Talk:Gun control/Archive 21

lack of anchor/agenda
What I can WP:verify from these sources is that it is on the agenda of gun control advocates to change their name and the language of gun control http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2013/01/political-language http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/dont-call-it-gun-control/267259/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/speaking-of-guns-examining-rhetoric-of-heated-debate/ (regulation of firearms already has a page of its own) This shows we do not have page Gun control agenda or a response from those who oppose it. I think such a page would reduce the POV grinding that has disrupted wikipedia for too long. We could use this page for the purpose. It would be a lot of work. J8079s (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Gun control is a legitimate term
Hi J8079s, you don't seem to understand that gun control is a legitimate term --- Yes, it is sometimes politicized in the United States (which I've now added to the lede)  but that is not the primary usage of the term as evidenced by this section of the article that discusses gun control in Canada, Australia, etc. In regards to the politics of gun issues in the United States, see this article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2016
u said per cent not percent.

24.30.5.118 (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Assuming you were talking about the "Terminology and context" section in which "per cent" appeared twice, I have replaced both these occurrences with "percent". Everymorning (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2016
In the section on OTHER COUNTRIES you may want to include a 2001 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) demonstrating a 13% and 14% reduction in overall homicide (80% of which was firearm) in the cities of Bogota and Cali, Colombia, after an intermittent ban on carrying concealed firearms was put into effect on weekends and some holidays. See reference: https://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192444

2601:14D:8100:A5E3:811F:6FE9:8995:5738 (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Everymorning (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Nothing about the lobbyists/advocates for and against
 Proponents of gun control generally argue that widespread gun ownership increases the danger of gun violence. Opponents argue that gun control does not reduce crime and violates individual liberties. 

There's ain't nothing in the text about these proponents and opponents. The article oughta say who is for it who's against it. Felsic2 (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 Lancet study
Hey, do you have access to the full study? Did they examine all 50 states? Which laws were associated with increased mortality? Really interesting stuff. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No unfortunately I dont. Everymorning (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I do have access to the full study. In answer to your above questions, they did examine all 50 states. A quick summary: they found "nine laws to be associated with reduced overall firearm mortality, nine to be associated with increased mortality, and seven to be inconclusive". The three most associated with reduced mortality were universal background checks for firearm purchase, background checks for ammunition, and requiring firearm identification by microstamping or ballistic fingerprinting. Let me know if more info is required from this source EAR47 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

There's been several mass killings in Austrailia since Port Aurthor
The austraila section says that Austraila has had no mass killings since the Port Arthor massacre. That's outright false. There's been several. I think it's only fair to reference them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childers_Palace_Backpackers_Hostel_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Saturday_bushfires#Central_Gippsland_fires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lin_family_murders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers_Hill,_New_South_Wales#Nursing_home_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairns_child_killings
 * None of those are mass shootings, though: they are, respectively, a fire, another fire, a bludgeoning, a fire, and a stabbing. The article, correctly, states that Australia has not seen any mass shootings in the decade since the Port Arthur massacre; none of the events you cite above change that. Everymorning (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

A mass killing is defined as three or more deaths: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-incidents/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013 page 7

Under this definition Australia has had three mass killings since Port Arthur since the NFA act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Hectorville_siege

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-29137726

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/wedderburn-man-ian-francis-jamieson-charged-over-triple-murder-20141023-11axdx.html

Those killings were committed with firearms, thus they are mass shootings. Please edit the article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:5484:C900:DDDA:619C:8300:B454 (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe there have been mass shootings in Australia since the Port Arthur massacre, but none happened in the 10.5 year interval between Port Arthur and the publication of the source we are citing to back up the claim that there have been no mass shootings in Australia since then. The source in question was published in 2006, 10.5 years after the Port Arthur shooting, and states that "In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards." Again, the article doesn't say there have been none at all since Port Arthur, only that there were none in the decade afterward. None of the shootings you cite (all of which occurred after 2006) change that. Everymorning (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * while clearly, your logic is correct, we should probably find a more recent source that gives an updated accounting. 10 years without a mass shooting is certainly notable, but we should not leave the reader with only decade old out of date information. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How about this article which was published in 2013? It states that "Since then [i.e. the enactment of the NFA], there have been no mass shootings and an accelerated decline in total gun-related deaths." Everymorning (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The key problem here is apples to oranges definitions. I've found multiple sources saying that Australia defines mass shooting as 5 deaths (6 including shooter) . Thats a very different definition than the US uses (3-4 depending on whose counting). This source for example notes the discrepancy So I think we need to be explicitly in the article as to what we are saying did or did not happen, rather than use the same word "mass shooting" but with different meaning in different parts of the article. What would be best would be a source that did the cross-country tally for us, but with a consistent definition. But a minimum we must clarify what is meant at each location.  Gaijin42 (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead
Gun control (or regulation of firearms) 

"regulation of firearms" ain't in the source. Why's it there? Felsic2 (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Its the title of the source. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So where does it say that "regulation of firearms" is another name for "gun control". The title is "Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide ". Felsic2 (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Why are you wasting time with non-controvercial WP:BLUE crap. Are you seriously disputing that the meaning of gun control is firearms regulation? This is asinine. There are literally thousands of sources out there. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_control&action=edit&section=5
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/opinion/effective-firearms-regulation-is-constitutional.html
 * https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/
 * http://www.msnbc.com/all/california-did-tough-gun-control-laws-cut
 * http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/03/the-false-promise-of-gun-control/306744/
 * https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=gun%20control
 * http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gun+control
 * http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gun-control?r=66


 * I wouldn't be dealing with this asinine crap if the editors who wrote it used sources that supported what they wrote. You'd be surprised - sometime editors claim sources say the exact opposite of what was actually written. When that stops being a problem I'll stop checking citations. Meanwhile, don't shoot the messenger or in this case, the crap cleaner. Felsic2 (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course it means firearms regulation, but there are many people who like to use the term Gun control because it's a politically loaded term. Per WP:NPOV we need to list both terms in the lead. Pinging Gaijin42. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality - lack of studies supporting the contrary points
Although the article states that there are both proponents and opponents to gun control, and that the overall results of the various studies are inconclusive, it mostly shows studies supporting gun control (despite some few supporting neither side), and the said opponents and proponents are not specified. Considering that there are plenty of studies against gun control, including one from Harvard University if I'm not mistaken, this article is internally inconsistent and does not show the proper neutrality when dealing with a contentious and debated issue. - Alumnum (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As per WP:SOFIXIT, you are encouraged to fix this problem yourself by adding studies which support the case against gun control. However, I assume the Harvard University study to which you are referring is the Kates & Mauser one, which, since it was published in a right-wing political undergrad-edited journal by researchers not affiliated with Harvard, is (appropriately) not cited in the article. Everymorning (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I notice that the entire section titled "Against gun control" is empty..152.160.144.241 (talk) 06:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The best way of adding studies would be to include them together, not divided up 'pro and con'. Felsic2 (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Gun control referendums in 4 states
Referendums for strengthening gun con were held in 4 US states on election day, people voted to passe them in 3 states (Nevada, Washington and California) while rejected them in Maine. They have been covered in the media and I think they are notable and impactful enough to have their own article. I hope someone can create it. 117.207.150.229 (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2017
International human rights law, while not recognizing any right to self-defense and its means, requires states to reasonably restrict access to firearms as part of state's obligations to protect the right to life Hotbridge (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2017 (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. DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  15:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Mortality Rates in USA
After reading the article, I thought it did a good job delivering the message of mortality due to firearms. The article gave a lot of good data about the topic and helped support the argument they were defending. In my opinion, the author is very repetitive with his facts and sources. I would leave the amount of information about the topic because it helps the message he is trying to deliver. Something I would change would to disperse the information evenly through the article to not overwhelm the reader all at once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.93.165 (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gun control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6M74ygi4f?url=http://www.unicri.eu/documentation_centre/publications/series/understanding/19_GUN_OWNERSHIP.pdf to http://www.unicri.eu/documentation_centre/publications/series/understanding/19_GUN_OWNERSHIP.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121227083232/http://guncontrol.org.au/ to http://guncontrol.org.au/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060417082153/http://www.gca.org.za/ to http://www.gca.org.za/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Origin of the term?
When and where did the term "gun control" originate? Is it a euphemism for something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.80.149 (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Name of this article
Editor 張泰銘 recently renamed this article, here, from "Gun control" to "Firearms Regulation". Renaming an article can be a pretty significant change, especially when the topic is controversial, so I'm starting this talk page section for editors to discuss the article name. (Speaking for myself, I want to think about it some more. But if we go with "Firearms regulation", the second word should not be capitalized, per the Manual of Style.) — Mudwater (Talk) 05:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It has now been moved back to Gun control. I agree with the decision to move it back, as "firearms regulation" appears to be a much less commonly used term than is "gun control" (in the US or anywhere else). Every morning   (there's a halo...)  18:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should call it "gun control". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Honestly don't think there's a rule on wikipedia saying 1) you can't do stuff cuz it's controversial. 2) an individual can't make a significant change. Besides, do you think GC is neutral or FR is neutral. For whoever's sake would you please even read what the article's talking about? Do you think we should name every little thing the way it's been commonly referred to or as a NEUTRAL POV?

Cuz however I consider it, "gun control" does not sound neutral to me? The biggest thing in the current conversation is about banning assault weapons and bg checks. Does either of those have to do with GUN control? That's why.

On wkpedia, the rules and policies trump admins. Like in the US, the constitution trumps the president. But they could be temporarily making a wrong decision with their given executive power, but it just won't last very long. 張泰銘 (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I said everything very clearly in here, some folks just won't stop. Now I can't trigger a battle but I believe eventually I'll win. His reasoning just ain't good enuf. It's pure and simple. 張泰銘 (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Merely making one edit and calling it a day and doing as you please in no way allows anyone to discuss such a controversial move (and this article has been under this title since 2003.) You need to review WP:CONSENSUS. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  22:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * , you appear to be woefully unfamiliar with WP:RM, which all editors should study before making any page moves. --В²C ☎ 21:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2018
I would like to request to have a history section added to this article, to briefly give the backgroud of how heavily guns have influenced the United States, as well as, briefly explain arguments of the opposing sides. I would also like to request to have an up-to-date section to showcase the revelance of this topic to present day, by using quotes from a credible source of course.

N.sly26 (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know, there's a separate article that covers that already in quite a bit of detail. It's Gun politics in the United States.  — Mudwater (Talk) 11:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 18 February 2018

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move at this time. bd2412 T 03:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Gun control → Firearms regulation – Procedural nomination now that we've had two moves and two contestations: I am neutral on the outcome of this requested move. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dekimasu よ! 03:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * see procedural RM above. You may make your case for a move in this discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You have said that the term "gun control" is not neutral, but I still don't understand why you think so. Can you explain why, in a simple and straightforward way?  For example, would the term "gun control" be used more by people who want stricter firearm regulation, or would it be used more by people who want less strict firearm regulation?  And how would the term "gun control" promote their agenda? — Mudwater (Talk) 23:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Many Americans, when hearing the word "control" as used in this context, think of government overreach/intrusion. Firearms regulation doesn't have this problem. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC); revised:  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support move or alternative I've mentioned - The term "gun control" is strongly associated with the US debate regarding gun ownership and legislation. Since Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia and is required to provide a global perspective, keeping the title of this article Gun control is inappropriate; with that said, the term should be mentioned in the lede as it is now.  Most of the articles we have refer to Gun laws so I would support moving it to that as well; Firearms policy in the United Kingdom, Gun laws in Australia, Gun laws in Canada, Gun laws in New Zealand, etc.  Categorically we see WikiProject Firearms articles and my first choice is Firearms regulation. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support moving to "Firearms regulation", per Somedifferentstuff's rationale above. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  15:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per WP:ENGVAR, MOS:RETAIN and WP:COMMONNAME. "Gun control" and certainly not "Firearms regulation" is the term most commonly used in the American variety of English which is the variety originally used in this article, and it's used to refer to gun control all over the world, not just in the U.S., and not just by American sources.  Examples: Gun Control in Australia, Updated, Australia's Lessons on Gun Control, Gun Control in Japan: Rarely More Than 10 Deaths Per Year, GUN CONTROL in the Japan Times, and, from the BBC a British source about gun control in the UK: Gun control and ownership laws in the UK.  --В²C ☎ 21:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – One has to keep in mind that "gun control" is a politically subjective term. Much like most politically subjective terms, there's insinuations and assumptions behind the term "gun control" that aren't accurate, and are open to interpretation and argument from both sides of politics. "Firearms regulation" is the best objective term there is for this area of politics, in my opinion. I've used it and similar phrases such as "regulation of firearms" in politically neutral writing myself. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · [//xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/?username=PhilipTerryGraham&project=en.wikipedia.org count]) 22:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Gun control is the common name as B2C illustrates above. Do note that we use the common name partly to avoid being political or having to figure out what is politically subjective and what is not because that is not a judgement that is rabbit hole that is best not gone down. If sources predominantly use "gun control", that's where our title should be. --regentspark (comment) 23:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - If this article was focussed on firearms regulation the United States, I would strongly support the title “Gun Control”... as that is overwhelmingly the most COMMON terminology used for the topic in A US context. However, the topic of this article is firearms regulation in an international context, and “Gun Control” simply isn’t the most common terminology used in an international context.  Blueboar (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? I cited international sources using "gun control". And that's just the tip of the iceberg. What sources use "Firearms regulations"? Let me Google.  Oh, I see.  The NRA uses "Firearms regulations"!  Is that what this is about? BTW, I get a mere 139,000 ghits for "Firearms regulations" and 24,000,000 for "gun control".  But people here want to go with the former?  Absurd.  --В²C ☎ 01:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you actually even look at the Japan Times that you cited above? Almost every article in the section you linked to is about the US, which is precisely why we're having this discussion.  And why did you cite a story by Newsmax above?  They can't even be used as a WP:RS on Wikipedia. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't being picky. There are a plethora of international examples, including solid ones, like the BBC one I provided. This idea that "gun control" is a Yank term is poppycock. --В²C ☎ 02:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is currently too US centric. “Control” is a US favoured term, but is widely used. The article’s current title is too easily confused with Gun law in the United States. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It has been widely used (but is in declining use) with a very specific meaning which does not correspond to the scope of this article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NPOVNAME point no. 2: "Gun control" is the euphemistic jargon of the anti-gun lobby (see major sources below; even they've started abandoning it as "loaded", "with baggage", and "politically charged"), and we clearly have a neutral, encyclopedic alternative, firearms regulation (firearms policy and gun policy would also work). Firearm owners rarely use the term gun control except in sarcastic "scare quotes", because it's misleading propaganda: the explicit aim of the other side is to prohibit all firearms other than for the military, the police, and under certain circumstances some private security, not to put some "controls" on private firearm ownership, possession, licensure, and use. People who keep saying "because WP:COMMONNAME" do not understand WP:AT policy at all. COMMONNAME (WP:UCRN) is not one of the WP:CRITERIA; it is simply the default possible name to test against the actual criteria and the rest of AT policy, and overarching policies like WP:NPOV, to see if we should use it, and in this case it badly fails NPOVNAME.  It also fails WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:PRECISE, because this article is about firearms regulation, while the people who actually use the term "gun control" as part of their daily vocabulary do not mean that, they mean "incremental steps on the road to a total ban on individual firearm ownership".  It's a different topic, quite literally.  That is, we need a separate article on the gun-banning movement. When both the far right and the far left, in reliable sources, say that "gun control" is a non-neutral term (see proof in RS below), we're making a mistake in using it on WP as if it's not.
 * Oppose per common name Red Slash 01:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - matches the scope of the current article, and is WP:NPOV (one of the Five Pillars policies which supersede guidelines like WP:COMMONNAME). Also, "gun control" is what you do to keep from shooting yourself in the foot. -- Netoholic @  06:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.  CookieMonster755 ✉  00:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Both names have claims and neither is demonstrably more appropriate than the other, in which case the status quo should remain. Political connotations of one should not be a reason to avoid using it as the article name. Shadow007 (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Further comment After looking at this all more closely I now Strongly Oppose. The article is mainly about the restriction on the ownership of guns/firearms, not the overall laws/regulations governing guns/firearms. Numerous articles exist on the latter topic starting with Overview of gun laws by nation and descending down to country specific articles. Renaming this page would offend WP:NPOV and WP:EUPHAMISM. Shadow007 (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Gun control is about gun... control. The only people who would see that as a "bad" thing are people opposed to gun control, so it's not an NPOV name. It doesn't obfuscate the topic.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose: Honestly, I'm surprised this hasn't been closed yet, but, hey, I'll weigh in. While the terminology used may be different in other cultures and other languages, per the English Wikipedia (which, in this case, must be the controlling language), given that the vast majority of discussion is both in English and around United States law, I must oppose any changes to the terminology in English, especially an egregious one as "gun control" to "firearms regulation", as the latter can be correctly seen as a subset of the former; while the interchangeability of the former into the latter is a semantic matter only. In short, "gun control" encompasses "firearms regulation", among other things; and the reverse is not necessarily true. (For example, banning high-capacity magazines is not so much the regulation of firearms as it is the regulation of ammunition, but both are still "gun control", not "firearms regulation".) Now, while I wouldn't exactly have an issue if the terms translated weren't exactly, shall we say, pinpoint accurate, in English, "gun control" is both the standard and common terminology. That's all. -- Javert2113 (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. In Canada it is referred to as Gun laws in Canada and Australia its Gun laws in Australia.  In the European Union, which is made up of more than 500 million people, it's referred to as the European Firearms Directive.  Within English speaking countries in the EU we have Firearms policy in the United Kingdom and Firearms legislation in Ireland. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL. I hope the closer has the spine to completely disregard these &gt;ahem&lt; counterfactual oppose comments, and those making them for disrupting RM with PoV-pushing nonsense.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Frankly, if anyone was guilty of "disrupting RM with PoV-pushing nonsense", it was probably the user who described the current title as "the euphemistic jargon of the anti-gun lobby" and baselessly asserted that supporters of gun control ultimately want "to prohibit all firearms other than for the military, the police, and under certain circumstances some private security". Every morning   (there's a halo...)  21:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per COMMONNAME - It's commonly referred to as such so as such we should follow suit. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: Is it time to close this discussion? It's been open for almost two weeks, and it appears that there's not a consensus to rename the article, so it should be left as "Gun control".  Some interesting opinions have been posted supporting the rename, but there are at least as many posts opposing the rename.  Not that we're voting, or anything. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Close it as "No consensus." -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion
Aside: Even "gun nuts" support some actual regulations, except those among them so alarmed by the gun-banners' lies that they reflexively oppose all regs on the grounds that it's part of a gun-banner plot. It almost always actually is – "you're not paranoid if they really are out to get you" – but most reasonable gun owners are perfectly fine with the ideas of a) not having dangerous felons and sociopaths/schizos running around with guns, b) not having untrained people wandering around with guns in public, and c) conceding on sane regulations to the anti-gun crowd as a PR move, as long as the giving of the inch doesn't turn into the taking of a mile.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You're saying [in original Comments-section post] that gun rights advocates don't use the term "gun control". I think they do use it, pretty commonly.  To illustrate, here are two recent examples where Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, used the term: this one is from the NRA web site, last October, and this one is from Fox News, a few days ago. — Mudwater (Talk) 06:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * [sigh] Don't be so literal, please. Of course it has happened some time, somewhere that a "gun nut" has used the term without piling on loads of sarcasm, but this is uncommon. If you just Google it for five seconds you'll find out why; it's not like I'm making this up:    (some of the hits are false positives for criticism of "assault rifle" and some other things, found in proximity to the string "gun control" which I was searching on).  Some "Ah, ha! I found some gun advocates using it without commentary" examples cannot erase the fact that firearms-rights people have written frequently and at length about how "gun control" is a misleading, biased, or outright dishonest label. That's what we call sources. There are lots of mainstream ones. Interestingly, some of them that write primarily for the left are reporting that gun-control advocates themselves have realized that term is considered to have loaded "baggage" and to be "politically charged", and have been abandoning it.  They get too much flak from their opposition when they use it, enough that it's had an effect on public perception.  They're still not coming out and saying "gun ban" in most cases, and are instead moving to ever more misleading circumlocutions like "gun-violence legislation" and "reducing gun violence". E.g., here's NPR on the matter, and here's The Atlantic on it . This isn't even new, but going back to at least 2013. The left's "gun control" rhetoric has been credibly claimed to have actually caused increases in gun sales because pro-gun people translate it as "gun-banning maneuvers"; The New York Times commented on this quite recently  That NYT piece is worth reading in its entirety, as it's proof that more rational people, who understand that gun violence in the US is cultural problem, can come up with ideas that make more sense that gun-ban obsessive pseudo-liberals' "KILL THE NRA"  attitude (and you can bet  inspiring more gun sales, since it proves in the minds of many gun owners that self-defense is a more legitimate need now than a week ago). It does have one misleading thing in it, though, the claim that private firearms being used to stop crimes is "rare" (the author backs this up with "in 2012 there were [only] 259 justifiable homicides by a private citizen using a firearm". What? He wants to see more people get shot?  He's of course leaving out that there are hundreds of thousands to 3 million (depending on whose stats you like) crimes stopped per year by armed Americans simply by brandishing and without firing a shot. This utterly dwarfs the level of gun-involved violent crime (see gunfacts.org for stats; cites its own sources, and includes material that's not flattering to the pro-gun side, though I think the owner of the site is probably pro-gun; it's not a reliable source itself, but what is cites are RS).  PS: Just to be clear, I'm an anti-authoritarian constitutionalist, not a gun-nut (I own no firearms), a progressive on modern social issues (except when alleged progressives call for something illiberal and unconstitutional), a classical liberal (non-leftist) on broader ones, and a fiscal centrist with general scorn for both major US political parties, so I'm neither left nor right. I generally reject that entire political axis as a grossly muddled morass of "see how irrationally indoctrinated I am" junk-waving.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2018
In section entitled "other countrys" change missleading information on Brazil gun control laws to a more realiable one. The reference used in the article shows that homicides rates indeed reduced for a little while, but it increased later, making Brazil #1 in absolute homicide rate worldwide (see wikipedia itself on link above to check this info), with more people dying from murder than by car accidents. Pedromcs (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

unofficial resource list http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/en/geral/noticia/2017-10/brazil-breaks-record-number-homicides-2016 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/01/29/months-before-rio-olympics-murder-rate-rises-in-brazil/#47bc922b2790 http://theconversation.com/brazils-biggest-problem-isnt-corruption-its-murder-78014 https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/10-of-World-Homicides-Are-in-Brazil-Most-Are-Young-and-Black-20170614-0047.html http://www.latimes.com/world/brazil/la-fg-ff-brazil-crime-20150522-story.html

official government resource list http://www.ipea.gov.br/atlasviolencia/download/2/2017
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: The cites offered demonstrate that homicide rates have increased but that's not what the article claims. The article claims that deaths and hospitalizations from guns specifically declined in the time period indicated and this is supported by the cites.  Overall homicides includes homicides from guns, obviously, but also includes beatings, stabbings, etc.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2018
I would like to add more recent events and thought from others such as the parkland survivors Bigmilkman (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2018 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

2013 CDC Study Rand Study
Neither the 2013 CDC study or the 2018 Rand Study are cited in the article both present contradictory views with regard to studies piece:

CDC report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June 2013: 1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker: “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.” 2. Defensive uses of guns are common: “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.” 3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining: “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.” 4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results: “Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.” 5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime: “There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).” 6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime: “More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.” 7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides: “Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

The Rand Study Released in 2018: Key Findings Despite Modest Scientific Evidence, the Data Support a Few Conclusions 1. Of more than 100 combinations of policies and outcomes, surprisingly few have been the subject of methodologically rigorous investigation. Notably, research into four of the outcomes examined was essentially unavailable at the time of the review, with three of these four outcomes representing issues of particular concern to gun owners or gun industry stakeholders. 2. Available evidence supports the conclusion that child-access prevention laws, or safe storage laws, reduce self-inflicted fatal or nonfatal firearm injuries among youth, as well as unintentional firearm injuries or deaths among children. 3. There is moderate evidence that background checks reduce firearm suicides and firearm homicides, as well as limited evidence that these policies can reduce overall suicide and violent crime rates. There is moderate evidence that stand-your-ground laws may increase homicide rates and limited evidence that the laws increase firearm homicides in particular. 4. There is moderate evidence that violent crime is reduced by laws prohibiting the purchase or possession of guns by individuals who have a history of involuntary commitment to a psychiatric facility. There is limited evidence these laws may reduce total suicides and firearm suicides. 5. There is limited evidence that a minimum age of 21 for purchasing firearms may reduce firearm suicides among youth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llowens69 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Dana Loesch RfC
You are invited to participate in this RfC, which is about whether to include certain content about NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch being heckled offstage at a CNN town hall meeting on gun policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Offstage? Her statement that she made is talking about the event that occurred onstage.  This is what she said.  And it was over 5K people. I had to have a security detail to get out. I wouldn’t have been able to exit that if I did not have a private security detail. There were people rushing the stage and screaming ‘Burn her!’ And I came there to talk solutions.  Jake Tapper confirmed this.  The Miami New Times only shows videos offstage and misleads their readers to thinking that Loesch was talking about what happened offstage.  ViriiK (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding Content : A Timeline to be specific
Hello ... My name is Lori and I am tasked with editing a Wikipedia page for a class I am taking at UCSC. My topic is gun control so this was not an easy place to add or edit content. There is so much information on here that I was worried I could not contribute. What I did not see was a timeline for gun legislation so I am going to go that route. I dont see any discussion on this specifically but I am also brand new a this. Any helpful hints or advice is also greatly appreciated. Please let me know if there is any issue with adding a timeline to this page. Thank you!Loriiles (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Rough draft- gun control debate
Mass shooting have become an epidemic in the United States and these horrific events occur every couple of months at schools, concerts, churches and many other public places. Since the shooting at Columbine High School, there have been more than 187,000 children exposed to gun violence. This exposure has occurred during school hours and on school campuses. Public support for gun control has increased over the last several years. According to a study conducted by Quinnipiac University, roughly sixty percent of Americans support stricter gun laws. Additionally, sixty-seven percent of Americans support the ban on assault rifles. Some of the biggest support that has caused this shift are groups such as independent voters, men and Caucasian individuals with no college degree. These groups have not supported gun control in the past. The American Medical Association is also continuing to apply pressure to congress to fund gun control research. Since the government is not currently funding gun control research, several academic institutions are performing research on small teams. For example, the state of California has shown that through funding and stricter gun laws that gun violence has decreased. Between 1993 and 2016, there was over $135 million dollars raised for violence prevention and it helped reduce youth homicide rates by more than 50%. Additionally, the the statistics surrounding gun control between The United States of America and other wealthy countries are staggering. There are roughly 650 million civilian owned guns in the world and nearly forty-eight percent of these guns are owned by Americans. Furthermore, America makes up less than five percent of the world’s population, but we hold over thirty percent of the mass shooters (Fox, K., 2018). As Americans, we are one of the only wealthy countries that does not have strict gun laws and we have the largest amount of mass shootings. Following the same cycle of “mourning and moving on” has become the status quo and it is unacceptable. We need stricter gun laws because children should never have to grow up in a society where mass shootings are considered the norm. Fox, K. (2018, March 9). How US gun culture compares with the world in five charts. Retrieved from: https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html 2601:280:C500:1433:740C:F0CC:34B3:3A5B (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2018
line 63 is confusing, 64 states the same thing. one of them should be deleted 207.163.34.85 (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you please be more specific? Wikipedia does not use line numbers, and line count varies with the width of the display.  I reread the first ~100 lines of the article without finding any duplicates that seem to match what you say.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2018 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 13:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Addition re. Canada with cherry picked facts
I see problems with your recent addition to this article:

"In 2016, there were 223 firearm‑related homicides, 44 more than the previous year. This represents a rate of 0.61 per 100,000 population, a 23% increase from the rate in 2015 and the highest rate since 2005. The higher number and rate of firearm‑related homicides is due to increases in all firearm types, with the exception of sawed‑off rifles or shotguns. "

My primary concern is that the statement is poorly worded and, for me, grossly misleading: When I initially read that statement, it sounded like there has been a substantial increase in the number of firearms in Canada, which generated an increase in the number of firearm homicides. The source refers the reader to their "Table 5". After studying that, it becomes clear that the author was merely saying that there were increases in the numbers of homicides by all types of firearms except "sawed-off rifles and shotguns." With that clarification, this seems such a minor point that it seems inappropriate for this article. It would more likely be a reasonable addition to the article on Gun laws in Canada, though I'm not sure about that.

Accordingly, I'm reverting that addition.

If you feel something from that report merits inclusion here, could you please discuss it on this Talk page before (or concurrent with) making such an addition?

The ultra right claims that Wikipedia is written by liberals and therefore is not to be trusted. For me at least, the paragraph I'm deleting uses imprecise language that seems to support that conservative claim. DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

According to recent studies [which?']
I'm reverting your addition of "Although according to studies, gun control would not work due to the 100 million guns currently in circulation. It would take too long to get most of them, so the US would take too long to restrict gun policies. This is according to recent studies."


 * 1) You need to cite the "recent studies".
 * 2) Your comments are excessively vague.  For example, why would it matter how many guns are currently in circulation?  And what do you mean, "It would take too long"?

DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Replying to your comment
@DavidMCEddy I’m sorry that I couldn’t sore the research. There are in fact 100 million guns in circulation, which would destroy the whole idea of gun control in the United States. If we were to control guns in the US, it would take years to fully control guns in the USA. You have to realize that this site is for pure editing purposes and facts. People want to know how or even if we can institute gun control. Dmaty63 (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that the number of guns in circulation in the US is large and is a problem. I also agree that it will take years to "fully control guns in the USA."  I further agree that Wikipedia is for facts.  In particular, Wikipedia policy requires editors to cite "reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered."  Wikipedia is NOT for advocacy.
 * I believe that one of the biggest problem driving the large number of guns in circulation in the US today is the common belief that the US got freedom and democracy, liberty and justice for all from the violence of the American Revolution. In The Great American Paradox, I document my claim that it didn't happen that way.
 * By the way, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and does not accept original research. Wikiversity, by contract, accepts original research.  If you have sources that seem relevant to the discussion in The Great American Paradox, you are welcome to modify that article as appropriate.  If you have concerns but no sources, you can voice those on the companion "Discuss" page.  DavidMCEddy (talk)

Citations -- The Atlantic
I noticed that 'The Atlantic' is cited as evidence 3 times in the article. Given that this is a more of a American political magazine rather than research or a verified source of facts, should this source be used to cite information under general the "studies" section of the article? Seanjaelee (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes. In fact, on Wikipedia, citing a magazine article about research is preferable to citing the research itself.  "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."  For a full explanation of this, see No original research. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand that policy, but I think the the judgment of which "secondary sources" are "reliable" and even maybe "published" can sometimes be contested. I'd like also to see the primary source as well as the secondary that mentions it.  I say that, because sometimes the primary source doesn't exist, or is a blatant fraud or is misrepresented.  The role of Judith Miller (and others like her) in stampeding the "Coalition of the Willing" into invading Iraq in 2003 comes to mind.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Studies -> United States
I just added some info and a supporting cite to this section. In doing that, I noticed that all of the studies in the Cross-sectional studies section seem to be specifically about gun control. The study which I added info about is about the relationship between firearm ownership and violent crime, not specifically about gun control. I noticed this while trying to reorganize the run-on paragraph in that section of the article into a bulleted chronological list, so I abandoned that reorganization and just left the info on that study where I had added it. Improve this as may be appropriate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Since the article is specifically about gun control, then it is not unexpected that all of the studies included are regarding gun control. The study you added is not about specific gun control initiatives or legislation, so it's not appropriate to the article - for the reason I described. I've removed it. Anastrophe (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, however, that the oversized paragraph with all the study info badly needs reworking into manageable paragraphs. Dunno if I'll be able to get to it today though. Anastrophe (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Why is there no History section?
I noticed that the history of gun control is not mentioned any where on the wiki. I would like to suggest an edit encompassing the history of gun control, its primary advocates, and why it was done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.DonDraper1 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carterr829.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shalviya.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 February 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DaniloHelber. Peer reviewers: DaniloHelber.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 18 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Ymarq013.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Request edit
"Possession of handguns by country" map

This map is incorrect in regards to Great Britain. In Great Britain it is possible for civilians to acquire any kind of handgun as long as the handgun has some historical, personal or mechanical significance to the collector. It would be reasonable to recolour GB to light red, or even light red and yellow, as this is an exception to the general prohibition. To put it simply: handguns can still be owned for the purpose of collection but not sport. The other exceptions are with antiques, which may be owned without any kind of licence, and muzzle loading handguns including modern muzzle loading handguns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gubkab (talk • contribs) 12:09, April 17, 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting this. Information needs to be sourced on Wikipedia. Do you have a reference that verifies the above information? If you have any questions, please go to the WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:HELPDESK. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Chapter 9 of the document: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1042069/Firearms_Guide_17122021.pdf specifically details this exemption.
 * "Section 5 of the 1968 Act prohibits any firearm which either has a barrel less than
 * 30cm in length or is less than 60cm in length overall. Prohibited weapons can only
 * be possessed with the authority of the Secretary of State. However, section 7 of the
 * 1997 Act provides an exemption for ownership of certain classes of historic
 * handguns by private individuals providing certain conditions are met" Gubkab (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2022
Graph above citation 35 shows firearm related homicides in developed nations comparing to the USA. How is one to know that this evidence has not been cherry-picked from 35 developed countries with especially low homicide rates to deliberately advance the author’s narrative? What criteria is used to establish a “developed nation?” This figure and the data used to generate it smacks of an inappropriate level of bias 162.255.58.189 (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * CNN, the source cited for the graph, cites the UN Country Classification in turn.  This lists 36 countries it classifies as 'developed'. I think it is safe to assume that the UN didn't concoct this classification in order to bias one later specific use of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it, got 'd. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It's from the source cited. Note: Developed countries are defined based on the UN classification, which includes 36 countries.This is the UN definition. The graph is basically a recreation of the graph in the source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)