The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Should the last sentence in the lead According to 2016 and 2017 reviews covering 10 countries, stronger laws regulating firearms are associated with decreased firearm homicide rates.[4][5]", appended to the lead in July 2019 stay in the lead? or in the article at all anywhere? (this is currently the only place in the article where that information is mentioned) ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC) 21:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read the lead before answering.

• No - As I said on my previous edits and multiple other editors have also stated, it is not relevant to THIS article. (It IS relevent to the Gun control article and is already present in that article.) ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• No - I don't think we should go down that rabbit hole in this article. Frankly, the lede itself could use some heavy trimming as it continues to stick one foot into the gun control article. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 18:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• No - let's keep the politics out of this article. People are likely to come here seeking information. Let them have it without the clutter. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Yes Definitely. This is a discussion about the effects of these laws. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

THIS article is not a discussion of the effects of the laws, nor does it provide justification(s) for the laws; it is merely a listing and description of what laws exist. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And this is one sentence on the effects of these laws based on recent reviews of the topic in major journals. It is within topic. Should it also be in other places? Maybe. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So what you are saying is that we should BROADEN THE SCOPE of this article to also include the EFFECTS of gun laws? (which this article did not include until you added this disputed sentence) Should we also include the ~50 studies listed in the Gun control article in this one, and thereby duplicate ~60% of that article into this one? ---Avatar317^(talk) 03:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A one sentence overview of the effects of gun laws based on the best avaliable sources is perfectly appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• yes agree w/ Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Yes (coming over from WT:MED) it seems that the coverage is WP:DUE based on sources cited, but the tone should clearly represent reliable sources for the statement made. Bears directly on the article topic. Just because a topic is politically charged doesn't mean it's off-limits, we just need to care for NPOV. — soupvector (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Yes Central to the topic obviously. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Yes In an article examining the differences in gun control laws by nation, a fact related to the difference in effect of those gun laws in different nations is surely on-topic. As long as the fact is reliably sourced, WP:NPOV requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published". I'm not sure it's in quite the right place, but it surely belongs in the overview (which is what the lead serves as in these sort of articles). --RexxS (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Yes, per Doc James and the other WP:Med editors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• No I thought this was so self-evident that I deleted just now - without first checking here - opps. My thoughts are in line with User:Avatar317. This is an article on what the laws are, none of the content refers to the effect of these, nor should it. It is reasonable to make some general note of the intent of the laws, but any comment on the effect should go as a WL to a fuller article. -Snori (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I though it was so self-evidently relevant to the topic that I restored it. This article is an overview and discusses divers aspects of gun laws by nation, such as their effects on the levels of gun ownership from one jurisdiction to another and the procedures that have to be followed to obtain a gun licence in different countries. An examination of the correlation of gun laws with homicide rates is just as relevant to any overview. --RexxS (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: Is it really only 10 countries?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The content of our article covers many more, but of the two research papers on the effects, the second covers just 10 countries - and the first is US-only. - Snori (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • When research is done, it is quite usual to take a sample of a population for which data is available. Statistical techniques are then used to estimate the accuracy of the conclusions drawn from the sample when extrapolated to the population as a whole. There are 195 counties in the world and it is not surprising that not all of them would be covered by research. It's worth noting that the systematic review pmid:26905895 states its methodology clearly: it found 5,039 studies of which 130 studies, representing 10 countries, eventually met its inclusion and exclusion criteria. This is a high quality review with unimpeachable methodology, and there's no point in Wikipedia editors trying to offer amateur criticism of it. If you wish to challenge its conclusions or its applicability, you need to be bringing to the table equally respectable sources that reach an opposing conclusion or that offer meaningful criticism of the methodology. So far I've seen no evidence of either. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I have no criticism of either study, just clarifying. -Snori (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Well, I'm sorry, but I have a problem with presenting a worldwide view based on a survey of only 10 countries. The countries are: the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Switzerland, Austria, Norway, Brazil, and Colombia. This sample is heavily weighted to English-speaking countries, and includes no Asian countries.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • I'm sorry you have a problem, but it should come as no surprise that the English Wikipedia relies heavily on sources in English. The solution is to find other review articles that survey the languages and countries you're interested in. In the meantime, your objection to a source based only your personal view of its methodology carries no weight. --RexxS (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• No: In a article taking a global view of a topic, a survey of only 10 countries is not significant.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah they did a systematic review meaning that they found all the studies that were present... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, but so what? There's not enough evidence to make a global statement. Whereof you do not know, thereof you must be silent.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nonsense. We report what the sources say, not make amateur analyses of them. The quality of the source is more than good enough to support the conclusion that "stronger laws regulating firearms are associated with decreased firearm homicide rates". Find equally good sources that reach a different conclusion if you want to argue the issue. --RexxS (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In most areas we present a world view based on evidence from one or two country. That fact that we have evidence from 10 countries is fairly impressive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per study: "Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively." Keyword: INTIMATE. It does not find a lower rate of firearm homicides in general but only a specific subset of those deaths. It is wrongly generalized to lower firearm homicides in general. Abatementyogin (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you miss what the study said in the previous sentence? The study, viewable at pmid:26905895 clearly states "... the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths". That is a lower rate of firearms deaths in general. The specific restriction on purchasing is the one associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides. Legislating safer storage of firearms is associated with lower rates of firearm unintentional deaths in children. Your misreading of the source leads to your incorrect conclusions. --RexxS (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the last time, the vast majority of firearm deaths are suicides, not homicides. The study found a reduction in firearm suicides which constitute the vast majority of gun deaths. Hence why there there was a decline for overall gun deaths. The only category for firearm homicide that declined were intimate partner homicides which are a small subset of homicides. The vast majority of homicide victims are male and are not domestic-related.Abatementyogin (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: If the statement is kept in this article, it needs to be modified because it is not properly supported by the sources.

The 2017 Lee et al study studied the US only to find an association with stricter laws and reduced firearm homicides. Evidence Review We evaluated peer-reviewed articles from 1970 to 2016 focusing on the association between US firearm laws and firearm homicide. Findings We found evidence that stronger firearm laws are associated with reductions in firearm homicide rates.

The 2016 Santaella-Tenorio et al study covered 10 countries, but found no correlation with *overall* firearm homicide reduction, only reduction of deaths, and reduction of firearm homicides for the special class of intimate partner homicides. It is misleading and false to lump these two studies together to attempt to support the statement as it stands now. ---Avatar317^(talk) 02:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then perhaps you think it should read "A 2016 systematic review of 130 studies in 10 countries found that stronger laws regulating firearms are associated with reductions in firearm-related deaths, including suicides,(Santaella-Tenorio) and a 2017 systematic review found that in the US stronger firearm laws are associated with reductions in firearm homicide rates.(Lee)" It would not be difficult to write a more detailed summary of the sources after the conclusion of this RfC. --RexxS (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the RfC decides that it is relevant, yes, I would be happy with your statement; it fairly and accurately summarizes the sources. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• No This article is clearly simply a summary of gun control laws in different nations, not an article about the effects of said laws. And even if it was, the statement in question wouldn't belong just tacked onto the end of the lede. Tchouppy (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]