Talk:Gun control/Archive 16

Gun Law in Nazi Germany, 1938

 * "The legislation had fuck all to do with it." AndyTheGrump
 * "No source has been furnished who contents (sic) that Nazi Germany is a significant part of the subject of gun control." goethean

These are the laws that were enacted in Nazi Germany that affected the Jews, gun ownership, and the Holocaust. The argument appears to be that legislation had nothing to do with enabling the Holocaust, yet there are many scholarly sources that show otherwise. They show how the Nazi's made the Holocaust possible, which included keeping guns out of the hands of Jews, as well as isolating them, forbidding certain forms of communications including carrier pigeons and telephone. They legislated the Holocaust. This included firearms control. The Nazi's created laws first, then acted on the laws. Below are the laws and the scholarly sources for them. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons 11 November 1938 With a basis in § 31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1928 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and § 9 of the Fuhrer and Chancellor's decree on the administration of the Sudeten-German districts of 1 October 1928 (Reichsgesetzblatt 1, p. 1331 ) are the following ordered: § 1
 * Jews (as defined by § 5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt 1, p. 1332) are prohibited from acquiring. Possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.

§ 2 The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in § 1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.
 * Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.

§ 4
 * Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of § 1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.

§ 5
 * For the implementation if this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.

§ 6 Berlin, 11 November 1938 Minister of the Interior
 * This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.


 * The Reich Citizenship Law, September 15, 1935 Jews are not citizens
 * The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor Exclusion of Jews from German Society


 * Sources:


 * Gesetz gegen den Waffenmissbrauch, Mar. 28, 1931, RGBl. I, at 77; Vierte Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten, Dec. 8, 1931, RGBl. I, p. 742.


 * Edelheit, Abraham J., and Hershel Edelheit. "Legislation, Anti-Jewish." In History of the Holocaust: A Handbook and Dictionary, 299-331. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994.


 * Friedländer, Saul. Nazi Germany and the Jews. New York: HarperCollins, 1997.


 * Schleunes, Karl A. The Twisted Road to Auschwitz: Nazi Policy Toward German Jews, 1933-1939. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1970.


 * Schleunes, Karl A., Editor. Legislating the Holocaust: The Bernhard Loesener Memoirs and Supporting Documents. Translated by Carol Scherer. Westview Press, 2001.


 * United States Holocaust Museum


 * United States Library of Congress

'''
 * '''Other laws mentioned at United States Holocaust Museum, Washington, D.C. and Library of Congress
 * Jews are no longer permitted to serve as officers in the Wehrmacht (May 1935)
 * Jews are banned from working as tax agents or advisors (January 1936)
 * Jews are banned from working as veterinarians (April 1936)
 * Jewish teachers are no longer permitted to work in government schools (October 1936)
 * Municipal authorities in Berlin exclude Jewish children from state schools there (April 1937)
 * Jews are no longer permitted to change their surname or use an alias (January 1938).
 * Jews are banned from working as auctioneers (February 1938).
 * Jews are prohibited from owning gun stores or trading weapons (July 1938).
 * Jews are banned from health spas and resorts (July 1938).
 * All Jews must add either “Israel” or “Sara” to their given names (August 1938).
 * Jewish doctors are prohibited by law from treating non-Jewish patients (September 1938).
 * Jews must have a large red ‘J’ stamped on their passports (October 1938).
 * Jews are prohibited from moving freely around Germany (November 1938).
 * Jews are no longer allowed to keep or use carrier pigeons (November 1938).
 * Jews are no longer permitted to have own a car or a driver’s license (December 1938).
 * All Jewish academics, lecturers and students are expelled from universities (December 1938).
 * Jews are ordered to surrender precious metals and gemstones (February 1939).
 * Jews are forbidden from buying lottery tickets or claiming prizes (August 1939).
 * Jews are no longer allowed to install, maintain or use telephones (July 1940).

Malke 2010 (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:OR - and a straw man argument at that. I have no intention in engaging in debate over this.
 * ''"According to ADL, the small number of personal firearms in the hands of the small number of Germany’s Jews (about 214,000) remaining in Germany in 1938 could in no way have stopped the totalitarian power of the Nazi German state. When they had weapons, Jews could symbolically resist, as they did in the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and elsewhere, but could not stop the Nazi genocide machine. Gun control did not cause the Holocaust; Nazism and anti-Semitism did."" — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 05:35, 26 January 2014


 * Malke 2010, the purpose of talk pages is to discuss changes to the article, and copying and pasting walls of text is disruptive. I assume you are trying to make some sort of argument, but that is OR.  It is also pointless, because articles are supposed to present information and opinions on the basis of the policy of neutrality, not what we happen to believe.  TFD (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * , you seem to be misinterpreting my post here so let me clarify it. I spent some time yesterday reading over the talk page and the argument seems to be misinformed on both sides. I noticed the laws, and in particular, the 1938 law had been bandied about but not linked to in anyway, so I thought it would be helpful to show what it, and the other laws, actually said. Mention has also been made of scholarly sources and I've posted several. Dr. Karl Schleunes is a professor at North Carolina uni and is a well-respected, recognized expert on the holocaust. I thought it would be helpful. Andy's got a good point about the direct cause of the holocaust. Gun control, from what I've been reading, was merely one aspect of it, it was not the sole reason. The legal removal of the Jews from German society through legislation, long before they got sent off to death camps, was the enabling factor. But the Nazi's did forbid weapons, (truncheons and stabbing weapons), not just guns. Commonsense alone tells you if you want to send people to death camps, you're going to need to disarm them first. But that's not what this article should be about.


 * But both sides here need to dial it down. The sources being argued should be scrapped and only ones that predate this political argument should be considered. Those writers don't have a dog in the gun control debate. The arguments here appear to have turned toxic a long time ago. The personal attacks, the filthy language, the edit-warring, all point to an out of control situation. This isn't about an article. This is a political argument. Neither side has their facts straight. And personally, I think using 6 million murdered people as a weapon, by both sides, is pathetic. was right to lock the page. It might be a good idea for the page to remain locked until the Arb's make their proposed decision and the case is closed. And TFD, remembering the fisherman's net at the TPm arb case, I'm staying off this page. I suggest you do the same. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The only people who are trivializing the holocaust are fringe pro-gun enthusiasts who use the argumentum ad hitlerum to defend gun rights. "Common sense" is another word for original research, and should not guide what we put into articles.  It is also a poor substitute for rational thought.  TFD (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying anything about what should and should not be put into the article. I don't have a dog in this fight. Read my post again. Both sides are using the Holocaust here inappropriately. One side is downplaying it and the other side is over playing it. Neither side has the facts straight. Both sides are entrenched in a political argument that has nothing to do with building a Wikipedia article on gun control. It's not about content, it's about behaviour. That's obvious, or the Arbs wouldn't have taken the case. And the name calling, as in 'fringe pro-gun enthusiasts' and come backs of "6 million dead," is exactly what needs to stop here. Nobody here has perspective on this. It might be best to watch more of the Wahlburgers and less of MSNBC and Hannity for a while. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you aren't here to discuss article content, you have no legitimate reason to be posting on this article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , editors can comment on what can improve the article. This includes offering information and scholarly sources to help solve the content dispute, as well as offering comments on the editor behaviours that have got the page locked by an administrator. Those are all legitimate reasons for posting on this page. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For your information, by "fringe gun enthusiasts" I am referring to external sources that link the holocaust to gun control. See the ADL's press release:  "the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today called on critics of gun control legislation to stop using references to Hitler and the Nazis, saying they are “historically inaccurate and offensive,” especially to Holocaust survivors and their families."  The comparison of the holocaust and gun control in the U.S. is a fringe position not supported in reliable sources.  And if you are not here to contribute to the article, then you are trolling and should stop.  TFD (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (added later) Everything discussing the relationship or any "claims" was deleted in Spring of 2013; only the straightforward history remained. It stayed that way until Jan 3, 2014 when a smal expansion occurred during the brief unlocking, and those changes have not been discussed or edited. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That is entirely nonsense. The first question, which has not been dealt with, is what is the purpose of this article.  If it is to summarize "gun control" methods, then disarming "undesirables" should be mentioned, whether or not the Nazis are a good example.  If, as some have said, it is to summarize "gun control" arguments in the US, then the Nazi argument should be somewhere, as an example of arguments used, and commented on by the ADL.  It's a fringe argument, but it's noticed by reliable sources.  Just as 9/11 conspiracy theories should have a presence on Wikipedia, but not in the 9/11 attacks article.
 * It would be dishonest to state that the present (locked) version of the article compares the Nazis to present gun control; it states that the NRA compares the Nazis to present gun control. Whether the argument is invalid is irrelevant.  The fact that argument is used, and that that fact is commented on in reliable sources, is what provides a basis for inclusion.  Perhaps it should be trimmed, but there is not a good argument for removal from Wikipedia.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking the same about the purpose of the article. That needs to be defined. The topic suggests it should include the purpose of gun-control, how it's carried out, the benefits/controversies, and then the history of it. The argument over the gun controversy in the U.S. shouldn't dominate. Also, the history section should be expanded to include the English laws from the 1600's, before and after the English Bill of Rights, where the blacksmiths were required to keep a list of all who got a gun and had to send the list periodically to the State. And the gun laws in the American colonies that required the militia to account for their guns. Ireland has probably the most restrictive gun laws and a very interesting history about it, etc. I see by past talk page discussions that someone complained about the lack of an international content but did nothing about it. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Studies, debate, and opinions
Shouldn't we include a section on the lobby game played by the NRA and similar groups which in effect makes their entire repository of arguments into a charade/something that is ridiculous, to such degree that no sensible person no longer takes part in it (only those that have something to gain)?

For example, they try to put a huge part of the blame unto "violent computer games and other media", and when a public shoot out occurs, they say that having more responsible people on the streets with guns lowers/lowered the amounts of casualties.

Also, shouldn't there be an objective research posted with the results of high-school shoot out incidents in countries with the right to have a gun (no restrictions) and versus the results of high-school shoot out incidents in countries without the right to have a gun (much more restricted) ? 81.246.137.240 (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no credible suggestion in this comment. Although I do not consider "violent computer games" a credible source for violent activity, others, and some reliable sources, do.  Although I tend to believe that gun violence would be reduced if law-abiding citizens have guns readily available, there are reliable sources on both sides.  If there were objective research on the association of high-school violent fatalities (not shootouts; it would be absurd to exclude school bombings) with the legality or availability of guns, that might be added.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page
There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to editors of this page. Lightbreather (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request proposal: Remove Nazi material until ArbCom is over
Considering that the RfC vote on the Nazi material was 20 for to 30 against before this article was edit protected, I propose that the Nazi material be removed at least until the ArbCom re: to involved parties is over. Lightbreather (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * RfCs are not elections - and the WP:DEADLINE is not that near. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The RfC was closed (not decided) pending the outcome of the ArbCom by Nyttend. As he said at the time, nobody would be happy with a decision on this matter until after the ArbCom. At that time he will reopen the RfC if necessary. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * IMO the RFC was on a different topic....essentially about covering the aspect of it as a tool rather than the straightforward historical facts. Roughly speaking, the material that was removed April-June 2013.  North8000  (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this article meant to be unlocked now?
I can't figure it out from the history. Is this article meant to be unlocked now? Lightbreather (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was set to automatically expire on Feb 3rd.  North8000  (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Break in Nazi material discussion
I don't like statements like this one (by Gaijin): "I'm glad that everyone agrees the argument is notable within the US."

I'm still waiting for the ArbCom resolution before I comment much further, but I want to be clear - I see no agreement on any "argument" that belongs in this or the Gun politics in the United States article. Lightbreather (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Nazi Material
I made this edit a few days ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_control&diff=594568536&oldid=594567315

The edit was quickly reverted (As I thought it would be, all things considered). I guess you could say that I made it as a test. I have no strong feelings on this issue, so I really don't care if it stays or goes, but if the decision were mine, the material would stay for the reason I gave in the RfC. If the material stays, I think it needs to be reworked, anyway. If it is decided that the material stays, I think there should be a mention about groups like the one in the edit I made. I couldn't find anywhere in the article any mention of Jews that oppose gun control. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with both Sue and Andy. I have re-added the JPFO point, but also resurrected the ADL link from the archives. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WILL YOU PLEASE STOP MISREPRESENTING MY VIEWS. I have repeatedly made it clear that I do not consider this pseudohistorical material appropriate for inclusion in the article at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I think the adding and "tweaking" (which Anything has done a great deal of) of Nazi material should stop until ArbCom is over. Lightbreather (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Apologies... Anything's tweaking has been on related page, Gun politics in the U.S., but I think the same thing about Nazi material there. Until ArbCom is concluded, let's leave it alone. Lightbreather (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The issue isn't "Jews that oppose gun control". It is the many representatives of Jewish communities who have made clear their opposition to the use of pseudohistorical arguments concerning the Holocaust by sections of the U.S. pro-gun lobby. And as for making edits as 'a test', I am sure you are aware that this subject matter - and the issue of the 'Nazi' material in particular - is currently the subject of an ArbCom case. 'Tests' made in the expectation of reverts are clearly inappropriate in such circumstances - even more so when it is clear that you haven't bothered to do the slightest bit of research before citing material. Cherry-picking a source for a statement about a fringe pro-gun group while ignoring the clear evidence that they have little support amongst wider Jewish communities is entirely contrary to WP:NPOV policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: I have reverted Gaijin42's latest edit - not only does he falsely imply that I approved of the edit, but he entirely fails to make clear why the ADL opposed this misuse of the memory of the Holocaust for the purposes of pro-gun propaganda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * And I have reverted to Gaijin42's latest edit, as it is cited and seems much more balanced than the text does with the removal of the cited data. WP is not censored.  With proper cites, we should include all major viewpoints.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * And the evidence that the misleadingly-named Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership represents a 'major viewpoint' can be found where exactly? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This group deserves no attention in an article about gun control. They have attracted no serious attention, especially in the world outside the U.S. TFD (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I can find precious little evidence that they have attracted much attention inside the U.S. for that matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

mobile. excuse brevity plz. I'm ok with dropping jpfo, added to try and show compromise between sue and Andy. their poc is adequately covered by others. ok with keeping adl to voice offensive povGaijin42 (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * When I made this comment I had no idea just how large this organization is. The material should definitely stay in the article. The JPFO material can stay or go. Either way is fine with me. I just think that as the article stands, it give the impression that all Jews are 100% in favor of gun control, and it makes the article look unprofessional, and I thought of it as a bit of an olive branch to our gun-toting friends as well. I think if the hardliners here can loosen up, even just a little bit, we can get this to GA status someday. Anyway, if the consensus is to remove it that's perfectly fine with me, obviously. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you care to provide the source you used to determine "just how large this organization is"? So far, I've seen none. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * JFPO membership isn't restricted to Jews, despite the misleading name. The existence of this organisation tells us nothing about the percentage of Jews for or against anything. Not that it would tell us much if it was restricted to Jews, given that we have no idea of the number of members it has. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the complete lack of WP:RS evidence that JPFO is anything but a misleadingly-named fringe lobby group, I have again removed this material. It should be noted that the source cited is explicitly discussing JFPO in relation to "a fully elaborated revisionist theory of the history of the Holocaust", describing such revisionism as "absolutist" and "extremism". I should remind contributors that citations of sources are supposed to reflect with due weight the views of the author, and aren't just convenient places to cherry-pick at random. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Have restored the mention of the JPFO. It is the 3rd largest gun rights group in the US, behind the NRA and the Gun Owners of America. Disparagingly calling them a "misleadingly-named fringe lobby group" is certainly not a fair description of them. Their publications were used by SCOTUS in the Heller case. If they truly were a "misleadingly-named fringe lobby group", I don't think the justices would have referenced their publications. I get it that AndyTheGrump is calling this Jewish group names, but that is no reason to exclude them from a passing mention, especially since their publications were used by SCOTUS. Have restored the passing mention of this organization. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Names? How about 'not actually Jewish'? Nobody has produced the slightest evidence that this group actually has a significant Jewish membership - though there is no lack of evidence whatsoever that multiple representative groups from mainstream Jewish organisations have objected to the way factions within the U.S. gun lobby have abused the memory of the Holocaust for partisan political reasons. Yet again we have a perfect demonstration that rather than conforming to Wikipedia policy by accurately representing the subject matter - a multinational overview of firearms regulation issues - this article is being manipulated to promote the partisan agenda of one particular faction in one particular country, in gross contravention of multiple Wikipedia policies. This article isn't about JFPO, and it certainly isn't here to provide a platform for right-wing extremist groups from any country to promote historical revisionist propaganda about the Holocaust entirely unsupported by any historian remotely qualified to speak on the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Humbly, may I ask how the name is misleading? The two larger gun groups are open to anyone as well. Should we remove all references to the NRA because there might be a few pro-gun control members? I am not following your logic on this. The name is very specific, presumably only a certain group would even want to join it. Do you have some information that the rest of us do not? How is the name misleading exactly? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * An organisation that describes itself as 'Jewish', but solicits for members regardless of whether they consider themselves Jewish or not seems self-evidently misleading to me. And as yet, we still have no data whatsoever on what their membership is. What we do have is a source describing them as 'extremist', and promoting Holocaust revisionism. And for the umpteenth time, this article isn't supposed to be about the U.S. gun control debate - it is supposed to be in international overview, and regardless of just how significant JPFO are amongst U.S. pro-gun groups, they sure as hell don't have any meaningful support for their insurrectionist fantasies elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not getting how having an open membership somehow trivializes the JPFO. The NRA has an open membership, as do most gun control organizations. I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, or perhaps I am not being clear (Sometimes the printed word simply does not translate well). How is the JPFO is any different, extremist, or misleading, from either of the two larger organizations that also have open memberships? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The source you cited describes them as extremist. And I'm not interested in facile debates - an honest 'open access' organisation wouldn't choose a name which implies that it isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You did not answer my question, but thanx. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Are they really that big? I thought they were quite small population wise (but perhaps more influential than their size would indicate within the movement). I would certainly have thought they would be behind the SAF in size in any case. Any source for size? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that the most relevant policy/guideline is wp:undue(in wp:npov) which basically says to weight by coverage in sources. I think that discussion of their size/prominence on the talk page to help sort things out is also useful/appropriate.   And even though not policy, IMO the degree of relevance to the topic of the article should also be given consideration. Andy seems to be positing other criteria which I don't think are appropriate.  Like the editors have to first prove and source that a group that has "Jewish" in its name "has significant Jewish Membership" as a criteria to allow the material to go in.  Andy also seems to be saying that he decides what the (unwritten) motive of the inserting editor is, and if he judges that such is wrong, that that is a reason for exclusion.  These seem contrary to the applicable policies  and guidelines, and his general claim that policies/guidelines support his position IMHO is the opposite of the actual case.  Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thats right, the relevant policy is WP:UNDUE. And since mainstream historiography on the subject gives no credibility whatsoever to this revisionist propaganda concerning the Holocaust, neither should we. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not what wp:undue says; it actually says the reverse. If it is widely made claim, covered in sources, that it should be covered. And in this case it is also attributed as being their claim, i.e. not stating it as fact in the voice of Wikipedia.  A second possibility for exclusion is wp:fringe, but I don't think that you could credibly argue that this claim falls under that.  Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If the subject matter is the Holocaust, the claim isn't 'widely made' within the relevant academic field. We go by the best relevant sources, not the loudest fringe ones. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We're starting to circle back now. I think we both said what we have to say.   North8000  (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to reiterate that I believe this Nazi material is undue in this article and that we should wait for ArbCom before putting more work into the article re: the said Nazi material. As for JPFO membership: its IRS report for 2012 shows an income of almost $127,000. At $25 annual membership, and assuming all its income is membership fees, that makes a little over 5,000 members. The weird thing, they don't list the income as membership dues. From my experience with nonprofits, there are probably members who give more than $25/year, and there are probably other sources of income, so I'd be surprised if they actually have 5, 000 active members. Can we please remove that ref from the article? Lightbreather (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I too would like a source for "just how large" (3rd largest after NRA and GOA?) the org is. Lightbreather (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * JPFO's Alexa rank is pretty impressive. Ranked: 177,032. (Google PR is 5) They seem to have no trouble getting millions of hits. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So what? The Time Cube website ranks 338,600, and I very much doubt that is an indication of support for the material posted there. If you wish to argue that JPFO is significant, provide direct evidence from reliable sources. Significance of course, meaning significant in terms of the subject matter of this article, which isn't the US gun control debate... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On what basis is your determination that information relevant to the US debate is to be excluded from a global overview? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Gaijin42, your pathetic attempts to misrepresent what I have written do your case no good whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No reason to use such combative language, I am not "arguing" anything, and I don't think Gaijin is misrepresenting anything. I think I understand your position perfectly. You do not want any nazi material in the article at all for any reason whatsoever, am I correct? Why such a hardline stance? Two years ago the group I am in picketed a gun-show. On almost every hillbilly pickup truck there (my apologies to any hillbillys here who own pickup trucks) there were bumperstickers with things like "All in favor of Gun Control raise your hand" along with a pic of Hitler throwing his salute, others I saw were ones with Stalin, Saddam Hussein, etc. It angers me to see this sort of thing, but we have to be intellectually honest here and put our politics to the side and do what is best for Wikipedia. Clearly these issues (The Nazi issue and others) are a big part of the gun control debate. I cannot recall having a debate with one of my gun-toting friends when the subject hasn't come up. For that reason alone, these things need to be in the article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing remotely 'intellectually honest' about an article misrepresenting fringe pseudohistorical revisionism entirely unsupported by academia as a historical account of events leading up to the Holocaust. Those pushing for inclusion of this material have repeatedly argued (when it suits them) that they are merely presenting 'facts', and not presenting any particular viewpoint - but now they are claiming that this viewpoint needs to be represented because it is significant. Not that they provide the data to back it up. Just unsubstantiated claims about membership that tell us nothing. And just how many times to I have to point out that this isn't an article about the US gun debate - WP:WEIGHT has to apply in relation to the subject as a whole, not to the US alone. And so far there has been no evidence presented that this absurd argumentum ad Hitlerum has any significant support beyond the US. This has all been explained repeatedly, but still we get the same contradictory arguments, the same ridiculous insistence that 'facts' are all that is being presented, and the same insistence that because the US gun lobby makes more noise than anyone else, they have the right to determine the content of an article purporting to be giving an international overview. That isn't intellectual honesty, it is partisan manipulation of Wikipedia for the promotion of a 'history' of the Holocaust written for pro-gun propaganda purposes by people with no academic credibility in the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You realize that of all the people I've mentioned, Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, etc., none of them are Americans, right? The only American issue on the subject would be the slave gun-laws. This is not an Ad Hitlerum issue, although regrettably the gun-toters have made him a poster-boy. It's not an American issue, either. Please explain how it is WP:WEIGHT for the article to breach the subject. It's a significant viewpoint WORLDWIDE. I am seriously not following your logic here at all. There are people in Afghanistan who cite Soviet attempts to disarm the population (Which was even less successful than Hitlers). By the way, I am not trying to argue, I am trying to understand you. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is a significant viewpoint worldwide, please provide the evidence. And cut out the patronising crap. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sue Rangell, that is the nature of the Hitler argument. It has nothing to do with what Hitler did and everything to do with what someone wants to argue.  So the U.S. gun lobby says that gun control was what Hitler and Stalin did.  But historians of those societies see nothing unusual about their gun control laws and rarely mention them.  So oddly the only mention of Hitler's gun control policies are in articles about gun control in the U.S., not gun control in Germany.  TFD (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that Sue's argument is essentially (via a more extreme example for clarity) that, in the debate, a gazillion people claimed that gun control is a plot by an alien race that inhabit the the invisible planet Gozorba that orbits the earth, that, per Wikipedia standards, and what Wikipedia a does, their claim should be covered, even if attributed as "they claim that xxxxxx"  And Andy is saying that if their claim is not supported by experts, that such is a reason to exclude coverage of it.  North8000  (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We certainly don't include it in articles discussing objects that orbit the Earth. See WP:FRINGE AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * North understands me. I am not saying that there is any validity to the hitler stuff (or any of the other stuff) validity does not come into it. It could be 100% fringe. It still needs to be noted that in a discussion about gun control, this is going to be some of the first stuff out of their mouths. We are not talking about a small number of people here. If that were so, I would agree with keeping the info out. But it isn't so. Also, this is a worldwide view, as I mentioned the problems in Afghanistan. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉  20:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The Hitler argument is never used outside the U.S., because the broader argument that guns are necessary in case government descends into tyranny is itself only used in the U.S. So if it is mentioned at all it should be mentioned as part of the debate in the U.S. and its significance explained. For example, "Some extreme gun rights activists in the U.S. claim that Hitler used gun control as part of the Holocaust. Scholars reject this view and Jewish groups have complained about it as trivialization of the holocaust." TFD (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It is actually used outside the US (albeit less notably), as several sources have been provided for, but with the exception of the word "extreme" which is itself a POV issue, the current article text is a slightly expanded version of what you just said. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you name any country, other than the U.S., where Hitler is part of the gun control debate. TFD (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note, I freely admit that the argument is made to a less often, less notably, and with less traction elsewhere, but it is happening, and it is documented by reliable sources. Australia, Canada , UK (cant find source, discussed in archives), Brazil Gaijin42 (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Utterly insignificant. Furthermore, the example you cite for Brasil is a clear and unambiguous misrepresentation of the source, which makes it clear that the 'Nazi' references were made by the NRA, who apparently now see it as part of their mission to interfere in the domestic politics of other countries. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I truly believe it would be more constructive if we stopped calling it "the Hitler argument" or "Nazi argument", and referred to it instead perhaps as "the oppression argument", make a section along those lines, and throw the hitler stuff in there with the rest. Just my opinion. (see below) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The material in question is about Nazis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Arming and Disarming: A History of Gun Control in Canada merely says, "As had occurred in the 1970s, organizations representing firearm owners made analogies between modern arms control and the policies of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia." That is the sole mention of Nazi Germany in the book, and the author provides no elaboration. It is extremely trivial to the debate. Sue Rangell, the oppression argument more typically refers to the constitutional right to bear arms as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights 1689. Ironically, that right does not extend to Jews or Catholics for that matter. But that argument has become infrequent since colonial times as the act lost the force of constitutional law in Commonwealth nations. Only some U.S. states and the federal government chose to write it into their new constitutions. TFD (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just clarifying, the above discussions are about whether or not Nazi gun control is a significant part of a debate about the topic of the article and not whether or not it is simply a significant instance of the topic of the article.  North8000  (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And who exactly appointed you to 'clarify' what other people are discussing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * An editor does not need to be "appointed" to point out something on the talk page, which is what I was doing.  And that clarification does not call for such a nasty angle / response on it, implying that I did something wrong. Sincerely,   North8000  (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you wish to express an opinion do so. But don't dress up your opinion as 'clarification' - that is wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not just an opinion, it is very clear that this entire section is talking about additional relevance to the debate or ramifications of the Nazi Gun control.  North8000  (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why the nasty responses? I think that North's clarification is entirely in order, as I don't think anyone is trying to make the point that Nazi gun control would have made any difference in the Holocaust. The point is that gun-toters will cite these (Nazi, Soviet, and other oppressive gun control laws) almost 100% of the time when there is debate. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, numbers pulled out of thin air aren't 'a point'. Particularly when they are manifestly wrong. Nowhere but in the US is this absurd argumentum ad Hitlerum taken seriously, and this article isn't about the US gun debate. It is downright offensive the way multiple contributors endlessly insist on referring to the US debate as if it were the only one that matters. Wikipedia is a multinational project, and this is supposed to be an international overview of the subject matter. Even the most basic understanding of WP:NPOV policy should make clear why the domination of this article by the US debate (or more accurately, by one faction within the debate) is entirely contrary to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Godwin's law applies to any topic. Sooner or later someone will say that's what Hitler did.  But it has little relevance to gun control disputes outside the U.S., because they are rarely based on the right to keep and bear arms.  The Canadian long gun (22 rifles and shotguns) registry dispute for example focused on cost and effectiveness and the undue costs, red tape, and risk of prosecution posed to farmers.  No one suggested that the people needed this weapons to defend against a tyrannical federal government.  Ironically when the issue had been defined in rights terms (in the 19th century) it was to defend the government against the lower orders and American democracy.  TFD (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * An aside....the only way to be immune from the accusations implicit in Goodwins Law is to erase all coverage of everything Nazi related, including all history book coverage of it.  :-)  North8000  (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If we would follow your reasoning then every article that involves political disputes should explain how they did things in nazi Germany. Health care, homosexuality, minimum wage, weights and measures, legal codes - the nazis had policies on all of them.  But reasonable participants in this dispute do not say that's what the nazis did, ergo it is wrong.  TFD (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * TFD you are intelligent and write intelligent stuff. I think that you know that what I wrote essentially says that sometimes it is bogus to invoke Goodwin's law to criticize, and not what you described as my reasoning.  On the rest of your post thee are good thoughts in there. Responding would be just getting on the the "main debate" with you.....I would enjoy a structured one-on-one conversation with you on that (and it might be very fruitful) but otherwise I hesitate to just start an exchange that does not have that depth. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This material can certainly be considered a instance of Godwin's Law. But it is a notable one. In fact, it is the ORIGIN of Godwin's Law (along with abortion). (another sign of notability!) http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html You can disagree with the arguments. You might even be right. But saying the argument isn't notable is ludicrous. Im glad that everyone agrees the argument is notable within the US. We disagree about its notability elsewhere, but even if so, that isn't an really argument for exclusion. You would have to gut almost all of every article because each bit of content was a fact/argument was about a particular country. This is a single paragraph of text, in a decently big article, with many other arguments to provide balance. Excluding arguments you disagree with is not encyclopedic, particularly in an article about a political topic where by definition there is controversy - excluding controversy does not lead to neutrality. @TFD - you are very right we do not bring up that argument in every topic, because it is not notable in every topic. However, it is notable in this topic. Its also notable in say the eugenics article, and it also is notable in Homosexuality, where its given prominent coverage LGBT_history Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust Gaijin42 (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The book you provided on gun control in Canada makes only one mention of the nazis (along with Stalin) in one sentence. One only plays the Hitler card when one has lost the argument, but that is true of any argument.  Sure, some nazi policies are significant, and I suppose their treatment of homosexuals was one of them.  But there was nothing unusual about their gun laws, as a review of the literature on gun control shows.  If one views all political disputes along a statism/freedom axis, then what the uberstatists do becomes important.  But that is not how mainstream sources view it.  TFD (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There was nothing unusual about their gun laws?? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not particularly, no. Or at least, if they were, historians qualified to discuss the Nazis seem not to have noticed. Which amounts, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, to the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there anything about their gun control law you find unusual? TFD (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes very much so. I am very much in favor of gun control if the purpose is to protect the streets and keep people safe. The laws of totalitarian groups do not operate on those principles. When a gun control law targets a specific groups such as Shiite Muslims, US or South African blacks, or Mujahideen, I consider that to be highly unusual. You gentlemen are of course free to disagree. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉  02:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have a suspicion that 'targeting specific groups' may well be the norm, if it isn't always as overtly stated as by the Nazis. As TFD notes above, the English Bill of Rights 1689 that U.S, pro-gun lobbyists are so keen to cite as the root of their legal 'right' to bear arms intentionally excluded Catholics, along with other minorities: "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law". As has often been noted, the background to the first major restriction to this 'right' in Britain - the Firearms Act of 1920 - was motivated by fears (real or imagined) of Bolsheviks and Irish Nationalists. Similar laws were passed in Canada and Australia for example for much the same reason. As for the motivation of the Nazi laws, I'm sure they would have justified it as 'keeping people safe' (they did after all see Jews and Bolsheviks as responsible for everything wrong with the world), but the broader context suggests that the law of 1938, was framed the way it was as just another episode in the systematic harassment of Jews (or rather people they categorised as Jews) that they had been engaging in for years - specifically, the removal of rights as citizens. There is no evidence whatsoever that they saw the 250,000 or so remaining Jews in Germany as any sort of real threat, and likewise no evidence that these same Jews would actually have been capable of mounting any sort of threat - not least because the majority of firearms confiscated from Jews by the Nazis seem to have been WW1 souvenirs, of no practical use. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The law made no mention of Jews. Foreigners were not allowed to possess guns, but then neither the Bill of Rights 1689 nor the U.S. Bill of Rights 1789 protect the right of foreigners to keep and bear arms.  What Nazi Germany, South Africa and the United States (but not the Soviet Union) have in common is that the removed citizenship from minorities in order to deprive them of civil rights.  BTW African Americans in the U.S. are less likely to obtain permission to carry a firearm than white people.  TFD (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the US law was and often still is applied discriminatorily. There was more than one law/regulation in 1938. Nov 11, 1938 "Verordnung gegen der Waffenbesitz der Juden" "Jews (§ 5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of November 14, 1935 . . .) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as cutting or stabbing weapons. Those now having in their possession weapons and ammunition must at once surrender them to the local police authority." 04:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The second "law" was actually a ministerial order to execute the law. The 1938 act had prohibited gun permits to foreigners and untrustworthy people just as the 1928 act had.  Since Jews had been stripped of citizenship in 1935, they no longer had the right to keep and bear arms.  Frick could have issued the order even if the 1938 law had never been written.  TFD (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Whether it's a law or Ministerial order doesn't matter. It was gun control, and aimed specifically at a minority, and historical fact. It doesn't matter how effective it was. What matters is that it is part of the world-wide gun control debate. The US is a very significant part of that debate. Totalitarianism in other parts of the world mirror the same arguments. All of these worldwide arguments belong in the artical regardless of what country they originate from, or which dictator was using gun control as a form of oppression. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Gaijin, how did you get the time on your last post but not your user ID? I would fix it but... :-)
 * Has anyone heard the latest about the ArbCom? I have feedback on comments (above) from the past week but don't want to add to the debate while we're still waiting for the ArbCom results. Lightbreather (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The 1938 Reich ministerial order is not "part of the world-wide gun control debate", and is not even mentioned in the U.S. except among a tiny group in the gun rights fringe.  Incidentally the order only extended to Germany, while 95% of Holocaust victims lived outside Germany.  TFD (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct, the order was an example of German gun control, not US gun control. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * An example of gun control that almost nobody but U.S. pro-gun lobbyists sees as being of any significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Accepted. But it's still German gun control, and U.S. pro/anti gun lobbyists aren't exactly minor players in world gun politics. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Gun Control as oppression
As a compromise, would either side of the issue be opposed to putting the Nazi material into it's own section, along with U.S. treatment of indians and slaves, Soviet actions, Iraqi issues, early British gun laws, and other historical attempts to control populations by removing guns? If all of these were in one place, it would eliminate the Ad Hitlerum impression presently given, and allow a more international tone to take place in the article. This could be a win-win for both sides of the issue, even for the hardliners here, I believe. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We had it that way before "Associations with authoritarianism". Covered nazis, US race stuff, boshevik russia etc. Gutted and removed by the cabal. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It would be wise to wait to see what ArbCom has to say on the matter. I'm sure they will have something to say regarding 'cabals' too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree (generally) with waiting for ARBCOM, but it does no harm to discuss it. I do not know much about Cabals, but perhaps this is something that we could consider. It seems like a good compromise to me, but I am admittedly biased. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We normally can look at reputable tertiary sources for a guide to how to lay out articles. They tend to ignore this type of stuff and if they mention it at all but it in with pro-gun fringe groups.  And they tend to include both the argumentum ad hitlerum stuff with what pro-Hitler pro-gun groups say.  TFD (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * 9th circuit (well known as very liberal leaning) ruling today giving summary judgement to one denied a CA carry permit since he could not show good cause. Starting at about page 34 of the ruling, the majority opinion quotes Halbrook and others on racist and oppressive use of gun control within the US http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf Gaijin42 (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant WP:OR. Wikipedia isn't the slightest bit interested in the partisan spin you can put on primary-source material. And this article isn't just about the U.S. for the upteenthumpteen time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Not disagreeing with Andy, I'll point out that the 9th Circuit ruling reversed the district court ruling:


 * See page 77 of the ruling you linked above. Requoting a snippet from that, "San Diego County’s 'good cause' permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense."


 * My guess is that analysis and comment by secondary sources will soon appear. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The political views of judges are in this case irrelevant, as they are bound to follow the majority view in D.C. v. Heller. In any case, all it shows is that it is part of the debate in the U.S., not that it is relevant to any other country.  TFD (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The U.S. is still part of the world, correct? Or should we change the name of the article to reflect that it's supposed to be about Gun control everywhere BUT the U.S.?? The article is about Gun control in general, isn't it? If the concern is that U.S. issues are dominating the discussion, then please by all means improve the article by introducing material relevant to other countries and nations. Thanx. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If something is specific to one country, it should be included in that country's section, lest we misrepresent that it is a universal issue. TFD (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

NO gun control featured/mentioned in: Gun legislation in Germany, Adolf Hitler, The Holocaust, Nazi Germany
If the Nazi argument - Nazi "gun control" - was a significant, contributing factor in the Holocaust, why is there nothing about it in any of these articles?
 * Gun legislation in Germany
 * Adolf Hitler
 * The Holocaust
 * Nazi Germany

I should think the Gun legislation and Holocaust articles especially would have sections or subsections about this. Lightbreather (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Information may be of different notability in different contexts. It is notable in the topic of gun control. It may be not in the topic of the Holocaust, but you are incorrect, it is briefly mentioned in the Gun legislation in Germany article. It had more previously I believe. The german wikipedia article covers it in more detail https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffengesetz_(Deutschland)#Mittelalter_bis_1945 and in fact has an entire article dedicated to the topic https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entwaffnung_der_deutschen_Juden Gaijin42 (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw that the 1938 Weapons Act was in the German gun legislation article, but it doesn't say anything about its significance to the Holocaust. And the Holocaust article doesn't mention the law at all, does it? (I don't see it.) That's part of my beef with including Halbrook's Nazi "gun control" arguments and theories in this article. If Nazi gun control contributed significantly to the Holocaust - it should be in that article. Lightbreather (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The content is much more WP:UNDUE in the holocaust article. Halbrook et al are notable voices in the topic of guns and gun control. They are not notable voices on the topic of the holocaust.  there are opinions that these laws were part of the holocaust, and how important they were. There is no opinion required as to these laws being instances of gun control. Further they are notable instances. That you (or anyone, including holocaust scholars) may disagree with the arguments and opinions that make them notable, does not make them less so, within the umbrella of gun control.   Gaijin42 (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Notability has to due with whether or not a topic can have its own article. I still say, at best, the argument should have its own article - as a minority viewpoint - and per DUE/UNDUE a brief, one sentence reference or "See also" in this article. Lightbreather (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait for ArbCom - there is no point in going over all this yet again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am waiting. I only get sucked into it when I'm following some of the ongoing discussions and see things that I don't want to slide (because to some people silence means something). Lightbreather (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait for ARBCOM, or participate in one of the other discussion threads. Don't start yet another thread. By doing so you are perpetuating a conversation that has already stalled out. Thanx. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, it makes no difference whether or not Nazi gun control was a significant contributing factor to the holocaust. What's important was that it is an historical example of gun control, and that it finds it's way into nearly every debate on the subject. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To the same extent one finds Hitler in every debate, no matter what the subject. ("You want to build a highway?  Hitler built highways!")  You need to establish that it is a significant part of this debate, which you have failed to do.  TFD (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to disagree with "to the same extent".  It's quite common in gun control debate and volleys, and exceedingly rare in volleys and debates about highways.  North8000  (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * While I am sure that the Hitler argument is popular in discussions you have, no evidence has been presented that it is common in gun control debates. In the book about the history of gun control in Canada for example it is only mentioned once in passing.  (Stalin is mentioned in the same sentence.)  The author saw no need to explain what their argument was.  TFD (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was going more by publications. I think that this whole thread is a tangent (away from the main reasons for inclusion); my comment was on the narrower topic of your post. Godwin does not mean that all discussion of German Nazi history are illegitimate.  North8000  (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually cannot recall having a debate with a gun-toter when it didn't come up. In fact often it is the first thing out of their mouths. The bumperstickers are all over the vehicles at the gun trade shows. I would venture that it is one of their more popular points. Google search of "Nazi Gun Control" produced "About 18,600,000 results" (79,700 with the quotes) and the first page had dozens of examples of the subject being discussed in newspapers, blogs, and forums. "nazi built highway" yeilded only a single result. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just how many debates regarding issues concerning the regulation of firearms have you had with anyone other then U.S. citizens? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would that make any difference? This article includes Gun Control in the United States, correct? As far as I can tell, Gun Control in the USA is a significant part of the world-wide discussion. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't matter at all if you weren't making (invalid under WP:OR anyway) claims regarding the significance of the argumentum ad Hitlerum: "it finds it's way into nearly every debate on the subject". And by the way, regarding Google read this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you I am well aware of Wikipedia's essays, including those like the one you cited which is not even on Wikipedia. As I thought was obvious, I was making a comparison between "nazi gun control" and "nazi built highways". --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yoiks! First, has anyone heard anything about the ArbCom? Second, I want to say I don't know why this is debated so much - but of course it's a Nazi argument, so that explains it.

That said, the very first sentence of WP:DUE says, Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been PUBLISHED by RELIABLE sources, in PROPORTION to the PROMINENCE of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. (I added the caps.)

1. Has this Nazi argument been PUBLISHED? Yes. It passes that test.

2. Has it been published by RELIABLE sources? There is debate about the reliability of the sources of the Nazi argument. For instance, is Halbrook a reliable source? For some things, yes. On this subject? No consensus.

3. PROMINENCE? There is a small but vocal group that believes the argument is valid, and that group keeps pushing to have it recognized. These are the gun-toters - members of the general public - speaking their opinions, or writing them in blogs or in comments sections after news stories.

4. PROPORTION (of published, reliable sources) is the final hurdle this material does not clear. That's where WP:DUE once again tells us what to do: Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.

In determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Lightbreather (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS's and two potential general types of Nazi era gun control coverage
A couple of notes: Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source relates to being published with a review layer, not any judgement of reliability. (e.g. objectivity, expertise). Not inferring that any source does or doesn't have that, just that (for better or for worse) that test is not policy  Also just reiterating,  there are two general types of coverage of Nazi gun control that that have been debated. One is just coverage as an instance of gun control, the other is coverage opinions/inferences/interpretations/drawn parallels/arguments/assertions etc. regarding it. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The main issue is weight. You need to show that the Hitler argument has been extensively mentioned in reliable sources about this subject.  TFD (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The weight would seem to be considerable. It makes it's way into virtually every discussion of gun control. Just look at this thread. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The thing is, WP:WEIGHT says: In determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Lightbreather (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That proves Godwin's law, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." Weight is not determined by what Wikipedia editors believe but what reliable sources find important.  So far you have failed to show that the Hitler argument is significant in rs.  TFD (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sue gave the discussion here as an example/indicator of it's prevalence, she did not say that the prevalence here was the basis.  North8000  (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for putting that back into context. I appreciate it.--<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't prove Godwin's law. It inspired Godwin's law - another indicator of the notability of the argument. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If the subject of this article was Godwin's law, you might have a point. It isn't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Most people ignore the rest of it (from the WP article) "Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate".   Or stated more as the logical fallacy that it's observation means that all discussions about that part of history are inappropriate.  North8000  (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an example of Godwin's law, not it's inspiration. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Lets ask Mr Godwin. "By 1990, I had noticed, something similar had happened to the Nazi-comparison meme. Sure, there are obvious topics in which the comparison recurs. In discussions about guns and the Second Amendment, for example, gun-control advocates are periodically reminded that Hitler banned personal weapons." http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if.html Gaijin42 (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In the sentence after that "By 1990" paragraph Godwin wrote: "And birth-control debates are frequently marked by pro-lifers' insistence that abortionists are engaging in mass murder, worse than that of Nazi death camps." Are you saying that he believes that Nazi arguments belong in discussions about gun control and abortion? Lightbreather (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * North, old friend. Can you rephrase your "Not inferring" sentence at the top of this subsection? It has three negatives in it and I'm having a hard time understanding what you meant. Also, WP:RS may be a guideline, but the WP:EXCEPTIONAL policy says exceptional claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community require multiple, high-quality sources. Because we're talking about an argument embraced by a small but hyper-vocal group there are quite a few sources for it, but the quality is a problem. Lightbreather (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User:LightbreatherThe core of my post was a pretty narrow comment on your comment, but then I went on to touch on several broader areas. So I'm not sure quite how to answer. I have been seeking to to have an in-depth high-road working discussion with someone who seeks to have this material kept out but who has not ruled out any possibilities including a compromise. (or include multiple such folks from both "sides").  It could include some of the usual "point lobbing" done in a nice way, but would need to evolve beyond that.  And it would need to exclude the nasty crap (vilifying  etc.) so it might need to be done at an editor talk page.  Are you / is anybody interested?   Without that I'm not up for attempting a substantial discussion, either of the type in the pre-arbcom nasty environment or in a perpetual superficial (though much more civil) point-lobbing mode which has been the case here. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * North, I'm 99% sure the "nasty crap" comment isn't meant for me, and 100% sure that you know that I know how to compromise. I propose compromises often - and did so re: this argument. Create a Nazi gun laws article (exact name TBD) and have a simple sentence in this article like, "Some gun rights advocates believe...." and a link to the new article. Until more editors on both sides of the argument agree that there are enough high-quality sources, treat it as a WP:FRINGE/historical revisionism argument. That's the best compromise, IMO. That is to say, I haven't seen a better one. Lightbreather (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The proposal is at the Gun politics in the US talk page. And what I said to another editor at the time was, "Personally, I think it's WP:FRINGE. However, I read about historical revisionism and, at least according to WP, it's not all "bad," so I chose that as a less fractious term." Lightbreather (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Lightbreather, on your first item, of course I was not referring to you when I referred to the nasty stuff.  And the dialog I was seeking was one that really gets to and deals with the underlying questions on the various types of potential content.  For me I'd be up for having that, but for me life's too short to spend a lot of time on individual phrases on "matters of opinion" type articles such as this one and the other that you are referring to, and I'm thankful for other editors that are willing to do so.  Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, a Google search of "Nazi Gun Control" produced "About 18,600,000 results" and the first page had dozens of examples of the subject being discussed in newspapers, blogs, and forums, certainly enough of it citable to show that the subject of "Nazi Gun Control" has a place in this article about gun control. How effective it was is irrelevant. Whether it's an intelligent or accurate point to make is irrelevant. What matters is that the topic is newsworthy and lots of people are talking about it. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A Google search for 'Flat Earth' supposedly gives about 76,600,000 results. Do you think we should include the theory in our article on the planet? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that she was giving it to show the prevalence in conversations, not a claim that google results alone dictate inclusion. Also, coverage of the gun control debate is coverage of expressed opinions, coverage of the flat vs. actual shape of the earth is coverage of scientifically proven fact.  North8000  (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Terminology and context
The Terminology and context section is completely unsourced. I am going to take a day or two to work on it and provide some source citations. If you have a question or comment, please AGF and bring it up here. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Please find sources, but also please don't start simply removing unsourced material without discussion, thanx. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Can't find any that directly supports this section the way it's written... and it's written using weaselly language. It also includes a lot of off-topic details, which I find a lot of in these gun-related articles: for instance, long, wikilinked lists of every kind of weapon that doesn't fall under gun control. I think the whole thing could be reduced to this, without question of being OR or synthesis, but if y'all think it's encyclopedia as is...

My suggestion:


 * Gun control is similar to arms control except that gun control deals with a government's domestic policies regarding civilian ownership and use of small arms like pistols, rifles, and shotguns. Arms control typically deals with international treaties regarding conventional weapons, including small arms and light weapons (SALW), as well as weapons of mass destruction.

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of this section is to do exactly what its title says, provide (common) terminology for the topic being discussed and explain that the article deals with a smaller piece of a much large topic. It was meant to narrow the scope that (non-gun knowledgeable) people could perceive the topic to mean. In this case, the article (originally) discussed gun control of handguns and long arms (rifles, shotguns) and their associated variants excluding full military items such as tanks, chemical weapons, etc.

In a global (non-US centric) sense, the definition is expanded to small arms and light weapons (SALW). Here in the United States, the "gun control" debate does not typically include discussion of grenades, but on a global scale it does. Another way to look at it, gun control is "local" or "regional" and arms control is "international". This article deals with what happens within borders, not across them.

If this were a simple, easy to understand topic with universal, commonly accepted terminology, we wouldn't need the section at all, but it's not... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)