Talk:Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997

message: This article obviously needs a lot of work as it it was coming across as an anti gun control rant - hardly NPOV. I have tried to make it a bit more neutral but what it really needs is facts. All contributions towards improving this are appreciated. SaintedLegion (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The neutrality issues with this article persists, particularly the section on "gun crime after the ban" which is still blatantly anti gun control and cherry picks statistics from primary sources (as opposed to using secondary sources). I've put a NPOV template on that section until it is resolved. Trolligarch (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: As mentioned in the article, there were two Firearms (Amendment) Acts in 1997, which seems to have confused some editors. I have removed the following statement from the article which applies to the other Act:
:The UK government has been heavily criticised for delays in implementing the firearms register under the Act – the register had not been created nine years after the passing of the act.
The introduction of a national register is a requirement of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 while the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 does not make any reference to a register. Editors should be especially careful when introducing new information to this article and confirm that the correct article is being edited. Road Wizard (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion between the two 1997 Acts 

message: Any calibre between .22 and .357 magnum is permissible in long barrelled pistols. http://www.shootingshow.co.uk/go-shooting-pistols The ban was about auto and semi auto, not revolver, who on earth wrote this rubbish? Twobells (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What on earth is this nonsense? 

message: I’m deleting this section for the following:
1: Numerous users have noted in talk and edit summaries that it is flawed.
2: It quotes statistics from entirely primary sources (WP:PRIMARY) and therefore constitutes original research (WP:OR)
3: It is clearly biased against gun control (WP:NPOV). 
4: The stats quoted are not comparable. The office of national statistics (the only source used in this section) changed their recording practices in 1998 and in 2002: they explicitly state that they do not compare current crime levels with those prior to March 2003 for this reason (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/methodologies/crimeinenglandandwalesqmi). Not only does this invalidate the section, but clearly shows that it is OR as no reliable source would attempt to compare the two figures.
 
There is zero merit in retaining this section in its current form. This is the worst sort of content in wikipedia: the stuff that superficially seems reliable is what gives this place a bad name. If properly sourced and neutrally written, such a section would be a very good addition to the article, but for now I cannot see any good reason to keep it. John wiki: If you have a problem, don't mess with my puppy... 20:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gun crime after the ban - removal