Talk:Gun violence/Archive 3

RfC: Should the firearm homicide table in Gun Violence include columns of non-gun-related homicides?
Is the inclusion of general homicide data, implemented with other than guns, warranted in the table of gun-related homicides by country for an article on gun violence? Yaf (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(Those being directed here as a result of the RfC may wish to be aware that the change in dispute flowed from some earlier discussions on this talk page in the two previous sections. The reason for the change and the reasons for opposing it are therefore discussed in these two earlier sections) as well as at the NPOV Noticeboard here


 * Comment This RfC isn't neutrally worded. The information is clearly relevant and not simply "general homicide data". Of course it should be included. The choice is between these two versions: Without Context and With context Verbal   chat  19:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And, yet, the so-called "With context" version table is titled "Intentional firearm homicides by country", yet tabulates, on the far right, the total homicide rate due to all causes per country, pushing up the apparent number committed with guns, per the title of the table, in a clear attempt to scare readers into believing that very large numbers of citizens are killed with guns, when the case for many countries is that very few are killed with guns. The inclusion of such high, non-gun-related, homicide data clearly pushes a scary POV that is patently false. It would be best to keep out the POV pushing, and simply report the facts relative to gun violence homicide, not homicide violence in general that is misascribed to guns. Yaf (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's your objection? I credit readers with the ability to read. Verbal   chat  19:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I've come here in response to the RfC. I think a case can be made that the single-column version of the table provides too little context, while the four-column version provides too much superfluous information. I would suggest a solution with an intermediate format: two columns. The first would be the column that is in the short version of the table, and the second would be the percent value from the first column of the long version. In other words, the first two columns of the long version, switched in order -- the rate per 100K population, followed by the percent of all homicides -- but without going into the data on all those other types of homicides. I hope that is helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see an argument for dropping one of the columns, but not both, as it provides useful and interesting context. 3 of the four would be a good compromise. Verbal   chat  19:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I intended two as a compromise, and I really do not see much value added by a third. Give the statistics on gun homicides, the direct topic of the page, and give the percentage of all homicides for context, and that should do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree with this.--Hauskalainen (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, because the % figure is not in the table but derived from the two sets of data that are in the source (rate of all homicides and rate of firearm homicides) I think 3 columns should be in the table as otherwise one could question where the % figure is in the source. I do noth think that this data could confse anyone. The non-firearm homicide rate is, I agree, superfluous.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I could live with this (two columns presentation) as well, as it removes any chance of readers confusing the non-related total homicide data for homicides committed with other than guns from being associated with gun violence. This would remove the POV issue that I see.  Yaf (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The "totals" column can be regenerated by any user with a simple calculator, but I see no reason for the non-firearm information to be censored. As others have noted above, it provides a good context for understanding the figures--are all sorts of violence high?  Do firearms restrictions simply "squeeze the balloon" into non-gun homicides? Is every country with high firearm violence rate the same?  Actually, population density (which is often strongly associated with crime) might be another column to consider adding.  Naked homicide firearm homicide rates without context are indiscriminate info. Jclemens (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No intent to censor. The non-gun-related violence should be moved to Violence.  How does including all sorts of violence that is unrelated to guns fall within the topic of this article, that is entitled Gun violence?  Should we also include stats for the number of people killed in elephant attacks, too, being that is violence,and many elephant riders historically carried Howdah pistols when riding in Howdahs?  It makes about as much sense to include these unrelated data, too, as to include homicide data for people killed with baseball bats, vehicular attacks, and whatnot, that is included in the total homicide column you favor including. Calling "staying on topic" censorship does not seem a fair assessment.  Yaf (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You distract deliberately from the issue. The article does not talk about other instruments of homicide. The level of gun homicides has to be seen in its context as an element of all homicides. A gun may be an instrument of death but it may also have been an instrument of choice. Revealing the percetage of homicides are comitted with a gun tells us a little more than we would otherwise have known about the overall level of homicide in that country and the role of the gun in that. I find it hard to think of any reason other than censorship why you and User:Anastrophe would not want that data included. --Hauskalainen (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I do not distract deliberately from the issue. But, as you note, the article does not talk about all types of homicide. -- Including data for all types of homicides in the table, though, would distract readers. --  I simply do not want readers to associate all homicides with gun violence, when they clearly are not.  The percentage of homicides committed with a gun would be fine to add; but putting all homicides into a table labeled "Intentional firearm homicides by country" as a far-right column forces a reader to study the table to discover that, no, the table does not tabulate on the far right column all gun related homicides, but rather that the table was apparently intended to scare readers into thinking more homicides were committed with guns than is the actual fact.  The two column proposal by Tryptofish (above) seems to address this POV concern.  Gun-related data is fine for inclusion in the table.  Misleading readers scanning the table quickly into believing that the total number of gun-related homicides is listed on the rightmost column, when it really was tabulating homicides of all types, would be an actual distraction with the intent to deceive readers. We, as editors, can do better than that, avoiding misconceptions of understanding of the article for readers.  Yaf (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi, I'm here in response to the RFC.  As this is a very long talk page, I have read only the section about the RFC—if there is a thread that addresses what I am about to say, please refer me to it.
 * User:Yaf has one legitimate concern that is very easily fixed. The four-column version as it stood could have contributed to a reader's misunderstanding by making it look like the final number was a gun homicide rate.  This is fixed with a simple formatting change, pulling the final subhead up into a head.  In other words, the "Overall homicide rate per 100,000 pop." should not be under the "Intentional firearm homicides by country" head, but adjacent to it.  The information is necessary for contextual understanding of the primary data, but it must be properly formatted.
 * I take User:Jclemens' point about "squeezing the balloon", but the article currently is deficient in presenting any data on which countries have gun restrictions, so how can we know where there is any squeezing going on? We cannot expect readers merely to presume that if gun homicides are low relative to non-gun or overall homicides, this is the result of restrictions.  (How low is low?)  While I'm not up on the variances of gun restrictions, this would be improved by a column with a few lines of text addressing the gun laws of each country.
 * One thing puzzles me. In the four-column version, why don't the gun homicides per 100,000 and the non-gun homicides per 100,000 add up to the total homicides per 100,000?  Sometimes the number of total homicides is less than the gun and non-gun homicides combined.  Sometimes vandals get in and change things up, but am I wrong to intuit that in each case the final number should be the sum of the prior two?  Abrazame (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The previous 2 sections to some extent also cover this deletion and what caused it. It began because of a different edit problem and the argument regarding that edit was stretched to apply (wrongly IMHO) to the edit that went for RfC. Regarding the various columns, the overall and firearm homicide figures come from the source. The non-firearm homicide and the and the % homicides with a gun column are derived data, which is allowed. I guess that would be one reason for keeping the overall homicide rate but I agree that the non-gun homicide rate could be dropped. I will leave that for Yaf to do as he is so insistent that it be removed. Perhaps he can check the numbers from the source if he has time. Two of the columns should add together to equal the third so if there are errors they should be be easy to track down.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

←I agree that moving one column to be adjacent would work, but removing the columns entirely until someone does that is not acceptable. The RfC was clearly against the removal of this data. Verbal  chat  15:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Have removed the unrelated data column, per the consensus above. Yaf (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a misrepresentation of consensus. Your edit is not supported by the RfC. I suggest you look again and cease your WP:TE. Verbal   chat  16:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support four-column version. Information about the overall homicide rate in a country is relevant and interesting context for evaluating the firearm homicide rate.  Sandstein   13:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Population density issue

 * With SaltyBoatr's reintroduction of the extreme POV to mislead readers into thinking all homicides are committed with guns, have added a label to alert readers to the problem. Yaf (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no "extreme POV" being added. Please see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL which I have already pointed you to. The RfC is clearly against the changes you are making, hence you are editing against consensus. Verbal   chat  16:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * SaltyBoatr, and Verbal, why did you put (and support) the statement that population density is the determining factor, when the cited reference clearly makes the case that it is gang membership that is the issue, not population density? This sure as H*** looks like insertion of extreme POV to me. And, why the false accusations of WP:NPA, etc., for wanting this article to be NPOV?  Yaf (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yaf, I cannot make sense of the specifics of your complaint. I understand you are hot and upset. Please focus and give a specific description of the wording in the article that you feel has an inappropriate POV tone relative to the "population density issue". And, please point to some reliable sourcing that shows a neutral tone as to "population density issue" so we may compare the article wording neutrality tone to the reliable sourcing neutrality tone. Your detailed response giving these two specifics is needed to proceed to resolution of this dispute. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Two issues are at play here:


 * Point 1: You reverted against the consensus on the RfC above, to put in total homicide data in a column under a table labeled as being related to firearm homicides, only.  This has the POV problem of implying that guns are involved in all homicides, when they clearly are not.
 * Point 2: You inserted, "Population density can help explain these differences, and studies may restrict comparisons to similar areas to avoid misleading conclusions. ".  Yet, the cited article mentions "population density" only once in the entire document, and then only in passing.  The bigger issue discussed at length in the cited document was gang violence.  The wording you replaced was, "Gang violence in urban areas can help explain these differences, and studies should restrict comparisons among similar areas to avoid misleading conclusions. "  What is your rationale for replacing "gang violence" with "population density"?  Is it to push a POV that ethnic gangs and their actions, whether criminal or not, are always justified, and are not an issue?  This edit  certainly looks like a POV push.
 * Taken together, the two issues with your edit looks like an extremely strong POV push. Yaf (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * References:


 * You neglected to mention any reliable sourcing that indicates a neutral point of view and instead still cling to your personal point of view. I understand your questions about the Department of Justice source, though it hardly seems controversial.  A quick look at other reliable sourcing reveals a connection between housing density and population density and violence rates.  See the book: Violence in American schools by Elliott, Hamburg and Williams published by Published by Cambridge University Press, page 133 ISBN 9780521644181.  This talk page discussion can not succeed if you continue to argue for a personal opinion without you revealing your sources.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not neglect to mention reliable sourcing. You deleted the references in this talk page commentary!  Click on the links, and you will see the reference.  The cited reference claim you added for "population density" as the reason fails fact checking, if you will but click on the D*** reference that you inserted into the article.  There is no personal point of view at issue here; stop the false accusations.  Just look at the reference for the statement that you put into the article for the cite that you put in;  the cited reliable source reference doesn't say "population density" is the issue, but, rather, that "gang violence" is the issue.  If you want to add other sources for population density, too, that would be fine.  But, don't claim a cite says something it does not.  You have been repeatedly warned about sticking to the sources.  This is but another example of you failing to stick to the sources.  Yaf (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I dispute your personal smear aimed at me. Do you dispute that the book published by Cambridge University Press in the ref I added is not reliable?  Or, not neutral?  If your dispute remains in light of this new ref, please explain your present position, or please remove your NPOV tag.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dispute all you want, the evidence is here. As for the reference you added, that is to another sentence, entirely.  It looks fine, but I admit that I haven't yet looked at that source to verify whether you are sticking to the sources or not.  Should I be looking at it, too?  No, the issue is with the last sentence in this same paragraph.  The source you added for it doesn't make the claim you are trying to support; it doesn't verify the article text you added, as US Dept. of Justice: Reducing Gun Violence: Operation Ceasefire in Los Angeles, Feb. 2005 doesn't make the case that population density is the issue as you wrote in the last sentence of the paragraph here.  Rather, it makes the case that gang violence is the issue.  Stop with the stonewalling and address the issue; don't go off on tangents and try to elicit misplaced sympathies as an "aggrieved editor". You are a more experienced editor than that.  Yaf (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ignoring your personal attack. I have provided reliable sourcing that links dense urban housing patterns with gun violence.  Your dispute now appears moot.  This claim is now sourced.  Please remove your POV tag. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is not sourced. You are simply ignoring the issue with doubletalk.  As I have stated again and again, the second point POV pushing issue I have identified is with the following sentence that you added:  Population density can help explain these differences, and studies may restrict comparisons to similar areas to avoid misleading conclusions. .  No, it is not population density that matters, according to this source you added to this sentence, a sentence it is worth noting that is one that you also added.  This source instead claims that the issue is gang membership/gang violence, not population density.  Do you not yet understand what the POV issue is?  Namely, you have switched what the source says is the issue, from gang membership/gang violence to population density, apparently based upon your personal view that gang membership is not ever the problem, but, rather, the problem is always simply a matter of population density.  This is Original Research, when the source that you added makes no such claim.  You are not sticking to the sources, here.  Yaf (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then a small wording change should fix things. Certainly, it is well sourced that dense urban housing patterns are linked with gun violence.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I finally just fixed the problem, with my attempt to communicate failing miserably. The article text is now verified by the source, unlike before. I also removed the POV tagline, as the problem is now fixed. Yaf (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

May I point out that it is really silly to use Singapore as a comparison to the USA in terms of gun crime. In Singapore, possession of firearms alone is punishable by death. Of course, this excludes the Police, Armed Forces and other personnel authorized to carry them. However the point is that not even the hardiest or most cunning criminal in Singapore will be able to gain possession of the firearm easily. The coastlines are well patrolled, ditto for the airport and land links with Malaysia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.182.88 (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding two sections: Assaults and Robberies w/Firearms and Costs
I would like to expand this article to include two additional sections: "Assaults and Robberies with Firearms" and a "Associated Costs of Gun Violence" section. The definition of gun violence, "use of a firearm to threaten or inflict violence or harm", I believe includes assaults and robberies, therefore I think it needs a section with additional information mirroring that of homicides and suicides. I would also like to add a costs section that identifies findings on financial and psychological costs associated with gun violence. If anyone has any comments or suggestions, please add to this discussion. JHanmer (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

UK stats far too old
Gun violence has rocketed in the UK after the pistol ban on legal owners (which indicates that the problem does not lie with legally-owned weapons but illegally-obtained ones) and the article's stats do not reflect the reality, reported violent gun crimes in 2011 were 11,277.Twobells (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The gun violence in the UK dropped massively again and the homicide rate is now (since 2007) even lower than in the article's stats. --88.78.126.217 (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Table column "may own guns" is inaccurate
New Zealand is listed as "may own guns": no, with citation 29, but checking the reference, it refers to guaranteed right to own guns. In New Zealand private citizens may own guns, but they must hold a firearms license, and it is conditional on a criminal background check. Simply stating "no" implies that private ownership is forbidden, where-as it is controlled. I suspect some of the other countries that have the same citation, the situation is similar. I would suggest having three values, guaranteed, controlled, and outlawed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.5.53 (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The same was previously the case with the listings for Ireland and England & Wales in the table. A "no" is also spuriously applied to Finland, which actually has very high levels of civilian gun ownership. I think the central issue is that gunpolicy.org is being used as a source incorrectly. The page linked to actually documents where, "private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law." This is clearly not the same thing as the table heading of, "Citizens may own guns." Nick Cooper (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Ownership of guns
I noticed that its says in the article that Colombian citizen may own guns, this is completly fake.

I imagine this mistake was made on other countries, please check — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.165.243.242 (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Table is worthless in current state
What is the point of having a table that only shows the data for a single year? Without being able to compare the data over multiple years, it's just a waste of space. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and it's also inaccurate. It has a section called "Citizens may own guns" which is full of nonsense. "Citizens" may actually own guns everywhere, it's the circumstances under which they can buy them that differ. People all over the world can own guns if they are licensed hunters, for example. Many countries also allow licensed  sport-shooters to own guns, too. And many countries allow it if the person can prove they are/feel in danger. Now if you're talking about going into a shop, asking for a gun and simply getting over the counter just by showing your ID (as in much of the US), that's something different; but some form of citizen gun ownership is allowed virtually everywhere in the world, albeit it is extremely restricted in many countries. I'm removing that part of the table.2A02:2F01:1059:F001:0:0:BC19:1A1B (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I removed the whole table, since parts of it are unsourced, and, except for the overall murder rates (sourced to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime whith the rates being from 12 years ago!!) when sourced, it used different sources, and for different years too. The table was also tagged.2A02:2F01:1059:F001:0:0:BC19:1A1B (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The missing table
The key table is missing. You know, the one with columns for the country and the number of fatal and nonfatal gun crimes per million population per year. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ugh... I see the obvious table did exist after all, and was removed by the single-purpose anon above without any real discussion. I have reinstated it. The table may need updating. There are bound to be issues with the varying quality of statistics from different countries. Just what is meant by "citizens may own guns" may need refining and some figures may not be properly sourced. But non of that warrants the draconian removal of the entire table. The table is a work in progress; it needs more work, that is all. The anon would have spent his time more constructively trying to find better sources than trying to suppress the entirety of this information. The point is to get the table as up to date as possible (it will always be going "out of date... it is still useful), and sourced as well as possible with the various complications and difficulties inherent in a table of this type set out as clearly as possible. Certainly there should be a column indicating the year the statistics apply to, and perhaps a comment field indicating any problems with the figures. The table needs more work, not a lazy deletion. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Overview of gun laws by nation:Arguments
''This (below) was in the Overview of gun laws by nation as the top of an Arguments section. It had been tagged Globalize since August 2010. Suggest we glean and incorporate material where appropriate.''

Several studies have examined the correlations between rates of gun ownership and gun-related as well as overall homicide and suicide rates within various jurisdictions around the world.

Martin Killias, in a 1993 study covering 21 countries, found that there were substantial correlations between gun ownership and gun-related suicide and homicide rates. There was also a substantial though lesser correlation between gun ownership and total homicide rates. A later 2001 Killias study, reported that while there was a strong correlation between gun-related homicide of women and gun-related assaults against women; this was not the case for similar crimes against men and that "Interestingly, no significant correlations with total suicide or homicide rates were found, leaving open the question of possible substitution effects." This study indicates correlation, but no causality. That is to say it could mean that the easier access to guns lead to more violence, or it could mean that larger amounts of violence lead to a higher level of gun ownership for self-defense, or any other independent cause.

A study by Rich et al. on suicide rates in Toronto and Ontario and psychiatric patients from San Diego reached the conclusion that increased gun restrictions, while reducing suicide-by-gun, resulted in no net decline in suicides, because of substitution of another method — namely leaping. Killias argues against the theory of complete substitution, citing a number of studies that have indicated, in his view "rather convincingly", that suicidal candidates far from always turn to another means of suicide if their preferred means is not at hand.

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Step 1 - for me anyway - I've added an External links section to the article and put these (four) references in it. Lightbreather (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources in lead
As I standardize the citations in this article, I will comment here about significant (IMO) findings.

1. The first sources in this article, which is supposed to be about international gun violence, is a definition by U.S. gun-rights advocate Dave Kopel, and a by-subscription piece (news article or opinion unclear) by Beaver County, Pennsylvania, "Times" staffer titled "Guns: A Right or a Societal Ill."

Also, 1994 gun violence statistics from Michigan, in an archived link, and a dead link to an "eNotes" homework help or study guide called "Gun control"? WTF!

Therefore, Suggestion 1. - Let's improve the lead paragraph of this article and its sources! Lightbreather (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a tip. The lede should be a summary of the entire article and does not really require sources in it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think that is the best - I don't like the lead cluttered up with footnotes and excessive links - but my observation has been that in articles about controversial subjects, they (sources) do tend to get put into the lead.
 * After I get all the existing lead sources properly formatted, with updated links where necessary, I will decide what to do with the actual material in the lead - based, of course, on what's in the article. Lightbreather (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Preserving some so-so sources
These were cited in the lead paragraph. Two are not very good quality and all are about US gun violence. Possibly useful elsewhere in article... or in the Gun violence in the US article?

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Citation standardization and improvements
I'm going to take a time-out from (possibly) incorporating the Killias and Krug violence studies material moved over from Overview of gun laws by nation to standardize the citations to WP:CS1 format, adding missing info (dates, authors, etc) where possible, and fix any dead links, where possible. Lightbreather (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Four days later and I think I've brought all the existing sources to WP:CS1 standards, improving where possible. (Some had bad URLs, or were missing authors, dates, titles - things like that.)
 * Overall impression: At least half (about 15?) of the 28 citations are more than 10 years old (from before 2004). Also, at least half is by U.S. researchers and/or about gun violence in the U.S. So... this article really needs some NPOV TLC, IMHO. LOL for the ABCs! Lightbreather (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Over coverage and Update tags
Having worked the last few days fleshing out citation details and putting then in WP:CS1 format, my observations are that 1. Half (about 15) of the 28 citations are more than 10 years old (from before 2004), and 2. At least half of the material is by U.S. researchers and/or about gun violence in the U.S. So... I have tagged the article Over coverage (USA) and several sections as needing updating. I've also added it to the Sociology WikiProject...

I only ended up here because of related articles that I'm working on, and I hope I can come back soon, but who knows. In the meantime, maybe some other good editors will give this article some love, too. Lightbreather (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I attempted to give this article some serious pruning a while back and was just berated and weasel worded into complacency. Please interject some common sense into this article... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Michael St. Clair quote inserted into lead
This was inserted into the lead:
 * "Many are steadfast on saying its guns causing the problems and are willing to rid of any firearm from the American Citizen."

I can't even find the source. It certainly isn't lead-worthy, and maybe not even good enough to include anywhere in the article - certainly not without better attribution.

--Lightbreather (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of two related RfCs and request for participation
There are two RfCs in which your participation would be greatly appreciated: Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * RfC re use of the term "assault weapon"
 * RfC re use of the term "high-capacity magazine"

Suicide material across articles
Working on the Suicide section of this article led me to the Firearms section of the Suicide methods article. One thing led to another and I ended up working on the Suicides involving firearms section of the Gun violence in the US article. There is some duplication among these articles. Also, some older material that can use updating. I will do the best I can to keep everyone updated on what I'm doing, but I'm saying right now: Assume Good Faith.

I would welcome a discussion about which of these is or should be the "main" article - if that's possible in this scenario. Lightbreather (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

IP address 66.199.44.249 made this edit today, with the edit summary, "not all research shows a relationship with suicide, stop removing relevant information." Don't know if this was aimed at me. Went back through my edits and can't see that I removed relevant info, or the source cited: "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9034462/" - a 1996 study of about 500 suicides/attempts - possibly all in New Zealand? (trying to get to more than the abstract).

Again, guys, please AGF, and ask questions here, if you have them. Lightbreather (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * First off, kudos to you for tracking and updating this information. My only concern would to please make the effort to word it so that it does not come across like a "how to guide". The last thing we need is Wikipedia being accused of assisting with suicides. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Likely Errors in Section: Costs of Gun Violence
The first paragraph is confusing. Although the first two sentences are related to the U.S., the last two sentences are surely not related to the U.S. The number of yearly handgun deaths in the U.S. is typically represented to be around 10,000. Accordingly, the rates given as 180,000 and 128,000 likely apply to a much larger cross section, possibly a study of many nations or perhaps the total world wide. I took a brief look at the references, but in my brief look did not identify the specific source of those rates. The two sentences in question are as follows: "Assault by firearm resulted in 180,000 deaths in 2013 up from 128,000 deaths in 1990. There were 47,000 unintentional firearm deaths in 2013."

BillinSanDiego (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You are right that the latter figures are global. They come from the World Health Organization–sponsored Global Burden of Disease database. I will go see about clarifying the contexts (US and world). — ¾-10 22:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"More Guns, Less Crime" - lacks citation, has been debunked
I don't believe ending the "Robbery and assault" section with:

Hemenway's figures are disputed by other academics, who assert there are many more defensive uses of firearms than criminal uses. See John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime".

is informational. First of all, there is no citation from Lott's work. Second, using it as a counter-point is argumentative since Lott's work itself has been widely disupted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime#Opposition

I think the article either needs to refer to specific points which dispute Hemenway's figures or that the last sentence should be removed. As written, it's just vaguely contradicting without any support facts or evidence.

Inkless (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Mother Jones citation in summary introduction should be removed
This citation should be removed. Mother Jones is a media publication and should not be considered an unbiased credible source for studies. This is especially true considering this citation was placed in the introduction which should only contain established agreed upon facts. This citation could be added to pro gun control support section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeftThumbBreak (talk • contribs) 10:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Gun violence. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20151210170408/https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013 to https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is suicide considered "gun violence" other than political advocacy?
It would appear to me that calling suicide via firearm "gun violence" is a clear cut example of equivocation. If someone commits suicide via pill, is that pill violence? Are automobile accidents car violence? No. Thought the act of discharging a firearm can accurately be described as violent, that is a marked difference from the interpersonal actions that come to mind when the term violence is mentioned. This sort of equivocation is intentionally done as an appeal to emotion in order to scare the person addressed into thinking that there is a much larger interpersonal violence problem than actually exists. Indeed, in the US 2/3rds of firearms deaths are suicide, so calling this 'violence' in order to conjure the image of a crime epidemic serves no purpose other than to frighten the uninformed.

"Gun violence" thusly is a propaganda term when suicide is included. As such, I would suggest removing suicide from this entry or deleting it altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD98:4A20:31A5:3A81:CE3E:71F5 (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The definition of "violence" is broad enough to include self-harm:
 * the use of physical force to harm someone, 
 * as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation", 
 * Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
 * I can't answer for what "comes to mind" when you read a term, but the term "violence" is perfectly appropriate for death by firearm, regardless of who pulls the trigger. Felsic2 (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"Thoughts and prayers"
Page watchers may be interested in expanding Thoughts and prayers. Thanks, --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Misleading use of Metzl (source) in the section on gun violence in America
Metzl is cited in support of the claim that gun control advocates attribute most gun violence to mental illness. I would say that position is actually more common among gun advocates (not among gun control advocates), who repeatedly insist that it's the person, not the gun, that does the killing. Far more important than my own view, though, is that of Metzl, cited as a source in support of that claim. Metzl actually challenges a set of assumptions, including the common assumption that most gun violence can be attributed to mental illness. Metzl writes: "Each of these statements is certainly true in particular instances. Evidence strongly suggests that mass shooters are often mentally ill and socially marginalized. Enhanced psychiatric attention may well prevent particular crimes. And, to be sure, mass shootings often shed light on the need for more investment in mental health support networks or improved state laws and procedures regarding gun access. At the same time, the literatures we surveyed suggest that these seemingly self-evident assumptions about mass shootings are replete with problematic assumptions, particularly when read against current and historical literatures that address guns, violence, and mental illness more broadly. On the aggregate level, the notion that mental illness causes gun violence stereotypes a vast and diverse population of persons diagnosed with psychiatric conditions and oversimplifies links between violence and mental illness. Notions of mental illness that emerge in relation to mass shootings frequently reflect larger cultural issues that become obscured when mass shootings come to stand in for all gun crime and when “mentally ill” ceases to be a medical designation and becomes a sign of violent threat." Metzl can certainly be used as a source to document that such assumptions exist, but accurate use of Metzl would require also noting that Metzl problematizes those assumptions. Jk180 (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gun violence. 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://web.archive.org/web/20140628133647/http://www.suicidology.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=262&name=DLFE-636.pdf to http://www.suicidology.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=262&name=DLFE-636.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060920140145/http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Measures_of_Gun_Ownership_Levels_for_Macro-Level_Crime_and_Violence_Research.pdf to http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Measures_of_Gun_Ownership_Levels_for_Macro-Level_Crime_and_Violence_Research.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140211174006/http://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CCPCJ_session19/ACONF213_3eV1050608.pdf to http://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CCPCJ_session19/ACONF213_3eV1050608.pdf

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) 02:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Section on Australia is poorly written.
This reads like poor journalism rather than an encyclopedic entry. Australia was "reeling"? In whose opinion? RohanDavidson (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Could use some minor adjustment. But, it's probably not far off considering the rather dramatic response in Ozzyland at that time. O3000 (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Mother Jones citation in Prevention Section should be removed
Mother Jones is a media publication and not a credible unbiased source for data or studies. This can be moved to a gun control support opinion section if there is one added later.

I agree 100%. Incredibly odd that it is cited but not the study it supposedly reported on? RohanDavidson (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

There are many other citations that say that. I will add a different source.----Sue Maberry (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Contested project
The article includes a section Public health. This article belongs to Wikipedia, not to WP:GUNS. 173.165.99.23 (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've changed the header and removed the actual project since that is what I contested.
 * I don't believe a short subsection on public health is enough to justify adding this article to the medicine project, but I'll post this to WikiProject Medicine for more input. Meters (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the comment This article belongs to Wikipedia, not to WP:GUNS means. Meters (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Since there are four articles which are likely to have overlapping discussions, the discussions are being consolidated  at Talk:Gun violence in the United States.  Meters (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this to the attention of the WikiProject; sometimes a good-faith effort to help out means that things get mis-tagged.
 * As a matter of Wikipedia's rules, whether to tag this (or any) article as being supported by any group of editors is exclusively the decision of participants in that group. It doesn't matter if if seems "relevant" to the group's name.  The only thing that matters is whether the editors in that particular group want to support a particular article.  See WP:PROJSCOPE if you want to read the official rules.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)