Talk:Gun ownership

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Ownership rate"[edit]

The article, as previously written, stated that: "The United States has the highest rate of gun ownership of any country of the world, with an estimated 88.8 guns per 100 people as of 2007..."

But this is misleading because the number of guns per 100 people doesn't tell people what percentage of private citizens actually own guns. If the average gun owner had 8.88 guns then the rate would be 10%. If the average gun owner owned 88.8 guys then the rate would be 1%.

I've changed it to read: "The United States has the highest number of privately owned guns per capita of any country of the world, with an estimated 88.8 guns per 100 people as of 2007..." -2003:CA:83CF:F200:D03E:734E:DC84:B25 (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland numbers[edit]

This list is based on the June 2018, Small Arms Survey report, is fully referenced with links to the actual June 2018, Small Arms Survey report. Please see... http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/Weapons_and_Markets/Tools/Firearms_holdings/SAS-BP-Civilian-held-firearms-annexe.pdf. User:MarkDennehy, the numbers that you are using for Ireland are unreferenced 2014 numbers. If you can provide current Wikipedia:Inline citation that would be fine. Otherwise, I will restore the June 2018, Small Arms Survey report numbers. --RAF910 (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country#Ireland As was quoted earlier. I'm not trying to be a smartarse; these figures are actually out of whack. As I said then: "The Irish figure given by the Small Arms Survey 2007 of 8.6 is wildly inaccurate for three reasons: 1) It uses the total number of firarms legally held in Ireland in 2005 2) It uses the population of Ireland in 2005 3) It includes an estimate of 150,000 illegally held firearms before calculating its number of firearms held by civilians per capita."

When you read the Small Arms Survey you find that the researchers _literally_ invented 150,000 firearms which they claim are held here illegally despite every real source of information in this country saying that they have no basis in fact. That was the case in 2016 when the last figures for the number of firearms owned by civilians was presented by the head of the Garda Firearms Policy Unit to the Oireachtas Joint Commmittee on Justice - the cited source for the figures I've provided on the other page - and remains the case today. The citations were all listed on the talk page for the Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country page - you appear to be in the process of replacing that page without reviewing that list of changes. I would suggest - again not trying to be a smartarse about it, updated figures are always good - that this is not going to lead to more accurate figures.

To illustrate why this isn't a very simple set of figures to put together, your primary source here -- the Small Arms Survey -- counts the number of things the country involved calls firearms under their laws and says that is how many small arms are in the country. This sounds grand, until you learn that some countries do not have the same legal definition for the term "firearm" as others do. In Ireland, for example, airguns are classed as firearms. In the UK, they are not, nor in most of Europe, when below a certain muzzle energy limit. Also classed as firearms here are things like pepper spray, tasers, crossbows of any kind, paintball markers, night vision scopes or thermal scopes designed to be attached to a firearm, and any and all constituent parts of a firearm. So our official number of firearms is actually much higher than it would be if it were prepared under, say, German law or UK law. MarkDennehy (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, where is the reference? All I see is a lot of very dated original research. Also, we are not talking about the obsolete "2007 Small Arms Survey report" here. This is about the "June 2018, Small Arms Survey report." If you cannot provide a current reference superior to the June 2018, Small Arms Survey report, then you don't have a leg to stand on.--RAF910 (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, let's point out that "don't have a leg to stand on" is pretty confrontational language here and unhelpful.
Then let's discuss citations and point out that you are referencing no data yourself. The 2018 survey you keep referring to is not cited; you have cited the "how we measured this" briefing papers. There is no data in there (for example, search that citation for "Ireland" and you find no results at all). Please cite the actual annexe with the data and its sources, similar to this one from 2007: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-3-EN.pdf
I have pointed out the citation for my figures to you but you missed it, it's on the talk page for the original gun ownership figures page : "Chief Superintendent Fergus Healy of the Garda Firearms Policy Unit stated to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice in December 2014 that the latest information is that there are 200,436 licenced firearms in Ireland;". Here's the link to the official record of the Irish Government on that : https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_justice_defence_and_equality/2014-12-17/speech/6/
Let's discuss the specific figures being used here: the 2007 survey cited Ireland as having 358,644 firearms in total. It cites these as "Total from registered guns correlation", while acknowledging that the official figure is 209,000, which it calls "Registered". The 150,000 additional firearms, it literally makes up as an estimate, and cites five newspaper articles as its proof, which is ridiculous given that several of them are not from this country - they are from Northern Ireland - and the others are, well, to be generous one could call them less than credible sources given the current findings from the disclosures tribunal. Now we can't examine the 2018 figures, the annexe for which we have not seen, but the 2017 figures you link to above show them claiming 200,000 registered firearms and 142,000 unregistered firearms, this time with no sources for the latter listed at all.
Small legal point - Ireland does not have registered firearms at all. We have licenced firearms, meaning that you may not own one until you obtain a licence and having one without the licence - which must be renewed every three years - is a criminal offence with strict penalties of up to seven years in prison and up to twenty thousand euro in fines. Every single firearm that is legally owned has a separate firearms certificate. Given first a civil war and then thirty years of domestic terrorism, firearms are somewhat more strictly controlled than in most places around the globe. The idea that we would have almost as many illegal firearms as legal ones is simply not supportable - and indeed, is not supported in this case as no source has ever been cited bar "correlation", meaning that the ratio of legally held firearms to illegally held firearms in other countries with far less strict laws was multiplied by our existing number of licenced firearms and the result was then treated like data. Which it isn't, and that's a major criticism of the Survey, at least from the point of view of Ireland.
To work through that example, if we take the data from 2007 and determine what the ratio they used is (209,000:358,644 = 1:1.716) and multiply the official figure in 2017 by that same figure (1.716 * 200,436) we get approximately 344,000 firearms, their estimate from 2017 to within 0.6% (which would be explained by them using a later count of firearms licences here, as they have risen by one or two hundred since 2014).
In other words, their figure is not data; they're just multiplying the actual number from the official source by a number they invented based on what they saw ten years ago in other countries which do not have our laws or history, and calling the result data. It isn't. It's wildly inaccurate in this case. That was the reason behind the change of the figure in the first place - because the survey gets it woefully wrong here. And even wikipedia points out that it's not the sole occurrence : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Arms_Survey#Criticism MarkDennehy (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The info that you are referring to is in fact referenced, and I have added another reference.....Again, the list in this article is based on the June 2018, Small Arms Survey report. A large wall of very dated original research explaining how bad the 2007, Small Arms Survey report is has no bearing here, on this article. The reference that you provided for the Ireland numbers https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_justice_defence_and_equality/2014-12-17/2/#spk_6 are the minutes of the "Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality debate - Wednesday, 17 Dec 2014". Which is discussing... "The most radical changes to firearms legislation since 1925 were introduced on 1 August 2009 with the commencement of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 and the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009." Which is a WP:PRIMARY SOURCE. Also, the meeting itself does not state when the numbers were collected only that they were "latest figures available." Presumably, Chief Superintendent Mr. Fergus Healy was using numbers he reviewed that morning. Therefore, those numbers are at least 4 years out of date, maybe longer. Also, while the source explains the total firearms number that you used, it does not explain where you got the population number? All of this is original research and synthesis. You will need to provide current 2018 numbers, showing the the number of firearms in civilian hands, the population of Ireland, and the per capita firearms ownership rate--RAF910 (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I have quoted the above details about the 2007 figures is to point out that the same error which affected them affects the 2017 figures and that we don't know what the 2018 figures are because you have not linked to them. And no, I do not need to provide new figures; you are overriding existing data that is being provided by the people who issue the licences with data that has serious question marks over it - the onus to provide proof that your source is more accurate than the original source of the licences being counted here is on you. And since you apparently have no interest in engaging here in anything other than a confrontational manner, I suggest we need arbitration here. MarkDennehy (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The references are provided in the article where they belong, with links to the June 2018, Small Arms Survey report (see reference numbers 7 and 8)...Your are the one who has made unreferenced changes.--RAF910 (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As stated previously, you have not provided references as all of the links in the article are to the press release saying the Survey has been published and to the briefing notes explaining methodology, but no data has actually been linked to from 2018; the figures you have linked to on this page came from the 2017 report. MarkDennehy (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're editing your answers instead of replying, I'll point out that again, reference 7 is a briefing paper on methodology, not actual data, and reference 8 are figures from 2017, not 2018. MarkDennehy (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your claims that the numbers are wrong are irrelevant. You must provide proof that the numbers are wrong. Something that you have not done.--RAF910 (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And several Irish Ministers for Justice have stated on the record that the idea of estimating how many firearms are held illegally here is ridiculous: https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/1991-10-22/35/#spk_263 and the Finnish government has criticised the survey directly : https://www.aamulehti.fi/kotimaa/oikaisu-paakirjoituksessa-vaaraa-tietoa-aseiden-maarasta--23546748 http://www.mikkoniskasaari.fi/node/230
I would also point out that newspapers are not sources of data nor are they considered to be peer review. The contention here is between the survey's figures and actual data from the source of that data. And if you look at the original page, you'll find a considerable amount of corrections to the survey's data over the past several years by people who are actually knowledgable about their country's firearms legislation. You cannot simply replace that many data sources with a single source whose figures are not cited yet, whose methodology has been questioned, whose data has been found to contain errors, and do all of that without even mentioning that you plan to do so on that page's Talk page. It's not appropriate. MarkDennehy (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have proven that Small Arms Survey is a Globally recognize Organization, used as a reliable source of information currently being quoted in (June 2018) articles by 10 of the largest new organizations in the English speaking world. You have yet to provide a single reliable source of information to back-up your Ireland numbers claims. All that you have provided is original research and synthesis, claiming that the badly out-dated "2007, Small Arms Survey" report is wrong, when we are here talking about the "June 2018, Small Arms Survey" report. You must provide a reliable source claiming that the "June 2018, Small Arms Survey" report is wrong. (UTC)--RAF910 (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have provided newspapers who reprinted the figures; that simply does not refute the point that their figures for Ireland are flat out wrong. If we had 150,000 illegal firearms here, we would know it for the same reason you would know it if the number of tigers in the room with you was greater than zero. The survey has very clearly taken the Garda figures and added in a made-up estimate for illegal firearms (by multiplying the garda number by approximately 1.7) and has been doing so since 2007 at least, with no sources cited other than newspaper articles either written in Northern Ireland or in tabloids here. The Minister for Justice has said they're wrong, the Gardai figures say they're wrong, the level of crime we witness here says they're wrong and every other lived experience here for decades says they're wrong. If you think the New York Times reprinting a press release counters that, then frankly I don't think you're trying to make the information on this site more accurate. MarkDennehy (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More of the same original research and synthesis, still obsessed with the badly outdated "2007, Small Arms Survey" report. --RAF910 (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken this discussion to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard since it is going nowhere here.--RAF910 (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been up for roughly 24 hours, and only two people have participated in the discussion, and many of the comments on both sides simply restate arguments made earlier. I suggest that both of you read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, stop responding to each other, and wait to see if any other editors weigh in. If after seven days there has been no discussion from the wider community, I suggest dropping a message on my talk page and letting me post a neutrally-worded RfC that will resolve this dispute.
In the meantime, per WP:STATUSQUO I have reverted the page to the last stable (14:56, 28 May 2018‎) version before this content dispute. Please do not attempt to get your way by editing until the Wikipedia community has reached a WP:CONSENSUS on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overwriting existing page with contentious data without prior discussion[edit]

As listed above, RAF910 deleted an entire page with several years of work attached to it and replaced it with a straight copy of a more recent report whose contents have been questioned and corrected in the past due to inaccuracies. This was done without any attempt to consult on the talk page of the prior page. While the data being proposed is from a more recent publication, there appear to still be serious issues with its accuracy on precisely the same grounds as for earlier version of this publication. Attempts to discuss this have been confrontational in nature from the beginning and external opinions would be of use for a constructive outcome. MarkDennehy (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#2018, Small Arms Survey, where so far the consensus is going against you. Make your argument there and see if you can convince anyone that you are right.
Meanwhile, I am removing your RfC tag because the above is not a properly formatted, neutrally-worded RfC. I strongly suggest that you take my previous advice or at the very least explain why you have decided not to follow it while RAF910 is so far following it by not responding to you. Here is that advice once again:
This discussion has been up for roughly 24 hours, and only two people have participated in the discussion, and many of the comments on both sides simply restate arguments made earlier. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, stop posting new comments for a few days, and wait to see if any other editors weigh in. If after seven days there has been no discussion from the wider community, I suggest dropping a message on my talk page and letting me post a neutrally-worded RfC that will resolve this dispute.
Please note that I have expressed no opinion on which one of you is right and which one is wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, what do you mean by "at the very least explain why you have decided not to follow it while RAF910 is so far following it by not responding to you."? I have not responded to him since you gave that advice. MarkDennehy (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Writing the words "As listed above, RAF910 deleted an entire page..." is a form of responding to RAF910, and tempts him to respond to your words, thus restarting the fruitless back-and-forth bickering. You have written enough. You are WP:BLUDGEONING. Please stop. Give someone else a chance. You made your point on the reliable sources noticeboard, and are waiting for a response. Now let's see if you can convince anyone there. (again, I am not expressing any opinion on whether you are right, just on your bludgeoning behavior.) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, you gave your advice according to the timestamp at 22:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC) and the words you're talking about were written over four hours earlier at 17:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC). You gave the advice; I followed it. MarkDennehy (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept my apology. That was a dumb mistake on my part. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Guy, I've done worse. MarkDennehy (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion[edit]

Merge the Estimated number of guns per capita by country page into the Gun ownership page....The "Estimated number of guns per capita by country" page is based on the 2007, Small Arms Survey report, it is now badly out-of-date (over 10 years) and frankly not salvageable. Therefore, I recommend that it be redirected to the "Gun ownership" page, which has which has a far more comprehensive and up-to-date list, taken from the June 2018, Small Arms Survey report. This page includes "Estimate of firearms in civilian possession", "Population 2017", and "Estimate of civilian firearms per 100 persons" in a sort-able table. Whereas the Estimated number of guns per capita by country table only includes "Civilian-held firearms per 100 population".

  • SUPPORT...per my above statement.--RAF910 (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please also note that the Ireland figures are only a single point from the original page which are disputed in the 2018 figures and there is a significant issue here in the manner this merger has been pushed for. MarkDennehy (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gun ownership has no list as big as Estimated number of guns per capita by country and can't be a replacement. Also, Gun ownership uses some data from 2007 as well. It's better to have an outdated page that can serve as some reference the no page at all. ★BrandonALF★ talk edits 00:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extension of the content dispute in the above section, and adds to the WP:BLUDGEONing problem. Per WP:STATUSQUO I have reverted the page to the last stable (14:56, 28 May 2018‎) version before this content dispute. Again, I suggest that both of you read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, stop responding to each other, and wait to see if any other editors weigh in. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my comment because [A] to their credit both parties realized that the conversation was going nowhere and stopped, and [B] this is now listed as a merge discussion, which I hope will bring in some other opinions than the two that we have heard so far. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE: This discussion is related to the previous version of this page, that was revert by User:Guy Macon (see...https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_ownership&oldid=848251387 ), which is being discussed above in the previous section, Not the current version. User:BrandonALF has already made that mistake above--RAF910 (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a country list for firearms in civilian possession. We need another country list for firearms in military/law enforcement possession. On a separate list page. We need separate prose articles in my opinion. I don't like trying to combine prose pages with list/table pages. People search the web for lists first.
For firearms in civilian possession I suggest doing without the columns for population and number of firearms. I am assuming the SAS source lists the rates. If not, I guess we will need the columns, and have to do the rate calculations ourselves. List should be in alphabetical order. It is easier to maintain.
What matters is the rate and/or per capita column. If possible, there should be a column for "latest available SAS rate." Small Arms Survey. That way that single rate column can be sorted via the sorting button in order to get rates in ascending or descending order for all countries. There should be a year column too so we know the year for each country's rate.
Notes column should have alternative rates and references. Notes column should be kept to one line or two of notes per country. Additional notes should be put below the list. With a link from the notes column.
WP:NPOV requires these notes so that all significant viewpoints, rate adjustments, etc. are covered. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This assumes that the SAS rate is the accepted standard, which is contested. Perhaps instead multiple columns for the multiple sources of that rate, including at the very least the officially given rate by that country's government. MarkDennehy (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess then we need to label the rate columns. One for SAS. One for official country rates. And additional rates, etc. in the notes column.
We may need 2 tables on the civilian firearms list page. That is if a population column is necessary. We may need different years for the population numbers.
It is not a problem though. List pages often have several tables. One for each source or breakdown. See WP:NOTPAPER. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Re: "...badly out-of-date (over 10 years) and frankly not salvageable" are we sure that it isn't salvageable? I see above a productive discussion on how best to fix it. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The list at Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country has been updated and improved in the last couple days. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then lets restore this page to the previous version ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_ownership&oldid=848251387#cite_ref-7 ) so that our fellow editors can have an fair and honest comparison, and allow them to decide which is the better page.--RAF910 (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We could add a population column, and a firearm count column to Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country. Anyone can feel free to do so. Why duplicate the list in 2 places? Prose pages should not be combined with list/table pages in my opinion. Why not just link to the list page? People in general look for list pages, and they show up at the top of Google searches. We can link to the prose article, Gun ownership. The list at Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country is much better since it is ranked. User:Borysk5 updated the list to 2017, and did a lot of work in putting it in rank order. Plus list has flags and links for all the countries. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have given no valid reason to reject fully referenced information. "I put a lot work into that page" is irrelevant. If you beleive that's the better page, then let's can have an fair and honest comparison and allow our fellow editors to decide.--RAF910 (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) It looks like we both want to merge the civilian-owned firearms lists. So if this were done, why not put it on a separate list page? List pages are normal. See the guns section below. The list page has long been listed on "Lists of countries by laws and law enforcement rankings". The civilian guns list has been on the list navbox since the navigation box was first created on June 26, 2009:

--Timeshifter (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting here patiently for User:RAF910's reply. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lets start over and have a fair an honest merger discussion[edit]

I have restored to the page to the previous version. All other discussions are off topic and nothing more than a distraction in order to prevent a fair an honest merger discussion. --RAF910 (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • OPPOSE merging here. You can do whatever you want on Gun ownership. I don't edit this page. But don't delete a page by redirecting it to here without discussion. You might get banned for continuing to do stuff like that.
As for whether this civilian-owned gun list here should be merged with the civilian-owned gun list at Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country please see the discussion in the previous section. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Homicide Rate[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#/media/File:2010_gun_homicide_rates_in_high-income_countries.png B. Fairbairn (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same page ranks the USA as 94 with a homicide rate 5.35...while Russia is ranked as 42 with a homicide rate 10.82. The murder rate in Russia is twice that of the USA. Therefore, the statement/quote is patently false. This information is taken from the List of countries by intentional homicide rate. The very page that you provided to prove your point, actually proves that your wrong.--RAF910 (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are both countries developed nations? B. Fairbairn (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World map representing Human Development Index categories (based on 2017 data, published in 2018).[1]
  1.000–0.800 (very high)
  0.700–0.799 (high)
  0.555–0.699 (medium)
  0.350–0.554 (low)
  Data unavailable
Yes, they are. See map. Russia is equal to the USA and the EU. The fact the you do not know that Russia is considered a developed nation is troubling to say the least. --RAF910 (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Human Development Report 2018 – "Human Development Indices and Indicators"" (PDF). HDRO (Human Development Report Office) United Nations Development Programme. pp. 22–25. Retrieved 14 September 2018.

The 94/42 table shows murder rate, not firearm homicide rate. B. Fairbairn (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The quote that you added..."Among developed nations, the US is far and away the most homicidal — in large part due to the easy access many Americans have to firearms"... is misleading, if not patently false, in every way. The USA is not the most homicidal nation in the developed world. Also, the USA has ten times the gun ownership rate of Russia, yet only half the murder rate. According to your misleading quote the USA murder rate should be much higher. --RAF910 (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough, I'll reconsider the contribution. My suggestion on Russia not being developed was a combination of decades of propaganda/brainwashing and a sense of humor. Thanks B. Fairbairn (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An extra condition: of the 25 wealthiest nations based on per capita nominal GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita B. Fairbairn (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point? Are your suggesting that because Russia is not one of the top 25 wealthiest nations, that it's not a developed nation? Russia is obviously a develop nation and the statement that you added is obviously false, so just remove it.--RAF910 (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The claim being added to the article lead is an extraordinary claim. This is in part due to the hyperbole in the language ("US is far and away the most homicidal") and due to the supposition contained in the statement that the high homicide rate is due "in large part" to access to firearms (vs many other possible primary causes). Such a claim would need a far more robust source than Vox. Springee (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the "Among developed nations" qualifier is dubious and makes me suspect that the data set was cherry picked to gte the desired answer. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good points lads. Yes the article does look exaggerated. Happy for you to remove it. Still it is interesting that the United Kingdom with 66 million people currently has about 150 firearm deaths per year, while the US with 325 million people has about 11,000 firearm deaths per year. Gun happy Americans :-) B. Fairbairn (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But, the USA population is 5 times larger than the UK. The USA has 25 times the gun ownership rate and the USA has 131 times as many guns. And, still the overall murder rate for London appears to be higher than New York City, according to this BBC report https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43628494.--RAF910 (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Russia is not considered a high-income nation by the OECD (see here) which is why the authors of this peer-reviewed study do not include it in their comparison of the US and other high-income countries. They even state explicitly that "Although other cross-national studies have included middle-income or developing countries in comparisons, it does not seem reasonable to compare the United States with Brazil, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, Turkey, or Uganda." IntoThinAir (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems perfectly reasonable to me -- unless you want to get a particular answer and are willing to bias your sample to get it. Should we exclude low income areas of the US and only count homicides where the rich live? "It does not seem reasonable to compare Beverly Hills with Camden." --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to the List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita...Luxembourg, Macau, and Iceland all have higher GDP than the USA. However, in a real world comparison, there are suburbs in the USA that are larger and richer than Luxembourg, Macau, and Iceland. In the real world comparing a small country of 350,000 people to a nation of 320,000,00 people in an attempt to draw any conclusion is nonsense.--RAF910 (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back on the talk topic, the US has roughly 5 times the population of the UK, 25 times the gun ownership (from above) and yet nearly 75 times the homicide rate. Drop the number of guns, and the number of homicide, suicide and accidental deaths drops. Unfortunately the NRA and other gun enthusiast groups do not care. B. Fairbairn (talk) 07:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gross exaggeration and falsehoods are par for the course in these discussions. The USA does NOT have murder rate that's 75 times higher than UK. Per the List of countries by intentional homicide rate the USA murder rate is 5.35 vs the UK murder rate of 1.2. So, 5.35 / 1.2 = 4.458333 not 75. Remember, USA population is 5 times larger than the UK. The USA has 25 times the gun ownership rate and the USA has 131 times as many guns. And, still the overall murder rate for London appears to be higher than New York City, according to this BBC report https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43628494--RAF910 (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have evidence -- not just correlation -- that gun ownership is related to homicide rates -- especially total homicide rates as opposed to homicides committed with guns?? The US has roughly 5 times the population of the UK, 25 times the gun ownership, and yet has over 1000 times the number of oranges grown per year. The UK has roughly 1/5 the population of the US, 1/25 the gun ownership, and yet has over 10,000 times more rugby riots.
Did you bother counting the homicide rate is Switzerland prior to 2007? Until then most 20 to 30 year old Swiss males were required by law to keep a machine gun and ammunition in their house. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an interesting peer-reviewed source regarding the issue of gun control/ownership in Switzerland. Here are some interesting quotes from it regarding the issue of required gun ownership among Swiss men in the military:

"Swiss firearm ownership increased between 2002 and 2007 Small Arms Surveys because military rifles were released to the public due to drastic army size reductions"

And:

"...the nationally representative survey data finds that only 2% of households opt to keep an army gun post-service. Some cantons allow reservists to keep their service-issued guns in local gun depots and unit arsenals rather than inside their homes, but reservists in cantons without local depots were required to keep their guns at home."

In addition, I personally do have evidence that "gun ownership is related to homicide rates -- especially total homicide rates as opposed to homicides committed with guns??" as requested by Guy Macon. Specifically, Hoskin (2001) found:

"a statistically significant positive effect of firearm availability on national homicide rates".

[1] IntoThinAir (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the Hoskin paper: (This was an error, The following quotes are from a paper by Tomislav Kovandzic, Mark E. Schaffer, and Gary Kleck --Guy)
"If we take these estimates of gun effects seriously, they suggest that gun levels in the general public may have a net deterrent effect on gun homicide rates, but no such effect on nongun homicides. Deterrent effects would be stronger for gun homicides if their perpetrators were more likely to plan the killings (or crimes leading up to the attacks, such as robbery or a drug deal) than those who use less lethal weapons. The fact that an aggressor chose a lethal weapon, better suited to lethal purposes, rather than merely making use of whatever weapons happened to be available at the scene, may itself be an indication of premeditation. Thus, people who kill with guns, despite the tactical advantages of possessing a deadly weapon, may be more easily deterred by the prospect of confronting a gun-armed victim than those who kill with other weapons, because the former are more likely to think about the potential costs of their actions."
"The policy implications of our findings are perhaps best understood in the context of two hypothetical gun ban scenarios, the first more optimistic, the second more pessimistic and realistic. First, gun prohibition might reduce gun ownership equiproportionately among criminals and noncriminals, and the traditional ATE interpretation therefore applies. Our results above suggest that plausible estimates of the causal impact of an average reduction in gun prevalence include positive, nil, and negative effects on gun homicide rates, and hence no strong evidence in favor of or against such a measure. But it is highly unlikely that criminals would comply with gun prohibition to the same extent as noncriminals; indeed, it is virtually a tautology that criminals would violate a gun ban at a higher rate than noncriminals. Thus, under the more likely scenario that gun bans reduced gun levels more among noncriminals than criminals, the LATE interpretation of our results moves the range of possible impacts towards an increase in gun homicide rates because the decline in gun levels would primarily occur among those whose gun possession has predominantly negative effects on homicide." (Emphasis added)
-Guy Macon (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Macon, your claim that the above quotes are from "the Hoskin paper" is false: they actually come from this paper by Kovandzic et al. (2013). IntoThinAir (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. The quotes are from Estimating the Causal Effect of Gun Prevalence on Homicide Rates: A Local Average Treatment Effect Approach by Tomislav Kovandzic, Mark E. Schaffer, and Gary Kleck, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology Volume 29 Issue 4 December 2013 Pages 477 to 541. Sorry about the error. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feast your eyes on these figures, fellow-wikipedians. Death by firearm per 100,000 people according to https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death-by-gun-top-20-states-with-highest-rates/21/

  • Alaska 19.8
  • Louisiana 19.3
  • Mississppi 17.8
  • Alabama 17.6
  • Arkansas 16.8

Death by firearm per 100,100 people according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

  • Japan 0.06
  • United Kingdom 0.23
  • Poland 0.26
  • Cuba 0.5
  • Netherlands 0.58
  • Spain 0.62
  • Ireland 0.8
  • Germany 1.01
  • Italy 1.31
  • Israel 2.09
  • United States 11.96

Some more reading - "GunPolicy.org estimates that in 2010 there were 3.78 guns per 100 people in the UK, while the US, meanwhile, is estimated to have 101 guns per 100 people. The result has been roughly 50 to 60 gun deaths a year in England and Wales, which have a population of 56 million. Compare that to the US, a country about six times as large that has more than 160 times as many gun-related homicides." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gun-deaths-eliminated-america-learn-japan-australia-uk-norway-florida-shooting-latest-news-a8216301.html B. Fairbairn (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the numbers without the POV pushing cherry picking, including the countries where deaths, guns, or death/gun ratio are especially high or low.

Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population

Guns per 100,000 population

  • Colombia: 18.65 deaths, 6,900 guns.
  • Cuba: 0.5 deaths, 2,000 guns.
  • El Salvador: 45.6 deaths, 5,800 guns.
  • Germany: 1.01 deaths, 30,300 guns.
  • Ireland: 0.8 deaths, 3,890 guns.
  • Israel: 2.09 deaths, 7,300 guns.
  • Italy: 1.31 deaths, 11,900 guns.
  • Japan: 0.06 deaths, 600 guns.
  • Kuwait: 0.36 deaths, 3,900 guns.
  • Kyrgyzstan: 1.01 deaths, 900 guns.
  • Norway: 1.75 deaths, 31,300 guns.
  • Poland: 0.26 deaths, 1,300 guns.
  • Romania: 0.14 deaths, 700 guns.
  • Serbia: 3.49 deaths, 37,820 guns.
  • Singapore: 0.025 deaths, 500 guns.
  • Spain: 0.62 deaths, 10,400 guns.
  • Swaziland: 37.16 deaths, 6,400 guns.
  • Switzerland: 3.01 deaths, 24,450 guns.
  • United States: 11.96 deaths, 89,000 guns.
  • United Kingdom: 0.23 deaths, 2,800 guns.
  • Venezuela: 59.13 deaths, 10,700 guns.

As one would expect, countries with very low gun ownership have very low gun-related deaths, but other than that, the numbers are all over the map.

Countries with less than 1 gun per 1,000 people: (0.1%)

  • Japan: 0.06 deaths, 600 guns.
  • Kyrgyzstan: 1.01 deaths, 900 guns.
  • Romania: 0.14 deaths, 700 guns.
  • Singapore: 0.025 deaths, 500 guns.

Countries with more than than 100 guns per 1,000 people: (10%)

  • Germany: 1.01 deaths, 30,300 guns.
  • Italy: 1.31 deaths, 11,900 guns.
  • Norway: 1.75 deaths, 31,300 guns.
  • Serbia: 3.49 deaths, 37,820 guns.
  • Spain: 0.62 deaths, 10,400 guns.
  • Switzerland: 3.01 deaths, 24,450 guns.
  • United States: 11.96 deaths, 89,000 guns.
  • Venezuela: 59.13 deaths, 10,700 guns.

Instead of focusing on number of guns or on economic development we should figure out what Norway (1.75 deaths, 31,300 guns) is doing right and Venezuela (59.13 deaths, 10,700 guns) is doing wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is Norway, Cuba, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Norway, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom doing right that the US is doing wrong?
El Salvador, Swaziland, Venezuela and Colombia are politically and economically unstable countries (e.g. Colombia with guerrilla groups until recently), whereas the United States is arguably the most politically and economically stable country in the world.
Is America's issue caused by a lack of respect for American lives, corporate greed, personal greed, inability to change, high crime rates, or nationwide paranoia? B. Fairbairn (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTFORUM I don't think it really matters. The material that was being added doesn't, in my opinion, have consensus for addition. Springee (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Opinion article" source[edit]

A paragraph comparing gun incidents in the US and UK has been removed twice [2] [3] as "cited to an opinion article". Oddly, the BBC source in question leads to an error page. It may be helpful to try to track down the source before labelling it as an opinion piece. Pinging B. Fairbairn who originally added this. –dlthewave ☎ 15:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange that it's now a 404. I checked the article about the time it was posted and it was an oped article, not a study on the subject. Springee (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was a page on the now-defunct BBC iwonder website. [4] It doesn't say "opinion" on it AFAICT but it seems rather opinionated, as evident from the title "Why are Americans so obsessed with guns?" IntoThinAir (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Association with rates of Violence[edit]

Propose Strike "Studies have shown that 36.3% of people had access to a gun and 5% carried the gun with them. However 7.3% stored their guns in an unsafe place. Certain people have blamed individuals with mental disorders for being dangerous and violent with the use of guns. Nonetheless, other studies have been conducted and show that 34.1% have access to guns. 4.8% carry a gun with them and 6.2% store the gun in an unsafe manner. The statistics show that gun ownership is significantly high in both sets of individuals, however, none of the figures show people with a mental illness are as dangerous with guns than people with perfect mental health.[15]" from the article. Since this is more of world perspective article and this section is more focused on associations of gun violence with rates of ownership, there needs to be a new section on mental health or removed for this article. TauGuys (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading scatter plot used in article[edit]

There is a scatter plot in the article which you can find by searching for its caption: "Multiple studies show that where people have easy access to firearms, gun-related deaths tend to be more frequent, including by suicide, homicide and unintentional injuries.".

The graph has several problems:

1. The graph doesn't present any meaningful relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide because it lacks a correlation coefficient. If anything, the variety of outcomes in the cluster of "35 other developed countries" contradicts the claim made in the caption.

2. It's too US-centric. This is an article about gun ownership broadly, not in the USA specifically. It only has two labels: USA, and 35 unspecified developed countries. 47.28.233.46 (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_ownership&oldid=1207484022"