Talk:Gun politics in the United States/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Debaterx (talk • contribs) 17:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that this article uses the argument of hunting, which is untrue, it was put in place because the founderes were parinoid of a tyrannical government, also why would people who were so afraid of a tyrannical governemnt allow them to regulate and decide which guns they can and cant use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.17 (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We saw a tragedy in the Trolley Square mall in Salt Lake City this week (12 Feb 2007). A couple of days later a letter appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune (15 Feb 2007) stating that if there had been a concealed permit holder in the mall he or she could have assisted in taking down the gunman, thus possible saving lives.

My question is this: if I have a concealed gun permit I may use my gun to defend myself against direct attack. But can I legally use it to take out someone like the Tolley Square gunman if he is not coming directly at me? An off-duty policeman pinned the gunman down until other police officers arrived. We don't know yet who actually fired the shot that killed the gunman. But if the gunman had been taken down by a concealed gun permit holder what would the consequence have been to the permit holder?

Guns are such an emotional subject in this country (the United States) that it is often very difficult to have a rational conversation on the subject.

This would depend on the state. In Utah, yes, a third person carrying a concealed weapon could have used deadly force to defend the people in the mall. If the shooter was using deadly force against unarmed people, the use of deadly force is justified.

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_02022.htm

"A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to defend himself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, that person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or a third person as a result of the other's imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

---Gloriamarie 16:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That's right. The use of lethal force to defend yourself or a third party against serious injury or death is _generally_ permissible in the US, but individual states vary regarding how much you need to do to protect the attacker. _Usually_ you have a duty to retreat if retreating will secure your safety, but you can stand your ground in your home or in the defense of people who you believe _won't_ be safe if you retreat (though a handful of states require yo uto retreat from your home, too). There's no substitute for learning your home state's laws, and it couldn't hurt to consult a lawyer, if you have that option.

Anybody who carries a concealed weapon should especially make a point of learning precisely what his rights and duties are under his home state's laws. 216.52.69.217 16:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I see this comparison used throughout the article. Is this really an accurate way to frame the debate? “Gun Control” and “Guns Rights” are not at all exclusive of each other. Any gun control regulation short of prohibition recognizes the right of gun ownership. Likewise, any argument short of affirming the “Nuke” hyperbole recognizes the need for some level of regulation.

The political debate seem to be over finer matters than this article suggests.

That's a valid point-- but there are people that believe there should be no regulation (and Vermont and Alaska do not require permits and that sort of thing). Many "gun rights advocates" would say that any restriction is preventing someone from being able to defend themselves when someone shows up with a gun and tries to use deadly force against them. Most people fall somewhere in between, but that's the case with many thorny issues, too, such as gay rights and that sort of thing.--Gloriamarie 16:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

All laws are basically the removal of someone's rights somewhere. Passing laws to restrict guns are the removal of some rights.Jimberg98 21:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The Constitution was written in a completely different time than today. The guns of that period were much less lethal than today and far more conspicuos. No one could walk into a Dennys and start blasting away. One shot and the guy would have to reload, which would take quite a while.

Also the Constitution expressly condoned slavery. The gun rights people put heavy emphasis on this ammendment, but it sure aint sacred.

Perhaps the law should be that only 18th century technology should be allowed which would bring us a much safer America.

The problem with your argument is this: let's say we allow only 18th century technology. What are criminals going to do? Well, they're going to start a huge black market in modern guns, (and then we'll have a "War on Guns" similar to the "War on Drugs" which has been really successful, hasn't it?) and guess what, when they show up at a bank to rob it, there won't be anyone there who can defend themselves because they had to leave the musket and gunpowder in the car. This would not work. There's no way we can only "allow" certain types of guns. Criminals ignore laws by definition. We don't "allow" murder and rape but they happen every day nonetheless. We should give potential murder and rape victims the chance to defend themselves rather than leaving the modern stuff all to the criminals. The Constitution is pretty timeless, with all it says. Also, check up on the Constitution itself. It doesn't mention slavery until the 13th amendment and it certainly doesn't condone it before then.-Gloriamarie 16:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"The constitution was sritten in a completely different time than today. The press of that period was much less preavalent than today and far more expensive. No one could, from a single workstation, broadcase information to millions of people with a single mouseclick. One print and the guy would have to reink the press, which could take a while. Perhaps the press should only be allowed to say what they want so long as they print it by hand"

--Mmx1 23:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually the press is much more expensive today than it was when the Bill of rights was written. The argument can be made that the press is controlled by a handful of powerful monied interests in this day and age. Your example only serves to suggest that many aspects of the Constitution are out of date. Certainly guns are far different today than two hundred some years ago.

Or you could realize that rights are not variable or determined by your level of technology. --Mmx1 04:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Slavery was in the constitution, but was later repealed. The second ammendment continues to remain in force. One can argue the applicability of it to today's society, but the method or modifying it is further constitutional ammendment, not simply changing it's meaning, or ignoring it, or calling it outmoded. Arthurrh 00:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ludicrous. There were no Denny's in the 18th Century. Applejuicefool 17:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it so hypocritical that anti-gunners feel the need to rule out the 2nd Amendment as archaic since it was written for a different time. Yet they don't apply the same (and very much applicable) idea to the 1st Amendment, or any of the other Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights specifically states that it is a RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms. According to US Code, Title 10, 311, the citizens of the United States are in fact, the unorganized militia. So even if they were to argue that it only protects the right of the militia to own guns, they have still lost the debate. (74.226.112.136 01:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

Actually, you completely ignore the meaning of the phrase "bear arms." When the Constitution was written, this phrase was used entirely in a military context, as evidenced by the dictionaries from that time and the fact that the original draft of the Second Amendment had a provision for conscientious objectors. Additionally, your reliance on the U.S.C. to define "Militia" is unwarranted. Congress lacks the power to interpret the Constitution through its statutes, the power to interpret the Constitution is reserved for the courts. See Marbury v. Madison.

70.21.77.200 03:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe they are ignoring the meaning of the phrase. The idea that "bear arms" only means mililtary is an academic theory that in many cases pushes the envelope of believability. It's all based on a statistical analysis of usage of terms determined by subjective means, and can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Some of the arguments are quite convoluted, for example see the

Right to bear arms article where it discusses the "military service on a warship" etc. There are certainly legal documents going back to 1500 in the House of Lords discussing it as an individual right, and there is american legal opinion from the early 1800's from Joseph Story, a supreme court justice. So the "military" meaning for "bear arms" is not a given, especially used in immediate conjunction with "the people", not to mention "keep". The ammendment does not say "the right to bear arms", it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". Arthurrh

03:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The context today is exactly the same as it was in the 18th Century. The problem was the Government at the time was oppressing the populace. Stealing from the winter stores of food, removing assets for Government use (read Houses i.e. Homes, transportation i.e. horses) and engaging in sexual and physical abuse (read rape and abuduction and pressing into military service young men). It would be the ideal situation for such an abusive Government to oppress a populace that was defenseless. Therefore dear reader our 2nd amendment. It was the intent of the writers that NO GOVERNMENT enjoy the luxury of imposing it's will on a defenseless population. Oratam 06:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Technically "bear arms" didn't refer to the military, but applied so that the states could maintain a militia, which was a civilian force which worked with the army in times of conflict. Many believe that this is not necessary anrymore because of the National Gaurd and law enforcement. However, the militia of the eighteenth century was a poorly organised group of individuals that were recruited by the leader of the group, not a government organised or controlled group. The idea of maintaining the militia is the idea of maintaining a civilian armed presence so that they may act, if necessary, to defend their rights when the government as stopped doing so. Tyrnell (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see an explanation on how the following is consistent with the pro-gun argument.

up until the National Firearms Act of 1934, there was no Federal law against ordinary Americans' owning any weapons available anywhere, including anything the US military used, such as tanks, artillery, bombs and even high-explosives. No licenses and no registration were required.

Most people on both sides agree that so-called "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (i.e., biological, chemical and nuclear weapons) cannot have any legitimate purpose in the hands of individuals and that even in non-hostile hands these weapons pose a serious threat due to the risk of even simple accidents during storage or transport. As such, most agree that even the broad protections of the Second Amendment for the right to keep and bear arms do not apply to "WMD's".

I would say it is because infringed means "destroyed" or "removed" and not "abridged" and not "encroached upon". Yet I hear repeatedly from those opposing gun control the Slippery slope argument that no restrictions should be allowed.

Note that the 1828 dictionary definition of "infringe" [1] does not have any meaning synonymous with "encroach" -- only with "destroy"

--JimWae 01:13, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)

If your saying the government can encroach by banning some arms as long as it doesnt ban all. That would mean the government could ban everything but pointy sticks.

---

By 1828, which was more than 40 years after the Constitution was ratified, the IBA was beginning its campaign to rewrite legal dictionaries that has continued to this day. BTW: What legal dictionary are you referring to?

"Infringe" is said 'to break or destroy', but that is an incomplete definition, because fringe is the fragile edge, ergo the more proper definition of 'infringe' is to break or destroy the fragile edge of something. We can see this in property law wrt trespass. Trespass, breaking and entering, vandalism are infringements of ones property rights, they are not outright confiscations or destructions of one's property rights. They are temporary, minor, transient violations, not permanent or total.

In legal use, "infringement" is defined as the unauthorised use of anothers right or property, not its confiscation (e.g. patent infringement). As firearms ownership is a right of property, it is clear that government, nor any other party, shall use our property right to keep and bear arms without our authorization. Note: Black's Law says: "Infraction - A traffic infraction is sometimes called a "traffic ticket." Black's Law Dictionary states that an infraction is "a breach, violation, or infringement; as of a law, a contract, a right or duty."" Law.com Dictionary says, "infringement n. 1) a trespassing or illegal entering. 2) in the law of patents (protected inventions) and copyrights (protected writings or graphics), the improper use of a patent, writing, graphic or trademark without permission, without notice, and especially without contracting for payment of a royalty. Even though the infringement may be accidental (an inventor thinks he is the first to develop the widget although someone else has a patent), the party infringing is responsible to pay the original patent or copyright owner substantial damages, which can be the normal royalty or as much as the infringers' accumulated gross profits. See also: copyright patent plagiarism royalty trademark". The WordNet legal dictionary says, "[n] 1. a crime less serious than a felony [n] 2. an act that disregards an agreement or a right; "he claimed a violation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment"." Webster's 1913 says, " \In*fringe"ment\, n. 1. The act of infringing; breach; violation; nonfulfillment; as, the infringement of a treaty, compact, law, or constitution. "The punishing of this infringement is proper to that jurisdiction against which the contempt is." --Clarendon. 2. An encroachment on a patent, copyright, or other special privilege; a trespass." - Mike Lorrey

---

• It is a common presumption that the word "infringed" derives from the English meaning of "fringe". It does not.

---

Firstly, it's important to note, in some manner, the extreme hypocrisy of many anti-gun rights people in their "translations" of the Second Amendment -- especially in light of such people at the same time often taking extremely liberal views of the first amendment.

Somehow, the meaning of "right of the people" changes from the first to second amendment. Where it formerly meant "everyone", in the second amendment, it means "national guard" or another select entity.

The term "right of the people" is specifically used throughout the Bill of Rights to mean we Americans.

Secondly, the "should people own nuclear arms" argument is a bit over the top, and an unnecessary extrapolation (well, until we have the "NNA" [National Nukes Assosciation]) by anti-gun lobbyists. Such ludicrous arguments can effectively be countered by the equivalent extrapolation of the first amendment.

(Some might find "should people own AK-47s" over the top. Yet such arguments exist. Doesn't the "slippery slope" slide the other way?)

For example:

• Should people be allowed to incite riots or violence via "expression" and "speech"?
• Should libel/slander be allowed?
• Should a person be allowed to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater?
• Should a person be able to "express" themselves by playing loud music or screaming at any hour of the night? (It should be noted, that in many cases, a person could viably own a nuclear device that is not threatening to others -- as long as it is properly contained and not used, obviously.)

(These examples illustrate how even a right protected by the constitution is not absolute. Laws regarding inciting riots, libel/slander, false alarms, disturbing the peace, etc. can exist without violating the 1st Amendment. So then can't gun-control laws exist without violating the 2nd Amendment?)

Thirdly, the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Jgw 19:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

These examples aren't very good. None of the examples involve prior restraint as gun laws do. A speech control law that is comparable to a gun control law would say that you cannot speak because you may do one of the above. You can yell fire in a crowded theater. If there isn't a fire and people are hurt as a result, it was how you used your speech and not the fact that you have the right to speak. The right to keep and bear arms does not grant you the right to use a weapon to commit murder anymore than the right to free speech protects you against any of your above examples.Jimberg98 21:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The words infringe, fragile and break all come ultimately from the same

23:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• regarding derivation (and more): Not according to http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=infringe nor http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861621241 nor http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/infringe?view=uk nor http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=infringe --JimWae 02:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The incomplete information in those pages does not contradict a deeper etymology. See http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE68.html. —Tamfang 07:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note that http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=infringe and others say the "fringe" meaning is accompanied by "upon" or "on" --JimWae 03:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

And one of the others that you cited defines transitive infringe and intransitive infringe on in essentially the same way. —Tamfang 07:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As Richard Primus notes in his important book, The American Language of Rights, the phrase right of the people was often used to describe rights enjoyed collectively. If one looks closely at the use of this phrase in the First Amendment it does not support the individual rights view. The right of the people to assemble is something citizens do collectively. An individual can't assemble.

Would you say, then, that "The right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" (Fourth Amendment) is only a collective right? —Tamfang 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh. You've left out a very important part of that sentence with the ellipsis. Harksaw 22:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As Primus notes, the notion that the phrase right of the people has to have one meaning is our problem not the Founders. Certainly, the dominant rule called for reading the same term with the same meaning, but what do you do about the use of the term people in the Constitution's Preamble?

---

Infringe possibly had a different intensive meaning in 1789

There is some disagreement over what the word infringe means. Relevant to this are definitions given in the

gun-control

laws, all of which would seem to constitute abridgements on Second Amendment protections without completely removing them.

--JimWae 01:21, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

At the time, individual rights were so highly regarded that any encroachment was seen as tantamount to removal. The various laws passed and let stand have snuck in under an improper definition of the word "regulate", which at the time merely meant 'trained' in order of march and unit maneuvers. It did not mean to statutorily restrict rights. Mlorrey 03:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the concept of well regulated liberty, perhaps the most important concept in all of Anglo-American law. The notion that regulated is simply trained is just silly. Consider the following discussion by Hamilton in the Federalist "If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security." The notion that rights could not be regulated by law actually runs counter to the entire sweep of Anglo-American law. Indeed, when the KY Supreme Court suggested this in the early 19th century it prompted outrage in the legislature.

---

The important thing here, though, is that an infringement is a temporary, minor, transient violation of one's rights, just as one gets a speeding ticket for a temporary infringement of the speed limit. Such temporary violation is to be strenuously distinguished from total taking or confiscation. As I said above, a trespass upon one's property isn't a taking, but converting a lien upon a deed is a taking. Ergo, a minor violation of one's 2nd amendment right is an infringement. A total confiscation of it is a taking. Two entirely different things. Mlorrey 01:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Tell someone whose suffered copyright infringment that is minor. The important thing here is that the meaning of the word has changed & was somewhat ambiguous in the first place - and likely a committee word chosen because its meaning was flexible. Are you proposing that a right to bear arms is uniquely an absolute right that may never be touched or restricted even in minor ways? Are you not then proposing a right to possess WMDs?--JimWae 02:12, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Copyright infringment is when someone copies a book you've published, they haven't taken every royalty you've ever earned. That is the distinction between infringement and taking: infringement is partial, temporary, or transient violation, not outright and total theft. As copyright and trademarks are forms of MONOPOLY, I think it is clear that even one act of copying a book is an infringement that is punishable. Why not hold the same standard with the 2nd Amendment? I hold the monopoly on MY 2nd Amend. rights, which you cannot infringe (or the state cannot).

As for WMDs: well-armed merchantmen and privateers were widely owned by private citizens, with a significant amount of cannon. A vessel with ten or more heavy cannon in that day and age was a WMD, yet they were owned by private citizens without regulation or licensing. Posession of a device capable of vast harm should not be a crime in and of itself. Doing so belies a view that the individual cannot be trusted with liberty and must always be the ward of the state. What IS of distinguishing value is whether such a device has a valid defensive or other use. It is clear that the 50 years of MAD policy through the cold war illustrate there is some defensive value to posession of WMD. Terrorism is a phenomenon that results when the state doesn't trust its citizens. Mlorrey 02:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• so you are Ok with letting people have nuclear weapons until they show they cannot be trusted with them? You've also focussed your points exclusively on ONE current meaning of the word & completely ignored the argument about the meaning having changed--JimWae 02:50, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

that the meaning has changed is exactly IRRELEVANT. What is important is the framers intent. I also think the government-media complex has trained most people into lemmings so distrusting their fellow man that they are willing to believe your nextdoor neighbor, who you've known for 20 yesrs, is a heinous wretch if Good Morning America tells you so.Mlorrey 02:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I see there's little point in discussing this with you - other than that we have only their words with which to discover their intent - unless you know how to channel with them... Infraction & fringe sound like infringe - and far too many "experts" think that is enough to ascertain its meaning. --JimWae 02:52, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

I happen to read their writings and they had a lot to say about the right to keep and bear arms which really blows your POV out of the water in many ways. I'll bet you're the sort who thinks Mike Belisilles is a great scholar. You really need to kick back and do the research if you want to go around vandalizing the work others are doing. Your strictly POV search and destroy habits are really without credible support. Mlorrey 03:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• MAD only worked because everybody could tell who launched the attack. If Joe Shmoe can have nukes, I guess North Korea & Iran & Lebanon & Hezbellah & the IRA can too, eh?--JimWae 03:05, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Imagine exactly how many 9-11 terrorists would have succeeded in their plan if the American people had been allowed their natural and constitutional right to fly armed? None.Mlorrey 02:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing in the cited 1828 definition to support the claim that "infringement" means only complete abolition. —Tamfang 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Think of it this way If evey1 has nuclear weapons (governments, citiznes, every1) then technically the MAD theroy still works.....but it just takes 1 person to create massive distruction, WHICH is why U ppl are arguing philosophy, and human nature not gun and weapon controls.....

You link to Dredd Scott v. Sandford, but then the page linked to doesn't address the gun issue at all (which is really just an inference from the decision). It seems like instead of listing all of the cases as links, it would make more sense to discuss the parts of the case relating to gun control and then place the link to either the story or the Supreme Court's page for the case so that readers can read the case for themselves without having to infer all that info from the link.

The US v. Cruikshank case is similar in it's relation to the gun control issue, in that the decision has nothing to do with gun control, only some of the definitions and language do. Just a suggestion. This is my first 'post' on Wikipedia. I plan on submitting some articles in the coming weeks, but if I've said or done anything that might offend anybody or is out of the norm for Wiki users, please let me know.

Salami swami 05:57, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

This article, similar to the article on the Second Amendment until I changed it, pushed the "comma issue" right up front. I think this is totally bogus, and so I just removed it from this article. Some discussion remains in the article on the Second Amendment.

Here's the deal -- a handful of sources, including a mid-1800s printing of the Constitution commissioned by Congress, remove some of the more puzzling commas. It is hard to say what import this has. But in any event, I do not think that reputable scholars think much about this one way or the other. In any event, we should use the more common and contemporary version, and treat the comma issue as an aside.

The 'comma issue' is an interesting one, but the story of the comma issue is likely to be more about spurious analysis by armchair pseudo-scholars than about the law.

Now that my interest is piqued, I may write a whole page on it, gathering a ton of cites from here and there.

Katahon 14:50, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is in the Bill Of Rights (BOR) copy described here:

http://www.williams.edu/resources/chapin/exhibits/founding.html

I graduated from Williams in 1977. On a subsequent visit, shortly after these documents went on display, I inspected the BOR sample on just this point and saw that it is indeed an instance of what, in the 21st century, we would call the "not clunky" comma usage. Those with an anti-gun preference on this issue NEVER mention that there were "not clunky" versions during the composition phase of the BOR; they want to keep it depicted as much as possible as an antique-sounding head-scratcher.

Doug Gross, Williams '77 __________________________

This article pimps the "gun rights"/"gun nut" point of view. Clearly it is not neutral.

Well hop in there anon, and represent the other side if you want. Although this article does seem to represent the pro-gun side more, in no place does it make a statement of opinion. Just statements of what those advocates believe. Rhobite 15:46, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

I believe it represents the gun rights side more because they've put much more research (at least, that I could find) on the reasons both to and not to prohibit guns. MoogleEXE 20:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

---

WRT: "There are only a few hundred thousand lawfully owned fully automatic weapons. The bulk of these are owned and used in the motion picture industry." - This is untrue. The motion picture industry employs armorers who hold Class III dealer and manufacturer licenses from the BATFE, which allow them to purchase and/or manufacture non-transferrable automatic weapons. Many such weapons are specially made for a motion picture, then destroyed, or else kept in the armory of the production company or whichever of its contractors employs that armorer. Furthermore, the ban on civilian purchasing of post 1986 manufactured automatic weapons only applies to natural persons. Corporations and law enforcement agencies are not included in this restriction. Among these are included the body guard/PI firm employed by anti-gun actress/activist Rosie O'Donnell. - Mike Lorrey

Indeed, there may be a historical regularity in that totalitarian regimes pass gun control legislation as a first step of their reign of terror. The sequence is supposed to be gun registration, followed some time later by confiscation. Nazi legislation is the most famous example of this sequence, but it also occurred in Marxist regimes.

The nazis did not start gun control in germany. It was imposed by the treaty of versaies that ended WW1. They in fact lifted it near the end of WW2. The rest is true.

A couple of corrections:

1) The Nazis did pass gun control. See the German National Weapons Law of 1934, or Reichsgeletsblatt . It was used to disarm many citizens, including of course Jews. In regards to the treaty of Versailles, you are quoting facts with the detail of a junior high history book. Yes, the Germans were disarmed, but I highly doubt they passed specific gun control measures for its individual citizens. Only restrictions on the German Army and Navy, not personal ownership. If you happen to have a copy of the treaty handy and would like to show me where personal firearm ownership was regulated, please send me the info.

2) Mike, normal run of the mill corporations CANNOT purchase post-86 automatic firearms. Otherwise anybody could incorporate himself and make the purchase. There is surely a very small sub-class of government approved security corporations that may qualify, but your general statement of "Corporations and law enforcement agencies are not included in this restriction" is not correct. Wodan 00:09, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Any corporation with a federally class III dealer/mfr license (or anyone on their staff with such a license) can either purchase or manufacture such firearms. I know several such corporations, and none is a 'security corporation' of any kind. This is also how movie studios supply their films with so many machine guns. Those are not transferrable arms you see on the screen, most never leave the posession of the movie studio company that made them. Mlorrey 02:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

This article was a POV mess. I trimmed the fat (e.g. the constitution was covered twice) and also removed all the POV material. What's left is thin in some areas, but far better than what was there before. This article exists to describe gun politics in the U.S., not to battle them out. Meelar (talk) 16:35, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

I removed 2 phrases:

"although ironically the U.S. revolution..."--these are entirely different circumstances, and the use of "ironically" clearly insinuates that the side believing an armed citizenry could overthow the US govt is correct. See

Wikipedia:Words to avoid

(I think that's the right page).

The problem with your Non-NPOV on this is that given that the US gov't came into being through an uprising of an armed citizenry, and given that they created that government, and it cannot hold any powers that the people themselves do not have, it is clear from a logical perspective that if the US government holds ANY legitimacy (as opposed, to, say, merely being a rebellious province of the British Empire that Queen Lizzie hasn't gotten around to reclaiming yet) that legitimacy arises purely from the inherent right of an armed populace to rise up and reform their government by armed insurrection.Mlorrey 07:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

"gun rights advocates point to the inherent safety"--gun control advocates would argue that you're not inherently safer carrying a gun. Non-NPOV.

Fine, have them point out valid, peer reviewed and reproduced studies proving their claims. They can't. Gun owners can and do, to which gun controllers stick their fingers in their ears and call out "neener neener, I'm not listening" or try to smear the authors with vile attacks which do not impugn the science in any way.Mlorrey 07:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I hope these are acceptable. The rest of your edits were very useful, and covered important gaps I had left. Thanks. Best, Meelar (talk) 01:24, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I've reworded those two paragraphs. I took the words "loaded gun" out as that seemed inappropriate and redundant for an "armed citizen." I've also reworded from my previous "inherent safety" to "gun right advocates argue..." to make it balanced as you suggested. Plus a small redoing on the revolution/constitution aspect of it. Let me know what you think. Wodan 02:38, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Seems good to me--thanks. I've also removed the cleanup tag--hope you don't mind. Again, best wishes, Meelar (talk) 19:15, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

We'll see how long this lasts. :) Wodan 23:45, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I dispute that the collective rights view was the view of the executive branch from 1934 through 2002. Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush were both lifetime NRA members and stated on numerous occasions that they believed it was an individual right, as has frmr AG Ed Meese. The claim that the collective view was the 'de facto' position is false revisionist history promoted by the Bradyistas.Mlorrey 07:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding this issue--check out, e.g., an article in the NY Times from May 8, 2002 with the headline "U.S., in a Shift, Tells Justices Citizens Have a Right to Guns". To read the whole article, you'll need Lexis-Nexis or a similar database, or you can buy it off the Times' website for a couple dollars, but I've reproduced the lead below.

Reversing decades of official government policy on the meaning of the Second Amendment, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court for the first time late Monday that the Constitution "broadly protects the rights of individuals" to own firearms

Hopefully, this should answer your concerns. Yours, Meelar (talk) 08:24, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, however I will refrain from stating my opinion of anybody who looks to the New York Times as a paragon of fairness, truth, or accuracy in reporting. The fact is that Reagan and Bush I were both lifetime NRA members and believed gun ownership was an individual right.

"We will never disarm any American who seeks to protect his or her family from fear and harm." -- President Ronald Reagan

"I've always felt a special bond with members of your group," President Reagan told the NRA Legislative Session. "You live by Lincoln's words, 'Important principles may and must be inflexible.' Your philosophy puts its trust in people. So you insist individuals be held accountable for their actions. The NRA believes America's laws were made to be obeyed and that our constitutional liberties are just as important today as 200 years ago. And by the way, the Constitution does not say Government shall decree the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution says 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'"

"As we crack down on criminals," the President told the crowd, "we are trying to move forward on another front: to reform the firearms laws which needlessly interfere with the rights of legitimate gun owners like yourselves. We are working closely with your leadership and congressional supporters such as Senator McClure and Congressman Volkmer. I look forward to signing a bill that truly protects the rights of law-abiding citizens, without diminishing the effectiveness of criminal law enforcement against the misuse of firearms."

A comic routine in Las Vegas in 1980 featured a debate between presidential contenders Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter on the matter of gun control, Walter Cronkite presiding. "What about atom bombs, Governor Reagan? Do you believe the Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to have atom bombs?"

"Well, Mr. Cronkite," the comedian answered pensively, "just small atom bombs."

I think it is rather conclusive that Reagan overtly supported the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Eight U.S. Presidents have been NRA members. They are Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

"The one weapon every man, soldier, sailor, or airman should be able to use effectively is the rifle. It is always his weapon of personal safety in an emergency, and for many it is the primary weapon of offense and defense. Expertness in its use cannot be overemphasized." --General Dwight D. Eisenhower (Note: there is no military rank called "man".)

When and if you come back with a valid, reputable source claiming that official Exec. branch policy was the individualist interpretation, then I'll discuss it with you. What the individual president's thought here is beside the point--what's at issue is the official stance taken by the executive branch as a whole. Even if Reagan disagreed with the policy, he never changed it, and thus the sentence is accurate as it stands in my version. Meelar (talk) 14:09, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

This is rich. The presidents opinion isn't policy? Mlorrey 01:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not. Just because they had an opinion doesn't mean they changed the government's official interpretation--they may have had their own reasons not to (e.g., too much political fallout, want to concentrate on other things, etc.) Again, you'll have to present evidence that official policy was different in order to contradict my pretty-clear evidence. Best, Meelar (talk) 13:43, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly how it works-- we don't just have one person running the country. We also have Congress and the Supreme Court to come up with a government's "policy".... although many times that can echo what the President wants.---Gloriamarie 16:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The evidence for this claim is presented in Mat Nosanchuk's Northern Kentucky Law Review Article on the Second Amendment

What, the Government supports an interpretation that reserves rights to Government? Amazing not. —Tamfang 19:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'd like to contest your version of the article--it contains several things that are non-neutral. Please remember, Wikipedia is written in an

a place to argue political disputes, so try to see both sides of the issue on talk, even if you think you're right and the other side is clearly wrong.

Now, as for your version:

1. " ignoring the question of whether it is already tyrannical simply by being too large for the citizenry to bring under control if need be."--the correct size of government isn't really the point at issue here. This phrasing is irrelevant and is a loaded question (non-neutral) so I've removed it.

I hope you would reconsider this in light of the May 10th passage of the REAL ID Act. I don't think it is possible for anyone to objectively and neutrally claim the US isn't slipping into fascist tyranny rather quickly. The fact is that the other side IS ignoring this question entirely.Mlorrey 22:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

But that's your opinion. Please read

our neutrality policy. The article cannot take sides in a dispute. Meelar (talk)

14:07, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Anything I say which you disagree with is "my opinion" apparently.Mlorrey 01:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

1. "while these same advocates tend to believe that their votes were ignored in the 2000 and/or 2004 presidential elections."--again, non-neutral. Pointing out the alleged flaws in one side's argument, without attributing them to critics, is non-neutral.

Pointing out the flaws in the anti-gun argument, when other writers are only pointing out flaws in the pro-gun argument is, in aggregate, neutral. It is the neutrality of the consensus that matters, not the individual contributions of individual contributors.Mlorrey 22:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

If you feel the article is non-neutral, the answer is to make it neutral, not to insert your own non-neutal opinions. Again,

Wikipedia is not a place for political debate. Meelar (talk)

14:07, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I have attempted this, and you will continue to insist that anything which diverges from YOUR OPINION is therefore non-neutral. You don't get to define your opinion as neutrality.Mlorrey 01:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

1. "This view is supported by a quotation of WWII Japanese Admiral Yamomoto to Togo, in advising against an invasion of the US mainland, "there is a rifle behind every blade of grass," in referring to the popular and common ownership of firearms in the US"--a couple problems here. First, the evidence is cherry-picked; second, providing evidence for one side, while attacking the arguments and soundness of the other side (see above) is non-neutral--it looks like this article is supporting the pro-gun argument. Removed.

It isn't cherry picked, it was the only event in two centuries of US history that the US was attacked on its own territory (the War of 1812 and 9/11 being the only other comparable events) and we have a direct quote from the engineer of that event. His opinions of the capabilities of the gun owners of the United States is entirely germaine to this argument, and leaving it out is non-neutral of you.Mlorrey 22:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

"The phrasing 'this view is supported by' clearly implies that the article agrees with that view, which isn't kosher. Meelar (talk) 14:07, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I am open to a suggestion for what you view as a neutral way to phrase it, but that quote IS going to wind up in there no matter how much you try to revise history.Mlorrey 01:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

1. "despite historical anecdotes such as the above as well as citations of other totalitarians who were deterred by armed populaces in Switzerland, Finland, etc."--see above. We're not here to make arguments for one side or the other.

Then why is this article so biased against gun owners?Mlorrey 22:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Then change it. Meelar (talk) 14:07, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Meelar (talk) 08:25, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

What, so you can change it back again?Mlorrey 01:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

"The Clinton administration BATF study of illegal firearms in the black market estimated that as many as 4 million illegal fully automatic firearms had either been illegally smuggled into the USA or illegally constructed within the USA."

Given the ruling in US v. Stewart (9th Circuit), it is non-neutral to refer to home-made or home-altered machine guns which are not registered under the NFA as "illegal". The court clearly says that home-construction of machine guns is outside the commerce clause power of congress and the BATF and is therefore not 'illegal'. Please correct this non-NPOV.Mlorrey 22:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Any cicuit court is a piece of hot air. Only SCOTUS matters for the federal government, because they govern all the four dozen states. Also, the federal government must condem US based home-construction, because without that they would have no ground to condem palestinian home construction of weapons and how could they support Israel then? 195.70.32.136 11:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Because domestic policy is allowed to be independent of foreign policy, and we don't tell allies what their domestic gun policies should be, or their policies of gun control concering parties who would wish for their annihilation for that matter. If that were the case, we would have much poorer relations with a good deal of our allies (England, Australia, New Zealand and others) that have differing views in gun policy. Tyrnell (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Boy I wish someone would tell the BATFE about that ruling. They still enforce it very strictly. If the BATFE so much as suspects that you might be thinking about planning to find out how to get ready to make a machine gun, they'll bust through your door and arrest you (if they don't shoot you first).

I created an image of a gun superimposed over the American flag for the gun politics template (See [4]). It was subsequently removed, since one user thought it was endorsing only one side of the debate. But I don't agree. Please leave comments at Template_talk:USgunlegalbox. --JW1805 16:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I recently attempted to post a photograph of a California guide sign that was riddled with many rusted bullet holes, which was immediately reverted. Since such signs are a common sight in most American states (indeed, most California freeway signs contain multiple bullet holes), and freeway shootings are a common and normal occurrence in California, I do not see why some other user objected to it as non-neutral. Furthermore, I had carefully couched the caption by pointing out that only "irresponsible gun owners vandalize traffic signs by shooting them." --Coolcaesar 22:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• It might be a common sight in urban California, but the same doesn't necessarily hold true for other areas of the country. I just think it's a bit biased for the only picture in this article to showcase an activity that only a small number of idiots are engaged in. Plus, it doesn't really have anything to do with "gun politics". --JW1805 23:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I doubt is all that common in California. Here in Southern California the most common vandalism on freeway signs by far is spray paint. --Enemyofthestate 17:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• The topic of this page is "Gun politics in the United States". I'm not aware that bullet-holes in signs had become germane to the political debate surrounding firearms. -O^O 20:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Very well, then, if you don't like it, that's fine with me. At least no one's objected to the photo's appearance in the article on Vandalism (probably because it's more relevant to that one). --Coolcaesar 05:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• It was quite properly reverted. Where would it stop? Will we then have a basis for excluding more photos, such as a stock photo of the victims of the Valentine's Day Massacre, with an earnest caveat that "only a tiny minority of dysfunctional gangsters harm each other in such a manner"? Why may not that be followed by some photo of a dead wren or robin, poached by some 13-year-old with a .22, with an earnest caveat that "such wanton killing of the common creatures in nature tends to be committed only by unsupervised children"? And then for "balance" to these submissions, can we turn away the photo of a dead would-be home-invader, with a police record of rape and assault, lying in his blood on the threshold of the door he had smashed down, shot by the 72-year-old occupant of the house? - Doug Gross, Williams '77

The article makes many statements of the kind "some people argue this, others argue that". There really need to be some sources for these (if notable people/groups do think these things there must be sources). Instead of 'gun-control advocates think that ..' it should be, for example, a link to a statement by a campaign group for gun control. At the moment when I read the article (as someone from the UK and for gun-control) it seems biased towards the pro-gun camp. I need sources to convince me that this isn't propaganda. Much of this could be the opinion of an author or it may be an accurate reflection of the politics in the U.S. I can't tell. Please help me.

Lets take one section:

• Supporters of the 2nd amendment also point to European countries, notably Britain, where guns are severely restricted if not outrightly banned. Nonetheless, gun crime in Britain remains high.

High compared to what? Britain before the new laws in 1997? Britain in 1932? The U.S.? I found some figures for the UK. The Telegraph states gun crimes increased from in 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871 in 2003. Injuries increased from 317 to 648. We could say that gun crime has increased since the ban but it still isn't high compared to the U.S. or even France. I can add these stats to the article but there needs to be a source for someone in the U.S. using these types of numbers or it's original research.

• Advocates of gun control, however, assert that because criminals obtain guns by stealing them from law-abiding gun owners, restricting their availability would decrease supply to criminals. They also argue that higher rates of gun ownership increase the number of crimes of passion.

Who are they? Who are these advocates?

• Non-defensive uses of guns, such as hunting, vermin control and recreational target shooting, often receive little attention despite arguably being the most common reasons for private gun ownership.

Is there a source for the reasons for gun ownership - polls, etc? Who is making these arguements.

• Problems include the difficulty of accounting accurately for confrontations in which no shots are fired, and jurisdictional differences in the definition of "crime". For example, some have argued that American statistics tend to over-count violent crimes, while British statistics tend to under-count them.

This really needs a source (who are some) because virtually any confrontation involving a gun would be a crime in the UK since, with the possible exception of shotguns (farmers, etc), even having a gun is illegal.

• Proponents of gun control frequently argue that carrying a concealed pistol would be of no practical use for personal self-defense, while gun right advocates argue that individuals with proper firearm training are better able to defend themselves if carrying a handgun. Proponents of gun rights claim that in the US, there are up to 2.5 million incidents per year in which a lawfully-armed citizen averts being victimized by defending him or herself from a would-be attacker. Those who advance these statistics say that the deterrent effect would disproportionately benefit women, who are often targets of violent crime.

It has to be said that 'up to 2.5 million' is a number between zero and 2.5 million ;) Where is the number from? Do all proponents make this claim? It seems to me that NPOV would really require some numbers on the numbers of deaths/injuring due to guns or a link to a study (or studies) on the effect of guns on safety. I'm sure the gun-control peeps have made some claims with numbers

Cheers Slinky Puppet 15:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The real problem is that, as this is a political issue, everything is thrown out of wack. I have statistics that state the British gun crime rate as about 100, yours say 2-5000. Alas, politics is a fluid issue and the law is meant to be like that. Motor.on

Of coures figures are going o go up in gun crimes the popluation is always growing, what U want to look at is the percentages from year to year(which I don't have) but really iv been reading this whole article and yall are deffinatly trying to spin it your way and not being nuteral. As some1 who has grown up in a rural setting all there life I can say that the more the popluation is trained to properly handle and equip themselves with weapons the less accidents you have(in a rural setting). I got my first real gun at 10 years old (.410 shotgun and yes I passed hunters safety) and if I had not had all those years with my BB gun I probly would have hurt myself but since I was introduced to weapons and there conquences at an earily age I understood the responsibility that goes with it. Also I have my concealed weapons permit, and I will not hesitate to defend myself or others if put in a similar mall shooting type sineario. Basically it all boils down to trust, trust of your government, of the people, of ANY one with a gun. I'v never shot any1, I have seen ppl die, I'v never been shot, I have been hit with a bullet fragment......Guns Are dangerous, but I gotta use the good ol adage "Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People"

Does this answer the question of the definition of "militia"?

Here is a source which may be of some use for this page - <http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/>

Search the codes for militia and you will get this:

   Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
   (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males
       at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of 
       title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration 
       of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female 
       citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
   (b) The classes of the militia are--
       (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard 
   and the Naval Militia; and
       (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of 
   the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval 
   Militia.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85-861, Sec. 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103-160, div. A, title V, Sec. 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

notyouravgjoe 16:12, 4, November 2005

That's honestly not relevant because the National Guard didn't exist until less than 100 years ago-- so the Founders could not have been referring to anything having to do with the National Guard.--Gloriamarie 16:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The supreme court has also ruled that the National Guard is a branch of the army that governors are allowed to borrow. A governor tried to challenge the foreign deployment of national guard troops and lost based on this fact.Jimberg98 21:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for help on research, see

Wikipedia:How to write a great article. --Coolcaesar

21:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Didn't the USA sign some international treaty which bans combattants younger than 18 years of age? The above text is inaccurate. 195.70.32.136 11:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because they are in a militia doesn't mean they are combatants The Drew 17:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Which treaty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrnell (talk • contribs) 18:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This statement from the main article: "Homicide rates as a whole, and especially homicides as a result of firearms use; are significantly lower in all other developed countries."

I think it is a bit inaccurate, since this source: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html Seems to show that Taiwan has a higher total murder rate than the US. This despite the fact that possession of guns in Taiwan is a capital offense. I didn't edit the main article, but somehow it doesn't seem entirely accurate to make that categorical statement quoted above. Or maybe Taiwan doesn't qualify as a "developed country..."

It certainly does not. It just left dictatorship era and the labour laws are very weak, people are exploited for work performance like Japan with mainland China-like wages and rights. A developed country is like Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, France, etc (high quality of life). Some even refuse to call the USA a developed country, since some important aspects of human life are poorly protected there (especially the positive rights, like free medical care for children, the rights and care of mentally handicapped, labour protections, natural environment protection, egality in basic education, etc.) 195.70.32.136

I've been interested in this topic before, and there are two main reasons that the US has a higher homicide rate than other developed countries-- we have so much inner-city violence, much of it involving gangs, and the South has a much higher homicide rate than the North (in general). The South is poorer overall than the North, and inner cities are usually pretty poor. I don't think either has to do directly with guns, but more certain cultures within society. It's an interesting subject. But there's still no doubt that the US is a developed country :)

--Gloriamarie 16:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for information regarding why conservatives are traditionally and generally the ones who support the right to bear arms whereas liberals are against this. It's struck me as apparently hypocritical of both sides; the Right is interested in national defence, throws money at the military and intelligence agencies, is in favour of such actions as warrant-less wire taps, but actively fights for the individual's right to own firearms which could be used against the state, whereas liberals protect free speech to the point where it may cause secular hatred and lead to violence, are in favour of civil liberties and are all about "freedom to" but are against the freedom to own firearms. It's an issue that's crept up between a friend and I and I'm at a loss to explain it. I'd be gratetful if anyone (I assume those editing this article have researched the issue more than I) could point me towards a source that explains why this is, as it seems inherently illogical at first glance. I understand the arguments for and against gun control, but I don't understand why those different positions are championed by the people they are, rather than the other way round. - Hayter 21:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem begins with your own over simplification of liberal and conservative ideals. While you listed what is perceived as popular ideas about the two sides, you should explore the political matter further than skin deep. Political motivations are seldom so simple as to directly correlate with the face value positions on a given subject. 68.216.17.182 22:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The 'simplification' is because I rarely enjoy posting questions that may end up being longer than the answer. I assure you I have explored the issue of gun control in a variety of contexts and from varying angles (not to mention the most notorious ideals held by both sides), and whilst it may be true that my brief and admittedly ignorant supposition posed above is based on little more than indoctrinated leftist propaganda, the question was asked because I sought an in-depth answer or the beginnings to finding one, not deprecation of my own knowledge. I need not hire out for the latter, already having a partner willing to provide. For the record, O^O has already given me the former and I thank him for it, but if anyone else would consider giving me an opinion I'd appreciate it as well. - Hayter 20:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Its all based on the differences in lifestyle of rural,urban and suburban voters that may be more truely liberal or conservative on other issues; accidents of geography and class politics rather than thought out ideology. Kudos to the article writers for refering to relaxed conceal and carry law as "liberal". - The IP Adress 11:25 February 13 2006

Err, I believe it's contrasting "liberal" to "authoritarian", IE: Liberal as in Liberty (Stating that this idea places fewer restrictions upon something than its alternative), rather than "Liberal" as in "The political ideology". -FrYGuY 05:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The word's been so vilified I'm just glad to hear it used properly in any context, also I think, economics aside, being liberal and opposing authoritarianism is an integral part of being a good Liberal, even when its not the policy of the Dems or Labor or whoever. The IP Adress 10:28 Feburuary 2006

Thanks for that guys - I've now used the information (for a debate down the pub, if you can believe it) and it was interesting to consider the various thoughts brought up. Thanks again. - Hayter 14:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the section "Security against tyranny and invasion", the Afghanistani muhajadeens successfully countered the Soviet Armed Forces with ancient bolt action rifles. This is presented as an argument to undermine the idea that it would be futile for private citizens to fight the government militarily. It should be point out, however, that the mujahideens were significantly financed, armed, and trained by the United States and other countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen). - PJ

And any Americans who might try to resist tyranny with ancient bolt-action rifles would also be financed by Americans. So? —Tamfang 19:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

American made Stinger missles would NOT be available to a uprising militia however. Motor.on

They're not available to the Swiss citizenry either, and look how well they've done fending off foreign invasion. A commonly held belief is that only equivalent small arms (IE: Guns, not cannons, missiles, bombs, and so forth) are needed to hold a truely sucessful armed revolt. Of course, you could argue that the US doesn't even have that any more... -FrYGuY 07:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The way swiss avoided invasion from Hitler was collaboration. They accepted gold the nazis robbed off the corpses of gassed jews (including not just jewellery and wristwatches but also raw pulled gold teeth in crates)! They melted that and traded that with the Allies for western cash and handed that over to the Third Reich, who used it to buy iron ore and ball bearings from Sweden to keep the Wehrmacht running. In fact the swiss returned many jewish escapees to the Gestapo, which is currently a subject of big lawsuit in Europe. Swiss licked the ass of Hitler, Switzerland was the last country to retire the ME-109 fighters, those nazi marvels flew until the mid-1960s. BTW, one swiss city was carpet bombed by mistake by a USAAF B-24 formation and the swiss did nothing. There was no swiss resistance to either Hitler or the Allies, they only collected money from dirty sources. 195.70.32.136 12:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

So you don't think there is anything else about Swiss history and its role in the world economy that might account for their ability to remain neutral. Also, it is not individual gun ownership, but the fact that the Swiss have a militia-based military that makes their example fit the model.

Here is the BBC News web article, which confirms exactly what I said two above: Switzerland survived WWII by collaborating fully with Hitler's Third Reich and sending jewish refugees back to concentration camps. There is even a photo there, of a swastika-eagle decorated gold bar from a swiss safe. The swiss far right is now planning to protest because they refuse to see the fact that there was no heroic defence but only swiss compliance in the most heinous nazi crimes. The BBC article is well worth reading: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5349148.stm

Actually, if you wanted to point out external reasons, rather than their economic role or history, the prime counter would be the geography. The Swiss are nestled in the Alps. It's hard to get there, hard to move around, and hard to get out. It's prime defender territory. Alas, the point is that they require households with males 18 years old or older to possess an automatic weapon. This, plus the mountains, means anybody wishing to invade Switzerland better be prepared to take heavy casualties, even with heavy bombings first. -FrYGuY 15:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

PJ has a good point, although this needs to be taken into consideration 1. The Soviet army relied heavily on tanks, which couldn't be used in the mountanous land of Afghanistan 2. It is possible for civilians to effectively combat the government in armed conflict, but gun restrictions make it harder. And to motor.on, stingers could be available to a militia either through illegal importation or an armory that the militia controlled Tyrnell (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

On a subject this contentious, everything should be

. For example, I removed the entire following section:

Gun control advocates argue that only members of a "well regulated militia" have the right to keep and bear arms, with debate ensuing over what, exactly, 'the militia' is. Proponents of gun rights argue that the phrase "the people" applies to all individuals rather than an organized collective, and that the militia is precisely defined in U.S. law as all male citizens and resident aliens at least 17 up to 45 with or without military service experience, and including additionally those under 64 having former military service experience, as well as including female citizens who are officers of the National Guard. Gun control advocates say that the word 'people' in the Second Amendment means something other than what the word 'people' means in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments. They also cite the fact that the Second Amendment resides in the Bill of Rights, and argue that the Bill of Rights, by its very nature, defines individual rights of the citizenry. Many proponents of gun rights also read the Second Amendment to state that because of the need of a formal military, the people have a right to "keep and bear arms" as protection from the government.

Not a single cite was given for any of these claims, some of them quite contentious. If anyone wants to reinsert these claims, then cite them to a specific source. If you want to claim that gun control advocates think that "the word 'people' in the Second Amendment means something other than what the word 'people' means in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments" then you need to find a mainstream gun control group that actually says this. To simply insert in this manner constitutes prohibited original research. I'm also concerned about using terms like "proponents of gun rights" - is this really neutral wording? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've got to call bullshit on this.You have removed whole sections of the article,from the 2nd Amendment,about which you evidently know very little.It doesn't take citation to write the truth.Anyone who knows the issue from even one side knows that the concept of the word 'people 'as interpreted in the 2nd Amendment is alleged to mean something different from the 'people in the 1st,4th.9th,10th Amendments.Your use of what looks like dirty tactics amounts to vandalism of the article.Erasing something just because you don't know enough about the issues under review to know wheather it's true or not looks like a cheap trick.This article has to show the issue from both sides to achieve a NPOV.Instead of deleting facts that explain the issue from the pro-gun side ,why don't you add to the article by adding your side's take on it?Granted,it is kind of ridiculous,but you could try.Saltforkgunman 08:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You may just be a hardcore wiki,uninterested in gun politics,but your selection of an entire paragraph of factual information to delete looks like standard gun control tactics.Citing the lack of citations looks like the uninterested party,but be advised that all of the information in the above paragraph is correct.When the facts in an entire paragraph make gun control look stupid, a gun control advocate might want to hide behind a NPOV gimmick to delete that information.If this isn't you then don't take offense.Saltforkgunman 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed the following addition added today, as the claims don't add up or agree with each other. As there were roughly 55,000 soldiers killed in Viet Nam, this equates to making the claim that 27,500 Americans die of gun shots each year. Perhaps. Yet, only 9,390 to 11,348 actually occurred according to the same inserted text. What happened to the other 15,000+? Looks like some talking points from several pro-gun control websites were perhaps copied, without checking the validity of the numbers. The whole addition is suspect. Can someone straighten out what is fact and what is fiction?

In 1996, 2 people were murdered by handguns in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany, and 9,390 in the United States. [FBI Uniform Crime Report] "Gun Facts" Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense.<From a well debunked study conducted wholly in a Seattle ghetto.Saltforkgunman 08:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC) [ Kellermann and Reay, N.E. Journal of Medicine] Every two years, more Americans die of gunshot than there were American soldiers killed during the entire Vietnam War [National Center for Health Statistics, Department of Defense Almanac]. In homes with guns, a member of the household is almost three times as likely to be the victim of a homicide compared to gun-free homes. Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home." NEJM 329:15 (1993):1084-1091. • In 2001, firearms were used to murder 6 people in New Zealand, 56 in Japan, 96 in Great Britain, 168 in Canada, and 331 in Germany United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2001-2002). In comparison, firearms were used to murder 11,348 in the United States WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports. In 2003, there were only 163 justifiable homicides by private citizens using handguns in the United States FBI Uniform Crime Report, 2003, table 2.16, p. 24. In the US, "Somewhere around 0.8 to 2.0 million violent crimes are deterred each year because of gun ownership and use by civilians. In addition, another 1.5 to 2.5 million crimes are stopped by armed civilians. There may be some overlap in these two categories because of the ways in which the data are collected, but there are almost certainly some two to four million fewer completed crimes each year as the result of civilian gun ownership." Lawrence Southwick, Jr., "Guns and Justifiable Homicide: Deterrence and Defense", St. Louis University Public Law Review, Gun Control Symposium, vol 18, no. 1, 1999: 217

There are no doubt some good points here, but they need to be consistent and documented and verified before they get inserted into the article. Yaf 06:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the World Almanac 2001 (my handiest reference), a majority of US firearms deaths in 1997 were suicides (17566 of 32166).

The list of murders-with-guns in various countries is shocking but where's the list of murders-without-guns? If the key difference is gun policy, then the non-gun murder rates ought to be roughly equal; are they?

FBI numbers are known to undercount justifiable homicides, because they count only those killings where no arrest was made, which are very rare because of CYA.

The famous ratio 43 is meaningless because killing the aggressor is not necessary to a successful defensive gun use.

—Tamfang 20:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I re-inserted the militia definition and sourced it. Notyouravgjoe 18 March 2006

In the section 'security against tyranny and invasion',the last sentence reads,'In the pacific war,Japan made the decision not to invade the West coast on the U.S.,and one reason was the presence of millions of armed people'.Hopefully,the poster of that sentence was not quoting the internet legend that years after WW2,Admiral Yamamoto told Admiral Nimitz that the Japs didn't invade because of 'a gun behind every bush.'Admiral Yamamoto's plane was shot down on April 18,1943.You see the problem?Saltforkgunman 01:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

While it may be impossible for it to have been said when it was claimed to be said and who heard it, there was a great deal of weapons familirization taking place on the west coast, and the Japanese were well aware of it, and any halfway-decent strategest would realise that a land campaign on enemy territory with supply lines stretched across the Pacific is already difficult, the idea of such a campaign when any civilian may be willing to fight against it would be nearly impossible. Tyrnell (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The pro gun people are breaking the rules regarding Wikipedia by trying to conveniently ignore the fact that guns are different today than they were when the Constitution was written. You can edit this fact but deleting this fundumental point is out of line. Further the USA is one of the only nations with gun rights written into its Constitution. These are both fundumental facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.208.181 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 2 April 2006

Removed the following opionated, uncited, and unsubstantiated edit, "The United States is one of the few countries on earth with the right to bear arms written into the Constitution. This law was written into the Constitution when the firearms world was much different than today. The predominant firearm when the Constitution was written was the musket. This was a very inaccurate weapon that took almost a minute to reload. The musket was not rifled. These types of weapons would not cause society the problems that the weapons of today have on society. Also these weapons could not be concealed."

In the first place, the discussion on Revolutionary War muskets has very little to do with the Second Amendment. In the second place, some rifles were used during the Revolutionary War. They were considered deadly well beyond 100 yards, whereas anyone hit by a musket at a distance greater than 60 or 70 yards was usually just considered unlucky. Yes, Revolutionary War rifles were slower to load than muskets, hence their use as special purpose weapons by both sides during the Revolutionary War.

As for the US being one of the few countries with gun rights written into its constitution, what about Mexico, and a whole host of others that do? Guess they don't count.

Yes, guns are different today than during the Revolutionary War. So what? They were deadly then and are deadly now. And, what does concealed have to do with discussing the Second Amendment? This topic is covered at length elsewhere in the Article. Yaf 05:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The argument that guns "were and are deadly" is equivocation pure and simple. The OP's main point, and I believe it is a valid one, is that guns are much, much deadlier now, in addition to being more reliable and easier to use. What this "has to do" with the second amendment is it raises the question of whether the combined improvements in firearms since the amendment was authored have not in fact given rise to weapons that are _qualitatively different_ from the firearms the founders had in mind. If this is the case (I believe it is) then the second amendment is inapplicable because the "arms" it discusses resemble the arms of today in name only.

At any rate, this is an argument which deserves better representation in the article. Wikibotjp (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If the Second Amendment applies only to the technology of 1791, then presumably the same principle applies to the clauses authorizing the Government to maintain military forces. —Tamfang 17:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious that if you support strong gun control in this country, you also support repealing the 2nd amendment. Further this is a major position as there are quite a few Americans that want strong gun control. It follows that Wikipedia must include the argument for repealing the 2nd ammendment as uncomfortable as this may be for the pro gun people. Politically, opposing the 2nd amendment is very difficult as the NRA tries to paint any such attempts as anti-American. It is also difficult for groups such as the Brady gun control organization to work to repeal the 2nd amendment for similar reasons. Wikipedia has no such political agenda and the argument belongs here. I also ask that the pro gun control administrator post to my page. If there is no such person, I will volunteer for the interim until there is such a person. There is obviously a pro gun administrator named Rhobite actively moniteering this article. I hope there is some balance here. I have no problem with the argument for repealing the 2nd ammendment being improved from the one posted. If the argument continues to be deleted, this should go straight to dispute resolution.GunsKill 19:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not a place to make arguments but to present arguments in the mainstream. If you can cite a mainstream group pushing to repeal the 2nd, go ahead and add it in. Very nice. On your first post you're pushing for dispute resolution. Very civil of you. (actually, are you the IP 24.smthing that's been editing this page? at least you're signing now. That'd be an improvement).--Mmx1 19:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the two 2A repeal cites that are on there, I don't think an editorial and a blog post is indicative of opinion of gun-control groups. There are no doubt individuals that believe so, but the nation as a whole is fairly unwilling to repeal the 2nd and that's why there aren't any groups pushing for it. --Mmx1 20:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It was the best I could find on short order :-) I agree with you that there are no major groups pushing for the repeal of the 2A, except perhaps for the UN group on preventing small arms proliferation, but they have little legal standing within the US proper, and I didn't even bother to put them in the section for this reason. Have attempted to craft a more balanced section, but we probably aren't there yet. This article is definitely still a work in progress.

And, relative to the anti-gun comments/actions of GunSkill, it is not valid to delete large sections of text within articles, for it is considered vandalism, unless a discussion and a consensus is reached among a group of editors prior to the deletion(s). Also, it is usually considered bad manners to ascribe malice to other editors, especially prior to discussing things on the discussion page. I realize that we all start as newbies who are still learning the ropes, but it would be much the same as striding into a corner bar and announcing that you were gonna change the drinking rules. A lot more good is done by discussing major edits in advance, and building consensus, rather than by blindly storming in and deleting major sections. That is not saying that there aren't edits that are still needed, either! But, lets work together, to reach a balanced, NPOV article worthy of being considered encyclopedic in nature. Checking spelling and grammar are part and parcel to accomplishing this too, for grammatical edits usually get considered more carefully than "blog-quality" inputs, with major problems. Yaf 20:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The keywords "repeal 2nd amendment" brought 279,000 hits on yahoo on April 3, 2006. This is clear evidence that the people are discussing this issue. This discussion belongs in this article. Will the administrator here help this get into dispute resolution please?GunsKill 20:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You're free to participate here productively, but to date all you've done is blank a large section of the article, add your personal opinion about the "musket" interpretation, and mock User:Yaf by mimicking his username. As long as you stop vandalizing the article and impersonating other users, I will not block you. Rhobite 20:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yaf is very active, aggressive and vigilant on this page. Yaf is also strongly pro gun. I chose that username to point this out. The intention was not to mock but to make a statement. This whole article is strongly biased pro-gun. The self defense section is a complete joke. In fact if gun users are pulling a gun on people 2.5 million times and there are only 4.8 million reported violent crimes something is terribly wrong. I have posted statistics far better cited and sourced than the rubbish in the self defense section and it was very quickly deleted. Also the gun violence section and the security against tyrrany are very one sided. What is that nonsense about Rhwanda doing there? And then the argument that there are more guns in rural areas but more crime in the city is also a complete joke. This article needs some wholesale deletions to have any balance.GunsKill 20:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes. Second, your google results are dishonest: "repeal 2nd amendment" gets 31 results, "repeal second amendment" gets another 51. The query repeal "2nd amendment" gets 61,000 but many about repealing gun bans. --Mmx1

20:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not use the " " marks in the search but those keywords just brought over 5 million hits on google. With the "" marks it is bad grammer so you wont get many hits.GunsKill 21:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Without the quotes, most of the links aren't even talking about the 2nd amendment. Or the constitution for that matter. Specifying "second amendment" helps a bit but you still get many false positives. Adding "the" ("repeal the second amendment") gets you 500/675 depending on which version of second you use. Still a blip. --Mmx1 21:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Search Engine 101 -- Putting in quote marks means the search engine will search for exactly the sequence of words contained between the quote marks. If you don't insert the quote marks, then the search engine will show hits for any combination of the words, even if each word is individually far, far from the other words. It has nothing to do with grammar (or punctuation). It has to do with finding meaning in terms of context. Punctuation is important, too, when writing. Consider the famous "Eats, Shoots, and Leaves. This could be referring to a Panda that Eats a meal of Shoots and Leaves (Eats Shoots and Leaves), or to a holdup guy at a restaurant that Eats, Shoots (the hostess) and Leaves. But, punctuation and grammar are not important to most search engine usages, unless you are looking for exactly one meaning where punctuation matters. Yaf 21:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I did find a Miami Herald editorial calling for a repeal of the Second Amendment: [5]. Editorials say lots of things, though, and I don't think that it indicates any significant movement to repeal the Second Amendment. Most anti-gun groups shy away from this argument, because it implies that the Second Amendment is indeed valid. They would rather argue that the comma indicates that only members of a well-regulated militia have a right to keep and bear arms. The Brady Campaign, for example, challenges the validity of the Second Amendment but does not call for its repeal. Rhobite 22:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Guns are WAY more advance now, then back when the constitution was written but don't forget "bullets from any era can kill"

Regarding the clause: "...protection of a personal right to firearms beyond the context of individuals keeping and bearing arms that could be used in support of militias."

I see two problems: 1) It doesn't seem true, for instance handguns could be used in militias, but are widely allowed to be regulated. 2) The object of the first part is 'right to firearms' and the object of the second part is 'right to keep and bear arms'. This is a logical falacy, requiring the presumption that 'right to firearms' is the same as 'right to keep and bear arms'. This presumption is false, or at least, subject to debate.

Perhaps you can reword it to address these two concerns; I tried, and could not. In the end I think just deleting the clause is most accurate and NPOV.

17:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Have written to address the two concerns, and restructured slightly, adding Presser in the list, since it is really what addresses the right of the State to regulate militias. Also added quote from Presser, the "riot and rapine" one. There is a fundamental difference between regulating and infringing. The high court has largely allowed States and local Governments to regulate all manner of arms. However, there has been a consistency in that the fundamental right to keep and bear arms has only been allowed to be regulated, not infringed. With these edits, I think we may be close to NPOV and balanced. Yaf 17:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is so poorly written that it is a complete joke. There is no real evidence that guns are useful in self defence especially if you live in an urban area. The evidence presented is spurious at best. The protection against tyrrany and invasion argument is laughable. Certainly if you disarm on group of people in society and leave the rest heavily armed, that can be a problem like happened in Germany and Rhwanda. But now we have that case in the USA with most people not owning guns, and the people that do own guns often have strange extreme political agendas.

The bottom line is that even with all the nonsense written in this article, how come the Brady gun facts dont stay here? Without these gun facts this article is a complete joke and further the Brady gun facts follow all the rules of Wikipedia as to verifiability and everything else for that matter. I want this article to go to dispute resolution without more facts as to the risks of owning a gun, the number of injuries related to guns in the USA and further the costs to society of those injuries.GunsKill 18:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• You should recuse youself from this discussion because of your username. I've never heard of an inanimate object suddenly taking conscious action against a human. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that the article suffers from a severe pro-gun POV and needs lots of work to bring NPOV. I suggest we add a neutrality dispute box until NPOV is achieved through concensus editing.

BruceHallman

18:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. A controversial tagline box, perhaps, but I am not sure why an NPOV tag should be used just yet. Likewise for this continuous "dispute resolution" threat. It's too early. Why not just write and edit and work on achieving balance as we go. And, if there are facts and issues that are not yet covered, then we should make an attempt to write an input that is not all one-sided to capture those points, too. For example, I personally think there is too much Brady-Campaign POV and similar "facts" without context that keeps getting inserted. In the latest such insertion, failing to mention that the Kellerman studies were for a ghetto where illicit drugs and fights were common and violence no doubt was even more common for the "home" given as an example of typical American homes seems definitely biased. Of course, such a neighborhood would be very violent, guns or not. Lets work on keeping a balance. Yaf 04:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Cuyahoga County is not a ghetto, it is a typical cross section of any urban area in the USA. You are not working on keeping balance. You are working very hard to keep this page off balance.GunsKill 16:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"There is no real evidence that guns are useful in self defence especially if you live in an urban area." Really? You're telling me that if a man is coming after me and I pull a gun, odds are that he will completely ignore it and keep right on course? I have a family member in the Dallas PD, and he has cited multiple crime scenes that either he himself or a fellow officer have visited and the criminal was either gone or dead before they could finish the crime because the defender had a firearm. The reason that this hasn't happened more often is because people are afraid they'll get in trouble for shooting in self-defense. Tyrnell (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Many of the "Brady gun facts" are in just as much dispute as gun politics itself, so adding them to this would merely open a new can of worms. Arthurrh 00:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The brady gun "facts" are misleading, and deceptive, like everything writen by the brady group, and alot of what's writen by the NRA and other pro-gun groups. I wouldn't ever use either of them as a source. 220.239.88.91 22:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I like that GunsKill is trying to make this NPOV but then states that everyone who owns a gun has extreme political views... I own a gun and I'm very far from "extreme" The Drew 18:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no real evidence that guns are useful in self defence especially if you live in an urban area.

That's laughable. Do you want the police to carry spears? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 19:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"There is no real evidence that guns are useful in self defence especially if you live in an urban area." Really? You're telling me that if a man is coming after me and I pull a gun, odds are that he will completely ignore it and keep right on course? I have a family member in the Dallas PD, and he has cited multiple crime scenes that either he himself or a fellow officer have visited and the criminal was either gone or dead before they could finish the crime because the defender had a firearm. The reason that this hasn't happened more often is because people are afraid they'll get in trouble for shooting in self-defense. Tyrnell (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw a number of Michigan groups added today, and I wanted to know if the "Organizations" section should be limited to National organizations. I fear that the section could become ridiculous with every chapter of every group, gun club, and every state organization being listed. It is already quite long, perhaps this could be spun into a new page or two (Pro-gun organizations, and Anti-Gun organizations) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.208.25 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole section on tyranny and invasion is complete rubbish. I want an answer to one question. If we do have a situation where the government breaks down, which is really the only situation that would give the gun owners political power, who is to protect the very likely more reasonable gunless ones from the gun toters? I dont want a world where the gun nuts are ruling it. I don't understand what gives the gun toters the moral compass to say that they are any better than the guy that does not have a gun??? GunsKill 01:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the point of the article: Gun Politics? The 'tyranny' argument and the 'invasion' argument, are well known arguments/myths/contrivances/rubbish/choose-your-word used by the personal gun rights proponets in the Gun Politics debate. If you can cite an opposition source per WP:V of contrary augments/myths... of the other side of the Gun Politics debate, feel free to edit them into the article, that is welcome. Although you make reasonable points in your post above, it seems to be 'original research' unless you can cite sources. Also, feel free to challange the sourcing of the 'tyranny' and 'invasion' topics if you wish.

BruceHallman

01:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Relative to the question, "who is to protect the very likely more reasonable gunless ones from the gun toters?", perhaps the New Orleans police? Seriously, the fundamental philosophical difference appears to be one of personal reliance for protecton against roaming bands of criminals with guns versus inferred protection by the police who are supposed to come to one's aid. In the very times when 911 and the police are needed most, though, at least in New Orleans, the infrastructure broke down, and bands of criminals were preying on the unarmed. Gun rights proponents claim these are the very times when guns are good tools to have, to defend one's self, family, and home. As BruceHallman noted, feel free to edit your points into the article, citing sources. Having been through many hurricanes, though, I have seen firsthand the failure of governmental infrastructure for weeks on end, and have learned it is wise not to depend on Governmental aid, but instead to be self-reliant. It is lots safer. Yaf 02:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You did not explain who is to protect those reasonable ones that do not own guns from the gun nuts if the government breaks down. You did state the one and only valid logical reason to buy a gun if you live in an urban area, that being, if the government breaks and we revert to the lowest most primitive, brutal and violent society, you might well want to own a gun rather than not have one. There is a flip side to this argument though. Certainly if you do not own a gun, this is a very strong reason to get very active in any political movement to outlaw firearms. If you do not own a firearm and the government breaks down, you sure as hell do not want any guns around.

You'll have to figure out how to protect yourself, of course. It's a big problem that you, or anyone else expects that someone will take care of them. If all guns are banned, then it will be the guys with swords. If all swords are banned, it will be the guys with the biggest sticks. If all weapons are banned, we'll be ruled by the guys that are physically the biggest. I like the way you refer to yourself as reasonable because you don't own a gun. The fact is that your belief that someone other than yourself is responsible for protecting you is unreasonable.

When we, the citizens of the United States of America, claim that our government rules by the consent of the people, it means something since we do have the right and power to overthrow it. The fact that we don't is a testament to the legitimacy of our government. The day that the government takes away our guns is the day that the people of the United States are living their lives with the consent of the government. I, for one, will never let that happen without trying to do something about it.Jimberg98 20:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Further it is a myth that if guns are outlawed only the criminals will have them. Of course, we have stupidly flooded our country with guns, but guns are nothing like alcohol. The technology to make alcohol has been with us since before Moses. The technology to make modern firearms is considerably more difficult than that required to produce alcohol. We could all make alcohol in our bathtubs with the most primitive of ingredients. Granted, even if we outlawed firearms, very skilled metalsmiths could produce guns, but certainly not mass produce them. Only a very small number of firearms could be produced if guns were outlawed in this country. If a monetary incentive was offered to everyone to turn in their firearms, guns would start to get scarcer and scarcer. And sooner rather than later guns would cease to be a problem. This is proven in other countries that have outlawed guns.

So the safest thing is to outlaw firearms.GunsKill 23:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, there are so many steps of flawed logic in there, I don't know where to begin... First, owning a gun automatically makes you a "gun nut" and therefor crazed and murderous? If you think so, you have obviously never met people who own guns. If you think not, then what is to stop you from purchasing a gun to protect yourself when it becomes necessary? Or, if you still refuse to purchase a gun, why can one gun wielder not help defend you against others? Your logical step that if society goes, who will protect you (Although in the same post, you mention that owning a gun if society goes, for protection, is a valid desire, so I have no idea what you're trying to say other than "Guns are bad!"...) is flawed.

Secondly, it is not hard to make a gun. Give me a modern gunsmithing setup, and I could crank out an AK-47 witout much trouble. Give me a more primitive set up, and all I'd need charcoal, sulfur, and saltpeter (potassium nitrate), a projectile, wadding, and a tube of some sort, and I'd have what's known as a zip gun. Guns are much easier to make than you seem to think.

Third, there are countries which have outlawed gun ownership, and given incentives to turn in their guns, only to see crimes involving firearms skyrocket. Australia is a prime example. Although I notice you didn't give any examples in your generic "It will make things better, trust me" statement...

So no. Banning guns is not "the safest thing". And before you start labelling me a "gun nut" and, of course, ignoring any point I could make as a result, realize I've never owned a gun in my life, and until I was 14, never saw a gun in person. Your logic is deeply flawed, and has more truthiness to it than it does truth. -FrYGuY 14:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

First, I will agree that using the term "gun nuts" is an appeal to truthiness rather than truth. But the whole section on "Security against tyranny and invasion arguments" is also a study in truthiness. I would guess that legal gun owners run the whole gamut from sane and sober to psychotic sociopaths. But whatever, no one has answered the paramount question regarding why any sane person that does not possess a firearm should not want an outright ban on guns, especially handguns? How is it in any non gun owning persons interest to have legal guns?

Second, will you be able to go on a mad dog shooting spree with your zip gun?

Third, you better check your facts on Australia. Firearm crime plummeted after the country cracked down on guns. http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/australia.pdf

Anyway, after rereading "Security against tyranny and invasion arguments" and giving it some thought, it occurred to me that the arguments in this section may not be position that the NRA endorses. Does the NRA actually endorse the idea that the 2nd amendment is some kind of reset button, or is this some sort of fringe crackpot idea.GunsKill 02:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, your question is why would a non-gun owner seek to allow people to own guns? Well, first off, I'd suggest that it's not my right to tell other people they can't recreationally target shoot, or go hunting for their food. But that's just the libertarian in me, I guess. So then I'd figure that the fact that deters most criminals is not that target X has a gun, because odds are they don't know that. The fact that would deter him is that ANY target he chooses, unless it's one he knows is otherwise, has a chance of pulling a gun on him and killing him. That's a fairly effective deterrent, and that's why I'd suggest it's in your (and my, as afellow non-gun owner) best interest to allow private gun ownership. That and it's in the constitution.

Second, yes, I could go on a mad dog shooting spree with zip guns. Why? Becuase they're tiny, you don't have to carry just one. During the civil war, Confederate scouts could take out entire regiments of Union soldiers because they carried half a dozen or more 6-shot revolvers... rather than having to take the time between shots to reload, they would fire 6 times, drop it and grab the next one. Imagine the same thing, except with a backpack full of one-shot zip-guns. But you've taken my extreme example of how even under a pretty strict enforcement to prevent people from making guns... like notyouravgjoe pointed out, anybody with a metal lathe and stock steel could make some revolvers.

Third, I checked the Brady Campaign. I loved how they framed all their arguements to seem more favorable then thay really are (You might want to check them again, see how well framed they are!), for instance, the Australian Gun control act was passed and enacted in 1996, yet most of their pre-gun-ban statistics are from 1991-1993... ever stop to wonder why? Perhaps it's because both assault rates (Both with firearms and without), and suicide rates (Both with firearms and without) peaked in that timeframe? (And lo and behold, that's the case!). All those numbers were on the decline BEFORE the gun law was passed. But, let's look into it further... oh look, they make no claims that the absolute number of murders has decreased, but that rather, the precentage of homicides using a firearm has decreased. Oh goody! I'm more likely to be killed or maimed, but hey, at least it'll be done with a Bowie knife, rather than a gun! Good thing I can't legally own a gun to defend myself, otherwise I might less likely be killed, but WITH A GUN! [6]

Fourth, I love how you keep calling gun owners 'fringe' and 'crackpots'. No, the idea that banning guns magically makes a paradise utopia is perfectly sane and logical (despite the fact that it hasn't worked yet), but the idea that if the government got out of control the people should have the right and ability to revolt is somehow crackpot? Why, because it imagines a dystopian future, instead of your prefered paradise? Last I checked, the wise course of action is "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst", not "Hope for the best, and make sure that if it doesn't happen we're screwed, and go around convincing others of that". To be honest though, I don't really care what you think, or how you vote. I'm not trying to convince you. What I *am* trying to do is to get you to give up on your proselytizing on Wikipedia. There are numerous outlets where you can parade your flawed studies, your carefully framed statistics, your personal feelings, your misleading examples, and so forth and so on. Wikipedia is not one of them. -FrYGuY 19:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This discussion isn't remotely helpful. This is not a debate board; please stay on the topic of improving the article. Rhobite 02:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Part of the discussion is questioning the NPOV of the "Security against tyranny and invasion arguments" section.GunsKill 03:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a very small part of the discussion, if any. Please try to stay on topic. Rhobite 03:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to the very small part, is it the NRA that endorses the idea that the 2nd ammendment is some sort of government reset button or is it some fringe group?GunsKill 01:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless you consider the Founding Fathers and their intent the NRA, or a 'fringe group', no, it's pretty mainstream. The Founding Fathers were heavily influenced by the writings and ideology of John Locke, who suggested that when governments fail to protect the rights of its citizens, the citizens have both the right and duty to withdraw support and to rebel. Of course, to quote my personal favorite President: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson. Of course, another Thomas Jefferson quote you'll probably find more relevant: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson (again) -FrYGuY 17:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to toss this out there... that section's a real pain to read right now. I'm just talking about prose and formatting. The Literate Engineer 15:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"To secure Peace is to prepair for war" "an unarmed nation is ripe for occupation" If the Gun Nuts have guns, U better get 1

BTW the fact that U use a shooting spree as a reason to ban guns is backwords because if someone WANTS to kill U they WILL even if they don't have a gun and Im pretty sure any1 that flunked out of chemestry with internet access can kill WAY more people then someone with a gun.....What U ppl really need to focus on is social reform and upbringing. A crazy person with a gun, is still a crazy person with a gun. A sane person with a gun, is still a sane person with a gun. The constant in the equation is the gun, So should guns be regulated or should people be regulated, and its both. The general popluation(the sane portion) should NOT have anything bigger than a rifle(inclueds legal shotguns and handguns of the non-modified persuasion). And UNSTABLE people should NOT have the ability to aquire guns legally (that includes background checks on all people buying guns). Contriversily Im not sure how old you people are but I can definatily tell your not representing different age groups properly in this decussion.

Jefferson's quote was in his commonplace book not an official constitutional document. When he tried to have a robust individual right written into the Virginia Constitution he failed and Virginia went with George Mason's militia-based formulation. Jefferson's failure suggests that the individual rights view was not yet the dominant view. 24.145.225.26 23:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

And yet, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", not the rights of a militia... And a militia is defined, in the constitution, as the people anyway. What Virginia decided is up to Virginia, but the law set forth in the constitution of the United States pretty clearly stated that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, as well as the reason why (That a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state). Of course, the only real interpretation that counts is the current interpretation of the supreme court, and there's never been a real challenge of a gun law (The closest there has been is United States v Miller, which ended siding with the United States because there was no defendant), so there IS none. It's all speculation, and will come down to who's sitting on the bench when a real challenge comes... -FrYGuY 07:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Anyone with a lathe, mill, and some raw stock steel can make a revolver, shotgun, or rifle. Lathes and mills are small enough to fit in a garage along with a car. Guns are not that complicated to make. You don't need to be that skilled to be able to fabricate the parts, just a little experience with machining. Also, it would not be a 'metalsmith' who made your gun but a machinist.

Many local governments have offered 'buy back' programs for guns. They generally only offer $50 for them though, and only the oldest/lowest quality guns are disposed of.

So the safest thing to do is to outlaw lathes, mills, and steel.notyouravgjoe 9:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Please folks, it is pretty obvious that "GunsKill" is just baiting / trolling. This is not about debating the issue (“gun nutz”, “rubbish” tyranny section as a “fringe crackpot idea”, keywords "repeal 2nd amendment" producing 279,000 hits, gun owners having “strange extreme political agendas”, we are “stupidly flooded” with guns, and all “sane person”(s) want guns bans, etc…) Also, as Rhobite said on 20:47, 3 April 2006 “You're free to participate here productively, but to date all you've done is blank a large section of the article, add your personal opinion about the "musket" interpretation, and mock User:Yaf by mimicking his username. As long as you stop vandalizing the article and impersonating other users, I will not block you.” Ignore the troll.24.147.91.139 01:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, no it's not obvious. I know numerous Gun Control advocates who hold the exact same position he does. Some of them, when confronted with evidence to the contrary, go on to other arguements which may or may not be logical. Others label you a 'gun nut' and ignore you (after all, you own a gun. Clearly you've lost your mind already! NOBODY who owns a gun can be trusted, after all...). Yet others say just enough to get you to go away, then continue to scream their position to anybody else who will listen. Then there's the exceptionally rare case, where somebody has genuinely been misled, and actually listens to facts and makes up their own mind (Sometimes for, sometimes against... if the issue of what to do was clear, there wouldn't be debate, after all), but that's the exception, not the rule. No matter which category GunsKill falls into, he deserves responses on the discussion page. The article, however, shouldn't have his attempts at converting people. -FrYGuY 17:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverted back to the cited facts and opinions of both sides. We should welcome cited research papers from both sides, not simply delete one side or the other, ad nauseum, ad infinitum, in an edit war. There are significant points being made on both sides. This is definitely a controversial topic, and discussions will no doubt be required to achieve balance. A lot more attention to WP:not, WP:V, and WP:nor is needed, to avoid putting one's own opinion down, but instead to capture the gist of the arguments that have been made. Yaf 01:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

---

There is too much piling on Kellerman- npov requires that his thesis be presented and readers be provided with a brief statement of legitimate critiques. If we devoted the same amount of space to showing that Lott's work has been debunked what would people say?

Also, Hemenway is the major theorist, not Kellerman. 24.145.225.26 02:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. For balance, we can't just delete criticism of Kellerman. This is POV. Suggest that we beef up both sides, instead. Lets put cited and substantiated critiques of any work where it exists. On the other hand, if it doesn't exist, then this is NPOV, too, instead of deleting criticism on one side only. Legitimate critiques, with cited and substantiated quotes and reference, is not "piling on". Yaf 03:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Kellerman is 1st generation the debate has moved on. I suggest you delete the whole debate and deal with Hemenway or Cook who are the A-team for gun control. You are basically dealing with a strawman here. The same applies to Lott's work. The current state of that debate is represented by the NAS report not More Guns, Less Crime. This treatment is out of date and ideologically distorted. Go out and read Hemenway and then deal with his arguments. 24.145.225.26 19:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I edited this out. It is interesting, but I think a bit dated at the moment. I added some language describing the different scope of gun control and gun rights approaches to the way the 2nd Amendment may or may not have any bearing on the scope of the right to own firearms24.145.225.26 20:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As it stands now this text is much more ideologically distorted than the 2nd Amendment article. The arguments of each side need to be set out and if critiques of those are discussed they need to be done for each side. Now the gun rights arguments get presented and their critique of gun control is made and the other side never has its rebuttal.24.145.225.26 23:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, you have identified a shortcoming that needs balancing; you should write the balancing content! Yaf 06:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Apart from Griswold the 9th Amendment has been of greater interest to scholars then judges. The idea of linking the 9th Amendment to guns has been suggested by a number of gun rights legal scholars and has attracted little scholarly or judicial notice

It has attracted considerable NRA and GOA attention over the last 10-15 years, and has been becoming even more commonly used to argue their points amidst more and more legal wranglings. I wouldn't say it is is entirely a topic of just scholarly debate. Yaf 06:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It really deserves no more than an aside until it gains some traction among judges or lawyers. 24.145.225.26 02:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. It has gained considerable traction among legal filings by the NRA and other gun rights organizations. Ignoring this history over the last 10-15 years is not NPOV. Yaf 03:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Categorically speaking, anytime someone is saying that an issue "only deserves an aside" is, in my opinion, enough warrant to suggest the issue is being sidswiped. --Shawn 04:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the the 9th Amendment has only been effectively used once in modern jurisprudence, don't you think you are being a little ideologically biased here fellas 24.145.225.26 13:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

In the section "Statistics on mortality rates are available from the World Health Organisation WHO mortality Tables" I think perhaps [this] would be a better to use if only because people can compare quickly and easily. The existing link is very time consuming to make any comparisons at all.Alci12 17:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Much of the material in this essay comes from dubious internet sources associated with gun rights groups. I think only official or scholarly sources ought to be cited otherwise this will become little more than an appendix to the gun rights sites that already dominate the internet 24.145.225.26 21:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that almost (if not) all of the links link to Pro-GUn Rights sites... shouldn't we make this more balanced? Motor.on 17:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that the guy has not published anything since being nailed, does he really merit mention as anything other than an interesting footnote in this history? 24.145.225.26 13:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked over the article and yet one question still comes to mind. With a permit to carry a concealed weapon, does this mean that the weapon must be on your person at all times or is it possible to leave the weapon elsewhere, lets say in your glove compartment in your car, and if it is legal are there certain areas in the car where the weapon may be placed and does the issue vary from state to state?

It varies. Generally, if one is allowed to carry a concealed weapon, one can conceal it (as in a glove box) in their car. Also, there are cases where it is illegal for one to carry a concealed weapon, but it is legal to conceal it in their car. --71.225.229.151 02:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It varies greatly by state. Arthurrh 00:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In the statement below, which I removed from the article, and other places in this article, there are statements that frame the pro and con debate on gun control without giving references or mentioning them in passing, as in one place, as supported by an academic and not giving their reasoning, making the statements equivalent to 'Dr. X said this isn't the case'. In my opinion, what is required is 1) tying opinions to major proponents of each view and 2) making an effort to show that conclusions about the effects of gun ownership on crime levels and related issues are supported by a majority of peer reviewed studies and scholars rather to avoid selective citations. See below for statements specific to this quote. Antonrojo 16:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Proponents of gun control frequently argue that carrying a concealed pistol would be of no practical use for personal self-defense, and gun rights advocates answer that if that were true, law enforcement would have no use for guns. Gun rights advocates argue that individuals with proper firearm training are better able to defend themselves when carrying a handgun. Proponents of gun rights claim that in the US, there are up to 2.5 million incidents per year in which lawfully-armed citizens avert crime by defending themselves against would-be attackers, often by merely displaying a weapon. Those who advance these statistics say that the deterrent effect disproportionately benefits women, who are often targets of violent crime. The counter argument is that guns are more likely to be used against women in these situations. Few serious scholars on the gun control side of this debate accept the 2.5 million number that gun rights advocates cite for defensive gun use. On the other side, many serious scholars on the gun rights side of the argument basically agree with the 2.5 million number, based on the claims of John Lott, a noted gun rights advocate, that

concealed carry

laws decrease crime.

The debate framed above throws together several studies on the subject in a sort of 'call and response' structure which is confusing to read and provides the reader with little basis for validating these claims, or worse biasing them towards one view through selective presentation. This is a way of writing often used to set up a

16:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

Edit summary is "adding POV tag. article is weak on anti-gun research and tends towards

strawman

statements of anti-gun positions"

The article could also use a major restructuring as outlined below. Antonrojo 04:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to the article. I disagree with your "non notability" position of Emory researcher for the following reasons and would like to discuss reinstating that part of the article:

1. Notability is not just limited to the best presenters in a field, but should include people who have had an impact on the debate by content, presentation and activities.

2. He is notable on the politicial side because of the relationship of

Centers for Disease Control

and the political clout which is involved there.

*

Michael Bellesiles - Former researcher at Emory University. Peer reviewed charges of research misconduct are contained in REPORT of the Investigative Committee in the matter of Professor Michael Bellesiles

, Emory University, 10 July 2002

Rearden9 13:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My take on this question is that a list of notable individuals should describe the reasons that they are notable, mainly because either 1) they have a strong effect on the politics of the gun debate or 2) because they are high-profile researchers on both sides of the debate (who I really think belong in another article as outlined below). Nearly any university department has many researchers/instructors/professors affiliated with it varying from the lowly graduate student to the nationally recognized professor to the 'maverick (wacko) member of the faculty' so I don't think the connection to a high-profile university alone warrants inclusion in the list based on either of those two criteria.

In the first case, his description should describe how his 'fall from grace' has effected the gun debate. In the latter case, unless removing his study from the research on the gun debate leaves a significant gap in the pro-gun research, his personal ethical problems have no bearing on the research questions related to the gun debate. His current description doesn't pass either of these standards of notability. As with legal trials, it's important to present the best arguments (and most respected proponents of them) to give a fair picture of both sides of the debate, or in the case of the political side of the equation, to only mention 'villains and heroes' when they have had an important effect on the gun debate. Antonrojo 04:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The current article structure seems to include sections that don't belong and is confusing for readers.

Based on the article title, the article should focus on the politics behind the gun debate. The header of the article, in contrast, promises to focus on the 'gun debate', which presumably requires a debate-style presentation with the arguments and evidence of each side of the issue. With most subjects, and most definitely with gun issues, academic debates are generally far removed from political decisionmaking and pressures on politicians from the public. A third direction that the article is pulled into is details on gun laws...of course these are 'political', however a discussion of 'gun politics' should mainly focus on how they are linked to political debates over the subject. Issues such as concealed carry laws by state should be offloaded to appropriate articles.

Broad suggestions

• Most of the information on gun laws should be moved to
  Gun law
  , which is in need of a rework, and an appropriate 'for more details link' can be added to the abbreviated laws section here. Presumably this will also deal with the issue that sparked the request to merge that article into this article
• Most of the academic research on the gun/crime connection should be offloaded to an article that focuses on these subjects. Guns and crime seems like a good candidate and it should also benefit from the merge since it too seems to lack a concrete focus
• The focus of the article should be on the intersection between shifts in gun regulation and the world of politics, public opinion, membership organizations, religious groups and the like. Good topics to focus on might be details on how political parties have dealt with the issue over time and the relationship between political interests, laws and major trends in public opinion.
  • Info on laws and academic research should only be included when it is directly relevant to political questions, and readers can always read the detailed gun research and gun law articles for that information. There is too much information related to these subjects to cover them clearly in a single article.

Antonrojo 04:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason that some of the footnotes in the article use one referencing scheme (IE are not included in the "references" section) and others use another scheme (IE the ref tag, and ARE included in the references section)? I'm mulling over the idea of making all the footnote use the ref tag and thereby fleshing out the reference section, at the same time giving one consitent numbering scheme for footnotes instead of two. However there may be other reasons I'm not aware of for doing this, so any guidance is welcomed. Arthurrh 00:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the fact that some references simply use brackets like: [reference] while other use <ref>reference</ref>. Makes sense and I'm sure you could probably find a lot of other formatting and grammar cleanup as well. Antonrojo 02:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yaf has decided to unilaterally change "Gun control laws" to "firearms laws" even though the subsection was started to cover gun control laws. The justification for this was the first few phrases of the section. I modified the first line to more appropriately fit the title, then I reverted the change.

Yaf has also changed the original Gun Control Laws by State page to "Firearm laws."

Please see:

μολὼν λαβέ 03:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I will continue to modify the "Gun control laws" subsection so that it contains content only relevant to gun control, and will therefore make giving the subsection a vague title unnecessary. I feel this is the most logical and appropriate course of action and I welcome any and all constructive assistance. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Yaf 06:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Summary of Changes

• More recent lobbying efforts have resulted in the passage of laws making it a crime to leave guns in locations accessible to children.

I removed this because it does not pertain to gun control, it is a child safety issue and is not designed to regulate lawful or unlawful posession (etc) of a firearm. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 05:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ on this one, as this is a gun control law that is either a misdemeanor or felony depending on jurisdiction where it is in effect. Yaf 06:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The law isn't designed to regulate the purchase, possession, distribution, etc of a firearm; it is designed and intended to keep children safe. A law requiring pools to have a locking gate is not a pool control law, it's a child safety law - more young children are killed by pools than guns. The punishment for violating these laws is irrelevant when describing the law. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It certainly does regulate the possession of firearms by children, but by holding the parent or other adult owning the firearm legally liable in the event of a child being injured. This is a specific form of gun control. Yaf 06:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Children are not offered the same rights as an adult, and the issue of liability is irrelevant; parents are legally liable in the event a child is injured if there is negligence in any situation (pool/gun/pitbull/etc). Gun safety is not necessarily gun control. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I would highly recommend checking out Malum_prohibitum, and similarly Malum_in_se. We should really try to focus on laws that are very clearly malum prohibitum and/or those which specifically and deliberately control purch/pos/dist/etc. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• A patchwork of laws exists

I changed this to "A patchwork of regulatory laws exists" to better fit the title which describes laws that control the sale, ownership, and distribution of firearms - not just any kind of law, not just any kind of firearms law either. (ie child safety related) --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 05:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with this alternate edit by Yaf:[7] Thank you for this show of good faith. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence, which reads: "Gun politics in the United States is an especially contentious topic in the United States." is kind of absurd. Shouldn't the first "in the United States" be deleted?

Yes Harksaw 02:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Very pro-gun feel! —The preceding

) 18:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Cite specific problems please, or else your comment reads as knee-jerk gun shyness. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 07:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As this article is about 'politics', I think it would be helpful to include not just the contentious, but also the agreed. For instance, I believe that almost all Americans from all sides of the gun debate agree, politically, that federal regulation of firearms on airplanes is a good thing. Where might this best fit in the article? I am thinking the first few paragraphs falsely frame the political debate as too polarized. When, indeed, it is not entirely polarized, there is a lot of common ground. Similarly, from a political perspective, I believe that most Americans politically support the idea that democratically elected local school boards should have the right to decide whether or not their local school district should regulate firearms in their local schools. Politically, I doubt that many Americans believe that the local policy about firearms in schools should be decided at the Federal level. This belies the message that gun proponents generally oppose *all* regulation of firearms, when in fact, they do not. Where should this 'common ground' be put in the article?

16:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it read something like: "Relationship between gun ownership and crime rates" or "Effects of gun ownership on crime rates"? In its current form it seems like it is making a clear judgement that gun ownership lowers crime. Hence my previous statement that this is still not NPOV...

04:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Have changed the heading... Yaf 04:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is about

16:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

For -- Bruce, did you mean Gun law in the United States? Yaf 16:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC) This sounds like a good idea to me. Yaf 17:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

For -- I don't see why not. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Just added a POV tag to the section 'political arguments'. I am concerned that the Political Arguments section appears to be written predominately from the perspective of one side of the POV. I wonder what is the best way to balance this? I see three possible choices. Intersperse; one side says this, but the other side says that. Or, two sections; pro gun arguments in one, and pro regulation arguments in the other. Or thirdly; possibly, it makes sense to pare down and minimize the 'arguments' content of the article and focus more neutrally on the politics of the issue. Any have thoughts on this?

18:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed the Genocide section since it was clearly not a neutral POV —The preceding

) 12:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Should have tagged it first for discussion The Drew 10:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not like the "gun culture" section of the article. I think it omits a very important component of the American Gun Culture, phrased most succintly in the Declaration of Independence:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, ..."

The fact that government is servant to man, and not the other way around, is a fundamental idea in American culture, moreso than in any other culture, and the "gun culture" is a key part of this because, hey, how are you going to abolish a tyrannical government without firearms?

This is why I added a NPOV tag to this section. Perhaps this was not the proper tag to add. —The preceding

) 01:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

I guess you are suggesting that a belief in a 'right of revolution' is inherent to the gun culture? Can you back this up with credible attribution? If yes, feel free to edit this in, and regardless, the NPOV tag should come off. SaltyBoatr 02:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm trying to edit in. I will look for a source, though I'm not sure that that should be neccessary. The USA was really founded on the principle that people have an inherent right to independence from the government, and a lot of the woodsman/frontierman ethos described in the Gun Culture section both caused and stemmed from this. But okay, I will look for a source. Sorry ab

out causing the confusion with the NPOV tag. Tullie 12:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to edit but I suggest following Wikipedia policy about sourcing. SaltyBoatr 14:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I just rewrote the gun culture section, but haven't fit this in yet. Feel free to insert it, I think it does have a place if referenced. well.Pladuk 19:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I also am not sure I love the gun culture section. It seems more like sociological theory than encyclopedic content relevant to this section. To me the term seems inherently biased to imply some sort of fixation, obsession, or otherwise exaggerated role. We don't see a "basketball culture" section in the basketball article. 75.129.206.98 08:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I also concur that gun culture is pretty prejudicial. Certainly it doesn't belong at the beginning of the article. Probably the section on politics could/should come first in an article about gun politics. Arthurrh 08:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The "Gun Culture" section is off the scale POV. Is there a "free speech culture?" Since when does exercising an enumerated right become a "culture?" The term is intended to marginalize and should not be used at all. (Don't believe me? See if you can find the phrase "gun culture" used on any pro-gun ownership websites.) --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that

Gun culture is a separate article as well as a large section here. There is a huge amount of duplication between the two. What's the best way to handle such? Otherwise cleanup will be endless repetition. Arthurrh

23:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

External links (recommend to add)

• Virginians Against Handgun Violence  uriel8  (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Not knowing more, my initial reaction is to oppose, though you could explain how this link meets WP policy Wikipedia:External links in a nutshell: Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article. SaltyBoatr 15:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting your suggestion on the Discussion page before updating the article. I vote against adding Virginians Against Handgun Violence as an external link. That site is appropriate to the article, but so are dozens of other sites that take a position on gun politics in the U.S. Links should be kept to a minimum, which in this case I think should be around 3 to 5 on each side of the debate. Let's limit this to the most important, largest, and well known sites, and those with a national scope. "P.S." As you may already know, there are comments addressing this issue that you will see if you click on "edit" for the External links section. -- Mudwater 18:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In my recent edit I changed this unsourced sentence:

"Two states, Vermont and Alaska, require no licensing in order to carry a concealed weapon, forbid gun registrations or bans, and disallow local government pre-emption"

to the following (with a reference)

"Alaska and Vermont, have no laws at all restricting concealed weapons."

Couldn't find a reference stating or explaining the other claims here. If you've got one, feel free to add it and revert or rewrite the sentence. Thanks Pladuk 19:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

1.) Archive this disscussion page. 2.) NPOV this article (It is really bad right now...) 3.) Split the article up (PLEASE!!!)

Just some thoughts!!! - Hairchrm 02:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Explaining my deletion, per

15:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I must insist that this edit be attributed per the standards of WP:ATT to 'most reliable source' standards. Again, I do not have a problem with the idea, just the attribution. SaltyBoatr 21:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not having a properly sourced attribution, and thank you for moderating the topic to ensure a high standard of scholarship. A better supporting source for this topic would be the 'DC v. Heller, amicus brief on racial issues' from the

) 08:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Overview

The overview seems to be mildly anti-gun rights. It introduces the topic and then goes on to state "Key to this issue is the Second Amendment, which is interpreted by supporters of gun rights as enshrining an individual right, and by advocates of gun control as referring to a right of the people to arm themselves only when bonded together for communal defense. [3] A consensus of legal opinion does support the federal regulation of firearms.[3]"

See how the second amendment is "interpreted" by supporters of gun rights, but the "consensus" of legal scholars supports regulation? Perhaps within that last sentence it could be mentioned that the courts recognize the right of individuals to own firearms, but also "[a] consensus of legal opinion does support the federal regulation of firearms." 66.57.225.6 06:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This group's website has recent been added. My understanding is that their status as a pro-gun rights organization is in dispute. My questions are: 1) should this group be mentioned at all? Are they actively doing anything? and 2) If we mention them, how to categorize them? Friday (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Not only is the group anti-gun, it shouldn't be in the small collection of links anyways. It's an insignificant group. Actually, the links, as they stand now, are pitiful. Either the few links that are there should be replaced by appropriate links to DMOZ, or more links should be allowed.

Who put the following message?

===========================()===============================--> | DO NOT ADD MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A COLLECTION OF |--> | LINKS. If you think that your link might be useful, do not add it here, |--> -| but put it on this article's discussion page first or submit your link |--> -| to the appropriate category at the Open Directory Project (www.dmoz.org)|--> | and link back to that category using the politics in the United States/Archive 1 Gun politics in the United States/Archive 1 at

template. |--> | |--> --| Links that have not been verified WILL BE DELETED. |--> -| See Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam for details |--> -===========================()===============================-->

It's pretty suspicious since two very minor organizations were in this list, somebody "commands" no more links?

Per Wikipedia:External links, "Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic," and "Links should be kept to a minimum." There are hundreds of web sites related to gun politics in the United States, but I believe it would be best to list only a small number of them -- perhaps half a dozen or so -- in this article's "External links" section. These links should limited to the most widely recognized and nationally relevant web sites. There are some other editors who feel the same way, and that's why someone put those comments in the markup of the "External links" section, requesting that any new links be discussed on this talk page before being added to the article. (This subject has been discussed somewhat in some previous sections of this talk page.)

I'm removing the recently added link to "Gun Owners for Ron Paul". If, after further discussion, the consensus among editors is that that link should be part of this article, then of course it should be put back.

I would request or suggest that any new external links be discussed on this Talk page, in this section or another section, before being added to the article. If anyone else has an opinion on whether or not this would be appropriate as an informal procedure, I would encourage you to comment here. — Mudwater 12:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The Gun Law section has this to say: "The Gun Control Act of 1968 adds prohibition of mail-order sales, prohibits transfers to minors, and outlaws civilian ownership of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986." The GCA prohibited importing machine guns for civilian use. It's the FOPA that outlaws post-ban civ ownership, i.e. GCA closed off foreign machine guns post-1968, and FOPA closed off domestic machine guns post-1986. I'd edit the article directly, but from all the flame wars going on, I figured I'd mention it and let one of the admins do the editing. GMW (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yaf's recent revert has the edit summary 'extremely POV source', yet Google books[8] describes this book as "unbiased". I am curious Yaf, where do you get that this books is 'extremely POV'? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The book claims that semi-automatic weapons are primarily military. This is patently false. It claims that suicides do not involve long guns -- considering the large number of suicides with shotguns, this is also patently false. It claims a large number of widely publicized crimes involving full-auto weapons -- this is false; the only one that was widely publicized is the

Saint Valentine's Day massacre. That was during Prohibition. "One" crime with 2 Chicago Typewriters does not constitute a large number, except in the mind of a gun banner. It has a dust cover that claims it is a single, unbiased volume on gun control, written by the author, with no others claiming such. Again, patently false. This is not a reliable source. We need a reliable source, not a source based on half-truths with obviously inaccurate statements contained throughout. Yaf (talk

) 22:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The google books overleaf is just text from the dustcover that was written by the good doctor himself; he could hardly be considered an independent source for determining his own unbiased point of view :-) Yaf (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

a recent addition cites kruschke, and claims "Automatic weapons are most commonly associated with military use, although private ownership of these weapons is not uncommon.". this is - well, there's no other way to put it - utterly ridiculous. ownership of automatic weapons is excruciatingly rare. what is kruschke's source for this claim? it is patently false.

) 18:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fully-automatic weapons are not rare at all. There are multiple tens of thousands on the registry in the US, arriving there before 1986, which means that they are legal for private ownership in the US, and are mostly owned by private individuals, except for a few museum pieces. Although it is OR, I regularly see full auto guns in use at the local shooting range, and personally know several owners of such weapons. Fully-auto weapons are not rare, only high priced, as what you once could buy for around $125-$350 now typically run over $10,000, due to the law changing in 1986 to prohibit the registration of additional fully-auto weapons as manufactured coming onto the registry. Its simple demand vs. supply, with the supply frozen by the 1986 Federal law change. Yaf (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You misquote Kruschke, understandable, if you have not read his book. Read the whole passage on pages 18-20 to get his whole hypothesis, but importantly Kruschke says: "In a general sense...automatic and semi-automatic weapons...have been most commonly associated with military use." If that is still 'utterly ridiculous', can you cite from which reliable source you find that opinion? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yaf added[9] In one set of broadly politicized terms, Kruschke categorizes firearms in only three classes: ... Contrary to...Similarly, contrary to ... Kruschke confuses,

Yaf, have you read the Kruschke book? The actual passage from the Kruschke book

) 16:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability is not the sole determining factor of the veracity of a source. Different POVs, when backed by cited reliable sources, while identifying differences in opinion, are important, too. Why should balance be ignored? If Kruschke is providing technically inaccurate information throughout his book, it is up to us as editors to provide counter claims, properly cited of course, to avoid a POV push by Kruschke himself through relying on his technically inaccurate material from which he draws his "message" as a sole verifiable source. Details and facts matter. Reading between the lines throughout his book, Kruschke's "general sense" seems to be that guns are best kept in the hands of the military, police, etc.. He subtly pushes this POV throughout, through categorizing common semi-automatic household guns with fully-automatic guns, for example. Simply proving that Kruschke is technically inaccurate is important, to counter the wild claims he makes as "fact" throughout his book. Using a strongly biased POV verifiable source that is inaccurate, such as Kruschke's book on gun control, demands that we as editors present counter opinions to his, not just present his as being the sole arbitreur of fact for the entire article. Yaf (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a secondary source that says Kruschke lacks veracity? Or, are we to believe you and your analysis of this book you have never read? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your incessant badgering grows tiresome. Guess you missed my response to your question the first time you asked. Meanwhile, sources have been provided with factual statements that counter Kruschke's inaccurate statements contained in his inaccurate yet verifiable book. I am not diametrically opposed to including Kruschke for one POV, provided there is balance to correct his inaccurate claims. However, elevating Kruschke as you propose, to a sole POV position, on a topic as divisive as Gun politics in the United States, is not balanced. All major viewpoints need to be included, with proper cites, of course. My analysis has nothing to do with this; rather, it is about achieving balance with properly cited and reliable sources. Any careful reader cannot help but question the reliability of Kruschke's book, based on the numerous technical inaccuracies that it contains. Yaf (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me the precise quote and page number of these 'numerous technical inaccuracies'. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The article says, "The only case of fully-automatic weapons being used in crime that has received widespread publicity in the United States was during the Saint Valentine's Day massacre during the winter of 1929; this Prohibition-era gangster sub-machine gun mass murder during Prohibition lead directly to the National Firearms Act of 1934, which was passed after Prohibition had ended. No other widely-publicized crimes involving fully-automatic weapons in the United States have since occurred." There's then a citation of Boston on Guns & Courage. However, the statement is not correct, there were other widely-publicized crimes involving fully-automatic weapons. One was the shootout between the Symbionese Liberation Army and the L.A.P.D. S.W.A.T. on May 17, 1974. Another was the North Hollywood shootout on February 28, 1997. The use of automatic weapons to commit crimes in the U.S. is rare, and the article should say that, but in a more accurate manner. — Mudwater 14:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Although these other incidents occurred, they did not receive the same degree of widespread publicity to the extent that they caused an uprising of public outrage leading to additional Federal Law changes, at least not as drastic as the St. Valentine's Day massacre did in causing the

NFA34. There is well-publicized and then there is merely publicized. Yaf (talk

) 17:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I accept that public reaction to the St. Valentine's Day massacre had a bigger influence on gun politics in the U.S. than those other incidents. But, I think the paragraph as written could be a bit misleading. The casual reader might think that the use of automatic weapons in crimes in the U.S. is almost unheard of. It's unusual, but not that unusual. I also think the same paragraph makes the acquisition of automatic weapons sound easier than it really is. Taken overall, a reader might get the impression that automatic weapons are very easy to get, and are almost never used in crimes, but neither of those things is really the case. — Mudwater 00:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it all depends on what state(s) you are talking about. In many states, it is not hard at all to buy a fully-automatic gun, legally, and to shoot it. You just have to have the cash, and the patience to fill out paperwork, and the patience to wait a few months. In several states, granted, it is impossible. (Personally, I would not live in any of those states!) Kentucky is one of the easier states. If you haven't heard about Knob Creek, the following video might explain it all a little better. Fully-automatic weapons are easy to get (assuming you have a clean record) and live in the right state(s). I do agree with your statement that the use of fully-automatic weapons for criminal use is almost non-existent. That said, I am aware of only 4 such crimes, including the 1929 St. Valentine's Day massacre, the two you mentioned earlier, and another odd case where an off-duty cop murdered his wife with his department-issued fully-automatic M16. There might be another two or three, but I am not directly cognizant of the details. So few crimes with fully-automatic weapons in the US since the winter of 1929 is fairly close to being zero and being very unusual. As for fully-automatic weapons themselves being unusual, there are several in use almost every time I go to the shooting range, being used in the lanes up and down the line. They are not uncommon at all. Yaf (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if there are reliable statistics somewhere about the number of crimes committed with automatic weapons. I'm guessing that there have been a lot more than four in the last 79 years. I really don't know how many, but I'd like to see the figures if there are any. As far as availability, one big constraint is that there's a limited pool of existing full auto weapons that civilians can buy, as you probably know. Perhaps that could be mentioned in the article too. — Mudwater 03:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This raises the question of: What is the topic of this article? I don't see this as an article about gun crime. This article is about gun politics. The hidden agenda of showing low frequency of automatic weapon crime is to make a political argument against regulating automatic weapons. This article should not be used to make political arguments. Rather it should be used to describe the politics. A whole section could be written about the history of the politics in the United States about regulating and not regulating automatic weapons, a history that has spanned eight decades. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is about gun politics, but gun politics is influenced by gun crime, and it's influenced even more by the perception of gun crime. So, describing gun crime, and how gun crime is publicized and perceived, is relevant to the article. But, you've got a point, the article's main focus should not be on gun crime itself. Also, I agree that the article should not be used to make political arguments, but the article should describe political arguments, since that's what it's about. So, it's appropriate to describe the pros and cons of various views on the subject. — Mudwater 16:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

We agree then. Key to politics is public perception, which is formed in various ways; personal experience with crime, but more through political spin from interest groups and the influence of media (both the "news" and also fictional, like shoot-em-up movies). There has been a lot of good published scholarly work by political scientists on this topic to serve as sourcing. I am just as a loss of how to find a consensus among interested editors to edit this article about the politics without using it as a forum to argue the politics. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Could we word the article more neutrally? It presently has too much of the extreme polarity, and not enough middle ground. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is too much of the extreme polarity in Kruschke's verifiable but non-reliable (inaccurate) categorization of semi-automatic guns as being the same as fully-automatic guns. This is extreme, even for a gun banner, as are the other extreme points of view he holds contrary to reliable sources. Yaf (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, Kruschke doesn't say: semi-automatic guns as being the same as fully-automatic guns. Why do you claim that he does? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I, for one, agree with your insertion of Kruschke's assertions. Not with the content of what Kruschke says, mind you, but that your wording of his statements is accurate. Your edit does not fail fact checking. However, this assertion by Krushke is counter to current US Government characterizations of types of weapons, bringing into scrutiny that Krushke is not a reliable source. Yaf (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it to be breathtaking to see that you can declare a source which you have not read to be either reliable or unreliable. See also discussion about whether that book meets WP:V reliable source standards. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The book is verifiable. It is just not entirely factual. Two different issues altogether. Insertion of reliable sources that contradict Krushke's inaccurate claims, e.g., categorizing semi-automatic guns with fully-automatic guns, is necessary for balance in the article to enable readers to make their own decisions. Yaf (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you actually read pages 18-21, 85, 92-96. 103, 113, 291 and 334 of the book, we could discuss this. Otherwise, this is your straw man. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

that said, the majority of the article is written from the POV of gun rights advocacy. while that happens to be the POV i share, the article is embarrassing for its lack of coverage of the other side. that said, i'd prefer to see the article have balanced coverage, rather than having the gun rights POV slowly whittled away by some editors, much like the camel's nose in the tent.

talk

) 16:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Anastrophy, your 'camel's nose in the tent' analogy reads like a blunt declaration of your intent to push your personal POV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

please stop throwing your personalized labels at me. i've said it before, STOP BADGERING. please acknowledge the core of what i wrote, which recognizes that the article is unbalanced. characterizing my statement as a "blunt declaration of [my] intent to push [my] personal POV" is uncivil, ad hominem (you're attacking me, not the argument), and bad faith. STOP. i'd like to see the article balanced by INCLUSION of the gun-control POV, not by having other editors remove what they don't like. that's how NPOV works.

talk

) 16:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what you wrote, but have looked and I don't see an edit pattern in your contribution history[11] that matches your declared intent. Don't mistake this for a personal attack. I am simply observing your actions and comparing them to your stated intent. In gun articles I could not find a single example matching your stated intent, thought it probably exists. At most your 'INCLUSION of gun-control POV' in your contribution history exists rarely if at all. You and I probably could both do a better neutral job by starting out with the reading of neutral most-reliable books on this topic, and then taking what we learn and editing it into the article. That is what I am trying to do. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

ah, you judge history by the old saw "what have you done for me lately?", i take it. i've been editing on wikipedia for more than two years, 5,900+ edits. i've done remarkably little editing of gun-related articles on wikipedia, besides the recent flurry on the gun politics article (unlike your rather consistent, nay almost single-minded editing of gun-related articles in your history on WP). i'm quite sure i've made inclusions of 'gun control' information, and culled 'gun rights' information, in the past. you're welcome to scroll through those near six thousand edits if you think i'm a liar. of course, that wouldn't be assuming good faith, would it.

talk

) 01:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"towards more hard-line positions on issues such as Teflon-piercing, plastic handguns and assault weapons. "

um, you're kidding, right? first off, what is "teflon-piercing"? does that refer to teflon-tipped bullets, which were specifically designed and manufactured at the request of law enforcement, for shooting through automobile windshields, and which were never, ever available outside of law enforcement? "plastic guns"? you mean, guns made entirely out of plastic, that can go through x-ray machines undetected, which do not exist, and have never existed? "assault weapons"? you mean semi-automatic lookalikes of actual assault weapons, which are fundamentally no different from a typical "deer rifle", but look all scary-like? but that aren't actually assault weapons, since by definition assault weapons are fully-automatic military weapons, which are excruciatingly hard to come by through any legal channel?

man, if we can quote pure junk like that as a "reliable source", is there any hope for this or any gun-related article ever being accurate?

) 01:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not making things up. I am reading reliable books on this topic, and editing the article based on what I read. I encourage you to read the Wilcox book, it addresses the topic of this article in depth. Unfortunately this is becoming repetitive, but can you please point to the sources behind your opinion? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

please note that i did not revert the edit. i'm well aware that you quoted a source that meets the reliable source definition, factual accuracy notwithstanding. i'm well aware that the standard for inclusion in wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability. my "opinions" above are recitations of facts; i'll provide reliably sourced material for inclusion in the article shortly. also please note that i did not suggest that you were making things up - you merely repeated a set of fictions which the author repeated, which are dogma in the gun control movement.

talk

) 15:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be beneficial to make a pass through the article and weigh the present neutrality. Is the article in its present form balanced? That is: proportional weighted correctly for each significant POV? Tit for tat POV pushing is unlikely to result in a well written article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the section we are discussing contains four paragraphs which are slanted 'pro-gun' and one which is not. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

what i'd like to see is inclusion of gun control POV material that actually addresses matters within the realm of reality. hysteria about "plastic guns" doesn't advance the gun control position in a positive way, since no such guns exist or have ever existed. it smacks of grasping at straws. yes, yes, yes, all my personal opinion - though it is addressed towards improving the article.

talk

) 16:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

We actually agree about improving the article, great. The topic of lobbying power, and political maneuvering by the NRA is an 'elephant in the room' in an article about Gun Politics in the United States, which needs expanding. See for instance this chapter 3 pg 92[12] in the Harry L. Wilson book

ISBN 0742553485. So what if plastic guns have never existed? This isn't an article about guns. This is an article about politics, and in politics it is impressions that mattered, and the public sentiment is what is key about plastic guns. The issue here is that the NRA lined up with a political strategy that backfired big time because of the sorry impression that they opposed safety for our policemen. Don't forget, this is an article about politics. SaltyBoatr (talk

) 16:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In short, let us try to have the article describe the politics. And, let us try to not allow the article to be used to make political arguments. (Calling the public political perception about plastic guns hysteria reveals your political bias.) SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

a large chunk of properly cited material from kruschke was reverted with this edit summary: "Types of firearms - remove this section hopelessly damaged by edit warring. lets try again from scratch)". problem: there's no evidence in the article history of any edit warring on the chunk of text removed. none. the reason given for reversion is without merit. i'd be interested in knowing the real reason for reversion. is kruschke no longer to be considered a reliable source? that would be interesting.

) 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That 'types of firearms' section suffers from far too much, POV tit for tat, that resulted from the POV edit war of January 25th. I propose that we try to cleans the 'this side/that side' war from the article. Also, that section of the article suffers from choppy writing style. Can you back off from being so possessive of the article? Stylistically, I hope to move the article to a neutral gray tone. This is preferable to achieving neutrality by having equal amounts of black and white. Understand? In short I am trying to cleanse the use of the article for making gun political arguments, and instead use the article for describing gun politics in a neutral tone. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

gun politics is highly contentious, explicitly. 'cleansing' it of contentious material is not conducive to NPOV, as that would eliminate political arguments on both ends of the spectrum that are valid and held by many. you can't move the article to a 'neutral gray tone' if it is to accurately cover gun politics.

talk

) 19:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything you cannot argue? SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

likewise, i'm sure. did you have something substantive to add to the discussion, or are you interested only in expressing criticisms of me personally?

talk

) 22:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. In light of the constant disagreements, how are you, me and Yaf going to learn to get along well enough to collaborate so that the POV tag can be removed? SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

a good start would be to not post provocative, personal invectives like "is there anything you cannot argue", which do nothing to engender a collaborative mood.

talk

) 00:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Telling me what I should do, thanks I will try, but there are three people here and I cannot fix this NPOV tag impasse alone. What can you do to help the three of us to learn to get along? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring all that, that section also suffers from poor writing style. Any objections to taking it out and trying again from scratch? SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

i'm afraid i don't agree that it is poorly written.

talk

) 19:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ludwig, J., & Cook, P. J. (2003). Evaluating gun policy effects on crime and violence. Brookings metro series. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Is this book considered to be a reliable source? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This sentence "There is no national gun registration or database in the United States, so it is impossible to know exactly how many guns are in circulation or who has them, but the BATF estimated in 1995 that the number of firearms available in the US was 223 million." seems needlessly long. The opening clause There is no national gun registration or database in the United States, so it is impossible to know exactly how many guns are in circulation or who has them is long and redundant. Later in the sentence we say 'estimated' which says essentially the same thing using just one word. Can I shorten the sentence? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

what the heck is wrong with long sentences? it's a clear statement. it could actually stand to be expanded, since reliable sources have estimates ranging from 83 million to 250 million. by the way, the latter sentence is not redundant. what's your proposed replacement?

talk

) 18:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to say that something 'estimated' is because 'it is impossible to know exactly'? That is just redundant and muddies up the flow of the paragraph. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

again, what is your proposed replacement? eliminate the estimate completely? i'm fine with that, since the estimates are all over the map - or in other words, nobody really has any idea how many guns there are in the US. "There is no national gun registration or database in the United States. At best there are radically varying estimates of the number of guns in the US - ranging from 83 million (add source) to 250 million(add source)." or whatever the high and low figures are. i'd still like to know what's wrong with long sentences. the first two sentences that begin the article are "long" too.

talk

) 19:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out how to collaborate with you, and it appears that you choose to argue literally everything. What do you need? SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

personalized commentary noted. you could try responding to my good faith questions. i'll repeat them again. what's wrong with long sentences? what is your proposed replacement? thanks!

talk

) 19:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Asking again my good faith question: Why is it necessary to say that something 'estimated' is because 'it is impossible to know exactly'?

it's not necessary. okay - your turn.

talk

) 20:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I answered your first question 19:04 above, 'redundant and muddy'. Your second question presumes I know, and I don't know yet. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, i am new here and as soon as i familiarize myself with the posting guidelines i will be editing this section. My concerns are as follows:

1. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons are treated as a single category, but they differ greatly in function and regulation.
2. Three types of firearms are claimed, but the 3rd "type" is actually two different subsets of the first two types.
3. This sentence is factually inaccurate due to problem 1. "Also, Kruschke describes incidents where public political perceptions have been shaped by a few high profile violent crimes associated with automatic and semi-automatic weapons, resulting in a relatively small percentage of the crime in absolute numbers, none-the-less have brought public focus on that type of weapon.[25]" This would be true of automatic weapons, but it can not be claimed that crimes using semiautomatic weapons are in any way few in number or notable when they happen.

If a distinction between automatic and semiautomatic can not be made without making the citation of Earl Kruschke's work inaccurate then this section needs to be rewritten with a different source or scrapped all together.Cyrus Vance (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears that this issue is more difficult then i believed due to the fact that the assertion of this section deals with Earl Kruschke's description of a "political perception." A description of a perception is twice removed from anything that can be considered a hard fact. It is clear to me now that any edit i make of this will require a precise understanding of Wikipedia policies. It appears at this point that the solution most likely to comply with NPOV policies would be to provide other reliable sources that describe the perception of gun categorization in a manner differing from Mr. Kruschke's. I do not believe this would be a improvement to the article. Cyrus Vance (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just added a large amount to the stub of a section on state constitutional provisions. I also found it necessary to add a footnotes section so I could add some information that I felt would be helpful to some readers but would certainally clutter the main text. I couldn't use the regular references section because I needed to cite references within the footnote material. The reference citations for the footnote material aren't in place yet...just give me a day or two. Please note that this is my first major wiki edit so I welcome any feedback, comments, suggestions, edits, tweeks, cleanup, or other constructive criticism. --OlenWhitaker (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think your edit is a very helpful and constructive contribution. I made one minor tweak[13]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I like the tweak; it's clearer that way.OlenWhitaker (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I added some citations to the footnotes, but I could not decide how thickly to lay on the references. At first I was going to add an in-line citation for every mention of every state but then I thought that might look rather silly and be of little additional value since it is already clear that the source for each mention is the state constitution itself which can be found fairly easily by anyone so inclined. In the end I added citations only where I was using a direct quotation of a word or phrase. Is that enough? Too much? Not enough? Opinions, anyone? I'm new to this so I welcome all feedback.OlenWhitaker (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

user Saltyboatr has raised an objection to the reference provided for Right of Revolution, to wit:

Regarding this diff [14], could you please point me to the passage in that article that mentions 'arms' 'guns' or 'gun politics'? The ref that you deleted pertained more closely to modern 'gun politics' I think. Remember the topic of the article is about modern 'gun politics', not a construct of the 'founders' logic long ago. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

overlooking for the moment that the editor mischaracterized the reference as a 'blog' when deleting it, the ref i deleted was to a book, which is a few orders of magnitude less useful in an online encyclopedia than references to online resources. where-ever possible, online sources are preferred. i don't know what saltyboatr's reference says, since i don't own the book, and i can't justify a visit to the library for every source proferred - particularly when scholarly references are online. regardless, i'm aware of no requirement or need for the reference to mention guns, since

) 21:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but you missed my question. Where in your website article[15] is there mention of 'guns', 'arms' or 'gun politics'? Please point me to the passage you are reading. (I can guess that your connection is part of an originalist hypothesis, common in the pro-gun thinking, but even that is tangential.) In other words, why is your article about the 'founders' long ago more relevant than a book cite about right of revolution in the present? Is this article not about modern gun politics in the US? SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

i did not "miss your question", i responded directly to it. please don't be tendentious. where in your book cite does it mention 'guns', 'arms' or 'gun politics'? how would any of us know, considering it's a book cite, and you provided no quotation from it to refer to? but again, i explained precisely my rationale above, so i consider this matter closed. other editors are certainly welcome to weigh in.

talk

) 00:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Your 'responding directly' is different than answering. Would you answer please: Where in your cite is there discussion of Gun politics in the United States?

Answering your question of me, relative to my cite; based on reading here[16] and here[17] I see there is WP:V discussion of modern gun politics, the 'right of revolution' in context of the riots in the 1960's. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

again, your tendentious manner is not helpful. repeatedly demanding answers to questions already answered runs right into

talk

) 07:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the ref, as I think it is agreed that it is unexplained. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is the equivalent of the OED of the Constitution.[18] Have added more details on the cite and restored it. Tenditiously editing accomplishes little towards making WP better. Yaf (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious is a very obscure word, (I had to look it up), and it means having a tendency of purpose. My tendency of purpose here is to check citations and ask questions when citations do not check out. It is a shame that my request "please point me to the passage in that article that mentions 'arms' 'guns' or 'gun politics'?" has been stonewalled so far. Instead I am faced with discussions about me and my poor editing. By the way, calling me tendentious in my checking of citations is actually a compliment. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "tenditiously" is in the OED, first example from early twenties... Again, this is getting old. Also, it is generally considered bad form to "correct" another's spelling in discussions. Yaf (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we shift this discussion away from me, and start discussing the article? Can you answer my question about the cite? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

for everyone's reference:

talk

) 16:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

adding the 'request quotation' tag however is tendentious. read the sentence in the article. see how it links to

talk

) 16:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the compromise, replaced cite w/GoogleBooks version, done. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This talk page is out of control. At over 200kb, I think it is past time to archive. I would propose that any topic without a comment in the last month (I think that's all of them) be archived. Any thoughts? OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 01:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I would support some volunteer setting up a bot assisted archive by Miszabot. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added the tag for Miszabot. I set the bot to archive threads inactive for over thirty days; the most recent five threads will always be left no matter how old they are. After the bot comes by I'll add the appropriate navigation templates to this and the new page unless someone beats me to the punch. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 17:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. I see we will still have to manually archive any thread without a standard timestamp, but the rest should be handled by the bot. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 01:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

is synthesis, POV, and unencyclopedic. please relocate this highly POV material to a different section. informal militia groups, and the militia movement, are not "gun rights groups".

) 17:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the politics are more complex than black and white, I removed the subsection titles. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

which breaks the section completely. please stop. move the material to an appropriate section. you are synthesizing here, which is not supported by policy.

talk

) 17:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have specific problems with my referencing[19]? Also, I think "Late 20th Century Gun Politics" is a very accurate section title. Do you have a suggestion for a better section title? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

conflating militia groups with gun rights groups is

talk

) 18:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't see this version. I do not favor the sub section titles, so you objection appears out of date. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of becoming embroiled in this argument, I would just like to inject a comment by saying that I must agree with Anastrophe on one point and that is that information on militia groups does not seem to me to be in keeping with the theme of the article. Militia groups have never been real players in the politics of gun control/gun rights; their views on firearms are simply one of many manifestations of their extreme libertarianism and, lacking any real impact on US gun politics, would be better treated in articles specifically about militias and the militia movement. A militia does not constitute a gun rights group any more than the Soviet government under Stalin would constitute a gun control group. Both have been used as straw man attacks by each side of this political debate against the other and both are equally invalid. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 18:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you reading for your sourcing? Have you read the Lane Crothers, and Robert Snow books? They make a powerful and credible analysis of the role of the modern militia in late 20th Century gun politics. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

My above statement is pure original research and was not intended to be encyclopedic, just an opinion. I have not read the two books you mentioned; they don't show to be available at my local library, but I'll try to run them down somehow. Could you give me a summary of the aforementioned works' positions on this subject? In my time of connection with this debate I have heard a very great deal of talk from both sides about militia groups, but I have not seen that talk turn into actual legislative action. Still, that's just my personal experience of the subject; I would be interested to hear what Crothers and Snow have to say about it. At the same time I will try to find concrete sources to back my opinion. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 20:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There is so much, too much really to quickly summarize. One central theme is that influence of the modern militia has been urbanized through gun shows, and has proliferated with militia influenced internet usages. See page 68 of the Snow book. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Another key issue is that of the modern militia and effect on Congress, see page 135-139 of Susan J. Tolchin's book. Coverage of this issue, the modern milita and politics in the late 20th Century is vital to that section. If militiaman testimony at a Congressional hearing doesn't count as 'political', I don't know what does. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

See also page 10 and Chapter 7 of the Cruthers book where Professor Cruthers declares bluntly "militia groups were successful in promoting core ideas in the political system...and parts of the movement were co-opted by established political forces, particularly the conservative wing of the Republican Party". This is really solidly sourced material. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will grant that, as these sources state, the militia movement has attracted the attention of lawmakers and impacted political discourse, so, it could be said, they have impacted gun politics in the U.S. However, I still feel that their actual impact has been minimal, that is to say that if the militias did not exist, I believe we would have all the same laws and the same basic political situation that we have with them. They impacted the way memebers of Congress and others talk about the issue, but I don't think that they have impacted the way anyone acts about the issue. Still, it's a grey area; I can see both sides of it. I wouldn't include the militias in this article, but I am not going to delete such material either. It may, in this case, be a simple matter of opinion and having put my 2¢ in, I am content to leave the wrangling over minor details like this to others. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 22:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

'vital' to the section? no. these books depart too far from reality. they're political screeds of a sort, inflammatory (which sells books). finding leftist university professors who see right-wing bogeymen behind every door is neither novel nor useful. objectively, the influence of right-wing militia groups is extremely marginal at best, giving weight to extremists POV's at worst. in terms of the political discourse in gun politics, they simply don't register on the radar, certainly not as mainstream influence. POV, weight, trump this fringe junk.

talk

) 22:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I accept that I may not be reading all the reliable sources needed to see the proper balance. And, I am willing to also read the reliable sources which you have used. Please tell me which reliable sourcing your have used when forming your opinion of 'on the radar' and 'reality' so I may also read it. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

cute, but non-sequitur. NPOV and Weight. here's a very, very good test for mainstream: did any militia groups file amici in DC v Heller? did any of those who filed amici mention any extant militia groups, or refer to any extant militia groups in oral arguments? we have here the most significant test of the second amendment before the supreme court right now. if militia groups - these bogeymen these 'true crime'-style books represent - were at all relevant to gun politics, surely there would have been some mention - even a single sentence, no? how often are these militia groups a matter of daily news? besides a few high profile assocations with militia groups, there's simply nothing out there. so - please don't ask me to prove a negative.

talk

) 16:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you reading? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

the newspaper. again, you're asking me to prove a negative. there's no notable discourse promulgated by militia groups, so how do i cite an absence? please answer my questions regarding the amici, thanks.

talk

) 16:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is fair for me to ask about your sourcing. This is needed to distinguish your

properly sourced.

Your refusal to give specific sources for your opinions is not helpful.

your insistence that i prove a negative is not helpful.

talk

) 20:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Asking for you to identify your sourcing is asking you to prove a negative? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In short, you favor giving zero coverage on the effect of the modern militia movement on gun politics in the Late 20th Century. This seems wildly off base, considering the large political effects of the militia movement on US politics in the 1990's. Heck, they discussed the subject in Congressional hearings! I just checked an online archive of newspaper articles from the 1990's and in five minutes of searching found dozens of articles discussing gun politics and the modern militia.

i favor giving it coverage appropriate to its import. which is virtually nil. the modern militia movement is a notable phenomenon. its effect upon gun politics is minimal. you have a couple of hyperbolic sources, clearly written to earn the authors some bucks - "RAGE ON THE RIGHT"!!! ignore actual terrorists on the left - they use bombs, not guns, i guess. the modern militia movement is certainly real, certainly notable - its *actual measurable effect in political discourse* however is extremely minimal - besides again the realm of hyperbole and 'crossfire' sorts of 'discourse'.

talk

) 20:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The left generally uses ANFO, usually, kicked off with Tovex. They generally aren't good marksmen :-) Yaf (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. SaltyBoatr (talk

) 16:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the 2008 Heller amici briefs, that occurred not in the Late 20th Century, but rather the Early 21st Century. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

touche! so you favor noting only that the militia movement had an effect in the past. i trust you plan on expanding the 'early 21st century gun politics' section immediately upon inclusion of your historical data, so there's no misunderstanding by the reader that the modern militia movement is still some dark and dangerous threat lurking out there, the puppetmasters of the gun rights kooks?

talk

) 20:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

a source - referenced within '20th century gun politics', published in the year 2000 (therefore a 20th century contemporaneous source) stated that the united states has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world. when a source, written in the past, referring to the past, in a section about the past, is used to support a claim from the past, then the past tense must be used. i can easily find a source, written in 1962, that states "John F. Kennedy is the president of the united states". shall i add the statement

John F. Kennedy is the president of the United States

to an article, and insist that it is so, because a source stated that? no, of course not. it was true when the source was written, but it is not a reliable source for today. the same applies to the material used in this article. the source was written in the past, it is not a reliable source to support a contention that this is the status in the 21st century. oh, it likely is the case, though i think the POV wording is ill advised to begin with. "weakest gun control laws" can easily correspond to "strongest support for gun rights" in a different construct. since saltyboatr is insisting that this POV source is reliable, in order to be NPOV, perhaps the material should be presented as a quote from this author, rather than as an ordinal fact, a la "In 2000, in the book blah blah blah, so and so wrote, 'the united states has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world'". at least then the POV nature of it will be more honestly represented.

) 21:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement: "The United States presently has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world" is easily verifiable. I cite Hememway ISBN:0472031627 pg. 197-207, and could cite other reliable sources if you ask. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

but that's meaningless in context. the section is about 20th century gun politics. your additional edit was also unsupportable, the source said nothing of the sort (nor could it, since it is from the year 2000). feel free to add your information to 21st century gun politics.

talk

) 03:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

the hemenway citation in no way supports what you claim.

talk

) 04:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

saltyboatr has re-added the material, claiming that a footnote to the citation backs it up. i see no footnote - and no source data on the cited pages that is from after the year 2000. please cite exactly why you believe this citation is supportive of your claim. thank you.

talk

) 17:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

just to put a finer point on that, for the little wikilawyer that lurks within all of us: "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". saltyboatr claims a ten year old source equals "today". does that mean bill clinton is still president?

talk

) 17:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A well known expert on this topic wrote in 2006, using present tense grammar that "U.S. gun control laws are also weaker than those of other industrialized nations for example...". Yet you insist on using the past tense. This dispute is over using "has" or "had". Do you agree to seek neutral third opinions to help resolve our

dispute? SaltyBoatr (talk

) 18:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

knock yourself out. your source does not support your assertion. the section is entitled "20th century gun politics" but you are insistent on pushing your POV about 21st century gun politics into that section, rather than doing the logical thing and adding properly sourced material to the 21st century section. that your source does not support your contention is indisputable. your source is citing data from 1998. it is 2008. QED.

talk

) 19:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That reliable source, in 2006, used the present tense to describe the condition. That his source data comes from earlier is a red herring, as that statement is quite clear: In the opinion of that expert source the condition existed in the present tense in 2006. If that expert felt that the condition only existed in the 1990's and not in 2006, then he would have used the past tense. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

no, that won't fly at all. your source is using source material from 1998. it does not corroborate the claim. furthermore, and i'm puzzled why this has to continue to be reiterated: it is not the 20th century now. your claim - if it belongs at all, and that's pending a reliable source - belongs in the 21st century section. i'm removing it. to put as fine a point as possible on it: if this 'expert' wrote in 2006 "bill clinton is currently the president", and citing 1998 material to support it, would you insist that bill clinton is currently the president?

talk

) 00:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

and i'm still curious what part of "it isn't the 20th century any more" you don't understand. the past tense is absolutely appropriate - nay, demanded - when talking about the past. your relentless insistence on pushing this material into the wrong section is disruptive. please stop.

talk

) 19:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

International gun trafficing

Another interesting tangent on this topic is the issue of how US Gun Politics, influencing lax domestic gun law causes trouble in international small arms trafficing, and tensions in international attempts to control small arms and automatic weapon trafficing. See this interesting report on this subject [20](starting at pg 119). Please comment, as I suggest we include a paragraph or two on this topic in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

it's a cute little story, that uses delicious rhetoric to condemn the united states while completely and utterly ignoring that china and the former soviet states are the source of virtually all of the small arms that have been used in the conflicts they cite. what you see in any film from conflicts around the world are actors shooting soviet and chinese made AK47's and variants, overwhelmingly, and this has been the case for a very long time. only extremely rarely does one see US M16's or other weapons being shot by the actors in somalia, rwanda, afghanistan, colombia, etc etc etc.

talk

) 03:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"cute little story"? Do you dispute that this article in the Naval War College Review is a reliable source? What is your sourcing for your opinion about soviet and Chinese weapons? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

tendentious, thy name is saltyboatr. this is the talk page. you're perfectly welcome to ignore reality, and that which is right before your own nose. US gun law has little effect on international arms trafficing. for that matter, your source actually backs that up - it's just buried under several tons of finger-waggling and scolding. are you suggesting that in conflicts around the world, it's not AK47's and variants that are overwhelmingly in use?

talk

) 17:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No.

talk about the article instead. SaltyBoatr (talk

) 18:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

you asked for comments, i gave them. don't be tendentious.

talk

) 18:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

tendentious, disruptive photo removal/replacement

saltyboatr, please stop. you are being POV by deciding to remove one photo on POV grounds, then replacing it with a photo that fits your POV. why not add your photo elsewhere? there's no reason they can't both be in the article. your insistence on removal, or replacement with a photo supportive of your POV, is highly disruptive. please stop.

talk

) 17:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Anastrophe that the majority of the article is written from the POV of gun rights advocacy. while that happens to be the POV i (Anastrophe) share, the article is embarrassing for its lack of coverage of the other side. I disagree about Anastrophe's 'camel's nose under the tent' strategy in defending this pro-gun POV in the article. Linking 'gun politics' with patriots, like with that Minuteman image, skews this POV problem further off balance. Until this gets resolved I am adding the POV warning tag. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

un-fucking-believable.

talk

) 17:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Could we please discuss the sourcing as to why Annie Oakley has bearing on gun politics? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is badly in need of neutral POV balancing; pushing your agenda that guns are somehow restricted to expressing masculinity is clearly sexist language, that is counter to actual history. Gun politics involve both women and men. Yaf (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I learned of the 'masculinity' issue upon reading reliable sources. What are you reading? Or, is this your personal opinion of 'actual'? Gary Kleck, says in one of his most often quoted passages: "The strongest and most consistent predictors of gun ownership were hunting, being male, ...". And literally dozens of reliable books address the issue of the masculinity of gun culture.[21][22]. Considering the depth of the sourcing, it is not sexist to say the truth, which is that gun culture tends to be masculine. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am reading multiple sources.

Gun culture is predominantly male. However, gun politics is not predominantly male. The National Firearms Act of 1934, for example, originally banned handguns, but women overwhelmingly protested, as they could more easily use handguns than long guns. In the end, due to women protesting, the NFA only restricted automatic guns, short-barreled guns, and silencers, but not handguns. In Southern, mid-west, and western US culture, women use guns regularly, and they are often involved in gun politics. For example, a recent past NRA president, Sandra Froman, is a woman. Sara Brady is obviously a woman. Suzanna Hupp is a woman. You are confusing gun culture with gun politics. The two are not the same. Yaf (talk

) 21:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What are the multiple sources your are reading? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping in, but at the DC v. Heller demonstration, it was two groups lead by women leading both the pro-DC (Brady Campaign) and pro-Heller (Second Amendment Sisters) groups. So one might conclude there is a gender shift occurring in Gun politics in the United States. User:Suntree/SuntreeSuntree (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Tom Teepen / Cox News Service (2008, February 20). Gun lobby's call to arms is off target. The Grand Rapids Press,A.11. Retrieved April 7, 2008, from ProQuest Newsstand database. (Document ID: 1432815761).

Quote: "There are an estimated 200 million to 250 million firearms in this country, essentially one for every sentient adult. Our gun "controls" are internationally infamous for their laxity."

supports only that US gun control may be considered lax by some in the international community, not that "The United States has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world".

talk

) 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• GUN CONTROL TO FIGHT TERRORISM :[All Editions: Two Star B, Two Star P, One Star B]. (2002, March 1). The Record,p. L06.

Quote: "A recently discovered jihad training manual in Afghanistan makes it clear that lax U.S. gun laws are well-known throughout the world. "

supports only that it is 'well known' to jihadis in afghanistan that US gun control is considered lax, not that "The United States has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world".

talk

) 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• What the world is saying. (2007, April 18). Tribune - Review / Pittsburgh Tribune - Review.

Quote: "Now we will probably begin discussing the overly lax gun laws in the United States."

supports only that someone suggests discussing that US gun control may be considered overly lax, not that "The United States has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world".

talk

) 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• VPC: Web Site Urges Jihad Trainees To Use Lax U.S. Gun Laws To Wage Holy War. (21 November 2001). U.S. Newswire.

Quote: "Muslim holy warriors should use lax firearms laws in the United States to get sniper and military assault rifle training according to a jihad training pamphlet posted on a Web site that has been used by a most-wanted Al Qaeda fugitive."

supports only that US gun control is considered lax by muslim holy warriors, not that "The United States has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world".

talk

) 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Anna Morgan (2006, January 8). Northern Ire; Canadian Politics Are All About America :[FINAL Edition]. The Washington Post,p. B.02.

Quote: "There's no denying that Canadians are in an even more anti- American mood than usual, thanks to the Iraq war and the Bush administration's perceived arrogance. And politicians here are playing to that mood. In a blatant appeal for votes, candidates of every stripe, led by Prime Minister Paul Martin and his ruling Liberal Party, are taking aim at Washington, blasting it for taxing Canadian lumber imports, for failing to fight global warming, for lax gun-control laws...

supports only that canadians consider US gun control laws to be lax, not that "The United States has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world".

talk

) 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Don Melvin (2002, October 18). Europeans follow killings story closely ; Victims' deaths draw sympathy, big news coverage :[METRO Edition]. San Antonio Express-News,p. 11A.

Quote: "Europeans are prone to be critical of America and what they view as its bellicose foreign policy, its irresponsible attitude toward global warming and its lax gun laws."

supports only that some europeans consider US gun laws lax, not that "The United States has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world".

talk

) 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ken Gassman (2007, May 13). Virginia Tech Shootings / Middle East Gives Perspective On U.S. Tragedy :[Final Edition]. Richmond Times - Dispatch,p. E5.

Quote: "The editor noted that lax gun-control laws were partially to blame for the Virginia Tech shootings"

supports only that the editors (an editorial?) consider US gun laws lax, not that "The United States has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world".

talk

) 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Rupert Cornwell (2007, April 18). The Big Question: Is there a link between America's lax gun laws and the high murder rate? Belfast Telegraph,1.

Quote: "The massacre at Virginia Tech has, yet again, focused attention on the culture of guns and the ease of obtaining firearms in America, an unending source of amazement to most of the rest of the world. "

supports only that some people think it's too easy to obtain a firearm, not that "The United States has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world".

talk

) 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• THE WASHINGTON TIMES (2005, April 18). Lessons learned from Schiavo. Washington Times,p. A02.

Quote: "...thousands killed in the U.S. with guns because of our lax gun laws and weak enforcement."

supports only that someone considers US gun laws lax and weakly enforced, not that "The United States has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world".

talk

) 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Terrorists love U.S. gun laws :[Ontario Edition]. (2002, June 11). Toronto Star,p. A23.

Quote: "America's gun culture and lax firearms legislation may be its worst defence against terrorism. "

supports only that someone considers US gun laws lax, not that "The United States has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world".

talk

) 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Their guns, our city. (2005, 19 September). The Globe and Mail,A.16.

Quote: "Yes, but why do Canadians go south of the border to get guns in the first place? Because guns are easier to find there. And why are they easier to find? Because of the ridiculously weak U.S. guns laws. "

supports only that someone thinks that US gun laws are 'ridiculously weak', not that "The United States has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world".

talk

) 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Responding to the recent edit war[23][24][25][26][27][28][29] as to whether it is proper to use present tense to write that the US has or had the weakest gun control laws in both the 1990's and the 2000's, in addition to the Hemenway book, see above. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

not a single word above supports your contention. they support only that some people think that we have lax gun control laws. they do not establish as an objective fact that "The United States has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world". furthermore, the existing construct, stating that "The United States had the weakest gun control laws in the developed world", is absolutely true and incontrovertibly correct within the section discussing Late 20th century gun politics. your efforts above are nothing but disruptive. not a single citation in any way supports your argument. please stop.

talk

) 05:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You seek to diminish WP:V reliable sourcing by characterizing it as "only that some people". SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

hogwash. not a single source above establishes that the united states has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world. you seek to diminish WP:V by conflating assorted statements that the US has "lax" gun laws with an absolute characterization that the US has the weakest gun control laws in the developed world. it takes considerable chutzpah to suggest that i'm the one watering down WP:V when everything you cited above does precisely that.

talk

) 15:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the weapons used by all major military organizations are 100% banned from manufacture without a license directly from the federal government since 1986, so claims that the US gun laws affect offshore military organizations are humorous at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.214.46 (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

{{

}} Footnote no. 58 needs to be fixed: <ref name="violencea">Gottesman, Ronald: ''Violence in America: An Encyclopedia'', pp. 66,68, Simon and Schuster, 1999</ref>

Thanks. Yaf (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 10:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Is citing clearly POV sources considered NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.214.46 (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

yes. read

talk

) 15:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The prominent placement of the photo of a patriotic statue shifts the POV of this article towards the pro-gun balance. This tips the balance away from the neutrality point, therefore we need the POV tag until this is fixed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

it has been fixed, by inclusion of your desired photo. your actions are extremely disruptive, please stop the tendentious editing.

talk

) 19:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not fixed. Placing a patriotic photo involving the successful use of firearms against tyranny, "eye candy", prominently at the top of the article skews the POV balance too far towards the pro-gun hypothesis of the beneficial nature of using firearms against tyranny. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Have fixed the issue with a long series of edits, and removed tag. Yaf (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, next time please discuss the neutrality before removing the tag. No, there are still many unfixed neutrality problems in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than try and read your mind, would you mind sharing your concerns? The only issue you identified was the photo, which you have fixed. Until these "many unfixed neutrality problems in the article" are identified, I recommend we remove the {{POV}} tagline that you have inserted. If nothing is identified within 24 hours, then the presumption is that there are no issues, and the tagline should be removed. Yaf (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

this is another instance of POV-bombing. saltyboatr, you specifically stated at the top of the section that the inclusion of the photo "shifts the POV of this article towards the pro-gun balance". that is the dispute in contention, by your own words. that has been fixed. you are now moving the target and claiming that there are "other" - unstated - POV issues, yet you have not identified them. please stop POV-bombing any article that you

talk

) 16:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the POV tag, restated see above 17:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC), is that the majority of the article is written from the POV of gun rights advocacy. Considerable work is needed to fix this problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Numerous problems, for instance in the opening paragraph where this is described as if it is a conflict between citizens and their government. This ignores the obvious, that citizens are represented by their government, and that citizens can vote to form and elect a representative government legislate to ban and regulate their guns. The existing wording has a pro-gun rights libertarian POV slant. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Also, the opening paragraph of the overview contains four questions, three of which have a pro-gun perspective. And the question about the federal 2A constitution affecting state and local law is the incorporation question which is a fringe pro-gun issue, not a mainstream issue. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the incorperation issue as you put it isnt really a fringe issue. DC vs Heller the district argues that even if the 2A grants an individual right, that the amendment does not apply to the district because the amendment is not incorperated. They argue that it should be left to states (or in their case a district) to make their own laws regulating firearms. The question is usually more of an anti-gun objection used rather then a pro-gun argument anyways.172.134.180.131 (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Then, fix it, instead of dropping another POV bomb and then requesting full protection, as you usually do (earlier example: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution which is fully-protected and in mediation, + other articles too in the past (e.g., Hunting weapon, etc.) Your methodology simply locks up an article, preventing the fixing of "problems". If you would only contribute, instead of just causing disruptions, then there wouldn't be a problem. Yaf (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I will. In the mean time, I dispute the neutrality. Then show good faith by reverting yourself in your edit war taking the neutrality tag out, thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

pov-bomb, engage in edit warring, request protection due to edit warring, protected. game, set, match. this is intolerable gaming of the system. you make scant actual positive edits on articles, preferring to wikilawyer other editors actual contributions, then get articles locked. this is pathetic. you betray your motives with the early edit where you simply replaced the minuteman photo with the minnesota ban photo - but claimed the latter was more 'NPOV', while not applying a POV tag to your own addition. only after BOTH photos were included - the very essence of NPOV - did you throw the POV tag on. other editors, i'd be interested in help in bringing a formal complaint regarding this disruptive behavior.

talk

) 21:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is some statement of what the POV problems are, I recommend removing the POV tagline bombing. What are the "problems"? If there are none, the tagline should be removed. Yaf (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is not a quick fix because the majority of the article is written from the POV of gun rights advocacy. ...the article is embarrassing for its lack of coverage of the other side. Until this gets resolved I am adding the POV warning tag. Hopefully you will be willing to cooperate and not impede in this process. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It must be noted that Yaf made several pro-gun POV edits, simultaneously with the removal of the POV tag, see diff. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What SaltyBoatr clearly, continually, and persistently fails to understand is that citing sources does not make your POV magically become NPOV. 132.170.51.143 (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm from the UK so I dont know much about gun politics in the US (hence why I read the article), but this article does seem quite biased towards pro-gun ideas, especially in the "Relationships between crime, violence, and gun ownership" section and the "Security against foreign invasion" section. In the former, the writer has really only quoted pro-gun advocates and in the latter is a random collection of historical cases to legitimise gun rights (including a quote from Hitler so as to appeal to the American popular psyche). The rest of the article is littered with nice pictures and rousing historical anecdotes glorifying the principle held by the Second Amendment. I understand that this is a sensitive issue, but this article reminds me strongly of the kind of rubbish you get on Conservapedia. Could a competent person objectively edit this article and make a little more neutral? Thank you. The Nouv (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC) comment added by 86.210.253.105 (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

not to imply anything, but you say you're from the UK, yet your IP address is from France. I know the spirit of love between the english and french has been blossoming in recent decades, but it seems queer to me that a french ISP would offer access across the channel. a traceroute goes directly into france as well. that said, you make a number of claims - some offensive (re hitler), but none more specific than that. while i have a great love for the generalized rant, this seems rather calculated to me. you claim not to know much about US gun politics, then proceed to very clearly state specifics opinions about US gun politics that rather suggest that you do know about US gun politics. n'est ce pas?

talk

) 15:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Anastrophe, what is the point of your ad hominem 'not to imply' implication? That UK people don't go to France? That the article does not reference Hitler? (It does.) You wrote a lot, and evaded his/her central point, which is this article does seem quite biased towards pro-gun ideas. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

when someone makes a patently and deeply offensive statement such as "(including a quote from Hitler so as to appeal to the American popular psyche)" i feel no constraint in responding with ad hominem in kind. but thanks for asking!!!

talk

) 20:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Consider also the possibility that the reason you find it so offensive is that there is some truth in his/her criticism. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

there. now we're three for three in the ad hominem column. thanks for playing along.

talk

) 21:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Anastrophe, sorry if I offended you but I still maintain that the article is biased. I find the bit implying that the genocide of Jews, gypsies, etc... is due to the lack of gun rights quite disturbing and if no one is going to edit it, then it has no place here. For a supposedly encyclopedic article, this is a joke.The Nouv (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the section about Hitler, Jews and gypsies needs fixing. I challenge the reliability of the publisher for the first book which doesn't meet WP:V standards, the second book mentions pgs 111-122 but after looking those pages doesn't seem to address the topic. I don't understand how paranoid discussion of totalitarian regimes is on topic in an article about a democracy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Have restored reliable source (Zelman's book). JPFO is a well known organization, analogous to NRA and GOA. Implying that books published by this organization are not reliable is not consistent with their publications of many, well-respected and documented books that have been used as references in the Heller/Parker SCOTUS case by many amici filing briefs, for example. As for the claim of genocide of Jews being due to a lack of access to guns, this is a fairly well documented, although controversial, point, that definitely passes the reliable and verifiable source requirement. Controversial is not the same as claiming not reliable or not verifiable. Yaf (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, Does the publisher Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, Inc. have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Your opinion I can guess, but please cite some neutral opinions please. Thanks. Also, please answer my question as to why paranoid discussion of totalitarian regimes is on topic in an article about a democracy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with quoting pro-gun sources as long as they present true facts and are known to be reliable by independent groups. Same goes for anti-gun sources. However, the passage that quotes the Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, Inc. source is not presenting a fact but an opinion, and therefore it has no relevance here. I live in Europe (where the genocide actually happened) and I have never heard once that it was caused by the lack of guns, not even by jewish sources. The horrors of the nazi regime have nothing to do with gun rights and I find it shameful that some people twist such an event to back their own ideas. Oh and please could someone answer the perfectly legitimate questions that are being asked and stop evading the subject.The Nouv (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

does the fact that you have never heard an assertion mean the assertion is false? what does living in europe have to do with one's ability to be aware of certain things? there are neo-nazis in germany - are they better informed than a sympathetic american? are americans precluded from caring about these issues since they don't live in europe? you assert that the horrors of the nazi regime have nothing to do with guns rights. that's a fine opinion, but an opinion only.

talk

) 18:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I never said that Americans don't care about what happened. Secondly, JPFO may claim that the lack of guns is responsible for the genocide, fair enough, but it is in their interest to claim this and until another neutral party can verify this (for example a historian who has nothing to gain from the debate), we cannot consider this as fact. As I said before, its an opinion. If you wish to keep it in the article, by all means transfer it into a section that deals with the ideas and opinions of the pro-gun groups. Why is there a section about foreign gun laws in an article about gun politics in the US anyway? If you want to talk about Security against a Foreign Invasion, do it in the pro-gun arguments section.The Nouv (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)10:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

uh - and you are? are we to assume you're "The Nouv", as well as 86.210.253.105? it's really not helpful to engage in discussion whilst regularly changing identities. it's still bothersome to me that user "The Nouv" states he/she is a student at bristol, while posting from france, under various identities. we have no assurance of who the hell we're talking with right now - we have to take it on faith by your use of personal pronouns that you are "The Nouv". i frankly don't like doing so, as IP users more often than not are vandals who enjoy yanking people's chains.

talk

) 17:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Since it bothers you so much, I inserted my signature. I cannot fail to notice yet again you avoid the subject.The Nouv (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

how's the weather in france?

talk

) 20:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we discuss the article instead? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd love too, but trying to suggest any change is like trying to talk to a brick wall with a hearing problem. Don't they realise that by being so biased they turn more people against them than they bring round to their point of view? Articles like these give Wikipedia a bad name...The Nouv (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

At least we can give Anastrophe credit that he is not duplicitous in his 'brick wall' strategy. He admits up front that he is uses a the camel's nose in the tent editing strategy to defend his pro-gun point of view in this article, and has done so for many months running now. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

To quote Anastrophe, "[in this article,] arguments are stated, restated, restated yet again, restated just for good measure, and yet again restated - all in different contexts, often absurdely placed." This, combined with the simple fact that the article is almost 100 KB, indicates that it's time to split up the article. I'd propose we first take the meat-axe to the Gun culture section. It's tedious and available elsewhere on wiki. It's also rather obvious; we know there's a subculture for darn near everything, and that whatever that subculture worships will of course be politically important to them.--Cubic Hour (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

as previously stated, it's not supported to meat-axe the entire section. it needs to be trimmed down. its not clear what 'split' you're suggesting, since 'gun culture' already exists as an article - what other article are you proposing? please don't take my words out of context, and use them in support of your argument. my statement was in regard to a wholey different issue.

here's the current article size:

   * File size: 248 kB
   * Prose size (including all HTML code): 90 kB
   * References (including all HTML code): 73 kB
   * Wiki text: 97 KB (14901 words)
   * Prose size (text only): 58 kB (9408 words) "readable prose size"
   * References (text only): 18 kB

this is within guidelines (

talk

) 16:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Anastrophe, if a person with a clearly vested interest in the topic such as you hasn't been able to read the whole thing "in one sitting," as you mention in a discussion above, that's pretty good evidence itself that the article is too long, regardless of how many tens of KB over the readable prose suggestions it is (which is 8KB over, for those who are counting). --Cubic Hour (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

again, i'll thank you to not take my words out of context and inaccurately then use them in argument against me. you'll also note that the prose size is 9408 words, which is less than the 10,000 word recommended guideline. take note well of that. those are guidelines, not policies or rules.

oh, and last item: please do go into detail about what my "vested interest" is. it's an extraordinary claim to make in an anonymous medium. please, i'm fascinated. are you a mind reader?

talk

) 22:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If the article needs to be split, I think it makes much more sense to start with the excessive detail spent on court decisions. The judicial branch doesn't pertain to 'politics', at least it shouldn't :). The concept of 'gun culture' is the largest driving force in 'gun politics' in the US today, and deserves to be the last thing cut from the article. It seems like discussion of gun culture somehow offends Cubic Hour personally. I am curious why? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

umm....the judicial branch doesn't pertain to politics? that's a new one on me. i could have sworn our political system was tripartate.

talk

) 22:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple meanings of the word 'politics'. You are using the 'science of governance' definition. I am using the 'political spectrum' definition, the same definition used by many books on this subject, Spitzer, Wilcox, etc.. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

court decisions play an integral part in gun politics. they are inextricably linked. or are you suggested that miller, cruikshank, heller, are irrelevant to this topic? that'd be another new one on me.

talk

) 22:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)