Firstly, these commenters are much more polite than I'd care to be....I was going to say some very ugly things about this article, but I think I'll down-shift just a bit as I think I have a pretty good name here, and I'd like to keep it that way. Although I own 1 small-caliber rifle, I AM NOT A BIG PRO-GUN PERSON....I want to make that clear. I am a social worker, and I think that the loosey-goosey access to guns we have in America needs to be looked at VERY CAREFULLY.

To re-focus on the article, this is a clear representation of the mindset that says, "Volume of words adds value to the article." This is actually NOT A NEWSWORTHY ARTICLE. It's a bunch of factual statements glued together to create a high volume of print on the screen. Gobs of people kill themselves each week in the US; the fact that 14 in ONE SPECIFIC WEEK were gun-related means very little. I'd bet 37 people this week suffered a scraped knee due to cracks in the sidewalk, or maybe 26 people suffered a strained shoulder due to extra-tight lug nuts while changing a flat. This article's focus on "14" provides no other data to help triangulate meaning/value within the topic (a sure sign that a non social-sciences person wrote this article). This is yellow journalism at its finest and is an embarrassment to this project.

Bddpaux (talk)15:33, 4 February 2013

Yes, this article fails on an inseparable mix of the newsworthiness and neutrality criteria. I believe the reporter and the reviewer are both aware, and both feel bad about it; nobody set out to produce an article with basic problems.

Pi zero (talk)20:28, 5 February 2013