Talk:Gun control

This Talk Page is for Discussion Focused on the Improvement of the Corresponding Article
Your post should not deviate from the aforementioned purpose; this is not a page for debate on the topic. Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Please place new text under old text; click here to add a new section.	Archives: 1
For article guidelines please see the Commandments and Guidelines

Riddle me this...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah. The homicide rates in countries with much more civilized gun control laws, such as Japan, are much lower than in America. The problem is conservatives don't like facts, so that doesn't matter to them.

Australia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about you address my points?

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

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

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

I support what TCochrane has said above. He's described the Australian situation more accurately than has Aschlafly. Including the reference to Australia being "far more rural" than the U.S. Australia is actually known as being one of the most urbanised countries in the world. Andy needs to support his claims, because they are either wrong or very selective. Philip J. Rayment 18:39, 29 December 2008 (EST)

I've changed the paragraph about Australia to make it more accurate, per above discussion. I've retained a reference to Australia being different insofar as its drug culture is concerned, as it's true that the drug situation is different, and could well be a factor. I didn't retain the reference to Australia always having a lower homicide rate, as there was no reference supporting it, and because this is possibly because Australia has long had a lower gun-ownership rate anyway. Philip J. Rayment 18:50, 29 December 2008 (EST)

PhilipJ, you're back censoring truthful information to push a liberal point-of-view about gun control. This isn't Wikipedia, and liberal censorship is not allowed here. Vandalism isn't allowed here either, and please don't encourage it by restoring vandal-obsessive talk.

Tell us how Australia's largest cities compare with those in the United States, and how the drug cultures compare.--aschlafly 18:54, 29 December 2008 (EST)

No, Andy, it is you who is censoring truthful information to push a point of view about gun control. The only restoration I made was to a valid talk post. I did not reinstate an abusive addendum. But as for comparisons with Wikipedia, this incident provides an example of one way in which Conservapedia is, unfortunately, like Wikipedia. I observed on Wikipedia good editors having their views suppressed and rejected so arrogantly that they got angry and lashed out, giving the administrators the excuse they needed to block the user. Of course they justified it by calling the editors trolls, vandals, or whatever. That is exactly what has happened here on this talk page. You don't want Conservapedia to be like Wikipedia? Then don't follow that approach.

Why should I answer your questions when you have not answered questions put to you above?

Now, are you going to simply repeat your claims about censorship, or actually provide supporting evidence for your claims?

Philip J. Rayment 19:23, 29 December 2008 (EST)

PhilipJ, I know how liberals love to talk, but my time is better spent making substantive contributions. Don't censor them.--aschlafly 19:30, 29 December 2008 (EST)

As I expected, repeat the unsupported claims and accusations, but don't actually provide substantive evidence to back them up. What's the point of Commandment 1 then? Philip J. Rayment 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Speaking of the drug problem in the U.S. and Australia, it would seem that from numbers alone, there's not a huge difference: Australia drug use statistics (relevant info on page 19) and U.S. drug use

This shows that 41.7% of Americans older than 12 in 2001 reported ever using illicit drugs, and 12.6% reported use within the last year. In Australia, the figures are 38.1 and 15.3 percent, respectively (though this counts 14 year olds and up rather than 12 year olds and up). Not a huge difference. Granted, different drugs represent different cultures. A community with marijuana use is probably not going to be as violent as one with methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, etc. use.

But, there's the numbers for those interested. --KevinS 19:07, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Data on lifetime drug use is almost meaningless. How about crimes related to drug use, especially in big cities?--aschlafly 19:17, 29 December 2008 (EST)

That's why I also included data about "recent" drug use (i.e. in the last year). It's actually a tad higher in Australia. Regarding crimes related to drug use, here's a source for U.S. statistics. I had a bit more trouble finding the relevant Australian statistics, but [1] appears to have some relevant information. There really doesn't seem to be much of a difference in drug use/crime in the U.S. versus that of Australia, but I wouldn't say that definitively until I can find some more statistics. --KevinS 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)

When I've looked into this before, I think I found that there's a big difference in cocaine use between Australia and the U.S. Philip J. Rayment 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Well, let's see. Per the source in my first comment, 4.7% in Australia reported ever using cocaine, and 1.0% reported recent use. The problem with the U.S. statistics is that so far I've only managed to find numbers regarding use in the last month, which is 0.7% according to this source. I've got no idea how much past-year use would vary from past-month use. --KevinS 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)

It strikes me that in this case 'closer' does not necessarily mean 'better'. TCochrane and Philip are too close to the problem they are attempting to explain, and (consciously or unconsciously) are probably influenced by the prevailing Liberal ideology of Australian polity. Although Andy is examining this problem from the United States, this detatchment enables a far more objective judgement to be made than that by our Australian editors. Accusations of 'not having visited Australia' are totally irrelevant in this case. Bugler 06:04, 30 December 2008 (EST)

I reject that we are too close, although it's true that one can be a bit more detached and objective from a distance. However, Andy is hardly 'detached', being a strong opposer of gun control. Rather, I'd consider myself far more detached, having taken no real interest in the topic until I saw the nonsense, particularly about Australia, that I encountered here. And although you don't need to visit a country to know a lot about it, it's obvious from Andy's comments about Australia's politics (and his comment about Australia being 'more rural') that he doesn't know as much about the place as even someone who has merely visited, let alone as much as those who live here. Philip J. Rayment 07:26, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Hang on a moment Philip. Maybe the Aussies are too close to this issue. So I propose a compromise whereby we (I am currently an ex-pat) defer to the US-viewpoint about our country while the American editors defer to UK, Aussie, Kiwi and Japanese observations about the USA as the Americans are obviously far too close to their own issues to be truly objective about them. CA†HERINE 08:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Heh. Philip J. Rayment 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)

PhilipJ, you're not fooling anyone here with your pushing your liberal point-of-view about gun control. The imposition of strict gun control in Australia converted the country from being somewhat conservative to be being controlled by leftists. Maybe you prefer that, but there's no denying the effect and you're not going to push your liberal point-of-view by censoring the facts in the entry here. Have you figured out how the city sizes in Australia compare with the U.S. yet?--aschlafly 08:54, 30 December 2008 (EST)

I do deny the effect. And there's no denying that it's deniable. And I've already said that I'm not answering your questions until you answer the ones you were asked. And I resent you continuing to misrepresent me as favouring "liberal" views. Philip J. Rayment 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Well, as Snopes has blatantly put it, to say crime has increased due to gun control is misleading. (example) If 100 people are killed and 10 are due to firearms, that's 10% one year. If 10 people are killed the next year, 5 due to firearms, that's 50%, a 40% increase (in reality, it's halved). That's exactly what was being said above, yet it's so simple to see how horribly wrong some people can use math. Mr. Rayment is right, no amount of misleading deceit or personal attacks can warp the facts.

This "you're not fooling anyone here", "liberal viewpoint", "pushing liberal POV", or calling someone a liberal to make their argument invalid, is certainly not a way of discussion. Please stop the personal attacks, Aschlafly. It's silly to attack the person rather than the point (that you've yet to support!). You realize that the rules that oppress regular editors can apply to you too, right? Or am I crazy enough to think that Commandment 1 exists only for non-admins? Jalast Jeweler 10:28, 30 December 2008 (EST)

<personal remarks removed> Snopes isn't some unbiased site, you know. It is recognized as being pretty liberal and biased against Christian and Conservative thought. Liberal views are liberal views. <personal remarks removed>. Conservapedia is just that. <personal remarks removed> This is an encyclopedia, not some debating club. Contribute substantive content where you can do so, if you really are interested in being a part of this project, <personal remarks removed>. --₮K^/Talk! 15:08, 30 December 2008 (EST)

TK, you attack the persons and not the issue at hand. You know nothing of me and yet you brand me as such immediately, so I removed your personal attacks against me and Philip. Removing your attacks makes your reply very much smaller, doesn't it? I don't introduce "rules" as I can't make them, so facts suffice rather well. If you want a better source, how about The Australian Government itself? If you look at World Net Daily, it makes a claim in the headline, but the bullet points don't inquire if the crimes have firearms involved. The statement "In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent" is the same misleading method I said before, the overall number of deaths declined which makes the percentage of firearm homicide climb. From 1996, to 2003, gun homicides have fallen by almost 50%[2]. Now, has ALL crime declined? Of course not, but firearm-related crimes have dropped. They're misleading statistics to push their POV, and I'm afraid you've fallen for their hooplah. Prove me wrong, I'm more than willing to learn from my mistakes and admit it, but the arguments so far have been nothing more than attacks of character. I still see no citation in the article... if any time-wasting is done, its the lack of effort to prove the statement right. As far as I'm concerned, the part of Conservapedia is the -pedia part, which pertains to facts. And for what it's worth, I have a small gun collection and support the 2nd Amendment. ^_^

I'll start contributing again when and if (doubtful, though) attitudes among users improves to where appreciation, and not unprovoked harassment or attacks is more prevalent. My apologies if removing parts of your post are uncalled for, but the parts removed don't contribute anything to the discussion. Jalast Jeweler 13:53, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Can we please address the "far more rural" error? I've looked into this, and USA and Aus have not kept demographic data in the same manner, so it takes a lot of interpretation to arrive at any kind of comparison at all. USA lists population distribution by Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan, and Aus lists distribution by Major Cities, Inner Regional, Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote. The percentage of USA's population in Non-Metropolitan areas (which would include but not be exclusively composed of rural areas) is about 10.5%. The percentage of Australia's population in Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote areas is about 12%. Again these areas include rural and non-rural. So there could be a difference of about 1.5 percentage points. The "far more rural" statement as it stands is misleading and groundless. Regardless, shouldn't the editor who inserted the comparisons (rural/non rural, and drug culture) be the one to substantiate those comparisons, especially as they have been challenged? I am going to modify the "rural" statement for now, pending better data.LowKey 21:31, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Your statistics are meaningless, because USA cities are much bigger than Australian cities. The slums of Sydney are nothing compared with the slums of Chicago, where homicide rates are much higher.--Andy Schlafly 22:28, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Then talk about population density and be done with it, even comparing the urban population densities if that is more in keeping with what you are trying to get across. But Australia is not "far more rural" than USA as the the population distribution (by percentage) is much the same. Australian cities may have fewer people than USA cities, but Australian rural areas have far fewer people than USA rural areas. Outside of our cities and towns, this is a very empty country as far as human occupation goes. We actually have stations (ranches to you) comparable in size to the state of Texas, generally populated by a family and some workers. I don't understand why you insist on that false statement.LowKey 22:43, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Your rant is bizarre; it only reinforces that Australia is significantly more rural than the U.S. Taken in the context of crime rates, the "far more rural" description is apt. You have not suggested an improvement.--Andy Schlafly 23:01, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Please don’t be insulting. It was not a rant. I was (and am) quite calm and rational. Maybe the station/Texas comparison in the middle made it a little disjointed, but that is no excuse for calling it bizarre. I was pointing out that Australia’s rural areas are extremely sparsely populated and you say that this reinforces that Australia is significantly more rural than the USA, which makes no sense. The fact is that even in Australia’s remote areas, most of the population is concentrated in mining towns and such, and is therefore not rural. So the statistic of 12% for Australia was extremely generous as it could well be a mere fraction of that, in which case Australia is less rural than USA.

Whatever the context, a description is not apt if it is not accurate, and you have not in any way shown it to be accurate. If you wish to reflect the overall comparative crime rates, then maybe you should do so explicitly.

Can I perhaps ask you to clearly define what you mean by the statement that Australia is far more rural than the USA? I would have thought it referred to the percentage of the population that are in rural communities (as defined by the predominant activities of the community), but perhaps you are referring to something else.

Also, I didn’t suggest an improvement because I made the change to the article myself, as you well know because you censored it. But if you want a suggestion, either state the truth about comparative “rurality” or excise the statement altogether.

By the way, the article is attempting to make the case that gun control has effected Australian crime, culture and politics over the last decade or so but why should the effect start then, when gun control has been pretty tight for several decades at least? In the 1950’s in Western Australia my father had to fill out a form at the local police station before he could buy ammunition for his rifles (.303 and .22).LowKey 00:06, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Okay, I had to guess what you meant. I am sure will will let me know. There a probably quite a number of ways of stating your point, but "far more rural" is just not accurate unless you are using terms in an uncommon fashion.LowKey 22:17, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Good improvement. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 22:36, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Loss of the frontier spirit to urban "values"

Gun control is part of the urbanity of the Christian left's Social gospel program. Often the more urban and older the city, the more left the newspaper's bias. In the U.S. the development of the Social gospel into what is now almost a strict form of militant atheism and Liberation theology can be seen in the editorial practices of the New York Times. Such a loss of frontier spirit hit the pages of the urban media like the New York Times first. Gun control comes from Australia's desire for modernism, which is at the heart of the Social gospel agenda. --RickD 22:34, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Interesting. Thanks. I'm glad you used a small "g" for Social gospel.--aschlafly 22:36, 28 December 2008 (EST)

An Unbiased View (I hope)

Because everyone above seems to be either strongly pro- or anti- gun control without really considering or stating the advantages of the other side, I decided to wade into this minefield in order to present what I hope is an unbiased view of both sides of the argument. I'll start with pro, because these things generally start like that (and not because I am pro gun control). Right.

Pro:

Less indiscriminate massacres such as Virginia Tech. These massacres are generally perpetrated by people who one day wake up and decide (for whatever reason - let's not argue about that now) that everyone but them deserves to die. They have no links to organized crime and the only place they can quickly get a gun from is a shop or their families. Gun control will prevent these people from getting their hands on a weapon and thus will help to prevent further massacres.

Accidents happen. Kids could somehow obtain the guns and then injure themselves or others while playing with it or showing off to their friends. A husband might injure his wife while showing her what he bought today.

Some homicides would be prevented (note the wording). Across the country there's always going to be someone of previously good character whose wife breaks up with him or is found in bed with someone else. Ocassionally these people will seek revenge and will use their guns to do it. Having no links to organized crime, they would find it difficult to otherwise obtain a gun.

Would the knowledge that a gun MIGHT be in the house really put the criminals off? (After all, by doing crime they're already testing their luck).

While homeowners having guns would lead to more cases of criminals being injured/killed by homeowners, there would also be more homeowners killed/injured by criminals. When there are two gun holders pointing a weapon at each other, there's a much higher chance that one will start firing. And it's just as likely (if not more so) that the criminal will shoot first, having less qualms about injuring another person.

Anti:

Gun control won't prevent criminals from obtaining guns. They will have other means of getting guns (which could be smuggled in, modified from harmless replicas, etc.). This would leave the criminals with guns and the public without, and many people feel uneasy about this.

Owning guns is a right as defined by the constitution, which thus far has served the American people well. Why change it?

Surprise surprise, not everyone wants a gun so they can commit crimes with it. Guns do indeed have a defensive value and can be used to defend oneself or one's family (though this could have consequences - see final point of pro)

Guns also have recreational value - hunting etc.

Well, that's my two cents. I hope this helps with the article (or at least helps people understand that there are two sides to this argument, not one, and either one is supportable depending on how one prioritizes things). ETrundel 14:31, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Your "pros" and "cons" are quite biased, unfortunately. You do not mention how gun control has repeatedly led to genocide and socialism. You omit the main reason liberals push for gun control: they want the political effects that more government control brings.--Andy Schlafly 14:13, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Well, I didn't really do that much research, and I preferred to think about gun control on a personal level; I think it's a long shot to predict politcal change based on whether people have guns or not, and I don't see how gun control leads to genocide and socialism. But it's your wiki, so unless you want to I won't debate any further. ETrundel 13:22, 5 January 2009 (EST)

ETrundel, I thought you were trying to be substantive. I wouldn't have bothered responding to you if I knew you were going to wave off a substantive point about genocide like that.--Andy Schlafly 14:52, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Trundel has presented the liberal POV of the pros and cons. --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:05, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I am trying to be substantive (sorry for any misunderstandings); from what I know of genocides, taking various African countries as examples, genocide is usually the result of the fact that every man and his dog has a gun stashed away somewhere - but this is not as a result of gun control, or the lack of it - rather, the fact that shady countries (for example, I believe China finds an eager weapons market in areas such as Zimbabwe and other parts of Africa) find that they can easily unload all their unwanted weapons, legally or otherwise. I have read the section on gun control and genocide, and I accept than unarmed groups are certainly easier targets for the army; however, I don't believe that the army would have particular trouble with an armed group either, and I believe that resistance can make things worse; more than one family has been murdered because a shot came from their house. And take the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in WW2; when Jews began to fight back against the Germans taking them to concentration camps, by the end of the battle (which lasted just a month) over 10,000 Jews lay dead, and another 50,000 were shipped off to extermination (not concentration) camps. I suppose it all depends on your point of view; as one historian put it, whether it is better to 'die on your feet or live on your knees'. In my opinion, it is better to die on your feet; however, all too often this leads to people dying on their knees as well. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings, and that you understand that I agree with the points stated in the article. However, I feel that the only way of preventing genocide by having guns is when the guns actually act as a deterrent, preventing conflict (rather than being used in a conflict). ETrundel 15:13, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Completely incorrect. The mass murder of 800,000 people in Rwanda was carried out primarily with machetes. If every man had a gun stashed somewhere, machetes would have been useless. You yourself have acknowledged that unarmed groups are certainly easier targets. Did the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprisng have guns? How many? --Ed Poor ^Talk 09:15, 6 January 2009 (EST)

If every man had a gun stashed in their house, the people committing the genocide would have had guns too. How would you expect the average Rwandan to get a gun anyway, let alone be able to use it? I've done a little research, and it turns out that the people doing the killing were militiamen, who would probably be more experienced with a gun than those people. I really don't think that more guns would've solved that problem.

I am against gun control for all of the reasons listed by ETrundel, not for reasons that it would lead to socialism and genocide. I agree that it is hard to predict political change that would stem from gun control. His was a good summary of the gun control contreversy, so why was it shot down like that? -- JArneal 22:35, 6 January 2009 (EST) P.S. I changed this section back to its original name.

JArneal, it is a historical fact that gun control has led to socialism and genocide. Please learn with an open mind first, and then comment. Simple logic explains this historical fact: there are far more people against genocide than in favor of it, and if guns are widely owned then it's clear which side would win. Take the guns away, and there is nothing to stop genocide. One more point: "controversy", not "contreversy". Not a problem if someone is earnestly trying to learn.--Andy Schlafly 23:00, 6 January 2009 (EST)

That does make sense, but genocide usually targets the minority of people in a population, like in the most famous example of genocide, Hitler's final solution. In that situation, it is clear which side would win: Hitler's troops. In instances like Pol Pot's mass genocide, people who were killed were first isolated. It is unlikely that word of what was happening was widespread enough to encourage a revolution against the government. Guns would not have solved the problem. It is the regime that causes genocide, not gun control. I guess access to guns might have some minor effect in opposing genocide, but by the time an evil regime is in place, it's too late for those people unless there is foreign intervention. -- JArneal 20:47, 7 January 2009 (EST)

What is the conservative position on gun control?

I am pretty much in favor of having a very significant amount of freedom on gun ownership although I certainly do not believe that mentally ill people or people with serious criminal records should have guns and the society has to do a reasonably good job of preventing this from happening. I do think that the United States could do a better job of regulating gratuitous violence in film and television so it greatly lesser. I also think if more restitution were employed than maybe more criminals would think twice before assaulting people. Who wants to harm someone if you know you are mandated to pay all their medical bills by law with no escape via bankruptcy laws?

I think the debate regarding what is conservatism and what is the conservative position on gun control largely has to do with how countries define conservatism. The debate seems to often get contentious when one tries to balance individual liberty versus what is good for the society.

In countries with a lot of Christians, conservatives often appeal to the Bible to help solve disputes. The Bible is of some help on the gun control issue but not definitive which is not surprising given that guns were not in existence during the biblical time period. The New Testament and Old Testament believer cultures were very communal in focus and were like Japanese cultures in some respects. Please see: Japanese culture and biblical culture here: http://www.tektonics.org/af/culturegram.html On the other hand, the Bible teaches that individuals are saved and not entire cultures - although I think it can be argued that perhaps a very large part of the Jewish population will come to believe in Christ at the second coming of Christ according to Christian theology.

We all know that the United States had a revolution and that revolutions often deal with individual liberties. To what degree revolutions are allowed under the Bible versus being long suffering is a matter of debate. The commonwealth countries largely decided to be more long suffering than the USA and be more willing to use extended dialogue. India chose the path of non-violent resistance. The USA decided to have a revolution. Generally speaking revolutions rarely achieve their objectives but overall I do think the American Revolution War turned out pretty well although perhaps maybe we should have taken the route of India because they seemed to overthrow unjust British rule at the time largely without violence. I think the American revolutionary war turning out pretty good was due to Christians being more principled than the Marxist and many other ungodly people who promote revolutions. As a result, the USA has a pretty good relationship with the UK at this time. conservative 13:27, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Logic, the Bible, preventing genocide, and political considerations are all strongly against gun control. Political motivation is a primary reason there is still some support for it.--Andy Schlafly 13:40, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Andy, the problem with merely affirming that the Bible and logic are against gun control is that the opposition can merely affirm the opposite. Taking this approach on talk pages results in an approach like this: Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! etc. etc. I think an evidential approach is much more preferable. PJR and I had a dispute as far as the atheism page. We were able to solve our differences via Skype because I took a evidentialist approach. I don't think calling PJR a liberal when he is likely a conservative or moderate is helpful. I cannot say whether PJR is a conservative or moderate at this time but I can say that you don't find too many liberals who are young earth creationist, opposed to abortion and the homosexual lifestyle, and have a high view of Scripture. PJR certainly fits the bill in these matters as far as not being a liberal. Now if you can demonstrate that PJR takes a liberal view on a whole host of matters then I certainly would be willing to change my view that he is either a conservative or moderate. I don't think that Conservapedia needs to be quick draw when it comes to labeling people liberals given the existence of a large amount of moderates. I also think that people who claim they are staunch conservatives often show their true colors when the chips are down. At the very least, I do think that Bush should have bargained harder with the car manufacturers management and workers as far as them taking very significant pay cuts. I do think the leaders lead by example and the car manufacturers management should have taken the approach of Lee Iaccoca who at least had the decency to take a pay cut when asking for government assistance. conservative 14:05, 4 January 2009 (EST)

User:Conservative, many YECs are liberal. It depends in part on why someone is a YEC, and also on how open his mind is to conservative values. If someone is a YEC based on materialism, then that person is not likely to accept some of the abstract concepts of conservativism. If someone is a YEC because they dislike a religion that they perceive not to be a YEC, then that person is as likely to be liberal as anyone else.--Andy Schlafly 14:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Andy, logicians state that you must use the principle of weighing the total evidence. PJR is against abortion and the homosexual lifestyle plus takes a high view of Scripture. These are certainly not liberal views. Although I certainly like PJR and recommended he be made Sysop and have talked to him quite amicably via Skype several times, I do not know him well enough to say whether he is a conservative or moderate. At the same time, I do see you failing to address the anti-abortion and ant-homosexuality views of PJR as being indicative of you not having a good case as far as him being a liberal. conservative 14:54, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Conservative, I don't know PJR's full position on abortion or the homosexual agenda. I do know that the political positions he has taken, such as in support of gun control, are liberal. I also know that a substantial percentage of YECs are liberal and did vote for Obama. If one is drawn to YEC for materialism reasons, then that person will tend to be materialistic on other matters, such as economics and gun control and other types of government control.--Andy Schlafly 14:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)

I'm absolutely staggered that you can equate YEC with materialism! As Conservative and LowKey rightly point out, materialism presumes no supernatural, whereas YEC presumes the supernatural. They are complete opposites! I know that it's possible for people to hold two incompatible ideas, but these two are so opposite that it's difficult to imagine how anyone could, and I've never heard of a single person who does (and I know a lot of YECs). And to claim, as you do below, that "YEC is a material-focused viewpoint" is so totally contrary to the truth that it beggars belief that you would clam that!

Even apart from comments I've probably made on Conservapedia, in an e-mail that you received a copy of, I have made it clear that I oppose abortion and homosexuality. Your knowledge of my beliefs appears to be rather selective.

I also note that you refer to my "liberal" "political positions" (plural), yet name only one. Again this seems to be a case of maligning me based on one position that we disagree on, ignoring all the issues that we agree on.

The tangent of Obama is misleading also, given that (a) being an Aussie, I can't vote for Obama, (b) I find it very hard to believe that a significant number of YECs would vote for Obama, and (c) I have made it clear that I don't agree with Obama. Your basis for this seems to be a presumption that because I disagree with you on some claims about Obama, I am therefore an Obama supporter. This presumption is totally false.

Philip J. Rayment 07:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Philip, polls demonstrated that something like 30% of young evangelical Christians, and even higher percentages of other Christian denominations, voted for Obama. Many of them are YECs. So there is nothing startling or remarkable about the possibility that a YEC is liberal. Millions are. Given the additional info that a YEC supports gun control makes it highly likely that he is liberal on other positions too.

It's not productive for me to discuss your other political positions when you seem unwilling yourself to state them. If you want to discuss them, then you have to explain them first. You say you're against abortion, but so do many liberals who favor taxpayer-funded abortion. Do you favor prohibiting abortion? Do you favor lowering taxes? Do you support more free enterprise, and less government? Do you oppose same-sex marriage? If you want to discuss your political views, then you have to describe them first.--Andy Schlafly 09:24, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Your claims about YECs voting for Obama are nothing more than assumptions based on simple averages, and you've completely sidestepped the point about YECs and materialists being completely incompatible.

You are incorrect to claim that I am unwilling to state my other political positions, given that I have already stated a number of them. It is not my intention to discuss them here, as this is a page about gun control. But as you have brought them up, I will state them. First, I fail to see how a person who favours taxpayer-funded abortion can be against abortion. But here are my positions on the things that you question: I am opposed to abortion in all cases except where a choice has to be made between the life of the baby and the life of the mother. And yes, I favour prohibiting it. I favour lowering taxes. I support more free enterprise and less government. I oppose same-sex "marriage". Given that I agree with you on all those points, there should be no need to discuss them further, and I would hope that you will now acknowledge that I am no "liberal". Or will you instead ask further questions, trying to find something else to justify your opinion of me?

Philip J. Rayment 18:25, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Your conservative positions on those issues are welcome, but the rest of your posting is flawed. Many politicians do state they are against abortion, yet vote for taxpayer-funded abortion. I'm sure you have many in Australia who do that, and I wonder if you vote for them based on what they say.

Your claim that YECs and materialists are "completely incompatible" is illogical, and you haven't explained the incompatibility. As I said (and you didn't address), belief in an occasional divine intervention does not necessarily negate one's adherence to materialism otherwise. Thomas the Apostle, for example, believed in Jesus based on materialism, not despite it.--Andy Schlafly 22:46, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Andy, the incompatibly has been explained by three seperate editors. Pick one explanation, they all say pretty much the same thing, which just to make it easy to find is this: YEC is the explicit presupposition that a supernatural Creator supernaturally created the universe and told us how He did it by supernaturally inspiring human authors. Materialism is the explicit presupposition that nothing supernatural exists. LowKey 10:07, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Regarding abortions, I think we are talking past each other a little. I agree that some are personally "against" abortions, in that they would not choose it themselves, but would not impose that on others, so might support taxpayer-funding of it. This is probably what you meant. I was talking about those (such as me) who are genuinely opposed to abortions, as in believing abortions to be wrong.

I did explain the incompatibility: materialists reject the supernatural, YECs require it. You can't reject the supernatural and simultaneously believe that supernatural interventions occur. Thomas accepted that the risen Christ was really Jesus based on physical evidence, not a materialistic worldview. They are not the same thing. And I did address that, in my post below replying to the comments that I though were made by RodWeathers. Could you now address the question that I mistakenly put to him, about the polls asking people if they were YECs.

Philip J. Rayment 23:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Andy, see comments in the section below called: "Gun Control and socialism vis a vis regulation" conservative 18:22, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Andy, I reread your post. YEC is a polar opposite from the philosophy of materialism which posits there is no supernatural entities. On the other hand, can a person who is YEC be materialistic? For example, be greedy? The answer is of course yes. I don't think you know enough about PJR to claim he is materialistic and logic demands that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. Furthermore, unless PJR is going to inherit a lot of money from a rich uncle if he remains a YEC or some other implausible scenario, I do not think you made a compelling case that PJR or many other people for that matter become YECs for materialistic reasons. Again, logic demands that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. conservative 19:02, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Conservative, YEC is a material-focused viewpoint. Some (not all) YECs are materialistic, and they are likely to take materialistic positions on other issues, such gun control and wealth redistribution. Put another way, they support or are indifferent about many of Obama's liberal positions.--Andy Schlafly 23:03, 6 January 2009 (EST)

(outdent) YEC and materialism (the philosophical position, not greed) are mutually exclusive. The first begins with the explicit belief in a supernatural creator, the second begins with the explicit disbelief in anything supernatural. You argument holds no water at all. Please abandon the ad hominem attacks and address the serious attempts to improve the article. I am reminded of a Christian speaker I once heard who said "We are given the full armour of God, and too many of us spend most of our time polishing our armour or attacking one another." Instead of dismissing PJR's observations because you don't think he's conservative enough, address them specifically.LowKey 22:11, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Well put. Philip J. Rayment 07:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Just look at polling data and you'll see that millions of YECs are liberal and voted for Obama. You have free will to deny it, but it's as indisputable as 2+2=4.

The claim that YEC and materialism are "mutually exclusive" is likewise absurd. Divine intervention at the beginning (or otherwise) does not detract from materialism afterward. The polling data show that many YECs are very materialistic in their outlook, as are even more non-YECs. --Andy Schlafly 11:51, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I'm only familiar with "materialism" re. philosophy. What are materialist positions on gun control and wealth redistribution? - Rod Weathers 11:35, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Materialism is the overemphasis on matter rather than principles. "Guns cause crime" is a materialistic falsehood. "Money causes injustice" is another.--Andy Schlafly 11:51, 14 January 2009 (EST)

RodWeathers Andy, could you please point me to the polls that asked voters if they were YECs or not? Unless you do, I will presume that you are making the same sorts of assumptions that Andy did I commented on above.

Thanks, though, for implicitly acknowledging that YEC and materialistic viewpoints are contradictory by inventing a contrived explanation to claim that they are not. Materialistic views do not allow for the supernatural at any time. Yes, there are some who believe that God started things off but then left them on their own (almost a "materialism afterward" position), but these people are Deists, not YECs.

Philip J. Rayment 18:25, 14 January 2009 (EST)

That comment about polls is Andy's, not mine, but was missing a sig., which i've added. - Rod Weathers 22:53, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks for clearing that up. Philip J. Rayment 23:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I'm curious, however. If YEC is materialistic, and bigbang+evolution is explicitly so, is there any non-materialistic origins theory? - Rod Weathers 22:58, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I am against liberals attempts at very strict control...

I am against liberals attempts at very strict control but I see this debate going on and on because we live in a multi-variable world. Perhaps the solution is to to look studies which used the approach of regression analysis to study the matter of gun control.conservative 14:25, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Gun Control and socialism vis a vis regulation

Here is an excellent essay arguing that socialism is often advanced through excessive regulation and not merely through the state owning more and more property: http://gunowners.org/op0330.htm The essay argues that despite Thatcher selling off state owned enterprises the UK became more socialistic through excessive regulation and that gun control was a part of this mindset. conservative 14:34, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Sounds like an article worth reading!--Andy Schlafly 14:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)

I was doing a Google search and it appears as if the following may be true: When Margaret Thatcher was prime minister of the UK, the Firearms Act of 1988 was passed which I assume favored gun control given the context of the passage I read. Does anyone know if Thatcher (who was pretty conservative) was opposed or in favor of the FireArms act of 1988? If she was for the act, then I would argue that the road to more socialism may be often be the result of excessive regulation despite the state selling off state enterprises in the short term. conservative 14:43, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Conservative, it's irrelevant which position Thatcher took, who would have merely been reacting to media pressure.--Andy Schlafly 14:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Andy, Thatcher was known for a lot of things but being spineless was not one of them -two of her nicknames were "the iron lady" and Atilla the Hen". The Wall Street Journal reported the following: "Margaret Thatcher's conservative government responded to the killings by enacting the most draconian firearms act ever adopted in Britain, including outlawing semiautomatic weapons altogether."[3] Now you might not feel comfortable with conservatives passing gun control but it appears as if it happened here. I do think once should be a optimistic realist and the reality is that a government headed by a staunch conservative passed gun control in the UK. Of course, the question is still, "Does conservative principles allow for gun control laws to be passed". That is an entirely separate question. I do not think liberal governments adequately protect citizens so I am against stringent gun control control laws. I also see gun ownership as a means to help prevent genocide and a police state from abusing its citizens.I think the case of Thatcher bolsters PJR's argument that conservatives passed gun control in Australia. However, I do see where one can argue that Australian conservatives are really more political moderates on the whole since they have gun control and I believe they have socialized medicine as well. That is a debate I will leave to you and PJR!! :) conservative 17:44, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Andy, I do think that at present the United States has one of the worst overall policies in the Western World when it comes to a gun control and allowing conditions that promote violence. We allow the media to push gratuitous violence and desensitize people. We also allow the media to push sexual content which often leads to fatherless homes because it leads to out of marriage sex and the fathers leaving the mothers to hold the bag. And I have read that 70% of all rapist and murders come from fatherless homes and this data is largely mirrored here: http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/fatherless.html This policy to me is like allowing people to have gasoline, allowing the media to push dangerous ideas on how gasoline should be used, and then telling the police they have to deal with the situation the best they can. It is a foolish policy. conservative 18:26, 4 January 2009 (EST)

• More of this argument without end? The Supreme Court of the United States has decided this issue! Citizens have the absolute right to keep and bear arms and cannot be forbidden or be unreasonably stopped from doing so. --₮K_{/Administrator}^/Talk 19:32, 4 January 2009 (EST)

TK, there are about 6 billion people who live outside the USA. And there is certainly nothing wrong with learning lessons from history as far as other nations. Next, the laws are always changing so there is nothing wrong with vigilance. With that said, I certainly am happy that gun ownership is still a right in the United States but we do have to reduce our societies level of violence because it is high compared to many nations. conservative 00:17, 5 January 2009 (EST)

• We learned here, in America, to reject the Old World, and its ways. That said, I think we can all be more productive creating, rather than keeping this argument alive another month. The boss has had his say, so has everyone else. Repeating the same another hundred times isn't going to change anyone's mind. --₮K_{/Administrator}^/Talk 00:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Try correlating gun control vs. mass murder, and you'll see that the countries with the most effective confiscation of guns from their citizens had the highest rates of genocide.

It's also very hard for a dictator to invade a democratic country when the majority of its citizens are armed. Switzerland is not protected only by mountains and "neutrality". And girls carrying machine guns are a great stopper against suicide bomb terrorists.

Crime in NYC would go down dramatically if every law-abiding citizen were allowed to get a gun and carry it around with them, loaded. Especially in high-crime poverty-stricken areas. --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:10, 5 January 2009 (EST)

And girls carrying machine guns are a great stopper against suicide bomb terrorists If suicide bombers are at all effective in what they do, the first anybody knows about them is when they detonate their bombs. What use will these Uzi-toting maidens be then? DougC 10:05, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Are you debating me, or are you making a suggestion to improve the article? --Ed Poor ^Talk

I'm trying to improve the service here by pointing out illogicalities in your argument. DougC 10:09, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Liberal Rant

Recently I tried to make an addition to this article which pointed out that while it may be true that "Gun control potentially causes an increase in crime by restricting its main deterrent: self-defense" (from the article aready), it is also true that a decrease in gun ownership rates leads to a decrease in homicides, which i then cited with 2 scholarly journal articles, http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/455/1/63 http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2000&issue=12000&article=00001&type=abstract

I thought, of course, this would be fine, i didnt remove any text, I meerly added what seems to be a legitimate if not universally accepted point. However, my entry was deleted twice, according to Andy Schafly, was because he had seem me "push liberal untruths." (full response at http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly )

So my question is this... if Mr Schafly doesn't censor the truth, then why exactly does he delete well referenced points solely on the basis that he thinks they are 'liberal'?

Your posting doesn't tell the whole story. I personally invited you to discuss and debate this here. Instead, you've gone into a rant. I doubt you've even read or critically examined the articles that you claim are "scholarly".

Wikipedia will unthinkingly post material from liberal sources as though it must be true. We don't do that here. If the New York Times claimed that 2+2=5, we would not repeat that falsehood as Wikipedia might.

I welcome an open-minded discussion about the illogical claim that guns, which are overwhelmingly defensive, somehow increase crime. So far, you haven't shown an interest in open-minded discussion.--Andy Schlafly 12:08, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I have long sided with the pro-gun agenda, however, in trying to be open minded, I conducted research into the defensive use of guns. According to this report, "Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense." I think we both know that this is simply not true, but I was hoping you could provide some insights as to the nature of this deceit. Obviously, this reeks of liberal bias, as they baselessly attempt to portray lawful defensive use as illegal. I think this is representative of the deceit liberals proffer in fallacious attempts to slander gun ownership. JennaK 12:23, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

I think several of your postings are an example of liberal deceit. Perhaps you can explain, why you are so easily amused by your own games? I don't think being so easily amused by deceit is a sign of high intelligence or future success.--Andy Schlafly 12:29, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

Yes, I would also enjoy an open minded discussion where we look up research to support our ideas, find none, and then call it a conspiracy against us. Has anyone ever considered that if all the research disagrees with your opinion, then it might be opinion thats wrong?

Flanagan, logic and a wealth of research set forth in our gun control entry confirms that gun control increases crime. Liberals like gun control because they want to increase dependency on government. Open your mind if you want to discuss this. Please go somewhere else if you want to continue ranting. You're not going to fool anyone here by ranting.--Andy Schlafly 12:44, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

Cleaning Up Australia References

Hi!

I'm an Australian, and a Law student majoring in Domestic Law and Australian Politics at the Australian National University.

I noticed that a lot of the information in this article about Australia was wrong. Which is understandable! From what I've seen around here, most of the contributors are from the U.S.! I bet you don't get many news stories on what's happening here Down Under!

The 1996 and 2002 gun reforms were really interesting, because John Howard's Coalition (The Liberal & National Parties) really attacked a part of it's base, going after guns. Guns and gun control haven't historically been as hot an issue here, as they are in the U.S.. And, they also aren't a simple left/right, liberal/conservative issue. John Howard was one of this countries greatest conservatives, but he opposed guns (because of his personal religious doctrine).

Anyway, I've cleaned up the references to Australia in this article, and provided references for my changes. I've provided links to some of the data showing that the overall crime-rate hasn't been effected by gun control, and on the data relating to illegally acquired gun violence in Australia.

I don't want to make this an "Australia" dominated article, so I didn't expand the section too much. I took out the references to Australia from the opening section, partly because they were a bit confusing and wrong, and also because it seemed more appropriate to have that information under the "Gun Control Outside the U.S." section.

If you feel there's more of a role that the Australian example can play in this article, I have some great information on illegal guns and gang violence, and on the typical uses of guns in Australia (hunting, farmers protecting their lands from feral animals like foxes and cats, etc.). Also, there's more on Australia's history with guns, including the pre-WW2 practice of training local volunteers with guns to defend Australia, and the fears of communists using guns, as well as more modern arguments in favour of guns for sport!

I hope these edits help to add to the overall quality of Conservapedia! The more facts the better! =)

-Lex

LRose 23:43, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Lex, these edits are unfortunately not wanted, as the goal of Conservapedia is to distort, not to list actual facts, hence the reason Mr. Schlafly did not seriously reply to the multiple people posting valid criticisms. -- Micuhr 16:20, 7 June 2010 (CST)

I find your comment odd from someone who has not had a prior edit on this site in over a year. If you post something substantive then I would be happy to respond, but I'm not optimistic that you will.--Andy Schlafly 17:27, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

New Infographic

I found this today and thought someone who was a little better at data interpretation than I should take a look at it before it was referenced and/or posted on the main article. It compares "states where adults are allowed to carry on school grounds(or legislation is pending to allow it)" to "victims (students and faculty) per of student population" and is very well done in my opinion. Now, I think this would be important to display on this article because it appears to me (once again, I'm far from an expert on interpreting this style of data) that it shows no correlation between gun control and school shootings. If I'm correct in that interpretation, then it proves the point that enforcement of current laws should be the government's focus as opposed to passing new laws which will continue to go unenforced and continue to make no difference. Fnarrow 11:51, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

Before I look at it, I'll just point out that the two main positions are that changes to the gun laws can stop crazy people from shooting up schools and theaters - and that we'd be better off committing crazy people to mental hospitals. Moreover, neither side in the firearms debate accepts the other side's interpretation of the data. --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:54, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

• I've looked at it, and it fails to mention shootings prevented by someone legally carrying a gun. It's not a mass murder if the bad guy is stopped before killing 3 or more people. --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:57, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

That's why I put it here and directly into the article... Thanks. FYI, I wasn't trying to "fool a math teacher" or anyone else. As I clearly stated, I'm far from an expert on interpreting this sort of data, that is why I put it here so others could take a look at it. Fnarrow 23:04, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

External links

Should we really link to websites who are "In favor of gun control"? This is Conservapedia and not Wikipedia.--JoeyJ 07:06, 8 February 2014 (EST)

Suggested picture

The following picture I stumbled across might be useful, either here or on the Obama page - http://i.imgur.com/2sRJT41.jpg TheRedElephant (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2015 (EDT)

... What?

I really think this article needs to be toned down a notch. Some Conservatives can accept it, sure, but saying that gun control if a leftist conspiracy to confiscate everyone's firearms is not going to help convert people to Conservatism. Whiterose (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2017 (EDT)Whiterose (talk)

I completely disagree. This is what we see happening (although I would dispute using the word "conspiracy"). People on the left have the goal of totally eliminating guns from society. Sounds strange? Well, these are the same people who want to unite Europe [4][5] and eventually the world into one unified country and eliminate borders entirely from the planet.

The only reason (in the U.S.) why liberals have not succeeded in banning guns is because guns are popular among regular people, and the Second Amendment prohibits them from enacting a complete ban. Fun fact: in 2008, the Supreme Court was one vote away from making it constitutional to enact complete handgun bans and effectively eliminate the Second Amendment (see D.C. v. Heller). Some municipal bans on possessing handguns were only struck down in 2010 (see McDonald v. Chicago). The courts and the people oppose the liberals, so they have to proceed slowly. I'm sure the situation is similar in Europe, even though gun control is more popular and the gun laws more strict. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

We need to be as factual as possible. There are liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, etc. on both sides of this very complicated issue. A gun control law can be designed to prevent insane people or young children from accessing guns without eliminating all self-defense weapons. The article needs a complete rewrite to highlight the current set of controversies, and it is very out-of-date. JDano (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

Some statistics

Contrary to what you might think from the news media, murders involving guns are statistically quite low in the U.S. Here are the numbers from 2015, for example:
Heart disease - 633,842
Cancer - 595,930
Chronic lower respiratory diseases - 155,041
Automotive accidents - 146,571
Stroke - 140,323
Diabetes - 79,535
Suicide - 44,193
Shot (homicide) - 13,521
I could turn this into a graph if people want it, but we seem to be a bit low on image space on this page already. Of course, this is not to minimize the number of deaths. Even one murder is too many, though we all know that it is impossible to eliminate murder this side of the grave. It is also true that if they don't have guns, they'll use knives and other weapons.

On a side note, I found this BBC article interesting: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604

They provide a graph on homicide in a few different countries, and show how many of these *involved* guns. Since they are ignoring population, it looks like the U.S. has a real problem. However, if you consider the size and population density of the U.S., those numbers change a bit. It's another obvious example of selective reporting used to push a false idea. --David B ^(TALK) 14:42, 29 March 2018 (EDT)

Marx quote

If I understand the context of the recently added quote, Karl Marx is speaking in regard to an armed revolution to overthrow the bourgeoisie. Yes, this sentence is speaking of not letting "the workers" be disarmed by the authorities, but this is because he is trying to build a military to overthrow that government. The full section containing this quote is listed below.

“

To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party, whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising.

”

May I then ask:

1. How does this relate to the topic of Gun Control in the western world, and
2. Why are we quoting Marx as if he was supporting the same thing we do, when in fact it is very different context?
3. If we do want to keep this quote, can we include some context, and put it somewhere other than at the top of the page, above the intro?

--DavidB4 ^(TALK) 23:28, 25 April 2019 (EDT)

Superb points, David. You're right. But the jarring quote is an eye-opener, and it is good occasionally to have a change-of-pace at the top of an entry like that. A surprise quote is not a bad thing. But feel free to move it as you think best.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2019 (EDT)

Knife control

The Church of England wants to ban pointed kitchen knives because of the number of stabbings in London: [6] They continue to fail to see that it's the person who does the violence, not the appliance. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2019 (EDT)

That has been a growing trend in Europe [7] [8], and some are even starting to push for it in the US [9]. As usual, it's the tried and failed concept of banning the tool to prevent bad people from doing bad things. --DavidB4 ^(TALK) 19:02, 29 September 2019 (EDT)

Next we'll need "Rock control" [10] After all, there is NO GOOD reason for anyone to possess large but movable rocks. --DavidB4 ^(TALK) 19:07, 29 September 2019 (EDT)

According to FBI data, over twice as many people are killed with fists and feet than with rifles: [11] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2019 (EDT)