Wikipedia

Talk:Gun control/Archive 4

< Talk:Gun control
Latest comment: 11 years ago by SPECIFICO in topic Protection has expired
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Stephen Halbrook

Latest comment: 11 years ago70 comments8 people in discussion

Let's see restoring editors establish that this individual is notable in anyway. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Harcourt article which you left in is directly responding to Halbrook, which has been covered (in counterargument) by Slate and Mother Jones. Halbrook was referenced by SCOTUS (McDonald and Heller). He has been published in multiple 3rd party publications (multiple books by multiple publishers, multiple unrelated academic journals. One of his books (Target Swizerland) has won two awards (Stifung für Abendländische Besinnung) and (Max Geilinger Foundation prize for works contributing to Swiss and Anglo-American culture). His books are referenced by MANY other books on gun politics (on both sides of the argument) Those articles have been cited hundreds of times by other publications (according to gscholar). He has appeared on CNN (Piers Morgan and Lou Dobs) and Fox news, as well as ABC Phil Donahue, NPR, CSpan etc as a commenter on gun issues, he has given testimony before the senate judicial commitee (Sotomayor Holdor confirmations, as well as multiple other hearings on gun control). He has been published by The washington post, the wall street journal, american rifleman, the american journal of sports medicine, National Law Journal, as well as numerous smaller newspapers and periodicals. He was the topic of articles in Slate, Mother Jones, Washington Post, ABA Journal, Wall street journal, Legal Times, etc. What bar of notability do you suggest? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Being cited in a Supreme Court Opinion seems to me to be a significant reason to support its inclusion. Shadowjams (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
To clarify, it was not the article in question which was cited by SCOTUS, but it does show notability of him as an author and expert on the topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah... I suppose that tempers my comment somewhat... as an aside, there has been the occasional law student whose note is cited by the Supreme Court (something one puts on their resume obviously)... and I'm just laughing at the idea they'd go off and write something insane and use this justification to support it. Shadowjams (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Links? Page numbers? Quotes? PraetorianFury (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Page 24 of the slip opinion in McDonald (I'm way too lazy to look up the reporter cite) and I think it's the same article, but it's also cited in Heller. Shadowjams (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea what you just said. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
You wanted links/page numbers. That's the page number. Go to the McDonald v. Chicago article and go to the SCOTUS slip opinion, then go to page 24. Do you think I'm blatantly lying about this? Shadowjams (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
This is not Easter and it is not my responsibility to go on the hunt for a link which you allege exists. And so far pro gun rights editors on this page have demonstrated shockingly bad faith and disruptive editing. Transparent battleground behavior, removing tags, blind reverting, being generally uncooperative (by failing to provide links and sources when asked) and consistently failing to show comprehension of issues brought up. So do I trust you? No. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Well Praetorian... your account's only been here for about 5 months. I've been here since before 2009 (as an IP before account). You need to assume some good faith. I provided cites for Gaijin's comment and you couldn't even be bothered to click two wiki links to find them. I think you need to back away, cool off from the subject a bit. Your user page makes your personal opinions obvious, which is fine, but you need to, insofar as anyone can, put those aside and be objective when it comes to issues like this. That's maybe hard on big topic stuff, but on something specific like this it should be easy. Shadowjams (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Aw that's cute, kid thinks he can pull seniority to get his way. First edit in 2008, son. I know how the game goes and don't think you can intimidate me with a paultry 4 years of experience. Good faith editors provide links. The fact that you are willing to argue about this for this amount of time rather than provide these links has convinced me that they infact do not exist and you are so far the most bad faith editor that has bothered to show up on this article. Good job. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I did provide cites, ironic since I wasn't even the one that made the claim. Who are you again Azure? Shadowjams (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Where? What cite? Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Do you think we're stupid? Is this supposed to convince anyone? Do you think if you can just keep making shit up that we'll tire of fighting your POV pushing and you can get your way? Infact the opposite has happened. I didn't give two shits about gun control until I saw all the manipulative and aggressive editing taking place here. I'll take this to mediation and even arbcom if I have to. PraetorianFury (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Please do. Shadowjams (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

And either way, in Wikipedia, notability is a criteria for existence of an article, not for use of a source. North8000 (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, WP:UNDUE is the policy being violated here (in addition to nearly every other core Wikipedia policy). — goethean 19:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Nor does wp:undue stipulate or allow removing wp:rs's due to not being "notable"; quite the opposite. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
What's "undue" about it? It unduly disagrees with your position? Quoted by the Supreme Court, my musing above aside, is a fairly strong indication that the person's a notable author on the subject. It's not as if it was quoted as an example of some extreme fringe. Shadowjams (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, Even those that disagree with his position are in a fundamental agreement on the facts, and regarding his opinions/conclusions, they are asking for more research from historians. There is not a consensus that he is wrong in his analysis, there is silence because nobody else has done the research. It is not WP:FRINGE to be the only person investigating the topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
He's the only recognized person studying the topic with your agenda. There are thousands of historians studying the Holocaust. Thousands. One guy thinks that gun control helped to cause the Holocaust. So, of course, we give that guy a disproportionate amount of space in this article. This a textbook violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. — goethean 21:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I thought we were arguing about one cite... is your position that there's no research [that's not fringe] on the connection between authoritarian regimes and weapons restrictions? Shadowjams (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I would feel better if another source was used to make the same claim. A politician or expert (with a Wikipedia article). That is my last complaint in the section as it currently stands and I would be content to remove the tags if something replaced that quote. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Wait, I take that back. If we're going to focus on historical accuracy and not the current gun control battle in the United States, the entire second paragraph should be removed. We can leave interpretations of history to the reader with the information given in the first paragraph. I don't think there's a consensus in either direction about lessons to be taken from Nazi Germany regarding gun control. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I think you mean second section. Shadowjams (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I mean the second paragraph in the disputed section. Starting with, "Lawyer Stephen Halbrook, in the article" and ending with, "to prevent the Holocaust." PraetorianFury (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
There's a second cite in that paragraph you know. I don't think blanking the whole section you are ideologically opposed to is a sufficient compromise. Shadowjams (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Herpa derp, check the 3rd and 4th sentences of that paragraph before you accuse me of bias, genius. The debate aspect of the issue should be handled at Political_arguments_of_gun_politics_in_the_United_States, as opinionated sources work just fine in an "arguments" article. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
You're assuming the conclusion a bit... you're wanting to blank the entire reference to Nazi gun restrictions. Some of your other user talk comments indicate you think they loosened restrictions. If that's the case then add those cites. Ideally the history section would have a general outline of all gun control efforts, and then break it down by specific country with hats to those. There's no "debate" in stating the obvious. Shadowjams (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Eh? Are we talking about the same thing or are you trying to invent some sort of straw man here? I said we should delete the second paragraph, not the first. And the first paragraph says the word, "relaxed". I'm repeating what the article already says. The source is in the article. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I guess you mean second paragraph of the disputed section... I didn't know it was so specific. Sorry. I still think that second paragraph isn't all that disconnected from the subject; one caveat though. That last sentence strikes me as absurd. I strongly suspect the sentence "According to the ADL, the number of privately owned firearms by Jews would have been insufficient to prevent the Holocaust.[16]" is UNDUE weight to a particular source. I would support removing it unless some compelling evidence to the contrary was produced. Shadowjams (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh man, good thing you're good at guessing! You know, for a moment there I almost had some respect for you. And then you want to keep Halbrook without providing any evidence of his notability and remove the ADL with at least 7 sources provided for their notability on top of the Wikipedia page for both the organization and its founder. This is disgustingly transparent, I think I'm getting nauseous. PraetorianFury (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm starting to understand how Gaijin could lose his patience and make an inopportune comparison. Praetorian... you need to drop the personal comments and comment on content. It seems quite clear to me that you edited under a previous account with a storied block log too, so you should know better at this point. Shadowjams (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's review. You are "too lazy" to provide a link that establishes the alleged reliability of Halbrook as a source, yet you are willing within minutes of posting to look up rules on alternative accounts and browse through my 5 year old contributions? Are you serious? PraetorianFury (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I gave you the cite. What are you, a law review editor? Shadowjams (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Lol, alright kid. If you wanna join the growing collection of bad faith POV warriors, that is your decision. I'm just loving all diffs this is giving me when this issue gets escalated. PraetorianFury (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • @Praetorian you are completely ignoring the SIGNIFICANT evidence I have provided regarding Halbrook's notability. You have made zero arguments refuting that evidence. He is a recognized expert in the topic even by people who completely disagree with his conclusions. Multiple uninvolved editors have commented that he is a recognized expert and a reliable source for basic facts regarding gun control history, and a notable reliable source for the anti-gun-control POV. Please read my first comment in this section and make arguments to the contrary. multiple books and articles. multiple tv comentor appearences, being cited hundreds of times, including multiple SCOTUS. If that isnt a reliable source, nobody is ever.
  • Nobody is saying that the Nazi's may not have loosened gun restrictions for some, while simultaneously prohibiting them completely to others. Unfair treatment between races and classes, and the government vs the people is part of what makes the nazis authoritarian.
  • the historical section as written is NOT making any arguments. That those historical facts (which are undisputed) can be used to support an argument does not make them arguments themselves.
  • Regarding fringe and neutrality :
    • There are zero sources arguing that the nazis did not confiscate weapons from the jews
    • There are zero sources saying that was not a form of gun control
      • The rebuttal to Halbrook from Harcourt stipulates all of these facts very plainly
    • Statements that what the nazis did was not gun control, or that the definition of gun control has changed since that time are WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH since there are multiple sources describing them as such. If you think that is not neutral, or fringe, please provide sources to the contrary.
    • Regarding research : He is the only one researching the intersection of gun control and the holocaust. There is nobody doing research to the contrary, so claims of neutrality or fringe are baseless.
    • There ARE sources disputing Halbrook's (and others) assertion that had Jews had weapons they could have better defended themselves. We are not actually making that argument anywhere in the section, but that is the only place fringe or NPOV would apply
    • The second paragraph is not referring at all to the current debates in the US or elsewhere (although the sources we are pulling from do) arguments that we should change the venue of the content, based on text that isn't in the article is asinine.
  • Nobody is making arugments that gun control caused the holocaust, was the primary method of implementing the holocaust, or any other such crazy strawman. those who have been arguing that are chasing their own tail.

Gaijin42 (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a distinction between whether someone is notable and whether some of the views they express are significant to this article. Halbrook's theory has received no attention from other scholars and is therefore of no significance to the article, per WP:WEIGHT. Importantly, no holocaust scholars report his views. TFD (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Folks have been making up a standard that do not exist. This is the latest one, which is whether or not scholars have addressed the wp:rs. North8000 (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Weight says, "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." As Halbrook said, he was the first person to write about this, his article appeared in a lesser-known journal and has received zero support from scholars. If you want to add fringe views then you need to change the policy, rather than continuing your arguments across countless articles. Under current policy, the articles here should read like similar articles in textbooks or mainstream sources, not Tea Party blogs. We waste a lot of time discussing fringe views, which should only be discussed in their own articles. TFD (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
You are mixing up two different things. Saying that other sources not having addressed that particular source makes what they are saying "fringe" is simply not valid and has no basis. North8000 (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
And Harcourt explicitly says that Halbrook is so biased against gun control that his work on the subject can't be trusted. Seems someone missed that little nugget when they were mining Harcourt's paper for valuable quotations. — goethean 13:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
North8000, the fact that Halbrook's theory has not received any acceptance in the nine years since it was published means that it deserves no weight. In writing articles one should identify the best sources and reflect what they say, not search for sources that support whatever one thinks is important. TFD (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
We keep changing topics with each post. Previously I was deflating non-existent policies that were being implied to knock out the material. Now you have switched to stating a laudable goal. North8000 (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
"Neutral point of view" is a policy. TFD (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I find it very difficult to put credence in the idea that Halbrook is a fringe, non-notable, non-expert source on guns, when his SCOTUS amicus curae briefs are signed by 300+ members of congress. (for those bad at math or civics, thats more than 50%). Guns are a controversial topic, but calling the side you disagree with fringe is not helpful. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/08/AR2008020803802.html?hpid=topnews Gaijin42 (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Neither the Washington Post article nor the brief make any mention of gun laws in Nazi Germany. You need to establish that his views on that subject have entered mainstream discourse, which they have not. Do you not wonder why he neglected to mention this theory in his presentation to the Supreme Court? I imagine because he realized that it would make the presentation wacky and offensive. TFD (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
More likely it was off topic and had no relevance to if a DC law was constitutional or not?Gaijin42 (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Is this really the best you can do, a *second source* from stephenhalbrook.com to establish his notability? Don't you think this should imply something to you when you can't find any mention of him anywhere else? PraetorianFury (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
WTF are you talking about. There is mention of him all over the place. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Am I missing something? Where is this grand list of links that mention him and his opinions on gun control in Nazi Germany? All that has been provided in this section are a link to a Wikipedia article, a Washington Post article which does not mention him, and a second source from his website. Though admittedly the talk page has ballooned in my absence, I could have missed it. Could you point me to where all these mentions are? PraetorianFury (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

he is notable for his views on gun control, the topic of this page. He has appeared as an expert witness on CNN, ABC, FOX, and other channels. He has testified before congress MANY MANY times on gun issues. He has argued and won two gun control cases before SCOTUS, wrote an Amicus Curae for Heller (the most important gun control case ever probably) that a majority (300+)(mainstream!) of Congress signed, and his books and articles were cited by SCOTUS in Heller and McDonald (among other SCOTUS and lower court ruling citations). He has written many articles, which have been cited HUNDREDS of times, and written multiple books published by multiple publishers, some of which have won international awards. Further, a simple google search will find you MANY articles where he is quoted for his opinion on various gun issues from reliable sources. Finally, that Harcourt, Salon, Mother Jones, etc all single him out and try to disprove him is notability via their attention. If he was a nobody, they wouldn't respond! Gaijin42 (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Links? PraetorianFury (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I listed many things. Please provide something specific you will think is satisfactory or that you question. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
You typed many words on a talk page but have provided no links as required by WP:ONUS. Let the record show that I've given you the opportunity to change my position and you have rejected it. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
WTF are you talking about. I asked you to clarify what you wanted to see. That is not rejection. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Gee, well, so far you have provided nothing, so how about something. Can you show me something? Demonstrate that he was a witness on CNN, ABC, FOX, and other channels. Demonstrate that his views were disputed by Harcourt, Salon, and Mother Jones. These sources are what I've been asking for since my very first edit. You could have saved us a week of hassle if you had provided them in the first place. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


Neue Zurcher Zeitung is the swiss equivalent of the NYT, it is "The paper of record"

  • 'Kontrapunkt zur Diffamierung der Schweiz': Preisverleihung an Stephen Halbrook und Angelo Codevilla," Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 11.11.2002, Nr. 262, S. 27.
  • "Auszeichnung für Stephen P. Halbrook: Überreichung des Preises der Max-Geilinger-Stiftung," Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 31. Mai 2000, S. 47.
  • Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II. Rockville Center, N.Y.: Sarpedon Publishers, 1998 (the book that is being discussed in the previous two Swiss news article)
  • That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press
  • Firearms Law Deskbook, published by West (publisher) " one of the most prominent publishers of legal materials in the United States"
  • A Right to Bear Arms: State and Federal Bills of Rights and Constitutional Guarantees. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1989.
  • Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers, 1998.

I could probably triple this list in size. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

PraetorianFury, there is no question that Halbrook is notable and wrote a submission to the Supreme Court on behalf of the anti-gun control congressmen. The question though is whether the opinions he published in a minor law journal eight years ago are significant. My position is that since they have received zero support in academic writing, that they are lack significance for this article. There are many experts who occasionally wander off into grassy knoll territory. That does not provide a carte blanche to add fringe theories to articles. TFD (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.

  • Harcourt, Mother Jones etc chose to respond to his views specifically, is that not a sign that they are notable enough for a response?
  • According to gscholar, that particular article has been cited 33 times.
  • Halbrooks response to Harcourt was also published, and that was also cited an additional 7 times http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=13960190244754489106&as_sdt=5,50&sciodt=0,50&hl=en
  • Halbrook is of course standing in as our representative of the entire viewpoint, which although very contravercial, is certainly not unique. There are MANY books and articles making similar statements (that are largely arguing from a US pro-gun perspective). But the issue is notability of uncontested facts no? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Additionally his book "target switzerland" which won two awards (per the links I provided above) makes the same argument. That book has been cited 25 times. the book was reviewed by Publishers Weekly, and Booklist, and AEI magazine. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing above that establishes the credibility of Halbrook as an expert or even a well-informed credible analyst on the topic here, Gaijin. We live in a world where its easy for nearly anyone with a story to conjure up a sliver of media and public attention. We've seen Donald Trump interviewed, published and broadcast on Pres. Obama's birth ceritificate. We've seen Oliver Stone hold forth on the Kennedy assassination. We've even heard Al Gore's opinions on global warming. Andy Warhol and Marshall McLuhan foresaw our current overload of what may appear to be significant people and ideas. In the case of Halbrook, he doesn't pass muster -- for reasons already stated here. I suggest you take the Halbrook question to the appropriate DR. As I said previously I think simpler issues make for more fruitful DR and you can chip away at your long list in an orderly fashion. SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Folks are trying to imply a standard for sources that does not exist. And doubly so when it attributed as an opinion rather than as a fact in the voice of Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

We appear to be arguing at cross-purposes. The main issue is WP:WEIGHT. How significant are the Jewish gun laws to their role in the holocaust and how relevant is that to the issue of gun control overall? Holocaust scholars routinely do not say that the gun laws contributed to the holocaust. ""But it's true!" is not a sufficient reason to keep information on Wikipedia." It is just reductio ad Hitlerum. If you think there is a need to discuss the holocaust and gun control, then it belongs in a separate article. TFD (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
(added later) Even though I do not agree with where you end up, you are making thoughtful conversation on this. For me to address this thoughtfully and thoroughly will take about 20 minutes and I don't have that right now. But the gist of it is that amongst people who state opinions on this, I think that "gun control had a role is widely held viewpoint. Maybe majority, maybe minority, but widely held. If one ups that to "played a major role then the crowd shrinks, but I think just down to a significantly held (not fringe) view. The text in question covers it, and covers it as a attributed view, not a fact in the voice of Wikipedia. Being a significantly held view, I think you wp:npov says not only that it be allowed to be covered, but further that it must be covered. The standard that you are promulgating (essentially that one must buttress that the view is TRUE (via scholars etc.) in order to cover the view is not only not a policy, it actually is directly against wp:npov. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Creationism is also a widely held viewpoint, but Wikipedia doesn't treat Adam and Eve as historical figures. The Nazi gun control theory should be covered for what it is: a right-wing meme. — goethean 20:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
It is not a theory. It is an uncontested fact. The ramifications of that fact are controvercial, and there is fringe to be had there, but not in the base fact that the gun control was used as a tool in the holocaust. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
It is a right-wing meme which does not rise to the level of a theory. Your putting the Nazi treatment of Jews in the history of gun control is not a fact, it is an interpretation and a highly contentious one at that. The Nazis actually liberalized gun laws...except for Jews. And so you are going to call the Nazi persecution of the Jews gun control, something which makes no sense at all and which is flatly rejected by historians. — goethean 20:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Is it also your opinion that southern states which implemented racist voting rules that applied only to blacks did not in fact implement voting laws because that was just one element of the discrimination? Laws may be written in a discriminatory manner. The Germans did so. The use of gun control was one element of their persecution (mainly as an aid to make other forms of persecution easier and safer for themselves) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I stipulate that in the grand scheme of things, gun control is not an important issue in the holocaust. this is not an article about the holocaust. This is an article about gun control. The history of gun control IS obviously an important issue to the topic of gun control.
Much of that history is of a discriminatory manner (All the way back to the English bill of rights, which protected arms for Protestants and prohibited them to Catholics), the ridiculously racist (anti-indian, anti-black) US history of gun control, The Indian (dot) arms act, which allowed Europeans the right to carry arms, but prohibited Indians (where interestingly Ghandi argued for gun rights for Indians, but restrictions on natives and africans)etc. The Nazi use is a portion of the history of gun control that is well documented and an uncontested fact, and in the scope of the history of gun control, it is a notable fact (along with the other incidents mentioned).
This of course should be balanced with "good" gun control such as we have in the Australia section, which should be expanded to other modern worldwide and historical implementations to get a netural and accurate view.
Further as you have already agreed, on the topic of guns, Halbrook is a recognized expert, and therefore his analysis OF GUN CONTROL is imminently notable. The viewpoint such as that proposed by specifico, to redefine discriminatory use of gun control as not actually being gun control is POV of the worst order. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

General histories discussing nazi gun control (generally in relation to Kristallnacht)

Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

Textbook, "The complete history of the holocaust", p68 "Perhaps to help insure the Jews could not fight back in the future, the Minister of the Interior issued regulations against Jews' possession of weapons on November 11. This prohibited Jews from "acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority"

Same quote "The Racial State : Germany, 1933-1945" p92

Interesting that that are lots of german sources discussing the diarmament. Perhaps the "fringe" is actually researchers avoiding the topic due to their own bias/interest?

Der Weg in Den Krieg 1938 (The road to war in 1938) : p28 (bad google translate) "On the morning after Kristallnacht , when Goebbels ordered by Hitler arrest of "25-30000 Jews" in ... let fear of possible attacks the Jewish Berlin Police President Helldorf "the Jews completely disarm"

Reichskristallnacht: Antisemitismus Und Judenverfolgung Im Dritten Reich (Kristallnacht : Anti-semism and persocution of thew Jews in the Third Reich) "The finding of Jewish shops, stores and warehouses must be made ​​in consultation with the competent mayors and mayors, also the itinerant activity. All Jews are to be disarmed ."

Reichskristallnacht (Wilfred Mairgunther)p74 : (translate) "All Jews are to be disarmed . Shoot at resistivity immediately to the ground"

"Reichskristallnacht" in Bremen p43 : On the fateful proved the two sentences: "All Jews are to be disarmed . Shoot at resistivity immediately to the ground. "Staff leader Römpagel testified at the party later trial, he was, as he ...

Die Rolle des Propagandaministers Joseph Goebbels im Licht seiner Tagebucheinträge vom 10. November 1938 bis 17. November 1938 " The term Kristallnacht was a ... also ordered that he complete disarmament of Jewish citizens"


Gaijin42 (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You continue to swipe at a straw man. No one denies that Germans disarmed Jews. What we deny is the idea that "gun control" is a descriptively accurate characterization of what occurred, given the colloquial and academic definition of the term, which is not literal (or again, it would include a mother keeping her shotgun away from her 2-year old). Steeletrap (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Its amazing how far the goalposts move in this discussion. You are the one making a strawman of "non-discriminatory". The meaning of gun control is plain and has virtually infinite sources. We are clearly discussing "Gun control laws" in this article.

  • Our own introduction "Gun control is any law, policy, practice, or proposal designed to restrict or limit the possession, production, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of firearms." (not any non-discriminatory law)
  • Gun control laws aim to restrict or regulate the sale, purchase, or possession of firearms through licensing, registration, or identification requirements"
  • Regulation of the sale and use of rifles and handguns.
  • efforts to regulate or control sales of guns
  • laws that prevent people from keeping and using guns
  • regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns
  • government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms.
  • efforts to regulate or control sales of guns;
  • gun control, politics, legislation, and enforcement of measures intended to restrict access to, the possession of, or the use of arms, particularly firearms.

Stop using WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and your own POV. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Historians do not consider the Nazi disarmament to be gun control. Harcourt says this explicitly in text which is quoted in the article and which I invite you to read. — goethean 21:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. Now you're admitting the Nazis disarmed the Jews of their guns via confiscation, but you're questioning whether that constituted gun control? Seriously? I've seen some asinine arguments on Wikipedia in my time, but that takes the cake. Next, maybe we can argue about whether or not water is wet. ROG5728 (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Tell University of Chicago Law School professor Bernard Harcourt. I'm sure that he will be about as concerned about your opinion as I am. — goethean 21:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Or Brown University historian Omer Bartov.[1] — goethean 21:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
He does not say "disarming of the jews was not gun control". He says overall germany did not have a consistent implementation of gun control. This is true. the laws were loosened for germans, and very strong for Jews. You can be "pro gun control" for the people you dislike and "anti-gun-control" for others at the same time. How is this not patently obvious! Its like saying "Congress did not raise taxes, because they lowered taxes on themselves!" Gaijin42 (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a direct quote saying "disarmament of the jews was not gun control" or some such. The "absurd" quote (which Harcourt uses twice) is talking about Hitlers OPINION of gun control (in general), not if the nazis IMPLEMENTED gun control (against the jews). Gaijin42 (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The toughest question in all of this is how to characterize the Nazi treatment of the Jewish population for the purpose of evaluating Adolf Hitler's position on gun control. The truth is, the question itself is absurd.
I'm not sure how to make this any plainer. — goethean 21:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Im not sure how you can misread the quote. "The toughest question in all of this is how to characterize the Nazi treatment of the Jewish population for the purpose of evaluating Adolf Hitler's position on gun control. The truth is, the question itself is absurd." Hitlers position on gun control is irrelevant to the fact (or not) of if the Nazis used it. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
In any case, your examples are discussing the disarming of Jews in relation to Kristallnacht. It makes sense to do this since the two occurred at the same time and laws relating to Jewish ownership of guns was one of a number of measures taken to deprive Jews of the rights that other citizens had. None of them make the claim that Halbrook does.
I notice that Halbrook's arguments have been bouncing around the echo chamber recently, as noted by the Anti-Defamation League.[2] "Another common theme that has emerged in recent weeks is that if only the victims of the Holocaust had better access to guns, the Nazi regime would not have been able to systematically murder so many people." What do you mean by the comment, "Perhaps the "fringe" is actually researchers avoiding the topic due to their own bias/interest"? What "bias/interest" do you think holocaust scholars have? What is fringe about holocaust studies?
TFD (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Certainly the arguments you are describing are made by some gun-rights proponents. Those counterfactual claims do have a lot of issues. We are not making those claims here. The fact that some make those claims does not detract from historical facts. Kirstallnacht was part of the holocaust/Nazi germany, and once Jews were deprived of their arms, and prevented from buying more, it is patently obvious that the issue would not arise later again in the holocaust as the "state of not having guns" was continuous from that point. That does not detract from Halbrooks point (which Harcourt agrees with 100%. Harcourt : "To be sure, the Nazis were intent on killing Jewish persons and used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide." )
I was not attempting to say that holocaust studies was fringe. The point was that German sources cover the gun control history relationship (albeit not in excessive detail compared to the rest of the Holocaust), while US sources do so less, and a hypothesis is that perhaps US researchers were choosing to avoid investigating the gun control relationship, due to their own US gun politics, and to avoid giving support to those such as Halbrook/NRA etc, which would be less of an issue to German researchers. this does not detract from their reliability or mainstreamness in the areas that they do choose to investigate. Certainly Halbrook et al have motivations that fuel their research and study vs what they do not. I merely ascribe the same process to the other side of the argument.Gaijin42 (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Outside the U.S., gun control is not an issue, so it is unlikely that those holocaust scholars would have an axe to grind. Also, many genocide scholars in the U.S. and elsewhere are conservative so they would have no reason to minimize the gun issue. And it is not consistent with policy to question the motivations of scholars, merely to determine whether their views are mainstream.
Bear in mind too that 95% of holocaust victims did not live in Germany. The ADL pointed out that there were armed uprisings in Poland, where half the victims lived, yet they had no effect.
As the Simon Wiesenthal Center points out, the Nazis had no plans for the systematic murder of Jews before 1941.[3] Even if one thinks the Jewish gun laws facilitated the holocaust in Germany, it is a leap to say that it was part of the planning. And the Center does not mention gun laws at all.
TFD (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "Outside the US GC is not an issue" - agreed, which is why I think there are more sources available in German. We (andHalbrook, and Harcourt in "Call to Historians etc) agree that US researchers do not (for whatever reason) cover Jewish disarmament much. Such a void does not magically cause the Halbrook argument to become "not mainstream".
  • Poland - Yes, I stipulate the argument that even if the Jews had had guns, the majority of them would still have been murdered. That does not change the historical fact that the Nazis did use gun control to aid their efforts. The Nazis thought it was important to do (shown by a) they did it. and b) there are plenty of primary sources from them talking about them thinking it was important). That they may have been wrong and would have succeeded anyway doesn't make it that they magically didn't do it at all.
  • The final solution was not final, but certainly forced detention was (per the Kristallnacht telegrams saying to expect 20,000 from Berlin etc). They used gun control to further their gains, whatever they were at the time.
  • None of your arguments (many of which I agree with btw) contradict the text that we have. It is an undisputed fact that the Nazis did implement gun control against the jews. Period. End of line. (They do contradict the arguments of some gun rights proponents regarding the effectiveness of hypothetical armed by the jews. As we are not discussing those arguments in the article, such a contradiction is irrelevant).

Gaijin42 (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

discussion moved from user talk

Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion
The article needs to be expanded with further history of gun control (rest of the world etc as you say). That such sections are missing now is cause for someone to write them, not delete the sourced content. The use of gun control against Jews is an uncontested fact. It may be an unimportant fact in the scope of Nazis, but is not the same thing as being unimportant to the history of gun control, where it is one more instance of the LONG history of being applied as a tool of repression and discrimination, (in addition to the history where it was used with good intent). Gaijin42 (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Gaijin, in what sense do you call g.c. an unimportant fact with respect to the Nazis but nevertheless important as a tool of (presumably Nazi and other) repression and discrimination. Also, could If anyone in addition to myself feels that it would be appropriate, I suggest we copy the last few remarks to the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 20:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
The same event/fact can have different levels of importance in different contexts. (My grandfather died. Very important to my family. Not so much to the rest of the world).
The history of gun control is often and unfortunately one of repression and discrimination. I believe this is not a controversial idea.
To be sure, there are many instances where it was done with good intent in the history as well. (However, even the discriminatory ones were done with what the authors may have believed was good intent - nobody believes themselves to be evil)
Each instance (Nazis, US, Britan etc) it was one part of overall discrimination against some group, and in the context of the discrimination against that group was one cog in the machine of discrimination. But collectively, they are very important to history and concept of gun control, and should be documented as part of the overall fabric thereof.
I am fine with copying this to the talk page, but I don't think any arguments are really here that aren't made there. I was replying to the comment Drmies made.

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

By my reading you have repeated your assertion without answering my question. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
That comment would imply that you disagree with the basic premise "The same event/fact can have different levels of importance in different contexts." ? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
That inference would be mistaken. SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

could you clarify what your question is then? Gaijin42 (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Question (slightly edited for clarity) Please explain your statement above that gun control was unimportant with respect to the Nazis but was nevertheless an important tool of Nazi repression? SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Certainly the same facts may have significance to one article but not to another. But the only reason for mentioning Nazi laws in this article is if it were significant to Nazi oppression. Otherwise it is argumentum ad hitlerum, an attempt to discredit gun control by bringing up hitler and more broadly, to identify American liberalism with nazism. Gaijin42, do you think that the D.C. gun control laws were implemented as a first step in an American genocide? TFD (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
No, i do not think they were implemented as a first step to American genocide. That facts might discredit (or credit) a particular argument is not a reason to include or not include them. These facts are uncontested, they are verifiable and sourced to multiple primary and secondary sources, and they have been commented on by multiple notable sources (although you may not agree with the views of the people that comment) That there is controversy regarding opinions on the implications of uncontested fact in no way detracts from the relevance of uncontested facts. Indeed the controversy is itself notable. Continued attempts to suppress this information is POV based censorship. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
American liberalism? Actually 93% in recent polling. More like equating the NRA with the tiny German resistance. The only thing that will stop a bad Nazi with a gun is a good Nazi with a gun. SPECIFICO talk 14:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
"...the controversy is itself notable." Indeed, in sources describing the American Right, which is where the controversy should be mentioned. TFD (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This entire thread seems unnecessary [here]. Shadowjams (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

proposed new section/paragraph on 3d printing and effect on gun control

Latest comment: 11 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion

Many articles written on this topic recently, about how 3d printing (or CAD driven EDM/CNC) may eventually (once technology matures) make gun control difficult or impossible to enforce. Is there consensus to add a mention regarding this? As I believe we are still fully protected, we can work on wording here in the article and put in an edit request.

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks worthy of coverage in the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

proposed wording


After Defense Distributed released their 3D printed Liberator gun, questions were raised regarding the effects that 3D printing and widespread consumer-level CNC machining[1][2] may have on gun control effectiveness. [3][4] [5][6]

The United States Department of Homeland Security and the Joint Regional Intelligence Center released a memo which was obtained by Fox News, saying that "Significant advances in three-dimensional (3D) printing capabilities, availability of free digital 3D printer files for firearms components, and difficulty regulating file sharing may present public safety risks from unqualified gun seekers who obtain or manufacture 3D printed guns," and "Proposed legislation to ban 3D printing of weapons may deter, but cannot completely prevent their production. Even if the practice is prohibited by new legislation, online distribution of these digital files will be as difficult to control as any other illegally traded music, movie or software files."[7]

Internationally, where gun controls are generally tighter than in the United States, some commentators have said the impact may be more strongly felt, as alternative firearms are not as easily obtainable. [8] European officials have noted that producing a 3d printed gun would be illegal under their gun control laws[9], and that criminals have access to other sources of weapons, but noted that as the technology improved the risks of an effect would increase.[10].[11] Downloads of the plans from the UK, Germany, Spain, and Brazil were heavy. [12][13]

Attempting to restrict the distribution over the Internet of gun plans has been likened to the futility of preventing the widespread distribution of DeCSS which enabled DVD ripping.[14][15][16] [17] After the US government had Defense Distributed take down the plans, they were still widely available via The Pirate Bay and other file sharing sites.[18] Some US legislators have proposed regulations on 3D printers, to prevent them being used for printing guns. [19][20] 3D printing advocates have suggested that such regulations would be futile, could cripple the 3D printing industry, and could infringe on free speech rights. [21][22][23][24][25][26][27]

References

  1. ^ http://www.guns.com/2013/05/23/3d-printers-meet-othermill-a-cnc-machine-for-your-home-office/
  2. ^ http://www.popehat.com/2011/10/06/the-third-wave-cnc-stereolithography-and-the-end-of-gun-control/
  3. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/weapons-made-with-3-d-printers-could-test-gun-control-efforts/2013/02/18/9ad8b45e-779b-11e2-95e4-6148e45d7adb_story.html?hpid=z1
  4. ^ http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21571910-regulatory-and-legal-challenges-posed-3d-printing-gun-parts-ready-print-fire
  5. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/shortcuts/2013/may/06/3d-printable-guns-cody-wilson
  6. ^ http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/05/_3_d_printed_gun_yes_it_will_be_possible_to_make_weapons_with_3_d_printers.single.html
  7. ^ http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/23/govt-memo-warns-3d-printed-guns-may-be-impossible-to-stop/#ixzz2VMQqto5e
  8. ^ http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/european-technology/peter-cochranes-blog-beyond-3d-printed-guns/1728
  9. ^ http://metro.co.uk/2013/05/06/gun-factory-fears-as-3d-blueprints-available-online-3714514/
  10. ^ http://digitaljournal.com/article/349588
  11. ^ http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/465236/20130507/3d-printed-gun-test-fire-defense-distributed.htm
  12. ^ http://www.neurope.eu/article/us-demands-removal-3d-printed-gun-blueprints
  13. ^ http://economia.elpais.com/economia/2013/05/09/agencias/1368130430_552019.html
  14. ^ http://quietbabylon.com/2013/controlled-by-guns/
  15. ^ http://www.joncamfield.com/tags/3dprinting
  16. ^ http://news.antiwar.com/2013/05/10/state-dept-censors-3d-gun-plans-citing-national-security/
  17. ^ http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/08/wishful-thinking-is-control-freaks-last
  18. ^ http://www.salon.com/2013/05/10/the_pirate_bay_steps_in_to_distribute_3d_gun_designs/
  19. ^ http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/05/08/sen-leland-yee-proposes-regulations-on-3-d-printers-after-gun-test/
  20. ^ http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/05/05/schumer-announces-support-for-measure-to-make-3d-printed-guns-illegal/
  21. ^ http://makezine.com/27/doctorow/
  22. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/10/3d-printing-gun-blueprint-state-department-ban
  23. ^ http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/18/like-it-or-not-i-think-3d-printing-is-about-to-get-legislated/
  24. ^ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/19/engineer-dont-regulate-3d-printed-guns-regulate-explosive-gun-powder-instead/
  25. ^ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02/gunpowder-regulation/
  26. ^ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/05/how-defense-distributed-already-upended-world/65126/
  27. ^ http://www.europeanplasticsnews.com/subscriber/headlines2.html?cat=1&id=2961
Looks good to me. North8000 (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Where should it go? A subsection under arguments? Or in the US section? It seems to be a US centric topic so far , although one article did mention a high number of downloads from europe suggesting heightened interest there due to their restrictive laws, and ultimately any disruptive effect the technology has would not be geographically restricted, unless one area was able to implement better regulation/restrictionGaijin42 (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion. I think that there is nothing particularly US related about it. North8000 (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I have actually just found some sources discussing 3d printing in the context of european gun control, I will expand the paragraph (perhaps make it a section broken into a few small paragraphs) to deal with that. With that change, I think it should go as a sub-section under arguments?Gaijin42 (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
International paragraph added Gaijin42 (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. North8000 (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  Done Gaijin42 (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I just made some needed edits to this section to generally clean it up, make it more encyclopedic, and more inline with WP:MOS. One thing to keep in mind is that even with a developing event, "time" is relevant. I personally make the effort to write as if someone is reading the article 5-10 years after the events took place, so I include dates for the sake of context and continuity. Additionally, blogs are not considered reliable sources and there is no "strength in numbers". Blogs for the most part are opinion based editorial from writers who are rarely experts in the field they are commenting on. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Blogs are not reliable sources for facts, but they are reliable sources for the opinions of the writers. Strength in numbers is applicable there to say that multiple people have commented on a particular issue or idea. Elpais is not a blog, it is the #1 circulation paper in spain. Re your specific comparison to 2d printing "similar tech" etc, that is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR as nobody has raised that comparison directly. (whearas many people have raised the comparison to deCSS, which you removed completely. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Given a choice of facts versus opinion, I think WP is better off with the former. Elpais was removed because the citation was not in English. Its use made verifying it as a WP:RS more difficult than a citation in the same language as this version of Wikipedia. Plus there was already another citation, but upon further review, the paraphrasing of the article content did not match its context, so it was removed.
--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Verification being difficult is not a valid reason for removal. However, regarding your specific concernt about the paraphrase, I agree that was a loose paraphrase on my part , but certainly it is notable that downloads in Spain, Germany, and the UK exceeded those of the US? Perhaps there is a better way to phrase that. WP:CALC gives us good latitude here I think. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
On further search for sources, it seems I was incorrect. per BBC "According to Defense Distributed, most of the 100,000 downloads have been in the US, followed by Spain, Brazil, Germany and the UK.". However, I do think international interest is sourceable, we just need to build consensus on what we can accurately say from the sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, its just that the article said that "Spain lead in downloads followed by...". It was a qualitative, but not a quantitative statement. Maybe I read it wrong, but no actual numbers were quoted for those countries. Plus it was just the statistics from that one download source/server. Weren't their others around the world? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

they were the download numbers from defense distributed, prior to the takedown, subsequently things are up on piratebay, etc, but that is much less trackable except by how many seeds are available or whatnot. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

"Influence of Technology" section

Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

So I guess my suggestion from back in March (here) finally has some merit... :) Here was my suggestion for the overall article organization...

Option 4 - Gun Control - the encyclopedic article that a lay person and/or someone unfamiliar with firearms would expect to findf Using the Racism article as a template of sorts...

  • Lede - describing and defining gun (firearm) control, the practice and the spectrum (from no control to total ban)
  • Infobox - Continue using the current one of "Gun politics by country".
  • Definition/Types - A preface to help clarify that it comes in several forms such as Legislative, Cultural, Commercial, Practical, and Ecological (such as with hunting restrictions and the limitation on the number of rounds loaded at any given time).
  • Influence of Technology - Firearms (as a practical and/or functional device) have evolved, albeit it slowly, but certain developments have had a greater impact than others, i.e. the self contained metallic cartridge, this made changeable magazines possible even though they did not come along until decades later.
  • History - Starting with a modest section on the "Origins of firearm control' (a mini-lede of sorts similar to what Just recommends) followed by the history of the views towards gun control as it has progressed and evolved in light of technological changes. Starting with the creation of black powder in China there has been some form of control (or attempt to do so) over this technology. As Just correctly states, "We've been constraining populations from having arms (bows, swords, etc.) since the dawn of civilization, this is just a subset of a bigger concept".
  • See Also - A see also section of other gun politics and gun related articles
  • Further Reading - Maybe a couple of notable books on the topic of gun control
  • References - Standard References

The caveats to this format hopefully are obvious, but my intention is that as clinical of an approach to the subject matter as possible be taken or that the references permit.

3D printing is far from the first technological advancement that has affected gun control. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Magazines and cartridge changes certainly affected firearm effectiveness, but I fail to see how they affect gun control. They did not affect the ability of governments to restrict access to guns, nor to people to circumvent those restrictions? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Scalhotrod, good thoughts overall. But I have some concerns that the "advancements" field so immense and only 1/2 germane that you might have it get too big and off-topic. North8000 (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Points taken, so let me better explain my viewpoint. In my opinion the relationship between technology and gun control is not only causal, but bi-directional. The 3D printer is one example, another is the purported development and adoption of "single user gun locks" meaning guns that only fire for the authorized user. This type of legislation has yet to pass, but if it does its likely that someone will develop a practical cost effective version of this technology. Yet another, as I've previously mentioned, is changeable cartridge magazines. These made machine guns possible and there is a significant amount of gun control legislation associated with them. Gaijin, the 1934 NFA is one example.
In other words, gun technology developments have lead to new gun control legislation, and vice versa, gun control legislation has lead to (or inspired at the very least) technological developments in firearms. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I think you're right, and I don't see anything objectionable in your list. Obviously the transition to brass cartridges was enormous... I guess I just am not sure what the goal of this discussion is. Are there changes that need to be made? Shadowjams (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Scalhotrod, I agree. My comment was more of "something to keep in mind" while doing it. North8000 (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
First off, I agree that the section on 3D printing is important and should stay, but its WP:RECENTISM and gives undue weight to this particular technological development.
Next, as such, the section needs to be expanded for better historical perspective. Granted, this will take some effort and research in order to properly cite and I'm willing to pitch in, but I don't wish to be alone in the effort.
I don't think that a "technology" section needs to be "huge" or "all inclusive" over the history of firearms, but some of the more obvious legislation like the 1934 NFA should be mentioned. My dilemma is how to best go about this and not cross over into WP:SYNTH or WP:OR territory. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

On your general sections approach, I don't have a huge deal with (though I think there may be difficulty gaining consensus on the specific content of some of those sections). On your specific technology suggestions I do have some issues. While you are right that the 3d issue has a possible problem with recentism, there are MANY MANY sources all over the political, geographical, pro/anti gun spectrum discussing the 3d issue and its effect on gun control, so undue is an easy barrier to overcome. In addition to the 20+ sources we have, I could probably add another 30-40. On a personal level, I agree with you regarding the bi-directional nature of technology and legislation. However, there issues with that in the article :

  1. Its not really sourced. Certainly we can find sourcing on the history of gun control, and different changes and loopholes, but its not being discussed as "the effect the technology has had on gun control" - I don't object to your info, but it belongs just as part of the history of gun control.
  2. the evolutionary change happens for every industry. Oh, you cant charge super high interest rates anymore? Guess what, we have a new ATM fee! US tax rates too high? Shell corporations in Ireland! Its not really notable - its expected!
  3. Its not an apples to apples comparison. You are discussing evolutionary changes in gun features. My section is discussing a revolutionary change in gun manufacturing. Ultimately gun control (either who has the guns, or what features guns have) "works" (to whatever degree it does) because there is a relatively small pipeline of design->mfgr->distribution->sales, where real proliferation can only happen after the sales step, and the number of designers/mfgrs is small, so they are easy to investigate/punish . 3d printing upsets this entire paradigm (and not just for guns).
    1. a similar argument would be comparing improvements in book binding techniques and printers ink, or censorship laws, to ebooks where suddenly everyone is a potential publisher.
  4. 3d printing is going to be a global revolution. While it may have issues with recentism, your changes have issues with globalism (re NFA etc)
  5. Still don't see how things like brass cartridges has any effect on gun control (other than creating the possibility of magazines, which were then ultimately regulated)
    1. I could see an argument for something like the bullet button, or other "not technically an assault weapon" where changes can be directly sourced as a cause and effect to legislation - but those really aren't technology in my mind, just finding of loopholes. (Certainly that can be a notable topic itself though, ineffectiveness of gun control due to loopholes and how easy it is to change designs to circumvent specific restrictions)
    2. Also could see info on microstamping, or personalized guns, but again I see those as specific gun features, or gun control features - they are not affecting the effectiveness of the concept of gun control. (For example, if both features became universally mandatory, and all mass produced guns implemented them, 3d printing would (once tech matures) still allow complete circumvention either by making a whole firearm, or by replacing specific parts)

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

ALL excellent points and I agree with your analysis, its not a cut and dry issue, much like the main issue itself. I also think I better understand your point that this particular technological step affects "distribution" versus the nature of the guns themselves like the metallic cartridge or the changeable magazine did. I guess in terms of the "big picture", I view them as all related, but I understand your distinguishing of the type and nature of the technological changes. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you should break out specific discussions about 3d printing, because that's unique enough of a subject with wikipedia issues that it would be cleaner to discuss it separate. Shadowjams (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Protection has expired

Latest comment: 11 years ago44 comments6 people in discussion

... and I think we've all had some time to cool off. Can we do something to get rid of those tags now? PraetorianFury (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that depends a lot on the "something" :) I am open to many possible changes, but my core viewpoint has not changed significantly -

  • the nazis used gun control meme is widespread and notable (multiple court opinions, NRA, many conservative politicians/pundits, gun rights advocates, etc)
  • Halbrook is one of the more notable and reliable (read expert on gun control) representatives of that group, and his paper has numerous cites back to the primary sources, and is itself cited
    • The argument that the paper is self published has I think been handled completely, but even if someone wants to maintain that argument, Halbrook's status as an expert on gun control covers the explicit exceptions in WP:SPS
    • Similarly, I don't think anyone is arguing that he is still "just a lawyer with a website" or any some such regarding his notability/expert status in gun control. (Although certainly an individual with a strong POV)
  • Objectively the nazi's did use gun control as one of their tools. Certainly not the only tool, perhaps not an essential or even necessary tool, but nobody disagrees that they did use it.
    • Harcourt's rebuttle to Halbrook specifically conceeds this point. His arguments are if the nazis/hitler were in general pro-gun-control or not, or if the overall policy of the German law at the time was gun control or not - That is an orthogonal argument to the factual assertion that gun control was implemented against the jews or not.
    • the counterfactual argument "Even if the jews had had weapons, it wouldn't have mattered" is probably (mostly) true, but obviously wasn't true enough that the Nazis didnt care about confiscating weapons to make their jobs easier/less risky.
  • This fact is reliably sourced to multiple primary and secondary sources establish both its factual-ness, and notability as a fact
  • This topic might be undue as part of an overview of the holocaust, but as one of the more notable instances of gun control is not undue for this article
  • There are certainly gaps in addressing other notable uses of gun control ("positive" or "negative" uses) in this article, one that should be addressed by adding/fleshing out those sections, not by removing this one (A reverse WP:OTHERSTUFF argument)
  • The extended argument that nazis use gun control, therefore modern implementors of gun control are (acting like) nazis, should not be brought up as part of this (historical) section, but could be used in the arguments section, along with responses from others (harcourt, salon, etc) who are highly critical of that argument.

Therefore, I would strongly object to any large scale removal of this content, but if there are particular quotes or points you want to tweak, or possibly remove, or specific things that need additional sourcing, I am certainly open to collaboration and consensus building on that. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It is contentious, inappropriate, and partisan to place this material under the History section of this article. That the Nazi disarmament is part of the history of gun control is not a remotely neutral version of history, and it appears in exactly zero neutral, non-partisan history books. It is an argument made by one side in a debate. This is a highly contentious, partisan version of history, and by placing this material under a 'History' heading, you have violated Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The material needs to be moved to the "Studies, debate, and opinions" section. — goethean 18:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
The "Associations with Totalitarianism" section was under "Arguments" before User:ROG5728 re-organized the article in a highly partisan way in early March.[4] — goethean 18:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

We should probably have the description of what happened under history, and opinions about it separately. North8000 (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Nazi rule is not usually considered to be an episode in the history of gun control by neutral historians. The idea that it is is an anti-gun control argument. Therefore, the entire Nazi section needs to go under "Studies, debate, and opinions". — goethean 18:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

How would it not be:

  • Government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms. (Dictionary.com definition of gun control)
  • Regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns (Websters definition of gun control)

This isn't that complicated. North8000 (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The nazi stuff is just a tendentious argumentum ad hitler against gun control is only accepted by a tiny fringe. (You support gun control? You know who else supported gun control? Hitler! End of discussion.) TFD (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
That's sort of a straw man. I think that the discussion of the moment is just about inclusion of the facts of what happened in that section. Arguments etc. could be a seperate discussion. North8000 (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
How is objecting to the addition of information that is only used by people making a strawman argument a strawman argument? TFD (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
If there is thought behind that, please explain. Thanks. North8000 (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
It is not at all a straw man argument; on the contrary, it is simply calling a spade a spade. The only conceivable reason for this article to examine what some anti-gun activists call gun control in Nazi Germany to the exclusion of every single other culture and time period throughout all of history is to associate gun control with Nazis. In earlier versions of this article, this fact was actually explicit, because the section, with the same content and sources, was calling "association with authoritarianism" and was under the "Arguments" section. In March, ROG5728 simply moved that section to the history section. This move was illegitimate and a clear violation of Wikipedia's non-negotaiable neutral point of view policy. As such, the section must be moved immediately, North's and Gaijin's perfectly predictable and perfectly partisan arguments notwithstanding. — goethean 00:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
North's citation of Webster's (in addition to proving exactly nothing) is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. Get your ideas published in a reputable journal and then we can cite them. — goethean 00:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

@goethean : Are there any "neutral historians" that argue to the contrary? No. However, there ARE IN FACT neutral histories discussing this (The book Kirstallnacht already used as a ref for example, or the several german histories I linked (now archived)). Further, as I already stipulated, this is a relatively minor item in the context of the holocaust. But this is not an article about the holocaust, it is an article about gun control, and MANY works on gun control bring it up. You are declaring those opinions to be fringe, but I would contest that opinion, and say you must bring that up as an RFC/DR on that specific issue, as it has been raised widely. The fact that gun control is highly contentious and that there exists a great controversy does not make one side fringe, particularly not when the advocates of that side are steamrolling the opposition in SCOTUS. As much of this debate was happening in the context of the pending Heller decision, it is instructive to note that the "anti-nazi-gun-control-meme" arguers were soundly defeated, and those making the meme argument were victorious (particularly the NRA and Halbrook who was cited directly by SCOTUS). Therefore, the burden of proof and argument that they are fringe lies with you. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There are no neutral historians writing about gun control that mention Kristallnacht. The only scholars who mention it in connection with gun control are scholars explaining the belief system of the extreme right. TFD (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
You are declaring those opinions to be fringe, but I would contest that opinion, and say you must bring that up as an RFC/DR on that specific issue, as it has been raised widely.
ROG5728's moving he section from "arguments" to "history" was illegitimate. Why is his move a-okay but mobing it back requires and RFC/DR? Answer: it doesn't. The current location of the section is a flagrant violation of a core Wikipedia policy and must be rectified immediately. — goethean 00:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Your assertions are based on nothing but your personal opinion and original research. Our arguments are backed by sources. You wish to dispute those sources, and such must be done through a wider consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

My basis is in addition to Gaijin42's point and different. Something that obviously falls within the topic is germane. (see the two common dictionary definitions above) Trying to set up more stringent standards for inclusion of something that clearly falls within the topic is not right. North8000 (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The standard is WP:WEIGHT - we put in what experts think is important not what was on the Glenn Beck show last week. If we include gun ordinances of 1930s Germany, then we should include the laws of other states and other decades as well. TFD (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Something that obviously falls within the topic is germane. (see the two common dictionary definitions above)
Sure. But Nazi Germany is not germane to the topic of this article. — goethean 00:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The gun control of Nazi Germany is. North8000 (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

your assertion that only those of the extreme right mention is not neutral. Further, even if true, it is a highly notable view and all notable viewpoints must be included.

  • Kristallnacht, p68
  • 48 hours of Kristallnacht
  • Courts, Law, and Justice
  • thee complete history of the holocaust", p68 "Perhaps to help insure the Jews could not fight back in the future, the Minister of the Interior issued regulations against Jews' possession of weapons on November 11. This prohibited Jews from "acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority"
  • Same quote "The Racial State : Germany, 1933-1945" p92
  • Der Weg in Den Krieg 1938 (The road to war in 1938) : p28 (bad google translate) "On the morning after Kristallnacht , when Goebbels ordered by Hitler arrest of "25-30000 Jews" in ... let fear of possible attacks the Jewish Berlin Police President Helldorf "the Jews completely disarm"
  • Reichskristallnacht: Antisemitismus Und Judenverfolgung Im Dritten Reich (Kristallnacht : Anti-semism and persocution of thew Jews in the Third Reich) "The finding of Jewish shops, stores and warehouses must be made ​​in consultation with the competent mayors and mayors, also the itinerant activity. All Jews are to be disarmed ."
  • Reichskristallnacht (Wilfred Mairgunther)p74 : (translate) "All Jews are to be disarmed . Shoot at resistivity immediately to the ground"
  • "Reichskristallnacht" in Bremen p43 : On the fateful proved the two sentences: "All Jews are to be disarmed . Shoot at resistivity immediately to the ground. "Staff leader Römpagel testified at the party later trial, he was, as he ...
  • Die Rolle des Propagandaministers Joseph Goebbels im Licht seiner Tagebucheinträge vom 10. November 1938 bis 17. November 1938 " The term Kristallnacht was a ... also ordered that he complete disarmament of Jewish citizens"

Gaijin42 (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

None of your sources are about gun control, they are about the holocaust. Only highly ideological writers on gun control mention the German laws. TFD (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Excellent movement of the goalposts! Earlier the argument was that history books didn't cover it. POV on the part of sources is perfectly acceptable. As I can find dozens perhaps hundreds of gun control books discussing this topic I look forward to hearing your next objection! Gaijin42 (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
POV on the part of sources is perfectly acceptable.
As is patent bullshit, apparently. — goethean 01:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

@TFD - Gun control sources discussing this, excluding the many obvious POV refs (which are still valid refs BTW) (Many citing the people already discussed here, but shows that those peoples viewpoints are covered/discussed in neutral texts)

  • Guns in American Society : An Encyclopedia... - Interestingly this includes a chapter/essay making the meme, and a chapter arguing against the meme.
  • Open Fire, Understanding Global Gun Cultures
  • Arming and Disarming, A History of Gun Control in Canada
  • Gun Fight - The Battle Over The Right to Bear Arms in America - A neutral book includes meta-discussion, specifically discussing the JPFO opinions
  • Gun Control (Opposing Viewpoints Digests)
  • Encyclopedia of Gun Control and Gun Rights
  • Gun Control on Trial : Inside the Supreme Court Battle over the Second Amendment (citing JPFO)
  • Gun Control (Christina Fisanick) (citing Halbrook)
  • Big Bang : the Loud Debate over Gun Control
  • Shooters : Myths and Realities of America's Gun Cultures
  • The gun Control Debate - You Decide

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, maybe we should have only the straightforward facts in the history section and move the rest to the opinions section. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact that this article focuses on the Nazi disarmament of the Jews and attempts to spin it into part of the history of gun control using talking points created by anti-gun control activist is not a neutral presentation of the facts. It is allowing anti-gun control activists to write this article in partisan, non-neutral way. The entire Nazi section must be moved from history. Your placing it in the history section is a flagrant, actionable violation of Wikipedia's non-negotiable neutral point of view policy. — goethean 13:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Historical facts do not have a POV. That those facts are primarily (but NOT exclusively as the several sources I have linked show (how many have you shown again? oh thats right, none.) interesting to those with a certain POV does not make the facts themselves POV. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Try that line in a history article, and you will get laughed at and schooled. The selection of which facts to present (in this case, your presenting the facts selected by those with a well-documented flagrant pro-gun ideological commitment) is the primary vehicle for POVs. The idea that gun control is primarily associated with authoritarian regimes is a thesis of the right-wing media and of anti-gun control activists. The presence of the material related to Nazis in the history section continues to be a flagrant, clear volation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. — goethean 14:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, you certainly do reverse you self a lot on that one depending on your POV. I've seen you argue many times that if it's in a wp:RS that's enough to make it un-removable. And if you want it out, now you say that if the simple (historical) facts are those that tend to get selected by one side to make their point, then that is enough to exclude them even if covered and supported by a wp:rs. North8000 (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Clarifying, I am pointing out that arguments that you have previously made would support inclusion of this material. North8000 (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Please stick to the topic rather than engaging in irrelevant rhetorical nonsense. — goethean 15:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
We are not stating that gun control is associated with authoritarian regimes (although we previously did). Again, that facts can be used to support a particular POV does not make the fact itself POV. It is true, It is verifiable, and it is notable. That you do not like the people who make it notable is irrelevant. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Please read and respond to my comments. Your spinning Nazi rule into a part of the history gun control is not a fact, it is a highly contentious argument. It belongs in the Opinions section. — goethean 15:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Your assertion that it is not a fact is ludicrous. It is documented by numerous primary and secondary sources. The importance/relevance of that fact is contentious, but not the fact itself. Please note the multiple gun control sources I linked above discussing this. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
What is truly ludicrous is your attempt to place a narrative created by a political activist into the history section of this article, and calling it neutral. — goethean 15:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You have zero sources to the contrary. Your POV is pure OR. Some sources say that the Nazi use of gun control should not be used in the context of modern gun control debates - Zero sources say that the Nazis did not actually use gun control against the Jews. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You are talking nonsense. We have a professor quoted in the article saying that it is an absurd question to ask whether the Nazis were pro- or anti-gun control. If one attempts to neutrally interpret his words, it is clear that he is saying that Halbrook's activist version of history, and his attempts to associate gun control with Nazis, are absurd. — goethean 15:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Right, the nazis are not clearly pro or anti gun control, because they used restrictive gun control against some groups,and relaxed gun control for other groups (significantly their own SS and SA paramilitary groups, as well as the NSDAP). That in no way contradicts that they USED gun control against the jews. Harcourt specifically admits this. "To be sure, the Nazis were intent on killing Jewish persons and used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide" and " I would have to conclude, at least preliminarily from this straightforward exercise in statutory interpretation, that the Nazis favored less gun control for the "trustworthy" German citizen than the predecessor Weimar Republic, while disarming the Jewish population and engaging in genocide". In fact, this "hybrid" model of gun control makes the argument MORE RELEVANT. By disarming A, while arming B, it makes it much easier for B to kill A. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Gaijin42, Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law, Volume 1says "Sporting purpose first became a factor in gun control policy following World War I in Europe, when governments prohibited civilian ownership of military firearms in both Weimar and Nazi Germany and other European regimes (p. 549). No surprise a 756 page Encyclopedia would mention German laws in the 1920s but significantly it draws no connection to these laws and the Nazi rise to power or Kristallnacht. Open Fire says (p. 38) "He points out, for example, that while the pro-gun NRA and the pro-gun Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JFPO) both deploy the Hitler-as gun-control-proponent argument in their literature, the pro-gun white supremacist organization, National Alliance, reads the 1938 German gun registration laws as being a more toward gun liberalization." Notice he provides parity to the NRA and white supremacists and sees views as fringe. TFD (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Contrasting and commenting on multiple opposing points of view is not the same thing as declaring one of them to be fringe. Guns in american society talks about nazi gun confiscation multiple times. chapters/essays discussing it include "Germany Gun Laws" , "Holocaust Imagery and Gun Control" , the section on Halbrook, "Switzerland, Gun Laws", by Halbrook, JPFO section, etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There is some additional discussion regarding this at my talk page. North8000 (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

What about gun control at Busch Gardens and Epcot Center? Anyone have the official rulebook in Cyrillic? Also, how is a Nazi pogrom equivalent to legislated background checks on gun purchasers? What about Gatorland? SPECIFICO talk 01:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

germany first sentence

Latest comment: 11 years ago29 comments5 people in discussion

The characterization of german laws as gun control is not purely by conservatives (although those who think that fact is important might be).

For example, the salon article which was just added to attempt to source the current text says

The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general. Does the fact that Nazis forced Jews into horrendous ghettos indict urban planning? Should we eliminate all police officers because the Nazis used police officers to oppress and kill the Jews? What about public works — Hitler loved public works projects? Of course not. These are merely implements that can be used for good or ill, much as gun advocates like to argue about guns themselves. If guns don’t kill people, then neither does gun control cause genocide (genocidal regimes cause genocide).

This is saying that the nazi laws were gun control laws, but that that should not be used as an argument against current gun control efforts. It does not say that it was not gun control, or that only conservatives say it is gun control.

I have removed 2 sources that were backing the first statement, because they did not in fact back the statement. They were discussing conservative comparisons of Bloomberg to Hitler (but in actuality it was Lenin) and have no content discussing the characterization of the german gun laws. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin, please give a careful reading of my sentence and the sources. My sentence did not refer to laws. I do believe the sources back the sentence I wrote to address your tags. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
"The disarmament of Jews in Nazi Germany has been characterized as gun control by the NRA and many conservatives". The presence or absence of the word "laws" is irrelevant. The same criticisms apply. The two sources did not mention nazi actions being characterized as gun control by anyone. Both sources claimed that Beck had compared Bloomberg to Hitler, but in fact he had compared Bloomberg to Lenin (as many stories including one of the ones you linked later corrected). Between them completely mischaracterizing Beck's statement, and the fact that neither they nor Beck are stating anything regarding Nazi actions as gun control (as opposed to some other type of confiscatory action, theft, whatever) the sources do not support the first sentence. The Salon reference does support that statement, but also supports saying that non-conservatives also do so (since Salon itself is characterizing Nazi actions as gun control, per the quote above)Gaijin42 (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
You are using Salon' article, "The Hitler Gun Control Lie Gun rights activists who cite the dictator as a reason against gun contrrol have their history dangerously wrong"[5] As should be obvious, the article is about how extremist fabricate history in order to support their position, which btw is what all the sources you presented have said. That is no reason to include Nazi Germany here, anymore than an article called "Larouchies claim world leaders secret reptiles", is reason to add that information to the articles about the world leaders named. TFD (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Focus on one issue at a time. A major problem in this dispute (by all parties) is the moving target. If we can stay focused on answering each sub-dispute we will get much further. The point under question in this section is very narrow. Are the only sources that describe Nazi actions as gun control conservative? The answer is no. The salon article describes Nazi actions as gun control. This means only that we must reword the first sentence to be accurate. The larger questions of the section remain, and should be addressed. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It belongs because it is:

  • Government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms (Dictionary.com definition of gun control)
  • Regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns (Webster's definition of gun control)

So it belongs in the gun control article because it is gun control. This isn't that complicated. North8000 (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. — goethean 19:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Apparently you think that wikipedia works by "Whatever goethean says goes", since actual sources contradicting my point are not available. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that Wikipedia works by following the NPOV policy, a policy which you have violated flagrantly. Sources such as the Salon article have been presented. Unsurprisingly, you dismissed them immediately. — goethean 19:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Where in the salon article does it say "Nazi Germany did not implement gun control", or "The laws/actions taken to confiscate jewish weapons were not gun control", or "sometimes (not specifically referring to Nazi germany), laws which confiscate weapons are generally considered something other than gun control". In fact, per the blockquote above, it specifically DOES identify the german actions as gun control! That it later goes on to say "And this should not be used as an argument against current gun control laws" is irrelevant, as that is not what this section says!!!Gaijin42 (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I guess you are right. We are just doing a perfectly neutral survey of the history of gun control, and we just happened to spend 40% of it on the Nazis. An innocent mistake, I'm sure. I'm sure that it has nothing at all to do with popular NRA talking points equating US gun control with authoritarian regimes. — goethean 20:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Nice avoidance of my point, which is that Salon does not back the current text, but in fact backs the description of Nazi actions as gun control... That other areas are not developed is a trigger for people to go develop them, not to delete the developed part. However, as almost 1/2 of this section is dedicated to one persons opinion, and one who agrees with the core facts, yet disagrees with their importance, the length issue would be easily resolvable by reducing his prominence. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Why is the fact that Weimar gun control laws continued in Nazi Germany significant? As explained in all your sources, it is only of significance to fringe elements in the U.S. who associate gun control with tyranny and misrepresent history. TFD (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I am more than happy to cut the Weimar part, I believe that was added by someone on "your side", to establish more context for the anti-jew actions. I believe the "trustworthyness" part was used against jews, who were considered by definition not trustworthy, but as that is not specifically discussed, and not directly sourced, we can avoid it for now. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Gaijin42 thinks that the extended back-and-forth of scholars about the meaning of Nazi gun laws are absolutely essential to a general article on gun control. This is, of course, obviously complete nonsense. — goethean 21:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
It looks like Goethean thinks that unilateral gutting of a section under discussion is within wiki policy. This is, of course, obviously complete nonsense. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
My edit removed everything except for the first two sentences of the section. The rest is extraneous, excessive detail which can be treated at the main article, Gun politics in Germany. There is absolutely no defensible reason to include such excessive, extraneous detail and a debate among scholars about the import of 1930s Nazi disarmament in this general article, apart from your desire to impose political talking points on this article in a manner that flagrantly violates Wikipedia policy. — goethean 21:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to cut the extended back and forth, I would start with the first of the longer Harcourt quotes. Halbrook's actual opinion is one sentence, and we then spend the next half the section attempting to rebut that. The first long quote (or at least the first half of the first quote) is not directly addressing the facts of what happened, nor does it directly address Halbrook's point. The other long quote by Harcourt is more on topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Go fly a kite. The whole debate, and 95% of the Nazi material is off-topic in this article and constitutes a WP:POVFORK of Gun Politics in Germany. — goethean 21:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The facts identified in that article in no way disagree with the ones in this section, so claiming it as a pov fork is weak. It is your opinion that "Gun Politics" and "Gun Control" are the same thing? (I will admit that they have a significant amount of overlap, but you can certainly have politics without control etc, and gun control as an independent topic is beyond notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, WP:RELART. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Gun politics is the process by which the level of gun control is decided in a political entity. It's the same topic. — goethean 21:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
That makes no sense at all. You are saying that "politics" and the end product of legislation are the same topic??? North8000 (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

@goethean : What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. to put everyone on the same playing field, with the same standards, if it is not sufficient to say that nazi's passed gun control, because the common definition of gun control is "legislation restricting..." etc, please provide multiple reliable sources backing your pov that gun politics and gun control are the same topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, Gun control in the United States redirects to Gun politics in the United States, so maybe you should take your flabbergasted disbelief and demand for reliable sources over there. — goethean 00:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
So thats a no then, you won't be providing any sources to back up your POV? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, let's back up here. So your claim is that even though Gun control in the United States redirects to Gun politics in the United States, the two are completely separate topics, and I need to prove to you with multiple reliable sources that they are the same topic. Please confirm that that's your claim. — goethean 15:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
the current state of a wikipedia redirect is in no way a reliable source to determine anything on any topic. If the editors of any two topics have chosen to deal with them in a combined article, it may or may not meet policy, may or may not have consensus, may or may not be factually correct, or a million other things. Its entirely meaningless. WP:NOTSOURCE Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The germane discussion is whether gun control and gun politics are the same thing. That question transposed to the USA is a different question, albiet I think they both (independently) have the same answer which is "no". Even more so for the general case where controlling mechanisms don't necessarily come from the political arena. North8000 (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_control/Archive_4&oldid=1077844631"