Talk:Gun politics in the United States/Archive 2

Interesting Toronto Star article on gun bans and gun crime

There is an interesting Toronto Star article that I thought could serve as a useful secondary source and a useful reference to primary sources in this article, and other articles related to violent crime. I am not really involved in this page, but I offer it to whoever wants to use it: A look beyond the handgun ban - Murray Whyte Apr 27, 2008. Topics covered include:

• Toronto's proposed handgun ban
• Chicago's existing bans on handguns and assault weapons
• Gang violence in Chicago
• Homicides and social interventions to prevent homicides from happening

kevinp2 (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about the effectiveness of Project Safe Neighborhoods in Chicago. I am not sure this is topical to the 'politics' of gun control, though I guess that the fact that the Cato Institute has advocated[1] politically to defund the program makes it on topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Notable individuals

Delete this entirely? This list is quite arbitrary. If these people can be worked into the main text, great, otherwise, I think it should go.--Cubic Hour (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be a list of lists. I think it should go, too. Yaf (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I have never liked that section much. It doesn't add meaningfully to the article; lose it. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 21:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Yaf (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Gun culture

Anyone care to justify why the section on gun culture in this article should be as long as the main Gun culture article itself? It seems jingoistic and irrelevant to me. --Cubic Hour (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

it could probably stand to be trimmed down. note, "trimmed down" != "take a meataxe to it". Anastrophe (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm in favor of meat-axing this section. --Cubic Hour (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

please don't. try editing cooperatively. "I don't like it" isn't a valid rationale for deleting an entire section. it is relevant to the article. it may be overlong. with effort it can be made shorter. Anastrophe (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Your initial response makes it look like that's not really possible. For the time being, I'll be following WP:BB--Cubic Hour (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Gun culture is hugely important to the politics of guns. Based on reading reliable sourcing I have learned that: perhaps the largest difference between the opposing sides of the political debate is that the 'pro-gun' side places a high value on the beneficial qualities of gun culture on society, and the 'pro-control' side does not. This premise and disagreement; that 'an armed citizenry' is good for society, or is not good for society, is at the heart of the topic of this article, and also a fundamental premise of gun culture. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

But why make it such a large section, in an already overly long article, when there's already a large article on it's own? This article should discuss how gun culture relates to the politics, not simply give an overview of gun culture.--Cubic Hour (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, because 'gun culture' is perhaps the largest difference at the core between the opposing sides of this political debate. Therefore it deserves prominence. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As it stands though, this section is essentially guilty of WP:SYN, as I was when I attempted to counter it. If you want to make the argument that gun culture is important to the politics of guns, that can be made in a sentence or two, from a referenced source, and then providing a link to the main Gun culture section. SaltyBoatr mentioned "Based on reading reliable sourcing I have learned that: perhaps the largest difference between the opposing sides of the political debate is that the 'pro-gun' side places a high value on the beneficial qualities of gun culture on society..." Why not just mention these reliable sources, say what they say, and then reference the main article? For example, how can the statement that "The origins of American gun culture trace back to the revolutionary war, hunting/sporting ethos and the militia/frontier ethos that draw from the country's early history," possibly be relevant to the article, unless it's synthesized into something larger than itself? It may very well be important, but simply giving a history of gun culture, and then justifying it because the culture influences the politics, is synthesis. --Cubic Hour (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Political arguments section

Am not quite sure why this section is in this article; it doesn't seem to fit, but would perhaps best be spun off into its own article. Before doing this, since it would be a major change, I am looking for comments from other editors on their position on this. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If no one objects, I plan to break out the political arguments section into a new article, Political arguments of gun politics in the United States in the next day or two, leaving a "main article" link in a greatly shortened paragraph in this article (the Gun politics in the United States article). This splitting out of a standalone section will address the problem with the too-long length of the present article, while also moving content out that is not directly related to gun politics. Comments? Yaf (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be enough material to support a stand-alone article on the subject, and the current article is very long. I say go for it. The worst that can happen is that it doesn't work and gets merged back in, and it might just turn out to be a fine article on its own. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 18:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm all for shortening this article. My only weak objection is to the title of the new one, as it's a bit unwieldy. I don't have a better suggestion... but perhaps someone else does.--Cubic Hour (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Yaf (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain why this http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm link keeps vanishing? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.214.46 (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Confusing and Contradictory

"For the last several decades, this debate has been characterized by stalemate between an organized outspoken MINORITY that believes in an individual RIGHT to firearms and an ambivalent majority that believes in the duty of government to legislate gun laws to prevent crime and maintain order.[2][3] Repeated polling has found that a MAJORITY of Americans believe that they have a RIGHT to own a gun[4][5]"

so um, is individual right different from just a right to own? or does the article (and sources) just contradict itself? or does it mean that even though most americans believe there is a right to own a gun, many of them do not participate in the debate? in which case the ambivalent majority part is deceptive. I think this needs a re-write or something to make the point more clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.218.97 (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

the current lede is FUBAR. it consists of a number of cited assertions - yet those citations are used only in the lede. that spells trouble - it means that assertions are being made in the lede that aren't similarly asserted within the body, where they would use the same citations. this needs to be reworded, and reworked. Anastrophe (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

having just done some copyediting (not the lede though), i'm realizing just what a mess this article is. arguments are stated, restated, restated yet again, restated just for good measure, and yet again restated - all in different contexts, often absurdely placed. for example, more than halfway into the article, well after discussion of the second amendment under 'political arguments', thrust into a section on 'firearm deaths' under 'public policy arguments', is the line "Those supportive of long-standing rights to keep and bear arms point to the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which some interpret as specifically preventing infringement of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms". sheesh! no shit! i could have sworn i just read about that several paragraphs previously. this is the downside to 'collaborative editing' - where it turns into a patchwork quilt of sections that barely take note of the other content of the article. hey, i'm just as guilty of that as any - i can't say that i've read this article from top to bottom in one sitting myself. but this is ridiculous. Anastrophe (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks to whoever rewrote / reworded the intro. it reads much better and clearer now. 172.131.20.93 (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV issues remaining

After breaking out the Political arguments of gun politics in the United States article from this article, I had removed the {{POV}} tagline from this article with the caveat that if anyone thought there were still any POV problems to add the tagline back. I see SaltyBoatr has added this tagline back. What are the issues remaining with the article now, what with the bulk of the political arguments removed? Thanks. Yaf (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

After addressing the Parker case POV issues, have removed the tagline. If anyone still sees a problem, please re-tag article and leave a comment on the talk page as to what the issue(s) is(are). Thanks. Yaf (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

teen attitudes on guns graph

A study of teenage attitude about guns found an overwhelming majority opposed to more guns in society.

why was this added? why are the opinions of teenagers at all relevant? teenagers probably think miley cyrus should be president, that doesn't make their opinions useful in the realm of presidential politics. what's next, a graph showing the attitudes of the under-five age group? all that aside: where are teenage attitudes regarding guns discussed in this article? oh, that's right. nowhere. teenagers aren't active participants in political discourse, because they are not adults able to vote, nor are they fully conferred the rights codified within the constitution. furthermore, this opinion survey appears to be rather flawed, in that it uses a sampling that appears likely to return a desired outcome ("Based on their study of 752 seventh-graders and 440 tenth-graders in twelve different inner city schools in two large cities in the Northeast and the Midwest."). so, rural seventh graders don't have opinions as valid as those of inner-city kids? sorry, this is junk. please remove. Anastrophe (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is data comes from from solid reliable sourcing and opinions like this are on topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

where in the article are teen attitudes regarding guns discussed? nowhere. you're just dumping an opinion piece into the article with no rationale for its inclusion. as it stands, your self-made graph includes no data with which to judge whether it is an accurate representation. Anastrophe (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That, and the demographic group on which it is based is extremely limited. Seventh- and tenth- graders from inner-city schools in just a dozen cities is a very specific group; hardly representative of the wider category "teens" to which the graph is currently attributed. As it is, it is misleading, it is unrelated to the topic where it appears, it does not display any solid statistics, and its notability has not been established in the first place. This graph has no place in the article. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 22:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is a very specific group, tested with sound statistical methods. Why is that a problem? The section is about 'political divides', so studies of specific groups makes sense.

But, elsewhere in the article when another very specific group "gun owners' self-reporting"[2][3]favoring guns is not a problem? Statistical analysis based on self reporting samples is widely viewed as non-scientific, but that appears OK to the majority of editors of this article. The obvious question is: Does the pro-gun results of the study of 'self-reporting' sample meet our standards for inclusion? What statistical standard are we using, and is it applied evenly for pro-gun and non-pro-gun statistical studies? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you did not seem to understand what I was saying before, let me make this clear: the single biggest problem I have with this graph is that it says teens feel this way, when the actual group which was surveyed was a very narrow demographic within the wider group of people called teenagers.

Studies of specific groups are common, but it is statistically unsound to claim that the opinion of a tested subgroup with attributes which are not shared by the entire population is representative of the population as a whole. You cannot calculate the president's national job approval rating by polling twelve people on the same bus headed to an anti-war rally; likewise, you cannot attribute the opinion of teenagers from this very specific background to teenagers in general. Do teenagers who do not live in inner-city environments share these opinions? Suburban teens? Rural teens? Pacific, mountain, central? Ninth graders? The only group represented in the data behind this chart is inner-city teenagers from a small number of cities in only two grades, but through the chart's wording it is implied that every teenager in America feels the same way when data does not exist so support this. Around here we have a term for that. It's called synthesis of fact.

Beyond that I fail to see how this graph can be called "sound" when it doesn't even display numbers. Regardless of if the study behind it was sound, that is not conveyed by the chart. I do not care if other stuff exists or if you happen to like the chart; the simple fact is that this chart was very poorly developed and has absolutely no place here. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This researcher clearly meets WP:V standards. Is that in dispute? This researcher has studied and identified attitudes about guns in a segment of society. Agreed? I have provided a link to the source of the data, a law journal, which is undoubtedly a solid reliable source. The topic at hand in that section is "political divides" and the chart does an excellent job contrasting that this divide between segments of society is wide, and spans a wide spectrum of society. Certainly, the opinion of urban teens as a legitimate segment of society has worth. The sample size of the study, about 800, meets normal statistical standards.

The absence of your complaint to the Concealed Carry animated graph[4], which genuinely has WP:V problems using a dubious source (the Radical Gun Nuttery web blog of Jeffrey C. Dege), raises a question: Why do you only have pointed complaints about one graph and not the other? The appearance for Jc-S0CO is that you may have a skewed tendency to oppose content which is not pro-gun in the article. In the case of Anastrophe, he has already stated bluntly that he opposes having the gun rights POV slowly whittled away by some editors, and Anastrophe continues his POV agenda in this recent pattern of edits. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

this article is about gun politics, not attitudes towards guns. the survey suffers badly from biased selection - please explain why only urban, inner-city teens have valid opinions about guns? why are the opinions of teens relevant, but no mention is found of the degree to which adults or children like or dislike guns? as i pointed out before, this is a self-made graph that does not identify the values that go along with the portions of the pie graph. it's nice that you point us to a book for the raw data, but since there are exactly three values of response, it strikes me as odd that you had no space to include the actual percentages and numbers that were used.

but again, i return to the fundamental issues i pointed out before. this article is about gun politics. the question of whether teens like or dislike guns isn't germane to this article, particularly since nowhere in the article are teens even discussed. try finding some relevant data to insert into the article. Anastrophe (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The insertion of the teen research graph is just an example of WP:POINT. I don't see the need for an irrelevant graphic unrelated to the article, with an extremely specific point, in an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. It doesn't belong in this article. (On the other hand, properly cited, the graphic on the right to carry progression across America does belong, representing a major shift in gun politics in the US.) My $0.02. Yaf (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

offensive image removed

i removed the cover illustration of 'redneck rampage' or whatever it's called. it is a classic, offensive stereotype; it is unencyclopedic to use offensive stereotypes to illustrate this article. it would be an appropriate illustration for an article on Stereotypes of gun owners or Stereotypes of rural american poor people or some such. Anastrophe (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Find me a policy that says that we can't mention negative stereotypes? Especially in a discussion of popular culture? As of now, the section is heavily biased towards glorifying guns.--Cubic Hour (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

the image doesn't constitute "discussion". your text only barely constitutes 'discussion'. a discussion of negative stereotypes would explore why the images and stereotypes are considered offensive, why they are inaccurate (as all stereotypes and generalizations are), why why they're considered hurtful. just as a similar discussion would accompany offensive stereotypes of asians, or dimunitive people, women's basketball teams. discussion is appropriate, merely dumping examples of negative stereotypes into the article is quite another, and will never fly. it would appear you favor negative stereotypes of gun owners. that's fine, but your personal preferences don't merit inclusion in an article about gun politics. Anastrophe (talk) 06:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's offensive or not is purely POV. --Cubic Hour (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And it's no more or less relevant than the rest of this gun culture section, which is pretty much a macho, rah rah guns piece. The whole section should be "meat-axed," or it should be balanced.--Cubic Hour (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Extrapolating the existence of one Jeff Foxworthy joke regarding guns as being a recurring topic of redneck humor -- to a general statement regarding redneck humor -- is not indicative of anything; it is Original Research. Likewise, for using an image of a video game that has a picture of a double barreled shotgun on the cover and somehow equating to a general statement; it is Original Research to make any claim for it representing anything. Have removed the Original Research. Yaf (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The following sentence is "In popular literature, frontier adventure was most famously told by James Fenimore Cooper, who is credited with creating archetype of the 18th-century frontiersman through such novels as "The Last of the Mohicans" (1826) and "The Deerslayer" (1840).[20]" how is that any less "original research" than "Guns have appeared in popular culture as an integral part of the humorous "redneck" stereotype, such as in the well-known comedy of Jeff Foxworthy [20] and the video game "Redneck Rampage."[21]"--Cubic Hour (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

By the fact that the cited source for the James Fenimore Cooper makes the claim, and an editor is not making the claim. It is a violation of WP:SYN and WP:NOR to equate the existence of one Jeff Foxworthy joke to a generalization about an entire culture. Indicative yes, but it definitely is a problem to then extrapolate the existence of one joke to an entire culture. The cited source doesn't support the statement that is being made. As for the existence of one joke, that proves nothing, other than that it exists. Perhaps it is appropriate in a Jeff Foxworthy article to include guns as one topic that he jokes about, but it is not appropriate to make a wide generalization on the basis of one joke. Have removed content in violation of WP:NOR and WP:SYN. Yaf (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

when discussing the culture of a group on wikipedia, i'm not aware of any articles that glorify negative stereotypes of those groups. African american culture, Culture of China, Culture of Iraq, Culture of the Netherlands, and on and on - none even discuss the misperceptions of those ignorant of that group's culture. again, you've made it clear that you fall into the column of those people who believe the negative stereotypes of gun owners, and wish to push your bigotry for that group into the article. i would recommend however that you consider creating an article on Stereotypes of gun owners or some such, in which this matter can be discussed appropriately and neutrally. i'd like an opportunity to address these negative stereotypes formally. stereotypes are expressions of ignorance, so an article on stereotypes about gun owners could go a long way towards explaining and perhaps dispelling that ignorance. Anastrophe (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As for Yaf's comment though, I read WP:SYN, and I'll find better citations before reinserting those points. Anastrophe's comment is laughably ironic, but otherwise not worthy of response.--Cubic Hour (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

right, because clearly articulate rebuttal to your claims is too hard to counter. cubic hour dropped the following bon mot on my talk page:

"Redneck (stereotype). Enjoy, buddy --Cubic Hour (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)"

the intellectual depth and rigor of discourse speaks for itself. you know, when white trash on wikipedia dump offensive stereotypes into the many articles about african americans, nobody bats an eyelash when they are reverted, usually as vandals. why should identical behavior be tolerated here? Anastrophe (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You said, "i'd like an opportunity to address these negative stereotypes formally." I posted a link on your talk page (a more appropriate location than here) for you to do exactly that. Calm down, big guy. Thanks for complementing my "intellectual depth" though! I really feel better about myself now. --Cubic Hour (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Redneck != gun culture. apparently it does need to be spelled out for you. and no, your bon mot belonged here, where the discussion is. i have no desire to have one-on-one discussion with you, or for that matter, any editors. wikipedia is not a social network. Anastrophe (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

oh, and a correction, since i failed to include the full characterization - here's the whole bon mot:

Yee haw!

Redneck (stereotype). Enjoy, buddy --Cubic Hour (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

again, the quality of discourse should speak for itself. Anastrophe (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] To at least briefly return to the point: The justification for a gun culture section as I understand it, is that it somehow helps to understand the politics; i.e., the romanticized version of the history of gun use in America (noble frontiersman taming the west, etc) partly explains present political leaning. Likewise though, negative stereotypes of historical and present gun use can help explain the leanings of many Americans against guns (images of "rednecks" in popular culture are common, and strongly conflated with gun use, at least outside of the South). However, this section is currently being edited such that all negative stereotypes must be properly cited, and conform to all policies, or be subject to immediate deletion. Positive stereotypes must only be tagged though; they can't be removed without discussion.--Cubic Hour (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

i have no opposition to inclusion of material discussing the stereotypes appropriately. dumping offensive images into the article, and citing a stupid joke on a site that doesn't qualify as a reliable source (nor was the joke itself a reliable example, since it was user-submitted), is not encyclopedic. Anastrophe (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Trying to rise above the personal opinion dust, what is the difference between mentioning 'The Last of the Mohicans' versus 'Redneck Rampage'? Policy based answers please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Giving it a quick 'google books' test[5], there does appear to be reliable sourcing that discusses video game violence in context of gun culture. Ditto for 'The Last of the Mohicans'[6] In short, they appear similar in priciple, and if one is included, why not the other? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Because video game violence != redneck rampage and redneck rampage != video game violence? Of course there are books that discuss video game violence as related to gun violence and gun culture, however i dont think that redneck rampage is a big part of the discussion. If you go up to any person on the street and ask them what the first game they think of when you say video game violence is, and i bet they answer GTA or doom. I doubt anybody would answer redneck rampage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.125.89 (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Colddead-fp.jpg

The image Image:Colddead-fp.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

21st Century

There is apparently a dispute about whether the NRA supported weaker background checks in acquiring firearms. I found [this site. Anyone have more information regarding this? I put a citation needed tag in there. Until there is definitive proof either way, I think it should remain. -Neutralman1024 (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the change before i saw this talk page post. In any event, the prior version was self-contradictory. The sentence claimed that the NRA supported weaker requirements while simulaneously support improvements. Which is it? The NRA is generally pretty clear about what they support or oppose, so this shouldn't be to hard to source either way. Dman727 (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The way I read the sentence was that the NRA originally supported weaker background checks. The source I posted here indicates only support for the 2007 amendments. -Neutralman1024 (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Its quite possible that there may have been different positions on different bills at different times in the past. If thats the case that should be spelled out and sourced. In its previous incarnation it was certainly confusing at best. Dman727 (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Types of firearms section

I removed this section, as it read more like a technical brief than something relevant to the politics.--Cubic Hour (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

it's fundamental to a discussion of the issue of gun politics in the united states. material restored. Anastrophe (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Why?--Cubic Hour (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

have you bothered to actually read the material you deleted? it goes into depth about why the types of firearms are relevant. Anastrophe (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The sarcasm isn't helpful, son. Any grown ups here care to comment?--Cubic Hour (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

have you bothered to actually read the material you deleted? please answer. your own sarcasm isn't helpful either. Anastrophe (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have learned from reading books about this topic that in the last century, the politics of guns in the US has revolved around the types of guns, both on the 'gun rights' side, with a special emphasis on the beneficial culture of hunting with long guns, and the heroic imagery of creating a country with militia rifles and 'taming the West' with revolvers; and on the 'gun control' side with episodic public outrages based on perceptions of crime involving the so called 'Saturday Night Special' handguns (coming from media reports of Urban crime), from the 'Tommy Gun' (from media reports of gangsters), and from 'gang bangers' (again, filtered through media). These public perceptions focus on types of guns, which mold the political forces. Therefore a section on 'types of firearems' makes perfect sense in this article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

which is all explained within the material Cubic Hour deleted, obviously without having read it.Anastrophe (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Anastrophe, please read up on WP:NPA. Thanks. --Cubic Hour (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

likewise. ("any grown ups care to comment?"). Anastrophe (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that if both salty and anastrophe are agreeing on something that ought to be included in the article that it pretty much SHOULD be, unless the person disagreeing has a very valid and compelling argument. 172.164.21.62 (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone reviewed this claim in the second paragraph of this seciton?

Recently, however, Automatic-weapons post-dating 1986 have been legalized in some states such as Kansas.[57]

the Article sited in reference 57 mentions that Kansas has made buying automatic weapons legal in the state, but says nothing about post dating. DarthZeth (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I put that one in... I live in Kansas and there are newly made Automatic Weapons for sale at a gun shop a few miles away from me. I assumed the source was good enough, I can find another few if needed. --208.66.88.147 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC) --Joseph Leito (talk)

I think it would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.188.132 (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems Biased..

In the Gun-Culture Section it says "Less than half of gun owners say that the primary reason they own a gun is for self-protection against crime, reflecting a popularity of hunting and sport-shooting among gun owners." So if i do a poll right now with 10,000 people and it says just the oppisite can we put that in there too? ChesterTheWorm (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm

No, not if you do your own poll, because that would be original research. But if you find a poll that's been published in a reliable source, and you cite that as a reference, then please do add it to the article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The introduction makes no mention that gun control is part of gun politics? Neither does the introduction say that Heller reaffirmed the Constitutionality of a broad spectrum of governmental firearm bans and regulations. This seems to reflect a POV bias problem, comments? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not a POV bias problem. No POV tagline is needed. That said, if you feel that the neutrality would be improved through including mention of these topics, then by all means, you should add content to this article. Yaf (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Target Shooting" Photo

The photo of the young girl firing the revolver at the top of the page looks a little ridiculous. She clearly has a bad stance for the revolver to be almost flying out of her hand, and I feel that it's not a very neutral photo. Why not one of an individual who actually knows how to shoot properly? I could be overreacting, this is a sensitive subject for me, but does anyone else agree? Carnefice (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is not a very good photo, and it should be replaced. Let's see if we can find another. --Hamitr (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me for handling a .500 Smith in full recoil. The shooter is handling it quite well, considering what it is. Such is a common sight across the southeastern US, Arkansas, Wyoming and Arizona, among many other places. The caption definitely needed changing, though, to explain what is happening. Otherwise, the photo won't make sense to anyone who hasn't fired one of these, or to anyone that has no experience with large bore revolvers. Relative to, say, shooting a .22 revolver, it does look odd. With the right caption, it makes a lot more sense. Yaf (talk) 06:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQz-w0uiJq8 is a video of someone shooting a revolver like that (somewhat) properly. The caption on there is totally wrong and misrepresents target shooting - someone handing an inexperienced shooter a S&W 500 isn't the norm. R.westermeyer (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

I know this has probably already been raised, but if Article I Section 8 Clause 1 of the Constitution already provides for the arming of the militia, why would the Second Amendment be needed for that purpose? Soxwon (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent question. The difference is that Article I pertains to Congress. The 2d amendment was designed to allow the states to arm their own militias to protect against an overbearing federal government. The issue, however, is whether the right secured an individual right to gun ownership or just a collective right one based on joining or being a part of the militia. District of Columbia v. Heller is the first U.S. Supreme Court decision to address that issue. It's a good read. I would also suggest tracking down the lower court decisions too. — Neutralman2¹⁰ 00:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Second Ammendment Argument

Under "Political arguments"

The argument that the right to keep and bear Arms for self defense or preventing crime against criminals is misleading in this day and age. The Constitution was written to limit the power of the government. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms is to prevent the government from being too powerful and infringe on the people's rights. The right to keep and bear Arms is essential to a "FREE state", the main reason why it's part of the Bill Of Rights. The Constitution wasn't written to give people rights, because inalienable rights are rights that are natural. The Constitution was written to keep the government from being a totalitarianism government and the rights to keep and bear Arms is part of the Constitution for this very reason. Please read the Second Ammendment word by word and you'll see:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a FREE state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Please remember to sign your posts! A well regulated(both in discipline and being well trained) Militia put too much power into the hands of a few. And while it's necessary (it's evil), it is a double edged sword. Therefore "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" was/is necessary to protect our Liberty from those in power. If a Military isn't necessary to protect the states, then our forefathers would have prohibit it, because it would be too dangerous to Liberty. The whole reason for the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, as you see, is for protection against those who control the military.

While self defense is a plausible argument, it is too broad. Small crime pales in comparison to the astrosity committed by those like Stalin/Hitler. ent through Please discuss this so it can be improved before becoming a part of the content. I know you guys spent a lot of time writing it so I don't want to mess it up. This is really important and should be the main point in any gun control argument. Thank you.

While I agree that the driving motive behind second amendment was about curtailing the power and potential abuses of any government who had exclusive use of arms, your interpretation of the militia is odd. A militia a defence force of the epople and in contrast to the agencies and standing armies of government was formed from the civilians in that community and acted as its means of self defence against attack or tyannny in a FREE state. The ammendment recognised the role of suich militia and the need for citizens to have arms in order to form such bodies. "Well regulated" of course meant that there existance should also opperate within some framework of order and not be a mob outfir. While other reaons to for citizens to bear amrs may well have been in the minds of the authors, the only one given is the text is that of forming militias. Having said that, the reason as such is not presented as a condition and the right to bear arms is a consitutiional fact unless change is made (rightly or wrongly depending on your stance) and the "whys and wherefores" behind the ammendment merely accademic. Dainamo (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

=======================

Thank you for drawing my attention to my generalization of militia as "army". It was not intentional and I will have to spend a lot more time on history to actually understand the true original meaning. However the Constitution was drawn up for one purpose, and that purpose is to limit the power of the government. Here's a quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"When people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

Here's a Benjamin Franklin quote:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

And it is the same argument for gun control. Gun control is suppose to make us "safer". So are we suppose to trade our liberty for a little temporary safety?

The Constitution was wrote to limit the power of the government. The forefathers were still not happy and they wrote the Bill of Rights to explicitly protect the rights of the people. And they weren't even happy with the Bill of Rights, that's why the 9th amendment states that the Bill of Rights doesn't make it okay for the government or anyone else to violate other rights.

Thomas Jefferson: "Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operation, perverted it into tyranny." ---- This is exactly what's happening as our property rights, free speech,...etc. are being slowly taken away from the people.

George Washington: "It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition that he may abuse it." ---- So we are going to take the people's natural right to defend because the people may abuse it?? We should instead be enforcing the law to make sure that people don't violate other people's rights.

James Madison: "The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instrument of tyranny at home. If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." ---- Wow, did he predict the War against Terror, The Department of Home Land Security and the Patriot Act? Better yet, did we learn nothing from how Hitler rise to power? Yes, Hitler created the Department of Home Land Security in Germany, we just copy him. I'm not saying that the people work for these departments are Tyrants, I'm saying that these are instruments that can be easily abused by Tyrants. We are creating fertile grounds for Tyranny to grow.

Thomas Paine: "That government is best that governs least" ---- But now what do we see, the government virtually controls everything we do in our daily lives. Why is that? They made the law of the land so complicated that no one can even hope to read through it not to mention hope to understand it.

The law should be simple like the forefathers pointed out. We have the inalienable rights, and the government is just there to protect those rights. We don't need more laws and control from the government. The number one cause of violence is poverty, and poverty stems from big budget government taxing the people.

Thomas Paine: "It is the duty of the Patriot to Protect his country from its government." ---- I will admit that I'm not educated at all in the area of history. But I'm floored to find out once I delved into it is that we are not in danger because of the Middle East or the regular gun toting thugs. We are being put under the illusion that we can be kept safe from everything. We can be kept safe from getting fat, ugly, old, diseases, injuries by pumping our body full of drugs. We can be kept safe from foreign invasion/terrorism by having our army in every part of the world. We can be kept safe from thugs giving up our rights of gun ownership. I was for gun control and I never owned a gun, but I've learned that what I believe in doesn't mean I have the right to take other people's rights away.

Now, I'm not blasting everyone who is for "gun control". They have the right to voice their opinions and I'm sure the majority of the people have good intentions. However, I don't think they realize the danger of Tyranny would dwarfs the danger of some psychopaths occasional killing spree. Think Stalin (at least 20 millions killed, some said more than 60 millions). Think Hitler. I welcome any opposing views as well as criticisms. I hope the results of this discussion would be portray fairly on the main page. Wikipedia is a wonderful platform, but I've seen too many abuses because relevant and basic information being left out.

1994 AWB inconsistency

The article currently states " ... enacted the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which banned the purchase, sale, or transfer of any weapon specifically named in the act ... " - this is incorrect. The AWB banned only the sale of *new* firearms, after the law took effect, from federally licensed dealers. Used "pre-ban" rifles were available during this period, from both private parties and licensed dealers. Lwsimon (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

Good job neutering the article. Comparing it to the March version, we have far fewer facts and citations especially in the pro gun rights parts of the article.

Whoever is the politically motivated censor - good job. You are a credit to the kinds of fools that are ruining Wikipedia.

I'm going to revert about 500 changes in this article in the next few days, putting back in all the information which was deleted.

The link to http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm keeps vanishing, which really needs to stop. I'm bored of repopulating it, and when the side in favor of gun control admits that Gun Control has never worked in the US, it's worth noting. Congrats to whoever has censored it, it demonstrates an impressive dedication to eliminating guns no matter the cost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.219.35 (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The NAS 2004 review on firearms and violence also came to the conclusion that no gun control policy had a measurable impact on violent crime, same as CDC 2003 and same as the conclusion in Chapter 13 of James D. Wright, Peter Rossi, Kathleen Daly, Under the Gun, Aldine 1983, the book publication of a study on weapons, crime and violence in America commissioned by the Carter Administration (scarcely known for being pro-gun). The polarized nature of gun control and the blind faith in a priori positions is one reason why "reasonable" and "gun control" do not belong in the same sentence. Naaman Brown (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of Polls

The introductory paragraph presents the results of three different polls, taken at widely different times by different organizations with different methodology, as a current and singular snapshot of American public opinion. That is an incorrect, invalid and misleading use of poll results. Additionally, one of the polls reported in the article as showing a drop in support for new gun laws actually reported on gender differences in such responses--another misuse. 76.23.157.102 (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The headline Gun Poll: Men, women differ widely in gun control poll was highlighting just one of the findings in that poll. The telephone survey of 1,026 people was taken Aug. 27-31 2000 by ICR of Media, Pa., found 56 percent of American adults favored stricter gun laws and 39 percent opposed. It also included break downs by male, female, Democrat, Republican. The headline writer emphasised the attention "grabber" and is not representative of the poll results. It helps to read past headlines. (The linked summary of the poll, while not clearly dated, mentions VP Al Gore and TX Gov George W. Bush.) Naaman Brown (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Gun laws and un-known weapons

someone can make a gun/gun like weapon to avoid laws. A rail driver is only a rail gun when you call it a gun there are so many loop holes Dudtz 8/25/05 6:14 PM EST

Someone cannot mass produce guns so easily. User:unknown

As a person who owns a small gun manufacturer, I'll tell you the machinery required to manufacture guns can be obtained via a signature loan, and the plans required are freely available on the internet.

Khyber Pass Copy anyone? Some American reporters, who had supported gun bans before covering the Afghan war, reported they changed their minds after seeing how easy it is to make guns and ammunition in one room workhops. Naaman Brown (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Bad Statistics

Kruschke states, however, regarding the fully automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the United States, that "approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime." This needs to be corrected, IIRC there is at least one incident where a police officer used a legally registered machine gun to commit a murder. On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.239.86.1 (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

True, and IIRC there is also one instance of a doctor who used a machine gun. However the police murderer is not really an argument *for* gun control, so it tends to get ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.219.35 (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

This article Gun violence in the United States contains a great deal of redundant information with Gun politics in the United States.
An even greater concern is that the title and/or existence of the first article seems to be pushing a political view.
Even if the individial sections are balanced, the article in its entirety presents all the information with a distinctive slant and therefore engages in the debate rather than reports on it, the non-redundant information contained in it would be better presented by moving it to Gun politics in the United States.

Let the discussion begin. DesertPhox (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

DC gun law

From:http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/State/State.aspx?st=dc POSSESSION

Rifles and Shotguns

All rifles and shotguns must be registered with the Metropolitan Police. To obtain a registration certificate, the applicant must be 21 years old (or be over 18 and have a liability statement signed by his guardian), pass a vision test or have a valid D.C. driver`s license, and not be:

  1. Convicted of a crime of violence or a weapons offense.
  2. Under indictment for a crime of violence.
  3. Convicted of a narcotics or an assault or battery charge within the last five years.
  4. Acquitted of a crime by reason of insanity or adjudicated an alcoholic within the past five years.
  5. Committed to a mental hospital within the past five years.
  6. Suffering from a physical defect which might render his possession of a gun unsafe.
  7. Found negligent in any firearm mishap.

Why would an 18 year old have a guardian? Dudtz 10/15/06

See Legal guardian. For an 18 to 20 year old to buy a long gun in DC, their legal guardian (whoever is legally responsible for them, usually their parents) must sign for them. Search saves many questions. Naaman Brown (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Fort Hood shooting

This comment was removed from the discussion section on the recent Fort Hood shooting episode, with a note from the censor that it's more pertinent to the gun control debate. Maybe so.
It should be noted that as the "Reactions" section of the Fort Hood shooting article presently stands, it is clear that in spite of policy to the effect that "Neither military-issued nor personal weapons may be carried about the base by typical soldiers" and "personal weapons must be kept locked away by the provost marshal," these measures did nothing to prevent the alleged shooter from bringing two personal handguns onto the base, his pockets crammed full of loaded magazines.
Turning Fort Hood into a gun-free zone simply made it into a target-rich environment. If there's any place on the planet where people ought to be capable of minimizing their vulnerability and effectively responding in episodes like this one, it's a military base full of active-duty troops who have all received training in how to think and react under fire.
A more damning indictment of the whole principle of gun control is hard to imagine.
If soldiers can be butchered like this when deliberately prevented from exercising their right to keep and bear arms, how can any of us law-abiding civilians hope to survive when the wolves get in among us? 71.251.131.163 (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

MOA img note and MN 624.714, Subd. 17, sec.(e)

Hi Hohum. I'm pretty sure I understand what, and why, your complaint is. Here's how it breaks down. Triple Five Group is a landlord, which leases retail space to businesses. Subdivision 17 concerns posting and trespass in private establishments, including businesses: "Subd. 17.Posting; trespass."

Private establishments are defined in section(b):""Private establishment" means a building, structure, or portion thereof that is owned, leased, controlled, or operated by a nongovernmental entity for a nongovernmental purpose."

This subdivision is specifically not about residences and specifically about other establishments including businesses, stated in Section(d): "This subdivision does not apply to private residences."

The restriction on landlords is described in section(e): "A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests."

Businesses that lease store space are tenants and may post restrictions as they wish. Landlords may neither restrict carry in common areas, nor restrict tenants or their guests from carrying, as per the statute. That means that Triple Five/MOA may not prohibit carry; only its tenants may make that decision for their own premises. That's why when you wear your weapon at the mall, individual retailers may request your compliance with their individual policies, but the general mall staff may not, and does not, eject you from common areas. General trespass in private residences is described in MN 609.605 TRESPASS. -Digiphi (Talk) 07:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That is your interpretation of the law and how it applies, not the interpretation of a reliable source. Wikipedia does not allow Original Research, or editors opinion. Please remove the caption in accordance with this policy unless you can support it with an interpretation from a reliable source. (Hohum ^@) 19:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey. Sorry to leave you hanging. To your post, it is not interpretation. It is the exact language of the Subdivision 17, within 624.714, which is the Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act, and is all about carry, concealed or otherwise. In this case, as per policy (WP Primary source policy), a primary source is appropriate in this case to present relevant information without which content would be misleading. The picture is used to demonstrate posting, and its particularly attractive in that MOA is a big deal and nationally known. But the sign says "In Accordance with MN Law", and that's not the case. A solution would be to replace that photo with one of a sign that doesn't state "in accordance with MN law", or one that does make that statement when it is correct, such as at a state hospital, or a correctional facility. We could also amend the NOTE to says "landlords" instead of MOA, because although MOA is a landlord the statute does not specifically name MOA in its language, and I understand how the note could be misleading in that regard. We could also find a photo of a sign in any state, actually, that doesn't have this conflict. -Digiphi (Talk) 14:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it is still your interpretation of a primary source (the law). You could use an extract of the primary source and let the reader decide. But you are drawing your own conclusion, that is unacceptable. This is very clearly pointed out in wikipedia policies. (Hohum ^@) 20:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, two things. 1.) Again, it's not my interpretation at all, and I'll explain exactly the way in which it is not. You don't have to read the whole law, just all of Sub. 17 to understand the point I'm making about interpretation. That "landlords cannot..etc." is stated expressly, and that it applies expressly to businesses and not residences is stated as expressly and without any ambiguity. I'm not suggesting you didn't read it, not to try to belittle your argument. I'm not. I want to ask though entirely affably: did you read the entire subdivision? Also, I don't like to reveal personal info—not regarding you necessarily, but who knows who else is reading?—in posts, and I'll delete this bit in a few days. I'm in Minnesota, and this is like seat belt laws. It's not unclear or awaiting challenge in the courts or treated differently by different parties at present. It's simply the law that we have and live under. It's just the way it is everyday like traffic statutes: stop completely at stop signs; no left turns during a red light, etc. There's no interpretation, it just is what it is. You know what I mean?

2.)I'm liking the suggestion of posting a portion, on its face. But I'm not 100%. Here's why: A)we're not posting several hundred words in an image caption. That would be sloppy of us and wouldn't last long before someone got rid of it just on the grounds of its excess, I'll bet. But I'm interested in what you have in mind. Would you give an example of that? B) If after reading the entire Sub. 17 (if you hadn't) and you're still not coming around, it may be better that we find a different photo for this purpose. -Digiphi (Talk) 22:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I forgot about this conversation. No, you are interpreting the law. The law is a WP:PRIMARY source - your (or my) understanding of it isn't relevant to wikipedia - which relies on WP:secondary sources - which, in this case, would be a WP:RELIABLE, verifiable expert opinion - i.e. a judge or competent lawyer explaining the meaning.

A primary source would be ok if you just showed an extract, to prove what it said, but explaining what it *means* is the domain of secondaries. (Hohum ^@) 02:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Bias (Types of Firearms and others)

The Types of Firearms section seems to rely almost entirely on the work of Earl Kruschke. While this author is quoted as a neutral author on the topic, others disagree, and specifically disagree with several of the key statistics. This section needs to consider other sources to be balanced, currently it seems quite pro-gun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.32.250 (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It is desirable to have multiple sources for any section, but FWIW, ABC-CLIO publishes reference materials for school libraries so a pro-gun POV from the source is unlikely.

• Earl R. Kruschke, Gun Control: A Reference Handbook (Contemporary World Issues), ABC-CLIO (1995), ISBN-13: 978-0874366952.
• Gregg Lee Carter, Gun Control in the United States: A Reference Handbook (Contemporary World Issues), ABC-CLIO, (2 edition, 2006), ISBN-13: 978-1851097609.

Krushke's book is listed in Amazon.com with one Editorial Review from the School Library Journal by a Gail Richmond of San Diego Unified Schools, CA. Book appear to be background reference books that contain material that would be useful regardless of the reader's POV. Naaman Brown (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of bias, I removed part of the photo caption of the picture showing a concealed carry traing school advertisement alongside the road. The claim was that this was in a permissive state where no permits are required, yet those few states don't require training at all. Consequently, that cannot be the case for the location of the sign. Logic - please try some on the anti self-defense, anti-firearm side of the issue... for a change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.51.50 (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It is quite common for people to get training above and beyond what they need to get their permit. Magpul and Xe (formerly Blackwater) both make plenty of money off of this, just as examples. I have posted the question on the file's discussion page though, in order to clear things up. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh derp. I went through the page's history and the guy added it. Your logic was flawed to begin with (just because people aren't legally required to buy cars doesn't mean they don't buy them), and the fact that the guy who took the photo said it was in a constitutional carry state kind of seals the deal. See here [7] for info. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say your logic is the more flawed, since most people don't spend a nickle they do not have to unless they are required to do so in order to exercise their rights. Ideally, we might hope for these people to get more than the basics covered by training, but that is unlikely and these motivated persons would seek out training w/o needing a sign along the side of the road, the presence of which in a obviously rural/suburban area (i.e., low-traffic) implies demand sufficient to offer regular classes. Places like Blackwater, FrontSight, etc. really don't teach a great deal about concealment, but mainly about proper use and handling of firearms. Additionally, why are we taking the information the submitter of the photograph gave at face value? It might be Josh Sugarman for all we know and the only inference that could truly be drawn is that the state in which it was found allows concealed carry at all. The presence of the sign is more indicative, in actuality, of a state that regulates concealed carry. We cannot be sure with no area code present on the phone number given. Either accept this as the most likely situation, or delete it entirely until something that proves concealed carry is a mostly unregulated endeavor - something I believe is planted here to perpetuate a bias against concealed carry as being something any yahoo can do - is the most common situation to be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.3.63 (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with almost everything you said. You don't support your assertion that most people do not spend money unless they have to. That is a broad statement and in my opinion totally untrue. I have taken hunting classes and motorcycling classes without being required to. I have spent money on books and taken classes about firearms without being required to. I believe that a reasonable poll asking people if they ever took a class, purchased a book, subscribed to a magazine, etc, on any subject, (hunting, driving, motorcycling, shooting, etc) which requires some form of governmental certification without being required to your statement would be proven false. In my opinion most of the talk on this page revolves around personal bias in communication and unsubstantiated opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impey Barbicane (talk • contribs) 13:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

2nd paragraph of header mostly bullshit

Not to mention incredibly bad style. That kind of opinion belongs not in the supposedly neutral header but in a section that accomodates opposing views on the issue. The Founding Fathers would have no doubt considered the issues of slave uprisings, invasions by england or bad leaders restricing guns to ensconce themselves more surely when drafting the constitution. However, they would also have had in mind the issue of civil liberties. That is, the government, in taking away guns from responsible civilians oversteps the line that rightfully restricts it. The 2nd paragraph of the header takes a lot of words to run into the ground the tired old "it was done out of fear of a second british invasion" argument, which may have some truth to it, however by including only the practical and not the political philosophical reasons why Madison chose to draft the constitution this way gets mired in blatant left-wing, anti-gun POV. 20 bucks says whoever wrote the header lives in the northeast, wears plaid, and likes Bob Dylan. Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have to admit that I like Bob Dylan. But aside from that, I agree that the second paragraph of the lead was horrible, so I've commented it out. I will remove it completely in a week or so. --Hamitr (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I re-included the text. Hiding it isn't helpful to the editing process - in this case it has been hidden for over a month with no additional discussion - we can't tell if this is because people have noticed and agree/don't care - or more likely IMO, because people who have the article watchlisted didn't see an edit with a large number of bytes changing, so assumed it was minor.

If you think it should be rewritten, moved, deleted, perhaps try the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle. (Hohum ^@) 10:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've removed the paragraph. --Hamitr (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I hate Bob Dylan, but I'm currently wearing plaid. Anyway, although you were right to remove the rambling and poorly written second paragraph, you didn't take into account of why it was put there – the first paragraph's blithe reference to "the right of the individual to own firearms as encapsulated by the second amendment." The individual right to own firearms is the result of recent Supreme Court cases which decided on a particular interpretation of the second amendment. Minor point, but worth correcting. TiC (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Guns won the West

Removed from article:

• Some historians believe that this perception that guns won the West springs from a mythology, and ignores the role of homesteaders, ranchers, miners, tradespeople and businessmen; they attribute the "taming of the West" to ranchers and farmers, not gun-slinging cowboys.(Citation needed|date=January 2011)

Find a source, put it back; you know the drill. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It's kind of an absurd assertion. Those homesteaders, ranchers, and farmers (which included my family, who emigrated to Oregon in the 1840s and '50s) were well heeled. They used firearms to put meat on the table, to protect their livestock from predators, and occasionally to defend themselves against other people. It's in this role that "guns won the west", not in the hands of "gun slinging cowboys". 69.168.127.35 (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

lead sentence

Gun politics in the United States has long been among the most controversial issues in American politics.

See WP:REDUNDANCY. This mechanical repetition of the title demotes the content – what does "gun politics" mean? – to the next sentence. How about:

Private possession of firearms has long been among the most controversial issues in American politics.

—Tamfang (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Economics

I added a section on the economics of growing black market in firearms. I know a lot of people think guns are just mysterious machines. I am a manufacturing engineer and I can tell you that the easiest firearm to illicitly manufacure is a magazine fed, blow back operated sub machine gun similar to the Sten which was illegally manufactured by the Israeli's during the British occupation. As deadly as the drug market is the idea of the growing black market in firearms concerns me. Imagine criminals making propane or gasoline based sub machine guns firing steel ball bearings. "Insert your license to purchase gasoline prior to purchase. Make sure to send your monthly report including verification of auomobile mileage at your local police station in promptly! Have a nice day!" Black Markets flourished in the U.S.S.R and currently flourish in China, some of the most totalitarian and harsh political regimes of the last 100 years. The idea that people can controll a free market by threatening to kill, torture or imprison people is ridiculous. Markets need to be well controlled, not un-controlled by being made illegal altogether. It is easy to tell when a market is over controlled, a black market develops and grows in direct proportion to regulation. Black Markets do not go away once regulation is eased, the numbers rackets are still viable even in states with lotteries. Black markets become traditional, accepted and entrenched once they have formed. In my opinion it is best not to encourge the black market in firearms any further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impey Barbicane (talk • contribs) 15:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice try, but this section cited NO relevant stats/references on underground or black market firearms actually produced in the US at the present day, so it is theoretical and conjectural. WP is supposed to be well-referenced. So take this tangent to a forum somewhere! DiligenceDude (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a tangent and the ATF does not keep statistics on black market firearms. The numbers the UN uses are available under the link I provided. Reading apprently does not come under the heading of due diligence. Neither does thinking apparently. As long as "head in the sand" idiots pretend basic political issues like economics should be ignored the problems in this world will only grow. Due Diligence does not include deleting valid information on the political issues, unless someone is being diligence about maintaining ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impey Barbicane (talk • contribs) 18:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I reposted the econoimics section. Before you delete it explain what is theoretical, the presence of the black market in firearms in the United States or that black markets are driven by economics or that economics is related to politics or whatever Impey Barbicane (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The very premise of your proposed section is conjectural, and the lead sentence is unreferenced original research. It is the LEGITIMATE firearms market that is growing by leaps and bounds in the United States, NOT the black market. See: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h_0O2G4hkWDjP5YzzxlQtwM4XcmA?docId=CNG.963fd3cb350dbf9a9143bd73654b9986.a61 WP is not a political bully pulpit or a venue for conjecture or original research. If you want to add a section, then put together some FACTS first, that are fully referenced. A valid third party reference for each line or assertion is a good guideline. DiligenceDude (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Everything you just wrote is inaccurate. No wonder wikipedia suffers with such a poor reputation for accuracy. This is not conjecture. The United States and the United Nations have entered into multiple international treaties on illicit firearm manufacturing. You want to ignore facts go ahead. I am not wasting my time trying to help morons maintain international ignorance. Economic issues are an important part of politics. Economics is not conjectural. Proving that the market in legal firearms is growing does not prove the market in illegal firearms is not growing. Your comments only prove how ignorant you are of the basic principles of logic. I have put together tons of facts which you have ignored. If you did any research at all, for example searching the words "craft" or "manufacture" in the news section of gunpolicy.org you would be aware of how important this growing problem is. But go ahead, stick your head in the sand and continue your fascist censorship. Since you appear to be illiterate no amount of reference material will be good enough.Impey Barbicane (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Impey – welcome to Wikipedia. It is never useful to attack your fellow editors on the Talk Page. Using words like idiots, morons, ignorant, and fascist as you did above are inappropriate and are grounds for having your account BLOCKED. You appear to have difficulty editing and citing citations, you may find MOS useful as well. Regards.Grahamboat (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Grahamboat: Please show where I attacked or called any specific person "idiots, morons, ignorant, and fascist". Personally I could care less if I am censored by a bunch of people who care so little for the truth. Why would I bother to keep dealing with people who have their heads planted so firmly in the sand? You can't deal with politics unless you deal with economics. So go ahead, censor the reality of black market economics and the economic relationship in politics. I don't have a problem citing sources. I posted a source for every line except one when I posted the economics section. Diligencedude did not check a single one. This organization has a terrible reputation for accuracy and I see why, people like you are deliberately censoring articles and contributors so they present fantasy rather than the reality of the direct association between economics and politics. I already said I'm done with wikipedia. Wikipedia is a good idea, lot of potential, but, people like you and diligencedude are deliberately destroying the accuracy based on your own political and ideological agendas. In your way you guys are as bad as HUAC anti-communists, Christians who preach abortion is murder and other ideological bullies who ignore source material they claim to be using. Sucks, but, life goes on. All I can control is me and I really have no use for people living in fantasy with their heads in the sand.

Economics

The market in firearms is governed by the economic law of supply and demand. As long as there is a demand and resources to provide for that demand there will be a supply. When societies attempt to control free markets through regulation black markets in the regulated commodities are developed. . The best modern age example of black market manufacturing of firearms and ammunition is the construction of secret factories by the Israelis during the British Occupation. . To address the growing problem of the black market manufacturing in firearms the United States entered into the The Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials treaty. The global spread of black market firearm manufacturing is becoming so problematic that it has resulted in the UN protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms.

If you cannot handle the truth shove your head in the sand and live in a little ideological fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impey Barbicane (talk • contribs) 22:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

you can get quite far nowadays with a 3D printer, you just have to use to right composite Markthemac (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Rate of homicides by firearm

Am rather disappointed by the quality of information in this wiki. Most of it is ok, but some seems to be used as a platform for some rather nasty pro-gun diatribes and American right-wing political ideology. Some of the citations are laughable. For example, I read:

"However, as a corollary, violent crime is over four times higher in the UK than in the United States; 460 per 100,000 in the United States versus 2,000+ per 100,000 in the UK where most crimes are perpetrated using knives."

But the provided citation for these numbers is of i) a 2009 article from a notoriously right-wing newspaper in the UK who are in turn ii) quoting the Conservative political party (in opposition to the government at the time of its writing), who have in turn iii) claimed to have "compiled" their report from studies by "the European Commission and United Nations" - without actually naming which studies they are "compiling" from ...

As a credible source of crime statistics this citation is simply laughable, way below the standard I expect of Wikipedia. Furthermore, the claim is made that:

"in the UK where most crimes are perpetrated using knives".

This is i) logically absurd and ii) the cited article says nothing of the sort anyway! [It is however, a popular belief within the US pro-gun lobby.]

Finally, even the criminologists quoted in the article correctly point that definitions of "violent crime" vary wildly between different nations, not to mention how such crimes are recorded. Simple-minded comparisons of "violent crime" between nations are themselves simple-minded.

And yet this is the comparison exactly that the Wiki entry makes. So, not only is the citation unreliable, it actually undermines the claims being made in the Wiki itself!

Both the citation and the irrelevant and misleading comparisons between "violent crime" rates should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.142.139 (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree. I've amended the entry to include the caveat contained within the Daily Mail article about comparing international crime statistics. The point is raised twice, so I'll leave it up to the person who inserted the fact in the first place to decide which one to keep. Perhaps someone should dig out some more reliable measures of international crime statistics. Hackcyn (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. The statistics cited in this section are misleading. The proper way to do the statistics is to compare the murder or assault rate by gun among different countries -- not by citing an ambiguous number on "violent crime" taken from a newspaper article. There are credible statistics from international organizations that can be cited. Perhaps I will do so. Likewise, I find highly suspect the statement that 50 percent of all guns in the world are owned by US citizens. I won't believe that until I see a credible reference. Smallchief

The number of homicides by firearm in Germany in this article is wrong. According to the document of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (Reference 98) it is 158, not 690. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.16.188.60 (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed Smallchief 17:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

second paragraph of lead

I am stripping down the second paragraph of the lead because it is horribly biased and poorly sourced. It currently reads:

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects the right of an individual to own a firearm for the purposes of self-defense, most notably within the home, while at the same time reaffirming the constitutionality of a wide range of long standing gun control laws. Repeated polling has found that a majority of Americans believe the constitution ensures their right to own a gun, with less than 40 percent of Americans favoring stricter gun laws.

Problems with each sentence:

1. The first sentence far overreads Heller /and/ the cited source. Heller was about self-defense, in the home, in federal enclaves, and not about "a wide range of long standing gun control laws. The cited source (Winkler) says, "Left unresolved in Heller was whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied to state and local laws."
2. The second sentence ignores substantial contradictory reliable sources. Here are just two recent examples: here and here.

For these reasons I'm cutting this paragraph down. If anyone feels the lead is missing important information, then by all means add it, but please make sure the added material is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Bias

I'm new to this so I don't want to make any edits myself right away, nor do I necessarily have any concrete suggestions. BUT with that said, I have to say that as someone relatively neutral on this issue (I own guns but also think some kind of gun control is a good idea) I felt this article was leaning pretty far towards the pro-gun side. Maybe I'm way off point, but it seems that any reasonably neutral person reading this article would come away from it thinking that gun control is useless and it's advocates ignorant at best and dishonest at worst.

So I'm thinking about taking some time to go through the citations used in the article. Can anyone give me some guidelines on what to look for? What makes a good reference for this type of article and what would disqualify a reference? Also where might we look for more references to provide a broader view of this topic?

Chippy87 (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Be bold! Go ahead and add new information, as long as you find it in reliable sources. I've written a short intro to reliable sources on your talk page so as not to distract from your bias argument. I can't comment on the article's current content, however, I've seen it has been tagged multiple times in the past and is currently tagged for lacking a WP:NPOV.

(Just a minor note, you should move your entire section + my reply to the bottom of the page. (WP:TOPPOST))

–Temporal User (Talk) 11:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

24.76.165.174 (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Just to let you know, the "Rate of homicides by firearm" table is very inaccurate. For example it shows the Canadian firearm murders per 100,000 as 1.6, while the cited source shows it at 0.5. Australia in the table is 1.0; in the source it's 0.1. Other first world countries have had thier firearm murder rates increased - except for the United States.

Ownership and possession?

"Ownership" is used in the article in many places where I think "possession" is the meaning, and what is legislated for. I don't know enough about the details to edit the article myself. As an example, it is surely illegal for certain types of weapon to be in someone's possession, whether owned, borrowed, or stolen. What about someone who owns a permitted weapon, lends it to somebody (with whom he perhaps loses contact), then the weapon is made illegal: (s)he formally owns it but is not in possession, this presumably is legal. Similarly, if someone who owns a permitted weapon is convicted of a crime which bans it for him, is he allowed to lend it to someone or keep it somewhere where he has no possible access? I'm not trying to discuss these matters in detail, just suggesting that "own" should be replaced by "be in possession" or similar wording in several places. Pol098 (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Do Armed Citizens Stop Mass Shootings? A history of intervention attempts

• Do Armed Citizens Stop Mass Shootings? A history of intervention attempts., Slate, 18 Dec 2012.

This article presents an interesting history, by a mainstream media source, one not known for conservative bias. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, it seems the general consensus is that Slate has a liberal bias. Relevant article here. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Link Spam

This article uses a template called US Firearms Legal Topics. Look in the rop righthand corner, second box down. There's no need to repeat all those links in See also. Unfortunately, user Rjecson is so blind with partisanship on this topic that he's determined to keep all that link spam around, and even deleted what I posted on his Talk page. This is a popular article currently, and it would be better if it didn't look so ridiculous. (As for the other problem, see WP:EL regarding the Dmoz template.) 184.78.81.245 (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This can't be linkspam since we are discussing the See also section. The MOS section about See also leaves it to editorial discretion which links belong there. It does say that links included in the body of the article or in navigation boxes should not be repeated here. Celestra (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

So you're connected with all those advocacy group articles? Not surprised. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Martin Luther King Jr.

Today is Martin Luther King Day, 2013

According to Adam Winkler, a Professor of Law, UCLA. "California passed a law to disarm the Panthers and then Congress, after King was assassinated by James Early Ray, passed the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- the first major federal gun control since the 1930s. These laws fueled the rise of the modern gun rights movement, which self-consciously borrowed tactics from the civil rights movement." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-and-his-guns_b_810132.html

It sounds to me by reading this article that MLK's murder, at the very least, aided this gun control legislation. But to me this sounds like another "gun free zone" failure. A mentally ill criminal knew MLK was not protected and preached "non-violence" and therefore was an easy target. According to Winkler's article, MLK began pushing "non=violence" AFTER he was denied concealed carry in Alabama where "King, a clergyman whose life was threatened daily..". This again shows that the hinderance in attaining firearms can in fact help lead to someone's murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.16.212 (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/16/us/obama-gun-control-proposal.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 06:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Just another note on that as well -- I don't see that text on the page here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence

or in the full report:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf

so that's consistent with that the original text is coming from The New York Times.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 06:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Opinion polls

I just posted this text in the opinion poll section...

"A survey conducted by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in January 2013 found that:

• 74% of NRA members support requiring a background check system for all gun sales.

• NRA members broadly oppose new restrictions on gun ownership."

The reason is that it was posted in the NRA article, but removed because it had nothing to do with the overall organization. Your comments are welcomed.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the right place for the poll, but its accuracy is questionable. First of all, it came from a program that was funded by and named after Michael Bloomberg, of gun control fame. Secondly, according to that same source, only 169 NRA members were included in the polling. ROG5728 (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That poll seems problematic for the reasons ROG mentions. Shadowjams (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

the poll was done by a German firm. Bloomberg gave Johns Hopkins $$$$ and they named the medical school building after him. He has no control whatever over the faculty or their research. The poll results were validated by the New England Journal of Medicine, close to the #1 journal in all of medicine. No RS has ever suggested there is a bias here--so let's not have Wiki editors getting too wild in their speculation. As for Wiki NPOV rules, they say all sides hove to be included, & you cannot drop info you don't want our readers to see. Rjensen (talk) 06:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

So the polling was funded by Bloomberg and conducted by an organization named after him, but he has "no control" over it? Sorry, I don't buy that. ROG5728 (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime Rjensen, you can go ahead and add these poll results to the article too, since you're such a big fan of including all sides. ROG5728 (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Bloomberg paid for the building (years ago) and did not fund or control the poll or its reports. including all sides is the Wikipedia rule Rjensen (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I already posted a source that says the program was named after and funded by Bloomberg. ROG5728 (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

alright, the NRA Member Poll data is now in the public opinion polls section. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Quotation Marks and Dred Scott Decision

• For this passage:

The first relevant state court decision was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The Kentucky court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..."" "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

Looks like there are issues with the quotation marks. I don't know whether the phrase, "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified" is a direct quote from the: Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium or not.

• In Gun politics in the United States#Antebellum era perhaps this passage could be clarified:

"It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union ... the full liberty ... to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

What is "It" referring to?

Looking at the opinion seems that the pronoun means an interpretation of the Federal Constitution which would grant "privileges and immunities" to "persons of the negro race".

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Funding for Gun Rights Groups and Gun Control Groups

I just added a passage which says:

According to the Center for Responsive Politics gun rights advocates outspent gun control advocates by approximately $17 million to $1.7 million for records going back to 1989. On gun rights the top donor is the National Rifle Association while for gun control the top donor is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

One might ask though -- whether the picture has changed after Sandy Hook (the figures there are aggregates over the past 14 years or so). After all -- Michael Bloomberg's net worth is reported to be $22 billion.

This page has a list of some of the contributions that he has made.

http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/donor_detail.php?cycle=2012&id=U0000003704&type=I&super=N&name=Bloomberg%2C+Michael+R.

And this has some more information also:

http://www.forbes.com/profile/michael-bloomberg/

I guess another question is whether monies allocated to one organization (maybe not an organization whose sole focus is the matter of firearm regulation) might still be used in some capacity or another to seek to promote various legislation related to firearms.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

2.6.1 President Obama's proposals

I undid this change because the editor did not add any proposals by previous presidents, although he expressed concern that other presidents have made proposals. This can be reverted after additional proposals from earlier presidents are added. --Zeamays (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was working on that and got distracted by offline matters. Feel free to help out. By the way, going forward I'll likely change it to "Federal Proposals" or something similar so that any proposed legislation that would affect the whole country would be in the section. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Has it really been a "stalemate"?

The lead currently states:

"Gun politics has long been among the most controversial issues in American politics.<ref name="Wilcox">{{cite book |author=Wilcox, Clyde; Bruce, John W. |title=The changing politics of gun control |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |location=Lanham, Md |year=1998 |pages=1–4 |isbn=0-8476-8614-0}}</ref> For the last several decades, the debate regarding both the restriction and availability of firearms within the United States has been characterized by a stalemate between an individual right to bear arms against the responsibility of government to prevent crime.<ref name="Wilcox4">{{cite book |author=Wilcox, Clyde; Bruce, John W. |title=The changing politics of gun control |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |location=Lanham, Md |year=1998 |page=4 |isbn=0-8476-8615-9 |url=http://books.google.com/?id=VvNb5s8Z3b0C&pg=PA4 |quote= For many years a feature of this policy arena has been an insurmountable deadlock between a well-organized outspoken minority and a seemingly ambivalent majority}}</ref><code><nowiki><ref name = "SpitzerCh1"/>" (emphasis added, citations expanded so they can be easily seen by the reader on this Talk page.)

My two questions:

1) Does a single verifiable source, to a single author in 1998, make the claim sufficiently nuetral to be a claim in the lead of a Wikipedia article in 2013, 15 years later, on a topic where there is not a little controversy? (There is no online link to the SpitzerCh1 source so I've been unable to verify if that author also asserted "stalemate" or not.)

2) Has it really been a stalemate? We clearly have a source from a book where that author asserts a stalemate. (actually that same book seems to be sourced as two separate citations which would give the appearance, to the casual reader, that the sources are stronger than they are.) But I don't get the sense that the entire debate has been one of stalemate. At least we can say that we see frequent posts on both sides of the debate where one side will show change (e.g., the growth of "shall issue" carry laws in many states since 1986, or the enforcement of the assault weapons ban, or the expiration of the assault weapons ban, two recent Supreme Court decisions, hundreds of court cases wending their way through the lower courts since the two SCOTUS decisions, etc.) Do we really have a preponderance of data, looking at the article as a whole, that would indicate this is a stalemate?

I think the answer is no. But wanted to discuss on the Discussion page before making a change. Mvialt (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

COMMENT - With regard to a 'stalemate', unfortunately IMO yes. This is based on casual observation and reading of articles here on WP of other gun related tragedies. More laws are passed, but the violence continues. It leads me to suspect that its not the guns that are the primary problem. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"Stalemate" has some NPOV issues. That and the reference is old, and only one. The problem with the term "stalemate" is it implies some objective, presumably new laws, as the goal. Some might reasonably say that there's been no stalemate given the passage of new shall issue laws, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, etc. Similarly the flurry of gun control legislation in states with Democratic legislatures (NY, CN, etc.). At the least that reference is hopelessly outdated. At worst it's bemoaning the lack of progress towards a goal, which has NPOV characteristics. Shadowjams (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not see a problem. A single sourced statement is fine. When statements made in reliable sources are questioned by editors they need to provide a source that says something different. TFD (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead still no longer sucks...

Really, its not a summary of the article at all. If anything its about as "weasel-y" as it gets. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Better, but the anti-gun side needs to be represented with their views that gun violence is a "public health issue" along with their stance that "less guns will make for a safer society". Sound about right?

Plus a paragraph summarizing neutrally the historical aspects wouldn't hurt. Per MOS, we have 4 paragraphs to potentially use. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Scalhotrod, I just added another paragraph to the lead, quoting the CDC. Will attempt a history paragraph next.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm getting mushy now, but that history paragraph is pure brilliance. Short, simple, covers the entire span, and brings in modern context! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, shucks, it will probably stay that way for two minutes, and get me banned by ArbCom. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

POV shifts: A proposal, a red flag, and another proposal

Political arguments of gun politics in the United States was merged on 3 JAN 2014 into this article (Gun politics in the United States). OK. Then, Security against tyranny and invasion, which had been the fifth subsection under Rights-based arguments, was made the first subsection. OK, maybe, depending on why. Then, the lead was changed to include pro-gun/gun-rights arguments. That's not WP:NPOV.

Here is lead - before and after - side by side:

Lead before

Lead after

Gun politics is a controversial issue in American politics. For the last several decades, the debate regarding both the restriction and availability of firearms within the United States has been characterized by a stalemate between a right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the responsibility of government to prevent firearm-related crime.

Gun politics is a controversial issue in American politics. For the last several decades, the debate regarding both the restriction and availability of firearms within the United States has been characterized by a stalemate between a right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the responsibility of government to prevent firearm-related crime. Gun rights supporters promote firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities. A further motivation is fear of tyranny. The latter concern is international, longstanding, and shared by a majority of Americans according to poll results. There is an unresolved debate regarding the relationship between gun control, violence and other crimes. For example, a 2003 study by the Centers for Disease Control called for further study, because there was "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes". Gun politics in the United States is constrained by judicial interpretations of the Constitution. In 1789, the United States adopted the Second Amendment, and in 1868 adopted the Fourteenth Amendment. The effect of those two amendments on gun politics was the subject of landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 2008 and 2010 respectively.

References

1. The material added to the lead should be removed.

2. The weight (by promoted placement) being given to material in the Security against tyranny and invasion section is a red flag. The section includes Nazi and Holocaust material that has resulted in the Gun control article being protected, and to some members of that debate going before ARBCOM.

3. I propose we let this article sit for a week (with the exception of removing material added to the lead) or two while all parties digest how to make this newly merged article NPOV.

Lightbreather (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I have just added a sentence to the lead that hopefully will address your concern. More generally, the current ArbCom case is not about this article.[8] The changes to the lead were discussed above on this talk page, and you are more than welcome to join in, but I do not think that there is any reason to just revert and freeze the lead. As another editor mentioned above, the lead "sucked". As for Nazis (which caused all the fuss at the other article), they are not mentioned in the present lead. Let's try to keep calm here, and pursue regular editing procedures.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but no, that doesn't address my concern. I should really like the additions removed until we can agree on what to add to the lead. Lightbreather (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The lead has four paragraphs. You have not given any reason why you think the first, third, and fourth paragraphs have any POV problem. As for the second paragraph, you have not given any reason why the new additional sentence does not solve the problem. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is inadequate, so please give reasons. Two editors approved the expanded lead yesterday, because the previous lead was awful, and I don't see why to revert to the awful version. Please explain, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I never said I had a problem with the first paragraph. Look, these are hardly established items in the lead. The article was only merged with another article TWO days ago - and then this material was quickly added, with little discussion. As a sign of good faith, could you please remove the stuff you added, and then can we get input from other editors, with differing viewpoints and editing experience? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd probably be delighted to remove material if someone would give a reason why the content is deficient. To me, "have faith in my reasons " is a silly rationale, when you can simply explain in a sentence or two what's deficient. I mean, for Pete's sake, the last paragraph of the lead is about as bland and straightforward as a paragraph could possibly be. Removing it just because it's there is not a good reason. Just give a reason why the content of that paragraph needs to be changed, and that will probably do the trick.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The content of the paragraph needs to be reverted to how it was prior to the merge, then discussed, and then improved. Just two days ago, this article went from about 7,000 words to about 12,000 words. A bunch of edits were made to put tyranny arguments before all others - pro or con - and then the lead was edited to include tyranny arguments, sandwiched between other additions. But it's not an improvement. Nowhere in the brief discussion - over two days between two people - is a reason given as to why, out of a now 12,000 word document, the added items are the lead-worthy.

Please, would you remove the recently added lead material so that there can be more discussion? Lightbreather (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you have no real objection to anything in the lead, except for this: "A further motivation is fear of tyranny.[4] The latter concern is international,[5][6][7][8] longstanding,[9] and shared by a majority of Americans according to poll results.[10] Gun control activists argue that security against tyranny would require much heavier weapons than mere guns.[11]" So let's stop imagining that there is anything else objectionable in the lead, and discuss this particular stuff. Are you saying that the lead should not mention "tyranny" at all? If not, please suggest some alternative text. That's normal Wikipedia procedure, and I promise I'll consider your suggestions seriously. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The lead is completely unbalanced. "The responsibility of government to prevent firearm-related crime" are the only eight words in it that say anything positive about gun control, and it's only there because "a stalemate between a right to bear arms...and..." has to be followed by something. The remainder of the lead is either the arguments in favour of gun possession, or studies that have "failed" to show that gun control is effective in preventing crime, with the constitution getting a short paragraph, to remind us that that's where the right to bear arms is to be found. Therefore, the lead as a whole completely fails WP:NPOV, and should be reverted forthwith. Scolaire (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Regretfully, I must agree. I suggest we go a mini-article or elementary school essay route. 1st paragraph completely neutral and just describing the concept. A paragraph very briefly describing the pro arguments, another for the con arguments. If we can come up with a good 4th then go there. The lede should not be the place to convince people, it should in as few words as possible tell people what content is going to be found in the body. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

On a second read, we are pretty much in that situation already. Making the 3rd paragraph actually give the gun control argument, rather than saying there is a debate, would bring it into alignment with npov. The 4th paragraph about the constitution as the ruling document for gun laws, and the SCOTUS rulings is appropriate imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I already reverted to the crummy lead, and people can now propose alternatives.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the revert. I look forward to working together with you and others to make a better, NPOV lead. However, I probably won't add a lot tonight because I've had a long day and it's about time to make supper. Thanks again. Lightbreather (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I have extended the lead a bit. Feel free to revert.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted. It would be far better to put proposed texts on the talk page and work on them here. Scolaire (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Scolaire! Lightbreather (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as an outsider, shouldn't it be the other way round? If the debate is over whether to introduce more restrictive measures or not, surely the argument in favour of their introduction should go first, and the arguments against second? Also, with regard to the two attempts to expand the lead, the gun control argument has been presented only as a rebuttal of the gun rights argument. Would not the main argument in favour of gun control be that guns kill people, and fewer guns would mean fewer gun-related deaths? I'm not going to hunt for sources for this, but if my instinct is correct, those who want to look for them should find them easily enough. Scolaire (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you make some excellent points. I want to re-read the article a few more times and think about what you've said. As for the lead, I don't think we should be in a hurry to expand it. Since the article was merged only a few days ago with another article, I think we should make sure the body of the article is in good shape and then improve the lead using WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. (Otherwise, we'll end up with something like the assault weapon article, which I think is in bad need of some good editing - though I haven't been able to get far with it myself.)

This is the lead from the old Political arguments of gun politics in the United States article (now merged with this article):

Political arguments of gun politics in the United States, debate about the right to bear arms, centers on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and how it should be interpreted. Other factors include the correlation between gun ownership to crime and murder rates, ethical considerations, the balance between an individual's right of self-defense, national security, and citizens' interest in maintaining public safety.

This is the lead of THIS article (Gun politics in the United States) BEFORE the merge:

Gun politics is a controversial issue in American politics.[1] For the last several decades, the debate regarding both the restriction and availability of firearms within the United States has been characterized by a stalemate between a right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the responsibility of government to prevent firearm-related crime.

I propose we merge these leads and leave that in place until we can get the body of the article in better shape. Lightbreather (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

PS: I am working on this and will have a proposal within an hour. Lightbreather (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Draft lead

Here is the most recent version of the lead prior to the present (one-paragraph) version:

“ Gun politics is a controversial issue in American politics. For the last several decades, the debate regarding both the restriction and availability of firearms within the United States has been characterized by a stalemate between a right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the responsibility of government to prevent firearm-related crime.

Gun rights supporters promote firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities. A further motivation is fear of tyranny.

Gun control supporters argue that security against tyranny would require much heavier weapons than mere guns. In response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, President Barack Obama took executive action, including steps to prevent dangerous people who are not allowed to have a gun from slipping through the cracks.

Gun politics was the subject of landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 2008 and 2010. There remains an unresolved debate regarding the relationship between gun control, violence and other crimes.

”

References

I think it would be nice if other editors would not ignore this, and instead try to include what might be suitable in further drafts. I oppose installing simply a merge of the present lead with the former lead of the "Political arguments of gun politics in the United States" article. For one thing, Scolaire already said that gun rights partisans were trying to over-emphasize the Second Amendment, which is present in both the present lead and the "Political Arguments" lead. Moreover, I find it hard to believe that NOTHING in the draft lead quoted above is salvageable. Quite the opposite.

The debate is often over whether to introduce more restrictive measures, and it is often over whether to loosen overly-restrictive measures, so let's not assume only the former and not the latter. Also, regarding whether the gun control argument has been presented only as a rebuttal of the gun rights argument, I don't believe that's correct. The responsibility of government to prevent firearm-related crime was not presented as a rebuttal, nor was the lengthy sentence about Sandy Hook. If someone would like to explain in the lead that the responsibility of government to prevent firearm-related crime includes a responsibility to reduce gun-related deaths, that would be fine with me, though it seems rather obvious. Moreover, perhaps the draft lead above was defective in that the first paragraph seems to imply that a right to keep and bear arms is at odds with reducing crime, which actually is a disputed point (i.e. an armed citizenry may sometimes discourage crime). That defect remains in the brief lead that's presently installed in the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Besides the objections I voiced above, I have a number of problems with this proposal. Again speaking as an outsider, most of the statements are too brief and too vague to convey any information to the reader:

• "self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities": first of all, surely hunting is a sport? We then have two uses for guns i.e. self-defense and sport. Do gun regulations or proposed gun regulations affect both equally? Is sport as big an issue as self-defense?
• "A further motivation is fear of tyranny": Why are so many people in fear of tyranny? Most of us Europeans would see the US as a pretty stable, democratic place. Clarification needed here.
• Sandy Hook: this is only the most recent in a long series of high-profile shooting incidents going back decades. Per WP:RECENTISM it should not appear as a stand-alone in the lead.
• "Steps to prevent dangerous people who are not allowed to have a gun from slipping through the cracks": Impossibly vague and uninformative.
• "U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 2008 and 2010": these should be wikilinked, and also state briefly what the decisions were.
• "There remains an unresolved debate regarding the relationship between gun control, violence and other crimes": again, impossibly vague. There is also an unspoken suggestion that because the debate is "unresolved", there is good reason to believe that no such relationship exists.

I would also have misgivings about the first (i.e. the old) paragraph

• "The debate regarding both the restriction and availability of firearms": this makes it look like there are two issues being debated concurrently, but restriction only means a limit on availability.
• "...has been characterized by a stalemate": that could surely be better worded.

The lead of the recently merged "Arguments" article is also biased in saying that the debate "centers on the Second Amendment" (my italics). However it seems to me that the elements of that lead – public safety and national security, the Second Amendment and an individual's right of self-defense, and the correlation between gun ownership to crime and murder rates (I have deliberately re-arranged them, and I've left out "ethical considerations", which again is hopelessly vague) – make a skeleton on which an interim lead could usefully be based. Scolaire (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Replying to Scolaire:

• "self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities": hunting is sometimes a sport, and it is sometimes simply a means of obtaining sustenance. The terms "hunting" and "sporting" thus overlap, and I don't see any purpose in deleting either one. Follow the cited source: "They [the NRA] promote the use of firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities...." Is sport as big an issue as self-defense? If people have no guns, then they can do neither; I don't see any need to get into details about this in the lead.

• "A further motivation is fear of tyranny". If people are in fear of tyranny, the reasons why can be mentioned later, not in the lead. (People also fear getting wet if there were no bridges; the fear of tyranny is similarly hypothetical, i.e. if people had no guns then there would allegedly be tyranny, if people had no bridges then there would allegedly be wetness.)

• Sandy Hook: this happened over a year ago, and it motivated considerable pressure upon and action by gun control supporters such as President Obama. Yes, there were previous tragedies, such as Columbine, but mentioning Sandy Hook is hardly a breaking news event.

• "Steps to prevent dangerous people who are not allowed to have a gun from slipping through the cracks": This is somewhat vague, but it can be fleshed out in the body of the article. The source says Obama directed "the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks." Obviously, the implication is that the guys responsible for the Sandy Hook massacre and other tragedies slipped through the cracks and should not have been allowed to have a gun (perhaps under present law).

• "U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 2008 and 2010". You say that we need to state briefly in the lead what the decisions were. And yet when this was previously done, you objected that it was a POV problem for the lead to "remind us... where the right to bear arms is to be found." Catch-22? The SCOTUS decisions can be briefly mentioned in the lead, and explained in the body of the article.

• "There remains an unresolved debate regarding the relationship between gun control, violence and other crimes". There is a sentence in the body of the article that says: "There is an open debate regarding the relationship between gun control and violence and other crimes." The article then elaborates "The numbers of lives saved or lost by gun ownership is debated by criminologists. Research difficulties include the difficulty of accounting accurately for confrontations in which no shots are fired and jurisdictional differences in the definition of 'crime'." This seems like a perfectly valid approach: summarize in the lead, elaborate in the body. The sentence is especially useful in the draft lead because it clarifies that the landmark decisions of SCOTUS did not resolve everything.

• "The debate regarding both the restriction and availability of firearms". This is verbose and redundant, and I have no objection to fixing it.
• "...has been characterized by a stalemate"; not only could that be better worded, but it wrongly implies that the right to keep and bear arms is necessarily at odds with reducing crime.
• I have no objection to inserting some of the material from the lead of the recently-merged "Arguments" article into the lead of this article. However, I also think that the draft lead above is fine, NPOV, much more informative than the present lead, and support using it to construct our final product.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you get what I'm saying. The lead should be able to stand alone i.e. people should be able to read it and understand what the article is about. There's no use saying "if they don't know what that means they just have to read the article and they'll find out." Also, you seem to be taking my critique personally. There's very little point in asking us to consider your draft seriously if you're then going to fight to the death to prevent any change to the text! And I'm not contradicting myself by saying that it should be stated what the SCOTUS decisions were. You're first draft didn't state it either. What I said was that the paragraph gave (me) the impression of re-iterating that it's all about the Second Amendment. The second version is much better, but needs to be fleshed out. Scolaire (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not taking this personally. It is somewhat frustrating though. You said that the second draft (quoted atop this section) is much better, but I'm not aware that you have accepted anything in it. Yes, leads ought to make sense standing free, and that was my intent. Let's not try to go out of our way to find flaws.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The second version of the fourth paragraph (or at least the first sentence of it) is much better than the first version of the fourth paragraph; that's all I meant to say there. As for the rest, by asking me not to "go out of my way to find flaws" you are confirming that you are taking it personally. I did not go out of my way to disparage your text. I gave a considered and honest analysis of it, which is what I thought you were asking for. If you'd prefer the executive summary, I think it's poorly written and not a good basis for even an interim lead. And I have nothing to say beyond that. Scolaire (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I responded carefully to all your points, instead of dismissing them as merely personal reactions. But I do think that arguing to remove the word "hunting" as redundant to the word "sports" is definitely going out of your way to find fault. It doesn't follow the source, and disregards the obvious fact that hunters may hunt for meat rather than for sport.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I can't speak for others, but I am not ignoring your input. I'm digesting it. There is no need to rush this. I already said I was working on a proposal - after your previous 2 or 3 proposals - but then you proposed another one. So I've had to stop composing to read again - though I don't see a big difference between this draft and the others. Please give me time. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Take your time. If you read what I've said, you'll see that I made only two proposals for the lead, the second replacing the first.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Anything, but I am dropping this - at least for a little while. I just realized the I am being Wikihounded, and I'm seeking advice on what to do. Lightbreather (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Until we mention that Gun control advocates want to ban the private ownership of firearms I don't think readers will understand the "debate". While most gun grabber organizations have dropped the call for an outright ban on all firearms, most firearms owners don't trust them. Per WP:MOS proponents need to be named and their views given. I am not convinced we need Gun control and this this article. J8079s (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If we get rid of this article then we'll probably have to get rid of a lot of others too.[9] By the way, this article does already mention that 74% oppose civilian handgun bans, while 49% say gun-sale laws should be more strict.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I'm going to remove an old neutrality tag (from four years ago) that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, the template can be restored, but preferably in a more specific subsubsection.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I think its a good move, we're making progress just with the merge... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I am restoring the Rights-based arguments section NPOV dispute tag, until issues below are properly discussed.

Also, to clarify for other editors who come along, the Public policy arguments section was tagged at the same time with the same tag, but that tag was left in place when this one was removed. Whether or not BOTH flags should be kept or deleted is probably worth discussing. Lightbreather (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Lede

After being invited here by Lightbreather, I have restored the lede to what seems to be more in line with consensus. I should point out that as someone who is on the gun-control side of the fence that I don't necessarily agree with the wording, so I think it needs work. I will make some more edit suggestions in a bit. I just think we should tackle it one issue at a time (and with plenty of discussion) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 07:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, the invitation was to a GROUP of people engaged in a similar, concurrent discussion on another page. The invitation was meant to start a dialogue on mulitiple items of concern, already touched upon above, but which I will break out again, below, if they're no clear enough above. Lightbreather (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

When you invite people to participate in a discussion, the last thing you should do is have ownership issues with it. Editors will show up and make whatever edits they feel are appropriate. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Lede

I tweaked the lede a bit. I think it's reasonably neutral now, but feel free to revert. I admit my edits were decidedly pro-control, but I think it needed that. As i said, feel free to revert or adjust if you think I went too far the other way.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I tweaked the lede a bit more, to balance the gun control emphasis with the possession of guns by law-abiding citizens. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

And I just tweaked it to balance both sides. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

POV shift: fear of tyranny as the primary pro-gun argument

After the recent (4 days ago) merger of another article with this one, the Security against tyranny and invasion subsection of the of the former, which had been the fifth subsection under Rights-based arguments, was made the first subsection. Why? (The move seems to be based on one opinion poll.) Lightbreather (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Some subsection has to come first. If the first one is there because of an opinion poll, that seems like a good reason absent a countervailing reason why another subsection should come first. Do you have such a countervailing reason? Also, note that another cited source says: "The greatest fear for ... the pro-gun culture would be an attempt by the government to collectively disarm all the country’s citizens, rendering them helpless against tyranny." (Emphasis added). Also, readers need not infer that tyranny is "the" primary argument; when matters of equal weight are presented, one has to come first. Sometimes that choice is alphabetical, chronological, or even random.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

To be sure we're talking about the same sources, they are these:

• "Mackey, David and Levan, Kristine. Crime Prevention, pp. 95-96 (Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2011): 'The greatest fear for ... the pro-gun culture would be an attempt by the government to collectively disarm all the country’s citizens, rendering them helpless against tyranny.... They [the NRA] promote the use of firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities, and also promote firearm safety.'"
• "65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny, Rasmussen Reports (January 18, 2013)."

And the separate quotes are: "The greatest fear for those ascribing to the pro-gun culture would be an attempt by the government to collectively disarm all the country’s citizens, rendering them helpless against tyranny." [attributed to Herz, 1995, as cited in Luna, 2002] And (from two paragraphs and four attributions later: "They [the NRA] promote the use of firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities, and also promote firearm safety." Lightbreather (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not understanding the question. Those are indeed two of the footnoted sources, as you know.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I just wanted to clarify, and to pull my thoughts together, which I will express presently. Lightbreather (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I have re-ordered the subsections alphabetically, to avoid a protracted discussion. I don't think the ordering of sections justified a POV tag, especially given the cited sources, and given that no alternative ordering was ever suggested. But the point is now moot, and the template ought to be removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no consensus to change order, and certainly no call for a POV tag. Leave it be. It was fine. This is a constant cycle with a certain editor, a constant "fixing" of "problems" that do not exist. This WP:CRUSH behavior bogs down real conversation, and can go on for months. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, what I'm objecting to is this:

There is an ongoing, unresolved debate on the gun control talk page about whether or not Nazi use of "gun control" is appropriate for inclusion in that article. Just counting votes, a little over 20 say it is appropriate, and over 30 say it is not. That article is now protected from edits while some of those involved are before arbcom.

While that was/is on-going, NAZI ARGUMENTS were ADDED to this article - with the edit summary "Canada" ? - and THEN Political arguments of gun politics in the United States was quickly merged into this article. The just-added Nazi material was moved into the subsection in question, and soon after the subsection was bumped up to the top of Rights-based arguments.

All in all, the edits added arguments here that are being warred over on a related page, and linked them with "tyranny" arguments supported by one recent Rasmussen Reports poll and an out-of-context, not-very-clear statement from an 18 year old book. My criticism was not simply with the fact that you re-ordered the subsections, but how you did it and why.

1. I think the Nazi arguments should be removed from this article until the debate is settled on the related page.
2. I don't necessarily object to having the "tyranny" subsection first in its section, but if the order is to be based on importance (to gun-rights advocates) I think more and higher quality evidence/sources should be provided. Lightbreather (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Given that some Nazi stuff was in this article before the Canada edit, I do not feel safe conducting this discussion where a different and misleading chronology has been presented.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The nazi content in this article is at a very different level than in the gun control article. A good number of the opposers in the gun control article freely admit this is a notable argument in the context of US gun control debate and suggest that the content be moved here. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

We need to put the wiki ahead of our own personal politics. History is history. If the gun-toters point to history as one of their reasons, then it is what it is, and it should be in the article. Censoring it won't accomplish anything.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If I were writing an essay or a (newspaper) feature article, I'd probably agree with you. However, there are certain policies we're supposed to follow on Wikipedia that don't necessarily apply to other kinds of writing. After being an active writer-editor on Wikipedia about five months now, I haven't mastered all the policies and lingo, but we are supposed to consider WP:NOTABILITY to decide if something is article worthy. On THAT item alone, I think the question at hand might pass. But does it merit inclusion in THIS article, or the gun control article? What kind of WP:WEIGHT, if any, is it due? (Where to place it, and how much of it to include?)

We're also supposed to consider the source, not just if it's verifiable, but - especially if it's a controversial subject - the quantity and quality of the source(s) in question. Gun politics are controversial enough without dragging the fricking Nazis into it. Whatever the subject, outside of Nazi-ism itself, if you drag the Nazis into it, that ought to throw up a WP:REDFLAG immediately... IMHO. Lightbreather (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The Nazi issue is not WP:REDFLAG or {{WP:FRINGE]] material. Those policies apply to extreme minority theories, such as Flat=Earth theory. The nazi-issue in this case is verifiable historical FACT, and easily sourced. It concerns Gun Control. It belongs in the article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Organization of rights section

I don't agree with this edit which put Self-defense and Security against tyranny under Second Amendment rights. Was this discussed at the talk page? There is overlap among these topics, but they are not exclusively about the Second Amendment, so I will restore the separate subsections.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I actually thought Lightbreather did a decent edit there, but you have a point. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

For instance, the quote from Jefferson pre-dates the Second Amdt. And self-defense is a consideration that legislators can take into account even if the Second Amendment only protects militias.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Who?

Should we go through this article from top to bottom and start getting specific attributions? It's a darn big article, but I'm game if everyone else agrees that will improve the article. Just wondering. Lightbreather (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

OPPOSE as waste of time. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose (agree). Lightbreather (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

oppose The item above is relevant, because it is a very small number of people who think that Heller is wrongly decided. (Wrongly decided is very different than not liking the result. Many people may not like the result, but it is a much narrower thing to say that SCOTUS was actually wrong in their interpretation). Similarly the Nazi opinions are attributed directly to Halbrook, the NRA etc as that is a minority view. For other items where the viewpoint is widely held (by at least a majority of their "side") we don't need to be as strict about attribution. It is important to note that saying "we shouldnt go throught the whole article" is not the same thing as saying "we dont need to every worry about attribution.". Gaijin42 (talk)

I hear you... I hear you so well, Gaijin. #1. I don't want to start a debate on the issue, but I do want to say that I disagree that it is a very small number of people who think Heller was wrongly decided. (I think, of those - important or not - who have an opinion, it is probably pretty divided, just as the Court was.) #2. In any case, I just want to make sure all editors are being treated the same here, and pro and con POVs held to the same standards. Lightbreather (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not meaning to be rude or trite, but what you agree with or not is not relevant. What do the sources say about how many people think it was wrongly decided. (Note that SCOTUS was unanimous in saying that it was an individual right, but disagreed on the scope of the right, so the collectivist militia only viewpoint is well and truly disproven, so comparing to the split in SCOTUS is somewhat a non-starter). Gaijin42 (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That is a good point, Gaijin. Do you have a high-quality source that indicates how many people think that it was wrongly decided? Lightbreather (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not. It the absence of such a source, any sources that do claim "wrongly decided" are speaking only for themselves. Hence the request for attribution. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Let me think on that. (Also, to qualify my last question: Based on polls, I would say that a majority of people would say that the 2nd guarantees people the right to own guns - as opposed to only National Guard members, say. By "people" in my last question I meant scholars and others who are recognized as authorities on Constitutional law.) Now I will think. Lightbreather (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Who sources

Lightbreather You have listed three sources. Two of the sources have the exact same quote, and further do not actually back the statement they are cited for. That people may not like the consequences of a ruling is not the same thing as saying they think the ruling was wrongly decided. That quote does not in any way indicate that the authors think SCOTUS misinterpreted the second amendment, or other sources used by SCOTUS in their decision - just that the decision may lead to a result contrary to poll support for gun control.

The Spitzer source is essentialy just quoting Posner. We should reference posner, not spitzer. [10]

Now Posner is a write who I regularly read and respect, but in the same source he also says that the type of logic he disagrees with in Heller also was mistaken in Roe v Wade, in any recognition of gay marriage, in Kelo, etc - so in that case Posner is not really saying that just Heller was wrongly decided, but a massive swath of cases are wrongly decided - if we quote him we should put that into context.

The part quoted again does not actually back the statement in the article (though other quotes may). He is clearly talking about the length of the list of history being irrelevant to the decision, not the logic used in the decision itself (Posner argues it is an originalism vs constructionism issue, combined with the judges preferred result).

The quote in actual context : "Lawyers are advocates for their clients, and judges are advocates for whichever side of the case they have decided to vote for. The judge sends his law clerks scurrying to the library and to the Web for bits and pieces of historical documentation. But it was not so simple in Heller, and Scalia and his staff labored mightily to produce a long opinion (the majority opinion is almost 25,000 words long) that would convince, or perhaps just overwhelm, the doubters. The range of historical references in the majority opinion is breathtaking, but it is not evidence of disinterested historical inquiry. It is evidence of the ability of well-staffed courts to produce snow jobs"Gaijin42 (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

First, did you mean to put these comments under this discussion, or under the "Who?" discussion? Also, re: "Two of the sources have the exact same quote..." I probably just did I poor job re-using a citation template. I will fix that ASAP. Lightbreather (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42 I just added a proper quote from Magarian, but it probably brings into question not only this discussion, but the one from 8 JAN 2014 re: Removing original research / unsourced material. I will leave it to you to decide on where to take the discussion next. I mean keep it under this discussion heading, a new heading - or maybe even to my talk page or yours? I am confident that you and I can come up with a solution to this problem, without taking time from the other editors' days. (Then we could come back here to wrap-up this issue.) Lightbreather (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather Your new quote has the same problem the first one did. The quote specifically endorses the individual view. If you are going to say that scholars disagree with the individual right, you will have to actually find a scholar that say so. This quote in particular could be moved into the next sub section on self defense though, as it does back an objection to saying the 2A should not cover self defense. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I must've been adding my comment (above) the same time you were adding yours... Lightbreather (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I have boldly moved your scholar statement into the next subsection, and rewrote it to talk about what your sources actually back. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I am satisfied with that for now, and I thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Magarian and Spitzer

The Wikipedia article presently says: "As part of the Heller holding, the majority endorsed the view that the Second Amendment protects a self defense right. Two gun control activists, Robert J. Spitzer and Gregory P. Magarian argue that this was somehow an incorrect interpretation by the court.[145][146][147]"

There are others who share the view of Spitzer and Magarian. For example, see this blog post (this can be used to find reliable sources but is not itself a reliable source). I will tweak the sentence in the Wikipedia article accordingly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Not a stalemate

I think the word "stalemate" in the second sentence of the article should be replaced with another word. (It says, "For the last several decades, the debate regarding the availability of firearms within the United States has been characterized by a stalemate between a right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the responsibility of government to prevent crime and deaths...") A stalemate can be defined as "Any situation that has no obvious possible movement, but does not involve any personal loss." But for the last several decades, many laws have been changed, some in ways favorable to gun rights, others in ways favorable to gun control. It would be easy to think of many examples. So, the debate has been characterized by something other than a stalemate, but I'm not sure what the best word for it is. Battle? Dynamic? Tension? Synthesis? Or maybe that sentence should be rewritten in another way. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree. The word came from one of the sources that was given, and that brings up a second point.

The sources cited in the lead are Bruce & Wilcox's collection from 1998, and the 1995 edition of Spitzer's book. They were probably good sources for early versions of this article, but a lot has happened since '95 and '98. The AWB expired. There have been numerous mass shootings. Heller and Miller were decided. The prior focus on gun crime has widened to gun violence - criminal, accidental, suicide, deaths and injuries - and cost. I think a collaborative effort at updating the lead (and the body), using newer editions (of sources already cited, when there are newer ones) would be time well spent. Is there a newer edition of Bruce & Wilcox's book? I know there's a 2012 edition of Spitzer's because I own a copy. There is also a 2012 edition of Guns in American Society (edited by Carter). It would be a big job, but I'm game if anyone else is. (Typed from my phone... hope there aren't too many typos.) Lightbreather (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The proper word here is "dichotomy". --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer to address the concern of Mudwater by a minimalist approach that would solve the problem but without expenditure of much time or effort, and without risk of needless argumentation. In particular:

“ For the last several decades, the debate regarding the availability of firearms within the United States has been characterized by a stalemate between concerns about a right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and about the responsibility of government to prevent crime and deaths, with supporters of stricter gun control arguing that broad gun rights inhibit the government from fulfilling that responsibility.[2][3] ”

Howzabout that? I don't really favor "dichotomy", because gun rights folks would argue that it's a false dichotomy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is compelling! I went and changed it. I think it reads much better now. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Qualifying scholars

This sentence, "Some scholars, like political scientist Robert J. Spitzer and constitutional law professor Gregory P. Magarian, believe Heller was an incorrect interpretation by the court," was changed to this: "Two gun control advocates, political scientist Robert J. Spitzer and constitutional law professor Gregory P. Magarian, believe Heller was an incorrect interpretation by the court..."

Do we want the guideline for this page to be that we identify scholars as advocates of one position or the other? I think they might object - the living ones, at least.

If the answer is "Yes," I'll take the time to edit the rest of the article to reflect that this is a consensus. For instance, this sentence, "Historians have tended to not address such arguments, according to Robert J. Cottrol, professor of law and history at the George Washington University," ought to be changed to this: "Historians have tended to not address such arguments, according to gun rights advocate and professor of law Robert J. Cottrol..." Lightbreather (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The applicability of such labels for wikipeida would be to the degree that such labels are applied to them by reliable sources. I have no specific position on if either label is applicable to these particular persons. I will say that someone who merely writes a single (or few) pro or con paper or book should probably not qualify, but someone who has a long track record of arguing for a particular position is more likely to. (This would likely be reflected by the terms which reliable sources refer to them, but that is also affected by the biases of the RS author, who will try to make their opponents look biased, and their supporters look neutral, so it would need to be several sources to apply labels probably) - my gut is that spitzer is much more notable than magarian or cottrol, and he is notable as a a gun control researcher and advocate. Magarian and Cottrol seem much less high profile, and therefore much less likely to have labels applied to them (regardless of their position). Additionally Cottrol's position does not seem to be accurately described as "gun rights advocate" as he is a strong supporter of background checks etc - he merely argues that the constitution protects gun rights. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess what I'm asking, Gaijin, is do we really want to go down that road? You make a good point about Cottrol - if you want to look at his stance on background checks. (I don't know it, but I'm assuming for now that you're right.) But the source cited in our article by him is an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times headed "The Last Line of Defense: The right to bear arms is a matter of individual safety and, ultimately, freedom. The issue goes far beyond gun nuts." Granted, he probably didn't write the headline, but the editorial decision to use that headline is a good indication of the editorial assessment of the commentary. The penultimate paragraph of Cottrol's submission uses "right" or "rights" six times.

Still, I am not saying I support labeling him as a gun-rights advocate - unless we're going to identify other scholars' leanings on the subject. And I don't think we should then look only at the scholar's quantity of work on the subject, but the quality as well. And who on the pro and con sides of the issue are citing him. That's all. It just seems like another area to open up a lengthy debate on, when there is so much else in the article that needs work. Lightbreather (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42: As a follow-up to this conversation, and to the edit summary of "spitzer is well known as a gun control advocate. Cottrol edited one book and wrote one article, and supports registration and universal background checks. Need a source to qualify him." As you know, my preference is to leave-off this labeling of scholars with their pro- gun rights or gun control stance. (For now anyway. Maybe someday? But really, their works speak for themselves.) However, it seems to be important to at least one other editor, so...

This is a link to Cottrol's published works, and if I counted right, there are 7 or 8 directly related to gun control, gun rights, and the Second. Has Spitzer written more on those subjects? Probably, but Cottrol has contributed more than just editing one book and writing one article. And, as scholars, I think it's hard to pigeon-hole either one. Cottrol apparently supports some controls, and Spitzer certainly supports the right to own (some) guns for (some) purposes. They seem to differ on individualist vs. collectivist interpretations. Lightbreather (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I would not support Lightbreather's proposal. The cited source says "Robert J. Cottrol is a professor of law and history at George Washington University." Why would we leave out the "history" part except to diminish his credentials? The quote itself seems to amply convey his POV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Anything, that omission was not on purpose. I should have written: "Historians have tended to not address such arguments, according to gun rights advocate and professor of law and history Robert J. Cottrol..." Now I'll reply to Gaijin (immediately preceding). Give me a few... Lightbreather (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I also oppose Lightbreather's proposal because I think it is combative, and not truly intended to improve the encyclopedia. If someone is an open advocate of a particular position (either side) they should be portrayed that way, and not as a neutral "scholar". That is misleading and POV. We have to put Wikipedia ahead of our politics. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I am dropping this issue for now, but I want to say for the record that I object to calling Spitzer and Magarian "gun control advocates" while not calling Cottrol a "gun rights advocate." How can anyone read the editorial he wrote, and that we cite in this article, and NOT call him a gun rights advocate?

As for the edit that changed Cottrol back to just a law and history professor (while leaving Spitzer and Magarian "gun control advocates," and nothing more - stripping them of their scholarly positions): It is absolutely POV.

I also protest the edit summary given for restoring Cottrol's solely scholarly position: "spitzer is well known as a gun control advocate. Cottrol edited one book and wrote one article, and supports registration and universal background checks. Need a source to qualify him." The first comment is about Spitzer, not Cottrol. The second part implies that if someone supports registration or universal background checks (and I don't know if Cottrol does, but I'll assume for argument's sake that he does) they cannot be called a gun-rights advocate. By that logic, if one supported the right to bear arms in any degree (as I do, and many other moderates, too), they could not be called a gun-control advocate.

Finally, I would like to point out that it was not me who chose to make this "combative." I defined Spitzer and Magarian the same way as Cottrol: as scholars. Someone else felt that it was necessary to label them something else - and throw in a half-truth at the same time - with NO edit summary. Lightbreather (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Edits to Robert Spitzer's page, and page compared to John Lott's

I decided to update Robert Spitzer's page and create a page for Robert Cottrol. As I have argued for here, I wanted to emphasize their scholarly profiles. Another editor immediately (within one hour) followed me to Spitzer's page, added that he is a "political activist" to the lead, and added a political activism section. This brings up the same darn argument. Also, I am asking... WTF?! If you go to John Lott's page, you'll see he is called an economist and "political commentator."

I would like to nip this pro- gun rights (or maybe anti- gun control) POV pushing in the bud and I am asking for help. Is there anyone who feels they can help with this situation? It seems to me that it can only heat-up conflict, rather than cool it down. Certainly if Lott is not called an activist there is no reason to be pushing that on Spitzer's page. Lightbreather (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

They're both living people, and I think someone has already begun a discussion about it at WP:BLPN. So you'll be able to get feedback there. I'd rather not get involved, since I already waste enough time on this article.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

OK and thanks. I didn't catch that there was a discussion elsewhere. Lightbreather (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This is called "Canvassing", and you would be wise to stop. Also, everyone knows that I am pro-control and a fan of Spitzer (tho I don't agree with everything he says blindly) We have to put Wikipedia ahead of our politics, Lightbreather. If we were at a rally, I'd hold a sign with you. But we aren't at a rally, and Wikipedia isn't a battlefield. There are many academics who use that as a platform for activism. Spitzer is one of them. Read his books. Go to his rallys. Put Wikipedia first, Lightbreather, and you will have less problems with people here. Canvassing and article ownership issues are no-nos. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing original research / un-sourced

Miguel_Escopeta, about a month ago, a I was told that when one thinks something is un-sourced, it should be tagged as needing a citation, rather than just removing it, so that others can find a source. (Unless its an obvious BLP or vandalism issue). I was also told the tag should be allowed to stay for about a month before removing the contested material.

For this reason, I am restoring a statement you removed today - but adding a tag. I don't think this is a WP policy, so much as something editors of controversial pages - or maybe just gun-related pages? do. Lightbreather (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales

Jimbo seems rather clear regarding random speculations. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Miguel. I have seen that quote before, and I would agree with you - except that I've been told this by numerous other editors. At any rate, I identified and cited sources (three) last night. However, I will make a note of your advice for dealing with my own and others' future edits. Thanks!

Oh! And here are the before and after on the sentence in question.

Before (unsourced): There remain groups of people who believe that this was an incorrect interpretation by the court.

After (three sources): There are scholars who believe Heller was an incorrect interpretation by the court. Lightbreather (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

As a follow-up, Miguel, the policy I believe the others had referred to was WP:UNSOURCED. I don't remember if anyone gave a link to it, but I found it after the issue came up. I think Jimbo's advice is especially meant to apply to statements about or attributed to living persons. Lightbreather (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Any "scholars" who claim that SCOTUS ruled incorrectly certainly fall into the latter bin, and should not be given UNDUE WEIGHT. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The scholars line still has a problem. You cant just have citations that provide the who, we have to either name them, or label them to provide a scope of the opinion. Saying SCOTUS wrongly decided Heller is a fairly major statement, so I would lean more to naming individual people that hold that opinion, as it is certainly not true that "scholars in general" think that. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Just because something is sourced, doesn't mean it gets to go into the article. Keep it removed. There is certainly no consensus here to add a mountain of WP:FRINGE POV material. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42 and Miguel_Escopeta: Do you share the opinion that what was added is a "mountain of WP:FRINGE POV material"? Lightbreather (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

My reply just below I think answers this. I dont think WP:FRINGE applies to this type of political opinion (the same situation with the Nazi opininions), but it certainly is a minority viewpoint. Its WP:UNDUE for the lede, but if attributed it can go into the body in the Heller/SCOTUS section. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a notable viewpoint, but probably not notable enough for the lede. It needs to be attributed, and should probably go into the body instead. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be close to WP:FRINGE, as SCOTUS has spoken and that ruling is now the official interpretation. A single statement in the body (not the lede) that the decision was controversial and still elicits negative opinions among a small vocal group that remain opposed to the SCOTUS ruling would be fine, with cites. Their viewpoint is notable, despite being a minority viewpoint. But, the "mountain of WP:FRINGE POV material" as one editor described it, certainly doesn't belong in the lede, as this would be giving undue weight to a decidedly minority viewpoint. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought that this was resolved, but apparently not yet. The simple sentence - "There remain groups of people who believe that this was an incorrect interpretation by the court" - and iterations of it have been deleted, restored with a note to see talk page, tagged for citation needed, tagged for who?, edited to added citations (3) and who?, deleted again (with puzzling edit summary "Removed mass of POV edits..."), restored again with note - again - to see talk page, tagged for who? again, deleted again, restored again, updated with who? details, updated with a political stance, and more edits, including being moved to a related section.

At that point, the statement had been broken into two sentences that read: "As part of the Heller holding, the majority endorsed the view that the Second Amendment protects a self defense right. Some scholars, like political scientist Robert J. Spitzer and constitutional law professor Gregory P. Magarian, believe Heller was an incorrect interpretation by the court." Now it has been deleted again, with the edit summary: Removed it altogether until there is a consensus to have it in. It is a fringe idea put forth by only two people (Unless it can be sourced otherwise) Spitzer is a gun control activist and that should be made clear. Please do not revert without a consensus. I've waited for the last editor to address this, but seeing nothing (perhaps I've missed something). There seem to be two editors claiming that these sources represent a "fringe" theory, while others say it is a significant minority viewpoint. I am asking: What is it that has yet to be resolved? Is it how to describe Spitzer? I have already expressed that I think identifying scholars by their political leanings (certainly their political leanings only) is poor form. Certainly describing Spitzer as a gun control "activist" is excessive. What is the compromise? Lightbreather (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that the argument significantly changed during this discussion. The disagreement that the 2A protects an individual right is indeed fringe. Earlier reverts on that point were quite correct. The debate of if the 2A covers a self-defense right is now settled with two supreme court rulings directly saying so. however, as there was a dissent on that point from SCOTUS, saying that some academics agree with this dissent is acceptable, but the inclusion must be very minimal. Frankly the constitution says and means what SCOTUS majority says it means. That is a core tenent of the US system. I am ok with most of the sentence included, but I think there will be a problem coming to a consensus on qualifiers. Spitzer is definately a non neutral control advocate. I have less issue with Magarian, but he is also significantly less notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the comment, but replaced "gun control activists" with "political commentators." I hope this is an acceptable compromise to all editors concerned. (By way of explanation, John Lott is called an "economist and political commentator" in his article's lead, and this recent source - the (Syracuse, New York) Post-Standard - specifically calls Spitzer's opinion piece commentary.) Lightbreather (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

self defense minority view

I think we should include the minority view, but there is a WP:WEIGHT issue. We spend quite a bit of text talking about the debate, then a one sentence "Heller said yes", followed by a LONGER one sentence "These other guys said no". This is however, not a he said/she said situation. By definition, the SCOTUS majority sets the law/interpretation. We either need to expand the majority section so that it is clear that that is the "right" answer, then we can have the minority viewpoint as a minor addon - or if the "heller said yes" is the level we stay at, the minority view needs to be dropped as it is WP:UNDUE in that context. There may be text in the heller article itself we could borrow to flesh out the section. (Or we may need to decide that the dissenting view is appropriate for the heller article, but not appropriate at the high level summary level we have here).

The latter solution probably seems most correct to me. The dissenting view is notable within the context of discussing Heller. In the context of discussing "what is the current state of US law" it is 100% irrelevant. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

How to fix this sentence?

The following sentence needs to be "fixed," but I'm not sure how to proceed. For one, I don't own any of the sources it cites. Two, I don't want to be suspected of any POV funny-business. I think I know what the original author of this sentence was trying to say, but how to modify it? Suggestions or volunteers, please? (I wish more of the sources cited in this article were easier to access!) I WILL correct the capitalization error (second amendment s/b capitalized).

Sentence (begins 2nd graf of Second Amendment argument section): Before District of Columbia v. Heller there was a difference of opinion about whether or not the second amendment included an individual right.

Of course, even since Heller there is a difference of opinion about whether or not the 2nd included an individual right. I would be surprised if ever all Americans have the same opinion about that. And of course, the justices were split on the issue, too. So, how to fix this editorial problem? Lightbreather (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing that needs fixing. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The justices were not split on if it was an individual right. The dissent explicitly said that all justices agreed it was an individual right. The dissenting question was did the individual right extend to self defense uses of guns or not. (and again the dissent said Yes. they just thought that the "bright line" for allowable regulation was in a different spot)Gaijin42 (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

What sources do we have that support the claims that (1)the "justices were not split on if it was an individual right", (2) that the "dissent explicitly said that all justices agreed it was an individual right", (3) that the "dissenting question was did the individual right extend to self defense uses of guns or not. (and again the dissent said Yes", and (4) that the "dissenting question was did the individual right extend to self defense uses of guns or not. (and again the dissent said Yes"? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem Anythingyouwant The dissents are very explicit on the matter of individual right. The are less so on the part of does it cover self defense. As our article text currently only mentions the unanimity of the individual rights interpretation, everything is kosher, but I do admit overstating the self-defense holding in talk previously. Questions 1-3 (the first half of 3 anyway) are very explicitly covered in unambiguous text. Question 4 as I said I overstated. Both the dissents that follow were joined by all of the dissenting judges.

he Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

--- Although I adopt for present purposes the majority’s position that the Second Amendment embodies a general concern about self-defense, I shall not assume that the Amendment contains a specific untouchable right to keep guns in the house to shoot burglars. The majority, which presents evidence in favor of the former proposition, does not, because it cannot, convincingly show that the Second Amendment seeks to maintain the latter in pristine, unregulated form.

--- The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

---

Thus I here assume that one objective (but, as the majority concedes, ante, at 26, not the primary objective) of those who wrote the Second Amendment was to help assure citizens that they would have arms available for purposes of self-defense

Additionally, there are a number of secondary sources that have made this analysis for us

• (SPS, but Kopel is a known expert on gun laws, so gets the exception) http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/Collective-Right.html
• http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v102/n4/2035/LR102n4Reynolds&Denning.pdf
• (p673) http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2012/04/69.4.denning.pdf

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to modify the sentence in question, and/or replace the "citation needed" tag with one or more footnotes. Then other editors can take a look and decide if the resulting sentence is okay.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and inserted a footnote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42, the text already in our article, "The dissenting justices considered the majority had broken established precedent on the Second Amendment and reiterated the opinion that it refers to the right to maintain a militia, not an individual right"[11], is well supported by the citation provided:

In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens took vigorous issue with Justice Scalia's assertion that it was the Second Amendment that had enshrined the individual right to own a gun. Rather, it was "today's law-changing decision" that bestowed the right and created "a dramatic upheaval in the law," Justice Stevens said in a dissent joined by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer. Justice Breyer, also speaking for the others, filed a separate dissenting opinion.

— Greenhouse, Linda (June 27, 2008). "Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights". The New York Times.

It is also well supported by at least sixteen other sources (collapsed for talk page convenience)...

Extended Quote/Source List

Stevens rebutted Scalia in 46 pages of his own, and the two engaged in a line-by-line battle over the meaning of the amendment. "When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia," Stevens wrote, adding that it meant "no more than that." — Barnes, Robert (June 27, 2008). "Justices Reject D.C. Ban On Handgun Ownership". The Washington Post. Writing for the dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the debate over the Second Amendment was not whether it protected an individual or collective right but, instead, over the scope of the right to bear arms. He contended that while the Second Amendment may protect a right to use weapons to hunt and for self-defense, it did not extend to using guns to rob a bank. His argument was that nothing in the text, history, or past precedents of the Second Amendment precludes the government from regulating the civilian use of the weapons. He accused the majority of reaching a political decision, one not supported by any new scholarship. — Schultz, D. A. (2009). Encyclopedia of the United States Constitution. New York: Infobase Publishing. p. 201. ISBN 9781438126777. Four justices dissented in two separate opinions. Justice John Paul Stevens's dissent presented originalist and other evidence in an effort to demonstrate that the majority's interpretation of the amendment was simply incorrect. Justice Stephen Breyer's dissent criticized the majority opinion from a different angle, arguing among other things that it did not give sufficient weight to the government's interest in gun control and failed to provide workable rules for evaluating the constitutionality of gun control. — Blocher, J. (2012). "District of Columbia v. Heller". In Critchlow, D. T.; VanderMeer, P. R.; Boyer, P. (eds.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Political and Legal History, Volume 1. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 220. ISBN 9780199754618. In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said that the phrase in the Second Amendment—"to keep and bear arms"—referred to those serving in state militias, not to all citizens. Stevens added, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons...I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice." — LaFeber, W.; Polenberg, R.; Woloch, N. (2013). The American Century: Volume 2: A History of the United States Since 1941 (7th ed.). Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe. p. 485. ISBN 9780765634863. The Court's political conservatives (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, joined by Kennedy) interpreted the Constitution to include an individual right to bear arms; the Court's political liberals (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer) found there to he no such constitutional right. — Trachtman, M. (2009). The Supremes' Greatest Hits: The 37 Supreme Court Cases that Most Directly Affect Your Life. New York, NY: Sterling. p. 198. ISBN 9781402768262. Writing for the dissenters, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the majority misread the amendment and disregarded precedent. He warned the ruling would lead to an "active judicial role" in gun control policies. In a separate dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer argued that the problem of urban violence justified a handgun ban even if the Second Amendment established a personal right. — Jost, K. (2012). The Supreme Court A to Z. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage. p. 30. ISBN 9781608717446. The dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens took a very different view, concluding that the amendment "protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the legislature's power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons." — Ethridge, M.; Handelman, H. (2010). Politics in a Changing World: A Comparative Introduction to Political Science (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. pp. 318–319. ISBN 9780495570486. As Justice [John Paul] Stevens aptly noted in his dissent, "the right the Court announces was not 'enshrined' in the Second Amendment by the Framers; it is the product of today's law changing decision." — Utter, G. (2010). Culture Wars in America: A Documentary and Reference Guide. Santa Barbara, Calif: Greenwood Press. p. 158. ISBN 9780313350399. More surprisingly, perhaps, writing for the four dissenters Justice Stevens also used the Originalist approach. But guess what? He found that the original understanding of the meaning of the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right of gun ownership, and so the D.C. law was not a violation of the Second Amendment. — Dahlin, D. (2012). We the People: A Brief Introduction to the Constitution and Its Interpretation. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. p. 34. ISBN 9781137263056. In both dissents, the clear implication is that if the purpose of the Second Amendment is militia—related, it follows that the amendment does not create a legal rule that protects an individual right to possess and carry fire arms outside the context of service in a state militia. — Bennett, R.; Solum, L. (2011). Constitutional originalism : A Debate. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press. p. 29. ISBN 9780801447938. Justice Stevens's dissent stresses that for over 70 years hundreds of judges have relied upon Miller as precedent and it indeed finds the Second Amendment is all about the militia and not individual rights. — Neubauer, D.; Meinhold, S. (2012). Judicial process : Law, Courts, and Politics in the United States (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth. p. 209. ISBN 9781111357566. Dissent: (Stevens, J.) The history from the drafting era shows that the Amendment was designed to protect the right of Americans to form effective militias. Even if the evidence were close respect for precedent favoring the militia interpretation would counsel rejecting the claim. • Dissent: (Breyer, J.) Even assuming that the right at issue is an individual right the D.C. law should be upheld as a reasonable restriction on the right, given the problem of gun violence and the only slight degree to which the law restricts individuals' rights to possess guns. — Blond, N. C. (2009). Constitutional Law. Austin New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business Aspen Publishers. p. 182. ISBN 9780735586123. The implications of the majority's conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry weapons were disputed by Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer in their dissenting opinions. Justice Stevens, in particular, offered a lengthy dissent, focusing in part on the purposes that animated the Second Amendment and raising a number of arguments relevant to the original intentions of the Framers. — Solum, L. B. (2011). "What is Originalism? The Evolution of Contemporary Originalist Theory". In Huscroft, G.; Miller, B. W. (eds.). The Challenge of Originalism: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation. Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 30. ISBN 9781107013254. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) The four-Justice dissent, written by Justice Stevens and joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, questioned the majority's conclusion that the Second Amendment clearly protected individuals' rights to own guns, arguing that if that were the case, the language would have been clearer. They also found the majority's argument to be in consistent: on the one hand, arguing that all of the people had the right to bear arms, and on the other hand, limiting that right only to law-abiding ones who are not mentally ill. Justice Breyer also dissented and was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg. Justice Breyer's argument emphasized that even if the Second Amendment was designed to protect an individual's right to self-defense, the D.C. law fulfilled that goal by taking guns out of high-crime urban areas. — Scaros, C. E. (2011). Understanding the Constitution. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. p. 393. ISBN 9780763758110. Stevens examined all of the same historical evidence canvassed by Justice Scalia, but reached almost diametrically opposite conclusions. Justice Stevens begins his opinion by conceding Justice Scalia's point that the Second Amendment right is an "individual" one, in the sense that "[s]urely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals." He concludes, however, that all of the historical context, and all of the evidence surrounding the drafting of the Second Amendment, supports the view that the Second Amendment protects only a right to keep and bear arms in the context of militia service. Because Dick Heller clearly was not claiming that he wished to use a handgun as a part of military service, for Justice Stevens this meant ipso facto that the D.C. regulation raised no serious constitutional concerns. — Bhagwat, A. (2010). The Myth of Rights: The Purposes and Limits of Constitutional Rights. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 16–17. ISBN 9780195377781. And in Lewis, Blackmun wrote on behalf of the Court that "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.'" That uncontroversial statement remained an accurate characterization of the Court's long-settled and correct understanding of the meaning of the Second Amendment up until the Court's unfortunate decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which the Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to keep a handgun in the home. — Stevens, J. P. (2012). Five chiefs : A Supreme Court Memoir. New York: Back Bay Books. p. 150. ISBN 9780316199797.

From the seventeen sources above it seems apparent:

1. That the Court was split on the existence of the "individual right" put forth by the majority
2. That the dissent does not explicitly state that all of the justices agreed with the majority's assertion that the Second Amendment contains such a right
3. That the dissenting question was not "did the individual right extend to self defense uses of guns or not"
4. That the dissenting justices did not "just [think] that the 'bright line' for allowable regulation was in a different spot."

It's also worth noting that none of the dissenting justices wrote opinions "agreeing in part" with the majority.
In other words, the concerns Lightbreather expressed at the top of this section should be addressed. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem To save us both time, I am going to ask you to reform your argument to a more limited scope. Here are the assertions we either currently have, or that I could see being useful in the article

1. All judges agreed there was an individual right
2. The dissenting judges disagreed greatly as to the scope of that right
3. In particular disagreeing on if self defense was a protected right
4. and what regulations were acceptable (in particular DCs regulation at hand)

I would say virtually all of the sources you are quoting agree with these assertions. There are some that do disagree with point #1, and I would like to discuss them further with you, but I don't think its useful for us to waste time debating points that nobody is trying to include in the article. could you cull the list of sources to the ones that you think are at issue (Primarily towards point #1 I think?) so that we can discuss them further? (I could cull myself, but I want to make sure im not putting words into your mouth or interpreting sources differently than you may). Gaijin42 (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I am curious whether Artifex believes the following source is wrong: "District of Columbia v. Heller: The Individual Right to Bear Arms" (comment), Harvard Law Review, Vol. 122, pp. 141-142 (2008): "Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, agreeing with the majority that the Second Amendment confers an individual right, but disagreeing as to the scope of that right….Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined Justice Stevens’s opinion." It seems clear to me that all of the justices supported the view that the Amendment protects an individual right, but the minority thought it was just an individual right to keep and bear arms for militia service.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is a valid interpretation of the minority position. Personally I think thats a pretty tough argument to make (you have an individual right to be part of a collective), and essentially makes the individual vs collective question collective vs collective - but since its the minority dissent, I suppose its moot as to how valid of a position it is or what its deeper implications are. I would be open to updating our current "unanimous" sentence to clarify something about what the scope of the right the dissent was agreeing to (but we may run into an OR/disagreement-between-sources issue in trying to quantify/qualify that statement. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we have two contradictory sentences in the Wikipedia article, which says the minority: (1) "reiterated the opinion that it refers to the right to maintain a militia, not an individual right", and (2) "endorsed an individual rights viewpoint, but differed on the scope of that right." So some sort of clarification is needed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

good catch. Personally I think the "reiterated" version should be changed to say something about "minority dissent agreed that the 2A protects an individual right, but argued that that right was limited to keeping and bearing arms related to militia service" or something along those lines. (Or alternatively "argued that the right did not extend to protecting arms kept for self defense", since that was the core issue at hand in the case. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I have modified the sentence like this: "The dissenting justices said that the majority had broken established precedent on the Second Amendment,[223] and took the position that the Amendment refers to the right to maintain a militia, not an individual right except in the context of militia service.[117][224][225][226]" Hopefully that will suffice.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This wording is a "stretching" of what the justices actually said. The justices all agreed that the 2A refers to an individual right, but they differed only in the context of that right, with the dissenting justices furthering the context to a militia, and the majority not limiting the context to a militia. As I am sure you know, there are two militia, (i) the organized militia (which has morphed into the National Guard circa 1903, at least in many states, although some states have both an organized militia and the National Guard, and (ii) the unorganized militia which consists of nearly everyone, and which also still exists today. I have corrected the statement to what the references say, removing the misleading "right to maintain a militia" wording. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't insert the "right to maintain a militia" wording. As of now, I have no objection to the version after your edit, nor to the version before your edit.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Where is the usage?

Describing Robert Spitzer as an "activist" was dropped, and he is now being called an "advocate." There is no proof of this in his article or on his talk page. In fact, to the contrary. And yet someone insists that he must be called that, adding it back, again, moments ago with the edit summary: "The man's politics must be shown. I removed the word 'Activist' per consensus. 'Advocate' is the word now being used I believe, and so have replaced it." Where is this "being used"? If it's on Wikipedia, it is WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH and, more importantly, against the high-quality-source standard for material about living persons. Let the man's work speak for itself (as Cottrol's is), or find a preponderence of high-quality, reliable, verifiable sources that call this man an "advocate." Lightbreather (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

He edited his own page and left the word "Advocate" up. That's good enough for me. If not "advocate" or "activist", what word do you want to use for an intellectual who has published, spoken, and disseminated Pro Gun Control viewpoints for the last 30 years or so? Promoter? Crusader? I don't understand your exception to this, unless you are trying to paint him as some sort of neutral commentator, which he doesn't even admit to be. I admire the man for his beliefs why are you trying to water this down? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I will also add that the word "advocate" may be the best match due to his legal background, which is probably why he left it up. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you assuming that he left it up on purpose? Or that if he left it on purpose, it was because he agrees with it? (When he's an inexperienced WP editor, and kept being told that he wasn't supposed to edit his own page - which is untrue.) He's active on the page right now. He has explained the difference between himself and someone like John Lott. He wrote: "Someone in this exchange mentioned John Lott who, by way of comparison, does not have a university affiliation (although he did in the past), did have an affiliation with a political think tank (AEI), which I have never had, and has engaged in specific political advocacy. For example, he spoke at a rally of the Second Amendment Sisters (a gun rights advocacy group) on Mother's Day in 2000 in Washington, DC on behalf of their cause. He is perfectly entitled to do these things; I mention his example to clarify the difference between political advocacy and political/policy analysis."

This living person has made it clear that he should not be called an activist or an advocate, but most importantly, per WP:BLP - no preponderance of high-quality, reliable, verifiable sources call him those things. Lightbreather (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I actually do not care what word is used, so long as it accurately depicts his politics. He is far on the pro-control side, so if you want to call him an activist, advocate, promoter, proponent, etc. It's all the same to me, as long as it doesn't falsely portray him as a neutral party in these matters. That's the sort of thing that hurts Wikipedia and gives us a reputation for inaccuracy. Besides, he's the one who is allowing the word on his own page, he can take it down anytime he chooses. He has made no complaint. The only person objecting is you, Lightbreather. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I will also point out that if you look at the Wikipedia Category Structure, you will find that the word "advocate" is the word Wikipedia uses for people on BOTH sides of the issue, for example "Category:Gun Rights Advocates" or "Category:American Gun Control Advocates". There is already a wide consensus to use that particular word, so it should be the word we use. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a request for comment regarding this subject on the Robert Spitzer article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Political arguments

This edit seems to be substantially changing the structure of the "Political arguments" section. That section starts by saying that "Political arguments about gun rights primarily fall under two related questions. Does the government have the authority to impose gun regulations? If so, should the government regulate guns?[109]" Accordingly, those were basically the two main subheadings. But the new proposal is to replace those subheadings with pro and con subheadings. I do not think the new subheadings reflect the two related questions described at the beginning of the section, and am also concerned that the contents of the subsections woud have to be considerably changed to conform with the new subheadings. Accordingly, I will revert this particular edit.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I can explain every edit I have made this afternoon. Shall I start at what prompted the edit in question? It will make the reason more clear. Lightbreather (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be fine, but please also address the concerns I described.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I certainly shall. However, I am not always fast in my replies, so please be patient.

As you can see, my first edit here today was in the (then) Public policy arguments subsection of the Political arguments section. This was to make Firearms deaths, Logical pitfalls in the gun-violence debate, and Relationships between crime, violence, and gun ownership subsections of Gun violence. Then, I moved my attention to the top of the Political arguments section to see how the Public policy arguments subsection was summarized, along with its twin (so to speak) the (then) Rights based arguments. That's when I saw that "gun control" versus "gun rights" was what the first paragraph in the whole long Political arguments was about. I added a brief sentence explaining the heart of the debate (sourced from the latest edition of The Politics of Gun Control) - before the existing statement that named the sides. (And they are the commonly-used names.) Lightbreather (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Following are the two questions at the top of the "Political arguments" section.... Does the government have the authority to impose gun regulations? If so, should the government regulate guns? These two questions are not about "gun control" versus "gun rights" respectively. They are about how much power the government has, and how that power ought to be used, respectively (each of those two questions has an answer from gun rights activists and also a conflicting answer from gun control activists). That's my reading, anyway.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with anythingyouwant's analysis. This is a Punnett Square cartesian join of two sets of questions. I don't disagree with Spitzers point, but I think reorganizing our whole article to align with his quote is probably not appropriate. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I never heard of a Punnett Square, but I'm not gonna read about that right now. I think "reorganizing our whole article" is quite an exaggeration. Lightbreather (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Come on, guys. I asked for just a little time.  ;-) This is the rest of my reply to Anything, which I was still writing!

The next few edits (mentioned in my last post) are pretty straightforward. When I got to the "two basic questions" paragraph, what was incongruous with the latest edition of the cited source, especially the second question. It read, "If it does, is it effective public policy to regulate guns?" ("It" being the government's authority to regulate guns.) Based on what the latest edition of the cited source says, I changed it to, "If so, should the government regulate guns?" (The question in the latest edition - I don't have the 19-year-old edition - does not ask if its "effective public policy.")

Next - and here's where we get to your specific question - our article said the first category (?) is collectively known as rights-based arguments, but it didn't give a source. At first I just added a citation-needed tag, but as I continued it was clear, based on the best sources cited in that section thus far (Carter and Spitzer) that "Rights-based arguments" and "Public policy arguments" are misleading terms. Because, #1 Carter calls the political camps (so to speak) "gun control" and "gun rights" (as our existing source citation says) and because Spitzer says citizens (rights), state's power to regulate, and maintenance of public order ALL "come together under the public policy agenda." So I made the changes you've brought up based on the sources. Lightbreather (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The modified subheadings reflect how the cited sources (and a majority of sources) categorize the arguments and are not "pro" and "con" subheadings. Also, the modified subheadings work fine with the existing text. Each sub-subheading can - and should, where appropriate per all the WP policies - have "pro" and "con" material. The only subsection I want to work on right now is the Gun control arguments section, which really needs attention. Lightbreather (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, please leave the subheadings as they've been until a consensus is established to change them. As far as I can tell, you do not object to the "Political arguments" section beginning with an intro that says this: "Political arguments about gun rights primarily fall under two related questions: Does the government have the authority to impose gun regulations? If so, should the government regulate guns?[109]". Why shouldn't those two issues correspond to this section's subsections?

Moreover, you say that the subheadings "Gun rights arguments" and "Gun control arguments" are not pro and con, but a typical reader would certainly understand the first to be arguments in favor of gun rights, and the second to be arguments for gun control.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for not reverting all my edits like before. :-) No, I don't object to the questions. (Forgot to notice if my citation of the recent edition of The Politics of Gun Control stayed with them. I will check when I'm done here.) Does a preponderance of reliable, verifiable sources use the terms "rights-based arguments" and "public policy arguments"? If so, please can you please cite a half-dozen or so (pro, con, and neutral)? If not, we could certainly add a sentence (sourced, of course) to the top of the Political arguments subsection saying that gun-rights arguments are sometimes called rights-based arguments. That a compromise I could accept.

As for "a typical reader would certainly understand the first to be arguments in favor of gun rights, and the second to be arguments for gun control." That is a "pro" and "pro" presentation. (One Pro gun rights and one Pro gun control.) A pro and con presentation would be Pro gun rights and Anti gun rights, OR Pro gun control and Anti gun control. The modified, accurate subsection titles "Gun rights arguments" and "Gun control arguments" use the terms in common use, and, as I said before, they work with the existing text. Each sub-subheading can - and should, where appropriate per all the WP policies - have pro and con arguments within. Lightbreather (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I explicitly said in my edit summary that some of the edits might be okay, and the only reason I reverted to that extent was because otherwise I got a "cannot undo" message.

As to the content issue, I do not feel that you are hearing what I'm saying (or at least trying to say). You have not objected to this bit in the intro to the section on "Political arguments": "Political arguments about gun rights primarily fall under two related questions: Does the government have the authority to impose gun regulations? If so, should the government regulate guns?[109]". Neither of those two issues is pro or con whatsoever. For example, the question of governmental authority has a pro side and a con side, and both can be covered in that subsection. Likewise for the second question. But your proposed subheaders do not follow that structure, and instead they put only one side's arguments in each subsection. I don't see why we shouldn't 't follow the structure outlined in the intro to the section; otherwise, a huge amount of rewriting would have to be done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Im surprised you never heard of punnet squares. Didn't you take high school biology?

pro/con is a talk page shorthand. Its pro control vs pro gun rights or pro gun vs anti gun, or pro control vs anti control. All the same deal.

I think framing the content the way spitzer does actually causes a problem in accurately describing the pro-control side. I think a common POV on the pro control side is - even if the government DOESN'T have the authority to impose gun control, it should do so anyway (by either repealing the amendment, or pushing the boundary as much as possible and hoping to get away with it).

I think spitzer's comment is a fine addition to the article, but we should not be using it to guide the organization or structure of the content. the control/rights paradigm is much more common. Just as you can say "there is a pro/con element to the authority/aught-to arguments" one can equally say "there are authority/aught to elements to the pro/con arguments" Its just horizontal vs vertical, but either way you fill out the entire grid.

Also, I think it makes more sense to keep all of the control arguments together, and all of the (anti)control arguments together - for example, its a common pro-gun argument that it does actually serve public policy (crime reduction). However, one could also argue that putting guns cause crime vs guns prevent crime arguments together makes for a nice debate.

In the end, its probably not a huge deal either way, and I don't want to fight over it, but I think any big change has the opportunity to cause tension, which the overall topic could use less of :) Gaijin42 (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but high school biology for me was a looong time ago.  ;-)

As for the pro/con thing, no further comment from me at this time. As for your comment, "I think a common POV on the pro control side is - even if the government DOESN'T have the authority to impose gun control, it should do so anyway (by either repealing the amendment, or pushing the boundary as much as possible and hoping to get away with it)." I'm pro-rights and pro-control, and most of the people I know feel the same. In fact, I don't personally know one person who admits to being a Second Amendment absolutist (though there is one whom I expect is, and many here are WP whom I'm pretty sure are), and I don't personally know one person who wants to repeal the Second. Pushing the boundary and hoping to get away with it makes it sounds like millions of people are being devious or phony or something. Granted, there might be SOME people like that on BOTH sides of the issue, but most, IMO, are concerned citizens doing the best they can with what they've got. Lightbreather (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

So, Anythingyouwant, after reading further comments from Gainjin and follow-up comments from me, what's your thinking on the issue today? To reiterate, I am NOT suggesting re-structuring the article, I am only suggesting "Gun rights arguments" instead of "Rights-based arguments." and "Gun control arguments" instead of "Public policy arguments," for the same reasons given yesterday (22 JAN) at 22:01: "'Rights-based arguments' and 'Public policy arguments' are misleading terms. Because, #1 Carter calls the political camps (so to speak) 'gun control' and 'gun rights' (as our existing source citation says) and because Spitzer says citizens (rights), state's power to regulate, and maintenance of public order ALL 'come together under the public policy agenda.'"

The other suggestion would be to drop "Rights-based arguments" and "Public policy arguments" as subsections, and just put ALL the arguments under "Political arguments" like this:

5 Political arguments

5.1 Fundamental right arguments

5.2 Second Amendment arguments

5.3 Security against tyranny and invasion arguments

5.4 Self-defense arguments

5.5 State constitution arguments

5.6 Gun violence arguments

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to your last suggestion, except that the last item is not in alphabetical order, so I'd rewrite that subheading as something like "Violence reduction arguments". That is also better because reducing gun violence might increase, e.g., knife violence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The decision to put the Rights-based/Gun-rights arguments subsections in alphabetical order was a separate issue. Please let's not pull that into this discussion. Let's start with the one change and take it from there. The order of the arguments isn't bad right now. It was just the labels Rights-based and Public policy that were the issue. It sounds like we've found a compromise on that. Lightbreather (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Second Amendment rights

This was recently added:

“ Opponents of a restrictive (individualistic) interpretation of the Second Amendment point out that at the time of the Second Amendment in the late 18th century, the word "militia" meant all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45. Even today, the United States Code states that the militia is all male citizens and resident aliens at least 17 up to 45 with or without military service experience, including additionally those under 64 having former military service experience, as well as including female citizens who are members of the National Guard. ”

The footnote is merely to the US Code. User:Lightbreather, in a controversial article like this one, why insert unsourced stuff like this? Moreover, I think it is 100% wrong. Supporters of an individual-rights interpretation often point out that the "militia" includes not merely an organized militia but also millions of people who are not in any organized militia (e.g. all male citizens and resident aliens at least 17 up to 45).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the article history, you will see I deleted it from the subsection that was under gun control rights entitled Importance of a militia. I originally moved it to the end of the gun control arguments section, but that was not the right place for it. It belongs in the Second Amendments arguments, so I moved it there.

I don't know about you, but it's dinner time where I live. My spouse is home and I'm calling it a night. (Well, I might check in later, but I doubt it. Probably tomorrow midday.)Lightbreather (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Whoever put it into this article shouldn't have. It's incorrect and unsourced. Later.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent null edit

User:Lightbreather recently made a null edit to the article ([12]), saying this: "null-ish edit to say material in edit Anything 'undid' was already in the article; see talk page for details". That statement is incorrect, as I will now explain.

Lightbreather began by removing this passage:[13]

“ Opponents of a restrictive interpretation of the Second Amendment point out that at the time of the Second Amendment in the late 18th century, the word "militia" meant all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45. ”

Then Lightbreather reinserted a modified version:[14]

“ Opponents of a restrictive (individualistic) interpretation of the Second Amendment point out that at the time of the Second Amendment in the late 18th century, the word "militia" meant all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45. ”

As anyone can see, the parenthetical was not in the first version that Lightbreather removed, and the parenthetical drastically changed the meaning. As people familiar with this subject know, the "restrictive interpretation" means the interpretation that only grants gun rights to a small set of soldiers. Lightbreather completely altered the paragraph's meaning by inserting the word "individualistic" — people familiar with the subject know that the individual rights interpretation is the one which grants rights broadly to individuals regardless of whether they are soldiers.

In any event, if the original correct version is restored, it should be done with proper sourcing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That was completely my bad and a reminder to myself that I was tired and hungry, and I should have left my computer and 30 minutes before I did. The paragraph I moved was only the first one in a sub-subsection titled (oddly) "Importance of the militia" and stuck under the gun control arguments. The second paragraph read:

"All interpretation of the Bill of Rights is to be viewed strictly in terms of Original Intent in the society the nation's founders created. For instance, the language of well-regulated in the framing era meant independent and self-regulated. The Federal Government had not yet been formed; when it was, it was a creation of the states. Regarding confusion with National Guard, America had no National Guard until 130 years later. Author John Longenecker writes that one of the best evidence facts of who militia is lies in United States Code [USC Title 10, Section 311] where the original militia within the meaning of the second amendment endures since the founding, and is officially recognized as a category of its own (specifically named the unorganized militia); these unorganized militias are subsequently recognized further in various state codes as coming under the command of the Governor as the unorganized militia's Commander-in-Chief (among other militias also defined). Until summoned, militia members acquire, own, and carry their own weapons, which are traditionally recognized but not to be provided them by their state in their readiness of being summoned in emergency. This defeats the legal argument that one must be part of a militia to own, keep and bear arms, since nearly anyone of legal age is automatically part of a [the] militia as part of an accepted, well-established, conventional readiness asset."

References

I was originally going to move the whole thing to section in question, but decided that since this one had a 9-month-old tagged source I'd just delete it and only move the other one, which, strangely, someone had placed first. I'll leave it up to y'all to decide if the true "Importance of the militia" argument that was supposedly trying to be made here should be added back as a counterpoint in the Second Amendments rights section. I don't plan on doing it. I'm sorry for the confusion, but the mistake was part of a good-faith effort. Lightbreather (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It's back - in modified form - sorry

Another editor moved the whole ball of wax back into the article and "removed the contentious material" (and the SPS flag). I have moved it into the Second Amendment section, but if you delete it... I won't mind. Lightbreather (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)