Talk:Overview of gun laws by nation/Archive 5

section break

 * I have edited that passage for neutrality balance using a most reliable source, taking out the term Yaf finds pejorative. The Kruschke book, Gun Control - A Reference Handbook, which is written with a objective, neutral and balanced perspective.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "surveys" are routinely used to push POV's. all it takes is carefully crafted wording to 'game' the survey to reflect the desired result. pose the following to the same set of respondents, and you'll get very different results:
 * "do you support banning guns, which would take away your right to defend yourself, your home, and your children?"
 * "do you support banning guns, to stop the flow of blood in our streets and to protect our children from street violence?"
 * as well, pose the question to respondents in rural nebraska, then pose it to respondents in downtown san francisco. you'll get extremely varied responses between the two locales.
 * now, before we start adding a massive "everybody supports banning guns" POV push into the US section, perhaps we could have access to some of these poll questions, and their actual results? since the book isn't online, we're left in a position of taking another editor's word for it on a lot of extremely contentious claims. how about - just as you propose above - you post your proposed changes here, so the differences can be worked out in the article talk space before pushing them to the public article space? Anastrophe (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * what would be best would be to leave out the popularity contests, and acknowledge that opinions on gun control cover a wide spectrum, ranging from virtually no control to virtual ban. there are significant minority populations that hold to those, and many intermediate positions. there are legitimate, academic constitutional scholars who argue that the second amendment allows for only the base restrictions implicit in all the amendments - conferring upon adults, who are not mentally ill, and who are not criminals. similarly, there are legitimate, academic constitutional scholars who argue that the second amendment affords no individual right at all, and that banning guns is perfectly acceptable. Anastrophe (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Spare us your personal view in the article talk space. Your revert was made on the basis 'source questionable', please be specific. The author you are questioning is Earl R. Kruschke, Ph.D, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, California State University, Chico.  What is questionable about that source?   Have you read that book?  For a point of reference, I acknowledge my personal POV slant, and I find while reading that book I often take odds at his portrayal of the 'pro-gun' position.  That is a neutral and scholarly book.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets see. You take odds with an obviously inaccurate source, yet you still claim it is a "most reliable source". I am confused.  (Hint: A Poly Sci leftist at Chico is not likely to be a reliable source for both sides of this debate :-)  Taking his viewpoint as the dominant view in America is not a good way to balance the article and achieve NPOV.  Quoted for one side, OK.  But for both, it is not possible. Yaf (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * please provide an example survey question as used within the book to support the contention that "increasingly, the mood of the American public strongly supports limits on guns, such as the banning of handguns and military-type semi-automatic weapons, but also strongly opposes a full ban on guns used for hunting and sport, such as long guns." surely the book includes the poll questions? or is the author simply expressing an unsourced opinion within his book (which is not a scholarly, peer reviewed paper, i should note - please see your comments way above regarding how exceptional claims require exceptional sources.) Anastrophe (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I will try to assume good faith, in that if I answer your question you will respond in a collaborative way. Reading the book, (it would be helpful if you did so too, it is commonly available in libraries), Kruschke gives one example question on page 20:  "Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possssion of the handguns except by the police and other authorized persons?"  giving a footnote reference "George Gallup, Jr., The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 1993 (Willmington, DE: Scholarly Resources Inc., 1994), 50-51."  He goes on with considerable detail on Page 21 citing perhaps a dozen examples of polling data, plus demographic analysis, from Gallup and Time Inc. on this topic.  This book source qualifies as a solid 'most reliable' neutral scholarly source, certainly meeting the 'exceptional' standard.  Your quick revert without even reading the source is disappointing.  Can we actually collaborate here?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * here's a more contemporary poll: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/23/opinion/polls/main2718866.shtml 33% favor a ban on sale of all handguns. 64% oppose. banning handguns is quite obviously and significantly not a majority viewpoint. the poll is from a reliable source, and is less than one year old. Anastrophe (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Picking out a single data point, which doesn't even support your case, does nothing address your obligation to back up your claim that the Kruschke book is not a reliable source. Stop evading please.  Explain and defend your revert.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just switched the word 'banning' to 'limits' which now matches quite accurately your CBS polling data. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * my revert is based upon exactly what you claim: "Picking out a single data point, which doesn't even support your case". we have two opinion polls, one of which shows there is not broad support for a ban on handguns. you didn't cite the actual poll results, so it's hard to know if your claim that the poll backs up your position is reasonable. i stated that the source was questionable because, regrettably there's almost no mention of this book on the web, and it's not exactly a well-known source otherwise (sales rank 2,648,706 on amazon, with no user reviews). i find it unhelpful to rely upon material not found on the web for an article about extremely contentious issues, as it creates a roadblock for other editors to review the material. if this were a non-controversial article, i'd have no objection. seeing as i was able to find a poll published by a reliable source with just a minute of searching, that contradicts your source, i think we have reason enough to hold back significant changes. Anastrophe (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that reference book has an good reputation in that it is very often cited by other scholars. I suggest a trip to the library (like I did).  I am patient enough to wait for you to do this.  Or, it is available on the used book market for about the price of a bus fare.  Again, I am willing to wait for you.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * here's the correct search: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=100&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&q=Kruschke+gun+control%3A+a+reference+handbook&btnG=Search
 * 27 references is not "very often". not by a longshot. Anastrophe (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * i see you've chosen to restore your material, with small changes, rather than working this out on the talk page, as you recommended above. i see also that you continue to push this material in the lede, rather than in the body where it properly belongs, if at all. i see also that you have not incorporated the contemporary poll results that contradict your source regarding support for banning of handguns. and of course, since you pre-emptively warned me about 3RR on my talk page, you've set it up so that i'm effectively enjoined from reverting your POV push. this is not collaboration by any stretch of the imagination. Anastrophe (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Let us focus here. You have claimed that the Kruschke books is a questionable source.  Explain and defend your claim please.  I am willing to wait if you need time to research.   SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * please read what i wrote above. i have already provided my rationale. please stop badgering. Anastrophe (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I am just suggesting that you read this book before you condemn it.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * i will try to make it to the library. i'd appreciate your rationale for introducing major changes to the article before they've been hashed out on the talk page, as you have strongly recommended as the best course previously. Anastrophe (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the Kruschke book summary from Google This fact-filled resource helps readers understand both sides of the emotionally charged gun control debate. Here in a single, unbiased volume can be found a broad range of information on a subject that strikes a deep chord in America. The logical, legal, and moral foundations of the opposing "liberal" and "conservative" viewpoints are explored in depth.". And, answering your question: I strongly disagree with your premise, in that I have been exceedingly patient 'hashing out' these edits on the talk page, see above.  My edit is hardly major, and following much work on the talk page, it was carefully crafted to meticulously comply with the WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV policies.    SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The google books overleaf is just text from the dustcover that was written by the good doctor himself; he could hardly be considered an independent source for determining his own unbiased point of view :-) Yaf (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Now Yaf has reverted with the comment 'obviously not a reliable source'. Yaf, have you read the book? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Lets see.  The book claims that semi-automatic weapons are primarily military.  This is patently false.  It claims that suicides do not involve long guns -- considering the large number of suicides with shotguns, this is also patently false.  It claims a large number of widely publicized crimes involving full-auto weapons -- this is false;  the only one that was widely publicized is the Saint Valentine's Day massacre.  That was during Prohibition.  "One" crime with 2 Chicago Typewriters does not constitute a large number, except in the mind of a gun banner.  It has a dust cover that claims it is single, unbiased volume on gun control, written by the author with no others claiming such.  Again, patently false.  This is not a reliable source.  We need a reliable source, not a  source based on half-truths with obviously inaccurate statements contained throughout.  Yaf (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Jumping in here where I probably shouldn't...I'd like to know how a comment like "this is patently false" should be taken as correct without data to back it up. Ditto the "large number of suicides with shotguns" claim...are there data to support that? (None appear to be mentioned either way in the current rev of the article.) And what constitutes "large?" Similarly, to refer to "the only one that was widely publicized" is akin to trying to prove a negative...not necessarily impossible but pretty hard. Perhaps you could ask for "large number of widely publicized" to be elaborated upon, and put the ball in the other court? You wrote a good-sized paragraph, but you didn't really do well at supporting your conclusion that the source is "based on half-truths with obviously inaccurate statements contained throughout." I should point out that I have no axe to grind either way on this issue, so I'm not pitching for a particular revision; I *would* like to see the article settle on a more solid agreement of wording, though. Isaacsf (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you read the book?  Thanks.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * again, you are badgering other editors. the first word of yaf's response is "yes", and he goes on to describe problems in the book. your followup is to ask again if he's read the book? pure badgering. please stop. Anastrophe (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering your recent praise for discussion, now you say my discussion is badgering, what's up? Yaf, above wrote "Yes", followed by a series of made up straw man quotes from the book.  I understood that Yaf was making a sarcastic point, not actually claiming to have read the book and not actually claiming to be making literal quotes from that book.  Yaf's quotes are allegorical.  I get the impression that books that don't match a pro-gun point of view are always not reliable sources.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * yaf, did you read the book, or were your comments as saltyboatr characterizes them? i'd be interested to know the answer. Anastrophe (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have protected the article for a week to allow everyone to focus on finding consensus on the talk page regarding difficult issues. I encourage folks to read the guidelines for dispute resolution. (A side note: the last edits to the page concern some assertions that an anon said were sourced from "footnote 89". I think he meant to say "footnote 88", which does contain the assertions.) ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
Considering that this is a question of fair proportionality under the WP:NPOV policy, I have asked for help solving our disagreement from the people over at WikiProject Neutrality. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A POV tag has been added, bu8t no discusion has been started so I move that this tag is removed. Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)]]

Second Intro paragraph
Well, we have a week to talk this over, I propose this diff for the second introductory paragraph:

'''The nature of gun politics varies widely between and among different jurisdictions. In the United States, increasingly, the mood of the American public strongly supports limits on guns, such as limits on handguns and military-type semi-automatic weapons, but also strongly opposes a full ban on guns used for hunting and sport, such as long guns.[2]. Still there is strong opposition by the minority who oppose restrictions on gun ownership.[3][4][5] In other nations, the trend is towards stricter gun regulation than in the United States.'''

I am already aware that the Kruschke, Earl R.. Gun Control - A Reference Handbook. Pages 18-20. ABC-CLIO Inc. 1995. isbn 0-87436-695-X book has been questioned as a reliable source. Can this be discussed a bit more? Also, I have asked for a third opinion, over here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * the line "also strongly oppose a full ban on guns used for hunting and sport" is incorrect. see the CBS/New York Times poll above.
 * the previous iteration of the text, which actually still exists down in the united states section, points out that there's a range of views, without attempting to 'guide' the reader towards a particular POV as the text above does. as i've said before, the lede should be kept brief and to the point. particular details can go in the subsection. though in fact one could argue that all of these details belong in the main article on gun politics in the united states, rather than this article, which should be the '10,000 foot overview'. Anastrophe (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * correction, i had thought the article was frozen with the above second intro text already in it, but it was not. and i had the two iterations backwards, from lede to subsection. oops. Anastrophe (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we discuss this based on WP:Policy? Reading what you wrote, I see just your personal opinion.  Can we discuss this paragraph relative to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.  I attempted to craft it, and it evolved through collaboration with you, so that it holds closely to these three core policies.   SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * STOP. i've had it with you constantly claiming that what i write is nothing but personal opinion. my comments directly addressed the text you proposed, i am providing feedback and commentary based upon the process of collaboration. you are becoming relentless with this harrassment of other editors. my comment specifically points out that based upon a reliable source, your wording is INCORRECT. my comments point out that lede sections are supposed to be an overview, with subsections containing details, which is based upon the manual of style. STOP BADGERING other editors who do not give you the responses you want to hear. now, please explain, based upon policy, how your claim that "strongly opposes a full ban on guns used for hunting and sport, such as long guns." is correct, when a recent, reliable source poll shows that they also strongly oppose a full ban on handguns? Anastrophe (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not arguing for 'correct', per se, I am arguing for verifiable. That policy, I maintain, I have satisfied.  And, my proposed second paragraph is preferable to the status quo second paragraph (that being defended by the edit war) because I better represent the issue of proportionality, as required by WP:NPOV policy.  I have shown, with reliable sourcing, that in US that the mood of the American public strongly supports limits on guns.  Your version implies, wrongly, that the mood is evenly split. This is in addition to many explanations, based on policy, that I have already given you above.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * when correct information is available, we have a responsibility to include it. simply ignoring that there is STRONG opposition to a ban on handguns because it isn't cited in your fifteen-year-old source is irresponsible. your paragraph, while verifiable to one outdated source, is also false, as demonstrated by the far more current and reliable New York Times/CBS News poll.


 * here's a rewrite, i look forward to constructive commentary on this simplified corrected version:


 * The nature of gun politics varies widely between and among different jurisdictions. In the United States, the American public supports limits on guns, but opposes a ban on guns.


 * this cuts out all the POV-pushing fluff, and represents the facts, simply and directly. additional details belong in the 'gun politics in the united states' article. Anastrophe (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What is your sourcing? Your personal interpretation of one poll? The Kruschke reference is based on a long term study of many polls, truly a secondary reliable source.  Your personal interpretation of one self selected poll seems like original research.  Have you read the Kruschke book which you are so quick to dismiss because your imagined perception of POV slant?  I suspect if you actually read it you would find many aspects of that book which were sympathetic to your personal POV.     SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * what is my sourcing? am i to understand that you are rejecting the CBS News/New York Times poll as unreliable? on what basis? there's no OR here. the poll says exactly what it says - the public rejects, overwhelmingly, a ban on handguns. your source claims the public strongly rejects bans on long guns. my source - far more recent, far more reliable as a measure of current public sentiment - shows that the public strongly rejects bans on handguns as well. on what basis do you claim that source is unreliable? please stick to policy, not your personal opinion of what you think my "imagined perception of POV slant" is - please keep your opinion of what my opinion might be out of the discussion, thanks. stick to WP:V and WP:RS, please. shall we take CBS News and the New York times to the reliable source noticeboard? that would be pretty hilarious. Anastrophe (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You mention 'a ban on handguns', why? You blur the distinction between hand guns and long guns, why? It would be helpful if you provide explicit quotes of what you see in the CBS poll that contradicts the Kruschke book. I looked and I don't see a conflict. The CBS poll found that 66% of those polled think handgun regulations should be more strict, which confirms Kruschke.

Also, it would be helpful if you avoid criticizing a book you have not read. The basis of your complaint is based on what? That the Kruschke book is wrong? How do you know what the Kruschke book says?

Also, your CBS spot poll, taken a week after the Virginia Tech shooting has to be viewed spot data point compared with the Kruschke analysis of a series of polling datasets taken over a long period of time. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * you don't see a conflict. okay. you cite kruschke as saying that there is opposition to a ban on long guns. the quote you provide excludes mention of opposition to a ban on handguns. 'blur the distinction'? no, clarify the distinction. clearly, there is widespread opposition to bans on guns, whether long or hand. your quote purposely excludes reliable data that shows that the american public opposes a ban on handguns as well as long guns. can you show where in policy your "spot data point" is rejected by policy? i contend it's a reliable survey, from a reliable source - you've provided no policy rationale for rejecting it. it shows that the public rejects a ban on handguns even immediately after a nationally publicized mass shooting. Anastrophe (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Kruschke writes a lot about public opinion towards banning and not banning of handguns. See pages 20-21, 26, 80, 111, 243, 245, 265. 270, 290, 295, 308-309, 315 and 339 of his book.  You promised you would try to get a copy to read, have you done so yet?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * then why did you exclude that information from your proposed paragraph? please stop playing the diversion game. i said i would try, i did not "promise" - don't put words in other people's mouths, mmkay? my local library didn't have it, and i have better things to do than chase down a book that's out of date, and - based upon your representation of what it says, contains considerable factual inaccuracies. or are you misrepresenting what the book says? your proposed paragraph says "but also strongly opposes a full ban on guns used for hunting and sport, such as long guns.". yet just now you claim there's considerable coverage regarding banning or not banning handguns in the book - yet you chose to exclude mention of his conclusions in that regard in the proposed paragraph. Does his book claim broad support for banning handguns? Anastrophe (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow WP:NPOV and WP:RS, please.
To be up front: I oppose gun control. See my recent edits to right to self-defense.

With that said: Kruschke is a reliable source.

However, these are not reliable sources:
 * Frontpage magazine
 * Ted Nugent
 * Haciendapub.com
 * John Lott, Jr. (a study that was later disavowed by his co-researcher and criticized for inaccuracy)
 * Wayne LaPierre, President of the NRA
 * The political opinion pieces, including the one from Japan

Clean it up, please.

&#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. The references here are a mess. There are more than enough reliable sources about this issue. Relata refero (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. The above listed sources are not valid and shouldn't be used in this article. Griot (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge
Someone suggested that Gun control be merged into Gun politics. Anyone care to comment? Gary King (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history of Gun control, it was merged about a year ago. User:Junling arbitrarily resurrected it yesterday. I've restored the redirect and removed the merge tags on both pages. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Funny that no one caught that for so long. Gary King (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Gun shows vs school shootings
It seems rather fatuous to make such a direct comparison that school shootings are "less common" than gun shows, and it smacks of attempting to minimise their effect on public opinion. It's a bit life a director saying, "yeah, my last movie was bad, but what about all the other good films I made?" Nick Cooper (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Gun Politics National sub sections: UK, Japan, Germany etc.
Notwithstanding other problems with this article I feel these national subsections are quite interesting, I've made some edits to the UK section but feel that it still does not really describe UK Gun Politics as such, but just details the position on legal gun ownership. Given that these subsections are linked to full articles for each country is it worth expanding further?

Also any précis of "Gun Politics" in the UK should really include a mention of the amok killings using legal weapons in Hungerford and Dunblane, illegal firearms use and the availability and misuse of non licensed air weapons as these topics seem to dominate the majority of UK press coverage.

Advice sought. Bigyaks (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Be WP:BOLD. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I think that if there is a separate page for a particular country, then all we should have is a link to it, rather than the rather haphazard summaries we have. For example, it seems bizarre to couch the UK section here with reference to a "right to bear arms," when virtually no-one in the UK sees the issues in those terms. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * even worse, it's an incomplete list. there are 245 countries/sovereign states/etc on this blue marble. shall we expand the list to include all of them, with 'please expand this section'? what's the criteria for inclusion currently? it appears to be nothing more than the whims of what editor happens to either be interested in, or has familiarity with, a given country's gun laws. perhaps what's needed is a separate List of worldwide gun politics and legislation, which this article can then point to. as it stands now, 'haphazard' is a kindness! Anastrophe (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The "right to bear arms" spiel was by a prevous editor and I left it in as a relevant (I felt) bit of background info that lead up to the brief history of gun control legislation. Regardless, Nick Cooper makes a valid point when he suggests that it may be better remove these subsections, it would help reduce the "haphazardness" if nothing else. Anastrophe is uncannily correct in attributing my motives for editing this as "a passing whim"; I was here looking for another bit of info entirely and spotted a bit that needed changing.  It was only after my edits that I took a step back that I saw what a ghastly mess the rest of the article is in, hence my comments above.  However, I do think that these national sections (undeveloped as they are) could have a useful future as separate (hopefully) relatively uncontroversial what are current gun control measures on a nation by nation basis and potted histories of how these arose; or is this both doomed to be forever incomplete and a needless duplication of the separate national pages?  Given the broadening scope of this thread I've chanced the subsection heading. Bigyaks (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Switzerland
Switzerland does not have "one of the highest rates of gun-related deaths." I have never heard that in any other source. The BBC says that "the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept." According to the article Gun politics in Switzerland, "police statistics for the year 2006 records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms." According to the Washington Post, "there were 204 homicides in Switzerland in 2005, including 48 that involved guns. That is about the same number of gun-related killings as took place last year in England and Wales, which have strict gun control and a population seven times the size of Switzerland's." I think that, at the very least, these views should be placed in the article. J0lt C0la (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be mistakenly reading "gun-related deaths" as "gun crime-related deaths." The cited source is clearly talking about the former, while you are talking about the latter. There is a profound difference between the two. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * indeed. for example, in japan - that paragon of a 'gun free society' - the suicide rate was 25.5/100,000 in 2003, or more than double the rate in 2003 in the gun-happy united states. apparently then, the absence of guns encourages people to kill themselves at twice the rate that the presence of guns does! (hey, it's the standard math - guns cause crime, suicides, etc - not the people people themselves). Anastrophe (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * but, back to the topic, i think all this highlights is that - as discussed in the previous section - this article has become a dumping ground for random tidbits about a handful of nations. we should cull all prose from the separate country sections, and perhaps even remove the countries entirely - instead simply pointing to '[list of worldwide gun politics legislation]' or whatever. it makes no sense to have duplicate content for various countries, and in some instances contradictory content from that in their respective articles. Anastrophe (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A Swiss study to check: Killias, Martin, and Henriette Haas. The role of weapons in violent acts: some results of a Swiss National Cohort Study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 17.1 (Jan 2002): 14(19).
 * Abstract: "The role of guns and other weapons in violent acts has often been a subject of debate. The present study is based on a sample of 21,314 valid interviews with 20-year-old Swiss men, representing more than 70% of this cohort. The results show a much higher frequency of violence among owners of handguns and other weapons, but not of rifles. Gun owners also have been injured more often and they suffer more often from psychiatric symptoms. A considerable proportion of violent gun owners had previous police contacts and court appearances, suggesting that policies designed to confiscate guns would be feasible. In a multivariate model, which considered a great number of conventional criminological variables (such as delinquent friends) and indicators of psychopathology, ownership of handguns and other weapons (but not rifles) turned out to be a very important factor in explaining violence leading to bodily injury."

SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is another article about the Swiss and gun politics, mentioning gun deaths:

Source Citation:"Most Swiss support ban on storing army firearms at home." Xinhua News Agency (April 22, 2007)


 * "GENEVA, Apr 22, 2007 (Xinhua via COMTEX) -- A latest survey shows a majority of the Swiss want to ban army weapons from homes -- scrapping a long-standing tradition of the country's militia army, Swiss Radio International (SRI) reported on Sunday.


 * The survey, carried out by a research institute last week, found that 65.6 percent of Swiss citizens support a ban on storing personal assault rifles and guns in private households. Among women it was 75 percent.


 * Under Swiss law all able-bodied men are issued with a rifle and 50 rounds of ammunition which they can keep after completing their compulsory military service.


 * An estimated 1.6 million firearms are in circulation in Switzerland and about 300 people are killed every year by standard army weapons.


 * Switzerland's center-left political parties and pacifist groups are preparing a plan to force a nationwide vote on the issue as the parliament considers alternative options, according to the SRI report.


 * The Social Democrats and the Green Party as well as pacifists groups said they will decide in May whether to launch a people's initiative in a bid to keep army firearms out of the home. The people's initiative could lead to a national vote.


 * The Parliament, however, is examining a less far-reaching proposal. A Senate committee recently recommended a ban on storing ammunition for personal firearms at home. The decision came after the House of Representative threw out a plan to tighten the gun law.


 * The debate is set to continue during parliament's summer session in June."

SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And another of interest:

Navy Times; 10/22/2007, Vol. 57 Issue 4, p6-6, 1/6p, 1c

Abstract:
 * The article deals with the policy launched in Switzerland which allows Swiss military troops to take home their weapons but prohibits them from taking home the bullets. Under the policy, only around 2,000 of the nearly 290,000 troops in the Swiss army will be allowed to have bullets for their weapons. The stricter gun control law is aimed at reducing the rate of suicides and murders.

SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dubious hatnote?
{ B R D }

NeilN: Thank you for reverting my mistaken addition of a talk-page-style signature. Sometimes I forget what namespace I'm in. But how exactly is the hatnote dubious? Should I have started "Gun control (disambiguation)" instead? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert, but: (1) "hitting your target" implies target practice more than it implies gun safety; (2) my understanding is that hatnotes are just as subject to verifiability as any other article content; that is, it must be verifiable that the usage mentioned in a hatnote is accurate and not a neologism. I agree that disambiguating between this article and gun safety might be worthwhile, but "hitting your target" doesn't seem to be the right wording. 131.215.159.175 (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

guns are allowed in israel?
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200409022215.asp

According to this article, the Israeli teachers are beginning to arm themselves with guns. I read a few articles when I searched through google (by typing "gun laws in israel" and found info relating to israel allowing citizens to own guns. Any relevance of mentioning?--Dark paladin x (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

August 18 edits under Germany heading
Instead of the constant edit and undo of these recent edits, leave the changes and allow the person to provide sources. This article is replete with unsourced material and in some instances there are questions about whether some of the commentary is original research.

If you are going to undo these edits, then you better go through the entire article and remove ALL unsourced edits. It's a matter of consistency. Let's not get into a pissing match over one section. Neutralman1024 (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Too long, too US-centered
The whole "background" and "arguments" section belongs into a separate article about the US, if this is supposed to be about gun control in general. (There are two: Gun politics in the United States and Gun violence in the United States.) And put more countries in, if possible - especially the 10 countries which "among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates ... have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws", like Mr. John Lott claims. These countries don't show up in any statistics that are easily available on the internet, at least to me ;-) Since Mr. Lott's arguments generally defy common sense, they should be especially well documented to merit inclusion. (I'm not a US citizen, I understand the desire to debate, but these claims only show how much objectivity is needed.)

I'm missing some links to valid statistics, like homicides/suicides involving or not involving guns. My Google seach revealed this, but there may be better sources.

88.217.84.222 (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * GunCite International Violent Death Rates (1990s-2003, no specific dates given)
 * GunCite: International Homicide Rate Table (Death rates are per 100,000) (1990s-2005)
 * International Firearms Statistics: Deaths involving firearms, per 100.000 persons, by country (1997), Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
 * University of Utah Health Sciences Center: Statistics, Gun Control Issues, and Safety (1990-95)

Bad prose - and bad argument above
In Arguments|Resisting Tyranny

The second sentence: "The country of Iraq under Saddam had a populace that was very well armed." is completely misplaced and breaks up the linear argument started in the first sentence and picked up again in the third sentence. The sentence should be moved to a more appropriate place in the paragraph. The most logical place would be immediately following the sentence which begins, "A counterargument is that some guerilla movements..." since it actually supports that argument and in fact helps complete the thought. Additionally, if someone isn't going to supply a citation it should be considered for deletion.

Arguments|Self-defense

"Supporters of gun-rights consider self-defense to be a fundamental and inalienable human right..."

The word "inalienable" is incorrect. The word is "unalienable"

And immediately above: The complaint against Lott as ,"generally defying common sense," shows that you haven't taken the effort to research Lott's work, which is extensively referenced and uses materials which are almost universally available online. When so-called "common-sense" and the facts disagree it's not the facts that need to be discarded.

65.202.227.87 (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)mjd 19 September 2008 10:00 EDT

Self Defense... BIASED
The Self Defense article is clearly biased and only presents the view of those who are pro-guns. Anti-Guns supporters could argue that Self Defense is an invalid argument because crime rates almost always decrease in nations that provide strict gun control (eg. Australia). PLEASE FIX THIS BIAS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chodgy07 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Number of US gun laws.
I just reverted an edit that pointed to an op ed piece that claimed 50,000 US gun laws on the books. This subject deserves a neutral balanced coverage in the article. The 50,000 number seems far out. The previous high number was 20,000 from the Edgar study 1994. And that 20,000 number has been criticized as too high, with the actual number being closer to 300. The issue of "preemption law" should also be covered. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is weak about gun control in Brazil
About gun control in Brazil, the article is weak.The article writes:"All firearms in Brazil are required to be registered with the state; the minimum age for ownership is 25[3] and it is generally illegal to carry a gun outside a residence.[4] The total number of firearms in Brazil is thought to be around 17 million[4] with 9 million of those being unregistered.[3] Some 39,000 people died in 2003 due to gun-related injuries nationwide.[4] In 2004, the number was 36,000.[3] Although Brazil has 100 million fewer citizens than the United States, and more restrictive gun laws, there are 25 percent more gun deaths;[5] other sources indicate that homicide rates due to guns are approximately four times higher than the rate in the United States.[6] Brazil has the second largest arms industry in the Western Hemisphere.[6] Approximately 80 percent of the weapons manufactured in Brazil are exported, mostly to neighboring countries; many of these weapons are then smuggled back into Brazil.[6] Some firearms in Brazil come from police and military arsenals, having either been "stolen or sold by corrupt soldiers and officers."[6]" Many mistakes, above.I'll show you some of these mistakes: 1-The registration of guns in Brazil, isn't with the state, but with central government. 2-The real number of guns in Brazil is less than 4,000,000.Less than 1,000,000 guns are legally under civilian control, in Brazil. 3-Brazilian industry of weapons is falling.In Brazil, there's ten times less sells of guns than in Argentina. 4-Is very rare to have a gun from a military arsenal being used in a crime in Brazil.Agre22 (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)agre22


 * Can you provide sources for the above claims, if so then maybe the article needs updatingSlatersteven (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)]]

Gun ownership and rates of deaths involving guns
Hauskalainen's version:

Martin Killias concluded that there was a strong statistically correlation between more guns and more victims of suicide and homicide.

From page 298 of the courtesy-linked source (emphasis added):

Interestingly, the strong correlation between gun ownership levels and suicides by firearms and the absence of any displacement effect do result in only moderately increased overall suicide rates (proposition D). Without the USA and Northern Ireland, the correlation is .353 and significant only at the .10 level; when Northern Ireland is added, the correlation becomes slightly stronger (.392) but when the USA (with its extremely low rate of non-gun suicides, see Table 2) is also included, it drops to .229 and becomes non-significant.

That doesn't look like a strong correlation to me. --Hamitr (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that it clearly say in your quoted passage “the strong correlation between gun ownership levels and suicides by firearms”. Moreover the paragraph goes on to say.
 * The reason for the low impact of gun ownership on total suicide rates probably is the generally modest proportion of suicides which are committed with a firearm, the percentage ranging in the 18 countries from 2.4% in the Netherlands to 31.9% in Canada, with the USA (58.7%) being an outlyer. Therefore, even a massive increase in suicides using firearms will result in only a moderate increase in overall suicide rates. Given the small sample size, any increase would need to be very large in order to reach statistical significance.
 * Moreover the introduction to the section says (full paragraph).
 * As has been known from earlier work, the percentage of suicides committed with
 * Moreover the introduction to the section says (full paragraph).
 * As has been known from earlier work, the percentage of suicides committed with
 * As has been known from earlier work, the percentage of suicides committed with

a firearm increases dramatically with increasing gun ownership levels (r=.912, and .933 when the USA and Northern Ireland are included). Increases in the number of suicide using firearms per 1 million population increases at almost the same rate (r=.858, and .902 respectively). Figure 1 reveals no outlyers in the general distribution. Thus, the overall correlation is not contingent upon a few countries with extreme scores on the dependent and independent variable, and propositions A and B are confirmed independently of the inclusion or exclusion of the USA and Northern Ireland. Does the increase in suicide using a firearm go along with a decrease in suicides committed with other means? In other words, is there a displacement process at work? Figure 2 and correlations observed (.107 and -.104 respectively, when all 18 countries are included) suggest that this is not the case.


 * Thus it is clear that Killias believes there is a (his words) strong correlation between gun ownership levels and suicides by firearms. But that the overall rate of suicide using firearms is low.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)]]


 * My thoughts exactly. I think the article states this correctly, now. --Hamitr (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Content re this matter copied from a personal talk page
I have reverted this edit; in its summary you state in part "[i]t does have a source and is demonstrably reliable." Please see WP:RS and WP:OR for a detailed explanation of why that is not appropriate. The site you reference clearly states its agenda: The Gun Control Network was established to campaign for tighter controls on guns of all kinds in Britain and a greater awareness of the dangers associated with gun ownership and use. Even its name shows a slanted point of view. In addition, the specific reference you provide for statistics requires the reader to examine charts and draw a conclusion, which amounts to original research and/or WP:SYNTH, which are not appropriate for Wikipedia.

Please note I have not mentioned the words "truth" or "correct" here; I am not agreeing with or disputing the claims your edit made. I'm simply saying they were not supported by the reference and the reference is not reliable. Since this is a hotly debated topic and the edit is likely to be questioned, I removed it. If you can find a better source to make a point that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies, please feel free to add it in. The best avenue to do so is probably the talk page of the article. Frank |  talk  12:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, maybe I am dumb, but the data about gun ownership levels and gun deaths is reliable data. The graphic merely shows where the UK and the US are in relation to one another on the scales of gun ownership rate and gun deaths. If I quote Killias as the source that cannot be objected to on the basis of WP:RS. The grapic is simply a graphical reporesenttion of that data published by a peer reviewed medical journal and has been republished with permission by Ryerson University people. They have not been selective and they are a WP:RS. It is not WP:SYNTH as you claim.--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Following the above discussion I will rever the deletion but give the original sources for this data to avoid any question of WP:OR or WP:SYN

replacing properly cited material with prose is never acceptable
a brief, properly sourced section regarding gun control/gun availability in finland and switzerland was replaced with an entirely unsourced, prose description of apparently what one editor believes to be the current 'truth'. this is not acceptable. if you have a source for your contentions, by all means share it, properly included with your material, when publishing to the article space. please do not, however, dump unsourced prose into article space. it's simply begging for a reversion to do so. i have acceded to that beg.Anastrophe (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem was that the edit gave the false impression that Finland and Switzerland somehow allow people to bear arms and other countries whilst other countries in Europe do not. That is entirely misleading. What is true is that both Finland and Switzerland have mostly conscript armies and high levels of guns in the home. In Switzerland's case, it is national policy that reservists keep their weapons at home. Guns must not be kept loaded and the ammunition must be kept locked away. People generally are not allowed to go around carrying those weapons in peacetime. In Finland's case, military weapons were not kept at home but all adult men are trained in warfare (even today, though this may change soon).  This method of defense was actually used to defend the country in the Winter War on 1939/40 and in a later conflict the Continuation war which resulted in many homes still today having weapons from that era, some of which are licenced are some are not. Finland also has a tradition of hunting with guns and in sparsely populated areas, carrying of a weapon such as a rifle is tolerated. As indeed happens in remote parts of the UK. Finland does have strict gun laws. All guns must be licenced and the person having the weapon must demonstrate a good reason for having one.  A person for example in a shopping mall, if found to be carrying a gun, can be arrested and charged with unlawful posssession. Self defense is no reason to carry a gun. It would be the same in Switzerland. So guns are more likely to be found in Switzerland and Finland than in many other countries. The edit that I deleted and that you have added back says, in effect, that some European governments are more tolerant of gun ownership than others. That is wholly inaccuate.  If we put aside the handgun ban in the UK (which is, I think, quite unique) the gun control laws in Finland (high level of gun ownership) are quite similar to those in England (low level of gun ownership). The difference in the numbers has nothing whatsoever to do with the attitude of the government towards personal use of firearms.  As to whether your source is reliable, well he does seem to be on one particular side of the gun control argument and seems to be saying that some countries in Europe have the same lax attitude to guns as some states do in the U.S. and that IS misleading. Either we put the edit back as it was or else I will have to extend it with a long explanation about Finland and Switzerland (with data from WP:RS) that confirms what I have said above. I think that will just make the text argumentative and difficult to read. The simple truth is that Finland and Switzerland are not lax when it comes to carrying firearms.--Hauskalainen (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I see from a review that the author of the book you quote says


 * "British gun controls are strict, and British violent crime rates are low. Many Americans assume that these two facts are causally linked; however, there is little evidence that they are. British gun control has historically been concerned with political subversion, not with ordinary crime. Britain's years of lowest gun crime came during an era when gun controls were nonexistent. Increasingly stringent gun controls have been followed by increasing gun crime (although again there is no strong proof of a causal effect)."


 * Whlilst I agree with him that the causal relationship is hard to prove and gun crime was low in times before gun control, I cannot for the life of me understand why he says that "British gun control has historically been concerned with political subversion". I assume you have the book. Can you understand from the text how it is that he comes to see it that way? Is he by any chance referring to the Bill of Rights which sought to prevent the disarming of the protestant majority?  That element of the law has never been enforced and was probably not enforceable (as were certain other parts of it). So it is virtually void of all relevance. All subsequent gun laws HAVE been concerned with attempts to reduce gun crime and are not really about political subversion at all!  Unless his mind is so twisted that he thinks that there IS a secret agenda by governments of all political persuasions to disarm the people to prevent armed insurrection (a preposterous conspiratorial view which I have NEVER heard from a British source). If he thinks THAT, then it hardly makes him a reliable source!--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * you are missing the point, completely. i don't have the book, i didn't add the cite or the material to the article in the first place. you, as an editor, have an obligation to provide reliable sources for material you place in article space. you can discourse all you want here about what you believe the truth is; that's fine (up to the limits of WP:FORUM), but you cannot merely cull sourced material from the article and replace it with whatever thoughts and whims come to mind as you ponder the article - you 'must' source your claims. all of your discussion above is completely irrelevant. the issue is your having added unsourced prose to article space. if you have sources for your contentions, by all means, add the material back. lacking sources....out it goes, always, every time. Anastrophe (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * editor hauskalainen, you are violating policy left and right here. you cannot modify text that is sourced, giving it a different meaning, while leaving the citation intact. you are attempting to invalidate sourced material based on nothing more than your whims. you cannot add completely unsourced prose to an article and fact-tag it yourself. doing so is dishonest, pure and simple. either you put the effort into finding the sources yourself and add them with the material you are adding, or the material does not go in the encyclopedia. period. what you believe is immaterial to the encyclopedia. verifiability and reliability of sourcing is what matters to the encyclopedia. i removed your unsourced material, and doing is entirely supported by wikipedia policy. i also removed your (very badly worded) section about how gun laws are "going to be" tightened. this constitutes WP:CRYSTAL. speculating that laws will be tightened is just that - speculation. if the gun laws are tightened, then it can be noted in the article. Anastrophe (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * small followup: the reason i noted "very badly worded" is because it behooves editors to use care when publishing to article space. i've corrected grammar, spelling, and syntax on your contributions a number of times; that it keeps happening is evidence of this carelessness, and it is strongly recommended that you stop and proofread your contributions before publishing them to the public article. sloppiness is not a virtue. please take greater care before hitting the 'save page' button. Anastrophe (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Is gun-control-network.org an acceptable WP:RS for statistics on guns/crime?
The organization is clearly and obviously a single-issue advocacy group. they are not a WP:RS for citation of statistics regarding guns, crime, or anything else. this is patent and obvious, and should not even need to be pointed out. they are no more reliable a source for statistics than is the NRA. gun, crime, etc statistics are compiled by and for law enforcement, virtually to the exclusion of any other sources. those statistics, compiled by governments, are available on the internet, and those are reliable sources. Anastrophe (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are an advocacy group. But they do give sources for their data and those sources are WP:RS. For instance the graph at http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm is from a United Nations report compiled by a Swiss criminologist of international reknown (he has worked in the US as well as in Europe) from data supplied by national governments. If you think that data is wrong (and Killias gives his sources too, so it should be easy to check out), go look at that to see whether the underlying data for that chart is right or wrong. Looking at where the extreme variance as to where "England, Wales and Scotland" lay on that chart in comparison to "the United States", and having become very familiar with the offical data from these regions over the past weeks, their chart positions seem quite accurate to me.  But I am open to be persuaded otherwise if you can deliver a WP:RS that can demonstrate they are not. --Hauskalainen (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * see WP:BURDEN. Anastrophe (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Has nothing to say about determining the reliableity of a source. It also says that before removin it you should consider taging it, please feel free to do this.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 23:20, 21 March 2009
 * The gun-control-network.org cites have already been replaced, so this is pretty much a moot point. --Hamitr (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Switzerland and Finland - section on tyrrany
I added more information about Finland and have been checking the rules for Switzerland.

It is not true that Finland and Switzerland allow their citizens any general right to carry arms. They are nearly always subject to regulation.

I don't know what your competence in French is but here is the law in Switzerland

http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/514_54/index.html

Article 5 has a long list of weapons that are subject to either a general control on the sale of weapons, or are subject to licensing, or are forbidden outright (with only special exceptional permissions.. such as with pump action and automatic loading weapon). Carry rules do not permit carrying in a public place.

Finland too has wide range of range of controls on weapons (see http://www.poliisi.fi/poliisi/home.nsf/pages/3BBB04E1F6672AB8C2256C450037D7C5?opendocument) and purposes of use (see http://www.poliisi.fi/poliisi/home.nsf/pages/C72E58A5707DBF7CC2256C45003923A1?opendocument) and preventing tyranny is not one of them. Regarding the text which appears to claims there is a general right to carry arms in Switizerland and Finland, this is clearly just a CLAIM which is why I added some factual information.

Deleting this as was done is not helpful. I did not really modify what the previous ediotr said - just to change that this was a claim that had been made by this particular author.

I see no relevance to the text being in the section on tyranny. This makes it sound like tyranny is a reason for holding weapons in Finland. In Switzerland, the rule about the reservist keeping a weapon at home seems to me just a practical solution as to where the reservist should keep his weapon and how to access it in time of need. And a reservist of course will be a special person with presumably special rights. The rights of reservists I assume do not extend to all persons.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * please read my comments in the section immediately above. i addressed these issues there.
 * here is the text i was writing before hitting an edit conflict with your material just posted:
 * editor hauskalainen restored the material, claiming it was "rvv" which means "revert vandalism" - it is a violation of policy to characterize good faith edits as vandalism. he requested discussion on the talk page - i explained the rationale above, and when arguing unsourced claims, the unsourced claims quite legitimately come out of the article until cites are provided, and discussion has been completed here. i have again removed this material. the material violates wikipedia policy. it's ridiculous in fact - you cannot add unsourced material to the article and include a fact-tag at the same time. what this says is "i have added usnourced material to the article, and i am challenging the validity of that material". it is an abuse of process to do so. Anastrophe (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologise. I thought rvv meant revert version.--Hauskalainen (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * furthermore, you're completely off-base with your comments about reservists. all swiss males are in the militia, between some limitations on age. the reason they are armed is to fight foreign invaders - do you not consider foreign invaders relevant to a discussion of tyranny??
 * deleting the material was entirely supported by policy. add proper citations to back up your unsourced prose claims, and maybe it'll have a fighting chance of standing in article space. add it back without sources, while nonsensically challenging your own addition, and out it will indeed go, as being unsourced material that has been challenged. your guesses, thoughts, speculation, and whims about what the truth is in switzerland are fine here on the talk page. they are not appropriate within the public article.Anastrophe (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Allies invaded Germany in WW2 were they Tyrants? Indead did the US invade Iraq to impose tyranny? It does not follow that armys, citizen or otherwise, are there to oppose Tryanny. They are there to defend the nation whatecer the democratic credentials of the agressor. Slatersteven (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)]]


 * The issue of military weapons to defend the nation would not be most people's interpretation of tyranny. It opens all kinds of matters of interpretation if one does that (consider Iraq or Afghanistan for example. One cannot always interpret an invasion from outside as tyranny). Yes most men in Switzerland are reservists (in fact they are in Finland too, at least in theory). But this does not mean that people have an automatic right to bear arms to combat tyranny. Swiss law actually prevents anyone from having a gun licence (permit to buy or carry) if it is thought they might actually kill someone. And it is the same in Finland. --Hauskalainen (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have provided additional references that counterbalance the simplistic claim in the Kopel reference and added the text back.--Hauskalainen (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And now Anastrophe has deleted the text again. I have added it back. This issue is simply this. Some editor has put text into a section titled "Resisting Tyranny" saying that "Finland and Switzerland allow their citizens to own weapons", and gives a reference, Kopel. The placing of this text in this paragraph seems to imply that "resisting tyranny" is a reason why these states allow their citizens to own guns. Well, first of all, we have established that "resisting tyranny" is not the same as "resisting a foreign invader". You can have tyranny from a domestic source and a foreign invader can be saving that country from a domestic tyrant. Secondly we have a source (an author) but no primary source. We should have a primary source so that the veracity can be established. Thirdly, as a person who has lived in the UK and in Finland, I see that the gun licennsing laws in Finland and the UK (with the exception of handguns) are very similar. Both have licencing laws that allow people to own guns. It just happens, for historic reasons, that gun ownership in Finland is higher than the UK. In part this is due to the population of Finland having been a largely rural country until comparatively recently and hunting having been a traditional part of life. Also there are bears which made gun ownership sometimes rather a good idea for self protection. The Winter War led to many military guns (many of them Russian with no available ammunition) falling into private hands and kept as memorabilia after the second world war. These are the reasons why guns are more prevalent in Finland than, for example, the UK. It has nothing to do with governments allowing their peoples to use guns to resist tyranny. I added the Finnish police web site which gives valid reasons for applying for a gun licence. Similarly the Swiss one. Resisting tyranny is not a reason for having a gun on any of them. Nor is the more general "self defense" claim. I did not delete the Kopel reference. I merely countered it with factual information. The reader can discern for themselves which is correct. Leaving in the Kopel reference and therefore removing the factual counterbalance, which is what Anastrophe has done, is not in the best interests of the reader. Personally I would have åreferred we deleted the Kopel claim and found a better reference for this claim (or what the editor who added in the claim says that Kopel says) as it is not a view widely held in Europe; but I accept that some in the U.S. may think that way, so I let it stand. --Hauskalainen (talk) 09:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Spurious Manchester homicide rates
Yaf, we have already done this issue to death on Talk:Gun violence. The single-year rate infered to be firearms homicides from the Observer/Guardian is clearly wrong when compared to published homicides statistics, both local and national; the second rate is a) all shootings, not just homicides, and b) a four-year rate, so is not comparable to the first single-year rate, even if it was true. You have been given ample evidence that these sources cannot be used in the manner you have, so your persistence smacks of pushing a particular personal agenda. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not wrong. It was published in reliable, verifiable sources.  You simply disagree with the numbers, based upon your original research of original source material, while confusing rates of homicide that you computed with estimating total numbers of homicides within larger areas while assuming the same high rates existed across an area for which it didn't apply. The point being made is that the homicide rates in some areas are vastly higher than for the country as a hole (across England and Wales.) The sources clearly make this claim. Even the homicide rates in Scotland are higher, too, although less than in some parts of Greater Manchester.  (By the way, additional sources also exist that make the same claims that that you disagree with.) As for the second source, it simply supports the claim being made in article text that the rates vary widely across the UK for gun violence, too.  If you disagree with this content, of article text verified by reliable and veriable sources, then I suggest finding additional reliable sources that show a different rate for the specific areas in Greater Manchester for 2002, rather than for all of Greater Manchester  You computing homicide rates across all of Greater Manchester by your Original Research is not permitted;  a reliable source is needed. The rates among a relatively few areas in GM in 2002 were vastly higher than across all of Greater Manchester.  It is a fact that you happen not to like.  That doesn't mean you should remove article text that you disagree with, being it is based upon reliable and verifiable sources. Yaf (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not only are you wrong, but I am stunned to see that you are continuing to misrepresent what I (and by implication others) have said in refuting your claims. Your claim that I am "confusing homicide rates across all of GM vs. across smaller areas" is completely untrue, since I have applied the different rates to the populations in the areas specifically named in each case. Let's take this through in steps, shall we?
 * 1A) The rate (i.e. "10 per 100,000") given for "Greater Manchester" in the stated single year (i.e. 2002) in the Observer article in relation to the known population of that area (i.e. 2,513,468) - equates to 251. This is a mathematical fact.
 * 1B) There were "only" 58 homicides with firearms in the financial year 2002/03 in the whole of England & Wales.
 * 1C) There were 224 homicides in Greater Manchester in the financial year 2002/03, but 172 of them were victims of Harold Shipman.
 * 1C) In conclusion, the "10 per 100,000" in the Observer article cannot refer to homicides with firearms in Greater Manchester. If it refers to all homicides, it has to be in the context of the exceptional case of that year's figure including 172 victims of Harold Shipman, so is not even remotely typical.
 * 2A) The rate (i.e. "140 per 100,000") given for "Longsight, Moss Side and Hulme" in the stated single year (i.e. 2002) in the Observer article in relation to the known population of those areas (i.e. 35,916 ) equates to 50.28. This is a mathematical fact.
 * 2B) Since were "only" 58 homicides with firearms in the financial year 2002/03 in the whole of England & Wales, it is not credible to believe that 50 of them could have occurred in "Longsight, Moss Side and Hulme" and for it not to be the subject of wide and public debate and comment.
 * 2C) In conclusion, the "140 per 100,000" in the Observer article cannot refer in homicides with firearms in "Longsight, Moss Side and Hulme".
 * 3A) The part being cited from the second source deals with all shootings, not just those which resulted in a fatality.
 * 3B) The stated rate (1.4 per 1,000) for "Longsight or Greenheys" is for a four-year period (i.e. "1997 to 2000.").
 * 3C) Applying the stated rate of 1.4 per 1,000 to the population of Longsight alone (i.e. 16,007) equates to 22.4. Greenheys is a sub-area of Hulme; applying the rate of 1.4 per 1,000 to the population of Hulme (i.e. 8,932) equates to 12.5.
 * 3D) Table 5 (page 36) of the report clearly shows that in the four-year period in question (i.e. "1997 to 2000"), of the 185 shootings that resulted in injury in the whole of Greater Manchester, 29 resulted in a fatality.
 * 3E) The "1.4 per 1,000" four-year rate cannot be comparable to the "140 per 100,000" single-year rate claimed in the Observer article, and cannot refer to firearms homicides in specific sub-areas of Greater Manchester.
 * I would ask you to specify on a point-by-point basis which of the above you dispute and why. It is not beholden to me to find a "correct" firearms homicide rate for the specific named sub-areas of Greater Manchester to prove that the rates/figures you are advocating are wrong, when there is already ample evidence that they are. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * All of this is invalid, as it is original research. The current content is properly cited with reliable sources that are verifiable.  The 1.4/1000 rate mentioned in the second cite is not the rate of homicides, contrary to what you claim.  The 140/100,000 rate is the rate of homicides by the first cite.  There are additional rates mentioned of 180/100,000 for people shot at least 2 times for the likelihood of being shot again in the second source, which is additional data that perhaps should be included, too, for further support that the rates of gun violence and gun homicide vary greatly across England and Wales, while peaking exceptionally high in some areas of GM.  The mentioned 1.4/1000 rate of shootings over 4 years is in the same exact area where the 140/100,000 homicide rate in 2002 was present, hence the reason for including this cite, too.  To summarize, however, I dispute all of your Original Research, as it is just that, OR.  The article text is properly cited with reliable and verifiable sources.  Simply disputing it, on the basis of your Original Research, is not permitted.  If you disagree with including content that is properly cited with reliable and verifiable sources, then mediation is perfectly acceptable. However, censorship of properly cited article text based upon your Original Research is not an acceptable reason for omitting these data. Yaf (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf. You refer to "the first cite" and then "the second cite". I do not see your argument at all. It is hard to follow your claim. I understand Nick but I do not understand you at all. Instead of this referral back to uncertain places, please copy the string of text from the sources you are referring to into this talk page and then give us the url of the reference you are referring to. Then we will know what text you are referring to.


 * As far as I can see, I have already shown that the rate for the precise suburbs quoted would account for all the gun deaths in the whole of England and Wales (which is extremely unlikely) and Nick has demonstrated that the rate given for Manchester as whole would result in several times as many gun related deaths as happened in the entire year. That is a definite invalidation. A source may be quoted but sources do sometimes get it wrong. If can be mathematically demonstrated to be wrong, it cannot be OR.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf, I think you should consider very carefully what you think you are saying. I am glad that you now acknowledge that the second (Bullock/Tilley) cite is for all shootings, but it is misleading to attach it to a sentence that is explicitly talking about firearms homicides. It is also grossly inappropriate to not clarify that it is a four-year rate, not a single-year one, like that used in the sentence you are attempting to support with it.
 * The first source (i.e. the Observer article) has now been thoroughly discredited. As noted previously, there were 224 homicides in Greater Manchester in 2002/03, with 172 of them being victims of Harold Shipman. This is a rate of 8.9 per 100,000 - the "non-Shipman" rate would be 2.1 per 100,000. It is therefore a mathematical impossibility for the firearms homicide rate to be 10 per 100,000 in Greater Manchester in 2002, since the firearms homicides rate cannot be higher than the all homicides rate, especially when the 76.8% of those homicides were Shipman's poisoning victims. Likewise, the supposed rate (i.e. 140 per 100,000) for "Longsight, Moss Side, and Hulme" would produce an actual number of deaths (i.e. 50) that would account for the vast bulk of firearms homicides in England and Wales in the same year (i.e. 58). There is simply no way that this could be the case and it not be widely discussed in the media and government, but there are no other sources that claim the numbers shot dead in those areas were as high as that, and in fact the Bullock/Tilley report shows that in the four years 1997-2000 there were 29 fatal shootings. The idea that it could go from an average of just over 7 a year to 50 without it being widely documented is preposterous. In short, the Observer is wrong on these points, pure and simple.
 * The second second cite (Bullock/Tilley) is for all shootings, not firearms homicides, over four years. A four-year 1.4/1,000 rate cannot corroborate a single-year 140/100,000 rate, because 1.4/1,000 in four years is 0.35/1,000 or 35/100,000 in a single year. If all shootings in certain sub-areas are 35/100,000 in a single year, how can firearms homicides in some of the same sub-areas run to 140/100,000?! The areas identified cannot have the rates of firearms homicides you are claiming, as that would conflict with multiple other sources.
 * I would note that you continue to dispute the figures I have offered to refute your claims on the grounds of it being "original research," which is nonsense. Converting rates to numbers is perfectly straightforward when the population in question is known; it is not some wildly complicated branch of advanced mathematics. Perhaps you would like to clarify your position by explaining the numbers you think are related to the rates you keep citing, i.e.:
 * 1) What actual number is produced by "10 per 100,000" of the population of "Greater Manchester"?
 * 2) What actual number is produced by "140 per 100,000" of the population of "Longsight, Moss Side, and Hulme"?
 * Once you have done those calculations, you are free to come back and explain why you think they are more credible than multiple other sources that contradict them. 07:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are continuing to confuse rates with totals, based upon performing your Original Research and conflating homicide rates in some small areas with the homicide rates seen across much larger areas. If you dispute the numbers in the cited sources, then you need to find other sources for homicide rates and shooting rates in the specific wards of Manchester where the high rates occurred in 2002, rather than simply conflating the high rates in small areas with much larger population areas and then falsely complaining that the totals don't add up, as there were not that many people killed.  The cited sources simply give homicide and shooting rates in some specific areas of Manchester, not in the whole of Manchester.  The difference between rates (deaths per 100,000 and shootings per 100,000) is entirely different from the total number of deaths computed with your Original Research by assuming high rates existing across areas where they do not apply and then arguing that that many people were not killed.  You obviously do not understand the difference between homicide and shooting rates per 100,000 for small areas vs. for large areas.  The high rates apply where the cited sources claim, not across all of Manchester. Have restored properly cited information that is factually correct and that is properly cited with reliable and verifiable sources.  Please do not remove these data again without citing some reliable and verifiable sources that show different rates in these specific areas (and specifically for 2002, for homicide rates, when the rates were so high).  Yaf (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf, neither I nor anyone else needs "to find other sources for homicide rates and shooting rates in the specific wards of Manchester where the high rates occurred in 2002" to dispute the spurious rates given in The Observer. That article apparently gives a firearms homicide rate for "Greater Manchester" (i.e. "10 per 100,000") that in relation to the population of that area (i.e. 2,513,468) equates to a total number (i.e. 251) that is greater than the actual number of homicides in Greater Manchester in 2002/03 (i.e. 172 Shipman + 58 others = 224). That rate is therefore clearly utterly wrong. Do you accept that? If not, please explain precisely why you think either the mathematics or the source figures I have used are wrong. I don't want a vague "you're confusing this with that," I want you to explain what you think the rate means in terms of actual numbers. Once you have done that, you can do the same for the named sub-areas, as well. You can also try to find a news report that refers to more than 50 people being shot dead in Greater Manchester in 2003, let alone more than 250, but you'll have a fruitless search. Manchester was an statistical outlier at that time - and still is to a certain extent - but if it was as extreme as the spurious rates you are clinging to, it would be all over the national news. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this. Yaf, your arguments do not stand up. All you have now done is to add the wrong data from the faulty Observer report and then quote from blogs (blogs!) that either quote from this wrong report or worse still muddle the matters even more. For instance one talks about the murder rate in the UK in the context of gun control, as if guns are implicated in murders. Well guns do play a prominent role in the US murder rate, but a very low percentage of UK murders (about one in 15 if memory serves me right). But the audience for these blogs is so stupid that they don't even notice how the "story" being told to them is grossly distorted. You cling to the belief that the Observer report must be right, even though we can demonstrate that it is wrong. You continue to ignore pleas for you to clarify your claims or justify your belief in this report. Worse still you seem to be even misuing information in the Bullock report. That report makes the point that many of the people involved in the Manchester shootings are involved in gang violence by pointing out that a person who has already been shot previously is highly likely to be shot again... and higher still to get shot a third time. This statistic applies to a tiny population of Manchester .. i.e. a tiny population of those involved in gang violence and who have been shot. And you have used that statistic and tried to give the impression that this level of violence applies to the population of Manchester as a whole. That is disgraceful. Your edit rights should be removed. If you persist in inserting this text I will make a formal complaint (yes I have made that threat before and not followed thru on it, but do not think for one minute that this will happen again.) --Hauskalainen (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a major POV problem with this section, as it claims that homicide rates are low all across England and Wales and firearm ownership is low. Both are patently false, as the properly cited data that I added show.  The high rate of homicides per 100,000 and shootings per 100,000 statistics do apply to certain wards in Greater Manchester, and are validated by properly cited reliable and verifiable sources.  Yet, you insist on preserving the happy fiction that there is no such problem, while conflating improperly the high rates in some wards with an Original Research argument that the data cannot be right because the total number of people did not die in all of Manchester assuming the same high rate that applies only in certain wards.  The point that needs to be made is that homicide rates and shooting rates vary widely across the UK, rising to astronomical values in some areas.  It is patently false and POV to censor properly cited data from the article, to put on a "happy face" above a stiff uppper lip. Have inserted a POV-section warning label on this section until the POV become NPOV, with factual balancing of the "happy face" data that you seem so intent on preserving, contrary to fact.   There was a major problem in these parts of GM in 2002, and the problems still largely remain, although there has been improvement.  Censorship of factual, cited and sourced data is contrary to Wikipedia policies. This is definitely worthy of taking to formal mediation, or filing RfCs on users intent on censoring factual data from Wikipedia to push a "happy face" POV.  Editors who remove properly cited data and engage in edit warring to maintain POV stilted text are the ones who should have their editing rights removed.  Yaf (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf, I find it quite disturbing that it seems you are continuing to argue on the basis that the spurious firearms homicides rates for Greater Manchester and sub-areas of it in the Observer article are true, and are continuing to seek to misrepresent the very clear interpretation of the rates that I and others have made. Please look at the latest Home Office statistical bulletin on homicide and firearms crime here. You will note from Table 2b on page 40 that the number of fatal shootings has never risen above 98. For 2001/02 (April to March financial year) it was 98 (2 with air weapons) and for 2002/03 it was 81 (1 with an air weapon). This proves without a shadow of a doubt that the "10 per 100,000" rate claimed for Manchester in "2002" in the Observer is a mistake, as that rate would equate to a number of 251.


 * You would also be advised to look at the bulletin that deals specifically with 2002/03 here. You will note that white it states on page 33 that 12% of non-air weapon firearms offences occured in Greater Manchester, there is nothing to suggest the number of firearms homicides in that area is as high as the rate claimed by the Observer implies. By the same token, however, the bulletin does frequently clarify that the high number of homicides as a whole that year are a result of the includion of 172 poisoning victims of Harold Shipman, which occured within the Greater Manchester area. Do you not think that if the number of firearms homicides in Greater Manchester were as high as the spurious rate in the Observer article suggests, that it would not be mentioned?


 * I would ask you yet again that if you dispute the 251 figure, then please explain what you understand the "10 per 100,000" rate for "Greater Manchester" to mean in terms of numbers. This is very simple: if you don't agree with my/our maths, then you have to justify yours. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Yaf is wrong in the sense that the section does not claim a uniform rate of homicide across England and Wales. I would have no problem about the gun crime rate in Greater Manchester being mentioned in the article as long as we used a reliable source such as the Home Office report (and not the erroneous Observer article) and also if the the edit was neutral and did not engage in the misuse of statistics as Yaf has been prone to do. I would even go so far as to be happy to find a US city with a verifiably similar rate of gun crime. But referring to small suburbs as statistically significant would be the wrong thing to do because, for a given year, any place which has experienced gun crime, e.g. Hungerford or Dunblane (where there have been mass massacres for example) will have appaling statistics in that year. Greater Manchester as a whole would be a fair target for statistics because it is a significantly large area (as would those 3 wards within the GM area IF WE HAD statistics for several years in a row). A POV tag at this juncture would not be appropriate (merely because Yaf thinks it is unbalanced). Nick and I could equally have claimed your edit was expressing a point of view and not a neutrally agreeable position. Personally I would be happy if the GM claim was in the article IF THE TEXT ALSO CONTAINED BALANCING TEXT EXPLAINING WHY THAT CLAIM IS STATISTICALLY UNRELIABLE. That would perhaps please Yaf more, given that he is so keen to keep it in. It would at lease debunk the myth spread in those blogs he pointed us to.--Hauskalainen (talk) 09:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree that the Home Office report (i.e. Bullock/Tilley "Chrome") is sufficient in itself to deal with the higher levels of firearms crimes in Greater Manchester, as long as it is made clear that the rates in it are for a four year period. What was misleading was Yaf quoting the spurious "140 per 100,000" for 2002 from the Observer for "Longsight, Moss Side, and Hulme" and then following it by quoting Bullock/Tilley with "For every 1,000 head of population in Longsight and Greenheys there were 1.4 shootings," without mentioning that latter was not just fatal shootings, and the rate was not for a single year. Whether by accident or design this was highly misleading, as any reader who looked at the footnotes but did not progress to the actual sources may easily assume that the second quote - though for slightly diffrent sub-areas - at 1.4 per 1,000 corroborated the spurious "140 per 100,000" from the Observer.
 * It's notable that the last time Yaf tried to include the Obsever as a source yesterday, they omitted Bullock/Tilley in favour of blogs merely commenting on the Observer piece. To me this suggests that Yaf now recognises that the rates quoted in Bullock/Tilley are for four years, which when averaged to single-years come out substantially lower than the spurious Observer claims/errrors, but for purely ideological reasons they prefer the latter. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

more synthesis and misrepresentation of sources, will it ever end?
user hauskalainen insists on inclusion of the following entirely synthetic and misrepresentative construct:

"Some have claimed that countries such as Finland and Switzerland allow their citizens to own firearms, but the law in those countries is not so clear cut. Resisting tyrrany is not a valid reason for obtaining a permit either in Finland or Switzerland."

first, kopel is the source for the statement that finland and switzerland allow their citizens to own firearms. and that statement is factual - finland and switzerland allow their citizens to own firearms. hauskalainen insists that it must state "some claim" - first off, those are weasel words, and secondly they misrepresent the source. thirdly, it's just plain incorrect - it's suggested - and intended to give the impression - that maybe finland and switzerland do not allow their citizens to own firearms, which is patently untrue.

second, the claim that "resisting tyrrany(sic) is not a valid reason for obtaining a permit either(sic) in finland" is pure synthesis. nowhere in the cited material does it state that. deriving a claim from a source that the source doesn't explicitly make is textbook synthesis. "having blue eyes is not a valid reason for obtaining a permit" "owning a teddy bear is not a valid reason for obtaining a permit" "a desire to visit japan is not a valid reason for obtaining a permit" and so on. you cannot just make up any contrary statement that fits your argument, then apply it to the source. Anastrophe (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is that the gun laws in Finland are very similar to the gun laws in many countries. One may own a gun if one has a good reason and one has obtained a licence to do so. What is wrong is that this text (a) implies that other countries in Europe do not allow people to own a gun (which is wrong) and (b) its placing in this section implies that the government position on granting a licence is somehow related to a purpose, the purpose being "to resist tyranny". Well Kopel may have said one or both of these things (which is hard to argue as neither of us by our own admissions has seen this book). It would be nice if we had Kopel's original source for these claims, but unless someone comes forward and helps us out, we are stuck. So the next issue is, whether Kopel is right on point (a) or point (b). Well I know for a fact that many people in the UK legally own firearms. And they can use them, for example in hunting. They need to be properly licenced and the licence holder must follow certain rules. Many countries in Europe have very similar laws. In fact the UK ban on handguns in all but the most stringent circumstances is unique in Europe. So most countries do allow guns to be held if they are held for vaild reasons and properly licenced. The text implies that Finland and Swizerland are unique when the reality is that they are not. Except that Swiss reservists must keep their weapons at home and Finland has lots of obsolete weapons held as memorabilia and quite a lot of functional weapons as the country is sparsely populated and hunting is still widely practiced. Neither of these reasons has anything to do with "resisting tyranny". The text was not in a section which claimed that having blue eyes or owning or owning a teddy bear was connected to gun licensing. But this text WAS in a section which is about an argument that "resisting tyranny" is a reason for having a right to keep a gun. Neither of these arguments are very strong when it comes to Finland or Switzerland. Which is why the claim of ONE author should not go unchallenged. I personally would have preferred to delete the entire text because it is demonstrably wrong, but in absolute fairness, the best thing is to say that Kopel has said this and then give the reasons why his analysis is suspect. There is a fine line between the truth and WP:OR, but in this case, the truth is quite easy to demonstrate because the laws or the law enforcers rules are on line. Neither of these support what Kopel says (or as I should say, is alleged to have said).--Hauskalainen (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * this may be a first - i'm tentatively in agreement on these points. i think the entire text in dispute should be scrubbed, as taken altogether - in either the previous or current version - it makes synthetic suggests, as you note above - it suggests that finland/switzerland are unique (switzerland/finland are signficantly different from most EU countries in terms of gun ownership rates, but the way it's presented makes it sound like they are unique for simply having gun ownership and that's not correct). and, the juxtaposition of that suggestion within the 'resisting tyranny' section implies that this is one of the reasons for that - but again, that has not been verified in reliable sources (though i would maintain that resisting foreign invaders, no matter which 'side' one perceives the invaders to be on, does in fact constitute 'resisting tyranny' - but that is my opinion, i haven't looked for sources).
 * my recommendation is to scrub the paragraph. Anastrophe (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

POV tag
Yaf has tagged the United Kingdom section as "POV," seemingly in response to the continued removal of the Observer-sourced spurious firearms homicide rates for Greater Manchester and sub-areas of the same that myself and Hauskalainen have repeatedly shown to be wrong and therefore deleted. The bottom line is that the rates in question are not true, have been demonstrated to be not true, and are not corroborated by any other source. There is simply no POV issue in this respect beyond Yaf being unwilling to accept that the Observer article is wrong. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So, did the Observer print a retraction and quote "corrected" rates? If not, then it stands. Miker789 (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, because there is ample evidence that disproves them, as extensively quoted above. If an otherwise reliable newspaper said, "grass is blue," would you wait for a retraction before believing it to be untrue? Nick Cooper (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I contacted them about this but it seems they only correct recently published errors. I suppose that is understandable given that in time it gets harder to check things out. The journalist that wrote the article is no longer at the paper.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If this is the case, I suggest the neutrality tag be removed. If nobody objects, I will remove the tag within 1 week of this postNickCT (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Killias Report
There was infomation on the page that the report found no correlation between the levels of gun ownership and overall homicide and suicide rates, this is not true and I quoute. "Substantial correlations were found between gun ownership and gun-related as well as total suicide and homicide rates." I hence changed the "no correlation" to a "some correlation". I am unsure how to change the refernce for the statement though, as they seem to have been grouped somehow if someone could please tweek the reference I would be greatful.--122.57.88.184 (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to clarify that sentence a bit. Killias makes the strong claim about "substantial correlation" in the introduction, but then reveals in the results section that the correlation is only significant at the .10 level when the USA and Northern Ireland are excluded.  See this archived thread or page 298 of the courtesy-linked source for additional information. --Hamitr (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You deleted my correction of the text and added back the error claiming that the original text was correct. It simply is not. The original text said


 * Martin Killias, in a study covering 21 countries, found that there were substantial correlations between gun ownership and gun-related suicide and homicide rates and some correlation between gun ownership and total suicide and homicide rates when the USA and Northern Ireland were excluded from the analysis


 * Now this seems to imply that if you take the USA out of the statisticsal comparison for homicides and suicides the relationhip breaks down.. i.e. that there is a relationship between gun ownership and gun deaths in other countries, but not in the USA. In fact the opposite is true.  Killias is careful to discuss the situation with NI and the USA as otential "outliers".. i.e. countries that seem to be at some extreme... in this case because gun ownership and gun deaths (homicides and suicides for the USA and suicides for NI) are very high in both countries and could distort the situation.  In fact he confirms that there is a correlation whether you include or exclude these countries.


 * Your reason for the revert refered me to this passage from the report


 * Interestingly, the strong correlation between gun ownership levels and suicides by firearms and the absence of any displacement effect do result in only moderately increased overall suicide rates (proposition D). Without the USA and Northern Ireland, the correlation is .353 and significant only at the .10 level; when Northern Ireland is added, the correlation becomes slightly stronger (.392) but when the USA (with its extremely low rate of non-gun suicides, see Table 2) is also included, it drops to .229 and becomes non-significant.


 * This section is discussing SUICIDES and the possible displacement effect (using some other tool to effect the suicide if guns are not present). It is NOT discussing homicdes but proposition D, a test for an assumption that the total rate of suicide is affected by gun ownership levels. If there was total substitution of a gun for some other means then there would be no evidence of subsitution (i.e. a low or zero correlation). The statement that you refered me to is in fact saying there is some support for correlation (i.e. a subsitution effect) in most countries, but this correlation disappears when the USA is added in to the mix. This is what Killian goes on to say


 * The reason for the low impact of gun ownership on total suicide rates probably is the generally modest proportion of suicides which are committed with a firearm, the percentage ranging in the 18 countries from 2.4% in the Netherlands to 31.9% in Canada, with the USA (58.7%) being an outlyer. Therefore, even a massive increase in suicides using firearms will

result in only a moderate increase in overall suicide rates. Given the small sample size, any increase would need to be very large in order to reach statistical significance.


 * In other words, the presence of guns in most countries (i.e. exluding the US) does not change suicide levels... i.e. people in those countries intent on killing themselves will do regardless of the presence of a gun. But in the US where gun ownership levels are very high there seems to be little substitution effect.. so the presence of guns in the USA does seem to increase overall suicide rates. There is little evidence for proposition D when the US is excluded.


 * This is completely different from what you claims it is talking about. The correlation proving a subsitution effect for suicide IS NOT the same as some correlation between gun ownership and total suicide and homicide rates which is the text that you wish to preserve. In fact the reverse is true. The USA and Northern Ireland have very high suicide rates and very high gun ownership rates... they kind of strengthen the correlation between gun ownerhsip and gun suicides. --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize for that revert. I overlooked the fact that you had removed "suicides" from the sentence.  --Hamitr (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"statistics" section
The sources of the statistics are very limited and clearly intended to further a POV, consistent with the "National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank", that gun ownership and crime are negatively correlated. Frankly, I find this entire page tainted, but without further analysis I only feel comfortable marking this section. 129.188.33.27 (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Forgive me but I have been trying to tie in what you are saying with the article. The section headed "National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank" seems to be saying that there is a correlation between gun control and rises in crime, rather different from what you seem to be saying. Most of the rest of the statistics seem to say the same. The section above this one does indead try and draw the conclusion you find tainted, but as there is a large sectioo (the one you claim is biased) that makes the counter point I think your placement of a dispute tag rather uncalled for and I think it should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)]]


 * I agree with 129.188.33.27 that the "Gun safety and gun laws" section under "Statistics" is not neutral. It quotes statistics in support of the idea that stricter gun laws produce more crime, from disproportionately from gun freedom advocates.  It may also confuse correlation and causation in some of its other statistics.  In general, the "Statistics" section overlaps with the "Arguments" section, and the article would probably be better if they were integrated.  Though it would be useful to have an explanation of studies that compare the magnitude of various effects (e.g. suicides plus homocides) to come to an overall conclusion about the impact on the death rate. -- Beland (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Rather than complaining about the POV of the statistics, why not find well referenced peer reviewed sources that can be used to dispute the statistics given. That seems like a much better approach than to complain about the statistics given.  (I don't suppose that it's possible the statistics are accurate?) Fredrik Coulter (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The entire article requires a thorough revision, partly in order to separate undisputed statistics from advocacy arguments. It is also the case that international information gets mixed into the U.S. section. Chain27 (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Chain27. The entire article has to have POV editted out.  I think we can start by simply removing the "Gun Safety and Gun Laws" section.  This section seems simply like it's voicing an opinion paper from a partisan organization generating its own statistics (which are dubious to say the least).  There is no balance here.  No redeeming value.  I will remove this entire section within one week off this posting if there are no objections. NickCT (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's try to balance the perceived POV rather than just removing the section. --Hamitr (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Gun control citations
Checking out the gun control paragraph, it seems that both of the references are just links to the Gun politics article. Moreover, the references in that article re: use of knives and other alternate weapons in response to gun control directly contradict the paragraph.

Controversy aside, the paragraph seems topical enough, but I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia without references to a reliable primary source, so I've gone ahead and removed it for now. 85.64.3.6 (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, wrong discussion page. Meant to post that on Unintended consequences. My bad. 85.64.3.6 (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Need for clean-up and add reference citations
I have cleaned up this page--Gun Politics-- as thoroughly as possible, correcting grammatical errors, typos and adding references in almost all subheadings. I have also globalized the subject as much as possible, again adding references and bringing in the work of well-known researchers in this area. All my work has been diligently referenced and cited on both sides of the issue. I prefer to remain anonymous. Thank you, User talk:71.28.160.7.August 10,2007: 5:38PM


 * I strongly suggest that the "Gun politics" page carry a reference to the Wikiquote page currently titled "Guns" (and which I further suggest should be renamed "Gun politics" as the quotes appearing there seem to be entirely pertinent to victim disarmament - er, "gun control"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.135.75 (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Arguments
Regarding citations to Kellermann, Kleck, Lott, MdDowall, etc... all of their respective studies and methodology have been called into serious question. Particularly the noted Kellermann and Kleck studies. Perhaps they should be removed?
 * They've "been called into serious question," have they? How?  By whom? To what purpose?  Kellermann has certainly (and with perfect justification) been debunked, but I have yet to see authors like Kleck and Lott robustly or reliably critiqued.  If there are supportable reasons to remove references and positions such as you've proposed, can you detail the bases upon which you've advanced your opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.135.75 (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the following assertion from the section "Statistics": " Public Health researchers state that the likelihood of someone dying from suicide or homicide is less in homes where guns are present. from http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html "A Gun in the Home" GunCite.com, Retrieved 6 July 2009". The assertion is not supported by the reference, which instead refutes the 43:1 ratio (the likelihood that a gun in the home will kill someone besides an intruder). Jeffspc88mx (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Limited locations
What I found most impressive about this article is the lack of coverage of most of the world. There are in excess of 180 countries in the world, yet the article only discusses about ten or fifteen countries. Shouldn't an attempt be made to cover gun laws and politics in the rest of the world? (I came here to find out what the laws and issues were in New Zealand. Tough for me.)

And on a minor issue, I'm not thrilled with the organization of the article. The headings within the European Union are not that easy to distinguish from the main level headings, and are apparently randomly listed. Is there a method to the organization of countries within the European Union. If not, I may reorganize them alphabetically. I'm not sure if there's a good way of making easily distinguishable sublevel headings.Fredrik Coulter (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. The "arguments" section in particular is very biased towards the United States, with many sections only listing studies that deal with American gun statistics and don't concern the global situation. Perhaps a "globalize" tag should be added to the article? Xotn (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that compiling data on 100+ countries is possible, but it's a good goal. Guns aren't a huge issue in many places other than the United States, and figuring out the laws even just in the US is fairly tough. Also, something that is legally permitted might not actually be allowed in practice - e.g., Californian law allows for all non-felons to apply for a CCW license, but only the well-connected or well-heeled actually receive them. I think that if you're going to include a section on, say, Romanian machine-gun law, that section should have information talking about the situation "on the ground". R.westermeyer (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a source for ownership data in 59 nations here: Title:  Is there a Relationship between Guns and Freedom?  Comparative Results from 59 Nations, Texas Review of Law and Politics, 2008.  It may not have all that your want, but I've never seen so much firearms data from so many countries in one place. Mvialt (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please DO NOT cite this study. The idea that economic correlation is correlated with guns per captia is so absurd I can't believe someone looked into it.  Suprise! Even the authors found that there was little correlation even when they took the 59 nations that they had data on including war-torn nations and some right-wing metric for "economic freedom" or a correlated notion of "perception of corrpution".  Even someone with half a brain should be able to rationalize: if most of Europe has VERY strict gun control laws, and they do (relatively) well economically, clearly there is ABSOLUTELY NO NECESSITY that you have to have guns in a society.  If someone catches a case of the stupids and decides to quote this study, please please please quote the r^2 that the authors arive at trying to establish the correlation.  I mean it's pretty clear there is no causation here, but they haven't even shown correlation! --68.195.44.36 (talk) 07:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I made no claim about the "Texas Review of Law and Politics" article being a source for anything other than OWNERSHIP data for firearms from 59 nations. I made no argument that "economic correlation is correlated with guns per captia" (sic).  As far as I know, the article does not make such claims either.  It is merely a source for gun ownership data in a LOT of nations worldwide, which fits with what the original poster in this section had wanted:  a more worldwide perspective.Mvialt (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Gun control in Brazil
The article writes:"Brazil has the second largest arms industry in the Western Hemisphere.[6] Approximately 80 percent of the weapons manufactured in Brazil are exported, mostly to neighboring countries; many of these weapons are then smuggled back into Brazil.[6] Some firearms in Brazil come from police and military arsenals, having either been "stolen or sold by corrupt soldiers and officers."

Well, Argentina and Mexico buys far more firearms than Brazil. The number of firearms from Brazilian Army, FAB and Brazilian Navy used in crimes is very small. Even firearms from the police are rare in crimes. The article is weak about these fact, using Brazilian left's lies.Agre22 (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)agre22

The Theory Behind Gun Control (editing "Gun Politics")
I believe this site is fundamentally sound. I believe the article could use some more statistics to represent the populace as a whole and demographics. One thing I noticed in my research was that crimes went down in the 90's becuase of gun bans.

Furthermore, in the section "Gun Politics," people say they carry guns for protection. Fear is one factor, another factor I would add in is to settle disputes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hovercraft4 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Indian POV pushing
From this forum.©Geni 18:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Statistics lacking in Statistics section
The first paragraph of this [|section] requires more detailed statistics rather than conclusions drawn at the source. [Haciendapub.com gunpage 15|The source citation] is not a primary source. I recommend an NPOV flag for this section, until this is resolved. Here's the text that seems most troubling:

“While many shootings occur in the course of a mutual argument of passion, others occur where a partner or family member of a "romantic" or familial relationship, who is an ongoing victim of domestic physical abuse or sexual abuse, uses the force of a firearm in self-defense action against a perpetrator who also happens to be known to or related to the victim. As a corollary, in such policy advertising campaigns, the comparison of "domestic" gun casualties is usually not accompanied by murder and assault prosecution numbers stemming from the shootings occurring in that context. In many of the latter cases, the victim firing in self-defense is frequently a woman or youth victim of a more physically powerful abuser. In those situations gun rights advocates argue that the firearm arguably becomes an equalizer against the lethal and disabling force frequently exercised by the abusers. Many gun control opponents point to statistics in advertising campaigns purporting that "approximately 9 or so children are killed by people discharging firearms every day across the US," and argue that this statistic is seldom accompanied by a differentiation of those children killed by individuals from unintentional discharges and stray bullets, and of those "children," under the age of majority—which is 18-21 in the U.S.—who are killed while acting as aggressors in street gang related mutual combat or while committing crimes, many of which are seen as arising from the War on Drugs. There is further controversy regarding courts, trials, and the resulting sentences of these mostly "young men" as adults despite them not having reached the age of consent. A significant number of gun related deaths occur through suicide.” Kohl Gill (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)