Talk:Saturday night special/Archive 1

Archive 1

2001-2002 comments

Was the SNS usually a .32 or .25 caliber? Wasn't it also predominately a five-round revolver instead of the traditional six? These things, I know not. Being a redneck, I use a larger caliber weapon. And my knowledge of Saturday-night special is limited to the title of a Lynyrd Skynyrd song. FREEBIRD! Where is Bill Hicks when we need him? --Invictus

When the term was originally coined in the 1960s, it referred to a number of small-caliber, poorly-made, imported revolvers; but today it is simply slang for "cheap handgun". Bill Clinton tried to legally sue these companies out of business because he could not get legislation passed to put the companies out of business. This was controversial because the lawsuits were all dismissed and they appeared to be pursued for the sole purpose of forcing the company to spend money for legal defense.

Who is 'Bruce-Briggs' and why is his/her/its etymological information important? User:Conversion script

Biased term

The term "Saturday night special" is in and of itself a highly biased term; perhaps this article takes a bit too much offense at that, but I have nearly 20 years of experience selling firearms, and even more shooting them, and I know what the market is like and who buys these guns. I've also fired Jennings and Raven guns before, and they are cheap, not particularly accurate, and prone to quick wear and breakage, but they do work. Not what I'd want to trust my life on, but a $50 gun is better than nothing if you need it; just the presence of a gun will scare off most criminals. scot 04:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So? A Saturday Night Special is a cheap gun which does not have a great deal of quality. It doesn't matter if some may consider it a sort of "biased" term. Gingermint (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

So? This is an encyclopedia - not Oprah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.254 (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

A List

It would be very helpful to have a list of the most common Saturday Night Specials. Gingermint (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The term was originally intended to specify an inexpensively made pocket pistol of poor durability and reliability. Such weapons were prone to breakage and malfunction discouraging customer loyalty. Brand names and model numbers were either absent or changed frequently by manufacturers, because such identification discouraged informed purchasers. The term was later legislatively applied to quality handguns which rapidly became scarce under legislative restrictions. If an identifiable model of Saturday night special has ever been common, that status was ephemeral.Thewellman (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

gun preference of criminals

Someone appears to have not read their own source re: criminals preferring cheap-o guns. Despite traces being most common on very cheap .25 automatics, the section directly following is quite telling.

It also lists "weapons offenses" for the most common reason for a trace being done. So what, exactly, is a "weapons offense?" It wouldn't surprise me one bit if "weapons offense" is what the police tell the ATF when requesting traces done on guns which were collected during "gun buy-backs" which are common in some areas. If the police are handing out $50 to $150 in cash per gun, for as many guns as you can carry, what are you going to turn in, your favorite Desert Eagle, or a sackload of Ravens that you bought for $20 each? (check http://www.gunbroker.com , they really do go for that little) Arrkhal 21:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whups. I totally misread what was being re-added to the article, my bad. That's what I get for not bothering to sleep. Arrkhal 21:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, sleep's not needed. Some people actually pay money for LSD and such to get hallucinations, when you can get the same effect with a couple of 80 hour work weeks in a row with 2-3 hours of sleep a night...

The use of trace stats to cover "guns used in crime" also gets you a huge number of "just because" traces. The police question someone late at night in a poor, crime ridden area of town, find a gun, and run a check to see if it's stolen. While the gun may technically be used in a crime, the only crime is the victimless crime of possession of a concealed firearm--even in areas with shall-issue CW permits, the type of person who has a $25 Raven isn't going to be able to cough up the $200+ most states charge for CW permits. I do wonder about the .32 caliber revolvers; damn few makers make those any more, and in my area (Oklahoma) you just don't see many of them for sale at gun shows and retail shops--darn sure not 10%. Those must be ancient .32 S&W revolvers of the type banned by the GCA of 1968. scot 21:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Around $60 for a license seems to be the mean, actually. Like AZ charges $65, ID is $56, KY is $60. The highest I know of is in TX, where a license costs $140 plus training fees. Even CA's maximum fee is $100. I'm glad I live in PA, though; $19, no fingerprinting, no FBI background check unless the police pay for themselves (state law allocates $5 out of the $19 for the background check), and the license itself is an actual, driver's license-type, plastic card, not the cheap paper things that a lot of states issue.

And someone might end up with a Raven exactly because of the expense of a license. A friend of mine in FL is having that problem now. Even a Star Modelo BM ($140) is a bit out of his price range after paying the $117 license fee.

I'm betting ancient .32s, especially Iver Johnsons, are relatively common since they'd be one of the few guns that are extremely cheap on the black market; they look too funky to be very intimidating, they're really old, and ammo is underpowered, expensive, and hard to find. http://www2.arkansas.net/~sws1/ij-pix.htm Modern .32 H&R magnums are pretty decent, though. S&W, Ruger, and Taurus make .32 magnum versions of some of their snubnoses; about the same amount of power as a .38, but with less recoil and blast. Arrkhal 17:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The license fee here is $100, but when you add up the required training course ($60), fingerprinting costs ($25), and passport photo costs ($10), it adds up to about $200. As for the .32 H&R Mags, I have seen a few of those, but most of those were single action Rugers (I must admit the Single Six in .32 H&R does look pretty nice), and all those .32 H&R guns are fairly new. The .32 ACP is making a comeback, and that might account for some of the ".32 caliber handguns", but even of those (NAA, Kel-Tec, Beretta, Seecamp) only the Kel-Tec is all that common, and it's popularity is fading since they came out with the .380 ACP version.

Criminal use aside, an interesting caliber to watch would be the new .32 NAA, which is a .380 necked down to .32 caliber. Gun Tests Magazine had some problems with their initial test of the cartridge in the NAA Guardian, but I'll bet it'd do much better in a locked breech design like the Kel-Tec.

And as for your friend, I'd reccommend a used Kel-Tec if he can find one. They tend to have some teething problems when new--a friend of mind at first couldn't get hers to fire 5 rounds without a stovepipe or failure to return to battery--but once you get them broken in and yourself trained to hold the grip steady, they work quite well. I took a Dremel with a cloth bit and some fine polishing compound to hers and polished up the feed ramp some (about what you'd see after a few hundred rounds of normal wear) and she's not had a single problem with it since. This is more of a shooter issue than a gun issue though--I had no problems firing it when new, it's just the combination of slightly rough surfaces and the ultra-light frame that made it really sensitive to limp-wristing. scot 19:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The .32 NAA is interesting in concept, but results so far have been lacking, since the bullets tend to overexpand, fragment, and underpenetrate pretty badly. Kinda similar to this guy's custom-made ".32 Defender." http://www.goldenloki.com/ammo/gel/32def/gel32def.htm

Personally, if I wanted a .30/.32 caliber handgun, I'd get a cheap CZ-52 and spend a little extra making it more reliable. 90 grains @ 1650 fps (handloaded) sounds a lot better than 60 grains @ 1200 to me. 83 grain wadcutters at around 900-1000 fps through an NAA would be an interesting defensive loading, though, if it feeds right; bottlenecked cartridges tend to feed oddly-shaped bullets a bit easier, like the .38-45 Safestop thing.

I suggested a Kel-Tec to him, too, but all he can find locally are brand new ones. The only guns we can think of in his price range are the CZ-52 ($90 + S&H + $20 transfer fee), Hi-Points, a Raven/Jennings/Bryco/Lorcin etc., used NAA mini-revolvers, or possibly a used Colt SAA clone. An SAA, though anachronistic, might not be too bad a bet. Most clones, aside from those made by USFA, sell like lead balloons once used, so any local dealers with one in stock would probably be desperate to get rid of it and willing to cut a good deal. Single action might not be the best for carry, but I, at least, certainly wouldn't feel under-gunned with 5 rounds of 225 grain Silvertip at my disposal.

(so how indented can we get?) For the .32 NAA I'd go with a plated SWC design, with a nice sharp shoulder, and forget expansion. That ought to get penetration to about 18" or so under all conditions, and do so with a nice straight path--round nose bullets would penetrate further, but deflect easily.

If my brain weren't so stuck on autos, I'd have thought of this earlier--the Taurus mode 85 is probalby one of the most underrated guns out there. It's a solid design (albeit not nearly as tough as a Ruger), cheap, and being a revolver, utterly reliable with decent ammo. And a .38 Spl. firing 158 grain bullets is a pretty good combination, even from a 2" barrel. The basic blue steel model runs a bit more new than the KelTec, but being a less glamorus design, ought to be cheaper than the KelTec on the used market. And heck, Taurus USA is in Miami, so one would hope they're plentiful in Fl. scot 02:29, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What caliber guns do criminals prefer?

In their 1983 study, Wright, Rossi, and Daly asked a sample of felons about the handgun they had most recently acquired. Of the felons sampled--

• 29% had acquired a .38 caliber handgun
• 20% had acquired a .357 caliber handgun
• 16% had acquired a .22 caliber handgun.

Sheley and Wright found that the juveniles inmates in their 1991 sample in four States preferred large caliber, high quality handguns. Just prior to their confinement--

• 58% owned a revolver, usually a .38 or .357 caliber gun
• 55% owned a semiautomatic handgun, usually a 9 millimeter or .45 caliber gun
• 51% owned a sawed-off shotgun
• 35% owned a military-style automatic or semiautomatic rifle.

Do juvenile offenders use different types of guns than adult offenders?

A study of adult and juvenile offenders by the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services found that juvenile offenders were more likely than adults to have carried a semiautomatic pistol at the crime scene (18% versus 7%).

They also were more likely to have carried a revolver (10% versus 7%). The same proportion of adults and juveniles (3%) carried a shotgun or rifle at the crime scene.

Some studies of guns used in homicides provide information about caliber

McGonigal and colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center studied firearm homicides that occurred in Philadelphia, 145 in 1985 and the 324 in 1990. Most of the firearms used in the homicides studied were handguns; 90% in 1985 and 95% in 1990. In both years, revolvers were the predominant type of handgun used, however, the use of semiautomatic pistols increased from 24% in 1985 to 38% in 1990. The caliber of the handguns used also changed:

In Philadelphia, handguns most often used:

In 1985, of 91 homicides

• 44% .38 caliber revolver
• 19% .25 caliber pistol
• 14% .22 caliber revolver
• 14% .32 caliber revolver
• 3% 9 mm pistol
• 2% .357 caliber revolver

In 1990, of 204 homicides

• 23% 9 mm pistol
• 18% .38 caliber revolver
• 16% .357 caliber revolver
• 16% .22 caliber revolver
• 10% .32 caliber revolver

The Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services studied 844 homicides that occurred in 18 jurisdictions from 1989 through 1991. Firearms were identified as the murder weapon in 600 cases. Over 70% of the firearms used were handguns. Of those handguns where the caliber and firing action could be identified, 19% were a .38 caliber revolver, 10% were .22 caliber revolvers, and 9% were 9 millimeter semiautomatic pistols.

The Hawaii Department of the Attorney General, Crime Prevention Division, studied 59 firearms-related homicides in Honolulu from 1988 to 1992. Handguns were used in 48 homicides (over 80%) including 11 handguns of 9 millimeter caliber, 10 of .357 caliber, 10 of .38 caliber, and 5 of .25 caliber.

What caliber guns are used in the killings of law enforcement officers?

From 1982 to 1993, of the 687 officers who were killed by firearms other than their own guns, more were killed by .38 caliber handguns than by any other type of weapon.

Type of firearm Percent of law enforcement officers killed with a firearm

• .38 caliber handgun 25.2%
• .357 Magnum handgun 12.1
• 9 millimeter handgun 9.5
• 12 gauge shotgun 7.4
• .22 caliber handgun 5.4
• .22 caliber rifle 4.4

---

The Wright and Rossi evaluation of the NIJ Felon Survey (Armed and Dangerous Aldine 1986) showed that criminals responded they acquired their weapons from fences, burglars, and other dealers in contraband; personal theft of firearms; family or friends; and almost never by legal purchase. When and where SNS pistols were legally available, they showed up in the grey or black market and thus showed up in criminal hands by being a share of the guns in circulation, not because criminals chose them or the industry marketed or retail dealers sold them to criminals. Given that gun crime represents 1 of 400 guns at the very most (Sherrill, Saturday Night Special 1975), and that SNS was always a niche market, the 1968 GCA ban on imports of SNS and stigmatizing inexpensive defensive handguns (H&R, Iver Johnson) or expensive small handguns (Walther PPK) as SNS has had little beneficial effect on criminal behavior. Whether you use the ATF traces of stolen guns or the ATF traces of crime guns, the net result has been to improve the quality of handguns available to criminals. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Potentially offensive detail

The reference to a 'niggertown Saturday night special' is backed up by a reference to a "neoconservative" (quoting the wikipedia link) quarterly publication The Public Interest in the latter part of the 20th century, but apparently was only used in the 19th century. This is potentially offensive, doesn't seem to fit the flow of the article, and doesn't exactly trip off the tongue - these would seem to be reasons to remove the reference. What was the contemporary source quoted by The Public Interest?--198.45.26.20 28 June 2005 16:39 (UTC)

---

Having re-read the article I wonder if the original quote even backs up the conclusion drawn - assuming that the reference is as B. Bruce-Briggs states, that doesn't mean the type of gun was ever referred to in this way. I realise the name "Saturday night special" is an unpleasant way to refer to a firearm, and this may upset some wikipedians, but I would like to see evidence for this point as it seems highly POV.--198.45.26.20 28 June 2005 16:47 (UTC)

If that's the only POV complaint, then I'd be happy to see the reference go. Probably more appropriate to a dictionary entry, since it's more etymology than anything--most early gun control stuff (like the NYC Sullivan Act) was racially or socio-ecenomically motivated. scot 28 June 2005 18:40 (UTC)

I wrote that comment (198.45.26.20) - I'm afraid that I didn't add the POV note though... I've had another read of the article and I think it may have been added because it says "The only apparently impact of such legislation is to force the manufacturers to either lose markets (since such laws are state laws, not federal) or increase the cost of manufacture and thus the market price of the firearm". Frankly if no one has felt the need to explain why this is POV in the talk, I think you should go ahead and remove POV. Give them a day or two to read it first though I guess? Thanks for the info about the sullivan act - I'll give it some thought... --Dilaudid 1 July 2005 15:09 (UTC)

I think the initial definition of a "Saturday Night Special" is mistaken. The way I heard it, the "Saturday night" part comes from the idea that people get drunk on Saturday night, have a fight, and buy a cheap, small calibur gun to "kill that S.O.B.", so to speak. A hardened criminal would certainly prefer a larger, more reliable weapon, but that's not the target market (as it were). Clearly, the deliberately offensive reference to 'niggertown' implies that blacks are more likely to get drunk, fight, and/or kill each other over it. --Aubri 14 July 2005 14:38 (UTC)

POV

Can we remove this? Why is this article considered POV?--Dilaudid 1 July 2005 15:09 (UTC)

Absurd Content

It's difficult to dig through the muck and find any meaningful content in this thread. Take, for instance, the argument about racism. Gun control is not racist, it's political oppression of the poor. Because minorities make up a greater percentage of improvrished, criminals, and crime victims, it is natural for one to make the logical leap and say that gun control targets people racially. In fact, poor white people, latinos, asians, and all races are the target of gun control. Racism is ancillary to the core argument that Gun Control targets poor people.

Legislsation against inexpensive firearms (and taxation of firearms and ammuntion) may not be explicity racist, but that does not chage the fact that many people view it as such. The quote from the former president of CORE reflects this, and it's a common belief that anything that disadvantages the poor (espeically the urban poor) is racists. And it is also a fact that much of the early gun control legislation was racially or culturally motivated. These facts do bear on the origins and perceptions of "junk gun" legislation, and I think that it is important that they be presented in the article.

The argument against controlling affordable guns like "Saturday Night Specials" has nothing to do with race. Muddying the waters and race-baiting serve to further the cause of the anti-gun crowd. It buys into the argument that people are different. We are different because of the color of our skin, our religion, our sexual orientatioin, or nationality, our political beliefs. Bunk. We are united in being human and in our rights to own guns no matter what they cost.

You're preachin' to the choir on this one. There is no generally agreed upon biological definition of "race", but that doesn't change the fact that many people believe in racial differences. One good case in point is the NAACP pushing gun control legislation. Why? Because most "gun crime" vicitms are young black males, the NAACP is in favor of "junk gun" legislation (never mind that most young black males who are shot are shot by other young black males). The facts are that the cause of the crime is the urban gang culture and the drug trade, but going after that would be too hard, so they choose to pick on the guns. But the fact also is that the NAACP supports gun control for racial reasons (kind of like "defirmative action", "take away our rights, we might hurt ourselves").

Why did you remove my links to the NRA and Handgun Control Inc and insert the link to somebody's personal ego page? What does a cheap gun have to do with a moral crusader? I'm removing it again unless there is actually a connection of some sort.

The link to the CORE page was due to the quote from the CORE president. The quote shows that a black leader considers "junk gun" legislation to be morally equivalent to poll taxes--a hidden attack on minority rights. Whether or not you and I believe that is irrelevant; he believes it, he's an influential member of and influential civil rights organization, and it sums up in very consise and strong language an objection to the "junk gun" legislation. The entire concept of "junk guns" is a political creation, and I think it's important that the article focus on the politics of the issue. I did not intend to remove the links you added, I just wanted the article content back.

And don't give me that crap about unilateral edits. You've unilaterally added a whole bunch of gobblygook because you think it's right. We're on the same side of the argument, it seems, but it needs to be an honest argument for you to win. And don't call it unilateral if I edit your crap and rightous if you edit mine.--Asams10 00:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

But I did achieve my goal--we're discussing now. Have my arguments in support of my "gobblygook" changed your mind about any of it? I'll admit that article was too long and disorganized, but I also think that you cut out all the politics, and in my view this article should be all about the politics, since the term itself is a purely political construct. scot 15:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Fixed version

The doctor gun and mousegun terms should probably be included, as they are additional points on the continuum of Saturday Night Specials. One is at the low end of Saturday night specials (doctor gun), and the other one (mousegun) is at the next higher rung of the ladder, although many do lump mouseguns in with Saturday night specials. Without differentiation, it encourages the continued confusion of terminology. Yaf 06:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Niggertown Specials

These guns were once commonly known as "Satuday Night Niggertown Specials" or just "Niggertown Specials," because of the assumed prevalance of cheap-o handguns amongst poor blacks in the urban ghetto. I worked with old police officers/have known retired police officers who still knew the gun by this name. This is not "offensive," it is fact. If we take out "minor details" that are "offensive," we might as well delete the Wiki entries on the Holocaust and Hitler. Those are pretty damn offensive. I never did get that out of Wiki users- the ones who complain that factual information need be removed because it offends.70.243.32.96 03:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to add that having an entry about "Saturday Night Specials" and the politics of cheap handguns is completely pointless if we categorically disallow references to "Niggertown Saturday Nights" or "Niggertown Specials." These are the roots of the phrase. Yes, they are racist roots- it is a racist phrase with a racist ideology behind it. The concept that poor blacks entertain themselves on saturday nights by shooting one another with cheap pistols is racist and ignorant. It is nearly as sad and racist as the idea that one can address urban crime problems by disarming poor but otherwise law-abiding blacks who simply want to defend themselves.

We do all people a disservice by putting shy half-truths in this wikipedia entry. --Beerslurpy 07:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've looked for more information on the origins of the phrase, and so far all I see is the Barry Bruce-Biggs quote from "The Great American Gun War"; The Public Interest; No. 45 Fall 1976; 37-62. Various other sources have questioned Bruce-Biggs objectivity--he was, after all, writing in what appears to be a conservative venue (so I assume it to be, as George F. Will is on the publication staff). What is certainly obvious is that these bans target the poor (see http://hematite.com/dragon/bans.html for specific examples at disarming the poor) and as a disproporitionate number of the poor are minorities, these bans disproportionately effect these minorities.

If you can find any support for the racist etymology other than the Bruce-Biggs quote, I'd say go ahead and put it back in (you might hit up the forum at wordorigins.org, they've helped me in the past). Until then, I think the quote from Roy Innis pretty well ties the issue of the racial impact of junk gun legislation. Another possible source is this book, if you can find a copy to look at. The Amazon review says it covers the etymology of the term Saturday Night Special, but whether that is in reference to firearms or not it doesn't say. scot 18:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's find a source for the original expression, before just putting a questionable source in and calling it disputed at the same time. Let's also cite it, in the article. Otherwise, it is only hearsay. We want to get it right, before making this change. Yaf 22:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if the effort to find the "first reference" would be considered as Wikipedia:No original research or not. Regardless, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view tells us the right approach is to characterize the debate, not to avoid it or take positions. -O^O

Agreed. Sorry if I wasn't very clear. I didn't mean to imply that we had to find the "first reference", just a reference with the claimed original expression somewhere. Looks like we have one. Thanks! Yaf 03:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Just wanted to clarify my edit (so there is no attempt to mislead). That is the first known "in print" use of the phrase. That doesn't mean it was the first use of the phrase. It was probably spoken for awhile before it made it to print. - O^O

Niggertown Saturday Nights

I searched the Internet for this term and only came up with this Wikipedia article. Unless someone can come up with a citation for this reference, we have to delete it. It is pure speculation. Griot 17:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Check out: this reference, as referenced in discussion previously on this talk page. Yaf 01:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

At best, "Niggertown Saturday Nights" was probably a regional use of the term, probably from the South. First, I find it hard to believe that a NY Times journalist, namely the one who is credited with using the term "Saturday Night Special" for the first time in his Aug 17, 1968 article, modified the term "Niggertown Saturday Nights" for print. Second, the source you've referred me to (http://hematite.com/dragon/bans.html) is a personal Web page. The author seems intent on making a case that gun control has racist origins. Can you cite a better source, such as an academic paper, for example? Griot 01:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious that a journalist writing in 1968 would never have used the original form, and hence could easily have changed the expression to get an article past an editor who likely would have been born in about 1918, assuming the editor was about 50 years old. That said, Google also does show a bunch of usages. For example, see the Kopel paper reference. Looks pretty common to me. Yaf 02:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The Dave Koppel citation is better than the other one, but still, can you find a more objective opinion? Koppel is editor of "Journal on Firearms and Public Policy" afterall. Yes, the NY Times writer would never have used the original term (if "Niggertown Saturday Nights" is indeed the original term), but he also would have been leery of using any term connected to the word "Niggertown." Moreover, "Niggertown" was not used in the north to refer to Black districts in cities. The term is southern, yet the writer lived in New York, which leads me to believe "Niggertown Saturday Nights" is not the origin of "Saturday Night Special." Probably the term has to do with the fact that more crimes are committed on Saturday nights than other nights, since drunkenness, fighting, etc. are more common on that night. Griot 02:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Another reference is here. As it seems to be pretty well documented, and I haven't found any claims to a contrary beginning, have commented out the last sentence in the paragraph in the article, with a fact tagline, claiming the etymology is questioned. Yaf 03:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You've cited a reference to an article called "Gun-grabbers: Masters of the New Plantation." I remain unconvinced. It appears to me that these authors are pursuing a political agenda. I would really like to find out how "Niggertown Saturday Nights" turn into "Saturday Night Specials." I still think the term is more generic and refers to the fact that more crime is committed on Saturday night than other nights. I found some interesting stuff related to "suicide special" and put that in. Griot 05:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The complete expression that I heard during the 1960's always included the N word, and the expression of "special" at the end of the expression. However, this constitutes original research in violation of WP:NOR and has no real bearing on the topic. As for calling any gun a "special", there are 38 specials, and a whole host of other none-related specials pertaining to guns that have nothing to do with SNS etymology. Speculating that the one particular suicide special usage is somehow the sole right origin for the expression SNS is in violation of WP:NOR. Have commented it out for now, for violating WP:nor . Yaf 12:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was that "suicide special" was the sole origin. I suggested it as a possible origin. Moreover, I cited a Web page where "suicide specials" are described. YOu are correct to point out that "special" is a term that appears around the subject of guns in many ways. Perhaps the origin of the term goes something like this: "special" was attached to "Saturday night", Saturday being the night when more crimes are committed. My objection to the "Niggertown" origin is that some pro-gun folks have set up a straw man argument whereby gun regulations are seen as racist. These folks then use the "Niggertown Saturday Night" argument to back up their claim. I don't believe that claim. I think the "Niggertown" argument works backwards from the idea that gun regulations are racist. Griot 14:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but unless we can find cited sources claiming otherwise (from what is already cited in the article), it still constitutes original research. Some of the first state level reconstruction-era gun control laws (e.g., Tennessee, 1870), however, specifically were racist, in that lower-cost guns that freed slaves could afford were essentially banned, whereas more-expensive Army and Navy guns affordable to whites were not. The klan, and other racist organizations, have, of course, attached themselves to various aspects of the racial details for their own purposes. Not that it is a credible reference, but a klan brochure along much the same lines is online here. Yaf 18:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yaf, the sheer artlessness of the brochure you point to demonstrates why we should be careful of the "Niggertown Saturday night" origin theory. The brochure has one Klansman saying, "Sure do, Billy Jefferson. It would be pretty bad if, the next time we decided to lynch a [Black] or maybe hitch him to the back of a pickup truck and give him a nice ride the way they did in Jasper, Texas, he was to pull one of them 'Saturday Night Specials' and shoot hisself some of the good old boys!" This is patently a piece of propaganda, as is some of the other "Niggertown" stuff. I got some interesting material from the OED (see below). Griot 18:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yaf, the sheer artlessness of the brochure you point to demonstrates why we should be careful of the "Niggertown Saturday night" origin theory. The brochure has one Klansman saying, "Sure do, Billy Jefferson. It would be pretty bad if, the next time we decided to lynch a [Black] or maybe hitch him to the back of a pickup truck and give him a nice ride the way they did in Jasper, Texas, he was to pull one of them 'Saturday Night Specials' and shoot hisself some of the good old boys!" This is patently a piece of propaganda, as is some of the other "Niggertown" stuff. I got some interesting material from the OED (see below). Griot 18:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

CORAD citation

In the "Legality controversy" section of this article, there is a citation to an organization called CORAD [1]. This is an extremist organization, and the use of this citation is bogus, I believe. A look at CORAD's Web site's "Racist of the Month" page, for example, tells you why John McCain, FDR, and others, were racists [2]; CORAD tells us that "a Federal and State education...tends to enslave poor blacks, poor white and poor minority youths alike"; it tells us that affirmitive action is strictly for the benefit of "feminists and powerful white males" [3]; it tells us that the Democratic Party "has done particularly well at adapting Karl Marx’s communist philosophy to establish class warfare between the rich and the poor." [4] I respectfully suggest that this extremist Web site does not practice objective scholarship and that it doesn't meet the standards of Wikipedia for citations. Griot 03:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Source for the Roy Innis quote?

This article quotes Roy Innis of CORE like so: "Cheap handguns should be viewed as an affordable means of self-defense for poor people. To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is racism in its worst form." This quote can be found on the Internet on about 70 pages, mostly blogs and the like (on a Google search on 4/18/06). However, one instance of the quote includes two ellipses: "Cheap handguns should be viewed as an affordable means of self-defense for poor people.... To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is ... racism in its worst form." [5] I'm wondering, if the quote with the ellipses is the accurate one, what was said originally where the ellipses are. The ellipses version of the article was published in the Boston Globe, which leads me to believe that editors saw the original quote and entered the ellipses. Does anyone know when or where this line was first delivered? I believe Innis said in in 1988. Can anyone track this down? Thanks. Griot 02:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No speculation by editors allowed in Wikipedia

From WP:NOT,

Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.

To link the word "special" with the adjective "Saturday night" is speculation. We can cite each one by the OED; that is ok. But, we cannot hypothesize, speculate, or say some think this, without citing a concise reference that says this, or without finding a quote that is cited that says this. Otherwise, we are violating a principle of Wikipedia. Yaf 01:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. My point, which I back up from the OED, is that "Saturday night" as an adjective has a longstanding history in English usage. Somebody took this longstanding adjective and connected it to "Special," a word with associations to guns. This is not speculative in the least. Moreover, I think the "Niggertown" explanation is far more speculative. No author you have cited as adquately proved the connection between "Niggertown Saturday night" and SNS. I need not remind you that something isn't true just because it is stated on the Internet. Griot 02:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

But, by your own additions, we don't know if suicide special terminology merged with Niggertown Saturday Nights, or if the adjective Saturday Night merged with special and Niggertown was added later and then dropped for publishing in newspapers. Either method could have been the route followed. To put in speculation of just one method of development of terminology is speculation and is not allowed under WP:NOT and WP:NOR. Yaf 04:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Niggertown Saturday Nights" theory is also speculation. I have provided instances of the use of "Saturday Night" as an adjective from the OED. No author who put forward the "Nigertown" theory has offered any printed proof or been able to cite instances. I consider it pure speculation. I would like to see some hard evidence of this theory, preferably from a linguist or language historian, not a pro-gun activist. Can you find the proof? Griot 04:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Niggertown Saturday Nights" discussion is cited and verifiable per the citations; this is not speculation on the part of Wikipedia editors. No further proof is required by Wikipedia rules for WP:V for this point. Your speculations, or mine, or other editors', do not matter. By WP:NOT, speculations by editors are speculative and are not allowed in WP articles. On the other hand, if you find other cited and verifiable information, please add it to the article to improve the article. Yaf 04:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Army and Navy" law

This section is rather incomplete. I assume the official title of this law wasn't the "Army and Navy Law." Can anyone cite the text of the law and give its official name? Also, I'm confused by the date of its passage, 1879, and the reference to the "Civil Rights Act"? Which Civil Rights Act? 1866, 1871, or 1875? Griot 00:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking. Here's what I have so far; some are high-level articles, but those cite lower level sources:

[6] NRA/ILA article, with citations

[7] David Kopell article, also mentions government confiscations of firearms in government housing developments

[8] Article on SF gun ban, includes a citation of an article "The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration," Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the Second Amendment, ed., Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, School of Law, 1994

[9] Another Dave Kopell article, with numerous citations, including

[10] This article from the George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal, which includes specific citiations of Tennessee cases in quesiton, and also a similar Alabama law

[11] A breif from CORE, which in addition to the Tennessee and Alabama laws banning cheap, concealable handguns, mentions "A different route was taken in Alabama, Texas, and Virginia: there, exorbitant business or transaction taxes were imposed in order to price handguns out of the reach of blacks and poor whites", which ought to sound familiar--numerous proposals have been made in the recent past to tax ammunition at a rate of about 2000%, and of course the NFA did the same thing with class III weapons (really, would a $200 tax inconvenience Al Capone?). It might be worth mentioning this in the article, since the end result is the same, which is increasing cost of ownership of firearms

I'll keep digging as I have time, but I'm approaching a deadline at work, so time is tight. scot 15:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it time for a split?

We're digging up a lot of evidence that gun control legislation is often racist and/or classist. Is it time to create a Minority Oppression and Gun Control in the United States or similar article, and put this information there, so the SNS article can reference that? scot 15:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I would be concerned that such an article would be a "POV fork" (see Wikipedia:Content forking). Such information could surely go in Gun politics in the United States or elsewhere, without needing a new article. We don't want to present our own novel arguments tho- we'd want quotes from notable people who've talked about racist and/or classist effects of gun control. Friday (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that enough sourced arguments have appeared in this article to support a fairly broad view that gun control is often linked to racism, and there are also modern sources that claim that junk gun legislation targets minorities disproportionately. And there are other laws as well, such as the $5 a round tax on hollow point ammunition that pops up periodically. Can you afford to put the recommended 200 rounds of the latest and greates defensive ammunition through your gun to ensure reliabilty? The ammo tax, the NFA transfer tax, the "safety" requirements (which of course police and military are exempt from), storage requirements, background check fees, ballstic fingerprinting, microstamping firing pins, all of these sum up to a regressive tax on firearms owners. Maybe a section in Gun politics in the United States or just gun politics (since I'm sure other countries have taken the "tax it to death" approach) would be a starting point, and it could be split off if it gets large enough to stand on its own. scot 21:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The OED on "Saturday Night"

In the interest of determining the etymology of "Saturday night special," here is what the Oxford English Dictionary says about the term "Saturday night." I am inclined to believe that "Saturday night" is an adjective modifying "special," a word known to be associated with guns (as in ".38 special," for example). The OED shows a long history in English and American usage of the term "Saturday night" as an adjective.

Saturday Night 1. Used attrib. of activities taking place on or as on a Saturday night, esp. some form of revelry. [1847 H. Melville Omoo xii. 49 The evening of the last day of the week was always celebrated by what is styled on board of English vessels, ‘The Saturday-night bottles’. Two of these were sent down into the forecastle, just after dark.] [1896 ‘M. Rutherford’ Clara Hopgood xii. 121 Saturday-night drunkenness and looseness in the relations between the young men and young women.] 1942 Berrey & Van den Bark Amer. Thes. Slang §509/17 Saturday-night habit, week-end habit, indulgence in small amounts of narcotics at irregular intervals.] [1951 Evening Sun (Baltimore) 27 Mar. 4/1 The graduate ‘hype’ was a ‘student’ or ‘hoosier fiend’ who ‘dabbled’ with drugs occasionally. He had what is known as ‘chippy habit’, a ‘Saturday night habit’, or an ‘ice cream habit’.] [1963 R. I. McDavid Mencken's Amer. Lang. xi. 742 Most cats consider it necessary to probe the mystic depths with the assistance of wine, a joint of pot, peyote buttons and large infusions of invigorating jazz music in any event indulged in with friends as part of the Saturday night kicks.] [1976 N.Y. Times Mag. 10 Oct. 111/2 In the southern States (of the U.S.) there were all those cross burnings, lynching bees and Saturday Nite Socials.]

The dictionary goes on to mention these terms: Saturday night palsy, Saturday night pistol, Saturday night special, Saturday night soldier, Saturday nighter (a person who attends an entertainment on a Saturday night), and Saturday-nighting (a verb).

Given this long history of "Saturday night" as an adjective, is it credible to say that the term "Saturday night special" comes from "Niggertown Saturday night"? In that phrase, "Niggertown" is an adjective modifying the noun "Saturday night." However, in "Saturday night special," "Saturday night" is the adjective and "special" is the noun. Griot 18:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

By all means, put it in the article--that covers the racial origins and criminal connotations of the term, and it's a pretty unimpeachable source. Certainly it provides some backup for the Bruce-Biggs statement. The racial and elitest origins of the term should definately be documented. scot 18:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I was able to look up the OED online from a public library, and found this as part of the defition of Saturday: "1929 M. A. GILL Underworld Slang, Saturday night pistol, 25 automatic." I'm going to enter this in the article, as this term was used as early as 1929 and bears mentioning. Griot 17:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality and Factuality of this Article Disputed

I feel I need to put the neutrality and factuality tag on this article until this is a discussion as to why an article that is supposed to be about Saturday night specials is being, in my opinion, hijacked to attempt to prove that gun control and gun regulations are aimed at poor people and black people. The Niggertown business, the inclusion of the quote by Innis, the Army and Navy regulations all point to an attempt to make this article something that I think it plainly isn't. Griot 01:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what we are supposed to do when there are significant differences of merging cited viewpoints, until discussions to iron out editorial differences are resolved. WP:NOT, WP:NOR, and WP:V are all good starting points to understand the editing process. Yaf 01:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

But why does the class "Saturday Night Special"? Why are they legislated against? The entire concept of the SNS was created to keep the poor, many of whom minorities, from having access to firearms. Unless this history is covered, then all we have is a slang term, not an encylopedia article. What makes the term important is the legislation that surrounds it, and the reasons behind the legislation. The concept is as just as racist as poll taxes, which were enacted at the same time for the same purpose--denying rights to "undesirable" people. scot 16:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"The entire concept of the SNS was created to keep the poor, many of whom minorities, from having access to firearms." This is POV, plain and simple. I think the problem I'm having with this argument is that its sources are not scholars of the history of the oppression of Black people in America, but gun-rights activists. It would be something if the author who claims that "Niggertown Saturday night" made the claim as part of a treatise or book about the history oppression of African-Americans, but none of the three authors cited in this article have written anything about African-American history. Which leads me to believe that -- and it's been done a thousand times -- they are using the historic suffering of black people as a means to forward their argument; these writers are not interested in black history in and of itself. For this reason, I think it's important to describe the three authors in the wiki article. I have made edits to that effect. Griot 21:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is not simply a matter of POV. If you look at history, the majority of Southern states originally had laws which explicitly said that Black people may not own, possess, etc., firearms. I believe some of them had the death penalty. This was to discourage slaves from using firearms to aid an escape via the underground railroad. Of course, the laws didn't work at all. Most people who tried the underground railroad would have rather died than gone back anyway.

But those laws were overturned eventually, since the 14th amendment forbids selective legislation. Instead, states passed legislation which technically applied to everyone, but were selectively enforced against Blacks. Whites, poor or not, were never expected to pay poll taxes or take literacy tests, only Blacks. Same with early gun control legislation. Tennessee's "Army and Navy" law meant that a White person, poor or not, could walk into a gun store and buy any handgun he liked, but a Black person would be told all the other handguns were for display only and couldn't be sold.

There were no Black police officers, no Black judges, and Black people would not be called for jury duty, back then, in those areas. Selective enforcement was easy, and selective enforcement is what made these laws inherently racist.

Now, some laws were actually equally enforced, but they were still all intended to keep the poor from owning guns. Like Texas put extremely high taxes on the sale of all handguns, to prevent both poor Blacks and poor Whites from owning handnguns. If you look at gun control laws now, concealed carry permits in Southern states are prohibitively expensive. Total costs, with fingerprinting and training, are about $200-250 in Texas, $150-200 in Tennessee, $100-150 in Kentucky, and $200-250 in Florida. But then go up into certain states in the northeast, and it's $19 in Pennsylvania, $10 in New Hampshire, $35 in Maine, and $0 in Vermont. Quite a difference. I guess you could argue that this is POV, but really; what can a poor person afford more easily, $250 or $10?

Here's a source which I doubt anyone can accuse of merely "using" Black history to further the pro-gun cause. http://www.blackmanwithagun.com/site/dbpage.asp?page_id=140000780&sec_id=140000845 I hope that link works. If not, just go to http://www.blackmanwithagun.com and click "History of Gun Control." Arrkhal 02:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm learning a lot, and I appreciate it. But I don't believe that present-day laws to regulate SNSs and other guns are racist. The majority of the people making this argument are white. The majority of black people -- polls show this -- support gun control. We have to be careful not to impose our personal agenda, whatever it is, on any article, and be as objective as we can be. Thanks for your research. Griot 03:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Current laws are most likely not specifically anti-poor or anti-Black, I agree. Like the current "Saturday night special" laws pretty much only apply to guns made out of zinc, which are incredibly low quality and tend to injure the shooter. But the vast majority of gun control laws have racist origins. Most laws are just copies of old anti-Black and anti-poor laws, with a few very obviously anti-Italian ones as well. The main reason why Black people support gun control is because Black people are also overwhelmingly democratic, and almost none of them are aware of the origins of gun control. I bet if you polled White Democrats, the same percentage would support gun control and have no clue about its origins. Arrkhal 14:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the origin and intent of the first gun control laws of 140 years ago, present-day gun control laws are not motivated by racism. You could make that argument, but it would be POV. The impetus for these laws, whether you believe the impetus is misguided or not, is public safety. Is the public safer when most citizens are armed and therefore better able to repel criminals, or is the public safer when there are fewer guns and therefore fewer shootings and homicides? This is the essential question in gun control, and it can be debated at a gun control article, but not here, where the subject is SNSs. I think you're incorrect when you say that the majority of black people support gun control because the majority of blacks are members of hte Democratic Party. The majority support it because -- at 55 percent levels in some studies -- most shooting and homicide victims in the U.S. are black. Griot 17:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. The question is whether reducing or increasing controls on firearms does have an effect. Saying that looser controls on guns results in people better able to repel criminals is pure POV, as is saying that tight controls on guns results in fewer guns on the street.

Statistical evidence shows a number of things.

1. The vast majority of criminals have easy access to guns, either through theft or the black market. In countries where guns are highly regulated, they are still available to criminals.

2. The vast majority of crime, especially violent crime, has career criminals as both the perpetrator and the victim.

3. Even in states with very cheap, easy to get CCW permits, very few people actually get them. For instance, in PA, where getting a permit requires no fingerprinting, no training, and only $19, 6.76% of adults have a CCW. In Connecticut, permits cost $94 and require fingerprints and training; 5.23% of adults in CT have a CCW. The highest percentage of CCW holders is in South Dakota, at 7.45%. Not really enough to make much of a difference in any states. http://blogostuff.blogspot.com/2004/12/percentage-of-adults-with-carry.html

So legality basically makes no statistical difference for crime rates. New England is probably the best example. All of New England except for New York has very low crime rates. But you could drive for just a few miles around there and have gun control flip from one end of the spectrum to the other, several times. Public safety has more to do with gang activity than guns. The more gangs, the more crime. Arrkhal 20:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Is a flat tax racist? The percentage of those living under the poverty line is disproporionally minorities; because of this, flat taxes are denounced by many groups as racist, where they are technically elitist. SNS legislation, you'll note, always mentions such things as "quality of construction" (gotta love those nice quantifiable ones), materials used, and/or melting points, in addition to other possible requirements. None of those has a damned thing to do with how well the gun really works; the thinly veiled "we're doing this to protect you" is just a way to avoid saying "only rich people have the right to bear arms". The guns themselves aren't inherently any less safe or reliable; take for example a Jennings .22 I've fired, one of the first "Ring of Fire" guns. I was shooting .22 LR cartridges through it that someone had dumped in the trash because they were so old and corroded that they wouldn't even chamber in the $350 Ruger SP-101 revolver I had; the Jennings fired every one that could fire (some were so corroded the primer was compromised). As far as accuracy goes, it wasn't great (a side effect of the loose chamber), but I was hitting a 2 liter bottle at 25 yards consistently. Certainly that meets the basic requirements of a defensive gun, it goes "bang" when you want it to and can hit the vital area at a reasonable range. Granted, it's a .22 LR, but far better to have a $50 mousegun with you when you need it than a pricey service pistol sittin on layaway somewhere. scot 15:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

From what I've read, the .22s and .25s are half decent. It's the .380s and 9mms which tend to come apart after about a box of ammunition. Zinc just can't handle the stress of a more powerful cartridge. A lot of gun stores, the only "budget" handguns they'll sell are Hi-Points. Those things are ugly as sin and have the weight and ergonomics of a brick tied to a 2x4, but they work. Arrkhal 20:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiousity and for the sake of this article, if you were to declare a price below which a gun qualifies as an SNS, what would that price be? Not taking into account any criteria except price, is it a SNS if it costs $50 or below? $100 or below? I ask because owning a gun is a huge reponsibility -- a responsibility that might be considered comensurate with a certain price. Somebody who has to save for a gun values it more and is more likely to appreciate the enormous responsibility that ownership entails. Griot 17:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Money does not correlate with responsibility, maturity, intelligence, or any other positive characteristic. At all. One guy I know has more money than he knows what to do with, solely because he has rich parents. He's also, quite frankly, the most irresponsible, worthless POS I've ever known in my life. And unfortunately, he owns guns. Expensive ones. And there are like 5 holes in his floors and ceilings. And really, even with poor people, there's still no "saving" involved. Most poor people are up to their ears in credit card debt. Arrkhal 20:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This indent is getting a bit far out--I'm going to drop back to answer this one...

I'll answer your question in an indirect way; rather than picking a price point, I'll list some models that I would consider minimum for defensive use. If I were to include caliber, I would pick 9x19mm or .38 Special as the power floor, and I'd go with either a Kel-Tec P-11 or a Taurus M-85 (I'd go stainless steel over blued for the greater longevity of the finish, but that's a cosmetic choice). If you wanted a smaller caliber, I'd pick the Taurus PT-22, which is .22 LR, and has the advantage of a tip-up barrel so it can be operated by someone with low hand strength. If you wanted to go up a step in size (the previous models are particularly well suited for concealed carry), the Ruger P-95 is a top choice--a bit large for concealed carry, but a good size for a service pistol. For more power, the Ruger SP-101 in .357 Magnum is probalby the smallest compact revolver you can get, as the frame is as thick as the .44 Magnum Super Redhawk, and the cylinder latches up front and rear.

All of these are budget brands, made by reputable companies. I personally have fired and sold all of these models (my father has a federal firearms license) so I think I can be considered qualified to make recommendations. As for prices, here's what my fater has posted on his website right now for these models:

Taurus model 85, steel frame, blued, .38 Spl: $229.95 Taurus model PT-22, blued, .22 LR: $164.95 Kel-Tec model P-11, blued, 9mm: $224.95 Ruger model P-95, blued, 9mm: $314.95 Ruger model SP-101, stainless, .357 Magnum: $384.95

All three manufacturers have excellent customer service; as with any mass produced item, an occastional lemon gets through (I've actually seen new from the distributor guns from better-name manufacturers arrive with broken parts), but all three of these will fix it; Kel-Tec and Taurus have lifetime warranties, and while Ruger has no written warranty, if you break it, they'll fix it. Kel-Tec and Ruger are 100% US companies, while Taurus has plants in Brazil and the US; the PT-22 is built in the US, as it is too small to be imported under the GCA of 1968.

And as for responsibility, is owning a firearm any more of a responsibility than owning a car? A look at US accidental death stats from 2002 shows:

(1) Motor vehicle (MVA) 44.3% (2) Falls 17.8% (3) Poison,liq/solid 13.0% (4) Drowning 3.9% (5) Fires, Burns,Smoke 3.4% (6) Medical/Surgical Complication 3.1% (7) Other land transport 1.5% (8) Firearms 0.8%

I think that if you take just malpractice from of #6, it still ends up being more than accidental deaths from firearms (might depend on the year). As far as murder goes, I just don't buy the argument that the average person only doesn't murder people because they don't have a gun handy. Those stats came from http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html, which has some other interesting statistical breakdowns (such as muder victims and offenders by gender, race, occupation, and murders rates by region). scot 19:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As it appears we have edited lots of content since tagline of totallydisputed was added, have we reached NPOV and balanced yet? I have removed the tagline for now. Yaf 03:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we have reached a more balanced article. Thanks, Yaf, for hearing my concerns and for furthering my gun education. Griot 14:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Why has the "neutrality of this article is disputed" tag been removed from this entry? I came across it to simply find out what a "saturday night special" was and stumbled upon this extremely one-sided article with a consistent subtext about gun control and racism running through it. Looking at everything everyone has written, it seems to me this entry has taken on a controversial political life of its own and in doing so has become completely irrelvant to providing an encyclopediac description of the item in question. This is exactly the kind of biased editing that leads to legitimate criticism of wikipedia as an information source. Sure, the debate and ideas expressed here are important, but they don't belong in an "encyclopedia." I also find it ironic that the article states that "any gun used incorrectly can be lethal" when actually any gun used CORRECTLY, for its intended purpose, is lethal as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.232.45.245 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversy edits

Griot reverted some edits which I think are important in the Controversy section. (apropos :) One edit involves "the poor, the working class and minorities" statement. The logic is that minorities are targeted 'because of' their economic status (poor, working class). So it is necessary to separate that otherwise the grouping would be of dissimilar things.

The other edit involves a statement about the black community and by MLK. The black community is not the only minority community and does not necessarily represent the views of other minority communities. I think stating that one minority community of many has a certain opinion is appropriate.

Please discuss here. Rearden9 18:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Girot, once again you have reverted an edit without discussing it here. Please do not do that.

The quote in that paragraph takes the POV that percentage of people unable to afford an expensive firearm is larger in a minority group. You don't have to agree with the person who said the quote, but that is what he is saying. Rearden9 20:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

True, African Americans are not the only minority group. I re-editd this to introduce African-Americans in the first paragraph where minorities are discussed. Hope that's okay. Also, I removed your "therefore" because it seems to imply that only minority group members are all poor people. Griot 22:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Guys, the edits to the Controversy section have become a tit for tat and juvenile. Can we raise the level of professionalism here and not run around with a chip on our shoulder trying to give our cause or perceived slight a leg up? The whole point of the controversy section is to describe the controversy over these particular types of firearms. This means that we are dealing with opinion and a simple summary of the positions and groups holding them should be presented. The only quote which deals specifically with low cost firearms is the Roy Innis quote, the other two refer to firearms as a whole and not just SNS even though they are apropos to the topic.

The primary controversies inferred so far are:

• 1. General firearm availability in the minority communities (MLK and NAACP quotes).
• 2. Making firearm ownership difficult for those of less economic means and effectively disarming them. The charge is that this disproportionately affects minority groups. (Roy Innis quote)

Right now the exercise is the left to the reader to determine what the controversial positions are. IMHO, they should be clearly stated even if you disagree with the position, the assumptions or (perceived) lack of data. Rearden9 15:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I split it out into the two sections mentioned above. I left all existing positions and quotes intact. Rearden9 15:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"University of Evansville and the author of many articles arguing that gun control is a racist plot by whites against the black race"

The term "racist plot" seems to imply an irrational or extreme POV without substantiation. As examples are given of such race-based laws, I'd like to see a more neutral tone to that phrase, such as "gun control has some race-based roots." Of course, if he actually used the term "racist plot," then by all means cite it. 209.43.9.217 04:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Blatant POV

The "history of attempted prohibition" section is blatantly POV - it is obviously written from an anti-gun control standpoint, doing nothing but point out flaws in various pieces of legislation. The author, however, did do us a favor is making it so blatant and easy to ignore. I agree, there are better ways to deal with crime than gun control. But, there are also better ways to make your point than to put your POV on the wikipedia.

Well, then fix it, or suggest ways that it can be fixed. As far as I'm concerned, the legislation consists of nothing but flaws. scot 16:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The Martin Luther King Jr. Anti-Gun and Anti-TV-Violence Quote does not belong in the article

“ By our readiness to allow arms to be purchased at will and fired at whim; by allowing our movies and television screens to teach our children that the hero is one who masters the art of shooting and the technique of killing... we have created an atmosphere in which violence and hatred have become popular pastimes. ”

- Martin Luther King

This quote by a civil rights leader is no more relevant to the topic of Saturday Night Specials than is the following quote by a U.S. president.

“ The great body of our citizens shoot less as times goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the world... The first step in the direction of preparation to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war if it should come is to teach men to shoot! ”

- Theodore Roosevelt

--BillyTFried 20:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

While I'm ambivalent on the King quote (I think it was put in there to provide a counter to the very relevant quote from Roy Innis) I'll go ahead and play Devil's advocate.

The quote from King is relevant to the extent that it provides insight into the issues of gun control and civil rights. Gun control has ALWAYS been about keeping guns out of the "wrong" hands, whether it be criminals, the poor, blacks, Jews, or anyone but the government. And yet the NAACP is suing the gun industry, trying in effect to keep guns away from inner city gang members, who are primarily black and hispanic, but in effect depriving the miniory population the ability to purchase affordable, legal firearms--i.e. the defacto disarmament that Innis was talking about.

On the other hand, a better quote would be one from the NAACP supporting the junk gun bans; if you can find that one, then I think that would be a much better counter to Roy Innis. King's quote is just as much a call for censorship as gun control, and is not strictly relevant to inexpensive guns. And just as a side note, King's quote is shows and obvious willingness to trade liberty for safety, and as NYC and Washington, DC demonstrate, Ben Franklin is as right today as he was 200 years ago...

And as for TR's quote, si vis pacem, para bellum sums it up much more concisely. scot 21:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If the Martin Luther King quote goes, so does the Roy Innis quote. Griot 08:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have put back in a more relevant version on Innis's quote. I went from

"Cheap handguns should be viewed as an affordable means of self-defense for poor people.... To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is ... racism in its worst form"

to

"To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you're putting a money test on getting a gun. It's racism in its worst form",

which directly relates to bans of inexpensive firearms. If it goes, then I'm going to insist that you also remove all mention of poll taxes from any articles on discrimination, and defend your actions in that forum, because it has exactly the same relevance. As I noted above, it would be nice to have an opposing viewpoint, but it needs to be an acceptably relevant one, ideally one by, say, the NAACP supporting junk gun legislation. Don't delete the relevant quote, find an opposite and equally relevant one to add. scot 18:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Restored the King quote. This is from an extremely important African American civil rights leader and it bears on gun use. If Innis is here, another African American leader belongs too. Griot 18:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

rihgt

So he's not opposed to guns if they're expensive? If the answer to that is "yes, he is not", then it is directly relevant, otherwise to goes to the topic of gun control in general, which is not the subject of this article. Should we also include the picture of Malcom X holding an M1 Carbine? That seems just as relevant to the issue of guns and the civil rights movement, and no less topical than the MLK quote. scot 18:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm restoring the MLK quote. It relates to guns and violence. 71.139.9.122 20:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Innis quote is directly related to SNS, and should stay. It might not be pleasant, but it is factual. Have restored it. Yaf 08:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, now that Yaf has pointed out the the Congress on Racial Equality filed an amicus brief relating to SNS, it becomes relevant since they are more than just a random lobby group. Also, the quote from the department of justice study is fine as it is a study, not an opinion. But the MLK quote that refuses to die needs to go, as well as the Roosevelt quote that was added to counter it. We want the most important facts, not general statements for/against gun control, even if the speaker is an important historical figure. Boondock 21:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If you guys want to play this ridiculous game with the Innis quote and present the idea that the majority of black people feel that their guns are being confiscated through regulation of SNSes, the King quote belongs. 71.139.9.122 22:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The NAACP lawsuit is directly relevant and supports the view that some blacks do want cheap guns banned; the MLK quote makes no mention of price, and therefore is off topic. scot 13:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Davis/Lorcin Links

In the "Safety, gun violence, and criminal use statistics" section, the links for the company names of Davis and Lorcin point to the [Raven Arms MP-25] article. I removed the links, and was undone by [User:Yaf|Yaf]. I just wanted to clarify why. The companies are mentioned in passing in the article, but it doesn't seem like an appropriate place to link them to-- it looked like a cut-and-paste error to me. The article is about the MP-25 and Davis and Lorcin don't appear to have anything to do with that model, judging from the article. Yaf, maybe you're linking because the article discusses Raven's history? Shouldn't that be moved to a different article than a gun model article? Yellowking 16:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

All of these companies, Raven, Davis, Lorcin, Jennings, and a few others are re-incarnations of the same shops, tools, personnel, etc. Until an article is created containing this history, I linked them to the one location where the history is currently found. I am not opposed to the creation of an article "Ring of Fire companies", or whatever, with the history being all moved there. Yaf 16:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In general, yes, a single article would be sufficient, but "Ring of Fire" is a POV term created by the media when they were trying to drive the companies out of business. Maybe use the original founder's name for the article? It's all an extended family business (and, ironically, a direct result of the GCA of 1968). scot 16:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense, it just wasn't obvious. Thanks, sorry for the bother. Yellowking 16:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

blatant pov

i just came across this page. this page is blatant pov from a pro-gun standpoint. whoever is writing this page, please read WP:NPOV and try to learn to use at least minimally neutral standards in your writing. just because *you* happen to feel strongly about the problems of gun control doesn't justify inserting this bias into an article.

Benwing 02:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What are the issues? (BTW, have moved NPOV tagline to main page from the talk page. Yaf 02:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Since there have been no comments to identify what, if any, remaining issues are perceived to exist for over a month now, I will assume that the issues have all been addressed since this point was brought up and hence remove the NPOV tagline from the main page. Yaf 14:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

list of POV issues in section of histiory of regulation attempts

Here are a few of the more non-neutral sentences in this section. A person interested in this topic may wish to address them:

1) "had the effect of banning the import of high quality pocket pistols." unsourced. Is it just the author's opinion that these pistols are high quality?

2) "many civilian users immediately removed the fragile adjustable sights and replaced them with a rugged fixed sight." unsourced. Appears to be arguing that the regulations were ineffective, but does not actually cite statistics or studies.

3) "for the small caliber defensive handguns in question, it was strong and durable enough." unsourced. did not the advocates of the regulation argue that they were intended to regulate offensive handguns?

4) "More recent legislation against "junk guns" has targeted the zinc frames used in construction by specifying a melting point; however, this backfired when police departments began adopting polymer framed guns such as those made by Glock, H&K, and other manufacturers, which will burn at temperatures much lower than the commonly specified 800 °F." Unsourced. The characterization that the regulation "backfired" is unsupported opinion. From what the author says, it appears not that the regulation backfired but that it fired too well and banned polymer framed guns as well as cheap zinc guns.

5) "The only apparent impact of such legislation ..." Unsourced. These are the only apparent impacts? Apparent to whom? Does everyone agree that these are the only possible impacts?

6)"Some of these legal restrictions are based on product liability law; a gun should not discharge when dropped." Unsourced. Who says so? Perhaps the manufacturers who lobbied against the rule think that a gun should discharge when dropped.

7)"requiring loaded chamber indicators, are potentially deadly to careless users" Unsourced. There are advantages and disadvantages of loaded chamber indicators. This article only mentions the disadvantages, reflecting a point of view.

8)"built-in trigger locking devices might be acceptable on recreational or hunting firearms but could prove fatal on a defensive weapon." This sounds more like a persuasive essay than an encyclopedia article.

9)"It is a telling fact that [trigger locks are not required for police]" Who says that it's a telling fact? This is uncontroversial? What is it telling of?

10) "Equally telling is that law enforcement is specifically exempted from these bans and regulations - meaning, that they are able to purchase these so-called "junk guns" while the rest of the populace is not." It's telling that a regulation intended to keep junk guns out of the hands of people who are not police does not apply to the police? What, exactly, is it telling of? Who says that it's telling?

Thank you for calling attention to problems in this article. I'd like to add that the suggestion that regulation of guns is an anti-civil rights measure is disigenuous. Astruc (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and reworded some of the obvious POV wording and added citation needed tags where there were unsupported statements. I also removed this section which qualifies as POV and possible original research:

• "...potentially deadly to careless users, for any mechanical device can fail and the only safe course of action is to always treat a firearm as though it were loaded until a visual inspection of the chamber proves otherwise. Other requirements, such as built-in trigger locking devices, might be acceptable on recreational or hunting firearms, but could prove fatal on a defensive weapon."

This needs to be reworded to remove the POV and be framed as the view of gun rights advocates, unless there are actual studies demonstrating deadliness of trigger locks, etc. --Neurophyre^(talk) 21:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

PS, here's the diff of my edit to this section. --Neurophyre^(talk) 21:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No mention of Clerke, RG Rohm, and others

Not to mention the actual SNSs that the GCA '68 was meant to curtail, undermines the validity of this article completely.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdjonsson (talk • contribs) 01:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Junk gun

Perhaps we can rename the article to "junk gun" and also include low-cost submachine guns (eg convertible ones). These include the Intratec TEC-DC9 (convertible handgun), Skorpion vz. 61, also the Bushman IDW (see Bushman IDW) also seems cheap and small, while being a personal Defense Weapon which is a longer range SMG.

Also, perhaps some do-it-yourself (simple) smg's may be included; as the KIS_(weapon), Błyskawica submachine gun, and other open-bolt designs as the Sa vz. 23. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.154.136 (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Btw: I also like to see the article Survival Rifle created, which includes the AR-5, M6, ... some personal defense weapons (which are smaller) may also be integrated in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.176.152 (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"nigger-town Saturday night" revisited

Well, I don't know if it's wise to rekindle this discussion or not. Anyway, while reading last week, I ran across the explanation of the origin of Saturday night special which included the mention of "nigger-town Saturday night." Then, when I happen upon this article again today, I noticed that only this talk page mentions this point, but not the article.

It appears, perhaps, that this point was either removed or not included due to lack of reliable sources. I think these sources should fit the bill:

• Guns in American Society By Gregg Lee Carter
• Guns in America By Jan E. Dizard, Robert M. Muth, Stephen P. Andrews
• Social Problems in a Free Society By Myles J. Kelleher
• Gun control By Earl Roger Kruschke

Please chime in if there was another reason for not including this point in the article. --Hamitr (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced Statements

The last sentance of the first paragraph mentions that SNS's have "shortcomings," and the very last sentence in the article states that they have "reliability issues." Both of these assertations are unsourced; there is also a real, qualafiable, lack of definition as to what a "Saturday Night Special" is: "inexpensive" is a relative term. What I consider to be a "cheap" gun could be mid-range or even expensive to someone else. These statements either need to be left out, sourced, or clarified. Jmclark56 (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Current pictures?

Of the three pictures used, one is a modern "Saturday night special," while the other two are 19th century cap'n'ball revolvers. Anyone else think we should have more examples of the contemporary design and, possibly, remove the two revolvers? Thanks. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

In reading the article, the 19th Century Army and Navy revolvers illustrate the "Army and Navy law" the first "Saturday Night Special" ban in the 19th Century. Naaman Brown (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it does, however, I still believe that pictures illustrating actual models of SNSs would be better. The revolvers in question are internally linked should the reader wish to know more about them. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Lynyrd Skynyrd

I feel that the connection to the Skynyrd song could be explained further, in the tradition of Wikipedia "in popular culture" sections. Am about to make an edit to that extent. KingAlanI (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Might not fit per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Pop_culture. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Pop culture trivia

The section dedicated to pop culture trivia was removed per the firearm project guidelines. Most or all of the text was not noteworthy. If reliable sources can be produced stating that one of the pop culture mentions actually had an influence on the weapons' popularity, it can be noted. ROG5728 (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks for handling it.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Self referential trivia

This article was the first one (still on record) created by Jimbo, way back in the dawn of time: [12].Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Roy Innis quote

Why showcase the Roy Innis quote, in a block no less? The quote is "To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you're putting a money test on getting a gun. It's racism in its worst form." This article is not about guns and the black community, yet some posters here keep coming back to that. I also need remind you that Roy Innis is an extremely controversal figure in the black community. In the 1960s, he called for separation of the races and launched vicious attacks on civil rights groups. He advocated resegregating black and white school districts in the South. He said, "In America today, there are two kinds of black people - the field hand blacks and the `house niggers.' We of CORE, the nationalists - are the field hand blacks. The integrationists are house niggers." You can read about Innis here. Griot 00:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC) -- Roy Innis, president of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), 1988

If there are counter points, then please edit them into the article. In general, however, one-sided deletions of cited quotes and other topics is generally considered vandalism to wikipedia articles prior to at least some discussion on the talk page before making large-scale deletions arrived at over many months of editing. As many do feel that gun control started from racist intents during the reconstruction era, deleting all content related to the racist overtones seems to be re-writing history. Yaf 01:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to argue whether gun control started from racist intentions -- an argument that, I believe, is hard to make -- make that argument on a gun control article, not here. I am distrubed by a tendency in this article to bring racial issues into an what is supposed to be an article about Saturday night specials. I'm deleting the quote. I believe it has no merit here, both on the grounds that it is not cogent to this article, and on the grounds that Innis is only one voice, and a cantankerous voice at that, in the black community. I am going to decline your invitation to enter a counter-quote about the black community and guns, because guns and the black community is not the subject of this article. I could, as I'm certain you know, find numerous quotes from black leaders favoring gun control, but I'm not going to burden this article with a topic that is far removed from its subject, Saturday night specials. Griot 01:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

By the etymology, it seems highly evident that racist terminology is precisely where Niggertown Saturday Night Special terminology developed from, into Saturday Night Special, in the 1960's. To somehow sugar-coat this seems to be neglecting a significant and particularly racist background. Forgetting racism is not always the best way to counter it. Sometimes, the best way is to address it head-on. Again, put counter-points in the article, but to delete points of view with significant representation is counter to WP policy. Yaf 01:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that you and others have set up a straw man argument, steering this article toward what you perceive as racist intentions in gun control. Whether "Niggertown Saturday nights" is the origin of "Saturday night special" has not been established. Your notion that regulating Saturday night specials is a secret attempt to oppress poor Blacks is pure speculation. I smell a rat. Griot 01:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope. I am simply following cited and substantiated points, one by one. What I believe is not germane; what others believe by WP:V is what matters. If there are cited and substantiated points that support a different viewpoint than what has already been cited and substantiated to date, then they (these other cited views) should be edited into the article. If there are problems with any of the cited and verifiable facts edited into the article already, then we, as editors, should do our best to counter these with other citations and verifiable facts. Yaf 01:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"The conservative African American group Congress of Racial Equality's (CORE) president Roy Innis has said (1988), "Cheap handguns should be viewed as an affordable means of self-defense for poor people.... To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is ... racism in its worst form." " To me it sounds like he is attacking the symptom rather than the illness. If he feels that only black people are so poor that they can only get cheap handguns, then he should be working to make black people "not poor," rather than whining about it as if it were an unresolvable fact of life. I think to equate being black with being poor is more racist than putting legal restraints on cheap weapons. Further, It seems to me that "Saturday Night Special" refers more to the wild, care-free attitude that sometimes accompanies Saturday nights (much like a one night stand, which sounds more accurate in describing the usage of such a gun), rather than any kind of racist attitude. It may very well be that the racist injunction was later added into the phrase as people came to associate the gun type with "Niggertown." 64.90.198.6 23:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The gun judge for Chicago testified before Congress that the people brought before him under Chicago's near-prohibitory gun laws were overwelmingly poor non-criminal citizens who had guns out of fear of crime, and he often dismissed charges as he felt those people did not deserve to be jailed and it was easy to dismiss gun charges because they almost always involved gross violation of Fourth Amendment "reasonable search" and "probable cause" (Don Kates, Restricting Handguns: the Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, 1979). A lot of those folks were black and poor forced to try to survive in high crime neighborhoods. To call Roy Innis racist and a whiner because he recognises that black people can be poor and still have a right to self-defense is ludicrous. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

For something a little more recent on the subject:

"Bans on cheap handguns, variously called "junk handguns" or "Saturday-night specials," are probably better thought of as attempts to reduce the number of those with access to weapons by raising the minumum price of being armed. Attempts to disguise them as safety measures are unconvincing."

--Mark A. R. Kleinman, When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment, Princeton U Press, 2009, ISBN-13: 978-0691142081. Naaman Brown (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Proper title

I see an inconsistency with the term 'Saturday Night Special'. Sometimes all three words are capitalised, sometimes only the first. Do we want consistency?

WesT (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Army and Navy gun stuff

This was a first attempt in 1870 to ban the equivalent of "junk guns" or SNS's that were affordable to recently freed slaves. It was a a definite gun control move against low-cost guns, analogous to SNS or junk guns today. As this article is about SNS and junk guns, it seems reasonable to include this content in this article. Yaf 01:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Among serious collecters the terms "suicide special" and "saturday night special" are fairly analogous. The former is any low powered (usually .22, .32, .38, or .41 rimfire), cheaply made revolver ,easily concealed single action revolver, usually with a spur trigger. The tremendous glut of surplus percussion revolvers on the market after the civil war would have made "army and navy" revolvers CHEAPER than the new technology of cartridge weapons surely, especially while the Rolin White patent was in effect? Also look at all the state constitutions drafted at the time mentioning concealed weapons specifically. See also http://books.google.com.au/books?id=THeWYkwoLSUC&lpg=PA485&dq=%22suicide%20special%22&pg=PA485#v=onepage&q=%22suicide%20special%22&f=false Benvenuto (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)