This is an archive of past discussions about Gun safety. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Obviously your incredible prejudice in favor of private citizens owning firearms for self protection has made you completely unable to present a balanced point of view.
The issue of firearms safety is not a political issue. It doesn't matter who is handling the firearm, be it a private citizen, a police officer, or a soldier. The fundamentals of safety apply equally to everyone.
Somewhere in the world, right this minute, there is a police firearms instructor teaching a group of new recruits the fundamentals of firearms safety. That instructor will teach these four rules.
Your claims that training makes no difference in safety are absurd
I have never claimed that training makes no difference. Training is extremely helpful, and I agree that the page should reflect that. I will not accept the biased and unfounded view, though, that the proper use of firearms is so complex or demanding that only highly trained professionals can do so correctly. I could teach you to enjoyable and safely target shoot with an hour of instruction.
You have deleted my reference to the fact that the initial set of rules in this article is representative of only those people who favor providing everyone with guns.
I deleted this because it is manifestly untrue. If you find any firearms expert, whether they are for or against private ownership of weapons is irrelevant, they will tell you that these are extremely widely accepted fundamental rules of gun safety, and that these rules are not in the least bit political or controversial.
Let's be specific:
1. My first change was to the introduction to qualify WHO was advocating this particular set of four rules:
[...]
How is this change inaccurate?
These rules are not opposed by even the most ardent anti-gunner. Do you imagine that the political lobbyists at Handgun Control, Inc., go around advocating that people who own guns ought to handle them in an unsafe manner?
Again, it must be emphasized that safe handling of weapons is not a political issue. It is a matter of simple common sense, and there is a strong consensus of the experts that the rules here are all extremely well-founded and important.
Why pretend it is a political issue, when it is not?
2. My second change is to make mention of the fact that children need to know the potential risks as opposed to just what to do:
Once again: How is this change inaccurate?
As I said, I have no particular objection to this change. I merely deleted everything that you wrote by restoring the previous version because it was easier than going through line by line to fix all the errors.
3. Finally I added a discussion of why training is an important element of gun safety. I made five points here, but obviously you deleted all of them:
A. This may be the most important element of gun safety since adequate training will cover all of the aforementioned cautions.
Training is important, and the page should be changed to reflect this. However, the information on training must not be false.
B. The risks of a fatality increases with each firearm introduced into a tense situation.
This is just false, and is additionally misleading.
C. Worse yet an insufficiently skilled wielder sometimes has a weapon taken away by an adversary.
This is just false. It could be converted to a truth if written as follows: "Even extremely unskilled wielders of firearms almost never never have weapons taken away by their adversary." I doubt if this suits your political agenda, but it does have the minimal benefit of at least being true.
D. This risk, however, can be lessened by extensive training along the lines of a police academy and state military training.
The aforementioned risk is hardly a risk at all. We might want to add some of the criminological statistics showing that women who use firearms in self-defense against criminal attack are significantly less likely to suffer serious injury than those who do not resist at all, or those who resist without a gun. This demonstrates that weapons are extremely useful even without training... while training can make one even more safe, of course.
E. This training also helps recognize the specific challenges of particular weapon models in a given situation. For example Vietnam era M16 rifles frequently jammed due to a combination of overheating and dirt in contrast to the less accurate, but less sensitive, AK47 rifles.
This is a rather odd specific point to make, but I have no objection to illustrating how training can help, with specific examples that are actually relevant to the kinds of situations that people will actually encounter.
I would love to here why you think that none of points A-E are true. Even more I would love to see research to back up your position on these denials from any source that could reasonably be trusted to be objective. (for example: Government or University public safety studies not sponsered by the NRA or like organizations ideally including both US and non-US research.)
I will be happy to provide you with specific references. Why don't we take this to email, so that we can discuss it without bothering the other wikipedians? You'll have to put in some effort, because real research demands close attention. If you aren't interested in putting in the time, I will understand. But please don't presume to write on this page until you have the facts.
Considering that all of the reading I have done on the subject is reflected in what I wrote and I find YOUR statements to be manifestly untrue pertaining about the lack of risk to oneself and bystanders in the use of firearms at home or when hunting. I never even said that these situations always have a bad outcome. I rather used the word "some". Your very disagreement is extremely politically by in its very nature by denying what a very large percentage of the population consider safety concerns about firearms. To quote you:
"You'll have to put in some effort, because real research demands close attention. If you aren't interested in putting in the time, I will understand. But please don't presume to write on this page until you have the facts." ... because I don't believe that you do.
--Jonathan--
Even if I had no reason to believe one of you or the other, it is still best to remove specific assertions of fact if either of you thinks them wrong until the one positing them backs them up. You're the one positing specific facts here, so it's up to you to demonstrate that they're true. That you've done "lots of reading" is meaningless if you've read only propaganda. I know Jimbo, and I'm inclined to believe him simply because of his reputation for knowledge and honesty. At least he has offered to cite sources; you haven't even done that, and you don't have a reputation, so I have no reason to believe the "facts" you've offered here. --LDC
You have seen my work; I wrote the bulk of the current Unix and Vim articles, and I have contributed to the Abortion article among others. Feel free to check out my research on anything I have written, and I believe that you will have a hard time proving me outright wrong on any of it.
Your writings on other topics are useful to judge writing skill, memory, and to some extent, lack of bias. I have no major quibble with those. But the question here is whether or not the specific facts you claim--that proper firearm training greatly reduces one's risk of accident, and that unskilled users are likely to have their guns used against them--are true. These are questions of fact resolvable by reference to actual studies. I looked at all four of the pages above, and not one of them contains any fact of even remote relevance to those questions. It is difficult to even find the word "training" on most of them. The fact that you would list them here when they contain no relevant information further reduces your credibility here. --LDC
Well, let me defend Jonathan here. He says he has done reading, and so I believe him. I'm sure that he believes me, too. So now we need to take a look at each other's facts, and work together to rewrite the article by citing specific sources. It seems that he's accepting some of my objections to his article, and the primary remaining issues have to do with "risk to oneself and bystanders in the use of firearms at home or when hunting". That's a legitimate concern, although I don't think that the fact will leave us where he wants to be.
I hope that we'll take this to email so we can compare notes and start working towards a consensus. The main thing is that a page on gun safety should not be political. Based on that, we shouldn't have too much trouble coming to a consensus.
(Of course, if he wants to cite the Brady Campaign, I can surely cite the NRA. But I won't, because both are highly politicized sources of information.)
--Jimbo Wales (jwales@bomis.com, please email me, Jonathan)
The points raised above:
B. The risks of a fatality increases with each firearm introduced into a tense situation.
C. Worse yet an insufficiently skilled wielder sometimes has a weapon taken away by an adversary.
are issues related more to use of guns in self-defense, not the general issue of Gun Safety, irregardless of whether they are valid points in self-defense. (Personally knowing five women who defended themselves with guns and making a point of following self-defense use of guns in the local paper, I can equally argue that introduction of a gun often defuses a tense situation and in none of the cases did the adversary even try to wrestle the gun from the defender. Valid or not, those talking points are on the subject of self-defense with guns or gun politics, not general safety with guns.) Naaman Brown (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The additions of 2005-07-13
24.126.74.236 has added alot but I'm not certain everything should be there. But before I start hacking and slashing I'd like to bring this up to discussion.
Safety always on. Is this really a generic part of gun safety training? I can think up lots of situations where a handler would disengage the safety to be prepared to fire, even if firing is not imminent. I vote to remove that section.
Inspecting chambers when receiving a firearm. Again, is this really a generic part of gun safety traning? I've never heard of it before. Perhaps this is a branch specific procedure? I vote to remove that section too.
Horseplay. I'll reword that and move it up to Treat firearms as if they are loaded.
Reworded but kept it in that section. --J-Star 07:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Passing firearms. Should be kept.
Weapon conditions. Never heard of. This seems like something USMC specific. I think this clashes pretty badly with the rest of the article and messes it up. I vote to remove this part, or to put it in a separate article, or to make a section that deals with branch specific gun handling and put this part in that section.--J-Star 07:10, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
My two cents.. Chamber inspection is a great idea if you know how to do it. It's not generally one of the "main" safety rules, as the specifics of how to inspect the chamber varies for different firearms. The "conditions" are real, but I don't see that they really belong on this page. "Safety always on" is probably questionable as well, as the specifics vary on different guns. Many folks who shoot trap, for example, practice proper gun safety but never use their safeties, as they don't load the gun until they're ready to shoot, making the safety irrelevant. Friday18:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Response by (24.126.74.236):
First of all, the additions to this page that I added I did so on the understanding that this article was to be a basic "primer" on general gun safety. Rules specific, for example, to trap shooting, ought not be included in an article on general gun safety, or should be included as a qualified dependent clause or paragraph.
Regarding the issue of keeping the safety on, in my edit I feel that I qualified the issue properly by indicating that different firearms had different designs regarding safety, or had no manually actuated safety at all. If one wanted to cover the specific case of trap-shooting or some other activity in which keeping the safety off would be advised, then this could be added in a dependent clause or paragraph, without affecting the spirit of the "safety on" rule.
Regarding chamber inspection, I was taught that part of safety rule #1 (treat every firearm as if it were loaded) is to always visually confirm the state of the chamber when taking possession of or handing off a weapon. The specifics of how to do so may vary by weapon, but, again in the context of a general gun safety article, the fact remains that every weapon has a means of inspection to determine whether or not the weapon is locked and loaded.
Regarding "Weapons Conditions", fair enough, this probably is a branch-specific policy. Jeff Cooper, who was very influential in gun safety, was the one who popularized this procedure, but he was a Marine Colonel at one point. This could be moved to a specific article on branch-specific policies, and perhaps linked to this page.
My two cents.. I approached this article with a sense of responsibility towards the reader, considering that the uninitiated may be receiving some of their first exposure to principles of gun safety here. Under the circumstances, I felt it best to err on the side of caution, and exposit a relatively broad and demanding set of general principles of safety. If this conflicts with the way anyone else might teach a shooter or run their range, then they of couse would be free to teach any appropriate modifications of these rules in their area of responsibility accordingly. Until a shooter is shooitng under those specific conditions, however, I think that we ought to expect them to operate under rules that demand the most responsibility of them.
The additions of 2005-09-16
Two additions today... I'm not sure they should stay. But let's discuss it first.
The addition on sports shooting in the UK, isn't that a bit specific? Arguably my example about swedish gun legislation is also a bit specific. But still... I think the new addition about sports shooting is too detailed. What should we do about it? Keep? Remove? Move to some other section? Move to some other place altogether? I'm inclined to think it should be removed or extensively reworded to make the content generic.
About environmental effects at gun ranges I think that is clearly outside the realm of gun safety. Sure, it is a health and safety issue that is related to guns... but it is not "gun safety" we're talking about anymore. I vote to remove that completely.
Same for health hazards when cleaning the gun. Once again... it's a safety issue and it involves guns... but we're not talking "gun safety". I'm voting to remove that completely. --J-Star22:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Americans for Gun Safety Foundation, opinions requested.
I have taken a look at the wiki page and their website. I see a clear (claimed) profile to educate for Gun Safety. My opinion is that unless anyone can refute that and show that "AGS is ONLY politics. THey have NADA to do with gun safety" or "AGS has nothing to do with safety. They want bans", then the link should stay.
I removed the link to Ahad Israfil since his story does not really relate to or add value to the article. He is a victim of an accidental shooting. The question is: So what? What does it add to this article? There are thousands of accidental gunshot victims out there and we don't need to list them all. If we are to link to anyone here, they should have a very tangiable connection to Gun Safety... and I don't se ethat Ahad has this in any rare or exceptional way.
The fifth rule about "The safety is a mechanical device..." I think is not necessary for the page. It is already comprehensively covered by the existing four rules. Also it breaks the pattern of the article since there wasn't a section written for that rule. And if one would add such a section, the text therein would be a repeat of what has been said before. And finally I have not seen that rule be metioned in gun safety training. I don't think it is a generic rule and instead only part of some training syllabi.
My opinion is to not add the fifth rule and instead work its message into the previous sections. I have drafted such an addition into the first rule. Do not add the fifth rule again with discussion jere first.--J-Star09:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It was commonly incorporated into the classes I have seen/taken; could be a regional thing. Or, not. Hard to say. Will look for examples of where it has been taught independently from the other rules. Yaf12:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
NRA-type 3-rule idea versus 4-rule idea (aka Cooper)
I'm surprised no one has argued for the following rule: "engage safety, remove mag, check chamber/unload, keep unloaded until ready to use". This rule is one of the "big 3" in NRA rules.[2] I don't think anyone would argue that handlers choosing to keep loaded firearms are trading safety for readiness. Toms286614:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm opposed to this "rule", as it undermines the preceding rules, implying that somehow a firearm is "safe" if it has the safety engaged, or no magazine inserted, or ... perhaps "sabotages the preceding rules" would be a better phrase. The intent (at least as I see it) of the four rules is to emphasize that the individual is responsible for always being attentive to proper handling; this "rule" says that such attention can be discarded. htom15:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This boils down to differences in philosophy of life. You can never get everyone to prefer any one carry-mode mindset or safety protocol because people are different and situations are different. Toms2866 gets to the very heart of the matter when he says "I don't think anyone would argue that handlers choosing to keep loaded firearms are trading [some varying degree of] safety for [increased] readiness." That is a basic, irreducible truth. (Invent some way to negate that truth, and become a billionaire.) The question is, is the trade-off worth it or not? The answer to that involves value judgments, personality, and situational variables. I think all this Wikipedia article can do is present BOTH the NRA-style 3 rules and the 4 rules, and state why some people prefer each. </$0.02> — Lumbercutter03:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not people following the Cooper (4) rules actually have their firearms loaded is irrelevant. They have a different mindset: firearms must always be treated as if they are loaded. The NRA mindset is that "this firearm can be made safe". htom20:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I just realized that I may have been assuming too much context here. Backing up: Toms2866, there is a fundamental difference in mindset between the NRA-style 3-rule idea, and the 4-rule (aka Cooper) idea (which this article currently covers). And that difference centers on the "unloaded" notion, which is a very loaded notion (metahumor, sorry). The reason you didn't see that 3rd NRA rule in the article is because the whole NRA-style idea is not currently covered in this article. If it were, it would be set in contradistinction to the 4-rule mindset. For more background on this whole can of worms, click through some of the external links including the one "Controversy over exact choice of rules for gun safety (specifically whether or not "the gun is always loaded" is an intelligent rule)." What we need to do in this article is point out that both systems exist. htom is absolutely correct in what he says above. What I said earlier was really assuming a different context. It was about the idea that the NRA rules can't always apply to everybody, because sometimes people need their guns to be loaded all the time (for example, police). This goes into another much-discussed can of worms as to what is meant by "unloaded until ready to use". Police are always "ready to use". So their magazines are always full. Yes, that inherently creates risk, but it is a risk that is acceptable in the context, as opposed to the alternative. — Lumbercutter20:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
(metahumor: snort!) Thanks for pointing out that reference. I've had this discussion many many times over the years, and that really boils it down the two viewpoints, and how they differ. It goes further than that, though, because there are many more tools than firearms. "The mind is the weapon", as my DIs used to say. htom13:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Negligent discharge vs Accidental discharge
Someone thought we shoud change "Accidental discharge" to "Negligent discharge". I am not so ceratin. Merriam-Webster gives the following definitions:
Negligent:
1 a : marked by or given to neglect especially habitually or culpably b : failing to exercise the care expected of a reasonably prudent person in like circumstances
2 : marked by a carelessly easy manner
Accidental:
1 : arising from extrinsic causes : INCIDENTAL, NONESSENTIAL
2 a : occurring unexpectedly or by chance b : happening without intent or through carelessness and often with unfortunate results
From this I am more inclined to say that "negligent behaviour can lead to an accidental discharge". Saying that a discharge is negligent is to imply that it was intentional, but very carelessly performed. Clearly the three movie clips portrayed unintentional discharges... i.e. according to point 2a and 2b in MW's defintion of "accidental".
I agree that the phrasing "negligent behaviour can lead to an accidental discharge" is a more precise way to say what's meant, although I don't agree that "negligent" means that the discharge was intentional. I guess that the linguistic question you've uncovered is "Can the perfective result of an imperfective process (negligent behavior) be described with an adjective ("negligent") that seems linguistically to apply only to imperfective processes?" I think the answer is that human communication generally paints in broader strokes than that. When someone uses the adjective in that way, you "know what they mean" regardless of the semantic fine points. Speaking practically, when the discharge occurs, it is both accidental and negligent. I think that the recent editor was trying to explicitly emphasize the negligence because the word "accident" can often wrongly connote blamelessness.
BTW, All the videos show unambiguous negligence EXCEPT the DEA agent video, which leaves you with not enough information. I have re-watched the DEA agent video but can't make out through the low-res graininess exactly why the gun discharged. It doesn't look like his finger was inside the trigger guard before the discharge. He takes the gun off-camera before that, which leaves us without much info (we don't know what his "chamber-conscious" level was while he was off-camera). I don't think anyone can say what went wrong just from the video alone. I wonder what the investigation determined. — Lumbercutter20:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Well in light of the rest of the article I think that "toying" constitutes "negligent behaviour" by itself. :)
About the section "Environments requiring standardized protocols for weapons-check at the door"
Request for opinion: I think this section ("Environments requiring standardized protocols for weapons-check at the door") has no place in the article. The subject covered I have never heard of. Is this some american thing? The connection seems vague at best.
Further more the style of the section is less then encyclopedic with a substantial amount of "should" in it. If I don't hear a convincing argument against this section's removal I'm going to axe it in a few days. --J-Star21:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Rather than being vague, the connection is obvious, as checking weapons at the door is central to safety in the first group of environments listed.
For the second group of environments listed, yes, most people never think about it, but the recommendation made by the physicians and police officer who wrote the AJR article is, in sum, "we should develop protocols to deal with the issue of weapons coming in the door". The reason most people have never heard of the subject covered is because they don't have to bother to think about it if they're not in the lines of work responsible (law enforcement, corrections, emergency medicine, or sometimes other medical areas, such as the MR technician in the article).
As for the amount of "should", it's just inherent in the topic. In life, what should be done is often different from what is currently done. I'm not sure that this topic should be ignored (discussion avoided) just because there's an element of "should" in it. In fact, the 4 main rules of gun safety, one of the core areas of this article, are all about "should" and "shouldn't". I don't think that Wikipedia should avoid discussing them because, oh no, they have a pro-safety POV.
However, I reworked the list into two separate lists to address the fact that weapons-check is a less obvious need in the second group.
I must say I am still not very convinced. You do have some valid points but I still don't think this quite fits the article. Especially with sentences like these: "Society should probably provide them with adequate weapons-check where needed, but it's an expense that everyone would prefer to avoid—hence, a topic that many would prefer to ignore. Further discussion of this issue is a matter of gun politics more than gun safety."
This is very unencyclopedic. Unsourced, expressing an opinion (there's that "should" issue) and referencing to something not as fact but a "discussion". If you can rework this into something decidedly more encyclopedic it could stay. If not, I still think it should go. I'm leaving it in for now to let you rework it. --J-Star06:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I can see where you're coming from. I removed the paragraph that delved away from "just the facts, ma'am" into a heavier degree of "should". The part that I kept definitely should remain, as it is extremely basic and neutral (and cites a reference that amply demonstrates why the topic matters). — Lumbercutter01:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Well done
As of today, 2007-04-02, I have to say that I am impressed with the work that has been done on this article. It's informative, concise, and hasn't been used as a soapbox for anyone's pet politics. I wish all Wikipedia articles were this good. Well done, editors. -- BBlackmoor(talk) • 2007-04-03 01:32Z
There are a number of politicians (McCarthy, Schumer, etc.) and organizations (HCI) that use the term "gun safety" to describe their agenda and on their respective Wiki pages, the term "gun safety" direct here. I have created a section on the main page dealing with this.--Davidwiz17:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Although their names were cited, the opinion being pushed was not cited, and a {{Fact}} tagline was there. Have removed uncited commentary until (?) a cite can be found. Yaf18:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
"Impairment" section
Here's how the section stands as I write this comment:
Since handling a firearm is a complex task, with possible fatal outcomes if done wrong, gun safety dictates that a firearm should never be handled while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, even legal prescription or over-the-counter drugs. Since such substances may affect a person's judgement already after consuming relatively small amounts, zero tolerance is advocated by gun safety teachers.
This is true. But there are also over-the-counter drugs that does make you unsuitable to use firearms. A clarification would be in order. --J-Star08:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Accidental shooting videos
The video with the kid is clearly fake, the sound is completely wrong for that kind of handgun. The guys in the desert might have staged their video too. I can't prove it wither way and I can understand giving a video the benefit of the doubt, but why leave one in just to make a point? This article is supposed to be about safety, and I don't see how a fake video helps the goal of safety or building a useful encyclopedia. If you think the videos are real then leave them in, but why show a fake video of an accident?
--68.102.156.13900:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Fake or not, they prove a point. They demonstrate reckless behavior and a possible outcome of it. See it as a sort of instruction video.
The desert vid I think is fake because the whole "script" is set up to lead to the "accident". His buddies are going "You shouldn't do that" several times and he laughs it off... and - off course - pops his own foot. It's a morality tale. Besides... if you shoot yourself in the foot, the top of your shoes won't be bloodied that quick. You'll have a clean hole in your shoe on the top and bleeding out through the hole in the bottom.--J-Star08:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Would we include a Hollywood car chase in an article on automobile safety? I'm just worried that including a staged video trivializes the risks.--68.102.156.13902:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Find a suitable replacement then... and convince me that instruction videos - which most commonly are fake - contributes to lessening the subject in question. --J-Star21:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between a dramatization for an instructional video and a hoax. Also, who says there has to be a lot of videos? Why post bad content just because there's no good content available?--68.102.156.13902:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
What makes this content bad? Why would it be better if it would look exactly the same but the events behind it were certified to be real? --J-Star10:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the "amateur" sentence was poorly written O.R. and is just as well omitted. That was left over from some anon long ago, and I just moved it down.
However, the laser rule is a very real technique for fostering muzzle awareness, and as soon as my books are unpacked from my recent move, I will supply the references for it and re-insert it.
Lastly, I cannot see why you removed the following sentence, which I recently added to bring a reality check to the relative-risk assessment for the pre-existing discussion of the skyward-or-groundward-pointing SOP: "However, the muzzle must point somewhere, and these risks are smaller than the risks created by pointing it anywhere else; therefore, the skyward or groundward directions are chosen." What about that relative-risk quantification do you think is not correct? When I get a chance to supply the references for it, I will re-insert it. However, refs aside, it is also common sense. You don't carry a rifle horizontally because you're afraid of possibly shooting an airplane with the skyward-pointing SOP. That's ridiculous, refs or no refs! :)
I think that everyone understands that we're not talking, here, about the safe handling of naval ordnance, but changing it to "firearm safety" might make the title too abstract. You could put a redirect from "firearm safety" to here, I suppose. More than that is going to get into squabbling, I fear. htom (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with otterSmith: redirect Firearm Safety to this page. I oppose a move to FirearmSafety.
I tried a Google Battle between "Gun Safety" and "Firearm Safety". Gun Safety get approximately 10x more hits. --J-Star (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Age versus black powder
Black powder is not hygroscopic or corrosive by itself. Only the combustion products of black powder are corrosive and hygroscopic. Black powder is a physical mixture of sulfur, carbon, and either potassium nitrate or sodium nitrate. The nitrates are not unstable with age. The other two ingredients are chemical elements. Hence, black powder cannot deteriorate with age. Smokeless powder, on the other hand, is a chemical compound with many nitrogen bonds that do start to break down with age, producing a brownish residue and an acidic smell (it actually becomes acidic) to the smokeless powder. Smokeless powder can deteriorate with age. Black powder cannot. Of course, if black powder is exposed to water while it is stored, this can cause problems. One has to keep his (black) powder dry :-) -- Yaf (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it's obvious by now we aren't going to delete the article. Many asked for a cleanup though. So... where do we start? Specify the problem and what exactly needs to be removed.
Also, keep in mind that Gun Safty rules are a How (Not) To-guide. How does one describe a How To guide without the description becoming a How To guide too? --J-Star (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed a few other issues with this, particularly the distinct lack of references, which make it difficult to distinguish original research from something that has already been published. I've tagged the page with the {{cleanup-afd}} template, as well as the more specific issues mentioned in the discussion and those I noticed myself. Hersfold(t/a/c)15:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
A super quick look at this article shows that the beginning is a lengthy howto guide format that is either unverified or Original Reserach. I propose deleting all of the howto type stuff and readding it only if it can be attributed to a reputable source, such as "According to the NRA, the major aspects of gun safety are..." I'm sure there's plenty of excellent sources on this topic. History of gun safety, importance of gun safety, major political actions related to gun safety, lobbyist groups posititions on gun safety etc. But it be much easier to add content that is attributed than to seek out attributions for most of this stuff. I may be WP:BOLD and do this anyway and see if complaints arise, haven't decided yet. -Verdatum (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
So I removed the explanation of the stated gun safety rules that react of GUIDE issues. I also went through and released any imparative sentences I could find (describing what the user should or must do). What remains should be actual factual claims that can be proven or disproven. If this was done right, the guide tag might be able to come off. -Verdatum (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
There is one thing to be bold... another to cut out the essence and backbone of the article without checking references. I'm restoring these and advice you to check the links at the bottom. Especiallt the links to Jeff Cooper I think you completely missed to read. --J-Star (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so now the explanation to the rules is back. These shoudl have references added to them instead of just blind slashing. If anyone has an itchy trigger finger and desperately need to cut something out, then the sections below, - "Protective gear and health issues", "Failures", "Hazardous conditions/proper storage", "Impairment", "Correct ammunition", "Construction, modification and general condition of firearms" are of much lower priority to keep compared to explaining the rules.
I would advice that those involved in editing this article should be somewhat knowledgable in the subject and not just wave a Wikipedia policy blindly about. The slashing here is taking on not bold but on the subject down right ignorant proportions. --J-Star (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys. I don't have time to work on this article currently, but I saw the recent activity and I just wanted to say that much of the legitimate info in this article that lacks citations can be inline-cited to Massad Ayoob's books, especially "The Truth About Self-Protection" and "In the Gravest Extreme", if anyone has time to crawl over them and match his passages to the points here. I would do this myself if I had a magic clock-stopping device and an empty to-do list IRL. Happy editing, — ¾-1002:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
J-Star, Please assume good faith. When I found the article, there were no references of this type. There are still no references of this type. There are "External Links" which are a different thing. Editors do not know that an external link is used as a source for content unless this is explicitly declared. This can be done by way of inline references, or by creating an explicit list of overall works cited. Failure to do so makes the content read like unverifiable original research and in some instances can border on plagarism.
Please do not consider this an extreme case of being bold. It is standard technique for change in Wikipedia. One person makes a controvertial change, if another person disagrees, they revert and justify the reversion, which is what has been done. It's a Good Thing.
I admit, my editing practices generally serve to enforce WP:POLICY. I fail to see why this is a bad thing, or why this is a special case that needs an expert. I regularly see that argument made to articles I've worked on, and it consistently reflects failure to enforce major WP policies. I am not one to wave policy "blindly about". My edits to the article were with the intention of improving the article.
Further, please do not assume I am completely ignorant of this topic; as it turns out, in this case, I rather well educated in the relm of firearms and related topics.
On to my specific edits. Even given the attributed references, I still do not believe the content belongs. I don't understand the need for the explanation of the principles of Gun Safety in this article. The explanations they give are merely one possible implimentation of gun safety and I don't belive it nessisary to go into this level of detail for something so abstract. The major points are well worded and generally self-explanitory. The explanations of the terms read like advise for gun safety instructors, which ammounts to guide material. To quote the policy, "a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain 'how-to's. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes...The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles which read as textbooks."
Think of it like this: if, in explaining the content of the article, the words "how to" come up, it is probably guide material. So, if content is in place in case a reader wishes to know how to impliment, enforce, justify, or instruct proper gun safety, they should probably be going to some resource other than the encyclopedia article on the subject.
I am willing to admit there are some worthwhile verifiable facts within the sections I removed, and perhaps some of it should remain, but I don't think it should be organized in the form of an annotated list. It can be condenced into a single section giving further detail on the origin of the need for such a rule. (facts worded on the order of, "Most gun accidents occur because of ...").
Hey Verdatum. One reason I think that persons doing the cleanup here should be knowledgable on the subject it is because one should know some kind of priority on what to slash and what to "just" clean up. The sections you slashed are in fact some of the most important aspects of Gun Safety while the other sections, that you cleaned without removing, are much less important to the subject since they don't usually relate to Gun Safety that tightly. I myself have long concidrered removing them or shortening them since the article is bloating.
I didn't write the original article but I did do the major rewrite that settled it on its current structure. I have been very careful - in my own opinion - to word the sections about the four rules as to be descriptive of the rules and refraining from "How-to" wording. I reviewed theose sections again today and I find them to still be descriptive rather than instructive.
Also bear in mind - again - this Gun Safety is a how to guide... which makes it tricky to describe without the article also becoming a how to guide. A wee bit tolerance should perhaps be exercised here.
Anywaw... to get down to business. Here are my opionion about the existing sections.
Intro: Looks fine to me. Short and to the point. Isn't a How To.
Gun safety rules and mindset: Looks fine to me too. The wording is as far as I can see a description of the rules and a description fof the motivation of the rules, rather than a verbatim repetition of the rules. Plus some additional info surrounding them (such as finger on trigger in TV shows). Needs better references but I expect that it shouldn't be hard to find.
Impairment: Fixing the references and moving it up should be enough. I think this section rather important for the article since Gun Safety looks down upon using guns under the influence or while being tired.
Correct ammunition: Weak and smallish section. Not very relevant. I think it could be slashed.
Gun safety for children: Pretty important and easy to find references to. Needs a bit of reworking to move it from instructive to descriptive. Keep and clean I say.
Again, if you'd like a howto guide on gun safety, it should be located somewhere else (for example Wikihow). WP:NOT is not just a guideline, it is a policy; something that should only be ignored if you can give an exceptionally decent justification. I don't see any justification at all here. Further, Wikipedia is not about what's important it's about what's verifiable. This information, as written is not verifiable, because as written, it is a reccomendation, not a fact. Perhaps you could find me some Good Articles or better yet, Featured Articles that exercise this "wee bit of tolerance" to convince me. -Verdatum (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You are both correct in different ways. But the 4 rules should not disappear.
Consider this analogy: Say you had an article called "Blarney cake", and you said therein, "people from Belfast feel that ingredients should be added to the flour in the order (1) eggs, (2) sugar, (3) milk; but people from Dublin feel it should be (1) sugar, (2) milk, (3) eggs, and that there must be nutmeg as well". Now, that info is inherently how-to-ish. However, it is also very basic and essential to the topic of blarney cake. If you deleted it, the article would be incomplete.
That is essentially the same situation as we have here. IMO this article should be structured with the lead saying essentially "there are several schools of thought on firearm safety, including the Cooper system, the NRA system, and [whatever]." Then each of those systems has its own heading, and its rules are listed, each a subheading. (By the way, blarney cake is (AFAIK) fictional—I just made it up as a simple analogy.) </2¢> — ¾-1023:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that the article can be cleaned up, keeping both Cooper's Rules and the NRA rules (and elaborations and explanations of the differences), without being a "how-to" article. Cooper's rules are almost the irreducible minimum for firearms safety; eliminate them, and I'll propose deletion. htom (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, I do not think the rules themselves should dissappear. I think the enumerated explanations of the rules should either be removed or seriously reduced. I believe the rules are self-explainitory, and the details on the rules add nothing to the article beyond bloat. Also, proposing deletion is not the solution in these cases. Deletion was only just proposed and renomination so soon is generally viewed unfavorably. No one seems to doubt that an article on gun safety should exist, the argument is what form the article should take. These matters are appropriately resolved right here. -Verdatum (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Concerning the analogy, your blarney cake content is fine, as it is a verifiable fact that one group believes it should be one way, one group believes it should be another way. If it contained tips and details like, "Be sure the butter is at room temperature first." that should be reworded or removed. if it contains details like, "If cooks argue there should be no nutmeg, inform them that nutmeg tastes really really good." that should obviously be removed. -Verdatum (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
To repeat what I have said several times before: the four rules are essential to the article. The rest of the article is not. Why are we debating the section on the rules where there is alot of dead weight in the article that could be removed much sooner?! We deal with the low priority pieces first, see what is left and then debate the sections about the Cooper rules, ok? --J-Star (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
While Cooper's rules are self-explanatory to those who've lived with them for a while, those coming to firearms from other (non-Cooperish) cultures can soon learn to recite them, but act in ways that show that their verbal recitation has not produced internalized correct understandings. (Indeed, the form of the rules in the article are much "softer" than the ones I learned. (Every gun is always loaded, Never let the muzzle cover anything you don't want destroyed, Never put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to fire, Always be sure of your target, and what is above, below, beside, beyond, and through that target.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs) 17:52, 10 March 2008
OtterSmith, I am likewise more accustomed to this "harder" form of the rules. (Naturally, I don't have a source I can point to so I don't intend to add it or change the wording to reflect it.) If there is an issue of people being able to recite these rules but failing to follow them, then we should find a reference that reports this problem, and mention it explicitly; not just add expansion/direction/unreferenced clarification/instruction/etc. in hopes that it will help the state of gun safety in the world. -Verdatum (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
J-star, the criteria for content inclusion in an article is not the percieved value of the content (which is extremely subjective), it is the verifiability of the content. The closest thing to a discussion of "Dead weight" is How to handle trivia, and I don't believe that applies to the content of this article. I do object that most of the content is unattributed, and can potentially go for that reason, but if the claims are attached to reliable sources, I'd have no problems with them. When people talk about "cleanup" on wikipedia, it generally doesn't mean, "this article is needlessly long", it means, "large portions of this article do not follow policies for no good reason." -Verdatum (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I finally got the lead out and cleaned this up. The rule of thumb was this: if Gun Safety doesn't have anything specific to say about the section in question, I slashed it. Merely listing possible dangers is of little use to this article if Gun Safety doesn't tell us how to deal with it. In short: this is about Gun Safety, not Gun Dangers.
I don't understand the various changings of "fire" to "be discharged", and am inclined to change them back. Some of them (IMAO) may have been appropriate, but not all. htom (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
It's mostly for consistency of language, just like we have consistently used "firearm" instead of "gun" throughout the article. The only places where we have not used "firearm" over "gun" is for the subject at hand, i.e. "gun safety". --J-Star (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
It may be consistent in use, but it is badly passive, confounding human action and history ("he fired the gun" vs "he discharged the gun" vs "the gun was discharged"), and not very good writing. htom (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
You're thinking like a novelist, not a technical writer.Though both neutrality and audience interest are important, you're not trying to "hook" a reader; they're already interested before they read the article. Neutrality is thus of higher importance than keeping the audience's interest, to avoid bias and connotative misunderstanding.
Instruction manuals for firearms, of which I have a few and have read a few more, use the term "(to) discharge" to separate the shooter's actions in triggering a discharge, known as "firing the gun", and the actual behavior of the gun from the moment pin strikes primer, which is the "discharge". Firing a gun is an intentional action of the handler resulting in the expected result of the bullet being sent downrange to the target. However, a firearm may discharge without being intentionally "fired" by a handler, or the discharge may happen in an unexpected manner. To say that the gun "fired" without human input assigns the connotation of a conscious act to an inanimate object. That's the idea behind this separation of terms; a gun cannot pull its own trigger, but depending on its design, level of repair and handling it can discharge a cartridge when the handler did not wish to do so or was otherwise not expecting it. In addition, a "discharge" is any detonation of the powder charge behind the bullet. This can happen in the intended manner, directing the bullet out the barrel, or a firearm can discharge the powder's energy out its ejection port, a so-called "backfire". Thus, the handler may fire the weapon and experience a discharge out the ejection port which was certainly not his intention. Liko81 (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
"Training is used to mimimize the risk of such outcomes. Target practice increases the precision with which the handler can discharge the firearm and thus increase the chances that the intended target is hit. Education about terminal ballistics gives the handler knowledge about the characteristics of a bullet after a target is hit. This knowledge coupled with insight into the handler's own capabilities makes it easier for the handler to make appropriate decisions about whether to discharge or not, even if given little time and/or put under severe stress."
I suggest, instead: "Training is used to minimize the risk of such outcomes; target practice increases both the shooter's skills and target scores. The study of terminal ballistics teaches the characteristics of a bullet's path in a target. Coupled with knowledge of the handler's own capabilities, the handler should make better decisions about whether to fire or not, even when given little time and under severe stress." htom (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Short counter-question: why? I think it muddles the paragraph, and phrases like "the handler should make better decisions" is a bit... I don't know, it just looks odd. We drop about 25% of the chars, but to what end? What's our motivation for the suggested change? --J-Star (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It differs from gun to gun. There is no formal definition of what is a "vital piece" but in essence: if the vital piece is missing, the gun won't fire, and you cannot replace the vital piece without getting an identical one... makeshift substitutes won't do. With bolt-action rifles for instance the bolt is usually concidered the vital pice. --J-Star (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Then please include this information in the article, what the vital piece is for a firearm and that it differs for different pieces and a source for this information. Particularly with "vital piece" in quotation marks. Also, this article should clarify intitially that it's "firearm safety" not "gun safety," as other readers may think it's just about handguns, not rifles, also. --Blechnic (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"Firearm safety" redirects here. The "vital piece" thing varies from country to country, both in which pieces are vital and what they are called. htom (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Blechnic I'm confused on your second point. From the lead sentence: "Gun safety is a collection of rules and recommendations that can be applied when handling firearms" how does this not "clarify initially that it's 'firearm safety'"? The article is called Gun Safety because of WP:COMMONNAME, I believe it makes it sufficiently clear that the topic applies to firearms in general. -Verdatum (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Gun locks and promotional edits
Jweinraub42986 added this: "You do not think it is important to state the first gun lock approved by the standards set forth by the government?" to my talk page, regarding this [3] edit, but it belongs here. My response:
No, I don't think that identifying the manufacturer of one particular type of gun-safety device approved by a single U.S. state is at all important to the article, particularly when it's added in the form of an obvious advertisement. Mark Shaw (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Not especially important and it's not reliably sourced. (Note that being reliably sourced is different -- sometimes very different -- in Wikipedia-land than being correct and factual.) htom (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Even if we ignore all of that, it's simply useless to the article - it adds nothing at all to it. The fact claim that a particular trigger lock was/is "popular" and that it was the first to be approved by a single state in a particular country is meaningless in encyclopedic context - although it might be appropriate elsewhere, such as in the article for the manufacturer of that lock (were it to exist).
I don't want to get into a pointless edit war, though, so I'll let this go for a little while in the hopes that someone else will have something to say about it. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
This is an article about gun safety, not about trigger locks. If anyone feels like adding the factlet that brand X was the first to acheive approval Y in city/state/planet/galaxy Z, they are free to do so... on the Trigger lock page, not here! I'm slashing the edits, end of discussion. --J-Star (talk) 10:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with J-Star. There is no need to go into exhaustive detail on gun locks here. A summary of the device and a wikilink is fine. Fight any spamtastic issues over there if desired. -Verdatum (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The Gun Is Always Loaded
See this diff: [4]. I don't like it. If I have verified, five different ways, that a gun is not loaded, is it reasonable for me to then point it at a bystander if it has not left my hand during this time?
It's an argument I've not heard in forty years of handling firearms, and it's also uncited. I will revert this edit in about 24 hours if I do not see a good argument that it should be kept. Mark Shaw (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The claim is indeed referenced in the article, both from Cooper and Canadian Firearms Centre. I dont' care if you havn't heard it. The references are there. I'm reverting your change. --J-Star (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Um, I didn't make the change, and I have no idea what "claim" you're referring to. I was commenting on the change. I agree with your reversal. Mark Shaw (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
It is not reasonable to do so. Further, it is downright dangerous to you, for you to do so; because other people may reasonably believe that you are assaulting them by pointing the firearm at them (or someone under their protection) and respond according to that rational belief. You point a firearm at a person at your own peril. Do so only if you intend to shoot them. htom (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, sorry about that Mark. I accidentally misread you as the opposing view. So we have consensus, that's good. Pardon about the confusion. :) --J-Star (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I misread both of you, and thought there was an invisible third person involved for a couple of minutes. htom (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Gun Safety For Children
That section is woefully inadequate.
Perhaps the most important instruction is missing: Never allow your child to play with a toy gun. A child will develop terrible habits. Older children need to learn how to handle guns properly. Parents also need to "de-mystify" firearms. Rather than just instructing them not to touch firearms, parents should also try to prevent the children from wanting to. My own parents did not allow me to have toy guns, but they also tried without success to keep me from seeing guns on the TV or in movies. (That was not as impossible as it sounds. I was born in 1947.) Well, I found granddad's WWI souvenir pistol when I was about four and took it out of the house to show other kids. To my dad's credit, I did learn proper gun handling when I got older, first with a BB gun, and later with a .22 rifle. I didn't mean to start an autobiography. I hope I made my point. Educate your children, and try to prevent them from giving themselves a bad education. Someone who can satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for citations ought to fix the section on children. Jive Dadson (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Do be careful, this article, being an encyclopedia article, describes what other people and organizations have published regarding gun safety. What you are proposing sounds like a recommendation or instruction (Which is inappropriate according to WP:NOTHOWTO); and an arguable one at that. I've personally never read this recommendation by sources speaking on the topic of gun safety, only by parental advocacy groups. As an aside, a parent could potentially use a toy gun as a tool to teach proper gun safety. -Verdatum (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I have modified the title of this section because it is sepcifc to the USA. Many other countries do not allow adults, let alone children, to have guns. Other indications this section is specifc to the USA:
Eddie Eagle is unknown in other countries, because he is part of a purely USA organisation.
The terminology of 'preschoolers' and '6th graders' is not used in most other English speakin gcountries.
The listed organisations are from the USA.
I have also replaced 'fact' tags, as claims were made, such as the rules introduced by Colonel Jeff Cooper are those most commonly taught during gun safety training. Aside from these again being USA specific any such claims need supporting references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.43.24 (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Those countries that don't allow their citizens to have firearms, of course, will not have a problem and those citizens need no safety instruction and have no organizations to cite. :) More seriously, the idea that preventing children from playing with toy guns will somehow make them magically capable of proper gun handing when they become older is a fine example of magical thinking. I don't remember being taught not to point guns at people; I suspect that it started with my first toy gun, we were required to handle toy guns according to all of the safety rules for real guns. htom (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
??? I am sorry I do not understand your comment. As I do not wish to appear argumentative I will not for now revert your changes. However please could you explain how the addition of 'in the USA' to the title is not an accurate reflection of the content. It is currently written for an entirely USA perspective: by that I am not being critical, just that this should be clarified.(and as an aside unrelated to this article not every country has 'citizens.') —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.43.24 (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Adding 'in the USA' to this type of article is mostly nonsensical. The methodology for safely handling guns is the same in any country. EVEN IN COUNTRIES THAT DO NOT ALLOW GUNS, the methodology for the safe handling still exists. This article should relate to the concepts and set of actions that are generally accepted as the safe way to handle any gun. If the terminology is US-specific, then the TERMINOLOGY should be changed. There is no shortage of research and statistics regarding gun education and precautions for children. JUST FIND THE ARTICLE AND CITE IT! - Gwopy 04:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)
New section 4: Gun safety in non-use situations (movies, TV, plays, etc.)?
I believe it would be helpful for gun safety education to include details regarding how guns, both in appearance and function, are simulated in movies, TV shows, plays, etc. Movies typically use "squibs" and small charges to simulate the impact of a bullet and blanks or special effects simulate the firing of a gun. I'm sure that this information is documented somewhere.
Also, while the DEA agent who shot himself with his Glock is certainly my favorite example, there are several high profile example of poor gun handling and its consequences. Examples that come to mind: Effects staff of the movie, The Crow, failing to remove some sort effect caps from a revolver that was used in the movie, the actor who shot the gun AND the actor at whom the gun was shot failing to verify that the gun was in a non-lethal state and Brandon Lee being shot as a result; NFL player, Plaxico Burress, carrying his gun in a non-secure fashion and shooting himself in the leg; NBA player, Jason Williams, mishandling a shotgun (his driver was killed as a result, I believe); NBA player Gilbert Arenas produced ALLEGEDLY unloaded hand guns during a card game with teammates, then proceeded to conduct the "always funny" act of "drawing down" on a teammate with an ALLEGEDLY unloaded handgun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs) 04:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
More accurately, Brandon Lee's death was the result of the use of a combination of "photo-real" cartridges (which have a real bullet but no powder charge or primer) and blanks (which have the full primer and powder charge but no bullet). The "photo-real" cartridge was poorly made by simply removing the powder charge from a real bullet, which still contained a live primer. When its primer was struck, the bullet was dislodged into the barrel (a "squib"). The gun was then used with blanks; the malfunction not being noticed, the blank discharged the lodged bullet at sufficient force to be lethal. The proximate cause was the failure to replace the live primer with a dummy, which was a serious oversight and might have been immediately fatal had the primer been powerful enough to get the bullet all the way out. A secondary failure to properly clear and check the gun sealed Brandon's fate.
Merge from Trigger Lock
There's a proposal to merge the article Trigger lock into this page; the discussion is there, further discussion, agreeing or not, is solicited. Thank you. htom (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The editing activity in this article has slowed down conciderably, which I see as a sign that people are generally happy with it.
So where do we go about from here? Is this it? Or are there still things left to do to make this an A-class article? J-Star (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
There typically needs to be a supporting reference from a reliable source for each paragraph. You might want to ask the Firearms Project to do an informal Peer review - asking what needs to be done to improve the article, and/or check the Quality scale before asking for a formal A Class review. (Hohum@) 15:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Hohum; the information looks good and is concisely presented, but many of the sections have no citations, even when they make otherwise vague statements like "it is recommended...". There are many good sites on gun safety that will back this page up; someone just has to do the legwork. Liko81 (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed—content good, just needs legwork to look up inline citations and add them. I may feel inspired to do this sometime, but can't promise when, as it's not my main content area. Anyone up for the challenge? — ¾-1022:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Very well... I'm starting a new section listing all the current sections in the article as a TODO list. Add things as you see fit to the TODO list. Match anything you add against the quality scale. J-Star (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
This is an important article that deserves to be finalized.
The definition of Gun Safety that is provided at the outset of this wikipedia article is overly restrictive and not consistent with current broader usage of the phrase by a significant number of people. The overly restrictive definition (focused solely on ways to handle firearms to limit unintentional injuries) not only fails to capture many current discussions on gun safety (as documented by the 20 web references below -- more can be provided) but limits discussion in a biased way. If this point cannot be acknowledged at the outset of this article, then a notice should be posted that the article has been nominated to be checked for neutrality.
The broader issues related to gun safety can be discussed in another wikipedia article, but the Gun Safety article needs to at least acknowledge that a significant number of people have a broader understanding of gun safety that includes efforts to prevent firearm homicides and suicides.
7. "Gun Safety", MedLine Plus, undated. The 7th recommendation is "Don't keep guns in your home if someone in your family has a mental illness, severe depression, or potential for violence." http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/gunsafety.html
8. "Gun Safety", the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. This publication begins with the statement that "Having a firearm in the home can be a significant risk factor for injury and death in children. The decision to keep a firearm in the home is very serious and one that should not be made lightly. If you choose to keep a gun you must become fully aware about the risks of firearms to your family and others who visit your home." http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ca/gunsafe.pdf
9. “Georgians for Gun Safety”, Georgians for Gun Safety says on their website that “While we focus on education and communication, we also try to bring balance to the gun safety debate in the Georgia General Assembly.” http://www.georgiansforgunsafety.org/
10. “Arizonans for Gun Safety” notes that “AzGS is a non-profit, community-based organization dedicated to reducing gun deaths and injuries with common sense, prevention-oriented solutions. We have supporters in both Phoenix and Tucson representing health care, child advocacy groups, faith communities, law enforcement, education, parent groups and community organizations. Our mission is to engage individuals, organizations and public officials from diverse communities in a statewide campaign to prevent gun violence.” http://www.azfgs.com/
14. "Inside the mind of a gun lover: Solving firearms safety crisis" by Heather Denkmire, 18 December, 2012. The author concludes by saying that "I lean toward the idea posited by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Hemenway, author of “Private Guns, Public Health,” suggests creating a National Firearm Safety Administration, just as 40 years ago we created the National Highway Traffic Administration. This makes sense to me as the NHTA allowed data collection, so we could know which policies worked to reduce traffic injuries. This time we could do it for guns." http://bangordailynews.com/2012/12/18/opinion/inside-the-mind-of-a-gun-lover-solving-firearms-safety-crisis/
15. "Seattle City Council takes stand on gun safety" by Linda Brill/King 5 News, 18 December, 2012 Newshttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50231879/ns/local_news-seattle_wa/#.UNIO0W9X2-0
19. "In the news: Gun Safety" by Jim Jaworski, Chicago Tribune reporter, July 2, 2012. The article is sub-titled "Chicago's gun buyback helps group pay for youth shooting camp" http://articles.chicagotribune.com/keyword/gun-safety
It is acceptable to place a discussion of issues related to gun safety in an another wikipedia article. It is not acceptable, however, for the wikipedia gun safety article to provide such a restricted definition of gun safety without acknowledging that a significant number of people hold to a broader definition that includes measures that might reduce firearm homicides and suicides (PLEASE LOOK AT THE 20 REFERENCES -- others can be provided) As the article is now written, it is not neutral nor does it reflect current understanding of the term "gun safety".Bob Pond (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
You are missing the point. This article is about (and only about) the safe handling of firearms. The very first words in the article state - "For discussions on politics concerning firearms and gun safety, see Gun politics". It is not biased to limit the contents of the article to the subject of the article.--Dmol (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Concur. The references and viewpoints would be excellent in the larger topic Gun Politics; they're inappropriate here. As if you were to add a discussion of the American diet to the article on ice cream, for a not very good example. htom (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The introductory sentence of the article is not consistent with the current usage of the phrase "gun safety" by many people. For the article to be accurate and neutral, it is essential to add language to acknowledge this broader use. As such an acknowledgement appears to be controversial (even when the language is entirely neutral) it is essential to provide some references to document this broader meaning of "gun safety" All the references I am suggesting include the phrase "gun safety" or "firearms safety" in their title. It is as if I am adding balance to an article on "ice cream" by adding references from public officials, nutrition advocates and the media that refer directly to ice cream.Bob Pond (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Have you considered changing the title of the article to "Safe handling of firearms" or "Prevention of unintentional gun injuries"?Bob Pond (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are not thesaurus or dictionary entries about their title, nor a dump of everything that comes up in a google search of the article name, or even necessarily the phrases use in common vernacular. This one is about Gun Safety - the safe handling of guns. I notice a significant number of your references are news articles pertaining to the recent school shooting in America - possibly more to do with trying to re-badge "gun control" to "gun safety" for various motives, and all of the references are American. Wikipedia tends to avoid neologisms, recentism and national POV. (Hohum@) 00:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Please read the following article. “To Teach or Not Teach Gun Safety in School” by Claire Moore of ABC News. Dated 20 December, 2012. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96091&page=1#.UNJX1m9X3lY. The definition of "gun safety" is contested. Any wikipedia article entitled "Gun Safety" must document and acknowledge this. Unless this is done, the article will not be balanced, accurate and neutral.Bob Pond (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Bob Pond (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Please review the following document from 2007:
“A Review of Literature on ‘Gun Safety' Education Programmes” by the South Eastern and Eastern Europe Clearinghouse for the Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons. 14 March 2007. This review begins by stating that “The USA is the only country where there are programmes related to gun safety for pre-school children (four to five) and for primary and secondary children. There is no evidence of the effectiveness of these programmes; this is hardly surprising, as they are not based on a solid foundation of knowledge about child development. Unfortunately there is also little evidence from the USA that attempts to educate parents are very successful. This seems to be due to the strength of the belief that guns protect individuals and families, and misperceptions about the ability of children to engage in safe behaviours.” http://www.seesac.org/uploads/documents/Gun%20safety1.pdf
Please read opposing editors statements rather than firing a shotgun loaded with more references which entirely miss the point. (Hohum@) 02:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The title of the article is "Gun Safety". This is an important topic as reflected by the many references to it in various publications. It is essential that any article entitle "Gun Safety" fairly represent the range of views on the topic. This is why I believe that language along the lines I have proposed is essential for the article to meet Wikipedia standards.
"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.
'Neutral point of view' is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are 'Verifiability' and 'No original research'. These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.
Explanation of the neutral point of view
Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view."
What are you on about?. This has nothing to do with NPOV. It is about you refusing to heed what has been said by me and at least 3 other editors - namely,- this article is about the safe handling of firearms. It has nothing to do with the political or legal side of firearms ownership or use. Citing NPOV is a joke considering that very banal nature of the subject. Please stop being disruptive and consider contributing to the other articles suggested above and in the edit summaries.--Dmol (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what he's on about. I'm going to AGF and think that he hasn't noticed the very first sentence on the article's page, which directs his interest and POV to other pages.
The title of the article is "Gun Safety". Language that acknowledges a widely shared, broader understanding of this exact concept is not disruptive. Such observations, presented in a neutral fashion, are essential in order to meet Wikipedia's standards that "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."
This broader understanding of the concept of "Gun Safety" is shared by
170 college presidents:
“College Presidents for Gun Safety: An Open Letter to Our Nation’s Policy Leaders” This open letter was signed by the presidents of 170 U.S. colleges and is dated 19 December, 2012. http://collegepresidentsforgunsafety.oglethorpe.wpengine.com/
Some gun rights advocates have insisted on the distinction between “gun safety” and gun control:
“Huff Favors 'Gun Safety' Not Control” by Brian P. Spears. 19 December 2012. In this article which appeared on the website of two Maryland journals, one of the Baltimore County Council’s two Republicans is quoted as saying “"It's not gun control, it's gun safety". http://towson.patch.com/blog_posts/huff-favors-gun-safety-not-control
Other organizations are attempting to restrict discussion of “gun safety” as defined more broadly:
“Fox News Bans Gun-Safety Talk, Even Though Boss Supports New Gun Laws (VIDEO / TRANSCRIPT)” by Elisabeth Parker. 19 December, 2012. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/12/19/fox-news-bans-gun-safety-talk/
This is precisely why it is essential that the Wikipedia article entitled “Gun Safety” must, at a minimum, acknowledge at the outset of the article the distinction between “Gun safety” as more narrowly defined (safe handling of firearms) and a now common, broader understanding of the concept of "Gun Safety". If the authors or a group of editors wish to restrict discussion to "safe handling of firearms", they need to change the title of the article to something more limited than "Gun Safety".
The following is from the article Wikipedia: Assume good faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith) “If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence.” “Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice.”
Please review the first sentence that I wrote on the Talk page for this article: “This is an important article that deserves to be finalized.”. I strongly believe that it is important for Wikipedia to have an article on “Gun Safety”. To permit this project to be completed in a timely manner, and avoid having an article that overlaps with discussions in other articles, I have proposed succinct neutral language that summarizes the verifiable fact that “Gun Safety” is a contested topic. All of this is evidence of my good faith.
The fact that some people in the gun-politics debate have conflated "gun safety" with "gun law" and/or "gun politics" has nothing to do with the topic of this article. Again: see the explanatory text right up at the beginning. I have been patient with you on this but your continued insistence on bringing a political component into this purely technical article is getting tedious. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
That you want the article to be "finalized" makes me think you have a goal other than having an article about gun safety. The long list of articles you cite seem (to me) to have almost everything to do with POV pushing, and little to nothing to do with how to handle a firearm. htom (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The title of the article is "Gun Safety". Have the authors considered changing the name of the article to "Safe handling of firearms"?
Or do the editors invite me to propose a modification of the initial sentence of the article that would adequately address my concerns about NPOV? Bob Pond (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
There is no NPOV concerns from anyone but yourself, and the arguments against your claim have been discussed ad nauseum above. You are the only person claiming this, ironically by introducing a POV where none exists. The title is perfectly adequate for an article on gun safety. Please give it a rest and accept the consensus shown. As I said before, you are being disruptive and I am no longer able to assume good faith as is the norm on this site.--Dmol (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Was it removed? :looks: No, still there. "For discussions on politics concerning firearms and gun safety, see Gun politics. For the part of a firearm that is called a "safety" or "safety catch", see Safety (firearms)." If you want, we could add "and Gun control" after Gun politics ... but I somehow doubt that is what you want. I'll go do that in a minute anyway. Take your political soapbox elsewhere, please. htom (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
This explanation, at the outset of the article, effectively addresses my concerns about the restrictive definition of “gun safety”.
I have a few remarks on the Children section of the article. This section includes:
a) Some discussion of what is known about the effectiveness of efforts to improve the safe handling of firearms; and
b) A mention of gun safety advice from the American Academy of Pediatrics to discourage the ownership of guns by persons who are not prepared to assure the safety of guns they might own.
Both of these topics fall outside of what the introductory statement refers to as “political and legal issues concerning firearms and gun safety” that should be discussed in the Gun Politics article. So both of these topics fit well with this article on safe handling of firearms.
I’d like to comment on each of these topics:
a) Concerning evidence of progress with the safe handling of firearms, the article could include a discussion of official statistics on unintentional firearms deaths. One web publication on this topic is provided by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (the one based in Newtown Connecticut). This can be downloaded from http://familiesafield.org/pdf/IIR_12_page_4_Hunting.pdf . However, a more authoritative reference would be “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS). Available from URL: www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars.” From this website you can download the official statistics on all firearms deaths reported in the United States from 1981 to 2010. The statistics show that the absolute number of unintentional firearms deaths declined by 67% (from 1871 to 606) between 1981 and 2010 while the rate of such deaths per 100,000 population declined by 75% (from 0.82 to 0.20) during this period. If anyone wants this data, I can send it to them as an excel spreadsheet. However, I’m unclear whether creation of a graph of such data constitutes “original research” as defined by Wikipedia. The graph shows a very steady decline almost every year.
I notice that there is now a tag at the outset of the Children section noting that “The examples and perspective in this section deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
I know of two studies that have analyzed international statistics on unintentional firearms deaths. In 1997, the CDC published an analysis of official statistics of 26 industrialized countries on childhood (less than 15 years of age) firearms deaths (´Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries” MMWR, 7 February 1997. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm ). The CDC concluded that the unintentional firearm-related death rate among children was nine times higher (0.36 compared with 0.04) in the United States than the average for the other 26 industrialized countries.
In a more recent study, Richardson and Hemingway (“Homicide, suicide, and unintentional firearm fatality: comparing the United States with other high-income countries, 2003.” J Trauma. 2011 Jan;70(1):238-43.) analyzed statistics reported to the World Health Organization by 23 high income countries and found that unintentional firearms deaths in the US were 5.2 times higher than in the other countries.
An eastern European organization, SEESAC (South Eastern and Eastern Europe Clearinghouse for the Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons) has compiled “A Review of Literature on‘Gun Safety' Education Programmes” ( http://www.seesac.org/uploads/documents/Gun%20safety1.pdf ). The review summarizes findings from 35 articles, some of which have been published in Canadian or British journals. However, all of the studies cited have been based upon research conducted in the United States.
b) Concerning advice from health professionals to inform people about gun safety and the risks associated with gun ownership, in addition to the website of the American Academy of Pediatrics, such advice is also provided on the websites of at least five U.S. hospitals and of the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. The URLs for these websites are provided below.
Since the above Talk discussion has raised the issue of my personal intentions, I would like to close by elaborating on said intentions. As a health professional, and as someone frustrated with “gun politics”, I am interested in peoples’ personal decisions to own a gun. I believe that the peer reviewed research on the topic (which is dealt with in a very incomplete and non-neutral way in the Gun Politics article) provides overwhelming evidence that the risk of homicide and suicide is substantially higher for households owning a gun. I won’t rehash here the complexity of this issue. As we all agree, this is best dealt with in the Gun Politics article. But the personal decision to own a gun and the personal decision to take all necessary precautions to keep safe the firearms in your possession fall within the purview of this article on safe handling of firearms. This decision has been politicized but it is not a political decision. It is a personal decision. And, as difficult as that is, Wikipedia should endeavor to provide readers with neutral and complete information to help them to make that personal decision. It is my intention to help Wikipedia with that effort.
Medical/health web sites with advice on safe handling on firearms which include advice to consider the evidence about risks before deciding to own a gun:
“Firearm safety” by Boston Children’s Hospital, undated. http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Site905/mainpageS905P0.html
"Gun Safety", the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. This publication begins with the statement that "Having a firearm in the home can be a significant risk factor for injury and death in children. The decision to keep a firearm in the home is very serious and one that should not be made lightly. If you choose to keep a gun you must become fully aware about the risks of firearms to your family and others who visit your home." http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ca/gunsafe.pdf
“Gun Safety for Kids and Youth” from the website of the University of Michigan Health System, undated. The article notes that “… the American Academy of Pediatrics has reviewed the current medical research on the subject and concluded that if you have children, it is safer not to have a gun in your home.” http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm
What you appear not to understand is that this article deals with gun safety after you are in possession of a gun; whether in your home, or a friend's home, or a workplace, ..., or found on the boulevard next to the school bus stop. Social and political and medical and legal pressures were inadequate to prevent this, and the decision has already been made not to remove it, or someone wants to know how to safely remove it, or store it, or the decision was made to unsafely discard it; this article is about achieving maximum safety while you possess it. I, at least, and I understand this is an anecdote, not a study, have never noticed guns paying any attention to the things you want to bring to this article. htom (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Bob, try being concise, a 7.5 KB posting on a talk page is unlikely to engage many editors beyond a roll of the eyes.
What is *one* concrete change that you want to make? Why? Try stating this within a single paragraph of only a few sentences. Once we've talked about that and reached consensus, move to the next point.
Children's Hospital, Firearm Safety. Don't have a gun. Guns cause injury and death. No safety information at all.
Baylor, ... page not found.
dshs ... pdf which won't load; adobe's goofy on this machine, not your fault.
Wexner, very like Childrens. Rephrases the NRA Eddie Eagle program, does not recommend trigger locks.
U Mich, same same, bad, dangerous, lock up seperately
We provide more safety information than those three links do. In the first five paragraphs, without preaching against ownership. htom (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
After reading the Atlantic article, which may be WP:CANVASSING on the part of an interested editor who contacted the magazine, may I point out two policies: WP:NOTADVOCATE & WP:NEU.
The article should be written in a neutral manor. If there are reliable sources showing that the terminology is being coopted by some sources to make gun safety equal gun control, some due weight content should be included in this article. However, as there appears to be a larger consensus (one which I agree with) that the WP:SCOPE of the article should be about gun safety, and not gun control, to introduce any undue weight of gun control into this article would be outside of the article's scope and would be more useful in another article, but not here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Complete rewrite
I have comepletely rewritten the page. I have tried to be faithful to the original page in that as much fact as possible has been preserved.
Spelling and grammar is undoubtedly wrong in some places. Also note that this is my first major Wikipedia edit so I am most probably off on formatting and style. Halp on that is apprechiated.
Possible additions to the page may include a picture shing an example of bad adherence to gun safety (people posing with guns commonly keep the finger on the trigger and/or pointed at others). Also a picture of a situation illustrating the dilemma caused by rule 4 (Be sure of your target) could be usefull.
Every time I've heard the rules of gun safety, rule 5 has been on there: Maintain control of your firearm.
I've heard of many instances of police leaving their guns in a public bathroom, or on the roof of their car, etc. This also applies to leaving a gun where an untrained child can reach it. I would add this rule because it is even mentioned in the section about Gun safety while gun is not in use. That section could probably be merged into the section explaining each of the rules.
Removal of NRA recommendations on safe gun-handling practices
Another editor is insisting that the NRA's recommendations on gun safety be removed from the article because of that organization's lobbying activities. This is silly - it would be like removing the AAA's recommendations on defensive driving from an article because they lobby on issues like HOV lanes and the like. I invite that editor, and others, to argue the point here. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll start by noting that the NRA is widely recognized as an authority on the topic of gun safety, and that the passage summarizing their recommendations has been in the article for quite some time. There's no reason to remove it other than as a reaction to recent news stories. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Widely recognized by whom? The NRA is principally a lobby group and its communications are designed to advance its lobbying activities. That is fine. Those communications should be mentioned on the NRA's Wikipedia page. They have no place on an encyclopedic article devoted to the safe handling of firearms. Keep politics out of this — both pro-gun and anti-gun. Dbbbllloooccckk (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
It's actually incorrect to say that the NRA is "principally" a lobbying group. Yes, they do some - actually quite a lot - of that (via their Institute for Legislative Action) but - well, check their Wikipedia page for starters: "The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American 501(c) organization that advocates for the protection of the Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights, and the promotion of firearm ownership, marksmanship, safety, hunting, and self-defense in the United States." (Emphasis mine.) The NRA has been a major player in the area of gun safety education for many years, and removing any mention of them from this article smacks of recentism. (I'll note also that your "[k]eep politics out of this" above kind of cancels-out your claimed motivation for NPOV.) Mark Shaw (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, rather than giving the NRA recommendations should be given an external link in the appropriate section, and content giving references to multiple organizations that have gun safety recommendations should be used instead. For instance what is the training that the USMC uses in regards to gun safety? On another instance, what is the training that the New York Police Department use in regards to gun safety?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Col Cooper's Rules, leading the examples of rules, were formulated by him while he was the lead USMC firearms instructor. We still teach, preach, and follow them; they have a hot range mindset. The NRA comes from a different (cold range) background, so has a slightly different mindset. NYPD may have material, but this is as close as I can find http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/training_nypd/firearm_tatics.shtml and it's not useful for anyone not in NYPD training. Given some of their recent publicity about negligent targeting and discharges, perhaps not a good model? htom (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Why are we including the NRA and not the recommendations of the thousands of other gun organisations, thousands of police forces, and thousands of military organisations, around the world. Wikipedia is international, and I could just as easily add the recommendations of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, using your reckoning. Despite your claims, the NRA is almost exclusively a political organisation, and adding their comments to this article will sully an otherwise balance international piece with one-sides American overtones.--Dmol (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Because this is the English/American Wikipedia, not the World Wikipedia. Because the American NRA is probably the largest, best funded, longest lasting, most well known civilian training institution for firearms here. The NRA does a great deal more than lobby that you seem unaware of. Your statement "the NRA is almost exclusively a political organisation" -- which you can find repeated endlessly in ignorant but otherwise reliable sources -- is merely wrong. This kind of thing happens when you listen to one side of a discussion denouncing and diminishing those they think of as their opposition. http://programs.nra.org/ ; go, learn.htom (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
If you'll check the article's history, you'll find that the passage describing the NRA's safety ruleset has been present for a very long time (I chose a version over three years old, more or less at random, and there it was). This is because that organization is the preeminent authority on the relevant safety issues, Americentric though it might be. Also: it is incorrect to claim that it is "almost exclusively a political organization" as you have - it will certainly look that way from the outside, particularly at times like the present when guns are, for better or worse, in the news, but it is actually an old and established group with a multivariate mission (I refer you once again to the NRA's Wikipedia article).
The article is on gun safety. Just as it is improper to include gun politics (as we've worked out over the past few days or so), it is likewise improper to exclude an appropriate and basic source of thought on the topic because some people find that source to be, well, icky. I will note that the article also deals with the NRA's "Eddie Eagle" program further down, and refers to another program for older youth as well - should we have to cleanse the article of these references as well? Mark Shaw (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Just to pick up on something - this is not the English/American Wikipedia (which by context you seem to mean regional). This is the English language Wikipedia. It should not bias its coverage towards American/English POV. Also, the length of time something has been in an article doesn't give it any special status, especially an underdeveloped one - start quality in this case. Content should be based on merit (relevance and reliable sourcing).
(I think of English and American as different languages is all I meant. There is a shared ancestral culture, but over the centuries there have grown some huge differences in current cultures descended from a thousand years ago or more, and I doubt they'll return to a single one soon.)htom (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Specifically regarding the NRA - I'm ambivalent. Its rules are basically repeats of others in the article, and there is probably already enough America-centrism in the article. Then again, even I would be surprised if they weren't mentioned in a Gun Safety article. (Hohum@) 16:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
As a largely uninvolved editor, I should point out that the NRA is different than the NRA-ILA. The NRA is actually the group that does gun safety, Eddie Eagle, holds competitions, and the like. Think of it as the historical NRA. This is what has been core activity for the NRA since the 1870's. On the other hand, the NRA-ILA is the lobbying arm, and they are the guys that send out all the "send us money to lobby" mailings. They have only been around for a small fraction of the time since the founding of the NRA. I think there may be some confusion going on with the gun safety and competition NRA guys vs. the political lobbying NRA guys. They are two distinctly different organizations, despite the common appearance of "NRA" in their names. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Editors justify your actions
As I read through all the edits and talks on this subject, I'm once again taken aback by the effort by editors that goes into undoing what someone contributes, rather than embracing the idea that perhaps the addition is meaningful, and working towards improving it rather than rejecting it. This article in particular has many areas needing citations. Might I suggest that the editors should do their job by fixing this before they reject new content that is appropriately cited.
Finally, this comment: "Wikipedia tends to avoid neologisms, recentism and national POV. (Hohum @) 00:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)" really gets me. Plainly from the many many citations, the notion of gun safety as expanded to go beyond the rules for handling guns is not a neologism. If the editor is going to label the new content as such, I think more than just pointing to the wikipedia rules on it do not justify that this particular usage is a neologism. Why do you say it is? No hazmats (talk) 11:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Because "gun safety" - the safe handling of firearms has been the terminology in use for a long time, while "gun safety" - the re-branding of Gun Control appears to be a mainly recent development. This article is about the former. (Hohum@) 16:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I think this goes to what the consensus of what the scope of this article is. I am fine with this article being primarily about gun safety and NOT gun control. There is an article for gun control, and there is no reason for gun safety to be given undue weight there, as there is no reason for this article have undue weight of gun control in this article either.
I do agree there should be a summized and neutrally worded mention of both, in each article, as the subjects are related; however, I am of the opinion that the present scope of this article is fine, even it needs to be improved, and be given a worldwide perspective as not to bias a certian POV.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The concepts of gun politics and gun control are noted in the italicized text up at the top of the text, which points the reader to the appropriate Wikipedia articles. Beyond that, no mention is necessary. Also: I'm not sure what "a worldwide perspective" would mean here, given that safe firearms handling practices are pretty well universal. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Mark Shaw. The idea of gun control is already covered by its own article, and other than the italicised text, there needs to be no further mention. They are quite different concepts. But why have we restarted the discussion that ran above under the heading of scope of the article. I'm sure consensus was reached to leave it as is, and yet here we are again.--Dmol (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC).
Not one of these responses answers the questions I raised. To recap, I asked two main questions: The first was totally ignored - why do you worry so much about scope when the citations are so woefully inadequate in this article. Seems to me, you should clean up the work that's there before worrying so much about what someone contributed? The other specific question is how do you say that '. . . the re-branding of Gun Control appears ti be a mainly recent development.'? How recent? Isn't it possible that the term gun safety has been used in print for many years in the context that you are rejecting for this article? How long must it be in use before you deem it worthy to be included under the title 'Gun Safety'? Is there a guideline for this or is it your opinion on the matter?No hazmats (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
You are missing the point. No-one is disputing that the term 'gun safety' has two meanings. This article is about the safe handling of firearms, the other is about the political and legislative side of the argument. Whether this is a new split in the definition or it happened 20 years ago is irrelevant. There has been strong consensus shown to leave this article as is regarding the safe handling of guns and not incorporate information from the other article. And once more I ask, why are we still discussing this when it has already been settled above.--Dmol (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
We are not worried about scope. You're trying to expand the scope into concepts well and better covered in other articles which we point to. 'Gun safety' has many meanings, and this article concentrates on one of those meanings, pointing to the other articles for the other meanings. Why do you want to dilute it by inappropriately broadening its scope? Should we go to 'Gun control' and start demanding insertion of dealing with flinching, hand positioning, elbow placement, sling adjustment, proper range flags, height of back stops, ... there are many things not talked about in 'gun control' that have to do with the control of guns. That article is about policies and politics. This article is about gun handling. htom (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Some of these may not be RS; some (the state of California!) surely are. I'm not sure how to work these into the article to address the complaint, so I'll leave that to others. htom (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
How To tagging removed.
I've removed the Wikipedia is not a how to tag. If people want to make specific recommendations as to what should be removed or better cited, here's a place. Mr. Fallowss, what you're doing is called off-Wikipedia canvasing, and it's not appropriate. Wikipedia does not run by majority rule. htom (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Removing the tag is inappropriate. If there is consensus that there is no need for change, then is the time for removal, but not at the beginning of a discussion.
Please see WP:NOTHOWTO. This page contains large segments that state directly, with possible WP:COPYVIO, how to do certian things regarding the subject of this article. As I stated above, I agree that the scope of the article should be on gun safety, and not gun control (and to be accussed (and possibly not keeping with good faith pilar) of advocating in the edit summary is uncalled for), however to include howto in the article is in violation of policy, and that should be addressed.
For example, say we were talking about M-16s. An article about that subject would contain factual reliable source verify neutrally worded content. However, although verifiable to a reliable source, it would not contain howto information on how to properly disassemble and clean/service the firearm.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Given the topic of the article, I don't see much justification for the complaint that it reads like a how-to. That's going to be pretty much unavoidable.... Mark Shaw (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so. Perhaps the article can state that there are several sets of rules for gun safety, with links to what those rules are, and what they share in common without repeating them here verbatum. This would reduce the Howto nature of certain sections.
Additionally, this would change the focus on how to enact gun safety procedures to perhaps an article about the evolution of how gun safety has changed over time, this way the article can include historical info, something it presently doesn't have in abundance (if at all).
Wikipedia is also supposed to be comprehensive, and it is not supposed to be a collection of links. Removing the different groups "rules" -- which you characterize as "how to" -- leaving only links to those, violates both of those policies. Reducing them to what they have in common would be SYN or OR or both. You do not seem to understand that these sets of rules are different for reasons explained in the article. These rules are not "how to make a gun safe" -- none of the groups would endorse that statement, I'm sure -- they are collections of rules within a particular mindset, consistent with that mindset, that have been advocated by the users and propagators of the different rule sets. This is what they say. If you want a section on the history of such, feel free to add one. It could be interesting. You're going to find it hard to source. Changing the focus to "the history of gun safety", rather than "gun safety", why would you want to do that? Is gun safety something that only needed to be done in the past? htom (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Second, the article need not include verbatim what certain sources state as rules for gun safety. It can simply state that there are rules done by group A, with a references to that source (the link), group B, with a references to that source, and group C, with a reference to that source.
Third, regarding a subject, it is often that history of a subject is included in the article, which this article appears to lack. That does not mean it cannot have content that is current and deals directly with the article, but to oppose it seems unproductive IMHO.
Fourth, I am not asking for OR or SYNTH to be added to this article. All content should be verifiable to a reliable source; however, the policy still remains that this article should not be a HOWTO article either.
As the article is largely unreferenced, other users can remove unverified content per WP:BURDEN.
If others wish not to take my advice, they are free not to. However, I am only looking to provide my advice in how I believe that the article can be improved. If I have a concern regarding the current state of the article, others may as well (even if they are not currently active in this conversion (WP:SILENCE)).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Comprehensive Your desired improvements seem to be to delete information from the article; add political discussion; add history; and prevent HOWTO. I refer you to the list of how to cited as examples. htom (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
When the rules are brief, I don't see a reason not to repeat them verbatim, as it's a clearer and more concise way of showing the differences between than not showing them, and then trying to describe the difference. (Hohum@) 14:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The article isn't a howto. It describes what Gun Safety is. Including a few short rules for comparison doesn't make it one. It does obviously need far better referencing though. That isn't typically accepted as a green light to remove unreferenced information which is likely correct. (Hohum@) 00:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Jon-Erik Hexum's death, accidental suicide by blank #
This article is a good start, but there are some important omissions:
1. Ensure that the cartridge is correct for that firearm. The best example that comes to mind is loading a .357 cartridge in a .38 Special. Geometrically, it will fit, but it is definitely NOT a good idea. Catastrophic failure will ruin anyone's day at the range.
2. Inspect all ammunition prior to use. Do not use cartridges that are bent, cracked, or have improperly seated projectiles or primers.
3. Inspect the weapon prior to use (situation permitting). Obviously if the firearm is being used for defense, one does not have the luxury of time. However - the firearm must be inspected periodically for servicability (checking for cracks, bent/broken components, etc.) as well as pre/post scheduled shooting to ensure that the bore is not obstructed.
4. Correct any problems with the firearm prior to continued use. If you lack the knowledge and skills to perform the root cause determination and corrective action, have a competant gunsmith perform this task for you. Ask anyone who ever had a semi-auto pistol with sear/disconnector problems the value of this (think Kimber 1911). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.254 (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The Scope of Gun Safety
The previous talk page discussion of the scope of gun safety has been archived. The current active talk page for the Gun Safety article should include a concise summary of the unresolved issues:
The definition of “Gun Safety” that is provided at the outset of this Wikipedia article is overly restrictive and not consistent with current broader usage of the phrase by a significant number of people (see the 30 references from the US and other countries cited in the archived discussion -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gun_safety/Archive_1#The_scope_of_gun_safety ).
Personal decisions (including the decision to own a gun and the decision to take all necessary precautions to keep safe the firearms in your possession) fall within the purview of this article. Such decisions have been politicized but they are not political decisions. They are personal decisions. And, as difficult as that is, Wikipedia should endeavor to provide readers with neutral and complete information to help them to make such personal decisions. The details can be provided in the article on Gun Politics (although the current version of that article still lacks an appropriately informative and neutral discussion of research findings on gun safety). To be neutral, the Gun Safety article should acknowledge that the meaning of "gun safety" is contested. Bob Pond (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Bob Pond (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Consensus for the scope of the article was discussed and not changed by the last discussion. You haven't brought anything new to argue. Please stop beating a dead horse. (Hohum@) 20:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The active Talk page for the article needs to reflect important, outstanding concerns that have been raised about the article.24.20.198.134 (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Your continual adding of your point of view is starting to get annoying. There are NO "unresolved issues". You are, and were, the only person pushing this, aside from a few suspect IP addresses. Please stop wasting our time.--Dmol (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
There is not, here, an issue with the article. The issue you bring is that you appear is that you want to expand the scope of the article to include a political viewpoint. Please stop. htom (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Requested move 11 December 2014
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ!21:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Gun safety → Gun safety rules – Per the discussion above and the lead sentence, the scope of this article is gun safety rules so it's best to have the title match the scope. "Gun safety" alone can be interpreted to include various political issues, etc. The content covers only rules about safe gun handling. Rezin (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Considering the discussions about scope on this page and the archive, the reason seems obvious - other editors keep wanting to add information that isn't about gun safety rules. Is there any reason not to move the article? Rezin (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Rules and recommendations, which are kind of the same thing. Speaking of which, the lead sentence is poorly written. "Gun safety is a collection of rules and recommendations that can be applied when possessing, storing, or handling firearms." Are we really saying that safety is a collection of rules/recommendations? Or is it something that i achieved by following those rules/recommendations? Rezin (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't get the rationale here. People might think the current title means this article is about legislation? Adding "rules" to the title wouldn't change that. Honestly I think it would be more confusing (not that I think this is confusing currently) because legislation is also a type of rules. -- Calidum04:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, which a rules article would be. The disambiguation sentences at the top of the article clearly differentiate between other possible meanings. --Dmol (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. The Frankenstein hatnote above the lead already handles the other possible senses of "gun safety", including the mechanical feature that is the only plausible one. And this article is already pretty bad without encouraging howtos or debate over rules. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
A criticism section may indeed be necessary, but your claim about the lack of a consensus regarding the effectiveness of gun safety is blatantly untrue. That is really the same thing as saying, "we need a criticism section on the seatbelt page, because it isn't clear whether people should wear them or not." There may be no clear consensus on which particular methods of weapon safety work best, but what is obvious is that "gun safety" works. --Stratocaster27t@lk22:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Reeves
There are many variations, and one of them is the Four Rules introduced first by Captain Ira L. Revees in his 1913 book "The A B C of Rifle, Revolver and Pistol Shooting". (in which he combined "Keep your finger off of the trigger" and "Be sure of your target" into a single statement).
This book contains two rules on pages 10-11 (actually one rule, "The Accident-Proof Rule", with one companion rule):
The muzzle of a firearm should never point in a direction in which, if discharged, it would do injury where injury is not meant to be done.
All firearms are at all times loaded.
He does mention, on page 70, that in "competitive and qualification shooting" the shooter is not allowed to put his finger inside the trigger guard until the order is given to commence firing. However he doesn't connect that directly to safety. It seems to have more to do with the refining the aiming and firing routine. So this statement seems doubly wrong: two rules not four, and neither of the rules concern keeping the finger off the trigger. Unless someone sees what I'm missing, I'll rewrite it to match the source. Rezin (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. I'm thinking we ought to rework this whole section so that Copper's four rules and the discussion of them are grouped together, with other rule sets in a separate section. Rezin (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Treat firearms as if they are loaded
There is a complaint on this section about a lack of sources.
There must be something by Jeff Cooper that claims this.
It is common sense.
Can we cite cases of negligent discharges, like that of Chicago guitarist Terry Kath?
I have just modified 2 external links on Gun safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The Pamvic is a stub article covering a set of gun safety rules. It doesn't seem especially notable on its own, so I suggest it'd be best to merge it into this article. Rezin (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a need even to merge this stub here. The content of the stub is not documented, i.e., there are no references, and, additionally, it does not seem particularly informative, with a good bit of stretching of an acronym that simply does not appear to work. ("Instruct"? Really?) I don't see the value in even preserving the stub, let alone moving it here. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I tried to find a reference for that material but I'm coming up empty. Maybe it should just be deleted instead. Rezin (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Unless some sources can be drummed up, I too think it should be deleted instead. Besides, the points covered in Pamvic are already found in this article. --Stratocaster27t@lk22:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I've found a couple of sources - it turns out the article was misnamed and the real mnemonic is PAMVICKS. Even so, it's not worth having as a standalone. I'll source it and merge the content in with the other rules. Rezin (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks like Rezin last edited in March 2015, so this plan seems to have stalled. I also have tried searching and can't find any references that aren't circular Klbrain (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gun safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
There could be a better picture of a firearm with a cable lock. The current one does not clearly show the cable going through the receiver. For all the viewer knows, the cable simply is going around the weapon. SlowJog (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The current image is the only one available on commons. If you know of a better, suitably licensed image, or can take one yourself, we'd be happy to use it. (Hohum@) 11:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
