Talk:TEC-9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Intratec TEC-DC9)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Firearms (Rated Start-class, Low-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Listing notorious usage[edit]

it is entirely relevant to mention that it was used in the columbine shootings. that is a true fact. it supports the idea that this is a dangerous weapon which has no viable purpose besides killing people. --Alhutch 05:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Should I list the thousands of people killed by Mustangs street racing under the Mustang heading? No. It is irrelevant. Mentioning that this firearm was used in the Columbine shootings *IS* entirely relevant under the Columbine shootings page (where it now exists). This is not a soapbox. Funny, I own one, and I use it for shooting targets... Unless you have a 'contribution' other than it "is a dangerous weapon which has no viable purpose besides killing people" (which I just proved is NOT the case), move along. --The Deviant 01:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been a reply with regards to this, it should be removed. --The Deviant 14:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Many Wikipedia gun articles have mentioned infamous uses of specific firearms. See John Browning, and mention of Gavrilo Princip's use of one of his pistol designs to start WW I. (FN Browning M1910). Ditto for the gun that killed President McKinley. And, the .41 caliber derringer that killed President Lincoln. There is considerable benefit to knowing historical usages of firearms, whether for good or bad. Yaf 04:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Yaf. perhaps someone who didn't know the weapon was used in the Columbine massacre could link to that article from here. it seems rather POV to not include this information.--Alhutch 05:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Yaf on this, actually. After seeing those articles, I agree it could be of historical importance. What I didn't agree with was Alhutch's "it seems rather POV to not include this information" when his "neutral" POV statement above made so much sense: "it supports the idea that this is a dangerous weapon which has no viable purpose besides killing people" (give me a break!). The debated sentence, coupled with that comment ***IS NOT*** simply a statement of historical value. --The Deviant 15:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I AGREE[edit]

IT WAS ALSO USED IN THE MERRILL V. NAVEGAR CASE HWERE MR. FERRI USED IT TO KILL 8 AND WOUND 6 CALIFORNIA VEIWED THE COMPANY NOT REALIABLE

I fail to see that being a problem. Small handguns that were designed for concealed carry were also designed with the sole purpose of killing other human beings, but unlike the large and heavy TEC-9, they are used much more often in crime and self-defense. The size and weight issue are primarily responsible for the fact that assault weapons were and still are used only extremely rarely in crime. Statistically speaking, small affordable handguns are much more dangerous to the population than TEC-9 and the likes. They are more likely to be illegaly resold on the black market, and more likely to be used in anger due to them being carried more often than scary, but unwieldy, assault weapons. The conclusion that assault weapons are more dangerous to the society than conventional weapons is a fallacy, drawn in a factual vacuum by poorly informed individuals obviously unqualified to make any kind of legislative decisions concerning the very real and the very important problem of gun violence. 68.81.29.74 16:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Prototypes[edit]

I looked at the prototype photo at http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg136-e.htm and I have a feeling I tried it out when I did my military service, but it was a longer version made too. If I'm correct much of the parts came from the Carl Gustaf M/45. // Liftarn

Could you please provide a citation for the claim that the KG-9 was based on the M45? Apart from the fact that they're both tube guns and made in Sweden I don't see any obvious connection. Thanks. Bgeer 18:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess "He told me so." falls under "original research". Having done my military service witht he m/45 I can also see the resembance (even without the inside info). Notice the magazine. They are identical (notice the wedge shape). The fast loader for the m/45 can be used. Both uses 9 x 19 mm Luger/Parabellium (altough many do). // Liftarn 13:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Noticed similarities and drawing conclusions from them might fall under original research too. I don't mean to be overly confrontational, but I don't see any sources supporting the M/45 theory here or in a Google search for various combincations of Carl Gustaf M/45 (or M45) and Intratec Tec-9. I'll leave it for now. Highlandlord 03:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The Tec-9 is developed from the Interdynamic MP-9, which in turn was a modern version based on the CG m/45 (note that a capital M/ would be some kind of naval equipment). English sources are difficult to find though, unless one counts blogs like this a reliable source. BP OMowe (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Popular culture[edit]

Looks like this could be yet another firearms article which degenerates into an irrelevant list of films/games etc where the gun has appeared. Other articles are adopting the practice of having a simple sentence that the gun has appeared in various media, and a separate article detailing the appearances so the kiddies can list each and every one. Riddley 12:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just informing the people when i put that note in for, and by the way, some people actually are interested in knowing if a particular weapon appears in a video game or movie. Sorry if i have caused offence. --LastmanSAC 02:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Does the bonus movie-poster appearance in the case of Big Trouble in Little China earn it a spot on the main stage? Ribonucleic 23:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Article title[edit]

Either the DC part of the article's title needs to be much more clearly addressed in the first sentence or paragraph, or this article should be moved to Intratec TEC-9. eae 08:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Columbine mention[edit]

The mention of the use at Columbine should be retained and included, as it is expressly notable relative to the weapon. This gun was mentioned by name in the Assault Weapons Ban[1], and Columbine also led to state laws changing with regards to assault weapons in several states. This is not a point of trivia for this weapon. Yaf 15:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The cited source mentions that the Tec-9 is named along with 18 other weapons in the AWB but the source makes no mention whatsoever of the Columbine shootings. That the Tec-9 is mentioned by name in the AWB should be in this article. The trivial mention of its use in a shooting should not. Also, of all the firearms and firearms related articles that are linked to in the Columbine shooting article (and there are 10 or more), this is is the only one of them that mentions the Columbine shooting. there is no more need for this mention of usage than there is for mention of Tim Dog and his glorification of the Tec-9 in his songs. K1ng l0v3 17:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The previous consensus (see prior discussion) was to keep the mention of the use at Columbine. If consensus has changed, which is possible, then that would be reason to remove the mention. However, in the absence of any newer consensus, the prior consensus should hold, at least until the new consensus is developed. Have re-ordered the sequence of the section; the use at Columbine was what led to the end of Intratec 2 years after Columbine, due to changing gun laws (CA, MA, etc.) that were hugely impacted by Columbine, and the drop in the number of states where even the AB-10 variant gun could legally be sold. The notability from Columbine had a direct impact on the subsequent history of the Tec-9 manufacturer, and of the manufacture of the gun itself. For this reason, mentioning Columbine is notable. (For the other guns used at Columbine, how many of these companies went out of business due to Columbine?  :-) As for Tim Dog, and his "songs", these had no direct bearing on the subsequent history of the firearm, or on state firearms legislation, and these are trivia, relative to the firearm, of course. Yaf 18:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

These are all arguments for inclusion at Intratec (where there is no mention at all of Columbine, or The AWB, or any marketing or sales problems), not an article on one of their products. I'm not saying you are incorrect in the Columbine causality, just that without a relaible that makes that causal connection, the mention is nongermane to this article. If you have sources that say that the use of the Tec-9 at Columbine led to trouble for the manufacturer Then Intratec is the place for that info. If you have sources that say the use of the Tec-9 at Columbine led to its inclusion in the AWB, that might be germane to this article. I do feel however, that too much weight is given to the AWB as it is no longer the law of the land. K1ng l0v3 18:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The usage of the TEC-DC9 variant of the gun at Columbine was in 1999, 5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect in 1994. Obviously, the use at Columbine had no impact on the creation of the Federal AWB 5 years later. However, the state level AWBs that were tweaked after 1999 did take a lot of input from Columbine in terms of its impact on legislators, and the subsequent gun laws they created. The public's iconic association of Columbine with the TEC-9, even though it was a TEC-DC9, was largely based on the TEC-DC9 being the gun that was used the most at Columbine. Yaf 18:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that the TEC-DC9 was "the gun that was used the most at Columbine?"--TL36 (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's have some sources for the state ban causality and some more substantive sources for the "iconic" nature of the association between the Columbine shooting and the weapon. One would expect a video game based on the shooting to recreate the weapons used, just as a Star Trek video game would be expected to contain phasers. The video game useage does nothing at all to reflect the "public's iconic association", but rather, is only striving for accuracy in its depiction of events. Absent a reliable source that directly states that the Columbine shooting and Tec-9 use therein, have a causal relationship to any legislative change, that claim fails OR and SYN. Absent multiple reliabe sources that state the "public's iconic association" of Columbine and the Tec-9 series of pistols, there is no need to mention such a trivial use. None of the other firearms articles linked to at Columbine shooting mention the shooting and this info would be much better off at Intratec. K1ng l0v3 20:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Added more material to address these concerns, including cites. The 1999 amendment to the 1989 Roberti-Roos AWCA, that became effective in January 2000, was a direct result of the Tec-DC9 that was used at Columbine, at least with regards to the portion of the amendment that added barrel shrouds to the list of banning characteristics of firearms. Yaf 21:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We also need to get some pictures of the variants of this firearm, too, showing the differences, into this article. Those would be beneficial to the quality of the article. Yaf 21:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Copy edit[edit]

Cleaned up the text and removed the copyedit tagline. Yaf 03:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking better, thanks Yaf. Still has some run-on sentences and clunky useage but it's getting there. K1ng l0v3 04:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Please stop deleting cited information that doesn't agree with your POV. If balance is needed, fine. Lets fix it. But, don't delete material you consider "trivia" just because it is counter to your POV, especially when it is cited and is verified by the cited sources. Please read the sources; the content is in accordance with the cited sources. Thank you. Yaf 11:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The content I keep having to remove is contravened by OR and SYN. One videogame aboout a crime does not indicate the "public's iconic association" of the Tec-9 and the Columbine shooting. No source you have provided shows any causality between the use of a Tec-9 at Columbine and any legislation or any problems for Intratec. Just tacking a footnote on the end of a sentence is not sourcing. The cited source has to actually back up the claim you are trying to make. K1ng l0v3 14:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Effective Range?[edit]

What's the effective range for this gun? And what's actually the safe distance beyond the effective range? It was being mentioned in this page before that it's range can only go up to 50 metres, but some user removed for no apparent reason. 88.105.126.105 22:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Fixed. I also fixed the muzzle velocity which was wrong.

"Largely iconic"[edit]

Removed sentence: "After Columbine, the TEC-9 became largely iconic and closely-aligned in the public's mind with respect to Columbine."

I think what the writer meant was "After Columbine, the TEC-9 became closely associated with Columbine in the mind of the public." (And maybe also "iconic" of something, but I can't tell what.) However, that's not true, at least not as stated. I'm a member of the public, and I know a lot of members of the public, and I'd never even heard of the TEC-9 until coming across it in a rap lyric unrelated to Columbine. Perhaps the sentence should refer only to people in Colorado, or only to Congressmen, or something. And regardless, it should cite a verifiable source for the claim. --Quuxplusone 20:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The picture in the article is an Ab-10[edit]

The picture is of an AB-10, not an TEC-9 --Doink67 (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In't a TEC-9 technically just a pistol with submachinegun styling?[edit]

The entry for Submachine gun says "A submachine gun (SMG) is a firearm that combines the automatic fire of a machine gun with the cartridge of a pistol, and is usually between the two in weight and size." The TEC-9s I've seen were all semi-automatic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.201.104.120 (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Interdynamics AB made a prototype (or series of prototypes) of an SMG using the basic design. They then made the KG-9 open bolt semi-automatic pistol, which was rapidly redesigned to the KG-99 closed bolt pistol, because the ATF doesn't like open bolt semiautomatics (too easy to convert to full auto).

The TEC-9 was never a submachinegun, unless someone did an aftermarket conversion. (Which, given the unreliability of the TEC-9, would be an exercise in "because I could", rather than practical.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.1.217 (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A search for the KG-9 redirects to this page. ATF has ruled that the KG-9 is a machine gun, based on the NFA definition of that term. 96.35.172.222 (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Tec-22 'Scorpion'[edit]

Any thoughts on adding a subsection on the Tec-22 'Scorpion' variant? Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 02:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Major reversion[edit]

Someone made a rather large edit to this article removing a bunch of information including removing the mention of its use in the columbine highschool shooting, turning it into a big ugly wall of unreadable text. I've reverted it since if the page needs improving it seems that's a better starting point. I did remove the worldguns.ru link though. Gunrun (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside what you feel is "ugly", the majority of readers, on the majority of Web pages do not scroll down, so what is visible on the first page may be all they see. The article text, for a typical reader, can be completely contained in a first page — so long as a TOC isn't included. I.e., the TOC is not only unnecessary, it is counter-productive.
Criminal use. Any gun is subject to criminal use. And to legal use. Unless it's officially sanctioned by a mob, terrorist group, police department, or military organization, describing use in specific instances is trivia. The Columbine killer could have been using a pea shooter with cyanide-covered BBs. This has no bearing on the article topic, since any number of guns might have been used, indifferently. Piano non troppo (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the Columbine incident and the Tec-9 are directly referenced as an example of what to include in the WP:GUNS policy on criminal use: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 22:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out, but it does say that section does not have consensus. 07:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
If anything does not have consensus, it would be your (Piano non troppo) decision to remove the Columbine text in the first place. If you look over this talk page, the subject has already been discussed here twice and the consensus both times was that the Columbine text should stay in place. In light of that, I'm adding it back. If the consensus changes, remove the text again. Your opinion alone is not a consensus and cannot outweigh the discussions that have already taken place here. ROG5728 (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree that consensus was reached for this gun. The discussion in the previous sections seems fairly balanced. Let's talk issues, not whether one side made their point better. As far as I'm concerned the gun that was used at Columbine is as relevant as the shirt and the shoes the shooter was using. I.e., good news copy, irrelevant for an encyclopedia. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it seems rather trivial to make a point of "X used Y brand gun in Z shooting" every time a shooting occurs. JBsupreme (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

JBsupreme, this discussion covers this particular gun and its criminal use. No one is advocating a similar note being added to every article every time a gun is used to commmit a crime. This case (TEC-9) is special because the gun was used in a very notable incident, and became the subject of considerable controversy and legislation. No one here is trying to say the choice of weapon had any impact on the result of the massacre itself. The point is that the massacre had an impact on the gun itself, and that is absolutely relevant to the article. ROG5728 (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

SMG[edit]

It clearly states in the first few paragraphs of the article that it was designed as a SMG: "intended as a cheap submachine gun based on the Carl Gustav M/45..."

Shouldn't this then be classfied and have the catagory tags for SMG, or both machine pistol and smg? it's also under semi-automatic handgun, too, for some reason.69.132.69.87 (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"...all the three models are referred to as the TEC-9..."[edit]

This sentence appears in the introduction but it is unstated what "all the three models" are or what the difference between them are. Regards, --RA (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)