Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gaijin42 (talk | contribs) at 20:04, 27 January 2014 (→Second Amendment rights section: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The contents of the Political arguments of gun politics in the United States page were merged into Gun politics in the United States on 2014-01-04. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

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. Firearms High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-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. Politics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Government This 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Government Top‑importance This 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gun politics in the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 6 months

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Lead still no longer sucks...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

1. ^ Wilcox, Clyde; Bruce, John W. (1998). The changing politics of gun control. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 1–4. ISBN 0-8476-8614-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
2. ^ Wilcox, Clyde; Bruce, John W. (1998). The changing politics of gun control. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 4. ISBN 0-8476-8615-9. For many years a feature of this policy arena has been an insurmountable deadlock between a well-organized outspoken minority and a seemingly ambivalent majority{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
3. ^ Cite error: The named reference SpitzerCh1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Mackey was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Cite error: The named reference Springwood was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. Cite error: The named reference Chapman was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. Cite error: The named reference Brown was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
8. Cite error: The named reference Squires was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
9. Cite error: The named reference Webster was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
10. Cite error: The named reference Rasmussen was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
11. First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws, October 3, 2003

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft lead

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

References

1. Wilcox, Clyde; Bruce, John W. (1998). The changing politics of gun control. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 1–4. ISBN 0-8476-8614-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
2. Wilcox, Clyde; Bruce, John W. (1998). The changing politics of gun control. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 4. ISBN 0-8476-8615-9. For many years a feature of this policy arena has been an insurmountable deadlock between a well-organized outspoken minority and a seemingly ambivalent majority{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
3. Cite error: The named reference SpitzerCh1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Mackey was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Cite error: The named reference Rasmussen was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. Cite error: The named reference Valdez was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. "What's in Obama's Gun Control Proposal". New York Times. January 16, 2013. Retrieved 2013-01-30.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replying to Scolaire:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anythingyouwant, what I'm objecting to is this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removing original research / un-sourced

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

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

Template:Jimboquote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lede

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

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

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

Who?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Magarian and Spitzer

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

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

How to fix this sentence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the seventeen sources above it seems apparent:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qualifying scholars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Organization of rights section

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

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

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

Not a stalemate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

failure/success

The UK thing is going to be problematic. Supporters will say that it is a success that there has been only 1 mass shooting (which of course does not account for other differences such as # of large cities, other crime, population density etc that make apples to apples comparisons tough). Opposers will point to the shooting in spite of the law as a failure. In either case, we need to find sources making the success/failure claim and should not be putting that type of qualifier on the content, as that is WP:OR on our part. I am going to remove the opinion portion of the current content until it can be sourced/agreed on. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This is for the best. It is off-topic anyway, and really has no place in the article. Good call. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This should be put back, with a citation-needed or not-in-this-source tag or something along those lines. I have been told more than once you shouldn't just delete something because it needs a citation. Yes, supporters say its a success because there has been one mass shooting in Britain since 1997. How many have there been in the U.S. in that time? Britain's one case stands out to Brits because it was one. We've had so many, the average American couldn't even tell you how many. Five? A dozen? This information belongs in this article, though it needs to be updated and the wording needs to be tweeked. Now I'm going to take a moment to go find a source on how many mass shootings there have been in the U.S. since 1997... Plus I'll go out and find some sources and tweek the statement to update the information. Lightbreather (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Finding those sources and doing the comparison yourself is clear WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Find a source actually making the comparison. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

No, no, no, Gaijin. You misunderstand. I'm only finding the numbers for myself - because I don't know what the latest numbers are. Absolutely, as far as sources go for the article, I am only looking for something to bring the argument up to date... because it is indeed, as you know, still an argument in the debate (politics). Lightbreather (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a consensus to remove the material. Please stop. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

What I have found looking at the primary material on mass shootings is that definitions and thresholds change, even from the same source. In the big picture of violent crime in the US or anywhere it is also miniscule, statistically insignificant part of the violence issue. Probably the most interesting thing about them has to do with reporting and that they create a cognitive dissonance in perceptions of violent crime, with for example during the post Newton period, more people wrongly thinking gun murder was up, when it has plummeted in the past 15 years. Bloomberg actually called the his own police department's shooting of nine innocent people by police a "mass shooting" http://live.reuters.com/Event/Shooting_near_Empire_State_Building_in_New_York/40919107 . This points to the problems of using this "mass shooting" language108.18.64.127 (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

self defense minority view

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

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

Where is the usage?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5 Political arguments

5.1 Fundamental right arguments

5.2 Second Amendment arguments

5.3 Security against tyranny and invasion arguments

5.4 Self-defense arguments

5.5 State constitution arguments

5.6 Gun violence arguments

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

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

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

Second Amendment rights

This was recently added:

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

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

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

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

Recent null edit

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

Lightbreather began by removing this passage:

Then Lightbreather reinserted a modified version:

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

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

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

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

References

1. U.S. Code on General Military Law, Part I, Chapter 13.
2. http://cprcorollary.com The CPR Corollary

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

It's back - in modified form - sorry

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

Virtually every bit of good-faith editing that I've done in the last 24 hours - reverted by one editor

Virtually every bit of good-faith editing I've done in the past 24 hours has been reverted by Sue Rangell. This direct undo was after a long discussion. It wipes out a compromise reached there, and introduces a whole new challenge: That the word "argument" is "too inflammatory." The word had been used in this article for ages without bringing up any issues of inflammatory-ness. Why revert everything? Why not create a discussion "Should we replace the word 'argument' with 'opinion' in this article?"

Even more disturbing is this edit, with the edit summary "Fixed Multiple issues" It's basically another reversion of my good-faith efforts, deleting some good, basic, factual material and restoring some old, dubious material as well.

I would post a "please stop" on her page, but from past experience, I know she'll either move it here or to my page. My mentor is not as available these days as she once was, plus y'all have been working with me for awhile and many know the situation. Can someone please advise me? Lightbreather (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you stop using the word "revert"? You make it sound like an edit war, when no war is happening at all. Your comments above are highly inflammatory and combative, but I will be polite anyway. My edits are good faith edits just like yours, I'm sorry you do not agree with them. Ask your mentor to help you with your article ownership issues. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Above, in discussion Political arguments (which is - and has been for quite some time - the name of an existing section of the article), Anythingyouwant, Gaijin42, and I went through a BRD and a consensus was reached on subsections:

5 Political arguments

5.1 Fundamental right arguments

5.2 Second Amendment arguments

5.3 Security against tyranny and invasion arguments

5.4 Self-defense arguments

5.5 State constitution arguments

5.6 Gun violence arguments

Where was your objection to the word "argument" during the discussion? As soon as Anything and I came to an agreement and I incorporated the agreed upon titles, you showed up (less than 15 minutes later) and you undid them. That was a revert. Otherwise, you could have simply removed the word "arguments" from the agreed upon titles, or substituted a word that seems less inflammatory to you. Lightbreather (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

2. It will take me some time to document the reverts buried in this edit, which you gave the edit summary, "Fixed Multiple issues." But I will take time from work I'd rather be doing to document it here. In this one "fix", you:

• reverted the dubious Importance of Militia subsection back into the top position of the Public policy section. I had moved it to the bottom of that section yesterday, as explained in detail in the edit summary. (I then realized that it in fact belonged under Second Amendment arguments, so I moved it there. Then, Anything and I agreed that it didn't belong in the article at all.)
• deleted a good, basic, factual statement that I'd added to the beginning of the gun violence section. Before you're "fix" it read:

"Public policy debates about gun violence include discussions about firearms deaths - including homicide, suicide, and unintentional deaths - as well as the impact of gun ownership, criminal and legal, on gun violence outcomes. Firearms death are compromised of homicides, suicides, and unintentional deaths. Homicides are made up of criminal and non-criminal killings (for example, justified self-defense by an individual or use of deadly by a police officer)."

After your "fix" it read:

"The public policy debates about gun violence include discussions about firearms deaths - including homicide, suicide, and unintentional deaths - as well as the impact of gun ownership, criminal and legal, on gun violence outcomes."

In fact, the whole thing was a revert, because that's exactly how the single-sentence paragraph read before I added the two others.

• removed copyediting and an FV tag I'd added; removed a Wikilink I'd added; and reverted a WP:SAY edit that I'd made. Lightbreather (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Since it was spawned from this discussion...

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sue Rangell reported by User:Lightbreather (Result: )]]. Thank you. —Lightbreather (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• result was No violation

...per WP:SNOW, I should think, considering how fast they threw the complaint out. Please, for the love of Pete, stop wasting everyone's time, and learn how Misplaced Pages works, how to work collaboratively, and particularly what a revert is. Thanx. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Having less than six months active WP editing experience, I was easily able to identify the explicit reverts - 2 - but the others? I tell you, I still don't quite get it. I'd also like to know what it means when an editor says they have a 1RR rule. Lightbreather (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Consecutive edits that are each individually reverts count only as 1 revert (As they could have been done all at once with no difference in result). SOME editors/admins even consider SOME non-consecutive reverts as a single revert, if the intermediary edits were not related to what is reverted. (IE Sue makes 4 consecutive reverts in section A. vs 2 consecutive reverts in section A, LB makes one edit in section B, sue makes 2 more reverts in A - might still be considered 1 revert for 1/3RR purposes)

Everyone has a 3rr rule on them at all times. You may not make more than 3 reverts on a particular article per day. People however are regularly blocked for making less than 3rr per day, if they are gaming the system, or its part of a sustained edit war.

Some people have 1rr placed on them by admins/arbcom. Others voluntarily act under 1rr for their own reasons. Some people even get 0RR put on them.

Technically every edit that changes existing content could be considered a revert, but for 3rr purposes only changes that either are a straight "undo" or that delete chunks of recent content are considered reverts. Deleting a paragraph from a year ago is not a revert. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I limit myself to 1 revert...because there is always going to be someone out there who find it easier to attack others editors and try to get them blocked, rather than put Misplaced Pages ahead of their own politics and collaborate with others. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Spitzer Again

I think we have enough references to Spitzer's works in the article. He is an advocate of Gun Control and should not be the most referenced person in the article. (He was, but I took care of that) Yes, I have all of his books, and yes I think he is right about many things, but we need to put Misplaced Pages first, and not ref every single paragraph with something from Spitzer. This article does not exist to boost his Google ratings. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

This comment is not for Sue, but for every other editor who is active on or watching this page. She says, " is an advocate of Gun Control and should not be the most referenced person in the article." There are currently 236 numbered references in the article. Her edit deleted 11 references to Spitzer, with the edit summary, "The article does not need a million references to Spitzer's newest book, particularly when they have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Placing reference tags just to boost his Google ratings is a no-no." So that means the article had 247 references before, right? Of which Spitzer was 11. In other words, his references made up less than 5 percent of the total number of numbered references.

But here's the kicker: Of the 11 references that she deleted, only three were to his "new" book. The other eight were to his "other" book - which is simply the first edition of the same book, now in its fifth printing - that has been A SOURCE ON THIS PAGE SINCE *AT LEAST* FIVE YEARS AGO. (It was actually referenced nine times then, so one was deleted between then and today, when Sue "took care of" that basic gun-control politics reference work that is cited regularly, uniformly by people hundreds, perhaps thousands.)

"... particularly when they have nothing to do with the topic at hand." A book by an American political scientist who does research on gun control and whose book is titled "The Politics of Gun Control"... is not relevant on a Misplaced Pages article titled "Gun politics in the United States"?

I'm trying very hard to work WITH other editors, but I'm having a very hard time understanding how those deletions improved this article. What were they really about? Anybody? Lightbreather (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Gun cultures in the USA

short article, easily mergable in the the US article (and quite a bit of it is already duplicate there anyway) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Forgive me if I don't use the correct WP terms, but you, Gaijin, are very kind in helping me in that respect. Even though we may butt heads from time to time, I do truly appreciate that you usually not only A) seem to understand what I'm trying to say, and B) help me to learn the correct term/practice. That said, for reasons given in WP:LIMIT - especially reader issues and editor issues - I think a better proposal would be to move or split (or whatever is the correct term) the Gun culture section of this article (Gun politics in the United States) into the Gun cultures in the USA article - leaving a summary and a link here, or whatever is the best practice. This article already has 240 sources, 30 of which are used in the Gun culture section. As for editorial history/provenance, the Gun culture article was started in September 2005, but that section of this article didn't get inserted until April 2007. Lightbreather (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I never understood the point of the "gun culture" article. It should be merged into this article. I do not think the topic supports having it's own article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support the only sourced information is that Hofstadter once wrote an article called "America as a gun culture." He did not even say that American had gun cultures but that it was a gun culture. Obvious POV fork with no sources backing it. TFD (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, Sue has nominated the Plan B article (proposed below) for deletion. Lightbreather (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:SUMMARY, WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT ... Don't dump more info in, move some of the larger sections out into {{main}} articles, leaving a concise summary behind. 172.129.246.164 (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Counter proposal: Summarize this article's Gun culture section into Global gun cultures

For reasons given above under my "Oppose" vote to merge Gun cultures in the USA into this article. Lightbreather (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose Lightbreather created the Global gun cultures article soon after this original proposal was made. The Global gun culture article therefor serves no purpose and should be deleted. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

As I stated above, the Gun culture in the U.S. article was started in September 2005, but the Gun culture section of this article didn't get inserted until April 2007. So the Gun culture article predates the Gun culture section of this article by a year-and-a-half. Also, that article had a fledgling (though decidedly rough) Gun cultures outside the U.S. section already outlined.

This article already has 240 sources, 30 of which are used in the Gun culture section. For reasons given in WP:LIMIT - especially reader issues and editor issues - summarizing the Gun culture section of this article (Gun politics in the United States) into the Global gun cultures article would improve both. Although there might be many arguments for going with Plan A rather than Plan B, I don't think just-because-the-latter-is-new is a good one. I think we should seriously consider the merits of both ideas. Lightbreather (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, right now there is no article in Misplaced Pages that gives readers a brief, top-level (not heavily politically charged) idea of how global gun cultures compare in their origins and current status. Lightbreather (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It makes no difference when the original articles were created. The point is that you for some unknown reason, hastily created a third article that is totally redundant, unecessary, and time-wasting, just because of you do not like this proposed merge. You are the only one who wants this. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment See my remarks above. I don't have a problem with the work that is already being done to improve some of the outer topics, but more of a big picture approach is needed to identify all sections that need to be tethered out into their own space. 172.129.246.164 (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Which part of this mass of edits removes/replaces what by consensus

Looking for help understanding this mass of edits. "https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gun_politics_in_the_United_States&diff=592371501&oldid=592328877" Sue Rangell which part of it is the remove/replace by consensus? Lightbreather (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

How does removing PDF info from citations improve the article

Sue Rangell: In previous mass of edits, how does removing details from citations that inform reader that links are to a PDF files improve the article? Lightbreather (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:LINK to better understand Misplaced Pages's formatting preferences and policies. Thank you. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That is new to me. I am used to using WP:CS1, and it appears the External links section of that article needs to be updated. Second question: Why not just do all those related PDF edits together with an edit summary ref to WP:LINK so that when less-experienced editors come along they understand? The added benefit would be to separate out the more material edits for other editors - regardless of experience level - too. Lightbreather (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

How does "somehow" improve this article?

Sue Rangell, you keep returning "somehow" to the last sentence of the Self-defense subsection, including in that last, massive edit. I've removed it. Gaijin42 removed it. How does adding that word to that subsection improve the article? Lightbreather (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I have better things to do than argue with you about a single word. Ask for a consensus opinion if it bothers you that much. Your pouring over all of my edits and questioning them like this will get you back on ANI again. How many trips to ANI do you think you can survive? Stop harrassing me. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not an answer. Gaijin removed it on 14 JAN 2014 saying it was POV. You restored it. Because it is without doubt WP:EDITORIALIZING and/or an expression of doubt, I deleted it. You restored it again. An anonymous user deleted it. You restored it. How does using it improve the article? Lightbreather (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, I support the following edit:

Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Restoring "somehow" there is a blatant violation of NPOV. Hipocrite (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the "somehow" is inappropriate and fails NPOV. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, since we seem to have reached a consensus, the word "somehow" should remain out of the sentence. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Now, that having been said, the sentence should still indicate in some way what an extreme minority (Fringe?) viewpoint this actually is. They are in effect saying that the supreme court justices do not understand the constitution, but they do. They are basically saying that the highest law in the land is wrong and they are right. That is a mighty big boast, and so far out into pro-control territory that even pro-control advocates are left scratching our heads. This by no means any kind of mainstream opinion, for either side, and that should be made clear somehow. Perhaps the sentence could be re-worded in some way, I do not know, but as it stands the casual reader will think that all pro-control believers think this, and trust me, we do not. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Earlier I found myself debating as to whether or not the article should even mention it at all, but Gaijin made some extremely compelling statements which convinced me that it deserved a mention. Still, I think that per WP:UNDUE there should be some sort of indicator that the opinion is anything but mainstream. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Find sources for your statements. Hipocrite (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

To your edit - please assume that our readers will read what the article says, which attributes the views to the specific people who hold them. We do not denigrate views based on our own personal political expediencies, which appears to be what you propose. Hipocrite (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

THANK YOU --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. Do you have sources for your statements about what people think? Hipocrite (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the notion that that these ideas are fringe. A lot of people think that the Court messed up in its interpretation. Does that mean we can change it? No, but that doesn't mean that the debate is over in the court of public opinion. We shouldn't just write, "The Court has declared the right an individual one, so that's the end of the debate." Afterall, the Court has also held that government has a right to regulate guns, but that hasn't stopped the pro-gun from thinking or speaking disagreement.Lightbreather (talk)

John Longenecker the author

On 22 JAN 2014 I moved the Importance of militia section, which was poorly sourced. Sue has since reworked the first paragraph of that section, but I have restored the second with help from my mentor. Discussion on that section to follow, but FYI, the author cited in the second paragraph - I'm pretty sure - is NOT the same man who has a BLP here on Misplaced Pages. The author has a bio on Amazon.

Question. I don't want to take time right now to create a WP article for the author, but I also don't want readers to think the JL who has a BLP here is the same man. What is the preferred practice for making that clear when there is no article for disambiguation? Does one just add a statement in the BLP's article? Lightbreather (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

do you have some source that is leading you to believe they are not the same person? If so, and the new guy is not notable enough for a BLP the two options would either be - dont wikilink the guy, or create a disambig page, and link to that. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No, but I also can't find a source that indicates that they are the same person. I wasn't planning to WL to the existing bio, but I was trying to anticipate future confusion. That seems like a kindness to other editors and to the readers, too. That's all. If they are different people, but there's not a bio for one, how does one structure the disambig page? This is just a less-experienced editor seeking the advice of more experienced editors. Lightbreather (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the gentleman should be used as a source at all if it's not possible to confirm who he even is. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I partially agree. I don't think this (Longenecker's) self-published source should be used. "Longenecker, John, Jr. (2005). Transfer of Wealth: The Case for Nationwide Concealed Carry of Handguns. AuthorHouse. pp. 8–9. ISBN 978-1-4634-5421-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)" Hipocrite agrees. As does Sue (scroll way down around line 450). See next, Importance of militia discussion, for more. Lightbreather (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Importance of militia

This section is problematic for several reasons, and it's been moved around and re-worked a bit recently, and I'd like to get a consensus on A) What its supposed to be arguing and B) Where it belongs in the overall discussion of Political arguments.

I'll start with an easy question. The first paragraph currently cites this source: "U.S. Code on General Military Law, Part I, Chapter 13.", which redirects to a generic, Browse goverment publications page. Finding the best links to code is not my strong suit. Anyone?

Second, the arguments in the section (Importance of militia) are 1. A statement about a point made by opponents of a restrictive 2A interpretation, defining what "militia" meant in the last 1800s and 2. Author John Longenecker's take on original intent in the modern era... I think.

So, again: What is this section about? That is, what is it addressing in the questions outlined at the top of the Political arguments section? Which, I hope will answer the question: Where do these "arguments" belong? Lightbreather (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinks not-with-standing, would a "Terminology and context" section like there is in the Gun control article be helpful? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I kinda like that idea, but would like to discuss further. Could you make it a separate discussion? Lightbreather (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"Authorhouse" is not a publisher

"John Longenecker," is not a reliable source. His books were not published by a third-party source, but rather self-published through a variety of vanity presses. How did he even get on this page - he's just a blogger. Hipocrite (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Added by an IP ages ago. Hipocrite (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Faction titles

We should normalize language. Is it Pro-rights and pro-control? Hipocrite (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a great question. I prefer pro-gun and pro-control, but I think the pro-gun crowd prefers gun rights and gun control. I don't like "gun rights" because it implies that others are anti-Second Amendment. There are some gun-control types who would like to repeal the 2nd, but from everything I've experienced and read, I think they're a tiny minority. Lightbreather (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

If the "right to bear arms" wasn't in the 2nd Amendment, we of "pro-gun crowd" probably wouldn't use the term, but it is and we do. There are credible sources (check the 2A article) that use the terms "gun rights" and "gun control" to describe the two ends of the spectrum. Its a complex issue and most people, as you've indicated via "tiny minority", don't fit nicely into a category, they are somewhere along the continuum of the issue.

My issue with the term "pro-gun" is that its misleading. The issue is not about "guns", its about self defense and protection of one's self, others, and home. I don't see how the term "pro gun" includes that. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I hear you, Scal. I was only voicing my opinion, not saying it's the "right" one. There are quite a few terms used by various sources. They're all inadequate because the groups who fall under the "two" sides vary widely in opinion. On the extreme ends are absolutists and repealers, others fall somewhere in between - and with overlap! I would wager there are way more "gun rights but for limited regulations" and "gun control but for limited rights" people combined, than the extremists put together. Though I would note that the absolutists are an extremely organized and vocal group. Hence, IMHO, the slant in a lot of WP content on the subject. I mean, I know of only one other active editor right now who claims to be pro-control, but at least a dozen who obviously defend the pro-gun POV on WP. Again, just my opinion. That's why I periodically remind others of "Don't shoot the messenger."

That said, I just took the time to count uses of the terms in THIS article, and "gun rights" and "gun control" outnumber all the rest, so probably best to stick with those. (That's kinda the WP default, right? Stick with what the editors have been using... unless there is some compelling evidence that it's just plain wrong (not factual). Lightbreather (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Second Amendment rights section

I think this section could use a little help. Re: this sentence:

Before District of Columbia v. Heller there was a difference of opinion about whether or not the Second Amendment included an individual right.

References

1. Gottesman, Ronald (1999). Violence in America: An Encyclopedia. Simon and Schuster. p. 66,68.
2. Hardy, David T. The origins and Development of the Second Amendment(1986), Blacksmith Corp., Chino Valley, Arizona, pp.64–93, ISBN 0-941540-13-8
3. Halbrook, Stephen P. That Every Man be Armed—The Evolution of a Constitutional Right(1987), The University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico, pp.55-87, ISBN 0-8263-0868-6
4. Gottlieb, Alan M.: The Rights of Gun Ownership. Green Hill, 1981

1. The way the sentence is written. Before Heller there was a difference of opinion? Although the Court has ruled that there is a (limited) right, there still is a difference of opinion (as in a notable group disagreed/disagrees with the ruling). How best - the most neutrally - to word this?

2. The sources. Three of these four sources are used no-where else in the article. Could we narrow them down to the one that IS used elsewhere in the article, plus the "best" of the other three? Gottesman - from an encyclopedia - is the most current of the three. That'd probably be my pick, but I'm persuade-able.

If no-one else will address this, I'll give it a try. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's fine as it is, leave it alone. If it works, don't fix it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• there is no difference of opinion currently. there 100% is an individual right, and that right is explicitly not tied to service in a militia. Spitzer et al may think that SCOTUS created a right rather than clarified an existing right, but nobody disagrees that heller & mcdonald are now settled law. this is already covered neutrally in the article, and further coverage here would be undue - their opinions are meaningless in the face of SCOTUS. I could possibly see additional coverage on the heller/mcdonald pages themselves as notable criticism of the rulings, but we should not be going into such detail here. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The obove being said and true, there is likely to be ongoing debate on the extent of the 2A protects the right and what types/levels of regulation are constitutional. But that is a very different matter than the "debate about individual right" mentioned above. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• B-Class Firearms articles
• High-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Top-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed United States Government articles
• Unknown-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• C-Class United States Government articles
• Low-importance United States Government articles