This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
What I can WP:verify from these sources is that it is on the agenda of gun control advocates to change their name and the language of gun control http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2013/01/political-language http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/dont-call-it-gun-control/267259/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/speaking-of-guns-examining-rhetoric-of-heated-debate/</ref> (regulation of firearms already has a page of its own) This shows we do not have page Gun control agenda or a response from those who oppose it. I think such a page would reduce the POV grinding that has disrupted wikipedia for too long. We could use this page for the purpose. It would be a lot of work. J8079s ( talk) 20:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi J8079s, you don't seem to understand that gun control is a legitimate term [1] --- Yes, it is sometimes politicized in the United States (which I've now added to the lede) [2] but that is not the primary usage of the term as evidenced by this section of the article that discusses gun control in Canada, Australia, etc. In regards to the politics of gun issues in the United States, see this article. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 18:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gun control has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
u said per cent not percent. 24.30.5.118 ( talk) 19:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gun control has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section on OTHER COUNTRIES you may want to include a 2001 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) demonstrating a 13% and 14% reduction in overall homicide (80% of which was firearm) in the cities of Bogota and Cali, Colombia, after an intermittent ban on carrying concealed firearms was put into effect on weekends and some holidays. See reference: https://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192444
2601:14D:8100:A5E3:811F:6FE9:8995:5738 ( talk) 19:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Proponents of gun control generally argue that widespread gun ownership increases the danger of gun violence. [1] Opponents argue that gun control does not reduce crime and violates individual liberties. [2]
There's ain't nothing in the text about these proponents and opponents. The article oughta say who is for it who's against it. Felsic2 ( talk) 19:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
References
Hey Everymorning, do you have access to the full study? Did they examine all 50 states? Which laws were associated with increased mortality? Really interesting stuff. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 02:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
The austraila section says that Austraila has had no mass killings since the Port Arthor massacre. That's outright false. There's been several. I think it's only fair to reference them. /info/en/?search=Childers_Palace_Backpackers_Hostel_fire /info/en/?search=Black_Saturday_bushfires#Central_Gippsland_fires /info/en/?search=Lin_family_murders /info/en/?search=Quakers_Hill,_New_South_Wales#Nursing_home_fire /info/en/?search=Cairns_child_killings
A mass killing is defined as three or more deaths:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-incidents/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013 page 7
Under this definition Australia has had three mass killings since Port Arthur since the NFA act.
/info/en/?search=2011_Hectorville_siege
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-29137726
Those killings were committed with firearms, thus they are mass shootings. Please edit the article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:5484:C900:DDDA:619C:8300:B454 ( talk) 22:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Gun control (or regulation of firearms) [1]
References
"regulation of firearms" ain't in the source. Why's it there? @ Somedifferentstuff: [6] Felsic2 ( talk) 14:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Why are you wasting time with non-controvercial WP:BLUE crap. Are you seriously disputing that the meaning of gun control is firearms regulation? This is asinine. There are literally thousands of sources out there.
Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Although the article states that there are both proponents and opponents to gun control, and that the overall results of the various studies are inconclusive, it mostly shows studies supporting gun control (despite some few supporting neither side), and the said opponents and proponents are not specified. Considering that there are plenty of studies against gun control, including one from Harvard University if I'm not mistaken, this article is internally inconsistent and does not show the proper neutrality when dealing with a contentious and debated issue. - Alumnum ( talk) 18:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Referendums for strengthening gun con were held in 4 US states on election day, people voted to passe them in 3 states (Nevada, Washington and California) while rejected them in Maine. They have been covered in the media and I think they are notable and impactful enough to have their own article. I hope someone can create it. 117.207.150.229 ( talk) 18:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gun control has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
International human rights law, while not recognizing any right to self-defense and its means, requires states to reasonably restrict access to firearms as part of state's obligations to protect the right to life [1] Hotbridge ( talk) 15:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
References
After reading the article, I thought it did a good job delivering the message of mortality due to firearms. The article gave a lot of good data about the topic and helped support the argument they were defending. In my opinion, the author is very repetitive with his facts and sources. I would leave the amount of information about the topic because it helps the message he is trying to deliver. Something I would change would to disperse the information evenly through the article to not overwhelm the reader all at once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.93.165 ( talk) 07:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gun control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
When and where did the term "gun control" originate? Is it a euphemism for something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.80.149 ( talk) 21:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Editor 張泰銘 recently renamed this article, here, from "Gun control" to "Firearms Regulation". Renaming an article can be a pretty significant change, especially when the topic is controversial, so I'm starting this talk page section for editors to discuss the article name. (Speaking for myself, I want to think about it some more. But if we go with "Firearms regulation", the second word should not be capitalized, per the Manual of Style.) — Mudwater ( Talk) 05:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Honestly don't think there's a rule on wikipedia saying 1) you can't do stuff cuz it's controversial. 2) an individual can't make a significant change.
Besides, do you think GC is neutral or FR is neutral. For whoever's sake would you please even read what the article's talking about? Do you think we should name every little thing the way it's been commonly referred to or as a NEUTRAL POV?
Cuz however I consider it, "gun control" does not sound neutral to me? The biggest thing in the current conversation is about banning assault weapons and bg checks. Does either of those have to do with GUN control? That's why.
On wkpedia, the rules and policies trump admins. Like in the US, the constitution trumps the president. But they could be temporarily making a wrong decision with their given executive power, but it just won't last very long. 張泰銘 ( talk) 22:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I said everything very clearly in here, some folks just won't stop. Now I can't trigger a battle but I believe eventually I'll win. His reasoning just ain't good enuf. It's pure and simple. 張泰銘 ( talk) 22:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gun control has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to request to have a history section added to this article, to briefly give the backgroud of how heavily guns have influenced the United States, as well as, briefly explain arguments of the opposing sides. I would also like to request to have an up-to-date section to showcase the revelance of this topic to present day, by using quotes from a credible source of course.
N.sly26 ( talk) 07:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
No consensus to move at this time. bd2412 T 03:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Gun control → Firearms regulation – Procedural nomination now that we've had two moves and two contestations: I am neutral on the outcome of this requested move. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasu よ! 03:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
People who keep saying "because
WP:COMMONNAME" do not understand
WP:AT policy at all. COMMONNAME (
WP:UCRN) is not one of the
WP:CRITERIA; it is simply the default possible name to test against the actual criteria and the rest of AT policy, and overarching policies like
WP:NPOV, to see if we should use it, and in this case it badly fails NPOVNAME. It also fails
WP:RECOGNIZABLE and
WP:PRECISE, because this article is about firearms regulation, while the people who actually use the term "gun control" as part of their daily vocabulary do not mean that, they mean "incremental steps on the road to a total ban on individual firearm ownership". It's a different topic, quite literally. That is, we need a separate article on the gun-banning movement. When both the far right and the far left, in reliable sources, say that "gun control" is a non-neutral term (see proof in RS below), we're making a mistake in using it on WP as if it's not.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 08:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC); revised: —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 07:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
{{
Trout}}
those making them for disrupting RM with PoV-pushing nonsense. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 07:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Interestingly, some of them that write primarily for the left are reporting that gun-control advocates themselves have realized that term is considered to have loaded "baggage" and to be "politically charged", and have been abandoning it. They get too much flak from their opposition when they use it, enough that it's had an effect on public perception. They're still not coming out and saying "gun ban" in most cases, and are instead moving to ever more misleading circumlocutions like "gun-violence legislation" and "reducing gun violence". E.g., here's NPR on the matter [10], and here's The Atlantic on it [11]. This isn't even new, but going back to at least 2013. The left's "gun control" rhetoric has been credibly claimed to have actually caused increases in gun sales because pro-gun people translate it as "gun-banning maneuvers"; The New York Times commented on this quite recently [12]
That NYT piece is worth reading in its entirety, as it's proof that more rational people, who understand that gun violence in the US is cultural problem, can come up with ideas that make more sense that gun-ban obsessive pseudo-liberals' "KILL THE NRA"
[13] attitude (and you can bet that's inspiring more gun sales, since it proves in the minds of many gun owners that self-defense is a more legitimate need now than a week ago). It does have one misleading thing in it, though, the claim that private firearms being used to stop crimes is "rare" (the author backs this up with "in 2012 there were [only] 259 justifiable homicides by a private citizen using a firearm". What? He wants to see more people get shot? He's of course leaving out that there are hundreds of thousands to 3 million (depending on whose stats you like) crimes stopped per year by armed Americans simply by brandishing and without firing a shot. This utterly dwarfs the level of gun-involved violent crime (see gunfacts.org for stats; cites its own sources, and includes material that's not flattering to the pro-gun side, though I think the owner of the site is probably pro-gun; it's not a reliable source itself, but what is cites are RS). PS: Just to be clear, I'm an anti-authoritarian constitutionalist, not a gun-nut (I own no firearms), a progressive on modern social issues (except when alleged progressives call for something illiberal and unconstitutional), a classical liberal (non-leftist) on broader ones, and a fiscal centrist with general scorn for both major US political parties, so I'm
neither left nor right. I generally reject that entire political axis as a grossly muddled morass of "see how irrationally indoctrinated I am" junk-waving.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 07:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gun control has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In section entitled "other countrys" change missleading information on Brazil gun control laws to a more realiable one. The reference used in the article shows that homicides rates indeed reduced for a little while, but it increased later, making Brazil #1 in absolute homicide rate worldwide (see wikipedia itself on link above to check this info), with more people dying from murder than by car accidents. Pedromcs ( talk) 15:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
unofficial resource list http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/en/geral/noticia/2017-10/brazil-breaks-record-number-homicides-2016 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/01/29/months-before-rio-olympics-murder-rate-rises-in-brazil/#47bc922b2790 http://theconversation.com/brazils-biggest-problem-isnt-corruption-its-murder-78014 https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/10-of-World-Homicides-Are-in-Brazil-Most-Are-Young-and-Black-20170614-0047.html http://www.latimes.com/world/brazil/la-fg-ff-brazil-crime-20150522-story.html
official government resource list http://www.ipea.gov.br/atlasviolencia/download/2/2017
This
edit request to
Gun control has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to add more recent events and thought from others such as the parkland survivors Bigmilkman ( talk) 23:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Neither the 2013 CDC study or the 2018 Rand Study are cited in the article both present contradictory views with regard to studies piece:
CDC report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June 2013: 1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker: “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.” 2. Defensive uses of guns are common: “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.” 3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining: “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.” 4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results: “Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.” 5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime: “There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).” 6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime: “More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.” 7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides: “Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”
The Rand Study Released in 2018: Key Findings Despite Modest Scientific Evidence, the Data Support a Few Conclusions 1. Of more than 100 combinations of policies and outcomes, surprisingly few have been the subject of methodologically rigorous investigation. Notably, research into four of the outcomes examined was essentially unavailable at the time of the review, with three of these four outcomes representing issues of particular concern to gun owners or gun industry stakeholders. 2. Available evidence supports the conclusion that child-access prevention laws, or safe storage laws, reduce self-inflicted fatal or nonfatal firearm injuries among youth, as well as unintentional firearm injuries or deaths among children. 3. There is moderate evidence that background checks reduce firearm suicides and firearm homicides, as well as limited evidence that these policies can reduce overall suicide and violent crime rates. There is moderate evidence that stand-your-ground laws may increase homicide rates and limited evidence that the laws increase firearm homicides in particular. 4. There is moderate evidence that violent crime is reduced by laws prohibiting the purchase or possession of guns by individuals who have a history of involuntary commitment to a psychiatric facility. There is limited evidence these laws may reduce total suicides and firearm suicides. 5. There is limited evidence that a minimum age of 21 for purchasing firearms may reduce firearm suicides among youth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llowens69 ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in this RfC, which is about whether to include certain content about NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch being heckled offstage at a CNN town hall meeting on gun policy. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello ... My name is Lori and I am tasked with editing a Wikipedia page for a class I am taking at UCSC. My topic is gun control so this was not an easy place to add or edit content. There is so much information on here that I was worried I could not contribute. What I did not see was a timeline for gun legislation so I am going to go that route. I dont see any discussion on this specifically but I am also brand new a this. Any helpful hints or advice is also greatly appreciated. Please let me know if there is any issue with adding a timeline to this page. Thank you! Loriiles ( talk) 13:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Mass shooting have become an epidemic in the United States and these horrific events occur every couple of months at schools, concerts, churches and many other public places. Since the shooting at Columbine High School, there have been more than 187,000 children exposed to gun violence. This exposure has occurred during school hours and on school campuses. Public support for gun control has increased over the last several years. According to a study conducted by Quinnipiac University, roughly sixty percent of Americans support stricter gun laws. Additionally, sixty-seven percent of Americans support the ban on assault rifles. Some of the biggest support that has caused this shift are groups such as independent voters, men and Caucasian individuals with no college degree. These groups have not supported gun control in the past. The American Medical Association is also continuing to apply pressure to congress to fund gun control research. Since the government is not currently funding gun control research, several academic institutions are performing research on small teams. For example, the state of California has shown that through funding and stricter gun laws that gun violence has decreased. Between 1993 and 2016, there was over $135 million dollars raised for violence prevention and it helped reduce youth homicide rates by more than 50%. Additionally, the the statistics surrounding gun control between The United States of America and other wealthy countries are staggering. There are roughly 650 million civilian owned guns in the world and nearly forty-eight percent of these guns are owned by Americans. Furthermore, America makes up less than five percent of the world’s population, but we hold over thirty percent of the mass shooters (Fox, K., 2018). As Americans, we are one of the only wealthy countries that does not have strict gun laws and we have the largest amount of mass shootings. Following the same cycle of “mourning and moving on” has become the status quo and it is unacceptable. We need stricter gun laws because children should never have to grow up in a society where mass shootings are considered the norm. Fox, K. (2018, March 9). How US gun culture compares with the world in five charts. Retrieved from: https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html 2601:280:C500:1433:740C:F0CC:34B3:3A5B ( talk) 02:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gun control has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
line 63 is confusing, 64 states the same thing. one of them should be deleted 207.163.34.85 ( talk) 21:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Edgon55: I see problems with your recent addition to this article:
"In 2016, there were 223 firearm‑related homicides, 44 more than the previous year. This represents a rate of 0.61 per 100,000 population, a 23% increase from the rate in 2015 and the highest rate since 2005. The higher number and rate of firearm‑related homicides is due to increases in all firearm types, with the exception of sawed‑off rifles or shotguns.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/54879-eng.htm|title=Homicide in Canada, 2016|last=Government of Canada|first=Statistics Canada|date=2017-11-22|website=www150.statcan.gc.ca|access-date=2018-12-08}}</ref>"
My primary concern is that the statement is poorly worded and, for me, grossly misleading: When I initially read that statement, it sounded like there has been a substantial increase in the number of firearms in Canada, which generated an increase in the number of firearm homicides. The source refers the reader to their "Table 5". After studying that, it becomes clear that the author was merely saying that there were increases in the numbers of homicides by all types of firearms except "sawed-off rifles and shotguns." With that clarification, this seems such a minor point that it seems inappropriate for this article. It would more likely be a reasonable addition to the article on Gun laws in Canada, though I'm not sure about that.
Accordingly, I'm reverting that addition.
If you feel something from that report merits inclusion here, could you please discuss it on this Talk page before (or concurrent with) making such an addition?
The ultra right claims that Wikipedia is written by liberals and therefore is not to be trusted. For me at least, the paragraph I'm deleting uses imprecise language that seems to support that conservative claim. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 06:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Dmaty63: I'm reverting your addition of "Although according to studies, gun control would not work due to the 100 million guns currently in circulation. It would take too long to get most of them, so the US would take too long to restrict gun policies. This is according to recent studies."
DavidMCEddy ( talk) 23:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@DavidMCEddy I’m sorry that I couldn’t sore the research. There are in fact 100 million guns in circulation, which would destroy the whole idea of gun control in the United States. If we were to control guns in the US, it would take years to fully control guns in the USA. You have to realize that this site is for pure editing purposes and facts. People want to know how or even if we can institute gun control. Dmaty63 ( talk) 00:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that 'The Atlantic' is cited as evidence 3 times in the article. Given that this is a more of a American political magazine rather than research or a verified source of facts, should this source be used to cite information under general the "studies" section of the article? Seanjaelee ( talk) 03:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I just added some info and a supporting cite to this section. In doing that, I noticed that all of the studies in the Cross-sectional studies section seem to be specifically about gun control. The study which I added info about is about the relationship between firearm ownership and violent crime, not specifically about gun control. I noticed this while trying to reorganize the run-on paragraph in that section of the article into a bulleted chronological list, so I abandoned that reorganization and just left the info on that study where I had added it. Improve this as may be appropriate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that the history of gun control is not mentioned any where on the wiki. I would like to suggest an edit encompassing the history of gun control, its primary advocates, and why it was done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.DonDraper1 ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carterr829.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shalviya.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 February 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DaniloHelber. Peer reviewers: DaniloHelber.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 18 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Ymarq013.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
"Possession of handguns by country" map
This map is incorrect in regards to Great Britain. In Great Britain it is possible for civilians to acquire any kind of handgun as long as the handgun has some historical, personal or mechanical significance to the collector. It would be reasonable to recolour GB to light red, or even light red and yellow, as this is an exception to the general prohibition. To put it simply: handguns can still be owned for the purpose of collection but not sport. The other exceptions are with antiques, which may be owned without any kind of licence, and muzzle loading handguns including modern muzzle loading handguns.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gubkab ( talk • contribs) 12:09, April 17, 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gun control has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Graph above citation 35 shows firearm related homicides in developed nations comparing to the USA. How is one to know that this evidence has not been cherry-picked from 35 developed countries with especially low homicide rates to deliberately advance the author’s narrative? What criteria is used to establish a “developed nation?” This figure and the data used to generate it smacks of an inappropriate level of bias 162.255.58.189 ( talk) 15:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Note: Developed countries are defined based on the UN classification, which includes 36 countries.This is the UN definition. The graph is basically a recreation of the graph in the source. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
What I can WP:verify from these sources is that it is on the agenda of gun control advocates to change their name and the language of gun control http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2013/01/political-language http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/dont-call-it-gun-control/267259/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/speaking-of-guns-examining-rhetoric-of-heated-debate/</ref> (regulation of firearms already has a page of its own) This shows we do not have page Gun control agenda or a response from those who oppose it. I think such a page would reduce the POV grinding that has disrupted wikipedia for too long. We could use this page for the purpose. It would be a lot of work. J8079s ( talk) 20:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi J8079s, you don't seem to understand that gun control is a legitimate term [1] --- Yes, it is sometimes politicized in the United States (which I've now added to the lede) [2] but that is not the primary usage of the term as evidenced by this section of the article that discusses gun control in Canada, Australia, etc. In regards to the politics of gun issues in the United States, see this article. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 18:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gun control has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
u said per cent not percent. 24.30.5.118 ( talk) 19:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gun control has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section on OTHER COUNTRIES you may want to include a 2001 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) demonstrating a 13% and 14% reduction in overall homicide (80% of which was firearm) in the cities of Bogota and Cali, Colombia, after an intermittent ban on carrying concealed firearms was put into effect on weekends and some holidays. See reference: https://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192444
2601:14D:8100:A5E3:811F:6FE9:8995:5738 ( talk) 19:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Proponents of gun control generally argue that widespread gun ownership increases the danger of gun violence. [1] Opponents argue that gun control does not reduce crime and violates individual liberties. [2]
There's ain't nothing in the text about these proponents and opponents. The article oughta say who is for it who's against it. Felsic2 ( talk) 19:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
References
Hey Everymorning, do you have access to the full study? Did they examine all 50 states? Which laws were associated with increased mortality? Really interesting stuff. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 02:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
The austraila section says that Austraila has had no mass killings since the Port Arthor massacre. That's outright false. There's been several. I think it's only fair to reference them. /info/en/?search=Childers_Palace_Backpackers_Hostel_fire /info/en/?search=Black_Saturday_bushfires#Central_Gippsland_fires /info/en/?search=Lin_family_murders /info/en/?search=Quakers_Hill,_New_South_Wales#Nursing_home_fire /info/en/?search=Cairns_child_killings
A mass killing is defined as three or more deaths:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-incidents/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013 page 7
Under this definition Australia has had three mass killings since Port Arthur since the NFA act.
/info/en/?search=2011_Hectorville_siege
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-29137726
Those killings were committed with firearms, thus they are mass shootings. Please edit the article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:5484:C900:DDDA:619C:8300:B454 ( talk) 22:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Gun control (or regulation of firearms) [1]
References
"regulation of firearms" ain't in the source. Why's it there? @ Somedifferentstuff: [6] Felsic2 ( talk) 14:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Why are you wasting time with non-controvercial WP:BLUE crap. Are you seriously disputing that the meaning of gun control is firearms regulation? This is asinine. There are literally thousands of sources out there.
Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Although the article states that there are both proponents and opponents to gun control, and that the overall results of the various studies are inconclusive, it mostly shows studies supporting gun control (despite some few supporting neither side), and the said opponents and proponents are not specified. Considering that there are plenty of studies against gun control, including one from Harvard University if I'm not mistaken, this article is internally inconsistent and does not show the proper neutrality when dealing with a contentious and debated issue. - Alumnum ( talk) 18:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Referendums for strengthening gun con were held in 4 US states on election day, people voted to passe them in 3 states (Nevada, Washington and California) while rejected them in Maine. They have been covered in the media and I think they are notable and impactful enough to have their own article. I hope someone can create it. 117.207.150.229 ( talk) 18:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gun control has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
International human rights law, while not recognizing any right to self-defense and its means, requires states to reasonably restrict access to firearms as part of state's obligations to protect the right to life [1] Hotbridge ( talk) 15:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
References
After reading the article, I thought it did a good job delivering the message of mortality due to firearms. The article gave a lot of good data about the topic and helped support the argument they were defending. In my opinion, the author is very repetitive with his facts and sources. I would leave the amount of information about the topic because it helps the message he is trying to deliver. Something I would change would to disperse the information evenly through the article to not overwhelm the reader all at once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.93.165 ( talk) 07:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gun control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
When and where did the term "gun control" originate? Is it a euphemism for something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.80.149 ( talk) 21:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Editor 張泰銘 recently renamed this article, here, from "Gun control" to "Firearms Regulation". Renaming an article can be a pretty significant change, especially when the topic is controversial, so I'm starting this talk page section for editors to discuss the article name. (Speaking for myself, I want to think about it some more. But if we go with "Firearms regulation", the second word should not be capitalized, per the Manual of Style.) — Mudwater ( Talk) 05:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Honestly don't think there's a rule on wikipedia saying 1) you can't do stuff cuz it's controversial. 2) an individual can't make a significant change.
Besides, do you think GC is neutral or FR is neutral. For whoever's sake would you please even read what the article's talking about? Do you think we should name every little thing the way it's been commonly referred to or as a NEUTRAL POV?
Cuz however I consider it, "gun control" does not sound neutral to me? The biggest thing in the current conversation is about banning assault weapons and bg checks. Does either of those have to do with GUN control? That's why.
On wkpedia, the rules and policies trump admins. Like in the US, the constitution trumps the president. But they could be temporarily making a wrong decision with their given executive power, but it just won't last very long. 張泰銘 ( talk) 22:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I said everything very clearly in here, some folks just won't stop. Now I can't trigger a battle but I believe eventually I'll win. His reasoning just ain't good enuf. It's pure and simple. 張泰銘 ( talk) 22:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gun control has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to request to have a history section added to this article, to briefly give the backgroud of how heavily guns have influenced the United States, as well as, briefly explain arguments of the opposing sides. I would also like to request to have an up-to-date section to showcase the revelance of this topic to present day, by using quotes from a credible source of course.
N.sly26 ( talk) 07:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
No consensus to move at this time. bd2412 T 03:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Gun control → Firearms regulation – Procedural nomination now that we've had two moves and two contestations: I am neutral on the outcome of this requested move. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasu よ! 03:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
People who keep saying "because
WP:COMMONNAME" do not understand
WP:AT policy at all. COMMONNAME (
WP:UCRN) is not one of the
WP:CRITERIA; it is simply the default possible name to test against the actual criteria and the rest of AT policy, and overarching policies like
WP:NPOV, to see if we should use it, and in this case it badly fails NPOVNAME. It also fails
WP:RECOGNIZABLE and
WP:PRECISE, because this article is about firearms regulation, while the people who actually use the term "gun control" as part of their daily vocabulary do not mean that, they mean "incremental steps on the road to a total ban on individual firearm ownership". It's a different topic, quite literally. That is, we need a separate article on the gun-banning movement. When both the far right and the far left, in reliable sources, say that "gun control" is a non-neutral term (see proof in RS below), we're making a mistake in using it on WP as if it's not.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 08:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC); revised: —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 07:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
{{
Trout}}
those making them for disrupting RM with PoV-pushing nonsense. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 07:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Interestingly, some of them that write primarily for the left are reporting that gun-control advocates themselves have realized that term is considered to have loaded "baggage" and to be "politically charged", and have been abandoning it. They get too much flak from their opposition when they use it, enough that it's had an effect on public perception. They're still not coming out and saying "gun ban" in most cases, and are instead moving to ever more misleading circumlocutions like "gun-violence legislation" and "reducing gun violence". E.g., here's NPR on the matter [10], and here's The Atlantic on it [11]. This isn't even new, but going back to at least 2013. The left's "gun control" rhetoric has been credibly claimed to have actually caused increases in gun sales because pro-gun people translate it as "gun-banning maneuvers"; The New York Times commented on this quite recently [12]
That NYT piece is worth reading in its entirety, as it's proof that more rational people, who understand that gun violence in the US is cultural problem, can come up with ideas that make more sense that gun-ban obsessive pseudo-liberals' "KILL THE NRA"
[13] attitude (and you can bet that's inspiring more gun sales, since it proves in the minds of many gun owners that self-defense is a more legitimate need now than a week ago). It does have one misleading thing in it, though, the claim that private firearms being used to stop crimes is "rare" (the author backs this up with "in 2012 there were [only] 259 justifiable homicides by a private citizen using a firearm". What? He wants to see more people get shot? He's of course leaving out that there are hundreds of thousands to 3 million (depending on whose stats you like) crimes stopped per year by armed Americans simply by brandishing and without firing a shot. This utterly dwarfs the level of gun-involved violent crime (see gunfacts.org for stats; cites its own sources, and includes material that's not flattering to the pro-gun side, though I think the owner of the site is probably pro-gun; it's not a reliable source itself, but what is cites are RS). PS: Just to be clear, I'm an anti-authoritarian constitutionalist, not a gun-nut (I own no firearms), a progressive on modern social issues (except when alleged progressives call for something illiberal and unconstitutional), a classical liberal (non-leftist) on broader ones, and a fiscal centrist with general scorn for both major US political parties, so I'm
neither left nor right. I generally reject that entire political axis as a grossly muddled morass of "see how irrationally indoctrinated I am" junk-waving.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 07:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gun control has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In section entitled "other countrys" change missleading information on Brazil gun control laws to a more realiable one. The reference used in the article shows that homicides rates indeed reduced for a little while, but it increased later, making Brazil #1 in absolute homicide rate worldwide (see wikipedia itself on link above to check this info), with more people dying from murder than by car accidents. Pedromcs ( talk) 15:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
unofficial resource list http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/en/geral/noticia/2017-10/brazil-breaks-record-number-homicides-2016 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/01/29/months-before-rio-olympics-murder-rate-rises-in-brazil/#47bc922b2790 http://theconversation.com/brazils-biggest-problem-isnt-corruption-its-murder-78014 https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/10-of-World-Homicides-Are-in-Brazil-Most-Are-Young-and-Black-20170614-0047.html http://www.latimes.com/world/brazil/la-fg-ff-brazil-crime-20150522-story.html
official government resource list http://www.ipea.gov.br/atlasviolencia/download/2/2017
This
edit request to
Gun control has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to add more recent events and thought from others such as the parkland survivors Bigmilkman ( talk) 23:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Neither the 2013 CDC study or the 2018 Rand Study are cited in the article both present contradictory views with regard to studies piece:
CDC report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June 2013: 1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker: “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.” 2. Defensive uses of guns are common: “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.” 3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining: “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.” 4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results: “Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.” 5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime: “There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).” 6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime: “More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.” 7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides: “Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”
The Rand Study Released in 2018: Key Findings Despite Modest Scientific Evidence, the Data Support a Few Conclusions 1. Of more than 100 combinations of policies and outcomes, surprisingly few have been the subject of methodologically rigorous investigation. Notably, research into four of the outcomes examined was essentially unavailable at the time of the review, with three of these four outcomes representing issues of particular concern to gun owners or gun industry stakeholders. 2. Available evidence supports the conclusion that child-access prevention laws, or safe storage laws, reduce self-inflicted fatal or nonfatal firearm injuries among youth, as well as unintentional firearm injuries or deaths among children. 3. There is moderate evidence that background checks reduce firearm suicides and firearm homicides, as well as limited evidence that these policies can reduce overall suicide and violent crime rates. There is moderate evidence that stand-your-ground laws may increase homicide rates and limited evidence that the laws increase firearm homicides in particular. 4. There is moderate evidence that violent crime is reduced by laws prohibiting the purchase or possession of guns by individuals who have a history of involuntary commitment to a psychiatric facility. There is limited evidence these laws may reduce total suicides and firearm suicides. 5. There is limited evidence that a minimum age of 21 for purchasing firearms may reduce firearm suicides among youth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llowens69 ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in this RfC, which is about whether to include certain content about NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch being heckled offstage at a CNN town hall meeting on gun policy. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello ... My name is Lori and I am tasked with editing a Wikipedia page for a class I am taking at UCSC. My topic is gun control so this was not an easy place to add or edit content. There is so much information on here that I was worried I could not contribute. What I did not see was a timeline for gun legislation so I am going to go that route. I dont see any discussion on this specifically but I am also brand new a this. Any helpful hints or advice is also greatly appreciated. Please let me know if there is any issue with adding a timeline to this page. Thank you! Loriiles ( talk) 13:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Mass shooting have become an epidemic in the United States and these horrific events occur every couple of months at schools, concerts, churches and many other public places. Since the shooting at Columbine High School, there have been more than 187,000 children exposed to gun violence. This exposure has occurred during school hours and on school campuses. Public support for gun control has increased over the last several years. According to a study conducted by Quinnipiac University, roughly sixty percent of Americans support stricter gun laws. Additionally, sixty-seven percent of Americans support the ban on assault rifles. Some of the biggest support that has caused this shift are groups such as independent voters, men and Caucasian individuals with no college degree. These groups have not supported gun control in the past. The American Medical Association is also continuing to apply pressure to congress to fund gun control research. Since the government is not currently funding gun control research, several academic institutions are performing research on small teams. For example, the state of California has shown that through funding and stricter gun laws that gun violence has decreased. Between 1993 and 2016, there was over $135 million dollars raised for violence prevention and it helped reduce youth homicide rates by more than 50%. Additionally, the the statistics surrounding gun control between The United States of America and other wealthy countries are staggering. There are roughly 650 million civilian owned guns in the world and nearly forty-eight percent of these guns are owned by Americans. Furthermore, America makes up less than five percent of the world’s population, but we hold over thirty percent of the mass shooters (Fox, K., 2018). As Americans, we are one of the only wealthy countries that does not have strict gun laws and we have the largest amount of mass shootings. Following the same cycle of “mourning and moving on” has become the status quo and it is unacceptable. We need stricter gun laws because children should never have to grow up in a society where mass shootings are considered the norm. Fox, K. (2018, March 9). How US gun culture compares with the world in five charts. Retrieved from: https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html 2601:280:C500:1433:740C:F0CC:34B3:3A5B ( talk) 02:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gun control has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
line 63 is confusing, 64 states the same thing. one of them should be deleted 207.163.34.85 ( talk) 21:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Edgon55: I see problems with your recent addition to this article:
"In 2016, there were 223 firearm‑related homicides, 44 more than the previous year. This represents a rate of 0.61 per 100,000 population, a 23% increase from the rate in 2015 and the highest rate since 2005. The higher number and rate of firearm‑related homicides is due to increases in all firearm types, with the exception of sawed‑off rifles or shotguns.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/54879-eng.htm|title=Homicide in Canada, 2016|last=Government of Canada|first=Statistics Canada|date=2017-11-22|website=www150.statcan.gc.ca|access-date=2018-12-08}}</ref>"
My primary concern is that the statement is poorly worded and, for me, grossly misleading: When I initially read that statement, it sounded like there has been a substantial increase in the number of firearms in Canada, which generated an increase in the number of firearm homicides. The source refers the reader to their "Table 5". After studying that, it becomes clear that the author was merely saying that there were increases in the numbers of homicides by all types of firearms except "sawed-off rifles and shotguns." With that clarification, this seems such a minor point that it seems inappropriate for this article. It would more likely be a reasonable addition to the article on Gun laws in Canada, though I'm not sure about that.
Accordingly, I'm reverting that addition.
If you feel something from that report merits inclusion here, could you please discuss it on this Talk page before (or concurrent with) making such an addition?
The ultra right claims that Wikipedia is written by liberals and therefore is not to be trusted. For me at least, the paragraph I'm deleting uses imprecise language that seems to support that conservative claim. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 06:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Dmaty63: I'm reverting your addition of "Although according to studies, gun control would not work due to the 100 million guns currently in circulation. It would take too long to get most of them, so the US would take too long to restrict gun policies. This is according to recent studies."
DavidMCEddy ( talk) 23:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@DavidMCEddy I’m sorry that I couldn’t sore the research. There are in fact 100 million guns in circulation, which would destroy the whole idea of gun control in the United States. If we were to control guns in the US, it would take years to fully control guns in the USA. You have to realize that this site is for pure editing purposes and facts. People want to know how or even if we can institute gun control. Dmaty63 ( talk) 00:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that 'The Atlantic' is cited as evidence 3 times in the article. Given that this is a more of a American political magazine rather than research or a verified source of facts, should this source be used to cite information under general the "studies" section of the article? Seanjaelee ( talk) 03:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I just added some info and a supporting cite to this section. In doing that, I noticed that all of the studies in the Cross-sectional studies section seem to be specifically about gun control. The study which I added info about is about the relationship between firearm ownership and violent crime, not specifically about gun control. I noticed this while trying to reorganize the run-on paragraph in that section of the article into a bulleted chronological list, so I abandoned that reorganization and just left the info on that study where I had added it. Improve this as may be appropriate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that the history of gun control is not mentioned any where on the wiki. I would like to suggest an edit encompassing the history of gun control, its primary advocates, and why it was done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.DonDraper1 ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carterr829.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shalviya.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 February 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DaniloHelber. Peer reviewers: DaniloHelber.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 18 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Ymarq013.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
"Possession of handguns by country" map
This map is incorrect in regards to Great Britain. In Great Britain it is possible for civilians to acquire any kind of handgun as long as the handgun has some historical, personal or mechanical significance to the collector. It would be reasonable to recolour GB to light red, or even light red and yellow, as this is an exception to the general prohibition. To put it simply: handguns can still be owned for the purpose of collection but not sport. The other exceptions are with antiques, which may be owned without any kind of licence, and muzzle loading handguns including modern muzzle loading handguns.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gubkab ( talk • contribs) 12:09, April 17, 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gun control has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Graph above citation 35 shows firearm related homicides in developed nations comparing to the USA. How is one to know that this evidence has not been cherry-picked from 35 developed countries with especially low homicide rates to deliberately advance the author’s narrative? What criteria is used to establish a “developed nation?” This figure and the data used to generate it smacks of an inappropriate level of bias 162.255.58.189 ( talk) 15:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Note: Developed countries are defined based on the UN classification, which includes 36 countries.This is the UN definition. The graph is basically a recreation of the graph in the source. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)