Talk:Political arguments of gun politics in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Harvard study Re relationships between violence and gun ownership[edit]

Shouldn't the new Harvard Study of the correlation between violent crime, murder, and suicide with gun ownership be included under the section entitled "Relationships between crime, violence, and gun ownership" ? This study shows that Russia, where gun ownership is very low and hand guns are illegal, has a high murder rate where as in Norway where 1/3 of the population owns guns, the murder rate is at 1 in 100,000. The researches concluded that there was no statistical evidence that supports the political idea that more guns equals more violence and murder. There is actually a strong correlation that points in the other direction. Other factors than simply the number of guns must be involved, therefore the simplistic argument that more guns equals more murder is not true or if it is to remain true, then the statistics must be rationalized away. Ryan Close (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New article[edit]

Created this article as a pull from the original parent article Gun politics in the United States to fix the problem of that article growing too large. This article looks reasonable for a first cut, but still needs lots of work. Yaf (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a POV fork, but is an Article spinout - "Summary style" article spinout, due to parent article (Gun politics in the United States) growing too large; consensus was reached on that talk page before spinning out content. Yaf (talk) 04:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't call it a POV fork, it's just misguided. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a Washington Post article a few months back about the Heller case and it had a chart of violent (or gun deaths) in DC pre and post DC gun ban. Anyone think they could find that? It could add something to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.183.177 (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This needs an update now that DC v. Heller has been decided.

Longenecker[edit]

The Longenecker stuff appears to have been added without regard for logic or structure. The first mention (under "Importance of a Militia") has no citations for any of its alleged facts and no page numbers from Longnecker's book for any of the (apparently) quoted material. It's also hard to understand because the sentences don't follow any basic sentence rules. The second mention is under "Relationships between crime, violence, and gun ownership," but has nothing to do with that topic. The writer has simply inserted a discussion on the relationship between the second amendment right and due process. I would suggest that that belongs in another section, perhaps as part of the section on the right as a fundamental right. And who is Longenecker anyway? Why is he suddenly an authority on gun control? If he is to be included in the article, I'd suggest that the actual arguments he makes need to be summarized better, and placed in the correct sections of this article. As it is, the stuff is unnecessary and not on point. Theonemacduff (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the Longenecker stuff is "unnecessary and not on point"; it's just clumsily stuck in, poorly integrated. The item under the Importance of the Militia fits, but that could be made clearer. I see the connection the second one is grasping at, but I don't find it strong enough to justify the inclusion at that point.

As with Snyder, I think that if someone is going to be cited more than once or so in an article, or be the source of something important, that person ought to be the subject of a Wiki article. Unfortunately, the only Longenecker Wiki has isn't this one. Dismalscholar (talk) 06:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Gun Bias[edit]

Reading this article, I intuitively feel a pro-gun bias. --RAC e CA12 (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems balanced to me. --82.165.186.20 (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about this whole POV thing? As, for instance, in the case of the theory of evolution, when there is enough empirical evidence that there is no real question about the 'fact of evolution' does representing the evidence for the 'fact' become a POV? And I do not mean under-representing minority opinions, such as literal creationism. They can have their place and clearly identified as opinions or alternate theories. But that does not change the fact that evolution is so well evidenced that it is a fact and not one theory among others. Does the article on the 'fact of evolution' attempt to be so unbiased so as to leave the decision as to whether evolution is true up to the reader's opinion? Likewise, how is it POV to accurately represent the evidential findings of legitimate statistical research? If, as the New Harvard Study shows, that countries with very low gun ownership experience a high murder rate, and countries with high gun ownership experience a low murder rate, is it POV to include this in the article, or is a representation of scientific fact? Ryan Close (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Balanced? There are approximately three times more lines discussing pro-gun ownership arguments or counter-arguments, with 11 references to pro-gun Gary Kleck who apparently is "the nation's leading expert on the link between guns, violence and gun control" according to his wikipedia page, heavily edited by the mysterious user Gkleck. 152.81.8.171 (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; this article has severe NPOV issues. In addition to the sheer volume of pro-gun arguments, even those sections that describe gun control arguments are peppered with pro-gun rebuttals, resulting in a POV architecture. I'm inserting tags in the various POV sections.Kohl Gill (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is extremely unbalanced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.120.173 (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rights Section[edit]

The introduction claims that government power is the "most fundamental question" without proof, source, or discussion. Since private entities also have gun control policies, this statement is a poor introduction to the debate. Kohl Gill (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subsections are duplicative, as the "Fundamental Right" "Self-Defense" and "Second Amendment" sections describe overlapping identical debate grounds. The titles of the subsections are also POV. Suggest renaming and consolidating to: Self-Defense Arguments, Tyranny and Invasion Arguments, U.S. Constitution Arguments, State Constitution Arguments. Kohl Gill (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content of each subsection requires significant work to provide the gun control POV for balance. Kohl Gill (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Section[edit]

The subsections are duplicative, as the "Firearm deaths", "Gun Violence Debate", "Relationships" and "Public Health" sections describe overlapping identical debate grounds. The titles are also POV. Suggest renaming and consolidating to: Gun Violence Reduction Arguments, Other Arguments. Kohl Gill (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content of each subsection requires significant work to provide the gun control POV for balance. Kohl Gill (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Re-naming of Article[edit]

This article should either make an honest effort to present both sides of the issue fairly or be renamed for what it is: "Pro-gun Arguments in United States Politics." Greenguy6 (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)greenguy6[reply]

International Significance[edit]

There is absolutely no mention of about the ease of obtaining guns, especially in areas like Arizona where guns are purchased to be used in Mexico. --RAC e CA12 (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. Aside from the fact that this article is about gun politics in the US, there is no evidence to support the suppisition - presumably - that the crime rates in Mexico are some how related to legal gun purchases in Arizona. The drug gangs in Mexico are using post-1984 automatic weapons, which are 100% illegal for sale in the US. So its absolutely false that the drug gang violence in Mexico has anything to do with civilian sales of guns in the US. Fully automatic post-1984 weapons are only available to sale to law enforcement and the military - so the real source of these weapons is illegal arms sales and corrupt government officials in Mexico - which again, has nothing to do with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.165.186.20 (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Snyder[edit]

I'm puzzled at the prominence accorded Jeff Snyder in section 1.1 of this article, where he is characterized as "perhaps the best known spokesman for the view that gun possession is a fundamental civil right." While Snyder has certainly been published on the subject (he's the author of Nation of Cowards – Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control, and his articles on this subject appear somewhat regularly on the Web site operated by Lew Rockwell) his footprint does not rise even to the level at which anyone has created a Wikipedia page to collect information about him.
While I agree heartily with Mr. Snyder's position on the right of the private citizen to keep and bear arms (as well as much else he has written), I simply don't see him as the key figure in the modern RTKBA movement.
I don't think that Mr. Snyder himself would hold his position in the public dialogue to be as towering as the writer of section 1.1 seems to believe, and focus upon his rather limited writings to the exclusion of other authors and speakers - both living and dead - appears to reflect a poverty in the fund of knowledge upon which section 1.1 is predicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.130.103 (talk) 10:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised at that myself. While I think Jeff's _Nation of Cowards_ is critical, it hardly puts him in the place ascribed. I ended up here because I think Jeff should have his own page. I've started gathering some information, but as I'm buried in three other projects I promised to "get to quickly" on an average of more than a year ago, is anyone else willing to do some work on that? Dismalscholar (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

I've started to do some cleanup - much remains to be done. We need to balance things better, and remove some of the whackier claims, etc. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research in State Constitutions section[edit]

The whole section for State Constitutions relies on primary sources and seems to be making some analysis of them. It should be using reliable secondary sources. As it stands it seems to be contrary to the original research policy. If someone has good sources discussing this topic, please add them. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

NPOV issues aside, a lot of the information contained here is either duplicated, or better suited in the Gun politics in the United States article. -Deathsythe (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal doesn't seem to have any traction. I will remove the tag. William Avery (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Gun Politics in the United States[edit]

If this article was reduced to just factual information versus much of the sourced POV fluff it contains now, I see no reason why it couldn't be merged into the main article that it stems. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'll go ahead and merge.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_arguments_of_gun_politics_in_the_United_States&oldid=988789722"