung und Ermordung der europäischen Juden durch das nationalsozialistische Deutschland 1933–1945, Page 366

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Gaijin. I am taking your arguments very seriously and I have not yet had a chance to look at them. I will respond later today or tomorrow.--StopYourBull (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


Kristallnacht is important for what was done to the Jews living in Germany, Austria, and parts of the Suedetenland during the second week of November, 1938; the methods the Nazis used to enable it were not, other than for the retelling of the entire Kristallnacht story. Gun confiscation took place co-incident with Kristallnacht; it was not part of Kristallnacht. The Nazis simply made it easier for Kristallnacht to take place by formally having the SA/SS protect non-Jewish citizens, looking the other way while the "unofficially" sanctioned events happened, and in some cases by removing guns from the Jews, either to stop them shooting the perpetrators or to allow the Nazis access to the Jews' homes.
You are confusing the outcome with the methods used. I think the only significance of the removal of the Jews' guns was that it signalled further measures against them were to begin and that it was just another in a litany of common martial law measures taken against the Jews by the Nazis. Gun confiscation is a universal tool of war. It is not peculiar to the Nazis, Kristallnacht, or any of the horrors of the Holocaust. It is a tool, as are concentration camps, bombardment, removal of officials from office and installation of your own puppet regime, and all the other methods of war and martial law.
Prior to the vom Rath slaying, and Kristallnacht, the Nazis did the following, formally, as early as 1933:
  • Jewish children were expelled from German schools
  • "foreign" Jews were forced out of Germany
  • Jewish businesses/factories were seized and nationalized
  • Jews were barred from most public places
  • Jews were given curfew restrictions
  • Jews were forced to wear badges with the Star of David for identification
  • ghettos began
I fail completely to understand the big deal about gun confiscation during war. It is no more peculiar to Kristallnacht than it is to the indignities done to, and violations of the rights of, Japanese people in North America during WWII. Kristallnacht would have occurred regardless of the seizure of any weapons the Jews may have had and probably occurred in places where guns had not yet been confiscated from the Jewish population--which may have been the case in Kassel, the earliest reported incidence of "Kristallnacht." Gun confiscation simply made the management of the "Jewish problem" easier for the Nazis and gave them an excuse for entry into the homes of the Jewish people.
As an argument against gun control, this is grasping at straws:
  • It is not peculiar to the Nazis; the Allies also did it.
  • It was neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for Nazi atrocities.
  • Much of the opinion on the Jews being able to counteract the Nazi genocide machine states that gun confiscation is a non-issue as there were so few Jews living in Nazi occupied areas then and--as the one reference you cite states:
"A considerable number of Jewish homes in Germany did indeed contain weapons, but these were overwhelmingly daggers, sabers, and pistols that Jewish men had kept as mementos from their military service in World War One. The notion that Jews needed to be disarmed because they constituted some sort of physical threat was preposterous. It fit well, however, with the antisemitic narrative that German propaganda had constructed to explain the vom Rath shooting. It would also serve a practical purpose during the pogrom on November 9 and 10, when Jewish homes were not infrequently broken into and ransacked on the pretext of a search for illegal weapons."
  • Many opponents of gun control believe in the adage "guns don't kill people; people kill people," and all that it entails. The argument that the Nazis practiced gun control to subjugate Jews (for example) by not allowing them to fight back, is just blatant hypocrisy. Think about it.
You are correct: proof does exist that gun confiscation was part of the Nazis method at the time of Kristallnacht. Halbrook tried to make an issue of this ten years ago as an argument against gun control. It does satisfy WP:V, with the caveat that it is virtually meaningless for gun control from what the published work on it says, and that it may have just been a ruse to portray the Jews as dangerous and that they should have further actions taken against them. WP:N, from my understanding, doesn't really apply here.
For the entire section, I would still think that both WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV are violated. Why make it worse by adding details that would require balance? To balance out this section, it should be explained that gun confiscation is a reality of war and martial law and that everyone does it, regardless of whether they have been labelled as authoritarian or not.
The point of editing this article on Gun control is to ensure that it is accurate and balanced. The section, as it is, is precariously balanced but not really suitable to an article on gun control. Adding more details to it will just waste more space.
I do appreciate the scholarship you have put into this and I think it may be of use in the actual Kristallnacht article. The addition of a section with as many details as possible documenting what the Nazis did to prepare for, or used as an excuse for, Kristallnacht is probably very cogent there. Including mention of Kristallnacht on the von Helldorf page I will leave up to you and mind my own business.--StopYourBull (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Statistics

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

In the section regarding Australian gun laws, it extensively cites statistics, most of which suggest that gun crime in Australia has gone down (and a few of which suggest that gun crime rates haven't changed). The problem with these statistics, though, is that they're overly-specific; if guns are illegal, one would expect gun crime to go down. The statistics which actually matter are general murder rates, which aren't cited once; there's no good in cutting down on gun murders if knife murders rise.

tl;dr, please cite general crime statistics, rather than statistics aimed specifically at gun crime; it should go wihtout saying that making guns illegal cuts down on gun use (barring poor enforcement) 143.92.1.33 (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't follow the reasoning in the assertion that if guns are illegal, one would expect gun crime to go down. Why would that be? Would it be because one expects criminals to obey laws restricting firearms possession? Does that expectation go without saying? Also, it seems appropriate to me to cite statistics on gun crime in an article the topic of which is gun control.
Re general Australian crime stats -- I haven't looked these over with an eye to how they might contribute usefully to this article, but you might take a look at items turned up here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The broader point is that gun control has ramifications on crime and the ramifications are not consistent across all societies. Gun control in Australia has led to an explosion in thefts, burglaries, home invasions, assault while in Japan gun control is generally just a part of orderly society - what does this say about the underlying culture? In Great Britain when guns started to be removed from society knife crime shot up as did home invasions, now politicians are actually debating outlawing "pointy" knives - go figure. And the debate has gone further down the road to where the right of self defense is largely in question in Great Britain - killing someone that presents you with mortal danger can and does land you in jail - case 1, case 2. Gun control alters society. Worse, because in some cases gun control is attempting to address an underlying issue like crime and violence but, by controlling guns you might just shift the problem to knifes and then you limit pointy knives and the problem shifts again. Similarly gun control can be used by tyrannical governments to disarm the population - quite common historically yet we argue here (incredulously) whether that's relevant here --- YES, OF COURSE IT'S RELEVANT (and yes many of those societies descended into war - just because they did doesn't mean they didn't practice gun control). The British tried to practice gun control on the colonies and IT DID lead to war and REVOLUTION. The point, no pun intended, is that gun control efforts have consequences and those consequences should be noted here and those consequences are not homogenous across all societies on the planet. The article is already Western European pro-gun control enough as it is and I don't know how many British and Australian writers we have here but there seems to be a concerted effort to misrepresent and lower crime statistics for Australia and Great Britain and to cast America a some kind of lawless murder hotspot - which it most certainly is not. We should also note that looking at gun violence as a disease and a societal health is notably a British idea exported to Australia and to a less successful extent to the United States. This article desperately needs balance. And yes, if you take firearms from a society you will by default lower firearm crime - it's moronic to think otherwise, unless you only remove firearms from the law abiding but that would indicate an enforcement issue no? Look at Mexico with a complete gun ban on the lawful and a government unable to disarm the drug cartels with gigantic implications to a society. I highly urge the group to get rid of the agendas that are so very evidently present here. Write a good balanced NPOV article that describes gun control and stop trying to push your agenda. Basically, if you're a layperson, you should really stay away from this topic. If you're proAustralia, proBritain, proUSA you should just stay away. If you have an agenda you should stay away from this topic. What this topic needs is a few really good PHD sociologists who actually know what the heck they are writing about. Or at a very minimum, the writers need to be referencing some hard research by sociologists. This is a highly nuanced article and the way it is written at the moment with the competing superfluous viewpoints really reads parochial. We also need a world view and a long historical view on this, we seem to be almost exclusively focused on the US, Australia, Britain and a few European countries and then only for today and in the very recent past - that is now what a gun control articls should be about and it's not a WP:Battleground for pet agendas. No disrespect, we have a lot of work left here.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok I don't understand why we have a bunch of statistics on USA' gun ownership in a global article that is here to describe gun control. How does this help us describe gun control as a concept? Seems like people making some pet argument. Advise or we might delete the whole section. -Justanonymous (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_control/Archive_1&oldid=552977751"