This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
This section is a total mess and I think it should be trimmed considerably to include only studies of gun laws, rather than studies of the availability or ownership rates of guns. The latter type of research, in my opinion, belongs in an article like gun violence but not here. Everymorning(talk) 03:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Addendum: Please ping me if you respond in this section, as I will not be watching this page. Everymorning(talk) 03:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I suppose I was acting, or at least trying to act, in accordance with WP:BRD. I felt that it wasn't pertinent to gun control laws to justify inclusion on this page. For example, some of it (e.g. Lott's work) was about conceal-and-carry laws, which are totally different. Other stuff was about gun ownership rates rather than gun control laws. If you want to follow up my Bold removal of this content by Reverting this change, you are welcome to do so. I guess the problem with regard to the "without consensus" stuff was that I took the absence of a response on the talk page as a sign that no one would mind these changes. Everymorning(talk) 19:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi J8079s, you don't seem to understand that gun control is a legitimate term  --- Yes, it is sometimes politicized in the United States (which I've now added to the lede)  but that is not the primary usage of the term as evidenced by this section of the article that discusses gun control in Canada, Australia, etc. In regards to the politics of gun issues in the United States, see this article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2016
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
u said per cent not percent. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Done Assuming you were talking about the "Terminology and context" section in which "per cent" appeared twice, I have replaced both these occurrences with "percent". Everymorning(talk) 19:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)