Talk:Gun: Difference between revisions

Military history: Technology / Weaponry Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force

Firearms Start‑class

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.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Technology Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Maybe this article should simply disambiguate?

• David Raffey is correctly used for an artillery gun of relatively flat trajectory
• It is also correctly used for shotgun
• David I told you I can edit stuff. firearm, but this usage is often considered to be incorrect, particularly in military and shooting circles.
• Gun is also used for a variety of devices which eject something, or are shaped like a pistol: soldering gun, staple gun, glue gun
• and so on.

The article as it stands is almost a dictionary entry.

By the way, a gun's propellant is rarely gunpowder; and I don't think air should be featured (it is a minor usage, perhaps). Pol098 17:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reset the page as it had been entirely deleted, as well as cleaned it up a bit. As for gun being only artillery, from a purely military standpoint, yes. From a 'public' standpoint, however, no. To the general public, a gun is any form of one-man firearm. And this turned into a LOAD of edits, since I seem to be blind today, and missed things I then saw later. DannyBoy2k 19:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be restricted to cannon and artillery pieces.. not this [see image]:

Gregorydavid 11:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is only the military definition, the common usage is that it is a tool that fires a projectile.--Omnicog 14:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, im in the canadian artillery and ive been drilled to death to call rifles rifles, and machine guns machine guns. However, the military use is not necessarily the correct use. Perhaps including a section of 'Other uses' or 'Military use' could straighten this out. A gun is anything that can be called a gun. A radar gun IS a gun, its just a different type.

In USAF nomenclature, rifles are "guns." The GAU and GUU designations are used for the USAF equiv of the M4.

I also challenge the "nominal 6"" statement. I'm going to remove it. Mortars are guns, and 81mm is less than 6". The 25mm gun on the Bradley is also a gun. I don't know what reference was used for that statement, but it's errantly precice.Mzmadmike (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When trying to revert to a good version (where I had to skip about two or three different users), I got into about two or three edit conflicts, all vandalism or discussion. A look at this article's history shows a lot of vandalism. Would this article benefit from a semiprotect? --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do so. --D.E. Watters 21:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do the next time I see a lot of vandalism (since it was eight days since the last bout of constant vandalism). --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just did it. im sick of reverting and its clearly a commonly vandalized article. i also forgot to use the edit summary. sorry thuglas^talk|edits 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I added Zip gun to the list of guns, kind of surprised that it wasn't there, seeing the extensiveness of the list. There are bound to be more unlinked gun type articles out there. Missing links to already existing articles, just another small problem wikipedia is working on.--Exander 07:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC Gun was the african god of iron and War. If so than that should be added --alex 05:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC) That would be interesting if its true. Can you give more details though? For starters, which African culture the god belonged to and possibly where you learned this from. (IIRC stands for If I Recall Correctly- for those of you who don't know) -Andrew[reply]

To any and all administrators,

Protect this article! It has been vandalized repeatedly and constantly, and I've only seen a few legitimate anon edits. There is little or no reason not to protect it.--LWF 03:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--I agree, please protect it. Idiots adding crap and blanking. (70.48.37.4 08:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I also agree. Vandalism appears to be coming from multiple users. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.233.36.182 (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ca someone find out and source the etymology of the word 'gun'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.89.132.41 (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Paintball guns and airsoft guns are not weapons by any stretch of the imagination. Having these listed in the list of weapons contributes nothing to the definition of guns as weapons. Furthermore, the untruth of the implicit statement erodes the credibility of the article. Consider removing them from the list. --64.180.87.252 23:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the bit that goes something like: "It is also used to refer to the person holding the gun rather than the gun itself, as in 'a hired gun.'" This is an example of synecdoche, rather than a comment about the usage of the term gun, so I felt it was unnecessary.

It seems to me that the common usage includes anything that fires a projectile, whether or not it is used as a weapon. (See Nail gun and Spud gun). Also, I'm surprised Railgun and Coilgun aren't mentioned here, since they even fit the narrower definition. 129.199.159.36 (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of a gun is not "....a common name given to an object that propels another object or projectile", if this was true, then a crossbow, a longbow or anything that projects an object is a gun. Even by that definition, a person throwing a knife is considered a gun. The real definition of a gun is, "any object that has a barrel or a metal tube that uses an EXPLOSIVE FORCE to propel or project an object." The explosive force is the key phrase in the sentence. Felton22 (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crossbows and various catapults were, in fact, referred to as "guns" within their era. So you're both incorrect.Mzmadmike (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explosive Force is not necessary to be a gun. Think: what about airsoft guns, rail guns, coil guns, nail guns, etc? Are those not guns? Explosive force is only necessary for firearms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.176.203.170 (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For such an important article it's quite short. The list is bigger than the rest of the article. Isn't a gun a pretty important encyclopedic subject? klosterdev (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention it misses any and all historic background. - Redmess (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have a picture of a BOAT on the top of an article about GUNS?

Don't you find that just a BIT confusing. If the primary objective of the article is to illustrate guns, we should be shown a should be a typical gun, not an overhead view of a boat, with the guns not even very visible.

Perhaps that picture should be moved to the "terminology" section:

In military usage, the term "gun" refers to heavy and light artillery that fires projectiles at high velocity, such as naval guns (which are never referred to as cannons) or tank guns.

Regardless, this article needs some help, hence the {{cleanup}} tag. --tc2011 (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Types of guns" section is more of a list than a typical article. I suggest we start a new page under that heading (or List of guns), leaving this article for more of a description rather than a listing. ←Spidern→ 17:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators, please protect this article; it has been target of vandalism. Thanks. Naylor, Brazil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.35.76.187 (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason why both this article and Firearm ought to exist? There seems at least a large amount of overlap, which could be profitably excised even if the articles are not merged. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both firearm and gun have the same definition of what the page is about. Should they be merged? Or should the difference be clarified? Is there a difference? LK (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The primary difference is that a firearm is generally a handheld item (carried by the person firing it), while the term gun includes larger crew-served weapons which are often mounted in place (the main cannon on a tank is a gun, it's but not a firearm). It seems that the two articles could reasonably be merged. This page appears to be more comprehensive and "Firearms", which is a subset of "Guns", could redirect hereDoc Tropics 04:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could we, um, delete this section? Not only is it wrong, and promoting stuff, but the difference between firearm and gun is already established in the article. --Phil1988 (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil, I'm afraid that after reading your comments and rereading the article, I'm a bit confused. Addressing your last point first, I couldn't find any text regarding the firearm/gun issue in this section. Also, I couldn't find any text that was "promoting stuff". Finally, if you feel there are factual errors, we should certainly correct them, but none jumped out at me. Could you give specific examples of things that are either promotional or incorrect? Thanks, Doc Tropics 20:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we have a section or a page about differing issues about guns on different cultures and their affects on society? The page just approaches guns a bit like a manual, which feels hollow considering they are after all controversial and deadly weapons. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a good idea if it weren't for the confusing language around the term. The point of this article is the word, not the usage. The usage is actually pretty specific. Controversy exists around certain types (and methods of use) and not really around the word 'gun'. I say suggest this on the article for 'small arm' or if your concern and the controversy you refer to is actually about the use of artillery, then perhaps mention it here. In fact including references to the shelling of civilian populations might be a good idea since thats pretty damn controversial, and while less common now then in say 1944, still affects our culture and society dramatically.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gun is Gun so please understand people so don't be a crap and crap is poop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.142.58.218 (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be interesting to read a section on the history and development of 'the gun'. Anyone?--Jlowther91 (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I came this page looking for general gun history. I'm probably not the first. Letsgoexploring (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section for History which at present contains only a link to the History of the firearm article. It would be nice to see a potted history given here too. Lumos3 (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, in our effort to play by the rules and to respect the ongoing work of all the contributors to this section we are formally requesting inclusion to this section "Gun" under the "See Also" section. We are a non-commercial Press Release organization that works on behalf of most of the leading weapons and equipment manufacturers INCONUS. Essentially when there is new weapons, equipment or gear being released within the industry (MILSPEC and Other) we are contacted to release the information to the general public. It is our desire to be listed as:

Tactical Gear News: The latest tactical gear news covering weapons,training, clothing and tactical equipment.

The site is located at: www.TacticalGearNews.com

Milspecnews (talk)milspecnews —Preceding undated comment added 11:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

"The propellant may be air, an explosive solid, or an explosive liquid." Should Magnet be added? It does say 'may be' so is referring to probably the most common types. Is there perhaps others and should they be listed elsewhere? How about steam?--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason this article has in its introduction a narrow military/naval definition of a "Gun" that doesn't even come close to WP:MOSBEGIN. The basic definition of a Gun[1] is something else entirely . The intro to this article needs to be re-written. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be a general-purpose encyclopedia, not one devoted solely to military science. The present lead does an adequate job of explaining the general term as well as what "gun" specifically refers to in a technical military context. There's certainly no need for the present badge of shame. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead does do an an adequate job of explaining the general term... but... it is the exact same explanation (definition) that is found at Firearm.... can't have that... there needs to be differentiation or something has to go. "explaining what the term.... "gun" specifically refers to in a technical military context" is a dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary that explains "terms". It explains things. For the average reader (and for the average dictionary[2] for that mater) The word "gun" does not have some narrow technical military context.... it is in fact the primary word/term for the things that go bang[3] (far out stripping where we currently have the article at "Firearm"[4]. That is why I tagged this article. This article either should not exist (redirect to Firearm), or it should be the primary article for all things that go bang. That of course brings up the problem of Firearm, it should probably not be the overall article for things that go bang since it defines as "portable gun"[5]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to making this a disambiguation page, but that's a quite different proposal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, its a can of worms that I didn't open right away... I just tagged the worst aspect of it. I would do the opposite of DAB, this article should be the primary article on the topic because it is the primary topic by definition and reference and popular usage. All other topics would be subs of this page re Wikipedia:Summary style.... hmmm... which is like a big DAB. Next step is probably a proposal at the project level. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there two separate articles about pretty much the same thing? I know that in a strict military sense they are different things but outside of the military the majority of people refer to all firearms as guns, when your average person is looking up 'guns' on wikipedia they are most likely looking for regular firearms. There's also already a pretty good article about artillery and this article is just a mess. Merge 'guns' and 'firearms'