Talk:Right to keep and bear arms/Archive 7

inclusion of homicide statistics
i've opened a ticket at | the original research noticeboard for formal review of the matter. Anastrophe (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was so much a question of OR but one of relevance. Perhaps some neutral party can review it in that perspective instead.Prussian725 (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * it falls under the synthesis aegis of OR. the statistics have been dumped into the article with zero supporting reliable sources connecting the statistics to this article. we're left to assume that they're connected. it would be identically synthesis if i were to dump statistics on environmental lead issues at shooting ranges into the article. the assumption would be that shooting lead bullets leaves lead in the environment, with tragic results. which is true. but is similarly unrelated to this article except by synthesis. and since nobody has yet provided a direct source connecting the homicide statistics to this article, the synthesis remains, thus the material cannot stand in the article. Anastrophe (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Zero? Lost in the mass of discussion above is the fact that the topic of this article most definitely should include the modern political dichotomy which indeed hinges on perceptions gun violence statistics.  I pointed before to many sources showing this relevancy, just one comes from conservative Supreme Court chief justice Warren Burger who wrote about links between murder and the right to bear arms.  See also for instance this New Republic article showing relevancy:  "the right to keep and bear arms as a fully individual right, one that we can exercise as we choose (including for self-defense and for hunting) unless the government has a "compelling" interest (as, for example, in the prevention of murder" .  So, please, relevancy has been shown.  That said, perhaps there is a compromise way to include the murder statistics in the article?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there anything in particular that you don't like about the compromise I proposed at the beginning of the section?  I think we could use the Tushnet article as a reference for "The right to keep and bear arms is sometimes referenced in discussions of gun politics, gun violence..." --Hamitr (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is this "Tushnet" article? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The New Republic article you linked to above is, as near as I can tell, just Cass R. Sunstein posting Mark V. Tushnet's paper Out of Range. --Hamitr (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The sentence "The right to keep and bear arms is often referenced in discussions of gun politics, gun violence..." would be accurate, and cited. Yes.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * i would have no objection to mention of chief justice warren burger's essay, published in Parade magazine in the 1980's, as an example of opinion on the matter. however, we keep coming back to this: the assorted statistics proferred make zero direct connection between 'the right to keep and bear arms' and the assorted homicide and suicide statistics therein. they suggest a correlation between gun ownership, but gun ownership is not equal to the right to keep and bear arms. there's millions of people in the united states who do not own guns, yet that does not mean that they don't have the right to keep and bear arms. how do gun ownership statistics have any bearing on them? they have the right, but they don't own firearms. the statistics are hollow in this regard, because, for about the fifty-third time now, "gun ownership" is not equal to "the right to keep and bear arms". the connection made is synthetic. Anastrophe (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree.Prussian725 (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

gun violence, gun politics, synthesis, statistics, etc.
I agree with Anastrophe, Yaf, and [possibly] untwirl that we should remove all homicide/suicide statistics from the article. In place of the contested (and now removed) "Gun violence and the politics of the right to bear arms" section, we should include something to the effect of: The right to keep and bear arms is sometimes referenced in discussions of gun politics, gun violence...

SaltyBoatr listed some sources above which, although they didn't convincingly connect the rkba to gun death statistics, they do support that the rkba is mentioned or referenced in discussions of the other topics.

In my opinion, if the death statistics are allowed to remain in the article, the "ad-hoc" comparisons and cherry-picked statistics will have to be replaced with assertions from reliable sources/studies. Such studies will, inevitably, include those by Martin Killias. Then, to add balance, studies from Gary Kleck and John Lott will also be added. By this point, we will have completely duplicated the material found in Gun politics, Gun politics in the United Kingdom, Gun violence in the United States, Political arguments of gun politics in the United States, etc.

Instead, we should link to those other articles either throughout the text, with,  , or  templates per WP:SS, or a combination thereof. --Hamitr (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks for supplying a better informed analysis than mine. i am completely uninvolved in this area of wp and was only commenting on the single paragraph that i immediately realized, by glancing at the sources, was original research. untwirl (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur with Hamitr's proposal. We should remove all of the death statistics.  This resolves a lot of perceived problems with the article, while additionally not duplicating information that is found in other articles (Gun politics, Gun politics in the United Kingdom, Gun violence in the United States, Political arguments of gun politics in the United States, etc.).  This also removes the Wyoming content, while putting in links to the appropriate other articles.  Yaf (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have mixed feelings about this. One side could say that the statistics have nothing to do with the right, and that it should be kept in the abstract. On the other hand, things go hand in hand - anything you have a right to do might carry a risk of accidental injury - including free speech, or driving a car. So yes, there's something negative about it, but can you really say it has no place here? I think the limitation should be publishing only reliable statistics - e.g., none of the politicized, nonscientific, nonsense about people being 40 times more likely to injure themselves with a gun than use it in self-defense. There is a risk that adding those statistics could be seen to push a hoplophobic POV. On the other hand, to remove them alltogether with prejudice to reinclusion seems self-consciously anti-hoplophobic. You can't fight a NNPOV with another NNPOV. It seems like that's what we might be proposing here. Care to comment?Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * homicide statistics are only relevant insofar as they are describing people who were victims to those who were not engaged in their right to keep and bear arms. just as one is not engaged in their right to free speech if they slander someone, or (canonically) yell "fire" in a crowded theater, someone who commits murder is not engaged in his right to keep and bear arms. as a means of defining what the right to keep and bears is not, it's of interest, but only minimally. are there statistics in First Amendment of the United States Constitution regarding how many people are victims of slander each year? its worth noting that accidental injury pursuant to employing one's rights is far different from intentional acts in contravention of the right. and also, driving a car isn't a right. :^) Anastrophe (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The right to bear arms is not absolute. It is restricted in most countries. The degree to which it is restricted is dependent on the balance of risks as perceived by politicians. Accurate statistics, whilst open to interpretation, are part of the process of obtaining a balanced peception. You cannot pretend that these statisitics don't exist and don't influence people! BTW the approximately 40 times statistic I referred to earlier was not the balance of risks of injury in using a gun in self defence versus an accident. It was the increased risk that the average US citizen faces of being murdered with a gun than his English cousin across the water (where there are very tight gun laws and nearly all policemen are unarmed). I don't think that has anything to do with gun phobias and it is not POV. Its a bald fact. You are muddying matters by claiming that "homicide statistics are only relevant insofar as they are describing people who were victims to those who were not engaged in their right to keep and bear arms". So if you are exercising your right to bear arms, say on a hunting trip, and someone else shoots you dead (whether on purpose or by accident as could easily have happened in the Dick Cheyne incident), your death is not a relevant gun death? How so?? Or if you shoot your wife and she was carrying a pistol in her handbag, her death is not relevant? It seems to me that you are clutching at straws to try to prevent WP:RS statistics by a criminologist doing his job of analysing gun deaths (with the precise aim of analysing how gun ownership rates vary with gun death rates), and previously published by a United Nations body whose main fun ction is to "advance policy and practice in the prevention and control of juvenile delinquency and adult criminality" from being mentioned in article on the right to bear arms. The statistics are WP:RS, NPOV, and relevent to the article subject. --Hauskalainen (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hauskalainen wrote: "The degree to which [the right to keep and bear arms] is restricted is dependent on the balance of risks as perceived by politicians."
 * So, gun legislation, which restricts the right to keep and bear arms, depends on risks as perceived by politicians. That sounds like information that should be added to the Gun politics article.  But wait, homicide and suicide statistics are already included in that article.  Maybe we should link to it from this one rather than duplicating that content here.
 * Also, you seem to be missing Anastrophe's point that perpetrators of homicide are not exercising their right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms does not include the right to commit homicide.  Please let me know if I should explain this point further. --Hamitr (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. Please tell us your sourcing.SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you have sources saying that he right to keep and bear arms includes the right to commit homicide? If you can produce such sources, then I'll try to find the ones that you requested.  --Hamitr (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you and others are claiming the RTKBA does not include the right to commit homicide. This is probably true for most, and is obvious to your personal opinion.  I am asking for you to show your reliable sourcing for this assertion.  This talk page suffers from too much "everybody knows this" and too little "this is verifiable".  When I look at reliable sourcing I see that the "right to bear arms" is not a absolute concept, instead it has different meanings to different people at different times in different contexts.  See for instance Chapter 4 of Bruce Hoffman's book ISBN 9780231114691, published by Columbia University Press describing the wrapping of the righteous revolution in a "Right to Bear Arms" rational by extremist christian white militia revolutionary groups.  Certainly, they espouse just revolutionary violent actions that might be characterized and prosecuted as "homicide".  Or, the 1967-1968 Black Panthers espousing their right to bear arms with purpose of self defense against White on Black killing, extra-legal.  In short extra-legal vigilante killing under the cloak of 'bear arms' rights can be viewed as just 'self defensive' killing or viewed as homicide depending on perspective, see Chapter 9 of Charles Springwood's book ISBN 9781845204174. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, if you want the content included, then you have the burden of proving its relevance to the right to keep and bear arms as found in reliable sources. No one else is obligated to waste their time chasing your theories of how "extremist christian white militia revolutionary groups" and the black panthers relate to including suicide/homicide statistics in this article.--Hamitr (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * the opinions and actions of fringe groups and extremists, acting outside the law, are not relevant to an NPOV article. saltyboatr knows that. he also knows that proving a negative is not within notice, not by any wikipedia policy i'm aware of. i assert that the right to keep and bear arms also does not include the right to make popcorn using dynamite on the third sunday of april. it also does not include the right to burn pumpkins on the shores of lake erie after dark. further, it does not include the right to photograph a lemur while using a pogostick to send morse code. all of these things are true. and the burden of proof resides not with me, but in anyone who would claim otherwise. we can deduce from saltyboatr's comments that he believes that it is a commonly held opinion that the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to commit murder. fine. bring us reliable sourcing that shows that this is a well-known and widely held opinion, rather than a Flat Earth fringe theory held by criminals and extremists. the burden of proof is upon you to show that this is the case. bon chance. Anastrophe (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Why ask for his sourcing? It wasn't even a comment relevant to the thread. Non Curat Lex (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * how is my comment not relevant? those who commit murder are not acting within their right to keep and bear arms, thus statistics concerning that are not directly connected to what this article is about. the inclusion of homicide statistics in this article seems based upon the idea that since there are people who use guns criminally - extra the right - that this somehow has something directly to do the right this article is about. that idea has so far been shown only synthetically. it makes no more sense than insisting that the article Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution include statistics regarding people who have been convicted of Breaking and Entering - on the synthetic grounds that when someone breaks into a home, they're violating someone's right against unreasonable searches and seizures. if you squint and cock your head to the side, it might seem like it makes sense. it does not. no more so than this inclusion. there are manifold other articles where these statistics are entirely relevant. and that's where they belong. Anastrophe (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I felt Hausakalainen's comment was irrelevant, not yours, Anastrophe. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Now HamitR is twisting words. I did not say that the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to commit homicide. Those who carry a weapon and later commit a murder can merely claim, right up until the time that they kill someone, if stopped and found to be carrying a weapon, could claim in some jursidictions that they are merely exercising their right to carry a weapon.By which time its all too late for the poor victim. Murder is not always a deliberately planned act but can just emerge from the moment. At a moment of tension, the very presence of a weapon makes it more likely that deadly force will be used. If they are not allowed to carry a weapon in the first place, when a moment of tension arises, it is much less likely that deadly force will be used. This is the main finding I think of the UNICRIT report. Therefore the rights of innocent victims of crime ought to be protected when weapons are not present. The law can help to reduce the likelihood of a weapon being present. In the UK, for instance, in areas where there is a high crime rate and a policemen suspects that a person may have been involved in a crime or may become involved in a crime he or she can exercise a right of Stop and search and see if the person is carrying an offensive weapon. This makes it harder for potential criminals in high crime areas to carry a knife or a gun with the intent of using it to threaten violence (to obtain money for example). The UK has not eliminated gun crime and knife crime entirely but it is very very low and the lives of otherwise potential victims, their families, and of course the lives of potential perpertrators and their families, are undoubtedly improved by the relative absence of gun and knife crime in the UK. As for Anastrophe's points, if the statistics are relevant to gun politics, and they are, they are equally relevant here because gun politics does mostly seem to be about the degree of right to keep and bear arms. There is no harm in summarizing the issues here. The issue and people can go to gun politics to be bedazzled by the array of arguments there. And of course, as I say, this is not just about guns. It covers many other forms of arms too.--Hauskalainen (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, OK, we get your point. The UK has no right to keep and bear arms, and you think that is a good thing.  The US does have a right to keep and bear arms, and you think that is a very bad, very dangerous thing.  And you will argue vehemently to include homicide and suicide statistics, because that makes the UK look good and the US look bad.  Your opinion has been noted, but I doubt that you've convinced anyone, at least not me. --Hamitr (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My own views are of no importance. I am merely stating that the record on violence via the use of arms is the reason why legislators in some countries have restricted the right to bear arms. If there was no violence in the absence of controls then there would be no pressure to restrict the right to bear arms. It is because of illegal violence that there are such controls. I am just stating the obvious. --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way. You are wrong to claim that there is no right to bear arms in the UK. There is a right to use arms in the UK to defend oneself. You can carry a club around with you for instance. You can carry a non-lethal ink spray or a water pistol filled with a non-noxious substance intended to deter (though I doubt that many do). You just can't carry certain designated types of deadly arms around with you "in case of need" unless you have a special permit (which you can only get if you can show good reason). --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not true. Water pistols are explicitly not effective for self defense, nor are they allowed in the UK.(Door to door search of toy vendors) (Non-noxious == water, incidently.) It is an offence to carry even a toy gun in a public place. Helicopter raid on Cowboy and Indian Party Yaf (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nether reference supports what you say. I stand by what I say. See http://www.toysrus.co.uk/index.jsf;jsessionid=F6A5789B06002CD9212FF12B814BF0EA.app01?fh_eds=%ef%bf%bd&fh_search=gun&fh_view_size=10&fh_start_index=0&fh_location=%2f%2ftrus%2fen_GB%2fcategories%3c%7btrus_trus%7d%2fitemtype%3dproduct&omitxmldecl=yes (P.s. "red top" newpapers such as The Mirror and The Sun are not really very reliable sources! They have a tendency to exaggerate).  A water pistol could be a useful form of defence if was filled with dye. The dye could easily connect an assailant with a a crime scene and therefore be an effective deterrent. I don't know that anyone does this but some cash boxes used by security collection agents can emit non lethal dye or coloured smoke as a deterrent against theft. Such devices are legal. Realistic immitations of real weapons are not beacause of their use in possible threat situations.--Hauskalainen (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So...remind me again of what water pistols have to do with including or not including suicide/homicide statistics in this article.--Hamitr (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a few points of common sense, if I may. my 2¢, anyway. -- Ludwigs 2 05:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) we need to distinguish between rights and laws, here. owning a weapon is a right is some places (meaning that people are allowed to do it by default).  homicide is a matter of law.  if person A shoots person B, the question of whether it's a homicide is completely independent of the question of whether person A was allowed to carry the gun (and in fact, person A might be allowed to carry the gun for a good bit after he'd shot person B, until the court system rules on whether it was a homicide).
 * 2) I'm not sure that it's fair to draw such a harsh line between this article and gun politics. in the US, at least, most gun politics revolves around the right to bear arms, so the terms are interrelated.
 * 3) I'm also not sure that raw homicide/suicide statistics are exactly meaningful for this article. you'd have to find sources that separate out only those events that involve properly registered guns (as opposed to illegally owned guns), and further distinguish between homicides, suicides, accidental shootings, and self-defense shootings (since guns do occasionally get used in their primary function of defending the household).  that would be useful for this article; raw stats aren't


 * If I get seriously injured or killed by a gun, I (or my family) won't feel any better/or more outraged about if depending on the registration status of the gun or the owner, nor if I was killed trying to defend myself or just being an innocent passer by or, God forbid, had I actually been in the process of committing a felony. It's simply not OK for people to have their lives cut short in this way. That is a POV statement so isn't in the article. The international research that I have seen does not make that spilt, but does draw conclusions about the effect of the sheer numbers of guns and the statistics on homicides and suicides. There is a relationship in both. That is not POV and neither is it OR. To suggest that it does makes a difference as to registration status, illegal ownership, or circumstances at the time sounds like POV and OR to me. But I agree it would be nice to have those numbers, though I'm not sure what it would prove. --Hauskalainen (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * probably true, but not really on point. look, the right to bear arms (in the US constitution, at any rate) was not put there so that people could buy handguns to protect themselves from burglars. the right to bear arms is there so that people can arm themselves against tyranny (either foreign invaders or the tyranny of their own government).  those crazy militia people from the '80s and '90s were actually doing what the founding father's expected from this amendment.  now you want to add criticism about how handguns are dangerous and kill people: not a problem in and of itself, but you do need to keep it on on topic and in perspective.  the gun laws article gives you a lot more freedom in that regard; this article has to stay close to right to bear arms, which means it can only include material that relates to legal gun ownership (you might be able to make an exception if you could find international research that explicitly compares nations with legal gun ownership to those without in a systematic way, but still).


 * I sympathize with your concerns, but part of maintaining a proper tone is keeping discussions in their proper place. maybe the easiest solution to this problem would be to add one of those otheruses templates - otheruses1 for instance - so it says "This is an article about the constitutional right to bear arms.  for information on gun laws and statistics on gun homicide rates, see gunlaws"  that would put your concerns right up at the top of the page, but leave this article to talk about the constitutional issues.  would that work? -- Ludwigs 2  09:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me respond to each of your points.


 * ..the right to bear arms is there so that people can arm themselves against tyranny (either foreign invaders or the tyranny of their own government). those crazy militia people from the '80s and '90s were actually doing what the founding father's expected from this amendment. 
 * This sounds very POV and related to the United States. Such text is found in the US section, which is quite appropriate.  It does not belong in a section headed "Jurisdictions based on English Common Law (which is the subject of another ongoing dispute on this page)


 * .. now you want to add criticism about how handguns are dangerous and kill people


 * That's a sweeping allegation! It would be POV if it were true (which it isn't). The removed section says nothing about handguns. Its core elements are


 * 1. politicians pass laws restricting the right to bear arm because they and others are persuaded, rightly or wrongly, that doing so will reduce deliberate or accidental deaths and injury


 * 2. it points out that independent research says that the presence of more guns in a country tends to mean that there are more deaths.


 * 3. It reports that of the 18 countries it studied, guns were the major cause of deliberate death only in Italy, Northern Ireland and the USA; and that the causal link could not be proved definitely even though it was suspected. That seems to me be a fair representation of the facts and not a biased representation.


 * ..the gun laws article gives you a lot more freedom in that regard; this article has to stay close to right to bear arms


 * It does stay close to the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is restricted in almost every country. It would be very unhelpful not to explain why that is and why the right varies from country to country. And I would re-stress that this article is not about guns but all arms. The removed section would have been expanded to cover statistical analysis of knife crime also.


 *  which means it can only include material that relates to legal gun ownership..
 * Again, it seems that you are making several assumptions. That legal gun ownership does not spill over into illegal gun ownership and that legal guns are not used in either crime or suicide. Those assumptions are not shared by those who argue for gun controls. Some of the evidence seems to back this up, especially in suicides and spill-over (though I guess that criminal use of legal weapons is probably small relative to all gun crime).
 * maybe the easiest solution to this problem would be to add one of those otheruses templates - otheruses1 for instance - so it says "This is an article about the constitutional right to bear arms. for information on gun laws and statistics on gun homicide rates, see gunlaws"''  that would put your concerns right up at the top of the page, but leave this article to talk about the constitutional issues.  would that work?


 * Not really, because this article is NOT about constitutional issues. The article title is the Right to keep and bear arms Not the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the United States.  I have put too much time into this article to want to redfine it and abandon all the work I have put into it recently.  Perhaps Yaf and co will move the material to a new article under a more appropriate name. If they do that I will leave them alone and stop having to correct them on matters of English law (unless of course they repeat the nonsense about ancient rights allegedly granted in the 1100s (or even earlier as I have read on some web sites). English law simply does not talk about rights.--Hauskalainen (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I resent this personal attack, especially as I specifically have not agreed with the Assize of Arms content, and have advocated its removal. Also, is this another accusation of sock puppetry ("Yaf and co") for which Hauskalainen has been repeatedly warned?  This is the repeated nonsense that needs to stop. Yaf (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Personal attack? Sock puppetry?  Not my intention at all. Sorry if you thought it was.  I am merely pointing out that the edits you and certain others make are mostly all about the right to bear arms as it exists in the United States, and whilst it seems that certain people in the US seem to attach great significance to ancient documents, this is not so in other countries. This is why I have suggested elsewhere that we break out the false division by legal tradition because it simply is not relevant. Either keep those elements in the (already over-long) section on the United States or else move them to a new article as I suggested. In that way there can be no mixing up of US perspective in an article which should have a more globalized view. And this in respnse to a suggestion from another that the content of the article be defined not by the article title but by a sub-text within it (which to me makes little sense). Hence my suggestion was practical. I am not suggesting that you and others won't have a view on this more globalized article.  I was trying to be practical and not engaging in a personal attack. --Hauskalainen (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Part of a sentence removed
On a few occasions over the years, permits have been granted to private individuals to keep firearms for personal protection, for example during "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland, however these are very limited and exceptional cases.

While this may be true in Great Britain, it is completely untrue (and unsourced) in relation to Northern Ireland, see here. While the majority are not personal protection weapons, 9800 personal proection weapons are not "very limited and exceptional cases" you would agree? Therefore I have removed the mention of ""The Troubles" in Northern Ireland". O Fenian (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I was excluding weapons held by the police. Unlike the rest of the UK, the police in Northern Ireland have been regularly armed, and because of the troubles, unlike police in the rest of country, they are (or at least were) allowed to have weapons when off duty for personal protection. I am not sure how many of those 9800 would be in that category but I expect that it is the vast majority.  I have heard that some politicians were allowed to carry personal protection weapons and that was what I was referring to. I believe that the police weapons have to be licenced. The PSNI employs 9200 oficers. --Hauskalainen (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * whatever the case, a citations to a WP:RS is required. Anastrophe (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Former security personnel are entitled to have them too, although that has recently changed slightly. Peter Robinson had a PPW 10 years ago, and even a former UVF member had one too. It was not that unusual for private citizens to have a PPW in Northern Ireland. Also this (while referring to the Royal Irish Regiment admittedly) would suggest that serving security personnel may not have need a licence, as there were MOD issued PPWs, and privately owned ones which needed a licence issued by the RUC, implying the former did not need a licence. O Fenian (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So can I add it back with a reference to exceptions for police and other security forces? Should there be a reference to politicians and prominent figures? It is useful to know why Northern Ireland has more guns than the rest of the UK (though it ought to be obvious perhaps).--Hauskalainen (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * my understanding is that special exceptions allowing VIP's the privilege to carry guns precisely the opposite of the right to keep and bear arms - they are being given special exception to restrictions on the right, so as noted, it is a privilege, not a right. as noted elsewhere, in the UK proper, the right to keep and bear arms is for all intents and purposes null and void. that doesn't preclude special security forces in the UK from being armed to the teeth. when S.W.A.T. teams and other security forces are granted the privilege of carrying weapons, while the people at large are not - it's clearly not an example of 'the right to keep and bear arms' being employed. Anastrophe (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The sentence was clarifying the right of the Home Office to permit the holding of such weapons for personal protection. Calm down. Not everyone in the US has a right to have a weapon. I presume children and convicted felons do not. I guess that you'd love to say in the article that nobody in the UK can carry arms for all practical purposes and in the U.S. they can. But that actually would not be true or honest either. There are just variations of this right in different places in the world, some more restrictive than others--Hauskalainen (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC).


 * That is not persuasive. We have no absolute rights in the U.S., even our so called "fundamental rights" are still subject to regulation by the states under some circumstances. But that's where the usefulness of your statement ends. It's not that everyone has a right; it's that it's a right of the people, and not a privilege of the select few. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: Hauskalainen's comment of  "Not everyone in the US has a right to have a weapon. I presume children and convicted felons do not."  Well, it is not that simple.  It actually depends on the state, and the applicable definitions of child and felon in the legal jurisdictions for which you are talking.  In most states, children over the age of 16 or 18 can possess modern long guns, with no problems. For modern handguns, the typical minimum age is 16, 18, or 21.  By Federal law, handgun purchasers must be 21 when purchasing a modern handgun from a person in the business that is licensed by the Federal Government.  Purchasing a black powder handgun, though, there are a multitude of legal ages, ranging from 14 or 15 up to 21, depending on state. Private sales of even modern handguns are fine in many states by purchasers over age 16 or 18 or 21.  Private sales are legal only between residents of the same state, save a buyer having what is known as a Curio & Relic license.  With such a C&R license, if the gun is over 50 years old, a C&R holder can purchase a handgun in any state by Federal law.  State law, however, may still prevent the otherwise legal private sale. It all depends. A private sale between next door neighbors living on opposite sides of a state line on even adjoining properties is illegal.  As for felons, it depends here too on the actual jurisdiction.  Black powder weapons for hunting are legal in some states for possession by convicted felons, and not in other states.  Then, too, convicted felons whose rights have been restored by a Governor are likewise not banned from possessing firearms by state law.  However, individuals convicted of a prior misdemeanor charge of domestic violence, such as for throwing a cereal bowl at a spouse even 20 years ago before there were any such laws, are prohibited from possessing modern firearms by Federal law, despite ex post facto problems.  The nuances are numerous regarding just who does and does not possess a right to have a weapon in the US. It all depends. It is not as simple as you might think.  Yaf (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I assume there is little doubt that the existing sentence was wrong then? Just in case, let me summarise. While the licensing of handguns as personal protection weapons in the United Kingdom may generally be in "very limited and exceptional cases", in Northern Ireland that is not the case, it is the one part of the United Kingdom where personal protection weapons are quite common. Certain people in other parts of the UK do have personal protection weapons, for example Raymond Gilmour and these would be "very limited and exceptional cases" following the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997. However true this may be this is only my opinion based on the cases and legalities I am aware of, but it does prove the previous wording to be incorrect, and it would be best if the current wording could be properly sourced. O Fenian (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comparative Data - Comparing England & Wales to WYOMING?????
I had added data that compared the homicide rates in England in Wales (population density 914 people per square mile) with that of the entire United States (population density 80 people per sqaure mile). Yaf has subsequently come along and wishes to compare England and Wales to Wyoming (population density less than 6 people per square mile). And he has focussed on homicide rates and not gun crime which is the more pertinent to the issue of gun control and therefore the issue of the right to keep and bear arms.

Well if you think gun crime is an urban phonemenon (as Yaf seems to do by his previous edits, and I would probably agree with him), perhaps a fairer comparison would be with the two US states that sit on either side of the England and Wales population in terms of population density. According to List of U.S. states by population density, these would be the 2nd and 3rd largest states of the Union, being Rhode Island (1003 per sq mile) and Massachusetts (809 per sq mile). Neither sound to me like states that are crime hot beds and I have no idea of the level of gun control in those states or gun ownership. Nevertheless I think it would make a fairer comparison than Wyoming which is the 49th least densely populated state in the union!

In case anyone was wondering why I included both all homicides and gun homicides in the stats, the reason is simple. If a person is intent on murdering someone, the issue will be how to do it. Only 7 per cent of murders in England and Wales are done with a gun. Its 79 per cent in the US. The 4 fold higher level of homicides in the US cannot per se explain the 49 times higher rate of gun homicides. The sheer availability of guns in the U.S. and the ease with which they can kill someone probably accounts for the very high difference in the propensity to use a firearm to kill. And it may well explain the very high number of homicides overall. The simple fact is that its much easier to kill someone with a gun and a lot harder with a knife (which is the main method of homicide in the UK). --Hauskalainen (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, homicide rates clearly involve the use of arms in most cases, being that karate (meaning empty hand, incidentally) is not nearly as prevalent in Scotland as knives, broadswords, pikes, and, yes, even guns, all of which are arms. I would even debate the POV that it's much easier to kill someone with a gun, especially for someone with no experience with firearms, than with an arm with which one is trained. At distances beyond 25 yards, the stats indicate there is less than a 4% chance of being hit by the average criminal with a gun.  At distances less than 10 yards, it really doesn't matter much what type of arm one uses, as long as one is trained with the use of the arm. The so-called 4x higher rate for homicides in the US is primarily a result of the mix of drug traffic operations, gangs, and minority unrest in relatively few urban areas, mixing with homicide rate statistics for the rest of the country that are not appreciably different than for the UK.  Picking RI and MA, two notorious gun control states, incidentally, with notorious high rates of homicides in their urban areas, is not exactly a fair comparison from which then to assume must also exist across all of America.  You obviously haven't been to any of the urban areas in these 2 states :-)  The reason I chose WY is rather simple.  It has the highest rates in the US for the number of unlocked and loaded firearms that are kept in private homes, at 33%.  If your assumption is that the numbers of guns equate to violence and crime, then this clearly puts this false assumption into its place. The number of guns actually equates to a lowering of crime, relative to crime stats in heavily legislated areas where guns for defense are banned.  The issue is not about the number of guns per capita, nor even if the guns are unlocked and loaded in homes, for quick ready use if needed.  Its not really about the population density, either, for a rather wide range of population densities.  Rather, its about crime, and minorities preying on minorities, and the drug trade, and home invasions, and what not.  Its also about single parent homes, where no male influence is present to keep young males under control.  Your basic assumption of 41 times more likelihood to die in the US from a gun than in the UK is patently false for probably 99.9% of the land mass of the US.  That said, there are neighborhoods in nearly every urban area where you wouldn't last more than about 5 minutes if set out on the street, and your risk of death would be on par with being a soldier in Iraq, except without an M-16.  It all depends.  Stop spouting POV drivel into the article with nearly every edit that seems perpetually to be saying "guns bad, gun control good" in writing this article.  The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not really about guns or gun control.  Yaf (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me address your points one at a time.

Yes homicide does involve arms mostly. In the UK it is mostly knife crime (though even the carrying of knives is prohibited in the UK for self defence purposes so it is pertinant to the issue of the freedom to bear arms when comparing one country with another. You open an interesting avenue I had not covered so perhaps we should expand the statistics on gun crime to include knife crime)

On the issue of distance, I guess it rather depends on how close assailants are to the their victims but even if you are really close with a knife the victim is more likely to be able to defend himself and avoid a fatal outcome than might be the case with a gun. But this is rather academic. What matters is the rate at which fatal (and serious non-fatal) injuries occur. We are probably stuck for stats on serious non-fatal incidents (as its quite judgemental and so data is not collected) so we will probably have to stick with fatal incidents.

Drugs and gangs and minority unrest is, I assure you, not limited to the U.S.! But whether a victim is associated with such drugs or gangs or minority unrest is not an issue. The victims of crime are still victims, whoever perpertrates it. I did not pick RI and MA for any other reason than they most closely match the population density in the UK. England has very large cities that I am sure are similar in many respects to those that I guess are found in those states. I have made no assumptions about gun equalling violence and crime. I have been to MA and it does not seem very different to the UK. It has one very big city and lots of smaller towns and rural communities. I didn't feel unsafe in Boston for example, but I probably was not in the worst areas. Overall, MA seems very similar to the UK to me. I have not been to Rhode Island. I have not been to WY but I expect that I would not find the same levels of street crime there (drugs, gangs etc.) as one might find in say Manchester, Leeds, Glasgow, Liverpool or London. Comparing England and Wales to WY really is an unfair comparison. And trying to tie the stats in WY to the UK per gun was a nice try! But hardly a fair one. If I get threatened by a person with a gun it gives me no comfort to think that there are lots of guns elsewhere safely locked up!

As for minorities praying on other minoritities, single parenthood and male influence, that rather smacks of an irrelevance. As a citizen I am worried about the safely of all citizens. I am not wrong. You are 41 times more likely to die from a gun in the US than in the UK. It doesn't take much working it out. 50 gun homicides in England and Wales with population of a little more than 50 million. Ergo less than one death per million. 17,034 homicides in the US of which 67.9% were caused by a firearm. That makes 11,566 gun homicides in a country of 299.4 miilion which is 38.6 gun deaths per million. When you do the calculation accurately the rate of gun homicides in the US is indeed 41 times than in the UK. Much of the US land mass is uninhabited, but then most people are not worried about their risk of getting gunned down in the wilds of Alaska, the desert in the south west or indeed on the rolling plains of Wyoming. They worry about it happening where they live.

I am not spounting "POV drivel". The statistics I use speak for themselves and do not have to be twisted with devices like "deaths per gun in the household" or "99.9% of the land mass" which are frankly much more POV than anything I have said.

Please tell me why the UK section is POV (i.e. not representing all the views of the UK arms restrictions). I will add something on the control of knives as that is something that is not yet covered. --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I will try. Although one is 41 times as likely to die from a gun in the US than in the UK, by your numbers, the opposite argument could also be made that one is probably about 60 times more likely to die from a knife in the UK than in the US. The comparison, though, is largely meaningless, for dead is dead.  The only fair comparison to make is to compare total homicide rates, which almost invariably involve an arm of some sort (be it a sword, knife, gun, skillet, motor vehicle, golf club, chain saw, or whatever), rather than break out an unfair comparison by categorizing the arm of choice being somehow important only if it is a !!!GUN!!!, which injects an anti-gun and anti-US biased POV into the UK section.  This article is about the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to keep and bear just firearms.  You are conflating firearms with being a special kind of arm, the only one of which is somehow worth scaring readers about.  As stated previously, dead is dead, and it really doesn't matter if the killing was done with a firearm (just one kind of tool, really) versus any other kind of tool (knife or whatever.)  As a responsible citizen, I am concerned about the deaths of all innocent victims.  However, this is not to say a victim is anyone who dies from the use of an arm.  Rather, if one is committing a crime and is killed during the process of committing a crime, such a killing is not a murder, but is a justifiable homicide, at least it is in the US.  (By English Common Law, it previously was justifiable in the UK, as well, but I digress.)  The rate of homicide is not related to the mere presence of guns or firearms.  To say so is to say that every women must be a prostitute, since every woman has the body parts necessary to be a prostitute.  Likewise, it would be the same to say that the rate of obesity must be related to the presence of forks and spoons, which is likewise a fallacy.  For people that grow up using firearms (even handguns) like any other tool, a handgun is not appreciably different than a lawn mower or a chain saw, all of which could also be used as a dangerous arm.  Yet, for people that have never handled a firearm of any kind, a handgun is somehow transformed into a killing machine that somehow has a will of its own.  We should not inject such POV bias into this article.  These are some of the POV biases that make the UK section POV. There are more.  To start fixing this problem, per the discussions listed elsewhere on this talk page, I have removed the duplicated US content from the UK section, and additionally provided homicide rates per 100,000, which is the usual metric in making unbiased comparisons amongst comparing various areas. This goes a long way to fixing the POV problem with the UK section. Yaf (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've opened a new section on knife homicides because Yaf is quite right on the issue of incomplete comparison and the fact the mention of that one comparison on gun homicides is only partially on topic. We should include all main recorded use of arms. His estimate of gun crime in the UK is wrong in just about every respect though - see next section. On the issue of justifiable homicide in the commission of a crime that is interesting. Does this apply to ANY crime (a child stealing candy for instance?). I suspect it has to be proportionate to the risk. In the UK, using lethal force with intent to kill would only be a vaid defence if one was trying to prevent a death of oneself or another. It would be interesting to know how many homicides fall into the category of justifiable homicide and also what proportion of those homicides are actually commited by police officers. With very few exceptions the police in the UK are NOT armed with lethal weapons. The exceptions are those on protection duty, for example at international airports and close to the embassies of foreign nations. Otherwise, a gun is only taken into use when an incident happens where it could become necessary. For example when there is a perceived threat of a serious nature. There have been several recent cases where police have shot an innocent person and as far as I am aware, neither the police nor the public want the police to carry lethal weapons at all times as is common in many countries. I guess the idea of nearly all police being unarmed sounds very strange, but it does seem to work. The UK statistics for England and Wales show, in the category "killed when resisting arrest"  the deaths of 2 persons in 1985/86. The category includes police deaths but we don't know whether any of these were in fact police officers or what the instrument causing the death was. The statistic does not include the death of innocent people killed in the course of arrest, which, conveniently for the police no doubt, are recorded as "other homicides". --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Controls on the carrying of kives & comparative data UK and US
In the previous section Yaf's comments at 19:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC) mentions that the comparison of homicide staticstics UK versus U.S. might not be fair because it ignores other forms of homicide, which will also be carried out with some form of arms. He is right in one sense because there may be a substitution effect). And the comparison could be unfair because it focuses on gun deaths and not for instance stabbings and other knife/sharp instrument homicides. He is quite right in the sense that this article is not just about firearms. We should at least compare the statistics for knives and killing by knives and sharp instrument. He says "the opposite argument could also be made that one is probably about 60 times more likely to die from a knife in the UK than in the U.S.  The comparison, though, is largely meaningless, for dead is dead". But his estimate is not only wide of the mark, its actually in the wrong direction.  From the sources already given in the article you can easily calculate the homicides with a sharp instrument. In the U.S. 12% of the 17 034 homicides in the year given were done with a knife (2 944) a rate of 0,98 knife deaths per 100 000). In the UK there were 31 male victims and 23 females (killed with a sharp instrument), a rate of 0.10 stabbings per 100 000. So your estimate of 60 times more likely to die in the UK than ín the US is not just wrong, its wrong in the direction of difference and overall out by 700%. You are 10 times MORE likely to die of a stabbing in the U.S. than in the UK DESPITE the fact that the overwhelming number of murders in the U.S. are committed with guns. So there is not much evidence of weapon substitution as you seem to suggest.

Given that the carrying of knives in the UK is also controlled we should include this fact and the statistics for stabbing. That should allay your concerns that this is somehow "anti-gun". I am no expert but I do know that the carrying of certain types of knife in the UK is also illegal (unless you have good reason to have a knife on your person - for example if you are fishing and you have your fishing tackle with you). If you are found by the police to be carrying a knife in a city with a blade over a certain length you could well be commiting a criminal offence. The police are still concerned about knife crime because an alarming number of young people are found to carry knives. I have no idea what the rate is and what it is in the U.S. but the effect on deaths is a concern but maybe not as bad as in the U.S.)  I shall do some investigation and find out the rules for carrying knives in the UK and include the stabbing and knife offence data comparisons too.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are "lies, damn lies, and statistics", as one wag once put it. The number of non-firearm deaths in the US is around 5,468 annually.  This equates to a rate of 5468/299.4^6 = 1.8/100,000 deaths due to non-firearms.  In the UK, the rate is (766-50)/55.39^6 = 1.25/100,000.  So, the risk of dying is not 10 times greater in the US than in the UK due to being killed by a non-firearm, but is instead very comparable at 1.25/100,000 vs. 1.8/100,000. Insisting on making comparisons between ever small numbers, as you so wont to do, is rather like the medieval arguments of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It only pushes a biased POV into the article.  And, it really doesn't matter.   The goal for Wikipedia is for articles to be written in Neutral Point of View.  Twisting ratios of ever smaller numbers to create IMPRESSIVE ratios of ever smaller numbers, just to push an anti-US POV, is entirely contrary to achieving a Neutral Point of View.  The fact remains that the odds of dying in the US and in the UK from non-firearms is approximately the same.  However, if one ratios the probabilities of dying from firearms vs. non-firearms in the US, against non-firearms vs. guns in the UK, one arrives at a similar case that 11,566/17,034 = 0.679 of dying with a firearm in the US if one is killed (conditional probility) vs. a probability of 716/766 = 0.934 of dying with a non-firearm in the UK if killed, implying that one is roughly 1.5 times more likely to die from a non-firearm in the UK than in the US, if one is killed. Wow, 150% more likely to die in the UK from a knife than in the US.  I don't want to visit the UK!   Again, it is the "lies, damn lies, and statistics"  absurd arguments that are going on here.  This stuff has no place in achieving Neutral Points of View for articles.  Kind of reminds me of the argument I heard once of whether it was better to be cut with a dull knife or a sharp knife.  A sharp knife damages less tissue, and heals faster and better.   But a sharp knife cuts deeper.  Take your pick, it really doesn't matter. I don't want to be cut by any knife, or killed by any arm.  Dead is dead.  None of this kind of absurd argumentative statistics, or anti-US POV drivel, ad nauseum, belongs in the article.  Yaf (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Its a bit rich to have you accusing me of twisting things! I did not say "the risk of dying" and even more precisely I did not say "the risk of dying in a homicide that was not commited with a gun"  I said the "risk of dying in a stabbing is ten times greater in the U.S. than the UK". Which it is. And not one 1.5 times greater in the UK as your false use of statistics claims.I guess that you know that that is false. But you so seem to be accusing me of lying or misusing statistics which I find offensive. I would like to think that this was just a slip up on your part, misreading what I actually said. I would ask you to look again and then withdraw the implicit allegation of POV pushing and misusing statistics. Do this or else I will make a formal complaint about you. If you want me to give the references for all the original sources that forces the conclusion that the risk of homicide by stabbing with a knife or sharp instrument is 10 times greater in the U.S. than the UK I will gladly do so.--Hauskalainen (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Yaf: I have asked you to look again and withdraw the implicit allegation made against me of POV pushing and misusing statistics. You have made several edits but are silent on this issue. I will ask you again. Please consider this again and withdraw the allegation.--Hauskalainen (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing incorrect in the statistical calculations, computing the conditional probabilities assuming that one is killed in either the US or the UK. For someone that is killed, there is a higher likelihood of dying from a knife wound in the UK if one is killed there than in the US, where one is more likely to be killed with a firearm.  Conditional probabilities are quite valid in statistics and are commonly used.  The conditional probability is 150% higher in the UK of being killed with a knife than in the US, if one is killed in the UK.  Very scary stuff, that sharp knives are so popular in the UK for killing people. No withdrawal is needed.  The statistical rate of homicides in the US at 4.71/100,000 is not ten times the rate of homicides that is seen in the UK, which is around 1.4/100,000.  Claiming that the homicide rate is 10x higher in the US means you are falsely claiming the rate in the US is 14.0/100,000 and this is completely false.  Your use of statistics to foster an anti-US bias to this article needs to stop.  Yaf (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is so funny! I would be worried about a statistic that says that I am 41 times more likely to killed by a gun in the US than I am in the UK (a true statistic). I would be worried also that I am 4 times more likely to be killed by a knife in the US than I am in the UK (another true statistic), or about 3.5 times higher chance of being killed in the US than the UK by whatever method (another true statistic). I sure as hell would not be worried by the fact that having been killed in the UK there was a higher chance that it would have been with a knife than had I been killed in the US (the true statistic you offer)!! My soul would be looking forward to greater things. I am heading upwards. I don't know about you.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, death is not funny at all. The homicide rate is not 41 or even 10 times higher in the US than in the UK, for 4.71/100,000 is not 41 or even ten times the rate of homicides that is seen in the UK, which is around 1.4/100,000.  And, for the 4.71/100,000 US homicide statistic, this is largely a result of 20% of the homicides in the US occurring among just 6% of the population in just 4 specific cities in the US.  Take those 4 special case urban dweller outliers out, and the death rate would be significantly lower in the whole of the US. It's not about gun ownership, either. In Wyoming, a state where 33% of all homes have household guns loaded and unlocked in them, the homicide rate is 1.7/100,000 and this rate is not appreciably different than the UK's 1.4/100,000 rate.  Yet, in the 4 cities where 20% of the homicides occur in the US, handguns are essentially banned. Homicide rates are not really related to gun ownership rates. But, one question remains.  Why all the continued rabid anti-US bias that is becoming more and more pathetic? (e.g., your request that no US editors be allowed.)  Stating that death is funny as long as it is Americans that are dying?  Despicable.  Yaf (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course death is not funny. Just your use (or misuse) of statistics. The point you make about Wyoming as a low gun murder state and certain cities as being a high gun murder exception (in spite of controls) is absolutely fair. You can add it to the article (if and when we get the data into the article). I don't know what the rate would be by excluding those 4 cities (care to do the WP:OR??). And I don't know why the homicide in the US is appreciably higher than the homicide rate in England and Wales. Guns may or may not have something to do with it. The fact is simply that people look to statistics when justifying their actions whether as activitists (seeking to control) or legislators (controlling), the right to bear arms. I am not being anti-U.S. as you claim. By all means include the exceptions that do not fit the rule, but do not try to pretend that people concerned about gun deaths or knife deaths are not concerned with knife carrying or gun carrying, because the simple truth is that they are. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

the only statistic that would be of any relevance to this article - which is The right to keep and bear arms - might be a count of how many people in the world, or in the represented countries, live under a codified right to keep and bear arms. all other statistics, whether about guns or gun ownership or homicides or suicides or whatever, belong in Gun politics or their associated Gun politics in X country articles. this article should address only the topic it is about - the right to keep and bear arms. further discussion is pointless, no editor has yet come forward with a WP:RS that directly (per WP:SYN) brings these assorted gun-related statistics under the aegis of this article. i know one editor besides hauskalainen who claims to have one or two, but they're simple opinion citations, not citations that make a direct connection, rather than a synthetic connection. i for one am tired of repeating the same points over and over, and having them fall on deaf ears. absent presentment of a block of text for insertion in the article that doesn't violate WP:SYN, further discussion is just beating a dead horse. Anastrophe (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This deletion [] has not been properly discussed
User:Yaf has deleted a whole block of text with the following edit summary

"cites fail to identify "right to keep and bear arms" as being related to "gun violence"; rm uncited and unrelated commentary that is only pushing a POV rather than providing relevant content"

The whole purpose of imposing restrictions on the right to bear arms is concerned with the desire to reduce the level and potential effect of violence within society. I not only think we should keep the section (perhaps retitled to something we can all agree on) and expand it to include not just guns, but knives also. Many countries control the right to access guns and some also control the right to carry a knife. There are other categories of weapon that are also restricted in the UK. For example Tasers. We surely have to explain WHY some countries restrict the right to bear arms and compare whether that those that do have succeeded in meeting their aims.

Perhaps Yaf can tell us


 * why it is POV pushing
 * why he thinks the "right to keep and bear arms" is unaffected by laws which restrict seek to restrict the right to bear arms (I don't see it myeslf).
 * which particular pieces he wants cites for and
 * which particular piece of text is "unrelated commentary" and why it is unrelated in his opinion.--Hauskalainen (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hauskalainen, please remember to sign your contributions. it's disconcerting reading a newly added section with no attribution.
 * To your comments, you state "the whole purpose of imposing restrictions on the right to bear arm is[...]". your opinion is noted, but historically it is not the only or whole purpose for restrictions have been imposed. furthermore, it can be argued that laws - which implicitly are only followed by those who are law-abiding - restricting the rights of to keep and bear arms are little effective upon those who are not law-abiding. malum in se laws have throughout history been the only effective laws, malum prohibitum laws tend to be quite a bit less so. but i digress. this article is about "the right to keep and bear arms". the right - and this article - have nothing to do with statistics about the relationship of gun violence to gun ownership. those who commit lawless violence with arms are not participating in their right to keep and bear arms.Anastrophe (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the signing. I've added it now. Maybe you should add yours too!


 * Why are you responding to this issue? I addressed the question very clearly to User:Yaf. These are issues for him to answer.


 * I see no reason why you cannot add other valid reasons for laws restricting the right to bear arms. Your diversion into latin and its associated argument is just that. A diversion. If countries took that fatalistic attitude there would be no point passing any laws.


 * Of course the issue is about gun violence! Its one side of the "balance of rights" that gets discussed whenever changes to the law are contemplated. Every time there is a mass shooting the gun laws get discussed. Every law that I know about that aims to control the right to bear arms is there in an effort to maintain public order and reduce the risk of death or serious injury from weapons. All laws are a balance of rights. Not everyone in the US has a right to own a gun. Its restricted. Its restricted in every country, but in each to different degrees. It meaningful to examine the level of right in each country if we are to have a balanced article. I am new to this whole field but clearly one has to have access to a gun in order to use it whether for harm or no harm. There are many guns in Finland and Switzerland (way higher than the rest of Europe but below that of the U.S.) and these three countries have relatively high rates of gun death. The UK and many other countries have relatively low levels of gun ownership and relatively low level of gun crime. There are exceptions of course, but the exceptions are just that (and the reasons for them are well understood).  Do you wish to hide that fact from the reader? It surely seems like it to me.--Hauskalainen (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * yes, apparently it was sufficient to point out that another editor failed to sign, to induce me to fail to sign. sigh.
 * this is not a private communication medium. i am not constrained from commenting on any discussion that may obtain, nor are you, regardless of who you may address it to.
 * this article is about the right to keep and bear arms. it is not about the criminal use of arms. simply stating that "of course the issue is about gun violence!" doesn't make a convincing argument. historically, despotic regimes have "restricted" the right to keep and bear arms in order to keep the people from rising up against them. this isn't just theory or arcana, it's real, and it specifically bears upon this article. "reducing gun violence" is one rationale proposed for restricting the right to keep and bear arms, it is not the only rationale - but you are presenting it as such.
 * you are proposing a confusing mix of gun ownership, gun law, and gun crime statistics and commentary. the whole section is a synthesis based upon these four things, without third party reliable sources making the connections. stringing together multiple separate ideas (cited or not) with the claim that they are connected isn't acceptable per WP:OR. Anastrophe (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The right to keep and bear arms is as regulated by law. It cannot be clearer. That countries mostly regulate the ownership should not be a surprise and that they mostly do so to restrict access on public safely grounds should not be either. I think the reduction in gun violence is the aim of legislators. What other reason is there? (unless you are a conspiracy theorist). Focusing in on statistics is what the pro and anti gun lobbies in the US seem to do all the time. So again it would be wrong NOT to mention them.

I restored the section. If Yaf, or other editors have problems, lets discuss it here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The cites make the case of "gun rights" being in opposition to controlling violence committed with guns. The cites do not make the case that the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" is in opposition, or even related, to controlling violence committed with guns.  It is Original Research with WP:SYN issues to equate "gun rights" to the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" without a cite.  Have removed this uncited POV from the article. Yaf (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf, you have again deleted this and I have had to restore it. The need for a link of the kind is irrelevant. There are clearly people who think that the level of right to own guns does lead to gun violence otherwise gun control in the U.S. would not be such a big issue. And ownership of guns is a part of the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is regulated everywhere. If you dispute individual statements in the text place a citation request there. If you want to discuss the text of the section with other editors in order that we can agree the most neutral or fair way to present the data then great. Don't just try to delete something that you personally don't believe in. We have to represent all views in an article of this nature.--Hauskalainen (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf- I made a mistake in warning you about 3RR in my last reversion of your destructive deletion. You are already in breach of 3RR


 * first http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms&diff=271292525&oldid=271203117
 * second http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms&diff=272414608&oldid=272414034
 * third http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms&diff=272416582&oldid=272415199


 * I will not make a formal complaint at this juncture but will do so if you this again (or indeed if one of your co-editors) does so. I posed questions to you when you made that first delete. Please enter into the spirit of co-operation and answer the point I have put to you instead of simply deleting what you disagree with. Or we can take the matter to some form of arbitration if you really feel that strongly about it.--Hauskalainen (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have deleted it because it is Original Research, conflating "gun rights" with violence committed with guns. The cites claim that "gun rights" is at opposition to containing violence committed with guns.  The cites do not equate the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" with these "gun rights", nor do they make the case for "Right to keep and bear arms" as being the root cause in opposition to containing violence committed with guns.  It is a problem with synthesis as to why I removed the OR content, being it was contrary to WP:SYN.  It really doesn't matter that you state the need for a cite is irrelevant.  It is Wikipedia policy not to publish Original Research.  It is also Wikipedia policy to cite all statements for which someone calls a need, to prevent publishing original research.  Uncited statements can and should be removed at any time they are found, per policy by Jimbo Wales, himself.  Synthesizing that ownership of guns is equivalent to the right to bear arms is clearly synthesis. Synthesizing that either equates to more violence committed with guns without cites is likewise Original Research.  The article is about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, not the "Right to Bear Arms".  It has nothing to do with my personal position on the topic, as it really doesn't matter.  What matters is that all Original Research is excised and only material that is cited by reliable and verifiable sources should be permitted to be in Wikipedia articles.  All editors are duty bound to remove any uncited Original Research.  Cite the point you are trying to make with appropriate cites that make the case, and there is no issue.  Reverting the removal of uncited POV drivel, as you have been doing, has no place on Wikipedia and is grounds for Administrative sanctions if it continues.  Yaf (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It would help if you were more consistent. Your original delete for reason (1) failure to identify a link between "right to keep and bear arms" and "gun violence", (2) that there was uncited and unrelated commentary, and (3) that this was POV pushing. Now you are claiming that it breaches rules on (4) Original Research, and (5) Synthesis.  Quite some claims!


 * My reply


 * The issue of (1) is clearly given in the very first reference. People campaigning for restrictions on the right to bear arms do so on the basis that it would reduce gun violence. They may be right or wrong about that claim, but it is a claim made. That is the linkage and the text clearly states this. It does not state that gun violence IS related to gun ownership. That is the link and why its relevent to the article. It is therefore disingenuous to claim that the editor who contributed the text to has failed to establish a link that his text is not trying to make.


 * The issue of (2) is up to you to insert a citation or relevancy marker and for the editor to respond to that or have it removed. You should not remove text without identifiying which bits you think need citations or clarification as to evidence.


 * The issue of (3) still has not been explained.


 * The issue of (4) and (5) is again ingenuous. The edit has clearly laid out that a researcher - an academic criminologist no less - has investigated the correlation between the levels of gun ownership and the levels of gun violence. The edit does not say A causes B, merely that A correlates with B. One can edit around that and discuss why that relation is strong in some circumstances and weak in others,(as the researcher did) and what various parties close to the issue of the right to bear arms say about this. But the text itself is clearly not OR or SYN.--Hauskalainen (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "The need for a link of the kind is irrelevant.". this is contrary to wikipedia policy. any material that is challenged must either provide a citation, or be removed. period. it's non-negotiable. you are acting contrary to wikipedia policy. Anastrophe (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not twist what I am saying. I am not saying that WP does not call for citations. The edit that was deleted had rather a lot of citations and was not trying to claim what the citation requestor claimed it was trying to say. The citations do support the text, which is what they are supposed to do. --Hauskalainen (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * your point (1) above clearly falls within your points (4) and (5). you're synthesizing a meaning from disconnected citations. having a "lot of citations" isn't adequate - they must be from reliable sources, and they must be relevant - supporting what the text contends. as it stands currently, they do not support the text. the presentment of statistics on gun ownership rates compared with gun homicide and suicide rates is not shown to be connected to The right to keep and bear arms by the mere presence of two sets of unconnected citations. once again, when someone commits a homicide or suicide using a gun or other arm, they are not engaging in their right to keep and bear arms - they are excluded by law from that protected class. so why are statistics about persons excluded from the right to keep and bear arms relevant - unless the section specifically addresses that it is describing those who are not protected by this right?
 * furthermore, sections 1.1.1.5 and 1.1.2.5 of the article present bare statistics with no presentment of their direct relevance to this article - they need to go, unless some reason for their being there is presented in the article (justifications here are welcome, but meaningless, what is required is text with citations in the article that somehow supports their inclusion) Anastrophe (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * At no point does the text sythesize and say for instance that A is related to B and B is related to C and therefore there is a connection A to C. It says that some claim that A is related to B (which can be contested) and research has shown that B is related to C (which may also be contested). The issue clearly is that campaigners on one side see a connection here and assume a causal relationship, and presumably some on the other side will dispute that. We have to be neutral and present the evidence and the claims on all side. We can also put the statistics on gun homicides and suicides and gun ownership levels (and I would suggest also knife homicides) in a table. The numbers may well be available for several nations. As the relation between these numbers has been referred to by criminologists and campaigners against the right to bear arms, the numbers are appropriate to the article. If you cannot agree on this I would suggest htat we go to arbitration on the matter. We should allow time for editors to assemble the arguments and then present it for independent review. The independent reviewers will then be able to pass judgment on whether the allegations of SYN, POV, relevance, and OR stand up to scrutiny. --Hauskalainen (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * i believe the first step is to gather neutral party opinion, not arbitration. if it's not resolved by neutral party, then mediation. then arbitration. but i'm fine with neutral party to start. Anastrophe (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Be honest. This cite was one of many reverted. Why? WP:SYN? Really? Explain in detail. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)



Yaf: I am still awaiting a PRECISE reply to the issues I put to you.
 * what part of the text was POV pushing?
 * Why is the "right to keep and bear arms" unaffected by laws which restrict seek to restrict the right to bear arms?
 * which particular pieces of the text you deleted did you wants cites for?
 * which particular piece of text you deleted was "unrelated commentary"?
 * why it is unrelated?

--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)



Two weeks later and still no reply...--Hauskalainen (talk) 11:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The reply was made less than an hour after your initial query. Please read the talk page. Yaf (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hauskalainen, in looking over this talk page, I find that the majority of the discussion topics from the past two weeks either directly discuss the removal of the Gun violence and the politics of the right to bear arms section, or address the inclusion of any/all gun death statistics:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Then we've also got the discussions that took place elsewhere:
 * Editor_assistance/Requests
 * No_original_research/noticeboard


 * It is likely that other editors consider your questions above to have been adequately addressed in these many days of discussion.


 * Speaking of related discussion, would you mind weighing in on the compromise proposed in ? It looks like most (or all) of the other interested editors are in favor of that proposal.  Some of its discussion also spilled over to .  Thanks!  --Hamitr (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yet again an editor has responded to a question not directly aímed at that person.Lat time I asked this question of Yaf, Anastrophe replied. Now I ask again and you (Hamitr) replies. It is most confusing when other people answer questions that are not put to them. Its hardly surprising then that I have the impression that you act as one here (note: An impression is something I experience personally... this is not an accusation of sockpuppetry... just a bald statement that I am frustrated when you reply to questions not put to you. I opened this section of the article so that we could discuss the deletion of the section that I added. Either the deletion was proper, for one of the reasons which WP defines or it isn't. Yaf made specific allegations but did not justify them. The matter of the deletion is also awaiting a reply at WP:EA.   I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone finds it necessary to open not just 1 extra thread on the same topic but at least 6!  You can argue as much as you like that you don't like seeing this information in this article, and I can probably understand why. But unless the reasons match one of the valid reasons for deleting it from the article, it should stay.


 * Re the "compromise proposal"... if you mean this...

The right to keep and bear arms is sometimes referenced in discussions of gun politics, gun violence... then I apologise for not replying earlier. Clearly no, it is not acceptable. In no country is the right an absolute one. It is regulated virtually everywhere. The regulation is mostly on grounds of safety. Saying "it is sometimes referenced in discussions.." is misleading. Why that right is more regulated in some places and less in others is extremely pertinent to this article. I am OK with references to people like John Lott who argue that in country where owning weapons is so common (as in the US) then a personal defence weapon may stop crime. But we also should be able to point out equally that more guns means tends to mean more gun violence (for whatever reason) .. and contra arguments if there are any. Neither do I think a reference to "God given" is appropriate either because I am sure that there are many who think God did not intend us to us to kill one another (and sadly that is what some guns get used for, whether we like it or not). --Hauskalainen (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would find the insertion of something along the lines of this statement, " The right to keep and bear arms is sometimes referenced in discussions of gun politics, gun violence...", entirely appropriate as a compromise. But, I strongly object to including any one-sided POV statements such as: "But we also should be able to point out equally that more guns means tends to mean more gun violence (for whatever reason) .." for this statement is patently not true.  If it were true, then why does Wyoming, with unlocked and loaded household guns in 33% of the homes in the state have a homicide rate of 1.7/100,000 that is approximately equal to the rate seen in the UK at 1.4/100,000 with presumably no guns?  The statistics clearly show the fallacy of attributing increased homicide rates merely to the presence of guns.  It just isn't true.  And, too, there are justifiable homicides, permitted for stopping a long list of felonies by perpetrators caught in the act, applicable in most states in the US.  These are entirely legal acts, yet the homicide rates include these acts by civilians defending their lives, families, property, friends, etc.  Without a lengthy discussion of these just homicides, including just non-related homicide statistics in the article smacks of simple POV pushing.  I also strongly object to the comment that, "Neither do I think a reference to "God given" is appropriate either because I am sure that there are many who think God did not intend us to us to kill one another (and sadly that is what some guns get used for, whether we like it or not)."  Clearly, there are many cases of justifiable homicide that are just, no different than so called just wars, when guns are widely used for defense of self, family, property, and of innocent others.  No mainline religion teaches that one should always acquiesce to evil, and agree to be killed, or to allow one's infant daughter to be killed by someone in the act of committing a felony.  Paraphrasing an hoary old Clint Eastwood line in the movie Magnum Force, "there is nothing wrong with people getting shot, as long as it is the right people."  When a home invasion starts, which is a better response, saying "stop, I say, or I shall say stop again?", calling the police and waiting for them to arrive while being butchered, or simply using a household gun for the purpose for which it is purchased.  Looks like a rather simple decision to me.  But, your opinion may differ significantly.  That is fine.  But, don't expect others to die willingly for your pacifism and feel good about it.  There is no reason to push an hoplophobia agenda here.  This is an article about a right to keep and bear arms.  It is an elective right.  Not everyone with the right chooses to buy a gun.  OK.  Their decision.  They can even post signs that say, "GUN FREE ZONE.  ONLY DEFENSELESS PACIFISTS LIVE HERE. A MORALLY-SUPERIOR CRIMINAL OPPORTUNITY ZONE.", and I wouldn't complain.  But, it is entirely wrong to push uncited statements into the article, of unrelated violence done with firearms, that is entirely unrelated to an elective right to keep and bear arms, and expect it to stay in the article.  It is simply not the way Wikipedia works.  Yaf (talk) 06:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)



So I'll ask again. Yaf: I am still awaiting a PRECISE reply to the issues I put to you.
 * what part of the text you deleted was POV pushing?
 * Why is the "right to keep and bear arms" unaffected by laws which restrict seek to restrict the right to bear arms?
 * which particular pieces of the text you deleted did you wants cites for?
 * which particular piece of text you deleted was "unrelated commentary"?
 * why it is unrelated?

--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC) (and previously asked at 20:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)) And a polite request to others tempted to butt in here... please don't. Let Yaf answer for himself seeing as it was he who deleted it. -Hauskalainen



This was responded to previously, less than 1 hour after the initial request. PLEASE READ THE TALK PAGE! Thank you. Yaf (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * BOO! sorry. couldn't resist. this is a public discussion page. if you wish to pose questions directly and only for specific fellow members, then use their user talk page. you cannot place demands or restrictions on your fellow editor's input on the article talk page. it's just that simple. beginning, middle, and end of story. making up new rules that apply only to you isn't how the world works..
 * furthermore, yaf was not the only editor who deleted the text - considering that you restored it multiple times. i may have deleted it once, i don't actually recall (that must mean that i'm yaf's doppelganger, oh noes!!!).
 * the rationale for deletion has been clearly laid out multiple times. this really just constitutes WP:Dead horse. Anastrophe (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this was addressed at length in the following comment, posted less than 1 hour after your inquiry above. But, being the talk page has gotten rather lengthy, perhaps you missed seeing it. Repeated next for convenience. Yaf (talk) 05:42, 8 March 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)



Pardon me, but these do not address the questions I put to you. You have chosen to divert into other matters. My questions were very specific and addressed the precise criticisms you put to me after you deleted the text. Your answers now are completely tangential and irrelevant to the the issues (1) that you raised and (2) that I asked you to clarify. Basically it seems to me that you are taking the argument to another plane (because you cannot defend the claims you originally made.

I repeat. The matter is simple. It cannot be so difficult for you to reply in a straightforward way to straightforward accusations put by you.


 * what part of the text was POV pushing?


 * Why is the "right to keep and bear arms" unaffected by laws which restrict seek to restrict the right to bear arms?


 * which particular pieces of the text you deleted did you wants cites for?


 * which particular piece of text you deleted was "unrelated commentary"?


 * why it is unrelated?

These are the issues that arise from my efforts to get the text into an an agreeable shape. It seems to me that you are deliberately avoiding answering the very obvious issues that arise from the reasons you gave for your delete. The arguments you now make are not related to the orignínal reason given for the delete. Or are you now seeking to change the reasons for the delete? What is it to be? -Hauskalainen


 * Pardon me, but I directly addressed all your concerns. Please re-read my comments above.  Relative to "what part of the text was POV pushing?", I identified the problems with synthesis, Original Research, and the claim that the juxtapositioned text you proposed, of unrelated material to the right to keep and bear arms, was collected and positioned specifically to be POV pushing.  Your proposed content started with a claim that was not supported by a cite related to the right to keep and bear arms.  Gun-related accidents and deaths are largely unconnected to the right to keep and bear arms.  It is synthesis to conflate many 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, in the absence of cites that connect one to the other.  All of the unsupported text (all of the text really), was POV pushing.


 * Relative to "Why is the "right to keep and bear arms" unaffected by laws which restrict seek to restrict the right to bear arms?", this is a non-sequitur. Some countries limit the right to keep and bear arms more than others that have preserved the right that was at one time the birthright of every Englishman, I must admit. But, in the US, the Second Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from infringing on this right, through the future passage of any laws.  Hence, federal laws in the US do not infringe on this right by virtue of the Second Amendment.  Yet, in the UK, the right has largely been extinguished by Parliament, which is entirely permitted by Parliamentary supremacy.  In the UK, the right is greatly restricted, if even still existent.  It is wrong for you to assume that the UK's way is vastly superior to the US's way, as you so often repeatedly claim. To claim that the right to keep and bear arms is restricted, or extinguished, by national laws and should always so be in "civilised societies" is extreme POV pushing.


 * Relative to "which particular piece of text you deleted was "unrelated commentary"?", well, all of it, as there was no cited references to support any direct connection between the right to keep and bear arms and the claims of increased rates of homicide, suicide, and violence. Gun ownership does not equate to the right to keep and bear arms.  Gun ownership does not even equate to increased rates of homicide.  If it did, then why does Wyoming, with 33% of all homes having unlocked and loaded household guns in them, have a homicide rate of 1.7/100,000 and this is very comparable to the homicide rate in the UK of 1.4/100,000 where there are no legal handguns, at all, in any private homes?  Also, the right to keep and bear arms is not a mandate that one must do so. Rather, it is an elective. Somewhat analogous to the right to apply to get a driver's license doesn't imply one actually applies for a driver's license and then goes on to the next stage of actually buying a car, at which point car ownership occurs. Yet, following your same logic, because car ownership is related to car accidents that are horrible, we should put car accident information into any article on the right to apply to get a driver's license, being that everyone knows that car accidents are related to driver's licenses. Total synthesis. I fail to understand the reasoning behind inserting homicide statistics into an article on the right to keep and bear arms.  Hence, all of the text was unrelated commentary.


 * Relative to "why it is unrelated?", well, if the sky is blue, reasoning along similar lines, why shouldn't we put information on the sky, too, into this article since most firearms are blued, too. It makes about the same amount of sense.  In your case, because the word "gun" appears in "gun laws" and in "gun violence", and the right to keep and bear arms sometimes involves guns, by your line of thought, they must be related, since the root word "gun" is related to every one of these concepts.  If something is unrelated, it is unrelated.  There is no reason to dwell on why it is unrelated.  But, were you to say, "Blue sky and blued firearms, they must clearly be related, and we should discuss it in this article."  Nope.  Likewise for gun related homicides, gun violence, and right to keep and bear arms that sometimes are guns, these unrelated concepts should not be linked together in an improper synthesis of Original Research.


 * These are the issues that arise from my efforts to prevent the text from falling in an anti-rights and hoplophobic POV article. It seems to me that you are deliberately avoiding answering the very obvious issues that arise from the insertion of POV commentary with unrelated cites that do not establish any connections of gun violence, homicides, suicide, etc., with the right to keep and bear arms. The arguments you now make, that it's about the safety of populations, and this why smart politicians should always pass laws creating gun free zones in which defenseless victims must live, is not related to the original reason given for the insertion, that "everyone knows" that the right to keep and bear arms is related to gun violence, homicides, suicide, etc.. Or are you now seeking to change the reasons for the insertion, to just a feel good POV blog commentary? But, that is not in keeping with Wikipedia policies. What is it to be? Yaf (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the points of mine


 * what part of the text was POV pushing?

You claim that I have made the connection and therefore that this is POV. I have, but only because others do. People who want tighter gun control point to death statistics from guns. And we know that more guns=more gun deaths (for whatever reason). That is neither SYN or POV. You may not like and you may add a counterpoint argument if you think it is one sided. But deletion ought not to be an option. Your argument about SYN is more or less a denial of the second point below


 * Why is the "right to keep and bear arms" unaffected by laws which restrict seek to restrict the right to bear arms?

You claim that this is non sequitur (a logical fallacy). I really do fail to see how.


 * which particular pieces of the text you deleted did you wants cites for?

You say "no cited references to support any direct connection between the right to keep and bear arms and the claims of increased rates of homicide, suicide, and violence." Well that is because the connection is not direct. It is inferred. Not by me. Not by the reader. But by those who analyse statistics relating to gun ownership and gun deaths, and by those who use the pretty awful statistics in the U.S. as reasons for calling tighter gun control. Those indirect links were cited. Of course, the other practical problem would be how to measure the level of right to bear arms. There is no simple measure. Which is presumably why gun ownership rates are used instead. Your point about Wyoming is taken. You can add that to the section if and when it goes back if you have a good reliable source for people making that point.


 * which particular piece of text you deleted was "unrelated commentary"?

I read what you say. I do not agree with you that it was "all unrelated commentary". Regarding your driving licences, if someone was to create an article called Right to keep and drive a motor vehicle and tried to claim that the right is an ancient right that is not to be interfered with, I have little doubt that very soon car accident statistics would be introduced to show that unskilled car drivers have more accidents than skilled ones and that people need to pass a test before being allowed to drive a car unsupervised. Its the same with cars themselves. I guess drivers in the U.S. have to take their cars for annual road worthyness inspections as they do in the EU. Therefore cars are licenced as well as drivers. Cars with poor brakes, seat belts, tires or suspension are a safety hazzard. Badly maintained ones will be involved in more accidents. This is just common sense.


 * why it is unrelated?

You clearly baffled me on that answer of yours. I think we are flogging this one to death. Lets just see what comes out of the WP:EAR process.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your presumption that everywhere is just like the EU is patently false, as is your supposition that,  "I guess drivers in the U.S. have to take their cars for annual road worthyness inspections as they do in the EU."  Actually, no, they don't.  There is no vehicle road worthiness testing required in any of the US states where I have lived. (There are annual smog tests required in a few areas/states, in which smog is a problem (think California), but that is about it, in general.) Neither is there a requirement in the US for drivers applying for driver's licenses to demonstrate basic mechanic repair knowledge, such as is required in Germany, of internal combustion engines.  Your presumptions that nanny state requirements must also be levied to make the roads safe and to remove firearms from society are both patently not true.  Again, the problem here in discussing proposed text for insertion into this article is one of you presuming that all the world is and should be just like the UK or the EU, with an air of moral superiority permeating your edits.  No, it is not, and the question of whether or not it should be is Original Research, undeserving of inclusion into this article.  Likewise, simply because some have inferred an indirect correlation between gun ownership and violence in general, then we should not commit synthesis contrary to WP:SYN and fill this article with nanny state sophorisms linking what "everybody knows" regarding the right to keep and bear arms vs. the rate of homicides and violence in general, contrary to what the cited sources verify.  Clearly, we should not do that, but, rather, stick with article text for which cited sources can be used to verify the article text. Keep to the sources, while inferring no implied connection between the right to keep and bear arms and violence in general in society and no one would question any content you propose.  On the other hand, continue to synthesize relationships that are not supported and verified by cited sources and all such content will be mercilessly edited out of the article.  Looks rather clear to me.  Yaf (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * zzzzz you are going off the topic. I am not moralizing and make no inference of one area being superior to another, although admittedly I did point out that one is 40 times less likely to be murdered by a gun in the UK much earlier and 4 times less likely to be stabbed when compared to the US. But these are just arms related facts and nothing to do with vehicle testing. If other people who call for gun control (i.e. the antithesis of the right to keep anbd bear arms) have referred to national statistics on deaths from guns to support their arguments, my inclusion of them in this article cannot be WP:SYN and must be relevant to the article. --Hauskalainen (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The title of this section is This deletion ... has not been properly discussed. I think that, after 7,500+ words of discussion in this thread (not to mention the other threads on this very page), that the issue has been sufficiently discussed.  I think it is now time to drop the stick and back slowly away. --Hamitr (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 7,500+ words of stonewalling does not equal "properly discussed". Bottom line, there is legitimate connection between discussion of the social political aspects of gun violence and the topic of the politics of the right to bear arms, therefore some article content along this line meets WP:ROC.  This dispute is going nowhere until a group of editors, and you know who you are, cease the stonewalling.   I don't see that yet.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Proper discussion requires that all editors stick to using sources that verify the text they propose for insertion into articles. As long as the text is not verified by the sources, but remains just POV commentary in violation of WP:SYN, there is no rational reason to expect the text to remain in articles. You have been warned about this before by an adminstrator, on this very article, here. Rather looks like we do now know who is stonewalling. Yaf (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * pretty serious charge, saltyboatr, and i agree, editor hauskalainen, and to a lesser degree yourself, have both been playing the WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT game. all attempts to inject these statistics into the article have been wholey and obviously synthetic. the most recently removed sections merely presented homicide statistics for the UK and US without any text showing their connection to this article - pure synthesis. the earlier deleted material attempted to introduce the unrelated UN statistics via a weasel-worded bridge text that was a textbook example of synthesis, suggesting that "because A is related to C, here are statistics on B". no alternative or adequate text has ever been proposed by you, hauskalainen, or any other editor. so, i agree, it's time for this stonewalling to stop. "discussion" doesn't occur when several editors show that something is synthesis, and the other editors keep saying "what? i can't hear you". Anastrophe (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * furthermore, WP:ROC is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. please don't misrepresent random text on wikipedia as being policy matters to be 'met'. if you feel you have a contribution to the article that is relevant and isn't synthetic like this other rubbish, feel free to start a new section, propose the text, and we can have an actual discussion. homicide statistics are a non-sequitur to this article. perhaps something built around the late, retired justice burger's essay in Parade magazine in 1980 might be a starting point, representing an opinion piece on the right to bear arms and his belief in its connection to gun violence. other points of view can also be cited. Anastrophe (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)