Talk:Gun violence in the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

By the numbers: Guns in the U.S.

I am a Canadian and thus have not much knowledge on this contentions topic - thus am not confident in editing the article at all. I found this page at CBC news very informative with its format choice and unlike this article that has these stats but from 1997 is much more updated with stats up to 2009. talking about the section "Gun ownership". Do what you wish with this info if anything at all.Moxy (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Numbers a bit confusing

The numbers in the intro section are not really clear (to me). Para 1 states "there were 358 deaths involving rifles. Deaths involving the use of pistols in the US that same year [2010] totaled 6,009 including suicides." Then a few paras later we have "Of the 30,470 firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2010...". So where did the extra 23,000+ deaths come from? Are there that many accidental deaths by firearm? Other firearms not classified as pistols or rifles? Or are one (or both) of these stats just plain wrong? Some clarification on these number is needed, imo. Eaglizard (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The numbers are confusing. The ref in the text appears to be broken, but murder numbers are available in the link at the end of this comment. The 6000 including suicides appears to be incorrect, as the 6000 is specifically identified as murder in that link. Yes, there are guns other than rifles and handguns. Shotguns in particular, but FBI also has quite a few (1k+) as unknown. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.

The CDC has probably more useful numbers for us to use, which breaks down suicide vs accident vs homicide to some degree, and these numbers are used just a bit later in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

John Lott research

There's a problem in dealing with John Lott's research on this topic. There are serious questions about the validity of everything he has done, instanced by the bogus Mary Rosh identity, missing survey etc. The fact that, despite what looks like a stellar publication record, he hasn't been able to hold on to an academic job, or even stay on at a conservative thinktank like AEI is indicative of the difficulties. So citing him as an authority as in "research shows" is problematic. Something like "an article by John Lott concluded that ..." would be better. JQ (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

We cannot use our own WP:OR to dis-qualify sources. At best you would have to find another reliable source making the claims you have, which could then be used as a point/counterpoint. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

How often are secondary sources used to dis-qualify sources? Almost every case I've ever seen of the community rejecting a given source could be classified as OR. AFAIK, there is no reliable, objective guide to the validity of a given source; it's always up to consensus of the editors involved. I believe we can (and must) use OR to classify sources. Eaglizard (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS#Scholarship mentions vetting by other academics several times. It really is the community of experts in a field that decides the quality of a source rather than Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia editors then judge from the vetting by reliable sources whether a source is reliable, but that's not the same thing as Wikipedia editors directly evaluating whether a source is reliable.--Wikimedes (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't suggest disqualification. I think it's important to identify Lott as the source, and allow readers to make their own assessment, rather than citing Lott's results as authoritative, and not mentioning their provenance. In this context, it's sufficient to note that he is a controversial partisan, and not a neutral source.JQ (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Description of "Heller" and Constitutional law

I just replaced the following paragraph:

"Gun policies are influenced by interpretations since the late twentieth century of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to own and carry firearms, as protecting individual gun ownership. In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court took a position for the first time in District of Columbia v. Heller, holding that the second amendment secured an individual's right to own firearms."

First of all, "interpretations since the late twentieth century of the Second Amendment"? Heller was in 2008. Before Heller, there had been no Supreme Court case explaining the Second Amendment. So I'm not sure what "interpretations" this paragraph is referring to. It also seems to be implying that the disagreement about the meaning of the Second Amendment is a relatively recent thing. It isn't. People have argued about it for a long, long time.

Secondly, I think the phrase "which guarantees citizens the right to own and carry firearms" should be deleted. While most people do believe this is what the Second Amendment means, there is a substantial number of people who think that the Second Amendment merely prevents the national government from interfering with state militias, and doesn't guarantee citizens the right to own and carry firearms. Yes this is perhaps odd given that the amendment says "right of the people" but it's a view held by a significant enough number of people that I think this article should refrain from taking a dispositive position on it.

Third, the phrase "the U.S. Supreme Court took a position" I think should read "took the position." A Supreme Court decision is authoritative and singular, so the article "the" as opposed to "a" should be used.

Finally, I think that this characterization of the Heller holding should be changed. The respondents in Heller didn't argue that the Second Amendment wasn't about an individual right to own firearms, but that this right was limited in scope to militia service, and didn't apply to things like self-defense or hunting deer. This is a misconception about the position of Washington D.C. in the Heller case. D.C. didn't argue that the Second Amendment didn't protect an individual right, but rather argue that the "scope" of the right should be limited to circumstances where the federal government is interfering with militia service. The Supreme Court (by a vote of 5-4) disagreed and held that the Second Amendment was broader than this, and included things such as self-defense.

Sorry to be nitpicky, but a lot of people rely on this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicporcupine88 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"Interpretations" - While there may not be any SCOTUS rulings prior to heller, that does not mean there were not interpretations. Many constitutional scholars, politicians, gun rights advocates, and gun control advocates have been interpreting it constantly. Regarding the right to keep and bear - Now that we DO have a SCOTUS ruling however, that IS by definition the legal meaning of the amendment, until such time as the court reverses itself. We can however provide some counter argument from those who think the court decided wrongly - but it must be a strongly attributes and sourced statement. The fact that many people believe something different is irrelevant to what the law actually DOES mean (as decided by SCOTUS). (As well as the plain text "keep and bear arms" clearly supports as WP:PRIMARY the statement you had objection with. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I did some editing, it saying what is reflected in the linked to articles about two cases, the Supreme Court making it clear in the second case their ruling applies to the states. Its important for the opening to tell people that it is legal, according to the constitutional amendments of this nation, as evident by the Supreme Court's rulings, for people to have guns. Dream Focus 16:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

References of "facts"

people, keep in mind that just because there is a reference number next to the "fact", doesn't mean the reference is accurate, true, or even neutral in its presentation. if this article is going to stay, in spite of the fact that the article is a misnomer, the references need to at least be looked at thoroughly. many of the references for the "facts" are simply garbage.

But Aude says 15 super experts say it's a fact. Perhaps you should re-read his comments in this talk page. Maybe you'll grow a brain as large as his.

Danielvincentkelley (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC) This artilce is SHAMEFUL wikipedia. You're pretending history = current events. In recent years gun purchases have been through the roof. Consequently EVERY manner of VIOLENT CRIME is PLUMMETING. You offer statistics from 2004. If in 2004, the homicide rate was 14 per 100k, surely that's atrocious. NOW though, the US homicide rate is less than 3 per 100k. Which is on par with many of these "industrial nations". Right now Russia has the highest murder rate of any industrial nation at 17 per 100k. You don't hear anybody trying to force gun control on Russians right? Oh that's right, with their ENORMOUS MURDER RATE they have one of the strictest gun control regimes of industrial nations. "In Russia, only licensed gun owners24 25 may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition..." Oh OK, only the state approved criminal element, the organized crime cops and such are able to own guns in Russia. 17 murders yearly per 100,000 people, Russia. That you cite statistics from 8 YEARS AGO, obscuring the reality of guns, that as we buy more of them, easy victims dwindle and CRIME IS THUS DIMINISHED... instead of presenting this TRUTH of the gun debate, you present aged statistics claiming this GARBAGE supports expanded gun control, by this WOEFULLY CRIMINAL CLIQUE that is The US Federal Government, who have allowed their bankster crony's to THIEVE US home equity, THIEVING thus 85% of US wealth into their off shore accounts and into their derivatives gambling scheme, they've thieved the titles of US Homes, also by criminal instruments called Adjustable Rate Mortgages, which are easily recognized as contracts that were not finalized, thus illegitimate. All that plus they're massively guilty of theft from 401k pensioners by their, Congresses, INSIDER TRADING. OBVIOUSLY these CRIMINALS are nervous that The Armed People of America are going to impose JUSTICE on them and so they're decided to attempt to thieve our guns. This PROPAGANDA NONSENSE, siting statistics from 2004, only exposes you as a criminal conspirator in the treacherous traitorous crimes of the US Federal EmPyre. From DailyKos: Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 07:16 AM PST RKBA: Crime down...gun ownership up, that can't be right. "The most recent FBI crime statistics show that in the first half of 2011, "violent crimes were down 6.4 percent, while property crimes fell 3.7 percent." Murder declined by 5.7 percent, rape by 5.1 percent, and robbery by 7.7 percent... Of course short term six-month drops don't mean a whole lot all by themselves, but this one continues an established trend. In 1991, crime peaked and then fell pretty steadily before it flattened out half way through the 2000s, and since 2006, both violent crime and property crime have dropped significantly."

What you've done here, is not even "cherry picking" facts, you've VERY OBVIOUSLY IGNORED 8 YEARS (2004-2012), and are trying to present disarmed victim HISTORY as the present reality, that massively gun armed America is as violent as it was when everybody was disarmed. But it's not nearly the truth. I'm 1000% certain that if anybody attempts to correct your garbage mix up of history with present reality on this garbage wiki article their CORRECTIONS of your propaganda nonsense will just be immediately stricken from the record by your propaganda minister administrators, pretending to be a publicly updatable encyclopdia, being really though a god damn arm of the corporate fascist state. Danielvincentkelley (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

90% of this article is complete bullshit. It's amazing that this is considered a GA. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources quoted in this section

"One 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", in which previously owned firearms are transferred by non-dealers.[95][96][97][98]"

are from the Assault Weapons Ban(AWB) period. The expiration of the ban and the general uptick in arms sales have, in my opinion, rendered these studies to be invalid. The references should be removed, and new studies should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinmo1 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I would clarify this sentence in the opening summary if I could understand it: "However, federal legislation also aims to prohibit intentional interference of weapon sales to criminals domestically and insurgents abroad by prohibition of ATF and local law enforcement from access to digital databases for the purpose of idenfitication of the place of sale for weapons recovered at crime scenes." Anyone understand what this contributor was trying to say here? Neededandwanted (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The self-protection section

How is it there aren't any reliable stats anywhere for this? Doesn't a law enforcement website have statistics on how many times a gun was used in defense? That should be in the lead. Mention how many people shot someone in a criminal act, how many shot someone in a legal manner of defense, and how many did it for suicide, or by accident. Dream Focus 05:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The most readily available numbers apparently come from the FBI, and I've heard that the FBI counts a shooting as justified only if no arrest is made — in other words, only if the cop on the scene is fully satisfied, before any investigation, that it's justified. —Tamfang (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

There is also the matter that many uses of a firearm in self defense can be done without firing a shot, without calling the police, and without a report. That severely limits what we can have as 'documented' self defense situations, which is why the estimated range is currently 100,000 to 2,500,000 per year. 174.59.246.10 (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Suicides involving guns section

This section only quotes studies twenty years old. Something a bit newer disagrees http://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/13287 Kleck isn't even a neutral source, nor is the language in this section backed by a broad set of citations, merely circular ones. 174.62.69.11 (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Major new report from DOj on gun violence

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf Gaijin42 (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Anti gun control users censoring this page

Gaijin42 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gaijin42) is a member of the WikiProject Firearms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms).

As a result he is consistently deleting a key link which has been added multiple times to the 'Gun violence in the United States' page - the link is to a directory of all the gunfire victims shot in the US in 2013 - http://usgunviolence.wordpress.com. The project has been widely publicized and praised.

I call on the Wikipedia admin community to prevent Gaijin42 from removing factual links added to this article simply because he is pursuing his own political goals and trying to censor this article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.141.114 (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I am removing the link, because it is to a random wordpress blog, which just reposts user submitted data. This is not a reliable source, nor a notable database.

Per WP:ELYES links are allowed if "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material". the blog is clearly not neutral.

Further, per WP:ELNO links are NOT allowed if they are "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." and there is no indication that this one is written by a recognized authority.

If you dispute this, take it up at the reliable sources noticeboard, or ANI.

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

a personal blog is not an official reliable source. Cramyourspam (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Gaijin42 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gaijin42) it is clear, based on his edits, Wiki pages and the complaints about his editing that he is POV pushing, albeit in a very sophisticated way and just within the rules.

The blog link removed is in fact neutral and accurate - every post fully cites several major news outlets and merely states the events as reported without bias. It is not a personal opinion blog, but merely uses blog technology. There is a difference.

But, if he abides by the rules he outlines above, then he would have no problem adding this data map of gun deaths to the external links for this article - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html.

Certainly he had no problem having a similar map link on the article he chose to create, 'Defensive Gun Use' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defensive_gun_use_incidents#External_links - despite the fact that the map is just based on news reports and "posts user submitted data" in his own words.

The fact that he chose to post the report above (http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf) hidden away on this Talk page, rather than in the main External Links section again shows an attempt to suppress data that does not necessarily aid his POV.

(108.16.141.114 (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC))

I posted the DOJ link here, so that it could be discussed. The same way that you should have posted your link, so it could be discussed. If I was trying to suppress it, it seems like I would have not posted at all? Since someone has spoken up and agreed with me, but nobody has spoken up and agreed with you, is it perhaps that you don't understand policy, and I do? The slate database is certainly much better than the blog you originally posted. Indeed the DGU does include a map, including user submitted data, but one edited by a major think tank. I don't object to the Salon article.

Further, I note that you have attempted to add this information into the article at least 4 times under this IP, and possibly additional times under other IPs, and have been reverted by multiple users other than myself. Physician, heal thyself. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see where Gaijin42 has attempted to bias gun issues, the weight of current research may cause the overall tone of a certain article to reflect a leaning, reality is not all subjects are balanced.... if you wish to restore your opinion of the issue, find credible research and cite it, but accusing him of bias simply because you don't agree with the research he has cited is absurd --Anuoldman (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but I have to agree with the above comment. I feel that you do not agree with the user's research and so accuse him of being biased whereas you are in fact the one being biased in this situation. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"the funding prohibition […] has effectively killed off most research on gun violence"

http://www.nature.com/news/firearms-research-the-gun-fighter-1.12864

LudicrousTripe (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV issues

Reading this article top to bottom, it doesn't really come off as NPOV to me. There are references for things, but i really don't get a sense of "Hey here is a unbiased assessment of where this political issue is in today's culture", it reads more like "here are some facts, here are some pro gun claims, but <claim here> is in dispute because of <reason here>."

Call me pedantic, but it just reads a bit too much like a propaganda piece. 206.222.208.4 (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

On a very controversial topic like this, you are just going to open up a can of worms. You will be much more successfull dealing with individual items that you think need to be removed or changed rather than saying "rewrite the thing". Gaijin42 (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I'm not the IP above, but I read this. Here's a statement: Higher gun-related death rates can be found in developing countries and countries with political instability.[28][32][33] However, developed countries with strict gun laws have essentially eliminated gun violence.[34][35][36][37]

What does "essentially eliminated" mean here? The gun homicide rate in Canada is 0.5 per 100,000, about the same as Switzerland's. Canada has much stricter firearms laws than Switzerland. This rate is the same as the continental US state with the lowest firearm homicide rate, which is New Hampshire. They all have the same 0.5 gun homicide rate per 100,000 persons per year. See Gun violence in the United States by state, which has the reports for 2010; New Hampshire is slightly higher in 2011, but that's where I took the 0.5 from [1]. In the Wikipedia article you will also discover that New Hampshire has a Brady score near the bottom, which means that its gun laws are more lax than all states except a few like Utah and Arizona.

So, what are we to make of all this? The thrust of the synthesis here is that being "developed" and having "strict gun laws" is the path to "eliminating gun violence". Either they don't mean Canada, or else we are to assume that New Hampshire has also "essentially eliminated gun violence." But wihtout all the bother of strict gun laws. So how did that happen?

A perusal of the above WP article Gun violence in the United States by state will show you that state gun murder rates vary by an incredible factor of 20, with New Hampshire being best (followed closely by Vermont) and Louisiana being worst. By contrast, automobile death rates vary only by a factor of 3.3 across the continental US. What would we do if one state had 20 time the auto death rate of another? Would we add more safety features to automobiles and restrict their ownership (as David Hemenway suggests in this week's NEJM), or would we look more deeply? Gun murder rates in the US are a function of latitude and ethnic makeup, and have very little to do with gun laws, and almost nothing to do with povery or income.

Population density is an influence, as it is on all crime, but within the US you can find that the Memphis metropolitan area has a per capita violent crime rate 20 times that of the Logan metropolitan area (in Utah and Idaho). The latter doesn't have as dense population, but it is more impoverished even by household income (and far worse per capita due to the many children in Utah and Southern Idaho). Well, what's the difference? Not gun laws. Utah and Idaho are dead bottom of the Brady score, with Utah getting zero and Idaho getting 2 in a score of 100. Utah and Idaho have more firearms between them even than New Hampshire, and a massively armed populace with the right to carry concealed weapons. Why so little violent crime? Northern Utah and Southern Idaho are places full of Caucasion upstanding god-fearing teatotaling Mormons. In Memphis, well, let's just say that it isn't full of such people. But gun laws (or lack of them) are not the problem. Culture is the problem. Culture is the reason New Hampshire looks like Canada, and Louisiana looks like the Third World. This article hardly acknowledges that. SBHarris 05:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can successfully argue a point regarding gun deaths by comparing rates for countries with rates for individual US states. As you point out, there are more variables at play than individual states' approaches.

However, as you also point out, this isn't the page for state-by-state analysis. That has its own page. This is a presentation of the overall view for the US as a whole. Obviously (to me, at least) there must be a discussion of state approaches here, but the whole article is an attempt to provide a relatively concise overview of the problems with gun violence in the US, with sources.

As to NPOV, I'll just point out that this is a page outlining the many problems with gun violence in the US. There are no such pages for any other country - it is a uniquely US problem, and it is a serious problem. Therefore, it would be nearly impossible not to treat the manifold issues as problems, with an attendant risk of negative connotations.

Also, I don't believe that taking commonly-understood phrases like "essentially eliminated" and requiring that they be sourced or defined is helpful. This just introduces a layer of pedantry that merely confuses the casual reader. I do agree that comparisons should be sourced, but those may be able to be introduced in a less obfuscating way. These rules aren't generally applied unless there is a clear comparison being made. There are enough statistics in this page as it is!

I think I understand where you're coming from, and I agree that in such an emotional issue we need to be quite clear. But introducing decimal points where a simple English sentence makes the same point is getting pedantic, and that's the last thing we need!

Cephas Atheos (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Incredibly, you still missed the point. New Hampshire and Vermont have "essentially eliminated" gun violence, with the same statistics as Canada, but without any of Canada's gun laws. In fact, with hardly any gun laws. So "gun violence" isn't a uniquely US problem. It's a US Southern State and decayed inner city problem. The rest of the US has no problem. The third world (Mexico, for example) has a terrible gun violence problem-- more or less as bad as that of the US (about 10% worse). There are dozens of countries with worse gun violence death rates than the US, and you know what distinguishes them all? They all have tougher gun laws than the US does. They're aren't "developed" because they let their corrupt politicians steal their oil and everything else, not because they have no natural resources (poor Mexico, etc).

So what is the purpose of this article? Developed countries with strict gun laws may have eliminated gun violence, but that's not the only path. One path is that a country can develop instead of continuue in sloth and corruption, but I suppose that's not a liberal idea. However, liberal or not, and it's grossly unfair to suggest that Utahns live with Mexico's gun laws just because low-class people kill each other in (say) New Orleans. And certainly unfair to suggest that New Hampshire and Vermont need to toughen their gun laws when they do as well as Canada, violence-wise without gun laws. Indeed, this is an argument that Canada might look at Vermont and New Hampshire and loosen its laws. Most of Canada looks more like Vermont and New Hampshire than it does like Louisiana anyway. And has a culture to match. So they don't kill each other? Well, it's not because of pistol ownership or not. It has to do with what kind of people they are, and what they'll put up with. Same goes for Mexico. SBHarris 02:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Prevention and Intervention programs

Everything in these sections comes across as WP:POV (starting with their inclusion) because no connection has been established with their relationship to gun violence. There is a lot of information that deals with "guns", but very little that deals with "violence" either the psychology behind it or research on its causes. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. The sections not directly dealing with gun violence (such as gun ownership rates, safety programs etc) should probably be in the gun politics in the united states article, with a brief WP:SUMMARY here, (as obviously ownership rates do have some influence on the violence rates) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Off topic content

I propose removing all of the off topic content. This article is about "gun violence" (if the Lead is its summary) and seemingly violence related to criminal activity with the exception of suicide which used to be a crime, but is no longer in Western societies. That said the Lead needs to be edited and reduced along with the rest of the article. The "gun ownership" section is just a conglomeration of statistics and does not directly address any actual gun violence. The "Public policy" section is much the same. It appears to be attempting to answer a question that is not present in the article.

Cited or not, much of this information is just unrelated fluff that some are trying to pass off relevant content. Worse yet, the inclusion of it amounts to sythesis with no claim or connection made for why the information is stated. For example, the first two paragraphs of the gun ownership section have nothing to do with gun violence or criminal use of guns, its just raw statistics in prose form without explanation of its significance to the article subject. The self protection section that follows is about the lawful use of firearms for the prevention of crime. This is interesting information, but it seems to have little to do with "gun violence". The same goes for the Public policy section, it talks "around" the subject, but not specifically "to it".

All in all, very little of this article corresponds directly with its stated topic unless the strategy behind its editing is just to throw an inordinate amount of data at the reader and let them figure out has merit. As it stands now, I can't see how this article attained Good Article status. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You may have a point. I did not start these subsections.

On the other hand, how would a person be able to understand "deaths from car accident in Singapore" without knowing how many cars there were, how the driving laws were enforced, single car accidents, drunken driving, that sort of thing. So some background is necessary. Maybe the necessary data for understanding gun violence can be moved to an earlier subsection called "Background." Having one gun per person (on average) certainly would change statistics and understanding from a country where guns were forbidden under most circumstances.

The public policy section does seem to be answering a question not yet raised. But it needs to be in article someplace. Nearer the end. It answers the question - what are people doing about this? Does anyone care?

Somewhere (if it doesn't already) it should be stated that the U.S. is a bottom-up government. Smaller entities have delegated power to higher level entities for (whatever reason). Most foreign governments are top-down. Individual do what the government says. Just because. Actions are either mandatory or illegal! For someone living in those countries, background is a bit crucial.

As far a "good article" status, we should look at the organization then (or now, if still applicable) and keep it. GA is hard to achieve and represents a lot of experienced eyes on an article. Student7 (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I tried being bold by first removing much of the off-topic content and two editors reverted it claiming that the removal of "that much" material needed consensus or at least discussion. Hence my comments.

Do you know when and in what form this article had GA status? I couldn't find a recent entry. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Another good question. Doesn't seem to be in the log Category:Delisted_good_articles. Nor is it in Category:Former good article nominees. Can't seem to find "former GA."

Yet see (from clicking GA announcement above: Talk:Gun_violence_in_the_United_States/Archive_1#GA_Sweeps_Review:_Pass. Not sure what to make of all this. Student7 (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

So when I looked up the GA revision process, its states that its more of a means to fix an article as opposed to getting it delisted which I understand and agree with. But this article just seems so far off the path I have to wonder if the review is enough, then again I do think that it's a good start. What are your thoughts? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll to withdraw my comments that the GA status strongly supported the current organization. See Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Gun_violence for additional information.

Like all controversial topics, it has "just grown," there can be no "prescribed" outline, unfortunately.

At least we know what the current standing is. Now its a matter edit into a better form on our own or submit it for re-assessment. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"Gun ownership" needs to be tied in better perhaps? The reasons that people own small arms in cities, ironically, is usually to protect themselves. The guns, though, are mostly used to kill family members or suicide. So the "self-defense" concept fails. But it all needs to be included, even though a bad idea. Maybe better citations are needed?

The problem with the "Gun ownership" section is its existence (inclusion) in the article is a form of synthesis. Basically its a collection of statistics with the underlying suggestion or inference that since there are "lots of guns, they must be the cause of gun violence" without any actual link. Its trying to support a hypothesis that is not present in the article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do you disagree with the contents of "Public policy?" It seems to me to be germane. Without public policy, either "no guns" or "no control", so some context is essential IMO.

I wholeheartedly agree that context is essential, but much (not all, mind you) of the content of the "Public policy" section has the same synthesis problem as the "Gun ownership" section. The "Access to firearms" section is again a collection of statistics that on their face value have no connection to "gun violence". The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are useless, the former is a list of "bad guns" and the latter is statistics on juvenile criminals. In the "Firearms market" section, there is content about gun shows and access to guns with no correlation or connection to gun violence. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Would restructuring help? If so, what should the new structure look like? Student7 (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I tried this be removing most of the off topic content, which lead to reverting, which lead to this posting on the Talk page. Furthermore, there is virtually no content about the connection between mental health issues and gun violence. That would seem like an obvious inclusion, but its not cited other than to say that its illegal for a mentally impaired person to have or buy a gun.

When I read this article, all I get from it is that gun violence exists in various forms, there are lots of guns in existence, there are a variety of ways for people to own them (except for who legally can't), and that there are programs that are about guns, but they do little or nothing about gun violence. I'm genuinely starting to wonder if the article shouldn't nominated for deletion since relative to the situation back in 2007 in light of recent court decisions, legislation, and the various mass shootings if this article is needed or still relevant.

To answer your "structure" question, maybe we should start with reverting it back to its 2007 form and then update it from there in a clean and concise manner. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I would rather not take such a drastic step.

As it mentions in the lead, mass shootings (sometimes by people later determined to be deranged) account for a small percentage of deaths by gun violence. And if it doesn't say somewhere, it should, that mass shootings have diminished since 1927 or so. Pretty much a modern media field day, since there isn't much that interests people in the news anymore.

Obviously with a gun per person (men, women, children) in the U.S., removing guns from everyone is impossible. Thus, both criminals and people with mental problems will be able to get guns, if they wish to.

I don't see where mental health is really tied that much into gun violence, though listening to the media might lead one to conclude otherwise. Most violence in the home, suicides, a few random holdups gone wrong. Not sure that "emotional/mental health" is a recognized issue in gun violence. Makes the headlines, and some legislature gets passed which makes headlines but is (essentially) unenforceable. As the article says, it's a culture thing when comparing to other advanced countries. We are multi-cultural which creates havoc with society, despite pious words to the contrary.

Pretty much "airport security" type issue. The "good guys" go through two hours of TSA hell to get on a plane, while the "bad guys" dream up some other way to kill people. Also, there is nearly no way to disarm a person who legally owns a gun, who has since become "mentally ill."

How about "tagging" the sections you don't like. You can use {{clarify|reason=}} if you can't think of another appropriate tag. This will help me to better understand what parts you don't like.Student7 (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is that drastic? By your own analysis in the comments above, the material needed to update the article is minor. Tagging, in my opinion, mucks up the article for the readers even if that tag is not visible when not logged in.

As for my point regarding the issue of mental health, guns don't cause violence, people do. Violence of any nature, gun related or otherwise, is a human issue and it is not unique to the United States, it's a worldwide phenomenon. The U.S. has a lot of guns per capita and therefore has a high level of gun related violence relative to other kinds of violent activity and relative to other countries. Non-military and criminal related gun violence (specifically what this article discusses) in the U.S. or anywhere else, should be no more notable than Machete violence in Africa, Vehicle violence in Germany, or Sword violence in the middle ages.

I just summed up the entire article in 2 sentences, possibly just one. Still convinced we need an entire article about it? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

In the hypothetical article "Rolling pin violence in the United States" I would want to know that 80% of the rolling pins are purchased by women, that 90% of the women know where the rolling pin is kept. That violence by rolling pin is performed by women 95% of the time, as opposed to men. Nevertheless, .001% of the rolling pins purchased in America are used for violence. I don't find this WP:SYNTH. The reader can draw his or her own conclusions. I have not tried to "prove" that a woman who buys a rolling pin is contemplating violence or that mere ownership suggests future use of the pin as a tool of violence. Maybe someone has done a study on actual correlation. That would be included if available.

Without having the material to look at, right alongside the objection, it's going to be hard for me to contemplate changes. If you don't want to tag the article, maybe you can copy sections you don't like here and comment on them. Or not. Student7 (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-hypothetically, it wouldn't matter if you couldn't demonstrate the notability of "Rolling pin violence in the United States". So lets start there, why is non-military, criminal and non-criminal (since suicide has been decriminalized) related "Gun violence in the United States" worthy of an article? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Because, like it or not, in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School which caused the Obama administration to inaugurate a "gun violence task force" the US has been seen as a country with a special public health problem with regard to gun violence. It has caused attention to be given to the research of David Hemenway (see the section that begins this page) and his arguments that the US is unique in developed Western countries in lacking laws and pubic policies which deal effectively with the issue. It does no good for you to simply remove such research from the page as being off topic. In some cases you're clearly wrong: gun violence is no less gun violence for being employed in self-defense, for example, and needs to be discussed at the same time. Legal violence is violence. In other cases, the US statistics on gun violence need to be collected in a single place where they can be compared, as in the list article on gun violence in the United States by state.

One way to see that gun violence in the US iis not particularly related to state or US laws is by noting that gun violence in the US differs from state to state by a factor of 25. That's huge (compare with adjusted auto death rate that differs by no more than 3.3 from state to state). That may make it rather obvious that the gun violence of Canada can be (and has been) achieved with the lax gun laws of Vermont and New Hampshire, but only if this information is collected in one place, where it can be examined. When we see that gun violence is not so much a US problem as a New Orleans problem (not a San Jose or Austin problem) then new light is shown on the issue. But the hypothesis needs examination before it can be rejected. You are starting with your answer and using it to delegitimize the question. The problem is that everybody else has not caught up, yet. The gross statistics do indeed make this seem a "US" problem in need of "US" (federal) solutions. Only when it is examined more delicately can it be seen to be the complicated subject that it is. In short, it is worthy of an article because it has become a huge federal political football. SBHarris 02:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I read (and then re-read) your comments and I'm still trying to figure out your point or stance. You mention a recent event and one researcher. Then you go on to state a statistic ("factor of 25") without any context. Even with the auto death number, I'm still not sure what you are trying to say. Lastly, what did that have to do with relevancy of the content of the article? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I was merely trying to answer your last question: Non-hypothetically, it wouldn't matter if you couldn't demonstrate the notability of "Rolling pin violence in the United States". So lets start there, why is non-military, criminal and non-criminal (since suicide has been decriminalized) related "Gun violence in the United States" worthy of an article?

The basic question, is why any X and Y type thing that has an article on WP, is worthy of such an article? The answer is always notability. There's a literature to be sumarized. Why do we have (for example) articles on Homosexuality in ancient Rome, LGBT topics and Hinduism, and HIV/AIDS in China? In many cases it's because some topic is notable because there are many articles published positing some kind of cause-and-effect relationship, like Health effects of tobacco. In others, the authors are summarizing a literature that posits a relationship betweeen a state or its laws and some other problem, such as Torture and the United States. Again, the literature makes for notability.

In the present article, we have a little of both, with the argument made that easier access to guns in the US (as compared with developed countries) has resulted in greater gun violence in the US. The statistician I mentioned, Hemenway, has specifically made that argument, and he is quoted in this article. So, that's the reason and the reasoning. Hemenway believes that gun violence in the US would drop to Canadian levels if the US adopted Canadian-style gun laws. Personally I don't believe this would happen, as Vermont and New Hampshire already have Canadian levels of gun violence, while having laws similar to the rest of the US (they achieve their results by being nearer in culture and distance to Canada than to the rest of the US). But that's a fault of this article, not a reason to delete the article's summaries of the gun-law advocate's arguments. Such epidemiologic arguments would be more valid if we didn't have good control groups showing that Canadian levels of gun violence can be acheived with US gun laws: For example, if we had some US state where most adults smoked 3 packs a day of cigarettes and yet had the same lung cancer rates as (say) Utah, that would constitute a sound argument against those wanting to levy higher cigarette taxes in the US, in order to prevent lung cancer. We could certainly point out that it's possible to smoke a lot and yet have low lung cancer rates, so perhaps some other way can be explored. Alas, no such state exists, because smoking IS the prime cause of lung cancer in the US (that's one reason why we know it is). The reason we do have such outlier state cases in the US when it comes to firearms, is that gun-violence is NOT primarily caused by access to guns, but rather by other cultural problems (sex, age, race, racism, the war on drugs, inner-city decay) that politicians would rather not talk about. Tell me what fraction of your state population is young male blacks who are out of work, and I'll predict your level of gun violence with a p value far better than any gun law or gun count can do. Sorry. It's a shame this article is so poorly written that it doesn't point that out. The solution, however, is not to emasculate the article by removing such correlative content as it DOES contain. SBHarris 02:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Suicide material across articles

Questions or comments about the Suicides involving firearms section? Please see the Suicide materials across articles discussion on the main Gun violence talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Heads up! Purely STYLE changes

This article is very inconsistent in its use of "United States," "US," "USA," "U.S." etc. I am going to make the following style changes to make it look a little more professional. First occurrence in a section, spelled out "United States"; rest of section, "U.S." Lightbreather (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Cook references

FYI: I am in the middle of updating the Cook Gun Violence: The Real Costs citations. I have a copy and I'm pinpointing the references (rather than "Chapter 2" or "Chapter 3". Lightbreather (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of two related RfCs and request for participation

There are two RfCs in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

• RfC re use of the term "assault weapon"
• RfC re use of the term "high-capacity magazine"

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

'Homicide' means what, precisely?

How many gun deaths are caused by police? How many are 'justified homicide'? Or are those numbers excluded from the total numbers reported here?
~ender 2014-05-03 10:54:AM MST

Generally speaking Homicide is the taking of a human life by another human. In the context of this article, I'd have to assume that its the taking of a human life by another human through the use of a firearm. How or why that firearm was used or under what circumstances is IMO an important distinction, but we can only discuss the data that we have sources for. Do you have any sources that would help? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Rarity of mass murder

In the third sentence, an outdated text is quoted saying high-profile mass murder is rare. This book is from 2002. Twelve years later, they are not as rare. This should be changed. BenjaminHold (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done [2] --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I am confused by the edit. The source is more current, and there is enough even in the snippet available without a paid subscription to update the material in question. But this:

High-profile mass shootings have fueled debate over gun policies, even though the frequency of these events have been on a decline since the 1990s.

Does not seem like an accurate, NPOV summary of this:

If it seemed like 2012 was an especially bad year for mass public shootings, that's because it was. Mass public shootings had been on the decline in the United States since the 1990s. The seven in 2012 were the most since 1999, which also had seven cases. More victims were killed and wounded in mass shootings in 2012 than in any previous year. It's unclear whether 2012 is the bellwether of a more ominous trend in mass murder. What is clear, however, is that there's been little variation in our responses to high-profile mass public shootings over the last five decades. Although mass shootings have occasionally provoked debates over issues such as violent video games, hate crimes or bullying, the public discussion has, by and large, concentrated on guns. The main points raised in 1966 following the mass murder committed by Charles Whitman, which was the first one that ignited widespread debate over gun control, remain largely the same today....

--Lightbreather (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Its the Lead, feel free to add more content in the body of the article. You're welcome for the new source. Please try to represent it properly. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Unhelpful Graph

The titles of this Wikipedia article is: "Gun violence in the United States". Yet there is NO graph which shows homicide rates for all guns, unless you can figure out how to graphically add two chart lines together. The only graph in the article breaks down guns into constituent parts, which is not helpful, since no one could mentally create a mental picture of the sum of the individual chart lines. Could someone post a graph which shows homicide rates for the total of guns, all guns combined? Otherwise, the article needs to be titled, "Handgun, longgun, knife, and other weapon violence in the United States." Or perhaps we need a separate article on handguns, rather than lumping them in with the generic notion of "guns". I came to this article looking for the homicide rate for all guns, combined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N0w8st8s (talk • contribs) 08:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Heller and McDonald in the lead?

I can see mentioning Heller and McDonald in the lead of Gun politics in the United States. I can see mentioning them in the body of this article. However, since they're about the right to own guns for self-defense in the home - and not about gun violence - I don't see how they merit inclusion in the lead. So I deleted mention of them from the lead [3] (not the body). However, they were restored.[4] I would like to read some feedback on this. Are Heller and McDonald lead-worthy in an article about gun violence? Lightbreather (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is poorly written

I don't come at this from any political side, but this article reads like amateur hour. Lulaq (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, its one giant, disgusting, unbalanced POV mess. It's so full of WP:SYNTH I am absolutely appalled by the fact that it was awarded WP:GOOD article status. What are your ideas to improve it? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see related article Wikipedia:Good article help#How to determine an article's "good article" history? and below Article title - and relationship to Gun politics in the U.S. article. No matter which side of the debate one is on, there seems to be agreement that the article is no longer "good." Lightbreather (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead image

• 
  1. Shooting of President William McKinley in 1901; McKinley died eight days later from his wounds. (Illustration circa 1905 by T. Dart Walker.)
• 
  2. The body of Charles Whitman lying on the observation deck of the Tower of the University of Texas in Austin on the afternoon of August 1, 1966. Whitman shot 32 and killed 16 people on August 1, 1966.
• 
  3. President George W. Bush with Virginia Tech Student Government Association President James Tyger after Bush's speech at the school's convocation.

While I agree with replacing the 1. McKinkley assassination illustration with something more current, I absolutely disagree that 2. the bell tower sniper's photo is the best replacement - or even a good replacement for that matter. --Lightbreather (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the one of 3. President Bush after the Virginia Tech shooting? Lightbreather (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Article title - and relationship to Gun politics in the U.S. article

My recent post about Heller and McDonald in the lead brings up a bigger issue.

I've always thought about this article as an article just about... gun violence in the United States. In fact, the title would lead any reader to think the same thing. But it is as much about the policies/politics related to gun violence in the U.S. as it is about the violence itself. In fact, in Gun politics in the United States (GPUS), this article is given as the MAIN article under Public policy arguments > Gun violence debate.

So, I would like to discuss and come to an agreement about what information to put where.

1. We could just leave gun violence info in this article and move the policy/politics parts back into the GPUS article. But that article is already pretty big...
2. We could leave the policy/politics related to addressing gun violence here, but if so, I think this article's title should be changed and the summary in the main, GPUS article should be re-worked. I think this would be helpful to readers and to future editors.
3. We could have one article that's just about Gun violence in the U.S. (which I think is what this one used to be about): the history of gun violence here, kinds of gun violence, gun violence statistics. And a separate article about the policies/politics debated about how to address gun violence? But then we're kind of back to the main Gun politics in the U.S. article.
4. ?

Reviewing the hierarchy of these related articles and each article' scope is what I'm suggesting. Lightbreather (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you've framed the parameters so well, that other editors may be having trouble framing a good response! The following may not be it!

Assault with a deadly weapons seems to be omitted in this article, as is mugging. For most states, a fake weapon, including a finger in the pocket, is also considered assault - the victim was sufficiently cowed by the action. I don't think that the original editors wanted this material at all. It was "all about" weaponry, and weaponry only. Nevertheless, these activities may have been incorporated into some of the statistics and can't be removed except on a case-by-case basis! So some statistics on "gun" violence may automatically include "finger-pointing!" Literally!

We can't discuss this in a vacuum. It affects, or should affect all other "gun violence in.." articles.

Switzerland, Israel, and the rural US (among other places) have lots of guns per capita but little violence.

Percentagewise, most US cities have few guns per capita but have sufficient violence in some places to create discussion. So lumping the two together, US rural areas and cities in any article, tends to result in contradicting povs.

If we split the article, then we get overlap. Editors start quoting the NY Times, or somebody else WP:RS that lumps gun prevalence and violence together. So the question arises: How do you keep the "weapons only" article clean of "politics/policy/violence"? I like FAQs on the talk page, but try to enforce it!

"Politics" are what elected legislators do after they are elected. They are not quotes (contrary to what I suggested above) from the NY Times. Also the courts, I suppose. Neither are they polls however npov they are worded. "Policies" are in the same category. The Executive branch carries out policies along with the police. So a "gun politics" article (named something else, I hope!) would include that Vermont (and other states) allow open carry; if one carries a registered weapon in your trunk ("inaccessible") in Massachusetts, you may get locked up! In other words, the new article would include an inventory of applicable statutes and court decisions. Period.

There would be no "proposed laws" article nor "polls" because these would be WP:CRYSTAL and utterly useless IMO. So, for me, the first thing to do, is to clear out comments, quotes, and opinion from the article, if they exist. For example, the first sentence claims "regularly debated political issue." I don't see what this has to do with anything or is useful. Everything in the US is "regularly debated." The word "political" is misused. It should refer to changing statutes to control the possession of weaponry. But the sentence is still nonsense since (again) is this more debated than (say) the Kardashian's vacation plans? The sentence is automatically pov IMO without statistics showing that there are more bills passed on this issue than others (unlikely) or maybe more enforcement (unlikely. Speeding vehicles are probably "more enforced." Burglaries are probably more reported).

In what article would one "correlate" gun possession and violence? I don't think these are credibly correlated. Like correlating "Wearing black hats and crime perpetrators." Correlation may be possible but not terrifically useful. I don't know why the otherwise verbally/emotionally abusive Israeli parliament doesn't just have a shootout now and then! It would make sense! They all carry loaded weapons! But it never seems to happen! So positive proof of gun prevalence and gun violence doesn't seem logical IMO. And allowing space for it, equally so.

I apologize for not following your neat outline. Perhaps this answer will encourage a more organized response. Student7 (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting point. I think we need to remove political commentary from this article, and de-emphasize the potential correlation between gun violence and gun ownership (and/or gun possession, which is much more difficult to determine, and only weakly correlated), as being loudly argued frequently debated and hence almost impossible to describe in other than a political context. Other than that, I think I almost completely agree with option 1. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hear, hear! I could not agree more with Arthur Rubin. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Arthur This article would not have to draw a correlation between gun ownership and gun violence. However, there will be readers who want to know the rates of gun ownership and the rates of gun violence. We could give that information NPOV, and give sources analysis of that information NPOV. What we need are the highest-quality sources (say 2 or 3) for the side that says that it is more than correlation and ditto (2 or 3 high-quality sources) for the side that says it is only correlation. Oh! And they need to be balanced. About the same amount of words for each side. That's where these articles go bad, IMO. They either have poor quality sources, or one side is given undue weight by its placement within the article, or by the quantity of text that it's given. Or they use sources that were good sources in their day, but that are less relevant now based on newer data and research. Lightbreather (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Student7 I thought I framed my questions pretty well, and I'm having a hard time reading your reply and applying it to my questions. Could you answer those first? Of suggestions 1, 2, and 3, which seems most appropriate to you? If you are proposing a suggestion 4, could you spell it out here? How would this article fit in with the broader article "Gun politics in the United States"? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed you did frame the questions well.

I tend to substitute the word "Policies" or "Statutes" for the word "Politics" when I encounter it in Wikipedia. The media tends to push the word for their own reason. We get to vote for a representative, that is about it. So when someone says something, s/he is trying to influence my vote. The legislature determines politics and statutes. The executive may be able to influence "policy," e.g. tightly enforcing gun laws or ignoring them in favor of something else. But of course, making a big fuss for tv, when a group of people is shot and is "in the news" for several weeks.

The media wants us to think that our opinion (and theirs) is terrifically important. Raises viewership and what they can charge for advertising. My opinion is important in the voting booth. I don't go their daily, actually. I vote every two years excluding primaries. The (wo)man I vote for may or may not agree with everything on my list. Like gun laws. His/her opinion on that issue may not make any difference anyway, since the group s/he is in has to have a majority, plus a majority in an alternate body, plus the executive's consent. I'm not really a one issue person.

I think move out "talk" if any is left and just leave the article alone. If someone wants to start (or move out) statutes someplace, that could be named "gun politics", I suppose. But editors would still continue to confuse the two. GPUS confuses talk with activity. So I hesitate to endorse #1. I would drop "talk" entirely from that article. Talk is mostly irrelevant unless someone is addressing me from the operational side of a gun, or an ultimatum from Russia, that sort of thing...

So I guess #3, with the GPUS article "tidied up." Good luck with that!  :) Student7 (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Close, but no cigar

I am a new user to Wikipedia, but found this article provided a lot of information, yet it lacked fluidity and structure which caused it to be confusing. The article lacks several necessary citations to some of the "facts" it provides. One of Wikipedia's policies is "no original research" can be posted to entries, but with the verbosity and lack of citations throughout the article, I found it to be somewhat opinionated information. I also sensed a disconnect in the writing because of the sporadic dates and locations provided in examples and it seems to include too many sections. Overall, though, the read was informative and did a good job covering the cause of why gun violence and how it happens in the US. Thank you for letting me share my thoughts in this new community! Megzmarie5 (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

New information

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011. In the same year, data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide. Most homicides in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns. Homicides committed with firearms peaked in 1993 at 17,075, after which the figure steadily fell, reaching a low of 10,117 in 1999. Gun-related homicides increased slightly after that, to a high of 11,547 in 2006, before falling again to 10,869 in 2008. References:<Ref> http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx </ref> this is the most relevent informationI could find on NIJ.gov 72.224.171.98 (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Wade Walling72.224.171.98 (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwalling (talk • contribs) 01:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Come on guys, stop undoing the deletion of the "By the opinion of Obama..." bit

Please stop undoing the deletion of that 1,232 byte section. It's far from meeting encyclopedic standards and has a washington post opinion blog as a source. It needs to major reworking and proper sourcing before it's appropriate for an encyclopedia. 72.224.171.98 (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Reply for you and for people as you, is located in the topic below ! 37.144.111.12 (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC) - .

Apparent IP Sock puppetry

I have been noticing that one user has been adding that section on Obama and opinions with the source from the WaPo opinion page. To me it appears that this is someone who is using multiple ip's because for example one IP created a new section in the talk page and another referenced it in a response to a user in the talk page. Also their have been multiple different IP's reverting the removal of that information from the page. I don't know how to deal with them, any suggestions? SantiLak (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoever it is is using an IP from Russia. The page seems to be protected now. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Swiss Gun Ownership

The counterpoint of Swiss Gun Ownership to me feels shaky at best. For one it's devoid of context. Outside of the army and police, a lot of guns are banned that are allowed in the US. Automatic weapons (including those converted to semi-auto or handguns) are completely banned and everyone who purchases a gun must have a weapons purchase permit for most guns. And private sales require a written contract. And carry is entirely forbidden without a permit. So it's a lot stricter than most of the US and applies country wide. 216.163.254.2 (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine. If you want something to compare, do Vermont and New Hampshire gun ownership. These two states have gun laws which are very liberal (particularly New Hampshire), but gun murder rates about the same as Canada's. Explaining this will cause many people to have apoplexy, but there is no escaping the fact that gun murder is a matter of culture first, and gun ownership second. You don't have to be Swiss. You can be a northern New Englander. SBHarris 00:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Correct. The juxtaposition between gun laws and violent crime is a slippery slope. For every country that has banned guns and experienced a drop in violent crime, I can cite a country that bans firearm ownership and still has a high rate of violent crime. The CDC report established pretty clearly that the connection between rates of firearm ownership and violent crime are not connected. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Barack Obama (scientist in the scope of constitutional law)

President Barack Obama has a huge right to Express their opinion with respect to any laws and research on the use of firearms in the United States because he is a lawyer of the highest level in the field of constitutional law, and for several other reasons. In any relevant articles about weapons in the United States (he can be represented with his opinion and related facts). - 37.144.114.16 (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC).

The fact that he's entitled to his opinion doesn't oblige us to publish it as though it's analytical or scientific. We cite scientific research and studies, not the opinions of obviously biased politicians, be they president or be they not president. I can find all sorts of opinions of lawyers and politicians aross the country who run the gamut. This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion forum. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Obama's opinion is certainly relevant for Gun politics in the US. It's not so relevant here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

‎Eddie Eagle Program

I took out this whole section. It's not about gun violence, the program is already mentioned in the previous section, it's undue weight, and it's basically an NRA feel-good project. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Does Twinkle force editors to make reverts without reading the article? There's already plenty on "Eddie Eagle" in the "Children" section. Adding a very redundant, non-neutral section on it does not improve the article in any way. No wonder this is such a crappy article- editors fight over junk text they don't even read. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

This is clearly on-topic, as it addresses one approach to addressing gun violence among children. It should remain in the article, where it has been for several years now. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

There's no hope for Wikipedia if editors add chunks of text without even reading the article first. You didn't when you added it then and you didn't when you reverted it now. Stupid edits to force non-neutral, repetitive material into contentious articles is disruptive, doncha think? 162.119.231.132 (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; this is an ongoing and widespread approach. It's certainly notable. If other information in the article duplicates it, then that information should be merged into it. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

If?! You mean you haven't read it either? WTF is going on around here? I'm going to delete it again. It's totally redundant and non-neutral. It's half the "Eddie Eagle" article minus the criticism. and the preceding section that no one bothers to read already has a fine little summary of the program. The only reason to keep re-adding this material is, well, I'd better not make accusations. Felsic (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Gun violence in the United States

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: This article was listed for GA reassessment almost 11 weeks ago, and the last comment was made over six weeks ago. The changes that have been made to this article since nomination for reassessment did not address GAR concerns nor did they address the problems indicated by the two cleanup banners placed at the top of the article. All existing comments on this thread are in support of delisting. Additionally, other comments made on this article's talk page are indicative of a consensus to remove GA status. Jacedc (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The article has not been reassessed since 2006 and there've been a lotta changes since then. Two big problems: the intro doesn't summarize the article, and some editors keep reinserting repetitive, non-neutral text. Felsic (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree. To say the least, it needs to be updated. But it also needs to be refactored for simpler language in some parts and more exact language in other parts. As I read through the article more and more, I would say it'd be better to revoke GA status for now, in part due to out-of-date information and also in part due to non-neutral language (regardless of whether or not it's agreeable, the phrasing needs to sound more "simple fact"-ish.) This appears to be present throughout the article. Jacedc (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

.

Wayne LaPierre & Regnery Publishing

McDowall's study for the American Journal of Public Health contrasted with the 1993 study by Kleck, who found that 2.45 million crimes were thwarted each year in the U.S. by guns, and in most cases, the potential victim never fired a shot.

Is this really the best source for the contents of an academic study? Is it even reliable for anything besides La Pierre's opinions?[5] I don't think so, but I'd be amused to see someone make that argument. Felsic (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's the actual study [6]. It would be more accurate to say that "McDowall's study for the American Journal of Public Health contrasted with the 1993 study by Kleck, which stated that there were 2.2 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year, in which 24% of respondents said that they had fired their gun." (page 16 of PDF for 2.5 million total, page 32 of PDF for 24% fired gun) (I don't like "found" - see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Synonyms_for_said) Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it available somewhere other than hoplofobia.info? Lightbreather (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Other than a library? here and here. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Crappy intro

The intro to this article is crap. "Gun violence is an issue"?! What isn't an "issue"? The whole thing looks like it was written to push a POV rather than summarize the article. Start with the main points first - like the fact that gun violence is the source of thousands of deaths and injuries annually. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Somebody did a knee-jerk revert without bothering to use the talk page.

• Gun violence is a widely debated issue in the United States.
• Income tax is a widely debated issue in the United States.
• Abortion is a widely debated issue in the United States.
• Politics is a widely debated issue in the United States.
• The weather is a widely debated issue in the United States.

That's a stupid lead, and it's equally stupid for the thousands of articles we could add it to. The whole intro is crap and does a lousy job of summarizing the article. At least give a justification for reverting to this crap again. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is suicide considered "gun violence" at all? The use of suicide to fluff up the numbers for gun "violence" totals is nothing more than equivocation and alarmism. This is stupid. This entire article should be deleted as it is nothing more than an opinion piece. Thaskyshark (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

A gunshot to the head is a pretty damn violent way to die, regardless of who pulls the trigger. Felsic (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you mention Japan, and yet exclude suicide there (and Japan has a higher murder suicide rate than the US) is interested. Are you saying jumping in front of a train is less violent?Aeo1987 (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

All while the article is one of the Social sciences and society good articles. Hmmmm. Yet, gun violence is clearly a widely debated issue, perhaps the most important to many in the Social Sciences. The cites clearly establish that it is widely debated. The sources determine what goes into articles. It is not POV to go with what cited sources claim. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Didja ever read any of the guidelines on how to write articles for Wikipedia? We're wasting our time here if you don't know the basics. Here's one: the lead is supposed to summarize the article, not to make pointless points. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Why so confrontational? Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Why such a stupid intro? Why such resistance to improvement? Why so much mindless reverting? Why? Why? Why? Felsic (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Why such hostility? Why such mindless reverting from you? Why refusal to accept that edit warring isn't the way to go? Why so much POV coming from you? All rational questions we could be asking you. In fact you are the one who is mindlessly reverting because instead of waiting for discussion to finish, you have gone ahead and reverted again.- SantiLak (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not "mindless reverting". I gave my reasons in my edit summary and on this page. You reverted without any explanation. So did Miguel. Still no explanation from you, just confrontation. If you think all Wikipedia articles on controversial topics should be have as their intro, "Blank is a widely debated issue" then say so and give your reasons. I think it's a stupid form which doesn't tell the readers what the article is actually about. And I said so. Now you say why you think I'm wrong. That's how discussion works. Felsic (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion works best if editors assume good faith, instead of projecting hostility and becoming confrontational. Hostility and insults do not promote discussion. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Miguel - please tell me the secret to promoting discussion with you - you've reverted me many times on many pages without bothering to discuss your reverts. It seems like your first response to every edit I make is a revert. Show me your good faith by discussing instead of reverting. Felsic (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Lede needs mention that US gun murder has plunged almost 60% in 22 years, and is likely at 100 year lows

The core metric indicates a major and sustained plunge. It needs to be right up there first sentence of that lede graph dealing with gun murder. Also since 2/3 of gun violence in the US is suicide, suicide needs to be ahead of murder in the lede and subsequent graphs, along with the estimates of gun suicide attributable to gun availability, which is way lower than those where the means is guns.Aeo1987 (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

More Homicide statistics

I see there are statistical graphs for weapon type, and age of the perpetrator, but what about the gender and/or ethnicity of the perpetrator ? Having such information would garner a more precise picture of the "homicide problem" and thus probable solutions to such problems. Gizziiusa (talk) 05:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)gizziiusa

Rewrite needed

The article presents a lotta info in the intro that isn't in the rest of the article. You don't have to look farther than the first section, on suicide. It never says how many suicides with firearms there are. It's in the intro, but not in the section that talks about it. Another big omission is accidental death and injury from firearms. Partisans may enjoy writing about groups and proposals and all that stuff but the article oughta stay focused on the topic - gun violence in the US. Where, why, what, when: cover the basics first. Felsic (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Started an accident section. It oughta have more recent data covering more accidents. Felsic (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the need for rewrite. The article needs to start with a better definition which contrasts "gun violence" with "gun crime". A violent act is one that is intentional and results in harm or damage to property. This act is not by definition a crime. This should be made clear. In contrast an accident may result in damage to property and/or harm to persons. An accident is not a violent act. It may however be a crime, if negligence can be proved. This article is about gun violence, which falls into the first category. It should include information on both violent acts which are criminal as well as violent acts carried out in self-defense and as a part of the process of law enforcement. Elliott, Shanghai180.173.86.61 (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Gun violence elsewhere

Higher gun-related death rates can be found in developing countries and countries with political instability. However, some developed countries with strict gun laws have almost eliminated gun violence.

I don't see nothing in this about the gun violence in the US. It oughta go in some other article. Felsic (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It is interesting your cites include suicide when convenient, and excluded them when convenient. Japan's murder+suicide rate/100,000 is way higher than the US.

Also Of the ~20,000 US gun suicides, the peer reviewed research indicates a range of 19,400 to 19,800 would still occur, by other means, if all guns were removed. In other words 200 to 600 of the 20,000 are caused by guns, not 20,000.

Moreover a dozen or more jurisdictional studies indicate upwards of 90% of US murder victims are criminals, with around 65% felons.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm

Meaning the real risk is criminality and criminal activity. Indeed if you are not a criminal your risk of being murdered in the USA is well below the developed nation mean.Aeo1987 (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for the referenced peer-reviewed research? Also, the referenced article is specifically referring to violence in Baltimore through the lens of a spike in violence. It does refer to specific numbers in different cities and generally refers to a higher percentage of criminals being murdered in the US as a whole but doesn't give the specific numbers that you cited or a specific source of those numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.179.66.210 (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggested subheading - gun violence commited by law enforcement

I have looked at articles such as "defensive gun use" and "justifiable homicide" and found that no articles of this nature exclusively deal with shootings undertaken by law enforcement officials.

I came here looking for a statistic on the number of shootings carried out by law enforcement officers, resultant deaths and the ratio of shootings which resulted in charges compared to those which were deemed lawful. Perhaps there is an article which already deals with this. If there is not - I suggest its inclusion in this article as a subheading, "Gun violence involving law enforcement".

I would include Number of recorded shootings by officers (with breakdown by state) Number of recorded shootings of officers (with breakdown by state) Statistics on the resultant legal and medical follow up

Many thanks for giving this suggestion your consideration.

Elliott, Shanghai180.173.86.61 (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Less than 349/annually, most of which are held (after investigation, which is automatic) to be justified. The ones that aren't or are on the borderline, you've seen on tv for weeks on end. 3 or 4 maybe. see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447171. Student7 (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Lede

Lede is supposed to be a summary and therefore contain no footnotes (because the body contains the footnotes). Instead, there are 20 footnotes. There is too much data, which normally belongs in the body. There are 322 million people in the United States. .003571% of the population is killed annually by homicide. 4 out of 100,000 or so. Student7 (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Demographics

Demographics are given based upon gender and age, but not race. Since there are differences based upon all three, shouldn't all three be included? 72.218.218.34 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Noise/low-quality edits

It looks like there's a lot of "noise" editing going on here - changes made by users without an account, subsequently reverted. I imagine that this has to do with the sensitive political nature of the article, and subsequent increased attention. I think that this is a high importance article, and is likely viewed very frequently, thus quality is a priority. Perhaps edits should be locked to signed in users only? Test35965 (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Page view stats confirm this "Gun_violence_in_the_United_States has been viewed 86113 times in the last 30 days.", and wikichecker says fully 30% of edits are by anonymous users, 22 by a single IP address. Test35965 (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Restructure

Someone (or more than one) editor has structured this article. It looks pretty good, except that reasons for violence are omitted. This gives the casual visitor to the article one impression (which happens to be that of the media): the country owns a lot of guns. There is a lot of gun violence. Therefore, the best way to eliminate gun violence is to do away with guns.

First off, the media would love this approach since it would give them hours of reporting, all underwritten by ads, of course. A significant plurality would hate it and oppose it at every opportunity (which it does already). So the role that media plays should probably be a separate subsection.... They like to pretend that "they just report", but they clearly do more than that. They have a dog in the fight too.

Reasons for violence needs a subsection as well, most likely. The media would hate this because it is difficult to report. Not something you can "break news" on at 7 with "news at 11". They like the quick and dirty. No one listens to talking heads. A lot fewer paid ads. The media would rather say, "Who knew that this quiet, unassuming young man would do this? Everyone is wringing their hands." Pretty much it for analysis! Television can't be too deep; no one would watch it!

As everyone has pointed out, gun ownership in Israel and Switzerland is high, murder rate low, so an objective person cannot automatically correlate gun ownership with violence. Student7 (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that the term "copycat"/"mirror" killers has been avoided. This does not seem reasonable (npov) to me since that is what these mass killers are doing. Student7 (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Quoting the Forth Article, Second Amendment to the US Bill of Rights in its entirety.

Is there a particular justification as to the practice of not quoting the entire forth article of the second amendment to the US Bill of Rights? It reads as follows: Fourth Article: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

After some research, I have been given to understand that it is meant to either defend a just government or remove a corrupt one. It isn't simply a right to own and carry Arms.

This is an observation I've made regarding any political or private quote on the article. The 6th Republican Presidential Nomination Debate dated Jan 14, 2016 is a good example where the complete sentence was not quoted. Torontofred (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussion on political issues related to it. - SantiLak (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

New article with a variety of useful graphs

I was having a look at this article [7] --- Does anyone have the time/interest to reconfigure some of these graphs and use them in the article? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I just reviewed the article you mentioned and it is very interesting. The data needs to be validated. One point that is very disturbing: The majority of deaths in the US seems to be suicidal. If this is the case, then tighter guns laws will save lives. It is contrary to pro gun lobbyists who simply focus on crime. Note in the 6th Republic debate 1/14/2016. I also noted that Canada's stance with relation to hand gun deaths and to Australia and New Zealand is higher. Again, it should be noted that Canada is next door to the United States. Although I do not have sources to quote, I did grow up in a tough part of Toronto and this was common knowledge, hence, you can use me as an expert. Canadian criminals travel to the States to purchase illegal guns and return via car. Therefore, US gun laws have a negative impact on a neighboring country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontofred (talk • contribs) 18:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

2 main points regarding the original post, and the comment. 1, plain and simple, Vox is not RS. 2, you can't be used as an expert nor would that qualify you as one, it's WP:OR. - SantiLak (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Gun violence in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060615115151/http://www.chron.com:80/content/chronicle/nation/guns/part2/gunside1.html to http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/nation/guns/part2/gunside1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090105193911/http://paxusa.org/speakup/about.html to http://www.paxusa.org/speakup/about.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111004052609/http://www.cpyv.org:80/programs/what-is-speak-up/ to http://www.cpyv.org/programs/what-is-speak-up/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous POV article

The first sentence in the entire article is Gun violence in the United States results in thousands of deaths and thousands more injuries annually". The tone of the article, especially the lede, is now heavily weighted to "guns are bad" histrionics and not to science and NPOV. At one time, this was rated a good article, but it looks like the gun banners have gone in and turned it into yet another polemic. That sentence is not appropriate as the first in the article whatsoever. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you suggest any particular edits which you think would make it more neutral? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The lede should be returned to the previous GA version [8], which does a much better job of summarizing the article's points. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, the only thing that has changed (as far as I can see) is that the sentences have been rearranged so that the article starts with the statistics surrounding gun violence, which makes sense for a NPOV article Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your disagreement. It was good enough to be a GA before, now it is not. The article has been ruined by anti-gun POV pushers, who have rearranged the points from a NPOV article into one that emphasizes their political POV. The lede doesn't even adhere to MOS. WP:MOSINTRO, WP:MOSBEGIN, WP:BEGIN. Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see how putting the statistics at the start of the article makes it POV. Could you clarify exactly which bits of those manuals that the lead doesn't conform to? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop playing stupid. It's disruptive. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

You're entirely wrong. The article opening with such a line is completely necessary. The article is called "Gun VIOLENCE in the United States". VIOLENCE. It's not about guns or gun politics only, it's mostly about the violence caused by them. Gun violence is a colossal issue in the United States. The reason why the USA is one of the most violent countries on Earth (and by far the most violent advanced nation) is largely due to the enormous number of guns in the country and a serious lack of gun control. Gun violence is the reason why the USA homicide rate soars above 10,000 murders every year. How exactly does eliminating that line from the article improve the article? It just hides the truth. It's not an opinion, American gun violence really does kill and injure that many people. That's indisputable. Most recently, there was a mass shooting in New Orleans that injured 17 people, and even worse, a mass shooting in Columbus, OH that left a poor 12-year old's parents and brother dead. I support keeping those statistics, since the article makes no sense without them. This isn't about opinions, it's about the facts. 81.131.175.245 (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"The reason why the USA is one of the most violent countries on Earth " This is a absolutely opinion given that it is arguable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:D00:8C10:486A:CAD6:C238:F786 (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Absoluetlypuremilk and others. Statistics are statistics. It's not disruptive to ask relevant questions that you are unable to answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SombodysDad77 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, brand new account with one edit (to make this comment). Whose sock are you? Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The old text was stupid, to use your word. Here's where we talked about it before. Talk:Gun_violence_in_the_United_States/Archive_2#Crappy_intro. Nuff said. Felsic2 (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This reads like an editorial rather than a researched topic with a "neutral point of view" which is what Wikipedia has requested. The title kicks off with the slant "Gun Violence in the US" and there is little recovery from that point forward. One could substitute other nouns in for "Gun" and it becomes quite apparent the problem. For example "Car Violence, Knife Violence, Football Violence, White Violence, Black Violence, Cat Violence, Dog Violence" and everything that follows, whether factual or not, will be written to support that point of view. This article/document needs to be rewritten with objectivity and a larger context. The larger context cold be "Gun Ownership in America" and then Gun Homicides, Gun Suicides, Legal/Illegal ownership, are subsections, hunting in American, etc. Tsk1989 (talk)tsk2000 —Preceding undated comment added 19:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You think it's POV to talk about gun violence in the US in an article called Gun violence in the United States? Whatever.... Felsic2 (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Statistics

The article quotes statistics from different years, and from different sources, often juxtaposed in the same graf. There needs to be better consistency - particularly in terms of the quality of sources. For example, the CDC, FBI, and the BBC are used as sources for homicide numbers, each using differing years, and differing numbers. Not to even mention that raw numbers are considerably less informative than rates. Some effort needs to go into vetting the accuracy of sources relative to one another. The FBI and US Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics are largely the 'go to' sources for data on violent crime; the BBC, while unquestionably a reliable news source, has their numbers wrong on the numbers quoted in the lede (they are listing total homicides, not the fraction committed using a gun). I'm hoping to find some time soon to work on this, but in the meantime it would be good if others began comparing values against sources to determine whether the source is accurate. Anastrophe (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Some changes i'm going to make towards Wikipedia pages on mass shootings

There's been quite a few articles on some notable mass shootings that are lacking the details to make it complete. I wanted to give you guys the heads up to see if your ok with that. He are the changes.

I'm going to be adding a picture of the location of the shooting complete with a map of where the shooting took place. I'm going to start with the Stockton Schoolyard shooting, the 101 California street shooting, and the Luby's shooting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Elementary_School_shooting_(Stockton) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101_California_Street_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_shooting

I'm also going to try and rename some of the articles for the more high profile shootings since right now their pages are oddly named after the perpetrator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_O._Barton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

As for the Stockton Schoolyard shooting and the San Ysidro Mcdonalds massarce, I honestly think that the perpetrators to those event's should have their own article seperate from the shootings since both of those are extremely I profile incidents much like the Virginia Tech Shooting and the Charleston shooting have a lot more notoriety. On the other hand i'm not shure of the details that require the perpetrator to have his own wikipedia page seperate from the shooting article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald%27s_massacre#Perpetrator Any help would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 22:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm unclear why this, and the next section, are on this article's talk page - shouldn't they be on the talk page for the article you are planning to make changes on? Anastrophe (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

2 sections titled Gun ownership

We could merge the two at the top or something, but this seems like an easy fix. Darknipples (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Darknipples (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Redirects

I think GV makes a lot more sense than The Sandy Hook article, for the term 'Gun Violence Task Force'. [9] Darknipples (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

How does that relate to this article? Anastrophe (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The terms 'Gun Violence' and 'Gun Violence Task Force' seem unrelated to you? I would ask how a task force developed specifically to deal with GV is unrelated. The original stub was...

• "The Gun Violence Task Force is a task force created by US President Barack Obama to address the causes of gun violence in the United States, formed in the aftermath of the mass murder of 20 children and six faculty members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Vice President Joe Biden will lead the task force."

It would easily fit into the public policy section, where there's already some content about GV from Obama. Or, perhaps a subsection called 'Executive legislation' could be used to compile similar content. Darknipples (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Since there are no mentions of this task force actually having done anything at all since it was announced nearly four years ago, I think the redirect should simply be removed. It would add absolutely no value to this article, except perhaps as an example of the countless useless initiatives proposed and implemented by the government over the decades.. Anastrophe (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The NRA(-ILA) may disagree with you [10]. I will do some more research and see what comes up. I'll continue to add cites here, so keep your eyes peeled. Darknipples (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Wrong organization. Anastrophe (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Homicides Section

I am removing context originally cited from a blog post by John Lott in 2013 [11], by what seems like a random IP.

• [12] "John Lott argues, though, that would be mass murderers target gun-free zones. Lott claims that his research shows that since approximately 1950, all but two public mass shootings in the U.S. have occurred in areas there are bans on carrying guns. Further Lott argues that in Europe, every mass public shooting has occurred in a gun-free zone."

Not only is the quality of this source (blog) poor, this claim by Lott has often been refuted.

• [13]
• [14]
• [15]

Darknipples (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Offenders Section & subsection Vectors

Not really sure what is going on, or what the point of these sections is. Please share your thoughts as to how they can be improved. Darknipples (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Is Gun violence in the US considered an epidemic?

Anastrophe, with regard to your recent edit to the lead (without consensus) [16], I feel this warrants some actual discussion. Here are some cites I found after only a brief search. Please take some time to look at them. Instead of omitting this context all together, perhaps we can come up with an alternative.

• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]

Darknipples (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Just one quick point for now: Anastrophe's recent edit to the lead was not "without consensus". The phrase that gun violence in the United States "is considered a national epidemic" wasn't there before. It had been added to the lead by an IP editor a few hours before Anastrophe took it back out, in the previous edit in the article history. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 10:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that would explain why i had trouble finding the context in the cited source material (besides it being quite extensive). Darknipples (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Gun violence in the United States is characterized as an epidemic by those who wish to impose more gun control laws. There is no actual epidemiological basis for the characterization. If we want to add a section to the article discussing the misrepresentation of criminological and sociological problems as an epidemiological problem by those intent on promulgating false narratives, I have no problem with working on such a section. Nevertheless, science trumps ideology, rhetoric, and propaganda every time, and Wikipedia has an obligation not to promulgate falsehoods without describing their nature neutrally. Stating that gun violence is "considered" an epidemic is a falsehood - it is *characterized* as such by partisans. There is a meaningful difference. And it absolutely has no place in the lede where it is not discussed in the article. Anastrophe (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

That argument seems, oh, what's that fancy word... can't remember. You're assuming that people arrive at the conclusion that gun violence is an epidemic because they are already opponents to wide-spread gun ownership. It makes just as much sense to conclude that they are opposed to widespread gun ownership because they have decided that gun violence is an epidemic. Is there any evidence to prove one version over another?

I just came across a book that analyses a huge variety of gun issues from a public health perspective. Reducing firearm injury and death: a public health sourcebook on guns. It is not a political book. It's written by " two experts in public health and injury control,", not gun control activists. They don't use the word "epidemic", so far as Amazon's search tells me.[23] But it's an error to just say that anyone who wants to reduce gun violence does so from a political motive. Felsic2 (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see what that has to do with the characterization we're discussing. You just stated that the source you are reading doesn't use the word epidemic, so what is its relevance to this discussion? Anastrophe (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm addressing your unsourced claim that "Gun violence in the United States is characterized as an epidemic by those who wish to impose more gun control laws." Felsic2 (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

How does what you just wrote address that characterization? Your source doesn't even mention the word 'epidemic', by your own statement.

As to whether my "claim" is unsourced, I wasn't aware that we had to source matters that are widely accepted in the scientific community. Policy states that it's unnecessary to cite that the earth is round, for example, if it is mentioned in an article. The use of the word "epidemic" as related to gun violence is a metaphorical use, which is inappropriate to a factual article about the matter. Certainly, we can note that it is characterized as an epidemic by some subsection of the population, but it is not considered an epidemic at all as a scientific matter. There is no bacterial or viral vector. It is not transmissible via saliva or sexual contact. Furthermore, even if we were to accept that there were a scientific basis to the metaphor, the data clearly shows that gun violence levels in the US are - rather than at epidemic levels - at the lowest levels last seen since the early 1960's. And with no measurable contribution from any gun control implemented as a response to the 'epidemic'. So - I'm willing to work on a section that describes how gun violence is characterized in some quarters as an epidemic, while providing the balancing viewpoint that the metaphor is also rejected by some quarters. This of course not from primary sources but from reliable secondary/tertiary sources. Simple repetition of the term in the popular press only works to show that it is a term of rhetoric, when examples of use of the term in criminological reports and studies are difficult to even find. This article is not here to parrot rhetoric or propaganda - it is to state in clear terms what reliable sources state about gun violence. Anastrophe (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we shouldn't describe those with opposing political or epidemiological views as spouting "rhetoric or propaganda".

This sources seems neutral and authoritative: Gun Violence and Mental Illness edited by Liza H. Gold, M.D. It's published by the APA. Any objection to its use? Felsic2 (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a good source for a section describing the metaphorical use of the term 'epidemic' to describe gun violence, yes. Please don't mischaracterize my comments. I didn't describe anyone as spouting rhetoric or propaganda. I identified that use of the term is rhetorical, and used as propaganda, which it is, in some quarters. That's patent, since there's no scientific basis for the characterization. There are no opposing epidemiological views - unless we're to characterize epidemiology as being plastic and open to interpretation which it is not - it is a scientific discipline based on empirical facts. Let's stay on point please. Thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

"the branch of medicine that deals with the incidence, distribution, and possible control of diseases and other factors relating to health."[24] And other factors relating to death. Don't deaths resulting from firearms come under that definition? It's possible to look at the issue from a scientific discipline, isn't it? Felsic2 (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Certainly. And of course gun violence falls under the rubric of 'other factors relating to death'. That doesn't mean that gun violence *is* an epidemic, which is the matter in contention. Since there is no actual mechanism of contagion, gun violence can only be characterized in epidemiological terms - you cannot state epidemiologically that gun violence *is* an epidemic. Its use is metaphorical, and some find it useful. But again, we are dealing with a term of rhetoric, not a scientific definition, when used to characterize gun violence. I have no disagreement or argument with the article factually describing that some sources _characterize_ gun violence as an epidemic. Stating the gun violence _is_ an epidemic, or that it is _considered_ an epidemic - without qualification - is inappropriate.

Either way however, the claim does not belong in the lede, since the body of the article contains zero discussion of this.Anastrophe (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to keep throwing dictionary definitions at you, but according to this one rampant gun violence could qualify: affecting or tending to affect a disproportionately large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time[25] (Other definitions do tend to include "infectious disease"). So it's not totally unreasonable to use "epidemic" in this context.

I agree with you about the lede, at least for now. It's probably best to deal with it in the text first and then circle back to the intro later. Felsic2 (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

"rampant gun violence". Shall we discourse upon the definition of the term "rampant"? We do not have "rampant" gun violence by even the most generous definition. Please see the lede of the article: "Of the 2,596,993 total deaths in the US in 2013, 1.3% were related to firearms". You are welcome to note in the article that it is characterized as an epidemic; Under no valid definition is it an epidemic. Ultimately, I don't think it merits much more than a sentence or two in the body, noting that some like to characterize it as an epidemic, but that it is not truly same. The number one definition that our dear friend Google presents is "a widespread occurrence of an infectious disease in a community at a particular time". That is the most commonly understood meaning, and generally WP uses the most common meaning. Our very own Wikipedia article on the term states (while acknowledging that use of WP to define things on WP generally is recursive) "An epidemic (from Greek ἐπί epi "upon or above" and δῆμος demos "people") is the rapid spread of infectious disease to a large number of people in a given population within a short period of time, usually two weeks or less. ".

There is no infectuous disease here. People like to characterize it as an epidemic. It is not, quite simply. Anastrophe (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's our job to second-guess experts writing in reliable sources. If we find those, we report what they say. If we find sources who disagree, then we report what they say as well. Let's not make this harder than it has to be. The Gold book looks like a reliable source, and Gold looks like a sufficient expert. @Darknipples: may be better than me at writing a summary of what that source says, or you could do it. Is that OK? Felsic2 (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The Gold book is fine for a mention that the infectuous disease model is used by some as a proxy for discussion of the issue. The Gold book does not state that it is an epidemic. Does the fact that it gun violence is described as an epidemic merit inclusion? Sure. A sentence or two perhaps. I do hope that we aren't going to have a section created that quotes the Gold book as some sort of 'evidence' that it is an epidemic, lacking sources that disagree with that viewpoint. Anastrophe (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Considering that it's an entire book devoted to the topic of gun violence, which is the topic of this article, and considering that it apparently falls into the highest category of reliable sources, it'd make sense to use it extensively. I haven't read more than some pages in Google, so I can't be sure of exactly what Gold is saying. I do see where she references another author who says that gun violence has gone past being an epidemic into being an endemic condition.[26] While we're on the topic, do you know of any sources that contradict the "epidemiological model" of gun violence, or its characterization as an "epidemic", which we could use for balance? Felsic2 (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are suggesting that the Gold book should be used 'extensively' - are there shortcomings in the many other sources used in this article? A single source can be useful to mine for meaningful content, but I don't see any compelling reason that it should be used more than any other source.

As to sources that contradict the 'epidemic' characterization, as below - the first source user Darknipples cited, the Atlantic article questioning the usefulness of the metaphor of an epidemic. It clearly identifies use of the term as a characterization, not an epidemiological reality. Anastrophe (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is a cite [27] that states firearm injuries have gone from epidemic to endemic, as Felsic2 mentioned. Darknipples (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Another cite [28] discussing the epidemic of GV in Boston. Darknipples (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Anastrophe, you keep making changes like this while we are in the middle of a discussion about it [29]. Your most recent edit removes context sourced from the cite on page one of the introduction, which says...

• Like many large cities in the United States, Boston experienced an epidemic of youth homicide between the late 1980s and early 1990s. Homicide among persons ages 24 and under increased by 230 percent—from 22 victims in 1987 to 73 victims in 1990—and remained high well after the peak of the epidemic.

Also, just a quick reminder WP:BRD -- Darknipples (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my edits. I have not "[kept] making changes like this while we are in the middle of a discussion about it". I have made a single edit, to remove a claim that is stated uncritically and as if it were factual. You are welcome to rewrite that section to quote their claim that it is an epidemic - it is not appropriate to parrot what they say as if it were factual. The discussion you started was based on a further misrepresentation of my original edit, which was removal of an unsourced claim by an IP user, not removal of sourced content that had been reached via consensus. Nowhere in the article was the (fictional) notion that gun violence in the US is an epidemic ever discussed in the body of the article; we don't just leave in place IP editor's opinions in the lede where they aren't even addressed in the article. Anastrophe (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I count two edits of yours. Once before I created this TP section (15:49, 2 August 2016‎) [30], after which (10:36 14 August 2016‎) I pinged you directly [31], and the second (18:19 14 August 2016) [32] just hours after I had already asked you for a discussion on the topic. Furthermore, with regard to your claim, "we don't just leave in place IP editor's opinions in the lede where they aren't even addressed in the article", your second and most recent edit [33] removed the exact same type of content/context that was already in the GV article body, and therefore may be considered precedence for some inclusion in the lead. It is not my intention to misrepresent your edits, and I apologize if I'm misinterpreting your work here, but perhaps now you understand why the timeline of events is concerning. Darknipples (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

FTR your initial response was at 18:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC). The second edit was made (18:19 14 August 2016), or immediately after you had responded. Darknipples (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Timeline:

I removed unsourced content not found in the body of the article.

You started this section, suggesting that my removal was without consent of other editors (none is required when removing unsourced content, particularly when added by IP editors).

A short time later, I reworded content that uncritically parroted a claim of epidemiological etiology. It's fine if it in the article, so long as it is identified as a characterization, rather than a fact.

After that edit, you wrote "you keep making changes like this while we are in the middle of a discussion about it ". That's false. I made a single edit after you began a discussion - the basis for the discussion being questionable to begin with. One edit does not constitute "keep making".

You now claim that I removed content, which is false. Reword is not removing. A single use of a word in an article cannot seriously be characterized as offering "precedence" for inclusion of the same word in the lede - setting aside that "precedence" really doesn't fall under any Wikipedia policy I'm aware of. The article is about gun violence; it's fine if it mentions that some characterize gun violence as an epidemic, but only if it also clearly represents the rejection of the use of that term by others. We could use the very first article you cited as an excellent discourse on the problem with characterizing gun violence using an epidemiological model where there is no viral or bacterial vector. Anastrophe (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Need help changing the Wikipedia article on mass shootings

I've been trying to change the frequency section of the Wikipedia article on mass shootings. Right now the article says that the United States has 33 percent of all mass shootings in the world which has been debunked constantly.

There's a few more things I found on mass shootings that I think might be worth looking at. The first two are articles regarding the frequency of mass shootings in the United States compared to it's population size along with mass shootings from other countries. The United States is one of the most densely populated countries on earth with a population of 320 million people which is the main factor that influences all these mass shootings. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/03/obamas-inconsistent-claim-on-the-frequency-of-mass-shootings-in-the-u-s-compared-to-other-countries/

Compared with India which has a population of 1.2 billion I believe that India has more mass shootings because of it's population size, but since India's homicide rate is only 3.5 where the United States is 4.5.

The Crime Prevention Center is where I discovered the US State Department report on mass killings around the world. I understand that Wikipedia isn't supposed to accept sources that side with either side of the debate, but much of the statistics could be used to create a list on the frequency of attacks. Sadly I don't know how to make a group on Wikipedia. http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/ While the State Department's report only focus's on terrorism, it proves that the United States doesn't have more mass shootings than any other country. Part of the problem is that in many countries mass shootings tend to go unnoticed due to ineffective law enforcement lack of a definition on a mass shooting. As a result I would recommend either removing the CNN report source that states the United States has the most mass shootings or show that most countries themselves don't even report mass shootings.

Aside from that I also found some articles from politifact on Mass Shooting Tracker that you might be interested in reading. http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2015/nov/01/david-cicilline/david-cicilline-mixes-shooting-data-call-stronger-/ http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/oct/08/debbie-wasserman-schultz/how-many-americans-have-been-killed-mass-shootings/

Also take a look here http://www.npr.org/2015/12/05/458492474/how-many-mass-shootings-this-year-theres-no-consensus

Keep in mind, that as far as referencing Shooting Tracker on the Wikipedia page, i'm perfectly fine with that so long as we include the criticism that it's received. As of now the Wikipedia article on Mass Shootings does include the criticisms towards Shooting Tracker. I just want to keep it that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 22:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• • • regarding "The United States is one of the most densely populated countries" is not true, per List_of_countries_and_territories_by_population_density the USA is #182 of 244, not even in the top 50%.CuriousMind01 (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of differences in data between FBI and CDC

The article vacillates throughout in dependence upon FBI or CDC data regarding firearm homicides. CDC numbers are generally higher than FBI numbers. It wouldn't be appropriate to choose one data source or the other for this article, however, I think a brief discussion - early on in the article - would be appropriate to explain these differences. I found an excellent article by the DOJ Bureau of Justice statistics that explains these differences. I may make a go at summarizing this and adding it to the article. Anastrophe (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Second-guessing academic papers

An edit that seemed well-sourced was reverted, with the summary "The results of these studies are based on an interval far too long ago to have current validity. The most recent data presented is 19 years old. No current relevance for the correlations."[34] I'm not sure I understand why we'd substiture our own judgment for that of the authors and editors of the studies. If the only issue is that the studies are old, we can add the dates. For example, "Studies published in 2002 and 2007 found that..." This article should include history and trends, etc., not just the up-to-the minute info like a medical article. Are there newer studies which contradict these? Felsic2 (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

At what point do old studies lose relevance? The edit stated the conclusions as if the were factual data, rather than correlations. If someone dredged us a study in some way related to gun violence from the 1910's, would that be relevant to today? The editor who posted the old study has found a newer study, but it suffers a similar problem: the results are characterized as absolute, rather than how the study itself characterizes it - as associations and correlations. This needs to be fixed.Anastrophe (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

So, lets add the necessary dates and context instead of removing seemingly relevant content from what appears to be reliable sources, shall we? Or, we could request an RFC or take it to RSN. Simply excluding or removing content based solely on personal opinion, instead of just "fixing it" (as you yourself suggested), is not what policy and guidelines (such as WP:MOS) suggest. Darknipples (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You're a bit behind the curve. I already fixed it. It's not a matter of opinion; mischaracterizing a source is a violation of policy. It no longer mischaracterizes the source.Anastrophe (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

There's no need for personal attacks here, Anastrophe. Please see WP:PA. Darknipples (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? What personal attack? You commented on a matter that was already resolved, thus, you were 'behind the curve'. You also claimed that I was "simply excluding or removing content based solely on personal opinion" which is false, and if we're going to walk on eggshells, could similarly be characterized as a personal attack. I think walking on eggshells is counterproductive. Please retract your claim that I engaged in personal attacks. There was none, and I'm sorry you interpreted it that way. Anastrophe (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

To quote WP:PA "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." Calling me "behind the curve" was disparaging, unnecessary and unproductive. My comment was on your removal of content because it is "too old" and had nothing to do with you "personally". As you originally stated...

• "The results of these studies are based on an interval far too long ago to have current validity. The most recent data presented is 19 years old. No current relevance for the correlations. ([[WP:TW|T...)"

.... I think it's best if we move on to discussing the article. If you wish to discuss this incident further, we should move it to our personal talk pages, however, I'm willing to let it go since you've already apologized. Darknipples (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I never knew that 'behind the curve' is a disparagement - I'm behind the curve routinely. Oh well.

As far as removing very old studies, there is the question of weight, verifiability (all of the cites in the original were behind a paywall), sourcing (all three relied - if I recall correctly - on the same author's studies), and relevance within the context of what we know now (the 1980's were one of the most criminally violent intervals in US history - the correlations found for that interval are not directly relevant to today, where we have the lowest violent crime levels in the last 60 years. We *do* have to use some reasonable judgement in whether to include results of studies that rely on very old data - and of course there was the gross mischaracterization of the results of those studies, which was the most glaring problem of all.Anastrophe (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Sounds so much like Lightbreather being easily offended and using it as a means to manipulate the argument. A regular distraction trick often employed by LB. 68.170.118.12 (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Neotarf or 68.170.118.12 - I have addressed this accusation before, and will continue to do so by taking this to the (random IP) editors talk page. This is not the place (article TP) to have these kinds of discussions (if at all), as they should be relegated to editor talk pages. Darknipples (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Considering that the first illustration for the article is an 1901 assassiantion, I think it's reasonable to say that gun violence throughout US history is within the article's scope. If necessary, it could be divided into eras, or a "history and trends" section could be created. However if there are newer studies which cover the same periods and issues as older studies, then probably the newer sourcees should be given priority. I assume, for example, that a 2001 study on Prohibition-era gun violence would be better than one from the 1950s. Felsic2 (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Statistics have become a soup

The sourcing and citation of statistics on homicide have become a mishmash, bouncing around year to year and source to source, to the point that anyone reading with any attention will ask themselves which, if any, are accurate.

• 2013, 11,208 firearm homicides, CDC, second sentence, first graf, lede.
• 2012, 8,855 firearm homicides, UNODC, first sentence, second graf, lede.
• 2010, 11,078 firearm homicides, NCHS, fourth sentence, second graf, lede.
• 2015, 13,286 firearm homicides, Gun Violence Archive via BBC, first sentence, third graf, lede.
• 2012, 8,897 firearm homicides, FBI, first sentence 'Homicides" section

It would look far more encyclopedic if the article stuck to _one_ count for homicides, and one reliable source, and one particular year throughout - obviously, the most recent statistics are the most relevant, except when discussing historical trends. The FBI has been accumulating violent crime statistics for more than seventy years, and their numbers have never been called into question (at least, outside of the tinfoil hat crowd). They are the gold standard. The FBI just released their 2015 data a week ago, and unless we are trying to suggest wildly varying firearm homicide counts in a very narrow number of years, the most current data seems to me to be the best. As well, the FBI numbers are the most consistent over recent years - see https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2011-2015.xls , rather than the wildly varying counts from other sources. If firearm homicides had dropped from 11,078 in 2010 to 8,855 in 2012, it would have represented a gigantic drop in the actual rate, which would have been front-page news coast to coast. Likewise if the number had increased back up to 11,208 in 2013. It's fairly obvious that the other sources are counting total homicides in inaccurate ways, rather than firearm homicides. Again, the FBI expanded homicide data shows the most rational dataset, particularly against the rates with growing population. And in the balance, it provides a far more consistent and encyclopedic attention to details. As the numbers above show - we are only confusing readers with these different sources. I would propose cleaning up the article with the FBI figures. Anastrophe (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't just present conflicting or inconsistent statistics without any explanation. But different sources may use different methodologies, which doesn't mean that one is right and the others are wrong. The section "Research limitations" gets into that issue. Rather than stripping out statistics from sources that are otherwise considered reliable, it'd make more sense to compare and contrast them.

Do you know of a source which rates them, or which calls the FBI's numbers the "gold standard"? Felsic2 (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This source, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (2004) , in a chapter titled "Data for Measuring Firearms Violence and Ownership", actually says

"The National Crime Victimization Survey, which relies on self-reports of victimization, is an ongoing annual survey conducted by the federal government (i.e., the Census Bureau on behalf of the Department of Justice) that collects information from a representative sample of nearly 100,000 noninstitutionalized adults (age 12 and over) from approximately 50,000 households. It is widely viewed as a “gold standard” for measuring crime victimization."

Of course the NCVS isn't perfect. But neither is the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, which are compiled from voluntary submissions by local LEO agencies, and which excludes entirely some types of incidents.

This complexity makes me think that rather than cutting information we should add more, to explain the difficulties in gathering these numbers. Felsic2 (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gun violence in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060920140145/http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Measures_of_Gun_Ownership_Levels_for_Macro-Level_Crime_and_Violence_Research.pdf to http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Measures_of_Gun_Ownership_Levels_for_Macro-Level_Crime_and_Violence_Research.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6gpGlyhlr?url=http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk to http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304014743/http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/html/PSNFactS.pdf to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/html/PSNFactS.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

"Thoughts and prayers"

Page watchers may be interested in "Thoughts and prayers". Thanks, --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gun violence in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813232423/http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit.html to http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061115183053/http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/teens.htm to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/teens.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061113234843/http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929130910/http://www.psn.gov/about/faqs.html to http://www.psn.gov/about/faqs.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130201035550/http://www.quandl.com/society/us-violent-crime to http://www.quandl.com/society/us-violent-crime

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)