Talk:Gun politics in the United States

If you live in the city, the greatest risks to your life are cars and bullets

The direct implication is that living in the city is far safer without any guns allowed at all. This cannot really be disputed with any type of valid logic.

Here is a valid logic;There is no way you are going to get the all the guns from the criminals OR the patriots.The fools that will give up their guns will be defenseless to the criminals.Saltforkgunman 07:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to redo the debate here, but how do you propose to get rid of all the guns? --Mmx1 05:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't have a plan to get rid of them.Saltforkgunman 07:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

odd, I would think that you would say "the greatest risks to your life are bad drivers and criminals" when you take the operator out of the situation, you have ignored the primary cause, guns do not pull their own triggers just as cars do not press their own pedals Mathurin

I'm pretty sure Governments are your highest risk, probably by a few orders of magnitude on any time scale longer than about 5 years. - Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.214.46 (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Gun laws and un-known weapons

someone can make a gun/gun like weapon to avoid laws. A rail driver is only a rail gun when you call it a gun there are so many loop holes Dudtz 8/25/05 6:14 PM EST

Someone cannot mass produce guns so easily.

excerpt from the Department of justice website

Who Are the Victims of Gun Violence?

The Death Toll

hen confronted with the question, "Who are the victims of gun violence?" we usually think first about the fatalities. According to death certificate data compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics, a part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a total of 32,436 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States in 1997. The majority of these deaths—54.2 percent—were suicides, 41.7 percent were homicides, and the remaining 4.1 percent were unintentional shootings or deaths of an undetermined nature.1 The effects of gun violence cross all socioeconomic and geographic boundaries—from inner cities to remote rural areas to upscale suburbs and in homes, public housing communities, schools, workplaces, recreational areas, bars, and on the street. Gun violence victims are young and old, male and female, African-American and white. In some cases, the shooter and victim are strangers, but in many others, they are intimately related.

In spite of the pervasive nature of gun violence, some demographic groups are disproportionately represented in the gun crime victim population. The 13,252 gun homicide victims recorded in the mortality statistics for 1997 included 5,110 who were 15 to 24 years old. Firearm homicide2 was the second leading cause of death for the 15- to 24-year-old group. In the 25- to 34-year-old group, there were 3,706 deaths from gun homicide; at younger ages (5–14), there were 284 firearm homicides. In fact, firearm homicide was within the top 10 causes of death for all age groups from 5 to 44 years.

Gun homicide victims are disproportionately young and predominantly male. According to CDC, 84 percent were male in 1997. At ages 15 to 19 years, the gun homicide rate for males was 8 times the rate for females in 1997.3 The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reports that males of all ages were 3.2 times more likely than females to be murdered in 1998. Moreover, the circumstances of firearm violence differ significantly for men and women. In contrast to men, women are far more likely to be killed by a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or family member than by a stranger.4

Firearm homicide also disproportionately affects African-Americans. Approximately 52 percent of gun homicide victims are African-American, even though they represent less than 13 percent of the total population. African-American males between the ages of 15 and 24 have the highest firearm homicide rate of any demographic group. Their firearm homicide rate of 103.4 deaths per 100,000 is 10 times higher than the rate for white males in the same age group (10.5 deaths per 100,000). In 1997, 92 percent of homicides of young African-American men occurred by firearms, compared to 68 percent of homicides by firearms in the general population.5 Even though violent crime rates, including crimes committed with guns, have declined each year since 1993, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation trend reports,6 guns remain the leading cause of death for young African-American males.7

If all Americans were killed with firearms at the same rate as African-American males between the ages of 15 and 24 (103.4 per 100,000), there would be 276,843 firearm homicide victims annually in the United States. (Based on 1997 CDC numbers and a total population of 267,636,061.)

The Nonfatal Gun Crime Victimization

For every firearm death, there are approximately three nonfatal firearm injuries that show up in hospital emergency rooms. With no mechanism, such as a national registry, to collect uniform national data on nonfatal firearm injuries, this is, at best, an estimate based on a sample of hospitals.8 There may be many more non-fatal firearm victims who do not go to hospital emergency rooms for treatment. Others have estimated four to six non-fatal injuries for each gun death.9 In addition, many crime victims may be traumatized by the presence of a gun during a crime, whether or not the gun was fired. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 1998, victimizations involving a firearm represented 23 percent of the 2.9 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. In 1998, 670,500 crime victims reported facing an assailant with a gun.10

Secondary Victims

The number of deaths and injuries is just a crude index of the effects of gun violence in the United States. There is an even greater number of secondary victims, sometimes called covictims or survivors of homicide. These are the parents, children, siblings, spouses, and others who have lost a loved one or friend to gun homicide. In the aftermath of a homicide, covictims must deal with law enforcement, the medical examiner, the press, and the court system, among others. They may have to clean up a crime scene, pay the homicide victim's medical bills, and arrange for a funeral and burial. " It is estimated that each homicide victim is survived by an average of three loved ones for whom the violent death produces a painful and traumatic grief."

—Deborah Spungen Homicide: The Hidden Victims Sage Publications, 1998

Secondary victims also include those who are touched by or witness gun violence in their homes, schools, or workplaces or on the street. In the Nation's largest public housing projects, the damage goes well beyond the lives lost and injuries inflicted. According to a report from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, public housing residents are more than twice as likely as other members of the population to suffer from firearm victimization, one in five residents reports feeling unsafe in his or her neighborhood, and children show symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) similar to those seen in children exposed to war or major disasters.11 This is consistent with numerous studies finding high rates of exposure to violence particularly among youth in urban communities. In one study, almost two-thirds of high school students had witnessed a shooting, and in another, 70 percent of the youth ages 7 to 18 in a public housing project had witnessed a shooting and 43 percent had seen a murder.12 Recent data also indicate substantial exposure to gun violence among suburban school-age children.13

Multiple-Victim Shootings

While the number of crimes committed with firearms has been falling to levels not seen since the mid-1980s,14 media coverage and public awareness of gun crime are increasing. " Even those who have never encountered a gun are aware of the widespread presence of guns in our communities, witness news reports of gun-related crime, domestic murders, and high-profile shootings at schools, churches and other public places. The ever-present fear that someone we love might be killed or injured is another form of gun trauma."

—From The Bell Campaign’s World Wide Web site at www.bellcampaign.org The Bell Campaign is now referred to as the Million Mom March Foundation.

In the past few years, a rash of multiple-victim tragedies has erupted in schools, workplaces, churches, nursing homes, fast food restaurants, shopping malls, and transportation. These are very public venues—places that we frequent on a daily basis and where we should feel safe. When a gun massacre interrupts play in a daycare center, prayer in a church, or commuters going home from work, it shatters our most basic sense of security. Consequently, even though the percentage of homicides involving five or more victims was less than 0.05 percent in 1998,15 these are the ones that receive the overwhelming majority of the media's attention. In addition, the multiple-victim shootings in public places may be ones that create the most secondary victims as whole classrooms of first graders, cafeterias full of teenagers, and hundreds of fellow workers witness a mass shooting. The media coverage alone multiplies the number of persons victimized by the crime.

Previous Contents Next

---

Working With Victims of Gun Violence July 2001

Department of Justice

State Organizations

I saw a number of Michigan groups added today, and I wanted to know if the "Organizations" section should be limited to National organizations. I fear that the section could become ridiculous with every chapter of every group, gun club, and every state organization being listed. It is already quite long, perhaps this could be spun into a new page or two (Pro-gun organizations, and Anti-Gun organizations)

DC gun law

From:http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/State/State.aspx?st=dc POSSESSION

Rifles and Shotguns

All rifles and shotguns must be registered with the Metropolitan Police. To obtain a registration certificate, the applicant must be 21 years old (or be over 18 and have a liability statement signed by his guardian), pass a vision test or have a valid D.C. driver`s license, and not be:

1. Convicted of a crime of violence or a weapons offense.
  2. Under indictment for a crime of violence.
  3. Convicted of a narcotics or an assault or battery charge within the last five years.
  4. Acquitted of a crime by reason of insanity or adjudicated an alcoholic within the past five years.
  5. Committed to a mental hospital within the past five years.
  6. Suffering from a physical defect which might render his possession of a gun unsafe.
  7. Found negligent in any firearm mishap.

Why would an 18 year old have a guardian? Dudtz 10/15/06

Thanks...

Good job neutering the article. Comparing it to the March version, we have far fewer facts and citations especially in the pro gun rights parts of the article.

Whoever is the politically motivated censor - good job. You are a credit to the kinds of fools that are ruining Wikipedia.

I'm going to revert about 500 changes in this article in the next few days, putting back in all the information which was deleted.

Time to archive?

This talk page is out of control. At over 200kb, I think it is past time to archive. I would propose that any topic without a comment in the last month (I think that's all of them) be archived. Any thoughts? OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 01:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I would support some volunteer setting up a bot assisted archive by Miszabot. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added the tag for Miszabot. I set the bot to archive threads inactive for over thirty days; the most recent five threads will always be left no matter how old they are. After the bot comes by I'll add the appropriate navigation templates to this and the new page unless someone beats me to the punch. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 17:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. I see we will still have to manually archive any thread without a standard timestamp, but the rest should be handled by the bot. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 01:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

conflating militia groups with gun rights groups

is synthesis, POV, and unencyclopedic. please relocate this highly POV material to a different section. informal militia groups, and the militia movement, are not "gun rights groups". Anastrophe (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the politics are more complex than black and white, I removed the subsection titles. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

which breaks the section completely. please stop. move the material to an appropriate section. you are synthesizing here, which is not supported by policy. Anastrophe (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have specific problems with my referencing[1]? Also, I think "Late 20th Century Gun Politics" is a very accurate section title. Do you have a suggestion for a better section title? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

conflating militia groups with gun rights groups is WP:SYN and WP:POV. the subsections are "gun rights groups" and "gun control groups". the material pertaining to militia groups belongs elsewhere - if it belongs at all: it is highly POV, regardless of being well referenced. i'm aware of no militia groups that do actual gun rights political lobbying. Anastrophe (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't see this version. I do not favor the sub section titles, so you objection appears out of date. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of becoming embroiled in this argument, I would just like to inject a comment by saying that I must agree with Anastrophe on one point and that is that information on militia groups does not seem to me to be in keeping with the theme of the article. Militia groups have never been real players in the politics of gun control/gun rights; their views on firearms are simply one of many manifestations of their extreme libertarianism and, lacking any real impact on US gun politics, would be better treated in articles specifically about militias and the militia movement. A militia does not constitute a gun rights group any more than the Soviet government under Stalin would constitute a gun control group. Both have been used as straw man attacks by each side of this political debate against the other and both are equally invalid. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 18:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you reading for your sourcing? Have you read the Lane Crothers, and Robert Snow books? They make a powerful and credible analysis of the role of the modern militia in late 20th Century gun politics. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

My above statement is pure original research and was not intended to be encyclopedic, just an opinion. I have not read the two books you mentioned; they don't show to be available at my local library, but I'll try to run them down somehow. Could you give me a summary of the aforementioned works' positions on this subject? In my time of connection with this debate I have heard a very great deal of talk from both sides about militia groups, but I have not seen that talk turn into actual legislative action. Still, that's just my personal experience of the subject; I would be interested to hear what Crothers and Snow have to say about it. At the same time I will try to find concrete sources to back my opinion. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 20:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There is so much, too much really to quickly summarize. One central theme is that influence of the modern militia has been urbanized through gun shows, and has proliferated with militia influenced internet usages. See page 68 of the Snow book. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Another key issue is that of the modern militia and effect on Congress, see page 135-139 of Susan J. Tolchin's book. Coverage of this issue, the modern milita and politics in the late 20th Century is vital to that section. If militiaman testimony at a Congressional hearing doesn't count as 'political', I don't know what does. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

See also page 10 and Chapter 7 of the Cruthers book where Professor Cruthers declares bluntly "militia groups were successful in promoting core ideas in the political system...and parts of the movement were co-opted by established political forces, particularly the conservative wing of the Republican Party". This is really solidly sourced material. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will grant that, as these sources state, the militia movement has attracted the attention of lawmakers and impacted political discourse, so, it could be said, they have impacted gun politics in the U.S. However, I still feel that their actual impact has been minimal, that is to say that if the militias did not exist, I believe we would have all the same laws and the same basic political situation that we have with them. They impacted the way memebers of Congress and others talk about the issue, but I don't think that they have impacted the way anyone acts about the issue. Still, it's a grey area; I can see both sides of it. I wouldn't include the militias in this article, but I am not going to delete such material either. It may, in this case, be a simple matter of opinion and having put my 2¢ in, I am content to leave the wrangling over minor details like this to others. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 22:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

'vital' to the section? no. these books depart too far from reality. they're political screeds of a sort, inflammatory (which sells books). finding leftist university professors who see right-wing bogeymen behind every door is neither novel nor useful. objectively, the influence of right-wing militia groups is extremely marginal at best, giving weight to extremists POV's at worst. in terms of the political discourse in gun politics, they simply don't register on the radar, certainly not as mainstream influence. POV, weight, trump this fringe junk. Anastrophe (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I accept that I may not be reading all the reliable sources needed to see the proper balance. And, I am willing to also read the reliable sources which you have used. Please tell me which reliable sourcing your have used when forming your opinion of 'on the radar' and 'reality' so I may also read it. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

cute, but non-sequitur. NPOV and Weight. here's a very, very good test for mainstream: did any militia groups file amici in DC v Heller? did any of those who filed amici mention any extant militia groups, or refer to any extant militia groups in oral arguments? we have here the most significant test of the second amendment before the supreme court right now. if militia groups - these bogeymen these 'true crime'-style books represent - were at all relevant to gun politics, surely there would have been some mention - even a single sentence, no? how often are these militia groups a matter of daily news? besides a few high profile assocations with militia groups, there's simply nothing out there. so - please don't ask me to prove a negative. Anastrophe (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you reading? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

the newspaper. again, you're asking me to prove a negative. there's no notable discourse promulgated by militia groups, so how do i cite an absence? please answer my questions regarding the amici, thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is fair for me to ask about your sourcing. This is needed to distinguish your personal opinion, from that which is properly sourced. Your refusal to give specific sources for your opinions is not helpful.

your insistence that i prove a negative is not helpful. Anastrophe (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Asking for you to identify your sourcing is asking you to prove a negative? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In short, you favor giving zero coverage on the effect of the modern militia movement on gun politics in the Late 20th Century. This seems wildly off base, considering the large political effects of the militia movement on US politics in the 1990's. Heck, they discussed the subject in Congressional hearings! I just checked an online archive of newspaper articles from the 1990's and in five minutes of searching found dozens of articles discussing gun politics and the modern militia.

i favor giving it coverage appropriate to its import. which is virtually nil. the modern militia movement is a notable phenomenon. its effect upon gun politics is minimal. you have a couple of hyperbolic sources, clearly written to earn the authors some bucks - "RAGE ON THE RIGHT"!!! ignore actual terrorists on the left - they use bombs, not guns, i guess. the modern militia movement is certainly real, certainly notable - its *actual measurable effect in political discourse* however is extremely minimal - besides again the realm of hyperbole and 'crossfire' sorts of 'discourse'. Anastrophe (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The left generally uses ANFO, usually, kicked off with Tovex. They generally aren't good marksmen :-) Yaf (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the 2008 Heller amici briefs, that occurred not in the Late 20th Century, but rather the Early 21st Century. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

touche! so you favor noting only that the militia movement had an effect in the past. i trust you plan on expanding the 'early 21st century gun politics' section immediately upon inclusion of your historical data, so there's no misunderstanding by the reader that the modern militia movement is still some dark and dangerous threat lurking out there, the puppetmasters of the gun rights kooks? Anastrophe (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Annie Oakley

Could we please discuss the sourcing as to why Annie Oakley has bearing on gun politics? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is badly in need of neutral POV balancing; pushing your agenda that guns are somehow restricted to expressing masculinity is clearly sexist language, that is counter to actual history. Gun politics involve both women and men. Yaf (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I learned of the 'masculinity' issue upon reading reliable sources. What are you reading? Or, is this your personal opinion of 'actual'? Gary Kleck, says in one of his most often quoted passages: "The strongest and most consistent predictors of gun ownership were hunting, being male, ...". And literally dozens of reliable books address the issue of the masculinity of gun culture.[2][3]. Considering the depth of the sourcing, it is not sexist to say the truth, which is that gun culture tends to be masculine. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am reading multiple sources. Gun culture is predominantly male. However, gun politics is not predominantly male. The National Firearms Act of 1934, for example, originally banned handguns, but women overwhelmingly protested, as they could more easily use handguns than long guns. In the end, due to women protesting, the NFA only restricted automatic guns, short-barreled guns, and silencers, but not handguns. In Southern, mid-west, and western US culture, women use guns regularly, and they are often involved in gun politics. For example, a recent past NRA president, Sandra Froman, is a woman. Sara Brady is obviously a woman. Suzanna Hupp is a woman. You are confusing gun culture with gun politics. The two are not the same. Yaf (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What are the multiple sources your are reading? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping in, but at the DC v. Heller demonstration, it was two groups lead by women leading both the pro-DC (Brady Campaign) and pro-Heller (Second Amendment Sisters) groups. So one might conclude there is a gender shift occurring in Gun politics in the United States. User:Suntree/SuntreeSuntree (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

temporal constraints on claims from sources based in the past

a source - referenced within '20th century gun politics', published in the year 2000 (therefore a 20th century contemporaneous source) stated that the united states has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world. when a source, written in the past, referring to the past, in a section about the past, is used to support a claim from the past, then the past tense must be used. i can easily find a source, written in 1962, that states "John F. Kennedy is the president of the united states". shall i add the statement

John F. Kennedy is the president of the United States

to an article, and insist that it is so, because a source stated that? no, of course not. it was true when the source was written, but it is not a reliable source for today. the same applies to the material used in this article. the source was written in the past, it is not a reliable source to support a contention that this is the status in the 21st century. oh, it likely is the case, though i think the POV wording is ill advised to begin with. "weakest gun control laws" can easily correspond to "strongest support for gun rights" in a different construct. since saltyboatr is insisting that this POV source is reliable, in order to be NPOV, perhaps the material should be presented as a quote from this author, rather than as an ordinal fact, a la "In 2000, in the book blah blah blah, so and so wrote, 'the united states has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world'". at least then the POV nature of it will be more honestly represented. Anastrophe (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement: "The United States presently has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world" is easily verifiable. I cite Hememway ISBN:0472031627 pg. 197-207, and could cite other reliable sources if you ask. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

but that's meaningless in context. the section is about 20th century gun politics. your additional edit was also unsupportable, the source said nothing of the sort (nor could it, since it is from the year 2000). feel free to add your information to 21st century gun politics. Anastrophe (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

the hemenway citation in no way supports what you claim. Anastrophe (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

saltyboatr has re-added the material, claiming that a footnote to the citation backs it up. i see no footnote - and no source data on the cited pages that is from after the year 2000. please cite exactly why you believe this citation is supportive of your claim. thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

just to put a finer point on that, for the little wikilawyer that lurks within all of us: "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". saltyboatr claims a ten year old source equals "today". does that mean bill clinton is still president? Anastrophe (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A well known expert on this topic wrote in 2006, using present tense grammar that "U.S. gun control laws are also weaker than those of other industrialized nations for example...". Yet you insist on using the past tense. This dispute is over using "has" or "had". Do you agree to seek neutral third opinions to help resolve our dispute? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

knock yourself out. your source does not support your assertion. the section is entitled "20th century gun politics" but you are insistent on pushing your POV about 21st century gun politics into that section, rather than doing the logical thing and adding properly sourced material to the 21st century section. that your source does not support your contention is indisputable. your source is citing data from 1998. it is 2008. QED. Anastrophe (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That reliable source, in 2006, used the present tense to describe the condition. That his source data comes from earlier is a red herring, as that statement is quite clear: In the opinion of that expert source the condition existed in the present tense in 2006. If that expert felt that the condition only existed in the 1990's and not in 2006, then he would have used the past tense. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

no, that won't fly at all. your source is using source material from 1998. it does not corroborate the claim. furthermore, and i'm puzzled why this has to continue to be reiterated: it is not the 20th century now. your claim - if it belongs at all, and that's pending a reliable source - belongs in the 21st century section. i'm removing it. to put as fine a point as possible on it: if this 'expert' wrote in 2006 "bill clinton is currently the president", and citing 1998 material to support it, would you insist that bill clinton is currently the president? Anastrophe (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

and i'm still curious what part of "it isn't the 20th century any more" you don't understand. the past tense is absolutely appropriate - nay, demanded - when talking about the past. your relentless insistence on pushing this material into the wrong section is disruptive. please stop. Anastrophe (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

International gun trafficing

Another interesting tangent on this topic is the issue of how US Gun Politics, influencing lax domestic gun law causes trouble in international small arms trafficing, and tensions in international attempts to control small arms and automatic weapon trafficing. See this interesting report on this subject [4](starting at pg 119). Please comment, as I suggest we include a paragraph or two on this topic in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

it's a cute little story, that uses delicious rhetoric to condemn the united states while completely and utterly ignoring that china and the former soviet states are the source of virtually all of the small arms that have been used in the conflicts they cite. what you see in any film from conflicts around the world are actors shooting soviet and chinese made AK47's and variants, overwhelmingly, and this has been the case for a very long time. only extremely rarely does one see US M16's or other weapons being shot by the actors in somalia, rwanda, afghanistan, colombia, etc etc etc. Anastrophe (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"cute little story"? Do you dispute that this article in the Naval War College Review is a reliable source? What is your sourcing for your opinion about soviet and Chinese weapons? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

tendentious, thy name is saltyboatr. this is the talk page. you're perfectly welcome to ignore reality, and that which is right before your own nose. US gun law has little effect on international arms trafficing. for that matter, your source actually backs that up - it's just buried under several tons of finger-waggling and scolding. are you suggesting that in conflicts around the world, it's not AK47's and variants that are overwhelmingly in use? Anastrophe (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. Cite your sources, your personal opinion has no bearing here. Also, please avoid the personal attacks. Lets talk about the article instead. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

you asked for comments, i gave them. don't be tendentious. Anastrophe (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

edit war over "has" versus "had"

• Tom Teepen / Cox News Service (2008, February 20). Gun lobby's call to arms is off target. The Grand Rapids Press,A.11. Retrieved April 7, 2008, from ProQuest Newsstand database. (Document ID: 1432815761).

Quote: "There are an estimated 200 million to 250 million firearms in this country, essentially one for every sentient adult. Our gun "controls" are internationally infamous for their laxity."

supports only that US gun control may be considered lax by some in the international community, not that "The United States has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world". Anastrophe (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• GUN CONTROL TO FIGHT TERRORISM :[All Editions: Two Star B, Two Star P, One Star B]. (2002, March 1). The Record,p. L06.

Quote: "A recently discovered jihad training manual in Afghanistan makes it clear that lax U.S. gun laws are well-known throughout the world. "

supports only that it is 'well known' to jihadis in afghanistan that US gun control is considered lax, not that "The United States has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world". Anastrophe (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• What the world is saying. (2007, April 18). Tribune - Review / Pittsburgh Tribune - Review.

Quote: "Now we will probably begin discussing the overly lax gun laws in the United States."

supports only that someone suggests discussing that US gun control may be considered overly lax, not that "The United States has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world". Anastrophe (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• VPC: Web Site Urges Jihad Trainees To Use Lax U.S. Gun Laws To Wage Holy War. (21 November 2001). U.S. Newswire.

Quote: "Muslim holy warriors should use lax firearms laws in the United States to get sniper and military assault rifle training according to a jihad training pamphlet posted on a Web site that has been used by a most-wanted Al Qaeda fugitive."

supports only that US gun control is considered lax by muslim holy warriors, not that "The United States has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world". Anastrophe (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Anna Morgan (2006, January 8). Northern Ire; Canadian Politics Are All About America :[FINAL Edition]. The Washington Post,p. B.02.

Quote: "There's no denying that Canadians are in an even more anti- American mood than usual, thanks to the Iraq war and the Bush administration's perceived arrogance. And politicians here are playing to that mood. In a blatant appeal for votes, candidates of every stripe, led by Prime Minister Paul Martin and his ruling Liberal Party, are taking aim at Washington, blasting it for taxing Canadian lumber imports, for failing to fight global warming, for lax gun-control laws...

supports only that canadians consider US gun control laws to be lax, not that "The United States has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world". Anastrophe (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Don Melvin (2002, October 18). Europeans follow killings story closely ; Victims' deaths draw sympathy, big news coverage :[METRO Edition]. San Antonio Express-News,p. 11A.

Quote: "Europeans are prone to be critical of America and what they view as its bellicose foreign policy, its irresponsible attitude toward global warming and its lax gun laws."

supports only that some europeans consider US gun laws lax, not that "The United States has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world". Anastrophe (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ken Gassman (2007, May 13). Virginia Tech Shootings / Middle East Gives Perspective On U.S. Tragedy :[Final Edition]. Richmond Times - Dispatch,p. E5.

Quote: "The editor noted that lax gun-control laws were partially to blame for the Virginia Tech shootings"

supports only that the editors (an editorial?) consider US gun laws lax, not that "The United States has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world". Anastrophe (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Rupert Cornwell (2007, April 18). The Big Question: Is there a link between America's lax gun laws and the high murder rate? Belfast Telegraph,1.

Quote: "The massacre at Virginia Tech has, yet again, focused attention on the culture of guns and the ease of obtaining firearms in America, an unending source of amazement to most of the rest of the world. "

supports only that some people think it's too easy to obtain a firearm, not that "The United States has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world". Anastrophe (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• THE WASHINGTON TIMES (2005, April 18). Lessons learned from Schiavo. Washington Times,p. A02.

Quote: "...thousands killed in the U.S. with guns because of our lax gun laws and weak enforcement."

supports only that someone considers US gun laws lax and weakly enforced, not that "The United States has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world". Anastrophe (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Terrorists love U.S. gun laws :[Ontario Edition]. (2002, June 11). Toronto Star,p. A23.

Quote: "America's gun culture and lax firearms legislation may be its worst defence against terrorism. "

supports only that someone considers US gun laws lax, not that "The United States has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world". Anastrophe (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Their guns, our city. (2005, 19 September). The Globe and Mail,A.16.

Quote: "Yes, but why do Canadians go south of the border to get guns in the first place? Because guns are easier to find there. And why are they easier to find? Because of the ridiculously weak U.S. guns laws. "

supports only that someone thinks that US gun laws are 'ridiculously weak', not that "The United States has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world". Anastrophe (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Responding to the recent edit war[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] as to whether it is proper to use present tense to write that the US has or had the weakest gun control laws in both the 1990's and the 2000's, in addition to the Hemenway book, see above. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

not a single word above supports your contention. they support only that some people think that we have lax gun control laws. they do not establish as an objective fact that "The United States has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world". furthermore, the existing construct, stating that "The United States had the weakest gun control laws in the developed world", is absolutely true and incontrovertibly correct within the section discussing Late 20th century gun politics. your efforts above are nothing but disruptive. not a single citation in any way supports your argument. please stop. Anastrophe (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You seek to diminish WP:V reliable sourcing by characterizing it as "only that some people". SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

hogwash. not a single source above establishes that the united states has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world. you seek to diminish WP:V by conflating assorted statements that the US has "lax" gun laws with an absolute characterization that the US has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world. it takes considerable chutzpah to suggest that i'm the one watering down WP:V when everything you cited above does precisely that. Anastrophe (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

tendentious, disruptive photo removal/replacement

saltyboatr, please stop. you are being POV by deciding to remove one photo on POV grounds, then replacing it with a photo that fits your POV. why not add your photo elsewhere? there's no reason they can't both be in the article. your insistence on removal, or replacement with a photo supportive of your POV, is highly disruptive. please stop. Anastrophe (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Anastrophe that the majority of the article is written from the POV of gun rights advocacy. while that happens to be the POV i (Anastrophe) share, the article is embarrassing for its lack of coverage of the other side. I disagree about Anastrophe's 'camel's nose under the tent' strategy in defending this pro-gun POV in the article. Linking 'gun politics' with patriots, like with that Minuteman image, skews this POV problem further off balance. Until this gets resolved I am adding the POV warning tag. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

un-fucking-believable. Anastrophe (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

fixing reference

{{editprotected}} Footnote no. 58 needs to be fixed: <ref name="violencea">Gottesman, Ronald: ''Violence in America: An Encyclopedia'', pp. 66,68, Simon and Schuster, 1999</ref>

Thanks. Yaf (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 10:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

The prominent placement of the photo of a patriotic statue shifts the POV of this article towards the pro-gun balance. This tips the balance away from the neutrality point, therefore we need the POV tag until this is fixed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

it has been fixed, by inclusion of your desired photo. your actions are extremely disruptive, please stop the tendentious editing. Anastrophe (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not fixed. Placing a patriotic photo involving the successful use of firearms against tyranny, "eye candy", prominently at the top of the article skews the POV balance too far towards the pro-gun hypothesis of the beneficial nature of using firearms against tyranny. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Have fixed the issue with a long series of edits, and removed tag. Yaf (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, next time please discuss the neutrality before removing the tag. No, there are still many unfixed neutrality problems in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than try and read your mind, would you mind sharing your concerns? The only issue you identified was the photo, which you have fixed. Until these "many unfixed neutrality problems in the article" are identified, I recommend we remove the {{POV}} tagline that you have inserted. If nothing is identified within 24 hours, then the presumption is that there are no issues, and the tagline should be removed. Yaf (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

this is another instance of POV-bombing. saltyboatr, you specifically stated at the top of the section that the inclusion of the photo "shifts the POV of this article towards the pro-gun balance". that is the dispute in contention, by your own words. that has been fixed. you are now moving the target and claiming that there are "other" - unstated - POV issues, yet you have not identified them. please stop POV-bombing any article that you do not like. it is tendentious, disruptive, and an abuse of the spirit of the policies. NPOV doesn't mean NO point of view. it means NEUTRAL. the inclusion of both your Mall of Americas ban photo, and the miniteman photo, accomplishes NPOV. Anastrophe (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the POV tag, restated see above 17:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC), is that the majority of the article is written from the POV of gun rights advocacy. Considerable work is needed to fix this problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Numerous problems, for instance in the opening paragraph where this is described as if it is a conflict between citizens and their government. This ignores the obvious, that citizens are represented by their government, and that citizens can vote to form and elect a representative government legislate to ban and regulate their guns. The existing wording has a pro-gun rights libertarian POV slant. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Also, the opening paragraph of the overview contains four questions, three of which have a pro-gun perspective. And the question about the federal 2A constitution affecting state and local law is the incorporation question which is a fringe pro-gun issue, not a mainstream issue. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Then, fix it, instead of dropping another POV bomb and then requesting full protection, as you usually do (earlier example: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution which is fully-protected and in mediation, + other articles too in the past (e.g., Hunting weapon, etc.) Your methodology simply locks up an article, preventing the fixing of "problems". If you would only contribute, instead of just causing disruptions, then there wouldn't be a problem. Yaf (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I will. In the mean time, I dispute the neutrality. Then show good faith by reverting yourself in your edit war taking the neutrality tag out, thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

pov-bomb, engage in edit warring, request protection due to edit warring, protected. game, set, match. this is intolerable gaming of the system. you make scant actual positive edits on articles, preferring to wikilawyer other editors actual contributions, then get articles locked. this is pathetic. you betray your motives with the early edit where you simply replaced the minuteman photo with the minnesota ban photo - but claimed the latter was more 'NPOV', while not applying a POV tag to your own addition. only after BOTH photos were included - the very essence of NPOV - did you throw the POV tag on. other editors, i'd be interested in help in bringing a formal complaint regarding this disruptive behavior.Anastrophe (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixing this article

I came across this debate while browsing the request for protection page. I'm interested in helping to fix the problems that have been brought up recently. I'll go through the article sometime in the near future and see if I can get a list of things that need to be looked over. Feel free to send me a message if you have a concern you'd like brought to my attention. Thanks, and looking forward to a good discussion, Grsz11 00:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)