Talk:Walther P22

In the article it says that Ruger and Browning design pistols are more accurate that the walther. This seems a tad biased to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.26.23.152 (talk • contribs)

VT shooter reference

Merely slapping that line at the end of the description on this article (and the Glock 19 article) is most inappropriate. Author, please correct this asap. --Jmeden2000 19:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is it in appropriate? Because you say so?

Have removed this per the consensus reached for Beretta Cx4 Storm (see its talk page). Yaf 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles about the guns used in the Columbine shooting and the guns used to kill JFK and President McKinley mention those people's deaths. Why not mention it here. Are these articles restricted to the technical aspects of the guns and their manufacture? I don't think so. MiFeinberg 19:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The difference is those were criminal cases that went to court. As of yet, untill the investigation is completed totally, anything you post would be speculation. While I applaud you for wanting to update wikipedia with information, it would best be suited on the actual page for VA Tech itself if anywhere. CINEGroup 20:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong! The murder of JFK never went to court.

1)I take it you won't object to listing the shooting here if this man is tried in court and it is proven he used this gun? 2)The police in Virginia have obtained the weapons, announed thier makes and models, and given this information to the press. And we still have to wait for the trail? MiFeinberg 20:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Columbine led to directly banning the Tec-9, by name, in the Assault Weapons Ban, and the weapon received considerable media and legislative attention as a result of Columbine. Similarly for the Carcano rifle that assassinated Pres. JFK that led directly to the Gun Control Act of 1968 which led to the ban on ordering weapons across state lines by private citizens. Both firearms received considerable media attention and subsequent legislative attention, by name. As the P22 has not received any notable media attention yet, nor legislative attention by Congress, the consensus reached in the discussion of the Beretta CX4 Storm should apply here. Namely, if the P22 receives considerable media attention as a result of the VT shootings, then mention of the shootings in the P22 article should be added in a few months. Meanwhile, it is just trivia to include it here now. Of course, the Glock 19 and Walther P22 should both be mentioned with wiki-links linked to the respective firearms articles in the VT Massacre article. Does this make sense? Yaf 20:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that in order for this article to mention VT massacre, the Glock 19 will have to receive media attention and be banned? How is it trivial to mention this weapon when it was used to kill perhaps 32 people? The event itself is not trivail -- we can agree on that. As this weapon played an important part in a terrible tragedy -- largest massacre in American history -- doesn't it deserve mentioning here? Astruc 20:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Beretta Cx4 Storm precedent over the Dawson College shooting isn't applicable. In that relatively shooting at a minority-language high-school near Montreal there was only one death, and will quickly be forgotten. This is more comparable to an earlier Montreal shooting - the École Polytechnique massacre in 1989 where 14 university students were massacred in a fairly similiar shooting. In that case a Mini-14 was used, and that information has been on the Mini-14 page for a long time. Nfitz 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And the Ruger Mini-14 was mentioned by name in the AWB, too. Media and legislative attention, in some cases promulgated by Bill Ruger himself in the form of his promoting limited capacity magazines in response to media attention, means that it should be mentioned on the Mini-14 page. There is no media or legislative attention being paid to the Glock 19 and Walther P22, yet. If it comes to pass that the weapons used at VT draw significant attention, then full mention should be included in the articles (Glock 19 and Walther P22, respectively) at that time. It is adequate at this time to just have wiki-links in the VT Massacre article to the Glock 19 and Walther P22 articles, respectively. Yaf 21:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why AWB is relevent here. The Glock does appear to be the major story - see link. Nfitz 21:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Assault Weapons Ban (AWB). There is a world outside Wikipedia :-) Yaf 21:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And according to the link, it "It was a very unremarkable sale". Again, this is inherently not notable. Yaf 21:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not that familiar with your local legislation. There is a world outside your local country! (of course in most countries, someone buying such a weapon, would be notable - perhaps that is part of the problem you have there). Nfitz 21:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a very common gun and since there were two guns, we're not even sure which one was used for the murders. Should not be mentioned unless it becomes a media story about the particular gun i.e. Columbine. The main problem in this case was not the gun, but the person behind the gun using it for ill-gotten reasons.Gloriamarie 23:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely the main story is that these types of guns are available for sale, and this is what happens. This is unusual in civilized countries! People don't massacre 32 people with hunting knifes! :-) Nfitz 23:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Handguns are not any more or less deadly than any other. Any type of gun will kill. People can massacre with bombs or sarin gas if they didn't have guns. I agree, massacres of any kind happen too often, in any country, civilized or uncivilized. But taking away guns will not stop someone who is determined to kill.(i.e. Dunblane, Scotland)--Gloriamarie 04:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Since many consider it trivial, hoiw about putting it in a trivia section? Many Wikipedia articles have trivia sections. MiFeinberg 01:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia is counter to Wikipedia policy; see WP:AVTRIV. The goal is to make an encyclopedia, not a set of cards for a game of trivial pursuit. Yaf 02:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If trivia were counter to Wikipedia policy you would be busy deleting some of the hundreds of pages about fictional and obscure Star Trek characters and other science fiction nonsense, Yaf.

Yaf, how can you say a consensus was reached on this page by citing a completely different article on a completely different subject? Beretta Cx4 Storm. I'm sorry, but it certainly does not appear as if any consensus has been reached - and if one has been reached it's in favor of keeping the information in. It appears as if you're trying to keep this information out for fear that the P22 will be added to the AWB. Wikipedia is not the place for political posturing. I have a small arsenal of guns at home, but you really need to knock it off. Please don't try such spurious arguments again. Mister Jinxy 23:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I struck a nerve, you being a VT grad/fan and having an arsenal... (Note: Personal attacks are generally frowned upon on Wikipedia.) No, the P22 has nothing to do with the AWB, past or present or future (proposed). That is the whole point. It is trivial fact that a Walther was used. It could just have easily have been a Ruger, or a Hi Standard, or any of a whole bunch of other 22 plinkers. Including this information in the VT Massacre article is entirely appropriate, with a link that links back to here. Here, however, inserting the information is just trivia. However, out of respect for the murdered, and since you feel a need to include this trivia during your mourning with your "arsenal at home", go for it... Yaf 03:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This incident is about as high on the media charts that a gun can receive in a single event. That more then qualifies a mention on the P22 page. More to the point, there is the real possibility that this gun might actually get banned in regions as a result. So a simple mention is justified. And do take note, this is coming from someone who did not want Dawson mentioned in the Cx4 Storm page. Alyeska 00:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced and refined mention in the article to a single, factual sentence and placed it in context within the article. If anybody doubts it's the pistol he had on him, note the picture I've included here. Please refrain from removing or re-editing it until some concensus is reached here to warrant such action. This petty, back-and-forth revision war is rediculous. See the article on the FN 1910 for a precedent. --Asams10 01:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

But did he actually use this gun in the shootings? Since we do not know whether this was the gun used or whether he used the Glock, it should wait until confirmation of whether he actually used this one. Saying that it was one of two he had in possession seems silly to me, especially so high in the article. Mention of it needs to wait until at least confirmation is received of it being the one used in the killings. --Gloriamarie 04:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't that he had it, it's whether or not it's truly notable enough. The use of the FN Model 10 in the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is a little different from this. That started one of the worst wars ever. This was a tragic use with not as many lasting effects.--LWF 02:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that notability must be established before inclusion in the article. It seems to me any gun could have been used with the same result. Mentioning it in the VT article is good enough.--Gloriamarie 05:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What a useless thing to say. The P22 was used in the most deadly shooting in US history. Thats about as notable as you get. Alyeska 17:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Lobot (aka K1ng l0v3), stop removing the reference. Consensus favors a mention in this page. Alyeska 17:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus favors a mention. Question: In the Wikipedia article about the deadliest airline tragedy in history, is the make and model of the airplane mentioned in the article? It certainly is. And the VT incident deserves mentioning here. MiFeinberg 19:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

While you are correct that the Aviation disasters articles mention the airframe involved, however, the articles on the airframes favor not mentioning the accidents. While the make and model of Object X, used in Incident A, may be suitable for inclusion in the article for Incident A; I posit that the inverse does not hold true. A link to this article from the VT article satisfies the curiosity of those that want to learn more about the weapon and nothing is gained by cluttering up articles about objects and brands with random mentions of use. Did he type up his crazy stories on a MAC or PC? Make sure to mention the VT link at those articles. What about the chains he used? Will Chain have a mention of this incident? K1ng l0v3 19:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You're being facetious. What makes the VT newsworthy are the deaths of the college students. The shooter's PC or Mac had nothing to do with that. MiFeinberg 19:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Had he used a PC to beat 32 people to death, you might have a point. Your example is invalid as he actively used these two guns to kill 32 people. Alyeska

Ok, then by your reasoning, what makes the aircrash articles newsworthy are the deaths of the passengers. Yet, the articles about the particular airframes involved in the crashes do not , on the whole, make mention of anyone crashing in them or having accidents. The airframe articles are, as you pointed out yourself, linked to from the articles about the crashes. Again, how about Chain? The chains he used were certainly a contributing factor to the body count. K1ng l0v3 19:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Notable incidents to get taken into account. Planes with a particularly bad reputation get multiple examples. Your argument is irrelevant because it fails on account of notability. This incident is as notable as you can get. Find me the Wiki rule that makes the mention against policy. Alyeska

Ok, how does the P22 have a "particularly bad reputation"? By that logic we must wait until several notable incidents have occured before making mention. That seems to make the most sense, I think we can find consensus on that standard. As for policy, I have never said the info is against policy, rather, it is against consensus and contradicts practice across a wide range of articles. A link to this article from the VT article will do quite nicely, there is no need to mention the shooting here. However, you are the one seeking inclusion, so let's hear your reasoning. How do you think this article will be improved by a trivial mention of an event that is very well documented elsewhere? K1ng l0v3 20:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So 32 deaths are trivial. Alyeska 21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere have I said anything about any death being trivial. Stop dodging the question and defend your addition. Or, concede that consensus is against you on this subject yet again and stop trying to add nogermane information to encyclopedia articles. K1ng l0v3 21:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus against me yet again? What on earth are you talking about? In the Beretta Cx4 page I was against posting the Dawson incident. I have already defended this incident. This pistol was an significant element of the most deadly shooting in US history with a media circus not seen in recent years. The information is factualy accurate and gives historical context to a point in time the pistol was used in a notable time in history. I fail to see your justification for removing it. By your reasoning, the JFK mention on that rifle should be removed. The agreement made in the Beretta Cx4 article that you agreed to gives a threshold to which media on an a weapon is sufficent to warrant its mention in the article. The Cx4 compromise in essence states that the level of media recieved by the weapon determines if it gets mentioned. Lobot, you agreed to this compromise. Alyeska 22:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the reference needs to be removed. It is undeniably asinine in the context of the article in question. I've checked several different "notorious" weapons (such as the M1 Carbine and Remington 700 used by Charles Whitman, of far greater notoriety at this point in time than VT) and none of them make reference to infamous assassinations/murders committed with that particular weapon. The mindset of an individual wishing to make these entries is understandable, but the reference itself is not timeless. Under the logic placed on the edit, every weapon used to ever murder someone (to include knives, baseball bats, etc.) should have annotations at the bottom in regards to when and where they were ever used to kill if they received media attention afterwards. Crmadsen 05:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the P22 and Glock 19 articles are probably the only gun articles with references to murders and such, and if they have got to have them, then every other weapon ever used to commit murder should have references like these. Also, if the reference has absolutely got to stay, it should separated or something, I mean going from "There are a wide range of accessories, including (all the accessories)" Straight to "The P22 was used in one of the worst massacres in history" is really quite bizzare.--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 12:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

JFK disagrees. The Tec9 page also mentions the murders they were involved with. Try again. Alyeska 13:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The Carcano heavily contributed to the 1968 Gun Control act. And the Tec-9 was banned as a result of Columbine. The P22 hasn't been banned or started a Gun control act.--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 13:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't been banned YET or started a Gun Control Act YET. BTW the Tec-9 was banned in 1994, the shooting occurred in 1999. If you're going to argue any points, please get your facts straight.--Asams10 14:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Now your making excuses Dan. You claimed that the P22 and G19 pages were the only one with mentions of murders. That is clearly wrong. Alyeska 17:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I said "probably", that does not mean that there wasn't a gun article that mentioned murders, it just meant that the P22 and G19 were the only two I knew of.--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 22:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll admit I got that about the Tec-9 wrong. But how could a 10 round .22 caliber pistol be banned?--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 14:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Many of the bans floating around would ban it because it's a rimfire pistol. These have used terms like "Junk Gun" or "Saturday Night Special" to describe guns not made of high grade steel. In otherwords, they say "it's a small, cheap, plastic 22 that sprays bullets and can kill 10 people in seconds," and it's banned. --Asams10 15:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, If it gets banned or starts a gun control act (which I don't think will happen), then the reference would need to be in the article, but right now it hasn't been banned or anything, so mentioning the shootings would just be trivial.--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 15:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Even though I don't personally believe it should be in there in the first place given that this passes off as a technical article to include history, I do definitely agree with DanMP5, it's very out of place. If it's concluded that this comment is going to stay within the article, it definitely needs to find it's own place outside of the specifications of the item, i.e. at the bottom. To be truthful, this seems like a modest agenda by pro-gun-control in order to vilify the device. Crmadsen 15:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Crmadsen, check my user profile and then reconsider what you just said. Alyeska 16:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, then you might want to check MY profile and MY edit history. I'm very pro-gun and against gun control. This has nothing to do with guns or gun control. This is a historically significant event. You would not, for instance, speak about the Titanic without mentioning the fact that it sank. This is a historically significant event using this weapon seen by hundreds of millions of people, why would it be excluded? --Asams10 19:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Duh, thats what I have been saying. I have supported the inclusion of this fact. Crmadsen was trying to claim that people who support the mentioning of this fact are gun-control people. Alyeska 21:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Duh, I was trying to SECOND what you were saying. I'm with you.--Asams10 22:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. Alyeska 22:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would mention that the Titanic sank, because that was the end of the Titanic. Nothing has happened to the P22 yet (and probably won't), so mentioning the shooting would just be trivial. But if something does happen to the P22 because of the shootings, then the shootings would need to be mentioned.--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 22:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. We should make a mention of a historical use of certain items because of their importance in context. Alyeska 23:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Right...then I ask that the following articles be edited and that you spend the next 6 years of your life researching use of weapons in a historical context, to include infamous murders that obtained national media attention without necessarily being of any importance to American history. Then come to realize how absolutely pointless this is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derringer - used to assassinate President Lincoln, no mention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_700 - used by Charles Whitman in University of Texas shooting, no mention. Crmadsen 03:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Not my responsibility. False dilemma. Alyeska 03:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Am I in a high-school debate class? This is quite easy. A "Derringer" is a class of firearm, not a make and model... however if you were to know anything about pistols, you'd note that a "Deringer" (note the single "R") is a make of pistol and was the specific make of pistol used to kill the President. Now, read the following article: Henry Deringer and rethink your point. As for your other weak example, How many pictures of there of Whitman holding the Carbine? As you continue to cite, be careful. When you're wrong, you will fall into several logical traps. For instance, you might find an exception to the rule you've already proven. The examples of the TEC-9, the Booth Deringer, the Ruger Mini-14 (even before I edited it), and the FN Model 1910 are all established and essential. They are encyclopedic, get over it.--Asams10 03:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware that it's a class, thank you. No different than the 1911, which happens to be a class of pistol as well. However, if I were to say one were killed with a 1911, it wouldn't necessarily matter who made the pistol, now would it? A 1911 is a 1911, just as a Derringer is a Derringer. Kimber, Smith & Wesson, Colt...it doesn't really matter. As far as Whitman is concerned, I'm a little confused by your point. Are you saying that there is evidence the M1 wasn't used in the shooting? Crmadsen 05:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the 1911 is ubiqutous, the P22 is obscure outside the gun world. You, again, are making my point. As far as you saying you knew the derringer was a class... that wasn't the point I was countering. You said that Lincoln was not listed under derringer. Well, it WAS listed under Deringer. If you knew it was a class, then you were intentionally listing the class that did not have Lincoln listed to avoid listing "Deringer" as that article did, indeed, list Lincoln... AS IT SHOULD. As an average person, if you see a 1911, you say, "oh, that's a 1911." If you see a P22, chances are that the first time you saw one was in the hands of Cho... you say, "Oh, that VT shooter had one of them." I'm sorry if my points are confusing (to you). The M1 carbine was never paraded in front of the Media. It was mentioned amongst a list of guns. Again, you see pictures of Lee Oswald holding a [[Carcano] (yeah, another gun article with an infamous murder blurb) and you associate Oswald with Carcano. You think of James Earl Ray and you think of the police officer holding up a Remington Model 7600 rifle. Hmmm, that one is referenced too. Please, start countering some of my points. List instances where a firearm used in a noteable murder and then prominently featured in the media was NOT referenced in Wikipedia.--Asams10 13:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As soon as you answer the following questions I give up. .1 What makes the VT shootings so special that they have to be included in the P22 and G19 articles when virtually all other gun articles do not mention murders they were used in? .2 What do you hope to accomplish by adding the references in the two articles?--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 14:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it possibly deserves mention. However, at this point in time, all that's known is that the Glock was used in the shootings. I have not read anywhere in the news or in police reports that any victims had wounds consistent with that of a .22 caliber bulet. The best that can be stated at this point is that he had it in his possession at the shootings, however he also had a folding knife. Should the "pocketknife" article be cited because of this? (that was facetious).

It's interesting the AWB is mentioned. This is something that can and should be included in the article. The State of California bans the Walther P22 as a so-called assault weapon. The gun has a threaded barrel and under California law that means that it's used by assassins, thugs, gangmembers, and mall ninjas to commit mayhem. In all seriousness, the pistol was submitted to California DOJ for safety testing, it passed and was allowed for sale for a period of time, until the other hand at DOJ realized the dreaded threaded barrel and issued a recall. They contacted owners of the P22 (because the state illegally keeps records on gunowners so they can eventually confiscate their guns)and ordered them to sell the gun out of state or return it to Smith and Wesson to permanently attach the thread cover to the threads to keep people from attaching sound suppressors, long banned in California and stroingly regulated by the Federal Government since 1968.--Mike Searson 15:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. Unfortunately the AWB in California is a complete crock. Often times rifles and pistols are classified as "assault weapons" merely because they look dangerous. There's other such nonsense in there such as banning flash suppressors and pistol grips on some rifles. There's also a 10-round limit on magazines. Some of it is just completely frivolous. The legislators in California aren't the brightest politicians the country has to offer.Crmadsen 15:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. California is the worst place to live if you're a firearms enthusiast, well maybe second worst behind NYC. However, mentioning the California AWB would not be out of context in this article. Mike Searson 16:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You got that right. Here in the Peoples Republic of Brooklyn the firearms permits are handled at the precinct (neighborhood police) level. Want to keep a firearm in your home? All firearms have to be locked up (unloaded in a hard shell case) and ammo locked up seperately. Oh, don't forget, to practice the Constitutional Right to Bear Arms you have pay your police precinct $80.00 per weapon, per year for a permit to keep guns at your house. Want to go to the range to practice? You'll have to drive (no guns on the subway) and you'll need another permit to tarnsport firearms in your car, $80.00 per weapon per year, keep them locked in a hardshell case, locked in your trunk. You say you got your firearm to protect your store? Another permit to have a firearm in a business at $80.00 per weapon per year. Yet, somehow people keep getting shot by criminals. Our Mayor Bloomberg blames Virginia. Let's not forget the NYPD, 2 detectives recently convicted of moonlighting as hit-men for the mob. Sean Bell killed on his wedding day by the NYPD; with one officer so well trained he fired 30 rounds at Bell from no more than 20 feet and hit with only 3. K1ng l0v3 15:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That last line is absolutely hilarious. He actually reloaded and started firing again (I would assume an 8-15 round clip on his pistol)? You have the story behind this? Crmadsen 18:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Author of Virginia Tech Section

I'm sorry to have created so much controversy, I just intended to add in a detail about the P22. I didn't intend to demonize it, I just felt the reference had its place... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.87.9.173 (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Focus

IMO, This page seems to be written by and written for gun experts. Possible to layify it a bit? Also, I came here looking for 2 bits of information: what is its rate of fire and how many rounds can it fire before needing to be reloaded. I can't seem to find this information. I realize since the weapon is semi-automatic, rate of fire may not be well defined. But, are all semi-automatics simply limited by the rate at which the trigger can be pulled? If so, generally, what is that rate? Aepryus 11:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see the 10 round feed in the info box now. Does that mean 10 shots before needing to be reloaded? Generally how long does it take to reload? Aepryus 11:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes; the 10 round magazine means that usually the firearm has 10 shots until it needs reloading, although it is possible to maintain a round in the chamber with a full magazine, so it's possible to have 11 shots in the gun the first time it's drawn and fired. Most people do not carry or transport a firearm with a round in the chamber, due to safety reasons (hard to have an accidental discharge if there's no round to fire!). From personal experience, a 10-round .22 semi-auto can empty it's clip in about 2 seconds if you're not particular about hitting what you're aiming at. If you're concerned about hitting your target, the time to empty the magazine is more dependent on the skill of the shooter, not the mechanics of the firearm.--Tthaas 14:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, page is generally poorly written, too technical. I suspect the problem is that the obsessive nature of those who seem to fantasize about these weapons and hang about on these pages, result in generally obsessive, detail-oriented language that most people can't relate to. Nfitz 12:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far. The regular editors to any topic tend to make certain assumptions about the minimum level of knowledge of readers. Given that this, and Glock 19, are getting a lot of readers who may have never visited a Wikipedia firearm page before, a bit of handholding would be appreciated. The current description is quite good, but a lead paragraph or two that explains the basics would be appreciated. Rate of fire and magazine size are already mentioned above, to which might be added accuracy, reload time, etc - the stuff in which someone who is wondering what happens when a spree shooter carrying one of these walks into their classroom might be interested. Imagine you're writing for an elderly lady from Finland who has never seen a handgun in her life. I've added {{Technical}} to the article. Thanks, BanyanTree 21:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is written at a reasonable level for anyone with any experience with handguns. It is a rather limited capability handgun, too. I don't think anyone would fantasize about this particular .22 plinker suitable for training a beginner, but there is no accounting for taste :-) Yaf 21:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Have attempted to address the {{Technical}} tag issues through adding an intro section better suited for readers with no experience with handguns, and have removed tag. If anyone disagrees, they can put the tag back. Yaf 22:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

But why would one assume that in this day and age, that anyone would have any experience with firearms? In a civilised society, most people have probably never seen one unholstered in their lives. Nfitz 23:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a very narrow worldview, my friend. And one that makes some dubious, if not downright insulting, assumptions about a vast coross-segment of humanity. K1ng l0v3 23:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it? For what reason would anyone any normal, non-police, person have a reason for seeing a handgun unholstered? In virtually every western country, they are virtually banned. I'd say that most people don't have much technical knowledge on guns, and as a result, the article should not be overly technical - take sentance 2 for example "The P22 is regarded by many firearms enthusiasts as being a modestly priced "plinker"" Plinker? Who the heck uses the word "plinker"! (Don't see how that's insulting though) Nfitz 00:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what country you live in, but where I live handguns are everywhere, I personally own four, and about everyone I know has one. And as far as handguns being banned in every western country is false, in the US all you have to do is go to the local gun store, get a government background check, and pay for you're gun. I don't really know about Canada's gun laws, but guns seem to be very common there too. So you've got to remember that about half of the people who use the English Wikipedia are from those two countrys, and generally know some about guns, heck my grandmother knows what a "Plinker" is! So if you think this article is too technical, by all means change it, along with the other 2,000 or so gun articles in Wikipedia, cause that's the way there all written.--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 03:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I never said every western country - I said virtually every western country. It's become quite clear to everyone how backwards the USA is on this issue! Handguns are certainly not common in Canada - I don't think most people would have ever seen one unholstered, unless they are either a cop, or a criminal - it's almost impossible to get a permit to carry one - and most western countries are far ahead of Canada. But that aside - I really don't think that most people would know what a "plinker" is, unless they have some kind of unhealthy gun fetish! Nfitz 04:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

How sad on missing seeing guns just like other tools like hammers and saws. I grew up with handguns and long guns. They were (and are) everywhere. I bought handgun ammo as a pre-teenager at the local hardware store, with no parents present, using money I had earned from mowing lawns. Kids start with BB guns around age 8 or 9, moving quickly through .410 shotguns, .22 rifles, and then into .22 pistols for plinking around age 12 or 13. By age 14, most have moved up to .32 caliber centerfire pistols/revolvers, 30-30 rifles, and 16-gauge shotguns. By age 17 or 18, many have moved up to .45 ACP semi-automatic pistols or .38 revolvers and .30-06 rifles and 12-gauge shotguns. By age 22 or 23, some have moved up to .357 Magnum handguns. Family outings nearly always include shooting competitions among the cousins, Dads, and Uncles, for both handguns and rifles. In the fall, squirrel, quail, deer, and rabbit hunting are all popular using a wide range of firearms. In the winter, rabbit hunting with pistols remains especially common for those with adequate skills. Many relatives have served (or are serving) in the military. Most people I know who have grown up in the rural heartland of the U.S. have much the same set of experiences, modified only slightly by the changes in Federal gun laws that have occurred in the U.S. since 1968. It is just part of the gun culture. It is not a fetish; it's a culture. Yaf 05:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • Please, some un-biased person please remove the comment about the P22 being used in the VT Massacre. This is obviously being put into the artical by someone with political motives. I don't see what the fact that the VT shooter owned one of these weapons adds to the reference of the gun. It remains to be proven weather the P22 was actually used in the massacre. The unfair bias is easily shown above, where the USA is being called backwards for gun fetish, someone is claiming that no-one except criminals and cops knows what a plinker is, etc.. Wikipedia ought to be an un-biased reference. Don't dilute it's value to push your political agenda. [non-user]***

The above unsigned comment was made by a shill? maybe? Stating that a certain gun was used in a certain crime is not PUSHING any political agenda. It's a statement of fact being protected by PRO-gun users who. What possible use could the type of gun used in a certain crime be to the PRO or ANTI side of the fence? None. It's a non issue. The statement is there because it's encyclopedic. BTW, not only did he OWN the gun but he carried it with him on his murder spree. No mention yet that I know of that he USED the gun for anything, but he's shown in pictures holding the gun. That picture, in and of itself, links the P22 to this twit as much as the M-1 Carbine is linked to Patty Hearst.--Asams10 02:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do the formats differ?

I don't have an opinion one way or another when it comes to mentioning the use of the gun in the VT massacre. What I do have an opinion about is the format. Why one this article does it show up under usage, but under the Glok19 article it shows up under the overview? Shouldn't there be a consistent manner to the articles about the same subject? Pgrote 01:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The formats differ because people are constantly editing, reverting, and re-reverting them. While there is no strict guide for where they should be, a separate 'trivia' section is wholly inappropriate. It should be mentioned under usage, history, or some similar heading. --Asams10 11:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

California Info

The statement about the pistol being for sale in California is not accurate. The gun was submitted to DOJ for testing, which it passed with flying colors. Over a year after the State of California approved the pistol for sale, the State of California declared it an Assault Weapon due to the threaded barrel. As so-called Assault Weapons are not allowed to be sold in California, existing owners had to either modify the gun by sending it back to Smith & Wesson or remove them from the state.

There is not a legal version of this pistol available for sale in California.--Mike Searson 02:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Walther P22

There is a dispute/edit war requiring other opinions to develop a consensus for editors to follow on whether or not mention of the Virginia Tech Massacre should be mentioned in the firearm article, or if mention in the VT Massacre article by itself of the firearms used, with a link back to the Walther P22 article, is adequate, to avoid the continuous edit warring that has been occurring since the massacre. Yaf 21:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• I see this as being a clear violation of the Wikipedia policy of WP:AVTRIV, as well as being a non-notable point of trivia intended only to inflame passions and to encourage edit warring. It sounds blatantly biased by its very nature as well, suggesting somehow that "body counts" should now be inserted into firearms articles, on a firearm by firearm basis. Notability relative to the firearm itself and the notability-caused impact on gun law legislation should be the primary consideration, not the degree of the heinous act committed each time with a firearm. Suggest removal of all mention of the usage at Va Tech in the firearm article, with links remaining from the Va Tech Massacre article back to the Walther P22 article. -- Yaf 21:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What a useless statement. The information is not presented in a trivia section. The entire point about dealing with trivia sections is to incorporate them into the article as a whole, which was done. And speaking of notability, the most deadly shooting in US history most certainly qualifies. Alyeska 05:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You again. Are you still persisting with this? Answer me this question, Alyeska: Were this Encyclopedia Britannica, would a page about the P22 have "see Virginia Tech massacre" written at the bottom? Stop persisting with this argument. The massacre has nothing to do with the specifics of the pistol itself. It warrants mention at Virginia Tech massacre, not here. Gamer Junkie 06:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Were this Encyclopedia Britannica, would we have entire sections devoted to fictional characters from TV shows? Enough with the appeals to authority without actually creating an argument. Multiple gun pages make mentions of facts not directly tied to the function of the gun. For starters, several pages detail which countries use the gun. This has absolutely nothing to do with the specifics of the gun, but it is directly related to it. You also ignore the precedent set by other articles that make mention of deaths attributed to them. By your logic, pages about a class of warship should restrict themselves purely to the technical specifications and give absolutely no history or significance. Car pages should contain purely technical specifications. Your "logic" is far reaching, something you fail to grasp. Alyeska 06:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Which countries use the weapon have eveything to do with the gun. The guns wouldn't be made if nobody bought them and the functions of the gun (weight, ammo capacity, etc) all play a role in why the gun was purchased by a specific country or military. Do you see anything about fictional characters in these articles? Are there trivia sections on each article about characters in movies who use the Glock 19 or the P22? No, there aren't, so what the hell are talking about? Speaking of ignoring precedent, I told you that the AR-15 article doesn't mention the Port Arthur massacre, which was worse than the Vtech event. Yet you said that this was "irrelevant". Get your argument straight and stop being a hypocrite. Gamer Junkie 07:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Way to go, I already said it should be mentioned in Port Arthur. But if I tried to add it you would remove it and still claim I was a hypocrit. And nice going ignoring the log of what I was saying. Who uses the gun has nothing to do with the opperation. You claimed that only technical details qualify. Your showing a double standard. Alyeska 14:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What you said is the fact that Port Arthur isn't mentioned in the AR-15 article is irrelevant, I didn't say anything about the Port Arthur article. I also wrote that the technical information is WHY they are mentioned. They buy such-and-such gun because of such-and-such feature. So you see, that's what we call information about the weapon. Some lunatic wanting to kill a bunch of people quickly doesn't qualify as information about the gun. I don't know why I'm explaining this to you because you're just reading what you want to read. Gamer Junkie 15:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That reasoning means all information that isn't relevant to technical specifications should be removed. This means that guns that have a list of countries that use the gun should be removed. Applying this standard you have defined to other mechanical devices means that all information that isn't relevant to the technical specifications should be removed. Take your rule and apply it to the Delorian. More then half of the article disapears. Your logic is flawed. Alyeska 18:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments (current tally is Keep=6 , Remove=8)

• Remove. Section provides irrelevant information, the heinous acts committed with it notwithstanding. Yaf 03:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove. The mention of the Massacre is not particularly important to the gun, and at this time seems to make no difference to the gun. If it leads to long-lasting effects of some sort for the gun (e.g. legislation against the gun) then it would be of sufficient import to the gun to warrant mention, but as of yet it has had little effect on the gun. Suggest leaving a link to the gun's article in article on Massacre.--LWF 22:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove. per the reasons above..--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 02:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Keep for two reasons. 1)There is a precedent for including mention of the Virginia Tech massacre in this article. 1)The guns used in the Colmbine shootings, JFK assassination, and McDonald's massacre mention -- respectively -- Columbine, JFK assassion, and the McDonald massacre. 2)The VT massacre is the most deadly mass shooting in American history. Therefore, the gun deserves mentioning in the same way that the make and model of airplane involved in the largest airline disaster deserves mentioning. MiFeinberg 22:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep For similar reasons as mentioned above. Established precedent agrees with keeping the VTech reference in the article. This is the most deadly shooting in us history. Using the reasoning given that it is irrelevant, we are left with a multitude of articles with "irrelevant" information. The M1 Carbine has a section detailing the countries that use it. This is "irrelevant" for the same reason VTech is irrelevant. In other words, its a pointless statement. The VTech mention must stay in the article. Alyeska 22:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep like this[1] --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 04:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove. However, there are too many precedents against my vote. I think there is a greater discussion to be had on whether the specific incidents of use of weapons should be incorporated into the articles on the weapons or just the incidents' themselves. If the specific weapon used is mentioned in the articles of the incidents, it's perfectly appropriate. If the incident in which the weapon was used is mentioned in the weapon article, it's trivia. If Wikipedia is against trivia, then my answer is "remove". Having said that, we need to have a greater discussion on this in the context of Wikipedia as a whole. I'll gladly join it if someone identifies the proper forum.--Dali-Llama 04:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove. Leaving a link to this article in the VT article is sufficient. That paragraph is written terribly anyway and could use a rewrite.--Mike Searson 05:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove. This issue has no place in the article. The events of that day don't have anything to do with the P22 itself. This article is about a firearm, not the crimes which have been committed using it.

Comment. Have nothing to do? So you deny that the P22 was used in the VTech massacre? Alyeska 06:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I deny that articles about firearms should contain sections which belong in Wikipedia's crime project articles. This is the wrong place for discussion. Do so above.

• Remove First of all I would like to apologize for my share of the revert war, A 24 hour break was just what I needed to regain perspective. I posit that we should follow the precedent set by the airline disaster articles as suggested by someone earlier. The articles about the crashes mention the type aitcraft involved and wikilink to the article on that aircraft, but the articles about the aircraft make no mention of crashes unless there is some long-standing problem with that model. The VT article should contain a link to the P22 article, but the P22 article has no need for a link to the VT article. If there is a source that provides evidence of a long-standing history of problems with the P22 that were evinced by the VT shooting, then a mention might be acceptable. The VT shooting has had no effect on the technical aspects of this firearm or legislation of its use, therefore it is nongermane to this article. Are we serving our readers by mentioning the shooting in the article on the firearm? Is there any likelyhood of a reader searching for the P22 article without ever having heard of the VT shooting? Surely the safe, lawfull users of the P22 outnumber the VT shooter by a vast margin. Is it not then a violation of wp:NPOV to give undue weight and mention to one bad act? If the VT shooting leads to change in firearms law regarding the P22 or to a redesign of the pistol, then that would be worth a mention. K1ng l0v3 15:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Deadliest mass shooting in American history. The gun deserves mentioning. We're talking about one sentence here, folks. If there is some principle at stake that I don't know about, please spill it. Nothing is trivial about this incident, including the gun the killer used. Astruc 16:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment You are correct, the firearm does deserve a mention at the VT article, if this is a firearm used in the shooting. The reverse does not hold true however, One misuse, no matter how emotional a tragedy, has no bearing on the technical operations of this firearm and as such has no place in this article. If and when a source can be cited for a history of problems with the P22 being used in murders or if this particular pistol is more heavily regulated because of the VT shooting then that would merit a mention. As it stands now, it is trivial (not the tragedy, just the info seeking inclusion), and has no place in an encyclopedia article as it contravenes AVTRIV and NPOV. K1ng l0v3 16:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. You're right, the VT tragedy "has no bearing on the technical operations of this firearm." However, this article isn't just about the technical aspects of a firearm. It's about the weapon itself, its history, and its use. As such, the VT tragedy deserves mentioning here. Hashaw 18:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The gun was used in the biggest mass-murder in North American history. Others have already noted that the precedent has been such in much lesser incidents such as Columbine. I'm unsure why many seem so bent to describe such an incident as trivial! Nfitz 16:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove. No doubt the P22 has been used in countless other murders, and other weapons have proven just as deadly. The VT shootings can't be defined by the weapon that was used; this information belongs properly in the VT article and not here. Cmprince 17:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. For the many reasons I've already stated.--Asams10 17:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, as Cmprince says, the gun has been used in countless murders. But the VT tragedy wasn't just another murder (if I can be pardoned for saying such a thing); it played a role in the biggest mass shooting in the history of the United States. This article is about more than the technical firing aspects of a gun. Therefore, VT needs mentioning. Hashaw 18:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment You say countless. Please name at least one other instance of this pistol being used in a murder outside of this one, if it was even used to kill anyone at VT. --Mike Searson 18:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Your asking the wrong person. Cmprince made the original claim and Hashaw merely agreed with it. Alyeska 18:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Either one can answer, I still think it's a generalization without merit.Mike Searson 18:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I understand the validity of your (the group wishing to keep the clip) argument and can comprehend why you would want to keep it in there. However, can it be decided after the debate is concluded (if it ends as such) that we move the sentence in question outside of the technical specifications of the pistol and place it under another category within the article? It just doesn't fit with the context of the preceding paragraph. Crmadsen 18:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)