Talk:Gun violence in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

...in the United States

Aude, I don't want to intrude unnecessarily on your plan for this article, but since it currently focuses on the United States, and it's going to be publicized on DYK, shouldn't we just move it to Gun violence in the United States now? Melchoir 23:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. This move was inevitable. For now, Gun violence is a disambiguation page with links to this page and other general articles pertaining to crime by country. --Aude (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality, or lack thereof

There is no neutrality as far as I can see here. It deginerated into a a modern liberal anti-gun argument. EOM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.223.12 (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been a Wikipedian for quite some time now, but I've never seen an article that pushes a POV as strongly as this one. It's so far out of bounds, I don't know where to start with a proper critique. For now, I've added the neutrality template. I will try to find some time to bring objectivity to this in the near future, but I wonder if it shouldn't just be scrapped entirely. Gregmg 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is just about 100% referenced to reliable sources, and complies with WP:V. This article basically covers what research says on the topic. If the body of research on the topic is POV to you, I can try to work with you but it's unacceptable to "scrap" the sources. Please raise specific objections. --Aude (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just a passerby, but I don't consider the article referenced reliably. You make the assertion that gun violence in the US is higher than other developed countries (maybe it is) but 2 of the sources you quote for this assertion only compare the US and Canada and the third source is 16 years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.225.19 (talk • contribs)

I've added more references to the intro. These were there already, but in the body of the article. Now they are also in the intro. --Aude (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Although the WP:V criteria are met, only cites supporting a single viewpoint are presently included. For balance, cites of differing viewpoints need to be added per WP policy, such that all views with significant representation are ultimately included. Also, there are systemic biases throughout that are definitely pushing the POV envelope, and which still will need to be edited. Definitely a work in progress, but with considerable good work already done. Yaf 03:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The references represent the body of research, which has been reviewed by the National Academy of Science and their panel of experts. The panel included top experts in criminology, economics, psychology, statistics, and public policy, with funding support from the government. Please specify specific objections, and specific studies that should be referenced. --Aude (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No doubt, this is a beautifully written article. Every item is properly referenced. Every facet of the formatting complies with Wikipedia standards. Unfortunately, it provides only one side of a very contentious political issue. There's not even the pretense of objectivity, and there's no attempt at providing the other side of the issue or another viewpoint. For every private or government study supporting gun control, there is another study supporting gun rights. This article provides only one side of the argument. This is a problem. There is no attempt at NPOV. Gregmg 03:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The NAS did not conduct a study. They - a panel of renowned researchers - reviewed the body of literature. NAS is neither pro-gun rights or pro-"gun control". This is the current state of research, which finds some programs supported by gun-control folks such as gun "buy-back" not effective, while They also find strategies, such strict enforcement and penalties, as taken by the Bush administration to be effective. Again, please cite a specific study that you think is overlooked. --Aude (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment from passerby. This article should not be conflated with the "gun control" debate. To the extent that a neutral reading brings up this "debate", of course it should be fixed. What concerns me is that no matter how much "fixing" was done, somebody would still be crying "POV" because the article dares to take a huge body of research related to gun violence and put it into an article about gun violence.

If someone wrote a researched, verifiable article on "Benefits of guns in children's hospitals", the argument would be the same: the article should not be conflated with debate about gun control and gun advocacy. If I was for "gun control", I would nevertheless read the article and see that, oh yes, the Journal of Hospital Clowns has reported significant improvements in length of hospital stay when children interacted with clowns with guns. I would not say "this is pro-gun!". Now, just because the nature of guns is such that you end up with a large body of research about Gun violence in the United States, but little about Benefits of guns in children's hospitals, welll, that's for the "POV"ers to rationalize for themselves.

All of that being said, if opposing research can be presented on gun violence, it should be. But it should stick to the topic, and not reduce to a general summation of arguments for gun advocacy, because that debate is not the topic.

Also, very nice job on this article Aude, in such a short period too. –Outriggr § 05:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We also have the related Gun politics in the United States, which I really won't touch because politics don't interest me. That article should address the political aspect of gun policy and the gun rights vx. gun control debate. The intent of this article is to rise above politics and deal with what criminology and public health research has found. The findings seem mixed, with some policies advocated by gun control people found ineffective and some decried by gun rights as having some effect. If any particular studies are overlooked, please say so and we can work with that. --Aude (talk) 11:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Pretty impressive amount of work here in only 4-5 days of editing...good job. As far as I am concerned, I can't see why we have a neutrality tag on the article...are some saying the article is not adequately addressing the issues of gun violence? Or is the problem that the article is an argument for increased gun legislation because of the facts and figures presented? I won't detail my resume here, but the article is mainly simply a facts and figures page with outstanding neutral references...and even the last major edit by Aude shows little real changes by the other editors since. So, what's the problem with this article? Details would be helpful.--MONGO 07:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

nah, the term gun violence is a misnomer, and the "facts" are all one-sided and backed up with pretty some flimsy references. ever look at the references? just because there is a number next to the "fact" doesn't make the "fact" true. additionally, the article appears to be a backdoor attempt at circumventing and avoiding the more well known terms of "homocide", "violence", "gun control", etc. the article name alone is a loaded gun. what about "chair violence", coffee cup violence", etc? if "gun violence isn't a misnomer, then those arent either, where are those articles?

I agree. It looks good and well-referenced to me. I would not object to the addition of more information if someone thought "balancing" it was necessary. I took down the tag meantime. --Guinnog 11:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yaf beat me to the punch and reinstated the neutrality template. I've been a Wikipedian for over a year now, and I've never seen an article as one-sided and POV as this. Here are just a few of my specific concerns:

-John Lott, an independent researcher with no past interest in Gun Rights or Gun Control, has generated a large body of work on concealed carry and its impact on society and crime. Yet his work is only mentioned briefly and quickly discounted, giving the appearance of greater weight and legitimacy to his critics. This is not NPOV.

-With respect to the few other cases where a pro-gun argument or data point is presented, the anti-gun position is always given the last word. This isn't NPOV.

-Someone (either Mark Twain or Benjamin Disraeli) once said that there are "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics." The same set of data can be interpreted in different ways. The article as it stands now gives a gun control advocacy POV. This is not NPOV.

-Much of the article is devoted to Gun Control advocacy initiatives, but no mention is made of similar initiatives sponsored by Gun Rights organizations like the Eddie Eagle program. This is not NPOV.

-The article employs a number of emotionally charged words and phrases, like "public outcry" and "victimization". This is not NPOV.

-In reviewing the Federal Legislation section, one would not get the impression of a progressive tightening of gun control laws over the last forty years in the US. However, that's exactly what has happened. I note that Gun Control advocacy web pages and policy papers typically leave out or downplay facts that don't support their agenda or the idea of a national gun violence crisis. This article reads far too much like something from a gun control website. This is not NPOV.

I could go on. There are many other issues that I could identify that need to be corrected. Unfortunately, I really don't have the time for this right now. Please leave the NPOV template in place for now. Thanks, Gregmg 16:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The references to John Lott's work reflect what the NAS panel found. The panel consisted of 15 experts more qualified than any of us here to assess the research that's been done. Per WP:RS, we need to defer to them, rather than making our own judgements as to the validity of the research. As for Eddie Eagle, it is mentioned. Please re-read the article. And Eddie Eagle has not been evaluated, so it is simply mentioned of whether it is effective or not. "Victimization" is a proper term used in public health and criminology scholarly literature. The discussion of the Federal legislation is a summary of major legislation (1968, 1986, 1994). If you have anything to add, please suggest. Though the main article to discuss policies (and pro-gun rights and pro-gun control views of the policise) is Gun politics in the United States. --Aude (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It is probably true that academic researchers, being largely city people with graduate degrees, approach the field with tacit assumptions. They are criminologists and public health experts; holding a hammer, they see nails. Possibly these assumptions could be made explicit somehow, if there were the references to support it, but that risks politicizing this article. We have another page about gun politics. These are the reliable peer-reviewed sources; they say what they say. As with all pages, there is probably some room for tweaking the tone, or choosing more neutral language. If countervailing views exist in the literature of other disciplines (I do not know much about it) those might be added, but I think the best thing is to present a good survey of the existing scholarship in the field, and leave it at that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think changing homicide victims to homicide statistics is awkward language. It might be misunderstood as an attempt to hide from the reader that we are talking about dead people. Also, I think homicide as a noun is the crime or the killer, not the dead guy. Victim is pretty standard academic terminology. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It is probably more NPOV than assuming any dead person is automatically a victim, when, according to the text later in the section, 75% had a criminal past, and presumably were plying their "trade" at the time of death. Let's not assume victim status just because of a fatality. "Homicide statistics" is much more neutral than "homicide victims", without becoming a judgement statement by an editor.Yaf 21:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please keep victimization there in the first sentence in the "Homicide rates" section. It's necessary to make clear we are talking about victimization statistics as opposed to offender statistics. --Aude (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a POV problem in calling a criminal shot and killed in self-defense a "victim". Also, the statistic that 75% of the "victims" had a criminal past is also indicative that the "victim" was not actually a victim, but rather was probably a justified self-defense target. Lets not assume that everyone killed is somehow a "victim", when they are not. It is more NPOV to assume a homicide is a homicide and not assign "homicide victimization" terminology to the text. Yaf 21:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In criminology, a crime involves offenders and victims. These are victimization statistics, as opposed to offender statistics. It's an important distinction, and important to use proper terminology. --Aude (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not written from the point of view of any particular school of thought. You are certainly free to point out in the article that "In criminology a crime involves offenders and victims". That does not mean, however, that this article will be restricted to that school of thought, nor even to the definition of "offenders" and "victims" used by criminologists. - O^O 22:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Criminology is not a "school of thought". Within criminology, there are schools of thought, but criminology itself is an academic discipline. The term "victim" is also widely used in public health. [1] --Aude (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I should more clearly say then; Wikipedia is not written from the point of view of "academic disciplines". Sometimes there is tension on Wikipedia on how to define something, whether to use an academic definition, a legal definition, a religious definition, a "common man" definition etc. Ultimately however, ALL these definitions have a place here. In this sense, academia (of which criminology is a subset) is only one school of thought. If there is any competing definition for any concept which criminology has defined, then that competing definition has a place here as well. Please note; I am not endorsing any particular definitions, only pointing out that Wikipedia in general does not limit itself to definitions provided by academia. - O^O 02:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes the victim is the one who walks away, after being attacked, and it is the offender who lies dead. Other times, it is the reverse. Assigning "victimization" status automatically to every dead body is only common in academic criminology research, but is not common in court cases nor on police blotters. The "real world" is not solely a criminology course. We need to balance the terminology among criminology, legal, medical, and other usages, all without assuming any one practice is somehow more appropriate for this article. Yaf 22:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I do see the point you are making. Our article on victim is a disambig page which currently states: "an aggrieved or disadvantaged party in a crime or disaster". It seems reasonable that a person who has been killed, and has thus lost whatever years remaining to them, can reasonably be described as a victim, however heinous their own crimes. It is also, as pointed out above, fairly standard terminology in the literature.

To say otherwise, it seems to me, is to imply a tit-for-tat moral code that would fall outside our NPOV policy. To give an argumentum ad absurdam to illustrate the point, we might surmise that, of the 113 people killed on or by Air France Flight 4590, statistically there are likely to have been several people who had committed crimes, or had a criminal past. We could still call them all victims, as that is the accepted meaning of the word. There may be a way we can adjust the wording to encompass what you are trying to say, but I really don't think this quibble over a common word with a commonly accepted definition, merits a POV tag. Leaving it up for now nevertheless, while we discuss. --Guinnog 22:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If there was a homicide, there was a victim and a perpetrator. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I just looked up victim in The American Heritage dictionary and in Merriam-Webster. I see no reason why the word victim cannot be applied to those killed by justifiable homicide. That said, I was about to suggest "Rates of death by homicide," before someone else beat me to it. I agree that this is more neutral. The only problem is that we lose the link to the article on victimology which does seem relevant to this discussion of demographics. Is there another way to incorporate this without creating POV issues? -MrFizyx 23:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The current wording is okay, but not being able to call Hispanic and African Americans victims seems problematic. Why can't people of these demographics be considered victims? What about caucasian people? asians? other races? Really, anyone, regardless of race can be a victim. To assume anything otherwise is entirely incorrect. --Aude (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Is being African American or Hispanic, in itself, a crime??? --Aude (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Not in Federal Law in the United States, AFAIK, but I cannot speak for other juridictions. - O^O 02:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can be a victim, clearly, regardless of race. But, on the contrary, assigning victim status to every dead person is extremely POV, for it assigns criminal status to what may, in many cases, be a victim who was involved in a justified self-defense situation. Have added "victim" in place of victim to try to keep the POV down that automatically assumes whoever fires a gun is automatically a criminal. Yaf 00:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. "Victim" is a word with a clear definition. We don't need to use scare quotes here; there is nothing controversial or POV about using the word as it is defined by dictionaries. --Guinnog 00:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Putting the word in quotes may be the most blantanly POV way to write the statement. Thats like me saying that your edit was very "inteligent". It implies sarcasim and is completely inapproptiate in an encyclopedia article. -MrFizyx 00:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

How come most of the references are not from NPOV sources? Knowingly sourcing a biased book or article, and then not providing a counterpoint is clearly not NPOV.

frankly, the title and theme of the article is a loaded gun in and of itself as "gun violence" is a misnomer or weasel term. violence is an act, which can occur in all manner of ways. if "gun violence in america" is a legitimate topic, then "chair violence in americe", "knife violence in america", "coffee cup violence in america", "human waste violence in america", etc are all also legitimate articles as well. the proper thing to do is to delete the article, and have the more valuable parts of the article merged into the "violence" article, or the "gun politics" or another article more adequate for such a topic. citations alone do not make for a good and NPOV article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.253.125 (talk • contribs)

Gun violence is the subject of thousands of scholarly articles [2] If "coffee cup violence" was a notable topic with that many reliable sources then it would be something to include in Wikipedia. However, it's not. [3] --Aude (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Gun Violence

Most Wikipedia articles begin with a very brief definition of their topic. Could someone please insert a definition of "Gun Violence" so we know what is being discussed? - O^O 22:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not object to an informative definition, but if it is just 'violence involving a gun' I'm not sure we need it. Separately, did you object to the picture of the assualt rifle? I put it back, but I'm open to discussion if there is a reason it should not be there. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I ask because I'm really not certain what we are dicussing here:

• If a police sniper shoots a hostage taker, is that gun violence?
• If an homeowner shoots a home intruder, is that gun violence?
• If a firing squad executes a convicted criminal, is that gun violence?

Also, as I wrote earlier, practically all wikipedia article begin with a definition. It is what most experienced editors have come to expect. I find the article a little jarring that it just begins a discussion without letting me know what is being discussed.

Regarding the photograph; I object to using a WWII assault rifle to depict the object of the assault weapon ban. The rifle you pictured wouldn't even have been covered by that ban. I would not have the same objection if the photo was more germane to the topic. - O^O 22:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Save me checking, how many criminals are executed by firing squad in the U.S. currently? On all three points, I would say, yes, it is gun violence if it is violence accomplished with a gun. --Guinnog 22:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The public health definition is:

Violence-related: Injury or poisoning inflicted by deliberate means (i.e., on purpose). This category includes the assault, legal intervention, and self-harm categories. [4]

I have added it to the intro. It's fine with me to clarify the meaning of the term, "violence'. --Aude (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

To be clear then, the CDC definition quoted makes "victims" out of both legal and illegal homicide. I'll ponder the consequences of that, but at least we have a working definition. - O^O 02:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

frankly, the title and theme of the article is a loaded gun in and of itself as "gun violence" is a misnomer or weasel term. violence is an act, which can occur in all manner of ways. if "gun violence in america" is a legitimate topic, then "chair violence in americe", "knife violence in america", "coffee cup violence in america", "human waste violence in america", etc are all also legitimate articles as well. the proper thing to do is to delete the article, and have the more valuable parts of the article merged into the "violence" article, or the "gun politics" or another article more adequate for such a topic. citations alone do not make for a good and NPOV article.

NPOV tagline

Have removed the tagline from the heading of the article, as with the intense editing done over the last several days the degree of POV-centric terminology is greatly reduced. There may still be some minor issues remaining, but the great majority of them are largely resolved, in my estimation. If anyone disagrees, then they can tag it again, and we can go back and hash out whatever edits still need to be done. Yaf 01:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Noted that the NPOV tagline has been reintroduced to the article in the last 24 hours. Only problem is that there is no current discussion regarding what the perceived problems are. What are the issues? If there are no statements of issues, then the {{NPOV}} tagline needs to be removed. If there are problems, though, the problems need to be fixed. Comments? Yaf (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

no need to ask for a recitation from the drive-by tagger. i've reverted it, as drive by tagging is strongly discourage per policy. see Wikipedia:DRIVEBY. as it says, "tags should be added as a last resort" - not first resort. Anastrophe (talk) 06:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Added the tag back. There is still dispute over whether the article itself (including the title) is pushing a point of view DesertPhox (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006

Another editor added a section on the "Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006".[5] I rewrote it and added a source,[6] but wonder if it belongs in the article. It appears to be an inconsequential bit of legislation that most members of the Senate voted for, probably so they could point to it during the November election campaign. It seems to have little bearing on public policy regarding gun violence. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So laws that call for authorities to confiscate guns or prohibit the civilian ownership of certain firearms are relavent; but those that prevent the confiscation of civilian owned firearms are not? Either prohibition relates to gun violence, or it doesn't. Rwwff 01:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is complicated. It seems that the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 5013, S.2599) which has not been passed has been confused with the Vitter Amendment (SA4615) to Department Of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (H.R.5441) which passed as amended.[7] My remarks (above) refer to the Vitter Amendment as submitted. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really that complicated. It looks like they rolled the effect of a small bill into a larger, appropriations bill. Not an unusual thing. The Assault Weapons Ban was a similar thing, being rolled into a massive Crime Bill. One could bring up the old song about the government not legislating in an appropriations bill; but that concept realistically died long ago. Especially true of a non controversial bill like this one.Rwwff 17:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 to make this clear. I had a little trouble finding the language that made it into the final public law. {Am I the only person that finds it difficult to navigate the Congressional Record web site? ) This is relevant to my query above as to whether this represents significant public policy, which was not based on the final wording of this provision of the Act. Please see Talk:Disaster_Recovery_Personal_Protection_Act_of_2006 for that. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Gun violence

(copied discussion here from peer review page)

Hi - maybe this should be moved to talk? There's no way to know what the "major factor" is - it might be that if there were strict gun control laws the homicide rate would be the same but knives would be used instead. Or maybe it would be lower. But it's an assertion that gun violence per se is the difference - or am I wrong? I often am. Kaisershatner 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The difference for what? For why the U.S. homicide rate is higher? In the intro, I think noting the higher homicide rate and the rate of homicides committed with firearms is important. We can save "why" for later in the article, such as the "Homicides" section where it says "When a crime occurs involving a gun, the likelihood that it results in a death is significantly increased, due to the lethal potential that a gun brings to a situation." and "that if guns were less available, criminals may likely commit the crime anyway but with less-lethal weapons". (if you want to move this to the talk page, that's fine with me) --Aude (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My question is basically whether we're guilty of assuming thecorrelation implies causation fallacy. (A) The US has a comparatively high rate of homicide (B) The US has a particular position on gun ownership (C) therefore, gun violence is the differential factor in the higher US homicide rate. I'm asking if writing "the US has a higher than average homicide rate" and "the majority of homicides are committed with guns" is a truly direct relationship, and if this is supported by the facts. Since I don't know, I would favor simply, "68% of homicides are committed with guns" standing on its own, and introducing the stats about the overall homicide rate in the body of the article. Again, the subject of the article is NOT the US homicide rate. The rate at which gun violence is a part of the homicide rate IS the subject. Finally, please assume my good faith, it can be hard to infer tone from writing. I may be asking dumb questions but trust me, it's out of curiousity and a committment to intellectually rigorous writing and editing. Best, Kaisershatner 14:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What it sounds like you read of the introduction is that it states up front the "particular position on gun ownership" and combines mention of that with the "comparatively high rate of homicide". I don't think that's the case. Where does the intro state the U.S.'s particular position? What I see is that it states the U.S. has a comparatively high rate of homicide and a comparitively high % of homicides committed with firearms. "Comparatively high % of homicides committed with firearms" does not equate to "particular position on gun ownership". We are simply stating notable facts, which are important to state in the intro, to prepare the reader for more detailed discussion. --Aude (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Why mention that the US has a comparatively high homicide rate in an article about gun violence in the US, unless you are implying that guns are the reason for the high homicide rate? And if you are not intending to make that connection, explicitly or implicitly, why do you need to address the comparative rate of US homicide at all? Especially if you are focused on "Gun Violence in the United States," why not tell us about "Gun Violence" and not "Comparatively high rates of violence in the US?" Kaisershatner 00:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Homicide rates (and the percentage of homicides committed using firearms) are a significant point of discussion in the article. Four paragraphs of the article cover the topic. The lead section should represent and summarize what's in the article. The "Homicides" section of the article explores this "connection", with information such as "Handgun homicides accounted for nearly all of the overall increase in the homicide rate, from 1985 to 1993". These facts don't provide definitive conclusions but suggest some connection between gun violence and homicides. On the other hand, the levels of robbery, assault, and other violence crimes are not comparatively high in the U.S. --Aude (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there is a better way to explain this, in more layman terms... but, firearms are more easily acquired by the criminally inclined in the United States. A firearm makes it possible for a criminal to injure someone from a distance, whereas with a knife, they would have to get right up next to someone. Furthermore, if someone does get stabbed with the knife, the chances of survival are much better than if they were shot with a gun. These two factors make violent confrontations more likely to result in homicide, whereas in other countries such as Canada the same confrontation might not have results as lethal. The policies aimed at gun violence try to limit the access of firearms to the criminally inclined, while preserving the rights of ordinary, law-abiding people. Of the various policies and strategies tried, some have shown to be more effective than others. --Aude (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important to mention homicide rates and the percentage of homicides committed using firearms in the lead section. WP:LS says, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article." I think both items help create interest in reading the whole article. I agree with AudeVivere's points, as well. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Aude, I think I understand your viewpoint a bit better, and it may be a reasonable conclusion that the homicide rate reflects gun policy, based on what you've stated above. Thanks for answering my questions.Kaisershatner 02:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I still feel that maybe it's not clear enough in the article. If you were confused or unsure, others might be. --Aude (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Other bits that I think need more clarification include the offending/victimization rates among youths and Hispanic and African Americans. It's true that these demographic groups are over represented in U.S. homicide statistics; but it's also true that the overwhelming, vast majority of people in these demographics are perfectly law-abiding. Also, painting "urban areas" with the gun violence issue is also not 100% accurate. Gun violence, and crime generally, concentrates in specific sections of cities. I may have to add a map graphic to help illustrate that point. Does anyone else think readers might be confused or get wrong impressions from the way the article is written? --Aude (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

SVG Graphic on chart

I know there is a certain advantage to using vector graphics, but they aren't uniformly readable. The charts that appear in the article are too tiny to be legible. Might a higher resolution jpg, or at worst, a pdf be better? Rwwff 23:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you experiencing problems with the svg graphs? Which one(s)? What do you mean by "not uniformly readable"? The MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia automatically takes care of converting the original .svg file into .png thumbnail graphics that you should see displayed. (see this) It is possible to provide .jpg or .png alternatives, but don't think it's possible to make the resolution any better. I think the main problem is with having them at the thumbnail size, which makes labels too small to easily read. I've been using User:Zocky's picture popups, which you might like to view images more easily. --Aude (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not so much a problem for me, but Firefox 1.5 under Linux doesn't seem to want to open them nicely. I made the point simply to raise the issue that others entering this article, curious for information, might not be able to view the SVG file in their browser, and might not know how to display the file in an alternate manner. Optionally, since the lines are colored, you might include identifying info as part of the text caption?? Rwwff 02:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware of problems with svg on Firefox 1.5/Linux. This would be an issue concerning all of Wikipedia — one that I'm sure has come up before. I'll try and look into it more. I know that Firefox 2.0 has been released. Does the new version of Firefox resolve the issues with svg? --Aude (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that it resolves the issue, but I don't know for sure. I like to stay away from the bleeding edge.. it kept making me bleed, and causing my hair to go grey. According to the 2.0 release notes, it appears to support SVG.. There is also supposedly a java plug in for 1.5 that will enable that. Easier for me to just load the image in gimp though. In any event, it was just something I noticed in the process of clicking along the article. Rwwff 05:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC) nb.. just tried it again, first click to the image just gives you a blank crosshatch, but if you click the image filename at the bottom, whatever tack-on is involved will eventually render the thing. I can't say that I'm terribly used to using the word "eventually" regarding my 3 ghz, 1.5gig ram workstation on a T1, but it did eventually come up. Hopefully, the 2.0 version works better.

I've been using 2.0 for a week or so and it displays the graphics well. I haven't had any problems with it at all and would recommend it to anyone. --Guinnog 05:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Secondary question about the chart, "Homicide by Weapon"; does that include the fist&feet? I thought fist&feet was a lot higher than what you have for blunt object...Rwwff 05:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that is included in "other weapons". --Aude (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro/Lede

Does anyone else think readers might be confused or get wrong impressions from the way the article is written? --Aude (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Gun violence in the United States, especially that involving youths and gang activity, is a great public concern in urban areas.[1][2]" That's how the article starts. But the intro should also mention what proportion of gv occurs due to gangs or youths. Is public concern out of proportion to these groups' role in gv, or are these groups the main perpetrators of gv? Also, I think the sentence about the majority of gun deaths being self-inflicted should be higher up - ie, despite the public concern, the fact is that most gun deaths are self-directed ones. Isn't that important? Kaisershatner 15:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Good points... I can definitely come up with numbers regarding youths, and will look for information on gangs. Public concerns and perceptions (fear of crime) can be disjointed from reality, with many myths, fallacies, and misconceptions. This topic could use extended discussion in that separate article. --Aude (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about this again and I think the topic sentence of this article does not really reflect the subject very precisely, since the article is about gv and the lede sentence is about public fear of gv. Better might be: "Gun violence in the United States is associated with the majority of homicides, assaults, and suicides.(FN) It is a significant public concern, especially in urban areas and in conjunction with youth activity and gang violence.(FN) High profile events, such as....(FN). Thoughts?Kaisershatner 15:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion sounds good to me. I have looked for statistics on youth involvement in gun violence, and they indicate the 18-24 age group is significantly overrepresented in violent crime statistics, particularly homicides involving firearms. The FBI aggregates UCR date into 17-19 and 20-24 age groups. In 2005, 17-19 year olds comprised 4.3% of the overall population of the United States; This same age group accounted for 11.2% of the victims, killed by firearm homicides. This age group also accounted for 10.6% of all homicide offenses. The 20-24 year old age group accounted for 7.1% of the population, while accounting for 22.5% of victims, killed by firearm homicides. The 20-24 age group also accounted for 17.7% of all homicide offenses. Those under age 17 are actually not overrepresented. In 2005, 13-16 year olds accounted for 6% of the overall population of the United States. This age group accounted for 3.6% of firearm homicide victims, and 2.7% of overall homicide offenses. It's beyond the scope of this article, but research and statistics indicate the criminally-inclined in this younger group may start out with less serious crimes, such as burglary, and those that stick with crime may progress to committing more serious violent crimes. --Aude (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have (yet) statistics on gangs, and not sure they are easy to find. --Aude (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Big Piece missing

This article is very POV. For example, the article does not even consider urban vs. rural or restrictive vs. relaxed gun laws. For example, gun ownership is higher per capita in Iowa than in Washington DC yet gun violence rates are much higher in DC and the laws are more restrictive. This type of analysis is sadly lacking and contributes to it's POV. Here's a question (and I don't know the answer) If Iowa were considered a country, would it's gun homicide rate be substantially higher than other developed nations? --Tbeatty 06:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have added homicide rates broken down by urban/metropolitan vs. rural. In rural areas, the homicide rate is 3.5 per 100,000, which is still higher than overall homicide rates for most other developed countries (1.58 in all of Canada — its rural and urban areas, 1.15 in the Netherlands, 1.16 in Germany, 1.25 in Spain, 1.29 in Italy, 1.57 in Australia, 1.78 in France, 2.01 in South Korea, 2.3 in Malaysia, 2.8 in Finland). Developing countries are another story. Despite these numbers, you are right that the homicide rates in urban areas are significantly greater, and deserves emphasis, with discussion of socio-economic factors. Even within cities, crime problems are concentrated in specific neighborhoods. I may add a map or something to help convey this.
• "the percentage of imported guns involved in crimes is tied to the stringency of local firearm laws." addresses local gun laws. I expect that few guns involved in crime in Iowa are imported. In DC, takes at most 20 minutes to get across the border into Maryland or Virginia. And then consider, most youths and criminals acquire firearms second-hand (sometimes stolen, sometimes from friends/family, street sources, etc.) where laws don't apply. Here is some information on "crime" guns in DC: [8]

• 93% of crime guns in DC were bought from federally licensed dealers.
• 3% of crime guns were originally purchased in DC.
• 59% of crime guns in DC were originally purchased in Maryland or Virginia.
• 18% of crime guns in DC were originally purchased in southern states (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida)

I think that this goes into too much detail for this article, but maybe appropriate elsewhere on Wikipedia. The sentence "the percentage of imported guns involved in crimes is tied to the stringency of local firearm laws." sums it up adequately, I think. --Aude (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be missing the point... Tbeatty appears to be suggesting that one note the fact that per capita concentration of firearms does not correlate with per capita firearms related deaths. Rwwff 17:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added something to address general correlation between ownership and violence. Currently, data on gun ownership lacks sufficient macro-level detail to make conclusions of any correlation one way or the other. Analysis of restrictive vs. relaxed gun laws is difficult because of many confounding factors. In places with restrictive laws, such as DC, flow of firearms from nearby states is an important factor. Also, DC is entirely urban, with socio-economic factors that make it more ripe for violent crime than Iowa. --Aude (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Another example: From the article,
"One important consideration is that only 60-70% of firearms sales in the United States are transacted through federally licensed firearm dealers, with the remainder taking place in the "secondary market".[63][64] Most sales to youths and convicted felons take place in the "secondary market", which involves secondhand firearms transferred by unlicensed individuals."

Without any reference to what percentage of transactions are illegal, it leaves the reader with the impression that 30-40% of firearms transactions are to youths and felons (i.e. an illegal sale whether they have a license or not). Without any context as to the amount of secondary transactions that are illegal, the whole paragraph is distorted. It appears that this article is trying to infer that the secondary market has a substantial criminal component when that hasn't been established. Replace "guns" with "cars" and you'll see what I mean. --Tbeatty 07:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure (doubt) if any studies have been done or figures available that tells us what percentage of transactions are illegal? Secondary transactions are off the books, so we don't know how many there are, yet alone how many of these are illegal. All I can think of to address your point is to simply add "The percentage of all secondary market transactions that are illegal is unknown". --Aude (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked over all the cited refs one by one, and not sure any of these will help, but here are some things I found...

• [9] "Federal law enforcement regards the purchase of multiple handguns by a single buyer in a single transaction as an indicator that the buyer intends to traffic the guns to the illegal market. For this reason, if someone buys two or more handguns in a five-day period, federal law treats the purchase as so suspect that it must be reported to ATF. Handguns sold in multiple sales accounted for 20% of all handguns sold and traced to crime in 2000."
• [10] Virginia's one gun per month purchase law.
• [11] "A 1997 report by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics on federal firearms offenders said only 1.7 percent of crime guns are acquired at gun shows"
• [12] "ATF officials say that only about 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes"

Not sure if this is helpful...I'll look for more.--MONGO 17:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the chart on the third link, linked from that sentence would be useful. I can try and find where they got that data from and point #4 is consistent with what I've read and would be good to add. I don't favor using the Brady Center as a source. --Aude (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

An interesting read...not sure I like the source...but the summaries about the wild west being no more so and in fact likely less violent than the east are notable...[13]--MONGO 19:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Accidents

There seem to be a lot of people desputing the netrality of this article. I fail to find any substance in their claims. It is a very well-sourced article with careful wording. I guess you cannot write an article on a controversial subject without taking some flak. Good Job, Aude (I guess it you who have written most of the article). When I read it I found I wanted to read more about the accidental gunshot wounds mentioned at the beginning of the article. Unfortunately, the link does only seem to display numbers by category. I do understand if you do not adress the subject in this article. I am not well-aquainted with the exact English semantics of the word "violence" (I'm not a native speaker) but I presume accidents do not count as violence. However, it is a closely related subject. For instance, many of the programs mentioned in the text seem more intent on preventing gunshot accidents than on preventing violence. So I think many readers would appreciate a link to an article on this subject. There are such doubtful links as the word "parents". I think a link to gunrelated accidents would definitely be more interesting. -Sensemaker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.183.79.7 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

OK, let me try. You're talking about gun violence in the US, yet there's a photo of an AK47, presumably an automatic version. Automatic rfiles are almost never used in gun crimes in the United States. So why feature that weapon? 66.57.224.158 06:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... Why is the AK-47 "presumably" an automatic weapon? I could go buy one now for about $500 in semi-auto. I'd go as far as to say that the vast majority of "assault rifles" available to the general public (AK-47, AR-15, SKS, ect.) are semi-auto. So I wonder why you assume the one dipicted is full auto? —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Although there isn't enough detail in the picture to be certain, it is titled AK-47 Assault Rifle. Taking that at face value, the picture is out of place as the text concerning the '94 ban that it was close to had nothing to do with full-auto or select fire weapons. Therefore it's inclusion at that point in the article was highly misleading. I removed it. If it is to be included again, the image should be retitled AK-47 Rifle or Semi-auto AK-47, or perhaps included at some other point in the article more closely associated with assault rifles. Gregmg 18:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Face value? I think you're implying that the term "assault rifle" means "fully automatic". Absolutely not the case. See this. See this too, which says...

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law of the United States that included a prohibition on the sale of semi-automatic "assault weapons" manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment.

...and...

The act created a definition of "assault weapons" and subjected firearms that met that definition to regulation. Nineteen models of firearms were defined by name as being "assault weapons", and various semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns were classifed as "assault weapons" due to having various combinations of features.

You should put it back along with the original caption. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The definitions for Assault weapon and assault rifle are available on Wikipedia. I don't want to restate the entire definition here, however, an assault rifle is a medium caliber rifle capable of select fire (multiple shots per trigger pull). An assault weapon is generally defined as a semi-automatic weapon with two or more features as indicated in several different state laws as well as the referenced '94 ban. The AK-47 assault rifle was not subject to any additional controls under the '94 ban. As a select fire weapon, it is controlled under laws enacted in '34, '86, etc. Please don't confuse assault rifles with assault weapons.

The Wiki-links you've provided actually support my position on this issue.

Aside from this issue, since the AK-47 in either form (select fire or semi-auto) is rarely used in crime, is it really appropriate to feature a picture of it prominently in this article at all? Gregmg 22:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

We certainly disagree on the terminology. I contend that an "assault rifle" is an "assault weapon". Looking at this section, you don't very often see grenade launchers and bayonets on handguns. Also, you state that the AK wasn't affected by the '94 ban? See this, which states...

Q: What are the provisions of the ban?

A: On September 13, 1994, domestic gun manufacturers were required to stop production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds except for military or police use. Imports of assault weapons not already banned by administrative action under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush were also halted. Assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds produced prior to September 13, 1994, were "grandfathered" in under the law and can still be possessed and sold.

The bill bans, by name, the manufacture of 19 different weapons:

• Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
• Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
• Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
• Colt AR-15;
• Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
• SWD M-10; M-11; M-11/9, and M-12;
• Steyr AUG;
• INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, AND TEC-22;
• revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.

Note the term "all models". I still think that the pic was ok and should go back on. But I guess I don't really have a stand on it either way. The image didn't do much for the article anyway. For our little discussion, it doesn't matter until it matters, eh? (For the record, I feel all dirty having cited a Brady Campaign website. Blaah!!) —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Variants of the AK-47 come from all over the world; the all models reference was intended to catch all named variations of this weapon, but at no time when the '94 crime bill was being debated in congress, or in the years after when it was being interpreted by the ATF was it ever considered as applying to full-auto or select fire weapons.

In the assault weapons article please note the following:

Note that this term is not synonymous with assault rifle, which has an established technical definition.

In the wiki-link you referenced, one finds the following...

the term assault weapon is a political term used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain, mostly cosmetic features associated with military or police firearms.

One also finds in the same article...

An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and battle rifle ammunition.

So in various Wikipedia articles, assault weapons are described as semi-auto weapons, but assault rifles are defined as select fire. I stand by my contention that a picture of a select fire weapon does not belong next to text describing the '94 AW ban. I don't know what else to say. Gregmg 02:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

<heh heh heh> We can certainly debate symantics all day. But the fact is that there is no way for either of us to tell whether that picture was of a select fire weapon. Hardly seems to matter though whether it was a picture of a full-auto rifle, semi-auto rifle, a non-working replica, or a half-scale childs toy. Don't forget that we're talking about a picture, its caption, and how it pertains to the article. The article says "This provision prohibited the manufacture and importation of some military-style semiautomatic firearms..."

• The picture in question is a picture of an AK-47 (regardless of how it functions)
• The AK-47 is a military-style rifle.
• AK-47s were made in a semi-auto version.
• Semi-auto AK-47s were termed "assault rifles" under the ban.
• The passage in question is about the ban.

Sooooo... a picture of an AK-47 with the caption "assault rifle" applies. But I digress. I just re-added it with a new caption. Satisfactory? —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing to debate. As defined by multiple sources, an assault rifle is a select fire weapon. An assault weapon is a semi-automatic weapon. The '94 ban made no mention of "assault rifles". It only defined the term "semi-automatic assault weapons"; a category that included pistols, rifles, and shotguns.

As I indicated in my first comment on this issue, I don't object to the inclusion of the picture with the alternate text. I think an argument could be made that since this article pertains to gun violence in the United States, the inclusion of a picture of a weapon that is almost never used in crime is somewhat misleading. However, placed next to the text describing the '94 ban, it seems appropriate to me, so I will leave that argument for someone else. Gregmg 20:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A class

?? This article is a GA nominee, therefore how can it be A class?? i have checked the GA review page, and seen that they commented that this article meets all the criteria for GA but was not made GA as it was already rated A on the talk page. i believe that the A class rating was added without prior discussion, and thus interupted the GA status that this article was already heading for. furthermore, the user who rated as A class is not a member of the wikiproject thus shouldnt really be rating things, espcially not in this manner. therefore, u have re-rated this as GA, as according the the GA review page it did pass GA nom. SGGH 10:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You are misreading the nominator's statement that "It meets all the criteria", but this article has not actually been reviewed yet. I have reverted the changing of the GA banner, and removed the law enforcement WikiProject rating per your comments that it was changed inappropriately. Neil916 (Talk) 18:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

To achieve GA or FA, the process of nomination must be followed. Stub/Start/B/A class can be assigned by the project(s) taking care of the article. The hierarchy is Stub/Start/B/GA/A/FA. So it is possible for someone with less stringent standards to assign A and then the article fail GA. If more than one project is taking care of an article, they should ideally have the same class rating, but their importance ratings could be different.Rlevse 15:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

GA

Nice article, full of well-referenced facts and a good prose. I granted this article for Good Article status. Some suggestions to improve this article for FA:

1. Expand the suicide section. It's still too short.
2. Some citations needs to be completed its parameters (authors, publishers, dates, etc.). Why are there lists under a citation in the References section? What do they mean?
3. Better illustration graphics are needed. For instance, map of gun violence per states (there is a table so it wouldn't be so difficult to create a map), a rank of typical guns (I don't know much about gun), etc. The current article is a bit dull to read with so much figures/numbers and report-like graphics.
4. A suggestion for statements with numbers. For instance,

   In 2004, 36.5% of Americans reported having a gun in their home, which is down from 46% as reported in 1989.

might be better to follow by

In 2004, about thirds of Americans reportedly have guns at home, down from almost a half in 1989.

Or reduce some unnecessary complex statements. For instance,

Between 1987 and 1990, David McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually.[56] This equates to two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this time frame.[56]

The second statement is not necessary. Too many small detailed facts only clutter the article and confuse readers.

Anyway, the article satisfies good article criteria. Congrats. — Indon (reply) — 14:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Gun Violence?

The very title of the article tells us exactly where the author comes down on the issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.95.74.65 (talk) 07:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

It does? What would you suggest calling it then? Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 08:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not just that the title is problematic, the whole subject is highly political, biased, and even a bit fictitious from the start. I don't think there's any way for an article like this to even have the pretense of neutrality. If I started an article titled Homosexuality and the diseases it spreads, there would be outrage among other Wikipedians and the article would be immediately taken down. For some reason though, many consider it logical to blame societal woes on inanimate objects and those that possess them; thus, this article is allowed to exist. Gregmg 16:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that violence commited with firearms is not an issue in the U.S. Comparitively speaking, the U.S. has some of the most liberal gun laws in the world. A natural by-product of that will be violence. Main reason (among a few) is the nature of firearms. Firearms are, by design, a tool for causing damage very efficiently. All other uses stem from that singular function. As such, firearms are going to rank pretty high on the "instruments used in violence" scale.

The article is highly political. But biased? I don't agree. It certainly can be if approached incorrectly. But that's why you have the ability to change that. If you feel something is biased, edit away. And as far as fictitious, that's just naive. The U.S. has quite a bit of gun violence. One or two other countries have more, but the U.S. is also a world power and is often scrutinized by the rest of the world.

Your comparison to an article titled Homosexuality and the diseases it spreads is silly. This article is not titled "Guns in the U.S. and the violence they cause". Such tiltes draw a conclusion before the article is even read. THAT IS biased. See here.

This article should exist, if for no other reason than to simply convey flat out statistics. You cannot deny that there are statistics on the subject and that they are of interest among many people.

(Before you think me some sort be damn bleeding heart, see my user page) Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Pretend for a moment that you've never heard the expression Gun Violence, and consider other common phrases like Sectarian Violence, Ethnic Violence, Regional Violence, etc. At the heart of each of these concepts is the idea that people, with free will, are the instigators of violence. Gun Violence, on the other hand, seems to imply that guns are a party to the instigation of violence, which is of course ludicrous. That's what I meant by ficticious.

I admit that I'm not entirely satisfied with the analogy I was trying to draw, but I don't believe it is silly. In each, a problem (violence or disease) is attributed to to a cause (guns or homosexuality), whether or not causality can be logically discerned. The title of the article need not explicitly spell out the conclusion for it to be implied. Gregmg 16:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Still don't agree. I don't think the title does attribute violence to guns. Nor does Secular, Ethnic, or Regional Violence. What it does is segregate a type of violence in order to more closely focus on that type. If the title were "Guns in the U.S. and the violence they cause" as I mentioned earlier, then that is attributing violence to guns. And of course we know that guns are merely a tool. People are responsible for violence. And I think that is the focus of this article. The violence PEOPLE cause with a given tool, in this case, guns.

To eliminate this article because the topic is controversial or because we don't think there is a suvh thing as gun violence would be censorship.

But I digress. This is a debate that is unlikely to reach a concensus other than "agree to disagree". Fact is, this article is unlikely to be removed, renamed, or merged. Mostly because it's a) extremely well referenced; and b) long enough that it can stand alone.

But hey... you can suggest renaming or merging. I won't oppose it.

Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I am unlikely to rename it or merge it with another article, as I don't think it's a topic that is worthy of an encyclopedia article in the first place. Gun Violence, as defined by this article, is a contrived political concept. I respect your opinion, but I think the implication is that the guns are either the motivation for or cause of violence, which of course is nonsense. The fact that much has been written on this subject over the years by people with an agenda doesn't change the underlying facts. Gregmg 23:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

So that we're clear and I've said it out loud... I do NOT believe guns are a motivation for or a cause of violence, nor did I imply it. People are the cause of violence, motivated by many different factors. A gun is merely a tool which is sometimes used during violent acts. Guns absolutely do not cause violence, but violence does sometimes involve guns. IMO, that's what this article is about; violence involving guns. Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that the implication about Gun Violence was yours. My concerns about this as a contrived political issue go back almost two decades. I respect your opinion, but obviously, I disagree. I remain deeply concerned about this as a Wikipedian; I do not want to see Wikipedia used to further any political cause, regardless of how I feel about the merits of the cause. Gregmg 03:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Older studies

I think studies that are prior than 1997 should not be used, unless they are being used to be compared with a more recent study. I think that sounds reasonable enough. What about you? ~ UBeR 02:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedits and review. Though, I disagree with not using older studies. Many older studies remain influential and are still frequently cited in scholarly literature, such as the Kansas City preventive patrol experiment in 1972-73. [14] In a spot check of references used in this article, the paper entitled "Gang ownership and gang membership", Google Scholar finds 30 other papers that cited this one. [15], "Youth Violence, Guns and the Illicit Drug Industry" has been cited 144 times [16], etc. This means that the scholarly community finds these studies reliable, despite the publish date. If for any particular reference, a more recent, comparable study can be found, then it should included here as a reference. --Aude (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you for your insight. I typically agree. My only concern was that perhaps the data has changed over the course of the 10 years. ~ UBeR 03:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In such cases, I think the references should be qualified by saying something like "In xxxx, x was found in a study by y". --Aude (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Dead Link

The link to the reference in note 8 is dead. Don't have time to check the rest, just thought I'd throw that out there. I was going to dispute the neutrality of the article until I saw the talk page, and I now see that it's already been done. I can't put my finger on it, but it just doesn't read neutral to me.

A few years ago - 3 or 4 - I read that the Us and Canada have about the same per capita gun ownership. Our murder rate has more to do with something else than guns - we just don't like each other. 159.105.80.141 19:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Two-thirds of non-fatal violent injuries" are attributable to gun violence? Common sense does not support that statement. The cited source, footnote # 3, does not support that statement.

Looks like it was 18 per 100,000 are associated with firearms vs. 710 per 100,000 for all violence, or roughly 2.5%, per the cited source, formerly #3. Have removed previous statement and the #3 reference that claimed that 2/3rds was due to firearms. Thanks. Yaf 07:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

GA review — kept

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik 07:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Selective reporting - Using references that do not back up the statements - POV pushing

I have just had the somewhat unpleasant task of untangling a hedge of unverified statements about the US having the highest murder rate in the developed world. The problem with this statement is that it wasn't verified by a quote from a reliable scholarly source, nor did any of the linked sources make this statement.

The CIA defines South Africa as a 'developed' country - I followed a link from this very page to verify this, this page also states that South Africa has a higher murder rate and a higher proportion committed with firearms than the US.

Now, in fairness, there are other definitions that don't include South Africa as developed, however, making a statement like this without a scholarly reference is original research and the dangers of that have just been exposed (ie making a false inference that the US has a higher gun homicide rate than South Africa).

What adds greater evidence that this original research is selective reasoning to support an agenda is one of the defenders of this article

" In rural areas, the homicide rate is 3.5 per 100,000, which is still higher than overall homicide rates for most other developed countries (1.58 in all of Canada — its rural and urban areas, 1.15 in the Netherlands, 1.16 in Germany, 1.25 in Spain, 1.29 in Italy, 1.57 in Australia, 1.78 in France, 2.01 in South Korea, 2.3 in Malaysia, 2.8 in Finland). Developing countries are another story."

The inclusion of Malaysia inferred here as 'developed', which I have never in before my life heard referred to as developed, and exclusion of South Africa shows that the definition of a "developed country" is any country that has a murder rate lower than the US. So it's no wonder the US has the "highest murder rate in the developed world". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.72.109 (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Pinglis (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Nice try, but the CIA World Factbook indicates that Malaysia is a far more developed country than South Africa. The GDP of Malaysia in 2008 was $14,500 per capita and South Africa's GDP was only $10,700. The figures for 2010 are about the same. The unemployment rate in Malaysia is 3.5% while in South Africa it is 23.3%. I could go on. You could also look at Wikipedia's own page on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country

Changed a graph

In the course of a discussion I noted anomalous data on violence rates I changed it after referencing the two sources already given. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_violence_in_the_United_States&diff=191787697&oldid=191773197 75.17.83.197 (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Household Gun Ownership stats; Public Health Perspective

The decline in percentage of households owning guns can easily be explained as a statistical artifact of decrease in household size. If the probability of a randomly selected individual owning one or more guns is some number, say P, then the probability of one or more of N randomly selected individuals owning one or more guns is 1-((1-p)^N). For any probability P greater than 0 and less than 1, this number converges on P as N goes to 1 and on 1 as N goes to infinity. So as household size declines, the number of households owning guns will decrease if individual gun ownership remains constant. Assuming that only one in five persons owns a gun, then for a household size of 4.5 people (as in 1915), 63% of households would have one or more gun owners; for a household size of 3.5 (1970), 54% of households would have one or more gun owners; and for a household size of 2.5 (2007), 43% of households would have one or more gun owners. Practically of course this model is somewhat inaccurate because households do not consist of randomly selected individuals, but the effect is undeniable. Essentially, a reduction in the number of households owning guns would be expected as household size decreases and is a trivial observation. I am surprised that this obvious fact is not observed in the article.

I leave aside the issues of non-response bias in any survey that attempts to gauge gun ownership by asking people if they own a gun. Clearly a serious problem.

I think this article could be improved by putting the risk of death from gun homicide in context. For example, in the U.S. about 2,400,000 people die each year. Viewing the 2005 homicide stats from the DOJ, [17], shows 8,478 killed with handguns and 2,868 with guns other than handguns. Given that 42,000 people die in auto accidents each year, 15,000 from falls, and about 4,000 from drowning, I think it is patently facetious to suggest that gun homicides, and in particular homicides with long guns, are some sort of public health crisis -- especially when we have hundreds of thousands of premature deaths from smoking and obesity to deal with.

I would however take this further and propose that gun homicides lower overall crime rates. Given that 75% of gun homicide victims have a prior criminal record, can we state that those homicides have the salutary effect of lowering overall crime rates by removing criminals from the population? It's like executing 9,000 criminals per year. I think this is definitely possible and may explain the rise in non-homicide crime rates experienced in places that enact stringent gun control laws. This is an example of what Garrett Hardin would call ecolate thinking. I am sure Sarah Brady has never considered the likely increase in rape, aggravated assault, burglary, and other crimes that would result from avoiding the extra-legal execution of 9,000 criminals per year.

TwoGunChuck (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

International comparison

Why does every other country have up-to-date stats, yet the US have stats from ( according to the graphs on the page ) one of the worst years in the past several decades? How is this not NPOV? 169.226.69.156 (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I went to go update the graph from the same source as the other stats and ran into a huge problem. The data at NationMaster appears to be screwy to say the least. For counties like South Africa the reported number of gun homicides ( per capita ) is larger, by a large amount, than the reported homicides ( per capita ). This would seriously call into question the validity of the data retrieved from that site. Needless to say I think that whole section needs to be rewritten or removed unless current and accurate data can be sourced for international comparison. 74.70.154.77 (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuing... off the nationmaster page. "UN-crime survey sates: "The statistics cannot take into account the differences that exist between the legal definitions of offences in various countries, of the different methods of tallying, etc.Consequently, the figures used in these statistics must be interpreted with great caution. In particular, to use the figures as a basis for comparison between different countries is highly problematic."". Based on that alone ( that the sourced material does not support the comparison of numbers ) I think the section should be pulled. 74.70.154.77 (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I should have logged in. For accounting both IP addresses above are me. I have gone ahead and remove the section because it's conclusions are unsupported by the primary source. Brontide (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I was eager to see the stats that backed up the claim that "crime rates in the U.S. are similar to those of other developed countries." When I looked at the sources provided i found these statements: "while the United States does not have the highest rate of homicide or firearm-related homicide, it does have the highest rates for these among industrialized democracies. Homicide rates in the United States are two to four times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it. Higher rates are found in developing countries and those with political instability. The same is true for firearm-related homicides, but the differences are even greater. The firearm-related homicide rate in the United States is more like that of Argentina, Mexico, and Northern Ireland than England or Canada. While certainly not the highest homicide or firearm-related homicide rate in the world, these rates in the United States are in the upper quartile in each case." http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/53.html and "The rate of firearm deaths in the United States (14.24 per 100 000) exceeds that of its economic counterparts (1.76) eightfold and that of UMI countries (9.69) by a factor of 1.5." http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/2/214 I'm not saying what is right or not, but if you want to put that U.S. crime rates are similar to other developed countries, the ref provided should confirm that.Frankie816 (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent table

The table comparing the US to other nations is grossly inconsistent. Specifically, one reference (currently #54) is used for the 'Homicide by Gun' row, with data in the early to mid 90s for all nations. Several references are used for the 'Homicide (all)' row, with the years noted below. The issue is that the reference used for most other countries in the 'Homicide (all)' row includes numbers for the US which are substantially lower than the one from the specific source used for that column. This is apparently to rectify what would look like an error, as the US's total homicide rate in that reference (circa 2000) is lower than the listed gun homicide rate (circa 1993).

This table needs to be corrected, preferably pulling both numbers from pages at the current reference 50, which will result in all data being comparable year 2000 UN data, and the year row can be removed in favor of a note that all numbers are from 2000. I'm not familiar enough with the table markup to do this immediately, but I will do it in the next few days if nobody else does.

The specific pages I plan to reference are: Current reference 50, overall homicide rates: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

New reference, from same source, for gun homicide rates: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

If there is a more up to date international reference than the 2000 UN data I would love to see it as well.

24.21.59.195 (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this is the issue referenced in the 'Changed a Graph' and 'International Comparison' sections above, which I would have seen if I had read this whole talk page instead of just searching for '1993' to see if anyone else was asking about that year. I will remove those sections as well as this one if nobody objects to the change before I make it. 24.21.59.195 (talk) 11:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Nationmaster.com

Just a FYI people, nationmaster does not appear to be a good primary source of data. It's usually a secondary source ( check and use the original source if possible ); in some cases, specifically some of the Gun Violence stats, are specifically sourced from wikipedia itself! Beware.

Example: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_fir_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop

All stats from that site should be suspect until the primary source can be identified. 74.70.154.77 (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. If possible see if any related external links can be added, and add an inline citation for "The Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition is a bipartisan coalition of 210 mayors from 40 different United States cities, united in their stated goal of "making the public safer by getting illegal guns off the streets." I would also recommend updating "Many suffer non-fatal gunshot wounds, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimating 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000." if there is any new data. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Title versus Scope of Article

Hi. Thanks for putting this article together. It contains many interesting and relevant statistics. However, the scope of the article in no ways fits the title.

For one thing, you have micro-nized the historical aspects of American gun violence. There's no mention, for instance, of organized crime. Guns violence also played a major role in the labor movement, on both sides of the fence. Your singling out of the Haymarket Riot is, in truth, almost laughable. Ever hear of a "John L. Lewis Convincer"? Additionally, I'd speculate that guns played a role in virtually every lynching. Etc, etc, etc. It's a very broad subject, as you can imagine. Bonnie and Clyde, John Dillinger, Billy the Kid, the Hatfield/McCoy Feud, Wyatt Earp, the arming of the American Indians... the list goes on and on. Also, from both a historical and modern viewpoint, your brief mention of the 2nd amendment trivializes a controversial, complex subject.

Anyway, after a synopsis of recent gun violence statistics, your article moves away from gun violence into a... gun policy debate? I am not sure exactly what it moves towards, but it is not on-topic. "Cop Killer" ammunition is on topic. The evolution of TASER use is on topic; legal versus illegal firearms- that's on topic. Increased police usage of rubber bullets for "riot control"- on topic. That's gun violence. But you cover gun ownership trends and issues. Last, there is no speculation on future trends in gun violence in the US. What are the experts predicting?BalancedScales (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Graphic deleted for breach of WP:OR

I have deleted the graphic "Overall homicide and gun homicide rates by country (2000)" from the article. A look at WP:OR explains that this is not appropriate. The graphic is not in the original article. Its selective sequencing and selective choice of countries for comparison requires the reader to examine the chart and draw a conclusion about the level of gun violence in the United States, which amounts to original research and/or WP:SYNTH, which are not appropriate for Wikipedia. The graph for example hides the fact that gun death rates in modern stable democracies such as the UK have gun death rates 20-40 times lower than that in the United States. --Hauskalainen (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because there is no such "fact". Only your opinion. The homicide rate is not 40 or even 20 times higher in the US than in the UK, for 4.71/100,000 is not 40 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. Yaf (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Despite your attempt to muddy the issue by changing what I said (we are talking about GUN homicides, not all homicides), I am right. You are 41 times more likely to die from a gun in the US than in the England and Wales. 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 gun 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. The number of homicides (murder, manslaughter and infanticide) in England and Wales (population 53.39 million) in 2006 was 746 of which 50 involved the use of a firearm. The rate of homicides using firearms, is less than one per million This in comparison to the U.S. where the overall homicide rate is slightly under 57 per million of which 67.9% involves the use of a firearm.

Quod erat demonstrandum. --Hauskalainen (talk)

Not really. There are lies, damn lies and statistics. Getting knifed, the predominant method of homicide popular in the UK according to some sources, is much more likely in the UK than in the US, by your same argument, for individuals that are killed. Skillets, too, I should mention, are roughly 50 times more likely in the UK to kill than in the US, wielded in the hands of irate housewives irate at the repeated complaints of their continued lack of cooking abilities. Professionals call this phenomenon substitution, where the arms that are available are what are used to kill, ceteris paribus. But it really doesn't matter. Knife, gun, or skillet, Dead is Dead. Your continued pushing of the method of killing over the fact of death is just evidence of hoplophobia. Freud claimed a fear of guns was a sign of some interesting problems, incidentally. Yaf (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

disproportionate crime coverage, under coverage of suicide. NPOV problem

Considering that suicide is the constitutes the greatest form of gun violence in the US, yet it receives just a scant few sentences of coverage??? While, crime gun violence receives many paragraphs of coverage. This, perhaps unintentionally, reinforces and mirrors the POV push that firearms for self defensive against criminals is a virtuous thing. This, at the least, has appearances of a non-neutral pro-gun POV push and must be fixed. Thanks is advance for helping with this. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV problem

This whole page has POV problems lots of anti and pro buzz words. This whole article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.112.14 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks for sharing. the talk page for an article is to discuss improving the article, not simply voicing your personal opinion that it should be deleted. there are formal processes for deleting articles; you're welcome to engage those processes. simply declaring here that you think it should be deleted is truly fascinating for us to learn, but unhelpful, and not within the purview of this discussion page. Anastrophe (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You are focusing on one sentence and ignoring the other. This article does have too many "anti and pro buzz words". I agree that the article suffers from this POV tit for tat and WP:OWN. Deleting the article and starting over is a genuine option towards fixing this problem, though I am doubtful that a second attempt would be better considering the systemic bias problem with the editing system in use at Wikipedia. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Pardon if my POV spilled over but this article is 90% POV. i tried to remove the worst of it but it still stands in violation. If i knew how to submit it for deletion i would —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.112.14 (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

removed some POV still needs work. This needs to be just the facts not POV. the tilt of this article is "guns are bad but some think they are good" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.112.14 (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Question about the title.

"Gun violence in the United States" should be changed to "Crimes involving guns in the United States" or "Gun-related crime in America" otherwise it makes it sound like the problem is the gun when in fact it is the criminal. ChesterTheWorm (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm

This sounds like the NRA bumper sticker "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". There are three main types of gun violence: accidental, suicide, and criminal. We should stay away from the partisan framing of this issue that criminal gun violence is the only type of gun violence. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps it might be changed to "Violence involving guns in the United States?" A bit wordy, but it would avoid the potentially-loaded phrase "Gun violence." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.49.200 (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think "gun violence" or "violence involving guns" are equally good. As you point out, "violence involving guns" is a bit wordy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink fuzzy slippers (talk • contribs) 21:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

inaccurate .38 special picture

The picture of the S&W model 60 is a bad example and the caption contains technically incorrect information.

The model 60 is a .357 magnum, not a .38 special and the 3" barrel is somewhat of a rarity. This picture should be of a ~2" barrel .38 special if it is to be an example of the most common type of gun confiscated by police and traced by the ATF.

I recommend a S&W model 36 or a colt detective special. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.186.237.194 (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

academic versus anecdotal

Citing Philip J. Cook, the article states "Research and statistics have shown that guns intensify crime situations, and increase the likelihood of a more violent or lethal outcome." My sister was assaulted in her home by a home invader; when she produced a .357 revolver, her assailant fled; she was able to detain his accomplice for arrest by responding officers. Both criminals are currently (June 2010) serving time. The gun defused this crime situation and made a less violent, less potentially lethal outcome possible. (I am sure though that my sister's assailant thought the situation had intensified and that the gun had increased the likelihood of a more violent or lethal outcome for him.) Since there was no dead or wounded criminal, and no shots fired, I suppose this would not count as a defensive gun use to Hemenway, McDowall, Donohue, et al. I suspect that research and statistics on this subject tend to support the apriori political assumptions of the academics studying the issue. The legal gun ban advocated by academics Morris & Hawkins 1970 might have disarmed my sister, but it would have had no effect on her assailant, who relied on brute force. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Notes

I'm temporarily keeping some notes here, while working on this article. --Aude (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

About this article

Since this is a controversial topic, only the highest-quality sources should be used in this article, with most statements backed up with scholarly peer reviewed sources. This article is an overview of the issue, here are the common views of the issue held by so and so, here's what the research says. The article mainly focuses on the U.S., due to the fact that statistics and research indicate that gun violence and relationship to homicides/suicides is by far the greatest in the U.S. International comparisons will be noted here. --Aude (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of research and literature on gun violence pertains to the United States. In the future, I may rename this article as "Gun violence in the United States", and keep looking for more general sources on the topic of gun violence. For now, I think the article may need to stay as-is, named "Gun violence". There are many other criminology and criminal justice articles and topics in dire need of attention. I do intend to come back and work on generalizing the topic and splitting the article into two: "Gun violence" and "Gun violence in the United States". --Aude (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you know?

This article has many facts and figures that would be good for the Main Page, DYK. Need to work on this article some more before submitting these.

• ...that gun violence is involved in nearly 70% of homicides in the United States, which is a significantly higher rate than other developed countries? --Aude (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• ...that gun violence is the second leading cause of death for youths age 15-19 in the United States, with only motor vehicle accidents taking more lives? --Aude (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the two statistics presented above are right out of a Brady Campaign talking points handbook clearly indicates a point of view on the part of their author, as does the article in it's entirety.DesertPhox (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Missing a rather important piece of information

Uh....how many gun-related homicides are there in an average year? Or in a particular recent year? Amazingly, this article doesn't say! The article says there were an estimated 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000. The article also says firearms were used in 16,907 suicides in the United States during 2004. But nothing at all about the annual number of homicides! That's probably the one tidbit of information that most people would be most interested in, and yet it isn't to be found here. I would've thought that a lengthy article on gun violence in the U.S. would contain some information on the number of gun-related homicides per year. Captain Quirk (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, I do not believe there are any statistics out there to show that. I remember doing some research on the topic awhile back, and it turned out that none of the law enforcement agencies take certain statistics. I cannot remember which one specifically. — Neutralman2¹⁰ 17:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. There are a number of unresolved POV issues here, up to and including whether the article ought to be deleted. But there does not seem to be consensus for a move. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Gun violence in the United States → Guns in the United States — The scope of this article has increased to the point that the current title no longer accurately reflects the entirety and direction of its content. In addition, the term 'gun violence' is a politically charged term that implies a pro gun-control point of view. The article and its content would be better served by changing the title to the proposed. WP:POVTITLE DesertPhox (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly support — This article's discussion page is laden with NPOV arguments relating to the title, scope, and tone of this article. As a result of the ensuing edits, however, the article has increased in scope and now covers such subjects as Gun Ownership, Public Policy, and Self-Defense. The characterization of certain included topics as violence, firearm self-defense in particular, trivializes its importance in the prevention of crime and the preservation of innocent life; Even if the term is applied to it in criminology circles. The article itself has too many POV issues to bother listing here, but changing the title to "Guns in the United States" is a good start toward eliminating these issues and allowing the content to be presented in a neutral frame. The proposed title contains no politically charged terms, accurately reflects and new variety of information, and allows the trend of this article toward neutralization to continue in earnest. DesertPhox (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - for precisely the reason that it DOES removes the POV aspect of the title. Of course it's POV. That's the point of its existence. The USA DOES have an image of violence associated with gun ownership. And that's what this article is (meant to be) about. Only those who want to pretend the problem (at least of image) doesn't exist would want to hide an article about it under another name. If it contains content that doesn't belong under the existing title, remove that content. (How did it get there in the first place?) HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • reply to the above: The view that violence is associated with gun ownership is precisely what is under debate, I could list 30+ studies pointing in either direction; it would be a moot point and is not what is under discussion here. It is impossible not to acknowledge the debate exists and that the current title frames the whole article under the POV of those who hold a favorable disposition to gun-control. The points you have made merely reinforce the argument for a title change. DesertPhox (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • HiLo, perhaps the title ought then to be Public perceptions of guns and violence in the United States? —Tamfang (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, something like that could work. It would at least retain some semblance of the original meaning. HiLo48 (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support some kind of move. The current title does not reflect the article's contents. While there is some info on gun violence, there is far more content on gun laws, gun control, &c. The article seems to be more polemic battleground than an encyclopedia article on gun violence. —  AjaxSmack  01:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose split an article about Guns in the United States off instead. This article is not so expansive that "Guns in the United States" is an appropriate title. It is still focused on violence. There is little about the gun industry in this article, or gun culture 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support a move to Public perceptions of guns and violence in the United States (good idea, Tamfang) or something very similar. I agree with DesertPhox and AjaxSmack regarding the reasons that the current title is not desirable. However, I don't really like Guns in the United States because it also doesn't accurately describe the content. --Hamitr (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support/Follow-up – I considered a variety of titles before submitting, including one similar to the "Public perceptions.." title. I decided on 'Guns in the United States' after consulting the Wikipedia policy on article names: WP:TITLE

–Recognizability and Naturalness – Someone who wanted an overview of guns in America would much more likely search 'Guns in the United States'. Readers who are unfamiliar with the topic are unlikely to search for "public perceptions of guns.."

–Precision – The proposed title fits the topic unambiguously. Further, while the article may not yet have headings for every topic about guns in the United States, it is certainly headed in that direction, and has already reached the point where 'Guns in the United States' is an appropriate title. This title will only become more fitting as time passes and more topics are added, eg. industry, history, etc.

–Conciseness – Shorter titles are preferred to longer ones

–Titles containing "and" WP:AND – The word "and" in an article title is generally to be avoided.

For these reasons, I decided on "Guns in the United States" as opposed to something longer. I also think "Public perceptions of guns and violence in the United States" still unnecessarily lumps guns and violence together and implies causality, not just relation.——DesertPhox (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

...thereby ignoring the reason this article exists in the first place. There IS a perception that, compared with most other western democracies, the USA DOES have a problem of violence associated with guns. I genuinely suspect political motives from those wanting to hide this perception. It's a complete POV change in the title. HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There is also the perception that guns and violence have no causative relationhsip at all, no more than cars have a relationship to vehicular manslaughter. The title, as current, engages in that debate from one side by giving undue weight to one particular view WP:WEIGHT. Articles that exist for a 'reason' are usually politically motivated. "Guns in the United States" is a neutral title that allows both sides of the debate to be documented within the article without giving a slant to one side or the other. DesertPhox (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's a political issue. THAT'S what the article should be about. If you don't want an article about the FACT that many people think the USA has a problem with violence and guns, just ask for its deletion. But guess what? You won't get anywhere, because the perception problem is real. To try to pretend it doesn't exist is equally political, and manipulative. Face the truth. There IS a problem. This article should describe it. HiLo48 (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

By that logic, someone could create an article about abortion and title it "Fetus Murder" because of a pervasive perception stemming from that sort of conviction. To have an article describe an issue and title it by what one side tends to call it is to give undue weight to that point of view. The scope implied by the title I have proposed easily encompasses coverage of the perception you refer to without giving extra weight to one side. I'm not trying to hide one side of the debate, but the current title presents all the information through a distinct filter.DesertPhox (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No. You have, as many Americans do on this matter, totally missed the point. Abortion is everywhere. The gun culture image problem is an especially American problem. It's real. Saying it doesn't exist, or, we have to present both sides, misses the point. Again, there is a reason for the existence of this article under it's present title. If you disagree, have the courage to argue for it's deletion. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose This article is about gun violence or violence committed using guns. It's a very widely known term, extensively covered in scholarly literature [18], and also used by more conservatively-biased news organizations such as Fox News, used by the US Dept of Justice and there are 3.8 million Google "gun+violence" search results for the term. "Gun violence" is clearly the most common and appropriate name for what this article is about and definitely should not be renamed. --Aude (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

  "Gun-related violence in the United States" might be an acceptable option, though. Although not near as widely used as "gun violence", examples where "gun-related violence" is used include the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association, which I'd think definitely try to stay out and rise above politics when talking about this topic. --Aude (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You are missing my point, the article amounts to selective reporting. That is: To create an article about gun violence and ignore or diminish other aspects (eg Sporting, Self-Defense, Industry, Culture) is to engage in advocacy for gun control. Simple as that. To fix this, the title must be changed and the scope expanded. What and whomever calls it gun violence is irrelevant, these organizations are discussing specific things (news items, statistics, etc) and aren't responsible for presenting a broader picture (as in the case of Wikipedia). An article specifically about gun violence engages in advocacy.

On a side note, in the spirit of attmepting to reach a consensus, I would support the title "Gun Culture in the United States" for which violence is an obvious (but not overwhelming) factor.DesertPhox (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose still Those seeking a change in name are really seeking a different article. Please be honest and courageous. Ask for this one to be deleted, rather than changing its intention by stealth. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There is good information here, Aude is a respectable member of the community and has done far too much work on the article for it to be deleted (if that's what you are proposing, I get the impression you are daring me). The problem is with the framing and the scope, defined right off the bat by the title which needs changing if it is to imply anything other than "Guns are bad". I stand by my argument that an article that limits its scope (via the title) to gun violence engages in advocacy for gun control by influencing the nature of the information presented to the reader and leaving them more inclined than before to support gun control, having been made aware only of the violence associated with them instead of the whole picture. DesertPhox (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Something needs to be done. The proposed title is misleading, because it implies the subject is weapons. The current page, while POV & wrong, is at least clear. I like DesertPhox's "Gun culture", because it allows complete coverage without the underlying assumption guns cause violence. (I notice murders with knives aren't "knife violence"...) "To create an article about gun violence and ignore or diminish other aspects (eg Sporting, Self-Defense, Industry, Culture) is to engage in advocacy for gun control." Absoultely right. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The subject IS weapons, explicitly guns, in the USA, and the problems with which they are associated. Only someone wanting to deny that as a subject in it's own right would want this article gone. America is at the extreme for western democracies in the status of guns in society. They ARE associated with violence, at least in the minds of much of the world. It's a perfectly good subject for an article. HiLo48 (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support/suggestion The article discusses other aspects of firearms in the United States. There is also the Gun politics in the United States page. Perhaps, the more sensible approach would be to merge both pages into one article. From my read of both articles, there are some overlaps. — Neutralman2¹⁰ 17:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a fundamental problem here. People are saying "There is content here that doesn't fit under the present title, so change the title." Surely the correct approach is to remove the irrelevant content. Unless of course you don't like the title, but that's obviously a separate and POV matter. Don't mix up the two. HiLo48 (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

No, but all this "gun violence in the US" page amounts to is a page full of anti-gun or anti-gun control. Most of this stuff has some political spin. I think the correct approach is a merger. I've been monitoring this page for a bit. And it seems that many edits are made with the sole purpose of placing a political spin on the statistics. And really, what is the point of statistics if not to support one political persuasion over the other? — Neutralman2¹⁰ 19:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Statistics are used to predict the behaviour of matter in quantum physics. Not terribly political. I will say again. If you don't believe an article with this name should exist, show the courage to ask for its deletion. Don't try to hide the content among the (politically motivated?) views of others. We do seem to be going round in circles here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Statistics can be used to prove anything. Most of the "statistics" used in "gun violence" have a skew to support an anti-gun philosophy. Quantum physics has no relevance in this matter. If you wish to get rid of the politically motivated statistics then this page would be roughly two lines of text. This whole page is politically motivated, therefore it makes sense to merge it with the Gun politics page. We do seem to be going in circles as you appear to not understand the simple fact that this page is covered with political diatribe. With all the different political motivations behind most (if not all) of these statistics, it is impossible to discuss gun violence in the US without discussing the politics behind it.— Neutralman2¹⁰ 15:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - The article is about gun violence. By pushing it into Guns in the US, we are basically saying that guns, and subsequently gun owners, in the US are violent. Guns in the US should reflect Gun Culture in the US -Deathsythe (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, have you read the discussion? The crux of the debate here is whether an article exclusively covering gun violence constitutes advocacy for gun control, which is the case in my opinion. And also whether it is fair to characterize firearm self-defense as violence, as the nature of the word violence implies wrongdoing. The purpose of the name change is to allow the article to increase in scope, and also reflect the changes that have already taken place. Also to remove the negative portrayal of lawful self-defense as violence. DesertPhox (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Ok then, I misunderstood slightly. I don't think it has a place in Guns in the US though. Something like Self-Defense in the US would much better suit the scope of that sort of article and encourage a less demonizing negative portrayal. This article could be kept for legitimate gun violence, gang related, school shootings, etc...-Deathsythe (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I considered it, and there has been some discussion of that in the above topics. Problem is, it wouldn't address other major issue concerning this article; there is no context. The only information provided here is information that would lead someone to form an anti-gun point of view, which is why the article engages in advocacy. It needs the context provided by information about hunting, recreation, legislature, and industry to balance the negative information about guns. This issue is extremely politicized and any information about it needs context to be considered neutral. I agree with HiLo48 that the information has a place, but Gun violence should be a PART of an article about Guns or Gun culture, not a central focus. Also the fact that this article would necessitate the creation of an article like 'Self-Defense in the United States' should be a major red flag to a POV issue on this article. DesertPhox (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Violence will be violence regardless of how you slice it. Violence should be represented here by legitimate statistics and fact, not by emotion/POV. Self-Defense in the US wouldn't just be a firearms related article though, there are plenty of other means to self defense that could also be discussed, as well as even home defense type things (alarm systems, etc...)

I do not feel that gun violence should be a part of gun culture because violence is NOT a part of gun culture, and subsequently, gun culture does not equate to violence, that is something that needs to be greatly emphasized. -Deathsythe (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I should clarify; Guns' involvement in criminal activity (as well as suicide, unfortunately) should be covered in an article about Gun Culture as part of a larger picture. We don't have articles about automobile violence; fatality and accident statistics are covered with context. This article has no such context and leads one to conclude negative things about firearm ownership in the United States. The problem with 'facts and statistics' is they almost always support the bias of the source, and even reliable sources can be made irrelevant or biased with clever narrative. I assume by the discussion you initiated below that you have read the article and have become aware of how the emotion/POV is hidden in the narrative of the entire article. The problem isn't going away unfortunately, but we can build context around it, and that starts with changing the title.DesertPhox (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for Deathsythe, but I am aware "of how the emotion/POV is hidden in the narrative of the entire article." However, I also agree with Deathsythe that "gun culture does not equate to violence," and we should be careful not to imply such by the proposed move/merge.

Now, some sources certainly do draw attention to any [perceived] correlations between "gun culture" (especially within the US) and "gun violence," and they sometimes also imply causation. Articles on either/both topics should address the claims of such sources, but merging or moving "Gun Violence" with/to "Gun Culture" would put too much weight on that POV. --Hamitr (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

DesertPhox. Everything you said about the topics of gun violence does have its place, but that place is not rooted in Gun culture, it is an unfortunate byproduct, but does not correctly portray gun culture. Any attempt to make that so here is a clear violation of NPOV. Gun culture emphasizes safety and adequate training, NOT violence. Adding a See Also link to Gun culture at the end to cross reference it to Gun Violence in the US might be an amiable compromise. -Deathsythe (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As a gun owning American you may want that to be true, but you really should ask the rest of the world what it sees and thinks of America's gun culture. HiLo48 (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48, what "the rest of the world sees and thinks of America's gun culture" really has no bearing on the discussion at hand. You obviously have a very strong opinion about this topic, but please try to keep your comments relevant to the discussion. This discussion page is not a forum, and comments should focus on discussing how to improve the article. Thanks. --Hamitr (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48, you are missing the point. This whole article is regarding US gun culture, US gun policy, and US gun violence. Your point is moot, holds no encyclopedic relevence, and as Hamitr said, Wikipedia is not a forum. If you wish to meet offline, or off wiki rather, to discuss gun policy and politics I would be more than happy, but this page is to discuss improvements to this article and help keep a neutral point of view. -Deathsythe (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Regarding Lightning Engineer's Recent Edit

(Seen here, I am sure that there is a reasonable source to back this data up without violating WP:SYNTH. I don't have the time to search for one now, but the information is certainly out there. I propose we keep the information there (as it is a legitimate statistic/analysis, but tag it with {{citation needed}} until a proper source is found. The verbiage would need to be changed to make it sound more encyclopedic than opinion of course.

I will wait until either a discussion consensus is reached, or a day or two before editing the article to include some of those points. -Deathsythe (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that the citation just previous to this addition states that no such conclusion can be drawn, please find a reliable source first. (Correlation does not imply causation.) AV3000 (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I am aware, however we all know that statistical data can be manipulated and made to support basically whatever one wishes to conclude, it is merely a matter of what lens you examine it with. That in mind, given that this is such a "hot button" issue, there will be evidence to support both sides. Might I direct you to John Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime" which examines this in detail. I am certain I could find a decent citation in there when I return home later, or I could try to find it in the PDF I linked to above during lunch today. -Deathsythe (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me adding this is POV pushing, when there are cited sources saying Lott got it wrong. (BTW, I happen to think Lott's right.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

We can always tweak the verbiage to something like "It has been suggested" or "some studies suggest" and cite Lott. Sources will exist on both sides of every argument, but there are even more for a polarized issue such as this. We just need to attempt to present the data in as clear, concise, and neutral, manner possible. -Deathsythe (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears there is a consensus that this page needs to be revamped entirely, at the very least, to present information in a more neutral, encyclopaedic manner. Though I understand the points raised about gun violence not being a part of gun culture, I still maintain that gun violence is used to promote and support anti-gun legislation and regulations. Would it not seem natural to have it in a page discussing the politics surrounding guns?— Neutralman2¹⁰ 15:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the topic of "gun violence in the US" should be covered in Gun politics in the United States, but not in Gun culture. Should we propose merging this article with Gun politics in the United States instead of moving it as proposed above? --Hamitr (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I would fully support a merge. I actually proposed a merger a good while ago but probably missed a few steps as it generated literally no discussion and I later removed the heading. Alot of the information here could be drastically condensed and placed into Gun Politics in the United States as much of it is very tit-for-tat. You have a mention of study, followed by 'this person said they were wrong', followed by 'the publisher said oh, no i wasn't', followed by.....you get it. Other info can be eliminated entirely.. hotline contact information, for instance? DesertPhox (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I suggested in the Merge topic, but everyone seemed to get sidetracked and thought I suggested placing it under gun culture. I would defer to you, DesertPhox, to handle the merging.— Neutralman2¹⁰ 18:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the lead sentence for this article says, "Gun Violence in the United States is an intensely debated 'political' issue in the United States. So clearly, it should be a subcategory of the Gun Politics in the United States article. — Neutralman2¹⁰ 02:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. If the lead line said "Gun Violence in the United States is an intensely debated 'cultural' issue in the United States" would you still be pushing to move it into politics? I don't think that's an objective stance. The gun politics article is already a clusterf*ck of NPOV issues and bias, do you really want to introduce more into that? The violence article does stand on its own. I had proposed a solution in WP:GUNS, who are greatly involved in the articles in question, but let me repost it here as well...

• Greatly improve the Gun culture article.
  • Expand Gun Culture in the United States to its own article
  • Stress safety, licensing, training, hunting, etc...
  • Provide a See Also link to Gun violence in the United States in both articles.
• Keep Gun violence in the United States to pertain to illegal use of firearms, suicide, school shootings, etc.
  • This needs to be done with extreme caution to adhear to WP:NPOV, facts and figures need to be cited explicitly, while noting that correlation does not imply causation.
• Avoid linking Gun Culture in the US to Gun Violence. We cannot stress enough the true face of US gun culture - safety, training, tradition.

-Deathsythe (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would. The whole article is politically charged. And if we're trying to avoid POV, then this article needs a total revamping because it is clearly biased toward more gun control, which is a political topic. And, gun violence is not a cultural issue in the United States, unless you are trying to classify the criminal world as a culture. As for your proposed solution, you'll get no objection from me. It appears that there is a general consensus that something needs to be done. I suggest that someone start to make the changes and we'll go from there. — Neutralman2¹⁰ 13:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the proposal, given we couldn't reach consensus on a title change. I was going to close the requested move but it's apparently been done already. My original intent was to clear up the POV issues in this article specifically; cleaning up blatant attempts to discredit all studies suggesting CCW permits work, that the proper (defensive) use of guns is prevalent, making Eddie Eagle Program look worthless, etc. For all of these, discrediting statements are given the last word. There's just alot to talk about with POV in this article. I want to warn as well that moving gun culture into a separate aricle could potentially just create another POV wasteland like this article and gun politics. You are going to have to fight to keep any positive mentions of CCW permit programs, etc. DesertPhox (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Arizona's gun-death rate among the worst in U.S.

See http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/01/27/20110127arizona-gun-death-rate-nations-worst.html --Gary Dee (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Homicide Comparison Correction

Currently, part of the Homicide section says:

Gun-related homicide rates in the United States are two to four times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it. Higher rates are found in developing countries and those with political instability.[21][25][26]

The provided references do not, on inspection, support the claim in the first sentence.

All of these are quite out of date, but taking them for what they are worth:

The rate of firearm deaths in the United States (14.24 per 100 000) exceeds that of its economic counterparts (1.76) eightfold and that of UMI countries (9.69) by a factor of 1.5.

The first reference, "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review", makes the aforementioned claim but then provides statistics that completely refuted it. Here are the per 100,000 capita values for Firearm Homicides in that document.

Australia 0.44 Canada 0.76 England and Wales 0.07 New Zealand 0.17 Japan 0.02 USA 7.07

The wealthy non-US OECD nations listed range from Japan 0.02 up to Finland 0.86. On the basis of these figures you would say the USA is between 9 and 350 times higher than comparable nations. It averages about 35 times higher.

The next, says,"Firearm deaths in the United states and 35 other countries", says The rate of firearm deaths in the United States (14.24 per 100 000) exceeds that of its economic counterparts (1.76) eightfold and that of UMI countries (9.69) by a factor of 1.5.

The last, "The Seventh United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (1998 - 2000)", gives the following most recent values per 100,000 capita:

Australia 0.31 Canada 0.54 England and Wales 0.12 New Zealand 0.18 (No figure for Japan) USA 2.97

Values for non-US wealthy OECD nations in that report vary from Singapore 0.02 up to Canada 0.54. So on this basis you would say the USA is between 5 and 150 times higher, and it averages about 20 times higher.

These stats are all a bit old (hey, I didn't tag them!). The current List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate gives the USA as having a rate of 7.07, and the average of the wealthy OECD nations on that list comes to 0.38. This would mean the USA is about 19 times higher. The sources are mixed.

These are not very detailed analyses I am making but I hope that it illustrates the point that no statistics anywhere suggest that the USA's firearm related homicide rate is "between two and four times" higher than economically and politically similar countries. Across the full set of data you would say that on an individual nation basis, the USA is between 8 and 350 times higher than particular other comparable nations, or between 20 and 35 times higher than comparable nations overall. We can debate about which range to use. I'll correct the current values to reflect the overall comparison to get the ball rolling. Ordinary Person (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

POV concern in reference to "unlicensed individuals"

The following quote appears in Public Policy > Firearms Market:

Most sales to youths and convicted felons take place in the "secondary market," in which previously-owned firearms are transferred by unlicensed individuals.

While this is technically correct, it seems to imply that a license is available for private sellers when in fact it is a fairly expensive and rigorous process to obtain a Federal Firearms License. One of the requirements is that the holder must be in the business of buying and selling firearms for profit, which a private seller is not. As such, while a private seller is technically "unlicensed", they are outside the scope of the licensing system and not eligible to *be* licensed. Lwsimon (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Mark E. "Nostradamus" Rushefsky (or not)

The article solemnly informs us:

High profile gun violence incidents, such as the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and, more recently, the Columbine High School massacre, the Beltway sniper attacks, the Virginia Tech massacre, the 2011 Tucson shooting, and the Aurora, Colorado theater shooting, have fueled debate over gun policies.

I was puzzled to read this, as I'd thought that these days gun policies were discreetly but effectively left undebated (other than in the direction of permissiveness, or perhaps by easily ignored "extreme liberals" and the like). I looked for the source. The article attributes this to chap. 7 of Mark E. Rushefsky, Public Policy in the United States: At the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century (2002). I'm stunned to learn that Rushefsky described the Aurora shooting a full decade before it occurred. Or just possibly he didn't describe it, and instead some WP editor simply had Rushefsky say whatever he felt like having Rushefsky say. Of course I could remove mention of any shooting that came after 2002, but I wonder what other fictions the article perpetrates about this book. I don't have access to a copy; does anyone here have a copy? -- Hoary (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I've made a quick and dirty fix. -- Hoary (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Good call. Just in case this comes up, you have partial access to the source in question...most of Chap 7 appears to be there except a few pages.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Police Caused Deaths

Is there any information on the number of shooting deaths by police officers, as well as how many shootings were in self defense? The article would be improved by a breakdow of the deaths into police caused, self defense and actual murders.198.105.0.4 (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Switzerland

As the article makes mention of Switzerland's high rate of gun ownership, is it worth mentioning that the country also has relatively strict gun control legislation? Residents carry only their government-issued personal weaponry in their homes with the automatic firing function removed after they leave the service, the government does not distribute ammunition to the former servicemen to store in their homes, and the sale of ammunition in general is subsidized by the government for sale at firing ranges. In order to buy a weapon from a commercial store or a private individual one needs a weapon acquisition permit, which allows the purchase of three firearms. Everyone over the age of 18 who is cleared of having psychiatric problems, posing general security problems, and has a clear criminal record, can get one. Muzzle-loading weapons can be bought without a permit but the vendor must notify the local arms bureau of the sale. Ammunition can also be bought without a permit, but the sale must be recorded by the vendor. The sale of automatic weapons, selective fire weapons, and accessories such as silencers are forbidden with the exception of a permit granted by the police. Carrying permits are generally only issued to those working in security and are only granted if the criteria above are met, as well as a plausible need for the weapon issued, and weapon handling skills proved. Transporting a weapon in public is legal as long as ammunition is separated from the firearm. All this information is available on the Gun politics in Switzerland article on this very website.

The comparison of the Switzerland comparison in the article was certainly factual, but something struck me as amiss in the way it seemed added strictly to serve as a counterpoint to countries with severe gun control legislation, when comparatively Switzerland's restriction still seems pretty severe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.224.119.25 (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

need the stats to show all information to avoid a bias article

Listing gun related injuries and deaths, without stating if they were suicides, used in a legal manner of defense, or used for criminal acts, is rather misleading. A list of people injured or killed methods other than guns should be included also, be it knives, hammers, unarmed people, crowbars, whatever. Need to put things into perspective. Dream Focus 05:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Comparison to Switzerland

I think a comparison to Switzerland is completely appropriate for this article as I've seen it come up numerous times in discussions about gun policy in the US. Here's my Google search and the reliable sources I found on pages 1 and 2:

Search: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=united+states+guns+switzerland&oq=united+states+guns+switzerland&gs_l=hp.3...5793.9548.0.9635.30.24.0.4.4.3.316.3042.13j5j4j2.24.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.5FxQQio8tOA&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1357700187,d.cGE&fp=51d7c4dfd48b8270&biw=1760&bih=832

• Reliable source #1: Time (magazine) - The Swiss Difference: A Gun Culture That Works
• Reliable source #2: Ezra Klein at the Washington Post - Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias
• Reliable source #3: Business Insider - Why Switzerland Is A Red-Herring In The Gun Control Debate
• Reliable source #4: International Business Times - In The U.S. Gun Control Debate, What Can We Learn From Switzerland?

This seems enough indication to me that a comparison with Switzerland is appropriate enough for this article for some small mention. It is very much a part of the gun control debate. We can confirm or refute whatever perception is out there, but omitting Switzerland entirely would imply that nothing is being said about it, which is obviously not the case. We can argue the details later, but would you at least agree that some mention is worthy? PraetorianFury (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I see great value in a compare/contrast section of the page (or entire standalone article), and we have a smattering of comparisons through the article, but those existing ones are 1) very short, and 2) directly doing the contrasting. The contested section on Switzerland was just its own little island, not making the comparison, just stating some facts about Switzerland, which smells of WP:SYNTH to me. If we do do a compare/contrast section, I think it should be all together, and be covering a wide range of comparisons, not just cherry picking particular numbers, which also smells of POV (There is significant risk of POV here, in both a pro and con direction. so we should be gaining consensus on which comparisons will be included, and why). Across countries (hell even states/cities), things are not apples to apples, and we should be providing the appropriate context for any comparison to adequately inform our readers. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that the source never mentioned the US stood out to me too, but I was going to be lazy and ignore it, heh. Fair enough. I might go through and read some of those article later and see if I can put something together, at least for Switzerland. Maybe we can talk about Israel next. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Gonna write down some information as I read them... The Swiss Difference: A Gun Culture That Works

• nobody bats an eye at the sight of a civilian riding a bus, bike or motorcycle to the shooting range, with a rifle slung across the shoulder.
• "We will never change our attitude about the responsible use of weapons by law-abiding citizens," says Hermann Suter, vice president of Pro-Tell
• Switzerland trails behind only the U.S, Yemen and Serbia in the number of guns per capita; between 2.3 million and 4.5 million military and private firearms are estimated to be in circulation in a country of only 8 million people. Yet, despite the prevalence of guns, the violent-crime rate is low: government figures show about 0.5 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. By comparison, the U.S rate in the same year was about 5 firearm killings per 100,000 people, according to a 2011 U.N. report.
• "Weapons are kept at home because of the long-held belief that enemies could invade tiny Switzerland quickly, so every soldier had to be able to fight his way to his regiment’s assembly point. (Switzerland was at risk of being invaded by Germany during World War II but was spared, historians say, because every Swiss man was armed and trained to shoot.)"
• the “gun in every closet” tradition was challenged in 2001, after a disgruntled citizen opened fire with his army rifle inside a regional parliament, killing 14 and injuring 14 others — the only mass shooting in Switzerland’s recent history.
• The law allows citizens or legal residents over the age of 18, who have obtained a permit from the government and who have no criminal record or history of mental illness, to buy up to three weapons from an authorized dealer, with the exception of automatic firearms and selective fire weapons, which are banned.
• Although guns are responsible for between 200 and 300 suicides each year in Switzerland
• One of the reasons the crime rate in Switzerland is low despite the prevalence of weapons — and also why the Swiss mentality can’t be transposed to the current American reality — is the culture of responsibility and safety that is anchored in society and passed from generation to generation. Kids as young as 12 belong to gun groups in their local communities, where they learn sharpshooting.
• And yet, despite such easy access to pistols and rifles, “no members have ever used their guns for criminal purposes,” says Max Flueckiger, the association’s spokesperson.
• “Social conditions are fundamental in deterring crime,” says Peter Squires, professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Brighton in Great Britain, who has studied gun violence in different countries and concluded that a “culture of support” rather than focus on individualism, can deter mass killings. “If people have a responsible, disciplined and organized introduction into an activity like shooting, there will be less risk of gun violence,” he tells TIME.

PraetorianFury (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

These are some great facts/anecdotes, but Im not sure how they would be able to be integrated into this article. To provide the appropriate context for that type of info would be very lengthy, and would definitely cross into WP:UNDUE imo (as this is not an article targeted at comparing the US to any country, let alone specifically to Switzerland). I think a hypothetical Comparison of gun culture and crime across countries is an awesome idea (and can probably be sourced) but we should only include info here that is directly relevant to US gun violence. A stronger argument could be made on the US Gun Politics article, as facts/arguments like you quote above are often used pro/con in political discussions/legislation/justification etc, but it has no impact on the actual violence in the US. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm not listing everything with the expectation that it will be included. More I don't want to have to read the entire article over and over again. You know, I didn't even realize that Gun politics in the United States was an article. You're right, this info would probably be best over there, if it isn't there already. But IMO when you have closely related topics like this, there should be a section (visible in the Contents links) that directs users over there. Let me see what's up in the other article. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias

• For instance, in Israel, they’re very limited in who is able to own a gun. There are only a few tens of thousands of legal guns in Israel, and the only people allowed to own them legally live in the settlements, do business in the settlements, or are in professions at risk of violence.
• Both countries require you to have a reason to have a gun. There isn’t this idea that you have a right to a gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid.
• In Israel, it used to be that all soldiers would take the guns home with them. Now they have to leave them on base. Over the years they’ve done this — it began, I think, in 2006 — there’s been a 60 percent decrease in suicide on weekends among IDS soldiers. And it did not correspond to an increase in weekday suicide. People think suicide is an impulse that exists and builds. This shows that doesn’t happen. The impulse to suicide is transitory. Someone with access to a gun at that moment may commit suicide, but if not, they may not.
• You said that Israel rejects 40 percent of its applications for a gun, the highest rate of rejection of any country in the world. And even when you get approved, you say that “all guns must have an Interior Ministry permit and identifying mark for tracing.” That seems like it might make people think twice before they shoot from a gun they know the government can track.
• Israel and Switzerland are both small, highly cohesive countries. So some say that the difference in gun crime shows that there’s something about American culture that’s leading to these atrocities
• Israel is not a peaceful society. If there were a lot of guns, it may be even more violent. Israeli schools are well known for having a lot of the kicking and punching type of violence.
• it seems that the lack of guns promotes the lack of firearm violence rather than there being some nascent tendency toward peacefulness and cohesion
• That cohesion may or may not exist, but not having guns prevents guns from being used in violence. People do still commit homicide and suicide but they do it with less lethal means. The most common form of suicide in Israel is strangulation, which is striking, because it’s not that common elsewhere.
• Between ages 18 and 21, when people are in the army and have access to guns, firearm suicide is very common. At other ages, strangulation is very common. So it does seem to suggest that people commit suicide with what they have access to even in the same society.

This lady didn't seem the most objective to me. Her points about Switzerland cutting back on guns really looked silly to me considering all that happened after a mass shooting. But she seems to be correct about the misperception of Israel. They have fewer guns than Canada according to Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country. Anyway, I bring this up because her reliability as a source may be disputed, especially considering she is an "assistant" professor. Maybe better to use her as a launching point into better sources... PraetorianFury (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

While not claiming this is a reliable source, it does bring up some significant concerns with this professors research. Will look to see if anything closer to WP:RS has commented.

• http://www.finemrespice.com/node/122
• http://www.finemrespice.com/node/121

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that guy sounds angry. I'm convinced, lol. Let's disregard that source. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)