Talk:Gunsmith

message: Firearms making has a rich history throughout the world long before the industrial revolution. In that context tradition of gunsmithing as a craft is similar to swordsmithing, armour making etc. This article should include this history. That aspect would also help differantiating this article from firearms modification article which basically focuses on modern mechanics and engineering aspect.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.225.120 (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, this is a glaring ommission. I'll see what references I can come up with and start drafting a section. It will be placed immediately after the Overview section. At the very least, there are traditional regions around the world that are known for their gunsmithing and manufacture and this should be represented. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of gunsmithing 

message: I agree, they are pretty much the same thing in comparison.
Frekydelic 17:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gun modification

message: The majority of the world's firearms in civilian hands are located in the United States of America[citation needed]. By the law of Supply and Demand, the bulk of business for practicing gunsmiths is also in the United States of America, where, due to the nature of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, firearms ownership is not a privilege subject to the whims of the local Governments and Military, but a right guaranteed all law-abiding citizens. Likewise, hunting and sport shooting is not a privilege restricted to the "Wealthy and Privileged",
The first sentence is pure nonsense and should be removed. (Not even counting the Third World, where everything from flintlock fowling pieces to AK-47's abound without restriction, there are many developed nations with gun ownership rates on a par with the US).  The rest of the quote, although not far off from my own opinion, is nevertheless opinion.  This passage should be rewritten in a more neutral fashion, simply reflecting the plain fact that the USA has lots of guns and therefore lots of gunsmiths.Solicitr (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I've removed it all.  It has nothing to do with gunsmithing. -Verdatum (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: I agree with the previous comment, although you must show where you get your information (citations and such). I had another problem with NPOV with the article. First of all, let me say that I am a firearms enthusiast, and have learned a lot about the subject on these very pages. But, despite my personal point of view, I must protest against certain parts of this article. In the first paragraph of the section on the United States, the first paragraph reads: 
"...due to the nature of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, firearms ownership is not a privilege subject to the whims of the local Governments and Military, but a right guaranteed all law-abiding citizens."
In the interest of NPOV, I have changed "whims" to "authority and approval" and added "(and the current legal interpretation of that right)" after the mention of the Second Amendment. We must all admit that this is a controversial social and legal question, with two sides, and more complex than is fit to argue in its entirety here. Whether or not editors/readers/contibutors believe the Second Amendment gives an individual citizen the right to gun ownership in current society, outside a regulated military or militia, the fact that our current interpretation of this is paramount to its definition in the United States should be held in mind. I personally believe the Second Amendment does not expressly permit this right. I believe in this right, that this is a right that should be given to the people, just not that that right is permitted BY the Second Amendment. Despite my personal view, and all of yours, we must respect the guidelines of NPOV that Wikipedia enjoys. This is an important commitment to neutrality that we must abide by. My argument against the use of the word "whims" is identical to this, although it is more of a minor matter than the first addition.
I welcome anyone's thoughts on this. Please do not erase these changes and revert to the original (at least before we come to an agreement on this as a community).Joe Giorandino (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I've removed the whole block.  It was discussing the legal implications of owning a firearm, which has nothing to do with gunsmithing.  It's needless controversy. -Verdatum (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

text: No FFL or other federal permission is required for an individual to manufacture their own firearm receiver.  The federal requirements only apply to those manufacturing firearms/receivers for commercial sale.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.166.3 (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another concern with NPOV 

message: This part really needs a rewrite. For one thing, if the person wants to learn about an FFL, see that article. As the section reads right now it is very bias toward a type 01 ffl. Yes that is the most common FFL. But what about a gunsmith that has a type 07 or 10? They are the ones who would be building a receiver. Next up, a type 01, or anyone without a felony, could apply for a tax stamp and build their own. Next issue, you generally only need a FFL if the person leaves the firearm with you. If you just show up, the `smith fixes your weapon, and you leave, nothing goes in the log book. I'm not the best writer, otherwise I would do it myself. Are any good authors willing to edit me? Micahhiggs (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No FFL or other federal permission is required for an individual to manufacture their own firearm receiver.  The federal requirements only apply to those manufacturing firearms/receivers for commercial sale.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.166.3 (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States of America 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Gunsmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080720042213/http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2007_04/kopel-israel.html to http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2007_04/kopel-israel.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gunsmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131010051247/http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/atf-f-5300-11.html to http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/atf-f-5300-11.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: IPs have been attempting to add an "In popular culture" section. Aside from the problem that the additions are completely unsourced, I don't believe this section belongs in the article. This isn't an article about a particular character where we might want to list various portrayals. It's an article about gunsmiths in general. Popular culture portrayals would include every single book, movie, comic , video game, TV show, etc. that ever include a gunsmith. Please stop using this article to list your favourite video games that happen to include a gunsmith. Meters (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture section 

message: We have this slightly exhaustive list of firearm designers, but skipped over Arisaka and Nambu, who were both rather prolific and highly thought of? Only reason I can see is the rather mainstream American views expressed in the article.
In addition, the entire article seems to have views that seem to come from a rather narrow-minded American view of gun ownership. It is purely subjective that in "In many countries of the world, the possession and ownership of firearms by civilians is highly restricted or outright illegal" and an outright lie in MOST of the world, which is not in fact Europe. There are regulations and requirements to having guns in parts of the world, in most of the world they are rather simple and require training, safety classes and/or some kind of background check. In some of the most restrictive places you need to either have membership in a gun club and it is treated similarly to an apprenticeship. There are specific elements are are highly restricted, everywhere, ownership of fully-automatic firearms for instance, in many countries firearms in certain military calibres, even then there are a number of loopholes and allowances. The wording suggests that it is next to impossible, restricted is a synonym with prohibited, not controlled. The actual article on firearms in Germany paints a picture that contradicts that statements about it in this article. 5.5 million firearms owned by 1.4 million people suggests much more than "most hunters own only one long gun and perhaps a single pistol". Legally a hunter in Germany may own any number of legal firearms, according to the article on firearms in Germany, so there is some clear disagreement here and this article is NOT presented in NPOV, which seems to have been a constant issue for at least a decade. 142.122.133.185 (talk) 03:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arisaka, Nambu and American-centric views