Talk:Gun politics in the United States

Firearms owners and lead poisoning

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)

Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Scientific Communication

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)

Relevance of these two opinions

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)

Availability vs. Legal Availability

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)