Talk:Franchi SPAS-12
Firearms Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Military history Start‑class | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Variants
We should probably make note of the LAW-12 and the SAS-12 as they are variants on the SPAS-12 rather than completely different systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.149.121 (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Removed pop culture section
I've deleted most of the pop culture section. The reason is that people were starting to use it as a dump to throw in all their favorite and obscure movies/games/books/anime/manga where the SPAS is visible for like, one frame. The same thing can be seen happening to FN P90, and I regret to admit that I'm partially responsible. Tronno 18:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- The firearms pop culture impact is a important aspect of the firearm's existence. Its not our job to restrict people access to this information. Ve3 15:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- This is not a question of censorship. It's just that long lists of games and movies are unencyclopedic - merely saying that they exist is sufficient. I discussed this issue with with the admin A Man in Black and he agrees. See Talk:FN P90 in popular culture for an explanation. Tronno 20:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Deleting content and links to other pages does indeed restrict access to the information. Removing a whole aspect of a firearms existence- censoring, is not our job, nor is it a service to the people who are interested in it. Ve3 21:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- I suggest a compromise. Link from instances of pop culture to the gun article, but not vice versa. That way, the information is targeted at interested parties, clutter is still removed, and there will be no "censoring". Agreed? Tronno 22:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Is it not very clear that trivia sections are not desirable in Wikipedia articles? I am all for recognition of the power of popular culture, but frankly such a section does constitute mere trivia, and lends credence to "sources" that, in my view, typically represent these objects (i.e. SPAS-12) in a similarly trivial manner, that is to say, not reflective of their qualities, and rarely intended as commentary. That's why too much time devoted to such trivia, to me, is unencyclopedic, even though I generally side with those attempting to qualify pop culture impact within certain articles. Twca (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a question of censorship. It's just that long lists of games and movies are unencyclopedic - merely saying that they exist is sufficient. I discussed this issue with with the admin A Man in Black and he agrees. See Talk:FN P90 in popular culture for an explanation. Tronno 20:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
US gunlaws vs. other countries
Is it relevant to write in nearly every gunarticle what US gunlaws say about that particular weapon. I can get licence nearly everykind of weapon if I want to (if I had money to buy them) so US gunlaw isn't really the issue in most of the world. --81.197.218.62 17:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- US gun laws are relevant in two ways: 1. the US civilian gun market dwarfs that of most other countries, and when it is mentioned in an article it should not come as a surprise. More importantly, 2. the official meaning of the SPAS acronym was formulated solely with the US market in mind (shotguns are illegal in the US, except those that are found to be "particularly suitable for sporting purposes" - that's why the S stands for "sporting"). In this case, US gun laws are a big issue indeed. If you can write content about foreign laws and their unique relevance to the SPAS-12, go ahead. Otherwise, I feel your edits are unnecessarily splitting the article. Tronno (talk | contribs) 16:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
points of contention for this article:
First, the discussion about "sporting purpose" for shotguns seems to presuppose that "sporting purpose" in and of itself is a well defined legal definition for some specific type of weapon when in actually this term is very much an ambiguous one - much like the oft used "assualt weapon".
Second, The article's description about its marketing in the US suggests that Franchi tried to side step US regulations by renaming it for "sporting purposes" to my knowledge this is not the case since the "destructive device" reclassifications only occurred in 1994. In fact aside from the unique heat shield the SPAS-12's function is identical to other shotguns. It is also misleading to say that its ban is due to classification as a "military shotgun" since this is a term which again has no agreed upon definition. this is the reason the SPAS-12 has been referred to specifically by name in so-called "assault weapon" legislation rather than fall into a specific classification.
The SPAS-12 can be said to have been banned for cosmetic purposes only as a "scary-looking" weapon rather than due to any destructive advantage it might be thought to possess. --Zenophite1 18:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Images
SIGH. Does anybody have a picture of the SPAS-12 that won't be deleted by the tight-arse policy lovers? Articles without pictures are somehow incomplete. Gamer Junkie 04:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Photo
This page sure could use a Photograph of Spas-12. Arctic-Editor 15:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed. Preferrably one that won't be instantly deleted. Gamer Junkie 08:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I have found a photo but I have no idea if it is copyrighted, it's at this address [1]. --DanMP5 15:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think we can use that. Usually I'd say that all you'd need to do is obtain permission from the site's operator, but image usage has become such a complicated, jumbled up, mass of shit now that I'm not sure that'll even cut it anymore. The best pictures to use are those photographed by an editor and scanned into Wikipedia by the editor, him/herself. Problem is (and try explaining this to the administrators) that not all that many people have a combat shotgun just sitting on the coffee table. Gamer Junkie 15:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Fire settings
Why would the pump action be preferred to the semi-automatic action at times? 70.231.229.31 02:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's explained in the article - "to reliably fire low-pressure ammunition". Some ammo loads do not produce high enough pressure to cycle the gas system, so the gun has to be cycled manually intead (by pump action). - Tronno ( t | c ) 19:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Picture.
I uploaded that picture, however it does not have any copywrights, and I do not know how to do that stuff. I found it off google, could someone help me with this? --RobertLeBlais (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)