Talk:Gun politics in the United States

It is estimated that U.S. civilians own 393 million firearms, and that 35% to 42% of the households in the country have at least one gun. The U.S. has by far the highest estimated number of guns per capita in the world, at 120.5 guns for every 100 people.

There’s no mention in this article of the numerous studies showing firearms owners are susceptible to lead poisoning (evidence is in the linked article). This would also go a long way towards explaining some of their attitudes and beliefs vis-à-vis the lead-crime hypothesis, which shows an increase in aggression and violence due to lead exposure. For example, many of the arguments proposed by gun proponents are illogical, nonsensical, and lack evidence, often relying on appeals to emotion, fear, and escalation. How likely is it that the people making these bizarre arguments are suffering from some kind of lead poisoning? Because to those of us on the side of gun control, they often sound like mad hatters. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• An appeal to emotion is standard practice to both "political persuasion" and propaganda. I would not be certain that these "mad hatters" are not propagandists, or recipients of propaganda. Dimadick (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

As someone who's relatively in the middle, I will say that the those on the pro-gun side themselves think that gun control advocates are mad hatters themselves. I also will say that many arguments proposed my gun control advocates are also illogical, nonsensical, and lack evidence, often relying on appeals to emotion, fear and escalation. Both sides are equally bad about this and neither side accurately represents most Americans. Just like most politicized things in the US, politicians on either side gravitate towards the extremes while most people are somewhere in the middle. I can see how a mention of the studies could have a place in the article, but it must be worded carefully in order to not give a biased view implicating that pro-gun supporters are suffering from lead poisoning and are thus irrational. Dudeofthelake (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I would caution against this. Not all pro-gun people actually own or regularly use guns themselves. Although anecdotal, I know several people (who are otherwise entirely reasonable) who use arguments that gun control proponents would likely find illogical who never handle any firearms themselves. Some people are pro-gun not out of "don't touch my guns" self-interest but a genuine belief in the philosophies that lead some people to be pro-gun (such as a belief that armed self-defense is an unalienable right). Blast335 (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Agomezgarcia (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Madhamilton5 (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Political scientist Robert Spitzer and Supreme Court law clerk Gregory P. Magarian argued that this final decision by the Supreme Court was a misinterpretation of the U.S.Constitution.

I feel like these opinions don't really have a place here and should be deleted for two reasons.

1. Not referencing any opinions in favor of the decision could be a violation of WP:BALANCE

2. I don't really think the opinions of these two random law experts are of any significance. I've followed gun law and especially gun law litigation for a long time and I've literally never heard of these people. Blast335 (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

In the "Public Policy" section there is the sentence "Gun Control has limited the availability of firearms to many individuals". I propose changing this to "Gun Control has limited the legal availability of firearms to many individuals". Since it has been requested that I substantiate my claim with evidence that it only changes the availability to legally acquire firearms, I present the following logical arguments and websites for a possible citation:

1. These laws do not decrease the number of firearms in circulation, meaning that the availability via theft is unchanged. 2. It is illogical to believe that a black market gun dealer, who is by definition someone already in violation of the law, would comply with law regarding the transfer of firearms to a prohibited person, therefore availability via the black market is unchanged. 3. It is legal in most US states to construct a firearm yourself. There is a caveat, however, that it is illegal for a prohibited person to do so, which means that this is an illegal means of acquiring a firearm that, never-the-less, is unchanged by the law as I am not aware of any law on the books that would prevent a prohibited person from acquiring the tools and materials necessary to construct one. 4. US Gun Control makes it illegal for a prohibited person to acquire a firearm by any means, so any other conceivable avenue through which such a person may obtain a firearm is illegal.

Are there any objections to this change? Blast335 (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. You need to provide a verifiable citation to a reliable source making those direct claims, not provide original research. We cannot accept "logical arguments" which would constitute unacceptable synthesis. These are core criteria for inclusion of content on Wikipedia, so if you're unfamiliar with those policies I'd suggest spending some time to become acquainted with them. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you please provide a citation for the original statement then, which could equally validly be claimed to be original research? or should I simply tag it "citation needed"? As it currently stands, it could also be argued to be not merely poorly worded as Blast335 argues, but an unsubstantiated claim. 116.251.193.73 (talk) 10:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The source is being used to reference the following claim: Gun control advocates concerned about high levels of gun violence in the United States look to restrictions on gun ownership as a way to stem the violence and say that increased gun ownership leads to higher levels of crime, suicide and other negative outcomes. (emphasis added). There's no reliability concern here, which was the argument with the original source. Now the new argument is that it's "shoehorned where it's referencing anything that the text before it discusses". @Anastrophe: could you clarify how you concluded that a study that estimates the association between gun-free zones (a type of restriction on gun ownership) and active shootings (a type of crime/violence/negative outcome), is shoehorned in? The second paragraph of the introduction states Studies have found that countries4 and US states5,6 with higher rates of gun ownership also have significantly higher rates of mass shootings. This is disputed by some gun-rights activists, who contend that the occurrence of active shootings is due to the presence of “gun-free zones,” although this position is not supported by the peer-reviewed literature.? It seems directly relevant to both the sentence I inserted it at, as well as the subsequent one. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

"Gun control advocates concerned about high levels of gun violence in the United States look to restrictions on gun ownership as a way to stem the violence and say that increased gun ownership leads to higher levels of crime, suicide and other negative outcomes." "Gun-free zones" are not a restriction on gun ownership, as the sentence is clearly describing, they're a restriction on locations where guns can be lawfully carried or brought into. The study in question isn't concerned with ownership at all, only prevalence of mass shootings in "gun-free zones". It's synthesis to try to connect it to the sentences it's allegedly a reference for, as the operative inquiry of the study is "gun-free zones", not ownership. It's non-sequitur to the sentences it's attached to. The only discussion in the article about "gun-free zones" is in regard to advocacy groups concerned with safety issues associated with "gun-free zones". If you believe it needs discussion in the article, perhaps find a way to attach it to that portion of the article, where it would be relevant, at least tangentially. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The Lancet states that a connection exists between gun ownership and mass shootings, but that gun rights activists dispute this citing specifically gun-free zones. If the word 'this' in This is disputed by... is not referring to higher rates of gun ownership also have significantly higher rates of mass shootings, then what are you suggesting that the word 'this' is referring to instead? Since the study then directly states that the reason for this contention is gun-free zones, it seems to be a direct statement in support of the claim as written, and not synthesis, as the subject of 'this' is quite clearly the correlation between higher rates of gun ownership and higher rates of mass shootings. I'm just not seeing how the source text Studies have found that countries and US states with higher rates of gun ownership also have significantly higher rates of mass shootings. is synthesis for the claim increased gun ownership leads to higher levels of crime given that mass shootings are definitionally crimes. Same for the source text For example, two studies have found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had higher rates of public mass shootings. Additionally, multiple studies have consistently shown that higher firearm ownership is associated with higher levels of firearm-related injuries and fatalities at both individual and ecological levels for the "negative outcomes" part. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Restrictions on gun ownership are different from restrictions on gun owners. The study is not about the claimed correlation between gun ownership and mass shootings, but about the efficacy of "gun-free zones" in limiting mass shootings. The verbiage included in the introduction precedent to the findings of the study is not the study itself.

Bob Example owns a gun. It's in his home. Bob is a student at a University that calls itself a "gun-free zone". Bob goes to class. Bob's gun is at home. Does the "gun-free zone" change his status as a gun owner? No. He still owns a gun regardless of visiting the "gun-free zone". Does the "gun-free zone" place a limit on Bob, the owner, from carrying his gun into the "gun-free zone"? Yes. The "gun-free zone" makes no alteration of his ownership, and no "gun-free zone" laws restrict ownership - they place restrictions upon where gun owners can carry their gun. That is the basis of what was studied.

The prefatory text in the section of this wikipedia article in question states that gun control advocates wish to place restrictions on ownership. That is, who can own a gun, and what sort of gun, for example. The prefatory text does not discuss "gun-free zones". The lancet study presents no arguments that ownership is at issue, it simply parrots a common talking point in the introductory text before the study details, and in the discussion after the study details. Did the study investigate ownership, or did it investigate whether restrictions on where owners can take their guns affects mass shootings? The body of the study itself nowhere mentions or discusses ownership, only restrictions on where a gun may be taken.

A further problem is that one of the two remaining sources supposedly verifying the opening of that paragraph is just a statistics site, which does not discuss at all the gun politics debate (The UNODC source). I'll have to look up the other source as it's not presented as a reachable link, but that will have to wait for tomorrow. Based on the title it likely does touch on the subject. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 07:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The lancet study presents no arguments that ownership is at issue, it simply parrots a common talking point in the introductory text before the study details, and in the discussion after the study details. I think that is a gross misrepresentation of what the source says. First, it is not relevant where within a reliable source a reference is located (except for headlines, but that's not at issue here) so long as it directly supports the claim. There is no policy basis I'm aware of for excluding a direct quote from a scholarly source just because it came from an introduction section or a discussion section; and both cases are *still* parts of the study itself (and The Lancet cites directly to the study body for the other other studies it cites, which include a mass literature review). Further, The Lancet does *directly* address the point of gun ownership, multiple times. I'm not sure why you seem to be ignoring or dismissing those with the non-sequitur of gun-free zones. The portions of the source that I have quoted above directly address gun ownership and only gun ownership, specifically. It does not matter that the rest of the study talks about gun-free zones; the part I'm talking about specifically and directly talks about gun ownership. And you've yet to answer any of the questions I raised above -- since you're claiming The Lancet doesn't say what it directly says, you must believe that the word 'this' in the sentence "This is disputed by..." must be referring to something other than the claim that higher rates of gun ownership also have significantly higher rates of mass shootings, right? Can you explain to me how the sentence two studies have found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had higher rates of public mass shootings does not support the claim that increased gun ownership leads to higher levels of crimes in the US? In order for that to not to be true, you'd have to argue that public mass shootings aren't crimes. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Regardless, I think a solution to this impasse is to just directly quote the Lancet in the article text (with attribution, and including the citations from the quote), which I'll do shortly. I'm assuming you'll have no issues with that, given your prior statement that the concern is based on the specific sentence it is attached to. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I've been on WP long enough to know when an article is gatekept by a particular POV, so I'm not going to bash my head against that gate any further, not on this particular point of contention. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)