Talk:Black Talon: Difference between revisions
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
== How about an image here? == |
== How about an image here? == |
||
I found a nice image of an expanded Black Talon at this link (http://www.thegunzone.com/black-talon.html), but I don't know if it can be added because of Copyright rules here at Wikipedia. But I was very interested to see just how different the expansion of the bullet looks (in the image it looks like a razor sharp snowflake, compared to the usual mushrooming of a hollow-point). As someone who doesn't know much about guns or ammunition, I can certainly see why so many politicians and reports could look at the difference in the expansion and think that this is a MUCH more deadly bullet (whether that really is the case or not). So I think it would be very helpful to show a comparison of the expanded Black Talon round versus a typical hollow-point round (as seen on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_point_bullet) to help explain why there was so much controversy surrounding this bullet. |
I found a nice image of an expanded Black Talon at this link (http://www.thegunzone.com/black-talon.html), but I don't know if it can be added because of Copyright rules here at Wikipedia. But I was very interested to see just how different the expansion of the bullet looks (in the image it looks like a razor sharp snowflake, compared to the usual mushrooming of a hollow-point). As someone who doesn't know much about guns or ammunition, I can certainly see why so many politicians and reports could look at the difference in the expansion and think that this is a MUCH more deadly bullet (whether that really is the case or not). So I think it would be very helpful to show a comparison of the expanded Black Talon round versus a typical hollow-point round (as seen on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_point_bullet) to help explain why there was so much controversy surrounding this bullet. |
||
[[User:Robk6364|Robk6364]] 00:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC) |
[[User:Robk6364|Robk6364]] 00:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 00:48, 6 November 2007
 | Firearms Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Old article found by me, discovered to be ridiculously short, very inaccurate, and full of spelling/grammatical/coding errors. Deleted almost in it's entirety, and replaced by my article (and pics).
--Bullzeye, 68.100.253.217 20:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Might suggest some language changes. Stating things as being 'clearly propoganda' makes the article feel anti-gun control (even if the quotations -are- clearly propoganda).
Yeah, the "Scandal and Beyond" Section feels very POV to me. The 'inflamming', 'propoganda', and 'uninformed' specifically make it seem very anti-gun control. Rlax 15:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
After reading the "Scandal and Beyond" section again, I feel that it may very well be POV. But, I'm not extremely familiar with the specific details of the controversy over the Black Talons. Therefore, I've added the "POV Check" template to the article. I'd be more than willing to hear what other people (especially those more familiar with the topic who have not been involved in the 'Scandal and Beyond' section) have to say. Rlax 15:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that its totally nonbiased, as someone who's very familiar with the situation regarding the Black Talons and their pull from the market, I do have to say its not far off. Some of the Anti-gun advocacy groups were using incorrect information in it's fight. Whether they knowingly used infactual statements, or just were jumping the gun, is yet to be seen. Basically, the entire situation was a repeat of the "Cop Killer Bullet" fiasco 12 years earlier, with misinformation causing FUD. Despite having worked in the gun industry for 13 years, I'm trying to display my answer in an impartial manner. -- Hellmark 02:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC
Update
I've removed the NPOV warning tag and made some minor changes. The fact that some anti-gun people might not like being called out on their BS, that doesn't change the fact that they used (sometimes knowlingly) false information to influence public policy. CynicalMe 18:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
How about an image here?
I found a nice image of an expanded Black Talon at this link (http://www.thegunzone.com/black-talon.html), but I don't know if it can be added because of Copyright rules here at Wikipedia. But I was very interested to see just how different the expansion of the bullet looks (in the image it looks like a razor sharp snowflake, compared to the usual mushrooming of a hollow-point). As someone who doesn't know much about guns or ammunition, I can certainly see why so many politicians and reports could look at the difference in the expansion and think that this is a MUCH more deadly bullet (whether that really is the case or not). So I think it would be very helpful to show a comparison of the expanded Black Talon round versus a typical hollow-point round (as seen on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_point_bullet) to help explain why there was so much controversy surrounding this bullet.