Talk:Overview of gun laws by nation

Gun Politics in other European countries

http://www.ryerson.ca/SAFER-Net/regions/Europe/

This page seems to detail the gun politics of many european countries not listed on wikipedia. I think some people should make articles for these countries listed.

Consider creating an account and leaping in to help. --Petercorless 03:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Gun control article

The Gun control article is a POV fork, which is highly undesireable as it repeats all the same material as what is here without providing the balance that is here. Presenting but one side of the gun politics debate is not balanced. I vote we merge it with the Gun politics article. Yaf 12:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This was previously voted on and was moved here; it is why Gun Control still re-directs here (old format that used all caps for the start of article titles. It has already been voted upon once and resolved. Suggest we merge the two (again). Yaf 12:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Reviewed previous vote, and as there hasn't been a new vote to split Gun politics and Gun control once more, have re-merged the two articles. Yaf 03:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

(start of copying from POV-fork Gun control article discussion)

NPOV tag

This is one of the most blatantly one-sided articles I have ever seen in Wikipedia, using words like "fascist", "communist", "racist", to describe gun controls! I've added a NPOV tag.83.71.16.216 23:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes...and the part "Security against tyranny and invasion" has some serious lack of NPOV and outright false information (contrary to myth, gun control was by no means meaningful part of Nazi political agenda). Iraqi and Afghan civilians had plenty of firearms - that did not protect them from tyranny and invasion, did it? --Mikoyan21 23:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

(end of copy from POV-fork Gun control article discussion)

The obvious reply is that the arguments don't have to make sense to you. Our mission in the encyclopedia article is to document the debate. It is sufficient if some significant portion of participants in this social debate make those claims about "Security against tyranny and invasion". The truth of those claims must be decided outside of Wikipedia. But if you really do believe that portions of this article violate our rules for maintaining a neutral point of view, I strongly urge you to fix it yourself. Then politely defend your edits here if someone challenges them. Rossami (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"Security against tyranny"? Isn't that a bit of a euphemism for "breaking the law" and/or "rebellion"? It's theft of the opposite argument. You can't really argue that people should have guns so that they can shoot cops. Carbon Copy Man 06:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, lots of people do make that argument. In fact, at various points in his career, Thomas Jefferson was a vocal advocate of the position that the government could not be trusted and that an armed populace was the appropriate control to prevent the police from overreaching. Yes, that is a direct advocation for "rebellion" which is always interpreted as "breaking the law" by those in power.
Again, whether you or I believe in those arguments is irrelevant. Our purpose in this article is to document the debate. Rossami (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Assertions in this article are lacking citation. I am of the mind to move a general "bull pit" of for-and-against debate on the issues to a sort of "Talking Points" page, so that this can actually remain articular content. --Petercorless 11:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the article

Removed the following addition added today, as the claims don't add up or agree with each other. As there were roughly 55,000 soldiers killed in Viet Nam, this equates to making the claim that 27,500 Americans die of gun shots each year. Perhaps. Yet, only 9,390 to 11,348 actually occurred according to the same inserted text. What happened to the other 15,000+? Looks like some talking points from several pro-gun control websites were perhaps copied, without checking the validity of the numbers. The whole addition is suspect. Can someone straighten out what is fact and what is fiction?

In 1996, 2 people were murdered by handguns in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany, and 9,390 in the United States. [FBI Uniform Crime Report] "Gun Facts" Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense. [ Kellermann and Reay, N.E. Journal of Medicine] Every two years, more Americans die of gunshot than there were American soldiers killed during the entire Vietnam War [National Center for Health Statistics, Department of Defense Almanac]. In homes with guns, a member of the household is almost three times as likely to be the victim of a homicide compared to gun-free homes. Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home." NEJM 329:15 (1993):1084-1091. • In 2001, firearms were used to murder 6 people in New Zealand, 56 in Japan, 96 in Great Britain, 168 in Canada, and 331 in Germany United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2001-2002). In comparison, firearms were used to murder 11,348 in the United States WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports. In 2003, there were only 163 justifiable homicides by private citizens using handguns in the United States FBI Uniform Crime Report, 2003, table 2.16, p. 24. In the US, "Somewhere around 0.8 to 2.0 million violent crimes are deterred each year because of gun ownership and use by civilians. In addition, another 1.5 to 2.5 million crimes are stopped by armed civilians. There may be some overlap in these two categories because of the ways in which the data are collected, but there are almost certainly some two to four million fewer completed crimes each year as the result of civilian gun ownership." Lawrence Southwick, Jr., "Guns and Justifiable Homicide: Deterrence and Defense", St. Louis University Public Law Review, Gun Control Symposium, vol 18, no. 1, 1999: 217

There are no doubt some good points here, but they need to be consistent and documented and verified before they get inserted into the article. Yaf 16:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you removed this section because you dont like the facts. Edit whatever you do not believe to be true, but the fact that 30,000 people are killed by guns each year in the USA and three times that number are shot is a fundumental fact. If that fact is not included in this article that article is absolutely 100% worthless. More facts should be included regarding the horror and damage to those hundred thousand or so that are shot each year in the USA.

I removed them for the reasons stated previously; they are not internally consistent with each other. This leads to a suspicion that they are not actually "fact". Whether or not I like the "facts" is not the issue. Whether or not they are true, and verifiable and substantiated, though, is at issue. Especially when they don't agree with one another. This makes it hard to believe such "facts". Also, please sign your comments in discussions with 4 tilde's. Thanks, Yaf 23:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with these "facts" is they are one sides. Several studies have show a million+ of crimes are prevented or stopped by firearm ownership. Why is this fact not included? These "facts" are POV in thier presentation as there is no balance to them (Anon)

THIS PAGE IS BIASED PRO GUNS!!!!!!

All the possible pro gun arguments are now on the page, even though they make no logical sense. For example, the idiotic argument that guns prevent crime. This argument assumes that guns have some kind of moral compass. The fact is that in 2003 guns killed 30,000 people in the USA, and twice that number have been wounded by guns. Without this fact on this page, this page is no more than empty rhetoric for the pro gun lobby.

So you say guns can't "prevent" crime because they have no "moral compass", and then assert that they "kill" x people per year (apparently with the aid of that moral compass that they don't have). You hand the responsibility of actions back and forth between the tool and the user as it suits you. 74.227.245.79 05:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Will

It also has all possible anti-gun arguments on the page even when they make no logical sense. Our purpose is not to answer the question about gun control but to document the debate. If you think the page has a problem, fix it. But be prepared to politely defend your edits with logic and citations. What we do not need is more empty rhetoric whether from the pro- or the anti-gun lobbies. Rossami (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

And both sides, yours incuded just as is his, have to be open-minded and willing to change, and be willing to aceept if the other side's position turns out to be more logical. PS. it is your opinion that the arguments make no logical sense. Not everyone sees it that way (Hey!!! If they did, there would be no debate! Eh?). 170.215.91.131 00:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"The fact is that in 2003 guns killed 30,000 people in the USA, and twice that number have been wounded by guns." You said that guns, not people, killed 30,000 people in 2003. Fascinating fact. Those guns just got up walked over and shot somebody. Incredible, I could plant guns like that around all my windows for anyone who tries to break in. Lot of bias in that statement, be careful with your editing. Editing the article to take out the "empty rhetoric" as you call it would suddenly put the article in the POV of gun control activists such as yourself.

I think he has a good point about the imbalance of arguments; if you look at the length of pro-gun statements compared with anti-gun statements, the pro-gun nutjobs have much more lee-way. BUT FOR GOD'S SAKE PEOPLE, WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK A PARTICULAR VIEW IS MORE VALID THAN ANOTHER, REMEMBER THAT THIS IS WIKIPEDIA, NOT A FORUM! It is for this reason that I think the entire article should be deleted, and re-written as a documentation on public debate WORLDWIDE and the WORLDWIDE results of that debate. NOT A DOCUMENTATION OF MERELY THE ARGUMENTS ON VARIOUS SIDES. THERE ALSO MUST BE MORE REFERENCING, AND FROM CREDIBLE SOURCES, NOT JUST RIGHT-WING OR LEFT-WING THINK TANKS. However, I do not have the skills to do this, so I would like someone else to enact my vision. Mainly because I'm a busy student in Australia and it's nearly 3:00 in the morning here. Oh, and by the way, I'm quite sure that he meant that in 2003 30,000 people in the U.S.A. were killed in gun-related incidents, and even a rock could work that out. I don't think that anyone is going to interprate it as meaning that in 2003 the U.S. witnessed a strange phenomenom of guns growing legs and shooting 30,000 people. It really is quite pathetic to try to dismiss a point on the basis that Italic textyouItalic text think that Italic text someoneItalic text might interpret it the wrong way. Especially when it's such a good point and we're talking about 30,000 ordinary civilians unnecessarily killed or murdered.

I should point out that in the time and effort it takes to complain that the "guns killed 30000 people" statement is biased, it should be possible to edit the statement to fix that. Gzuckier 15:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to counter the little "factoid" that 30,000+ people are killed by guns a year. 400,000+ people die from smoking alone annually. Guns, when used properly, do not kill unless in self-defense. Smoking will kill more of its users when used. The reason it is "pro-gun" is because it has stronger arguments and does not rely on emotional, unfounded ideas. The Holocaust was possible because minorities were stripped of their rights to own weapons, the peasants of ancient Japan were kept in order (notice a lot of martial art weapons are actually farming tools? Wonder why....), and 15 million Armenians were slaughtered like unarmed dogs. Please try to counter this. These are not "nut job" arguments. They are completely true. The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was possible because the people smuggled weapons in. Just because one side is better equipped (Pro-Gun in this case) doesn't make it biased. Try making Evolution's authority on the same (lower) level as ID and Creationism.

You still have not refuted the "factoid" itself (ie, showing that 30,000+ do NOT die each year from guns), instead you've just shown that it might not be as significant as one thinks, however I don't know if you are trying to refute the factoid (that's how I interpreted "counter") or just trying to put it in context. Could you clarify? PS. just in case your curious, my opinion on guns is that they can be allowed, but the person with the gun has a moral and legal responsibility not to use it for any sort of wrongdoing. Some controls may be acceptable, but not all. Not that I'd bias the article to reflect it, just voicing it. 170.215.91.131 00:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the FBI [1], there were 16,692 murders in the US in 2005. Even if all of them were caused by guns, that's only half way there, and much closer to 9000 than to 30,000. However, according to the FBI [2], firearms only accounted for about 2/3 of the murders. So let's say just over 10,000 people are murdered with guns each year.Izuko 14:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Gun control activists try to whine about how "biased" we are but in reality, guns are portrayed as these supernatural creatures that will leap up and attack you if you don't behave around them. Just because your side loses constantly against us doesn't mean we have an obligation to ko-tow to your wishes.

Further, a lot of unfounded hype has been around guns in the past decades. The Glock pistol was said to bypass metal detectors and x-ray machines (FALSE!), Barrett .50 BMG sniper rifles were said to be used to down airborne jets (FALSE!), and the S&W Model 500 was said to be a vest-buster (FALSE!) and was being used by street gangs (FALSE!) and that it was "too-heavy" for hunting (once again, FALSE!). So please, try to bear in mind it is only "pro-gun bias" because those arguments are presented and appear more logical to the unindoctrinated. QED- User:Mac428

It's not a forum? To me, this has less to do with Wikipedia being or not being a forum and more about the neutrality of the article itself. 170.215.91.131 23:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

WHY DONT FACTS ABOUT GUNS REMAIN ON THIS PAGE??

It is a fact that 30,000 plus people are killed each year in the USA and a larger number are wounded. This is a known fact because the coroner puts the cause of death on the death certificate. When the dead person has fresh bullet holes that death is ruled a death by gunshot. This is not a fact that can be disputed and it belongs on this page.

Further, it is obvious that if there is 30,000 plus deaths, then we can know that a multiple of that number have been injured by guns. Or is the pro gun position that a shooting is more likely to be lethal than not.

There is some very obvious logical implications from these death and injury statistiscs.

If guns were outlawed, the pro gun position must either claim that the gun shot deaths would be killed in some other way, or that the deaths would decrease but a more morally reprehensible group would now be killed instead. This is a difficult argument. But logically that is all there is.

The anti gun position should be allowed to be stated in its strongest most persuasive manner, and this should be in this article. The pro gun people can then attempt to refute this argument although it is a very tough road to travel.

The present tactic of just watering down the whole article is against the rules of wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.12.208.181 (talk • contribs) .

When you say "The anti gun position should be allowed to be stated in its strongest most persuasive manner, and ... [the] pro gun people can then attempt to refute this argument", I'm afraid that you are fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of this article and seriously misunderstanding Wikipedia's mission. We have an obligation to present issues in as close to a neutral point of view as is humanly possible. We can not favor one side or the other in such a controversial issue. You clearly feel passionately about this issue. Remember that other rational and informed people feel equally passionately about their opposing beliefs. Our mission is to document the debate, not to impose one side or the other's solution.
As Yaf has said (politely) above, the edits you keep making to the page are being reverted either because they are unsourced or because they appear to be logically inconsistent and therefore need to be more thoroughly analyzed before adding them into the article. Rossami (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact that 30 thousand plus people are killed by guns in the USA each year. This is cited, sourced and an undisputable fact. I have no problem with the pro gun people placing their best argument on this page. The serious problem is that the anti gun argument is not being expressed. The proof is that there is no discussion of the number of dead people killed by guns and the obvious implications that flow from this fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.12.208.181 (talk • contribs) .

You're going to have to make a better case for that statement. In particular, I would challenge whether there are any "obvious implications" that can flow from a single datapoint even if properly sourced. For comparison, according to the National Safety Council, US motor vehicle deaths rose to 47,200 in 2005 (up about 2%). Does that mean that cars are more dangerous than guns? That they should be more tightly regulated? That they should be prohibited? Or is it an indication of a long-term underinvestment in roads and road-safety? Or just that we drove more last year? I'm not trying to be facetious but I am trying to illustrate the point that without a great deal more understanding and analysis into the factors behind that datapoint, there's not much that really is immediately obvious.
If you think you can improve the statements of the pro-gun control sections of this article, please do so. But remember that the addition of apparently irrelevant facts will not do what you intend. Rossami (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. Then write the discussion and add it. But remember, we are not to do original research on Wikipedia. Instead, we are to find substantiated and verifiable facts. Find a reference, take a quote from it, cite it, and insert it, to make whatever point you wish to make, in the places where you feel these points are needed. Making unsubstantiated statements without citations is regarded as POV (point of view) editorializing in violation of the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy which we all strive to reach in our articles, and will generally result in someone deleting your input. As I said before, you no doubt have some very good points, and you obviously strongly feel that these points need to be made. Fine. However, your numbers just were not self-consistent, leading to a loss of credibility. A little more research (not original) of what has been published should enable you to accomplish your goals and improve the NPOV of the article. Also, please sign your discussions, by typing 4 tildes in a row at the end of your discussion inputs -- it helps keep straight who is making what statement. Yaf 06:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"If guns were outlawed, the pro gun position must either claim that the gun shot deaths would be killed in some other way, or that the deaths would decrease but a more morally reprehensible group would now be killed instead. This is a difficult argument. But logically that is all there is."

This is obviously a false dilemma. Another route could be to point out that the "gun ban" position assumes that a ban would work... because Prohibition was so effective! Well, umm errm it was... right?

And if you would like use a statistical (i.e. utilitarian) argument, studies such as Kleck point to a large number of defensive gun uses. Even if a ban were 100% effective, or otherwise equally effective on both law abiders and criminals, these would be removed too. Given that, the "morally reprehensible side effects" argument you allude to is not so difficult anymore is it?

As for the elasticity of the causative agents of death, you may want to consider the fact that a country with almost no guns (Japan) has one of the world's highest suicide rates, one which is higher than the most gun happy country in the First World. Ur Wurst Enema 05:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Age of consent link

I'm checking on the disambiguation of links to Age of consent. This is one of the articles that links to it. In this section, fourth paragraph...

"There is further controversy about courts trying and sentencing these mostly "young men" as adults despite them not having reached the age of consent. A significant number of the aforementioned deaths occur through suicide."

Forgive my ignorance of this argument, does the argument refer to the age of consent for sexual activity, the age of majority, the age of criminal responsibility or some other age milestone? I'll leave it up to those who understand the material to possibly pipe-disambig the link. Cheers! --Monotonehell 08:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Great article!

This is one of the few discussions I've ever seen on this subject anywhere where everything from both sides is discussed, linked to, and explained while still remaining neutral! I applaud your efforts to present information as it is, to let readers decide. Kudos! Sln3412 07:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Since law and government issues apply to the ownership <- range -> non-ownership of firearms, the subject is political. Politics fits, 'firearm' might be more international, but most anyone that speaks English knows that 'guns' means about the same thing in common usage.
2. Regarding the international scene, countries such as Norway, France, Belgium, New Zealand, and Spain have also been reported as having a large percentage of home ownership also. [3] [4] [5]
3. Guns are firearms.
4. Firearms are weapons.
5. Firearms are never unloaded.

Too US specific

The article purports to provide an overview of gun control but most of the text is US specific. Perhaps phrasing could be modified to clarify that many of the arguments and statistics are US specific? (or additional text could be provided for other countries?). For example, there is a section titled "domestic violence" and this feels to me (please correct me if I'm wrong) that it should actually be titled "domestic violence in the USA". --mgaved 14:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You'r absolutely right. Maybe I'll poke at it sometime, although I know very little about the subject.

ManicParroT 02:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge Gun law to here

The Gun law article is pretty weak and need some serious cleanup. Would it be more efficient to merge it into this article? GuyFromChicago 13:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Merge them. While "gun law" in theory could cover slightly different content such as the specifics of actual statutes passed and the differences between them, in practice that would be inconsistent with our treatment of other laws. Generally when we get to specific statutes, we cover each one in a specific article, each titled to match the law. (Truth in Lending Act is an example.) To the extent that we want an umbrella article, this seems like the better title to me. If we really get enough independent content to talk about gun laws passed, we can always split the article back apart then. Rossami (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup request

The syntax and sheer size of the lists of arguments for and against gun control, the near-absence of any numbers in the stats section, and the simple fact that only one source is cited in that section drove me to mark this page as needing a cleanup. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words & Wikipedia:Citing sources. Also, consider breaking unreadably long lists up into multiple lists, moving them to their own article, or, preferably, summarizing them and wiping redundant entries. MrZaius^talk 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Japan

I have copied the paragraph about Japan here because I think I needs some work:

Firearms-rights advocates also point to the fact that Japan had a long history of weapons ownership that was strictly limited to only the elite and their Samurai bodyguards. Peasants, without any access to arms, were at the mercy of powerful warlords. This common view is factually incorrect as much of elites were unarmed after 10th century and this prompted the advancement of samurai into the ruling class. Even samurai eventually disdained the use of their weapons to the point that brandishing their katana in public, regardless of the reason, was considered a crime and punishable by up to death if actually used. Asano Naganori whose death penalty is the cause for the event of Forty-seven Ronin merely injured Kira Yoshihisa with a possible intention of killing him. This would be a prison sentence or less in modern Japan and shows a view of samurai on using their weapon. Peasants were never completely disarmed and carried weapons including firearms for hunting and other purposes. Even today, shotguns and rifles can be owned in Japan provided that the owner has no criminal record and registers his weapon.

Rveth has made some additions about the history of Japan which I think could help the article. The history supporting the argument needs to be accurate.

1. This is in a section explaining the "Balance of power" argument of the possession of arms. I think the bulk of what was added doesn't pertain to the "Balance of Power" section because the article is discussion the possession of arms, not the brandishing of them. For a modern day example possessing vs brandishing, in the US it is a right that people can possess and frequently may carry arms, yet brandishing without solid cause is a crime. The Balance of Power argument is that because the people possess arms other powers (govt or criminals) are less inclined to abuse their position. Brandishing on the part of the people is not necessary.

2. Simply because an elite personally does not possess or carry arms does not mean that they do not have access to them or people who have them, like their bodyguards. Name any of the top govt leaders in the world, they may not personally own arms, but their bodyguards do. In a balance of power argument, if the peasant is not allowed access to the same weapons, the elite will have an advantage of power of them. I think it would be safe to say that in the history of Japan (the world) the elite enjoyed a power advantage over the peasant by their access to arms which was then translated into economic, political, etc. power. Rearden9 15:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

--I know this is quibbling, and I'm new at this, so please excuse poor formatting. Either way, the story of the 47 Ronin isn't completely presented. Asano's crime was more the drawing of a sword in the palace of the Shogun (if I remember correctly) than his attack on Kira. Thus, unless the general argument includes place specific gun control (such as, I assume it is illegal for a private citizen to carry a gun into, say, the White House, carrying a more serious crime than other places), I think the anecdote should be omitted. Eiburahamu 06:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you know enough to start making a good edit. Try to put in something more specific about gun ownership, especially as it changed during the 19th–20th centuries. There definitely were peasant teppo units. For example Nobunaga's use of teppo amongst his ashigaru. --Petercorless 07:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Both sides

I think that the way some of the riddiculous arguments supporting guns have been allowed to stay on the page to be outrageous, when some pro-gun-control statements like 'Automatic weapons are not appropriate for civilian use', which I would have thought was a valid point, is deleted! There is not enough balance. I think we should consider that this is an encyclopedia, and as such we should dedicate ourselves to covering all the facts and desribing the arguments from either side in a detached, third-person view (e.g. 'Automatic weapons are not appropriate for civilian use' could be changed to 'Supporters of gun controls say that automatic weapons are not appropriate for civilian use' or 'automatic weapons may not be appropriate for civilian use'). Also I think that this article is more from a U.S. perspective - for example, it says that firearms are a legitimite means of hunting animals for food, but this is not necessarily the case in all countries (e.g. laws relating to the hunting of native and endangered species). I think that both sides of the debate should be represented fairly and accurately, with the full truth told, as this is the purpose of Wikipedia. We must do this in order to maintain the integrity of this site. If anti-gun lobbyists or pro-gun-lobbyists wish to depict these views in a highly opinionated manner, they can take their views elsewhere. Wikipedia should be respected by all users not as a forum, but as an information source, so that people may form their own views. 03:07, 9 October 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.51.30 (talk • contribs)

I think you should either (a) make a FEW edits to the page to improve it as you think it should be, and see what kind of reaction you get, or (b) point out, on this page, SPECIFIC cases in the past where someone removed or reverted text that you think should be in the article, so a discussion can follow. Thanks. (And please note Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. John Broughton | Talk 13:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"some pro-gun-control statements like 'Automatic weapons are not appropriate for civilian use', which I would have thought was a valid point, is deleted!"

I'd suggest you go forth to the internet and find a notable source (not a blog or a Wikipedia entry) that says "Automatic weapons are not appropriate for civilian use" and _explains_why_. It may sound to you like a plainly true, common-sense statement, but very many people disagree with it, and "common sense" is never reason enough to include an unsupported argument in an encyclopedia. Once you find that source, drop the statement right into the article. It's certainly relevant to the conversation.  :) 216.52.69.217 19:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi IP216, insighful comments like yours go a long way towards restoring my faith in Anon editors. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Detriot Pistol Ban?

As a Detroiter and a pistol owner I was rather surprised to read in this article that Detroit has "has a virtual prohibition on private handguns". I googled this statement and found the source, but no information to back it up. Michigan requires pistol registration and a permit to carry, however I was unable to find any indication Detroit had restrictions of its own. This hardly represents a prohibition in my opinion. I didn't want to edit the article because 1) I'm not 100% certain of the facts and 2) I'm rather new to Wikipedia and don't know how an issue like this should be addressed. If anyone has any further information on the subject it would be greatly appreciated.Lamcglynn 14:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be correct; the "virtual prohibition" appears to be, in actuality, mandatory sentences for conviction on illegal weapons charges. That whole point in the article is, not to be too POV, crap; between your point re detroit, the added note re the bizarre averaging of unlike numbers to "prove a point", and the deliberate ignoring of the fact that the bigger cities would be expected to have a bigger percentage of the nation's everything, nothing in that line can be salvaged. Gzuckier 15:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I restored it because in fact, that list is cited from the NCPA, so it shouldn't be selectively quoted, instead I (or somebody) will have to somehow add an addendum regarding its crapitude, without being POV. Gzuckier 15:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I did find Detroit requires a handgun safty course not required by the state for registration. Guess I'm going downtown next week to learn how not to shoot myself. Lamcglynn 18:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

They'll probably hand out stickers for the barrel saying "Point away from face before use". Gzuckier 19:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge notice

If gun politics worldwide isn't merged within the next week or so, it should probably be AfD'd - nothing particularly useful in there. riana_dzasta 12:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Guns are evil?

Under the arguments for gun control I found this bit: Guns are inherently evil.

Is there a reference for this? Because I've honestly never encountered pro-gun control literature that actually argues this. Granted, the rhetoric can be intense, but I've never seen this actually put forward as a position by gun control advocates.

ManicParroT 01:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That's silly. I've removed it. Anyone who can include a source (per WP:RS to the statement is welcome to add it back. John Broughton | Talk 02:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Needs more pro-gun external links

With not even twice as many anti-gun-control links as pro-gun-control links, this article is clearly biased towards the pro-gun-control position. Surely there must be several more nutbars with badly written blogs, and single issue, single member organizations with high-falutin' names that we can link to. Otherwise we should just delete all the pro-gun-control links to ensure NPOV.Gzuckier 16:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

but seriously folks

How does

In 2002, 1,202 women were killed by their intimate partners, accounting for 30% of all murders of women and of that 1,202, 58% were killed by intimate partners using guns. WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports

In 2002, 700 women were killed by intimates using guns compared to 175 men. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Homicide Trends in the U.S.: Intimate Homicide

support in any way the assertion

Of particular note is that in many of the latter cases, the victim firing in self-defense is frequently a woman or youth victim of a more physically powerful abuser. In those situations gun rights advocates argue that the firearm arguably becomes an equalizer against the lethal and disabling force frequently exercised by the abusers.

?

• 700 women killed by guns in domestic shooting
• 502 women killed not by guns in domestic shooting
• 175 men killed by guns in domestic shooting

You might as well suggest that

• 10,000 deer killed in car/deer collisions
• 10,000 deer killed by hunters
• 100 people killed in car/deer collsions

therefore, the automobile serves as an equalizer for the deer to protect themselves against people.Gzuckier 17:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems with statistics

Hi, this is my first edit and I'm not sure how this works so please correct me if I'm doing something wrong here I find the statistics section very biased. Although the citations provided may be true, other facts that may contribute to crime rates in the areas cited are not provided. The increase in crime may be due to gun control but it also may be due to other factors such as poverty. The 'statistics' imply a direct causal link that may not be present. In addition the Canadian statistics provided have not been updated to include newer information. I don't know how to fix it, but I think the neutrality tag should be altered to claim that it is more than weasel words causing problems with neutrality in that section. Perhaps statistics citing gun deaths and homicide rates in countries other than the USA could be provided as well as the US stats to increase neutrality. I may be able to help with this after I'm done with my exams. 04:21, 9 December 2006 Tapiocashadow

We should make this into an article

So far it's more like bullet points. I'll get a start on this sometime soon, wouldn't mind some help. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 19:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A Very Brief History of Gun Control - Pardon the expression -- a first shot at it? Submitted for your approval. --Petercorless 08:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Who thought it was a good idea...?

...to make the article for "Gun Politics" the alias to "Gun Control?" They are not the same thing. It probably makes sense to have different articles on Gun Rights, Gun Control and Gun Politics.

I will continue to approach this issue from a "top down" approach focusing on global and international small arms control laws and regimes first, then proceed towards regional issues (such as EU or SEE, African, etc.). The local parochial issues can be dealt with on a nation's own pages. We might wish to shuffle a lot of the US-specific data off to the US page. For now, I will continue to make inroads into forging order out of the raw chaos of these random ideas and factoids. --Petercorless 09:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So educate us on how the concepts are different. In all the usage with which I am familiar, "gun rights" are the obverse of "gun control" - opposing sides of the same debate, that is, the debate about the proper degree to which private citizens can or will be trusted with weapons. What aspects of "gun politics" exist beyond that fairly sweeping debate?

By the way, this name was selected as more neutral than either "gun rights" or "gun control". Versions of this article have previously existed at both those names and neither was effective at documenting the debate. Rossami (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This page has hijacked the namespace for "Gun Control" and "Gun rights" and thusly, it is somewhat broken in not allowing a more natural dialogue to develop. It would be like forcing all political ideologies on a single page, called "Politics," rather than to allow one page for democracy, another for monarchy, etc. Would you want "Democrat" and "Republican" to both resolve to the page for "Political Party"? Having obverse definitions on the same page -- with no separate page on "gun control" versus a separate page for "gun rights" -- making it all "gun politics" -- makes everything a murky grey. And makes the page really long. Furthermore, the definition of "gun politics" on this page is utterly simplified and banal to the point of narrow-mindedness. Rather than simply an issue of personal ownership, gun politics has a broader application and includes issues of organization of such politics, issues of law enforcement, the legal basis of armament of police and defense forces by local, national and international law versus civil ownership, issues of national sovereignty, commercial, industrial and manufacturing, issues of licensing and commercial production, i.e., "Arms Manufacturing Rights" ... all of these are "gun politics" and are not necessarily focused on personal civil ownerships rights or controls. By forcing all the arguments on one huge page, and making the page focused solely on individual rights or restrictions, then loading in all arguments both pro and con -- it makes the page become, as you can see, no more than a long list of bullet points, aphorisms, generalizations, and arguments without citations. My recommendation is to have "Gun Politics" be a parent page. Then have "Gun Rights" be on one page where it can be focused solely on arguments that are not hijacked by opposing viewpoints, "Gun Control" be on another page where it can clearly show its arguments, "Arms Trafficking" already has a page, and I created one for SALW. There can even be a page for "Debate over Gun Ownership" if you want to have tables of pros and cons on alternating columns. --Petercorless 08:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

AHSA is not a pro-gun rights organization.

Article by Cam Edwards from townhall.com [6]

A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing from Gunowners.org [7]

Fake Hunting Group Endorses 'Camouflage Candidate'[8] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rydra Wong (talk • contribs) 06:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Just edited the paragraph about Japan...

In the Balance of Power section. I guess I should have posted here first, but I thought that paragraph was so incorrect in some parts and so confusing in others that no one would miss it.

I do not have the citations just now, so I have added tags. I'll work on this.

Something has to be valid

I snipped the words "(although invalid)" from the history section. It was an ironically contradictory argument that made the sentence read that all reasons -- both for gun rights or gun controls were invalid -- i.e., all parties arguments are invalid. A hopefully-benign snip. --Petercorless 20:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

POV

This article wasn't so biased about a year ago; it's been rewritten to advocate gun control, with a bunch of unsourced information. I remember because I did a report on the subject and used the article. The statistics posted are specifically chosen to support gun control. Dukie010 05:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've cited sources in all my additions. What I do not like is the lists of unbacked assertions by both sides.

Proposed: Separate pages for groups?

Might we might split off the list of gun control and gun rights groups to separate pages. They add a foot or so of visual space at the bottom of the article. We could simply have pages: Gun Ownership Advocacy Groups or Gun Control Advocacy Groups. Please vote on a) the merit of the idea and b) what you would wish to call such pages. Links to them would remain on this page in the "See also" section at the bottom. --Petercorless 07:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend instead that we slash both lists back to a very few well-chosen representative groups. A comprehensive list is 1) impossible to develop or maintain and 2) inappropriate to an encyclopedia article. Hiding the lists in a separate page does nothing to address either of those two problems. (By the way, voting is evil. Rossami (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed: Gun Politics Template?

If we might have many pages related to Gun Control and Gun Rights, might we make a Gun Politics Template to put at the side or bottom of related pages? --Petercorless 07:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

External Links way out of control

As the header says. WAY out of control. First of all, we should not have external links when internal links exist for the same purpose. For instance, there's no reason to link directly to the NRA website when we have National Rifle Association (which itself, of course, should link to the NRA website and does). I think we should eliminate all the external links in favor of internal links, which will help cut down on the number of them and will also be in line with WP:EL. A good list of articles can be found in Template:USgunorgs, I think we should start there. That's a bit US-centric, of course, so we should also include links to, for starters Schweizerischer Schützenverein, National Rifle Association of the United Kingdom, and Sporting Shooters Association of Australia plus any other similar articles. So what external links should be left? I can see the use of the [www.packing.org] link, but are there any others that serve a legitimate informational purpose? Mangojuice^talk 19:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Since it's been about 2 weeks and no one has raised any objections, I've gone ahead and done this change. If there are any more interational groups with articles they should be added. (Actually, if the list grows much more, we might want to fork out an article List of gun organizations.) Mangojuice^talk 15:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pruning the list. I think you did a great job. I suspect that the list will grow again. When it does, we should prune it again, not create another "list of" page. (On the other hand, if there are that many gun organizations with Wikipedia articles, perhaps that could be made a category and a link to the category added to this page.) Again, thanks. Rossami (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Iraqi Gun Ownership

There is a statement in the article that the large percentage of gun ownership in Iraq didn't stop genocide, but I was under the impression that the oppressed groups, namely the Kurds, weren't allowed to own guns, with the exception of those who are serving in the military under compulsion. Could someone look for some sources on this?--LWF 03:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That comment was removed from the article for exactly that reason. It keeps being added by an anonymous editor who has refused so far to explain or defend the edit. I have (again) reverted the edit. Rossami (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so in the future if I see it I'll remove it.--LWF 13:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

How about the Dujail Massacre of 1982? This was in retribution against Shiite mlitants who shot at Hussein. How did they shoot at Hussein if they weren't armed? It's not difficult to see that there is a strong pro-gun bias in the editing of this article. Most of content in the Balance of Power section favors the pro-gun position and it contains almost no citations. Someone posts something about Iraq with a citation and it suddenly gets deleted. The US Statistics sections contains a lot of claims from the NCPA, an organization with a strong pro-gun bias. A lot of its claims are misleading although they don't get deleted. It gives the impression that gun control leads to crime although this becomes more doubtful once you go beyond the cherry picked facts. For example, it is claimed that, "In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent." But the D.C. homicide rate actually fell for the first ten years after the 1976 law. It wasn't until the end of the 1980s when there was a dramatic increase in the homicide rate. Just reading the NCPA's claim is misleading and it's doubtful that it would take ten years for the law to have a negative effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terentilius (talk • contribs)

I have (again) removed the reference to the Iraqi situation because the citation offered is 1) not a reliable source and 2) does not support the claims actually being made. Your argument above is better and might actually support the claim except that the Dujail Massacre wasn't "genocide" (which is what the edit claimed).
Your concerns about the DC claim are only relevant if you can show that the DC homicide rate fell during those first ten years when the national average rose (or at least fell at a lower rate). The claim made in the current version is a differential claim. Just saying that DC's rate fell in the first 10 years is a data point without a control. It fails to allow for the probability that many other factors simultaneously affect homicide rates. Rossami (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It is funny that you ask for controls only from others but dare suggest ridiculous comparisons which lack any and all justification and are pure and utter junk statistics as "differential claims". --84.61.118.44 15:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The claim that the Dujail massacre being caused by militants firing at Hussein is evidence of legal Shi'ite gun ownership is also misleading. The factthat they had guns doesn't mean they were allowed to have guns, because they could have owned them illegally; like the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto; they weren't supposed to have any guns, yet they did.--LWF 21:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

And they served them quite well, didn't they? Much like the guns the Shiites had, legal or not. The suggestion that firearms ownership would help defend against oppression or genocide is a pretty good sign of living 200 years in the past. While Iraq shows it's perfectly possible to take down a helicopter with them, the question is "Can you take down enough of them?" The answer is "No". Much like in the Warsaw Ghetto, all firearms can do in this day and age is annoy a prospective or current oppressor enough to decide it's time to quit playing games and call in artillery, air force etc. until the rubble stops shooting back. When faced with an army, fleeing and getting a tank of your own is the much more reasonable solution as grabbing the shotgun from over the chimney and playing the defender of the helpless. --84.61.118.44 15:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

NCPA statistics

The section with US statistics by the National Center for Policy Analysis should be removed. It embodies everything that can be done with statistics to distort and lie. Comparing states or cities solely on the level of gun legislation and crime or violence rates and ignoring -for example- rural/urban composition is dishonest. This is epitomized by comparing DC, a single city, to the national rate, which contains plenty of sparsely settled rural area. The section is an embarassement since it completely lacks controls for confounding factors and underscores why I think tanks shouldn't be treated as reliable sources. They present data with a specific agenda, to advocate specific points, not on a pure fact-finding basis. --84.61.118.44 15:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Someone delete that shit or I will. Not only are the statistics misleading and from a biased source, but how unbalanced is it to provide statistics only from one partisan source. If you're going to cite biased statistics, you have to do it from both sides. Who the hell thought it was a good idea to end an "objective" article with pro gun stats, and not even at least counter it with the many pro gun control stats on their. It's ridiculous. - Lynch04

I should point out that Washington, DC, is being compared with itself as well as to the national rate, and that the law changed in 1975-1976 so changes should be tracked from before then. I'd rather that you added stats from some other source that you considered "unbiased"; there are very few such, as the numbers are mostly confusing, so citing oppositely biased might be easier. htom 21:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That was my whole point. Either post stats from pro gun control organizations, or remove it all together..Lynch04