This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Firearms Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: Gun politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Gun politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

At risk of opening a can of worms, I believe a non-expert would find this article confusing and disjointed. It is largely accurate but extremely jumbled up with substantial duplication and repetition of content. The opening paragraph notes that there has only been one spree shooting since Dunblane. Why is Dunblane the "marker"? Is Hungerford not relevant? Surely it makes more sense to simply state there have been three spree shootings in the UK rather than mentioning two and excluding the third!

The "Legal classification" section makes absolutely no mention of the actual legal classifications (Sections 1, 2, 5, 7, etc) except a reference to Section 1 Shotguns. It lists "Pistols" and "Target Pistols" separately, neither sitting below "Prohibited Firearms". For actual legal classifications you have to go down to "Licensing", which is bit of a wall-of-text.

Furthermore, there are five (five!) sections for further reading - See Also; Notes (which should be "References"); References (which is just 4 books which are relevant, but not actually cited in the article itself) and Legislation which has a subsection "Acts of Parliament" which includes SIs and things which are not Acts! External Links then lists BASC, UKPSA and the Met which also seems inconsistent. If we're linking out to the Met, should it not also include Police Scotland, PSNI and the others 50 territorial forces? If we're linking to BASC, then not also to NRA, NSRA, CPSA? I note that many references link to statements on Police licensing websites which more properly could all simply use one reference to the Home Office Guide to Police on Firearms Licensing.

Probably the most structured part is "Firearms Legislation" which just discusses each Act in order and is quite accessible (albeit incomplete - no PAC17 or OWB19). I would submit that the article needs a restructure and dedupe that clearly lays out the basic law and classifies what goes where, as well as rationalising the references, intra-wiki and external links. However, as there are different ways of doing this (e.g. Sec 1/2/5/7 with discussions of firearms within, or by firearm type with explicit mention of relevant certificates, etc) so am soliciting community feedback before making any major structural changes.

I propose:

"Impact" is supposed to be a summary/overview. It should be removed and the non-duplicative content bundled into the top/introductory section. It should probably be less than half the length it is.

""Legal Classification" and "Licensing" be merged to give a clear and accessible description/guide the legal classification of firearms and where they sit in licensing terms (which are largely conjoined descriptions). This is probably the most tricky section as to Law-first or Firearms-first (are the sub-headers doing to be Rifle/Pistol/Shotgun or Sec 1/2/5/7)? This is presumably why the two sections exist independently, but at the expense of duplication and risk of contradiction.

"Notes" becomes "References" (in common with most articles) and the four books in "References" be cited if relevant to article content or dropped if not. Question: The FA1968 legislation.gov.uk page is cited at least 5 times in the references - to different sections. Is this optimal or should there be a single FA1968 Ref with the relevant Section specified in the article or using RefPage tags?

Citations to Legislation should be included in a "Legislation" Group of references, which could obsolete the External Legislation links

Hemmers (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, it's very confusing in parts. I'll try and make changes here and then when I am able too. Let me know what you think of my progress. Rotation4020 (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. I find the article structure of this too confusing, but I'm not feeling bold enough to edit such a controversial article. On your first proposal, I think both "Impact and "Summary" should be bundled into the Lead. JAYFAX (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, there seems to also be numerous gramatical errors/inconsistencies related to ammunition being called "many a firearms round" DannyDouble (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SlinkyGlide: in case you were confused, this is the place where you can tell us about the reliable sources you used for your content if you're having trouble figuring out in-line citations. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I work with a man who is on strong medication and has been on the sick for mental health issues and is very much passive aggressive and a good story teller and has issues with a couple of other people and he holds a shot gun license I am worried 2A02:C7C:7059:D200:D993:EF39:70A2:BDAF (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone be opposed to a section on obsolete calibres and exceptions to the law where firearm ownership regulations is more lax or absent? - MountainKemono (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2024 and 16 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Raaid Hussain (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]