This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

@ Faceless Enemy and Mudwater: Between the two of you, how many discussions do you have open right now re the title of this article? Lightbreather ( talk) 04:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reply I have about a half. I don't consider it the proposed rename to be a discussion of just the title - it's about the topic of the article as well. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 04:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• I believe there are currently two sections devoted to renaming the article -- "RFC to rename article" and "Requested move 29 January 2015". — Mudwater ^{( Talk)} 04:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Lightbreather, there's three. You split "RFC to rename article" out of the ""Gun show loophole": NPOV article title" section, on the basis that an RFC should start a new section. So, those two plus the new requested move. — Mudwater ^{( Talk)} 04:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a general question. Do we really need three different talk sections about this one topic? - Respectfully - Darknipples ( talk) 04:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears as though one budded off of the other in good faith, and I don't consider mine to be strictly about the title - it's about a refocus as well. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 04:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This is such a mess that I'm going to create a timeline here for my own help, but also to help anyone who comes along trying to understand it! Should take me about 30 minutes. Lightbreather ( talk) 13:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

History of Gun show loophole article

• 7 February 2006 Stubby article Gun show loophole was created.
• 6 December 2006 It was "merged" into Gun shows (now Gun shows in the United States) which was also a stub. This version was the result.
• 11 May 2014 Gun show loophole was in a section called Controversies in Gun shows in the United States. The only "controversy" in the section was the gun show loophole, and the word "loophole" appeared in the section nine times.
• 25 June 2014 After about six weeks of off-and-on again work by Darknipples and four other editors the Controversies section had a brief opening paragraph, and a five-paragraph subsection headed "Gun show loophole."
• 25 June 2014 After a lengthy discussion about splitting Gun show loophole into its own article - concluding with the discovery that it had started out as its own article - I split it back out into its own article.
• 1-8 August 2014 After discussing with two other editors Darknipples agreed to adding "controversy" to the end of the article title. (Two other editors are now topic banned.)
• 2 December 2014 Article renamed with "controversy" on the end (by now topic-banned editor).
• 8 January 2015 In addition to having "controversy" on the end of its title, the article had four main sections - three with "controversy" or "controversies" in the header!

Recent discussions on two pages (plus notice added to Universal background checks)

• 8 January 2015 Talk page discussion Got controversy? was started.
• 16 January 2015 Consensus was reached to restore original article name in discussion POV title 2.
• 26 January 2015 Original article name was restored.
• 13:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC) "Gun show loophole": NPOV article title started here on the GSL talk page.
• 23:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC) After 10 hours and no consensus at "'Gun show loophole': NPOV article title" discussion and same arguments as previous discussions, Gun show loophole was started at WP:NPOVN.
• 00:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC) One (1) hour after discussion started at WP:NPOVN, originator of "'Gun show loophole': NPOV article title" discussion added an RFC template to the top of it.
• 01:15 28 January 2015 (UTC) RFC was moved to its own section: RFC to rename article.
• 19:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Editors notified that Universal background check (UBC) was split from National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
• 01:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Editor proposes in UBC split notification that it (UBC) should be merged into Gun show loophole (GSL) to create a new article titled "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States".
• 03:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC) This became subsection Merge Universal background check into this article - Gun show loophole?
• 03:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC) An editor requested that Gun show loophole be renamed and moved to Background checks for firearm sales in the United States.

@ Darknipples, Faceless Enemy, and Mudwater: Sorry if I'm missing anyone currently active editing this page. I would like to propose that no more requests be opened re this article or the Universal background checks article. There are so many right now that I don't know how we can take action on any of them until things settle down. I am going to spend some time today improving the UBC article, focusing on 2010 and after, since that's when the debate started to shift away from the gun show loophole and onto UBCs. I suggest that if anything is added here, that it be from before 2010, when gun shows were central to the debate. Lightbreather ( talk) 15:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed - There seemed to be quite a few TP sections discussing relatively similar topics that do not focus on improving the content of the article. It will be much easier for everyone to discuss improving the article if we can make navigating the TP easier. Darknipples ( talk) 00:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed - For now, I'm going to create the full "background checks for firearm sales" article, with links to the other two. Let's let the current renaming discussions play out, and, if no consensus is reached, open a new discussion a week or so from now when some of the interim issues have been ironed out? Faceless Enemy ( talk) 03:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• @ Faceless Enemy: I highly advise you to hold off on that until these two articles' fates are decided. You have proposed merging them into one article. Those proposals are not yet decided. To go ahead and do what you prefer anyway would be to create a WP:CONTENTFORK. Lightbreather ( talk) 04:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Miguel, can you improve this edit? [1]

1. It removed material sourced to the Jackson Free Press - and removed the source - and replaced it with different material sourced to " http://topgunsmithingschoolsonline.com/" - a commercial site. However, the document at that site is a document already cited earlier (ref name ref name=DOJ1999January) in the article at the ATF web site "Gun Shows: Brady Checks and Crime Gun Traces" (PDF). atf.gov. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). January 1999. Retrieved June 27, 2014. {{ cite web}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= ( help)
2. Also, how about a page number, since it's a 42 page document? Thanks. Lightbreather ( talk) 21:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Never mind... I found it. Lightbreather ( talk) 21:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

We can discuss WP:Weight and WP:Notability etc... here, @ Miguel Escopeta: - Darknipples ( talk) 20:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• It was a small shooting. Subsequently, no laws were changed at either the Federal or state level, that resulted from this shooting. Additionally, the cites included with the statement you included as being part of the "publicized" shooting includes the statement that gun control advocates misrepresented this case in the media. So, why should we continue to misrepresent this case in Wikipedia's voice, with an inaccurate summary, that also go against what the cites that you inserted support? This looks suspiciously like a POV push, not a factual statement of fact, that you inserted. Please explain why this should be misrepresented here, in Wikipedia's voice. Miguel Escopeta ( talk) 20:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• Multiple shootings lead up to the introduction and passage of the assault weapons ban of 1994, and it's the same here about what reignited the gun show loophole debate. The question is how much weight to put on the individual shootings. The straw that broke the camel's back was Newtown, but how many were there that year? Azana. Aurora. Wisconsin Sikh temple. Sandy Hook. Lightbreather ( talk) 20:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying we need to include these in the article, but they might be useful while we work:

• "U.S. mass shootings in 2012". Washington Post. December 14, 2012. Retrieved February 1, 2015.
• Zornick, George (December 14, 2012). "Sixteen US Mass Shootings Happened in 2012, Leaving at Least 88 Dead". The Nation. Retrieved February 1, 2015.
• Dahl, Julia (December 18, 2012). "Mass Shootings in 2012: Crimesider reports on this year's public shootings". CBS Interactive. Retrieved February 1, 2015.

-- Lightbreather ( talk) 20:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reply - I am perfectly fine with leaving it in this form @ Miguel Escopeta:...

"In October 2012, the gun show loophole was cited by the news media after the 2012 Azana Spa shootings in Wisconsin. The shooter purchased a handgun through a private sale despite a restraining order that prohibited him from possessing a firearm."

No POV push was intended and I am grateful for your edits in this regard. If you still wish to remove it completely, I am willing to discuss further soon, when I have more time. -respectfully- Darknipples ( talk) 21:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't think that a POV push was intentional on your part. But, there was a POV push in the media. Hence, I think that instead of "cited", the word "exploited" might be a better word here, as the cites make it very clear that there was intentional misrepresentation by gun control advocates in overplaying this admittedly minor shooting. We are not presenting this in a neutral accordance with what the cites currently say, by using "cited". "Cited" is a better choice than "publicized", though. However, there does seem to be an undue emphasis put on this minor shooting in this article. For that reason, I advocate removing this shooting completely, especially with the cites establishing that this minor shooting was misrepresented intentionally in the media to push a gun control POV in the media. Miguel Escopeta ( talk) 21:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, neither "Aurora" or "Newtown" had anything to do with the gun show loophole. The guns for these were acquired legally, with background checks. They were not even bought at gun shows. Mentioning these shootings here appears to be a total synthesis problem. As for "Azana", it was a relatively minor shooting that was exploited by the media to advocate pushing for universal background checks. All three of these appear undue here, for reasons of non-relevance and by virtue of intentional misrepresentation in the media, as noted in the cites. I think this whole paragraph needs to go away. Miguel Escopeta ( talk) 21:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Lightbreather and Miguel Escopeta: I think an easier fix would be to include cites that Miguel is talking about. Miguel, do you have any RS references regarding "the exploitation of shootings by the media" that specifically reference GSL either in the title or in context? I think this will give it the WP:Balance you are looking for. Darknipples ( talk) 22:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I have made a number of edits that I think fix the problem, but I agree that if Miguel has some good RS that talks about media exploitation, then that would be a good thing to include. Lightbreather ( talk) 22:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

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

• Mayo, Michael (May 22, 2013). "Can Fort Lauderdale compel background checks at gun show?". Sun Sentinel. Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
• Moore, Tina (July 31, 2013). "Guns from out-of-state make up the grand majority of city crimes, Bloomberg attempts to push back". NY Daily News.
• Wallstin, Brian (February 11, 2014). "News Primer: Gun Bills At The Statehouse". New Hampshire Public Radio.
• "Facebook, Instagram crack down on gun sales on social networks". Reuters. March 5, 2014.
• Rosenfeld, Steven (June 26, 2014). "9 signs America's gun obsession is getting worse". Salon Media Group.
• "Obama to seek expanded checks on gun buyers, end of private-sale loophole". Plain Dealer Publishing. Associated Press. January 16, 2013.
• Williams, Damon C. (October 2, 2014). "Gun background check amendment shot down". Philadelphia Tribune.
• Taylor, Marisa (December 22, 2014). "Gun law loophole could have provided Brinsley's murder weapon, say experts". Al Jazeera America.
• Dobbs, Taylor (January 16, 2015). "Gun Rights Group Slams Proposed Legislation". Vermont Public Radio.

-- Lightbreather ( talk) 23:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: If we change the name to "private sale loophole" then the page should absolutely be merged with the UBC article. In fact I'd say that any references to it belong on that page, not here. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 03:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Lightbreather: I'm a bit confused by this section, although, I realize you have added "Some gun control advocates call this the 'private sale loophole.'" to the article. It has also been referred to as the 'Brady Loophole', the 'Hinkley Loophole', the 'Gun Law Loophole', and the 'Gun Control Loophole'. I created a talk section entitled GSL disambiguation in this regard, but I'm afraid it is a bit of a mess with irrelevant citations. I could clean it up for you if you'd like to merge these sections? My only worry is that this is somehow WP:Synth. Could you clarify the rules on this, since you are more familiar with them? Darknipples ( talk) 20:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I only meant for it to be a section to hold some sources related to the shift that started (about 2008, after Virginia Tech) to referring less to the gun show loophole and more to the private sale loophole. This is shown in the source that was until recently in the lead, but misrepresented there.

How the source was used in the lead:

The use of the word 'loophole' implies that federal regulations allow otherwise prohibited retail purchases ('primary market sales') of firearms at gun shows, but this is false; no additional sales are permitted at gun shows than in any other location. ^[1]: 874

How it is now used (quoted) near the end of the "Background" section:

"Criticisms of the 'gun show loophole' imply that federal regulations allow otherwise prohibited retail purchases ('primary market sales') of firearms at gun shows. This implication is false. The real criticism is leveled at secondary market sales by private citizens." ^[1]: 874

-- Lightbreather ( talk) 20:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I might add that this shift from "gun show" loophole to "private sale" loophole went hand-in-hand with talk of "universal" background checks rather than just background checks. That's why I'm trying to take it slow about renaming and merging articles until we've sorted out the sources better. Lightbreather ( talk) 20:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Preserving current lead here to recraft after article body is polished.

Gun show loophole is a term referring to private sellers at gun shows not being required to perform a background check on private buyers. The practice is consistent with a longstanding practice of private commerce in the United States. ^{[1] [2]: 11  [3]} Private sellers are however forbidden under federal law from selling firearms or ammunition to persons they know or have reason to believe are felons or are otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms. ^[4] The use of the word 'loophole' implies that federal regulations allow otherwise prohibited retail purchases ('primary market sales') of firearms at gun shows, but this is false; no additional sales are permitted at gun shows than in any other location. ^[5]

Seven states have passed laws requiring all gun sales to go through a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder before being transferred; in most states, however, only guns sold through dealers are required to go through an FFL holder before being transferred. Private individuals in all states are not permitted under Federal Law to perform background checks; only Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders are permitted to run background checks.

-- Lightbreather ( talk) 17:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not fundamentally opposed to this approach. However, if this goes on for too long (more than a couple of days), I would suggest we put this back into the article, while all the details are being worked. Miguel Escopeta ( talk) 22:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Lightbreather ( talk) 22:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the lede stored above, with the additional work added to the first sentence since it was summarized above. If we need to remove the lede again, OK, but we should be able to work it there if there are any issues, at this point, I think. Miguel Escopeta ( talk) 16:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Miguel Escopeta and Lightbreather: Sorry I haven't had much time to look at this section before, but the lead is really long as it is. Which citation is this sentence from, and is it referring to GSL or "gun commerce"?

"The practice is consistent with a longstanding practice of private commerce in the United States."

-- Darknipples ( talk) 19:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea, and that's part of why I removed it before. Lightbreather ( talk) 19:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Miguel Escopeta: Please help us find the section that states "The use of the word 'loophole' implies that federal regulations allow otherwise prohibited retail purchases ('primary market sales') of firearms at gun shows, but this is false; no additional sales are permitted at gun shows than in any other location." within it's referred citation Imagining Gun Control in America: Understanding the Remainder Problem - Darknipples ( talk) 20:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It's mostly on p. 874. quote = "Criticisms of the "gun show loophole" imply that federal regulations allow otherwise prohibited retail purchases ("primary market sales") of firearms at gun shows. This implication is false. But, it is additionally explained further in several footnotes, too. Miguel Escopeta ( talk) 20:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @ Miguel Escopeta:. We need a correction, however, in regard to this line at the end that reads "but this is false, no additional sales are permitted at gun shows than in any other location" According to the citation, it says "This implication is false. The real criticism is leveled at secondary market sales by private citizens." Agreed? Darknipples ( talk) 20:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. No problem. Miguel Escopeta ( talk) 21:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll point out that this "Criticisms" comment is quoted in its entirety near the end of the "Background" section. Lightbreather ( talk) 22:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead section of the article contains this statement: "Seventeen states require gun sales by private sellers to go through a background check via a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder before transfer." No, they don't, and I raised this same point several weeks ago, in the #Background checks section above. There are many ways to require background checks, at gun shows or for other private sales, and requiring sales to go through an FFL is only one of them. This reference, from later in the article, says "Hatalsky noted that 17 states have closed the gun-show loophole in their states...", meaning that 17 states require some form of background checks, but not necessarily going through an FFL. And this page from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence website, which is also cited in the article, says "Seventeen states and D.C. have extended the background check requirement beyond federal law to at least some private sales." It gives quite a bit of detail on this, that I bet was quite accurate when it was published in August 2013, including this: "In California, Colorado, Delaware, and New York all firearm transfers must be processed through licensed dealers, who must conduct background checks on prospective firearm purchasers." That's four states, not seventeen. Meanwhile, this article talk page has been edited well over 600 times in the last month alone. I did a word count, using Microsoft Word, and there are now more than 27,000 words of discussion on this page, not counting the archived threads. What is wrong with this picture? — Mudwater ^{( Talk)} 01:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Why don't you change it then? I only changed it because it said something about 7 states, rather than 17. Honestly, I'm so tired right now I can hardly see straight. I should go make dinner. Lightbreather ( talk) 01:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

At the moment I'm not convinced that editing this article, or discussing it any further, would be an effective use of my time. Maybe I'll change my mind about that, but I suggest that you and other editors do what you think is best, without waiting for me. — Mudwater ^{( Talk)} 01:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Mudwater - Do you still have the citation for this..? "As of August 2013, 17 U.S. states require background checks at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island. Four require background checks on all handgun purchases at gun shows: Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Six require individuals to obtain a permit that involves a background check to purchase handguns: Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, and North Carolina." Darknipples ( talk) 15:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

When you ask if I "still" have the citation for that, it suggests that I used to have the citation, and I'm not sure why you'd think that. But you're bringing up a good point. I don't see how the three current citations at the end of that paragraph directly support that statement. So that should be reworked also, to make sure it's accurate -- I don't know if it is or not, offhand -- and to have citations that directly support whatever the revised text ends up being. "P.S." The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence is a pro-gun-control group and so they're biased in that direction, but in my opinion they're a really good source of factual information on gun laws. So I do think their page on "Universal Background Checks & the Private Sale Loophole Policy Summary", cited elsewhere in the article, is a good source for this information, especially the section on state law. Although it's already outdated: Since January 1, 2014, Illinois has required point-of-sale background checks for all private sales, and not just those at gun shows (and without going through an FFL!). — Mudwater ^{( Talk)} 00:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This was in the lead but mentioned no-where else in article. What law does it come from? That is, when was it enacted? Does anyone know?

I would like to insert into the body of the article in the appropriate chronology, and then, maybe, restore it to the lead if it's due there.

Private sellers are however forbidden under federal law from selling firearms or ammunition to persons they know or have reason to believe are felons or are otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms. ^[1]

-- Lightbreather ( talk) 15:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This was originally written into the GCA, and then expanded upon in FOPA to read as it does now. Darknipples ( talk) 19:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I have held off on doing this, but I have added a "Reception" section, as it now seems like the right time to do it.

I have been working on the principle of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and I have been developing the body chronologically to hold off on the usual jockeying for position within the article and the lead.

This paragraph was added to the lead, although the facts it states and the points it makes are not in the body, or not said explicitly in the body. Also, it's unclear if the whole of it is sourced to the one citation given - Wintemute's 2013 report.

Those licensed by the government to deal in firearms, Federal Firearm License holders (FFLs), are required to conduct background checks on individuals seeking to obtain firearms from them, by purchase or exchange. Individuals that do not meet the statutory test of being “engaged in the business”, are not required to conduct such checks. For those opposed to further federal regulation of firearms, it is the continuance of legal commerce under the status quo (i.e., non-interference by the government into private property transfers). To others, it is an incongruity in federal firearm regulations. Those seeking to increase federal regulation of firearms often view the absence of background checks at gun-shows between non-licensed/private persons as a “loophole”. Others say that there is no loophole in the law that is being exploited. ^[1]: 104

-- Lightbreather ( talk) 15:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

After removing misstated [2] and duplicated [3] [4] material, and copyediting what was left, this is what remains:

For gun control opponents there is no "loophole," but the continuance of legal commerce under the status quo (i.e., non-interference by the government into private property transfers). To others, it is an incongruity in federal firearm regulations. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/156521.pdf (page 36 - Congressional Research Service:Gun Control Legislation) -- Darknipples ( talk) 19:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

-- Lightbreather ( talk) 15:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: I've found a source for the first sentence, copyedited. Since it's so small now, I'm going to move it toward the end of the "Early efforts" section, which already makes a brief mention of the Commerce Clause. Lightbreather ( talk) 16:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I have to leave soon to take my granddaughter to an appointment, but I want to say that this sentence is problematic.

Similarly, the Sandy Hook shooter acquired his guns by stealing them from his mother whom he murdered after not wishing to wait 14 days for a background check to purchase a rifle; no gun show connection or Internet connection existed. ^[1]

This is sourced to a story the day after the shooting, and I believe later reports cleared up some errors. Lightbreather ( talk) 21:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with LB. Particularly in regard to this text "no gun show connection or Internet connection existed". This may be implied, but not explicitly inferred by this citation. Also, I do not see the relevance in mentioning that he "murdered his mother".

The actual quote from the citation reads as...

"Adam Lanza, the suspect in the suburban Connecticut elementary school shooting rampage, tried to purchase a "long gun" rifle from a local shop but was turned away because he did not want to wait for the required 14-day background check, law enforcement sources said Saturday."

@ Miguel Escopeta: Might I suggest this as a compromise?

"Similarly, the Sandy Hook shooter did not acquire his weapons from a gun show. They were stolen from a relative after attempting to purchase them from an FFL that required a 14 day waiting period." Darknipples ( talk) 22:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

What we need is a better source, and then re-write the sentence. This source was the day after the shooting. In fact, it was later revealed that he did not "steal" the guns. I'm still out with gd so I can't look right now. Lightbreather ( talk) 22:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The shooting article doesn't mention anything being stolen. The final report, page 36, says the weapons were legally purchased by the mother, though that page doesn't say where. There must be a better source than these two. Lightbreather ( talk) 22:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly a better source: [5] . Take a look. Or, we could always go back to the Breitbart source.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gun_show_loophole&diff=645794581&oldid=645793167] It is as good, or more of a RS, than many sources that are used on Wikipedia. I looked, and Breitbart has even been an acceptable source in many other articles on WP. Not sure why it is not acceptable here. Perhaps it is. Miguel Escopeta ( talk) 23:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Found a couple that work. Lightbreather ( talk) 01:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Should this page be included in Category:Dysphemisms? I added it in, but @ Lightbreather: removed it, stating that: "[a term] that has been in the title of numerous federal and local bills and laws is not a dysphemism." I disagree.

• " Loophole" is inherently loaded; it implies "an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system."
• " Loophole" is in Category:Abuse_of_the_legal_system.
• The term was apparently coined by the Clinton administration in an effort to promote additional gun control, not as a neutral descriptor.
• The appearance of a term in bills or law does not make it less of a dysphemism; see "gas guzzler" in federal law, "junk food" in a bill, "ecoterrorism" in the title of a bill, "junk science" in a bill. Just because a politician uses a term does not mean it is not a dysphemism (see also: " death panel").

For all of the above reasons, I feel that the term "gun show loophole" belongs in Category:Dysphemisms. Thoughts? Faceless Enemy ( talk) 17:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Faceless Enemy: 3 questions...

(1 & 2) You stated that "The term was apparently coined by the Clinton administration". Do you have the citation, and would you be interested in adding it to the article with a balancing citation from the other side of the issue?

(3) How would this help the article?

Respectfully -- Darknipples ( talk) 21:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reply: (1 & 2) I'm referring to this source in the article. That's the earliest mention of the issue as "loophole" that I can find - the idea seems to have originated in a 1996 VPC study. (3) Categories help readers to find, and navigate around, a subject area, to see pages sorted by title, and to thus find article relationships. So it doesn't necessarily help this article, but adding proper categories helps to improve the encyclopedia as a whole. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 00:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Dysphemisms says it's for intentionally harsh words or expressions. "Loophole" isn't harsh. In fact, several words/expressions on that list don't look like they belong there, while some - like "feminazi" - most certainly do! But not "gun show loophole." Lightbreather ( talk) 00:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reply: "Loophole" is certainly pejorative. For example, a more neutral and strictly factual term would be "private sale exemption." I'm not sure I've ever seen "loophole" used in a non-pejorative way. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 00:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• The only source that has been given that it's a pejorative is a Daily Kos blogger named "aguadito." (I brought this up in a previous discussion.) No source has been given that it's a dysphemism. Lightbreather ( talk) 01:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• I feel Loophole" is inherently negative. See:

• "It's a loaded, partisan word, one that implies wrongdoing and scandal where none exists, and inserting it into a political argument gives the inserter the upper hand. When loophole creeps into news stories, they start to read like editorials."
• "When used by newspaper reporters and politicians, the term 'tax loophole' is always a pejorative"
• "The term 'loophole' has been used throughout the heated debate regarding this section. Describing the provision as an undemocratic loophole is a good example of the rhetoric provoked by this issue. The term is as pejorative as it is inaccurate."
• "She explains that she tries to avoid calling these provisions "loopholes" because that word has a pejorative connotation"

etc. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 02:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• @ Lightbreather: any objection to re-adding the category? Faceless Enemy ( talk) 03:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I object. There is no preponderance of RS that says "gun show loophole" is a dysphemism or supports that it is. Lightbreather ( talk) 04:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reply - @ Faceless Enemy: You have already created WP:NPOV discussion sections on the talk page, and to continue creating TP sections in this vein may be considered distracting by editors that are interested in improving the the article, itself. With regard to your citation, it is rather lengthy and I would ask that you point out the section that states "The term was coined by the Clinton administration" and let us know if you would like to introduce it into the article (with a WP:Balance citation, of course). - Respectfully - Darknipples ( talk) 03:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reply @ Darknipples:, I am discussing a specific improvement to the article. I made it in good faith, it was reverted in good faith, and now I am discussing it in good faith. I don't know where else I would discuss it other than in a new TP section. As to the Clinton thing, that's just the earliest mention of the issue as "loophole" that I can find. I am continuing to look, of course, and I am about to add the VPC study into the early history of the article. This publication by the VPC in early 2001 claims that the 1996 publication was "the first to analyze the origin and effect of what is now known as the 'gun show loophole.'" The term therefore appears to have been coined some time between 1996 (the 1996 publication makes only one, narrow mention of a "loophole" - in reference to one line of the 1986 FOPA) and 2001, when it appears to be widespread among gun-control advocates. The 1998 Clinton source is prominently featured in the article right now, and seems to be a likely source for the term. However, until I confirm that with RS I will not add it to the article. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 18:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Find some sources calling it a "Dysphemism". Felsic ( talk) 19:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Felsic: please see list of links above. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 20:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If the sources don't mention the "gun show loophole" then they aren't about the gun show loophole. Felsic ( talk) 15:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Related to the discussion below about whether or not the coined-in-2009 "modern sporting rifle" is a neologism: If it is, we ought to create a Category:American political euphemisms and add MSR to that, too... But for peace's sake, let's not and get on with the more substantive problems related to this article. Lightbreather ( talk) 21:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

A majority of the linked examples given by Faceless Enemy seem to refer to tax laws. I didn't see any specifically citing GSL. I still think it meets the regulations (or loopholes ;-) under WP:POVNAMING. - Darknipples ( talk) 23:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Should this page be included in Category:American political neologisms? I added it in, but @ Lightbreather: removed it, stating that "a term that has been in popular use for at least 15 years is not a neologism." The terms " Evil empire" (1983), " Bradley effect", (1983) " Soccer mom" (1996), and " Red states and blue states" (2000) are all in this category, despite having been in popular use for many years. There are more here. Many have been in popular usage for much longer than "gun show loophole." I don't see any usage of "gun show loophole" in Google before 1994 or so, so I feel it meets the definition of "neologism" - the earliest mention I can find is by the Clinton source in 1998. It was invented in the context of American politics, so it is an American political neologism. Thoughts? Faceless Enemy ( talk) 17:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Faceless Enemy: - I'm not sure what a neologism is, but how does this improve the article? - Respectfully - Darknipples ( talk) 21:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

After looking at the the article and the TP, it seems that many of the examples are old and out of date. Darknipples ( talk) 22:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:American political neologisms? It's simple, really, IMO. A neologism is a newly coined word or expression. Rather than add "gun show loophole" to this category, I think it would be better to remove the articles that are no longer neologisms. Mercy! Just about every word/term starts out in life as a neologism, but after scads of people have been using them for years... they aren't really neologisms any more. Lightbreather ( talk) 00:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Darknipples: & @ Lightbreather:, I don't see any definitions of neologism that include the requirement "that may be in the process of entering common use, but that has not yet been accepted into mainstream language" outside of the Wikipedia definition. (I am trying to get ahold of the sources the article cites). See definitions from Dictionary.com Merriam-Webster, and the free dictionary. Either way, "gun show loophole" has not entered mainstream language. Compare to "soccer mom" it has 282K hits vs. 19.1M hits on Google. I have not seen it used outside of the confines of the gun control debate in the U.S. I also don't see a clear-cut age requirement - 20 years is not that much in the history of a language. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 00:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reply With regard to this statement, "Either way, "gun show loophole" has not entered mainstream language." and with all due respect @ Faceless Enemy:, does this seem in line with WP:Good faith policies? Darknipples ( talk) 01:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reply @ Darknipples: I'm not sure I understand the question. By "either way" I meant "whether 'that may be in the process of entering common use, but that has not yet been accepted into mainstream language' is part of the definition of 'neologism' or not." If that doesn't answer your question, would you please re-phrase it? Faceless Enemy ( talk) 01:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reply @ Faceless Enemy: Since it is only a "may be" I am opposed at this point. I would look into it, but I prefer to put my efforts towards improving this article, and thereby improving the the whole of Wikipedia. If you find a more compelling argument in this matter, please add it to this talk section. Respectfully -- Darknipples ( talk) 03:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reply The "may be" was irrelevant to the point I was getting at. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 06:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reply @ Faceless Enemy: Okay. Darknipples ( talk) 07:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Find some sources calling it a "neologism". Felsic ( talk) 19:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Felsic: Here you go. https://www.vpc.org/studies/gunloop.htm. 1996 source did not call it GSL, 2001 source does. Term was therefore coined between those two dates. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 20:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If the sources don't mention the "gun show loophole" then they aren't about the gun show loophole. Felsic ( talk) 15:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think what Felsic is asking is for a source that calls it a neologism. Let's say for arguments sake that it was "coined" in 2000. That was 15 years ago. How are you deciding that's a neologism? Is that something as editors that we should be deciding, without a source calling it a neologism outright?. Modern sporting rifle was coined in 2009. Unless a source says it's one, can we call it a neologism? Lightbreather ( talk) 20:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I would absolutely agree that MSR is a neologism. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 20:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I would, too, but for peace on the project, I don't. I think not pushing this gun-show-loophole-is-a-neologism thing would help to keep the peace, too. Lightbreather ( talk) 20:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

At best it may be an "old neologism". Sorry for the oxymoron. Darknipples ( talk) 22:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Folks, we seem to be splitting hairs on this. Neologism is simply a "newly coined word in the process of entering common use, but that has not yet been accepted into mainstream language". Relative to language and vocabulary there is not clear definition of how long something can be considered "new" or how long it should take for it to enter mainstream language. Given that we have words that have been in use for several centuries, relative to the entire English Lexicon, GSL is still relatively "new".

"Gun show loophole" IS clearly a neologism (by definition and we're allowed as Editors to apply definitions) that has not gained mainstream acceptance and may not ever since it does not deal with a mainstream subject. Nothing we do or say can change that. -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Faceless Enemy and Lightbreather: In regard to FE's recent dif, "modern" firearm commerce has operated under the FOPA version of the GCA since 1986. GCA was passed in 1968. Not to mention the NEJM is "among the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals and the oldest continuously published one"- According to the NYT. Why would this be at issue? Darknipples ( talk) 06:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Reply: And what about Brady (1993) and the PLCAA (2005)? GCA '68 is by far the most important one since the FFA '38 - everything else since then has been a tweak. Some pretty big tweaks, sure, but tweaks. As to NEJM, they're just not the best source for that particular statement. It's like citing Guns & Ammo for information on cardiac surgeries. Sure, they might be right. But they're not the best source. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 12:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as the PLCAA, I'm somewhat unfamiliar with that, and therefore not sure what the relevance is in regard to GSL at the moment, but I definitely welcome adding anything with WP:Weight to improve the article. Notable citations linking GSL and Brady are welcome as well, of course. Darknipples ( talk) 15:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

With regard to your "Guns & Ammo" analogy, I disagree. You should be aware, in case you aren't already, some of the editors have been taking issue with citing "primary sources", even though they provide a good majority of that kind of information. NEJM seems like a decent enough compromise to me. Darknipples ( talk) 15:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Faceless enemy is right that fan magazines like "Guns & Ammo" are lousy sources. I hope he ain't trying to say that they're better than academic journals. Felsic ( talk) 20:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I prefer to be referred to as "they". And no, Guns & Ammo was a poor example. A better example would be citing the American Journal of Political Science for technical details about washing machines. Is AJPS a reliable source? Yep. Is it well-respected? Yep. Is it probably correct? Still yep. Is it the best source for comparing washing machine spin cycles? Probably not. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 03:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Faceless Enemy: In regard to my recent diff, maybe I forgot to clarify that in case your removal of that text wasn't just an accident, the reason it is correct in that context is because the sentence begins with "Hence", as in moving forward. That paragraph was meant to reflect more than just the year 1986, of course. Respectfully Darknipples ( talk) 10:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't an accident. I was trying to convey that background checks weren't even a thing yet in 1986, and, therefore, FOPA did not change anything in regards to BGCs. @ Darknipples:, do you think that's even a point worth making? Got any better ideas for how to phrase it? Faceless Enemy ( talk) 12:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

GSL was about the absence of background checks at gun shows, so yes, FOPA's effects on how private and licensed sellers operate is an essential component to GSL. I don't really have an issue with the current phrasing, but I will think about how we might make it more "precise" for you. Darknipples ( talk) 19:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

What if...

What if we took out the comments from the opposing sides altogether? What I'm talking about is the forth paragraph where we have a quote from the VPC and the NRA. We still have plenty of information about the topic, but it seems that little is gained with these statements. For the most part, everything else is quite factual and neutral in the article. -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I could go either way. Faceless Enemy originally added it because there was a claim by VPC to a study that first identified GSL. We balanced it out with the Kopel quote and here we are. VPC's claim is not that notable in my opinion, but I agree that if we remove it, we should remove the Kopel quote to maintain balance. Darknipples ( talk) 21:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If a quote from an NRA person was added for the purpose of adding/keeping the VPC quote, that's not neutral or balance, it's manipulation of the article content. The WP:NPOV policy has a section about " giving equal weight" and " False balance". Yes, the whole paragraph should be removed. -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

My point was just that it wasn't my idea. I don't really see those cites as particularly essential or notable, but I try to pick my battles, so to speak. As far as "manipulation", I'd be careful in pointing that particular finger at anyone. I believe those edits were made in good faith. Determining balance has been a difficult issue with this article, as I'm fairly certain you're aware. You could try moving it to a more appropriate section first, or just remove it with a more "diplomatic" explanation in the diff, something other than "manipulation"? If we keep things civil we can improve the article more quickly and effectively. Respectfully Darknipples ( talk) 00:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It was added because I believed it was a notable piece of background information - to the best of my knowledge (and at least according to the VPC) it's the first time mainstream gun control groups focused on the issue of background checks and private sales at gun shows. When the "background" section was started, it was very different. At the time I added the VPC article it belonged there. Now I think it should probably be moved - the "background" section is now more about the legal background, rather than either side's statements. I'm going to go ahead and move it now. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 00:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Except for something about what the VPC said in 1996, this article does not mention what any gun control advocates think about the loophole.

Gun rights are well-represented here, perhaps over-represented when you consider that H. Sterling Burnett's field is environmental policy, and Nicholas J. Johnson is and Brian Anse Patrick are hardly a gun rights icons. Gun rights POVs are represented here by: Dave Kopel, the NRA (Wayne LaPierre and Chris W. Cox), H. Sterling Burnett, Mark A. Keefe, and Brian Anse Patrick. (Seriously, shouldn't Burnett go? If not, we ought to include the opinion of a gun control advocate who isn't a gun control expert.) Lightbreather ( talk) 15:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to create a Reception section, for pro- and con- POVs. I've done so a couple of times now, but it was small enough that I incorporated the material into the body of the article. Lightbreather ( talk) 15:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added a quote from the Brady Campaign and removed the bits sourced to the environmental policies expert and the associate professor of communications' book about concealed carry. I am going to look for at least one more opinion source from a gun control advocate or gun control advocacy group. I think that will balance the advocates' opinions in the article. Lightbreather ( talk) 17:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Miguel Escopeta thinks this sentence belongs in the article:

An associate professor of communications wrote that "gun show loophole" is a euphemism for the disarmament of private citizens. ^[1]

As it says, the author is an associate professor of communications, and the book is about concealed carry. The disarmament opinion of this person does not reflect the opinions presented by any preponderance of reliable, verifiable, respected gun rights advocate or advocacy group sources.

It is immediately preceded by this sentence, sourced to the NRA's Chris W. Cox:

The NRA said that gun control supporters' objectives are to reduce gun sales and register guns. ^[2]

That supports the leads claim that gun rights advocates think closing the gun show loophole will require registration, which is a much more popular claim among the gun lobby.

-- Lightbreather ( talk) 17:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The fear of gun registration and eventual confiscation is implicit with the gun show loophole. There are numerous reliable sources available for this, if we need to add them. Here's one source. ^[3] More RS are available, too. Such as here. ^[4] It is a concern that is held by many. We should include this viewpoint, with appropriate RS, of course. Including this viewpoint, with RS, would go a long ways toward addressing the POV concerns with the article. (The article still has a very strong gun control slant, instead of a neutral point of view, at present.) Miguel Escopeta ( talk) 17:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Miguel Escopeta: Please list your specific points on why you think this article has a gun-control slant within their respective talk page sections. Please create new talk page sections for each section of the article that you feel is POV with their relative title (Background Section for example). If there is already a TP section, just title the discussion with POV inside the section. This will help resolve these issues much more quickly and easily. Respectfully, Darknipples ( talk) 00:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: The whole Clinton paragraph and list is about a gun control advocate's POV. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 01:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is what it was:

Gun show loophole is a political term referring to private sellers at gun shows not being required to perform a background check on private buyers.

Word count: 25. Readability grade level: 12.1.

Here is what it is right now:

Gun show loophole is a political term referring to the sale or transfer of used firearms between private parties not requiring a background check or a record of the sale, on the buyer or transferee, whether at gun shows or elsewhere.

Word count: 41. Readability grade level: 17.0.

I'm recording these here to keep an eye on what happens as y'all dicker over what you consider key words that simply MUST appear in the lead sentence (some of which don't appear in the article body.) Lightbreather ( talk) 18:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not about key words or any that MUST appear in the Lead sentence, its about stating the contents in the article accurately. The top version is inaccurate and misleading. Also, unless you plan to post a link to the means that you are getting your "Readability" statistic, its irrelevant unless you plan to run the entire article through it. -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, I'm reminded of our conversation in the Background Section of the TP, where you said..."If a quote from an NRA person was added for the purpose of adding/keeping the VPC quote, that's not neutral or balance, it's manipulation of the article content. The WP:NPOV policy has a section about "giving equal weight" and "False balance". Yes, the whole paragraph should be removed." My point is, I agreed with you, but we are also trying to come to a consensus, and that means we must sometimes compromise. Just my two cents worth. Darknipples ( talk) 20:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you too, but compromise is not for accuracy of information. I want as accurate of reporting of information as we can attain for the sake of the average Reader. As I have encountered in the past with some Editors, there are those that throw up a massive amount of content including some of which they are willing to remove if for no other reason than to "compromise" so that certain points are left in. -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

What else to say? I disagree with your assessment of the top version. WP:LEADSENTENCE says:

Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.

As for the readbility scores, here's the link: Readability-Score.com Lightbreather ( talk) 20:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

LB, this seems like a relatively useful tool. Please explain more as to how it would help this article. Darknipples ( talk) 01:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: "records" belongs in the lead sentence somewhere, as it's very tied in with the controversy over the issue. I've re-added it. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 02:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I do not see an issue with adding "records" to the lead at this point, as per Faceless Enemy's suggestion. Please reiterate as to why this is not relevant if need be. Darknipples ( talk) 03:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Miguel Escopeta: There is an issue withe your changes in regard to what you are referring to as "weasel words". The reason we must use the words "some" or "many", is because if we don't we are inferring that "ALL" or "EVERYONE" in these groups feels the same, which there are no citations or reliable sources which seem to state that. I think it would be an ASSUMPTION on our part that EVERYONE in these groups believes and says the same thing in this regard. Please consider a revert to include "some" or "many" in the context that clarifies these positions. Thanks. Darknipples ( talk) 18:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC) FYI, I'm referring to this diff Darknipples ( talk) 19:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel that "some" implies that it's a minority view - we definitely need to avoid that implication as well. And I don't think "gun control/rights advocates" implies "all gun control/rights advocates" - at most it implies broad support, which is pretty accurate for both sides. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 02:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Faceless Enemy: I'm fine with "many" where applicable, by citation or as a consensus. Darknipples ( talk) 03:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't flow too well with "many gun control advocates / many gun rights advocates" - ideas on rephrasing? Faceless Enemy ( talk) 20:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

What about "most"? I know it seems like I may be "knit-picking", but the inference that "all of said group feels X" certainly seems apparent, if not inappropriate to any "said advocates" that do not agree with that or feel that way. Not to mention, there's no citation there for either of them. Darknipples ( talk) 09:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)