From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST 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 assessment scale.
WikiProject Firearms (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 / Vital (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Firearm:
  • Create a section to better detail the history of firearms
  • Scope, cultural issues, etc.
  • Better coverage of legal issues; e.g. licensing.

Main image[edit]

While I'll be the first to admit that I do not believe that there is any single perfect image, does anyone have any input and/or opinion as to what would make sense? There have been a myriad of changes and developments to the firearm over the centuries, but what image or set of images would do it justice?

And for the moment, lets forget about what is in already in Commons (unless there's an undiscovered gem) and try to come up with an appropriate solution in principle or concept. Images can be sourced or created. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Hard to find. I see a good image is either going to be historical, a public domain military image, or specifically show a firearm that already has an article (a redundant image of an Assault weapon, a Pistol, etc), so all have drawbacks. I think the best we can do it depict the concept, someone holding a weapon (the definition of this topic)... like that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Public health impact[edit]

I am contesting the addition of this section for several reasons.

  1. The title of the section is POV. The single source for the entire section is a study about diseases that might contain firearm death data. Its a large document and no specific link to the material in question was given.
  2. It's a junk statistic. There's no context or explanation of what it relates to; which countries, what kind (developed, 3rd world, etc.). It's no more useful of a statement than, "Every year, people die".
  3. This article is predominantly technical except for the Legality section at the end which could easily be replaced by a See also link to the main article (Overview of gun laws by nation).

So please explain or justify why this information is germane? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm not married to putting the section in this article as opposed to the gun safety article. I'll move it there, which will meet your desire that it not be here. Which is fine, as I think more about it, because you're right that Wikipedia maintains a separation between the firearms article (on one hand) and the gun safety and gun laws and gun control and gun politics articles (on the other). However, go easy on the rationalizations for deletion as opposed to moving. The Global burden of disease study group's work is not junk statistics, and Doc James is one of our best contributors, adding the most useful content, on the entire Wikipedia project. It's better to figure out where to move referenced content citing peer-reviewed medical journals that someone took the time to assemble and contribute than to rationalize deleting it by claiming it's meaningless/nonsense garbage. As far as heading off having anyone challenge the removal from this article, that's a more effective path anyway than challenging them to counter the garbage assertion, which is quite challengeable. But I will get off my soap box now, as I still owe you for your good work at Talk:Cartridge (firearms)#Why is this article limited to small-arms?. Cheers, — ¾-10 04:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I meant no disrespect to you or Doc James and I agree that Doc is an excellent Editor. There has been an effort to "politicize" firearm articles in an unnecessary manner which has me a bit sensitive to this issue. My apologies for coming across as Deletionist.

That said, I should have phrased my comments differently. The "junk statistic" comment was meant with regard to the overall context of the data. I was not questioning the source, it looks like a good one, but that statistic is not easy to find with the given link. I'm still looking. And I agree wholeheartedly that the data is better off in the gun safety or similar articles. Thank you for your appreciation of my input on the Cartridge article... :) Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The data is from a 2013 Lancet review. Hardly political. Just boring facts.
We could state what percentage of total deaths this represent. The fact that this article contains all economic activities related to firearms is a political statement. So it appears an economic perspective is allowed. But not a statement from the World Health Organization? Was removed from gun safety aswell.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Doc, you're right and that data does not belong in the Lead either especially since its not represented in the body of the article. My point is, its a technical and historical article about devices and there are ample articles for non-technical content (political, business, or otherwise) for information like this to be incorporated in a context that will likely be far more relevant. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b GBD 2013 Mortality and Causes of Death, Collaborators (17 December 2014). "Global, regional, and national age-sex specific all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 240 causes of death, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013.". Lancet. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61682-2. PMID 25530442. 
Hi all. I move to restore the public health impact section to the gun safety article, because it is relevant to that topic. In fact, the very previous section (below which I moved it) is talking about how to keep children from accidentally shooting themselves and others with their parents' guns that they found. That's a segue into the WHO data on unintended shooting deaths. I realize why @Dmol: deleted the section there, too, as it had also been deleted here—it's the same underlying reason why Scalhotrod deleted it here—it feels like a wedge or crowbar whereby gun control politics gets into the wrong article. But it needs to go somewhere; deleting it without finding the right home for it is basically censoring it on the altar of gun politics (the altar that was supposed to be avoided). It needs to go either in gun safety or gun control, and I feel it's most germane to gun safety, because as epidemiology data it's about injuries. — ¾-10 00:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
As member of the Firearm Project and a frequent contributor to firearm topic articles, I agree that gun safety would be a "good home" for it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Or what about Gun violence? Rezin (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey, that's a good idea. I was thinking last night maybe gunshot wound, which I see redirects to ballistic trauma, but now that I look at gun violence, it seems to really fit there. There's already a section of that article that is functionally an "economic impact" section (by another name). The public health impact can go in that section or as an adjacent section. Thanks for the good idea. I will move it there. — ¾-10 00:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes gun violence is reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


There should be one article which is a comprehensive overview of the topic of firearms. That would include summaries of history, technology, legality/politics, and various other topics covered in other articles. I don't know if there's a better article than this one. The "legality" section that was in this article wasn't a great summary, but I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to rework this article to broaden its scope. Rezin (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that sounds like a good idea for a List article. Then again, I was reviewing the Category list on the GUNS main page and its pretty comprehensive. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
List articles aren't real articles. I was thinking more of an article comprising short summary sections of the major articles related to firearms. The current article is halfway there, it'd just be a matter of rebalancing it to broaden the scope. Rezin (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'm not against this idea, but where does it stop and how do we setup guidelines so that it does not get out of control and the article becomes a WP:SOAPBOX or WP:COATRACK? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, it'd mostly be summaries of other articles, so it'd be based on previously vetted material. The main difficulty would be deciding which topics to include. One guide could be tertiary sources, like other encyclopedias. I'll put this on my to-do list and see if I can find any neutral overviews. Rezin (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Unintentional ambiguity[edit]

As of this writing, the summary includes the following sentence, "The first primitive firearms were invented in 13th century China when the man portable fire lance was combined with projectiles." The sentence is factually correct but it has two possible sources of ambiguity or confusion. The first is the use of the word "man" instead of a synonym such as "human." Ignoring the gender issue involved in using a gender-specific term, the word "man" is also the name of large ethnic group in China and when I read the sentence, I was initially confused if the article was referring to man Chinese. (The Wikipedia article about the man people does not mention that man is a common term in modern China, especially in Beijing. When I lived there, I had many discussions about law and ethnicity with local people and no one ever used the term Manchu, but I am not attempting to change that other article.) Therefore, using the word "man" is potentially ambiguous to very small portion of the English-speaking readers of Wikipedia.

The second problem is the lack of a hyphen or hyphens in the sentence. The following would be clearer, " fire lance..."

I am not making the edit myself because it is highly likely that if I make an edit without a full explanation that my edit would be reverted and I don't monitor my edits, so it would be a waste of my time. If someone believes my above observations are useful, then feel free to make the edit. If my observation is not useful, then please archive my talk section. Thanks! hunterhogan 01:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

These points sound quite astute to me. I am moving forward with this and changing "man-portable fire lance" to "one-person-portable fire lance". — ¾-10 00:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)