Talk:Gun politics in the United States/Archive 4

Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership info - for if/when it comes up again

I am glad that Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) is currently NOT in this arcticle, but if/when it comes up again, here is some fairly current info about its size.

Its IRS EIN is 39-1732344. Its 2012 Form 990-EZ PDF is available at guidestar.org. (You need an account, but there is a free version.) That report shows Program service revenue of almost $127,000. (Zip for Grants and contributions.) At $25 annual membership, and assuming all its income is membership fees, that makes a little over 5,000 members. (The weird thing, they don't list the income as membership dues.)

From my experience with nonprofits, there are probably members who give more than $25/year (and probably some lifetime members who aren't required to give annually), and there are probably other sources of income, so I'd be surprised if they actually have 5, 000 active members. By comparison NRA Program service revenue for 2011 (latest report available on Guidestar) was almost $110 million, and Grants and contributions revenue was almost $60 million. Lightbreather (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it would be best to not mention JPFO in this article with regard to tyranny or Nazis, for three reasons. First, it is relatively small and unknown. Second, if we mention it then we would have to explain that not all its members are Jews, which would take up even more undue space in this article. Third, a more acceptable option would be, e.g., to simply wlink JPFO in the "See also" section. That's why I removed JPFO. I would not say that the editor (not me) who inserted it was misbehaving or anything like that, but the better choice would be to omit it. That information could go at the article about the JPFO, however.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that info should go into the JPFO article. I only shared it here because how "big" (or not) the org is was an issue in a recent discussion on the Gun control talk page, so I expect it will come up again here, too. Lightbreather (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

My understanding was that it was the third largest such group in the US. Where did that original figure come from? It seems to me that something should be placed into the article (it doesn't matter what, it doesn't have to be the JPFO) A) that balances out the "All Jews are offended" content within the Nazi material, or B) Remove the material claiming such, or C) Remove the Nazi material altogether. Playing the "Jew Card" is as offensive as playing the "Nazi card". The entire thing is offensive to me. We don't need to fight WWII again, follow? What I would REALLY like to see, if I were to rewrite the whole thing myself, would be to have a section on totalitarianism, with the Nazi material given a mention, along with others who used gun control to further their oppression, rather than simply keep the streets safe. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

All governments forbid at least some people they consider undesirable to keep and bear arms. In the U.S. for example, prisoners are not allowed to keep and bear arms, yet they retain other rights such as habeas corpus'. In fact, habeas corpus is only relevant for prisoners as writs can only be issued for people believed to be prisoners. You would need to show that the Hitler argument has attracted any significance in rs. The Hitler argument is that Hitler brought in gun control laws so he could disarm Jews. But there was already a gun control law and Hitler eased the law by lowering the age of gun ownership from 20 to 18 and eliminating the long gun registry. TFD (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't this Wikipedia article presently cite many rs? We aren't trying to show that the "Hitler argument" is correct, only that it is often made. Is Wikipedia supposed to determine which arguments are correct and then exclude all description of the others? That would be especially difficult here, because historians have not much addressed this argument.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Sue, if you can find a reliable source that says JPFO is the third largest pro gun rights group in the US, and that its members include a substantial percentage of Jews, then that might be of interest. As things stand, I don't see sufficient material in reliable sources to include JPFO here beyond listing the wikilink in the "see also" section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea where that figure came from, and I can't be arsed to trace it down. The JPFO material can be completely removed as far as I am concerned. I am more interested in completely re-writing the section as I described above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Sue, as best I can tell, you are primarily concerned with the sentence in the note (i.e. not in the main text of this Wikipedia article) which says: "groups such as the Anti-Defamation League also say that use of the Holocaust in these arguments is offensive to the victims of the Nazis". That's emphatically not the same thing as if the ADL were instead saying that "reporting or describing these arguments is offensive to the victims of the Nazis". Otherwise ADL would consider its own statement as offensive to victims of the Nazis.

I therefore don't see any need to balance the ADL statement in order for us to continue briefly describing the Nazi argument. However, if there is noteworthy balancing material out there in reliable sources, then I'd also be glad to include that too, in proportion to its prominence. I'll look around.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I have just added to the Note in this Wikipedia article a very brief sentence: "However, not all Jews feel that way.[1][2]"

[1]Coscarelli, Joe. “Jewish Firearms Group Compares Bloomberg Gun Control to Genocide, Nazis”, The Village Voice (March 9, 2011).

[2]“Rabbi Defends Comparison of Gun Owners to Holocaust Victims”, WFLD, Channel 32, Fox News, Chicago (May 3, 2011).

Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I think it reads pretty well now. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia article about Nazi gun control

Here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

And discussion here [1] and here [2] and here [3]. Lightbreather (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion that Nazi GC is an international concern should be removed

Per the "International debate?" discussion [4] on the Gun control talk page, and on the facts to follow, the second, italicized of these two statements in this article should be removed:

Although gun rights supporters promote firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities, a further (and sometimes greater) motivation is fear of tyranny. The latter motivation is not confined to the United States.

Citations 1 and 2 are about the U.S. gun control debate. Citations 4 and 5 (Chapman and Brown) are discussed in "International debate?" on the Gun control article (link at top of this discussion). Citation 3 is about a U.S. pro-gun lobby (specifically the NRA) pushing the Nazi gun control argument in Brazil. Citation 6, like 4 and 5, when read in context of the text immediately surrounding the quote, also does not support inclusion of an int'l Nazi GC argument. Rather, it's an example of what Harcourt summarized succinctly when he wrote:

In much of the literature and argument, the references to Hitler and Nazi gun laws are often dressed in Second Amendment rhetoric. The message, in essence, is that the founders specifically crafted the Second Amendment to protect the Republic from dictators - and that Adolf Hitler proved the founders right.

"Harcourt, Bernard E. (2004). "On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians)". Fordham Law Review. 73 (2): 657."

--Lightbreather (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That you do not like an argument, or think that it was made in bad faith, does not change the fact that the argument was made in multiple countries, and responded to in multiple countries, and documented in reliable sources published in multiple countries. Wikipedia, much like the rest of the world, does not restrict itself to topics that LightBreather approves of. Your WP:OR and opinion does not overrule multiple WP:RSGaijin42 (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Gaijin. Lightbreather, the sentence that you would like to erase is this: "The latter motivation is not confined to the United States." If you would like to argue that this is not amply supported by the cited sources, then we could discuss that. If you would like to argue that it is not relevant to the present article, then we could discuss that too. But as far as I can tell, you haven't made any such argument.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

If you guys want me to copy the arguments that were recently made re this subject, instead of agreeing that the links I've given prove them, OK. I will stop and do that for you. Give me 10 minutes or so to put them (arguments) together. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Your arguments do not contradict the sources which clearly document the argument being made and responded to outside the US. The statement in the article is a 100% uncontravertable fact. Is the argument not as common outside the US? probably. Has it not gained as much notability or had as much effect? also probably. But We are not stating anything untrue, and adding that extra level of nuance would require sourcing. If you think there is a statrement that can be sourced that adds that nuance, propose it. But removing content DESCRIBING an argument, where we have multiple sources providing that description, because you disagree with the argument itself or its effectiveness is not within policy. The argument is made outside the US. period. Its use outside the us is documented by reliable sources on the topic of gun control. period. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

After a lengthy Gun control talk page discussion titled "International debate?" (copied below), in which many policies and guidelines were discussed by multiple editors, you agreed to drop the international debate argument.[5] I thanked you for that decision,[6] and I'm asking you to stand by it here. Lightbreather (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Copy of Gun control talk page "International debate?" as of 20:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

International debate? Copied here from Gun control talk page "International debate?" of March 20-26 I removed "and others in the international debate on gun control" while we reconsider that statement and those sources. I have read them a couple times now and what they say - that is to say how what they say is used in this article - is hinky. Lightbreather (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Sources that explicitly say the argument is made internationally, is insufficient to say the argument is made internationally? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC) That's not what I'm saying. Considering how contentious Nazi material is in any article, the dirth of high-quality sources for Nazi gun control is a problem. As I've said before, it ought to have its own article. Beyond that, to suggest that the argument is as significant internationally as it is among its fringe American adherents? The sources do not support it. Here is what I re-wrote - including the "and others in the international debate" material (in italics) and excluding the inline citations (those for "and others" follows text snippet): Gun rights advocates such as Congressman John Dingell, NRA leaders Charlton Heston and Wayne LaPierre, litigator and author Stephen Halbrook, and JFPO leader Aaron Zelman, and others in the international debate have said that Nazi Party policies and laws, which disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews, while relaxing firearms restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens, and which later confiscated arms in countries it occupied, were an enabling factor in the Holocaust that prevented its victims from implementing an effective resistance. The sources for the "and others" material are these: "Chapman, Simon (2013). Over our dead bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's fight for gun control. Sydney, Australia: Sydney University Press. ISBN 9781743320310." and "Brown, R. Blake (2012). Arming and disarming: a history of gun control in Canada. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 9781442646391." In a barely one-page section titled "Hitler tried to disarm the Germans," Simon (Australian) wrote: "Internationally, the gun lobby is fond of comparing gun control agenda with that of Hitler in pre-World War II Germany." He gives a one-sentence quote by "Queensland's Ian McNiven," and a two-sentence quote (a what-if question and answer) by an unnamed editor of Guns Australia. There are no citations for the source of either quote. That is to say, he attributes the quotes to those persons, but doesn't cite where he got the quotes. McNiven sounds like Australia's own Wayne LaPierre,[7] so we could probably find some material by/about him re: Nazi gun control, though how good the quality? Brown (Canadian) wrote: "As had occurred in the 1970s, organizations representing firearms owners made analogies between modern arms control and the policies of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia." This appears to be from Chapter 6, "Flexing the Liberal State's Muscles: The Montreal Massacre and the 1995 Firearms Act, 1980-2006," but no organization or person is named, and his source(s) is/are hard to verify (from the URL we give anyway). Lightbreather (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Reliable sources do not require internal citations for us to double verify, particularly for something innocuous as it was being used for. We are not stating that the argument is as influential or as notable outside the US, but it is a verifiable fact that it was made outside the US, as these pro-control reliable sources clearly verify. The ADL citation is in the section already, and the "throw a scare" line is from the Aronsen article in the previous sentence. It is not necessary to re-cite sources for every sentence that they support. I am reverting these changes as they removed valuable information. Please slow down your edits and get feedback on them before making the changes. This is already a contentious enough section, and making many sequential edits makes it difficult to deal with them on an individual basis. As to putting this content into a WP:FRINGE ghetto, Im quite happy to have a larger article on the topic, but it should not be removed from this one in this WP:SUMMARY form. This is a subjective political argument, the application of WP:FRINGE is mistaken, but even if it were a scientific fact, its notability would still require some level of coverage. For example global warming denialism is covered in about this same depth as this is, in the main global warming article. Global_Warming#Discussion_by_the_public_and_in_popular_media Gaijin42 (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC) I was just about to call it a night, but I'll leave this question: To what were you referring when you wrote, "Reliable sources do not require internal citations for us to double verify, particularly for something innocuous as it was being used for"? As well as, how these edits improved the article? [8] Lightbreather (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Above, you complained that Chapman and Brown do not provide their own citations for their sources. WP:V and WP:RS are not recursive. Saying that "people have made this argument" is not an exceptional claim that requires any exceptional sourcing. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "Internationally, the gun lobby is fond of comparing gun control agenda with that of Hitler [...] [Discussion of multiple Australians making the argument]". That source alone is sufficient to say the argument extends beyond the US. I agree that the argument is less notable outside the US, and has gained less traction - but our agreement as to that point is worthless WP:OR without a source makign that comparison - but we do have very clear neutral sources explicitly documenting its use outside the US, and clearly it was notable enough to respond to. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Backing up just a little, you wrote, "Reliable sources do not require internal citations for us to double verify, particularly for something innocuous as it was being used for." I don't think any part of this discussion is innocuous. And that the argument is international is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that requires multiple, high-quality sources. Lightbreather (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Calling this exceptional is ridiculous. If a political argument magically restricted itself to arbitrary geographical boundaries - that would be exceptional. The reverse is almost the default. We do have multiple sources. And no, nowhere in WP:V or WP:RS do we have requirements to go check reliable sources own sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Ridiculous" is an awfully strong word, so could you please clarify what "this" is that you say is innocuous/unexceptional? Also, we have two sources, and not particularly strong ones for the claim that the debate is international. And, we may not be required to check a source's sources, but we are talking about a controversial statement, that there's an international debate re Nazi gun control. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and wp:undue apply here. Lightbreather (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC) The book abour Canada presented as evidence that "the argument extends beyond the US." makes only one reference to Hitler in a sentence where it says some [unnamed people] brought up Hitler and Stalin in the debate. It does not refer to any of Hitler's legislation or how it related to gun control. It certainly does not establish notability. There are lots of things covered extensively in the book that do not belong in this article, for example the debate over removing the right of Irish Catholic canal workers to have firearms in the 19th century. TFD (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC) I think that gaijin has shown very well that "and others in the international debate on gun control" is more than appropriate, and there is certainly no consensus to remove the material, please replace it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC) A 'debate' would involve more than one group of participants - where is the evidence that anyone outside the US has taken this facile analogy seriously enough to bother responding to it with more than the derision and contempt documented in the Chapman book? Of course, if we are going to include the Australian 'debate', we will have some nice quotes - like the Sydney Morning Herald writers dismissive suggestion that the "more valid comparison is between the cunning propaganda practised by the shooters and the Nazis". Or are only pro-gun Nazi analogies to be permitted in this article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC) I have restored the content, because it shouldn't have been removed without agreement. However, I agree with Andy on this one. Two unrelated books written outside the US do not make an "international debate". I think the paragraph looks better without that bit than with it. Scolaire (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Scolaire Is there any doubt that the argument has been made by those outside the US, and that those outside the US have responded to the argument? If your objection is the wording "international debate" is there some other wording that would be more acceptable that would still indicate that the argument is not exclusive to those in the US? (There are other sources previously in the various archives, showing use of the argument in at least Brazil and UK I believe as well) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC) There is no evidence of any 'international debate' beyond a fringe minority of pro-gun lobbyists making the argument, and being dismissed with derision - it is a gross violation of WP:NPOV policy to make out that such arguments have had any serious traction outside the US. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Incidentally, as has already been pointed out, the supposed 'Brazil' source actually referred not to a local debate, but to attempts by the NRA or their confederates to interfere in the domestic politics of Brazil. The UK source referred to nothing more than another fringe gun-lobby group raising the argument, and being treated with contempt - the mainstream UK gun lobby wanted nothing to do with such nonsense. I suggest that you actually read what sources say before you cite them again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC) IMO we really need to start with straightforward coverage of gun control in Nazi Germany. What happened when. And since most of debate happens in the US, such is inherently significant on a world scale coverage of the topic, at least enough for inclusion. The fact that the Nazi meme is a factor in other countries only adds to this. To do otherwise would be like saying that you can't discuss giraffes in an article about the world's animals because they are Africa-centric. North8000 (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC) We already discuss Nazi gun control in the appropriate place - in our article on Gun legislation in Germany, where it belongs. And no, what happens in the US isn't 'world scale' - and I find it frankly astonishing that anyone could seriously make such an assertion on a Wikipedia talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Andy, you misstated what I said into a straw man /caricature version of it in a way that deprecates me. I'm not going to engage with you on those comments. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC) When governments do thinks someone does not like, someone may call them names, such as Nazis or Communists. These epithets come up in all debates. For example Archbishop Garnsworthy compared the Ontario premier to Adolph Hitler, when the government extended Catholic School funding. "This is how Hitler changed education in Germany...." (See Lewis Garnsworthy#Separate school funding.) Does that mean we add a section on education in Germany to the debate over religious school funding? TFD (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC) TFD, I respect you a great deal, even though we are often on opposite sides of issues. I consider you to be immensely intelligent, and you stick to the top few levels of the "pyramid" in your approach. Even with the good folks, I really don't want to re-enter a cycle of just trading talking points. But if you would ever like to enter into an organized, logical dissection of this and debate of the points (where I try to convince you and you try to convince me) I think that that would be a useful. North8000 (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC) The handful of sources have been discussed at length here and on other talk pages. This is NOT an international debate. Period. What is in this article is already more than there should be. Everyone should remember at all times re this: the last time there was an RfC on it, it was 20 for to 30 AGAINST Mea culpa: 19 for to 22 against having ANY of it here. I call on Gaijin and North to let this go. Lightbreather (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC) I am going to let the international bit go, because atm there are bigger fish to fry, but its plain stupid that we have a reliable pro-control source explicitly saying the argument is made internationally, and the response is essentially "lalala no its not because I said so. period.". Gaijin42 (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Thank you, Gaijin. Well, for the first part anyway. ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Since we've now established that there is no evidence of any significant international debate on the 'Nazi' issue (and no, a source telling us that the gun lobby likes to make comparisons isn't evidence of a meaningful debate - it is evidence that the gun control lobby likes to make comparisons...), can anyone explain why it deserves to be in the article at all? This is supposed to be an international overview of firearms regulation issues, not a one-sided recap of the US gun control debate - issues significance to one country alone should be dealt with in the relevant article, not here, per WP:WEIGHT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC) There are those pesky goalposts. Watch em move. We have not established there is no international debate, we just established that it wasn't worth fighting over the word international. In any case, please identify the policy that says "worldwide view means exclude the US". in a decently long article, a single paragraph, that has almost 3/4 of it dedicated to the other side of the argument, is a one-sided presentation? pfft. You can do better. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Andy has moved no goalposts. IF there ever was a "consensus" to include Nazi gun control material in this article, consider WP:CONLIMITED. But leaving that aside, the fact remains that consensus can change. So I'm going to say this again: the last time there was an RfC on it, it was 20 for to 30 AGAINST Mea culpa: 19 for to 22 against having ANY of it here. Lightbreather (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC) 19–22 would have been a No consensus if it had been a head-count alone, so the material would have stayed. Scolaire (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Um, can you cite policy for that? You seem to be confusing RfCs with AfDs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC) I wasn't aware that there was a difference between RfCs with AfDs regarding what would count as consensus if it were a head-count alone. Given that both of them say it's not based on a head-count alone, it seems odd that they would specify different numbers. Can you show me where they do that? Scolaire (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC) I am well aware that RfCs aren't closed by head count alone - it is your assertion that an RfC closed as 'no consensus' would entail the material being retained that I am asking you to cite policy for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Not policy-based. If there had not been a consensus to remove it people could have removed it anyway. Can we stop this silliness now? Scolaire (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Yes, you can - by not inventing policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Honestly! Have you nothing better to do with your day? Scolaire (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Andy, the policy Scolaire is referring to is WP:NOCONSENSUS. It says, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." 1. It says "commonly," not always. 2. It also says, "However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." Is this article about living people? It's not a BLP, but there are still living Holocaust survivors, and what is more contentious than comparing a subject to Nazism? 3. Then there is the fact that an ArbCom was started on this RfC before it came to a substantive close. It was closed procedurally by an Admin without analysis of consensus, pending word from the arbitrators. Lightbreather (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC) BLP does not apply to large groups of people WP:BLPGROUP nor does it apply to statements that aren't actually about that person/group, nor does it apply to things people might find offensive, but specific allegations that could cause libel, defemation, or other legal issues. WP:NOTCENSORED Gaijin42 (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Does anyone know? Are there any policies, guidelines, or essays, on the use of Nazi comparisons in articles? Also, I have to leave for the better part of the day, so I'll be absent from discussions here. Lightbreather (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC) The vote was at 19-for to 22-against when it went to ArbCom. Also, I don't need a lecture on how a simple vote does not decide a question. (I've lost count of how many times I've been the third man in a vote and, regardless of my arguments, I was told 2-to-1 is a consensus.) Anyway, that's where the vote stood when it went to ArbCom, on a controversial topic. Some of us, myself included (and you, too, if I remember rightly), asked to have the material removed while the ArbCom was open. I wanted to delete it from the start (I'll wager others included), but didn't, thinking there would be a decision within a couple of weeks, so why rock the boat. Yet every day that "material" (I want to call it crap) sits there is a day that those who support it claim silence is consensus. (I've lost count of how many times I've been told "It's been there two years," or "It's been there two months," or "It's been there two weeks" - which should mean about as much as a simple vote.) IN FACT, I removed it a couple days ago,[9] with the edit summary, "Bold edit to divert this material and discussions to Nazi gun control article." That is, I replaced it with a description of the controversy and a link to a page that can be developed fully to describe the controversy - and not just summarize something that a U.S., pro-gun fringe want very badly to make a part of a reasonable, global discussion. But guess what? The removed material was restored,[10] with the edit summary, "Really?" - by the editor who started the ArbCom. Big surprise. Lightbreather (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC) It's an international debate, period. No amount of wikilawyering will change that.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link to a related discussion, [11] which I hope I don't have to copy here, because it's not all about the "internation debate?" arguement. (Also, I understand that in this discussion I proposed waiting "a week or two" before deciding how to proceed. I'd never waited on an ArbCom before, and I don't own a crystal ball. If I knew then what I know now, there's no way I would have suggested waiting "a week or two," so I hope that won't be held against me. It's rather like a technicality.) Lightbreather (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, I don't see a basis in policy for erasing the targeted sentence. No editors, regardless of personal POV, should be seeking to convert Wikipedia articles into advocacy pieces, and that was not the purpose of the targeted sentence. Editing here isn't supposed to be some sort of contest between opposing POVs. The object is to give all sides a fair shake, by accurately describing the facts contained in reliable sources. That's my view, anyway, though I'm not so sure about the Wikipedia hierarchy's view.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that it be removed because there has been no consensus to keep it, and in fact, a statement very similar to this one was agreed upon to be removed from the Gun control article. Your last statement, and this one of mine, is surrounded by a sea of evidence regarding the truth of what I'm saying. Lightbreather (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Except that there *IS* a consensus to keep it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Here [12] is what was in Gun politics in the United States (GPUS) on 28 DEC 2013, one week prior to it being merged at 22:54, 3 JAN 2014, [13] with Political arguments of gun politics in the United States (PAGPUS). - NOTE that neither of these versions of GPUS or PAGPUS mentioned an "international debate" about Nazi gun control, or cited Mackey, Wilson, Springwood, Chapman, Brown, or Squires.

Here [14] is what was in GPUS at 22:52, 3 JAN 2014 - minutes before it was merged with PAGPUS. - NOTE that GPUS now had the following in it:

Although gun rights supporters promote firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities, a further (and sometimes greater) motivation is fear of tyranny. The latter concern has found expression not just in the United States, but internationally (e.g. in Brazil, Australia, and Canada).

What happened? In the days leading up to the opening of the Gun control ArbCom, the Nazi gun control material, including the argument that it's an "international debate," was added to this article (GPUS), which was then merged with another article (PAGPUS), and any objection was quickly dismissed based on a supposed consensus. I will not comment about the intentions of editors who pushed on as if there were a consensus about this, since I can't know if they understood that there was not, but... There was no consensus then, and there is no consensus now.

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not a contest about the popularity of a sentence in the Wikipedia article. The sentence or some equivalent has been in the article for months, and you presently have two editors who say it should remain because it is reliably sourced and relevant, versus one editor who says that she constitutes a consensus for removal---without giving any content-based reason for the removal. If you would please wait a week or so for the ArbCom decision, then I will probably not have the pleasure of editing this article with you anymore, and you can do whatever you like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

"The sentence or some equivalent has been in the article for months," is not a valid argument for keeping it under normal editing conditions, since consensus (if there ever was one) can change. But considering the conditions under which the material came to be in the article, and the fact that many editors have not been editing it pending ArbCom, the argument that what's in it now is a product of a healthy, neutral-net-affect editing environment is insupportable. Lightbreather (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You will likely have the environment you want soon enough.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather, as long as I'm allowed to edit this article, I will continue to strive to follow Wikipedia policies about neutrality, verifiabilty, consensus, and the rest. I honestly don't see how this edit of yours complies with any of those policies. Not one. You want to delete a very brief sentence of only nine words ("The latter motivation is not confined to the United States") that says the tyranny argument is not confined to the United States. But that statement is just the way it is; the sentence is supported by multiple sources, it's relevant, not undue weight, and even more than that there's the fact that a large supermajority of editors here has seen it the same way. Instead of walls of text, just say in a sentence or two why you're editing this way, please.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The consensus would seem to be to keep the material. In fact, only one editor is pushing to delete it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Anything, there was recent consensus - in only the last few days - on the Gun control talk page that Nazi gun control is not part of an "international debate." I even copied that discussion above, including Gaijin's agreement to stop pushing for its inclusion.[15] I thanked him for that decision,[16] and I asked him to stand by it here. I am asking you to let it go, too. This contentious point has been debated over and over and over again. The sources have been reviewed by numerous editors. There has been no consensus that this is truly an international debate, or that saying it is should be included in this article. Lightbreather (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather, I'm glad to consider what you have to say, but, really, we have myself, Sue Rangell, and Gaijin who have explicitly said in this talk page section that this very brief sentence ought to stay. I am asking you to let it go, at least until you persuade people so that there's consensus to remove. Is there nothing that can be done to improve this sentence in your view? Is the sentence false in your view? I have not been closely following or participating in the talk page at gun control. Was the deleted sentence only nine words long, and did it say what this sentence says? Why is it that you had "Gaijin's agreement" there but not here? The sentence here that you deleted against consensus does not discuss an "international debate", it merely says that an argument is not unique to the U.S.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Anything, I have written hundreds of words above that say what I have to say. I've provided diffs and copied the whole "International debate?" discussion from the Gun control talk page. These spell out the facts very clearly. This is about more than me and you and Gaijin and Sue, and the discussions we had when you were pushing this material into this article in the days before and after the start of the Gun control ArbCom. I can't say any more than what I've already said without repeating myself. Today, I'm concentrating on copyediting and uncontentious edits on the article. For example, I'm removing overlinks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The sentence removed at the other article was very different from the sentence here that now says: "The latter motivation is mostly but not entirely confined to the United States.[116][117][118][119]" This sentence does not say anything about an "international debate". Just copying and pasting arguments from another article's talk page, regarding a substantially different issue, is not persuasive to me. Can't you please address what this sentence says, here at this talk page?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you start an RfC? Lightbreather (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I have lots to do today, and if I did file an RFC it would most likely be a user conduct RFC. We'll wait and see what ArbCom says, and go from there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The sentence looks low key, (almost sky-is blue with it's cautious wording) and I think well sourced. The removal also removes several good sources. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Duplicated material

A lot of text in this article is duplicated among two or more sections. I am identifying sections like these to discuss them here. First one I'm bringing up, this one in the 20th century section:

Besides the GOA, other national gun rights groups often took a stronger stance than the NRA. These groups criticize the NRA's history of support for some gun control legislation, such as the Gun Control Act of 1968. Some of these groups are the Second Amendment Sisters, Second Amendment Foundation, and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). These groups, like the GOA, believe any compromise leads to incrementally greater restrictions.

And this one in 21st century:

Besides the GOA, other national gun rights groups continue to take a stronger stance than the NRA. Including groups such as The Second Amendment Sisters, Second Amendment Foundation, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and the Pink Pistols. New groups have also arisen, such as the Students for Concealed Carry, which grew largely out of safety-issues resulting from the creation of 'Gun-free' zones that were legislatively mandated amidst a response to widely publicized school shootings. Even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention pitched in, with an extensive study on gun control which found "Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws." A similar survey of firearms research by the United States National Academy of Sciences arrived at nearly identical conclusions in 2004.

Notes/Questions about the sources in the 20th century snippet:

• Does anyone have access to source 1 (Singh) to verify what exactly it's supporting?
• Source 2 (Daynes) did not have a URL, but I found one - which I added in the citation above - but I can't determine exactly what it's there for.

If neither of these problems is addressed, I suggest finding better sources or removing it altogether.

Comments about the text (and sources) in the 21st century snippet:

• The first sentence was obviously copied from the 20th century section and a few words modified. The second sentence isn't even a sentence. Third sentence? Eh... for now.
• The last two sentences may belong in this article, but they don't belong in this paragraph. I will try to find a more suitable place for them.
• Although the 20th century section takes a stab at presenting info about gun control/gun violence prevention groups, the 21st century section doesn't even bother. I will correct that, too.

--Lightbreather (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The "international" debate, at Anything's insistence

Regarding the discussion above, of 27-28 March 2014, "Suggestion that Nazi GC is an international concern should be removed" - I am copying that last two comments in it by Anythingyouwant and me here:

Why don't you start an RfC? Lightbreather (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I have lots to do today, and if I did file an RFC it would most likely be a user conduct RFC. We'll wait and see what ArbCom says, and go from there. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

And I am following up with some developments.

1. He started an ANI yesterday here,[17] which has (as of the time of this post) two subsections.[18][19]

2. He has inserted the "international" material again.[20]

--Lightbreather (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Why would you abide by an RFC if you won't abide by consensus at this talk page? Myself and three other editors (Gaijin, North and Sue) support the content. Moreover, you are not acknowledging the additional phrase that is intended to address your concerns. Did you see the additional phrase?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I have written all of my reasons for removing the material in the lengthy section referred to above, plus in the "International debate?" discussion on the Gun control talk page. I disagree that your desire to include this material in this article, plus the comments of Gaijin, North, and Sue - compared to the lengthy section referred to above, plus the "International debate?" discussion on the Gun control talk page, plus discussions of the past 2-3 months on this, all while you (and Gaijin and North) are before ArbCom - constitutes a legitimate consensus. Lightbreather (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you please quote the sentence that was debated at the other article? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk)

Dude! It's just two discussions up in the collapsible copy of the whole "International debate?" discussion from the Gun control talk page! If you want it copied to this discussion, just do it, and please quit trying to make me jump through your hoops. I mean, if I don't, are you going to challenge me to pistols at dawn? Lightbreather (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

As I understand, Lightbreather, you are referring to the following sentence (which does not appear anywhere above) that you edited[21] at the gun control article:

“ Gun rights advocates such as Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Democratic Congressman and NRA board member John Dingell, the NRA (voiced by NRA presidents Charlton Heston and Wayne LaPierre), Stephen Halbrook, and others in the international debate on gun control have argued that policies and laws instituted by the Nazi Party (NDSAP) during the Third Reich, which disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews, while relaxing firearms restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens, and later confiscated arms in the countries they occupied, were an enabling factor in the Holocaust that prevented Jews and other victims from implementing an effective resistance, and have used allusions to the Nazis in the context of the modern gun-control debate. ”

I am leaving out footnotes here. You appear to be saying (please correct me if I'm wrong), that there was consensus for that edit at the other article, and therefore you are entitled to make the following edit in the present article despite objections from four editors here at this talk page, and support from none here at this talk page:

Although gun rights supporters promote firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities, a further (and sometimes greater) motivation is fear of tyranny. The latter motivation is not confined to the United States, though it has gained little traction elsewhere.

Is that correct? The sentences look quite different to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

"(which does not appear anywhere above)" - Yes, it does, though the part you struck through appears in italics. Aside from that, everything you want to know is in what I've already said multiple times. Leave me alone. Lightbreather (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you're right, it's buried in the wall of text hidden by the hide-show device. I see it now, though I had to do some detective work to find it.

I gather that you do not want to discuss the dissimilarity between the two sentences. Is that correct? If you don't want to discuss it, then I hope we can leave it be for the time being. We really should go do other things, and leave ArbCom to study a version that doesn't keep changing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It still needs to go. There is no consensus to put it there, and what's more - none of your four cherry-picked, de-contextualized sources support the argument that international (which is what "not confined to the U.S." means) "gun rights supporters promote firearms" motivated by "fear of tyranny." Aside from problems already brought up re these sources, not ONE of them says anything about anybody being "motivated" by a "fear of tyranny" to "promote firearms." I'm going to remove it again, and I suggest you leave it alone until the ArbCom is decided, at which time we can start an RfC on it. Lightbreather (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess we are back to you denying that Nazis were tyrants; the footnotes talk about Nazis, and the sentence in the text does not. If you edit-war the sentence out, even though a similar sentence has been in the article for months and a large consensus supports it, then I will leave it out for now, and I urge others to leave it out too, until the ArbCom decision, which will very probably give you a completely free hand to edit this article however you want.

Omission of this sentence gives the false impression that the "fear of tyranny" argument for gun rights has been entirely confined to the United States, which is false and contrary to what reliable sources say repeatedly. The sentence is relevant and well-sourced, and you have repeatedly declined to even suggest how it could be improved. I suppose that the absence of this sentence here will help you succeed in deleting everything about tyranny from the main gun control article — but perhaps I am preaching to the choir.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Content removal

So at ANI I saw that content was being removed without consensus, so I had reverted to the status quo. But it is still being removed, thoughts? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

So far, I've only objected to LB's recent edits in the subsection about "Security against tyranny and invasion". It's fine to remove the words "and invasion" from that heading, but I disagree with the other edits to that subsection. In particular, during the last 24 hours, four editors here (including me but not Darkness Shines) have objected to LB's removal of the following sentence:

“ The latter motivation is not confined to the United States, though it has gained little traction elsewhere. ”

This seems like an informative, well-sourced, NPOV statement. The four editors are me, Gaijin42, North8000, and Sue Rangell, whose statements about it can be found above (I'd be glad to provide diffs). No one thus far has supported LB's deletion of this material here at this talk page. AFAIK.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

That was a very strange episode. His (Darkness Shines) comments are on our talk pages. Lightbreather (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

What was a strange episode?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have Canada and the United States: Differences that Count?

The URL for this source doesn't show the page being cited.

The United States was generally seen as having the least stringent gun control laws in the developed world, with the possible exception of Switzerland, in part due to the strength of the gun lobby, particularly the NRA.

Does anyone have a copy? Lightbreather (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You said "leave me alone".[22] I will.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears that Google Books has removed the preview, so I removed the link. TFD (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks TFD, but I'd still like to verify what the source says. Anything, do you have a copy? (The "leave me alone" was to do with the other subject which I don't want to bring up again here.) What's the chapter title/subject? Can you share the page, or the part of the page that supports what it's supposedly supporting, which is this sentence:

The United States was generally seen as having the least stringent gun control laws in the developed world, with the possible exception of Switzerland, in part due to the strength of the gun lobby, particularly the NRA.

Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't have a copy. I could look, but would rather not, and would rather not edit this article until the ArbCom decision, given that the article is careening very far outside Wikipedia policies.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDEDITWAR

Darkness Shines has reverted a series of edits I made yesterday, citing an ANI for the reason. I believe he is referring to the ANI started by Anythingyouwant specifically re the sentence (or two) to do with whether or not Nazi gun control is an international debate. I asked Darkness, if there's something he objects to - for instance, this part of the article - to revert that and start a discussion here. Instead he has reverted a series of edits... not once, not twice, but three times.

I am asking him again now, here, to do that. I am going to restore my edits, and if he wants to revert the "international debate" material, fine. Do that. Darkness, if you need help finding those couple of sentences, I can help you do that... but please do not revert all of my work. Lightbreather (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I see that Darkness has self-reverted his last wholesale revert, and I thank him for that. Do you need help finding the sentence/s that was/were talked about on ANI? Lightbreather (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It has been posted above, I would appreciate you restoring it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, I am one of the editors who believes it does not belong there. I won't add it myself. Lightbreather (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather you are the only one pushing this. I have removed the POV edits and restored the consensus material. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

What you just reverted[23] is a separate matter from what Darkness reverted... and he changed his mind and self-reverted what he'd reverted.[24] What you reverted is to-do with the next discussion, "tyranny," and NOT Nazi gun control. Lightbreather (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Um....no. You should re-read exactly what Darkness said above. I used Darkness's last edit (not counting the self-revert) as a template for restoring consensus, so it was definitely not a separate issue.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that. What Darkness was referring to ("It has been posted above, I would appreciate you restoring it") is what Anythingyouwant has been pushing to keep in the article. What you reverted included much more than that. I am copying it next, from the dicussion just above this one. Lightbreather (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This seems like an informative, well-sourced, NPOV statement. The four editors are me, Gaijin42, North8000, and Sue Rangell, whose statements about it can be found above (I'd be glad to provide diffs). No one thus far has supported LB's deletion of this material here at this talk page. AFAIK.

The latter motivation is not confined to the United States, though it has gained little traction elsewhere.

--Anythingyouwant(talk) 17:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course, Sue, I disagree with the sentence and with what Anything wrote about it, but if you restore it to the "Security against tyranny" section (first paragraph, second sentence) I will leave it alone until the ArbCom is over. Lightbreather (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Free-floating citations from previous discussions

History section

While working on standardizing the sources, I added some missing information to the beginning of the History section,[25] and edited what was cited to Spitzer a little closer to what he actually said.[26] (I own a copy of the most recent edition of his book, which was/is already cited in this paragraph.)

I also identified (briefly) who Spitzer is and who Halbrook is. Lightbreather (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Source citations

Since it appears that the Gun control ArbCom is moving, I am going to switch to housekeeping mode for a bit and standardize this article's source citations using WP:CS1. Some of the sources have no URLs, and the dates are in different formats. That will be my focus, and anything out of the ordinary, I'll bring here. Lightbreather (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• This sentence was tacked onto the end of a paragraph in the Relationship between criminal violence and gun ownership section, with the ref name "ojp.usdoj" However, the citation paramaters don't match up. I will see what I can figure out, but in the meantime, I removed it from the article[27] and I'm preserving it here.

More thorough reviews of the research literature, however, do not support Hemenway's optimistic claims about the impact of gun laws

""First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-03-13. Retrieved 2008-03-28."

Lightbreather (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure what to do with this. It's in the Jacksonian era subsection, entered as a reference at the end of the third paragraph, but it's really a note, old and without a source. Do we keep it? Do we bring it up to date and source it? Do we move it somewhere else?

Two states, Alaska and Vermont, do not require a permit or license for carrying a concealed weapon to this day, following Kentucky's original position.

• And this source in the Reconstruction era subsection:

http://secondamendment.and.fourteenth.googlepages.com

... which redirects to https://sites.google.com/site/secondamendmentandfourteenth/ Does anyone have a better source for this document? (I couldn't find one.)

• This sentence in the 20th century subsection cites three sources:

About the same time, two high profile incidents involving the ATF, Ruby Ridge and the Waco siege, led to mobilization of a modern Militia Movement that increasingly feared the federal government would confiscate firearms.

It's not a controversial statement, and two of the cited sources one can't get to the pages cited online anyway. I am going to keep the most current source (Crothers), that cites a page one can get to online, and put the one (Snow) of the other two in the Further reading section. (Wilcox-Bruce is cited elsewhere in article; no need to add to Further reading)

Lightbreather (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Presenting OpenSecrets.org figures

If anyone is interested, I wouldn't mind working with 1 or 2 others in figuring out the figures in this source, and how to present them accurately and NPOV in the article. Scroll down to the section titled "The Money." It seems to be broken into 1. Contributions to federal candidates and parties, and 2. Expenditures on lobbying Congress and federal agencies. But comparing the third paragraph - that starts, "Several new groups on the scene" - to other paragraphs, the numbers don't make sense. The source is "http://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/guns/index.php".

For instance, this sentence (or much like it) was added[28] today, but until we sort out what it means in context with other figures given by source, we should hold it here.

Michael Bloomberg's Independence USA PAC, which lobbies for gun laws, education policy, and marriage equality, spent $8.3 million in 2012, and Gabrielle Giffords' Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC has a spending goal of $16 to $20 million in 2014.

Source is that given above. Lightbreather (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Either the source is reliable for all of these figures or it isn't. Saying the gun rights crowd outspends the control crowd, and then not including almost 30 million of spending is a clear WP:NPOV violation. If we remove that bit, the entire section sourced to this source should also go until it is figured out. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest just giving LB a totally free hand here, which is what I've been doing lately. Folks at ANI have taken the position that rules will not be enforced here due to the pending ArbCom case, so there's not much point in trying to rely on them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

That's what I've done now. I've completely thrown in the towel at this point. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

"Either the source is reliable for all of these figures or it isn't" is a false argument. There were three citations: one has an ambiguous paragraph sandwiched between three easier to understand paragraphs (under The Money section). IF we're going to include the material in that ambiguous paragraph, I am only looking to get a consensus on what that one paragraph means in the context of the other three. It seems to be an orange being compared to apples in that 1. It mentions a PAC that doesn't only lobby for gun control (as all the others do), and 2. For the other PAC mentioned, it gives a fundraising goal (whereas the other figures pro-gun and pro-control) gives dollars spent. The other two citations, and the material from them, I've restored.

I've restored the material supported by the other two, unambiguous citations.

As for advocacy group lobbying in Washington D.C., gun rights groups spent over $15.1 million in 2013, with the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) spending $6.7 million, and the NRA spending $3.4 million. Gun control groups spent $2.2 million lobbying in 2013, with Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) spending $1.7 million, and the Brady Campaign spending $250,000.

I presented it NPOV by giving the totals spent by gun-rights and gun-control groups, plus what was spent by the top-two spenders under gun-rights and gun-control. If you've got contributions and lobbying figures from another source, please share. Spending is a huge part of gun politics, and it ought to get some space in the article. Lightbreather (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the material, with additional reliable sources confirming the numbers. You think its apples to oranges. tough. The WP:RS provided the numbers. WP:RS has made the comparison. Multiple WP:RS states all the numbers unambiguously. That you are confused by them, or don't like them, is irrelevant. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I also see you added some other sources. Good. Maybe that will help the readers who, if they're like me and read critically, might have found the source I brought up confusing as well.

BTW: Where did I say that I didn't like them? And why, "tough"? Have I said an uncivil thing here? I'm really tired of being addressed uncivilly. Just keep it on content, please.

Lightbreather (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like PAC spending and campaign contributions are being conflated. The 2013 campaign contributions were $2,217,765 from the gun control lobby, and $15,162,052 from the gun rights lobby (1998-2013 numbers are here). These numbers do not include PAC spending. E.g., the other $23 million spent by two NRA groups during the 2012 election cycle (oddly missing from recently added text citing this Politico article). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive and civil reply, Artifex. Yes, today I am spending some time getting to understand the different kinds of spending. I will look at what you have shared, plus some other stuff, too. (Actually, my newspaper had some stuff today about PACs, Super PACs, and "social-welfare groups" or 501(c)(4)s.) I will read and edit the article, trying to give equal space to gun-rights and gun-control spending. Lightbreather (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

PS: Of course, part of the problem is the different rules about how things are, or if they have to be, reported. Lightbreather (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

PPS:I just want to say thank you again, for seeing what I was talking about. As you can see from this edit,[29] I had made two paragraphs before G. pushed it all back together again.[30] I had one paragraph re: contributions to federal candidates and party committees, and another for lobbying (issues). Just from the bit of gleaned so far, PACs and Super PACs are about elections, and 501(c)(4)s cannot donate directly to candidates or parties. My editorial concern in this section is about making sense of the data for the reader, and nothing more. Lightbreather (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The sources of the "tyranny" (rebellion) arguments in this article

In the lead

This is what Wikipedia editor Anythingyouwant added [31] to this article's lead on 5 January 2014, the same day that the Gun control ArbCom started:

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

Anything cited Levan as his source. I doubt many editors would dispute that gun-rights advocates promote firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sport shooting. But "A further motivation is defense from tyranny," is problematic, especially as presented in this lead and in the "Security against tyranny" section. Levan begins the section titled "Pro-Gun Culture" by saying, Pro-gun advocates cite the potential protection of one's self, family, and home as a primary reason for arming citizens. The statement A. used to back up what he wrote ends Levan's next paragraph:

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 (Herz, 1995, as cited in Luna, 2002).

As you can see, Levan cites Luna... citing Herz. In the past, I've given up on finding free access to what Luna and Herz wrote, but I'm getting tired of this security-against-tyranny, right-of-rebellion argument dragging on, so today I ponied up the bucks at LexisNexis to read Luna and Herz... This is what Luna wrote:

Among the pro-gun culture's greatest fears is government confiscation of private firearms. n102 Although some claims of a [*78] confiscatory cabal may seem a bit overblown, n103 the rhetoric coming from those in the anti-gun camp n104 as well as the events at Waco and Ruby Ridge n105 give average members of the pro-gun culture good reason to be nervous. Moreover, the spread of conspiracy theories provides fodder for the fringe elements within the pro-gun culture. n106 Regardless of whether the alarm is sounded by the mainstream or the margin, however, it seems clear that state tyranny and firearm seizures are of utmost concern to all members of the pro-gun culture.

And this is what Herz wrote that Luna referred to:

The NRA often employs a bit of hyperbole - what one author describes as the "Armageddon appeal" - warning the 3.3 million NRA members n116 that, for example, gun control proposals are "the first step toward ... a federal police force disarming the law-abiding populace." n117 And the alleged slippery slope hardly ends with gun confiscation. The mildest gun control proposal triggers warnings that "unless NRA members fail to [sic] become outspoken, highly-visible defenders of the Constitution, the Second Amendment will fall, followed by our other sacred freedoms - religion, speech and press." n118'

I've been researching the better part of the day, and I'm going to take a break soon, but I want to post this here for y'all to digest. I will be back, probably tomorrow, to make further comments. Lightbreather (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Heck, I'll start with one comment: I'm a little concerned about Levan's choice of words, "disarm ALL, the country’s citizens," and Luna's choice of "utmost concern to ALL members." There's a helluva leap from what Herz wrote to what Anything is pushing. Lightbreather (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Continuing this a.m., the quote that Herz gives - gun control proposals are "the first step toward ... a federal police force disarming the law-abiding populace" - is from ""What's the First Step to a Police State?". American Rifleman (advertisement). National Rifle Association. 1993. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)": the source of Levan's "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" that Anything used to support what he added to the lead and developed in the Security against tyranny section. Lightbreather (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I managed to buy a copy of the Oct. 1993 American Rifleman that Herz referred to. Here is an image of the page that is the source of what became a "tyranny" argument by Luna, then Levan, and then - Wikipedia. Page 3 of 4-page NRA ad from Oct. 1993 American Rifleman magazine. The NRA wrote that the FBI wanted to recommend a ban on all handgun ownership, and that:

Such abuse of broad investigative powers is the first step toward our Founding Fathers' worst fear: a federal police force disarming the law-abiding populace.

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

In the body

The material added to the lead was also added to the body, to the beginning of a section now titled Security against tyranny. It said, "a further (and according to some, sometimes greater) motivation is fear of tyranny." This, too, cited Levan (citing Luna - citing Herz... who cited an NRA ad). In order to bring the fear of tyranny claim closer to its source, I added a citation for Luna. However, in the body, Wilson is also cited for this claim. What Wilson said on the subject was this on page 20:

The primary arguments in favor of an individual rights to bear arms include the right of self-defense, the need to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government, and to defend the nation against foreign invasion.

And this on page 21:

Some philosophers have warned that despots and their regimes have a tendency to disarm the citizenry, while others have disagreed.

"Wilson, Harry (2007). Guns, Gun Control, and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 20–21."

Wilson then spends a couple paragraphs summarizing the founders disagreements on the Second. He makes no further use of the word "tyranny" in any form, nor does he mention fear. It's Luna who plays the "fear of tyranny" card, alone, and Wilson is not cited in the lead statement re a fear of tyranny, so I am removing him here. Lightbreather (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Types of Firearms section

I just removed this entire section since it seems to be based almost entirely on the work of one author, Earl Kruschke. Furthermore, I spotted several paragraphs that were either WP:SYNTH or Original Research. I think a section of this type is worthwhile, and I've advocated for "gun technology explanation" sections multiple times, but it needs to be as diverse and neutral as possible. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

There were some immense problems with it in key areas. Notably giving some special stigma to "semi-automatic" which covers about 1/2 of all civilian firearms, an lumping it with fully automatic. North8000 (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I like the idea of breaking it down by "type" as there are specific legislative issues and movements related to certain types. But basing it on "one guy's" opinion is not the right way to go about it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If we're talking about politics, we inevitably mostly aren't talking about real types. The one true distinction covered in laws is fully automatic, a type rare in civilian ownership and which is essentially not used in crimes. North8000 (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. "High capacity magazines" are basically the "Saturday Night specials" of the 2000s, its the "bad gun or part" dujour. I still feel that the impact of technology on gun politics is worthy of mention. But I see your point about real types. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I am so glad you removed that, and whatever goes back in needs to be much briefer - and yes, better sourced. This is one of those areas where the pro-gun guys clog up articles with minutia about guns and ammo that the average reader does not need to understand the topic.

Also, I know you guys don't like the words, but "assault weapon" and "high-capacity magazine" are part of the lexicon. If they aren't things you find in military manuals and gun catalogs, that's worth pointing out, but enough of trying to tell readers "there's no such thing as xyz." Legally, there is, and has been for 20 years at least. I'm not saying this to try to be antagonistic, but it makes Wikipedia look bad when we keep trying to deny what the majority of the country accepts. Lightbreather (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

whenever I hear someone use the terms "high capacity magazine", "assault weapon" or "Saturday Night Special" I take offense as those terms are perjorative in nature and reflect low intellect. If it is a man who uses the terms I instantly realize he knows nothing about firearms and is a better source of information about tofu burgers, scented candles and foot lotion.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand your opinion about this, Mike, and you're entitled to it. All I'm saying is, they're part of the lexicon and used regularly in discussion among intelligent persons and reputable news sources. Wikipedia can't keep on pretending that these things don't exist - even is outside military manuals and gun catalogs. Lightbreather (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

They are terms which have no specific meaning, which means that have had zillions of different meanings, i.e. anyone can make one up based on their agenda of the moment. For example, the pistol configurations commonly carried by by police to write parking tickets were banned by the last Federal "assault weapon" ban. So the are TERMS, not types of firearms. Fine to cover the TERMS due to usage, but that does not mean that they define actual types of firearms. North8000 (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Advocacy groups and political action committees section

Basically I've deleted the opening fluff, if someone needs an explanation of what a PAC is or what it does, they can click the link. This is what Wikilinks are for. If the rest of the content is not as clearly pertinent, then it simply needs to be written better. I'm willing to help (including finding sources), but its not the purpose of the article to educate the reader on every aspect of its content. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Fluff? It's brief and important to understanding politics in the U.S. - including gun politics. Money, and how it's spent, is political speech. If we're going to apply an "if someone needs an explanation of what [insert thing] is, they can click the link" rule to this article... let's go to town. Plus, you wrote (partial) in your edit summary, "the cited source is editorial, so suspect as well. Other sources would be better." Are you talking about OpenSecrets.org? And what did you mean? Lightbreather (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Its an entire paragraph that belongs in the PAC article. Rather than OpenSecrets.org, why didn't you start with this list of sources? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

OpenSecrets.org was already being used in the article. Also, it's among the sources in the list you gave. I can change the sources, if that will make you happier, but I think a brief description is relevant. Otherwise, as I said, there are other areas in this article where we can start purging descriptive info - though I'm sure that's likely to anger some. So instead, let's work together to address this concern. If not Open Secrets, how about the Sunlight Foundation, or FactCheck.org? Lightbreather (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with being unhappy if it makes the article better... The link I cited, is the reference list for the PAC article. Basically I was trying to help you out, why reinvent the wheel? There seem to be some good sources there. What do you think?

Yes, added a month ago to an article started in 2003... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"The link I cited, is the reference list for the PAC article." Yes, I understood that - and it includes OpenSecrets.org references.

"Yes, added a month ago to an article started in 2003." Since the oldest edits in this article's history are from Feb. 2004, I assume you mean the Political action committee article. There are four references to Open Secrets (Center for Responsible Politics) as a source in that article, including two from early in 2012. It makes sense that more sources - Open Secrets or not - would be added regularly, as Wikipedia is always changing, and as the article has information on high-profile PACs in recent elections. If Open Secrets is WP:RS for the PAC article, it's - reliable. I'm going to restore a brief primer to the section, as 2 or 3 sentences will improve the article. Lightbreather (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

While I'm in favor of clarity, brevity is crucial as well. At 142K, this article is "morbidly obese" by Wikipedia standards. The complexity of the issue is not lost on me, but this article could benefit from significant streamlining. There is still a lot of un-encyclopedic content. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod I have asked you at least twice to explain your beef with Open Secrets (Center for Responsive Politics) as a source, but you have yet to explain, and you keep removing it. Please, explain. What makes your preferred wording, layout, and sources an improvement to the article? Lightbreather (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Simple, I've changed to sources that cite the original material from the articles you're trying to overlap, this includes actual books. Why are you so determined to use the Open Secrets web site? What makes it better than the original material that been in place for several years? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I've explained this at least twice above: The source was already in use in this article/section before I started working on it. I only expanded on it.

You've removed a very brief explanation of what outside spending and super PACs are - which most Americans have probably heard about or seen in the news, but may need a brief description of to understand here (and, yes, a WL if they want to know more).

You've replaced "NRA's Political Victory Fund PAC" with "NRA's Political Victory Fund (part of its NRA-ILA Section 527 PAC)." Perhaps one editor's improvement is another editor's bloat - or WP:JARGON, or WP:OVERLINK? When you changed this sentence: Lightbreather (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm a Life Endowment (a notch above a regular Life) NRA member and I've done extensive editing on its article, so I just might know a thing or two about the organization. The PVF is just marketing and can't function unless its doing so as part of the 527 PAC. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't doubt you, I'm only saying what's one the various NRA websites, and the way the corporate structure is presented in other reliable sources, does't jibe with the Wikipedia article. So it seems the article ought to be edited to jibe with the WP:RS, or the NRA ought to be notified that its websites need to be updated. (FWIW: I am an NRA member, too, and I used to be president of a non-profit (though not related to gun control), so I know a little about this stuff, too.) Lightbreather (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Then we're "2 for 2", I sit on the Board of several 501c3 non-profits and have been a president of one as well. I've even been an associate editor for several publications, gun related and otherwise. The NRA is a complex organization and because of this, most sources get it wrong (or not correct at least). The Finance and Structure section in the main article is about as accurate as it gets based on actual filings with the government. I don't doubt the group keeps things complicated to throw off its opponents, but its up to us to dig through sources and get to the facts, not just what "most say" or "claim". --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I hear you. I think it's important that we editors understand the organizational structure, including which entity is a subset of what entity and what their tax statuses are. I mean which is a 501(c)(3) and which is a 501(c)(4) and which is a 527. However, when we write that up for the readers, we do not have to inundate them with the jargon, but work it in with as little distraction as possible (and links to learn more about those details, for those who are interested.) I hesitated using "501(c)(4)" in the article, but went with it because A) that's what the source uses (in addition to explaining that they're also called "social welfare" groups), and B) because I figured most readers have probably encountered the terms "501(c)(3)" and "501(c)(4)" in their personal business (when joining or giving to nonprofits).

Since this discussion is getting kind of long, if sorting this out further is important to you, why don't you start a new discussion about the NRA corporate structure, so we all understand it, including this (c)(3), (c)(4), and 527 stuff. Then we could look at your sources AND the stuff we're already using and decide how we want to edit that part of the article. (I suppose it could be useful on the NRA article, too). Lightbreather (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The era was famous for criminal use of sub-machine guns like Tommy guns. Under the NFA, fully automatic weapons fall under the regulation and jurisdiction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

to this:

The era was famous for criminal use of firearms like the Tommy gun and sawed-off shotguns. Under the NFA, certain firearms fall under the regulation and jurisdiction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) as described by Title II of the U.S. Code.

...I didn't remove it and call it bloat, or jargon, overlink. I thought those things, but I was trying to work with you, not just wipe out what obviously seemed like an improvement to you. So, please stop removing the brief paragraph I wrote - and have re-written for you at least three time now - and am going to rewrite again, once more, in an effort to compromise. Lightbreather (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Your edit amounted to an WP:UNDUE focus on automatic weapons, and not the entire class of criminal weapons that he NFA was intended to control. The NFA was anti-crime (anti-gangster, anti-mafia, etc.) legislation, not just gun control. If you consider it in the context of the era, the NFA was passed after Al Capone was sent to prison for tax evasion. The government had discovered a new way fight crime (monetarily) and was using it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

OpenSecrets should be used with caution, because they are effectively just providing access to WP:PRIMARY sources, and all the restrictions of primary sources apply. For their explanatory text etc, they are not an organization with an editorial board etc reviewing the content in the same way as newspapers, magazines, academic journals etc do. I don't object to their use, but if there are more reliable sources available for the same information, we should defer to those. For the disputed content above, it seems clear that there are sources that are unquestionably WP:RS for expository text, so switching to them is a good idea. LB, you seem reluctant to accept such a swap, what is your reasoning? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, what you say compared to what the site and others say[32] don't quite match up. It's used regularly by numerous, reliable sources. Also, the textbook that's the first source on the PAC page pre-dates Citizens United and SpeechNow, and the second source for that article doesn't even work anymore. That article, and its sources, are in need of updating. Lightbreather (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

A WP:PRIMARY source is often used by reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. That doesn't promote the primary to be secondary itself. Its still a primary. Its an indicator that its probably a solid primary, but a primary none-the-less. There have been numerous discussions at WP:RSN about open secrets and almost all of them put it into the WP:PRIMARY bucket. You still have not addressed why you think we should use the site for something other than the raw numbers - surely information about what a PAC is is widely available elsewhere? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Repeated Heller material

I recently had a discussion with Gaijin42 on his talk page about how to cut down on some of the bloat in this article. I have a suggestion that I think can help a lot re the repetition of Heller facts and arguments. It can actually help with other repeated subtopics, but Heller is how the idea started. I propose taking all of the FEDERAL subtopics under the Courts and the law section and work them into the History subsections where appropriate, with sub-subsection titles. For instance, the current District of Columbia v. Heller, subsection way at the end of the article under Courts and the law, would be moved - along with its subsection title - to the 21st century section. A working copy is on Gaijin's talk page.[33] He and I have talked about a few things, but the ONE thing I want to propose HERE is replacing the beginning of this article's 21st century section with the working copy, which is SIMPLY a merge of the beginning of this article's 21st century section with the whole "District of Columbia v. Heller" subsection under Courts and the law. After merging/moving the FEDERAL laws/rulings now at the bottom of the article into the History subsection, the bottom will just be a State constitutions/laws section, which can segue and Wikilink nicely to related state laws articles. Lightbreather (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Gallup and Rasmussen

This Wikipedia article says (in the subsection about tyranny): "a Gallup poll in October 2013 showed that only 5 percent of American gun owners own them for Second Amendment reasons". Here is the cited source. I intend to remove this bit about Gallup for a couple reasons. First, it says nothing about "tyranny". Second, it showed that 60% of people favor gun ownership for "Personal safety/Protection"; this appears to mean either "Protection" or "Personal safety" (notice the capital "P" in "Protection"), and such protection could encompass protection from tyranny. Anyway, tyranny is not explicitly mentioned in the cited reference, so I think it's original research for us to suggest that only 5% think guns deter tyranny.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Your edit changed a sentence from this:

A January 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll indicated that 65 percent of Americans believe the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure protection from tyranny, but a Gallup poll in October 2013 showed that only 5 percent of American gun owners own them for Second Amendment reasons.

To this:

A January 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll indicated that 65 percent of Americans believe the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure protection from tyranny.

We can't include only the poll that supports your claim and ignore the one that might shed some light on the subject in context. I'm putting it back. I'll add the Personal safety/Protection result, too, and the reader can draw their OWN conclusions about what these might mean. Lightbreather (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The 5% figure is about the Second Amendment and therefore belongs in the subsection on the Second Amendment, if at all. It is WP:Original Research to use that information to dispute or detract from the Rasmussen result, as the Gallup result does not mention tyranny. If you want to present a poll result that says a tiny number of people believe guns inhibit tyranny, then please find a poll result that says a tiny number of people believe guns inhibit tyranny.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, the Rasmussen poll is about the Second Amendment, which means "security from tyranny" should be a subtopic Second Amendment rights. You can't cherrypick your sources, man. Lightbreather (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I did not write (nor did Gallup for that matter) that a tiny number of people believe gun rights inhibit tyranny. I wrote what the poll says, that a tiny number of people who own guns own them for 2A reasons. Let the reader draw their own conclusions, if any. (I have drawn my own, personal conclusions about the relationship between what the two polls say - but I did not share them here or in the article.) Lightbreather (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The Rasmussen poll specifically mentions "tyranny", man. The Gallup poll says nothing about it. I have brought this to a Noticeboard.[34]Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I plan to change your "but" to either "and" or a semicolon. We should not push the POV that the Gallup poll (which does not mention "tyranny") contradicts the Rasmussen poll (which does mention "tyranny"). You say you want to let readers decide, but the word "but" pushes them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I think "and" gives it a POV, too. How about just a separate sentence? I'm going to go do that, and we can discuss further if it doesn't suit you. Lightbreather (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This needs to be reworded and/or some sources removed or replaced

This is the opening sentence of the Security against tyranny section:

Some gun rights supporters say that private gun ownership makes tyranny less likely.

It is not supported by ALL the sources given. Of course, there needs to be a good, brief intro to the section, perhaps supported by all of these sources, but the current sentence misrepresents what the sources say. It's WP:SYNTH. Lightbreather (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

1. (Cook-Goss) says: A core tenet of gun rights ideology is that "the people" must deny government a monopoly on the use of force.... A corollary to this tenet is that banning private ownership of guns, or even simply regulating them, makes tyranny--even genocide--more likely.

Reversed, that supports the sentence. (Also, there may be something there for the "genocide" camp, though I don't know what else the author says on the subject.) Lightbreather (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I honestly do not understand your objection. Perhaps if you would propose a re- phrase then your objection might become more clear. The sentence in question does not distinguish between core tenets versus corollaries of core tenets; either way it's something that gun right supporters say. I would strongly prefer a simple and accurate lead sentence for this section, like we have now. I can provide dozens more sources, if necessary, but it should not be necessary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I was in the middle of presenting my arguments when I got caught up in some other discussions. I will continue, and then maybe we can put our heads together. The gist of what I'm saying is, the four sources you've listed do not all support what you wrote. Lightbreather (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you dispute that the lead sentence is true according to reliable sources? It not, then feel free to add as many more refs as you like. Each single ref does not have to (by itself) support the whole sentence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm participating in several conversations at once right now, but as you see, I have not reverted what you wrote, I'm only saying not all the sources you gave support what you wrote. I will be presenting the rest of my arguments as time permits; I don't feel any pressure to act on this immediately - just putting it in the GPUS queue. Lightbreather (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

2. (Wilson) says: The primary arguments in favor of an individual right to bear arms include... the need to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government....

That can't be accurately paraphrased as Some gun rights supporters say that private gun ownership makes tyranny less likely.Lightbreather (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

3. (Luna) says: Regardless of whether the alarm is sounded by the mainstream or the margin, however, it seems clear that state tyranny and firearm seizures are of utmost concern to all members of the pro-gun culture.

That can't be accurately paraphrased as Some gun rights supporters say that private gun ownership makes tyranny less likely. Lightbreather (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

4. (Levan-Mackey) says: ??? Not sure what Levan says that supports the sentence. (She ascribes her Pro-Gun Culture section's "tyranny" paragraph to Luna.) This is the weakest of the four sources and not used elsewhere in the article. I think it should be removed, and figure out how to use one or more of the other three for the opening sentence. Lightbreather (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we can avoid endless loops in this discussion if you would please reply to the very brief question above: "Do you dispute that the lead sentence is true according to reliable sources?" If you would please also answer this one, it might help too: "Are you saying that a sentence in a Wikipedia article must be fully supported by each of the footnotes at the end?" Let's please not miss the forest for the trees. The lead sentence of this section is very obviously correct, right? We don't have to track sources so precisely that we use the exact same words or even synonyms for those words.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

To your first question, yes I dispute it - based on the sources that you gave. On the second question, yes - especially on a controversial topic. Lightbreather (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, your answer to the second question may provide us a way out of this latest debacle. My understanding is that a sentence in a Wikipedia article is fine even if it is not supported by each one of the footnotes at the end, as long as it is supported by the combination of footnotes at the end. Maybe if we get that straightened out, we can move on. I don't think we need to spend much time on a sentence of the article that is so extremely obviously correct. So, I will see if I can find some guidance for you regarding use of footnotes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

There is not a requirement for all sources to support all bits, but at least one source must support the entire thing by itself or it is synthesis. However, juxtaposition is not synthesis so individual sentences may be used as long as no or is introduced. If those individual sourced items lead the reader to do the or themselves, that is not am issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI, there's a noticeboard discussion here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Essay tag

Per WP:DETAG, I have removed the “Essay-like” tag because I do not see the purported problem with the section and do not see any detailed complaint on the talk page. According to the directions for this particular tag:

“ Use this tag to identify personal essays. Personal essays describe the author's own feelings about a topic. Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to publish users' personal opinions. This template should be used when the article contains the editor's own personal comments on the subject. Use it when the article does not necessarily represent a blatant opinion or opinion piece, but is still overly judgmental in tone. Do not use this template to tag fact-oriented pages that sound like they might have been written as research papers for school (called "essays" in some parts of the world). Instead, if those pages need a different writing style or tone, use general templates …. ”

This section of the Wikipedia article is obviously not a vehicle for the personal opinion of Wikipedia editors. The goal here is to describe a POV that exists in the outside world, a POV that is documented in reliable sources. The section currently includes 29 footnotes in the main text, plus another ten in a note. It does not present any information as the opinion of the Wikipedia editors, nor is the Wikipedia article judgmental. It quotes people who support the POV, and those who oppose it, and gives readers lots of external links to learn more if they want.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is much improved - I'm so glad all those quotes are gone, especially the pre-18th century stuff - but it's still got some problems. Lightbreather (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Original research

A couple of "OR" tags have been inserted with this edit summary: "improper synthesis. neither source discusses the topic of the article." Here are the two sources:

• Pound, Roscoe.: The Development of Constitutional Guarantees of Liberty, page 91. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 1957
• Amar, Akhil and Hirsch, Alan. For the People: What the Constitution Really Says About Your Rights, pp. 7, 171–176 (Simon and Schuster 1999)

Both sources discuss the topic of the present article. Consider Pound. He wrote:

“ [A] legal right of the citizen to wage war on the government is something that cannot be admitted.... In the urban industrial society of today a general right to bear efficient arms so as to be enabled to resist oppression by the government would mean that gangs could exercise an extra-legal rule which would defeat the whole Bill of Rights. ”

Nevertheless, I have inserted a further footnote next to the Pound footnote:

• Spitzer, Robert. Right to Bear Arms: Rights and Liberties Under the Law, p. 61 (ABC-CLIO, 2001)

This Spitzer source quotes Pound just as we do. As for the Amar source, I don't understand the problem. Have you looked at pages 171-176? They seem very clearly to discuss the subject of the present article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of two related RfCs and request for participation

There are two RfCs in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

• RfC re use of the term "assault weapon"
• RfC re use of the term "high-capacity magazine"

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation

There is an RfC on the Gun control talk page which may be of interest to editors of this page:

• RfC: Remove Nazi gun control argument?

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

sample size v total population

Statistically, the error rates for a random sample of 1,000 out of 5,000,000 is about the same as for 1,000 out of 100,000,000,000. This is a statistical issue and not a political one, and Wikipedia should not in any way imply otherwise. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Why would you not consider providing the number of NRA members to be useful information for our readers? Having hard data does not imply anything but the data itself. Cwobeel (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

When used within a poll it implies that the poll is not representative of the population. It implies a non-statistical poll. You may think it is useful, but in this context it is misleading. Please do not add again unless you can illustrate why this information within the poll is needed. Arzel (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, the final response you included. "Some (Other) people say regardless of President Obama’s recent comments of pursuing a balanced approach his real goal is to pass sweeping gun control regulation that will take away our 2nd Amendment rights." is part of a categorical response, like the place of residence or part of the country. You cannot report only the responses to one category because there is no context to the response. It is really annoying to see pollster's use these types of questions because they offer almost no value. These types of questions are best left to demographic responses where you can occasionally report one categorical response (like gender) without running into too many problems, but to properly include this question you have to include the whole question and then all of the responses. Arzel (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You can't pick and choose from a poll what you like, and not include other aspects of the poll just because you believe the question offer no value to you. Cwobeel (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested using the Washington Post report on the poll as a source, instead of the poll itelf, which is a primary source. TFD (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

TFD I agree. Also, I think Cwobeel is misunderstanding my issue. It is not the question that is the problem, it is the nature of this question is presented and the result that they are presenting. That response is not actually a poll question. It is a poll answer. The question was which of these most represents your view. It is a misuse of polling responses to list it as a response in the manner of the other questions. The only way to properly use that question is to include all of the responses, but considering the amount of information it appeared to be not that valuable. I am going to remove that response again as a misuse of a poll response. If it is to be added again it must include the question and all of the responses. FYI, below is the question and responses.

In the wake of the tragedy in Connecticut, President Obama said that no one reform can solve this problem. He says we should pursue a balanced approach which includes some new gun laws, reforms to our mental health care system and addressing cultural issues like violence in movies and video games. With that in mind please tell me which of the following statements comes closest to your opinion?

79.3% Some (Other) people say regardless of President Obama’s recent comments of pursuing a balanced approach his real goal is to pass sweeping gun control regulation that will take awayour 2nd Amendment rights.

9.9% Other (Some) people say they believe President Obama will pursue a balanced approach that includes reforms to our mental health care system, some new gun regulations and finding ways to keep violence in our entertainment industry away from children.

2.5% Both (DO NOT READ)

4.7% Neither (DO NOT READ)

3.6% DK/Refused (DO NOT READ)Arzel (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

After reading the comments above, the wise thing to do, per The Four Deuces, is to use a secondary source instead of quoting directly from the poll results. Cwobeel (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Arzel: just note your third revert. It would be wise not to breach 3RR. Cwobeel (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: we are having a pretty reasonable discussion here, why are you trying to inflame the situation? Arzel (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Not inflaming, just a friendly reminder. Last week I did not pay attention and without intention I breached 3RR myself, earning me a 24 hr block :( Cwobeel (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Noted, but I rarely file a 3rr when there is civil discussion occurring. I can't remember the last time I have, or if I ever have under this kind of situation. In other words, I haven't even been counting yours or mine. Arzel (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Please restore uncalled for reverts

Earlier today, Scalhotrod made a series of nine edits that removed over 30,000 characters from this article. Buried among those edits was one that boldly removed [35] Nazi gun control material that is the subject of an open RfC: Replace existing Nazi gun control paragraphs? In response, I left him a friendly message on his talk page [36] and made a series of nine edits that restored about 7,500 characters - or about one-fourth - of what he'd removed. Each edit was accompanied by a lot of thought and detailed edit summaries. My last edit added Nazi gun control material as proposed in the RfC (since Scal had removed the old material). What happened next was absolutely uncalled for. Collect reverted all of my edits, complaining about the 7,500-character change, but especially about the Nazi gun control edit. I restored my edits and asked him to remove only the Nazi part. He reverted all the edits again, and now Capitalismojo has reverted them - all of them. Again, the NGC part of these edits was only a fraction of all the edits. I would appreciate it if someone - Scal? - would restore my edits, except for the Nazi stuff. Again, to revert all that work was uncalled for.

Then, can we please wrap-up the Nazi gun control RfC? Frankly, if the consensus is to not have any mention of it at all, that's fine with me. But if we're going to have it, let's finish up the RfC. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with removal of Nazi gun control theories. But this did seem like a lot of work that was needlessly being reverted. If there are specific issues with some or all of Lightbreather's edits let's discuss them. Personally I felt Scalhotrod's edit summaries were a bit too brief at times, some sourced remarks disappeared from some sections, but I didn't have time to sort out if things were mentioned elsewhere or if these sections can or should go for POV reasons etc. I would like to thank both editors for their work, let's discuss specific issues. Thenub314 (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Now seek WP:CONSENSUS for such maneuvers, please. Collect (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

In the context of the article and how it was written, it became clear that it was no longer on topic. It has its own article now, lets move on. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If the Nazi gun control material doesn't belong here, and was boldly removed from this article even though there was an open RfC on it, then it surely doesn't belong in the Gun control article and can be boldly removed from it, too. I will go and do that now. Lightbreather (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

See also "Assault weapons ban"

The ONLY assault weapons ban mentioned in this article is the federal ban that expired in 2004. This article is about gun politics in the U.S., and it's clear from the existing content that it's not only about laws/politics on the federal level. So, on 30 April 2014, I added a "See also" link to the Assault weapons ban article, which has info about the state bans.[37] It was removed the following day with the edit summary, "Already mentioned directly in article body."[38] So I restored it, saying, "article only mentions awb 1994; u.s. has active state level bans too."[39] I figured surely that would be the end of that.

On 4 May 2014, the same editor deleted the See also again, giving no reason.[40] However, he was reverting another edit, so maybe he didn't catch that he was also reverting this? For this reason, I restored it again, saying (again): "only the specific, defunct AWB is mentioned in this article, nothing about state bans that are included in the broader Assault weapons ban article."[41] ... It has been deleted - again - by the same editor, with the edit summary, "redundant, already in body of article."[42]

No comment about why the editor keeps deleting this, but I am going to restore it, and I'd truly appreciate it if, rather than deleting it, anyone who thinks a link to it doesn't belong in the See also section of this article about gun politics in the U.S. would discuss it here first. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It's been resolved now. Part of the problem was a confusing choice of article title. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Editor request

(section header renamed per WP:TALKNEW, should not put editor names in headers 172.162.6.235 (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC))

Lightbreather please Stop

Out of the last 100 edits, you have made all but 12 of them. For Pete's sakes get a hold of your ownership issues and stop dominating the article. These tsunamis of edits are what got you into trouble before. PLEASE SLOW DOWN. Wait for consensus. Please. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I just (re) read Examples of ownership behavior. I wish that you would quit accusing me of that, and maybe (re?) read them yourself, and also maybe WP:STEWARDSHIP.

Also, I thought we had an agreement to talk with each other on our talk pages. Is that over now? Lightbreather (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the opening paragraph of WP:STEWARDSHIP and I'm having a hard time seeing how many of your edits fall under this. Stewardship involves constructive edits and additions to an article and typically includes being thankful for the assistance of others. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Do not confuse stewardship with ownership. Stewardship of an article (or group of related articles) may be the result of a sincere personal interest in the subject matter, an interest in a cause or organization related to the article's subject matter, or the editor could actually be an expert in the subject matter and provide credible insights for locating reliable sources. Unless an editor exhibits behavior associated with ownership, its best to assume good faith on their part.

It's a good paragraph, and it describes me. I have a sincere personal interest in the subject matter, an interest in causes and organizations related to the subject, and overall, my knowledge and insight are no worse than anyone else I see contributing here. (I do learn new things from time to time, as do others.) I do not exhibit behaviors associated with ownership - certainly, again, no more than anyone else here. (And, IMO, actually a lot less than some.) I try to collaborate, and I am thankful for others' help. However, my observation is that I am the only "pro-control" editor here, so I think my edits are often unwelcome. That's where I'll say what I've said before: Don't shoot the messenger. Lightbreather (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Light breather, I wouldn't call it ownership or stewardship, I would call it simply an overwhelming level of activity. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC) `

First off, thank you and I'm glad to hear that you feel it applies to you. But your perception that you are "the only "pro-control" editor here, so I think my edits are often unwelcome" is totally unwelcome. Humans are "ignorant" and thus inherently biased in various ways. WP Editors ideally are not afforded this, we are all supposed to edit in a Neutral way and without an agenda other than the constructive expansion of the site. Please tell me (and the rest reading this) that you did not just admit to editing this article with an agenda that violates WP:NPOV. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

NRA shift to political advocacy

There is a substantial number of sources attesting to the shift to political advocacy of the NRA in the mid-late 1970s, so I don't understand why the material added is being deleted. Cwobeel (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• [43]
• [44]
• [45]

Cwobeel (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I have the same question. In this edit it is claimed that a source was checked and my sentence in my way resembled the source. Here is the original sources first few sentences (to establish what ILA stands for) followed by on contiguous paragraph from the source I was attempting to summarize. Forgive typo's but I got this out of the library for the sake of this article and had to type it in by hand.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is the nation's largest, oldest, and most politically powerful interest group that opposes gun laws and favors gun rights. It publishes three magazines (American Rifleman, American Hunter, and America's 1st Freedom) and consists of several divisions, the largest and most powerful of which is its political arm, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA).

[...]

Although the NRA opposed gun controls for decades, the NRA leadership had maintained the organization's primary focus on sporting, hunting, and other recreational gun uses through the 1960s. The "old guard moderates" in control of the organization sought to return the organization away from politics and back toward hunting and conservation. Symptomatic of this effort were plans promoted by the old gaurd to create a national shooting center in New Mexico and move the NRA's headquarters to Colorado Srings. Meanwhile, the NRA's recently from ILA, headed by hardliner Harlon Carter, complained bitterly at the devotion of organizational resources to this nonpolitical efforts. The response of the old guard was to fire seventy four employees, most of whom were hardliners. The simmering dispute surfaced at the NRA's 1977 national convention in Cincinnati. Rallying a faction called the Federation for NRA, Carter won organizational changes giving the convention members greater control over decision making. He and his allies then used those rules to depose the old guard at the convention in what was dubbed the Revolt at Cincinnati. From this point forward, the ILA became the primary power center of the NRA and politics became the NRA's primary focus.

I summarized this too:

For most of its history the NRA was primarily focused on sports, hunting, and recreational use of firearms lasting through the 1960s. Eventually conflict arose who between the "old-guard moderates" who wanted to move the focus of the NRA toward hunting and conservation and the political branch of the NRA. In the 1977 national convention the political branch of the NRA came into power and has made politics the groups primary focus.

How is this interpolating editor opinion into what the source states directly? Perhaps I could be faulted for the phrase "most of its history" but date ranges are 1871-1977 vs. 1977-2014, this much can't be too controversial. Collect, you took this out, what is the issue? Thenub314 (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

See the discussions about what is, and what is not in the source. We can use what is in a source, but when we add to what it says, we are misusing the source. Cheers. Lots of usable material is around, but when me make interpolations, we are not following policy. Collect (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

See what discussion, What are you talking about? This is the 2002 source you took out. Yes there is a separate section on a different source. Could you try again. Please comment about why you took what I wrote out? What did I add, that caused you to remove this because the source did not support it? Thenub314 (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression that WP:RS about the shift was hard to find, I just added some of what was added here to the NRA article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I am glad my leg work was is helpful. University libraries are nice things to have access too, lots of things just don't end up being scanned into google books. If there are any other subjects you want to see if I can find in there, drop me a comment at my talk page. I don't mind scanning an additional article or two. Thenub314 (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey Nub, if you have access to a Lexus Nexus account, quit holding back... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Dude this is finals week, I do have a day job. You don't want to see my inbox if I get grades in late. Thenub314 (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL, fair enough! Speaking of which, I should be getting to mine as well... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

1998 source for claim of "volatility" of membership phrased as though it were a current source

IMO, a source from 1998 is not a valid source for claims of current "volatility" of NRA membership, nor of current financial impact on elections. Also that the source ("Changing Politics of Gun Control" from 1998) has been supplanted by later publications which do not appear to support the claims of the 15 year old book. The topic hits nerves of some people, so being careful here is wise.

[46] specifically states:

''From a political perspective, NRA leaders view their members in a slightly different manner.

Which says this "view" is only in the context of "political perspective" and we can not elide that part in order to imply that the NRA only views their members in a political manner. The current wording thus cheats the reader by removing that section.

We then have a sentence using "despite" to link "volatility of membership" with "politicization." Problem? the book is from 1998. [47] refers to "volatility" with regard to finances, and notes a major problem as being the cost of a new HQ in Washington. [48] infact says linking membership levels to activity is "no easy task" meaning the sentence is SYNTH and not even valid SUNTH as it contradicts what the source clearly states.

Lastly we have "one of the biggest spenders" as the rest of the SYNTH claim. [49]

On the electoral front, the NRA-PVF has consistently ranked as one of the biggest spenders in congressional elections in terms of overall PAC contributions and independent expenditures

That is, a political fundraiser (the "PVF" is the Political Victory Fund) actually spends money on politics. It is a Captain Obvious claim at that point - a large organization tends to raise money easily -- but not "despite" anything at all. What might be allowed is "As of 1998, the NRA's PAC was one of the biggest overall donors and independent spender in congressional elections."

and despite the impact on the volatility of membership, the politicization of the NRA has consistently been ranked as "one of the biggest spenders in congressional elections

Clearly is unsupportable. [50] NRA-PVF is not in the top twenty PACs per Open Secrets. NRA appears to donate zero to Federal candidates at this point. So if we make that catenated claim, we are not serving the reader at all. Collect (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The section is clearly marked as Advocacy groups > 20th century, so the sources there are related to that epoch. As for the quote, here is the fill text:

“From a political perspective, NRA leaders view their members in a slightly different manner. Rather than recipients of organizational goods and services, members are viewed as political resources” [..] “The membership volatility in recent years is due to no small part to political efforts and public statements of some of the NRA leadership” (The Changing Politics of Gun Control p.159) Cwobeel (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

“From a political perspective" seems to be exactly where I said it was. Collect (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It does not change anything IMO, but added that to the sentence in the article. Cwobeel (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

So who says top 20 is where we should drop the cut off from "biggest political spenders"? I have never been to open secrets before, but I notice it does give a rank and it lists the NRA as a "Heavy Hitter" (which appears to be its top ranking). It puts them in the top 2% in terms of contributions. And the same website you pointed too says they have given to roughly 37% of the current US house candidates, and 30% of the US senate candidates for Election year 2014. How do you get that the "NRA appears to donate zero to Federal Candidates at this point"? Thenub314 (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Usually "one of the biggest" would imply being in at least the top 20, for federal campaign donations, the PAC is not even in the top 100,000 having donated zero dollars for 2013 - 2014. Did you miss that on opensecrets.org? [51] shows its officers and employees donated all of $487,000 to campaigns for 2013 - 2014,makingit number 242 on the list of organization officer and employee donations. Not "one of the top ones" by a mile. Lobbying is $3 million-- ranking 156. Outside spending is $559,000 for a rank of 20 out of 76. The "heavy hitters" list is a total of all contributions from1989 to 2014. And on it, the NRA is number 56 -- pretty far down the list. Perhaps you missed that part? [52] Top donors by cycle -- show me where the NRA is on that list,please. Collect (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Wait, some things we are saying agree, somethings are very different still. We clearly disagree about what "one of the biggest" means, which I interpret in percentage terms and you have arbitrary cut offs. Let's agree to disagree on that for a moment and first settle on what the actual numbers are. Where do you see their PACs have contributed 0 dollars? I am finding statements like "The total of contributions to candidates from National Rifle Assn PACs is 72 times larger than contributions from individuals. Contributions from Individuals: $3,912; Contributions from PACs $280,100". So it is not fair to characterize the $487,000 (which includes both the the previous numbers) as being from only officers and employees. Where are you getting 0 from exactly? Thenub314 (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice and request for participation

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

There is an RfC a Requested move in which the participation of editors/watchers of this article would be greatly appreciated:

• Talk:Assault weapons legislation#Requested move

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It was an RfC, but I realized this is the appropriate process. Lightbreather (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Public policy theory needs a better, NPOV lead, and a much better, NPOV source

This is the lead to the Public policy theory section of the article:

A second category of political theory is founded on the premise that if the government has the authority to regulate guns, to do so may or may not be sound public policy.

It is NOT NPOV and the source is - and here's a word I don't use often in the workplace - crap. We're leading this section with a source from the "Arms Rights Information" website rkba.org?! I'm open to suggestions, but this must be replaced - and soon. Lightbreather (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia has no requirements that sources, per se, be "neutral", and many sources used in many areas are not actually neutral. Your only question here then is whether the source is reliable for opinions stated and ascribed as opinion (which many minor and highly opinionated sources meet) or whether the source is WP:RS for statements of fact qua fact. That you personally dislike a source, unfortunately, is not in any Wikipedia criteria list. I do tend to think "may or may not" covers the full range of results, and is not intrinsically a POV claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It probably meets rs - it was first published by the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, March 1, 1994.[53] Mind you it is not the most obvious place I would look for information about gun control and public policy. My objection to its use is based on weight. How does an opinion, which Suter acknowledges is not accepted by the mainstream, deserve to referred to as a "second category of political theory", or even deserve inclusion? TFD (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I added an NPOV lead using a much higher quality source today. [54] Lightbreather (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You are treading heavily into POV territory here -- I urge you strongly to consider the ramifications of the arbcomcase and WP:NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Collect, this is at least my third request re: comments such as the one above. Please, if you have a problem with me, take it to my talk page. If you have a problem with a specific edit, please provide a DIFF and your specific concern about it so that I may address that. Lightbreather (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

So you're admitting to POV editing like you alluded to here and here? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? All that I'm "admitting to" (as you put it) is WP:STEWARDSHIP, and reminding others to not shoot the messenger. Translating that to "admitting to POV editing" is your work - not mine. Lightbreather (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

"Speculative nature"

Unfortunately, I seemed to have reached and impasse with Scalhotrod regarding statments about the rise of the militia movement in the United States. While I added both references that were both primary research articles as well as secondary survey articles, Scalhotrod feels these statements are speculative. Unfortunately the vast majority of social analysis is speculative by this metric. The survey article reviewed books with both pro and anti militia themes and concluded that all four books agreed as to the root cause of the rise of the movement. How is this not up to WP standards? Thenub314 (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have done a bit more research and found a less speculative source "Militias in the New Millennium: A Test of Smelser's Theory of Collective Behavior" by Weeber and Gilbert, which provides polling data, and references to approximately 14 distinct articles supporting its claims. I will add this sentence back, bringing it in line with what this reference states. Thenub314 (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the material in a slightly modified form, attributing the "specualtion" to Chermak, Crothers, Freilich, and Gallher. If we were to remove everything from this article that some consider speculative, we would likely end up with no article as Thenub points out: we're talking about politics here. Lightbreather (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

None of the these people are WP:NOTABLE. Having a source that says "They say this..." is meaningless without establishing what's important about them saying it. WP policy is frustrating, isn't it? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Chermak and Freilich are criminologists. Crothers is a political scientist. Gallaher is a political geographer. They're as notable as any other academic/scholar cited in this article. Instead of just deleting things, it would be more WP:CIVIL to tag them, or discuss them. Why do you go to deletion first? Lightbreather (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Tagging, IMO, just mucks up the article. Its seen by everyone, Readers or otherwise, and it just makes the article seem (regardless of how controversial WE make it) less credible. I'm far from being alone in this opinion. We're not editing for ourselves. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Scalhotrod. Quote from WP:NOTABLE: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." We are not testing to see if any of these people can have their own article. Articles on WP regularly reference otherwise not notable academics, because the vast majority of academics are not notable.Thenub314 (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to quote someone's opinion, yes you do have to establish their expertise on the subject and one of those ways is through Notability. Otherwise we'd have idiots running around the site, citing any number of random people "who said this or that" and then quoting them like they are the perfect source. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You say "one of the ways", what are some other ways? Being a university professor publishing in a peer reviewed journal doesn't cut it? Thenub314 (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Moving this to your Talk page. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Thenub314: You are correct. Scalhotrod's argument has no basis in policy. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Notability is irrelevant. We have a 'reliable sources' noticeboard, not a 'notable sources' one. And on the whole, being an academic writing on a subject for which one is qualified to do so is generally seen as evidence for reliability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Artifex, Andy just summed up exactly what I've been trying to explain (albeit badly). But thank you anyway... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you are obviously incapable of understanding a simple statement, I will make it clearer. Unless evidence is offered to the contrary, I see no reason why a criminologist, a political scientist, or a political geographer should not be seen as reliable sources regarding militia movements in the United States, or indeed regarding the subject of this article as a whole. If you wish to argue otherwise, take it to WP:RSN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are or are not, but I would like it stated why these particular people (a criminologist, a political scientist, or a political geographer - which sounds like the start of a really geeky joke...) are "qualified". Andy, you of all people would be the first to question a cited "expert's" credentials if you distrusted the claims made by them in a heart beat. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

You know where WP:RSN is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Conforming to sources

This edit [55] does not conform to the source. Please provide a suitable quote supporting the statement added to the article based on that source. Cwobeel (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you mean this for me? I restored this material:

According to criminologists Steven Chermak and Joshua Freilich, political scientist Lane Crothers, and political geographer Carolyn Gallaher, enactment of AWB 1994 and two high profile incidents involving the ATF, Ruby Ridge in 1992 and the Waco siege in 1993, encouraged a modern militia movement by citizens who feared that the federal government would begin to confiscate firearms.

Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I mean that edit. I looked at some of these sources and could not find a quote to substantiate the assertion. If all you are doing is quoting Chip Berlet, then cite him, attribute the passage to him, and remove the citations of the books (you can put these books in a new section "Further reading". Cwobeel (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

From "Searching for a demon": These Last Straw events moved many people into the militia movement. Ruby Ridge and Waco have become convenient short hands that carry intrinsic meaning and motivation for people involved in the militia movement. Page 36. Thenub314 (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That is not what the material in the article says... The material makes a connection between the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents and fear of confiscation. That is probably true, but we need WP:VERIFIABILITY. Cwobeel (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I wasn't done finding quotes. Sorry, one segment at a time. Here is another one, then I will take a break for a while for dinner. Thenub314 (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

From "Searching for a demon": Gun-Control legislation is among the greatest concerns for the militia, and it is one of the best recruiting devices used by militia leaders. [ ... ] two pieces of federal legislation were passed in 1993 and 1994. Watered down as the versions of this legislation signed into law were, politically conservative gun owners were enraged and threatend by these intrusions: "I've never seen a firearm harm anyone," stated one militia member. page 32. Thenub314 (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Plenty of sources available connecting growth of militias and the "unfortunate events" -- less clear that "confiscation" was the primary issue, and more likely that "one man against the government" idealism (possibly misplaced) struck a chord to many there. Maybe a mix of some sort, but there dang well should be sources covering all the factors, I hope. Collect (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I added/updated the source citations for now and will rejoin the conversation tomorrow.

According to criminologists Steven Chermak and Joshua Freilich, political scientist Lane Crothers, and political geographer Carolyn Gallaher, enactment of AWB 1994 and two high profile incidents involving the ATF, Ruby Ridge in 1992 and the Waco siege in 1993, encouraged a modern militia movement by citizens who feared that the federal government would begin to confiscate firearms.

FWIW, I don't mind tweaking the sentence in question, or expanding it if necessary, but I think this material is absolutely relevant to understanding U.S. gun politics in the last 20-something years. Lightbreather (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The Militia movement article has some references that may be helpful. Lightbreather (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The sentence needs rewording as it is basically WP:OR as it stands. Cwobeel (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This might be simply addressed by removing the attribution to all the individual sources? This is what the paragraph looked like before I started working on it:

In the 1990s, gun politics took a turn to the right in response to two high profile ATF incidents, Ruby Ridge and Waco, that led to mobilization of modern militia groups. These incidents combined with the passage of the Brady Act in 1993 and the Assault Weapons Ban a year later increased the fears of those who felt the federal government would confiscate their firearms. The Brady Bill, passed in 1994, requires dealers to conduct background checks and thus provides an enforcement mechanism for restricting purchases by prohibited persons. The Militia Movement expanded throughout the 1990s.

I only added Crothers, et al. because someone objected to the unattributed version (this was an intermediate edit, while I was putting things in chronological order; after the complaint I added the other sources... Chermak, Frielich, and Gallaher):

The murder of musician John Lennon in 1980 and an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan in 1981 led to enactment of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Law) in 1993. A Stockton, California, schoolyard shooting in 1989 led to passage of the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. About the same time, two high profile incidents involving the ATF, Ruby Ridge and the Waco siege, led to mobilization of a modern Militia Movement that increasingly feared the federal government would confiscate firearms. The Brady Bill, passed in 1994, requires dealers to conduct background checks and thus provides an enforcement mechanism for restricting purchases by prohibited persons.[56]

As I said, I'm open to suggestion. Maybe there needs to be a "Militia movement" subsection in the 20th century section? Lightbreather (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Yay! (waving emphatically) I'm in favor of a "Militia Movement" section. Highlight the real nutjobs! Just please dissect it away from the gross amalgam it is currently. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Sarcasm doesn't work well in writing. Especially in a discussion about a controversial topic. Also, if I'm understanding you, the "gross amalgam" it's become is in part do to your objections, like "It's speculative," and "According to whom?" and "What makes them reliable sources for this argument," and so on. Lightbreather (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

No kidding, my above statement was as sincere as it gets. I earnestly meant every word. Also, I know I have a diverse vocabulary and I'll never make apologies for that. But its not intended to be insulting, if you met me in person you'd understand that I talk the same way... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It is very poorly written from the perspective of paragraph construction and not entirely accurate nor particularly encyclopedic. Brady and AWB passed the same year (1993), AWB just took effect a year later. The militia groups were already in existence by Waco and RR; they just gained more media attention after the OKC bombing. In fact about the only thing that ties those together is McVeigh, because he claimed the bombing was retribution for Waco. I do not think he was a member of a militia group, though. It is disturbing that there is no mention of FOPA in this summary, which has much more to do with gun politics than the nutbag militia groups.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure which paragraph you're referring to when you say "very poorly written," but if it's the last one I copied, please note that I said it was an intermediate edit while I put the elements in chronological order. It's been through several edits since: simple copyediting and trying to satisfy Scal. The question is, what now? Lightbreather (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This one, its a mess...

A Stockton, California, schoolyard shooting in 1989 led to passage of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (AWB or AWB 1994), which defined and banned the manufacture and transfer of "semiautomatic assault weapons" and "large capacity ammunition feeding device"s. According to criminologists Steven Chermak and Joshua Freilich, political scientist Lane Crothers, and political geographer Carolyn Gallaher, enactment of AWB 1994 and two high profile incidents involving the ATF, Ruby Ridge in 1992 and the Waco siege in 1993, encouraged a modern militia movement by citizens who feared that the federal government would begin to confiscate firearms.

--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

"This one, it's a mess" is supposed to be an answer for Mike? When he commented it's "very poorly written"? The thing is, he was probably commenting on something earlier in this discussion, and what you just copied doesn't appear earlier in the discussion. Also, I get that you don't like the material, and think it's presented in a "gross amalgam" (if I understood your comment just up a few paragraphs), but the question is... How to present it in a way that you're OK with? Lightbreather (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I was speaking to the last one, with Lennon, Btady, etc. It is a very disjointed paragraph with at least 3 different topics.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

How is it now, is a good start as separate sections. As Thenub314 suggests, I think it would be better to use the secondary source he found. Its the "Chip Berlet book review of 4 books: "Searching for a Demon"; "Rage on the Right", "American Militias"; "On the Fault Line" that he did for the journal "Contemporary Sociology." (In quotes because its from a conversation with Nub here) As for NOPA, honestly I need to read up a bit to see what the proper context would be, but Mike likely already has the best suggested in mind. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Request to stop deleting brief, sourced material

This is the third discussion I have started re sourced material that one editor keeps deleting. It is clear that he thinks the material doesn't belong here, but it is also clear that there is no strong reason to delete it nor a consensus to delete it.

• 12 February 2013: The material was added by Jjjjjjjjjj.[57]
• 4 April 2014 (almost 14 months later): I (Lightbreather) updated the numbers from the material's source.[58]

Three hours later, the material was deleted by Gaijin42 (who is now topic-banned from gun-control related articles).[59]

• 5 April 2014: I restored the material [60]

and started the discussion Presenting OpenSecrets.org figures.[61]

• 6 April 2014: Gainjin42 deleted it again,[62]

and I restored it.[63]

Then Scalhotrod deleted the material [64] and started discussion Advocacy groups and political action committees section.

• 7 April 2014: I restored the material.[65]

Scalhotrod deleted/replaced the material, adding a source that he liked better.[66]

I restored the material, but tweaked it to include Scal's preferred material/source.[67] (my edit summary even said "tweaking to compromise")

• 1 May 2014: Four weeks after the material was retored, Scalhotrod deleted it again - again keeping his preferred version and preferred source.[68] (This was also the day after Gaijin42 was topic banned, and was also when Scal started removing the "See also" link to "Assault weapons ban" - which he did three times, and then changed that article's title to "Assault weapons legislation," which is currently in the queue for a WP:REQMOVE back to "Assault weapons ban.")
• And he removed it again today,[69] with edit summary, "sourced and verifiable is not relevant if the content is WP:UNDUE, you have no consensus or policy support for this redundant material."

Sourced and verifiable is relevant because the material in question is one short paragraph that's helpful to the reader and not redundant. Scal, please stop deleting this brief, relevant, sourced material. It has been in the article for over a year, and there is no consensus to remove it. Lightbreather (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I suppose one issue is whether the material is particularly needed and useful in this particular article, or is it a general Captain Obvious section which could be added to almost every issue under the Sun? If the latter, then the need for it here is minimal. If it is unique to this topic, then it absolutely should be included. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

What? How does that collection of words address anything found in Lightbreather's post? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I think what Collect is trying to say is the section that LB is referring to comes across as a "primer on political action committees". Its overly detailed, redundant, and the kind of thing that quality, succinct writing and Wikilinks are meant to address. But Lightbreather insists on its inclusion in an already very lengthy (by WP norms) article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Caution

The editing here doesn't appear to have improved since it was placed under discretionary sanctions. I will be asking an admin to keep an eye on this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Complaints about tendentious editing, disruptive editing, and battleground editing should be taken to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Firearm Owners Protection Act

Mike Searson mentioned in another discussion that the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) is not in the body of the article. I'm thinking a paragraph in the "Second half of 20th century" between the Burger quote and the Stockton shooting/federal AWB paragraph. Anybody? Lightbreather (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

A sentence would be better. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Context is what is important. Here's how it went down politically: FOPA was designed to clarify much of the GCA of 68. It allowed for selling of ammunition without an FFL, safe passage for people travelling through states with harsh restrictions (ie someone in PA travelling to Maine for a hunting trip and being accosted by JBT in Mass. or NYC), and out of state long gun transactions. This was anathema to the democrats so Hughes from NJ (MFBUH) ammended the bill with a poison pill to kill it that prohibited manufacture of new machineguns. The Hughes amendment was defeated by voice vote but Comrade Rangel ramrodded it through and denied the motion for an actual vote.It was signed into law by Reagan and supported by the NRA. If that's not politics, I don't know what is.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I added a brief (two sentence?), sourced, NPOV paragraph.[70] Lightbreather (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, I made a minor wording tweak. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Free-floating citations from previous discussions

Preserving "Black Codes" material from Gun control article

This material was removed from the Gun control article's History subsection titled "United States." I support that removal, but I am moving the material here for preservation. I'm not sure it belongs in this article either - but certainly this one more than that one.

Before the American Civil War ended, state slave codes prohibited slaves from owning guns. After slavery in the U.S. was abolished, states persisted in prohibiting black people from owning guns under laws renamed Black Codes. The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1868, most states turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a Negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights." Thus, many Southern states imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns—so-called Saturday night specials—in order to price destitute individuals out of the gun market.

--Lightbreather (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

NRA Poll

I removed the verbiage that the NRA poll was 1,000 of 5,000,000 as misleading. It gives the impression that the poll is not representative of the NRA. Polling methodology requires an amazingly small sample size to obtain a poll of significance. National presidential polls, for example, typically have sample sizes of approximately 1,000 to 1,500. Since the poll was contracted out and performed by a polling organization outside the NRA it's methodology must be assumed correct unless some evidence can be provided to show that it is not. If this was a non-scientific poll where only 1,000 of the NRA members responded than the 5,000,000 would be appropriate to note. Arzel (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Interesting that the poll shows that over 90% of NRA members support some form of gun control, in this case wanting to further restrict access to weapons by mentally ill people. Are there any secondary sources that mention this poll? TFD (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I found this source here. Arzel (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You should use The Washington Post article as a source, instead of the actual poll. It establishes the significance of the poll and what is important in its findings. It also would determine whether there were any problems with the methodology, because a reliable secondary source would mention it. TFD (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I added the (of 5 million members) text to give context to the poll. There was no other intention other than to show that a fairly small group was sampled from a known quantity of people. Any inference made from that is purely on the part of the reader. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it is 1,000 of 5,000,000 is true and misleading. It shouldn't be there. A well-sampled 1,000 of the NRA would be as good as a well-sampled 1,000 of the 250,000,000+ citizens (or residents) of the United States. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It is also WP:SYNTHESIS, as the 1,000 and 5,000,000 come from different reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

AR, what you fail to take notice of which weakens or negates your claim of SYNTH is that the sources correlate in time to the same statistical group. In retrospect the 5 million is incorrect as it should be "4.5 million" based on this quote from the source, "About one-tenth of the members have joined in the past six months, the NRA says." The article was published May 4, 2013, backtracking six months and "10%" equates to roughly 4.5 million members in December 2012. This is not WP:OR, its simple math which is within policy of WP:NOTOR. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

If it were relevant (which it isn't), it would be WP:SYNTHESIS unless the figures were from the same source, which is not indicated. If what you say is correct (which I haven't checked, since it would only be relevant to the NRA article), the 4.5 million would be sourced, as the 5 (or 5.0) million and the 10% would be from the same source, but it still would not be the same source as the 1000. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Due - or undue?

On 9 April 2014, the lead was expanded from this:

Gun politics is a controversial issue in American politics that is primarily defined by the actions of two groups; gun control and gun rights activists.

To this:[71]

Arguments about gun politics in the United States primarily fall under two related questions: Does the government have the authority to impose gun regulations? And, if so, should the government do so? In answering these questions, gun control and gun rights activists disagree on the interpretation of laws and court cases related to guns. They also disagree about the effects of gun control on crime and public safety, and about the comparisons between the U.S. and other countries.

Since then, another editor keeps removing the last part about comparisons between the U.S. and other countries. The first time, 18 April 2014, he reverted the whole thing,[72] with the edit summary, "removing rhetoric and speculative editorial statements from Lead, switching back to basic presentation of the article's information." So I restored it, leaving the original in place and tweaking the restored material:

Gun politics is a controversial issue in American politics that is primarily defined by the actions of two groups; gun control and gun rights activists. They disagree on the interpretation of laws and court cases related to guns. They also disagree about the effects of gun control on crime and public safety, and about the comparisons between the U.S. and other countries.

This time, he tweaked the sourced material (OK), but removed what he called in his edit summary "outside issues."[73] I restored the material[74] with edit summary "comparisons to the U.S. and other nations re gun violence is discussed quite a bit in this article." He removed it again,[75] with edit summary "Other than the Arms Trade Treaty, there's not enough to warrant its inclusion in the Lead." And so on and so forth. His most recent deletion of the material[76] cites WP:UNDUE.

I think the inclusion in the lead that comparisons between the U.S. and other countries IS WP:DUE for this WP:LEADPARAGRAPH. So the question is, is it, or is it not?

(It is worth noting that on 4 May 2014 he removed almost 25,000 bytes from the "Political arguments" section (scroll down to "Public policy theory"),[77] which had most of the comparisons, but even after that edit, there are still comparisons in the article - as well there should be. The big removal I didn't object to in principle because the article is bloated, but some of what was removed needs to be restored and updated or redeveloped altogether.) --Lightbreather (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The view that government has not authority to regulate firearms is held by few people, and is not part of the wider debate. TFD (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but I think she is asking whether the "comparison to other countries" part is due or undue, not Spitzer's framing of the broader question. My opinion on the question I think she is posing is that the sentence in question conflates a major point of disagreement between the two groups, the effect of gun control on public safety, and this poorly defined disagreement "about the comparisons between the U.S. and other countries". The only mention of comparisons in the body of the article is a quote by Kleck: "...cross-national comparisons do not provide a sound basis for assessing the impact of gun ownership levels on crime rates." This seems fairly minor and is about the usefulness of the comparisons and not about the comparisons themselves. Celestra (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Is "Further reading" only for books?

Yesterday, I added an item to the "Further reading" section.[78] Another editor cited the Presentation section of the inactive WP:Further reading (essay?), and deleted the addition [79] saying, "this section is for books."

I have read what he cited and the active WP:FURTHER guideline several times, and I combed this talk page's four archives [80][81][82][83] and find nothing to support this opinion. In fact, the section before my addition included not only books but journal articles as well. I don't see any language that says everything in "Further reading" has to be scholarly. I might even argue that a variety of WP:V, WP:RS sources - not just scholarly - would be appropriate to the needs of a variety of readers and readers' needs. Lightbreather (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In my understanding, Further reading is not only for books, or not only scholarly. Hipocrite (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments (RFC) about whether tyranny argument is confined to USA

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

---

Brief, neutral statement of the issue

The issue here involves the section of this Wikipedia article titled "Security against tyranny". Would it be okay to say briefly in that section whether or not the check-against-tyranny argument for gun rights is unique to the United States? That could be done in the following way, or in some other way:

“ In modern times, the check-against-tyranny argument for gun rights has not been entirely confined to the United States, but that is not to say the argument has gotten much traction elsewhere.[1][2][3][4] ”

[1]Springwood, Charles. Open Fire, Understanding Global Gun Cultures, pp. 37-38 (Berg 2007).

[2]Chapman, Simon. Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's Fight for Gun Control, p. 221 (Sydney University Press, 2013).

[3]Brown, R. Arming and Disarming: A History of Gun Control in Canada, p. 218 (University of Toronto Press, 2012).

[4]Squires, Peter. Gun Culture or Gun Control?: Firearms and Violence: Safety and Society, p. 230 (Routledge, 2012).

Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The statement is not factual, firearms in the hands of citizens inside the United States has nothing to do about being any kind of "check against tyranny." The phrase fails WP:NPOV and the statement fails test-ability, fallibility, and is demonstrably wrong. Suggest removing the phrase entirely. Damotclese (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. As the original poster of this RFC, I think the draft above is adequate. The four sources seem reliable, and the draft above carefully indicates that these sources do not suggest the check-against-tyranny argument has gotten much traction outside the U.S. At the same time, the draft does not extrapolate from the sources to make any generalizations that could constitute original research. The draft sentence is brief, and so would not have undue weight in this section. These sources are picked because they each indicate whether the check-against-tyranny argument is confined to the U.S. or not, and I am not aware of further sources that do so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Mildly Oppose, in terms of context. Though I strongly support that the statement is accurate, assuming the sources are reliable, and impressively NPOV one, I am not sure what point this statement makes, or what point the author is trying to make with this statement in the specified section. This might be due to my lacking of in-depth knowledge of the topic, but most readers are also not familiar to the topic so every statement should bring non-expert readers to more advance stage of understanding, which I failed to see in that statement. My view is that if there are very few arguments of this outside U.S., then this is not very relevant because far greater numbers of Americans are already involved in the argument, and U.S. is one of the most independent country in the world so those minuscule arguments outside U.S. should have no impact to the U.S. at all. However, if the argument is supported or opposed widely outside U.S., it may be appropriate to assert as a notable POV. (Preceding by Biglobster (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC))
• Oppose As making a point in Wikipedia's voice. A closer formulation would be:

The United States gun rights movement has used references to a check against tyranny.(cite needed to support this single claim) While the same argument has been used elsewhere, it does not generally have the same weight in other countries. (specific cite needed for this separate and distinct claim) Collect (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm only coming into this from an invite, but what is the purpose of highlighting other countries in an article specifically about the US debate? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The term "tyranny" in the U.S. had connotations that do not extend to other countries. The Founding Fathers called George III a tyrant and claimed that people in colonies that remained with in the British empire were living under tyranny. None of the sources make this comment. Furthermore, it is not enough to find a source mentioning that in one debate in one country one person said something. One needs a source that actually says what is proposed, which is general statement about other countries. TFD (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Nazi gun control argument itself doesn't even belong here, but in a fringe or historical revisionism article of its own, IMO. Lightbreather (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support idea oppose the exact wording. I would like to see it reworded more in the manner that talk and talk have expressed. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support I's a very modest statement regarding that, almost sky-is-blue. North8000 (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support idea as neutral, well-sourced, and important to cover, but not satisfied with the wording, per Collect and Sue Rangell. That said, I'd rather see it covered in this wording than not covered.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

In reply to User:Collect, your formulation would be fine with me, except that we have no sources that speak to how this tyranny argument is "generally" used outside the US; we only have sources regarding four specific countries: Brazil, Australia, the UK, and Canada. All four sources clearly show the argument is not confined to the US, but none of the four sources show it has gained much traction outside the US. I suspect what you really mean is that you support the statement that it would "be okay to say briefly in that section whether or not the check-against-tyranny argument for gun rights is unique to the United States?" You're just doing it a different way. Is that correct Collect?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The material appears to be in print in foreign languages (i.e. German in one case, printed in Germany) meaning that we can not, on our own, assert that it is exclusively a US concern at all. Unless, of course, reliable sources state that it is not found outside the US. As for "traction" - if we find sources making assertions about "traction" then we can use those sources, but we can not assert anything about "traction" not directly stated or supported in a reliable source. Collect (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Your meaning is unclear to me. What material appears to be in print in foreign languages? I agree that we cannot assert that it is exclusively a US concern, and the language I suggested does exactly the opposite ("has not been entirely confined to the United States"), right? As for traction, I wanted to be 100% clear that we are not saying anything about traction, and so it is specifically disclaimed ("which is not to say"). How can we make sure that people don't infer anything about traction, unless we say that we're not saying anything about it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The existence of a "disclaimer" is actually a claim per se, and if we have no information on something, we say nothing at all about it. We can not "make sure people do not infer" anything at all - we rely on WP:NPOV and the requirements that only reliable sources be used to provide balance in an article. We do not assert things we "know" to be "true" nor do we use the editorial sledgehammer on "evil stuff." Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Collect, are you saying that you would be fine if the suggested sentence is shortened: "In modern times, the check-against-tyranny argument for gun rights has not been entirely confined to the United States"??? I'm fine with that. The problem is that some other editors at another article pointed out that all four of these sources show that the argument did not get much traction in those four respective countries, so do you think we need to somehow take account of that fact too, without undue verbosity?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

What some other editors pointed out at the Gun control talk page and here is that these sources do not support any notion that there is any international discussion re Nazi gun control. It would be WP:UNDUE. Lightbreather (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

In reply to User:Thargor Orlando, the purpose is to include a slight amount of context. For example. in an article about Abraham Lincoln, we don't have to mention only Abraham Lincoln; we can also say that he had 15 predecessors as president, he wasn't the first one. In an article about California, we can mention that it is south of Oregon, even though the article is not about Oregon. If I had to guess, I would say that the main reason why including this simple information in the present article has become controversial is the fear that it might lead to mentioning the check-against- tyranny argument in the main gun control article, but IMHO that factor should be irrelevant here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

But why is that context important in this specific article. I guess I'm trying to figure out why it should matter that the "against tyranny" argument hasn't caught on overseas when it's not a worldwide article. I'm just confused as to what clarification this provides other than a "look how unique these Americans are" point-and-laugh thing. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, if something is uniquely American, then it seems worth saying so very briefly, and if it's not then that seems worth mentioning briefly too. If a reader is perusing this article and (by some miracle) they get down to this section, they might say to themself: "Gee, I had never heard of that rationale, I wonder if it's unique to the USA?" Just like they might wonder if Lincoln was the first president, or wonder what's on California's northern border.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando, a little background on this discussion is in order. There was an RfC on the Gun control talk page to include this argument in the general/global Gun control article. That ended up turning into an ArbCom issue (as yet unresolved). A few editors in that RfC suggested that maybe if it wasn't something for the main Gun control article, it might be something for this article. Many who opposed including Nazi gun control arguments in that article also oppose including it here for the same reason. It's a fringe, or at best historical revisionism, argument not supported by scholars or mainstream media. Gun-rights extremists want to give the argument weight, IMO. Lightbreather (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

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