Talk:Gun ownership

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Ownership rate"

The article, as previously written, stated that: "The United States has the highest rate of gun ownership of any country of the world, with an estimated 88.8 guns per 100 people as of 2007..."

But this is misleading because the number of guns per 100 people doesn't tell people what percentage of private citizens actually own guns. If the average gun owner had 8.88 guns then the rate would be 10%. If the average gun owner owned 88.8 guys then the rate would be 1%.

I've changed it to read: "The United States has the highest number of privately owned guns per capita of any country of the world, with an estimated 88.8 guns per 100 people as of 2007..." -2003:CA:83CF:F200:D03E:734E:DC84:B25 (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Ireland numbers

This list is based on the June 2018, Small Arms Survey report, is fully referenced with links to the actual June 2018, Small Arms Survey report. Please see... http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/Weapons_and_Markets/Tools/Firearms_holdings/SAS-BP-Civilian-held-firearms-annexe.pdf. User:MarkDennehy, the numbers that you are using for Ireland are unreferenced 2014 numbers. If you can provide current Wikipedia:Inline citation that would be fine. Otherwise, I will restore the June 2018, Small Arms Survey report numbers. --RAF910 (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country#Ireland As was quoted earlier. I'm not trying to be a smartarse; these figures are actually out of whack. As I said then: "The Irish figure given by the Small Arms Survey 2007 of 8.6 is wildly inaccurate for three reasons: 1) It uses the total number of firarms legally held in Ireland in 2005 2) It uses the population of Ireland in 2005 3) It includes an estimate of 150,000 illegally held firearms before calculating its number of firearms held by civilians per capita."

When you read the Small Arms Survey you find that the researchers _literally_ invented 150,000 firearms which they claim are held here illegally despite every real source of information in this country saying that they have no basis in fact. That was the case in 2016 when the last figures for the number of firearms owned by civilians was presented by the head of the Garda Firearms Policy Unit to the Oireachtas Joint Commmittee on Justice - the cited source for the figures I've provided on the other page - and remains the case today. The citations were all listed on the talk page for the Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country page - you appear to be in the process of replacing that page without reviewing that list of changes. I would suggest - again not trying to be a smartarse about it, updated figures are always good - that this is not going to lead to more accurate figures.

To illustrate why this isn't a very simple set of figures to put together, your primary source here -- the Small Arms Survey -- counts the number of things the country involved calls firearms under their laws and says that is how many small arms are in the country. This sounds grand, until you learn that some countries do not have the same legal definition for the term "firearm" as others do. In Ireland, for example, airguns are classed as firearms. In the UK, they are not, nor in most of Europe, when below a certain muzzle energy limit. Also classed as firearms here are things like pepper spray, tasers, crossbows of any kind, paintball markers, night vision scopes or thermal scopes designed to be attached to a firearm, and any and all constituent parts of a firearm. So our official number of firearms is actually much higher than it would be if it were prepared under, say, German law or UK law. MarkDennehy (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, where is the reference? All I see is a lot of very dated original research. Also, we are not talking about the obsolete "2007 Small Arms Survey report" here. This is about the "June 2018, Small Arms Survey report." If you cannot provide a current reference superior to the June 2018, Small Arms Survey report, then you don't have a leg to stand on.--RAF910 (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
First of all, let's point out that "don't have a leg to stand on" is pretty confrontational language here and unhelpful.
Then let's discuss citations and point out that you are referencing no data yourself. The 2018 survey you keep referring to is not cited; you have cited the "how we measured this" briefing papers. There is no data in there (for example, search that citation for "Ireland" and you find no results at all). Please cite the actual annexe with the data and its sources, similar to this one from 2007: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-3-EN.pdf
I have pointed out the citation for my figures to you but you missed it, it's on the talk page for the original gun ownership figures page : "Chief Superintendent Fergus Healy of the Garda Firearms Policy Unit stated to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice in December 2014 that the latest information is that there are 200,436 licenced firearms in Ireland;". Here's the link to the official record of the Irish Government on that : https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_justice_defence_and_equality/2014-12-17/speech/6/
Let's discuss the specific figures being used here: the 2007 survey cited Ireland as having 358,644 firearms in total. It cites these as "Total from registered guns correlation", while acknowledging that the official figure is 209,000, which it calls "Registered". The 150,000 additional firearms, it literally makes up as an estimate, and cites five newspaper articles as its proof, which is ridiculous given that several of them are not from this country - they are from Northern Ireland - and the others are, well, to be generous one could call them less than credible sources given the current findings from the disclosures tribunal. Now we can't examine the 2018 figures, the annexe for which we have not seen, but the 2017 figures you link to above show them claiming 200,000 registered firearms and 142,000 unregistered firearms, this time with no sources for the latter listed at all.
Small legal point - Ireland does not have registered firearms at all. We have licenced firearms, meaning that you may not own one until you obtain a licence and having one without the licence - which must be renewed every three years - is a criminal offence with strict penalties of up to seven years in prison and up to twenty thousand euro in fines. Every single firearm that is legally owned has a separate firearms certificate. Given first a civil war and then thirty years of domestic terrorism, firearms are somewhat more strictly controlled than in most places around the globe. The idea that we would have almost as many illegal firearms as legal ones is simply not supportable - and indeed, is not supported in this case as no source has ever been cited bar "correlation", meaning that the ratio of legally held firearms to illegally held firearms in other countries with far less strict laws was multiplied by our existing number of licenced firearms and the result was then treated like data. Which it isn't, and that's a major criticism of the Survey, at least from the point of view of Ireland.
To work through that example, if we take the data from 2007 and determine what the ratio they used is (209,000:358,644 = 1:1.716) and multiply the official figure in 2017 by that same figure (1.716 * 200,436) we get approximately 344,000 firearms, their estimate from 2017 to within 0.6% (which would be explained by them using a later count of firearms licences here, as they have risen by one or two hundred since 2014).
In other words, their figure is not data; they're just multiplying the actual number from the official source by a number they invented based on what they saw ten years ago in other countries which do not have our laws or history, and calling the result data. It isn't. It's wildly inaccurate in this case. That was the reason behind the change of the figure in the first place - because the survey gets it woefully wrong here. And even wikipedia points out that it's not the sole occurrence : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Arms_Survey#Criticism MarkDennehy (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
The info that you are referring to is in fact referenced, and I have added another reference.....Again, the list in this article is based on the June 2018, Small Arms Survey report. A large wall of very dated original research explaining how bad the 2007, Small Arms Survey report is has no bearing here, on this article. The reference that you provided for the Ireland numbers https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_justice_defence_and_equality/2014-12-17/2/#spk_6 are the minutes of the "Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality debate - Wednesday, 17 Dec 2014". Which is discussing... "The most radical changes to firearms legislation since 1925 were introduced on 1 August 2009 with the commencement of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 and the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009." Which is a WP:PRIMARY SOURCE. Also, the meeting itself does not state when the numbers were collected only that they were "latest figures available." Presumably, Chief Superintendent Mr. Fergus Healy was using numbers he reviewed that morning. Therefore, those numbers are at least 4 years out of date, maybe longer. Also, while the source explains the total firearms number that you used, it does not explain where you got the population number? All of this is original research and synthesis. You will need to provide current 2018 numbers, showing the the number of firearms in civilian hands, the population of Ireland, and the per capita firearms ownership rate--RAF910 (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
The reason I have quoted the above details about the 2007 figures is to point out that the same error which affected them affects the 2017 figures and that we don't know what the 2018 figures are because you have not linked to them. And no, I do not need to provide new figures; you are overriding existing data that is being provided by the people who issue the licences with data that has serious question marks over it - the onus to provide proof that your source is more accurate than the original source of the licences being counted here is on you. And since you apparently have no interest in engaging here in anything other than a confrontational manner, I suggest we need arbitration here. MarkDennehy (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
The references are provided in the article where they belong, with links to the June 2018, Small Arms Survey report (see reference numbers 7 and 8)...Your are the one who has made unreferenced changes.--RAF910 (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
As stated previously, you have not provided references as all of the links in the article are to the press release saying the Survey has been published and to the briefing notes explaining methodology, but no data has actually been linked to from 2018; the figures you have linked to on this page came from the 2017 report. MarkDennehy (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Since you're editing your answers instead of replying, I'll point out that again, reference 7 is a briefing paper on methodology, not actual data, and reference 8 are figures from 2017, not 2018. MarkDennehy (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Your claims that the numbers are wrong are irrelevant. You must provide proof that the numbers are wrong. Something that you have not done.--RAF910 (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
And several Irish Ministers for Justice have stated on the record that the idea of estimating how many firearms are held illegally here is ridiculous: https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/1991-10-22/35/#spk_263 and the Finnish government has criticised the survey directly : https://www.aamulehti.fi/kotimaa/oikaisu-paakirjoituksessa-vaaraa-tietoa-aseiden-maarasta--23546748 http://www.mikkoniskasaari.fi/node/230
I would also point out that newspapers are not sources of data nor are they considered to be peer review. The contention here is between the survey's figures and actual data from the source of that data. And if you look at the original page, you'll find a considerable amount of corrections to the survey's data over the past several years by people who are actually knowledgable about their country's firearms legislation. You cannot simply replace that many data sources with a single source whose figures are not cited yet, whose methodology has been questioned, whose data has been found to contain errors, and do all of that without even mentioning that you plan to do so on that page's Talk page. It's not appropriate. MarkDennehy (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I have proven that Small Arms Survey is a Globally recognize Organization, used as a reliable source of information currently being quoted in (June 2018) articles by 10 of the largest new organizations in the English speaking world. You have yet to provide a single reliable source of information to back-up your Ireland numbers claims. All that you have provided is original research and synthesis, claiming that the badly out-dated "2007, Small Arms Survey" report is wrong, when we are here talking about the "June 2018, Small Arms Survey" report. You must provide a reliable source claiming that the "June 2018, Small Arms Survey" report is wrong. (UTC)--RAF910 (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
You have provided newspapers who reprinted the figures; that simply does not refute the point that their figures for Ireland are flat out wrong. If we had 150,000 illegal firearms here, we would know it for the same reason you would know it if the number of tigers in the room with you was greater than zero. The survey has very clearly taken the Garda figures and added in a made-up estimate for illegal firearms (by multiplying the garda number by approximately 1.7) and has been doing so since 2007 at least, with no sources cited other than newspaper articles either written in Northern Ireland or in tabloids here. The Minister for Justice has said they're wrong, the Gardai figures say they're wrong, the level of crime we witness here says they're wrong and every other lived experience here for decades says they're wrong. If you think the New York Times reprinting a press release counters that, then frankly I don't think you're trying to make the information on this site more accurate. MarkDennehy (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
More of the same original research and synthesis, still obsessed with the badly outdated "2007, Small Arms Survey" report. --RAF910 (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I've taken this discussion to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard since it is going nowhere here.--RAF910 (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been up for roughly 24 hours, and only two people have participated in the discussion, and many of the comments on both sides simply restate arguments made earlier. I suggest that both of you read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, stop responding to each other, and wait to see if any other editors weigh in. If after seven days there has been no discussion from the wider community, I suggest dropping a message on my talk page and letting me post a neutrally-worded RfC that will resolve this dispute.
In the meantime, per WP:STATUSQUO I have reverted the page to the last stable (14:56, 28 May 2018‎) version before this content dispute. Please do not attempt to get your way by editing until the Wikipedia community has reached a WP:CONSENSUS on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Overwriting existing page with contentious data without prior discussion

As listed above, RAF910 deleted an entire page with several years of work attached to it and replaced it with a straight copy of a more recent report whose contents have been questioned and corrected in the past due to inaccuracies. This was done without any attempt to consult on the talk page of the prior page. While the data being proposed is from a more recent publication, there appear to still be serious issues with its accuracy on precisely the same grounds as for earlier version of this publication. Attempts to discuss this have been confrontational in nature from the beginning and external opinions would be of use for a constructive outcome. MarkDennehy (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Please go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#2018, Small Arms Survey, where so far the consensus is going against you. Make your argument there and see if you can convince anyone that you are right.
Meanwhile, I am removing your RfC tag because the above is not a properly formatted, neutrally-worded RfC. I strongly suggest that you take my previous advice or at the very least explain why you have decided not to follow it while RAF910 is so far following it by not responding to you. Here is that advice once again:
This discussion has been up for roughly 24 hours, and only two people have participated in the discussion, and many of the comments on both sides simply restate arguments made earlier. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, stop posting new comments for a few days, and wait to see if any other editors weigh in. If after seven days there has been no discussion from the wider community, I suggest dropping a message on my talk page and letting me post a neutrally-worded RfC that will resolve this dispute.
Please note that I have expressed no opinion on which one of you is right and which one is wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Guy, what do you mean by "at the very least explain why you have decided not to follow it while RAF910 is so far following it by not responding to you."? I have not responded to him since you gave that advice. MarkDennehy (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Writing the words "As listed above, RAF910 deleted an entire page..." is a form of responding to RAF910, and tempts him to respond to your words, thus restarting the fruitless back-and-forth bickering. You have written enough. You are WP:BLUDGEONING. Please stop. Give someone else a chance. You made your point on the reliable sources noticeboard, and are waiting for a response. Now let's see if you can convince anyone there. (again, I am not expressing any opinion on whether you are right, just on your bludgeoning behavior.) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Guy, you gave your advice according to the timestamp at 22:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC) and the words you're talking about were written over four hours earlier at 17:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC). You gave the advice; I followed it. MarkDennehy (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Please accept my apology. That was a dumb mistake on my part. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
No worries Guy, I've done worse. MarkDennehy (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Merge the Estimated number of guns per capita by country page into the Gun ownership page....The "Estimated number of guns per capita by country" page is based on the 2007, Small Arms Survey report, it is now badly out-of-date (over 10 years) and frankly not salvageable. Therefore, I recommend that it be redirected to the "Gun ownership" page, which has which has a far more comprehensive and up-to-date list, taken from the June 2018, Small Arms Survey report. This page includes "Estimate of firearms in civilian possession", "Population 2017", and "Estimate of civilian firearms per 100 persons" in a sort-able table. Whereas the Estimated number of guns per capita by country table only includes "Civilian-held firearms per 100 population".

  • SUPPORT...per my above statement.--RAF910 (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE... based on the large amount of work that has gone into the Estimated number of guns per capita by country page since 2007 which has corrected the figures from the 2007 Small Arms Survey where appropriate and seen extensive community work on the page. Deleting the entire page and redirecting to Gun Ownership on the action of a single person with no attempt at prior discussion was inappropriate. The figures from the 2018 Survey should, where appropriate, be merged into the existing Estimated number of guns per capita by country page instead. MarkDennehy (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Please also note that the Ireland figures are only a single point from the original page which are disputed in the 2018 figures and there is a significant issue here in the manner this merger has been pushed for. MarkDennehy (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Gun ownership has no list as big as Estimated number of guns per capita by country and can't be a replacement. Also, Gun ownership uses some data from 2007 as well. It's better to have an outdated page that can serve as some reference the no page at all. ★BrandonALF★ talk edits 00:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

This is an extension of the content dispute in the above section, and adds to the WP:BLUDGEONing problem. Per WP:STATUSQUO I have reverted the page to the last stable (14:56, 28 May 2018‎) version before this content dispute. Again, I suggest that both of you read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, stop responding to each other, and wait to see if any other editors weigh in. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Struck my comment because [A] to their credit both parties realized that the conversation was going nowhere and stopped, and [B] this is now listed as a merge discussion, which I hope will bring in some other opinions than the two that we have heard so far. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: This discussion is related to the previous version of this page, that was revert by User:Guy Macon (see...https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_ownership&oldid=848251387 ), which is being discussed above in the previous section, Not the current version. User:BrandonALF has already made that mistake above--RAF910 (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we need a country list for firearms in civilian possession. We need another country list for firearms in military/law enforcement possession. On a separate list page. We need separate prose articles in my opinion. I don't like trying to combine prose pages with list/table pages. People search the web for lists first.
For firearms in civilian possession I suggest doing without the columns for population and number of firearms. I am assuming the SAS source lists the rates. If not, I guess we will need the columns, and have to do the rate calculations ourselves. List should be in alphabetical order. It is easier to maintain.
What matters is the rate and/or per capita column. If possible, there should be a column for "latest available SAS rate." Small Arms Survey. That way that single rate column can be sorted via the sorting button in order to get rates in ascending or descending order for all countries. There should be a year column too so we know the year for each country's rate.
Notes column should have alternative rates and references. Notes column should be kept to one line or two of notes per country. Additional notes should be put below the list. With a link from the notes column.
WP:NPOV requires these notes so that all significant viewpoints, rate adjustments, etc. are covered. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
This assumes that the SAS rate is the accepted standard, which is contested. Perhaps instead multiple columns for the multiple sources of that rate, including at the very least the officially given rate by that country's government. MarkDennehy (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I guess then we need to label the rate columns. One for SAS. One for official country rates. And additional rates, etc. in the notes column.
We may need 2 tables on the civilian firearms list page. That is if a population column is necessary. We may need different years for the population numbers.
It is not a problem though. List pages often have several tables. One for each source or breakdown. See WP:NOTPAPER. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Re: "...badly out-of-date (over 10 years) and frankly not salvageable" are we sure that it isn't salvageable? I see above a productive discussion on how best to fix it. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The list at Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country has been updated and improved in the last couple days. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Then lets restore this page to the previous version ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_ownership&oldid=848251387#cite_ref-7 ) so that our fellow editors can have an fair and honest comparison, and allow them to decide which is the better page.--RAF910 (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
We could add a population column, and a firearm count column to Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country. Anyone can feel free to do so. Why duplicate the list in 2 places? Prose pages should not be combined with list/table pages in my opinion. Why not just link to the list page? People in general look for list pages, and they show up at the top of Google searches. We can link to the prose article, Gun ownership. The list at Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country is much better since it is ranked. User:Borysk5 updated the list to 2017, and did a lot of work in putting it in rank order. Plus list has flags and links for all the countries. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
You have given no valid reason to reject fully referenced information. "I put a lot work into that page" is irrelevant. If you beleive that's the better page, then let's can have an fair and honest comparison and allow our fellow editors to decide.--RAF910 (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

(unindent) It looks like we both want to merge the civilian-owned firearms lists. So if this were done, why not put it on a separate list page? List pages are normal. See the guns section below. The list page has long been listed on "Lists of countries by laws and law enforcement rankings". The civilian guns list has been on the list navbox since the navigation box was first created on June 26, 2009:

--Timeshifter (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Waiting here patiently for User:RAF910's reply. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Lets start over and have a fair an honest merger discussion

I have restored to the page to the previous version. All other discussions are off topic and nothing more than a distraction in order to prevent a fair an honest merger discussion. --RAF910 (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT MERGER' --RAF910 (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE merging here. You can do whatever you want on Gun ownership. I don't edit this page. But don't delete a page by redirecting it to here without discussion. You might get banned for continuing to do stuff like that.
As for whether this civilian-owned gun list here should be merged with the civilian-owned gun list at Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country please see the discussion in the previous section. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Homicide Rate

"Opinion article" source

Edit: Association with rates of Violence

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Misleading scatter plot used in article

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI