Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:30, 25 April 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gun control article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Firearms This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Military history: Technology / Weaponry This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Gun control. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Gun control at the Reference desk.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Gun politics was copied or moved into Gun control with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gun control article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives (index)

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

This article stinks

Don't know a better way to say it. It should be scrapped and re-written. Lightbreather (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It does seem to be a mess, and very US centric. And it's weird how oddly selective the airing of NRA talking points is in this article. Shouldn't this article either have all major NRA arguments supported by fringe theories put forward by gun control groups trying to manipulate holocaust guilt by misrepresenting themselves as representing holocaust survivors or none?TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not in any way constructive. Point out sentences or other items that you specifically see as problematic, and discuss it. General whining and complaining doesn't do anyone any good. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Go back and read the Talk page edit history starting about 6 months back, you might be impressed even less. Yes, we (and I don't mean the "royal we", myself included) have made a genuine mess of this article. We had good intentions, but then got stuck on the damn totalitarianism/Nazi/gun control topic and its all went to hell from there.

This topic should be no different that the articles on "racism" or "homosexuality" where the topic is talked about rather than discussed or debated in the article. So now what? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Deadlocked I just found this cute little template. Wow, all the months that have gone by and we've missed the opportunity to use it.... Sigh... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph, top to bottom, one point at a time

OK. Since I've been asked to discuss my edits to the paragraph, I am starting at the top. I propose we edit the first, long, complex sentence, which was two sentences before, back to two less long and complex sentences that we can agree on. Here is current:

Gun rights advocates such as Congressman John Dingell, NRA leaders Charlton Heston and Wayne LaPierre, litigator Stephen Halbrook, and JFPO leader Aaron Zelman, have said that Nazi Party policies and laws, which disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews, while relaxing firearms restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens, and which later confiscated arms in countries it occupied, were an enabling factor in the Holocaust that prevented its victims from implementing an effective resistance.

Here is my proposal:

U.S. gun rights advocates such as gun law litigator Stephen Halbrook, NRA leader Wayne LaPierre, and JFPO leader Aaron Zelman, have argued that Nazi Party policies and laws were an enabling factor in the Holocaust that prevented its victims from implementing an effective resistance. Their arguments refer to laws that disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews but relaxed restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens, and to the later confiscation of arms arms in countries it occupied.

1. Winkler 2013, p. 236. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWinkler2013 (help)
2. Knox 1993, p. 286. sfn error: no target: CITEREFKnox1993 (help)
3. Harcourt 2004, p. 655. sfn error: multiple targets (5×): CITEREFHarcourt2004 (help)
4. ^ Harcourt 2004, p. 670,676. sfn error: multiple targets (5×): CITEREFHarcourt2004 (help)
5. ^ Halbrook 2000, p. 533,536. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFHalbrook2000 (help)
6. ^ Halbrook 2000, p. 484. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFHalbrook2000 (help)
7. Halbrook 2006, p. 113. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHalbrook2006 (help)
8. ^ LaPierre 1994, p. 88-87,167-168.
9. Harcourt 2004, p. 653-5. sfn error: multiple targets (5×): CITEREFHarcourt2004 (help)

I gave most of my reasons for these changes in my discussions with Scolaire, and I've made some changes based on some of his comments. --Lightbreather (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

With the exception of the "US" part at the beginning, I do not see a problem with the splitting. There were multiple sources for international, which you removed and those should be included again. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That brings us back around to our unfinished discussion from March 20-21. Should we resume it up there, or should we move or copy that portion of that discussion down here? Lightbreather (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd say copy it to a new section. That way consensus can be read in this section on the single issue of the split or not. And we can deal with international independently. I think the above sections are too cluttered to be useful at this point. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You probably should have waited for Scolaire to opine, since he was the one who voiced opposition to the split above. 2 does not generally make a consensus, unless they are the only 2 to have said anything. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are John Dingle and Charlton heston removed? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point, I had not noticed that. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

???? They should go back in. North8000 (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are Dingell and Heston IN the article? Lightbreather (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed Dingell and Heston with a detailed edit summary, which I copy here: WP:UNDUE Dingell=2 sentences in a 361-pg book; Heston=1 sentence + 2 short pro-gun rally quotes in a 29-pg paper; sources support those who seriously argue/d this and wrote about it are Halbrook, LaPierre, and Zelman. Lightbreather (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

International debate?

Copied here from unfinished discussion of March 20-21

I removed "and others in the international debate on gun control" while we reconsider that statement and those sources. I have read them a couple times now and what they say - that is to say how what they say is used in this article - is hinky. Lightbreather (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources that explicitly say the argument is made internationally, is insufficient to say the argument is made internationally? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. Considering how contentious Nazi material is in any article, the dirth of high-quality sources for Nazi gun control is a problem. As I've said before, it ought to have its own article. Beyond that, to suggest that the argument is as significant internationally as it is among its fringe American adherents? The sources do not support it.

Here is what I re-wrote - except including the "and others in the international debate" material (in italics) and excluding the inline citations (those for "and others" follows text snippet):

Gun rights advocates such as Congressman John Dingell, NRA leaders Charlton Heston and Wayne LaPierre, litigator and author Stephen Halbrook, and JFPO leader Aaron Zelman, and others in the international debate have said that Nazi Party policies and laws, which disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews, while relaxing firearms restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens, and which later confiscated arms in countries it occupied, were an enabling factor in the Holocaust that prevented its victims from implementing an effective resistance.

The sources for the "and others" material are these:

• "Chapman, Simon (2013). Over our dead bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's fight for gun control. Sydney, Australia: Sydney University Press. ISBN 9781743320310." and
• "Brown, R. Blake (2012). Arming and disarming: a history of gun control in Canada. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 9781442646391."

In a barely one-page section titled "Hitler tried to disarm the Germans," Simon (Australian) wrote: "Internationally, the gun lobby is fond of comparing gun control agenda with that of Hitler in pre-World War II Germany." He gives a one-sentence quote by "Queensland's Ian McNiven," and a two-sentence quote (a what-if question and answer) by an unnamed editor of Guns Australia. There are no citations for the source of either quote. That is to say, he attributes the quotes to those persons, but doesn't cite where he got the quotes.

McNiven sounds like Australia's own Wayne LaPierre, so we could probably find some material by/about him re: Nazi gun control, though how good the quality?

Brown (Canadian) wrote: "As had occurred in the 1970s, organizations representing firearms owners made analogies between modern arms control and the policies of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia." This appears to be from Chapter 6, "Flexing the Liberal State's Muscles: The Montreal Massacre and the 1995 Firearms Act, 1980-2006," but no organization or person is named, and his source(s) is/are hard to verify (from the URL we give anyway). Lightbreather (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not require internal citations for us to double verify, particularly for something innocuous as it was being used for. We are not stating that the argument is as influential or as notable outside the US, but it is a verifiable fact that it was made outside the US, as these pro-control reliable sources clearly verify. The ADL citation is in the section already, and the "throw a scare" line is from the Aronsen article in the previous sentence. It is not necessary to re-cite sources for every sentence that they support. I am reverting these changes as they removed valuable information. Please slow down your edits and get feedback on them before making the changes. This is already a contentious enough section, and making many sequential edits makes it difficult to deal with them on an individual basis. As to putting this content into a WP:FRINGE ghetto, Im quite happy to have a larger article on the topic, but it should not be removed from this one in this WP:SUMMARY form. This is a subjective political argument, the application of WP:FRINGE is mistaken, but even if it were a scientific fact, its notability would still require some level of coverage. For example global warming denialism is covered in about this same depth as this is, in the main global warming article. Global_Warming#Discussion_by_the_public_and_in_popular_media Gaijin42 (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to call it a night, but I'll leave this question: To what were you referring when you wrote, "Reliable sources do not require internal citations for us to double verify, particularly for something innocuous as it was being used for"? As well as, how these edits improved the article? Lightbreather (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Above, you complained that Chapman and Brown do not provide their own citations for their sources. WP:V and WP:RS are not recursive. Saying that "people have made this argument" is not an exceptional claim that requires any exceptional sourcing. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"Internationally, the gun lobby is fond of comparing gun control agenda with that of Hitler ". That source alone is sufficient to say the argument extends beyond the US. I agree that the argument is less notable outside the US, and has gained less traction - but our agreement as to that point is worthless WP:OR without a source makign that comparison - but we do have very clear neutral sources explicitly documenting its use outside the US, and clearly it was notable enough to respond to. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Backing up just a little, you wrote, "Reliable sources do not require internal citations for us to double verify, particularly for something innocuous as it was being used for." I don't think any part of this discussion is innocuous. And that the argument is international is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that requires multiple, high-quality sources. Lightbreather (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Calling this exceptional is ridiculous. If a political argument magically restricted itself to arbitrary geographical boundaries - that would be exceptional. The reverse is almost the default.
2. We do have multiple sources.
3. And no, nowhere in WP:V or WP:RS do we have requirements to go check reliable sources own sources.

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

"Ridiculous" is an awfully strong word, so could you please clarify what "this" is that you say is innocuous/unexceptional? Also, we have two sources, and not particularly strong ones for the claim that the debate is international. And, we may not be required to check a source's sources, but we are talking about a controversial statement, that there's an international debate re Nazi gun control. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and wp:undue apply here. Lightbreather (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The book abour Canada presented as evidence that "the argument extends beyond the US." makes only one reference to Hitler in a sentence where it says some brought up Hitler and Stalin in the debate. It does not refer to any of Hitler's legislation or how it related to gun control. It certainly does not establish notability. There are lots of things covered extensively in the book that do not belong in this article, for example the debate over removing the right of Irish Catholic canal workers to have firearms in the 19th century. TFD (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that gaijin has shown very well that "and others in the international debate on gun control" is more than appropriate, and there is certainly no consensus to remove the material, please replace it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

A 'debate' would involve more than one group of participants - where is the evidence that anyone outside the US has taken this facile analogy seriously enough to bother responding to it with more than the derision and contempt documented in the Chapman book? Of course, if we are going to include the Australian 'debate', we will have some nice quotes - like the Sydney Morning Herald writers dismissive suggestion that the "more valid comparison is between the cunning propaganda practised by the shooters and the Nazis". Or are only pro-gun Nazi analogies to be permitted in this article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the content, because it shouldn't have been removed without agreement. However, I agree with Andy on this one. Two unrelated books written outside the US do not make an "international debate". I think the paragraph looks better without that bit than with it. Scolaire (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Scolaire Is there any doubt that the argument has been made by those outside the US, and that those outside the US have responded to the argument? If your objection is the wording "international debate" is there some other wording that would be more acceptable that would still indicate that the argument is not exclusive to those in the US? (There are other sources previously in the various archives, showing use of the argument in at least Brazil and UK I believe as well) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence of any 'international debate' beyond a fringe minority of pro-gun lobbyists making the argument, and being dismissed with derision - it is a gross violation of WP:NPOV policy to make out that such arguments have had any serious traction outside the US. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, as has already been pointed out, the supposed 'Brazil' source actually referred not to a local debate, but to attempts by the NRA or their confederates to interfere in the domestic politics of Brazil. The UK source referred to nothing more than another fringe gun-lobby group raising the argument, and being treated with contempt - the mainstream UK gun lobby wanted nothing to do with such nonsense. I suggest that you actually read what sources say before you cite them again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

IMO we really need to start with straightforward coverage of gun control in Nazi Germany. What happened when. And since most of debate happens in the US, such is inherently significant on a world scale coverage of the topic, at least enough for inclusion. The fact that the Nazi meme is a factor in other countries only adds to this. To do otherwise would be like saying that you can't discuss giraffes in an article about the world's animals because they are Africa-centric. North8000 (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

We already discuss Nazi gun control in the appropriate place - in our article on Gun legislation in Germany, where it belongs. And no, what happens in the US isn't 'world scale' - and I find it frankly astonishing that anyone could seriously make such an assertion on a Misplaced Pages talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Andy, you misstated what I said into a straw man /caricature version of it in a way that deprecates me. I'm not going to engage with you on those comments. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

When governments do thinks someone does not like, someone may call them names, such as Nazis or Communists. These epithets come up in all debates. For example Archbishop Garnsworthy compared the Ontario premier to Adolph Hitler, when the government extended Catholic School funding. "This is how Hitler changed education in Germany...." (See Lewis Garnsworthy#Separate school funding.) Does that mean we add a section on education in Germany to the debate over religious school funding? TFD (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

TFD, I respect you a great deal, even though we are often on opposite sides of issues. I consider you to be immensely intelligent, and you stick to the top few levels of the "pyramid" in your approach. Even with the good folks, I really don't want to re-enter a cycle of just trading talking points. But if you would ever like to enter into an organized, logical dissection of this and debate of the points (where I try to convince you and you try to convince me) I think that that would be a useful. North8000 (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The handful of sources have been discussed at length here and on other talk pages. This is NOT an international debate. Period. What is in this article is already more than there should be. Everyone should remember at all times re this: the last time there was an RfC on it, it was 20 for to 30 AGAINST Mea culpa: 19 for to 22 against having ANY of it here. I call on Gaijin and North to let this go. Lightbreather (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I am going to let the international bit go, because atm there are bigger fish to fry, but its plain stupid that we have a reliable pro-control source explicitly saying the argument is made internationally, and the response is essentially "lalala no its not because I said so. period.". Gaijin42 (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Gaijin. Well, for the first part anyway. ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Since we've now established that there is no evidence of any significant international debate on the 'Nazi' issue (and no, a source telling us that the gun lobby likes to make comparisons isn't evidence of a meaningful debate - it is evidence that the gun control lobby likes to make comparisons...), can anyone explain why it deserves to be in the article at all? This is supposed to be an international overview of firearms regulation issues, not a one-sided recap of the US gun control debate - issues significance to one country alone should be dealt with in the relevant article, not here, per WP:WEIGHT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There are those pesky goalposts. Watch em move. We have not established there is no international debate, we just established that it wasn't worth fighting over the word international. In any case, please identify the policy that says "worldwide view means exclude the US". in a decently long article, a single paragraph, that has almost 3/4 of it dedicated to the other side of the argument, is a one-sided presentation? pfft. You can do better. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Andy has moved no goalposts. IF there ever was a "consensus" to include Nazi gun control material in this article, consider WP:CONLIMITED. But leaving that aside, the fact remains that consensus can change. So I'm going to say this again: the last time there was an RfC on it, it was 20 for to 30 AGAINST Mea culpa: 19 for to 22 against having ANY of it here. Lightbreather (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

19–22 would have been a No consensus if it had been a head-count alone, so the material would have stayed. Scolaire (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, can you cite policy for that? You seem to be confusing RfCs with AfDs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was a difference between RfCs with AfDs regarding what would count as consensus if it were a head-count alone. Given that both of them say it's not based on a head-count alone, it seems odd that they would specify different numbers. Can you show me where they do that? Scolaire (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I am well aware that RfCs aren't closed by head count alone - it is your assertion that an RfC closed as 'no consensus' would entail the material being retained that I am asking you to cite policy for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Not policy-based. If there had not been a consensus to remove it people could have removed it anyway. Can we stop this silliness now? Scolaire (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you can - by not inventing policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Honestly! Have you nothing better to do with your day? Scolaire (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Andy, the policy Scolaire is referring to is WP:NOCONSENSUS. It says, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." 1. It says "commonly," not always. 2. It also says, "However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." Is this article about living people? It's not a BLP, but there are still living Holocaust survivors, and what is more contentious than comparing a subject to Nazism? 3. Then there is the fact that an ArbCom was started on this RfC before it came to a substantive close. It was closed procedurally by an Admin without analysis of consensus, pending word from the arbitrators. Lightbreather (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

BLP does not apply to large groups of people WP:BLPGROUP nor does it apply to statements that aren't actually about that person/group, nor does it apply to things people might find offensive, but specific allegations that could cause libel, defemation, or other legal issues. WP:NOTCENSORED Gaijin42 (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know? Are there any policies, guidelines, or essays, on the use of Nazi comparisons in articles? Also, I have to leave for the better part of the day, so I'll be absent from discussions here. Lightbreather (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The vote was at 19-for to 22-against when it went to ArbCom. Also, I don't need a lecture on how a simple vote does not decide a question. (I've lost count of how many times I've been the third man in a vote and, regardless of my arguments, I was told 2-to-1 is a consensus.) Anyway, that's where the vote stood when it went to ArbCom, on a controversial topic. Some of us, myself included (and you, too, if I remember rightly), asked to have the material removed while the ArbCom was open. I wanted to delete it from the start (I'll wager others included), but didn't, thinking there would be a decision within a couple of weeks, so why rock the boat. Yet every day that "material" (I want to call it crap) sits there is a day that those who support it claim silence is consensus. (I've lost count of how many times I've been told "It's been there two years," or "It's been there two months," or "It's been there two weeks" - which should mean about as much as a simple vote.)

IN FACT, I removed it a couple days ago, with the edit summary, "Bold edit to divert this material and discussions to Nazi gun control article." That is, I replaced it with a description of the controversy and a link to a page that can be developed fully to describe the controversy - and not just summarize something that a U.S., pro-gun fringe want very badly to make a part of a reasonable, global discussion. But guess what? The removed material was restored, with the edit summary, "Really?" - by the editor who started the ArbCom. Big surprise. Lightbreather (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

1. ^ Chapman 2013, p. 221.
2. ^ Brown 2012, p. 218.

It's an international debate, period. No amount of wikilawyering will change that.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Copying content

Yesterday, I copied material from the Nazi gun control paragraph of this article into the Nazi gun control article, but I put the Halbrook and others material into the section titled "Nazi gun control" hypothesis, and the criticism into a section titled "Reactions to the hypothesis." I also changed the citation style to what I was already using on that page. However, all of these - article title, section titles, citation styles - are only placeholders, suggestions. I won't put a lot more energy into developing it since A) we're still waiting for word from ArbCom, and B) some have hinted at an AfD. Lightbreather (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and then you replaced the agreed content in this article with a most egregious POV statement, and linked to your new article, which has your version that was not agreed by anybody. Sorry, I know I said I wouldn't make personal remarks again, but that trick was just too blatant to go without comment. Your behaviour is coming very close to the kind of disruption that leads to AN/I. Please, please dial it down. Scolaire (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

What agreed content in this article did I replace with an "egregious POV statement"? And which statement is the one you think is egregious POV? Lightbreather (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This is the edit (it's not that difficult to spot), much of the discussion from Re-ordering the paragraph down is where the deleted content was agreed, and here is where I said that "your 'simple sentence' is a more blatant statement of POV than any I have seen from the most biased pro-gun editor." Feigning innocence or ignorance only makes your actions more reprehensible. Scolaire (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no 'agreed content' concerning the 'Nazi' issue in this article. The inclusion of such material has always been contested, and indeed is currently the subject of an active ArbCom case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There is disagreement over whether the issue should be dealt with in this article or not. As of now, it is. The paragraph that deals with is is the result of a discussion between editors that led to agreement. So yes, it is 'agreed content'. Scolaire (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

So it was 'agreed' because the editors that agreed to it agreed to it, and those that didn't don't count because they weren't part of the agreement? Interesting logic - if by 'logic' one means 'utter bollocks'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Scolaire, thank you for the first ("This") DIFF. That answers both of my questions. But for Pete's sake, let's not make this about either of us feigning anything. The reason I asked is because this is a discussion on a PUBLIC talk page, on a controversial subject. We know that people are following it now and very likely will read it in the future. Why make them dig for and assume what you're referring to? So, could you please strike the "reprehensible" remark?

Since it's not long, I'll copy the "egregious POV" statement here:

A small, but vocal and mostly U.S., group of gun-rights advocates believe in a historical revisionism hypothesis that Nazi gun control, and gun laws in other authoritarian regimes, contributed significantly to past genocides. This hypothesis is not supported by mainstream scholarship.

Of course there are plenty of WP policies and guidelines on writing about controversial subjects, but here's a succint one: WP:CONTROVERSY says, "Describe the controversy." When summarizing the Nazi gun control historical revision (according to some, fringe) hypothesis, what is egregious POV about the proposed statement? Lightbreather (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"Small, but vocal" is opinion not backed up by citations. "Historical revisionism hypothesis" is opinion not backed up by citations. "This hypothesis is not supported by mainstream scholarship" is opinion not backed up by citations. All of it is POV, therefore in total it is egregious POV.

I've thought about striking "reprehensible", and decided against it. You are playing a double game – insisting on the talk page that you want to be collaborative while persisting with disruptive edits such as these on the article. I want people who read this page in the future to understand this. Scolaire (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Considering all the sources that have been discussed by all of the editors (pro-gun and pro-control) that have been involved in the discussion, I don't think citing/editing that brief statement - or something like it that could be cited/edited collaboratively - will be difficult. Here's a start:

A small, but vocal and mostly U.S. group of gun-rights advocates believe in a historical revisionism hypothesis that Nazi gun control, and gun laws in other authoritarian regimes, contributed significantly to past genocides. This hypothesis is not supported by mainstream scholarship.

1. Bryant, M. S. (2012). Carter, G. L. (ed.). Germany, Gun Laws. Vol. Volume 1. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. pp. 314–316. ISBN 9780313386701. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help); |work= ignored (help)
2. Bryant, M. S. (2012). Carter, G. L. (ed.). Holocaust Imagery and Gun Control. Vol. Volume 1. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. pp. 411–414. ISBN 9780313386701. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help); |work= ignored (help)
3. Harcourt, B. E. (2004). "On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians)". Fordham Law Review. 73 (2): 653–680.
4. Spitzer, Robert J. (2004). "Don't Know Much About History, Politics, or Theory: A Comment". Fordham Law Review. 73 (2): 721–730.

Did I miss something from ArbCom? Have they decided that whatever you and Gaijin agree to is what will stay on this page? Lightbreather (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And since you insist on making this personal, despite our private discussions, OK, here goes. If you won't strike the "reprehensible" comment, and you think I'm playing a game (which I'm not), maybe your proposals in the ArbCom workshop are just a game, since you insist on breaking many of the policies you named there. You keep up the personal attacks, and you've named yourself and Gaijin as the approved editors to "agree" that not only will Nazi gun control material stay here, but that you - "I will revert you again" - and he - "you need to discuss this with Gaijin before doing it again" and "Since it was Gaijin who wrote the first part, I think we should leave it to him to edit it appropriately" - will give the final stamp of approval on how much will stay, and how it will be written. Lightbreather (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to say what I've had to say explicitly on other gun-related talk pages, which are predominated by pro-gun editors: Don't shoot the messenger. Lightbreather (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

During a lull in the fighting – and after I had absented myself for over two months from this page – I began a dialogue with Gaijin on a couple of matters that I felt were of major importance. North8000 joined the conversation, and anybody else might have, but nobody else did. When Gaijin had explicitly endorsed my proposals, and North had said he wouldn't oppose them despite having reservations, I edited accordingly. I believe that the result was a paragraph far better than what had been there until then. I hoped that anybody joining the conversation after those edits would follow the same, collaborative, procedure: make their proposals, make a case, make concessions where necessary, and establish a consensus which they could then implement. Of course, there's no law on WP that says everybody must follow this procedure, so in principle I had no complaint if an editor decided to follow a different path. But if one editor has the right to be BOLD, another editor (like me) has the right to revert. I made it clear that it was my intention to do so. I named nobody as "approved editors", I argued with you in respect of what I had written, and said I thought you should not argue with me, but with Gaijin, about what he had written. Gaijin took the same approach as regards one of my reverts here.

Having made my position clear, I am going to withdraw from this page again, because the atmosphere is no longer conducive to improving the article in a collegiate fashion. Goodbye, and happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The subtle POV pushing is typical. The reverts are necessary. I have complained many many times, but the complaints fall on silent (or even worse, hostile) ears. The reverts preserve the consensus. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

POV pushing: Disagree. Complained frequently: Agree. Complaints fell on silent/hostile ears: Disagree. Reverts necessary, preserve consensus: Disagree. Lightbreather (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No more "meme," please

I have seen a disturbing trend in this discussion of referring to this whole, complicated, controversial debate as a "meme." When the average reader hears the word, they think of farcical memes like that old gem All your base are belong to us or the more recent Grumpy Cat. I think it is poor form to reduce this issue to that word. "Argument," "debate," "subject," or "topic" are all more serious, unambiguous terms for a serious topic. Lightbreather (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree. I don't want to tell people how to word their comments, but the word "meme" really minimizes the importance of the topics at hand. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Plans

I was briefly involved in this article and talk page last year, and have not been involved since then, and I have no plans to edit this gun control article ever again. But, if this article and talk page were to become less toxic, and if the current ArbCom proceeding ends with me still editing Misplaced Pages, then I would probably support a rather simple solution to this mess. To wit: leave the pertinent material as it is in Gun politics in the United States, and just replace the pertinent material in the gun control article with something like this:

I mention this here since it's been hidden at the ArbCom workshop talk page. I won't have anything further to say here for the time being, because it seems as toxic as ever.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any particular plans to stop editing here. Maybe someday, when I feel these kinds of articles are complete and NPOV. But I could get hit by a bus tomorrow, or any other kind of thing could happen, so... I will respond by saying what I said yesterday on the Gun politics in this U.S. talk page. What you've written above, is an example of what Harcourt summarized succinctly when he wrote:

"Harcourt, Bernard E. (2004). "On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians)". Fordham Law Review. 73 (2): 657."

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Nazis did not practice gun control

In a tortured literal sense of the term, one can say the nazis practiced "gun control". Similarly, one can say that disarming children, violent criminals, and prisoners is "gun control." Such a usage of the term "gun control", while technically correct in some sense, is completely out of accord with the academic and colloquial meaning of the word. It should be excluded from the article because WP:Context matters.

Adding this Nazi stuff is as ridiculous and tone-deaf as adding a section about white Afrikaaner immigrants to America to the African American article. Though they are technically 'African American', referring to them as such is misleading because that term refers to black people in the United States. Similarly, "gun control" in America refers to broad social policies aimed at reducing rates of gun ownership and gun violence. The anti-gun control folks should focus their energy citing studies that say gun control policies don't achieve their goals, or alternatively cite legal scholars that say gun control violates Constitutional rights. Describing the Holocaust as entailing "gun control" is nothing more than a smear. It's literally true in a tone-deaf technical sense, but it's false and misleading in a substantive sense. Steeletrap (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The dictionary.com definition of "gun control" is similar to the others: "government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms." You are trying to fashion your own different definition that excludes types with bad purposes or indefensibly bad forms of it. North8000 (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

That definition is completely consistent with the one I'm proposing. The people who write the dictionary expect readers to exercise common sense. The fact is, RS do not endorse your definition, and ridicule the fringe ideological sources that do. Steeletrap (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about I just said that the definition is straight from dictionary.com. North8000 (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The words of the dictionary entry can be construed to accommodate your view of "gun control", but they need not be. RS do not interpret gun control the way you do. No encyclopedia entries on the Holocaust mention gun control, and no encyclopedia entries on gun control mention the Holocaust. This is a smear campaign pushed by fringe ideological sources; it has no following in academic circles. Steeletrap (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The plain language of the dictionary is quite straightforward. And just how do you know that this is part of a "smear campaign" or conspiracy pushed by "fringe" elements. Is this some sort of WP:TRUTH that you have discovered? Could it not possibly be that others have a legitimate and thoughtful differences of opinion? Capitalismojo (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I hope we can all agree that "thoughtful" is not the same as "legitimate" in the context of WP content policy. Everything on this page is thoughtful, I believe. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that it takes creativity to recognize that Nazi era gun control was "government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms". Indeed, it takes creativity to assert that it wasn't "government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Consider the Collins Dictionary definition of African American: "an American of African descent." By the 'plain language' of the definition, every American is an African American, since biology tells us we're all ultimately of African descent. Does that mean we should add Mitt Romney and Britney Spears to the African American wiki page? The dictionary provides definitions with the expectation that readers will exercise common sense, be sensitive to contextual considerations and will not be intentionally obtuse. Steeletrap (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I hear you, Steeletrap. Comparing gun control to what the Nazis did is like comparing taxation without representation with the Holocaust. And dragging any of it into the modern gun-control debate is propagandizing. Lightbreather (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Right. It's like citing the Nazis' economic discrimination against the Jews as an example of "economic regulation" or "tax hikes." Using a word accurately involves more than comporting with its literal dictionary meaning. The context in which one uses a word also matters, as does public and academic perception. It's erroneous and absurd to call the Nazi Holocaust an example of gun control. The people pushing this stuff misunderstand basic linguistics, and they're using that misunderstanding to push their fringe POV. Steeletrap (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The clear problem is that some people have viewed the Nazi-era firearms restrictions as being a type or form of "gun control." "Gun Control" as a political issue is recent as a phrase, and so one would not expect to find it used as a phrase before it became a cause celebre in the past few decades. That it was not used in Germany as a phrase in English is hardly a surprise. (Google translate suggest "Waffenkontrolle" as a German word for it). It is also clear, moreover, that the Nazi-era laws did increase restrictions on firearms ownership - the issue of the Holocaust is irrelevant to that simple fact. The second and separate issue is whether the stated opinion of some groups that the Holocaust was facilitated in some manner by such restrictions on gun ownership is clearly a matter of discussion and debate in the real world, and it is not Misplaced Pages which is "dragging" the issues together, but it is the responsibility of Misplaced Pages to duly note that such discussions and opinions exist -- by eliding them, we do no favour to readers seeking an encyclopedic exposition of the debate. Thus such works as Verbrechen erinnern: die Auseinandersetzung mit Holocaust und Völkermord (Volkhard Knigge, Norbert Frei, Anett Schweitzer; C.H.Beck, 2002 - 450 pages) become of more than passing interest (even if not in English) quoting Gingrich on the debate over "gun control" in a German book on the "Holocaust and genocide." Clearly with German writers noting the issue, it becomes of international interest. Balancing views that the Nazi gun restrictions were not aimed at causing the Holocaust are found and usable, but we can not actually tell readers that no one has tried, as a matter of opinion, to make the connection would ill-serve readers. We are better off presenting the position, and noting its opponents, than simply denying its existence. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I've stated my suggestion before - including the policies and guidelines that support it - but here it is again:

A small, but vocal and mostly U.S. group of gun-rights advocates believe in a historical revisionism hypothesis that Nazi gun control, and gun laws in other authoritarian regimes, contributed significantly to past genocides. This hypothesis is not supported by mainstream scholarship.

1. Bryant, M. S. (2012). Carter, G. L. (ed.). Germany, Gun Laws. Vol. Volume 1. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. pp. 314–316. ISBN 9780313386701. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help); |work= ignored (help)
2. Bryant, M. S. (2012). Carter, G. L. (ed.). Holocaust Imagery and Gun Control. Vol. Volume 1. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. pp. 411–414. ISBN 9780313386701. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help); |work= ignored (help)
3. Harcourt, B. E. (2004). "On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians)". Fordham Law Review. 73 (2): 653–680.
4. Spitzer, Robert J. (2004). "Don't Know Much About History, Politics, or Theory: A Comment". Fordham Law Review. 73 (2): 721–730.

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

"It is also clear, moreover, that the Nazi-era laws did increase restrictions on firearms ownership"? No, it isn't. What is however clear is that the Nazis reduced restrictions on most German citizens owning firearms - while restricting the right (as was and still is normal practice in most countries) of non-citizens to own firearms. That this restriction affected German Jews, who the Nazis had already been systematically removing other rights of citizenship from is true - but there is no evidence whatsoever that this was done for any specific purpose beyond the general removal of rights and systematic harassment of Jews being engaged in at the time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

"It is also clear, moreover, that the Nazi-era laws did increase restrictions on firearms ownership - the issue of the Holocaust is irrelevant to that simple fact."

False. "Counterintuitively for a dictatorship, the Nazis liberalized possession and distribution of firearms for most German citizens. While permits were still needed to buy handguns, none were required for rifles."

"Thus such works as Verbrechen erinnern: die Auseinandersetzung mit Holocaust und Völkermord (Volkhard Knigge, Norbert Frei, Anett Schweitzer; C.H.Beck, 2002 - 450 pages) become of more than passing interest (even if not in English) quoting Gingrich on the debate over "gun control" in a German book on the "Holocaust and genocide." Clearly with German writers noting the issue, it becomes of international interest."

This is a complete misrepresentation of the source, Arad, Gulie Ne'eman (2002). "II. Berichte zur Geschichte der Erinnerung : USA". In Knigge, V.; Norbert, F.; Schweitzer, A. (eds.). Verbrechen erinnern : die Auseinandersetzung mit Holocaust und Völkermord. pp. 199–219. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help),

1. Gulie Ne'eman Arad, the author quoting Gingrich, is not German.
2. The source does not discuss "the debate over gun control" (in fact the word "Waffenkontrolle" is used exactly once).
3. The appropriate footnote, if my understanding of German notations and abbreviations is correct, appears to cite Peter Novich who cites the Gingrich quote to a 1995 article in the New Republic, Newt Scoot, which leads us to Newt's source; Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

We don't balance fringe views. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

OK -- The Versailles absolute disarmament was not "gun control" but a specific punitive disarming of the entire nation, and so it is not a valid predecessor for the Nazi-era laws which occurred after a rearmament ("rearmament" generally indicates an increase in the amount of arms in a nation and has nothing to do with "gen control" as an issue). One may discuss the validity of the Versailles Treaty until doomsday, but there is some validity to the argument that the gun provisions were aimed more at punishing Germany than at anything else, and had absolutely nothing to do with what we call "gun control". (See Diplomacy Henry Kissinger; Simon and Schuster, Oct 1, 2012 - 912 pages) Restricting the right of "non-citizens" who had quite simply been "citizens" is reasonably an extension of gun ownership restrictions. Note that I specifically did not say the restriction was done in anticipation of the Holocaust, as that was not the issue addressed. As for the fact that Newt Gingrich spoke in English -- that misses the point utterly -- which is that his words were found sufficiently important to be included in a German book by German authors. Lastly, as to the claim that any "fringe" view is ipso facto deletable from political articles -- I fail to find justification for such a policy argument at all. In fact, political articles are replete with "fringe views" mainly because if a view is held by a significant number of people, it has importance in the political realm. This is not the same as giving credence in Misplaced Pages's voice that (hypothetically) "all cancer s caused by not reading the works of George Gnarph" or a similar claim of scientifically determinable fact. The case at hand is one of "personal beliefs" and "de gustibus" certainly applies here. The use of WP:FRINGE otherwise would mean, for example, deletion of all minority views on politics across the board, and all minority religious views across the board. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and so we do not do that. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

While the Versailles treaty was not gun control, the law that the Weimar Republic passed before the treaty came into effect that required all people to surrender all guns to the German government was gun control. The 1938 Act did not make it harder for foreigners to obtain guns, but made it easier for citizens to obtain them. And of course, the nazis would soon arm the entire male population of citizens who were not imprisoned, even giving rifles to 13-year olds. Yet no armed rebellion occurred. Indeed the argumentum ad hitlerum is fringe, and has never been defended in academic writing. TFD (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That law was mandatory under the Versailles treaty -- it was part of a general and total disarmament, and not in any sense "gun control" in a modern context. It was not an option for Weimar to object as the French already sought possession of the industrial Ruhr district as a form of "reparations". Without the Ruhr, Germany could never hope to ever pay 132 billion gold marks - or about 1000 times its GDP without the Ruhr, or so. So much for Weimar having the ability to make any decisions contrary to the wishes of France at the time. And note, I make no such argument "ad hitlerum" at all, and I am affronted you do not note the two distinct issues -- the reality that removing guns from "former citizens" was a restriction on gun ownership. The equivalent debt stress per capita on the US adjusting for the value of gold today would be on the order of $2 million per capita <g>. So much for the side issue of trying to assert that the Weimar law was comparable in any way to "gun control" as it is currently understood. (It is interesting that Germany thoughtfully reduced its armies to having nothing but NCOs to be in compliance with French demands, basically - the French were good at demands, but poor lawyers <g>. Collect (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I was not accusing you of defending the Hitler argument, merely saying that you think it should be included. The 1938 law btw did not remove guns from former citizens, rather it continued the restrictions already in the 1928 gun control law. (Note the 1928 Act was different from the 1919 act and not part of any disarmament.) I do not see why the 1919 German law should be seen as disarmament rather than as a gun control law, perhaps you could explain. But if it was not gun control then it weakens the Hitler argument, because it removes one of the examples, that the Warsaw Ghetto and indeed the Holocaust outside the Reich, where 95% of the victims lived, was made possible by gun control. The 1938 Act of course only extended to the Reich, not the occupied territories. TFD (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please deal with what I write before inserting poor arguments onto this talk page. There are two pieces to the puzzle -- the first is the clear increase in restrictions by the Nazis (removing all gun ownership from "non-citizens" is indeed an increase in "restrictions" especially when coped with "de-citizenizing" groups of citizens.). The second is the apparent and real use of the topic in the gun control debate in the US (and noted even in German publications) where as a political issue and not an issue of "scientific fact" we must cover it if we wish to be an encyclopedia. For example, Scientologists are a small religious group - but we present their positions on topics related to religion - we can not assert that "fringe" is a valid argument to elide a well-known argument utterly without being risible here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I was going to say that I think that everyone would agree that it is used in gun control debate. And the most common use is mere mention for impact, not to make more complex assertions. So I think that equating the use in politics to more complex assertions is sort of going off on a tangent. Second, with respect to "it" in gun control debate, I think we're talking about coverage of that use, and I think that most would agree that that use significantly exists, at least in the USA. North8000 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It's effectiveness and origin are irrelevant. It is a major issue in virtually ALL gun control discussions and should be included for that reason. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Just plain wrong. Beyond the U.S., it has hardly been raised at all. This is supposed to be an international overview... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The Nazi law did not increase restrictions on gun ownership by non-ctizens, it relaxed restrictions on gun owenership by citizens. It did not for example remove all gun ownership from non-citizens, but continued to insist that foreigners had permits. If you disagree, please cite the section of the 1938 law that is any more restrictive than the 1928 law. But there are no gun rights activists in the U.S. that claim aliens have the right to keep and bear arms in the United States.

Also, while we indeed represent the religious views of Scientologists, we do not provide much mention if any of their views in articles about religion, other than Scientology-related articles. Fringe views should only be mentioned if they have significance. For example we might mention in articles about 911 that conspiracy theories challenge the official version. But in the topic of gun control, which includes countries outside the U.S., the fact that the supposedly third largest anti-gun control group in the U.S. (with about 1% of the membership of the largest group) promotes the Hitler argument hardly justifies mention, let alone an entire section.

TFD (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yep. The 1928 law repealed the 1920 total prohibition of firearms possession, and the 1938 law liberalized the provisions of the 1928 law. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Except the NRA has also promoted the argument, repeatedly. Yes, this article should be a international overview. Last time I checked the US was part of "international". Its going to be a pretty empty article if no content that is representing a particular nations issues or POV cannot be included. (beyond the multiple reliable sources showing that the argument has been notable outside the US but apparently those are all just Fnords ) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Not Fnords. Misrepresentation of sources, for the purposes of synthesis... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

sources saying an argument is wrong is not the same thing as saying an argument is not notable - quite the opposite. By responding to the argument they are directly showing its notability. As Collect has aptly argued above - pretending an argument does not exist is not encyclopedic. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

edit conflict) Yes, trying to write articles for a world perspective is not a basis for excluding covering items that occur only in or mostly only in one country. By that standard we would delete most of Misplaced Pages. North8000 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Although leaders of the NRA have made the Hitler argument in the past, I cannot find any mention of it on their website. It seems extremely tendentious too for the article to make the Hitler argument, yet fail to explains the two pieces of legislation, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Bill of Rights 1789 that actually protected the right to keep and bear arms. I mean gun rights advocates are far more likely to argue from the Constitution than they are the Third Reich. TFD (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that the most common uses are more superficial than arguments. For example, there is one saying that I think I've seen 20 variants of over twenty years; to see see a zillion different versions Google "All of those in favor of gun control raise your hand" and pick "images". This is a volley for effect, not an argument. North8000 (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, when every leader brings it up, its pretty safe to say its a view of the org. But more recently they were giving significant play to Halbrooks new book. regarding your statement about the two laws, I can see it two ways - In so far as they had a concrete effect on the country, that is more appropriate for that countries article. To the degree that they were inspirational/influential on the larger history of gun rights and gun control, that should be covered in this article. This is in line with my thoughts on the Nazi material as well - The practical effect of the laws (or not) is better served in the German article, or in a dedicated topic article (such as LB recently created) - But the arguments notability within the general gun control debate, and its use as a rally cry, rhetorical point, and proxy for the general tyranny argument is notable to the overall topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

In making the gun rights argument, advocates normally begin with gun ownership as a right. For every mention of Hitler, there are a hundred references to the Second Amendment. But there is no argument at all outside the U.S. whether legislatures have the right to restrict ownership of arms, and even when the Bill of Rights 1689 was considered as protecting gun rights, it was protecting the rights of the majority, that is, Protestants, not Catholics or Jews, so the argument that it could have prevented a future Holocaust would have made no sense. And notice the U.S. Bill of Rights refers to the "right of the people", not the "right of minorities." And certainly arguing that one wanted to own a gun in case it was necessary to water the tree of Liberty with the blood of government leaders would hardly have made one seem responsible to own a firearm, except of course in the U.S. TFD (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That's right. We might as well be discussing Nazi Bladder control, Pest control, or Birth control. This whole article is a play on words. It should be deleted. SPECIFICO talk 23:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I continue to be amazed at how stupid the arguments are here. Again, if we apply terms literally without any regard for context, we get all sorts of absurdities. (Every American is an African American because we evolved in Africa; the Nazis' stealing money from Jews is an example of a 'tax hike.'; and so forth.) Doesn't the fact that no one who has studied this matter in an academic context takes this stuff remotely seriously give you pause?

Collect actually thinks that outside of the U.S., these arguments have more credence! The only people who take this Nazi stuff seriously are U.S. gundamentalists. It has received no attention apart from derision in academic circles, including from conservative scholars. Steeletrap (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Read what I wrote before figuratively inserting your foot in your mouth. As I made no such statement whatsoever, I fear that you are seeking an ad hom rather than looking at my reasoning dividing the material into two separate categories. First is that (apart from the Versailles required disarmament) the fact that laws which barred ownership by "non-citizens" coupled with "decitizenizing" people reduced the number of people who were allowed to own guns -- which I consider a "restriction". YMMV. The second has nothing to do with any editor's beliefs but with Misplaced Pages requirements -- that all positions on issues be presented in rough accord with their presence in the public debate - if we refuse to admit that some people use the argument, then we are eliding our responsibility to have an "encyclopedia" in favour of a "correct truthopedia." The German usage note was not intended to claim that it is a major issue in Germany, but that the debate has been noted in Germany, in a German book by German authors and printed by a German publisher. And when dealing with "political opinions" we are stuck with the fact that this is apparently a sufficiently widespread opinion - and the sources which deal with the prevalence of opinions state that it is an opinion held by people. De gustibus non est disputandum - we can not say "Misplaced Pages only covers correct opinions" without saying "Misplaced Pages only covers true religions" or "Misplaced Pages only covers correct political opinions." We cover them all, no matter how wrong they are. We can certainly state that "writers on the Holocaust in scholarly journals say this is bosh" with proper sourcing, but that is not the issue here. Collect (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It's even received derision from William Pierce, who evidently loves Hitler more than he hates gun-grabbing liberals. Now I'm really confused!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Collect, first, I can't believe you just wrote "figuratively inserting your foot in your mouth." There is no other way that expression is used but "figuratively" unless you're talking about Cirque de Soliel.

Second, please check your definition of ad hominem. While unfair, mischaracterizing someone's argument is not an ad hominem. (And of course, I didn't do that.) Steeletrap (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Where is your evidence that the 1938 Act made any changes to the right of non-citizens to keep and bear arms? It did however lower the age at which people could own firearms and eliminated the long gun registry. TFD (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The Germany Citizenship Law (1935) made Jews into a peculiar group of "non-citizens" in 1935, but this did not appear to remove their right to hold arms. It was the regulations of November 1938 which specified that this particular class of non-citizen was forbidden to have arms. So until that point, clearly "non-citizens" were not barred from having arms, and after the regulation, specific "non-citizens" were barred from having arms. If the law never forbade "non-citizens" from having arms, then the regulation would have had no meaning at all. Therefore we can reasonably aver (and sources support) that Jews were allowed to have arms even after the laws of 1935, and were not forbidden to have arms until 1938 and the November "regulation". Collect (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Is Collect actually thinks that outside of the U.S., these arguments have more credence! The only people who take this Nazi stuff seriously are U.S. gundamentalists an ad hom attack or not? Collect (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No. It is an assertion regarding what you think. Clearly unverifiable, if taken literally, but fair comment based on your previous posts, I'd have thought. You seem to be arguing that these arguments do have a real significance beyond the U.S. context. If so, can you cite the source(s) that led you to this conclusion? So far, all we've seen have been vague passing comments in sources, and material that actually indicates the contrary position - that where the Nazi analogy has been raise at all, it has been done by marginal elements, and has been dismissed accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It is in your style, I suppose <g>, to assert that editors who do not espouse much other than Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines are "gundamentalists" but most folks call it "name calling." And you will note my comments above -- the Jews were not barred from owning guns when they became "non-citizens" in 1935 but were only barred latter on in 1938. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I asserted no such thing. As for your original research (if it deserves to be called 'research', rather than guesswork, which is questionable), it is of no relevance to this article. Not that it was relevant to a discussion as to whether the comments made about you were ad hom anyway. And I note that you have failed to answer my question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Valid or not, this is a common (possibly the most common) argument brought up in gun control debates, and therefore needs to be included. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

query

I am sure this has been addressed before, but I am too lazy to try tracking the discussion down. purports to be an English translation of "Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons 11 November 1938" Is the translation accurate? Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/349981/gun_control_act_1968.pdf is the congressional record from 1968 that the JPFO often mentions. The congressional translation of the 1938 law starts on page 489, so they could easily be compared. (Not claiming this is a reliable source for citing, as obviously its dropbox hosted, but no reason to doubt its authenticity for this type of casual confirmation) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The translation is AFAIK accurate, except the regulation was made under the 1938 act not the 1928 act. However the 1938 act did not give the Minister any powers he did not already enjoy under the 1928 act. He always had the power to remove the right of persons whose trustworthiness was in question (S. 16 of the 1928 act) to keep and bear arms and could have issued the regulation under the 1928 act and withdrawn the right from Jews. Curiously both the 1928 act and the 1938 act prohibit the issuing of permits to Gypsies, although neither mention Jews.

William Pierce's article "Gun Control in Germany 1928-1945" shows complete copies of the 1928 and 1938 acts, and the 1938 ministerial order, with English translations. I won't provide a link, but you can find it easily.

Also, I do not think that the 1938 act stopped foreigners from owning guns. It merely said that people who were not permanent residents (which included people stripped of their citizenship) could only be issued permits with authorization of higher bureaucrats.

TFD (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So basically it was the Regulation of 1938 which increased the restrictions on Jews owning arms, and not the law under which the regulation was issued? Collect (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. TFD (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So basically Germany used regulations and not laws to increase restrictions on gun ownership? Collect (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The 1938 law did not "increased the restrictions on Jews owning arms." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The 1938 law did not explicitly target the jews, but the "trustworthiness" clauses were applied against them very broadly. The later regulation did directly target the Jews. The 38 law I think is sometimes conflated by some discussing Nazi gun control , because of the later GCA'68 claims. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, although they could not legally have done that were there no gun control laws in place. TFD (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the law specifically put in an authorization for later regulations by fiat, rather than legislation. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So in the context of this article, is there any notable distinction between "regulations" and "laws"? Doesn't it all still fall under "control"? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

One would think so. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The law did not specifically put in an authorization for later regulations by "fiat" (aka "ministerial order"). The discretion of officials to decline permits was already part of the 1928 Act. TFD (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That is the law I meant, though I can see that it can be confusing since we are talking about multiple laws. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Any law that gives discretion to a Minister in granting licenses can be used to discriminate against minorities. So on December 1938 the nazis revoked the driver licenses of Jews and therefore their right to own a car. It does not mean that vehicle and driver registration were introduced to facilitate the Holocaust or that it was an inevitable prelude, or that your state government is going to start door-to-door car confiscations any day now. Automobiles are more effective tools in evading the police than firearms. TFD (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

What we are left with is simple: German laws and "regulations" as late as 1938 were used to restrict gun ownership by certain large populations within Greater Germany. That means part one of my analysis appears accepted. The issue now is about the "Holocaust connection" which is a separate issue, and one of political opinions and not of specific facts. Its inclusion here depends on whether it is considered a widespread argument in the gun control debate by some groups, not whether it is "true" or not. Collect (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not see how it relates to any gun control dispute outside the U.S. because first sources do not say it does and second, there is no dispute outside the U.S. over the authority of legislatures to enact gun control legislation. And if there were no Holocaust connection, then it has no relevance. TFD (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Go back to my initial post wherein I explain why the issue of "increased restrictions" can stand on its own as "fact" and allow the second issue: how to treat opinions "opinions" which may well be totally wrong is distinct from recognizing the factual nature of the first issue. Opinions remain "opinions" in the debate whether or not there is any "real connection" involved. Two distinct issues, and I believe you have now agreed on part one. Collect (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it enough to state that the Nazi's used gun control as a means to exert control over (and/or suppress) particular segments of the population, the Jews in this case, prior to and during WW2? Just about everyone alive knows (and believes, sigh...) what happened to them during the war. Is in necessary to explicitly state it in this article? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The Nazis did not use 'gun control', they used guns, and a system of industrialised violence resulting in genocide. Beyond the facile propaganda of the U.S. gun lobby there are no credible sources asserting that 'gun control' was of any significance in this process. And Misplaced Pages is not a platform for the promotion of propaganda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The nazis did not use gun control as a means to exert control over Jews. Rather the withdrawal of their privileges to own firearms was one of many of the rights and privileges available to citizens which the nazis removed. And of course Gypsies, who were also victims of nazism, had been deprived of the right to keep and bear arms under the 1928 Act and had never been allowed to have weapons. That is what rs say. TFD (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wait, we can agree that the Nazis restricted (prevented, took away, confiscated, etc.) ownership of guns by the Jews and Gypsies, but we can't agree that those efforts were a form of "gun control"? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. It isn't what 'we agree' that matters. It is whether it is seen as significant by reliable sources that matters. Which they don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

While Andys comment above is the more Misplaced Pages Correct argument, a more intuitive approach to the issue (even though that doesn't matter much, it's the reliable sources that matter) is that although we maybe agree that the Nazis forbade ownership of cars by Jews, we're not agreeing that the Nazis were practicing "road traffic reduction measures". Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not even about that. It doesn't matter if it was "gun control" or not. it doesn't matter how effective it was. It doesn't matter even if it ever happened. What matters is that it is a core argument, right or wrong, that is used against gun control in the United States, and to a much lesser extent outside the US. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

First there is no argument whatsoever about the right of legislatures outside the U.S. to control gun ownership and use. Second, the Hitler argument in the U.S. is limited to extreme gun rights activists. TFD (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

That makes no difference. It's possibly the gun-toter's #1 mantra. If it's ad hitlerum propaganda then say so, but pretending that the argument does not exist would be unencyclopedic.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The argument AFAIK was first used in 1968 when the Congress brought in a national gun control law. Opponents then said Hitler did the same thing in order to strengthen his dictatorial power and to facilitate the holocaust. But in every other country there were already national gun control laws and no categorical opposition to them. So the Hitler argument does not come up. In Canada for example, the long gun registry is a topic of dispute, but gun control per se is not. I know of no Canadian politician or notable organization who use calls for scrapping gun control laws or who uses the Hitler argument. If you think the argument has any significance, please provide a source. TFD (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The most extensive use is as a tool (posters etc., possibly with an implicit argument) rather than as an argument. For example, try googling "All of those in favor of gun control raise your right hand" and look at "images" North8000 (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@TFD: Can I get some clarification? Are you maintaining that the "Nazi Gun Control" argument does not exist in the minds of the pro-gun crowd? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

what would the rough lines of your proposed change be then? What content to what section? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the Hitler analogy exists in the minds of some of the pro-gun crowd. However there is not a pro-gun crowd in the U.S. sense outside the U.S. There is no debate about whether gun legislation should be repealed, only debate about how those laws should be written. If you think that the Hitler argument exists, then please provide sources. TFD (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

RFC is happening at US gun control article

FYI, I have started an RFC here regarding whether or not the check-against-tyranny argument for gun rights is confined to the United States or not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of two related RfCs and request for participation

There are two RfCs in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

• RfC re use of the term "assault weapon"
• RfC re use of the term "high-capacity magazine"

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

RFC regarding Nazis

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Would it be okay to insert the following short paragraph (plus appropriate footnotes) in place of the following long paragraph? INSERT:

REMOVE:

Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as proposer. I mentioned previously that I'd make this proposal. It's a matter of undue weight, and summary style, among other things.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Suggestion and Support Reduce the iteration of "Nazi" and try to use some more neutral language in the proposal. "German government under the Hitler Regime" would be more logical, IMO. (as made less relevant by further discussion) Collect (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC) If an argument exists and the argument can be shown to exist (having nothing to do with whether it is a good argument or a bad one) then Misplaced Pages must acknowledge its actual existence. Collect (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, and delete the lot. Misplaced Pages is not a platform for the promotion of pseudohistorical fringe theories entirely unsupported by academic historiography. Any inclusion of this absurd argumentum ad Hitlerum in an international overview of firearms regulation issues is entirely undue, and violates multiple Misplaced Pages policies - and I would remind contributors that regardless of any decision reached here, local 'consensus' cannot override Misplaced Pages policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @AndyTheGrump: - Hey Andy, while I agree with what you're saying, it seems like you are "opposing" a small mention of pseudohistorical fringe theories, in favor of a large mention of pseudohistorical fringe theories. Is not a "lesser of two evils" thing? NickCT (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    • No. I am opposing discussing the pseudohistorical fringe theories of a small minority confined (to the degree of any meaningful significance) to a single country at all, in an article supposedly giving an international overview. This RfC is fundamentally flawed, in that it fails to include the option to exclude the material entirely, despite the fact that WP:FRINGE (based on WP:NPOV policy) making clear that we do not include fringe arguments in articles on mainstream topics. In my opinion, any decision reached here that doesn't take WP:NPOV policy into account is contrary to policy, and invalid. I have no intention of supporting one invalid option and another. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
      • @AndyTheGrump: - "fails to include the option to exclude the material entirely" - Understand and partially agree. Though I still think you'd be better served by changing your position to something like "Delete Paragraph Entirely or Support". NickCT (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I've now done that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Andy. I also just lost an hour of my life reading over the previous discussions going back about a month, and I see numerous flat assertions of the claim that this is an international debate, but the only sources provided were few and apparently grossly mischaracterized. My conclusion is that there is no justification at all for inclusion of such a claim in this article. siafu (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not clear, at least not for me, if you are in favor of the long or the short paragraph. Could you please clarify. Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per the overwhelming consensus of talk page policy-based statements over the past year. SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, and Delete the whole "Outside of academia" paragraph - and leave the Nazi gun control argument out in any form. Lightbreather (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Neither is good, but the proposed change is less bad. Note: I think most of the "oppose" votes above are actually opposing both of the paragraphs. Homunq (࿓) 00:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC) ps. Please comment on other RfCs such as this one.
• Support - Mentioning "Nazism" in relation to Gun Control ought to be done in as brief a manner as possible. The "Gun control advocates are Nazis" position represents a kind of WP:FRINGE, and it ought to be treated as such. NickCT (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose or Delete Re-reading others comments, I agree I don't like the alternatives, so I think deleting would be best. Thenub314 (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose or better yet Delete Fringe means that if we mention this we must also present the opposing view, which the first paragraph does not. I also do not like the second one overly and would rather it was much shorter, at most mentioning and then discounting the idea. By arguing so much it appears to give it more weight than it deserves. Still it is better than the first, although I would most support deleting the whole paragraph altogether.AIRcorn (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Insert & Remove short & long paragraph respectively. There is simply no reason to clutter the article with the details of the arguments that are, in any case, presented in the links. Besides, the rule about fringe arguments evidently applies. Undue emphasis should be discouraged. -The Gnome (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Proposal 2:

Six demurrals is sufficient to counter one position, I trust, as sledgehammers make for bad writing. And this also reduces use of "Nazi" in the two paragraphs. I trust this is in accord with sources. Collect (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The RFC suggests replacing the long paragraph with the short one. Are you suggesting to include both a long paragraph and a short one?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Amazingly enough - yes. I note the sentence in the first paragraph is the historical one - and it is not fully congruent with the issues stated in the second paragraph. Linking them seems to be contrary to common sense here. Collect (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@User:AndyTheGrump. There is a difference between promotion and description. Misplaced Pages describes the sick Nazi ideology all over the place, but that does not mean Wikipedua is promoting it. To say that I am promoting anything here violates WP:NPA, in my opinion. Moreover, the pending RFC proposal would greatly reduce this material, not increase it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

'Sick Nazi ideology' is the subject of academic historiography. Obnoxious NRA propaganda about it isn't. And if you want argue that me objecting to the violation of WP policies is a personal attack, go ahead - but watch out for the boomerang. And as for the RfC, given that it entirely fails to offer the sole policy-compliant option at all, it is clearly invalid from the start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There are a vast number of reliable sources that discuss and describe the check-against-tyranny argument against gun control (both with and without mentioning Nazis), and you are arguing here (as best I can understand it) that Misplaced Pages should nevertheless be wiped clean of that descriptive material. I won't list the various adjectives that seem to describe your apparent position, but will say that it defies policy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE and the policy it is based on, WP:NPOV cover it well enough. This material does not belong in this article for the same reason that the Flat-Earth theory does not belong in our article on geology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Does the Nazi's fringe racial theory belong in an article about WWII?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because again it is a subject discussed by academic historiography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The descriptions of the check-against-tyranny argument (both with and without Nazis) occur in a vast number of reliable sources, and no one disputes that they are historically-accurate descriptions of a big chunk of the gun rights movement. More generally, you previously encouraged inclusion of such material in the US article, but maybe now you sense that it can be removed from Misplaced Pages entirely?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• 'Foreign countries'? This is supposed to be an international topic,. in an international encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • And when used after a specific country is named, it refers to countries other than that named country. Common usage of the word, in fact. Collect (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    • And you can cite a source for the supposed 'fact'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Only a few million usages -- is there a point to your cavil about using a standard word when referring to countries other than the country named? Collect (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
        • My objections are (a) that it isn't common usage, despite your unverified assertions, and (b) that it is utterly obnoxious for Misplaced Pages to be characterising the entire world beyond the U.S. as 'foreign'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

'other countries' would be much better IMO. The use of 'foreign' to mean a country that is not one's own is far more common than the usage Collect is stating. I've consulted OED, Google Define and Wiktionary. (OED definition available online is not yet fully updated - I can consult the print Shorter OED later if that would be helpful, but I doubt it'll be substantially different on this point). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Shorter OED agrees. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The wording incorrectly implies that people who support the right to keep and bear arms as a check against tyranny oppose gun control. In fact in DC v Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms as a check against tyranny but did not say that all restrictions on gun ownership by citizens was unconstitutional. Importantly the decision was on a D.C. law, not the Gun Control Act 1968. If that law comes before the Court, it is likely that it would be considered constitutional. The Hitler argument is that the 1968 law was similar to the 1938 Nazi law and could be used by the federal government to . It is actually an extreme articulation of the guns are a check against tyranny argument, not its main articulation. TFD (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate a bit? Which part of the proposed wording implies that?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"In the United States, some gun owners say the right of private gun ownership is a check against tyranny.... Some American gun rights gun rights supporters ." The wording conflates the two views. TFD (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that they are two different views - and should be noted as such. Collect (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where those "owners" or "supporters" purportedly oppose gun control.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@User:Siafu. So, do you want to keep the longer paragraph? The RFC suggests replacing it with something much shorter. This stuff is almost entirely confined to the United States, and I don't think the proposed language suggests otherwise, but even if it were totally confined to the US, I would think it merits a description here, because sometimes what happens only in the US is notable globally.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The Four Deuces the GCA68 argument is merely one part of the Hitler argument. (A part that I agree is likely wrong, based on the full text of the GCA debates, in the GCA article talk) But, the Hitler argument is merely one part of the Tyranny argument. There are numerous quotes from the founders and others through history, long before Hitler, discussing the Arms and the check on Tyranny. In the historical context at least it is indisputable that the "defense against tyranny" argument took place (indeed originated) outside the US (Blackstone for instance), but in the modern context it does become much more exclusive (possibly completely exclusive) to the US. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The Hitler argument is not just that guns are necessary as a defense against tyranny (which probably was the reason for the Second Amendment) but that gun control laws are a violation of the Second Amendment right. You cannot argue that laws like the 1938 German law are a reasonable restriction on the right to keep and bear arms and that they are a violation of the right to keep and bear arms. The Scalia Court for example has affirmed the right to keep and bear arms but has indicated it will allow reasonable restrictions. A U.S. court of appeal btw decided that the Second Amendment "codified a preexisting right that historically has been enjoyed by law-abiding, responsible citizens...." "" Of course the right not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech not." Thus, the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess for every purpose, to possess every type of weapon, to possess at every place, or to possess by every person." TFD (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I just made a bold edit to try to end this dickering. Lightbreather (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I demur on not including the fact that the argument has a long history in the US, anteceding Hitler by over a century. Collect (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I also demur on someone then boldly removing the sentence -- only to place a less accurate sentence under "history" where it is less relevant that where it was placed initially. Cheers -- BRD means you have to discuss the edit, not make more bold edits. Collect (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, Collect, re your adding this unsourced, one-sentence paragraph back again a second time:

In the United States, some gun owners say the right of private gun ownership is a check against tyranny. Such a position has a long history in gun politics in the United States, and has been noted in some other countries.

The next paragraph is the bold, sourced one I added to replace the over-long one that gives too much weight to the theory that Nazi gun laws are a form of "tyranny" - conflating that tyranny with the kind the founding fathers referred to. It also, as Anything and others have been trying to do, suggests that people outside of a small and vocal group of U.S. extremists are actually concerned about this. It was added for no other reason than to once again start giving undue weight to a theory being pushed by a tiny minority. That's why it was removed.

That said, there's no reason not to mention briefly in the United States that the founding fathers were worried about tyranny - like taxation without representation. Lightbreather (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You added a less accurate sentence under "history" than the one you removed where it is clearly apt per discussion here. And the fact is, unlikely as you think it, that non-extremists can oppose gun control. It is not our task to label everyone who opposes gun control a "Godwinian debater" at all. If we state a reason for some to oppose it, we ought similarly include other reasons, lest we use straw men in articles. Note that the sentence I proposes says nothing whatsoever about "Nazis" and thus I fail to see your problem with it. BTW, I had thought we agreed that this was readily sourceable above -- and you did not source your limited rendition of it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. If what I added was less accurate, it can be improved. But the statements "private gun ownership is a check against tyranny" and that it's "a position has a long history in gun politics in the United States" belong in the "United States" section of this article, not under "Studies, debates, or opinions." Neither statement is a study, a debate, or an opinion.

Where did I say that non-extremists can't oppose gun control? Because I'll correct it if I did. Also, I don't know what a "Godwinian debater" is. Lightbreather (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You have now removed the source for the check on tyranny claim =- and linked it to JHalbrook! I fear this is an utter perversion of the editorial process as the cited source says nothing all related to Halbrook!. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No, if you look at the series of edits and edit summaries it's quite clear what I did. What you'd added, as I said before, was appropriate for the "United States" section, but not to try to add weight to the Halbrook/LaPierre thoeries about tyranny that some U.S. gun owners believe that's in the "Studies, debates, and opinions" section. So I added Halbrook's definition of the 2A and tyranny to the "Studies..." section, and I MOVED your material to the "United States" section. And I improved that section to make clear what every little Americans learns in school: that the tyranny the founders were thinking of was the kind that King George was at - taxation without representation (not genocide). I don't know if that simple fact is in the Gun politics in the U.S. article, but it ought to be. Lightbreather (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You deleted a clearly reliable source from a major publisher indicating that the tyranny argument antedated Hitler by a century or so -- and then conflated the claim to make it seem like the only usage is by LaPierre and Halbrook. The issue is "studies" in the section title - not "what someone seeks to use as a straw man argument" or the like. And it is clear that your edit is not based on reliable academic sources (else you would not have removed a strong reliable academic source) but on what you wish to convey to readers -- that LaPierre and Halbrook are on the edge of Godwin's Law with a fringe position, when the other source makes clear that the tyranny argument was not a fringe position, and had nothing to do with Hitler - who came well after (a century or so after, in fact) that argument appeared. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I deleted nothing, as I explained above.

Is this, from 1981, the "clearly reliable source" from a "major publisher" that you're referring to? How many of our readers can actually read it? The source I gave is the same, existing, 2000 source for the Nazi-gun-law-check-against-tyranny argument, in which Halbrook gives the text of the Second Amendment and says:

This right ... reflects a universal and historical power of the people in a republic to resist tyranny.

1. The Issue of gun control, Volume 53 H.W. Wilson, 1981; 192 pages; page 43
2. Halbrook, S. P. (2000). "Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews" (PDF). Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law. 17 (3): 483–535.

The reader can read the source, and it indicates that the tyranny argument antedated Hitler by a century or so, just as you say the other one does. Where exactly is this straw man argument you're referring to? Lightbreather (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

So you assert the 1981 source copied from the 2000 source? Really? Really??? Sorry, I suggest that the Draper source is a more reliable source for the particular argument at hand than is Halbrook's 2000 book. Try Gun Control: Threat to Liberty or Defense against Anarchy? By Wilbur Edel; Praeger :Mason's final effort to amend the previously agreed-upon provisions makes the reason for this clear. He acknowledged that an absolute prohibition against a standing army in peacetime might be unsafe from the standpoint of defense readiness, but as a guard against the tyranny of military rule he urged the convention to preface the clause regarding organization of the militia ... from the Constitutional Convention, a couple of years before Hitler. But English political and legal experience imbued early Americans—who were, thanks to their widespread possession of and welldeveloped skills in using weapons, themselves freshly ex-Englishmen—with the understanding that personal possession of weapons was necessary. This was both for civic purposes—the common defense of the polity against both external enemies and internal tyranny—and for the personal one of defending the most basic of classical liberal rights: that of self-preservation. from a Cato Institute book Gun Control on Trial: Inside the Supreme Court Battle over the Second Amendment Brian Doherty . Implicit in the Bill of Rights, as in the entire structure of the Constitution, are the twin hallmarks of traditional liberal thought:trust in the people; and distrust in government.” 63 Some proponents of this interpretation stress that the right to keep and bear arms was meant to guarantee protection against government tyranny. 64 Liberal constitutional law theorist, William Van Alstyne, finds an individual rights view of the Second Amendment in a textual reading of the amendment. He argues that the amendment “speaks to sources of security within a free state, within which… ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’” He explains that this language guarantees the individual's right to have arms for self-defense and self-preservation. 65 Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Tribe, a person closely associated with liberal politics and the Democratic Party, also concludes that “it is impossible to deny that some right to bear arms is among the rights of American citizens.” Oxford University Press , is interesting For the Defense of Themselves and the State: The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms By Clayton E. Cramer; Praeger. The twelfth request was: "Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion."26 This request is the most extreme form of "the right to keep and bear arms." The phrase "never disarm any Citizen" leaves little opportunity to argue that New Hampshire's request was for a collective right. The conditions under which New Hampshire was prepared to accept Congress disarming someone--"Actual Rebellion"--suggests that the right to arms was so basic that only the most serious of crimes could justify taking it away. again from the Constitutional Convention, at least three years before Hitler was around. Cheers -- how many academic sources will you need? Collect (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a false dichotomy - one either supports the right to keep and bear arms or one supports the Gun Control Act 1968 (which is similar to the 1938 Hitler law). In fact as discussed only extremists who represent a tiny portion of American thinking think that the U.S. has no authority to limit the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms. No one argues for example that we should be passing out AK47's to the inmates at Alcatraz. TFD (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope. And assertions that positions held by real people are "false dichotomies" does not help n assuring that the article represents their positions and not the truth. Our task is to show what people actually think as reported in reliable sources, not what the right people think. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Who are these "real people?" There are no mainstream sources in the U.S. opposed to gun control - just a number of fringe sources. The false dichotomy comes from editors who think that one either supports the Second Amendment as an individual right to keep and bear arms or one supports gun control. In fact. mainstream writers such as Scalia (of the Supreme Court of the U.S.) support both. TFD (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Real people can support some "gun control" and still believe that it is a "right" under the Bill of Rights, and that guns may be a defence against tyranny. In fact, polls regularly show such overlaps. I had read your post as indicating that you believe one either supports the right to keep and bear arms or one supports the Gun Control Act 1968 which I demur on. Apparently your wording was less than ideal on that. If so, then I am unsure why you made it as a reply to a post which simply enumerated sources indicating that the issue of guns/tyranny was strongly and specifically discussed at the Constitutional Convention and in the Bill of Rights debates. Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You have read my post wrong. I said the belief that "one either supports the right to keep and bear arms or one supports the Gun Control Act 1968" is a "false dichotomy." A dichotomy is "a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different." The word "false" negates this view. Glad we got that cleared up. TFD (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Update

During this RFC, the material in question has been substantially changed. The present version is as follows:

1. The Issue of gun control, Volume 53 H.W. Wilson, 1981; 192 pages; page 43
2. Halbrook 2000, p. 484. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFHalbrook2000 (help)
3. LaPierre 1994, p. 88-87,167-168.
4. Bryant 2012b, p. 412. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBryant2012b (help)
5. Bryant 2012b, p. 414. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBryant2012b (help)
6. Harcourt 2004, pp. 671, 677. sfn error: multiple targets (5×): CITEREFHarcourt2004 (help)
7. Spitzer 2004, p. 728. sfn error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFSpitzer2004 (help)
8. Nuckols 2013.

I have no idea how this development might affect the status of this RFC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It was announced in this discussion three days ago.

I just made a bold edit to try to end this dickering.

It went through a BRD process, the result of which has stuck for a couple days. Considering numerous past discussions on this topic here, and on the Gun politics in the U.S. page, and an ArbCom that is just wrapping up... Agh. To heck with it. I'm starting a new RfC related to this. Neither the first proposal or the second had support. In fact, votes and comments seemed to point toward removing the "Outside of academia" paragraph entirely - without replacing it with anything. Lightbreather (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

United States

This section should begin by saying that the Second Amendment was decided by the Supreme Court to limit the extent of gun control laws that could be enacted. It might be noted that a tiny fringe read the Second Amendment to disallow any gun control laws aimed at citizens, although weight may not justify mentioning them.

The wording is incorrect. Jurists such as Scalia who argue there is an individual right to keep and bear arms reject the argument that there are natural rights. Instead they take an originalist view of the Bill of Rights, and see the right to self-defense as a positive law. Hence prisoners facing execution have no right to self-defense, because that was not a right already existing in 1789 when the Bill of Rights was enacted.

While Jefferson indeed quoted Beccaria, there is no evidence he endorsed it. He put many quotes in his Commonplace Book. The suggestion that he endorsed this view is part of the pro-gun movement argument and if mentioned should be described as such.

It would be better to summarize what rs about gun control in the U.S. say. The current wording is POV OR.

TFD (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Idiot question re "anchor"

Here's my idiot question for today. The article, right above the contested Nazi-gun-laws and "tyranny" section has this in it:

"anchor|Gun control in Nazi Germany"

... but the whole thing in curly brackets instead of quotes. Why? How is that used? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Since section titles can change and thus their location on WP, it's used as a permanent anchor of sorts as long as the template is kept there. Its handy for contentious or often changed articles. Good question! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Works basically like \label{} in LaTeX. See Template:anchor. siafu (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Nazi gun laws are not tyranny in the ancient Greek or founders' sense

Dang, guys! We're sooo close to getting this hammered out. But Halbrook's and LaPierre's Nazi gun control theories are WP:FRINGE and it's WP:SYNTH on any good, general reference editor's part to smoosh it together with the check-against-tyranny that the ancient Greeks or the founding fathers had in mind.

As long as you keep on trying to do this - without a preponderance of high-quality, reliable, verifiable sources - you're going to keep running into trouble. Let it go. Develop a fringe/historical revisionism article and quit trying to legitimize and add undo weight that scholarly research and mainstream media do not support. Lightbreather (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No, we are not going to have another idiotic debate about what exactly we think the word 'tyranny' means - our personal interpretations of what the word means are completely and utterly irrelevant to the content of this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources that don't mention guns

I object to this edit, and not just because it goes beyond 3RR. The edit summary says: "mea culpa. the first time i added this, i left off one of the two sources. neither mentions guns, but most definitely tyranny."

If the sources do not mention guns, then why are they in this Misplaced Pages article? I don't think that they're particularly relevant here. I would revert, except that I already have two reverts on this article today. Maybe a self-revert would be considered?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

They're there to put TYRANNY in context. It's very relevant. If we're going to say that the concept of a check against tyranny goes back to our American forefathers, we also ought to say what tyranny meant in those days.I'm about to go make supper, and I am dead tired. I'll be back tomorrow. Lightbreather (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty much the epitome of WP:Original research to do this kind of thing, especially after an objection has been raised, and then there's 4RR which I guess doesn't matter at this article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I posted the salient bits from the D of I on his UT page -- and it is quite clear that military issues were at the forefront, not the tax issues. Collect (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Although certainly taxes were a form of Tyrranny to the founders, their definition was in fact quite expansive. Just one of the major sources at the time. http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/locke/loc-218.htm Gaijin42 (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Almost there

I could almost accept how we're presenting the fringe Nazi-gun-control, security-against-tyranny material until these two edits.. They, once again, try to give the whole notion more weight than it merits. Lightbreather (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

How would you propose to improve?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm really tired, and I'm calling it a night. I'll be back tomorrow. Lightbreather (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

And the edits are not acceptable per Misplaced Pages policy - including WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Collect, which edits are you referring to? The two that LB mentioned: ?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The ones where LB seemed to think that the "tyranny" argument was not from the days of the Constitutional Convention, and has naught to do with Hitler -- contrary to his removal of reliable sources making it abundantly clear that taxation was well down the list of grievances. Collect (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant OK. I've had a night's rest, breakfast, and coffee. Here goes. Yesterday, I replaced an overlong, WP:UNDUE paragraph about the fringe Nazi gun control theory in the Studies, debate, and opinions section with a much briefer version that links to a WP:FRINGE article about Nazi gun control.

U.S. gun-rights advocates Stephen Halbrook and Wayne LaPierre believe that Nazi gun control, and gun laws in other authoritarian regimes, were a form of tyranny that contributed significantly to past genocides. This hypothesis is not supported by mainstream scholarship.

1. Halbrook, Stephen P. (2000). "Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews" (PDF). Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law. 17 (3): 483–535.
2. LaPierre, Wayne (1994). Guns, Crime, and Freedom. Washington, D.C.: Regnery. OCLC 246629786.
3. Michael S. Bryant (2012). "Holocaust Imagery and Gun Control". In Gregg Lee Carter (ed.). Guns in American Society. ABC-CLIO. pp. 411–415. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1.
4. Harcourt, Bernard E. (2004). "On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians)". Fordham Law Review. 73 (2): 653–680.
5. Spitzer, Robert J. (2004). "Don't Know Much About History, Politics, or Theory: A Comment". Fordham Law Review. 73 (2): 721–730.

I could've lived with that. Like Andythegrump and some of the other editors, I personally think this material doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages at all, but, as a way to break the bunker mentality and move on to other tasks, a Nazi gun control article - edited like the fringe topic that it is - is a workable compromise.

However, you and Collect then proceeded to try to give the topic undue weight again. First, you appended something to the end of the simple paragraph, with the edit summary "Studies, debate, and opinions: mention pertinent section of sub-article." Then Collect added a paragraph above the simple paragraph, with the edit summary "Studies, debate, and opinions: the 'check against tyranny' position antecedes Hitler by a century and should be noted as such."

Net effect (minus the duplicated sources and Wikilinks):

In the United States, some gun owners say the right of private gun ownership is a check against tyranny. Such a position has a long history in gun politics in the United States, and has been noted in some other countries.

U.S. gun-rights advocates Stephen Halbrook and Wayne LaPierre believe that Nazi gun control, and gun laws in other authoritarian regimes, were a form of tyranny that contributed significantly to past genocides. This hypothesis is not supported by mainstream scholarship, but is an element of gun politics in the United States.

You sandwiched the fringe theory between an uncontroversial fact and a misrepresented fact - and both additions direct the reader to Gun politics in the U.S. (the first to the top of the article, the second to the "Security against tyranny" section that Anything has added Nazi gun control material to) rather than the Nazi gun control fringe article.

How to improve the article in regards to this Nazi gun control argument? Remove the bread and leave the meat. The top part has been removed. Good. The bottom part that read "but is an element of..." now reads "though it is a substantial element of..." That is absolute B.S. Scholars and mainstream media don't say that, and neither should Misplaced Pages. Lightbreather (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

In the United States, some gun owners say the right of private gun ownership is a check against tyranny. Such a position has a long history in gun politics in the United States, and has been noted in some other countries.

Is directly supported by reliable sources (although you removed one reliable source for it - I showed a number of others on the talk page).

U.S. gun-rights advocates Stephen Halbrook and Wayne LaPierre believe that Nazi gun control, and gun laws in other authoritarian regimes, were a form of tyranny that contributed significantly to past genocides. This hypothesis is not supported by mainstream scholarship,

is also supported by reliable sources.

but is an element of gun politics in the United States.

is clearly supported by reliable sources.

If I wanted to use "substantial" that word would be in there -- I do not read things into sentences which ain't in them and is not my problem.

Is there a reason I need to make sure a word which is not in a sentence is not in the sentence? Note: the main section is about views, and is not limited to "Nazi" stuff, and my position on all of this has been clear for a long time --

If we only use the "Nazi stuff" we set up a straw man argument which throws the historical argument out with the bathwater. I trust you do not wish to do that. Collect (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC) Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

"you removed one reliable source for it" Untrue, as explained in this comment. But even if it were true, it wouldn't matter, per my last comment regarding how your addition and Anything's added WP:UNDUE weight to the fringe Nazi gun control argument. I don't think I explain it any more clearly than I already have. Lightbreather (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• • My edits reduced the weight given the Nazi argument substantially - so I find your comments less than absolutely accurate here. is very clear: you removed The Issue of gun control, Volume 53] H.W. Wilson, 1981; 192 pages; page 43 which is a WP:RS compliant source. You "moved" a different claim into another section entirely (not the claim supported by the source) and tacked the reliable source onto your wording of a different claim. Which you made into a comment about "taxation without representation" removing any connection to guns <g>. ( This position has a long history in gun politics in the United States. shows your striking out the topic which is supported by the source I had given. Collect (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

shows the latest excision of the reliable source provided -- sorry this removal is absolutely clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a separate edit, today, and the edit summary says exactly why it was removed: Considering it's placement in Gun politics in the U.S. including this in this summary is WP:UNDUE. Lightbreather (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah -- so you admit you removed a reliable source which is directly on point for the topic of "check against tyranny" antedating Hitler by well over three years? (Actually over 150 years) and your claim is that "the article does not need this information"? Sorry - that does not wash. Collect (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

What is your point? Until just now, you've been accusing me of removing something yesterday. This edit TODAY, removed this sentence:

Among many U.S. gun owners, there is a belief that the right of private gun ownership provides security against tyranny.

...from the very top (lead sentence) of the United States section of this article - the general (global) Gun control article. That sentence redirects to the Security against tyranny section of Gun politics in the U.S.... which is already Wikilinked earlier in the article. Why did you restore it? It is unrelated to anything else in this article, and it gives redirects to and gives WP:UNDUE weight to a specific section of the U.S. article. Lightbreather (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

(od) You removed a sentence from a section discussing "tyranny defence" where the straw man is "OMG - Nazi!" and this sentence -- which does not Wikilink anywhere shows that the argument is not just the Nazi straw man, but is an historic position in the US, cited to a reliable source, gives additional information of value to the reader, which is, in fact, the reason for an encyclopedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You added it with the Wikilink here ; you removed the Wikilink here. So yes, now it doesn't Wikilink. Thanks for fixing that. (Anythingyouwant put it there yesterday.) Lightbreather (talk) 21:17, 23 April 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 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 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. .

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 . 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.

1. ^ Harcourt, Bernard E. (2004). "On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians)". Fordham Law Review. 73 (2): 653–680.
2. Kohn, Abigail (2004). Shooters: Myths and Realities of America's Gun Cultures. Oxford University Press. p. 187. ISBN 0-19-515051-1.
3. ^ Spitzer, Robert J. (2004). "Don't Know Much About History, Politics, or Theory: A Comment". Fordham Law Review. 73 (2): 721–730.
4. ^ Bryant, Michael S. (2012). Carter, Gregg Lee (ed.). Guns in American Society: An encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law. Vol. 1. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. pp. 411–414. ISBN 9780313386701.
5. Nuckols, Mark (January 31, 2013). "Why the 'Citizen Militia' Theory Is the Worst Pro-Gun Argument Ever". The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly Group.

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

RfC: Remove Nazi gun control argument?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the Nazi gun control argument be removed from this article? Lightbreather (talk) 14:32, 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. The fringe pseudohistorical speculation is complete nonsense. QuackGuru (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Modify Because Misplaced Pages 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. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 25 April 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)

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)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Firearms articles
• Unknown-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
• Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
• Start-Class weaponry articles
• Weaponry task force articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment