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.
To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
This article has been so censored that it should be deleted.
Is there a point to keeping this article? It makes no sense and is written at a juvenile level. There are major themes in gun control that could be dealt with properly, with up-to-date research. Instead, this article is just a placeholder for the topic with ten or twenty-year-old articles and citations gleaned from equally aged books written by apologists for gun interests. It seems that it exists to fulfil the need to have something dealing with gun control but has been so censored by those who want to believe that owning guns has only pros and no cons that it is just trivial nonsense. Maybe the article should have just one sentence: "Go and do your own research, looking at all aspects of the topic, as we are children here who cannot allow anti-gun heresy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Funny; it seems to me that none of the generally accepted arguments against the efficacy of gun control are present. Perhaps it's better-written than I had thought. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 19:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
No. It's bad. The article should be dealing with up-to-date empirical evidence on the efficacy/lack of efficacy of modern-day gun control rather than just silly historical canards, rationalised arguments, cherry-picked research, and out-of-date studies. My suggestion would be to gather every bit of research that can be found since (say) 2010 and put it in a place where all those who want actually to examine this topic may look at it. Interested editors may vote on the merit (quality) of the research for inclusion, using agreed upon criteria, and the selected research can then be synthesized by some willing editors and further voting may take place as the research is reviewed and rewritten. This, given the controversial nature of the topic, would have to be a formal procedure, and subject to the same restrictions that are in place now. The difference between the current state of this article and what I propose would be that the article would progress toward a reasonable assessment of modern gun control and not just be a mutually-inoffensive pile of meaningless "stuff." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
It isn't entirely clear what you think should be done to this article. However, you and any other poster are welcome to propose changes on the article talk page, this page. If you think that there should be a formal procedure for reviewing proposed changes, it is the Requests for Comments process. Please go ahead and provide the research and/or the proposed improvements. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
One thing that needs to be borne in mind is the scope of this article - it is supposed to be an international overview. As it stands, the 'studies, debate, and opinions' section already cites U.S.-specific studies as if they were representative of the broader situation, and clearly gives undue weight to such material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
This article, as Andy notes, has too many complaints from American editors who want this article to be an American-oriented view, and either an American gun-rights view or an American gun-control view. Those complaints are part of what got this whole topic area subject to discretionary sanctions. In any case, the place for proposals for improvements to this article is this page. The place for proposals for improvements to another related article is that article's talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this article is supposed to have an international perspective rather than a U.S. focus. I would mention also that the debate is not whether there should be gun control but rather the extent. In the U.S. for example there is no debate that the state should allow prisoners to keep and bear arms. TFD (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this article is censored. Even putting up the idea of gun control has been removed. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
From Conwell: "Elevated risk was accounted for by access to handguns rather than long guns and was more pronounced in men than women. Among subjects who kept a gun in the home, storing the weapon loaded and unlocked were independent predictors of suicide." From Bukstein: " Suicide victims were more likely than controls to show the following risk factors: active substance abuse, comorbid major depression, suicidal ideation within the past week, family history of depression and substance abuse, legal problems and presence of a handgun in the home" The sentence is incorrect. That's why I deleted it. Miguel reverted it without investigating it or discussing it. Should I be surprised? If he doesn't explain his edit I'll delete it again. Felsic (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Someone oughta check the rest of this article - there may be more misrepresented references. Felsic (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course. Wikipedia is open to abuse by well-resourced lobbying 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
This page appears to be closely managed by the American Pro-Gun Lobby. Based on the tags above, this page has been a battleground for American lobbying. The information is all from the United States, and there's nothing from any developed country, where gun violence is under control. The specifics of the topic are not shown, for example, the words "background checks" or "firearms licence" do not even appear. The only non-American content is a paragraph about Africa. Go to the page history, and any genuine edits about gun control have been removed. Editors show their frustration in their edit comments. Tags requesting a neutral point of view are removed. If you want information about gun control, you won't find it here. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Here are a list of topics that are NOT included:
Classification of arms by law
Export and import controls
European Union directives
All the regional agreements
Safety design features
Public opinion in various countries
Possession and ownership rules
Age, mental health and criminal background rules
Use of firearms by security companies
So, not even neutral information about gun control is not here. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense, but thanks for using the words "gun politics" to demonstrate the sensitivity of the US gun lobby. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2015
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The most recent edits by Kimelman (Gun control (Added line to the side of gun control opponents clarifying that some believe the following: "or that gun ownership serves as a legitimate check and balance in preventing a tyrannical government.)) are not backed up by any factual information and are just folklore from the pro-gun lobby. If they are to remain, please provide objective support that lack of gun control prevents "tyrannical governments." And please, no Hitler references, as these just state what Hitler did to Jewish people and really have nothing to do with overall gun control.18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC) 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)