Talk:Arms trafficking/Archive 1

Lord of war?
I don't see the importance to the topic so I'm removing it, if anyone haves any objections feel free to undo it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolcattz (talk • contribs) 22:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Requesting right to remove the 70% ATF claim
One of the links claims that 70% of the guns seized in Mexico come from the United States, but ATF has been known to create misleading statistics in the past. That being said. I'd like to wait for discussion before removing it. These sources counter ATF's claim anyway: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/29/the-shrinking-%E2%80%98vast-majority%E2%80%99-nssf-responds-to-atf-mexican-trace-report/ http://townhall.com/columnists/katiepavlich/2012/04/27/atf_publishes_misleading_trace_data_from_mexico/page/full/ http://extranosalley.com/?p=23855 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 20:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's correct, that ATF statement was exposed quite awhile as being misleading and inaccurate. Feel free to remove it. ROG5728 (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Boka Star
I'm concerned about this edit. It looks like POV-pushing. Multiple sources describe the Boka Star incident as trafficking, and this article is desperately short of real examples. Why on earth would anybody remove it from the see-also, other than whitewashing? bobrayner (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And why do you think it is actually worthy to mention it here in the first place? It is by far minor situation, and we have a lot more different and more important incidents than this one. Why on earth would anybody add it in the see-also, other than awful POV pushing, and in order to feed anti-Yugoslav propaganda on wiki? I added some known and specific cases, instead on this poor one. If you created that article, that does not mean that everybody must see it. If you do not agree, and still want to push it on this page, although it is minor and non specific, we should start dispute resolution then. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 17:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are other incidents. I added other incidents. You then rearranged the list... and cut out Boka Star again. Why whitewash this incident in particular? It seems impossible to write neutral content which touches on the Balkans in any way... bobrayner (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should get a third opinion. Do you think an uninvolved editor would support a highly selective see-also list which doesn't omits certain countries? bobrayner (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems you've also stalked me, going to other articles and selectively removing Boka Star. How would WP:AE react to such petty, disruptive nationalist editing? bobrayner (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * With your multiple addition to several pages, you only failed with your "neutral" agenda. Again, the question. I hope that you WILL respond to my question some day. Why do you think that this case is worthy to mention in all those articles? P.S. I am totally for 30, will raise it. New editors will only help... -- WhiteWriterspeaks 17:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * They will be trilled to see that you quickly tried to PUSH your article despite editor expressed an concern that it is a bed example. So, instead in compromise, you went into edit warring and POV pushing. If you dont want to be hit by BOOMERANG, it would be better for you just to stick to 30, and normal dispute resolution process. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 17:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * An uninvolved editor pointed out that Boka Star was orphaned. I noticed that other similar articles had a similar problem, and I fixed it. Strangely, you seem happy for lots of these articles to link to each other... apart from Boka Star, you systematically remove any links to that one. You're in a hole; stop digging, and take your hand off the revert button. bobrayner (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, other articles with relevant and useful content are good to use. Unfortunately, only this one is small stub. P.S. You are actually not allowed to delete my comment below. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 18:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I already requested a third opinion. This new section, with a malformed template and a deceptive attempt at framing the debate, is a really bad move. I removed it for your own sake - such bungling would reflect badly on any editor. If you really want to add a slightly less broken version, meh, that's up to you... bobrayner (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, one more cite for you then..
 * Bold is mine... -- WhiteWriterspeaks 18:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Bold is mine... -- WhiteWriterspeaks 18:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Boka Star addition
Should an article Boka Star be added to multiple related See also sections, despite the fact that other editor disputes its importance and significance?

User created Boka Star, and added it here, in already filled See also. I removed it as non notable example, not worthy of a see also. In respond, user quickly pushed it on several other articles, with several other examples. So, help would be useful in this: Should this article be "featured" in several other articles, despite being a stub, or we should add some other relevant examples? I propose to see which articles should be added as examples of arms trafficking. This poor one is not example, in my opinion... -- WhiteWriterspeaks 18:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why have you created a new section with a deceptive description of the problem? bobrayner (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didnt know that 3O was deleted. System changed a bit. We always created a new section with a summary of problem for a template before. You are very welcomed to add your own POV to this situation. That is the point of 3O. Only than we will be able to gain a consensus on subject. What exactly is deceptive in my description? -- WhiteWriterspeaks 18:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, respond, or retract your comment. What exactly is deceptive in my description? What didn't happened like this? -- WhiteWriterspeaks 18:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

3O Response: A reasonable number of see also links is allowed. Adding one vessel, links for various individual craft, airplanes, airlines, etc. involved in smuggling is the camel's nose under the tent. Omit. – S. Rich (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your response!
 * However, I have a concern. Both editors concerned seem to be OK with having a list of similar length; but for some reason links to Boka Star are systematically removed from the lists and replaced with something - anything - else.  . Do you feel that there is any particular reason  why Boka Star must be removed from the see-also list and other ships added in its place? bobrayner (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm saying remove the Star. Do not add any vessels. Indeed, putting in the nKorean ship found at Panama is problematic as it had missiles that did not fit the definition of "arms" as per the article. Moreover, it was probably a nation to nation exchange, making it a legitimate deal as opposed to "trafficking". If we are stringent about the SAs, we will avoid fights were everyone wants to put in their favorite incident. – S. Rich (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Srich, i have removed it. That would be it if you ask me. Exactly that was ma point also. "Favorite incidents" must not be added. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 12:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How strange; you quickly removed Boka Star again, but forgot to remove the ship that you had added. I fixed that for you. bobrayner (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion
I propose merging Small arms trade and United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms into this article. Lightbreather (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would Oppose a merge at this point. Certainly the articles need some improvement, but they are on distinct topics. bobrayner (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bob. I wouldn't mind getting feedback from some other editors. If you don't mind sharing, in what ways do you see them as distinct topics? Lightbreather (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Arms trafficking refers specifically to the illegal trade of weapons while small arms trade is only small arms and is not necessarily illegal. Jimmeh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:25FF:3CF0:0:0:0:38 (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that just your personal opinion or do you have some RS citations to help back it up? Darknipples (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. I don't see a good reason to have separate articles for legal arms trade and illegal arms trade. They involve many of the same issues. The guns come from the same companies either way. Felsic (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I would be equally open to merging this article into Small arms trade. Lightbreather (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose: The legal and illegal sides of the issue are pretty different. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Trafficking means to "deal or trade in something illegal", while "small arms" simply refers to the size/type of the weapons. Incorporating the parts of this article about illegal trade to Arms trafficking, and shifting the legal parts to Arms industry may be a good alternative to this proposal. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 05:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I second Godsy's suggestion and echo Faceless Enemy's point: a more meaningful distinction than size of weapons is whether the transactions are illegal (i.e., trafficking) or legal.Froid (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Size is unambiguous; but, alas, legality can be much more ambiguous. bobrayner (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arms trafficking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323050427/https://www.criminology.fsu.edu/transcrime/articles/armstraffickingagreements.pdf to http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/transcrime/articles/armstraffickingagreements.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Arms Trafficking (Lead)
The following is what is currently in the lead for Arms Trafficking:

''Arms trafficking, also known as gunrunning, is the trafficking of contraband weapons and ammunition. What constitutes legal trade in firearms varies widely, depending on local and national laws.

The 1999 Report of the UN Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms provides a more refined and precise definition, which has become internationally accepted. This distinguishes between small arms (revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, submachine guns, assault rifles, and light machine guns), which are weapons designed for personal use, and light weapons (heavy machine guns, hand-held under-barrel and mounted grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft guns, portable anti-tank guns, recoilless rifles, portable launchers of anti-aircraft missile systems, and mortars of calibres less than 100 mm), which are designed for use by several persons serving as a unit. Ammunition and explosives also form an integral part of small arms and light weapons used in conflict. ''


 * The following are our proposed changes:


 * Arms trafficking, also known as gunrunning, is broadly defined as the illicit trade of contraband small arms and ammunition, which constitutes part of a broad range of illegal activities often associated with transnational criminal organizations. The illegal trade of small arms, unlike other organized crime commodities, is more closely associated with exercising power in communities instead of achieving economic gain. Scholars estimate illegal arms transactions amount to over US$1 billion annually.


 * To keep track of imports and exports of several of the most dangerous armament categories, the United Nations, in 1991, created a Register for Conventional Arms, however participation is not compulsory and lacks comprehensive data in regions outside of Europe. Africa, due to a prevalence of corrupt officials and loosely enforced trade regulations, is a region with extensive illicit arms activity. In a resolution to complement the Register with legally binding obligations, a Firearms Protocol was incorporated into the UN Convention on Transnational Organized Crime, which requires states to improve systems that control trafficked ammunition and firearms.


 * In the international criminal scholarly community, rational choice theory is commonly referenced in explanations as to why individuals engage in and justify criminal activity. According to Jana Arsovska and Panos Kostakos, leading scholars on organized crime, the causes of arms trafficking are not solely based on rational choice theory but rather have been more closely linked to the intimacy of one's personal social networks as well as the "perception of risks, effort and rewards in violating criminal laws."




 * The 1999 Report...

Europe
(start of new section in wikipedia page, going between 1.2 Africa and 1.3 Market Value)

Since 1996, firearms trafficking has become an issue that countries throughout Europe have taken notice of to decrease and prevent from growing. Europe has been an overall large exporter of illicit weapons having the UK, Germany, and France in the national lead for the most exports. Imports to Europe in from 2004-2013 have decreased by 25%, with the UK importing the most overall in Europe. The firearms that are imported and passed around are commonly small arms and lighter weapons (SALW) compared to large machinery, such as tanks and aircrafts. The SALW bought in Europe tends to be second hand weapons that are cheap and regularly available. Gun cultures, such as in Germany, increase illicit SALW because guns are viewed as a way to enhance masculinity and status. In 2000, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) started on regional solutions and security measures to address the firearms trafficking problem.

Market Value
Due to a lack of legal transparency, estimating the market value of the arms trafficking industry is sometimes difficult. In 2001 alone, the value of legal Small Arms and Light Weapons exports was US$2.4 Billion. After being processed by customs, that number increases to somewhere between US$5-7 Billion, according to Small Arms and Light Weapons (1994-2001). An additional 10-20% (US$1 Billion) are suspected to be added to that number from black market transactions. The Kalashnikov AK-47 is the most appealing weapon to the illegal weapons trade, due to its low cost. With a surplus of AK-47 s flooding the market from post-cold war armies, the prices of this firearm sunk as low as US$15 in 2000. Trends have shown that the price of the AK-47 have stayed constant in countries with current civil wars, while stable countries prices for the AK-47 have been on the rise. Even biker gangs have gotten in on profitable arms trafficking. Law enforcement agencies started investigating bike gangs in the late 90s, and started classifying them as organized criminal organizations. This was mainly due to the fact that they were able to control of the prostitution market, and the smuggling of stolen goods—weapons, motorcycles, and car parts.

Regards, Rapidrider (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 March 2019 and 29 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rapidrider, Casey518, Oliviaohearn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)