Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gun laws in the United States by state: 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 19:38, 12 March 2016 editFelsic2 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,178 edits →Stand Your Ground Law← Previous edit Revision as of 19:40, 12 March 2016 edit undoFelsic2 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,178 edits →potential renameNext edit →
Line 154: Line 154:
::If we were to do a rename I'd vote for "Gun politics...by state". That's a more inclusive title wthat's allow more issues to be included than just the laws themselves, like local political groups, crime issues, etc. Or even "Weapons politics...." ] (]) 19:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC) ::If we were to do a rename I'd vote for "Gun politics...by state". That's a more inclusive title wthat's allow more issues to be included than just the laws themselves, like local political groups, crime issues, etc. Or even "Weapons politics...." ] (]) 19:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
:::The problem I see with a change in that direction, is that it takes something fairly objective "the laws in this state are X", and opens it to something a lot more subjective and more subject to pov warring. ] (]) 19:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC) :::The problem I see with a change in that direction, is that it takes something fairly objective "the laws in this state are X", and opens it to something a lot more subjective and more subject to pov warring. ] (]) 19:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
::::Too late - there's nothing objective about any of this. ] (]) 19:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


==Stand Your Ground Law== ==Stand Your Ground Law==

Revision as of 19:40, 12 March 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gun laws in the United States by state 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
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFirearms Low‑importance
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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance 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.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States Mid‑importance
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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
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 topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gun laws in the United States by state 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: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 12 months 
Archiving icon
Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"See also" section

Mudwater deleted the "see also" section. See diff. "Undid edits by Timeshifter. The implication is that firearm death rates are directly linked to gun laws. That might be, but this article is about the dry, boring facts of the law, without editorializing or speculation)." There should be a "see also" section.

The deleted link was Firearm death rates in the United States by state. How is that not a related link? There should be more "see also" links. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Timeshifter: In your edit summary you said, WP:NPOV requires all significant viewpoints. And there was no "see also" section at all. Add more links to balance it. But, this article is about state and local gun laws in the United States. It's not about what people think or say about the laws, or their opinions about the effects of the laws, or the political debates about the laws. By presenting, as I said in the edit summary, "the dry, boring facts of the law, without editorializing or speculation", and avoiding all arguments about gun control, the article maintains a neutral point of view. But, there are plenty of other articles for those types of debates. Examples include Gun politics in the United States, Gun violence in the United States, and Right to keep and bear arms in the United States. — Mudwater 12:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
A link is not an argument about anything. And articles have "see also" sections. The non-neutral action is yours by removing the link, and the "see also" section. Thus blocking more links. The implication is that gun laws have nothing to do with anything. The solution is to add more links to the "see also" section. I suggest you do that rather than edit war. For example; start with all the links you mentioned. WP:NPOV is met more by addition, than subtraction. We allow the readers to make up their own minds. We don't channel their minds. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
@Timeshifter: The article isn't required to have a "see also" section. It should only have one if it makes the article better. And this article is better without one, because it's more neutral by just stating what the laws are, without implying or suggesting anything about their effects. — Mudwater 16:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
That's a cowardly viewpoint, and assumes stupidity on the part of the reader. Some MOS guidance: "The links in the 'See also' section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. ... Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous." --Timeshifter (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. Also, I'm hoping that other editors will give their opinions on this question. — Mudwater 22:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
From the MOS: "The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic..." Misplaced Pages does not shy away from all significant viewpoints. Comprehensive article would cover all angles including the history and competing viewpoints on all aspects of gun laws. And much more.
That is why there are many spinoff articles for many topics on Misplaced Pages. No one article could cover a topic. That is true for many topics on Misplaced Pages. Mudwater, you wrote: "It's not about what people think or say about the laws, or their opinions about the effects of the laws, or the political debates about the laws." Yes, it is. And there are articles about that. And that is what "see also" sections are for. The article links to a few such as: Gun laws in California. It has a "see also" section. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I think having a "See also" section that only includes a link to Firearm death rates in the United States by state does potentially represent editorializing. If it was the case that the "See also" section was filled with links to pages which represented "all significant viewpoints" it might be OK to include Firearm death rates in the United States by state. It's probably not OK if Firearm death rates in the United States by state is the only link. NickCT (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with NickCT; having just the one link feels like editorializing. The section should either be expanded or left out. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

(unindent). Per discussion here, I added a list of "see also" links to the article. Instead of just one. I never intended that there be just one link in the "see also" section. I assumed people would add more. "See also" sections can have few, or a lot of, links. It varies by article. And in any case people can add more, remove some, substitute better ones. Here is one possible list:

--Timeshifter (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It's possible that a consensus of editors could come up with a reasonable and NPOV list of "see also" articles, but this isn't it. Most of these articles are obviously unrelated to the subject of gun laws in the United States. "List of federal subjects of Russia by murder rate?" No, I'm just not seeing it. — Mudwater 00:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Discuss their removal before removing each one. Some people see the relation of guns to homicide rates. And some people compare homicide rates and gun laws between countries. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring, Mudwater. Leave the "see also" section. Do not remove it altogether. Consensus is against its wholesale removal. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
@Timeshifter: "List of federal subjects of Russia by murder rate"? C'mon, gimme a break. — Mudwater 01:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I removed it. Please do not remove the whole "see also" section. "Subjects" are like states in the USA. Are you going to go down and waste time discussing each murder rate list (Brazil, Mexico). Believe it or not, some people (unlike you it seems) see the related nature of murder rates in the states and cities of countries, and gun laws. The links are a starting point. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
@Timeshifter: I was using "List of federal subjects of Russia by murder rate" as an example. Sorry, I thought that was obvious. Most of those articles are obviously unrelated to gun laws in the Unites States by state. I'm wondering how many other editors think that most of those articles should stay in the See Also section. "List of Brazilian states by murder rate"? "List of Mexican states by homicides"? "Number of guns per capita by country"? And so on. Sorry, the See Also section you are proposing is clearly inappropriate. — Mudwater 02:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
"Number of guns per capita by country" is blindingly obviously related. To most people except you. All of this is discussed in the media comparing gun laws in various US states and countries, to guns per capita in various states and countries. And comparing gun laws and guns per capita worldwide to murder rates in various locations worldwide. Frequently discussed in the media. Do I have to paint a picture for you with arrows and circles? --Timeshifter (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Other editors are strongly encouraged to give their opinions on this question. — Mudwater 02:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Mudwater that the vast majority of those links do not belong in the "See Also" section. Most of them are only tangentially related at best. The focus of the chosen links also seems to be WP:UNDUE. -- Bardbom (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay then, how about this? — Mudwater 15:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. -- Bardbom (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Index of gun politics articles. This makes for a shorter "see also" list. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

These 2 links are obviously related to this article, and frequently discussed in the media in relation to gun laws in the US:

People frequently discuss US state gun laws in relation to firearm-related deaths and homicide rates in other states, and in other countries, in relation to their gun laws. Current list:

--Timeshifter (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

List of U.S. states by homicide rate is pretty redundant with Firearm death rates in the United States by state, and it's also not a good fit because homicide rates include killings that are not done with firearms. List of countries by firearm-related death rate is not closely related because this article as about the laws of different U.S. states, not the laws of different countries. But, even with those two removed, the Related Articles would be better if there were fewer of them. That way we'd be linking to the most relevant ones, and not building a long laundry list of articles that are only indirectly related. I propose this:
In fact it would be even better if it listed only one related article -- Gun law in the United States, which talks about federal laws (as opposed to the state and local laws covered by this article.) — Mudwater 01:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Most of those topics (and plenty of others) are already in the "US Gun Legal Box" near the top of the article. Why not just use that and skip the "see also" section entirely? Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
That's an excellent point, now that you mention it. The "See also" section was only recently added anyway. — Mudwater 02:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

(unindent). Mudwater, please stop edit warring. You yet again removed Firearm death rates in the United States by state. Even though several people said it should be in a "see also" section. That article is not linked in the box at the top for "Firearm legal topics of the United States of America". And as I said it is common to compare US states to countries in Europe. USA and Europe are similar in total population. Many US states are similar in size to European countries. You will find many such comparisons in the media and Misplaced Pages articles. Homicide rates and gun laws by state and worldwide are frequently compared and discussed in the media. Stop trying to delete a significant viewpoint. But I will just put List of U.S. states by homicide rate in the list. People can find links to country lists from there.

I removed 2 articles from see also that are in the box at the top of the page. None of the links below are in that box.

Here is the current "see also" section:

Note: Please see many links in the box at the top of the page called ""Firearm legal topics of the United States of America".

--Timeshifter (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This RFC is improperly formed. RFC's should be on a specific question or proposal. I am boxing this up as no consensus can be formed by the responses. AlbinoFerret 23:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

What articles should be included in the "See also" section of "Gun laws in the United States by state"? — Mudwater 22:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Interested editors are encouraged to review the discussion, immediately above, that took place before the request for comment. — Mudwater 22:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment - summoned by bot. I suggest you re-write your RfC to ask for position/comment on something specific rather than just pointing editors to a long discussion. Flat Out (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2015 (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.

potential rename

Since knife and other weapon laws are in many states intrinsically related (often the exact same laws) I propose that this article (and probably the related state level articles) be renamed to Weapons laws in the United States by state or less succinctly Gun and knife laws in the United States by state. I have made a matching proposal at the Wisconsin article, which is precipitated by the recent passage of knife laws related to local pre-emption, concealed carry, etc. which are very similar to the information we are already covering under "guns" Gaijin42 (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose: I see what you mean, but it's the gun laws that are the main thing. And I think most readers will be looking for articles about gun laws. Furthermore, most of the state articles only cover firearms. On the other hand, including information about knives and other weapons could be a plus, and I wouldn't discourage it. That said, I still think it would be better not to rename the articles. "P.S." I think it would be better to have this discussion in one place, so I suggest consolidating the Wisconsin discussion into this one. — Mudwater 23:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
If we were to do a rename I'd vote for "Gun politics...by state". That's a more inclusive title wthat's allow more issues to be included than just the laws themselves, like local political groups, crime issues, etc. Or even "Weapons politics...." Felsic2 (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The problem I see with a change in that direction, is that it takes something fairly objective "the laws in this state are X", and opens it to something a lot more subjective and more subject to pov warring. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Too late - there's nothing objective about any of this. Felsic2 (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Stand Your Ground Law

What makes "Stand Your Ground Law" a gun law? Is murder a gun law too because most are committed with guns? Felsic2 (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that a stand-your-ground law is a law about self-defense in general, and not about guns specifically. And there would be other laws in this category -- for example, are you allowed to kill someone (by whatever means) if they are stealing your property but not directly threatening your person. So I would be in favor of removing this row from the state summary tables that have it. But let's wait a while and see what other editors think. — Mudwater 00:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
While the argument above is certainly technically true 1) guns are the most common weapon used in self defense. 2) all uses of guns in self defense are affected by such laws. Due to these close relationships, I think the rows are appropriate. Beyond that, in the both pro-rights and pro-control agenda and lobbying groups, stand your ground and self defense laws are a major focus and topic, and in the media passing or repealing of such laws is generally covered as a victory/loss for such groups and in the context of the gun control debate. However this feeds into the discussion in the section immediately above, in which a rename to "weapons laws" would be more inclusive of such topics. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
This article isn't about the agendas of lobbying groups. Felsic2 (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed; most reliable sources tend to lump them into gun laws, though they are technically about when it is permissible to use deadly force in general, rather than whether or not someone can legally own a given firearm or accessory. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Sources? Felsic2 (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hundreds.

Gaijin42 (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. We should add those to the SYG article. Felsic2 (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Gun laws in the United States by state: Difference between revisions Add topic