Talk:Gun control/Archive 20

RFC regarding Nazis
Would it be okay to insert the following short paragraph (plus appropriate footnotes) in place of the following long paragraph? INSERT: In the United States, one of the many reasons why gun owners defend their right of private gun ownership is as a check against tyranny. That argument has a long history in the context of gun politics in the United States, the argument has not been entirely limited to the United States, and an especially controversial feature of that argument in modern times has been the suggestion that more private gun ownership in Europe might have inhibited Nazi tyranny. REMOVE: Outside of academia, some American advocates of gun rights, such as Stephen Halbrook, NRA leader Wayne LaPierre, and JFPO leader Aaron Zelman, have argued that the Nazi Party can be characterized as a gun control regime, and that its alleged practice of gun control was an enabling factor in the Holocaust.[39][40][41] Their arguments refer to laws that disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews, but relaxed restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens,[42] and to the later confiscation of arms in countries it occupied.[43] They have used allusions to the Nazis in the context of the modern gun-control debate. Legal scholar Bernard Harcourt responded to these arguments by saying "[it is] absurd to try to characterize [the Nazi regime] as either pro- or anti-gun control", given the contemporary political context in which the term is used. However, if one had to choose, Harcourt would say that the Nazi regime was pro-gun compared with the Weimar Republic that preceded it.[44] He points out that there is disagreement within the gun rights movement on the question of the Nazis and gun control, with many of its adherents distancing themselves from the association of gun control with the Holocaust. He cites William L. Pierce, founder of the pro-gun National Alliance, who wrote that "When you have read [and compare the 1928 and 1938 German gun laws], you will understand that it was Hitler's enemies, not Hitler, who should be compared with the gun-control advocates in America today."[45] Robert Spitzer has said—as has Harcourt—that the quality of Halbrook's historical research is poor.[46] Opposing Halbrook's argument that gun control leads to authoritarian regimes, Spitzer says that "actual cases of nation-building and regime change, including but not limited to Germany, if anything support the opposite position."[47] Historian Michael S. Bryant concludes that "in exaggerating similarities and ignoring differences in their comparisons, gun rights advocates violate Charles Maier's test for tendentiousness."[48] The Anti-Defamation League has said that use of the Holocaust in these arguments, as well as being historically inaccurate, is offensive to the victims of the Nazis.[49] Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support as proposer. I mentioned previously that I'd make this proposal.  It's a matter of undue weight, and summary style, among other things.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggestion and Support  Reduce the iteration of "Nazi" and try to use some more neutral language in the proposal.   "German government under the Hitler Regime" would be more logical, IMO. (as made less relevant by further discussion)   Collect (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)   If an argument exists and the argument can be shown to exist (having nothing to do with whether it is a good argument or a bad one) then Wikipedia must acknowledge its actual existence.  Collect (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and delete the lot. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of pseudohistorical fringe theories entirely unsupported by academic historiography. Any inclusion of this absurd argumentum ad Hitlerum in an international overview of firearms regulation issues is entirely undue, and violates multiple Wikipedia policies - and I would remind contributors that regardless of any decision reached here, local 'consensus' cannot override Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * - Hey Andy, while I agree with what you're saying, it seems like you are "opposing" a small mention of pseudohistorical fringe theories, in favor of a large mention of pseudohistorical fringe theories. Is not a "lesser of two evils" thing? NickCT (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No. I am opposing discussing the pseudohistorical fringe theories of a small minority confined (to the degree of any meaningful significance) to a single country at all, in an article supposedly giving an international overview. This RfC is fundamentally flawed, in that it fails to include the option to exclude the material entirely, despite the fact that WP:FRINGE (based on WP:NPOV policy) making clear that we do not include fringe arguments in articles on mainstream topics. In my opinion, any decision reached here that doesn't take WP:NPOV policy into account is contrary to policy, and invalid. I have no intention of supporting one invalid option and another. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * - "fails to include the option to exclude the material entirely" - Understand and partially agree. Though I still think you'd be better served by changing your position to something like "Delete Paragraph Entirely or Support". NickCT (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've now done that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Andy. I also just lost an hour of my life reading over the previous discussions going back about a month, and I see numerous flat assertions of the claim that this is an international debate, but the only sources provided were few and apparently grossly mischaracterized. My conclusion is that there is no justification at all for inclusion of such a claim in this article. siafu (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not clear, at least not for me, if you are in favor of the long or the short paragraph. Could you please clarify. Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the overwhelming consensus of talk page policy-based statements over the past year.  SPECIFICO  talk  16:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and Delete the whole "Outside of academia" paragraph - and leave the Nazi gun control argument out in any form. Lightbreather (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Neither is good, but the proposed change is less bad. Note: I think most of the "oppose" votes above are actually opposing both of the paragraphs. Homunq (࿓) 00:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC) ps. Please comment on other RfCs such as this one.
 * Support - Mentioning "Nazism" in relation to Gun Control ought to be done in as brief a manner as possible. The "Gun control advocates are Nazis" position represents a kind of WP:FRINGE, and it ought to be treated as such. NickCT (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose or Delete Re-reading others comments, I agree I don't like the alternatives, so I think deleting would be best. Thenub314 (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose or better yet Delete Fringe means that if we mention this we must also present the opposing view, which the first paragraph does not. I also do not like the second one overly and would rather it was much shorter, at most mentioning and then discounting the idea. By arguing so much it appears to give it more weight than it deserves. Still it is better than the first, although I would most support deleting the whole paragraph altogether.AIR corn (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Insert & Remove short & long paragraph respectively. There is simply no reason to clutter the article with the details of the arguments that are, in any case, presented in the links. Besides, the rule about fringe arguments evidently applies. Undue emphasis should be discouraged. -The Gnome (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove all Nazi arguments in this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose As per Lightbreather, above, and Delete the whole "Outside of academia" paragraph - and leave the Nazi gun control argument out in any form.(see threaded discussion) Activist (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I do not believe this an argument about a fringe theory but an ideological argument to be honest. Regular players with regular ideological viewpoints. Being bold and pointing out the obvious. Sorry if someone is offended but the truth is more important than pretending to have honest discourse. 208.54.40.144 (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and delete all per Andy the Gump. The advantage of the lengthy version is that it captures the absurdity of the Nazi/holocaust gun control theory and also documents how it has been thoroughly debunked by published experts. But I think the conclusion should be that we should not be including absurd fringe theories that have been refuted by experts, not that we should present them in a shortened form without the refutation. Dlv999 (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and delete all per Lightbreather, Andy the Gump et al. Writegeist (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose The longer paragraph is sourced and presents the information in a fair, neutral manner. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This is not how we make editorial changes. Your suggested changes are numerous, and disparate, and remove reliably sourced information, and are likely to be seen as advancing a particular viewpoint.  Each change is thus liable to need discussion on its own merits.  The "delete" !votes that some people are inserting should be disregarded, since whether to keep any mention of this at all is the subject of a separate RfC further down the page. Because of Wikipedia's demographics, someone could post an RfC to strip out all pro-gun material in the article and the RfC would have a fair chance of attracting more support than oppose !votes, yet would violate WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS policy nonetheless. See also WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Proposal 2:

In the United States, some gun owners say the right of private gun ownership is a check against tyranny. Such a position has a long history in gun politics in the United States, and has been noted in some foreign countries.

Some American gun rights gun rights supporters, including NRA leaders and others have said that the German regime under Hitler barred gun ownership from Jews and other groups, and that gun ownership might have prevented in the Holocaust.[39][40][41] They have alluded to that period in the modern gun-control debate. Legal scholar Bernard Harcourt said it is "absurd to try to characterize [the Nazi regime] as either pro- or anti-gun control", given the contemporary political context in which the term is used. Harcourt said the Nazi regime was pro-gun compared with the Weimar Republic that preceded it.[44] He says there is disagreement within the gun rights movement on the question of Germany and gun control, with many adherents not referring to the Holocaust. William L. Pierce, founder of the pro-gun National Alliance, wrote "When you have read [and compare the 1928 and 1938 German gun laws], you will understand that it was Hitler's enemies, not Hitler, who should be compared with the gun-control advocates in America today."[45] Robert Spitzer said that the quality of Halbrook's historical research is poor.[46] Opposing Halbrook's argument that gun control leads to authoritarian regimes, Spitzer says that "actual cases of nation-building and regime change, including but not limited to Germany, if anything support the opposite position."[47] The Anti-Defamation League has said that reference to of the Holocaust in such arguments, as well as being historically inaccurate, is offensive to the victims of the Nazis.[49] Six demurrals is sufficient to counter one position, I trust, as sledgehammers make for bad writing. And this also reduces use of "Nazi" in the two paragraphs. I trust this is in accord with sources. Collect (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The RFC suggests replacing the long paragraph with the short one. Are you suggesting to include both a long paragraph and a short one?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Amazingly enough - yes. I note the sentence in the first paragraph is the historical one - and it is not fully congruent with the issues stated in the second paragraph.  Linking them seems to be contrary to common sense here.  Collect (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@User:AndyTheGrump. There is a difference between promotion and description. Wikipedia describes the sick Nazi ideology all over the place, but that does not mean Wikipedua is promoting it. To say that I am promoting anything here violates WP:NPA, in my opinion. Moreover, the pending RFC proposal would greatly reduce this material, not increase it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Sick Nazi ideology' is the subject of academic historiography. Obnoxious NRA propaganda about it isn't. And if you want argue that me objecting to the violation of WP policies is a personal attack, go ahead - but watch out for the boomerang. And as for the RfC, given that it entirely fails to offer the sole policy-compliant option at all, it is clearly invalid from the start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are a vast number of reliable sources that discuss and describe the check-against-tyranny argument against gun control (both with and without mentioning Nazis), and you are arguing here (as best I can understand it) that Wikipedia should nevertheless be wiped clean of that descriptive material. I won't list the various adjectives that seem to describe your apparent position, but will say that it defies policy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:FRINGE and the policy it is based on, WP:NPOV cover it well enough. This material does not belong in this article for the same reason that the Flat-Earth theory does not belong in our article on geology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Does the Nazi's fringe racial theory belong in an article about WWII?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, because again it is a subject discussed by academic historiography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The descriptions of the check-against-tyranny argument (both with and without Nazis) occur in a vast number of reliable sources, and no one disputes that they are historically-accurate descriptions of a big chunk of the gun rights movement. More generally, you previously encouraged inclusion of such material in the US article, but maybe now you sense that it can be removed from Wikipedia entirely?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 'Foreign countries'? This is supposed to be an international topic,. in an international encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And when used after a specific country is named, it refers to countries other than that named country. Common usage of the word, in fact. Collect (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And you can cite a source for the supposed 'fact'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Only a few million usages -- is there a point to your cavil about using a standard word when referring to countries other than the country named? Collect (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My objections are (a) that it isn't common usage, despite your unverified assertions, and (b) that it is utterly obnoxious for Wikipedia to be characterising the entire world beyond the U.S. as 'foreign'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 'other countries' would be much better IMO. The use of 'foreign' to mean a country that is not one's own is far more common than the usage Collect is stating. I've consulted OED, Google Define and Wiktionary. (OED definition available online is not yet fully updated - I can consult the print Shorter OED later if that would be helpful, but I doubt it'll be substantially different on this point). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Shorter OED agrees. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The wording incorrectly implies that people who support the right to keep and bear arms as a check against tyranny oppose gun control. In fact in DC v Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms as a check against tyranny but did not say that all restrictions on gun ownership by citizens was unconstitutional.  Importantly the decision was on a D.C. law, not the Gun Control Act 1968.  If that law comes before the Court, it is likely that it would be considered constitutional.  The Hitler argument is that the 1968 law was similar to the 1938 Nazi law and could be used by the federal government to [insert conspiracy theory here].  It is actually an extreme articulation of the guns are a check against tyranny argument, not its main articulation.  TFD (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate a bit? Which part of the proposed wording implies that?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "In the United States, some gun owners say the right of private gun ownership is a check against tyranny.... Some American gun rights gun rights supporters [use the Hitler argument]." The wording conflates the two views.  TFD (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact is that they are two different views - and should be noted as such. Collect (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing where those "owners" or "supporters" purportedly oppose gun control.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@User:Siafu. So, do you want to keep the longer paragraph? The RFC suggests replacing it with something much shorter. This stuff is almost entirely confined to the United States, and I don't think the proposed language suggests otherwise, but even if it were totally confined to the US, I would think it merits a description here, because sometimes what happens only in the US is notable globally.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

the GCA68 argument is merely one part of the Hitler argument. (A part that I agree is likely wrong, based on the full text of the GCA debates, in the GCA article talk) But, the Hitler argument is merely one part of the Tyranny argument. There are numerous quotes from the founders and others through history, long before Hitler, discussing the Arms and the check on Tyranny. In the historical context at least it is indisputable that the "defense against tyranny" argument took place (indeed originated) outside the US (Blackstone for instance), but in the modern context it does become much more exclusive (possibly completely exclusive) to the US. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Hitler argument is not just that guns are necessary as a defense against tyranny (which probably was the reason for the Second Amendment) but that gun control laws are a violation of the Second Amendment right. You cannot argue that laws like the 1938 German law are a reasonable restriction on the right to keep and bear arms and that they are a violation of the right to keep and bear arms.  The Scalia Court for example has affirmed the right to keep and bear arms but has indicated it will allow reasonable restrictions.  A U.S. court of appeal btw decided that the Second Amendment "codified a preexisting right [to bear arms] that historically has been enjoyed [only] by law-abiding, responsible citizens...." ""[Heller said] Of course the right [to bear arms] [is] not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech [is] not."  Thus, the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess for every purpose, to possess every type of weapon, to possess at every place, or to possess by every person."  TFD (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I just made a bold edit to try to end this dickering. Lightbreather (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I demur on not including the fact that the argument has a long history in the US, anteceding Hitler by over a century. Collect (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I also demur on someone then boldly removing the sentence -- only to place a less accurate sentence under "history" where it is less relevant that where it was placed initially. Cheers -- BRD means you have to discuss the edit, not make more bold edits.  Collect (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, Collect, re your adding this unsourced, one-sentence paragraph back again a second time:
 * In the United States, some gun owners say the right of private gun ownership is a check against tyranny. Such a position has a long history in gun politics in the United States, and has been noted in some other countries.
 * The next paragraph is the bold, sourced one I added to replace the over-long one that gives too much weight to the theory that Nazi gun laws are a form of "tyranny" - conflating that tyranny with the kind the founding fathers referred to. It also, as Anything and others have been trying to do, suggests that people outside of a small and vocal group of U.S. extremists are actually concerned about this. It was added for no other reason than to once again start giving undue weight to a theory being pushed by a tiny minority. That's why it was removed.
 * That said, there's no reason not to mention briefly in the United States that the founding fathers were worried about tyranny - like taxation without representation. Lightbreather (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You added a less accurate sentence under "history" than the one you removed where it is clearly apt per discussion here. And the fact is, unlikely as you think it, that non-extremists can oppose gun control.  It is not our task to label everyone who opposes gun control a "Godwinian debater" at all.   If we state a reason for some to oppose it, we ought similarly include other reasons, lest we use straw men in articles.  Note that the sentence I proposes says nothing whatsoever about "Nazis" and thus I fail to see your problem with it. BTW, I had thought we agreed that this was readily sourceable above -- and you did not source your limited rendition of it.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. If what I added was less accurate, it can be improved. But the statements "private gun ownership is a check against tyranny" and that it's "a position has a long history in gun politics in the United States" belong in the "United States" section of this article, not under "Studies, debates, or opinions." Neither statement is a study, a debate, or an opinion.
 * Where did I say that non-extremists can't oppose gun control? Because I'll correct it if I did. Also, I don't know what a "Godwinian debater" is. Lightbreather (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You have now removed the source for the check on tyranny claim =- and linked it to JHalbrook! I fear this is an utter perversion of the editorial process as the cited source says nothing all related to Halbrook!.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No, if you look at the series of edits and edit summaries it's quite clear what I did. What you'd added, as I said before, was appropriate for the "United States" section, but not to try to add weight to the Halbrook/LaPierre thoeries about tyranny that some U.S. gun owners believe that's in the "Studies, debates, and opinions" section. So I added Halbrook's definition of the 2A and tyranny to the "Studies..." section, and I MOVED your material to the "United States" section. And I improved that section to make clear what every little Americans learns in school: that the tyranny the founders were thinking of was the kind that King George was at - taxation without representation (not genocide). I don't know if that simple fact is in the Gun politics in the U.S. article, but it ought to be. Lightbreather (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You deleted a clearly reliable source from a major publisher indicating that the tyranny argument antedated Hitler by a century or so -- and then conflated the claim to make it seem like the only usage is by LaPierre and Halbrook.  The issue is "studies" in the section title - not "what someone seeks to use as a straw man argument" or the like.   And it is clear that your edit is not based on reliable academic sources (else you would not have removed a strong reliable academic source) but on what you wish to convey to readers -- that LaPierre and Halbrook are on the edge of Godwin's Law with a fringe position, when the other source makes clear that the tyranny argument was not a fringe position, and had nothing to do with Hitler - who came well after (a century or so after, in fact)  that argument appeared.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I deleted nothing, as I explained above.
 * Is this, from 1981, the "clearly reliable source" from a "major publisher" that you're referring to? How many of our readers can actually read it? The source I gave is the same, existing, 2000 source for the Nazi-gun-law-check-against-tyranny argument, in which Halbrook gives the text of the Second Amendment and says:
 * This right ... reflects a universal and historical power of the people in a republic to resist tyranny.


 * The reader can read the source, and it indicates that the tyranny argument antedated Hitler by a century or so, just as you say the other one does. Where exactly is this straw man argument you're referring to? Lightbreather (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So you assert the 1981 source copied from the 2000 source? Really?   Really???  Sorry, I suggest that the Draper source is a more reliable source for the particular argument at hand than is Halbrook's 2000 book.  Try  Gun Control: Threat to Liberty or Defense against Anarchy? By Wilbur Edel; Praeger :Mason's final effort to amend the previously agreed-upon provisions makes the reason for this clear. He acknowledged that an absolute prohibition against a standing army in peacetime might be unsafe from the standpoint of defense readiness, but as a guard against the tyranny of military rule he urged the convention to preface the clause regarding organization of the militia ...  from the Constitutional Convention, a couple of years before Hitler.  But English political and legal experience imbued early Americans—who were, thanks to their widespread possession of and welldeveloped skills in using weapons, themselves freshly ex-Englishmen—with the understanding that personal possession of weapons was necessary. This was both for civic purposes—the common defense of the polity against both external enemies and internal tyranny—and for the personal one of defending the most basic of classical liberal rights: that of self-preservation. from a Cato Institute book Gun Control on Trial: Inside the Supreme Court Battle over the Second Amendment  Brian Doherty . Implicit in the Bill of Rights, as in the entire structure of the Constitution, are the twin hallmarks of traditional liberal thought:trust in the people; and distrust in government.” 63 Some proponents of this interpretation stress that the right to keep and bear arms was meant to guarantee protection against government tyranny. 64 Liberal constitutional law theorist, William Van Alstyne, finds an individual rights view of the Second Amendment in a textual reading of the amendment. He argues that the amendment “speaks to sources of security within a free state, within which… ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’” He explains that this language guarantees the individual's right to have arms for self-defense and self-preservation. 65 Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Tribe, a person closely associated with liberal politics and the Democratic Party, also concludes that “it is impossible to deny that some right to bear arms is among the rights of American citizens.”  Oxford University Press,    is interesting For the Defense of Themselves and the State: The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms By Clayton E. Cramer; Praeger.    The twelfth request was: "Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion."26 This request is the most extreme form of "the right to keep and bear arms." The phrase "never disarm any Citizen" leaves little opportunity to argue that New Hampshire's request was for a collective right. The conditions under which New Hampshire was prepared to accept Congress disarming someone--"Actual Rebellion"--suggests that the right to arms was so basic that only the most serious of crimes could justify taking it away. again from the Constitutional Convention, at least three years before Hitler was around.  Cheers -- how many academic sources will you need? Collect (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a false dichotomy - one either supports the right to keep and bear arms or one supports the Gun Control Act 1968 (which is similar to the 1938 Hitler law). In fact as discussed only extremists who represent a tiny portion of American thinking think that the U.S. has no authority to limit the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.  No one argues for example that we should be passing out AK47's to the inmates at Alcatraz.  TFD (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. And assertions that positions held by real people are "false dichotomies" does not help n assuring that the article represents their positions and not the truth.  Our task is to show what people actually think as reported in reliable sources, not what the right people think.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Who are these "real people?" There are  no mainstream sources in the U.S. opposed to gun control - just a number of fringe sources.  The false dichotomy comes from editors who think that one either supports the Second Amendment as an individual right to keep and bear arms or one supports gun control.  In fact. mainstream writers such as Scalia (of the Supreme Court of the U.S.) support both.  TFD (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Real people can support some "gun control" and still believe that it is a "right" under the Bill of Rights, and that guns may be a defence against tyranny.  In fact, polls regularly show such overlaps.  I had read your post as indicating that you believe one either supports the right to keep and bear arms or one supports the Gun Control Act 1968  which I demur on. Apparently your wording was less than ideal on that.   If so, then I am unsure why you made it as a reply to a post which simply enumerated sources indicating that the issue of guns/tyranny was strongly and specifically discussed at the Constitutional Convention and in the Bill of Rights debates. Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You have read my post wrong. I said the belief that "one either supports the right to keep and bear arms or one supports the Gun Control Act 1968" is a "false dichotomy."  A dichotomy is "a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different."  The word "false" negates this view.  Glad we got that cleared up.  TFD (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Update
During this RFC, the material in question has been substantially changed. The present version is as follows: In the United States, some gun owners say private gun ownership is a check against tyranny. Such a position has a long history in gun politics in the U.S. Supporters of gun-rights such as Stephen Halbrook and Wayne LaPierre believe that Nazi gun control, and gun laws in other authoritarian regimes, contributed significantly to past tyranny and genocides. This hypothesis is not supported by mainstream scholarship, though it is an element of a security against tyranny argument in U.S. politics.

I have no idea how this development might affect the status of this RFC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It was announced in this discussion three days ago.
 * I just made a bold edit to try to end this dickering.
 * It went through a BRD process, the result of which has stuck for a couple days. Considering numerous past discussions on this topic here, and on the Gun politics in the U.S. page, and an ArbCom that is just wrapping up... Agh. To heck with it. I'm starting a new RfC related to this. Neither the first proposal or the second had support. In fact, votes and comments seemed to point toward removing the "Outside of academia" paragraph entirely - without replacing it with anything. Lightbreather (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evidence of efficacy
Gun control relies upon the idea that it reduces crime. I'm not an expert on this. (I probably should be, since I'm a social scientist.) But my casual impression is that, unlike many contentious political topics, where the evidence is overwhelmingly against one side's ideologically-motivated position (e.g. anthropogenic climate change denial on the right; or anti-GMO sentiment on the Left), the jury is out on whether gun control is effective or ineffective. Someone who knows about the literature should determine whether this is true, and provide (in the lede) a description of the consensus among political scientists etc. Steeletrap (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We've been there and tried that. Happy to help come up with and edit an acceptably neutral version of that to the "gang" here. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a rather sweeping generalisation to suggest that the reasoning behind increased regulation of firearms internationally was 'the idea that it reduces crime' in general. Certainly in the European context, the motivation appears to be more that it reduces crimes involving firearms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Laws are most effective where they have public support. TFD (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a misconception that it's all about crime. It's about gun violence - and that includes "accidents" and suicides, too. It's about public health and safety. Can't wait to see the CDC get to do its job again studying all aspects of gun violence. Lightbreather (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It is clear that the article still needs substantial work to cover this aspect of the subject properly - not least because the 'Studies, debate, and opinions' section is grossly unbalanced, in that it is almost exclusively cited to U.S. sources, and fails to give proper international coverage. It also seems to be asserting as fact material which is contradicted by other sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more with ATG. With regard to creating a more balanced article geographically, is it just this section that needs attention or should a new framework be installed first? Anyone have suggestions of articles that might provide a good outline or template? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW
Checking newspapers etc.: If you will permit me a slim wedge of tolerance, most of my reference material is located on the Western side of the Mississippi River and I am presently located East of the River (& South of the Ohio River if it is relevant) perhaps I can shed some light on this discussion. Let me premise my entry into the discussion by noting that I am a Retired Special Agent of the U.S. Government Bureau that was specifically organized for, and though currently reorganized, its relevant primary fields of governance are Firearms and Explosives, the latter two (2) being two thirds of my areas of specialization, and additionally, both prior and subsequent to my retirement I have been accepted and testified in U.S. District Courts, as well as several State & Commonwealth District and Circuit Courts as an expert in both International Arms Control (principally within the U.S. Dept. of State (DoSt), though the murky waters of principle jurisdiction have become even more so after the reorganization that reorganized and renamed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco (&) Firearm & Explosives (BATF(&E), having been only modestly repurposed and transferred to the U.S. Dept. of Justice (DoJ). and the former U.S. Customs Service, which having been even moreso divided and repurposed after its removal from the U.S. Dept. of the Treasury (DoT) (also the former Cabinet agency which was previously the "parent" functional agency governing the old Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (BATF), which in and of itself a bifurcated derivative of a former Division of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as a result of the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) when the former Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Unit of the IRS was dissolved and the BATF was created as an independent agency within the DoT exercising primary jurisdiction over essentially the same principle venues, however, there was a (then) new emphasis on "Firearms" [I suggest that one reflect and remember that 1968 was the year that Robert Kennedy was shot and killed in CA, there was an atmosphere of Civil Disobedience surround the Democratic National Committee & I shall reserve the right to make a chronological correction as to annual position, but the decade of the "'60's"had experienced the murder of a President of the United States (POTUS), riots in the streets of one of the ten (10) largest cities of this country resulting in the moral equivalent of Marshal Law in the City of Detroit, MI, the fatal shootings of protesting students by member of the Ohio National Guard (OARNG) on the Kent State University campus, ad.nauseum.. While "Violence in the Streets" may have taken a slightly different road during then of the past (20th) Century, and the beginning of this (21st) Century, with an emphasis on foreign nationals rather than native born American citizens as the principle, one should not be either quick, or dismissive of the argument that there is a need of the 'Citizenry" to "keep and bear arms", though perhaps moreso for the purpose of protecting themselves from the "protesters, foreign national and resident alien persons domiciled within the United States (USA), and while the terms may, at times appear 'dismissive", in virtually every instance of defense against criminals, and the terrorists, it was a "Good Guy with a Gun" (even though he may have been a law enforcement officer) that either captured, or whose presence on the scene resulted in the death of the suspect/criminal/terrorist. In any number of cases where citizens became the victims of crime, particularly in rural areas they where they are out of necessity must become the "last line of defense, the citizen themselves had to become the "Good Guy (or Good Gal") with a Gun" protecting themselves from the criminals, and the criminal element, as the response time for a law enforcement officer (LEO) to arrive on the scene can at times exceed one (1) hour [of this I can speak with experience having served as both a City Marshall, and as a Chief of Police, in addition to holding a Certification as a Peace Officer issued through and by the authority of the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, on any number of occasions I was forced to concede this fact to the residents of my/our jurisdiction, along with the rather grave warning that while I, our local Constable, the Sheriff and the Deputies in his department, as well as the State Police will always do our best to mutually support one another, it was simply a fact of life that in the late hours of the night, and the early hours of the morning there may be as few as one (1) State Trooper on duty, a Deputy Sheriff and myself or the Chief of Police when I was City Marshal on standby, but not on duty, and that given the number of counties covered by the State Police that trooper may be as far as fifty plus (50+) miles from certain locations within our State Police Post area. Essentially, this boils down to the fact that in the case of catching an intruder, be it a burglar or a robber intent on a home invasion,a "Road Rage" incited driver who follows one home, or any other criminal who attacks during the dark hours, a citizen is "on their own" to intercede & stop that "Bad Man with a Gun" (or even without a gun, no one should be required to subject themselves to the exposure time that it takes, let alone the Close Quarters Combat advantage of being the second or subsequent "armed" individual in a confrontation, by being burdened with the necessity of waiting for the criminal to make known that he/she is armed before that citizen, be it a resident, a guest or a neighbor assumes the role of a "Good Guy (or 'Good Gal') with a gun.

Having laid out what I believe to be an adequate predicate for continuing later on, I would hope that should those who question the applicability of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution to modern day life in the USA, I'll do my best to listen to the network news from N.Y.C., & if I stay up late enough that from L.A. as well so that I can try my best to provide those who either the applicability (although I suspect that if they will read Justice Scalia opinion in the "Heller" case it should disabuse you of any linguistic, as well as intent of the framers of the Constitution, objections that you may have to those of us who wish to "bear arms" right to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forensics Doc (talk • contribs) 23:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

"Arms Control" generally refers to international accords and compacts relating to the nature and number of military weapons held by one or more countries, and banning of certain types of military weaponry, including nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

"Gun control" refers to controls of any type over weaponry held by individuals not in a nation's military, and not related to international accords or compacts covered as "arms control."

Thus making them rather separate and distinct issues, with pretty much zero overlap, as one pertains to military weaponry held by a nation, and the other to non-military weaponry.

Discussion? Collect (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Collect, I get what you are saying, but the fact of the matter is that there are legally obtained and owned military grade and functioning firearms in the hands of civilians in the U.S. The identical firearms that in another part of the world are "held by a nation". There is SIGNIFICANT overlap. How the politicians (anywhere) spin it doesn't matter when we're talking about the same kinds of guns whose identity simply changes by geography or time. See my examples above... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

3d printed guns section
This section, while interesting and sourced, strikes me as rather WP:UNDUE. It made some press at the time, but it's fallen off the radar, and in particular _no gun control laws came about as a result_ - so it's only barely relevant to the umbrella topic of gun control. Anastrophe (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup - it certainly doesn't merit a whole section to itself. I would have no objection to it being removed entirely as off-topic, at least until significant legislation is actually passed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with both of you. From what I can recall of the last go-around on this issue, the 3D printing folks contend that its existence totally changes the concept of gun control since anyone with a printer can "manufacture" a gun or parts anywhere in the world regardless of what the prevailing laws are. As far as I know there is no rampant or widespread proliferation of 3D guns around the world, so I guess this opinion either has no merit or has yet to come to fruition. That said, I was surprised to see 3D printers available for sale at my local Fry's Electronics store just a few days ago. I had not realized how mainstream they were becoming. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 21:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Will remove, thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2014
Please insert the actual facts of gun control in the UK. The UK has the highest violent crime rates in Europe, at 1,158,957 violent crimes a year, it leads the next highest country by nearly a million. It also has more violent crime than South Africa and the US. Yes I am anti-gun control but this is a one sided argument. Please allow readers to see both sides and decide for themselves instead of showing them only one sided information.

Ert1224 (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.

International arms control info in this article
The first three sections of this article - Terminology and context, Global distribution of small arms, and Regulation of civilian firearms - includes a lot of material that does not belong here as it is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH comparing/conflating international arms control efforts with national and state gun control. Suggest editors of this article review the Arms control article as well. Lightbreather (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Preserve international/arms control related material
A little of this may belong in this gun control article, but a lot of it is more appropriate for the Arms control article.

Terminology and context
Laws pertaining to Gun control are a subset of a more general class of laws which deal with more general weapons, usually called arms control.

In the context of this article, the concept of gun control is in reference to various means of a firearm restriction, use, transport, and possession. Specifically with regard to the class of weapons referred to as small arms. On a global scale this context is sometimes expanded to include light weapons; also known in the arms trade as SALW.

From the perspective of military small arms, this encompasses: revolvers, pistols, submachine guns, carbines, assault rifles, battle rifles, multiple barrel firearms, sniper rifles, squad automatic weapons, light machine guns, and sometimes hand grenades, general-purpose machine guns, medium machine guns, and grenade launchers may be considered small arms or as support weapons, depending on the particular armed forces. Other groups utilizing these types of arms may also include non-military personnel such as law enforcement agencies.

From a civilian (meaning via private, individual ownership) perspective and varying via legislation from country to country this encompasses a subset of the above list. Usually limited to: revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, assault rifles, sub-machine guns and light machine guns.

Global distribution of small arms
It is estimated that there are in total 875 million small arms distributed amongst civilians, law enforcement agencies and armed forces, globally. Of these firearms 650 million, or 75 per cent, are held by civilians worldwide. U.S. civilians alone account for 270 million of this total. A further 200 million are controlled by state military forces. Law enforcement agencies have some 26 million small arms. Non-state armed groups have about 1.4 million firearms. Finally, gang members hold between 2 and 10 million small arms. Together, the small arms arsenals of non-state armed groups and gangs account for, at most, 1.4 per cent of the global total.

International and regional civilian firearm regulation
At the international and regional level, diplomatic attention has tended to focus on the cross-border illegal trade in small arms as an area of particular concern rather than the regulation of civilian-held firearms. During the mid-1990s, however, the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) adopted a series of resolutions relating to the civilian ownership of small arms. These called for an exchange of data on national systems of firearm regulation and for the initiation of an international study of the issue. In July 1997, ECOSOC issued a resolution that underlined the responsibility of UN member states to competently regulate civilian ownership of small arms and which urged them to ensure that their regulatory frameworks encompassed the following aspects: firearm safety and storage; penalties for the unlawful possession and misuse of firearms; a licensing system to prevent undesirable persons from owning firearms; exemption from criminal liability to promote the surrender by citizens of illegal, unsafe or unwanted guns; and, a record-keeping system to track civilian firearms. In 1997, the UN published a study based on member state survey data titled the United Nations International Study on Firearm Regulation which was updated in 1999. This study was meant to initiate the establishment of a database on civilian firearm regulations which would be run by the Centre for International Crime Prevention, located in Vienna. who were to report on national systems of civilian firearm regulation every two years. These plans never reached fruition and further UN-led efforts to establish international norms for the regulation of civilian-held firearms were stymied. Responding to pressure from the U.S. government, any mention of the regulation of civilian ownership of small arms was removed from the draft proposals for the 2001 UN Programme of Action on Small Arms.

Although the issue is no longer part of the UN policy debate, since 1991 there have been eight regional agreements involving 110 countries concerning aspects of civilian firearm possession. The Bamako Declaration, was adopted in Bamako, Mali, on 1 December 2000 by the representatives of the member states of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU). The provisions of this declaration recommend that the signatories would establish the illegal possession of small arms and light weapons as a criminal offence under national law in their respective countries.

--Lightbreather (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Miscategorisation of Research?
At present the article Reads
 * Studies by Arthur Kellermann and Matthew Miller found that keeping a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of suicide.[40] Other studies, however, found no association between gun ownership and suicide.[41][42][43][44]

Which suggests that the majority of research finds no connection. However, research 41 (Miller, M. (1978). "Geriatric Suicide: The Arizona Study". The Gerontologist 18 (5 Part 1): 488–495. doi:10.1093/geront/18.5_Part_1.488.) notes that "Suicide victims were more likely than controls to show the following risk factors: active substance abuse, comorbid major depression, suicidal ideation within the past week, family history of depression and substance abuse, legal problems and presence of a handgun in the home." and study 44 (Conwell, Y. et al. (2002). "Access to Firearms and Risk for Suicide in Middle-Aged and Older Adults". The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 10 (4): 407–416. doi:10.1097/00019442-200207000-00007. .) relates that "Presence of a firearm in the home was associated with increased risk for suicide, even after controlling for psychiatric illness. Elevated risk was accounted for by access to handguns rather than long guns and was more pronounced in men than women." So I suggest that this sentence be reworded as Some studies have found that keeping a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of suicide.[40][41][44] Other studies, however, found no association between gun ownership and suicide.[42][43] Which suggests, conversely, that the majority of studies demonstrate a link. --Timtak (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "[...] that the majority of studies demonstrate a link". But is that in fact the case? Is it a majority of studies or a minority? As currently written, the sentence is neutral in that it states that some studies do, and some studies don't. Furthermore, all studies cited are explicitly concerning america; is this the case worldwide? (hint: it isn't). Before switching the emphasis from a neutral statement to one claiming majority, it has to be demonstrated that in fact it is a majority - and not just for the US, since this is a global article. Anastrophe (talk) 01:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There seems nothing to cite a summation "majority of studies". I think the categorization as 'found no association' is asking for less than 'found' does, so 'no association' could be appropriately conveying the result of the study if it was either negative or below randomness or so far below & mixed with the substance abuse, depression, etcetera that the study is really saying it's not worth mention.  These seem each a tiny study on specific section of population and country so there's not going to be any broadly applicable result, but it would be more faithful to the cite if the lines had conveyed the relative importance or certainty in the findings.  Markbassett (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Germany section
I think there should be *something* in the Germany section. I know that Andy has strong feelings about this. @Andy: Could you possibly be intrigued into writing it? This would satisfy your concerns about the content, while still allowing *something* to be in there. Is that possible? It might put the issue to rest once and for all. I know you have strong opinions on it, but even so, I am also pretty secure in your ability to write some neutral content. Please? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Please provide the relevant academic sources that demonstrate that in a general discussion of the subject of gun control globally, the specific instance of 1930s Germany is considered of particular significance. Without such sources, there is no reason to include such content - and very good reasons to exclude it, given the repeated efforts by now topic-banned/blocked contributors to abuse Wikipedia to present a pseudohistorical fringe perspective on the subject. We don't include content because 'we think there should be something on it' - we include it because the sources we use make it clear that it is relevant.


 * Personally, I see no reason why this article should include any of the 'history' sections. This article is supposed to be an overview, and such material is better suited to individual per-nation articles. We clearly can't cover the gun-control history of every country here, and I have seen no evidence that the countries we do cover are seen as of particular relevance to a general discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, I totally agree with you, at least about the history sections. If we remove those, I see no reason to include a Germany section either. Perhaps this is a reasonable compromise? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That would seem logical - I suggest that you remove them (or I will if you prefer), and we then ask anyone wishing to restore them to provide the necessary justification for inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the history section should be removed. There is nothing in the topic that makes it obvious that Japan, the UK, U.S. and Australia, or Germany for that matter should be discussed, but not the other nations of the world.  TFD (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Since nobody else has commented, I've removed the 'history' section, per the above discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks good! I would also like to re-visit the "See also" section. There seem to be links in there that have nothing to do with gun control, such as "defensive gun use", while articles that one might expect are not to be found, such as various gun ban articles. Any thoughts? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Lacking input, I went ahead and removed a couple of entries that seemed off-topic to me, and replaced them with entries that seemed to make more sense, such as links to articles that are actually about Gun Control. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that discussion of history should be included and not just for Germany. Many oppressive governments have a history of making sure that there citizens are unarmed. It would be difficult to maintain control if your citizens are better armed than your army. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. — George Santayana Nyth83 (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTFORUM. And learn some actual history... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You sure are grumpy. Lighten up a little, say? I'm not using this as a forum.  I was just stating that the article is rather lacking in historical context regarding gun control.  BTW what is actual history?  I didn't find an article with that title anywhere.  Maybe you should create one.  Nyth83 (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * For the facts regarding Germany, see Gun legislation in Germany - where you will note that the 'oppressive government' made it easier for the majority of the population to get access to firearms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Really?
A whole (apparently controversial) article about gun control and no discussion about why the US Constitution has a Right to Bear arms in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyth83 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 22 September 2014‎
 * This is a worldwide article. See Gun politics in the United States or Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything on Wikipedia is available to read worldwide. Maybe you meant that the scope of of the article is very broad and does not leave any room to document gun control in any specific country?  Examples from numerous countries would be helpful in that case.  Thanks for the links to the two articles.  This whole issue is rather fractured and parts are spread out all over the place in multiple articles, main articles, sub articles, see also's, hatnotes, disambiguation, redirects, template links, etc. Not to mention the inconsistent categorizations. The amount of vandalism and edit warring borders on silly.  What a mess.  I easily found a two link path to the Second Amendment article but had to the look at the 'What Links Here page for the Gun Politics article to find wiki-links to it.  Nyth83 (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Including 'examples' that are already covered elsewhere would only make the coverage even more disjointed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The amount of edit-warring over this article was not merely "silly" so much as disgraceful, which is why the Arbitration Committee had to impose discretionary sanctions. See WP:ARBGC.  The structure of this article and the sub-articles is typical of Wikipedia coverage of expansive topics.  The sub-articles, links, hatnotes, disambiguations, etc., are the way that Wikipedia has found that expansive topics can be presented readably.  Combining every aspect of gun control into one article would either result in an absurdly large article (and there has been considerable thinking about optimal size of articles) or would require that a lot of content be excluded altogether.  If you think that there are inconsistent categorizations, you can identify them here for discussion for possible fixing.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You mention vandalism. Many articles have too much vandalism.  Any vandalism is too much vandalism.  Keeping an eye on an article for vandalism is helpful if you understand what vandalism is and what is not vandalism.  However, some editors will label edits with which they disagree as vandalism, and it is a personal attack on another good-faith editor to refer to their edits as vandalism.  In a controversial area, especially one subject to discretionary sanctions, making inaccurate claims of vandalism may result in sanctions such as topic-bans or blocks.  (Vandalism of course also results in blocks.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I stepped in such a mess here. I didn't much care for the discretionary sanctions notification on my user page which stated that I edited an article which I did not, in fact, make any edit to. Or does that apply to the talk page also? I understand that some people take this topic very seriously, I meant to imply that this article and the related ones have more than their share of very childish editing.   I don't have any good suggestions about what the long term solution to vandalism is.  I have a good number of article on my watch list that I have to frequently revert vandalism.  I have seen one IP user that for the past year has been randomly changing BLP birth years by four years.  I just don't see the fun in that, and can't comprehend why someone would do that.  Outside of the content of this an the dozens of related articles, I just expressed my general observation that there is little consistency in article titles, categories, and the way wiki links are used between the articles.  I may take the time later to an overview of what I see, I think there may be a better place to discuss it since it would not be specifically about the content of these articles if you may have suggestion.  Nyth83 (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * First, if you observe an IP randomly changing birth years, or engaged in other vandalism including "sneaky vandalism" (sneaky because it isn't obvious), you can warn the editor, or you can report them at WP:AIV. Second, discretionary sanctions do apply to talk pages.  The most common reason for using discretionary sanctions on talk pages is personal attacks.  Third, your complaints seemed to include some of the complexities of Wikipedia, such as hatnotes and subarticles, which are necessary to handle the complexity of the topic matter.  Fourth, if you think that the editing can be improved, your improvements are welcome, but be sure to be willing to discuss them collaboratively.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I really don't mind the complexity and flexibility of wikipedia, it is just in this case there seems no be a lot of inconsistency in the way the tools are used among all the numerous arms and gun related articles and their editors. This is a subject that I am only marginally interested in so I am not going to spend the effort sorting it out and finding all these inconsistencies. I can point out a couple as examples. The article Federal Assault Weapons Ban is in the categories: [Category:United States federal firearms law] and [Category:United States federal firearms legislation], but the article Assault weapons legislation in the United States is in [Category:United States firearms law]. Should it not also be in [Category:United States federal firearms legislation]? The article is primarily about state level bans but does have a section about federal bans, but not legislation as the title suggests, or laws as the category suggests. There also seems to be some inconsistency in the use of the terms legislation, law and ban as they are used almost interchangeably but not always in the same context.

Just taking a look at the three sections; Arms control, Right to keep and bear arms, Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, the choices of articles chosen by the editors to include seem to be almost random and not always closely related to the article. One of them was helpful enough to include a link to a category page but which, oddly enough, is not one of the ones that the article itself is included in!

At least the hatnotes (when they are used) seems to use templates fairly consistently but we get a little bit of everything from About to Main and Distinguish2, etc.

I'm just washing my hands of the whole mess and walking away now. I'm not prepared to handle this much fun all at one time. Nyth83 (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we could mention that the perceived right to bear arms historically restricted gun controls laws in British Empire and Commonwealth nations and continues to restrict them in the U.S. where the right is constitutionally protected. TFD

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2014
Anonymous1234567891011121314151617181920 (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC) I would like to suggest the idea to have people share what fire-arms that they have in their houses, and their mental state with their neighborhood or community. Doing this would keep people informed, and they can request to someone that they get rid of a specific fire-arm if they are not comfortable with it in their neighborhood. Doing this may also determine about not what laws are in a specific county or state, but specific area or neighborhood.

-Anonymous
 * There is no request for a specific change to the article, and Wikipedia is not the place for original research. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Gothean edits of 28Nov2014 need clarification
This section is in need of clarification by an allowed editor. The section reads as of 08Dec2014:
 * "A May 2010 Stanford study which studied US crime data through 2010 saw a correlation between right-to-carry gun laws and increases in crime rates, especially in the rate of aggravated assault. It is estimated that the passage of right-to-carry gun laws is correlated with an eight percent average increase in aggravated assault. When controlling for the effect of the crack cocaine epidemic, and increase in murder rates are correlated in states right-to-carry gun laws."

206.177.43.73 (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree. That second sentence makes no sense at all to me. First of all, it's not a complete sentence (unless "and" should have been "an"). Second, "states right-to-carry gun laws" is too many nouns. Should it say, "increase in murder rates are correlated with states' (possessive) right-to-carry gun laws" or "increase in murder rates are correlated with [something] in states that have right-to-carry gun laws"? Thirdly, "when controlling for the effect of the crack epidemic" should surely be "when the effect of the crack epidemic is controlled for, and it should state what the residual increase/decrease in murder rates was; otherwise you're not controlling for anything. Reading the two cited sources hasn't helped me to understand. Could suggest an alternative wording for that sentence?  Scolaire (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I notice also that although the Stanford study is essentially a reappraisal of the 1997 Lott and Mustard paper (that paper is referenced over 100 times in Donoghue's paper, and throughout this Washington Post report, e.g. "Gun rights advocates have undoubtedly placed too much stock in Lott and Mustard's original study"), there is no mention of it in this article. Surely that should be rectified? Scolaire (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No movement after four days. I'm going to delete the sentence for the moment. A re-worded version can be added back at any time if desired. Scolaire (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2015
SWITZERLAND.

Please mention Switzerland. It has the lowest gun crime ever recorded. All males that have done national service have a rifle at home with ammunition. This is part of their security in case of invasion. This would not work in other countries because the potential gun owners have not had military training. Unfortunately, most Govts. ebb towards no guns so they can keep control as they are nibbling at our freedom in an almost undetectable fashion. When a foreign power eventually comes west probably fuelled by religion, Switzerland is probably the only country that will put up a fight as our own dwindling armies will be defeated on numbers alone.

195.60.9.182 (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —  22:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Suicide and guns
"Other studies, however, found no association between gun ownership and suicide."

From Conwell: "Elevated risk was accounted for by access to handguns rather than long guns and was more pronounced in men than women. Among subjects who kept a gun in the home, storing the weapon loaded and unlocked were independent predictors of suicide." From Bukstein: " Suicide victims were more likely than controls to show the following risk factors: active substance abuse, comorbid major depression, suicidal ideation within the past week, family history of depression and substance abuse, legal problems and presence of a handgun in the home" The sentence is incorrect. That's why I deleted it. Miguel reverted it without investigating it or discussing it. Should I be surprised? If he doesn't explain his edit I'll delete it again. Felsic (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone oughta check the rest of this article - there may be more misrepresented references. Felsic (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course. Wikipedia is open to abuse by well-resourced lobbying 104.237.54.74 (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

This article has been so censored that it should be deleted.
Is there a point to keeping this article? It makes no sense and is written at a juvenile level. There are major themes in gun control that could be dealt with properly, with up-to-date research. Instead, this article is just a placeholder for the topic with ten or twenty-year-old articles and citations gleaned from equally aged books written by apologists for gun interests. It seems that it exists to fulfil the need to have something dealing with gun control but has been so censored by those who want to believe that owning guns has only pros and no cons that it is just trivial nonsense. Maybe the article should have just one sentence: "Go and do your own research, looking at all aspects of the topic, as we are children here who cannot allow anti-gun heresy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.102.111 (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny; it seems to me that none of the generally accepted arguments against the efficacy of gun control are present. Perhaps it's better-written than I had thought.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No. It's bad. The article should be dealing with up-to-date empirical evidence on the efficacy/lack of efficacy of modern-day gun control rather than just silly historical canards, rationalised arguments, cherry-picked research, and out-of-date studies. My suggestion would be to gather every bit of research that can be found since (say) 2010 and put it in a place where all those who want actually to examine this topic may look at it. Interested editors may vote on the merit (quality) of the research for inclusion, using agreed upon criteria, and the selected research can then be synthesized by some willing editors and further voting may take place as the research is reviewed and rewritten. This, given the controversial nature of the topic, would have to be a formal procedure, and subject to the same restrictions that are in place now. The difference between the current state of this article and what I propose would be that the article would progress toward a reasonable assessment of modern gun control and not just be a mutually-inoffensive pile of meaningless "stuff."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.102.111 (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't entirely clear what you think should be done to this article. However, you and any other poster are welcome to propose changes on the article talk page, this page.  If you think that there should be a formal procedure for reviewing proposed changes, it is the Requests for Comments process.  Please go ahead and provide the research and/or the proposed improvements.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * One thing that needs to be borne in mind is the scope of this article - it is supposed to be an international overview. As it stands, the 'studies, debate, and opinions' section already cites U.S.-specific studies as if they were representative of the broader situation, and clearly gives undue weight to such material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This article, as Andy notes, has too many complaints from American editors who want this article to be an American-oriented view, and either an American gun-rights view or an American gun-control view. Those complaints are part of what got this whole topic area subject to discretionary sanctions.  In any case, the place for proposals for improvements to this article is this page.  The place for proposals for improvements to another related article is that article's talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article is supposed to have an international perspective rather than a U.S. focus. I would mention also that the debate is not whether there should be gun control but rather the extent.  In the U.S. for example there is no debate that the state should allow prisoners to keep and bear arms.  TFD (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, this article is censored. Even putting up the idea of gun control has been removed. 104.237.54.74 (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Controlled by American gun lobby
This page appears to be closely managed by the American Pro-Gun Lobby. Based on the tags above, this page has been a battleground for American lobbying. The information is all from the United States, and there's nothing from any developed country, where gun violence is under control. The specifics of the topic are not shown, for example, the words "background checks" or "firearms licence" do not even appear. The only non-American content is a paragraph about Africa. Go to the page history, and any genuine edits about gun control have been removed. Editors show their frustration in their edit comments. Tags requesting a neutral point of view are removed. If you want information about gun control, you won't find it here. 120.136.38.221 (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Here are a list of topics that are NOT included: So, not even neutral information about gun control is not here. 114.245.186.67 (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Classification of arms by law
 * Export and import controls
 * European Union directives
 * All the regional agreements
 * Safety design features
 * Education campaigns
 * Public opinion in various countries
 * Registration methods
 * Possession and ownership rules
 * Age, mental health and criminal background rules
 * Use of firearms by security companies
 * Secure storage


 * Comment: A lot of that material is in its respective country's "gun politics" page, like Gun politics in the United Kingdom. Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Nonsense, but thanks for using the words "gun politics" to demonstrate the sensitivity of the US gun lobby. 120.136.34.176 (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2015
The most recent edits by Kimelman (Gun control ‎ (Added line to the side of gun control opponents clarifying that some believe the following: "or that gun ownership serves as a legitimate check and balance in preventing a tyrannical government.)) are not backed up by any factual information and are just folklore from the pro-gun lobby. If they are to remain, please provide objective support that lack of gun control prevents "tyrannical governments." And please, no Hitler references, as these just state what Hitler did to Jewish people and really have nothing to do with overall gun control.99.242.108.55 (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

99.242.108.55 (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. We've had protracted "freedom from tyranny" discussions in the past. This is US-centric, 2A absolutist propaganda. See Nazi gun control theory. Lightbreather (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2015
A May 2010 Stanford study which examined US crime data through 2010 saw a correlation between right-to-carry gun laws and increases in crime rates, especially in the rate of aggravated assault. It is estimated that the passage of right-to-carry gun laws is correlated with an eight percent average increase in aggravated assault.[30][31] A November 2014 article by John Lott was heavily critical of this study's methodology. [32]

'A November 2014 article by John Lott was heavily critical of this study's methodology. [32]' This statement serves no productive purpose and exists only has a red herring to cast doubt on the previous statement. There is no benefit to stating that a single individual with a publicly professed, pro-gun bias, is critical of the methods of a University study whose results run counter to his beliefs. I would be willing to bet that every study cited in this article has at least one person who is critical of its methods.

Siliconrockstar (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The sentence provides the NPOV required by Wikipedia standards. It also provides a segue into the next paragraphs.  On Wikipedia is it necessary to give weight to all mainstream dissenting views. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit by Faceless Enemy 07OCT2015 David Hemenway
Would someone with edit privileges either remove the "a gun control advocate" from Faceless Enemy's edit or add similar mention for all authors (pro/con gun control). I have no doubt the edit was in good faith but implying bias is probably not NPOV. The rest of his edits seem fair. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.108.55 (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

One Perspective On Gun Control Debate
Gun control laws are not the answer for America due to the fact that criminals will still find access to guns; it would infringe upon the right to self-defense, and would rid America of a common hobby. A majority of the guns obtained by criminals are surprisingly not due to theft, but more so through the United States black market (Frontline). ”A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (1791)”. Gun control laws would rid citizens of their 2nd amendment rights to bear arms. By creating gun control laws, not only would a sense of safety be taken away from the citizens, but also a hobby that has been at the root of America for centuries. Requiring new gun owners to attend gun training, safety classes, and by regulating the proper consequences for illegal gun usage, it is possible to be a country with less crime and safer gun usage; and to do so without initiating stricter gun control laws.

207.92.193.252 (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for your own personal opinion. If you would like a change to the article you will need to state it in the manner of I would like to change X to Y. You must also provide Reliable sources to support any change.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Philosophy of law on gun control
The aspect is nearly absent in this article (except for the link to Right to keep and bear arms which is mostly about history rather than philosophical argument).

From the intro: "… some argue that certain regulations violate individual liberties." (liberties -> rights ?) The reference for this claim is http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/19/opinion/bennett-gun-rights/index.html. However this does not discuss gun control in terms of (individual) gun rights, but rather points out negative side effects of gun control.

I suggest to replace it by a philosophical paper:
 * Michael Huemer, Is There a Right to Own a Gun?, Social Theory and Practice, Vol. 29, No. 2 (April 2003), pp. 297-324. Online: http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/guncontrol.htm

The paper has some implications for the relevance of the arguments in "studies and debates". For example Huemer argues why prevention of suicides may not count as a valid reason for gun control. --Thomas Leske (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add it as a second reference, though I'd keep the CNN reference too. Be bold! :) Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that I cannot edit semi-protected pages, yet. Could you, please, add the reference for me?
 * IMHO the CNN reference should go to a different place. --Thomas Leske (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Studies & debates section
This section is a total mess and I think it should be trimmed considerably to include only studies of gun laws, rather than studies of the availability or ownership rates of guns. The latter type of research, in my opinion, belongs in an article like gun violence but not here. Everymorning (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Please ping me if you respond in this section, as I will not be watching this page. Everymorning (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

, why have you deleted all this sourced information without getting consensus? Lapadite (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose I was acting, or at least trying to act, in accordance with WP:BRD. I felt that it wasn't pertinent to gun control laws to justify inclusion on this page. For example, some of it (e.g. Lott's work) was about conceal-and-carry laws, which are totally different. Other stuff was about gun ownership rates rather than gun control laws. If you want to follow up my Bold removal of this content by Reverting this change, you are welcome to do so. I guess the problem with regard to the "without consensus" stuff was that I took the absence of a response on the talk page as a sign that no one would mind these changes. Everymorning (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)