Talk:Overview of gun laws by nation/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Conservative Statistics

I certainly recognize the need to display statistics on the page, and no doubt the only reasonable way to do so on such a divided topic is to label certain statistics as conservative or liberal, but why, if there is a Conservative Statistics segment, and not a Liberal Statistics section? dimo414 15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither should be used, because they are both misleading terms, not least because the perception of what each means is different in different countries, especially in those in which either or both terms are part of the names of actual political parties. While in the US "conservative" and "liberal" may be taken as being synonymous with "left-wing" and "right-wing" or "Republican" and "Democrat" respectively, in some countries "liberal" occupies the centre ground. In addition, you have countries such as the UK in which the Conservative Party is largely as anti-firearms as the rest of the political spectrum in that country.

I would hazard a guess that when a past editor first introduced the term "conservative statistics," they meant in the sense of "guarded" or "cautious" rather than political conservatism, whatever that may mean in their particular country. Nick Cooper 10:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

-Why are there so many statistics under the 'conservative stats' section. It is far too much; only listing two or three of the statistics would be just as, or more effective that that huge list. 68.36.139.248 02:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the statistics as they are clearly coming from one angle - that of anti-gun control - and are not reflecting both sides to the debate. In addition, some of their citations do not back up the claims made, as I've highlighted in the text. For instance, the citation used for the claim that non-firearm violent crime has risen in Australia does not actually support this. I've tagged the section for neutrality concerns.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

i've removed the tag from the cite for the bbc page, wherein it states exactly what the article states: "The number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled since 1998". Anastrophe (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the claim that firearm injuries have doubled "despite a massive increase in the number of police personnel" - nowhere in the citation was there a reference to police numbers nor how much they have risen. The citation in fact seemed to be indicating that more police were needed to prevent gun violence - see the quote from Sir Menzies Campbell. I've deleted the reference to police numbers as a result.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There are simply no statistics to back up the anti-gun argument. There's no reason to complain and demand that they be made up because you feel it's 'slanted'. Every other article on Wikipedia is slanted left, so this complaint is absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.98.61 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 21 May 2008

I think its pretty dumb to say theres no statistics to back up the anti-gun argument. This article is about gun politics, so it makes sense to say what the political views of guns are in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.50.22 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 9 February 2009

The main problem is that there are statistics that each "side" says back up their positions, but the other invariably refuses to accept that they do! Nick Cooper (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That is because statistics are a special kind of lie. They ncan be skewd (but still accurate) based on who, or what, you ask. You can leave out factors that do not support you claim, but still quote accuratly those that do. To say there are no statistics that back up the anti-gun claim is however false. it just depends on how you interprate them. Just like those that support pro gun claims.[[Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)]]

Statistics generally don't lie, unless they are inherently false. For example, it is pure fact that, the number of criminal fatal injuries by firearms (including air weapons) in England and Wales were:

1991 - 55

1992 - 56

1993 - 74

1994 - 66

1995 - 70

1996 - 49

1997 - 59

1998 - 49

1999 - 62

2000 - 73

2001 - 98

2002 - 81

2003 - 68

2004 - 77

2005 - 50

2006 - 59

What can be skewed is the interpretation people choose to put on such figures. For example, there are those who would claim the ban on handguns in 1997 did not stop the number of fatalities rising in the next three years, but that would ignore the fact that they the fell again. Similarly, there are those who would claim that the handgun ban has kept fatalities below 100 a year, but that would ignore the fact that they had never risen above that number beforehand. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Or the question can be skewd after all one of the arguments used by the pro gun use lobby is have the number of violent crimes over all risen or stayed the same (or indead fallen). If the issue you are disscusing is self defence against violent crime then that is the question, if its the number of fatal injuries casued by gun crime (as opposed to the number of injuries caused by guns period, in crime or leagal use) then the statistics above are the right answer.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)]]

Summary of position section

I see confusion about the purpose of the Summary of Position section in this article. If this article is about 'politics' then the purpose of the summary of positions is, in a neutral, detached and academic way, to outline the various positions held by the various political points of views. Not, to argue, or to justify the validity of each of the position. In the big picture, this article should describe the political positions actually held, and not make the arguments of the positions. For 'secondary sourcing' we need to look at the work of political scientists from universities, etc., not at 'primary documents' from the POV camps. SaltyBoatr 04:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ya know, I agree. I'm gonna kill it. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't 'convincing'. It's perfectly neutral. It lists facts and statistics that prove gun control is ineffective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.98.61 (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Mazel Freedom Press

It the Mazel Freedom Press a reliable publishing house? In WP:ATT and WP:V I see that we are to be using reliable sources, and quoting WP:ATT In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and university level textbooks, magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. In short, does the Mazel Freedom Press have a reliable publication process? SaltyBoatr 15:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This Google book search may indicate that it is a fringe issue, small vanity publishing house. The big issue is credibility for the encyclopedia, we should avoid using fringe publishing houses for attribution. Surely there have been studies of this topic done by university level political science researchers, and published by universities. Again, this article should be about politics, as opposed to this article being used to argue politics. SaltyBoatr 15:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

After a bit of digging, I would hazard a guess that this is the publishing arm of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, based on the fact that some MFP books are clearly stated as being "in association" with the JPFO, and that while directory listings don't some up with a specific address for MFP, they're both based in Hartford, WI. Nick Cooper 16:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

International data linking gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide involving guns

This graph is over 15 years old and could be consided out of date. Plus the summary of the graph is confusing and badly worded, and does not discuss the relevance between firearm ownership rates and homicide (though it claims) which, after doing some research of my own, is near irrelavent. If someone could find a better graph or word the summary better, it would help a lot. Goldfishsoldier 05:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The graph adds no insight to the subject. It fails to show how any change in gun politics would affect suicide. Analogous would be matching Toyota ownership with Toyota related traffic deaths. There would be an equally smooth correlation, yet only a fool would conclude that Toyotas are more or less worthy than other vehicles. Can someone source good numbers comparing gun ownership or gun regulation to overall suicide rates or suicide rates by all means? If countries with a lot of Toyotas had fewer or more traffic deaths overall there could be an inkling of insight. Jimgettman 06:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Overly-American article

There's too much emphasis in this article on American gun politics. There are a lot of countries in the world. --Dweller 08:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

America is often used as a benchmark in gun laws, look at any website or publication talking about guns in Australia (for example) and all of them mention America frequently, so it's only fair that the wikipedia article does the same. Remember, wikipedia is not about the truth or anything like that, it is only to reflect the sources and such. And the sources compare it to America. Why do they compare it to America? Probably because when it comes to guns, comparing any country to America can make any country look good in comparison. However if you are talking about sections ABOUT America itself, then you are right, it is completely out of proportion, America gun politics has its own article so it seems strange that it dominates this page when there are so many other sources out there that talk about other countries and gun politics JayKeaton 04:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Very unbalanced

for example: The article states (without citation) that "the number of Americans who report incidents where their guns averted a threat vastly outnumber those who report being the victim of a firearm-related crime". This is totally useless information as long as there is no distinction between treats to a persons life and health and threats to a persons property. There is no doubt that a gun is usefull to protect ones property. The controversy is about whether it protects ones life (or that of others).

The article cites several sources saying that after stricter gun control laws passed in small parts of the US, the rate of violent crimes did not drop immideately (or even increase). It does not mention anything about the actual number of guns present in these places after said laws where introduced. The laws of course have no effect if they don't succeed in reducing the density of firearms. A law passed in a single US state or city is probably hard to enforce whithout border contriols within the US.

The article mentions that the Weimar Republic had a strict gun control law, but fails to mention that, never the less shootings and armed fights between communist and nationalist millitias where common in the 20s and early 30s in Germany and that the bad security situation is often stated as one reason for the NAZI parties' rise to power. From historic evidence, it can certainly not be argued, that the NSDAP countermovements on the left in the Weimar Republic where not armed well enough and that this is the cause for (or contributed to) the rise of the NSDAP. The communists in Germany where armed quite well. And the moderates where not willing to fight.

Just as normal crime expanded in the Weimar Republic, political crimes skyrocketed during the ongoing political instability. Thousands of armed veterans and paramilitary units associated with radical political parties on both the right and the left engaged in riots and attacks on the state. Some of these paramilitary forces had heavy weapons and a mass following, and the police were sometimes outnumbered and outgunned. Rampant crime and political unrest stretched police manpower to the breaking point.

from http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005465

The article states many statistical facts that contain only one incident or one country. There is no statistical comparison that compares a comprehensive and meaningfull set of regions that have been selected after a scientifically sound modus BEFORE the outcome of the survey was clear. Most of the cited statistics are obviously selected specifically out of a lerge number of surveys to support arguments made in the text. They therefore have no indication whatsoever. A survey that compares for example all US states of all industrialized countries would be meaningfull. A citation of two US states or cities where the argument mande holds true is certainly not meaningfull. A table listing all industrialized countries and their number of gun related crimes together with their level of gun control, poverty, density of legal and illegal firearms, ... would be really helpfull here.

As of now, the article looks much more like a discussion board whith two opposing oppinions with each side only mentioning the part of the facts in their favour. There is little usefull information in it because all information given ignores evidence against it and the opposing sources of information are not comparable.

68.35.161.1 05:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The right of governments

The fundamental principle of the republican form of government is that the government has no rights; only the people do. The people grant specific authorities to the government when they create it. The people are sovereign; the government per se is not.

So to say that governments have rights is to pre-judge the issue of whether governments have the legitimate authority to regulate firearms.

It'd be fine to include the assertion that governments have rights, referencing the Sovereignty article, in the appropriate section of the article. But to state in any part of the article's framework that governments have rights is to violate NPOV. 12.48.196.9 23:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have fallen at the first hurdle, as not all governments are republican, or even deomocratic. What you keep removing is clearly in the context of those people who do believe a government has a "right" to do X, Y, or Z, so it is legitimate in that context. Howver, there is a fundamental problem in that the two "sides" are represented as government on one side and people on the other. In addition, "maintaining" is meaningless in a global context. I am therefore changing it to something more balanced. Nick Cooper 09:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Is 30,000 such a big number?

Mathematically speaking, even if the number of gun deaths in the U.S. were 30,000, is that so significant? A portion of the 30,000 also includes suicides. The population of the U.S. is 300,000,000 people. 30,000 is just 1/100 of a percent or 0.01 percent of the population. If you subtract suicides, it's even less. I am curious, how does that compare with automobile accidents, heart disease or the number of babies aborted every year? Still, when put in perspective, 30,000 out of 300,000,000 seems like a small price to pay in order to be able to defend your home and your family.

There are many analogies one could make. For example, our legal system is set up on the premise that you are "innocent until proven guilty". We also have "double jeopardy" and "reasonable doubt" and the right not to incriminate yourself. I am sure these aspects of our legal system were put into place for the greater good and work most of the time. I am also sure that there are probably thousands of guilty people who get off every year because of those aspects of our legal system. That's price we pay for the freedom having a "fair" legal system.

I don't mean to devalue human life, but I think we need to put things in perspective. Every ::: freedom has its price and whether that price is too high or too low will always be subjective. However, at least on a calculator, 30,000 out of 300,000,000 is only 1/100 of a percent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ma46323 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 29 July 2007

Everything is, of course, relative. Gun-related deaths in England and Wales run to around 160 per year - 0.00032 of 1 percent of the population (50 million). In other words, if the USA had the same rate as E&W, deaths would be 960 per year rather than 30,000; if E&W had the same rate as the USA, deaths would be 5,000 per year rather than 160. Nick Cooper 21:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't compare the USA with England--we're two different countries with different cultures, demographics, and histories. Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm of Bentley College deserves some sort of special prize for taking on the thankless task of talking sense on a subject where nonsense is deeply entrenched and fiercely dogmatic. In her recently published book, "Guns and Violence," Professor Malcolm examines the history of firearms, gun control laws and violent crime in England. What makes this more than an exercise in history is its relevance to current controversies over gun control in America.

Gun control zealots love to make highly selective international comparisons of gun ownership and murder rates. But Joyce Lee Malcolm points out some of the pitfalls in that approach. For example, the murder rate in New York City has been more than five times that of London for two centuries -- and during most of that time neither city had any gun control laws.

In 1911, New York state instituted one of the most severe gun control laws in the United States, while serious gun control laws did not begin in England until nearly a decade later. But New York City still continued to have far higher murder rates than London.

Interesting point. According to the CDC, there are approximately 32,000 suicides each year in the United States, around 45% of which are perpetrated with a firearm. That means of the 30,000 firearm fatalities each year, only 16,500 were non-suicide related. That means the average American has a 1 in 20,000 chance of being killed with a firearm. Of course, if you're over the age of 35, not in a gang, don't use drugs, and don't frequent bars, your chances are significantly lower.

For those who argue that the availabiltiy of guns increases the suicide rate, check out these numbers:

Country Suicide Rate (per 100,000) [Source: CIA World Factbook]

Finland 26.4

Denmark 20.4

Austria 20.4

France 19.8

Switzerland 19.6

Japan 15.1

Sweden 14.7

Germany 13.8

Norway 13

United States 11.8

Netherlands 9.6

Guns are basically illegal in the top 8 countries... go figure. If people want to kill themselves, they'll find a way to do it.

Guns are not illegal in those countries e.g. in Austria in Germany you only have to registrate weapons, in switzerland nearly every household has weapons (GO figure!)

Also interesting, according to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the top killers in America are:

Heart Disease [652,000]

Malignant Neoplasms [553,888]

Smoking-related Ailments [438,000]

Cerebro-vascular [150,074]

Chronic Low. Respiratory Disease [121,987]

Unintentional Injury [112,012, 46,000 of which automobile related]

Diabetes [73,138]

Alzheimer's Disease [65,965]

Influenza & Pneumonia [59,664]

Nephritis [42,480]

This table should look like this: 1. Age (everyone has to die, so putting disease related deaths of persons above 65 is bullshit) 2. Disease (if they were healthy) 3. Accident. (now that category should be expanded, a lot) 4(?) Guns. (is there anything else?) 60k dying from Pneumonia - wow, your private healthcare system is really good. Like, Afghanistan-level good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.142.93 (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Homicide, much less by means of a firearm, is not even in the top 15. You could make a much better case for banning fried food, tobacco, alcohol, automobiles, and sugar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.178.201.85 (talk • contribs) 04:30-04:38, 5 August 2007

Yes, they are two very different countries, although by the same token that doesn't stop plenty of "pro gun zealots" from ascribing all of the UK's social ills to the lack of civilian firearms ownership. High burglary rate? That's because people don't have guns at home. Rising assault and street robbery ? That's because people can't CC handguns. And so on....

I'm a little surprised by your claim that, "Guns are basically illegal in the top 8 countries" listed above in connection with suicide rates. Finland has a higher per capita firearms ownership rate that the United States. Given Switzerland's unique military organisation and that target shooting and hunting are popular pastimes, possession of firearms is widespread, with an estimated 1.2 to 3 million in circulation out of a population of 7 million. Hunting is also very popular in France. Nick Cooper 14:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a select few European countries allow citizens to own rifles and long-barreled shotguns. Guess how many homocides are committed with .30-06 hunting rifles and 28" barreled shotguns--not many. Switzerland allows members of the national militia to keep their assault weapons at home, and interestingly, their firearm-perpetrated crimes rates are quite low. Go figure. The firearms most often employed in gun crimes are basically illegal in those countries [i.e., handguns, not .22 target rifles and bird hunting shotguns]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.178.168.153 (talk • contribs) 5:47, 10 August 2007

None of which has any bearing on the fact that the claim of, "Guns are basically illegal in the top 8 countries," is demonstrably rubbish. Nick Cooper 12:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to find a strong connection between gun control and crime then you wont find much if any I believe. Poverty, poor education, biology, media, public trust and culture probably have much more weight when it comes to reducing crime in a nation.

What we need in this article is more objective statistics from various sources. If opinions/statistics are discarded as flawed by experts I want to know their opinion not only a short critic saying Kleck disagrees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.198.60 (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hacked External Links

It seems as if someone hacked the external links - e.g., link 17, 16, others... so that they all tie in to pro-gun-control pages, instead of anti-gun-control pages. Any chance they can be changed back?--Eljamoquio 01:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. Also, please put talk page comments at the end, not the beginning. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Scroll down until you see external link 17 - ostensibly linking to a page that shows there are no peer-reviewed studies that support gun control. It takes you to this page: http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/general/BogusAntiGunQuotes.htm

Others, like link 16, have similarly been hijacked.

I looked for the real link in some older pages, but couldn't find it.--Eljamoquio 14:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Trailing back through the page history, it seem that most of the points and their attached URLs were added by Goldfishsoldier on 28 May or later. Specifically, URLs 16 & 17 are as they were added, and have not been "hijacked." Nick Cooper 16:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

When I edited the Summarry of Positions back in May it was terribly mish-mash, with just about every arguement needing citation. The "Summary of position items needing attribution" section in the talk page had a bunch of the arguements (roughly half pro and anti) with what I saw as decent citations. I only read the quick summary for each point I admit, but it looks heaps better than it did before. Goldfishsoldier 23:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

We should probably remove most, if not all, of these external links. If some of these sites are being used as references, they should be listed as references, not as external links. Most of the topics covered by those sites have Wikipedia articles: we should replace the external links by internal links when they are really relevant (for instance, I don't think it's appopriate to link to the California gun law page, as the scope of this article is much larger than California). Mangojuice^talk 16:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine as is. The links point to politically charged sites, and the article is about politics. What difference does it make which side they come out on? Politics are politics. The Cali link maybe should go. That's more about law. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Upon looking again, I do see what you mean about the style of the Summary of positions section. I'll fix it later to match the existing ref style if nobody else does before then. But that's just a format issue. Not content. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed link 17. I left 16 after I read the article. I concur that many of them should be removed, but #17 in particular had nothing to do with the point that was being made.--Eljamoquio 21:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Poorly structured and unbalanced views

This article is not anywhere near the standard required of an encyclopaedia article. It seems to be a collection of opinions and a citation of statistics rather than a detailed overview of the topic. I appreciate that there are a wide variety of views to present but they need to be presented more clearly and properly categorised. In addition the positions don't seem to be well balanced and it seems to be overly oriented towards American gun politics.

Couple points... In much of the world Gun Politics is a non-issue as much of the world has no gun rights. I think that an article of this nature is inherently American-leaning as America is just about the lone hold-out where freedom with firearms is concerned. Point two... This is a hot topic. I've come to terms with the fact that it'll likely never be totally free of POV. All that can be done is to keep plugging away. If you see something that you think should be changed, just change it. If you're out of line, someone will revert or alter. Where this article and others like it are concerned, there is no end-game. It's permanently in a state of flux. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if that's particularly true. In many parts of the developed world, firearms are a big political issue, although invariably in the context of maintaining or strengthening existing local restrictions. Nick Cooper 07:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, probably. I was speaking as to freedom and accessibility. But your right. Politics are politics. But besides that, this article is always going to set someone off. Topics like this aren't really built for Wikipedia. Too many opinionated hands in the cookie jar. Ce la vie. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the validity of the "International" section within a page that is predominently geared about civilian access to firearms. Certainly, I think that if you use the phrase "gun politics," most people would assume it means in a domestic context. The international aspect is certainly worth covering somewhere, but it comes across as a bit of a diversion here. Nick Cooper 20:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this has been brought up before, but defining the term "Gun Politics" by posing questions in the opening para is awkward at best. Hows about "Gun politics fundamentally involves both the legitimacy/validity and extent of government gun regulation" or something like? Nosferatublue 17:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I note that someone has had a go at re-writing the intro, but it was almost immediately reverted. This is a shame, as the short-lived text of, "Gun politics is the field of politics relating to the ownership and control of firearms," is an indisputable fact, whereas the previous and current "two fundamental questions" - especially the "fundamental" element - is merely an opinion is of what the scope of the remit of gun politics should be. Nick Cooper 12:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nick. Arthurrh 17:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The entire "Statistics" section only shows statistics and POV from pro-gun groups. I think this section should be split up into two subsections consisting of pro-gun and anti-gun statistics. 70.21.77.200 03:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you voice the same complaint if the article brought up statistics that supported gun control as effective? The article contains facts; it's one of the few political articles I've seen on Wikipedia which does NOT give a slant. If by 'slant' you mean it gives statistics that illustrate the blasphemy of gun control, then I don't know what to tell you. You don't like the truth? Too bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.98.61 (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Request Semi-protection

Does anyone else agree? This page has been a mess for so long I'm suprised no one has requested protection on it before. Goldfishsoldier 09:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article could be greatly improved, but I don't understand how semi-protection would help. Vandalism here seems to be kept in check. Could you explain more why you propose semi-protection? - Hoplon 17:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

To disentangle this mess, why not have several articles:

• One reviewing gun legislation across the world - not passing judgements but just saying what it is in each country, whether there is any significant debate and the relationship to the armed forces. Although there are differences across the US states, it should be possible to describe the typical range of restrictions.
• An article giving key statistics across the world about percentage of gun-ownership, death by firearms, suicides, trends
• Another should state without contradiction the arguments for ownership by private individuals
• Another should state without contradiction the arguments against gun ownership by private individuals

Ideally this pair of articles should use the same headings so that the arguments for can be directly compared with the arguments against. In that way people can weigh up the validity of each point and come to their own conclusions. With luck, attempts by some to corrupt the pro-page or the anti-page with their opposing arguments should be met by the normal measures against vandalism. JMcC 13:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT, WP:V and WP:NPOV rule against collections of opinions and in favor of consensus and verifiable information. There are many studies that feed into and are fed by gun politics, and this should be a place to winnow them to the ones that all sides agree are factual and germane. Sending factions to separate camps weakens this process, whereas, having them all here allows the boorish to harm the positions they favor. Please, DELETE ALL ARGUMENTS, organize the facts, and edit for quality, not quantity. No one helps their advocacy by boring the unconvinced. Jimgettman 06:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Very bad Article. The older Article was much better.

This article has alot of Bias and factual error. Switzerland does not have strict handgun control for example. The old gun politics version was much better. Please go back to the old version which was more informative and factual. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.4.233 (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree somethings in here boarder on propaganda. "Fully-automatic firearms are legal in most states in the United States but have requirements for registration and restriction under federal law." This statement is horrible. While everyone in ameirca knows we cannot just go down to the gun store and buy a fully auto, other people might think we can casue of this. To buy a full auto you need a class 3 license, which is almost impossible to get, you need to be law enforcement, or have a very good reason. You also give up your right to search and seizure protection. If there are no objections i will clarify this section

—Preceding unsigned comment added by RedDragonPryde (talk • contribs) 18:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"To buy a full auto you need a class 3 license, which is almost impossible to get, you need to be law enforcement, or have a very good reason." This is not true. To buy a full auto weapon manufactured after 1986 you need a Class III FFL, but fully automatic guns manufactured prior to 1986, before the NFA act was passed, can be purchased by private citizens by filling out the proper BATFE/NFA forms and getting a sign off by your local Chief of Police. This varies state to state so your mileage may vary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.174.134 (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed chart

I just removed the chart as it was not NPOV and not free. Looks like my edit summary got cut off (sorry). See discussion page for it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:GunOwnershipAndSuicide.JPG Krushia 04:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Debatepedia.org external link

Just put up a link to the Debatepedia Gun Control debate. I think this is appropriate, but not sure. It's certainly an informative web page. -- 75.199.82.172 01:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just removed it - it fails our external links guidelines and appears to be being spammed across various articles by IP accounts whose only edits are to promote the website. -- SiobhanHansa 02:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV issues

This article doesn't seem to give any arguments from the the pro-gun control side of the debate; it focuses exclusively on the anti-gun control side's arguments. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Could I encourage the 'pro-gun' partisan editors to use a neutral POV when editing even if it disagrees with their personal POV? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

i'm unclear how either of these comments are particularly helpful; the only way to improve the article is to edit it. since the article is on an extremely contentious issue, partisans for both points of view must "speak up" by providing reliably sourced material that either supports their point of view or provides counterpoint to a view that may be receiving unbalanced coverage. remember that WP:NPOV doesn't mean to remove POV from the article, it means to provide a balance of notable points of view where there is more than one prevailing view. further, if there are specific complaints about unbalanced POV, editors are welcome to reproduce excerpts here on the talk page for discussion before making edits that might elicit edit warring. i'm against gun control and for gun rights, but i've made numerous edits here over the years 'in favor of' the gun control POV in order to balance coverage where ever possible. i think it is unfair to suggest that only the "pro-gun" participants push their POV, as i've seen many instances of what would appear to be "anti-gun" adherents removing or modifying properly sourced materials as well. remember, assume good faith. particularly in as contentious a topic as this. Anastrophe (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As you can see: see diff, the fix to this NPOV problem is not as simple as "...the only way to improve the article is to edit it". Either you are unaware, or choose to ignore the problem of Systemic bias in Wikipedia gun related articles. There is a undeniable tendency of editors to self select, disproportionately towards the 'pro-gun' bias. This results in a over representation of the 'pro-gun' POV. I remind all editors our duty is not to push our personal POV, but rather to acknowledge all the POVs and then to edit the neutral position. Even if, the neutral position is not our personal position. In the meantime, while this issue remains, the NPOV tag should stay on. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

However, assuming every statement is by a "gun rights proponent" doesn't help either. Balance is good, but pushing labels like "gun rights proponent" doesn't help. Yaf (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As you can see[1], editor Yaf apparently believes that the 'gun control' POV is adequately covered in this article. Yet, an objective count of the 'cite refs' finds that the balance is about 95 'pro gun' to 5% 'gun control', with a heavy reliance on Kleck, Faria, Horowitz, Kopple, Lott, Hardy and Halbrook. How is this to be considered balanced? Rather, this is evidence of a Systemic bias of the self selected group of Wikipedia editors who have decided to pay attention to this article. In light of this impass, how is the NPOV problem to be solved? Anastrophe, your advice to "edit it"[2] seems hollow. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that the anti gun rights position is well represented. However, I do believe that labeling a section either "Gun Control" or "Anti-Gun Rights" is not conducive, either, to achieving balance, but presupposes an editor's bias. Instead, non-pejorative terms should be used for headings, and properly cited content needs to be added that represents all major viewpoints. Yaf (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, It is not helpful to resort to straw man arguments. "Anti-Gun Rights?" Who wrote that? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As it now stands, the pages seems hopelessly compromised by overwhelmingly American-centric material, e.g. the "Gun political groups" section lists 20 groups, all but three of which are American. Really it needs to be pared back to the bare basics. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I fear that if any editor would try to trim out the USA centric 'pro-gun' POV (much of it cut and pasted from the USA 'patriot' pro-gun blogs), that the pro-gun POV pushing editors would immediately revert. We have a serious systemic bias problem here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The solution is not to remove cited content contrary to your particular POV, but instead to add properly-cited content that represents alternative mainstream viewpoints. Removing something under the guise of "I don't like it" is never a valid point. Yaf (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:NPOV. The issue is not like you say. There needs to be a balance. If there is an excess of one POV, there needs to be equal amounts of the other POV. If equal amounts of both POV's results in an overly long article, some properly cited content can and should be trimmed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

At 42k, the article is not overly long. The solution is to add balance through adding properly cited material. Of course, if properly cited material supporting "balance" does not exist, then perhaps the article is already balanced. But, removing cited content contrary to any mainstream POV is not the solution here. Yaf (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:NPOV. Presently the article gives undue weight to the pro-gun POV. This violates policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No WP policy requires any editor to write anything for Wikipedia. If there is content missing in your view, then there is nothing to prevent you, or anyone else, from adding properly-cited content to this or any WP article. But, claiming that a group of editors somehow violated policy by omitting including your favourite POV in any article is simple laughable. Yaf (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, you're missing the point. The page as it stands is overwhelmingly anti-gun control and predominently American-centric. It certainly should not be the latter when we already have Gun politics in the United States and the other national sub-pages, and we should strive to balance the former. 17:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Cooper (talk • contribs)

The page is currently predominantly pro gun rights. Balance is still needed. But, due to firearms being effectively banned in many parts of the world including where they previously were considered to be the birthright of every Englishman (prior to the dissolution of the old empire, say, when even the Colonists in America were also Englishmen), the article is de facto reduced to having a decidely American flavour. It would be hard to write an extensive article about Gun politics in, say, Japan, or anywhere else where firearms have been banned. Should we demand an article be excoriated and reduced in size simply because it doesn't contain much content on gun politics in parts of the world where guns are banned? I don't think so. Again, deleting content is not the solution. Rather, adding properly-cited information is the best approach towards achieving balance. Yaf (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This seriously betrays where your own bias lies, and how it colours your perception of what this page should be. Discounting other national perspectives because firearms may be restricted or totally in any particular one is as grotesque as arguing that Driver's license should be be overwhelmingly geared towards the perpective of countries with little or no controls on the driving of motor vehicles. It is self-evident that very few developed countries share the sentiments that characterise the American attitude to firearms, so to pretend that the latter is the most "valid" viewpoint is ridiculous. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your analogy is 180 degrees out, I believe. Rather, it appears that you are demanding that we gear this article much as we might gear the Driver's license article to parts of the world where there are no autos. It is not about deciding what is valid, but instead to focus on content where there is content. Writing the Driver's License article, per one's past service in, say, a Ugandan village, where there was not a single car and no drivers, would make little sense. Such an article should focus on where Driver's Licenses exist and cars exist. Likewise for an Article on Gun Politics; it should focus on where Gun Politics is an issue. Gun Politics is not an issue in most of the world. On the other hand, it is a major issue in the United States. Yaf (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If you could see beyond your own back yard, you would know that the entirety of gun politics - not just one particular narrow viewpoint of what that term means - is very much a major issue in many countries. America is not the yardstick by which rest of the world is measured. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And, Yaf. You also are missing the point about neutral POV. It has nothing to do with a personal 'favorite'. Rather, we must set aside our personal favorite POV, and then recognize all the POVs and edit to the neutral position. Get it? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

i hate to resort to this, but it must be said: if you feel one side is not adequately represented, then please make the effort to improve it. merely re-labeling sources as "gun rights proponents" is not an improvement. adding properly sourced material that represents viewpoints not adequately covered is the way to improve the article. is the article currently unbalanced? yes. can it be improved by adding reliably sourced material in support of contrary viewpoints? yes. feel free to jump in and add such material. if a POV pushing editor jumps in and reverts it without adequate basis, i'll be happy to assist. Anastrophe (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You are certainly free to add properly cited content to achieve balance. But, I am not required to write it for you. Yaf (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, your response reveals volumes about your attitude at Wikipedia. You believe that your job is only to edit your POV into Wikipedia. I ask you to do some soul searching. Wikipedia needs editors to set aside their personal agenda, and instead to consider all the POVs (even those they oppose) and to then edit neutrally. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

may i ask again - why are you not adding substance to the article yourself? it gives the appearance that you expect other editors to do the research for you and update the article to your preference. you say it's unbalanced in its coverage; as the wikipedia saying goes: "So fix it". Anastrophe (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If you bothered to check, you would see that I've edited this page on numerous occasions. The reality, though, is that it is in such a state now that it needs a major overhaul. Chipping away at the edges isn't enough anymore. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(following written in response to comments user SaltyBoatr has since removed) i'm trying to assume good faith as well. i was not asserting that the article is not imbalanced when i said "if you feel...". i was pointing out that you are complaining here that the article is imbalanced, but not doing anything to fix it. i've already acknowledged that it's imbalanced. it is certainly not biased to revert a POV change such as stating - without WP:RS - that X is argued only by gun rights proponents. you can't just go through the article and willy-nilly change all statements about X to label them as being held by particular partisans - you're merely pushing that POV, not balancing the POV. there's been an awful lot of verbiage expended here, with no additions to the article of properly sourced material that would balance the current POV. there's no shortage of reliable sources that appropriately cover the 'pro gun-control' POV. but again, you seem insistent that other editors do the work of adding that material - not you. Anastrophe (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no argument for gun control. Gun control is a product of emotional reaction and not fact.

CDC (2003) and Japan

"In late 2003 the Centre for Disease Control reported they found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence".

It would be nice if the author of the above line could expand on how it relates specifically to Japan.PRB (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Frontpagemag.com

Please identify the editorial process behind the sourcing in the article using the website frontpagemag.com. This does not appear to be a reliable source. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

www.haciendapub.com

Please identify the reliable publication process of the website www.haciendapub.com, which is used extensively in the article for sourcing. It does not appear to be obviously a reliable source. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

www.guncite.com

Please identify the reliable publication process for the website www.guncite.com used for sourcing in the article. It is not immediately apparent that this website meets the standards of WP:V. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

you seem to be attempting to make a point. there's no need for a separate section for each. Anastrophe (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

These are legitimate questions about reliability. Yet you dismiss them as 'disruptive'. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

no, i'm not dismissing them. you could achieve the same without the 'drama', for example:

Are these reliable sources?

• www.guncite.com
• www.haciendapub.com
• www.frontpagemag.com
• NewsMax.com

Anastrophe (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. And the answer is? SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In short, I am looking for the article to use sources from "...peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Those four clearly fail. SaltyBoatr ([[User talk

SaltyBoatr|talk]]) 19:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

those are the most reliable sources, yes, but those are not the only sources that are considered reliable. from the same page: "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context.". what are your specific complaints about specific citations? we can hash them out here and determine whether the listed source is appropriate to the content that's cited. Anastrophe (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering that this is a contentious topic, I ask that we stick with 'most reliable' sources so that we may avoid some controversy that comes with the marginally reliable sources. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

again, a specific rationale for a given dispute would be helpful. again, context matters. dealing in generalities here won't solve anything. Anastrophe (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have marked a few specific locations in the article which need checking for reliability. There are many more that still need checking. Your cooperation in this checking process would be appreciated. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The first three of the four are clearly advocacy sites, and therefore cannot be taken as reliable sources. The fourth appears to be a news magazine site. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

can you point me to policy or guideline that rules out advocacy sites? i was not aware that they are forbidden as reliable sources. particularly for topics that are contentious and have widely varying opinions, precluding advocacy sites doesn't make a lot of sense, since they are good sources for citable material for a given point of view. i'll again ask what the specific complaints are with the sites and respective citations. i had a look at the guncite pages - yes, definitely advocacy. of the material i browsed, most was of reprints of quotes by others, and most material had citations of their own. there may be other material on the site that wouldn't be reliable - but again, without any mention here of what the specific complaints are, how are we to know? Anastrophe (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware there is no policy and there should be. I would think that you would have to be careful with information from advocacy sites, but in many cases they are useful sources of information. There is certainly a precedent for using them, for example see the references in the Vegetarianism article. I have questioned this at Talk:Policy#References_and_citations_from_advocacy_sites, but I would say use them if the overall article is balanced. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

agreed. i don't think they should be prohibited, but caution should always be advised. Anastrophe (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

www.haciendapub.com appears to be a self published website of Miguel Faria. As such it almost certainly does not qualify as a reliable source. In any case, the burden of proof is on the editor wanting to insert the material, and I ask again: Please provide evidence of the 'reliable publication process' for www.haciendapub.com. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

wouldn't you need to directly ask that particular editor that question? none of us can know what that editor's rationale might be. from my perspective, haciendapub itself is of poor value as a reliable source, since as noted it does appear to be self-published - however, many of the articles there are reprints of his article published in reliable sources such as the WSJ. so once again, what really matters is what the specific complaints are about specific citations. as yet, we remain in the dark on those questions. if better references need to be found, we can certainly do so. there's no shortage of alternative reliable sources for much of the content here. Anastrophe (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, the article footnote 28 points to Miquel Faria's claim that "(Australian police) have been using previous registration and firearm license lists to check for lapses and confiscate non-surrendered firearms." Is that confirmed as fact? Please point to an alternative reliable source for that claim. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

that article is reproduced from the newsmax.com website. it would be better to link directly to that. as a reliable source, newsmax trumps the author's own site. Anastrophe (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I checked. Not confirmed. It isn't found on the newsmax.com website. This raises serious questions about falsehoods on that haciendapub.com blog. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And considering that the Newsmax website mixes news with rumor, (see this case study from Georgetown University[3] ). I wonder how you have made your presumtion that the Newsmax website is a reliable source? Especially when it makes exceptional claims, please explain. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

please assume good faith. the article apparently formerly appeared on newsmax, but is no longer archived (see ref in this article - http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/stolinsky1.html ). i'm not making any claims about newsmax. AP publishes 'offbeat' news, and has in the past published material that later proved to be urban legend. i don't disagree that newsmax is not as reliable as other sources. it is a news aggregation site - so is yahoo. if it were possible to reference these articles directly via newsmax or another publisher, that would be preferable. absent that, the material fails as self-published, so i agree with the removal. likely there are other sources for the material covered. Anastrophe (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, we are not to assume good faith about exceptional claims. And as to your link to the website of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, that is an "ultra-right-wing... political-economic rather than medical" group. As such, it should be used only with extreme caution. And, Dr. Faria was reported to have resigned "under fire"[4] because he was too extremist. See WP:REDFLAG, we should be cautious using extremist sources, especially with a potentially contentious article like this one. Better that we stick to middle ground 'most reliable' sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

excuse me if i wasn't clear. i was not asking that you assume good faith about a reference - such policy doesn't exist, and rightly so - i was asking that you not assume motive about your fellow editor, as i neither made nor stated a 'presumption' as to the reliability of newsmax. i stated "as a reliable source, newsmax trumps the author's own site." that's not a presumption, that's simply a statement of fact - a news aggregator is more reliable than a self-published website, but not necessarily the most reliable. furthermore, why do you say "your link to the website of" - why are you assuming i made that link? i did not. in fact, i've added no citations to this article whatsoever. you put in quotes "ultra-right-wing... political-economic rather than medical" - who is making that determination? Anastrophe (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That the organization is 'ultra right wing' is obvious from reading what it publishes, but the quote comes from the New York Times[5]. Better that we stick with 'most reliable' sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

i've never been to the site, so i wouldn't know. however, one person's "ultra right wing" is another person's "just right of center". it's a personal characterization which isn't really relevant to the validity of the content. for example, i consider 'moveon.org' an extreme leftist site, whereas others consider it mainstream. my characterization is immaterial. what matters is whether the content is reliable. Anastrophe (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Section break

And, to the topic, can anybody identify who is behind guncite.com? That blog appears entirely anonymous. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

i see no indication that it's a blog. is an aggregation of numerous articles. a random sampling shows most of the articles contain excerpts that are properly cited. "who is behind" a website is not necessarily relevant. the reliability of the content is. what are your specific issues with specific citations from there? Anastrophe (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is behind that website is important to evaluate if the website is published by an 'established expert' see the policy WP:SPS. 22:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaltyBoatr (talk • contribs)

not when the content is derived from other sources, and properly cited. we aren't talking about someone's blog here, where they ramble on with their own thoughts and ideas. most of the content is reproductions of quotes and exerpts from other sources. however, i would recommend that such particular exerpts would be better derived directly. Anastrophe (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

We should not be citing from one source content from another. We have no idea whether it has been quoted in context or correctly. The original source should be obtained, read and if relevant, cited. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

i'm not sure how that differs from what i just said...? Anastrophe (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK seeing we are all on the same page, why are we citing Guncite.com at all then? --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

i have no objections to finding replacement sources, if there's some reasonable concern that the citations misrepresent the facts. but as usual, i ask, what specific concerns are there about the specific citations? for example, http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html is a reproduction of an article originally published by Asia Pacific Law Review, and is a rigorously cited article in itself. guncite is merely providing easy access to an article published elsewhere, and not necessarily online. Anastrophe (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a reasonable concern. In at least one case which I have checked, the 1982 subcommittee report[6], the copy on guncite does not match the original. This raises a reasonable concern about the other so called 'copies' on guncite. Have you compared both sources, the original and the copy, to be able to state as a fact that they are exactly the same? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

would you be kind enough to provide a link to the original you compared it with? it would save duplication of effort. Anastrophe (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

and if you could provide a specific instance of this difference you're noting, that would be particularly helpful. Anastrophe (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The online version at guncite is about 15000 words, perhaps 10 to 20 pages; obviously abridged. The reprint version issued by the NRA is 137 pages, also obviously abridged. The USGPO version is 175 pages[7]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

huh? i'm afraid i don't understand what you're talking about. you say they're abridged, but provide a link to a bookseller? where is the original you are comparing it to? what does "perhaps 10 to 20 pages" mean? can you provide a link to the NRA copy? i feel like i'm trying to negotiate roadblocks. Anastrophe (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the burden of proof here. And WP:SPS is not really negotiable. The guncite website includes 15,000 words which could not fill 100 pages, probably much less. Yet, the booksellers list that the NRA reprint of the document is 137 pages. And the official government issued document is 175 pages. Plainly, the guncite website copy is abridged. If you need to know exactly which words were abridged, a trip to the library is needed. See also WP:CONV and there is reasonable doubt that guncite.com meets the 'true copy' standard. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

plainly, you've presented no evidence that the guncite copy is abridged. it has been html-ified for convenience, using links to the material that is included in the committee report section entitled "Other Views of the second amendment". that material is simply displayed on separate pages, rather than on the same page as the main report. it's a convenience, and it renders the main page - the actual committee report itself - shorter. using "pages" as a measure to determine if the text has been abridged is invalid, since a "page" is a construct in print, and the number of pages in a printed document is a function of margin width, line spacing, font size, and even kerning. identical text can be printed to cover widely ranging numbers of pages. there's no evidence that guncite purposely tampers with the content of material on the cite in order to deceive or obfuscate. note also that WP:CONV is an essay, not policy. all that said, however, the reliability of guncite cannot be determined, as far as i can tell. it's a shame, as guncite is obviously nothing more than a clearinghouse for material published elsewhere - but there's no means i know of to determine explicitly that the reproduced material is unmodified (ludicrous as it seems to me to suggest that there's something nefarious at work in their reproduction of the committee report, or other materials). Anastrophe (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the burden of proof here. Can you show that guncite offers true copies of the documents they serve? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

i guess you didn't read all of what i wrote. Anastrophe (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

i'm rather distressed to have run across the following edit by User:SaltyBoatr:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=next&oldid=174142659

can you clarify your rationale and provide a justification for this rather glaring inconsistency in your application of policy? Anastrophe (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

removal of cited material

because there are questions about the reliability of cited materials in this article, and because these are contentious issues, it's important that editors show care when changing the article. if you dispute a citation, please "<nowiki>" the disputed cite, then add a {{Fact|date=January 2008}} tag after the citation. please don't just remove the citation, as that then leaves unsourced material 'bare' in the article, without any identification that the source is questioned. also, please don't simply removed sourced material from the article - if you dispute the source, do as suggested above. simply eliding sourced material without any explanation is inappropriate. thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

japan times opinion piece

i fail to see how this is a reliable source regarding the state of the laws and their enforcement. it's an opinion piece, labeled as such, so it's hardly a reliable source. it would be a reliable source for commentary on enforcement, but not as a canonical cite. Anastrophe (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is that article labeled as an 'opinion piece'? SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The section is entitled "Media Mix". Follow the "Home > Life in Japan > Media" - that's the breadcrumb to the article. click on "Media". you'll see it is described as "MEDIA MIX Commentary on the issues of the day in Japan's media". it's an opinion piece. not a canonical reference for gun law in japan. Anastrophe (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Japan Times is well respected and mainstream, and appears to meet all the qualities of a 'most reliable source' by WP standards. See also, [8] for a discussion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

by that rationale, one could reference the sunday funnies as being a reliable source, because they appear within a mainstream news source. it doesn't work that way. The Japan Times may serve as a reliable source for news and information, but commentary, opinion, the crossword puzzle - do not. Anastrophe (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, we seem to disagree, I have requested a third opinion[9]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is a very poor source {Source Here}. The article reports on media ("Media Mix"), not about gun laws in Japan. It is essentially a riff starting from the Japanese media's coverage of an incidence of gun violence. It describes a shooting by an American sailor at the Renaissance Sports Club. The author mentions that, as an American, he has "nevertheless absorbed the lore and science of firearms by forced osmosis," and then the author critize's the Japanese media for its lack of understanding in these matters. At the end the author gives the quote used in this article, but in an offhand way. It doesn't cite any other news reports or gov't agency reports. He does mention "Various news reports cited..." but he doesn't say what they are. If you want to report on how gun laws really work in Japan, you have to find an article specifically on that subject. Griot (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow the logic. We all agree that The Japan Times is highly regarded[10]. We all agree that the journalist Philip Brasor is a well established journalist, witness that The Japan Times has chosen to publish 810 of his articles.[11] We all agree that Philip Brasor's, specifically wrote his journalistic opinion about guns and Japanese culture in that article. Griot's 'poor source' distinction hinges on what WP:Policy? (Please point to WP:POLICY in your reply.) SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with citing this piece are two 1) It's not about gun regulations in Japan or how they are enforced. The paragraph cited is almost a throwaway paragraph at the end of the article. The article, under the heading "Media Mix," is about how the Japanese media treated a shooting 2) It is anecdotal in that it doesn't say where the author got his information about gun regulation enforcement or cite any statistics. (Interestingly, the only statistic the author actually did present was that "the bulk of the 300,000 privately owned firearms in Japan are, in fact, shotguns..." Only 300,000 privately owned firearms in all of Japan, with its 127 million people, comes to one firearm per 423 people Compare that to the estimated 200 million Source Here firearms in the U.S. with its 281 million population, which amounts to about firearm per 1.4 people. One could easily argue that these statistics [one firearm per 432 vs. one firearm per 1.4 people] explain why gun violence is so rare in Japan.) Griot (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please rephrase your objection, pointing to WP:POLICY? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My objection is clear. This is bad source by any standard. Mind if I include the guns per person stats from Japan in the article (one firearm per 432 vs. one firearm per 1.4 people) in the article? Griot (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the policy basis of your objection is not clear. I understand your personal opinion, but am asking about the policy basis. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

this would be a very useful addition, since it's a statistic from a reliable source, rather than an opinion from a reliable source. Anastrophe (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

since we're discussing matters of policy and application of same, i'm going to reproduce my query from the section above, since i've yet to get a response. i'd really like to get an answer here, because it's an example of your (saltyboatr) application of policy 180 degrees opposite of what you've been claiming. from above: i'm rather distressed to have run across the following edit by User:SaltyBoatr:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=next&oldid=174142659

can you clarify your rationale and provide a justification for this rather glaring inconsistency in your application of policy? Anastrophe (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That is off topic here, I will answer on your talk page. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The scources disagree tremendously, one should be removed. Roobydo (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.56.25 (talk)

guncite: apparently it is a reliable source

Saltyboatr, i'm having a real hard time assuming good faith. you claim that my question about your use of guncite as a reliable source in the second amendment article is 'off topic'. that's nonsense. you've argued at length above that guncite is not reliable. that it's a self published source. that they 'clearly' abridge text on their site. yet you use them as a reliable source - in the lede of another article. this is not an off topic inquiry - it goes to the heart of your claimed objections to the use of guncite as a reliable source. again, here is the diff of the edit where you add guncite to the second amendment article as a reliable source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=next&oldid=174142659

if you cannot respond with a rationale here - explaining why you consider a guncite reference appropriate and reliable in one article, but not in this one - then i'm going to restore the guncite reference you removed from this article. because i can see no reasonable basis for this contradictory application of policy. Anastrophe (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am human. Please stop the ad hominem attack. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

there is no ad hominem whatsoever above. i've not attacked you, i've attacked your argument. please respond. thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I did answer you[12], please read the 2A talk page[13]. Did you read it? Massive amounts of collaboration work went into negotiating that text which I restored. I was not the sole editor. You blame me as being inconsistent? I was reverting to a status of text which was painstakingly developed by a group of editors, yet you blame me personally for being inconsistent and you question my good faith. That is a personal attack. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

this is a distortion of the issue. whether collaborative or not, the edit stands. your statement above that you were "reverting" is also a distortion - the edit was not a reversion, it was the introduction of new material into the article by you. if it was a collaborative effort, why did you not raise objections to the use of guncite in that instance? the question still stands. you deleted reference to guncite in this article on your claim that it is not a reliable source. that it is a self-published source. you claim that guncite 'clearly' abridges text. you have argued at great length that guncite fails in all respects as a reliable source, and that your doubts as to the accuracy of information there are adequate justification for removal of the citation, and that the burden of proof rests with those who wish to use it as a source. so, i ask: since you accept guncite as a reliable source in the second amendment article, on what basis do you do so? Anastrophe (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I spend a lot of time on vandal patrol. The 2A article has a long history of rogue editors and vandals dropping in and making changes not supported by the consensus. The consensus wording of the lede section of that article was painstakingly developed over a long time. I was simply reverting a rogue edit, made by an anonymous IP editor with a highly suspicious edit history[14], back to the stable consensus version. In truth, I viewed that rogue edit[15] as vandalism and was being generous calling it AGF. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

to repeat: the linked-to diff i provided is not a reversion of vandalism or any other kind of edit. it was the first time the link to guncite was added to the lede of the second amendment article. so, no, you were not "simply reverting a rogue edit". just so we're clear. Anastrophe (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, you are referring to the Nov. 27 edit, I was mistakenly thinking you were referring to my recent vandal revert[16] of this same lede paragraph consensus (compare the two, except for date, they are very similar). Still, you appear to have not read the talk page negotiations which lead up to the Nov27 posting of that new consensus intro section. That consensus negotiation took place over a period of three weeks, and the Nov27 diff you point to was not my sole authorship, but rather a group editor consensus. Neither do you appear to have read the Nov27 edit summary revision to intro, per talk page., or my Nov27 talk page explanation.[17] Do you not understand that per talk page means that you need to also check the talk page for a full explanation? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

i'm quite aware of the talk page discussion - which included at-length discussion of the sources used. which further adds to my difficulty understanding why guncite was acceptable there - why you raised no questions of abridgement, being self-published, unreliable, in the lengthy consensus negotiations - yet here, the reference is completely unacceptable. Anastrophe (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To help you understand, read the book by D.J. Malloy especially bottom of page 116, top of page 117 which describes the fact that the modern militia movement websites, like guncite, sometimes misquote. Caution is in order. The modern militia 'convenience links' need to be checked. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

red herring. it does not "help me understand" your rationale for citing guncite as reliable in the other article, and not accepting it as reliable in this article. furthermore, the page you link to says nothing about guncite, and you are apparently making your own synthesis that guncite is an 'extremist militia' site, which is not helpful. please, keep to the discussion at hand. again, i ask why you raised no objections to guncite's use as a reliable source for citation in the second amendment article.Anastrophe (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ease up a bit. I do question the accuracy of the 'convenience link' by guncite to that 1982 report, and have put out $20 of my own cash to buy a copy so I can check it for accuracy. Give me a few days for the copy to arrive in the snail mail, and I will let you know how it checks out. As a matter of principle I believe that we need to be checking the accuracy of the 'convenience links' offered up at anonymous partisan websites like guncite, etc.. What is your beef? Are you trying to prove my inconsistency? I admit to being human, therefore I am not perfectly consistent, but I try to be fair and consistent. Satisfied? SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

okay. i'm human too, so i'll indeed ease up. i suppose i should buy a copy of the report too. Anastrophe (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And, I still have questions about the accuracy of the guncite convenience links, such as to that 1982 Senate Subcommittee report. To that end, I have recently purchased an original print of that report on the book collectors market and expect to receive my copy in the mail this week. That way we can point to the original document, not a partisan anonymous source like guncite. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

so again: why do you consider guncite an unacceptable, partisan anonymous source for citation in this article, but consider it reliable source for citation in another? this is completely inconsistent. Anastrophe (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Answers: 1) Self published websites, especially the anonymous like guncite, are generally not allowed as sources, see WP:RS and specifically WP:SPS. 2) I have reasonable questions about whether the convenience links on guncite are accurate, see WP:CONV. I am taking action to confirm the accuracy, I bought a copy of the 1982 Senate report, give me a couple days for it to arrive in the mail. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Second Intro paragraph

I am confused by the recent revert[18] just made by Griot, with the edit summary violence in "gun-free zones" is a minor issue; the issue is overall violence. Could you explain your rational for the revert more clearly please? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Violence in 'gun-free' zones is precisely the issue. Massacres are occurring where legal guns are prohibited, and citizens are not allowed to defend themselves. Where citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons legally, the shootings are kept from becoming massacres (i.e., the church shooting out in Colorado, the law school in Virginia, etc.). Where citizens are not allowed to defend themselves, we get 'massacres' (e.g., Virginia Tech). For NPOV, we should include the cited 'gun-free' zone POV (Nugent, et al). It is a significant POV. Yaf (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Massacres are occurring where legal guns are prohibited." C'mon Yaf. Massacres are occurring in many different places. To suggest that psychotics like the VT massacre perp are targeting gun free zones is preposterous. Griot (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, for instance, one psychotic targeted a church in Colorado, see 2007 Colorado YWAM and New Life shootings. It precisely was not a massacre because it was not a 'gun-free' zone. A private citizen ended the attack. On the other hand, at VT, there were no private citizens present that were armed and able to stop the attack, and a massacre resulted. Try as I might, I cannot recall even one massacre that has occured where private guns are allowed (at shooting ranges, cop bar, gun show, etc.) On the other hand, it is easy to name many massacres in 'gun-free' zones where legal carry is prohibited for law-abiding citizens. Controlling firearms owned by CCW holders accomplishes very little; CCW holders have lower rates of crime than even cops. Yaf (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, I understand your point that 'gun free zone' topic is valid. There are two questions: 1) Whether it should be included and 2) Where should it be included. I am questioning that the introduction of the global article might not be the most appropriate place for this topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I see that Yaf is editing that paragraph too. To avoid overlapping edits, and potentially an edit war. Let us discuss this on the talk page. I propose this wording for the second intro paragraph:

The nature of gun politics varies widely between different jurisdictions. In the United States there is strong feeling among many people that the government is not empowered to restrict a right to gun ownership. Additionally, following well publicized incidents of gun violence, there is a strong feeling among many people for increased firearm control legislation. This strong contrast of opinion leads to intensive political debate about the benefits and detriment of firearm regulation. In many other nations, the trend is towards much stricter gun control laws than exist in the United States.

...comments please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This phrasing totally ignores the 'gun-free' zone POV content needed for balance. Increased firearms control legislation does nothing to disarm the criminals; they ignore such legislation by the 'gun-free' POV. We need to balance this one-sided wording. Yaf (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the "debate" is not over massacres; everyone agrees that they are bad. What is at debate is whether citizens should have a right to defend themselves against those who perpetrate massacres in so-called 'gun-free' zones. Yaf (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I though the issue/topic was global Gun Politics? The issue of 'gun-free' zones is a real issue, but not really a key summary point for the introductory section of an article. I thought introductory sections of articles were to concisely summarize the article. May I suggest at least that the 'gun-free zone' content be moved to a more appropriate place in the article than the introduction? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Gun-free zones" is not the major issue at the front of the gun regulation debate in America. The major issue is how to balance individuals' right to own guns with public safety. Putting a mention of "gun-free zones" at the top of this article gives the false impression that "gun-free zones" are uppermost in the gun regulation debate. That's just not so, and I'm removing it. Griot (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Gun-free zones" is a major POV with cited content. It is a major part of the debate. Am including it. Yaf (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, would you consider moving it out of the intro? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if we also move the unbalanced "massacre" and "gun control legislation" discussion also out of the intro. It is a one-sided POV to put massacre terminology and gun control legislation terminology solely in the intro without any balance of including 'gun-free' zones. Personally, though, I believe both should stay to provide a balance to the introduction. Both are major points of view with significant cited sources that are available. Yaf (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If anywhere, it belongs in the Gun Politics in the US article. This is a broad look at gun politics worldwide. I think we can agree that "gun-free zones" exist only in the U.S. I moved "massacre" out of the intro. I could take issue with whether the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own guns -- and argue that this contentious issue should be taken out of the intro, but I won't, as the 2nd Amendment is central to any discussion about gun politics in the U.S. "Gun-free zones" is noit a central issue. Griot (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we start with sourcing? I point to the Spitzer book _Gun Politics_. A hugely important central theme in political science book is that there are episodic swings in gun politics. A key one in the USA was the reactions to the Kennedy and King assassinations in the 1960's, resulting is an up swell of political pressure and then gun control legislation. That political force works in opposition to the segment of 'gun culture' people who hold the 'individual right' theory as sacred. That polar opposition is the essence of the political 'gun politics' dichotomy in the USA, those two opposing political forces. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Yaf, I missed that you were moving that material down to the US section. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, I have a problem with the clause ...where the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly protects the right to "keep and bear arms".... Being presented as a statement of absolute fact, where that is far from a neutral opinion. Could that clause be omitted, or toned down? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, lets use the talk page. The recent edits to this 2A clause just bog down the introduction section. Why have it in the intro at all? What is the harm of moving all the parsing down in the article, or to the US article, or just omit it? Comments please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I will be making this change shortly. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess Yaf objects because he just re-inserted[19] this material. Yaf, please explain your reasoning. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Griot, I get your point about a general societal concern about gun violence, and that exists for sure, but I think the scholarship shows that the actually gun control legislation is motivated by the acts of episodic gun violence, such as school shootings or assassination. (In the USA especially). And lets keep moving to globalize. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I will be making this change shortly. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, could someone explain why that fringe POV National Rifle Association swiss gun Kopel passage belongs in the intro? If it stays there we would need to provide POV balance, and doing that would just bog down the intro. It seems better to try to clean up the intro by moving that passage down lower. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

i object to characterizing the NRA as "fringe". however, i think US-centric POV's should be left out of the intro entirely, since this is supposed to be a global overview. Anastrophe (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I take back the inflammatory word 'fringe', though one has to consider that the NRA is not neutral. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wayne LaPierre as Source

Should Wayne LaPierre, president of the NRA, be considered a reliable, objective source on this hot-button topic? Let's try to do better than that, shall we? Griot (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that we try to stick with the neutral 'most reliable' sourcing, that can keep us cooled down. When we cite to the POV ends of the sourcing, we get hot. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Have added more cites to this number. It has been widely published. Being that there are lots of sources, I don't see a problem with including LaPierre, though. He was chosen as representing a mainstream source to counter some of the mainstream sources in the 'other camp'. As long as we identify all of our reliable sources in this WP article, then the reader can certainly verify the info. Yaf (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And why does all that detail need to bog down the introduction? SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

i agree that most of these details do not belong in the intro. however, i think there's a misconception of what NPOV means here. it does not mean to eliminate POV, it means POV must be balanced. citing lapierre is perfectly acceptable. so is quoting sarah brady. leaders of well-recognized national organizations on both sides of the debate are suitable for citation of the differing POV's. Anastrophe (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

But quoting Kruschke is wrong? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, when you selectively choose a source to quote, while selectively ignoring a reliable source that clarifies missing information in your material. Anastrophe (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

rm unbalanced content

Yaf's recent revert[20] with the edit summary rm unbalanced content per talk page leaves me guessing. I don't see that talk page talk Yaf, please explain. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Followed by Yaf's next edit[21] with the edit summary moving content down from intro per talk page. These two edit summaries are misleading in that they fail to explain why Yaf deleted out the referenced material from the Spitzer book. Yaf, please explain. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Following the discussion above. Putting in only one POV (gun control) is not balanced. It is better to delete both, than just to delete one POV and leave the lede unbalanced. Full details with balance can be put in later in the sub-sections of the article. Yaf (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Then, to move the detail down below, where it won't detract the readability of the intro. I think all the content has been preserved. Yaf (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete[22] the Spitzer info? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

To move it down below. Yaf (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

i took the liberty of restoring the spitzer info with some wordsmithing. i think the para is balanced at this point, in as short a summary as possible, but mileage may vary. Anastrophe (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Yaf (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to me. (Though thanks for engaging in a dialog.) Could both of you please read pages 13 - 15 of the Spitzer book, it can be read online[23] at Amazon.com using the 'look inside the book' feature, search on the word 'King'. The present version of the intro fails to convey the Spitzer thesis as to 'outrage, action and reaction' which is a core issue in gun politics. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

we're trying to trim ancillary details from the lede. as it stands, the para is short, it notes that opinion is strongly divided, and that other countries are tending towards more control. what is unbalanced about it? why do the spitzer details need to be in the lede? can't they be incorporated in the body? Anastrophe (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

2A clause

My questions and concerns about this clause seem to have been overlooked: where the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly codifies "the right to keep and bear arms" and states arms are necessary for a "well regulated militia This is a POV opinion stated as fact. I don't see a need to have it in the global article, and hesitate to go into the tedious POV balancing when the easiest neutral solution is to avoid the battle and just omit. Thanks in advance for your reply. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

how is the statement POV? are you asserting that the constitution does not codify the words "the right to keep and bear arms", or the words "well regulated militia"? Anastrophe (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

'Bear Arms' in the language of the Founding Fathers meant 'serve military duty' (read the Declaration of Independence). Only recently (since about 1950), have the pro-gun proponents sought to redefine it as meaning to 'have firearms'. Also, the words 'explicitly codifies' are just plain wrong, considering the reality of the courts there is a vast amount of implicit with the 2A. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a modern POV that is not universally supported. "Bear arms" also had non-military duty meanings, even during the 18th Century. Only recently (since about 1994) has bear arms not meant private citizens carrying firearms. After all, "keep and bear arms" as worded in the 2A, recognized that private citizens were permitted to own (keep) and to carry (bear) arms separately, as two different actions. The 2A is not about serving in a militia, but rather it's about supporting the ability to serve in a militia when necessary. Yaf (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

your opinion on the meaning of the second amendment is noted. however, the fact remains that the constitution and bill of rights exist to codify rights. that's the best word to use, since people routinely make the mistake of suggesting that the bill of rights "grants" rights. we can remove "explicitly" if you like, or we can just quote the amendment, and eliminate interpretation. Anastrophe (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In short, this article is not about bearing arms, it is about global gun politics. Those are different things. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

it is the amendment that is at the core of the debate and difference between the US and other countries. ignoring it leaves a gaping hole in explaining that difference in the article.Anastrophe (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your 'the amendment at the core' POV closely matches the NRA argument, fine. Still, it is only one POV and not neutral. Scholars disagree, see here[24] for instance. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

please don't imply endorsement like that. my POV is my POV. i'm not a member of the NRA, have never been a member of the NRA, and don't give a rats ass what the NRA's position is. okay? i've formed my own opinion from a vast number of other sources and experiences. it's exceedingly rude to make casual 'comparisons' like that, and borders on uncivil. i'm amused by your citation. what it says precisely backs up my wording - "The debate today about whether the 2nd amendment refers to an 'individual' or 'collective' right to bear arms is directly relevant to the gun control issue" (emphasis mine). also, i note with further amusement the claim that scholarly opinion argues against the individual right. the overwhelming majority of papers published in peer-reviewed legal journals in the last twenty years support the individual right. arguing that "the people" has a "collective" meaning in the second amendment, distinct from its individual meaning and interpretation in the first, fourth, ninth, and tenth amendments, has always struck me as disingenuous. but i digress. Anastrophe (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for guessing, I've had little choice. You allude that your opinion is based on 'sources'. Don't be vague, or I have to guess. Please describe the sourcing for your opinion; be specific. Name the books and papers. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

excuse me, but i don't have to justify or provide references for my own personal opinion. neither do you, nor does any editor. you ignore that i pointed out that your source uses wording very similiar to my own, which you imply is the 'NRA argument'. so, whose POV is it then? i ask only that you not make comments about other editor's POV "closely matching" XYZ advocacy group's POV. it's inappropriate. Anastrophe (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right. But, then keep your opinions off this talk page. See the bold text in the opening paragraph here. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

excuse me, but that's disingenuous. part of the process of forming consensus on contentious topics is to discuss opinions as they relate to the article, which is precisely what we were doing. you've expressed your own personal opinions in no uncertain terms as well, immediately above. what is inappropriate is to suggest that another editor is toeing XYZ advocacy groups party-line. what's humorous is to have then quoted a different source yourself that backs up my statement. what, exactly, is your angle here? the funny thing is, i've already removed the contentious material from the sections mentioned. did you notice? Anastrophe (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NOR. You refuse[25] to give your sources for your opinion. Plus, you seem to get a kick from arguing. Stop. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

do you understand the difference between discussion on the talk page, and the article space? WP:NOR applies to article space. you could toss 99.99999% of wikipedia talk pages if you tried to apply WP:NOR to them. please, this is tiresome. i've already given you my source - yours! [26] Anastrophe (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

number of guns

the fbi cites 220 some million guns. estimates by others range from 80 million to 280 million. as the article notes, there is no reliable way to estimate because there is no registration and no database to refer to. the best thing to do in my opinion is to note the wide range of estimates (with sources, of course), and note the current total US population. then let the reader come to their own conclusions. X per person isn't meaningful or helpful, since current estimates would put it at from one gun per 3.75 people to just under one gun per person. Anastrophe (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

If we ever want to get rid of the NPOV tag the United States section needs to read neutrally. Presently it reads like a pro-gun talking points memo. This portion of the WP:NPOV policy describes my main concern[27]. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Reasonable restriction"

this is a loaded, POV term. gun control advocates feel that a fifteen day waiting period is "reasonable". gun rights advocates feel that a fifteen day waiting period is "unreasonable". some gun control advocates propose a total ban on handguns, and consider this "reasonable" in the name of "public safety". most gun rights advocates consider such proposals extreme and unreasonable. there is no NPOV to suggest that only the gun control proponents have a "reasonable" basis for their position. we can certainly balance it by making it "who oppose unreasonable restrictions on gun ownership[2], and those who favor reasonable restrictions.". but that sounds utterly silly. Anastrophe (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, "public safety" by the gun ban advocates is considered "public endangerment" by the gun rights advocates in the sense that private citizens are prohibited from exercising God-given rights of self-defense and self-preservation. CCW holders are generally some of the most lawful citizens there are, surpassing even police in terms of statistical analysis of legal infractions. Yet, by the "public safety" argument, CCW holders who are legally licensed by the state to carry a concealed firearm are prohibited from exercising lawful self-defense in "gun-free" zones (where, one might observe, is where the massacres have all been occurring.) Lets keep the POV terminology to a minimum in this article. Yaf (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

From our side of the gun control debate, it's all about public safety. If a disease were killing 10,000 Americans a year, it would be a matter of public safety. Stricter gun regulations is not about "gun bans." I have no interest in banning guns. I would like to see a system like Switzerland where people are licensed to own guns, and to get that license they have to pass a rigorous training course. I am concerned with how easy it is to acquire guns in America and therefore how easy it is for the wrong people to acquire them. Moreover, your "gun-free zones" is a canard. To suggest that the VT massacre happened because Virginia Tech prohibited students from carrying guns on campas is an insult to the 39 people who were murdered there. As you know, plenty of massacres take place in areas that are not "gun-free." Your attempt to make "gun-free zones" the issue here is just an attempt to throw a roadblock into the debate. Griot (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Name one public massacre that has not taken place in a "gun free" zone. On the other hand, there are lots of shootings that have ended before reaching massacre status due to private citizen(s) with firearms stopping a psycho before dozens of innocent people were killed. "Public endangerment" is another term for "public safety". To require, no, to demand, that 39 people must give their lives, unable to defend themselves, to achieve "public safety" in a "gun-free" zone is an insult to every one of those who died.Yaf (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, a "gun-free zone" is a place where firearms are not explicitly allowed. Virginia Tech was a "gun-free zone" because the college didn't allow students to carry guns on campus. You ask me to name one massacre that didn't take place in a "gun-free zone." I can name thousands of them. Most murders and massacres take place on the streets, businesses, and public places where hundreds of people walk around armed. It's a wild west fantasy to think of an America where cowboys walk around with guns on their hips preventing crime and murder. To get back on point, why do societies with strict gun control laws have far, far fewer murders than the United States? Obviously, it's not because their citizens are walking around armed to the teeth. It's because they regulate their guns in a more responsible manner than the U.S. does. Griot (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Griot, cite sources please, personal views don't belong on article talk page. In any case, it appears that Mr. Nugent omits the word 'school'. I think the zones are properly called gun-free school zones after the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 & 1995[28]. This needs a little more research, but certainly the article needs some POV balancing, because finding citations of an opposing POV guns are a bad idea on school campus will be a slam dunk in light of that legislation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we talk sourcing instead of personal opinion? I don't see that the term 'reasonable regulation' is POV at all, in that I see the conservative Heritage Foundation acknowledges[29] that reasonable regulation is allowed by the Second Amendment, though they say it less concisely than the two word term: "the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not apply at all to certain individuals, broad classes of arms, and a wide variety of situations. Under the Solicitor General's theory, the government would have broad discretion to carve out exceptions, with a very deferential judicial review". Keep your personal opinions out of this please. Try again, this is not a 'gun rights advocates' belief. See also the Bush administration amicus brief for the Heller case, in that on page 20 the Bush administration advocates for "reasonable regulation". The question here is how to establish the POV balance point and you two seem to be setting the neutral fulcrum point extreme, even more conservative than the Heritage Foundation and the Bush administration. Please use sourcing in your reply, thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What is your source for "reasonable regulation" being the synopsis of their position? One could just as easily assume that they are opposed to "unreasonable regulation" with as much validity. Lets stick to cited facts and not presume OR results in what is meant, OK? It appears your personal view has infiltrated your two word synopsis of the Heritage Foundation's position. Yaf (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank 'favored' but just that they acknowledge that government has a right to "reasonable regulation". If you check my sources, given above, you will see that the Bush administration Department of Justice argues for that term with their reason point "B" on pages 8 and 20 of the amicus brief they just filed for the Heller case. And, once again, please avoid responding based on personal opinion, please cite sources. The question here is where to set the neutrality balance point, and you two editors favor setting to the extreme right of even the conservative Bush administration, which says quote: "the Second Amendment, properly construed, allows for reasonable regulation of firearms". SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention of the Heritage Foundation in the amicus brief. It is OR to presume the two word synopsis of the Heritage Foundation's position is "reasonable regulation". Quoting a different source unrelated to the Heritage Foundation does not consitute a citeable synopsis of "reasonable regulation" being accurate for the Heritage Foundation's position. Yaf (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The conservative Heritage Foundation (a secondary source) writes of the conservative Bush administration Heller amicus brief (a primary document). That primary document uses the words reasonable regulation. Yet, somehow you maintain that the term "reasonable regulation" has a gun-control POV slant. If true, why do these two prominent conservative entities acknowledge and argue, respectively, that "reasonable regulation" is allowed by the 2A? Where does the source of your POV determination originate? It appears personal. Answer by citing sources please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, you - amongst others - would be best to remember that there are many places outside of the USA that would consider terms like "gun rights advocates" (my emphasis) and "God-given rights" to be inherently and heavily POV, as well. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But, the US fought a war over this, ultimately winning, while declaring in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ...". Lest we forget, these views are simply the viewpoints of English common law that was codified as it then existed throughout the empire. Of course, such views are sometimes viewed as antiquated, today, especially where such rights have been usurped through parliamentary supremacy, as has subsequently occurred in the UK and Australia. It is certainly a valid point you make that such points of view are not universal. In support of your POV, I recall seeing a news release last week that the UK is now banning plastic guns that have flags that pop out, enscribed with the word "BANG", that have been used in stage productions.[30] They are considered dangerous, as they cause fear in subjects. Relative to this POV, assuming God-given rights for possessing a right to guns does probably seem heavily POV. But, there are multiple POVs that should all be included for a global article. We must work toward including all of these POVs. Yaf (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but the report you yourself cite This makes it clear that the aforementioned plastic guns have not actually been "banned" in the manner you suggest, and also that the issue is actually one of health & safety and other rules regarding theatrical performances. It has nothing whatsoever to do with firearms legislation. Not sure how this is "in support of (my) POV," as you claim, though. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My questions should be answered: Even the conservative Bush administration holds the POV that reasonable regulation is allowed, then why should the the government has no legal power to restrict the right to gun ownership POV be given equal weight? The elected democrats (stipulated) and the elected republican administration (per the Heller amicus brief) both agree that reasonable regulation is allowed. Exactly who holds the no restrictions allowed POV? Why should that be considered a significant POV? Cite sources please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"reasonable regulation", without a definition of what is reasonable, is meaningless. all of the amendments to the constitution have specific, reasonable restrictions in place, equally - that is, constitutional rights do not confer fully upon the mentally ill, children, or felons. this holds for all of the amendments. that's what is commonly meant by "reasonable restriction/regulation" on rights as a legal term of art. if you can cite exactly what the amicus claims constitutes "reasonable" then you'll be on to something. the 'no legal power to restrict' POV is widely held. i'm sure sources can be drummed up easily. and a reminder: government doesn't have rights. it has powers. please don't suggest the government has a 'right' to restrict XYZ. Anastrophe (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the Bush administration brief I cited? I can tell you did not. In that brief the definition of 'reasonable' is addressed at length, which is: reasonable as determined by Congress, subject to court review, see pages 21-22 etc..

Also, I am still waiting for a response as to who exactly holds the POV no legal power to restrict? Is it a significant POV or a fringe POV? For instance, (at an extreme to illustrate my question): Who holds a POV of an individual right to personal anti-aircraft weapons? Congress has passed 'reasonable regulation' about that type of weaponry. Omit your personal opinion, and instead cite reliable sources please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

saltyboatr, please stop publishing original research and your own opinion into the article, followed by an edit summary saying 'don't revert this, talk about it on the talk page'. the following material you posted is obnoxiously one-sided:

In the United States, opinion generally accepts the reasonable regulation of firearms, with a strong debate over what is reasonable. Also, a loud minority holds a position that the government has no legal power to restrict weaponry at all.

that last sentence is offensive. shall we add the following to "balance" it? "Also, a loud minority holds a position that the second amendment grants no right at all to ownership of firearms outside of a militia, and also calls for a complete and total ban on firearms accompanied by confiscation". there's a loud minority that holds that position - why didn't you include it?

one-sided, unsourced modifications to what was previously neutral wording will be reverted immediately. there's no restriction on doing so, jimbo wales encourages it. if we're to reach consensus on this article, it would be far, far better if the public article were left alone for now - and instead, take a paragraph that has problems, republish it here in talk, then we can hash out the issues here, rather than this passive aggressive revert warring. Anastrophe (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring your commentary and personal view (feel free to express your personal views on my user talk page, but let's keep them off the article talk page), and answering your question: The POV ' no legal power to restrict ' is seemingly tiny and fringe. As I have shown above, that POV falls to the far right on the political spectrum of some very conservative interests, like the Bush administration, etc.. Per WP:NPOV, significant POVs must be included proportionately. I interpret that as percentage of people holding the POV, not the loudness of their voices. By the way, I have asked you to cite reliable sourcing about the size of the ' no legal power to restrict ' POV, but you did not reply. It seems very fringe, far right wing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

didn't you say just a few comments back that the bush administration supports "reasonable restrictions"? yes, i'm certain you did. so which is it? now you say they're on the fringe of the far right, "like the Bush administration". now, would you address the problem of balance i noted above? if you're to claim that the 'no power to restrict' pov is fringe, and is to be noted as such, then why did you not include the fringe that wants a complete ban and confiscation? your statement above includes commentary that clearly identifies your changes as being your OR - "seemingly tiny and fringe", "I interpret that", "it seems very fringe". none of those personal views are valid for changing the article. and what does "far right wing" have to do with the discussion? just as you admonish me for injecting my personal views, you do so as well. believe it or not, there are people on both the left and right who believe that the rights codified in the constitution should be interpreted liberally, not restrictively. Anastrophe (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to resort, once again, to ad hominem attacks on me being inconsistent. As I said, WP:NPOV requires proportionality in the balance of POV's By 'far right wing' I mean 'far fringe POV', of course. Again, you are welcome to talk personal views elsewhere. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

an ad hominem attack would be if i said, for example, "you're an idiot for thinking XYZ". i've done no such thing. i have attacked your arguments, not you personally. you are injecting your own personal opinion about whether a particular position is "fringe" as justification for adding it to the article. you were reverted for doing so, because you created an unbalanced POV statement. would you object if i added this to the article?

In the United States, opinion generally accepts the reasonable regulation of firearms, with a strong debate over what is reasonable. Also, a loud minority holds a position that there is no right to own firearms, and that all guns should be banned and confiscated.

do you see the problem? if you're to inject your opinion of what is 'fringe' into the article, then it opens the door for others to inject their opinion of what is fringe into the article as well.Anastrophe (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am ignoring your hypothetical, until the future date you may rephrase it citing reliable sourcing; or, I am willing to discuss your personal views on a talk page, just not here on an article talk page. I have shown, with reliable sourcing, that the ' no legal power to restrict ' POV is to the extreme side of the Bush administration and is therefore a relatively fringe POV. I grant it is a significant POV (mostly because it is loud), but proportionately it is a lessor POV than the mainstream ' reasonable regulation ' POV. The present wording of the second introductory paragraph fairly portrays this proportionality. (The wording in the US section down below does not, and needs fixing.) SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Have attempted to address this concern. Yaf (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Where? Please give reliable sourcing regarding the proportional weight of the ' no legal power to restrict ' POV. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring and read the article. See here. Yaf (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, please explain how you determine the neutral POV balance point. WP:NPOV requires proportionality. Your balance point is far from at the neutral balance point. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to add a no legal power to restrict statement, you are free to add it with an appropriate cite. But if you want to add it, a reliable source must be attached. Yaf (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent wording still gives equal weight, and even the pro-gun Bush administration argues forcefully that reasonable regulation is allowed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Others would likely disagree with your assessment. Afterall, Bush did agree to sign and renew the Assault Weapons Ban if it returned to his desk. This hardly seems like a "pro-gun" position. But, "reasonable regulation" is a term of art used by those who would ban all guns. Yaf (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am admittedly a late comer to this, but might I make a suggestion? Could we say in the article that the law allows reasonable restriction, but we add the clause that there is disagreement on what constitutes reasonable restriction? It shouldn't be hard, just find a statement, for example, by the Brady Campaign, and a statement by the NRA on the subject of reasonable restriction, that should suffice for showing that gun-rights and gun-control groups disagree on what constitutes reasonable restriction.--LWF (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That is essentially what I was trying to say, which Yaf reverted[31]. I agree there is disagreement about what is reasonable restriction, but both prominent pro-gun and pro-control people argue that some form of reasonable regulation is allowed. Very few fringe POVs hold that no restrictions are allowed. I am open to some compromise. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Claiming a "loud minority holds a position that the government has no legal power to restrict weaponry at all" without a cite is Orignal Research. In the first place, I am not sure whether it is a minority, or a majority. "Reasonable restriction" is a loaded gun-banner favorite expression that we should not include, for it encourages counterbalance be added. (When fringe content is inserted, then a counterbalancing fringe content is required for balance.) Besides, "Reasonable restrictions" is only political speak. Also, the same is true for "public safety" vs. "public endangerment". Lets leave out these hot button terms in favor of neutral terms. Yaf (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, please explain how you determine the neutral POV balance point. WP:NPOV requires proportionality. Your balance point is far from at the neutral balance point. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, also explain why you deleted this: "...opinion generally accepts the reasonable regulation of firearms, with a strong debate over what is reasonable." Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

By WP:NPOV, "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively." Putting in pejorative terms, "public safety", "reasonable regulations", "loud minority" (without a cite establishing the preponderance of views -- and their relative magnitudes) forces putting in counterbalancing and equally pejorative terms of "public endangerment", "unreasonable regulations", "silent majority" to remain neutral. All with cites, of course. Rather than put in one-sided pejorative terms, while prohibiting the other set, or even putting in a litany of tediously balanced political pejorative terms, why don't we just put in what the issues are, without any one-sided pejorative terminology being used. Proportionality does not overrule our WP policy requirement not to mention a set of views pejoratively. A "balance point" that mentions only a single-sided pejorative set of terms for an article's point of view is not balanced. The goal is for the reader to make their own decisions based upon a balanced set of cited and verifable sources. Yaf (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow. This clause "...opinion generally accepts the reasonable regulation of firearms, with a strong debate over what is reasonable." is hardly pejorative. The term 'reasonable regulation' was used by the Bush administration on page 8 of their Heller amicus filing. Yaf, be fair here, please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully we can use the article talk space to work out our differences, and avoid edit war, thanks.