Talk:Small arms and light weapons

message: I expect some controversy on this part. Watch for edit wars. --Petercorless (talk) 07:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Section on UN Arms Trade Treaty 

message: Sue Rangell - Re: this edit with edit summary "Fixed POV edits by Lightbreather."
First, please don't use WP:REVTALK. Per WP:EDSUM "How to summarize": 
*  Avoid inappropriate summaries. Editors should explain their edits, but not be overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause tension or bad feelings, making collaboration more difficult. Explain what you changed, and cite the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but try not to target or to single out others in a way that may come across as an attack or an insult.
Second, how does returning the word "regimes and" to the section title "Other SALW control organizations" (as in, "Other SALW control regimes and organizations") improve this article? Lightbreather (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you provide a link to the SALW text that uses regime? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate REVTALK - and how does this edit improve article? 

message: In the United States, conservative gun rights advocates, including elected members of Congress and lobbyists, such as the National Rifle Association have maintained a political campaign to discredit the Arms Trade Treaty, saying that through the treaty the U.N. would deprive the U.S. of its national sovereignty, and deprive its citizens of their Second Amendment right to bear arms. However, the rumor-dispelling site Snopes.com has refuted such claims as false. In the Preamble of the Arms Trade Treaty, the sixth paragraph reads, "Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system," which contradicts the assertion the treaty intends to violate any lawful internal rights of any member State. Instead, the treaty is aimed at curbing illegal arms sales within countries or between countries, and to improve controls for the trafficking and stockpiling of military arms and weapon systems.
I am moving this (above) - which was a subsection under UN SALW control efforts - here for discussion. It seems to belong in the Arms Trade Treaty article. Lightbreather (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy over the UN Arms Trade Treaty

message: These definitions may vary depending on the convention and on the expansion of the term's use over time with the introduction of new weapons technologies and concerns. For example:
Thus, SALW include grenades, but does not include bows and arrows according to this convention.
I moved this (above) here from the article for discussion as its meaning and source are vague. The first two statements from this "quote" (from (part of) the Inter-Parliamentary Union's 114th Assembly resolutions) it seems are supposed to support the concluding statement (author unattributed), "Thus, SALW include grenades, but does not include bows and arrows according to this convention." The conclusion does not seem to be from the cited source, so whose is it? Is it WP:OR?
If it's to be reintroduced, its point should be better summarized and a WP:RS cited, IMO. Lightbreather (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition by international legal conventions

message: I think we should merge the Small Arms page here with a redirect. Both pages cover the same subject matter. However, the Small Arms and Light Weapons page has better coverage.--RAF910 (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Small Arms]] 

message: If an Individual-Service weapon would fire projectiles that would use explosives [|or combustible fuel] to increase own speed or control own movement (without causing damage to the target, by these resources). From military designations average, i would say it would be a Small Arm, but from English syntax, this would be a Light Weapon.
Should the world combination be rephrased ?
Irvnriir (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "explosive munitions" clarification