User talk:47.16.198.108

September 2017

Hello, I'm KH-1. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Presidency of Donald Trump seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. KH-1 (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Presidency of Donald Trump. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. SkyWarrior 01:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Defensive gun use. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC) the version there is unverifiable and promotes myths. Have you actually read the references? No one supports this crank theory. You have blood on your hands. 47.16.198.108 (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Defensive gun use. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You yourself restored unsourced material suggesting defensive gun use is a real phenomenon. The sources in the article say otherwise. 47.16.198.108 (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

PS You have blood on your hands.47.16.198.108 (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You may find this hard to believe, but I'm not reacting one way or another to the content of the article. We have a process for improving articles. Please use it. Start with the Talk page. Otherwise there is ZERO CHANCE that any change you try to make will be accepted. Seriously, you're acting contrary to your own interests. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Want a good estimate? 230. There are roughly 230 homicides with a firearm considered justifiable in the United States in a given year (compare to 8,000 unjustifiable). All the figures in the millions are promoted by NRA nuts who should not be considered part of the discussion or given a platform here. The 60-80,000 people are what I would consider EXTREME HIGH END figures, since the numbers, again, vastly exceed the number of actual gun homicides. People who call them the "low end" are silly. Here is a plausible low figure:

"The V.P.C. also found that in 2010 “there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm” reported to the F.B.I.’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Compare that with the number of criminal gun homicides in the same year: 8,275. (That’s not counting gun suicides or unintentional shootings.) Or compare it with the number of Americans killed by guns since Newtown: 3,458." Someone please fix this article and remove the hoaxes. AT LEAST GET RID OF ALL FIGURES THAT SAY "MILLIONS" OF DEFENSIVE GUN USES. Let's not be fucking stupid here.47.16.198.108 (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

talk page appears to be OWNED by gun trolls. what to do? there are some good links in that article like the Harvard Public Health study showing this idea is basically mythical, but we give equal time to cranks who "claim" to have studies proving the "4.7 million" figure, which is too stupid to even be worth discussing. It suggests more crimes are prevented by "defensive gun use" than crimes actually attempted. this is impossible, and shows these people are promoting a hoax. This is basically a hoax article, you realize. The whole premise of this article has been repeatedly debunked, and the only place in the world anyone believes it is the United States. Read here: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263. Good work restoring the hoax to the encyclopedia. 47.16.198.108 (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

• If only you had started a talk page discussion--and of course not had claimed the other user had "blood on their hands", which is pretty disgusting. BTW, NewEnglandYankee, that "low" estimate strikes me as ridiculously high (unless there's scare quotes around "defensive"?) and I think it needs a few more sources. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I entirely agree. I have my doubts about the content of this article, but I'm not in a position to verify or deny it. Maybe it should be tagged for review? NewEnglandYankee (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

In the name of all that's good and holy, what do we have to do to convince you to start by opening a discussion on the article's talk page? The course of action you have embarked upon is manifestly not working and is unlikely to work in the future. Talk pages are the way to improve articles. Please use them.

By the way, Drmies, I did spot check one of the references for the "lower bound" figure. It's really a critique of another survey's methodology, but it cits a figure of roughly 76,000. Surprising to me. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello. First, the worse issue is getting the stupid "4.7 million uses" hoax out of the article! THAT IS A HOAX! It is well known that logically, the maximum number of possible defensive gun uses cannot exceed the number of crimes attempted. If 100 percent of violent crimes were prevented by defensive gun uses, we would not have "4.7 million defensive gun uses" in the USA, since there are not 4.7 million attempted violent crimes annually in the USA! Someone has either inserted a hoax into this article or has quoted a crank.

Also you are correct that the low estimate is ridiculously high AND it is NOT WHAT THE SOURCES SAY that are linked in the article! The links to hemenway and the other Harvard Public Health Researchers have good estimates. http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263 https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Our information should be coming from these sources, the actual academic consensus on the topic, not giving equal time to these people and the cranks and not even correctly quoting the numbers given.

Our article should sound something like this: "We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

Hemenway, David. Survey research and self-defense gun use: An explanation of extreme overestimates. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1997; 87:1430-1445.

Hemenway, David. The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun uses: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events. Chance (American Statistical Association). 1997; 10:6-10.

Cook, Philip J; Ludwig, Jens; Hemenway, David. The gun debate’s new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 1997; 16:463-469.

4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal

We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys. Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267.

5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use. We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.

Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah. The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun use: Results of a national survey. Violence and Victims. 2000; 15:257-272.

6. Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home. We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

Azrael, Deborah R; Hemenway, David. In the safety of your own home: Results from a national survey of gun use at home. Social Science and Medicine. 2000; 50:285-91.

7. Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense

We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17 years, which asked questions about gun threats against and self-defense gun use by these young people. We found that these young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense, and most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents. Males, smokers, binge drinkers, those who threatened others and whose parents were less likely to know their whereabouts were more likely both to be threatened with a gun and to use a gun in self-defense.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Gun threats against and self-defense gun use by California adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2004; 158:395-400.

8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.

We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a “law-abiding citizen.”

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. When criminals are shot: A survey of Washington DC jail detainees. Medscape General Medicine. 2000; June 28. www.medscape.com

9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention. 2002; 8:236-238.

11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions

Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.

This article helps provide accurate information concerning self-defense gun use. It shows that many of the claims about the benefits of gun ownership are largely myths.

Hemenway D, Solnick SJ. The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007-2011. Preventive Medicine. 2015; 79: 22-27"

The article, in my view, should not read like it was written by Yoesmite Sam in the middle of schizophrenic break, as it does now. 47.16.198.108 (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, IP, but you had your opportunity a few edits and a few insults ago. Your points are interesting but no one is going to see them on this talk page. When your block expires, you can have a field day, though I will suggest you do it more concisely. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I just block quoted from a source. That wasn't just me writing.

You want concise: a real figure of possible defensive gun uses is about 200-300. There are generally something around 200-300 "justifiable homicides" annually with guns, according to real, official statistics. The other statistics are bullshit. The "4 million" people should not be given the time of day, and the 60,000 estimates are dubiously high (there are only some 8,000 gun murders in this country, so this number is troubling) and they should be re-described as the high end. 47.16.198.108 (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

What Drmies said. If you try to use the same methods in the future, I guarantee that you'll get the same outcome. And, no, I'm not threatening to hang around waiting to see what happens. One hundred percent of experienced Wikipedia editors will do exactly what I and Drmies have done. You seem to have useful information to contribute. Please try to communicate it in a way that has some chance of having an impact. For the last time--I promise--let me emphasize it: If you want to have an effect, use the Talk page. That's what it's for. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. --Ronz (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

You are conducting original research and linking to unverifiable material. I linked to authoritative, verifiable data showing a count of 200-300. If you'd like to create an article called "Speculation on the number of defensive ggun uses per year", please be my guest. IN this article, we will take the authoritative government statistics as the real ones, as we do on other articles regarding crimes. 47.16.198.108 (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

If you want to continue this dispute, I hope you don't mind a few suggestions:

See WP:ACCOUNT for explanations as to why it's best to work from an account and how to create one.

From what I've seen of the dispute so far, a good familiarity of most of Wikipedia's content policies will be needed to participate effectively: WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:POV.

You should also have some familiarity with Wikipedia's behavioral policies, especially dispute resolution to avoid further blocks. --Ronz (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I am familiar with enough to see that this article is a hoax. Do we not also have a policy against WP: Hoax pages? It is a well-known hoax that there are "millions of defensive gun uses" in the United States per year. Please just think about that for one minute before continuing. Then read the verifiable links I have shown indicating this is considered the "single most outrageous figure quoted in American politics." Pure and simple, that article is a hoax as it presently stands, and I hope you join me in attempting to fix it. I have provided verified, verifiable data; the other data links in there are speculative at best and fail WP: verifiability. Only the data I have supplied are even in-principle verifiable. Please show me another crime article we have in which speculative survey results rather than government crime statistics are given top billing. I am willing to allow the survey speculation to stay, but we should accede to the views of the legal and scientific community about what these data points represent. 47.16.198.108 (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

There's the fringe theories guideline, and its noticeboard --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

---