Talk:Firearm
|
|
Under manufacture's there's info on 'sharps rifles', but with reference to modern company that makes replicas at the end. The info on rifles is good but the company should probably be on a gun- replicas manufacturers page, or have external links to gun manufactueres sites. I'm not sure if mixing the two is a good precedent for the page.
1. Should Gun/Politics be moved to Gun Politics? I think so, because then we can have a talk:Gun Politics page instead of this talk:Gun page. Also, Gun Politics is a sufficiently standalone topic to deserve a page.
2. What would an ideal Gun Politics page be like? I think that it is fairly clear that it should present the debate without appearing to take sides in the debate. This will be hard. If someone posts things like "Any additional gun in a tense situation adds to the odds of a fatality" I will have to delete it, because that's just simplistic misconception. But will my deletion be viewed as mere partisanship? I can see why it would be.
3. A comprehensive treatment of the topic, so that people from whatever perspective will leave our section more informed, will cover a wide range of areas. Gun Politics/United States Court Cases, Gun Politics/Accident Statistics, Gun Politics/Assault Weapons are a few of the topics I can think of, each of which might need full treatment in due course. I fear that only pro-gun people (like me) care enough about this stuff to write the pages: but can we write them fairly and objectively? Obviously, I think it is possible, but I readily acknowledge the challenge before us.
How about getting the best of both worlds? Instead of using Gun/Talk or Gun Politics/Talk for gun politics, how about Gun/Poltics/Talk?
The factual stuff (court cases, statistics, etc.) can be moved to Gun/Politics.
Well for some very good reasons, hierarchy is limited to two levels. I don't think that's going to change.
Should mention potato gun. --Daniel C. Boyer 22:38 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I'd be willing to write an article on potato guns... although I'm not sure where in this page the link should be put. Artillery? --Costyn 11:56, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The following is from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. The first message was written by User:67.31.200.119. -- Oliver P. 01:29, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Begin moved text
- redirection of firearm to gun is problematic. Although "gun" has a technical meaning, the page treats it colloquially, subsuming "firearm". These are by no means synonyms. A "gun" article properly would contain the technical artillery-related description, as well as a note regarding its popular colloquial usage, and containing links to the appropriate articles (including firearm, and indirectly, the latter's subcategories (pistol, rifle, etc.) which unfortunately are currently present as links under the gun article. Since the existing gun article is little more than a list of subtopics, the redirection should be removed, so as to ease the opportunity to edit both appropriately. I note that "gun",properly, is a proper subset of "firearm", whereas "firearm" is only a proper subset of "gun" when "gun" is used colloquially. This is a mess from a technical point of view, and the redirection should absolutely be removed. I will be more than happy to assist in the clean-up (which is fairly simple considering the lack of substance in the existing ```gun``` article), once this redirection is removed.
- It would easier if you got a login so you had a talk page for this, but what exactly are you saying? Do you want the gun article moved to firearm? You can do that using the move this page link. If you want to write a different article at firearm, you can, just go to the page and write over the redirect. Use this link (http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Firearm&action=edit) to edit the firearm page. Or was it neither of those things? Angela 00:36, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
End moved text
A message almost identical to the first message above was later added to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion by User:Nptr, who is therefore likely to be the same person. -- Oliver P. 01:29, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
| Contents |
Moved to "firearm"
Moved article to "firearm" because, while all guns are firearms, not all firearms are guns. Rifles are not guns because they have a rifled barrel. Naval artillery are guns even though they have rifled barrels because they are naval artillery. The traditional (although probably outdated) US Marine Corps boot camp discipline for a recruit erroneously referring to a rifle as a "gun" was for the errant recruit to march around, holding his rifle in one hand and his penis in the other, saying "This is my rifle, and this is my gun. This is for fighting and this is for fun." I mention this because it's moderately entertaining, yet surprisingly true, and it almost always comes up when this distinction is discussed. Philwelch 06:31, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
For this page to stay here(firearms) it will need a lot of sorting out. It might be easier to leave this page as gun, and create a new page for firearms. This gun page has developed more towards common usage, not a technical one. The existence of both rifled and un-rifled weapons in some of these categories complicates the matter as well, as does things like air-gun, squirt gun, etc. links. Greyengine5 07:53, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Generally, all guns are firearms, but not all firearms are guns. A squirt gun is arguably not a firearm, but it's also arguably not really a gun, just a toy gun. The more inclusive term should be the title. I'm not opposed to a separate "gun" article. I'll take a look at the article and see what I can do edit-wise. Philwelch 08:05, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Rewrote article
The article will have to be reworked significantly, you say!?!?!? Done!!!!!! Philwelch 10:05, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yea nice job! Thats a big 'freakin' improvement- now it has some real content rather then mostly links. Im going to create a cut-down gun page of the old version of this, with a big link to firearms at the top for the gun page. Gun related stuff is pretty weak in the wiki right now- small arms just has a blurb, and only a tiny percentage of guns are done - see List of firearms (yea yea there's a lot non-firarms there) in case you want to do some 'rifles'. Greyengine5 20:11, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I was thinking about adding/changing something about the concealed carry of handguns; the article seems to imply that it's no problem, whereas, often it is. User:Talldean 02:45, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I just added something remarking that it was a political issue and linking to Gun politics. I'd prefer this article to remain purely factual and NPOV, without any politics bleeding into it. Philwelch 22:11, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
re wright mi dick
apalling.
fuck ONE picture? of a rapid fire gun, at that? Have you no deceny, wikipeedjans?! damm
Seriously, though. I hardly think one uzi, or submachine gun (so im a gun nut-- not just a picture nut), or whatever it is is enough to show the vast differences between different guns.i mean damm and fuck you
Lockeownzj00 23:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)hell
Handguns
American-style police, armed with handguns, are contrasted with non-firearm-carrying police, but I've noticed that in the third world, assault rifles seem to be the most common weapon of law enforcement. If I could imagine a way to put that into the handgun section without disrupting things, I would...but I'm not feeling creative this late at night.--Polyparadigm 08:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Inconsistency
--- Strictly speaking, not all small arms are weapons, but it is the most convenient category under which to group firearms other than artillery.
Could someone tell me what the author means but the above sentence? I postulate that all small arms ARE weapons. The small arms page appears to confirm this.
- All small arms are weapons, but not all small arms are firearms. Hand grenades are considered small arms, for instance. I'll correct it, sometimes I confuse a word with another. Philwelch 02:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)