Talk:Gun violence 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.

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

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

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

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

The article is just about 100% referenced to

WP:V. This article basically covers what research says on the topic. If the body of research on the topic is POV to you, I can try to work with you but it's unacceptable to "scrap" the sources. Please raise specific objections. --Aude (talk

) 00:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Although the

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

03:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree. It looks good and well-referenced to me. I would not object to the addition of more information if someone thought "balancing" it was necessary. I took down the tag meantime. --

Guinnog

11:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The references to John Lott's work reflect what the NAS panel found. The panel consisted of 15 experts more qualified than any of us here to assess the research that's been done. Per

WP:RS, we need to defer to them, rather than making our own judgements as to the validity of the research. As for Eddie Eagle, it is mentioned. Please re-read the article. And Eddie Eagle has not been evaluated, so it is simply mentioned of whether it is effective or not. "Victimization" is a proper term used in public health and criminology scholarly literature. The discussion of the Federal legislation is a summary of major legislation (1968, 1986, 1994). If you have anything to add, please suggest. Though the main article to discuss policies (and pro-gun rights and pro-gun control views of the policise) is Gun politics in the United States. --Aude (talk

) 18:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please keep

victimization there in the first sentence in the "Homicide rates" section. It's necessary to make clear we are talking about victimization statistics as opposed to offender statistics. --Aude (talk

) 19:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To say otherwise, it seems to me, is to imply a tit-for-tat moral code that would fall outside our NPOV policy. To give an argumentum ad absurdam to illustrate the point, we might surmise that, of the 113 people killed on or by

Guinnog

22:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't agree. "Victim" is a word with a clear definition. We don't need to use scare quotes here; there is nothing controversial or POV about using the word as it is defined by dictionaries. --

Guinnog

00:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Save me checking, how many criminals are executed by firing squad in the U.S. currently? On all three points, I would say, yes, it is gun violence if it is violence accomplished with a gun. --

Guinnog

22:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The public health definition is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

no need to ask for a recitation from the drive-by tagger. i've reverted it, as drive by tagging is strongly discourage per policy. see

talk

) 06:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(copied discussion here from peer review page)

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

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

My question is basically whether we're guilty of assuming the

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

14:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Homicide rates (and the percentage of homicides committed using firearms) are a significant point of discussion in the article. Four paragraphs of the article cover the topic. The

lead section should represent and summarize what's in the article. The "Homicides" section of the article explores this "connection", with information such as "Handgun homicides accounted for nearly all of the overall increase in the homicide rate, from 1985 to 1993". These facts don't provide definitive conclusions but suggest some connection between gun violence and homicides. On the other hand, the levels of robbery, assault, and other violence crimes are not comparatively high in the U.S. --Aude (talk

) 01:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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

I think it is important to mention homicide rates and the percentage of homicides committed using firearms in the lead section.

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

01:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've been using 2.0 for a week or so and it displays the graphics well. I haven't had any problems with it at all and would recommend it to anyone. --

Guinnog

05:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ummm... Why is the AK-47 "presumably" an automatic weapon? I could go buy one now for about $500 in semi-auto. I'd go as far as to say that the vast majority of "assault rifles" available to the general public (

AR-15, SKS, ect.) are semi-auto. So I wonder why you assume the one dipicted is full auto? —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs}

) 18:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

assault rifles. Gregmg

18:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

...and...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: What are the provisions of the ban?

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

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

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

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

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

In the

assault weapons

article please note the following:

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

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

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

One also finds in the same article...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice article, full of well-referenced facts and a good prose. I granted this article for

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

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

might be better to follow by

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

Or reduce some unnecessary complex statements. For instance,

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

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

Anyway, the article satisfies

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

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

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

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

Your comparison to an article titled

here

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article has been reviewed as part of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As part of the

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

I have deleted the graphic "Overall homicide and gun homicide rates by country (2000)" from the article. A look at

Perhaps because there is no such "fact". Only your opinion. The homicide rate is not 40 or even 20 times higher in the US than in the UK, for 4.71/100,000 is not 40 or even ten times the rate of homicides that is seen in the UK, which is around 1.4/100,000. And, for the 4.71/100,000 US homicide statistic, this is largely a result of 20% of the homicides in the US occurring among just 6% of the population in just 4 specific cities in the US.[1] Take those 4 special case urban dweller outliers out, and the death rate would be significantly lower in the whole of the US. It's not about gun ownership, either. In Wyoming, a state where 33% of all homes have household guns loaded and unlocked in them,^[2] the homicide rate is 1.7/100,000^[3] and this rate is not appreciably different than the UK's 1.4/100,000 rate.^[4] Yet, in the 4 cities where 20% of the homicides occur in the US, handguns are essentially banned. Homicide rates are not really related to gun ownership rates. Yaf (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)