Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:13, 7 April 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Firearms High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

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

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Gun politics in the United States was copied or moved into Global gun cultures with this edit on 20:04, 1 February 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

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

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

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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 Misplaced Pages article presently cite many rs? We aren't trying to show that the "Hitler argument" is correct, only that it is often made. Is Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages article a very brief sentence: "However, not all Jews feel that way."

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

“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 Misplaced Pages article about Nazi gun control

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

And discussion here and here and here . Lightbreather (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion that Nazi GC is an international concern should be removed

Per the "International debate?" discussion 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.

1. Mackey, David and Levan, Kristine. Crime Prevention, pp. 95-96 (Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2011): The greatest fear for ... the pro-gun culture would be an attempt by the government to collectively disarm all the country’s citizens, rendering them helpless against tyranny.... They promote the use of firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities, and also promote firearm safety.
2. Wilson, Harry. Guns, Gun Control, and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms, pp. 20-21 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007).
3. Springwood, Charles. Open Fire, Understanding Global Gun Cultures, pp. 37-38 (Berg 2007): he individual items of NRA-sponsored propaganda collectively worked to further the cause of pro-gun activists both abroad and at home. Consider, for instance, a pamphlet distributed by the pro-gun lobby in Brazil, which featured an image of Hitler giving a Nazi salute. The choice of image was clearly meant to suggest a parallel between the dangers of disarmament and the dangers of Nazism.
4. Chapman, Simon. Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's Fight for Gun Control, p. 221 (Sydney University Press, 2013): "Internationally, the gun lobby is fond of comparing gun control agenda with that of Hitler in pre-World War II Germany."
5. Brown, R. Arming and Disarming: A History of Gun Control in Canada, p. 218 (University of Toronto Press, 2012): "As had occurred in the 1970s, organizations representing firearm owners made analogies between modern arms control and the policies of Nazi Germans and Stalinist Russia."
6. Squires, Peter. Gun Culture or Gun Control?: Firearms and Violence: Safety and Society, p. 230 (Routledge, 2012): "Comparing British gun control policies with Nazi rule prompted a wide spectrum of commentators to criticize the SRA."

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. Misplaced Pages, 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. I thanked you for that decision, and I'm asking you to stand by it here. Lightbreather (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Here is a link to a related discussion, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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, 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 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.

1. Mackey, David and Levan, Kristine. Crime Prevention, pp. 95-96 (Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2011): The greatest fear for 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.... They promote the use of firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities, and also promote firearm safety.
2. Springwood, Charles. Open Fire, Understanding Global Gun Cultures, pp. 37-38 (Berg 2007): he individual items of NRA-sponsored propaganda collectively worked to further the cause of pro-gun activists both abroad and at home. Consider, for instance, a pamphlet distributed by the pro-gun lobby in Brazil, which featured an image of Hitler giving a Nazi salute. The choice of image was clearly meant to suggest a parallel between the dangers of disarmament and the dangers of Nazism.
3. Chapman, Simon. Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's Fight for Gun Control, p. 221 (Sydney University Press, 2013): "Internationally, the gun lobby is fond of comparing gun control agenda with that of Hitler in pre-World War II Germany."
4. Brown, R. Arming and Disarming: A History of Gun Control in Canada, p. 218 (University of Toronto Press, 2012): "As had occurred in the 1970s, organizations representing firearm owners made analogies between modern arms control and the policies of Nazi Germans and Stalinist Russia."

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

This is not a contest about the popularity of a sentence in the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. I thanked him for that decision, 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." 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.

1. Singh, Robert P. (2003). Governing America: the politics of a divided democracy. Oxford : Oxford University Press. p. 368. ISBN 0-19-925049-9.
2. Daynes, Byron W.; Tatalovich, Raymond (2005). Moral controversies in American politics. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. p. 172. ISBN 0-7656-1420-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
3. "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. October 3, 2003. Retrieved 2009-12-09.
4. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Research Council, National Academy Press, 2004. ISBN 978-0-309-09124-4

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, which has (as of the time of this post) two subsections.

2. He has inserted the "international" material again.

--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 at the gun control article:

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)

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". 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 Misplaced Pages policies.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:44, 30 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:

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)

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 is a separate matter from what Darkness reverted... and he changed his mind and self-reverted what he'd reverted. 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)

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

In the lead

This is what Misplaced Pages editor Anythingyouwant added 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 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 become outspoken, highly-visible defenders of the Constitution, the Second Amendment will fall, followed by our other sacred freedoms - religion, speech and press." n118'

1. Levan, Kristine (2013). "4 Guns and Crime: Crime Facilitation Versus Crime Prevention". In Mackey, David A.; Levan, Kristine (eds.). Crime Prevention. Jones & Bartlett. p. 438. ISBN 9781449615932. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
2. Luna, Erik (2002). "The .22 Caliber Rorschach Test". Boston University Law Review. 75 (57).
3. Herz, Andrew D. (1995). "Gun Crazy: Constitutional False Consciousness and Dereliction of Dialogic Responsibility". Houston Law Review. 39 (53).

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 - Misplaced Pages. 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)

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 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)

History section

While working on standardizing the sources, I added some missing information to the beginning of the History section, and edited what was cited to Spitzer a little closer to what he actually said. (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)

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)

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 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.

1. "Gun Control vs. Gun Rights". OpenSecrets.org. Washington, D.C.: Center for Responsive Politics. 2013. Retrieved April 4, 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
2. "Gun Rights". OpenSecrets.org. Washington, D.C.: Center for Responsive Politics. January 27, 2014. Retrieved April 4, 2014.
3. "Gun Control". OpenSecrets.org. Washington, D.C.: Center for Responsive Politics. January 27, 2014. Retrieved April 4, 2014.
4. http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2013/02/19/bloomberg-guns-illinois-election/1930865/
5. http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=C00532705&cycle=2012
6. http://news.yahoo.com/independence-usa-193203211.html
7. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/01/31/gabby-giffords-super-pac-raises-more-than-12-million-for-gun-control-agenda/5088971/
8. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/gabrielle-giffords-pac-20m-by-midterms-86000.html

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, I had made two paragraphs before G. pushed it all back together again. 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

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)

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)

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