Talk:Right to keep and bear arms/Archive 6

long list of weapon laws to be reverted.
this article is about the right to keep and bear arms. this is not the Gun Politics article, or any other article about lists of laws. this is an encyclopedia article. the list is completely out of place. it might be appropriate in Weapon Laws of the UK or some such. this is not that article.

removing sourced material from this article that has to do with the actual topic of rights and replacing it with unsourced prose (repeatedly littered with typos - very careless and unencyclopaedic) and lists of weapon laws, is nonsensical. Anastrophe (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed two references to acts or charters where there is no reference to gun possession rights (so they are off topic) and I merged a section on the Bill of Rights becuase it had been discussed in the previous section. That is not unreasonable. I added a section on things other than guns (like KNIVES because I have been accused of making some sections gun centric, which I agreed they should not be). The only right that I can see that has ever been written in to English law was in the Bill of Rights (which was peculiar to its time that bit of the bill is not very relevant today in English law. The Bill if Rights stands out as an exceptionally bad piece of law and it rightly is not given much credit even though some parts of it are considered part of the English constitution. It certainly is not to be taken as similar to the US constitution (as amended) even though it copies parts of it. Any reference to the similarities and differences belongs in the US section which is later both in sequence in the article and historically. I was going to move that bit there but I have been diverted into replying to this and other issues. Again, if there is unsourced prose ASK FOR A SCOURCE. Don't delete it. The weapon laws help to define the extent of the controls of weapons and the powers of enforcement. Given the extremely high volume of space given over to US law matters, the space take is not too great. I do not accept the validity of your delete of my edits. I will reinstate them. Please discuss do the courtesy of dicussing here before deleting them again. I have no desire to edit war with you.--Hauskalainen (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * do you not see the grave inconsistency in your comments above? i'll repeat them, juxtaposed:

"I removed two references to acts or charters where there is no reference to gun possession rights (so they are off topic)" "I added a section on things other than guns (like KNIVES because I have been accused of making some sections gun centric, which I agreed they should not be)."
 * do you see the problem? paraphrased: 'i removed material that didn't reference guns - because it was therefore off-topic. i added material that didn't reference guns - because it was therefore on-topic'. this makes no sense whatsoever.
 * "is not very relevant today in English law." this is not an article about "today's UK laws". it is about the right to keep and bear arms, and the section title is "Historical sources, protections, and extinguishments of the right". it may indeed not be relevant today in english law, but that's a meaningless contention in the context of this article. what reliable source, other than you, makes this contention?
 * "The Bill if Rights stands out as an exceptionally bad piece of law". according to what reliable source, other than you?
 * i will certainly delete unsourced prose, particularly when rife with typos, without requesting sources. on contentious articles such as this, it simply does not work to have editors add unverifiable information to the article then hope that someone comes along and adds sources. all claims that "X means Y" must be sourced. it is wikipedia policy that unsourced material must be culled from articles.
 * the list of laws is wholey inappropriate to this article. this article is not Gun Politics in the United Kingdom. your list might be appropriate there. this article is an exampination of the right to keep and bear arms. it is an encyclopedia entry.
 * the excessive use of boldface type is not in agreement with the wikipedia manual of style.

Anastrophe (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not the least bit inconsistent. The edit that I removed basically said "laws A and B do not mention this right". Why would they? The law is already settled because parliament has changed it. The English just do not see this as a fundamental right. It is very dubious whether the Bill of Rights had any great meaning because Protestants already had the right to bear arms anyway. There was a presumed right in law. The only change was that parliament declared it permanent and that element is regarded as unconstitutional and has simply been ignored. My comment about it being bad law is personal and reading it from today's perspective.  Just read it! It would be an embarrassment to have to follow it! But have not put my opinion in the article, so no harm done.  But I stand by assertion of a direct connection that the right as it exists is as modified by law. The right is not absolute in the US and is not absolute in the UK. It will differ. It is qualified by law and we therefore need to understand this.

Supremacy of the constitution - OR?
OK Wikipedia cannot be used as a primary source, but I have not dreamt up the idea that the constitution over is arching. See Supremacy Clause which says that "The Constitution is the highest form of law in the American legal system. State judges are required to uphold it, even if state laws or constitutions conflict with it". Surely this was also reflected in Emerson where the judges (by 5 to 4 majority), having determined that the second amendment gave a constitutional right to carry a handgun for self-defence, then ruled that the regulations made in D.C. infringed a right in the constitution AND THEN FOUND FOR THE PETITIONER. They would not have done that if the constitution did not have primacy. --Hauskalainen (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But, that is not what you said. Specifically, in your edit, you said the US Constitution was "over-arching" (sic) (by the way, there is no hyphen in this word), overarching meaning something that is "dominating or embracing all else" by Webster.  The US Constitution specifically does not dominate or embrace all else; rather, it is a document that carefully limits the powers of the Federal Government, while retaining the ultimate rights with the people.  In the US Constitutional form of Government, there is no one sovereign, not even a figurehead sovereign. We ended that form of government in a war back in the  1700's with George III.  But, I digress.  The concept of a Supremacy Clause does not say that the US Constitution dominates all else.  Rather, it says that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  This is a whole different concept than saying the US Constitution is overarching.  Again, you are confusing the concept of Parliamentary supremacy, in which there are no such limits on what the government can do, under which a government can be overarching, in the sense that Parliament can usurp the rights of the people for convenience, progressivism, modernism, the "public good", taxation, or whatever reason, or no reason, without the people having any recourse other than to elect new MPs. Meanwhile, the rights of the people have been diminished; e.g., the common law right of Englishmen everywhere in the 1700's to self defense having subsequently been removed from the UK.  In the US Constitution, the common law right to keep and bear arms for self defense or for opposing government tyranny, etc., is specifically codified in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution and is thereby prevented from being usurped without an amendment to the US Constitution from occurring.  The parliamentary form of government results in a totally different form of government than what the US Constitution achieves.  The US Constitutional form of Government is specifically not overarching by design, being designed to prevent the collection of limited government powers even within any one branch of Government, breaking out the limited powers among three separate parts of Government: the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.   It is extreme Original Research to make the false claim that the US Constitution is overarching. It is also extremely offensive for you to keep repeating the tired rhetoric implying that the parliamentary form of government is somehow better, in that the restrictions of common law rights by legislators, such as in imposing taxes for the public good or whatever, is a better method of government. It is likewise offensive to exhibit hoplophobia, being guns are just another tool that often are needed by citizens.  Lets just recognize the differences in governments, modify article content appropriately, take a more global point of view than just a British point of view, and move on, OK?  Yaf (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You are going off at a tangent again and spurting all sorts of things about which I said nothing. Especially about parliamentary supremacy. You seem more concerned about the word overarching. All I am intending to say is that if state law conflicts with the constitution, the constitution takes precedence. Are you disputing this? You seem to agree with it when you say the "US Constitution is the supreme law of the land". I can rephrase the sentence to avoid using the word overarching, I could say "constitutional law is supreme and takes precedence over state or federal law" if that makes you happier and make reference to the decision in Emerson if you like. You are again spouting on about common law rights when the right to bear arms in the US is these days a constitutional right as per the supreme court ruling in Emerson. That was key factor in Emerson. I would have thought you would be happy about that! As a constitutional right it can only be overturned by a constitutional change requiring 3/4 of the states to approve it.  If the right to bear arms were merely a common law right, then the legislators in D.C. could have restricted it, the same as any other common law right. The supreme court decided it was not just a common law right but a constitutional right.

--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No tangential drift at all. You are not seeing the intricacies, but are oversimplifying. You state, "All I am intending to say is that if state law conflicts with the constitution, the constitution takes precedence. Are you disputing this?"  Actually, I am disputing exactly this oversimplification. The US Constitution is not all encompassing. If state law conflicts with an interpretation of the US Constitution, it depends on the precise topic as to which takes precedence.  It is not an automatic foregone conclusion that the federal US Constitution automatically always takes precedence on each and every law topic. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land.  But, it often does not speak one way or the other on any specific topic.  State and local law may be the only governing law on any specific topic.  The US Constitution limits the scope and the powers of the federal government.  Only in those areas in which powers are specifically granted to the federal government does federal law take precedence over local or even state law.  Otherwise, state and local law take precedence, unless the US Supreme Court rules that the state and local law in question somehow violates a portion of the US Constitution that has been incorporated, or that the state and local law fall within the purview of a portion of the US Constitution that is focused directly at the local or state jurisdiction as identified within the US Constitution.  The US Constitution does not automatically take precedence over all state and federal law, except for those precise powers that are granted within the US Constitution.  You fail to understand the intricacies of the US Constitution, specifically, those intricacies involving state powers and citizen rights.  As stated previously, some see the US Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments of the US Constitution) as encapsulating and codifying common law rights.  The Ninth Amendment specifically is germane, as it specifically incorporates unenumerated common law rights.  The right to keep and bear arms is a common law right that was also enumerated in the US Constitution, being protected against infringement by Congress in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.  The Second Amendment has not been incorporated against the states or local jurisdictions.  This means that local areas can and do regulate guns differently in different parts of the country within states and local jurisdictions. Hence, the 20,000 gun laws previously discussed.  Nonetheless, there are federal gun laws, empowered by the commerce clause, governing such things as guns in a school zone, as well as federal gun laws based on other criteria, such as governing machine guns.  However, there are no federal gun laws directed specifically at concealed carry laws by private citizens among the states, that being left to state (and, in some cases, to additional municipality and additional county and additional township laws).  There is also a federal law against having concealed carry guns in post offices, and on other federal properties, even when such properties are within states where otherwise concealed carry would be legal.  Likewise, there is a federal law giving active and retired police officers the right to carry concealed firearms nationwide.  Your proposed statements for inclusion in the article need to be both accurate and factual, while recognizing the intricacies of US law.  But, again, you state,  "If the right to bear arms were merely a common law right, then the legislators in D.C. could have restricted it, the same as any other common law right. The supreme court decided it was not just a common law right but a constitutional right.", which again fails to recognize the codification of common law rights within the US Constitution in the Bill of Rights, protected against infringement except through Constitutional amendment.  Under parliamentary supremacy, such common law rights are easily extinguished.  Under the US Constitution, they cannot be usurped.  Yaf (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I amended the sentence to make it more neutral. I may have got mixed up between Heller and Emerson in the edit summary, but anyway the issue of the meaning of the second amendment has I think been put to bed. This is discussed at length in the US section. The intention of my more neutral statement about the difference between the US and other English legislatures IS the enshrinment of rights in the constitution which means that special procedures are needed to amend them. I hope that this is OK to Yaf.


 * With regard to my other edit which Yaf removed and I have put back, the issue of gun crime is germain to the issue of the restriction of the right to bear arms in the UK. Dunblane and the controls that came after is a clear example of that. The comparison beween the US and UK is also relevant because I have seen very misleading statistics that claim that things are very bad in the UK, but the situation is quite the reverse. One has to ask oneself not just why the US has a 4 times greater murder rate, but also why the murder rate with a firearm is 40 times greater. The availabilty of firearms in the U.S. has to be the most probable factor. The UK has as serious drug problem as the U.S. and is more urbanized than the U.S. so that cannot be the reason.--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Its not about the availability of guns, or other arms. In Wyoming, 33% of all private homes have unlocked and loaded firearms in them.  Yet, the homicide rate there is on par with the UK at 1.7/100,000 vs. 1.4/100,000 in the UK (and 2.12/100,000 in Scotland). Stop pushing anti-rights rhetoric and hoplophobia advocacy.  Yaf (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You are comparing chalk with cheese. Wyoming is not like the rest of the US and certainlty not like England and Wales. Wyoming is the second least densely populated area in the U.S. whereas England and Wales are more like the most densely populated states in the U.S. And you are comparing homicides not GUN homicides. Only 7 % of homicides in the UK are caused by a firearm. In the US is almost 70%. What percentage of homicides in Wyoming are with a gun? What is the gun homicide rate in Wyoming? In England and Wales its less than 1 per million.  My guess for Wyoming without checking is that its going to be about 10 or 12 per million.--Hauskalainen (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The homicide rate in Wyoming for homicides is 1.7/100,000, not 10.0/100,000 or 12.0/100,000 as you speculate, of which roughly 60-65% are with firearms. You are falsely inflating the risk of dying in a state where 33% of all private homes have unlocked and loaded firearms available in them.  The homicide rate is very comparable to the homicide rate of 1.4/100,000 seen in the UK, where presumably far fewer than 33% of homes have loaded and unlocked firearms present, or even sharp knives if I understand you correctly.  Pardon me, but your hoplophobia is showing.  Yaf (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Legal differences in U.S. affecting right to bear arms compared to other English law jurisdictions
There was an attempt by me to expand the section about the differences between the United States legal framework governing the right to bear arms and those in other countries. In particular it is quite important to understand why the situation regarding the legal position regarding arms control domestically is so is so different in the U.S. compared to other countries that follow English law. I attempted to summarize the main differences but I see that some editors have become a little upset about the edit and have deleted it. In my opinion that is the wrong reaction. Not withstanding that, I would like to open a discussion here about whether these differences need to be explained properly. If not, then why not. If yes, then we need to agree what those key differences are and then agree how to explain it in the article.

The main differences as I see them are that (1) the US allows an elected president right of veto over legislation (2) that it has a supreme court which can override the legislature and (3) that some law is written into a constitution that can only be changed with a supermajority. Of these three differences I think clearly (3) has been the most critical in the history of the right to keep and bear arms in the US. The issue of rights between the states and the federal government is not unique to the US. Canada and Australia have Federal and Provincial/Territorial law making bodies, and the UK now has regional parliaments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and laws which are different in different regions. So that element is not a key difference between the US and these other countries.

If you think the differences I have outlined are wrong, then I need to understand why they are wrong. If they are incomplete, then we need to agree what else needs to be addded.

I am completely baffled by Yaf's comment that the the U.S. Congress is not a parliament. Its main function is to make law and hold the government to account. I cannot see any difference. It is a parliament in all but name. But I will wait for her/him to explain why I am wrong.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * your personal opinion that the US congress is a parliament in all but name is interesting. if you can provide a reliable source that backs up that claim, then it may go in the article (good luck though, as the differences between parliament and congress are significant. i really enjoy the congress's weekly "questions for the president" session. oh, wait, there isn't one!) many of your claims of the workings of the US congress are incorrect and misinformed however. that's why your largely unsourced, prose addition to the article was reverted. for example, you make no mention that the congress can override a presidential veto. small detail; huge implications. were you aware of that fact? i'd suggest that it would be better to rely upon reliable sources for material you add to the article, rather than synthesizing unsourced prose to add to the article which is certain to be reverted, as that's not how wikipedia works. wikipedia article space is not a platform for personal synthesis and opinion. source your claims properly, and they'll stand. Anastrophe (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Try looking at Websters on-line dictionary. Congress and Parliament are both described as legislatures (parliament for many countries and congress just for the United States). The rituals and process may differ one to the other but they fundamentally have the same function. Changing the constitution or overriding a veto both require supermajorities in the ration 75:25. I see no reason why you have removed reference to the supermajority clauses in the US constitition. I had to dig hard (and be additionally informed about presidential veto - thank you!) to understand that. I think it would be useful to have that in the article instead of having to dig for it. The supermajority clauses in the US constitution are a key factor affecting the ability of the people via their elected representatives in congress or parliament to modify the right to keep and bear arms and therefore a key difference between the US and other countries that follow English law. T therefore propose that we should at the very least add back reference to the supermajority clauses. If the presidential veto has never been used to block legislation regarding the right to bear arms I would be OK about dropping reference to this technical possibility. But the presence of a supreme court which can nullify the actions of the legislature is a key difference and I would argue it should go back. --Hauskalainen (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * why is it necessary to explain the specific procedural details? those details pertain to all amendments to the US constitution, not just the right to keep and bear arms. is it not entirely adequate to note that - unlike in the UK - it is extremely difficult to change the constitution, and that this is by design? Linking directly to US constitution allows the reader to learn for themselves why this is so, rather than imposing these procedural details into this article. it's a digression that is simply not needed. Anastrophe (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't have to go into specifics but the supermajority ratio of 75:25 is interesting and not difficult to incorporate into the article. I was surprised to find that restricting the right to own a gun in the U.S. was governed by a law which requires 3/4 of both legislatures to change it.  As a non-US citizen I would not be expected to know that and I should not have to dig into the U.S. constitution article to find it out. The fact that it applies to things other than the RTKBA is not really relevant. That it does apply is.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * but once again, you're still mistaken about how it works. the specifics are not meaningful to understanding that the US government powers are limited differently than in the UK - it merely suffices to note that they are. it requires yet far more than simply a 75:25 supermajority of the legislatures to modify the constitution. since your understanding of how our form of government works is still at a deficit after having investigated it at length (please, please note that i am not intending a personal affront with that observation), it suggests that the intricacies are surely best left out of this article, since this article is not about how the US government works. see Article Five of the United States Constitution for specifics on how the constitution may be amended or an amendment repealed. you wrote "I was surprised to find that restricting the right to own a gun in the U.S. was governed by a law which requires 3/4 of both legislatures to change it." - but that's not even correct. two-thirds of either house of the federal congress is required to propose an amendment (or repeal of an amendment), or if two-thirds of the legislatures of the states request it, a convention must be called. once one of those two paths is satisfied, then in order to actually amend the constitution, three-fourths of the state legislatures or state conventions must ratify it. so, thirty-eight state legislatures must vote in favor of ratification - not merely a 3/4th vote of both houses of the federal congress. do such details really need to be in this article? no. merely noting that it is extremely difficult to modify the constitution, and that that is by design, is certainly adequate. Anastrophe (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'd just like to interject something here. While I personally think that some need to re-read Article V of the U.S. Constitution to get a better idea how it works, I'm at least very encouraged that instead of edit warring, everyone is working here to resolve the content disputes and differences. Keep it up, good on ya! Edit Centric (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

a bit of trivia for user Hauskalainen, this may be of interest - see Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. It was ratified in 1992 - more than 202 years after it was submitted as one of the original amendments in the bill of rights. had it been ratified when proposed, it would have been the second amendment (the existing second was actually the fourth). Anastrophe (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hauska: I have to join in Anastrophe. The "novel trivia" you're concerned with here is not properly phrased. The U.S. has lots of laws that cannot be changed, even with a supermajority. They come from the Constitution (even though not all of them are actually spelled out in the Constitution) - we call them "fundamental rights." There has been a long debate in the 20th century about whether, when our Constitution says that there is an inviolable "right of the citizens to keep and bear arms," it meant that states could not make laws totally banning gun ownership (which some governmental units, such as the District of Columbia had done), and possibly whether other forms of "gun control" are illegal. The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified that it does mean that - at least for now. In U.S. law, constitutional rights are superior to all other acts of legislature. This means that no matter how popular, a majority of voters or legislators cannot take those rights away except under very special circumstances - for example, the right to private property, or the right to free speech. However, in this regard, the right in question is no different from any other right expressly protected by the U.S. Constitution. The way you're putting the issue seems biased because it makes it singles out one "fundamental right" and implicitly divides it from the others. I don't expect you to know all this, if you're not familiar with our legal system -- but if you aren't, perhaps you should avoid commenting on it.


 * As for the other issue - whether the U.S. Congress is a "parliament" - the distinction is unimportant, and not worth fighting over. In the U.S., our generic word for a governmental body with primary lawmaking authority is neither a "congress" nor a "parliament" but a "LEGISLATURE." From reading political science books in other countries, I believe this term is used for that purpose internationally in academic literature, provided everyone uses the same translation.


 * The issue might be that while nearly every country has a legislature, one country's legislature may not be like another's. For example the U.K. Parliament is VERY different in terms of what powers it has, from the U.S. Congress. So maybe calling the U.S. Congress a "parliament" is disturbing to others, even if you thought you were translating. This should not be a contentious matter. Non Curat Lex (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I took a look at the article fundamental rights and immediately proposed it for merger. The rights you claim to be fundamental are essentially rights under constitutional law if they are in the constitution and the supermajority rules will apply to the. The fundamental issue is that the U.S. (and some other countries too) puts a supermajority (or in some cases a delaying rule) into constitutional changes. This is harldy suprising as it helps to stop a body coming into power on a simple majority and then postponing or preventing further elections. Whether things such as the right to bear arms belong in that category will of course be a matter of dispute. OK, I accept Anastrophe's point that I shoulf not have tried to define the supermajority rules (because they are complex) but the fact that amending the right to bear arms in the U.S. would need a supermajority should be in the article. --Hauskalainen (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * once more, with feeling: you claim that it 'would need a supermajority' understates how difficult it is to change the constitution. so, no - it should not be in the article, since it's incorrect. as i said before: merely noting that it is extremely difficult to modify the constitution, and that that is by design, is certainly adequate. Anastrophe (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How can it be changed WITHOUT a supermajority in one form or another? Surely its the supermajority issues that make it difficult. I don't need a run down on all the ways the constitution can be changed,. An example where the supermajority does not apply will suffice.--Hauskalainen (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * which supermajority are you referring to? have you read the article referenced previous concerning article five of the US constitution? at this point, this is becoming needless bickering and badgering. supermajority is only one aspect of the process of amending the constitution, and and it's an oversimplification to say it's the only thing that makes it difficult. rather than misleading the reader about what makes the constitution hard to amend, and considering that this article is not about how the constitution is amended, it is - i'll say it one more time - entirely adequate to simply make note that it is extremely difficult to do so. Anastrophe (talk) 07:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * piste minulle! (point to me!) It seems to me that you do not want anyone to point out the fact that the process means you can have a minority running over the wishes of the majority, or from another angle, as Jefferson kind of put it, (and I forget the quote exactly), "that dead shall have tyranny over the living". --Hauskalainen (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Forgive me for joining the discussion uninvited, but I have to say that this issue you point out affects all amendments of the U.S. Constitution and that IMO mentioning it in this article would probably not be the best choice, let alone mentioning your interpretation. There are very good reasons why "the dead have tyranny over the living" (what would happen if one would repeal the First Amendment?) Admiral Norton (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Admiral Norton is basically correct. Majority rule is not a good rule of law. The U.S. Government was not meant to be a pure democracy. Democracies that aren't bound by higher principles run the risk of majorities eliminating the rights of isolated minorities. To ensure that minorities can rely on the rule of law, the framers set aside some important rights that are insulated from the political process. The only way to change them is (a) constitutional amendment or (b) a successful revolution. I'm not here to defend my system or criticize anyone else's, but by the same token, you should not be here editorializing about our system.


 * In addition, a lot of your editorializing is based on improper assumptions. This whole discussion seems to be continuing needlessly because of things you do not know, and of which you could educate yourself before continuing it, as well as some poor logical reasoning. For example: Someone said that a super majority alone cannot change the constitution. You replied: "how can it be changed without one?" The answer is, of course, it cannot, but that means it is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition. If you want to know more about how to amend the U.S. constitution, please go to the appropriate article.  Another example: you do not really understand the Jefferson philosophy you are quoting.  Before you go down that road you need to get a better understanding of where he was coming from, and what he did, and did not want to have happen.


 * I don't want to sound mean here - I'd be happy to answer any questions you have, but this talk page discussion is really a mindless waste of time, and this is not the right forum for it. Talk pages are not here for educational colloquy. Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

consensus?
This recent revert included the edit summary ": rm UK stats from US section; this has been discussed on the talk page; please do not add it back without reaching consensus)".

The practice of reverting, with the argument given in the "edit summary" is considered bad practice. The edit summary is intended for a brief description of the change, not for debate or negotiation, see Edit_summary.

Again, what is the justification for deletion of this passage? I think it obvious the global right to bear arms is the topic of this article, and therefore it makes sense to tolerate editors which seek to compare the right as it exists globally between countries. The deletion should be based on WP:Policy, and the deletion by Hamitr has no apparent basis in WP:Policy, therefore I see no consensus and I object. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * comparing homicide statistics between countries is not "comparing the right". period. it's synthesis to suggest otherwise, particularly since no editor has yet provided a reliable cite that shows that homicide statistics are relevant to an encyclopedia article about the right to keep and bear arms. such statistics are relevant to Gun politics and the many 'Gun politics in xyz country' articles; they're relevant to articles about crime, homicide, etc.. they aren't relevant to this article.
 * when someone commits murder, they immediately cease to be in any protected class that is exercising their right. detail on the mechanics of that dynamic bears greater emphasis in the article, not synthetic conflations that give undue weight to those excluded from the class this article describes. Anastrophe (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please move discussion of personal opinion elsewhere. The passage discussed the implications of homicide on the politics of arms.  What is the WP:Policy reasoning for the deleted passage?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * knock off badgering please - my commentary was no more 'personal opinion' than was your suggestion that "I think it obvious the global right to bear arms is the topic of this article, and therefore it makes sense to tolerate editors which seek to compare the right as it exists globally between countries.". the material does not, in any way shape or form, "compare the right" - your assertion is false and misleading.  it's pure synthesis. it does not discuss the 'implications' of homicide on the politics of arms, it's merely a disconnected litany of statistics. notwithstanding that this is not The Politics of Arms article to begin with. editors are attempting to inject material without a showing in WP:RS that it is relevant to Right to keep and bear arms.Anastrophe (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) First, there was nothing wrong with the edit summary. It is actually very similar to the model edit summary given at Edit_summary. I accurately and succinctly summarized the nature of the edit ("rm UK stats from US section"), and I also pointed to the talk page ("this has been discussed on the talk page"). So let's not head down the wikilawyering road again.

Secondly, the specific issue of adding comparisons of statistics between countries has been discussed above (in particular, see the last 6 messages). It pushes one particular POV when editors make such ad-hoc comparisons rather than presenting comparisons made in reliable sources. --Hamitr (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I have said already (and I repeat again) that the comparison of countries is valid for reason that the right to bear arms varies between countries and this has clear effects on the levels of the ownership of certain arms, and especially guns. Actions by governments to control or restrict the right of access to guns, for example, are usually (but perhaps not always) connected to incidents of gun violence or a desire to reduce gun violence by restricting the right of access to guns. Similarly with knives. Anastrophe is being disingenuous when he says that no one has provided a reliable cite showing homicide stats are relevent to an encylopedia article about the right to bear arms. Thats merely because the connection is one that many believe is there via several steps. . . wider rights > wider ownership of guns > many guns > many guns being availiable for suicide or criminal activity > more gun mortality. It would be wrong to claim that this is a natural truth. It is one of many POVs and we have to represent them all. So we should lay out the evidence. And there is academic research on the matter so we cannot ignore that. For instance do countries that have more guns have more gun violence? Do countries that very fewer guns have lower gun violence? How does the level of gun ownership vary with ALL crime (not just gun crime... i.e. are guns just a substitute for knives?). These are key issues and there has been academic research on the subject. It would be wrong to pretend otherwise. Its also wrong to pretend that this issue is disconnected from the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is not an absolute right in most countries. We don't let children have weapons, or the insane, or usually, convicted criminals. The right is restricted in law. The level of that restriction varies´from place to place. Let's just agree that the statistics on gun ownership and gun violence are factors in decisions about the level or right in a particular jurisdiction to bear arms and if we compare statistics, let's do it in the section devoted to the comparative relationship between arms, arms controls, and arms deaths. That way we can avoid national politics getting in the way or claims of favoring some comparisons over others (as we have had before .. e.g. England and Wales versus United States, or England versus Wyoming) If there are reliable data, arms injuries would also be useful. Putting this into one section does not make it judgemental about one country versus another. We should merely present the data and the WP:RS claims about the interpretation of that data. It is not our job to say that the right to bear arms is a good thing or a bad thing or that it does or does not lead to more deaths or injuries from the use of them. Let the reader see reliable data and hear the arguments made by reliable sources and then our readers can decide for themselves.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * it is also not one editor's job or privilege to restore material and claim that a citation that actually makes the connection you are synthesizing above "is not needed on that issue". sorry, wikipedia doesn't work that way. you can jabber on all you want as above, but until you provide actual reliable sources that make the specific connections you claim above, then you're just attempting to force your original research and synthesis into the article. that's expressly forbidden by wikipedia policy. you're on thin ice here hauskalainen. provide a reliable source that makes the argument "wider rights > wider ownership of guns > many guns > many guns being availiable for suicide or criminal activity > more gun mortality.". your contention that one isn't needed is untenable. let me quote Jimbo Wales here:


 * "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar."
 * --Jimbo, July 19, 2006


 * provide your source for your contention that they are connected in the manner you claim. fail to do so, and the material will continue to be removed, as it's verboten by policy. Anastrophe (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I already have provided, did you forget? The connection between murder rates and the RTKBA exists in reliable sourcing, just one example is the essay by Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger published in many places, here is but one. Additionally, this is discussed in many other reliable sources, see, see, and many more.  Bear in mind, I am not arguing that the connection between murder rate and RTKBA is valid, I am only observing that the connection is found in reliable sourcing and therefore meets WP:V policy for inclusion in this article.  Therefore, your insistence to delete this content from the article appears not based in policy.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * we have two sets of disconnected citations. one set, in the opening paragraph, makes one contention. the second set nowhere matches the contention - it's merely a section of statistics and conjecture from a single source, pertaining to gun ownership and its relationship to gun homicide and suicide, and does not even mention RTKBA - it doesn't even mention the word "right". it should not require pointing out that "gun ownership" != "right to keep and bear arms". this is pure synthesis between these two unconnected sources. Anastrophe (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Then the solution is to fix the deficiencies, not to wholesale revert. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * no, synthesis should never be allowed to stand in article space. the material should be pulled until after it's fixed. Anastrophe (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that Anastrophe has misunderstood the rule. WP:SYN says "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not in any of the sources (my emphasis). It goes on "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. " I think therefore that the researchers who have investigated the issue in relation to aspects of criminology and the groups who call for controls on arms have made this connection. The connection may be disputed (and I am sure that Anastrophe belongs in this group). But the edit is not synthesis by an editor. It is in fact, as policy calls it "good editing".--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Anastrophe has not misunderstood the WP:SYN rule. He is precisely correct.  After waiting for over 24 hours for this to be fixed, and it wasn't, I have removed the content that violates WP:SYN. It should not be restored unless and until there are references that precisely connect the "Right to keep and bear arms" with gun violence, not "gun rights", not "right to bear arms", but the "Right to keep and bear arms" with gun violence, being that is what this article is titled and is about.  Conflating differing rights with gun rights and then with gun violence is clearly synthesis, being that there is no direct connection cited in the sources that are cited. A slight correlation is just that, a slight correlation, not a verifiable claim that makes the proper case. One could as easily state that there is no direct causal effect, and be equally correct, mathematically speaking. Yaf (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yaf. Which content removal are you referring to. The deletion in the US section by Hamitr (the subject of this thread) or the deletion of the whole section entitled "Gun violence and the politics of the right to bear arms"? (an earlier thread) If the latter then this part of the discussopm should be in the section about that deletion. I'll assume the section delete for now (we can move this conversation to the right thread later if no one objects). A fix didn't come because it does not need fixing (or at least sufficient evidence justifying a need for a "a fix" has not been forthcoming - certainly not from you). As for Anastrophe, you say he is precicely correct because of what exactly? If the referenced articles are on topic (and I contend they are), then WP:SYN does not apply because the editor who put the information in the article (me as it happens) is not synthesizing. It is now getting boring have to repeat mysely, but the issue is that some people do wish to curtaile the right to keep and bear arms because of the connection between right and the number of weapons in circulation and the strong correlation between weapons in circulation and gun violence. You happen (I presume from what you say) that you don't believe there is a connection. Fine. But others have expressed that opinion and it clearly relates to the topic of article.  So both views need to be in the article. What is wrong with putting information before the reader and the arguments for and against a connection and letting the reader decide? Your vehment opposition to this going into the article smacks of POV editing (and your preparedness even to violate 3RR reinforces this). I have asked several times PRECISE explanation of your reasons for the blanket deletion of an entire section and you have not answered them. If you have precise reasons, please convey them to us precisely.
 * Are you and Anastrophe twins, alter egos, or just playing tag??? It seems that when I talk to one, the other one replies. --Hauskalainen (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * your question is a non-sequitur, but i'll indulge. no, yaf and i are not twins. no, yaf and i are not alter egos. no, yaf and i are not playing tag. yaf is your fellow editor. you are my fellow editor. yaf is my fellow editor. my connection to yaf is precisely the same as my connection to you, in other words, no connection besides being fellow editors. since this is not a one-to-one medium, you cannot expect one-to-one communications. i'm not constrained in whom i may respond to, nor can you really have any reasonable expectation that when you direct some inquiry at another editor that they will even respond at all. this is a discussion page. it's folly to assume a conspiracy - or even to suggest it. Anastrophe (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Saltyboatr. The references you give above do not seem (as far as I can read them) support the argument you give. Please be more precise. You may be interested in this http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/4/leading_gun_control_activist_exposed_as  (you don't need to watch the whole program... just click on "watch real video stream" to go direct to the section of interest.  --Hauskalainen (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The text at issue is the following: One of the principle debates about placing restrictions on the right to bear arms is the alleged effect that it will have on gun related accidents and deaths. Accident statistics are hard to obtain, but much data is available on the issue of gun ownership and gun related deaths.  The United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) has made comparisons beween countries with different levels of gun ownership and investigated the correlation between gun ownership levels and gun homicides, and also gun ownership levels and gun suicides. A strong correlation is seen in both. UNICRI also investigated the relationship between gun ownership levels and other forms of homicide or suicide to determine whether high gun ownership added to or merely displaced other forms of homicide or suicide. They reported that "widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potentially lethal instruments less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of suicide and homicide." Speculating on possible causes the researchers concluded that "all we know is that guns do not reduce fatal events due to other means, but that they go along with more shootings. Although we do not know why exactly this is so, we have a good reason to suspect guns to play a - fatal - role in this".  The research reporter found that guns were the major cause of homicides only in 3 of the 14 countries it studied; Nothern Ireland, Italy, and the USA. Although on the face of it the data would indicate that reducing the availabilty of one significant type of arms - firearms - would seem to indicate a fall in both gun crime and gun suicide and overall crimes and suicides, the author did issue a caution, citing the American example, that "reducing the number of guns in the hands of the private citizen may become a hopeless task beyond a certain point". 


 * This content starts with the claim that "One of the principle debates about placing restrictions on the right to bear arms is the alleged effect that it will have on gun related accidents and deaths." Yet, the cite is not about the "right to bear arms" (which is related to the right to give service in a militia, or the right to join an army), but, rather, the cite is about "gun rights" and gun-related accidents and deaths.  Neither "right to bear arms" or "gun rights", though, is the topic of this article, "the right to keep and bear arms".  It is synthesis to conflate different concepts with the "right to keep and bear arms", and then to infer a relationship with gun-related accidents and deaths from the "right to keep and bear arms".  It is likewise synthesis to then infer that "right to keep and bear arms" is somehow related to gun violence, especially so in the absence of cites that make this claim.  Then, the statement is made that "Accident statistics are hard to obtain, but much data is available on the issue of gun ownership and gun related deaths."  Again, this is unrelated to the "right to keep and bear arms", being a synthesis that gun ownership is somehow the same as "right to keep and bear arms".  It is not the same, and it is wrong to conflate these two concepts. The text goes on to state, "The United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) has made comparisons beween countries with different levels of gun ownership and investigated the correlation between gun ownership levels and gun homicides, and also gun ownership levels and gun suicides."  Again, this is unrelated to the "right to keep and bear arms", conflating gun ownership with the "right to keep and bear arms" and further inferring a correlation between "right to keep and bear arms" and gun ownership levels, between gun ownership and gun homicides and between gun ownership and suicides.  These are extreme cases of POV pushing and synthesis, conflating different concepts, with no cites relating the "right to keep and bear arms" with gun ownership, with homicides, or with suicides.  The right to keep and bear arms is not an obligation, forcing one to own a gun.  Rather, it is a right that may be exercised or not, depending on what one wants to do.  It is synthesis to link unrelated content, even with cites, to push a point that was not made in the original cited sources.  The cited sources do not provide any linkage between the Right to Keep and Bear Arms with gun ownership, nor between the Right to Keep and Bear arms with either homicides or with suicides.  It is synthesis to claim there is a connection with the cites that are in the removed text.  The removed text also contained, "They reported that "widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means.""  Again, there is nothing linking the Right to Keep and Bear Arms with this statement, and it is synthesis to claim otherwise with the cites that were used.  I could go on, but the message is clear.  This entire commentary, cited though it is, does not link the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" with the POV message that was being attempted.  Such content, pushing Original Research while claiming a linkage where none is cited to exist, making conclusions not contained in the original cited sources in violation of WP:SYN, etc., does not belong in this article.  Hence, it was removed.  As for your false claims of WP:3RR, you need to understand 3RR better and stop slinging insults and false accusations of violating 3RR.  As for your insults of describing all editors against whom you ply your POV trade as being twins, this is tiresome and is not assuming good faith.  The fact is that multiple editors have expressed concerns with your edits, and have identified problems with your POV pushing edits.  This POV pushing needs to stop, and you need to stop the synthesis and original research and stick to what the cited sources say. Provide content that agrees with cited reliable and verifiable sources and the problems all go away, and no editor would take issue with your edits.  Continue to assume bad faith, push POV statements beyond what the sources say in violation of WP:SYN and WP:OR, and the result will continue to be that other editors will mercilessly delete your POV pushes.  Yaf (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Double talk. The cited msnbc clearly associates debate over murder rate with the right to bear arms.  Restoring the passage.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But, as stated previously, this is clearly a violation of WP:SYN, being that the "right to bear arms" is not mentioned in the cited source. Rather, the cite talks about "gun rights" and murder rates, neither of which is the "right to keep and bear arms".  Please revert yourself.  Yaf (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that the article does mention the right to bear arms, both under the Pennsylvania and the Federal constitutions. Read the whole article, about half way down:  ''"Even the 232-year-old right-to-bear-arms section of the Pennsylvania Constitution is more straightforward about the rights of individual gun owners than the U.S. Constitution." etc..  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * All unrelated to the claim that is being made in the text of the article. Please revert your POV push.  Yaf (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? Explain your complaint. The article talks plainly of the debate over a political balance between gun control in response to murder rates against the Pennsylvanian constitutional right to bear arms.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The msnbc article titled "Gun rights, gun deaths divide Pa. voters" describes 1) the gun rights come from the 232 year old Pennsylvanian Constitition "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." " and 2) the gun deaths in Philadelphia occur daily "Deadly shootings have earned the state's largest city the ominous nickname: "Killadelphia." ". 3) The political divide from this contrast ..."candidates have struggled to avoid alienating either side, to the point of pandering. " .  Nothing close to WP:SYN.  What is the problem?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The entire content is synthesis. My complaint is simple.  What is the content that establishes or makes the case that "One of the principle debates about placing restrictions on the right to bear arms is the alleged effect that it will have on gun related accidents and deaths." and establishes an effect, alleged or otherwise?  The quote in the first cite is unrelated to this statement. The second cite is unrelated to this content.  Please revert this POV section that has problems with synthesis, relevance, original research, and that is uncited, being cited with irrelevant citations.  (Inserting unrelated cites does not cite the content in question.) Please revert your POV push and remove this section. Yaf (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand your complaint. Regardless, I just posted some alternate wording, saying essentially the same thing, which may satisfy you.  Do you question that MSNBC is a reliable source?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Now you have changed the statement in the opening text to, "One political debate involves the contrast of protecting the right to bear arms in opposition to efforts to legislate gun control in response to the problem of gun related deaths." Where is the content in the cited source(s) that verifies/verify this statement? Where is the verification that the right to keep and bear arms is in opposition to the problem of deaths? The quote from the first cite is "The older Pennsylvania provision declares, "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Some pro-gun lawmakers consider any legislation advanced by gun-control forces an attempt to chip away at that right.""  How is this related to the text?  The section content is still full of synthesis, sound, and fury, signifying nothing other than hoplophobia.  Please do not change the subject, asking if MSNBC is a reliable source.  Please focus on the topic at hand, and address the concerns.  Please revert this POV section that has problems with synthesis, relevance, original research, and that is uncited, being cited with irrelevant citations.  Or, find cites that actually verify the text.  Your choice.  Yaf (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The MSNBC article describes this political debate. And, that debate includes fear that easy availability of guns incite homicides in Philidelphia and a resultant push for gun control legislation to mitigate gun violence versus the value of respecting the "right to bear arms" under the Pennsylvania constitution.  This is 100% supported by the cited source.  Nothing close to WP:SYN. It solidly meets WP:V policy. It appears that merely that you don't like it.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I am astounded at this silly discussion. You are missing the wood for the trees. The entire section highlighting the work of UNICRI shows that OTHERS have connected the issue of the access to guns and the degree of gun violence. So the issue of WP:SYN cannot apply because the connection of those issues has been done by others. The text is quite plain about a causal relationship not being provable but suspected by the researcher (a criminologist of international reknown). Issues of gun control DO affect the right to bear arms. To somehow claim that there is no connection because its not in the text within the reference is disingenuous. That particular use of words may not be there but the effect is the same. I also (for my sins) contribute to the article socialized medicine. If the editors there could only write about the subject using references if they contain the word "socialized" followed by the word "medicine" the article would represent a very one-sided and inaccurate picture of a complex and fascinating subject. I asked you before why you think the "right to keep and bear arms" is unaffected by laws which restrict seek to restrict the right to keep and bear arms, and you have failed to answer this question. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think people calling for gun control do so because they think it will reduce the price of gas? No! They do it because they think it will reduce gun crime and gun deaths. It's that simple!--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am likewise astounded that you believe that it is not necessary for cites to be necessary for verifying the text. Access to guns is not equal to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not even a requirement to be armed, but an elective.  Yet, you conflate the RKBA with gun ownership, and keep pushing more POV text into the article with no relevance or cites.  No more.  After waiting for this synthesis problem to be fixed, and even tagging the problem areas to try and identify the problems, and seeing the total ignoring of fixing the problems, and that you are actually making the problems worse, I have removed the offensive text that is contrary to Wikipedia policies.  Do not blindly restore this, and continue edit warrioring but work out an acceptable set of wording on the talk page first.  It is not acceptable to insert POV text that is not cited while committing synthesis and original research.  Fix the problems on the talk page first.  Have removed the text in violation of Wikipedia policies. Yaf (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * i'm likewise astonished but for other reasons. how many times does it need to be pointed out: "gun ownership" IS NOT EQUAL TO "right to keep and bear arms". "access to guns" IS NOT EQUAL TO "right to keep and bear arms". you state, emphatically: "The entire section highlighting the work of UNICRI shows that OTHERS have connected the issue of the access to guns and the degree of gun violence." but the UNICRI material cited nowhere even mentions "rights", let alone "the right to bear arms" or "the right to keep and bear arms". you are taking two sets of materials and joining them, without providing an established reliable source making that linkage. one more time, with feeling: "access to guns" IS NOT EQUAL TO "right to keep and bear arms". you cannot use one set of cites, making one set of contentions, then link them implicitly by juxtaposing them with material covering a different set of contentions. that's synthesis, how many times does this need to be explained?
 * i also now see that the material has been further made intensely - and inappropriately - POV, with the addition of "The Brady and Snowdrop Campaigns and the Million Mom March are recent examples of campaigns calling for tighter restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.". wow, cool! so that's the only perspective on the right to keep and bear arms? advocacy groups bear mention in this encyclopedia article? cool, let's add in the NRA, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and all the other advocacy groups on the other side, who argue, for example, that disarming victims only encourages criminals, let's add in gary kleck's survey showing far more defensive gun uses than offensive crimes commited with guns!
 * i'm being facetious of course. the material is utterly POV, it's synthesis, and it has no place in this article. however, since some POV pushers feel unconstrained in cramming this into the article, i guess i'll have to add material citing a different POV, in order to return to a neutral balance point. fair enough? saltyboatr, care to join me in adding reliably cited material for the NRA and JPFO so that we can balance the POV? Anastrophe (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Again you are twisting matters. Nowhere does the section assert that gun ownership" IS EQUAL TO "right to keep and bear arms" or that "access to guns" IS EQUAL TO "right to keep and bear arms". But it does claim that people wanting restrictions on the right to bear arms believe that it will reduce gun violence. It also observes that others have both examined the connection and found a statistical linkage. And here is another. Wendy Cukier and Antoine Chapdelaine have published "Small Arms: A Major Public Health Hazard" which presents some of the evidence. They say


 * Firearms have been a significant cause of both civilian and combatant deaths in recent times. When weapons remain in circulation following a conflict, death and injury rates remain high as interpersonal violence replaces violence among warring factions. Despite data limitations, rates of firearms death and injury are linked to access to firearms (my emphasis). In many countries, arms-fuelled violence is a major impediment to the provision of basic health care. While strategies to address the problem must respond to local conditions and capacity, there are many opportunities for international cooperation on research and on measures to reduce demand and control supply.   (http://www.ippnw.org/Resources/MGS/V7N1Cukier.pdf)


 * See the chart (called Figure 2). You have to be blind not to see the upward trend so it's hardly surprising that you want to keep this quiet (as you all seem to be pro-gun judging by your edits)


 * Because other people have made the link that more access to guns = more firearms deaths and injury, this cannot possibly be a case of WP:SYN on my part. Nor is it POV on my part. I report what I know. If you know otherwise ADD IT to the section. But DO NOT delete it and hope it will go away. It will not.
 * Yet again you two (Yaf and Anastrophe) have chipped in to this conversation at almost the same time after a long silence. Have you been out together or something and just got back? And which one of you has the ip address which has just deleted the section on gun violence AGAIN? Your behaviours are unacceptable. I am of the opinion that you are not entirely unconnected to each other and also with SaltyBoatr judging by the speed he was able to read one of your comments, think about an answer, type it into the server, and get the server to confirm the update. All in the same minute! He is quick to get references in but they are always double edged. A wolf in sheep's clothing perhaps. I suspect the to-and-fro between you all is just a sham. I have seen this behaviour elsewhere in Wikipedia and it can be defeated. --Hauskalainen (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

your accusations are intolerable. time for sanctions. Anastrophe (talk) 06:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Equating me to SaltyBoatr is an insult of the worst kind. Equating me to him is an insult that is even worse than Hauskalainen's COWBOY slur that was slung at me previously.  Hauskalainen's behavior in pushing an anti-gun, anti-US POV is also unacceptable.   His paranoia and communication on talk pages is of the worst kind, in violation of WP:AGF.  It is definitely time for administrative sanctions to put a stop to all this nonsense. Yaf (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 'worst kind'? Really?  Yaf proceeds to insult me.  Please re-read WP:Civility.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Calling me a salty dog would be an insult to dogs, and would be a similar insult of the worst kind, being addressed at an innocent creature.  No insult was intended here to SaltyBoatr by me.  Equating me to SaltyBoatr was an insult to SaltyBoatr, made by Hauskalainen, not by me.  SaltyBoatr, you really should really learn to WP:AGF! Yaf (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

i'm going to ask this again. since editor's personal pov is immaterial, i'm hoping saltyboatr will run with it in the spirit of reaching the neutral balance point. as i asked before: "saltyboatr, care to join me in adding reliably cited material for the NRA and JPFO so that we can balance the POV?" this section as it stands only describes one point of view - that restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms is perceived by some as a way to reduce gun violence (while synthesizing that connection from two unrelated groups of cites, it must be pointed out, for the umpteenth time). since this tips the balance dramatically out of NPOV balance, and since this is - to coin a phrase - a 'pet' argument you make frequently about this and other articles, will you take the lead and bring it back into balance, by adding material produced by advocacy groups on the other side of the argument? we have listed the brady group, million moms, etc - their beliefs are described in the article, but the beliefs of gun rights advocates is excluded. please assist in bringing this section back to the neutral balance point. thank you. hey, if user hauskalainen wants to chip in and return the section to a neutral balance, that would be dandy too. Anastrophe (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, David Windlesham, page 206 of his book ISBN 9780195115307, Oxford University Press 1998 makes a blunt equation of "ownership of firearms" to "the right to keep and bear arms". Properly cited, can we stop the edit war now?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * that doesn't address the POV imbalance. will you add material listing the gun rights position that gun laws do not reduce crime and violence, etc? and, where does david windlesham then connect that to statistics about gun homicide and suicide? we have a classic case of just what hauskalainen claimed wasn't occurring: A is to B, B is to C - "therefore" A is to C. synthesis. Anastrophe (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Which reliable sourcing of "(a) gun rights position that gun laws do not reduce crime and violence" are you looking at? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * it was simply a suggestion for one of many avenues you could pursue in adding material to balance the POV of the brady group, million moms march, etc.. I didn't genuinely expect you to add material favoring the gun control position, to balance the POV. Anastrophe (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This source also only states that the US Constitution, in its Second Amendment, supports a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms that permits individuals the ownership of firearms, in contrast to there being no constitutional right for the ownership of cars, for example. No mention is made in this source conflating the right to keep and bear arms to any association with violence, and to draw this conclusion from this source is again a problem with synthesis.  It is the classic example of WP:SYN,  where one source says A,  another source says B, and then synthesizing that A AND B implies C, with neither A or B drawing this conclusion, is synthesis.  This is not permitted.  This is not a proper cite for inferring that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms causes increased violence committed with guns.  Proper cites of a "cite" that doesn't verify the text is the same as no cite at all.  You should know by now to stick to what the sources say, and what synthesis is, and that synthesis is not permitted on Wikipedia.  Yaf (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I object to your moving target and straw man logic. The MSNBC and the Oxford University Press cites I have provided support the sentence "One of the principle debates about placing restrictions on the right to bear arms is the alleged effect that it will have on gun related accidents and deaths." which Yaf has repeatedly deleted.   SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, they don't. There was no connection to an effect, alleged or actual, mentioned in the "cites".  There was also no grounds for the statement "one of the principle debates".  There was a mention of gun rights.  There was a mention of gun violence.  There was a mention of pandering by politicians to elicit votes from both camps.  There specifically was no connection made between a Right to keep and bear arms with gun violence.  Again, it is a classic case of synthesis.  Yaf (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The article titled "Gun rights, gun deaths divide Pa. voters". This is a solid connection.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is only a juxtaposition. By your logic, we could infer that Pennsylvania voters are physically dismembered with equal validity to this title.  It would likewise be synthesis.  There is no cause and effect cited in the "cites", only a juxtaposition.  To infer a cause and effect, between a right to keep and bear arms and an increase in violence committed with guns, there needs to be verification in the cited source's text making this connection.  The cite does not make this case.  It is clearly synthesis. Yaf (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not asserting what you say I am asserting, a cause and effect. Certainly, one side believes the cause and effect, and the other disagrees. I am only asserting that there is a political divide along these lines, not which side is correct. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, you were asserting a cause and effect: "One of the principle debates about placing restrictions on the right to bear arms is the alleged effect that it will have on gun related accidents and deaths." You then put the cause as gun ownership.  So, what is it, you are or are not asserting a cause and effect?  If the cites do not verify the text, i.e., the cause and the effect, then the text cannot stand, but becomes problems with original research, synthesis, relevance, etc..  I would propose mediation, but it has never been successful in any mediations in which you have participated in the past.  Neither have 3O, MedCom, or even ArbCom been successful with you.  I am at a loss to propose a path to resolving this content dilemma, knowing your history.  (I note that you have resumed your scheming the system, forcing a locking up of the article while edit warring, too, as you are wont to do.  You agreed not to edit war too, with Vassyana, if I recall, and to keep to what the sources say.  Neither of which you have done, or are doing.  Rather, you are simply pushing an uncited POV, with synthesis problems.)  Yaf (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (Ignoring your ad hominien attack.) Agreed then?  We will include a description of the political divide, as now, you and I agree to not state 'cause and effect' as fact, but rather as the position of one side of the political divide.  OK?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Describing only one side of the position, of the Million Mom, Brady Campaign, and AHSA, etc., organizations talking points, in a one-sided position as you propose, to describe the "political divide" without cites, is not acceptable. To not state cause and effect, but only do synthesis of positions and article text from the effect and then to infer a cause in the form of ownership of guns in the article text is likewise not acceptable, being that there are no cites that make this claim.  It is a requirement that reliable and verifiable sources be used to verify the text in Wikipedia articles.  Yet, you propose to describe the "political divide" without establishing a basis of fact, with the position of only one side of the political divide, with no cites that verify the fundamental basis of the proposed text that there is an "alleged effect", namely with your proposed text of "One of the principle debates about placing restrictions on the right to bear arms is the alleged effect that it will have on gun related accidents and deaths.".  This violates Wikipedia policies and is additionally not a Neutral Point of View, being but a one-sided presentation.  I cannot agree to anything of the sort.  Not OK.  No agreement. Yaf (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop the evasion and stonewalling. I have provided two reliable cites as to this political divide, MSNBC and Oxford University Press.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your "cites" make no such claim, that the right to keep and bear arms is a causative agent of the effect seen of gun related accidents and deaths. For example, the MSNBC article makes a case that politicians pander to individuals who favor gun rights and to individuals who want to stop gun violence, in an attempt to elicit votes from both camps. OK.  However, this source makes no claims that verify the text of "One of the principle debates about placing restrictions on the right to bear arms is the alleged effect that it will have on gun related accidents and deaths."  There is nothing in the text of the source that verifies the claim of an effect, alleged or actual, linking the Right to Keep and Bear Arms with gun related accidents and deaths.  It is synthesis to claim what the source does not say.  Reliable cites that do not verify the text are worthless.  You know better than this, and know that synthesis is not allowed on Wikipedia. Yet, you insist on synthesizing what the source(s) do not say.  Unacceptable.  Yaf (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, you fight a straw man. I am not attempting to claim what you say "that the right to keep and bear arms is a causative agent of the effect seen of gun related accidents and deaths" as you assert.  Stop it.   I am only asserting that there is a political divide where one side of the divide claims this.  I totally accept that the other side holds a different view. Both my cites describe this political divide.   SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your proposed text was "One of the principle debates about placing restrictions on the right to bear arms is the alleged effect that it will have on gun related accidents and deaths." There is nothing in the cites you have provided that claim the right to bear arms  causes an effect, alleged or otherwise, on gun related accidents and deaths.  It is neither proper to describe a one-sided treatment of the presentation, as you proposed with your proposal to "include a description of the political divide, ... as the position of one side of the political divide.", nor is it a Neutral Point of View treatment.  Why then do you insist on presenting a one-sided discussion in the article text that is but a hatchet-job, presented from one point of view only?  This smacks of POV pushing.  Yaf (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (I am not insisting on a one sided point of view, again a straw man.) You have read the MSNBC article.  If you don't like my wording, what wording do you suggest?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That is not what you said previously, see above, where you proposed "...We will include a description of the political divide, as now, you and I agree to not state 'cause and effect' as fact, but rather as the position of one side of the political divide." at 19:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC), and specifically proposed to present only "one side of the political divide".  As for what wording I suggest, I can suggest no wording making a false connection where none exists in the source, extending a synthesis beyond what is in the cites. I suggest that you abandon the pushing of a wording of text that is not verified by what is in sources, and simply leave out this synthesis, on grounds that this best avoids problems with synthesis, original research, relevance, and a myriad of other problems.  Yaf (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is circular. Nothing works for you, and you have no suggestion of what would work for you except nothing.  Try again.  The MSNBC article specifically describes the 2008 politics of the right to keep and bear arms in Pennsylvania.  So, first, do you agree that something might be relevant to the topic of right to keep and bear arms in that article? SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As this whole discussion has been going on, User:SaltyBoatr has attempted to squelch opposition by getting them banned here: . Neither my preferred article to edit, nor my battle, but I did note that as I was posting the edit warring of another user on another article, this familiar name came up.  WP:AGF is a good read, Salty.  The least you could have done was give Yaf a heads-up that you'd reported him. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ignoring yourad hominem logic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The logic is that you've reported the user whos edits you've been reverting for reverting your edits. If anything, you're the one engaging in ad hominem attacks.  Don't know what other way I'd portray it.  An ongoing edit war takes two.  If you chose the high ground, there is no edit war anymore.  Instead, you slug it out in the gutters with Yaf and report him on a near continual basis for various misdeeds that you are also engaged in.  Further, you attempt to hold him to a higher standard than you hold yourself.  What I'm saying is that if Yaf suddenly drops out of the discussion and you claim victory and consensus, the others engaged here have a right to know, separate from their arguable right to keep and bear arms. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Meat puppets?
Editors may find this note interesting, in the interest of keeping this article free from sockpuppets and meatpuppets. Being that Hauskalainen re-inserted his edit to my comment above with the same alias, per his edit summary, this is detestable, soliciting meat puppets on the leftist journalism site DemocracyNow.org. Such behavior needs admin sanctions. Yaf (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * by my reading of his comments on howardberry's talk page, he's not soliciting for meatpuppets on democracynow - he's referring to his link further above on this page to a democracynow article about a woman who allegedly acted as a mole, infiltrating gun control groups but supposedly working on behalf of the NRA. so, if i follow his logic, i think he thinks saltyboatr is actually a pro-gun mole masquerading as a gun control oriented editor, and therefore in cahoots with you and me. hard to tell for sure though. Anastrophe (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That article was here.NRA Mole But, I don't see any connection with Hauskalainen via reader inputs or comments to that story. I took his comment to be that he was attempting to solicit meat puppets to edit this article through dropping a line to the hotline story input line at DemocracyNow!, where the content was something along the lines that Hauskalainen was trying to tip off a story that suspects SaltyBoatr is another NRA mole to this Wikipedia article on the Right to keep and bear arms, but that this article was needing to be swayed to the left by soliciting readers of Democracy Now!, that covers the left wing news scene :-)  But, "Mary McFate" (the mole) doesn't live where SB lives, though.  She lives down in Florida (for one of her addresses.)  Most curious.  Yaf (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But, Democracy Now! is part of the Pacifica Radio network. Now, that is interesting. Yaf (talk) 07:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Best discussed elsewhere. Yaf (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * it's not entirely clear to me what you may be implying, but i question the direction you're going. is this relevant to the discussion? to this article? is it in good faith? or should this entire matter be discussed elsewhere, under whatever is the appropriate formal aegis for such matters (i suck at keeping track of all of wikipedia's internal policy-wonk driven committees and processes, so have no idea what the right place would be)....Anastrophe (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Anastrophe's comment at 06:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC) hit the nail on the head. I have clearly not engaged in either sock puppetry or meat puppetry.Yaf at 06:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC) is way off the mark. --Hauskalainen (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * uh, your comment on user howardberry's page, under a different userid, certainly constitutes sockpuppetry. not soliciting sock/meat puppets doesn't mean you have not engaged in sockpuppetry, which it's pretty obvious you have done. Anastrophe (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I most certainly hope that the opening comment in this section is not an accusation of "meatpuppetry" against me. By writing that you want to keep this article free of sockpuppets and meatpuppets, and then provide a link to my talk page, it is possible for it to been seen that way. I have not involved myself in any part of the editing of any of the pages in question and have no intention of doing so. Howie &#9742;  06:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Back to the article.
(Ignoring the flurry of bizarre personal attacks on editors in the last 12 hours.) I have pointed to three reliable sources, Supreme Court chief justice Warren Burger, a MSNBC article and a book published by Oxford University Press. All three of these sources are reliable and all three speak of a public discourse, public perception which places gun control attempts to improve public safety in opposition to political forces to protect the "right to keep and bear arms". Clearly there is a phenomena here involving the RTKBA that I would like to give coverage in this article. Can we focus please and negotiate this edit to the article? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a different point than what has been discussed to date. And, I have no objections to such material being included in the article, if done in a neutral point of view.  But, any such text added to the article needs to be factual, following what the cites actually say, such that the cites verify the proposed article text.  Claiming an "alleged effect" of the Right to keep and bear arms in terms of causing increased amounts of gun violence is not what any of the cited sources have said, contrary to all the proposed wordings that were previously inserted to the article.  I have no objection to a neutral point of view write-up that does not commit synthesis beyond what the sources actually say.  Claiming a cause and effect in the text, that is not supported by the sources that you have mentioned to date, is definitely an issue. Any proposed text should not make claims that are not supported by the cites.  As to claims of relevance, or non-relevance, that depends on the wording that is added.  A hatchet-job write-up, written from only one side of the issue, as proposed and done previously, is likewise not in accord with the article being written in a neutral point of view, nor is it likely even to be relevant content, being nothing more than fringe group talking points (AHSA, Brady, Million Mom, etc.).  I suggest that any proposed text be hammered out here on talk, first, prior to insertion into the article, to avoid the problems that have arisen over the last week or so.  Agreed? Yaf (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * i was in the middle of posting the following text when i got an 'edit conflict' alert, as yaf had posted the above while i was composing. if the following - juxtaposed with yaf's text - doesn't set certain editors into fits of apoplexy, confirming their belief that there's a vast conspiracy afoot, i don't know what will! we even both use the term 'hammered out', and end in essentially the same question. hilarious! herewith:
 * ":you're welcome to give coverage in the article, but there are two caveats: the incarnation of the section as it existed before was synthetic, using unconnected sets of references to imply a reliably sourced connection. if you leave out the UN 'ownership correlation with homicide/suicide statistics', then there's no synthesis. but then the problem becomes one of it being a strictly one-sided presentation, which is obviously POV and unacceptable. the opposing POV must be given equal weight. only presenting this one argument in favor of restricting the right to keep and bear arms without also presenting the argument in favor of maintaining - or even expanding - the right to keep and bear arms is unacceptably POV. adding POV material in article space - then expecting other editors to 'add balance' after the fact - certainly won't fly here. so i would strongly recommend working collaboratively, here on the talk page - post your proposed text, then it can be worked on in discussion space. once an acceptable casting of the material has been hammered out, then the material can go in article space. fair enough? Anastrophe (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)"


 * Anastrophe (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Balance with which reliable source? Neither of you point to any sourcing for the assertion that this is a "one sided presentation".  Where can I read this "other side"?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * with all due respect, you're kidding, right? you don't believe that an argument against restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms exists? i have to assume you're being facetious at this point. Anastrophe (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Tell me what you are reading please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

how about we back up to what both yaf and i asked you: will you agree to work collaboratively here on the talk page to hammer out the proposed text? if you agree, then you can reply "i agree". post your proposed text. then other editors can provide reliably sourced material providing the opposing point of view. agreed?? Anastrophe (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree to work collaboratively. I don't know how to proceed when you claim something is not neutral, but then refuse to cite your sourcing for your claim.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * i repeat then: "post your proposed text. then other editors can provide reliably sourced material providing the opposing point of view.". there's no refusal to cite sources. we don't have the proposed text here even as a start. so, how about posting here (best in a separate section) the text you propose. if it's not POV, then there's no problem, and other editors can discuss whether we have consensus for the addition. if it is one-sided and POV, then other editors can work on balancing the POV. that's how collaboration works. repeating what you said: "Can we focus please and negotiate this edit to the article?". the starting point, post your proposed text. then we can hammer it out. agreed? Anastrophe (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This version is the take off point for proposed text. I see some problem in that that presents one sided arguments as "fact", instead of as one side's argument.  The big picture is that there are two sides of the "gun control" versus "right to bear arms" political argument.  See George Latkoff, ISBN 9780226467702, pg 199 for discussion of this POV dichotomy.   SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Saltyboar, if you're being assaulted by a 'fury of personal attacks', please demonstrate how these personal attacks violate WP:NPA as you implicate. If you cannot demonstrate this, then I must assume you are using the "personal attack" mantra for some other reason. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My user name is SaltyBoatr, not Saltyboar. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

synthesis
this entire paragraph:


 * Homicide rates in the United States vary widely across the country, though, and the relation to gun ownership is not simple. In 2005, for instance, Wyoming had the highest number of homes with loaded and unlocked guns, at 33% of all homes in the state, of any state in the United States.[80] Yet, the Wyoming homicide rate is 1.7/100,000.[81] In contrast to Wyoming, Detroit has 47.3 murders per every 100,000 residents.[82] Despite the extremely high homicide rates seen in the US in relatively few urban areas, the existence of the very low level of homicide rates seen across much of the country, seen even in the state with the highest number of homes with loaded and unlocked guns, results in a fairly low homicide rate per 100,000 for the nation as a whole.

is complete synthesis and original research.

1. the example of wyoming is drawn together from 3 different sources and then contrasted to detroit, with no connection made in any of the articles.

2. the article which mentions detroit never mentions guns.

3. the homicide rate does not include the main point of this section, ie how many were due to firearms.

4. the last sentence is simply someones opinion. "fairly low" is subjective and unsourced.

i don't really know what can be done to salvage any of it except find a source with nationwide firearm-related fatalities, cite the figures, and possibly add info from both sides in this source (80). untwirl (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well yes, this is synthesis because I have not seen any external reference to it. I have not looked but I would guess that levels of violence in societies are closely related to how closely packed together people become (territorial turf wars and all that).The Wyoming being thinly populated is probably bound to have lower levels of violence than other states. Its why I earlier suggested comparing England & Wales to other areas in the U.S. with similar population densities. But that too would be WP:OR or WP:SYN. Hence my preference to stick to published international data from academics. The fact that crime rates may go up and down with population density is perhaps an interesting issue as far as population density is concerned. And may be marginally relevant to issues of gun control, because of the link to the rural versus cities issue which User:Yaf refers to often. Thus one might be prepared to think that gun ownership in rural areas is both more justifiable (more wildlife for shooting and less dangerous to others) than it is in cities and other large communities (less opportunity for shooting wildlife and more danger to others). The recent SCOTUS decision in the US will perhaps rebound at first on the cities, but could rebound on the rural areas if in the longer term it causes a change in the constitution (hard as that may seem to be). Seemingly random gun violence in the UK did come to harm the right of perfectly law abiding country people to own and keep weapons. This has not happened in Finland despite similar school shootings. The authorites here seem more focussed on preventing the social isolation of students (which was behind the actions of the perpertrators) than controlling access to the weapons themselves. See http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/news/2009/02/jokela_investigation_commission_stop_youth_marginalisation_574583.html  At the end of the day its up to our elected representatives to determine what are the limits on the right to bear arms. Levels of relative social deprivation may be another factor that may vary from region to region and have an influence on overal violence levels. The extent to which this translates (and with what ease) into the levels of GUN violence in a given will no doubt cary with the level of gun ownership in that region. Whether proportionately or dispropotionately is an interesting question and I am not sure if there research on the matter.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i think you're saying that you agree that this paragraph is original research and should be removed.  am i correct?  untwirl (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather see how YAF responds.... right now I am bruised and I don't need any more bruises. --Hauskalainen (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Being that the article is locked down, cites cannot be added to add the appropriate cites and the wording worked to address the present concerns. But, I assure you, the basic content is not original research, and the wording could be easily changed to address any NPOV issues. At most, a tagline would be appropriate until such time that the appropriate cites can be added. However, it is worth pointing out that "20 percent of U.S. homocides occur in four cities with just 6% of the population – New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, D.C., and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns" Thus, it appears that the issue is not really population density, ceteris paribus, but, rather, is perhaps related to the presence of gun control. The paragraph is not original research and should not be removed. Minor edits and cites could certainly address all of the present concerns. Yaf (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There is also no necessity to reference GUNS, per se, as the article is about the right to keep and bear arms, such that homocides committed with knives, baseball bats, firearms, golf clubs, BMWs, golf carts, or whatever, all constitute arms by the US definition of arms. That said, the rate of homocides committed with firearms is around 65% to 70% in the US, so the homocide rate is, with high correlation, nearly identical to the rate committed with firearms in the US. Karate (meaning kara=empty te=hand, incidentally) and similar empty hand martial arts techniques are popular, but such weaponless homocides account for almost none of the homocides in the US. Yaf (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This study (in a peer reviewed journal) actually examined the variance in gun homicides and suicides according to the degree of rurality. The relationship is not as you might think. It concluded that


 * "The most urban counties had 1.03 times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban. The most urban counties experienced 1.90 times the adjusted firearm homicide rate of the most rural. Similar opposing trends were not found for nonfirearm suicide or homicide"


 * So not only is there not much variation in rates of firearm suicide and homicide, there is no opposing trend for non-firearm, suicide or homicide so the GUN does seem to be a factor. There is no substitution effect  visible in the US data (as there wasn't in most of the international data). Which is every reason why there should be a reference to GUNS! It is germain to the article.  It seems that rural people are less likely to kill each other but more likely to kill themselves. To quote the report "... although firearm mortality rates were similar in urban and rural areas, the rate of firearm suicide in America’s most rural communities closely resembled that of firearm homicide in her largest cities".

See http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/94/10/1750 --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So, you are in agreement with my statement earlier, that "Thus, it appears that the issue is not really population density, ceteris paribus, but, rather, is perhaps related to the presence of gun control." The most urban counties are not in the 6% of the population where "20 percent of U.S. homocides  occur in four cities with just 6% of the population – New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, D.C., and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns"  This would be an interesting addition to this section, to provide POV balance.  On the whole, however, I question the relevance of focusing on guns over arms, except if it is to push a hoplophobic anti- tone to the right to keep and bear arms.  There is no reason to add POV content, and I question the necessity of attacking the topic of the article, the right to keep and bear arms.  It doesn't seem on topic. Yaf (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

1.ncpa is a conservative think tank, not a peer reviewed scholarly source.

2.please address the issue that drawing together facts from various sources to make a point that isnt made in the sources themselves is original research and synthesis (i.e. the wyoming example)

3.the comparison between wyoming and detroit is original research, as well.

4.the last sentence is a conclusion not drawn by any of the sources cited. untwirl (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * the mentioned paragraph, and in fact all of the statistics having to do with homicide/suicide rates, have no direct relevance to this article, and should be scrubbed from it. this article is about the right to keep and bear arms, it's not about Gun politics, Homicide rates, Suicide rates, Disparity between rural and urban homicide and suicide rates or any other synthetic connection. This article should actually be a fairly brief description of a right that appears in historical texts and codified in some country's laws, and have a brief list of 'see also' links to related articles. what we have now is a lot of POV pushing content from both sides, that's not directly relevant to the article, only synthetically relevant.Anastrophe (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Gun politics by country
 * I agree. The gun politics content is not germane to the topic of the article. It would be better to keep this content in the various gun politics in ____  articles, (see right bar), not here. Yaf (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Gun death statistics are referred to by those making sholarly reccomendations to policy makers who can affect the legal right to bear guns, a deadly form of arms. They are also referred to by pressure groups seeking restrictions on the right to bear arms. So gun death statisitics are of direct relevance to the article. But the data must be from a WP:RS and not constitute WP:SYN. The information in the section that I added and was was deleted (and has since been forwarded for a second opinion at WP:EA) meets these criteria in my opinion, as does this one

. --Hauskalainen (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Gun death statistics have no relevance to this topic. The article is about the right to keep and bear arms, not guns.   Are there any discussions of paper cuts in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution article, from handling all the paper on which is written freedom of speech content? It would be much the same argument to include such content as gun death statistics here.  There are articles such as Gun violence in the United States for such content.  This article is not the place nor is it a forum for anti-gun rhetoric.  The intense focus on guns leads one to assume a problem with hoplophobia exists in the minds of some editors, or that some editors are somehow anti-right to keep and bear arms. Gun death statistics are irrelevant for this article, being better handled elsewhere. Yaf (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * part of the debate over "right to keep and bear arms" is whether or not it includes firearms implicitly. that debate should be included in the article, but only the arguments directly used by reliable sources should be used and cited.


 * i think we need to decide: either homicide statistics in general are relevant, or they arent.  if they are, then gun fatalities are just as pertinent due to the nature of the debate surrounding this topic.  untwirl (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (To User:Yaf). I am not focussing totally on guns. Here are some more questions for you to duck (like the others I asked you and you have failed to answer)


 * 1. Are you saying that laws in the UK that the right to carry certain types of guns, knives, gas cannisters, etc.. do not restrict the right to bear arms in that country?
 * 2. Do you have evidence from a WP:RS that some have called for the restriction on the use to carry paper in case it is used as a form of armament?


 * Guns are arms and particularly lethal ones at that. They are a natural focus for laws aiming to restrict the right to bear arms. But I agree that we should not focus exclusively on guns or on the United States. Gun are a problem in many countries and some have an even bigger problem than the U.S. (for instance Thailand) We can include knives (for as I said, carrying a knife in a public place in the UK is potentially a legal offence) or gas canisters such as tear gas for similar reasons. --Hauskalainen (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To: User:untwirl. Total homicide rates ARE relevant when taken together with data on the method of causing the homicide. And suicides too. The research I have seen looks at both overall homicide and suicide rates as well as gun homicide and gun suicide rates in the context of the level of gun ownership. If the homicide rate is the same in areas with high and low gun ownership and but the gun homicide rate is higher in areas where there are more guns, that merely seems to show substitution and that reducing gun ownership levels would probably not reduce gun deaths. But if the homicide and rate is higher in areas with higher gun ownership, then it indicates that guns could be contributing to the higher rate of homicides. But this data has to be carefully interpreted and once should not be too picky with the data by picking out exceptions which do not meet the general rule. Hence We should for example at European data covering all of Europe or US data covering the whole of the US. I accept that there are areas like Wyoming and Switzerland that may not have a big gun crime problem in spite of the presence of a lot of guns. We need to refer to inclusive data that informs the debate and not misinforms it. --Hauskalainen (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * all of this belongs in the article on gun control and not in this one. a simple statement that there is controversy over whether the right to bear arms means the right to individual gun ownership, with a link or a "for more information see" directed to gun control would be the best way to handle this.  both of you seem to have done a lot of research and could either create or add to articles related to homicide rates and their relation to gun control, but i don't see ihow that information fits into this particular article.  untwirl (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to the questions posed above:
 * 1. Are you saying that laws in the UK that the right to carry certain types of guns, knives, gas cannisters, etc.. do not restrict the right to bear arms in that country?
 * There is no right to keep and bear arms currently in the UK, if I understand UK's current position correctly. All forms of self defense have been made illegal. If the people there get fed up with increasing amounts of violence and civil unrest, perhaps having a problem such as occurred in France over the last few summers, when so many vehicles were burned, and the rates of crime continue to drop in the US in areas with concealed carry permits being more and more popular, then presumably, people in the UK will elect MPs to reflect this change of opinion, and MPs will restore the historic rights to self defense that every Englishmen had previously to achieve the low rates of crime seen in the US in so many areas. (The areas in the US where 6% of the population seem so eager to kill each other, having 20% of the homicides of the nation as a whole, are seeing increased efforts to restore gun rights, to reduce crime.)
 * 2. Do you have evidence from a WP:RS that some have called for the restriction on the use to carry paper in case it is used as a form of armament?
 * There have been numerous cases in the UK where fire extinguishers have been banned over the last several months (among flats in Bournemouth, et al), on grounds that they were being used, or could be used, as weapons. I see no difference as being likely if reams of paper are used as weapons, too, in the UK.  Now that I think about it, this article should have a discussion on restrictions on fire extinguishers in the UK, too, being that they are regarded as arms.  It would provide balance to the inordinate focus on guns.  In the US, arms include much more than guns.  Judging from the banning of fire extinguishers in the UK, it would seem that arms include much more than guns there, too.  Yaf (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

so far as the subject of this talk section is concerned, the paragraph in question is a textbook example of WP:SYN and should be removed as such. untwirl (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (To User:Yaf).


 * If I read you correctly, your answer to Question 1 above is that do you accept that laws have been imposed to restrict the right to bear arms. This makes the restrictions relevent to the right to bear arms. And not just in the UK but almost everywhere right is restricted by law, common law, legislated law or constitutional law. This makes the issue relevant to the tropic of the article.


 * Re my question 2 you have not provided evidence from a WP:RS that there are laws or people calling for a change in the law restricting the right to use paper (or a fire extinguisher for that matter) as as a form of armament. So I think I am right in saying that it is certain types of very dangerous arms that are restricted. So we should be focussed on those where legislation has been introduced.


 * I agree there is some overlap here with gun control but it is not complete because of the controls on things like knives, gas, tasers, etc. --Hauskalainen (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To:User:YafYou stated "so you are in agreement with my statement earlier, that "Thus, it appears that the issue is not really population density, ceteris paribus, but, rather, is perhaps related to the presence of gun control." . Well not wholly to the first issue and don't think I referred to gun control at all, so no to the second issue. Gun controls may work or may not work. I suspect that it takes a very long time for a culture to change. There have been many "gun amnesties" in the UK and each once seems to bring in large numbers of weapons that should have been surrendered long before in earlier amnesties. It takes time. I agree that population density is not the main issue (but it is probably AN issue as the most densely populated areas do seem to have more violence. That's as true in the UK as in the U.S.  But its not a factor that applies across the range and certainly does not account for the overall gun crime levels. What(gun violence) does seem to be related to is the issue of the presence of guns (irrespective of what the gun law says). What advantage less gun crime ridden states such as Wyoming seem to gain in terms of lower gun homicides, they seem to make up for when it comes to the much higher rate of gun suicide.  That's what the research shows.. a relation between gun ownership levels and gun violence. Oh by the way, not all guns are banned in the UK. A lot are but not all. I believe rifles are still owned and kept at home by some, properly locked up and covered by licences. I believe small arms can be used in clubs where for example there are shooting ranges and adequate protection for the security of the weapon. (I may be wrong here, but that is my belief. This is actually not a topic that excites me greatly).  --Hauskalainen (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The tyranny of the dead over the living. And the tyranny of the minority over the will of the majority
Of course the problem with laws that require supermajorities to overturn them is they can easly become a form of tyranny. One that was initiated by the dead and maintained by a minority over the wishes of the majority. So much for democracy! I surely cannot be the first to have made this observation. I must see if I can find a reference. If not I'll have to get some left leaning newspaper to publish an article pointing this out ;) --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha ha ha.... great minds think alike.... Apparently one Thomas Jefferson said that unless the constitution was re-written every 20 years or so it would be a vehicle for the tyranny of the dead over the living.  Thank you Google!

http://books.google.com/books?id=-EWi759F4PoC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=%22+tyranny+of+the+dead+over+the+living%22&source=bl&ots=6UkWx3Z3DC&sig=0j-7KZYspycPb3KpHHvGWkd2Rqg&hl=en&ei=e1SUSbeWNoyg-gbB3_j3CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA83,M1  --Hauskalainen (talk) :So, then, I must assume from this rant that you also support the views of American terrorist Timothy McVeigh, too, for inclusion in the article, for he wore a T-shirt on the day of the Oklahoma City bombing, that, on the back, had a tree with a picture of three blood droplets and a related Thomas Jefferson quote: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (Reference added solely for SaltyBoatr, who seems to demand a cite on every comment on the talk page, now.) A Republic form of democracy such as in the US specifically prevents the fable of two wolves and a chicken deciding on what's for dinner from playing out in real life. It prevents the tyranny of the majority against a minority, with particular emphasis in the current context, of preventing usurping the right to keep and bear arms of lawful citizens, in contrast to usurping the rights of subjects to keep and bear arms. The US Constitution is specifically written this way, to improve upon the parliamentary form of government that had been the case under George III. How about we all focus on making the article better, while not going off on anti-nationlism or nationalism rants, OK? NPOV means no soccer thug rah-rah-rahs for any one country or constitution being better than any other. Lets focus on making the article better. Yaf (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Apology accepted. Yaf (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please withdraw the slur that I would support the actions of McVeigh. I said or implied no such thing. Again you are implying that my words say much more than I actually did say. This is now starting to fall into a pattern. If you do not respond and desist I will have to make a formal complaint about you.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I simply pointed out the rest of the pertinent quote, for establishing a complete context of the message your offensive topic/quote actually conveyed in a public forum. If you choose to withdraw your '''The tyranny of the dead over the living. And the tyranny of the minority over the will of the majority''' pejorative topic, slurring the US Constitution, then no context is needed for your rant, and my comment establishing context is not needed. Your choice. Yaf (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Apology accepted. Yaf (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The formal process is called RFC. I would join in that complaint.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yaf (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Apology accepted. Yaf (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologise if "slow down cowboy" was taken as a slur. I meant it to be a piece of light humor. I am still waiting for an apology over the McVeigh slur. It is outrageous that you should connect to that incident--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC).

(Oh and lest there be any doubt.... I don't hold up the British constitution to be anything to be happy about. Any constitution that sets its monarch up as head of the church, and requires subjugation to him even if he ís a philanderer, and which still bans catholics as head of state (but not jews or muslims mind), and which requires MPs to swear allegience to the constitution and the monarch (even the MP has campaigned on a ticket to turn the nation into a republic) has to be suspect.. And that's before we even mention the composition of the House of Lords!--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC))
 * And, lest there be any doubt, I am not thrilled with the current US Supreme Court, the Congress, nor the executive office. But that is neither here nor there.  Incidentally, my ancestry is 15/16 English for what it's worth, with all their dates of migration from England to America ranging from 1680 through about 1730. Primogeniture laws in England basically means I am descended from a lot of second borns, nearly all of whom left England directly to come to America. Lots of family archives and items and stories have been passed down. One's perspective is radically different when English and American history is about family members. Apology accepted, and I apologize as well about my McVeigh and Jefferson quote comments.  Let's focus henceforth on citing accurate statements carefully in this article. Yaf (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Does this discussion have anything to do with improving the article? Does it have anything to do with the article, at all? Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)