Misplaced Pages

Talk:Concealed carry in the United States: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:28, 12 November 2019 editThenightaway (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users52,121 edits →Lede← Previous edit Revision as of 17:28, 12 November 2019 edit undoMrThunderbolt1000T (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users752 edits →LedeNext edit →
Line 76: Line 76:
:::* You said that there's no reason we should include two studies in the lead, but yet you're fine with including one study. Who defines "state of the art?" You, of all people? There's plenty of "state of the art" institutions that support the assertion that RTC laws reduce violent crime, but yet you don't seem to care. I never said that the NAS review should be removed from the article, I'm disputing your claim that somehow, the NAS is an infallible review that provides all the consensus needed on a subject, when in fact, it disputes the validity of studies that use actual crime data to reach their conclusions. Are you seriously not understanding that? --] (]) 07:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC) :::* You said that there's no reason we should include two studies in the lead, but yet you're fine with including one study. Who defines "state of the art?" You, of all people? There's plenty of "state of the art" institutions that support the assertion that RTC laws reduce violent crime, but yet you don't seem to care. I never said that the NAS review should be removed from the article, I'm disputing your claim that somehow, the NAS is an infallible review that provides all the consensus needed on a subject, when in fact, it disputes the validity of studies that use actual crime data to reach their conclusions. Are you seriously not understanding that? --] (]) 07:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
::::* I have given you the info that NAS does state-of-the-art reviews of existing research - you have opted to ignore and dismiss this rather than acknowledge this piece of info and move on. If you refuse to acknowledge that the NAS does state-of-the-art reviews, then I don't know what to do for you. As for mentioning the NAS 2004 report in the lede, it's in line with what the body of our article says, so it's perfectly fine to use that as a lit review for the lede. ] (]) 08:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC) ::::* I have given you the info that NAS does state-of-the-art reviews of existing research - you have opted to ignore and dismiss this rather than acknowledge this piece of info and move on. If you refuse to acknowledge that the NAS does state-of-the-art reviews, then I don't know what to do for you. As for mentioning the NAS 2004 report in the lede, it's in line with what the body of our article says, so it's perfectly fine to use that as a lit review for the lede. ] (]) 08:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
::::: Sure, you can include a study in the lede, but your position is that because it discredits the studies that find RTC laws decrease violent crime. You've accused me of bad-faith edits, so I'll make this clear: the only reason you would have to present this as a representation of a body that cites conflicting studies is because it discredits the ones you don't like. Either you can admit that the body includes credible studies that support, oppose, and are neutral on, the belief that RTC laws reduce or increase violent crime, or you're completely biased. The body cites multiple sources from accredited individuals and institutions on both sides of the issue as well as in the middle. As far as I'm concerned, the NAS 2004 review can say whatever it wants, but the fact remains that the studies (at least half a dozen against a single review) which concluded that RTC laws reduce violent crime cite actual statistics as their methodology. Are you going to go so ridiculously far as to discredit actual statistics? There are actual statistics on the matter, and if you're impartial and aware of them, you should stop trying to discredit these studies. "State of the art" institutions once said that black people were genetically inferior to white people. Unless you're a racist, I'm sure you can agree that they were wrong. Stop with this "state of the art" and stop acting like big accredited institutions can't be wrong. All the research is conflicting and disputed: therefore, the lede should reflect the body's acknowledgement of this. The NAS is not the judge of credibility court and neither are you. You said the lede should summarize the body and the current revision does. All I want is for the lede to properly reflect the body, "this isn't rocket science." --] (]) 17:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


*:Also, refer to this Misplaced Pages article, ]. Specifically, refer to the reception section. There's plenty of support and opposition to the idea that RTC laws reduce violent crime, so the consensus on the issue supports my final lede. Unless you'd like to say the supporters aren't credible like you did before? Why am I supposed to believe some random dude on the Internet when he says that researchers from accredited institutions and backgrounds are wrong? --] (]) 07:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC) *:Also, refer to this Misplaced Pages article, ]. Specifically, refer to the reception section. There's plenty of support and opposition to the idea that RTC laws reduce violent crime, so the consensus on the issue supports my final lede. Unless you'd like to say the supporters aren't credible like you did before? Why am I supposed to believe some random dude on the Internet when he says that researchers from accredited institutions and backgrounds are wrong? --] (]) 07:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:28, 12 November 2019

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Concealed carry in the United States article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Concealed carry in the United States was copied or moved into Weapon possession with this edit on 20:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconFirearms
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLaw Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLaw Enforcement
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Archiving icon
Archives

Archive 1, Archive 2

Article merged: See old talk-pages:


This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Concealed carry in the United States article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

Permitless Carry limited to Non-Residents Unconstitutional per multiple Supreme Court Decisions

  • Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948) - privileges and immunities clause bar discrimination against citizens of other States where there is no substantial reason for the discrimination beyond the mere fact that they are citizens of other States.
  • Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 431 U.S. 265 (1977) - § 60 prohibits nonresidents from catching menhaden in the Virginia portion of Chesapeake Bay, the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that the residency restriction of § 60 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. we affirm.

There are several more cases I can cite but the first is the main citation, and the second is the most applicable. --Thegunkid (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I encourage you to challenge such laws in ID, ND, and WY under those precedents. Otherwise, we need reliable sources making those claims before we can add it.Terrorist96 (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Puerto Rico no-issue?

So where is the citation that Puerto Rico is no-issue? I recall a news segment on CNN a few years ago (before the the court case creating de facto constitutional carry for a while) that showed average Puerto Ricans getting carry permits; From what I understand Puerto Rico is effectively shall-issue, but it's just a very expensive and drawn out paperwork intensive process. --Thegunkid (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Ideal Conceal

Could the new Ideal Conceal be in this article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me the Ideal Conceal article should even exist. It fails notability on several levels. I'd recommend it be deleted, and the details - if ever found notable - folded into this article. Anastrophe (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
An ephemeral flash in the pan like the folding pen gun does not deserve mention. There are thousands of concealable firearm models not mentioned in the article. Why this one?--Naaman Brown (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Clarification needed

I noticed "Arkansas," (only in the case of Arkansas) in the article prose and "Disputed" as a column heading in the Status of concealed carry, by jurisdiction table. That table column has a checkmark for Arkansas, and also for California, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island. It is not immediately apparent to me what disputed means in this/these contexts. The superscripted assertion re Arkansas probably needs a second look, and clarification about the intended meaning of that term is probably needed in one or both of these cases. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

In the case of Arkansas, there is dispute on the legality of constitutional carry (meaning a dispute in the interpretation of the law). But the other ones, the disputed check mark means the laws are being challenged in court, though those are probably very outdated.Terrorist96 (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I suggest some clarification as to the "disputed" column, perhaps something like, "being challenged". Or removal entirely as it's really not providing useful information to the reader currently. Ifnord (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Working paper by Lott in the lede

I'm not sure we should be citing a working paper by Lott in the lede. He's neither nor neutral on this issue, so it'd be preferable to wait for a peer-reviewed assessment or secondary coverage of his data on the number of concealed carry licenses. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a better source for the number of permits by year? Terrorist96 (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Lede

The bold line here summarizes the body of the article, namely the "Effect on violent crime" section, yet it keeps getting removed from the lede and replaced with nonsense:

  • A comprehensive 2004 literature review by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that there was no evidence that concealed carry either increases or reduces violent crime. Subsequent research has indicated that right-to-carry laws either have no impact on violent crime or that they increase violent crime.

Three editors have edit-warred this line out of the article, and replaced it with individual studies:

  • The first time, MrThunderbolt1000T removed the line, and replaced it with a discredited (per the National Academy of Science lit review) 1998 study by Mustard and Lott, and another study in a low-impact journal which found that concealed carry reduced crime rates. There is zero reason for us to be citing two individual study in the lede, in particular a discredited 1998 study.
  • The second time, a single-purpose gun regulation account removed the line, inserted a line about how most research finds no impact, and added a cite (in the edit summary) to a lit review from a study that covered basically the same period as the National Academy lit review (MrThunderbolt1000T then added a cite to the wrong Mark Gius study). This is again a single study (and thanks to MrThunderbolt1000T, the wrongly cited one), and it already mirrors what the National Academy of Science lit review says.
  • Then, a third user, Apeholder removed the bold line, and edit-warred the wrongly cited single study back into the lede.
  • The final version of the lede (before El C protected the page) was written by MrThunderbolt1000T who claims to replaced the bold line with a sentence that summarizes the body: "Subsequent research has indicated that right-to-carry laws either have no impact on violent crime, that they increase violent crime, or that they decrease violent crime. Research has been mixed and disputed as a result." This is not an accurate summary of the body, because research subsequent to the National Academy of Sciences literature review overwhelmingly either finds no impact on crime rates or that concealed carry increases crime. The bold line is actually a conservative assessment of the literature, given that both a 2017 review and a 2017 Science article stated that the existing recent scholarship indicated that concealed carry does increase crime. Just counting the studies shows that there are approximately ten studies that show no (or weak) impact, ten that show an increase in crime (or that find no impact or an increase depending on methodology), and two that show a decrease in crime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
    So, the body, which cites multiple studies and research papers that all find different outcomes, is only represented by a 2004 academic review? An individual study of other papers... So, one study is discredited by another, but the latter study is infallible? The studies in the body, taken altogether, show mixed results. How do you misunderstand something that simple? --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait, are you now also disputing whether the lede should cover the National Academy of Science 2004 review (which is a state-of-the-art review)? And you now want to remove the NAS 2004 report because you erroneously think that the NAS 2004 report is just like any other study (as opposed to a state-of-the-art review of existing research)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • You said that there's no reason we should include two studies in the lead, but yet you're fine with including one study. Who defines "state of the art?" You, of all people? There's plenty of "state of the art" institutions that support the assertion that RTC laws reduce violent crime, but yet you don't seem to care. I never said that the NAS review should be removed from the article, I'm disputing your claim that somehow, the NAS is an infallible review that provides all the consensus needed on a subject, when in fact, it disputes the validity of studies that use actual crime data to reach their conclusions. Are you seriously not understanding that? --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have given you the info that NAS does state-of-the-art reviews of existing research - you have opted to ignore and dismiss this rather than acknowledge this piece of info and move on. If you refuse to acknowledge that the NAS does state-of-the-art reviews, then I don't know what to do for you. As for mentioning the NAS 2004 report in the lede, it's in line with what the body of our article says, so it's perfectly fine to use that as a lit review for the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Sure, you can include a study in the lede, but your position is that because it discredits the studies that find RTC laws decrease violent crime. You've accused me of bad-faith edits, so I'll make this clear: the only reason you would have to present this as a representation of a body that cites conflicting studies is because it discredits the ones you don't like. Either you can admit that the body includes credible studies that support, oppose, and are neutral on, the belief that RTC laws reduce or increase violent crime, or you're completely biased. The body cites multiple sources from accredited individuals and institutions on both sides of the issue as well as in the middle. As far as I'm concerned, the NAS 2004 review can say whatever it wants, but the fact remains that the studies (at least half a dozen against a single review) which concluded that RTC laws reduce violent crime cite actual statistics as their methodology. Are you going to go so ridiculously far as to discredit actual statistics? There are actual statistics on the matter, and if you're impartial and aware of them, you should stop trying to discredit these studies. "State of the art" institutions once said that black people were genetically inferior to white people. Unless you're a racist, I'm sure you can agree that they were wrong. Stop with this "state of the art" and stop acting like big accredited institutions can't be wrong. All the research is conflicting and disputed: therefore, the lede should reflect the body's acknowledgement of this. The NAS is not the judge of credibility court and neither are you. You said the lede should summarize the body and the current revision does. All I want is for the lede to properly reflect the body, "this isn't rocket science." --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, refer to this Misplaced Pages article, More Guns, Less Crime. Specifically, refer to the reception section. There's plenty of support and opposition to the idea that RTC laws reduce violent crime, so the consensus on the issue supports my final lede. Unless you'd like to say the supporters aren't credible like you did before? Why am I supposed to believe some random dude on the Internet when he says that researchers from accredited institutions and backgrounds are wrong? --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 07:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
That's funny, you're the one claiming the NAS review is "state of the art" and not advocating for its elimination from the lede. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Well all I can say is any wording similar to what is being edit warred over by several folks is borderline copyvio from this. If we're going to be using the wording best to quote and attribute it unless it is substantially altered.--MONGO (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Concealed carry in the United States: Difference between revisions Add topic