Jump to content

Talk:Beretta Cx4 Storm/Archives/2021/April

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Picture

Ajaka, grow the hell up. What I am doing is not Vandalism by any stretch of the definition. Your stated reason for not posting the picture was because of the scope. Go look at the various rifle pages and take a look how many have scopes. The picture in question in this article shows the accesory capabilities of the Storm which just so happens to be part of the selling point. Do not accuse me of vandalism again. We might disagree, but its NOT VANDALISM. Alyeska 04:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ajax, prove your position. You are reverting edits without cause and without justification. Alyeska 04:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

After checking, yes, the information about Battlestar Galactica has to stay. I have added a media subtext. As to the image, it is released by Beretta for PERSONAL USE. Not in the manner your wishing to engage in. If your looking for more images to add for the Cx4, look for the press release package Beretta made available for fair use. On a personal note, adding more pictures clutters the page and denigrates the Cx4. Ajaka

But since we probably just have to have another picture, I put one up that all rights have been released to.

Thats a good picture and it shows even more then the wallpaper. Alyeska 23:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Your compromise is acceptable, Ajaka. E. Sn0 =31337= 01:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Find a larger picture so people can look at an enlarged photo. Alyeska 04:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Details

Sorry if the features sound like a "commercial", but there isn't anything in there that is not true. Reword it if you like, but there is no reason to just flat out remove it.

ASHLEY.BLAND@WEYERHAEUSER.COM

I have a 45 ACP Caliber CX4 Storm. The current magazine holds 8 rounds. I would like to know if you are aware of a magazine conversion that holds more than 8 rounds of 45 ACP.

I have enclosed my e-mail address.

Any help that you can give me will be greatly appreciated.

Mr. Ashley Bland

Thats a bit of spam. Anyway, there is no standard way to get more then 8 rounds. Beretta designed the magazines and the magazine holder as single stack. There is no way to use magazine extensions with single stacks. Alyeska 23:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Rate of Fire: The number listed here is incomplete. It lists number of rounds, but no timeframe. Someone who has the necessary information, please correct this so as to provide complete data. The Dark 13:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Dawson College shooting

This weapon was used in the Dawson College shooting. Does anyone know if this weapon is legal for ownership in Canada by civilians? Thank you LindaWarheads 20:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060914.wmontreal0914/BNStory/National/home says that:
  "The Sûreté du Québec said the guns found at the scene were legally registered [...]"
No doubt people are going to be in a conniption over that one. In any event, the whole mention of this event here doesn't strike me as useful. For example, not only did this guy use the Cx4, he also drove a Pontiac Sunfire. How deep can is one permitted to go into the wikilink tree, referencing Bad Thing X? Remember the poor sting rays of the world. mdf 20:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


I agree with mdf about the need to link negative events with a firearm. At most I think we should keep the current wording and linke in the Media section. After about 6 months time, remove the link. User:Ajaka


I agree that we do not need to mention the recent event in this article.--71.74.82.156 23:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

After a bit of thought, I'm asking for discussion on the removal of reference to the Dawson shootings from the Cx4 article. I see this as a double standard in how articles related to a horrific incident are treated. For instance, if one looks at the SF hit-and-run from the end of August in which a Honda Pilot was used no mention is about this on the article page. Anything related to road rage, accidents, etc. is not put on the automobile pages (nor should it in my opinion). Nor can I find such reference in pages dealing with specific knives, poisons such as [[arsenic], etc. My point is simply to ask why are we putting a bias statement in the article? Why are gun articles targeted for reference to horrific events, but other inanimate objects are not? Further, no hard evidence has even been released that says the Cx4 was used in the attack. Is it probable? Yes, but it is hearsay at the moment.Ajaka

The problem is that cars are commonly involved in such things as hit-and-runs, which is a common crime. However, a school shooting is a high-profile and rare crime, and more notable because of it. A hit-and-run happens every instant somewhere in the world. 70.51.9.229 05:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The Dawson shooting has no place in an article on a firearm. The current event banner will suffice. L0b0t 10:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I removed the current event banner as this article does not document a current event, it is merely linked from a current event article. This article itself is not a current event. Enough with the anti-firearms scare tactics. L0b0t 11:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. We don't need what is essentially a memorial to that (excuzez mon français) dipshit/douchebag/lowlife/etc in the firearm article. It is irrelevant, stupid, and makes Wikipedia come across as anti-gun, therefore NOT NPOV. E. Sn0 =31337= 16:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no POV attached to mentioning the Dawson shooting and it is of significant interest. Furthermore, precedents exist in numerous wikipedai articles, such as that of the Carcano M1891 (Oswald), Tec-9 (Harris/Klebold) and Ruger Mini-14 (Mark Lepine/Montreal Massacre). There is both precedent and the public interest, and the desire to either sanitize the media relevance of the weapon of deny Kimveer Gill posthumous publicity are both examples of POV.

Sno, I strongly advise against such insults in the edit summary. Alyeska 22:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

We should definitely include a mention of the Dawson shooting in the article. It is extremely POV to state a mere statement of fact is somehow anti-gun. It is also not a show of WP:AGF for the diatribe in comments for people trying to improve the article. I for one did not know what kind of gun had been used in the JFK assassination until I first read about it on Wikipedia while browsing gun articles. It wasn't published in any of the history textbooks that I had read. On the other hand, I did know about the Tec-9 case, but only because I was much more aware of types of guns at the time of Columbine and remembered this. In summary, I believe we should include a very short, succinct mention (one-line maximum) in the History section, without belaboring the point, and then move on to better use of our time in adding good edits to WP. Anyone else agree? Yaf 08:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
It is no more worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia than stating that a baseball may have been responsible for the death of Jake Daubert or whatever handgun was used in the German shooting at Emsdetten (which is so non-newsworthy, it took me seven sources to find out it was a handgun and not a longarm, and I still can't find what manufacturer, let alone model). In short, no, I don't agree. The Dark 15:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It is more important than the imaginary use in Battlestar Galactica, mentioned later in the article. Unlike speculation that something may have been involved, such as the baseball for Daubert, this use is verifiable in accordance with WP:V. Have added a citation and a verifiable use, in a single sentence. There should not be an issue with this at all. It is not an anti-gun POV, just a statement of fact. Yaf 03:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The weapons use as a prop in the reimagined Battlestar Galactica is not imaginary. A garden variety Canadian shooting is in no way as notable as a television program enjoyed by millions of viewers worldwide. L0b0t 04:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Based on the grounds of nuetrality I believe the Dawson shooting should be removed from this page. Crakerjak84 03:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Image Removal

Whomever replaced the first image with the second seems to have forgotten to properly tag the new image as it has been deleted. Might be a good idea to reupload it properly. Alyeska 18:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Criminal Use

Can someone please explain to me how pointing out that a particular gun was used in a particular incident represents an unacceptable point of view statement? All that is being stated is a fact. Perhaps some people will read this about the Storm Rifle and be reassured: "Thank god it works." Others may be disgusted: "I hate guns, ban them all."

Either way the information is neutral. It is a simple fact. A storm rifle was used in the Dawson shooting. See the article on the type of rifle that was used to shoot JFK.

Furthermore the article on the storm rifle points out its use as police weapon among other uses such as sporting. Why not point out its usage in a well known school shooting incident?

Because it really has nothing to do with the article itself. Why not put a section on every weapon page while we are at it? Lets put them on any page related to something that can kill people. The information isn't neutral because its a rather obvious jab against gun ownership rights. Alyeska 00:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Carcano article mentions Lee Harvey Oswald; it seems reasonable to mention prominent incidents that recieved large amounts of media attention. The Canadian shooting made international news, it's not like we're including every corner-store holdup. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The assasination of the leader of the free world is a wee bit more noteworthy than a common Canadian murder. The Oswald shooting led to firearms being banned from mail-order sales in the U.S., there is also the conspiracy surrounding wether the Carcano was the weapon that made the kill shot. Why not have a "uses in crime" section on every article about rocks, sticks, cars, knives, crowbars, fireplace pokers, or any other sharp or blunt object that humans have been using to make eachother miserable for 10,000 years. Keep your anti-freedom POV out of the encyclopedia. L0b0t 13:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
While it has nothing to do with the Dawson school shootings, I have to ask...have you hallucinations like that often? 'Leader of the free world'? Uh-HUH. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DannyBoy2k (talk • contribs) 21:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC).


Your opinion about the Dawson school shootings is inaccurate. The eventhas multiple wikipedia pages, proving its significance. Furthermore,multiple weapon pages *do* mention the significance of weapons insituations other than predidential assassinations. Error the first.
Your opinions about freedom are irrelevant POVs. Error the second.
While I agree with you general statement about the notoriety of and dispute over the use of the Carcano in the Kennedy killing, be careful about attributing motives to other users, L0b0t. That said, Night Gyr, the reason the Canada shooting isn't as major is that it was a recent event that will (most likely) not be commonly referenced or remembered in even the near future. A good parallel would be the Columbine_High_School_massacre incident. While the article on the shooting mentions the firearms used, only two of those firearms have pages, and only one mentions the Columbine incident in passing. Given the greater historical notoriety of this case, and the fact that the TEC-DC9 mention was controversial at the time, it seems unnecessary to mention the use of the Storm carbine, particularly as the pages on Glock and the Norinco_HP9-1 do not mention their uses in the shooting. The Dark 13:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I only consider it worth mentioning because it's such a new weapon, and this is the sole case where I've seen it get media attention. Glocks and remington shotgun clones are extremely common so there are lots of crimes committed with them; this weapon is a bit rarer, so it's like listing the one widely known incident instead of mentioning nothing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Attempted to add "The Cx4 was infamously used by Kimveer Gill in the Dawson College shooting in Montreal, Quebec, Canada in 2006." to the bottom of the History section, similar to the criminal use mentioned of the Tec-9 in its article, but this addition was removed with the comment "add to pontiac article first". What is the "pontiac article'? Yaf 15:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
What I meant was that if you want to add this nonsense to an article on a firearm then you should also add the criminal use to the Pontiac Sunfire article as that's what he drove to the shooting, and don't forget to add criminal uses to every article on knives, rocks, fireplace pokers, baseball bats, and every other article about things people have been killing eachother with for the past 10,000 years. This has been discussed before, there is no reason to mention this garden variety crime in an article about a firearm. L0b0t 16:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Image??

What happened to the picture in the article? L0b0t 14:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone appears to have deleted the image itself. Alyeska 18:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Media usage

In accordance with trivia is not supposed to be included in weapon articles unless there is a significant cultural reason. A mention for this gun's use in Battlestar Galactica is definitely not a major cultural icon, and this mention should not be included. Yaf 03:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And what makes you the sole decider of this fact? Alyeska 03:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It's the consensus agreed upon by the WikiProject: Military History. The concern is that listing Every. Single. Appearance of a firearm in TV/Movies/Video Games gives rise to "Trivia Creep", with all sorts of irrelevant appearances in films and obscure anime being listed, distracting from the article's main purpose as providing information on the actual firearm itself. I've not seen Battlestar Galactica, so I can't comment on whether or not the gun's appearance therein is notable, but one thing to consider is whether or not the gun is merely there in the background (they way a German soldier in a WWII movie would be likely seen carrying a Mauser K98, for example) or whether the gun features prominently (as in, is carried by a major character, commented on by them, or otherwise conspicuous). In short, it needs to be more than just a random gun used as a prop because it looks cool. --Commander Zulu 04:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Thats not what I am talking about. What makes Yaf the sole decider of a significant cultural reason? Yaf has been bucking popular edits of this article for a little while right now. He is ignoring consensus for his own reasons. You could very well be right, but Yaf doesn't care about whats right, he cares about his own little opinions. Alyeska 04:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
He is not the sole "decider." This is a consensus and, as such, you can argue the point in the talk page noted, however these edits have been decided by lengthy discussions over a long time that came to a general consensus on the matter. Please refrain from placing trivia in this article. --Asams10 04:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The notability of this bit of trivia or cultural reference should be supported with a reliable source. I have gone through 20 pages of google results, trying to find something about the use of the Beretta Cx4 Storm in Battlestar Galactica, with no luck. I don't see the importance or notability demonstrated to the point of justifying inclusion in this article. Though, maybe I'm overlooking some source. --Aude (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Have also done a search, and find no apparent significance in the sources I reviewed. In accordance with consensus, there doesn't appear to be a reason for this trivia to remain. Yaf 04:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Consensus of the definition of the rule maybe, but you don't have consensus of the application of the rule on this page. So don't claim victory just yet. And do take this into account. Outside of the Dawson incident, BSG is the only media source for the Cx4 Storm. So on the issue of perspective, it is a notable media indication. Alyeska 05:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Now isn't this interesting. After I said that consensus between editors is needed, Yaf goes about soliciting others to simply "out vote" those who have been editing the article. Thats rather dishonest Yaf. You couldn't make the argument yourself so you try and strong arm the articles primary editors aside to get your way. Alyeska 05:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert Wars

Well its progressed from dissent to mutual disagreement from two sides to revert wars. I strongly advise that both sides cease immediately before an admin steps in and blocks someone or temporarily locks the article. Consensus doesn't arise from antagonizing the other side. It would be better to discuss things in here before further edits are done. Alyeska 05:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. All I ask is never another mention of that loser from the Dawson Shooting in the article again. |||||| E. Sn0 =31337= Talk to me :D 05:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
That would be most difficult right now. What you can do is portray it as NPOV as possible, or find a rule to support its removal. You could very well use Yaf's rule citation as well. Alyeska 05:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on firearms trivia/pop culture/Dawson College shooting/Battlestar Galactica

The issue of tangental information in firearms articles has been bothering me for some time, and there appears to be a lack of consistency in what information gets included. Things like the Desert Eagle article would end up 90% "used in video game XXX" and growing daily if not restricted; and if we mentioned every weapon used in any halfway notable murder then how many would be mentioned in the article on, say, swords? On the other hand, the Carcano used in the JFK assasination is of note, because of the downstream effects (i.e. banning of mail order sales, resulting in the C&R license for collectors of miltary rifles); ditto the high profile shootings with Tec-9s and Mini-14s. While the Dawson College shooting may or may not have an impact on the Cx4 Storm, the shootings with Tec-9s and Mini-14s DID have an impact on them; the Tec-9 was hounded out of existance, and civlians can't buy 20 round Mini-14 magazines from Ruger any more. As far as pop culture goes, the Dirty Harry movies did have an impact on the S&w 29--without the movie exposure, they wouldn't have been selling for 2x MSRP for years as S&W tried to keep up with demand. I think the "litmus test" for inclusion of facts like this should be "did this fact have an impact on the firearm?". If the Dawson College shooting leads to the banning of some class of firearms that includes the Cx4 Storm, then yes it should be mentioned; if Battlestar Galactica can be shown to increase sales of the Cx4 Storm, then it should be mentioned. If the events don't impact the Cx4 Storm, then they really aren't relevant to this article, though the Cx4 Storm should certainly be mentioned in the Dawson College Shooting article, and might bear mention in a "Trivia" or "Props" section of the Battlestar Galactica article.

Does this sound like a sound policy to adopt? scot 15:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. L0b0t 15:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a rational and logical concept. On a personal note, Battlestar Galactica did inspire me to buy a Cx4. Alyeska 16:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This sounds good to me as well. I had been thinking of a way to define what is a noteworthy enough "media appearance" to be considered significant from an encyclopedic point of view, and that is simple and fairly easy to check. The Dark 17:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good approach that everyone can live with. Thanks, scot! Yaf 01:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I second this idea, being as well tired of the mentionning of each and every appearance of each and every weapon in each and every videogame/movie/etc. (as aforementionned). However, as this information might be relevant for some wievers, wouldn't it be a better solution to include the link to the weapon in the game/movie article, instead of the contrary ? I imagine a viewer would rather think "What's that gun they use in Battlestar Wars Trek ?" and look up the series article, rather than go through each and every gun article they can think of and browse the trivia section. The same goes for a Cx4 Storm amateur like myself, who has little interest in knowing that it appears in a series I don't even know of. breversa (talk) 09:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Cx4 Storm and the Media

Assuming we have a general agreement here on this issue, it might be a good idea to discuss the examples we have at hand. From what I can see, the Cx4 is shown in two forms of media above what one might generally see of this rifle. These two examples being its use in Battlestar Galactica and the Dawson College Shooting. The point I got from the above listed suggestion is that we should take into account potential cultural impact, but also consider that it is relative. For some weapons the only media its seen in is entertainment (IE Fiction). As was mentioned, the Desert Eagle is only known for its appearances in movies like the Matrix or games like Counter Strike. The two listed media examples of the Cx4 storm are in effect the only known media examples and relatively speaking they are very important. But that should be countered against the possibility that these examples are still relatively unknown to the public at large. And that leaves us with the discussion at hand. Alyeska 02:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My person opinion is that at this time, neither has shown a significant cultural impact, nor have they been demonstrated to have an impact on the specific firearm or firearms in general. As such, the discussion on them should be left here as things to keep an eye on for future inclusion, but neither has had enough significance to warrant inclusion on the page for the Cx4. This is, of course, unless someone can develop a rational reason for keeping either (preferably backed with a reference, although I admit I'm somewhat ref-happy). The Dark 12:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
You should be "ref happy", we all should be. I've been working with television articles recently and am just appalled by the attitude of some editors when it comes to citing sources. Many times I am told "sources aren't important" or "if you care so much about sources, you go find them, I'm too busy adding trivia and quotes to articles." Sorry for the off-topic rant but I haven't even finished my coffee and I'm already knee deep in unsourced fan speculation and interpretive analysis such as "this scene has a character smoking a cigar it is an obvious parody of The A-Team". Anyway, sources good, no sources bad. Cheers. L0b0t 14:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Operation

On the Beretta page linked at the bottom of the article, it says the Cx4 storm is blowback-operated, which is not quite the same as recoil. If someone more daring than I wishes to, research this and correct it if necessary

CX4 Storm is blowback operated. For a weapon to be recoil operated, the barrel must free to move. However, when breaking down a CX4 Storm, it's quite obvious that barrel is fixed and unable to move. Rabbit994 21:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I can vouche for what Rabbit994 is saying, the barrel is most definately fixed. Alyeska 21:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture

The picture is slated to be removed as it is a fair use image. It might be a good idea to try and find a suitable image or at least have someone produce an image that is comparable to use as a replacement. I can create an image, but it would be the base carbine without anything, not even the rail attachments. Alyeska 23:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you own this rifle, go ahead and upload a pic. That's probably the best course. My advice... make it as high res as possible with a solid background (as opposed to nothing behind it). With my pics I usually use a blanket of a contrasting color. See my user page for the pics I've taken. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 01:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It has absolutely no attachments of any sort and doesn't demonstrate the primary selling points of the Carbine. Alyeska 01:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Better than nothing. It'll certainly do until a better example is available. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 02:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
True enough. Time to get a nice close up shot of the thing in good light. Alyeska 03:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again the picture is deleted after the article editors have made good faith efforts. Alyeska 02:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have my digital camera working and am in the process of trying to create a good picture of the Cx4 Storm. Alyeska 14:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Dawson Revisted

In light of recent events, it might be wise to reconsider the previous consensus on including Dawson. Alyeska 14:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Only if by "reconsider" you mean never, ever, trying to insert that tripe into this article again. K1ng l0v3 14:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

With the recent public awareness of such events, it is something to consider. It certainly isn't tripe. Whether or not its worthy of addition is the question at hand. Alyeska 16:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be no consensus on these things... Currently, the Walther P22 has the Virginia Tech mention included in it, being a big, bad .22 caliber plinker whereas the 9 mm Glock 19 article does not. No rhyme nor reason on these things I suppose. I would like to see a WP policy developed on keeping trivia out of firearms articles. Yaf 04:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In the very least a rule on the threshold is needed. Alyeska 22:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


Naming of the Carbine

The article states 'The name "Cx4" stands for "carbine times 4", as it is chambered in four different calibers.' Kindly explain to me, then, why the pistol is named Px4? 'Pistol times 4' doesn't work, since it's only chambered for THREE calibers. And while the pistol comes in four diffrent versions, the carbine comes in SEVEN diffrent versions, so that doesn't work either. Seems peculiar to me.DannyBoy2k 11:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

History

95% of the information included under the "history" heading pertains to history. It looks more like it deals with specifications (eg, X magazine fits Y caliber, etc). History generally denotes dates or timelines.

Don't try posting talk at the top of the page. It breaks format and is against standard policies. Alyeska 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA

A Wikipedia article links to this page, which means this page should link back. Regardless of your year 2006 discussions, being unlinked would be excluding information and unencyclopedic. This is not an advertising vehicle.

POV Dispute vs. POV Check

I think that under the descriptions given in the template guides. The problem here is a POV Dispute and not a POV Check. mlhwitz wants to include a link to another Wikipedia article because that article links to this page. Alyeska wants to exclude the link because of an edit made in 2006. I am not sure (but we can probably check), but there are probably rules (probably in Wikipedia:5 Pillars) about keeping all relevant information that links to Wikipedia articles.

-Actually, if you look at the links at the bottom of the article, you will see that they are linked to gunowner websites and show pictures of dudes playing with guns. This needs a Neutrality CHECK, not a dispute tag, because there is NO dispute that such links are lacking neutrality.mlhwitz 21:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This incident has already been resolved in another article. The VTech college shooting the the Walther P22 and Glock19. A rule has been established for inclusion of information of related events to a gun article. This is not met by the Dawson college shooting. Alyeska 22:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Walther P22/Virginia Tech massacre dispute archive This link details how this very same dispute on a related incident went about. If you look you will notice that it was settled by an administrator. The rules created for addressing incidents relating to firearms dictate that notability must be there. There must be some reaction to the specific gun. If Canada were to ban the Cx4 because of the shooting, you have sufficent notability. But as absolutely nothing has happened to the gun as a direct result, there is zero notability. That is how the rule works. FYI, I want the include the Dawson link. But I am following the rules established as a group. Alyeska 22:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Looking at the number of people included in the discussion page and the number of edits in history, it looks like more people wanted the inclusion of the shooting than did not want it included. Of course, I agree that mere numbers (or prima facie numerical consensus) does not make fact (or the world would still "factually" be flat)), but it seems that people do want the matter included.

Gill's usage of the CX4 is notable on the topic of the Dawson incident, but totally un-notable on the topic of the gun. This should be self evident. Some Too many people just have a bad knee-jerk reaction to guns. — NRen2k5(TALK), 18:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The media is reporting that the primary recommendation in the recently released coroner's report into that shooting is that this type of gun be banned. Whether or not the use of that particular gun in the shooting is notable or not, this particular widely-reported recommendation in the Coroner's report is mostly about the gun, and deserves a mention here.
If the gun is banned, we can think about mentioning it. Alyeska (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources

What are the sources for the page anyway? I don't see a single reference and wonder why I am supposed to believe any of this. My guess is that, somehow, all of this information comes from a video game manual.mlhwitz 21:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

-The "references" tag is already at the bottom of the page. Neutralityman 21:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

-Well, if you read the section below titled "Pictures," you will see that the source is probably actually BattleStar Gallactica.mlhwitz 21:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to be insulting, but I have a strong suspicion that Neutralityman is a sockpuppet. He was created today and his edit history is entirely related to the Cx4 or Dawson college. A single purpose account created to make the appearance of consensus for one side. Alyeska 22:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

availability in Canada

Let's not hastily revert the only referenced section on the page. I did review the Walther P22 discussion which was "no consensus." One point that was made was that information on a shooting would be relevant to a firearm if that firearm was mostly known or associated with the incident. The Post article describes this firearam as the "infamous" one behind Dawson shooting. A second point was that there needed to be real-world impact. While the firearm was not banned in Canada (I think), this reliable source demonstrates discussion about the role of the gun in this event and a real-world impact on sales due to publicity. It seems as encyclopedic as mentioning availability or sales in other jurisdictions. I'm open to hearing your opinions, hopefully civilly expressed and relying on reliable sources. Canuckle 23:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ask people about the Dawson shooting and what gun he used. Ask someone in the street. A single news article doesn't qualify as notable. Alyeska 00:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The National Post is 1 of 2 national newspapers in Canada and the story originated with the Ottawa Citizen in the nation's capital and was republished across the Canwest News Service. To avoid WP:BEANS I didn't note that the source says there was discussion of whether this firearm reduced the number of casualties. Of course, there's other sources that demonstrate more than a trival link between this firearm, this event and with gun control lobbying...Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day interview about the Beretta and the shooting, The Hour, Montreal Gazette letter to editor, a Western Standard blog about this very wikipedia article, CTV ... Canuckle 00:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
As for the question of is it appropriate to mention availability in one jurisdiction. Well, I just followed the example of Walther P22...
  • "The P22 is distributed and supported in the United States by Walther America, a subsidiary of the Smith and Wesson Company."
  • "Due to California's ban on Assault weapons, the Walther P22 was not available for sale in that State for some time.. The gun was initially approved for sale only to be delisted after the California Department of Justice realized the pistol had a barrel that was threaded (threaded barrels on semiautomatic pistols in California are a characteristic which makes them illegal under the state's ban on so-called assault weapons). P22's that were sold in that state had to either be removed from the state or returned to the manufacturer for a modification ensuring that the original barrel extension purchased with the gun is permanently installed and cannot be removed without ruining the barrel assembly, or the handgun, or both. Currently there is a version available that is California legal.[1]"
  • "In some countries, like Finland, the original 3.4 inch short barrel causes the P22 to be classified as a concealable firearm, making the 5 inch target barrel the only available option for normal recreational shooters."

Canuckle 00:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Finally found a guideline in an edit summary. Much better than that WalterP22-VT saga mentioned above. It's WP:GUNS#Criminal use. Would seem to meet "notoriety must greatly increase." Canuckle 01:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
A single mention does not make notoriety. Alyeska 01:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Multiple mentions listed above including quote of cabinet minister discussing the firearm by its name on the front page of important newspaper. This is a silly thing to be in a revert war over. Canuckle 01:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
So people talked about it. So what? Just about any gun incident gets people talking about it. Did the gun get banned? No. Do people in the general public know about the gun? No. It has absolutely no notoriety. By precedent established with VTech (which caused the very rule you are referencing no less), there is nothing here. Alyeska 01:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I think a lot of people still think Gill used a "machinegun". No gun deserves notoriety for its use, ever. It's an inanimate object, for crying out loud. If people bothered LEARNING ABOUT FIREARMS rather than letting the bogeyman factor take over, we wouldn't be having such silly discussions. On the best of days it still annoys me how fear-mongering idiots are trying to disarm society one weapon at a time. — NRen2k5(TALK), 19:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy

You have got to be kidding me. Its common knowledge to anyone who knows guns. The longer the barrel, the more accurate it becomes. So a pistol carbine is always going to be more accurate then a pistol itself. If you want that sourced, why haven't you tagged every single sentence of the article? Most of that hasn't been sourced either, even if it is common knowledge. Thats like demanding a source for the claim that the sky is blue. Alyeska (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry mate, I think we have a wee misunderstanding. You are, of course, correct about barrel length contributing to accuracy and I agree that all other variables being equal a pistol carbine will be more accurate than a pistol of the same make. The article however, doesn't say that; the article says the Cx4 is more accurate than a pistol. My issue is one of unqualified absolutes. That is, there are some (quite a few actually) pistols that are far more accurate than some (again, quite a few) rifles so saying the Cx4 is more accurate than a pistol is not always true. Also, the source that was provided didn't speak to the accuracy of the Cx4 vis-a-vis pistols at all; it compared the accuracy of the 9mm to .40. These may sound like small issues and I really don't mean to be a pill but proper sourcing is important. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The Beretta Cx4 Storm is more accurate then its parent design pistol caliber counter part. How does that sound? Beretta pistols are not match quality and would be hard pressed to compete with a rifle. Alyeska (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
That, or words to that effect, would be great. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I reworded the sentence to better reflect the reality of the weapon. I also changed it to indicate police department preference. I believe the link still covers that issue. Is that OK by you?Alyeska (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


It makes no sense to include high school shootings in an article about a Beretta carbine

It's not neutral, completely unrelated and it distorts the article negativily towards an anti-gun view. If you insist on including it, there should be included positive news stories about its performance as well, to balance the article. 87.59.78.128 (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the rules on how this works. If this shooting leads to a ban of the gun in Canada, it meets notability requirements. Alyeska (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you mean, "Redundancy"?

The Cx4 article states re: being able to use pistol magazines in the carbine, "This aids in a smaller loadout – no longer needing to carry separate magazines for the rifle and handgun – and adds redundancy, allowing a person to carry more ammunition without adding weight. (emphasis added)"

How so, exactly? I don't want to seem obtuse, but it seems that adding more ammunition pretty much equals adding more weight, yes? For example, if you were to carry 20 magazines, wouldn't that weigh more than 2 magazines?

Actually, I think I see what you mean, but there might be a better way to phrase it.

My suggestion would be to say, "- adds redundancy, allowing a person to use the same magazines to reload either their carbine or their sidearm, whichever they have in hand at the moment."

From a tactical point of view, this is a definite advantage, as there are some situations (close quarters battle for instance) when one is better off having a pistol in hand compared to a longarm, simply because reaction time and maneuverability improve with a pistol in these circumstances. (Yes, I have tried- in training- spinning 180 degrees in a hallway with a carbine in hand, and the same thing with a sidearm- and in tight quarters, it is much quicker to turn and acquire a target using a handgun.) I can see the advantage in a combat situation of being able to fire a carbine empty, reload it, then enter a building, draw a pistol, fire until that is empty, reload, exit the building and switch back to the carbine, etc... all the while using the same type of magazine for whatever you are reloading at the moment.

One other advantage to the interchangeable magazine idea is this- If you carry a 9mm carbine that uses a magazine different from that in your 9mm sidearm, a moment of confusion or a pause to select the right magazine pouch to reach for when reloading could cost you dearly. This isn't a problem when your longarm is a full-fledged rifle or an SMG using a larger magazine (you can tell very easily whether you're reaching for a pistol or a rifle mag), but when using a pistol-caliber carbine, it can be. Even just at the shooting range, I've needed that "pause for thought" when reloading my Ruger PC9 to make sure I didn't grab one of my similar-sized (but totally incompatible) SIG P228 magazines off my belt by mistake.

What do you think? Does the rephrased definition of "redundancy" work better in this context, or not?

Darthpaul23 (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)darthpaul

Top Rail

The statement under "design details" that the Cx4's top rail must be purchased separately and attached may no longer be accurate. I just purchased a new Cx4 and it came with a top rail already attached. 205.175.225.22 (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Dawson

Since a significant fraction of the third party coverage of this gun concerns Dawson (see here for example), I fail to see how you can remove this content with the claim that the coverage was "tiny" and that there was no increased notoriety; this is clearly not the case. Hairhorn (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course, any time there is ever a public shooting with any type of firearm, the weapon model used by the killer is mentioned in the news. That has always been the case and, as you pointed out, this incident is no exception. So what? We don't litter Wikipedia gun articles with that kind of trivia. Read the project guidelines. Criminal use is not noteworthy unless it greatly increased the gun's notoriety. There may be lots of news articles that tell which type of gun the killer used, but that doesn't mean anything. Cite a source explicitly saying that this incident greatly increased the Beretta CX4's notoriety or sales, otherwise the information is not notable and for that reason will continue to be removed. ROG5728 (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Just for starters: from "Gunman's weapon of choice sees spike in popularity": '"Data obtained by the Ottawa Citizen from the federal gun registry shows that new registrations of the Beretta CX4 Storm nearly tripled after the Sept. 13, 2006, shootings."... This ref is already in the entry. Hairhorn (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
In that case, the text may be worth keeping. It's questionable, because the registration number following the shooting is still small (46) and the article only gives data for the one (1) month following the shooting. In any case, I added a sentence to the article noting the weapon's increased sales in Canada (as stated in the reference). ROG5728 (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I had also figured that a coroner's inquest into the shooting calling for a ban of specifically this gun probably helps too. Hairhorn (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Beretta Cx4 Storm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beretta Cx4 Storm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that sections be split into a separate page called Beretta Mx4 Storm . The content of the current page seems off-topic and these sections are large enough to make their own page. Kalininos (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The articles were previously merged, per this discussion. I don't really see a compelling reason to split them again. The Mx4 section might do with a bit of cleanup, but it's not really worth its own article (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Variants). --Xanzzibar (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 15 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed back to Beretta Cx4 Storm. Since no-one has voiced an opinion after 7 days, I'm procedurally closing this as a revert of the undiscussed move by User:Gun Lover. Further discussion is encouraged to reach consensus on the appropriateness of major refactoring. (closed by non-admin page mover) Colin M (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Beretta Mx4 Storm submachine gun → Beretta Cx4 Storm – Page was unilaterally refocused on and moved to the Mx4. Earlier consensus was to list it under the Cx4; the change may be warranted, but there should be a discussion before such a major refactoring and move. Xanzzibar (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

In hopes of spurring some discussion on this, I'll reiterate the main points in the earlier merge here:

  • The Cx4 is the predominant weapon in terms of various metrics of interest.
  • The Mx4 is derived from the Cx4, which predates it by the better part of a decade. Per style guidelines, the parent platform is the preferred listing.

As I said above, a refactoring and move may be warranted, but this should be discussed first. --Xanzzibar (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beretta_Cx4_Storm/Archives/2021/April&oldid=1140216109"