Talk:Firearm

WikiProject Military history

(Rated C-Class)

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. C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military science and technology task force Weaponry task force

Consolidation, disambiguation, etc.

This articles clearly needs to be broken into separate small arms and artillery pages. Also, there is a lot of necessary info in the articles "trigger", "ammunition", and "action" etc that are repeated here. I think a new overall topology along these lines is in order:

• Guns (or whatever; on this page you would choose between artillery and small arms, so discussion of artillery and howitzers etc doesn't take up so much room in the firearms article)
  • • Firearms (mainly to focus on the histroy and different major forms of firearms; this would be a summary version of the current "firearm" page, a lot like the current one minus the following, which it will clearly link to)
      • • Firearms: loading mechanism (currently called "firearms action", this deserves its own page since it's a sizable and esoteric topic; this article would absorb pages like "gas operation" and "recoil operation")
        • Firearms: firing mechanism (currently called "trigger", which isn't really an appropriate name and again, a sizable and esoteric topic; to absorb a myriad of articles like "percussion cap", "wheellock", "cap lock", sear, etc)
        • Firearms: ammunition

...and so forth. That will clean up the firearms article, which can then become a little more scholarly. Any objections? I'm going to start if there are no protests.Erdesky 03:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Firearms is a more general category than guns, which constitute a subclass of firearms. It would be useful to use separate articles for detail on such topics as ammunition, etc., but it is important that the high-level article give a top-level description of such components; the reader should be able to comprehend what is being said from the text on the main page alone, without having to look things up in other windows/tabs. — DAGwyn 07:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Need a Reference?

I've only got one with me on hand, but its pretty broad and extensive. If you care for me to insert it in here, let me know. Otherwise, I'll stay out. Colonel Marksman 17:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Assuming it isn't a forum board or a retail seller site, it'd probably be ok. Go ahead. If it's unacceptable it'll get reverted, so no worries. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Anatomy diagrams?

This article uses a lot of terminology which is tough for a non-expert to put together with physical reality. It seems like a few annotated illustrations would go a long way toward more thoroughly explaining what the pieces of various firearms are. Maybe there needs to be a separate article for Firearm terminology (which is *not* the same as the Firearms:Terminology category)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.129.224.36 (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Disambiguation

We already have Firearms the computer game and Firearm the comic book. Time for a disambiguation page??

Lots42 19:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Top photo

Why was the photo of a collection of different kinds of rifles replaced by a photo of a Glock 22? — DAGwyn 15:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Legal Issues

Even the page on spud huns has a section that discusses the legality of such weapons. So why does a much more earnest article such as this lack the afore-mentioned section? Liamoliver 17:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The laws vary so widely, and change so often, that not much can be said about the matter within the article. Why do we need to say anything more than the small amount already present? Are you worried about liability, or what? — DAGwyn 18:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge

DISAGREE - Someone has proposed to merge Accurizing into Firearm, but I don't think that's a good idea. Arthurrh 17:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

DISAGREE - That would just be clutter! It wouldn't hurt to have a link to the Accurizing article, however. — DAGwyn 18:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

NaviBlock Firearm

To whom it may concern: If you compare to other top rated articles you will find, that NaviBlock's are part of them. To generally increase article quality in the firearms section this would help - like the infoboxes also do. Tom --Dan Wesson (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to explain it better - here (Category:Weapon navigational boxes [1]) i miss the template: 'Firearm' or 'Handgun'. I do not dare to introduce that. --Dan Wesson (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Arquebus?

Hello, I just added an illustration of a French gunner from the 15th century to the Background section that I got from a public domain history encyclopedia. Based upon the location and time period I'd assume it's an arquebus that he has shouldered and is lighting, but I'm not confident enough of that to make the ID myself. If anyone wants to update the image caption feel free. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 08:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Turkish cannon is NOT muzzle loading

That is why it is TWO parts. The breach is loaded and then screwed on to the barrel. Heat from the explosion limited the ability to unscrew the gun and reload.91.111.83.187 (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

False breeching

Hi. False breeching is (about to be) a disambiguation page. False breeching (firearm) now is a redlink. Perhaps it should be a redirect to Firearm? --Una Smith (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, this isn't a term used in firearms. A 'false breech', IIRC, is a plate used as a proofing tool to ensure firearm barrels were safe... maybe before further finishing. Better to identify a problem with the barrel halfway into the process than at the end. I don't know why it's even on the disambig page unless my 50-odd years of firearms experience was inadequate... shouldn't I have heard the term before now? Okay, maybe I have heard the term 'false breech' in regards to double-barreled shotguns... it's a bridge on the receiver that aids in sight alignment... gives the shooter the impression that there is a round breech at the rear of the barrels where one would be on a single shot. Still, that's false breech not breeching. Even then, it would only apply narrowly to an obscure design feature on Side-by-Side shotguns. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Searching for images of "false breeching", meaning the strap between shafts of a cart, I found some links to pages about weapons, including a book on Google Books that has a chapter on "false breeching and jointing locks".[2] In some other books, false breeching is a synonym for "break-off".[3][4] See also this; on Google Books, most hits are to 19th Century books on small arms. It appears the equestrian sense is fairly recent, because this term is largely absent from the many equestrian books on Google Books. --Una Smith (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The term is not 'false breeching' it is, 'false breech'. It is a design feature, not an action. If there's mention needed in an article on side-by-side firearms {Firearm action), then it needs to be no more than a sentence. I don't see the need for a disambig statement nor a separate article. I read the google books references, nearly all of them used the term 'false breech'. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what usage is more common or preferred, the term "false breeching" does occur in the books I cited. That is why I made False breeching a disambiguation page. It is not necessary that all entries on a disambiguation page link to separate articles, but it is helpful to explain each entry somewhere. The explanation can be as simple as a link to Wiktionary, or a section in a larger article. --Una Smith (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand your point, but there are two different terms. While 'false breeching' does occur, it appears to be a mere form of the term 'false breech' and should reflect that in the disambig page. My position is that the term 'false breech' is archaic, perhaps, and not used to any degree I know of these days. Therefore, it does not merit a separate article or even anything but passing mention in any regular article. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

One or the other term will be used in history sections of some articles, correct? Or for an article on 19th C firearms. Back to my original question: what article or article section should the entry on False breeching link to now? --Una Smith (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear enough. A false breech is a thing, not an action. False breeching should not link to any firearm related article. If you want to disambig the term false breech, redirect it to Firearm action. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Nukes4Tots, do you mean "false breeching" in the context of firearms should be suppressed, as somehow incorrect? --Una Smith (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like he is trying to censor you, only that you might be putting undue weight on a term that isn't regularly used by, well, by anybody. I did a google search for the term and came up with four hits in relation to firearms, all appeared to be OCR scans of, well, the SAME BOOK. That is quite obscure any way you look at it. It's odd that you cry "suppression" so soon in the discussion. He is just wanting you to justify an article or section in an article for something that shows up once on the internet. One hit does not an article make. I will make the counter argument that, uh, why are you trying to put undue weight on this term? It does not seem to warrant inclusion just from the point of not being noteworthy. --Winged Brick (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to fix incoming links to False breeching; to do that, I need somewhere to send the links that do not concern false breeching on animal carts. I found "false breeching" in multiple Wikipedia articles about firearms and other weapons. My question was about content, not user behavior: does Nukes4Tots think "false breeching" is a misstatement of "false breech"? On Google Books, "false breeching" returns 36 hits, mostly 19th Century books. Here are some of them in context:

• (technique) ON FALSE BREECHING AND JOINTING LOCKS. As this is but a mechanical operation, requiring little except good workmanship, but few observations are necessary
• (technique) The operations of false breeching, jointing locks, stocking, &c., are merely mechanical ; requiring, certainly, great skill and ability, but yet involving
• (thing) The screw which, passing through the trigger-plate and stock, secures the break-off, or false breeching.
• (thing) BREAK-OFF, OR FALSE BREECHING. — The piece of metal made fast to the stock by the cross-pin, into which the hooks of the breeches must be inserted before
• (thing) The mechanical names for the remaining principal parts of a gun are : " False-breeching ," where the ends of the breechings hook in, before the barrels
• (thing) False Breeching — The part where the nose of the breechings hook in, before the barrels can be laid in the stock.

Those books are on Google Books because they are out of copyright protection; Google is extremely search biased. What are reliable sources for gunsmithing and weapons in general? Aren't there any relevant encyclopedias or dictionaries? --Una Smith (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

A term that hasn't been used in literature in over 100 years... Only one book that I can see used it in terms of firearms. Hmm. Well, whatever dude. --Winged Brick (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Change in the lede to state that a firearm is a "tool," not a weapon.

I am reverting back to the version that states a firearm is a weapon due to fact that various dictionaries don't support such an assertion. e.g.

• http://www.answers.com/topic/firearm: "n. A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant."

• http://www.dictionary.net/firearm: Firearm \Fire"arm`\, n. A gun, pistol, or any weapon from a shot is discharged by the force of an explosive substance, as gunpowder.

• http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/firearm: a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder —usually used of small arms

Theserialcomma (talk) 05:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Listen, if you're going to hound me and follow me to every article I edit, please pick your battles well. This is one you're going to lose. First, you LIE by assigning something to me that I did not say. I didn't say a firearm was not a weapon, I said it was a tool that may be used as a weapon. Heck, a piece of paper can be used as a weapon. Don't quote the dictionary, either. Please, Drop the stick. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

in reference to this: perhaps you wish to rephrase your comment so that it has anything to do with the changes that i've proposed? also, 'status quo' is not a valid argument. if something is wrong, it gets changed, regardless of the status quo. if the dictionary definition of firearm is universally 'a weapon,' then you cannot insert your own POV and make it into a 'tool.' of course it's a tool - everything can be considered a tool by the vaguest definitions. but a firearm is a specific type of tool called a weapon. if you don't believe me, check the dictionary. i've given three links to definitions above. 'status quo' is no excuse for edit warring. find some reliable sources or dictionary definitions that support your assertion, but don't argue 'status quo,' don't make personal attacks, and don't use uncivil language. you know i'll report you, and it won't be worth the effort for either of us, so don't bother pushing it. just find some sources that support your claims or back off. Theserialcomma (talk) 07:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

From third opinion page: It seems obvious that it should be "weapon" and not "tool." The three dictionary definitions there, and Theserialcomma's explanation, kind of seal the deal. It would sound quite unusual to call it a "tool" when firearms are clearly weapons. This is my opinion on it. Alternatively, just don't define it as either of those things at the start, and figure out another way of doing it. It is right that nearly any article about a 3D, manmade object could be called a "tool" (an atomic bomb, a table, a can, you name it), but it's not a very useful characterisation. On the other hand, another way of rewriting it so it makes sense not using the "A firearm is a weapon that..." does not spring to mind. BTW, it looks a bit silly to have a reference above "weapon" there in the first line, as though it needed some justification. --Asdfg12345 12:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I haven't heard nuke's explanation about why he thinks it should be "tool" and not "weapon." I'd be willing to change my opinion pending what he says and what sources he can muster. But three dictionary definitions makes it pretty definitive, I think. I don't know what would top that.--Asdfg12345 12:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The term "weapon" implies a use that is not implicit in the tool. In reality, very few weapons are exclusively weapons. The vast majority of firearms are not used as weapons. They are used as tools for punching holes in paper targets, knocking over steel plates, or just making noise. The term weapon limits the definition of a firearm to only one of its many uses, that of a weapon. Beyond that, the term "weapon" has negative connotations and may be considered POV and pejorative. Firearms are tools. Their use as a weapon involves the choice of the owner, not the nature of the firearm. I've made these points before and the consensus was to keep it as a tool. However, the particular user who is warring with me over this one also thought that five references were not enough to validate that a compensator reduced percieved recoil. Could I get some input on the article Firearm from the WP:Firearms community? Thanks. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Firearms were invented to be weapons. Firearms are designed to be weapons. Firearms are built to be weapons. Use in recreation is very much secondary. This is like saying swords and spears are not solely weapons because they can be used for fun. Swords and spears are weapons.--Patton^t/c 18:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your original ruminations on the matter, Nukes4Tots. your philosophy of the semantics of 'weapon' is very important to this encyclopedia... not. either provide a reliable source, or save your energy and stop arguing. and as for your little scope shift about me requiring 5 sources for 'compensation reducing 'perceived' recoil': i only required 1, but you kept adding blog after blog after message board after blog. those are not reliable sources. not even 20 of those sources will be good enough. sorry. next time try adding 100 unreliable sources and i'll argue over those too. but let's keep this talk page about this article, and you can keep your petty, irrelevant bickering about an edit war from 2 months ago from a completely different article to yourself. this isn't a message board - it's meant only for relevant discussion to improving the article. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that was uncalled for. The discussion has ended favourably for you, so you start insulting him? That's dispicable behaviour, like kicking someone when they're down.--Patton^t/c 16:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL. it's not a contest to see who wins, it's about making sure the article is good. thank you for your input on the matter, regardless. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"it's about making sure the article is good" and insulting those who disagreed with you improves the quality of the encyclopedia how? Incivility is something I will not tolerate.--Patton^t/c 19:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

clearly you haven't read the actual insults he made first, or dont care. either way, i don't care, and i have zero interest in continuing this conversation with you on any article's talk page. if you really want to discuss incivility (which i don't tolerate either) or who called the other person a liar or a stalker, etc. you can bring it to my talk page. this article talk space should be directly related to making the article better. have a good day, and thanks for overcoming your distaste for my so-called incivility to still agree with me. that is noble. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Comma, please stop beating up on people who agree with you. You call me unbalanced and don't expect me to take it as an insult? You read Paton's mind and surmise that he doesn't know I'm a bad person... presupposing that I'm a bad person... after he comes here to defend you? I fail to see how this is constructive to the article. For whatever percieved (yeah, I said it) wrongs you continue to accuse me of, I've not seen you contribute anything constructive to any firearm article. Though I disagree with Paton here and have elsewhere, we've done the Wikipedia thing and worked together to iron out a consensus. So now you've lambasted myself, Koalorka, DanMP5, Sus Scufa (sp?) and Paton. All firearms article editors and all unqualified to edit firearms articles. I'll quote Theserialcomma: "My opinion is that some people who edit this article -- meaning Glock pistol -- are too emotionally involved in gun culture and advocacy, so much to the point where even questioning a blog as a source becomes an edit war, because it's somehow perceived as an attack on guns." Comma, you questioned the Blog source when it agreed with three other provided sources. You're trying to do the same thing and politicize this article. Please drop the stick already. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

are you still arguing over whether a firearm is a tool or a weapon, or are you just arguing for the sake of argument? wait, i don't care. i am still waiting to hear how arbcom sanctions you for abusive sockpuppetry. any updates there? Theserialcomma (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) How about everyone quit arguing and get over it... this space is for discussion of the article, and that discussion was completed about 4 posts ago... Comma, it seems most people agree with you, and you claim you don't want to discuss this any further, yet you continue to argue, and your posts here seem to be very close to breaking WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL... If the two of you want to carry on like children, take it to one of your user talk pages, don't clog up article talk space with this silliness... we don't care who "started it", one or the other of you should be mature enough to ignore it and move on... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

it isn't like he called me a "liar"[[5]], or used uncivil words like "motherf***er"[[6]] before i ever responded. but i'm the bad guy. don't worry, i won't be returning to continue this pointless argument. i'll only be working on improving the article. you guys can decide amongst yourselves whether calling someone a liar is acceptable, but hopefully not on this talk page. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Firearm, weapon, tool? Anybody? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the consensus was to call it a weapon... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Firearms are most definately purpose-built weapons, defensive or offensive. Koalorka (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There are citeable points of view subscribing to both descriptions, weapons and tools. Have added a cite for the "tool" description, too. This should address the issue. (This shouldn't be an "either" issue, but, rather, an "or" issue, in an "either/or" debate.) Yaf (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

seems WP:pointy and disruptive to have added a source for calling it a tool at this point. of course it's a tool, but a specific type of tool: a weapon. since a weapon is already defined as a tool, we don't need to call it a tool and a weapon. that is what the consensus has said, i believe. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems rather disruptive to disregard alternative major points of view that are now cited. We should try to be inclusive here, not dismissive. Have restored another point of view with cite. Yaf (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

the first sentence calls a gun a weapon. if you click the weapon article, it calls a weapon a tool. so if a weapon is already a tool, why would we call it a weapon and/or a tool, when weapon is a subset of tool. consensus is that a gun is a weapon and a weapon is a tool. stop disrupting wikipedia to make a point. we know it's a tool; that's what a weapon is. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As you should well know, a consensus isn't, "I say it's this way and that's the end of it." There are two dissenting opinions on this and the discussion continues. Please stop your edit warring and continue to discuss. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Would anyone be in favor of the word "device" instead of tool? It seems to be a pretty popular way of defining "a firearm" in state laws. [7] For example, "'firearm' means any device, designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel a projectile by the force of ..." Of course, we wouldn't want the lead to sound like the reading of a state law, though. --Hamitr (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding proposed compromise language

User Yaf has proposed compromise language that lists a firearm as both a tool and a weapon. I agree with this concept, though I would word it slightly different. In the interest of trying to solidify a consensus and avoid edit warring, I'll start a poll for those interested parties. The choices presented are, "Tool" only, "Weapon" only, or some form of "Both". --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Tool first, though I'll compromise with Both --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weapon only, it is disambiguous to say tool only, since a weapon is a specialized type of tool, and it is redundant to use both words, for the same reason... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weapon first, followed by tool. Hence, both; both with cites, of course. Both are significant points of view with their adherents. (And both are easily cited.) We don't have to choose just one of the significant points of view and exclude the other point of view. -- Yaf (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weapon only. as has been stated repeatedly, it's redundant to use both words, as a weapon is a tool. it's already called a weapon in the first sentence, and the weapon article defines itself as a tool. no need to be redundant, and it's POVish to call it a tool anyway. should we call a bazooka and a machine gun a tool also? what about a lightbulb or a drinking straw? everything is a tool, really. let's be specific, non redundant, and NPOV. hey, a nuclear bomb is a tool too, because back in the 50s they used them to move large amounts of dirt. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weapon. They're not called firetools. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It is worth noting that SheffieldSteel as an admin has also blocked Nukes4tots for 48 hours and not Theserialcomma, for their mutal edit warring on this article, while also taking sides in this point of contention here. Problem with WP:COI? Yaf (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Cute admin trick. Ban those who disagree with you and don't ban the ones that do. Then you vote against the person you banned and don't give them the ability do defend themselves. Really cute. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest here. My actions were explained at WP:ANI. Nukes4Tots, you don't need to "defend yourself" because you are not being attacked. I am simply stating an opinion which differs from your own. You might want to consider that people often do that sort of thing, and perhaps adopt a less defensive response next time it happens to you. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that it is suggested that "Disinterested" admins take actions against editors. Clearly, you disagreed with me and that "interest" tainted your judgement. It is a clearcut case of conflict of interest. Is it possible for an person involved in a conflict to make an objective decision? Nope. Your actions were unethical. Any ethical admin would have recused themselves from either the debate or the admin actions. Shame on you. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've taken this to the user's Talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Abstain. I think we need to look at the usage throughout reliable sources. For those who think it should be only "weapon", do you base this upon the fact that "weapon" is the only term that is used in reliable sourcing? Believe me, I would rather an encyclopedia article be succinct as opposed to verbose, but in this case, the issue seems to be pretty contested. --Hamitr (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weapon only. But maybe a page called firearm (tool) can be created. And then the disambiguation page can be used to make clear what is what. Also if you take a look for the pictures on this page there are lots of guns there. I think it's not desirable to imply that they are merely tools which then naturally and innocently are used to do violent things like killing or maintaining terror. My point here is that the emotional charge of the word tool and weapon is quite different. But emotion (which is hardly rational) is hard to explain, or sometime it is even hard to detect, this is why I think that there is a dispute here in the first place. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A new article, firearm (tool) has been created to address these issues. Yaf (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

the new article you made is just a direct copy and paste of this whole article. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read it. Are you always so confrontational? Do you never assume good faith? Read the article first, please. There is a whole class of firearms that are not weapons, with no top-level coverage in Wikipedia such as exists in the Firearm article. Firearm (tool) addresses these shortcomings. Yaf (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Does the article Firearm (tool) state it clear that it will deal only with firearms that are not weapons? And that for firearms that are used as weapons the firearm (weapon) article should be consulted? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Look at Firearm (tool), at the disambiguation line at top. Also, click on it, and the difference is noted on the firearm disambiguation page, too. Yaf (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I looked at the Firearm (disambiguation) page, and you are right, it's very clear there. I also made this change on the Firearm (tool) page, to clear things up further. Hope it's ok. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. And, a whole class of firearms that are not weapons are now covered in their own article. Hopefully, hoplophobia won't be a problem with these firearms used as tools :-) Yaf (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at that article, and I think it is absolutely pointless, all of the content on that page is just copied from some other aticle... I left a note on the article's talk page, so I won't copy the whole thing here... but that article should be merged and deleted... was this new article created just to spite the consensus that a firearm is a weapon? - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

From WP:Content fork: "POV forks usually arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion. The question is, is the new article in line with WP policies? so far, it's partially/mostly plagiarized from this and other articles, and the new content is mostly unsourced. For how long should this be considered acceptable? Theserialcomma (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Weapon, really. Put another sentence at the end of the lead or after the first sentence saying that they can also be used as tools for shooting paper, making noise, knocking over tin cans, or some other more general statement. The purpose is to qualify that it has both functions, but by defining it as a weapon initially is most appropriate, in my view, and clearly backed up by the sources (the most important thing!)----Asdfg12345 23:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weapon only. Not tool, or device, or instrument, or object. Can we just be real here. It's a weapon. When the dictionary disagrees with you, you know you screwed up. Todavia no se (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It is only a weapon if you use it that way. The ludicroulsy vast number of firearms uses in today's world are not weapon useages. I can call a pencil a weapon also. It is a very cheap and effective stabbing tool. I can call a Meat Cleaver a weapon also. A machette is a weapon. So, why is it the articles do not list them as weapons? The word weapon implies a use that is not required by the design. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Good luck on editing the Pencil article to call it a weapon. See you there, to revert you. Consensus is against you. Give it up. Todavia no se (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

WTF, did I ever say I was going to do something as stupid as edit the pencil page to say that a pencil is a weapon? No. I was making that point to demonstrate that it is the USE of an item that makes it a weapon, not any aspect of the item itself. That is why saying a firearm is a tool or instrument is correct as that tool has no free will, no mind of its own. A firearm, like a pencil, cannot jump up and shoot a person without another person behind it pulling the trigger. A pencil cannot either. There is a trend among the politically correct (or incorrect) to personify things that, by nature, have no free will. Firearms and ammunition are items, objects, and quite inanimate. They are no more weapons than paperweights until they are used. Words can be used as weapons. Paper can be used as a weapon. Virtually anything of physical mass can be used as a weapon. To say it is a weapon short-circuits a step in the logic chain. What consensus are you talking about, kind sir/ma'am? I see three dissenting opinions. This is not a majority rule, but the dissenting opinion is not a unique or fringe opinion. Consensus is a way of compromising... not "Do what I say or I'll report you for the 20th time". I see no reason why "tool" or "instrument" must be striken from the record and never spoken again! Please demonstrate why it cannot coexist. One does not say a Human is a Murderer because we have the capacity to kill. A man is not a Rapist because we are designed larger and stronger than women. A firearm is not a weapon because it is efficient at firing projectiles. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that even when (now three times over) consensus has decided it should be called a weapon, peope are still arguing... The consensus is that firearms were designed as weapons, and the weapon page already says that a weapon is a specific type of tool, hence it would be most logical to simply call a firearm a weapon... I don't see what there is to be confused about... yes, anything could be used as a weapon, but none of those items were designed specifically as weapons (knifes/blades were "caveman tools" long before they were used as weapons, not specifically designed to be weapons)... we've already explained why tool should not be added to the lead sentence (if you read anything above), because it would be both disambiguous, as well as redundant... using your own example, I could push my POV that the lead for pencil should say "A pencil is a sharp pointed tool, sometimes used as a weapon, that is made of wood...", but would quickly be laughed off the article... no one laughed you off this article, we were all quite calm, and came to the consensus that it should say weapon... if I pushed as hard for my POV on pencil as you have here, I think I would be closing in on an arbcom case... please, just let it go, there is a very clear consensus about what it should say, and you should move on and continue to better Wikipedia, instead of fighting tooth and nail to get you POV published... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to classify a flare gun as a weapon. Ditto for a powder-actuated tool, categorized in Australia as a firearm. Likewise for a Manby Mortar used to throw a line for a breeches buoy. Likewise for a Lyle gun, that performs a similar function. Yet, these are all are, or are considered, or are legislatively defined as --- firearms. There are a host of firearms that clearly are not weapons. It is silly to call them weapons. It would be the same as stating every woman must be a prostitute, since they have the proper body parts. Would anyone here argue that the article on Woman should state a Woman is a prostitute? I think not. It is the same here. We should either include mention and content of both weapons and tools on this page, or, per the current consensus, state a firearm is only a weapon (along the lines that a woman is only a prostitute?) and include information on the tools that are firearms in a separate firearm (tool) article. It looks rather silly to focus on only weapons when discussing firearms to me. (Incidentally, the firearm (tool) article is up for deletion in an AfD.) The intensity of only recognizing the firearms that are weapons appears to border on hoplophobia. Yaf (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I'd really like somebody to prove that a firearm is not a tool. If you can do that, I'll change my vote. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am jumping in on this late sorry. Per the Oxford English Dictionary, Weapon n. " 1. a. An instrument of any kind used in warfare or in combat to attack and overcome an enemy." There is not doubt that whether a firearm is a tool or a weapon depends on how it is being used at the time of use. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Weapon as the more specific classification (a firearm is a weapon, which in turn is a tool or instrument), but try to discuss this nomenclature issue in the article as it pervades firearms publications. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, I'm new at contributing, but I just wanted to say that this debate is really indicative of a major problem with wikipedia in that people with interest in subjects are going to be the ones creating the articles which is inherently biased. Only gun nuts refer to firearms as "tools" in attempt to make the term inoffensive. You won't find a single definition outside of gun culture that refers to firearms as tools and if you keep capitulating to people like this no one will ever take wikipedia seriously. Calling it a tool is a biased definition used exclusively by people with an interest in referring to guns as something other than weapons and if you really care about NPOV you won't give in just because these people keep bringing it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flexnuts (talk • contribs) 19:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I was just curious if you had read through the parts of the debate that mentioned things like Manby Mortars, Lyle guns, powder-actuated tools, and flare guns? These are all considered firearms, and, while they could be used as weapons, they designed and mostly used as tools. I hold that firearms are devices, most of which are designed and used as weapons, but others are intended for use as tools. I certainly don't think that makes me deserving of the "gun nut" moniker, but I'm generally not very concerned with the opinions of those who throw around such terms. Also, I think you'll find that some editors on Wikipedia have trouble setting aside their bias while others do a pretty reasonable job. There also may be some editors who are completely unbiased, but I haven't encountered many of them. Cheers. --Hamitr (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Most firearms are designed to be used as weapons; Some are intended to be used as tools. They project a projectile.... If we end up merging firearm (tool) into this page, change the link to the section where tools are described. If we keep Firearm (tool), we need to rename this Firearm (weapon) and replace with a disambig. Treedel (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Merger with Firearm (tool)

For relavant discussion, see above discussions as well as the AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firearm (tool). There are also side-discussions that may have gone unnoticed like this appeal to AFD closing admin and the replies to appeal. There was also a healthy discussion on the "tool" article here: Talk:Firearm_(tool).

• Merge - For reasons I've already stated. AFD reached no consensus to delete, the question here is whether to keep the content separate or actually mention in the article that a firearm does not HAVE to be a weapon. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - the copy and pasted/plagiarism article Firearm (tool) might have some new info that is amendable to the main article, even though most of it is borrowed/stolen from elsewhere. let's take the good stuff and discard the bad stuff and put it all into this article. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - I think it's clear that firearms can be used both as weapon and tools, perhaps it's quite enough if in the Firearm article those that can be used as a tool will be specified accordingly that yes, this can be also used as a tool in such and such situations. my 2 cents. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge, put in a section on firearms that are weapons, and a section on firearms that are tools. (Despite the dictionary, there is a difference: Proper use of a well-designed tool is not dangerous. Proper use of a well-designed weapon is. Treedel (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge, with the stipulation that the information in Firearm (tool) not just be discarded. Additionally, the lead should mention that a firearm need not be a weapon. LK (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Range

I'm having a disagreement with another regarding the range of firearms. The references cited list effective ranges for most rifles from 300-600 m. US Army manuals give the effective range as less than that, at about 100-200 m. I've made several attempts to reach a compromise that is both factual and consensual, and I've had my edits removed by the same editor three times in less than 24 hours. None of the edit summaries of reversion were helpful to me.

My proposal for that paragraph:

Small arms are aimed visually at their targets by hand using either iron sights or optical sights . The range of pistols is generally limited to about 50 meters, while most rifles accurate to about 150 meters using iron sights, or up to 600 meters using optical sights. Some purpose-built sniper rifles are accurate to ranges of over 2000 m. The current record for a successful sniper attack is slightly more than 1.5 miles (2.4 km).

EDIT: fixed typo. Treedel (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

All the information there is supported by the existing references. If there are no objections or suggestions to this change, I'm going to make it live after a while. Treedel (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I agree yet. I assume your "60 meters" was meant to be "600 meters" but I'll leave that to you to fix. Can you add the appropriate inline refs for your assertions in the paragraph? Plus this will save time later when you add it into the article. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. This isn't a how-to guide about the skill of various marksman, it is about small arms. That I can hit a man-sized target at 1,000 meters is irrelevant. That the rifle is capable of effective volly fire out to about 2500 meters is also irrelevant. That the rifle is capable of firing a lethal shot up to 2 miles or more depending on the load, is relevant. You can have hundreds of sources that quote different figures and EVERY ONE will be arbitrary based on myriad equally arbitrary factors. This paragraph screams for a generalization, not specifics based on your POV. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Giving typical ranges is just as informative/encyclopedic as max ranges. Someone who is not familiar with firearms would come here and not know that although it is possible to make a lethal shot at 2 miles, it's extremely atypical. I don't see this as "how-to" information at all. Yes, there are differing opinions of effective range - this is common in many areas of wikipedia, that's why we should use WP:RS when giving this kind of info, which is why I have asked for the sources to the above paragraph. Feel free to add the sources you're familiar with. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not a consensus, that's a free-for-all. I can list about 50 sources for 50 different ranges for firearms and not a single one is relevant. It needs to be very general in a general article no matter how many sources you quote. In combat, there is a curve and 300 meters is about the 95th percentile in modern combat. Only 5% of LETHAL engagements occur outside that range with small arms. This ignores the fact that small arms fire is not always used to kill the enemy but to also keep their heads down. Volley fire at 1500 meters will cause an enemy to deploy early and the engaging troops to deploy or retreat as necessary. That's not only effective, it is often decisive. This whole discussion is silly if you don't understand the whole picture. Small arms are not as simple as "bang-bang, you're dead". --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

So find the sources and explain it in the article - that's the whole point. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What POV do you think I am pushing? I saw a range for small arms that is patently false, even according to the "General references" you gave earlier. I'm trying to find a version of the Army manual that isn't FOUO so I can cite it, rather than a lesser source that would be open to WP:RS arguments. Range refers not to the distance at which a lethal shot is theoretically possible, but rather to the distance at which the weapon is a credible threat. To say that most small arms are accurate to ranges over the high end of assault rifles is wrong on several counts; Firstly, it fails to consider that there are several categories of firearm that will not put a projectile out that far in the best of cases: Handguns and shotguns being the most notable. Second, the specific phrasing "of accuracy", the last piece that you reverted without a relevant explanation, claims that small arms are generally accurate at ranges beyond the ability of people to see human-sized targets unaided. Finally, the numbers are wrong. With rare exceptions, only bolt-action rifles currently have effective ranges anywhere near a mile, even with optical sights and skilled shooters. Treedel (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked for possible meanings of "Volley fire". Everything I could find is either archaic, or exclusive to artillery. Where are you, if rifles are your best artillery, and the enemy is only 1500 m away, but not 'deployed' yet? Your scenario makes no sense, and your claims flatly contradict the text you were fighting to keep. Treedel (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on a lack of objection, I intend to go live with the changes later tonight. Treedel (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between this article and Gun?

Both firearm and gun have the same definition of what the page is about. Should they be merged? Or should the difference be clarified? Is there a difference? LK (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

There are differences, mostly historical in origin. Firearms tend to be handheld, while only a few guns are man-portable.

While they operate by the same principle, I don't think that combining them would be useful. However, I think that a link to gun from firearm would probably be appropriate. The reverse link is already up. Treedel (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you help moderate?

We are in urgent need of a third party admin to help settle a dispute over the Heckler & Koch UMP article and we also need an authority figure to take care of certain Users with serious behaviour issues and continuous personal attack tendencies.Please help if you can at the following page and scroll to the users section to help moderate the debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heckler_%26_Koch_UMP

When reading please click on the provided links within the text which demonstrate the point i'm trying to make.

Also as proof of how juvenille and innapropriate the users Koalorka and Nukes4Tots have been please read their comments on the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heckler_%26_Koch_UMP&action=history

Etymology of firearm?

The (unsourced) section on the origin of the term "firearm" in the first paragraph of "Background" strikes me as very dubious. The word "arm" was used to mean "weapon" well before the introduction of gunpowder. So it seems much more plausible that the term firearm is simply a combination of "fire" and "arm (weapon)"-- a "fire weapon." Connecting to the term to the anatomical arm used to operate a medieval weapon seems unnecessary and improbable.

If there's no reliable citation for the stuff about the term coming from the arm holding the match, I think that section should be dropped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloop2 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Addition To Firearm Request

Gentlemen, in our effort to play by the rules and to respect the ongoing work of all the contributors to this section we are formally requesting inclusion to this section "Firearm" under the "See Also" section. We are a non-commercial Press Release organization that works on behalf of most of the leading weapons and equipment manufacturers INCONUS. Essentially when there is new weapons, equipment or gear being released within the industry (MILSPEC and Other) we are contacted to release the information to the general public. It is our desire to be listed as:

Tactical Gear News: The latest tactical gear news covering weapons,training, clothing and tactical equipment.

The site is located at: www.TacticalGearNews.com

Milspecnews (talk)milspecnews —Preceding undated comment added 11:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC).

I don't think that a press release link fits within the definitions of WP:EL. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hand cannon

This whole article is in desperate need of a rewrite, but this section in particular annoyed me.

Recoil, a principle new to human experience at the time, could only be absorbed by bracing the barrel against the ground using a wooden support, the forerunner of the stock.

First off, recoil was in no way "new to human experience", as anyone who's fired a crossbow can testify. Second, it is quite possible to fire smaller-caliber hand cannons without bracing them against anything. Kolbasz (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

All firearms are not weapons

(moved from Berean Hunter's talk page)

All firearms are not weapons as some are not designed to be used as weapons for example blank firing firearms and specific target firearms like those used in shooting details during biathlons or ISSF competitions. Flare guns are another good example of firearms that weren't intended to be used as weapons.

From dictionary.com

Weapon

[wep-uhn] Show IPA noun 1. any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon. 2. anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire. 3. Zoology . any part or organ serving for attack or defense, as claws, horns, teeth, or stings. verb (used with object) 4. to supply or equip with a weapon or weapons: to weapon aircraft with heat-seeking missiles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theskylinegtr (talk • contribs) 12:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Tool

[tool] Show IPA noun 1. an implement, especially one held in the hand, as a hammer, saw, or file, for performing or facilitating mechanical operations. 2. any instrument of manual operation. 3. the cutting or machining part of a lathe, planer, drill, or similar machine. 4. the machine itself; a machine tool. 5. anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose: Education is a tool for success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theskylinegtr (talk • contribs) 12:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's explanation of a weapon.

A weapon, arm, or armament is a tool or instrument used with the aim of causing damage or harm (either physical or mental) to living beings or artificial structures or systems. In human society weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, fighting, self-defense, crime, law enforcement, and war.

This is why I think firearms should be described as tools.

Theskylinegtr (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

First, there is a consensus in a thread above on this page in which other editors correctly agreed that weapon is the correct term. Unless you convince a group of editors here otherwise, the consensus stands. Do not change the article, please.

Second, you are arguing with dictionaries. If the dictionaries all seem to use weapon then that is the correct answer. You conveniently left out what those dictionaries have for their definitions of firearm:

• From Webster's — "a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder"

• Legal definition in US — "a shot gun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition."

• Free Dictionary — "A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant."

• Dictionary.com — "a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder." ...and they also happen to mention a 2nd def on the same page, "a weapon, esp a portable gun or pistol, from which a projectile can be discharged by an explosion caused by igniting gunpowder, etc"

What does the Oxford English Dictionary state in its definition for firearm?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Issues with penetration test re: shotgun vs rifle vs handgun

I take issue with the statement that shotguns are commonly used because they reduce the likelyhood of overpenetration. Studies are mixed at best on this topic, and depend on a wide variety of factors including size of shot, type of rifle bullet used, caliber size, etc. --RichardMills65 (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you are referring to this text:

Rifles and shotguns are commonly used for hunting and often to defend a home or place of business. Usually, large game are hunted with rifles (although shotguns can be used), while birds are hunted with shotguns. Shotguns are sometimes preferred for defending a home or business due to their wide impact area, multiple wound tracks (when using buckshot), shorter range, and reduced penetration of walls, which significantly reduces the likelihood of unintended harm, although the handgun is also common.

I believe the text is basically correct with the possible stipulation that a descriptor be added such as large bore to rifles in the second sentence. Shotguns are preferred for home defense due to less penetration of walls among other things.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)