Talk:Nazi gun control argument

Unused bibliography

• Aronsen, Gavin (January 11, 2013). "Was Hitler Really a Fan of Gun Control?". Mother Jones.
• Bard, Mitchell (2001). The Complete history of the Holocaust. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press. ISBN 9780737703733.
• Bard, Mitchell (2008). 48 hours of Kristallnacht: night of destruction/dawn of the Holocaust: an oral history. Guilford, Conn: Lyons Press. ISBN 9781599214450.
• Brown, R. Blake (2012). Arming and disarming: a history of gun control in Canada. Toronto Ont.: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 9781442646391.
• Chapman, Simon (2013). Over our dead bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's fight for gun control. Sydney: Sydney University Press. ISBN 9781743320310.
• Frank, Monte (July 13, 2013). "The Holocaust taken in vain to promote gun rights". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media.
• Halbrook, Stephen (1985). That every man be armed: the evolution of a constitutional right. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. ISBN 0826308686.
• Horwitz, Joshua; Anderson, Casey (2009). Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 9780472021994.
• Polsby, Daniel D.; Kates, Don B. (1997). "Of Holocausts and Gun Control". Washington University Law Quarterly. 75 (3): 1237–1275.
• Rummel, R. J. (1994). Death by government. New Brunswick, N.J: Transactions Publishers. ISBN 9781412821292.
• Seitz-Wald, Alex (January 11, 2013). "The Hitler gun control lie". Salon. Salon Media Group.

Intro seems poorly worded

"point out that Jews were under 1% of the population and that it would be unrealistic for such a small population to defend themselves even if they were armed"

Martin Niemoller's published "First they came" is a reliable source indicating that it is realistic for additional portions of the population besides those targeted to take up the defense of the minority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.71.8 (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

"The majority of historians and fact-checkers have described the argument as "dubious,"[4] "questionable,"[5] "preposterous,"[6] "tendentious,"[3] or "problematic."[2]"

It's simply not true (and not even provable) that "the majority of historians and fact-checkers" have used 5 adjectives to describe this argument. This needs to be reworked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C0:701:3C00:154D:556E:CD54:54E3 (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, they all mean more or less the same thing, and are really just synonyms. So I sugest "The majority of historians and fact-checkers have described the argument as "dubious."Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Or ""The majority of historians and fact-checkers have questioned its veracity.".Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

If there are no objections I will go ahead and change it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I imagine the sentence is the way it is in order to be accurate and verifiable without synthesis. In other words, one reliable source called it dubious, another questionable, and another preposterous, etc. The proposed "have questioned its veracity" is a long way from those terms. Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that wp:synthesis does not mean we can't take words that are synonyms or at least mean essentially the same thing and reword it to be more succinct. "dubious,", "questionable, and "preposterous" all are saying (more or less) the same thing. "Problematic" can also be seen as that. We do not need to list every variant of "questionable" in order to obey some extreme idea of what synthesis is.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The word "or" is pretty clear. The sentence does not say that the majority of historians have used 5 adjectives to describe this argument, but that the majority of historians have used at least one of those 5 adjectives to describe this argument. Otherwise it would be "and "problematic."[2]"". It's not the wording that is poor. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's better to use one word to describe the consensus, rather than list the various ways experts have described it. It makes the text shorter and easier to read, while retaining the same meaning. TFD (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

This is just so wild. Weapons successfully defeated the Nazis in 1945. Of course anyone opposing the Nazis would be more capable with more firearms and less without. That's not an argument. That's just reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.245.237.89 (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

We go by what wP:rs say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It is a reliably sourced fact that the German goverment murdered millions of Jews after banning them from owning guns. All of the "expert opinions" in the world does not change this reliably sourced fact. Wikipedia is all about reliably sourced facts. There is no dispute about this reliably sourced fact. The so-called "experts" who dispute this reliably sourced fact don't know what they're talking about. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

no we do not go by facts, we go by what experts say. But even if it is a wp:verifiable fact, so, there needs to be RS support causation, not just correlation. After all the nazi's also banned books, does this mean baning books leads to genocide? Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

And as experts will point out, the 'Nazi gun control laws' only applied to a relatively small proportion of Jewish victims anyway. The overwhelming majority of those killed were from countries occupied by the Germans (i.e. approximately three million in Poland alone), despite vigorous armed opposition, both from regular armed forces and from partisans. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

A good point, in fact the Holocaust did not even begin until 1941, at which point the Germans were facing a lot of armed resistance. Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it should say something like the consensus among historians is that the argument is invalid. TFD (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Title and lead opening sentence... "argument" vs "claim" vs "hasty generalization"

Currently, the lead says "The Nazi gun control argument is "the claim" that gun regulations in Nazi Germany helped facilitate the rise of the Nazis and the Holocaust." Would it be simpler and or more accurate just to say "The Nazi gun control claim is that gun regulations in Nazi Germany helped facilitate the rise of the Nazis and the Holocaust"? To my knowledge, a claim is "an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt" and arguments are "claims backed by reasons that are supported by evidence." According to the sources, this claim is essentially not supported by evidence and seems more like a hasty generalization than an "argument". Cheers. DN (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Not really as we are giving the subject title "Nazi gun control argument" then saying what it is. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I do see it referred to as an argument in plenty of sources here, but I think it might also be notable that the NRA seemed to be at the forefront of propagating this argument in American culture, since the NRA is well known for it's typical use of Slippery slope fallacies with regard to all gun control legislation. Just a thought. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Major rework required, otherwise article may look confusing, and can be even mistaken as neo-nazi or Holocaust denial propaganda

It ain't just about the choice of words here. Yes, that has to be taken care of, but the entire structure of the article needs work, too.

If the Background section is accurate (deserves more content. maybe try to find more info on whether gun ownership laws changes for homosexuals, German nationals in general, naturalised citizens who are Chinese/Japanese/English/French/African/Honorary Aryans/etc. ), then the Argument section should be built upon it, with For and Against separated accurately into two subsections. Also, there should be potential for another subsection read as something like Neutral or Synthesis (agree/disagree with both sides on certain parts, or they have a brand new view based on both sides and outsides).

Mere opinions on any cited opponent's views should be supplemented with heavy, solid historical info. If not, readers will be confused, like: "Which part of the opponent's view were they disagreeing on?" Worse, readers may mistake such views from any side apologetic to real Nazi crimes (uh, maybe some of the critics cited actually are?).

I think the structure of articles "Functionalism–intentionalism debate" and "Nazi foreign policy debate" can be used as references. Vc06697 (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Then please go ahead and look for sources. Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Can't see how you can disagree with this point 2603:6000:D200:4ED3:216E:C681:391C:AD6 (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:V might. Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion to remove cited source

In regards to Bernard E Harcourt’s opinion piece, he states that the NRA’s motto “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” should apply to the NRA’s viewpoint on Nazi Germany’s Gun laws is so fundamentally flawed that Wikipedia should be embarrassed to have him as a source. The NRA’s motto is meant to convey that imposing gun laws on law abiding citizens will not prevent criminals from committing crimes. You can debate that, but you can’t debate how flawed Harcourt’s argument is. The NRA would say that the registering of guns by the Nazi’s was a tool used to enact genocide. Just as guns can be used as tools to do the same. Any academic or journalist can see how flawed this source is. 2601:18C:601:BA50:B073:9BC1:A49D:BA23 (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Bernard Harcourt is an academic. The NRA’s "motto" is known as bumper sticker logic. Asking the NRA what they think about gun control is like asking big tobacco if they think smoking is bad for your health. DN (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)