Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:44, 28 May 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the National Rifle Association 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: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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

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. Virginia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the National Rifle Association 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: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Endorsements

Hi Folks, the Endorsements subsection includes the following...

"In 2011, the organization declined an offer to discuss gun control with U.S. President Barack Obama. However, at the same time, LaPierre said that "the NRA has supported proposals to prevent gun sales to the mentally ill, strengthen a national system of background checks and spur states to provide needed data.""

I removed it once after trying to find a better place for it, but it seems like a POV "I told you so" kind of comment to me. Someone has returned it. What relevance does this have in this section?

References

1. CALMES, JACKIE (JACKIE). "N.R.A. Declines to Meet With Obama on Gun Policy". New York Times. Retrieved 15 March 2011. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

IP(s) Edit warring 12 times the same edit

I think that IP's 132.194...and 74.135....are wp:duck the same person. They have put in the same edit 12 times in the last few days. I don't even see their point.....they seem to be trying to delete certain activities and goals. North8000 (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Just checked the two newest IPs, and yes they are both from the same area of Colorado. This user has already earned one block for violating 3RR on an older IP, and then another block for evading the first block. ROG5728 (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Could be home and school. North8000 (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to correct a clear bias that is present on this article. Gun owners and proponents of gun violence have a monopoly on the content of this article and many others concerning guns and violence on Misplaced Pages. I am living a breathing proof that not everyone in Colorado like gun violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.127.182 (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• "proponents of gun violence"? No, that doesn't sound biased at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That is not biased. It is fact. Saying that the NRA is a proponent of "safety" is bias. Guns are inherently dangerous. That's like saying "nuke safety" or "machete safety". The safest gun is a broken gun. If you are in favor of Guns, you are by extension in favor and complicit in the violence committed using guns. Guns are tools used for impaling something or someone with a bullet. Form follows function.

"Gun owners and proponents of gun violence" I'm neither, & I'm offended. I happen to think gun banners are wrong. TREKphiler 21:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Gun violence is offensive. Do you know how many people were shot today?

♠"Guns are inherently dangerous" Guns are inherently paperweights. Show me one case, just one, where a gun climbed down off a wall, ran out in the street, & shot somebody by itself. And, considering the number of guns in the U.S., the better question is, if you're right, why the country hasn't been depopulated yet. How many people didn't get shot by legal guns today? How many robberies were stopped, or prevented? How many muggings? How many houses didn't get broken into because there was a gun in the house, & the crook didn't want to risk getting shot?

♠"Gun violence is offensive." Yes, it is. How many people got shot today because criminals have guns, & law-abiding citizens don't? How many got shot today because the government has jacked up the price of cocaine so high it's worth killing to add territory? How many got shot today because the government made marijuana illegal, when making it legal could wipe out the demand for cocaine?

♠How is any of that the responsibility of the NRA? TREKphiler 20:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Call me the next time someone shoots up a school or movie theater with a paperweight or with marijuana. The NRA promotes gun ownership, its that simple. How many people were shot today with guns for any reason? and How many people would have been shot today with guns if there weren't any guns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.127.182 (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty scary question, "How many people would have been shot today with guns if there weren't any guns?" Quite simply, the crazy ones find another way to do what they intend to do. Timothy McVeigh is a good example. Then again you probably blame the Oklahoma City bombing on the NRA as well... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This is about Misplaced Pages NPOV policy, not politics. This is not a forum.

♠Yeah, it's always the fault of the guns. How many robberies were prevented by legally-owned guns yesterday? How many muggings? How many murders?

♠How many murders were committed with knives yesterday? How many assaults? Maybe we need knife control.

♠How many people died in car wrecks? How many robberies & other crimes were committed where cars were used to escape? Lets sue the car companies for complicity.

♠How many people died from smoking cigarettes yesterday? So why are cigarettes legal? They have two functions, & two only: deliver an addictive substance, & kill you, when used as intended. They have no redeeming social benefits. Yet guns are subject to restriction & ban, & cigarettes are for sale to teenagers.

♠The gun-ban zealots will never admit the hypocrisy of their position. TREKphiler 07:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing politics. The NRA has nothing to do with bombs, knives or drugs.

OK, OK, Trek and I are off our soapboxes... ;) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Will you now address the NPOV status of this page and no longer attempt to spew politics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.127.182 (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Right after you do, which, by your responses so far, will be never. TREKphiler 23:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I have addressed the issues. My attempts to fix this article have been impeded by pro-gun activists. Advertisements are clearly against Misplaced Pages policy. This is not the place for pro-gun activism. I am going to make changes to the article which bring it in line with NPOV. I am not the one spewing pro-gun rhetoric, I simply want to bring the article in line with NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.218.228 (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

since the article is using pending changes, you in fact will not be making changes to the article at all, unless you either register and stop your sockpuppetry, or build consensus for the changes. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I have put my IP address out there for all to see. I refuse to hide behind a fake name. I have made no attempt to hide my IP address and am only trying to bring this article in line with Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. I will continue to make changes as long as my existence is ignored by those of you hiding behind fake names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.219.117 (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like semi-protected didn't work. I just rv'd much the same change as before. Looks like IP 132 doesn't believe the NRA promotes safety (tho I recall Bill Jordan being pretty fanatic about it, & I'm pretty sure he was an NRA member). TREKphiler 15:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I misspoke, we have pending changes on, not semi protected.Gaijin42 (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"Safety" is a weasel word. "Gun proficiency training" is far more accurate and neutral.

Factually incorrect. "Safety" is the world used by virtually every jurisdiction which mandate "safety classes" and include the NRA classes as fulfilling the "safety education" requirements. Indeed the NRA is the main conductor of gun control advocates' pushed requirements for "Safety classes."108.48.225.194 (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of specific changes

• non-profit -> non-profit-lobbying : Certainly they do lobbying, but they also do a lot of other activities, which are well known and sourced by many neutral reliable sources. If we want to add "and lobbying group" to the first sentence , I think that is justifiable, but in should be AND lobbying, not exclusively lobbying.
• They have MANY safety programs, again backed by indy rs. No way that gets removed.
• tenet->belief. Synonyms, but per WP:CLAIM tenet is more neutral. We are not stating anything about a fact of civil right or not

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

♠I can live with lobbying. Whatever else they are, NRA is a lobby (advocacy) group. Maybe "advocacy" is more neutral? "Gun rights advocacy group"?

♠Safety? Agreed. That's been a central theme for decades.

♠Tenet? That seems more an organization term; belief implies a person IMO. TREKphiler 16:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC) (PS. Wasn't trying to bust you over "protected"... :D )

Any overall characterization as lobbying is inaccurate. It's like one out of 10 major categories of things that they are/do. North8000 (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It is 1/10 yes, but that 1/10 is very notable. Do you object to adding "and lobbying organization" in the lede? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I'm assuming that you're talking about adding it to the sentence that lists some of the other functions, and listing it as another of those functions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

See this is what I wanted! There is no consensus as to what the material on this article should say.

♠The NRA is widely known for its lobbying activities, it should be mentioned, at least, in the first sentence. EX: "The NRA is a non-profit organization, widely known for it lobbying activities."

♠The word "safety" is a weasel word. It accurately describes the activities of the NRA, only in the opinion those who agree with those activities. Wording like "gun proficiency" is less weasely. Some do not believe that such programs promote "safety", but instead promote knowledge of how to use a gun "properly".

The word "advocacy" does not accurately describe their activities though. Lobbying is not good or bad inherently. Greenpeace is just as much a "lobbying group" as the NRA is.

They do gun proficiency, yes. They also do things explicitly that are safety oriented. (Eddie eagle, storage recommendations, etc) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Substituting "proficiency" for "safety" is POV, besides. It's not like NRA's sole objective is creating people better able to shoot up schools, contrary to what the gun banners might think--or try to persuade everybody else. TREKphiler 22:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Substituting "safety" with "proficiency" is POV. Safety is a weasel word. The NRA want people to use guns properly. They do not want to end gun violence. I have never said that the NRA want people to shoot up schools, all I am saying is that they're "safety" programs are intended to teach people how to properly use guns, not to end or prevent gun violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.220.220 (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Proper use of firearm includes handling it safely, why do you not understand this? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

gun "safety" is an oxymoron. and an opinion. The NRA is teaching proficiency and does not care about eradicating gun violence. That is a fact and should be reflected in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.220.220 (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a forum. Take your views on gun confiscation somewhere else. And quit trying to change the article to reflect only your POV. TREKphiler 20:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I never once suggested "gun confiscation", you are the one who brought it up. I was discussing the status of the word "safety" and whether its inclusion in the article is NPOV or not. My intent is for this article to accurately portray the NRA in an objective and neutral fashion, I have never talked about wanting to get gun control law passed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.127.182 (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There are scores of jurisdictions requiring gun "safety" classes, and NRA classes are listed as "safety classes", by those jurisdictions. Just looking at Democrat dominated high gun control states and jurisdictions, California requires and accepts and defines NRA classes as "safety classes." So too does NY State, Washington DC, and every example I can find. In terms of lobbying vs advocacy, in the US the NRA would have its 501(c)4 non for profit status withdrawn by the IRS and run afoul of the FEC if it was doing any substantial lobbying. "Issues advocacy" and "issues education" are used, both colloquially, and legally, to describe the portion of what the NRA does that is aimed at public policy. There is a separate non 501c4 organization affiliated with the NRA that does lobbying. The NRA was audited by the IRS under Clinton, and found NOT to be doing any substantial (IRS definition of "substantial" is 10 to 15% of funds or resources directed at legislation) lobbying. Lobbying is quite literally and legally an in substantial amount of its efforts.108.48.225.194 (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Controversy Header

The {controversial} heading should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.219.117 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies

Or do you mean a template warning? Please sign your posts. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

...and why? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Unbalanced is the word

I was doing some housekeeping on the Gun politics in the U.S. article, which brought me here, which brought me to this discussion, started and shut-down rapidly six months ago. The IP user above tried to add some criticism to the lead. He or she may have been clumsy about it, but has a valid point. Considering the volume of criticism the NRA gets, very little of it is shared with our readers. Do we need to slap it around? No. Do we need to add some WP:BALANCE, giving it appropriate WP:WEIGHT? Yes. The piddling Criticism section is disproportionate in size to the size of the whole article. And the only way we could bury it deeper would be to put it after the little "Notable members" section that currently follows it - and which is the LAST section in the article. Lightbreather (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the mass tagging of this article but my revert was quickly reverted before I could post here. Perhaps one tag at the beginning of the article would suffice if we have consensus for it. Otherwise, I will revert one more time.--Asher196 (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "mass tagging." I tagged four sections that need work: three in the artucle, plus the lead. We can remove the tags as we balance the sections, saving the lead for last. Lightbreather (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm ok with it, if you're ok with adding "Enjoys dancing in the blood of dead children" to all the anti gun organizations.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Firearms articles
• High-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles
• B-Class Virginia articles
• Mid-importance Virginia articles
• WikiProject Virginia articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class organization articles
• Mid-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles