Talk:Overview of gun laws by nation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Gun politics)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Firearms (Rated Deferred-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
 Deferred  This article has been rated as Deferred-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 



Improve section "Armed forces' reserves and reservist training"[edit]

In regard to the passage "Some authors argue that Switzerland's militia tradition [snip]. However, this claim has been disputed by historians . . ."

Use of "historians" and "disputed" seems problematic due to the following:

1) The "dispute" is not verified/sourced. Both groups of authors are making claims which may in fact reside alongside each other in harmony:

The Nazis considered, but did not execute, an invasion of Switzerland. While they considered overall Swiss defense capacity to be low, Swiss policy on individual gun ownership made it enough of a harder target relative to other regions, that the Nazis left Switzerland alone and went after easier conquests. Switzerland's gun policies, thus, contributed to its preservation.

This is just one of many possible integrations of the two groups of authors points together in compatibility with each other. So, without verification/sourcing that one group of authors is disputing another, implying or stating there exists a "dispute" should be removed.

2) Source authors referred to as "historians": their status (and implied authority) as "historians" is not verified/sourced. I would suggest just calling them "authors" (see point 3 below)

3) The authors these "historians" are "disputing" are referred to as simply "some authors". This is POV, with the disparity in implied authority from using the two different descriptors. Can't everyone who writes serious research about the past either all be called "historians" or all be called "authors"? Suggest referring to both groups as either "historians" or "authors". I recommend "author", as "historian" implies a level of authority and professional work that ought to be verified/sourced.

Turkey[edit]

hey, can someone knowledgeable add a section about gun politic/laws in Turkey? for such a big and important country it should have a good section on it. thanks Moester101 (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, got any sources? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia[edit]

This section needs extensive rework, it uses the word "like" and nothing is cited. As it stands I'd advise removing it until some properly cited information can be put in. This looks like the most authoritative source: http://www.aawsat.net/2007/04/article55262887/saudi-arabia-introduces-new-gun-laws

Gun control RFC[edit]

There is an ongoing RFC that may be of interest to editors in this article. Talk:Gun_control#RFC Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

There is a larger discussion of this proposal at Talk:Gun_control#GC_v._GP I am going to hat this discussion, so that the discussion is not split up

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • I support a merge of this article and Gun control. They are about the same topic and include much of the same material. "Gun control" is the more common expression, however "Gun policy", or "Governmental gun policy", might be a more neutral title. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
They appear to be partially overlapping but not mathematically congruent topics - thus I suggest placing this at AfD and not try to deal with a very limited number of viewers here. Collect (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Gun control is a small subset of gun politics. If both were merged into gun politics, that would be fine. It wouldn't make sense to merge both into gun control, though, as gun politics is a much larger topic, containing more sub-topics. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - two different subjects, although like Collect said, there is some overlap. GregJackP Boomer! 16:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a larger discussion of this proposal at Talk:Gun_control#GC_v._GP I am going to hat this discussion, so that the discussion is not split up. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

France[edit]

The information here is outdated and not useful. A new law came into effect in September 2013 which does in fact put limits on magazine capacity and changes many other aspects of French gun regulation. It is going to be a major job to translate and synthesise this - a job for which I do not volunteer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.57.49.125 (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Article renamed without any consultation - and with no effort whatsoever to make sense of the lede in light of the change.[edit]

I note that with no prior consultation, in the midst of a heated debate over Wikipedia coverage of firearms regulation, Gaijin42 has chosen to move this article from 'Gun Politics' to 'List of gun laws and policies by country'. [1] While I can see the merits of dropping the obscure 'gun politics' name, I can't help feeling that wider input should have been sought before making such a fundamental move. Note also that the rename was all that Gaijin42 did - the lede still starts by defining (without a source) what 'gun politics' is, now for no obvious reason. Regardless of the merits of the move, this failure to amend the lede to comply with the title looks desperately sloppy work. As to what should be done about it, I'm unsure - and I'm certainly not going to make arbitrary decisions on my own. And neither am I going to clean up Gaijin42's mess. I assume that others are watching this page - though they may have missed the move, as I did, during all the brouhaha over the 'gun control' article/POV fork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that the first paragraph was unnecessary and removed it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
That at least avoids the incongruity - though there are still fundamental issues with the article. If it is to be merely a 'list of gun laws and policies by country', one might reasonably ask why it has section on 'Arguments', and one on 'Effects of gun control legislation'. We certainly cannot simply delete the sections - a great deal of work has gone into them, and they seem in part at least to cover issues not dealt with elsewhere. Looking at this further, I have to conclude that, contrary to Gaijin42's sole justification for the move - his edit summary - the new name does not 'accurately reflect article contents', in that this is clearly more than just a list, and the title is both misleading and restrictive. This suggests to me that a further move may be necessary, though I'm inclined to suggest that we wait until there is some sort of resolution regarding the contentious 'gun control' article - it may well be that we end up with a single article giving international coverage of firearms regulation (as policy on forking would seem to suggest we should, given the complete lack of sourced justification for the division), and naming issues can be decided at that point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
At first blush, it appears that the "Effects..." section could be dealt with easily. It's already divided into sections by country, so the respective sections could simply be moved up to the respective countries on the list. The "Arguments" stuff is not so simply addressed, but perhaps the best result would be to simply move it into the Gun control article. If no objection, I'll get started on the "Effects..."Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think it is premature to be making fundamental changes, without consultation, in the midst of an ongoing debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
This feels kind of like consultation. If neither you nor Collect has any substantive objection, I would like to redistribute the "Effects..." material. No new content, no content removed, no fundamental change.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Is it still premature?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I will get started then.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The redistribution of info is completed. I'll see about moving the "Arguments" section later (the target article is currently frozen).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Likely "Overview of gun laws by nation" would be the most NPOV title available. IMO of course. Collect (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree. It's a bit more elaborate than a list.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
There being no objection, I moved the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Arguments[edit]

NOTE: The following material is removed from the article, because it does not belong in an overview by nation, but it's unclear where it should go, or how it should be edited.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

SUGGESTION: This is the difference between Gun Politics (which all the below are) and Gun Laws By Nation (which the below don't pertain to because there's a walk between the motivations behind policies and the current state of the legislation in a country). MarkDennehy (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but there was no agreement prior to the article being renamed, and there certainly isn't evidence of any consensus to simply remove this content from article space. I should remind you that there is an active arbitration case regarding articles on firearms - and high-handed actions like this are unlikely to be seen in a positive light. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
There certainly was indeed agreement between Collect and myself as to renaming, and then after six days without any objections I said (above): "There being no objection, I moved the article." There was nothing high-handed at all, on my part at least. Your statement that "there was no agreement prior to the article being renamed" is plainly false.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to Gaijin42's renaming of the article. And yes, removing huge chunks of sourced content from an article with no discussion whatsoever beforehand is high-handed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
There was agreement to move the article to the present article title. The material in question clearly does not belong, as I stated above in December (20:29, 28 December 2013) without objection: "I'll see about moving the 'Arguments' section later." I do appreciate the use of mild words like "high-handed" but in this instance the shoe does not fit. As far as I can tell, you still are not offering any content-based reason why the material belongs here in this article, and therefore it seems kind of "high-handed" for you to reinsert it without asserting or explaining why it belongs. In any event, I do not wish to squabble about it, and therefore will leave it as-is at least until the ArbCom case is complete.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
There was no 'agreement' to anything. I had already made it clear that I considered Gaijin42's original unannounced move inappropriate, and that there should have been wider consultation. As for policy-based reasons, if you think my objection to the entirely undiscussed removal of a 2000 word section from an article wasn't policy-based, you have a different understanding of the word 'policy' than me. I shall of course be mentioning this further act of WP:OWNership of firearms-related articles in my evidence to the ArbCom case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
There was plenty of agreement among three editors, albeit not including yourself, as to the name of this article. As I said, I intend to leave the material in — for now — as you requested, despite your lack of "content-based" reasoning (which is not the same thing as "policy-based" reasoning). That hardly seems like article ownership on my part. Whatever.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Three editors? There was you, and Collect - who was the third? And my 'content-based' reason is that this well-sourced content belongs in a Wikipedia article on firearms regulation - and prior to the arbitrary renaming of this article, it belonged here. An undiscussed and arbitrary renaming of an article can hardly be a justification for removing it from view entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Collect proposed the current name of this article. I explicitly agreed, and no one objected to Collect's proposal over the course of several days prior to the re-naming. So naturally I inferred that Gaijin42 had no objection, which has been confirmed today: "With the exception of this content, the new article title is perfectly accurate."Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
With the exception of this content, the new article title is perfectly accurate. Under the old article title(the bulk of) this content is not on topic (effaciacy) but would be on topic for the gun control article. I agree with Andy that this content should not be removed from mainspace, but as the appropriate control article is protected we are stuck. i would fully support an edit protected request to drop this content into the studies/arguments section of the gun control article. There would be some overlap of content with the brief version of arguments already there, but that can be cleaned up. With that done, i think that fully resolves the POV fork argument. We have an overview of countries, and we have an overview of the topic itself. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Um, no. The POV-fork issue will be resolved when the fringe 'Nazi' material is removed from any article purporting to give an overview of firearms regulation issues, and the material is made to conform to WP:NPOV, rather than being written by pro-gun lobbyists regurgitating pseudohistorical propaganda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I have no objection to putting this "Arguments" material in an article where it belongs. This "Arguments" material does not seem to say anything about Nazis, so I see no rationale for objecting on that ground.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Where it belongs depends on developing a decent consensus of the subjects which this and the Gun control article should cover. I think the proposal to change the name and subject of this article should have been posted on the Gun control talk page (proposed content transfer was proposed there) and probably should have waited until there had been some kind of resolution on the inclusion of Halbrook's thesis which was very obviously preoccupying most contributors. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm the one who proposed the content transfer at the Gun control article (before I quit that page in despair), because a content transfer obviously involves changing two articles. But even for controversial page moves, all of the notifying is normally done at the article to be moved, because only one article is changed. See Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure - but you know that that has implications for the subject matter of both pages and, to me at least, the actual subject matter of Gun control has remained terminally confused and contested. Clarity on this matter is pretty crucial for any kind of advancement and would significantly change the selection of the most appropriate sources. Certainly, I think, there should have been an attempt to obtain a wider consensus for the change to the article title of this page. The whole ARBCOM thing and shit-storm about the Nazi material also complicates things considerably but I think at this point, and as frustrating as it might be for some editors, it might be wiser to proceed with a bit more caution and to notify significant changes to this suite of articles as widely as possible. As it is, significant changes that have only limited consensus - that is limited involvement of other editors - are likely to be quite unstable and may invite edit-warring, etc. But basic points - article titles and subject matter, the relationship of key articles in this suite of articles to each other (particularly the designation of parent articles) - require definitive and widely supported settlement. Sorry that I haven't had the chance to comment on your recent changes to the Gun politics in the United States article although I see that Lightbreather has already raised some objections. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
No significant objections (as yet) to the pertinent section of "Gun politics in the United States". Nor to the present title of this article, as far as I know.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah it was purely the lead. Objections to the change in this article, from AndyTheGrump and myself at least, were due more to the limited number of people involved in the decision - although I guess you could always point to the 231 page watchers who chose not to complain. Still, I would have preferred a more active attempt to involve more editors in the decision. It's a pity as I thought that Scolaire's proposal could have solved most of the issues deadlocking progression at the Gun control - and it's kind of obvious that a lot of editors really only want to write about the US situation rather than a properly global article. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Was Machiavelli writing about the US situation? People who see an armed citizenry as a safeguard against tyranny are spread all over the world, and throughout history.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Well he was a convinced Republican, but I think he was extolling the advantages of a citizen army over the use of mercenaries in the context of those oft-warring Italian city-states. He wasn't much of a libertarian either. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
My objection is not purely to the lead, though I am starting with the lead. I won't write a lot of detail here, but save it for that (Gun politics in the United States) talk page. I am also concerned about the renaming of this article and other articles on controversial subjects like gun laws and gun politics without more discussion. A lot of activity since January 1. Is there a timetable somewhere that I'm not aware of? I'm a member of the WP:GUNS. Maybe I need to join some other projects, or what? Lightbreather (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Gun Ownership, Suicide and Homicide: An International Perspective, Martin Killias.
  2. ^ Firearm-related deaths in the United States and 35 other high- and upper-middle income countries, EG Krug, KE Powell and LL Dahlberg, 1998.
  3. ^ [Killias] (1993). "Gun Ownership, Suicide and Homicide: An International Perspective" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 January 2008. Retrieved 16 January 2008. The present study, based on a sample of eighteen countries, confirms the results of previous work based on the 14 countries surveyed during the first International Crime Survey. Strong correlations were found between gun ownership and gun-related as well as total suicide, but that the overall rate of suicide using firearms is low, and homicide rates. Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potentially lethal instruments less often when more guns are available,  Check |author-link1= value (help)
  4. ^ a b Killias, van Kesteren, and Rindlisbacher, "Guns, violent crime, and suicide in 21 countries"Canadian Journal of Criminology, October 2001, http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/pdffiles/Guns_Killias_vanKesteren.pdf.
  5. ^ Rich, et al.: "Guns and suicide: possible effects of some specific legislation" Am J Psychiatry 1990; 147:342-346.
  6. ^ Kleck "Crime control through the use of armed force." Social Problems February 1988; Kleck and DeLone "Victim resistance and offender weapon effects in robbery" Journal of Quantitative Criminology March 1993; Tark and Kleck "Resisting Crime" Criminology November 2004.
  7. ^ Kleck and Sayles "Rape and Resistance" Social Problems May 1990.
  8. ^ Kleck, Chapter 7 in Armed, by Kleck and Don B. Kates, Jr.
  9. ^ Kleck, Chapter 6 in Armed, by Kleck and Don B. Kates, Jr.
  10. ^ Harvard Injury Control Research Center, "Comparing the Incidence of Self-Defense Gun Use and Criminal Gun Use"
  11. ^ Review, Political Psychology 17:2 (June 1996), pp. 375-377.
  12. ^ Lott, John R.Jr., More Guns, Less Crime-- Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws(1998), The University of Chicago Press, Chicago Illinois, pp. 50-122, ISBN 0-226-49363-6.
  13. ^ American Journal of Public Health, DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099
  14. ^ Kleck and Patterson, Journal of Quantitative criminology September 1993.
  15. ^ Levitt, Steven D (2004). "Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not" (PDF). Journal of Economic Perspectives. 18 (1): 163. doi:10.1257/089533004773563485.  [dead link]
  16. ^ Kellermann, AL, Rivara FP, et al. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." NEJM 327:7 (1992):467-472.
  17. ^ Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §13-3112(A)
  18. ^ A.R.S. §4-229(A)
  19. ^ Story,Joseph, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States(1986) Regnery Gateway, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 319-320, ISBN 0-89526-796-9.
  20. ^ Hardy, David T. The origins and Development of the Second Amendment(1986), Blacksmith Corp., Chino Valley, Arizona, pp. 1-78, ISBN 0-941540-13-8.
  21. ^ Halbrook, Stephen P. That Every Man be Armed--The Evolution of a Constitutional Right(1987), The University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico, pp. 1-88, ISBN 0-8263-0868-6.
  22. ^ Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB, et al. Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. N Engl J Med 1993;329(15):1084-1091.
  23. ^ Suter, Edgar A, Guns in the Medical Literature-- A Failure of Peer Review, Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia;83:133-152, March 1994. url =http://rkba.org/research/suter/med-lit.html
  24. ^ Kates DB, Schaffer HE, Lattimer JK, Murray GB, Cassem EH. Bad Medicine: Doctors and Guns in Guns– Who Should Have Them? (Ed., Kopel DB), New York, NY, Prometheus Books, 1995, pp. 233-308.
  25. ^ Kates DB, Schaffer HE, Lattimer JK, Murray GB, Cassem EH. Guns and public health: epidemic of violence or pandemic of propaganda? Tennessee Law Review 1995;62:513-596.
  26. ^ Kleck, Homicide Studies, February 2001.
  27. ^ Suter E, Waters WC, Murray GB, et al. Violence in America-- effective solutions. J Med Assoc Ga 1995;84(6):253-264. url =http://rkba.org/research/suter/violence.html
  28. ^ Lott, John JR. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1998.
  29. ^ Kleck G. Targeting Guns-- Firearms and Their Control. New York, NY, Aldine De Gruyter, 1997.
  30. ^ Halbrook, Stephen P. (1994). That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (Independent Studies in Political Economy). Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute. p. 8. ISBN 0-945999-38-0. 
  31. ^ McAffee, Thomas B. (March 1997). "Bringing Forward The Right To Keep And Bear Arms: Do Text, History, Or Precedent Stand In The Way?". North Carolina Law Review: 781.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  32. ^ Cite error: The named reference europeforvisitors.com was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  33. ^ Cite error: The named reference jrlnr was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  34. ^ Cite error: The named reference Swissinfo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  35. ^ Cite error: The named reference gunpolicy.org was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  36. ^ Cite error: The named reference admin.ch was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  37. ^ Cite error: The named reference bbc.co.uk was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

czech etymology[edit]

Cimmerian praetor Is the source backing the pistol etymology just describing the etymology, or is it directly backing the relationship between the etymology and the gun culture/preference for pistols instead of rifles? Could you provide a translation of the relevant section? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see my previous post at your talk.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I saw it, it does not address my concern that we do not know what the CZ source says, and if it actually backs the relationship described in the caption, or if that is WP:OR WP:SYNTH. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that regardless of sourcing, material relating to the etymology of the word 'pistol' does not belong in this particular article - it is off-topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't have this particular source at my possession right now, I had it back in 2011 when adding the etymology information to Pistol article.
The caption only states that the fact that the CZ 75 is the most common firearm in the Czech Republic is typical of the word pistol coming from Czech. It does not say that it is the direct consequence.
In any case, taking into consideration that in most (if not all) other EU states the long rifles are the most common firearm, the fact that the in the country that gave origin to word pistol a pistol also happens to be the most common gun is beyond etymology issue and deserves mentioning, even if the direct relationship may not be there.
IMHO the fact that the Czech Republic allows concealed carry and use of pistol for self-defense plays bigger role than the píšťala's 14th century origin, but that is no reason not to include this information.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── the "symptomatically" is making that "direct consequence" link and is WP:OR if the source does not say something to that fact. This triva is a fine addition to the czech article imo, but not relevant to an overview of each countries laws. (further Id say the entire image is probably unneeded, but we aren't super image heavy, and the trivia of pistols vs rifles is interesting/notable). Gaijin42 (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump Hell may be freezing over, we agree on something regarding a firearms article! Gaijin42 (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, sorry if I didn't see that in word "symptomatically". I have deleted it. On another matter, I have nominated Gun politics in the Czech Republic for GA review, any comments to improve the article/ language clean-up will be appreciated. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page[edit]

There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to editors of this page. Lightbreather (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Links[edit]

>> Stray Bullets(Lihaas (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)).

"Arguments" section re: gun violence moved to GV talk page for discussion[edit]

On 21 FEB 2014 the Arguments section (about gun violence studies) of this article (Overview of gun laws by nation) was moved to the Gun violence talk page for discussion and incorporation into that article. The section that was moved presented gun violence study material only - and mentioned no laws.

If interested, please join that discussion about how to incorporate the material. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

America[edit]

There are no references for claims that crime rates went up after more stringent gun laws were put in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.174.139.130 (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Mexico[edit]

Does anyone feel that the quote from the article, and even the article itself about 90% of the guns not being traceable to the US was somewhat misleading? Perhaps the quote should be expanded to include more context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darktangent (talkcontribs) 00:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The headline doesn't match the data. The data: of 4000 guns that could be traced, 3480 came from the US. That's 87%, which within the limits of uncertainty is about 90%! Mr Pete (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Swiss gun law comments[edit]

I'm not sure it's helpful to edit out whole sections on the grounds that an editor doesn't agree with what the word "liberal" means. For example, swiss gun law is liberal by comparison to EU gun law, and very liberal indeed by comparison to member states laws (which add regulations to the baseline minimums set by EU law). Compared to Ireland for example, Switzerland's gun laws are enormously liberal. They might not be liberal by comparison to Texas or Arizona, but that doesn't mean the adjective is being improperly used.

Perhaps this latest edit should be rolled back MarkDennehy (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware of what "liberal" means and rollback is only used for vandalism which my edit absolutely wasn't. The decision to call it restrictive came from a reliable source, in this case GunPolicy.org, calling their regulations restrictive. Gunpolicy is a well known and used site that documents different gun laws across the world just in case you were wondering. - SantiLak (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I am aware of GunPolicy.org - I'm also aware of the many mistakes in that site. Their entry on Ireland for example, is not merely incorrect, but heavily biased. For example, they cite the maximum penalty for illict firearms ownership at 14 years, but no part of the Firearms Act here cites that as a maximum penalty for illicit firearms ownership. Depending on the nature of that ownership and the type of firearm, the maximums are 5 years, 7 years, or life imprisonment. 14 doesn't appear anywhere in the law. They also attempt to give statistics on illegally held firearms - something I'm sure the Gardai here would find useful, since they explicitly state they have no such data, and given thirty years of domestic terrorism, no reputable source would ever attempt to give an estimate to such data without a degree of research that would be so extensive we would all be aware of it.
I'm also aware of the differences between Swiss firearms law, EU firearms law and Irish firearms law; and the word "liberal" is a justified one when used to describe Swiss firearms law in relation to the laws in the countries surrounding it. "Restrictive" is not.
Simply put, GunPolicy.org is an insufficently reliable source to justify an edit that utterly changes the tone and nature of the article like this, and using it as such changes this page from a source of information to a political statement in a highly contentious area of public policy. This edit should be reverted. MarkDennehy (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
If GunPolicy.org is unreliable (which I think you have yet to demonstrate), the answer is to remove material sourced to it - not to replace it with entirely unsourced material. Find a source that contradicts GunPolicy.org and we will have something to discuss. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Andy. Why is unsourced material being reverted back into the article? --NeilN talk to me 22:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
GunPolicy.org didn't help write the Irish firearms laws. I did. So excuse me if I just look at the Irish Firearms Act and what GunPolicy says Irish law is and see that the two don't match and say that makes them unreliable. As to your contention that we have to find a source that contradicts someone's opinion before we can discuss it, that's a recipe to turn this page into a US pro-gun vs anti-gun political morass in about ten minutes.
However, in the interests of avoiding conflict, I will point out that I've already cited some areas where GunPolicy.org is publishing incorrect information as correct. If you want more, there are more examples and we can compare GunPolicy.org to the Irish statutes which are available online, and the Gardai's statistics which have been requested in Written Questions to the Dail and presented publicly as a result. For example, gunpolicy.org says "small arms-related death, injury and crime remain relatively low" in Ireland - but we have one of the highest gun murder rates in the EU due to drug crime in Dublin. It says "The number of lawfully held private pistols and revolvers in Ireland shot up from a single legal handgun in July 2004, to 1,842 in July 2008" which is only true if you discount the years from 1925 to 1972, when an average of 1800 handguns were held legally in the state. Handguns are not a new introduction to Ireland, but a reintroduction after the Troubles ended. GunPolicy also states "It has been estimated that as many as 150,000 unregistered firearms might also be in private possession in Ireland", but to quote the Minster for Justice in 1991: "The very fact that firearms are held illegally precludes statistics being available of the number of such firearms. The only relevant statistics which are available relates [1130] to the number of firearms seized by the gardaí.". The numbers seized by the Gardai as reported to the Dail come to 6,963 between 2005 and 2012 - and don't forget that "firearm" in Ireland includes airguns, tazers, paintball markers, antiques, decommissioned or broken firearms, component pieces of firearms and crossbows, so even there the numbers aren't as high as they might seem. I think that's sufficient examples to highlight the problem; a full analysis of all the data on that site would take days, but with that many obvious flaws, editing the page on the basis of the site's data can't be justified. MarkDennehy (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
If you wish to dispute the validity of gunpolicy.org's coverage of Swiss firearms regulation, feel free to do so - by pointing out where they are wrong regarding Swiss law, not the laws of the Irish Republic. Meanwhile, please do not remove sourced content and replace it with unsourced material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
"Sourced" and "Accurate" are not equivalent terms. And calling Swiss firearms law restrictive is not accurate. I also question your uncritical acceptance of GunPolicy.org's data on other topics when it is so flawed in the cases I cited. Surely the onus is on those making the change to prove their data before making the change, instead of making the change and then demanding proof to their own standards before a rollback is performed? Or is this entire edit a politically motivated change? MarkDennehy (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Nobody is required to get consensus to remove unsourced material and replace it with sourced material. I suggest you either provide new sources on Switzerland, or let the matter drop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
And just like that, this article takes an enormous credibility hit, because if you can write a html page saying "X is true" and cite it, that's now more trusted than the combined experience of millions of people who observe on a daily basis that X is not true, despite the lack of actual evidence in the citation. What happened to critical analysis of sources? MarkDennehy (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Still no sources... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Sources are required. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

First of all, gunpolicy.org is grossly inaccurate. Secondly, its point of departure is US constitutional right to be armed unhindered by any formalities. From that point of view, basically EVERYTHING else is restrictive. Does Switzerand have one of the easiest legal access to firearms in Europe, probably also worldwide? Yes. Can you get a firearm without any license? No. Does it allow for relatively easy access to full-auto firearms, which are prohibited even in the US? Yes. Does it provide easy possibility of concealed carry for self-defense? Definitely not. So is it restrictive or not? US constitutionalist and gunpolicy.org will tell it is, a bunch of other sources will tell it ain't. Get the sources, provide both views. Otherwise this debate has no sense. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

We are once again inserting entire paragraphs into wikipedia based solely on gunpolicy.org statements which are not supported by fact. Stating that swiss gun law is restrictive is not a supportable statement, both because it is a relative judgement; and because by comparison to the majority of countries, it is far more permissive about firearms ownership. If the point of these edits is to go down the road of politicising this page, we ought to be flagging this page. Until that point, posting that swiss gun laws are restrictive, while everyone else knows the opposite to be true with examples like the Knabenschiessen ( http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/swiss_teen_rifle_festival.html ) or the recent vote on restricting the storage of ammunition which saw 57% reject further firearms legislation.

If this page is to be kept as a reliable source of information and not a political rant, we need to stop posting material from sites that are explicitly run for _policy_ reasons and we need to stop writing in absolute evaluations of national legislation (which makes no sense anyway as comparing the legislation from different countries is something that even full-time academics studying these areas take years to do on even a small scale. MarkDennehy (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

New 'comparison' section[edit]

A contributor has just started creating a 'comparison' section, consisting of a table listing each county, with columns for yes/no answers for 'private citizens', 'personal protection', 'concealed carry' etc. As the section cites no sources, I have to assume that the data is being compiled based on original research, and accordingly is not compliant with Wikipedia policy. Firearms legislation is a very complex topic, and not one that can be reduced to simplistic yes/no answers without omitting necessary details, and without making subjective judgements. Accordingly, I suggest that the section be removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. I'll provide the sources tomorrow (I'm going to sleep now).
Actually, every single law, even a very complex one, could be reduced to a bunch of simple yes/no answers.
For example, there is a definitve and simple answer to the question "Is personal protection a ligitimate reason for the gun permit in Australia"? The answer is "no" - without omitting any details. --Blacknight87 (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that you take a look at Gun laws in the United States by state. Even a single country requires a breakdown by state to adequately cover the topic - and still has extensive notes for each entry. Reducing such complexities to simple yes/no answers is potentially misleading, and an unnecessary duplication of material better covered in prose in the appropriate section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
There are only a few countries in the world which have such differences in law between states as in the US. The US is probably the most diverse country in this sense. Also, a bad example.
Comparison tables are acceptable in Wikipedia - it's a good method of visually representing information in a compact form. There are tens of thousands of similar tables in Wikipedia.
By the way, it's strange to have an article named "Overview of gun laws by nation" without a comparison of laws between countries. The comparison is probably the #1 reason why most of the readers are going to this page.
For example, I really don't care if concealed carry is allowed in Bosnia. But it's interesting to see which and how many countries allow it. --Blacknight87 (talk) 07:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not in any way strange. The word "overview" does not mean there will be a comparison or a table. It means "Overview". MarkDennehy (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


As currently formulated, this is pretty trivial and will wind up being content-free and simultaenously contentious. For example - "Automatic Weapons". There are a few issues there, to start with, the entire EU effectively doesn't allow the private ownership of automatic firearms (they're classed as Category A firearms and can only be owned with special permission from Ministerial level in that country). Secondly, the word "weapon" implies a specific purpose for the firearm (and in some countries, implies what that firearm has already been used for), namely killing people. Terminology like that is just going to unnecessarily antagonise people and bring something similar to the entrenched screaming match that passes for debate on gun control in the US to a page that should just be an informational page listing current legislation (not politics).

It's not that the idea is a bad one by default - just that the current headings aren't much use. MarkDennehy (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


What the heck is the "Maximum Penalty" column supposed to refer to? Maximum penalty for "paperwork" offences or "abuse" offences? Is it asking how long you go to jail for if you don't have a licence or how long if you shoot someone? Because the latter is going to be affected by other areas of law (homicide being a serious crime) but the former could be any one of a dozen kinds of violation. It feels like the title is not conveying enough information for anything in the column to be of any use; it's data compression taken to the point where all meaning is lost. MarkDennehy (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, MarkDennehy. It's "maximum penalty for illicit firearm possession". The full description is shown if one holds the cursor on the title. I'll made an additional elucidation.
Please feel free to make any suggestions on how we can improve the table --Blacknight87 (talk) 07:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
In Ireland, that's not one offence, but any one of three, each with different standards of proof required in court and with three seperate maxima, two of which differ depending on how the accused pleads in court... 87.198.124.137 (talk) 09:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
What is the maximum penalty among the three? --Blacknight87 (talk) 10:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
That's an utterly meaningless question - there's so much contextual difference between the different cases that giving one answer isn't simplification, it's just information loss. MarkDennehy (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I for one very much welcome the table and the work that Blacknight87 has put into it. On the other hand, however I agree with AndyTheGrump that some jurisdictions have varying laws and that should be reflected in the table. My main problem though is that http://www.gunpolicy.org/, which is the main source so far, is very much outdated/misleading. I got the Gun politics in the Czech Republic to Good Article Level and I can tell you that most of the information on gunpolicy.org regarding the Czech Republic is false. Right now the table has quite a few EU states indicated as open carry states, which is utter nonsense.

I'd suggest that where there is a Gun Politics Page linked in the table and the page is well sourced, the Wiki page should be used as source of information (not as reference, obviously). Also, I'd suggest adding information whether a permit is shall issue or no issue - most countries allow gun ownership on paper, but in reality only few politicians and bankers are allowed to own and carry a firearm.

I shall help as much as I can, unfortunately I don't have the time I used to to do any major work. I propose something like this as a basis:

Private citizens Personal protection Open carry Concealed carry Carry without permit Automatic firearms Free of checks Free of registration Max penalty
Czech Rep. (EU) Yes - shall issue Yes - shall issue No. [1] Yes - shall issue No May issue / restricted[2] No No 02

Also, I think that the max penalty is very helpful. As regards the coloring: I'd propose less than 3 = green (means alternative punishment in most jurisdictions, e.g. public work), 3-5 = yellow, 5-10 = red, 10+ = dark red.

Cimmerian praetor (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Municipal Police/Czech National Bank Security
  2. ^ Subject to may issue police permit ("exemption") - private citizens only for collecting purposes, rarely issued

I went on and cleaned some clear mistakes in the table. For example - Canada has very restricted may issue on concealed carry, which was debated at length after the recent shooting at parliament. China was indicated as "yes" for carry while it was indicated as restricted yes for ownership - clearly, if one can only get a gun for hunting (and very hardly so), one may not carry it. A distinction must be made between carrying and transportation - carrying means having a gun that is loaded and ready for immediate use while in public. Transportation means being able to take a gun to hunting/shooting range. Most countries allow transportation subject to gun being unloaded and/or locked in a container and/or disassembled. Only few allow carrying. To be continued, I guess. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I reworked most of the table. Reliance on the Gun Policy website doesn't work. First of all, they view it from the US perspective, which leads to conclusion that all other ways that are non-US are restrictive. Secondly, when comparing to any other sources, it simply doesn't add up. I don't have time to look deeper into the following states: East Timor, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Jamaica, Kenya, North Korea, Pakistan. I would be glad if someone could do them - including the more final differences such as may/shall issue, etc., and add more reliable sources. Regards, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


Australia[edit]

That last edit reversion says " The last paragraph seems highly bias, not to mention the opening statement was simply not true "It is worth noting that overall homicide rates do not show any reduction"

Thing is, while that seems highly non-intuitive, it's nonetheless true. The head of the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research said "I would need to see more convincing evidence than there is to be able to say that gun laws have had any effect" in 2005 (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-laws-fall-short-in-war-on-crime/2005/10/28/1130400366681.html); and research in 2006 (http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/3/455.abstract), 2008 (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854), 2009 (http://www.biomedexperts.com/Abstract.bme/18839044/Controlling_firearms_use_in_Australia_has_the_1996_gun_law_reform_produced_the_decrease_in_rates_of_suicide_with_this_method), and a consensus paper in 2010 (http://www.sph.uq.edu.au/docs/BODCE/ACE-P/ACE-Prevention_final_report.pdf) showed that the introduced gun ban itself did not reduce firearms violence, did not prevent suicide by firearm, did not prevent mass shootings and was ineffectual in preventing crime.

The good news is that the rates of firearms violence and suicide did decrease; it's just that that had been underway for years before the ban and the rate of decline was not altered by the ban. The suicide rate declined some years after the ban after social programmes tackling suicide itself were instigated.

So nonintuitive, but still correct. The reversion should be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkDennehy (talkcontribs) 15:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added additional journal citations for the work that demonstrates the 1996 gun laws had no effect on homicide rates... but DID have an effect on suicide rates. Mr Pete (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The suicide finding is somewhat controversial though: here is a study saying that it didn't have an impact: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18839044 MarkDennehy (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Information on North Korea[edit]

Article claims that firearms are completely banned from civilians in North Korea. All sources on internet making this claim stem from one article[2] from Yonhap News. The article simply states that North Korea passed such an act. There are no sources or other forms of information provided. There is also no apparent evidence online or elsewhere in the world that otherwise suggests that such a law in North Korea actually exists.

I thus believe that there is insufficient data to consider the article from Yonhap as a reliable source, and as it is the only original source, the section regarding North Korea's gun control laws should be removed. Unrequestedsillything (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of Liberland[edit]

There's no reason not to include Liberland. It is a new nation with a constitution being drafted and in the process of recognition. It has received support from political parties in numerous countries and has established several embassies too. The main reason to include it is to show the contrast in gun laws and would be a valuable reference to compare to other nations and their gun laws. Please accept my edit and stop reverting it. Thanks. Terrorist96 (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Liberland is an unrecognised self-declared 'micronation' with no legal status whatsoever. Accordingly, there are no 'gun laws' to include in this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The legal status is being worked out in the courts currently. And yes, there are no gun laws because the constitution forbids them. See the most recent draft here: https://github.com/liberland/constitution/blob/master/Liberland-constitution.md
It is still a good item to add in order to contrast the other nations in the chart. Terrorist96 (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
'Liberland' has no legal status, and until it does, it doesn't belong in this article. This article is not a platform for the promotion of fictitious 'nations' regardless of what their equally fictitious 'constitution' has to say. We do not cite primary sources from fictitious entities as evidence of anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Comparison table on top[edit]

Should we maybe put the comparison table on the top of the page? Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Overview of gun laws by nation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Totschläger and Stahlruten[edit]

I dont speak German, but from waht I remember and checking with wiktionary Totschläger would mean "death stick" and Stahlruten would just be "steel rod". (The words given are the plural forms.) Should I put it in ? Soap 04:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Info about Poland in the comparison chart is out of date[edit]

Specifically, the part about concealed carry and carrying without a permit. Since October 1st 2014 (http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/Download;jsessionid=1F8571BF699DE5B890BF90FC7232C293?id=WDU20140001224&type=2) people with a sports permit (among others, with the exception of collector's, commemorative and hunting permits which are regulated elsewhere) may carry their firearms loaded if they're concealed on their bodies (within means). In public transit and during mass events they still have to be unloaded. Once one has the sports permit, no additional steps are necessary to be able legally carry loaded firearms. Before 2014/10/01 only people with a self-defense permit were allowed to carry loaded firearms (and police, security guards with a special permit, etc.) The sports permit is the second most popular permit after hunter's permit.

I'm also not sure if the "Automatic firearms" box shouldn't be in yellow. While such firearms are not easily obtainable, they are not impossible to acquire legally for civilians. One way to do it is to get the collector's permit. Ustawa o broni i amunicji from 2011 states that collector's can acquire machine pistols/SMGs with calibers 6 to 12mm, and automatic rifles/machine guns with calibers 5.45 to 7.62mm. But because of the way the law is amibiguously worded, the police are trying to make problems for people trying to buy such firearms. These days the only way to buy those firearms is to appeal to different courts - up to the Supreme Administrative Court. It can take over two years, but so far the courts side on the peoples' side and those people are able to buy guns they originally wanted but were prevented from.

Another way is got get a permit gun dealers, gun stores and gun manufacturers must get - it's going to be more expensive, but should take less time.

On the other hand I think the "personal protection" box should be in red. In theory this permit is may issue, but in practice it is extremely difficult to get for non-VIPs, even if the applicant's life is in danger. (Fortunately nothing prevents people from acquiring and carrying firearms with the sports permit, and defending themselves with them should the need arise.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.4.214.241 (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, these are good points. Do you have some reliable sources regarding the changes to Polish gun laws? Thank you, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Ammunition aquisition of Swiss militia guns[edit]

First of all, DO read first of all the respective laws as explained in

.

The facts are:

  • The militia weapon can be kept at home.
  • Since 2007 no military issued ammunition are kept at home any more.
  • As long as you are in service the militia gun is not your private gun.
  • You can only aquire ammunition for guns you privately own (and have a licence for).
  • As long as your militia gun is not your private one, you cannot buy ammunition privately for it. (except at shooting ranges, where you have to use them!)
  • So you cannot buy compatible ammuntion for your militia gun as long you do not possess another weapon with the same calibre.
  • After your obligatory service you can aquire your militia gun (needs a gun aquisition license) and convert it to a private gun. However, they are rebuilt to a semi-automatic gun if necessary.
  • After your obligatory service (about after 32) you can privately aquire ammunition for your previous militia gun, but only if you keep it and you applied for a weapon aquisition license, as necessary for almost all guns, especially of this kind!

-- ZH8000 (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This is again addressed to User:MarkDennehy. Since he refuses to discuss the issue on the talk page here, let me make some aspects very clear:
  • I will always revert uncited claims, especially if they are not being discussed on the talk page, as invited.
  • Reverting or deleting other user's comments on a talk page is considered vandalims WP:TPO. I tagged you respectively on your talk page 639564978.
  • Discussion on the change summary is not considered good behavior, especially when asked to resolve an issue on the talk page. WP:EDS
  • You claim statements which you do not support by any citations, but at the same time you request it from others! That's quite controversial.
  • All the facts I listed above are supported by the citations given on the referred Article Gun politics in Switzerland. Again, READ the article, there you find them cited. But first of all, you must read it, otherwise you cannot seriously argue about them.
  • This is my last invitation to you to discuss your issues, and I expect them to be supported by respective citations.
thx. -- 23:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
First of all, passive-aggressive edits aimed at an individual are not acceptable.
Secondly, article 16 of the firearms act in switzerland specifically states you don't need an acquisition licence to obtain ammunition on ranges for shooting; an acquisition licence is only required to purchase a firearm from a dealer, it doesn't apply to private sales; and the firearms act doesn't cover the militia firearms anyway, that's an entirely different set of regulations. And you're citing a wikipedia article instead of a primary source. MarkDennehy (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, for the third time:
  • As I already wrote in my first post here: "... you cannot buy ammunition privately for it. (except at shooting ranges, where you have to use them!). Nevertheless, this ammunition is anyhow considered army-issued ammunition, and it cannot be taken home.
  • "it doesn't apply to private sales": Yes it does: Art 24 WV.
  • "... and the firearms act doesn't cover the militia firearms anyway, that's an entirely different set of regulations": Well, you contradict yourself. Either you refer to the WG, then see Art 24. WV. or then WG does not apply at all (which is not true for ammunition, especially) then it is anyhow cristal clear, since you cannot buy ammunition for a militia issued gun. Period.
So either way, it is not legal. -- ZH8000 (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Your point was that these firearms should not be counted in the "firearms per 100 people" statistic because people couldn't buy ammunition for them because they had no acquisition licence for them and that's a requirement under article 15 of the swiss firearms act. Except that article 16 says it's not necessary to have such a licence on shooting ranges (and article 24 is about the sale of ammunition, not the sale of firearms). Militia firearms are included in the 2007 Small Arms Survey after those laws were considered by the authors.
More; that entire wikipedia article is based on the 2007 survey; but you edited it based not on a citation but your interpretation of swiss firearms law. There are other edits in there that cite updated data or other primary data which represent changes in statistics since 2007; but this was not in that vein. And when that edit was reverted you engaged in an edit war and then personalised it. MarkDennehy (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Australia 2[edit]

Please stop your edit war and simply look below about Australia's gun laws. Of course, they aren't by far as liberal as most U.S. gun laws, but they aren't very strict. And I don't know what should be the problem with not-mentioning one country. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


"liberal" and "strict" really need to get banned from this page. Every time someone uses them, it causes this nonsense. And I have yet to hear of anyone accepting any cited source to back up such relative judgements, or of anyone who has enough free time to present a fully cited case. For example: Take the claim that Irish firearms legislation is stricter than (say) Arizona firearms legislation, a claim that is prima facia obviously true; in order to provide a properly cited argument you'd have to invest dozens of hours of work citing the relevant current laws regarding firearms ownership in both places (this is non-trivial; Irish firearms law is particularly arcane and hard to read and distributed amongst several dozen acts, secondary legislation, regulations and so forth and Arizona legislation has to be read in conjunction with federal legislation); examine the type of firearms that can be licenced in both places and what standards must be met by licence applicants; or even if that licencing model is comparable between the two (in this case it's not); and even at that you would still find exceptions to general rules where it is easier to obtain something firearms related in Ireland than in Arizona (sound moderators and rifles over .50 calibre for example) and then you have to somehow make a judgement about whether or not the exceptions outweigh the generalities (or in other cases, you have to judge which are the exceptions and which are the generalities in the first place). Since expert opinion seems not citable here as proof (or at least isn't felt acceptable whenever this topic pops up), unless you can spare 20-50 hours to put together a citation-supported argument and everyone who disagrees can also find that time to provide a counterargument, maybe we should just stop trying to make relative judgements across countries with different firearms laws, different firearms ownership cultures, different approaches and social norms surrounding policing and legislation in this area, and just present each case to the reader and let them judge for themselves. Or, you know, edit war till we're seventy and arthritis stops us typing... MarkDennehy (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I agree with you, Mark, but I also have two sources for the laws in Australia: the first one are the already given sources in this article, stating the laws rather liberal, but that is like you say my own judgement. But my second source is Masters of the World where Austrlia's gun laws are marked as more liberal as e.g. in most Europe's countries. But I agree with you, such terms can be banned from the article. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The problem is, that's a judgement between "most of Europe" (and there's a very wide variation there by the way; Ireland's legislation, for example, is one of the strictest in the world, while places like Croatia would be more relaxed than some US states) and Australia; but it doesn't tell you if Australia is *actually* liberal or not. If you measure it relative to, say, Japan, then yes, it's liberal. If you measure it relative to Texas, it definitely isn't. As a result of that, people can go round and round all year long fighting over whether or not to call their gun legislation liberal *even without* the pro/anti-gun ideological side of things being involved. MarkDennehy (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Therefore terms like "strict/severe" and "liberal/free" can be removed from the article or better explained. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
They are actually strict though, they have similarly restrictive laws to country's like Germany and more restrictive one's than Canada, so yes they are restrictive, I don't understand where you're getting this idea that they aren't. Reputable sources such as Gun Policy.org list them as restrictive, a video game and your own judgement don't override RS. - SantiLak (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
As we've just been saying, that is a content-free statement. "They actually are strict" - compared to what? Compared to Japan, Australia is very lax on firearms. And compared to Ireland. Or a few others. We don't have any accepted "global ranking" of strictness here and even if we did, you'd still be making an at-best-murky judgement call, which is more editorial than report. And "similarly restrictive laws to countrys like Germany"? Where's your citations? What laws do they have which are similar (be specific - what law, what's the similarity, for every one of their firearms laws, and don't forget to distinguish between national and regional variations). Also, gunpolicy.org is far from well-accepted because of factual errors in their data and ideological editorials in their articles. And "your own judgement" was the entire basis for your comment.... MarkDennehy (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that my own judgement should be citation enough for removal although that other user did exactly that, and also gunpolicy.org has still been held as RS in these cases, I know from past editing disputes that you have some sort of vendetta against it's use as a source but it still is RS, and according to them Australia's gun laws are restrictive, that's my citation for it. - SantiLak (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Is objecting to factually incorrect data now a vendetta? Take, for an example, the very first piece of information they have on Ireland - the number of firearms in civilian hands. They cite it as 300,000, made up of 150,000 legally held and 150,000 illegally held ( http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/ireland ). There are several problems with this. For a start, it is only one of several numbers they cite for the total number of civilian firearm in Ireland, ranging from 230,000 to 393,000 because their own policy says that they can add estimates from completely different sources together; something the authors of those sources would never have taken into account and which can completely invalidate their numbers as it has here - to get 393,000, they took the current number of licenced firearms from the Gardai (which is in itself a dubious estimate because the word 'firearm' in Ireland has a specific legal definition that's wildly different from anywhere else making comparison difficult at best) and then they added the 2007 Small Arms Survey estimate of illictly held firearms to it, a number which two Irish Ministers for Justice have publicly stated is a number that has no basis in fact. And in fact the Survey gives no reason for its choice, it just appears in a table with no supporting reasoning or evidence. This is not how you get accurate data; this is an example of the web version of paper never refusing ink. You have unexamined sources producing estimates with no basis being cited alongside the police force who physically count the firearms as being equally reliable, and they're not even examining what they are counting. That is not how you get a reliable source, it's the exact opposite. MarkDennehy (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
No, I didn't do that. Because it's my own judgement and the others too of others, I removed the phrases mentioning "strict" and "liberal" gun laws. Because our judgements and those of gunpolicy.org aren't relevant citations. So please stop lying! --212.186.0.108 (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

United Kingdom section statement on history of treatment for depression.[edit]

Under the section for the United Kingdom, it states this:- "no history of treatment for depression or any other kind of mental or nervous disorder"

This is of-course incorrect as I was issued with a FAC and SGC even though I have previously had treatment for depression.

I'm not sure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.226.10 (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Add more countries.[edit]

Countries such as Greece, Ecuador, the Dominican Republic, etc have NOT been added to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E790:5800:11C:52E5:2265:8F39 (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, it seems you are passionate that those countries and more should be added, feel free to edit the article constructively and with citations and add those countries. We always appreciate the positive expansion of an article. - SantiLak (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Argentina RENAR is now ANMaC & regulation on gun amunition[edit]

The Argentina section, needs to be updated, the most important change needed, is the governement entity that regulated guns has been changed (name and some regulation laws had changed extending the reach to any "state controled" material (guns, ammo, bulltproff vests/bulletprof contraptions like a bulletprof window -you need a permit to have/own/wear, just like guns do-), explosives, chemicals or materials used to make explosives and amunition, chemical weapons, electric defence weapons, etc,..) that now regulate guns the "National Weapons Registry" (Registro Nacional de Armas) known as "RENAR", is since October 19, 2015, "National Agency for Controlled Materials" (Agencia Nacional de Materiales Controlados) known "ANMaC" Law Number 27.192 at infoleg website Law at ANMaC (ex-RENAR) website

all variants of firearems permits, (use, carry, possesion). require you to prove that you have a lawful source of income.

firearms ammunition has regulations/restrictions to purchase not only on kind but also in amount over time, its controled and registered on the ANMaC. bulletprof items are also regulated (you even need a "Legitimate possession permit for bulletprof vest" to obtain it you are required to have "Legitimate User of Firearms" permit, if you dont have the autorization to use firearms, you cant buy/sell have/use bulletprof vest)

also there is a wrong statement about handguns, pistols and revolver caliber restrictions are diferent. current version of the article states that not-fully automatic handguns up to .32 are civil use, that is not true, thats only for pistols, for simgle, and double action revolver the "civil use" is up to .25 (6,35mm) above that is "weapon of war/civil conditional use" same as non-fully automatic pistol above .32

there is also a third type of handgun clsification in argentina besides revolver and pistols, and is called "pistolones" on spanish (are handguns/pistols that use shotgun shells and can be single or double-barreled) are single shot up to caliber .36 are civil use, above that, are forbidden (because will be a shotgun with barrel shorter than 380mm) ANMaC/RENAR website handguns regulation on spanish ANMaC/RENAR website "shoulderguns" regulation on spanish

i hope someone with better technical and legal english skills can modify the article to reflect all this. --WiZaRd SaiLoR (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


Philippines[edit]

The sentence in the Philippines section, "The presence of a gun culture in the Philippines can be traced to the long-term effects of American influence." as well as the phrase in the previous sentence, "due to its active gun culture", were added in two nearly-simultaneous edits by an IP user on 2016-02-10 (see diff). The second sentence in particular at the very least violates WP:V, and perhaps also WP:OR and WP:NPOV. I am adding a citation-needed template to it, and recommend deletion of the sentence. Dfavro (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

In fact, I did find a reference in the article to the influence of American media in the Philippines, but it was not cited on that sentence or anywhere in that paragraph, rather as part of a separate paragraph with a similar statement that better reflects the contents of reference; so I merged the two sentences, rather than using the citation-needed template. Dfavro (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Good. Thanks for fixing it. (I moved this thread to the end, as that's Wikipedia custom.) Felsic2 (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)