Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous

2008-12-10T18:00:26Z

Markr:

The older version of this was incorrect and directly contradicted AAs literature. It took about 1 minute to find the correct information at their website.[[User:Associate|Associate]] 12:22, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I think its a complete crock for AA to try and pretend it isn't a Christian organization. For the love of you know who, they use the capital form of God in their steps.

::: So what if it is a Christian organization? Does that somehow mean the help they have provided to millions of individuals and their families should be invalidated? --[[User:Tom.Insley|Tom.Insley]] 13:01, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not too up to speed on this, but don't Jews and Muslims refer to God as well? I know they have other names they use (Yaweh, Allah), but I think God is used too. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 13:05, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
:AA doesn't "pretend" to anything. It clearly states its goals. It has an inherent bias toward a "higher power", and if you don't believe in one of those, you don't have to join.[[User:Associate|Associate]] 13:34, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
::I said its crock for them to pretend NOT to be Christian, not for them to BE Christian. And I think when you see "God" and "Him" written like that, and not "god" we're referring to the God of Christianity exclusively. Yes, Allah and Yaweh are the same deity, but for some reason they are not all included in the term "God."--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 13:38, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
::: I think that's just your own personal interpretation of it. You are never going to see someone refer to Allah as "god", but more likely as "God". Even the [[Islam]] and [[Judaism]] articles here use a capitalized God. I imagine AA takes the non-denominational stance in order to attract and help as many people as they can. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 13:45, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
::::You are probably right about the capitalization issue. I usually only think Christianity specifically because Islam and Judaism both have a name for God. You don't see Christians running around saying "Praise 'I Am'." I guess you are right, and thats just my own personal interpretation. However, I have a feeling that when we're speaking about AA, its more likely than not that God is being referenced in the Christian sense. I of course could be wrong.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:28, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Well, I'd agree, AA probably isn't a program for hard-core atheists. BTW, Please see [[HaShem]] and [[Tetragrammaton]].[[User:Associate|Associate]] 17:34, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

:AA is compatible with Christianity, so you are correct in that '''if they pretended''' it was non-Christian they would be wrong. However, it is so [[non-denominational]] that it forgoes any mention of [[salvation]], let alone the [[Trinity]]. Thus it is also compatible with Judaism.
: step 3 on the AA website document [http://www.aa.org/lang/en/en_pdfs/smf-121_en.pdf HERE] has the phrase "God ''as we understood Him''." (italic in original) leaves denomination and even religion pretty wide open [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:00, 10 December 2008 (EST)

==Copyright==

AA is fussy about whom they allow to reprint their material. Even though we can claim [[fair use]], I wonder if need to ask Andy to send them a polite letter inquiring about the best way to handle our desire to quote the [[12 Steps]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Art cities

2008-12-10T05:05:39Z

Markr: New page: Is there a definition of what makes a city an art city ?

Is there a definition of what makes a city an art city ?

Protocol

2008-12-10T05:01:45Z

Markr: spell

'''Protocol''' in its most basic meaning is the set of [[rules]] defining accepted [[conduct]] between two or more individuals. The purpose of these rules is to ensure a smooth interaction by removing the chance of offense.

For a person or group these rules may specify such items as proper clothing, who speaks first and what title is used, who may sit or stand , and whose chair may be higher.

The term is used in [[communications]] and refers to the rules for communicating between two devices. The protocol defines what [[signaling]] is used and what each device is expected to do in any circumstance.

An example of a communications protocol is [[TCP/IP]]. This is actually two protocols Internet Protocol (IP) and Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). TCP/IP is the basis of the internet.

{{stub}}

Protocol

2008-12-10T05:00:13Z

Markr: wanted page - stub needs something - category is rules of conduct ?

'''Protocol''' in its most basic meaning is the set of [[rules]] defining accepted conduct between two or more individuals. The purpose of these rules is to ensure a smooth interaction by removing the chance of offense.

For a person or group these rules may specify such items as proper clothing, who speaks first and what title is used, who may sit or stand , and whose chair may be higher.

The term is used in[[communications]] and refers to the rules for communicating between two devices. The protocol defines what [[signaling]] is used and what each device is expected to do in any circumstance.

An example of a communications protocol is TCP/IP. This is actually two protocols Internet Protocol (IP) and Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). TCP/IP is the basis of the internet.

{{stub}}

Protocol

2008-12-10T04:52:36Z

Markr: wanted page - stub

'''Protocol''' in its most basic meaning is the set of [[rules]] to use when dealing with a particular entity. These rules cover such items as proper clothing, who speaks first and what title is used, who may sit or stand , and whos chair may be higher.

The term is used in computer [[communications]] and refers to the rules for communicating between two devices. The protocol defines what [[signalling]] is used and what each device is expected to do in any circumstance.

An example of a communications protocol is TCP/IP. This is actually two protocols Internet Protocol (IP) and Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). TCP/IP is the basis of the internet.

{{stub}}

Debate: Could Christian denominations exist without the Catholic Church?

2008-12-10T04:03:05Z

Markr:

Could Christian denominations exist without the Catholic Church? If it were not for Jesus's Church, would the other denominations ever exist?

==Yes==
The Eastern Orthodox Church is doing OK. The Roman Catholic Church split off from the earlier church , so its existence wasn't really necessary. There were bound to be break off sects in time. There is an element of contention about the validity of these as true Christian churches [[User:Markr|Markr]] 23:03, 9 December 2008 (EST)

==No==
No way, the other denominations owe your religion to Catholicism.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 20:44, 9 December 2008 (EST)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Osteoporosis

2008-12-09T17:28:05Z

Markr: wanted page - stub

'''Osteoporosis''' is a weakening of the bones due to calcium loss. It is typically a condition found in the elderly. It is more frequent in women than in men , but both may occur. There are no symptoms until a break of a bone occurs so annual testing is recommended. The condition is treated by ensuring adequate dietary calcium and drugs which increase calcium deposition.

{{stub}}

==See Also==
*[http://www.nof.org/osteoporosis/diseasefacts.htm Osteoporosis Fast Facts]

==References==
* http://www.nof.org/

[[category:diseases]]

Talk:Epicureanism

2008-12-09T04:03:10Z

Markr: food and wine lover

This is quite interesting. I was in the restaurant trade for a while and Epicurean was a lover of food and wine . I suppose this article may explain the origins of that . [[User:Markr|Markr]] 23:03, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Marvin Gaye

2008-12-08T19:14:12Z

Markr: new page - from redlink - basics down , needs expansion - cat ?

'''Marvin Gaye''' (Marvin Pentz Gay)

Born: April 2, 1939
Died: April 1984

Marvin Gaye was a well known performer of the [[Motown]] era. He both wrote and performed many of his songs as well as being a producer. He became known for his '''Themed''' albums, each focusing on one topics such as marriage with the album '''''Here, My Dear'''''.

His father was a fundamentalist Christian. The lifestyle chosen by his son was a source of argument between them.

In April 1984 Marvin Gaye was shot by his father resulting in his death.

{{stub}}

==References==
* http://www.rockhall.com/inductee/marvin-gaye

Ghost

2008-12-08T04:54:49Z

Markr: Bible comment that applies to ghosts

A '''Ghost''' is a concept embraced by the [[New Age]] belief system whereby deceased beings somehow manifest themselves in a personal way to the living. Travel agents in [[Britain]] claim that it has the highest concentration of ghostly hauntings and other [[paranormal]] activity of anywhere in the world. <ref>http://www.uktravelbureau.com/mythmagic.cfm</ref>

"Ghosts" in this sense are not biblical, and Christianity rejects the concept of a human ghost.

In the [[New Age]] belief system, ghosts may result of violent [[death]]s, as a result of which the deceased's soul is left wandering the [[earth]] instead of [[transmigration|transmigrating]] to [[Heaven]], [[Hell]], or someplace in between ([[Probation]]). This lost soul would thereby struggle to interact with earthly beings in order to avenge its death, or to explain what happened to it.

Under this non-Christian belief system, many ghosts would be confined to well defined spatial loci, for instance, the room in which they died, or some place that was important to them in life. Others would roam the earth freely, and are less likely to be noticed, since their presence in a given place may only occur once.

==What the Bible Says==
Job 7:9-10 "As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away: so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. He shall return no more to his house , neither shall his place know him any more ."

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Mythology]]

Nuclear Energy

2008-12-07T18:25:47Z

Markr: refs

'''Nuclear energy''' is [[energy]] gained from the destruction of subatomic particles during nuclear fission or fusion. The main uses of nuclear technology is in nuclear reactors, which use the energy in an atom to create power, or nuclear weapons, which use the energy in warfare. There are two types of reactions, nuclear fission and nuclear fusion.

[[Image:Energy.jpg|thumb|350px|left|a significant share of U.S. energy is nuclear]]
==Theory==
The energy released from a nuclear fission device is given by the equation <math>E= MC</math>2. Spelled out, mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. This equation is the formula for the energy contained in an atom. This energy is released in a nuclear weapon when a speeding [[neutron]] collides with the atom, blasting it apart, and releasing the binding energy of the atom. In a nuclear weapon, the atom blasted apart then releases other neutrons which collide with other atoms. This keeps occurring until there are no atoms left to destroy. This is known as a nuclear chain reaction. In a nuclear fission power plant, however, the nuclear core is designed so that a runaway chain reaction cannot occur, by limiting the number of neutrons available to continue the reaction by the use of control rods<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/control.html</ref>.

Nuclear fusion, on the other hand, is based on putting atoms together, as opposed to breaking them apart in fission, heavier atoms often require less bonding energy than the combined original binding energies of the fusing lighter atoms.

==Weapon==
[[Image:Hiroshima Nuke.gif|thumb|left|Nuclear "mushroom cloud" at Hiroshima, Japan]]
A nuclear weapon is a weapon designed with a nuclear warhead. Nuclear weapons not only produce mass devastation in the blast radius, but also create a nuclear fallout for many years to come. Recently, there has been much fear of a terrorist state or organization getting hold of either a [[Soviet]] weapon or creating one of their own.

Nuclear fission based weapons occur by the nuclear chain reaction system, while thermonuclear weapons create nuclear fusion in their reaction.

==Power==
[[Image:Nuclear Power Plant.jpg|thumb|right|Nuclear power plant]]
Nuclear fission has existed for power over fifty years, starting with the [[Manhattan Project]]. It currently supplies electricity to many of the nations of the world. The nuclear industry was booming in the 1960's and 1970's, but political opposition stopped nuclear construction in the USA. There is talk of renewing construction because it is the cleanest and cheapest source of large quantities of power, it doesn't depend on Mideast oil, and it doesn't emit greenhouse gases.

Nuclear fusion has been sought vigorously as a clean energy source, but the end result in every try has been less energy resulting in the reaction than was put into it. Nevertheless, several countries still invest heavily in nuclear fusion energy programs in the hope that someday they may become viable.

A nuclear fusion reactor was a central part of the 2004 film [[Spiderman 2]].

==References==
<references/>

[[category:Energy]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Nuclear Energy

2008-12-07T18:18:12Z

Markr: /* Theory */

'''Nuclear energy''' is [[energy]] gained from the destruction of subatomic particles during nuclear fission or fusion. The main uses of nuclear technology is in nuclear reactors, which use the energy in an atom to create power, or nuclear weapons, which use the energy in warfare. There are two types of reactions, nuclear fission and nuclear fusion.

[[Image:Energy.jpg|thumb|350px|left|a significant share of U.S. energy is nuclear]]
==Theory==
The energy released from a nuclear fission device is given by the equation <math>E= MC</math>2. Spelled out, mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. This equation is the formula for the energy contained in an atom. This energy is released in a nuclear weapon when a speeding [[neutron]] collides with the atom, blasting it apart, and releasing the binding energy of the atom. In a nuclear weapon, the atom blasted apart then releases other neutrons which collide with other atoms. This keeps occurring until there are no atoms left to destroy. This is known as a nuclear chain reaction. In a nuclear fission power plant, however, the nuclear core is designed so that a runaway chain reaction cannot occur, by limiting the number of neutrons available to continue the reaction.

Nuclear fusion, on the other hand, is based on putting atoms together, as opposed to breaking them apart in fission, heavier atoms often require less bonding energy than the combined original binding energies of the fusing lighter atoms.

==Weapon==
[[Image:Hiroshima Nuke.gif|thumb|left|Nuclear "mushroom cloud" at Hiroshima, Japan]]
A nuclear weapon is a weapon designed with a nuclear warhead. Nuclear weapons not only produce mass devastation in the blast radius, but also create a nuclear fallout for many years to come. Recently, there has been much fear of a terrorist state or organization getting hold of either a [[Soviet]] weapon or creating one of their own.

Nuclear fission based weapons occur by the nuclear chain reaction system, while thermonuclear weapons create nuclear fusion in their reaction.

==Power==
[[Image:Nuclear Power Plant.jpg|thumb|right|Nuclear power plant]]
Nuclear fission has existed for power over fifty years, starting with the [[Manhattan Project]]. It currently supplies electricity to many of the nations of the world. The nuclear industry was booming in the 1960's and 1970's, but political opposition stopped nuclear construction in the USA. There is talk of renewing construction because it is the cleanest and cheapest source of large quantities of power, it doesn't depend on Mideast oil, and it doesn't emit greenhouse gases.

Nuclear fusion has been sought vigorously as a clean energy source, but the end result in every try has been less energy resulting in the reaction than was put into it. Nevertheless, several countries still invest heavily in nuclear fusion energy programs in the hope that someday they may become viable.

A nuclear fusion reactor was a central part of the 2004 film [[Spiderman 2]].

[[category:Energy]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Blacksmith

2008-12-05T20:40:04Z

Markr: add refs

a '''blacksmith''' is a person who works metal. Working from [[ingots]] or bar stock he heats and forges (shapes) the metal to the required form using hammers and an anvil. A variety of other tools are used to punch holes , round edges or cut shapes. The metal is then quenched to provide the required degree of hardness and remove stresses. By heating and hammering two pieces of metal could be joined by welding.

The metal most commonly used was iron. Some examples of items made are horseshoes, fences and gates, andirons, plow blades, various farm implements , armor, swords, and kitchen utensils.

{{Stub}}
==References==
* http://www.history.org/almanack/life/trades/tradebla.cfm
* http://www.blksmth.com/

[[category:professions]]

Cake

2008-12-05T20:23:18Z

Markr: expand

'''Cake''' is a desert food usually consisting of [[bread]], sugar, eggs, and other ingredients added for various flavors. The [[Egyptians]] made honeycakes, and the [[Ancient Greeks]] had "plakous", which were made of [[honey]] and [[nut]]s.

Cakes are typically made from butter, sugar and flour with eggs and a flavoring. There is also a leavening agent of baking soda or baking powder that causes the cake to rise. Baking soda is used where there is an acid ingrediant like lemon juice to activate it. Cakes must be baked shortly after adding the baking soda to the batter or the batter will go flat and your cake will be very thick.

Cake flour has a lower gluten content and makes a more delicate texture.

==References==
* http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodcakes.html#aboutcake
* http://www.recipes4cakes.com/cakehistory/

[[Category:Baked Goods ]]

Blacksmith

2008-12-05T20:04:51Z

Markr: wanted page - stub

Talk:Sexual reproduction

2008-12-05T18:03:05Z

Markr: /* Jargon */

"It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with procreation."
Alright, I'll bite. Why?--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 20:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't really see why we need two articles for the same thing. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 20:53, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Jargon==

Too much technical jargon? I think the only alternative would be to describe sex in slang terms, which hardly seems appropriate given that this, unlike reality, is a family-friendly place. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:57, 16 January 2008 (EST)

The jargon is needed to keep a precise explanation but I think a more basic definition is needed for high school or lower grades reference material. I dont know if it would be appropriate to have a simplified version or Overview section and then go into the technical [[User:Markr|Markr]] 12:45, 5 December 2008 (EST)
I have done a simplified article on my talk page [[User_talk:Markr#Sexual_Reproduction_.28basic.29| Here]] [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:03, 5 December 2008 (EST)

User talk:Markr

2008-12-05T17:59:31Z

Markr: /* Sexual Reproduction (basic) */ new section

{{Welcome}}

Please make sure you're proofreading your posts. When you're trying to make a point, especially over a blocked article, it helps if it looks clean. If you have a problem with spelling, I'd recommend using Firefox. It has a built-in spell checker. Just some friendly advice. [[User:LautRN|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:LautRN|Discussion]] 18:23, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:To latch on to what Jeffrey said, please make sure you are using complete sentences and proper punctuation. The Manual of Style (linked above) can help you with proper article format. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:15, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Sexual Reproduction (basic) ==

Sexual reproduction is a type of reproduction requiring a male and female parent. The egg cell of the female is fertilised by the sperm cell of the male and the fertilised egg goes throgh stages of growth ending in the birth of an infant. The childs DNA consists of half the DNA of each parent, the combination of which gives a variety of possible physical charcteristics. The limits of the available genes tends to give the members of a family a similar appearance.

In some organisms the male and female parent may be the same. In plants for example there may be both male parts(stamens) and female parts(???) so the plant may be able to be fertilised by itself or there may be cross-polination with other plants of the same variety.

==See also==
*procreation
*sexual reproduction
*DNA
*Chromosomes
*Genes
*Mitosis

Talk:Sexual reproduction

2008-12-05T17:45:56Z

Markr: /* Jargon */

Candy

2008-12-05T17:24:59Z

Markr:

'''Candy''' is a term that has become synonymous with [[confection]]. Candy is a sweet food made with [[sugar]] or other sweeteners. Candy may refer to toffee, hard sugar candies, chocolates and edible wax. Some examples of these are peanut brittle, lemon drops, chocolate covered cherries and candy corn. In the UK, candy is known as 'sweets'.

==Making Sugar candy ==
A variety of sugar candies can be made by heating a mixture of sugar and water to the required temperature and then adding colorings and flavorings and possibly fruits and nuts. The temperature the sugar reaches determines its final hardness with lower temperatures making soft toffees and high temperatures the hard candies like lemon drops.

Artificial sweeteners can not be substituted for sugar in boiled sugar candies.

{{stub}}

==References==
* http://inventors.about.com/od/foodrelatedinventions/a/candy.htm
* http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodcandy.html
* [http://www.carolscandycorner.com/waxlips.html Edible Wax Candy]

[[category:Food and Drink]]

Candy

2008-12-05T17:23:20Z

Markr:

'''Candy''' is a term that has become synonymous with [[confection]]. Candy is a sweet food made with[[sugar]] or other sweeteners. Candy may refer to toffee, hard sugar candies, chocolates and edible wax. Some examples of these are peanut brittle, lemon drops, chocolate covered cherries and candy corn. In the UK, candy is known as 'sweets'.

==Making Sugar candy ==
A variety of sugar candies can be made by heating a mixture of sugar and water to the required temperature and then adding colorings and flavorings and possibly fruits and nuts. The temperature the sugar reaches determines its final hardness with lower temperatures making soft toffees and high temperatures the hard candies like lemon drops.

{{stub}}

==References==
* http://inventors.about.com/od/foodrelatedinventions/a/candy.htm
* http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodcandy.html
* [http://www.carolscandycorner.com/waxlips.html Edible Wax Candy]

[[category:Food and Drink]]

Candy

2008-12-05T17:19:17Z

Markr: wanted page - stub

'''Candy''' is a term that has become synonymous with [[confection]]. Candy is a sweet food made from [[sugar]]. Candy may refer to toffee, hard sugar candies, chocolates and edible wax. Some examples of these are peanut brittle, lemon drops, chocolate covered cherries and candy corn.

==Making Sugar candy ==
A variety of sugar candies can be made by heating a mixture of sugar and water to the required temperature and then adding colorings and flavorings and possibly fruits and nuts. The temperature the sugar reaches determines its final hardness with lower temperatures making soft toffees and high temperatures the hard candies like lemon drops.

{{stub}}

==References==
* http://inventors.about.com/od/foodrelatedinventions/a/candy.htm
* http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodcandy.html
* [http://www.carolscandycorner.com/waxlips.html Edible Wax Candy]

[[category:Food and Drink]]

Talk:Gun control

2008-12-05T00:44:29Z

Markr: /* Gun control debate vs. greater emphasis on changing violent thinking of society */

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)

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)

== 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)

:: 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)

Talk:Gun control

2008-12-04T23:18:26Z

Markr: /* Gun control debate vs. greater emphasis on changing violent thinking of society */

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)

== 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)

:: 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)

Talk:Gun control

2008-12-04T23:09:25Z

Markr: /* Gun control debate vs. greater emphasis on changing violent thinking of society */

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)

== 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)

:: 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. [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/sz.html Here] [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:09, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Team

2008-12-04T21:46:16Z

Markr: spellcheck - specialized or specialised ?

A '''team''' is a group of people or animals who are working together to perform a task. There is a [[leader]] who coordinates the efforts of the team. Each team member may perform part of the task in a specialized area or all the team members may work together to combine their efforts at a single chore.

Examples of teams are, horses or dogs where they combine strength to pull a cart or sled, sportsmen who do different tasks in playing games like [[football]] or [[basketball]], and computer programmers where they work together to complete a assigned [[application]].

{{stub}}

Team

2008-12-04T21:45:12Z

Markr: wanted page - stub - needs category

A '''team''' is a group of people or animals who are working together to perform a task. There is a [[leader]] who coordinates the efforts of the team. Each team member may perform part of the task in a specialised area or all the team members may work together to combine their efforts at a single chore.

Examples of teams are, horses or dogs where they combine strength to pull a cart or sled, sportsmen who do different tasks in playing games like [[football]] or [[basketball]], and computer programmers where they work together to complete a assigned [[application]].

{{stub}}

Talk:Christianity

2008-12-04T01:45:12Z

Markr: /* Murder */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

While it is true that the ''Roman'' Catholic Church might only refer to one rite of Catholicism, the schismatic Orthodox are not Catholic. Also, it is not merely the "original" Christian Church, but the only one, but the "original" semantics are tolerable. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 11:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I just deleted the descriptors after Catholic Church, Roman Catholic Church, and Orthodox Church. Why I did this: The descriptor for Catholic Church used the word ''original''. There would be huge arguments over the use of that word. All of the ancient churches, including the Orthodox, the Roman Catholic, and the Non-Chalcedonians lay claim to that word. The Descriptors for the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches made them seem like different branches of the same church, which of course, is not true. They are not in communion with one another and hold very different ideas about soteriology and ecclessiology.--[[User:Mattk|Mattk]] 05:11, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

: I think that Baptists, Mormons, Protestants, Presbyterians, Jehovah Witnesses, Non Denominationals, etc will all argue that there is more than one Christian Church, and that they all don't belong to the Catholic Church and follow the Pope. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 15:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: However, this is error on part of the Baptists, Mormons, et al who are not Christians. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 15:26, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian denominations. Whether or not someone "argues that there are more than one Christian Church" is a non-issue. People can argue whatever they want--that does not mean their points are grounded in truth. The study of the doctrine of the Church, Ecclesiology, is based upon what does Scripture say about who believers are, and what the Body of Christ is. All orthodox (meaning non-heretical)denominiations officially believe there is only one Christian church, one Body of Christ, because that is the Scriptural position. This Body is composed of all those who believe Jesus Christ died for their sins and rose again from the dead for them, justifying them before the Father and giving them eternal life.
"Catholic" has two meanings: with a small "c" means universal; "C" refers to the Roman Catholic branch of Christianity, ruled by the Pope and Magesterium. Christians in the Nicene creed claim to believe "one holy, catholic and apostolic church", meaning one universal body of believers, founded upon the Apostles' teachings we have in the New Testament. This is not a confession believing in Rome's positions, but in the Biblical position of there being only one body of Christ.

Quite honestly, they are widely accepted as Christian. Just because they don't fit your theology doesn't change that. --[[User:Adon|Adon]] 03:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Mormons are not widely accepted as Christians. For example, The Orthodox Church (2nd largest Christian church) accepts the baptisms of almost every church (e.g. baptists, Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, Amish, etc.) but requires Mormons to be baptized when they convert to Orthodoxy.

== Beliefs ==

The first paragraph in this section is incorrect, or incomplete. Not all Christian denominations have the "born again" stance. In some branches of Calvinism, for example, everything is predetermined. No need to be "born again". The Catholic church has also a different interpretation. I guess the orthodox too. What the article describes here is just an anabaptist view, by no means the mainstream view. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 13 March 2007, 22:10 (AEST)

--You are inaccurate. Calvinism does believe in the need for regeneration and being born again. Calvinism is inconsistent, however, and is a good example of what happens when we arrive at a wrong understanding of doctrine, and then try to develop a system of belief around that concept. It would be a natural consequence that if everything is predetermined, there would be no need to be born-again, as you say. Calvinism sees that would be contrary to Scripture, and tries to work around this, but is not able to do so and still arrive at correct doctrine. We should be willing to reject those teachings of our leaders which prove to contradict Holy Scripture. It is inspired by God and inerrant; we are sinful humans,and easily err.

If a denomination does not "have the born-again stance", it is not a Christian denomination, at least on that doctrine. All believers are born-again, regenerated by God at the moment of their belief in Jesus. The sole place of revelation about these issues is in Scripture, and the data must be interpreted correctly, or we arrive at false conclusions, which are un-orthodox and heretical.--[[User:PD Popejoy|PD Popejoy]] 14:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: You have a very evangelical view of the Christianity. But is not the only one. In Catholic church you indeed become a new person when you are baptized, but this can happen as an infant. No need to be "born-again" at later age. Also, Scripture is in Catholic Church only one of the sources, the Cathechism is also important. The Scripture can not be freely interpreted, but the Vatican has an important say in how to live the faith. You position is very protestant or evangelical, but it is just part of the picture. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 13 March 2007, 22:10 (AEST)

The previous few versions were build on [[User:PD Popejoy|PD Popejoy]] view on Christianity. These view were by no means inclusive. If bible study leads you to a certin conclusion, then it good for for the individual, but its quite a stretch to claim that others are misled, or mistaken. This entry should include all denominations. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 13 March 2007, 22:10 (AEST)
:Where does a Christian denomination end and a non-Christian sect feigning Christianity (i.e., a cult) begin? Are Mormons Christians on your view? They stretch a LOT of things, but it is just a matter of degree, right? This is a slippery slope I don't think we should risk traipsing on. If Conservapedia is to live up to its name, it can't be "inclusive" of everyone who calls themselves Christian. The Bible clearly states that the only way to God and Heaven is through belief in the sacrifice of Christ. There will always be those who attempt to take passages out of context (Romans 2:14-16 is a popular victim of this) but that shouldn't get in our way of reporting plain truths. [[User:SavedByGrace|SavedByGrace]] 18:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Mormons are Christian, if you like it or not. Catholics could also claim that you should all adhere to what the pope says and stop interpreting the scripture as you like. But it doesn't belong here either, because it divisive. The current entry clearly states that different denominations have different views. If you want to put forward the views of your particular denomination, create a new entry on it, put your stuff there, and add a link it to the list of denominations on the Christianity page. If you want to criticize Mormons, create an entry on Mormons, describe them neutrlly, and add a section on criticism on Mormon teachings. But let this page be as inclusive as possible. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 15 March 2007, 12:40 (AEST)

== "the only way to God." ==

In Romans 2:14-16 we read "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel" You have Paul saying that those people who have not heard the law will still be allowed into heaven (and to God) if their life is sufficiently good. One need not only go through Jesus. I will also point to a more controversial translation of Acts 16:17. [http://www.blueletterbible.org/versions.html#yng Young's Literal translation] reads "she having followed Paul and us, was crying, saying, `These men are servants of the Most High God, who declare to us a way of salvation;'" The word [http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Act&chapter=16&verse=17&strongs=3598&page= hodos] is literaly translated as 'a way' - '''a''' course of conduct, '''a''' way of thinking, feeling, deciding, '''a''' travelled way, road. To say that the Bible is the only way contradicts what was written by Paul. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Twisting facts==

This article is very one sided with its representation of the statistics given by the Harris poll that is sourced. Having looked through the source it is clear that only the stats that praise Christianity. For example the article states that "99% of all American Christians believe in God". but fails to mention that the source informs us that just 90% of Americans believe in God. All of the stats given are of the percentage of people that believe in God, which is very bias, as it doesnt show the full picture. [[User:Jennisuk|Jennisuk]] 08:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: This article is about Christians and their beliefs. Therefore, only the numbers from the poll on the beliefs of Christians are of interest here. The numbers for non-Christians and average Americans are still interesting, but if you think they are important, add them to the appropriate articles on "Americans" or "Non-Christians". This has nothing to with bias, but just that the article should stick to its subject ''Christianity'', and not wander off in all kinds of directions.

== Are Evangelicals the only Christians? ==

I just noticed that the artcile on Christianity turned into an evangelical sermon. The Nicean creed is the smallest common demoniator, therefore useful to include, but there is more. The artcile has become less enceeclopedic as it used to be, and omits the little fact that, for example, Catholics do not share the evangelical view on salvation and atonement. [[User:Order]] 30 March 10:35 (AEST)

==Revert==
I think a revert is needed. This article has become less informative more a call to christians to a particularly baptist position. I think it needs to be slimmed down and made less opinion based. I'm quite partial to my last edit. --[[User:Adon|Adon]] 03:39, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I think my changes have made the article's tone more neutral and factual. I still read a distinctly protestant, southern baptist tone, however. It still rambles a bit, but after my changes it still rambles less. There should also be mention of "fringe" denominations like LDS, Jehova's witnesses, and even Unitarian Universalists.--[[User:Adon|Adon]] 16:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Anglican ==

Is Anglican Communion part of Protestant Christianity? I think they are not Protestant. Am I wrong?

Thanks for the answer.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 14:41, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah they be protestants. {{unsigned|Scholl}}

==History==

Um... Why doesn't the article include ANYTHING on Christian history?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:42, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Etymology==

"Jesus Christ" is not actually Jesus's name. Both "Christ" and "Christianity" come from the Greek word "Christos", meaning "Savior" --Noam Samuel
:See [[Yeshua]] [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 07:45, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

It may not be his name but it is his title. He is called Jesus Christ for the same reason that George Bush is called President Bush. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 08:31, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Of course, because Jesus was an official elected in a tighly run and controvercial American Election. No, but seriously he was called "Jesus the Christ", over time the "the" was judged useless and gotten rid of. "Christ" may have been part of his title but it wasn't a surname like smith or ali, he was jesus the saviour and that's the name he carried (well during early christianity anyway).

--[[User:Scholl|Scholl]] 07:16, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Murder==

Why shouldn't the Christianity page get a part devoted to how it is connected to murder? Perhaps one similar to that that is on the page about atheism would be in order. --[[User:Batista|Batista]] 23:22, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I completely agree, considering how prominently is is displayed on the Atheism page. Evidently, witch burning, the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition have no relevence to Christianity according to Conservapedia.

Certainly a section on the actions of the church would be appropriate. Murder though has a specific meaning of unlawful killing. Were the actions of the church unlawful at the time they occurred ? [[User:Markr|Markr]] 20:45, 3 December 2008 (EST)

== Origins ==

This article is missing an important fact about christianity. It is the only religion entirely based around denying that someones mum and dad ever had sex.
: Actually it isn't. Virgin birth was already known in ancient times. Take as example the Persian god Mithra. He was coincidentally also believed to be born on December 25. And there are a number of other figures that had a virgin mother, too. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:13, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== <s>More info and copyedits -if you have edit rights please add!</s> ''done, with a minor addition'' ==

::Could someone with edit rights add the first part of the following to the intro of the article (at top of page). Underneath is an edited version of the ''See also'' section which shows the denominations in chronological order as they are described in the introduction.

'''Christianity''' is a religion taking its name from [[Jesus Christ]]. Adherents are called Christians. It seems that at first the religion was called "The Way" and the adherents were called Nazarenes (after the city of Nazareth where Jesus lived). The name Christian arose in Antioch in the first century A. D. and its use spread. The three largest self-governing bodies of Christians are:

* the [[Roman Catholic Church]] (approx. 1 billion baptized members)

*the [[Orthodox Church]] (approx. 300 million baptized members) which holds ancient theological roots stretching back to the beginnings of Christianity itself. The Orthodox Church finally broke from the Roman Catholic Church after the [[Pope]], during the Fourth [[The Crusades|Crusade]], had Constantinople captured, sacked and plundered, including both the city itself, and the [[Church of Holy Wisdom]] . Many valuable [[holy relics]], riches, and numerous other items were stolen by Roman Catholics.

* [[Protestant]]ism, the largest Communion being the Anglicans (approx. 77 million baptized members). Protestantism has its origins in the [[European]] [[Reformation]] and its rejection of the [[doctrine]]s and [[malpractice]]s within the Roman Catholic Church. Those included the teaching and sale of [[indulgences]], the buying and selling of church positions and the systemic [[corruption]], devotion to [[Mary]] and the [[saints]] rather than inward devotion to [[faith]] and [[God]], and rejection of the [[authority]] of the Pope on the basis that the only true authority is the [[Bible]].

::"See also"

'''Denominations'''
*[[Roman Catholic Church]] (Does not regard itself as a denomination, but claims to be the only Church established by Jesus Christ)
*[[Orthodox Church]] (Does not regard itself as a denomination, but regards itself as the only Church established by Jesus Christ)
*[[Protestant]]
**[[Amish]]
**[[Baptist]]
**[[Church of England]] or ''Anglican Church''
**[[Episcopal Church in the United States of America]] (or ''Episcopal Church'' or ''Episcopalians'') (Non-UK branch of the Anglican Church)
**[[Evangelicalism]]
**[[Fundamentalism]]
**[[Lutheran]]
**[[Methodist]]
**[[Presbyterian]]
**[[Liberal Christianity]]
**[[Mennonite]]
**[[Pentecostal]]

::Thanks [[User:WKirkwood|WKirkwood]] 18:41, 16 January 2008 (EST)

I am very surprised to see some of the information that has been requested for inclusion -- and then put into the article. I fear we are doing a great disservice.

:''"the [[Pope]], during the Fourth [[The Crusades|Crusade]], had Constantinople captured, sacked and plundered"''

The Pope DID NOT do that! The Crusade on the Holy Land was called by the Pope at the request of the Byzantine Empire. The Crusaders took it upon themselves to sack Constantinople when they didn't have the funds to secure passage from Constantinople to the Holy Land. The Pope threatened to Excommunicate them! Also the Great Schism that caused the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church to part company occurred in 1054 A.D. -- 150 years earlier. While the actions of Catholic Crusaders caused a further deterioration, let's not emphasize that over the actual issues that caused the Schism long before the Crusade.

:''"Protestantism has its origins in the [[European]] [[Reformation]] and its rejection of the [[doctrine]]s and [[malpractice]]s within the Roman Catholic Church. Those included the teaching and sale of [[indulgences]], the buying and selling of church positions and the systemic [[corruption]], devotion to [[Mary]] and the [[saints]] rather than inward devotion to [[faith]] and [[God]], and rejection of the [[authority]] of the Pope on the basis that the only true authority is the [[Bible]]."''

Since when do we take a flagrant position of attack on another Christian group? -- Malpractice? Corruption? Catholics don't believe in inward devotion to faith and God? May I suggest the following:

:Protestantism has its origins in the [[European]] [[Reformation]]. It first broke away from the Roman Catholic Church under [[Martin Luther]] when differences over the nature of faith and works in the role of salvation could not be adequately reconciled as well as other practices that Luther saw in the Catholic Church at that time that he did not agree with. Other preachers and movements then followed Luther's example and also left the Catholic fold.

Please note I AM NOT CATHOLIC. I AM PROTESTANT. But I have deep respect for the many devout Catholic contributors that we have and what is written is disrespectful to their traditions and history.

Thank you

[[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:28, 17 January 2008 (EST)
:LT, could you copyedit the contentious sections and put up a revision here? Then we can make the alterations. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:31, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:Here is what I would recommend:

::* the [[Roman Catholic Church]] (approx. 1 billion baptized members, tracing their roots back to [[Saint Peter]] who they believed established the Church and the succession of the [[Pope]]s as the spiritual authority of the Christian body of believers.)

::* the [[Orthodox Church]] (approx. 300 million baptized members) which also holds ancient theological roots stretching back to the beginnings of Christianity, but does not believe in the primacy of the Pope. Different theological perspectives led to the [[Great Schism]] with the Catholic Church in A.D. 1054.

:Thanks for jumping on this right away Fox. You don't waste any time. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:03, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:: The middle church history (my term: I referring at the moment to the time of the crusades, etc.) is not my strong point, so I won't dispute your claims of factual inaccuracies.
:: However, I don't agree with you on your comment on "attack[ing]... another Christian group". It's not an attack to simply tell the facts, unless of course you tell them selectively. I would think that the part that was removed about the Catholics was true and correct (if you can tell me that any was factually wrong, then that's a different matter) and relevant, and we shouldn't be hiding or glossing over that.
:: On a different matter, you've introduced an inconsistency, in claiming that the Orthodox church has its origins with the beginnings of Christianity, despite breaking away from Catholicism in 1054, but the Protestant churches, which broke away later, apparently can't trace their origins back to the beginning of Christianity, but only to the point at which they broke away.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:23, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:::They are somewhat selective, but it is also placement and emphasis. This is a general article on Christianity. Under Luther or Lutheranism if specific details wished to be fleshed out from what Luther felt and what he saw, that would be more appropriate. Those accusations are not universally accepted as being an accurate representation of the position of the Catholic Church, at least as was previously written, and especially among Catholics. There are rebuttals. I doubt we would want this page to go down that path. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:44, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:::The Orthodox patriarchs existed in the major enclaves where Christianity formed from the early roots of Christianity just as the Church at Rome existed. The difference was in perspective. Remember that at that time being a Christian could cause you to lose your head, so the Christian enclaves didn't come together as a unit. It wasn't until Constantine made Christianity legal and called together prominent Christian leaders to figure out Christian theology that you had your first gathering. Notice, he called the council of Nicea to find out Christian thought - he didn't just ask the Pope. Over time the barbarians in the west became Christianized and converted to the western way of thinking, which had developed that the Pope had final authority in matters of Christian doctrine. The East believed all of the patriarchs were equal. Both groups continued to exist and continued to have their individual viewpoints until it came to a head in 1054 and they made their formal pronouncement of a split. Both the Orthodox and the Catholics trace their beginnings to the preaching of the original Disciples. The Orthodox and Catholics actually have much more in common than either group has with the Protestants. If you go to their services, you will find many similarities between them. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:44, 18 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Okay, I'm happy with that explanation. Thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:52, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== More ==

In the opening paragraph where we mention that the believers were first called Christians in Antioch, perhaps we should give the Bible verse as well (Acts 11:26). [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:39, 18 January 2008 (EST)
: See [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:DanH#Christianity here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:58, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== Tweeking ==
I've added the reference to the first mention of Christians. I also changed the number of baptized Catholics to be in line with the article we have in Catholicism. By changing Denominations to Denominations and Branches, Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity fit in without extra commentary. The information was unclear as written since Catholicism accepts priestly rites performed by the Orthodox as do the Orthodox with Catholics and, at least in more recent Catholic history, they have referred to Protestants as their "brethren". [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:22, 18 January 2008 (EST)
: The tweaking looks good, but one I question is the removal of [[Amish]]. I'm not disputing that they are Mennonite (I wouldn't actually know), but the list is a list of other articles on various groups, and as the Amish have their own article, they should be there, I would think (although you could list them on the same line as Mennonite or as a next-level indent under Mennonite, I guess). I had previously wondered why the Episcopalians were listed separately to the Anglicans, but figured that this is why: it's actually a ''see also'' list arranged by group. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:19, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::Strictly speaking they are Anabaptists, as are the Mennonites, but they are sufficiently distinct to merit separate articles. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:28, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==Who's really a Christian?==

I'm not trying to stir up a controversy here, but I realize that not every church in the list is considered to be truly "Christian" by every other church on the list. Can we just agree to let the status quo be, or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:04, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not 100% on the Unification Church's doctrine, Ed, so feel free to wade in and correct. As I understand it, the UC denies the deity of Jesus Christ; teaches He was the illegitimate offspring of Zechariah and Mary; that He failed in His earthly mission; that His purpose was to marry and to produce perfect children but He was killed before He could fulfill that; that a "third Adam" must come to fulfill G-d's plan for physical salvation by marrying and producing the sinless race; that Rev. Moon is the "third Adam" (paraphrased from ''Unification Church - Christian or Cult?''). Individually, each of those doctrines would render the UC ''non''-Christian.

:As for the LDS, I think this has been thrashed out, unsuccessfully, several times at CP. See [http://www.irr.org/mit/Is-Mormonism-Christian.html here]. Again, the doctrine renders them ''non''-Christian. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 08:01, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

I should probably write an article on [[Unification Church doctrine]], but here's a quick summary based on the points above:
#yes, [[Jesus]]'s purpose was to marry and to produce perfect children but He was killed before He could fulfill that
#*The UC teaches that Jesus did not come to die; that he had authority to forgive sins even while he was alive
#yes, a "third Adam" must come to fulfill G-d's plan for physical salvation by marrying
#*but he and his wife alone will not produce the sinless race; the people alive on the earth need to be "grafted" into the [[heavenly lineage]]
#yes, he was the offspring of [[Zechariah]] and [[Mary]]
#*this parallels the story of [[Judah]] and [[Tamar]]; see "[[restoration of the lineage]]"
#yes, Rev. Moon is the "[[third Adam]]"
#*The first [[Adam]] was not supposed to fall; Jesus came as the [[second Adam]]
#*And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.”[a] The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. - 1 Corinthians 15:45 (New King James Version)
#*Because he was executed by the Romans before he could complete his mission, he must "come again". In UC doctrine, the [[second coming]] will be fulfilled by another man, "[[third Adam]]"
#No, UC doctrine does not deny the divinity of Jesus, although it does declare that Jesus is a human being; see [[Unification Church doctrine#The Trinity]]

None of these revisions to the ''Unification Church - Christian or Cult?'' paraphrase really changes the essential point, which is that mainstream Christianity has rejected the Unification Church due to these doctrinal differences. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:52, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Recent Changes ==

Please use the talk section to discuss recent changes. For instance why was the statement that the Orthodox Church does not accept the primacy of the Pope removed? And why was Evangelical Christianity moved from Protestant to Reformed?

There may be good answers for these changes, but discussion is needed to understand the reasoning. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:46, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Again, please use the talk pages. You have yet to discuss your credentials or sources, and you are not choosing to work with others. My understanding of the Orthodox faith is that it does not accept the Pope as first among equals -- all patriarchs are considered equals, as according to an Orthodox friend of mine. Now of course I could be mistaken, but the method to let me know is dicussion. Thank you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:08, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

== Passover Cedar ==

As of right now, Passover Cedar has no mention of Jesus and is written in a form that would be hard to understand what it is saying, or the tie-in, when approached from Christianity; many churches see Jesus in the Passover and talk about the connection. Perhaps an article showing this connection would be more appropriate for a See Also at this time. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:29, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

O.K see your point and think you're right. I am more disposed to see the present article amplified making the connection with Jesus and Christianity with the Passover Seder, rather than making a new article with the connection. What do you think?[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 07:20, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:It sounds good to me Bert. Thanks for being understanding. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:11, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

==Picture of God the Father==
Feel funny making this request but it just doesn't sit right to see a picture of the Father. I don't feel this way to see a picture of Jesus, whom I believe, indeed, to be the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, but to see a picture of God the Father?, I don't know[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]]
: I've removed it, but for a different reason. First, I tend to agree with you where there is no qualification that the picture is purely artistic imagination and fictitious in that God is not a physical being anyway. However, the reason for removal is that this is not an appropriate use of a "fair use" picture. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:09, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow! that was fast. Well, for whatever reason, thanks![[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 12:16, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

==Satire==
Please can an administrator upload this pic "http://i33.tinypic.com/2celpqo.jpg" and inline link it to this article? I think it would make it feel more balanced with the Atheism article this way, same style of image as on the other.

CP prefers images no bigger than 150kb --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 15:30, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Compressed down to 120 kb: http://i34.tinypic.com/2qjj6ef.jpg

::{{template|Part of this article was copied from [[Citizendium]] and [[Wikipedia]] but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen and rjensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site.||category=Copied Articles}} [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:26, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Buoyancy

2008-12-04T00:54:45Z

Markr: wanted page - stub

'''Buoyancy''' is the upward force acting on an object that causes it to float. For a floating object the weight of the fluid displaced by the object equals the weight of the object. The force acting on a totally submerged object is the difference between the mass of the fluid displaced and the mass of the object. If the force is less than the mass of the object the object will sink.

{{stub}}

==References==
* http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/pbuoy.html

[[Category:Physics]]

Mask

2008-12-03T22:24:42Z

Markr: spell check - corrected to atonement , may be wrong word in context.

A '''mask''' is an artifact that covers or conceals any part of the face. They can be worn for a wide range of reasons.

==Examples==
#Protection (more under practical) - Masks can be used to protect the wearer from things ranging from gunfire (as in the head masks worn by the SWAT team) to gas masks, which protected the wearer from biological and chemical attacks.
#Performance - In many theatre groups, masks are used for dramatic effect or as a way to add emotion to a performance.
#Amusment/costumes - Masks can be worn for personal amusment or to impersonate another person or character. Perhaps the most well known display of this is [[Halloween]]
#Balls - Masquerade balls are either formal or semi-formal events attended by people wearing masks. The masquerade ball tradition started in [[France]], and has spread in popularity to almost every Western nation, including the United States.
#Ceremonies - Within African and ancient American (both North and South) societies, there were many rituals that involved masks. In the ancient religions (some of which still exist today) masks were believed to heighten the atonement one had with a Deity,
#Practical purposes - In the modern era, masks are used practically for a wide range of reasons.
===Medical===
Medical masks, such as oxygen masks, are generally used as a way to treat medical conditions or prevent the spreading of diseases. The masks worn by surgeons protect the patient just as much as they protect the doctor. While an oxygen mask does not provide protection per say, it does allow a patient with a lung problem, such as [[emphysema]] to lead a normal life.

===Protection===
Their are also masks that are specifically designed for the protection of the wearer. A [[football]] player wears a mask to protect himself from impacting other players and to keep stray hands out of his eyes, while a firefighter wears a flip-down mask to keep embers out of the eyes whilst fighting a fire.

===Sports===
test text
===Work related===
#test text
[[Category:Dictionary]]

Beta testing

2008-12-03T21:35:30Z

Markr: new, software development , beta testing - there may be a better category

'''Beta testing''' is a term used in computer programming to identify testing of an [[application]] by a small, selected group of users. This stage of testing is to identify any errors in the program that are caused by the user doing something unexpected and to verify that the application meets the users requirements. Once beta testing is complete and any changes made to the programs the application is considered ready for a production release.

Beta testing version numbers are normally less than 1.0. For example 0.9.0
The first production release is then 1.0.0
Version numbers historically followed a Major.Minor.Patch format.

==References==
* [http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid183_gci211654,00.html# Beta Test]
* http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/beta-test.html

[[category:Software]]

Divination

2008-12-03T21:12:21Z

Markr: wanted page - stub

'''Divination''' is the process of finding answers to questions about future events or about hidden things. Scrying, dowsing, phrenology, ouija board, tea leaves and entrails are all well known forms or tools of divination.

==References==
* http://www.paralumun.com/divination.htm
* http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/d/divination.html

{{stub}}

Talk:American History Lecture Twelve

2008-12-03T18:05:41Z

Markr: /* Neil Armstrong */

This is laughable.

Where is the discussion of the [[Cuban Misslie Crisis]], one of the pivotal points of the Cold War?

"Hippies started protesting the Vietnam War". No, all sorts of people started protesting the Vietnam War: lawyers, accountants, college graduates, all sorts of people.

"A substantial percentage of our casualties in the Vietnam War were from stepping on land mines. That indicated a lack of smart leadership on our side. Today we have mine-sweepers to clear out dangerous areas before our soldiers enter them."

The US has had land mine clearance devices since World War II. A simple check of facts would have revealed this. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:03, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Voluntary draft?==

"the draft (it was required of young men then, but is voluntary today)," That doesn't make sense. There's no such thing as a voluntary draft. [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 16:19, 30 November 2008 (EST)
:Thanks, Ed. [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 16:24, 30 November 2008 (EST)

==Spelling==
"Some, your teacher include, think that the nation is perpetually becoming more conservative as liberal ideas are perpetually demonstrated to be failures." From the Post-WW2 culture section. Include should have a d at the end and perpetually is used twice. I'd fix it myself, but I'm not sure if we're allowed to fix the lectures. [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 17:52, 30 November 2008 (EST)

: Thanks much, and please feel free to correct and improve the lecture as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 30 November 2008 (EST)

::Hard for him to do that since he was banned for 3 months just before you posted --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:37, 30 November 2008 (EST)

== Sputnik (1957) is not Vostok (1961) ==

Sputnik was unmanned, Gagarin was launched with Vostok.
--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 09:39, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:Great catch. Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:08, 3 December 2008 (EST)

::A minor point, but ''Sputnik'' was the name of the satellite carried by the rocket, not the name of the rocket itself. Names like Sputnik, Vostok, Pioneer, etc. referred payloads carried into space by any number of launch platforms. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:54, 3 December 2008 (EST)

==Other Space Race Notes==

I didn't recall significant opposition to the U.S. working to achieve parity with the Soviets in the space race over it being a "wild goose chase", but I'd be interested in reading about it if you can provide a reference. The concerns about lagging the Soviets were very real at the time, because being able to launch satellites was seen as the first step towards putting intelligence-gathering cameras and then nuclear weapons in space - the ultimate form of air superiority. At the time, we were reliant on risky, limited aerial reconnaissance approaches like the U-2 planes,and one of the first priorities in developing space capabilities was the creation of imaging spy satellites. It may also be worth tying in the concept that a key priority of the arms-limitations treaties in that era was to prevent the deployment of weapons in space.

The Soviets were actually quite serious about going for the moon, but they were never able to perfect the heavy-lift rocket technology required to propel large vehicles out of Earth orbit, as the American Saturn-V platform eventually did. (In layman terms, our approach was to build a single incredibly-powerful base stage, and the Soviet's was to cluster several smaller ones for the same effect, but the clustering proved too complex and failure-prone).

What would be worth mentioning in a brief look at the dawn of the space age is that the achievements in unmanned space technology during the 1960's were ultimately more important the the manned achievements. That era gave us communication, imaging and navigation satellites, and your students enjoy digital TV, better weather forecasting, Google Earth and GPS as a result. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:54, 3 December 2008 (EST)

: Corrected again, though I disagree with your analysis. The Soviets could have gotten to the Moon, but decided against it. We went on a fool's errand there. Liberals supported it simply because they liked Kennedy, who proposed it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:05, 3 December 2008 (EST)

::I'm in agreement that the Soviets decided against it - they could have kept working at their heavy-lift capability until it was perfected, but as you said they decided at a certain point that there was no value in continuing down that path. Frankly, putting a man on the moon just for the sake of doing so was never a justifiable mission, except that it's man's nature to always reach for greater goals. I'm against the Constellation program approved by President Bush and Congress in 2005 for the same reason - there's no justification to spend vast sums on returning men to the moon when so much more can be learned for a fraction of the cost using unmanned/remote technology. Since that was done by a Republican President with the support of a Republican Congress, such folly is not the sole province of liberals, I'm afraid. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:19, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:::I found [http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/lindroos_moon1.htm this] to be an interesting read about the Soviet lunar program. It's always amazing to watch history unfold as a fusion of decision and chance. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:25, 3 December 2008 (EST)

==ARPANET==

Cold War military thinking also gave us one of the greatest innovations from the 1960's. The Defense Department created the concept of the ARPAnet (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network) in the late 1960's as a way of enabling electronic communications even if parts of the national telecommunications network were disabled or destroyed. The ARPAnet concepts were refined in the 1970's to create the framework of today's Internet. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:08, 3 December 2008 (EST)

==Modern Conveniences==

Refrigerators and televisions were introduced to the public before WWII, but the combination of the poor economy in the 1930's and the war itself held off mass adoption until the post-war era. One key development that was actually introduced after WWI instead of before it was electronic computing. The ENIAC celectrical computing device was invented in 1946 to perform ballistics calculations. It weighted 30 tons, took up 1800 square feet, and consumed 160 kilowatts of electrical power while operating. The development of the transistor and integrated circuit in the 1950's began the trend in rapid miniaturization that puts more computing power in one of your students' cell phones than ENIAC ever had. (I recall reading that a single modern laptop could handle all the computing used by NASA to run an Apollo mission, but can't find the reference now.) --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:44, 3 December 2008 (EST)
:You can still see part of ENIAC at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. A nice little side trip if you happen to be in the area. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 11:48, 3 December 2008 (EST)

==Neil Armstrong==
''On July 20, 1969, a simulated broadcast of American Neil Armstrong stepping foot on the Moon was broadcast to a record television audience, with Armstrong's words, "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."[2]'' I wasn't quite sure what you meant by "simulated broadcast"? I looked at the reference but I couldn't find anything about the broadcast, except that it said "People around the world watched and listened as Neil slowly climbed down the ladder of the lunar lander." Did you mean "simulcast"? Thanks, and sorry in advance if this is another "blonde moment" on my part. I have a cold so I'm not thinking at 100% at the moment. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 11:34, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:I think it's "simulcast" as well. One of the news commentators at the time (Cronkite?) remarked that he didn't know which was more amazing - that a man was taking the first steps on the moon, or that people around the world could be watching him live as he did it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:47, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:: I'm not sure what is meant by "simulcast". The word "simulated" is clear; the images were converted rather than being a straightforward live telecast. See [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.01/nasa.html Wired magazine's article], which I'll add as a footnote.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:23, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:::I'm not a native English speaker, but for me, ''simulated'' sounds like ''staged'', and I don't think that you want to invoke this impression. As far as I can see, the article you quote deals with the problem of the quality of the images. And - in my opinion - a live telecast is still ''live'' even when the data format was changed somewhere in between. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 12:45, 3 December 2008 (EST)

::::To clarify, a ''simulcast'' is a broadcast taking place on radio and television at the same time, which would be done for major events like this. The term's fallen out of use because there are so many options for broadcasting an event today, but in the 1960's it was a big deal to simultaneously broadcast, or simulcast, an event like a concert or major news story on TV and radio as it happened.
::::A ''simulation'' is not genuine or real; being an imitation of the genuine article. What the Wired article describes is not a simulation, but a broadcast of the event that involved a conversion of video formats in the process where image quality was lost. I'd suggest replacing "a simulated broadcast" with "live, low-resolution video" to resolve the confusion. It also removes the redundant use of "broadcast". --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:00, 3 December 2008 (EST)
:::: the article explains that the image was converted from a slow-scan image (smaller image and 10 frames per second) to broadcast standard because of limits on the bandwidth available from the moon. The word ''simulated'' is used but appears to relate to some initial testing of the process to be used. perhaps '''reformatted''' would better describe the broadcast ? [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:05, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Debate: Are Catholics Christians?

2008-12-03T16:46:47Z

Markr:

== YES ==

Absolutely. A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ in a way that benefits their own personal spirituality. If a Catholic does this, he or she is most certainly a Christian. If he does not, however, then he is not. There are Catholics who are Catholics in name only, just as there are many Fundamentalists who most certainly do not behave in a Christ-like manner. Nevertheless, religion is a personal matter, not one for others to judge. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:18, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

No, Christian is not someone who "follows the teachings of Jesus Christ in way that benefits their own personal spirituality". Just because you follow Christ's teachings doesn't make you Christian. An Atheist could follow the example of Christ because he feels Jesus was moral person, yet deny Christ ever rose from the dead. Is that person a Christian? No. To be a Christian, then you must believe various things. (That Jesus rose from the dead physically, that salvation is by grace through faith alone, etc.) If you don't follow those things, then you're not a Christian. It's not about "behaving" in any particular way. Your own works don't save you. Jesus does. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:32, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Christ paid for sins so that we might strive to avoid sin, but realize that forgiveness is always possible if we truly seek it. You seem to make it sound as if we can sin and still be saved even if we don't truly repent, so long as we believe that Christ died for us. Do you believe that this is the case? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 00:45, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

First, sorry my response took so long. “Christ paid for our sins that we might strive to avoid sin”. No, that’s not how it works. Christ’s death does not open up a window of opportunity, that if we stop sinning, we’ll be saved. That’s not how it works. We’re saved by grace alone. Not by grace and works; just grace. Christ’s death takes away all our sins. All of them, including the ones we haven’t committed yet. Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “For by grace you have been saved by faith, and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast.” We see here that it’s not based on our own good merits or our own ability to stop sinning. Salvation comes entirely through Christ.

Yes, salvation is possible for anyone. But it only comes by the grace of Christ.

Repentance is a result of salvation not a cause of it. Repentance by definition is to be worry for what you’ve done and to turn away from it. So, you must feel sorry and turn away from sins to repent. But, as I said before, we’re not saved by our ability to turn away from sin or do god. It’s all about Christ. So, yes, as long as we believe that Christ (God in flesh) died on the cross for sins, was buried, and rose again from the dead, then we can be saved. Regardless of our works. Note, that doesn’t mean we should keep going bad things. The Bible says that we become new creation when we’re saved. So we should strive to do good. But that is because it comes from thankfulness to God for what He’s already done, not because we’re trying to earn our way to Heaven.

But, in theory, you do argue that it is possible for someone who sins repeatedly to be saved, while someone who is virtuous can be damned? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, I don't believe that anyone is "virtuous". It is my Biblical belief that all people are sinners and all are inherently evil. (Ephesians 2:3). And everyone is a sinner (Romans 3:23). But, in a human sense, yes, there are "good" people, which I assume is what you’re speaking of. I also assume that the multiple sinner is supposed to be someone who has done great dead of evil, like murder, while the virtuous person has done relatively less evil. So, if the person who sins all the time and murder, rapes, steals etc. puts his faith in Christ, then he will go to Heaven and be saved. If the virtuous man who doesn’t sin nearly as much doesn’t trust in Christ, then he will go to Hell. It because it’s only through Christ that one can be righteous. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 11:05, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Jesus's Apostles were the first to be called Christians by Antioch citizens. The Apostle Peter became the founder of the modern day Catholic Church with his successor being Pope Benedict. What Catholic really means is Universal. This became the Univeral Church for Gentiles and Jews. Christian denominations are just seperate branches of the same tree, Jesus. The main difference being the seperate denominations don't adhere to the successor of St. Peter. To believe in Jesus as Lord, that individual has a special Grace from God. To know and believe is called Christianity.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:01, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

: Absolutely. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:25, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

The only way to sensible classify religions is through factors such as their origins, demographics, characteristics, and self identifications. Theological debate over Catholic interpretation of the bible is completely irrelevant to whether they count as Christians.

I don't know a whole lot about catholic doctrine, but I think so. Obviously only God really knows. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:57, 3 December 2008 (EST)

As someone with a half dozen first cousins, all catholic, and two uncles, both devoutly catholic, and a devoutly catholic grandmother and grandfather who has attended several catholic funeral rites, marriages, and dozens of Catholic masses (I have never taken communion, just sit and respectfully watch), I think the honest answer--the horrifying truth--is being a Catholic does not in fact guarantee that one is a Christian. The majority of Catholics, I truly believe, are Christians, but ultimately a Christian relationship (a covenant) with God can only be known to the individual. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:16, 3 December 2008 (EST)

== NO ==

This is a ridiculous question. Catholics believe a number of things that are completely contra-Biblical, like prayer to Mary or the ability to work for salvation. Salvation is by faith in Christ alone, and anyone who believes otherwise is doomed to spend eternity with Satan. --[[User:JosephG|JosephG]] 23:21, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Some individual Catholics might be saved, but it's in spite of the Catholic Church. The official church theology is un-Biblical and not Christian. Jesus paid for all sins on the cross and we are saved by grace through faith lone. We're not "infused with grace" and able to work our way to Heaven. It's entirely through Jesus. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:35, 22 June 2008 (EDT) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:38, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Agreeing with the previous two comments. Some Catholics are saved, but in spite of their church rather than because of it. They may have been truely Christian once, but they have burried Christ beneath a mountain of doctrine, dogma, papal rulings, procedure, ritual, saints, demons and angels so thick that He can no longer be seen through the thicket of false teachings. Even the existance of a Pope is completly unbiblical. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

== MAYBE? ==

Yes because of their willingness to follow Jesus Christ.

No when they don't express God's love to all--saying God hates someone because they live a homosexual lifestyle... but that's mainly just the ultra-conservative Catholics. [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 23:30, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I think Christians are losing their ability to hate, and this is a bad thing. Hate, unpleasant as it is, can be a tool for good. Rightous hate drives people to fight evil, to oppose sin. Hate of sin is one of the things that gives Christians the will to try to end it. Without hate, there can only be tolerance or acceptance. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

::Are you trying to be ironic!!??? That's excactly what Jesus wanted us to do! --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 10:07, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Nate, that is an excellent point. Incidentally, the official doctrine of the Catholic Church does not condemn homosexuality, but merely indicates that homosexuals are called to a life of celibacy. As a Progressive Catholic myself, I prefer to believe that a person's most powerful spiritual compass is his own conscience, and that doctrine is nothing more than a codification of established belief. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:36, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

A willingness to follow Jesus doesn't save one. Our willingness to do good works or say a set number of prayers or go to church doesn't save us. Jesus does by His death nd resurrection. It's ll about Christian. And saying hmosexuality is wrong can be expressing God's love to people. God makes it clear from His word that He doesn't approve of homosexuality. Telling them it's wrong and warning them of the consequences can be very loving. It's like pushing someone off the trin tracks when the train is coming. They might not always like it, but it's for there own good. Christians can certainly be unloving in there presentation; we shouldn't insult people or call them names. But we do need to stand up for what's right.

Offical Catholic doctrine might not condem homosexuality; but the Bible does. It mke it clear that it's wrong. The most powerful moral compass a person has is the word of God. He tells us what's right and what's wrong. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

I know I've had a debate with you before over placing stock in Biblical authority, but on what grounds do you believe what you do about what the Bible really is? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 00:48, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Because the Bile is extremely reliable. There were 5600 New Testament manuscripts written within one hundred years of the original copies. That far exceeds anything that you would find in the ancient world. The New Testament is the most reliable document that we have from ancient times. In fact, the New Testament that we have today has been estimated to be 99.5% accurate compared to the original. And most of those difference are simple grammar errors. (Spelling errors, etc.) So I have extreme confidence in the Bible. Besides, we learn about Christ in the Bible. There is no where else to go. So believe contrary things about Jesus would be based on assumption, not our historical evidence. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I trust that copyists have been quite careful in their reproductions of the Bible, but the presence of spelling errors or grammar errors has nothing to do with whether or not we ought to place trust in the Bible as an historical source. I agree that historical evidence does support many claims made about the life of Christ, but this does not mean that it is exempt from the problems faced by any other historical documents. Most scholars agree that the Gospels were written many years after Christ actually lived, and that some of the Evangelists may have drawn on the work of the others in constructing their accounts. While this is not a reason to doubt general conclusions about the time in which Jesus lived, the places that he visited, the messages he preached, etc., it does not mean that we can treat the statements made as verbatim quotes. The dialogue in the New Testament is largely comprised of recollection, a notably unreliable function of the human psyche. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Well that's an assumption. We have the Bible and have the words of Jesus Himself. Now, you can say that He didn't really say things like that or that the Bible is just a recollection of what Christ said as opposed to actual quotes, but that's a baseless claim. There is absolutely no evidence to support your claims that Jesus didn't really say that. You are making a tremendous assumption. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 11:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

There is, however, a great deal of evidence to support the belief of many scholars that the books of the New Testament were written several decades after Jesus lived. I don't doubt that the spirit of Jesus' teachings was faithfully preserved by whoever authored the Gospels, but I think that it is also "making a tremendous assumption" to claim that we must believe these are actual quotes of Jesus unless proven otherwise. Historians must always keep in mind the circumstances surrounding the authorship of a document when evaluating its content. Now, many will argue that this is not the case with the Bible because it was divinely inspired, but on what grounds can one make that claim? Because the Bible says so? That seems to be an incredibly circular argument. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 13:36, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Are there scholars that say that the New Testament was written long after the time of Christ on the Earth? Certainly. But there are also scholars which say that the New Testament was written not long after the time of Christ on the Earth. Scholars debate many things, so just to say, "many scholars claim..." doesn't prove anything, since I can give scholars that will argue the alternative. Ultimately, a very good case can be made for the New Testament that it was written within a generation of the time of Christ on the Earth, by the disciples who knew Him, and in the places that Jesus traveled and preached. And, even if that you would dispute that, it is a fact that the New Testament is the most reliably translated document of the ancient world. So to claim that Jesus really didn't say those things verbatim, well, you have no proof of that other than your assumption that He didn't. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:59, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Alright, assuming it was written shortly after the time of Christ, how does this guarantee that the quotes are authentic? I am not "making the assumption" that they aren't, I am just wondering how you are making the assumption that they are. Historians generally err on the side of skepticism, not unwarranted acceptance. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 14:07, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Because the New Testament (and I suppose that were focusing on the Gospels in particular since we're talking about what Jesus said) were written by the people who knew Christ. His Apostles, like in the cases of Matthew and John, or those who were disciples who worked under the Apostles, like Mark and Luke. Because they traveled with Jesus and knew Him, they knew what He taught. Now, on top of that, you have to consider where the Gospels were written and who they were written to. They were written in the same places that Jesus had taught at. They were written in those same areas; Jerusalem, for examples. And they were written to the people who lived there, who had also been alive in the time of Christ. They had heard his teachings, too. So if the Apostles went around claiming that Jesus had said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), then it had better be true. Why? Because they were telling it to the same people who had already heard Jesus speak at previous times. They would know if the Apostles were lying or not, or if the teachings had stretched into fabrications. So these facts would necessitate that the Apostles quote Jesus accurately. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Two points: firstly, you are making the assumption that the Gospels were in fact written by the people that tradition purports wrote them. I will go ahead and invoke the opinion of "many scholars" once again (I can provide sources if you feel this debate has become too insubstantial) that the Gospels were not even written by those whose names are attached to them. Secondly, much of the doctrine that I have seen you invoke comes from other parts of the Bible, such as the letters of Paul. These do not even claim to be quotations of Jesus. How is it then that you base your vision of salvation on such a text? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 14:36, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Please do provide sources. Now, the unanimous opinion of the early church was that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Now, why would they lie? Three out of the four were minor individuals with no great reputation. If they wanted to lie about their authors, they would only do so if it was an attempt to improve their standing and bolster their reputation. So, if you were going to lie, you would attribute their authorship to more well-known individuals. Peter, Thomas, Judas, etc. That’s what later people tried to do. When the later “alleged” Gospels were written, they attributed their authorship to Peter, Thomas, Judas and other bigger figures. But that’s not what the earl Christians did. They attributed the Gospels to minor figures. The only logical reason behind this would be if they were really truly written by these people.

Are you saying that you don’t consider Paul’s work to be part of the New Testament? Luke, who wrote the Gospel by the same name, also wrote the book of Acts. And Acts details Paul’s early persecution of the church, his meeting Jesus and conversion, and his ministry. Throughout the book we see him working with Peter, James etc. Major figures in the church. Peter authenticates Paul’s writings as scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). So Paul is a very legitimate figure to quote.

Oh, and just as a side-note, are you not going to further comment on the above "YES" section? I just ask because I keep looking at it and want to stop wasting time if we're not going to debate that anymore. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:57, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

"''his meeting Jesus''..." Where is this mentioned in the bible please? [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 10:26, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Paul's encounter with Christ and conversion on the way to Damascus is detailed in Acts 9. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:25, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Apostolic Succession==
Iread somewhere that the Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches are the only two that claim to be valid Christian Churches because they trace their history to one of the original apostles. Of that is true then they would be the only Christian churches, the others being formed by men who may be considered heretics of their original faiths [[User:Markr|Markr]] 11:46, 3 December 2008 (EST)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Talk:Placebo effect

2008-12-02T21:08:23Z

Markr: /* No citation */ new section

"A placebo is inactive and therefore
it is not from any physical effect of the placebo that it works."

Okay, but what does this mean? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:21, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:It is essential that the placebo does not have any physical effects, whether "direct" or "indirect". The effect of a placebo is due to the patient "knowing" they are receiving a treatment. For example, if you had a headache and I slipped you a placebo without you knowing it, it would not have an effect. This is because a placebo does not have any direct or indirect physical effects. The placebo itself it completely inactive, inert, what have you. If it did have an effect, it wouldn't be a placebo. It would be a headache reliever![[User:DavidJohnson|DavidJohnson]] 14:24, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::I already understood about "slipping". I'm wondering about the indirect physical effect, in a [[mind/body]] sense. My coworker told me last month, after I brewed a pot of coffee, that he already felt perked up - even before he went to fill his cup. And [[Pavlov]]'s dogs certainly did salivate (a physical effect) after hearing the bell. I'd call that an indirect physical effect. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:27, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::As I understand it, the placebo does not cause any physical effects ''itself'', but can have psychological effects which manifest physical effects. Also, I think there are distinctions made when a placebo is used for studying psychology, and when they are used as controls in drug trials. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 14:34, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::(EC with the Dr.)I would call those direct physical effects. The smell of coffee and the ringing of the bell have direct effects on the brain of the people who hear them. Placebos do not have direct effects on the brains of the people who take them. '''Knowing''' or '''believing''' that they are taking a treatment has an effect. Again, the placebo itself does not.
:::Being physically or chemically inert is part of the '''meaning''' of 'placebo'. If you have philosophical questions about what this means in light of the mind/body debate, that's great. But the article should still be clear about what a placebo is. [[User:DavidJohnson|DavidJohnson]] 14:34, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::(ECx2) Ed as you illustrated above there is a psychological component to how we are able to control our own bodies. That's really how a lot of these liberal new-age talking or touching therapies work (also a good old-fashioned mom's "let me kiss it better"). Because people often feel better fom getting personal attention rather than being palmed of with a couple of apsirin. I guess it's because we all need to be loved and I suspect this is why Christians can withstand greater apparent suffering because they know they are loved by God and Jesus. Placebos tend to work well for things like pain control but are generally ineffective against serious infectious diseases like polio or tetanus, however they can affect how a patient perceives the disease so when testing the efficacy of a new drug placebos are used to establish a baseline against which to measure the effectiveness of the drug. Interestingly when people are told that the placebo is more expensive (obviously they don't know it's a placebo) then it is found to have an even greater effect. Of course, Hollywood stars require incredibly expensive placebos! [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 14:58, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::This is also why brand name drugs are perceived by many people to work better, even though the active ingredients are exactly the same as a generic medication. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 15:31, 2 December 2008 (EST)

== No citation ==

"It is well known to medical researchers that merely assuring someone that a treatment will be successful, greatly increases the chance of the treatment actually working" This is the line I could not find a citation for yet. If narrowed to pain management it would be ok. Would a general cite on patient faith affecting outcomes be relevant ? [[User:Markr|Markr]] 16:08, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Placebo effect

2008-12-02T21:05:20Z

Markr:

{{citations missing}}

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Vaccines and Immunizations Glossary defines a '''placebo''' as "A substance or treatment that has no effect on human beings." <ref>US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Vaccines and Immunizations Glossary, entry for "placebo" [http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/about/terms/glossary.htm#p]</ref>

A '''placebo''' is a [[substance]] or [[treatment]] used as a decoy in studies for the "control" part of the sample. Part of the study group will receive a placebo, and the remainder the group will receive the new [[medication]] being studied, so that the differences in outcome may be compared.

It is well known to medical researchers that merely assuring someone that a treatment will be successful, greatly increases the chance of the treatment actually working.{{fact}} For example, a tension headache will frequently disappear if the patient believes they are being given an analgesic.<ref>Cephalalgia Volume 23 Issue 1 [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118883656/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0]</ref> This is known as the placebo effect. Its effect is due entirely to the psychological effect of a patient knowing they are receiving a treatment.

The effectiveness of a pain relief medicine is always contrasted with the effectiveness of a placebo. The question is not how well it relieves pain, but how much better is it than a placebo?

==Example of Drug vs Placebo in Headache Pain Management==
{{QuoteBox2|||quote=Two hours after treatment of an in-progress moderate or severe headache, 49% of patients given 100 mg of sumatriptan reported no or mild pain, a significantly greater response rate than the 38% among the placebo group. At 4 hours, the response rate was 64% with sumatriptan and 45% with placebo.|source=[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4345/is_/ai_n29117915]|}}
{{clear}}

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Psychosomatic medicine]]

[[Category:Medicine]]

Placebo effect

2008-12-02T20:54:27Z

Markr: cite placebo effect 54%

{{citations missing}}

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Vaccines and Immunizations Glossary defines a '''placebo''' as "A substance or treatment that has no effect on human beings." <ref>US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Vaccines and Immunizations Glossary, entry for "placebo" [http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/about/terms/glossary.htm#p]</ref>

A '''placebo''' is a [[substance]] or [[treatment]] used as a decoy in studies for the "control" part of the sample. Part of the study group will receive a placebo, and the remainder the group will receive the new [[medication]] being studied, so that the differences in outcome may be compared.

It is well known to medical researchers that merely assuring someone that a treatment will be successful, greatly increases the chance of the treatment actually working.{{fact}} For example, a tension headache will frequently disappear if the patient believes they are being given an analgesic.<ref>Cephalalgia Volume 23 Issue 1 [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118883656/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0]</ref> This is known as the placebo effect. Its effect is due entirely to the psychological effect of a patient knowing they are receiving a treatment.

The effectiveness of a pain relief medicine is always contrasted with the effectiveness of a placebo. The question is not how well it relieves pain, but how much better is it than a placebo?

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Psychosomatic medicine]]

[[Category:Medicine]]

Debate:Can conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad

2008-12-02T16:00:01Z

Markr:

{{debate}}
::
Someone is going to have to explain to me what bias is in the context of this argument. When I look at the Wikipedia pages for Barack Obama and John McCain I see what I would call relatively straightforward narratives of their lives and careers. There are things about each which could be questioned but nothing too substantial. When I look at CP I see a similar portrayal of Senator McCain but I see something quite different about Senator Obama. It's nothing short of a hatchet job, filled with unsubstantiated rumors about his birth certificate and stating as fact that he Muslim. It also says if he's elected it'll be because of affirmative action.

I understand that liberals and conservatives have different worldviews but this is beyond the pale. The page about Senator Obama doesn't look like a conservative view of agreed upon facts but is simply a recounting of wild accusations.

At some point liberals and conservatives are going to have agree on what constitutes a fact. I need help understanding how Wikipedia's Obama page is liberally biased and upon what actual facts CP's Obama page has to back up the accusations.
::

What is needed is something different than each. Something that is actually unbiased. CP is certainly biased, so is wikipedia, the difference is that on wikipedia the bias is pretty much accidental; people edit wikipedia from all over the world, people of every conceivable religion, certainly liberal beliefs would come from such a diverse background. Most people haven't even heard of CP on the other hand, and it's unlikely that many people that aren't passionately conservative would bother with the site. Certainly the American flag is not going do draw many people from the rest of the world. Most of the articles that have any real content are from the domain of religion/politics, and this obviously is going to create a huge bias in CP. You would be missing knowledge from more than half of the American population, and that isn't good either.-gendoikari4

Conservapedia in it self is a good idea, but it does have its own flaws, short articles (the page on G W bush on conservapedia is at least 1/8 the size of the wikipedia version) practically no articals on Popular culture(artists, video games, tv shows ect.) the articals are short and could never be used for informative purposes. My question is how can cp ever even compare to wikipedia. what do you think needs to be changened to help Cp thrive?- Serg1

: One of the biggest concerns of Conservapedia is to counteract a perceived bias of Wikipedia. What this does not address, however, is that Conservapedia is inherently biased in the opposite direction. If it the concern is that it is believed that Wikipedia is biased, then the best counteraction can be to present true objective articles, not ones simply biased in the opposite direction. If Conservapedia can accomplish this, then it can succeed in it can find truth. Otherwise, it is just doing the same things it hates Wikipedia for. -Casi
::Quite so. Wikipedia bias is incidental and reflects the contributors, so that sc-fi is elevated far too highly. However, the aspiration is to impartiality. The intention here is for bias. -Stevendavy

:Size alone is not the determining factor for Conservapedia. Articles that put together a coherent and factual base of information are more strongly sought. As is apparent, we don't wish to become [[Wikipedia]]; we feel there are many shortcomings in the way that system is run that prevent it from living up to its potential. We don't want to compete with what they are, but would prefer to be what they should have been.

:CP has continued to both grow and fill out articles. Pop culture is not our primary concern, but that area has been growing as well. While we certainly have areas where continued improvement is sought, many of the predictions of doom sounded in debate pages back around February and March are rather laughable when read today. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:53, 27 December 2007 (EST)

::I do understand that CP is a good idea(the conservative versiion of wikipedia) but really it hasnt met my standards of any wiki(the information on it is too short) I wish that CP can shadow other wikis and (as learn together stated) become what wikipedia should have been And stay that way. Another question is manifested through this conclusion though; How?-Serg1 07:27, 28 december 2007

:::How do you eat an elephant? -- one bite at a time. While there are a number of short articles, especially in helping to fill out categories and wikilinks, many of the articles that were short 9 months ago have been substantially expanded. Any editors making positive contributions, yourself included, can have a hand in turning this site into the resource that was envisioned upon its creation. Some areas, such as a fluid linking and category structure, have already seen great improvement and are becoming top rate. With each day we continue to improve. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:42, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia is far too liberal to be any good. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Oh dear. I can't agree; Joe, I dare say you almost remind me of the obnoxious type of person that goes around claiming the [[New York Times]] has a conservative bias. In any case, I agree with Casi. The point here should not be to right a conservative article or go on a rant Because We Can. It should be to write an unbiased truth about something. And if we go off simply writing rants, then we will not be considered reliable. Unfortunately, I do think that 65% of the population will be uninterested in ''any'' site that openly identifies with an ideology, so that alone will disqualify CP from contention with WP. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:03, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::I agree with the unbiased truth. However, I think that Conservapedia is not fulfilling its function as unbiased. For example, the article on [[Feminism]] states that "Feminists prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses," which is not true since I know many Feminist women who prefer to wear skirts and dresses as is the overall trend. Feminism falls along a spectrum, which is why the article is polarized. Also, Conservapedia has a considerable amount of internet references rather than scholarly peer-reviewed articles, which significantly undermines its credibility.--[[User:Skeem|Skeem]] 23:01, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

It should never seek to become Wikipedia, and it never will. Wikipedia tries to be neutral as much as possible. Conservapedia is conservative by definition. Therefore, it will not be used by anyone who isn't a conservative American citizen. People from anywhere else in the world with any other political orientations will not use it. [[User:CappyR|CappyR]] 22:41, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia can certainly become as BIG as Wikipedia if not BIGGER. But CP should possibly consider renaming itself to something less biased than Conservapedia. Even though Wikipedia is extremely liberal, the name itself doesn't imply it. CP on the other hand announces it in it's name as a conservative only source. Perhaps CP should rename itself BiasFreepedia.com. That's my TWO cents. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:21, 8 January 2008 (EST)

I agree, the name(CP0 doesnt seem non biased

I definitely agree with Casi, and coming from sort of the same direction is that Wikipedia is trying to be a real encycopledia with true information, not true information that is edited to make it suit someones views on how that information should be represented. It is twisting the truth, and that alone makes it unreliable as a mainstream encyclopedia. With that said I am sure many people come here to get the type of 'information' that they seek. I actually think it is rather sad that an encyclopedia used to be something you could rely on, and now it is just another forum for people with a certain way of thinking who are trying their best to make sure others end up with the same belief system as them. Information has nothing to do with opinions...--[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

to Watchman, I doubt Wikipedia intended to be 'liberal'...it is just the way it has come about. This site intends to be conservative, so I don't think the name should be changed. If the name was changed to something less suspicious it would be deceiving people, unless that is of course what you want...just because you view the information here as being accurate because it accurately expresses your opinions on a subject doesn't make it the truth. --[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

I do not believe Conservapedia could ever become as big as Wikipedia and if it ever did I think it would be a great shame. A site condemning the 'liberal bias' and condoning conservative and Christian bias, discussing homosexuality, liberal views and atheism in a blatant negative manner only shows how small minded some people are. The fact that the site only allows for American English to be used only supports my theory that it has been organised and created by a group of fascists; whatever happened to freedom of speech? As a British atheist I can't say that I am a fan of this site and I dare say that the majority of British people, regardless of religion, will not be fans because of the site condemning the use of British English; this is why Conservapedia will never be as big as Wikipedia; they are cutting themselves off from potential users. Though I am sure they wouldn't want people who use the British spelling of the English language using their site...funny that us British are being told that our spelling of a language created by us is wrong, specially when the majority of English speaking country spells things our way; not the American. Also funny that Conservapedia exclusively promotes and supports creationism which would suggest that 'God' is omnipotent yet is against homosexuality...if one believes 'God' is omnipotent then one is saying that he/she/it created all life including those homosexuals but if homosexuality is right then surely one is criticising the work of 'God' and saying he/she/it made a mistake; I find that most interesting.

Dear Brit--- Homosexuality is not the work of GOD, Homosexuality is a choice made by human beings. GOD has given us freedom of will to follow HIS teachings and will or not. You are assuming, without any scientific foundation, that homosexuality is genetic or biological, which the article on this site does not support nor does the scientific community. Reading the complete article first, so you can make an honest and intelligent argument, would be wise, so as not to look the fool.
Concerning the English language, their are many dialects, which result in multiple pronunciations and spellings of words. Your assertion that the rest of the English speaking world follows the British example is rubbish and purposefully deceitful.(a practice commonly used by liberals, due to their lack of core values, lose morals and low intelligence. And in your case, the lack of guts and fortitude to at least sign your online name.) The roots of the English language were indeed "invented" by the Anglo Saxons, with heavy influences from old Norse, German, and French. And as with many languages it has evolved over time, many words used in the U.K. are of American origin and vice versa. Further more, I am forced to use your spelling when I frequent British sites as well, but I'm not whining. Where is Winston Churchill when you need him? Majorpain a.k.a. Mike.

If the criteria for becoming as big as Wikipedia is as the angry atheist Brit has listed, then it's well worth NOT becoming like Wikipedia. Perhaps, it's the Brits that are polluting our online Wiki-resources with such liberal trash. Go George Washington! Cheers! --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 22:37, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:So many people coming to support the site are not welcome. This is why the site is in decline, the pointless anger against people who would support the poject. It is a problem. I acknowledge that some of my spelling has had to be 'corrected', but the deep suspision of anyone not like enough goes against the broadness stated in the word encyclopedia.[[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 20 March 2008 (EDT)

For a start, articles should be licensed under GFDL or CC. Why should anyone be motivated to edit an encyclopedia ''for free'' when their work ends up being owned by that encyclopedia? If I edit conservapedia, can anyone guarantee that my work will not someday fall into someone's hands who will claim exclusive rights over it, without giving me compensation? No. The reason I edit wikipedia is not because I trust the people who run it, but because GFDL guarantees that this will never happen. The wikimedia foundation only owns the servers, not the information on them. If they became corrupt one day and decided to use wikipedia to their personal advantage, somebody would soon create a fork that isn't corrupt. The GFDL allows this. With conservapedia on the other hand there is no guarantee. [[User:Cambrasa|Cambrasa]] 12:22, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

The problem currently is that various articles are far too biased, and there are too many religious fundamentalists registered on this site. Case in point, historical articles such as "paper" barely has a single paragraph, whereas religious articles such as intelligent design/creationism/etc has many pages.
[[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] 14:12, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

If you really want to get people to read these articles for more than entertainment or a good laugh then you have to take the subjective entries out of your article text. Too many of your articles on controversial issues end up being nothing more than politically and religiously charged attacks or refutes of direct text from Wikipedia. Every article on here that has more than one line of explanation sounds like nothing more than an argument worthy of the opinion page of a bad news paper. It’s not about being bias or not, it’s about presenting both sides of an argument with as much information as possible and allowing the reader to decide which side they believe. This web site is a giant debate fueled by hate and promotion of fear. For as much respect and love for religion that is expressed here there sure aren’t very many people that have learned from it. So the truth might set you free but a strong opinion despite the facts just makes for good entertainment. --[[User:FactMan|FactMan]] 21:52, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

This place can't be the next Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't have to shut down every night for fear of SUBVERSIVE VANDALS. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 21:56, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

A perceived bias and a genuine bias are two completely different things. Conservapedia tells you about a bias up front, which would scare away anyone looking for a neutral source of information. But those on conservapedia feel that Wiki is biased the other way so they must compensate by leaning conservatively. Typically, those who edit wikipedia are fairly tech savy and probably are fairly young. However, as more people age and they become more familiar with the internet/blogging/etc. , they want to make their voice heard. This argument essentially comes down to older users vs. younger users. Now, I know there has been a trend lately of younger people being more conservative. However, I don't think the trend has changed significantly enough to swing the demographic of young voters over to the Republican side. I don't know who said it or where it is attributed to, but I believe the quote is "If you are young and not liberal, you have no heart. If you are old and are not conservative, you have no brain." Thank you for enduring my rambling. And no, it cannot become the next wikipedia. Anything with a bias up front is not going to gain mainstream attention, especially considering the exposure Wikipedia already has. But hey, articles like this just Conservapedia larger. -[[User:ITfreq51|ITfreq51]] 19 April, 2008

No. It does not matter whether you view this as good or bad. But the two wikis are based on completely different attitudes and perspectives. Conservapedia is from a conservative, Christian point of view(correct me if I'm wrong), while Wikipedia highlights NPOV, which stands for Neutral Point of View(by that it means that so the articles will not offend a particualr group of people). Both Wikis see each other as biased. Wikipedia appeals to all people because it is intended not to target a specific group or to make specific comments about a group. COnservapedia will appeal to Conservatives, but then maybe not the mainstream. (P.S. If you are against this could you also leave your comment on my [[User talk:Faizaguo|talk page]]? Because my Watchlist is flooded. Thanks)--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Can CP become as big as Wiki? Certainly. But we need to point out the outrageous bias that wikipedia stands for and embraces. This bias can be found in almost all articles dealing with issues of contention. NPOV in their eyes is the extreme liberal view, the one that militants will tell you is the only truth. The sad thing is that if we were better organized and had more committed members, Wiki wouldn't be able to get away with the garbage and biases that are so rampant. --[[User:Irpw|Irpw]]

:I think it would be difficult, because, wikipedia is already so big, and conservapedia is not really that well known.[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 12:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
::Stout heart! In AD100 the Roman Empire was very big, and [[Christianity]] little known. Out of little acorns, great oaks grow. We may yet be of small consequence (though that is debatable), but in the future...! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:52, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Yes, I agree. In term s of quality articles, we have already overtaken the liberals!--American78
::::One major difference here is that original research is allowed (instead of relying on experts in fields that largely have liberal points of view) and instead of neutral POV, a conservative POV is implied, as I understand it. So no, this site won't become wikipedia. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 17:52, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Because we focus on the truth and eliminate [[liberal bias]], you're right that that site won't become wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:59, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

I think that the entire point of Conservapedia is to be conservatively biased. We don't want to become the next Wikipedia. Wikipedia is full of liberal propaganda. In order to counteract Wikipedia's effect, we need to write articles from a conservative viewpoint. Neutrality and impartiality are impossible. Without going into any specific issues, I think that I can confidently say that our content is completely factual and true. If Wikipedia is different from us, it's because they're wrong (probably because they let just anyone edit their articles). Not us. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]] 12:34, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

CP serves to show what it regards as the underepresented conservative point of view on many current affairs, but there are two forseeable problems with this. The first is that whilst CP claims that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, Wikipedia is not infact overtly or completely biased whereas conservapedia is. Wikipedia does at least present conservative opinions or arguments in some cases, (after all, a conservative user can edit an article just as much as a liberal can) whereas CP makes sure to portray only the conservative arguments. Therefore it makes sense to promote a "Liberellapedia" to go the whole-hock and present pure liberal opinion, at least in the interest of "honesty and fair-play" in debates.The second problem is that CP only appeals to other conservatives, and has little support or contributions (except from liberal vandals) from anyone else. Being British and of no decisive political or religious conviction, I found the articles of CP unappealing, as would many other Non-American people. Infact to me many of the articles seemed so absurd that I can only laugh at what appeared to be crude jokes. Because of this I and many others would never consider supporting CP. The fact that only a specific demographic is encouraged to (and would wish to) contribute means that conservapedia will never grow at the same rate as wikipedia. An encyclopedia's job is to cover as much breadth of knowledge as possible, and as a smaller and less detailed, more discriminating site, CP in my opinion will always be inferior to Wikipedia in that respect.--[[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 01:28, 23 September (GMT)

: Don't let the door hit you on the way out.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:35, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia will never become the next Wiki unless the extreme bias and outright lies/fabrications it allows and in fact seems to encourage are addressed. Wiki is not perfect but it at least strives for some semblance of balance. It's understandable that folks on the Right want a site that leans right but Conservapidia is so fatally flawed that it's actually kind of sad that there are people who believe this is a valid and or accurate site for information on the topics posted. Until the bias and honesty issues are addressed Conservapedia will continue to be nothing more than a curiosity and object of derision from people who are actually interested in the truth.

Conservapedia is unable to become the next Wikipedia unless several serious issues are resolved:
* Copyright. GFDL or CC as Cambrasa said. People want to know their work won't be appropriated unfairly. There is no assurance of this. No one is going to put serious effort into articles when they have no control over how that work is re-used.
* Lack of depth. People refer to Wikipedia because it has a wide spread of articles in great depth. Operating for over 2 years, CP has less than 30,000 articles, most in very little detail, lacking citations or lacking accuracy, and often all three.
* Bias. CP does have a bias. There needs to be a strict NPOV policy.
* Academic credibility. Articles without references should be tagged or deleted, with the exception of stubs, which should be marked as stubs to encourage creation of an in-depth article.
* CE v AD. Academia has now all but universally adopted CE/BCE system. Having an encyclopaedia that insists in using the opposite is begging to do the way of the dodo. It is also rubs non-Christians up the wrong way, who may well have good items to contribute, and I include myself in this category, especially since all my articles elsewhere use the CE/BCE convention, as I was taught to do from day 1 in school. It's tradition!
* Global reach. The US flag logo will stop CP ever having a reach even approaching that of Wikipedia as long as it is regarded as US-centric or overly patriotic. You can only grow with international interactivity, both readership and contributions.
* Use of the term liberal in a derogative sense, as an insult by admins doesn't play into the idea of a lack of bias. CP needs to be apolitical, and a document of record if it is to live up to it's own hopes. Much of what I have read does not fill me with confidence, but I am willing to work to contribute good articles if CP is willing to work to live up to it's own claims. As a writer of articles for an encyclopaedia I put aside my own politics, my own religion and my own ideology. The administrators need to do the same.
* Finally, time restrictions. A website that isn't 24/7? It is a major headache for many contributors, and is really something that needs to be addressed poste-haste. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 19:02, 28 November 2008 (EST)

: No, Krysg, we're not going to become another liberal wiki that denies or distorts the truth. We'll stick with A.D. here and you can promote the atheistic, unhistorical CE/BCE somewhere else. You won't be fooling anyone here.

: Suggest a name change to your first and last initial for your account, and I'll move it. The truth does not hide behind phony names, and neither does scholarship. If Wikipedia simply changed its policy about that, then it would immensely improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Why do I need to change name on my account? It is in accordance with the rules. I have no idea what you are talking about with phony names. I am here to contribute articles, not engage on online role play games. Please check my user page and my contributions, and they will prove my point.

I do not understand what you mean by "becoming a liberal wiki". CE/AD, as far as I see it, is about academic integrity, not ideology. If you wish to hold it as some ideological point, that’s fine. As far as I am aware, all my entries use the BC/AD system this website requires. If any are not changed, it is purely an oversight on my part and not part of same hidden agenda. Suggestions were requested in this debate and I gave them. I'm not saying you must obey them, they are merely my observations, as requested.

Conservapedia was, I understand, created to be an academic resource that avoided some of the pitfalls of Wikipedia, such as anonymous editing (which I am glad this encyclopaedia avoids). However to be an effective academic resource, and certainly if it wishes to achieve a status of being able to be cited in academic work, then academic conventions need to be adopted, such as rules of citation, use of CE over AD, and copyright. None of these things are the preserve of liberalism, or some kind of liberal agenda. They are simply however the minimum standards that any publication needs in order to gain academic credibility. I don't make these rules, I am merely stating what I have seen to be the case in academic publications, which is what an encyclopaedia is meant to be. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 08:46, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Still waiting on a reply to the above, paticularly the username comment, which I really don't understand at all. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 15:58, 30 November 2008 (EST)

: Krysg, your contributions have been meager here; your name hides behind anonymity; and your suggestion that "CE" instead of "AD" is necessary "in order to gain academic credibility" is absurd. Unless you raise the quality and quantity of your contributions and statements, this will be my last reply to you. Pursue your quest to spread "CE" (which denies the historical basis of the calendar) far and wide somewhere else, not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:48, 2 December 2008 (EST)

: Why is CE necessary? CE IS the preserve of liberalism, as who else would change a 2000 year old system (and moreover, one which works and everyone is used to) to appease 1% of the population who haven't yet realised that AD and BC is supposed to offend them? AD and BC offend no-one, and the craven liberals who seek to appease all minorities at the expense of majorities are imagining things. AGAIN. CE has no academic credibility; before CP, I had never heard of it and hope never to hear of it again. I find the idea of CE offensive, but who will defend my rights? Not liberals.
:: CE and BCE were introduced to ease discussions in academia with those of other faiths where forcing the purely Christian dating would be offensive. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 11:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Science Fiction

2008-12-02T15:46:16Z

Markr: New page: I categorised according to the poblishers standard scifi -hard science,scifi - general,Fantasy and majic is a standard Fantasy word to distinguish from mundane magic in Fantasy novels Maj...

I categorised according to the poblishers standard
scifi -hard science,scifi - general,Fantasy and majic is a standard Fantasy word to distinguish from mundane magic in Fantasy novels Majjiic is also used . [[User:Markr|Markr]] 10:46, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Science Fiction

2008-12-02T15:34:24Z

Markr: expand

Science fiction is a genre of literature, film, theater, and other forms of expression focusing on fantastic or futuristic worlds. The term 'science' is misleading, as often the story takes place in an unadvanced era, similar to that of the Middle Ages, and may involve magic.

The Science fiction genre includes hard science, which is based on accurately portraying the real world, or fiction that uses alternate science which is invented to advance the plot of the story. In this invented science genre the author needs to explain the science at some point so the reader can appreciate its use in the story. Science fiction may also include the Fantasy genre, where majic and fairies may reside.

=Notable Science Fiction Series=
Discworld - Terry Pratchett
The Foundation series - Isaac Asimov

Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?

2008-12-01T21:38:51Z

Markr:

{{debate}}

Consider the following:

Most (if not all) monotheistic religions are based on faith. Their god (or gods if taken collectively) requires followers to believe without direct evidence. The story of 'doubting' Thomas in the new Testament is typical of such requirements to believe and have faith, often in the face of adversity. In addition, these supreme being have omniscience.

However, Intelligent Design requires that there is an omniscient creator who has used his or her intelligence to underpin the creation of living things, and has left the evidence around for all to see. There is clearly a contradiction here.

Let us suppose that the premise of Intelligent Design is true: that is, that Life as we know it was created by some intelligent being, and this can be asserted from the evidence of our senses, and arguments such as: 'The creation of a living being by chance is as unlikely as a Boeing 757 to be reassembled by a whirlwind from parts in a hangar' are valid. This means that Intelligent Design becomes a 'non-negotiable' fact, which proves the existence of a creator.

However, you cannot now claim that that creator was an omniscient God, otherwise you are claiming that you an incontravertable proof of the existence of God, which denies the idea of 'faith', a cornerstone of monotheistic religion. Therefore it cannot be claimed that the Intelligent Designer is God, unless you are claiming that God created the world, then carelessly left the evidence for all to see. This would deny his omniscience.

This is OK, except that you now have an intelligent designer, whose existence you have to account for. This means that the initial problem has not been solved, merely increased; whereas before, you merely have to account for the existence of creation, you now have to account for the existence of the creation + intelligent designer.

There are only two ways out of this:

(i) By invoking an intelligent designer mark 2. This process can be seen to be impossible, as it clearly leads to infinite regress. There is no get out here, as at no point, can you claim that any of these intelligent designers IS God, because the requirement of 'faith' denies you the luxury of proof, which is precisely what you would be claiming to have.

or

(ii) By invoking a naturalistic process (such as evolution). However, we now have the contradiction that the assumption of the validity of Intelligent Design leads to the conclusion that a 'naturalistic' process created everythiong after all. This is clearly a contradiction.

At best, therefore, it seems that any claim for Intelligent Design cannot be used as evidence of the existence of an omniscient God; at worst, by claiming that Intelligent Design is true you would be asserting the non-existence of an omniscient God, because by possessing proof of the validity of ID, you are denying faith, and therefore undermining God's requirement to believe.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 04:03, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

This one strikes me as easy: ID is neither provable nor unprovable in the natural world. Therefore it does not provide evidence of a creator. This avoids the crisis of faith.[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 22:04, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Discuss:'''

'''Warning:''' Religion and logic - strange bedfellows.

It seems to me that what you say is correct up to a point. The logical way out for the [[Intelligent Designist]] must be to accept that God does not require belief without evidence. However, adopting that position has the potential to become embarrassing when, at some point in the future, science demonstrates that ID is wrong. At that point the IDist would be left utterly empty-handed. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 05:52, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Warning''' Don't believe in God because Science is our true master.

Only humans (the clay) tells God (The Potter) you can't do anything for me.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:48, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
: I am obviously completely dense. That remark makes no sense to me at all. Please explain. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 12:56, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:Jpatt|jp]] is assuming the existence of the IDer (the Potter, notice it's capitalized), in order to utterly demolish your argument. That is, "since the universe ''was'' Intelligently Designed, you are wrong". I find your thesis to be fascinating, although I think there might be loopholes - for instance, YHWH giving some evidence for benevolent creation, but not enough on it's own to justify belief in full without faith. I don't actually think that undermines your point, though. I'm going to have to sleep on this one and come back here later. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

This argument sounds like Douglas Adams' "Logical proof of the non-existence of God", which caused Him to 'vanish in a puff of logic'. After all, to the folks who saw Moses, Jesus, or Elijah at work doing miracles, "faith" was no more necessary than you or I need to have 'faith' in gravity. We only need it now because big, flashy, obvious miracles are so few and far between. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 22:32, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

From listening to what the Pope has to say, it seems as if he believes intelligent design is to narrow an explanation. When science can't explain, intelligent design is substituded. When everything is the origin of God, not just the unexplained. I may be misinterpreting the Pope, but I believe that is the crux of the answer to intelligent design he conveys to faithful.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:45, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Notice that the Hebrews, even ''with'' the miracles and everything, in both Moses and Jesus' time the ''majority'' of people still did not believe. Faith was still an important factor, even wit all the miracles. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 13:44, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

==No==

This is a silly question. Intelligent Design says that someone or something created everything, Biblical Creationism merely extends this by saying that God is that someone, and explaining in what order He did it. I don't see that there's any doubt that nothing in "Intelligent Design" contradicts the existence of God - it merely leaves the "name" field blank. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 10:15, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
:Huh? Isn't Intelligent Design was the belief that God laid down some microbes or something on Earth, and after nudging them towards evolution by natural selection, sort of disappeared from the picture (in a [[Deism|Deistic]] sort of way.... At least, what was explained to me was that Intelligent Design only needs to be used to explain irreducably complex processes, and uses evolution to fill in the rest.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:34, 12 November 2007 (EST)

they can't contradict. intelligent design is a way of making creationism seem like science anyway, so it would be rather nonsensical if they did.
(Rowan)

Catwatcher has some good points but I think that his/her first premise is incorrect in as much as, God would not lead to an infinite regress of events because time itself was created along with matter at the same moment. God, the being, existed before creation outside of what we know as time. It is NOT like He exists forever, because our knowledge through physics of this dimension we know as "time," is limited to what we can study. God is way beyond anything we can study, except with the tools He wanted us to study Him, namely the bible. God entered into time when he created it. Time is actually probably something that is irrelevant to God, except in the sense of our relation to it because he says the first shall be last and the last shall be first. That implies that He only sees time as a human relevancy. In other words, apart from His creation, time is meaningless and pointless to Him.

I believe the study of intelligent design is an avenue to reach a scientific audience with Gods plan. I am VERY scientific, and I needed some science to point me in the right direction before I was saved. It may be more important/relevant to a strict scientific community because it IS a scientific theory that has LOTS of evidence behind it. And really, all other theories far short. The most popular, evolution, for instance is not something we can study be the scientific method; But, I.D. is something we can witness all day long every single day. Complex, information loaded "things" are over-loading our senses all the time.

-matt

ID avoids discussion of the proposed creator and does not even posit a supernatural creator. This means that ID would allow a mundane creator (admittedly with some fairly spectacular technology) while not eliminating a creators God. To me ID fails as a serious scientific theory because they attempt to restrict an obvious line of study, that of the creator. While that IS a valid option in forming a hypothesis it would seem to be unusual. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 16:37, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?

2008-12-01T21:37:30Z

Markr:

Tomb of the Patriarchs

2008-12-01T21:27:34Z

Markr: expand - still needs work

The '''Tomb of the Patriarchs''' is the second most [[sacred site]] in [[Judaism]].

The tomb building was constructed by Herod in the first century BC on top of a series of caves. The cave of Machpelah are believed to be the burial place of Jacob, Isaac and Abraham and their wives.

The site is located at Hebron in the West Bank of Israel.

==Biblical Evidence==

"Abraham buried his wife Sarah in the cave on the plot of land at Machpelah to the east of Mamre, which is Hebron, in Canaan." (Genesis 23:19)

"And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before Mamre,"(Genesis 25:9)

==References==
* http://www.sacred-destinations.com/israel/hebron-tombs-of-the-patriarchs.htm
* http://www.biblegateway.com

{{stub}}

[[category:Sacred Sites]]

Tomb of the Patriarchs

2008-12-01T21:14:05Z

Markr: stubify - will fill in later

The '''Tomb of the Patriarchs''' is the second most [[sacred site]] in [[Judaism]].

{{stub}}

[[category:Sacred Sites]]

Opening fire

2008-12-01T20:39:54Z

Markr: cite

'''Opening fire''' refers to the first shots fired in an engagement. It can be small arms fire or artillery.
'''Returning fire''' refers to a response to opening fire.

In confrontations between US military forces and civilians, there are strict ethical and legal [[rules of engagement]] applied to the military. The question ''Who fired the first shot?'' has legal and ethical implications.

==Open Fire==
Open fire! or simply Fire! is a command given to a squad of soldiers to commence firing their weapons.<ref>http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/open+fire</ref> This ensures that the maximum effectiveness is achieved and deters soldiers engaging at long ranges where their fire is less effective.

==See also==
*[[Kent State protests]] - shot "heard"?
*[[Waco incident]] - tank fires on religious compound
*[[Fallujah incident]] - dispute over who shot first
*[[My Lai]] - unarmed civilians massacred
*[[Boston Massacre]] - British soldiers shoot at colonists armed with... snowballs

==External Links==
*[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0160797/ Rules of Engagement (2000)] - drama starring [[Tommy Lee Jones]] and [[Samuel L. Jackson]]
[[Category:Military]]

==References==
<references/>

Consecration

2008-12-01T20:18:23Z

Markr: new page -stub

{{stub}}
'''Consecration''' is the action of dedicating a thing to a religious purpose.

==References==
* [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04276a.htm New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia]
* [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consecration]

[[Category:religion]]

Control surfaces

2008-12-01T19:59:10Z

Markr: aviation - control surfaces

The '''control surfaces''' of an [[aircraft]] are those parts of the wing or tail that control the direction of movement of the aircraft. These surfaces are ailerons, rudder and elevators. Flaps may be considered control surfaces since they alter the geometry of the wing and change the characteristics of flight but they are not primary controls.

'''Ailerons''' are part of the wing, and control the roll of the aircraft around the axis from front to back.

The '''rudder''' is part of the vertical part of the tail and controls the turning of the aircraft around the axis from top to bottom.

The '''elevators''' are part of the horizontal portion of the tail and controls the up and down movement of the aircraft.

Because of the complex effects of airflow over the wings the rudder and ailerons both are used to turn the aircraft in a controlled manner.

[[Category:aviation]]

Spoilers

2008-12-01T19:46:49Z

Markr: new page - spoilers - aviation

'''Spoilers''' are [[control surfaces]] on the top of a wing which disrupt the airflow across the top of the wing with the result of reducing lift. They are typically found in [[gliders]].

[[category:Aviation]]

Talk:Tomb of the Patriarchs

2008-12-01T19:26:46Z

Markr:

What is a "[[sacred site]]" and how do we determine how 'sacred' it is?
Why do people shoot each other or blow each other up over these sites? What kind of person could possibly feel a [[religious]] motive for such a thing?
Why do Hindus and Muslims destroy the other's temples and then rebuild their own on the same spot?
:Ed, why are you asking yourself to expand the article you created? --[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 14:24, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::I think Christians also have a habit of building on other faiths religeous sites. Isnt temple mount in Jeruselem an example ? [[User:Markr|Markr]] 14:26, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Opening fire

2008-12-01T16:46:19Z

Markr:

Yes indeed, the military is forbidden by law to engage civilians within the US unless martial law is declared, they are not a police force. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 11:18, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:Two questions:
:#Does this only apply to federal forces such as the Army, or also to National Guard units under control of a state governor?
:#Are you saying that the National Guard is not allowed to [[return fire]], if attacked by civilians?

:We need documentation for the above, as the issues involved have a bearing on the [[Kent State]] incident, as well as the [[Fallujah]] incident overseas.

:The obvious part is that armed men should not wantonly kill unarmed civilians, especially when they're peacefully going about their business. The difficult part is determining when this rule is being violated. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:22, 1 December 2008 (EST)

::*[http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/109/h/h5122.pdf] We have no article on the posse comitatus act; anyone want to create? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:24, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::"The U.S. military operates under the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the direct use of federal troops "to execute the laws" of the United States. The courts have interpreted this to mean that the military is prohibited from any active role in direct civilian law enforcement, such as search, seizure or arrest of civilians." http://www.geocities.com/defendrights/military.html
Note: National Guard operates under slightly different rules since it is a State body under control of the State Governor. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 11:46, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Opening fire

2008-12-01T16:40:53Z

Markr: open fire - command

'''Opening fire''' refers to the first shots fired in an engagement. It can be small arms fire or artillery.
'''Returning fire''' refers to a response to opening fire.

In confrontations between US military forces and civilians, there are strict ethical and legal [[rules of engagement]] applied to the military. The question ''Who fired the first shot?'' has legal and ethical implications.

==Open Fire==
Open fire! or simply Fire! is a command given to a squad of soldiers to commence firing their weapons. This ensures that the maximum effectiveness is achieved and deters soldiers engaging at long ranges where their fire is less effective.

==See also==
*[[Kent State protests]] - shot "heard"?
*[[Waco incident]] - tank fires on religious compound
*[[Fallujah incident]] - dispute over who shot first
*[[My Lai incident]] - unarmed civilians massacred

==External Links==
*[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0160797/ Rules of Engagement (2000)] - drama starring [[Tommy Lee Jones]] and [[Samuel L. Jackson]]
[[Category:Military]]