Template:Did you know nominations/Guns don't kill

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Z1720 (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Guns don't kill people, people kill people

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

[[File:|140px|Variation of the original slogan ]]

Variation of the original slogan

• ... that guns don't kill?
  • ALT1: ... that guns don't kill, people kill?
  • ALT2: ... that guns don't kill people, people kill people?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bronx County Bird Club
  • Comment: There are other images in the article which may also be suitable for use

Created by FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk). Self-nominated at 13:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC).

• I have very very deep reservations about all the hooks proposed in this nomination. This slogan is the slogan of a well-known lobbyist group with a particular political slant, and presenting said slogan as a fact using Wikipedia's voice would not only be inaccurate, it would also fail DYK's neutrality requirement. A hook about the slogan is definitely possible, but the slogan itself being the hook is not permissible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• See User:Narutolovehinata5's comments above — while it's possible to have a hook ABOUT the slogan, the hook CANNOT simply be the slogan, for every reason listed by Narutolovehinata5 above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Striking the hooks. Addressing the comments above and looking for new hooks. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 & Paintspot, some alternate hooks. Are these more suitable?

• ALT3:... that the slogan guns don't kill, people kill is a "true" but "irrelevant" case of "mistaken relevance of proximate causation" that presents a "false dichotomy" and ignores "shared responsibility"?
  • "true" (Source: "If the argument is meant to convey the idea that guns cannot inflict injury without human involvement, it is both true and irrelevant. As to policy issues involving regulation of cars and other dangerous products, it is hardly sufficient to oppose regulation simply because injuries from those products occur only when they are used by human beings. Why should such reasoning have any more validity when the issue is regulation of guns?" (pg 36)); "irrelevant" (Source: see previous); a case of "mistaken relevance of proximate causation" (Source: "mistaken the relevance of proximate causation"); that presents a "false dichotomy" (Source: But the slogan seems to suggest that we are confronted with an either/or situation. Either people kill or guns kill. But putting the situation to us in that way only forces a false choice pg 101); and ignores that "responsibility for action must be shared among the various actants" (Source: Responsibility for action must be shared among the various actants )
• ALT4:... that a philosopher analysed the slogan "guns don't kill, people kill" in 1994 and wrote that "it is neither people nor guns that kill"? (Source: It is neither people nor guns that kill)
• ALT5:... that the slogan "guns don't kill, people kill" says nothing about people with guns or the gun debate? (Source: Same as above; The first thing to notice is that the argument has no stated conclusion. What follows? Since the argument is usually given in the context of a discussion about gun regulation, by gun advocates, I assume the conclusion has something to do with that. But what exactly? That there should be no gun regulation at all?)
• ALT6:... that "guns don't kill, people kill" is not an argument? (Source: "First, Johnson points out that no logical conclusion follows the statement. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people, and therefore...what? There should be no gun regulation at all? All people should have their fingers chopped off? It has no conclusion. Johnson states that without an obvious conclusion, it isn’t an argument at all, so no conclusion about gun regulation follows." pg 82)

FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm wary of all the hooks except maybe ALT6 (which needs to specify that it is an NRA slogan). Given how controversial the slogan and material is, whoever reviews this needs to tread very carefully. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Striking the variations above. Here are some variations which do not use the slogan verbatim,

ALT7... that Michael Moore, Daniel Moynihan, Ann Coulter and Donald Trump have all quoted variations of the same gun advocacy slogan?

ALT8... that the disowned weapon substitution hypothesis was highly influential in backing one of National Rifle Association's favorite slogans?

FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

While ALT7 and ALT8 haven't been considered by a reviewer, I am striking them. I am also hiding the image that was placed to accompany the initial hook versions.

* ALT9... that this gun slogan is "scientifically inaccurate"?

* ALT9.1... that this statement about gun violence is "scientifically inaccurate"?

• ALT9.2... that according to researchers including Stephen Hargarten the slogan "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is "scientifically inaccurate"?

Source: One immediate benefit of framing gun violence as a disease is the opportunity to address misleading/limiting statements as scientifically inaccurate, yet repeated over and over again. One of the most common of these is: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” The disease model provides us with accuracy: the bullet and its kinetic energy shreds, tears and destroys cells, and damages organs, leading to death and disability. While the behavioral health issues that result in a person pulling a trigger and releasing the energy need to be better understood, first and foremost we need scientifically accurate statements that advance the necessary, challenging discussions.

Source: “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people,” is a scientifically inaccurate statement, says Hargarten. ...

If anyone feels that I have not adequately interpreted and paraphrased this line, do point it out, but also please go ahead and improve the paraphrasing or strike the hook. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

ALT9.2 is confirmed. QPQ is done. New enough when nominated, and long enough. I think the article is written with a serious attempt to be neutral. It perhaps goes far afield from the gun proponent views and leans in the other direction.

Comments

1. I question why the article needs the very long somewhat confusing block quote by Bruno Latour, 1994.
2. This numbered item is just a comment on the 8 images in the article: two are joke images, four refute the "Gun's don't kill" statement, and two images portray the slogan. A good mix perhaps.

I will AGF on many of the sources which I cannot access. Overall the article creator is to be commended for a good article on a subject that can be divisive. The article is well written and comprehensive. The slogan taken literally, is true, guns do not kill. Our hook ALT9.2 refutes the slogan, and ends up being a kind of "Oh yeah, duh" realization. Because of course the projectile kills people. We should not be scared of our own article title, so to that end, I unhid the article title in the hook. Bruxton (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)