This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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 Wikipedia, 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. |
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 19:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Preserve for possible use:
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)-- Lightbreather ( talk) 19:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Here's a few more:
-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
In case anyone is wondering, I have kept the lead lean for now while I develop the body of the article, in keeping with WP:BETTER advice WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.
I am researching and writing just a few sentences at a time. My plan is to move this from stub- to start-level by midday on April 15.
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 20:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Sue, you seem to be blowing me off on your talk page, [1], and with your edit summaries [2] [3] so I'm moving the discussion here. Please stop! My requests to you are reasonable. What prompted this behavior? It makes me anxious.
Also, regarding the same edits. AWB 2013 can't be defunct because it never became law. It was a bill that didn't make it into law. Also, the bill wasn't only introduced by Feinstein. She was one of several legislators who introduced it. PLEASE, give me until midday tomorrow to finish what I started, and then jump in an re-write it from top to bottom if that's your wish. Lightbreather ( talk) 21:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The title of this article is troubling as it suggest that there was some type of ban on so-called assault weapons in 2013. Is a failed piece of proposed legislation now considered notable?-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I cannot believe you changed the focus, scope, and name of this article based on a brief exchange between yourself and one other pro-gun editor. How does one change it back. And then let's have a real discussion on its notability and name. Lightbreather ( talk) 20:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Was the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 notable? Yes. It passes all the tests under WP:GNG: Significant coverge (1) by reliable (2) secondary sources (3) independent of the subject (4). Further, it is NOT WP:ISNOT - particularly, it is NOT WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Lightbreather ( talk) 21:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
As for the suggestion that the topic might be considered recentism, considering that 10 years have passed since AWB 1994 expired and we're still hearing, reading, and talking about it, it's a little premature to say AWB 2013 - which we're still hearing, reading, and talking about - is 10YT. Lightbreather ( talk) 21:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
As for its name, the Equal Rights Amendment failed to pass, but we didn't title that article "The failed Equal Rights Amendment" or "Equal Rights Amendment (failed)". Prohibition was repealed, but we didn't title that article "The repealed Prohibition Amendment" or "Prohibition (repealed)". WP:UCN says that "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" is the best name for this article - about AWB 2013. Lightbreather ( talk) 21:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Now that I am looking at this...No. Not notable. In fact this article should be deleted. First of all it wasn't a BAN, it was a BILL, and it failed quite badly. I will not place a deletion tag on this, however, because last time I did that, Lightbreather pulled me into ANI. Someone else will have to do that. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Dang, guys! I take my granddaughter to a swimming lesson and lunch, and when I come home, y'all have changed the focus and scope of the article, and renamed it to boot. What about Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting "Reactions" section already links to? What about the Assault weapons ban article, which has a "State assault weapons bans" section waiting for development?
Mike's original question was whether or not the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 was notable enough for its own article. Dang, guys. Let's start with that. Lightbreather ( talk) 20:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to ignore that last remark. As for "I didn't change the focus or scope of the article," the focus and scope sre changed between when I went to lunch and when I came back. [4] The article is titled "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013." It was outlined and developed to be about that topic, which is notable enough for its own article. I only mentioned changes to state laws that were relevant to AWB 2013, but I did not include details about those laws - a few of which, yes, created or strengthened existing state laws, but many of which had nothing to do with assault weapons. Those kinds of details might go into one or more of these existing articles or article sections:
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 21:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Per consensus I have restored the version by Gaijin42. I would have restored the name-change as well, but somebody else will need to do that. LB, please get a handle on your ownership issues. Thanx. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
You are now at at least 4RR, 2 of them being major reversions, and are the only editor saying that they prefer your version. I suggest you stop unilaterally deciding what consensus is before you get blocked. Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I encourage you to start an AfD... but please be fair and cite WP policy in presenting your reasons. Lightbreather ( talk) 21:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
It might be a better idea to start an ANI due to the 4RR violation. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Lightbreather You have attributed several edits to me above. I think you are quite confused. The Executive actions and legislative proposals were added by you in these two Diffs. [8] [9] I did not in any way delete, edit, or replace these bullet points or prose you added, except to break them out into their own section. you added information about the state law changes in these edits [10] [11]Yes, I did expand that section, to add where gun control was relaxed, but that was clearly needed to provide WP:NPOV You can't just show one half of the story, especially when the ~twice (?) as many states relaxed laws as made them more strict. Gaijin42 ( talk) 03:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
At present, there is a sizable paragraph at the start of the article in the "Background" section consisting of extended comments from the NRA's executive VP from a speech he gave. It's sourced to a transcript of his direct remarks, hence in effect it is using primary sourcing to put forth his gun control arguments and commentary at considerable length. If this material is going to remain in the article, it really needs to be pared down and relocated to an appropriate location in the article to avoid the undue weight and coverage it has in it's current form and location. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 01:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The panic buyin is sourced well, but saying the ammo shortage is a result of the shooting and proposed legislation is a bit much imo. There are may causes for the shortage, and many more alleged causes for the shortage (eg massive buys by the govt) so we should not be putting this all on Newtown's shoulders. Gaijin42 ( talk) 01:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the disputed bit. It was unsourced, and my reading of s.150 doesn't agree. (p120 seems to say transfers still allowed, just have to go to a FFL first) Gaijin42 ( talk) 03:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
"Shooting" is what I do at least twice a week. It is what thousands of Americans do on hunting trips and excursions to the range. What that twisted little fuck did in Connecticut was a "massacre". I'm thinking we should rename this: "Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre".-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
We should follow whatever the main article title is. Debate between Massacre and Shooting has come up many times in that article, but if you want to propose it again, feel free. IF that article flips over, certainly no objection to flipping this one to follow. Certainly there are some good examples where massacre is used in the title (Virginia Tech, Columbine etc) but also some good counter examples (Aurora shooting) so I could see it ending up either way. It may be worth a revisit now that the period of highest emotion/debate is over. There did not appear to be an overwhelming consensus either way in the discussion I remember, or could find just now. My guess is that WP:COMMONNAME would be the winning argument, so however the best sources continue to refer to the incident now would seem to be the most appropriate title. (No idea what more recent sources are using)
Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Quick and dirty, but these are a starting point towards evaluating WP:COMMONNAME
Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Re: this edit [20] five source for this statement is WP:OVERKILL. Can someone pick two or three of the best, or shall I? Lightbreather ( talk) 17:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The title is "Gun control after..." but there seems to be some intention to develop material on proposals and laws that weakened gun control - or strengthened gun rights, if you will. Therefore, perhaps the name should be "Gun laws after..."? Just wondering. Lightbreather ( talk) 17:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
"Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" has a clear start date, but what's its end date? Six months after? The end of 2013? Just wondering. Lightbreather ( talk) 18:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Lightbreather I am concerned about creating sections for each state as it may make the article very long, and relative to the topic as a whole would cause a WP:WEIGHT issue.
Each state already has an article where detailed information about that states gun laws is addressed eg Gun laws in Connecticut (Though some may need to be expanded). Having 20 odd state sections is going to be overwhelming. Frankly the top level state section is enough IMO, but if we want to go into each state, it should almost be a one or two liner list (Expanded assault weapon ban) etc. I did create the connecticut section, but I think that is an exception, as that is the location where Sandy Hook took place, so is the most directly relevant, but if they all need to be the same, I would not object to dropping it. Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
This source
has been removed twice [21] [22] now by one editor who first called it "weak" and the reporter "biased," and with the second deletion gave no edit summary, though he changed the wording around and added his preferred sources.
I don't mind adding a few additional sources if they're decent quality, but there is no good reason to remove the one I used originally. I'm off to the dentist, but when I get back, I'd like to resolve this problem, civilly. Lightbreather ( talk) 15:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Why do some editors insist on presenting material this way. From primary sources... one month before the bill was introduced... and the introduced bill did not include these two ideas from early discussion. If I kept pushing something pro-control in this fashion, I'd get railroaded.
Also, why do some editors NOT want the NRAILA source "Stop The Gun Ban"? Doesn't it support the arguments? And it's NOT a primary source?
{{
cite web}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help) Two-page summary of bill points from four weeks before it was introduced to Senate. Unpublished.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
How is the bottom version NOT an improvement over the top one? Lightbreather ( talk) 16:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.
The "youtube video" is an interview with a national news organization. The interview can be cited directly without involving Youtube if you insist.
Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Numerous more are available. Gaijin42 ( talk) 02:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
HERE -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 16:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
There are actually TWO merger proposals. The first was on 27 April 2014 that the "Connecticut," "New York," and "Maryland" subsections of this article be merged into those sections in the "Assault weapons ban" (its original name) article.
The second proposal (above, on 6 May 2014, by Scalhotrod) is that this whole article - "Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" - be merged into what is currently titled "Assault weapons legislation in the United States." Lightbreather ( talk) 05:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article had no link to this article, so I added this article as the main article under that article's Reactions > Gun control section. [23] That section and its content needs to be summarized into this article. I am copying it here for reference, and I'm working on the summary in my sandbox, which I plan to complete today.
Collapsed, preserved subsection
|
---|
Gun controlThe Sandy Hook shooting renewed debate about federal and state assault weapon and large capacity magazine bans, and about universal background checks ( criminal background checks on all gun sales). [1] [2] FederalIn his speech at the December 16 vigil, President Obama called for using "whatever power this office holds", to prevent similar tragedies in the future. [3] Nearly 200,000 people signed a petition at the Obama administration's We the People petitioning website in support of stricter gun control legislation. [4] President Obama later affirmed that he would make gun control a "central issue" at the start of his second term of office, in a speech on December 19; [5] signing 23 executive orders and proposing 12 congressional actions regarding gun control, one month after the shooting. [6] The President formed a Gun Violence Task Force to be led by Vice President Joe Biden to address the causes of gun violence in the United States. [7] [8] Senators Dianne Feinstein and Joe Lieberman called for an assault weapon ban, with Feinstein intending to introduce a ban bill on the first day of the new Congress, [9] [10] while former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot and injured in a 2011 shooting in Tucson, launched Americans for Responsible Solutions to raise money for further gun control efforts in light of the Sandy Hook shooting. [11] Fear of future restrictions on firearms led to a spike in sales of guns, ammunition, and magazines in the weeks following the shooting. [12] [13] On December 21, the National Rifle Association called on Congress to appropriate funds for the hiring of armed police officers in every American school to protect students. [14] The NRA also announced the creation of a school protection program called the National School Shield Program, [14] which would be led by former Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) administrator and United States Congressman Asa Hutchinson. [15] [16] [17] A month after the shooting, President Obama cited the incident while announcing proposals for increased gun control. His proposals included universal background checks on firearms purchases, an assault weapons ban, and limiting magazine capacity to 10 cartridges. Relatives of the victims in the shooting and survivors from other mass shootings were official guests during the announcement. [18] [19] On January 17, 2013, the Utah Sheriffs' Association sent a letter to President Obama criticizing attempts "to demonize firearms". In the letter, they suggested that they would refuse to uphold federal laws that restricted the Second Amendment rights of their constituents. [20] In reaction to anticipated restrictions on firearms, gun permit applications increased dramatically [21] [22] in a multi-state trend that followed the shooting. [23] On April 17, a bill that would have seen the restrictions on gun control, known as the Manchin-Toomey Background Checks Bill, failed to pass the U.S. Senate by six votes, with 48 Democrats and 4 Republicans voting for the bill, and 5 Democrats and 41 Republicans voting against. [24] The NRA released a statement critiquing the bill, stating that "expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools." [25] In a speech the following day, Obama called the failing of the bill "shameful" and said that Republicans and the NRA had "wilfully lied" about the proposal on background checks, while Ted Cruz, a leading opponent of the bill, stated that making a registry is the only way to make the background checks effective. [26] State of ConnecticutIn the early morning hours of April 4, 2013, the Connecticut General Assembly passed new restrictions to the state's existing assault weapons ban. Governor Dannel Malloy signed them into law later the same day. [27] The law adds more than 100 guns to the state's list of prohibited assault weapons, limits the capacity of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds, bans armor-piercing bullets, and required universal background checks (background checks on all gun purchases). [28] Gun owners challenged the law, but federal judge Alfred Covello upheld the law, ruling it constitutional and writing, "While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control." Gun owners said they would appeal. [29]
|
Sources from preserved section (above) from the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article not used in this article - yet.
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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 Wikipedia, 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. |
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 19:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Preserve for possible use:
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)-- Lightbreather ( talk) 19:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Here's a few more:
-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
In case anyone is wondering, I have kept the lead lean for now while I develop the body of the article, in keeping with WP:BETTER advice WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.
I am researching and writing just a few sentences at a time. My plan is to move this from stub- to start-level by midday on April 15.
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 20:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Sue, you seem to be blowing me off on your talk page, [1], and with your edit summaries [2] [3] so I'm moving the discussion here. Please stop! My requests to you are reasonable. What prompted this behavior? It makes me anxious.
Also, regarding the same edits. AWB 2013 can't be defunct because it never became law. It was a bill that didn't make it into law. Also, the bill wasn't only introduced by Feinstein. She was one of several legislators who introduced it. PLEASE, give me until midday tomorrow to finish what I started, and then jump in an re-write it from top to bottom if that's your wish. Lightbreather ( talk) 21:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The title of this article is troubling as it suggest that there was some type of ban on so-called assault weapons in 2013. Is a failed piece of proposed legislation now considered notable?-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I cannot believe you changed the focus, scope, and name of this article based on a brief exchange between yourself and one other pro-gun editor. How does one change it back. And then let's have a real discussion on its notability and name. Lightbreather ( talk) 20:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Was the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 notable? Yes. It passes all the tests under WP:GNG: Significant coverge (1) by reliable (2) secondary sources (3) independent of the subject (4). Further, it is NOT WP:ISNOT - particularly, it is NOT WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Lightbreather ( talk) 21:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
As for the suggestion that the topic might be considered recentism, considering that 10 years have passed since AWB 1994 expired and we're still hearing, reading, and talking about it, it's a little premature to say AWB 2013 - which we're still hearing, reading, and talking about - is 10YT. Lightbreather ( talk) 21:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
As for its name, the Equal Rights Amendment failed to pass, but we didn't title that article "The failed Equal Rights Amendment" or "Equal Rights Amendment (failed)". Prohibition was repealed, but we didn't title that article "The repealed Prohibition Amendment" or "Prohibition (repealed)". WP:UCN says that "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" is the best name for this article - about AWB 2013. Lightbreather ( talk) 21:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Now that I am looking at this...No. Not notable. In fact this article should be deleted. First of all it wasn't a BAN, it was a BILL, and it failed quite badly. I will not place a deletion tag on this, however, because last time I did that, Lightbreather pulled me into ANI. Someone else will have to do that. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Dang, guys! I take my granddaughter to a swimming lesson and lunch, and when I come home, y'all have changed the focus and scope of the article, and renamed it to boot. What about Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting "Reactions" section already links to? What about the Assault weapons ban article, which has a "State assault weapons bans" section waiting for development?
Mike's original question was whether or not the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 was notable enough for its own article. Dang, guys. Let's start with that. Lightbreather ( talk) 20:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to ignore that last remark. As for "I didn't change the focus or scope of the article," the focus and scope sre changed between when I went to lunch and when I came back. [4] The article is titled "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013." It was outlined and developed to be about that topic, which is notable enough for its own article. I only mentioned changes to state laws that were relevant to AWB 2013, but I did not include details about those laws - a few of which, yes, created or strengthened existing state laws, but many of which had nothing to do with assault weapons. Those kinds of details might go into one or more of these existing articles or article sections:
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 21:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Per consensus I have restored the version by Gaijin42. I would have restored the name-change as well, but somebody else will need to do that. LB, please get a handle on your ownership issues. Thanx. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
You are now at at least 4RR, 2 of them being major reversions, and are the only editor saying that they prefer your version. I suggest you stop unilaterally deciding what consensus is before you get blocked. Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I encourage you to start an AfD... but please be fair and cite WP policy in presenting your reasons. Lightbreather ( talk) 21:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
It might be a better idea to start an ANI due to the 4RR violation. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Lightbreather You have attributed several edits to me above. I think you are quite confused. The Executive actions and legislative proposals were added by you in these two Diffs. [8] [9] I did not in any way delete, edit, or replace these bullet points or prose you added, except to break them out into their own section. you added information about the state law changes in these edits [10] [11]Yes, I did expand that section, to add where gun control was relaxed, but that was clearly needed to provide WP:NPOV You can't just show one half of the story, especially when the ~twice (?) as many states relaxed laws as made them more strict. Gaijin42 ( talk) 03:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
At present, there is a sizable paragraph at the start of the article in the "Background" section consisting of extended comments from the NRA's executive VP from a speech he gave. It's sourced to a transcript of his direct remarks, hence in effect it is using primary sourcing to put forth his gun control arguments and commentary at considerable length. If this material is going to remain in the article, it really needs to be pared down and relocated to an appropriate location in the article to avoid the undue weight and coverage it has in it's current form and location. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 01:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The panic buyin is sourced well, but saying the ammo shortage is a result of the shooting and proposed legislation is a bit much imo. There are may causes for the shortage, and many more alleged causes for the shortage (eg massive buys by the govt) so we should not be putting this all on Newtown's shoulders. Gaijin42 ( talk) 01:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the disputed bit. It was unsourced, and my reading of s.150 doesn't agree. (p120 seems to say transfers still allowed, just have to go to a FFL first) Gaijin42 ( talk) 03:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
"Shooting" is what I do at least twice a week. It is what thousands of Americans do on hunting trips and excursions to the range. What that twisted little fuck did in Connecticut was a "massacre". I'm thinking we should rename this: "Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre".-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
We should follow whatever the main article title is. Debate between Massacre and Shooting has come up many times in that article, but if you want to propose it again, feel free. IF that article flips over, certainly no objection to flipping this one to follow. Certainly there are some good examples where massacre is used in the title (Virginia Tech, Columbine etc) but also some good counter examples (Aurora shooting) so I could see it ending up either way. It may be worth a revisit now that the period of highest emotion/debate is over. There did not appear to be an overwhelming consensus either way in the discussion I remember, or could find just now. My guess is that WP:COMMONNAME would be the winning argument, so however the best sources continue to refer to the incident now would seem to be the most appropriate title. (No idea what more recent sources are using)
Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Quick and dirty, but these are a starting point towards evaluating WP:COMMONNAME
Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Re: this edit [20] five source for this statement is WP:OVERKILL. Can someone pick two or three of the best, or shall I? Lightbreather ( talk) 17:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The title is "Gun control after..." but there seems to be some intention to develop material on proposals and laws that weakened gun control - or strengthened gun rights, if you will. Therefore, perhaps the name should be "Gun laws after..."? Just wondering. Lightbreather ( talk) 17:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
"Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" has a clear start date, but what's its end date? Six months after? The end of 2013? Just wondering. Lightbreather ( talk) 18:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Lightbreather I am concerned about creating sections for each state as it may make the article very long, and relative to the topic as a whole would cause a WP:WEIGHT issue.
Each state already has an article where detailed information about that states gun laws is addressed eg Gun laws in Connecticut (Though some may need to be expanded). Having 20 odd state sections is going to be overwhelming. Frankly the top level state section is enough IMO, but if we want to go into each state, it should almost be a one or two liner list (Expanded assault weapon ban) etc. I did create the connecticut section, but I think that is an exception, as that is the location where Sandy Hook took place, so is the most directly relevant, but if they all need to be the same, I would not object to dropping it. Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
This source
has been removed twice [21] [22] now by one editor who first called it "weak" and the reporter "biased," and with the second deletion gave no edit summary, though he changed the wording around and added his preferred sources.
I don't mind adding a few additional sources if they're decent quality, but there is no good reason to remove the one I used originally. I'm off to the dentist, but when I get back, I'd like to resolve this problem, civilly. Lightbreather ( talk) 15:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Why do some editors insist on presenting material this way. From primary sources... one month before the bill was introduced... and the introduced bill did not include these two ideas from early discussion. If I kept pushing something pro-control in this fashion, I'd get railroaded.
Also, why do some editors NOT want the NRAILA source "Stop The Gun Ban"? Doesn't it support the arguments? And it's NOT a primary source?
{{
cite web}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help) Two-page summary of bill points from four weeks before it was introduced to Senate. Unpublished.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
How is the bottom version NOT an improvement over the top one? Lightbreather ( talk) 16:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.
The "youtube video" is an interview with a national news organization. The interview can be cited directly without involving Youtube if you insist.
Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Numerous more are available. Gaijin42 ( talk) 02:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
HERE -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 16:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
There are actually TWO merger proposals. The first was on 27 April 2014 that the "Connecticut," "New York," and "Maryland" subsections of this article be merged into those sections in the "Assault weapons ban" (its original name) article.
The second proposal (above, on 6 May 2014, by Scalhotrod) is that this whole article - "Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" - be merged into what is currently titled "Assault weapons legislation in the United States." Lightbreather ( talk) 05:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article had no link to this article, so I added this article as the main article under that article's Reactions > Gun control section. [23] That section and its content needs to be summarized into this article. I am copying it here for reference, and I'm working on the summary in my sandbox, which I plan to complete today.
Collapsed, preserved subsection
|
---|
Gun controlThe Sandy Hook shooting renewed debate about federal and state assault weapon and large capacity magazine bans, and about universal background checks ( criminal background checks on all gun sales). [1] [2] FederalIn his speech at the December 16 vigil, President Obama called for using "whatever power this office holds", to prevent similar tragedies in the future. [3] Nearly 200,000 people signed a petition at the Obama administration's We the People petitioning website in support of stricter gun control legislation. [4] President Obama later affirmed that he would make gun control a "central issue" at the start of his second term of office, in a speech on December 19; [5] signing 23 executive orders and proposing 12 congressional actions regarding gun control, one month after the shooting. [6] The President formed a Gun Violence Task Force to be led by Vice President Joe Biden to address the causes of gun violence in the United States. [7] [8] Senators Dianne Feinstein and Joe Lieberman called for an assault weapon ban, with Feinstein intending to introduce a ban bill on the first day of the new Congress, [9] [10] while former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot and injured in a 2011 shooting in Tucson, launched Americans for Responsible Solutions to raise money for further gun control efforts in light of the Sandy Hook shooting. [11] Fear of future restrictions on firearms led to a spike in sales of guns, ammunition, and magazines in the weeks following the shooting. [12] [13] On December 21, the National Rifle Association called on Congress to appropriate funds for the hiring of armed police officers in every American school to protect students. [14] The NRA also announced the creation of a school protection program called the National School Shield Program, [14] which would be led by former Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) administrator and United States Congressman Asa Hutchinson. [15] [16] [17] A month after the shooting, President Obama cited the incident while announcing proposals for increased gun control. His proposals included universal background checks on firearms purchases, an assault weapons ban, and limiting magazine capacity to 10 cartridges. Relatives of the victims in the shooting and survivors from other mass shootings were official guests during the announcement. [18] [19] On January 17, 2013, the Utah Sheriffs' Association sent a letter to President Obama criticizing attempts "to demonize firearms". In the letter, they suggested that they would refuse to uphold federal laws that restricted the Second Amendment rights of their constituents. [20] In reaction to anticipated restrictions on firearms, gun permit applications increased dramatically [21] [22] in a multi-state trend that followed the shooting. [23] On April 17, a bill that would have seen the restrictions on gun control, known as the Manchin-Toomey Background Checks Bill, failed to pass the U.S. Senate by six votes, with 48 Democrats and 4 Republicans voting for the bill, and 5 Democrats and 41 Republicans voting against. [24] The NRA released a statement critiquing the bill, stating that "expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools." [25] In a speech the following day, Obama called the failing of the bill "shameful" and said that Republicans and the NRA had "wilfully lied" about the proposal on background checks, while Ted Cruz, a leading opponent of the bill, stated that making a registry is the only way to make the background checks effective. [26] State of ConnecticutIn the early morning hours of April 4, 2013, the Connecticut General Assembly passed new restrictions to the state's existing assault weapons ban. Governor Dannel Malloy signed them into law later the same day. [27] The law adds more than 100 guns to the state's list of prohibited assault weapons, limits the capacity of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds, bans armor-piercing bullets, and required universal background checks (background checks on all gun purchases). [28] Gun owners challenged the law, but federal judge Alfred Covello upheld the law, ruling it constitutional and writing, "While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control." Gun owners said they would appeal. [29]
|
Sources from preserved section (above) from the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article not used in this article - yet.
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)