Talk:Gun politics in the United States/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

RfC: Replace existing Nazi gun control paragraphs?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Result: Implement the proposed change

In terms of numbers there are 12 supports (one of these says "General support", but the comment has been modified so as to suggest a support without reservation), 6 opposes (one of which says "Oppose replacement, support merge", which I am counting as an oppose) and 1 vote that reads "Oppose wording, support change", which seems like it is leaning oppose, but in my judgement it should be put to one side, even though the comment is well-reasoned IMO.

Two or maybe three of the opposes have been made even though the editors seem to prefer the proposed version to the existing version - it's just that they object to the proposal in its detail. They are entitled to vote that way, and their votes are valid. But I think it is reasonable to give them minimal weight, particularly given that those editors will not be prohibited from proposing further tweaks to the text after this close, if they think it is worth it. Two of the opposes are made on the basis that there is nothing wrong with the current version. These are also valid opposes but, given that this is precisely what is contentious, they do not provide a strong enough basis to turn a defeat-by-numbers into a victory-by-strength-of-argument. One opposer objected that the proposed version portrays the argument-from-Nazism as more widespread than it really is. I'm not able to say that this is wrong but, looking at the two alternative versions, I can't discern much difference between them in this respect. So I also don't see this argument as trumping the numbers.

A number of the support votes were threadbare. However, the supports have a clear majority, which is all they need given that the oppose votes have not been assessed as presenting a strong argument.

The first two sentences of what was originally proposed were struck-through partway through the RfC. This is not ideal. It happened at a time when precisely half of the support votes had been made, meaning it is not immediately obvious whether consensus is to include or exclude these two sentences. Two editors who had voted supported the change (although one had cast an oppose vote) and there were no objections raised. So it's quite finely balanced. From a procedural point-of-view, I believe the deletion should not have been done. But I think it results in a slightly better version of the text, so I'm going to make the call that the first two sentences should be excluded. I may be willing to reconsider this if petitioned.

Hope that's thorough enough for you. Enjoy the rest of the show. Formerip (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Should this brief paragraph with eight references:

In the United States, some gun owners say private gun ownership is a check against tyranny. Such a position has a long history in gun politics in the U.S. Supporters of gun rights such as Stephen Halbrook and Wayne LaPierre believe that Nazi gun control, and gun laws in other authoritarian regimes, contributed significantly to past tyranny and genocides. This hypothesis is not supported by mainstream scholarship, though it is an element of a "security against tyranny" argument in U.S. politics.

References

Replace these two (one in the article, another in the "notes") with 15 references:

Modern proponents of the security-against-tyranny argument often claim that the Nazis could have been inhibited by a more well-armed population (that claim is controversial), and they often discuss a counterfactual history in which the Nazis did not disarm groups like the German Jews and other suppressed populations. Historians have tended to not address gun regulation under the Nazis, and its significance is disputed. According to Robert Cottrol, wider gun ownership might have also helped protect Cambodians from slaughter in the 1970s.

Notes

References

In the "Security against tyranny" section? Lightbreather (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey2

• Support. (author) See threaded discussion. Lightbreather (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Chris Troutman (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The material proposed for deletion has been in this article for several months, and it is perfectly adequate. I don't see why it should not remain. Moving it to an article that will soon be deleted is unwise, IMHO. This RFC would not change the length of the pertinent material in the main text of this article (i.e. people would only see the Note if they specifically go to the Note, and the Note ought not to be censored out of Wikipedia).Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Far superior prose and references that makes the content relevant and reliable without pushing a fringe opinion outside the mainstream.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Seems like the appropriate weight for this. AIRcorn (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. The proposed text is preferable to the earlier material, but it still presents as fact the assertion that the Nazi's practised 'gun control' - a loaded term. The actual history is more complex, and as has repeatedly been pointed out, the relevant firearms law actually relaxed gun ownership requirements for German citizenry in general. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Ouch, Andy, good point: can't believe I missed it. Thank you. And this should apply also to the other RfC, of course, on Talk:Gun politics. To make matters clear: Andy is completely correct, and Gun_legislation_in_Germany#The_1938_German_Weapons_Act bears this out. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Hmmmmm. There is a point I had not considered. Let me simmer on this. --(Mark Miller) Maleko Mela (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• We could put it in quotes - "Nazi gun control" - or say Nazi gun laws instead. Lightbreather (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, I think I know the answer, but just to be sure. Do you oppose this material being anywhere on Wikipedia, or is there a particular place that you think it belongs? Lightbreather (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Define 'this material'. I have already made clear why I think neither the existing material nor the new proposal is valid. As to whether the argumentum ad Hitlerum belongs in this article at all, it depends not only on whether it is properly presented (as a fringe pseudohistorical argument promoted by a section of the pro-gun lobby, entirely lacking academic support), but on whether it is put in proper context - as a minority view even amongst U.S. gun rights supporters as a whole. As it stands, this article gives the distinct impression that the only views held are those on the extremes of the argument. That is just as much a violation of NPOV as presenting one side of the argument alone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Which is why the historical argument about which there is little controversy should also be included here -- eliding the more mainstream argument is not exactly following WP:NPOV alas. Collect (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as implying that the "Nazi argument" is of primary importance in the discussion while it is clearly an argument made by some it is not the argument made by all. I would also note the use of "counterfactual history" is ill-used here, as the people making the argument do not postulate a "counterfactual history" as such -- the issue is whether had the Germans not removed guns from "undesirables", would there have been any sort of uprising. The Nazi argument exists, and is found in enough places to warrant it being in gun control discussion articles, but we can not toss out the baby with the bathwater - the argument dating back to the Constitutional Convention where the very existence of any standing army had opposition. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Appending: The term might be better stated as "Nazi removal of guns from the Jewish population" if "control" is the problem. Collect (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Note The "counterfactual" in the cited footnote does not make a claim of "counterfactual history" which is far too broad here -- it only says "Jews were not well-armed" which is a substantial difference in implication, and is likely a matter of opinion absent any statistics as to what "well-armed" means. Thus we should stick to what the source says directly - Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That source discusses "reimagining a past", and that's what you have to do in order to postulate that an armed Jewish population could have inhibited the Nazi onslaught. The need for imagination is a big reason why historians do not opine much about whether Nazi gun laws had a big effect or not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The text is an improvement over the previous wording. The complex issue about Nazi gun control can be reworded. QuackGuru (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support much improved version. Cwobeel (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose wording, Support change - Better and less confrontational wording should be used and the inline citations should back up everything (even mid sentence) especially a quote like the one used. I also have a problem with editorial from a UK newspaper being used in an article specifically about a U.S. subject. We have enough derision and dissension in our own country, there's no need to borrow opinions from others. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Scalhotrod, just to be sure you understand the proposal. The briefer paragraph given first above is to replace the existing two paragraphs given after. Lightbreather (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Fair enough, strike my comment about the UK cite, but in a broader sense there are Constitutional scholars that contend that 2A's significance (and even placement/order/position in the Bill of Rights) is an indication of its purpose against tyranny that have nothing to do with the Nazis. I actually have one book that says as much and I'm trying to find it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• If I'm following you, that part of argument (security against tyranny minus the Nazi gun control argument) is in the first paragraph (that begins "Another aspect of...") of the Security against tyranny section. The proposal is not to replace that, but to replace the third paragraph, about Nazi gun control, that begins "Modern proponents..." Do you support replacing that with the brief paragraph given up-top of this RfC? (I just want to be sure I understand.) Lightbreather (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• All things considered, I'm not a big proponent of putting this predominantly on Halbrook and LaPierre, but that's their burden to bear. Get it past Andy and I'm game. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support It seems like a decided improvement over the previous text. Further it addresses the Nazi gun control argument (which is so widely cited it can't be ignored) while noting that it is not widely accepted. I would have used slightly stronger language, but this works. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• OpposeM=. Sorry, but the first version seems more reflective of the actual sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Arthur Rubin, just to be sure you understand the proposal. The briefer paragraph given first above is to replace the existing two paragraphs given after. Lightbreather (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• My mistake – change to Support. I would expect anyone closing this RfC to check actually what the !voters are "supporting" or "opposing". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Shorter and better phrasing. --GRuban (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per Sławomir Biały, he is a better mathematician than I. (sorry terrible inside joke, but factual none the less). Seriously though, the paragraph is much improved. Thenub314 (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose the change, because the reference to a counterfactual history merely confuses the issues. I don't like the existing statement, but the replacement is confusing. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert, but to be clear, the proposal is that the first paragraph given in the RfC (that starts "Supporters of gun rights such as Stephen Halbrook...") is to replace what follows (that starts "Modern proponents....") Lightbreather (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose like this, pretty much per Andy the grump. Side question, do we believe the climate on this page to be sufficiently de-toxified since the end of the ArbCom case to do this through normal bold editing? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no doubt the Nazi used Gun Control as a means of suppression. To deny that is idiotic or agenda promoting. The argument that the right to bear arms is a deterent to suppression is very strong and logical. It seems logic and political agenda pushers often diverge. Suppressed people do not have the right to bear arms. Those who seek to suppress people for their political purposes seek to suppress the right to bear arms. 172.56.11.104 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose replacement, support merge: The proposed new text would delete far too many well-sourced and important points, and is (intentionally o rnot) a terribly POV-pushing exercise. It wrongly implies that two much-reviled authors are the sole proponents of the argument-against-tyranny, which is certainly not true at all. It's quite widespread, and is not attributable to any particular authors, but is part of the American (especially but not exclusively) gun-ownership mindset, philosophy and subculture. That said, it does raise and reliably source points not in the original text. PS: It would also make more sense to up-merge the footnote into the main body of the article, and give this subtopic its own section. With the original paragraph, the now-a-footnote paragraph, and the new material, that's a very well-developed and -sourced section.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• General supportwith a few reservations. It could be made more neutral. "claim" is a bit of a loaded term, for example; when you say that I claim to be an a robotic ninja, it sounds like you're distancing yourself from my statement, as if you don't believe it. I would rather say that gun advocates "say". "often" can also be a bit contentious, as if it's a primary argument. These issues are not deal-breakers, and I'm sure the exact wording can be hashed out amicably. Just try to be a bit more neutral in the wording. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Ugh. Re-reading, it looks like I got the two versions mixed up in my head when I wrote this. The one that uses "claim" is the one that's to be replaced. In that case, it's OK. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion2

• The second (existing) paragraph, notes, and references are WP:UNDUE; the 15 references for this one paragraph and its paragraph of "notes" accounts for 6 percent of the whole 142Kb article's references. Better to put this material into the Nazi gun control article... which the new paragraph links to. Lightbreather (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• It should probably be noted here that there has been a discussion at Talk:Nazi gun control which suggested that there was considerable support for the deletion of the article - from contributors who have taken very different positions regarding the merits or otherwise of the 'Nazi' material here and in the main Gun control article. As a proposed deletion has been declined, I have made it clear that I intend to start an AfD on the Nazi gun control article. [1] I intend to do this once the ArbCom business is out of the way, and the dust has settled a bit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• I intend to support deletion of the Nazi gun control article for many of the same reasons that AndyTheGrump has expressed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• AndyTheGrump, well, I suppose that could still happen. But that material sure shouldn't be here in this article, IMO. What I'm proposing cuts what's here by half. The amount here, in this article, is WP:UNDUE... again, IMO. Lightbreather (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• The length of the material in the main text is about the same. People will never see the Note unless they specifically want to go to it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Anythingyouwant, to say "The material proposed for deletion has been in this article for several months," leaves out a lot of history about when and how that material got here, which I really don't want to go over here, except to say that. Lightbreather (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, it leaves out a lot, for the exact same reason that you just did too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The wording conflates two overlapping positions. The first, which is a mainstream view, is that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms in order to protect against "tyranny." The second is that all attempts to regulate gun ownership and use may lead to tyranny. The first position has been argued by serious American legal experts, while the second view exists only in fringe writing. TFD (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• The Four Deuces, I agree that the first two sentences of the proposed replacement paragraph could go. It could just start with the "Supporters of gun rights..." sentence. Lightbreather (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• I agree -- the "bold edit" seem to totally dismiss the historic "tyranny argument" in favour of setting up the Godwin "Nazi" argument as a straw man, which is then hit with a volley of cannon. Disagreement over strengths of arguments does not mean conflation of them. Collect (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Premature closure

• Note The person starting an RfC should never close the RfC and much less make a bold edit when no uninvolved person has closed the RfC. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. Then you can just tell me that, and not revert numerous edits because one was against policy. Lightbreather (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Try explaining each edit which amounted to over seven thousand added characters in toto in a difficult area. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

As is my custom, each has a detailed edit summary. Lightbreather (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Further The use of masses of edits on this sensitive topic is unwise and, per unclosed RfC, unwarranted. It looks far too much like "ownership" and far too little like "consensus and compromise". Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Another editor made a series of nine edits that made massive changes (minus 30,000 characters) before mine. I talked with him about those on his talk page. And I didn't mass revert them. I made a series of careful and carefully documented edits in response. Your mass revert of all of my edits was uncalled for. Please stop. Lightbreather (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, your "tiny series of minuscule edits" (so to speak) amounted to well over seven thousand characters. When I make a tiny edit, it is generally under twenty characters max. Please do not assert that you did not make massive and contiguous edits, and that you closed your own RfC inyour ownfavour. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Where did I say that I made a "tiny series of miniscule edits"? Also, the mostly additions I made were in response to Scal's about 30,000 characters removed. Still, I didn't feel the need to revert all his work or attack him. I left a collegial message on his talk page telling him how I felt and what I was going to do. Leave me alone! If you still feel the need to lecture me, take it to my talk page and I'll hear you out there. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Regardless of premature closure, an editor should not revert edits they do not have reason to revert. If someone reverted edits "on accident" because they got caught up with controversial edits, they should revert themselves and restore the text, or plainly identify which of the material they disagreed with. Otherwise, an editor can wait for a long enough string of edits and "accidentally" revert all of them they disagree with, yet cannot properly revert, when there is only a few that should be reverted. It would be a bad faith edit disguised as a good faith revert. "There's too many edits" is not an excuse; if you don't have the time to properly edit, don't edit. Int21h (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

And this may be obvious, but if an editor reverts good edits for no good reason ("too many" is not a good reason) and refuses to mend their ways, they should be taken to arbitration and sanctioned. Int21h (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Shall we close this up?

Earlier today, Scalhotrod made a series of nine edits, one of which boldly removed the old Nazi gun control material (amongst a number of other edits). [2] In response, I made a series of nine edits, the last of which boldly added the proposed, new material [3] (The others were unrelated to NGC.) I also closed this RfC, which Collect said is a no-no. Collect also reverted all of my edits, because, if I'm understanding him right, my closing of this RfC was such a terrible thing to do as to negate the edits I'd done before closing it. That seems overboard to me, but brings up a good point.

I went and read WP:RFC, and it looks like participants can agree to end an RfC. The vote is at 11 Support, 4 Oppose. Shall we agree to close this RfC in favor of the proposal, or ask to have it formally closed, or what? If we're not going to close it, should we restore the Nazi gun control material that Scal removed? Lightbreather (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

RfCs are not a vote, nor do I agree with your "count" nor do I agree that you, who started the RfC, and !voted in the RfC can also then close the same RfC. And your post here is not aimed at the proper course ... to determine WP:CONSENSUS and proffer compromises for that end. So no -- I do not "'vote in favour of this proposal" and I suggest you try offering minor changes and seek compromises thereon and not appear in any way to "own" the article at all. Let's deal with one bite at a time, and not seven thousand characters of edits all at once, and seek seemly discussion per WP:CONSENSUS instead of "counting votes" which is a futile exercise, and one where your count appears not to be congruent with how others would count. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: my "addition" of 7,000 characters: most of it was restoring some of the 30,000+ characters removed by Scal. Is he getting this lecture, too? (Assuming he, like I, is editing in good faith, neither of us deserve it. And again, please, if you have anything further to say to ME, take it to my talk page.) Lightbreather (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

In which case your "bold edits" were reverts - right? Sorry -- I strongly urge you to discuss each one separately and gain consensus for them, else you likely are more "culprit" than "victim." Collect (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quality of addition to Further reading

This was added to Further reading recently:

• Cramer, Clayton (Winter 1995). "The Racist Roots of Gun Control". Kan. J. Of Pub. Pol'y.

The source looked a little hinky to me, so I dug around and found that lib.com.org is a libertarian communism site. There is no need to use the Wayback Machine archive version because the original is still on the libcom.org site. But more than that, I can't find a scholarly review of the work. Is this a WP:RS? Lightbreather (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that he was cited? in Heller. I have improved the info in the Further reading listing using what is on his WP bio page. Lightbreather (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The article is by Clayton Cramer and was originally published in the Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy. It is worth including and it is better to link to the original publication rather than a reprint. TFD (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lead

What a fine day - my revert of Zeamays has been reverted by both Scalhotrod and Lightbreather within minutes of each other! I'd take that as proof of the neutrality of my revert, except Scalhotrod's revert merely spanned Zeamays' change and my revert. I also see my name used in a discussion about who should start discussions and I would simply point to WP:BRD which clearly points out that the person making the bold edit, once he has been reverted, should start a discussion. This is fairly obvious when you take the view that all edits need consensus and that one may be bold and assume an implicit consensus, but once that assumption is proven false, one should discuss the change and form a consensus. In a similar circumstance, I might choose to reinsert some portions of a reverted bold edit, but I'd recommend against inserting questionable content into an article with an intent of fixing the bad bits later.

As long as I'm here, I'll pretend my revert of Zeamays was a bold change and Lightbreather's revert of that change was the 'R' in BRD and discuss why I believe my change improves the article.

• "opposing" seems redundant, although I would not have reverted that one change.
• "inconsistent and diverging interpretations ..." is not WP:NPOV.
• "government" should not be capitalized.
• "endanger the public" is not WP:NPOV.
• "availablility" - this is a quote from the source and should only be edited for accuracy of the quote.
• "However, further research on the role of gun ownership on violence has been restricted by the US Congress, acting on behalf of gun rights groups."

This is not an WP:NPOV way of stating the facts and the source does not claim that the Congress acted on behalf of the gun rights groups. Also, this detail probably does not belong in the lead of the article, although a neutral statement of the same facts could be fine in the body of the article.

I would expect most neutral editors would agree with most of this, although reasonable people may disagree about some details. Please share your views. Older and ... well older (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Older, my apologies that your efforts got caught up in the fray between Lightbreather and the group of editors that she considers "pro gun rights" which includes me. I have to admit that many of her edits have prompted a WP:KNEEJERK-ish reaction from me recently. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... 15:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted. As they say at the AA meetings, the first step is admitting you have a problem. Good luck rising above the fray. Best Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

(Hickup) Hello, my name is (hickup) Scalhotrod and I have a (hickup) "Wikipedia problem"... (hickup) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

• "opposing" seems redundant, although I would not have reverted that one change. - It is intended to clarify that there is little, if any, middle ground in these political debates. Often what is considered a compromise by one side is considered a sell-out by the other. Many of the argumnents are of the slippery-slope variety, which view compromise as risky or unacceptable.
• "inconsistent and diverging interpretations ..." is not WP:NPOV. Please tell me why it a violation of NPOV to state that the opposing interpretations are inconsistant and diverging on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment?
• "government" should not be capitalized. Good.
• "endanger the public" is not WP:NPOV. It is not a violation of NPOV to to clarify the debate by accurately, forcefully and respectfully stating each of the opposing opinions.
• "availablility" - this is a quote from the source and should only be edited for accuracy of the quote. OK, but the truth is that the pro-gun side want more than availability.
• "However, further research on the role of gun ownership on violence has been restricted by the US Congress, acting on behalf of gun rights groups." OK. I will look for a better reference that includes the role of the gun groups.--Zeamays (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Ban on research reference: Erica Pearson and Ginger Adams Otis. NRA lobbying led to law that stopped CDC from using federal funds to study gun violence., NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, Published: Thursday, May 29, 2014, 2:16 AM, "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention receives no federal funding to study gun violence, thanks to a 1996 law the NRA succeeded in ramming through Congress. Now two lawmakers are sponsoring a bill to give the CDC $10 million a year to study why guns kill people." --Zeamays (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

That reference reads like an opinion piece. Can you find a neutrally worded source which makes that claim? Regarding your other points, the sentence you were modifying is trying to neutrally present the conflict between the right to bear arms and the responsibility of government to prevent crime. The "inconsistent and diverging" change weakens the first part and the "endangers the public" strengthens the latter. By weakening one side and strengthening the other, they move us away from an NPOV summary of that conflict. Older and ... well older (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were offended by the article's tone, but the original reference was much more muted and was written by a professional association. Contrary to your statement, the original reference did describe the role of the NRA, have a look yourself: Gun violence research: History of the federal funding freeze. "...the National Rifle Association (NRA) responded by campaigning for the elimination of the center that had funded the study, the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention. The center itself survived, but Congress included language in the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill (PDF, 2.4MB) for Fiscal Year 1997 that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” What's wrong with that as support? You need to be more exact. --Zeamays (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Every one of Zeamays comments is spot-on. Except for the "government" and "availability" changes, his/her edits should stay. Lightbreather (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@Zeamays: The facts presented by that more neutral source are that the NRA lobbied for the change and that the Congress removed the funding. It is the characterization that Congress acted "on behalf of the gun control organizations" which is a POV statement. Like the opinion piece claiming the NRA "rammed through" the change, it tries to spin the decision as one supported only by extremists. If we were trying to spin the article to make clear to the reader which side of the argument we agree with, the wording is fine. But if we set aside our views, we have to see this as less neutral than it could be. I continue to assume good faith and believe we are all here to improve the article and not to insert bias in support of some other agenda, but I'd like to hear some reasoning supporting this change which also supports that assumption. Older and ... well older (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Older: "the decision as one supported only by extremists." I don't see the word "extremists" or synonyms in the APA statement, or even in the New York Daily News reference. They only refer to the NRA. However, I will edit the language to indicate only that NRA lobbied for the funding elimination, which is what you will accept. OK, with this change, I understand you accept the revised edits. --Zeamays (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Zeamays: I'd be fine with a neutral statement about removing the funding along with the statement that the NRA lobbied for this. It may be too small a detail for the lead, but I'll leave that up to you. And I'm fine with clarifying that the two groups are "opposing". I still think that changing:

"Since the 1990s, debates regarding firearm availability and gun violence in the U.S. have been characterized by concerns about the right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the responsibility of the government to serve the needs of its citizens and to prevent crime and deaths. Gun control supporters say that broad or unrestricted gun rights inhibit the government from fulfilling that responsibility. Gun rights ..."

into:

"Since the 1990s, debates regarding firearm availability and gun violence in the U.S. have been characterized by inconsistent and diverging interpretations of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the responsibility of the Government to serve the needs of its citizens and to prevent crime and deaths. Gun control supporters say that broad or unrestricted gun rights endanger the public and inhibit the government from fulfilling that responsibility. Gun rights ..."

moves us further away from neutral wording capturing the conflict. Even the current wording has some bias; "concerns" on one side and "responsibility" on the other, and "to serve the needs of its citizens". We should all be able to set aside our views and write more neutral summaries. One suggestion I read was to try to write for the other viewpoint. Pretend you hold beliefs which are on the other side of the argument and write in a way which seems neutral or slightly toward the opposing view. Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I now see that you are concerned with a difference in language that I didn't see, and vice-versa. What I want to see incorporated into the text is "inconsistent and diverging interpretations of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution", rather than "right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution". The former is neutral, while the second is biased to the pro-gun side. --Zeamays (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm encouraged by your effort to understand one another better. Thanks. I'm not sure I agree that the characterization "inconsistent and diverging interpretations" is neutral, but I do agree that "right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution" is overly strong on the pro-gun side. As I see it, the conflict being described is between the right to bear arms and the benefits of not having those arms widely available. The fact that the Second Amendment has been found to protect that right for the individual doesn't add any understanding when describing the conflict and is almost a form of puffery. Your wording continues to focus on the Second Amendment, and the wording seems to me to argue that the interpretations are questionable. That is an argument that some on the gun control side continue to make, so I don't think it could be a neutral presentation of the pro-gun side of that sentence. I'd be fine with toning down the POV on both sides with something like: "... have concerned the right to bear arms on the one hand, and the responsibility of the government to prevent crime and avoid injury and death on the other." Older and ... well older (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I cannot agree. The concept that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, as opposed to the collective right to a militia, although recently addressed by the current Supreme Court, continues to be controversial, and is not accepted as correct by the Gun Control side. It does not promote a neutral NPOV position to assume that the last two decisions of the Court somehow eliminate the controversy. Therefore, your alternative suggestion is not NPOV, sorry. --Zeamays (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

And the way to avoid participating in that controversy is to not comment here on our views about the Second Amendment, but to simply contrast the gun-rights position of the right to bear arms to the gun-control position of reducing crime and preventing gun-related deaths. I understand your position, I think, but changing every mention of one side of an argument to include the other side's opinion is not NPOV. Can you suggest a different way of expressing the two sides without inflating or denigrating either? Older and ... well older (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If I might comment using a math analogy, you are both trying to describe a "variable" using "fixed" terms. We all know that the interpretation of 2A has changed over the years and only in recent years has there been anything definitive decided as to what it does apply to versus what it does not. Regardless of the two sides, to only state 2A's current status of protecting individual rights gives WP:UNDUE emphasis to that limited period of time and ignores much of its history. Furthermore, rulings regarding 2A have not been "inconsistent" in as much as they have been indirect with regard to individuals or groups. There may not be a simple paragraph or even a standard 4 section Lead that accomplishes a balanced explanation of this. But there must be a way to simply "state the facts" that ignores the debate. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Whether on not the Second Amendment supports their view, the pro-gun side of the dichotomy being expressed in that sentence is that there is a right to bear arms. Rather than drag in the disagreements around the Second Amendment, I would suggest we simply express both sides in a neutral manner. A parallel on the other side of the balance would be to dispute whether gun control achieves the goal of crime reduction. Or the current wording which tries to strengthen the pro-gun side by asserting that the right is found in that amendment. They are details of the disagreement, but they have little value here and can bias the overall sentence one way or the other if they are used unequally. Older and ... well older (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments: Scal's solution does not acknowledge this article is about the debate itself. It is critically important the the views of the two sides each be stated clearly. The most recent rulings don't address the views of the sides. In the current version I see this morning there are numerous NPOV statements present, particuarly repeated references to an unqualified "right to bear arms," which implies the pro-gun right interpretation. Where they are not referring to the pro-gun rights side, each of these references needs to be edited to a neutral form, perhaps just referring to the 2nd Amendment. The problem here is that to the gun control side, the wording of the 2nd Amendment is about the militia, not about an individual right. --Zeamays (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Zeamays on this. The article title is "Gun politics in the U.S." Referring to any basic definition of "politics" makes it clear that an article about politics should describe (here's one def): the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power. And the lead should be a brief summary of that. We must present POVs, but we do so in a NPOV way by balancing them. We make no comment about who is right or wrong; only about who feels one way, and why, and who feel the other way, and why - using as neutral language as possible, remembering WP:W2W. Lightbreather (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@zeamays: I think I see the problem now. You think the pro-gun people believe the Second Amendment grants an individual right to bear arms. The pro-gun folks believe in an individual right to bear arms independent to and predating the Second Amendment. They also believe that the Second Amendment protects this right. The pro-control people believed the Second Amendment is about some other right. The Supreme Court decided that the Second Amendment supports an individual right. There continue to be some pro-control people who disagree with that interpretation, but that disagreement is tangential to what the gun-control side believes. So when we are expressing the basic dichotomy, we need to express "right to bear arms" vs "prevent harm" in a balanced way. We can't put too much emphasis on either side and we certainly can't replace one side with a disagreement about that side's view. It would be just as bad to replace "the responsibility of the government to serve the needs of its citizens and to prevent crime and deaths" with "the debate about whether government has a responsibility to prevent crimes and death and whether gun control actually has any practical effect." - Older and ... well older (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Older and ... well older: 1. Not all pro-gun people believe gun rights are independent of and pre-date the Second. 2. Some pro-gun people accept that the Second gives them a limited right to guns. It really is hard to put it into a simple two-sides construct because within the two sides, there are differences in opinion. For instance, 3. There are many gun-control advocates who say the 2nd was and is about militia service (as @Zeamays said), but 4. There are others who accept that there is a (limited) individual right. Most Americans fall into groups 2 and 4. The others should get some space in the article, but not undue weight... which group #1 gets an excessive amount of here and in other WP articles, IMHO. Lightbreather (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Although there are some (lower, and usually overturned or depublished) court cases and 18th century comments which appear to state that the 2nd Amendment did not create or recognize an individual right, there is no supporting scholarship. Even Miller (1934), which is used by gun control advocates to indicate that SCOTUS found a collective right, actually explicitly recognized an individual right. In other words, group #3 is exists, but is not supported by legitimate scholarship. I agree that group #1 gets an excessive amount of space, but so does group #3. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly with your edit summary - this article is not about the Second Amendment. There is a place within the article to describe, but not participate in, the past (and to a lesser degree, continuing) debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment. It does not belong in the basic description of the tension of this political issue any more than does the debate about the effectiveness of gun control. That tension is between the right to bear arms and the need to prevent harm. Various people have various views about the relative strength of those two sides, but we should be able to agree that that is the issue being described in the current text. Overinflating with "found in the Second Amendment" or "to serve the needs of its citizens" is bad enough, but to dismiss one side as a disagreement over interpretation of the amendment is too much. Please respond to that central issue or put the stick back down. I thought we had dealt with this at the beginning of the month and I am discouraged to find my fellow editors reviving the disagreement weeks later. - Older and ... well older (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Older: By your indentation, I think you were replying to Arthur, but just to be sure, could you clarify? Lightbreather (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I was voicing agreement with his edit summary. The balance of my comments were not directed toward any specific editor and were intended for all of the editors. - Older and ... well older (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Older and @Arthur: Both of you want to say that because one side of a debate won a court case, the debate is over. Furthermore, you want to decide, based on your chosen scholarship, what to attribute to the pro-control side. This is what I am objecting to. @Lightbreather is correct, I did not include some of the actual complexity. There are two pro-control views, as he says, although they are not mutually exclusive. Those who believe that the 2nd Amendment is about guaranteeing the people the right to a militia, often do accept a limited individual right to arms. The former point of view is that the founders preferred militias to the European model of standing armies and saw them as a guarantee of political freedom. Those points of view deserve to be respectfully included since this article is about the debate itself. As it is, the article is riddled with NPOV language. --Zeamays (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Zeamays: That couldn't be more inaccurate. What I am saying is that the debate about the Second Amendment is a tiny detail in discussing gun politics in the United States. Very simply, the two opposing forces are the right to bear arms and the need to prevent harm. The politics involve striking a balance between those two goals. Extremists try to argue that there aren't two valid goals; that there is no right to bear arms or that the government has no legitimate interest in preventing harm, but those are details of the debate and not the central description. We are discussing the central description found in the lead of the article. We are discussing some changes you made which obscure one goal and add more bias to the other. This article is under discretionary sanctions and we should all try to stay focused on the subject at hand. Please, without another round of "I agree with him" and "I agree with her", could we either have some substantive discussion or drop the matter? - Older and ... well older (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for adding to the confusion. Although we disagree on the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (both how it should be interpreted, and how it has been and is interpreted), that is mostly irrelevant to this article. I agree with what Older.... except that I think the 2nd Amendment should be removed from the lead, because it impossible to characterize it accurately in the few words available to us in the lead. "Diverse and inconsistent" is, at best, synthesis. I've made a "small" change which addresses my concerns as to the importance of the 2nd Amendment, and might be acceptable to all sides. I've changed:

... "the right to bear arms as found in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,"

to

... "the right to bear arms, such as found in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,

I think the second Amendment is overemphasized, as well as potentially misinterpreted, in the lead. I would probably accept "... as mentioned ...". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: I don't disagree with removing the Second Amendment from the lead. I mentioned a few days ago that it and the "to serve the needs of its citizens" phrase both add a positive spin to their respective POVs. I'd just recommend removing both at the same time to maintain some kind of balance. - Older and ... well older (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Older: I disagree with your description, "What I am saying is that the debate about the Second Amendment is a tiny detail in discussing gun politics in the United States." No, the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is crucial. If the 2nd were unimportant, then localities would be free to regulate firearms as is their wont. Obviously that is not the case, following recent Supreme Court decisions. Again, your characterization, "Very simply, the two opposing forces are the right to bear arms and the need to prevent harm." is simply incorrect, because it leaves out a great deal of the discussion. The pro-rights side thinks that their position reduces harm, while the pro-regulation side thinks their position is about the right to a militia, two arguments your simplified approach leaves out. I have already agreed to several changes from my original edit, so you can't characterize my position as being inflexible.--Zeamays (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we need to move on to some other form of dispute resolution, but I'd like to try one more approach at reaching an understanding. Keep in mind that we are writing this for the reader and that we are trying to present the most basic view of the subject which we will go on to discuss in more depth later in the lead or in the article itself. How would you describe the core issue of gun politics? - Older and ... well older (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Arthur: Your approach leaves out the militia part of the 2nd, which the pro-regulation side says is essential. This is not trivial: you can't summarize arguments leaving out the key points of one of the sides. BTW, despite what you write, I haven't stated my personal position here. I'm for having each side of this debate forcefully stated without editing by the other side. --Zeamays (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a key point, but it cannot be described accurately in the limited space of the lead, without resorting to stereotypes or weasel-words. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The Second Amendment is featured prominently within the body of this article - repeatedly brought up - so it must be either included in the lead... or virtually removed from the body.

Also, it is untrue that the conflicting interpretations cannot be described accurately in the limited space of the lead. What's more, WP:LEAD tells us we must do so. It says:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.

I suggest that we each pick a high-quality source from the article and review how they summarize gun politics in the United States. If our lead is way off from how those sources summarize the topic, we ought to scrap it and rebuild it. My choice is the current edition of The Politics of Gun Control by Spitzer. What do you suggest? Lightbreather (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No one has suggested that we shouldn't mention significant debates in the lead. The quote you include is informative, though. Notice how it follows a logical progression from defining the topic to summarizing the important points. An informative and intelligent lead will have a similar structure. You are welcome to use whatever references you'd like to answer my question, but the question remains: How would you describe the core issue of gun politics? How do you define this topic? - Older and ... well older (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Older, your question "How would you describe the core issue of gun politics?" was in reply to Zeamays, but I'm not sure answering such a question would move us along, because it's likely to start a debate. Without stopping to re-review this already lengthy discussion... have you answered that question somewhere above? If so, maybe a diff? Or, let's leave that question and ask ourselves, as I've suggested, how do the highest-quality sources summarize the topic? I have started a new discussion where we could share, and then deliberately re-craft a lead. I think that would be more productive at this time, then stopping to compare how we as individuals (not sources) would describe the issue. How we would describe it is moot. How reliable, verifiable high-quality sources describe it - and how to meld that and present it to the reader as NPOV as possible - is what is important. Lightbreather (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

We, as editors, need to decide how to craft the lead of this article. Since this is more of a presentation issue, I don't see how going back to a select number of sources leads to a resolution. If you find value in that, that's fine. I look forward to hearing your conclusions when you finish. Myself, I see little value in that approach and I will enjoy having my limited WP time back for more productive tasks until you finish. - Older and ... well older (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay if you think my suggestion is unproductive, I'll work on it on my own, or maybe Zeamays or some other editor(s) will join me in the discussion I started below. But in the meantime, why not answer your own question: How would you describe the core issue of gun politics? Or, if you were going to write the lead alone, how would you write it? Lightbreather (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The extreme positions seem to be:

1. The government has the right to do anything it wants in the interest of protecting people or their rights (whether or not those actions would actually protect people.)
2. Either because of the 2nd Amendment, or because of inherent rights, the government has no right to regulate firearms ownership by competent, law-abiding people. [I was going to say "law-abiding citizens", but it seems to me immoral to restrict law-abiding resident aliens, even if not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Also, if a right is "inherent", it applies to all under the government's control. But that goes beyond what should be in the article, not to speak only of the lead.]

I think I've avoided specifying whether the 2nd Amendment actually does protect those rights, which is certainly an issue too complex for the lead, and not necessary for the lead of this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

How the highest-quality reliable, verifiable sources summarize GPUS

The Politics of Gun Control (2012)

I chose the current edition (5th - 2012) of Spitzer's The Politics of Gun Control. I will share some snippets here.

• The furor over gun control has raged across the American landscape for decades, with a sustained intensity and intractability found among few other issues. Despite all that has been written on the subject, no comprehensive political and policy analysis on gun control existed at the time of this book's initial publication [1995], even though the gun debate is precisely a political dispute over the proper scope and consequences of government policy.
• At its heart, the gun debate is about the citizen, the state's power to regulate, and the maintenance of public order. All these relationships come together under the public policy umbrella and are thus amenable to a policy analysis that has as its central question, Should gun possession and use be significantly regulated? ...
• The controversy over gun control revolves around two related questions of government authority: does the government have the right to impose regulations, and, assuming the existence of such a right, should the government regulate guns? It is perfectly obvious that numerous gun control regulations already exist, from the national to the local level. ...
• Gun control opponents also argue that further gun restrictions could impinge on constitutional rights and the innate rights of the citizenry in a free nation. ...

So there's some summary language from one high-quality source. If y'all each pick a high-quality source and share some summary language, I think we could put our heads together and come up with a much better lead than we have now. --Lightbreather (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The Changing Politics of Gun Control (1998)

@Older is not interested in this discussion, so I'll add a second source in his stead. It is also the second source in the article's current list of references: The Changing Politics of Gun Control (1998) by Bruce and Wilcox.

• The debate over gun control in America is organized by interest groups that favor stricter regulations and those that believe that all gun regulations violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Beyond that, this book was written 20 years before Heller, so one has to keep that in mind. Still, I think their succinct summary still applies, even in view of Heller. Lightbreather (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

This statement captures what I would describe as two extremes (or maybe not, there are also those who would ban private ownership of firearms). It also explicitly states that the debate is organized by interest groups, and it doesn't mention the viewpoint of some that the 2nd is actually focused on the collective right to a citizen militia. I am not so conspiracy-minded as to think that interest groups are the originator of the extremes, or that they really organize the debate. I am certain that if the interest groups faded away the debate would continue, and in fact both sides have plenty of do--it-yourself advocacy independent of the organized groups. I conclude the old reference does not capture the facts and the range of opionions as we know them. --Zeamays (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

This article's relationship to Gun violence in the U.S.

I have started a discussion on the Gun violence in the U.S. talk page that I would like some feedback on. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not about to spit into the wind, but I think "talk" and "opinion" by and large should be removed from this article. It is irrelevant, despite what television says. They are just attempting to increase their viewership, and ad rates. Thanks to Lightbreather, the Gun violence in the US article is being cleaned up. Really ought to do that here as well. Statutes and enforcement are "politics." Talk isn't. My opinion counts at the polls. Once every two years or so. What the pro-gun or anti-gun lobby says is irrelevant unless a reliable source says that one or the other voted in a legislature that passed a gun statute. And it's not so much what they said, it's getting that legislature packed with supporters that is important. Student7 (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

New WP:MEDRS-grade systematic review and meta-analysis

Anglemyer, Andrew; Horvath, Tara; Rutherford, George (2014). "The accessibility of firearms and risk for suicide and homicide victimization among household members: A systematic review and meta-analysis". Annals of internal medicine. 160 (2): 101–10. doi:10.7326/m13-1301. PMID 24592495. Free full text; abstract excerpt: "Conclusion: Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide [odds ratio: 3.24; 95% confidence interval: 2.41 to 4.40] and being the victim of homicide [OR: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.56 to 3.02.]" There is an accompanying AIM editorial which makes a strong case that the risks are actually substantially higher because of clear flaws in studies finding low risk. NPOV suggests to me that the critique's position should also be included. EllenCT (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. NPOV says we should exclude it unless we can establish the weight that the opinions expressed have in reliable sources. While that may appear disheartening if you think the opinions expressed are correct, bear in mind that the flipside of this approach is that we can exclude the editorials that gun enthusiasts could add to the article. TFD (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

On what grounds would you say that the professional judgement of Annals of Internal Medicine editors as to the quality of epidemiological studies is not reliable? EllenCT (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It's technically not in their field of expertise; either of the authors nor the editors. In other words, it would fail WP:MEDRS, and possibly WP:RS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

How, precisely, is the epidemiology of gun deaths technically not the field of expertise of the Director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center who authored the editorial? His published works include [4] which meets the MEDRS criteria in its own right. EllenCT (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I cannot comment on that specific paper, but many of the allegedly peer-reviewed papers on gun violence, including some considered among the best, ignore so many relevant factors so as to be meaningless. As an example, studies of gun ownership as a factor in being a victim of a homicide usually ignore whether the victim had previously been threatened – A contributing factor toward both the "cause" and the result. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

These factors are technically not relevant in a meta-analysis except in that the "experts" fail to acknowledge relevant factors, and consider those studies which do acknowledge those factors to be badly designed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hemenway is saying that population statistics prove that the studies finding low risk are necessarily flawed. He's a subject matter expert, and so his opinion is both reliable and noteworthy, but should be reflected in his voice instead of Wikipedia's. EllenCT (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

EllenCT, the issue is not reliability but weight. TFD (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The same arguments are made (for the U.S. only) in the MEDRS-grade review at PMID 19606921. EllenCT (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I have asked for further opinions at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Expert commentary on risks of living in a household with guns. EllenCT (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Kellermann

I assume this edit[5] was a mistake. The edit summary called a study published in a peer reviewed journal an "Op-ed". Felsic (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It was a mistake, but not for that reason. The quote was attributed to Kellermann, but it was actually by Hemenway, who cited Kellermann. I fixed it here.[6] Lightbreather (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, got it.Felsic (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Public opinion

The "public opinion" section is excessively large and devoted to a few recent polls, some conducted by an advocacy group. This is primary source material, and suffers from "recentism" and "weight" problems. The best way to fix it may be to delete it and start from scratch. Felsic (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing when I saw it. We could replace with the trend polling graphs and remove the push poll junk. WeldNeck (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Political arguments

What is the topic of this section? Is it a review of the arguments being used in the debate over guns in the US? If so, then we should be quoting the activists. Or are we making those arguments ourselves? This material added,[7] at the beginning, seems to be making an argument rather than describing one. I think this entire section needs to have a clear topic and be re-written for balance. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4180:79EA:8547:CD30 (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

1881 cartoon

I found the 1881 cartoon floating around the internet shortly after the Sandy Hook massacre. Like the original scanner I saw its relevance for today - crazy guy getting a gun, guns being sold along with violent dime novels and the one man who legally has a gun doesn't seem to use it correctly. Adding images isn't really my forte, so if anyone could make it larger or improve the metadata I would appreciate it.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I've adjusted the image markup, and enhanced the caption a bit also. I'm not sure if the political cartoon would be best at the top of the article, where it is now, or in the Post Civil War section. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 08:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I moved the political cartoon to the Post Civil War section. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 08:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Gun politics in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=18
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.claytoncramer.com/scholarly/racistroots.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Gun control referendums in 4 states

Referendums for strengthening gun con were held in 4 US states on election day, people voted to passe them in 3 states (Nevada, Washington and California) while rejected them in Maine. They have been covered in the media and I think they are notable and impactful enough to have their own article. I hope someone can create it. 61.1.56.108 (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Impact of Prohibition on US Veterans

In a news story, allegedly supported by the Senate, the Department of Veterans Affairs disarmed 260,000 US Veterans in a sweep if they used a "fudiciary" in the VA system. Apparently, they said that if a Veteran needed help managing their finances, it was illegal for them to have a gun (when screened by the FBI). I'm stunned information like this is not all over the place, Those who uphold the Second Amendment vs The Government (and the Department which is supposed to take care of them working against them? The size of the sweep speaks for itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.43.192.118 (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

--== Recommended Change to Section 3.1.1 Fundamental Rights ==

From the section below I recommend deletion the sentence stating: "However, it should be noted that human rights law neither recognizes a right to firearms nor a human right to self-defense, but requires states instead to reasonably regulate and restrict the possession and use of firearms to protect the right to life.[121]" because it doesn't belong in this section. There is no such thing as "human rights law" in the US. There are international laws and treaties that distinguish human rights as well as the UN Charter but international law is not binding on any sovereign country apart from their own laws or the use of international force. This particular point seems out of place especially when considering the page is about US Gun Politics. Further the source for this entry is book entitled, "Human Rights and Personal Self-Defense in International Law" This quote from the book is taken out of context and serves only to put forth a political view that human rights laws do not guarantee the right to firearms. The author later goes on to argue that self-defense is a human right. I think this section should be discussed elsewhere as perhaps a contrast to US political and legal views on gun views versus international. I think this sentence is only there to refute the first sentence which references Heller v. D.C. As a counterpoint it doesn't work. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.190.216 (talk) 01:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC) --108.48.190.216 (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Gun politics in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061104194222/http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_cicp_survey_seventh.html to http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_cicp_survey_seventh.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111125195156/http://www.scstatehouse.net/scconstitution/a01.htm to http://www.scstatehouse.net/scconstitution/a01.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060923081542/http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/Constitution1901_toc.htm to http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/Constitution1901_toc.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070104095048/http://www.legis.nd.gov/constitution/const.pdf to http://www.legis.nd.gov/constitution/const.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070306072536/http://www.sots.ct.gov/RegisterManual/SectionI/ctconstit.htm to http://www.sots.ct.gov/RegisterManual/SectionI/ctconstit.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120918035221/http://legis.state.va.us/laws/search/constitution.htm to http://legis.state.va.us/Laws/search/Constitution.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Dick Act meme

I removed the following:

In recent years a narrative that references the Militia Act of 1903 (the Dick Act) has appeared in a well-known internet meme, letters to the editor and posts on social media, and cites it as an argument against proposed gun control laws and regulations. The narrative is inaccurate in several respects, and is not reliable as an argument against the regulation of firearms. To cite an example, the narrative claims the Dick Act "cannot be repealed." In fact parts of the Dick Act were effectively repealed or amended when it was modified by the Militia Act of 1908, the National Defense Act of 1916, the National Defense Act of 1920, and the National Defense Act Amendments of 1933.

The same text is also being discussed at Talk:Militia Act of 1903#False narrative, and the objections raised there also apply here. Although there is no question that the narrative has circulated and is false, it has not received RS coverage. The sources are all primary sources which consist of examples of the meme being repeated (letters to the editor) and early 1900s legislation proving that the act has indeed been amended. There just isn't enough coverage to justify inclusion. –dlthewave ☎ 00:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

As I wrote on the talk page for the Militia Act of 1903 article, I'm pretty sure I know what's going on here, and from my point of view, it has NOTHING to do with reliability or balance. My perception is that a few dedicated, determined individuals are insistent on forcing their personal point of view about a controversial topic in the guise of "fairness". In addition, I have reason to believe that some other contributors aren't willing to engage because they don't want to get dragged into a dispute where there's no consensus or compromise to be had.

So you've gotten your way. Let's be done with it so we can all move on to something else.

Billmckern (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Dana Loesch RfC

You are invited to participate in this RfC, which is about whether to include certain content about NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch being heckled offstage at a CNN town hall meeting on gun policy. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Undue weight towards Gary Kleck

Upon review of the article, Gary Kleck is heavily and unduly leaned upon in the Political Arguments section, even in places where it doesn't make sense, like his widely-criticized self-defense survey in the 1990s dominating 3 out of 7 paragraphs in the "Homicide" section, something not directly related to homicide, but of self-defense usage of guns in general. Out of the 7 paragraphs in "Homicide", 6 are explicitly about Kleck. For one criminologist whose original research primarily took place in the 20th century, I don't think this is acceptable. Ottoshade (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

My attempts to improve article even where editors requested changes were delete and reverted to bias and uncorroborated statements. Request supervisor-editor to check my revisions attempting to improve as well as correct errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.90.161 (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You added material that doesn't appear to be from a reliable secondary source for this article. If you feel that there are errors or bias, yu will have to explain what they are and why? 18:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)O3000 (talk)

Source for "two primary opposing ideologies"

I think that the lede might over simplify the issue. I don't see good sourcing for the statement that the issue is defined by "two primary opposing ideologies". There is certainly a lot of Democrat/Republican partisanship on the issue, but a lot of the polling that I have seen indicates a bit of a gradient among individual citizens. DiscoStu42 (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Missing a lot of Info regarding Gun Control groups

Hello!

As a person who recently was using this article for some background research, this page is shockingly lacking in information relative to modern Gun Control Advocacy groups. Several newer groups, such as Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety are just flat out ignored in key sections of the article, which presents an issue for a reader looking to find information regarding groups, their history, and how they've influenced the debate. Currently, "Category:Gun control advocacy groups in the United States" is the only active page with some of this information, as Gun Control only focuses on the policy itself.

I've added an expansion tag to the most particularly relevant section, however the history section of the article could use a massive update to help with this lack of information. However, if you have a difference of opinion I'd love to hear it. UnknownM1 (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Gun Control Suppresses Gun Rights

It is true and my edit should be bought back and stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2d80:5e81:5d00:48bc:ad35:20ba:46e3 (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, thank you for opening this discussion here. For anyone watching the page, the edit in question is this edit, which was undone by myself and another editor. I reverted the edit on NPOV grounds: While I appreciate that some individuals believe that any gun control measures violate their gun rights, this is far from being a universally accepted view. My concern with the statement was that it was assuming such a viewpoint as a non-debatable fact and therefore constituted a non-neutral point of view. Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

"Increasing regulations" is NPOV. "Suppression" is POV. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I withdraw my complaint — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2d80:5e81:5d00:48bc:ad35:20ba:46e3 (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

please sign and indent your replies. Meters (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)