Talk:Gun violence in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

An entry from Gun violence in the United States appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 12 November 2006.

Contents 1 Notes 1.1 About this article 1.2 Did you know? 2 ...in the United States 3 Neutrality, or lack thereof 4 Definition of Gun Violence 5 NPOV tagline 6 Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 7 Gun violence 8 SVG Graphic on chart 9 Intro/Lede

[edit] Notes

I'm temporarily keeping some notes here, while working on this article. --Aude (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About this article

Since this is a controversial topic, only the highest-quality sources should be used in this article, with most statements backed up with scholarly peer reviewed sources. This article is an overview of the issue, here are the common views of the issue held by so and so^{[citation needed]}, here's what the research says^{[citation needed]}. The article mainly focuses on the U.S., due to the fact that statistics and research indicate that gun violence and relationship to homicides/suicides is by far the greatest in the U.S. International comparisons will be noted here. --Aude (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of research and literature on gun violence pertains to the United States. In the future, I may rename this article as "Gun violence in the United States", and keep looking for more general sources on the topic of gun violence. For now, I think the article may need to stay as-is, named "Gun violence". There are many other criminology and criminal justice articles and topics in dire need of attention. I do intend to come back and work on generalizing the topic and splitting the article into two: "Gun violence" and "Gun violence in the United States". --Aude (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know?

This article has many facts and figures that would be good for the Main Page, DYK. Need to work on this article some more before submitting these.

• ...that gun violence is involved in nearly 70% of homicides in the United States, which is a significantly higher rate than other developed countries? --Aude (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• ...that gun violence is the second leading cause of death for youths age 15-19 in the United States, with only motor vehicle accidents taking more lives? --Aude (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...in the United States

Aude, I don't want to intrude unnecessarily on your plan for this article, but since it currently focuses on the United States, and it's going to be publicized on DYK, shouldn't we just move it to Gun violence in the United States now? Melchoir 23:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. This move was inevitable. For now, Gun violence is a disambiguation page with links to this page and other general articles pertaining to crime by country. --Aude (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality, or lack thereof

I've been a Wikipedian for quite some time now, but I've never seen an article that pushes a POV as strongly as this one. It's so far out of bounds, I don't know where to start with a proper critique. For now, I've added the neutrality template. I will try to find some time to bring objectivity to this in the near future, but I wonder if it shouldn't just be scrapped entirely. Gregmg 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is just about 100% referenced to reliable sources, and complies with WP:V. This article basically covers what research says on the topic. If the body of research on the topic is POV to you, I can try to work with you but it's unacceptable to "scrap" the sources. Please raise specific objections. --Aude (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just a passerby, but I don't consider the article referenced reliably. You make the assertion that gun violence in the US is higher than other developed countries (maybe it is) but 2 of the sources you quote for this assertion only compare the US and Canada and the third source is 16 years old. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.92.225.19 (talk • contribs) .

I've added more references to the intro. These were there already, but in the body of the article. Now they are also in the intro. --Aude (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Although the WP:V criteria are met, only cites supporting a single viewpoint are presently included. For balance, cites of differing viewpoints need to be added per WP policy, such that all views with significant representation are ultimately included. Also, there are systemic biases throughout that are definitely pushing the POV envelope, and which still will need to be edited. Definitely a work in progress, but with considerable good work already done. Yaf 03:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The references represent the body of research, which has been reviewed by the National Academy of Science and their panel of experts. The panel included top experts in criminology, economics, psychology, statistics, and public policy, with funding support from the government. Please specify specific objections, and specific studies that should be referenced. --Aude (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No doubt, this is a beautifully written article. Every item is properly referenced. Every facet of the formatting complies with Wikipedia standards. Unfortunately, it provides only one side of a very contentious political issue. There's not even the pretense of objectivity, and there's no attempt at providing the other side of the issue or another viewpoint. For every private or government study supporting gun control, there is another study supporting gun rights. This article provides only one side of the argument. This is a problem. There is no attempt at NPOV. Gregmg 03:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The NAS did not conduct a study. They - a panel of renowned researchers - reviewed the body of literature. NAS is neither pro-gun rights or pro-"gun control". This is the current state of research, which finds some programs supported by gun-control folks such as gun "buy-back" not effective, while They also find strategies, such strict enforcement and penalties, as taken by the Bush administration to be effective. Again, please cite a specific study that you think is overlooked. --Aude (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment from passerby. This article should not be conflated with the "gun control" debate. To the extent that a neutral reading brings up this "debate", of course it should be fixed. What concerns me is that no matter how much "fixing" was done, somebody would still be crying "POV" because the article dares to take a huge body of research related to gun violence and put it into an article about gun violence.

If someone wrote a researched, verifiable article on "Benefits of guns in children's hospitals", the argument would be the same: the article should not be conflated with debate about gun control and gun advocacy. If I was for "gun control", I would nevertheless read the article and see that, oh yes, the Journal of Hospital Clowns has reported significant improvements in length of hospital stay when children interacted with clowns with guns. I would not say "this is pro-gun!". Now, just because the nature of guns is such that you end up with a large body of research about Gun violence in the United States, but little about Benefits of guns in children's hospitals, welll, that's for the "POV"ers to rationalize for themselves.

All of that being said, if opposing research can be presented on gun violence, it should be. But it should stick to the topic, and not reduce to a general summation of arguments for gun advocacy, because that debate is not the topic.

Also, very nice job on this article Aude, in such a short period too. –Outriggr § 05:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We also have the related Gun politics in the United States, which I really won't touch because politics don't interest me. That article should address the political aspect of gun policy and the gun rights vx. gun control debate. The intent of this article is to rise above politics and deal with what criminology and public health research has found. The findings seem mixed, with some policies advocated by gun control people found ineffective and some decried by gun rights as having some effect. If any particular studies are overlooked, please say so and we can work with that. --Aude (talk) 11:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Pretty impressive amount of work here in only 4-5 days of editing...good job. As far as I am concerned, I can't see why we have a neutrality tag on the article...are some saying the article is not adequately addressing the issues of gun violence? Or is the problem that the article is an argument for increased gun legislation because of the facts and figures presented? I won't detail my resume here, but the article is mainly simply a facts and figures page with outstanding neutral references...and even the last major edit by Aude shows little real changes by the other editors since. So, what's the problem with this article? Details would be helpful.--MONGO 07:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It looks good and well-referenced to me. I would not object to the addition of more information if someone thought "balancing" it was necessary. I took down the tag meantime. --Guinnog 11:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yaf beat me to the punch and reinstated the neutrality template. I've been a Wikipedian for over a year now, and I've never seen an article as one-sided and POV as this. Here are just a few of my specific concerns:

-John Lott, an independent researcher with no past interest in Gun Rights or Gun Control, has generated a large body of work on concealed carry and its impact on society and crime. Yet his work is only mentioned briefly and quickly discounted, giving the appearance of greater weight and legitimacy to his critics. This is not NPOV.

-With respect to the few other cases where a pro-gun argument or data point is presented, the anti-gun position is always given the last word. This isn't NPOV.

-Someone (either Mark Twain or Benjamin Disraeli) once said that there are "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics." The same set of data can be interpreted in different ways. The article as it stands now gives a gun control advocacy POV. This is not NPOV.

-Much of the article is devoted to Gun Control advocacy initiatives, but no mention is made of similar initiatives sponsored by Gun Rights organizations like the Eddie Eagle program. This is not NPOV.

-The article employs a number of emotionally charged words and phrases, like "public outcry" and "victimization". This is not NPOV.

-In reviewing the Federal Legislation section, one would not get the impression of a progressive tightening of gun control laws over the last forty years in the US. However, that's exactly what has happened. I note that Gun Control advocacy web pages and policy papers typically leave out or downplay facts that don't support their agenda or the idea of a national gun violence crisis. This article reads far too much like something from a gun control website. This is not NPOV.

I could go on. There are many other issues that I could identify that need to be corrected. Unfortunately, I really don't have the time for this right now. Please leave the NPOV template in place for now. Thanks, Gregmg 16:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The references to John Lott's work reflect what the NAS panel found. The panel consisted of 15 experts more qualified than any of us here to assess the research that's been done. Per WP:RS, we need to defer to them, rather than making our own judgements as to the validity of the research. As for Eddie Eagle, it is mentioned. Please re-read the article. And Eddie Eagle has not been evaluated, so it is simply mentioned of whether it is effective or not. "Victimization" is a proper term used in public health and criminology scholarly literature. The discussion of the Federal legislation is a summary of major legislation (1968, 1986, 1994). If you have anything to add, please suggest. Though the main article to discuss policies (and pro-gun rights and pro-gun control views of the policise) is Gun politics in the United States. --Aude (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It is probably true that academic researchers, being largely city people with graduate degrees, approach the field with tacit assumptions. They are criminologists and public health experts; holding a hammer, they see nails. Possibly these assumptions could be made explicit somehow, if there were the references to support it, but that risks politicizing this article. We have another page about gun politics. These are the reliable peer-reviewed sources; they say what they say. As with all pages, there is probably some room for tweaking the tone, or choosing more neutral language. If countervailing views exist in the literature of other disciplines (I do not know much about it) those might be added, but I think the best thing is to present a good survey of the existing scholarship in the field, and leave it at that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think changing homicide victims to homicide statistics is awkward language. It might be misunderstood as an attempt to hide from the reader that we are talking about dead people. Also, I think homicide as a noun is the crime or the killer, not the dead guy. Victim is pretty standard academic terminology. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It is probably more NPOV than assuming any dead person is automatically a victim, when, according to the text later in the section, 75% had a criminal past, and presumably were plying their "trade" at the time of death. Let's not assume victim status just because of a fatality. "Homicide statistics" is much more neutral than "homicide victims", without becoming a judgement statement by an editor.Yaf 21:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please keep victimization there in the first sentence in the "Homicide rates" section. It's necessary to make clear we are talking about victimization statistics as opposed to offender statistics. --Aude (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a POV problem in calling a criminal shot and killed in self-defense a "victim". Also, the statistic that 75% of the "victims" had a criminal past is also indicative that the "victim" was not actually a victim, but rather was probably a justified self-defense target. Lets not assume that everyone killed is somehow a "victim", when they are not. It is more NPOV to assume a homicide is a homicide and not assign "homicide victimization" terminology to the text. Yaf 21:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In criminology, a crime involves offenders and victims. These are victimization statistics, as opposed to offender statistics. It's an important distinction, and important to use proper terminology. --Aude (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not written from the point of view of any particular school of thought. You are certainly free to point out in the article that "In criminology a crime involves offenders and victims". That does not mean, however, that this article will be restricted to that school of thought, nor even to the definition of "offenders" and "victims" used by criminologists. - O^O 22:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Criminology is not a "school of thought". Within criminology, there are schools of thought, but criminology itself is an academic discipline. The term "victim" is also widely used in public health. [1] --Aude (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I should more clearly say then; Wikipedia is not written from the point of view of "academic disciplines". Sometimes there is tension on Wikipedia on how to define something, whether to use an academic definition, a legal definition, a religious definition, a "common man" definition etc. Ultimately however, ALL these definitions have a place here. In this sense, academia (of which criminology is a subset) is only one school of thought. If there is any competing definition for any concept which criminology has defined, then that competing definition has a place here as well. Please note; I am not endorsing any particular definitions, only pointing out that Wikipedia in general does not limit itself to definitions provided by academia. - O^O 02:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes the victim is the one who walks away, after being attacked, and it is the offender who lies dead. Other times, it is the reverse. Assigning "victimization" status automatically to every dead body is only common in academic criminology research, but is not common in court cases nor on police blotters. The "real world" is not solely a criminology course. We need to balance the terminology among criminology, legal, medical, and other usages, all without assuming any one practice is somehow more appropriate for this article. Yaf 22:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I do see the point you are making. Our article on victim is a disambig page which currently states: "an aggrieved or disadvantaged party in a crime or disaster". It seems reasonable that a person who has been killed, and has thus lost whatever years remaining to them, can reasonably be described as a victim, however heinous their own crimes. It is also, as pointed out above, fairly standard terminology in the literature.

To say otherwise, it seems to me, is to imply a tit-for-tat moral code that would fall outside our NPOV policy. To give an argumentum ad absurdam to illustrate the point, we might surmise that, of the 113 people killed on or by Air France Flight 4590, statistically there are likely to have been several people who had committed crimes, or had a criminal past. We could still call them all victims, as that is the accepted meaning of the word. There may be a way we can adjust the wording to encompass what you are trying to say, but I really don't think this quibble over a common word with a commonly accepted definition, merits a POV tag. Leaving it up for now nevertheless, while we discuss. --Guinnog 22:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If there was a homicide, there was a victim and a perpetrator. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I just looked up victim in The American Heritage dictionary and in Merriam-Webster. I see no reason why the word victim cannot be applied to those killed by justifiable homicide. That said, I was about to suggest "Rates of death by homicide," before someone else beat me to it. I agree that this is more neutral. The only problem is that we lose the link to the article on victimology which does seem relevant to this discussion of demographics. Is there another way to incorporate this without creating POV issues? -MrFizyx 23:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The current wording is okay, but not being able to call Hispanic and African Americans victims seems problematic. Why can't people of these demographics be considered victims? What about caucasian people? asians? other races? Really, anyone, regardless of race can be a victim. To assume anything otherwise is entirely incorrect. --Aude (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Is being African American or Hispanic, in itself, a crime??? --Aude (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Not in Federal Law in the United States, AFAIK, but I cannot speak for other juridictions. - O^O 02:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can be a victim, clearly, regardless of race. But, on the contrary, assigning victim status to every dead person is extremely POV, for it assigns criminal status to what may, in many cases, be a victim who was involved in a justified self-defense situation. Have added "victim" in place of victim to try to keep the POV down that automatically assumes whoever fires a gun is automatically a criminal. Yaf 00:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. "Victim" is a word with a clear definition. We don't need to use scare quotes here; there is nothing controversial or POV about using the word as it is defined by dictionaries. --Guinnog 00:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Putting the word in quotes may be the most blantanly POV way to write the statement. Thats like me saying that your edit was very "inteligent". It implies sarcasim and is completely inapproptiate in an encyclopedia article. -MrFizyx 00:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

How come most of the references are not from NPOV sources? Knowingly sourcing a biased book or article, and then not providing a counterpoint is clearly not NPOV.

[edit] Definition of Gun Violence

Most Wikipedia articles begin with a very brief definition of their topic. Could someone please insert a definition of "Gun Violence" so we know what is being discussed? - O^O 22:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not object to an informative definition, but if it is just 'violence involving a gun' I'm not sure we need it. Separately, did you object to the picture of the assualt rifle? I put it back, but I'm open to discussion if there is a reason it should not be there. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I ask because I'm really not certain what we are dicussing here:

• If a police sniper shoots a hostage taker, is that gun violence?
• If an homeowner shoots a home intruder, is that gun violence?
• If a firing squad executes a convicted criminal, is that gun violence?

Also, as I wrote earlier, practically all wikipedia article begin with a definition. It is what most experienced editors have come to expect. I find the article a little jarring that it just begins a discussion without letting me know what is being discussed.

Regarding the photograph; I object to using a WWII assault rifle to depict the object of the assault weapon ban. The rifle you pictured wouldn't even have been covered by that ban. I would not have the same objection if the photo was more germane to the topic. - O^O 22:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Save me checking, how many criminals are executed by firing squad in the U.S. currently? On all three points, I would say, yes, it is gun violence if it is violence accomplished with a gun. --Guinnog 22:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The public health definition is:

Violence-related: Injury or poisoning inflicted by deliberate means (i.e., on purpose). This category includes the assault, legal intervention, and self-harm categories. [2]

I have added it to the intro. It's fine with me to clarify the meaning of the term, "violence'. --Aude (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

To be clear then, the CDC definition quoted makes "victims" out of both legal and illegal homicide. I'll ponder the consequences of that, but at least we have a working definition. - O^O 02:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tagline

Have removed the tagline from the heading of the article, as with the intense editing done over the last several days the degree of POV-centric terminology is greatly reduced. There may still be some minor issues remaining, but the great majority of them are largely resolved, in my estimation. If anyone disagrees, then they can tag it again, and we can go back and hash out whatever edits still need to be done. Yaf 01:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006

Another editor added a section on the "Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006".[3] I rewrote it and added a source,[4] but wonder if it belongs in the article. It appears to be an inconsequential bit of legislation that most members of the Senate voted for, probably so they could point to it during the November election campaign. It seems to have little bearing on public policy regarding gun violence. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So laws that call for authorities to confiscate guns or prohibit the civilian ownership of certain firearms are relavent; but those that prevent the confiscation of civilian owned firearms are not? Either prohibition relates to gun violence, or it doesn't. Rwwff 01:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is complicated. It seems that the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 5013, S.2599) which has not been passed has been confused with the Vitter Amendment (SA4615) to Department Of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (H.R.5441) which passed as amended.[5] My remarks (above) refer to the Vitter Amendment as submitted. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really that complicated. It looks like they rolled the effect of a small bill into a larger, appropriations bill. Not an unusual thing. The Assault Weapons Ban was a similar thing, being rolled into a massive Crime Bill. One could bring up the old song about the government not legislating in an appropriations bill; but that concept realistically died long ago. Especially true of a non controversial bill like this one.Rwwff 17:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 to make this clear. I had a little trouble finding the language that made it into the final public law. {Am I the only person that finds it difficult to navigate the Congressional Record web site? ) This is relevant to my query above as to whether this represents significant public policy, which was not based on the final wording of this provision of the Act. Please see Talk:Disaster_Recovery_Personal_Protection_Act_of_2006 for that. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gun violence

(copied discussion here from peer review page)

Hi - maybe this should be moved to talk? There's no way to know what the "major factor" is - it might be that if there were strict gun control laws the homicide rate would be the same but knives would be used instead. Or maybe it would be lower. But it's an assertion that gun violence per se is the difference - or am I wrong? I often am. Kaisershatner 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The difference for what? For why the U.S. homicide rate is higher? In the intro, I think noting the higher homicide rate and the rate of homicides committed with firearms is important. We can save "why" for later in the article, such as the "Homicides" section where it says "When a crime occurs involving a gun, the likelihood that it results in a death is significantly increased, due to the lethal potential that a gun brings to a situation." and "that if guns were less available, criminals may likely commit the crime anyway but with less-lethal weapons". (if you want to move this to the talk page, that's fine with me) --Aude (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My question is basically whether we're guilty of assuming thecorrelation implies causation fallacy. (A) The US has a comparatively high rate of homicide (B) The US has a particular position on gun ownership (C) therefore, gun violence is the differential factor in the higher US homicide rate. I'm asking if writing "the US has a higher than average homicide rate" and "the majority of homicides are committed with guns" is a truly direct relationship, and if this is supported by the facts. Since I don't know, I would favor simply, "68% of homicides are committed with guns" standing on its own, and introducing the stats about the overall homicide rate in the body of the article. Again, the subject of the article is NOT the US homicide rate. The rate at which gun violence is a part of the homicide rate IS the subject. Finally, please assume my good faith, it can be hard to infer tone from writing. I may be asking dumb questions but trust me, it's out of curiousity and a committment to intellectually rigorous writing and editing. Best, Kaisershatner 14:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What it sounds like you read of the introduction is that it states up front the "particular position on gun ownership" and combines mention of that with the "comparatively high rate of homicide". I don't think that's the case. Where does the intro state the U.S.'s particular position? What I see is that it states the U.S. has a comparatively high rate of homicide and a comparitively high % of homicides committed with firearms. "Comparatively high % of homicides committed with firearms" does not equate to "particular position on gun ownership". We are simply stating notable facts, which are important to state in the intro, to prepare the reader for more detailed discussion. --Aude (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Why mention that the US has a comparatively high homicide rate in an article about gun violence in the US, unless you are implying that guns are the reason for the high homicide rate? And if you are not intending to make that connection, explicitly or implicitly, why do you need to address the comparative rate of US homicide at all? Especially if you are focused on "Gun Violence in the United States," why not tell us about "Gun Violence" and not "Comparatively high rates of violence in the US?" Kaisershatner 00:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Homicide rates (and the percentage of homicides committed using firearms) are a significant point of discussion in the article. Four paragraphs of the article cover the topic. The lead section should represent and summarize what's in the article. The "Homicides" section of the article explores this "connection", with information such as "Handgun homicides accounted for nearly all of the overall increase in the homicide rate, from 1985 to 1993". These facts don't provide definitive conclusions but suggest some connection between gun violence and homicides. On the other hand, the levels of robbery, assault, and other violence crimes are not comparatively high in the U.S. --Aude (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there is a better way to explain this, in more layman terms... but, firearms are more easily acquired by the criminally inclined in the United States. A firearm makes it possible for a criminal to injure someone from a distance, whereas with a knife, they would have to get right up next to someone. Furthermore, if someone does get stabbed with the knife, the chances of survival are much better than if they were shot with a gun. These two factors make violent confrontations more likely to result in homicide, whereas in other countries such as Canada the same confrontation might not have results as lethal. The policies aimed at gun violence try to limit the access of firearms to the criminally inclined, while preserving the rights of ordinary, law-abiding people. Of the various policies and strategies tried, some have shown to be more effective than others. --Aude (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important to mention homicide rates and the percentage of homicides committed using firearms in the lead section. WP:LS says, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article." I think both items help create interest in reading the whole article. I agree with AudeVivere's points, as well. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Aude, I think I understand your viewpoint a bit better, and it may be a reasonable conclusion that the homicide rate reflects gun policy, based on what you've stated above. Thanks for answering my questions.Kaisershatner 02:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I still feel that maybe it's not clear enough in the article. If you were confused or unsure, others might be. --Aude (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Other bits that I think need more clarification include the offending/victimization rates among youths and Hispanic and African Americans. It's true that these demographic groups are over represented in U.S. homicide statistics; but it's also true that the overwhelming, vast majority of people in these demographics are perfectly law-abiding. Also, painting "urban areas" with the gun violence issue is also not 100% accurate. Gun violence, and crime generally, concentrates in specific sections of cities. I may have to add a map graphic to help illustrate that point. Does anyone else think readers might be confused or get wrong impressions from the way the article is written? --Aude (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SVG Graphic on chart

I know there is a certain advantage to using vector graphics, but they aren't uniformly readable. The charts that appear in the article are too tiny to be legible. Might a higher resolution jpg, or at worst, a pdf be better? Rwwff 23:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you experiencing problems with the svg graphs? Which one(s)? What do you mean by "not uniformly readable"? The MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia automatically takes care of converting the original .svg file into .png thumbnail graphics that you should see displayed. (see this) It is possible to provide .jpg or .png alternatives, but don't think it's possible to make the resolution any better. I think the main problem is with having them at the thumbnail size, which makes labels too small to easily read. I've been using User:Zocky's picture popups, which you might like to view images more easily. --Aude (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not so much a problem for me, but Firefox 1.5 under Linux doesn't seem to want to open them nicely. I made the point simply to raise the issue that others entering this article, curious for information, might not be able to view the SVG file in their browser, and might not know how to display the file in an alternate manner. Optionally, since the lines are colored, you might include identifying info as part of the text caption?? Rwwff 02:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware of problems with svg on Firefox 1.5/Linux. This would be an issue concerning all of Wikipedia — one that I'm sure has come up before. I'll try and look into it more. I know that Firefox 2.0 has been released. Does the new version of Firefox resolve the issues with svg? --Aude (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that it resolves the issue, but I don't know for sure. I like to stay away from the bleeding edge.. it kept making me bleed, and causing my hair to go grey. According to the 2.0 release notes, it appears to support SVG.. There is also supposedly a java plug in for 1.5 that will enable that. Easier for me to just load the image in gimp though. In any event, it was just something I noticed in the process of clicking along the article. Rwwff 05:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC) nb.. just tried it again, first click to the image just gives you a blank crosshatch, but if you click the image filename at the bottom, whatever tack-on is involved will eventually render the thing. I can't say that I'm terribly used to using the word "eventually" regarding my 3 ghz, 1.5gig ram workstation on a T1, but it did eventually come up. Hopefully, the 2.0 version works better.

I've been using 2.0 for a week or so and it displays the graphics well. I haven't had any problems with it at all and would recommend it to anyone. --Guinnog 05:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Secondary question about the chart, "Homicide by Weapon"; does that include the fist&feet? I thought fist&feet was a lot higher than what you have for blunt object...Rwwff 05:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro/Lede

Does anyone else think readers might be confused or get wrong impressions from the way the article is written? --Aude (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Gun violence in the United States, especially that involving youths and gang activity, is a great public concern in urban areas.[1][2]" That's how the article starts. But the intro should also mention what proportion of gv occurs due to gangs or youths. Is public concern out of proportion to these groups' role in gv, or are these groups the main perpetrators of gv? Also, I think the sentence about the majority of gun deaths being self-inflicted should be higher up - ie, despite the public concern, the fact is that most gun deaths are self-directed ones. Isn't that important? Kaisershatner 15:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Good points... I can definitely come up with numbers regarding youths, and will look for information on gangs. Public concerns and perceptions (fear of crime) can be disjointed from reality, with many myths, fallacies, and misconceptions. This topic could use extended discussion in that separate article. --Aude (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about this again and I think the topic sentence of this article does not really reflect the subject very precisely, since the article is about gv and the lede sentence is about public fear of gv. Better might be: "Gun violence in the United States is associated with the majority of homicides, assaults, and suicides.(FN) It is a significant public concern, especially in urban areas and in conjunction with youth activity and gang violence.(FN) High profile events, such as....(FN). Thoughts?Kaisershatner 15:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion sounds good to me. I have looked for statistics on youth involvement in gun violence, and they indicate the 18-24 age group is significantly overrepresented in violent crime statistics, particularly homicides involving firearms. The FBI aggregates UCR date into 17-19 and 20-24 age groups. In 2005, 17-19 year olds comprised 4.3% of the overall population of the United States; This same age group accounted for 11.2% of the victims, killed by firearm homicides. This age group also accounted for 10.6% of all homicide offenses. The 20-24 year old age group accounted for 7.1% of the population, while accounting for 22.5% of victims, killed by firearm homicides. The 20-24 age group also accounted for 17.7% of all homicide offenses. Those under age 17 are actually not overrepresented. In 2005, 13-16 year olds accounted for 6% of the overall population of the United States. This age group accounted for 3.6% of firearm homicide victims, and 2.7% of overall homicide offenses. It's beyond the scope of this article, but research and statistics indicate the criminally-inclined in this younger group may start out with less serious crimes, such as burglary, and those that stick with crime may progress to committing more serious violent crimes. --Aude (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have (yet) statistics on gangs, and not sure they are easy to find. --Aude (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)