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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
What the heck? What source says that guns have to have been used before the gun show loophole applies to them? This kind of editing is downright disruptive. [1] Felsic ( talk) 17:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Faceless Enemy, Miguel Escopeta, and Felsic: We need to go with what the citations say. That way we avoid WP:OR and WP:Synth. Please cite your sources when making an argument for a change, it will make this so much easier, I promise. Darknipples ( talk) 18:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Scalhotrod: Do you believe, wholeheartedly, that using this Op-Ed, which doesn't explicitly say that GSL only refers to second hand guns, in the lead sentence, improves the quality of the article, despite LB, Felsic, and my objections? Shouldn't we at least try to compromise or discuss it first? Darknipples ( talk) 21:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Scalhotrod, I am not attempting to "butt-in" in any way, but this comment concerns me. Perhaps I'm just being "over-protective", and I'm not going to call it a threat at this point, but Scalhotrod said [2] "its starting to look like we need the input of uninvolved third parties to prevent exactly what you fear will happen for either pro-gun or pro-control interests." My instinct was that if someone said something like that to me, I would want someone to notice... Lightbreather, what does Scalhotrod mean? Darknipples ( talk) 05:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Miguel Escopeta, could we get the relevant text and a page # please? This thing is like 30 pages long. You are sure this say, GSL only refers to "second hand firearms"? Darknipples ( talk) 21:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
(page 22 cite #125) "Furthermore, the report mentioned that secondary, or used, firearms are commonly trafficked to Mexico. Officials noted that, “while ATF may be able to trace a firearm to the first retail purchaser, it generally has no knowledge of any secondhand firearms purchases from gun shows or pawnshops ... without conducting further investigation” because federal law currently “permits the private transfer of certain firearms from one unlicensed individual to another [also described as “secondary transactions”] in places such as at gun shows, without requiring any record ... be maintained by the unlicensed individuals, an FFL, or other law enforcement authority.” Related to private transactions, the GAO report highlighted that the lack of required background checks for private firearms sales may also be problematic in efforts to combat gun trafficking." [3] Darknipples ( talk) 06:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
So from the above discussion and the sources given, what is being proposed to be added to the article? And where within the article is it being proposed to be placed? Lightbreather ( talk) 01:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Darknipples I appreciate your trying to accommodate the guys' others' concerns, but the thing is, we need to get this straight in the article... and then add it to the lead. Otherwise, we discount the hard work we did - all of us - to get the article where it is today, which I think, barring a few additions, is in pretty good shape. (Why I've asked for a peer review.)
Lightbreather (
talk) 01:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I have removed these two sentences from the lead paragraph until we introduce the material into the article.
Again, what is proposed to be added to the article? Let's finish that, and then finish the lead. Lightbreather ( talk) 01:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@
Lightbreather,
Faceless Enemy, and
Scalhotrod: I suggest a Disambiguation Section in the article that includes all the little important details and aliases of GSL. Something to this effect..."AKA etc...etc...(There is already an entire TP Section full of them
GSL Disambiguation AKA) GSL (generally?) refers to secondary market sales and transfers which the ATF believes has contributed to gun trafficking and purchases of firearms by prohibited buyers."
[4] &
[5] --
Darknipples (
talk) 04:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
With this edit the POV tag -- "The neutrality of this article is disputed" -- was removed from the article. I'm going to put it back. The article is still quite biased towards a pro-gun-control perspective. As before I'm focusing on the lead section, which should provide a neutrally worded summary of the subject of the article. The current version of the lead falls far short of doing so, more by what it omits than by what it says. If the lead were changed to be something along these lines, I might agree to the removal of the POV tag:
Gun show loophole is a term sometimes used in the United States to refer to the fact that, under federal law, sales of firearms by private parties do not require a background check of the buyer. This is in contrast to sales by licensed gun dealers, which do require a background check.
Seventeen states and the District of Columbia require background checks for some or all private firearm sales. Many of these states also require private sellers to keep a record of gun sales.
The gun show loophole is technically not a loophole, since there is no ambiguity or exception in the law that is being exploited. Furthermore, the federal law makes no distinction between private sales at a gun show and private sales elsewhere. But gun control advocates find the phrase useful in drawing attention to what they see as a weak point of federal law that they say makes it much easier for criminals and other prohibited persons to obtain firearms.
A reference for the state laws referred to in the second paragraph is here, on the website of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. — Mudwater ( Talk) 03:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Gun show loophole is a political term referring to private sellers not being required to perform a background check on, or record the sale of firearms to, private buyers, whether at gun shows or elsewhere. Gun rights advocates say that there is no loophole, and that a federal law requiring background checks for all private party sales, whether at gun shows or not, would exceed the government's authority and be a prelude to registration.
The lead is biased towards a pro-gun-control perspective in two ways. (1) It misrepresents the position of gun rights advocates, some of whom do not think that requiring background checks for private sales would exceed the government's authority, or that it would be a "prelude to confiscation". (2) More importantly, it omits basic, important points about the subject of the article, and as a result it obscures the facts, and encourages the attitude that the current laws aren't strict enough. You can tell what these basic, important points are by reading my proposed rewrite, but I'll be happy to summarize them here. The lead should say that licensed gun dealers are required to perform background checks. It should say that some states already require background checks for private sales, and that some of those states require that records of private sales be kept. And last but not least, it should explain that the gun show loophole is not a loophole. About that last bit, take a look at the Guinea pig article. The lead explains that these animals are not pigs, and they're not from Guinea either. Similarly the lead of this article should explain, as in my proposed text, that the gun show loophole is not a loophole, nor does the federal law say anything different about gun shows vs. other private sales. What I was thinking was that we as editors could agree on this point. Remember, a loophole (according to Wiktionary) is "a method of escape, especially an ambiguity or exception in a rule that can be exploited in order to avoid its effect," and the rule in question is that licensed firearm dealers are required to perform background checks. To further clarify -- and in hindsight I probably should have said this before -- I feel very strongly that a reasonable person can agree that the gun show loophole is not a loophole, while simultaneously taking the position that requiring background checks for all private gun sales is a really great idea, that would make it much harder for criminals to get guns, while not imposing an undue burden on law-abiding gun owners. — Mudwater ( Talk) 01:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm putting the POV tag back on. Please don't remove it until "there is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved", per Template:POV#When to remove. Also the tag itself says, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." At the rate we're going, that won't be any time soon. — Mudwater ( Talk) 20:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Mudwater: You are the one that put the tag on, it wasn't a consensus to put it there. Also, you either did not read my notation, or you just ignored it so that you could put the tag back up. I'm removing it one last time. Please examine my good faith efforts and discuss it with me before putting it back on, again. Darknipples ( talk) 20:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
For anyone who hasn't read it, or hasn't read it recently, here is the link to Template:POV. I think what it says about removing the template is important here:
Number two applies here: No satisfactory explanation has been given. So please get specific, and work toward a resolution, or remove it (or let it be removed). Thanks. Lightbreather ( talk) 20:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, everybody. I'm going to take a break from editing this article, and participating in this discussion. Maybe a short break, and maybe not so short, we'll see. Please carry on without me. Cheers. — Mudwater ( Talk) 21:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Lightbreather, Faceless Enemy, and Scalhotrod: -- Since Mudwater has recused themselves of editing this article for the time being, I'd like to see if any of you feel that this portion of the lead is still necessary since it is actually already the majority of the legislation section...
If not, I think it should be removed as it already exists in the body and, IMO, does not "define" GSL in any seemingly useful way. This is only a suggestion, and I am interested to know if there is a possible consensus for it. Darknipples ( talk) 22:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Re this lead sentence [6] that was reverted today [7] (along with a couple dozen other mostly gnomish, separate edits):
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
I have started a discussion at RSN called Gun show loophole. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 00:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Did anything happen with this? I see that it was archived. Darknipples ( talk) 11:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
The lede currently calls this an "ability". Yet, this is clearly synthesis, as it is not called an "ability" in any of the cited references. This is a serious synthesis problem. "Freedom" would be a better choice of wording, here. Miguel Escopeta ( talk) 17:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The cites uniformly do not call this an "ability". You can search all of the cites using a word search, and "ability" is never used; not even once. How about we address the POV-section tagline issues with the following rewording: "Gun show loophole is a U.S. political dysphemism referring to private buyers at gun shows purchasing firearms from private sellers in legal commerce without a background check or a record of the sale." This would largely address the POV concerns, without using the word "freedom" which is what it is at present. -- In the majority of states, there is no law that prohibits private, unpapered, sales of firearms. -- The GSL is more of a lacuna than a loophole, but it is not called the Gun Show Lacuna, although that would actually be technically correct. Miguel Escopeta ( talk) 20:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, that tears it.
1. I am determining which noticeboard to take the photo to, and I'm taking it there.
2. I am asking Miguel Escopeta here to stop disruptively inserting his synthesis of the words of a Montana gun-rights group leader into the lead.
3. Since it was already decided at NPOVN, I am also asking anyone who might be tempted to stop disruptively removing the brief, failed legislation sentence from the lead.
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 18:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, perhaps WP:DRN is the appropriate forum? If so, should we include all three items in one request, or have three separate requests? -- Lightbreather ( talk) 18:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Is legislation that has merely been introduced notable? The article contains reference to two pieces of legislation that were introduced, but never passed. Given the volume of legislation that is introduced in a typical year, do either of these bills meet the criteria for notability? I would like to clean up the "Legislation" section by 1) moving paragraph 1 (Clinton) under "Legislation" to the "Past" section of "Issues, stances, and positions" 2) deleting paragraph 2 (HR 2324) and paragraph 3 (HR 141) as I do not feel that either of these bills meet the threshold for notability, and 3) changing the title of the section from "Legislation" to "Current Legal Status." Thoughts? Faceless Enemy ( talk) 03:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
This section gives undue weight to failed legislation that died in committee with no support. No need to to cite failed bills. (There are thousands of failed bills; Wikipedia is not a list of failed bills that died in Congress.) Have removed these sentences. Miguel Escopeta ( talk) 21:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WP:NPOVN about this: Undue weight to mention failed bills about the subject of the article Lightbreather ( talk) 22:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
No offense to Capitalismojo or Lightbreather here, I didn't include their remarks because they are involved in the article. What matters here are the "impartial" editor's takes, IMO. Darknipples ( talk) 20:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that we add this detail to the article - that would be undue - but I would like to settle this dispute, considering the above, plus sources that have already been added to the article re this federal efforts issue, that these bills aren't relevant to the discussion. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 22:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
A 2012 statement by "Joe Olsen," head of a Minnesota gun rights group, re the gun show loophole was added to the lead. I think it is probably WP:UNDUE for the body, and certainly undue for the lead.
This is the source: Whitney, Craig (2012). Living with Guns: A Liberal's Case for the Second Amendment. PublicAffairs. p. 205., and what it says:
Here is where it was added to the lead paragraph (and as synth, IMO): [11]
And here is what it looks like now: [12], at the end of the lead's "gun rights advocates say" paragraph.
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 20:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Before adding this undue Minnesota gun owner's opinion, these were the two advocacy paragraphs:
I can live with that for now. But adding the undue guy-from-Minnesota material makes the gun rights advocates paragraph... 90 words. Lightbreather ( talk) 21:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@ WeldNeck: Using this term in such a derisive manner to stereotype any and all gun control advocates seems unjustifiable, as per WP:POV RAILROAD. Darknipples ( talk) 00:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I am trying to get this article into shape for a GA nomination. To accomplish this, I strong suggest that we follow the advice of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. I have every intention of including the "there is no such thing as a gun show loophole" argument in the lead, but not before we analyze the number and quality of sources and choosing the best, and summarizing it properly. This recent addition to the lead is an example:
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
The author this statement is attributed to - in Wikipedia's voice - is an authority on energy and environmental issues.
Let's leave the lead brief, very brief, until we've polished up the body, and then re-compose a NPOV and properly weighted lead - please. Lightbreather ( talk) 17:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I think this sums it up fairly well...(page 36 - Congressional Research Service:Gun Control Legislation)
"Federal firearms licensees—those licensed by the federal government to manufacture, import, or deal in firearms—are required to conduct background checks on non licensed persons seeking to obtain firearms from them, by purchase or exchange. Conversely, non licensed persons—those persons who transfer firearms, but who do not meet the statutory test of being “engaged in the business”—are not required to conduct such checks. To some, this may appear to be an incongruity in the law. Why, they ask, should licensees be required to conduct background checks at gun shows, and not non-licensees? To others, opposed to further federal regulation of firearms, it may appear to be a continuance of the status quo (i.e., non-interference by the federal government into private firearm transfers within state lines). On the other hand, those seeking to increase federal regulation of firearms may view the absence of background checks for firearm transfers between non licensed/private persons as a “loophole” in the law that needs to be closed." http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/156521.pdf - Darknipples ( talk) 09:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Creating WP:Balance
I would like to discuss the feasibility of entering the word "controversial" into part of the lead in efforts to resolve the WP:NPOV tag on the article. While I still do not feel it is proper for the word "controversy" to be placed in the title, it may be beneficial in resolving certain issues with those editors that take exception to the title as is. This is in effort to improve the article in good faith ASAP. Here are some citations in which the word controversy has been conjunctive with the GSL...Whether they have WP:Weight, I would refer to those with the most knowledge and experience.
Please let me know your thoughts (everyone). Darknipples ( talk) 07:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
LEAD DISCUSSION
@ Miguel Escopeta, Lightbreather, Faceless Enemy, Felsic, Capitalismojo, and Ca2James: Let's all discuss Miguel's recent BRD here, shall we? Darknipples ( talk) 16:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The article has been fully protected two days per a complaint at WP:AN3. Please continue to discuss any disputed matters here. Be aware that the article is under discretionary sanctions. Admins may take action if anyone makes clear through their editing or comments that they hold strong views on gun control and intend to push the article to conform to their own point of view. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
FYI: I have requested a peer review on the article. [20] I haven't given up on the idea of nominating this for good article designation, and I think a fresh perspective will do us all some good. Lightbreather ( talk) 17:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Since it is a related article with some overlap (similar background, but the gun show loophole is talked about less and less - after about 15 years of being central to the debate - and, at least since Sandy Hook, has shifted more toward universal background checks)...
I have split what was the "Universal background check" of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System into it's own article: Universal background check. (FWIW, I originally created that section last June. [22])
There will be work to be done to not over-duplicate related material. (More focus on the earlier gun show loophole debate here, more focus on the more recent universal background check debate there.) -- Lightbreather ( talk) 19:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Faceless Enemy and Lightbreather: In regard to the statement, "Any implementation of UBC would automatically close the GSL", I could use some clarification. The only way I can wrap my head around this assumption is if UBC was instituted at a federal level. Even then, the fact that private party sales of guns in other countries are still legal may infer that GSL would still exist even after a federal regulation instituting UBC in the US. Some states have already essentially instituted UBC and some have not, yet, GSL still exists. So, the inference that "any" implementation of UBC would automatically "close GSL", in any universal sense, without providing any notable citations to that effect, confuses me. - Respectfully - Darknipples ( talk) 22:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
*Oppose, per Faceless Enemy, and per my posts in the
#"Gun show loophole": NPOV article title section. —
Mudwater (
Talk) 02:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
This needs to be reworded so everyone knows what they're voting for. Up top is a notice that UBC was split into its own notable article from NICS. It wasn't a proposal. But this article's page proposes merging UTC into this article? And an "oppose" vote supports that? Lightbreather ( talk) 03:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Created because of this "Oppose" vote on the notice that this section is a subsection of. Related discussions "Gun show loophole": NPOV article title and Related article.
@ Faceless Enemy: After looking at the UBC article I see the amount of overlap. It looks like they just took everything from the GSL page in order to create the article, which doesn't make sense, since many of the citations and most of the content doesn't focus or even mention UBC. In other words, the problem is with the UBC article, not GSL. UBC needs a lot of work and I have decided to focus half of my attention on correcting those issues I mentioned. I look forward to seeing your new article and I will be happy to help out with it any way I can. ;-) As far as the accuracy of the GSL article I respectfully disagree. Darknipples ( talk) 03:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
What the heck? What source says that guns have to have been used before the gun show loophole applies to them? This kind of editing is downright disruptive. [1] Felsic ( talk) 17:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Faceless Enemy, Miguel Escopeta, and Felsic: We need to go with what the citations say. That way we avoid WP:OR and WP:Synth. Please cite your sources when making an argument for a change, it will make this so much easier, I promise. Darknipples ( talk) 18:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Scalhotrod: Do you believe, wholeheartedly, that using this Op-Ed, which doesn't explicitly say that GSL only refers to second hand guns, in the lead sentence, improves the quality of the article, despite LB, Felsic, and my objections? Shouldn't we at least try to compromise or discuss it first? Darknipples ( talk) 21:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Scalhotrod, I am not attempting to "butt-in" in any way, but this comment concerns me. Perhaps I'm just being "over-protective", and I'm not going to call it a threat at this point, but Scalhotrod said [2] "its starting to look like we need the input of uninvolved third parties to prevent exactly what you fear will happen for either pro-gun or pro-control interests." My instinct was that if someone said something like that to me, I would want someone to notice... Lightbreather, what does Scalhotrod mean? Darknipples ( talk) 05:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Miguel Escopeta, could we get the relevant text and a page # please? This thing is like 30 pages long. You are sure this say, GSL only refers to "second hand firearms"? Darknipples ( talk) 21:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
(page 22 cite #125) "Furthermore, the report mentioned that secondary, or used, firearms are commonly trafficked to Mexico. Officials noted that, “while ATF may be able to trace a firearm to the first retail purchaser, it generally has no knowledge of any secondhand firearms purchases from gun shows or pawnshops ... without conducting further investigation” because federal law currently “permits the private transfer of certain firearms from one unlicensed individual to another [also described as “secondary transactions”] in places such as at gun shows, without requiring any record ... be maintained by the unlicensed individuals, an FFL, or other law enforcement authority.” Related to private transactions, the GAO report highlighted that the lack of required background checks for private firearms sales may also be problematic in efforts to combat gun trafficking." [3] Darknipples ( talk) 06:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
So from the above discussion and the sources given, what is being proposed to be added to the article? And where within the article is it being proposed to be placed? Lightbreather ( talk) 01:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Darknipples I appreciate your trying to accommodate the guys' others' concerns, but the thing is, we need to get this straight in the article... and then add it to the lead. Otherwise, we discount the hard work we did - all of us - to get the article where it is today, which I think, barring a few additions, is in pretty good shape. (Why I've asked for a peer review.)
Lightbreather (
talk) 01:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I have removed these two sentences from the lead paragraph until we introduce the material into the article.
Again, what is proposed to be added to the article? Let's finish that, and then finish the lead. Lightbreather ( talk) 01:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@
Lightbreather,
Faceless Enemy, and
Scalhotrod: I suggest a Disambiguation Section in the article that includes all the little important details and aliases of GSL. Something to this effect..."AKA etc...etc...(There is already an entire TP Section full of them
GSL Disambiguation AKA) GSL (generally?) refers to secondary market sales and transfers which the ATF believes has contributed to gun trafficking and purchases of firearms by prohibited buyers."
[4] &
[5] --
Darknipples (
talk) 04:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
With this edit the POV tag -- "The neutrality of this article is disputed" -- was removed from the article. I'm going to put it back. The article is still quite biased towards a pro-gun-control perspective. As before I'm focusing on the lead section, which should provide a neutrally worded summary of the subject of the article. The current version of the lead falls far short of doing so, more by what it omits than by what it says. If the lead were changed to be something along these lines, I might agree to the removal of the POV tag:
Gun show loophole is a term sometimes used in the United States to refer to the fact that, under federal law, sales of firearms by private parties do not require a background check of the buyer. This is in contrast to sales by licensed gun dealers, which do require a background check.
Seventeen states and the District of Columbia require background checks for some or all private firearm sales. Many of these states also require private sellers to keep a record of gun sales.
The gun show loophole is technically not a loophole, since there is no ambiguity or exception in the law that is being exploited. Furthermore, the federal law makes no distinction between private sales at a gun show and private sales elsewhere. But gun control advocates find the phrase useful in drawing attention to what they see as a weak point of federal law that they say makes it much easier for criminals and other prohibited persons to obtain firearms.
A reference for the state laws referred to in the second paragraph is here, on the website of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. — Mudwater ( Talk) 03:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Gun show loophole is a political term referring to private sellers not being required to perform a background check on, or record the sale of firearms to, private buyers, whether at gun shows or elsewhere. Gun rights advocates say that there is no loophole, and that a federal law requiring background checks for all private party sales, whether at gun shows or not, would exceed the government's authority and be a prelude to registration.
The lead is biased towards a pro-gun-control perspective in two ways. (1) It misrepresents the position of gun rights advocates, some of whom do not think that requiring background checks for private sales would exceed the government's authority, or that it would be a "prelude to confiscation". (2) More importantly, it omits basic, important points about the subject of the article, and as a result it obscures the facts, and encourages the attitude that the current laws aren't strict enough. You can tell what these basic, important points are by reading my proposed rewrite, but I'll be happy to summarize them here. The lead should say that licensed gun dealers are required to perform background checks. It should say that some states already require background checks for private sales, and that some of those states require that records of private sales be kept. And last but not least, it should explain that the gun show loophole is not a loophole. About that last bit, take a look at the Guinea pig article. The lead explains that these animals are not pigs, and they're not from Guinea either. Similarly the lead of this article should explain, as in my proposed text, that the gun show loophole is not a loophole, nor does the federal law say anything different about gun shows vs. other private sales. What I was thinking was that we as editors could agree on this point. Remember, a loophole (according to Wiktionary) is "a method of escape, especially an ambiguity or exception in a rule that can be exploited in order to avoid its effect," and the rule in question is that licensed firearm dealers are required to perform background checks. To further clarify -- and in hindsight I probably should have said this before -- I feel very strongly that a reasonable person can agree that the gun show loophole is not a loophole, while simultaneously taking the position that requiring background checks for all private gun sales is a really great idea, that would make it much harder for criminals to get guns, while not imposing an undue burden on law-abiding gun owners. — Mudwater ( Talk) 01:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm putting the POV tag back on. Please don't remove it until "there is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved", per Template:POV#When to remove. Also the tag itself says, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." At the rate we're going, that won't be any time soon. — Mudwater ( Talk) 20:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Mudwater: You are the one that put the tag on, it wasn't a consensus to put it there. Also, you either did not read my notation, or you just ignored it so that you could put the tag back up. I'm removing it one last time. Please examine my good faith efforts and discuss it with me before putting it back on, again. Darknipples ( talk) 20:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
For anyone who hasn't read it, or hasn't read it recently, here is the link to Template:POV. I think what it says about removing the template is important here:
Number two applies here: No satisfactory explanation has been given. So please get specific, and work toward a resolution, or remove it (or let it be removed). Thanks. Lightbreather ( talk) 20:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, everybody. I'm going to take a break from editing this article, and participating in this discussion. Maybe a short break, and maybe not so short, we'll see. Please carry on without me. Cheers. — Mudwater ( Talk) 21:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Lightbreather, Faceless Enemy, and Scalhotrod: -- Since Mudwater has recused themselves of editing this article for the time being, I'd like to see if any of you feel that this portion of the lead is still necessary since it is actually already the majority of the legislation section...
If not, I think it should be removed as it already exists in the body and, IMO, does not "define" GSL in any seemingly useful way. This is only a suggestion, and I am interested to know if there is a possible consensus for it. Darknipples ( talk) 22:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Re this lead sentence [6] that was reverted today [7] (along with a couple dozen other mostly gnomish, separate edits):
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
I have started a discussion at RSN called Gun show loophole. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 00:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Did anything happen with this? I see that it was archived. Darknipples ( talk) 11:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
The lede currently calls this an "ability". Yet, this is clearly synthesis, as it is not called an "ability" in any of the cited references. This is a serious synthesis problem. "Freedom" would be a better choice of wording, here. Miguel Escopeta ( talk) 17:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The cites uniformly do not call this an "ability". You can search all of the cites using a word search, and "ability" is never used; not even once. How about we address the POV-section tagline issues with the following rewording: "Gun show loophole is a U.S. political dysphemism referring to private buyers at gun shows purchasing firearms from private sellers in legal commerce without a background check or a record of the sale." This would largely address the POV concerns, without using the word "freedom" which is what it is at present. -- In the majority of states, there is no law that prohibits private, unpapered, sales of firearms. -- The GSL is more of a lacuna than a loophole, but it is not called the Gun Show Lacuna, although that would actually be technically correct. Miguel Escopeta ( talk) 20:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, that tears it.
1. I am determining which noticeboard to take the photo to, and I'm taking it there.
2. I am asking Miguel Escopeta here to stop disruptively inserting his synthesis of the words of a Montana gun-rights group leader into the lead.
3. Since it was already decided at NPOVN, I am also asking anyone who might be tempted to stop disruptively removing the brief, failed legislation sentence from the lead.
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 18:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, perhaps WP:DRN is the appropriate forum? If so, should we include all three items in one request, or have three separate requests? -- Lightbreather ( talk) 18:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Is legislation that has merely been introduced notable? The article contains reference to two pieces of legislation that were introduced, but never passed. Given the volume of legislation that is introduced in a typical year, do either of these bills meet the criteria for notability? I would like to clean up the "Legislation" section by 1) moving paragraph 1 (Clinton) under "Legislation" to the "Past" section of "Issues, stances, and positions" 2) deleting paragraph 2 (HR 2324) and paragraph 3 (HR 141) as I do not feel that either of these bills meet the threshold for notability, and 3) changing the title of the section from "Legislation" to "Current Legal Status." Thoughts? Faceless Enemy ( talk) 03:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
This section gives undue weight to failed legislation that died in committee with no support. No need to to cite failed bills. (There are thousands of failed bills; Wikipedia is not a list of failed bills that died in Congress.) Have removed these sentences. Miguel Escopeta ( talk) 21:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WP:NPOVN about this: Undue weight to mention failed bills about the subject of the article Lightbreather ( talk) 22:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
No offense to Capitalismojo or Lightbreather here, I didn't include their remarks because they are involved in the article. What matters here are the "impartial" editor's takes, IMO. Darknipples ( talk) 20:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that we add this detail to the article - that would be undue - but I would like to settle this dispute, considering the above, plus sources that have already been added to the article re this federal efforts issue, that these bills aren't relevant to the discussion. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 22:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
A 2012 statement by "Joe Olsen," head of a Minnesota gun rights group, re the gun show loophole was added to the lead. I think it is probably WP:UNDUE for the body, and certainly undue for the lead.
This is the source: Whitney, Craig (2012). Living with Guns: A Liberal's Case for the Second Amendment. PublicAffairs. p. 205., and what it says:
Here is where it was added to the lead paragraph (and as synth, IMO): [11]
And here is what it looks like now: [12], at the end of the lead's "gun rights advocates say" paragraph.
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 20:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Before adding this undue Minnesota gun owner's opinion, these were the two advocacy paragraphs:
I can live with that for now. But adding the undue guy-from-Minnesota material makes the gun rights advocates paragraph... 90 words. Lightbreather ( talk) 21:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@ WeldNeck: Using this term in such a derisive manner to stereotype any and all gun control advocates seems unjustifiable, as per WP:POV RAILROAD. Darknipples ( talk) 00:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I am trying to get this article into shape for a GA nomination. To accomplish this, I strong suggest that we follow the advice of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. I have every intention of including the "there is no such thing as a gun show loophole" argument in the lead, but not before we analyze the number and quality of sources and choosing the best, and summarizing it properly. This recent addition to the lead is an example:
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
The author this statement is attributed to - in Wikipedia's voice - is an authority on energy and environmental issues.
Let's leave the lead brief, very brief, until we've polished up the body, and then re-compose a NPOV and properly weighted lead - please. Lightbreather ( talk) 17:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I think this sums it up fairly well...(page 36 - Congressional Research Service:Gun Control Legislation)
"Federal firearms licensees—those licensed by the federal government to manufacture, import, or deal in firearms—are required to conduct background checks on non licensed persons seeking to obtain firearms from them, by purchase or exchange. Conversely, non licensed persons—those persons who transfer firearms, but who do not meet the statutory test of being “engaged in the business”—are not required to conduct such checks. To some, this may appear to be an incongruity in the law. Why, they ask, should licensees be required to conduct background checks at gun shows, and not non-licensees? To others, opposed to further federal regulation of firearms, it may appear to be a continuance of the status quo (i.e., non-interference by the federal government into private firearm transfers within state lines). On the other hand, those seeking to increase federal regulation of firearms may view the absence of background checks for firearm transfers between non licensed/private persons as a “loophole” in the law that needs to be closed." http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/156521.pdf - Darknipples ( talk) 09:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Creating WP:Balance
I would like to discuss the feasibility of entering the word "controversial" into part of the lead in efforts to resolve the WP:NPOV tag on the article. While I still do not feel it is proper for the word "controversy" to be placed in the title, it may be beneficial in resolving certain issues with those editors that take exception to the title as is. This is in effort to improve the article in good faith ASAP. Here are some citations in which the word controversy has been conjunctive with the GSL...Whether they have WP:Weight, I would refer to those with the most knowledge and experience.
Please let me know your thoughts (everyone). Darknipples ( talk) 07:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
LEAD DISCUSSION
@ Miguel Escopeta, Lightbreather, Faceless Enemy, Felsic, Capitalismojo, and Ca2James: Let's all discuss Miguel's recent BRD here, shall we? Darknipples ( talk) 16:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The article has been fully protected two days per a complaint at WP:AN3. Please continue to discuss any disputed matters here. Be aware that the article is under discretionary sanctions. Admins may take action if anyone makes clear through their editing or comments that they hold strong views on gun control and intend to push the article to conform to their own point of view. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
FYI: I have requested a peer review on the article. [20] I haven't given up on the idea of nominating this for good article designation, and I think a fresh perspective will do us all some good. Lightbreather ( talk) 17:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Since it is a related article with some overlap (similar background, but the gun show loophole is talked about less and less - after about 15 years of being central to the debate - and, at least since Sandy Hook, has shifted more toward universal background checks)...
I have split what was the "Universal background check" of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System into it's own article: Universal background check. (FWIW, I originally created that section last June. [22])
There will be work to be done to not over-duplicate related material. (More focus on the earlier gun show loophole debate here, more focus on the more recent universal background check debate there.) -- Lightbreather ( talk) 19:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Faceless Enemy and Lightbreather: In regard to the statement, "Any implementation of UBC would automatically close the GSL", I could use some clarification. The only way I can wrap my head around this assumption is if UBC was instituted at a federal level. Even then, the fact that private party sales of guns in other countries are still legal may infer that GSL would still exist even after a federal regulation instituting UBC in the US. Some states have already essentially instituted UBC and some have not, yet, GSL still exists. So, the inference that "any" implementation of UBC would automatically "close GSL", in any universal sense, without providing any notable citations to that effect, confuses me. - Respectfully - Darknipples ( talk) 22:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
*Oppose, per Faceless Enemy, and per my posts in the
#"Gun show loophole": NPOV article title section. —
Mudwater (
Talk) 02:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
This needs to be reworded so everyone knows what they're voting for. Up top is a notice that UBC was split into its own notable article from NICS. It wasn't a proposal. But this article's page proposes merging UTC into this article? And an "oppose" vote supports that? Lightbreather ( talk) 03:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Created because of this "Oppose" vote on the notice that this section is a subsection of. Related discussions "Gun show loophole": NPOV article title and Related article.
@ Faceless Enemy: After looking at the UBC article I see the amount of overlap. It looks like they just took everything from the GSL page in order to create the article, which doesn't make sense, since many of the citations and most of the content doesn't focus or even mention UBC. In other words, the problem is with the UBC article, not GSL. UBC needs a lot of work and I have decided to focus half of my attention on correcting those issues I mentioned. I look forward to seeing your new article and I will be happy to help out with it any way I can. ;-) As far as the accuracy of the GSL article I respectfully disagree. Darknipples ( talk) 03:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)