Jump to content

Talk:Overview of gun laws by nation/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

Gun Politics in other European countries

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

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

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

Gun control article

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

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

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

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

NPOV tag

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

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

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

The obvious reply is that the arguments don't have to make sense to you. Our mission in the encyclopedia article is to document the debate. It is sufficient if some significant portion of participants in this social debate make those claims about "Security against tyranny and invasion". The truth of those claims must be decided outside of Wikipedia. But if you really do believe that portions of this article violate our rules for maintaining a neutral point of view, I strongly urge you to fix it yourself. Then politely defend your edits here if someone challenges them. Rossami (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
"Security against tyranny"? Isn't that a bit of a euphemism for "breaking the law" and/or "rebellion"? It's theft of the opposite argument. You can't really argue that people should have guns so that they can shoot cops. Carbon Copy Man 06:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, lots of people do make that argument. In fact, at various points in his career, Thomas Jefferson was a vocal advocate of the position that the government could not be trusted and that an armed populace was the appropriate control to prevent the police from overreaching. Yes, that is a direct advocation for "rebellion" which is always interpreted as "breaking the law" by those in power.
Again, whether you or I believe in those arguments is irrelevant. Our purpose in this article is to document the debate. Rossami (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Assertions in this article are lacking citation. I am of the mind to move a general "bull pit" of for-and-against debate on the issues to a sort of "Talking Points" page, so that this can actually remain articular content. --Petercorless 11:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the article

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

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

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

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

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

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


You know what I think of people who *REMOVE* innacurate data ? I think they are complete loser idiots. why dont they just FIX the data ? yep, wikipedia "revert crew" is full of people who are far better at pressing revert then actually getting their facts right.

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

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

So you say guns can't "prevent" crime because they have no "moral compass", and then assert that they "kill" x people per year (apparently with the aid of that moral compass that they don't have). You hand the responsibility of actions back and forth between the tool and the user as it suits you. 74.227.245.79 05:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Will
It also has all possible anti-gun arguments on the page even when they make no logical sense. Our purpose is not to answer the question about gun control but to document the debate. If you think the page has a problem, fix it. But be prepared to politely defend your edits with logic and citations. What we do not need is more empty rhetoric whether from the pro- or the anti-gun lobbies. Rossami (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
And both sides, yours incuded just as is his, have to be open-minded and willing to change, and be willing to aceept if the other side's position turns out to be more logical. PS. it is your opinion that the arguments make no logical sense. Not everyone sees it that way (Hey!!! If they did, there would be no debate! Eh?). 170.215.91.131 00:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I should point out that in the time and effort it takes to complain that the "guns killed 30000 people" statement is biased, it should be possible to edit the statement to fix that. Gzuckier 15:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to counter the little "factoid" that 30,000+ people are killed by guns a year. 400,000+ people die from smoking alone annually. Guns, when used properly, do not kill unless in self-defense. Smoking will kill more of its users when used. The reason it is "pro-gun" is because it has stronger arguments and does not rely on emotional, unfounded ideas. The Holocaust was possible because minorities were stripped of their rights to own weapons, the peasants of ancient Japan were kept in order (notice a lot of martial art weapons are actually farming tools? Wonder why....), and 15 million Armenians were slaughtered like unarmed dogs. Please try to counter this. These are not "nut job" arguments. They are completely true. The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was possible because the people smuggled weapons in. Just because one side is better equipped (Pro-Gun in this case) doesn't make it biased. Try making Evolution's authority on the same (lower) level as ID and Creationism.
You still have not refuted the "factoid" itself (ie, showing that 30,000+ do NOT die each year from guns), instead you've just shown that it might not be as significant as one thinks, however I don't know if you are trying to refute the factoid (that's how I interpreted "counter") or just trying to put it in context. Could you clarify? PS. just in case your curious, my opinion on guns is that they can be allowed, but the person with the gun has a moral and legal responsibility not to use it for any sort of wrongdoing. Some controls may be acceptable, but not all. Not that I'd bias the article to reflect it, just voicing it. 170.215.91.131 00:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
According to the FBI [1], there were 16,692 murders in the US in 2005. Even if all of them were caused by guns, that's only half way there, and much closer to 9000 than to 30,000. However, according to the FBI [2], firearms only accounted for about 2/3 of the murders. So let's say just over 10,000 people are murdered with guns each year.Izuko 14:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Gun control activists try to whine about how "biased" we are but in reality, guns are portrayed as these supernatural creatures that will leap up and attack you if you don't behave around them. Just because your side loses constantly against us doesn't mean we have an obligation to ko-tow to your wishes.
Further, a lot of unfounded hype has been around guns in the past decades. The Glock pistol was said to bypass metal detectors and x-ray machines (FALSE!), Barrett .50 BMG sniper rifles were said to be used to down airborne jets (FALSE!), and the S&W Model 500 was said to be a vest-buster (FALSE!) and was being used by street gangs (FALSE!) and that it was "too-heavy" for hunting (once again, FALSE!). So please, try to bear in mind it is only "pro-gun bias" because those arguments are presented and appear more logical to the unindoctrinated. QED- User:Mac428
It's not a forum? To me, this has less to do with Wikipedia being or not being a forum and more about the neutrality of the article itself. 170.215.91.131 23:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
i wish this was a forum i know how to add a comment to one of those but that aside why not list how many murders, accidents, violent crimes prevented, lives saved and deaths by illegal firearms for multiple countrys i doubt anyone keeps track of some of those issues but if they do it seems like a valid thing to have in the artical--Ggohtrin 01:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

WHY DONT FACTS ABOUT GUNS REMAIN ON THIS PAGE??

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

The fact is that people are killed every year by other people, and have been killed by other people for the entire existence of man. We just kill each other with guns, as opposed to swords, or rocks, etc. Write the fact that people die by guns a lot in the MURDER article. This is about Gun Politics, and should remain objectively so (tho it is currently far from it). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.215.81 (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

When you say "The anti gun position should be allowed to be stated in its strongest most persuasive manner, and ... [the] pro gun people can then attempt to refute this argument", I'm afraid that you are fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of this article and seriously misunderstanding Wikipedia's mission. We have an obligation to present issues in as close to a neutral point of view as is humanly possible. We can not favor one side or the other in such a controversial issue. You clearly feel passionately about this issue. Remember that other rational and informed people feel equally passionately about their opposing beliefs. Our mission is to document the debate, not to impose one side or the other's solution.
As Yaf has said (politely) above, the edits you keep making to the page are being reverted either because they are unsourced or because they appear to be logically inconsistent and therefore need to be more thoroughly analyzed before adding them into the article. Rossami (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It is a fact that 30 thousand plus people are killed by guns in the USA each year. This is cited, sourced and an undisputable fact. I have no problem with the pro gun people placing their best argument on this page. The serious problem is that the anti gun argument is not being expressed. The proof is that there is no discussion of the number of dead people killed by guns and the obvious implications that flow from this fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.12.208.181 (talk • contribs) .
You're going to have to make a better case for that statement. In particular, I would challenge whether there are any "obvious implications" that can flow from a single datapoint even if properly sourced. For comparison, according to the National Safety Council, US motor vehicle deaths rose to 47,200 in 2005 (up about 2%). Does that mean that cars are more dangerous than guns? That they should be more tightly regulated? That they should be prohibited? Or is it an indication of a long-term underinvestment in roads and road-safety? Or just that we drove more last year? I'm not trying to be facetious but I am trying to illustrate the point that without a great deal more understanding and analysis into the factors behind that datapoint, there's not much that really is immediately obvious.
If you think you can improve the statements of the pro-gun control sections of this article, please do so. But remember that the addition of apparently irrelevant facts will not do what you intend. Rossami (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
OK. Then write the discussion and add it. But remember, we are not to do original research on Wikipedia. Instead, we are to find substantiated and verifiable facts. Find a reference, take a quote from it, cite it, and insert it, to make whatever point you wish to make, in the places where you feel these points are needed. Making unsubstantiated statements without citations is regarded as POV (point of view) editorializing in violation of the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy which we all strive to reach in our articles, and will generally result in someone deleting your input. As I said before, you no doubt have some very good points, and you obviously strongly feel that these points need to be made. Fine. However, your numbers just were not self-consistent, leading to a loss of credibility. A little more research (not original) of what has been published should enable you to accomplish your goals and improve the NPOV of the article. Also, please sign your discussions, by typing 4 tildes in a row at the end of your discussion inputs -- it helps keep straight who is making what statement. Yaf 06:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

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

This is obviously a false dilemma. Another route could be to point out that the "gun ban" position assumes that a ban would work... because Prohibition was so effective! Well, umm errm it was... right?
And if you would like use a statistical (i.e. utilitarian) argument, studies such as Kleck point to a large number of defensive gun uses. Even if a ban were 100% effective, or otherwise equally effective on both law abiders and criminals, these would be removed too. Given that, the "morally reprehensible side effects" argument you allude to is not so difficult anymore is it?
As for the elasticity of the causative agents of death, you may want to consider the fact that a country with almost no guns (Japan) has one of the world's highest suicide rates, one which is higher than the most gun happy country in the First World. Ur Wurst Enema 05:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Great article!

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

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

Too US specific

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

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

ManicParroT 02:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge Gun law to here

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

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

Cleanup request

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

Japan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both sides

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

I think you should either (a) make a FEW edits to the page to improve it as you think it should be, and see what kind of reaction you get, or (b) point out, on this page, SPECIFIC cases in the past where someone removed or reverted text that you think should be in the article, so a discussion can follow. Thanks. (And please note Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. John Broughton | Talk 13:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
"some pro-gun-control statements like 'Automatic weapons are not appropriate for civilian use', which I would have thought was a valid point, is deleted!"
I'd suggest you go forth to the internet and find a notable source (not a blog or a Wikipedia entry) that says "Automatic weapons are not appropriate for civilian use" and _explains_why_. It may sound to you like a plainly true, common-sense statement, but very many people disagree with it, and "common sense" is never reason enough to include an unsupported argument in an encyclopedia. Once you find that source, drop the statement right into the article. It's certainly relevant to the conversation.  :) 216.52.69.217 19:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi IP216, insighful comments like yours go a long way towards restoring my faith in Anon editors. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Detriot Pistol Ban?

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

You appear to be correct; the "virtual prohibition" appears to be, in actuality, mandatory sentences for conviction on illegal weapons charges. That whole point in the article is, not to be too POV, crap; between your point re detroit, the added note re the bizarre averaging of unlike numbers to "prove a point", and the deliberate ignoring of the fact that the bigger cities would be expected to have a bigger percentage of the nation's everything, nothing in that line can be salvaged. Gzuckier 15:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I restored it because in fact, that list is cited from the NCPA, so it shouldn't be selectively quoted, instead I (or somebody) will have to somehow add an addendum regarding its crapitude, without being POV. Gzuckier 15:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Merge notice

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

Guns are evil?

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

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

ManicParroT 01:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

but seriously folks

How does

In 2002, 1,202 women were killed by their intimate partners, accounting for 30% of all murders of women and of that 1,202, 58% were killed by intimate partners using guns. WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports
In 2002, 700 women were killed by intimates using guns compared to 175 men. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Homicide Trends in the U.S.: Intimate Homicide

support in any way the assertion

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

?

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

You might as well suggest that

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

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


Hey, the gun lobby use any good loooking argument to support their side, what do you expect ???203.82.183.148 11:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Problems with statistics

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

We should make this into an article

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

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

Who thought it was a good idea...?

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

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

So educate us on how the concepts are different. In all the usage with which I am familiar, "gun rights" are the obverse of "gun control" - opposing sides of the same debate, that is, the debate about the proper degree to which private citizens can or will be trusted with weapons. What aspects of "gun politics" exist beyond that fairly sweeping debate?
By the way, this name was selected as more neutral than either "gun rights" or "gun control". Versions of this article have previously existed at both those names and neither was effective at documenting the debate. Rossami (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
This page has hijacked the namespace for "Gun Control" and "Gun rights" and thusly, it is somewhat broken in not allowing a more natural dialogue to develop. It would be like forcing all political ideologies on a single page, called "Politics," rather than to allow one page for democracy, another for monarchy, etc. Would you want "Democrat" and "Republican" to both resolve to the page for "Political Party"? Having obverse definitions on the same page -- with no separate page on "gun control" versus a separate page for "gun rights" -- making it all "gun politics" -- makes everything a murky grey. And makes the page really long. Furthermore, the definition of "gun politics" on this page is utterly simplified and banal to the point of narrow-mindedness. Rather than simply an issue of personal ownership, gun politics has a broader application and includes issues of organization of such politics, issues of law enforcement, the legal basis of armament of police and defense forces by local, national and international law versus civil ownership, issues of national sovereignty, commercial, industrial and manufacturing, issues of licensing and commercial production, i.e., "Arms Manufacturing Rights" ... all of these are "gun politics" and are not necessarily focused on personal civil ownerships rights or controls. By forcing all the arguments on one huge page, and making the page focused solely on individual rights or restrictions, then loading in all arguments both pro and con -- it makes the page become, as you can see, no more than a long list of bullet points, aphorisms, generalizations, and arguments without citations. My recommendation is to have "Gun Politics" be a parent page. Then have "Gun Rights" be on one page where it can be focused solely on arguments that are not hijacked by opposing viewpoints, "Gun Control" be on another page where it can clearly show its arguments, "Arms Trafficking" already has a page, and I created one for SALW. There can even be a page for "Debate over Gun Ownership" if you want to have tables of pros and cons on alternating columns. --Petercorless 08:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree - being led here from "Gun control" to find a pro-gun page which is not at all non-biased cconcerning gun-control. This article seems to be "broken in argument", meaning in tight control by people who enforce their opinion via regular edits, thus also upping their edit count and their self-assumed importance. --Gwyndon 18:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

AHSA is not a pro-gun rights organization.

Article by Cam Edwards from townhall.com [6]

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

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

Just edited the paragraph about Japan...

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

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


Something has to be valid

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

POV

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

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

Proposed: Separate pages for groups?

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

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

Proposed: Gun Politics Template?

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

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

Since it's been about 2 weeks and no one has raised any objections, I've gone ahead and done this change. If there are any more interational groups with articles they should be added. (Actually, if the list grows much more, we might want to fork out an article List of gun organizations.) Mangojuicetalk 15:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for pruning the list. I think you did a great job. I suspect that the list will grow again. When it does, we should prune it again, not create another "list of" page. (On the other hand, if there are that many gun organizations with Wikipedia articles, perhaps that could be made a category and a link to the category added to this page.) Again, thanks. Rossami (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Iraqi Gun Ownership

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

That comment was removed from the article for exactly that reason. It keeps being added by an anonymous editor who has refused so far to explain or defend the edit. I have (again) reverted the edit. Rossami (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright, so in the future if I see it I'll remove it.--LWF 13:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

I have (again) removed the reference to the Iraqi situation because the citation offered is 1) not a reliable source and 2) does not support the claims actually being made. Your argument above is better and might actually support the claim except that the Dujail Massacre wasn't "genocide" (which is what the edit claimed).
Your concerns about the DC claim are only relevant if you can show that the DC homicide rate fell during those first ten years when the national average rose (or at least fell at a lower rate). The claim made in the current version is a differential claim. Just saying that DC's rate fell in the first 10 years is a data point without a control. It fails to allow for the probability that many other factors simultaneously affect homicide rates. Rossami (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It is funny that you ask for controls only from others but dare suggest ridiculous comparisons which lack any and all justification and are pure and utter junk statistics as "differential claims". --84.61.118.44 15:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

NCPA statistics

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


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

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

That was my whole point. Either post stats from pro gun control organizations, or remove it all together. Lynch04 00:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have those numbers handy. I'm sure you can find them. It's been a while since I looked at the numbers seriously; at that time (1980s) it seemed to me that there were three parts of the country that had high places of firearms murder: the Old South, metro areas of population >one million, and those that had very strict firearms laws. DC, having all three, had a soaring firearms murder rate. htom 03:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Summary of position items needing attribution.

Per WP:ATT#How_to_cite_and_request_a_source, moving items to talk page and requesting attribution.

Pro-regulation items:

  • There is no fundamental right to own firearms. ([9][10] Individual verses collective?)
  • Guns represent a more effective method of killing than other varieties of weapons, and their elimination would lower rates of death and injury. ([11] Point 6.)
  • Gun control legislation reduces violent crime. ([12])
  • Most gun related deaths are a result of domestic violence, accidents, and suicides; thus, guns are more dangerous to the owners than to intended targets. ([13][14][15])
  • In incidents where a hostile encounter with an armed criminal occurs, the criminal is often more experienced and skilled with his/her weapon; also, criminals may act in groups. Thus, guns are of little use as self defense for the typical owner and increase the danger to his/her life. ([16])
  • The presence of a gun serves more often to escalate the likelihood and/or severity of violence. ([17] "Don't blame the guns. Guns don't kill people; people kill people.")
  • Citizens have no need to own guns to protect themselves against crime because government is tasked with that obligation and is generally capable at carrying it out.
  • Citizens need to protect themselves against crime, but owning firearms is not a good way to accomplish this, because most crimes are not homicides. Defending oneself with a firearm in such situations increases the likelihood of a deadly confrontation. ([18] "Don't blame the guns. Guns don't kill people; people kill people." Covered in point 6)
  • Citizens of First World countries today have no need to protect themselves against their governments if they vigilantly confront government malfeasance before violence is necessary. Moreover, even if such a need should arise, it would be hopeless to take up individual small arms against the modern military that a government would bring to bear.
  • Guns, being devices designed to kill, raise the level of violence in any disagreement between people. ([19] "Don't blame the guns. Guns don't kill people; people kill people.")
  • Gun control, properly and judiciously applied, lessens (though cannot eradicate) the possibility that criminals will obtain firearms. ([20] Already above at point 3)
  • Carrying a gun in a civilized society is disturbing to the unarmed.
  • If there were no firearms, there would be no deaths caused by firearms. (Bah. This is common sense. Does it really need attribution?)

Pro-gun rights items:

  • Owning firearms is a fundamental right (In the United States, for example, the Second Amendment, the second right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.") ([21])
  • Police cannot be everywhere at all times: An attack would be over long before the police could respond to an emergency call and so guns provide protection that the police could not. ([22])
  • Guns are great "equalizers" against stronger, and/or more numerous opponents. ([23] [24] Second to last paragraph)
  • Equipping to defend against criminals or animals is a right. ([25])
  • Equipping for subsistence and survival is a right, and firearms represent a legitimate means of hunting or harvesting animals for food.
  • Government should not be empowered to interfere with an individual's right to own firearms as long as the individual is not harming or intimidating fellow citizens.
  • Guns in the homes of the law-abiding populace reduce the occurrence of burglary and home invasion crimes.
  • Family, public health and insurance actuarial death statistics demonstrate that the risk of responsibly owning a gun is negligible compared to other typical hazards, e.g., bathtubs and swimming pools, automobiles, bicycles, suffocation hazards, and ingestible poisons.
  • An armed populace decreases the overall occurrence of violent crime; widespread ownership and discreet carry of handguns by the law-abiding advances civilization by deterring assault, bullying, mayhem, robbery, rape, and murder.
  • Gun control legislation has a disproportionate effect on the freedoms of the law-abiding as criminals are willing to break the law to acquire, possess, and use guns.
  • Carrying a firearm provides the means to make one's self safer and is an exercise of the inalienable human right of self defense.
  • An armed populace is a deterrent to the excesses of government; the threat of violent revolution, or "coup d'état", by the people is a check and balance against an abusive totalitarian government.
  • Existing gun laws are sufficient if governments are able and willing to enforce them.
  • Criminals are less likely to attack a target who they think may be armed with a gun.
  • The tendency to blame violence in Mexico and Canada on American gun owners represents mere political rhetoric rather than a position with an empirical basis.
  • Women are particularly at risk from violence and require access to guns as a means of self defense from stronger men. Guns are an easily handled and controlled tool of equalizing force. Supporters of gun rights claim more gun control leads to higher rates of rape and sexual assault.
  • "Guns don't kill people; people kill people."
  • The inaccessibility of guns will not deter all criminals from violent crime; they may merely find different (and possibly messier and more painful) methods of harming others.
  • A total "war on drugs" has been utterly incapable of stopping the flow of drugs into the U.S. and other countries; to argue that a "war on guns" would be any more successful is logically absurd.
  • If a criminal is unsure who is carrying a firearm, they will be more selective and even choose a crime that doesn't involve direct confrontation due to their fear of getting injured or killed.
  • People are more likely to commit suicide with medications and poisons than with any type of firearm
  • If suicidal people cannot gain access to a firearm, most will just find another method to kill themselves. This is verified through studies which clearly show no change in suicide rates due to gun restrictions; people intent on killing themselves simply substitute a different method.
  • Firearms are simply tools; to ban them makes as much sense as banning cars, knives, or bathtubs, which can also be used to kill.
  • There is no connection between violent gun crime and private gun ownership. ([26] Point 2.)
  • No pro-gun control "studies" have ever withstood serious peer review; they rely heavily on information taken out of context - essentially, "lies of omission" ([27])
  • Gun control is an enabler of genocide; every instance of genocide in modern history without any exception has been proceeded by restrictions or outright elimination of private gun ownership. ([28])
I just added a bunch above. Out of time for tonight though. I think I did ok, but some may not be completely suitable. I'll try to add more when I have more time. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 00:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Please be sure to adhere to this policy to avoid questionable sources. BruceHallman 06:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
From WP:ATT: "A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves."

Let us all remember and agree that we are writing an encyclopedia article. This article is about 'gun politics' in the world. All these recent citations are USA centric. We should re-write these to show the worldwide view. Indeed, I am not convinced that the article is well served to include a comprehensive list of why Americans feel gun control is good or bad. This should rather be about the 'politics' of gun control, viewed from a worldwide perspective. Let us avoid using the article as a platform to argue our own personal views on this subject (if possible). BruceHallman 14:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You're going to be hard pressed to find political views on guns in quite the quantity as US-based sources. Most of the world has already had their decision made for them on the issue. The U.S. is pretty close to the last country that really has any meaningful politics behind guns.
As far as questionable sources, maybe. But you know, nearly every bullet point is POV in some regard. I understood that any source to go with it would simply be a demonstration that someone out there holds that point of view. If you're looking for these statements to be proven, good luck. For every pro-gun statistic, viewpoint, or statement, there is a countering anti-gun statistic, viewpoint, or statement.
I was just trying to help. My actual opinion on this is that you can strike the entire list from this talk page. Aside from the fact that many of the bullet points are rewords of a single question, all you really need for every pro or anti-gun argument ever made is four sources...
These sources embody everything that is gun politics, period. US-centric to be sure. But we're the only country left that has any meaningful activism on the issue. The U.S. and guns go together like Australia and koala bears. Can't mention one without mentioning the other. So aside from a random Angelfire or Geocities page, I doubt anything truly universal is going to turn up on the topic. Maybe this article should be reduced to a stub, or maybe AfD'd. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 21:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that there are some excellent scholarly books and academic papers written by political scientists about the politics of guns. These works in print actually bring a better quality of credibility, than the four polarized websites which you mentioned. I suggest that we focus on scholarly works in print, instead of POV blogs and websites when providing citations to this article. SaltyBoatr 15:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
There is certainly a place for "scholarly books", but by no means should those sources dominate our articles. Organizations like Brady and the NRA shape public opinion, fund lawsuits, and lobby politicians. They have far more impact on the real world of gun politics than most academic scholars can ever hope. - O^O 21:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Your belief appears out of step with Wikipedia policy. Quoting from WP:ATT "In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities, mainstream newspapers, and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses." SaltyBoatr 22:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I assure you, believing that I am out of step with policy would be a mistaken perception. WP:ATT welcomes us to use sources that are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. - O^O 22:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
And, I await the day we can remove the cleanup tag from the top of our article, placed there due to a lack of quality standards. SaltyBoatr 14:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The cleanup tag

Wouldn't we all prefer to see that tag lifted? I see the tag was placed by Mrzaius, who commented "Clunky syntax makes article hard to read, stats section needs a lot of work". Perhaps in that case we should address the syntax and statistics in order to resolve his complaints? - O^O 20:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you've done quite well, but your still being a little to US specific. Arguements directly related to US gun politics need to be deleted to keep a more worldwide view on the subject. Goldfishsoldier 06:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, there remains work to be done providing attribution and rewriting for neutrality. Too much of the article now is based on 'cut and paste' from extremist and fringe sources and non-reliable websites, with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist disallowed by WP:ATT. Reliable sources are those of academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. SaltyBoatr 15:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, to strip out all the US stuff would be as PoV as making the whole article US-centric. Bear in mind that the majority of all native speakers of English live in the US. So the majority of all people referring to the English wikipedia will tend to be Americans. When seeking a generic example, therefore, a US example will address more readers than any other...in fact, more than all others combined.
Therefore, Wikipedia would have very few entries of any kind, if everything had to refer only to information that was universal to all readers of every country. Better to make it relevant to a reasonably large portion of prospective readers, and the US represents a majority of those.
Also, note that the idea of "politics" around guns is absent in most countries. Guns are already illegal in Australia and Britain, while idea of imposing gun control in Switzerland, Israel, or Finland would be laughed at by all but the most extreme authoritarians. There are only a few countries in which there is enough "debate" for there to be "gun politics" in the first place. Probably 90% of the "debate" occurs in the US, which already is the overwhelming majority of the readers...ergo, once again, the American debate is very relevent to "gun politics" in general.--Kaz 18:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I can appreciate your argument, though it is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Please read WP:NPOV#Bias which requires us to avoid national bias. SaltyBoatr 19:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me try to ask Kaz' question in a different way. How exactly do you propose to rewrite the page to a non-US point of view when the topic of the page is essentially a US-based subject? What is there to say other than the points raised in the US debates? Who else is debating the topic? Rossami (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Use the Gun politics in the United States article for the US gun politics, moving material and deleting the redundant, and focus on the global aspects of gun politics here. Give strong emphasis to WP:ATT, avoiding editorializing. SaltyBoatr 06:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree in principle. This page could become a disambiguation page, leading users to the nation-specific pages. - O^O 00:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I also agree. What a mess! I have never seen such a poor Wikipedia article given the number of contributors. A large number of English Wikipedia users are not American. (I guess at least 200 million non-Americans who would regard English as their language of choice when looking something up.) It should be made much more generic by avoiding the mentioning of any single country, except as links. Any other reference to a specific country in this article can then be eliminated. Incidentally, although it the section on sovereignty is non-country-specific, it is particularly odd since it does not mention the armed forces and a 'well regulated militia' as being the usual ways by which a nation state protects its sovereignty. JMcC 21:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC) & JMcC 22:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This relevent? =

'However, these governments do have higher taxes than the United States, which some libertarians consider a form of government oppression (see Morality of Taxation).'

Err can someone explain what this line is doing in the article? Is this line arguing that if these countries had less restrictive gun laws then their tax would be less?! Or could it be more like these countries have public health cover etc. which is paid for by higher taxes? This seems like a 'weasel line' which should be removed (the point of the paragraph being that there is no direct link b/n countries with more restrivtive gun laws and totalitarian states).

Regulation on Bullet Possession

Instead of focusing on the right to own guns, perhaps it's better to focus on bullet control. http://www.google.com/search?q=bullet+control&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.198.142 (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC).


Worthless article

Since this is the talk page, I feel that in this statement, I am not required to be NPOV. There seems to be such an enormous amount of NPOV rubbish included in the article that for something such as a research paper etc, this article has been rendered worthless by people arguing 'their' sides of the whole debate instead of trying to keep it Encyclopedic.


I have to concur, this is among the worst I have seen; it already starts with the assertion that gun politics is about whether a government "has valid authority to impose regulations on guns". A very POV and pro-gun way of framing the article. Other examples include the inane argument that if the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia would "...become totalitarian, however (and there are historical examples of democratic governments becoming totalitarian), their people would be unable to resist the new form of government in any way." Beyond far-fetched and besides, there are also ways of overthrowing governments that do not involve fire-arms, such as we have seen in Serbia, Georgia and the Ukraine quite recently. 146.50.209.116 01:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll elaborate. To ask whether a government has authority to impose regulations on guns is something only an American would ask. A valid question would be: "Does the US government, given the second amendment of the US constitution, have a right to impose regulations on guns". To ask whether a (unspecific) government has authority to impose regulations on guns is very strange. A government represents the collective will of the people and thus has any authority the people give to it. Only from an international laws viewpoint could you ask whether a government has the authority to impose regulations, but I don't think there is any international law prohibiting such regulations. I'll try to suggest some alternative starts for the article the coming days. 146.50.209.116 00:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


Pro-Gun Bias and US-exclusive Information

This article presents only facts which support a pro-gun stance and also has very little information from countries apart from the United States. 71.112.235.204 11:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


I absolutely agree. The article contains an abundance of pro-gun arguments that are obviously foolish but which are put forward as though they represented generally accepted facts. Examples: The idea that a people must be granted the possession of arms in order to be able to defend itself against a government "gone bad". If you follow this reasoning you would also have to be in favor of people buying tanks, missiles, even nuclear weapons, because such an armament would certainly be more effective against a totalitarian dictator in the White House than rifles. - The "defense against invaders"-argument would equally lead to the consequence that the normal citizen had better equip himself with the kind of weaponry a modern army has. Apart from that: it is hilarious to support this idea by drawing attention to the kind of resistance the Soviet forces met in Afghanistan. This means comparing the USA with Afghanistan. Now, what kind of invasion of the USA - and by whom - could be imagined that would need to be fought back by American guerilla forces? The geo-strategic situation of the USA is totally different from a country like Afghanistan (or Vietnam, or Iraq); the USA have never been invaded and will never be invaded in D-Day-style. Things would be different if the northern neighbor were the former Soviet Union or China instead of Canada, but it isn't. The only real threat is attack from the air through bombers and missiles, both of which you can't fend off with rifles -- which are no help against terrorist attacks like 9-11 or suicide bombers, either. The "defense against invaders"-argument is either dumb or demagogic, meant to create a paranoid hysteria in the general public and to perpetuate the American gun culture (which other civilised nations regard with puzzled dismay). In many other countries a disturbed individual like the guy in Blacksburg - who has a completely normal middle-class background - would have found it practically impossible to avail himself of fire-arms; he would have had to go on his killing spree with a knife, a sword or a club, which, of course, could also create terrible results, but surely not numerically on the same level of what he was indeed able to effect just because he owned two pistols. I live in Germany, I have two teenage sons, and I simply know that neither me nor my sons would know how to get a gun and ammunition. There's no chance to buy them legally unless you're a member of a marksmanship-club; if you want to buy it for self-defense you have to prove that you are reliable and that you are actually in significantly greater danger of being attacked by someone than the average citizen. Over the past decades there have been two incidents where disturbed young men shot teachers or students; in both cases they came from middle-class families, had no contact with criminal circles, but they had access to guns because the father of one of the guys was a hunter; in the other case the young man himself was a member of a marksmanship club. What I mean to say is that I'm convinced the killings wouldn't have occurred if the guys (or their fathers) hadn't had legal access to guns. In my view a strong point in favor of enforcing even stricter gun laws in Germany (like a general ban on guns being kept at home; there are indeed gun clubs where all the rifles are kept in safes on the premises of the clubs, the members are not allowed to take them home). - There is a noticeable rise of gun-related crimes in Germany since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the influx of people from there. It has lead to a massive increase of the number of weapons on the illegal market. To me a causal relationship between the number of guns available and the number of gun-related crimes seems obvious. Police in Hamburg complain that, some 10-15 years ago, fighting between pimps and other crooks in the famous red-light district of the city was normally done by fists and sometimes knives; now a lot of them use guns, and the number of victims that actually get killed has risen tremendously. 141.91.129.3 19:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Legal access to guns is the key. Opponents will say that the "bad guys" will secure a gun through the black market but that isn't as easy as it sounds in countries like Germany and the Netherlands were I live. Do I know anyone, who might know anyone, who might know anyone, who could bring me into contact with some guy who could provide me with a gun? I seriously wouldn't know whom to ask. If I wanted to buy a gun illegally, I doubt anyone I know could help me. That doesn't mean much because I don't move around in circles who are interested in such things. It does mean that college-kids without criminal ties (like Cho) would have problems acquiring guns and ammunition. However in the US guns are everywhere, to get at the point where we are in Europe they'd need to go through at least 30 years of strict gun control. 146.50.209.116 00:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to the call for some international data, I've uploaded a chart that relates rates of suicide among gun owners with rates of gun ownership. I've also added a couple of links (one of them to the source of the chart). Unfortunately, I don't have much time to work on this given other commitments. However, interested parties (on both sides of the debate) could go through the bibliographies provided in both of these citations and try to find some more recent empirical studies. Perhaps the article would be less POV if it could focus more on the interpretation of the quantitative data available, which is actually quite useful, and offers some talking points for both sides. Based on a quick glance at the sources available, let me suggest that the article be reorganized by the scope of studies completed: national and international; and also by the context of death/injury from guns (namely suicide vs. homocide), also by accident vs. intentional, and possibly by age group. Overall, the article might benefit from a decreased reliance on original research. See WP:OR. Also, the chart that I uploaded clearly needs to be shrunk to a more reasonable size and perhaps placed in a side-bar. I don't know how to do that. Could someone please help me? --Dwc144

I'm afraid I doubt the value of such statistics. In order to assess what they really prove (if anything), you must know who has done them, who paid for doing them and exactly what kind of data were being used. The problem with interpreting such statistics is aggravated when it comes to comparing statistical results from different countries. It is the exception that statistics about the same thing are produced in different countries in exactly the same way (which, of course, would be an indispensable precondition for comparing the results). I know that the standards for determining whether someone was cured from a certain disease or whether he died are very different in different countries. In some the patient is presumed to be cured when he is still alive x months after dismissal from hospital, in others y months, in still others z, and so forth. The same is true with homicides: in some countries a violent attack on a person is no homicide if the victim is still alive x days after the attack, even if he dies on the x+1st day, in other countries it is still a homicide even if the victim dies months after the attack, as long as the latter is obviously the initial cause. I've hardly ever seen statistics that manifestly take all such problems into account, on the contrary, I'm often dumbfounded by the negligent and narrowminded attitude of statisticians. I once saw a comparison of numbers of sexual offences in different countries that completely neglected the well-known fact that the definitions of what constitutes a sexual offence differ wildly (they do even within the U.S., don't they?). In Germany a couple of years ago the law about when you have to report a minor traffic accident to the police was changed; you are no longer obliged to report if the financial damage doesn't exceed some 1000 $ or so. I later saw a comparison of the longtime development of numbers of car accidents in Europe that obviously ignored this change completely. The count was based on police records, of course. So, naturally, the curve for Germany showed a sharp decline. Ridiculous! I'm by no means basically opposed against statistics, on the contrary. But the trouble is that in real life the statistics you are confronted with (especially those about popular topics) are fabricated and presented in a way that makes them virtually worthless. 141.91.129.5 14:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You make the point that one must be cautious in the use of statistics. I agree. You go on to argue that in real life statistics on popular topics may be, and frequently are, fabricated and presented so as to be worthless. This latter point is a good warning to the unwary. However, there are scientists, including social scientists, who are able to recognize and control for bias. In criminology, this involves designing studies that compare well-defined phenomena. You give the example of homicide. Homicide, as an index crime, is easily counted. To be considered a homicide, there must be a body. True there are some differences in reporting in different countries when the person does not die at the scene of the crime. However, homicide is generally one of the best-defined crimes. Minor reporting anomolies can be controlled for. Good research (which, I would think is more than just comparing statistics) seems to me to be especially important in matters where there are ideological disputes. Good cites are especially important for an encyclopedia in contentious matters. Sunray 15:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Even in homicide there are big differences. For example some countries include death by dangerous driving and others don't -- Q Chris 15:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what is meant by "index crime", but I do know that "homicide" comprises diverse categories of killing a human being, including murder and manslaughter, but also others. I can't see why homicide can be "so easily counted", considering that in a number of countries you may very well be convicted of murder even though the body of the victim has never been found; thus "to be considered a homicide, there must be a body" is a prima vista convincing, but false statement. Your next statement: "Minor reporting anomalies can be controlled for" is a very doubtful claim. At least in Germany one could argue that the percentage of homicides committed by using a firearm is most probably much lower than current statistics seem to confirm. Why? Forensic medical examiners complain that autopsies are performed only in a minute number of cases, i. e. when the unnatural cause of death is pretty evident anyway. Now, in the case of homicide by shooting even a negligent general practioner will normally see that there is some foul play involved in the death of the victim (although cases have been reported where the body had a gunshot wound in the back but the doctor hadn't bothered to turn the body around and certified death by natural causes). It is estimated that about 15% of all murders (by suffocating, poisoning and the like) go undetected. So, obviously, it depends very much on the procedures in a certain country how many homicides show up in the statistics. The margin of error seems to be enormous (15%). This means that a meaningful comparison between, say, American and German numbers would have to find a way how to take that into account. I can't help but find this a very difficult task. Suppose that in Germany (with strict gun legislation) 40% of the detected homicides involve gunshots, in the US 50%. That would indicate that strict gun control reduces the number of gun-related homicides significantly. But what if in Germany 15% of all homicides aren't detected to begin with (for the above-mentioned reasons), but in the US only 5% go undetected? Doesn't this change the picture completely? So, I simply can't endorse your view that in the case of homicides one only has to do with "minor reporting anomalies" that "can be controlled for". That doesn't even mention the fact Chris pointed out. I rather doubt that the kind of statistics that are published in the media (even if they done by social scientists) are based on a thorough investigation whether, for an example, a murder in the one country would be legally defined as a murder in the other. To arrive at numbers that can be used for a meaningful comparison you would need more than the criminological statistics of the different countries, because they don't tell you what kind of murder each case is; so, in order to determine whether it would be classified as murder in the other country, you would actually have to look through the files of every single case. That would take years and cost millions. My experience is that only in very, very rare cases so much money is pumped into social sciences research that results in statistics. 141.91.129.2 17:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're going with this line of general commentary about lies and damn statistics. Although quantitative information is sometimes flawed, isn't it indispensable to modern life? Recently, I shopped for a car. To get a general sense of relative quality, I consulted some J.D. Power data. These no doubt suffer from many gaps and shortcomings; and they are only one input to the decision. But what would be the alternative? Going to a parking lot personally and asking passersby for their experience with the reliability of their one car? Or smoking a joint and attempting to intuit the quality via deep thinking through the smoke rings? Now in this case, we're shopping for public policy and laws for guns, not for a car. How do you propose to inform your choice? As appealing as travelling the world and quaffing pints with the locals might be, we might not have sufficient time to reach any generalizable conclusions in that fashion. Surely we can get further, faster by checking out the data that's been collected, making some mental adjustments, here, giving more or less weight, there? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the intended scope of your ultimate point?
--Dwc144

So what is the debate in this section actually about? Goldfishsoldier 02:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had made it clear enough that I'm by no means an opponent of statistics; I'm very well aware that in modern natural sciences statistics are fundamental and I also acknowledge that in social sciences and even in everyday life one can hardly do without statistics. But I also know that, as soon as economic or political interests are involved, the general public had better take a higly critical stance towards statistics. The unfortunate thing is that it usually takes quite an (often impossible) effort to find out who is really behind the statistics (i. e.: who paid for it) - which is important for judging whether there might be a bias (and everybody knows that a biased statistician can concoct statistics that "prove" and "disprove" the same statement). The other problem is to do with large-scale statistics, especially such that have to do with international comparisons. My recent postings tried to point out what kind of obstacles there are in the way to really reliable data on which you could base international comparisons. I cannot possible repeat what I've already written, please read again, and it should become clear enough what my ultimate point is. - As to what this debate is about: it is not just a general reflection about the use of statistics, but very specifically about the graph that has been uploaded, which tries to prove something about the correlation of gun possession and gun-related homicides/suicides. - I somehow have the feeling that users Dwc144 and Goldfishsoldier expect me to interpret the graph and take sides as to whether it should be seen as supporting or opposing stricter gun control. Well, my point is that I have grave doubts as to the value of that graph, so I would refuse to draw any conclusions from it. I would want to know exactly where the numbers are from, how they were obtained, what the standard procedure is in the different countries when a corpse is found, what are the criteria for a homicide to show up in police statistics etc. etc.You'd be surprised to find out how little all such decisive factors are taken into account even by statisticians who work for large international organizations. And even if the statistics are sound, the way in which they are published by the press more often than not distorts what they really mean (because the journalists don't take enough time or are not smart enough to interpret them correctly). My personal policy is: since it is regularly impossible to check whether certain statistics have been made in such a way that they actually prove something (and don't only pretend to do so), I take some time an reflect on whether it seems to me that the necessary reliable data can be obtained fairly easily. I try to check who (which organization) is responsible for the statistics (is it trustworthy?). If common sense tells me that the organization is likely to be biased and/or if my judgment is that I wouldn't know how anyone could procure really reliable data to begin with, I take notice of the result of the statistics, but I don't add them to the my set of statements that I consider to represent proven facts. 141.91.129.3 11:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

So it's about the accuracy of statistics. Goldfishsoldier 04:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case I think we all agree completely. One needs to read statistics carefully and consider the means by which they are gathered and compared. If you can find studies by reputable criminologists pouring cold water on the studies cited, those studies would be well worth citing and including as well. Of course, it's not worthwhile simply attempting to shift the burden of proof back on the studies that have been cited on the basis of generalities about "obstacles" facing academic criminologists. Obviously, a skeptic looking to advance the debate/article (as opposed to just forming a personal opinion for use around the house) would need to shoulder that burden directly and pony up some specific grave flaws, as observed by reputable authorities in published studies that can be cited.
--Dwc144

Request to merge in 2 articles

Gun violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence) & Gun crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime) both need to be merged, firstly with each other, then perhaps with this article. Gun crime needs rewriting also, but the article Gun violence gives the data to do this. Unfortunately I don't have the time so perhaps someone could help do this? Thanks. Singhyuk 00:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

im not realy sure either should be included in this artical but than again i am an avid gun nut despite the fact that i dont own any fire arms (things are expensive) the artical should probly be rewritten for the sake of simplifying things (mentions same issues repeatedly in multiple sections)--Ggohtrin 01:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

New proposed name and structure for this article

Rationale: this article is not so much about politics (e.g. political mobilization, history of political debate, partisan commitments and views) as about questions surrounding public policy on guns. Let's reflect that in both the name and structure

New name recommended: Gun policy and regulation

Recommended structure:

1 Major regulatory models - developed countries 1.1 American - overview and representative state variants 1.2 European 1.3 Asian

2 International research perspectives relevant to regulation 2.1 Gun violence, public safety and the prevalence of firearms --(Link to main articles - gun violence, crime --International data linking gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide involving guns 2.2 The legal and cultural context of individual firearm rights (a) United States (b) Other countries of the developed world 2.3 Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR)

3 Major constituencies for and against gun regulation

4 References

5 External links

Is there anything else we need here?

--Dwc144

Arguments aside

I came to this page hoping to see a list of countries and their gun control policies, why isn't this included? For an international encyclopaedia, isn't this what should come first and fore-most, ACTUAL gun control rules around the world? Arguments are obviously going to be an important part of this article, but surely aren't the whole thing. mr_happyhour 24/04/07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.109.48.4 (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Very good point. There should at least be a prominent link near the top to an article of gun control policies, gun control law, or firearms law or similar listing in different countries. -- Q Chris 15:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
In that case, do you folks wish to support the outline and name change that I proposed above (in the section immediately preceding this one)?
--Dwc144
We probably need two articles, the current one seems to contain a lot about politics. -- Q Chris 06:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
As it should. The article is about Gun Politics. Not that I don't see the problem! Which, in my evaluation, comes from failing to fully adhere to Wikipedia policies requiring credible citations. Too much of the article appears to have been cribbed from POV fringe websites and blogs. If all the unsourced material was stripped out, and the remaining material strictly edited to include only scholarly credible citations (none allowed from fringe websites and blogs), preferably citations from neutral political scientists (and, avoiding 'primary sources' which often veil original research), we could have a truly good neutral encyclopedic article. Editors have a natural tendency to use the article as a soapbox to push personal POV. This causes the greatest challenge. Wikipedia policies are designed to counteract that natural tendency from editors, and if we through consensus could mutually agree to strictly follow WP:Policy, we could fix the problem. SaltyBoatr 15:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I agree with you SaltyBoatr, this is exactly why I cannot support Dwc144's proposal to rename the article Gun policy and regulation. I do believe that there is a need for a new article on gun law, maybe taking some of the non-political parts out of this article. Unfortunately I don't have time to do this at the moment. I think it is wrong that gun control law redirects to this article. -- Q Chris 06:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. So perhaps we should attempt to delineate the dividing line between the two proposed articles? Let me suggest that the one on law/regulation explore the various international models for gun regulation, and the issues thus raised from a public policy standpoint. The other one should deal with the politics. For the one with politics, it occurs to me that several crucial sections dealing with the history of gun politics in various countries would need to be written and added. For example, for the US case, one would be the mobilization of gun owners in the form of the NRA-ILA (the lobbying arm of the NRA; staff of 80), also the mobilization of anti-gun victims groups, and the history of their influences through several elections and legislative campaigns. Also, any public opinion data produced by reputable sources available in various countries bearing on gun politics would be useful. Essentially, for the article dealing with politics we would need more political science and less homespun philosophy. (Perhaps the philosophy, in the event folks wish to keep that, should be moved into a third article titled, The Political Philosophy of Personal Gun Ownership?) Anyone wish to comment?
--Dwc144

Japan

There needs to be an article Gun politics in Japan. FoxNews tonight reported that Japan has tightened its gun laws, as gang shootings are up, especially in light of the murder of Nagasaki's mayor, and that 2/3 of shootings last year were gang-related. Chris 08:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation/Archive_3&oldid=1137065178"