Talk:Gun violence in the United States

Swiss Gun Ownership

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

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

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

Barack Obama (scientist in the scope of constitutional law)

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

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

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

Apparent IP Sock puppetry

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

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

Crappy intro

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

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

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

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

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

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

‎Eddie Eagle Program

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

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

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

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