Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Gun control

2008-12-27T00:37:38Z

TCochrane: /* Australia */

Quote: "This right is a natural right which we are endowed by our Creator with, and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly recognizes this pre-existing natural right of individuals to own and carry tools useful for self-defense."

This assertion requires citation to comply with the Commandments, as, no matter how rational and obvious, it is a personal opinion. Additionally, it would be useful, and would strengthen the assertion, if a clearer explanation of the constitutional right to carry tools really exists, vis-a-vis pre-existing natural rights. If a constitutional scholar is available, it would be great if he could comment here, as the Second Amendment is of the utmost importance and we should support it more clearly.

:I agree, the wording of the Second Amendment is hardly explicit. Also, Jesus reprimanded Peter for trying to defend them with a sword, so whether our Creator wants us to defend ourselves with guns is debatable. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 12:57, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Besides: the "natural" sic for (inalienable?) right stems for the [[Declaration of Independence]] not from the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]]. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I think my version was more clear and accurate, but it's your site.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 09:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The Second Amendment gives 'The People' - that is The American People (not persons as in individuals) the right to arm itself, specifically against the British who claimed sovereignty over the American People, forbidding them to bear arms except under the King.

Countries with gun control have fewer homicides, as do US states with gun control. And as Daniel B Douglas points out Jesus requires his followers to turn the other cheek: I certainly don't remember God asking us to arm ourselves to the teeth. KT

The Bill of Rights is specifically about INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. If you think Jesus Christ, the Son of God is a pacifist then you should read about His second coming in the Book of Revelations. In all countries without a similar version of our 2nd Ammendment right have fewer individual freedoms and rights. Gee, if only we were like other countries, sigh.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:04, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:You are wrong about states with stricter gun control laws. It's precisely the other way around, as [[John Lott]] shows in ''[[More Guns, Less Crime]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:36, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Patriot Act==

Cut:
:Interestingly enough, the USA PATRIOT Act is another law that restricts liberties in the name of safety, yet those in favor of the PATRIOT ACT are often opposed to gun control.

What does "another law that restricts liberties" mean? Is it a "restriction" that any overseas phone call I make to a suspected terrorist will be monitored?

Where is the contradiction between wanted terrorists thwarted, and wanting to defend oneself against muggers and rapists? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== VIRGINIA TECH ==

So - is NOW a good time to discuss things like waiting periods (I beleive Virginia has none), conceal laws(Virginia lets you do that) and other such unpleasantries???? [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 20:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT) 20:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Any time is a good time to help craft a balanced article presenting arguments for and against gun control laws. I have seen arguments on both sides enough to fill up several books.

:Can you boil it down to 2,000 words or less?

well, cars still kill wayyy more people.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 21:55, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:Uhm... So anything that kills less that cars per year should be legal to have and use? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::47,000 fatal car accidents per year in the U.S. versus around 1,000,000 non-fatal uses of guns in self-defense. I'd ban cars on that basis, but there's obviously much more to it. Do we have an article summarizing the findings of [[John Lott]], the statistician who wrote ''[[More Guns, Less Crime]]''? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:08, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::'''Question''': What happens if one of the students who was shot had a gun with which to defend himself? '''Answer''': there would be less people dead then there are now. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 22:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::'''Counter question''': How many students would be killed every year in shootouts in schools, if we allowed people to carry guns there? I bet even the accidental shootings would kill more people nationwide, not to mention all the things people can do when they are angry, gang related stuff and so on. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:40, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Question''': what happens if the murderer hadn't been able to get a gun? '''Answer''': there would be ''many'' less people dead then there are now. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:'''Question''': Who are and who are not prevented from getting guns by gun control laws? '''Answer''': Law abiding citizens are prevented from getting guns and criminals are not. --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 22:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::'''Reply''' Regardless of what the laws are a criminal who wants a gun will be able to get one. Look an how effective (not very) the laws against illegal drugs are. gun control takes the guns out of the hands of the law abiding citizens but not the criminals. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 22:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::More likely he would use some other weapon to kill. Like run over someone with his car.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 22:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Well they have so-called "motor-voter" laws that enable people who get driver's licenses to register to vote. Perhaps they could draft a "motor-toter" law, to issue every driver a handgun? Carjackings would go WAY down.[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

The argument that criminals would still get guns if they wanted them has some foundation in logic, however, it has no foundation statistically. A comparison to England will suffice. It bears out the conclusion that while some criminals still get guns, it is fewer - the mental & physical block of having to break another law just to get a gun actually deters gun crime :-) -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Allso should be concidered where the criminals get their guns, those dont show up from nowhere. Most are stolen from those who have legally purchased them. Less gun owners, less weapons around to be stolen. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::or stolen from a cop. ya, all cops have guns. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 12:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Guys, all of this is good stuff, but please consider before posting whether it's better to go to the [[Debate topics]]. Are you planning to help write a balanced article here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

* Read [http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/16/where-did-the-shooter-get-his-guns/ this] information via Hot Air. -- [[User:AmeriCan|AmeriCan]] 03:45, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

We've got a discussion going on here already: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Would_the_repeal_of_gun_control_laws_make_incidents_like_today%27s_shooting_at_Virginia_Tech_less_likely_to_occur%3F [[User:DanH|DanH]] 04:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Gun Control Leads to gun confiscation. ==

I am planning to remove this because it has no reference.
-Brian

If everyone, including children old enough to pull a trigger, owned a gun, would there be more or fewer shootings of human beings, accidental or intentional? I'm including felons, mentally ill, illegal aliens, legal aliens, and aliens from outer space.

== Somewhere else in the world ==

I'm wondering if it would be useful to add something about Singapore, which has some of the most extrems laws about gun control. Something like :
:"In Singapore, which has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, the capital punishment is mandatory for "arms trafficking", ie owning more than two weapons under the Misuse of Arms Act, and caning is mandatory for any person found in posession of a weapon (not even a firearm)"
Any comment? [[User:Emptiness|Emptiness]] 05:20, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

I, the inferior European who cannot possibly understand anything you superior Americans discuss here, have something to add in too. And yes, that was sarcasm. So here, I´ll offer you a little piece of gun control info from the rest of the world: Here in Finland, we have certain, quite strict gun control laws: it is quite close to impossible for a private person to own a *handgun* without a very good reason, such as being the owner of a shooting range, sports, or being a police officer. Also, anything beyond semi-auto is a BIG no-no for civilians here. Shotguns and Rifles ARE available far easier, since hunting is a very popular pastime here in Finland, especially the northern parts where I live in.
Interesting enough, most homicides and crimes in general do NOT involve guns, they involve alcohol and drugs. Far more common as a murder weapon is a kitchen knife than a firearm of some kind, and a very large proportion of ALL crimes in finland involve alcohol in a way or another. Just my two cents, y´know?

..And Come on, we have friggin RUSSIA as our neighbour. [[User:FreakyM|FreakyM]] 08:52, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Duplicate sentence revert. ==

Okay, I guess I might just have a bee in my bonnet over this, but the sentence, ''Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and liberals as a remedy to crime.'' appears twice -- in a row. Once as the end of the first paragraph, and then as the first sentence of the second paragraph. I attempted to correct this obvious mistake, but I was '''reverted'''. Would someone please tell me how I was wrong to do this, and why it is necessary to repeat this sentence immediately after itself and why it should '''not''' be removed from the tail of the first paragraph?

As it appears in the article:

''Such measures can range from a total prohibition on civilian ownership and possession of firearms and ammunition to specific restrictions on certain firearm features, "waiting periods" for gun purchases, licensing of gun owners, registration of firearms, etc. Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and liberals as a remedy to crime.''

''Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and liberals as a remedy to crime. Libertarians and conservatives, on the other hand, argue that whether or not guns are officially controlled by the government, criminals will commit crimes, and a black market will exist to provide them with firearms.''

Have at me.

''' [[User:TheReverendLee|The Rev.]] 22:36, 22 June 2007 (EDT) '''
----
: I see the revert was removed, and the correction made. Thank you. I am avenged.
:
:''' [[User:TheReverendLee|The Rev.]] 10:16, 23 June 2007 (EDT) '''

Uhh, is it really proper for the article to claim that "Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and liberals as a remedy to crime, but that is actually a [[deceit]]" right in the first paragraph? I mean, that's a big assertion and there's no citation to back it up. I think such a statement would be better suited to the second or third paragraphs, maybe... [[User:GrandSoviet|GrandSoviet]] 23:36, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

== Moved discussion from Talk:Main Page ==

I've moved the discussion down here for clarity.

If you give a random stranger a gun, there is a 100-to-1 chance that the gun will be used defensively, to prevent crime, rather than to perpetrate a crime. It inexorably follows from that simple observation that more guns leads to less crime.

If a random passenger or pilot had a gun on [[9/11]], thousands of lives would have been saved. If a teacher or random student had a gun in a [[public school]], they would not be easy prey for people like the [[Virginia Tech killer]]. Indeed, most shocking crimes would never occur if there was widespread gun ownership.

As I've said, every credible study confirms that more guns leads to less crime. The next time you read about a serial murder, a rape, a beating, a robbery, etc., just think to yourself: more gun ownership would have reduced the likelihood of that occurring.

I'm going to add this issue to the [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 15 December 2007 (EST)
:I'm still waiting for you to reference those studies. Meanwhile, I found [http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html this page] which argues (with facts and figures) that Australia's tough new gun laws resulted in very little change in crime and gun deaths. In other words, it didn't help the situation, but didn't make it worse either. Unfortunately, it's data dates to only a few years after the tough gun laws were introduced, and longer-term data would be better. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:32, 15 December 2007 (EST)

:: I'll build up the [[John Lott]] entry with more citations. I've already added several. With odds of 100-to-1 that putting a gun in the hands of a stranger will be used for defensive, deterrent and crime-preventing purposes, it's statistically implausible that such gun distribution would increase crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 15 December 2007 (EST)

:::I've already said this above but it's probably worth repeating.

:::I think it is unwise to compare gun control and homicide rates between different countries and then use that as an argument to increase or reduce gun control in a particular country.

:::The situation in the UK and Australia (similar gun control laws) is very different to the situation in the US. Neither of the former two has an equivalent to the Second Amendment nor do they have a history of common and easy gun ownership. Unlike the US.

:::While gun crime and homicide rates are much higher in the US compared to either country and almost all Western nations, that doesn't mean that introducing more gun control will reduce gun crime and homicide.

:::Conversely, using the (perhaps counter-intuitive to non-Americans) US experience of "more gun-control = more gun crime and homicide" to argue for less gun control elsewhere doesn't follow.

:::The stark reality is that gun crime and homicide are generally higher in countries with relatively relaxed gun-control (such as in the US) and generally lower in countries with relatively strict gun-control.

:::However, changing from more gun-control to less or vica-versa doesn't necessarily produce the result that is expected - in either direction. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:59, 15 December 2007 (EST)
::::Why are you so obsessed with guns? Knives and swords work just as well, and if carried on a plane would have avoided the risk of a loss of cabin pressure that is an issue with higher-calibre handguns. And what about Tasers and Mace? ...[[User:RingWraith|RingWraith]] 18:19, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, Aschlafly, you just changed the [[John Lott]] page from a serious and critical (if short) look at gun control, giving arguments for and against (although more strongly for gun control). Now, as a result of this argument, it is a totally pro-guns piece....conservative bias perhaps? [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 10:25, 16 December 2007

:There were scurrilous and non-encyclopedic remarks in the [[John Lott]] that were properly removed. I've added additional information also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 16 December 2007 (EST)

In reply to Philip above, I want to point out that [[gun control]] represents a [[materialistic]] style of reasoning that we reject in other contexts. [[Gun control]] depends on overemphasizing the significance of what is seen (guns) as the cause of crime, while ignoring the significance of what is unseen (deterrence) in reducing crime. Generally, though not always, advocates of [[gun control]] also advocate [[materialism]] in other contexts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 16 December 2007 (EST)
:: Sorry, I can't see the connection between gun control and [[materialism]]. I accept that the idea that widespread carrying of guns would deter crime makes sense, but as always, and as Ajkgordon said, this is simplistic as there are always multiple other factors at work. I haven't seen comparative figures for crime in different countries, although I have seen those for gun deaths which show America being over four times the rate of Australia. However, the Australian figures show that most gun deaths are suicides, and these might well happen by different means if there were far fewer guns around, so those figures may not mean much. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 16 December 2007 (EST)

:I don't think I've ever heard any serious analyst saying that guns are the cause of crime. Rather I often hear that wide availability of guns can enable a high level of gun crime catalysed by other factors such as drug use, poverty, disenfranchisement, gang violence, etc. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 16:39, 16 December 2007 (EST)

: I think many [[gun control]] supporters do think that the guns themselves are the cause of much crime, and that the crimes would not occur in the absence of guns. This is a heavily [[materialistic]] style of reasoning, but there are many [[materialists]] out there who are attracted to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:58, 16 December 2007 (EST)

::Well, it's simplistic reasoning. Gun-control > fewer guns > less gun crime.
::My view is that gun control has a negative ( i.e. lessening) effect on gun crime and violent crime if gun control is the current status quo. Changing from loose gun-control to tight gun-control, however, can often have a positive effect, particularly experienced in some states in the US.
::But likewise, your reasoning of Gun-freedom → better defence → less gun crime is also over simplistic.
::There are too many other variables at work to make that predictive correlation. And certainly it would be unwise to argue that more guns in places like the UK and Australia would lead to lower gun crime when their gun crime rates are so much lower than those of the US already. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 17:09, 16 December 2007 (EST)
::: Andy's point is that the widespread availability of guns deters ''general'' crime, not specifically ''gun crime''. Whether or not that's true I don't know, but I can see the rationale. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly, if a random passenger had a gun on 9/11 that would imply anyone legally entitled to carry a firearm could take them onto airplanes. Legal entitelment would assumedly be granted anyone without a criminal record who has been vetted for gun ownership. Terrorists are often people who meet exactly that description. More terrorist with guns on airplanes, passengers with guns on airplanes, shoot outs on airplanes. Apart from the fact that shooting off guns in high altitude aircraft is not a good idea, I have a suspicion that many people would shudder at the thought and come to the conclusion flying would be a more dangerous activity as a result. A more liberal, gun control approach was the introduction of armed Air Marshals on flights, unfortunalely not so much conservative fire-power available in case of an emergency. [[User:CillaHunt|CillaHunt]] 17:47, 16 December 2007 (EST)

: A gun fight on one of the September 11 planes would bring the plane down, but that would have prevented the far worse consequence of it crashing into the World Trade Center.
: But although Andy's got a point about us not seeing what crimes are prevented by guns being widely available, an argument that he's not addressed (as I recall) is that widespread availability of guns means that people who are otherwise law-abiding then use them in a moment of passion or rage, often killing a spouse or other relative or friend, whereas if they didn't have ready access to a gun, the consequences would have been much less severe.
: What this means, however, is that we then have to weigh up this apparent benefit of not having guns with the apparent benefit that having guns has in deterring crime generally. It's a difficult issue, made more difficult by the fact that if one goes from widespread gun ownership to very restricted gun ownership, although the end result may be better, in the interim it is the law-abiding people who give up their guns first.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 16 December 2007 (EST)

:: Philip points out a common fear, that guns cause crimes of "passion or rage" that would not occur in the absence of the guns, but please realize that knives, sticks, baseball bats, and fists are still available. Also, the absence of guns means a lack of defense or deterrence against crimes of "passion or rage." So I doubt there is an overall positive effect of [[gun control]] on this particular type of crime, which is a probably a small percentage of overall crimes anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)
::: A couple of corrections and an agreement:
:::* I didn't say that guns ''cause'' crimes of passion or rage. Nor did I say that in their absence the crime would not occur. I was saying that in cases of passion or rage, a gun is going to have a worse consequence than if the gun is not available. Sure, a knife or etc. could still be used, but the victim likely would have a better chance of surviving an attack with another weapon than against a gun.
:::* I agree that this particular type of crime would only be a small percentage of overall crimes.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:09, 17 December 2007 (EST)

<--- Let's take a step back. For those of you who are anti-gun control, why are US rates of violent crime so much higher than almost all other wealthy western countries, most of which have tight gun control? Obviously you don't believe that it's due to the wide availability of guns but there does seem to be a direct correlation. What, in your view, are the reasons? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:21, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:::: The [[U.S.]] is unique in many ways. The [[U.S.]] has a culture of violence in sports, movies and entertainment, it has an enormous drug problem, it has anti-religious [[public school]] system, it has widespread gambling and pornography, and it imprisons more people per capita than any other nation. When those inmates get out, they don't easily find jobs, and unfortunately it's back to crime for many of them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:11, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:::::Hmmmm... interesting, thanks.
:::::But it is also one of the most religious western countries, so why does it have these problems in the first place? And are you arguing for more effective rehabilitation of prisoners or fewer prisoners? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:15, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:::::: The [[U.S.]] has a strong religious component, but also a strong anti-religious component. Since crime is perpetrated by only 1% of the population, the [[U.S.]] is probably worse off than other countries when viewed with respect to religion and crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:30, 17 December 2007 (EST)

::::::Well, I, for one, am arguing for a renewal of the culture, to address the problems that Mr. Schlafly just mentioned. Especially the matter of violent sport (and the excuses that team owners and many colleges make for misbehaving athletes), gambling, pornography, and anti-[[homeschooling]] regulations.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::Thanks, very interesting.
:::::::I wonder what percentage of the prison population is religious compared to atheist. I read recently that 2% of Americans are in prison or on probation/parole at any one time. Let's be generous and say that 10% of Americans are atheists. Does that mean that one in five American atheists are convicted felons? Or is it a more balanced proportion reflecting the religious/atheist split in society as a whole?
:::::::Even so, with atheists making up a much bigger proportion of the population in countries such as France and Italy, their prison populations are proportionately much lower. I guess I'm simply struggling with a link between atheists and crime but I may be missing something.
:::::::As for violence in sport, football (soccer), rugby, Australian rules... all these are pretty violent in other countries. Gambling is not unique to the US nor is pornography, while homeschooling is so insignificant in most other western countries as to be irrelevant.
:::::::What I'm looking for is what makes the US have such a high level of violent crime - a unique differentiator in its culture or wealth or society or education or immigration that doesn't have anything to do with guns. I'm struggling a bit. Are there any well-regarded studies on the phenomenon? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:13, 17 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::
:::: An interesting debate. Aschlafly writes -

::::The [[U.S.]] is unique in many ways. The [[U.S.]] has a culture of violence in sports, movies and entertainment.

::::Absolutely true, but don't forget that the second largest export of the US is entertainment, so the rest of the entire planet is also watching the same violent US-produced material on TV and in the movies. As for sports, apart from the punch-up joke that ice hockey became, I'm not sure how the US sports are any more violent than, say, soccer, or bull-fighting even. I can't see what's unique here, basically.

::::it has an enormous drug problem

::::Again, very true, but again, not unique to the US, and I'm sure plenty of studies would suggest the problem is much, much worse elsewhere.

::::it has anti-religious [[public school]] system

::::Perhaps so, but most other Western countries have far more students in far more secular schools. Again, I'm not sure there's anything unique here.

::::it has widespread gambling and pornography

::::The US obsession with pornography is odd, but it's hardly worse of a problem than many other societies, and certainly not uniquely so. However, I would have to disagree with you on the gambling front -in many, many other nations betting shops are as common as the local newsagent, and many perfectly normal people are completely accustomed to routinely place wagers on all sorts of activities, all legally and fully above board. (Though I'm certainly not suggesting this doesn't create problems). The US seems to have worsened its gambing problem in much the same way it worsened its alcohol problem during Prohibition by banning access to the activity to most, and creating these bizarre enclaves (native reservations, bizarre cities) where it's suddenly OK to go wild on wagering.

::::it imprisons more people per capita than any other nation. When those inmates get out, they don't easily find jobs, and unfortunately it's back to crime for many of them.

::::Here I'm with you 100%. The US has a staggering incarceration rate, and there's no denying that prisons are unhealthy environments. This is certainly a unique feature of the US. But I'm interested in those studies you quote, and I'm interested in debating exactly what IS unique about the US that causes the gun crime rate to be so high. [[User:Reasonableperson|Reasonableperson]] 17:38, 17 December 2007 (EST)

::::: That's basically the point I made earlier: I don't see that the U.S. is all that much different to other English-speaking western countries, such as Australia, except that it has a higher proportion of Christians (which ''should'' mean that is has ''less'' crime) and it has a much more liberal (sorry!) attitude towards guns. Superficially, this would indicate that the higher rate of violent crime is due to the widespread availability of guns. As for movies, I'll endorse Reasonableperson's comment. Much of what airs on Australian television is produced in America. And much of the Australian content has a lower moral standard than the American stuff! Put it this way Andy, if you think the American movie and TV productions are bad (and much of it is bad), perhaps it indicates that you don't know enough about what's produced elsewhere! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:::: I agree. Of the points raised so far, only the extraordinary prison population is unique to the US - but there's an obvious logical flaw in blaming the level of crime on the number of prisoners. I'd like to throw this one out there though - does the US have a bigger gap between rich and poor than is common in other developed countries, and is this part of the explanation? Certainly, here in Australia we have a subset of the population which is significantly poorer than the rest of us. And that subset (the aboriginal population) has higher rates of violent crime, and also has a very high prison rate. So perhaps in the US the poverty gap is the cause of the crime, the guns are the cause of the severity of the crime, and the prison population is a result of it? [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 05:30, 18 December 2007 (EST)

While this is all very interesting, I would like to know where the "100-1 chance" fact came from. From where I am sitting, it seems to me that more guns are not the answer. You do not put a fire out by adding more fuel to it, especially because more guns will find their way in to inner city streets and gang violence. Put it this way: between 1994 and 1999 there were 253 school related deaths, 60% of which involved hand guns. And in a single year, more children die from gun shots than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined. Scare you yet? Oh, and if you are under 15, you are 12 times more likely to be killed by someone using a gun than in the top 25 industrial countries. combined. So do we need more guns? How about we prevent psychos like the VT shooter from getting a gun[http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm gun safety facts]. How about we prevent another Columbine? Nothing is being done and it is sad. Do you need armor piercing, fully automatic weapons? No. More guns does not lead to less crime, we cannot all be the judge and jury, lets put more money in to policing our streets (by not making it basically suicide to be a policeman in the inner city). What credible studies are you referring to? It seems like in America today, violence is more and more becoming the answer, and it shouldn't be. I do not want to have an argument be settled by a gun shot. It ruins lives.

So what to do. Here is my proposition: Stop selling hand guns. And here is why. First off, they serve no purpose other than to kill another human being. Self-defense, gang violence, home violence, curious children, they serve no purpose. The only reason that they are used in self-defense is because it is too easy for people with ill intent to get them in the first place. Second, it does not impede your hunting or right to bear arms. Listen, a 9mm cannot kill a dear if you are hunting it right. A 9mm can kill a police man, or a cashier, or fellow students if in the wrong hands. Seems like the simplest and most effective answer is to abolish them entirely. Thanks for your time.

{{unsigned|Afee}}
:Whilst I agree with much of that, the main problem I see is that if you stop selling guns, you will effectively be stopping honest people from getting them, whilst the criminals will still get them. That could make the situation worse. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:29, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::Certainly that seems to be the problem faced by US states that have introduced strict gun control where before there was little gun control. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:35, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Aschlafly, I'm just curious, if you are so dedicated to the preservation of human life, why are you so opposed to gun control. There is no secret agenda behind it, the sole purpose of gun control is to limit access to guns and as a result reduce gun violence. [ed. note: deleted inappropriate comment that follows] --[[User:LoveJesus1|LoveJesus1]] 19:50, 21 December 2007 (EST)

: "LoveJesus1", gun control results in a loss of human life. I know [[materialists]] have trouble "seeing" that, but guns deter crime and save lives. Next time you see a police officer look at what he carries. The more citizens who can carry the same thing, the less the crime.

: Don't think we're fooled by [[liberal]]s pretending that "the sole purpose of gun control is to ... reduce gun violence." [[Liberals]] care more about increasing dependency on government, as in [[Cuba]], which has the strictest [[gun control]] in the world. Less guns means more government dependency, and [[liberals]] know that but rarely admit to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 21 December 2007 (EST)

::Aschlafly, comparing gun control in other countries is not a good idea if you want to argue the case for no gun control. And using Cuba as a comparison is, as you know, completely irrelevant - Cuba has a completely different form of government and ideas of freedom. If you insist on comparisons with other countries, then it should be with other wealthy liberal democracies such as the UK or Australia. However, it makes your anti-gun control argument very difficult to support because both of those countries have lower rates of gun and violent crime. In the UK, the police aren't even armed!
::There are too many other factors involved to draw conclusions by comparing other countries' experiences with the legal status of arms. The only valid comparisons, in my humble opinion, are those between US states. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 09:01, 22 December 2007 (EST)

== Change of graph and wording ==

[[image:Robbery victims.png|right|350px]]The graph that I supplied (right) was drawn from Australian Bureau of Statistics data from 1993 to 2005. The [[:Image:Australia crime.gif|graph that Andy substituted]] is, in my opinion, inferior, with three problems:
* It covers the years 1991 to 2000, a smaller range, and particularly only covers a few years after the introduction of gun control.
* The source of the data on which the graph is based is not specified, although I'm not suggesting that it is questionable; it's probably official data from somewhere.
* The graph is being used in the article to make a point that is contradicted by the report the graph came from. The report says of this graph:{{QuoteBox|It's apparent from the graph that the rates for both robbery and armed robbery rose faster for a couple of years after '96 than they had before. Also, the burglary rate was dropping a little from '93 to '96, but then started an obvious rise. The rises would look like a bad effect of the ban/buyback, except that they stopped after '98. The small downturns for all three in '99 and 2000 could be the ban/buyback stopping some upward trend that had begun, but it is just as likely that the trend reversal was caused by elimination or whatever was causing the trend to begin with. Both robbery and armed robbery appear to have stabilized (two years) at rates higher than they were before the Port Arthur incident and the ban/buyback.}} In other words, the report says that the graph is inconclusive, but the article claims that the graph shown an "unmistakable increase in robbery and armed robbery".
Also, the article says "there is no evidence supporting the promised decrease in crime from gun control", yet the graph that I supplied and which was removed ''does'' support that (even if it doesn't ''prove'' it, given that other factors may be at work). Furthermore, other ABS figures that I spotted, such as murder rates, seemed to show the same drop. I picked "robbery" because it was the largest category of violent crime, and would have swamped other figures such as murder figures.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:02, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Also, the article now says that John Lott "demonstrates" (I had "claimed") that gun control in the countries mentioned have resulted in an increase in crime. It is true that he does quote some percentage-rise figures, but there's almost no actual hard data in the reference to really be able to say that he "demonstrates" it. It's more of a claim with the bare minimum of supporting evidence. I haven't had a close look yet, but his claimed percentage rises don't seem to match the ABS figures. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:07, 23 December 2007 (EST)

[[image:robbery victims per 100K.png|right|350px]]
:I've done more searching, and have found figures that appear to match those of the graph from gunsandcrime.org. They only supply a small graph, so one can't compare actual figures, but my new graph (right) appears to match theirs. The differences from the other graph I did (above) are that their graph is crimes per 100,000 people, and their "armed robbery" figures include weapons other than guns. My new graph is the same as theirs in that it is per 100,000 people and includes weapons other than guns. The other significant difference, of course, is that my graph goes to 2005, whereas theirs only went to 2000. I couldn't find the burglary figures that they include on their graph, so I left them off. And because of that, the vertical scale is expanded compared to theirs. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:20, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== ...protected? ==

Aw, man. This has been protected since ''June''? I had just thought of a possible addition, but then I realized that I can't edit. :( Is this normal? I thought protection was just used for a short time to protect against vandalism. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 10:45, 24 December 2007 (EST)

: Thanks for pointing it out and, no, that is not normal for such protection to continue for so long. I unprotected the page per your request. Please be factual and insightful in improving it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::Thank you kindly! --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 11:00, 24 December 2007 (EST)
::: And thanks for the work on tidying up the footnotes. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:30, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== Gun Control and Genocide ==

It is stated here that [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gun_control&curid=8440&diff=357540&oldid=357525 "the facts are provided"] to justify a claim that "Gun control has led to genocide." I disagree. Example: "In 1911, Turkey imposed gun control and then, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million defenseless Armenians were killed." What does the gun control have to do with the genocide? It is not disputed that these three states enacted laws suppressing the free ownership of firearms. What I dispute is the link between ownership restrictions and genocide. Is the author suggesting that gun control led to the easy murder of unarmed civilians (for example, Jews would have been able to defend themselves against Nazi murders if they were able to posess personal firearms)? If this is the case, I feel it should be cleared up. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 13:11, 24 December 2007 (EST)

: Genocide would be impossible, or nearly impossible, against an armed group of millions of victims. That is self-evident. If you have an example of genocide occurring without the state first disarming the victims through use of [[gun control]], then I'd sure like to see it. Most people will use their weapons, if they have them, to defend their families.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::The millions of victims in the cases above were spread all over the place in small populations. Would such populations, even if they did all manage to gather together in one huge group, armed with small arms and rifles have been able to defend themselves against armies armed with airplanes, armor and artillery? Have you been inbibing too much Christmas spirit? By the way I think your contribution is great. The bloggers will love it. Merry Christmas! [[User:CillaHunt|CillaHunt]] 13:42, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::CillaHunt, the last bit of your comment is not productive. I brought forth a legitimate concern of mine, which was in no way derisive of the author of the particular section of the article. I agree with the first part of your comment (the victims were unorganized, etc, and would have a hard time defending against armies), but insulting someone is not constructive to this discussion's goals of improving and clarifying the article. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 13:51, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Well said. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:31, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::: ThomasB, I appreciate your rebuttal of CillaHunt's silly and insensitive remarks. Genocide has occurred multiple times and each time it was preceded by [[gun control]]. It doesn't take a genius to understand why. Airplanes, armor and artillery, by the way, are not the tools of genocide. Rather, genocide is perpetrated by neighbors with state-provided guns taking away victims who lack guns to defend their families. Can that happen without [[gun control]]? It never has, and I think the answer is "no". But I'm open-minded to listen to coherent arguments, if any, that [[gun control]] is irrelevant to the ability to carry out [[genocide]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:57, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::Thanks for your explanation. I had interpreted the article as saying that gun control was the reason for the genocides, not that it was the reason it wasn't able to be prevented. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 14:02, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::: That's a hair-splitting distinction you're trying to draw. I'm not sure there is any distinction in practice between (a) being a reason for something occurring and (b) being a reason that the same thing was not prevented. Without the gun control, it would have been difficult or impossible for the genocides to occur. It seems to me you may seek to cling to gun control without admitting that it facilitated genocide. With all due respect, I'd suggest letting go of the gun control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:17, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::My confusion was really just a matter of semantics. I interpreted "gun control has led to genocide" to mean that the firearms regulations caused people to seek to eliminate an entire ethnicity. Thanks, [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 14:32, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Andy, why do you continue to deny the genocide that occurred in Bosnia? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 17:49, 24 December 2007 (EST)

I would, however, like to make another point with regard to this. For gun control to have enabled genocide in the instances cited, the populations in question would have had to be otherwise armed. Is there any evidence that these populations were, and were able to fight back effectively? The Jews, even when they were organized and armed (as in Warsaw), actually allowed most of their population to be deported before they fought back. A preemptive clarification here, I am in no way attempting to defend gun bans or any more extreme measures of gun control as I fully support individual gun ownership rights. [[User:Cmh|Cmh]] 10:18, 25 December 2007 (EST)

: [[Gun control]] creates the vulnerability that enables [[genocide]] to occur. There has never been [[genocide]] without [[gun control]] first rendering the victims defenseless. Without [[gun control]], there is a powerful deterrent to [[genocide]], so powerful that it has not historically occurred in those circumstances. See the Washington University law journal article cited in the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:30, 25 December 2007 (EST)

So you're saying that if gun control laws were not imposed, Stalin would not have killed upwards of 20 million people? {{unsigned|ComplexModulo}}

== the footnotes are presently messed up for this article ==

the footnotes are presently messed up for this article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:05, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:fixed. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:06, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== Australian election results ==

I removed this from the article:
{{Quotebox|In [[Australia]], the passage of gun control in 1996 and its expansion in 2002 has led to a complete takeover of all nine federal, state and territory legislatures by the socialistic Labor Party, the first time a single party has ever achieved this in Australian history. (The Sydney Morning Herald - [http://www.smh.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/either-way-its-history-in-the-making/2007/11/23/1195753310949.html Either way, it's history in the making])}}
Gun control was brought in in 1996 at the instigation of the federal Liberal Party (conservative) government, who had to get the co-operation of the state governments (it is a state responsibility). Two states objected and had to have their arms twisted, so to speak. Both these were Labor states (Tasmanian and Queensland). The next two elections at state level or above (Western Australia at the end of 1996 and South Australia in 1997) saw Labor governments replaced by Liberal governments. At the federal level, the Liberal Party retained office for the next three elections (1998, 2001, and 2004).

By 2002, all states except South Australia were held by the Labor Party. South Australia went to the Labor Party in February 2002.

So claiming that gun control led to a Labor monopoly seems to be drawing a ''very'' long bow. Especially given that gun control was not an issue in the 2007 federal election that finally resulted in wall-to-wall Labor.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:19, 25 December 2007 (EST)

: Philip, your analysis ''confirms'' rather than disputes the truth of the statement above. The point is that [[gun control]] causes a shift in voter attitudes towards more dependency on government, and this is precisely what has been observed in [[Australia]]. You say that "Especially given that gun control was not an issue in the 2007 federal election that finally resulted in wall-to-wall Labor." But no one claims that the "issue" of gun control itself is what sways the elections towards leftists. It's the increased dependency on government that ''results'' from implementing gun control that causes the voter shift to the left. Leftists understand this and push [[gun control]] for that reason. Why wouldn't [[conservatives]] recognize this effect also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:: Andy, could you clarify what you mean by "dependency"? Dependency in what areas? Social services (which I'd suggest has no connection)? Health services (ditto)? Or security/self defence? In the latter case, the population was always dependent on the police anyway, as very few carried guns as a matter of course. It still seems to be drawing a very long bow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:50, 25 December 2007 (EST)

::: I mean emotional dependence. [[Gun control]] directly requires voters to depend more on government for protection, and that causes support for bigger government. It's an emotional dependence and plainly affects how people vote. And that, of course, is why leftists push [[gun control]] so much. The cause-and-effect in the political results in [[Australia]] and elsewhere is unmistakable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:::: The problem I have with that is one that I've already alluded to: Before gun control in Australia, they always did rely on the government (i.e. the police) for protection. They didn't rely on guns, because most people did not carry guns. I would say from my own observations that there has been ''no'' increase in reliance on government for protection because of gun control. Furthermore, for all practical purposes the police forces are state-run, but gun control was instigated by the ''federal'' government, so your argument is effectively saying that the federal government introduced gun control to increase reliance on state governments, which is absurd to anyone knowing much about Australian politics. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:48, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:::::Philip, do you have any stats showing the level of gun ownership before and after 1996? My guess is that it reduced from a small fraction of the population to a small fraction of a small fraction of the population. What's more, pre-96 I would imagine the vast majority of gun-ownership was in rural areas, but the swing against Howard in 2007 was significant in the cities also. So to argue that the change has been so significant to lead to some sort of dependence on government is bizarre. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 22:37, 26 December 2007 (EST)
:::::: No, I don't have those statistics. This is not a subject that I've ever taken an interest in (and I'm only doing so now because some of the claims are so at odds with my observations here in Oz), so I don't have any statistics "lying around", so to speak. All the statistics I have produced are ones that I've gone looking for. The best (most authoritative) source would be the Australian Bureau of Statistics web-site, so I suggest that you go there and search for gun ownership statistics. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:51, 27 December 2007 (EST)

:Andy,

:You are simply lying if you think that Leftists push gun control to create a dependency on government. More guns equals more crime. I think you should take a walk through Dublin some night, by yourself and see how you get on. We don't have massive gang shootouts here like in the States. And thank God for that. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 19:22, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:: Andy argues that more guns equals ''less'' crime, so if he believes that, he is not lying. Uncivil comments like that do not help your argument. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:48, 25 December 2007 (EST)

"In Britain, for example, the enactment of a ban on most handguns in February 1997[15] resulted in the Labour Party winning a landslide 179 seat majority in the general election later that year, the first time it exceeded 40% of the popular vote in over 25 years. The new government soon extended the ban to cover nearly all handguns, and the Labour Party has remained in power in Britain for over a decade."
I think the above is very misleading - Labour came in to power for a great many reasons, but I think the restrictions of handguns is extremely unrelated. Having grown up with guns as a hunter, many people dislike Labour's anti-gun stance, but the real reason they won was due to an immoral opposition (sexual scandals etc) and the promise of a younger more media-savvy government. --[[User:Mattsday|Mattsday]] 20:15, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: You're arguing against logic and observation. Every gun owner who gives up his gun, or can't obtain a gun, is more likely to vote for the pro-government party. It doesn't take very many of "more likely" shifts to change an election outcome. If the British gun control affected more than 5% of voters -- and it surely did -- then the outcome changes from conservative rule to [[Labour Party]] rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:46, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::While I agree with your position on gun control, here is my reasoning in this particular case:
::If (in the US) the Democrats came along and made a law that ended with me losing my gun or not being able to get one, I'd surely give my votes to the Republicans ASAP, who would likely (hopefully) try to undo the damage done by said law.
::After all, it's not like the Democrats' plan would go much beyond "Guns are bad. Let's control access to them", right? The police was there to protect me before, and I honestly doubt that gun control would suddenly lead to the introduction of Super Troopers patrolling the streets. So voting Democrats after they screwed up would only give them permission to screw up more. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 23:02, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::: I assume that Andy meant "...is more likely to vote for the pro-''gun'' party".
::: Few elections are fought on a single issue. So although gun enthusiasts might like to vote ''against'' the government that took their guns away, they might well vote ''for'' that party if it supported other things that they considered more important than gun ownership. So Mattsday is not arguing against logic, and if (as I suspect, but I don't know) Mattsday is from Britain, then ''he'' would have been the one doing the observing rather than Andy (assuming Andy was not in Britain at the time). Yes, there's a couple of assumptions in that last sentence (that Mattsday was in Britain at the time and Andy wasn't), so if I'm wrong on those assumptions, please correct me.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:46, 30 December 2007 (EST)
:::: Mattsday's observations are substantially correct. Less than 1% of the population owned handguns prior to the 1997 handgun ban (shotguns are widely owned in rural areas but are subject to more relaxed regulation) so the number of people directly affected by the ban was small. It's the first time I've heard it suggested that it was a major factor in the collapse in the Conservative vote -- that started with Black Wednesday and was cemented by the antics of an increasingly scandal-ridden and fractious party over the following years.[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/trends/voting-all_files/image002.gif] It is a mistake to assume that domestic political controversies in the USA will have any salience in other political cultures. [[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 10:35, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::Ashlafly, I think you over-estimate the importance of guns in British society. It is extremely rare for Britons to ever see a gun, let alone handle one or use one. It just isn't in our general culture like it might be in the US. Even the police aren't regularly armed - indeed it's quite a shock for me to fly back into Heathrow airport and see armed police! The gun control imposed upon the British population was perhaps ill-advised and a knee-jerk reaction to a murderous rampage by an armed loon. But it will have had next to zero effect on the outcome of the following general election which was lost by the Conservatives due to numerous other more substantive reasons. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:45, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== General Comment ==

Folks, there have been several edits to the content page that have taken out or obscured factual information. Other edits have misled readers by attributing an enactment of gun control legislation to a particular party in control of government at that the time, without recognizing the media pressure created for the gun control based on a statistically insignificant, but much-publicized, act of violence. I'm going to revert inappropriate edits that obscure the essential facts. Guns, the most effective weapon of self-defense which are used overwhelmingly in self-defense, deserve factual treatment here on Conservapedia. Readers can draw their own conclusions. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== How long do we wait for the effects? ==

Andy's edit comment associated with the removal of some text was, "''removed confusing reference to the opinion of one pro-gun group, and removed emphasis on 2004 crime data relative to 1996 gun control''"

I would like to know the following:
* What was confusing about it?
* Why is 2004 crime data apparently not relevant to 1996 gun control, yet 2007 election results are?
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:04, 25 December 2007 (EST)

: As to the first half, I find it meaningless to say, "such-and-such group feels such-and-such." Suppose a said that a Christian group favored same-sex marriage? It would mean nothing, particularly without a statement of what most Christian groups felt, or what the most credible Christian sources say.

: As to the second half, demographics with respect to crime change over the course of 8 years everywhere. Crime fell worldwide during the period 1996 to 2004, I think, do to declining percentages of teenagers likely to commit crime. But the demographics of voters do not change as rapidly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Inappropriate "fact" tags ==

On [[Wikipedia]], "fact" tags are used to make ideological statements. That is not appropriate, obviously. Two "fact" tags were just inserted here:
* a "fact" tag on the observation that there is "no evidence," but it's impossible to cite a fact for something that is not there
* a "fact" tag on the observation that [[Australia]] moved significantly to the left politically after adopting [[gun control]], which is supported by several cites and, frankly, indisputable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 25 December 2007 (EST)
: "Fact" tags can be used to make ideological statements. They can also be used to ask for a reference for something that is agreed. They can also be used to ask for a reference because the claim is either disputed or questioned.
:* The first fact tag was not that there is "no evidence" but that a decrease in crime (generally, as opposed to gun crime) was "promised". I don't remember this being promised at all.
:* The second fact tag was not disputing that the electorate moved to the left, but that this was "due to" gun control. I don't believe that it was due to that, despite all the comments above about how this ''could'' happen.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:46, 25 December 2007 (EST)

:: It seems self-evident to me that lawmakers promised a safer country from the gun ban, but I've added a cite to that effect to address your concern. Honestly, I can't imagine supporters of the gun ban saying anything else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:02, 25 December 2007 (EST)
::: A "safer country", yes, but specifically through fewer gun deaths, not reduced crime generally. And the reference merely claims what you said above, that lawmakers promised a "safer" country. It does say in what way they claimed it would be safer, so does not claim that lawmakers said that crime generally would be reduced. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:40, 25 December 2007 (EST)

:: On the second point, you put "due to" in quotes but I don't think I used that phrase. Are you quoting me? I thought I said "led to", which is undeniably true. It's a fact and you're free to suggest other causes, but your other causes should explain why Britain also moved left after its gun control, while America did not move left after it ''rejected'' demands for gun control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 25 December 2007 (EST)
::: I thought that I was quoting you, but you are correct: you said "led to", not "due to". But it doesn't make any real difference—in both cases it is indicating causality, which is what I was questioning, and I reject that it's "undeniably true". There's always multiple factors at work in elections and why people vote the way that they do, so it's never a given that a particular issue is the cause, or even a factor, in the outcome of an election.
::: I don't believe that the onus is on me to explain what could be a coincidence (Australia, Britain, and the U.S.), given the small sample size. Rather, I think the onus is on you to explain, if you believe that the same factor is a work in all three cases, why Britain moved to the left straight after the introduction of gun control, whereas Australia moved to the right straight after (see my earlier post above) and only moved left later on, after eleven years in the case of the federal government.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:40, 25 December 2007 (EST)

::::Hear hear!!! It's that lazy correlation = causation argument that keeps cropping up. It's worth noting that at present, although the Labour Party is still in power in the UK, the mood seems to have swung significantly back to the right - at exactly the same time as it swung to the left in Australia!! And of course if you wait long enough, ANY country will swing to the left at some point. So using the flawed logic seen above, you can take any change you like and argue that it ultimately led to a swing to the left. In the case of the change in gun control laws in Australia in 1996, the change happened right at the start of one of the longest periods of continuous right-wing federal government in the nation's history with the swing to the left taking 11 years to arrive. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 23:58, 26 December 2007 (EST)

== WorldNetDaily reference ==

[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304 This article] from WorldNetDaily (WND) is being used as a reference for a couple of points, but I believe that the article is unreliable, possibly from relying on claims and figures from the (Australian) Sporting Shooters Association rather than official figures.

A problem with the claims are that there are no specifics, such as what years they are comparing. Presumably, however, they would be comparing, say, 1999 (as the article was written in 2000) with 1995 or 1996 (1996 being when gun control was introduced). Here are some official figures that I've found, and I've highlighted 1995 and 1999:
{| class="wikitable"
| || '''1995'''||1996||1997||1998||'''1999'''||2000||2001||2002||2003||2004||2005
|- align="right"
| align="left"| Homicides in Australia || '''326'''||314||321||287||'''344'''||316||310||318||302||263||270
|- align="right"
| align="left"| Gun homicides in Australia ||'''58'''||99||75||54||'''62'''||59||50||42||37||32||26
|- align="right"
| align="left"| Homicides in Victoria ||'''62'''||52||63||47||'''62'''||55||65||67||69||47||72
|-
| Gun homicides in Victoria || colspan="11"| <center>Not available (not found)</center>
|}

In particular, I question the following two claims:
* "'''Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent'''"
: One problem is that I can't find a 3.2% rise in murders in the official figures (above). In compiling these figures, I did notice a discrepancy between the two sources (the first two listed [[:image:Robbery victims per 100K.png|here]]), due to having to revise figures in subsequent years, so that ''might'' explain the lack of a 3.2% rise anywhere.
: The more serious problem from WND's point of view is that the figures are fluctuating, not consistently rising. 1996 was down on 1995, 1997 was up on 1996, 1998 was down on 1997, and 1999 was up on 1998! Anyone trying to make a claim that "homicides are up 3.2 percent" must be being selective with the data.
: Furthermore, although WND could not be blamed for this, the years since 1999 have shown a ''downward'' trend, with all years except 2002 and 2005 being drops over the previous year, and those two exceptions not being enough to change the trend.
* "'''In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent'''"
: I can't find gun homicides figures for Victoria at all. But the claim seems very unlikely to be true, or if it is true, it is an exception to the nationwide trend and probably caused by a very low base. Across Australia between 1995 and 1999, gun homicides were about one fifth of all homicides. If that holds true for Victoria, then Victoria's gun homicides for those years would have been around ten to twelve. A 300% increase would bring that up to 40 to 50, which is getting close to Victoria's ''total'' homicide rate. This is extremely unlikely. Alternatively, perhaps Victoria's gun homicide rate was lower than the national average to start with. In this case, it is definitely a very low base and not a good argument. Regardless, even if somehow the 300% figure is true, it must have occurred without an obvious impact on the total homicide rate for the state, and it is the exception to the (national) rule, where gun homicides went down every year except 1996 and 1999, and in 2005 were ''less than half'' the 1995 figure. Also obvious from the figures above is that Victoria's ''total'' homicide rate has fluctuated, with no clear trends up or down.
I'm not questioning some of the other claims (such as assaults being up) simply because I haven't gone to the effort of looking for the figures. But I have to wonder if they can be relied on either.

In summary, the WND article is of questionable accuracy to be used as a reliable source, and the 300% rise is unsafe to use in this article.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 26 December 2007 (EST)

: Improvements to the article are welcome, but even the table above shows clear increases in violent crime, even gun crime in the years following the gun control. The data ten years later is virtually meaningless as their were worldwide declines in crime due to demographics, not gun control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:23, 26 December 2007 (EST)

:: It does not show an increase in gun crime in the years following the new laws!! 1996 was the year of the Port Arthur massacre that led to the new laws. 35 people were killed that day, accounting for the large total seen in 1996 - so you should not be using 1996 as a post-gun-control-laws year. The following two years saw 75 deaths (up on 1995) and 54 deaths, slightly below the 1995 figure. The trend has been downwards ever since, to about half of what the prevailing rate was at the start of the table. So unless you are hanging your argument on the 75 deaths in 1997, which is just one data point out of the 11 given, I'm not sure what you are doing. (Note - over the period 1996 to 2005 the Australian population grew by about 14%, making the downward trend all the more marked.) [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 00:13, 27 December 2007 (EST)

:: I agree. Any "increase" that one might see is by being selective with the figures, picking out an atypical year. The trends are what is important, and the trends are generally downward. (I had meant to point out, as Ferret has now done, that the figures don't allow for population growth, so the downward trend is greater than shown.) Andy, I don't understand what you mean by "worldwide declines in crime ''due to demographics'', not gun control". What "demographics" are you talking about?
:: Also, you (Andy) have been making the point that widespread availability of guns reduces ''all'' (or most? or violent?) crime, and here you claim that the figures show an increase in "violent crime". But the figures don't show "violent crime" at all—they only show homicides. That is, the figures do not include rapes, assaults, armed robbery, etc. Just homicides. So they don't show ''anything'' about "violent crime" per se.
:: Furthermore, the introduction of gun restrictions in 1996 did not mean that all guns were handed in overnight. It took time, and as you noted, there were further restrictions introduced in 2002. So one would expect that the results of gun control legislation would take some time to show up, and eight years (1996 to 2004 for the robbery chart a few sections above) seems quite a reasonable time to me.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:03, 27 December 2007 (EST)

== Denial of right to self-defense ==

<s>I simply included "armed" into the above. Gun control doesn't restrict citizens' rights to self-defense by punching or martial arts or baseball bats... But Karajou reverted me with this bizarre comment on my user page: ''Don't insert a word into Asclafly's statement on the main because you think it should be included; only Aschlafly can do that. Karajou 11:05, 30 December 2007 (EST)''
Only trying to help, you know? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:07, 30 December 2007 (EST)</s>

:That's my mistake; we have a debate going on in the main talk page which got pretty long, so my mistake was not reading it properly. And no, it wasn't bizarre. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:09, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::No problem. I meant it looked bizarre to me :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:10, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== UK 1997 Election ==

I'm a little confused about the linking between gun control in the UK and the Labour victory in the election. Being British myself I can submit more than enough evidence that gun control was very, very low down on the list of factors that combined to throw the Major Government out of power. Instead I could point to sleaze, the fact that the electorate was tired of the Tories, the inability of the Conservative Government to properly manage itself (see 'Breaking the Code', a book by Gyles Brandreth, a member of the Conservative Whip's Office (internal party organisation) which lists the missteps that they seemed to be dogged by), as well as the fiasco (there is no other word for it) of the Exchange Rate Mechanism also led to the Major Government losing its reputation for economic competence. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 09:06, 2 January 2008 (EST)

:I think the fact that you're nearly 500 times more likely to be shot dead in the USA than the UK really speaks for itself. [[User:ApGriffith|ApGriffith]] 20:37, 9 January 2008 (EST)

:: Yes, it does - for the simpleminded. See [[Essay:Top Causes of Rejecting Conservatism]]. In fact, the more thoughtful realize that giving a gun to a stranger is perhaps 99 times more likely to deter and prevent crime than to cause it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:46, 9 January 2008 (EST)

:: The problem with ApGriffith's argument is that it ignores that other factors might be involved. On the other hand, I've yet to see adequately explained what other factors might account for it.[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:21, 9 January 2008 (EST)

::: Other causes are obvious: drug use, broken homes, violent culture, gambling, pornography, high criminal population, etc.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Yes, but at least some of those other factors also appear to apply in other countries with much lower rates of gun homicide. For example, does America really have a much higher drug use than other countries with lower gun homicide rates? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:56, 9 January 2008 (EST)

::::: The [[United States]] does have the highest rate of cocaine use, and by far the highest incarceration rate. The rate of fatherless families is probably far higher in the U.S. also.

::::: There's no getting around the fact that giving a gun to a stranger in any country is perhaps 99 times more likely to deter and prevent crime than to cause it. Less than 1% of people are willing to engage in violent criminal activity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)
::::::I go both ways on this issue: On the one hand the logic seems to go against gun control - as andy pointed out, but in response to Andy: we tell our children not to talk to strangers - should we stop doing that since only less than 1% of people are willing to engage in violent criminal activity? I mean it really is tough, and I agree with the current laws that gun control laws should be dictated on a state-by-state basis --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: It's difficult to get valid comparable figures for some of these things. But I will concede that it does appear to be true that cocaine use in the United States is higher than other countries. I'm not sure if that applies to other illicit drugs also, but Australia does have the advantage of no borders with other countries, making it more difficult than most other places to get illegal substances into the country, so that might apply to other illicit drugs as well.
:::::: It does also appear—although this is where comparable figures are quite a problem—that America's fatherless home rate is a ''little'' higher than Australia, but not "far higher" as you suggested. But it's not likely to be enough to make that much of a difference. One pair of figures I found for single parent families was 16% in the U.S. and 14% in Australia.
:::::: From memory, Australia has about one quarter of all the poker machines in the world, but there wouldn't be too much crime associated with that sort of gambling I expect, and America probably has more casinos per capita than Australia, so you ''might'' be right on that.
:::::: A more violent culture in the U.S. would likely be a ''consequence'' of lack of gun control rather than a cause of more gun deaths, so that one is quite unconvincing. The same might be said for the "high criminal population".
:::::: Pornography you've suggested before and I've questioned that, and you've not produced any further evidence of pornography being worse in America, so I don't accept that one either.
:::::: In summary, at least one or two of your "other factors" might be true in the sense that those factors are more pronounced in America, and theoretically could lead to more gun deaths, but even though this means that one can't say that a higher gun death rate is not due to other factors, it still doesn't prove that it's not do do with the prevalence of guns. In other words, it ''could'' be other factors, but it still ''could'' be the guns. The case is still not made.

:::::: "''There's no getting around the fact that giving a gun to a stranger in any country is perhaps 99 times more likely to deter and prevent crime than to cause it.''": That appears to be a ''reasonable conclusion'', but it's not a "fact". Furthermore, I can put just as reasonable argument the other way: There's no getting around the "fact" that the more guns you have in a country, and the fewer controls on their safekeeping, the more likely that criminals will be able to get their hands on a gun, and the more likely a gun will be used in a moment of passion or rage to kill someone, and the more likely that someone will be shot by accident.
:::::: So this issue is simply not as simple and straightforward as you make it out to be.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:07, 10 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: I'm sorry, but aren't we getting more than a bit away from the original point here? Gun control, especially in the wake of the Dunblane massacre, had no influence, at all, on the 1997 General Election. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:18, 13 January 2008 (EST)

==Why is gun control equated with the left wing?==

I have always been under the impression that people on the right tend to favour more ordered, law abiding societies. Surely, therefore, gun control is more likely to appeal to the ''right'', rather than the left. Take the Roman Empire - the carrying of arms (swords rather than guns, obviously) was banned for civilians, and it was a sign that an area had slipped into barbarism when this could no longer be enforced when the empire fell. [[User:ApGriffith|ApGriffith]] 12:16, 11 January 2008 (EST)

: There's no disputing that the left promotes [[gun control]], regardless of whether it actually reduces crime (it doesn't), and that [[conservatives]] support a full right of self-defense that includes the right bear arms. So your impression is wrong, I'm afraid.

: Are you right about the Roman Empire? I'm skeptical ... [[Peter]] carried a sword and cut off a soldier's ear at the beginning of the [[Passion]], and that was in the Roman Empire circa A.D. 33. Swording carrying was so common, in fact, that [[Jesus]] even praised the value in carrying one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:26, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::Peter was armed illegally. With regard to the right promoting the ownership of guns by civilians, this is not true of the right outside the USA. Indeed it was the Major government that tightened up the controls. With a pretty comprehensive ban on ownership of guns in the UK crime involving firearms is very low indeed - not even the police are usually armed. [[User:ApGriffith|ApGriffith]] 12:32, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::I wonder if Peter was armed illegally. I think I'm right in saying that they were in a semi-autonomous region of the Roman Empire and could have had various by-laws allowing armed civilians. Don't know just speculating. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:36, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::: Doubtful that Peter was armed illegally. Why wasn't he arrested then? I'd like to see some evidence for your claim. Swords were so common that Jesus even praised arming oneself with them.

::: The left led the push for [[gun control]] in the U.K. Let's not kid anyone here. A highly publicized school massacre followed by an immense media and leftist push got the job done. The Major government was a reluctant participant, at best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:37, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::''Why wasn't Peter arrested?'' Can you seriously not think of a logical explanation for that? - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 11:00, 12 January 2008 (EST)

It's equated with the left wing because the liberal left are its primary proponents. They want the government to spearhead all social change, especially unpopular programs which can be forced on others.

By the way, I know a man in a US anti-terrorist force (sorry, I will not reveal any secrets here) who was nearly killed overseas because of gun control. He was [[unarmed]], escorting a captured terrorist when armed men attacked him. It was a miracle that he survived. Yes, he credits [[God]] for preserving his life.

But imagine the insanity of forbidding an anti-terrorism officer to carry a pistol! That combined with the rules against so-called "[[racial profiling]]" which means that Arabs and Muslims can't be excluded from access to secret information simply because some white or Christian Englishman has "a funny feeling" about him.

Liberals almost got my friend killed!! That's why I oppose them so strongly: they are the party of death; see [[Communism]], which killed over 100 million people ([[genocide]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:41, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:Ed, are you sure that it wasn't simply a matter of your friend not having the right to carry arms in a foreign country? Certainly a UK anti-terrorism officer escorting a terrorist in the UK would be armed (if it was deemed necessary) but only on very rare occasions are foreign law-enforcement officers allowed to be armed in the UK. Arming the police (or anyone else) is not a liberal issue in the UK. At least no more than it is a conservative one. While I remain respectfully ignorant of the details of your friend's incident, American security personnel do have a reputation for not trusting local law enforcement agencies and try to conduct law enforcement on their own terms while abiding (mostly) with the local laws. It might have been (although this is of course pure personal conjecture on my part) that your friend's US agency might have been unwilling to accept armed local law enforcement assistance and therefore carried the risk of being unarmed while escorting a dangerous terrorist.
:There are two interesting exceptions to this general rule about foreign law enforcement agents not allowed to be armed in the UK. One is the French police at some UK ports and the Channel Tunnel entrance. The other is US armed protection officers during the visit of the US President. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:54, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:: Seeing armed police always makes me feel uneasy. I think it's instinctive. I grew up with unarmed cops around, and seeing them armed makes me feel freaked out. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 08:59, 14 January 2008 (EST)

== Overview ==

Where do they teach anyone that the Overview for an encyclopedia article goes in the middle? - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 11:58, 12 January 2008 (EST)

== "Western Societies" ==

The "Western societies" edit strikes me as unjustified, and even offensive. It implies that non-Western societies primarily use guns to attack each other. I don't think so!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:37, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
: It may not be that accurate, i.e. too narrow, but neither was the previous wording accurate, in my opinion. In some parts of the world, guns do seem to be more for offensive purposes, but perhaps I was a bit hasty with making that change. I think the wording needed to be changed, though. It was a very general statement, making no distinction between different uses for guns. Guns are used for (a) personal defensive purpose, (b) sporting (target) shooting, (c) hunting (duck shooting, deer shooting, etc.), (d) shooting pest animals, and other farming purposes, (e) culling excessive animals, (f) police and security guard purposes, (f) military purposes, (g) crime, (h) para-military(?) purposes (rebels, etc.), (i) terrorism, and perhaps others. In the U.S., most of those would apply, except (hopefully) the last couple. And apart from perhaps military, (a) is probably accounts for most gun sales. In some other western countries (e.g. Australia), (a) would not apply, but (b) to (f) apply (and a little bit of (g)). In some other parts of the world, the relative proportions would change quite considerably, and I wonder if (a) is really all that high in those places. But then, does (f) come under the category of "defensive" or not? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:45, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Philip, violent criminals are less than 1% of the population in ''all'' countries, Eastern or Western. There is no way to convert that basic fact to a claim that guns are purchased mostly for criminal or militarily offensive purposes ''anywhere''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::: Andy, that may be so (although I suspect that there are ''some'' places where the figure is not as low as 1%), but that response only compares (a) to (f) and (g). There's also (b), (c), (d), (e), (h), and (i). Now perhaps they don't make up a large percentage of sales either, but then again, perhaps some of them do in some countries (e.g. Australia). I'm happy for it to be changed, although not happy for it to be changed back to what it was, as that was too simplistic. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:50, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

==Merely laws? / Opening graph==

Gun control is not simply a legislative act. Had there been guns before nations or empires, it would be simply an act of personal politic. I understand that the arguement I just outlined is purely hypothetial, but it has relevance, so lemme get to that. The opening of this article, within the first three words, outlines that it is purely to discuss gun control '''laws'''. I haven't read the entirety of the article (it's freakin' yuge), so perhaps I'm being hasty here. But is there any kind of laws which do not simply refer to "firearms", "projectiles", "guns", etc., as anything but axioms. Who's to say a bow-and-arrow aren't just a sharp, slow, wooden gun? I'm serious about this. Gun control, in essence, is about the right to carry shaped metal; about who has the right to instigate friction, momentum, and chemical reactions. It is from this position that I consider myself anti-gun control (don't tack me up for POV-pushing, I mention this about myself in the interest of full disclosure).

My second point is the statement that weapons are "acquired mostly for defensive and sporting purpouses". As a website which takes into account, and is somewhat infamous for points of view expressed on, as well as talk page debates on, subjects such as Creation, Religion, the Universe, sexuality, etc., I think statements like this should be broadened in terms of scope and history rather than definition or other such criterion. Through the course of human history, guns have overwhelmingly been meant for military purpouses; to kill other people on the other side of an imaginary borders. The AK-47 alone has been produced, in various forms, almost 600 million times, mostly to foment and engage in revolutions. It is irresponsible and false to say that guns are acquired mostly for defensive/sporting purpouses. Unless, of course, this articles takes some post-human objectivist thing about all of us really just being animals, and all murder is just "sporting". But that's just as ridiculous.

[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 16:45, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
: I wasn't happy about the "mostly defensive" wording either (and the "sporting" bit got added as a result). But I think that "mostly defensive" might be closer to correct than you realise. First, the phrase is in the present tense, so what was the case in the past is not relevant. Sure, maybe some history could be included in the article, but it doesn't have to be in that phrase. Second, even in the past, if people acquired weapons for offensive purposes, likely at least as many acquired them for ''defensive'' purposes, to defend themselves against those who got them for ''offensive'' purposes. So the bit about them being mostly for defensive purposes is likely to be correct in most cases, I suspect. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:11, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::Wilson's argument should be sourced and referenced to some typical group or individual who espouses it. I hardly think he's the only one who thinks this way, it it would be good to provide a contrasting view:

::* Through the course of human history, guns have overwhelmingly been meant for military purpouses; to kill other people on the other side of an imaginary borders. The AK-47 alone has been produced, in various forms, almost 600 million times, mostly to foment and engage in revolutions. It is irresponsible and false to say that guns are acquired mostly for defensive/sporting purpouses.

::It is a typical [[liberal]] POV that we need stricter gun control laws, on the grounds that "guns have only one purpose, i.e., to kill people" and that "they are used more for offensive purposes (i.e., selfish aggression) than defensive purposes".

::We can contrast the liberal POV with the facts which Lott brings out. In America there are at least one million defensive uses of guns each year. This doesn't even count the number of robberies and shootings that don't occur simply because someone is known to be armed. Who would dare shoot a Secret Service agent while she was protected Hillary or Dubya? And how many people dare stick up a Brink's guard with a pistol in plain view? (Don't forget policemen in uniform.)

::As to the larger issue of whether guns are bad in general, we must ask whether the "[[just war]]" concept has any validity. Would God ever bless a nation to fight back against a would-be conqueror? A deeper and thornier question might be, would God ever bless one people to conquer another? (See [[Book of Joshua]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:33, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::: Gun control is also the POV of many conservatives, and their reasons are not (limited to) "guns only have one purpose" nor "they are used more for offensive purposes". There is also, for example, "guns can kill accidentally and in moments of passion, which they couldn't if they weren't there". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:26, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Picture ==
Before I get in a edit war I would like to know how the current picture adds anything to the article except make it seem like a blog entry. Please rationally support your arguments or don't comment back. No insults or foundationless name calling (i.e. liberal ________). There is too much of that here. I remove the picture in one day unless there is a decent argument presented. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 19:17, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
:Instead of deleting the picture, how about adding a caption along the lines of "A poster produced by pro-gun activists", or whatever is actually the case with that image? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:44, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

== External Links ==

Removed the following two links since they are pro gun-control and more importantly are misleading:
*[http://www.guninformation.org/ Gun Control and the Second Amendment]
*[http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm Myth: Switzerland proves that high gun-ownership doesn't increase murder]

For example the latter site claims (as oopposed to the incorrect description provided above):
"Switzerland is frequently cited as an example of a country with high gun ownership and a low murder rate. However, Switzerland also has a high degree of gun control, and actually makes a better argument for gun regulation than gun liberalization."

{{unsigned|Jlewis}}
: Since when is being "pro gun-control" a reason to remove a link?
: And how does the bit you quote make it misleading? I ''think'' you might be saying that the title of the second page is somehow contradicted by the quote from it, but I can't see any contradiction.
: I'm adding them back in.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

== Switzerland ==

I'm going to take out the section on Switzerland, as the content is of doubtful accuracy. It cites a BBC article from 2001 which appears from other sources (e.g. [http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071209090621AATAp4K] and [http://digg.com/political_opinion/Switzerland_and_the_gun]) to be either incorrect or out of date. In particular, it claims that "the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept", which appears to be outright nonsense, given that such statistics are available (e.g. [http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm] and [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita]). Further, those statistics contradict the claim currently in the article that "Switzerland has one of the world's lowest gun crime rates" (which raises the question of how one would know that if there's no statistics kept!), yet those last two links show that Switzerland has one of the ''highest'' rates of industrialised countries (ahead of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, for example).

== Populations ==

Guns aren't actually bad in general. According to Thomas Malthus (do not quote me on this, Quote Malthus), the only things keeping the human population under control are wars, famines, and disease. Today, we have much less diseases and famines than were during Malthus's time and we are quickly approaching our carrying capacity. Therefore, if there are more guns in circulation, the human poulation would be kept in check again. So guns are actually helpful.
-Sundance
: Malthus was wrong (prosperity tends to suppress population growth, as does China's one-child policy), and I very much doubt that we ''are'' "quickly approaching our carrying capacity". So your macabre claim is nonsense. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:24, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

You have to realize there are two types of over-population. One is the obvious excessive population growth of humans. The other focuses on over-population pollution wise. The more wealth pepole have, the more they pollute and the more they use up natural resources. Carrying capacity is defined as the number of organisms an ecosystem could sustain and we're using up envionmental resouces at an increasing rate. Therefore, prosperity would lead to the same consequence as overpopulation. And we are quickly approaching our carrying capacity becuase we are using up more and more natural resources. My claim is not nonsense. -Sundance
: That's two ''problems with'' overpopulation, not two ''types''.
: The claim that the wealthier people are the more they pollute is not necessarily true. The wealthiest nations are the ones that have done the most to limit pollution, whereas the most polluting nations have been places like the much poorer former eastern European countries. Pollution is not inextricably tied to wealth.
: That ''some'' resources such as fossil fuels are finite does not mean that there are not other resources, many renewable, that could replace them.
: In ''this'' post you've put a much more reasonable argument than your previous post regarding guns being helpful. ''That'' post was nonsense, and as ''this'' post doesn't defend that point, this post does nothing to change the fact that your previous post ''was'' nonsense.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:06, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

== Law abiding use vs. criminal use ==

The article now says, "In the United States, law-abiding uses of guns outnumber criminal uses by about a factor of 1000 to 1", with the reference being "http://www.americanselfdefense.com/gunfacts3.0.pdf (p. 60)". Is this a reference to that page saying "Percentage of guns used in crimes: 0.09%"? If so, I believe that it has been misunderstood, as that is talking about the percentage ''of guns'', not the percentage of ''uses of guns''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:48, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

== Incorrect Items About the United Kingdom Crime Level ==

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita According to this page the UK has a lower murder rate than America even with the UK gun laws. The UK also has less assaults and stabbings. Yet on the Gun Control page it states the opposite. Shouldnt Conservapedia correct the entry? I would do it but only a mod can do it.

Thanks

--[[User:EllisUSA|EllisUSA]] 22:17, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Removal of my edits ==
Might I ask why ASchlafly decided to remove my edits? I will concede that the formulation could have done with some work, but I fail to see what the problem with the content was...

--[[User:Trinity123|Trinity123]])

: Your edit was pure opinion, and one lacking in logic. Guns have deterrent value whether used or not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:25, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

== On "Genocide" in the article ==

How does the genocides in the Soviet Union, Germany, and Turkey have anything to do with gun control? The genocides didn't happen as a result of gun control, nor were the control laws an influence on the decision on the murders of millions. I can expect someone to say "if they have weapons to defend themselves it wouldn't have happened", which isn't exactly true. The army of a massive state, like that of the Soviet Union, and the opressive personality cult states with a militarist society, like that of Nazi Germany, pretty much wouldn't be effected by armed militias. Taking those "examples" and applying it to gun control in the United States is just absurd, like somehow liberals promote racial genocide? Communism, Nazism (or National Socialism) isn't in anyway connected to liberalism and the center-left in America, I'm not trying to defend liberals here but saying they promote laws that inevitably lead to genocide is just crossing the line there. They have many gun control laws in Asia, Japan and South Korea are good examples. [[User:CrimsonKing|CrimsonKing]] 22:58, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

== Gun control in Britain ==

I have removed the following fragment:

"In [[Britain]], for example, the enactment of a ban on most handguns in February 1997<ref>As in Australia, gun control passed in [[Britain]] based on a highly publicized but isolated and statistically insignificant act of violence.</ref> directly resulted in the [[Labour Party]] winning a landslide 179 seat majority in the general election later that year, the first time it exceeded 40% of the popular vote in over 25 years. The new government soon extended the ban to cover nearly all handguns, and the [[Labour Party]] has remained in power in [[Britain]] for over a decade."

It cites no sources, and is therefore in my mind pure speculation, the use of the phrase "directly resulted" is extremely strong, and needs to be supported by a suitable reliable citation to justify inclusion. If necesary I can find numerous sources citing completely unrelated reasons for Labor's 1997 election victory. [[User:ConcernedScientist|ConcernedScientist]] 09:11, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Liberal Deceit ==

The article does use the word deceit, so if it talks about liberal deceit, it's not very obvious. Additionally, this article describes the conservative position, should we put this in the conservatism category? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== Reversion of Ed Poor's edit ==

I reverted the inclusion of the quote "Even more troublesome is the fact that the places where gun control laws are toughest tend to be the places where the most crime is committed with illegal weapons." for the following reasons:
* It was taken out of context. The context was a United States study, but inclusion in the article made no reference to the U.S. and was in the introduction, where it would be taken as a general (worldwide) claim.
* The edit came a day after a [http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,24744138-5005961,00.html news report] here in Oz that gun murders are way down ("Only 11 per cent of murder victims were killed with a firearm, the lowest proportion on record and down four per cent on 2005-06.") and all murders are also down ("The statistics show homicide rates have fallen by a third in the last six years.")
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:26, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:*And America, bless her, has a 12% rate, and what? '''200 million more people than Oz?''' America comes out the winner yet again. :D --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:47, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::: Given that we are comparing ''rates'', not actual numbers, how is 12% better than 11%? And can you give a reference for the 12% please? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:07, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:: [[Gun control]] causes an increase in assaults, muggings, robberies, kidnappings, burglaries, and ... fear. It's no different in Australia. See [http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2007/facts_and_figures_2007.pdf]. When the aging population is taken into account (older people commit fewer crimes than younger people), then the increase in crime from gun control is even larger. Basic logic dictates this result, as defensive uses of guns inevitably outnumber criminal uses by a 100 to 1 ratio or more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::: And yet the reference you provided does not support all your claims:
:::* Assaults: Yes, there was an increase (p. 12 of your reference)
:::* Muggings: I assume that these are included in assaults; the term is not used in your reference.
:::* Robberies: "The rate for robbery peaked in 2001. Following a subsequent decline, the rate has levelled out to 84 per 100,000 in 2006." (p.12)
:::* Kidnappings: "The rate of kidnapping remained between 3 and 4 per 100,000 between 1996 and 2006." (p.12)
:::* Unlawful entry with intent (UEWI) (burglaries): "The rate of UEWI remained relatively stable from 1996 to 2001 and has declined since then." (p.13)
:::* Fear: The reference did not seem to document how fear might have changed.
::: The aging population would affect the figures, but again the reference doesn't mention that, so it is no more than speculation how much affect it would have. I could just as easily and validly speculate that Australia's increasing intake of refugees from countries with more lawlessness should have caused an ''increase''.
::: So basically, only one of your claims was supported by your reference.

::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:07, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:::: Philip, you're arguing against logic. The number of assaults went up by about 50%. Kidnappings almost doubled. When adjusted for age, violent crime went up across the board when gun control is imposed. Deny it all you like, as you have free will to do so. But 99% of gun purchases and uses are for defensive purposes, and that inevitably means that violent crime goes up when gun control is imposed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:29, 3 December 2008 (EST)
::::: If I'm arguing against logic, then perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain the logic in a formal way, because you are arguing against the facts in your own reference! And while you're at it, please also produce the following:
:::::* Figures for your claim that "When adjusted for age, violent crime went up across the board...", because the reference doesn't mention it.
:::::* Evidence that, in Australia, "99% of gun purchases and uses are[/were] for defensive purposes", because I'd be quite sure that was simply not true.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:49, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: Philip, obviously it's a fool's errand to debate with anyone who has a closed mind, and I don't intend to do so. Only 1 in 1000 Australians commit violent crimes. A higher fraction, by orders of magnitude, have bought or used guns. If you doubt my 99% estimate, then propose your own. But don't insist on supporting gun control while not forming an estimate about that ratio. That would be the ultimate in irrationality.

:::::: Virtually every conservative rejects gun control. A majority of the U.S. Congress rejects it. Australia has moved dramatically and predictably to the left since embracing gun control. I suggest you reconsider the issue, but that's obviously up to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:17, 4 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: "''...it's a fool's errand to debate with anyone who has a closed mind...''": So now I'm a fool?
::::::: I didn't ask you to continue debating. I asked you to provide evidence to back up your claims. Your blatant failure to do that is very telling.
::::::: "''Only 1 in 1000 Australians commit violent crimes. A higher fraction, by orders of magnitude, have bought or used guns.''": Can you back up ''that'' claim (the second sentence)? I very much doubt that it's true.
::::::: "''If you doubt my 99% estimate, then propose your own.''": So now you're asking me to make up figures to support my argument? Is that because that's what you do?
::::::: "''But don't insist on supporting gun control while not forming an estimate about that ratio.''": I ''have'' formed an estimate about the ratio. That's why I questioned yours, because my estimate is ''much'' lower than yours. But my estimate doesn't have an actual figure attached, because I prefer to stick with known evidence, not made-up figures. (For the record, I believe that gun purchases and use for sporting shooters, hunters, and gun collecting would have far outweighed guns bought and used for defensive purposes. If you include guns bought by police and other security forces as "defensive", then ''perhaps'' "defensive" outweighs other uses, but still by nowhere near 99%. Further, this is talking mostly about ''purchase'', not ''use''. Actual ''use'' for defensive purposes would be ''far'' outweighed by sporting and hunting use.)
::::::: "''That would be the ultimate in irrationality.''": It's not irrational to ask someone to provide evidence for their claims.
::::::: "''Virtually every conservative rejects gun control.''": In America, perhaps, but we are not talking about America. In Australia, where we are talking about, that claim is completely false, and you should know that, except that you've closed your mind to the possibility.
::::::: "''Australia has moved dramatically and predictably to the left since embracing gun control.''": It's the height of irrationality to keep repeating long-refuted claims.

::::::: To summarise, your first post in this section was not a direct response to what I posted, but I replied to your specific claims by showing them to be wrong. You tried disputing a few of them, but by and large ignored the actual refutations, opting instead for a sweeping dismissal of my rebuttals (I'm "arguing against logic"), and introducing a new, unfounded claim. When I question you on ''that'' claim, you introduce some ''new'' claims (new to ''this'' discussion), rather than address the specific claims you raised and I refuted. Changing the subject like this shows that you have no good argument.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:39, 4 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Philip, your angry posting is an argument with yourself at this point. In open-minded discussions, estimates are common and helpful. Jumping on someone else's estimates while refusing to provide your own is a sign of bullying rather than open mind. Rant and insist on [[last wordism]] if you like, but I'm not going to waste any more time with your approach. The logical and political rejection of the fallacy of [[gun control]] is so widely accepted in the United States that gun control is rarely advocated in most states here any more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 4 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::: You are still avoiding supporting ''your'' arguments. Even Ed Poor below calls for facts and quoting studies. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:27, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Slow down, pardnuh! When Andy said "fool's errand" he was referring to himself. Let's not try to settle this by shouting one another down. Simply quote studies: that's where we get our facts.

My mind is not made up. I am open to being shown that "gun control" can have good effects. I sure don't want to have to go around carrying a gun all the time. I'd rather live where no one wants to kill or rob me. God knows, this would be heaven. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:16, 4 December 2008 (EST)
: Yes, Ed, I know he was referring to himself. My comment apparently went over your head. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:27, 4 December 2008 (EST)

"Jumping on someone else's estimates while refusing to provide your own is a sign of bullying rather than open mind." I fully agree with that statement, but how does it square with an earlier statement of yours from [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study&diff=492631&oldid=492623 here]: "One need not propose an alternative, or a solution, in order to identify a flaw."? {{unsigned|DuncanC}}

== Gun control debate vs. greater emphasis on changing violent thinking of society ==

I don't pretend to be greatly informed on the gun control debate. I do know of an interesting study in Canada. It seems when television (which certainly has its share of gratuitous violence) was first introduced one town or city did not have it for an extended period but if memory recalls a somewhat nearby town did have television. It seems as if the town that did have television, had a noticeable increase in crime.

It seems to me that more time and serious effort should be spent changing people's attitudes about senseless violence than attempting to excessively control gun ownership.

Switzerland has the highest rates of gun ownership, but low rates of gun related crime compared to the rest of Europe. I think this is likely because the Swiss have less violent attitudes and beliefs. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:30, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:That is indeed interesting. One wonders if their television is as Godless as ours, as full of violence. Some might assume so, but it would be interesting to see if there are studies available... --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:35, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:::Maybe the crime rate went up as people now have TVs to steal :) [[User:BrianF|BrianF]] 19:53, 4 December 2008 (EST)

:: From what I've read of Switzerland, although they do have higher rates of gun ownership, there's also pretty strict controls on them. But I think that what is relevant here is that this entire issue is to do with a lot more than just guns and their availability, but includes society attitudes, media influences, general policing practices, and so much more. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:04, 3 December 2008 (EST)
:::Such as violent videos and computer games. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 04:22, 3 December 2008 (EST)
switzerland is a bad example about gun control because every man within a certain age is a member of the swiss army reserve and must have his service weapon at home with him. [http://www.gunownersofvermont.org/swiss_army.html Here] [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:09, 4 December 2008 (EST)
::::Markr, does the Swiss Army Reserve use non-deadly water rifles? :) On a more serious note, it would be interesting to know what percentage of the Swiss have handguns and compare that relative to other European nations. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:25, 4 December 2008 (EST)
::::: what I am trying to convey is that the swiss statistics do not fairly compare with countries where gun ownership is a choice. I would also expect variences in accidents because of the military training they receive. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:44, 4 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Whilst all males have guns in Switzerland, you can't buy ammunition for them. Same with the officers handguns. They all have guns and a sealed box of ammunition which is regularly inspected to ensure that they have not been opened. For any gun other than your military weapon you have to go through tight licensing. [[User:BrianF|BrianF]] 19:51, 4 December 2008 (EST)

== Riddle me this... ==

I read the above discussion ("Reversion of Ed Poor's edit") with interest. I then looked at the section in the article headed "Gun control outside the USA" which regrettably makes no reference to Australia. I then went and looked at the murder rates and rates of gun related death in the US and Australia.

What struck me was that there is a huge difference between the two countries which does not appear to be explained by anything contained within the article.

The homicide rates are: US: 5.7 per 100,000; Australia: 1.28 per 100,000.

The firearm-related homicide rates are: US: 3.72 per 100,000; Australia: 0.44 per 100,000.

It appears from those figures that firearms have a huge input into the high murder rate in the US. About 2/3rds of homicides in the US are by gun. Only about 1/3rd of homicides in Australia are by gun. And why are the homicide rates so different?

I suggest that gun control in Australia does have the effect of lowering the homicide rate. However, I suggest that the figures indicate that it is not the only factor. But what else is at work?

More importantly, the article as it stands is a piece of advocacy against gun control. Any chance of an encyclopedic article? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I got the above figures from WP. I note that they are not all for the same years. The gun-related death rates are older figures. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:37, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== Australia ==

The recent edits of Aschlafly contain a number of errors, misconceptions and misleading statements.

Australia is not "far more rural" than the US. Australia may have fewer drug problems but I am not sure how exactly you measure the number of "drug problems". It may have always had a lower homicide rate but it has probably also always had a stricter gun control regime. It was not "leftists" that demanded strict gun control after the Port Arthur killings. Indeed it was the very conservative Howard government that introduced the changes. The country did not then move to the left politically but kept Howard in office for 11 years. It is also untrue to link increases in assualts to gun control. Any rises in the assualt rates appear unrelated to gun control. See [http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4524A092E30E4486CA2569DE00256331 here]. Accordingly I have reverted the changes. I would be happy to discuss. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:54, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: We've discussed this before. Don't reinsert your liberal bias.

: [[Gun control]] was pushed in Australia by the media, which (surprise, surprise) is [[leftist]]. A decade later, the entire country at virtually every level is (surprise, surprise) controlled by [[leftists]], now that the people rely more on the government for protection. And it is true (surprise, surprise) that assaults increased as a result of stricter [[gun control]].--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::You've never been to Australila have you? No-one who has *any* knowledge at all of Australian politics links *any* of the elections since 1996 to gun control. And as I said, Howard remained in office for 11 years. Gun control was one of his first major issues as Prime Minister. He is Australia's '''second longest serving Prime Minister'''.

::You clearly didn't look at the page that I referred to from the Australian Bureau of Statistics did you? There is no indication that gun control had any relationship to rates of assault. Take a look. If I am wrong I would be delighted for you to point it out.

::Now, you've told me not to reinsert my "liberal bias". I do not wish to insert any bias into any article. If I am wrong I would certainly not want to place incorrect information in the article. On the other hand, I am sure that if you are wrong you would want me to fix it up.

::Why don't you have a look at the statistics and get back to me. If I don't hear from you I will assume that you want me to correct the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: TCochrane, address my points. Yes, newspapers are [[leftist]], yes, they did cause the stricter gun control to pass, and, yes, Australia has moved further left than ever in history as a result. Obviously the shift did not happen immediately, as incumbents enjoy inherent advantages. But the shift did inevitably come, which is why leftists push so hard for irrational gun control.

::: Insist on reinserting your liberal bias and your account will be blocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::How about you address my points?

::::So far as your points go: newspapers are leftist? Some Australian newspapers are. Which ones are you talking about? Did they "cause" the stricter gun control? I would have thought it is hard to substantiate that statement. How do show that newspapers caused a particular political decision? Was it the papers or was it public opinion? Chicken or egg? Tell me how and why you say it was the papers. And which papers.

::::As to your other point, I have already addressed it. No-one who has any knowledge of Australia at all links the current political landscape, 12 years later, to the gun control measures. You're right out there on your own with that one.

::::Now, do you want an accurate article or just a piece of blogging? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Gun control

2008-12-27T00:26:48Z

TCochrane: /* Australia */

Quote: "This right is a natural right which we are endowed by our Creator with, and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly recognizes this pre-existing natural right of individuals to own and carry tools useful for self-defense."

This assertion requires citation to comply with the Commandments, as, no matter how rational and obvious, it is a personal opinion. Additionally, it would be useful, and would strengthen the assertion, if a clearer explanation of the constitutional right to carry tools really exists, vis-a-vis pre-existing natural rights. If a constitutional scholar is available, it would be great if he could comment here, as the Second Amendment is of the utmost importance and we should support it more clearly.

:I agree, the wording of the Second Amendment is hardly explicit. Also, Jesus reprimanded Peter for trying to defend them with a sword, so whether our Creator wants us to defend ourselves with guns is debatable. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 12:57, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Besides: the "natural" sic for (inalienable?) right stems for the [[Declaration of Independence]] not from the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]]. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I think my version was more clear and accurate, but it's your site.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 09:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The Second Amendment gives 'The People' - that is The American People (not persons as in individuals) the right to arm itself, specifically against the British who claimed sovereignty over the American People, forbidding them to bear arms except under the King.

Countries with gun control have fewer homicides, as do US states with gun control. And as Daniel B Douglas points out Jesus requires his followers to turn the other cheek: I certainly don't remember God asking us to arm ourselves to the teeth. KT

The Bill of Rights is specifically about INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. If you think Jesus Christ, the Son of God is a pacifist then you should read about His second coming in the Book of Revelations. In all countries without a similar version of our 2nd Ammendment right have fewer individual freedoms and rights. Gee, if only we were like other countries, sigh.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:04, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:You are wrong about states with stricter gun control laws. It's precisely the other way around, as [[John Lott]] shows in ''[[More Guns, Less Crime]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:36, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Patriot Act==

Cut:
:Interestingly enough, the USA PATRIOT Act is another law that restricts liberties in the name of safety, yet those in favor of the PATRIOT ACT are often opposed to gun control.

What does "another law that restricts liberties" mean? Is it a "restriction" that any overseas phone call I make to a suspected terrorist will be monitored?

Where is the contradiction between wanted terrorists thwarted, and wanting to defend oneself against muggers and rapists? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== VIRGINIA TECH ==

So - is NOW a good time to discuss things like waiting periods (I beleive Virginia has none), conceal laws(Virginia lets you do that) and other such unpleasantries???? [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 20:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT) 20:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Any time is a good time to help craft a balanced article presenting arguments for and against gun control laws. I have seen arguments on both sides enough to fill up several books.

:Can you boil it down to 2,000 words or less?

well, cars still kill wayyy more people.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 21:55, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:Uhm... So anything that kills less that cars per year should be legal to have and use? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::47,000 fatal car accidents per year in the U.S. versus around 1,000,000 non-fatal uses of guns in self-defense. I'd ban cars on that basis, but there's obviously much more to it. Do we have an article summarizing the findings of [[John Lott]], the statistician who wrote ''[[More Guns, Less Crime]]''? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:08, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::'''Question''': What happens if one of the students who was shot had a gun with which to defend himself? '''Answer''': there would be less people dead then there are now. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 22:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::'''Counter question''': How many students would be killed every year in shootouts in schools, if we allowed people to carry guns there? I bet even the accidental shootings would kill more people nationwide, not to mention all the things people can do when they are angry, gang related stuff and so on. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:40, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Question''': what happens if the murderer hadn't been able to get a gun? '''Answer''': there would be ''many'' less people dead then there are now. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:'''Question''': Who are and who are not prevented from getting guns by gun control laws? '''Answer''': Law abiding citizens are prevented from getting guns and criminals are not. --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 22:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::'''Reply''' Regardless of what the laws are a criminal who wants a gun will be able to get one. Look an how effective (not very) the laws against illegal drugs are. gun control takes the guns out of the hands of the law abiding citizens but not the criminals. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 22:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::More likely he would use some other weapon to kill. Like run over someone with his car.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 22:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Well they have so-called "motor-voter" laws that enable people who get driver's licenses to register to vote. Perhaps they could draft a "motor-toter" law, to issue every driver a handgun? Carjackings would go WAY down.[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

The argument that criminals would still get guns if they wanted them has some foundation in logic, however, it has no foundation statistically. A comparison to England will suffice. It bears out the conclusion that while some criminals still get guns, it is fewer - the mental & physical block of having to break another law just to get a gun actually deters gun crime :-) -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Allso should be concidered where the criminals get their guns, those dont show up from nowhere. Most are stolen from those who have legally purchased them. Less gun owners, less weapons around to be stolen. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::or stolen from a cop. ya, all cops have guns. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 12:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Guys, all of this is good stuff, but please consider before posting whether it's better to go to the [[Debate topics]]. Are you planning to help write a balanced article here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

* Read [http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/16/where-did-the-shooter-get-his-guns/ this] information via Hot Air. -- [[User:AmeriCan|AmeriCan]] 03:45, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

We've got a discussion going on here already: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Would_the_repeal_of_gun_control_laws_make_incidents_like_today%27s_shooting_at_Virginia_Tech_less_likely_to_occur%3F [[User:DanH|DanH]] 04:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Gun Control Leads to gun confiscation. ==

I am planning to remove this because it has no reference.
-Brian

If everyone, including children old enough to pull a trigger, owned a gun, would there be more or fewer shootings of human beings, accidental or intentional? I'm including felons, mentally ill, illegal aliens, legal aliens, and aliens from outer space.

== Somewhere else in the world ==

I'm wondering if it would be useful to add something about Singapore, which has some of the most extrems laws about gun control. Something like :
:"In Singapore, which has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, the capital punishment is mandatory for "arms trafficking", ie owning more than two weapons under the Misuse of Arms Act, and caning is mandatory for any person found in posession of a weapon (not even a firearm)"
Any comment? [[User:Emptiness|Emptiness]] 05:20, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

I, the inferior European who cannot possibly understand anything you superior Americans discuss here, have something to add in too. And yes, that was sarcasm. So here, I´ll offer you a little piece of gun control info from the rest of the world: Here in Finland, we have certain, quite strict gun control laws: it is quite close to impossible for a private person to own a *handgun* without a very good reason, such as being the owner of a shooting range, sports, or being a police officer. Also, anything beyond semi-auto is a BIG no-no for civilians here. Shotguns and Rifles ARE available far easier, since hunting is a very popular pastime here in Finland, especially the northern parts where I live in.
Interesting enough, most homicides and crimes in general do NOT involve guns, they involve alcohol and drugs. Far more common as a murder weapon is a kitchen knife than a firearm of some kind, and a very large proportion of ALL crimes in finland involve alcohol in a way or another. Just my two cents, y´know?

..And Come on, we have friggin RUSSIA as our neighbour. [[User:FreakyM|FreakyM]] 08:52, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Duplicate sentence revert. ==

Okay, I guess I might just have a bee in my bonnet over this, but the sentence, ''Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and liberals as a remedy to crime.'' appears twice -- in a row. Once as the end of the first paragraph, and then as the first sentence of the second paragraph. I attempted to correct this obvious mistake, but I was '''reverted'''. Would someone please tell me how I was wrong to do this, and why it is necessary to repeat this sentence immediately after itself and why it should '''not''' be removed from the tail of the first paragraph?

As it appears in the article:

''Such measures can range from a total prohibition on civilian ownership and possession of firearms and ammunition to specific restrictions on certain firearm features, "waiting periods" for gun purchases, licensing of gun owners, registration of firearms, etc. Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and liberals as a remedy to crime.''

''Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and liberals as a remedy to crime. Libertarians and conservatives, on the other hand, argue that whether or not guns are officially controlled by the government, criminals will commit crimes, and a black market will exist to provide them with firearms.''

Have at me.

''' [[User:TheReverendLee|The Rev.]] 22:36, 22 June 2007 (EDT) '''
----
: I see the revert was removed, and the correction made. Thank you. I am avenged.
:
:''' [[User:TheReverendLee|The Rev.]] 10:16, 23 June 2007 (EDT) '''

Uhh, is it really proper for the article to claim that "Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and liberals as a remedy to crime, but that is actually a [[deceit]]" right in the first paragraph? I mean, that's a big assertion and there's no citation to back it up. I think such a statement would be better suited to the second or third paragraphs, maybe... [[User:GrandSoviet|GrandSoviet]] 23:36, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

== Moved discussion from Talk:Main Page ==

I've moved the discussion down here for clarity.

If you give a random stranger a gun, there is a 100-to-1 chance that the gun will be used defensively, to prevent crime, rather than to perpetrate a crime. It inexorably follows from that simple observation that more guns leads to less crime.

If a random passenger or pilot had a gun on [[9/11]], thousands of lives would have been saved. If a teacher or random student had a gun in a [[public school]], they would not be easy prey for people like the [[Virginia Tech killer]]. Indeed, most shocking crimes would never occur if there was widespread gun ownership.

As I've said, every credible study confirms that more guns leads to less crime. The next time you read about a serial murder, a rape, a beating, a robbery, etc., just think to yourself: more gun ownership would have reduced the likelihood of that occurring.

I'm going to add this issue to the [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 15 December 2007 (EST)
:I'm still waiting for you to reference those studies. Meanwhile, I found [http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html this page] which argues (with facts and figures) that Australia's tough new gun laws resulted in very little change in crime and gun deaths. In other words, it didn't help the situation, but didn't make it worse either. Unfortunately, it's data dates to only a few years after the tough gun laws were introduced, and longer-term data would be better. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:32, 15 December 2007 (EST)

:: I'll build up the [[John Lott]] entry with more citations. I've already added several. With odds of 100-to-1 that putting a gun in the hands of a stranger will be used for defensive, deterrent and crime-preventing purposes, it's statistically implausible that such gun distribution would increase crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 15 December 2007 (EST)

:::I've already said this above but it's probably worth repeating.

:::I think it is unwise to compare gun control and homicide rates between different countries and then use that as an argument to increase or reduce gun control in a particular country.

:::The situation in the UK and Australia (similar gun control laws) is very different to the situation in the US. Neither of the former two has an equivalent to the Second Amendment nor do they have a history of common and easy gun ownership. Unlike the US.

:::While gun crime and homicide rates are much higher in the US compared to either country and almost all Western nations, that doesn't mean that introducing more gun control will reduce gun crime and homicide.

:::Conversely, using the (perhaps counter-intuitive to non-Americans) US experience of "more gun-control = more gun crime and homicide" to argue for less gun control elsewhere doesn't follow.

:::The stark reality is that gun crime and homicide are generally higher in countries with relatively relaxed gun-control (such as in the US) and generally lower in countries with relatively strict gun-control.

:::However, changing from more gun-control to less or vica-versa doesn't necessarily produce the result that is expected - in either direction. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:59, 15 December 2007 (EST)
::::Why are you so obsessed with guns? Knives and swords work just as well, and if carried on a plane would have avoided the risk of a loss of cabin pressure that is an issue with higher-calibre handguns. And what about Tasers and Mace? ...[[User:RingWraith|RingWraith]] 18:19, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, Aschlafly, you just changed the [[John Lott]] page from a serious and critical (if short) look at gun control, giving arguments for and against (although more strongly for gun control). Now, as a result of this argument, it is a totally pro-guns piece....conservative bias perhaps? [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 10:25, 16 December 2007

:There were scurrilous and non-encyclopedic remarks in the [[John Lott]] that were properly removed. I've added additional information also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 16 December 2007 (EST)

In reply to Philip above, I want to point out that [[gun control]] represents a [[materialistic]] style of reasoning that we reject in other contexts. [[Gun control]] depends on overemphasizing the significance of what is seen (guns) as the cause of crime, while ignoring the significance of what is unseen (deterrence) in reducing crime. Generally, though not always, advocates of [[gun control]] also advocate [[materialism]] in other contexts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 16 December 2007 (EST)
:: Sorry, I can't see the connection between gun control and [[materialism]]. I accept that the idea that widespread carrying of guns would deter crime makes sense, but as always, and as Ajkgordon said, this is simplistic as there are always multiple other factors at work. I haven't seen comparative figures for crime in different countries, although I have seen those for gun deaths which show America being over four times the rate of Australia. However, the Australian figures show that most gun deaths are suicides, and these might well happen by different means if there were far fewer guns around, so those figures may not mean much. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 16 December 2007 (EST)

:I don't think I've ever heard any serious analyst saying that guns are the cause of crime. Rather I often hear that wide availability of guns can enable a high level of gun crime catalysed by other factors such as drug use, poverty, disenfranchisement, gang violence, etc. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 16:39, 16 December 2007 (EST)

: I think many [[gun control]] supporters do think that the guns themselves are the cause of much crime, and that the crimes would not occur in the absence of guns. This is a heavily [[materialistic]] style of reasoning, but there are many [[materialists]] out there who are attracted to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:58, 16 December 2007 (EST)

::Well, it's simplistic reasoning. Gun-control > fewer guns > less gun crime.
::My view is that gun control has a negative ( i.e. lessening) effect on gun crime and violent crime if gun control is the current status quo. Changing from loose gun-control to tight gun-control, however, can often have a positive effect, particularly experienced in some states in the US.
::But likewise, your reasoning of Gun-freedom → better defence → less gun crime is also over simplistic.
::There are too many other variables at work to make that predictive correlation. And certainly it would be unwise to argue that more guns in places like the UK and Australia would lead to lower gun crime when their gun crime rates are so much lower than those of the US already. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 17:09, 16 December 2007 (EST)
::: Andy's point is that the widespread availability of guns deters ''general'' crime, not specifically ''gun crime''. Whether or not that's true I don't know, but I can see the rationale. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly, if a random passenger had a gun on 9/11 that would imply anyone legally entitled to carry a firearm could take them onto airplanes. Legal entitelment would assumedly be granted anyone without a criminal record who has been vetted for gun ownership. Terrorists are often people who meet exactly that description. More terrorist with guns on airplanes, passengers with guns on airplanes, shoot outs on airplanes. Apart from the fact that shooting off guns in high altitude aircraft is not a good idea, I have a suspicion that many people would shudder at the thought and come to the conclusion flying would be a more dangerous activity as a result. A more liberal, gun control approach was the introduction of armed Air Marshals on flights, unfortunalely not so much conservative fire-power available in case of an emergency. [[User:CillaHunt|CillaHunt]] 17:47, 16 December 2007 (EST)

: A gun fight on one of the September 11 planes would bring the plane down, but that would have prevented the far worse consequence of it crashing into the World Trade Center.
: But although Andy's got a point about us not seeing what crimes are prevented by guns being widely available, an argument that he's not addressed (as I recall) is that widespread availability of guns means that people who are otherwise law-abiding then use them in a moment of passion or rage, often killing a spouse or other relative or friend, whereas if they didn't have ready access to a gun, the consequences would have been much less severe.
: What this means, however, is that we then have to weigh up this apparent benefit of not having guns with the apparent benefit that having guns has in deterring crime generally. It's a difficult issue, made more difficult by the fact that if one goes from widespread gun ownership to very restricted gun ownership, although the end result may be better, in the interim it is the law-abiding people who give up their guns first.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 16 December 2007 (EST)

:: Philip points out a common fear, that guns cause crimes of "passion or rage" that would not occur in the absence of the guns, but please realize that knives, sticks, baseball bats, and fists are still available. Also, the absence of guns means a lack of defense or deterrence against crimes of "passion or rage." So I doubt there is an overall positive effect of [[gun control]] on this particular type of crime, which is a probably a small percentage of overall crimes anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)
::: A couple of corrections and an agreement:
:::* I didn't say that guns ''cause'' crimes of passion or rage. Nor did I say that in their absence the crime would not occur. I was saying that in cases of passion or rage, a gun is going to have a worse consequence than if the gun is not available. Sure, a knife or etc. could still be used, but the victim likely would have a better chance of surviving an attack with another weapon than against a gun.
:::* I agree that this particular type of crime would only be a small percentage of overall crimes.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:09, 17 December 2007 (EST)

<--- Let's take a step back. For those of you who are anti-gun control, why are US rates of violent crime so much higher than almost all other wealthy western countries, most of which have tight gun control? Obviously you don't believe that it's due to the wide availability of guns but there does seem to be a direct correlation. What, in your view, are the reasons? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:21, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:::: The [[U.S.]] is unique in many ways. The [[U.S.]] has a culture of violence in sports, movies and entertainment, it has an enormous drug problem, it has anti-religious [[public school]] system, it has widespread gambling and pornography, and it imprisons more people per capita than any other nation. When those inmates get out, they don't easily find jobs, and unfortunately it's back to crime for many of them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:11, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:::::Hmmmm... interesting, thanks.
:::::But it is also one of the most religious western countries, so why does it have these problems in the first place? And are you arguing for more effective rehabilitation of prisoners or fewer prisoners? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:15, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:::::: The [[U.S.]] has a strong religious component, but also a strong anti-religious component. Since crime is perpetrated by only 1% of the population, the [[U.S.]] is probably worse off than other countries when viewed with respect to religion and crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:30, 17 December 2007 (EST)

::::::Well, I, for one, am arguing for a renewal of the culture, to address the problems that Mr. Schlafly just mentioned. Especially the matter of violent sport (and the excuses that team owners and many colleges make for misbehaving athletes), gambling, pornography, and anti-[[homeschooling]] regulations.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::Thanks, very interesting.
:::::::I wonder what percentage of the prison population is religious compared to atheist. I read recently that 2% of Americans are in prison or on probation/parole at any one time. Let's be generous and say that 10% of Americans are atheists. Does that mean that one in five American atheists are convicted felons? Or is it a more balanced proportion reflecting the religious/atheist split in society as a whole?
:::::::Even so, with atheists making up a much bigger proportion of the population in countries such as France and Italy, their prison populations are proportionately much lower. I guess I'm simply struggling with a link between atheists and crime but I may be missing something.
:::::::As for violence in sport, football (soccer), rugby, Australian rules... all these are pretty violent in other countries. Gambling is not unique to the US nor is pornography, while homeschooling is so insignificant in most other western countries as to be irrelevant.
:::::::What I'm looking for is what makes the US have such a high level of violent crime - a unique differentiator in its culture or wealth or society or education or immigration that doesn't have anything to do with guns. I'm struggling a bit. Are there any well-regarded studies on the phenomenon? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:13, 17 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::
:::: An interesting debate. Aschlafly writes -

::::The [[U.S.]] is unique in many ways. The [[U.S.]] has a culture of violence in sports, movies and entertainment.

::::Absolutely true, but don't forget that the second largest export of the US is entertainment, so the rest of the entire planet is also watching the same violent US-produced material on TV and in the movies. As for sports, apart from the punch-up joke that ice hockey became, I'm not sure how the US sports are any more violent than, say, soccer, or bull-fighting even. I can't see what's unique here, basically.

::::it has an enormous drug problem

::::Again, very true, but again, not unique to the US, and I'm sure plenty of studies would suggest the problem is much, much worse elsewhere.

::::it has anti-religious [[public school]] system

::::Perhaps so, but most other Western countries have far more students in far more secular schools. Again, I'm not sure there's anything unique here.

::::it has widespread gambling and pornography

::::The US obsession with pornography is odd, but it's hardly worse of a problem than many other societies, and certainly not uniquely so. However, I would have to disagree with you on the gambling front -in many, many other nations betting shops are as common as the local newsagent, and many perfectly normal people are completely accustomed to routinely place wagers on all sorts of activities, all legally and fully above board. (Though I'm certainly not suggesting this doesn't create problems). The US seems to have worsened its gambing problem in much the same way it worsened its alcohol problem during Prohibition by banning access to the activity to most, and creating these bizarre enclaves (native reservations, bizarre cities) where it's suddenly OK to go wild on wagering.

::::it imprisons more people per capita than any other nation. When those inmates get out, they don't easily find jobs, and unfortunately it's back to crime for many of them.

::::Here I'm with you 100%. The US has a staggering incarceration rate, and there's no denying that prisons are unhealthy environments. This is certainly a unique feature of the US. But I'm interested in those studies you quote, and I'm interested in debating exactly what IS unique about the US that causes the gun crime rate to be so high. [[User:Reasonableperson|Reasonableperson]] 17:38, 17 December 2007 (EST)

::::: That's basically the point I made earlier: I don't see that the U.S. is all that much different to other English-speaking western countries, such as Australia, except that it has a higher proportion of Christians (which ''should'' mean that is has ''less'' crime) and it has a much more liberal (sorry!) attitude towards guns. Superficially, this would indicate that the higher rate of violent crime is due to the widespread availability of guns. As for movies, I'll endorse Reasonableperson's comment. Much of what airs on Australian television is produced in America. And much of the Australian content has a lower moral standard than the American stuff! Put it this way Andy, if you think the American movie and TV productions are bad (and much of it is bad), perhaps it indicates that you don't know enough about what's produced elsewhere! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:::: I agree. Of the points raised so far, only the extraordinary prison population is unique to the US - but there's an obvious logical flaw in blaming the level of crime on the number of prisoners. I'd like to throw this one out there though - does the US have a bigger gap between rich and poor than is common in other developed countries, and is this part of the explanation? Certainly, here in Australia we have a subset of the population which is significantly poorer than the rest of us. And that subset (the aboriginal population) has higher rates of violent crime, and also has a very high prison rate. So perhaps in the US the poverty gap is the cause of the crime, the guns are the cause of the severity of the crime, and the prison population is a result of it? [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 05:30, 18 December 2007 (EST)

While this is all very interesting, I would like to know where the "100-1 chance" fact came from. From where I am sitting, it seems to me that more guns are not the answer. You do not put a fire out by adding more fuel to it, especially because more guns will find their way in to inner city streets and gang violence. Put it this way: between 1994 and 1999 there were 253 school related deaths, 60% of which involved hand guns. And in a single year, more children die from gun shots than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined. Scare you yet? Oh, and if you are under 15, you are 12 times more likely to be killed by someone using a gun than in the top 25 industrial countries. combined. So do we need more guns? How about we prevent psychos like the VT shooter from getting a gun[http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm gun safety facts]. How about we prevent another Columbine? Nothing is being done and it is sad. Do you need armor piercing, fully automatic weapons? No. More guns does not lead to less crime, we cannot all be the judge and jury, lets put more money in to policing our streets (by not making it basically suicide to be a policeman in the inner city). What credible studies are you referring to? It seems like in America today, violence is more and more becoming the answer, and it shouldn't be. I do not want to have an argument be settled by a gun shot. It ruins lives.

So what to do. Here is my proposition: Stop selling hand guns. And here is why. First off, they serve no purpose other than to kill another human being. Self-defense, gang violence, home violence, curious children, they serve no purpose. The only reason that they are used in self-defense is because it is too easy for people with ill intent to get them in the first place. Second, it does not impede your hunting or right to bear arms. Listen, a 9mm cannot kill a dear if you are hunting it right. A 9mm can kill a police man, or a cashier, or fellow students if in the wrong hands. Seems like the simplest and most effective answer is to abolish them entirely. Thanks for your time.

{{unsigned|Afee}}
:Whilst I agree with much of that, the main problem I see is that if you stop selling guns, you will effectively be stopping honest people from getting them, whilst the criminals will still get them. That could make the situation worse. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:29, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::Certainly that seems to be the problem faced by US states that have introduced strict gun control where before there was little gun control. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:35, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Aschlafly, I'm just curious, if you are so dedicated to the preservation of human life, why are you so opposed to gun control. There is no secret agenda behind it, the sole purpose of gun control is to limit access to guns and as a result reduce gun violence. [ed. note: deleted inappropriate comment that follows] --[[User:LoveJesus1|LoveJesus1]] 19:50, 21 December 2007 (EST)

: "LoveJesus1", gun control results in a loss of human life. I know [[materialists]] have trouble "seeing" that, but guns deter crime and save lives. Next time you see a police officer look at what he carries. The more citizens who can carry the same thing, the less the crime.

: Don't think we're fooled by [[liberal]]s pretending that "the sole purpose of gun control is to ... reduce gun violence." [[Liberals]] care more about increasing dependency on government, as in [[Cuba]], which has the strictest [[gun control]] in the world. Less guns means more government dependency, and [[liberals]] know that but rarely admit to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 21 December 2007 (EST)

::Aschlafly, comparing gun control in other countries is not a good idea if you want to argue the case for no gun control. And using Cuba as a comparison is, as you know, completely irrelevant - Cuba has a completely different form of government and ideas of freedom. If you insist on comparisons with other countries, then it should be with other wealthy liberal democracies such as the UK or Australia. However, it makes your anti-gun control argument very difficult to support because both of those countries have lower rates of gun and violent crime. In the UK, the police aren't even armed!
::There are too many other factors involved to draw conclusions by comparing other countries' experiences with the legal status of arms. The only valid comparisons, in my humble opinion, are those between US states. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 09:01, 22 December 2007 (EST)

== Change of graph and wording ==

[[image:Robbery victims.png|right|350px]]The graph that I supplied (right) was drawn from Australian Bureau of Statistics data from 1993 to 2005. The [[:Image:Australia crime.gif|graph that Andy substituted]] is, in my opinion, inferior, with three problems:
* It covers the years 1991 to 2000, a smaller range, and particularly only covers a few years after the introduction of gun control.
* The source of the data on which the graph is based is not specified, although I'm not suggesting that it is questionable; it's probably official data from somewhere.
* The graph is being used in the article to make a point that is contradicted by the report the graph came from. The report says of this graph:{{QuoteBox|It's apparent from the graph that the rates for both robbery and armed robbery rose faster for a couple of years after '96 than they had before. Also, the burglary rate was dropping a little from '93 to '96, but then started an obvious rise. The rises would look like a bad effect of the ban/buyback, except that they stopped after '98. The small downturns for all three in '99 and 2000 could be the ban/buyback stopping some upward trend that had begun, but it is just as likely that the trend reversal was caused by elimination or whatever was causing the trend to begin with. Both robbery and armed robbery appear to have stabilized (two years) at rates higher than they were before the Port Arthur incident and the ban/buyback.}} In other words, the report says that the graph is inconclusive, but the article claims that the graph shown an "unmistakable increase in robbery and armed robbery".
Also, the article says "there is no evidence supporting the promised decrease in crime from gun control", yet the graph that I supplied and which was removed ''does'' support that (even if it doesn't ''prove'' it, given that other factors may be at work). Furthermore, other ABS figures that I spotted, such as murder rates, seemed to show the same drop. I picked "robbery" because it was the largest category of violent crime, and would have swamped other figures such as murder figures.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:02, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Also, the article now says that John Lott "demonstrates" (I had "claimed") that gun control in the countries mentioned have resulted in an increase in crime. It is true that he does quote some percentage-rise figures, but there's almost no actual hard data in the reference to really be able to say that he "demonstrates" it. It's more of a claim with the bare minimum of supporting evidence. I haven't had a close look yet, but his claimed percentage rises don't seem to match the ABS figures. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:07, 23 December 2007 (EST)

[[image:robbery victims per 100K.png|right|350px]]
:I've done more searching, and have found figures that appear to match those of the graph from gunsandcrime.org. They only supply a small graph, so one can't compare actual figures, but my new graph (right) appears to match theirs. The differences from the other graph I did (above) are that their graph is crimes per 100,000 people, and their "armed robbery" figures include weapons other than guns. My new graph is the same as theirs in that it is per 100,000 people and includes weapons other than guns. The other significant difference, of course, is that my graph goes to 2005, whereas theirs only went to 2000. I couldn't find the burglary figures that they include on their graph, so I left them off. And because of that, the vertical scale is expanded compared to theirs. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:20, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== ...protected? ==

Aw, man. This has been protected since ''June''? I had just thought of a possible addition, but then I realized that I can't edit. :( Is this normal? I thought protection was just used for a short time to protect against vandalism. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 10:45, 24 December 2007 (EST)

: Thanks for pointing it out and, no, that is not normal for such protection to continue for so long. I unprotected the page per your request. Please be factual and insightful in improving it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::Thank you kindly! --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 11:00, 24 December 2007 (EST)
::: And thanks for the work on tidying up the footnotes. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:30, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== Gun Control and Genocide ==

It is stated here that [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gun_control&curid=8440&diff=357540&oldid=357525 "the facts are provided"] to justify a claim that "Gun control has led to genocide." I disagree. Example: "In 1911, Turkey imposed gun control and then, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million defenseless Armenians were killed." What does the gun control have to do with the genocide? It is not disputed that these three states enacted laws suppressing the free ownership of firearms. What I dispute is the link between ownership restrictions and genocide. Is the author suggesting that gun control led to the easy murder of unarmed civilians (for example, Jews would have been able to defend themselves against Nazi murders if they were able to posess personal firearms)? If this is the case, I feel it should be cleared up. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 13:11, 24 December 2007 (EST)

: Genocide would be impossible, or nearly impossible, against an armed group of millions of victims. That is self-evident. If you have an example of genocide occurring without the state first disarming the victims through use of [[gun control]], then I'd sure like to see it. Most people will use their weapons, if they have them, to defend their families.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::The millions of victims in the cases above were spread all over the place in small populations. Would such populations, even if they did all manage to gather together in one huge group, armed with small arms and rifles have been able to defend themselves against armies armed with airplanes, armor and artillery? Have you been inbibing too much Christmas spirit? By the way I think your contribution is great. The bloggers will love it. Merry Christmas! [[User:CillaHunt|CillaHunt]] 13:42, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::CillaHunt, the last bit of your comment is not productive. I brought forth a legitimate concern of mine, which was in no way derisive of the author of the particular section of the article. I agree with the first part of your comment (the victims were unorganized, etc, and would have a hard time defending against armies), but insulting someone is not constructive to this discussion's goals of improving and clarifying the article. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 13:51, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Well said. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:31, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::: ThomasB, I appreciate your rebuttal of CillaHunt's silly and insensitive remarks. Genocide has occurred multiple times and each time it was preceded by [[gun control]]. It doesn't take a genius to understand why. Airplanes, armor and artillery, by the way, are not the tools of genocide. Rather, genocide is perpetrated by neighbors with state-provided guns taking away victims who lack guns to defend their families. Can that happen without [[gun control]]? It never has, and I think the answer is "no". But I'm open-minded to listen to coherent arguments, if any, that [[gun control]] is irrelevant to the ability to carry out [[genocide]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:57, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::Thanks for your explanation. I had interpreted the article as saying that gun control was the reason for the genocides, not that it was the reason it wasn't able to be prevented. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 14:02, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::: That's a hair-splitting distinction you're trying to draw. I'm not sure there is any distinction in practice between (a) being a reason for something occurring and (b) being a reason that the same thing was not prevented. Without the gun control, it would have been difficult or impossible for the genocides to occur. It seems to me you may seek to cling to gun control without admitting that it facilitated genocide. With all due respect, I'd suggest letting go of the gun control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:17, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::My confusion was really just a matter of semantics. I interpreted "gun control has led to genocide" to mean that the firearms regulations caused people to seek to eliminate an entire ethnicity. Thanks, [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 14:32, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Andy, why do you continue to deny the genocide that occurred in Bosnia? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 17:49, 24 December 2007 (EST)

I would, however, like to make another point with regard to this. For gun control to have enabled genocide in the instances cited, the populations in question would have had to be otherwise armed. Is there any evidence that these populations were, and were able to fight back effectively? The Jews, even when they were organized and armed (as in Warsaw), actually allowed most of their population to be deported before they fought back. A preemptive clarification here, I am in no way attempting to defend gun bans or any more extreme measures of gun control as I fully support individual gun ownership rights. [[User:Cmh|Cmh]] 10:18, 25 December 2007 (EST)

: [[Gun control]] creates the vulnerability that enables [[genocide]] to occur. There has never been [[genocide]] without [[gun control]] first rendering the victims defenseless. Without [[gun control]], there is a powerful deterrent to [[genocide]], so powerful that it has not historically occurred in those circumstances. See the Washington University law journal article cited in the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:30, 25 December 2007 (EST)

So you're saying that if gun control laws were not imposed, Stalin would not have killed upwards of 20 million people? {{unsigned|ComplexModulo}}

== the footnotes are presently messed up for this article ==

the footnotes are presently messed up for this article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:05, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:fixed. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:06, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== Australian election results ==

I removed this from the article:
{{Quotebox|In [[Australia]], the passage of gun control in 1996 and its expansion in 2002 has led to a complete takeover of all nine federal, state and territory legislatures by the socialistic Labor Party, the first time a single party has ever achieved this in Australian history. (The Sydney Morning Herald - [http://www.smh.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/either-way-its-history-in-the-making/2007/11/23/1195753310949.html Either way, it's history in the making])}}
Gun control was brought in in 1996 at the instigation of the federal Liberal Party (conservative) government, who had to get the co-operation of the state governments (it is a state responsibility). Two states objected and had to have their arms twisted, so to speak. Both these were Labor states (Tasmanian and Queensland). The next two elections at state level or above (Western Australia at the end of 1996 and South Australia in 1997) saw Labor governments replaced by Liberal governments. At the federal level, the Liberal Party retained office for the next three elections (1998, 2001, and 2004).

By 2002, all states except South Australia were held by the Labor Party. South Australia went to the Labor Party in February 2002.

So claiming that gun control led to a Labor monopoly seems to be drawing a ''very'' long bow. Especially given that gun control was not an issue in the 2007 federal election that finally resulted in wall-to-wall Labor.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:19, 25 December 2007 (EST)

: Philip, your analysis ''confirms'' rather than disputes the truth of the statement above. The point is that [[gun control]] causes a shift in voter attitudes towards more dependency on government, and this is precisely what has been observed in [[Australia]]. You say that "Especially given that gun control was not an issue in the 2007 federal election that finally resulted in wall-to-wall Labor." But no one claims that the "issue" of gun control itself is what sways the elections towards leftists. It's the increased dependency on government that ''results'' from implementing gun control that causes the voter shift to the left. Leftists understand this and push [[gun control]] for that reason. Why wouldn't [[conservatives]] recognize this effect also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:: Andy, could you clarify what you mean by "dependency"? Dependency in what areas? Social services (which I'd suggest has no connection)? Health services (ditto)? Or security/self defence? In the latter case, the population was always dependent on the police anyway, as very few carried guns as a matter of course. It still seems to be drawing a very long bow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:50, 25 December 2007 (EST)

::: I mean emotional dependence. [[Gun control]] directly requires voters to depend more on government for protection, and that causes support for bigger government. It's an emotional dependence and plainly affects how people vote. And that, of course, is why leftists push [[gun control]] so much. The cause-and-effect in the political results in [[Australia]] and elsewhere is unmistakable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:::: The problem I have with that is one that I've already alluded to: Before gun control in Australia, they always did rely on the government (i.e. the police) for protection. They didn't rely on guns, because most people did not carry guns. I would say from my own observations that there has been ''no'' increase in reliance on government for protection because of gun control. Furthermore, for all practical purposes the police forces are state-run, but gun control was instigated by the ''federal'' government, so your argument is effectively saying that the federal government introduced gun control to increase reliance on state governments, which is absurd to anyone knowing much about Australian politics. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:48, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:::::Philip, do you have any stats showing the level of gun ownership before and after 1996? My guess is that it reduced from a small fraction of the population to a small fraction of a small fraction of the population. What's more, pre-96 I would imagine the vast majority of gun-ownership was in rural areas, but the swing against Howard in 2007 was significant in the cities also. So to argue that the change has been so significant to lead to some sort of dependence on government is bizarre. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 22:37, 26 December 2007 (EST)
:::::: No, I don't have those statistics. This is not a subject that I've ever taken an interest in (and I'm only doing so now because some of the claims are so at odds with my observations here in Oz), so I don't have any statistics "lying around", so to speak. All the statistics I have produced are ones that I've gone looking for. The best (most authoritative) source would be the Australian Bureau of Statistics web-site, so I suggest that you go there and search for gun ownership statistics. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:51, 27 December 2007 (EST)

:Andy,

:You are simply lying if you think that Leftists push gun control to create a dependency on government. More guns equals more crime. I think you should take a walk through Dublin some night, by yourself and see how you get on. We don't have massive gang shootouts here like in the States. And thank God for that. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 19:22, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:: Andy argues that more guns equals ''less'' crime, so if he believes that, he is not lying. Uncivil comments like that do not help your argument. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:48, 25 December 2007 (EST)

"In Britain, for example, the enactment of a ban on most handguns in February 1997[15] resulted in the Labour Party winning a landslide 179 seat majority in the general election later that year, the first time it exceeded 40% of the popular vote in over 25 years. The new government soon extended the ban to cover nearly all handguns, and the Labour Party has remained in power in Britain for over a decade."
I think the above is very misleading - Labour came in to power for a great many reasons, but I think the restrictions of handguns is extremely unrelated. Having grown up with guns as a hunter, many people dislike Labour's anti-gun stance, but the real reason they won was due to an immoral opposition (sexual scandals etc) and the promise of a younger more media-savvy government. --[[User:Mattsday|Mattsday]] 20:15, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: You're arguing against logic and observation. Every gun owner who gives up his gun, or can't obtain a gun, is more likely to vote for the pro-government party. It doesn't take very many of "more likely" shifts to change an election outcome. If the British gun control affected more than 5% of voters -- and it surely did -- then the outcome changes from conservative rule to [[Labour Party]] rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:46, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::While I agree with your position on gun control, here is my reasoning in this particular case:
::If (in the US) the Democrats came along and made a law that ended with me losing my gun or not being able to get one, I'd surely give my votes to the Republicans ASAP, who would likely (hopefully) try to undo the damage done by said law.
::After all, it's not like the Democrats' plan would go much beyond "Guns are bad. Let's control access to them", right? The police was there to protect me before, and I honestly doubt that gun control would suddenly lead to the introduction of Super Troopers patrolling the streets. So voting Democrats after they screwed up would only give them permission to screw up more. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 23:02, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::: I assume that Andy meant "...is more likely to vote for the pro-''gun'' party".
::: Few elections are fought on a single issue. So although gun enthusiasts might like to vote ''against'' the government that took their guns away, they might well vote ''for'' that party if it supported other things that they considered more important than gun ownership. So Mattsday is not arguing against logic, and if (as I suspect, but I don't know) Mattsday is from Britain, then ''he'' would have been the one doing the observing rather than Andy (assuming Andy was not in Britain at the time). Yes, there's a couple of assumptions in that last sentence (that Mattsday was in Britain at the time and Andy wasn't), so if I'm wrong on those assumptions, please correct me.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:46, 30 December 2007 (EST)
:::: Mattsday's observations are substantially correct. Less than 1% of the population owned handguns prior to the 1997 handgun ban (shotguns are widely owned in rural areas but are subject to more relaxed regulation) so the number of people directly affected by the ban was small. It's the first time I've heard it suggested that it was a major factor in the collapse in the Conservative vote -- that started with Black Wednesday and was cemented by the antics of an increasingly scandal-ridden and fractious party over the following years.[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/trends/voting-all_files/image002.gif] It is a mistake to assume that domestic political controversies in the USA will have any salience in other political cultures. [[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 10:35, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::Ashlafly, I think you over-estimate the importance of guns in British society. It is extremely rare for Britons to ever see a gun, let alone handle one or use one. It just isn't in our general culture like it might be in the US. Even the police aren't regularly armed - indeed it's quite a shock for me to fly back into Heathrow airport and see armed police! The gun control imposed upon the British population was perhaps ill-advised and a knee-jerk reaction to a murderous rampage by an armed loon. But it will have had next to zero effect on the outcome of the following general election which was lost by the Conservatives due to numerous other more substantive reasons. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:45, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== General Comment ==

Folks, there have been several edits to the content page that have taken out or obscured factual information. Other edits have misled readers by attributing an enactment of gun control legislation to a particular party in control of government at that the time, without recognizing the media pressure created for the gun control based on a statistically insignificant, but much-publicized, act of violence. I'm going to revert inappropriate edits that obscure the essential facts. Guns, the most effective weapon of self-defense which are used overwhelmingly in self-defense, deserve factual treatment here on Conservapedia. Readers can draw their own conclusions. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== How long do we wait for the effects? ==

Andy's edit comment associated with the removal of some text was, "''removed confusing reference to the opinion of one pro-gun group, and removed emphasis on 2004 crime data relative to 1996 gun control''"

I would like to know the following:
* What was confusing about it?
* Why is 2004 crime data apparently not relevant to 1996 gun control, yet 2007 election results are?
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:04, 25 December 2007 (EST)

: As to the first half, I find it meaningless to say, "such-and-such group feels such-and-such." Suppose a said that a Christian group favored same-sex marriage? It would mean nothing, particularly without a statement of what most Christian groups felt, or what the most credible Christian sources say.

: As to the second half, demographics with respect to crime change over the course of 8 years everywhere. Crime fell worldwide during the period 1996 to 2004, I think, do to declining percentages of teenagers likely to commit crime. But the demographics of voters do not change as rapidly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Inappropriate "fact" tags ==

On [[Wikipedia]], "fact" tags are used to make ideological statements. That is not appropriate, obviously. Two "fact" tags were just inserted here:
* a "fact" tag on the observation that there is "no evidence," but it's impossible to cite a fact for something that is not there
* a "fact" tag on the observation that [[Australia]] moved significantly to the left politically after adopting [[gun control]], which is supported by several cites and, frankly, indisputable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 25 December 2007 (EST)
: "Fact" tags can be used to make ideological statements. They can also be used to ask for a reference for something that is agreed. They can also be used to ask for a reference because the claim is either disputed or questioned.
:* The first fact tag was not that there is "no evidence" but that a decrease in crime (generally, as opposed to gun crime) was "promised". I don't remember this being promised at all.
:* The second fact tag was not disputing that the electorate moved to the left, but that this was "due to" gun control. I don't believe that it was due to that, despite all the comments above about how this ''could'' happen.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:46, 25 December 2007 (EST)

:: It seems self-evident to me that lawmakers promised a safer country from the gun ban, but I've added a cite to that effect to address your concern. Honestly, I can't imagine supporters of the gun ban saying anything else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:02, 25 December 2007 (EST)
::: A "safer country", yes, but specifically through fewer gun deaths, not reduced crime generally. And the reference merely claims what you said above, that lawmakers promised a "safer" country. It does say in what way they claimed it would be safer, so does not claim that lawmakers said that crime generally would be reduced. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:40, 25 December 2007 (EST)

:: On the second point, you put "due to" in quotes but I don't think I used that phrase. Are you quoting me? I thought I said "led to", which is undeniably true. It's a fact and you're free to suggest other causes, but your other causes should explain why Britain also moved left after its gun control, while America did not move left after it ''rejected'' demands for gun control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 25 December 2007 (EST)
::: I thought that I was quoting you, but you are correct: you said "led to", not "due to". But it doesn't make any real difference—in both cases it is indicating causality, which is what I was questioning, and I reject that it's "undeniably true". There's always multiple factors at work in elections and why people vote the way that they do, so it's never a given that a particular issue is the cause, or even a factor, in the outcome of an election.
::: I don't believe that the onus is on me to explain what could be a coincidence (Australia, Britain, and the U.S.), given the small sample size. Rather, I think the onus is on you to explain, if you believe that the same factor is a work in all three cases, why Britain moved to the left straight after the introduction of gun control, whereas Australia moved to the right straight after (see my earlier post above) and only moved left later on, after eleven years in the case of the federal government.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:40, 25 December 2007 (EST)

::::Hear hear!!! It's that lazy correlation = causation argument that keeps cropping up. It's worth noting that at present, although the Labour Party is still in power in the UK, the mood seems to have swung significantly back to the right - at exactly the same time as it swung to the left in Australia!! And of course if you wait long enough, ANY country will swing to the left at some point. So using the flawed logic seen above, you can take any change you like and argue that it ultimately led to a swing to the left. In the case of the change in gun control laws in Australia in 1996, the change happened right at the start of one of the longest periods of continuous right-wing federal government in the nation's history with the swing to the left taking 11 years to arrive. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 23:58, 26 December 2007 (EST)

== WorldNetDaily reference ==

[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304 This article] from WorldNetDaily (WND) is being used as a reference for a couple of points, but I believe that the article is unreliable, possibly from relying on claims and figures from the (Australian) Sporting Shooters Association rather than official figures.

A problem with the claims are that there are no specifics, such as what years they are comparing. Presumably, however, they would be comparing, say, 1999 (as the article was written in 2000) with 1995 or 1996 (1996 being when gun control was introduced). Here are some official figures that I've found, and I've highlighted 1995 and 1999:
{| class="wikitable"
| || '''1995'''||1996||1997||1998||'''1999'''||2000||2001||2002||2003||2004||2005
|- align="right"
| align="left"| Homicides in Australia || '''326'''||314||321||287||'''344'''||316||310||318||302||263||270
|- align="right"
| align="left"| Gun homicides in Australia ||'''58'''||99||75||54||'''62'''||59||50||42||37||32||26
|- align="right"
| align="left"| Homicides in Victoria ||'''62'''||52||63||47||'''62'''||55||65||67||69||47||72
|-
| Gun homicides in Victoria || colspan="11"| <center>Not available (not found)</center>
|}

In particular, I question the following two claims:
* "'''Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent'''"
: One problem is that I can't find a 3.2% rise in murders in the official figures (above). In compiling these figures, I did notice a discrepancy between the two sources (the first two listed [[:image:Robbery victims per 100K.png|here]]), due to having to revise figures in subsequent years, so that ''might'' explain the lack of a 3.2% rise anywhere.
: The more serious problem from WND's point of view is that the figures are fluctuating, not consistently rising. 1996 was down on 1995, 1997 was up on 1996, 1998 was down on 1997, and 1999 was up on 1998! Anyone trying to make a claim that "homicides are up 3.2 percent" must be being selective with the data.
: Furthermore, although WND could not be blamed for this, the years since 1999 have shown a ''downward'' trend, with all years except 2002 and 2005 being drops over the previous year, and those two exceptions not being enough to change the trend.
* "'''In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent'''"
: I can't find gun homicides figures for Victoria at all. But the claim seems very unlikely to be true, or if it is true, it is an exception to the nationwide trend and probably caused by a very low base. Across Australia between 1995 and 1999, gun homicides were about one fifth of all homicides. If that holds true for Victoria, then Victoria's gun homicides for those years would have been around ten to twelve. A 300% increase would bring that up to 40 to 50, which is getting close to Victoria's ''total'' homicide rate. This is extremely unlikely. Alternatively, perhaps Victoria's gun homicide rate was lower than the national average to start with. In this case, it is definitely a very low base and not a good argument. Regardless, even if somehow the 300% figure is true, it must have occurred without an obvious impact on the total homicide rate for the state, and it is the exception to the (national) rule, where gun homicides went down every year except 1996 and 1999, and in 2005 were ''less than half'' the 1995 figure. Also obvious from the figures above is that Victoria's ''total'' homicide rate has fluctuated, with no clear trends up or down.
I'm not questioning some of the other claims (such as assaults being up) simply because I haven't gone to the effort of looking for the figures. But I have to wonder if they can be relied on either.

In summary, the WND article is of questionable accuracy to be used as a reliable source, and the 300% rise is unsafe to use in this article.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 26 December 2007 (EST)

: Improvements to the article are welcome, but even the table above shows clear increases in violent crime, even gun crime in the years following the gun control. The data ten years later is virtually meaningless as their were worldwide declines in crime due to demographics, not gun control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:23, 26 December 2007 (EST)

:: It does not show an increase in gun crime in the years following the new laws!! 1996 was the year of the Port Arthur massacre that led to the new laws. 35 people were killed that day, accounting for the large total seen in 1996 - so you should not be using 1996 as a post-gun-control-laws year. The following two years saw 75 deaths (up on 1995) and 54 deaths, slightly below the 1995 figure. The trend has been downwards ever since, to about half of what the prevailing rate was at the start of the table. So unless you are hanging your argument on the 75 deaths in 1997, which is just one data point out of the 11 given, I'm not sure what you are doing. (Note - over the period 1996 to 2005 the Australian population grew by about 14%, making the downward trend all the more marked.) [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 00:13, 27 December 2007 (EST)

:: I agree. Any "increase" that one might see is by being selective with the figures, picking out an atypical year. The trends are what is important, and the trends are generally downward. (I had meant to point out, as Ferret has now done, that the figures don't allow for population growth, so the downward trend is greater than shown.) Andy, I don't understand what you mean by "worldwide declines in crime ''due to demographics'', not gun control". What "demographics" are you talking about?
:: Also, you (Andy) have been making the point that widespread availability of guns reduces ''all'' (or most? or violent?) crime, and here you claim that the figures show an increase in "violent crime". But the figures don't show "violent crime" at all—they only show homicides. That is, the figures do not include rapes, assaults, armed robbery, etc. Just homicides. So they don't show ''anything'' about "violent crime" per se.
:: Furthermore, the introduction of gun restrictions in 1996 did not mean that all guns were handed in overnight. It took time, and as you noted, there were further restrictions introduced in 2002. So one would expect that the results of gun control legislation would take some time to show up, and eight years (1996 to 2004 for the robbery chart a few sections above) seems quite a reasonable time to me.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:03, 27 December 2007 (EST)

== Denial of right to self-defense ==

<s>I simply included "armed" into the above. Gun control doesn't restrict citizens' rights to self-defense by punching or martial arts or baseball bats... But Karajou reverted me with this bizarre comment on my user page: ''Don't insert a word into Asclafly's statement on the main because you think it should be included; only Aschlafly can do that. Karajou 11:05, 30 December 2007 (EST)''
Only trying to help, you know? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:07, 30 December 2007 (EST)</s>

:That's my mistake; we have a debate going on in the main talk page which got pretty long, so my mistake was not reading it properly. And no, it wasn't bizarre. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:09, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::No problem. I meant it looked bizarre to me :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:10, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== UK 1997 Election ==

I'm a little confused about the linking between gun control in the UK and the Labour victory in the election. Being British myself I can submit more than enough evidence that gun control was very, very low down on the list of factors that combined to throw the Major Government out of power. Instead I could point to sleaze, the fact that the electorate was tired of the Tories, the inability of the Conservative Government to properly manage itself (see 'Breaking the Code', a book by Gyles Brandreth, a member of the Conservative Whip's Office (internal party organisation) which lists the missteps that they seemed to be dogged by), as well as the fiasco (there is no other word for it) of the Exchange Rate Mechanism also led to the Major Government losing its reputation for economic competence. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 09:06, 2 January 2008 (EST)

:I think the fact that you're nearly 500 times more likely to be shot dead in the USA than the UK really speaks for itself. [[User:ApGriffith|ApGriffith]] 20:37, 9 January 2008 (EST)

:: Yes, it does - for the simpleminded. See [[Essay:Top Causes of Rejecting Conservatism]]. In fact, the more thoughtful realize that giving a gun to a stranger is perhaps 99 times more likely to deter and prevent crime than to cause it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:46, 9 January 2008 (EST)

:: The problem with ApGriffith's argument is that it ignores that other factors might be involved. On the other hand, I've yet to see adequately explained what other factors might account for it.[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:21, 9 January 2008 (EST)

::: Other causes are obvious: drug use, broken homes, violent culture, gambling, pornography, high criminal population, etc.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Yes, but at least some of those other factors also appear to apply in other countries with much lower rates of gun homicide. For example, does America really have a much higher drug use than other countries with lower gun homicide rates? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:56, 9 January 2008 (EST)

::::: The [[United States]] does have the highest rate of cocaine use, and by far the highest incarceration rate. The rate of fatherless families is probably far higher in the U.S. also.

::::: There's no getting around the fact that giving a gun to a stranger in any country is perhaps 99 times more likely to deter and prevent crime than to cause it. Less than 1% of people are willing to engage in violent criminal activity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)
::::::I go both ways on this issue: On the one hand the logic seems to go against gun control - as andy pointed out, but in response to Andy: we tell our children not to talk to strangers - should we stop doing that since only less than 1% of people are willing to engage in violent criminal activity? I mean it really is tough, and I agree with the current laws that gun control laws should be dictated on a state-by-state basis --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: It's difficult to get valid comparable figures for some of these things. But I will concede that it does appear to be true that cocaine use in the United States is higher than other countries. I'm not sure if that applies to other illicit drugs also, but Australia does have the advantage of no borders with other countries, making it more difficult than most other places to get illegal substances into the country, so that might apply to other illicit drugs as well.
:::::: It does also appear—although this is where comparable figures are quite a problem—that America's fatherless home rate is a ''little'' higher than Australia, but not "far higher" as you suggested. But it's not likely to be enough to make that much of a difference. One pair of figures I found for single parent families was 16% in the U.S. and 14% in Australia.
:::::: From memory, Australia has about one quarter of all the poker machines in the world, but there wouldn't be too much crime associated with that sort of gambling I expect, and America probably has more casinos per capita than Australia, so you ''might'' be right on that.
:::::: A more violent culture in the U.S. would likely be a ''consequence'' of lack of gun control rather than a cause of more gun deaths, so that one is quite unconvincing. The same might be said for the "high criminal population".
:::::: Pornography you've suggested before and I've questioned that, and you've not produced any further evidence of pornography being worse in America, so I don't accept that one either.
:::::: In summary, at least one or two of your "other factors" might be true in the sense that those factors are more pronounced in America, and theoretically could lead to more gun deaths, but even though this means that one can't say that a higher gun death rate is not due to other factors, it still doesn't prove that it's not do do with the prevalence of guns. In other words, it ''could'' be other factors, but it still ''could'' be the guns. The case is still not made.

:::::: "''There's no getting around the fact that giving a gun to a stranger in any country is perhaps 99 times more likely to deter and prevent crime than to cause it.''": That appears to be a ''reasonable conclusion'', but it's not a "fact". Furthermore, I can put just as reasonable argument the other way: There's no getting around the "fact" that the more guns you have in a country, and the fewer controls on their safekeeping, the more likely that criminals will be able to get their hands on a gun, and the more likely a gun will be used in a moment of passion or rage to kill someone, and the more likely that someone will be shot by accident.
:::::: So this issue is simply not as simple and straightforward as you make it out to be.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:07, 10 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: I'm sorry, but aren't we getting more than a bit away from the original point here? Gun control, especially in the wake of the Dunblane massacre, had no influence, at all, on the 1997 General Election. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:18, 13 January 2008 (EST)

==Why is gun control equated with the left wing?==

I have always been under the impression that people on the right tend to favour more ordered, law abiding societies. Surely, therefore, gun control is more likely to appeal to the ''right'', rather than the left. Take the Roman Empire - the carrying of arms (swords rather than guns, obviously) was banned for civilians, and it was a sign that an area had slipped into barbarism when this could no longer be enforced when the empire fell. [[User:ApGriffith|ApGriffith]] 12:16, 11 January 2008 (EST)

: There's no disputing that the left promotes [[gun control]], regardless of whether it actually reduces crime (it doesn't), and that [[conservatives]] support a full right of self-defense that includes the right bear arms. So your impression is wrong, I'm afraid.

: Are you right about the Roman Empire? I'm skeptical ... [[Peter]] carried a sword and cut off a soldier's ear at the beginning of the [[Passion]], and that was in the Roman Empire circa A.D. 33. Swording carrying was so common, in fact, that [[Jesus]] even praised the value in carrying one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:26, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::Peter was armed illegally. With regard to the right promoting the ownership of guns by civilians, this is not true of the right outside the USA. Indeed it was the Major government that tightened up the controls. With a pretty comprehensive ban on ownership of guns in the UK crime involving firearms is very low indeed - not even the police are usually armed. [[User:ApGriffith|ApGriffith]] 12:32, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::I wonder if Peter was armed illegally. I think I'm right in saying that they were in a semi-autonomous region of the Roman Empire and could have had various by-laws allowing armed civilians. Don't know just speculating. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:36, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::: Doubtful that Peter was armed illegally. Why wasn't he arrested then? I'd like to see some evidence for your claim. Swords were so common that Jesus even praised arming oneself with them.

::: The left led the push for [[gun control]] in the U.K. Let's not kid anyone here. A highly publicized school massacre followed by an immense media and leftist push got the job done. The Major government was a reluctant participant, at best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:37, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::''Why wasn't Peter arrested?'' Can you seriously not think of a logical explanation for that? - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 11:00, 12 January 2008 (EST)

It's equated with the left wing because the liberal left are its primary proponents. They want the government to spearhead all social change, especially unpopular programs which can be forced on others.

By the way, I know a man in a US anti-terrorist force (sorry, I will not reveal any secrets here) who was nearly killed overseas because of gun control. He was [[unarmed]], escorting a captured terrorist when armed men attacked him. It was a miracle that he survived. Yes, he credits [[God]] for preserving his life.

But imagine the insanity of forbidding an anti-terrorism officer to carry a pistol! That combined with the rules against so-called "[[racial profiling]]" which means that Arabs and Muslims can't be excluded from access to secret information simply because some white or Christian Englishman has "a funny feeling" about him.

Liberals almost got my friend killed!! That's why I oppose them so strongly: they are the party of death; see [[Communism]], which killed over 100 million people ([[genocide]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:41, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:Ed, are you sure that it wasn't simply a matter of your friend not having the right to carry arms in a foreign country? Certainly a UK anti-terrorism officer escorting a terrorist in the UK would be armed (if it was deemed necessary) but only on very rare occasions are foreign law-enforcement officers allowed to be armed in the UK. Arming the police (or anyone else) is not a liberal issue in the UK. At least no more than it is a conservative one. While I remain respectfully ignorant of the details of your friend's incident, American security personnel do have a reputation for not trusting local law enforcement agencies and try to conduct law enforcement on their own terms while abiding (mostly) with the local laws. It might have been (although this is of course pure personal conjecture on my part) that your friend's US agency might have been unwilling to accept armed local law enforcement assistance and therefore carried the risk of being unarmed while escorting a dangerous terrorist.
:There are two interesting exceptions to this general rule about foreign law enforcement agents not allowed to be armed in the UK. One is the French police at some UK ports and the Channel Tunnel entrance. The other is US armed protection officers during the visit of the US President. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:54, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:: Seeing armed police always makes me feel uneasy. I think it's instinctive. I grew up with unarmed cops around, and seeing them armed makes me feel freaked out. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 08:59, 14 January 2008 (EST)

== Overview ==

Where do they teach anyone that the Overview for an encyclopedia article goes in the middle? - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 11:58, 12 January 2008 (EST)

== "Western Societies" ==

The "Western societies" edit strikes me as unjustified, and even offensive. It implies that non-Western societies primarily use guns to attack each other. I don't think so!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:37, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
: It may not be that accurate, i.e. too narrow, but neither was the previous wording accurate, in my opinion. In some parts of the world, guns do seem to be more for offensive purposes, but perhaps I was a bit hasty with making that change. I think the wording needed to be changed, though. It was a very general statement, making no distinction between different uses for guns. Guns are used for (a) personal defensive purpose, (b) sporting (target) shooting, (c) hunting (duck shooting, deer shooting, etc.), (d) shooting pest animals, and other farming purposes, (e) culling excessive animals, (f) police and security guard purposes, (f) military purposes, (g) crime, (h) para-military(?) purposes (rebels, etc.), (i) terrorism, and perhaps others. In the U.S., most of those would apply, except (hopefully) the last couple. And apart from perhaps military, (a) is probably accounts for most gun sales. In some other western countries (e.g. Australia), (a) would not apply, but (b) to (f) apply (and a little bit of (g)). In some other parts of the world, the relative proportions would change quite considerably, and I wonder if (a) is really all that high in those places. But then, does (f) come under the category of "defensive" or not? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:45, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Philip, violent criminals are less than 1% of the population in ''all'' countries, Eastern or Western. There is no way to convert that basic fact to a claim that guns are purchased mostly for criminal or militarily offensive purposes ''anywhere''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::: Andy, that may be so (although I suspect that there are ''some'' places where the figure is not as low as 1%), but that response only compares (a) to (f) and (g). There's also (b), (c), (d), (e), (h), and (i). Now perhaps they don't make up a large percentage of sales either, but then again, perhaps some of them do in some countries (e.g. Australia). I'm happy for it to be changed, although not happy for it to be changed back to what it was, as that was too simplistic. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:50, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

==Merely laws? / Opening graph==

Gun control is not simply a legislative act. Had there been guns before nations or empires, it would be simply an act of personal politic. I understand that the arguement I just outlined is purely hypothetial, but it has relevance, so lemme get to that. The opening of this article, within the first three words, outlines that it is purely to discuss gun control '''laws'''. I haven't read the entirety of the article (it's freakin' yuge), so perhaps I'm being hasty here. But is there any kind of laws which do not simply refer to "firearms", "projectiles", "guns", etc., as anything but axioms. Who's to say a bow-and-arrow aren't just a sharp, slow, wooden gun? I'm serious about this. Gun control, in essence, is about the right to carry shaped metal; about who has the right to instigate friction, momentum, and chemical reactions. It is from this position that I consider myself anti-gun control (don't tack me up for POV-pushing, I mention this about myself in the interest of full disclosure).

My second point is the statement that weapons are "acquired mostly for defensive and sporting purpouses". As a website which takes into account, and is somewhat infamous for points of view expressed on, as well as talk page debates on, subjects such as Creation, Religion, the Universe, sexuality, etc., I think statements like this should be broadened in terms of scope and history rather than definition or other such criterion. Through the course of human history, guns have overwhelmingly been meant for military purpouses; to kill other people on the other side of an imaginary borders. The AK-47 alone has been produced, in various forms, almost 600 million times, mostly to foment and engage in revolutions. It is irresponsible and false to say that guns are acquired mostly for defensive/sporting purpouses. Unless, of course, this articles takes some post-human objectivist thing about all of us really just being animals, and all murder is just "sporting". But that's just as ridiculous.

[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 16:45, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
: I wasn't happy about the "mostly defensive" wording either (and the "sporting" bit got added as a result). But I think that "mostly defensive" might be closer to correct than you realise. First, the phrase is in the present tense, so what was the case in the past is not relevant. Sure, maybe some history could be included in the article, but it doesn't have to be in that phrase. Second, even in the past, if people acquired weapons for offensive purposes, likely at least as many acquired them for ''defensive'' purposes, to defend themselves against those who got them for ''offensive'' purposes. So the bit about them being mostly for defensive purposes is likely to be correct in most cases, I suspect. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:11, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::Wilson's argument should be sourced and referenced to some typical group or individual who espouses it. I hardly think he's the only one who thinks this way, it it would be good to provide a contrasting view:

::* Through the course of human history, guns have overwhelmingly been meant for military purpouses; to kill other people on the other side of an imaginary borders. The AK-47 alone has been produced, in various forms, almost 600 million times, mostly to foment and engage in revolutions. It is irresponsible and false to say that guns are acquired mostly for defensive/sporting purpouses.

::It is a typical [[liberal]] POV that we need stricter gun control laws, on the grounds that "guns have only one purpose, i.e., to kill people" and that "they are used more for offensive purposes (i.e., selfish aggression) than defensive purposes".

::We can contrast the liberal POV with the facts which Lott brings out. In America there are at least one million defensive uses of guns each year. This doesn't even count the number of robberies and shootings that don't occur simply because someone is known to be armed. Who would dare shoot a Secret Service agent while she was protected Hillary or Dubya? And how many people dare stick up a Brink's guard with a pistol in plain view? (Don't forget policemen in uniform.)

::As to the larger issue of whether guns are bad in general, we must ask whether the "[[just war]]" concept has any validity. Would God ever bless a nation to fight back against a would-be conqueror? A deeper and thornier question might be, would God ever bless one people to conquer another? (See [[Book of Joshua]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:33, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::: Gun control is also the POV of many conservatives, and their reasons are not (limited to) "guns only have one purpose" nor "they are used more for offensive purposes". There is also, for example, "guns can kill accidentally and in moments of passion, which they couldn't if they weren't there". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:26, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Picture ==
Before I get in a edit war I would like to know how the current picture adds anything to the article except make it seem like a blog entry. Please rationally support your arguments or don't comment back. No insults or foundationless name calling (i.e. liberal ________). There is too much of that here. I remove the picture in one day unless there is a decent argument presented. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 19:17, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
:Instead of deleting the picture, how about adding a caption along the lines of "A poster produced by pro-gun activists", or whatever is actually the case with that image? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:44, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

== External Links ==

Removed the following two links since they are pro gun-control and more importantly are misleading:
*[http://www.guninformation.org/ Gun Control and the Second Amendment]
*[http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm Myth: Switzerland proves that high gun-ownership doesn't increase murder]

For example the latter site claims (as oopposed to the incorrect description provided above):
"Switzerland is frequently cited as an example of a country with high gun ownership and a low murder rate. However, Switzerland also has a high degree of gun control, and actually makes a better argument for gun regulation than gun liberalization."

{{unsigned|Jlewis}}
: Since when is being "pro gun-control" a reason to remove a link?
: And how does the bit you quote make it misleading? I ''think'' you might be saying that the title of the second page is somehow contradicted by the quote from it, but I can't see any contradiction.
: I'm adding them back in.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

== Switzerland ==

I'm going to take out the section on Switzerland, as the content is of doubtful accuracy. It cites a BBC article from 2001 which appears from other sources (e.g. [http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071209090621AATAp4K] and [http://digg.com/political_opinion/Switzerland_and_the_gun]) to be either incorrect or out of date. In particular, it claims that "the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept", which appears to be outright nonsense, given that such statistics are available (e.g. [http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm] and [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita]). Further, those statistics contradict the claim currently in the article that "Switzerland has one of the world's lowest gun crime rates" (which raises the question of how one would know that if there's no statistics kept!), yet those last two links show that Switzerland has one of the ''highest'' rates of industrialised countries (ahead of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, for example).

== Populations ==

Guns aren't actually bad in general. According to Thomas Malthus (do not quote me on this, Quote Malthus), the only things keeping the human population under control are wars, famines, and disease. Today, we have much less diseases and famines than were during Malthus's time and we are quickly approaching our carrying capacity. Therefore, if there are more guns in circulation, the human poulation would be kept in check again. So guns are actually helpful.
-Sundance
: Malthus was wrong (prosperity tends to suppress population growth, as does China's one-child policy), and I very much doubt that we ''are'' "quickly approaching our carrying capacity". So your macabre claim is nonsense. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:24, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

You have to realize there are two types of over-population. One is the obvious excessive population growth of humans. The other focuses on over-population pollution wise. The more wealth pepole have, the more they pollute and the more they use up natural resources. Carrying capacity is defined as the number of organisms an ecosystem could sustain and we're using up envionmental resouces at an increasing rate. Therefore, prosperity would lead to the same consequence as overpopulation. And we are quickly approaching our carrying capacity becuase we are using up more and more natural resources. My claim is not nonsense. -Sundance
: That's two ''problems with'' overpopulation, not two ''types''.
: The claim that the wealthier people are the more they pollute is not necessarily true. The wealthiest nations are the ones that have done the most to limit pollution, whereas the most polluting nations have been places like the much poorer former eastern European countries. Pollution is not inextricably tied to wealth.
: That ''some'' resources such as fossil fuels are finite does not mean that there are not other resources, many renewable, that could replace them.
: In ''this'' post you've put a much more reasonable argument than your previous post regarding guns being helpful. ''That'' post was nonsense, and as ''this'' post doesn't defend that point, this post does nothing to change the fact that your previous post ''was'' nonsense.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:06, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

== Law abiding use vs. criminal use ==

The article now says, "In the United States, law-abiding uses of guns outnumber criminal uses by about a factor of 1000 to 1", with the reference being "http://www.americanselfdefense.com/gunfacts3.0.pdf (p. 60)". Is this a reference to that page saying "Percentage of guns used in crimes: 0.09%"? If so, I believe that it has been misunderstood, as that is talking about the percentage ''of guns'', not the percentage of ''uses of guns''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:48, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

== Incorrect Items About the United Kingdom Crime Level ==

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita According to this page the UK has a lower murder rate than America even with the UK gun laws. The UK also has less assaults and stabbings. Yet on the Gun Control page it states the opposite. Shouldnt Conservapedia correct the entry? I would do it but only a mod can do it.

Thanks

--[[User:EllisUSA|EllisUSA]] 22:17, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Removal of my edits ==
Might I ask why ASchlafly decided to remove my edits? I will concede that the formulation could have done with some work, but I fail to see what the problem with the content was...

--[[User:Trinity123|Trinity123]])

: Your edit was pure opinion, and one lacking in logic. Guns have deterrent value whether used or not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:25, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

== On "Genocide" in the article ==

How does the genocides in the Soviet Union, Germany, and Turkey have anything to do with gun control? The genocides didn't happen as a result of gun control, nor were the control laws an influence on the decision on the murders of millions. I can expect someone to say "if they have weapons to defend themselves it wouldn't have happened", which isn't exactly true. The army of a massive state, like that of the Soviet Union, and the opressive personality cult states with a militarist society, like that of Nazi Germany, pretty much wouldn't be effected by armed militias. Taking those "examples" and applying it to gun control in the United States is just absurd, like somehow liberals promote racial genocide? Communism, Nazism (or National Socialism) isn't in anyway connected to liberalism and the center-left in America, I'm not trying to defend liberals here but saying they promote laws that inevitably lead to genocide is just crossing the line there. They have many gun control laws in Asia, Japan and South Korea are good examples. [[User:CrimsonKing|CrimsonKing]] 22:58, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

== Gun control in Britain ==

I have removed the following fragment:

"In [[Britain]], for example, the enactment of a ban on most handguns in February 1997<ref>As in Australia, gun control passed in [[Britain]] based on a highly publicized but isolated and statistically insignificant act of violence.</ref> directly resulted in the [[Labour Party]] winning a landslide 179 seat majority in the general election later that year, the first time it exceeded 40% of the popular vote in over 25 years. The new government soon extended the ban to cover nearly all handguns, and the [[Labour Party]] has remained in power in [[Britain]] for over a decade."

It cites no sources, and is therefore in my mind pure speculation, the use of the phrase "directly resulted" is extremely strong, and needs to be supported by a suitable reliable citation to justify inclusion. If necesary I can find numerous sources citing completely unrelated reasons for Labor's 1997 election victory. [[User:ConcernedScientist|ConcernedScientist]] 09:11, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Liberal Deceit ==

The article does use the word deceit, so if it talks about liberal deceit, it's not very obvious. Additionally, this article describes the conservative position, should we put this in the conservatism category? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== Reversion of Ed Poor's edit ==

I reverted the inclusion of the quote "Even more troublesome is the fact that the places where gun control laws are toughest tend to be the places where the most crime is committed with illegal weapons." for the following reasons:
* It was taken out of context. The context was a United States study, but inclusion in the article made no reference to the U.S. and was in the introduction, where it would be taken as a general (worldwide) claim.
* The edit came a day after a [http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,24744138-5005961,00.html news report] here in Oz that gun murders are way down ("Only 11 per cent of murder victims were killed with a firearm, the lowest proportion on record and down four per cent on 2005-06.") and all murders are also down ("The statistics show homicide rates have fallen by a third in the last six years.")
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:26, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:*And America, bless her, has a 12% rate, and what? '''200 million more people than Oz?''' America comes out the winner yet again. :D --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:47, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::: Given that we are comparing ''rates'', not actual numbers, how is 12% better than 11%? And can you give a reference for the 12% please? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:07, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:: [[Gun control]] causes an increase in assaults, muggings, robberies, kidnappings, burglaries, and ... fear. It's no different in Australia. See [http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2007/facts_and_figures_2007.pdf]. When the aging population is taken into account (older people commit fewer crimes than younger people), then the increase in crime from gun control is even larger. Basic logic dictates this result, as defensive uses of guns inevitably outnumber criminal uses by a 100 to 1 ratio or more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::: And yet the reference you provided does not support all your claims:
:::* Assaults: Yes, there was an increase (p. 12 of your reference)
:::* Muggings: I assume that these are included in assaults; the term is not used in your reference.
:::* Robberies: "The rate for robbery peaked in 2001. Following a subsequent decline, the rate has levelled out to 84 per 100,000 in 2006." (p.12)
:::* Kidnappings: "The rate of kidnapping remained between 3 and 4 per 100,000 between 1996 and 2006." (p.12)
:::* Unlawful entry with intent (UEWI) (burglaries): "The rate of UEWI remained relatively stable from 1996 to 2001 and has declined since then." (p.13)
:::* Fear: The reference did not seem to document how fear might have changed.
::: The aging population would affect the figures, but again the reference doesn't mention that, so it is no more than speculation how much affect it would have. I could just as easily and validly speculate that Australia's increasing intake of refugees from countries with more lawlessness should have caused an ''increase''.
::: So basically, only one of your claims was supported by your reference.

::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:07, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:::: Philip, you're arguing against logic. The number of assaults went up by about 50%. Kidnappings almost doubled. When adjusted for age, violent crime went up across the board when gun control is imposed. Deny it all you like, as you have free will to do so. But 99% of gun purchases and uses are for defensive purposes, and that inevitably means that violent crime goes up when gun control is imposed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:29, 3 December 2008 (EST)
::::: If I'm arguing against logic, then perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain the logic in a formal way, because you are arguing against the facts in your own reference! And while you're at it, please also produce the following:
:::::* Figures for your claim that "When adjusted for age, violent crime went up across the board...", because the reference doesn't mention it.
:::::* Evidence that, in Australia, "99% of gun purchases and uses are[/were] for defensive purposes", because I'd be quite sure that was simply not true.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:49, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: Philip, obviously it's a fool's errand to debate with anyone who has a closed mind, and I don't intend to do so. Only 1 in 1000 Australians commit violent crimes. A higher fraction, by orders of magnitude, have bought or used guns. If you doubt my 99% estimate, then propose your own. But don't insist on supporting gun control while not forming an estimate about that ratio. That would be the ultimate in irrationality.

:::::: Virtually every conservative rejects gun control. A majority of the U.S. Congress rejects it. Australia has moved dramatically and predictably to the left since embracing gun control. I suggest you reconsider the issue, but that's obviously up to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:17, 4 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: "''...it's a fool's errand to debate with anyone who has a closed mind...''": So now I'm a fool?
::::::: I didn't ask you to continue debating. I asked you to provide evidence to back up your claims. Your blatant failure to do that is very telling.
::::::: "''Only 1 in 1000 Australians commit violent crimes. A higher fraction, by orders of magnitude, have bought or used guns.''": Can you back up ''that'' claim (the second sentence)? I very much doubt that it's true.
::::::: "''If you doubt my 99% estimate, then propose your own.''": So now you're asking me to make up figures to support my argument? Is that because that's what you do?
::::::: "''But don't insist on supporting gun control while not forming an estimate about that ratio.''": I ''have'' formed an estimate about the ratio. That's why I questioned yours, because my estimate is ''much'' lower than yours. But my estimate doesn't have an actual figure attached, because I prefer to stick with known evidence, not made-up figures. (For the record, I believe that gun purchases and use for sporting shooters, hunters, and gun collecting would have far outweighed guns bought and used for defensive purposes. If you include guns bought by police and other security forces as "defensive", then ''perhaps'' "defensive" outweighs other uses, but still by nowhere near 99%. Further, this is talking mostly about ''purchase'', not ''use''. Actual ''use'' for defensive purposes would be ''far'' outweighed by sporting and hunting use.)
::::::: "''That would be the ultimate in irrationality.''": It's not irrational to ask someone to provide evidence for their claims.
::::::: "''Virtually every conservative rejects gun control.''": In America, perhaps, but we are not talking about America. In Australia, where we are talking about, that claim is completely false, and you should know that, except that you've closed your mind to the possibility.
::::::: "''Australia has moved dramatically and predictably to the left since embracing gun control.''": It's the height of irrationality to keep repeating long-refuted claims.

::::::: To summarise, your first post in this section was not a direct response to what I posted, but I replied to your specific claims by showing them to be wrong. You tried disputing a few of them, but by and large ignored the actual refutations, opting instead for a sweeping dismissal of my rebuttals (I'm "arguing against logic"), and introducing a new, unfounded claim. When I question you on ''that'' claim, you introduce some ''new'' claims (new to ''this'' discussion), rather than address the specific claims you raised and I refuted. Changing the subject like this shows that you have no good argument.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:39, 4 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Philip, your angry posting is an argument with yourself at this point. In open-minded discussions, estimates are common and helpful. Jumping on someone else's estimates while refusing to provide your own is a sign of bullying rather than open mind. Rant and insist on [[last wordism]] if you like, but I'm not going to waste any more time with your approach. The logical and political rejection of the fallacy of [[gun control]] is so widely accepted in the United States that gun control is rarely advocated in most states here any more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 4 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::: You are still avoiding supporting ''your'' arguments. Even Ed Poor below calls for facts and quoting studies. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:27, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Slow down, pardnuh! When Andy said "fool's errand" he was referring to himself. Let's not try to settle this by shouting one another down. Simply quote studies: that's where we get our facts.

My mind is not made up. I am open to being shown that "gun control" can have good effects. I sure don't want to have to go around carrying a gun all the time. I'd rather live where no one wants to kill or rob me. God knows, this would be heaven. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:16, 4 December 2008 (EST)
: Yes, Ed, I know he was referring to himself. My comment apparently went over your head. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:27, 4 December 2008 (EST)

"Jumping on someone else's estimates while refusing to provide your own is a sign of bullying rather than open mind." I fully agree with that statement, but how does it square with an earlier statement of yours from [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study&diff=492631&oldid=492623 here]: "One need not propose an alternative, or a solution, in order to identify a flaw."? {{unsigned|DuncanC}}

== Gun control debate vs. greater emphasis on changing violent thinking of society ==

I don't pretend to be greatly informed on the gun control debate. I do know of an interesting study in Canada. It seems when television (which certainly has its share of gratuitous violence) was first introduced one town or city did not have it for an extended period but if memory recalls a somewhat nearby town did have television. It seems as if the town that did have television, had a noticeable increase in crime.

It seems to me that more time and serious effort should be spent changing people's attitudes about senseless violence than attempting to excessively control gun ownership.

Switzerland has the highest rates of gun ownership, but low rates of gun related crime compared to the rest of Europe. I think this is likely because the Swiss have less violent attitudes and beliefs. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:30, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:That is indeed interesting. One wonders if their television is as Godless as ours, as full of violence. Some might assume so, but it would be interesting to see if there are studies available... --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:35, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:::Maybe the crime rate went up as people now have TVs to steal :) [[User:BrianF|BrianF]] 19:53, 4 December 2008 (EST)

:: From what I've read of Switzerland, although they do have higher rates of gun ownership, there's also pretty strict controls on them. But I think that what is relevant here is that this entire issue is to do with a lot more than just guns and their availability, but includes society attitudes, media influences, general policing practices, and so much more. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:04, 3 December 2008 (EST)
:::Such as violent videos and computer games. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 04:22, 3 December 2008 (EST)
switzerland is a bad example about gun control because every man within a certain age is a member of the swiss army reserve and must have his service weapon at home with him. [http://www.gunownersofvermont.org/swiss_army.html Here] [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:09, 4 December 2008 (EST)
::::Markr, does the Swiss Army Reserve use non-deadly water rifles? :) On a more serious note, it would be interesting to know what percentage of the Swiss have handguns and compare that relative to other European nations. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:25, 4 December 2008 (EST)
::::: what I am trying to convey is that the swiss statistics do not fairly compare with countries where gun ownership is a choice. I would also expect variences in accidents because of the military training they receive. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:44, 4 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Whilst all males have guns in Switzerland, you can't buy ammunition for them. Same with the officers handguns. They all have guns and a sealed box of ammunition which is regularly inspected to ensure that they have not been opened. For any gun other than your military weapon you have to go through tight licensing. [[User:BrianF|BrianF]] 19:51, 4 December 2008 (EST)

== Riddle me this... ==

I read the above discussion ("Reversion of Ed Poor's edit") with interest. I then looked at the section in the article headed "Gun control outside the USA" which regrettably makes no reference to Australia. I then went and looked at the murder rates and rates of gun related death in the US and Australia.

What struck me was that there is a huge difference between the two countries which does not appear to be explained by anything contained within the article.

The homicide rates are: US: 5.7 per 100,000; Australia: 1.28 per 100,000.

The firearm-related homicide rates are: US: 3.72 per 100,000; Australia: 0.44 per 100,000.

It appears from those figures that firearms have a huge input into the high murder rate in the US. About 2/3rds of homicides in the US are by gun. Only about 1/3rd of homicides in Australia are by gun. And why are the homicide rates so different?

I suggest that gun control in Australia does have the effect of lowering the homicide rate. However, I suggest that the figures indicate that it is not the only factor. But what else is at work?

More importantly, the article as it stands is a piece of advocacy against gun control. Any chance of an encyclopedic article? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I got the above figures from WP. I note that they are not all for the same years. The gun-related death rates are older figures. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:37, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== Australia ==

The recent edits of Aschlafly contain a number of errors, misconceptions and misleading statements.

Australia is not "far more rural" than the US. Australia may have fewer drug problems but I am not sure how exactly you measure the number of "drug problems". It may have always had a lower homicide rate but it has probably also always had a stricter gun control regime. It was not "leftists" that demanded strict gun control after the Port Arthur killings. Indeed it was the very conservative Howard government that introduced the changes. The country did not then move to the left politically but kept Howard in office for 11 years. It is also untrue to link increases in assualts to gun control. Any rises in the assualt rates appear unrelated to gun control. See [http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4524A092E30E4486CA2569DE00256331 here]. Accordingly I have reverted the changes. I would be happy to discuss. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:54, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: We've discussed this before. Don't reinsert your liberal bias.

: [[Gun control]] was pushed in Australia by the media, which (surprise, surprise) is [[leftist]]. A decade later, the entire country at virtually every level is (surprise, surprise) controlled by [[leftists]], now that the people rely more on the government for protection. And it is true (surprise, surprise) that assaults increased as a result of stricter [[gun control]].--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::You've never been to Australila have you? No-one who has *any* knowledge at all of Australian politics links *any* of the elections since 1996 to gun control. And as I said, Howard remained in office for 11 years. Gun control was one of his first major issues as Prime Minister. He is Australia's '''second longest serving Prime Minister'''.

::You clearly didn't look at the page that I referred to from the Australian Bureau of Statistics did you? There is no indication that gun control had any relationship to rates of assault. Take a look. If I am wrong I would be delighted for you to point it out.

::Now, you've told me not to reinsert my "liberal bias". I do not wish to insert any bias into any article. If I am wrong I would certainly not want to place incorrect information in the article. On the other hand, I am sure that if you are wrong you would want me to fix it up.

::Why don't you have a look at the statistics and get back to me. If I don't hear from you I will assume that you want me to correct the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: TCochrane, address my points. Yes, newspapers are [[leftist]], yes, they did cause the stricter gun control to pass, and, yes, Australia has moved further left than ever in history as a result. Obviously the shift did not happen immediately, as incumbents enjoy inherent advantages. But the shift did inevitably come, which is why leftists push so hard for irrational gun control.

::: Insist on reinserting your liberal bias and your account will be blocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::How about you address my points?

::::So far as your points go: newspapers are leftist? Some Australian newspapers are. Which ones are you talking about? Did they "cause" the stricter gun control? I would have thought it is hard to substantiate that statement. How do show that newspapers caused a particular political decision? Was it the papers or was it public opinion? Chicken or egg? Tell me how and why you say it was the papers. And which papers.

::::As to your other point, I have already addressed it. No-one who has any knowledge of Australia at all links the current political landscape, 11 years later, to the gun control measures. You're right out there on your own with that one.

::::Now, do you want an accurate article or just a piece of blogging? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Gun control

2008-12-27T00:14:33Z

TCochrane: /* Australia */

Gun control

2008-12-26T23:55:41Z

TCochrane: Undo revision 594702 by Aschlafly (Talk) See talk page

'''Gun control''' laws restrict the purchase or ownership of guns, a weapon acquired mostly for defensive or sporting purposes. Gun control is unique among social programs in increasing the emotional and physical dependency of ''all'' voters on government. It is often promoted by [[liberal]]s.

Gun control is a denial or limitation by [[government]]s of the right to armed [[self-defense]]<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"> "In contrast to most other weaponry, firearms are preeminently defensive in effect." [http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref>, as promised by the [[Second Amendment]] of the Constitution of the [[United States of America]]. Left-Leaning, even [[Socialist]] [[Liberals]] often support Gun Control.

Proponents use the discredited - but superficially appealing - claim that fewer lawfully-owned guns leads to less crime.<ref>People who support gun control generally believe that gun control laws significantly reduce violent crime. [http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/irrationality.htm Why People Are Irrational about Politics]</ref><ref>Gun control primarily restricts the lawful acquisition and use of guns. Over 99% of the guns restricted by most gun control regulation are used in a lawful manner.</ref>
Because gun control increases the dependence of voters on government, its political effect is to shift the electorate leftward and its primary supporters are leftists.<ref>[http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/repeal.html Quotes of Leftists Demanding Gun Control]</ref> In the [[United Kingdom]], which already has the strictest gun control in Europe, [[leftists]] demand control over 120,000 ''deactivated'' guns, even though their activation and use constitute only 0.04% of all gun offenses there. <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3168607.ece]</ref>

In the United States the three primary [[federal]] gun control laws are:
* [[National Firearms Act]] (1934)
* [[Gun Control Act]] (1968)
* [[Brady Bill]] (1993)

These laws have further been amended by other laws such as the [[Firearms Owners Protection Act]] (1986) and the [[Omnibus Crime Bill]] (1994).

== The Fallacy and Motivation for Gun Control ==
[[Image:No Weapons Allowed.gif|right]]
Gun control potentially causes an increase in crime by restricting its main deterrent: [[self-defense]]. In the United States, law-abiding uses of guns outnumber criminal uses by about a factor of 1000 to 1,<ref>http://www.americanselfdefense.com/gunfacts3.0.pdf (p. 60)</ref> and the removal of guns from everyone eliminates the lawful use of self-defense and its deterrent effect. "[[Americans]] use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year."<ref name="Gallup_LAT">"This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times." (Just Facts - [http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Gun Control])</ref> Specific examples of guns being used successfully in [[self-defense]] are easy to find.<ref>Two 70-ish store owners stopped armed robberies of their stores by shooting at the bandits. "The person came in and pointed the gun at him and my father shot him. I'm proud of him." [http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/buffaloerie/story/253849.html Buffalo News]</ref> "In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim."<ref name="Gallup_LAT"/> When [[Florida]] began allowing its citizens to carry a concealed weapon, [[Florida]]'s firearm homicide rate fell by 37% while the national average ''increased'' by 15%.<ref name="Gallup_LAT"/> As explained below, the political effect of gun control is to cause voters to become more dependent emotionally on government and more supportive of bigger government.

Studies by [[John Lott]] and others indicate that gun control causes higher crime rates.<ref>[http://www.johnrlott.com/ John Lott's Website]</ref> [[Washington, D.C.]] has one of the highest crime rates in [[America]] even though it completely bans private handguns.<ref>[http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm District of Columbia Crime Rates 1960 - 2006]</ref> "Switzerland, Israel, Denmark and Finland, all of whom have a higher gun ownership rate than America, all have lower crime rates than America, in fact, their crime rates are among the lowest in the Western World."<ref>Slashdoc - [http://www.slashdoc.com/documents/71244 gun control]</ref> Lott demonstrates that in [[Britain]], [[Australia]] and [[Canada]], increased gun control in the late 1990s led to increased crime, the exact opposite of what the proponents of the gun control promised.<ref>John R. Lott Jr. and Eli Lehrer - [http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDGunConFailure.html Add Gun Control To Litany Of Misbegotten Gov't Plans]</ref> States in the [[U.S.]] that have enacted concealed-carry laws enjoy lower crime rates.<ref>[http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706 Cato report]</ref>

[[image:Robbery victims per 100K.png|300px|thumb|Source data: Australian Bureau of Statistics]]
In [[Australia]], where gun ownership was less widespread and the gun control measures were less strict, there was an immediate increase in robbery and armed robbery after the gun control went into effect in 1996 (see chart at right).<ref>Gun control passed in Australia because "public was immediately whipped into a gun control frenzy by the press" after the "Port Arthur massacre" in Tasmania on April 28, 1996, in which 32 were shot dead and 19 injured. "Although polls done prior to the massacre indicated that the public was satisfied with the amount of 'gun control' they already had, a major newspaper did a poll just a few days after the massacre (while all minds were "clear") and, not surprisingly, found high levels of support for extreme gun control measures. This poll would be used forever by the commonwealth government and other gun controllers to claim that Australians supported the new gun laws to come." - [http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html Gun Control in Australia] (by gunsandcrime.org)</ref>
There is no clear evidence supporting a decrease in crime from gun control.<ref name="Results">[http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html Results of the Australian Gun "Buyback" & New Gun Laws], October 2001</ref><ref>[http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/azl084v1 Study showing lack of promised benefits from gun control]</ref>

Subsequent to gun control in England:<ref>http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html</ref>

:"from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now [as of 2002] six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people."<ref>However this increase in recorded violent crime between 1997 and 2001 is explained by the Home Office as a result of changes in the definition of violent crime and new counting rules introduced in 1998. [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf Violent Crime in England and Wales] According to the British Crime Survey, which is considered a more reliable guide to trends in crime[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/crime-statistics-independent-review-06.pdf], violent crime fell 24% between 1997 and 2001/02, and burglary fell 40% over the same period.[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb1105tab201.xls Trends in BCS incidents of crime]</ref>

Gun control in [[Britain]] and [[Australia]] has been followed by a predictable shift to the left politically by voters as they lost their instrument of self-defense and became more emotionally dependent on government. In [[Australia]],the passage of gun control in 1996 and its expansion in 2002 has led to a complete takeover of all nine federal, state and territory legislatures by the Labor Party, the first time a single party has ever achieved this in Australian history.<ref>The Sydney Morning Herald - [http://www.smh.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/either-way-its-history-in-the-making/2007/11/23/1195753310949.html Either way, it's history in the making]</ref><ref>ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) - [http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/ 2007 Federal Election]</ref> Contrast that with the [[United States]], where an effort to push gun control after the [[Columbine massacre]] failed in 2000 and the government has remained as [[conservative]] -- if not more so -- ever since.

The emasculation of the citizenry by gun control also arguably reduces the resistance of a society to intimidation, and exacerbates fear of consequences from causing offense. Subsequent to the passage of strict gun control in [[England]] some teachers have avoided teaching controversial subjects such as the [[Holocaust]], the Arab-Israeli conflict and the [[Crusades]] during history classes.<ref>http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RW100.pdf</ref>
Teaching Emotive and Controversial History 3-19] (p.15) The anti-self-defense attitude of British authorities has also turned criminals into "victims" and victims who fight back into "criminals." One particularly egregious case involved a farmer being sentenced to life imprisonment for defending himself in his home after the home was repeatedly burglarized <ref>http://www.theinternetparty.org/commentary/c_s.php?td=200107200000&section_type=com</ref>

== Trends ==
After decades of increasing gun control laws, the current trend in the [[United States]] is in the direction of more gun rights. The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill included a ban on certain new rifles labeled assault rifles solely because of features of their appearance, and on new high-capacity magazines. This law recently expired and was not renewed by [[Congress]]. Also, Washington D.C.'s gun ban was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9, 2007.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/washington/09cnd-gun.html?hp Appeals Court Says Gun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment]</ref><ref>The Washington Post - [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902416.html D.C.'s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out]</ref>

By removing the deterrent effect of guns, gun control causes dramatic increases in crimes committed with other weapons:<ref name="bbc">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm</ref>

:You are now six times more likely to be mugged in [[London]] than [[New York]]. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Supporters of gun control argue that homicide with guns is much less in [[England]] than in the [[United States]],<ref>In 2005/06, the total number of victims of homicide by shooting (including crossbows) in England and Wales was 50 and there were 212 victims of homicide by sharp instruments. [Home Office Statistical Bulletin - [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005/2006][http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb0104.pdf] The data for gun deaths in the United States include guns used in self-defense, as in fending off an assault, robbery or rape, and there were a total of 11,350 gun deaths (including deaths of criminals) in 2005.[US Department of Justice, FBI - [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005]</ref> but that was true even before gun control and is likely due to cultural reasons. "A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms. When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million."<ref name="bbc" />

Gun control laws are often seen to conflict with the [[Second Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which recognizes the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The "right to keep and bear arms" is a right guaranteed to the American citizen by the Bill of Rights through the virtue of a selective reading of said Bill. The phrase "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" precedes the statement, and most federal Courts of Appeals have held that this phrase requires that the "right to bear arms" relates to the collective rights of state militias, as opposed to the individual's rights to have any weapon desired. Just recently, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit went against nine other circuits in holding that the Second Amendment constitutes an individual right.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10gun.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Court Rejects Strict Gun Law as Unconstitutional]</ref><ref>FOX News - [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html Appeals Court Strikes Down Washington, D.C. Handgun Ban]</ref> However, according to the judge writing for the majority in this case, its decision does still allow for "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership and use, such as carrying of guns by intoxicated individuals, or in churches.

Only six cities in the [[United States]] ban handguns: [[Washington, D.C.]], [[Chicago]], and four of its suburbs.<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

==Overview==
"Gun control" can include:

* Restricting which persons can own firearms.
* Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may own, or purchase during a given time period
* Requirements that privately owned firearms be registered with the government.
* Bans on certain types of firearms; for example, "handguns" or assault rifles
* Restrictions on where firearms may be carried, for example into restaurants or post offices
* Requiring a "background check" and/or a "waiting period" to purchase a firearm
* Restricting when and where firearms may be bought and sold, for example banning their sale through the mail
* Requiring licenses or some other form of permission from the government to buy and/or sell a firearm
* Requiring some form of permission from the government to carry a firearm in public, either concealed or openly
* Laws granting special gun rights for some people, for example retired law enforcement officers, which are denied the rest of the public, which was used in several southern states.
* Outright bans on carrying firearms in public
* Outright bans on private possession of firearms, though this has never occurred in the United States

==Constitutional Debate==
The [[Second Amendment]] reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Most constitutional scholars agree that since the amendment refers to "the right of the People" instead of the right of the militia, it protects an individual right to own guns. The extent of that right has been debated.

==Racism of gun control==
In the [[United States of America]], gun control has a strong racist origin and reasoning. Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President [[Abraham Lincoln]] issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in its infamous 1857 decision in ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]]'' to uphold slavery.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms. [Kates, "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 256 (1983)] However, facially neutral disarming through economic means laws remain in effect.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most States turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights."<ref>Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal (GMU CR LJ), Vol. 2, No. 1, "Gun Control and Racism," Stefan Tahmassebi, 1991, p. 75.</ref> Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to price blacks and poor whites out of the gun market.

Today, "gun control" laws continue to be enacted so as to have a racist effect if not intent:

* Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require issuance to those not prohibited by law from owning guns, are routinely used to prevent lawful gun ownership among "unpopular" populations.
* Public housing residents, approximately 3 million Americans, are singled out for gun bans.
* "Gun sweeps" by police in "high crime neighborhoods" whereby vehicles and "pedestrians who meet a specific profile that might indicate they are carrying a weapon" are searched are becoming popular, and are being studied by the [[U.S. Department of Justice]] as "Operation Ceasefire."
* Some U.S. cities with high minority populations, such as Washington, D.C., are singled out for gun bans.
* "Project Exile" began in the U.S. city of Richmond, Virginia and mandated that people arrested for technical firearms violations (note: not for violent crimes committed with a firearm, but for technical violations of the law) be tried in federal court where they would be subject to lengthy mandatory minimum sentences rather than in state court under the more lenient Virginia laws. As with many other restrictions this was aimed primarily at the city's Black residents. It has since been copied in many other cities.

== Sexism of gun control ==

Firearms, especially lower recoiling ones such as handguns, allow any person to wield enough power to stop another person from attacking them.<ref name="genderDiscrimination1">http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/03/19/firearms-rights-are-a-gender-equality-issue-too/ </ref> Many women (quite reasonably) fear the threat of attack by a physically stronger man, and a firearm could prevent many of these attacks, but gun bans leave these women vulnerable. Take the case of the “North Side Rapist” in Chicago, a city where hand guns are banned, as an example: The rapist broke in to the womens homes, and at least one of the women heard him break in and then climb the stairs. Had this woman had a handgun, she almost certainly could have stopped the rapist before it was too late. This would have prevented her from enduring such a horrific crime, as well as preventing the rapist’s future victims from experiencing the same thing. Instead, Chicago law prevented her from being able to defend herself, and gave the advantage to the rapist/home-invader. This is not an isolated incident, and similar events happen every day across the county.

== Elitism of gun control ==

Many of the most ardent American anti-gun politicians, such as Chicago’s Mayor Daley, are protected by taxpayer-sponsored armed body guards, but deny law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves with a gun. <ref name="classDiscrimination1">http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/04/16/a-double-standard-anti-gun-politicians-and-their-gun-toting-bodyguards/ </ref> These politicians seemingly believe themselves to be part of an elite group who deserve to be protected against violent criminals, while ordinary law-abiding citizens are left with less-effective means to defend themselves, and must instead rely on the police arriving in time.

== Gun control outside the USA ==

Gun control advocates cite foreign countries to argue that gun control can reduce crime, but such comparison can be difficult due to the presence of other factors. For example, they cite [[Singapore]] as having gun control and a lower crime rate than the [[United States]], but Singapore has less than 5 million persons and one of the highest literacy and average wealth in the world. It lacks many of the freedoms found in the [[United States]] and strictly imposes harsh physical punishment, such as caning and the [[death penalty]], for crimes that are not punished so harshly in the [[United States]]. The real issue of the security in Singapore is its tight criminal control, not the gun control itself.

Gun control supporters also cite [[Japan]], where firearms are illegal and crime rates are relatively low. But [[Japan]] also lacks many freedoms and diversity which exist in the [[United States]], and [[Japan]] has strong cultural deterrents to crime. Ironically, [[Japan]] is home to [[Tokyo Marui]], the world's largest [[airsoft]] gun manufacturer, which designs airsoft guns that are made to the same scale and with the same materials as the real counterpart and which have been mistaken by police for real guns.

However, one example of a country which does have a somewhat similar culture to the US but with a strict gun control regime is [[Australia]]. In Australia the gun related homicide rate is 0.44 per 100,000 of population. In the US it is over 8 times as high at 3.72 per 100,000 of population.

In the [[European Union]], gun control is more strict than in the United States, but gun ownership differs widely between member states, from 36 per 100 people in [[Cyprus]] to one per 100 in [[Poland]].<ref name="EU">http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/29/europe/union.php EU legislators push tougher gun controls</ref> In November 2007, the [[European Parliament]] passed legislation to tighten and harmonize gun control across the EU, and oblige each member state to set up a computerized database of firearms, as it "hoped to prevent Europe from becoming a gun-friendly culture like the United States".<ref name="EU" /> Parliament wanted to limit cross-border trade from states with less control to those with tougher laws, such as from [[Lithuania]], where replica guns can cost as little as [[Euro|€]]100 (US$150), to the [[United Kingdom]], where all replicas are outlawed.<ref name="EU" />

== Gun Control and Genocide ==

Gun control "contributes to the probability of its government engaging" in [[genocide]], including the three worst instances in the 20th century:<ref>"[A] society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage. ... [I]t is [] an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed." [http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref>

*In 1911, [[Turkey]] imposed gun control and then, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million defenseless Armenians were killed.

*In 1929, the [[Soviet Union]] imposed gun control and over the next 24 years about 20 million defenseless dissidents were killed.

*In 1938, [[Germany]] imposed gun control and then over the next seven years 13 million defenseless Jews and other victims were exterminated. <ref>[http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html The True Face of Gun Control], Dean Speir, The Gun Zone RKBA, Accessed December 26, 2007</ref>

"The Nazis made only two important changes to the Weapons Law that was in place when they came to power. First, they forbade Jews from owning guns or any other weapon. Second, they exempted members of the Sturmabteilung (SA) and many Nazi party officials from the law's strictures."<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"/> The German Firearms Act of 1937 stated "No civilian is to have a firearm without a permit and permits shall not be issued to persons suspected of acting against the state. ''For Jews, this permission will not be granted.'' Those people who do not require permission to carry weapons include the whole of the SS, and the SA - including the Deaths Head group, and the officers of the Hitler youth." <ref name="Volokh">[http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38d04d5c7c40.htm The Journalist's Guide to Gun Policy Scholars and Second Amendment Scholars], Professor Eugene Volokh, FreeRepublic.com, March 15, 2000</ref>

Adolph Hitler said, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." <ref name="Volokh" />

[[Josef Stalin]], former dictator of the [[USSR]] and murderer of over 20 million people, infamously supported Gun control in the fear that his evil regime might be torn down and so only soldiers could have gunpowder weapons.

== Gun Control and young mass murderers ==

''Main article: [[Young mass murderers]]''

Strict gun control failed and still fails to prevent mass murderers from starting killing sprees while the victims are unable to defend themselves.

Compare the cases of Pekka-Eric Auvinen ([[Finland]]) and Robert Steinhäuser ([[Germany]]) with the case of Matthew Murray. The latter was stopped by an armed citizen before he could harm more victims; Auvinen killed 8 people and Steinhäuser killed 16. Both Finland and Germany have gun control laws.

==Other terms==
Other terms sometimes used by those who are opposed to gun control include:
* Rights restriction
* Victim disarmament

==See Also==
*[[Essay:US Armed Citizens and Crime Control]]
*[[John Lott]]

==External Links==

=== Opposed to gun control ===
*[http://www.2asisters.org/ Second Amendment Sisters]
*[http://www.nra.org/ The National Rifle Association]
*[http://www.nrapublications.org/AC/index.asp Armed citizens defending themselves.]
*[http://www.a-human-right.com/ A Human Right] Discussion of the human right to self defense with a firearm.
*[http://www.learnaboutguns.com/ Learn About Guns] Firearm information and politics.
*[http://www.gunowners.org/ Gun Owners of America] A no-compromise pro-gun lobby in Washington, D.C.
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/gun-control/ What Liberals Say - Category: Gun Control]
*[http://www.guncite.com/ GunCite: Gun Control and Second Amendment Issues]
=== In favor of gun control ===
*[http://www.guninformation.org/ Gun Control and the Second Amendment]
*[http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm Myth: Switzerland proves that high gun-ownership doesn't increase murder]
*[http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html Coalition for gun control]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[category:Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:gun control]]
{{liberalism}}

Talk:Gun control

2008-12-26T23:54:57Z

TCochrane: /* Australia */ new section

Talk:Great Achievements by Teenagers

2008-12-26T23:26:45Z

TCochrane: /* Heavenly voices */ new section

==Clarification==
Nearly all of those who accomplished great deeds while being teenagers made even greater contributions when they became adults. Especially, this list can't be used to bolster up the claim that ''most of the greatest works in history were accomplished by people who were teenagers''
[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:49, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Heavenly voices ==

Is hearing heavenly voices an acheivement? Is was it leading France to victory that was the acheivement? It rather reads as if the hearing of voices was the acheivement. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Censorship

2008-12-26T23:14:09Z

TCochrane: /* Classroom prayer */

I would say the Libertarian community is one of the biggest opponents of censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 06:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

We are. And also one of the biggest proponents of undermining intellectual dishonesty by whatever means available. --[[User:Sam|Sam]] 08:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Both sides of the political spectrum can commit censorship very easily. If you step too far left or too far right you will censor many things, both communist dictators and fascist overlords have censored in modern history. Conservatives want to censor to hide military information or blunders such as a press blackout or to hide something that they deem to be "obscene", whereas liberals would want to censor things that are deemed offensive to other people's culture or removes rights. Either way, censorship is terrible and clearly not the Framer's Intent. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::What a perfect description of what conservapedia does.

== Censorship of Michelangelo ==

I can only marvel at the irony. You don't dispute the facts, you only characterize them as anti-Catholic. Which is absurd. The Pope himself defended Michelagelo, and I stated that fact. The site cited is not a Wikipedia mirror site, but if you need a different citation, I can certainly find one. But, again, it is not the facts you dispute. The facts are inconvenient (for you., personally, for some reason), and so you censor them. How appropriate. You remind me of nothing so much as the Soviet revisionists of history. NitramNos 14:25, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:The subterfuge you employed to place this WP content gave it away. And of course the [[Counter-Reformation]] stab. If you wish to contribute constructively, please do so. However CP's content will not controlled and regulated by outside influences. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
::I have not the slightest idea what you mean when you refer to subterfuge. Please be more specific, unless this is just an example of your paranoia affecting your better judgement. Your accusations are a rather wild. Have you actually looked at the reference I cited? It is not a WP mirror site. I added the Counter-Reformation fact (which you characterize so typically in your paranoid fashion as a "stab") after checking my notes and seeing I had left that out (as you would see if you did your homework and checked the reference in the first place). I summarized and cited one of the best-known instances of censorship in history, but you do not deem it worthy of the Censorship article. Controlled and regulated by outside "influences." Get a grip! NitramNos 14:39, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Inserted for the record [http://www.edinformatics.com/great_thinkers/michelangelo.htm] reads at the bottom of the page,
*''All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details). Disclaimers. Wikipedia is powered by MediaWiki, an open source wiki engine.''

== Bunker Mentality ==

You people are a work of art! You do not consider the alteration of a work of art to be censorship? What planet do you live on? NitramNos 14:52, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

:You people...you people....who do you think you are talking to, Ross Perot? [http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/1996/11/05/Resources/Guest.Column.Perots.RaceBaiting.Hurts.Everyone-2176171.shtml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:19, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

== Examples ==

This page would really benefit from some examples of censorship. American examples that come immediately to mind are various parent groups removing books like ''The Catcher in the Rye'' from schools, the military blacking out parts of letters sent by soldiers during wartime, and ratings systems like those for movies keeping some content away from audiences. I can see how the Michelangelo example can be written with an anti-Catholic sentiment, but reporting the true historical incident is not inherently anti-Catholic, just like talking about the Holocaust today isn't inherently anti-German. So, that may be a good non-American example to keep if it can be rewritten. China's policy of censoring most media content entering the country provides another international example that would be instructive. {{unsigned|AnilaWafer}}

:I agree with you for the most part, though movie ratings aren't censorship, because you can still put whatever you want into movies (plus they are voluntary, despite their ubiquitousness). CP is an open encyclopedia, so as long as you follow the [[conservapedia:commandments|rules]], feel free to add new material to the article! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:39, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== What is not censorship? ==

I don't know about all of you, but when I open an article on any given subject, I like to be told '''what it is''', maybe throw in some history of censorship, it's origin ('''does not''' belong at the end of the article) etc. etc.

Will somebody please be a dear and redo this article [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 06:34, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

== Rewritten intro ==

The intro as it stood was not very good. The examples given weren't very good (the prevention of official school prayer, for example, is not censorship) and one of them linked to a highly unencyclopedic article about "liberal friendship". I have replaced these with better examples of censorship, and a better introduction to what exactly it means. Also deleted the history section (which was only a single sentence and didn't warrant a whole section to itself) and incorporated it into the opening.[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:49, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

User:EdPoor, you reverted some of my last edits and restored some of the examples that I had replaced, without giving any reason on the talk page.

There are three examples in question: the removal of school prayer, the destruction of conservative newspapers on college campuses, and the ostracization of students for their pro-life or conservative views. I removed these for the following reasons:

1. Regarding school prayer, I am of the opinion, as are many others, that it does not constitute censorship. What is prevented under the establishment clause is official school-led prayer, not prayer ''per se''. If this is censorship, it is certainly not a particularly clear example of it, unlike the Google China situation, or the fictional examples from ''1984''. It is far better to give examples of things which are clearly, unambiguously, censorship, than it is to give as an example something which is hotly contested.

2. The destruction of conservative newspapers links to a news report of one such instance in Bucknell college, which is cited as being an act of vandalism by other students. Therefore it is not a particularly clear example of censorship. An article which seeks to give an overview of a topic should give the most "textbook" examples that it can.

3. Ostracization is not the same as censorship. A university which denies tenure to a conservative (for no other reason than their conservative views) is guilty of discrimination, not censorship. A liberal student who refuses to talk to a conservative student (again, for no other reason) is guilty of several things: foolishness, closed-mindedness, ignorance, etc, but not censorship.

What happened in South Africa when the government could ban its political opponents from being quoted in any media is censorship. The burning of books is censorship. The limits imposed upon journalists living in East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall amounted to censorship. The blocking of human rights websites and references to the 1989 Tianamen square protests on Google China is censorship. These examples you gave are not nearly as definitive. To mention them ''in the opening sentences'', frankly, demeans the more serious examples.

If you disagree with me, I am happy to discuss our disagreement here. Until then, as per the reasons given here and in my previous post, I am reverting the page. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:12, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:I hope the irony of censoring opposing views is not escaping you. We welcome alternatives to conservative POV around here, provided they are properly labeled. When it comes to controversial issues, [[unmarked]] ideas are either common knowledge or distinctly conservative, but liberal ideas don't get the same respect. So tread carefully.

:Even if you are an original thinker with much to share, I adjure you to work harmoniously here by adhering to our rules and customs. Be sure to avoid edit wars, particularly with sysops. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:27, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

== The more recent examples ==

I see these have been added back to the article: the vandalism of a conservative newspaper in Bucknell college; the banning of official school prayer; and the ostracisation of people for their conservative or pro-life views.

Above, I have argued that these examples are not particularly good examples of censorship, and so substituted them with the examples of Google China, "clean" versions of CDs, Nineteen Eighty Four, and reaction to Galileo. All are clear-cut examples of different sorts of censorship, as everybody (I presume) would agree. In contrast, the destruction of a student newspaper by other students is a better example of vandalism than censorship; the ostracisation of individuals for their views is a better example of unfair discrimination or bigotry than censorship; and what is prevented by banning official school prayer is the implication of state endorsement of any ''particular'' religion. Prayer itself is not banned - the teachers and students still have their first amendment rights - so it is not a clear example of censorship.

When an encyclopedia illustrates a topic by providing examples, it should use the most definitive, "textbook" examples available. The examples I removed are not. I should add also that they are not any more recent than Google China or censorship of films and music.

They have, however, been returned to the article without comment, and without any reply to my reasons for removing them in the first place. I will not revert the edit, but instead will try to reach consensus, as Ed Poor kindly advised. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 09:32, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

: Eoinc, the ''sine qua non'' of censorship is the suppression of speech by ''others'', not oneself. Our examples fit that bill; many of your examples do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:47, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

== Jpatt's censorship line ==

I think Jpatt's line ''"protesting and disrupting invited conservative speakers on campuses."'' needs a little more elaboration. By and of itself, this may not constitute censorship, but if the college adminsitration allows the protestors to disrupt and stop the conservative speaking engagement and does nothing to stop it, then it would constitute censorship. Any thoughts? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:I still don't think that would constitute censorship, because if they administration really wanter to censor, they would just dissallow the speaker or refuse to give funding. (The latter has happend to the conservative group at Bucknell numerous times). I just think that if we are going to have a list of examples (which we probably shouldn't, but that's another debate), we should keep it short and filled with very cut and dry examples. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::if not censorship, then it is a failed attempt at censorship. Not by administrators but by others. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:07, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::In my argument above, I was thinking censorship at the college administration level ''by proxy'' in not preventing a mob from disrupting an authorized speaking engagement. Are there any examples of such that could be used here? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::::It seems to me a distinction should be made between protesting and disrupting. The latter may be censorship, but making one's opposition known through lining up outside a venue waving signs is a healthy part of free speech and assembly. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 13:13, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::JP: failed attempts at censorship aren't really great examples of censorship then. I just don't see the need to find as many examples as possible. (I've said this before on some other talk page, but I don't remember where anymore). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

== Classroom prayer ==

Can anyone explain to me why a refusal to allow classroom prayer amounts to censorship?

I suggest that it be removed from the examples listed in the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 17:57, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:Happy to help. I recently argued that censorship requires (1) state or state-like action, and (2) removal of information (3) for subjective, viewpoint-discriminatory reasons. The class prayer fits all of those. It's the state removing information because it disapproves of Christian religiosity. Open & shut. Have you ever read the classroom prayer cases, by the way? They're ludicrous.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:01, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::Thanks for the prompt response. Your definition is interesting. I wonder about some aspects, however. For example, point 2 seems too broad to be meaningful. What does "removal of information" mean in the context of prayer? Surely censorship requires the prevention of information passing from one person to another. That is at the heart of my comment above. Prayer, as I understand it, is between an individual and the Almighty. I do not see how any human authority could prevent such communication. Further, refusing to allow classroom prayer does not stop anyone diseminating Christian (or other religious) ideas at school. Free discussion is still allowed (so far as I am aware). It seems to me to be a doubtful example at best. Do the cases that you refer to throw any light on the issue? I have not had the pleasure of reading them. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Censorship

2008-12-26T22:57:59Z

TCochrane: /* Classroom prayer */ new section

Gun control

2008-12-26T22:39:18Z

TCochrane: /* Gun control outside the USA */ As per talk page

Devolution of language

2008-12-26T22:22:08Z

TCochrane: It has no such meaning where I come from.

The '''devolution of language''' is the often-corrosive affect that culture, primarily entertainment, [[computer]]s, sports, and [[politics]], have on the meaning of words. Some examples include:

* "message" now means something very brief, and usually non-substantive, due to the influence of [[instant messaging]]
* "link" now means a clickable reference to another website, rather than a substantive connection
* "liberal" once met generous or enlightened, or committed to constitutional government and individual liberty, but, in the Unitied States, now means demanding funding for [[abortion]] and censoring [[prayer]] in school
* "media" now means ''the press'', rather than modes of transferring information. The singular "medium" has largely been lost

Devolution of language also applies to [[vocabulary]] in general. Low [[literacy]] levels fostered by liberal education systems reduce readers' ability to comprehend words commonly found in [[literature]] but not used in unintellectual entertainment and media. One report stated that the average 14-year-old's vocabulary has decreased 60% since 1945, roughly coinciding with the dominance of liberal [[public school|public schooling]].<ref>Decline from 25,000 to 10,000. ''Utne Reader'' (July-August 2000), 28-9.</ref>

(add more)

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:linguistics]]

Gallery of British Heroes

2008-12-25T22:28:09Z

TCochrane: An obvious addition

'''Gallery of British [[Hero|Heroes]]'''
{{Clear}}
<center>
<gallery perrow=6>
Image:Boudicastatue.jpg|[[Boudicca]]
Image:King Arthur.jpg|[[King Arthur]]
Image:Henry V.jpg|[[Henry V]]
Image:Elizabeth_1.jpg|[[Elizabeth I]]
Image:Drake.jpg|[[Francis Drake]]

Image:WalterRaleigh3.jpg|[[Walter Raleigh]]
Image:Foliou.jpg|[[William Shakespeare]]
Image:Newton.png|[[Isaac Newton]]
Image:Nelson1.jpg|[[Horatio Nelson]]
Image:Arthur Wellesley 1st Duke of Wellington.jpg|[[Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington]]

Image:Sir Francis Grant's Portrait of Queen Victoria.jpg|[[Queen Victoria]]
Image:Dickens.jpg|[[Charles Dickens]]
Image:Florence Nightingale.jpg|[[Florence Nightingale]]
Image:CharlesDarwin.jpg|[[Charles Darwin]]
Image:I.K.Brunel.jpg|[[Isambard Kingdom Brunel]]

Image:Alexander Graham Bell.jpg|[[Alexander Graham Bell]]
Image:Robert falcon scott.jpg|[[Robert Falcon Scott|Scott of the Antarctic]]
Image:Lawrence Oates.jpg|[[Lawrence Oates|Captain Oates]]
Image:T.E.Lawrence.jpg|[[T.E. Lawrence|Lawrence of Arabia]]
Image:ErnestHenryShackleton.jpg|[[Ernest Shackleton]]

Image:Solidgold.jpg|[[Winston Churchill]]
Image:Bernard Law Montgomery.jpg|[[Bernard Law Montgomery|Montgomery of Alamein]]
Image:Douglas Bader.jpg|[[Douglas Bader]]
Image:Cenotaph.jpg|[[Remembrance Day|The Glorious Dead]]
Image:Jrrt 1972 pipe.jpg|[[J.R.R. Tolkien]]

Image:Jhcfju6.jpg|[[C.S. Lewis]]
Image:Elizabeth-II.jpg|Queen [[Elizabeth II]]
Image:John lennon.jpg|[[John Lennon]]
Image:Paul McCartney.jpeg|[[Paul McCartney]]
Image:503px-Thatcher-loc.jpg|[[Margaret Thatcher]]

Image:Bvfgdtre.jpg|[[Stephen Hawking]]

</gallery>
</center>

==See also==
*[[Gallery of American Heroes]]

[[Category:British History]]

Talk:Quote mining

2008-12-18T04:42:35Z

TCochrane: /* Bad reference to lawyers */

==Usage of the term?==
I'd never heard it before. Some Googling and a look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining the corresponding Wikipedia article] give me the distinct impression that it is commonly used by evolutionists against creationists, but that it is ''not commonly used in any other context.'' It also seems to be a fairly recent coinage.

Thoughts? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:55, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:I have heard this term before, but only ever used by evolutionists as an attack on creation researchers. It was apparently coined on the evolutionist discussion group Talk.Origins. CreationWiki [http://creationwiki.org/Quote-mining has a response to this]. Perhaps for balance, the sample "mined" quote could be changed from Darwin to an example of an evolutionist quoting, say, Dembski, out of context? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 07:55, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Surely 'balance' would be having both? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:01, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Not if it's really ''used'' only in one direction. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:38, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::Good point. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Maybe we could change it to a more abstract (and made-up) example that emphasizes the point while at the same time simply telling the context in which the term is often used (Evolutionists accusing Creationists of doing so, possibly with the reply by Creationists as Richard gave it - I haven't checked that link)? The quote strikes me as needlessly complicated, especially for an example that is supposed to make a point clear. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Actually, what triggered my comment was that I was ''planning'' to find or concoct an example that did not involve either evolution or creationism, but if I'm correct that the phrase is used only in the evolution/creationism dispute—and, as [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] notes, only in one direction—such an example would be misleading, because it wouldn't be illustrating the actual way the term is used. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::(MAD Magazine once had a very funny article about the way in which movie advertising takes reviewers' quotes out of context.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::I suspect you're right; while the phenomenon is fairly ubiquitous, the 'quote mine' tag seems to be a neologism more or less unique to this case. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I attempted to solve some of the issues here by using a quote where the subject, Dembski, wrote a response to being accused of quote mining. Are people more comfortable with this arrangement or should we keep looking for another solution? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: No, I don't think that Dembski story solved anything, because you have done a little quote mining yourself in order to tell it the way that you did. You ran together 2 quotes that are really 5 pages apart. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:49, 8 March 2007 (EST)
::It was the only reliable source that had responded to a quote mine so I ran with it with out realizing that they were separated, my mistake, I have reverted to the old quote and weaved in your information, removing the now irrelevant text. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:02, 8 March 2007 (EST)

But the new example isn't an example of "quote mining," it's an example of plain old "quotation out of context." Unless you can find a reference that says it's ever referred to as "quote mining" outside of talk.origins, CreationWiki, and other discussions specifically of evolution/creationism. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Yea, yea, but quote mining is the collection of "out of context quotes" but I know what you are getting at though. I do not think there is anyway to save this page on conservapedia, all the material will be way to tendentious because of the dichotomy of creation/evolution. So I say we just nuke the whole darn thing!

Now I am not convinced that its not salvageable at wikipedia but I will take that up there :) [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:(In case people don't understand: I nominated "Quote mining" for deletion on Wikipedia on the grounds that it's not yet in dictionaries or what Wikipedia considers to be reliable published sources. Tmtoulouse or you or I can do some original research and confirm that it's widely used in a few specific places, such as the USENET newsgroup talk.origins, and that it's used primarily in the context of the evolution/creationism debate, but I don't think you can find that information in a published source meeting WIkipedia's reliable source guidelines. I could well be wrong...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:01, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::There is also developing a more general use. It is perhaps rather bold to start with the most contentious topics, but the two examples show how it can be used to support various types of argument. If it is an invalid method of argument, and yet creationists use is, where can they be shown this is a more friendly place than here?[[User:DDG|DDG]] 23:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I think that there may be a misunderstanding concerning quote mining. Quote mining is a concept that has existed ever since books, papers, and intellectual journals have been written. One of the primary determinants of an accurate and honest work is the avoidance of quote mining, as it is tempting to skew sources to support whatever the writer would like to say. Anyone can find dozens of sources to support even the most ridiculous of notions. I think that the is no legitimate reason for this article to be deleted. It has nothing to do with the imaginary war between science and religion. It's about good, factual writing.

: So I guess that you would argue that no accurate and honest work would ever use Bartlett's Familiar Quotations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:: It is one thing to pull out a quote to add flavor to opinion piece (something on love on Valentines day). It is quite another to use out of context or partial quotes to try to support an argument - especially when that quote when in context says the opposite of what the out of context part says. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, those are different, but which is "quote mining"? I don't think that the term has any generally-agreed definition. Thumbing thru Bartlett's sure seems like quote mining to me. It also seems like quote mining when the press digs out old quotes from presidential candidates, even if the quotes are presented in context. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused by the George W. Bush quotation. How are the bold words taken out of context?

: The excerpt removes the antecedent to "they", changing the meaning. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:33, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is this article up for deletion?
It's neutral and balanced in its current form.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

...and now, 4 hours later (21:14, 28 April) it isn't anymore...
You've got to admire such efficiency.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Indeed; Aschlafly did a hatchet job on the into. An [[Out of context]] quote might be accidental, but Quote Mining reflects a deliberate and often systematic misrepresentation. To say "quote mining reflects an objection to quoting someone for criticizing his own belief system, on the theory that if he still believes in the system then it is somehow unfair to quote his criticism of it." is disingenuous; consider the Darwin quote. We can mention that the term was coined by people discussing evolution, but it has moved beyond that. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 16:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Bias ==

How can this article have a liberal bias to it? There is nothing political at all about quote mining. [[User:Staple|Staple]] 23:15, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

==Improvements==
I had a professional responsibility CLE about ethical citation today, and they touched on this. I thought it my duty to correct the misconceptions accordingly.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:48, 3 March 2008 (EST)
: Thanks for your contributions, although I'm not happy with some of it. I will revert one change, but I'll also raise a few points here.
: There is a problem in that there is no dictionary definition of the term, so we can't say with any degree of certainty exactly what it means. The term itself suggests to me that it refers to someone going and looking for quotes to support their cause, as though that is somehow bad. But although I can't see the idea being conveyed by the term itself, it does appear that taking the quotes out of context is part of it. There are a few definitions floating around, such as the one quoted in the article, but who's to say that everyone who uses the term is using it according to those definitions?
: If the alleged "crime" of creationists is simply taking quotes out of context, why not just say that? The use of a ''different'' term indicates something more or different than simply taking a quote out of context. So I'd argue that "quote mining" is ''not'' synonymous with quoting out of context. The rest of my post assumes that point is true.
: The sentence "However, this is simply the fallacy of taking a quote out of context." was removed and replaced by "The charge is that of taking a quote out of context.". I can't see what was wrong with the original wording; it seems to me (and I did write it!) that it makes the point more clearly that the definition provided is simply the definition for an out-of-context quote, and as such, is inadequate.
: Andy included a bit about legal and political "quote mining". Whether or not it is quote mining depends on just what "quote mining" means. If "quote mining" is simply looking for quotes to support an argument, then it ''is'' quote mining. If it means taking them out of context, then it's ''not'' quote mining.
: Most of the added material under the "fact" headings is merely talking about taking quotes out of context, not quote mining, and therefore should be removed.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:28, 3 March 2008 (EST)
I thought I made it very clear in the first paragraph - "The term seems to be used to suggest or claim that people have deliberately taken quotes out of context" - that ''deliberately'' is clearly an element of the charge. I actually think it's "deliberately or negligently" - at least that's how the actual case law discusses it - so I've changed it. The issue with quote mining is that it's a slang term for something with a longer name - "negligent misuse of authority." Should I include that?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 23:33, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:I just clarified this point.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 23:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)

:: Okay, I accept that the distinction of it being deliberate or not is something I omitted to discuss above. I'm still not convinced, however, that "''deliberately'' taking a quote out of context" is all that is usually meant by those that use the term, and you've offered no evidence that your understanding is the correct one.
:: I accept that ''deliberately'' taking a quote out of context is different to "ordinary" quoting out of context, but how is ''negligently'' taking a quote out of context different to "ordinary" quoting out of context? Surely if one is quoting out of context, one is doing so either ''deliberately'' or ''negligently''? Or are you using the word "negligent" in a legal sense that may be narrower than the everyday use of the word?
:: I still think that the legal examples are unnecessary in this article, but perhaps we'll settle other points first.
:: You said in an [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Quote_mining&diff=prev&oldid=398280 edit comment] that you will discuss your reversion of my edit. Please do.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:04, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::I just clarified that aside from negligence/intent, the other distinction is mistatement of material elements of the quote (I am using negligent in the legal sense of "culpably negligent"). And I think the examples in the bottom part make it clear, and give it content to ensure that people see the difference.
:::And, I changed your wording because it wasn't neutral ~ it presumed that the creationists were right without citation, so I pulled the inference. Maybe it'd be better to just remove the reference to who's right or wrong completely?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]]
:::: Thanks for the clarification on "negligent". Sometimes the facts favour one side over the other, so won't be "neutral". Your substituted sentence is not neutral either, as it effectively says that the quotes ''are'' fallacious. I think that I could agree with taking the footnote out completely. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:13, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::::Very fair! I've removed it so you can inspect it. I appreciate your civility. I hope I've made the distinction quoting and quote-mining clear.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:16, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: You removed more than I meant (although of course I was agreeing to ''your'' proposal, so I guess that you removed what ''you'' meant!). I had no problem with the bit that I've reinstated; the footnote was an ''example'' of that, not a reference for that, so in effect the statement was unreferenced anyway, and it remains so, but I doubt that anyone really disputes it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:25, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::Thanks! Oops. Yeah, I erred on the side of pulling too much out... okay now I'm actually going to bed. In the morning/after work I'll have to work more on the securities category.[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:27, 4 March 2008 (EST)

== Another point ==

I'm not trying to imply that quote mining is done by creationists. I'm merely trying to clarify the term. I just want to make sure you know that this isn't a political issue for me; it's simply unethical use of authority. No matter who does it, it's wrong (and I haven't read the books TOA cites, so I don't know if creationists do it). Further, I was a recent quote mining victim. Representing a client, our opponent's appellate brief used an ellipsis to hide a "not." So it went something like "it is settled law that party Y can... do activity Z." The real quote from the case was "it is settled law that party Y can '''''not''''' do activity Z." I was stunned.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:34, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:I'd be stunned too. I actually thought that your example in the article was rather contrived, as nobody would quote out of context so blatantly. Very few if any of the quotes used by creationists are claimed to be as blatant as that, and in most cases it's very hard to show that quoting out of context was deliberate. That's one of the issues that I have with claims such as those of TalkOrigins. Their "showpiece" example of Darwin talking about the evolution of the eye ''has'' been taken out of context in the past by creationists, but creationists acknowledge this and don't use it any more, and point out that the "context" in this case is remote from the quote so it was quite easy to ''inadvertently'' take it out of context. Yet anti-creationists like to beat creationists over the head with it, and include it in quote mining lists, claiming it to be ''deliberate''.
: But weren't you going to bed? :-)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:42, 4 March 2008 (EST)

== Modifications made without discussion ==

PhoenixWright, you're introducing too much [[liberal bias]] into this. It should remain clear and factual. Please raise objections here first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:41, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:I think you're neglecting who's the one intruding here. Philip and I had a nice draft, and I don't appreciate changes that disturb our compromise and hard work. I see you're somewhat important here, so I won't revert it, but perhaps ''you'' could explain ''yourself'' here. I've fully explained myself above.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 10:52, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:: AmesG, this is a wiki. It's a collaborative process open to many people. If you object to my plainly factual edits, then state why. If you prefer liberal bias, then try Wikipedia. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:20, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::: You've stated now that my additions were "liberal bias," while yours were "factual." However, all you've done to support this is to restate your conclusion, twice now. You may know that arguments do not become facts by your ''ipse dixit''. Please support your arguments; otherwise, I can't see why I wouldn't be entitled to revert them. You say that I should state my objections to your edits; if you had followed and courteously contributed to the discussion between myself and Philip Rayment, you'd probably see that your obvious concerns had been answered and addressed. Please take the time to read the discussion between us before blowing apart our work. You seem to be going directly against the "collaborative process" you (correctly) define as central to a wiki-environment... unless your definition of "collaborative process" is "the unilateral foisting of my opinion onto yours."
::: Next, this is the ''second time'' you've insulted me by misstating my user name, the first by omitting its latter half; the second by substituting for it what sounds like a diminutive girl's name. If this is some kind of cruel joke, I don't get it. If it's some kind of veiled accusation, I still don't get it. Either way, it's uncalled for and uncivil. I hope that we can work past this uncivil episode. When I come back later in the day, I hope to see your constructive criticism and an apology for the unnecessary insult. I would enjoy working with you but not in this tone.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 16:31, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::PhoenixWright, you do not come here to push your agenda on this site; you do not force that agenda down our throats. You want to enjoy working here, then you will respect this site. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:46, 4 March 2008 (EST)

:::No respect at all, right Karajou? Always pushing their own, [[liberal]] agenda. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::Okay, I get it. Having seen the casualties that resulted from [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Karajou#The_O.27Bannon this exciting incident], I think I'm seeing Unwritten Commandment #11 - "Regardless of the intellectual merit of your argument, don't ever disagree with Karajou. Pretend he's right even when he's not."
::::So I'll drop it.
::::I had hoped that I could debate with and learn from people here. You can imagine my disappointment. But I can't imagine yours. To have to win arguments by force rather than intellect... how sad. Anyways, you win this round. So much for collaboration.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 16:45, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::::The sad part here is you insist on picking fights. Last warning. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Not How the Term is Used ==

The new definition inserted here is not how the term is used, and is not a concise, clear explanation. The prior definition clearly and succinctly explained what this term is:

:Quote mining is a pejorative term, not recognized by dictionaries, which expresses objection to using someone's quotes against him. While the entire fields of law and politics encourage quoting an adversary to discredit him, evolutionist do not feel their quotes should be used against them and have invented the term quote mining to criticize that practice.

The content page should be reverted to this definition unless there good reasons can be provided not to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:51, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

: Your definition isn't objective. Your definition is how people /view/ the terms use, not how it's actually defined. Indeed, it isn't recognized by dictionaries yet, but that's because the term is rather new (originating primarily through discourse on the internet in the mid- to late-90's). Also, as cited elsewhere on the page, the field of law doesn't advocate quote mining. As to politics, that is more an ancillary side-effect of an inherently corrupt and sinful environment than it is an advocated practice. Also um, law and science are two different fields, so why you even bothered to mention them puzzles me. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 09:24, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:: The definition should address how the term is used, and if it were a legitimate term then it would be in dictionaries by now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:40, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

::: But again, that's how /you/ feel the term is used, which is not encyclopedic. Also your belief in the dictionary as the ultimate authority on language is flawed: language flows from the people into dictionaries, not the other way around. You also fail to take into consideration the obscurity of the term: except for here on the internet, I've yet to actually here the term used; this really is the only environment where quote mining is prevalent (due to the ease of use) to warrant calling it anything. We ought not use your definition, which isn't in any dictionary that I can find either...[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 09:52, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

::: "It is commonly viewed as [[pejorative]] term, which expresses objection to using someone's quotes against him in an allegedly deceitful and misleading manner." this is far mroe objective and accurate if you insist upon its inclusion in the article. I must also voice my objection to your revision of this article; no consensus was at any point reached, in fact I disagreed with you /before/ you went ahead and revised the article, yet you went ahead anyway. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 09:57, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: No, the allegation of "deceitful and misleading" is not central to the use of the term. Evolutionists use the term to object to any use of a quote against an evolutionist, even when there is no doubt that the quote is accurate and that the speaker intended to say it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:59, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: Yes it is. Why else would evolutionists bother to objecting to being quoted if those quotes are used in an accurate and informative way? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 10:02, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Because they don't like that their statements can be used to support creationism. Although I've never been totally comfortable with Andy's version of this article, on that particular point I will agree with him, as I've often seen it myself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:58, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Well that's... completely reasonable. If you don't support something yet someone uses your words in a way that contradicts that sentiment, would you not be a little annoyed? Indeed, I have witnessed (for I used to be active in the evolution/creationism debate before I realized that God must have been displeased with such a waste of energy) evolutionists cry foul when they are found to have said something that is legitimately contradictory, yet to say that this is the underlying impetus behind the terms origins and its current use is sillier than most 9/11 conspiracy theories and assumes much bad faith on your part.

::::::Indeed, would you like me to actually /ask/ a published evolutionary scientist (any field, I care not) why they are against quote mining? I guarantee you it will be because they find the practice deceitful and misleading.[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:09, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Bad reference to lawyers ==

The article is wrong insofar as it relates to lawyers. Quote mining is selective quoting. Lawyers acting ethically do not selectively quote. A lawyer's first obligation is as an officer of the court. For example, when I am in court I have an obligation to advise the court of all relevant cases, not just those that might assist my client. Furthermore, I cannot misrepresent an opponent's position by selectively quoting them. Any lawyer who selectively quotes and, by doing so, misleads a court, has failed in their ethical obligations. I am happy to take a stab at a rewrite if no-one has any objections. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:43, 16 December 2008 (EST)
:I'm not sure what happened there. I posted the above entry and no-one objeected. I changed the article (for the better in my view) and it was reverted without explanation. What gives? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 23:42, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Quote mining

2008-12-18T04:41:11Z

TCochrane: Undo unexplained reversions.

'''Quote mining''' is is a [[pejorative]] term (not yet recognized by major dictionaries) which refers to the practice of quoting a selected part of what a person has said or written in order to discredit them or the views that they hold. It is a quote out of context which gives a misleading impression of what the person intended to say.

==Origin, in TalkOrigins.org==
According to the pro-evolution site TalkOrigins.org, quote mining is "the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, 'which superficially appears to support one's position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored.'"

Quotes that illustrate self-contradiction are thereby considered, by the inventors of the term, to be quote mining whether the self-contradiction is real or not.

The term seems to be used to suggest or claim that people have ''deliberately'' or ''negligently'' taken facts material to a quote out of context, with the result that the quote no longer stands for its original proposition. Allegations of quote mining are controversial,<ref>For example, the TalkOrigins.org Quote Mine Project documents many fallacious quotes, but the classification is controversial.</ref> since it implies [[scienter]] - that is, either intent to deceive, or disregard to the possibility of deception. This distinguishes quote mining from more general, run of the mill, quoting out of context; while the latter involves no misrepresentation of facts material to the quote's meaning, the former does.

The origins of the term are unknown, but it appears to date from the late 1990s.<ref>According to [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html TalkOrigins.org], the first known use was in 1996.</ref>
It is not recognized by any dictionaries.
Its most common use is by evolutionists who claim that creationists misrepresent quotes from scientists.

A common reason why TalkOrigins.org makes claims of quote mining appears to be that they choose make a false claim of quote mining when noted evolutionists have moments of candor and point out the various significant deficiencies of the evolutionary position rather than admit the weakness and/or falsity of the evolutionary position.

==Is Quote Mining Wrong?==
This section discusses merely whether quote mining is ''wrong'', not whether it ''exists'' or ''has been practiced'' by any individuals.

===Myth===
Many people, especially in the legal and political fields, use quotes by others against them. There is nothing objectionable about this practice, and the term quote-mining could apply to nearly every legal proceeding and political campaign.

===Fact: Defining Quote Mining===
While quoting relevant parts of judicial decisions is indeed widespread, and lawyers and politicians often quote one's own arguments against them to show a contradiction, "quote mining" as used is something else entirely. Quote mining implies selective quotation that, either negligently or purposefully, omits relevant parts from an argument. For example, consider the following ''invented'' quotation from an imaginary legal case.

:''"In the State of Commonwealth, it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may not trade on insider information." Smith v. Jones, 129 Commonwealth Reporter 332 (Commonwealth 2008).''

Now let us consider two quotations of the case.

A deceptive quotation uses an ellipsis to camouflage a point of authority that goes against one's argument.
:''However, Party X was completely within his rights to trade on this information. After all, "it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may... trade on insider information."''

An honest argument still quotes the authority source, but quotes all relevant parts.
:''However, Party X was completely within his rights to trade on this information. After all, "it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may not trade on insider information," but Party X was not a corporate officer.''

This should demonstrate that an accusation of "quote mining" is not merely an indictment for appealing to authority, a well-settled tactic indeed - the accusation is of ''appealing to authority in a selective manner, so as to distort and confound the actual meaning of the authority.

===Fact: The Law on an Attorney's Quote Mining===
Attorneys are under a well-settled duty not to misrepresent authority to a court of law. In essence, they may not "quote mine." By way of example, a Federal Circuit Court in 2003 disciplined an attorney for selectively quoting elements of a [[court]] [[Opinion (Law)|opinion]]. The attorney, faced with a charge of contempt of court for delaying filing a motion by ''twelve days'' when the court ordered her to do so "forthwith," explained that, by settled law,<ref name="ny">The attorney cited City of New York v. McAllister Brothers, Inc., 278 F.2d 708, 710.</ref> "Forthwith means immediately, without delay, or as soon may be accomplished by reasonable exertion."<ref name="ny" /> She neglected to cite the following sentence, which explained that "forthwith" generally means, "within twenty-four hours,"<ref name="ny" /> apparently hoping that, without this qualification, the court would read "forthwith" as implying ''no time constraint other than necessity.''

The court which received the attorney's brief was not amused. In censuring the attorney, they wrote,
{{cquote|The effect of Walser's editing of this material and ignoring the Supreme Court decision that dealt with the issue - a decision that seriously weakened her argument - was to give the Court a misleading impression of the state of the law on the point. She eliminated material that indicated that her delay in filing the motion for reconsideration had not met the court's requirement that she file "forthwith," and presented the remaining material in a way that overstated the basis for her claim that a "forthwith" filing requirement meant she could take whatever time would be reasonable in the circumstances. This distortion of the law was inconsistent with and violated the standards of Rule 11.<ref>Precision Specialty Metals, Inc. v. United States, 315 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003).</ref>}}

Rule 11 forbids attorneys from arguing in a misleading manner. Clearly, this federal circuit thinks that "quote mining" is a reprehensible act contrary to intellectual and academic rigor. There is ''indeed'' something objectionable about the practice, and the term "quote mining" ought not "apply to nearly every legal proceeding and political campaign."

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/cequotes.html Selected Creation/Evolution Quotes]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Tools/Quotes.asp Creation Quotes] list from [[Answers in Genesis]]
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Quote-mining (Talk.Origins) Quote-mining - CreationWiki]
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html The Quote Mine Project] - hosted by the [[talk.origins]] archive

==See also==
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Young Earth Creationism]]
[[category:Law]]
[[category:Rhetoric]]
[[category:evolution]]

Quote mining

2008-12-18T04:39:44Z

TCochrane: Undo revision 589486 by Aschlafly (Talk)Undo unexplained reversions

'''Quote mining''' is is a [[pejorative]] term, not recognized by major dictionaries, which expresses objection to using someone's quotes against him. While the entire fields of law and politics encourage quoting an adversary to [[discrediting attack|discredit]] him, [[evolutionist]]s do not feel their quotes should be used against them and have invented the term "quote mining" to criticize that practice.

==Origin, in TalkOrigins.org==
According to the pro-evolution site TalkOrigins.org, quote mining is "the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, 'which superficially appears to support one's position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored.'"

Quotes that illustrate self-contradiction are thereby considered, by the inventors of the term, to be quote mining whether the self-contradiction is real or not.

The term seems to be used to suggest or claim that people have ''deliberately'' or ''negligently'' taken facts material to a quote out of context, with the result that the quote no longer stands for its original proposition. Allegations of quote mining are controversial,<ref>For example, the TalkOrigins.org Quote Mine Project documents many fallacious quotes, but the classification is controversial.</ref> since it implies [[scienter]] - that is, either intent to deceive, or disregard to the possibility of deception. This distinguishes quote mining from more general, run of the mill, quoting out of context; while the latter involves no misrepresentation of facts material to the quote's meaning, the former does.

The origins of the term are unknown, but it appears to date from the late 1990s.<ref>According to [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html TalkOrigins.org], the first known use was in 1996.</ref>
It is not recognized by any dictionaries.
Its most common use is by evolutionists who claim that creationists misrepresent quotes from scientists.

A common reason why TalkOrigins.org makes claims of quote mining appears to be that they choose make a false claim of quote mining when noted evolutionists have moments of candor and point out the various significant deficiencies of the evolutionary position rather than admit the weakness and/or falsity of the evolutionary position.

==Is Quote Mining Wrong?==
This section discusses merely whether quote mining is ''wrong'', not whether it ''exists'' or ''has been practiced'' by any individuals.

===Myth===
Many people, especially in the legal and political fields, use quotes by others against them. There is nothing objectionable about this practice, and the term quote-mining could apply to nearly every legal proceeding and political campaign.

===Fact: Defining Quote Mining===
While quoting relevant parts of judicial decisions is indeed widespread, and lawyers and politicians often quote one's own arguments against them to show a contradiction, "quote mining" as used is something else entirely. Quote mining implies selective quotation that, either negligently or purposefully, omits relevant parts from an argument. For example, consider the following ''invented'' quotation from an imaginary legal case.

:''"In the State of Commonwealth, it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may not trade on insider information." Smith v. Jones, 129 Commonwealth Reporter 332 (Commonwealth 2008).''

Now let us consider two quotations of the case.

A deceptive quotation uses an ellipsis to camouflage a point of authority that goes against one's argument.
:''However, Party X was completely within his rights to trade on this information. After all, "it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may... trade on insider information."''

An honest argument still quotes the authority source, but quotes all relevant parts.
:''However, Party X was completely within his rights to trade on this information. After all, "it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may not trade on insider information," but Party X was not a corporate officer.''

This should demonstrate that an accusation of "quote mining" is not merely an indictment for appealing to authority, a well-settled tactic indeed - the accusation is of ''appealing to authority in a selective manner, so as to distort and confound the actual meaning of the authority.

===Fact: The Law on an Attorney's Quote Mining===
Attorneys are under a well-settled duty not to misrepresent authority to a court of law. In essence, they may not "quote mine." By way of example, a Federal Circuit Court in 2003 disciplined an attorney for selectively quoting elements of a [[court]] [[Opinion (Law)|opinion]]. The attorney, faced with a charge of contempt of court for delaying filing a motion by ''twelve days'' when the court ordered her to do so "forthwith," explained that, by settled law,<ref name="ny">The attorney cited City of New York v. McAllister Brothers, Inc., 278 F.2d 708, 710.</ref> "Forthwith means immediately, without delay, or as soon may be accomplished by reasonable exertion."<ref name="ny" /> She neglected to cite the following sentence, which explained that "forthwith" generally means, "within twenty-four hours,"<ref name="ny" /> apparently hoping that, without this qualification, the court would read "forthwith" as implying ''no time constraint other than necessity.''

The court which received the attorney's brief was not amused. In censuring the attorney, they wrote,
{{cquote|The effect of Walser's editing of this material and ignoring the Supreme Court decision that dealt with the issue - a decision that seriously weakened her argument - was to give the Court a misleading impression of the state of the law on the point. She eliminated material that indicated that her delay in filing the motion for reconsideration had not met the court's requirement that she file "forthwith," and presented the remaining material in a way that overstated the basis for her claim that a "forthwith" filing requirement meant she could take whatever time would be reasonable in the circumstances. This distortion of the law was inconsistent with and violated the standards of Rule 11.<ref>Precision Specialty Metals, Inc. v. United States, 315 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003).</ref>}}

Rule 11 forbids attorneys from arguing in a misleading manner. Clearly, this federal circuit thinks that "quote mining" is a reprehensible act contrary to intellectual and academic rigor. There is ''indeed'' something objectionable about the practice, and the term "quote mining" ought not "apply to nearly every legal proceeding and political campaign."

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/cequotes.html Selected Creation/Evolution Quotes]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Tools/Quotes.asp Creation Quotes] list from [[Answers in Genesis]]
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Quote-mining (Talk.Origins) Quote-mining - CreationWiki]
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html The Quote Mine Project] - hosted by the [[talk.origins]] archive

==See also==
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Young Earth Creationism]]
[[category:Law]]
[[category:Rhetoric]]
[[category:evolution]]

Quote mining

2008-12-18T01:53:01Z

TCochrane: Improved definition. Removed reference to lawyers (which appears to be contradicted by the paragraph below) and politicians (have pity on them).

Famous American artists

2008-12-17T23:10:29Z

TCochrane: /* Photographers */ Don't know how she was omitted

<center> 
'''Famous American artists'''


</center>
[[Image:David Hare Mountain Night 1969.jpg|thumb|240px|Mountain Night (1969) by David Hare.]]

== Architects ==
<center>
<gallery perrow="5">
Image:Seagram Building.jpg|[[Mies van der Rohe|Ludwig Mies van der Rohe]] - Philip Johnson

Image:Wright Dream House.jpg|[[Frank Lloyd Wright]]
Image:Lovell House.jpg|Richard Neutra
Image:Bank of America Victor Gruen.jpg|[[Victor Gruen]]
Image:Thom Mayne Federal Building.jpg|[[Thom Mayne]]
</gallery>
</center>

== Dancers ==
[[Image:American ballet.jpg|thumb|American Ballet Theatre's Don Quixote]]
* [[Isadora Duncan]]
* Theodore Kosloff
* [http://www.black-collegian.com/african/dunham9.shtml Katherine Dunham]
* [http://www.ibdb.com/person.php?id=15946 Albertina Rasch]
* Loren Hightower
* [http://www.ballerinagallery.com/kirkland.htm Gelsey Kirkland]
* [http://pipl.com/directory/people/Gerald/Arpino Gerald Arpino]
* [http://www.abt.org/education/archive/choreographers/joffrey_r.html Robert Joffrey]
* [http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Mireille-Hassenboehler Mireille Hassenboehler]
* Amanda Schull
{{Clear}}

== Musicians ==
[[Image:Leonard Bernstein.jpg|thumb|Leonard Bernstein]]
See: [[Famous American musicians]]

Some outstanding names:

[[George Gershwin]], [[Louis Armstrong]], [[Leonard Bernstein]], [[Henry Mancini]], [[Barbra Streisand]] and [[Stevie Wonder]].

{{Clear}}

== Painters ==
<center>
<gallery perrow="5">
Image:Whistler At the Piano.jpg|At the Piano. [[James Whistler]]
Image:Winslow Homer Sunlight on the Coast.jpg|Sunlight on the Coast. [[Winslow Homer]]
Image:MC1.jpg|Summertime. [[Mary Cassatt]]
Image:Hassam Carriage Parade on Champs Elysees.jpg|Carriage Parade on Champs Elysees. [[Childe Hassam]]
Image:Hopper Chop Suey.jpg|Chop Suey. [[Edward Hopper]]
Image:O'Keefe Hernandez New Mexico.jpg|Hernandez New Mexico. [[Georgia O'Keeffe]]
Image:Hunter Abstract flowers and animals.jpg|Abstract flowers and animals. [[Clementine Hunter]]
Image:Benton Threshing Wheat.jpg|Threshing Wheat. [[Thomas Hart Benton]]
Image:Phillips The Hudson at Ossining 1920.jpg|The Hudson at Ossining '''Marjory Phillips'''
Image:Grant Wood American Gothic.jpg|American Gothic. [[Grant Wood]]

</gallery>

<gallery>
Image:Alma Thomas Eclipse 1970.jpg|Eclipse [[Alma Thomas]]
Image:Pollock Number 5.jpg|Number 5 [[Jackson Pollock]]
Image:Jasper Johns False Start.jpg|False Start [[Jasper Johns]]

</gallery>
</center>

== Photographers ==
[[Image:Charlie White.jpg|thumb|300px|Charlie White]]
* [[Dorothea Lange]]
* [[Ansel Adams]]
* Robert Capa
* Hans Namuth
* [[William Klein]]
* Bruce Conner
* Lucas Samaras
* Edward Ruscha
* Barbara Kruger
* Robert Mapplethorpe
* Sarah Charlesworth
* Brian Wood
* David Wojnarowicz
* Jack Pierson
* Rachel Harrison
* Charlie White
* Mary Ann Sullivan
* Annie Leibovitz

== Sculptors ==
<center>
<gallery perrow="5">
Image:The Lost Pleiad.jpg|The Lost Pleiad. '''Randolph Rogers.'''
Image:Awakening sculpture.jpg|Awakening. '''J. Seward Johnson, Jr.'''
Image:Butterfield Horses.jpg|Horses. ''' Deborah Butterfield'''
Image:Saar Untitled.jpg|Untitled '''Alison Saar'''
Image:Antoni Saddle 2000.jpg|Saddle. '''Janine Antoni'''

</gallery>

[[Image:DcLincMor.JPG|280px]]

The [[Daniel Chester French]] sculpture at the [[Lincoln]] Memorial.
{{Clear}}
 
<gallery>
Image:Frederic Remington sculpture.jpg|Bronco Buster [http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/remington_frederic.html Frederic Remington]
Image:Alexander Calder Stegosaurus.jpg|Stegosaurus [http://calder.org/home Alexander Calder]
Image:Jeff Koons Balloon Flower.jpg|Balloon Flower [http://www.jeffkoons.com/site/index.html Jeff Koons]
Image:Martin Puryear Sphere.jpg|Sphere [http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/puryear/index.html Martin Puryear]
</gallery>
</center>

== Writers ==
[[Image:Ernest Hemingway..jpg|thumb|100px|Ernest Hemingway.]]
See: [[Famous American writers]]

Some outstanding names:

[[Mark Twain]], [[Herman Melville]], [[Ernest Hemingway]], [[William Faulkner]], [[F. Scott Fitzgerald]] and [[John Steinbeck]].

{{Clear}}

== See also ==
[[Image:Robert Scott Duncanson Scene in the Canadian Rockies.jpg|thumb|250px|Robert Scott Duncanson, Scene in the Canadian Rockies.]]
*[[Hall of Fame for Great Americans]]
*[[American Painting]]
*[[Literature]]
*[[Painting]]
*[[Sculpture]]
*[[Dance]]
*[[Architecture]]
*[[Music]]
*[[Famous American Architects]]
*[[World Famous Pictures]]

{{Clear}}

== External links ==
[[Image:Isamu Noguchi The Sky.jpg|thumb|Isamu Noguchi, The Sky.]]
*[http://www.linkism.com/visual_artists/famous-artists/country/united-states-america.htm Famous American Artists]
*[http://www.artquotes.net/masters/country/american.htm Famous American Artist] by ArtQuotes.com
*[http://www.askart.com/AskART/interest/black_american_artists_1.aspx?id=33 Black American Artists]

 
[[Image:American architecture.jpg|American architecture.]]

[[Category:Art]]
[[Category: Americans]]

Talk:Quote mining

2008-12-16T23:44:00Z

TCochrane: /* Bad reference to lawyers */ new section

Talk:Gun control

2008-12-11T23:37:10Z

TCochrane: /* Riddle me this... */

Talk:Gun control

2008-12-11T23:12:38Z

TCochrane: /* Riddle me this... */ new section

Obiter dicta

2008-12-04T02:56:44Z

TCochrane: Redirecting to Obiter dictum

#REDIRECT [[Obiter dictum]]

Talk:Carl Sagan

2008-12-04T02:43:38Z

TCochrane:

Going to have to revisit this article. Carl Sagan brought science and astronomy in to the mainstream in the '80s and inspired many to get involve in the sciences. He was a brilliant writer and speaker on many topics...much more than just discussing the possibility of life outside of our solar system. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 07:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:I was reading his stuff in the 70s as a school kid.
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 07:28, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::My first introduction to Carl Sagan came in 1980 when ''Cosmos'' first aired on PBS. Both informative and inspirational, it made some long lasting impressions on me. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 09:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I was 3 when Cosmos came out, and I still remember sitting with my father, in the dark, watching the 'spaceship of the mind' hurdling through space, visiting the planets. Ah, memories...I know that is the impetus behind my interest in science. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 21:18, 3 December 2008 (EST)
:::::I too have fond memories of the first time I watched ''Cosmos''. One of the most inspiring and interesting shows on television (notwithstanding special effects which by today's standards could only be described as hokey). He was someone who was clearly enthralled by what he did and who sought to ignite the interest of his audience in the beauty and wonder of the universe. A great man. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 21:43, 3 December 2008 (EST)
::::Billions and billions ... it's enough to curdle your milk. Hey, remember when Carl Sagan debated [[Fred Singer]] about the Kuwaiti oil fires being like [[nuclear winter]]? Singer treated Sagan's dire prediction as a hypothesis and said let's wait a week and see if it's correct. It turned out Sagan's hypothesis was wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:23, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Falkland Islands

2008-12-04T00:53:41Z

TCochrane: Undo revision 575052 by Aschlafly (Talk) As per discussion on Joaquín Martínez's talk page.

{{Country
|name=Falkland Islands
|map=Falkland Islands map.gif
|flag=Flag of the Falkland Islands svg.png
|arms=Coa Falkland svg.png
|capital=Stanley
|government=British overseas territory
|language=English
|area=4700 sq mi
|pop=3060
|pop-basis=July 2005 estimate
|gdp=$75 million
|gdp-year=2005
|gdp-pc=$25000
|currency=Falkland pound
|idd=+500
|tld=.fk}}
The '''Falkland Islands''' are a small group of islands situated in the South Atlantic Ocean, 300 miles from the coast of [[Argentina]]. The two major islands, West and East Falkland, are separated by Falkland Sound. There are numerous smaller islands. The [[capital]] is Stanley, on East Falkland. The islands are known as the "Islas Malvinas" to the Argentines.

==Sovereignty==

The Islands have been a territory of the [[United Kingdom]] for 170 years, but the British claim to sovereignty is disputed by Argentina. A war was fought over the issue when Argentina seized the islands on April 2nd, 1982 without warning. Argentina was run by a military junta at that time and was experiencing a time of economic difficulties and social unrest at home. The new government in Argentina saw a recapturing of the peaceful Falklands as a perfect solution to the social problems that were happening at the time.

The British, under [[Margaret Thatcher]], put together a naval expedition to travel half way around the world and retake the islands. Strenuous diplomatic efforts were made to resolve the issue, and the Argentines were given a great deal of time to solve the conflict peacefully as the British slowly came closer, but their refusal to recognise the Islands' right of self-determination forced the British to use military force to expel the invaders. British long-range air attacks (against the Islands' airport, then being used by the Argentinian air force) did not begin until 1st May, a month after the initial Argentinian invasion, with the naval battle beginning the following day.

By the time the British naval fleet had arrived at the Falklands, there were several positions on the map where Argentinean soldiers had been positioned, most notably at the capital where there were 10,000 Argentinean soldiers fortified. 4,000 British Army soldiers and Royal Marines disembarked from Royal Navy vessels on 21st May and progressed on foot across East Falkland, fighting several battles on the way before capturing Stanley. On June 15th, the Falkland Islanders were liberated and the islands were returned to British control.

255 British servicemen and three islanders lost their lives in the war, with many of the British casualties being suffered in air attacks on British ships (five British ships were sunk and others damaged by bombs and French-built [[Exocet]] missiles). The Argentinian government officially states that 655 of its servicemen lost their lives (half of those in the sinking of the cruiser General Belgrano), although this figure has been questioned.

The embarrassing defeat for Argentina helped to hasten the downfall of the military government while in Britain Thatcher's party surged to victory in the general election the following year.

Argentina maintains its claim to the islands, although it has not tried to take them by force again. Since the war, Britain has declined Argentinian requests for sovereignty talks. Prior to the war, the British Government had considered handing the territory over to the Argentines, but didn't want to go against the will of the people who lived there, who wanted the Falkland Islands to remain British. France and Spain have previously laid claim to the islands.

==Economy==
The Falklands economy is based largely on fishing, although recently evidence of oil deposits around the islands has suggested the possibility of an economic revolution.

==Government==
The elected legislative and executive councils are chaired by the [[Governor]], who is appointed by the UK government. Military and Foreign affairs are the direct responsibility of the [[United Kingdom|UK]] government.
[[Image:Boot Hill South Atlantic.jpg|left|thumb|250px|"Boot Hill": When an islander leaves the Falklands, it is tradition to leave an item of footwear behind.]]

==Links==
*[http://www.falklandnews.com/ Falkland Islands News Network]
[[category:South America]]
[[Category:Archipelagos]]

Afrika Korps

2008-12-02T03:43:36Z

TCochrane:

{{RefAppeal}}
The '''Afrika Korps''', were a German military unit led by [[Field Marshal]] [[Erwin Rommel]]. The Afrika Korps entered the North [[Africa]]n campaign to aid Germany's [[Italian]] allies when the Italians suffered a series of defeats at the hands of the [[british|British Commonwealth]] forces. Rommel launched an offensive from [[El Agheila]] which pushed the British back into [[Egypt]]. The British subsequently attacked advancing back to El Agheila. Again the Afrika Korps attacked pushing the British Commonwealth forces back to [[Egypt]] where the German advance was stopped at the first battle of El Alamein.

The British Commonwealth forces then defeated the Afrika Korps at [[Alam Halfa]] and the second battle of [[El Alamein]] in late 1942.

Shortly afterwards, the [[Allies]] launched [[Operation Torch]] which included [[Free French]] forces. Operation Torch was followed by [[Operation Retribution]], and ultimately the defeat of the Afrika Korps, which forced their to surrender.

North Africa was steep learning curve for American forces, the battle for Kasserine pass being the near-distasterous defeat that lead to vital restructure, and change in tactics.
The German Field Marshall Erwin Rommel, was considered to be a gentleman (as far as German officers went), and later participated in a failed [[assassination]] attempt on [[Hitler]]. It was his opinion that the [[Australia]]n Forces represented the elite units of the Allied forces in the North African '[[Desert War]]', this was based on the successful defence of the besieged [[Tobruk]] (240 days), and the Australian infantry's innovative means of engaging the German '[[Blitzkrieg]]' [[Panzer]] strategy, which up until then was unstoppable without the large-scale use of [[artillery]].

[[Category:World War II]]

Talk:Falkland Islands

2008-12-02T03:26:36Z

TCochrane: Reversion

== Reversion ==

I reverted that edit that said that the islands correct name was the Malvinas. That is certainly not the view of the islanders. The earlier version stated that the Argentines call them Islas Malvinas. That seems reasonable. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 22:26, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Falkland Islands

2008-12-02T03:23:03Z

TCochrane: Undo revision 573797 by Joaquín Martínez (Talk) Not sure why that was reverted in the first place.

Kangaroo

2007-11-29T23:33:41Z

TCochrane: Reverted edit of Jallen. Removed superfluous statement.

[[Image:Kangaroo-bree.png|right|Eastern Grey Kangaroo (''Macropus giganteus'')]]

'''Kangaroos''' are the largest [[marsupial]]s alive today. Excluding specimens sent overseas, they are only found on the continent of [[Australia]] apart from some species in some areas of [[Papua New Guinea]]<ref>[http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/kangaroos.html Australia's kangaroos], Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.</ref>. There are at least sixty-nine [[species]] of kangaroo <ref name="kangbio">[http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/biology.html "Kangaroo Biology"], Australian Government</ref>, which include [[wallabies]] and tree-kangaroos.

==Description==

Kangaroos have large ears on top of their small heads, a long snout, and short arms with clawed fingers. Their legs are strong, powerful, and are made for leaping. Their feet have four toes at the end of elongated metatarsi that they rest on when standing. They also have a powerful, thick tail that is used as support when standing, a third-leg when walking slowly, and for counterbalance while leaping. Like all Marsupials, female kangaroos have a pouch on their stomachs in which they carry their young.

===Diet===

Kangaroos are [[herbivore]]s, eating grass, roots, and shrubs. They have a chambered stomach similar to [[sheep]] and [[cattle]]. They are able to regurgitate their food, chew it again as [[cud]], and then swallow it for digestion.

===Social Order===

Kangaroos travel in [[mob | mobs]] of about ten or more males and females. The leader of the mob, called a "boomer", is a male determined by age and size. The boomer has access to females in his mob for mating and will wander around the mob intimidating any other males who try to mate with his harem.

===Reproduction===

Female kangaroos usually only have one baby kangaroo (called a "joey") at a time. The newborn joey weighs as little as .03 ounces when first born, after which it crawls into its mothers pouch where it will nurse, grow, and develop. Red Kangaroo joeys will stay in their mothers pouch for about eight months and Grey Kangaroo joeys stay in there for about one year.

===Development of the Young in the Pouch===

Kangaroos have adapted to the varied conditions across Australia in many ways. One of the most unusual, is the way females of some species can delay the progress of pregnancy. In this way the female is ready to give birth to a replacement for the young in her pouch if it dies early, or within a week of when it permanently leaves the pouch. This ability to delay births means that there can be up to 12 months between a mating and the birth of the young one resulting from that mating (when the normal gestation period is less than 35 days). It also means that the species can best respond to periods of drought and plenty.

Species which have this unusual ability normally mate again soon after the female gives birth. The tiny newly born kangaroo (less than 25 mm long) moves unaided into its mother's pouch and attaches itself to one of four teats. During the early stages of pouch life the young is permanently attached to the teat, but as it matures and begins to grow hair it also develops the ability to release and reattach itself to the teat.

In the late stages of pouch life, once it has a thin covering of fur, the young one begins to explore the outside world for increasing lengths of time until eventually it is old enough to be excluded permanently from the pouch. Complete weaning may take a number of months more after the young has permanently left the pouch. If the mother gives birth during this time, the newborn young will attach itself to a different teat to that being used by the older young. It is remarkable that when this happens the mother produces two different kinds of milk for the two different-aged young<ref name="kangbio"/>.

==Origins==

Consistent with their view that the fossil record as a whole does not support the evolutionary position<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp "Fossils Questions and Answers"], Answers In Genesis</ref><ref>[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Creation/Evolution Quotes: Fossil Record]</ref>, creationists state that there is a lack of transitional fossils showing an evolutionary origin of kangaroos:

{{QuoteBox|The Macropod family is alleged to have evolved from either the Phalangeridae (possums) or Burramyidae (pygmy-possums)... However, there are no fossils of animals which appear to be intermediate between possums and kangaroos. ''Wabularoo naughtoni'', supposed ancestor of all the macropods, was clearly a kangaroo (it greatly resembles the potoroos which dwell in Victoria’s forests). If modern kangaroos really did come from it, all this shows is the same as we see happening today, namely that kangaroos come from kangaroos, "after their kind." <ref>Driver, Rebecca, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/755/ Kangaroos: God's amazing craftsmanship], ''Creation'' 20(3):28–31, June 1998.</ref>}}

According to the [[origins theory]] model used by young earth [[creation science | creation scientists]], modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard [[Noah's Ark]] prior to the [[Great Flood]]. It has not yet been determined by [[baraminology | baraminologists]] whether kangaroos form a [[holobaramin]] with the [[wallaby]], [[tree-kangaroo]], [[wallaroo]], [[pademelon]] and [[quokka]], or if all these species are in fact [[Baraminology|apobaramin]]ic or [[Baraminology|polybaramin]]ic.

After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land<ref name="cab17">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf "How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia"], Chapter 17 of ''The Creation Answers Book'', by Don Batten (Ed.)</ref> with lower sea levels during the post-flood [[ice age]], or before the supercontinent of [[Pangea]] broke apart<ref>[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2808 "Pangea and the Flood"], Apologetics Press</ref>
The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical.

Other views on kangaroo origins include the belief of some [[Australian Aborigines]] that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the "[[Dreamtime]]" <ref>[http://www.painsley.org.uk/RE/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-abor.htm "An Aborigine Creation Story"]</ref> and the evolutionary view that kangaroos and the other marsupials evolved from a common marsupial ancestor which lived hundreds of millions of years ago.<ref>[http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/WWC/1995/australia.html "Australian Mammals: Evolutionary Development as a Result of Geographic Isolation"]</ref>

A majority of biologists regard [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] as the most likely explanation for the origin of species including the kangaroo.
For example, approximately 45% of [[United States|American]] scientists do not believe there is a God,<ref>http://www.ovpr.uga.edu/researchnews/97su/faith.html</ref> and 93% of the scientists who were members of the [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] do not believe there is a God.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html</ref>
Futhermore, since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been [[Atheism|atheists]].<ref>Dr. [[Don Batten]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.</ref><ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]</ref>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.exzooberance.com/virtual%20zoo/they%20walk/kangaroo/kangaroo.htm Kangaroo facts]
*[http://www.christiananswers.net/kids/kangaroos.html Answers About Kangaroos]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia?]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Marsupials]]
[[Category:Australia]]