Talk:Gun politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Gun politics/archive 1: Talk from 2003 and earlier

Talk:Gun politics/archive 2: Talk from 2004 to Feb. 2006

Contents 1 Gun control article 2 NPOV tag 3 Problems with the article 4 THIS PAGE IS BIASED PRO GUNS!!!!!! 5 WHY DONT FACTS ABOUT GUNS REMAIN ON THIS PAGE?? 6 Age of consent link 7 Great article! 8 Too US specific 9 Merge Gun law to here 10 Cleanup request 11 Japan 12 Both sides 13 Detriot Pistol Ban?

[edit] Gun control article

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

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

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

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

[edit] NPOV tag

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

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

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

The obvious reply is that the arguments don't have to make sense to you. Our mission in the encyclopedia article is to document the debate. It is sufficient if some significant portion of participants in this social debate make those claims about "Security against tyranny and invasion". The truth of those claims must be decided outside of Wikipedia. But if you really do believe that portions of this article violate our rules for maintaining a neutral point of view, I strongly urge you to fix it yourself. Then politely defend your edits here if someone challenges them. Rossami (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] THIS PAGE IS BIASED PRO GUNS!!!!!!

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

It also has all possible anti-gun arguments on the page even when they make no logical sense. Our purpose is not to answer the question about gun control but to document the debate. If you think the page has a problem, fix it. But be prepared to politely defend your edits with logic and citations. What we do not need is more empty rhetoric whether from the pro- or the anti-gun lobbies. Rossami (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I should point out that in the time and effort it takes to complain that the "guns killed 30000 people" statement is biased, it should be possible to edit the statement to fix that. Gzuckier 15:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WHY DONT FACTS ABOUT GUNS REMAIN ON THIS PAGE??

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

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

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

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

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

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

When you say "The anti gun position should be allowed to be stated in its strongest most persuasive manner, and ... [the] pro gun people can then attempt to refute this argument", I'm afraid that you are fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of this article and seriously misunderstanding Wikipedia's mission. We have an obligation to present issues in as close to a neutral point of view as is humanly possible. We can not favor one side or the other in such a controversial issue. You clearly feel passionately about this issue. Remember that other rational and informed people feel equally passionately about their opposing beliefs. Our mission is to document the debate, not to impose one side or the other's solution.
As Yaf has said (politely) above, the edits you keep making to the page are being reverted either because they are unsourced or because they appear to be logically inconsistent and therefore need to be more thoroughly analyzed before adding them into the article. Rossami (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact that 30 thousand plus people are killed by guns in the USA each year. This is cited, sourced and an undisputable fact. I have no problem with the pro gun people placing their best argument on this page. The serious problem is that the anti gun argument is not being expressed. The proof is that there is no discussion of the number of dead people killed by guns and the obvious implications that flow from this fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.12.208.181 (talk • contribs) .

You're going to have to make a better case for that statement. In particular, I would challenge whether there are any "obvious implications" that can flow from a single datapoint even if properly sourced. For comparison, according to the National Safety Council, US motor vehicle deaths rose to 47,200 in 2005 (up about 2%). Does that mean that cars are more dangerous than guns? That they should be more tightly regulated? That they should be prohibited? Or is it an indication of a long-term underinvestment in roads and road-safety? Or just that we drove more last year? I'm not trying to be facetious but I am trying to illustrate the point that without a great deal more understanding and analysis into the factors behind that datapoint, there's not much that really is immediately obvious.
If you think you can improve the statements of the pro-gun control sections of this article, please do so. But remember that the addition of apparently irrelevant facts will not do what you intend. Rossami (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. Then write the discussion and add it. But remember, we are not to do original research on Wikipedia. Instead, we are to find substantiated and verifiable facts. Find a reference, take a quote from it, cite it, and insert it, to make whatever point you wish to make, in the places where you feel these points are needed. Making unsubstantiated statements without citations is regarded as POV (point of view) editorializing in violation of the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy which we all strive to reach in our articles, and will generally result in someone deleting your input. As I said before, you no doubt have some very good points, and you obviously strongly feel that these points need to be made. Fine. However, your numbers just were not self-consistent, leading to a loss of credibility. A little more research (not original) of what has been published should enable you to accomplish your goals and improve the NPOV of the article. Also, please sign your discussions, by typing 4 tildes in a row at the end of your discussion inputs -- it helps keep straight who is making what statement. Yaf 06:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

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

This is obviously a false dilemma. Another route could be to point out that the "gun ban" position assumes that a ban would work... because Prohibition was so effective! Well, umm errm it was... right?

And if you would like use a statistical (i.e. utilitarian) argument, studies such as Kleck point to a large number of defensive gun uses. Even if a ban were 100% effective, or otherwise equally effective on both law abiders and criminals, these would be removed too. Given that, the "morally reprehensible side effects" argument you allude to is not so difficult anymore is it?

As for the elasticity of the causative agents of death, you may want to consider the fact that a country with almost no guns (Japan) has one of the world's highest suicide rates, one which is higher than the most gun happy country in the First World. Ur Wurst Enema 05:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age of consent link

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

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

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

[edit] Great article!

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

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

[edit] Too US specific

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

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

ManicParroT 02:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Gun law to here

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

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

[edit] Cleanup request

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

[edit] Japan

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Both sides

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

I think you should either (a) make a FEW edits to the page to improve it as you think it should be, and see what kind of reaction you get, or (b) point out, on this page, SPECIFIC cases in the past where someone removed or reverted text that you think should be in the article, so a discussion can follow. Thanks. (And please note Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. John Broughton | Talk 13:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"some pro-gun-control statements like 'Automatic weapons are not appropriate for civilian use', which I would have thought was a valid point, is deleted!"

I'd suggest you go forth to the internet and find a notable source (not a blog or a Wikipedia entry) that says "Automatic weapons are not appropriate for civilian use" and _explains_why_. It may sound to you like a plainly true, common-sense statement, but very many people disagree with it, and "common sense" is never reason enough to include an unsupported argument in an encyclopedia. Once you find that source, drop the statement right into the article. It's certainly relevant to the conversation.  :) 216.52.69.217 19:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi IP216, insighful comments like yours go a long way towards restoring my faith in Anon editors. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Detriot Pistol Ban?

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

You appear to be correct; the "virtual prohibition" appears to be, in actuality, mandatory sentences for conviction on illegal weapons charges. That whole point in the article is, not to be too POV, crap; between your point re detroit, the added note re the bizarre averaging of unlike numbers to "prove a point", and the deliberate ignoring of the fact that the bigger cities would be expected to have a bigger percentage of the nation's everything, nothing in that line can be salvaged. Gzuckier 15:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I restored it because in fact, that list is cited from the NCPA, so it shouldn't be selectively quoted, instead I (or somebody) will have to somehow add an addendum regarding its crapitude, without being POV. Gzuckier 15:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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