Yes there are a few sentences in the article now that could be pulled into a subsection of Homicides with a Main tag. Coverage here should be limited to high-level content per WP:SUMMARY STYLE. VQuakr (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Dispute over images at top of article
Latest comment: 6 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion
Previous/reverted image
Disputed proposed image
I changed the image at the top of the article from the drawing of the McKinley assassination to an image of the memorial flowers around the Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas sign from the 2017 Las Vegas shooting. To me, the McKinley drawing is hardly representative of the subject of this article and would, if anything, be more appropriate at the article on assassination or William McKinley. I find that reason alone to be enough to say the drawing is inappropriate to this article.
But, each time I changed the image as shown to the right, user:VQuakr and user:Miguel Escopeta quickly reverted my edits, claiming that "the historical perspective is best," and accusing me of violating WP:RECENTISM. To answer that, I would say that historical perspective vs. current perspective is a matter of opinion, and WP:RECENTISM in this particular dispute does not even apply: the level and type of gun violence in the US today is simply not comparable to gun violence in the past, whether 30, 50, 100, or 150 years ago. And going hand-in-hand with that, the issue of Vegas-style gun violence isn't recentism in the sense that we are giving undue focus only to current events: we are coming up on the 19th anniversary of the Columbine High School massacre. I am trying to WP:AGF but it is not easy. I believe that these reverts are an attempt to sanitize gun violence by falsely equating the "historical" gun violence of 120 years ago with the gun violence in the US today. I am going to stop short of accusing anyone of WP:AGENDA yet, but it is on my mind.
I request consensus on this narrow question: which picture is more appropriate to the article. And before some helpful editor offers the third solution of having no picture at the top of the article, let me say that I am simply not interested and will not support that non-solution. Darkest TreeTalk02:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Given the massive scope of this article, I would expect that there are a large number of images that would meet the applicable MOS guideline at WP:LEADIMAGE. To summarize, that section instructs us to: consider excluding an image for complex topics (despite your odd attempt at preemption); naturally represent the topic; be what the reader would expect to see in a high-quality reference work; and avoid unnecessary shock value.
I do not think that an image of a memorial to a mass shooting meets this guideline very well: it doesn't inform the reader much about the topic of the article, it is related to a mass shooting (an uncommon [<1%] type of gun violence in the US), and it is very recent - despite your protests, the scope of this article does not just cover the last few years. So for these reasons I prefer the status quo over your suggested alternative. That said, I do not think the McKinley image is perfectly ideal and would be open to other alternatives. I think minimum criteria for me to consider them would be compliance with WP:LEADIMAGE and including a firearm of some type somewhere in the image.
As an aside, your apparent beliefs about recent violence in the US is a common misconception: murder in the US is less common per capita than it was 30 years ago, and much less common than it was hundreds of years ago. VQuakr (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, @VQuakr:, I believe you were leaving this post as I was leaving one on your talk page. Apologies for any crossed wires. Moving on, I wasn't aware of WP:LEADIMAGE, but thank you for pointing me to it. Certainly there are a large number of images that would meet the guideline; I just picked this one because I felt it fit the best. I don't believe my proposed image has shock value; it's just a makeshift memorial around the sign; nothing graphic. I agree that it is recent, but I didn't choose it because it is recent, only because it is representative of the single worst act of U.S. gun violence, which seems to me just as appropriate as using an image of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami as the lead image on the Tsunami article. If the worst act of gun violence in the U.S. had been 20 years ago, I like to think I would have chosen an image from that incident instead, but that's just me speculating now. I'm still not sure why my chosen image doesn't comport with WP:LEADIMAGE: the topic isn't so complex that this image isn't quite clearly representative of it; and it does naturally represent the topic; it is in my own opinion exactly what a reader would expect to see in a high-quality encyclopedia; and it doesn't have unnecessary shock value. Darkest TreeTalk05:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I mentioned the "shock" thing because it was in the guideline, not because I thought it applied to either image. It obviously could apply to many images that otherwise would be good candidates. Your tsunami analogy falls short; tsunami shows an image of the 2004 tsunami, not of a memorial to it. An image of a memorial to those killed in the tsunami would be far less informative to the reader, and a poor choice of lead image for that article. VQuakr (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Note that WP:Editorial_discretion is not the same thing as WP:CENSORED. You made a WP:BOLD change. It has been reverted by two editors. Time to build WP:CONSENSUS not make threats. Per my DISCRETIONARYSANCTIONS notice on both this page (and the note I left on your talk page), the entire area of gun control is under increased scrutiny. Edit warring, and bad faith accusations can result in sanctions including topic bans, and being blocked. Please review the relevant policies before continuing to edit in this area. For clarity sake, at this time I am not taking a position on which image I prefer. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@ResultingConstant: Thank you. I read the ArbCom case. I am not making the claims ("that gun control by Nazi Germany was a major facilitator of the Holocaust") that were the prime subject of the ArbCom case, far from it. I believe I am in the clear with regards to the DS, but thank you for bringing it to my attention. Darkest TreeTalk21:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I reverted to the assassination image in place of the memorial image because the article is about gun violence, not memorials to gun violence. Memorials are often intended to evoke shock value, or, alternatively, to evoke emotional responses in individuals reading the content. An encyclopedia article, on the other hand, should generally not try to create an emotional response in a reader, by default, but, rather, to impart knowledge. In this case, it seems more appropriate to provide both historical context and fact-based content rather than try and revert to recentism or to to create a non-encyclopedic appeal intended to evoke an emotion. The current image of the assassination is not the only image that could be used, obviously, but it does impart knowledge that gun violence is not a new issue, contrary to what many might believe. That is important. Besides, the first mass shooting was in 1949, in the "Cambridge Shooting", sometimes known as the "Walk of Death". It was not included in this article because it was considered an aberration at the time, and deemed a one-off event, at the time it occurred. Neither was a photo looking down the barrel of a German Luger used, despite it being the first weapon used in that very first mass shooting. That would be an attempt to evoke emotion rather than to impart knowledge to a reader. The fact is, mass shootings are not a common occurrence. Only 3 have occurred this year, I believe, in the United States. Meanwhile, there have been more murders in Chicago already this year, several times over, than murders in mass shootings. This is really about due weight. An article on gun violence should focus more on the topic of the title, gun violence, rather than sensationalizing mass shootings, which don't amount to but in the hundreds of deaths per year. On the other hand, about 35,000 die each year from gun violence in the United States, albeit about half, plus or minus, are often suicides. And, justified homicides are often included in gun violence, too, which is an entirely different issue altogether. For a WP:LEADIMAGE, the image used should reflect something that imparts knowledge, proportional to the topic actually being covered, not something reflecting less than 1% or 2% of the topic space. Admittedly, assassinations are not a common occurrence, but using this historical image does impart knowledge about a culture that is inherently prone to violence. I would suggest that any alternative image be proposed here, on the talk page, first, to build consensus. Our goal is not to sensationalize, but to impart knowledge in terms of history as well as more recent events. My $0.02. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Miguel Escopeta: Thank you for your comments, but I do not agree with your claims. It seems you are arguing that photos of the actual violence or its personal aftermath would be less shocking and cause less of an emotional reaction than a picture of a memorial. Again, I chose this picture because I feel it accurately represents the subject of the article, being connected to the worst act of civil gun violence in the U.S., without being shocking or approaching the realm of BLP issues. Darkest TreeTalk21:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Would anyone besides my two reverters and the editor who hit my talk page with a DS notice care to comment on this issue? I will give it a week or so. Darkest TreeTalk21:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Except it is not the worst. About 35,000 more people died last year due to gun violence from all incidents in the United States than died in mass shootings. Why focus on but 1% of the total body count? Due weight would seem to indicate we should use an image that better reflects the entirety of the topic, in terms of 99% of the death toll, rather than focus on sensationalizing but 1% of the total. The assassination graphic, published as "news" a century ago, was intended to impart knowledge to a literary public reading newspapers. In other words, it was meant for much the same type of audience that would read an encyclopedia, today. Hence, I would think the assassination graphic image is more appropriate, especially as the violence against U.S. Presidents does get discussed in an entire paragraph of this article. Gun violence is not just about mass shootings, which represent less than 1% of the total death toll, typically, in any given year. So, why focus on but it? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, the Las Vegas memorial is not an appropriate image for the article. While mass shootings are certainly a huge topic of discussion now, and an important aspect of gun violence in the United States, it's still the case that most of the many people shot in the U.S. every year are not part of mass shootings. I also think that the photo's a bit sensationalistic. The McKinley assassination image seems okay, and it's been on the article for quite a while. I would mildly favor keeping it. But, if a reasonable number of editors agreed on this talk page that some other image is better than that -- which is certainly possible -- then I would probably go along with that. Another approach would be to have no "lead image" at all. That would be okay with me too. — Mudwater (Talk)00:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mudwater:An example of a poor choice of lead image for the article Aviation.You didn't see the part in my original post where I said I'm not interested in the non-solution of not having an image at all. I also believe the McKinley image to be ridiculously irrelevant, to the point of being insulting to the intelligence of the readers of this encyclopedia. I understand that most gun violence does not take place in mass shootings. However, it is my position that an image of a memorial to the worst mass shooting in U.S. history is a very appropriate way to represent the subject "Gun violence in the United States." Regarding "sensationalism," here is a definition from Merriam-Webster: arousing or tending to arouse (as by lurid details) a quick, intense, and usually superficial interest, curiosity, or emotional reaction. I am comfortable that the use of this image here does not meet that definition. I also do not understand why four editors would prefer to see a historical drawing instead of a current and relevant image. It's like if the article Aviation had a lead image of one of Leonardo da Vinci's nonsense flying machines. Darkest TreeTalk19:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Whether you are "interested" in not having an image is completely irrelevant. I already pointed out that it is a reasonable choice per the relevant content guideline. Since you are the only editor that favors the LV memorial image but several here agree that there is room for improvement on the McKinley image, how about you suggest some other alternatives rather than beating a dead horse and knocking down aerial strawmen? VQuakr (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
word choice
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Changed header,and removed the contested projects while under discussion.
I'm getting tired of repeating this on every article the IP had touched. It's not a medical project article just because it can cause injuries that require treatment. I don't think the IP understands the difference between categorization and projects.
The research report has received substantial coverage in 3rd party sources. More is probably available. For example, [Gun violence public health] brings up a lot of results, i.e.
WikiProjects decide their own scope, and it is usually considered polite to allow members of a WikiProject to make their own determination on whether a particular article should fall within their area of interest. It is not sufficient for a topic to be related to medicine for it to fall in the scope of WikiProject Medicine – for example biographies of notable medics are not generally part of WPMED. It should be understood that the purpose of adding a WikiProject banner to an article is to indicate that there will be one or more members of that WikiProject who are interested in maintaining and improving that article. I seriously doubt that there are any such members of WPMED who will display that degree of interest in firearms-related topics as medical articles. It would be useful to add pointers from the other scattered debates to a central discussion place to avoid further fragmentation. --RexxS (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
None of that matters. The only thing that matters is whether the editors in a particular group actually want to support a given article. See WP:PROJSCOPE for the guideline. As a practical matter, tagging is the technical means of creating a collective watchlist that is used for the Article Alerts Bot, and nobody else is allowed to declare that WikiProject Whatever isn't allowed to get article alerts if, say, an article they care about gets sent to AFD. If you think it's "political" for some groups to be interested in this subject, then hat them with Template:WikiProject banner shell so almost nobody will see the list, but don't try to tell people that they shouldn't be interested in whatever articles they happen to be interested in. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
An article should generally not be tagged for a project by someone other than a member of that project, unless the project scope clearly includes the topic, as non members are not in a position to take responsibility for deciding that the project members will take any interest in the article. · · · Peter (Southwood)(talk): 06:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
The IP who initially added these projects is not a member of either of them, and WhatamIdoing, who restored them, is not a member of the Wikiproject Law group. Meters (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I also suggest that if a topic is clearly outside the scope of a project, that anyone can remove a project tag. Borderline cases may require clarification of project scope. · · · Peter (Southwood)(talk): 06:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a specific and highly pertinent guideline on this, at WP:PROJSCOPE. It encourages good-faith non-participants to tag articles that they believe will be interesting to a group (but not to edit-war against a group's preferences). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
It might not be specifically an EMS issue, but we generally do tag all the significant causes of death. You personally have argued that Traffic collision, which is also "not a disease", should not only be tagged by WPMED, but should be listed as a top-priority article, on the grounds that it's a leading cause of death for kids and younger adults. Gun violence in the US is the third leading cause of death for children in the US, accounts for more than 10% of all deaths among young adults, and it is responsible for more than 1% of all deaths in the US each year. If we apply your standard to this article, this article should not only be tagged by the project, but also given high priority. (I'd give it low priority, myself, because the subject here is only about one country.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
For the record, I don't have any interest in supporting articles like Firearm myself, and I doubt that there is going to be general support for that among the rest of the group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with adding gun violence, because that page actually discusses something related to medicine:
"Emergency medical care is a major contributor to the monetary costs of such violence. It was determined in a study that for every firearm death in the United States for the year beginning 1 June 1992, an average of three firearm-related injuries were treated in hospital emergency departments.[1]"
References
^Annest, Joseph L.; Mercy, James A.; Gibson, Delinda R.; Ryan, George W. (June 14, 1995). "National Estimates of Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries: Beyond the Tip of the Iceberg". JAMA. 273 (22). American Medical Association: 1749–54. doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520460031030. PMID7769767.
Comment -- since all related discussions got consolidated here, I'm adding that my initial post was about the "Gun violence" pages, not individual weapons, i.e. "Firearm" etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Arbitrary statistic
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This section:
Approximately 1.4 million people have been killed using firearms in the U.S. between 1968 and 2011, equivalent to a top 10th largest U.S. city in 2016, falling between the populations of San Antonio and Dallas, Texas.[12]
Is completely arbitrary and I believe that it should be removed. Guns weren't legalized in 1968 (so why start on this year?) and 2011 was seven years ago, so this really is a useless statistic. Perhaps it should be replaced with a measure of gun deaths per capita with the caveat that this metric has been slowly falling year after year since 19xx.
I've looked up the source this was referring to, and a majority of these claimed deaths seems to have been from suicide. While this is a section of the gun violence article, might I suggest that instead this source be clarified into a breakdown of actual homicide/other vs. suicide. When written immediately after "Firearms were used to kill 13,286 people in the U.S. in 2015, excluding suicide", this implies that all the 1.4 million deaths were from homicide/other. While the 1.4 million death statement is true, it is contextually false.2601:646:8B00:8950:D036:178C:46F6:C651 (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Mention of Australia but not New Zealand
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"Canada and Switzerland each have much looser gun control regulation than the majority of developed nations, although significantly more than in the United States, and have firearm death rates of 2.22 and 2.91 per 100,000 citizens, respectively. By comparison Australia, which imposed sweeping gun control laws in response to the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, has a firearm death rate of 0.86 per 100,000, and in the United Kingdom the rate is 0.26"
It does not mention New Zealand. Why not? New Zealand's firearm laws resemble those of Australia before the 1996 legislation. New Zealand has a comparable firearm death rate but vastly different laws.
It also takes for granted that Australia's legislation actually reduced homicide rates after Port Arthur. The rates had been decreasing before their legislation and continued to decrease afterwards. Shouldn't this be mentioned? In addition, there are more guns in Australia today than there were before the buyback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.24.128 (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Comparing gun deaths in country A to homicides in country B
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In 2015, there were 33,636 deaths due to firearms in the U.S, while guns were used to kill about 50 people in the U.K.[107] More people are typically killed with guns in the U.S. in a day (about 85) than in the U.K. in a year.[107]
The first figure compares deaths (accidents, suicides, murders) with homicides.
Either a figure should be found for UK gun suicides or the US figure should be chopped to only around 10,000 homicides.
In addition, the per capita rates were already written. Using absolute numbers is not responsible.
I suggest both the above sentences be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.24.128 (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
ARS and Intervention Programs
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Americans for Responsible Solutions isn't an "Intervention Program." It's another Bloomberg-funded astruturf PAC. Thoughts about removing it from this section altogether? Mike Helms (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Disputing Cited Source in Mass Shooting Section
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The lines in question:
In August 2015, The Washington Post reported that the United States was averaging one mass shooting per day.[124] An earlier report had indicated that in 2015 alone, there had been 294 mass shootings that killed or injured 1,464 people.[125] However, an article from Russia Today stated that 42 percent of the incidents involved zero deaths, and 29 percent one death.[126]
Further, addressing the specific issue of the article itself: it reports that of 351 tracked mass shootings on reddit in 2015, one user found 6 linked articles that did not indicate the event fell into the accepted definition of a mass shooting. The article then goes on to claim that only 29% of the tracked mass shootings had 2 or more deaths. The accepted definition of a mass shooting on the reddit tracker is 4 or more killed, and the reddit user cited by RT was only able to dispute 6 of the listed shootings. No further citations were given for the 29% statistic, and the ranges provided by RT do not align with the definition of a mass shooting reported earlier in the article (4 deaths. RT uses 0, 1, 2, and 5 deaths when providing their shooting statistics, intentionally muddling the interpretation of the definition of the phrase). I feel this is not a strong enough article to include in a wikipedia citation. I would propose striking the Russia Today line from the article entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.31.139.175 (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
See also: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Gunshot wound
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Why is that at the top of the article? Those links should be in the See also section.
Gun related death rates in high income countries graph
Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
I think the graph should either include all of the data from the table it is derived from, or none. It gives a warped view of the magnitude of the problems it ostensibly displays. The table is from a paper entitled "Violent Death Rates: The US Compared with Other High-income OECD Countries, 2010", and the data the table includes are "US Comparisons with Other High-income Countries". A passing glance at the chart would make one think that Japan and South Korea must have very low suicide rates, when in fact they are two of the highest globally. I realize that the article is specifically about gun violence; without a sense of proportionality, the reader cannot get the full picture. Anastrophe (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Do I understand your comment, Anastrophe, as implying a "full picture" would include a comparison of firearm-to-non-firearm suicide rates across the listed countries in a separate graph? If so, it would be only marginally relevant to the present article, Gun violence in the United States. If you can clarify (please be specific), I can make a same-format graph (to be aesthetically consistent), but for now I'm doubting it's appropriate here. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
The table you pulled the data from included both Firearm and non-firearm rates. If inclusion of a graph of data from other countries is appropriate to this article, then inclusion of all the data from the table the graph is derived from would be relevant as well, since non-firearm rates are directly relevant to firearm rates. Why exclude that data? It gives a skewed presentation, considering the US has an average rate of suicide, even with very high gun ownership rates. Anastrophe (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Why exclude non-firearm death rates that were included in a reference? Because this Wikipedia article is about gun violence in the U.S. and not about suicide rates per se, or gun ownership rates per se.
I'm having trouble understanding why "non-firearm rates are directly relevant to firearm rates".
(1) A graph including gun suicides and non-gun suicides might be pertinent in the Suicide article, and
(2) a graph including gun homicides and non-gun homicides might be pertinent in the Homicide article,
but less so here. Were these two graphs what you had in mind? If you have a very specific idea for graph(s), please describe it/them below, specifically. I can conjure more graph(s) in a few days if advisable, and can insert them where appropriate. (Past my bedtime now!) —RCraig09 (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC) (Post was reformatted by RCraig09 (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC).)
Here's the thing. The article is about gun violence in the U.S. A topic specifically on "gun violence" explicitly means that there is non-gun violence - gun violence is a subset of violence. So the existence of "gun violence" is in fact defined by the limits imposed in their being non-gun violence. Otherwise, the article would simply be 'violence in the United States'. As before, if the argument is that non-gun violence rates in other countries are not relevant to this article which is specifically gun violence[...], then one can likewise argue that a graph displaying data for New Zealand and Slovakia isn't relevant either, as neither of those are the U.S. As it stands, there is no other discussion in the article about how US gun violence rates compare with this specific subset of OECD nations. The section on comparisons with other countries does mention the full OECD cohort - which, if we're going to use any artificial benchmarks at all, would be the more specific, otherwise a chart could just list the UK and the US and leave the rest to interpretation. Providing the full details gives a more honest presentation of how the subset of violence committed using guns fits into the overall problem of violence, which is the superset.
In this article's title—"Gun violence in the U.S."—the existing chart expands the limiting predicate ("...in the U.S.") whereas you are talking about expanding on the very subject itself ("gun violence..."). The press is filled with comparisons of gun deaths in the U.S. and other countries (not a superset/subset relationship), but I can't remember the press focusing on fraction of homicides/suicides that are gun-related or not (a superset/subset relationship). Regardless, within a few days I'll work up the two graphs I mentioned at 05:21 5 Sept, above, and we'll see where they fit best. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
True, there is limited coverage in the press of gun vs non-gun violence, but there is coverage within the discipline of criminology, which is generally the bailiwick this topic falls within. Thanks for looking into making more complete graphs. Anastrophe (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Very nice, thank you. May I ask what software you use to generate them? They are 1000x better looking than any graph I've cobbled together using LibreOffice. Anastrophe (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Microsoft Excel (spreadsheet program) for Mac version 2008 (I'm cheap!) allows creation of graphs like this. I added some of the textual legends right inside Apple's Finder Preview, and with Photoshop. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Dated content and sources
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Some of the information and sources are so seriously dated as to be meaningless. These, for example, should be removed:
Background checks in California from 1998 to 2000 resulted in 1% of sales being initially denied.
Over 120 children 15 years old or younger were killed in gun accidents in 1998.
Unlicensed private sellers were permitted by law to sell privately owned guns at gun shows or at private locations in 24 states as of 1998.
...only 18% of guns used criminally that were recovered in 1998 were in possession of the original owner.
The result was laws, or the lack thereof, that permitted persons to carry firearms openly, known as open carry, often without any permit required, in 22 states by 1998
I haven't scoured the article, but I suspect there are similar instances. The data cited is 20 years old. Any other article on WP with info this old would likely be marked as not current. It's not reasonable to extrapolate from this data to arrive at any reasonable conclusions about gun use today. Can anyone substantiate why these facts should be retained? — btphelps(talk to me) (what I've done)02:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
First three paragraphs - need to consolidate statistics into one summary paragaph
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The first three paragraphs in the article are little more than lists of gun death counts, for different years, in no discernibly coherent order. At best, one iteration of gun death counts - with the most recent data - would be appropriate. As it stands it looks completely patchwork. I would propose eliminating paragraphs two and three, and bringing the data in paragraph one up to date with the most recent data.Anastrophe (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I very much agree with the above comments and suggestions. However, each paragraph also includes and emphasizes different but related data. Anastrophe, pardon me but I changed some of the words in your post to make it a little clearer for less experienced editors. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Need to mention suicides by gender/age/race - white men 2.5 x more likely to die of suicide by firearm than black men
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The last paragraph of the "Mass shootings" section has an irrelevant fact that has nothing to do with supporting the section or article whatsoever, and should be removed. It is entirely sensational and should not be in a Wikipedia article.
For reference the line is, "Between Jan. 1 and May 18, 2018, 31 students and teachers were killed inside U.S. schools. That exceeds the number of U.S. military servicemembers who died in combat and noncombat roles during the same period." ArchangelJW (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Out of date source, can someone see if there's something more recent? I have no database access.
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Last sentence before the "Homicide" section heading: this source is over 30 years old. It begs the question as to the accuracy of this data and the intent behind choosing this source. There must be something more recent available; possibly one that accounts for income/poverty as well as guns in the home. Can anyone help out?
The risk of someone attempting suicide is also 4.8 times greater if they are exposed to a firearm on a regular basis; for example, in the home.[1]CALESCiENCE (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The most common type of gun confiscated by police and traced by the ATF are .38 special revolvers, such as this Smith & Wesson Model 60 .38 Special revolver with a 3-inch barrel
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In 2016, Chicago saw a 58% increase in homicides.[1] In response to the spike in gun violence, a group of foundations and social service agencies created the Rapid Employment and Development Initiative (READI) Chicago.[2] A Heartland Alliance program,[3] READI Chicago targets those most at risk of being involved in gun violence – either as perpetrator or a victim.[4] Individuals are provided with 18 months of transitional jobs, cognitive behavioral therapy and legal and social services.[5] Individuals are also provided with 6 months of support as they transition to full-time employment at the end of the 18 months.[6] The University of Chicago Crime Lab is evaluating READI Chicago’s impact on gun violence reduction.[7] The evaluation, expected to be completed in Spring 2021, is showing early signs of success.[8] Eddie Bocanegra, senior directer of READI Chicago, hopes that the early success of READI Chicago will result in funding from the City of Chicago.[9]Drax Gon Give It To Ya (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Much of the article is directed to suicides, which are not covered by the new title "Murder...". Apparently, no discussion took place before this dramatic move/rename. I think the move/rename should be reverted. —RCraig09 (talk)19:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The requested move process is not needed here. I just renamed the article back the way it was (and I'm not an admin). — Mudwater (Talk)19:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@Mudwater: Thanks. I'm a bit unfamiliar with the whole redirect override with trivial page history thing (WP:MOR), so I wasn't aware how simple it was (just tested on some user pages). I'll keep this in mind for the future. Aidan9382(talk)20:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
New bubble chart without context
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
First off - once a person reaches 18 years old, they are legally an adult in the United States. Eighteen and nineteen year olds are not children, by definition - yet they are lumped into this statistic.
Secondly, it ignores the specifics of the fifteen and up cohort - one of the most violent cohorts in any nation. Who is killing fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen year olds? Other fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen year olds.
The chart is significantly misleading, if only due to the fact that it characterizes legal adults as children.
The entire "victims" section suffers the same problem. Most of these deaths are gang-related - criminal violence by criminals against other criminals.
I believe the chart should be removed until it properly characterizes the cohort. If there isn't data that confines itself to 0-17 year olds, that should be a clue that the data is misrepresenting what common words and law mean, and thus should be approached with caution and skepticism. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is.22:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Please update with: "Firearms: the leading cause of years of potential life lost"
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It could be added as a brief note to the lead, or to a new section such as "Deaths" that has Suicides and Homicides as subsections, or to a new section such as "Years of potential life lost" or something else or multiple of these.
A study uses 'years of potential life lost' (YPLL) to show that firearms have become the largest co-cause of traumatic death (or are associated with its causes) in the U.S. in 2017 and 2018 (1.42 M YPLL), slightly more than from motor vehicle crashes.[1][2] One year earlier, a study suggested the global 'mean loss of life expectancy' (LLE) from all forms of direct violence is about 0.3 years, while air pollution accounts for about 2.9 years.[3]
For comparison and to prevent addition of text that makes it seem like it's leading cause of YPLL in total (especially because the study's title seems to be wrong): according to the table in the YPLL article, cancer caused 8.6 M YPLL in 2006.
^Klein, Joshua; Prabhakaran, Kartik; Latifi, Rifat; Rhee, Peter (1 February 2022). "Firearms: the leading cause of years of potential life lost". Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open. 7 (1): e000766. doi:10.1136/tsaco-2021-000766. ISSN2397-5776.
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
please correct the source of the 2nd graphic (Venn diagram statistics) due to the problematic source page listed in the bottom of the graph. leads to page not found error page.
thanks! 107.77.207.128 (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Done changed the 2 in the lead. ResultingConstant (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 