Talk:Gun politics/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This archive was created 20:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC), and primarily consists of edits to the talk page made prior to March of 2006

Australia and totalitarian rule

"The United Kingdom, Australia and Canada have had such laws for many years without becoming totalitarian"

The above quote from the article seems both based on a personal view point. Since at least the UK and Australia have had more totalitarian style legislation after the gun control came into effect. The point of my post isn't to argue politics but to say that the above statement is greatly debatable and not necessarily a statement of fact. I am an australian citizen and feel that recent law changes mean that the statement has become less true or untrue entirely at least in reference to australia. I suggest australia be taken out of the statement or "totalitarian" be changed to dictatorship. I'm not trying to make a political point with this just hoping improve the accuracy of the article. Nor am I trying to say that Australia is necessarily a totalitarian regime since that may now be illegal in my country.

I've made some fairly substantial changes to the 'balance of power' section, in hopes of finding a less ambiguous statement of the issues and concerns. as well, a number of minor edits are included in the section to clean up wording.Anastrophe 23:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Howabout 'Authoritarian'? In any case, legislation that a person does or does not like doesn't mean that a country is becoming more or less totalitarian. I still feel the whole article is violating NPOV, though. TheDeadlyShoe 02:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
my understanding is that for a contentious subject such as this, "NPOV" does not mean eliminating POV. it means having a reasonable balance between the competing POV's. as the article stands right now, it is reasonably NPOV - both the anti-gun-rights/pro-gun-control and pro-gun-rights/anti-gun-control POV's are roughly equally represented. I'm sure a microparsing of the article as a whole could find that one POV has more words/more content than the other. i don't think perfection is possible however. Anastrophe 08:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, the gun-control side seems to presented from a gun-rights POV. That's how I would describe it. Not sure how else to put it. TheDeadlyShoe 06:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Is the term Gun Politics NPOV?

Various gun related topics redirect to this page, and I'm not sure that the term "Gun Politics" is adequately neutral or global. Distrust of politics and politicians has made politics a pejorative word. Gun politics may imply disparaging implications about those attempting to change the status quo for guns in their given country. Also the topic of gun use is rarely intensely political outside the United States, which may make the article misleadingly regional.

international gun politics

All the gun politics and gun laws I see discussed here are from western countries. I'd find it truely fascinating to see these approaches contrasted with hmm middle eastern nations like iraq (though that's currently under US administration), Saudi Arabia, and I've heard interesting stories about parts of pakistan. Has anyone looked at these? Kim Bruning 20:13, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You make a very good point, the article focuses on the USA to the neglect of the earth ;). Lets try and bring in some internationalism, the wiki is not ment to be anglocentric. Sam Spade 21:34, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Not meant to be Anglocentric? This is the *English* Wikipedia section. By definition, it is Anglocentric. There are other language sections if you wanted something that wasn't Anglo (English).
It is in English, but it does not mean that it is anglocentric; the aim is "NPOV", including geographical ones. And the main issue here is not even "anglocentrism", but "USA-centrism". Rama 16:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

If you want to see the civilian firearm situation in the Middle East the best place to check, oddly enough, is Soldier of Fortune magazine They often have I-Was-There articles on various countries like Pakistan. In their semi-recent Pakistan article the author toured some of the wilder parts up north, and discovered whole villages churning out all manner of firearms from AK-74 knockoffs to their own origional designs. All 100% illegal of course, guns are prohibited in Pakistan. You will find that the Middle East very much follows the totalitarian model, in which guns are prohibited to all except government agents like the police and Army. Terrorists of all stripes seem to have no problems getting whatever they want, however.

As far as Anglocentrism goes, one reason is that the USA is one of the only countries in which the question of civilian ownership has not been settled yet. Most countries have long since gone with prohibition, as Britain did recently.

With the very notable exception of Switzerland, eh? Krupo 19:46, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
Lots of places that allow 'more or less' free access to firearms, outside Europe; whether you talk about Columbia, or Israel, or even Canada, you end up with a pretty wide spectrum to choose from, as far as the guns per capita bottom line comes out. I'd guess that the majority of humanity doesn't own a gun because they can't afford it more than because it's illegal for them. Gzuckier 21:20, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Can anyone site the source for the recent edit regarding swiss ammunition?
    Conversely, Switzerland has very tight control on ammunition, all rounds are sealed and inspected even though in people's homes.
I've found nothing supporting this stance, but that doesn't mean that it isn't true, I suppose. Matt 05:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
The sealed ammunition in question is the government-issued GP90 for use in national defense. It's sealed so that the militiamen will be guaranteed to keep it in reserve for official use, not because ammunition is particularly highly regulated. 21:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I did a quick and dirty regression a couple of years ago on the various sets of 'murders vs. guns' stats that float around the internet, and (surprising me) there was a pretty decent correlation, as far as social sciences go, between number of guns per capita and murder rate internationally, with the big exception that the Western European nations all seem to have a similar, relatively low, murder rate regardless of number of guns. Even more interestingly, this correlation held whether or not you included the US, which was of course a big outlier and therefore had a big leverage on the results. However, coming back to the question here, those sets of stats that go around in fact don't include info on Arabic countries, Africa, etc.; I'd be surprised if there were a lot of accurate stats available on those places. Gzuckier 21:20, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A problem with such studies is that they treat the US as one homogenous set of laws, which it isn't. Most gun laws are state laws, and vary considerably. If you separated the US states and their particular crime stats between, for example, "shall-issue" CCW license states and "may-issue"/"no issue" CCW states, as well as separating big cities that have their own local anti-gun laws (Chicago, for example, bans gun ownership but Illinois does not, while Chicago accounts for most crime in state), you will find that the US is actually two or more countries when it comes to crime statistics and which contradict very sharply claims about gun control reducing crime. In the US, states with the freest gun laws have the lowest crime rates. - Mike Lorrey 14:37, Jan 24, 2005 EST
But that completely skews the statistics, since in the US anyone can drive a few hours and get to a place with entirely different laws and thus skate strict controls completely. TheDeadlyShoe 12:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It might also be because this is the English wiki, try the Arabic one if you want Arabic articles eh? --The Phantom 15:36, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Moving comment by anonymous User: out of the article space. Rossami

  • edit* sorry bout the earlier remark, was getting annoyed by some of the morons on a forum

Weapons vs. firearms

There's some awkward wording in the article: several references to guns as weapons. They're firearms unless used to hurt, at which point they can be called weapons. An extremely important distinction, especially when dealing with this topic. I'll update the article to take care of that issue. Krupo 19:46, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

It's not extremely important at all. Weapons are tools for killing or wounding other living things. Guns, regardless of how much it's wrapped up in terminology like 'self-defence' or 'personal protection', have only one use: to wound, usually to wound lethally. Robrecht 20:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

A firearm can be used for several different purposes. I specially enjoy shooting at inanimate objects, such as tin cans and plastic bottles. Now, when I was in the Army, I learned from my drill sergeant that the weapon issued to me was a rifle. A gun, was either a rather large piece of artillery, or it might sometimes refer to the male sex organ. Al Lowe

It's a cute story but your drill sergeant (and mine) was wrong. If you want to prove it, ask what he meant when he told you to "March toward the sound of the guns." He didn't mean ignore the rifle-fire. "Gun" and "firearm" are both ambiguous terms whose meanings have drifted over time. "Firearm" is fairly stable in the definition "man-portable slug-throwing weapon powered by chemical explosive". "Gun" used to mean the same thing without the "man-portable" qualifier. It later took on a connotation of "any smooth-bore weapon powered by ..." to differentiate "rifles" which spin the projectile. But then they started rifling artillery and still called an artillery piece a "gun". At the same time, mortars somehow stopped being "guns". Now we're all confused and just use "gun" loosely. They are all, however, "weapons" because they can be used for and are primarily intended as tools for intentionally inflicting harm. The fact that you can use them for target practice or that you could use a broadsword to cut your vegetables does not make them non-weapons. To the best of my knowledge, that definition of weapon has been very stable over time. So a "firearm" is a subset of the class "weapon" and the changes are stylistic. They do not change the meaning of the text. Rossami (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If you knew my drill sergeant, you would NOT call it a "cute story." And he never told me to "march to the sound of the guns," either. Yes, gun and firearm can and are used interchangably. The trick is, for CCW permit holders, to get out of the habit of referring to their licensed firearms as "guns." The term has been pretty much ingrained into the minds of most (not all, but most) Law Enforcement Officers as a general warning that the "bad guy" has a "gun." If for no other reason, that alone is reason enough to NEVER refer to your firearms as "guns." Al Lowe

Yeah, don't refer to firearms as weapons, there is a complete and total difference. it is only a weapon if used as such

I just wrote Concealed carry (gun laws), and if anyone wants to add info, ...

dino 04:08, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


This article is not NPOV. It is biased in favour of the pro-gun perspective.Simon d 15:52, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it'd help if you were a bit more specific. --Khendon 16:03, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This might be because the scientific and legal consensus today is pro-gun, with even liberal legal scholar Lawrence Tribe admitting gun ownership is an individual right, and leaders of major anti-gun groups admitting that gun laws do not prevent criminals from obtaining firearms. Britain and Australia are seeing skyrocketing crime since their gun bans went into effect, yet they prefer to prosecute people who try to defend themselves and allow criminals to sue property owners who do so. Gun control is victim disarmament. Mike Lorrey 14:45 24 Jan 3005 EST

'Britain and Australia are seeing skyrocketing crime since their gun bans went into effect'. Errr.... perhaps you would be so kind to show us where you got the facts to base this statement on? Being from Australia I have observed no such thing.
'The scientific and legal consensus'? Apparently you're not familiar with the recent report of the National Academy of Sciences, 328 pages reviewing 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and a survey of 80 different gun-control measures, which found:

"The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed; for example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children's behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements. ... Nevertheless, many of the shortcomings described in this report stem from the lack of reliable data itself rather than the weakness of methods."

Or is it that you are one of those who hew to the faith-based Received Wisdom that firearms ownership is All Good and cannot have any deleterious effects whatsoever, and that any study which does not find that to be the case (let alone suggests that there might be some problems attendant on widespread firearm ownership which might need attention) is the Work of the Devil and his Evil cabal the Medical Establishment, let alone NPOV? (Lest you think that I'm overstating the case, take John Lott, for instance, whose response is

"While more research is always helpful, the notion that we have learned nothing flies in the face of common sense"

Gzuckier 18:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Even if it were true that the consensus (where? in the US?) was pro-gun, the Wikipedia does not take sides. Blaise 16:56, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if opinions were posted here or not. I'm not trying to smash anyone elses opinion on this subject. I just have to say one thing....

   If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns.

(and then, criminals wouldn't have to think twice about going into someone's home, they would know that they wouldn't have any guns.)---

I've heard this phrase before which means it's a popular meme but so what? Law abiding people far outweigh outlaws and I think I would rather have the criminal without a fatal weapon than myself with one. I am fascinated by the logical disconnect surrounding firearms. The meme "If Nukes were outlawed, only outlaws would have Nukes" is equally, speciously true, but you don't see that as a (common) justification of self-nuke ownership. The gun debate is tied closely to the debate about the Freedom to Kill. Possession and use of guns for purpose they are meant for revolves around choice to allow people to kill each other - and giving them the offensive equipment to do it easily. Remember that scene in Terminator 2, where the two children with toy guns are struggling with each other and saying "Bam - you're dead!" "No Bam - you're dead!"?
So you really think, if guns are outlawed, criminals won't have guns? What are you smoking, and why aren't you sharing? Did you not read the first part? "If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns." If criminals can't get their guns by stealing them from civilians, who in your universe would not have them, they will steal them from the police, the military, or they'll make them. The criminals will not have non-lethal weapons. They may not even be firearms, their weapons could be knives, baseball bats, machetes, or other equally lethal weapons. But if guns are outlawed, then they KNOW they will not be facing any real opposition to their attempt at committing a crime.The UNeducated 08:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
People are not born at birth with guns in their hands, nor fangs or sharp claws. We, as a society choose to disseminate firearms. I suppose you consider it unrealistic to ignore the effect of criminals possessing lethal weapons. Sure, an outlaw with a gun is not a nice idea. But a pro-gun policy is not risk minimisation, it is risk escalation. How do you expect to remove a culture of violence, a culture of guns if the core item is not prohibited? Do you shrug and say that a culture of violence is here to stay even though there are systematic steps available to remove it? A over-night ban of all firearms would be a system shock though less than you think. But why not support the phased disarmament of civil society? What have you got to lose if it works?? Civil armament is often justified not because it's good but because no trust is placed in positive change or in people for that matter. A gun is not a defensive weapon - and its deterant value is questionable since if a criminal is not detered by laws, prison, social rejection, or other criminals with guns why should your own gun matter, especially since all these deterants apply to you if you kill them. More guns cause more deaths. Quite simple really. For example, the overall outcome of the Civil War was not changed by the existance of the Second Amendment (militia, etc) as simple geostrategy fixed who lost before it began; but it raised the death count and possibly prolonged the war. The Second Amendment, the weirdest one, fundamentally condones social change by force. The Founders didn't have much trust in democracy - unsurprising considering it was new in their day. I mean, why does SWAT exist? In every city for that matter. Do you know how rare and rarely used SWAT is in countries with gun control? It's a neverending cycle, and you won't break it with more guns.

And it won't end with a gun ban. If you ban civilian ownership of guns, do you really think criminals will turn in their guns? If there is one segment of the population, other than the holier than thou politicians who have ways around gun controls, it is the criminal element. They WANT their victims to be disarmed. It makes their chosen profession that much less dangerous. The criminal is AFRAID of me. Why? Because I am a legally armed individual, and they won't know if I have a gun on me until it's too late. A gun is a tool. It does what you want it to do. It does not have a mind of it's own. It cannot pull it's own trigger. It takes a human to kill another human. And I don't need a gun, if I am really determined to kill someone. On the other hand, if I am being attacked, a gun in my posession can be and has been a great deterrent. And not every city in the USA has a SWAT team. Not every city needs one. And, the attempt at disarming the people is because the government distrusts THE PEOPLE, not the other way around. And the founders, quite simply didn't trust government, demoratic or otherwise. You're correct about one thing. It is a never ending cycle, but when we, the PEOPLE, no longer have guns, the cycle will stop, and we will pay dearly for it.The UNeducated 23:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Damn right. Even if hell froze over, and you managed to completely remove all firearms from the criminal element, no government is going to give up it's guns. You sound pretty liberal. Let's say our fearless leader, George W., woke up one day, declared himself supreme dictator of the Peoples Republic of America, and decided that anyone who didn't agree with him would be summarily executed. And let's say the other branches of government went along with it. If they've got all the guns, what are you going to do about it? Protest? File a petition? That a determined, ARMED revolution could quickly turn our leaders' silk ties into nooses is all that makes the difference between our republic and China's. "That would never happen in a democracy", you say? I'm sure I can find a few old Germans and Russians that would disagree with you. You do know that the "shot heard around the world" at Lexington was fired as a result of the British attempting to exercise gun control on colonists, right? Where would we be if everyone there had your attitude? Wake up and get a haircut, hippie. A world without guns is a nice idea, but you will NEVER get rid of them all, and as long as they're out there, it's better that everyone have them than just those who would abuse them. Let's say that all guns are outlawed, and I'm a serial murderer. You and I find ourselves alone, out in the middle of nowhere, nobody else around for miles. I say, in no uncertain terms, that I intend to kill you in the most drawn out and excruciating way I can think of. You know that one of us has a gun. Who would you rather was the one with the firearm, you or me? Does the fact that guns are outlawed render it useless? And in terms of the big picture, there has been no form of government in history that has not gone despotic or been crushed by one that has. If either should happen, if the cops don't come when you call 911, or if they come to take you to the concentration camps, which would you rather have, a utopian optimism that you'll be free again someday, or equal firepower? Would you rather be free and secure or a slave and a victim? --Winston T.

Automatic Rifles in USA

"For example, automatic rifles are legal to own in America after acquiring a single $200 permit..." I changed this to semi-automatic rifles. I'm pretty sure you can't have full-auto in America, or at least it's next to impossible to do legally. You can own an AK-47 or M-16, but only a semi-automatic one.-LtNOWIS 02:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you can legally own fully-automatic weapons in the US. It requires a Class 3 Federal Firearms License (FFL). The license is not terribly hard to get but does require some background checks. It is primarily offered to dealers and certified collectors. On the other hand, semi-automatic weapons require no license in many jurisdictions. The background checks are point-of-purchase checks, not technically "licenses". Rossami (talk) 15:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Federal law is that you need the Class III to sell/transfer automatic weapons, purchasing involves lenghty notification process/background check, but no "license" per se. Individual states may require a license, but there is no federally mandated license to own an automatic rifle.--Dusty78 02:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually, a new Class 3 FFL is not so easy to get, at least not in most states. You have to have a permanent store front that you work out of and sell firearms as a business. For most people, that is not so simple, and really, impossible to do as something on the side. However, it is not true that you need an FFL to purchase automatic (Title II) firearms. In US states that allow it, all you have to do is get approval from your local sherrif or chief of police, send in a Form 4 to the ATF, and if everybody approves and local laws allow it, after about a 6 month wait you get approval to purchase your automatic firearm. However, if you ever want to take it out of the state, you have to get prior written approval from the ATF, which takes a long time. Needless to say, the biggest deterrant is that automatic rifles have been illegal to manufacture since 1986. Therefore, the number of legal guns is static (actually always decreasing), and it is their cost which is the most prohibitive. Most automatic rifles cost over $6,000, and some as much as $20,000 or more. I would say this is the real limiting factor for law abiding citizens to purchase automatic firearms. Of course criminals can buy them cheaply. Wodan 02:55, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I removed some parts of the class-III discussion from this article. I think that the point of this article was to provide some context for the overall question of gun politics - specific details to the individual conuntries should be pushed to those articles. The short passage on class-III requirements wasn't quite accurate, and writing about it in detail would just add a few more narrow US-specific facts to the article. Am I wrong, or can we indeed try to make this a more general article? - CrucifiedChrist

I really disagree. If you're going to talk about the requirements for automatic weapons, it is biased and misleading to only talk about parts of the requirements. It is misleading to think you just fill out some forms and that's it. That's why it's important that if you're going to bring up the subject at all, you have to present all the facts. In reality, it's slightly more complicated. As per the ATF, approval is required (among other things) from the chief law enforcement officer, who is defined as:
...the Chief of Police for the transferee's city or town of residence; the Sheriff for the transferee's county of residence; the Head of the State Police for the transferee's State of residence; a State or local district attorney or prosecutor having jurisdiction in the transferee's area of residence; or another person whose certification is acceptable to the Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
I summarized it as chief of police or sheriff, along with the ATF. Leaving this out would be very misleading. Another biased view you expressed is using the word "weapon." A firearm is no more of a weapon than a baseball bat is, until it's used as such. Your bias shows by using this term. Gun control is about guns, not weapon control. On the issue of USA-centric view point, that can be clarified by expanding the section, not by removing facts. If you would like to build this into an international article, I suggest improving its organization and doing some detailed research on other countries. But don't put misleading statements on US policy please. Thank you. Wodan 01:31, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I reformated the section to separate USA and international policies. The USA paragraph contains the necessary detail for requirements. Somebody should expand on non-USA gun control policies, instead of removing information on USA laws. Wodan 01:44, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Another possible compromise I can suggest if you want to keep the details out of it and to keep it general, is to say something to the effect of "while automatic firearms are federally legal, they are banned in many states, and are out of reach of nearly all citizens due to their cost, ban on their production since 1986, and police approval requirements; making them technically legal to possess, but practically near impossible to legally purchase." This is indeed the reality in the US. However, such a statement is prone to sound more biased than simply listing the facts outright, which is why I did the latter. Wodan 02:39, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

That sounds ok, except there's not a ban on production of new full automatic weapons. There is simply a ban on the private purchase of NEWLY produced full automatic weapons made since 1986. This was by and Executive order. Further, although private ownership in general is illegal in many states. There are some exceptions, such as Curio & Relic firearms. In other words, if I could afford it, and find it, I would LOVE to by a Lewis light machine gun.Al Lowe 20:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC).\


Enjoyed reading this thread, and would like to add to it. I am a Title II weapon holder, and am fairly knowledgeable on the subject of private ownership of automatic weapons, having gone through the process necessary to purchase some a few years back. Title II firearms are all firearms that must be registered on the National Firearms Register, which is maintained by the ATF. In addition to automatic firearms, there are other items which must also be placed on the National Firearms Register, such as sound suppressors, also known more commonly as “silencers”, destructive devices such as hand grenades, rocket launchers, large bore firearms (larger than .50 caliber), cannons, etc.. The process as stated earlier by Woodan is relatively accurate. Basically, if you find a Title II firearm (typically a machine gun) that you (as a private citizen) would like to purchase, then typically you would first pay the current owner for the weapon (either the full asking price up front, or sometimes, ½ up front, and ½ upon delivery after the legalities are sorted out). Once the transaction is made, the current owner fills out an ATF Form 5320.4 (commonly referred to as an ATF Form 4) if he is just a private owner, and not a Class 3 dealer, or a ATF Form 5320.3 (commonly referred to as an ATF Form 3) if the current owner is a Class 3 dealer. The current owner must also pay $200 dollars for an IRS tax stamp, along with finger print cards, and a passport photo (attached to the Form 3 or Form4). The seller is typically reimbursed for the $200 by the intended buyer though. The Form 3 or Form 4 must be signed by the “Chief local law enforcement officer” (typically the Chief of Police for the transferee's city or town of residence; the Sheriff for the transferee's county of residence; the Head of the State Police for the transferee's State of residence); or by a State or local district attorney or prosecutor having jurisdiction in the transferee's area of residence; or another person whose certification is acceptable to the Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The County Sheriff is typically who people go to, in order to have their forms signed. Some chief local law enforcement officers (CLEOs) sign the form, and some do not. If the CLEO refuses to sign off on the form, then the Title II firearm may be purchased by a corporate entity, without the need for a signature. Some states allow NFA weapons, and some do not. Some allow only certain types. A complete list of which NFA weapons are authorized by state may be found here: Once all of the required paperwork is filled out and sent in to the ATF, then the clock starts. Typically, it takes about 90 to 180 days for the paperwork to come back from the ATF’s NFA Branch either approved or disapproved. Once the paperwork comes back approved, then the buyer may take possession of his (or her) new Title II weapon (again, typically a machine gun). That is, of course, if the buyer and seller are in the same state. If they are in different states, then the buyer must find a Class III firearms dealer in his state who is willing to broker the sale. In this case, the Class III dealer becomes the initial buyer (on behalf of the person trying to obtain the Title II firearm), and must complete the required paperwork (less the CLEO signature). Once the paperwork comes back approved from the ATF, then the seller sends it to the Class III dealer in the buyer’s state. The buyer must then pay another $200 transfer tax, and fill out all of the required paperwork AGAIN, “purchasing it” (the second time) from the Class III dealer (although the money was already paid to the seller, and the Class III dealer usually only charges a broker’s fee). Once the required paperwork is sent in to the ATF, the 90-180 day clock starts again. When the paperwork come back approved, the actual buyer may then take possession of the Title II firearm (or item). If the owner of the weapon wishes to transport it across state lines, then he or she must first obtain prior ATF approval by filling out an ATF form 5320.20. The ATF always approves the forms (in my experience), usually in about 30 days. They can be filled out for one year at a time, authorizing the owner to transport the firearm across state lines for the duration of the period listed on the form. It is up to the owner to comply with individual state laws regarding Title II weapon ownership, since each state’s laws may be different. Title II weapons differ from Title I weapons. Title I weapons do not have to stay registered on the National Firearms Registry. They typically include your semi-automatic firearms. Type I weapons are subject to more restrictions, such as barrel length must be greater than 16 inches for rifles, and 18 inches for shotguns. Until October of 2004, Title I weapons were subject to the “assault weapons ban” which “sun-setted” after ten years of enforcement. The National Firearms Registry came into existence under the 1934 National Firearms Act. Since that time, there has been to my knowledge, only one violent crime committed by someone who legally owned a Title II weapon. In that particular case, a retired police officer was convicted of murder after having used his legal machine gun to kill someone. There are currently over 500,000 machineguns in private ownership in the 36 states that allow it. Title II and machine gun owners have proven to be law abiding citizens. It is worthy to note that those with the most powerful (and most feared) firearms (i.e., the machine gun) have no inclusion in the national gun-crime statistics compiled by the FBI each year. PowellG. 23JUL05.


Someone made an edit to the page deliberately moving a link to Handgun Control, Inc towards the top of the list. To avoid POV issues manifesting, should we perhaps break the links down to ones supporting gun control and ones against? Obviously links to HCI's website are relevant, but how do we order them so as not to emphasize one view over another? Matt 08:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I would say either have two seperate lists, or alternate supporting and against links, with any neuteral ones at the end. -- Chris Q 15:48, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
OK. That's what seems fairest to me, too. I just wanted to get some sort of consensus before doing so. seemed to do a great job in adding links in the first place, but it seems that moving one or the other to the top wasn't appropriate in and of itself, I just didn't want it to seem like I was dissing all of what did, when in fact most of it seemed constructive. Matt 04:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
done. I think I got em all right. feel free to edit though.. The anti-gun list is a little thin on links. --Kvuo 00:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed text needs new home

I chopped this text out because it doesn't really seem fair to give counter-arguments within one side's argument list but not the other's.

A contrary viewpoint would be the amount of damage lightly armed Finnish infantry (only 112 anti-tank guns) were able to inflict on the Russian invasion (45 divisions) during the Winter War.

Would be good to put somewhere else in the article, but I didn't see any good spots on first glance. Perhaps reword and put in pro-gun list? keith 12:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Are there any contrarian arguments that can be raised in the pro-gun side that weren't already used in the first list? Just because one group wants to claim the moon is made of green cheese, does that mean we shouldn't provide factual counter-examples? I was gonna add more info from the link about suicides, which someone has decided to change within the article to be equivocal instead of the conclusion that suicides are weapon independent.
~ender 2005-10-03 16:51:MST

Source please?

I have removed the following, pending provision of a source for the claim of non-enforcement:

...but this restriction is almost never enforced. Ammunition access, therefore, is effectively unlimited, negating the contention that ammunition regulation accounts for the extremely low incidence of gun crimes in the Swiss Cantons. Contrary to the expectations underlying the concept of gun control (i.e., that denying access to firearms among the law-abiding population will result in reduced rates of violent crime), the case in Switzerland demonstrates that the widespread possession and use of military-grade small arms is wholly compatible with one of the lowest murder rates in the world.

TIA, Mwanner 23:23, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Swiss weapons

A sealed box of ammunition to open in case of war only.

I would like the misconception that the Swiss have the same relation to their guns as the Americans to disappear. For a certain class of the population, having an assault rifle is mandatory; a huge proportion of the population finds this obligation moderately to excessively boring, and they have a very strong training in not treating these rifles like toys. Ammunition is not available easily: the ammunition given or bought at a training point has to be depleted there; there are indeed people who watch over the training sessions, and they do control the weapons at the entrance and exit of the stands; people are not searched, but they do not smuggle ammunition either; and the ammunition given to soldiers is sealed. The rifles are not to be carried around without good reasons, and no-one would think of using them for "self-defence" outside of a case of war.

There are extremely remote links between the situation in the USA and Switzerland, and only and severe misunderstanding or dishonesty can lead someone to take the example of Switzerland to advocate such or such policy for the USA. I especially find it outrageous that this sort of people would pollute Gun politics in Switzerland with their foreign petty politics, without caring to check such basic things as the calibre of weapons for which they mention incorrect data. Rama 19:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This whole story on ammo not being available in Switzeland is crap. Any Swiss resident (with a few exceptions) can go to any gun store and buy whatever Full Metal Jacket or hunting ammo he wants provided he can show a clean criminal record. As a gun owner an member of a Swiss shooting club I know. Meswiss

The point is that Swiss mentality about guns does not focus over the fantasy of shooting intruders in your private property. It is shooting at targets, defending the country against invasions, and possibly hunting. And there is no notion of a God-given "right to bear arms" there. Rama 10:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

How do you know? Already, you're main point, that ammunition is unavailable, was disproven. Apparently you are mistaken yourself. I have met many swedish shooting enthusiasts over the internet, who many are willing to show pictures and proof of their weapons. There is also very active benchresting and IPSA groups over there. The Swiss have the same ideas americans do, they are to protect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

"Rare outside the US"

Considering that the majority of the world's population live under dictatorships where they not only lack the right to bear firearms, but also most other basic human rights, how was this supposed majority viewpoint determined? A dictatorship establishing a policy for its government is quite different from a democratic vote on the subject, so the state of gun law in dictatorships is no true guide to the actual views of the people living under it.

I have not heard anyone outside the US claim that owning a handgun is a fundamental human right. I must admit that this is confined to UK, France and Italy. I believe that the US concedes that this is a "US only view" in that when they complain about other countries infringing human rights I have never heard them complain about gun control as a rights issue. In fact when Senator Mitchell was mediating in Northern Ireland decommissioning of arms was a major target, not preservation of gun ownership, which I think concedes the view that this is not appropriate in a European country. -- Chris Q 13:17, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's owning a handgun that most Americans claim is the human right, I believe it is the idea of self-defense that we claim is a "fundamental human right." It just so happens that we also believe everyone deserves to have the tools necessary to sometimes excersize that basic human right.The UNeducated 09:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I am removing the "dubious" unless you can provide references to more than a minority asserting gun ownership as a fundamental human right -- Chris Q 13:20, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I would also like to know what the source for this claim is. Considering that the combined population of France, the UK, and Italy is about 180 million, while the population of the world is 6 billion, an impression of opinions in those countries hardly seems like a reasonable source. I'm eventually going to remove the claim from the article unless it has a citation. - Nat Krause 07:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Beliefs of anti-gun individuals

I removed the 'may' and replaced it with 'will' in the section discussing the beliefs of anti-gun individuals; people of anti-gun persuasion do not believe that stricter gun legislation may decrease violent crime, they believe it will decrease violent crime. The belief varies only insofar as the extent of the decrease.

any of this true?

what does this world mean anyhow?


The "Reichswaffengesetz of 1938" would be translated as the "Weapons Act of 1938", a specific federal law passed by the German government in 1938 which reduced certain restrictions on weapons permits. I may not have all the details exactly right but as I understand it, prior to about 1920, there were no federal German laws about weapons possession and only limited local laws. Soldiers returning from service kept their weapons. As an outcome of WWI, Germany was forced to introduce weapons registration and other gun control laws. Over the next two decades, they were made more then less restrictive. The 1938 act is specifically remembered because it reopened gun ownership to all citizens. It should be remembered, however, that most of the Nazi Party's "undesirables" had already been made non-citizens by then. Rossami (talk) 06:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The "Domestic Violence" section is terribly POV.

Whoever wrote that section seems to be pretty intent on promoting Arthur Kellermann. Although most of what he did was questionable, there should at least be some actual counterarguments that are more than just symbolic.

For instance, that author states "However, the risk of domestic violence related homicide found in Kellermann's study cut across all subpopulations including both demographic variables such as race as well as others which might be considered more directly relevant, such as a history of violence, drug or alcohol abuse, or criminal record. Perhaps it is obvious to those in a relationship whether there is risk of domestic violence or not, but the data in the study was not able to make such a distinction."

Kellerman tabulated all deaths from firearms, which included mostly suicides (which would have happened by knife or drug otherwise) but also accidents and murders. The overall death risk (composed mostly of suicide) cut across all subpopulations and demographics including violent history, drug abuse, criminal records, etc. However, the accidental and murder death rates were strongly dependent on violent history, drug/alcohol abuse, and criminal records. Basically, being violent or drunk makes you much more likely to accidentally kill yourself or someone else with a gun, and makes you much more likely to murder someone.

The author states that "The only way this type of study could have found a reduction in risk of homicide from the presence of a gun in the home would have been if the rate of homicidal home invasions was much greater than the rate of domestic violence; however, although domestic violence is actually not well studied, it is universally agreed that it is much more common than home invasion type crimes. In fact, Kellermann also tabulated the change in risk of homicide associated with other, purely defensive, means of protection, e.g. alarm systems, deadbolts, security doors, barred windows, etc., and in each case was able to demonstrate a very small decrease in risk of homicide, which would suggest that the effect of the presence of a firearm on the risk of death by home invasion would be of similar magnitude, much smaller than the additional risk of domestic violence related homicide which was seen."

The problem with this is that Kellerman only included cases of someone breaking in where the homeowner/resident was convicted of murder when shooting someone in self-defense. The data does not include any cases where the shooter was acquitted by means of self-defense (the majority), or cases where a murder conviction was reversed by an appeal on grounds of self-defense (another large proportion, especially women).

The Kellerman study is really so flawed that it should be completely removed. If it should be included anywhere, maybe it should go into gun politics in the US.

Are you at all familiar with the 1993 paper? Because pretty much everything you say is not applicable to that paper. Gzuckier 15:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the poster above to the extent that this section should be moved to the US politics page. The intent of this page is to be a jumping off point to country-specifc pages, and to explain things in an internationally general sense. People keep putting US specific things in here, and I'm tired of it. -O^O
I agree that this article seems very POV in topics covered, wording used, and sentence construction. For example, the last paragraph of "Degrees of Gun Control" through its phrasing and topic choice shows a POV bias towards gun ownership. The whole article needs to be gone over for NPOV. TheDeadlyShoe 05:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Edited this section, and hopefully fixed some of the POV, in moving it more towards NPOV. Yaf 22:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


Gun ownership has nothing to do with anti-dictatorship. Dictators enforce their power with army. Modern fighting machines (armoured vehicles, attack choppers, fighter-bomber planes) are invulnerable to rifle fire. Many armies now can afford to armour even their foot soldiers with high-tech point blank range ceramic vests and channeled kevlar helmets that withstand even a sniper rifle hit and these things are everywhere banned from the population, even in the USA, so citizens are effectively naked in front of an army's firepower.

>>>>Comment: I point out that no army is invincible to the tactics of guerrilla warfare and insurgent sabotage to include sniper fire. If so, the "coalition forces" in Iraq would have virtually zero casualties. Yet US, British, and Tonga! "Coalition Forces" troops have been killed, not only by improvised explosive devices but also by sniper fire. Private gun ownership in the US is estimated to far exceed gun possession in Iraq. Yet even in 2006, Yankee troops ARE vulnerable to sniper fire, because the Yanks are unwilling and unable to properly equip soldiers with proper body armor, despite a multi-BILLION dollar defence budget. Gimme' a break mate!

Somebody's been reading too many scary newspaper headlines. Rifle fire from any modern rifle cartridge (post-1888 or so, when armies started adopting spitzer-style, small-caliber projectiles) will easily punch holes through modern soft body armor at practical engagement ranges. Easily. Every Time. Don't believe me? Buy a used kevlar vest from ebay, go to a shooting range, and shoot it full of holes.
And about that body armor... I can only relate what I heard from my buddy, who was in the sandpit from March 2003 through the middle of 2004. They all have body armor of whatever type is normal for their specialty, but none of them wear it (except for their 'lids') because it is so damn hot. Are they equipped with the absolute best in every case? Absolutely not. Are they the best-armed and best-armored forces ever deployed? You betcha.Wesbo 02:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

>>>>>How much body armor do the military officers and Iraqi police wear? Remember that during the US Revolutionary War, most Yankees throughout the original thirteen colonies were, by nature and necessity of wilderness survival reality, expert marksmen by today's standards. Accordingly they used the downfield range of the longrifle to snipe British officers, a favourite target of the Patriot. This created a vacum in the leadership and discipline of the British Army. It's no wonder that General Washington was able to use the element of suprise in Trenton, New Jersey on a cold, unprepared morning for the Redcoats.

>>>>>While weapons of any sort can always be commandeered from the enemy, the use of firearms in such Geurrilla warfare tactics, or to repel outside invaders, should not be discounted by a serious Political Scientist or Military Historian.

So you citizen would need destructive weapons (RPG-7, Stinger, 20mm destroying rifle) to be able to stand up with any little chance. Those are banned everywhere, even in the USA and also mostly too complex to use effectively without training and lotsa practice. Face it yankee, you are also at the mercy of your gov't. WACO broke up like a box of matchsticks when the Abrams CEV drove into it.

>>>>Remember also that the US is a large country with many thousands of miles of coastline and borders that one could argue are incapable of being fully secured even by the full strength of its own military. Thus there is always the possibility, the check and balance, of resistance fighters in an insurgent revolution bringing in such "destructive weapons" from outside to overthrow an abusive government. In regards to "training and lotsa practice," the very premise of your argument assumes that none of the resistance Patriots would have any military or paramilitary experience to train fellow insurgents. You are also assuming that the each state's National Guard units, (the California National Guard, the Texas National Guard, the Oregon National Guard, etc.), would lay down like a two buck fuck in the face of a presidential coup. For those unfamilar with our Constitution, the National Gaurd units are NOT under the direct command of Curious George/President Dubya, they answer to the State Governors. Remember, we do have blue state governors here, and for an totalitarian Democrat President, we have the balancing power of the many expert marksmen in the red states. Let me just take this moment to thank all you good Brits for the Magna Carta, a precursor to our Bill of Rights.

I do not know where the poster of the above comes from (probably no the USA, considering the spelling), but I would like to point out for him that the "Yankees" are typically American from the Northen States of the USA; they are the enemies of the stereotypical illiterate Texan gun-nut that this post suggests. Also, a little bit more politeness might not be unwelcome.
Outside the USA, every white american is called a "yankee" (or "gringo" in the spanish-portugese speaking sphere). People do not care about Texans and/or Big Apple resident or the four dozen states of the USA, because from outside the USA is seen as the big evil empire, regarless of its internal structure.
Yes, but this is regretable. One cannot both complain about the supposed ignorance and lack of subtelty of the USA and display such poor knowledge. Furthermore, the "big evil empire" suggest a strong interest in the USA; either one sees them as an enemy (then "know thy enemy"), either as a country where hostile political forces should be replaced by more friendly, moderate, educated or "liberal" (in US parlance) ones. Grouping all in one big bag is a way to alienate everyone, and is a sure way to make a cause unsalvageable. Rama 12:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
As for the rest, I would like to add that in addition to the means cited above, a repressive State can also use coercitive measures of a terrorist nature, like burning entire villages, or taking the families of the resistants hostage. See how the USA are proceeding in Iraq, for recent examples of relatively "soft" repression (more tactics against which a handgun or even riffle is not of much use). Rama 13:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

". Many armies now can afford to armour even their foot soldiers with high-tech point blank range ceramic vests and channeled kevlar helmets that withstand even a sniper rifle hit and these things are everywhere banned from the population, even in the USA" Not true. Body armor is legal for civilians in the US. Besides, this is meant to discuss the article on gun politics, not to actually discuss gun politics. -- 01:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussing the orientation of the article, like this, is perfectly valid.
I do not know whether armour are available to civilians, but I have elements of information that suggest that armour-piercing ammunition is not, while available to the military.
Furthermore, an armour will do little good against an army ready to use families or whole villages as hostages. Rama 06:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
most standard 'deer rifle' rounds have sufficient power to penetrate nearly all body armor. the question of whether our armed populace could repel the full force and fury of our own military is essentially pointless. far too many unknown variables exist to predict what might or might not happen. it makes for interesting fantasy and fiction, but fact enters little into such speculations. the fact that our populace is armed provides an incentive for those who would wish to take power undemocratically to think twice, thrice, before doing so. that we have the oldest continuous free federal republic on earth speaks in some respects to just that. Anastrophe 07:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


I just reversed what surely was a staged vandalism attempt by I hope I didn't accidently cut out anyone's content. Matt 05:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Can a source be found for this...? + An idea

Some oppose registration of guns or licensing of gun owners because if captured, the associated records would provide military invaders with the locations and identities gun owners, simplifying elimination of law-abiding (i.e. patriotic) resistance fighters. Location and capture of such records is a standard doctrine taught to military intelligence officers.

The last sentence there stands out to me as something that needs verification.

Also, wouldn't a table of countries with the respective legal stance of each on firearms of various sorts (total ban, licensing, club use only / semi-automatic rifle, handgun, et cetera) be a good idea?

- Aaron 03:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It is actually a federal regulation that in the event of invasion, arms dealers are supposed to destroy all records of arms sales. I'm sure that it came up during congressional testimony. Kade 03:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
could very well be. but it's still not a source. not yet at least, until someone can find an actual citation. Anastrophe 07:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Self Defense

Why does this section talk about two very pro-gun advocates and their arguments, but not anti-gun advocates and their arguments? It seems somewhat biased.

Possibly because this is a weak point in anti-gun advocacy, as many people can at least understand the concept of defending your home from intruders. Generally, in my experience, anti-gun rhetoric tends to focus on passion crimes and accidental death and injury from firearms. If you can find a source for an anti-gun advocate talking about this issue, please add it to the article, or quote it here and someone else may add it. Please note that I am not trying to marginalise your concern here, as I can think of a few useful anti-gun arguments in this section, but I am not a quotable source ;)

Swimming pool analogy

As we have reached the 3 reverts, lets vote on the inclusion of this analogy. I have put it back for now, but will accept whatever the majority feels as to whether it should or should not be here. I think it should be here. Yaf 19:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings either way. My revert was largely procedural. Deletion of content without any comment either in the edit summary or on the Talk page is a very common characteristic of vandalism. This particular article draws strong feelings and has been often vandalized in the past. Maybe I'm set to a hairtrigger (excuse the pun) but without any comment or explanation, the deletion by the anonymous editor did not appear to be a good-faith edit. Rossami (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
A quick check on google shows the swimming pool argument being used fairly often. As the point of the section is to list arguments, it should stay. And yes I also agree with the revert based solely on the user being anon and not giving reasons. keith 23:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Degrees of gun legislation edit: Lord is it bad, here is why, and a beginning of fixes

I believe the closing paragraph of "degrees of gun legislation" contains biased wording (first half of post) and is unclear (second half). If you disagree with my final posting, or feel that it says nothing of any note, please explain why before modifying or deleting it.

ORIGINAL: There is the reasonable perception that firearms registration - by making it easier for government officers to target gun owners for harassment and confiscation - constitutes an easily exploited encroachment upon the personal privacy and the property rights of the private citizen. Gun control advocates excuse the intrusive imposition of a registration requirement by arguing that it is merely a reasonable precaution similar to the registration of privately-owned motor vehicles—the primary counterpoint being vehicle ownership's lack of explicit Constitutional protection.

Biased word choice:

In the first sentence "reasonable" is used in place of good. Without it, the meaning is identical and the word has a positive connotation, hence it unnecessarily biases the argument. I am removing it. To improve sentence flow I replace "there is the perception" with "many gun control advocates argue." Similarly

In the second sentence, "excuse the intrusive imposition of a registration requirement by arguing that it is merely a reasonable precaution..." contains a multitude of unnecessary adjectives which similarly serve only to bias the statement. They are "intrusive" (this is a belief about the imposition reflecting the other's opinion, I am removing it) "imposition" (this word has a negative connotation compared with a neutral term like requirement, which three words later refers to the exact same legal restriction, this is cut due to redundancy and bias), merely (this is unnecessary and makes the advocates sound like they have some terrible thing that needs to be minimized and shrunken so as not to be noticed), and "reasonable" (this is actually pro-gun control, but still unnecessarily biased). The result is a bit drab, but at least more neutral.

At this point, I believe it is well established that this is a strongly biased paragraph based solely on diction.

Argument structure and meaning (what is the meaning?)

The middle phrase in "[gun registration]-by making it easier for government officers to target gun owners for harassment and confiscation- constitutes an...encroachment upon...privacy and property rights" simply doesn't seem cogent.

I interpret this as "gun registration is (is stems from "constitutes") a violation of (this stems from "encroachment upon") privacy and property rights because it makes it easier for government officers to target gun owners for harassment and confiscation". How can making it easier to violate someone's rights (the violaters being law officers) itself constitute a violation of someone's rights. I believe that if one were to argue for violation of rights through gun registration, the argument for property rights would be that the gun is one's own, and thus the government doesn't have a right to make you register it (pursuit of property). The privacy argument seems obvious.

A second interpretation would be that "encroachment upon" in fact means that rights are not being violated, but that they are almost being violated. How can you almost violate someone's rights? Either they are being violated, or not. Gray area cases for rights violation must be decided as falling into one category or the other (thus the important but fine line between torture and interrogation), but being upset that rights are almost being violated just isn't a human rights-based argument.

Final edit:

Many gun control advocates (should be opponents) argue that firearms registration constitutes an easily exploited encroachment upon the personal privacy and the property rights of the private citizen. Gun control advocates counter that this precaution is no more a violation of rights than registration of privately-owned motor vehicles. Further debate in U.S. politics often degenerates into whether or not gun registration is a violation of the second amendment, which if accepted makes the violation of privacy and property rights moot.

This makes no sense. "Many gun control advocates argue that firearms registration constitutes an easily exploited encroachment upon the personal privacy and the property rights of the private citizen. Gun control advocates counter that this precaution is no more a violation of rights than registration of privately-owned motor vehicles. Further debate in U.S. politics often degenerates into whether or not gun registration is a violation of the second amendment, which if accepted makes the violation of privacy and property rights moot." A balance is needed, and this doesn't have it, in addition to not making sense, at least to me. I reverted to an earlier version, for now. Yaf 01:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, there was a clear naming error (it is in bold). Please explain why this doesn't make sense. Which part of the statement is unclear?

Also, why is there a lack of balance? This is a point (this violates rights) counterpoint (not in way that hasn't been done before) format. I thought that was generally accepted, but I may be wrong. Please explain why, rather than stating it as though it were an obvious fact (it is not obvious to me). After review I notice that the latter argument is perhaps obvious, and could be cut.

Re-Edit (re-interpreting argument): Many gun control opponents (changed from advocates) argue that firearms registration constitutes an easily exploited violation of the personal privacy and the property rights of the private citizen. Gun control advocates counter that this precaution is no more a violation of rights than registration of privately-owned motor vehicles. Further debate in U.S. politics often degenerates into whether or not gun registration is a violation of the second amendment, which if accepted makes the violation of privacy and property rights moot.

Lastly, after review, perhaps this is not the point the original author was trying to make? The encroachment argument doesn't seem substantive (what is an encroachment on rights, exactly, and why is it always bad? couldn't interrogation be good even though it is almost inhumane) but perhaps it is a commonly held point.

LATEST REVISION (simply removing poor language from original post): There is the perception that firearms registration - by making it easier for government officers to target gun owners for harassment and confiscation - constitutes for an easily exploited encroachment upon individual personal privacy and the property rights. Gun control advocates argue that it is a precaution similar to the registration of privately-owned motor vehicles—the primary counterpoint being vehicle ownership's lack of Constitutional protection.

I took out the analogy to car registration. You are perfectly entitled to own all the motor vehicles you want as long as you don't drive them on public roads. Even then, certain states have exceptions for farm vehicles, etc. Just seems like the edits could end up going down a rathole...Wesbo 02:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your reason for pulling it out. The fact that the analogy is flawed is irrelevant. The fact is that some gun control advocates do make that argument. It would, of course, be equally appropriate to present your counter-argument (as long as someone else said it first). Having said that, I'm not sure that either the argument or counter-argument are significantly notable to be included in this article. Rossami (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Complete lack of balance

why is this page so bias in favor of the pro gun advocates? Are there only pro gun websites ? where are the anti gun links?

That's an easy accusation to make. Please defend it with some specific references to sections you consider biased. (Or even better, fix it.) Note that many of us have worked hard to make sure that this page does represent a Neutral Point of View. To answer your specific question, how did you overlook the section of links titled Gun politics#Pro gun control? Rossami (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well my bad, i actually didnt see the pro gun control websites. But anyhow, there are only 9 links to pro gun control websites and 12 links to pro gun websites. Also, there are only 5 pro gun control arguments and 8 pro guns arguments under the column of Summary o Positions.

Revised Summary of positions

The former summary of positions for this article was a blatant strawman written and maintained by people with blatant POV agenda. I revised it to eliminate anything that has no direct bearing to the issue of gun politics, and which are also carefully worded to impugn "the other side" (ie. "Pro-gun-rights believes in the right to self-defense"). Also, got rid of "positions" that no real gun-control group has ever claimed (ie. "It's only the government's role to protect citizens...") J.R. Hercules 22:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As for "second amendment rights"-bit believed by pro-gun-control groups, I've seen arguments basically saying that "a well-regulated Militia" does not refer to everyday people, thereby arguing that the 2nd Amendment does not grant arbitrary individual citizens a right of gun ownership. I don't assert the correctness of this belief, but I think it's misleading to claim that "Those [in the US] who favor greater restrictions on firearm ownership and availability believe [... that o]wning firearms is a Second Amendment right; [...]" as they don't all do. —Gabbe 01:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I've seen something like those arguments, too. But mostly by anonymous people on the internet, on Usenet-type groups, not in "real life" as expressed by gun-control groups, or by politicians who sponsor gun-control legislations. For instance, I own two rifles, but there are some gun-control laws I wholeheartedly approve of that most NRA-type people definitely don't approve of. And yet, I don't agree with the "2nd amend only refers to the militia" thing. I know a lot of other people who feel the same way. As a matter of fact, there's a lot of people in those Brady-type organizations who are also gun owners. They're just not NRA members. J.R. Hercules 01:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
But it's not just "people on the Internet". In an episode of The West Wing, Toby mentions that "The words regulated and militia are in the first sentence. I dont think the Framers were thinking of three guys in a Dodge Durango." The Collective Rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, while not widely held, doesn't seem to be idiosyncratic or eccentric if you ask me. In fact, an ABC poll conducted in 2002 found that 20% of Americans believe that the Second Amendment "only guarantees the right of states to maintain militias". —Gabbe 02:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverted to the older version, largely, while also including some of the new additions that were not POV or US-centric. Views that are US-centric should not be here. Instead, they should likely go to the 2nd Amendment or US Constitution articles, where I think they are largely already covered. This article is a generic article that addresses widely-held views that cross many countries.

Also, when referring to a gun rights position, we should use gun rights not anti-gun control, for anti-gun control is a POV descriptor label. Likewise, when referring to a gun control position, we should use gun control, not anti-gun rights position. To do otherwise is clearly POV. Let's respect both sides, and permit them to have their own positively-framed self-descriptions. Let's not belittle one side's position by labeling them with a clearly POV moniker that goes to support the opposing side's position. Yaf 03:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to mention one other point. There have been numerous court cases whereby the ruling has been that a Government has the responsibility to protect the populace at large, but is not required to protect any specific individual. This goes back to English Common Law, and is the usual way by which police that, for whatever reason, don't prevent a crime are not themselves held criminally-liable. If we need to cite specific court cases, OK. But, the point of this section is to simply state the positions held by both sides, not to impugn one side with POV edits, OK? Yaf 03:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe hostility towards US-specific information makes for a better encyclopedia. None of the arguments may apply to every single human on the planet, but if they have wide use they belong. And the US is a pretty wide country. keith 07:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC) p.s. on another point, how much thought did the framers give to abortion?

Pro Gun "Control"?

I really have a problem with the use of that term. The word "control" in this context [1] can often be vague. For example, when a Pro Gun Rights person says he or she is for gun control, he or she is usually referring to the actual handling of the gun. When a Pro Gun Restrictions says he's for gun control, he usually means he's for government-mandated restrictions on access to guns.

I would suggest changing the title of that section from "Pro Gun Control" to "Pro Gun Restrictions," just to clear up any confusion the reader may have.

I doubt that that ambiguity really exists in a policy debate. I for one have never seen it outside the context of a joke.