Talk:Gun control/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

"In the context of this article".......Er?

This line seems rather out of place and unencyclopedic. Has this been discussed before?

"In the context of this article, the concept of gun control is in reference to various means of restrictions on the use, transport, and possession of firearms, specifically with regard to the class of weapons referred to as small arms. On a global scale this context is sometimes expanded to include light weapons; also known in the arms trade as SALW."

How exactly can that possibly be referenced? Why does the text refer back to the article itself and the supposed manner in which the article is discussing...or more appropriately...summarizing secondary sources. Is there actually a source that refers to how the Wikipedia article is referring to the subject?--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It was referenced at one point as I pulled the information from other articles. I wrote the initial version of the "Terminology and context" section as a means to define and keep on point the subject matter of the article. The intention was to guide editors in talking about the subject versus debating it within the article. In other words, just stick to the "how" and "what" subjects and try to stay away from the "whys" and "what for" statements which always seem to lead to edit warring, POV edits, and other policy violations. The sanctions that were handed out recently as a result are an indication of that.

Another reason it exists was because the Lead kept being abused by various editors along with disagreements over what material summarized the "key points" (another POV opportunity for either side of the debate) of the article.

That said, I've never defended the need for it. I've just continued to explain why I wrote it. Maybe if we reverted it to the original version it would make more sense. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You can't use other Wikipedia articles to reference any content. You do know that, right? I am for reverting back to the original text....please.--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that this peculiar phraseology is a consequence of the interminable discussions on this talk page as to why we had two articles on the same topic - one called 'gun control' and the other called 'gun politics' (now renamed 'Overview of gun laws by nation'). Basically, it was an attempt to give some sort of legitimacy to a POV content fork - no source was ever offered which explained the forking. Incidentally, there was substantial material in the former 'gun politics' article that got deleted for no legitimate reason that I've seen [1] - it should probably be added to this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The last time I read that part, I wondered the same thing. Also, why are we mixing arms control in with gun control? Gun control is something done a national or lower level (states, municipalities) and arms control is an international issue - regional perhaps. Lightbreather (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh thank god.....I thought I was being too liberal with my concerns. LOL! Yes, I also do not understand the link between gun control and arms control. A gun and a ballistic missile are no where near the same.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The phrase should be avoided per WP:SELF. I would support a split between Arms control and gun control. — goethean 23:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Goethean that gun control and arms control should not be cross-referenced or tied to each other. Among other things, the actors are different. Gun control is the set of laws imposed by a state (sovereign nation or self-governing unit of a nation) on the ownership and use of firearms by citizens. It is national (or sub-national). Arms control is implemented by treaties between sovereign states, such as the New START Treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation. It is international. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

...and I've said that before as well here. How they are related is that "gun control" is a subset of "arms control". Don't believe me, ask the UN or NATO about the Arms Trade Treaty. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The Arms Trade Treaty says nothing whatsoever about how individual states regulate internal civilian access to firearms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Andy I know, but it deals with some of the same types and categories of guns and their import and export. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The NRA is mentioned in the article. They fear that it is a backdoor to gun registration , but we would need to show that mainstream sources share these views before including. TFD (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, as long as it is a widely held opinion in the groups affected (gun owners) it should be included. Collect (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that this is a 'widely held opinion' anywhere other than the United States? This article is supposed to be presenting an international overview, not parroting the misinformed propaganda of the pro-gun lobby of a single country. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I rather think a significant number of world gun owners reside in the US - and we do not judge opinions on the basis that we "know" they are "misinformed propaganda" of the "pro-gun lobby". We only use what is written in reliable sources, and present it in a neutral (i.e. non-judgmental) fashion.Collect (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You think a substantial number of gun owners outside the U.S. think that a treaty between the U.S. and Russia is somehow menacing? I don't think he story has made any headway outside the echo chamber. TFD (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I "think" no such thing - I do "think" the US does have a quite significant number of all world gun owners, which is what I wrote. That noted, WP:NPOVis not negotiable, and we can not act on the belief that such gun owners act on misinformed propaganda from the pro-gun lobby without actual reliable sources making such claims. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

But you'd like the article to reflect the fact that you think a significant number of the world's gun owners are in the US (300 million out of 7 billion makes me skeptical) and that you think is a 'widely held opinion' among a majority of these gun owners? Even if you have sources for both facts, using them together to include something in the article is WP:SYN. Thenub314 (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I said no such thing whatsoever. Please just read and respond to what I actually write. Do you believe 7 billion individuals worldwide own guns? I would love to see a reliable source for that. The total number of privately owned guns in the US per reliable sources is on the order of 250 million, but that is clearly far higher than the number of owners. [2] Gallup finds 47% reporting a gun in a household, so we can likely use that figure and count husbands and wives, absent any further details, as both "owning" the gun. So figure about 125 million "gun owners" doing rough maths. [3] does some analysis - saying " A decreasing number of American gun owners own two-thirds of the nation's guns and as many as one-third of the guns on the planet " which implies forcefully that more than a third of all privately owned guns "on the planet" are owned in the US. "A 2007 survey by the U.N's Office on Drugs and Crime found that the United States, which has 5% of the world's population, owns 50% of the world's guns." also rather implies that US gun owners make up a substantial part of the world gun owning population. And certainly rather likely to be a higher ratio than "300 million out of 7 billion" to be sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I never claimed 300 million people were gun owners. I was giving (off the top of my head) approximations to the US and World population. I thought they would be familiar enough not to need explanation. Using your numbers, I was effectively saying: given the US is 5% of the worlds population I was skeptical. You provided sources, I concede the point. As I noted in my post above starting with "Even if you have sources...", it doesn't change much. As far as I can understand your reasoning above your saying that A) a majority of gun owners are in the US b) A majority of US gun owners hold an opinion about international treaties, therefore we should c) include that opinion in the article. To me that sounds like synthesis. But, your posts above are a bit imprecise (as was mine). If you would clarify exactly what you think should be in the article (and why) that would be very helpful. Thenub314 (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

(od) Weight should be given to opinions as nearly as possible in relation to the weight given those opinions in the groups being discussed. Clearly, the opinion is not "fringe" within the group being discussed, thus WP:NPOV requires that the opinion be present in the article. This is not "SYNTH" - it is policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

For Andy, et. al. From the 2013 United Nations Arms Treaty section of the Gun Politics in the United States article:

On September 25, 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry signed the ATT on behalf of the Obama administration. This was a reversal of the position of the Bush administration which had chosen not to participate in the treaty negotiations. Then in October a bipartisan group of fifty Senators and 181 Representatives released concurrent letters to President Obama pledging their opposition to ratification of the ATT. The group is led by Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) and Representatives Mike Kelly (R-Pennsylvania) and Collin Peterson (D-Minnesota). Following these two letters, four Democrat Senators sent a separate letter to the President stating that "because of unaddressed concerns that this Treaty’s obligations could undermine our nation’s sovereignty and the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans [they] would oppose the Treaty if it were to come before the U.S. Senate." The four Senators are Jon Tester (D-Montana), Max Baucus (D-Montana), Heidi Heitkamp (D-North Dakota), and Joe Donnelly (D-Indiana).

--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

First sentence of Terminology and Context section.

Maybe I am missing something. I just edited this sentence and then double checked the references to make sure what I wrote accurately reflected them. When I do a search at these two websites, I cannot find the phrase "arms control". Am I missing something? Thenub314 (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC) PS. Also on a technical note, why is this section indented oddly. Thenub314 (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right about those sources. Neither says gun control is a subset of arms control.

In fact, both sources are of questionable quality for such a prominent place in a controversial article.

I'd like to know more about policyalmanac.org. A "whois" search shows the following registration info:

Registrant ID:29923896-NSI

Registrant Name:PolicyNewsPublishing, Patrick Lester

Registrant Organization:PolicyNewsPublishing, Patrick Lester

Registrant Street: 105 Great Oak Drive

Registrant City:Annapolis

Registrant State/Province:MD

Registrant Postal Code:21403

Registrant Country:US

Registrant Phone:+1.4438224791

Registrant Phone Ext:

Registrant Fax:

Registrant Fax Ext:

Registrant Email:pwlester@CHN.ORG

The page is just a collection of links to articles about gun control. Absent any copyright or page info, it appears to have been last updated in 2003. Readers would have to dig to figure out how the page's links relate gun control to arms control... I can't.

And I've run into justfacts.com before. It says on its About Us page: "In general parlance, we are conservative/libertarian in our viewpoints" but also claims that "unlike many organizations and media outlets, this does not mean we give preference to facts that coincide with our opinions." I guess we're just supposed to take their word for that?

If this article is going to say that gun control is a subset of arms control, we need higher quality sources than that, or we need to attribute the opinion and move it to a less prominent place. This is a controversial article. We need the highest quality sources, or a preponderance of high-quality sources saying such a thing. Lightbreather (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

In fact, unless I'm missing something, only one (last, "Inventory Management" at army.mil) of the seven sources in this section mentions gun control - and it mentions it once - and that one mention is of the GCA of 1968 - and none of the sources has to do with controlling civilian ownership of civilian guns. They have to do with regional and international control/flow of arms. Lightbreather (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to discount every source, then I suggest that you gear up to rewrite and update the Arms control, Small arms, SALW, and related articles where those references are from, welcome to WikiProject Firearms, your assistance is most appreciated.

Also, as I've said previously, I'm not defending the section, but you and others have stated almost countless times the article is controversial hence why I wrote it. It was intended simply to be a means to narrow the scope sufficiently in order to have a cogent discussion of the topic, ideally without debating it within the article. But obviously through the lack of knowledge about many of the kinds and types of firearms in question and their global use and impact, there is confusion over their context from issue to issue and country to country.

For instance, historically speaking when the earliest firearms emerged and then inevitably were used for battle or war purposes, they represented a technological leap forward. A musket in the time of swords and spears was like comparing an AK-47 to that exact same musket today. That same musket was an "assault weapon" in colonial times and considered a "curio or relic" in modern times.

Or, geographically speaking lets use a FN FAL rifle as an example. This is a reasonably high quality and well made firearm that is a true, selective fire assault rifle made since the 50's. Here in the U.S. its used by various target shooters (either recreational or competition) in its semi-automatic form and its a tool of law enforcement. It functions identically to some semi-automatic shotguns used to hunt ducks. Cross the border into Mexico and the same gun is a tool of the drug cartels. Head further south and its a military weapon used by government as well as revolutionary or guerrilla armies. Head towards the Middle East and its in use by terrorists as well as the Israeli Defense Force. The same firearm is used for sporting, military, and self defense purposes.

My point is that even in regard to the same gun from state to state or country to country, we're using terms that are variables to try and describe fixed ideas. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't personally suggesting we discount every source. But at least the one sentence I was pointing to is not supported by the sources it cites. Personally I think this article would be improved if we lost the context and terminology section, and in the following sections were more consistent to use the term firearms as opposed to small arms. As it stands we are ping ponging between the terms which is distracting. Thenub314 (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Scal, I've worked on Arms control, Small arms, and SALW in the past. Without going back to them right now, my GUESS - one guess - would be that they might be OK sources for other articles in different contexts. But in this article and context, they're not. Thenub, I absolutely support your suggestions re the Context and terminology section and the use of firearms throughout. Save small arms for those other pages. Link to them in See also, with a brief note or something. Lightbreather (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Nub, here's the problem we face. Arms control and gun control are very different processes, sets of legislation, and/or political topics from one country to the next, but they often deal with exactly the same firearms. What we call "gun control" in the U.S. is referred to as "arms control" in a 3rd world country. How do have an article about worldwide gun control and not set parameters for what the article is about? Delete the section if you like, but I feel it will cause more problems than it solves. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Disarmament of black Americans

This is perfectly analogous to the Nazi stuff. What does the denial of the right to own property under slavery, and the banning of blacks from owning guns under Jim Crow, have to do with gun control? (As the term is understood in a modern political context.) Do any academic RS characterize this as gun control? This had to do with slavery and white supremacy. Steeletrap (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't say that I disagree with these edits, but do want to mention that scholarly comment (identified by others here in previous discussion and I believe on the Second Amendment Talk page) exists regarding the Southern states demand for the ability to have armed militias during the crafting of the Bill of Rights. The intention being that these Southern militias of the 1700s were used against slaves. So while gun control may not be directly related to slavery, the militia issue (as in the Second Amendment) does come into play. I realize I've ridiculously over simplified this concept, I'm just bringing it up for discussion sake. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course there's been scholarly comment on it. But it would be unfair, contextually misleading and tone-deaf to equate gun control with slavery and Jim Crow. Similarly, it would be unfair, contextually misleading and tone-deaf to equate gun rights with militias attacking black people in the 18th century. Steeletrap (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Scholary Comment sounds like a red herring to me. It is fringe theory whether or not a couple of agenda promoting scholars have tried to draw a link. Slaves were disarmed-there is no question to that. States had militias for protection. Militias were used to put down a couple of slave revolts. Then some illogical thinking takes place and something like this follows: Militias are mentioned in the 2nd amendment and militias had put down slave revolts and thus the 2nd amendment is about surpressing slaves. That is an idiotic, illogical conclusion. The valid argument is suppressed people have had their right to bear arms denied. The Europeans are a suppressed people because as Article XVII of the Commonwealth of Mass. states:"The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it." Europeans do not have that right and thus are suppressed from the right to keep and bear arms. 172.56.11.104 (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI: I preserved the "Black Codes" material on the GPUS talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Why? Copying large blocks of text to article talk pages is pointless - all you need to do is provide a link to the relevant version of this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"This hypothesis is not supported by mainstream scholarship"

Is there a ref for this sentence? The refs that currently follow the sentence certainly disagree with the hypothesis but I see nothing in the refs that assert that the broad statement that the "hypothesis is not not supported by mainstream scholarship". The sentence seems over-broad. I note that Halbrook's material appeared in a mainstream academic journals and mainstream publisher, so apparently some "mainstream" scholarship has supported the proposition. Perhaps a narrower sentence saying "scholars challenge (dispute/dismiss?) the hypothesis". Capitalismojo (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Halbrook is not an academic historian. His article was published in a law journal with no recognition whatsoever as a source for matters concerning the history of the Holocaust. The article was not peer reviewed by anyone qualified to review such material - indeed there has been no evidence put forward that the article was actually peer-reviewed at all. Partisan material written for the purposes of advancing a cause external to the topic under consideration by persons not academically qualified to do so is not 'mainstream scholarship', end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

First, I want to say that I agree with Andy. That said, I would be open to replacing the statement with, "Mainstream scholarship says the theory is ..." - using a combination of two or more of the following bolded words, or better, one that sums them all up (if that can be done without synth):

HARCOURT: The challenge, then, is to explore this cleavage in the pro-gun community. The most vocal participants in the debate over the Nazi gun laws are, on one side, the JPFO [Zelman] and Stephen Halbrook, whose writings, most recently Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews, most clearly set forth the Nazi-gun-registration argument; and, on the other side, William Pierce, whose four-page essay Gun Control in Germany, 1928-1945, published with the translated texts of the German laws, most clearly sets forth the opposing position that the Nazis were not pro-gun control. Neither Halbrook nor Pierce are historians, however, and their ideological commitments are so flagrant - Halbrook as a pro-gun litigator and Pierce as a pro-gun white supremacist - that neither can be trusted entirely in these historical and statutory debates. What we really need now is more historical research and serious scholarship.

KOHN: Such counterfactual arguments are problematic because they reinvent the past to imagine a possible future. In fact, Jews were not well-armed and were not able to adequately defend themselves against Nazi aggression. Thus, reimagining a past in which they were and did does not provide a legitimate basis for arguments about what might have followed.

SPITZER: That Halbrook missed the salient characteristics of [the Weimar era] is clear from two glaring omissions: the failure to cite, with a handful of exceptions, any of the standard secondary historical and political literature of the era, and the failure to examine in any detail Hitler's rise to power culminating in his election as chancellor. Halbrook wanted to argue that strict gun laws facilitate, if not cause, authoritarian regimes, and therefore to conclude that nations with few gun laws and strong gun rights are more likely to be breeding ground for democracy. The problem with his analysis was actual cases of nation-building and regime change, including but not limited to Germany, if anything support the opposite position. . [paraphrased: off the mark or erroneous?]

BRYANT: Maier's test for tendentiousness may be applied to the Holocaust arguments of Poe, Zelman and Stevens, Halbrook, and their confreres to assess two important issues: the truthfulness of the claims staked and the motives underlying them. In exaggerating similarities and ignoring differences in their comparisons, gun rights advocates violate Maier's test for tendentiousness. Their use of history has selected factual inaccuaracies, and their methodology can be questioned. More generally, rather than examine evidence scrupulously, some adherents of the Nazi analogy cherry-pick it by decontextualizing their data and disregarding evidence at odds with their thesis.

NUCKOLS: There are two primary pillars to [belief in the idea of widespread gun ownership as a defense against tyrannical government]. The first is a cottage industry of academics and lawyers who have scoured ancient political tracts and common law to establish that in the distant English past that there was a constitutional right to bear arms as a defense against tyranny. ... The second pillar has fewer scholarly pretensions, but it employs even more historically dubious arguments. It suggests, for example, that the Holocaust could have been avoided if Germany's miniscule Jewish population had been better armed. It also argues that Ukrainian peasants could have defeated the Stalinist regime, backed by the NKVD and the Red Army, if they had possessed individual firearms. But these counterfactual interpretations of history are wildly speculative -- and downright implausible.

--Lightbreather (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I like your proposed formulation. It seems better in line with the refs. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes something along these lines is a good plan. The desire by some participants here to remove any mention of the bulwark-against-tyranny idea, especially the Nazi-gun-control argument, as just unbearable and impermissible to ever mention at all here, clearly runs afoul of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED. WP does not have to endorse the idea to note that it is prevalent among the gun crowd. The properly neutral thing to do is to present the facts about the argument, including what reliably sourced historical research concludes about it, in a dispassionate manner.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Remove Nazi gun control argument?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the Nazi gun control argument be removed from this article? Lightbreather (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarification: Based on another editor's good comment and question, this is what is currently in the article on the subject, at the end of the "Studies, debate, and opinions" section.

In the United States, some gun owners say private gun ownership is a check against tyranny. Such a position has a long history in gun politics in the U.S. Supporters of gun-rights such as Stephen Halbrook and Wayne LaPierre believe that Nazi gun control, and gun laws in other authoritarian regimes, contributed significantly to past tyranny and genocides. This hypothesis is not supported by mainstream scholarship, though it is an element of a security against tyranny argument in U.S. politics.

That is what specifically would be deleted now. And, depending on the outcome of this RfC, my next RfC will be about moving that paragraph into the "Security against tyranny" section of the article "Gun politics in the United States." Lightbreather (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a link to the companion RfC on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page: RfC: Replace existing Nazi gun control paragraphs? Lightbreather (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. (author) Lightbreather (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Per months-long talk page discussions, none of which has provided policy-based justification for this text in any of its iterations. SPECIFICO talk 14:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Fringe pseudohistorical speculation entirely unsupported by academic historiography doesn't belong in the article, per policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. For removal. This is not a forum for every bad idea just because someone believes in it.Moovzon (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The fringe pseudohistorical speculation is complete nonsense. QuackGuru (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Modify Because Wikipedia is not censored, I feel that it should be stated (and in this context ONLY) that gun rights advocates talk about this subject in support of their position and leave it at that. This should be allowed no more than a paragraph with sources cited and contain strictly factual, NON-editorial or NON-speculative statements only. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. For inclusion, the bar that must be met is to demonstrate that this matter is widely discussed amongst historians and serious scholars as being significant in the history of this issue, as opposed to being a widely used talking point amongst partisans on one side of this issue in a single country. It seems that the case for including this material has not yet been made. Gamaliel (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Fringe, nonsensical, agenda-driven, pseudohistorical speculation. Include a brief mention and scathing debunking of this folly in Gun politics in the United States. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support unless/until reliable sources indicate that this is more than a WP:FRINGE argument. I'm not closely familiar with the US debate on this issue so any editor should feel free to alert me to such sources if you believe they do exist. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Suspending my !vote until I have the chance to evaluate some sources which have been provided. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Support. - Agree with most of the comments above. Seems slightly WP:SOAPBOXy. That said, the "Nazi Gun Control" argument is so popular in the gun control debate, that it may merit some brief mention (i.e. 1 short sentence), even if it is ridiculous and speculative. NickCT (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support - This is only "gun control" in a bone-headed, context-free application of the term. That's not how language works. (The analogy I've drawn is calling a white immigrant to America an African America) The Nazi disarmament of Jews has nothing whatsoever to do with "gun control" as the term is contemporarily understood.

I also support topic banning editors insisting on re-inserting this rubbish, per WP:Competent. Steeletrap (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Per QuackGuru. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenub314 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 25 April 2014
• Support' It is a fringe position. TFD (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose see my discussion below. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• oppose as likely my last GC related action before being topic banned. WP:NPOV specifically states all notable minority views should be included. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support This argument has long since been debunked and is not accepted as far as I am aware by any reputable historians. As others have noted above, it really is a form of fringey psuedohistory. The fact that it is cited ad nauseam by one side of a political debate does not imbue it with any accuracy and it does not belong in an article in any form where it might be mistaken for being credible or accurate. If a reference to it must be included, and an argument might be made to that effect based on its repeated employment, then it should be in a section dedicated to factually false and fringe arguments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia would be remiss if it thought that the argument does not exist, and we point out that it is not widely accepted as valid - but once we accept that the argument exists, we must mention its existence. Not mentioning something does not make it go into a Wiki-oubliette. Collect (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia describes a lot of bullshit arguments. In Wikipedia articles about World War II for example, the sick racial theories of the Nazis are mentioned, and links are provided so readers can learn more. It is undisputed by reliable sources --- many reliable sources --- that there is a check-against-tyranny argument for gun rights, and that there is an anti-Nazi argument for gun rights. Mentioning that briefly is not an endorsement of the argument, but rather is an endorsement of Wikipedia's no- censorship policy. Saying that this is an attempt to promote the argument is no better than a personal attack.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support removal from this article, support its insertion in Gun politics in the United States. Hold on, DGG, I read your argument, and I fully agree with you. But in this article we need a brief statement on the history and current state of gun control in the US; the politics should go in the main article (which, right now, is ridiculously bloated). This current article is already enough of an abomination, with its two paragraphs related to black ownership of guns--an UNDUE amount lending credibility to the idiotic suggestion one hears sometimes, "if only the slaves had had guns", which is perfectly parallel to the equally idiotic "if only the Jews had had guns".

  The proposed paragraph looks a lot like what I trimmed a previous version of such a section into, some time ago--either in this or in a related article--and I think it is well-phrased and well-sourced, though the first "gun owners" needs to be changed to "gun advocates", and "security against tyranny" should be in quotation marks. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• @User:Drmies, the matter is already covered in gun politics in the United States, so why would anything need to be inserted there?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Ha, I see it now, yes. Well, it's hard to say which version I like better--if that rather silly quote from Cottrol is cut, I guess that version is alright, though I think it overplays the "counterfactual" bit a bit. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• @User:Drmies, I am about to post the companion to this RfC on the "Gun politics in the U.S." talk page. I think it will become clear why the proposed one is better than the existing one. Lightbreather (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's a notable argument even if it's incorrect. "The Hitler gun control lie", for example. Notable arguments should be mentioned. It may have special relevance to the United States, but, well, that's where much of the entire argument about gun control is centered. Not writing about US gun control factions in the general gun control article is like not writing about Kiribati when discussing rising sea levels; it just so happens that certain world affecting issues affect certain parts of the world disproportionately. --GRuban (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Conditional Support of removal from its present location, with the provision appropriately referenced material might be included in the history section under a subsection about Germany, potentially including comparison of pre-1945 civilian gun control measures to civilian gun control measures undertaken by the Allied occupation forces. The Japanese history section might be similarly expanded to include civilian gun control measures implemented by United States occupation forces; and the United States section might be expanded to examine civilian gun control measures undertaken by British colonial administration which were arguably the motivation for the second amendment. Validity of the defense against tyranny argument might be better examined through historical evaluation of recent civilian use of small arms in Vietnam, Afghanistan, the former Yugoslavian states, Libya, and Syria.Thewellman (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly support removal - There is a lot wrong with that content, but mainly it violates our policy on mainstream academic opinion. This is clearly political promotion of fringe concepts and ideas not within our policies and guidelines.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I think there's enough reliable sources to support the fact that anti-gun control advocates make this argument, therefore it should be included in a neutral way that doesn't imply endorsement or give undue weight, and this version meets that standard, I think. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes...and I can produce plenty of references for all kinds of stuff. Doesn't make it mainstream academic thought.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be mainstream academic thought. It just needs to be something anti-gun control advocates say. Useitorloseit (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You may want to review our guidelines on fringe views. --(Mark Miller) Maleko Mela (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

If the article is covering "fringe" views then it should cover them. Useitorloseit (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support per WP:Fringe, WP:Undue and WP:Summary. A better article to briefly mention and discount it is gun politics in the United States. This should contain a summary style description of that article and in my opinion including this fringe viewpoint is undue weight. AIRcorn (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons cited above. The rules about peripheral and insignificant items apply. -The Gnome (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. As it currently stands, the material under dispute is presented alongside legitimate fact-based research studies into gun violence. This appears to lend equal validity to a marginal and unsupported view. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a notable argument, although the theory is clearly WP:FRINGE. Gun politics in the United States is the wrong place for it, as the theory is mentioned in the "gun debate" in Australia and in Brazil, according to the references provided. WP:WEIGHT suggests it be shortened, but it should be in some non-country-related gun control article. And there is no policy-based justification for removing it. WP:FRINGE suggests it should be mentioned. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well...OK, but I have to say I did not understand your argument in the least. --(Mark Miller) Maleko Mela (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

*Weakly Oppose removal. The language in question notes that it has no academic mainstream support but is sometimes used in the United States. The language in question does not give undue weight. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support removal. As per another editor, it can be included in Gun politics in the United States. It doesn't belong in the worldwide article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support See "Further comment" in Threaded discussion section. Activist (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per excellent arguments by Activist in the threaded discussion below. Cwobeel (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, please It is a subject that belongs to the debate in the U.S. (where I support its inclusion, as it can be given proper context there without giving undue weight), not in a general article about gun control. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly Support While I support certain gun legislation, I am generally in favor of the right to bear arms. That said, I am also a fairly well versed in Holocaust studies and disagree fervently with the idea that gun controls allowed the mass slaughter of millions and genocide. Handguns in the hands of Jews, gypsies, the disabled and homosexuals and any other 'undesirables' may have saved some lives or made for some great tales of defiance half a century later, but only an army of similar size and might could have stopped the Reich. Let is also be said that most of those killed were not even German under German gun rules, but peoples of occupied eastern Europe. Many of the German citizens at the beginning of Hitler's reign saw the handwriting on the wall and fled. The victims of Eastern Europe were generally poorer and often more segregated from modern cultures. Most of the shtetl Jews would not have had or used guns before the war, let alone have the means to obtain them en masse once it began. This argument is fear mongering and just wrong. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Juda, I think you may have misread the proposal (which is to remove the Nazi material). I read your argument as pleading for, rather than against removal. Other than that, while pretty much everyone agrees on the points you make, the reason proposed for inclusion is generally that though the Nazi argument is simply and plainly wrong, it is a significant viewpoint on gun control that should be discussed in a concise article - which I agree with for Gun politics in the United States, but not for this article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Martijn,Thank you for pointing that out. I read the initial question wrong. My opinion stands; it should be removed. While you say that "it is a significant viewpoint on gun control," I would like to respectably disagree. It is no more an argument against gun regulations than saying that obesity is a result of easy access to 32 oz sodas in New York City. The fact is that those who want a gun for illicit use will likely find one regardless of the regulations. Even with the exception of accidental discharging of a weapon by innocents, better education, care and storage go further than banning. Yet, with the shootings in Connecticut last year, on the military bases and similar incidents, they were acts of disturbed individuals. When you nationalize the issue and say that if the populous had guns the state could not decide to embark on genocide, take a look at Syria where pretty much everyone owns a gun. The Government is still in charge and killing hundreds of thousands, and firearms in the hands of the people has not changed that. Perhaps if permissive gun laws included rocket launchers, grenades and incendiary devices one could argue that the people have a chance, but handguns... It's a specious argument employed by people trying every method of fear to convince us that totally relaxed gun rules is the guardian from tyranny. Just because someone says it doesn’t make it credible. If that were the case, we can look at thousands of Wikipedia articles and add pseudo-pointed opinions to many policies and claim it requires an audience. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Observation: That was a whole lot of original research/novel synthesis on your part, not a policy-based argument with regard to the question posed by the RfC. How well-versed you are in Holocaust studies isn't relevant; what is relevant is whether the view by gun-nuts in the US that the the Nazi regime was enabled by gun control laws is reliably sourceable as a noteably widespread believe among them, which it clearly is.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Reasons have been already mentioned above. Arcillaroja (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support; the argument as it stands is cherrypicking - and fallacious too. It is tiresome discussing this over and over and over again. To the extent that it's actually used in the real world, I would, however, be open to a shorter mention which frames the argument appropriately - rather than implying that it's a path to the truth. bobrayner (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• 'Oppose Removal After reading the above comments and looking at some of the users pages it becomes apparent that that deletion is an attempt to silence the oppossition and promote a POV. As an American historian I see that there is strong support for gun ownership rights and has there been for centuries. Many Americans see this as a valid argument against gun control and in America it is not a fringe theory. The article is about Gun Control and one could infer American Gun control because it is no longer an issue in most other countries. The argument has legs and to deny that is to deny history for political motivations. Whether or not we agree with the argument is irrelevant. History is not about voting on current policies. The proper thing to due is to have arguments for and against the viewpoint and not to bury it because like a zombie it will rise again. Also I am concerned that Wikipedia has become a platform for many editors to promote their politics and I am sure this statement will bring the POV pushers out as an accurate assessment often does. Thanks. 172.56.11.104 (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose removal (though the latter part of it needs to be edited to be less redundant with the earlier): Reliably sourced, notable, widespread minority views have to be included as a matter of WP:Neutral point of view policy. Most of the support-removal !votes here are PoV-pushing exercises, and/or constitute WP:Original research analyses of how plausible the Nazi-gun-control argument is, which is not the question. The question is how prevalent the argument is among gun people in the US, and it's proven quite prevalent.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• This has been battled over long enough. It's obvious from discussions over at least the past year - right up to the past couple of days - that this argument does not belong in this article. It's a U.S. fringe theory. Lightbreather (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• I too am tired of this, but to be fair it should be included for what it is (see my vote above). --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Thank you for the invitation to contribute. I suggest the present proposal should be more precisely defined. Each of the commentors apparently has a firm image of exactly what should be deleted; but I would like to be sure we all share the same image. Is it any mention of Nazis that should be deleted, or some definable subset of actions or documents associated with the Third Reich?Thewellman (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Good question. I moved my answer up top, under "Clarification." Lightbreather (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Why was this RfC started while the other RfC covering the same thing is still under discussion? Arzel (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably because the earlier RfC completely omitted the option to remove the material entirely, despite strong and repeated arguments to the effect that it should be, and because multiple responses to the RfC have supported the complete removal. The Earlier RfC should never have been started, and should be closed as invalid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

What Andy said... The other RfC is going no-where... Both the first proposal and the second. What most of the comments say is that no Nazi gun control material should be in the article. So I thought, Why keep dragging this out? It's been going on for a year at least, as far as I can tell. Lightbreather (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• The leftist bent of Wikipedia is going to prevent any re-insertion of the "gun control as tyranny" argument once this RfC takes it out. The proposer has to know that, and is likely broaching the concept of a second RfC to get buy-in from gun control opponents. I'm not fooled. Sadly, the consensus here is happy being disarmed and that's a shame but there's no pointing fighting over it. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I (the proposer) actually inserted the same paragraph into the "Gun politics in the U.S." article three days ago,[4] but it was reverted. I will re-insert it in that article if it gets removed here. Lightbreather (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: I've retracted my accusation. I think the NRA argument belongs both in this article and in the other, although this is a predominantly US-centric issue. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

the consensus here is happy being disarmed

What a bizarre off-topic and completely wrong comment. — goethean 22:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• I am very uncomfortable applying FRINGE for the social sciences. There is too much of a risk in using it to support one's own positions, and call one's political opponent's FRINGE, when they are a valid political disagreement. I particularly do not in the least agree with " the bar that must be met is to demonstrate that this matter is widely discussed amongst historians and serious scholars as being significant in the history of this issue,". Rather, the bar that must be met is that the position is widely discussed by those interested in the matter, whether the academics or the general public. This is not only an academic issue. I think I have the opposite political bias of Chris troutman, but I partially share his concerns here. (My own personal view is that the analogy is very incomplete, and possibly designed to scare rather than enlighten, but it is none the less an analogy that should be taken seriously, Where it is discussed is less important than that it be discussed, but nonetheless I consider it important enough to be in this general article also. DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. My impression is that we don't have WP:RS which document this argument being used as more than mere name-calling. If we do have such sources then I'd reconsider my !vote. IMO it doesn't do the anti-gun-control viewpoint any favours to include the fact that some of their supporters occasionally use the Godwin argument. If it happens often enough to be reported by secondary sources then we should include it, of course. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I partly concur with DGG that one needs to be careful about setting the bar too high and we need to be cautious about applying the term FRINGE, especially in topics that deal with hot button issues. I also agree with the concerns of Chris Troutman that there is a decided leftward bias on Wikipedia that tends to show up these kinds of topics. All of which said, this argument IS FRINGE and it has been thoroughly debunked. And I say that as someone who is probably on the opposite side of this debate as 80% of the community here. But one does not advance one's side of a debate by repeating arguments that have long been shown to be false. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't get me wrong, I know the argument about Nazi gun control is a minority view but I don't think it's fringe nor do I believe it's been debunked. I don't want to argue it. This is why I study history, not polisci: A couple hundred years from now cooler heads will be able to examine this dispassionately. There's always problems discussing current issues. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

FRINGE theories in social sciences are no different from fringe theories in natural sciences. They cannot be supported by the available evidence and therefore rarely will academic publishers allow articles or books defending them. White supremacy, conspiracy theories, and the Hitler gun control argument are in the same category as creationism, climate change denial and free energy. Does that mean they are wrong or that as in a few hundred years they may not become accepted? No. But in the meantime they are they are fringe. TFD (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Per my !vote above: Articles mention arguments which exist and it is not rational that we remove "wrong arguments" when it is clear that they exist, else we would see similar positions on every remotely controversial issue -- removing everything but the WP:TRUTH. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs)

Articles don't mention arguments which exist, they mention arguments which are recorded in reliable sources. If we have any of those for this argument then please point me at them, because I'll want to consider changing my !vote. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

We do have reliable sources, already cited, that the argument exists and is espoused especially by American gun owners.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The Hitler argument is only used by people who oppose all gun control legislation. That group of people represents a tiny minority of the citizenry, even in the U.S. Essentially their argument is that the German Weapons Act 1938 was used to facilitate the Nazi dictatorship, therefore any gun control legislation could be used for the same purpose. So we are basically talking about a fringe argument used to support a fringe position in one country. Hardly worth mentioning in a global article. TFD (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  That's demonstrably not true, though. The argument is strongly favored by a not-insignificant number of American gun owners. A large proportion of them also support some forms of gun control, e.g. not permitting felons to own guns, or kids to have guns in school, or whatever. You're simply demonizing your ideological opposition, which is not a valid debate tactic, no matter how crazy you think your opponents are. The actual Nazi gun control argument is that gun control laws similar in scope, effect or intent (immediate or gradual) to the German Weapons Act could help lead to an increasingly oppressive and dangerous government in the US [or elsewhere], since that happened in Germany under the Nazis. The argument is faulty due to mistaking correlation for causation and failing to account for the other factors that led to the Nazi regime, not because gun control could not have any effect upon the outcome.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• 'Further comment' The contention that the Nazis used gun confiscation to facilitate genocide is a bit absurd, it appears, a red herring. From the gun control article: "U.S. Supporters of gun-rights such as Stephen Halbrook and Wayne LaPierre believe that Nazi gun control, and gun laws in other authoritarian regimes, contributed significantly to past tyranny and genocides." I read Holbrook's silliness. In fact, he acknowledges that strict gun control in Germany preceded Hitler's 1938 gun registration act by almost two decades, then ignores what little research he did. I doubt if he "believes" any such thing. He's simply "cherry picking." He's making big money by defending industry priorities. Ditto for LaPierre. I can't find any evidence that gun confiscation from Jews had any significant effect on the Holocaust. Hitler's 1938 law actually eased the restrictions on gun ownership, though they were tightened for Jews afterward. The 3rd Reich had enormous firepower at its disposal by 1938 and the fantasy that taking handguns and long guns from the presumably small minority of Jews which possessed them would significantly hinder implementation of the "Final Solution" is absurd. This was the army that easily rolled over Poland, France and the Low Countries, then pushed the Soviets all the way back to Moscow. There should perhaps be some recognition that opponents of gun control make the claim that disarming of Jews enabled easier genocide, in the total absence of any evidence to that effect. I would suggest that editors read the linked article in the Fordham Law Review by Harcourt. He demolishes Holbrook's propaganda. It's at [5] Activist (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

  The argument predates Holbrook and LaPierre, and the article has been changed to make it seem like no one advocates it but them. How plausible the argument is isn't really relevant; the issue before us is how prevalent it is.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.