Talk:Gun violence in the United States

Ridiculous POV article

The first sentence in the entire article is Gun violence in the United States results in thousands of deaths and thousands more injuries annually". The tone of the article, especially the lede, is now heavily weighted to "guns are bad" histrionics and not to science and NPOV. At one time, this was rated a good article, but it looks like the gun banners have gone in and turned it into yet another polemic. That sentence is not appropriate as the first in the article whatsoever. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you suggest any particular edits which you think would make it more neutral? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The lede should be returned to the previous GA version [1], which does a much better job of summarizing the article's points. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, the only thing that has changed (as far as I can see) is that the sentences have been rearranged so that the article starts with the statistics surrounding gun violence, which makes sense for a NPOV article Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your disagreement. It was good enough to be a GA before, now it is not. The article has been ruined by anti-gun POV pushers, who have rearranged the points from a NPOV article into one that emphasizes their political POV. The lede doesn't even adhere to MOS. WP:MOSINTRO, WP:MOSBEGIN, WP:BEGIN. Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see how putting the statistics at the start of the article makes it POV. Could you clarify exactly which bits of those manuals that the lead doesn't conform to? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop playing stupid. It's disruptive. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

You're entirely wrong. The article opening with such a line is completely necessary. The article is called "Gun VIOLENCE in the United States". VIOLENCE. It's not about guns or gun politics only, it's mostly about the violence caused by them. Gun violence is a colossal issue in the United States. The reason why the USA is one of the most violent countries on Earth (and by far the most violent advanced nation) is largely due to the enormous number of guns in the country and a serious lack of gun control. Gun violence is the reason why the USA homicide rate soars above 10,000 murders every year. How exactly does eliminating that line from the article improve the article? It just hides the truth. It's not an opinion, American gun violence really does kill and injure that many people. That's indisputable. Most recently, there was a mass shooting in New Orleans that injured 17 people, and even worse, a mass shooting in Columbus, OH that left a poor 12-year old's parents and brother dead. I support keeping those statistics, since the article makes no sense without them. This isn't about opinions, it's about the facts. 81.131.175.245 (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"The reason why the USA is one of the most violent countries on Earth " This is a absolutely opinion given that it is arguable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:D00:8C10:486A:CAD6:C238:F786 (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Absoluetlypuremilk and others. Statistics are statistics. It's not disruptive to ask relevant questions that you are unable to answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SombodysDad77 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, brand new account with one edit (to make this comment). Whose sock are you? Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The old text was stupid, to use your word. Here's where we talked about it before. Talk:Gun_violence_in_the_United_States/Archive_2#Crappy_intro. Nuff said. Felsic2 (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This reads like an editorial rather than a researched topic with a "neutral point of view" which is what Wikipedia has requested. The title kicks off with the slant "Gun Violence in the US" and there is little recovery from that point forward. One could substitute other nouns in for "Gun" and it becomes quite apparent the problem. For example "Car Violence, Knife Violence, Football Violence, White Violence, Black Violence, Cat Violence, Dog Violence" and everything that follows, whether factual or not, will be written to support that point of view. This article/document needs to be rewritten with objectivity and a larger context. The larger context cold be "Gun Ownership in America" and then Gun Homicides, Gun Suicides, Legal/Illegal ownership, are subsections, hunting in American, etc. Tsk1989 (talk)tsk2000 —Preceding undated comment added 19:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You think it's POV to talk about gun violence in the US in an article called Gun violence in the United States? Whatever.... Felsic2 (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

New article with a variety of useful graphs

I was having a look at this article [2] --- Does anyone have the time/interest to reconfigure some of these graphs and use them in the article? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I just reviewed the article you mentioned and it is very interesting. The data needs to be validated. One point that is very disturbing: The majority of deaths in the US seems to be suicidal. If this is the case, then tighter guns laws will save lives. It is contrary to pro gun lobbyists who simply focus on crime. Note in the 6th Republic debate 1/14/2016. I also noted that Canada's stance with relation to hand gun deaths and to Australia and New Zealand is higher. Again, it should be noted that Canada is next door to the United States. Although I do not have sources to quote, I did grow up in a tough part of Toronto and this was common knowledge, hence, you can use me as an expert. Canadian criminals travel to the States to purchase illegal guns and return via car. Therefore, US gun laws have a negative impact on a neighboring country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontofred (talk • contribs) 18:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

2 main points regarding the original post, and the comment. 1, plain and simple, Vox is not RS. 2, you can't be used as an expert nor would that qualify you as one, it's WP:OR. - SantiLak (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Gun violence in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060615115151/http://www.chron.com:80/content/chronicle/nation/guns/part2/gunside1.html to http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/nation/guns/part2/gunside1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090105193911/http://paxusa.org/speakup/about.html to http://www.paxusa.org/speakup/about.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111004052609/http://www.cpyv.org:80/programs/what-is-speak-up/ to http://www.cpyv.org/programs/what-is-speak-up/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Some changes i'm going to make towards Wikipedia pages on mass shootings

There's been quite a few articles on some notable mass shootings that are lacking the details to make it complete. I wanted to give you guys the heads up to see if your ok with that. He are the changes.

I'm going to be adding a picture of the location of the shooting complete with a map of where the shooting took place. I'm going to start with the Stockton Schoolyard shooting, the 101 California street shooting, and the Luby's shooting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Elementary_School_shooting_(Stockton) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101_California_Street_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_shooting

I'm also going to try and rename some of the articles for the more high profile shootings since right now their pages are oddly named after the perpetrator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_O._Barton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

As for the Stockton Schoolyard shooting and the San Ysidro Mcdonalds massarce, I honestly think that the perpetrators to those event's should have their own article seperate from the shootings since both of those are extremely I profile incidents much like the Virginia Tech Shooting and the Charleston shooting have a lot more notoriety. On the other hand i'm not shure of the details that require the perpetrator to have his own wikipedia page seperate from the shooting article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald%27s_massacre#Perpetrator Any help would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 22:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm unclear why this, and the next section, are on this article's talk page - shouldn't they be on the talk page for the article you are planning to make changes on? Anastrophe (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Need help changing the Wikipedia article on mass shootings

I've been trying to change the frequency section of the Wikipedia article on mass shootings. Right now the article says that the United States has 33 percent of all mass shootings in the world which has been debunked constantly.

There's a few more things I found on mass shootings that I think might be worth looking at. The first two are articles regarding the frequency of mass shootings in the United States compared to it's population size along with mass shootings from other countries. The United States is one of the most densely populated countries on earth with a population of 320 million people which is the main factor that influences all these mass shootings. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/03/obamas-inconsistent-claim-on-the-frequency-of-mass-shootings-in-the-u-s-compared-to-other-countries/

Compared with India which has a population of 1.2 billion I believe that India has more mass shootings because of it's population size, but since India's homicide rate is only 3.5 where the United States is 4.5.

The Crime Prevention Center is where I discovered the US State Department report on mass killings around the world. I understand that Wikipedia isn't supposed to accept sources that side with either side of the debate, but much of the statistics could be used to create a list on the frequency of attacks. Sadly I don't know how to make a group on Wikipedia. http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/ While the State Department's report only focus's on terrorism, it proves that the United States doesn't have more mass shootings than any other country. Part of the problem is that in many countries mass shootings tend to go unnoticed due to ineffective law enforcement lack of a definition on a mass shooting. As a result I would recommend either removing the CNN report source that states the United States has the most mass shootings or show that most countries themselves don't even report mass shootings.

Aside from that I also found some articles from politifact on Mass Shooting Tracker that you might be interested in reading. http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2015/nov/01/david-cicilline/david-cicilline-mixes-shooting-data-call-stronger-/ http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/oct/08/debbie-wasserman-schultz/how-many-americans-have-been-killed-mass-shootings/

Also take a look here http://www.npr.org/2015/12/05/458492474/how-many-mass-shootings-this-year-theres-no-consensus

Keep in mind, that as far as referencing Shooting Tracker on the Wikipedia page, i'm perfectly fine with that so long as we include the criticism that it's received. As of now the Wikipedia article on Mass Shootings does include the criticisms towards Shooting Tracker. I just want to keep it that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 22:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Statistics

The article quotes statistics from different years, and from different sources, often juxtaposed in the same graf. There needs to be better consistency - particularly in terms of the quality of sources. For example, the CDC, FBI, and the BBC are used as sources for homicide numbers, each using differing years, and differing numbers. Not to even mention that raw numbers are considerably less informative than rates. Some effort needs to go into vetting the accuracy of sources relative to one another. The FBI and US Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics are largely the 'go to' sources for data on violent crime; the BBC, while unquestionably a reliable news source, has their numbers wrong on the numbers quoted in the lede (they are listing total homicides, not the fraction committed using a gun). I'm hoping to find some time soon to work on this, but in the meantime it would be good if others began comparing values against sources to determine whether the source is accurate. Anastrophe (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Is Gun violence in the US considered an epidemic?

Anastrophe, with regard to your recent edit to the lead (without consensus) [3], I feel this warrants some actual discussion. Here are some cites I found after only a brief search. Please take some time to look at them. Instead of omitting this context all together, perhaps we can come up with an alternative. Darknipples (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC) 1.[4] 2.[5] 3.[6] 4.[7] 5.[8] 6.[9]